Talk:Isaac/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Isaac. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

The page should not be merged Jews and Muslims dispute the importance of Isaac / Ishaq. Due to inaccuracy in the writing of the later works Ishmael is seen to have been sacrificed to instead of Ishaq. This dispute may offend people of either faith if combined together.

Should the base article just be about Isaac the biblical personage and the rest of the material moved to a disambiguation page? A lot of it is not relevant to the main article. User:FeanorStar7

I would beg to differ. Everything mentioned about Isaac is relevant. It is the biblical personage that makes him who he is. Without that, why would we look for him in the encyclopedia anyway? AMEN BROTHER

The section "Isaac in Qu'ran" is the same as the section on Isaac. Maybe merging + adding the prophet template on Isaac? The same is done by Ishmael)
Blubberbrein2 09:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I second this, since it is the same person (just a different perspective). BTW, I think you mean Ishaq (not Isaac) should be merged with this article. --Benjamin, 200606011340

If you have a page for Ishaq, you ought to have one Yitzak, the Hebrew patriach. Better to have one page to explain the scriptural entity as interpreted by the three faiths of The Book.

I agree with the merge. What made my mind up on this is when I noticed that Isaac has a link to the Arabic Wikipedia but Ishaq doesn't. (On the other hand, Arabic is all Greek to me, so I can't comment on whether or not the Arabic Wikipedia makes any distinctions between the two variants of the name). Robert Happelberg 21:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

but my question is why would Abraham try to kill his own son if he loved him. They should merge the sections, especially because Isaac is often considered the least important of the Patriarchs and needs more info from the Ishaq article. -This statement is not accurate, these Patriachs are equal in importance.

Yes I think they should be merged and also ishaq should be written as "is'haq" to avoid mispronounciation of "sh"

I do not believe they should be merged. Though physically it talks of the same character the content about what each religion is based off is totally different which changes the role of Isaac.

It's the same person: bottom line. Creating a different page for the Arabic name for the same person is just a way of oh-so-subtly saying that Muslims don't really know what they're talking about. One page, with differing accounts given in historical order... just like the real world! Imagine! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.175.21.20 (talk) 17:22, September 13, 2006 (UTC)

Yes, except that the Ishaq page was created by Muslims. Are they saying that the rest of us don't know what we're talking about? I'm not willing to say that... --Eliyak T·C 17:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to worry about.This will not change anything.

Yes they should merge the documents but they should make two separate catagories for biblical and Quranic interpretation of Isaac's life. What do you think?

Yep, that's the most reasonable option. It should be formatted like Ishmael. Keeps it consistent and NPOV etcetera etcetera

"Three explanations for Isaac's name are given: the first is that his mother Sarai(Sarah) laughed when told by God that she would have a son in her old age (Genesis 17:16-17); in the second, it is Sarah who laughs (Genesis 18:10-12)" She's the one who laughs both times?

Sorry to say but 1/2 of the article is inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.105.212 (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Do we need to use secondary sources for the "Isaac in the Hebrew Bible" section? --Aminz 10:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In a secondary source, I found the following statement: " Stories about Issac appear in Genesis 17-28. Although they are largely to be ascribed to J, P is represented at the beginning (17:15-27) and end (27:46-28:9), and E in 21:1-7 and 22:1-19 (-> Pentateuch)."

I was wondering what does J,P, and E mean? --Aminz 07:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not know a lot about it, but we have an article about it at Documentary hypothesis. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. --Aminz 21:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

An overall well-written article. I am impressed at how the citations give this article reliability (most religion-related articles tend to be filled with NPOV). For future development of this article, I have a few suggestions: 1) check the grammar and typos; 2) include more images, especially in the sections near the end. Other than that, I have nothing to say. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a little to say. The use of the copyrighted image Robert B. Sherman "Sacrifice" [Image:Sacrifice 600.JPG] seems to be a violation of the type cited at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use. It is a non-notable, non-iconic, copyrighted image used illustrate an article. That image also seems to have an incorrect tag (it is not an "poster for an event" used "to illustrate the event in question"). I have removed the image from the article for these reasons. 69.72.2.72 21:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe this page is incorrectly named and should be moved to Isaac (biblical character) or something of the sort. This page is more appropriately along the lines of Matthew or Andrew. Andrew McNaughton, 8:54, May 6 2007 (AEST).

