Jump to content

Talk:Abraham/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Various notices

Vandalism notice: Someone changed the Hebrew spelling of Abraham to קוס אמכ. This is a Hebrew insult derived from Arabic meaning "Your mother's vagina."

I am not sure why mention of the pineapple was removed. Could someone please clarify what authority was given that mention of it should be removed? Abraham was inspired by the Holy Spirit to record the history of the human race, including the fall of mankind at the eating of the forbidden unripened pineapple fruit. contact: hotreference@hotmail.com

The spelling Abraham was erased. As this is a redirect from Abraham as well, common use suggest that that spelling should be kept as well.--AN

Almost all of the information in this article comes from the Genesis, but it is presented in a very heavy-handed, editorialised fashion. I propose to rework it into more of a synopsis, shortening it somewhat in the process and removing the stuff about the authorship of Genesis, which is not germaine to the topic (besides being controversial). Is anyone going to object if I do that? --Jonadab

Well, nobody objected, so I did it. The article in its former form is preserved at Abram in the 1911 Encyclopedia, which is linked from the new article under Modern Views. If someone with access to the 1911 Encyclopedia can restore that node to a more original state, that would be good. The new node still needs work in some sections. --Jonadab

The introduction of this article is filled with religious POV.

grammar nit

The name Abram is a Hebrew pun on Ibrim, meaning hebrews, to sound like "Exaulted Father", and was the foremost of the Biblical patriarchs.

The word Abram in the above sentence is used both as a word, and as the thing that the word represents. This can be very confusing to the reader.

"Abram, a Hebrew pun on Ibrim" - that sounds unlikely, given that ancient Hebrew would have had the two words beginning with different consonants, ayin and aleph. Any evidence? - Mustafaa 05:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The original form of the name, Abram, is apparently the Assyrian Abu-ramu. It is doubtful if the usual meaning attached to that word "lofty father", is correct. The meaning given to Abraham in Genesis 17:5 is popular word play, and the real meaning is unknown. The Assyriologist, Hommel suggests that in the Minnean dialect, the Hebrew letter Hê ("h") is written for long a. Perhaps here we may have the real derivation of the word, and Abraham may be only a dialectical form of Abram. Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 Edition. If this is an insufficient reference and citation to satisfy Wikipedia Citation Police, please consult Hommel's works.Amherst5282 05:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


(comments moved from article to talk) I don't think this is true:...in Genesis 11:28, all it says is Haran died, not that Abraham was unscathed in a fire. I think the author is thinking about another story, with three characters instead of one. Sorry! In fact, many aspects of this article are questionable.

I have deleted two "to be improved" sentences and last section, which was quite unencyclopedic. Of course, this edit is debatable :) Pfortuny 11:19, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This paragraph seems to attempt a critique. It uses phrases like "very loose" and "ignores ... entirely", and reports that "most fundamental Christians" do not hold to it. Is this a list of how the view fairs against credentials of some sort or, is it how those who hold the view would describe their position? I think the former; and so I'd favor deleting or re-writing the paragraph. Mkmcconn 21:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

However, some amillenialists hold that the Christian Church has replaced Israel and receives the promises on her behalf. This view arises from an interpretation of Galatians 3:7-9, but it requires a very loose interpretation of the book of Revelation, ignores Romans 11 entirely, and is not accepted by most fundamental Christians. For further information on this debate, see dispensations and supersessionism.'
As it is, it is not worth including. The idea is interesting but I do not think it fits in this article. Pfortuny 16:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


One part of this article says that there is no source for Abram's life other than the Bible/Torah; another says it is the main source. Do we know which is right? Also if there is no other source, then it would make sense to simply say so at the start of the article, and then recount the scriptural version, rather having having to put 'according to tradition' and suchlike every few sentences? DJ Clayworth 21:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The only sources (as of 2004) are from the Bible AFAIK (although maybe the Qu'ran has something different). As for your second statement, you are right... should be done as you say. Pfortuny 11:28, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Aaargg, don't have time to do this. I'm supposed to be finishing WWI in Italy. DJ Clayworth 04:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at it :) Pfortuny 07:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I did it more or less. Problems:
  • Muslim tradition... what are the sources? This I do not know.
  • The last 3 paragraphs are very boring... They need rewriting at the least. I took out Wellhousen's (?) long quotation as it had no contextual support.
In any case, feel free. Pfortuny 08:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is the term "Biblical" NPOV?

Since Jews and Muslims don't necessarily believe in the Bible, is it appropriate to make multiple use of the word "biblical" in this article? Just wondering. MPS20:48, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is "so it is not possible to know if he was a historical figure" in the third paragraph NPOV? Wouldn't something like "so there is no additional confirmation that he was a historical figure" be more NPOV, given that Genesis, as a historical document, asserts his existence?

The Jewish people hold sacred the TaNaK -- the Torah, Neviim and Kethuvim. These constitute what is known as the Hebrew Scriptures, and to Christians the Old Testament, though the catholic Bible includes as well the seven books known as Wisdom Literature. The Torah includes Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy -- The Abraham story is contained in Genesis. Wikipedia self-appointed citatation police, please note: the TaNaK, with its full explanatory notes, is available in Hebrew and English at Barnes and Noble and Amazon, among others, and the explanatory introductions to the Oxford Edition of the New revised Standard Version of the Bible, and the New Jerome Biblical Commentary provide ample discussion of this. The words "Jews and Muslims don't necessarily believe in the Bible," in the opinions of several individual persons who have read this page (no footnotes available, and therefore dismissable by Wiki Cite Police)are confusing, ambiguous and potentially misleading.Amherst5282 05:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Event sequence confusion

I'm a trifle confused. The translations that I'm reading of the Bible (and Torah) show the events being that he is first promised the land for his descendents, then leaves to Egypt, and then leaves from there, settles, and finally seperates from Lot. This article seems to swap the Egypt and Lot seperation.

Anyone? Are my translations wrong, or am I reading the article incorrectly?

I agree with you, sir. --Anglius 18:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm reading Genesis currently. You're absolutely right, the order of the events here has been reversed from that in the Bible. I wonder about the Tanakh and the Qur'an (are the events there and in what order?). --Patfla 05:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

About Abraham in philosophy

Abraham is presented very well, not only as an historical figure but also as a symbol of religions, but he is also an object of philosophy. Since some major philosophers wrote about him i thought it should be mentioned.--Arberor 10:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Errors

It is an insult to all Christians to say that he lived "Before the Common Era" rather than "Before Christ." In addition, it is quite possible that he existed prior to 2000 B.C. I, for one, believe that he was born in circa 2246 B.C. and succumbed in approximately 2071 B.C. (he lived to be 175 years old). --Anglius 18:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is as much of an insult to Jews to say he lived "Before Christ", and Jews were talking about Abraham well before Christians. As for date, if you ca:n provide a source for such a claim, then by all means change it. - Mustafaa 18:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, sir, but "B.C." was prevalent long before the invention of the "Common Era" system. I thank you for your permission to alter the years of his existence, though. --Anglius 19:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A footnote is needed here to show evidence that "all Christians" have declared themselves insulted by the use of the term "common era."Amherst5282 05:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

-The term B. C. (before christ) is also an insult to christians who believe that Christ is eternal (existed before being born). B. C. E. is a better term in this case

Yuber's Edits Again

Yuber again violated every principle that I put on his talk page (including discussing it on the talk page and not being deceptive), and this was after I paid him the biggest compliment that I could muster. This time, he did even worse: he tried to revert an edit made days ago and disguise it by saying it was minor. YUBER HAS NOW DONE 3 REVERSIONS OF THE SAME PASSAGE. As to substance, he is entirely wrong. I won't go into the Islam page and interpret the religious aspects there, and he (or anyone else outside their religion) should not here. Further, he has been warned by respected editors to stay off controversial pages. Since Yuber is being a serial reverter again, I should not need to address the substance of the edit, but here it is.

Christianity does not view Abraham as the ancestor of the Arabs; the bible and Jesus simply do not address Islam or its history at all. And certainly the Old Testiment, based on Judaism, does not assert the part about Ishmael and the Arabs. Further, the word "ancestor" is a problem for many Christians because some believe it may not mean it in the literal sense.

Before Yuber got involved, this accurately described the Christian view. I will attempt to make it accurate again.

--Noitall 22:31, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

In addition, on the substance, Christians do not view themselves as an "Abrahamic religion" because they only believe in one, Christ. That is why they call themselves a Christian religion not an Abrahamic religion.

--Noitall 22:37, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, feel free to edit the sections that I know less about, namely:

Judaism sees Abraham as the founder of the people of Israel and the ancestor of their people through his son Isaac. Muslims recognize Abraham as the founder of their religion through his son Ishmael.

