Talk:Abraham/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Sources concerning the sacrifice

ok .. il provide u with the Quranic verses first:

021.051 YUSUFALI: We bestowed aforetime on Abraham his rectitude of conduct, and well were We acquainted with him. 021.052 YUSUFALI: Behold! he said to his father and his people, "What are these images, to which ye are (so assiduously) devoted?"

(iam just asking u to focus on Abraham;s father mentioned here )

021.068 YUSUFALI: They said, "Burn him and protect your gods, If ye do (anything at all)!"

(this is from the same sura .. it talks about Abraham;s people burning him and his father was obviously involved like i mentioned in the earlier verse)

021.072 SHAKIR: And We gave him Ishaq and Yaqoub and We made (them) all good.

now take these two points with u ...:Abraham;s dad and the fire happened before the giving of Isaac

Now .. this chapter talks about the sacrifice after .. the two points (Abraham's dad and the fire) see for yoruself

037.085 YUSUFALI: Behold! he said to his father and to his people, "What is that which ye worship? (ABRAHAM;S DAD) 037.097 YUSUFALI: They said, "Build him a furnace, and throw him into the blazing fire!" (THE FIRE) 037.101 YUSUFALI: So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear. (whos this boy? ... its Isaac because the earlier chapter says after Abraham left his father and the fire he was given Isaac ....)

037.102 YUSUFALI: Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!" (whos this son . its Isaac because Isaac grew old with his father when Ishmael was left in Mecca when he was a baby with his mom.. and to prove so .. look at the story of zamzam well in sahih hadith when Hagar was left with her baby child etc.. so it cant be ishmael )

this is the Quran only i dont think any bible should be involved and the sahih hadith states Ishmael was a baby .. and he saw his dad once again when he grew old with his mother NOT HIS FATHER and built the foundation of Kaaba with his father)

002.127 PICKTHAL: And when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House, (Abraham prayed): Our Lord! Accept from us (this duty). Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Hearer, the Knower.

now finally the History .. Scholars like Ibn Jarir and Al Masudi and Ibn Abbas have all supported the Isaac claim and u can look them up to know about thier studies etc.

thank you! Highdeeboy (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You are the one making the claim, you are the one that needs to provide quotes from Ibn Jarir, Al Masudi, and Ibn Abbas. Those are secondary sources, which is what Wikipedia requires. Posting different verses from the Quran and the Bible is considered interpretation, and Wikipedia does not interpret, it only reports that certain people interpret things. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

i dont get u one momment u say u want it minimal then know when i provide sources u say exegesis then when I provide plain sources u say original research .. r u playing games or something just look at what your saying u continue to contradict yourself ... another quality of igorance and sillynessHighdeeboy (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

... sir .please id appreciate it if u can ask Mr Doug to contact me because he said I need to show him the Quran only .. id didnt interpret anything i do not know where did that claim come about

BTW THE article I want to edit only used Qurnaic verses with no secondary sources as well as provided its own interpretation and Iam assuming youre christian so if you are then U KNOW THAT VERY WELLbecause in the bible Isaac is referd to as Only son but the Muslim editor of this article interpreted the biblical verse in genesis diffrently than christian do which i think is UNECESSARLY if he provided the Quran as his only source and added UNECESSARY BIBLICAL SOURCEs as his only source then why cant i do the same and u say no!!!!!!! .. THATS A BIT UNFAIR! ..

noW. Id love to provide u with all these secondary sources but theyre too long and thet have thier own wikipedia page .. u want to examine them then please look them up .. i cant show them to u BECAUSE MR DOUG SAID HE WANTED EVERYTHING PLAIN AND SIMPLE .. SO PLEASE ASK HIM TO CHECK OUT MY MINIMAL RESOURCES .. THANK YOU.. id like to cater for one at a time please Highdeeboy (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand u insist to make it Ishmael when the Quran itself says Its Clearly Isaac and no source whether it was exgesis or Quran or Hadith proves its Ishmael ... so your literally putting your interpretation there which is wrong! .. fine lets make it a nuteral view

the article states an unknown son was sacrificed so thats what the pic should say...

I dont why doesnt this Islamic article DOESNT talk about Isaac and Jacob and Lot it only focuses on one side can someone please talk about the birth of Isaac and Jacob and thier blessings and views...Highdeeboy (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Quran is just says that it was "Abraham's son" that Abraham was called to sacrifice, without clarifying. A number of Muslims believe that this refers to Ishmael, and the Quran is ambiguous. You are presenting different verses to advocate the view that the Quran says it was Isaac, when the actual text is ambiguous. That is interepretation. I am not putting my interpretation, I am simply going with the sources that point out that most Muslims believe that it was Ishmael. If a Christian tried to use ambiguously worded Bible verses that were crossreferenced to try to make a point that is not outright stated in those verses, I would revert their edits (and I have so a lot in the past, here is one example). Secondary sources are what Wikipedia prefers. I don't see anything from Dougweller saying anything about keeping things simple. You are the one making the claims that secondary sources could support, you are the one that needs to give those secondary sources to us. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

ya ya your right and all the Islamic scholars of hsitory are wrong ... just shut up man seriously!Highdeeboy (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

true! but the Quran retells the story once again in another place and the reason for such is because both are viewed as sacrificed sons but the Islamic tradition and Hadiths and exegesis and common sense states its Isaac but i cant go ahead and say so because u state that Ibn Jarir and Prophet Mohammed's compnaions and Arab historians and old scholars and Ibn Abbas and the Quran is wrong ... arent I right? Guess so! so Iam sorry but wheres your proof to state it was Ishmael there is no proof in Quran .. so if u belive it was Ishmael then why should we refute all the Islamic scholars and listen to what u have to say? sorry but u have no proof and u know it! so TO BE FAIR WE NEED TO RESPECT BOTH SIDES .. if u say Muslims belive it was ishmael then prove to me .. because i can write an entire Article REPRESENTING THOSE WHO BELIVE IT WAS ISAAC BUT U REFUSE TO ALLOW ME so .the conclusion is that no one should be supported ! fair enough!Highdeeboy (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Scholars and Exegesis writers and Alumas state it was Isaac .. u state it was Ishmael I provided my proof and you did not?!

so the reason why edited this this small tiny sentence is because its unfair to support one side that HAS NO PROOF NO SOURCE AND REFUTE THE COUNTLESS PROOF AND SOURCE OF THE OTHER SIDE AND DOWNPLAY IT WITH A CHEAP SHOT .Its just a simple sentence stop making it a big deal! iam not doing anything iam being fair and the talk page speaks for my acts!@.. Highdeeboy (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM DO U UNDERSTAND THE DEFINITION OF WRONG! WHAT URE DOING IS UNFAIR AND U HAVE NO SOURCE !now stop downplaying my source and expecting me to shut up NO!Highdeeboy (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

you dont have any hadiths or traditions or historical facts to prove your source all you have is the Quran and I ALSO HAVE TONS OF QURANIC VERSES THAT CONTRADICT YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE Quran because nowhere does the quran support one son to be the one! so it should be left neutral or an article should be kept to REPRESENT THOSE WHO BELIVE IT WAS ISHMAEL AND ISAAC .. U CANT DOWNPLAY ONE SIDE!Highdeeboy (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've provided plenty of references for the statement that many Muslims believe that it was Ishmael (this stuff in the code .<ref>http://786ama.org/News/2008EiduladhaNewsletter.pdf</ref><ref>http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/comparative/sacrifice.htm</ref><ref>http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/MusTrad/sacrifice.html</ref><ref>http://www.muslim.org/islam/sacrifice.htm</ref> are citations). We do not need to represent both sides to be fair, as per WP:UNDUE. Again, I am not stating it was Ishmael, quit lying about me. I am simply preserving the sourced information in the article that states that a number of Muslims believe it was Ishmael. If you keep refusing to cooperate and provide secondary sources, then your edits will be reverted as unconstructive. Show us the historians and scholars that support your view, those would be secondary sources! You are not providing proof, you have only provided interpretation, and keep saying that you have secondary sources but you refuse to show them to us! I am not presenting interpretation, I am presenting sources (those citations) that show that a number of Muslims believe it was Ishmael. That is how Wikipedia works. I don't believe it was Ishmael, I'm just not going to hide sourced information that says many Muslims believe it was Ishmael. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

well then thats it .. u say its Ishmael and I say its Isaac u let me provide my source like you have yours and DONT DOWNPLAY ME!Highdeeboy (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

your sources dont say Ishmael is the son it just talks about something diffrent .. some scholars like Ibn jarir have a diffrent interpretation than others .. so u cant support one interpretation because we know your supporting interpretations not verses because the quran doesnt state who so u support one interpretation and downplay the other .its unfair and its common sense and u know it!Highdeeboy (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

