Talk:Abraham

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)

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)

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)

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)