--Noitall 22:41, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, Abraham is NOT considered the founder of Islam; he is one of the many prophets. Please clarify facts before editing. If many Christians do not consider him not be an Abrahamic religion, we can adjust that accordingly. There is no need to shout in the edit history. Okay? Thanks. --Anonymous editor 23:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Because some people have difficulty reading, which makes editing very very difficult, I have highlighted some principles so that you will edit what you know about correctly. --Noitall 23:12, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thus, you should have no problems understanding now what Muslims believe in this manner and secondly, I have edited to show the christian POV in this regard. Lastly, Yuber has every right to edit this article and Abraham is one of the major figures in Islam and by saying 'Arabs' it does not mean Abraham founded Islam. Also you can not speak for all christians because many of them may say that they do consider themselves to be Abrahamic religions. I know many myself. Also biblical citations are not needed. --Anonymous editor 23:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
How dense are you Anon? I stated to FEEL FREE TO MODIFY THE MUSLIM OR ARAB PORTIONS. I highlighted it in bold. I made it in CAPS. You still do not read or follow directions. But stay off the Christian areas where you admit you have no expertise are not competitent. I do not go over to the Islam page and put in there my interpretations, and you should not put in your religious interpretations of Christianity.

--Noitall 23:29, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, all 3 religions regard him as the ancestor of the Arabs. Arab DOES NOT EQUAL Muslim, you seem to not understand this. There are passages in the bible about Ishmael.Yuber(talk) 23:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, I take offence to these attacks you are making against me. I do indeed have expertise in both the Islam areas and the christian areas as I was once christian myself! I have dual interpretations in this regard. I am simply putting forth an effort trying to make this article as NPOV as possible and surely you can see this by my edits. By reverting to your POV everytime, you are damaging the credibility of this article and making it like one off a christianity site. You do not speak for all christians, I know many who consider themselves to be of the "Abrahamic religions". --Anonymous editor 23:43, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Now, back to business...

The Old Testament does indeed describe Ishmael as ancestor of the Ishmaelites, the Bedouin of the deserts east and south of Palestine (cf. [1].) A long exegetical tradition identifies the Ishmaelites with the Arabs, plausibly enough (particularly in light of its apparent equivalence with the Midianites.) However, not all Christians accept the Old Testament genealogies as true, and not all Christians accept the traditional exegesis. The latter, at least, applies to Jews as well. A more appropriate wording should reflect both facts, say "He is regarded by all three religions as an ancestor of the Jews, through Isaac, and the Ishmaelites, through Ishmael. In Islam, and in many interpretations of Christianity and Judaism, the Ishmaelites are identified as the Arabs." - Mustafaa 00:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Catholic Christians regard themselves as belonging to an Abrahamic religion, as the Roman Catholic Mass makes specific reference to "Abraham, our Father in faith," Pope Pius IX said of Christians, "We are all spiritual Semites," and Catholic University of America sponsors presentations by "Interfaith Delegation of Abrahamic Faiths," including Jews, Muslims and a variety of Christians. reference and citations provided. Amherst5282 05:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Protestants also believe that Christianity is an Abrahamic religion. There is plenty of this in the New Testament; for example, "Thus Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith. Gal 3:6-9. rossnixon 09:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Christian and Biblical Endorsement of Islam and Arabic Heritage

It is trying to insert a POV to try to lump the views of all 3 religions into one common belief. It is just clear POV of trying to get some endorsement. The common belief of Christians is as I stated. But to summarize,

I made these points:

1. The New Testament and Jesus simply do not address Islam or its history at all.
2. Certainly the Old Testament, based on Judaism, does not assert the part about Ishmael and the Arabs (but do recognize Mustafaa's statement, but this intro is not the place for it)
3. The word "ancestor" is a problem for many Christians because some believe it may not mean it in the literal sense.
4. Christians do not view themselves as an "Abrahamic religion" because they only believe in one, Christ. That is why they call themselves a Christian religion not an Abrahamic religion.

Here is my edit for the passage in the 2nd paragraph of Abraham, which the serial reverters keep taking out (and BTW, I invited changes to the Judaism and Muslim parts where I have less expertise):

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are sometimes referred to as the "Abrahamic religions" because they all refer to the lessons of Abraham to some degree. Although Christians do not refer to themselves by this term, they view Abraham as an early figure of faith and recognize his attempt to offer up Isaac as a foreshadowing of God's offering of his Son, Jesus (Gen. 22:1-14; Heb. 11:17-19). Judaism sees Abraham as the founder of the people of Israel and the ancestor of their people through his son Isaac. Muslims recognize Abraham as the one of many religious prophets through his son Ishmael.

This is accurate with regard to Christianity. Let's keep it that way and not insert a POV right up front in the intro.

--Noitall 00:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't accurate even with regard to Christianity - as many a sermon points out. - Mustafaa 00:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, If you checked the current article you will find that the almost the same thing that you have said in your 'edit' is stated in more NPOV manner and in less generalized terms. You must realize that you do not speak for all christians, I know many who consider themselves to be of the Abrahamic religions. Mustafaa's sources further prove my point. Surely by saying Abrahamic religion, it does not mean those whose religion was founded by Abraham, but those peoples whose ancestry are linked through Abraham, through Ishmael and Isaac. Clearly by generalizing what you seem to think ALL 'christians refer to themelves as', you are inserting your POV in the first paragraph. --Anonymous editor 02:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I am on Wiki, so I make no claim that my edit was the perfect edit. The criticism regarding the word or implication regarding ALL christians is duly noted and I will modify accordingly. That does not change the fact that the First sentence of the second paragraph is entirely inaccurate. I hope in this spirit that you will accept my edit as well. --Noitall 12:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

In looking further into this -- note my intent to not speaking for all Christians but to note the general practice of Christianity and Christians -- I see that I cut and pasted my edit, and somehow the word "generally" was left off. That should emeliorate the concern. --Noitall 14:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

"In the Torah/Old Testament... Abraham is described as a patriarch blessed by God and promised great things, father of the People of Israel through his son Isaac, and of the Ishmaelites, generally identified as the Arabs, through his son Ishmael." I take it no one's arguing the first two clauses, so that leaves "father of the Ishmaelites, generally identified as the Arabs, through his son Ishmael." See Easton's Bible Encyclopedia ("He had twelve sons, who became the founders of so many Arab tribes or colonies, the Ishmaelites"), Smith's Bible Dictionary ("The sons of Ishmael peopled the north and west of the Arabian peninsula, and eventually formed the chief element of the Arab nation, the wandering Bedouin tribes.") and even the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia ("The character of Ishmael and his descendants (Arabian nomads or Bedouins)..."). - Mustafaa 00:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are entirely inaccurate as to general Christian thought. Where to begin?:

1. Your entire passage is read as a whole, and you have inserted it to make your POV. If you want to be accurate, copy the entire biblical section, but this would be inappropriate to the introduction and not make the POV that you are trying to assert. 2. Many Christians do not believe in the literal translation of Genesis. Historically, the stories orally passed down for thousand(s) of years before being written down (and somehow the 50 years before the Gospels were written down makes them inaccurate?!). Many Christians believe that Jesus used such stories as a parabel and that later Christians used the stories as a foreshadowing of Jesus's life. What all Christians agree on is that Abraham was an early figuire of faith, whether literally or figuratively.

There is too much more to educate you, but I don't think you want to be educated. You have a POV and that is it. I just can't imagine what would happen if I tried to edit Islam or tried to edit the Muslim sections in this article simply because I found a couple sources that, on the surface, agreed with my POV. --Noitall 01:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether Christians believe in the literal translation of Genesis or not; that's why I phrased it as "the Old Testament says" rather than "Christians believe". I am well aware that Christians of various denominations may believe anything from every word of the Bible to virtually none, and no doubt some don't even believe Abraham existed. Hence the value of sticking with well-defined sources. - Mustafaa 01:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And incidentally, you still haven't made clear what, if anything, you believe to be inaccurate about the phrasing In the Torah/Old Testament... Abraham is described as a patriarch blessed by God and promised great things, father of the People of Israel through his son Isaac, and of the Ishmaelites, generally identified as the Arabs, through his son Ishmael." - Mustafaa 01:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

generally, the Torah is the first portion of the TNK (TaNaK). Technically, the Genesis text appears within the Torah, but Torah is only comprised of the pentateuch. Therefore, Torah and Old Testament do not refer to the same set of texts. Biblical schlarship has also begun to title this work the "Hebrew Bible" although I can not speak for the acceptance of this term outside of Christianity. Likewise, the use of the term "Old Testament" also implies a Christian trajectory...if there is not a "New Testament", such as with Judaism and Islam, then why would anyone call it "Old" I would personally recommend perhaps the term Hebrew Bible and a parenthetical mention that Christians would use the term "Old Testament."--Seminarian 01:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa, now you have shown your POV spots. Your statement and bias is so condescending and anti-Christian. You Are Christians the only ones with a range of beliefs, or does your religion legal enforce its views, see Apostasy in Islam? You are beyond redemption. --Noitall 01:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

