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


The ancient Hebrews did not have our concept of history, which is a post-Enlightenment one (it was forged by the Enlightenment). So it is anachronistic to speak of pseudo-history in ancient sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Judaic vs. Biblical[edit]

The bulk of the current article discusses the text of the Torah/Bible relating to Abraham, which is accepted by both Judaism and Christianity. Abraham's role in "religious traditions" beyond that is treated briefly toward the end, with no particular emphasis on Judaism. Hence, as a description of the article's actual scope, "Biblical" is a more accurate term. Another alternative would be "Judeo-Christian". Eperoton (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "biblical" is far better. StAnselm (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] @Lipsquid: Let's count the ways in which you're acting disruptively:
  1. You've violated the terms of WP:ROLLBACK by using it for edit warring, reverting an edit unrelated to the disputed point in the process.
  2. You're edit warring against mutliple editors, with a misguided reference to WP:BRD, which is not a policy or a guideline. As it happens, of the involved editors, you're the farthest from following BRD here. If you read it carefully, it's about discussing instead of reverting when your edit is reverted. It's not about edit warring with multiple editors to keep a stable version.
  3. The relevant policy which you're violating is WP:CONS, in particular WP:TALKDONTREVERT. So: talk.
Eperoton (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I also agree that "biblical" is better, and it is also more unambiguous. There are plenty of people called "Abraham" who are associated with Judaism, such as rabbis, but only one Abraham in the Bible. - Lindert (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
It should be Hebrew Bible or Tanakh, at the time the book was written there was no Christianity or any object known as "Biblical". You guys make up WP:OR to turn everything into Christianity. Christianity is a derivative religion of Judaism and Abraham according to all sources was the first Jew. User:StAnselm The leader of our Evangelical apologist club here already reverted it back so what is there to talk about? Lipsquid (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
As any dictionary will confirm ([1], [2]), the word "Bible" is used in both Judaic and Christian contexts. Eperoton (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
As any encyclopedia can confirm, they mean two different things depending upon whether the context is Christian or Judaic. We even note the difference on Wikipedia. Hebrew Bible & Bible so no, they aren't interchangeable, not even close.Lipsquid (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
How is that difference relevant here? Abraham is a biblical figure in either context. Eperoton (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The adjective related to Hebrew Bible is biblical. "Hebrew biblical" is not a recognised phrase. So, for example, lots of Jewish writers write books with the word "biblical" in the title. E.g. The Art of Biblical Narrative. StAnselm (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
N-P Lemche feels that the Torah was written in Samaria in the early Persian period, which I guess makes Abraham a Good Samaritan. PiCo (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Image movement and faithfulness of the names for the Judaic god in the Hebrew Bible[edit]

I've proposed to move images and put in the words for God as the original texts say. Any problems with this? (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Title change[edit]

Should the title for this page (and other pages relating to Torah/Bible/Quran) be changed to Abraham in Judeo-Christianity? I feel like it sends the wrong message have the Judeo-Christian versions of these figures being the default, and the Islamic versions being the odd one out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeroBobGamer (talkcontribs) 21:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)