Talk:Abraham/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

sprotect?

this article's edit history is completely cluttered by anonymous vandalism and its reverts. And in spite of the reverts, the article is deteriorating, since apparently not enough people are watching it. I would suggest semiprotection to get rid of the bulk of low quality edits. dab (𒁳) 18:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Nearly everyday this page gets hit, sometimes hard. Seconding semi-protection. Elm-39 - T/C 19:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ; I was tired of reverting ; but I ask for permanent protection. --Budelberger (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ().

This article should not be placed in the category "History of Iraq"

Abraham was not a Sumerian, Babylonian, Accadian, or Assyrian. There is a not a shred of evidence that can be gleaned from the Bible that indicates he originated in or is to be associated with a location in what is now Iraq. His area of origin and nativity is repeatedly and clearly named in the Bible as 'Aram Naharaim', which does not lie in today's Iraq. It is nestled between the Tigris and Euphrates in modern southeastern Turkey and northeastern Syria, and was the homeland in ancient times of myriads of semi-nomadic pastoralist tribes led by small-time chiefs, very much like Abraham and the early Hebrews.

Also, interpolating the name of Abraham's abode of 'Ur Kasdim' to mean a location in the area of Babylonia colonized by the tribe of Chaldeans over 1000 years later is without merit or supporting evidence. The Chaldeans are not mentioned as a tribe anywhere in the Pentateuch. Later in the Bible (e.g. Isaiah 23), it is acknowledged that the Chaldeans were a tribe that entered Babylonia at a relatively late date. The term 'Kasdim' appears to be the gentilic plural form of 'Kesed', a nephew of Abraham via his brother Nahor, resident in Aram Naharaim in Upper Mesopotamia in the vicinity of Haran, in Genesis 22. The lands of Iraq are identified by Genesis under names that are not associated with Abraham or the wanderings of the Hebrews: the Land of Shinar (Sumer), Babel (Babylon), Asshur (Assyria), and Akkad.

As for the Sumerian city now referred to as 'Ur', this is a misnomer that appears to have been started by the British archeologist Leonard Wooley and never been since corrected for reasons that are unclear. The cuneiform tablets name this city neither as 'Ur' nor 'of the Chaldeans', but rather: in Sumerian as URIM or URIMA and later in Akkadian as URI or URIWA. This seems to have been the Babylonian city URIE later referred to by the Hellenistic Greek writer Eupolymus.

The trade routes from Sumerian Urim to Canaan normally veered only slightly north to go through Damascus to avoid the desert, but did not go nearly as far north as Haran. It is in Haran that Abraham is told to leave his country and his nativity, and this would not make any sense if Haran were 600 miles to the north of Ur, rather than being just a nearby town.

Also, the claim that Abraham's family went to Haran in order to pursue worship of the Moon god is without any foundation or supporting evidence. The Bible does name the early Hebrews as polytheists, but does not identify or imply that the Moon god was one of their deities. None of the names the Israelites used for God (Elohim, Yhvh, El, El Shaddai, etc.) have any connection to the moon. Indeed, Haran was the center of the moon deity Sin, while Urim was the center of the moon deity Nannar, but in the time frame of Genesis, these had not yet been equated and the cultures associated with the two locations were unrelated.

The names cognate to 'Abram' found in Babylonian records are associated with non-indigenous Amorites, i.e. West Semites. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 26 identifies the patrimony of the Israelites as being Aramaean, i.e. Northwest Semitic. Therefore, it is without basis to associate Abraham and his semi-nomadic pastoralist Hebrews reminiscent of Upper Mesopotamia with the settled hustle and bustle of the well-watered metropoli criss-crossed with irrigation canals in Lower Mesopotamia in what is now Iraq.

Jacob Davidson

Please consider creating an account and helping to correct the problems. I barely edit this article, but let me say that I agree entirely with you. SamEV (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Name and Origin

ARE clearly identifiable as Sumerian. The Semitic languages derive from Akkadian, which preserved many Sumerian words, especially proper names. AB.RAM is readily identifiable. Also, a study of his father's name and profession clearly indicate Sumerian origins. 165.201.140.155 (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Dr.P.

Abraham#Etymology

This is somewhat of a mess -- if someone with knowledge of this information (perhaps the one who added it) please fix this up into proper English grammar and sentence structure? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Binding of Isaac? Unsourced

I don't agree with the section on the Binding of Isaac, particularly the paragraph on Christian theology. It is unsourced and appears to be original research. As a Christian I have never heard this interpretation. I have been taught that the sacrifice of Isaac pre-figured the Mosaic sacrificial system, in which bloodshed is a requirement for staying in God's favor. I was taught that the figure of Jesus can actually be seen in the ram that is provided for the sacrifice, as a substitute; Just as Jesus was sacrificed in the place of sinful man. I just wanted to note that there is another point of view on the story from a theological perspective, and it should be SOURCED and not original research. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.36 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"The father of many nations"

Meieimatai, can you explain your edits and edit summaries, viz.

• your claim that it is WP:OR to see the words "for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee" ((Genesis 17:5, JPS 1917) as indicating the interpretation of Abraham's new name
• your assertion that "the translation is in the feminine and refers to the Sarah!!!"

AFAICS, these words have overwhelming been seen as relating to Abraham's new name.

• Rashi says of them "This is an acrostic of his name". [1]
• Keil in the page-citation I added (but which without explanation you have removed again) notes the word ruhâm exists in Arabic meaning "multitude", so if a similar word raham once existed in Hebrew, this would explain the allusion.
• Here's Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook citing Talmudic attempts to understand the reference. [2]
• And English language translations overwhelmingly use language similar to the above. (Genesis 17:5)

So reading this verse as alluding to the interpretation of the name "Abraham" is hardly WP:OR !

On the other hand, denying this - and claiming the verse refers to Sarah - seem to be precisely your own original research. So can you give an external citation and reliable source? Jheald (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually though you were referring to a different verse 17:15, however...

The explanation is fairly simple if you have the Midrash Rabbah

The use of av hamon is a form of exegesis called Notarikon. What the Torah is doing is providing an example that this method of exegesis is permitted. There is another form called gematria. In a commentary to the verse Genesis 12:2 the "name" is juxtaposed to the "and I will bless you", with both equalling to 248 (removing conjunctive vav at the beginning and adding a he at the end). This is used to show that gematria is as valid a method of exegesis as notarikon.

What follows is that the statement "'Abraham' yields no sense in Hebrew" is false. Ergo the need for introduction of Arabic into a Hebrew text via "The word ruhâm has this meaning in Arabic. " is unnecessary.

As an aside, the gematria of 248 also equals to the words "Isaac...for me", acting as brackets in the verses 21:5-6 "...Isaac son. Sarah said God has made laughter for me;"--Meieimatai 12:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

---

This section is a bit confusing. It's difficult to edit it for you dont' want it to to lose its meaning. It reads: "In any case, this did not save her from the Pharaoh, who took her into the royal harem and enriched Abram with herds and servants. But when Yahweh "plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues" Abram and Sarai left Egypt. There are two other parallel tales in Genesis of a wife confused for a sister (Genesis 20–21and 27), describing a similar event at Gerar with the Philistine king Abimelech, though the latter attributing it to Isaac not Abram." Rcjavid (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Died at 175 and other beliefs

Given that there is no solid proof that he lived to 175 (other than biblical), wouldn't it be best to refrain from stating this as a fact?

Of course there are other "facts" too that should be pointed out as belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.182.91.94 (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That he lived to 175 is cited, so there is no reason to remove it. Moreover, there is already a historicity section to deal with your concerns. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but 175 is impossible and back then it was especially impossible. So, it really should be removed. Andrew Colvin (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Everything about Abraham comes from the Bible. All 'facts' on the page should be read with that in view. We can't put 'according to the Bible' in front of every statement. ^rossnixon 02:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought about that fact after I posted this. Thank you rossnixon for the proper response. But shouldn't that be stated at the beginning of the article to clarify this?

Correction. This is stated. Andrew Colvin (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Pure Laziness

Genesis, Deuteronomy -- fucking spell it out, already.

"Another scholar, criticizing Kitchen's maximalist viewpoint, considers a relationship between the tablet and Gen. speculative, also identifies but identifies Tudhula as a veiled reference to Sennacherib of Assyria, and Chedorlaomer, i.e. Kudur-Nahhunte, as "a recollection of a 12th century BCE king of Elam who briefly ruled Babylon." ("Finding Historical Memories in the Patriarchal Narratives" by Ronald Hindel, BAR, Jul/Aug 1995)

The Anchor Bible Dictionary suggests that the biblical account was in all probability derived from a text very closely related to the Chedorlaomer Tablets, and this in a publication which can be said to do at least a reasonably good job of getting good scholarship. The Chedorlaomer Tablets are thought to be from the 6th or 7th century BCE, well after the time of Hammurabi, at roughly the time when Gen. through Deu. are thought to have come into their present form (e.g. see the Documentary Hypothesis). While Astour's identifications of the figures these tablets refer to is certainly open to question, he does cautiously support a link between them and Gen. 14:1. Hammurabi is never known to have campaigned near the Dead Sea at all, although his son had. Writes Astour, "This identification, once widely accepted, was later virtually abandoned, mainly because Hammurabi was never active in the West." The Chedorlaomer Tablets, then, appear to still be the closest archaeological parallel to the kings of the Eastern coalition mentioned in Gen. 14:1. The only problem is, that in all probability, they refer to kings that were from widely separated times, having conquered Babylon in different eras. Linguistically, it seems, there is little reason to reject the identification of Hammurabi with Amraphel, but the narrative does not make sense in light of modern archeology when it is made. A number of scholars also say that the connection does not make sense on chronological grounds, since it would place Abram later than the traditional date, but on this, see the section on chronology below."

209.212.5.190 (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)someguy

abraham- why is there so many, "'they' sometimes say" who is 'they'

THE way that the people who wrote the passage about abraham need to seriously contemplate on the religious people who may read it to check the accuracy. Now i'm not saying your passage is irriliable, but i am only saying that some catholics might be offended by you addressing them as 'they'. Maybe you should make a catholic version of your passage directly for catholics so no one is offended.