WHAT YOUR DOING IS UNFAIR ure providing wrong sources with diffrent interpretations and no solid proof but anyways iam not complaning iam just asking to provide my source alongside that page too .. its called being fair ..Highdeeboy (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh for Christ's sake, where have I said it was Ishmael? I have not! Quit lying about what I have said. Of the sources that I provided, the first says "The celebration of Eid-Ul-Adha is in commemoration of the command given by Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala to Prophet Ibrahim Alahi Salam to sacrifice his first born son Ismael Alahis Salam to Him." The second source says "The Islamic version states that the covenant between God, Abraham, and his only son Ishmael was made and sealed when Ishmael was supposed to be sacrificed." The third source says "According to authentic Islamic tradition, the sacrificed is Ishmael." The fourth source says "The festival we are commemorating today — Id-ul-Adha — marks the event of the readiness of Abraham even to sacrifice his son Ishmael when Abraham thought that he had been commanded by God to sacrifice him." And again, I am not saying that it was Ishmael, I am only pointing out that most of the sourced information says that many Muslims believe it was Ishmael. I am not a Muslim, I have no reason to believe it was Ishmael. It is just that there sources to state that many Muslims believe it was Ishmael. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

the word yet is a cheap shot .. u stated that muslims dont know whose the son so why do u have to say YET .. AND PROVIDE PEOPLE WITH SOURCES .. WHY CANT I REPRESENT THE ISAAC SIDE AND PROVIDE SOURCES LIKE U TOO SO THE READER DECIDES WHO TO PICK

but to say YET and provide PRO ISHMAEL SOURCES AND DOWNPLAY ISAAC .. THATS CALLED A CHEAP SHOT ...and u know that I have the moral right to represent sources of one side just like u did to your side .. !88.201.1.30 (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Listen .. Ive had enough you continue to block me and not ansewr me or help me at all and use your status to downplay my thoughts and sources The Islamic article looks like some Arab myth all what there is mentioned is Ishmael and Hagar .. you know there is more mention of that concerning Abraham and ID REALLY APPRECIATE IT IF YOU ASSIGN SOMEONE TO WRITE ABOUT ABRAHAM AND ISAAC AND JACOB instead of making this article look like a Bedouin myth!82.194.62.25 (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one that blocked you. I have answered you multiple times, and you refused to listen. You do not have sources, you have exegesis. You keep deleting sourced material, which is why other editors have blocked you. Quit screaming. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

your the one who refused to listen and btw please just get lost and stop harassing me ! Highdeeboy (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

shut up .. ! ..just shut up and please learn to leave what your arent aware off to people who know what theyre doing or else shut up .. thank you!82.194.62.200 (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.62.200 (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Plain source=Original resaearch detailed source=exegesis two sources:original research one source=... to less

WELL THEN WHAT DO U WANT .. just get lost .. plain and simpleHighdeeboy (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Confusing wording

"In the absence of extra-biblical evidence for his existence, some scholars have long questioned the historicity of his narratives."

The part after the comma reads as if it's referring to narratives told by Abraham, thus implicitly assuming that he did exist. Does it mean narratives about Abraham? Whatever it is intended to mean, there is surely a clearer way of saying it. 81.152.168.61 (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC).

Do you know of any narratives by, rather than about, Abraham?

The sentence is misleading though - since the 1970s it's been very difficult to find a mainstream scholar who thinks that Abraham was a real person.PiCo (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There are hundreds, Pico. Anyway, there are no narratives with known authors from 2000BC. ^rossnixon 01:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Such as? PiCo (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

W. F. Albright, 'Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan',1968

Albright has been dead for quite a while. I said "since the 1970s". PiCo (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I spotted that after I posted. But have there been major relevant discoveries since then? ^rossnixon 01:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. The big turning-point was John Van Seters'"Äbraham in History and Tradition", which was a demolition of both Albright's reconstruction of Abraham through archaeology (the "history" part) and the German school of tradition-history. Both of those had said that the bible wasn't accurate in details, but was reflecting something real. Since then there's been an increasing emphasis on the OT as literature, showing how it's an artfully constructed text. I think most OT scholars today would say it was put together no earlier than the Persian period, drawing on older texts and traditions of all sorts - but that these older texts/traditions have been so changed that it's impossible to reconstruct them. There are some scholars who continue to say that Abraham was a real man and that the OT is reliable - Kenneth Kitchen, Hoffmeier, and Iaian Provan, for example - but they're a minority. PiCo (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

They aren't necessarily the minority. In fact, I would say scholars that vehemently deny Abraham's existence are the minority. The majority view is a less extreme one: that Abraham likely existed, but not all parts of the biblical narrative can be verified. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 16:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

YHWH vs Yahweh

In the sentence, "Abraham was sent by God ... to Canaan, the land promised to his descendants by YHWH", is "YHWH" really correct or necessary usage? The same sentence shows "God". Why is this different? (I admit to ignorance in whatever finer points of theological debate may pertain here, so please enlighten me.) The link is to Tetragrammaton. Would it not be acceptable and more standard to say "Yahweh", and link to that article? The Tetragrammaton article and the Yahweh article both have plenty of discussion of the issues, and it does not seem necessary for this article on Abraham to challenge readers in that particular way; I say "challenge", because I believe "Yahweh" will be more recognizable to a majority of readers than "YHWH", while the latter will certainly stump some readers. Taquito1 (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If no one answers soon, one way or the other, I will change this to "God". Taquito1 (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem picky, or worse, ignorant, but I have doubts about using "Yahwah" as well. That version does not even seem to be in the Tetragrammaton article. Why not use "God"? If no one gives me an explanation, I will make the change. Taquito1 (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you should just make the change. -Lisa (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There is considerable debate over the correct pronunciation of YHWH. To unilaterally select a pronunciation is a flawed approach. Of course, the entire article overreaches with respect to objectivity. It should be titled "The Story of Abraham has told in the [name & version] Bible". It doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia the way it is currently written. Marginata (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The In Judaism section desperately needs expanding

Why there was no section for Abraham in Judaism is hard to understand. I've since created one, any help in expanding it would be appreciated. Drsmoo (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Abraham

Abraham Lincoln is almost definitely more famous than the biblical Abraham. So why does this Abraham get to simply have the title "Abraham". I say we move this to "Abraham (Genesis)" and make "Abraham" the disambig instead of "Abraham (disambiguation)". There we can add all of the Abrahams on Wikipedia. --Cheick4 (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I'm an American, and no, Biblical Abraham is definately more famous. Lincoln (who I've always heard referred to as Lincoln when discussed mononymously) is really only famous in the US, and is simply known of in other countries. A major reason for the fighting in the middle east is because of people believing different things about Abraham. Noone has killed each other over Lincoln in over a century, people have been killing each other over Abraham for centuries. Biblical Abraham wins. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you clearly know nothing about history and just want this Abraham to be more famous. First off, it hasn't even been proven that this one actually existed. Second, Abraham Lincoln is famous worldwide. Third Abraham Lincoln is likely more famous worldwide, and is definitely more famous in North America and Europe (The majority of who uses Wikipedia). I cannot believe you would just try to say Abraham Lincoln is only famous in America. Have you ever been to other countries? Have you ever studied their history methods? That is like saying Hitler is only famous in Germany or Napoleon is only famous in France. Abraham Lincoln and George Washington are major historical figures everywhere you go around the world and I guarantee you if you asked 100 random strangers what this Abraham did and what Abraham Lincoln did, more could tell you the latter. Aside from Jesus (barring God, Devil, etc.), who is likely the most famous person in history, it is hard to find any biblical figure who you could convince people of being more famous than Lincoln. That being said, you are correct in Lincoln more often being called "Lincoln", "President Lincoln" or "Abraham Lincoln" over simply "Abraham". So because of that alone, this may be a bad idea. But I am shocked and slightly disturbed by the fact that you would try to claim Abraham Lincoln is only famous in America. And your argument of Abraham being fought over for centuries is just rediculous. Thats like saying Abraham is more famous than Hitler because nobody has killed themselves over his endeavors since WWII (please don't try to argue Abraham is more famous than Hitler or you are a complete moron). --Fdf3 (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Existance and fame are not related. The Biblical Abraham, real or not, has more of an effect on people's lives than Lincoln. Lincoln's life really only affects the lives of Americans (folks in other countries might like him, but they don't get any days off or anything). That point still stands. If you agree that the article should remain "Abraham" and not become "Abraham (Genesis)," then the only reason to argue here is just to argue, which is pointless. Quit waving it around and put it back in your pants unless you have anything to say that helps the article, even if it means arguing for turning this into a disambiguation page. BTW, great job with doing unto others... Ian.thomson (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well just because you are clueless and ticking me off, I should no longer agree with you on the move. But I will because I don't feel like arguing over Wikipedia. I am also sorry that you think Lincoln only effected America. Ever hear of the Trent Affairs? Or even the Civil War for that matter? Do you honestly think it only involved Americans and effected Americans? That is like saying the Revolution was only between American and Britain and only effected those countries. So much from American history has shaped the world, and you clearly don't understand. Apparentally only religious figures effect the world today according to you and that is pathetic. Please read the book Great War and get back to me. Of course it is fiction, but every action has an outcome. Not only religious figures have this privilege. And your last comment I presume is supposed to be insluting, but nice try. Bye. --Fdf3 (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to continue to attack other editors and base your stances on mood swings instead of what you believe is best for the article, then I'm not going to continue this discussion until you calm down. The "do unto others" remark was a reminder. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This article "Abraham" really needs help. It is written as though each biblical assertion is a fact. Am currently reading a study Bible and it is much more objective about pointing out inconsistencies and illogical "facts" in the biblical stories. Here's one example from the Wikipedia article: "Abraham died at the age of 175 years. Jewish legend says that he was meant to live to 180 years..." Ahem..."Abraham died at the age of 175 years" is also a legend. There is no proof that he lived, and no proof that humans lived longer than they do now. If this can be proved, please cite your proof. Some biblical scholars have analyzed the writing styles in the Bible, and the duplication of stories, and say that this points toward multiple authors. Some believe that the stories were part of an earlier oral tradition that eventually was written after the presumed events occured. A parallel would be for us to write about an event that occurAred more than 500 years ago, that we did not witness personally, without citing any other sources - would we consider that document to be factual? Marginata (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

