Talk:Binding of Isaac/Archive 1

Archive 1

Inaccuracy

Whatever the original intent (which may never be totally elucidated) of the text, the episode has quite an effect on Abraham and Isaac; it is clear to Abraham and his progeny that human sacrifice is not acceptable.

The above statement is incorrect. Human sacrifice is acceptable to Abraham and his progeny. I give you an on-line summary reference. [1]

Perhaps, Abraham and his progeny are willing to sacrifice only NON-tribal humans.

Alternatively, that paragraph should state that many think that Abraham and his progengy did consider human sacrifice acceptable.

Or possibly the whole paragraph should be removed as inaccurate and irrelevant. Rednblu 19:52, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wrong. That website does not prove that Abraham and the Jews approved of human sacrifice. It only proves that some fundamentalist Christian wrote a website making this ridiculous claim. He takes verses totally out of their literary and historical context, and twist them around to make the Israelites look like murderers. He is so distorted that he uses a much later work (the New Testament's claim that Jesus had to die) to try and "prove" that Jews living hundreds of years earlier approved of human sacrifice. Sorry pal, but if certain Christians want to believe that God wants them to sacrifice humans, then deal with those people. Don't lay such bizarre beliefs at the feet of the Jews. I have seen this insinuation made many times before, but never in academic journals...only on anti-Semitic websites. RK (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2003 (UTC)

I am suggesting, in view of Judges 11:30-40, that the paragraph

Whatever the original intent (which may never be totally elucidated) of the text, the episode has quite an effect on Abraham and Isaac; it is clear to Abraham and his progeny that human sacrifice is not acceptable.

of the article is inaccurate. Perhaps, we should delete the above paragraph entirely. Would you agree? Rednblu 23:53, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I changed "Abraham and his progeny" to "them both", which I think more clearly reflects the sentiments of this paragraph (ie "quite an effect on Abraham and Isaac") and is indisputable. Hope this keeps all happy. Martin 10:10, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Amazing solution! Just brilliant! I can imagine Abraham and Isaac looking at each other and saying, "We made it through this. Geez! We will make it through anything." Yes I can see it! Absolutely brilliant! Rednblu 12:27, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

RK, you might try re-reading the essay that rednblu linked to, and see if you might have misinterpreted it. Martin 20:48, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• Ahem*see this-K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.133.232 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in this article does it mention the Muslim tradition that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was "near sacrificed" or whatever you want to call it. Considering that this is the tradition of 1 billion people, it is a serious lacuna in the article. Danny 11:08, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

dictionary:lacunae —Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinHarper (talk • contribs) 11:56, 2 September 2003 (UTC)

Is this true? Is that in the Qur'an? Or is it a traditional story? Rednblu 12:27, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The story is in the Quran, but told vaguely, without reference to either Isaac or Ishmael. The majority of Muslim commentators hold that Abraham never had a near-sacrifice with Isaac; they hold that it was with his brother, Ishmael. Was it Isaac or Ishmael? Muslim views RK 23:01, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"or in Arabic as the Binding of Ishmael" this is a false statement - Arabic does not translate Isaac into Ishmael and there is no reference provided in support Copytopic1 (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Mount Horeb

"The Bible states that God tests Abraham, by asking him to present his son, Isaac, as a sacrifice on Mount Horeb."

As far as I know, the near sacrifice of Isaac did not take place at Mount Horeb (a Google search reveals only the quaint websites concerning Mount Horeb, Wisconsin). According to the Bible, the Akedah took place at Mount Moriah:

1 After these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 2 He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you." (Genesis 22:1-2)

A fairly thorough search of all available versions of the Bible at bible.crosswalk.com reveals that the word "Horeb" does not appear once in the entire book of Genesis.

Furthermore, Kierkegaard speaks of the location in question as "Mount Moriah" repeatedly in Fear and Trembling. (Particularly in Exordium.) --Dws (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2004 (UTC)

Removed text

Note: I had to give a lot of thought before removing the following text. I think a section of the article for the "atheist response" is a good idea, but the header ('An Atheist's response), the text ("It is fairly clear" with no source cited for the theory) and his edits to similar pages indicate that this is original 'research'.

=== An Atheist's response ===

It is fairly clear from the text that the "ram" portion of the story is a latter interpolation, and that in the original Abraham sacrificed Isaac as God commanded. Indications are:

* God rewards Abraham "because you have done this thing, and witheld not your only son" * God's reward to Abraham is out of proportion to the mere sacrifice of a ram * The line "And God spoke to Abraham a second time, saying ..." is an obvious join. It marks the resumption of the original text * Most poignantly, at the start of the story Abraham and Isaac go up the mountain, but afterward only Abraham is mentioned coming back down

Of course, in the Old Testament, children - along with wives, slaves, and livestock - are simply property. Nowhere in this story is there the idea that Isaac's life is not Abraham's to give. Whatever lives in a man's house is his. See also the story of Jephthah in Judges 11:29-40, and Leviticus 27:28-29

:28 Surely anything which a man permanently dedicates to the Lord from all that belongs to him, whether from people, animals, or his landed property, must be neither sold nor redeemed; anything permanently dedicated is most holy to the Lord.