THANK YOU!!!

-a catholic student(no one can know my name)sorry130.13.67.82 (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Abraham and the Trinity

There ought to be a small section dedicated to the links between abrahamism and trinitarianism. This is because many defenders of the Trinity will quote Genesis 18, at the tent revelation scene, to justify the belief in Trinity, where Abraham meets three angels. This is in part why christians give a high value to Abraham as patriarch of their faith. 69.157.229.153 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've created a small section, though I put it in Trinity rather than this article; I think it fits better there. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability of the language

I'm curious how we assign a language to the story of Abraham given some parts are written by J and E in Akkadian before Hebrew is a language, the part about the covenants come from D who lives in a different place at a different time and writes in Phoenician and then all that is overlain by the P the Priestly source and R the redactor adding what amounts to a Hebrew gloss at a much later date?

Not really sure how one would do that. This article is clearly written from the perspective of the Bible as being true. There would be no way to include the Documentary Hypothesis here and I am not sure it makes sense. This article essentially covers what the Bible says, as if it is an historical document. The analyses seem to be based on religious commentators. I think if we add the academic/non-religious thinking, we will just turn it into a battleground. This article has enough vandalism already.Sposer (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Historical Rama and Abraham

(cf. also: Talk:Abrahamic_religions#Asserted_Islamic_Origin_of_the_Term). The text says the historical Rama lived c. 1950 BCE. The Egyptian Exodus² was c. 1250. The Egyptian capitivity is supposed to have been 400 years and began with Joseph. Joseph (Hebrew Bible) was the son of jacob who was born to Issac when he was 60 who according to the bible was born the son of Abraham when the latter was 100. The texts say that Jacob was an old man when Joseph was born, say 60 so that gives" 60+60+100+400 = 620 before Exodus or roughly 1875 BC. Allowing the time scale for the diffusion of communications at the beginning of the second millenium BCE, this chronology fits perfectly, the exact opposite of what was asserted by the text I removed. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I took that bit out simply because the source was not a reliable source. If anyone can find the actual article and quote it then it might be used, but as it was, it was secondhand on a fringe website. dougweller (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The original text: A. D. Pusalker, whose essay "Traditional History From the Earliest Times" appeared in The Vedic Age, claims a historical Rama dated to 1950 BCE. So hence this cannot be true, since the historical dating of these scriptures were long before the biblical age.72.228.150.44 (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

---

² Pharaoh of the Exodus gives the range and also reminds one of the connection with Akhenaten as a possible actual source of the monotheism which it's pretty clear by now could not have come from "Abraham".

Gene Matlock is only a reliable source for his own opinions. We'd need a quote from Pusalker and of course enough information about when and where the article was published to verify it. dougweller (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

References Tag

Starting this thread for the tag to find out what is wrong with the current ~30 references, how many are needed and of what kind. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There are about 11 'citation needed' tags, so that's a place to start. If you haven't already, read WP:RS and WP:Verify to see what's required. The sources must directly address the issue. dougweller (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone who gives a shit about this backward crap can. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Different vowels at Wiktionary

אֲבִירָהָם

This is how they have it written here with the transliteration: ʼĂḇîrāhām

Is this accurate? Azalea pomp (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Shall I be bold?

The narrative section is long, unwieldy and contains far too many minor details. I can see roughly how to sort it out, however, so does anyone object if I make some major changes to it? Or would you rather I use my sandbox?--FimusTauri (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Have re-worked the narrative in my sandbox. See User:FimusTauri/Abraham. Comments welcome.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Further to positive comments from PiCo, I have gone ahead and changed the "narrative" section to that from my sandbox. I will be adding inline cites shortly.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

FimusTauri - I had meant to get back to you. Overall, this is quite good. However, the Covenant is a major basis for both Christianity and Judiasm. Failure to cover the Covenant with regard to circumcision and the land, and who was party to the Covenant, is a major shortcoming. You could just add a line or two on it and link to the Covenant main article (i.e., G-d's covenant with Abraham guaranteed the descendants of Ishmael a great nation or something like that, and the land between whatever to the descendants of Jacob (through Isaac, since Jacob wasn't born yet). The commentaries supporting this were in the prior version of the article.Sposer (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I wholly agree with you, but only spotted that I had missed the covenants section "after the fact". I will add them back in shortly (unless you want to do it). I plan to insert a sub-section before "later life" and cover all of the covenants there.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Covenants section added and inline refs added.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Abraham - history, exegetics and archaeology

This is not some kind of confessional encyclopaedia, and the article needs the sections on the issues of textual criticism, traces of Near Eastern culture and folklore retained in the stories and Abraham's possible links to history. Even if you'd find few historians today who would proclaim that Abraham must have been historical or that Amraphel was Hammurabi, those issues - and the debate over Genesis 14 - have mattered massively to our understanding of the patriarch stories, because they forced scholars to grapple with this as oral stories but not as Holy Writ. Take a look at Gerhard von Rad's book on Genesis or Shanks et al, Ancient Israel if you don't believe me. That's why I restored the bulk of the sections on textual criticism and the discussion on Abraham's historicity, removed two weeks ago; without them the whole thing looks as if WP would back claims that Abraham historically lived (to 175 years!) without asking a single rational question about this and without bothering to discern between myth, legend and possible history. Do you read in an encyclopaedia that Agamemnon ruled Argos and that Heracles killed the Hydra as if those were historical facts?

By the way as late as in the 1970s the excvavations at Ebla in Syria ignited fresh sparks into the discussion on Abraham and the kings of Genesis 14. One of the xcavators claimed to have found a cuneiform tablet that mentioned the kings and the battle and included Abraham's name (apparently that Holy Grail tablet was never published, if it even existed) See Chaim Bermant, Ebla, An Archaeological Enigma. (London 1979) - Strausszek (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Dating Abraham

Moving this from my (Dougweller) talk page so others can join in:

Why did you remove my edit per this diffthis diff? I'm rather puzzled by the decision to undo a well-sourced contribution.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Weird, I remember the wording of my edit summary, something about Chambers not being a good source for this and needing sources from Biblical scholars. Especially as it contradicts the Info box, did you notice that (although if you see my User page, I really don't like Info boxes. I think my edit summary -- which clearly didn't work although I always try to use edit summaries when not dealing with blatant vandalism -- also said something about needing some discussion. What I didn't point to and should have is that there is a discussion of the dating, and your dates don't match with that discussion either - so we might have ended up with 3 conflicting statements about dating. I'd be interested in how details the Chambers discussion is about the dating and if it at all matches with the discussion in the article. I guess if Chambers does give some detailed reasons naming names of scholars, it could be used as a source for what they have to say, does it do that? But the article does need to be consistent. Dougweller (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

PI agree that the article needs to be consistent, but what it needs to be consistent with is the sources. I think that if there's genuine controversy about the dating, as in this case, the article should contain a frank discussion of the controversy including well-sourced statements for different mainstream points of view. I certainly feel that removing a sourced statement because it conflicts with other sourced statements is POV (because it promotes one side of the discussion over another).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think Chambers is a reliable source for this specific biography? That does give some reliable scholarly sources, what sources does Chambers use? I don't see this as POV as I don't see the argument as trying to give a specific date or prove historicity. This should be at the talk page of the article, I think I'll move it there now.Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Chambers is a reliable source by virtue of being a long-established and highly reputable tertiary publication. It's essentially a biographical encyclopaedia that's been in print in various repeatedly-revised editions for over a century, printed by the University Press of Cambridge; I'm holding a copy of the fifth (1990) printing of the revised (1984) edition.

Chambers gives as its source: "Study by C. L. Wooley (1936)", which does suggest that it's possible that it's relying on material that's been superseded by subsequent scholarship.

My position is that I think that Chambers may be in error in this case, and it deserves less prominent mention than any more recent study by a secondary scholarly source; but I'm positive that it does deserve at least a one-line mention.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to say that a source can be, like the curate's egg, RS 'in parts'. In this case, I'm still not sure. Certainly if it's used it should be clear that it is referencing Wooley's 1936 study. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"I'm not sure" without reasoning is hard for me to discuss with you. Can you be specific about your objection, please?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's put it another way, why are you 'positive' that Sir Leonard Wooley, an archaeologist who certainly is not making that estimate on archaeological evidence but must be relying on other unnamed sources, should be used as a source? Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Please don't put words into my mouth, I didn't say that at all. I have no idea who C L Wooley is. I'm positive that if Chambers is in error, then the error is itself notable enough to appear in this Wikipedia article. If a notable print source contradicts Wikipedia, then we need to be in a position to explain why we're departing from print sources.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you or didn't say what I wanted to say clearly enough. I guess I also assumed you knew who Wooley was. But I don't think that something that old being in error is relevant, lots of notable people writing that long ago had opinions that have been overturned. I would think that a lot of old notable sources are wrong. More to the point, you are using an old edition of Chambers, the 1997 edition says "Abraham or Abram c.2000-1650BC" [3]. Using a 1968 book though, which isn't exactly up to date. Dougweller (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not too sure why this debate is happening. The simple fact is that there is so much uncertainty surrounding Abraham and subsequent events that there is little point trying to pin him down to specific dates. Wikipedia already has an article which can give a good idea of the dates that Biblical scholarship ascribes him - see Chronology of the Bible #Flood to Babylon. Since there is absolutely no empirical evidence of his existance, Biblical scholarship is the only form we can use.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say that I think Wikipedia does need to give some credence to scholarship other than Biblical scholarship, even in matters quite close to the Biblical scholarship's core interests.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Where relevant, definitely. In this case there is no empirical data we are relying on the Bible. FimusTauri - I guess you realise we aren't discussing specific dates, just a range which differs from the other range and in the first case was from an archaeologist who would have been basing his range on the work of other people. S Marshall, do you agree that at least if we did use Chambers we would need to use the latest edition? But I don't think we should because, as I've said but in very different words, it is a tertiary source - normally we use secondary sources. Take a look at WP:PSTS. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I certainly agree that a later edition is preferable to an earlier one. (I didn't realise Chambers was available online, so I'm glad you found that, and thank you!)

