Is the Septuagint inspired by God?


It is important to know that the scriptures used by the New Testament writers and the first Old Testament of the Church is not the Hebrew Bible but the Greek Septuagint (pronounced Sep-tu-a-gint). This is the name given to the translation of the Hebrew Bible from about the third century BC.

Is the Septuagint inspired by God? Consider this fact: the NT authors sometimes use Septuagint readings we know to be mistranslations of the original Hebrew Bible. And they use these mistranslations to prove important points of Christian doctrine.

Professor of Biblical Hebrew at Oxford University James Barr comments:

‘As a translation the Septuagint is a work of very mixed quality. It differed from book to book, since different techniques of translation were used; at some places it must have had a Hebrew text different from ours, while at others it seriously misread or misunderstood the Hebrew.  No scholar who knows the material doubts that this is so. But this makes a difference when we consider the New Testament. For it does not only use the Septuagint in a general way: it often uses the exact ductus of its words as argument or proof of a theological point.

Take this passage:

Consequently, when he came into the world, he said,

“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body you have prepared for me…”

Letter to the Hebrews 10:5

The passage, which continues for another few lines, is a quotation from Psalm 40.6ff. In the Hebrew, which is translated in our English Bibles, we find:

Screenshot 2020-05-30 at 11.57.13

Now the whole point of the quotation in the Letter to the Hebrews is that it mentions the preparation of a body for the Christ coming into the world. But there was nothing about a body in the original Hebrew, nothing at all. It is often said to be a mistranslation but it seems more likely that it was a mere copying error in the transmission of the Greek text.’

James Barr Escaping from Fundamentalism pp 142-143.

So is the Septuagint inspired by God? In view of the clear mistranslations of the Hebrew Bible it is not possible to think the text used by the NT writers is inspired by God, for He does not make mistakes, He does not misunderstand things as mere humans do. This also demonstrates that the New Testament itself is imperfect and erroneous in places.

Categories: Bible, Biblical Hebrew, God, Gospels, Jesus, Septuagint

123 replies

  1. Asked the same question to Stew and Faiz yesterday, i was checking out the contradictions between the LXX and the Hebrew OT and I was baffled by how many there were which triggered my curiosity…Stew told me he did come across Christians who advocated using the LXX only which adds to the confusion…Christianity is such a mess

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Incoming from Ken…Islam…Muhammad…anti-supernaturalist liberal scholarship… blah blah blah..

    Liked by 2 people

  3. There is an entire chapter in this book that explains Hebrews 10:5.
    I read this book around 1985.

    The key issue is typology in the OT – how we deal with Hebrews 10:5, by first looking at the context, and is also basically the same principle of typology and for how we deal with Matthew’s quote of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15.

    The point in Psalm 40 is the willingness to obey. “Not My will, but Thy Will be done” (Jesus, in Luke 22:42) – Jesus’ voluntary willingness to go to the cross for our sins was prophesied through David in Psalm 40 – “my ears You have opened” = I hear and obey!.

    ear is a literary device known as synecdoche – the use of a part for the whole. ear is one part of the body. The NT reveals the incarnation.

    You left out the greater context. (typical of your polemics) And also the flow of the whole book of Hebrews. (nature of the Son is Deity – Hebrews 1:3, 6, 8, 10-11; 2:14-17)

    Hebrews 10:4-10

    For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,

    “Sacrifice and offering You have not desired,
    But a body You have prepared for Me;
    6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure. [showing the superiority and power of the final sacrifice of Christ as the God-man]
    7 “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
    (In the scroll of the book it is written of Me)
    To do Your will, O God.’”

    8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

    So, David is a type of the willingness of the future Messiah to obey and give His life as a sacrifice for sins. The greater sacrifice for sins – the eternal Son (see Hebrews 1:3 – the Son is the very nature and substance of the Father and the radiance of His glory and upholds all things = Deity by nature)

    NT revelation adds that this willingness to voluntarily give His life for sins (see also Mark 10:45 and John 10:18) is fulfilled by the Father preparing and providing a body for the Son to be incarnated in. (Hebrews 2:17 – “it was necessary for Him to be made like His brothers (incarnation – John 1:1, 14; Luke 1:34-35; Philippians 2:5-8) – the incarnation was necessary in order to pay for the sins of humanity, the sins of the “brothers” (believers = brothers and sisters who will believe in Christ as Messiah, eternal Son, God in the flesh, the final atonement, and risen with power from the dead and ascended to heaven, etc.

    Hebrews 8:1
    The main point . . .


    • @Ken Temple

      HI Ken some questions,

      1: Is it fair to say that you’re view of the LXX is that it is a mixture of inspired and uninspired material?

      2: Isn’t Hebrews 10:4 in conflict with the Hebrew bible which shows the blood of bulls and goats can forgive sins?


      • I tend to agree with this statement:

        “Given that they were writing in Greek to an audience in which knowledge of Greek was widespread (see below), the apostles unsurprisingly used the LXX as a major source in citing the OT Scriptures. There is no evidence that, like Philo, they believed the LXX to be inspired in itself. Paul, for example, appears to translate directly from the Hebrew on at least six occasions where the LXX does not agree with it; on at least twenty-eight occasions his citations reflect neither the MT nor the LXX. He and the other apostles were not bound to the LXX, I. Provan, The Reformation and the Right Reading of Scripture (Baylor 2017). 234.

        cited here:


      • @ Ken

        the NT authors sometimes use Septuagint readings we know to be mistranslations of the original Hebrew Bible. And they use these mistranslations to prove important points of Christian doctrine.

        Care to address this?

        Liked by 2 people

  4. 2: Isn’t Hebrews 10:4 in conflict with the Hebrew bible which shows the blood of bulls and goats can forgive sins?

    No, because the point of the whole book of Hebrews (read the whole book and see the flow) is that the OT sacrifices (lambs, goats, bulls) were temporary and pointed to something greater that was to come in the future (the Messiah, the suffering servant of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 and Messiah of Daniel 9:24-27).

