Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:37, 21 June 2005

The spelling Abraham was erased. As this is a redirect from Abraham as well, common use suggest that that spelling should be kept as well.--AN

Almost all of the information in this article comes from the Genesis, but it is presented in a very heavy-handed, editorialised fashion. I propose to rework it into more of a synopsis, shortening it somewhat in the process and removing the stuff about the authorship of Genesis, which is not germaine to the topic (besides being controversial). Is anyone going to object if I do that? --Jonadab

Well, nobody objected, so I did it. The article in its former form is preserved at Abram in the 1911 Encyclopedia, which is linked from the new article under Modern Views. If someone with access to the 1911 Encyclopedia can restore that node to a more original state, that would be good. The new node still needs work in some sections. --Jonadab

grammar nit

The name Abram is a Hebrew pun on Ibrim, meaning hebrews, to sound like "Exaulted Father", and was the foremost of the Biblical patriarchs.

The word Abram in the above sentence is used both as a word, and as the thing that the word represents. This can be very confusing to the reader.

"Abram, a Hebrew pun on Ibrim" - that sounds unlikely, given that ancient Hebrew would have had the two words beginning with different consonants, ayin and aleph. Any evidence? - Mustafaa 05:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(comments moved from article to talk) I don't think this is true:...in Genesis 11:28, all it says is Haran died, not that Abraham was unscathed in a fire. I think the author is thinking about another story, with three characters instead of one. Sorry! In fact, many aspects of this article are questionable.

I have deleted two "to be improved" sentences and last section, which was quite unencyclopedic. Of course, this edit is debatable :) Pfortuny 11:19, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This paragraph seems to attempt a critique. It uses phrases like "very loose" and "ignores ... entirely", and reports that "most fundamental Christians" do not hold to it. Is this a list of how the view fairs against credentials of some sort or, is it how those who hold the view would describe their position? I think the former; and so I'd favor deleting or re-writing the paragraph. Mkmcconn 21:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

However, some amillenialists hold that the Christian Church has replaced Israel and receives the promises on her behalf. This view arises from an interpretation of Galatians 3:7-9, but it requires a very loose interpretation of the book of Revelation, ignores Romans 11 entirely, and is not accepted by most fundamental Christians. For further information on this debate, see dispensations and supersessionism.'

As it is, it is not worth including. The idea is interesting but I do not think it fits in this article. Pfortuny 16:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One part of this article says that there is no source for Abram's life other than the Bible/Torah; another says it is the main source. Do we know which is right? Also if there is no other source, then it would make sense to simply say so at the start of the article, and then recount the scriptural version, rather having having to put 'according to tradition' and suchlike every few sentences? DJ Clayworth 21:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The only sources (as of 2004) are from the Bible AFAIK (although maybe the Qu'ran has something different). As for your second statement, you are right... should be done as you say. Pfortuny 11:28, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Aaargg, don't have time to do this. I'm supposed to be finishing WWI in Italy. DJ Clayworth 04:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at it :) Pfortuny 07:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I did it more or less. Problems:

• Muslim tradition... what are the sources? This I do not know.
• The last 3 paragraphs are very boring... They need rewriting at the least. I took out Wellhousen's (?) long quotation as it had no contextual support.

In any case, feel free. Pfortuny 08:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is the term "Biblical" NPOV?

Since Jews and Muslims don't necessarily believe in the Bible, is it appropriate to make multiple use of the word "biblical" in this article? Just wondering. MPS20:48, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is "so it is not possible to know if he was a historical figure" in the third paragraph NPOV? Wouldn't something like "so there is no additional confirmation that he was a historical figure" be more NPOV, given that Genesis, as a historical document, asserts his existence?

Event sequence confusion

I'm a trifle confused. The translations that I'm reading of the Bible (and Torah) show the events being that he is first promised the land for his descendents, then leaves to Egypt, and then leaves from there, settles, and finally seperates from Lot. This article seems to swap the Egypt and Lot seperation.

Anyone? Are my translations wrong, or am I reading the article incorrectly?

I agree with you, sir. --Anglius 18:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About Abraham in philosophy

Abraham is presented very well, not only as an historical figure but also as a symbol of religions, but he is also an object of philosophy. Since some major philosophers wrote about him i thought it should be mentioned.--Arberor 10:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Errors

It is an insult to all Christians to say that he lived "Before the Common Era" rather than "Before Christ." In addition, it is quite possible that he existed prior to 2000 B.C. I, for one, believe that he was born in circa 2246 B.C. and succumbed in approximately 2071 B.C. (he lived to be 175 years old). --Anglius 18:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is as much of an insult to Jews to say he lived "Before Christ", and Jews were talking about Abraham well before Christians. As for date, if you ca:n provide a source for such a claim, then by all means change it. - Mustafaa 18:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sir, but "B.C." was prevalent long before the invention of the "Common Era" system. I thank you for your permission to alter the years of his existence, though. --Anglius 19:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber's Edits Again

Yuber again violated every principle that I put on his talk page (including discussing it on the talk page and not being deceptive), and this was after I paid him the biggest compliment that I could muster. This time, he did even worse: he tried to revert an edit made days ago and disguise it by saying it was minor. YUBER HAS NOW DONE 3 REVERSIONS OF THE SAME PASSAGE. As to substance, he is entirely wrong. I won't go into the Islam page and interpret the religious aspects there, and he (or anyone else outside their religion) should not here. Further, he has been warned by respected editors to stay off controversial pages. Since Yuber is being a serial reverter again, I should not need to address the substance of the edit, but here it is.

Christianity does not view Abraham as the ancestor of the Arabs; the bible and Jesus simply do not address Islam or its history at all. And certainly the Old Testiment, based on Judaism, does not assert the part about Ishmael and the Arabs. Further, the word "ancestor" is a problem for many Christians because some believe it may not mean it in the literal sense.

Before Yuber got involved, this accurately described the Christian view. I will attempt to make it accurate again.

--Noitall 22:31, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

In addition, on the substance, Christians do not view themselves as an "Abrahamic religion" because they only believe in one, Christ. That is why they call themselves a Christian religion not an Abrahamic religion.

--Noitall 22:37, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, feel free to edit the sections that I know less about, namely:

Judaism sees Abraham as the founder of the people of Israel and the ancestor of their people through his son Isaac. Muslims recognize Abraham as the founder of their religion through his son Ishmael.

--Noitall 22:41, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, Abraham is NOT considered the founder of Islam; he is one of the many prophets. Please clarify facts before editing. If many Christians do not consider him not be an Abrahamic religion, we can adjust that accordingly. There is no need to shout in the edit history. Okay? Thanks. --Anonymous editor 23:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Because some people have difficulty reading, which makes editing very very difficult, I have highlighted some principles so that you will edit what you know about correctly. --Noitall 23:12, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thus, you should have no problems understanding now what Muslims believe in this manner and secondly, I have edited to show the christian POV in this regard. Lastly, Yuber has every right to edit this article and Abraham is one of the major figures in Islam and by saying 'Arabs' it does not mean Abraham founded Islam. Also you can not speak for all christians because many of them may say that they do consider themselves to be Abrahamic religions. I know many myself. Also biblical citations are not needed. --Anonymous editor 23:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

How dense are you Anon? I stated to FEEL FREE TO MODIFY THE MUSLIM OR ARAB PORTIONS. I highlighted it in bold. I made it in CAPS. You still do not read or follow directions. But stay off the Christian areas where you admit you have no expertise are not competitent. I do not go over to the Islam page and put in there my interpretations, and you should not put in your religious interpretations of Christianity.

--Noitall 23:29, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, all 3 religions regard him as the ancestor of the Arabs. Arab DOES NOT EQUAL Muslim, you seem to not understand this. There are passages in the bible about Ishmael.Yuber 23:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, I take offence to these attacks you are making against me. I do indeed have expertise in both the Islam areas and the christian areas as I was once christian myself! I have dual interpretations in this regard. I am simply putting forth an effort trying to make this article as NPOV as possible and surely you can see this by my edits. By reverting to your POV everytime, you are damaging the credibility of this article and making it like one off a christianity site. You do not speak for all christians, I know many who consider themselves to be of the "Abrahamic religions". --Anonymous editor 23:43, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, read Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Now, back to business...

The Old Testament does indeed describe Ishmael as ancestor of the Ishmaelites, the Bedouin of the deserts east and south of Palestine (cf. .) A long exegetical tradition identifies the Ishmaelites with the Arabs, plausibly enough (particularly in light of its apparent equivalence with the Midianites.) However, not all Christians accept the Old Testament genealogies as true, and not all Christians accept the traditional exegesis. The latter, at least, applies to Jews as well. A more appropriate wording should reflect both facts, say "He is regarded by all three religions as an ancestor of the Jews, through Isaac, and the Ishmaelites, through Ishmael. In Islam, and in many interpretations of Christianity and Judaism, the Ishmaelites are identified as the Arabs." - Mustafaa 00:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Christian and Biblical Endorsement of Islam and Arabic Heritage

It is trying to insert a POV to try to lump the views of all 3 religions into one common belief. It is just clear POV of trying to get some endorsement. The common belief of Christians is as I stated. But to summarize,

I made these points:

1. The New Testament and Jesus simply do not address Islam or its history at all.

2. Certainly the Old Testament, based on Judaism, does not assert the part about Ishmael and the Arabs (but do recognize Mustafaa's statement, but this intro is not the place for it)

3. The word "ancestor" is a problem for many Christians because some believe it may not mean it in the literal sense.

4. Christians do not view themselves as an "Abrahamic religion" because they only believe in one, Christ. That is why they call themselves a Christian religion not an Abrahamic religion.

Here is my edit for the passage in the 2nd paragraph of Abraham, which the serial reverters keep taking out (and BTW, I invited changes to the Judaism and Muslim parts where I have less expertise):

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are sometimes referred to as the "Abrahamic religions" because they all refer to the lessons of Abraham to some degree. Although Christians do not refer to themselves by this term, they view Abraham as an early figure of faith and recognize his attempt to offer up Isaac as a foreshadowing of God's offering of his Son, Jesus (Gen. 22:1-14; Heb. 11:17-19). Judaism sees Abraham as the founder of the people of Israel and the ancestor of their people through his son Isaac. Muslims recognize Abraham as the one of many religious prophets through his son Ishmael.

This is accurate with regard to Christianity. Let's keep it that way and not insert a POV right up front in the intro.

--Noitall 00:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't accurate even with regard to Christianity - as many a sermon points out. - Mustafaa 00:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, If you checked the current article you will find that the almost the same thing that you have said in your 'edit' is stated in more NPOV manner and in less generalized terms. You must realize that you do not speak for all christians, I know many who consider themselves to be of the Abrahamic religions. Mustafaa's sources further prove my point. Surely by saying Abrahamic religion, it does not mean those whose religion was founded by Abraham, but those peoples whose ancestry are linked through Abraham, through Ishmael and Isaac. Clearly by generalizing what you seem to think ALL 'christians refer to themelves as', you are inserting your POV in the first paragraph. --Anonymous editor 02:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I am on Wiki, so I make no claim that my edit was the perfect edit. The criticism regarding the word or implication regarding ALL christians is duly noted and I will modify accordingly. That does not change the fact that the First sentence of the second paragraph is entirely inaccurate. I hope in this spirit that you will accept my edit as well. --Noitall 12:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

In looking further into this -- note my intent to not speaking for all Christians but to note the general practice of Christianity and Christians -- I see that I cut and pasted my edit, and somehow the word "generally" was left off. That should emeliorate the concern. --Noitall 14:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

"In the Torah/Old Testament... Abraham is described as a patriarch blessed by God and promised great things, father of the People of Israel through his son Isaac, and of the Ishmaelites, generally identified as the Arabs, through his son Ishmael." I take it no one's arguing the first two clauses, so that leaves "father of the Ishmaelites, generally identified as the Arabs, through his son Ishmael." See Easton's Bible Encyclopedia ("He had twelve sons, who became the founders of so many Arab tribes or colonies, the Ishmaelites"), Smith's Bible Dictionary ("The sons of Ishmael peopled the north and west of the Arabian peninsula, and eventually formed the chief element of the Arab nation, the wandering Bedouin tribes.") and even the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia ("The character of Ishmael and his descendants (Arabian nomads or Bedouins)..."). - Mustafaa 00:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are entirely inaccurate as to general Christian thought. Where to begin?:

1. Your entire passage is read as a whole, and you have inserted it to make your POV. If you want to be accurate, copy the entire biblical section, but this would be inappropriate to the introduction and not make the POV that you are trying to assert. 2. Many Christians do not believe in the literal translation of Genesis. Historically, the stories orally passed down for thousand(s) of years before being written down (and somehow the 50 years before the Gospels were written down makes them inaccurate?!). Many Christians believe that Jesus used such stories as a parabel and that later Christians used the stories as a foreshadowing of Jesus's life. What all Christians agree on is that Abraham was an early figuire of faith, whether literally or figuratively.

There is too much more to educate you, but I don't think you want to be educated. You have a POV and that is it. I just can't imagine what would happen if I tried to edit Islam or tried to edit the Muslim sections in this article simply because I found a couple sources that, on the surface, agreed with my POV. --Noitall 01:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether Christians believe in the literal translation of Genesis or not; that's why I phrased it as "the Old Testament says" rather than "Christians believe". I am well aware that Christians of various denominations may believe anything from every word of the Bible to virtually none, and no doubt some don't even believe Abraham existed. Hence the value of sticking with well-defined sources. - Mustafaa 01:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And incidentally, you still haven't made clear what, if anything, you believe to be inaccurate about the phrasing In the Torah/Old Testament... Abraham is described as a patriarch blessed by God and promised great things, father of the People of Israel through his son Isaac, and of the Ishmaelites, generally identified as the Arabs, through his son Ishmael." - Mustafaa 01:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa, now you have shown your POV spots. Your statement and bias is so condescending and anti-Christian. You Are Christians the only ones with a range of beliefs, or does your religion legal enforce its views, see Apostasy in Islam? You are beyond redemption. --Noitall 01:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

And once again, your comment specifies no objection, beyond a personal attack on me as being "condescending and anti-Christian". If you want to get back on the actual subject, you're welcome to do so. - Mustafaa 01:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, absolutely NO need to personally attack religions or religious views. It will ruin any credibility of yours as a neutral editor. All Mustafaa is adding is the Torah/Old Testament. What exactly is the problem with that??? Stop attacking him because he is of a different faith than you. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 01:37, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)