![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.
In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.— Lester L. Grabbe, Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove "See also: Abraham in the Catholic liturgy" as that article was deleted. 130.208.182.103 ( talk) 14:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "His story was probably composed in the early Persian period (late 6th century BCE) as a result of tensions between Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and traced their right to the land through their "father Abraham", and the returning exiles who based their counterclaim on Moses and the Exodus tradition" to "His story was possibly first recorded in writing during the early Persian period, motivated by tensions between Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and traced their right to the land through Abraham, and the returning exiles who based their counterclaim on Moses and the Exodus tradition."
SOURCES: Pitard, Wayne T. (2001). "Before Israel". In Coogan, Michael D. (ed.). The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-513937-2. Book of Isaiah 63:16 Book of Ezekiel 33:24.
Reasoning: The sentence as written contradicts information later in the article and is written as if the theory is that the story was invented wholesale in the 6th century BC to justify land claims. The theory, as sections of the article later state, is that the story of Abraham had existed long before; his name is referenced in both the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel (as the Wiki already states) and parts of the former were indisputably written in the 8th century BC or earlier. Thus change is proposed to clarify that the story was possibly first written down in the 6th century BC spurred by land arguments, not that it was created wholesale to justify land arguments. Other change was made to avoid what was arguably the small grammatical error of not following parallelism. Awillis146 ( talk) 14:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
According to WP:RNPOV, infobox character has to be used. Did you even bother to read the historicity section? In the mainstream academia the historicity of Abraham is dead in the water.
As another Wikipedian once told, the Little Red Riding Hood has a better claim to historicity than Abraham.
Do you think that offends your religion? Well, you just got offended by THE REALITY. The empirical, objective reality just gave the lie to your dogma.
Wikipedia sides with the reality-based community, not with religious dogma. Don't lecture me about billions of Christians and Muslims, since Wikipedia never sides with prejudice and ignorance.
We unabashedly choose for the consensus view of top 100 full professors over the consensus view of 4 billion ignoramuses.
And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Wikipedia community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Wikipedia really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that "mainstream scholarship" has here at Wikipedia. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb ( talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is certainly not the venue for ventilating the POV of bigoted ignoramuses. Bigots all over the world should consider Wikipedia as their enemy. We are at war with bigotry and ignorance.
We seek to be polite towards everybody. But this is not a friendly website for the superstitious, illogical, unreasonable and WP:FRINGE.
WP:RNPOV is site-wide policy, and whoever removes the word character
from {{
Infobox character}} is awarely acting against website policy.
Even if I were an editor against 100 editors, agreement among 100 editors does not allow them to intentionally violate website policy. Consciously acting against policy will be reported to WP:ANI.
And if you're asking me why I call all these people ignoramuses
, the answer is simple: they have never published a peer-reviewed paper about the historicity of Abraham. So they have never published a competent opinion upon this issue. Therefore, their views don't count as
WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Mine doesn't, either—I'm not a scholar.
In the mainstream academia the historicity of Abraham is dead in the water
is a fact, not an opinion. One has to be severely drunken to deny that it is a fact. Those who have not been insulated from academic learning have no rational reason to deny that it is a fact, and the opinion of those who have been insulated does not matter.
If we allow the religious fundamentalists to get the upper hand upon this website, the project of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia based upon mainstream academic learning is as good as dead and buried.
So, yeah, this {{ infobox character}} edit war is about who gets the upper hand: either biblical literalism or mainstream Bible scholarship. It is a matter of principle and it has huge consequences for editing Wikipedia, therefore I am not at all prepared to compromise with biblical literalists.
I won't appease them, since that equates with selling Wikipedia to the most vocal pressure group. I am willing to accommodate people who have different opinions than mine, but I won't let biblical literalists take over Wikipedia. What should they do? Same as I don't edit abortion, they should avoid articles they feel strongly about. I disagree with the POV of that article and I know full well that, wikipedically speaking, I'm on the losing side in respect to that article, so I won't touch it. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
closeto him. If you can make the case that the historicity of Abraham still has a chance at WP:CHOPSY, do it. Otherwise, don't whine that we follow CHOPSY. Neutrality isn't WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia has always been biased for the mainstream academia, if you think you can undo that, no, you cannot. This is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, i.e. a hard-core scientific and scholarly encyclopedia like Britannica and Larousse. If your POV has the chance of a snowball in hell of entering Larousse, then don't push it here. What we won't do is give equal validity to fundamentalist biblical literalism and CHOPSY WP:SCHOLARSHIP. While we recognize that the Pope is the boss of the Cahtolic Church, we don't WP:MNA that the Pope is always right (e.g. about the history of Christianity or about Bible scholarship). In the end, this is a secular encyclopedia (secular, not atheistic). See [1]. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.