I think that where Wikipedia disagrees with a reliable source, most people will assume that Wikipedia is wrong and the reliable source is correct. So I think that where Wikipedia does disagree with a reliable source for good reasons, as in this case, it's appropriate to explain why.

Equally, I don't think Chambers' error (?) should be given a lengthy treatment in this article; it should receive weight in proportion to its importance.

How would we feel about saying, for example: "Some sources give different date ranges for Abraham (reference: footnote about Chambers) but these have been discounted because (reason)"?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Historicity

Sentences like "He is widely regarded as the patriarch of Jews and Arabs and the founder of monotheism." make it seem like there is actual proof he existed rather than just what's in the bible and Koran, in fact a lot of the article seems to be written as though he factually existed. Feyre (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Of course that's the traditional view common to many Christians, Jews and Muslims, and it matters to modern ecumenical theology and efforts of interreligious understanding too (the Vatican II document on non-Christian religions invokes Abraham and recognizes that he's seen as an important prophet in Islam too) but the text ought to make an effort to discern between 1)Abraham as he is portrayed in Genesis, 2)in later religious traditions - Jewish, Christian and Muslim, 3)in theologies and 4)the treatment of Abraham and the stories about him by modern archaeology, Torah criticism since Wellhausen, exegetics and anthropology.Strausszek (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

ABRAHAM

IN A PHILOSOPHY CLASS ABRAHAM IS ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF PHILOSOPHY BEFORE THE PRESOCRATICS AND OTHER IM PORTANT FIGURES ALIKE FROM ALL OVER THE KNOWN WORLD. HOW IS IT THOUGH HIS NAME IS PRESENTED IN ALL THREE MAJOR RELIGIONS. I THINK HE TRAVELED ALOT AND VISITED MANY PLACES BEFORE HIS DEATH AND AT THE SAME TIME IMPACTED THE WRITERS OF THESE RELIGIONS THAT AFTER TIME FOUGHT EACH OTHER IN THE NAME OF THEIR GOD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.2.41 (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ishmael's descendants settled from "Havilah to Assyria"?? Yet another Wikipedia distortion

These distortions are becoming pretty commonplace. Fortunately, the original sources do exist, so that Wikipedia and its distortions do not have the final word.

Going back to the Biblical text in Genesis 25:18, concerning Ishmael's offspring:

"And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria: over against all his brethren he did settle".

It is the same region which is described in in I Samuel 15 as being the territory of the Amelekites, which were neighbors to the Israelites.

These areas represent the Negev and Syrian deserts, NOT the Arabian peninsula proper.

Furthermore, the Biblical text refer to Hagar and Ishmael wandering in area of Beersheba and settling in the wilderness of Paran. These locations are associated with Negev region, not the Hejaz or the Arabian peninsula.

Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is wholly without merit to assign Abraham into categories relating to Iraq.

Once again, let it be stated clearly, the Biblical text relates - clearly and repeatedly - that the origins of Abraham, his family, and the Hebrews are to be found in 'Aram Naharaim' - upper Mesopotamia, which is today in southeastern Turkey and northeastern Syria, i.e. the historic 'Jazirah' region (indeed, during the classical period, only upper Mesopamia was called 'Mesopotamia', while the South was referred to as Babylonia).

Aram Naharaim is clearly distinguished in the Bible from the regions that are associated with what is today Iraq. Babylonia, i.e. Babel, Akkad, Erech (Uruk), etc. are referred to as the 'plain of Shin'ar' (Sumer). The Assyrian districts centered around Niniveh are referred to as Asshur. None of these areas are associated with the Hebrew pre-Israelitic patrimony , which is always connected with Aram Naharaim.

Some confusion appears to have arisen in the early 20th century, (during the period of extension of British colonial interests into the Middle East), when the British archeologist Leonard Woolley identified the Sumerian port city - properly called Urim - located on the mouth of the Euphrates and the ancient coastal line of the Persian Gulf - as the Biblical 'Ur of the Chaldees' (Ur Kasdim). This identification was followed by many, but is without any clear foundation. No cuneiform tablets referring to Sumero-Accadian 'Ur' ever refer to it as being 'of the Chaldeans'. The 'Kasdim' (Chaldeans) came from outside Babylonia, and are not known to have settled in Babylonia until the 8th century b.c, more than a millenium after Abraham was supposed to have existed. Accordingly, the Kasdim are never mentioned as a tribe in the Torah itself (the first 5 books of the Bible), and don't appear until the later books of the Bible. Only as part of the town name 'Ur Kasdim' does the word 'Kasdim' ever appear in the Torah.

The only clue in the Torah as to the origin of the 'Kasdim' is found in Genesis 22. Kasdim is a gentilic plural form, connected to Kesed (i.e. the people of Kesed). Kesed is a nephew of Abraham. Kesed and Aram are both descended from Nahor, Abraham's brother, and living IN THE VICINITY OF HARAN, in Aram Naharaim. This area is today in southeastern Turkey, near the border with Syria.

The Biblical interpretation is sensibile, as Chaldeans are in general commonly described as being Northwest Semites, either an offshoot of the Aramaeans or closely related to them in origin.

Some have sought to explain the anachronism by stating that the term 'Kasdim' was inserted into the Genesis text as a suffix to 'Ur' only after the destruction of the 1st Temple, during the Exilic period, when the Chaldean dynasty was in charge of Babylon. However, even according to the much-touted 'Documentary Hypothesis', at least one of the references to 'Ur Kasdim' is associated with the 'oldest' portions of the Torah that long predate the destruction of the Temple, and there is nothing in the later books of the Bible that would indicate the Jews were returning to the 'land of their fathers' when they were exiled to Babylonia. On the contrary, it is portrayed as the archetypical strange foreign country.

There is also a strong linguistic argument against this theory. None of the Akkadian cuneiform inscriptions ever refer to the Chaldeans as 'Kasdi', as they are in Hebrew, but always by the name KALDI or KALDU. The Kaldi start to appear in Akkadian inscriptions starting from the 8th century b.c., and had the Hebrew term been added at a late date, it would have followed the Akkadian form, and the Chaldeans would have been called 'Kaldim'.

Eerdman's 'Dictionary of the Bible' states that if there were an earlier Akkadian form *Kasdu, the Hebrew s would represent the Akkadian s PRIOR to the assimilation of s to l before d, as commonly occurs in LATER Akkadian. However, this postulated form *Kasdu remains unattested in cuneiform texts.

This indicates that the Hebrew form 'Kasdim' is indeed significantly more ancient than the Exilic period, and predates the entry of the Chaldeans into Babylonia.

Returning back to Abraham, it should be further added that Genesis 11:31 has Abraham (along with wife Sarah, nephew Lot, and father Terah) leaving Ur Kasdim IN THE DIRECTION of Canaan, and stopping in Haran on that route. Terah died in Haran. In Genesis 12 Abraham, still in Haran, receives the command from God to leave "artzekha" (your country), "moladetekha" (your nativity; this clearly refers to a place, as he took his 'kindred' with him to Canaan), and "beit avikha" (your father's house) - to the land that I will show thee.

Also in Genesis 12, regarding the direction of Abraham's travels toward Canaan, the text says

"And Abram journeyed, going on still toward the South."

From these statements there is no merit to the suggestion that Abraham started his journey far to southeast, then went far to the northwest (way off the historic trade routes between Babylonia and Canaan), before veering southwest to Canaan. there is also no merit to the suggestion that Ur Kasdim was any great distance from Haran, since it is only in departing from Haran that Abraham takes that historic leap of leaving his homeland.

In Genesis 24, Abraham, in Canaan, instructs his servant Eliezer to bring back a wife for his son Isaac from "Eretz Moladeti" (the land of my nativity). And Eliezer subsequently travels to Aram Naharaim to the city of Nahor (in the area of Haran) for this very purpose.

This theme comes up again and again throughout Genesis. When it is time to find a wife for Jacob, Isaac's son, he is sent from Canaan to the same place in Aram Naharaim to take a wife from among his own kindred, just like Isaac did.

In fact the patrimony of the Hebrews/Israelites is summed up beautifully in Deuteronomy 26:

"And thou shalt speak and say before the LORD thy God: 'A wandering Aramean was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there, few in number; and he became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous. And the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and afflicted us, and laid upon us hard bondage. And we cried unto the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice, and saw our affliction, and our toil, and our oppression. And the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders. And He hath brought us into this place, and hath given us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey."

Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Abraham

Abraham only had one wife which was Sarah. He never married Hagar he just had a child with her but then left. When Abraham married Sarah they didnt have any kids for a very long time. But when they were really old they really wanted kids, and when god realized that he gave Sarah a child. And from there Sarah had 5 more children. And thats the real story:] written by: Alexandra Selvaggio

That's the story as related by the Jewish and Christian traditions. Islamic tradition states otherwise. To claim that yours is the "real" story is specious at best. There are two competing claims from two equally unverifiable religious sources, neither of which can make a greater claim at more accurate historicity without another corroborative source. 68.196.19.147 (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

his father

Here it is said that the name of his father was Azar: *Sura VI. An'am, or Cattle see 74 Lo! Abraham said to his father Azar: "Takest thou idols for gods? For I see thee and thy people in manifest error."

