Can anyone explain why the bible contradicts itself?

Question

In the story of Sarah and Abraham it talks of Hagar and Ishmael (who was abarhams son) and later says abraham had only one son issac. Could it not be the important parts were lost in the numerous translations?

Genesis 16:1-3, 15-16, 17, 21:1-2
"Then Abraham took his son Ishmael and all the slaves born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him. Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And his son Ishmael was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. That very day Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised; and all the men of his house, slaves born in the house and those bought with money from a foreigner, were circumcised with him. . . ."

and then in gen 22:3 it says his only son

Answer 1

Ishmael was born to Hagar, who was not Abraham's wife, but a concubine. So under the laws of that time he was not considered to be a "son", in that he did not have an automatic inheritance from his father, nor the right to use the family name of conduct family business. So while he was physically a son of Abraham, he was not one "legally".

The Hebrew word has a different meaning then the English word "son". It might be clearer to use the word "heir" rather than "son". The Hebrews used the same word for both ideas.

In Genesis 25:1-6 it is all explained. After Abraham's wife Sarah died, he had additional children with two other concubines. Like Ishamel, they did not inheritance from Abraham, but were sent away (like Ishamel). Only Isaac was an heir to Abraham, and thus the only legal "son"/heir.

So the Bible is conrrect when it speaks of Isaac as being the only "son" of Abraham. But it is speaking in a legal, rather than a physical sense.

Answer 2

Peace!
I don't think so. The reason may be because the author did not consider Ishmael as a true son of Abraham since he was the offspring of the slave Hagar.
Many people wrote the Bible. These authors had different sources. The Bible is salvation history so you will see many contradictions in the Old and New Testament teachings. There are other reasons which are too numerous to explain here.

Answer 3

Abraham also had other sons after Sarah died. He had one Pre-eminent son. One "Son Of the Promise". The translators didn't always recognize the difference between the cardinal and the ordinal. Between one and first. Hebrew Scripture is written with only about 9000 words. The word "sin" in the KJV is from 11 different Hebrew words. An enemy has done this! Sinful men translate Scripture, and write their ideas into it. It takes the Holy Spirit to sort it out, but it is tolerably clear, if you are looking for truth.

Answer 4

Abraham did have two sons but only one was in the Messianic line. The other was his human attempt to hurry Gods plan. Issac was born to his wife as God promised and the genealogy of Jesus flows from that path. If you could quote the exact passages you are talking about a more helpful and complete answer would be possible.

Answer 5

Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. Isaac was his son and his wife's. Ishamael was his son as well with a woman called Hagar.
Maybe the bible said one son because Isaac was a son in marriage, the one who inherited everything from Abraham.

Answer 6

Abraham Had 2 sons, But only One son that the promise seed came through Isacc the Promise seed came throught Abraham & Sarah & Isacc, & not Ishmeal nor hagar, So truthfully in the promise seed line, Abraham did only have one son & that was Isacc. Sarah had Ishmeal kicked out of the house because Ismeal tormrnted & always started trouble, That is the seed line for those Arabs & Mulums, & so on.

Answer 7

You have to understand the full story about God's promises to Abraham. He promised him a son - and Sarah got tired of waiting for God's promise...so she took matters into her own hands and told Abraham to sleep with Hagar to have a child - thus producing Ishmael. THis was not the son God had promised.
Many years later - the son of God's promise Isaac was given.
This is not a contradiction - this is the true son of Abraham that God was referring to in the Word - not the son of Hagar.
.

Answer 8

There is no contradiction in your example. Abraham disobeyed God, and God didn't recognize Ishmael as his son.

The Bible is a brief snapshot of a large piece of history. Some things may seem to contradict only because context was left out (detail).

Have faith in God's word. It the greatest book ever written and has stood the test of time.

Answer 9

That's like asking why Star Wars portrays history differently than Lord Of The Rings. The bible is just a collection of old books written at a time when mankind had yet to learn many of the most basic facts about what the universe is, how it works, how earth came to be, how life developed on earth, etc.

It certainly doesn't belong in the non-fiction section of the library. Objectively the best it could achieve is "historical fiction" in that there are bits of general truths (people tended sheep, Egyptians existed, Romans existed) but the information about specific people and events is no more worthy of serious consideration than the characters in "Gone With The Wind".

Frankly, with only a few exceptions, the bible isn't even good literature. It includes many mind-numbing tedious details. It is very repetitious. It's not very good at describing scenes or people's thoughts and feelings. It contradicts itself frequently. The main character (god) is very poorly developed. He jumps in and out of the stories, helping someone here, punishing other people there. If he were a character in any other book the author would have to explain up front that he's schizophrenic or something to justify the various behaviors he exhibits throughout the work.

Pick a page at random and start reading. Almost certainly whatever you are reading will never be mentioned in church. It's very likely to be instructions on divying up goat parts during a sacrifice, or instructions to stone people for something that is perfectly legal today, or god killing an entire group of people because he got jealous, or long genealogies for people who probably never existed, ...

Of the handful of bible stories that current churches do see fit to dwell on, a little critical thought makes it clear that the "lesson" to be learned doesn't make any sense. Things like Abraham almost killing his son because god told him to for example. Would you want people living in your neighborhood who thought that was a reasonable thing to do? Or the Noah story. There are so many things wrong with that story that as history there's obviously no truth in it. So the church says it's a story about "faith", but faith in that case just means believing something ridiculous. Again, do you want to live next to the guy that thinks that's a good way to go? These are "inspirational" stories that suggest we be more like people that any rational society would lock up in a mental institiution, and rightly so.

You could summarize the good advice in the bible on one sheet of paper but after you did that you would realize not only is none of it unique to the bible but also none of it originated in the bible.

Answer 10

Abraham had six other sons, besides Isaac and Ishmael. The word "son" is not used in the literal way that you use it. It refers to the fact that the descendents of Isaac will be the Tribe of Israel.

For those thumbs down, have you ever read the Bible? "Abraham took [a] another wife, whose name was Keturah. 2 She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah." Genesis 25