In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.
the Bible/Koran says so).
everything goes, not even
if it goes with my own church, it should also go with Wikipedia. WP:PAG is WP:NOTANARCHY. What the IP wants is not allowed, and I do not mean
not allowed by me and Achar Sva, but not allowed by the system, not allowed by Wikipedia. Why? Because our choice (our meaning the Wikipedia Community) is clear: we unabashedly choose for the mainstream academia over theological orthodoxy. Policies and guidelines are simply the means by which we implement and enforce such choice.
The article currently cites multiple published sources, you cite none. We don't base articles on random assertions. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 11:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
IZAK, with respect, on Wikipedia we follow the modern historiography to discuss the history of something. Scholarly consensus would be the determining factor here, per due weight. El_C 20:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Modern historiographymeaning historiography written in the 21st century.
born c. 2150 BCE died c. 1975 BCE—what is this? ROFLMAO! Why put this WP:CB chronology in the article?
This is ill-conceived. Please, do not imperiously refer to Christians and Muslims as "4 billion ignoramuses". In addition to being arrogant, you will cause Wikipedia to get a fatwa sooner or later. I wikilinked it, in case there is any confusion. Read the BLP of Salman Rushdie if you need a refresher. I advise against similarly denigrating the beliefs of billions and millions of Hindus and Jews, respectively, regarding the use of an infobox for cartoon characters to refer to the deities/deity and prominent figures of their belief systems. I am one of those Jews. I am merely a Wikipedia editor, but there are many of similar opinion about the validity of faith, be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or anything else that isn't Scientology. I am NOT an ignoramus. Again, I implore you (collectively) to have some respect, and cease this campaign.-- FeralOink ( talk) 11:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:LEGAL applies, and I mean this:
For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention.
To avoid misunderstandings, use less charged wording.
Okay, time for Adminstrator's Noticeboard Incidents. WP:LEGAL and threat to sue? What!? Who is suing whom? "Fainting couch over acting"?! What is wrong with you? Stop criticizing me. This is Wikipedia. You are threatening me and using gender-associated terms to ridicule me. A fainting couch?! Why can't you just allow me to comment rather than continue your attacks, day after day? Why am I asking you this? Time for ANI!-- FeralOink ( talk) 08:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
everybody who does not know Abie is ahistorical qualifies. That was the operational part of what I said: "Ignoramus" cannot be an "insult" if it is obviously true. You seem to read only half of what other people write, then make a lot of unnecessary drama about it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I know the meaning of the word ignoramus. At the top of this article, it warns about making personal attacks on other editors.. So, I would prefer not to interact with you any further. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The article's summary of the bible story states that the land was originally 'given' to Canaan, presumably by God. This is not in the bible. Throughout the text, land was only 'given' to Abraham, and later his offspring, Isaac, Jacob, Israel, Moses, Joshua, and children of Israel. Further God does not tell Abraham to 'settle' the land of Canaan, rather, to 'go for himself to a place that God will show him'. Abraham then, presumably for himself as directed, goes towards Canaan, where his father originally set out for but settled mid way. Indeed, shortly after arriving, there is a famine in Canaan and Abram continues to Egypt. Had God specifically commanded Abraham to settle Canaan, he would surely have stayed despite the famine. Recommend text should read:
Abraham, originally Abram, is called by God to leave the house of his father, Terah, and go to the land that God will show him. Upon reaching Canaan, God promises the land of Canaan to him and his progeny. Ibn Rav ( talk) 23:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Sarah being half-sister to niece, for Sarah was Abraham’s niece, not his half-sister. 2607:FB91:5593:5267:B5E8:25BA:8569:A509 ( talk) 23:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
A plain read of Gen. 20:12 implies she is his half-sister. Rabbi Yitzchak says (b. Sanhedrin 69b, b. Megillah 14a) that she is to be conflated with Iscah the daughter of Haran and is therefore his niece, which has been accepted by many Jewish commentators. It's not impossible textually that she has another relationship with him; bat-avi "daughter of my father" just means "relative" in some other places in the Bible. GordonGlottal ( talk) 13:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
casualdejekyll
15:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)The infobox type has recently been changed to "Infobox character", with Tgeorgescu reasoning that this is the right infobox to use for fictional characters, such as biblical patriarchs. The effect of the change is that some fields are hidden from view, a change in layout and that a banner saying "In-universe information" appears. The undersigned argues that the infobox should be chosen pragmatically, that the hidden fields are relevant and that the "in-universe information"-banner is slightly jarring outside the context of modern fiction.
A similar change has recently been made for other biblical characters: here, here, here, here, here and here. St.nerol ( talk) 02:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
born c. 2150 BCE died c. 1975 BCEin an age wherein life expectancy at birth was 26 years complies with WP:NPOV, but you're not welcome to dodge the application of WP:NPOV. And you're welcome to discuss why Abraham gets dated to the 22nd-20th century BCE, as William F. Albright stated, instead of the dating advanced by Benjamin Mazar (11th century BCE). Besides WP:RS/AC has been fulfilled that Abraham cannot be considered historical. tgeorgescu ( talk) 04:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
God exists,they have problems with claims like
God was born of a virgin, who was herself born of a virgin.
agnostic as to his existenceis a valid conclusion in deductive logic, it is not a valid conclusion in epistemology.