The paternity of Abraham for Isaac is not sure. (Cf.Isaac paradox). Isaacsonornot 13:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

The bible verses should be applied with the {{bibleverse}} template.--Sefringle 23:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Note 28 says, "(see also Qur'an 38:45 and Qur'an 29:27-26)". Question is: How can a quote be from one verse to an earlier one? 90.230.233.43 (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My name is Isaac and it seems as though most people spell it Issac almost instinctively. Any idea if this alternative spelling is very common? —Memotype::T 22:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have submitted this article to a GA Reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps project. I found the article to not meet GA criteria and I held it for further work. Thanks to the diligence of several editors the article has been brought back to GA quality and I will be happy to keep it as GA. Click here for my review. Thank you to the editors who took on the article's fixes. H1nkles (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Isaac/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will be undertaking the GA Reassessment of this article. H1nkles (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• The first para in the "Biblical narrative" section has a lot of weasel wording in it. These include, "it is believed", and "is considered".
• This section also needs some MOS compliance editing. I've done some work on it, adding hard dashes and spaces. H1nkles (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• I've completed the article and made lots of edits to remove excessive linking and fix some MOS compliance issues. I'm not overly impressed with the article there are a lot of little problems that make it hard for me to recommend keep at this point. For example:

• The references need page numbers and I note that all the Qur'anic references are in one cite [23] while the Biblical references are in separate cites, why is that?
• "However, Muslim scholars came to endorse that it was Ishmael", which Muslim scholars?
• As stated above there is weasel wording throughout the article.
• (see Galatians 4:21-30[16]).[3], the citation should go after the period not before re: [16].
• There needs to be (ndash) hard spaces between spans of page numbers and dates and verses. I made some corrections but I see more. I feel at this point that I should hold the article for a week for fixes to be made. If no work is done then I will likely demote the article. I don't think it will take much to keep it GA but I don't feel comfortable keeping it GA with the work that needs to be done. H1nkles (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The recent rewriting of the 'etymology' section is imo not an improvement to the article and I reverted it
(@PiCo: Firstly, I apologize if my edit summary appeared to accuse you of non-good faith editing, that was not my intent.)

I think the previous version was better for the following reasons:

• The new version uses "purportedly" (see Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#So-called.2C_supposed.2C_purported.2C_alleged). The previous version ascribed this explanation to "Genesis" and "the biblical narrative", which is more neutral and more informative.
• The new version rejects this explanation and says that in fact, it is a Canaanite name derived from the god El. This is unencyclopedic for three reasons.

• First, that it claims to 'know for a fact' where the word came from, which is nearly always a dubious claim when dealing with etymological history, especially of ancient languages.
• Second, because the word "El" is not always a name, according to the Wikipedia article on El_(God):

"In Northwest Semitic usage ʾl was both a generic word for any "god" and the special name or title of a particular god who was distinguished from other gods as being "the god", or in the monotheistic sense, God."

• And thirdly, because the name "Yiṣḥāq" does not even include the name "El", so first saying that it is short for "Yitzhakel", and then claiming that it was derived from the name "El" seems to me not a very solid argument, and it certainly does not warrant the claim that this is "in fact" so.

Therefore, I reverted the change, however, if the terms "purportedly" and "in fact" are replaced and the varying views are ascribed to adequate sources (as was the case in the original version), the new version would also be acceptable to me. Lindert (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous explanation. The word "purportedly" was in the original source, which is Avner Falk, an Israeli psychologist/historian (meaning he writes biographies and histories from the point of view of the psychology of his subject - in this particular book he was ambitiously attempting to analyse the "Jewish psychology" - I'm not sure such a thing exists). But for the derivation of Yitzakhel, Falk's own source is William F. Albright, who is a leading scholar and cannot be lightly dismissed. It is Albraight who traces Yitzakh to Yitzhakel, on the basis that the name Yitzakh by itself is not the normal form of any name of the time, while a name in the form of a theophoric is quite normal, and the -el theophoric is attested. As for El being the name of a specific god, Albright more or less takes for granted that there's no point in a theophoric that doesn't relate to a specific god - this was what I meant by saying that El is always a name - it's always a name when used in a theophoric. (I'd be quite happy to drop the "purportedly" - although I doubt that the bible is in fact attempting an atymolygy, as paronomasia rarely included true etymology at that time). PiCo (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I keep correcting the statement that Isaac was "the only son" of Abraham, only to have it reverted and even to be labeled as vandalism. However, the Bible lists other sons of Abraham - Ishmael, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak andShuah. I note that the bible repeatedly describes Isaac as "the only son", but the meaning and reason for the description is subject to speculation which is not covered in the article. There is no reason why the description needs to repeated in this article on a factual point.Ewawer (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, your edits certainly were not vandalism and should not have been labeled as such.

