|
There sometimes appears to be confusion among the general public about the '''difference between sub-orbital and [[orbit]]al spaceflights'''. This article is an attempt to clarify this issue. It also elaborates on the technical implications of the differences between orbital and sub-orbital spaceflights.
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.--[[User:AstroNomer|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? --[[User:Jonadab|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. --[[User:Jonadab|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. ''
A [[spaceflight]] is a [[flight]] ''into'' or ''through'' [[outer space|space]]. The craft which undertakes a spaceflight is called a [[spacecraft]].
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.
The general public often thinks of [[orbital spaceflight]]s as spaceflights and of [[sub-orbital spaceflight]]s as "something less than actual spaceflights". This is not accurate; both orbital and sub-orbital spaceflights are true spaceflights.
: "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? - [[User:Mustafaa|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.
----
Strictly speaking, the term ''orbit'' means any [[trajectory]] in general. In common usage the term ''orbit'' refers to a closed trajectory around the Earth (or another central body). The term ''sub-orbital'' refers to a trajectory which intersects the central body before a complete orbit is achieved. An ''orbital spaceflight'' is one which completes an orbit fully around the central body.
I have deleted two "to be improved" sentences and last section, which was quite unencyclopedic. Of course, this edit is debatable :) [[User:Pfortuny|Pfortuny]] 11:19, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
For a flight from Earth to be a spaceflight, the spacecraft has to ascend from Earth and at the very least go past the [[edge of space]]. The edge of space is, for the purpose of space flight, often accepted to lie at a height of 100 km (62 miles) above mean [[sea level]].
----
Any flight that goes higher than that is by definition a spaceflight. Where the [[Earth's atmosphere]] ends space begins but the atmosphere fades out gradually so the precise boundary is difficult to ascertain - hence the need for an arbitrary altitude for the [[edge of space]].
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. [[User:Mkmcconn|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.'''
==Angular velocity==
:As it is, it is not worth including. The idea is interesting but I do not think it fits in this article. [[User:Pfortuny|Pfortuny]] 16:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
An orbital spaceflight is achieved when the spacecraft travels around the Earth in space at sufficient lateral velocity (or equivalently, enough [[angular velocity]]) to "miss" the Earth, even though [[gravity]] is still effecting it, and "free-fall" forever. Lateral velocity is the speed of something around an object and it is this which is the critical factor. Although the angular velocity required is a function of the height of the orbit, orbital spaceflight is possible at any altitude beyond the edge of space.
A body which does not have sufficient angular velocity cannot orbit the Earth. The actual speed of a sub-orbital spacecraft could exceed that of an orbital one and the height that a sub-orbital spacecraft attains may even exceed that of an orbital one, but the critical difference between the two - the achieving of an orbit - depends crucially on the angular velocity. Travelling straight up will never result in an orbit, doing so faster than [[escape velocity]] will have the obvious effect and orbit is still not attained.
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? [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 21:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
==Difference in the real world==
: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. [[User:Pfortuny|Pfortuny]] 11:28, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That said, typical sub-orbital craft need go only just past the accepted edge of space at 100 km (62.5 miles) for the flight to be a spaceflight. At this arbitrary boundary there is still too much atmosphere present for a long term stable [[low earth orbit]] (LEO). In order to be stable for more than just a few weeks or months the satellite or spacecraft is placed in orbit at an altitude where drag from the atmosphere truly is negligible. A stable LEO is usually at least 350 km up.
But again, the difference in height should not be overemphasized: Whether the altitude is 100 km or 350 km the distance from the centre of the Earth is only different by less than four percent.
Aaargg, don't have time to do this. I'm supposed to be finishing WWI in Italy. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 04:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The difference between the lowest speeds required for orbital and sub-orbital space flights is substantial: a spacecraft must reach about 29,000 km/h (18,000 mph) to attain orbit. This compares to the relatively modest 4,000-4,800 km/h (2,500-3,000 mph) typically attained for sub-orbital crafts.
:I'll try to take a look at it :) [[User:Pfortuny|Pfortuny]] 07:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The important difference in energy requirements between a sub-orbital spaceflight such as that required for the [[Ansari X Prize|X Prize]] and for an orbital spaceflight is that no lateral or angular velocity is required for the sub-orbital flight. The energy required to get to 100 km or even 350 km altitude is dwarfed by the energy required for the necessary lateral velocity of orbital space flight.
: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. [[User:Pfortuny|Pfortuny]] 08:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In terms of energy: accelerating a spacecraft to [[orbital speed]] requires about 31 times as much net energy as just lifting it to a height of 100 km (together 32 times), see [[Specific orbital energy#Examples|computation]].
== 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. [[User:MPS|MPS]]20:48, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
But this is the energy which must be imparted to the orbiting mass: For a rocket the fuel and oxygen (and their tanks) must be accelerated as well and so the energy requirement is actually much more than the factor of 32 identified. (See the [[rocket equation]] article for a more detailed treatment).
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.