All cats are dogs. Are dogs are blue animals. Therefore, all cats are blue animals.is a valid reasoning in deductive logic. But it tells us nothing about the real world. tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
born c. 2150 BCE died c. 1975 BCEwould be
neutral? Just speaking of scholars from the 20th century who accepted Abraham's historicity, that information is not neutral.
he lived from c. 2150 BCE to c. 1975 BCEseems highly contrived. tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
a significant section of the world's populationare Hindu. Does that apply to Shakuntala, too? Why claim that the Hebrew mythology has to be treated as the real thing, even in respect to those who don't believe in it, while the Hindu mythology gets treated as superstition? tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
info-hdr=
to prevent the phrase "in-universe information" from displaying. If it's possible to make infobox character look pretty much the same as the current infobox in this article, I've no objection to using it. It's the output I'm concerned about, rather than the technical detail of which infobox we use.
Dan from A.P. (
talk)
11:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
"not historical" is not the same as "fictional"or more precisely, "partly unknown as to what extent historical or mythical" is not the same as "wholly fictional". There is a sliding scale in the Old Testament, and in some ancient history, as to what is probably wholly historical, but with mythical elements attached, through to wholly mythical, with every concievable intermediate stage. Lumping all together as 'fictional character' seems motivated more by the wish to "make a point", than with pragmatic considerations of rendering info. A new userbox type could be the answer, but the proper place to establish the extent of 'historicity', is within the text itself, which will vary, but does not appear to be always clearly done at present, but using an infobox designed for the wholly and explicitly fictional does not seem to be the answer. Pincrete ( talk) 15:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your views. Wikipedia has a strong bias in favor of academic sources for history. That is how it should be. If archaeology says Beersheba was founded 6000 years ago and the bible says it was founded 4000 years ago, archaeology wins. Zero talk 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
If you want to use the bible as a reliable source of history, present your case at WP:RSN. You won't succeed; it's been tried before. A better use of your time would be to read WP:RS to see how lack of bias is not the same as treating all sources equally. Zero talk 14:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
You've been answered, read the answers again please. If we want to write what the Bible says about Jesus, for instance, the Bible is a reliable source -- for what it says. That is not using it as a source for any historical Jesus, if there was one, it is using the Bible as a source for what the Bible says, just as we would use Vanity Fair or Lord of the Rings as a source for what they say. What could be more reliable as a source for what a book says than the book itself? dougweller ( talk) 13:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
We should not call him fictional, because myth is slightly different, and then you argue
Allah is NOT a cartoon character like Donald Duck nor is Abraham nor are the Hindu deitiesas if I had said the exact opposite. Have you no shame? And do you think everybody here is so stupid not to notice this? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Good luck with this: [lengthy quote of what I said] Allah is NOT a cartoon character like Donald Duck nor is Abraham. That wording clearly suggests that you were refuting my quote by pointing Abraham is "NOT a cartoon character". But THAT SENTENCE ACTUALLY AGREED WITH WHAT I SAID.
You even quote me saying. But again, you read only half of what I wrote, and did not even attempt to understand what I said and why I said it. Instead, you got all dramatic again and repeated yourself and talked about this and that, nothing of which addressed the actual point, namely that your previous contribution did not make sense and that you had pretended to refute what I said when you actually agreed with me. I don't think I will respond to your next flap of excitement when you focus on small irrelevant parts of this response and repeat yourself again, it would just distract from the subject.
violating site-wide policy. See Special:Diff/1058507826. It seems that the use of infobox character is being used to impose a POV on the article. The issue is not whether Abraham is a historical person. In the absence of reliable sources that conclude that ancestral and religious figures like Abraham play the same role in human history and culture as fictional characters do, there is no reason to impose a fictional classification on Abraham. StarryGrandma ( talk) 18:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
there is no difference, but
it is hard to tell. I plead
hard to tell, I do not plead
there is no difference. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
In the Origins and calling section, the following text is confusing:
This seems to say that Terah is in Ur, dies in Ur, and then dies again in Haran. Unless Terah actually does die twice, I think the wording could be improved. I don't know enough about the topic to edit it myself. RisingMaverick ( talk) 10:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
It's important that Wikipedia entries not ape the language of the bible by using words like “afflicted” & “dwelled”, quoting the KJV's antiquated syntax, & using “know” in the winking biblical sense. Use plain English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tysto ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Be for God spoke to him 2001:5B0:43E0:B849:21F5:92F6:CBBB:30FC ( talk) 04:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems unnecessary to cite birth/death dates for a fictional character. Seabrem ( talk) 11:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
please it must be that there is any picture for the Prophets So it is essential to remove Prophet Abraham picture PBUH 51.39.141.125 ( talk) 13:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the religion listed for Abraham from Yahwism to Judaism. 40.134.143.178 ( talk) 18:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