That being said, you are right that Abraham had more sons in addition to Isaac, but the original wording of the article: "the only child of Abraham and Sarah" was intended (I think) to mean that Isaac was the only son of Abraham that was born to Sarah. In my opinion the original version was clear enough, but apparently it can cause confusion. I will change it to "the only son Abraham had with his wife Sarah". This retains the information that Abraham had no other sons with Sarah. If you know of a better expression feel free to improve on this. Lindert (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"According to the Book of Genesis, Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born, and Sarah was beyond childbearing years."

As written, this sounds as if the Book of Genesis specifically says she was beyond childbearing years, which seems kind of odd (a blatant contradiction in fact) if it also says she had a child at that age. Is the sentence actually trying to say that her alleged age, according to the Bible, was beyond the age at which women are nowadays known to be capable of bearing children? (In other words, her Biblical age was incorrect, exaggerated, not meant to be taken literally, etc.)

Could the sentence be clarified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.130.64 (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is based solely on the biblical story. The apparent 'contradiction' is intentional in Genesis. Genesis states that 'it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.', which is commonly understood to mean that her menstrual cycle had ceased. That she nonetheless bore a child (at age 90) is therefore considered (by the author of Genesis) to be a miracle. Lindert (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have edited this article I dont think there is anything to say because the sources for that was the Quran and the verses of the Quran are mentioned in the edited article and Ive also kept a conclusion and literal proof for the editings I have made

One thing I deleted was the theory that some Muslim scholars say that Isaac and Jacob were both promised for Sarah so this means Ishmael was sacrificed. This Beleif and theory is false! because never does the Quran say in Arabic so? the verses that talk about Isaac and Jacob in arabic states that "we gave her the good news of Isaac and after Isaac Jacob" but what many english speakers don't know is that in Arabic grammer the letter BA was kept beside Isaac's name. the letter BA is a letter kept when someone wants to use the word 'with" so the Quran said we gave her glad tidings with Isaac by using the letter BA but however after that the Quran clearly says and after him we gave good news of Jacob but it doesnt use the letter BA the letter BA was only used with Isaac meaning that the angels came to talk about Isaac but after Isaac grew and the sacrifice occured god told Abraham about the birth of Jacob because the style of the Quran tends to talk about something and then states the future act .. the Quran clearly says that the three angels only gave news of Isaac in many verses i mentioned in the article and there is no verse talking about Jacob and the three angels except this one and like i mentioned earlier this verse used the letter BA to say with "we gave her glad tidings with Isaac'" BUT IT DOESNT USE THE LETTER BA WITH JACOB so clearly this verse talks about Isaac and then states the future of when Jacob was born long after Isaac grew with his father TO WALK AND WORK .. nowhere in Islamic tradition or the Quran it states that Jacob had a relation with the tidings of Isaac.. so this is another proof as well as I MYSELF HAVE EDITED THE ARTICLE AND CLEARY MADE THE STORY CLEAR SO A READER WOULD DEFINATLY UNDERSTAND MY POINT WITHOUT HAVING A LOOK AT THIS TALK PAGE... there are many things i didnt mention AS PROVE OF THE BINDING OF ISAAC IN ISLAM like the birth of Isaac give to Abraham when Abraham left his people or when abraham was ordered to sacrifice the un-named son who grew up with him and was given to him miraculously and clearly every knows that Ishmael was taken away from Abraham when he was just a baby nor did Ishmael have a miraculous birth nor did he live with his father to work and walk ....the quranic verse are kept in the article! ... Il put some here to make it easier to see