    Hebrews teaches that Jesus is a superior high priest.
    Hebrews teaches that Jesus inaugurated a superior new covenant in His own blood. (Mark 14; Matthew 26; Luke 22)
    Hebrews teaches that Jesus is a superior sacrifice. (once for all, eternal – whereas the animal sacrifices were temporary and not powerful enough to provide “eternal redemption” / salvation / “once for all time” principle.

    the animal sacrifices had to be repeated constantly

    The final sacrifice of Christ is not to be repeated; therefore the Lord’s supper is a remembrance looking back at the once for all sacrifice for sins.

    Repent and believe in Al Masih, Jesus Christ, the final sacrifice, the eternal Son and powerful sacrifice who satisfied God’s wrath against sin – Hebrews 2:17


    • @ Ken

      the NT authors sometimes use Septuagint readings we know to be mistranslations of the original Hebrew Bible. And they use these mistranslations to prove important points of Christian doctrine.

      Care to address this?


    • By the way, human sacrifice is an abomination according to the Hebrew Bible.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, Except, later the Hebrew Bible prophesied of the suffering servant, (Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12, when God the Son voluntarily and willingly gave His life as a ransom for many sinners, from all nations. (Mark 10:45; Isaiah 53; Revelation 5:9)

        God’s testing of Abraham is an illustration of God is willing to do – give His only beloved Son, and the son’s willingness as an illustration and prophesy of the future Messiah as a substitutionary ransom.
        Genesis 22
        Isaiah 53
        John 10:18
        Luke 22:42


      • Isaiah doesn’t mention “God the Son” and it is not a prophecy at all.

        Note the *past tense* in Isaiah 53 verses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 etc, etc. This is something that has already happened in 8th-century BC. Also, no mention of a messiah.

        The consensus of Old Testament scholars today is that Isaiah is talking poetically about Israel’s experience of exile in Babylon.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. I’m also interested in finding out if the Targums are regarded by Christians as inspired scripture.


  6. And Islam unknowingly and inadvertently teaches approval of substitutionary ransom principle.

    Surah 37:107
    “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.”

    Mark 10:45
    “The Son of Man came . . . to give His life a ransom for many.”

    So, Why did Allah substitute an innocent animal in the place of Abraham’s son?


    • who cares? Focus on the article Ken.

      Don’t divert.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Well, it happened guys! It didn’t take very long for Kennywise to deflect to Islam yet again!

      The “innocent animal” would have been eaten, as we see during the Hajj. The animal meat is not wasted. It is shared with one’s family and friends, as well as dispersed to the poor. There is no indication of atonement in the meat or blood of the animal.

      The “ransom” was in the fact that Ishmael was saved from being sacrificed. Again, the reason for the sacrifice was to show one’s devotion to God, even if that meant sacrificing someone whom one loves. But God never intended to let Ishmael be sacrificed. This actually disproves Christianity also because as human sacrifice is an abomination, and Isaac in the Bible was not sacrificed, then it follows that Jesus’ alleged sacrifice is illegitimate and an abomination.


      • I did that on purpose, but it is not a diversion; it is central to the issues.

        Islam tries to hide the inadvertent approval of substitutionary sacrifice.

        ransom, redemption, from:


        فدینه = “ransom him”

        Mark 10:45


      • No, it’s not “central to the issues” of your silly pagan concept of human sacrifice atoning for sins. Sorry, it just isn’t.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, it is central.

        You be wrong.


      • Well, it happened guys! It didn’t take very long for Kennywise to deflect to Islam yet again!

        Yeah, I did that on purpose to bug you and refute you with Truth.

        As I said, it is not a diversion nor deflection.

        Truth hurts


      • 😂😂 Yeah, the truth hurts, which is why losers like you deflect everytime! It never fails!

        Now back to your false, demonic concept of human sacrifice atoning for sins. Focus Kennywise. They must have taught you how to do that in clown college. 😂

        Liked by 1 person

      • If God voluntarily became human, and voluntarily gave His life, and He, as the eternal Son, is also human (one person with 2 natures), then it is not the same thing as human sacrifice that is prohibited by the law.


      • Since God Himself voluntarily became a human and voluntarily gave His life for sin – God the Son, the eternal Son and eternal Word of God (which Islam agrees that Jesus is the Word of God – کلمه الله , then it is not demonic nor wrong.

        It is true and good.


      • Miracle of REINTERPRETATION! Isn’t that what Dead Wood says?

        The Tanakh declares human sacrifice an abomination. But then the Christian mangod says “well, what I really meant was that only if I become a human and sacrifice myself to…(cough)…myself…then it’s okay.”

        Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      “If God voluntarily became human, and voluntarily gave His life, and He, as the eternal Son, is also human (one person with 2 natures), then it is not the same thing as human sacrifice that is prohibited by the law.”

      But god the son didn’t die, only the human nature attached to him experienced death. Therefore it should fulfill the criteria of human sacrifice. Moreover why, when the initial the prohibition on human sacrifice was given, didn’t God let us know that the human of the future “god-man” would be an exception?

      Liked by 3 people

      • 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
        Romans 9:20-21


      • This is the Christian cop-out for explaining their god’s nonsensical and contradictory statements. Well Kennywise, we obviously do not believe your pagan concept came from God and we are under no obligation to forego our God-given reason to accept the incoherent and contradictory ramblings of your fake god.

        Liked by 1 person

      • God is under no obligation to tell us everything


      • Another cop-out. If your god says one thing at one time but then planned on doing the exact opposite, there’s something fishy going on. Obviously, both statements cannot be from God. One of them has to be a fake statement that has been falsely attributed to God. Or your god lied. Either way, it destroys your religion and its pagan and demonic obsession with human sacrifice.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I wonder if the worshipers of Molech would have said the same thing as the false apostle Paul. Couldn’t they just have said “who are you to question Molech”?