YHWH vs Yahweh

In the sentence, "Abraham was sent by God ... to Canaan, the land promised to his descendants by YHWH", is "YHWH" really correct or necessary usage? The same sentence shows "God". Why is this different? (I admit to ignorance in whatever finer points of theological debate may pertain here, so please enlighten me.) The link is to Tetragrammaton. Would it not be acceptable and more standard to say "Yahweh", and link to that article? The Tetragrammaton article and the Yahweh article both have plenty of discussion of the issues, and it does not seem necessary for this article on Abraham to challenge readers in that particular way; I say "challenge", because I believe "Yahweh" will be more recognizable to a majority of readers than "YHWH", while the latter will certainly stump some readers. Taquito1 (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If no one answers soon, one way or the other, I will change this to "God". Taquito1 (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem picky, or worse, ignorant, but I have doubts about using "Yahwah" as well. That version does not even seem to be in the Tetragrammaton article. Why not use "God"? If no one gives me an explanation, I will make the change. Taquito1 (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you should just make the change. -Lisa (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There is considerable debate over the correct pronunciation of YHWH. To unilaterally select a pronunciation is a flawed approach. Of course, the entire article overreaches with respect to objectivity. It should be titled "The Story of Abraham has told in the [name & version] Bible". It doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia the way it is currently written. Marginata (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The In Judaism section desperately needs expanding

Why there was no section for Abraham in Judaism is hard to understand. I've since created one, any help in expanding it would be appreciated. Drsmoo (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Abraham

Abraham Lincoln is almost definitely more famous than the biblical Abraham. So why does this Abraham get to simply have the title "Abraham". I say we move this to "Abraham (Genesis)" and make "Abraham" the disambig instead of "Abraham (disambiguation)". There we can add all of the Abrahams on Wikipedia. --Cheick4 (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I'm an American, and no, Biblical Abraham is definately more famous. Lincoln (who I've always heard referred to as Lincoln when discussed mononymously) is really only famous in the US, and is simply known of in other countries. A major reason for the fighting in the middle east is because of people believing different things about Abraham. Noone has killed each other over Lincoln in over a century, people have been killing each other over Abraham for centuries. Biblical Abraham wins. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you clearly know nothing about history and just want this Abraham to be more famous. First off, it hasn't even been proven that this one actually existed. Second, Abraham Lincoln is famous worldwide. Third Abraham Lincoln is likely more famous worldwide, and is definitely more famous in North America and Europe (The majority of who uses Wikipedia). I cannot believe you would just try to say Abraham Lincoln is only famous in America. Have you ever been to other countries? Have you ever studied their history methods? That is like saying Hitler is only famous in Germany or Napoleon is only famous in France. Abraham Lincoln and George Washington are major historical figures everywhere you go around the world and I guarantee you if you asked 100 random strangers what this Abraham did and what Abraham Lincoln did, more could tell you the latter. Aside from Jesus (barring God, Devil, etc.), who is likely the most famous person in history, it is hard to find any biblical figure who you could convince people of being more famous than Lincoln. That being said, you are correct in Lincoln more often being called "Lincoln", "President Lincoln" or "Abraham Lincoln" over simply "Abraham". So because of that alone, this may be a bad idea. But I am shocked and slightly disturbed by the fact that you would try to claim Abraham Lincoln is only famous in America. And your argument of Abraham being fought over for centuries is just rediculous. Thats like saying Abraham is more famous than Hitler because nobody has killed themselves over his endeavors since WWII (please don't try to argue Abraham is more famous than Hitler or you are a complete moron). --Fdf3 (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Existance and fame are not related. The Biblical Abraham, real or not, has more of an effect on people's lives than Lincoln. Lincoln's life really only affects the lives of Americans (folks in other countries might like him, but they don't get any days off or anything). That point still stands. If you agree that the article should remain "Abraham" and not become "Abraham (Genesis)," then the only reason to argue here is just to argue, which is pointless. Quit waving it around and put it back in your pants unless you have anything to say that helps the article, even if it means arguing for turning this into a disambiguation page. BTW, great job with doing unto others... Ian.thomson (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well just because you are clueless and ticking me off, I should no longer agree with you on the move. But I will because I don't feel like arguing over Wikipedia. I am also sorry that you think Lincoln only effected America. Ever hear of the Trent Affairs? Or even the Civil War for that matter? Do you honestly think it only involved Americans and effected Americans? That is like saying the Revolution was only between American and Britain and only effected those countries. So much from American history has shaped the world, and you clearly don't understand. Apparentally only religious figures effect the world today according to you and that is pathetic. Please read the book Great War and get back to me. Of course it is fiction, but every action has an outcome. Not only religious figures have this privilege. And your last comment I presume is supposed to be insluting, but nice try. Bye. --Fdf3 (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to continue to attack other editors and base your stances on mood swings instead of what you believe is best for the article, then I'm not going to continue this discussion until you calm down. The "do unto others" remark was a reminder. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This article "Abraham" really needs help. It is written as though each biblical assertion is a fact. Am currently reading a study Bible and it is much more objective about pointing out inconsistencies and illogical "facts" in the biblical stories. Here's one example from the Wikipedia article: "Abraham died at the age of 175 years. Jewish legend says that he was meant to live to 180 years..." Ahem..."Abraham died at the age of 175 years" is also a legend. There is no proof that he lived, and no proof that humans lived longer than they do now. If this can be proved, please cite your proof. Some biblical scholars have analyzed the writing styles in the Bible, and the duplication of stories, and say that this points toward multiple authors. Some believe that the stories were part of an earlier oral tradition that eventually was written after the presumed events occured. A parallel would be for us to write about an event that occurAred more than 500 years ago, that we did not witness personally, without citing any other sources - would we consider that document to be factual? Marginata (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Faith of Abraham

The article faith needs some help in the The Faith of Abraham section. It isn't very long section of the article, nor does it need to be, but someone with knowledge of Abraham's faith would be much appreciated and it might add a great deal to the article. Please give some direction on the talk page of faith if you care to. Some of the questions I can't answer are

• Why is it a section under Christianity (and not under Judaism)?
• Does it even need to be included in the article since Abraham isn't a religion but a central figure?
• Is Abraham's faith unique?

Thanks in advance. Faradayplank (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Abrahamism is all lies, no body could rarely live up to 50 in ancient time period not to mention 100 150 or 200 yrs of age, that is ridiculous and mocking human kind's intelligence.! Article must MUST point out this kind of inaccuracy to the oh so sheepy public! it is Wiki's responsibility ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.204.146 (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, people did live up to 70 or so, the "average lifespan" was around 30 because of high infant mortality. As for Wiki's responsibility, we're not "Wiki," we are A wiki, we are Wikipedia. As for Wikipedia's responsibility, we don't give a damn about "truth," we only report what there is present in sources. The sources that discuss Abraham say he lived for over a hundred years. There is a section in the article that suggests Abraham was made up. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Old Testament characters

Abraham - Amenemhet I

Jacob - Yakubher

Moses - Thuthmose III

David - Psusennes I

Solomon - Siamun

WillBildUnion (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

See the original research guidelines and the reliable source guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Im aware of the guidelines, this is not original research, and it's on talk page so it should not be problem. The hyksos were hebrews and hebrews rose in power in Egypt. This is not original research. All this can be backed up by university sources, but at this point I only leave this to the talk page.WillBildUnion (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Putting it on the talk page does not make it "not original research." Provide those sources with proper citations, or else it remains in the realm of original research. Also, the identification between the Hebrews and the Hyksos is not universally accepted among scholars. At most, you would be able to put "John Smith in This is my book on history, believes that..." Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Infoboxes are for facts. I've already seen an infobox rejected at the Trojan War article because it was being treated as fact. In this case the issue is somewhat similar. It should not attempt to state as fact his birth date, place, or death, or at least not without a caveat. Such discussions (I wrote statements, but these should be discussions, not statements) belong in the article where they can be more nuanced. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to restore the IP's edit, go ahead. The impression I got earlier this year is that it was pretty much the consensus that there should be no 'per Genesis' or such caveats. I was of the view that there should be. SamEV (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think that discussion referred to the infobox. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, I'm not sure if it was the result of any formal discussion (which I may have missed) or simply what evolved naturally during editing. SamEV (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The Faith of Abraham

The article faith needs some help in the The Faith of Abraham section. It isn't very long section of the article, nor does it need to be, but someone with knowledge of Abraham's faith would be much appreciated and it might add a great deal to the article. Please give some direction on the talk page of faith if you care to. Some of the questions I can't answer are

• Why is it a section under Christianity (and not under Judaism)?
• Does it even need to be included in the article since Abraham isn't a religion but a central figure?
• Is Abraham's faith unique?