037.083 YUSUFALI: Verily among those who followed his Way was Abraham.

037.084 YUSUFALI: Behold! he approached his Lord with a sound heart.

037.085 YUSUFALI: Behold! he said to his father and to his people, "What is that which ye worship?

037.086 YUSUFALI: "Is it a falsehood- gods other than Allah- that ye desire?

037.087 YUSUFALI: "Then what is your idea about the Lord of the worlds?"

037.088 YUSUFALI: Then did he cast a glance at the Stars.

037.089 YUSUFALI: And he said, "I am indeed sick (at heart)!"

037.090 YUSUFALI: So they turned away from him, and departed.

037.091 YUSUFALI: Then did he turn to their gods and said, "will ye not eat (of the offerings before you)?...

037.092 YUSUFALI: "What is the matter with you that ye speak not (intelligently)?"

037.093 YUSUFALI: Then did he turn upon them, striking (them) with the right hand.

037.094 YUSUFALI: Then came (the worshippers) with hurried steps, and faced (him).

037.095 YUSUFALI: He said: "Worship ye that which ye have (yourselves) carved?

037.096 YUSUFALI: "But Allah has created you and your handwork!"

037.097 YUSUFALI: They said, "Build him a furnace, and throw him into the blazing fire!"

037.098 YUSUFALI: (This failing), they then sought a stratagem against him, but We made them the ones most humiliated!

037.099 YUSUFALI: He said: "I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!

037.100 YUSUFALI: "O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!"

037.101 YUSUFALI: So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.

037.102 YUSUFALI: And when (his son) was old enough to walk with him, (Abraham) said: O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice thee. So look, what thinkest thou? He said: O my father! Do that which thou art commanded. Allah willing, thou shalt find me of the steadfast

037.103 YUSUFALI: So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),

037.104 YUSUFALI: We called out to him "O Abraham!

037.105 YUSUFALI: "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

037.106 YUSUFALI: For this was obviously a trial-

037.107 YUSUFALI: And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:

037.108 YUSUFALI: And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:

037.109 YUSUFALI: "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"

037.110 YUSUFALI: Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

037.111 YUSUFALI: For he was one of our believing Servants.

This verse says the WHOLE STORY ... a son was given to Abraham after Abraham left his pagan people and THIS SON WAS UN NAMED BUT WHAT THE READER CAN TAKE AS A CLUE IS THAT THE UN-NAMED SON WAS A CHILD GIVEN TO ABRAHAM AFTER HE LEFT HIS PAGAN PEOPLE

019.041 YUSUFALI: (Also mention in the Book (the story of) Abraham: He was a man of Truth, a prophet.

019.042 YUSUFALI: Behold, he said to his father: "O my father! why worship that which heareth not and seeth not, and can profit thee nothing?

019.043 YUSUFALI: "O my father! to me hath come knowledge which hath not reached thee: so follow me: I will guide thee to a way that is even and straight.

019.044 YUSUFALI: "O my father! serve not Satan: for Satan is a rebel against (Allah) Most Gracious.

019.045 YUSUFALI: "O my father! I fear lest a Penalty afflict thee from (Allah) Most Gracious, so that thou become to Satan a friend."

019.046 YUSUFALI: (The father) replied: "Dost thou hate my gods, O Abraham? If thou forbear not, I will indeed stone thee: Now get away from me for a good long while!"

019.047 YUSUFALI: Abraham said: "Peace be on thee: I will pray to my Lord for thy forgiveness: for He is to me Most Gracious.

LOOK AT THIS

019.048 YUSUFALI: "And I will TURN away from YOU (ALL) and from those whom ye invoke besides Allah: I will call on my Lord: perhaps, by my prayer to my Lord, I shall be not unblest."