There are two different Abraham's in the bible. One who interacts with Nimrod (Ibiranu I of Ugarit)(1458-1435BC), and another who interacts with Chedorlaomer(Kuder-enlil), Ibiranu II of Ugarit(1274-1251BC). 2601:58B:E7F:8410:8929:E4B7:307D:B301 ( talk) 20:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
we need more information : Joseph Family Name Ward Petion-ville Port-au-Prince Ouest HAITI HT 6142 yvonjoseph969@gmail.com or jylab2006@gmail.com 190.115.175.190 ( talk) 05:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
El or Maleachi, is not a god or goddes, they dont have son and kid also they dont do marriage. as the picture in wikipedia, yhwh is not a bull or baal or moloch. he doesnt created or have a child, he only have a prophet. please seek on genesis. also quran please dont compare in adonai, elohim and yhwh with baal and moloch. it is such full disgrace and neglecting 10 commandment Best regard's QuaMbear ( talk) 15:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
|
You misunderstand WP:NPOV; it's not about finding a compromise between academia and religion. It is about accurately representing what academics say about religion. Jeppiz ( talk) 18:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The more serious problem in your arguments above is that you continously imply we should find some middle road between faith and scholarship. We should not, as that would be the opposite of WP:NPOV. I know many people misunderstand NPOV and think it's about meeting halfway. It is not; it's about representing the most reliable sources as accurately as possible. Jeppiz ( talk) 09:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The lead should point out that Abraham is a fictional character. The article body does, but the lead talks about him as a real historical figure 193.27.45.80 ( talk) 08:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
the Bible and the Qur’anare not WP:RS, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Wikipedia isn't affiliated to either Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, see WP:RNPOV.
the Bible and the Qur’anwere not written by modern, mainstream historians, so
the Bible and the Qur’ando not make the call.
References
and that her son would be "a wild ass of a man; ..." This should be "a wild donkey of a man;... 2A02:908:376:E200:D05F:40CE:E33E:180C ( talk) 18:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Islam is not a descendant of Abraham. Islam is a religion that was born in the Arabian Peninsula which was never visited by Abraham. Islam only takes a few references to Jewish and Christian teachings and history and then adds thoughts, assumptions, views, teachings that already exist or are added to make it more profitable for Arabs. An example is that Abraham never made it to Arabia, but in Islamic history it is suggested that Abraham arrived in the Arabian peninsula with Hagar. And even Islamic history says that Abraham died and was buried in Mecca, the Arabian peninsula. In addition, Islam states that Ishmael was the one sacrificed by Abraham, but according to Jewish history, Abraham sacrificed Isaac to God. In addition to the above, Ismail never lived in the Arabian Peninsula and Ismail's claim to bring down the Quraysh Arabs is also not true. Islamic teachings take Jewish and Christian teachings from encounters with Muslim leaders who studied with Jewish and Christian priests. They were impressed with these religions and designed a new religion for the benefit of Arab groups without being Christians or Jews. So that the center of worship was changed to Mecca where previously their center of worship was towards Jerusalem. So the claim that Islam is the religion of Abraham is not true. 103.149.121.22 ( talk) 05:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
delete the pic haraam 178.153.93.218 ( talk) 10:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Eternal Spirit 123: The mainstream academic view is the following:
The question of the historicity of Moses is the same as the question of the historicity of Abraham. That is to say, maybe there was a figure, maybe there was a leader. I am not here to undermine the historicity of Moses. I think that this is possible but I would say it's beyond recovery.
— Israel Finkelstein
Also, the problem with your edits is WP:GEVAL. While there are many evangelical scholars who agree with your POV, they are not mainstream Bible scholars. What is a mainstream Bible scholar?
Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:
• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;
• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;
— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)
Quoted by tgeorgescu ( talk) 04:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Judaism" section, a sentence begins "Along with Isaac and Jacob, he is the one whose name would appear united with God". The words Isaac and Jacob are linked, but this appears to be a mistake, because it links to a painting which seems irrelevant to the topic. Instead, there should be two separate links, so it should say "Along with Isaac and Jacob, he is the one whose name would appear united with God". 2607:F140:400:A000:E9E6:F83A:123E:2D8 ( talk) 04:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The info box lists Ur Kasdim as his birthplace and equates it with modern Basra, Iraq, without any citation. That equation is not backed up by the articles on Ur Kasdim or on Basra, or anything. There is no consensus among current scholars regarding the identity of the city, and modern Basra doesn't even appear to be a main contender. Venqax ( talk) 17:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Why is there an apostrophe before the word "around" in this phrase in the current version of this article: 'around 1289 BCE? 98.123.38.211 ( talk) 04:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I was under the impression that is was Ur, the Chedleans. Which he asked for his remains to be taken back there after his death. As he was quite un enthusiastic about leaving. God promises Sarai a Son Whose name is Isac and in his later stages would have many and be a Father to many children and known throughout many Lands. I am however only re literate to what I have read from a well documented group of Scholars. It is not concrete evidence unless it’s written in the Bible of Moses, which is where it came from. 92.40.218.0 ( talk) 16:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.