Thanks in advance. Faradayplank (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Abrahamism is all lies, no body could rarely live up to 50 in ancient time period not to mention 100 150 or 200 yrs of age, that is ridiculous and mocking human kind's intelligence.! Article must MUST point out this kind of inaccuracy to the oh so sheepy public! it is Wiki's responsibility ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.204.146 (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, people did live up to 70 or so, the "average lifespan" was around 30 because of high infant mortality. As for Wiki's responsibility, we're not "Wiki," we are A wiki, we are Wikipedia. As for Wikipedia's responsibility, we don't give a damn about "truth," we only report what there is present in sources. The sources that discuss Abraham say he lived for over a hundred years. There is a section in the article that suggests Abraham was made up. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Old Testament characters

Abraham - Amenemhet I

Jacob - Yakubher

Moses - Thuthmose III

David - Psusennes I

Solomon - Siamun

WillBildUnion (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

See the original research guidelines and the reliable source guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Im aware of the guidelines, this is not original research, and it's on talk page so it should not be problem. The hyksos were hebrews and hebrews rose in power in Egypt. This is not original research. All this can be backed up by university sources, but at this point I only leave this to the talk page.WillBildUnion (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Putting it on the talk page does not make it "not original research." Provide those sources with proper citations, or else it remains in the realm of original research. Also, the identification between the Hebrews and the Hyksos is not universally accepted among scholars. At most, you would be able to put "John Smith in This is my book on history, believes that..." Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Infoboxes are for facts. I've already seen an infobox rejected at the Trojan War article because it was being treated as fact. In this case the issue is somewhat similar. It should not attempt to state as fact his birth date, place, or death, or at least not without a caveat. Such discussions (I wrote statements, but these should be discussions, not statements) belong in the article where they can be more nuanced. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to restore the IP's edit, go ahead. The impression I got earlier this year is that it was pretty much the consensus that there should be no 'per Genesis' or such caveats. I was of the view that there should be. SamEV (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think that discussion referred to the infobox. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, I'm not sure if it was the result of any formal discussion (which I may have missed) or simply what evolved naturally during editing. SamEV (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Biblical scholarship and Abraham

I did an extensive rewrite of the section dealing with biblical scholarship. I deleted the existing material relating to Genesis 14 - fine in as far as it goes, but it concentrates on just one chapter of Genesis out of the 20-odd that deal with Abraham. It also represented some very old scholarship - not outdated, but old. Genesis 14 is no longer an issue in scholarship, and hasn't been for a quarter of a century. What I've replaced it with gives a brief overview of the formation of the modern consensus since the 1970s. It's sourced, and anyone seeking further information can follow the refs. PiCo (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move per WP:SNOW, WP:RNPOV, and Abraham (disambiguation) (non-admin close). JJB 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Abraham → Abraham (Mythology) — I feel that the relevance of this article is substantially less than that of Abraham Lincoln. As such, this page should be moved, and the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham should redirect either to Lincoln himself or a disambiguation page with lists of Abrahams. Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States of America during one of the most important periods of history for that country, the Civil War. Abraham. . . offered his son up as sacrifice to prove his loyalty to the religious figure he worshipped. It seems a little strange that the name Abraham would be directed at the mythological figure as opposed to the leader of a country. Kind of like if 'Garfield' directed to the strip instead of the President (it might, I haven't checked). Antoids (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Strongly oppose. I do not believe that anyone would confuse the subject of this article with Abraham Lincoln. People looking for articles about U.S. President Lincoln will search for "Abraham Lincoln" or "Lincoln" not just "Abraham." Lincoln was an American president, not a king; he was not and is not commonly referred to by his first name. In contrast, people looking for the biblical figure search for "Abraham." Abraham is the only name available for the biblical figure. There are others beside Abraham Lincoln with the first name "Abraham" why should Lincoln be given sole claim on that first name as an article title? In contrast, the biblical figure appears to be the person (historic or mythic) none solely as "Abraham" without a surname or other qualifier. I see no evidence that the current designation of this article confuses anyone. Keep in mind that the purpose of article names is to help people find the information they are seeking not to indicate the person most worthy of a particular name. It is not wikipedia's purpose to decide whether the Prophet Abraham or Abraham Lincoln is more important or more deserving of having an article with the sole name of "Abraham." Further, you will start an unnecessary edit war by referring to Abraham as "Mythology" since he is regarded as an historical figure by billions of Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Even atheist scholars generally concede there is no more (or less) reason to regard Abraham as a myth than any other figure from the ancient world. There is an entire line of scholarship looking into the question of whether characters from ancient "myths" were based on real people. Labeling Abraham as "Mythology" would violate WP:NPOV by taking an unambiguous position favoring one side in a dispute. If we start identifying Abraham Lincoln as just “Abraham” someone will argue that consistency demands that we do the same with other U.S Presidents. In that case, how would Wikipedia decide whether John Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Tyler, John Calvin Coolidge, or John F. Kennedy gets the name John? Finally, Garfield does direct to the cartoon character not U.S. President James A. Garfield, which is entirely proper for many of the same reasons given with regard to this move request. Johnwilliammiller (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Abraham unqualified is quite unambiguous; Its primary meaning is the patriarch. Andrewa (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • PS and it isn't even remotely relevant but see Garfield. Andrewa (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - the patriarch is clearly the primary topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Amakuru --JaGa^talk 12:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, even though I would dearly love to see this article clearly labeled as mythological. The president was only known as "Abraham" to his parents, his wife, and Dion. Powers ^T 17:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Commment: As in Abraham, Martin and John? Love it! No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. You could perhaps sell me the notion that "Lincoln" primarily refers to the presdient, but certianly not "Abraham". The primary meaning is clearly the patriarch, just as the primary meaning of "Garfield" is the comic strip. At best this nomination is highly US-centric; at worst it is just inflammatory. PC78 (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • To me here in England, "Lincoln" primarily means the town in Lincolnshire. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Many in all 3 of the big monotheistic religions would get the AK47 out at people who claim that the Patriarchs are a myth. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes, there's a very tricky NPOV issue raised if we were to need to disambiguate, as to exactly what the disambiguator should be. Abraham appears prominently in several Holy Books; Who is to say which of them is most widely read by English speakers? And as you say the disambiguator proposed here wouldn't do either. But fortunately we don't need to disambiguate. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Amakuru. The president is better known by his surname rather than just his given name on its own. Cjc13 (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Remove Bahai

Bahai is not often referred to as part of the "Abrahamic religion". This is the first time that I have ever heard or read this. Abrahamic religion in most if not all scholarly texts, strictly refers to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.97.19 (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"Islamic view of Abraham"

I fail to understand why the page on "Abraham" seems largely (albeit not exclusively) focused on the character from the Hebrew Bible, whereas if I search the corresponding Islamic name for him, I get a disambiguation page pointed at all the many people named "Ibrahim". Since Ibrahim is just as important a character in the Islamic faith as in the Jewish faith, it seems like it would be fairest if both "Abraham" and "Ibrahim" pointed at the same place, which should ideally link to longer pages discussing, respectively, the Jewish and Islamic views of the dude. It just seems sort of asymmetrical as it is. Excalibre (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Biblical scholarship and Abraham

I did an extensive rewrite of the section dealing with biblical scholarship. I deleted the existing material relating to Genesis 14 - fine in as far as it goes, but it concentrates on just one chapter of Genesis out of the 20-odd that deal with Abraham. It also represented some very old scholarship - not outdated, but old. Genesis 14 is no longer an issue in scholarship, and hasn't been for a quarter of a century. What I've replaced it with gives a brief overview of the formation of the modern consensus since the 1970s. It's sourced, and anyone seeking further information can follow the refs. PiCo (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Composition and Origin POV

This section concentrates mainly on convincing reader to a certain POV, as it uses phrases, that suggest that some certain opinions must be taken as a fact.It uses phrases like "last serious attempt",unverified claims that "consensus" has been reached ( that the certain POV is accepted by all, or at least majority of serious researchers ). It should be rewritten to point that these opinions are just opinions, and not confirmed facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakthea computer (talk • contribs) 20:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the first sentence. That was easy, why didn't you do it? If there are unverified claims, use the {{cn}} tag, not the pov tag. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Now sounds better, but it still tries to implicate that Abraham didn't existed at all which isn't verifable . I'm under impression that this paragraph was written mainly for this purpose, so it is POV-biased. I would like to have words like "consensus", "widely held" etc. removed, or rephrased, because I doubt that this opinion is accepted by Jewish or Christian scholars. However, I'm not an expert on the subject, and have no nerves for hot debates, so I left this for others to improve this section. Amakthea computer (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about the name Abi-ramu and the name Abraham, because the cited source contains no mention of the name Abi-ramu. Beyond that, the relevant sentence in our section, "Since then there has been a developing consensus that the entire Genesis narrative owes nothing to oral tradition, but is a literary composition of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE", is sourced to a major scholar (a Catholic priest in fact - Blenkinsopp is a Jesuit), and clearly identifies a "developing consensus". PiCo (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Being that those statements are sourced solely to Blekinsopp, I have made that clear in the article. -- Avi (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but Blenkinsopp is one of the world's leading biblical scholars - there's no possibility that he would tell a lie about this. PiCo (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Protect against vandalism