019.049 YUSUFALI: When he had TURNED away from THEM and from those whom they worshipped besides Allah, We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and each one of them We made a prophet.

these verses talk about ISAAC GIVEN TO ABRAHAM WHEN ABRAHAM LEFT HIS PAGAN PEOPLE SO THIS PROVES THAT THE UN-NAMED SACRIFICED SON WAS ISAAC BECAUSE THE EARLIER VERSE THAT MENTIONS THE SACRIFICE SAYS ABRAHAM WAS GIVEN A UN-NAMED SON ....... WHO WAS GIVEN TO HIM RIGHT AFTER HE LEFT HIS PAGAN PEOPLE AND LIKE I SAID .. THESE VERSES CLEARLY MENTIONS ISAAC BY NAME AS THE UN-NAMED SON WHO WAS GIVEN TO ABRAHAM WHEN HE LEFT HIS PAGAN PEOPLE.. so the conclsion is ... Isaac was binded  :)

ps. please do mind my grammer and rush in this talk page thank you! 84.255.149.155 (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the sentence "The term conforms to an established Northwest Semitic linguist type, but is not spoken elsewhere" from the etymology section, since I could not hazard a guess as to what it is intended to mean. I also wonder about the fact that the etymology section refers to "Yiṣḥāq which literally means "may God smile", but the lede says, "Hebrew: יִצְחָק, Modern Yitzchaq Tiberian Yiṣḥāq, 'he will laugh'". Is there a morpheme in Yiṣḥāq which means "God"?—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I may be a little late to the party here, but there is no such morpheme in Isaac.

Iam not interpreting anything ,. Il make it simple and plain with my source the Quran

019.048 YUSUFALI: "And I will TURN AWAY from you (all) and from those whom ye invoke besides Allah: I will call on my Lord: perhaps, by my prayer to my Lord, I shall be not unblest."

019.049 YUSUFALI: When he had TURNED AWAY from them and from those whom they worshipped besides Allah, WE bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and each one of them We made a prophet

... same story mentioned in detail here 037.099 YUSUFALI: He said: "I will GO to my Lord! He will surely guide me!

037.101 YUSUFALI: So WE gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.

037.102 YUSUFALI: And when (his son) was old enough to walk with him, (Abraham) said: O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice thee. So look, what thinkest thou? He said: O my father! Do that which thou art commanded. Allah willing, thou shalt find me of the steadfast focus on the caps lock words to prove the Quran speaking for itself no interpretation no noting

according to Islamic tradition and sahih hadith Ishmael was a baby when Abraham left him

with his mother and the next time he saw his son was when his son was old anf GREW WITH HIS MOTHER

 ....the story is mentioned in wiki iam not gonna add more82.194.62.25 (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Highdeeboy, how many times do we have to explain to you that exegesis does not meet the standards for sources? How many times do we have to explain to you that just mentioning that secondary sources exist is not enough, that you have to provide them? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My bad lol listen iam gonna make things sweet! I GOT THE PROVE OF PROOFS AND IT WILL MAKE U CHANGE ALL THE ARTICLES U HAD PROBLEMS WITH ME ;) UL SEE HEHEH

now look at that and read it this is the secondry source that Proves ISAAC IS THE SON! because the cousin of prophet Mohammed narrated the whole incident stating ISHMAEL WAS LEFT IN MECCA WHEN HE WAS SUCKLING HIS MOTHER'S!

see for yourself

HERE IS MY SECONDARY SOURCE ;)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/bukhari/bh4/bh4_586.htm 82.194.62.25 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

you know what! IVE HAD IT WITH U

IAM TALKING TO ANOTHER USER ABOUT THIS BECAUSE U ARE SICK! leave me alone and dont u dare stalk me ..! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.62.25 (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That source says nothing about the attempted sacrifice, and it says nothing about Ishmael never seeing Abraham ever again. It actually says that Abraham and Ishmael did met again, and went to the Ka'ba. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that the IP is a sock puppet of the blocked editor Highdeeboy (talk · contribs), IP now blocked (not by me) for 3 days. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No.1 :Id really appreciate it if the editors can remove all what Ive written before because it seems to confuse people No.2 Yes what u say is true but when did he meet him .. The Quran states Ishmael met his father and built the kaaba .. is that something u say about a kid? .. no clearly its common sense we dont need to wonder .. Abraham returned to Mecca again when Ishmael was old and strong enough to build the Kaaba but wait a sec