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Ken

        Not a matter of “questioning” so much as “consistency”. You told everybody you hate something then without warning do the very thing you said you hated and never even “thought of”. Do you see how everyone could be confused especially if this had to do with salvation? Again WE didn’t state this, He was supposed to have.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Gentlemen, Ken has been roundly refuted and defeated. Let us move on with grace …

        Liked by 3 people

      • Sorry paul didn’t see your comment in time.

        Liked by 2 people

    • @Ken Temple

      Again god the son didn’t die only the human nature attached to him experienced death. Therefore it’s literally human sacrifice. This isn’t about questioning God and i agree that God doesn’t have to tell us everything. BUT he shouldn’t contradict himself when he declares something an abomination and then does that very thing later on.

      Deuteronomy 12:31
      You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.

      Psalm 106:37-41
      They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons; they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood. Thus they became unclean by their acts, and played the whore in their deeds. Then the anger of the Lord was kindled against his people, and he abhorred his heritage; he gave them into the hand of the nations, so that those who hated them ruled over them.

      Notice how being of innocent blood doesn’t make the sacrifice any better. this would have been a great teaching moment to tell us that these children were not truly innocent due to their sin nature via original sin and that a truly “innocent” sacrifice would come in the future. But no, no mention of such doctrines.

      God committed human sacrifice which is a sin.

      Liked by 1 person

      • “Again god the son didn’t die only the human nature attached to him experienced death.”

        But God the Son is only one person, the Logos.

        So if the human nature experiences death the only personal subject through which it can experience death is the Logos.


      • @Watson

        Are you suggesting that the logos died? if so then that means God ceased being divine as God cannot die. If you are instead suggesting that because the human nature was attached to the divine that the divine person “felt” the experience of death but didn’t actually die, the problem still remains. As only the human nature truly died and the divine merely felt what it was like to die. To illustrate the problem image if the “godman” wasn’t killed on the cross but only felt like he was going to die, would that still count as a sacrifice?

        If the answer is no then realize that’s exactly whats going on with the divine nature. If the answer is yes then i feel we have to discuss what it truly means to sacrifice something. Not to mention of course the issue of God being divine would have no need to incarnate into a “godman” to know what it was like to die or experience death. To say that God needed to incarnate in order to experience death is limiting God in more ways than one. If I’ve misunderstood you then please by all means correct me and explain what you mean.

        Liked by 3 people

  7. Just as modern Jews don’t have ANY passage with the word “Messiah” in it for their understanding of a future Messiah bringing in the peaceful Messianic age, ( I have shown you this numerous times) so also it is not required or demanded that Isaiah 52-53 have the word Messiah in it. (and yet we have 2 other key passages, Psalm 2:1-12 and Daniel 9:24-27 and proven by the questions of the Jewish leadership at Jesus’ trial – Mark 14:60-64)

    Same goes for “God the Son”. That is a Theological phrase based on all the verses that show Jesus is Deity by nature, the Son, and eternal, and verses on the incarnation and virgin birth, etc. John 1:1; 1:14; 17:5; 20:28; Hebrews chapter 1, Philippians chapter 2; Colossians chapter 1, Romans 1:1-4; 9:5, etc.

    You have never responded nor refuted this point.


  8. فدینه = “we ransomed him”

    from Surah 37:107

    inadvertently affirms Genesis 22, Isaiah 53 and Mark 10:45

    Affirms Christianity as true, unknowingly.


  9. There’s no authentic Islamic source there naming Ishmael. I’m looking for Quran or authentic hadith.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Surah 37:100 refers to the son who was to be sacrificed. This can only be Ishmael (pbuh). Isaac (pbuh) is mentioned later.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        Dang it, you beat me!

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        Indeed! Well played old foe.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ the Matrix

        1.Lol for you not to think ELEVEN manuscripts coming from different texts (meaning it is mass transmitted) all within 100 years of Muhammad’s (saw) migration to Medina not being an end of the discussion shows you know nothing about the field and no amount of chest-beating will stop that. To give you any idea how stupid you sound here is a comparison with the NT:

        “The earliest manuscript of a New Testament text is a business-card-sized fragment from the Gospel of John, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which may be as early as the first half of the 2nd century.”

        The original editor proposed a date range of 100-150 CE;[5] while a recent exercise by Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse, aiming to generate consistent revised date estimates for all New Testament papyri written before the mid-fourth century, has proposed a date for {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}{\mathfrak {P}}52 of 125-175 CE.[1]

        Yeah so the first piece of the NT is the second century. The fact that we have swaths of Quranic text from multiple independent manuscripts in the 1st century is incredible and why it’s pretty much a consensus it’s the same text.

        2. Yes there is a difference between “Shariah” and “deen” dingbat. Shariah is set explicit laws stated in the Quran and Sunnah while “deen” is the religion of Islam and neither of these is even related to the discussion. Next, yes the minority holding that position have NO EVIDENCE FOR THE POSITION OTHER THAN SOME SCHOLARS TRYING TO SYNCHRONIZE WITH THE BIBLICAL STORY. The irony is only you are showing complete incompetence as can be seen by your side-splitting post.

        A. “Because they believe the Bible has the true story.”
        No dumb@$$ why do you keep going when you don’t know what you’re talking about? We have a principle of don’t believe or disbelieve in their text unless there’s evidence to counter it:

        Narrated Abu Huraira:

        … Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “Do not believe the people of the Scripture, and do not disbelieve them, but say, ‘We believe in Allah and whatever has been revealed…’ (3.84)

        We have Quranic evidence to counter this narrative and thus the opinion is thrown out. Scholars sync text as basically a “yo this what they be saying what happened idk” for example Ibn Kathir who gutted large amounts of Biblical text in his “Lives of the Prophets” book and believed it to be corrupted.

        C. Again someone making a mistake or not noticing something does not mean anything like how the Hanafis attempted to read alcohol’s permissibility even though it is explicitly stated in the Quran and multiple ahadith. The quranic text CLEARLY indicates Issac(as) isn’t born once for those who aren’t blind and retarded

        3. “So cite the authoritative hadiths if you are so fantasric.”