In terms of the [[semi-major axis|semi-major axes]] <math>a</math> of the [[elliptic orbit]]s: the total [[specific orbital energy]] is {{il|<math>\epsilon=-{\mu\over{2a}}</math>|70}} where <math>\mu\,</math> is the [[standard gravitational parameter]]. Being at rest at the surface of the Earth corresponds to <math>a=R/2</math> (with <math>R</math> the radius of the Earth). Reaching a height of 100 km means an increase of <math>a</math> of 50 km, while a LEO requires an increase of <math>a</math> of more than 3000 km. See also [[orbit equation#Low-energy trajectories|low-energy trajectories]].
Anyone? Are my translations wrong, or am I reading the article incorrectly?
:I agree with you, sir. --[[User:Anglius|Anglius]] 18:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-----
==About Abraham in philosophy==
Abraham is presented very well, not only as an historical figure but also as a symbol of religions, but he is also an object of philosophy. Since some major philosophers wrote about him i thought it should be mentioned.--[[User:Arberor|Arberor]] 10:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
==Errors==
It is an insult to all Christians to say that he lived "Before the Common Era" rather than "Before Christ." In addition, it is quite possible that he existed prior to 2000 B.C. I, for one, believe that he was born in circa 2246 B.C. and succumbed in approximately 2071 B.C. (he lived to be 175 years old). --[[User:Anglius|Anglius]] 18:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A vertical sub-orbital flight with the same energy as a LEO would reach a height of ca. 7000 km above the surface.
: It is as much of an insult to Jews to say he lived "Before Christ", and Jews were talking about Abraham well before Christians. As for date, if you ca:n provide a source for such a claim, then by all means change it. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 18:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, sir, but "B.C." was prevalent long before the invention of the "Common Era" system. I thank you for your permission to alter the years of his existence, though. --[[User:Anglius|Anglius]] 19:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
===Atmospheric reentry a much bigger challenge with orbital flights===
==Yuber's Edits Again==
Because of that speed difference, '''atmospheric reentry is much more difficult for orbital flights than it is for sub-orbital flights'''. Note however, that such considerations only apply to orbital flights where the vehicle needs to return to Earth intact. If the vehicle is, say, a satellite that is ultimately expendable, then there naturally is no need to worry about reentry.
Yuber again violated every principle that I put on his talk page (including discussing it on the talk page and not being deceptive), and this was after I paid him the biggest compliment that I could muster. This time, he did even worse: he tried to revert an edit made days ago and disguise it by saying it was minor. YUBER HAS NOW DONE '''3 REVERSIONS''' OF THE SAME PASSAGE. As to substance, he is entirely wrong. '''I won't go into the [[Islam]] page and interpret the religious aspects there, and he (or anyone else outside their religion) should not here'''. Further, he has been warned by respected editors to stay off controversial pages. Since Yuber is being a serial reverter again, I should not need to address the substance of the edit, but here it is.
Returning craft though (including all potentially manned craft), have to find a way of slowing down as much as possible while still in higher atmospheric layers and avoid plunging downwards too quickly. To date (as of 2004), the problem of deceleration from orbital speeds has mainly been solved through [[aerobraking]], ie. using the atmospheric drag itself to slow down. On an orbital space flight initial deceleration is provided by the retrofiring of the craft's rocket engines. Aerobraking in turn has so far mainly been achieved through orienting the returning space craft to fly at a high drag attitude coupled with ultra strong heat shields on the space craft, to protect against the high temperatures generated by atmospheric compression and friction caused by passing through the atmosphere at supersonic speeds. The thermal energy is dissipated mainly as infrared radiation. Sub-orbital space flights, being at a much lower speed, do not generate anywhere near as much heat upon re-entry.
: Christianity does not view Abraham as the ancestor of the Arabs; the [[bible]] and [[Jesus]] simply do not address [[Islam]] or its history at all. And certainly the Old Testiment, based on Judaism, does not assert the part about Ishmael and the Arabs. Further, the word "ancestor" is a problem for many Christians because some believe it may not mean it in the literal sense.
This has allowed maverick aircraft designer [[Burt Rutan]] recently (July 2004) to demonstrate an alternative or complementary approach to heat shield dependant [[reentry]] with the suborbital [[SpaceShipOne]]. It may be possible that the concepts utilized in SpaceShipOne's design can be applied to orbital space craft design and result in a markedly reduced need for a massive heat shield. Currently however, the need for an ultra high-performance and ultra reliable heat shield is a major difference between crafts designed for orbital flights (as opposed to sub-orbital ones), demonstrated in the [[Mercury program]] wherein the orbital flights used a typical ablative [[heat shield]] while the sub-orbital flights relied simply on a large metal heat-sink.
Before Yuber got involved, this accurately described the Christian view. I will attempt to make it accurate again.
If we can transport fuel tanks into orbit, which returning spaceships can use to brake from their orbiting speed to zero or a low speed, re-entry can be made much safer and easier. The big problem now is that spaceships have practically no fuel left when they reach orbit, and have to get home again without being able to slow down before hitting the atmosphere.
--[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 22:31, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
==Summary==
In addition, on the substance, Christians do not view themselves as an "Abrahamic religion" because they only believe in one, Christ. That is why they call themselves a Christian religion not an Abrahamic religion.