the Quran states the unknown son who was to be sacrificed GREW ALONGSIDE HIS FATHER? was it Ishmael NO! because Ishmael only saw his father when he was an adult and after he had grown alongside his mother Hagar .. and u admitted it earlier .. so clearly it Isaac and there are tons or proofs and sources of it being Isaac but u continue to argue with me and use your status to block me so please make it simple because I used the same resources that you used ... you only used the Quran and I used that as a Primary source ... but i wanted to add a SECONDARY SOURCE that had nothing to do with Isaac but had general knowlege which proved me right from another point of view

one was Abraham given Isaac after he left his people and he was ordered to sacrifice this son two was Ishmael never grew old to walk ALONGSIDE HIS FATHER because my secondary source states Ishmael was a baby when Abraham left him and when Abraham REMEET ISHMAEL AND THEY WENT TO THE KAABA .. he was already a grown man who grew alongside who? His mother not his dad .. clear and simple but you took that as another excuse to use your status and block me for silly reasons

so Iam gonna once again show you my much clearer source and expect you to be fair hopefully...

1......

focus on capslocks

019.048 YUSUFALI: "And I will TURN AWAY from you (all) and from those whom ye invoke besides Allah: I will call on my Lord: perhaps, by my prayer to my Lord, I shall be not unblest."

019.049 YUSUFALI: When he had TURNED AWAY from them and from those whom they worshipped besides Allah, WE bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and each one of them We made a prophet

... same story mentioned in detail here

037.099 YUSUFALI: He said: "I will GO to my Lord! He will surely guide me!

037.101 YUSUFALI: So WE gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.

037.102 YUSUFALI: And when (his son) was old enough to walk with him, (Abraham) said: O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice thee. So look, what thinkest thou? He said: O my father! Do that which thou art commanded. Allah willing, thou shalt find me of the steadfast

no interpretation no opinion ...

2.......

Hadith 4:583

Narrated Ibn Abbas: The first lady to use a girdle was the mother of Ishmael. She used a girdle so that she might hide her tracks from Sarah. Abraham brought her and her son Ishmael while she was SUCKLING him, to a place near the Ka'ba under a tree on the spot of Zam-zam, at the highest place in the mosque. During those days there was nobody in Mecca, nor was there any water So he made them sit over there and placed near them a leather bag containing some dates, and a small water-skin containing some water, and set out homeward. Ishmael's mother followed him saying, "O Abraham! Where are you going, leaving us in this valley where there is no person whose company we may enjoy, nor is there anything (to enjoy)?" She repeated that to him many times, but he did not look back at her Then she asked him, "Has Allah ordered you to do so?" He said, "Yes." She said, "Then He will not neglect us," and returned while Abraham proceeded onwards, and on reaching the Thaniya where they could not see him, he faced the Ka'ba, and raising both hands, invoked Allah saying the following prayers:

'O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring dwell in a valley without cultivation, by Your Sacred House (Kaba at Mecca) in order, O our Lord, that they may offer prayer perfectly. So fill some hearts among men with love towards them, and (O Allah) provide them with fruits, so that they may give thanks.' (14.37) Ishmael's mother went on SUCKLING Ishmael and drinking from the water (she had).

.................. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Highdeeboy (talk • contribs) 14:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

After Ishmael's mother had died, Abraham came after Ishmael's MARRIAGE in order to see his family that he had left before, but he did not find Ishmael there. When he asked Ishmael's wife about him, she replied, 'He has gone in search of our livelihood.

clearly when Abraham came again ISHMAEL WAS A MARRIED ADULT who grew ALONGSIDE HAGAR ...

037.102 YUSUFALI: And when (his son) was old enough to walk with him, (Abraham) said: O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice thee. So look, what thinkest thou? He said: O my father! Do that which thou art commanded. Allah willing, thou shalt find me of the steadfastHighdeeboy (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

focuse on this verse ... the idendity of this son is that he grew with his father .. Ishmael was left a baby alognside his mom and ONLY GOT TO SEE HIS FATHER AGAIN WHEN HE GOT MARRIED AND WAS A MAN ENOUGH TO BUILD THE KAABA ...so the conclusion is that HE DIDNT GROW ALONGSIDE HIS FATHER .. he only REMET HIS FATHER WHEN HE WAS ALREADY OLD but the verse states this unknown son grew alongisde his father therefore this is another proof that its IsaacHighdeeboy (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC) ...

