Talk:Sarah

Comment

The entry "Sarah" really means that im a 13 year old grandpa thats a girl with mental issues also know as: to start with a disambiguation page. I don't think most people think of the saint first when they think of the name Sarah. Somebody please help with this, I don't know how to set one up.

Done TimothyJacobson (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think sarah is not a "princess" but a ruler or governor. Sarah usally means "rival". In modern-days hebrew Sar is someone sitting in the Knesset (oposition), and sarah is the feemale form of sar. Other sources translate the meaning as "My Woman of High Rank".

The versions of The Bible I am familiar with do not indicate Abraham paid an "exhorbant price" for the burial "area". In fact it was offered for free if I recall.. He (Abraham) insisted on paying for it...

Semitic root Šarai or law. Like El has the sense power, authority, lord, deity, natural law, law .

The Egyptian handmaiden to Šarai law is Hagar as m [hotep] a phrase meaning in law (the doing of what is right and proper) is peace. The story sets the legal precedents for the ten commandments and establishes the relationships, father, husband, wife, sister, handmaiden in terms of an inheritance from the semitic Šarai law and the afroasiatic Egyptian law of Ma3t. The descendants of this union are represented by Israel and its reverence for the written law of the ten commandments and Ishmael with the vision of Hagar and the law of the Koran. Rktect 00:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it true that Sarah is "the only woman whom God deemed worthy to be addressed by Him directly, all the other prophetesses receiving their revelations through angels (ib. xlv. 14)."? I have yo maammaaa but what about Eve's mamma? Didn't God arrest Eve directly in florida? I think there may also be other examples of God directly speaking to women in the Pentateuch.

The top is too long

We need to shorten the length of the top section. Right now we have to scroll an entire page before you reach the TOC.--Max Talk (add) • Contribs • 05:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"...after the laughter which Abraham had made when his son's birth was prophesied by the angel." It was Sarah who laughed, not Abraham. (Gen. 18:12) I will make a change to reflect this. Acantha1979 01:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Acantha

Actually, Abraham laughed too when he was first told, saying, "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a chld at the age of ninety?" Genesis 17:17. So they both initially laughed. - Anonymous user, 03:36, January 2, 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.204.110 (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing sources?

Can you cite your sources for the last half of this article on the two facts? Seriously, I wish to know these websites and proof that you did not make them up or anything like that. By the way, I have discovered by four reliable websites that "Sarah" is a Hebrew name that is translated as noble or princess. I have proof and I will update this page as soon as I revive the URL again. Fishdert 14:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Fishdert

Here is one of the sites: Behind the Name's take on Sarah

Generally you will find that all semitic names have triliteral roots that go back to *proto semitic and Akkadian sources and then transform into Hebrew over millenia. ENTRY: rr. DEFINITION: Common Semitic noun *arr-, prince, king. 1. Sarah, from Hebrew râ, princess, feminine of ar, prince. 2. sarsaparilla, from Arabic aras, colloquial variant of irs, bramble, from arasa, to be vicious, dissimilated from *araa, from arara, from arra, to be vicious, perhaps ultimately denominative from Semitic *arr-, prince. 3a. Sargon, from Hebrew sargôn, from Akkadian arru-kn, the king is true, legitimate, from arru, king (kn, true; see kwn); b. Belshazzar, from Hebrew blaar, from Akkadian bl-ar-uur, Bel protect the king, from ar, late form of arru, king (bl, Bel (Akkadian god), and uur, protect; see bcl and nr).

In the case of the name change from sarai to Sarah the root is shared with Šaria, a particularly vicious form of the law which punishes crime by cutting off the offending part of the body, if you steal you lose a hand, if you run away you lose a foot and so forth.

ENTRY: rc. DEFINITION: To set, set up, erect, prescribe. shari'a, from Arabic arca, law, from araca, to ordain, prescribe.

No. Shari'a contains the letter 'Ayin. It has nothing to do with the Hebrew root S-R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary to cite sources for the presence of Biblical allegory and wordplay

One thing you find throughout the wordsmithing of the Pentateuch is parable and allegory. Because this is the book of the law you have to be looking for that relationship. There are over 1 million such on the net. Rktect 13:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't you have to cite sources for everything? Vice regent 20:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion on that is that if a Biblical verse is given (ie Gen 3:11), then no, common sense should dictate that, whether the reader agrees with the point being made therein or not, they should still spot the wordplay. If, however, a reason is given for the wordplay, then the reason must be cited, as that is an opinion (same as any other book) TimothyJacobson (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Islam

The first sentance in this section says that 'Abraham' is 'Ibrahim' in the Islamic tradition and then continually refers to the 'Abraham' instead of 'Ibrahim' within the context of the Islamic tradition. This seems wrong, but I do not know enough about the Islamic tradition to say that the change needs to take place.207.69.137.8 15:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

'Ibrahim' is the Arabic term for Abraham; both words refer to the same person. Since this is the English wikipedia, the word Abraham is preferred, though Ibrahim is mentioned once just to clarify.VR _talk 07:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Half-sister?

