Talk:Terah

Wifes

In the article it says "He had two more sons, Haran, Nahor, and had one daughter, Sarah, by another wife (Genesis 20:12)." So, did he have 2 more sons by the first wife and a daughter by another, or 2 sons and a daughter, all by a different wife than the one he had Abram with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.6.105 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Azar in Islamic tradition

A similar story is mentioned in the Quran of when Abraham destroyed the Idols of Azar when he was out for some festival and then this lead to the bunring of Abraham and him being saved ...

here is the Quranic source:

021.056 YUSUFALI: He said, "Nay, your Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, He Who created them (from nothing): and I am a witness to this (Truth).

021.057 YUSUFALI: "And by Allah, I have a plan for your idols - after ye go away and turn your backs"..

021.058 YUSUFALI: So he broke them to pieces, (all) but the biggest of them, that they might turn (and address themselves) to it.

.......................... 021.065 YUSUFALI: Then were they confounded with shame: (they said), "Thou knowest full well that these (idols) do not speak!

.......................... 021.068 YUSUFALI: They said, "Burn him and protect your gods, If ye do (anything at all)!"

021.069 YUSUFALI: We said, "O Fire! be thou cool, and (a means of) safety for Abraham!

Moodswingster (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to ask, "Who is Azar and why does he suddenly pop-up in the article without any introduction?" Venqax (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Conflicting sources

I noticed that there are WP:Conflicting sources on Terah. Al-Islam.org agreed with Ibn Kathir that Terah was the biological father of Abraham, whereas al-Modarresi believed that Terah was the uncle of Abraham, not his father. Leo1pard (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

References

New verses Old

User:PiCo,

I prepared a new updated version of Terah that you undid. This new version had references. Rather than undoing everything I did... could we at least discuss what the problem was so that rather than going backwards we could evolve this page into a good article. This page is even asking for references and for work to be done.

I ask that you reconsider... to kindly put back the page you undid and lets talk about what all the issues are. I want to have good information, so lets work together on this instead of against each other.

Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to put it back yourself - I don't intend to spend any time on this article. However, just a thought: Please don't use the bible itself as your source - it's the primary source, and the thing we're discussing. (Which means that citing the bible in order to discuss the bible is an exercise in circularity). Find some other sources. Other sources are, of course, pretty hard to come by - Terah isn't a very popular subject among scholars (too obscure). But Thomas Thompson has written about the patriarchal narratives, and I think you might find something in the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (look under Abraham if there's nothing under Terah). Good luck PiCo (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. knowing that the original source for this name only comes from the Hebrew Bible itself and that there are no sources anywhere else to justify this person, Terah, most of my references had to be from the scriptures itself...

In trying to figure out what Terah is all about, you can only bring light to him by: 1.the context of the source (chiefly the Hebrew scriptures) that refer to the name, 2. having some understanding of the etymology of the name and surrounding words of that name, 3. having some understanding of the location that surrounds that name.

This is the type of information that I find in dictionaries about Terah, and thats all it is... information. There is no agenda behind this name. Its not like were dealing with some controversial subject... other than Terah's existance. But that is up to the reader to decide whether or not Terah really existed or not, taking into consideration that the only source for Terah ultimatley comes from the Hebrew scriptures. As long as that's established... that the only source for this man, Terah, is from the Hebrew scriptures, then its left up to the reader to decide whether or not its true. We've done our job. We don't need to try and prove or disprove his existance in this article here. That subject belongs somewhere else, like on the mythology page. The only thing here in this article left to talk about now, is what the scriptures say, any scholarly insights, etymologies, and whatever we know about the locations pertaining to Terah. Thats all it is. Jasonasosa (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

PiCo says "However, just a thought: Please don't use the bible itself as your source - it's the primary source, and the thing we're discussing. (Which means that citing the bible in order to discuss the bible is an exercise in circularity).