And once again, your comment specifies no objection, beyond a personal attack on me as being "condescending and anti-Christian". If you want to get back on the actual subject, you're welcome to do so. - Mustafaa 01:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, absolutely NO need to personally attack religions or religious views. It will ruin any credibility of yours as a neutral editor. All Mustafaa is adding is the Torah/Old Testament. What exactly is the problem with that??? Stop attacking him because he is of a different faith than you. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 01:37, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
That is why you 2 are birds of a feather. I am RESPECTFUL OF YOUR RELIGION, while you make absurd, condescending and biased generalizations and attempt to INSERT THE MUSLIM POV INTO CHRISTIANITY. In fact, you 2 are so astonished that I have not even once attempted to insert my opinion or "knowledge" into Muslim or Jewish areas. That is why I have had to repeat myself so many times. I just can't imagine acting like you 2 are doing here. --Noitall 01:47, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
You know very little about Judaism, judging by your Torah misunderstanding, and presumably the same goes for Islam. Fair enough; that's a good reason not to edit articles on those topics. I've spent most of my life in (post-)Christian societies, and have read most of the Bible, as well as a fair amount of other Christian literature; indeed, C. S. Lewis is one of my favorite religious writers. Why should I pretend to know nothing about Christianity? It's always good to learn more, of course, which is one reason why we should get back to the subject of Abraham... - Mustafaa 01:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And I was once Christian; I told you that before. I know both Christianity and Islam well enough now. You seem to generalize between all christian POVs and for some reason you think that the Torah has absolutely no part in the Old Testament. I have always shown you tolerance and respect and so has Mustafaa. Now lets get back to subject please. --Anonymous editor 02:07, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Back on topic

This is the current wording:

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are sometimes referred to as the "Abrahamic religions" because of the role Abraham plays in their holy books and beliefs. In the Torah/Old Testament and the Qur'an, Abraham is described as a patriarch blessed by God and promised great things, father of the People of Israel through his son Isaac, and of the Ishmaelites, generally identified as the Arabs, through his son Ishmael. In Islam, Abraham is considered to be one the most important of the many prophets sent by God. Christian belief considers Abraham's attempt to offer up Isaac as a foreshadowing of God's offering of his son, Jesus.

If anyone objects to it, feel free to explain why here. - Mustafaa 02:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • See the million words above for objections (but please use your eyes and, if possible, your brain). I will correctly edit the statement in the future AGAIN. --Noitall 02:33, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Okay then state your objection briefly to why the two words "Old testament" can not be put beside the Torah in this article? Thanks.--Anonymous editor 02:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, your proposed edit is wrong. Either the sentence accurately describes the Torah - in which case by definition it accurately describes the Old Testament - or it doesn't. It is not possible for a sentence to accurately describe the Torah and Tanakh without accurately describing the Old Testament, because they are the same thing. And if it doesn't accurately describe the Torah and Tanakh/Old Testament, then you should explain why. - Mustafaa 02:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the entire piece was not me. I was actually making a simple edit in removing those 2 words that I thought would survive and get past the issue because Anon said it would. Then you reverted Mustafaa and this is where we are. If I am going to make the ENTIRE PIECE accurate and supportable, it will take time. It is not just 2 words. --Noitall 02:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Note that I was just trying to get along when I edited those 2 words. In actual fact, my earlier edits had an entirely different paragraph (until Yuber reverted, getting a 3RR). --Noitall 02:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
You still have not made it clear what your problem is with the article. Is it your view that Ishmael's twelve sons and his settling in Arabia are not part of Christian theology even when they are mentioned in the Bible?Yuber(talk) 02:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, you were 3RRed on this page for deleting my edits. The very edits you now ask about. [removed personal attack] I do not have time to respond to you as I need to check Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration to see if the Arbitrators' opinions on the hearing against Yuber are still (4/0/0/0). --Noitall 03:43, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Before you go and add your demands for "prosecution" of Yuber, which btw I am strongly against, please tell us what the issue is with this article. If you are truly concerned you will say it right now.--Anonymous editor 03:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Could one of the parties to this conflict please explain what the issue is? It appears that Noitall and Mustafaa are opposed to each other and possibly reverting each other to some extent, based on this talk page and brief skimming of the edit history. Could someone put each person's version of a key paragraph, perhaps the one Mustafaa quoted at the beginning of this section, and Noitall's version side by side here on Talk and explain which version is better and why it matters so much to have one version and not the other? There are altogether too many insults and screaming on this page for me to make sense of what the problem is; and I mean the problem with the article or some version of the article, not the problem with this or that editor. Wesley 16:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above text as modified by Jayjg now reads:

"Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are sometimes referred to as the "Abrahamic religions" because of the role Abraham plays in their holy books and beliefs. In the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an, Abraham is described as a patriarch blessed by God and promised great things, father of the People of Israel through his son Isaac, and of the Ishmaelites, generally identified as the Arabs, through his son Ishmael. In Islam, Abraham is considered to be one of the most important of the many prophets sent by God. Christian belief considers Abraham's attempt to offer up Isaac as a foreshadowing of God's offering of his son, Jesus.

This seems reasonable to me. If anyone objects to this version, please say why here. Paul August ☎ 21:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

many biblical scholars would disagree with the blanket statement that "Christian belief considers Abraham's attempt to offer up Isaac as a foreshadowing...." Although some denominations would offer this as underlying theology in the old testament, this is not a prevalent or representative statement of Christian belief on the whole. The trajectory taken by the larger proportion of biblical scholars is to treat the "Hebrew Bible" (aka Old Testament) as a stand alone text. This means that the text is interpreted for its own inherent meaning, and attempts to discern what the narrator of the text was trying to teach by telling (or including in the case of redation) the story. Therefore, what this means is that the entire Abraham narrative cycle is interpreted through socio-cultural, historical and redactionary criticisms for its theological content. It then becomes necessary to ask the question about what Christians might then learn from the story.

So, Abraham is not a foreshadow of any Christian belief, unless an individual chooses to bring that belief to the story. Rather, the Abraham narrative cycle illustrates a history of the questions of faith and patriarchal narrative for Israel, from which Christians derive their identity.--Seminarian 00:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed copied text

I've removed the from the article, the following interesting text added by anon 200.11.242.33, because it was apparently copied from here, The first part is a quote from a book by Tomás Doreste, the rest is a continuation of the article that the quote is from. (Start of removed text)

Voltaire was of the opinion that Abraham descended from some of the numerous Brahman priests who left India to spread their teachings throughout the world; and in support of his thesis he presented the following elements: the similarity of names and the fact that the city of Ur, land of the patriarchs, was near the border of Persia, the road to India, where that Brahman had been born.

The name of Brahma was highly respected in India, and his influence spread throughout Persia as far as the lands bathed by the rivers Euphrates and Tigris. The Persians adopted Brahma and made him their own. Later they would say that the God arrived from Bactria, a mountainous region situated midway on the road to India. (pp. 46-47.)

Bactria (a region of ancient Afghanistan) was the locality of a prototypical Jewish nation called Juhuda or Jaguda, also called Ur-Jaguda. Ur meant "place or town." Therefore, the bible was correct in stating that Abraham came from "Ur of the Chaldeans." "Chaldean," more correctly Kaul-Deva (Holy Kauls), was not the name of a specific ethnicity but the title of an ancient Hindu Brahmanical priestly caste who lived in what are now Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Indian state of Kashmir.

"The tribe of Ioud or the Brahmin Abraham, was expelled from or left the Maturea of the kingdom of Oude in India and, settling in Goshen, or the house of the Sun or Heliopolis in Egypt, gave it the name of the place which they had left in India, Maturea." (Anacalypsis; Vol. I, p. 405.)

"He was of the religion or sect of Persia, and of Melchizedek."(Vol. I, p. 364.)

"The Persians also claim Ibrahim, i.e. Abraham, for their founder, as well as the Jews. Thus we see that according to all ancient history the Persians, the Jews, and the Arabians are descendants of Abraham.(p.85) ...We are told that Terah, the father of Abraham, originally came from an Eastern country called Ur, of the Chaldees or Culdees, to dwell in a district called Mesopotamia. Some time after he had dwelt there, Abraham, or Abram, or Brahma, and his wife Sara or Sarai, or Sara-iswati, left their father's family and came into Canaan. The identity of Abraham and Sara with Brahma and Saraiswati was first pointed out by the Jesuit missionaries."(Vol. I; p. 387.)

In Hindu mythology, Sarai-Svati is Brahm's sister. The bible gives two stories of Abraham. In this first version, Abraham told Pharaoh that he was lying when he introduced Sarai as his sister. In the second version, he also told the king of Gerar that Sarai was really his sister. However, when the king scolded him for lying, Abraham said that Sarai was in reality both his wife and his sister! "...and yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." (Genesis 20:12.)

But the anomalies don't end here. In India, a tributary of the river Saraisvati is Ghaggar. Another tributary of the same river is Hakra. According to Jewish traditions, Hagar was Sarai's maidservant; the Moslems say she was an Egyptian princess. Notice the similarities of Ghaggar, Hakra and Hagar.

The bible also states that Ishmael, son of Hagar, and his descendants lived in India. "...Ishmael breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his kin... They dwelt from Havilah (India), by Shur, which is close to Egypt, all the way to Asshur." (Genesis 25:17-18.) It is an interesting fact that the names of Isaac and Ishmael are derive from Sanskrit: (Hebrew) Ishaak = (Sanskrit) Ishakhu = "Friend of Shiva." (Hebrew) Ishmael = (Sanskrit) Ish-Mahal = "Great Shiva."

