Talk:Abraham

Hagar

and that her son would be "a wild ass of a man; ..." This should be "a wild donkey of a man;... 2A02:908:376:E200:D05F:40CE:E33E:180C (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Why? Members of the subgenus Asinus are known as "wild asses", not donkeys. Dimadick (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023

Islam is not a descendant of Abraham. Islam is a religion that was born in the Arabian Peninsula which was never visited by Abraham. Islam only takes a few references to Jewish and Christian teachings and history and then adds thoughts, assumptions, views, teachings that already exist or are added to make it more profitable for Arabs. An example is that Abraham never made it to Arabia, but in Islamic history it is suggested that Abraham arrived in the Arabian peninsula with Hagar. And even Islamic history says that Abraham died and was buried in Mecca, the Arabian peninsula. In addition, Islam states that Ishmael was the one sacrificed by Abraham, but according to Jewish history, Abraham sacrificed Isaac to God. In addition to the above, Ismail never lived in the Arabian Peninsula and Ismail's claim to bring down the Quraysh Arabs is also not true. Islamic teachings take Jewish and Christian teachings from encounters with Muslim leaders who studied with Jewish and Christian priests. They were impressed with these religions and designed a new religion for the benefit of Arab groups without being Christians or Jews. So that the center of worship was changed to Mecca where previously their center of worship was towards Jerusalem. So the claim that Islam is the religion of Abraham is not true. 103.149.121.22 (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2023

delete the pic haraam 178.153.93.218 (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Academic consensus

@Eternal Spirit 123: The mainstream academic view is the following:

The question of the historicity of Moses is the same as the question of the historicity of Abraham. That is to say, maybe there was a figure, maybe there was a leader. I am not here to undermine the historicity of Moses. I think that this is possible but I would say it's beyond recovery.

— Israel Finkelstein

Also, the problem with your edits is WP:GEVAL. While there are many evangelical scholars who agree with your POV, they are not mainstream Bible scholars. What is a mainstream Bible scholar?

Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:

• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;

• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;

— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

"The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings" Your point being? We already know that it was written by humans. Dimadick (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see a pattern with tgeorgescu that indicates to me he isn't who he says he is. He's persistently cutting people down to size in order to reduce them to either undertaking an abnormal amount of time building the credibility of those he slighted back up or forcing them to endure his minimizations in hopes they can work around him by deflating his prejudices. That's why I think he's responding according to a system.

Who works a system while still maintaining a good conscience? Why the progressives who seized control of Wikipedia early in its history. So when people left Wikipedia to join the Biden Administration, no one wanted to work for a corrupt organization. Now, people like Tgeorgescu have seized key articles just for the purpose of securing them against the remnant who might still want to try to edit individual articles. So Wikipedia was always rigged as an instrument to flagellate conservatives. That nobody likes them any longer is completely immaterial. But I'm getting a clearer picture of whom these people are; they've always been lackeys who will fly south as soon as winter comes, and they'll never suffer any consequences for humiliating the English-speaking world. [Gee, I wonder why I don't have to do a Captcha anymore? Could there be more copies of the website out there?] 73.55.138.35 (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2023

In the "Judaism" section, a sentence begins "Along with Isaac and Jacob, he is the one whose name would appear united with God". The words Isaac and Jacob are linked, but this appears to be a mistake, because it links to a painting which seems irrelevant to the topic. Instead, there should be two separate links, so it should say "Along with Isaac and Jacob, he is the one whose name would appear united with God". 2607:F140:400:A000:E9E6:F83A:123E:2D8 (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that's big of you Paper9oll. Profiles in courage! 73.55.138.35 (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Birth City

The info box lists Ur Kasdim as his birthplace and equates it with modern Basra, Iraq, without any citation. That equation is not backed up by the articles on Ur Kasdim or on Basra, or anything. There is no consensus among current scholars regarding the identity of the city, and modern Basra doesn't even appear to be a main contender. Venqax (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)