What does half-sister mean? I thought Abraham pretended Sarah was his sister. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Sarah.html

unsigned comment added by 72.82.3.225 (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just in case the above was a genuine question, see Half-sister#Half_sibling -TimothyJacobson (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple: she's both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.254.197.250 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Abraham claimed she was his sister in Genesis 12:13 and again in Genesis 20:2 (because it worked so well the first time...), making it sound like a deception. After King Abimelech had taken her, Abraham says '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.', but this it to King Abimelech, so it's unclear whether this is true, or a deception. Apart from what Abraham says, the Bible doesn't say that Sarah is his sister. I, personally, think that Abraham is lying.--Jcvamp (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that Isaac (Abraham's son) does the same thing with his wife, Rebekah, and they weren't brother and sister. If Isaac can lie, why can't Abraham?--Jcvamp (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe Genesis 11:29 refers to Milcah as being the daughter of Haran, not Sarai. ( King James follows ) "And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah." So Sarai is not Abrams' neice, as stated in the "Sarah in the Bible" section. 52.129.8.47 (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC) DM

I'm assuming Sarah really was his half-sister and also his wife. However, he only mentioned the first bit, so that if the king wanted her he wouldn't feel the need to get rid of her husband (as he didn't know Abraham was her husband). He wasn't lying, but he was twisting the truth a lot in order to decieve. In the case of Isaac, I assume he realised the whole 'sister' thing worked with Abraham, so he copied it, but he wasn't then able to justify it by saying 'she is my sister, so I wasn't really lying...'86.151.0.212 (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

He was; Rebecca was his cousin, and cousins included among the term "sister" at the time. We may notice that he goes yet farther away, though.--2001:A61:2088:7401:DC50:FB24:B4DD:9256 (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Christianity

I have cut this section completely. It was unsourced, comprised of two lines and, I am pretty sure, was referring to a different Sarah TimothyJacobson (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture says Abraham hosted 3 angels. Many Christians actually believe otherwise, because Abraham bowed in worship of these 3, and reffered to them as one LORD (singular), not LORDS (plural).

Adding "Speculations on Hindu connections" section ?

Regarding "Speculations on Hindu connections" in Abraham article, maybe it should be worth mentioning that Abraham's wife was Sara and Brahma's wife was Saraswati. Shouldn't Saraswati speculation for Sara find place on this page naturally? 77.46.185.53 (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, as per our policies on original research and synthesis. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Naturally. But, I never intended to propose something original. The very same Notes links 19 and 20 for Abraham can be used for Saraswati too. I just thought "somebody" will do the homework; I am not good in making articles. The link http://www.viewzone.com/abraham.html even says that identity of Abraham and Sara with Brahma and Saraiswati was first pointed out by the "Jesuit missionaries.(Vol. I; p. 387.)" So making the "Hindu connections" entry only for Abraham and not for Saraswati is only half the job done and seems awkward. 77.46.195.88 (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wife or niece?

This article is very confusing... is Sarah alledgedly Abraham's WIFE or NIECE? Kateaclysmic (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your question, she was both. The Bible says she was his half sister, though some people analyzing the geneology claim she was actually his niece. Yes, nowadays this would be considered incest, but back thousands of years ago it was very common. Remember that God did not command people to refrain from marriage to close family until Moses's time, when genetic diseases came around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.204.110 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Have I missed a passage in the Bible discussing genetic diseases? Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think there are any passages about genetic diseases. What I meant was that one popular theory is that the reason behind inter-family marriage being considered normal in Abraham's day but being restricted in Moses's was the appearance of genetic diseases. God later strictly prohibited the union between siblings, half siblings, parent and child, aunt and nephew, uncle and niece, etc. (Leviticus 18). Sorry if I confused you. And by the way, sorry about not signing correctly before. I didn't know how to. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2011

Don't worry about the signing, you've figured it out now. I've never heard of this idea about genetic diseases - at least I don't think I have, does it link into Creationism in some way? But I think it's irrelevant here anyway. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Leviticus 18 makes no mention of an interdiction for a man to marry his niece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.134.156 (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yet another spurious Wikipedia etymology

I'm sorry, but this is really getting ludicrous. Now Wikipedia is claiming that the Hebrew word 'Sarah' is based on the same root as the Arabic 'Shariah', supposedly from a Semitic root 'law'. This is false. The Hebrew word "Sarah" means princess and is derived from a root meaning "to rule" or "to set in order" (see Gesenius). The Arabic word "shari'ah" meaning "the revealed law," is derived from shar' "revelation" and contains the guttural letter "Ayin", which is altogether lacking in "Sarah".