A third mini-version of the Abraham story turns him into another "Noah." We know that a flood drove Abraham out of India. "...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, Even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor; and they served other gods. And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan." (Joshua 24:2-3.)

Genesis 25 mentions some descendants of his concubine Ketura (Note: The Moslems claim that Ketura is another name of Hagar.): Jokshan; Sheba; Dedan; Epher. Some descendants of Noah were Joktan, Sheba, Dedan, and Ophir. These varying versions have caused me to suspect that the writers of the bible were trying to unite several different branches of Judaism.

About 1900 BC, the cult of Brahm was carried to the Middle and Near East by several different Indian groups after a severe rainfall and earthquake tore Northern India apart, even changing the courses of the Indus and Saraisvati rivers. The classical geographer Strabo tells us just how nearly complete the abandonment of Northwestern India was. "Aristobolus says that when he was sent upon a certain mission in India, he saw a country of more than a thousand cities, together with villages, that had been deserted because the Indus had abandoned its proper bed." (Strabo's Geography, XV.I.19.)

"The drying up of the Sarasvati around 3000 BCE, which led to a major relocation of the population centered around in the Sindhu and the Sarasvati valleys, could have been the event that caused a migration westward from India. It is soon after this time that the Indic element begins to appear all over West Asia, Egypt, and Greece." (Indic Ideas in the Graeco-Roman World, by Subhash Kak, taken from IndiaStar online literary magazine; p.14)

Indian historian Kuttikhat Purushothama Chon believes that Abraham was driven out of India. He states that the Aryans, unable to defeat the Asuras (The mercantile caste that once ruled in the Indus Valley or Harappans) spent so many years fighting covertly against the Asuras, such as destroying their huge system of irrigation lakes, causing destructive flooding, that Abraham and his kindred just gave up and marched to West Asia. (See Remedy the Frauds in Hinduism.) Therefore, besides being driven out of Northern India by floods, the Aryans also forced Indian merchants, artisans, and educated classes to flee to West Asia.

(End of removed text)

The above might be a valuable source of information.

Paul August ☎ 20:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

He appears to have added copyvio and dubious "India and Sanskrit are the source of everything" information to dozens of articles today. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Ishmaelites

"and I will make him a great nation" — I guess that doesn't mean the same thing to one individual as it does to other people? When Abram is given the name "Abraham", one among those many nations he is to be the father of, is the nation and the princes descended from Ishmael. Is it the word "Ishmaelite" you have a problem with, so that you feel you need to remove it? Or, do you have a problem with the idea that Abraham is said to be the patriarch of Ishmael's descendents? Mkmcconn (Talk) 01:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Please note that my comments, as I have stated before, only have to do with Christianity and the Christian interpretation of the Bible (if it is the same as any other religion, I will leave it up to others to state and argue):
There are a few problems with this assertion:
1. If referring to the Hebrew Bible, the historicity after 4000 years and interpretation from several languages, is not accurate by any means. It is solely a matter of faith.
2. Many Christians do not believe that Genesis was meant for historical or scientific purposes but instead were an amalgramation of paribles.
3. In reality, it comes down to 1 word, "nation" in the entire Bible. Even if you assume that "and I will make him a great nation" has been accurately handed down for 4000 years and if it has been accurately interpreted over many languages, there is still the problem with its meaning. "Nation" even in English could mean many things. It could be literal, rhetorical, or symbolic. This is not historical in any way, shape or form. It is a matter of belief. --Noitall 03:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Noitall , I've allowed myself to get pulled in. Shame on me; I'm an idiot. But now that that's clear ... My question concerns whether the sentence was correct as it stood in describing what the Bible says, or whether you made it more accurate by deleting "Ishmaelites". You've settled the issue for me in what you say above - you did not intend to accurately complete the sentence "In the Hebrew Bible Abraham is described as ... " ( being the patriarch through Ishmael of a nation of 12 princes ). It seems you are saying that no one of a scientific bent of mind would want to complete this sentence, by merely reading what the Bible says, and then expressing it here, accurately. Must anyone who would dare venture into the thorny briars of discerning the meaning of a sentence really be so thorough armoured? with 4000 years worth of skepticism? Mkmcconn (Talk)
However, I am sorry that I noticed what you were up to, or it never would have caught my attention by just reading through the article, nor would I have guessed, that mention of the nation that came from Ishmael is missing on purpose, because of somebody's mysterious prejudice. Mkmcconn (Talk) 04:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, maybe it is just me, but I have no idea of what you said. I can't even discern whether you factually disagree with me and my point (summary: you can't say that about the Hebrew Bible based on this original source material). --Noitall 04:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Ok. Simple. I am an idiot for arguing with you. I'll wait until your unintentional mischief does real damage, before attempting to deal with you. Until then, I will deem you harmless. Mkmcconn (Talk) 04:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Try the Wiki policy, assume good faith. Your comment is somewhat rude if you have no argument with me. --Noitall 05:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not planning to restate the obvious again. This has already been argued in #Back on topic, and everyone apart from you seems to agree. - Mustafaa 01:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Mustafaa, I don't know if you know what planet you are on. All previous discussions were on "Abrahamic religions." Not once was this discussed or debated. Not once did I propose a single edit change regarding "Ismaelites" or or great nations or anything. Get with the program and quit doing reactionary reverts to anything that does not suit your POV. --Noitall 01:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Try rereading the talk page (or better yet, the Bible). To quote myself from above: "The Old Testament does indeed describe Ishmael as ancestor of the Ishmaelites, the Bedouin of the deserts east and south of Palestine" and "In the Torah/Old Testament... Abraham is described as a patriarch blessed by God and promised great things, father of the People of Israel through his son Isaac, and of the Ishmaelites, generally identified as the Arabs, through his son Ishmael." I take it no one's arguing the first two clauses, so that leaves "father of the Ishmaelites, generally identified as the Arabs, through his son Ishmael." See Easton's Bible Encyclopedia ("He had twelve sons, who became the founders of so many Arab tribes or colonies, the Ishmaelites"), Smith's Bible Dictionary ("The sons of Ishmael peopled the north and west of the Arabian peninsula, and eventually formed the chief element of the Arab nation, the wandering Bedouin tribes.") and even the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia ("The character of Ishmael and his descendants (Arabian nomads or Bedouins)...")", and Mkmconn: "nor would I have guessed, that mention of the nation that came from Ishmael is missing on purpose, because of somebody's mysterious prejudice". I would quote you, but you have yet to produce an actual argument for why you, unlike the standard Biblical reference works quoted or indeed the ancient Hebrews themselves, believe the Ishmaelites were not the sons of Ishmael. - Mustafaa 00:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I'm trying to remove excuse for reverting (although the reason for removing "Ishmaelites" continues to be beyond me. Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I addressed much of the issue before, but let me post comments from another talk page that discuss this issue:

Put 'midianites' 'ishmaelites' into Google. Choose one of 7,130 hits. Is Encyclopedia Britanica a good enough source? -> "MIDIANITES (also called ISHMAELITES, Enc. Brit.)" Also, most standard reference works on Islam reject the Arab claim of Abrahamic descent. For example, the prestigious 'Encyclopedia of Islam' traces the Arabs to non-Abrahamic origins (Vol. 1, pp. 543-47). One will also find the 'Dictionary of Islam' questioning the whole idea that the Arabs are descended from Ishmael. RossNixon 11:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

What you are telling me, if you think through your argument logically, is that the origination (other than this passage) of "Midianites" and "Ishmaelites" and later history, is lost to history. This happens all the time in the Bible (that's why it is 1 volume and not 20, or 100, or 1000). What you are also stating is that there is no point whatsoever in recording that. In fact, based on your statement, it is misleading because of all the misunderstanding and wrongful conclusions that can be reached by including such names. --Noitall 12:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
The beginning of the sentence, "In the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an, Abraham is described as ...", makes irrelevant whether "the origination (other than this passage) of "Midianites" and "Ishmaelites" and later history, is lost to history". Please follow the consensus, and avoid making original observations that contradict the established sources of information cited in support of the version you are arguing against. If appropriate sources support your view, cite those sources relevantly, and work cooperatively, please. Mkmcconn (Talk) 03:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Unlike many others, I carefully consider modifications on a page like this and only do so rationally and accurately. As you and Mustafaa should note, on the other issue mentioned, I conceded to the consensus. I do not recall a single reactionary revert that I have ever done. I base my analysis on source material and on logical conclusions reached from such source material. So, be assured, when I modify it, it will be based on such practices. --Noitall 03:52, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

For reference, you have cited this source for your edits:

17:20
And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.
25:16
These were the sons of Ishmael, and these are the names of the twelve tribal rulers according to their settlements and camps. --Noitall 03:56, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Why do you say "twice"? The first citation was Genesis 17:20, the second was Genesis 25:16. Also see 1 Chronicles 1:29. Other, less direct references can be cited.
"The Bible describes ... " Abraham as the patriarch of the Ishmaelites - whoever they are. Question, if you wish, whether the Bible can be trusted for history, on the issue; raise doubts if it pleases you, about whether it has anything to do with the Arabs, or with Muslim claims. But when you question whether the Bible asserts that the Midianites and Ishmaelites are Abraham's descendants there is simply nothing to argue about. Yield to the facts, please, and move on. Mkmcconn (Talk) 05:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I admit error, the citation was as you state. I corrected the above reference. I have not even begun my argument (there is no moving on except as to accuracy), but beginning with the referrence is a start. --Noitall 05:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
I'm a bit disappointed that while you admit error, you removed your error. But now are you admitting that you have been reverting the article without presenting a reasonable argument in support of doing so? That would be progress.
Genesis 39:1 reads: "Now Joseph had been brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, had bought him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him down there." (cf Gen 37:25-28) Judges 8:34: "And Gideon said to them, "Let me make a request of you: every one of you give me the earrings from his spoil." (For they had golden earrings, because they were Ishmaelites.)" These "Ishmaelites", according to the Bible's genealogical passages cited above, are the descendents of Abraham. What is your argument against that? Mkmcconn (Talk) 06:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm trying to be fair to you as a Wiki courtesy. When people do that, don't go off the deep end or be uncivil in return. I only corrected my listing of your referrence. You could have done it yourself, but apparently chose not to. --Noitall 14:14, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
The word "twice" was removed from your comment, that's my objection.
You said, "I have not begun my argument ... " My response, which I'm sorry I must press is, "are you admitting that you have been reverting the article without presenting a reasonable argument"? I am not going off the deep end, and I do not know what is uncivil about it. I am asking, do you now see why "father of the Ishmaelites" belongs in a description of Abraham, and will you let these edits stand? Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Arab connection

Heraclius, I think that you are overstating the case to write, "Although the Hebrew Bible contains no reference to the Arabs". Jeremiah 25:24, for example, reads: "all the kings of Arabia and all the kings of the foreign people who live in the desert;" 1 Kings 10:15, " besides that from the traveling merchants, from the income of traders, from all the kings of Arabia, and from the governors of the country." I'm not certain, but I believe that this is the masculine form of erev (not Arabah), and these kings are kings of erev: are they not "Arabs"? Mkmcconn (Talk) 06:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I intended to say that the sections about Ishmael in the Bible contain no reference to the Arabs. It's 2 AM here and I didn't realize what I was writing. Feel free to edit it for grammar/other mistakes but I'm done for tonight.Heraclius 06:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Other biblical references can be cited to tie the "Ishmaelites" with the "kings of the desert", but all these connections are inferential. Mkmcconn (Talk) 06:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Noitall has removed the entire section now. I am wondering what his reasons are for doing so.Heraclius 18:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I am persona non grata with Noitall. I can't do anything without attracting his opposition. If he's to be persuaded to give us permission to include these edits, I'll have to stay out of it. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, saying in the lead, "See section name" , is a form to be avoided in my opinion. The lead paragraphs should be a survey of the contents of the article. The presence of the topic in the lead should be an indication that the subject is dealt with at greater length in the article. Do you agree? Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I would have preferred to remove that but I thought it might offend people like Noitall if there wasn't further explanation. Well, if Noitall is the only person opposing this section (and looking at past discussions it seems this way), then the section will have to stay even if he continues to immaturely revert it.Heraclius 19:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Regrettably, if Noitall has spoken on the subject regardless of the fact that no one agrees, he believes that the issue has been settled. He seems sincerely not to know that he is alone in his view. Best wishes. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Accuracy is the only thing that counts, not how many people want to insert your POV. --Noitall 19:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry Noitall, but the section is accurate and sourced. Are you denying that Jewish historians like Josephus claimed Ishmael's connections to the Arabs? Are you denying that Christian Zionists in their arguments talk about how Ishmael and his descendants are not promised the Holy Land? The section will be reinserted unless you produce specific concerns about it or else your constant reverting will be considered vandalism.Heraclius 19:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't speak for Judaism or Islam, but I note that -Ril- edited to note that this is the belief of the Koran. It has nothing to do with Christianity and Christians generally do not believe in this lineage thing. Most importantly, there is no historicity of this being in fact true. If you want to keep your POV in the Islam belief section, go ahead. --Noitall 21:20, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
What is your evidence that "Christians generally do not believe in this lineage thing"? When have you offered any proof of such a sweeping generalization? It is practically official Catholic policy to teach "the lineage thing". I know that all of my Christian life I have heard, believed, and have not been offered any urgent arguments against "the lineage thing". I would say that, it is generally traditional for Christians believe it, or at least they are not inclined to so off-handedly reject, "the lineage thing". It is not controversial in my world, as it evidently is in yours. Where do you get your information, Noitall? Mkmcconn (Talk) 01:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I have gone into this at length and you just refuse to even read or consider my statements, firing off an immediate response. First, I am talking in general, which is the only way you can talk about these things. Second, as I mentioned, if there is any "lineage" at all, it is to David. Third, as I have cited and sourced, the historicity of Genesis is in doubt. It was meant for spiritual usage. Fourth, the part with respect to Ismael is entirely wrong, totally POV, and entirely off base. I am not going to repeat my arguments every 2 seconds just for you. And, in any event, it would not mean anything because I seem to be at your beck and call for responding to you, and yet you offer no consideration or respect. --Noitall 01:50, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
You cite and source nothing. You simply assert your opinion as though it were fact, and quote irrelevant material. You do not speak for "Christians generally" - nor do you have to, if you would only PROVE that you speak for someone besides yourself. Will you do that, please? Will you please try to incorporate the comments and arguments of others, that have been patiently offered here for your benefit? Would you please stop reverting? Mkmcconn (Talk) 01:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"only other Semitic race"

I'm replacing

"This and the fact that the only other Semitic race in the Middle East are the Arabs {{fact}} have led to the notion by some of the identification of Abraham as the father of the Arabs through Ishmael."

with

"This has led to the notion by some of the identification of Abraham as the father of the Arabs through Ishmael."

Insofar as "Semitic race" has any meaning at all, this sentence is demonstrably false: non-Arabic, non-Hebrew Semitic-speaking peoples are attested throughout Middle Eastern history, including Akkadians, Amorites, Canaanites, Moabites and various Ethiopic groups. The Ishmael-Arab connection can stand or fall without this bit of nonsense. -Ben 03:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I nowikied the fact template so this talk page does not show up in the NPOV disputes category. -- Kjkolb 18:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Abraham#Abraham_in_Other_Religions

Abraham and Sarah were not siblings, but relatives. I think this should be corrected, unless another tradition specifically says siblings.

Would it not be proper to include the spelling of Ibrahim in Arabic, alongside the variuos permutations of Hebrew?

Judaism views

Thoses are some interesting Jewish views with all those Christian references. ems 16:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Abraham on List of people known as father or mother of something

I recently added Abraham to the page List of people known as father or mother of something, noting that he has been called both "Father of Israel" and "Father of Islam". There are numerous sources for both. I also added Ishmael, who has been called "Father of the Arabs", and Paul of Tarsus, who has been called by various scholars "Father of Christianity".

Another user removed these changes[2], contesting that only within Islam has Abraham been considered a Father of Islam. He (or she) further contested that father means "founder", and that Muhammed should be called the Father of Islam. This list is not meant to be an exclusive one, and specifically states "that this does not always mean they invented, discovered or originated the thing with which they are associated, nor that they always have been or currently are considered a father or mother of it."

Anyone interested in this discussion, please contribute at Talk:List_of_people_known_as_father_or_mother_of_something#Religious_Figures. --Dforest 07:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Newest Incarnation of the article

Hi Blubberbrain, I think the reason Aiden reverted you is because he probably felt you were changing too much of the consensus version, too fast, with nary a word of discussion here first. The way it normally works around here (especially on the very high traffic / controversial articles like this) is discuss first, then change, if you have any big changes... But at any rate, welcome to the talk page, please let's all use the section below to discuss the relative merits of the old and new versions. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I saw a lot of talk on this discussion page but I did not really see what were actually the disputed points. What part of the article is disputed and why? From this talk page this is not clear. So, that's why I cleaned up a little. But I preserved the info which was on the site.
The article is really a mess and it needs really cleanup. What did I do?