* Sub-orbital spaceflights flights are spaceflights just as orbital flights are.
--[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 22:37, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
* Both go beyond the atmosphere and past the edge of space.
* A sub-orbital flight may reach a higher height than an orbital one.
* The most important requirement for an orbital flight over a sub-orbital one is speed.
* The [[shock wave]] produced by high speed atmospheric reentry generates lots of heat from which the spacecraft must be protected.
== See also ==
BTW, '''feel free to edit the sections that I know less about, namely''':
* [[Boundary to space]]
* [[Low Earth orbit]]
* [[Atmospheric reentry]]
* [[Aerobraking]]
[[Category:Spaceflight]]
:Judaism sees Abraham as the founder of the people of Israel and the ancestor of their people through his son Isaac. '''Muslims recognize Abraham as the founder of their religion through his son Ishmael'''.
--[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 22:41, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Noitall, Abraham is NOT considered the founder of Islam; he is one of the many prophets. Please clarify facts before editing. If many Christians do not consider him not be an Abrahamic religion, we can adjust that accordingly. There is no need to shout in the edit history. Okay? Thanks. --[[User:Anonymous editor|Anonymous editor]] 23:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Because '''some people have difficulty reading, which makes editing very very difficult''', I have highlighted some principles so that you will edit what you know about correctly.
--[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 23:12, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
:Thus, you should have no problems understanding now what Muslims believe in this manner and secondly, I have edited to show the christian POV in this regard. Lastly, Yuber has every right to edit this article and Abraham is one of the major figures in Islam and by saying 'Arabs' it does not mean Abraham founded Islam. Also you can not speak for all christians because many of them may say that they do consider themselves to be Abrahamic religions. I know many myself. Also biblical citations are not needed. --[[User:Anonymous editor|Anonymous editor]] 23:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
:How dense are you Anon? I stated to FEEL FREE TO MODIFY THE MUSLIM OR ARAB PORTIONS. I highlighted it in bold. I made it in CAPS. You still do not read or follow directions. But stay off the Christian areas where you admit you have no expertise are not competitent. I do not go over to the [[Islam]] page and put in there my interpretations, and you should not put in your religious interpretations of Christianity.
--[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 23:29, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Noitall, all 3 religions regard him as the ancestor of the Arabs. Arab DOES NOT EQUAL Muslim, you seem to not understand this. There are passages in the bible about Ishmael.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 23:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Noitall, I take offence to these attacks you are making against me. I do indeed have expertise in both the Islam areas and the christian areas as I was once christian myself! I have dual interpretations in this regard. I am simply putting forth an effort trying to make this article as NPOV as possible and surely you can see this by my edits. By reverting to your POV everytime, you are damaging the credibility of this article and making it like one off a christianity site. You do not speak for all christians, I know many who consider themselves to be of the "Abrahamic religions". --[[User:Anonymous editor|Anonymous editor]] 23:43, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Noitall, read '''[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]'''. Now, back to business...
The Old Testament does indeed describe Ishmael as ancestor of the Ishmaelites, the Bedouin of the deserts east and south of Palestine (cf. [http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T4682].) A long exegetical tradition identifies the Ishmaelites with the Arabs, plausibly enough (particularly in light of its apparent equivalence with the Midianites.) However, not all Christians accept the Old Testament genealogies as true, and not all Christians accept the traditional exegesis. The latter, at least, applies to Jews as well. A more appropriate wording should reflect both facts, say "He is regarded by all three religions as an ancestor of the Jews, through Isaac, and the Ishmaelites, through Ishmael. In Islam, and in many interpretations of Christianity and Judaism, the Ishmaelites are identified as the [[Arab]]s." - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 00:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
==Christian and Biblical Endorsement of Islam and Arabic Heritage==
It is trying to insert a POV to try to lump the views of all 3 religions into one common belief. It is just clear POV of trying to get some endorsement. The common belief of Christians is as I stated. But to summarize,
I made these points:
: 1. The New Testament and Jesus simply do not address Islam or its history at all.
: 2. Certainly the Old Testament, based on Judaism, does not assert the part about Ishmael and the Arabs (but do recognize Mustafaa's statement, but this intro is not the place for it)
: 3. The word "ancestor" is a problem for many Christians because some believe it may not mean it in the literal sense.
: 4. Christians do not view themselves as an "Abrahamic religion" because they only believe in one, Christ. That is why they call themselves a Christian religion not an Abrahamic religion.
Here is my edit for the passage in the 2nd paragraph of [[Abraham]], which the serial reverters keep taking out (and BTW, I invited changes to the Judaism and Muslim parts where I have less expertise):
: '''Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are sometimes referred to as the "[[Abrahamic religion]]s" because they all refer to the lessons of Abraham to some degree. Although Christians do not refer to themselves by this term, they view Abraham as an early figure of faith and recognize his attempt to offer up Isaac as a foreshadowing of God's offering of his Son, Jesus (Gen. 22:1-14; Heb. 11:17-19). Judaism sees Abraham as the founder of the people of Israel and the ancestor of their people through his son [[Isaac]]. [[Muslim]]s recognize Abraham as the one of many religious prophets through his son [[Ishmael]].'''
