This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems to violate NPOV, as the author seems to be a partisan of Van Seter's theory. -- Iacobus 02:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC) In that case, somebody should provide some balance, by bringing up any evidence that any of the kings mentioned in Genesis 14 is actually mentioned in any ancient extrabiblical source. Can anybody provide any such evidence? Otherwise, Van Seters was not proposing a theory but stating a fact. Das Baz 2 May 2006, 11:59 AM.
Indeed, some of the kings may have existed, and I am editing the article accordingly. However, what Van Seters affirmed principally - that no king of Elam dominated a vast empire including Mesopotamia, Hatti, and Canaan, remains a fact, not a theory. Erudil 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
If somebody has the technical ability to add a map showing Elam, Hatti, Mesopotamia, Canaan, and the Hurrian kingdom, please do so. Erudil 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Cleaned up the prose-style, made it as npov as possible. PiCo 09:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about a book, and the book is NOT ABOUT CHAPTER 14 OF GENESIS!!!!! It's about Abraham, and the sources of the Abraham cycle in Genesis. So I've tried to make it more attuned to the book - in fact I think the section abt Genesis 14 should be droppedm entierly, as it's only one chapter out of the about 14 in the book. PiCo 14:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The lead section of the article could use some editing. Adding a few more sentences that summarize both parts of "Abraham in History and Tradition" will help give the reader a good overview. It could also help if the reader got a sentence about the author to give context, or any additional background information.
Also, adding sections for both parts of the book will give clear indication of the organization of the article and make it easier for someone to read through.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems to violate NPOV, as the author seems to be a partisan of Van Seter's theory. -- Iacobus 02:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC) In that case, somebody should provide some balance, by bringing up any evidence that any of the kings mentioned in Genesis 14 is actually mentioned in any ancient extrabiblical source. Can anybody provide any such evidence? Otherwise, Van Seters was not proposing a theory but stating a fact. Das Baz 2 May 2006, 11:59 AM.
Indeed, some of the kings may have existed, and I am editing the article accordingly. However, what Van Seters affirmed principally - that no king of Elam dominated a vast empire including Mesopotamia, Hatti, and Canaan, remains a fact, not a theory. Erudil 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
If somebody has the technical ability to add a map showing Elam, Hatti, Mesopotamia, Canaan, and the Hurrian kingdom, please do so. Erudil 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Cleaned up the prose-style, made it as npov as possible. PiCo 09:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about a book, and the book is NOT ABOUT CHAPTER 14 OF GENESIS!!!!! It's about Abraham, and the sources of the Abraham cycle in Genesis. So I've tried to make it more attuned to the book - in fact I think the section abt Genesis 14 should be droppedm entierly, as it's only one chapter out of the about 14 in the book. PiCo 14:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The lead section of the article could use some editing. Adding a few more sentences that summarize both parts of "Abraham in History and Tradition" will help give the reader a good overview. It could also help if the reader got a sentence about the author to give context, or any additional background information.
Also, adding sections for both parts of the book will give clear indication of the organization of the article and make it easier for someone to read through.