        Abdullah Ibn Said al-Sabihy said: “We were at Mu’awiyah’s reception and the people started discussing [the story of] Ishmael and Isaac(P) and which one was the sacrificed. Some said Ishmael and some said Isaac(P). Mu’awiyah said: I am the expert you need; We were at the Prophet’s(P) when a bedouin came to him saying “O Prophet of God, I have left the pasture dry and the life hard, the children died and the wealth is gone, so give me [something] of what God has bestowed on you, O Son of the two sacrificed.” The Prophet(P) smiled and did not blame/criticize what he said. The people asked: Who are the two sacrificed O Commander of the believers? He replied: When Abdul Muttalib was ordered to dig Zamzam he vowed to sacrifice one of his sons if God helps him with his mission [i.e., Zamzam]. When he achieved the mission, he cast lots on his children, there were ten of them. The choice fell on cAbdullâh so he decided to sacrifice him but the child’s uncles, Banu Makhzûm, opposed the sacrifice and said satisfy your Lord and ransom your son. So, he ransomed him with a hundred camels. Mu’âwiyah said: this is one [of the two Sacrificed] the other is Ishmael(P).”

        Now I know SOOO much desperation is about to come to stop yourself from looking like a complete moron.
        A. No this is not the hadith I was referring to either it was the “I am the Son of the Two Slaughtered”

        B. The hadith is Sahih and is Marfoo

        I told you to bow out so you could have some dignity but you refused. So now that the matter is REALLY clear, this is for you:

        Thank you and good night.

        Liked by 2 people

      • LOOOOOOOL you’re giving me stories from Tabari etc. that not even Muslims take as definitive?! Now I know you you’re desperate and And all the other stuff that didn’t have anything to do with anything. .
        So tell me, why did all the scholars including Tabari, himself fail to bow out to your “definitive” word?


      • @ the matrix

        Oh, man this is just too good. Seriously why do this to yourself? Why is no one trying to save you and throw in the towel right now as your getting killed in the ring?

        I truly could not have asked for a better response to demonstrate how you don’t know what you’re talking about in this final coup de grace. Read it again you illiterate moron (try to go slow don’t want to hurt yourself):

        “Narrated by al-Hâkim in Al-Mustadrak, and Ibn Jarîr [at-Tabarî] in his commentary with its isnâd”

        Now I know that was a bunch of “big ol scary words” so I’ll explain. To begin there are TWO people being quoted from:

        1.Al Hakim
        2. Tabari
        So even if I drop Tabari for a sec (don’t worry I’m not as that is the more embarrassing part for you just bear with me) you still have Al-Hakim narration. Hilariously, it gets worse for you weren’t aware of the fact that Tabari has TWO famous works:

        1.His history which is mixed with a variety of graded hadith (that morons such as yourself like to quote and thought what they were talking about)

        2.His tafseer (quranic commentary) which is considered fantastic.

        The hadith in discussion is from his COMMENTARY hence the statement (emphasis for the blind):
        “ and Ibn Jarîr [at-Tabarî] in his COMMENTARYwith its isnâd”

        And the “isnad” part is the chain of narration giving it authenticity. So funny enough even after getting the hadith you yourself requested you were basically too stupid to even know it was in your hands. 😂😂😂

        Liked by 1 person

      • Focus a little and answer the question instead of going off in all directions. So why did everybody to this very day fail to realize the “definitive” answer?


      • @ the matrix

        it is not off in different directions dumb@$$ you asked for a hadith and then didn’t know what you were talking about regarding Tabari. And irrelevant you have the hadith requested and thus you (like the rest of the kuffar on this blog) have been made to look stupid (again) Told you to bow out gracefully.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lol is this idiot still going?
        Go to bed kid.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Atlas

        My thoughts exactly. It’s only getting worse as time goes on.

        Liked by 1 person

      • So you can’t or won’t answer the question? Why doesn’t anybody think it’s good enough to settle the matter? It’s irrelevant that nobody to this very day thinks it’s authoritative enough to settle the issue? Really?

        Hope to hear your answer.


      • @ the matrix

        Lol, I don’t need to. You have a hadith and the matter IS settled just accept defeat.


      • Lol, I asked for an authoritative hadith, Like one your own scholars can agree on. Don’t you have a mutawatir hadith or something? All you can do is a marfu hadith from a collection that is full of fabricated stuff? It’s roughly on the same level as the obviously fabricated hadiths of the black flags of from Khorasan.


      • @ the matrix

        You are really retarded. Tabari has two works you moron (I know shockingly a scholar wrote more than one book in his life) Even after you were told this you still repeated it, how dumb do you have to be.

        Anyways so let’s look at the new update:

        Bring something from the Quran and hadith
        Bring only a hadith
        Bring a muttawatir hadith.

        I believe this is for you:


      • Lol, you can’t find an authoritative hadith and now you cry when exposed for bringing lacking hadith? Cute. I gave you the chance to tell it yourself. So now that we’ve established you can’t bring an authoritatiive hadith and you don’t know what you’re talking about I’ve got a different question for you. Do you also believe the black flag hadiths are authoritative?


      • @ the matrix

        This is really entertaining. Lol it IS an authoritative hadith and if you weren’t retarded you would know that.

        As for your deflection, don’t know never studied it nor would I listen or trust anything you say or bring me as you have proven yourself to be a bumbling moron. Any more questions for me?


    • @ Corndog

      I don’t know why you guys do this to yourself

      Quranic evidence:

      37:99. He said: “I will go to my Lord, He is sure to guide me.”
      37:100. “Oh Lord, give to me from among the righteous!”
      37:101. So I gave him the good news that he would have an understanding son.

