Talk:Abraham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Abraham's incestuous marriage with Sarah[edit]

I hesitate to make a new section but I can't see a place to put this. Any suggestions would be appreciated. I'm a Catholic, but none of my Catholic friends have realized that Abraham was married to his half sister Sarah. This business all seems played down, presumably in light of cases such as Fritzl in Austria.Fletcherbrian (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The article already mentions that Sarah was Abraham's sister in two places (section Abram and Sarai, near the end, and section Abraham and Abimelech second paragraph. I don't really see the need for a seperate section on this, though you could mention it briefly in the lead of the article, or where Abram's marriage to Sarah is first mentioned. - Lindert (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Fletcherbrian (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Christians and your line by line study and no knowledge of history. Sarah Was Abraham's niece - his half-brother's Haran' daughter, not his father's Terach's daughter. The quote you are referring to was Abraham trying to justify his lie because grandchildren are considered as children according to Rashi. You can't actually read Torah lines in isolation and expect to understand it. With love, a Jew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:31D6:1900:D527:B5A8:1B8D:5560 (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Genesis 20 verse 12 Abraham says Sarah was the daughter of his father, and not of his mother. I don't know where the argument is based that Sarah was Abraham's niece. Geneis 12 and 13, especially 13, records the family in detail, and it does not confirm the parentage of Sarai, but it does mention Lot and Sarai together in several places, and it never adds that Sarah was Lot's sister. Does anyone want to give a source on that? Also I want to mention another point regarding incest for this article but I'm not sure where it would go; Isaac married his second cousin, the daughter of Isaac's cousin Bethuel. See Gen. 24, verses 15 and 24. The article merely says that Isaac married one of his own people, and I think that's insufficient. Catsheepsut (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Abraham in religious traditions[edit]

This section needs some work. I don't know much about Islam, so I'm focusing on Judaism and Christianity. In the first place,

"Christianity and Islam in their beginnings challenged this special relationship, both Paul and Muhammad claiming Abraham for themselves as a "believer before the fact." In both cases the fact was the Mosaic law or its symbol, circumcision. For Paul, Abraham's faith in God made him the prototype of all believers, circumcised and uncircumcised;..."

Circumcision is not a symbol of the Mosaic Law, it is a rite that symbolizes one belongs to God - ergo, the ancient Jewish teaching that if one is not circumised in heart as in flesh, one is not a real Jew but only a Jew in appearance. Jewish Tradition has evolved beyond this, but, the ancient Jewish understanding of what circumcision symbolizes still stands.

Christianity did not challenge Jews' sonship with God, else it would challenge Jesus' Divine Sonship and His Messiahship as a Jew. Secondly, Abraham was always regarded as the Patriarch of the Jews' Covenant with God - he is, in fact, called so in the New Testament by Jesus and by Paul.

And Catholicism honors Abraham for his obedience to God and his faith in God: not as highly as Jesus since Abraham is not God, but, in accordance with dulia and hyperdulia, he is called - alone with the Virgin Mary - a model of faith and obedience, else Catholicism would disregard a piece of Sacred History: Abraham, his family and sons, Israel's lineage, etc.

Lastly, to claim "Christianity" considers Abraham one way or another is a fallacy: hasty generalization. Not all Jews think alike and not all Christians think alike.

Oct13 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding edit wars over sections 2.1 and 3.1[edit]

@Jerm729 and @Kwishahave reverted my edits to sections 2.1 and 3.1, apparently without reading them, certainly without adequate explanation (the edit summaries are among the least informative I've ever read).

These are the passages in question.

Section 2.1: I deleted this sentence: Archaeologist and scholar William G. Dever argues that the biblical story of Abraham reflects a real figure from that period of history. This is unsourced, and I don't recall ever reading it in anything of Dever's. This should be obvious from the way it contradicts the immediately preceding sentence, in which Dever himself is quoted saying that archaeologists have "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'." The sentence I deleted should remain deleted unless a source can be provided.

Section 3.1: This is a single paragraph consisting of a number of sentences, all sourced to pages 170-171 of Peters' 1970 book "The Children of Abraham". The cite is at the end of the paragraph. For some reason our two editors want to have citations for every sentence, individually. That's ridiculous, but I suspect they haven't looked at Peters' book.

Given that the editors are acting in good faith, and my edit summaries haven't convinced them of their error, the next step is to begin the arbitration process. I propose that we ask @Dougweller, a respected admin who's been active on this article, to give us his informal views. Beyond that, of course, we have the entire arbitration process before us, all the way to Arbcom. But first, do you, @Jerm729 and @Kwishahave, agree to asking Doug to comment? PiCo (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Page 170 of that source can not be previewed. -- ♣Jerm♣729 18:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
A somewhat dubious and totally irrelevant assertion; there is no requirement for a source to be readily available online, and assuming "that source" refers to Peters, pages 170–71 can be seen at Amazon.com 2600:1006:B11B:827:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh please, do provide a link since it's readable because the one provided in the article can't view pg.170, and yes it's important for a source to be readable genius. -- ♣Jerm♣729 20:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't even care anymore...do whateverJerm729 (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Coming in late, sources don't have to be online. Is there still a dispute? Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

chronology[edit]

Ever heard about the notion of chronology ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.178.191.156 (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ever heard of the notion of relevance? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)