Jump to content

Talk:Cainan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canaan

[edit]

This article's relation to Canaan may derserve comment. Septentrionalis 22:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't that similar in Hebrew.
There is no relation. Str1977 (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Canaan was fathered by Ham [1] Canan is not mentioned in Genesis as the father of Shelah. [2]David (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gen 10:6. "Ham's sons: Cush, Mizrain, Put, and Canaan."
  2. ^ Gen 11:12. Arpachshad lived 35 years and fathered Shelah."

Merge with Kenan

[edit]

I suggest that this article will be mrged with Kenan under the article-name Kenan with a redirection to Kenan from Cainan since it is the same person with different spellings of the name.KMA "HF" N 08:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Canan, supposedly son of Arpachshad, son of Shen. Canan and Kenan are not the same person. Kenan is son of Enosh. [1]David (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gen 5:6. Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enosh.

Dropping words from a quote

[edit]

Dear Mr IP,

Here is your chance to clearly state why you object to my changes and which words I am supposedly dropping from which quote! There is only one quote in this article and the only thing I did was re-formatting a comment about this quote into a footnote.

Please state your case here or cease your edit-warring. Str1977 (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warrimg changes to quote

[edit]

Str1977, your changes to the quote do not make sense. The words "from Cainan" were dropped from the quote of Smith rendering it unintelligible, and the explanatory footnote is a sentence fragment. So I do not see this as an improvement to the previous structure. 172.56.35.26 (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Had you clearly spelled out the problem - one that can be easily overlooked if viewed in source text - we wouldn't have been going back and forth.
Now, any other objections - I can't see anything wrong! Str1977 (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did the best I could to explain so don't put it on me and you still don't see the problem in the footnote? At least restore the word "what" to the beginning so it makes a sentence. Thanks 172.56.35.26 (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaints were pretty obscure and linked with blanket reverting. And if you continue this way, hinting at errors instead of spelling them out clearly, we'll get nowhere. BTW, if you see a mistake, no one will keep you from correcting it yourself. There was no "what" missing in the note, which I have now rectified. Str1977 (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Secondary Sources?

[edit]

I see the tag in the article saying this article does not use secondary sources. I'm not sure how this is the case. I would assume that any version of the Bible would be the primary source, and others would be secondary. I don't see how this tag fits. Please comment if you see differently. XZealous (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]