This is accurate with regard to Christianity. Let's keep it that way and not insert a POV right up front in the intro.
--[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 00:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
No it isn't accurate even with regard to Christianity - as [http://www.brow.on.ca/Sermons/Abram.htm many] a [http://www.geocities.com/anderson_chapel/Abraham.html sermon] points out. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 00:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:'''Noitall''', If you checked the current article you will find that the almost the same thing that you have said in your 'edit' is stated in more NPOV manner and in less generalized terms. You must realize that you do not speak for all christians, I know many who consider themselves to be of the Abrahamic religions. Mustafaa's sources further prove my point. Surely by saying Abrahamic religion, it does not mean those whose religion was founded by Abraham, but those peoples whose ancestry are linked through Abraham, through Ishmael and Isaac. Clearly by generalizing what you seem to think ALL 'christians refer to themelves as', you are inserting your POV in the first paragraph. --[[User:Anonymous editor|Anonymous editor]] 02:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
I am on Wiki, so I make no claim that my edit was the ''perfect'' edit. The criticism regarding the word or implication regarding ALL christians is duly noted and I will modify accordingly. That does not change the fact that the First sentence of the second paragraph is entirely inaccurate. I hope in this spirit that you will accept my edit as well.
--[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 12:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
In looking further into this -- note my intent to not speaking for all Christians but to note the general practice of Christianity and Christians -- I see that I cut and pasted my edit, and somehow the word "generally" was left off. That should emeliorate the concern.
--[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 14:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
"In the Torah/Old Testament... Abraham is described as a patriarch blessed by God and promised great things, father of the People of Israel through his son Isaac, and of the Ishmaelites, generally identified as the Arabs, through his son Ishmael." I take it no one's arguing the first two clauses, so that leaves "father of the Ishmaelites, generally identified as the Arabs, through his son Ishmael." See [http://www.studylight.org/dic/ebd/view.cgi?word=Ishmael&action=Lookup Easton's Bible Encyclopedia] ("He had twelve sons, who became the founders of so many Arab tribes or colonies, the Ishmaelites"), [http://www.studylight.org/dic/sbd/view.cgi?number=T2141 Smith's Bible Dictionary] ("The sons of Ishmael peopled the north and west of the Arabian peninsula, and eventually formed the chief element of the Arab nation, the wandering Bedouin tribes.") and even the [http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T2864 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia] ("The character of Ishmael and his descendants (Arabian nomads or Bedouins)..."). - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 00:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::You are entirely inaccurate as to general Christian thought. Where to begin?:
1. Your entire passage is read as a whole, and you have inserted it to make your POV. If you want to be accurate, copy the entire biblical section, but this would be inappropriate to the introduction and not make the POV that you are trying to assert.
2. Many Christians do not believe in the literal translation of Genesis. Historically, the stories orally passed down for thousand(s) of years before being written down (and somehow the 50 years before the Gospels were written down makes them inaccurate?!). Many Christians believe that Jesus used such stories as a parabel and that later Christians used the stories as a foreshadowing of Jesus's life. What all Christians agree on is that Abraham was an early figuire of faith, whether literally or figuratively.
There is too much more to educate you, but I don't think you want to be educated. You have a POV and that is it. I just can't imagine what would happen if I tried to edit [[Islam]] or tried to edit the Muslim sections in this article simply because I found a couple sources that, on the surface, agreed with my POV. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 01:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether Christians believe in the literal translation of Genesis or not; that's why I phrased it as "the Old Testament says" rather than "Christians believe". I am well aware that Christians of various denominations may believe anything from every word of the Bible to virtually none, and no doubt some don't even believe Abraham existed. Hence the value of sticking with well-defined sources. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 01:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And incidentally, you ''still'' haven't made clear what, if anything, you believe to be inaccurate about the phrasing In the Torah/Old Testament... Abraham is described as a patriarch blessed by God and promised great things, father of the People of Israel through his son Isaac, and of the Ishmaelites, generally identified as the Arabs, through his son Ishmael." - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 01:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]], now you have shown your POV spots. Your statement and bias is so condescending and anti-Christian. You Are Christians the only ones with a range of beliefs, or does your religion legal enforce its views, see [[Apostasy in Islam]]? You are beyond redemption. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 01:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
And once again, your comment specifies no objection, beyond a personal attack on me as being "condescending and anti-Christian". If you want to get back on the actual subject, you're welcome to do so. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 01:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Noitall, absolutely NO need to personally attack religions or religious views. It will ruin any credibility of yours as a neutral editor. All Mustafaa is adding is the Torah/'''Old Testament'''. What exactly is the problem with that??? Stop attacking him because he is of a different faith than you. Thanks. --[[User:Anonymous editor|Anonymous editor]] 01:37, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
::That is why you 2 are birds of a feather. I am RESPECTFUL OF YOUR RELIGION, while you make absurd, condescending and biased generalizations and attempt to INSERT THE MUSLIM POV INTO CHRISTIANITY. In fact, you 2 are so astonished that I have not even once attempted to insert my opinion or "knowledge" into Muslim or Jewish areas. That is why I have had to repeat myself so many times. I just can't imagine acting like you 2 are doing here. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 01:47, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