Here is some discussion on the subject, http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-207552.0.html

-- 88.75.91.59 (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That link shows up as being unreliable - in the sense of spreading viruses. PiCo (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

see Islamic view of Abraham good work, detailed,

Austerlitz -- 88.75.91.59 (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The name in Arabic

Why does "Abraham" is written in the lead in Arabic as well?--Gilisa (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of "to know"

There was a revert to say that some men wanted "to know" some women, on the grounds that this is what the original text says. The original text is in Hebrew, some people seem to think the King James Version is the original Bible. Use of "know" as a term for sex is an archaism which not all English speakers are familiar with, it is better avoided even in articles about Biblical issues in my view, unless we are specifically referring to the KJV. PatGallacher (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Hebrew word "yadda" means "to know," which is why it was translated as "to know" in some translations and it is where the phrase "to know in the Biblical sense" comes from. It is not just a KJV issue, but it is a Hebrew issue. Also the revert was about the men of Sodom wanting to know angels visiting Abraham, and since that society was far more patriarchial than ours, that the angels were paid attention to at all probably means they were men, hence the modern assumption that Sodom was full of homosexuals. The men of Sodom's refusal of Lot's daughters may either be evidence for this OR that sex was not their intention (especially considering that nowhere else was sex mentioned in relation to Sodom in the Bible). Since it is not Wikipedia's job to say what the "correct" theological position is, presenting readers with what the original text says and letting them draw their own conclusions would be a better idea. To accomodate those who are unfamiliar with the rather traditional euphemistic use of "to know," we could put in a note saying "(traditionally interpreted as a euphemism "to have sex with.")" Ian.thomson (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

From the footnotes of the Net Bible [4] regarding Genesis 19:5 tn The Hebrew verb יָדַע (yada’, “to know”) is used here in the sense of “to lie with” or “to have sex with” (as in Gen 4:1). That this is indeed the meaning is clear from Lot’s warning that they not do so wickedly, and his willingness to give them his daughters instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.204.38 (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Real historical figure?

I would like to see a short and succinct statement in the lead section explaining to what extent Abraham is viewed as a real historical figure and to what extent a myth. This seems like a crucial piece of information that should be stated up front. Given my complete ignorance of the topic it's not something I'd like to attempt, but maybe someone else could have a go. 86.134.30.157 (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC).

My understanding is that the experts, unless driven one way or the other by a particular agenda, will shrug their shoulders when asked if Abraham was a historical or mythic individual. It's a pretty even split between historical figure, mythic figure, and historical figure about whom myths were created. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I added a sentence to the lead to that effect. Please feel free to amend it as necessary. 81.129.130.64 (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC).

I noticed that this ADD ON is left in place because it calls into question Biblical facts. Now if I had added that "Most REAL Biblical Scholars believe that he was a real person" iy would have been deleted as "Just My Opinion" funny how anything that is against the Bible is FACT on WAKOPEDIA but anything that is Biblically Correct is "Personal Opinion" A great example of this One Sided Bigotry is this statement by one of the EGO DICTATORS of Wakopedia " Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Ur and 2 other articles, you will be blocked from editing. You've said this is your own website, so that issue is moot. Dougweller (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)" I guess when a Christian promotes Truth it is Spam but when a anti-christ does it it is "Trying to Educate" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.221.124 (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't contradict the stories contained in the Bible, and before you fuss about the word stories, just because something is a story does NOT make it false, a story can be true. The issue was whether or not Abraham was a historical figure, which historians cannot absolutely prove with the Biblical stories about him anymore than the story, just as they cannot use stories about King Arthur to prove that he existed. As for "the REAL Biblical scholars" being opinion, your belief that they are the real ones comes from them agreeing with your belief rather than them examining the historical data from a detached non-biased view and coming to their own conclusions. I do believe that Abraham was a historical individual, but that is not the same as having documentation from his era (not after) concerning his existance. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This is like the scholar's thesis proving the Iliad wasn't written by Homer, but by another Greek with the same name. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's more like Odysseus may or may not have been a historical being, but Homer likely made up a bunch of stuff about him, copied stuff that was just made up about him; but that this does not mean that Odysseus was a made up individual, and what degree to which Homer used fantasy when writing about Odysseus is largely a matter of individual belief. 13:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Abraham's birth certificate is on file in Hawaii; maybe Odysseus wrote the Iliad, using "Homer" as his pen name. Seriously, you've expressed well a middle ground between people who want to say Abraham was made up like Paul Bunyan, and people who want to say he was real as George Washington. But it seems like nothing can be said about Abraham's status as a historical being except obvious truisms. If we're just going to say it was all a long time ago and we don't really know, we might do better to say nothing at all. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia details what is known, which includes when we know that we don't know all that much. What does Odysseus writing the Iliad have to do with this? I gathered a bunch of articles from different journals concerning the historicity of Genesis, Abraham, etc, and I will be going through them (and some articles on Krampus, and Ramakrishna) when I have time (while celebrating Christmas with the family, and trying to relax inbetween writing too many papers). Happy holidays, Ian.thomson (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sarah was Abraham's half-sister

Footnote #8 should be removed. That footnote says: "8 ^ It is usually assumed that Sarai/Sarah was Abram's half-sister, but this is not stated in Genesis." This is a lie. Here is Genesis 20, "Sarah Rescued from Abimelech", Abraham doing the talking:

Gen 20:12 Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife.

This can be verified by googling "genesis 20:12" and looking at the first 3 results:

http://bible.cc/genesis/20-12.htm

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+20%3A12&version=KJV

http://scripturetext.com/genesis/20-12.htm

--Diagoras of melos (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• "lie" is a strong word. It implies that someone has deliberately set out to deceive. Unless there's evidence of that, it would be better to call it an "error" or "mistake". 03:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.240.156 (talk)

It does say it in the Bible, but if I recall he was was trying to save both of them by allowing Sara to sleep with Abimelech. You can't just take the sentence out of context you have to look at the whole story.JCOLE131 (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say that she wasn't his sister at any point, so that is speculation that he was just lying again since he did at some point say "he's my half-sister" and wasn't contradicted by any other part of the story. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

All interpretations that I have ever seen uncategorically state that Abraham lied both times and that Sarah was not related to him. That said, remember that the Torah was not yet given to the Jews, so the laws we have now were not relevant them. Sages assume that the laws were revealed to Abraham by G-d, but they were not binding and that except for certain exceptions, it was reasonable to follow current customs. However, there is no reason to include Sarah as his sister in any way, shape or form, unless you can show a preponderance of interpretation suggesting that to be the case.Sposer (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia only shows what is written, it does not interpret. The Bible only says she was his sister. If you can provide a source for the interpretation that Abraham lied both times, we can put "These theologians say he was lying." Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Not if it is taken out of context. In Genesis 12, the lie is discussed. Why should the same lie be taken as true when it is written again later on? Here is Gen 12:10 and on:

10 Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to live there for a while because the famine was severe. 11 As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, "I know what a beautiful woman you are. 12 When the Egyptians see you, they will say, 'This is his wife.' Then they will kill me but will let you live. 13 Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you."

14 When Abram came to Egypt, the Egyptians saw that she was a very beautiful woman. 15 And when Pharaoh's officials saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh, and she was taken into his palace. 16 He treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, menservants and maidservants, and camels.

17 But the LORD inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram's wife Sarai. 18 So Pharaoh summoned Abram. "What have you done to me?" he said. "Why didn't you tell me she was your wife? 19 Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her to be my wife? Now then, here is your wife. Take her and go!" 20 Then Pharaoh gave orders about Abram to his men, and they sent him on his way, with his wife and everything he had. Sposer (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

But that doesn't actually contradict the earlier statement that she was his sister. Look, I personally agree that he was lying, but we can only go with what is written, Wikipedia does not interpret. We can bring in sources pointing out others interpreting it as Abraham and Sarah lying. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but that sounds like an interpolation to suggest that what he is asking her to do isn't a lie. Don't have time now, but I did a quick search and found several commentaries on this. Heck, it is in the notes in my Bible.Sposer (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(UNINDENT)The article as it stands now is fine, since it talks about the fact that the Sarah as Abraham's sister is a lie. I assume there are valid sources in that part of the article. Although not appropriate for the article, I was reading "Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls" by Schiffman, where he is discussing some of the interpretive scrolls from Qumran. One refers exactly to this, where the Dead Sea Sect adds to the Biblical story to explain the Sarah as his sister lie. Schiffman then comments (pg. 218): "To answer the question of why Abraham would suddenly ask his wife to lie about their relationship, the text explains that he did it to save his life." Elsewhere in his book he also discusses why Abraham lied that Sarah was his sister. So, this particular Biblical scholar is clearly using the standard interpretation that the fact that she was his sister is nothing but a lie. Based on this, it is clear that to suggest that Sarah is his sister requires real and substantial justification and sourcing, since the common interpretation is clear that she is 100% not his sister. Further, the Wiki standard is to NOT use the Bible itself as a source, but rather secondary sources, probably for exactly this kind of situation.Sposer (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I know this is now a dead thread, but the question is interesting: what was Sarah's relationship to Abraham? Gen 20:12 "Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not the daughter of my mother,... So here he's saying Sarah is Terah's daughter. But Gen 11:27-31 says that Terah took "Sarai his daughter in law, the wife of Abram his son..." when he left Ur. Not Sarai his daughter, the wife of his son Abram, just his daughter in law, of unidentified parentage. That verse, for what it's worth, is fro the Priestly source, while Gen 20 is from the Yahwist - perhaps they had different ideas about this, although I should stress that the old-fashioned documentary hypothesis has been just about dropped these days. But does it really matter?PiCo (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, that is awesome. It has to matter; well, in my humble opinion!

However, are you sure you didn't mean that Gen 20 is by the Elohist, as per [5] and [6]? SamEV (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, it's the Elohist. I was using Friedman's "Bible With Sources Revealed," and even he says Elohist. And if you feel it matters, then of course it does :) PiCo (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood "But does it really matter?". I think the discrepancy you pointed out matters. But if you were referring to the current attitude towards the DH: I don't think that attitude matters, because either way there's a discrepancy to explain.

In general, I feel that the DH actually helps the argument that the Bible is a sincere work, so that the discrepancies can be explained as due to multiple authorship. Remove the DH, so that the Torah/Pentateuch is the work of Moses (or any other single author, for that matter), and the discrepancies become harder to explain. In some cases they're so serious you'd have to wonder if the single author deliberately lied. Unthinkable for believers! SamEV (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

When I said "does it really matter," I meant that I'm not terribly concerned about the question - it's plot, when what matters is content. Those readers who believe the bible is history are going to have problems with inconsistencies in the text - they need to reconcile them in order to keep to the text-as-history reading. Those who don't wont - they can happily accept them as the result of an editorial process.