In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.— Lester L. Grabbe, Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove "See also: Abraham in the Catholic liturgy" as that article was deleted. 130.208.182.103 ( talk) 14:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "His story was probably composed in the early Persian period (late 6th century BCE) as a result of tensions between Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and traced their right to the land through their "father Abraham", and the returning exiles who based their counterclaim on Moses and the Exodus tradition" to "His story was possibly first recorded in writing during the early Persian period, motivated by tensions between Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and traced their right to the land through Abraham, and the returning exiles who based their counterclaim on Moses and the Exodus tradition."
SOURCES: Pitard, Wayne T. (2001). "Before Israel". In Coogan, Michael D. (ed.). The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-513937-2. Book of Isaiah 63:16 Book of Ezekiel 33:24.
Reasoning: The sentence as written contradicts information later in the article and is written as if the theory is that the story was invented wholesale in the 6th century BC to justify land claims. The theory, as sections of the article later state, is that the story of Abraham had existed long before; his name is referenced in both the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel (as the Wiki already states) and parts of the former were indisputably written in the 8th century BC or earlier. Thus change is proposed to clarify that the story was possibly first written down in the 6th century BC spurred by land arguments, not that it was created wholesale to justify land arguments. Other change was made to avoid what was arguably the small grammatical error of not following parallelism. Awillis146 ( talk) 14:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
According to WP:RNPOV, infobox character has to be used. Did you even bother to read the historicity section? In the mainstream academia the historicity of Abraham is dead in the water.
As another Wikipedian once told, the Little Red Riding Hood has a better claim to historicity than Abraham.
Do you think that offends your religion? Well, you just got offended by THE REALITY. The empirical, objective reality just gave the lie to your dogma.
Wikipedia sides with the reality-based community, not with religious dogma. Don't lecture me about billions of Christians and Muslims, since Wikipedia never sides with prejudice and ignorance.
We unabashedly choose for the consensus view of top 100 full professors over the consensus view of 4 billion ignoramuses.
And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Wikipedia community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Wikipedia really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that "mainstream scholarship" has here at Wikipedia. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb ( talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is certainly not the venue for ventilating the POV of bigoted ignoramuses. Bigots all over the world should consider Wikipedia as their enemy. We are at war with bigotry and ignorance.
We seek to be polite towards everybody. But this is not a friendly website for the superstitious, illogical, unreasonable and WP:FRINGE.
WP:RNPOV is site-wide policy, and whoever removes the word character
from {{
Infobox character}} is awarely acting against website policy.
Even if I were an editor against 100 editors, agreement among 100 editors does not allow them to intentionally violate website policy. Consciously acting against policy will be reported to WP:ANI.
And if you're asking me why I call all these people ignoramuses
, the answer is simple: they have never published a peer-reviewed paper about the historicity of Abraham. So they have never published a competent opinion upon this issue. Therefore, their views don't count as
WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Mine doesn't, either—I'm not a scholar.
In the mainstream academia the historicity of Abraham is dead in the water
is a fact, not an opinion. One has to be severely drunken to deny that it is a fact. Those who have not been insulated from academic learning have no rational reason to deny that it is a fact, and the opinion of those who have been insulated does not matter.
If we allow the religious fundamentalists to get the upper hand upon this website, the project of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia based upon mainstream academic learning is as good as dead and buried.
So, yeah, this {{ infobox character}} edit war is about who gets the upper hand: either biblical literalism or mainstream Bible scholarship. It is a matter of principle and it has huge consequences for editing Wikipedia, therefore I am not at all prepared to compromise with biblical literalists.
I won't appease them, since that equates with selling Wikipedia to the most vocal pressure group. I am willing to accommodate people who have different opinions than mine, but I won't let biblical literalists take over Wikipedia. What should they do? Same as I don't edit abortion, they should avoid articles they feel strongly about. I disagree with the POV of that article and I know full well that, wikipedically speaking, I'm on the losing side in respect to that article, so I won't touch it. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
closeto him. If you can make the case that the historicity of Abraham still has a chance at WP:CHOPSY, do it. Otherwise, don't whine that we follow CHOPSY. Neutrality isn't WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia has always been biased for the mainstream academia, if you think you can undo that, no, you cannot. This is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, i.e. a hard-core scientific and scholarly encyclopedia like Britannica and Larousse. If your POV has the chance of a snowball in hell of entering Larousse, then don't push it here. What we won't do is give equal validity to fundamentalist biblical literalism and CHOPSY WP:SCHOLARSHIP. While we recognize that the Pope is the boss of the Cahtolic Church, we don't WP:MNA that the Pope is always right (e.g. about the history of Christianity or about Bible scholarship). In the end, this is a secular encyclopedia (secular, not atheistic). See [1]. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.