      Okay, so he (as) has a son(as). Is there any other information that can help us in the passage to determine which one is being talked about? Let’s keep reading:

      37:102. When the boy was old enough to work with his father, Abraham said: “My son, I keep seeing myself sacrificing you in dreams. What’s your opinion?” He said: “Father, do as you’re commanded and God willing, you’ll find me patient.”
      37:103. When they had both submitted to God, and he had laid his son down on his forehead,
      37:104. I called out to him: “Abraham!”
      37:105. “You have fulfilled the dream.” This is how I reward those who do excellent.
      37:106. It was a difficult, traumatic test,
      37:107. and I ransomed him with a tremendous sacrifice.

      Cool, we have the incident but nothing conclusive. But let’s keep reading:

      37:108. And I let him be remembered with honor by the later generations:
      37:109. Peace be upon Abraham!
      37:110. This is how I reward those who do excellent,
      37:111. he was one of My believing servants.
      37:112. I gave Abraham the good news of Isaac, a prophet and righteous man.
      37:113. I blessed him as well as Isaac, but among their descendants are those who do good and those who are unjust to themselves.

      Pause, so now a new son Issac(as) has been mentioned. General rule of thumb in the Quran is that God lists things in order. So that means the first son was Ishmael(as). Further support:

      21:85. Remember ISHMAEL, Enoch and ‘the One given Double’ ˹because˺ each of them were from those who observed constant PATIENCE

      Look what the son being sacrificed stated in the incident:

      “Father, do as you’re commanded and God willing, you’ll find me PATIENT.”

      Issac(as) is NOWHERE in the Quran as being described as having a special kind of patience. Since we know Enoch(as) and Dhul kifl(as) are not Abraham’s (as) sons this further proves Ishmael(as). As i know you will all be desperate for anything:

      1.Who was the son mentioned before Issac(as) was born?
      2. Why is Ishmael(as) described as being patient like the boy to be sacrificed

      @ Everyone else

      Professional opinions can I declare nuked yet or no? 🤔🤔🤔

      Liked by 1 person

      • You’re being extremely arrogant.
        All you’re giving me is interpretation, though I asked for explicit mention in Quran/hadith. You know there’e many opinions/interpretations. Intersting you’re not able to give an authentin hadith
        Thanks for taking the time to answer though.


      • Stewjo: Simple question who is the son mentioned before Issac(as) is discussed being born?

        I’m not after your or my interpretation. Muslim opinion have both. What I’m after is an explicit statement in Quran/Hadith. Now if authentic hadiths doesn’t mention that’s interesting. Maybe the early Muslims were not sure who it was or they knew it was Isaac and didn’t say anything.


      • Or maybe the story or some verses are late interpolations or fabrications. Explains why they didn’t know. Earliest manuscripts of the story are 1-2 centuries after Muhamed.


      • @ Corndog

        So a son now being mentioned in a story is my “interpretation” interesting…

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ The Matrix

        Oh well isn’t that a fun conspiracy? Can’t refute the point so now there are “interpolations” (despite the fact there is no evidence of this happening anywhere in the Quran and only certain religious scribes had this problem). Down the line:

        1. The entirety of Surah Saffat (your claim) appear in the 1st-century manuscripts

        DAM 01-27.1[51]
        Sotheby’s 1992, Lot 551 / David 86/2003 (=Sam Fogg IAGIC)[52]
        Sotheby’s 1993, Lot 31 / Stanford 2007[53]
        Bonham’s 2000, Lot 19[54]
        Christies 2008, Lot 20[55]
        Louvre Abu Dhabi
        E. 16269 D [71]
        DAM 01-29.1[94]

        Marcel 13, folio 31v
        Marcel 13, folio 32r

        And with that, this theory is dead in the water. But as I said it’s fun to pretend though.

        2. Kind of a weird theory to begin with. If in an “interloper” wanted to change the passage, it makes sense to add the word Ishmael(as) and not add in the mention of Issac(as)

        3. What’s funny about this whole thing is writing was NOT our main method of preservation it was memorization

        4. The mention of Isaac(as) next keeps with the rhyme scheme and “flow” of the Surah:

        37:106. It was a difficult, traumatic test,
        37:107. and I ransomed him with a tremendous sacrifice.
        37:108. And I let him be remembered with honor by the later generations:
        37:109. Peace be upon Abraham!
        37:110. This is how I reward those who do excellent,
        37:111. he was one of My believing servants.
        37:112. I gave Abraham the good news of Isaac, a prophet and righteous man.
        37:113. I blessed him as well as Isaac, but among their descendants are those who do good and those who are unjust to themselves.
        37:114. I bestowed My favor on Moses and Aaron.
        7:115. I saved them and their nation from the great disaster,
        37:116. I delivered them, so they became the victors.

        Why mention their descendants with some who do good or some who are unjust to themselves? Because it now transitions to Moses(as) and his people (i.e the Jews aka the descendants of Issac(as)

        Alrighty now that, that’s out the way back to my original questions:

        1. Who was the son mentioned before Issac(as) was born?
        2. Why is Ishmael(as) described as being patient like the son to be sacrificed elsewhere in the Quran?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Nuked again!

        Why do people with no knowledge except a couple of Google searches feel the need to open their mouths?

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        That has always been the 1,000,000$ question QB


      • Try and stay focused instead of going on off in all directions not asked.

        1. You were asked to cite authoritative hadiths. You failed to do that. Instead you give your own interpretation, but this is not the question. Name the authentic hadith.

        2. Another issue not adreesed. If your interpretation is so “obvious” why were Muslim interpreters so divided over the issue? Obviously they didn’t know of any authoritative source of tradition or else that would have clinched it.

        3. You agree that all copies are much later. Good. So now you still have to answer why the authoritative sources do not name the boy explicitly, hence the confusion of the interpreters. Maybe the answer is it contains later interpolation or fabrication. Hence the absence of authoritative traditions. You didn’t answer


      • 1.Lol it was Quran or hadith. I have quoted the Quran and presented my evidence. Now that you can’t refute it you are attempting to limit me to ahadith. (Like when missionaries try to limit things to the Quran when they’re stupid point is refuted sing ahadith.) Both things are authoritative.