If you're interested in this article, would you like to try to improve it? It's pretty poor, in my opinion. It certainly needs to begin with a summary of Abraham's story, since the bible presents it as a narrative, and I think the current summary is a bit too long. The problem might be deciding what needs to go in - there are several covenants, for example, are they all needed? and all the examples of wife-as-sister? I'd say not - to go that way would just make the thing unwieldy; the fact that there's repetition and contradiction (and outright impossibility - biblical ages in Genesis are a bit eyebrow-raising) can be brought up in another section. And the historicity section is obsessed with chapter 14. Anyway, if you've no other plans for your spare time...:) PiCo (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(Just an afterword, since you seem, like me, to like the stranger byways of biblical study: Have a lok at the narrative that results if you take only the Yahwist from Gen.11 to Gen.12. You lose all the genealogies and get a narrative that starts with the building of the tower of Babel, then the Tower is destroyed, then the statement that Yahweh scatters the people, and then immediately after that Yahweh tells Abraham to "go to the land that I'll show you," the land of Canaan. In other words, Abraham's journey starts at the Tower of Babel. Odd. PiCo (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

"would you like to try to improve it?"

I've actually been hoping to cut down on my Wikipedia-ing, but I'll give it a shot. You seem to be suggesting I work with what's already there, which is exactly my editing style.

Could you tell me about the editing environment at this article—how collegial or contentious it is?

I'll start in a day or two. I work slowly, btw, so it could easily be two weeks before I'm done (and that's if nothing unforseen happens). Of course, if anyone beats me to the punch, that would be excellent. :)

Re: J in Gen 11-12, according to the DH some of the source material was left out in redaction, which may have happened to the missing J content about Abram there. I remind you, for example, that we don't encounter E content until ch. 20. That means that E's version of all those earlier events (Creation, Cain and Abel, The Flood, etc) was left out. SamEV (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"biblical ages in Genesis are a bit eyebrow-raising"

Apropos of which, there's the fact that in Gen 21 E seems blissfully unaware of the chronology established in the earlier chapters, whereby Ishmael would have been 16 or 17 years old when Hagar and he were exiled: E seems to portray him as a young child. That issue is not so far even hinted at in this article, nor in Ishmael, nor in Hagar (Bible). What do you think? SamEV (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the editing atmosphere here is like - I haven't been editing this article. But I imagine it might be antagonistic, Abraham is the sort of chap who attracts strong feelings. Also to bear in mind is that nothing you write in Wikipedia will last - you write, someone comes by an hour later or a year later and it's gone. For which reason Wikipedia is now and forever will be something to be done for fun, not something to put your heart and soul into.

Re E beginning at ch.20: Well, maybe it was left out, but only if you accept the proposition that E was ever an independent document. I gather the common view today is that the documents never existed as such, and that J is an editorial school (Van Seters would disagree about the editor bit).

On Ishamel and Hagar: Hagar is described as carrying Ishmael on her shoulder when she leaves Abraham. This is how it's done in the Middle East, of course - carry the baby straddled across your shoulder with a leg on either side. Since Ishmael has been circumcised, he must be over 13. Hagar was a strong lass :) I guess things like that could go in the Historicity section, but I'm not sure such a section is needed. Maybe a Composition section that could cover date and means of composition? PiCo (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not new, PiCo, not even at this article. It's just that I don't edit it very much. Usually I just undo edits that are clearly unhelpful or vandalistic; and I rarely visit this talk page.

In conversation, I make little effort to distinguish between the hypotheses of J as an individual and J as a school, and the same goes for the other sources. So when I say "J", I mean "the J author or authors". I treat the DH in similar fashion: the DH is a multiple authorship hypothesis, and I use "DH" mostly in that sense, not in any strict reference to the Wellhausen hypothesis or its derivatives. You know what else? I'm openminded on the single vs multiple authorship/editing controversy. But I find the multiple authorship hypotheses very intriguing.

Ishmael was born when Abram was 86 (Gen 16:16), Isaac when Abraham was 100 (21:5) and Ishmael therefore 14, and Hagar's and Ishmael's exile came after Isaac's weaning, which tends to happen around age 2 or 3, when Ishmael would have been 16 or 17. Here's one of the internet searches I did about that: [7] At this point I think the controversy should best be addressed be in the Ishmael article, and probably Hagar's, too, so I won't argue either for or against including it here. SamEV (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem to belong to Ishmael/Hagar rather than Abraham. Incidentally, I just came across this interesting article about mythic dimensions to the story. PiCo (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's probably deeper than I want to delve into that, but it's likely I'll check it out one of these days.

Just thought I should tell you I'm taking care of some prior Wiki-commitments and will be able to turn my attention here by around mid-day tomorrow.

I hope you're having a nice weekend. SamEV (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, I've just asked Johncoz to tell me when he's done for now, as I'd rather begin then.

Also, please keep your expectations low regarding my edits! I should say, "my potential edits": it's possible that I'll find nothing important to change. SamEV (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC) — P.S. Don't worry about me: I'm not afraid of a hornet's nest! :) Oh the egos... SamEV (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, I know you complained that there was excessive coverage of the wife-as-sister episodes and the covenants. But I found that in one case each the small treatment they received needed to be expanded by another sentence or two. Right now I'm only copyediting the article. That allows me to peruse it and completely know its contents and organization before I attempt any more important changes. SamEV (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC) (And sorry for the delay. Something unforeseen did happen. :( SamEV (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

I'd like to see the Summary section (or whatever it's called) take a slightly different tack, and just summarise what the story in Genesis says - that would mean putting the wife/sister story twice, but would also mean not explaining/commenting on things such as these at that point. They should still be commented, of course, but in a later section. PiCo (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean the lead? SamEV (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the section that summarises the bible's story of Abraham. Which is mostly Genesis - but Abraham is mentioned occasionally elsewhere, I think. Would be worth mentioning where else, if anyone cold track it down. PiCo (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The section ("Genesis narrative") presents a pretty much straightforward summary of the narrative. But commentary is found most notably in the "Covenants" subsection, and in the subsections titled "Pharaoh and Abimelech", "Binding of Isaac" ("After this event, Abraham did not return to Hebron, Sarah's encampment, but instead went to Beersheba, Keturah's encampment"...) and "Later years" ("Abraham, being reminded by this occurrence, probably, of his own great age"...; "Eliezer went on his commission with prudence"; "Jewish legend says that he was meant to live to 180 years, but God purposely took his life"...). I'd prefer you showed the way and took the first go at it, because I think you have a better idea of how to collect and present that commentary.

Yeah, Abe is mentioned elsewhere than in Genesis. I'll write a little about that next time. SamEV (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV & doesn't contain all significant viewpoints tag

Even with the sentence that was added this article strongly suggests that Abraham was a real person without any discussion suggesting that he wasn't. Either the article has a serious problem or there is no serious discussion in the academic world regarding his historicity -- which is obviously not the case - and looking at the article while writing this I can see that although the 'historicity and dating' section should be about, well, historicity and dating, the paragraph above it covers those aspects of the article. I'll fix this but it needs a more work if it is reflect current scholarship. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two ways to handle this page and everything in the Koran, Bible and New Testament articles. (1) Start the articles off saying "According to the Bible..." and then just briefly state that Academic Scholarship finds little evidence of any of the stories in any of the religious doctrines and link to those articles. (2) The way Dougweller is going, which although equally correct will lead to all sorts of reverts and fights between antagonistic atheists who think they are somehow being prejudiced against by an article discussing what people believe, and equally fanatic religious types who believe by giving any time at all to academic study will lead G-d to come down and destroy the world. For that reason only, I prefer choice (1). That said, the article is fairly well on its way to choice (2), and with a modicum of work, it could be done. Find a source or two that describes a couple of the issues regarding whether Abraham existing (seems like they are here already, but feel free to add some more) and then link to an article that covers this (or the Biblical academic scholarship) in detail. However, this is not an NPOV issue. It is only an NPOV issue if you are trying to incite a riot. There is already a tag saying that some viewpoints are not discussed (although I think they are). Therefore, I am removing the NPOV tag.Sposer (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this clear. WP:NPOV,l which is policy, not just guideline, says (in the nutshell) " Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." You are saying that this article represents all significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias? Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that it questions whether or not Abraham really existed, yes. It could do a better job of it, but to prevent a battleground, where there really is not one, I do not see a reason for an NPOV tag. Incomplete is more like it. 100% neutral, to be honest, would be to say, "According to the Bible, Abraham is... The Koran further states, or in contrast states..." Next paragraph, would summarize the academic viewpoint, which depending on the camp is still highly contentious. Then, the article would focus on the Biblical Abraham, since that is the only Abraham we know. You could conclude with a section on inconsistencies in the Abraham story, etc. But, I think the article is neutral now, and could just be improved. That said, I am not going to make it a battleground myself, and am not an expert in this, so I will not fight. If you feel strongly about NPOV, I won't revert again, but I would rather others chime in. In my mind, putting the NPOV is non-neutral itself, since the skeleton for what should be there is there, and you could argue, using my preferred framework, that the article is 100% non-biased and complete as is, by merely adding a link to the artciles dicussing the historicity of the Bible, the New Testament and the Koran. I have seen other encyclopedic articles that take a similar stance (cover who Abraham was according to scripture and state that there is academic disagreement as to whether or not he lived, and if he did, when.Sposer (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That structure might actually be a good idea. I'll have to think about it. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Have added refs to two very influential books that have questioned the historicity of Abraham. This is essential since the article as it stood clearly violated NPOV. The section dealing with historicity could do with a rework to reflect modern scholarship as well. For the moment I've simply added a citation to The Bible Unearthed to replace the fact tag. Johncoz (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me a good analogue for this article is that on the Trojan War. The lead mentions briefly the issue of historicity, but most of the body relates and explains what The Illiad says, though this is 95% mythic poetry. The article then concludes with some more detailed observations about the relationship of these stories to actual history as per current scholarship. This is what I've attempted in the edits I've made in this article. Now Genesis suffers from a rather more chronic lack of extra-textual evidence, but that does not in principle change anything in our approach. Johncoz (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete References section