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sharia

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Sarah

I think it is time for Wikipedia to seriously start contracting experts to write its articles and develop some kind of peer-review process if it is interested in any kind of respectability. It is simply unacceptable that such a high-profile site should be so profusely littered with the most elementary mistakes.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hard agree. See my comment, below. Sugarbat (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hard agree. See my comment, below. Sugarbat (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense?

Entering "sarah" in the wikipedia search bar sends me here - wouldn't it make more sense for it to send you to the page for sarah as a given name with it linking to here? It seems a little religiously biased that entering a common given name should send you to a biblical character before giving you a choice of articles called or related to the name. Hanii (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hagar:Slave or Handmaiden?

I really do not know why is there a claim that states Hagar is Sara's slave in the Quran that is not mentioned at all nor in Islamic Traditions which leaves to the conclusion that this statement was taken from the bible and shouldn't be kept in a Islamic section Highdeeboy (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

no it does not say in the article that she is a slave, she was the handmaiden. you should read up on the hadiths. hagar was an egyptian princess who was given by her father (the king) to be a handmaiden of sarah, later sarah asked hagar to marry abraham.

What's the difference? A handmaiden would be a slave.86.151.0.212 (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Lacking a Christian perspective

The article claims Sarah as this and that "in the Hebrew Bible and the Quran", without making mention of her role in the Christian Bible/religion. This is a particular oversight, because the text clearly draws on sources not present in the overlap between the Christian and Hebrew Bibles.

I grant that her role in Christianity is comparatively small; however, it is not so small that discounting her is allowable.

(I purposely do not alter this myself, because disentangling what is present in the Christian bible from what is present in the Jewish may require considerable knowledge of the texts.) 188.100.194.28 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Amendment: Following the link for hebrew bible, I see that I have misunderstood the term. The statement still stands, however, because the sources used appear to be largely Jewish, an outside of the Christian cannon. 188.100.194.28 (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So we need some non-Biblical sources commenting on this. You could try finding those. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusion between Biblical sources and Non-Biblical sources

This article inter-weaves material from the Bible and from other sources in its account of the life of Sarah. I think that most people who are interested in this topic would prefer that the main account on the life of Sarah be given solely based on the Bible, and then maybe there could be other sections in which information from non-Biblical sources are given. Basically, the whole article needs to be scrapped, and completely re-written. I'm certainly not up to the task, but I really hope that someone else reading this is. --75.66.122.223 (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Almost all of the page that is supposedly a "Biblical account" consists of wild myths that have absolutely no Biblical basis. Abraham hiding Sarah in chest when they went to Egypt so Pharaoh wouldn't steal her? Sarah's death the result of the situation with Isaac and dying of either grief or joy? Her breastfeeding all the other children in the area to convince folks that she had given birth to Isaac? Come on. It almost seems like whoever wrote this was actually trying to make the Bible look like some book of urban legends. I have attempted to make corrections, but, despite my citing adequate sources, they keep getting reverted. Sarah is a fairly prominent Old Testament character. She is, in fact, the only woman whose age at death is recorded. There is enough detail in Genesis to fill an article, no need to relish in the previous mentioned myths. Would someone please give me an explanation as to why actual Biblical information is not being allowed to show?

 - Anonymous, January 2, 2011

Please stop blanking text you don't approve of. The article should be more than the biblical story. Yes, I've reverted statements such as " In one passage she and Issac are used to symbolize God's new covenant through the grace of Jesus Christ." because the statement about the symbolism has no source. You've added similar statements with no sources, just your interpretation of biblical passages. That's what we call original research, see WP:OR. Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought I might mention one more thing if you don't mind. It's about the statements in the article linking her death to the time when Abraham was tested by being commanded to sacrifice Isaac. If you do the math, Isaac was thirty-seven when his mother died, but during the incident on Mt. Moriah, he was referred to as being "a boy" (Genesis 22:12), which would imply that he wasn't beyond his teenage years. I really don't think there was any connection between the two events. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Citation mess