  1. removed some content in the introduction to sections (e.g. Ancestry of Abraham)
  2. added the first section about abrahamic religion, added some content of this page to that page
  3. added structure into "Abraham in the Hebrew Bible". It better reads now (not a lot of references to bible verses, but readable)
  4. added info on "Abraham in the New Testament"


Blubberbrein2 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there is much discussion around here. So much for the "totally disputed". I saved the text regarding the Hebrew Bible on Abraham (Hebrew Bible). This text is mainly from a encyclopdia from 1823 (hence Public Domain)

Merging tag removed

Since no consensus whatsoever was reached I removed the tag and as both articles : Abraham and Abraham (Hebrew bible) stands they are both of significant encyclopaedic value, a copyediting of the section Abraham in the Hebrew Bible is in no doubt useful to help with its reading. Lincher 19:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

AD / CE

Per WP:DATE, it is neccesary to use only one method of dating notation per article. This means that there shall not be a split usage of BC, BCE, CE, and AD. Only AD/BC or CE/BCE should be used within one article space. When I arrived at this article, it used both BC and BCE. Though BCE was used mainly in the opening paragraphs, BC was used later in the article (this is before my edits). In accordance with the above Wikipedia:Manual of Style excerpt I provided, only one is acceptable. Since I cannot single-handedly decide which era notation is to be used, it is customary (see Jesus) that both era notations be placed as neutrality until a consensus can be made on one era usage. Now if someone simply reverts my latest edit, this is a violation of the MOS; if someone simply reverts my edits and replaces all the "BC"'s with "BCE", that is again against Wikipedia standards as we need to arrive at consensus prior to a decision. I invite all to discuss which notation shall be used below. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Discussion of Era notations

  • I added the entire "Calculation of Abraham's Birth" section On March 14, 2006, see here [3], and the 1948 years according to Masoretic texts on February 7, 2006. This predates most of the edits under discussion. Therefore, until such time as we all agree to a consensus as to what scheme to use, your own request should prevnt you from reverting dates in that section from BCE to BC. -- Avi 19:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Due to the fact that I have supporting evidence that both "BCE" and "BC" were used on this article without any complaints from Wikipedians posted here on the Talk page, it is obvious there was never a consensus toward either anno Domini or CE. Since both cannot be used sparingly within one article, it is much more appropriate to neutralize the article by including both notations throughout (i.e. - 400 BC/BCE), rather than to revert all notations to BCE or all notations to BC. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 19:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Then why in your last revert did you take OUT two BCE's in favor of BC? Is that impartial? If anything, the date schema should be left as the individual authors have added until we decide, but even if we agree to temporarily use this dual nomenclature, your removal of the dual in favor of the singular BC does not bespeak impartiality. I guess you reverted without checking, but it would help all of us handle this in a reasonable and cordial manner if we took the extra moment to check. -- Avi 19:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OK. Now, is there any overriding reason to choose one over the other for the sake of this article? My thought is that since Abraham is more closely identified with Judaism than Christianity, the BCE nomenclature would be preferred as it is less directly Christian in connotation. -- Avi 20:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe that Abraham is no more connotated with Judaism than with Christianity, due to the fact that both religions are Abrahamic. Abraham's actions are seen as very important in Christianity as a foreshadowing of God's gift of Jesus as the Son of God. And even though Abraham may have been a Jew, so was Jesus, and he is of course connotated with Christianity; thus this should not be a deciding factor. Therefore, IMO, Christianity and Judaism are equally connotated with Abraham, and thus I would vote that we continue to use the dual notations of BC/BCE. If it came down to a decision, however, I would definitely pick solely "BC", due to the fact that I see "BCE/CE" as a narrow-minded attempt at political correctness by simply using the anno Domini calendar without respecting it's relation to Jesus Christ. It's like "the pot calling the kettle black". In my opinion, until there is a "World Calendar" based on the beginning of time, or similar, invented, we should stick with the historically used terms for as long as we're going to be using the Gregorian calendar. Let's not forget, it isn't only Westerners reading Wikipedia, and there is no "political correctness movement" outside the Western world, thus "BCE/CE" is certainly not accepted nor understood worldwide as terminology for the Gregorian calendar. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 22:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:DATE allows for both usages, as you pointed out earlier, therefore I disagree with your categorization of "BCE" as "narrow-minded." Further, I would think that most impartial people would tend to categorize Abraham as Jewish and not Christian, Jesus was born a Jew, true, but was the progenitor of a new religion; and as such would be much less associated with Judaism than Christianity. Does the fact that Jesus is considered on of the pre-eminent prohpets in Islam mean that we should be using the Islamic calendar? I do not believe so. Jesus, Paul, Peter, Judas, Mary were all Jews at one point, but no one would consider their Jewishness to overwhelm their Christianity. Conversely, albeit Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Joseph, etc. are very important characters in Christianity, they are much more closely associated with Judaism. Now as for your point about BC/BCE. From your perspective, it seems a "narrow-minded attempt at political correctness." From another perspective, it is a way of using the Gregorian calendar without making direct reference to other religions. If you agree that it refers to the same arbitrary 0-point, then what does it matter to you that the term used is "Common Era" unless you have a specific religious overtone in mind that you feel the need to reference Jesus? I do not understand. Thank you. -- Avi 23:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I explained this above, "...we should stick with the historically used (accepted) terms for as long as we're going to be using the Gregorian calendar. Let's not forget, it isn't only Westerners reading Wikipedia, and there is no "political correctness movement" outside the Western world, thus "BCE/CE" is certainly not accepted nor understood worldwide as terminology for the Gregorian calendar...". My point is that "BCE/CE" was only recently introduced as a neologism and euphemism to anno Domini, and is only recognized (and not even by all citizens of) the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, and corresponding Western countries. Since we emphasize that Wikipedia is a non Western-centric encyclopedia, using the neologism "BCE/CE" is not appropriate IMO. Also, I think Islam and Christianity are equally associated with Abraham, at least to an extent whereas BC and BCE together would be best appropriate — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 00:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, while I am no fan of BCE and vastly prefer BC, one of the main reasons is because BCE is so much more unnecessarily cumbersome, and an eyesore. I really don't think writing "BC/BCE" everywhere is any improvement. Do you see my point? If you are going to accomodate everyone at once, you would have to include the comparable dates in every single one of the calendars listed here: http://www.funaba.org/en/calendar-conversion.cgi , and that will be a whole lot of slashes...! As silly and pretentious as BCE is, I would prefer that to BC/BCE, or BC/BCE/BH/AM etc. etc. At least BCE stands for the same year 1 as BC ! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • AD and BC are even more Western-centric than BCE/CE, due to the fact that they directly refer to the birth of Jesus Christ, which is about as Western-centric as one can get. BCE is actually less Western-centric in that regard. If anything, your own argument bolsters using BCE as opposed to BC, unless I am misunderstanding you, which is eminently possible. -- Avi 01:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


I don't follow your logic that the birth of a Jew in Israel is "about as Western-centric as one can get". There are just as many Eastern Churches as Western ones, if not more. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What I mean is that if Crazy is worried about making Wikipedia less focused on Western/Occidental history, culture, and usage, then having a dating nomenclature that does not reference Jesus directly would be preferable. Of course, unless I am misunderstanding his argument. -- Avi 01:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • No, BCE/CE are more Western-centric. To say that AD/BC are more Western-centric is POV because you are essentially saying that all Westerners are Christian (i.e. - Christian-centric = Western-centric). What I mean when saying that BCE/CE are more Western-centric is that those outside the Western world do not understand the terms BCE/CE as they are very new neologisms and not at all widely understood. Even many Americans, Canadians, and other Westerners do not know of the terms. It is Western-centric to assume that everyone in the world is supposed to understand the politically-correct savvy terms that Americans made in order to cover-up the original history of things, as they often do (see Spring holiday, Secularization of Christmas). An Easterner attempting to perhaps learn English has enough difficulties, let alone having to figure out that BCE/CE are silly and pointless replacements for BC/AD. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 01:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • At this point in time, I think that BCE is quite well-known world-wide, perhaps more so in non-Christian areas. Someone who is ignorant of the term BCE is likely ignorant of the term BC as well. Regardless, that is what a wikilink in the original appearance of the term in any article is for, be it BC or BCE. -- Avi 01:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • BCE/CE only surfaced in American/Western texts as recently as the 1990s, let alone other countries. Saying that BC/AD are as unknown as BCE/CE is patently ridiculous. BC/AD have been around for over a thousand years (since 525 AD), and are used constantly in historic texts. The fact that there is often subscripts stating "BCE is an alternative for BC" on even American texts, proves it is widely an unknown neologism even in the Western world. If you compare a term that was around since 525 to a term around since the 19th century (with usage limited to Jewish texts until ca. 1980), you can expect the former is more popular and known worldwide. Also, providing a link to CE in-text (i.e. - 525 CE) is POV-pushing in the sense of promoting relatively new terminology. "AD" is never linked because anyone who knows the Gregorian calendar knows AD/BC. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 01:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting, then, that Wikipedia's own article on Common Era dates it as far back as 1716, and the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia uses it synonomously with Christian Era and Vulgar Era, so the 1990's claim is weak at best, and wrong at worst. Now 1716 is much after 532, I agree, but almost 300 years of use is somewhat more considerable, and allows as much penetration into modern parlance as the corresponding term. Even 100 years of constant use is more than enough to make the terms nearly (if not absolutely) identically distributed in the public psyche. That particular article also references the USNO and others who use it, and the History Channel's usage of using it in non-Christian topics such as Jerusalem, which goes back to my original point that Abraham is much more closely identified with Judaism than Christianity, by around 1800 years, and should use the BCE/CE nomencalture. -- Avi 01:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • To make clear, I noted that BCE/CE terms have been around since the 19th century (1800s), so 1716 is not much off, sorry, I wasn't precise. As for the 1990s, this is the approximate decade that it became well-known in the United States at least. As for texts, do you have any other than the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia? Public texts such as educational and historic texts and schoolbooks haven't been presented with the terms until circa the 1990s / 2000s. There is controversy (see External links at Common era) now, in 2006, about the usage of BCE/CE in public American texts. Anyhow, my point is that exposure has been limited as of present, and especially in non-Western countries. I stand with my opinion that Abraham is as closely related with Christianity and Islam as with Judaism. Just because he was first associated with Judaism with an 1,800 year difference in no way asserts anything. Jesus was first associated with Judaism as well, and now he is associated with Christianity, but as well with Judaism and Islam. Since Abraham is responsible for the formation of all the aforementioned "Abrahamic" religions, I don't think he is exclusively associated with Judaism. In any case, the point here is to decide on an era notation usage. Since you and I disagree, the vote is currently tied and there is no consensus. The "BC/BCE" should remain until other users herein comment and we reach consensus. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 01:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Date-warring

Crazy's date-warring took him to the List of founders of major religions article, which he changed over to BC/AD, with a note to the effect that he was "reverting" a change.