if you still refuse my claim then just forget everything and look at my new Idea pleaseHighdeeboy (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Listen I have an Idea .. i think we should make this Neutral because you dont seem to ever be satisfied with me and aim really giving you more than what the other provide but its always NO! so i want you and I to edit that article and provide more support for my claim because there are many verses that support my claim so Id like to add them to the article but at the end of the day the article will still support Both fairly because i dont seem to see anything good conerning my side so id like to enhance it and make it fairly neutral and obviously you will have a look at it and see if its good or no ok?Highdeeboy (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The article neutrally represents what different reliable sources say. Just because it does not include your personal opinion on which son the Quran refers to does not mean that the article is not neutral. There has to be a source that by itself says "some Muslims say it was Isaac." Pieces of different sources that do not outright say "it was Isaac" do not work because that is original research, which Wikipedia does not accept. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont get you ... one guy says this and the other says that .. Highdeeboy (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I know it's in our infobox person, but that's for people where we know they are historical persons and we have a definite 'resting place'. --Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Immanuel Kant had a fascinating interpretation of the binding of Isaac. Given his important in philosophy (and really Western culture in general) over the last couple of hundred years I think there might be a sentence or two on the Kantian view here. --Christofurio (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As the edit summary says, "Christian View expanded based solely on Scripture and knowledge of "types and shadows" of Christianity." - in other words, original research using editor's own knowledge and primary sources. --Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the material as it fails several Wikipedia Criteria for inclusion. Jpacobb (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that unless this is fixed, I think the article's Good article status will need to be reviewed as it no longer meets criteria 2 at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. I'll fix a couple of 'neverthelesses' that fail NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed so no need for the tag anymore. Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that the lead section of this article doesn't appear to summarize its contents per WP:LEAD; only one or two of the article's sections appear to be covered by the lead. This will need to be fixed for the article to keep GA status. Thanks everybody for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

At the beginning of the "Academic" section, the following sentence appears:

begin quote Some scholars have described Isaac as "a legendary figure" while others view him "as a figure representing tribal history, or "as a seminomadic leader." end quote

As you can see if you look closely, it's hard to tell where the quotation starts and stops. If anybody has access to the Eerdman's Encyclopaedia of Christianity, and can flip to page 744, this question should be fairly easy to clear up. Alephb (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a note at the bottom of the article:

‎حٰق(ʾIsḥāq) is the traditional Koranic spelling after vocalizing with a super script ʾalif. In Modern Standard Arabic, it is normally written إسحاق (ʾIsḥāq).

Doesn't look right. Can someone check?PiCo (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

There's currently an infobox with dates Isaac's birth to "c. 1700" and his death to "c. 1500." This is unsourced and wrong, for two reasons. From a historical standpoint, Isaac is generally not treated as a historical character. There was no particular time he was born or died because he's part of legendary material. From a biblical standpoint, 1700-1500 isn't right either. Start with Solomon's Temple (about 960), and add 480 years to get to the Exodus (about 1440). Given 430 years of Israelites living in Egypt, and Isaac's son Jacob goes down into Egypt around 1870. You see the problem. I'm going to remove the date. Alephb (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The Judges of Israel (ex. Deborah, Samson, etc.) and Moses, for example, include numerous dedications to calculating the time periods they may have lived, so the treatment as legendary is moot. Secondly, the biblical calendar is also moot, as even in other Wikipedia articles the calendar is refuted as inaccurate to an unknown degree. For example: the more than 160 year discrepancy between when the Bible says Solomon's Temple fell and when Solomon's Temple actually fell. Thirdly, gain consensus. You posted a message and just did something. That doesn't equate to gaining consensus, even if no one actually approached you on the edit after the fact. BedrockPerson (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a few disagreements with what you've said here. I'll go through them one by one. First, you seem to think that people need to gain consensus before removing something. That's the impression your comment here makes. However, there's no need to gain consensus before making an edit. The need to gain consensus only comes up if there's a disagreement about the edit. Second "You posted a message and just did something." While it would be perfectly acceptable for any editor to post a message and "just do" something, that's not what happened here. Instead, I explained that Wikipedia was throwing around a date that isn't in keeping with the Bible, and isn't in keeping with modern historians, and, perhaps most important of all, is completely unsourced. Third, after all those explanations, I didn't "just do something." I waited four weeks to see if anyone objected and no one did. Only then did I make this edit.