:29 Anyone who is permanently dedicated from mankind must not be ransomed; he must be put to death. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of this but I disagree that there needs to be an "atheist's response" to this. This is not a matter of belief; it is a matter of narrative and interpretation. This entry is about explaining the story from the bible and interpreting its significance. Its contents should be the same for believers and non-believers. Would the entry on Shakespeare's Macbeth need to include a response from someone who doesn't believe Shakespeare exists? Whether or not Shakespeare exists, we have and can interpret Macbeth. The atheist response can go under the entry for God if you like, but it makes no sense here. --csloat 05:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The more apt analogy would be if we were trying to infer the meaning of Macbeth, and there were indications that some integral portion of the story had been interjected by some other author much later. If true, then this would impede an understanding of Macbeth as Shakespeare intended. However, the Shakespeare fans who grew up believing the play they learned was all written by him would be unwilling to entertain the possibility of later alterations and thus insist on interpreting the meaning of the story going only by the modern version. That is the proper analogy to what's happening here - assuming, in fact, that the changes the "atheist's response" describes are indeed true.--Daniel 14:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

removed text

I had not expected this section to survive long on the wiki. One does try to wave the flag occasionally, even knowing that you will quickly be trampled by the fanatical hordes.

However, removing it on the basis that it was "original research" - which I did not attempt to conceal - is certainly fair enough. I had overlooked that.

On the other hand, a fair bit of the wiki is uncited. I modified, as you may have noted, the page on Jephtha (another paragrah which I expect will not survive long). Is this paragraph:

Later, Jephtha went to war against the Ephraimites, who refused to aknowledge him. The story is remembered for the killing of the fugitive Ephraimites, who pronounced the Hebrew word shibboleth as sibboleth. In this rebellious action, 42,000 people lost their lives. (Judges 12:5,6)

also to be deleted because it is uncited, and looks like original research (note the misspelling)?

as to "csloat"'s response, I am in two or three minds.

Firstly, this is not a christian or "belivers" encyclopaedia. Also, while I labelled my section "an atheists" response, there are plenty of belivers - in other religions, in less literal versions of christianity - who do not nessesarily take the position that this story really happened as written. If we are talking about "interpretation", isn't "when it was written, they thought child sacrifice was ok, but then later they did'nt" an interpretation? The question then arises "Should we today accept the view of the original author, or that of the redactor? Which of these is the true will of god? Isn't our abhorrence of the idea just the influence of the liberal world?". Isn't this meat for discussion enough?

Another thought is that yes, the difficulties in this story can be disposed of by dropping the assumption that it ever really happened. But so can every other difficulty (how much gold was in the temple, what really happened after the resurrection, did Paul see a light or hear a voice, etc etc). Biblical scholarship and interpretation is a field in it's own right, and would hardly be helped by the addition of "On the other hand, this may all be just a load of do-do" on each page.

But, the page does discuss "the original intent of the author". My contention, that there were (at least) two authors, the second expurgating the first, would deserve a mention under that rubric. And my previous comment applies to the idea that the non-literal view does not add to the field of doctrinal interpretation. For instance: if we accept Earl Doherty's view that the Pauline epistles (with their christ "in the heavens") came first, and that the gospels were fictions written much later, isn't it worthwhile to then discuss what that implies for christians today? The fact that one takes a non-literal interpretation dos not nessesarily blow away doctrine as a field of inquiry.

I suppose the isssue is: what is the subject of this page? Is it "perspectives on Genesis 22"; or is it "attempts to reconcile the near sacrifice of isaac with modern attitudes towards child sacrifice, in the context of Christianity, Islam, and Juadism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.231.229 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 28 October 2004 (UTC)

The {} sign/s

One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 08:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Obscure midrash: Isaac was sacrificed?

Time and again I have come across the idea that, according to a minority of obscure classical rabbinic sources, Isaac really was sacrificed by Abraham, and then was miraculously resurrected. The classical midrashim that I have read say no such thing. Can anyone verify the following? If this is accurate, it surely is a minority view, but it would be interesting to note.