That is so bigoted to say. It is like saying that you should not quote black people for opinions of other blacks because its a bias circle. So YOU trust all the white people to say of these blacks (?), white people won't lie of blacks?. I was just writing the other day stating that writers embellish many lies, yet because they get so detailed in their lies they are regarded as being the detailed truth because of truthful writers who will avoid false debatable details, and so you will claim them insufficient in source. In this case I was referring to how Jasher gives us the age of 172 for grandson Nahor's death. The 172 is valid (shifted 20 years by Jasher its source). He dies when Isaac's twins are born at 60 but Jasher puts him at Isaac's marriage of 40. The shift thus is 20 years of the 60 dropped between Haran and Abram so that they can squeeze in a 39-year Marduk of 13-year Mars. 39+32= 71 of 360-day = 70 years. What I have found is the Harran who was 32 when Abram was born is not his brother, but his brother's city Harran Syria. So yes Jasher has truth supplying the 32 but is not using it correctly just as he also supplies the 172 and doesn't use it correctly. YET people then use Jasher because Moses was not detailed enough. And typical here then is the detailed liar is posted as truth if the source of the truth-writer isn't sufficient to please those liars. I have to self-correct myself because others don't have the knowledge to do so. Example, I used to think Nahor was extended from 29 to 79 based on 50-year moon (twice Egypt 25-year moon). Very difficult to work with. Yet now with grandson Nahor born when grandpa Nahor died, it unveils that giving him Terah's 70 places Terah born when Nahor is 79. This can only happen by labeling Nahor as having firstborn rights after Haran died, and Lot did not get these rights because Haran was a suicide. Abram's birth 10 years after Nahor results in proving Abram was firstborn like Joseph of the original legal wife. So the point is that Jasher can be gleaned to understand Moses, but instead people desire to choose the impression that Moses is brief excerpts of the whole Jasher truth. 75.86.172.174 (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Find some other sources. Other sources are, of course, pretty hard to come by - Terah isn't a very popular subject among scholars (too obscure). But Thomas Thompson has written about the patriarchal narratives, and I think you might find something in the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (look under Abraham if there's nothing under Terah). Good luck PiCo"

Other sources? how is this for a source! The name Marduk used in writings of this family and Ur and Nimrod. As Mars its 780-day Mars is 13-year and 52-year and 208-year which is 205 Julian years, the Terah who lived 205 not 145. In fact I do agree that perhaps Terah was just born of the Marduk and died 60 years before it ended as 205, or perhaps 60 years into Marduk Terah lived the last 145. Does happen where both are applied and shouldn't be. Example, Phoenix 500 for Nimrod. The seasonal Gregorian pentacle of Venus is twice 251 years thus 502. Thus it can apply to both dates for Shem, but cannot apply to birth of 500-year Nimrod (just his death). That planet is a source. Do not planets count? How come Jews have a 19-year moon and they list the 1st year of each cycle; yet while they debate Adam as 3763bc or 3762 or 3761 etc, it is the 3761bc that is first year. Dies that not unveil the intent to say Adam awoke already knowing this calendar. (It defies global catastrophy, the source being the debate of real year length before Noah's Flood). You cannot share knowledge if those who hate it keep deleting it. 75.86.172.174 (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This is perplexing and bizarre. It is not circular reasoning if you are saying that 90% of what we know about Terah comes from the Bible and this is what the Bible says about him. It's actually very clear and no one is being deceived or misled. You're suggesting something that would be like trying to talk about the Rosetta stone or Shakespeare without ever being able to quote what exactly is written on it. I know that Wikipedia does not really like primary sources, but for something like this it is actually stupid. Let's assume that it is not permissible to use any Biblical sources to describe Terah. That means that we have to rely on any sort of secondary source written about him that would be much less authoritative, because it would be selecting various bits from the biblical record and applying some modern author's own biased interpretation onto it. Then this is what we have to quote and discuss? So someone has written a book "Dictionaries aof Deities and Demons in the Bible" -- which I've never heard of and I've been around Bibles and churches for many many decades. We're supposed to accept this book as more authoritative that the original writings? It's very peculiar way of doing history. Why not just burn all of the original manuscripts of everything (Plato, Aristotle, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc etc) and just have a big echo chamber where everyone's opinion is equally important as long as we don't look at the original documents ?! Lehasa (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Version 3.0

Rather than reverting it back to my original draft, I started over...

Every tidbit of information presented, other than Jewish and Islamic traditions, has a scriptural reference so that the reader knows exactly where the information originally came from. This is just a starting point, because we have to start somewhere. Jasonasosa (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You're probably on the right track. However, just a few points:

• You need to give the reader secondary sources - pointing them to the Old Testament is fine in the first section, where you're summarising the information on Terah, because that's available online, but some of your other information in later sections is pretty abstruse, and you should give the reader some books that he can easily look up. Dictionaries of Islam and Judaism should do fine.
• Be careful about mixing the Old Testament and the New togetehr as if they were equivalent - that's taking a religious perspective, in which these are both the word of God and therefore equally trustworthy. Wikipedia is a secular website, like it or not, and we have to take a secular approach. That means giving the OT priority and treating the NT as part of Classical Judaism (because the early Christians were also Jews, by and large).
• Taking that second point a bit further, maybe a new section is needed in which you can discuss Hellenistic Judaism - I'm pretty sure Terah will appear in Jubilees, Enoch, and other places (not to mention Chronicles).
• you might like to look at the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (available online in google-books) - look under Abraham, which has a very brief discussion of the scholarly approach which saw Terah and the rest6 of Abraham's family as a Mesopotamian god. That approacgh is pretty out of favour these days, but it still gets mentioned by people who don't know any better, and so you might raise it if only to make that point.