None of these are references, ie they are not full citations to works in the Notes. "Further reading" is the appropriate heading. However, a number are unacceptably incomplete citations, and many are are very old, while the relevance of others (eg Mormon bible dictionary) are questionable, given the availability of much more academically respectable sources. The last point raises the issue of balance, since this grab bag has clearly not been assembled by judiciously choosing a representative, quality sample of works related to the topic. Therefore, I intend to delete the section and its contents, unless there are cogent objections. Johncoz (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have renamed Further Reading and removed remaining spurious material, checked the reliability and relevance of what remains, added a couple of important books and properly formatted this section. Further additions should be notable, English and available (at least in a good library), and fully referenced. Johncoz (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work. Just as a curiosity, why is Gunkel's name not in caps, given that all the rest are? PiCo (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks. gunkel=formatting error. fixed :-)Johncoz (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I've been adding books to the Further Reading section of History of Ancient Israel and Judah - you might like to check it out. PiCo (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Covenant text

PiCo, the material you deleted is not totally off-base. The question of the lost tribes is a significant (at least from a historical POV, given the amount of lunacy it has generated). The deleted text starts on a bit of a tangent however by associating them with Ephraim, and then not sourcing this. The actual source is Ezekiel 37:18–23, but this is a bit of a tangent to the main issue, which is for the purpose of this article how Yahweh fulfilled his promise to Abraham to make him the father of nations. I might have a go at reconstructing this when I get a moment. (disclaimer: I'm no kind of expert in biblical mythology) Johncoz (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This is what I deleted (the part in bold text only):

• Abraham makes a sacrifice and enters into a covenant, with God declaring: "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites." This covenant refers to Abraham's descendants through his son Isaac. The Abrahamic covenant of Isaac did not pass to all the descendants of Isaac, however. From Isaac the Covenant passed successively to Jacob 27, Joseph 48:3–4, and Ephraim 48:17–19, so that while it was prophesied that the Messiah would come from Jacob's son Judah—i.e. the Jewish people—the birthright of many nations remained with Joseph's son Ephraim. 5:1–2 However the Ephraimites were defeated by the Assyrians in 722 BCE and scattered across the Assyrian Empire, so that their modern-day identity has been lost. Many groups have attempted to claim this identity; however, most of these groups are in America, Britain and Australia, locations which do not correspond to those specified in the Abrahamic Covenant. (See British Israelism.)

This is definitely a synthesis - the author has taken verses fro all over and drawn a conclusion, when he should be quoting a source. I think the covenants section needs to be re-written, but based on a scholarly source. PiCo (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your diagnosis and deletion. I was just floating the idea of trying to do something sensible with the same topic. Johncoz (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So you're concentrating on how the promise of "father of many nations" (or however it's phrased) is fulfilled? Fair enough, though I recall there were 3 parts to the promise - Abraham would become a father of many nations, a blessing to nations, and would possess the land (promises of land, descendants and blessings). I think Noth wrote about this, and no doubt many others since. I'll see what I can find. PiCo (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Table

Lemmiwinks is adding similar tables to numerous articles. I find it ugly and confusing and in some cases overpowering. I haven't looked in detail at this one, but there is OR in the Book of Judges one. Even without it though I think this is a bad idea. Dougweller (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Tables are a necessary evil for the efficient presentation of hard data. Particularly inappropriate in this case, where we have a series of redacted pericopes of unknown origin, whose meaning and purpose are not at all reducible to a linear set of "events" which almost certainly never happened in the first place. Johncoz (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Islamic view of Covenants

Please stop reverting long-standing items without RS. I looked to find anything published from the Islamic perspective. All articles I found discussed that the covenant regarding a great nation and circumcision are with Ishmael AND Isaac. The only mention I found of land, said the Covenant was with the Hebrews, although it stated that their interpretation was that the land was in Kashmir, and not Israel. That would fit with some Hindu views of Abraham apparently. However the author clearly interprets the land covenant of being for the Hebrews only. Here is the page: http://aaiil.org/text/books/others/khwajanazirahmad/jesusinheavenonearth/ch18landpromise.shtml. I cannot find anything else that references the land portion. However, the Bible itself clearly states that the land only goes to the children of Isaac. Sposer (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No your wrong or then why do Millions of Muslims visit the cave of patriarchs in the Land of Israel? Research? Prophet Mohammed clearly says and for CRYING OUT LOUD DOESNT THE STORY OF MOSES IN THE QURAN PROVE THAT THE ISRAELITES LEFT EGYPT AND LEFT TO A NEARBY LAND ! and Prophet Mohammed clearly said he went to Jerusalem on the Isra night and met the prophets ...is Jerusalem in Kashmir .. I suggest u read Islamic hadiths and traditions as well as ask Muslims why is Jerusalem holy for them ;) .... Kashmir has nothing to do with the promised land All I know is that it's one of the places that the Israelites lived in when they went to exile ..

Its common sense for crying out loud I cant believe you think Egypt borders Kashmir .. you own a map sir?82.194.62.20 (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fringe theory (Abraham/Brahma)

An anon user is attempting to add what looks like a pretty unlikely fringe theory, that Abraham's name is connected with the Hindu name Brahma. It is also unsourced. Do people accept that I am right to remove this? It would help if this person made some attempt to discuss the issue here. PatGallacher (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. There's no basis for it whatsoever. What this guy is doing is like claiming that Mesha the Moabite invented mesh. It's a coincidence of phonetic similarity. And frankly, even if there were sources which agreed with him (there aren't any), his failure to post any renders his additions inappropriate. -Lisa (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a fair number of Hindu fundamentalist claim a connection between Abraham and Brahma, but I haven't seen anything in secondary sources. The mention of Voltaire is the first scholar I've heard of that even considered the idea. I've also seen the claim made the other way around by some Christian and Muslim fundamentalists (but no Jewish ones, oddly enough). I think it's fair to remove this as long as the flip side of the fringe theory isn't included in the Brahma page and no secondary sources are found. Nothing major has come from either side of the theory (noone's been killed over it, no new religions have developed from it, Voltaire isn't famous for advocating it), but if enough academic secondary sources could be found it might be interesting addition (although the folks that believe either side of the theory would probably be unhappy with the results, but oh well). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is some allusion to this at http://personalpages.tds.net/~theseeker/Abraham.htm, but it seems to be POV as well. Wanyonyi (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Shame on all of the above individuals for promoting and/or condoning censorship as well as Western academic bias on wikipedia. Any of you could have (and should have) left this information in the article and simply prefaced it as a theory not popular among Western scholars (obviously due to the fact that a vast majority of Western scholars are Christians. And more importantly, they don't want their Scriptures connected with "myths", nor religions more ancient than their own.) But instead, you collectively decide to label it a "fringe theory" and then completely remove it! Why the need for censorship?!? Can't wikipedia articles feature multiple POV's?!? As for your claim that you cannot find any sources to support this theory, it seems this simply reflects your laziness and/or unfamiliarity with Google. And as for the "coincidence of phonetic similarity", are you really ignorant of the fact that English (as well as virtually all European languages) are classified as "INDO-European", many of these words originating with the *Indian* language of Sanskrit??? For example, the supreme god of Olympus, the Greek sky god Zeus (and his Roman counterpart Jupiter) originated with the Hindu god Dyaus Pitar ("Sky Father"). Of course, since no one worships Zeus/Jupiter anymore, no one contests obvious connections like these. But when it comes to the Judeo-Christian tradition, we are supposed to ignore any and all connections to India as merely "coincidences", right? We are supposed to ignore the obvious etymological similarities between Brahma, the father of gods and men, and Abraham, the father of the Israelites. And ignore the "coincidence" between the names of their wives Sarasvati and Sarah. Both of whom are "coincidentally" sister-wives. And ignore the obvious connections that both Brahma and Abraham have specifically to sacrificial offerings, building of altars, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.108.245 (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Shame on you for promoting lowering accepted academic standards as well as an Indian bias on Wikipedia. Abraham is a Semitic name, not Indo-European. Also, Indo-European does not mean from India, but refers to the ancestors of both many Europeans and west Asians. There is no evidence that Zeus is derived from Dyaus Pitar, only that there is some connection. If the Greek gods were derived from the Hindu gods, there would have been a Greek form of Agni, Shiva, and Mitra (and no, a 1st century import from Persia doesn't count). Scholarly journals and works trump your google searches. That you are offended by the term "myth," think random google searches are acceptable sources, and haven't bothered to find out what a Wikipedia defines as a fringe theory is an indication that you need to sit down and learn how we operate or you can just leave. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"Shame on you for promoting lowering accepted academic standards as well as an Indian bias on Wikipedia." Not only have you failed to write a grammatically-correct sentence, you've completely misunderstood everything I said. To begin, I'm not censoring (re:deleting) any information by Western/Christian scholars. Therefore, you cannot accuse me of promoting an Indian bias. As I already said in my original post, I'm only asking for this wikipedia article to feature multiple POV's. "Abraham is a Semitic name, not Indo-European." If only you'd taken the time to read the wikipedia article on Abraham, perhaps you'd know that scholars are uncertain on the etymological origins of the name 'Abraham', nor are they certain as to exactly what city/country he was originally from. (That is, if he is even a historical person.) "Also, Indo-European does not mean from India, but refers to the ancestors of both many Europeans and west Asians." If you had read my post more closely, you'd realize I never said that. I specifically said that many Indo-European words originated from the Indian language of Sanskrit. But thanks for pointing out the obvious. "There is no evidence that Zeus is derived from Dyaus Pitar, only that there is some connection." Do you really want to stand behind this absurd claim? Perhaps you should read the wikipedia articles as to the origin of the words 'Zeus' and 'Jupiter'. Then maybe do a little further research after that. (If you still think there is no connection after that, then you better get to editing some wikipedia articles, boy;) "If the Greek gods were derived from the Hindu gods, there would have been a Greek form of Agni, Shiva, and Mitra." For starters, no one here is arguing that the Greeks imported the Hindu pantheon wholesale. Regardless, Agni shares numerous mythical parallels with Hephaestus and Prometheus. And Shiva has numerous similarities with Dionysus. "That you are offended by the term 'myth', think random google searches are acceptable sources, and haven't bothered to find out what a Wikipedia defines as a fringe theory is an indication that you need to sit down and learn how we operate or you can just leave." Again, you've misunderstood everything I said. First, I'm not offended by the word 'myth', I put it in quotes because most people mistakenly equate the word with "fiction". Second, you seem to think that you cannot find acceptable sources on Google, whereas what I'm actually saying is that you haven't even bothered to try. And finally, it is people like yourself, people who wish to censor alternative POV's, who need to leave wikipedia. Until then, wikipedia will never be allowed to be used as a legitimate source in colleges, universities, high-schools, and other places of learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.105.204 (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has never been and never will be a source because it is not an academic source, it is a constantly changing summary of current academic sources. No modern scholars accept any connection between Abraham and Brahman, only religious fundamentalists. Per WP:FRINGE, we do not present "alternate POVs" as equal if the scholarly consensus is that the other view is lacking in evidence. I have done research into Indo-European mythologies, at no point do I deny that Dyaus Pitar and Deus Pater have the same origin in northern Mesopotamia, but Abraham has only one mention in Babylonian writings, and no mentions in Elamite or Persian writings. There would be figures with names and attributes similar to both Brahma and Abraham in those areas if Brahma and Abraham were anything more than false cognates. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has never been and never will be a source because it is not an academic source, it is a constantly changing summary of current academic sources." If that were true, then it would be the most accurate academic source and every college, university, and high-school would allow it to be cited as a scholarly source. But alas, that is merely a fantasy... "No modern scholars accept any connection between Abraham and Brahman, only religious fundamentalists." There are feminist scholars, Indian scholars, and even a small number of open-minded Western scholars who accept this connection, however, you are simply ignorant of them. And since most Western scholars are Christians, this connection does not enjoy an academic consensus. Not to mention, there are numerous "religious fundamentalists" among these Christian scholars who would NEVER accept such a connection, despite what you seem to think. "At no point do I deny that Dyaus Pitar and Deus Pater have the same origin in northern Mesopotamia... There would be figures with names and attributes similar to both Brahma and Abraham in those areas if Brahma and Abraham were anything more than false cognates." Why do you think Dyaus Pitar originated in northern Mesopotamia? And the false cognate theory would appear plausible if it weren't for the "coincidence" that their spouses have names cognate with each other (Sarah/Sarasvati). And they are both 'sister-wives' ("coincidentally"). And both Abraham and Brahma are specifically connected with the establishment of proper sacrifices and the building of altars. And both are father-figures, one the father of gods and men, the other the father of the Israelites. And one is the first god, the other the first monotheist, (aka worshipper of the one god, the first god.) Statistically speaking, the sheer number of parallels among their primary characteristics argue against the false cognate theory. Therefore, it is more likely that the Jews adopted (and revised) the mythology of Brahma, but demoted him from a god to a mortal and renamed him 'Abraham', identical to the demigod Heracles-Gilgamesh who was transformed into the mortal named Samson... Seriously, you are a college student. Do you really think you are qualified to dictate the content of this article?!? And more importantly, do you really think wikipedia is best served by censorship? Or is wikipedia only for Christians and therefore it can only feature the opinions of Christian scholars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.132.152 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Binding of Isaac in Islam

