|
The spelling Abraham was erased. As this is a redirect from
Abraham as well, common use suggest that that spelling should be kept as well.--AN
Almost all of the information in this article comes from the Genesis, but
it is presented in a very heavy-handed, editorialised fashion. I propose
to rework it into more of a synopsis, shortening it somewhat in the process
and removing the stuff about the authorship of Genesis, which is not
germaine to the topic (besides being controversial). Is anyone going to
object if I do that? --Jonadab
Well, nobody objected, so I did it. The article in its former form
is preserved at Abram in the 1911 Encyclopedia, which is linked
from the new article under Modern Views. If someone with access to
the 1911 Encyclopedia can restore that node to a more original state,
that would be good. The new node still needs work in some
sections. --Jonadab
grammar nit
- The name Abram is a Hebrew pun on Ibrim, meaning hebrews, to sound like "Exaulted Father", and was the foremost of the Biblical patriarchs.
The word Abram in the above sentence is used both as a word, and as the thing that the word represents. This can be very confusing to the reader.
- "Abram, a Hebrew pun on Ibrim" - that sounds unlikely, given that ancient Hebrew would have had the two words beginning with different consonants, ayin and aleph. Any evidence? - Mustafaa 05:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(comments moved from article to talk)
I don't think this is true:...in Genesis 11:28, all it says is Haran died, not that Abraham was unscathed in a fire. I think the author is thinking about another story, with three characters instead of one. Sorry! In fact, many aspects of this article are questionable.
I have deleted two "to be improved" sentences and last section, which was quite unencyclopedic. Of course, this edit is debatable :) Pfortuny 11:19, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This paragraph seems to attempt a critique. It uses phrases like "very loose" and "ignores ... entirely", and reports that "most fundamental Christians" do not hold to it. Is this a list of how the view fairs against credentials of some sort or, is it how those who hold the view would describe their position? I think the former; and so I'd favor deleting or re-writing the paragraph. Mkmcconn 21:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- However, some amillenialists hold that the Christian Church has replaced Israel and receives the promises on her behalf. This view arises from an interpretation of Galatians 3:7-9, but it requires a very loose interpretation of the book of Revelation, ignores Romans 11 entirely, and is not accepted by most fundamental Christians. For further information on this debate, see dispensations and supersessionism.'
- As it is, it is not worth including. The idea is interesting but I do not think it fits in this article. Pfortuny 16:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
One part of this article says that there is no source for Abram's life other than the Bible/Torah; another says it is the main source. Do we know which is right? Also if there is no other source, then it would make sense to simply say so at the start of the article, and then recount the scriptural version, rather having having to put 'according to tradition' and suchlike every few sentences? DJ Clayworth 21:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The only sources (as of 2004) are from the Bible AFAIK (although maybe the Qu'ran has something different). As for your second statement, you are right... should be done as you say. Pfortuny 11:28, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Aaargg, don't have time to do this. I'm supposed to be finishing WWI in Italy. DJ Clayworth 04:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I'll try to take a look at it :) Pfortuny 07:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I did it more or less. Problems:
- Muslim tradition... what are the sources? This I do not know.
- The last 3 paragraphs are very boring... They need rewriting at the least. I took out Wellhousen's (?) long quotation as it had no contextual support.
- In any case, feel free. Pfortuny 08:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is the term "Biblical" NPOV?
Since Jews and Muslims don't necessarily believe in the Bible, is it appropriate to make multiple use of the word "biblical" in this article? Just wondering. MPS20:48, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is "so it is not possible to know if he was a historical figure" in the third paragraph NPOV? Wouldn't something like "so there is no additional confirmation that he was a historical figure" be more NPOV, given that Genesis, as a historical document, asserts his existence?
Event sequence confusion
I'm a trifle confused. The translations that I'm reading of the Bible (and Torah) show the events being that he is first promised the land for his descendents, then leaves to Egypt, and then leaves from there, settles, and finally seperates from Lot. This article seems to swap the Egypt and Lot seperation.
Anyone? Are my translations wrong, or am I reading the article incorrectly?
|