        2.YOU are the one who claimed “interpolation” got refuted and are now saying I’m going on a tangent in order to save face from your first claim.

        3. If you knew what you were talking about, we actually do have hadith but since there is difference of opinion regarding it I didn’t cite it.

        4. Are you retarded? I did not say the “copies are much later” I just listed like 8, 1st century
        manuscripts containing the ENTIRETY of the Surah dumb@$$.

        So once again for the people in the back:

        1. Who was the son mentioned before Issac(as) was born?

        2. Why is Ishmael(as) described as being patient like the son to be sacrificed elsewhere in the Quran?

        And que the next desperate deflection from you in 3…2…1…

        Liked by 1 person

      • Focus, you didn’t actually answer any of the points.

        1. You were asked for an explicit verse or hadith. Not an interpretation or implicit verse. But for the third time you’re not answering. Seems like you have trouble understanding the question. Can you cite the explicit verse or authoritative hadith?

        2. You didnt actually refute interpolation or fabrication or even answer why there’s a difference of opinion if “your” interpretation is obvious. Why is there no authoritative tradition known then? Maybe there was none because it was fabricated. So they just had to guess. And all the copies are later.

        3. So now you are saying we have difference of opinion in the hadiths. That’s great. So now pray tell why this is so. Because nobody knew and were just guessing or…?

        4. Are you talking about authoritative hadiths and if yes howcome they differ? Do tell…


      • @ the Matrix

        1. One of us is DEFINITELY having trouble. Again we know Abraham(as) had two sons, it can’t be Issac(as) if he hadn’t been born yet when the story is told. That is not an interpretation but common sense. Then when you add the boy is described as patient and ONLY Ishmael(as) in th Quran is described this way its kind of an open and shut case.

        2. I DEFINITELY refuted interpolation lol. Again how can something be an interpolation if we have MULTIPLE unrelated manuscripts containing the whole surah in the 1st century? I really just think you don’t know how manuscript evidence works as this is a “slam dunk” in the field.

        3/4. Lot’s of reasons. This one in particular is a narrator in the chain. One side is saying this an alias while the other side is claiming they can’t prove that and he’s unknown from my brief reading on it.


      • So now you kinda semi-answered one question out of four. Seems like you just don’t want to answer. Or maybe you’re having trouble as you said? But let me give it one more go.

        1 You assignment this week is to cite an explicut verse or authoritative hadith. Not your own “common sense” interpretation, because Muslim interpreters differed over who the son was. Could you give us that. Please, no more of your own “common sense” you keep on repeating. Focus with me here, and answer the question as stated.

        2. Once again a fail to answer the question. The manuscripts are all much laterr and everybody is just guessing at who the son is. So what is the explanation for this? No answer from you. So maybe the answer is it’s fabricated. Explains why nobbody knew and were basically just guessing, comming up with different answers. Or maybe they knew it to be Isaac but didn’t tell. Focus here and answer instead of beating round the bush.

        3. So by your standard they’re not authoritative sources. So people are basically just guessing, making up hadith and have nothing firm. So why is that now?


      • @ the Matrix

        1. It doesn’t matter if a scholar “differed”. They differ on everything.

        2. They are not late manuscripts what are you talking about. ALL the manuscripts i quoted are less than 100 years from the death of the Prophet(saw). Just say you don’t know how manuscript evidence works and move on.

        3. Nobodies “guessing” they simply are arguing on the identity of a person in the chain of the hadith.

        Alrighty now to back to my original questions:

        1. Who was the son mentioned before Issac(as) was born? (Just because something isn’t said it can CLEARLY be seen)
        2. Why is Ishmael(as) described as being patient like the son to be sacrificed elsewhere in the Quran?


      • Incoming Matrix reply after getting schooled and can’t handle the beatdown and has to do everything to save face:
        yOu ArE aLl OvEr ThE pLaCe, YoU dIdN’t ReFuTe Me. YoU aRe NoT aNsWeRiNg Me!!!


      • Since you’ve refused four times now to give straight answers I conclude you have no answer and you are just trying to deflect why Muslim interpreters differ on who the son is and why there are no authoritative sources on this.

        The question is not your “common sense” or what you think. It’s about authoritative sources, why nobody knows and are basically just guessing.


      • Buahahhaahaha, what did I tell you. Omg the beatdown this joker took and then coming up with such pathetic repsonses.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, you must have prophetic abilities. Why are you interejecting without a real question or point to make?

        Aren’t you the guy who got exposed just last week for your hypocrite “porn book” methodology prophecies?

        Can you answer the question then? Why are there no authoritative sources? Why is everybody basically just guessing? Just state the authoritative explicit source. That’s all I’m after. Anything wrong with that?

        What I’m saying is maybe the verses were fabricated between Muhamed’s death and the manusccripts within a hundred years. That’s why nobody knows and are basically just guessing.


      • @ Atlas

        Basically, lol. Like for example, there was a difference of opinion among early scholars regarding alcohol which is CLEARLY prohibited in the Quran. I guess that must be binding as well. Scholars argue about EVERYTHING and that is not proof. The scholars who took that position more than likely were attempting to synthesize with the Biblical story which is common. But long story short kuffar lose again.


      • @ Atlas

        LOL I didn’t even see this!

        “What I’m saying is maybe the verses were fabricated between Muhamed’s death and the manusccripts within a hundred years. ”

        HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh, this is hilarious. This dude CLEARLY doesn’t know about how manuscripts work (like serious if that’s the case then we can throw out the entire Buble) and that these scholars who held Issac(as) were AFTER 100 years. As I said before, who needs Netflix when you got this? 100 years… HAHAHAHAHAHAHA


      • So basically, you can’t answer. Covering up your incompetence by making fun. Though it backfires. There’s no explict statement in the Quran. Interpreters went both ways. No authoritative hadith and everybody’s just guessing. So verses could be fabricated. Explaims why nobody knows. You just can’t anawer and beat around the bush.