::: You know very little about Judaism, judging by your Torah misunderstanding, and presumably the same goes for Islam. Fair enough; that's a good reason not to edit articles on those topics. I've spent most of my life in (post-)Christian societies, and have read most of the Bible, as well as a fair amount of other Christian literature; indeed, C. S. Lewis is one of my favorite religious writers. Why should I pretend to know nothing about Christianity? It's always good to learn more, of course, which is one reason why we should ''get back to the subject'' of Abraham... - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 01:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::And I was once Christian; I told you that before. I know both Christianity and Islam well enough now. You seem to generalize between all christian POVs and for some reason you think that the Torah has absolutely no part in the Old Testament. I have always shown you tolerance and respect and so has Mustafaa. Now lets get back to subject please. --[[User:Anonymous editor|Anonymous editor]] 02:07, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
==Back on topic==
This is the current wording:
: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are sometimes referred to as the "Abrahamic religions" because of the role Abraham plays in their holy books and beliefs. In the Torah/Old Testament and the Qur'an, Abraham is described as a patriarch blessed by God and promised great things, father of the People of Israel through his son Isaac, and of the Ishmaelites, generally identified as the Arabs, through his son Ishmael. In Islam, Abraham is considered to be one the most important of the many prophets sent by God. Christian belief considers Abraham's attempt to offer up Isaac as a foreshadowing of God's offering of his son, Jesus.
If anyone objects to it, feel free to explain why here. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 02:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:*See the million words above for objections (but please use your eyes and, if possible, your brain). I will correctly edit the statement in the future AGAIN. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 02:33, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
::Okay then state your objection briefly to why the two words "Old testament" can not be put beside the Torah in this article? Thanks.--[[User:Anonymous editor|Anonymous editor]] 02:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Noitall, your proposed edit is wrong. Either the sentence accurately describes the Torah - in which case by definition it accurately describes the Old Testament - or it doesn't. It is not possible for a sentence to accurately describe the Torah and Tanakh without accurately describing the Old Testament, '''because they are the same thing'''. And if it ''doesn't'' accurately describe the Torah and Tanakh/Old Testament, then you should explain why. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 02:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Whoever wrote the entire piece was not me. I was actually making a simple edit in removing those 2 words that I thought would survive and get past the issue because Anon said it would. Then you reverted Mustafaa and this is where we are. If I am going to make the ENTIRE PIECE accurate and supportable, it will take time. It is not just 2 words. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 02:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
:Note that I was just trying to get along when I edited those 2 words. In actual fact, my earlier edits had an entirely different paragraph (until Yuber reverted, getting a 3RR). --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 02:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
::You still have not made it clear what your problem is with the article. Is it your view that Ishmael's twelve sons and his settling in Arabia are not part of Christian theology even when they are mentioned in the Bible?[[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 02:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::[[User:Yuber|Yuber]], you were 3RRed on this page for deleting my edits. The very edits you now ask about. [removed personal attack] I do not have time to respond to you as I need to check [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration]] to see if the Arbitrators' opinions on the hearing against Yuber are still (4/0/0/0). --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 03:43, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Before you go and add your demands for "prosecution" of Yuber, which btw I am strongly against, please tell us what the issue is with this article. If you are truly concerned you will say it right now.--[[User:Anonymous editor|Anonymous editor]] 03:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Could one of the parties to this conflict please explain what the issue is? It appears that Noitall and Mustafaa are opposed to each other and possibly reverting each other to some extent, based on this talk page and brief skimming of the edit history. Could someone put each person's version of a key paragraph, perhaps the one Mustafaa quoted at the beginning of this section, and Noitall's version side by side here on Talk and explain which version is better and ''why it matters so much'' to have one version and not the other? There are altogether too many insults and screaming on this page for me to make sense of what the problem is; and I mean the problem with the article or some version of the article, not the problem with this or that editor. [[User:Wesley|Wesley]] 16:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above text as modified by [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg]] now reads:
:"Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are sometimes referred to as the "[[Abrahamic religion]]s" because of the role Abraham plays in their holy books and beliefs. In the [[Hebrew Bible]] and the [[Qur'an]], Abraham is described as a patriarch blessed by God and promised great things, father of the People of Israel through his son [[Isaac]], and of the Ishmaelites, generally identified as the [[Arab]]s, through his son [[Ishmael]]. In Islam, Abraham is considered to be one of the most important of the many prophets sent by God. Christian belief considers Abraham's attempt to offer up Isaac as a foreshadowing of God's offering of his son, Jesus.
This seems reasonable to me. If anyone objects to this version, please say why here. [[User:Paul August|Paul August ]] [[User_talk:Paul August|☎]] 21:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
== Removed copied text ==
I've removed the from the article, the following interesting text added by anon 200.11.242.33, because it was apparently copied from [http://www.viewzone.com/abraham.html here], The first part is a quote from a book by Tomás Doreste, the rest is a continuation of the article that the quote is from.