I request this article be protected so that only registered users can edit this page. Here is a list of vandals that I hope someone "upstairs in the control room" notices! :p Jasonasosa (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• 00:56, 3 January 2011 68.195.38.35 (talk) (48,300 bytes) (→Biblical chronology) (undo)
• 00:54, 3 January 2011 68.195.38.35 (talk) (48,273 bytes) (→Biblical chronology) (undo)
• 00:53, 3 January 2011 68.195.38.35 (talk) (48,254 bytes) (→Origins) (undo)
• 22:35, 1 January 2011 99.91.199.95 (talk) (48,270 bytes) (undo)
• 15:23, 29 December 2010 70.110.176.194 (talk) (48,302 bytes) (→Genesis narrative) (undo)
• 00:32, 21 December 2010 71.254.222.235 (talk)

Article images

Hey Jason, I’m not the one adding literal dozens of <br /> tags whilst making the paintings huge. ―cobaltcigs 10:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You can resize the pics... just be mindful of the huge gaps of spacing that was created after your edit. I only used a few of those tags for spacing alignment. you can fix it if you do it right. Jasonasosa (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any chance you can add another photo atleast which you think would suit the article, alot of James tissot's images are ruining it really and just making it dull. As well as these black and white stamps, what is thier purpose, they look like convict pictursHighdeeboy (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

LMAO ~shrugs~ I think the Tissot pictures are more neutral and more "accurate" than others in depiction. Just put a gallery at the bottom like Lot (Biblical). Images are best when accurate. I think worst pictures are on the Hagar (Bible) page as none of them depict the boy at the age of 14. So, as I'm thinking about it... maybe all of the pictures should just be moved down to the bottom to be consistent with the Lot page... Jasonasosa (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere in the labyrinth of Wiki there's some guidance on images. Unfortunately I don't remember where I saw it. But from what I remember, it said that images shouldn't be allowed to overwhelm the text - some, but not so many as to make reading difficult or confusing. It also suggested starting off with an image on the right, the next on the left, and so on, alternating - but I see lots of articles that don't follow that. My own suggestion is to restrict images to one per section, and to skip any section that isn't big enough to include an image inside itself (i.e. if the section is too short). As for where the images come from, Abraham has been tackled by many major artists - how about looking around at Byzantine icons, early-Renaissance Italians, the greats like Caravaggio He did a very famous Sacrifice of Isaac) and Rembrandt (a famous Blessing of Abraham), and then any moderns you might find? PiCo (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I really wish editors would focus on informative content rather than images Jasonasosa (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree but, what I meant to say was that I don't want a gallery like the one Lot's page has.Everything is in right proportion but, it's just that black and white stamp like image that makes things ugly, why not replace this one tiny image with another one. The information bar regarding Abraham will stay but,just change the image the bar has on top of it. One guy did that last year and it looked alot better.Highdeeboy (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL...I actually liked the "prison images" but thats just my POV... The Ezekiel and Jeremiah images for the image boxes are alright and if you could find an Abraham image like those that would be cool. The image of Abraham and Isaac belong on the Binding of Isaac page. I prefer Abraham solo for his profile image. No matter, I don't care for images and would do away with all images and galleries if I had a choice as they distract from the real content and 99% of the images are inaccuratly depicted... and the ones that are semi-accurate or better than less accurate are "dull" according to Highdeeboy :p Jasonasosa (talk)

Hi,it's me

I just found out I have been blocked till 2015!, I don't recall commiting a crime yesterday, I just edited a few things and I don't really expect everyone to accept with my edits so, I try to bargain for a little change, anyways, this person who blocked me really seems delusional or is joking with me, 4 YEARS! I can't live like that!.Please help me out I don't know a thing in wikipedia besides editing and signing!199.255.209.76 (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It would help if we knew who you were. What edits did you do on this article? PiCo (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Lol, Ironically I'am no longer blocked. Strange.Highdeeboy (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

LMAO... You were the one that was blocked!? Well its no wonder... >.> Jasonasosa (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

? You're not funny and why not put your sign for a change, COWARD ;)Highdeeboy (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha... I forgot to sign!!! not a coward, just absent minded sometimes > Jasonasosa (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The page looks really better now lol but, the only thing that is ugly is the picture, seriously this black and white stamp stuff ruins the page, can't you find a better picture, I know one must care for the info but, this small pic is ruining the whole beautiful page!Highdeeboy (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You can replace the mugshot...lol. Just keep the infobox Jasonasosa (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Abraham's Birthday

One might admit cowardice in the face of a possible edit war to state that Abraham is mythological, and can claim it is a POV error to come down on either side of the matter unambiguously, but how is an unequivocal declaration of a birthday in 1948 BCE not unambiguous, anti-mythological, and therefore a POV error? There are a multitude of books that would put the supposed birthday of Abraham in different years, including "never, because he's mythological".

Claiming a birthday with any specific year is untenable and not verifiable. I suggest that particular line be deleted.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.49.78 (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't say 1948 BCE, it says 1948 AM, Anno Mundi, "Year of the World", meaning that it measures time from the creation. The biblical books Genesis through 2 Kings use the creation as their starting point, and count from there using the "generations" in Genesis - "So-and-so begot Son-of-so-and-so and lived (insert number here) years". It's quite easy to follow this scheme through Genesis, which means it's quite easy to fix how many years after creation Abraham was born. It gets more difficult after Exodus because there seems to be a discontinuity in the bible's own internal count, with three different numbers given for the amount of time the Israelites spent in Egypt. Then it straightens out again for the period through to the destruction of Jerusalem. That brings you to the end of 2 Kings, but it continues in a few other books and seems to end in 164 BCE, with the cleansing of the temple by Judas Maccabeus (a genuine historical event that can be dated from other sources). That 164 BCE date is 4000 years after Creation according to the biblical chronology, and seems to mark a sort of "end of the world" in the minds of whoever put this chronology into the bible - not that Genesis was written in n164 BCE, but the chronology was added or more likely edited at that time. So it's perfectly accurate to say that Abraham, as a literary figure, is born in 1948 AM - so long as we recognise that we're not dealing with real history. (By the way, the correct description of Abraham would be that he's a legendary and literary figure, like King Arthur, but not a mythological one - mythological characters are gods or demi-gods, like Hercules, but Abraham isn't and probably never was a god). PiCo (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If Abraham is a literary figure, as you say, then he has no birthday; that's an illogical anthromorphicization. Or perhaps you could say he was born with the first production of written Genesis in 950 BCE or so, or perhaps born with the final version around 450 BCE. To hypothesize some probably imaginary beginning of the universe and then adduce when someone is "born" relative to that needs more acknowledgment than AM. One should perhaps say that he was born in the year 14,989,632,811 ABB (after the Big Bang).

The main text already specifies the context for his supposed birth, so the issue is merely the removal of the "born" line from the side bar. Talastra (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Lots of literary figures have birthdays, quite common really. Counting from the Creation is a pretty good sign of the literariness of it. That the bible counts from creation is a fact; that creation happened, is a (literary) fiction. Personally I have no trouble holding both these ideas in my mind at the same time. PiCo (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I like to see a date there, any date... for quick reference, so I can do my own "chronological calculations"...lol Jasonasosa (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer a BC or BCE date, whether he's real or not. Failing that, using the chronology of the principal document that tells his story seems totally logical. SamEV (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone remember what stardate James T. Kirk was born? Jasonasosa (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't. But is that date relevant to this article, or did you post that here by accident? SamEV (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Needs clear statement of historicity in lead

The lead section needs a brief statement about the extent to which Abraham was (based on) a real person. This is, after all, the most important fact about this individual. I'm pretty sure there used to be something, but I don't know why or when it was removed. Looking back at old versions of this article, it seems a lot of the "real" historical and archaeological information has been removed, which is a shame. 81.159.76.94 (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

There was, and it was an indefinate 'historians have no consensus as to his existence' sorta deal. It was decided that it wasn't quite necessary to repeat that when reading the article leaves the reader with their own conclusion. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved section on current biblical scholarship from bottom of article to top to answer this.PiCo (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of schizophrenia?