We've got difficult to understand cites in parenthesis, 'ib', etc. We also have as statements of fact at least one claim that should actually be attributed, ie to Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer. I don't know enough about this to fix it. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Section About the Tomb

The brief description regarding her tomb is listed under the Islam category. I think it should be moved and discussed separately, as her burial is not exclusive to Islamic teaching. It is part of both Judaism and Christianity as well, and should be treated as such. Could someone please tell me how to make this minor rearrangement without the edit being reverted? --69.128.204.110 (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the numbering:

• (1) Sarah in the Bible
• (2) New Testametn references
• (3) In Islam
• (4) Tomb of Sarah ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not misunderstand the numbering; I was the one who moved Tomb of Sarah to have a separate section. At the time I posted the previous comment, it was only discussed under the category of In Islam. Thank you for taking the time to reply, though. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

What is the rationale for having an infobox on this article, and why use Template:Infobox person for someone who is legendary? Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox are useful for both for historical figures and for legendary or literary figures. I would propose we use Template:Infobox religious biography instead, just as Abraham, uses. tahc ^chat 04:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The question is why is it useful in this instance. If we use one, Template:Infobox character would be more appropriate since it is very unclear that she ever existed and if she did we have no data about her; this infobox avoids the whole birth/death date etc business that religious biography still invites. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

1. Some literary character do have a definite birth date, such as Harry Potter (character), and Template:Infobox character still allows such data to be entered if there is consensus to do so.

2. That Sarah is definitely legendary is merely your POV, a POV which I do not share, and it is not relevant to including or excluding the other data.

3. Since you and I do agree than there is useful no data for a birth or death date, we can just add hidden comments to that we have consensus not to add any. tahc ^chat 16:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The legendary nature of Sarah is the scholarly consensus view; not my opinion. Be very careful about how you represent others' views and do not assert your personal opinions about matters in Wikipedia -- we follow mainstream, reliable sources, not our opinions or beliefs. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It is also better for you to be aware of your POV that deny that you have a POV. Furthermore-- while I do not whan to start a debate on what the mainstream scholarly consensus is-- I feel the need to point out that if this Sarah article does try to give a mainstream scholarly consensus view (somewhere) on Sarah status as legendary, that view seems to be really well hidden or disguised. For that reason, you come across as just assuming that your POV is also the mainstream scholarly consensus. tahc ^chat 18:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Happy to. Don't misrepresent what other people write and we will be fine. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Also your understanding of the character birthdate in the "character" infobox is incorrect. There is actually an editing comment in the Harry Potter article telling people not to abuse one of the optional fields to add that, and there is discussion here about that abuse of the template. So no, adding birthdate is not OK in this template. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Even thou there is a some places over at Template talk:Infobox_character, that say not to add birthdates with the template. A: There is still-- as I said before-- the technical ability to do this this, subject only to consensus. B: It is much better to say here at the Sarah Infobox "Do not add birth or death dates" than to expect people to only read it over at the Template talk:Infobox_character page. tahc ^chat 18:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep and that is true of everything in WP. Editors can write anything in Wikipedia. An editor can fill a page with "cows like to eat grass" if they want. We count on people to do what they should do, and the consensus is clear that birthdates should not be added to character infoboxes so it can be reverted with no drama, if someone does what they can instead of what they should. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be avoiding my point here by merely making a bunch of obvious statements. tahc ^chat 18:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Please indent your replies per convention. This is the second time i have had to fix them. No, I am responding directly what you said, which was that people can enter the birthdate. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

How about using the Template:Infobox saint instead without the birth and death dates, after all Sarah is one of the prophets honoured or venerated in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Hushskyliner ^chat 07:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The box

@Hushskyliner: While both Jytdog and I find the birth and death dates in your last version of the infobox to be ill-suited to the page, a third point of view would be useful on this this version of the infobox. tahc ^chat 18:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:@Tahc: Then why can't we simply use the Template:Infobox saint instead of the Template:Infobox person or even the Template:Infobox character because Sarah is venerated or honoured in Judaism, Christianity and Islam as a prophet and matriarch. Hushskyliner ^chat 07:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Sarah is not called a saint in Judaism or Islam. A great much of Christianity also does not call her a saint, per se, so it would seem to cause more problems than it solves. tahc ^chat 15:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Sloppy writing

If no one wishes to volunteer for the task (ideally at least a biblical scholar, which I am not), I’m extremely likely to come back here soon and straighten this article up. As of this date, the overall syntax and style (at least) bear little resemblance to anything encyclopedic. This is fair warning/invitation to all scholars and copy editors. Sugarbat (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Find a WP:RS or be gone from here. Closing. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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.