In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.
the Bible/Koran says so).
everything goes, not even
if it goes with my own church, it should also go with Wikipedia. WP:PAG is WP:NOTANARCHY. What the IP wants is not allowed, and I do not mean
not allowed by me and Achar Sva, but not allowed by the system, not allowed by Wikipedia. Why? Because our choice (our meaning the Wikipedia Community) is clear: we unabashedly choose for the mainstream academia over theological orthodoxy. Policies and guidelines are simply the means by which we implement and enforce such choice.
The article currently cites multiple published sources, you cite none. We don't base articles on random assertions. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 11:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
IZAK, with respect, on Wikipedia we follow the modern historiography to discuss the history of something. Scholarly consensus would be the determining factor here, per due weight. El_C 20:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Modern historiographymeaning historiography written in the 21st century.
born c. 2150 BCE died c. 1975 BCE—what is this? ROFLMAO! Why put this WP:CB chronology in the article?
This is ill-conceived. Please, do not imperiously refer to Christians and Muslims as "4 billion ignoramuses". In addition to being arrogant, you will cause Wikipedia to get a fatwa sooner or later. I wikilinked it, in case there is any confusion. Read the BLP of Salman Rushdie if you need a refresher. I advise against similarly denigrating the beliefs of billions and millions of Hindus and Jews, respectively, regarding the use of an infobox for cartoon characters to refer to the deities/deity and prominent figures of their belief systems. I am one of those Jews. I am merely a Wikipedia editor, but there are many of similar opinion about the validity of faith, be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or anything else that isn't Scientology. I am NOT an ignoramus. Again, I implore you (collectively) to have some respect, and cease this campaign.-- FeralOink ( talk) 11:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:LEGAL applies, and I mean this:
For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention.
To avoid misunderstandings, use less charged wording.
Okay, time for Adminstrator's Noticeboard Incidents. WP:LEGAL and threat to sue? What!? Who is suing whom? "Fainting couch over acting"?! What is wrong with you? Stop criticizing me. This is Wikipedia. You are threatening me and using gender-associated terms to ridicule me. A fainting couch?! Why can't you just allow me to comment rather than continue your attacks, day after day? Why am I asking you this? Time for ANI!-- FeralOink ( talk) 08:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
everybody who does not know Abie is ahistorical qualifies. That was the operational part of what I said: "Ignoramus" cannot be an "insult" if it is obviously true. You seem to read only half of what other people write, then make a lot of unnecessary drama about it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I know the meaning of the word ignoramus. At the top of this article, it warns about making personal attacks on other editors.. So, I would prefer not to interact with you any further. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The article's summary of the bible story states that the land was originally 'given' to Canaan, presumably by God. This is not in the bible. Throughout the text, land was only 'given' to Abraham, and later his offspring, Isaac, Jacob, Israel, Moses, Joshua, and children of Israel. Further God does not tell Abraham to 'settle' the land of Canaan, rather, to 'go for himself to a place that God will show him'. Abraham then, presumably for himself as directed, goes towards Canaan, where his father originally set out for but settled mid way. Indeed, shortly after arriving, there is a famine in Canaan and Abram continues to Egypt. Had God specifically commanded Abraham to settle Canaan, he would surely have stayed despite the famine. Recommend text should read:
Abraham, originally Abram, is called by God to leave the house of his father, Terah, and go to the land that God will show him. Upon reaching Canaan, God promises the land of Canaan to him and his progeny. Ibn Rav ( talk) 23:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Sarah being half-sister to niece, for Sarah was Abraham’s niece, not his half-sister. 2607:FB91:5593:5267:B5E8:25BA:8569:A509 ( talk) 23:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
A plain read of Gen. 20:12 implies she is his half-sister. Rabbi Yitzchak says (b. Sanhedrin 69b, b. Megillah 14a) that she is to be conflated with Iscah the daughter of Haran and is therefore his niece, which has been accepted by many Jewish commentators. It's not impossible textually that she has another relationship with him; bat-avi "daughter of my father" just means "relative" in some other places in the Bible. GordonGlottal ( talk) 13:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
casualdejekyll
15:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)The infobox type has recently been changed to "Infobox character", with Tgeorgescu reasoning that this is the right infobox to use for fictional characters, such as biblical patriarchs. The effect of the change is that some fields are hidden from view, a change in layout and that a banner saying "In-universe information" appears. The undersigned argues that the infobox should be chosen pragmatically, that the hidden fields are relevant and that the "in-universe information"-banner is slightly jarring outside the context of modern fiction.
A similar change has recently been made for other biblical characters: here, here, here, here, here and here. St.nerol ( talk) 02:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
born c. 2150 BCE died c. 1975 BCEin an age wherein life expectancy at birth was 26 years complies with WP:NPOV, but you're not welcome to dodge the application of WP:NPOV. And you're welcome to discuss why Abraham gets dated to the 22nd-20th century BCE, as William F. Albright stated, instead of the dating advanced by Benjamin Mazar (11th century BCE). Besides WP:RS/AC has been fulfilled that Abraham cannot be considered historical. tgeorgescu ( talk) 04:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
God exists,they have problems with claims like
God was born of a virgin, who was herself born of a virgin.
agnostic as to his existenceis a valid conclusion in deductive logic, it is not a valid conclusion in epistemology.