(''Start of removed text'')
[[Voltaire]] was of the opinion that Abraham descended from some of the numerous Brahman [[priests]] who left [[India]] to spread their teachings throughout the world; and in support of his thesis he presented the following elements: the similarity of names and the fact that the city of [[Ur]], land of the patriarchs, was near the border of [[Persia]], the road to India, where that Brahman had been born.
The name of [[Brahma]] was highly respected in [[India]], and his influence spread throughout [[Persia]] as far as the lands bathed by the rivers Euphrates and Tigris. The Persians adopted Brahma and made him their own. Later they would say that the [[God]] arrived from [[Bactria]], a mountainous region situated midway on the road to India. (pp. 46-47.)
Bactria (a region of ancient Afghanistan) was the locality of a prototypical Jewish nation called Juhuda or Jaguda, also called Ur-Jaguda. Ur meant "place or town." Therefore, the bible was correct in stating that Abraham came from "Ur of the Chaldeans." "[[Chaldean]]," more correctly [[Kaul-Deva]] (Holy Kauls), was not the name of a specific ethnicity but the title of an ancient [[Hindu Brahmanical priestly caste]] who lived in what are now [[Afghanistan]], [[Pakistan]], and the Indian state of [[Kashmir]].
"The tribe of Ioud or the Brahmin Abraham, was expelled from or left the Maturea of the kingdom of Oude in India and, settling in Goshen, or the house of the Sun or Heliopolis in Egypt, gave it the name of the place which they had left in India, Maturea." (Anacalypsis; Vol. I, p. 405.)
"He was of the religion or sect of Persia, and of Melchizedek."(Vol. I, p. 364.)
"The [[Persians]] also claim [[Ibrahim]], i.e. [[Abraham]], for their founder, as well as the Jews. Thus we see that according to all ancient history the Persians, the Jews, and the Arabians are descendants of Abraham.(p.85) ...We are told that Terah, the father of Abraham, originally came from an Eastern country called Ur, of the Chaldees or Culdees, to dwell in a district called Mesopotamia. Some time after he had dwelt there, [[Abraham]], or [[Abram]], or [[Brahma]], and his wife [[Sara]] or [[Sarai]], or [[Sara-iswati]], left their father's family and came into Canaan. The identity of Abraham and Sara with Brahma and Saraiswati was first pointed out by the Jesuit missionaries."(Vol. I; p. 387.)
In [[Hindu mythology]], Sarai-Svati is Brahm's sister. The bible gives two stories of Abraham. In this first version, Abraham told Pharaoh that he was lying when he introduced Sarai as his sister. In the second version, he also told the king of Gerar that Sarai was really his sister. However, when the king scolded him for lying, Abraham said that Sarai was in reality both his wife and his sister! "...and yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." (Genesis 20:12.)
But the anomalies don't end here. In India, a tributary of the river Saraisvati is Ghaggar. Another tributary of the same river is Hakra. According to Jewish traditions, Hagar was Sarai's maidservant; the [[Moslems]] say she was an [[Egyptian princess]]. Notice the similarities of [[Ghaggar]], [[Hakra]] and [[Hagar]].
The bible also states that Ishmael, son of Hagar, and his descendants lived in India. "...Ishmael breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his kin... They dwelt from [[Havilah]] (India), by Shur, which is close to Egypt, all the way to Asshur." (Genesis 25:17-18.) It is an interesting fact that the names of [[Isaac and Ishmael]] are derive from Sanskrit: (Hebrew) Ishaak = (Sanskrit) [[Ishakhu]] = "Friend of [[Shiva]]." ([[Hebrew language|Hebrew]]) [[Ishmael]] = ([[Sanskrit]]) [[Ish-Mahal]] = "[[Great Shiva]]."
A third mini-version of the Abraham story turns him into another "Noah." We know that a flood drove Abraham out of India. "...Thus saith the [[Lord God]] of [[Israel]], your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, Even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor; and they served other gods. And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan." (Joshua 24:2-3.)
[[Genesis]] 25 mentions some descendants of his concubine [[Ketura]] (Note: The [[Moslems]] claim that Ketura is another name of [[Hagar]].): Jokshan; Sheba; Dedan; Epher. Some descendants of Noah were Joktan, Sheba, Dedan, and Ophir. These varying versions have caused me to suspect that the writers of the [[bible]] were trying to unite several different branches of [[Judaism]].
About 1900 BC, the cult of [[Brahm]] was carried to the [[Middle and Near East]] by several different Indian groups after a severe rainfall and earthquake tore Northern India apart, even changing the courses of the Indus and Saraisvati rivers. The classical [[geographer]] Strabo tells us just how nearly complete the abandonment of Northwestern India was. "[[Aristobolus]] says that when he was sent upon a certain mission in India, he saw a country of more than a thousand cities, together with villages, that had been deserted because the Indus had abandoned its proper bed." (Strabo's Geography, XV.I.19.)