I started that article and I always use BCE/CE.

Are we going to have a repeat of the Jguk debacle? Please, Crazy, just ignore it if people use a date scheme you don't like. Zora 00:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Is that so? I just checked the history of that article myself, and it seems that perhaps Crazy's edits are indicative of WP:POV couched in seemingly innoucuous WP:DATE clothes, in which case all of his BC edits need to be reverted. If that is the case, that is. -- Avi 00:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I see you haven't responded to my above comment, Avi. The edit I made at List of founders of major religions was a mistake, as a quick look at the history indicated to me that the article was using BC, as indeed it was, however the article initially began with BCE (BC was used for a while as well). Someone changed to BC earlier in the article, and then it was changed back to BCE, then someone changed to BC stating "revert back to BC" so I assumed it was originally BC, without checking for sure—which was my mistake but I realized this. This article is different. BC and BCE were both used sporatically throughout the article and we need to use only one notation. Since there is no current consensus we need to make a consensus, and for now we should use both notations on all years (i.e. BC/BCE). I can't see how my edits here are slanted because initially, this article has instances of "BC" alone, and "BCE" as well. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 00:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the explanation, Crazy, that clarifies the issues. I will address your other comments above in their proper place. -- Avi 01:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Abraham not a Jew

No virgin birth here folks-I am saying he is not a Jew because Jew=Judahite, descendant of Judah, and Abraham was not a descendant of Judah.

22:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)~~Enda80

So he was a Hebrew. The practical difference is.....? --Eliyak T·C 23:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
So, Abraham was the great-grandfather of Judah and the great-great-great-great grandson of Eber. No practical difference ;) Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver

Merge Ibrahim into Abraham#Islamic_view_of_Abraham

Not a bad idea at all, but the multitude of references threaten to overwhem the article. Is there any way to split those off and merely link to them, or link to wikisource? -- Avi 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not fair to only merge in Ibrahim, but keep Abraham (Hebrew Bible). And merging both would make this article so big that it would need to break up. The sources are relevant, they need to stay. I only wish for Ibrahim to be renamed to Islamic view of Abraham, just as Jesus had Isa who was renamed Islamic view of Jesus.--Striver 08:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I hear your point about the size. As no one else has chimed in, I am removing the merge tags, and we will leave as-is alone. -- Avi 20:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On Abraham's birth...

I have calculated it according to Moses and Joseph as 1685 BC, as I like to think of Joseph's Egyptian identity as Yuya (well, there are no better ones, as sometime in the Hyksos period would not work as, more recent discoveries have shown that there were no chariots in that time), and I like to think of the length of the Sojourn as artificial (ages of Levi+Kohath+Amram+Moses-years of Levi and Moses before and after the Sojourn), and as the Exodus occuring at the end of the reign of Ramesses I (as the Bible and the Koran imply that it was in the second year of the reign of the Pharaoh and that the Pharaoh died, and, the previous Pharaoh, Horemheb was naturally against monotheism). I guess I will calculate backwards from Jesus assuming that all dates are correct excluding the Sojourn though, just to be safe. Therealmikelvee 20:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

His birth was c. 1685 BC/BCE, all because of the mistake in Jesus's genealogy with the addition of 366 years (remember that?), subtract them and you have around 1685 BC. Wow I was right, which must mean Yuya was the best candidate for Joseph and Horemheb and Ramesses I were the Pharaohs of the Exodus. Therealmikelvee 21:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Many of us calculate his birth having nothing to do with Jesus, and our sources pre-date Jesus's birth by a few centuries. Your method of estimations and approximations is one way of coming at it. The Masoretic way is another, and likely more accurate as it does not depend on trying to associate plausible technology with histoical Pharoh's whose dates are themselves subject to an error range. -- Avi 02:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are right, but I still think that it should still be calculated in regard to others with better confirmed dates.Therealmikelvee 01:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Abraham's Race

I see alot of pictures of a white abraham on here. Since abraham was from Ur, he most of been black/negroid. Because Elam was not too far from Ur and people from Elam were black,according to the pictures they left on walls....—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deananoby2 (talk • contribs) 16:26, July 12, 2006 (UTC)

Um, wouldn't Abraham have been Semetic? After all, he's the ancestors of the Jews and Arabs (and Edomites and Midianites and Samaritans...) Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 02:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the relation?

Abraham

Brahma

If you move A from "A"braham to the last, it becomes Brahama.

If you move A from Brahm"a" to the first, it becomes Abrahm.

Coincidence? or More? Monkey Brain 17:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Shared root words were big in ancient times. Homestarmy 12:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Um, the CE lists Abraham as deriving from the Assyrian Abu-ramu. Brahma can probably be traced back to one of the proto-Indo-Aryan languages. Then again, Abraham only lived five generations after the Tower of Babel, ("Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided." Genesis 10:25. Peleg begat Reu begat Serug begat Nahor begat Terah begat Abram. Genesis 11:18-26) so...who knows? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 18:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Polygamist

I put the category "Polygamists" on the bottom and Ross deleted it with the only explanation that it was tried before. Could someone please clarify: Did Abraham have more than one wife? If he did why is he not a Polygamist?

I don't know how this category got started, but recently many LDS articles have been labeled as such. Most of you know may be aware that the descrptor is accurate, but it is also accurate that many of the Old Testament prophets were polygamists. If it is good for the goose then it is good for the gander and all scriptural individuals should be labeled as such so that all will understand who was and who was not a polygamist. Storm Rider (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted cat:Polygamists several days ago. Did you see my edit summary which gave this ref? www.giveshare.org/family/polygamy.html

Quote: While Sarah, his wife, lived, he never married any other woman. Abraham had an illegitimate son by Hagar. But that was an adulterous sin...... I think we can recognize extenuating circumstances. Sarah was barren. For a wife in ancient times to go childless was felt to be a disgrace. It was Sarah, Abraham's own wife, who brought to Abraham her servant handmaid, asking him to produce a child for Sarah by this servant woman. End Quote. rossnixon 07:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the reference and I respect the opinion it projects. However, there are other opinions and one of them is that Abram was husband to both Hagar and Sarai. You may dispute the claim, but you can not simply delete it because you do not agree. You are skilled enough on WIKI that I do not need to relate the number of policies that support this action. I believe the category is accurate though disputed. Storm Rider (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
But he can delete it if it is more verifiable that they wern't married than it is for them to be married, what sources do you have that say that they had to of been married? Homestarmy 12:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Genesis 16:3 says that Sarai gave Hagar to Abram to be his wife. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 02:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC) PS:Although, since she was Sarai's slave (handmaiden), you could argue that Hagar was technically more of a concubine than a wife. Yet, every Bible version I've looked at uses the word "wife"...I think it's best to stick to the Bible. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 02:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC) PPS: For the sake of NPOV, does anyone know what the Qu'ran has to say about Hagar? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 03:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems possible Abraham could of divorced Sarai during this, though the Bible doesn't mention it. I suspect there's some cultural deal behind this though, alot of OT stuff can get involved when you look up the culture behind sometimes odd looking things that happen. Homestarmy 18:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Abram (God renamed him Abraham in Chapter 17) and Sarai were still marrried. It was a common practice at the time: if a rich man's wife was barren, then with his wife's permission, he could have sex with a lower class woman of the household (a servant or slave, ie Hagar) to produce an heir, which would then be adopted and raised by the high-class couple (ie, Abram and Sarai). (According to the custom, Hagar would have been a concubine). My NKJV Study Bible actually compares this to the modern practice of employing a surrogate mother (although, of course, no sex is involved).

Instead, Abram actually fell in love with Hagar. This, of course, made Sarai jealous. Sarai began to "deal harshly" with Hagar (Genesis 16:6), and Hagar and Ishmael fled from Sarai. However, the Angel of the LORD bid Hagar to return to Sarai and Abram (Genesis 16:9). But Sarah (her name changed, too) sent Hagar and Ishmael away again after Isaac was born (Genesis 21:9-20)

So much for Genesis. I wonder what the Qu'ran has to say?