The "binding of Isaac" is a classic example of schizophrenic "command hallucination" (voice in head telling someone to harm close relative, most often they don't go through with it, religious in nature). This and some other episodes in Abraham's life have been referred to by psychiatrists over the years to illustrate schizophrenic behaviour. I guess the religious don't like the inference, but it does suggest that the stories may have some factual basis, since it is unlikely they would document such a classic case history other than from experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.158.52 (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, you should select respectful logical diction when you want to explain something on an encyclopedia, it's not a personal point of view. The story doesn't say a voice in your head or delusion, as you claim. However, Abraham is considered a prophet by more than 50% of the world population. Anyways, out of belief, there has been many divinity that was proven by science from Abraham, which means that he did get orders from somewhere, not just a delusion to kill his son. AdvertAdam (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion belongs somewhere else, not on Wikipedia, unless we have reliable sources for it. The IP may be able to provide them. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Koran's Version of Abraham Willing to Sacrifice His Son

In the Koran, it's Ishmael in the story,not Isaac. An artwork that portrays a crucial part of the Abraham narrative is George Segal's sculpture, "Abraham's Farewell To Ishmael", 1987. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.69.50 (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Segal's information and link to the Miami Museum of Art depicting his art has now been added to the Abraham in the Arts section of the Abraham article. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hebrews, Israelites and Jews

I realize that this topic was address in an earlier section, but the discussion is quite lengthy now. So, I have started this new section to regain focus. Some may suggest that long ago there is evidence for Hebrews, Israelites and Jews being distinct from each other as groups. However, these three are now viewed as synonyms for each other. It seems that strong citations would be needed to continue to list the three as separated, surviving, historical groups.

The article reads: According to both the Hebrew Bible Genesis 11–25 and the Qur'an, Abraham is the forefather of many tribes, including the Hebrews, Israelites, Jews, Ishmaelites, Edomites, Midianites, and others. Qur'an, The Cattle, Verse 84. There needs to be a stronger citation, IMO, in order to keep all three of Hebrews, Israelites and Jews in the text. What reasons exist for these three to be so listed? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the list is a big deal, but I want to correct something you wrote. I didn't say that the three groups survived. Quite the opposite: I wrote that Jews are the one surviving group from those three. Though how about the Samaritans, descendants from the Israelites and quite held to be distinct from Jews proper?

Hebrews, Israelites, and Jews clearly overlapped and are usually treated as if they're one group. I just think that in the Bible, i.e. in the past, they seem to have been distinct enough to merit individual listing. SamEV (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a big deal. (I also thought about the Samaritans. Their continued presence is important.) I don't think it is accurate to say the Bible identifies the three as separate tribes. Consider this: "Hebrews" can be considered to be the "tribe" that encompasses both Israel and Judah. But, "Israel" before the split of the Northern and Southern Kingdom included all the people. After the split (Rehoboam's time) the north was referred to as Israel. The south was referred to as Judah, hence "Jews". It remains accurate to view both the people of the north and people of the south as "Israel" or even the "Hebrews". To list them separately creates confusion, or at least unnecessary complexity, in my opinion. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

True. However, no-one can deny that all Jew-tribe is under Israel, as Judea is the son of Israel/Jacob. What's more important, is that the term Jews is recently used for Judaism, not strictly for the Judea tribe. Therefore, I suggested that there is no reason to mention Jews in the list, because they're already included in the previous sentence (Judaism). Likewise, there is no reason to have Quraish tribe in the list, because they're already included in the previous sentence (Islam). Both are also included in "and others", tho. AdvertAdam ^talk 04:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DonaldRichardSands, what you state is the standard way of looking at the three groups, so yes, I've considered it!

Do as you guys think is best for our readers. SamEV (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks SamEV. I'm removing Jews, as explained that they're already respectly mentioned under Judaism. I don't know about Hebrews; what do you think DonaldRichardSands? Sorry guys for keeping this discussion too long. Take care... AdvertAdam ^talk 03:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Judaism may not necessarily equate with being Jewish. Some people may convert to Judaism and continue to consider themselves non-Jewish in an ethnic sense, and some Jewish people do not subscribe to Judaism (or to any religion).

Also, I'd have preferred that you waited a few days before changing that content, in case anyone else has an opinion. SamEV (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll revert my edit. I didn't mean equal, as a meaning. Jews are actually mixed and hard to be tracked as a clear tribe anyways. The whole discussion started when I objected mentioning multiple tribes from the same nation and ignoring the tribes of other nations. My opinion was to use one major tribe from each important nation, then "and others" fulfills the rest of the meaning.

Don't forget that Israelits, as the sons of Israel, include Juda as one of the sons; when looking at it based on blood, instead of Kingdoms. AdvertAdam ^talk 05:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert.

Yeah, "Israelites" does include the northern Ten Tribes, the Samaritans, and Jews. But to repeat, I just think that since Jews exist in our time, while Hebrews and Israelites, properly speaking, do not, Jews should be mentioned. I.e. modern Jews are descendants of Hebrews and Israelites, not really identical with them. As you state, modern Jews have a complex genealogy. SamEV (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

My example before was similar to your point, even though not all Jews now are from the Judea tribe. Anyways, Nebaioth and Kedar tribes are also mentioned in the Bible from the Ishmaelites, but Kedar(Meccan)/Quraish is one of the tribes that still exist now too. However, I don't see a reason for adding them, as the Ishmaelites nation is already mentioned. There are many others that can keep the list going forever AdvertAdam ^talk 20:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If you still want to repeat that edit, go ahead. You've been very fair. SamEV (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess we can keep it in the middle and leave Hebrews too. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What is more important to add is that he is the founder of Islam (i.e. submitting oneself to one god) as in Quran [2:135]... Islam is a generic term and includes all monotheistic beliefs. Therefore the founder of monotheism. nasaralla

Historicity: big unanswered question

So is Abraham generally seen as a historical person or not? The article says that "the past four or five decades have seen a growing consensus that the Genesis narrative of Abraham originated from literary circles of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE as a mirror of the situation facing the Jewish community under the Babylonian and early Persian empires.[12] Blenkinsopp describes two conclusions about Abraham that are widely held in biblical scholarship: the first is that, except in the triad "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," he is not clearly and unambiguously attested in the Bible earlier than the Babylonian exile..." (my italics)

But that italicized bit is pretty significant. So, if the article is stating that the current critical consensus is that the particular Genesis story about Abraham dates from the Babylonian exile, but the use of his name as an ancestral figure is older than that... well, when did that originate? Is this suggesting that Abraham was a historical person (about whom little but the name was known) to which the Genesis story was associated at a later (Babylonian exile) date, or that he was a legendary figure to which more legends were attached, or...?

Now, there may be no consensus on that question, or the consensus may be that it's unknowable, but the article should SAY that. 128.194.250.90 (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Good question(s). I hope someone answers you. For instance, PiCo, who's edited that content much. SamEV (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm flattered, but I think it's best to read what Blenkinsopp says (page 37 onwards), talking about when and how the Abraham story came to be written down, and what the messages were. PiCo (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I read it, but I think I'll have to read it again... SamEV (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If Abraham was not a bibical character, you can bet that there would be no dispute about his existence. Portillo (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You've just posted this to Talk:Moses, only changing the name. You're flat out wrong. Sumerian kings and Chinese emperors are examples of 'characters' whose existence is disputed. Dougweller (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Good catch; he's also removing content w/o summaries. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I can think of umpteen legendary figures whose historical existence is disputed e.g. Romulus, Marion Braidfute, Loarn mac Eirc, Gelert the dog. PatGallacher (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I could look up Abraham in Encyclopedia Britannica Online to get a read on what the majority opinion is as to whether he was a historical figure.. Sound OK? Leadwind (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

citations needed

The lede says something about Abraham and a monotheistic covenant. That needs a citation. It also says that the Qur'an's stories are similar, but we need an expert citation to make an assertion like that. Leadwind (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Abraham is the forefather of: ... + Hebrew God

Regarding the revert I made on the intro, I don't see a reason of putting a detailed list in the introduction. Jews, as a tripe, is under Israelites, and Israelites are under Hebrews. Likewise, we can't put Quraish tribe, Joseph tribe, and so on...

I recommend keeping it the same way, "Israelites, Ishmaelites..." or "Hebrews, Ishmaelites...". Afterwards comes the Jewish link to Abraham, as the Jewish religion, and Muhammad's link to Abraham, the way it was.

Also, Yahweh is not the Hebrew god, but the Hebrew name of God in the Hebrew Bible. You're then talking about polytheism, because the Hebrew Bible speaks of the coming of the Messiah and the Prophet. Therefore, what shall we call Elohim and Allah, two other gods?! AdvertAdam ^talk 21:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"YHWH" is the rendering of what God said when Moses asked Him what His name is; instead of being tricked by Moses (as if !) into giving His actual name, He gave the philosophical or mystical answer "I am that I am" or "I am". "Yahweh" is a semi-bogus rendering of the YHWH, in contrast to the fully-bogus "Jehovah". "Adonai" is the word usually spoken by Jews when referring to God. "God" with a capital "G" is what English speakers call the God of Abraham. "Allah" means "the God", so in effect it's Arabic for "God" as used in English. "Elohim" is a plural word, referencing the Four Fathers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree in most, not all of your points, as I know many Jews that use Elohim for God. Anyways, that's not the point; I disagree on the recent change from "--The Hebrew name of God" TO ", the Hebrew God"! The Yahweh page clearly states that it's God's name in the Hebrew Bible. AdvertAdam ^talk 02:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "the Hebrew name of God", not "the Hebrew God". Allah says that Allah "is a word for God used in Islam". "Yahweh" should be described in the same way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Adam, even if it were as simple as 'the Hebrews begat the Israelites, who begat the Jews', it'd still be the case that each group is noticeably demarcated from the next, in the Bible itself (the Books of Samuel speak of Hebrews and Israelites as if they're separate from each other). So it doesn't do to just mention the Hebrews, and it's even less adecuate to only mention the Israelites, since Abraham was, more immediately, the father of the Hebrews. (Abraham's ancestor Eber has a case, too, doesn't he?) Nor does it seem proper to leave out Jews, who are the only surviving one of those three descendant groups.