"The drying up of the [[Sarasvati]] around 3000 BCE, which led to a major relocation of the population centered around in the [[Sindhu]] and the [[Sarasvati valleys]], could have been the event that caused a migration westward from India. It is soon after this time that the Indic element begins to appear all over West Asia, Egypt, and Greece." (Indic Ideas in the Graeco-Roman World, by Subhash Kak, taken from IndiaStar online literary magazine; p.14)
Indian historian Kuttikhat [[Purushothama Chon]] believes that Abraham was driven out of India. He states that the [[Aryans]], unable to defeat the [[Asuras]] (The [[mercantile caste]] that once ruled in the [[Indus Valley]] or [[Harappans]]) spent so many years fighting covertly against the Asuras, such as destroying their huge [[system of irrigation]] lakes, causing destructive [[flooding]], that Abraham and his kindred just gave up and marched to West Asia. (See Remedy the Frauds in [[Hinduism]].) Therefore, besides being driven out of [[Northern India]] by floods, the Aryans also forced [[Indian merchants]], artisans, and educated classes to flee to [[West Asia]].
(''End of removed text'')
The above might be a valuable source of information.
[[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|☎]] 20:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
:He appears to have added copyvio and dubious "India and Sanskrit are the source of everything" information to dozens of articles today. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></sup> 21:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
==Ishmaelites==
"and I will make him a great nation" — I guess that doesn't mean the same thing to one individual as it does to other people? When Abram is given the name "Abraham", one among those many nations he is to be the father of, is the nation and the princes descended from Ishmael. Is it the word "Ishmaelite" you have a problem with, so that you feel you need to remove it? Or, do you have a problem with the idea that Abraham is said to be the patriarch of Ishmael's descendents? [[User:Mkmcconn|Mkmcconn]][[User Talk:Mkmcconn| <small>(Talk)</small>]] 01:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
:*Please note that my comments, as I have stated before, only have to do with Christianity and the Christian interpretation of the Bible (if it is the same as any other religion, I will leave it up to others to state and argue):
::There are a few problems with this assertion:
::1. If referring to the Hebrew Bible, the historicity after 4000 years and interpretation from several languages, is not accurate by any means. It is solely a matter of faith.
::2. Many Christians do not believe that Genesis was meant for historical or scientific purposes but instead were an amalgramation of paribles.
::3. In reality, it comes down to 1 word, "nation" in the entire Bible. Even if you assume that "and I will make him a great nation" has been accurately handed down for 4000 years and if it has been accurately interpreted over many languages, there is still the problem with its meaning. "Nation" even in English could mean many things. It could be literal, rhetorical, or symbolic. This is not historical in any way, shape or form. It is a matter of belief. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 03:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
::: [[User:Noitall|Noitall]] , I've allowed myself to get pulled in. Shame on me; I'm an idiot. But now that that's clear ... My question concerns whether the sentence was correct as it stood in describing what the Bible says, or whether you made it more accurate by deleting "Ishmaelites". You've settled the issue for me in what you say above - you did not intend to accurately complete the sentence "In the [[Hebrew Bible]] Abraham is described as ... " ( being the patriarch through Ishmael of a nation of 12 princes ). It seems you are saying that no one of a scientific bent of mind would want to complete this sentence, by merely reading what the Bible says, and then expressing it here, accurately. Must anyone who would dare venture into the thorny briars of discerning the meaning of a sentence really be so thorough armoured? with 4000 years worth of skepticism? [[User:Mkmcconn|Mkmcconn]][[User Talk:Mkmcconn| <small>(Talk)</small>]]
::: However, I am sorry that I noticed what you were up to, or it never would have caught my attention by just reading through the article, nor would I have guessed, that mention of the nation that came from Ishmael is missing on purpose, because of somebody's mysterious prejudice. [[User:Mkmcconn|Mkmcconn]][[User Talk:Mkmcconn| <small>(Talk)</small>]] 04:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry, maybe it is just me, but I have no idea of what you said. I can't even discern whether you factually disagree with me and my point (summary: you can't say that about the Hebrew Bible based on this original source material). --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 04:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
::::: Ok. Simple. I am an idiot for arguing with you. I'll wait until your unintentional mischief does real damage, before attempting to deal with you. Until then, I will deem you harmless. [[User:Mkmcconn|Mkmcconn]][[User Talk:Mkmcconn| <small>(Talk)</small>]] 04:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
::::Try the Wiki policy, [[assume good faith]]. Your comment is somewhat rude if you have no argument with me. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 05:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not planning to restate the obvious again. This has already been argued in [[#Back on topic]], and everyone apart from you seems to agree. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 01:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
::*Mustafaa, I don't know if you know what planet you are on. All previous discussions were on "Abrahamic religions." Not once was this discussed or debated. Not once did I propose a single edit change regarding "Ismaelites" or or great nations or anything. Get with the program and quit doing reactionary reverts to anything that does not suit your POV. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 01:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Try rereading the talk page (or better yet, the Bible). To quote myself from above: "The Old Testament does indeed describe Ishmael as ancestor of the Ishmaelites, the Bedouin of the deserts east and south of Palestine" and "In the Torah/Old Testament... Abraham is described as a patriarch blessed by God and promised great things, father of the People of Israel through his son Isaac, and of the Ishmaelites, generally identified as the Arabs, through his son Ishmael." I take it no one's arguing the first two clauses, so that leaves "father of the Ishmaelites, generally identified as the Arabs, through his son Ishmael." See Easton's Bible Encyclopedia ("He had twelve sons, who became the founders of so many Arab tribes or colonies, the Ishmaelites"), Smith's Bible Dictionary ("The sons of Ishmael peopled the north and west of the Arabian peninsula, and eventually formed the chief element of the Arab nation, the wandering Bedouin tribes.") and even the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia ("The character of Ishmael and his descendants (Arabian nomads or Bedouins)...")", and Mkmconn: "nor would I have guessed, that mention of the nation that came from Ishmael is missing on purpose, because of somebody's mysterious prejudice". I would quote you, but you have yet to produce an actual argument for why you, unlike the standard Biblical reference works quoted or indeed the ancient Hebrews themselves, believe the Ishmaelites were not the sons of Ishmael. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 00:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
: I don't disagree. I'm trying to remove excuse for reverting (although the reason for removing "Ishmaelites" continues to be beyond me. [[User:Mkmcconn|Mkmcconn]][[User Talk:Mkmcconn| <small>(Talk)</small>]] 00:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I addressed much of the issue before, but let me post comments from another talk page that discuss this issue:
Put 'midianites' 'ishmaelites' into Google. Choose one of 7,130 hits.
