DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Sarah

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Isaac is the son of a servant of Sarah, not Ishmael.

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1- Egyptian law at the time prevented a foreigner from owning Egyptian slaves. It is more likely that Abraham married Hagar after Sarah was taken as a concubine in Egypt.

2- The Egyptians viewed themselves as superior to nomadic groups traveling through their domain and would not have transferred an Egyptian into the custody of such groups (this is confirmed by the fact that the Egyptian officers did not even discuss with Abraham the matter of Sarah being taken as captive, they did so without any regard) .

3- It is more fitting that there was tension between Hagar and Sarah that intensified with Hagar’s Son. Sarah was already over 90 years and could not bare children (may be a result of her being a concubine for a time), this led her to choose one of the servant girls within Abraham’s camp to provide a son by Abraham but is claimed by Sarah as her own. This child is Isaac.

4-The biblical story of Ishmael being the son of the handmaid probably was twisted after the first century and the Roman sacking of Jerusalem and the subduing of the Jews. The identity of the real mother of Isaac whom was the handmaid of Sarah is unknown just as the identity of the mother of Sarah is unknown (Sarah is the sister of Abraham but by another mother).

There are many many more points that refute the biblical story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.244.19 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia does not assume that it would be real history, instead of mythology.
No WP:SOURCES, no edits. As simple as that. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one trying to grant it historicity, not me. It's a myth and in myths anything can happen. So I do not know how could you refute a mythical claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone considers it a myth, so I present the logical claim that Isaac was the son of an unknown servant girl in Abraham's camp that agreed to bare a child for both Abraham and Sarah. Sarah may have been the daughter of the handmaid of Abraham's mother as well. Also, Jacob (Israel) himself had 4 children by 2 Handmaids from his camp (that's 4 out the 12 heads of the tribes of Israel).--24.126.244.19 (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NOR, we are not interested in your logical claim. It does not belong inside Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my claim. This is what I've always known and what I've been told. It appears to be logical to me. This is no different than the claims found in the old testament, they do not necessarily represent the truth, they are simply pieces of information recorded by unknown individuals. When examining the story of Sarah and Hagar, there seems to be many problems and what appears to be an intentional fabrication. Perhaps we can find a way to add this different aspect to the story of Sarah and Hagar even if its only for the purpose of being educational. People that are interested in history and religion should be exposed to different views and not just a single one sided and perhaps biased source. This is what propaganda is, ancient texts not excluded.--24.126.244.19 (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Find a WP:SECONDARY WP:RS if you want to edit the article. I'm not giving you a choice. We won't change the WP:RULES just because of your hearsay.
Your argument is as pointless as debating whether Zeus was the real father of Hercules. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the story of Sarah according to the old testament started out as hearsay that was recorded by an unknown centuries ago is considered fact by some today, the story of Isaac being the son of the Handmaid servant carries the same amount of validity. The story of Isaac's descent as the son of one of Abraham's servants refutes the biblical story whither its myth, hearsay or claimed to be true and it must become common knowledge to everyone that is familiar with the old testament's claim concerning Sarah and Hagar.--24.126.244.19 (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Find a WP:RS or be gone from here. Closing. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

surragate

[edit]

It appears that the word surrogate comes from the story of Sarah and Hagar. Kamranmohajeri (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 January 2026

[edit]

Sarah → Sarah (biblical figure) – I feel like there is not a primary topic for Sarah. There is also the name Sarah, and I think it's a more likely search target. Jq talk 💬 contributions 18:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Vestrian24Bio 04:12, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The biblical figure receives 4 times as many pageviews as the name. People named Sarah are WP:PTMs and should not be a factor in determining the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For another example, although Mario (given name) is a commonly used name, most people named Mario aren't referred to as just "Mario" and are therefore PTMs, so Mario is about the video game character which has far less WP:LTS than a biblical figure. Greedycell (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I would say it’s unreasonable to consider an abstract concept (like a given name) as a primary topic. The concept of Sarah as a given name is just simply flat out not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of “Sarah”. I could imagine it may be true that some users may have some other specific Sarah in mind when they type “Sarah” into search, but a search for a specific Sarah is not the same as a search for a historical analysis of the concept of Sarah as a given name.
TLDR: there are many pages with the disambiguator “(given name)”. Is there a single given name article that doesn’t include the parenthetical disambiguator? Mikewem (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's a huge number of them, like Steve, for example. See Category:Given names and its subcategories. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
and the article title Lauren is also about the name because there's no biblical figure called Lauren, and because the name was only very popular for girls born from the 80/90s, mostly from developed English-speaking countries. JuniperChill (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are biblical figures with these names but they aren't the primary topic: John, Matthew, Joseph Jq talk 💬 contributions 17:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
New Testament biblical figures almost always have some sort of epithet or honorific as part of their full common name (John the Baptist, Matthew the Apostle, Saint Joseph, Joseph of Arimathea, etc). In the case of Joseph, there are 3 prominent biblical figures named Joseph so adding the Genesis disambiguator for the one who doesn’t have an epithet or honorific seems reasonable and useful in that case. Mikewem (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And I would note that the John and Matthew pages for the given names are in the format of John (given name) and Matthew (given name) Mikewem (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Saints, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Judaism, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, WikiProject Ancient Near East, WikiProject Bible, WikiProject Islam, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Jewish history, and WikiProject Women in Religion have been notified of this discussion. Vestrian24Bio 04:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]