BTW, if we're going to talk about OT polygamists, what about Solomon and his 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3)? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 05:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you'll look at verses 16:3-5, you'll see a bit of a different story than you painted. First, the reason Sarai was upset was that her maidservant Hagar no longer showed her respect, because she had concieved while Sarai had not. Also, In 16:3, it clearly says that Abram takes Hagar as a wife (probably as a concubine, but that is way different than having sex with random servant women). (UPDATE: This was stated above by Arch O. La. I should have read this whole thing through before responding.) --Eliyak T·C 07:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I mentioned the concubinage/wife thing. I was just telling Homestarmy that there was no divorce between Sarai and Abram. (At least, not literally. Perhaps in the emotional sense).Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 07:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Old Testament polygamy seems to give fits to many Christians. Of course, being a Latter-day Saint, it does not offer concern. Many of the greatest prophets of the OT were polygamists. I have read many of the quotes similar to the one mentioned above, but they seem to do backflips trying to prove that it either did not really happen as the Bible says or that it was sin and God just looked the other way. My impression is the polygamy was not a universal "right" or "law" and it was not engaged in by the whim of the every man. When directed or approved by God it was acceptable, but for the majority of people it was and is a sin.
This would not be a unique situation. Only the Levites were allowed to serve in the temple while all others were forbidden. For others to attempt to serve was blasphemy against the law of God. In addition, there was only a single covenant people in the old world; all others were "secondary" in the eyes of God. (That is never a comfortable concept to contemplate, but seems to be true of the OT.) I think you will find other examples where God identifies sin for one is not sin for another or where favor is found in one and not others. Storm Rider (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the verses back this up. See Deuteronomy 21:15. Leviticus 18:18 also has certain implications. --Eliyak T·C 06:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course, these words were given by God to Moses. Moses came long after Abraham. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 07:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent scripture. We are getting a little further afield. Question, based upon Deut. 21:15 Ishmael should have received the birth right because he was the first born. In reality, Issac received it and became one of the forefathers of the covenant people. Ishmael still received a blessing, he bacame the father of a great nation.
Back to the question at hand, if polygamy were such a grevious sin I suspect the Lord would have rebuked Abram. Instead of rebuking him, he greatly blessed him and his offspring from both wives. Maybe polygamy was not a sin, maybe it was still a sin, but a greater law was being observed by Abram, Sarai, and Hagar. What is absolutely certain is that Abraham was not punished for having two wives nor were his progeny. Storm Rider (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV - historicity

The historicity of Abraham (whether he was a real person or is only a myth) is disputed. (See e.g. The Bible and history. Much of the article after the intro (which I just fixed) assumes that he was a real person, and this is not NPOV. -- Beland 21:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There appear to be no inline citations in that article, more specifically, in the sections dealing with the existance of Abraham. While the article does indeed purport un-substantiated generalizations concerning scholarly opinion concerning the existance of the patriarchs in general, and while it does have a wonderfully un-cited sentence saying there is "no archaeological evidence" of them or something, I don't see how it's necessarily a basis to change the article until real citations are found. Homestarmy 22:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd call it a wonderfully un-insightful senstence :D Kuratowski's Ghost 16:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, take a look at [4], [5], and [6]. -- Beland 04:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that there are a few archaeological remains that can be correlated with Abraham, i.e. cities with names that seem to correspond not only to Haran, but other relatives of Abraham, such as Terah, Serug and Nahor. Hammurabi should also be mentioned in this context, although some synchronize Abraham with the time of Sargon instead. Plausible archaeological parallels have been suggested for the kings mentioned in Gen. 14:1, in the time of Hammurabi. (The Amraphel of the Bible is thought by some to be none other than Hammurabi himself.) Thus, while there is no compelling archaeological evidence that Abraham ever existed, there are nonetheless at least some plausible archaeological parallels. Also interesting is the fact that some other nations retain memories of him which seem to be independent of the biblical materials. --ThaThinker 08:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Arab Connection

CS insists on adding unsourced weasel claims that "Assyria to Havilah" refers to the Arabian peninsula. CS knows very well that Assyria is not in the Arabian peninsula and a bit of reading shows that Havilah was in the north of Arabia. Also saying "some Arab historians" or whatever is weasel wording - either give sources and say who or say nothing. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A bit of reading should demonstrate that Havilah was in the South in what is now known as Yemen according to almost everybody. And you are the one who added the Arab historians without saying who they were. "Some" is perfectly allowable, and in fact necessary because otherwise you are implying that ALL Arab historians make these claims. Also your motivations for manipulating the sources in order to create a "new" pov that Arabs are somehow not descended from Abraham, seems influenced by recent politics or perhaps some other agency. Please cite an actual author who specifically argues against Arabs being connected with Ishmael. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
There were three places named Havilah in the OT if I recall, one in Africa, one in Arabia and one in Persia. I'd argue that others are trying to manipulate the sources because of modern politics to claim that modern Arabs are descended from Ishmael when that is not what Jewish or Islamic sources really say. Already in the 1895 Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature by McClintock and Strong one finds a refutation of the claim of Arab descent from Ishmael. Off hand I remember reading up on this in the Encyclopedia Judaica and it also made it pretty clear that it was a late tradition that associated Ishmael with the Arabacized Arabs. I don't know any reliable sources that ever claimed Ishmael was the ancestor of all Arabs - as the explanation I tried to include that you reverted said: Arabians in Jewish works referred to the Nabateans - Josephus clearly indicates he is talking about the people of Nabatene when he says Arabians. Its also pretty standard knowledge that the Nabateans were not the ancestors of the Arab nation that arose with Islam.
The changes I propose to the section are as follows:
  • Put Jubilees reference before Josephus, Jubilees is dated to the Hellenistic period well before Josephus.
  • Mention that Josphus calls Ishmael the "founder" of the Arabians using a Greek word that does not mean ancestor or father, suppressing this piece of info is POV.
  • An explanation that the Arabians of Jewish sources refers to Nabateans and that modern Arabs are not descended from Nabateans, suppressing that info is deliberately misleading!
  • Point out that both Jewish and Islamic sources mention other nations in Arabia having nothing to do with Ishmael - Bible mentions Semitic Joktan and Cushitic Raamah, Islamic traditions about Ishmael have him marrying Arab girls in Mecca!!!!
Kuratowski's Ghost 21:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I see that what Jubilees actually says is that the descendents of Ishmael and Keturah intermingled and their descedendents are known as "Arabians and Ishmaelites". Kuratowski's Ghost 12:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
As for your four bulleted points for suggested changes above;
  1. - This has already been done; I accept that Jubilees is older than Josephus (in fact I would say far, far older than Hellenistic!)
  2. - This can certainly be done if you can dig up the specific Greek word so we can show it, transliterate it, and explain it...
  3. - This is where we disagree. I am not convinced that there is such a gulf or chasm as you are trying to assert between the Arabs in "Jewish sources" and "modern Arabs". This is where we would need good sources to back up this point if it were valid. Even if the Nabateans were "northern" Arabs it does not follow that they had a completely separate ancestry from the more "southern" Arabs. People do intermingle with their neighbours and create new hybrid stocks quite often in history, you know. From an epigraphic standpoint, there is scarcely any doubt that Arabic letters came via Nabatean.
Arabic letters certainly evolved from Nabatean. Some say ;) that the Nabateans may have had an important role in the development of the Arabic language. A point of debate one finds in articles about the Nabateans is whether the traditional Jewish view is correct (that they derived from the Ishmaelites) or whether they were really Aramaeans who had south or even whether they were "true Arabs" who had migrated north. But whatever the case, the Nabateans assimilated into non-Arab peoples before the rise of the modern Arab nation. You have assimilation with Jews during the Hashmonean period and subsequently assimilation into the general Byzantine population of the middle east as their cities were abandoned. The modern Arabs move north from Arabia just after this. The Nabateans actually aren't "northen Arabs" in the sense the term is typically used when discussing the early Arabs - "northern Arab" typically means Adnanis from the Mecca region as opposed to "southern Arab" Qahtanis from Yemen, the Nabateans lived even further north than the "northern Arabs". This where the Jewish and Islamic claims differ - Jewish claims are from second Temple period and have Nabateans as the descendants of the Ishmaelites mixed with other tribes, Islamic claims are from the dawn of Islam and have the Adnanis of the Mecca region descended from Ishmael, a different people to the Nabateans. In addition the Islamic claims are weak by the very admissions of Arab historians who discuss the matter while the Jewish claims have a good chance of being partially correct at least considering the Nabateans historically took over the former Ishmaelite regions and would very likely have some ancestry from the original inhabitants. My 2 shekels worth. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. - I agree with this point, in fact I had added a mention of Joktan etc. myself, and wanted to keep it in there. Perhaps we are not saying things that are so different. The Arab tribes certainly miscegenated Semites in the north including those represented by Ishmael and Keturah, and non-Semites in the south represented by Cush's children Sheba, Saba etc. We should not be out trying to deny one or the other of these elements in their ethnogenesis. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abraham/Archive_1&oldid=1136491527"