As a side note, you're confused about Solomon's temple. There's no 160-year gap between when the Bible says it fell and when it actually fell. There's a 160-year gap between its fall and when a work called Seder Olam says it fell.

Most importantly of all, you've now (at least in practice) come out in favor of saying Isaac was born around 1700 and died around 1500. So you need a reliable source that makes that claim. If the claim is made without a source, any editor can remove it, which is exactly what I did. You can read WP:OR if you have any doubts about this. Alephb (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User:BedrockPerson. (This line is just to make sure you're notified.) Alephb (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Correction. Turns out I removed them on the 17th and you added them back today. I saw them there today and just assumed I hadn't gotten around to removing them yet, because nothing in the history indicated that someone had added them back in. My bad. Regardless, we need sources or the dates do eventually need to go. Alephb (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• removed for now. we need to come up with a global way to deal with legendary characters like this. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

An IP address -- its talk page might be worth a look -- has restored the infobox. In the process, the IP address has removed well-sourced material that helped the article summarize the article's content and therefore conform to WP:LEAD. The deletion part was not explained. For the moment, I'm going to restore the deleted material, given that it is an unexplained removal by an IP, and possibly was accidentally caught up in the revert. Alephb (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

We may need an RfC on this one too. Might be wise to have an omnibus one somewhere. Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. My own ambitions in this area are more modest. All I've really been trying to do with infoboxes lately is to removed unsourced dates. Alephb (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

saying "he died when he was 180" in the lead is not OK. This is not like saying Ezra Pound was 87 years old when he died". We should not say it (it is not one of the most important things about him) or we need to make it clear this is part of the narrative. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a feminine version of this name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.217.180.117 (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, please see Talk:Ishmael#Historicity of Ishmael versus Moses and Abraham. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Isaac in Islam#Merging Isaac in Islam with Isaac Doremon764 (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I tweaked... He was the second son of Abraham after Ishmael and the only child of Abraham and Sarah. He was the father of Esau and Jacob 2601:589:4802:AB0:252F:9340:C814:37D9 (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Isaac 2600:6C44:E7F:DFFD:A0FE:3ADC:4D51:16B1 (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Leadership 103.142.120.241 (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

This passage: "In the Quran's narrative of Abraham's near-sacrifice of his son ( 37:102), the name of the son is not mentioned and debate has continued over the son's identity, though many feel that the identity is the least important element in a story which is given to show the courage that one develops through faith"

This bit especially is troublesome: "though many feel that the identity is the least important element." I have a problem with 'many feels', want to make sure this is backed up by sources and research. Drizzdo (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: you have claimed that Isaac does not originate in the Hebrew Bible otherwise known as the Old Testament. If you have a source suggesting otherwise, please post it here so we can discuss before deleting that from the article. This is a bold claim and needs discussion first. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Greetings,

As far as I recall, it was more or less about the phrasing, than the statement itself. As per common knowledge, the Torah/Hebrew Bible/Old Testament is not a pre-historical document, but a collection of Canaanite myths to unite the different tribes across the Mesopotamian region. Accordingly, the story cannot be traced back to the Old Testament, simply because when the stories within Genesis (which is also a fusion of different stories, hence multiple creation stories) have been written, there was no Torah/Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. At least from where I am from, it is part of the public education to learn a historical and critical approach to sacred scriptures. Maybe this is not universal. This would require me to actually find a source.

But then, there is enough sourced material on the corresponding main-articles. According to Book of Genesis even Bible scholars do not believe the Book to be historical. Therefore, it seems to be common knowledge that the Torah is, like every other religions scripture (New Testament, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, etc.), only a collection of pre-existing myths. Accordingly, the story of Abraham has not the origins in the Torah, but the Torah has its origins in polytheistic/animistic myths. Hope this helps

with kind regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I would like to see your sources even if you do consider it common knowledge Worldlysage92 (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Read the Bible folks. Isaac never came down from the mountain where Abraham killed him. The very few subsequent references to him after that are sketchy as can be. 74.12.202.33 (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)