Talk:Abraham/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is the term "Biblical" NPOV?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Event sequence confusion

message: 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)
thread_title: About Abraham in philosophy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Errors

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. .)  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Yuber's Edits Again

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed copied text 

message: I'm replacing 
:"This and the fact that the only other Semitic race in the Middle East are the Arabs  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "only other Semitic race" 

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

message: 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, 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)
thread_title:  Abraham on [[List of people known as father or mother of something]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Newest Incarnation of the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merging tag removed 

message: *I added the entire "Calculation of Abraham's Birth" section On March 14, 2006, see here , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion of Era notations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge Ibrahim into Abraham#Islamic_view_of_Abraham 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  On Abraham's birth... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Abraham's Race 

message: 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)
replies: text: Shared root words were big in ancient times. Homestarmy 12:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What's the relation? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'd call it a wonderfully un-insightful senstence :D Kuratowski's Ghost 16:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, take a look at , , and .  -- Beland 04:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV - historicity