Listing his descendants contiguously is a logical way to organize the contents of the lead. What purpose does fragmentation serve?

Regarding the Yahweh sentence, the wording you want is wrong because it states that Abraham made a covenant with the "name" of YHWH; the covenant was with YHWH himself, not with his (mere) name. (Names don't make contracts; people and gods do.) SamEV (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(1)The wording before use to say "Tribe A, Tribe B, Tribe C, and more"; so we don't need to name all tribes, as that list will never end. Everyone person from a different tribe would want to put his tribe in the list, too. My point was that the history mostly speaks of Israelites while Jews were already mentioned in a whole sentence in the same paragraph. This article is talking about historical figures, when Israelites had the most prophets, not Hebrews, not Jews.

I still think that "Israelites, Ishmaelites, Edomites, Midianites, and others" is enough. Afterwards, I'm not sure if it will be better to have the two sentences, one for Jews' descendant and another for Muhammad, like before or keep it the way it is now. I think it looks better this way with the same sequence of each religion and it's leader/founder/etc.

Any ideas EVERYONE?

(2) I'm not sure where your background is from, as your statement gods is kind of weired in a monotheism article. So, when Muslims say that Allah gave the name to Abraham, does that mean that there's TWO Abrahams? Of course not, but they are two names in different languages referring to the same God, not gods. Anyways, check the Wikipedia page for Yahweh and you'll see him called the Hebrew name of God, too. Also, the Hebrew Bible calls the same God of Israel Jehovah too. Is that another God in your opinion? AdvertAdam ^talk 07:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Jehovah" is a mis-translation of YHWH. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Says who? Many Churches have it curved in their slogans and many communities use it all around the United States too. Also, there's a full article on it, Jehovah, which has many references.

Anyways, that's not the point; I'm still confirming that Yahweh is a name, referring to a monotheism God, based on its article. AdvertAdam ^talk 08:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Yahweh is treated as if it were God's name in Hebrew (though it really isn't, it's simply the answer God gave when Moses asked Him). And no, the Hebrew Bible does not use the term Jehovah, nor does any Jew that I've ever heard. They'll say "Adonai" or "Elohim", in lieu of YHWH. As you can read in the article "Jehovah", it's a mis-translation that came from misinterpreting the combination of YHWH and the vowel points used for "Adonai" and "Elohim". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yahweh is the name of a god that became the name of the god of Israel/the Hebrews whatever. When the name represented a purely monotheistic god and not one among several gods isn't certain. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the Hebrew Bible use YHWH throughout. Most English translations use the all capitalized LORD to indicate when YHWH is used in the Hebrew text. There is a Hebrew custom of not mentioning the name YHWH. Instead they simply refer to God as Hashem (sp?) or 'the name'. This does not change the reality that YHWH is a uniquely Hebrew name for God. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

LORD appears when "Adonai" ("Lord") is overlaid on YHWH. YHWH is conventionally taken to be God's name, i.e. it is the Hebrew name for God. There is no such word as "Jehovah" in the Bible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Therefore, I see that everyone agree that Yahweh is a Hebrew name of God base on its own article, not the Hebrew God. I'm changing it in the article. Thanks. Hope anybody can follow-up with my last comment on the list of tribes above, starting "(1)The wording before use to say...". AdvertAdam ^talk 10:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

SamEV, you reverted the Hebrew God again! The Yahweh article says it's a name of God, and everybody here said it's a name of God, too. What reliable source do you get your claim from? Then how many gods is there in Abrahamic monotheism Religions???! AdvertAdam ^talk 23:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Adam, do you detect any difference between "Joe made a deal with adamrc" and "Joe made a deal with the English name of adamrc"?

Because if you do, then you'll know that my edit has nothing to do with any question of monontheism or what YHWH's precise name is. It's strictly a grammar edit. It's about how to construct a sentence, Adam, that's all it is.

P.S. WP:Don't template the regulars. SamEV (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What you call a grammatic edit has a large meaning behind it. If Yahweh is the Hebrew God, like you assume, then Elohim is another Hebrew God, and Adonai is another Hebrew God. How is it monotheism, in your belief/claim? The grammatic error you explained above is only valid if there was a Comma splice before Yahweh, but there isn't. So "the Hebrew name of God" is explaining Yahweh, and has nothing to do with the covenant between Abraham and Yahweh. If you don't like it the way I put it, we can put a dash instead of the last comma!

I sent you a reminder to follow-up on this talk-page because you reverted my edit, the second time, while ignoring the open topic here. It use to be the Hebrew name of God, but it was changed awhile ago with no explanation, nor any WP:RS. Thanks AdvertAdam ^talk 00:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I see what the issue is. The way the sentence read, it seemed like Abraham was talking to the Hebrew name of God, rather than to God Himself. I've changed it to hopefully improve that oddity. In fact, it might be even better to switch them and say "Abraham talked to God (Hebrew: Yahweh). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me :) Hoping it fixes the problem... AdvertAdam ^talk 07:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with how the disputed sentence reads now. Good job, Baseball Bugs.

Ironically, I understand now what you were trying to say, Adam. It simply did not occur to me that there was anything objectionable about the phrase "Yahweh, the Hebrew god". It's a phrase that scholars use much; other gods exist, according to other religions, and we're supposed to write neutrally; and even the Bible mentions other gods, and calls them "gods" (see Num 33:4, Joshua 24:2, and Judges 8:33, to cite but a few verses). Not only that, in Exodus 3:18 God instructs Moses to tell Pharaoh that YHWH, the God of the Hebrews (or YHWH God of the Hebrews or YHWH, God of the Hebrews—it depends on Bible version) had met with Moses and the elders of Israel. YHWH, the God of the Hebrews is practically identical with "Yahweh, the Hebrew God".

And, no, Adam, "Elohim" and "Adonai" are alleged to be other names of YHWH. But it is in fact widely accepted by scholars that the Hebrews, Israelites, and Jews actually worshipped many gods before the Babylonian Exile. After the Exile, the cult of YHWH became the only cult, and some of those other gods, such as El Shadday, the "God Almighty" with whom Abraham deals, were equated with YHWH. SamEV (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You're talking about names of tribes, including Jews. The narrative was taken from religions, and says that all those aren't gods, but fake idols. Well sir, don't forget that this article relates to three major religions, so I'm trying to keep the recent phrasing of the introduction to be acceptable to all.

Next, and last, comes the tribes! Don't forget that Kedar and Nebaioth are well noticed tribes in the Old Testament too. God's house of Glory is in Kedar, based in Isaiah. Isaiah also mentions that the world shall wait for the law from this tribe. Keturah is another nation from Abraham, which there has been many narratives about their 6 tribes too.

The point I'm trying to make, is to keep this recent introduction phrasing to be balanced toward all nations, to avoid further debates. Genesis narratives two great nations, one from Isaac and another from Ishmael. If we want to mention every noticed tribe, the list will never end and people will insist in adding more to the list. This is an introduction, so I hope it won't stay long. I still consider Hebrews, Israelites, Jews, and Edomites are too much together from one nation, in an introduction. I think that Israelites and Edomites should stay, but not sure about the rest. I'm not saying that the rest aren't noticed, but we should narrow the most important heads. Any ideas? AdvertAdam ^talk 05:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my last comment was entirely about the phrase "Yahweh, the Hebrew God", which you'd found so objectionable, and not at all about the tribes that are said to descend from Abraham.

But what's so excessive about the current list? Only six tribes are named, which are clearly the six main ones, at least as seen in the Bible. After their names, it reads "and others", which ends the list. Seems like a perfectly reasonable list. SamEV (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I know, that's done :)

Again, this article is not related to only one religion. The Bible narrates two great nations, so why would there be three tribes from the first nation (Hebrews, Israelites, Jews), one tribe from the second nation (Ishmaelites), and two others (Edomites, Midianites)! What was that perfect reasonable list based on? If you're concentrating on the Old Testament narratives, there still is a New Testament and a Final Testament. My point here, as explained earlier, is my concern about detailing too much on one side and ignoring the others. I recommend just keeping Israelites: the same way it was for years, as of what I know. Thanks AdvertAdam ^talk 07:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I argued my case for why Hebrews and Jews should be mentioned, too. It would be nice to hear from the other users. Want to hold a mini-poll? SamEV (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current list: "many tribes, including the Hebrews, Israelites, Ishmaelites, Edomites, Midianites, and others." I wouldn't separate Jews out from Israelites because the Jews are the surviving Israelites. As for the Hebrew tribal god, the authors of the Abraham legends had Abraham not know Yahweh's name because the name was supposedly first revealed to Moses (contradicting older accounts). And the authors weren't monotheists. The Israelites were to worship Yahweh alone, but they didn't deny that the other gods were real, too. See Judges 11:24, where Chemosh is a foreign tribal deity comparable to Yahweh: "Do you (Ammonites) not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whatever Yahweh our god has driven out before us, we will possess it." Leadwind (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. I still maintain that Jews don't just have an Israelitish bloodline (as attested by their DNA), but I think it's a relatively minor issue, as you can see in the next section. SamEV (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

origin of Abraham stories

I put a line about the origin of the stories in the lede, and someone deleted it with this note: "According to WP:DUE, you can't put such a claim from a single writer/scholar/whatever in an introduction if it interdicts with the majority." But the information about the origin of the stories represents a scholarly consensus, so it is the majority viewpoint. If there's some source that provides another explanation for where the stories came from, or that tells us that the majority viewpoint is something else, let's see it. Leadwind (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversy about Abraham in Lead

Is it necessary to assert controversy about being historical or legendary in the LEAD? Abraham is that much real as is Adam. Historical justification shall be done in some section later in the article. The lead is already excessively huge, we do not need to keep so much context on the lead. I would suggest, Leadwind may think about that, and relocate his newly added material in somewhere else. » nafSadh did say 18:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The historical/legendary argument has been around lately, but it still doesn't mean that all Encyclopedias and historians are lying. It should have a separate section, as there's many sources that say just the opposite. The mentioned source is just one-side of the story, and can't be improved in the LEAD. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 20:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The question of historicity is not trivial or unimportant, so it is entirely appropriate, maybe even mandatory in a sense, for there to be added one or more sentences about it in the lead. And there are no concerns about the lead's size; a rule of thumb is that the lead of a large-ish article should contain about four paragraphs, and the lead currently contains just one.

The article already contains a well cited scholarly assertion that a majority of scholars regard Abraham and the Hebrew Patriarchs as unhistorical. That should be summarized in the lead, as Leadwind did. However, if you doubt that there is such a majority opinion, try to find sources that claim otherwise. SamEV (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Mazar alone doesn't have the credibility to make such a claim, majority. Yes there is a debate, but such a claim is misleading to be on the lead. The section I moved it to needs more work to qualify for NPOV & Due Weight, together. Therefore, we can't keep one pov of a controversial topic in the lead. As an example, look at more credible authors like this and this, FYI. I'll try to find the time to work on that section soonest. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 02:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that we have a disagreement among editors about how to treat the skeptical view of Abraham's historicity. When editors disagree, it's important to stick to policies and guidelines so we can get along peacefully and productively. As Sam says, the lead is not too long. According to WP:TPA, we should cover our topic from all viewpoints. According to WP:DUE, we should give prominence to the majority viewpoint. According to WP:LEAD, the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the topic. In sum, we should summarize the majority viewpoint in the lead. If "legendary" is not the majority viewpoint after all, just find a reliable source that says so. Adam, you're off to a good start with your two links. Do you think you could get those into shape so they could be actual cited statements in the lead? It looks to me as thought "legendary" is the majority viewpoint, but I could be wrong. What matters isn't what we amateur editors think. What matters is what the experts think. And if you want to keep information out of the lead, please cite policies or guidelines that back you up. That way, even if we disagree personally, we can still work together happily. Leadwind (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

OK! You already have linked the policies. "he lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects". Now, for the skeptical view, lead goes beyond summary. Keep one line about this, cover deeply in a section inside.

Are we not interpreting same policy differently? » nafSadh did say 18:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually read my comment here? The disagreement is not between us, but between sources. Who said minority (Mazar) is not credible enough to make such a claim. I don't need to prove the opposite, as Albright's explanation of the existance of research actually contradicts that (as Mazar says those scholars are only following belief). Let's see another author that makes such a claim? I'm not against the content being in the Lead, as a content; but I pointed that it should be fixed before adding it. It can't be in the lead disputing the whole paragraph by one writer, according to the WP:DUE policy you pointed out. I'm just against that majority/minority claim; especially that there aint any official statistics that show scholars' opinions. We're all brothers here, and any disagreements are always for the intention to improve Wikipedia and provide smoothness to the readers :) ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 20:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, Adam.

However, I must point out that neither link disputes how the consensus or majority opinion is characterized in this article. The first link you gave does state that Albright himself considered them to be historical, but not that a consensus or majority of scholars do, too. Instead, this is stated: "Today, claims Dever, Albright's "central theses (regarding the historicity of the Bible) have all been overturned". That's William Dever who allegedly made that claim, vindicating the content in this article.

The second link you gave also fails to dispute this article's content regarding historicity, because that second link merely states that "The date of Abraham is still a lively topic among biblical scholars who agree that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were indeed historical persons." I.e. it says that those scholars who consider the Patriarchs to be historical disagree among themselves regarding the dates; It does not say that a consensus or majority or scholars consider the Patriarchs to be historical.

It isn't just Mazar, as you can see. It's also Blenkinsopp and Dever who back[s] up the assertions currently made in this article regarding how most scholars view the Patriarchs nowadays. SamEV (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

[We've resolved this, but I feel I owe this clarification. Clearly, Dever was commenting on Albright's theses alone. Dever's comment is of course compatible with Blenkinsopp's and Mazar's claims. 05:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]

Thanks, Sam. Adam, WP:DUE says we have to give prominence to the majority viewpoint. It looks as though the majority viewpoint is that the stories about Abraham are legends from the 6th and 5th centuries BC. Do you have a reliable source that would make us think otherwise? If not, it's our duty as editors to report what the experts say, regardless of our personal opinions. Leadwind (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

nafSadh, looks like we agree that the lede should include a summary of the majority viewpoint, which it now does. Leadwind (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, Leadwind. SamEV (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A change has been made in Lead and Historicity and origins sections.(Rewritten intro (3rd) paragraph regarding Historicity of Abraham, removing ephasis on sources making it bit general. Some texts are relocated (copied) to Historicity and origins section). It is a step for reaching a consensus. » nafSadh did say 18:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Your change committed the sin of weasel wording. Besides, you made it in the face of the reliable sources presented in support of the existing content. Your position should be accomodated in accordance with the sources that you present, not simply because you don't like what the existing ones say.

Also, please use the active voice when reporting your actions. In referring to edits of yours, rather than "A change has been made", state that *you* made that change. Otherwise it gives the impression that you're trying to hide something. SamEV (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Did a suggestive edit. Sorry for weasel. But I did not remove any content.

As you might see, introduction is very detail but it shall be summary. It is really unnecessary to mention few scholars name in lead, coz historic scholars majorly do not regard Abraham as historic. In documented traceable history he is a legend. So, why few scholars? Intro shall give general idea, as I understand, and not detail narrative.

I'm being bold, but try to understand and compare the full edit. You suspected me of removing sourced material, what I did not do... » nafSadh did say 05:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to your removing content from the lead [to the body of the article]. SamEV (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC); 01:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

minority/majority claim

Sorry for the separation here, but I don't want to kill the focus above. No, I'm not pointing to personal opinions either! I personally' haven't read Blenkinsopp or Dever talking about others (scholars), so page-numbers would be highly recommended--especially the cited source of Mazar. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have blundered into a rather hot debate by editing the relevant para in the lead. Sorry, but when I did that I hadn't yet read the Talk page.

Anyway, what I did was simply to summarise the existing section about the origin of the Abraham story in Genesis (by implication, whether it's simple history or something else). In summarising I cut off the in-text references to who said what - but basically it's Blenkinsopp, plus two other sources. All three are mainline contemporary scholars. Blenkinsopp in particular talks about a "developing consensus" that Abraham isn't historical, and when someone of his stature says that there's a consensus we can take it that there is.

The final sentence (of that para as I summarised it) talks about where the author of Genesis got the Abraham story from: from tradition, which placed Abraham as a "father" (ancestral figure) in the general region of Jerusalem and Hebron.

The material I deleted was about (I think I remember) Wellhausen and Gunkel. That's pretty abstruse stuff, and also pretty outdated - both of them have been dead for a century or so. Albright too isn't a source I'd like to use - we have no way of knowing what he'd think if he were alive today and had access to the information that today's scholars have. Albright was a man who was always willing to change his opinion in the face of new evidence.PiCo (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

PiCo's edit seems to be an improvement over my and Leadwind's disputed edits. It covers the topic in a more general and NPOV way. » nafSadh did say 10:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, PiCo. I was planning to add something about what purpose the Abraham legends served, and you provided that without my asking. I'd still like to cover the history of thought on this topic in the body. The mid-20th century idea that archeology confirmed Genesis deserves treatment, even if it's no longer in favor. Leadwind (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like PiCo resolved a dispute very nicely. Cheers!

Leadwind might go on edit on body. For neutrality, this article needs some more material. A lot more work is needed on this article. » nafSadh did say 18:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice NPOV... I guess it solves both open debates here. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 02:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)