      • @ The Matrix

        Sure whatever you got to twll yourself

        1. You got CREAMED on the argument of interpolation and exposed you know nothing about the field

        2. It has been explained why a group held a position even then:

        A. Just because a group held this position doesn’t make it binding. Like in my example for the Hanifis at one point arguing alcohol is permissible. The evidence is overwhelmingly against them which is why nobody really holds the position anymore.

        B. They were attempting to sync with Biblical stories (which was common)

        C. The position makes no sense in light of the fact that Issac(as) wasn’t even born yet in the Quranic text and is not described as being known for patience like Ishmael(as) (which you have yet to counter)

        3. Exposed you have no knowledge of hadith sciences

        Just bow out gracefully and try to at least retain some shred of dignity.


      • 1. Lol, you didn’t cream anything, because you couldn’t answer. You just exposed your incompetence in the field.
        2. Case of alcohol is not comparable. So agaon your just showing of your incompetence.

        A. It’s about the exact meaning of the term. And there’s also a question of abbrogation of verses.
        It’s gor nothing to do with “binding”. There’a difference between sharia and deen. The belief it’s Ismail can never be binding. Muslim scholars to this day say you can believe what you want. Isaac or Ismail. Why do you keep exposing your incompetence?
        B. Okay to sync. Because they believe the Bible has the true story. because they read the Quran story to say Isaac confirming the Bible. And many Muslim traditions read it as Isaac. No authoritative tradition contradicts it. Works against you. Not for you.
        C. Muslims read it as he was born ar the time and it was him The whole story is vague. And the boy is never named. Can be read both ways. Because many of the early scholars comfirmed there’s no clear chronological link in the story. They read it both ways. Just guessing. No authoritative teadition. Muslim scholars. Not Hindus, Chistian or Jewish scholars. So they conclude it was Isaac.
        3. So cite the authoritative hadiths if you are so fantasric. That’s what was asked of you from the very outset.
        4. Also possible verses were fabricated, explains why everybody is guessing.


    • Bringing a marfu hadth from Mustadrak and then going it’s authoritative? Yeah right, you’ve got no clue what you’re talking about.


      • @ the matrix

        First off its about the isnad dumb@$$

        Next, marfu is unrelated on the hadith’s authenticity. You clearly don’t know terminology so stop using it as it makes you look even more dumb.

        And again you are apparently missing chromosomes dumb, once again the hadith is found in count with me 1…2 references. Isnad is good so thus you have been defeated in your poor challenge for an authentic hadith.

        So since you asked a question my turn how embarrassed are you right now from being made to look stupid on a scale of 1-10?


      • @stewjo004

        please watch your language dude


      • Williams could you please convert to jewo-buddhism retreat to study julius evola or some other traditional racist nutcase and leave this blog for good Please?


      • No thanks, I’ll stick around here.

        Unlike you.



  10. @ Corndog

    Simple question who is the son mentioned before Issac(as) is discussed being born?

    Liked by 1 person

  11. @Vaqas Rehman,

    VR : “Are you suggesting that the logos died? if so then that means God ceased being divine as God cannot die.”

    When you use the word “die”, “died” here what do you mean specifically?

    Can you give us a definition of death that we can both start from?

    VR: “To illustrate the problem image if the “godman” wasn’t killed on the cross …..”

    Obviously we don’t believe that the fact, to us, that Jesus was killed on the cross invalidates his deity.

    That was one of the purposes, if not the main purpose, of the incarnation. To bring God, in the form of the Logos, in to a situation where he, in union with his human nature and as a divine human person, could die vicariously.

    We believe also that in his pre-incarnate form it would not be possible for the Logos to experience death.


  12. @Watson

    Thank you for the reply Watson.

    “Can you give us a definition of death that we can both start from?”

    Sure thing.

    the action or fact of dying or being killed; the end of the life of a person or organism.
    “an increase in deaths from skin cancer”

    “Obviously we don’t believe that the fact, to us, that Jesus was killed on the cross invalidates his deity.

    That was one of the purposes, if not the main purpose, of the incarnation. To bring God, in the form of the Logos, in to a situation where he, in union with his human nature and as a divine human person, could die vicariously.”

    So just so we’re clear, you believe that the divine nature died along side the human nature? Because if so I’m pretty sure that’s a heresy and that orthodoxy maintains that only the human nature died.

    If i’m mistaken then please provide a source to correct me.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. “Yahweh: OK, fine. Just give me some wheat and get out of here!”

    That is not designated as a ransom.

    And it still has to be offered through the priesthood through blood.


    • It serves to erase the sin, dummy. What are the wages of sin? 🤔 Oh yeah, death!


      • It is just a flag that points to the ultimate sacrifice.

        All the offerings symbolized the ultimate sacrifice in some way or other.

        None of them are declared to be ransom payments by their own worth which is what the writer of the koran is erroneously asserting with regard to the ram that was offered in Ishmaels stead.

        If Allah would not have allowed Abraham to offer Ishmael as a sacrifice anyway why is there a need for the ram as a ransom anyway?

        I can understand if Abraham and Ishmael were hungry at that point but otherwise?

        It just seems that the writer of the Koran had the story in front of him and was struggling to give it some theological significance in the context of his own religion.

        He failed miserably.


  14. @VR

    “Death is the separation of the soul from the body, and its transfer from this world to the barzakh and the afterlife.”

    So the soul is still existing and self-conscious after death?

    Liked by 1 person

  15. The only part of the human existence which the Logos assumed that actually ceased to live would be his physical body.

    That is the same for all humans who experience death.

    In which case I don’t see any aspect of his death that has any impact on his divine immutability.


    • @Watson

      “The only part of the human existence which the Logos assumed that actually ceased to live would be his physical body.”

      But the human nature was not a mere shell of a physical body. As far i’m aware the “godman” being fully human means he had to have a human mind body and soul along side whatever divine equivalent.