Is Encyclopedia Britanica a good enough source? -> "MIDIANITES (also called ISHMAELITES, Enc. Brit.)"
Also, most standard reference works on Islam reject the Arab claim of Abrahamic descent. For example, the prestigious 'Encyclopedia of Islam' traces the Arabs to non-Abrahamic origins (Vol. 1, pp. 543-47). One will also find the 'Dictionary of Islam' questioning the whole idea that the Arabs are descended from Ishmael. [[User:Rossnixon|RossNixon]] 11:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
::What you are telling me, if you think through your argument logically, is that the origination (other than this passage) of "Midianites" and "Ishmaelites" and later history, is lost to history. This happens all the time in the Bible (that's why it is 1 volume and not 20, or 100, or 1000). What you are also stating is that there is no point whatsoever in recording that. In fact, based on your statement, it is misleading because of all the misunderstanding and wrongful conclusions that can be reached by including such names. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 12:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
::: The beginning of the sentence, "In the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an, Abraham is described as ...", makes irrelevant whether "the origination (other than this passage) of "Midianites" and "Ishmaelites" and later history, is lost to history". Please follow the consensus, and avoid making original observations that contradict the established sources of information cited in support of the version you are arguing against. If appropriate sources support your view, cite those sources ''relevantly'', and work cooperatively, please. [[User:Mkmcconn|Mkmcconn]][[User Talk:Mkmcconn| <small>(Talk)</small>]] 03:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
:Unlike many others, I carefully consider modifications on a page like this and only do so rationally and accurately. As you and Mustafaa should note, on the other issue mentioned, I conceded to the consensus. I do not recall a single reactionary revert that I have ever done. I base my analysis on source material and on logical conclusions reached from such source material. So, be assured, when I modify it, it will be based on such practices. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 03:52, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
For reference, you have cited this source for your edits:
:17:20
:''And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation''.
:25:16
:''These were the sons of Ishmael, and these are the names of the twelve tribal rulers according to their settlements and camps''. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 03:56, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
:: Why do you say "twice"? The first citation was Genesis 17:20, the second was Genesis 25:16. Also see 1 Chronicles 1:29. Other, less direct references can be cited.
:: "The Bible describes ... " Abraham as the patriarch of the Ishmaelites - whoever they are. Question, if you wish, whether the Bible can be trusted for history, on the issue; raise doubts if it pleases you, about whether it has anything to do with the Arabs, or with Muslim claims. But when you question whether the Bible asserts that the Midianites and Ishmaelites are Abraham's descendants there is simply nothing to argue about. Yield to the facts, please, and move on. [[User:Mkmcconn|Mkmcconn]][[User Talk:Mkmcconn| <small>(Talk)</small>]] 05:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
::I admit error, the citation was as you state. I corrected the above reference. I have not even begun my argument (there is no moving on except as to accuracy), but beginning with the referrence is a start. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 05:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
::: I'm a bit disappointed that while you admit error, you removed your error. But now are you admitting that you have been reverting the article without presenting a reasonable argument in support of doing so? That would be progress.
::: Genesis 39:1 reads: "Now Joseph had been brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, had bought him from '''the Ishmaelites''' who had brought him down there." (cf Gen 37:25-28) Judges 8:34: "And Gideon said to them, "Let me make a request of you: every one of you give me the earrings from his spoil." (For they had golden earrings, because they were '''Ishmaelites.''')" These "Ishmaelites", according to the Bible's genealogical passages cited above, are the descendents of Abraham. What is your argument against that? [[User:Mkmcconn|Mkmcconn]][[User Talk:Mkmcconn| <small>(Talk)</small>]] 06:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
| 