I have edited this article I dont think there is anything to say because the sources for that was the Quran and the verses of the Quran are mentioned in the edited article and Ive also kept a conclusion and literal proof for the editings I have made

One thing I deleted was the theory that some Muslim scholars say that Isaac and Jacob were both promised for Sarah so this means Ishmael was sacrificed. This Beleif and theory is false! because never does the Quran say in Arabic so? the verses that talk about Isaac and Jacob in arabic states that "we gave her the good news of Isaac and after Isaac Jacob" but what many english speakers don't know is that in Arabic grammer the letter BA was kept beside Isaac's name. the letter BA is a letter kept when someone wants to use the word 'with" so the Quran said we gave her glad tidings with Isaac by using the letter BA but however after that the Quran clearly says and after him we gave good news of Jacob but it doesnt use the letter BA the letter BA was only used with Isaac meaning that the angels came to talk about Isaac but after Isaac grew and the sacrifice occured god told Abraham about the birth of Jacob because the style of the Quran tends to talk about something and then states the future act .. the Quran clearly says that the three angels only gave news of Isaac in many verses i mentioned in the article and there is no verse talking about Jacob and the three angels except this one and like i mentioned earlier this verse used the letter BA to say with "we gave her glad tidings with Isaac'" BUT IT DOESNT USE THE LETTER BA WITH JACOB so clearly this verse talks about Isaac and then states the future of when Jacob was born long after Isaac grew with his father TO WALK AND WORK .. nowhere in Islamic tradition or the Quran it states that Jacob had a relation with the tidings of Isaac.. so this is another proof as well as I MYSELF HAVE EDITED THE ARTICLE AND CLEARY MADE THE STORY CLEAR SO A READER WOULD DEFINATLY UNDERSTAND MY POINT WITHOUT HAVING A LOOK AT THIS TALK PAGE... there are many things i didnt mention AS PROVE OF THE BINDING OF ISAAC IN ISLAM like the birth of Isaac give to Abraham when Abraham left his people or when abraham was ordered to sacrifice the un-named son who grew up with him and was given to him miraculously and clearly every knows that Ishmael was taken away from Abraham when he was just a baby nor did Ishmael have a miraculous birth nor did he live with his father to work and walk ....the quranic verse are kept in the article!

these verses talk about ISAAC GIVEN TO ABRAHAM WHEN ABRAHAM LEFT HIS PAGAN PEOPLE SO THIS PROVES THAT THE UN-NAMED SACRIFICED SON WAS ISAAC BECAUSE THE EARLIER VERSE THAT MENTIONS THE SACRIFICE SAYS ABRAHAM WAS GIVEN A UN-NAMED SON ....... WHO WAS GIVEN TO HIM RIGHT AFTER HE LEFT HIS PAGAN PEOPLE AND LIKE I SAID .. THESE VERSES CLEARLY MENTIONS ISAAC BY NAME AS THE UN-NAMED SON WHO WAS GIVEN TO ABRAHAM WHEN HE LEFT HIS PAGAN PEOPLE.. so the conclsion is ... Isaac was binded  :)

[verses deleted, this is all original research in any case and thus doesn't belong here, and it's making this page unreadable Dougweller (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC) ]

no it isnt I said it aint because iam the one who wrote it its a historical topic so its meant to be long and aqquire usage of exegesis but for some reason you dont know that which i find very ignorant!@Highdeeboy (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

ps. please do mind my grammer and rush in this talk page thank you

and can someone change the title of the picture to Abraham sacrificing Isaac not Ishmael 193.188.105.25 (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone tell me why has my editing been refuted I provided proof and a comment in this talk page and gave proof from History and Quranic exegeis as well as provided my Ip and done every step to be made however me being refuted makes no sense because no one told me what did i dow wrong of why is my statement wrong .. which leaves me to the suspection that this was a persoanly choice BUT THE FACTS I PROVIDED PROVE THIS CHOICE WRONG SO ID APPRECIATE IT IF MY ARTICLE TAKES ITS PLACE AND IF THERE IS A MISTAKE THEN PLEASE INFORM ME ...AND TELL ME WHAT AND WHY.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Highdeeboy (talk • contribs) 09:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. You clearly are trying hard but you don't understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on what reliable sources say about a subject. See WP:RS. What you are doing is using a primary source to make an argument, as though you were writing an essay, whereas what the article needs is what scholars have said about the subject. Our own opinions and ideas don't belong here - not in the article and not on this page. Please read WP:OR. Dougweller (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

ive shown u tons of sources of hadiths and quran but u continue to rebel asking one of your mates to talk to me and then confuse me on what should i do .. which is think is very unprofessional and ignorantHighdeeboy (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

A response to the Ishmael claim

1. We arent christians nor should we use the bible to prove anything,because the bible also stated that Lot impregnated his daughters and that God came in the form of a man and ate with Abraham .. so I dont think we should be using the bible to proove anything because we belive the bible is corrupted and If youd ask a christian about the term "Only Son" he'd say that God recognizes Isaac as Abraham's only son because Ishmael was "cast out" .. so literally this statement posted is offensive towards the christian as well as has no relation with Islam Because when ONE JUDGES A CASE HE SHOULD USE THE UNCORRUPTED QURAN WITHOUT INVOLVING ANY OTHER TEACHINGS (Gensis) THAT CONFUSE !