By the way, at Joshua 24:2, the passage isn't saying that Terah was a polytheist, it's saying that he "worshipped other gods" - in other words, he didn't worship Yahweh. That might seem like hair-splitting, but it's important for biblical theology - Yahweh only reveals himself for the first time to Abraham, so naturally Terah didn't worship him. Even Abraham doesn't know this god's true name, which is revealed first to Moses. This is central to the theology of the Hebrew bible - Yahweh's revelation is gradual, culminating in his election of David and his line as the eternal kings and guardians of the Temple. (Except of course it doesn't work out - the Temple is destroyed and the Davidic line disappears - that's where modern Judaism begins).

Good luck :). PiCo (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Please note, that I've only written up the first section. I did not write up the Jewish or Islamic traditions. I will note your points about the NT... For informational purposes only, I merely mentioned that the name "Terah" appears in NT. I haven't written anything from NT to prove a religous point or an agenda... Since I am not an authority on Jubilees, I opt not to mention where Terah is found there. I will leave that for someone else to expound on as well as the islamic traditions section of which I have no knowledge of. And that is the whole beauty of this... Its building upon... not taking away.

Also, according to the World English Dictionary -

• polytheism (ˈpɒlɪθiːˌɪzəm, ˌpɒlɪˈθiːɪzəm) — n

"the worship of or belief in more than one god"

just as you stated... "it's saying that he "worshipped other gods""

This point can only be argued if it were stated 'he worshipped another god'

Jasonasosa (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Need comprehensible dates

If you're putting dates in as AnnoMundi, PLEASE also put them in as BC or BCE. If you don't do this, then it is basically incomprehensible to 99% of the readers of Wikipedia. I have never met anyone in my whole life who has used Anno Mundi. Presumably, if you feel that it is necessary to state Terah's and Abram's dates of birth, etc in AM. then you have good reasons to do so. However, it is very little trouble for you to also put them in a form that the whole world can understand. Thank you. Lehasa (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Cuneiform

There is a cuneiform (𒁰) read as 'dara'/'daraḫ'/'duraḫ' in Sumerian and 'turāhu' in Akkadian meaning 'ibex' or 'wild goat' which seems to match the proposed meaning of his name, in case this information is useful to anybody. Mexicocamboya (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mexicocamboya: that could be interesting, if you perhaps provide a reference for the conversion of Hebrew characters into Cuneiform ones. Leo1pard (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Page views

Leo1pard (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Polytheism/monotheism

The article currently says "Terah's father was Nahor, son of Serug, descendants of Shem. They and many of their ancestors were polytheistic." I amended it by adding "although Genesis refers to "the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father".". I suggest that this is a statement that Terah worshipped the same God as Abraham, and so was as much a monotheist as Abraham was. User:Editor2020 reverted this on the basis that it was "off topic". For the reasons set out above, I propose to reinstate it. Alekksandr (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Despite Abrahamic dogma, it is not clear that Abraham was a monotheist, as opposed to a henotheist -- see Henotheism#Canaanite religion and early Judaism. And even if he was, that doesn't guarantee that Terah was -- see Terah#cite note-Berman-2. --Macrakis (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Nothing in your quote says anything about monotheism or polytheism. Editor2020 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed this line also "They and many of their ancestors were polytheistic." as it is also off topic. Editor2020 (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to add a section about Terah's polytheism/henotheism/monotheism, but I doubt if you can find the WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. Editor2020 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Berman_2 mentions Joshua (24:2-4), which reads "Long ago your ancestors, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the Euphrates River and worshiped other gods." and is already quoted in this article. --Macrakis (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Date of his death ☠️

Day of his death 96.43.175.125 (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Islam and Azar

The Islamic Tradition section mostly discusses someone named Azar, but nowhere before this is this person mentioned, nor is there any introduction of this person to explain what the issue is that is being discussed in the Islamic Tradition section. As a result, the entire long section gives the appearance of being a completely different topic from this article's main topic. There needs to be added something to explain the context and connect it to the main topic (ie., Terah). — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)