All cats are dogs. Are dogs are blue animals. Therefore, all cats are blue animals.is a valid reasoning in deductive logic. But it tells us nothing about the real world. tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
born c. 2150 BCE died c. 1975 BCEwould be
neutral? Just speaking of scholars from the 20th century who accepted Abraham's historicity, that information is not neutral.
he lived from c. 2150 BCE to c. 1975 BCEseems highly contrived. tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
a significant section of the world's populationare Hindu. Does that apply to Shakuntala, too? Why claim that the Hebrew mythology has to be treated as the real thing, even in respect to those who don't believe in it, while the Hindu mythology gets treated as superstition? tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
info-hdr=
to prevent the phrase "in-universe information" from displaying. If it's possible to make infobox character look pretty much the same as the current infobox in this article, I've no objection to using it. It's the output I'm concerned about, rather than the technical detail of which infobox we use.
Dan from A.P. (
talk)
11:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
"not historical" is not the same as "fictional"or more precisely, "partly unknown as to what extent historical or mythical" is not the same as "wholly fictional". There is a sliding scale in the Old Testament, and in some ancient history, as to what is probably wholly historical, but with mythical elements attached, through to wholly mythical, with every concievable intermediate stage. Lumping all together as 'fictional character' seems motivated more by the wish to "make a point", than with pragmatic considerations of rendering info. A new userbox type could be the answer, but the proper place to establish the extent of 'historicity', is within the text itself, which will vary, but does not appear to be always clearly done at present, but using an infobox designed for the wholly and explicitly fictional does not seem to be the answer. Pincrete ( talk) 15:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your views. Wikipedia has a strong bias in favor of academic sources for history. That is how it should be. If archaeology says Beersheba was founded 6000 years ago and the bible says it was founded 4000 years ago, archaeology wins. Zero talk 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
If you want to use the bible as a reliable source of history, present your case at WP:RSN. You won't succeed; it's been tried before. A better use of your time would be to read WP:RS to see how lack of bias is not the same as treating all sources equally. Zero talk 14:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
You've been answered, read the answers again please. If we want to write what the Bible says about Jesus, for instance, the Bible is a reliable source -- for what it says. That is not using it as a source for any historical Jesus, if there was one, it is using the Bible as a source for what the Bible says, just as we would use Vanity Fair or Lord of the Rings as a source for what they say. What could be more reliable as a source for what a book says than the book itself? dougweller ( talk) 13:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
We should not call him fictional, because myth is slightly different, and then you argue
Allah is NOT a cartoon character like Donald Duck nor is Abraham nor are the Hindu deitiesas if I had said the exact opposite. Have you no shame? And do you think everybody here is so stupid not to notice this? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Good luck with this: [lengthy quote of what I said] Allah is NOT a cartoon character like Donald Duck nor is Abraham. That wording clearly suggests that you were refuting my quote by pointing Abraham is "NOT a cartoon character". But THAT SENTENCE ACTUALLY AGREED WITH WHAT I SAID.
You even quote me saying. But again, you read only half of what I wrote, and did not even attempt to understand what I said and why I said it. Instead, you got all dramatic again and repeated yourself and talked about this and that, nothing of which addressed the actual point, namely that your previous contribution did not make sense and that you had pretended to refute what I said when you actually agreed with me. I don't think I will respond to your next flap of excitement when you focus on small irrelevant parts of this response and repeat yourself again, it would just distract from the subject.
violating site-wide policy. See Special:Diff/1058507826. It seems that the use of infobox character is being used to impose a POV on the article. The issue is not whether Abraham is a historical person. In the absence of reliable sources that conclude that ancestral and religious figures like Abraham play the same role in human history and culture as fictional characters do, there is no reason to impose a fictional classification on Abraham. StarryGrandma ( talk) 18:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
there is no difference, but
it is hard to tell. I plead
hard to tell, I do not plead
there is no difference. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
In the Origins and calling section, the following text is confusing:
This seems to say that Terah is in Ur, dies in Ur, and then dies again in Haran. Unless Terah actually does die twice, I think the wording could be improved. I don't know enough about the topic to edit it myself. RisingMaverick ( talk) 10:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
It's important that Wikipedia entries not ape the language of the bible by using words like “afflicted” & “dwelled”, quoting the KJV's antiquated syntax, & using “know” in the winking biblical sense. Use plain English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tysto ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Be for God spoke to him 2001:5B0:43E0:B849:21F5:92F6:CBBB:30FC ( talk) 04:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems unnecessary to cite birth/death dates for a fictional character. Seabrem ( talk) 11:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
please it must be that there is any picture for the Prophets So it is essential to remove Prophet Abraham picture PBUH 51.39.141.125 ( talk) 13:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the religion listed for Abraham from Yahwism to Judaism. 40.134.143.178 ( talk) 18:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