      And i’m not aware of any differences in modern christendom sects regarding this issue. Again if i’ve misunderstood or misrepresented the orthodoxy of you’re faith please provide a source to correct me.

      “In which case I don’t see any aspect of his death that has any impact on his divine immutability.”

      It’s simple really, did the divine nature die? If yes then he stopped being God. If no then he committed human sacrifice because only the human nature died.

      A lose lose scenario anyway you try to explain it.


      • “It’s simple really, did the divine nature die?”

        What do you mean by the word “die” in this context?

        Can you be more specific?

        Obviously it would have experienced all the bodily and emotional pain associated with the separation of the body and soul with which it was united during the process of its death.

        I guess you could ask to what extent the divine nature would be capable of being affected by this process going on in the human nature to which it was united.


    • @Watson

      I believe I already gave a definition for the process of death in both natural and islamic terms.

      But before going on about the meaning of death again i feel it prudent to establish a fact: God CAN’T die.

      this is something known to people of faith traditions like Christians,

      “Another example is Christ’s death. God cannot die. We should never speak of Christ’s death as the death of God. But humans can die, and Jesus’s human nature did die. Thus, even though Jesus’s divine nature did not die, we can still say that the Person of Christ experienced death because of the union of the two natures in the one Person of Christ. Because of this truth, Grudem says, “by virtue of union with Jesus’s human nature, his divine nature somehow tasted something of what it was like to go through death. The person of Christ experienced death.”

      “No, God cannot die. The Bible tells us that God is immutable (Psalm 90:2; Malachi 3:6). This means that he cannot change. If he died, that would be a change. The nature of God’s divinity is that he cannot change, so he cannot die. Furthermore, death is a biological function where something that is alive ceases to be alive. But God is not biological. God is different than us. In theology, we say that he is “Wholly Other.” That is, he is completely different than what we are. We die, but God does not.

      Also, the idea of dying has the implication of nonexistence. This is a further problem when considering the idea of God dying. In Christianity, God cannot cease to exist – again implying a change in his nature, which cannot be. Therefore, God cannot die.

      Sometimes people will say that Jesus can’t be God because Jesus died and God cannot die. What they fail to understand is that Jesus has two natures: God and man. In theology, we call this the hypostatic union. It is the teaching that in the one person of Christ are two distinct natures, the divine and human. It was the human nature that died on the cross, not the divine nature. But because Jesus is both divine and human, it is sometimes said, although not with the greatest accuracy, that God died on the cross.

      So, God cannot die; but in the person of Christ, who is a man with the divine nature, we see a biological death, not the death of the divine being who is God.”

      and of course is stated as much in the bible as well.

      Ezekiel 28

      2″Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: “‘In the pride of your heart you say, “I am a god; I sit on the throne of a god in the heart of the seas.” But you are a mere mortal and not a god, though you think you are as wise as a god.

      3Are you wiser than Daniel? Is no secret hidden from you?

      6″‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “‘Because you think you are wise, as wise as a god,

      7I am going to bring foreigners against you, the most ruthless of nations; they will draw their swords against your beauty and wisdom and pierce your shining splendor.

      8They will bring you down to the pit, and you will die a violent death in the heart of the seas.

      9Will you then say, “I am a god,” in the presence of those who kill you? You will be but a mortal, not a god, in the hands of those who slay you.

      10You will die the death of the uncircumcised at the hands of foreigners. I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.’”

      So whatever Death or being dead means one thing is clear, God cannot die. And while you and other christian may say

      “but wait! the divine nature experienced something like death even through it didn’t die!”

      And to that i say if the divine nature experienced something like death but didn’t actually die then all you have left at the cross is human sacrifice, plain and simple. Which is an abomination and a sin. Certainly not suitable for your salvation. Moreover this idea that God came down so that he “could experience death” is highly problematic for a couple of reasons:

      1: It implies the experiences of the human nature can impact or affect the divine nature. Which is a bad because one of the core principles of the hypostatic union is that the two natures remain distinct and don’t affect each other.

      2: God is all knowing. This idea that God needed to come down in order to know what it was like to die even though he’s all knowing and should already have that knowledge in the first place is putting a limitation on God pre incarnation.
      Whatever good i have said comes from God and whatever errors I have made are my own.


  16. If Abraham was committing a sin to offer up his son why does Allah provide a ransom as if he had been cheated of the value of something and he needs a replacement for it?

    It makes no sense to me.

    My own guess is that the pagans were sacrificing and Islam chose to continue this practice and needed to incorporate this somehow and justify it theologically.

    It was a good idea to use the story of Abraham being willing to offer his son to justify retaining the practice of blood sacrifice within the religion.


    • @ Erasmus

      Simple question, do you thino Arabs are descendants of Abraham(as)? Just need a yes or no.


      • Above my pay grade.


      • The original Arabs are from Sheba and Joktan (Genesis 10:24 – 32) – they are Semitic for sure and Sheba is the old name for modern Yemen and surrounding areas. They unified with the Northern Arabians (Ishmaelites and his descendents) through the Arabic language and then ultimately through the Islamic conquests and unity – but there are several nuances of Arabs from Morocco to Iraq, and from Yemen, Arabia to Syria, etc. My Muslim Arab friends told me this: There are even 5-6 major (maybe more) dialects of Arabic – Darije (Morocco, Algerian, Tunisian), Libyan, Egyptian, Gulf, Levant, and S. Iraqi Arabic.


      • @ Ken
        Most are not ethnically Arab. Egyptians and Moroccans are not Arab. They speak Arabic and Berber languages but are not Arabs. Though sometimes people are so “brainwashed” by Arabs and think they’re Arab too. Egypt’s official name at one point was the United Arab Republic..

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Ken

        Basically, what Riqf stated, those groups are as Arab as you or me.


  17. @ Erasmus

    Don’t see how. Who is this great nation that rose from Ishmael(as)?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: