Talk:Abraham/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Abraham and the Promised Land

The promise that Yahweh made to Abraham is the traditional basis for the Jews' claim on the Holy Land. This detail seems like an important part of the story, especially considering current events in Palestine. Whether the stories about Abraham are legends or history, either way Yahweh's promise of Palestine to Abraham's descendents is a big deal. Could someone maybe add a treatment to the body and put a brief summary in the lede? Leadwind (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

YHWH, Lord or God? (part I)

In this article, the God is noted by several names:

• God — common English name for monotheist God in Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
• The LORD — common English translation of YHWH
• YHWH — Hebrew proper name in several forms, e.g. Yahweh

N.B.: Allah — Arabic proper name, which according to Islam shall not be translated to any word other than Allah, is not used anywhere; acc. to WP:MOS

All these are used to denote the same monotheistic God. Respective context events are generally considered equally in Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Links used include: YHWH_in_the_Hebrew_Bible#In_the_Hebrew_Bible, Yahweh, God etc.

for reference also see: God in Abrahamic religions, God in Christianity, God in Islam, God in Judaism, YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah, MOS:ISLAM

This makes the article non-uniform and readers may get confused. Therefore, I assume it would be better to:

• Use the word God only throughout the article
• Use [[God in Abrahamic religions|God]] as wikilink in lead
• Use God in Christianity/God in Islam/God in Judaism in respective first occurrence while the text will be God.

Let is make it uniform in entire article. » nafSadh did say 10:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

When the stories were written down (6th to 5th century BC), was Yahweh already the one and only God, or was he still the tribal deity of the Israelites, the only god for them to worship but not the only god overall? If he was still one god among others, then probably we should call him by his name. Leadwind (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Also, some of the sources use Yahweh, we can't change those. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

MOS:ISLAM states ALLAH shall be translated to God. Same style shall be for YHWH. In Islam, YHWH was not the God who sent Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. For Christianity, as I read in sources the same God is translated to as God or Lord.

Please note, Allah is a proper noun and name for Islamic God. YHWH is a proper noun and name of Jew God. You suggest that, we keep YHWH and replace Islamic God with Allah? WP policy shall not be partial.

Again, the English for YHWH is still not standardized.

This article is of major interest of 3 major religions. Balance and NPOV shall be considered carefully.

Any reader, who is not deeply familiar with Judaism or do not have interest in comparative theology/ various religion or such domains, will encounter YHWH as a new term and might understand Him as something other than God.

YHWH was not the only name of Jew God, He is also called Adonai.

Most Islamic sources use Allah. What about that?

I was already posting this comment, when Dougweller wrote. So sorry for the indent.» nafSadh did say 14:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The original stories about Abraham refer to his god as Yahweh, so let's just follow the lead of the original stories. Some people think Yahweh is God. Others don't. We should be neutral and not take a stand one way or the other. Leadwind (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

THis topic was opened before, so we should-of just referred to it. You first need to know where are these stories coming from, sir. The Hebrew Bible wasn't translated to be a source of biblical history, but a religious texture for the Jews (and now Christians). They respect the Hebrew name of God, while considering the one God as "God" and everything else as "gods". Jews respect the Hebrew name, so they kept it in non-academic English texture. Adonai, Elohim, and Allah are all referring to thy one God of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob. We shouldn't be using those non-English names in an English Wikipedia. The most proper English word is "God", as explained by a Jewish source for English speakers (not specifically to Jews): The Jewish Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 111-112. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 21:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

But the document (Genesis) which first recorded Abram's/Abraham's stories doesn't use a consistent name for the deity, so why should we? These stories name the deity as "YHWH", "YHWH El Elyon", "El Shaddai", "Elohim". Each has a particular, traditional translation in English. In recounting Abram's first interaction with any deity, Genesis calls the deity "YHWH"/Yahweh (Gen. 12:1), "LORD" in English, as nafsadh already mentioned. Should we change "YHWH"/"Yahweh" to "God"? But "God" is the particular translation of "Elohim", usually. Many readers are aware of the latter fact, so it's not an esoteric concern. Our changing "YHWH" to "God" would give a false idea of what the name of the deity was in that verse, in the original Hebrew language version of the story. I think it's best to maintain authenticity, by using the exact names which appear in the particular stories. This fact of the variety of names has for centuries been important in biblical scholarship, as in the notable instance of the Documentary Hypothesis, which names its some of the sources based precisely on what name they use for the deity: the Yahwist/Jahwist is so named because it calls the deity "YHWH", for example. SamEV (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC) (This comment is addressed to everyone, btw. SamEV (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)); 06:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

God or the Lord is not a problem, neither do I care about it. Biblical scholars use those names for religious principles and teachings, but this article is for the general public (including the story of three major religions). I know that your points are not a straight comment to me, but I'm just confirming to everyone, also, that we should use English for unquoted narratives to be neautural to all faiths and general-public. Same as the Qur'an narrative, using Isaac instead of Ishaaq and God instead of Allah, the whole article should be as smooth (in exception to direct quotes). No-one can deny that they're all referring to the same God, being a monotheism faith; so we shouldn't confuse the readers with different names of God/Lord. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 02:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason for readers to be confused: if we inform them of these various names early in the article. SamEV (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we should use English. The name "Yahweh" is the “English” version of the Hebrew name YHWH, just like "Jesus" is the English version of the Aramaic name "Yehoshua." Let's use the English term: Yahweh. Leadwind (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Unlike your comment, according to Longman^5e, Allah is Muslim name and Yahweh is Hebrew name of God. So, same MOS shall be for both name. Oxford ALD^5e do not include the word Yahweh. the wiki article also do not suggest that, Yahweh is English term. » nafSadh did say 16:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. We use God, not Allah, according to our MOS. We use Yahweh when the sources say Yahweh as the name is not always clearly the Jewish/Christian God. What exactly are you suggesting we do, and why? Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you may understand if you try to. I mean Yahweh is NOT English term as Leadwind suggested.

Now can we plz get an ans, “If MOS about Islamic God is to use God & not Allah, then what name shall we use for Judo-Christian God?”

If Genesis is Jew/Christian source, then, we are always sure, Yahweh is the Jewish/Christian God. » nafSadh did say 17:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, if the source uses Yahweh, we use Yahweh. Yahweh is at times used for the Jewish/Christian God, and at other timer perhaps for a Canaanite god. And what Leadwind said was that Yahweh is the English version of YHWH. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Verifiable references do not agree that, Yahweh is the English name of YHWH. & we do not need to use Hebrew name's English version.

We cite sources as is, but while we narrate we write in English and try to follow MOS.

Abram's God is not Canaanite Yahweh

And as there is a Canaanite god named Yahweh, is not it more evident that, we shall use something that do not make confusion.

We shall follow MOS.

Are we quarreling or discussing? Or we just want to use Guideline when you like and not when you don't? » nafSadh did say 19:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Answers not given » nafSadh did say 19:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

About Abraham shall be rectified at least (while keeping Yahweh in Genesis Narration), coz, this section depicts general idea (Muslim, Jew, Christian). This section may also have included historical idea. » nafSadh did say 19:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In Genesis 17:5, Abram was renamed by the LORD. Yahweh is not mentioned in previous verses (17:1-4) but LORD is. “...the LORD appeared to Abram...Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; ...” But About Abraham>>Etymology states, “he is renamed by Yahweh (YHWH) in Genesis 17:5” Shall we follow the source? » nafSadh did say 19:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

SamEV (talk) said it best with, "Our changing "YHWH" to "God" would give a false idea of what the name of the deity was in that verse, in the original Hebrew language version of the story. I think it's best to maintain authenticity, by using the exact names which appear in the particular stories." ... I totally concur with this analysis, using the English equivalent as Leadwind (talk) mentioned. Jasonasosa (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In Genesis 17:5 and surrounding verses, I can read LORD only and no YHWH! » nafSadh did say 20:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

We shouldn't assume that Abraham's Yahweh was any specific God, I found for instance "A History of God: the 4000-year quest of Judaism, Christianity, ...Karen Armstrong - 1994 - 460 pages - Snippet view" His first revelation of himself consists of a command: Abraham is to leave his people and travel to the land of Canaan. But who is Yahweh? Did Abraham worship the same God as Moses or did he know him by a different name?" Dougweller (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nafsadh, if you are looking for YHVH/YHWH... then you have to go to the [http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Hebrew-Lexicon-Bible/dp/1589397762/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307134309&sr=8-1 Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible] that you can get from Amazon that analyzes the Hebrew pentateuch; And if you are not satisfied with that one, then find a lexicon for the Samaritan pentateuch from which these stories originally came. - Jasonasosa (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

nafSadh wrote: "& we do not need to use Hebrew name's English version."
Why not, considering that this is the English language Wikipedia?

"Verifiable references do not agree that, Yahweh is the English name of YHWH."
It's true that there's no consensus about the name "YHWH". I also agree with you that we shouldn't use "the LORD", except in quotations from the Bible or other works. I'd prefer that we use "YHWH" instead of "Yahweh". Also, "Jehovah" is a more common and traditional rendition of "YHWH" than "Yahweh" is, in English translations. However, whether we use "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or their exact Hebrew transliteration "YHWH" is fine with me.

In Gen 17:1 the deity is given two names (YHWH and El Shaddai) and a third name (Elohim) in 17:3. That makes it a bit tricky to say that "the LORD" renamed Abram in those verses, since "the LORD" means YHWH, specifically. If you review those verses, you'll see that Elohim has an even better claim to being the renamer. (Yes, I know they're all supposed to be one and the same god, but there's the scholarly view that (originally, anyway) they may have been separate gods).

Also, nafSadh, you've cited MOS a few times. It would be nice if you provided quotations from it that support your arguments here. I looked, but didn't find anything that does. SamEV (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't read Hebrew, so it had been bit tricky for me to find the godly names. Yes, Elohim is the one who uttered the renaming. But the link is to YHWH! that might be fixed.

About translation of YHWH, I think a MOS can be established. I see here is an admin involved, who called MOS as our MOS. S/he may take an initiative.

I told we do not need to use Hebrew name's English version as it is English Wikipedia, I understand that English name shall be used.

One think is not clear to me, How do Jew/Christian see YHWH/Elohim/Adonai? are they same to them? If so, Genesis interpretations can regard Him uniformly. » nafSadh did say 06:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where everyone is getting their information from, but how can Yahweh be the English version of YHWH while they're both transliterated of the Hebrew name? Different transliterate is caused by multiple cultures pronouncing vowels differently. Also, many stories are identical in the Qur'an using Allah, in Arabic, instead of YHWH (but most English translators kept Allah). Shall we add the exact story in the Qur'an narrative with Allah? This article is not for Jews, Christians, nor Muslims. We're all trying to improve this article to be smoother to the general readers, but how can we do this if most Jews prefer YHWH, Christians prefer Jehovah, and Muslims prefer Allah? You can't claim to be following what's written in a source, because we're using a religious texture here (not academic). Why can't we use the single English neutral style (God/Lord) that's used by academics, like the previous ignored source I provided: The Jewish Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 111-112? No-one should forget that Abraham introduced a monotheism, monotheism, and a monotheism-only theology. Btw, Muslims believe in 99 names for God plus Allah (where YHWH is included) ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Abraham's very existence is disputed, let alone whether, if he existed, he worshipped the god later known as the Jewish God. We need to break this down into specific instances. If an academic source we are using uses 'Yahweh', then we use it in any sourced text. Does anyone disagree with that? Dougweller (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The academic source I gave, which is written by Jews, was saying that we should write God/Lord instead of Yahweh, as Yahweh/YHWH should be used in religious texts only.

So to close this dispute, in your opinion, we need to write the same story two times: once with Yahweh from the Bible, and another with Allah from the Qur'an? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

<sarcasm>No when writing from Qur'an we'll have to follow MOS. But for Genesis we shall follow Source.</sarcasm> » nafSadh did say 10:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Nafsadh said: How do Jew/Christian see YHWH/Elohim/Adonai? I can give you references for this if you want, but to put it simply, for the ancient Jews YHWH was the name of their own god - there were other gods for other peoples, like Chemosh for the Moabites, Haddad for the Syrians, and so on, but their god's name was YHWH (possibly pronounced Yawheh, but nobody can be sure - Hebrew, like Arabic, had no vowels). The word "elohim" simply meant god: YHWH, Chemosh and Haddad were all called elohim, just like in English we talk about the "god Vishnu" whenwe talk about Hinduism. "Adonai" was a word that only started being used at a later period, about the 5th century BCE or maybe even later. It's not Hebrew, it's from another language, Aramaic, and the Jews started using it because they stopped speaking Hebrew and took up Aramaic instead. It means "lord", and, because by the 5th century the Jews regarded the name of God (YHWH) as too holy to speak out loud, they never said it when reading the bible, but said Adonai instead.PiCo (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Is YHWH is now viewed in the same way as He was viewed when Genesis was written? Is not current meaning of YHWH translate into God? » nafSadh did say 13:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You are getting into the realms of original research. And Genesis was written long after Abraham, if he ever existed, died, so I'm not sure the question is even relevant and I certainly don't think it can be answered. I repeat though, the name Yahweh seems to have had different meanings, it was probably first the name of a Canaanite god, and the people who worshipped him are probably some of the ancestors of the writers of Genesis. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The only academic cited source supports my suggestion. But, some replies given here are like original research.

If the consensus is to keep YHWH, then it turns necessary to rewrite some other sections as to reflect general POVs. Qur'anic narration shall have to be enlarged.

Backing off! <sigh /> I'm afraid of admins. can't reach to a consensus. Can close this dispute.

But still recommend making a Judaism related MOS » nafSadh did say 16:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller (talk) makes an exceedingly good point where he said, "If an academic source we are using uses 'Yahweh', then we use it in any sourced text." I really think that is the bottom line. So for example, if the entire article uses Yahweh (for example only!) and then in one paragraph it switches to Adonai, then that name should have an immediate citation/reference next to it or after the sentence. On a side note, Abraham's existance is irrelavant in this discussion. Jasonasosa (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So, we can also use an academic source that uses Lord instead and switch them, or do you think we'll have a different dispute then? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 21:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Abraham in Islam

All the other articles of Islamic views are now being linked to the main pages (see Aaron, Elijah etc.). Should the same be done with Abraham?--Imadjafar (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the problem... there is a lot of information on the view of Islam for many biblical people. Thats why the Islam pages should be seperate. If you merge the entire Islamic view into the main Abraham article it will burden the page with way too much information. Thats why the World Views of Islam, Judaism and Christianity need to be in short sweet summaries. The Islamic view of Aaron is too much and should be seperated onto a new page and linked appropriatly. The Aaron page as well as all other biblical pages should only have a paragraph or two for each Religious/World view. It is not recommended that the entire view of any religion be merged into any of the main articles. They need to be seperate articles. Jasonasosa (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This has happened across a number of articles, I've been wondering about it. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's insights at: article spinout on how this applies to these articles. Jasonasosa (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC) For smaller articles, like Terah, there is no need to break out the Islamic views onto another page because the content on that page is small and tidy. So all views can be expressed on one article. In the case of Aaron, and other biblical figures, those large views should be edited as a "spinout" according to wiki standards.Jasonasosa (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jason, only short pages like Ishaq or others should have the entire Islamic view written down but, ones that are long should have a page of thier own and, I still didn't recieve a respond on my idea ?Highdeeboy (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds alright to me but I tried adding a one liner in the intro, that Abraham is also the founder of Islam as per Quran [2:125 and 135]. I think the one liner was appropriate in the intro along with all those sets of names of his childrens. nasaralla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC).

YHWH, Lord or God? (part II)

None of the Yahweh supporters really answered my question. Do we need to write the same story two times: once with Yahweh from the Bible, and another with Allah from the Qur'an to close this dispute? Thanks ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 21:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Religion policy states: "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." Therefore, the use of Allah is appropriate on this Abraham page where cited, but it does not hold the majority view because of where the original text comes from... the Hebrew text. Therefore, the Islamic views on Abraham page is the most appropriate page for the multiple use of Allah. Further, a translation of a word may not always be the word's exact equivalent. Thus, the multiple use of Lord may not be apropriate to use throughout this Abraham page also, because it's not always the exact English equivalent for a Hebrew word that is used to identify the God that Abraham worshiped. Jasonasosa (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The policy you're talking about is not related to my point. The Bible narrative comes from its original language, Hebrew (where their majority uses Yahweh/YHWH), while the Qur'an narrative comes from its original language, Arabic (where their majority are using Allah). Each have its own section and source; so yes, Allah IS sourced in the narrative of the Qur'an. So, do you think the same story can be repeated in the "Qur'an narrative" section with Allah?

Lord/God aren't a translation of Yahweh, but an English word that is used by western biblical scholars (like my source). Actually, the name Yahweh in the Qur'an is "Alhay Alqayuum" in Arabic, but the Qur'an narrative mentions Allah instead (another name also). ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 22:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Lord is a translation of Yahweh, it is not the English equivalent, and may not be appropriate for multiple use on this page. The Qur'an narrative of Abraham is an islamic view that can be written about on the Islamic views on Abraham page and can be referred to on this Abraham page. But a full indepth discourse of the Qur'an's Abraham on this page is inappropriate, due mostly inpart to content weight concerns. Jasonasosa (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any objection to using the word Allah in the Quranic section. In fact there are good reasons for it. One sentence presently says that Abraham "told his father ... to leave idol-worship and come to the worship of God." This leaves unraised the question of what the Quran means by "God" at this point. It means Allah, the one god - not the same at all as the Christian god, who is a trinity. It's worth using Allah at this point. PiCo (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, nafSadh. We can correct the sentence about Abram's renaming and request MOS guideline.

nafSadh: "How do Jew/Christian see YHWH/Elohim/Adonai? are they same to them? If so, Genesis interpretations can regard Him uniformly."

And ignore the critical view that proposes that they weren't one god? We're not suppose to write only from a believer's POV.

Adam:"Shall we add the exact story in the Qur'an narrative with Allah?"

The article is already sectioned into a Judeo-Christian part ("Narrative in Genesis") and an Islamic one ("Narrative in the Qur'an"), and the section "Abraham in religious traditions" also has separate sections for each religion and Bahaism. Each section should stick to the names used in their sources and particular stories, is what I propose.

Dougweller: "If an academic source we are using uses 'Yahweh', then we use it in any sourced text. Does anyone disagree with that?"

I don't. It's exactly what I propose, AFAICT.

Adam: "The academic source I gave, which is written by Jews, was saying that we should write God/Lord instead of Yahweh, as Yahweh/YHWH should be used in religious texts only."

But let's try to find out whether that academic source represents the academic consensus or just a minority view.

"So, do you think the same story can be repeated in the "Qur'an narrative" section with Allah?"

Genesis was written before the Koran was. So I think that the stories which are common to the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an should appear in the "Narrative in Genesis" section. The "Narrative in the Qur'an" section should not duplicate that content simply because the name "Allah" is used in the Quran's telling of the same story; but there should be, in whichever section, mention of the fact that those stories do appear in the Qur'an, too.

To repeat: why should we arbitrarily give the impression that one name was consistently used for Abraham's god (or dare I say, "gods"?! Just being NPOV here)? That's the crux of this discussion. SamEV (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

From last few comments, I understand that:

• We should keep YHWH and other Godly names as is in Genesis narrative. (May be we have recheck and find that if the exact narration uses YHWH or Elohim or Adonai)
• For Qur'anic narration Allah shall be represented with the name Allah
• We'll request for a MOS (that may save megabytes or even gigabytes of talk)
• But it is not clear what will we do for the general sections. They are mostly Genesis based! Islamic and Academic views are to be asserted.

» nafSadh did say 05:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Been looking at where in the article we use the word God/YHWH/Allah or anything else.

Lead: One mention of "God" in the 3rd para. I'd be happy to leave it.

About Abraham: One mention of Yahweh in the Historicity and origins subsection. I'd be happy to change it to God, but if it stays Yahweh then a short explanation should be added saying that this is the Hebrew name of God, otherwise readers could be puzzled as to who this is. Could also consider turning it into YHWH to avoid offending Jews, who genuinely feel uncomfortable with the word Yahweh.

Narrative in Genesis: Seems to use mostly God, tho I saw one use of God Most High wikilinked to Elyon - pretty cool - and in Abraham and Sarah it starts using Yahweh. I assume the original author has copied the Hebrew bible. Anyway, I see no reason to change all this hard and apparently careful work, but a note about who Yahweh is would be useful. At Abraham and Ishmael it uses "the Lord". Probably this is representing YHWH in the Hebrew. I'd prefer to see our article use YHWH or Yahweh, or God, but not "the Lord," because the word Yahweh doe not mean Lord.

Narrative in the Quran: Uses "God" but would be better to use "Allah", which (a) is what the Quran uses, and (b) doesn't mean exactly what Christians mean by "God" (Islam sees the Christian God as not really monotheistic).

Abraham in religious traditions: Maybe a few uses of "God", all in reference to Christianity, which is ok.

Art and literature: A few uses of "God", but all in the context of Christian/Western culture, so no problems.PiCo (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Making parts is a good idea, it is now easier to reply.

Lead: One mention of "God" in the 3rd para. — Can the link be changed to God in Abrahamic religions?

About Abraham: using God will be better to me.

Agree with PiCo on other four. » nafSadh did say 07:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"From last few comments, I understand that:" You understood correctly, nafSadh. PiCo, I'd like us to settle this not just for the current content, but for any future content. Regarding the lead (the third paragraph) and the "Historicity and origins subsection", I think it should read "Yahweh" in both cases, since both cite a source that uses "Yahweh" ([1]). Regarding the explanationatory note, here's my proposed draft of it: 'The name of Abraham's god bears various names: YHWH/Yahweh, Elohim, El Shaddai/God Almighty, YHWH Elyon El, and, in the Qur'an, Allah.' I propose that we place it as close to the lead as possible, or maybe in the lead. One possible location could be immediately below the table of contents, in italics. Or it could be added as a footnote to the first mention of the deity; but I'd prefer that it be added in the body of the article. Re: the "Narrative in Genesis" section, its subsections "Abram's calling" and "Abram and Sarai" were taken from, and reference, Gen 12, wherein "YHWH" is the name used in the original Hebrew, which, as you know, is translated "the LORD", not "God", in English bibles. (Follow the refs given. See also biblos.com, which is more user-friendly, because it gives a word-by-word translation of the Hebrew.) A similar problem occurs in the "Abrahamic covenant" subsection, taken from Gen 15. The "Abraham and Ishmael" subsection also gets it wrong: it's Elohim/God who features in that story, not Yahweh/the LORD. (I didn't look at the other subsections of "Narrative in Genesis", so I might identify some problems there, too.) "I'd prefer to see our article use YHWH or Yahweh, or God, but not "the Lord," because the word Yahweh doe not mean Lord." That's what I'm saying, except for the part about using "God": as I mentioned earlier, by convention, "God" is used by biblical translators of the Hebrew Bible to translate "Elohim" (primarirly; there are some exceptions). "Abraham in religious traditions" looks fine to me, too. SamEV (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC); 05:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we need to get to a consensus for the whole article to avoid opening future similar discussions.

• Some editors' argument that Allah only belongs in the "Islamic view of Abraham" is illegitimate, as that strictly means that Qur'an narrative should be deleted! I knew that editors will disagree on adding it, however, a big effort was made to get a consensus on the WikiProject-Islam to build an Islamic MOS that uses God instead. This article is for three related monotheism faiths, so we need to work on something neutral to all. What's really odd, is that most Yahweh/YHWH in the article links to a Bible translation that uses Lord and God, instead! Word-by-word is mostly in-acurate and misleading, as Hebrew/Aramaic/Arabic can never be translated to modern languages like that. Also, we're not here to decide what a word means, while the Bible was translated by credible professionals.
• You have a good point about explaining the names; but per nafSadh, isn't it smoother to wikilink the first God (in the Lead) to God in Abrahamic religions (where any improvements about God's names can be added with sources there)? God still holds a strong meaning, with a capital G, where other polytheism godness are usually with a small g. Btw, the link in the lead does not say Yahweh, and I have a WP:RS of the identical story of the "historicity and origins" using God.
• PiCo has good points, but I personally fear of making it worse by turning Abraham's article to polytheism-like if overriding the Islamic MOS. What I'm thinking about that Christians don't really call Jesus god straight-forward; so "God did" or "God gave" or "angel of God" might not make any confusion, IMO.

• I saw a template for GOD {{GOD}} that we can wikilink to "God in Abrahamic religions", but I find it kinda weird, idk. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Word-by-word is mostly in-acurate and misleading"

I provided that link--which gives a transliteration, too, very importantly--because it shows what I'm talking about, and not necessarily so that it could be cited in the article. I know very well that translating from any language is an art and not a mechanical exercise.

My chief interest is in how to handle the Biblical content, not the Islam-related content. If an MOS exists for the latter, great.

I never mention the first occurrence of "God" in the lead, but I go along with your suggestion to link it to the article "God in Abrahamic religions". SamEV (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• SamEV also agreeing with my second proposal (Use God as wikilink in lead) :P May be have reached to a consensus on it.
• About Abraham section demands some work to reflect POVs other than the Genesis POV.
• Dispute on use of God's name in Narrative in Genesis section is already settled. (stick to sources). » nafSadh did say 06:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please try to avoid making changes to the talkpage in the future, no-matter what :). But that was funny tho :p. I guess we got to an end, at last. We'll see if anyone else objects on the conclusion. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I updated indentation coz it became so narrow to read. Previously, PiCo divided section for easier editing and no one objected. So, I thought everyone will be cool with the indentation update. » nafSadh did say 15:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry SamEV, my points were not all at you. I actually mistaken by putting it under you :). Yep, that's why I tried to present the MOS slowly, as a lot of effort was made before to get to that conclusion. However, it's only in WikiProject Islam (but it's still logical to the rest of the Abrahamic religions). It will save us a lot of time to make the story smooth, without splitting each religion's story in the future. Anyways, the list of translation I provided below all use that style.

Does anybody have an opinion about the GOD template, or is it stupid? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of {{GOD}} template is cool. » nafSadh did say 15:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

np (about the TP edit), just a tip  Thanks for the great work. I'll switch what is sourced God and Lord with the both templates (wikified) if there's no objections by the weekend, and we can give the rest (replacing with identical reliable citation) some time. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent POV edits

I notice that Koakhtzvigad made around twenty substantial edits to this article yesterday, many if not all of which could be regarded as Jewish Orthodox POV-pushing, and most of which are unsourced. I'm inclined to assume that they were made in good faith, with the genuine intent of improving the article, but changes on this scale should be discussed before implementing.

I regret that I don't have the time myself to go through the entire block of edits and weed out the good from the bad, but if someone's feeling scholarly and has a few hours to spare they might want to do a bit of pruning. Alternatively, we could rollback to the last version by Cocubot and discuss the changes here. Yunshui (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to skip the edits that have been undone in restoring the attributes template to its previous state. My assessment of the edits are:

The attributes assigned to Avraham are derived from Jewish tradition, so seem to be appropriate. However, I would like to ask why a Christian template was used (saint) rather than a Jewish one (Template:Infobox Jewish leader)? It seems to me that Abraham being considered a patron saint of the hospitality industry does not invalidate him being a progenitor of the Jewish people, the only context in which he is mentioned in the Torah. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• This first edit, clarifying Christian and Muslim beliefs I'll stand by. It is appropriate to label Christian and Muslim beliefs as such. As far as I'm aware, Isaac and Ishmael aside, beliefs that Jews hold about Abraham are also held by Christians and Muslims (I hope noone tries to turn this into me saying that Jews accept all Christian and Muslim beliefs about Moses, I know they don't).

The text previous to my edit said "Christians believe Jesus is a descendant of Abraham, while Muslims believe that Muhammad was a descendant through Ishmael.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/topics/islam|title=About Islam, in BibleInfo.com|accessdate=Jun 1, 2011}}</ref> This is a belief based on a highly biased source since Bibleinfo.com is a public service of the Seventh-day Adventist church. Further, there is no textual evidence that connects either Jesus or Muhammad to Abraham. However, if a more credible academic and neutral source can be provided, I'd be happy to read it.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• The second edit is a grammatical issue.

Care to explain how this is a grammatical issue? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• 3rd edit is validly pointing out that the term Abrahamic religions is fairly modern in the grand scheme of things. If we do a mass revert, this is the version I would revert to.

No comment Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• 4th edit sticks "modern Western" before Biblical scholars, on the grounds that "Jews had been studying the Torah for a lot longer." I would not be opposed to the removal of this, since the Documentary Hypothesis or variations of it are pretty much the standard among historians (which are who we side with).

The "Documentary Hypothesis" is a hypothesis! It in no way replaces the cultural knowledge of the Jewish people. If Wikipedia is to be consistent, it has to at least acknowledge that. It has received not a small measure of criticism, but this is not the place nor the time to discuss this. The point is that Wellhausen was not familiar with Jewish Talmudic exegesis (never mind kabbalistic concepts) when he made is "discovery", and his Jewish contemporaries said as much. You may consider reading opposition by Benno Jacob (who wasn't Orthodox) in Challenging colonial discourse: Jewish studies and Protestant theology in Wilhelmine Germany from p.222Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• 5th edit further pushes against DH, assuming Genesis was a singular narrative, despite the source's not apparently doing so.

DH is a hypothesis, as I said above. On the other hand, for the Jews the original belief in the Torah being derived primarily from Moses is a cultural knowledge accepted as true. To deny this is simply anti-Semitic since it denies the Jewish people a right to their cultural heritage!Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• 6th and 7th edits further differentiate between modern biblical scholars with their "irrelevant" "wishes," and historical (Jewish) scholars.] Despite the POV intentions, the actual edits are valid: it is fine to distinguish between religious tradition and modern scholarship.

I didn't have a "POV intention". The inclusion of anyone's wishes in the article is not encyclopǣdic.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• 8th edit should be reverted. Judaism is not the only group that uses that text, so the secular and more recognizable term "Hebrew Bible" is more appropriate.

This is factually untrue.

No other religion uses the Torah as written in Hebrew. Only the version written in Hebrew can be termed "Hebrew Bible", although until recently this was the anachronistic practice by Christians since Jews in England were termed Hebrews, based on the archaic pseudo-transliteration of Avram HaIvri (Bereishit [Genesis] 14:13) -> Hebrew. In Hebrew the Ha in Ivri is a definite article similar to the in English. Yet in all English editions of the Old Testament the translation is "Avram the Hebrew", and not "Avram the Brew" which would make no sense, or "Avram the Ivri" which would require additional translation, and not "Avram the transient/river crosser".Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• 9th edit should be partially reverted. Christian comparisons between Abraham and Jesus should be their own section, but a lot of these edits had nothing to do with clearing that out.

I look forward to your contribution on this editing Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• 11th edit is questionable, any reader should know that Judaism is older, but it's more convenient to list shared beliefs at the same time. However, it's nice to list the traditions in chronological order. Regardless, either version needs sources instead of original research.

What do you mean by "its nice"? Chronological listing is and has been the practice in all Wikipedia articles that deal with historical concepts.

What did you consider OR? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• 12th edit is unnecessary and a little misleading, as it can imply that Jewish tradition, Christian tradition, and Islamic tradition are monolithic (and if anyone fusses at me because they don't know the difference between "monolithic" and "monotheistic," I reserve the right to address them as "illiterate dumbass" for the rest of this conversation).

Yes, I have to agree that I made a mistake there. Only the Jewish and Islamic traditions are monolithic since the Christian tradition is a collection of traditions of practices or beliefs associated with Christianity or groups with[in] Christianity, while neither Judaism, nor Islam have this diversity. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• 13th edit would actually be nice to expand upon.

No comment Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Shoving Apocrypha, Old Testament pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the works of Josephus and Philo into the Christianity section as if those only influenced Christianity when those texts were written by Second Temple Jews is not appropriate. Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity both sprouted from that period, so the old version should be restored.

However, these sources have been influential in Christianity, and not Orthodox Judaism, the only form of Judaism that existed until at least the appearance of Karaites, and even they did not wholeheartedly adopt these sources. Rabbinical Judaism most certainly not "both sprouted from that period" in any case. Even modern offshoots of Orthodox Judaism take little notice of the Apocrypha, Old Testament pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the works of Josephus or Philo in formulating their theological points of view Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• 15th edit isn't bad, but the secular and more recognizable names for the texts would be preferable (also shorten the article just a few bytes).

The section is on Judaism, so shouldn't it use the actual names used in Judaism? Yes, I know its an English Language Wikipedia, but terms indigenous to the culture are written as such. See for example anything to do with Polish names. The problem is that where as in Judaism individual Torah chapters have their own names, this was not adopted by Christianity, and so no English translations are available, unlike the books in Prophets and Writings Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• 17th edit is entirely an issue of translation and tradition. I'm inclined to revert this, unless it can be shown that most manuscripts of Gen 25:1 say something that is clearly not "wife." A cross comparison between translations shows "wife" is likely, and there's Bible commentary that points out he could have remarried after Sarah's death. At any rate, polygamy wasn't considered a bad thing until the Middle Ages. Revert this.

Actually I intended to say that the concubine Hagar is the one that Avraham married with the new name of Keturah, but somehow bungle that edit. Of course http://bible.cc/genesis/25-1.htm has nothing about this since it takes no notice of the Jewish tradition since one of it's mission-goals is to "Promote the Gospel of Christ through the learning, study and application of God's word." which excludes Jewish oral tradition. Polygamy wasn't considered a bad thing in Avraham's age either given the marriages of his grandson Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• 19th is a benign spelling edit, keep.

No comment Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• 20th edit is an interesting addition that I would not mind keeping.

No comment Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

My observation is (almost) a syllogism with Ian.thomson's. Can you do the edits as you suggested? » nafSadh did say 19:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You do appreciate that "The syllogism was at the core of traditional deductive reasoning, where facts are determined by combining existing statements, in contrast to inductive reasoning where facts are determined by repeated observations."? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice work Mr Thomson! I agree with you and Nafsadh, with the exception of edit 13; unless the gematriaic (real word?) meanings are directly relevent to this article's subject, that information would be more at home in Gematria. Yunshui (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not elaborate on the gematria meaning in this article, but used it only to illustrate relative significance of Abraham to the three religions by performing a sort of "Google count" of the texts using specialist software application. Gematria was used to contextualise this information, and not to give it meaning, which I agree would be more appropriate in the Gematria article Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to reply to Ian Thompson, but to save space and preserve clarity, I will insert my replies following his points. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Abraham's descendants

I didn't want to write my comment above, to not distract the topic.
Now, I'm not sure when and why was Moses removed from the lead?! I think it looked alot better with the sequence: Judaism, Christianity, Islam; Moses, Jesus, Muhammad. Descendants is a matter of sources and biography, and i think it's not straightly related with belief. e.x. Jews can deny Jesus being the Messiah, but it doesn't mean that they're denying him being a son of Mary (upto Abraham). Also, it won't be nice to write: "Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe that Moses is descendant of Abraham, Christians and Muslims believe that Jesus is the descendant of Abraham, and Muslims believe that Muhammad is descendance of Abraham"! It's just so odd, IMO. Any comments? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

To avoid we can re-write like this, “According to believers, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad are descendants of Abraham” Later add a footnote describing through whom. » nafSadh did say 14:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually meant a suggestion to revert to the previous phrasing, as descendants mostly relate to biography not belief: "Among Abraham's descendants are counted Moses and Jesus, through Isaac, while Muhammad was a descendant through Ishmael." It was changed during the recent jumble :( ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 23:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with AdvertAdam, except that the proposed sentence is in the passive voice (meaning that it doesn't say who's doing the counting). So I'd have it go: "According to the Scriptures of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Abraham's descendants include..."PiCo (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your concern. I just copied the sentence from the previous version, but you've got a good catch. I actually don't agree on using religious scriptures to identify the descendants, but consider biography Encyclopedias instead, like the "Encyclopedia of World Biography (2004)". We don't need to be talking about each sect's belief when we're not talking about religious Prophecy, Messiah, etc. Probably we can just remove counted and keep the rest, while adding the ref? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 02:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If you prefer it that way, you could shorten it slightly: "Abraham's descendants include(d) Moses and Jesus (through Isaac and Jacob) and the prophet Mohammed (through Ishmael)" - plus the ref.PiCo (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, does anyone have a source for this statement? In Christian tradition, God's promise to Abraham would be fulfilled, in its entirety, through Jesus Christ who provides the opportunity for all mankind to be under the same covenant that was offered to Abraham and all of his people. The covenant with Abraham was that God would give Abraham's descendants land (Palestine) and make them a great (meaning numerous) people. I doubt that any modern Christian thinks he's entitled to Palestine or thinks of Christians as an ethnic group. PiCo (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Among Abraham's descendants are counted Moses and Jesus, through Isaac, while Muhammad was a descendant through Ishmael." - this is not true for Torah text. There is also no mention of Muhammad in the Septuagint. You wouldn't be suggesting that we put into an encyclopaedia something that isn't true, would you? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That section is not talking about the Torah nor Religion, but a biography from Encyclopedias; which I'll be adding. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, does anyone have a source that either Jesus or Muhammad are descendants from Abraham?

That Jesus is unrelated to Abraham is pure logic, for if he was, his father would be Joseph, even if the two genealogies are somehow reconciled, and not God according to the Christian doctrine. Since we know who Abraham's father was, he can not be related to Jesus.

Where Muhammad is concerned, read hereKoakhtzvigad (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Jesus' connection to Abraham was counted through Mary, not Joseph. What you added here is a self-published source, while a reliable source was already added to the article. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And how is Mary related to Abraham? This aside from the patrilineal descent everywhere else in the TaNaKh. Clearly then this relationship is true only for Christianity.

Its not a matter of a self-published source, but what's in it. If there is any shadow of a doubt about made claims, the claims shoudl either be excluded from the article or the criticism included. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

AdvertAdam, if you go to the Further Reading section you'll find a book by Levenson that might be useful to you. PiCo (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It may be useful to everyone if you can be a bit more specific in which way it may be so useful Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Levenson is writing about the ways in which the three traditions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - interpreted the biblical figure of Abraham. Post-Classical Jews, for example, had a problem with Abraham's lack of knowledge of the Torah - how could he be the most righteous of men if he didn't keep Torah? So they decided that he did keep Torah, despite having lived before the Sinai event. For Christians the problem was that the covenant with Abraham related only to Abraham's descendants, the Jews - so they simply ignored what the book of Genesis says and decided that the covenant applied to all mankind. Levenson is useful to what we're doing because it's a solid scholarly source for material like this that can be put in Wikipedia.PiCo (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Abraham's dates of birth and death

Are not these reversed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.190.89 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it.PiCo (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... the AM (Jewish) dating system goes from 0 to just under 6000 (presnt day). The year number increases. Fixed it. ^rossnixon 02:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We can work for finding a BCE date and add as note to avoid confusion. » nafSadh did say 04:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ross, I guess you're right, the numbers get bigger the further away you get from Creation. Nafsadh, we can't really get a BCE date, there's too many opinions - 2 of them are mentioned in the article, but there are many more. PiCo (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

There is a discussion relevant to this article at Talk:Ibrahim (disambiguation)#Requested move. --NSH001 (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Christ and the blessing of Abraham

I added a citation to Galatins 3:8-16 to the claim that Abraham's blessing is interpreted by Christians as referring to Christ. I welcome any additions from other places in Paul, but Galatins is explicitly about the blessing of the gentiles (and consequently all people) in Christ.

Also, since this was my first biblical citation on Wikipedia, the footnote appears a bit garbled. Feel free to correct. User:Circular(talk) 11:52, 7 June 2010

BC/BCE

Reverted unwelcome and POV changes. There was no consensus and must not be changed without so. If you support BCE, ask yourself, "What is your new name for monday-friday? January-December", unless you got something impressive up your sleve you're a complete hypocrit. DAys of the week and months of the year are based on paganism. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You know, your attempts to "protect" Christianity are honestly ridiculous. You're agnostic. I'm Christian. I have no objection to the BCE/CE system. Every minister I've had (I do keep in touch) are fine with BCE/CE as well. We do not need your protection. The early Christians didn't bother using a different names for the days and months, so they have been accepted as secular. BC/AD has not been accepted as completely secular, otherwise BCE/CE would not have come up. As has been pointed out at Talk:Jesus and Talk:Achaemenid Empire, consensus doesn't change just because you are completely ignorant of socialism or left-wing politics (seriously, would someone look for blaming the weather on libertarianism?) or need to pull at stick out over the five additional letters BCE and CE. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes but socialism is directly responsible for the politically correct movement. Your assumptions about me are quite frankly ridiculous. This is about preserving things that need not change. If it ain't broke don't fix it. The very fact that I'm not christian should tell you something. Im defending sense and sensibility, not Christianity. There was enver a need to rename it. That is what builds up the richness of languages, their heritiage which helps build them. All sorts of things in the english language are based around christianity but that doesn't stop us using them. Silly argument you have really/. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Alexandre8, even if you are right... you can't just go into a high traffic article and start ripping it up without consensus. The original manor of style of this article is BCE... and thats where it stays until a vote is in order. Jasonasosa (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your pushing for BC/AD as an agnostic does not disprove that it has not been accepted as secular. The fact that we are having this discussion proves that BC/AD is not secular. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not about religion! IT's about stupidity and comon sense. The useage has been in the english language since time immemorial. It was only invented in the late 1800's by jewish scholars who wished to seperate themselves from the christian belief of the coming of christ. It was then used a tool by socialites towards human equality and such like. Don't forget that by and large academia is broadly made up of left wing people. So just because a majority of left wingers or sympathisers are writing a lot and shouting a lot, doesn't mean that their voice is the will of the people. Often quite the opposite. Alexandre8 (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S please do not make a predictable personal attack on the content of my last comment as if you'll research you'll find that what I read is largely accurate. Whether you like it or not is another matter.

Alexandre8 (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Socialites ≠ Socialists....but the image of pushy socialites is amusing. ;)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked, we don't speak Latin anymore. Common era makes more common sense than Anno Domini does. We ought to break away from these old traditions anyway. *Chuckles mischievously* Jasonasosa (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you please at least keep this discussion in one place. You've opened the same discussion in Jesus 2 minutes apart, disputing with the same editor. No-one is attacking you, but you started the discussion with a heated tone. Your version and the previous version are both academically correct, but whomever wants to make a change to a long-lasting style is who needs to convince the contributors of this article with the change. Can we just focus on improving the article instead of pusshing stylish POVs? Cheers... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 02:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This is geting prety comic. I am now convinced Alexandre8 is not a real person but a committee of high school students just having a laugh.

• "It was only invented in the late 1800's by jewish scholars who wished to seperate themselves from the christian belief of the coming of christ." Jews separated themselves from the Christian belief of the coming of Christ two thousand years ago. Anyway, what is wrong with this?
• "It was then used a tool by socialites towards human equality and such like." "human equality" sounds like a Christian principle. Anyway, are you opposed to human equality? Why?
• "Don't forget that by and large academia is broadly made up of left wing people." Um, academia is largely made up of right wing people. You obviously just do not know much about academia.

But what does any of this have to do with anything here? MOS allows CE/BCE, if that is the style used on this page, what of it? One would think that someone who wishes to edit Wikipedia would oh I do not know go to a library and read books on a topic and write articles based on scholarship. This requires literacy and research skills but above all, effort. It is so much easier to revert BCE to BC, which enables someone to create a user page and shout to the world that I edit wikipedia, without actually having done any work at all, and without having added to anyone's knowledge about anything whatsoever. Just laziness and ego. Yup, it does sound like a club of teenagers having a giggle. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It also ignores the use of BCE/CE by Christian theologians (it's easy to find books written by Christian theologians using the convention). Leave the page at BCE. But this really should be drawn to a close, as two Admins, me being one of them, have made it clear that any more such reverts will be considered a blocking offense. Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Quit the stalking Slrubenstein. I don't go around following people I disagree with. How on earth you've got from the diverse number of pages I've been on with out following me I do not know. I think really you were taking my comments and turning them into someting that you could have a litttle joke around with isn't it. What you;ve just written is just rubbish, with a speculation that not even stephen fry on mushrooms could have come up with. If you hadn;t noticed this issue has been resolved and you're just continuing it with snide comments which help no-one. As for the topic, Ian suddenly changed all the dates To BCE without consensus. As per WP:ERA no preference should be given to dating system, that is why I reverted it. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:HOUND Alexandre8 (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. WP:HOUND states "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Alexandre8 (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No, if an editor believes that they have found another editor who is making problematic edits (against policies, MOS, etc.) then they are quite right to follow them anywhere on Wikipedia and correct them and possibly report them. That is what editors do. If your edits go against consensus, you will not be able to cite stalking or hounding as a defense.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not referring to reverts. I am referring to the chat walls. I am being hounded merely in discussion pages. AFTER the issue has already been resolved. Slurbenstien had witnessed that the issue had been resolved and then proceeded to make points in various discussion pages referring to the same issue. This is not helpful. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The default position on WP:ERA disputes seems to be covered in the WP:Manual of Style introduction: "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Good idea. Editors can then get on with more fruitful and constructive activities, such as building an encyclopedia. Just saying. Haploidavey (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This article has always used BCE as its manor of style. Just check the history to determine the original style. Ian.thomson didn't change anything against consensus. Alexandre8, stop making false claims when you are the one ripping up articles on this page and the Jesus page. Jasonasosa (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not be aggressive especially if you're getting your facts wrong. BC AD was originally used. Perhaps you didn't look back far enough? Alexandre8 (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Alexandre8 is correct on this. The first usage is here with BC.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not reverting it since I don't want a ban, but I will request it since there has been no convention about the change. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Correct. While discussion is ongoing, no one should be reverting anyone. Whatever is decided by the collective consensus here is the convention that shall be used. Unless consensus changes based on the arguments presented, the current convention of using both terms (BCE) would prevail.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Alexandre8, maybe this was you back in December 2010 trying to change this article from BCE to BC... 184.57.91.206 trying to change BCE to BC which got reverted. I say again, the manor of style for this article is BCE. Jasonasosa (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Jasonasosa, why would you suggest that? It's just a plain right assertion. Do you really think that I am the only person who prefers the traditional way of dating? Anyway, please refer to the matter. The BCE change was made without consensus, and as per Wikipedia:ERA No preference should be given to it. What is your response? Alexandre8 (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If the BCE change was made long ago and no one protested within a reasonable frame of time and other edits occurred then that becomes the consensus version. Please pay attention to the flow chart on this page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Although the article originally used BC, consensus had changed through discussion and gradual editing that was not objected to. WP:ERA does not say that the original must always be used regardless of later consensus, just that if consensus cannot later be reached to use the original. Consensus is not undone by a single editor's filibustering. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ian this is important though. You should not be POV'ing your preference of BCE/CE. Whether or not it has stood the test of time does not make your changes right. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I just want to note that although the article originally used BC, consensus had changed through discussion and gradual editing that was not objected to. As someone else pointed out, WP:ERA does not say that the original must always be used regardless of later consensus, just that if consensus cannot later be reached to use the original. Consensus, as we all know, is not undone by a single editor's filibustering. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

How the Common Era dating system works

Apparently we need a review here of how the Common Era dating system for the Gregorian calender works. BCE/CE corresponds to BC/AD exactly. BCE/CE is just a secular form. Just as BC counts down (so that 1000 BC comes before 100 BC), so does BCE count down (so 1000 BCE comes before 100 BC).

Here are some example dates:

753 BCE - Rome founded as a Republic.

495 BCE - Temple to Mercury on the Circus Maximus in Rome is built.

241 BCE - First Punic War ends in Carthaginian defeat. Rome demands large reparations, and annexes Sicily and Corsica.

202 BCE - Romans defeat the Carthaginians in the Second Punic War.

146 BCE - Rome destroys and razes the city of Carthage in the Third Punic War.

44 BCE - Julius Caesar murdered.

27 BCE - Roman Senate votes Octavian the title of Augustus, founding of the Roman Empire.

33 CE - Jesus executed by the Romans.

306-337 CE - Constantine legalizes and adopts Christianity as the state religion

325 CE - Constantine calls the First Council of Nicaea.

Everyone, got it? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm enormously embarrassed by my insistent misreading. Time I bought new glasses. Haploidavey (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, you weren't the only one. I was kinda amazed by the whole situation actually. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've always been mildly dyslexic, particularly with numbers; it gets worse with age. Can't vouch for others, of course... but thanks anyway, for being so nice about it. Haploidavey (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV issue on birth and death dates

Although Abraham is believed by many to have been a real historical person, clearly this is disputed. Having clear unqualified dates for his birth and death are therefore pov, and it's wrong for Wikipedia to assert that he was actually born and died. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and would add that in its previous form the article effectively claimed that he lived to 175, a highly pov claim. PatGallacher (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not the article that claims he lived to 175, it's the bible - therefore it's quite legitimate to have this in the article, provided it's clear that this is simply a report on what the bible says.PiCo (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Biblical translation links

I'm glad this issue has been raised. Do we really want to use http://www.mechon-mamre.org/ ? Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to refer to (similar topic or not), but King James Version, New King James Version, New Living Translation, New International Version are all using "God"! ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a sort of soft spot for Mechon-Mamre - a lot of work has gone into it, and the people who created it want only to help. However, if the aim is to get an accurate guide to the way the Hebrew bible uses the names of God, it isn't much help. Chapter 1 of Genesis, in the Hebrew, uses the word "elohim" ("In the beginning Elohim created...") Mechon Mamre translates this as God, which is normal and correct. But in chapter 2 of Genesis we get the first use (in Hebrew) of the form "Yahweh Elohim". MM translates this as Lord God, which is pretty common, but simply not accurate - Yahweh doesn't mean Lord, it's God's (Elohim's) name. If you want to be really, really accurate, you have to leave it untranslated. (Or maybe you could translate it as "He Causes To Be", but that looks really odd).

No, I wouldn't use Mechon-Mamre, given a choice. PiCo (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"MM translates this as Lord God, which is pretty common, but simply not accurate"

I wouldn't blame MM, though. That translation of that compound name is a convention as old as the King James Version. And MM isn't doing its own translation, but using the 1917 JPS version instead. SamEV (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The convention of Lord God as a translation for YHWH is a nod by Christian translators to the Jewish tradition that the name of God was to sacred to pronounce. When the scripture was read aloud the convention was to speak the word Adonai (Lord) every time the name YHWH appeared. Christian Translators borrowed the spoken "Lord" and created the compound "Lord God" to distinguish it form translations of Elohim. Some of the most recent translations have gone to a different convention using "God" for Elohim and "GOD" (with small caps) for YHWH. Matthewwb (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Call of Abraham

This section is POV, specifically reflecting Evangelical Christian theology. It also appears to contain original research and draws original conclusions about Abram's point of departure. Matthewwb (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It also referred to biblical statements as 'inspired words' which is in violation of NPOV. I've restored the earlier version. Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The section needed some further tweaking. The Call of Abraham is only the episode where God calls him to leave Mesopotamia and travel to Canaan; the rest of it, where God and Abraham enter into a covenant, is called the Promise of Abraham or the Covenant of Abraham. (These terms are the conventional ones used by biblical scholars - and if anyone wants to improve this article, they could do worse than rebase it on the Genesis commentaries already used in the article on the Book of Genesis). PiCo (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible etymology for "Abraham"

In Tigriñia, the language of Eritrea, which is a semitic tongue, derived from G'eez, one of the most common man's names is "Abraha" which means "bringer of light" or "enlightener" from the verb "mabrat"--"to light" or "to enlighten". In the current Wikipedia article the standard etymology of "Abraham" as "Father of Multitudes" is rejected, but no alternative is deemed convincing. Could its root be akin to that of "Abraha"?

I was reminded of the meaning and commonness of "Abraha" in a conversation today with an old Eritrean friend. I am not a linguist, but I happen to speak Amharic, which is close to Tigriñia. I hope this may be of help.

Thank you to all who have given to create the wonder of Wikipedia.

John Morgan jmorgan.villagedesigngroup@gmail.com

76.212.0.120 (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We have a term for that kind of thinking: folk etymology. If you wanted to seriously argue that the name "Abraham" means something different from the traditional interpretation, a modern language only distantly related to the language of the text (much less anything Abraham spoke) is not a good starting place. Even if you had an argument that made an iota of sense (like, say, something based on comparatively reconstructed proto-Semitic, with evidence from the oldest known forms of several major branches of that language family), it would still be Original Research and as such would not belong in the article -- Jonadab, 2011 Sep 30.

Speaking a language does not make you an expert on it. Leave it to linguists to devise etymologies; they're bad enough at it, but the fanciful etymological speculations of laymen are even worse. Where's the m of '"Abraham" left off? That's one problem you'll have to answer. Ge'ez has no direct living descendants, by the way, as a glance at the infobox at Ge'ez language could have told you.

Next time, think of linguistics like you think of astrophysics, for example: sure enough you won't try to solve astrophysical problems without ever having studied it, and don't consider yourself competent in the field just because you happen to see a star every day in the sky (and many further stars in the night)? See, that's the problem we linguists face: Everybody considers themselves competent in linguistics, because, after all, everybody speaks a language! (I know we're not the only ones – teachers have the same problem; parents are always quick to enlighten them how to properly do their job, after all, they once went to school, too, and know how it goes! Even when they have no clue about pedagogy!) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that there's also the temporal (at least 2500 years, if not much more) and geographical distance (from Eritrea to the Middle East) to be bridged (unless you would really like to claim that abraha in this form goes back all the way to Proto-Semitic, and descended forward to Hebrew or whatever Middle Eastern Semitic language Abraham is supposed to originate from).

While the Akkadian explanation is unexpected, it is not implausible: After all, Abraham is said to have been born at Ur, and his family might well have spoken Akkadian. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Guys, can we keep it civil? The original poster was very polite and was genuinely trying to be helpful. Let's be nice, ok?PiCo (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

::Comment:: It has been suggested that Abram is an Amorite name. It has been suggested that the redactors of the Geneses (Berechit) had God change his name to the NW Semitic Abraham to fit in with the plan to resettle him and his descendants in Canaan. This would fit in with God's command that Abram change his name to Abraham, and go to Haran. Haran is in what is now Syria (Golan, in Arabic Hauran), and that area was the probable original homeland of the early Amorites. Historygypsy (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

punk band?

I think this text is very out of place and poorly written with incorrect English;

Abraham is more commonly known for being the founding member of the post punk band Joy Division. His relationship with Ian Curtis deteriorated through much of the early years and ultimately culminated in Abraham staging Curtis' suicide. After Joy Division, Abraham's musical influences wandered and settled with Genesis, replacing Phill Collins on drums, and even colaborating with Rick Wakeman and Judas Iscariot. The split of Genesis left Abraham moving further away from electronic music and more towards the early Grunge scene of Seattle. This influenced Abraham to occupy wall street and eventually return to the 3rd plain of hell where he spent eternity for corrupting most of the world through paranoic schizophrenia. The voices weren't real, come on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.135.226 (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Tomb of Abraham.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tomb of Abraham.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Constructor of the Kaaba

It says under the picture that he is considered the constructor of the Kaaba, it also says this on Ishmael's page. Is it one or the other? If both, shouldn't it be co-constructor?--174.49.24.190 (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Birth of Abraham (Septuagint dating)

In the main article, under the section headed "Chronology," it says:

the translated Greek Septuagint putting it [Abraham's birth] at 3312 AM.

However in the Wikipedia article on 0 (year) in the section headed "Historians," it says:

Previous Christian histories used anno mundi ... anno Adami ... or anno Abrahami ("in the year of Abraham") beginning 3,412 years after Creation according to the Septuagint, used by Eusebius of Caesarea, all of which assigned "one" to the year beginning at Creation, or the creation of Adam, or the birth of Abraham, respectively.

One of these two must be a transcription error and should be corrected. Mottelg (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Need for discussion on whether to include this in the article

Some people have opined that Brahma, the god of creation in Hinduism could mean Abraham, and that the name Abraham could have changed to Brahma during migration of the Brahmins and this might have made him evolve into a mythical Hindu religious figure.http://www.biblemysteries.com/lectures/abrahaminarabia.htm Please give your views on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.34.142 (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Hindu thing is interesting, and is possibly worth mentioning, but your going to make few allies as a hysterical IP address. Benjamin von Gherkin (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That page only cites one source, and I'm not sure how reliable that source is. The page itself would never count as a reliable source. If you want to include that information, you'll need a more reliable source than just that website or that book. Scroll through Google Books to see if you can find some sources that give this theory credibility. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I don't realize what point you're trying to make. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all agrees that Abraham was a prophet from God, and none of them even had any conflicts about the believe of the Creator. What you're saying is an absolute conflict, because Abraham was buried in Jerusalem by his two sons. His tomb is still there. What's more weired that the website is using the Final Testament to prove so, while the Final Testament frequently call Abraham a great Prophet! AdvertAdam (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)AdvertAdam.blogspot.com

The point is that you'll need a better source. PiCo (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure if Advert Adam was responding to me or to the OP. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was actually responding to the person that suggested this topic " 123.201.34.142". He added what he said here on the Abraham page, so I deleted it and told him to open a discussion and get others' opinion, as I saw it totally non-logic.AdvertAdam (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Abraham was buried in Jerusalem by his two sons."
Correction: He was buried in a cave in the Hebron region.
Telpardec (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Mark Kruger (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Traditional Jewish texts also ascribe Abraham as the source of many of the religious beliefs and practices of the Far East. In Genesis 25, verse 5-6: "And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. But unto the sons of the concubines, that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts; and he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country." The Sages (Talmud Sanhedrin 91) interpret this to mean that the gifts he gave them were "the name of impurity"; others have interpreted that further to mean the knowledge of witches and devils. Mark Kruger (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well the wikipedia page for Brahma notes it comes from the root bṛh " to swell, grow, enlarge", which would actually make a lot of sense, given the narrative says "abraham" is father of multitudes. However I couldn't find any soruce to cite this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.120.122.50 (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia page for Brahma says that, it's mistaken - Sanskrit doesn't use trilateral roots. PiCo (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg Revert

Was curious why the three edits I made were reverted. One edit was changing "is" to "are" because of number agreement (with "kings" [plural]).
  Another edit was changing "could" to "would" in the phrase which originally — and now — reads "[...] Ur could not become known as "Ur of the Chaldeans" until the early 1st millennium, [...]" which is part of a sentence which has a temporal context of the "early 2nd millennium." As that sentence currently reads, it is not conveying the idea that was intended. Instead, it is implying that, in the 2nd millennium, there was some sort of limitation on Ur which would not allow it (even it chose to do so) to be known by the epithet "Ur of the Chaldeans," and that limitation was to be in force until the early 1st millennium. That idea would not be logical. With the word "would," the idea is that Ur would later be known by that epithet, but in the present temporal context of the sentence — the early 2nd millennium — that epithet was not yet applicable.
  The third was a change of "till" to "until." Both words are technically correct, but most people see "till" as less formal or as grammatically incorrect (thus the reason I chose to change it to "until").
— al-Shimoni (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"Ur could not become known..." and "Ur would not become known..." mean different things - the first says it was impossible for Ur to become known, the second says it was possible but didn't happen until later. We should follow what the source says. PiCo (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

None, Kings, Is/Are

Steven J Anderson, You changed the "are" to "is" stating that the verb agreement is with "none" and not with "kings". That is correct, but because "none" is an indefinite pronoun being used as a so-called portion word, your conclusion concerning what the verb agreement should be is incorrect. With words such as "some, none, any, all, most" the agreement can be plural or singular depending on the context. Id est, portion words are an exception and the verb agrees with the 'of' phrase that follows the portion word. "None of the water is gone" would be correct because "water" is innumerable. The agreement of the verb in "None of the pie was taken" is correct (part of a thing is singular), while "None of the apples were eaten" is correct (a portion of a number of things is plural). — al-Shimoni (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

None is short for "not one". It should be "none of the apples was eaten." This is similar to the distinction between "every" (meaning each one), which is singular, and "all", which is plural. Mottelg (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A widespread misconception, but untrue - "none" is not short for "not one", and "were" is the correct verb. PiCo (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Conservative scholarship needed on this article on Abraham.

This page on Abraham is written with sources ((Liberal scholars))that totally reject most of the historical truth found in the Bible.....( The "Jesus seminar" for example) I suggest you in all FAIRNESS include qualified conservative Christian scholars in Archaeology, history, languages, in your article on Abraham... There are many great books on the subject as well.... "Evidence that demands a verdict" by McDowell...Falwell's "Liberty University" is another great source..... The Bible has been proven by Archaeology, other histories, (Josephus for example) to be the most accurate history book in existence... Thankyou, Lewis Lewishb (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Josephus is not always reliable. He embellishes his biblical commentaries, especially his narrative on Potiphar's wife. If the Abraham page is lacking on conservative views, just contribute to the page. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)