Rational_Mind
Ahmadi Muslim
I don't understand why it would appear anyone changed anything, the very context of having a son from a slave girl would be understood to mean it's not the legitimate heir.
Let the Torah answer on the status of Ishmael:
"And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation." (Gen 17:20)
Also the Angel of the Lord said to her, I will multiply your descendants exceedingly, so that they shall not be numbered for multitude.
And the Angel of the Lord continued, See now, you are with child and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Ishmael [God hears], because the Lord has heard and paid attention to your affliction. (Gen 16:10-11)
Do you think Genesis 25:6 is forged too?
Apparently the sons of his concubines don't get the land.
It doesn't matter if Ishmael is called a son 'over and over again".
Besides, if the REST of the Scripture clearly refers to Israel, then you'd have to have argument that every reference to Israel was really meant to be Isaac in every other book.
Did not Hagar who is called wife (apparent handsmaid) belong the the Royal Family (King of Egypt)?
So Sarai, Abrams wife, took Hagar her Egyptian maid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his [secondary] wife. (Gen 16:3)
Human being can be careful enough to swap all the references but not careful enough to catch all the contradictions they create. We cannot walk away from Ishmael clearly being called a son. No matter how hard we try to close our eyes. Let us be fair here. I am not talking about land, I am sticking to the argument of who was sacrificed.
I think I have said for any fair person to understand my point. My argument is clear on the fact that Ishmael was called a "son". Where this status got lost while Hagar is also called "wife" is up to you to base on valid arguments on some solid basis.