2.Abraham was never given Isaac as a reward the Quran clearly states that After Abraham left his people Isaac was given to him and after that he grew with him and was sacrificed,Abraham prayed to his lord for another child especially to please a old barren women who suffered with him for a long time.. and if you read arabic you can clearly say that Abraham said 037.100 YUSUFALI: "O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!" and the Quran uses the arabic word Hab meaning give me .. and then in other accounts say WE GAVE ABRAHAM ISAAC AND JACOB

019.049 YUSUFALI: When he had turned away from them and from those whom they worshipped besides Allah,

We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and each one of them We made a prophet. by using the word WAHABNA meaning we gave .. so clearly thise verse is talking about the birth of Isaac and then Isaac growing and then being sacrificed .. Just because the verse after that says 037.112 YUSUFALI: And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous. doesnt mean that the sacrifice happened before Isaac .. the Quran didnt say "AND THEN" it just said "and" .. in Arabic it says WA meaning "and" it didnt say FA meaning and then

The Quran describes itself clearly .. After Abraham left he was given Isaac because he wanted a child and when that child grew with him he sacrificed him

It isnt Ishmael because Abraham didnt stay in Mecca he clearly left him when he was a kid

014.037 YUSUFALI: "O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring to dwell in a valley without cultivation, by Thy Sacred House; in order, O our Lord, that they may establish regular Prayer: so fill the hearts of some among men with love towards them, and feed them with fruits: so that they may give thanks.

and then Abraham came up to Mecca to build the Kaaba later on when Ishmael grew alone .. the Quran states that when the child of sacfirice grew with Abraham ... ISHMAEL DIDNT GROW WITH ABRAHAM ISHMAEL WAS LEFT WHEN HE WAS A CHILD AND THEN ABRAHAM CAME UP TO ISHMAEL WHEN ISHMAEL HAD GROWN OLD "ALONE" AND WAS STRONG ENOUGH TO BUILD THE KAABA

so according to Quran the child which was given as good news by the angels that is Isaac

so accordint to the Quran the child that was given by the angels as good news when Abraham left his people and prayed for a kid that is Isaac

so according to the Quran the child that lived and grew with his father and his father stayed with him that is Isaac

It cant be Ishmael because then there would be a contridiction in the Quran WHICH IS NEVER THERE

According to you you state that the burning of Abraham happened in a diffrent account to him leaving his people but let me prove to you why that cant be true

the burning of Abraham and him leaving his people is one incident followed by the Birth of Isaac

019.042 YUSUFALI: Behold, he said to his father: "O my father! why worship that which heareth not and seeth not, and can profit thee nothing?

you can see here that his father is mentioned alongisde hime but there is no mention of fire .true but wait

.......

019.048 YUSUFALI: "And I will turn away from you (all) and from those whom ye invoke besides Allah: I will call on my Lord: perhaps, by my prayer to my Lord, I shall be not unblest."

019.049 YUSUFALI: When he had turned away from them and from those whom they worshipped besides Allah, We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and each one of them We made a prophet.

.................. 037.085 YUSUFALI: Behold! he said to his father and to his people, "What is that which ye worship?

037.097 YUSUFALI: They said, "Build him a furnace, and throw him into the blazing fire!"

037.099 YUSUFALI: He said: "I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!

after they wanted to burn him and HIS FATHER WAS THERE he left and then when he left he was given Isaac ITS THE SAME STORY BUT SAID IN DETAIL MORE IN ONE SURA OTHER THAN THE OTHER SURA the Quran ansewrs itself clearly

019.049 YUSUFALI: When he had turned away from them and from those whom they worshipped besides Allah, We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and each one of them We made a prophet.

037.102 YUSUFALI: Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"

here is the story again this time INCLUDING THE FIRE AND HIS FATHER SO CLEARLY THE QURAN STATES THAT ABRAHAM PRECHED TO HIS FATHER AND HIS PEOPLE AND WAS THEN BURNED AND THEN LEFT AND WAS THEN GIVEN ISAAC AND THEN SACRIFICED THIS CHILD

simple .. and then when Ishmael grew old and strong Abraham went again to Mecca to build the Kaaba with THE CHILD WOM GREW UP ALONE NOT WITH HIS FATHER!

Highdeeboy (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read the reliable source guidelines - they do not include exegesis as an option. ALSO, TYPING IN ALL CAPS IS LIKE SHOUTING ON THE INTERNET. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasnt shouting I was adding where I want you to focus but unfortuantly u didnt! ... this isnt exegesis these are Qurnic verses I provided who cares about Exgesis i Just said that as a historical fact but what better source is there than the Holy Quran ..? seriously Have u had a look at the verses ,, i can provide more but you must tell me what is wrong so I can know?! 193.188.105.25 (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

and btw This is not vandilizing this is called editing with providing proof and making it simple with providing the Only sources of Islam .. The Holy Quran and the Sunnah and some History .. WT ELSE? please have a look at it and read it so i can know why was my editiing removed because the exegesis excuse wont work .. i didnt provide any exegesis all i said was one sentecne concerning exegesis .. dunno whats the big deal bout it?Highdeeboy (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept original research, which includes takoing something from one source and take something from another source, and combine them to make a new statement, and If you could find a single source that makes your point, then. You provided Tafsir, an interpretation of the Quran, which in English is called Exegesis. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

here we go again this matter is a historical matter which requires research and accuirence of many sources but you just dont know that which is silly and igorant!Highdeeboy (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

NO I DIDNT! Exgesis is interpretation and explanation ,.. i provided verses ... u know what ure doing what u claim u are doing ,..you are using GENESIS TO EXPLAIN THE QURAN SO I FIND IT IRONIC THAT URE CRITISIZING ME AND CALLING MY VERSES TAFSIR BUT ANYWAYS IL PROVIDE U WITH VERSES FROM ANOTHER CHAPTER OF THE QURAN WITHOUT ANY TAFSIR AND U SEE THE LOGIC .. :)

021.051 YUSUFALI: We bestowed aforetime on Abraham his rectitude of conduct, and well were We acquainted with him. 021.052 YUSUFALI: Behold! he said to his father and his people, "What are these images, to which ye are (so assiduously) devoted?"

(this is no exegesis iam just asking u to focus on Abraham;s father mentioned here ...)

021.068 YUSUFALI: They said, "Burn him and protect your gods, If ye do (anything at all)!"

(this is from the same sura .. it talks about Abraham;s people burning him and his father was obviously involved like i mentioned in the earlier verse)

021.072 SHAKIR: And We gave him Ishaq and Yaqoub and We made (them) all good.

now take these two points with u ...:Abraham;s dad and the fire happened before the giving of Isaac

Now .. this chapter talks about the sacrifice after .. the two points (Abraham's dad and the fire) see for yoruself

037.085 YUSUFALI: Behold! he said to his father and to his people, "What is that which ye worship? (ABRAHAM;S DAD) 037.097 YUSUFALI: They said, "Build him a furnace, and throw him into the blazing fire!" (THE FIRE) 037.101 YUSUFALI: So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear. (whos this boy? ... its Isaac because the earlier chapter says after Abraham left his father and the fire he was given Isaac ....)

037.102 YUSUFALI: Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"

common sense ... ansewr me a question .. we both know that Ishmael and Hagar were taken out when Ishmael was a baby cariied in Hagar's shoulder and Abraham left them there ... so how in god;s green earth could this be Ishmael if it says the sacrificed son grew and walked and worked WITH his dad .. this is talking about Isaac growing WITH HIS FATHER IN CANAAN WHEN ISHMAEL WAS IN ARABAIA WITH HIS MOTHER ....

Iam not providing exegesis iam just guiding and helpin so understand my point i cant just say X=0 Y=9 ..iam not telling u my interpretation or opinion or imagination iam asking u to read these verses do research and see the common sense .. i PROVIDED U WITH MANY VERSES FORM MANY CHAPTERS UP! this is extra info .. wt else sir?

please do not provide Gensis accounts because we dont belive in genesis and when u examine the Quran u examine itself alone u do not mix something with it .. thats not called assesment? and besides we dont belive in Gensis so all what it brings is confusion and corruption , thank you.Highdeeboy (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is still original research, please read WP:OR, you can't take a primary source, be it the Koran or the Bible and quote verses to make an article, you have to find reliable sources. If you don't understand this, please ask and we'll try to clarify it, but what you are doing can't go in the article and shouldn't be on this page either. Find some sources, we can discuss those. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

fine but still genesis shouldnt be used .. sir can i use the Quran to describe the life of christ .. offcoure not so same goes here .. please ....

btw my only source is Quran there really is no other source no hadith but just a tradition fron Sahih Bukhari which states Ishmael was left in Mecca when he was a baby .. which proves my point .. and from what I see u have only used the Quran and the Bible as your thesis point even though the bible shoudlnt be used .. but anyways all what is there is the Quran .. can u tell me what else can u present u with ?82.194.62.25 (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

sir u only provided two scripture source ,... so i dunt know cant i provide the same source as yours ... and btw the seond argument is wrong but unfortuanatly many Indian and Pakistani Muslims and translators translated the Quran to Indian and then to English like Yusuf Ali which led to them lose out the Arabic grammer Ive asked and I myself a ARAB Muslim had a look at that verse and it clearly says we gave Sarah the good news with Isaac and then Jacob but it didnt use the word :With" the Quran has been known for speaking in a future way and the reason for the mention of Jacob is because both Isaac and Jacob were born when Abraham was a Nomad and clearly there is no ARABIC LANGUAGE TOOL WHICH STATES SARAH WAS GIVEN TIDINGS OF JACOB .. there is only Isaac so there is no gurantee that this tiding is at once ... clearly it isnt because then there would be a contrdiction in the Quran which is impossible and anyways according to Arabic Islamic scholars and grammer what i state has been supported by many shcolars ever since the dawn of Islam when Ibn Jarir wrote the first Exegsis of Quran and stated Isaac is the binded son  :)

the reason why the Quran states Jacob was given to Sarah is because we both know Rebbecca was barren and when Jacob was born his grandparents were glad about his birth ...clear and simple

and concerning Gensis .. i have nothing to say but juse remove it because it makes no sense .. Isaac is the only son because christians state Ishmael isnt a legitamite son so there is no reason to critisize and use christian belifs and mix them with the Quran.. anyways this is jsut some additional info I provided the same sources the editor provided and stated why and explained in case ud like to read .... wt else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Highdeeboy (talk • contribs) 13:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is still original research. You can quote a primary source such as the Bible or the Koran to describe what it says or you can summarise what it says, without adding any comment. You cannot add comment to use the Bible/Koran to prove a point, you must find reliable sources doing that and you can then quote or summarise them, etc. And you should not be arguing about this on the talk page either, bring some sources or please stop. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

LOOK here we go again you get one of your male mates to talk to me WILL ONE OF U LEAVE AND THE OTHER STAY THANK YOU IAM DELAING WITH ONE NOT TWO

first of all this is original research because i only provided verses and highlighted them but your to ignorant that you didnt even read what I have to say ... another quality of ignorance and unprofessional behavoir ... do u know anything of what iam saying to u or are you to playing games?Highdeeboy (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Abram wife Sasai was taken away two times one by Pharaoh and by Abimelech

I believe Sarsi was taken away two times 2607:FEA8:6062:2D00:44BA:6215:3C8B:8A07 (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)