There are two different Abraham's in the bible. One who interacts with Nimrod (Ibiranu I of Ugarit)(1458-1435BC), and another who interacts with Chedorlaomer(Kuder-enlil), Ibiranu II of Ugarit(1274-1251BC). 2601:58B:E7F:8410:8929:E4B7:307D:B301 ( talk) 20:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
we need more information : Joseph Family Name Ward Petion-ville Port-au-Prince Ouest HAITI HT 6142 yvonjoseph969@gmail.com or jylab2006@gmail.com 190.115.175.190 ( talk) 05:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
El or Maleachi, is not a god or goddes, they dont have son and kid also they dont do marriage. as the picture in wikipedia, yhwh is not a bull or baal or moloch. he doesnt created or have a child, he only have a prophet. please seek on genesis. also quran please dont compare in adonai, elohim and yhwh with baal and moloch. it is such full disgrace and neglecting 10 commandment Best regard's QuaMbear ( talk) 15:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
|
You misunderstand WP:NPOV; it's not about finding a compromise between academia and religion. It is about accurately representing what academics say about religion. Jeppiz ( talk) 18:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The more serious problem in your arguments above is that you continously imply we should find some middle road between faith and scholarship. We should not, as that would be the opposite of WP:NPOV. I know many people misunderstand NPOV and think it's about meeting halfway. It is not; it's about representing the most reliable sources as accurately as possible. Jeppiz ( talk) 09:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The lead should point out that Abraham is a fictional character. The article body does, but the lead talks about him as a real historical figure 193.27.45.80 ( talk) 08:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
the Bible and the Qur’anare not WP:RS, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Wikipedia isn't affiliated to either Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, see WP:RNPOV.
the Bible and the Qur’anwere not written by modern, mainstream historians, so
the Bible and the Qur’ando not make the call.
References
and that her son would be "a wild ass of a man; ..." This should be "a wild donkey of a man;... 2A02:908:376:E200:D05F:40CE:E33E:180C ( talk) 18:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Islam is not a descendant of Abraham. Islam is a religion that was born in the Arabian Peninsula which was never visited by Abraham. Islam only takes a few references to Jewish and Christian teachings and history and then adds thoughts, assumptions, views, teachings that already exist or are added to make it more profitable for Arabs. An example is that Abraham never made it to Arabia, but in Islamic history it is suggested that Abraham arrived in the Arabian peninsula with Hagar. And even Islamic history says that Abraham died and was buried in Mecca, the Arabian peninsula. In addition, Islam states that Ishmael was the one sacrificed by Abraham, but according to Jewish history, Abraham sacrificed Isaac to God. In addition to the above, Ismail never lived in the Arabian Peninsula and Ismail's claim to bring down the Quraysh Arabs is also not true. Islamic teachings take Jewish and Christian teachings from encounters with Muslim leaders who studied with Jewish and Christian priests. They were impressed with these religions and designed a new religion for the benefit of Arab groups without being Christians or Jews. So that the center of worship was changed to Mecca where previously their center of worship was towards Jerusalem. So the claim that Islam is the religion of Abraham is not true. 103.149.121.22 ( talk) 05:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
delete the pic haraam 178.153.93.218 ( talk) 10:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Eternal Spirit 123: The mainstream academic view is the following:
The question of the historicity of Moses is the same as the question of the historicity of Abraham. That is to say, maybe there was a figure, maybe there was a leader. I am not here to undermine the historicity of Moses. I think that this is possible but I would say it's beyond recovery.
— Israel Finkelstein
Also, the problem with your edits is WP:GEVAL. While there are many evangelical scholars who agree with your POV, they are not mainstream Bible scholars. What is a mainstream Bible scholar?
Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:
• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;
• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;
— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)
Quoted by tgeorgescu ( talk) 04:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Judaism" section, a sentence begins "Along with Isaac and Jacob, he is the one whose name would appear united with God". The words Isaac and Jacob are linked, but this appears to be a mistake, because it links to a painting which seems irrelevant to the topic. Instead, there should be two separate links, so it should say "Along with Isaac and Jacob, he is the one whose name would appear united with God". 2607:F140:400:A000:E9E6:F83A:123E:2D8 ( talk) 04:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The info box lists Ur Kasdim as his birthplace and equates it with modern Basra, Iraq, without any citation. That equation is not backed up by the articles on Ur Kasdim or on Basra, or anything. There is no consensus among current scholars regarding the identity of the city, and modern Basra doesn't even appear to be a main contender. Venqax ( talk) 17:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Why is there an apostrophe before the word "around" in this phrase in the current version of this article: 'around 1289 BCE? 98.123.38.211 ( talk) 04:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I was under the impression that is was Ur, the Chedleans. Which he asked for his remains to be taken back there after his death. As he was quite un enthusiastic about leaving. God promises Sarai a Son Whose name is Isac and in his later stages would have many and be a Father to many children and known throughout many Lands. I am however only re literate to what I have read from a well documented group of Scholars. It is not concrete evidence unless it’s written in the Bible of Moses, which is where it came from. 92.40.218.0 ( talk) 16:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)