...Since Isaac appears subsequently (Chapoter 24 et seq.), advocates of these theories...content that God brought back Isaac from the dead. R. Jensen...reports that svereal ancient traditions refer to the ashes and blood of Isaac indicating that he died and was revived, citing the Babylonian Talmud, Ta'anit, 16a; Jerusalem Talmud, Ta'anit 2.1 (on the ashes); Mekhilta of R. Simeon ben Yohai, on Exodus 16.2 (on the blood); and that L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, n.29, supra, Vol.1, at p.281 et seq., and Vol. 5, p.251, recounts the tradition that Isaac was also the name of the ram.

Burton Caine, The Akedah: Angel Unbound, Conservative Judaism, Vol.52, No.1, Fall 1999

---

I checked up on one of the earliest sources. The Babylonian Talmud, tractate Taanit, page 16a, states:

And why do they place wood-ashes upon the Ark? — R. Judah b. Pazzi said: As if to say, I will be with him in trouble.4 Resh Lakish said: [As if to say] In all their afflictions He was afflicted.5 R. Zera said: When I first saw the rabbis placing wood-ashes on the Ark my whole body shook.

And why does everyone else put ashes on his head?- With regard to this there is a difference of opinion between R. Levi b. Hama and R. Hanina. One says: [To signify thereby], We are merely like ashes before Thee; and the other says: That [God] may remember for our sake the ashes of Isaac.6 What is the difference between them? — The difference is with regard to [the use of] ordinary dust.7

The Soncino Talmud, English translation

I checked the translation and commentary of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz on this passage. He holds that it should not be understood literally, and rather that "the ashes of Isaac" should be understood as referring to the ashes of the ram. He notes that in traditional rabbinic thought, the sacrifice of the ram represents the sacrifice of Isaac. He brings forth the views of a few other commentators who also reject the idea that this verse means that Isaac actually was sacrificed. However, why are these commentators rejecting this view? Someone must be proposing this view for it to warrant being rejected.

Based on what I have read here and elsewhere, it seems to me that the following is most likely: Classical rabbinic tradition held that Isaac was not sacrificed, as Genesis tells us. However, this vague phrasing in the Babylonian Talmud can be read as meaning that he was sacrified. Unfortunately, we cannot know for certain the intention of the writers of the Talmud. (As the text of the Talmud was essentially written in shorthand, and underwent centuries of editing, it is impossible to know precisely the intention of any given person quoted in the Talmud.) This ambiguity caused some rabbis to question whether or not Isaac really died, and a few later rabbinic midrashim did in fact explicitly describe Isaac as dying, and then being resurrected. It seems to me that these views are not well known among most Jews, and would not be representative of mainstream Jewish thought, but they are an interesting minority view worth mentioning. Can anyone bring forth a direct quote from any of these later midrashim which do explicitly state that Isaac died and was resurrected? RK 21:48, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if the author of the book of Hebrews was aware of this belief that Isaac actually died and was resurrected? He writes about the incident, "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, "In Isaac your seed shall be called," concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense." Wesley 06:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Parallel between Genesis 22 and the ending of George Orwell's "Nineteen eighty-four"

There is an interesting parallel between Genesis 22 and the climax of George Orwell's "Ninety Eighty-Four." Winston is terrified of rats, and in Room 101, O'Brien uses these to destroy Winston's feelings for Julia ("Do it to Julia"), ensuring Winston's submission to the power of the Party. In the same way, in the incident in Genesis 22, Abraham puts obedience to God above his love of his own son Issac, an act of total submission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.220.74 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Name of this article

The common name for this event is the "Binding of Isaac", which gets almost 50,000 hits. "Near sacrifice of Isaac", in contrast, gets about 800, the majority of them Wikipedia links and mirrors. In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions, I'm going to move the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the titles of the artworks listed in this article, it occurred to me that a more common name for this event might be "Sacrifice of Isaac". Using the various pages that redirect here as a guide, I did searches on Google for the phrases below, listed in order from most hits to least. Even though this is the English Wikipedia, I did the searches for pages written in any language. Here are the results:

• "Genesis 22" = 180,000
• "Sacrifice of Isaac" = 96,300
• "Binding of Isaac" = 43,100
• "Akeda" = 42,900
• "The binding of Isaac" = 34,500
• "Akedah" = 31,600
• "Dhabih" = 9,230
• "Aqedah" = 9,210
• "Akeida" = 7,120
• "Akeidah" = 6,190
• "Akedat Yitzchak" = 1,120
• "Near sacrifice of Isaac" = 1,060
• "Near-sacrifice of Isaac" = 1,060

Some of these phrases are inappropriate as titles for this article regardless of their popularity. For example, while "Genesis 22" is by far the most popular phrase in terms of hits, I don't think it is an appropriate title because it doesn't properly reflect the scope of this article, which is about an event with cross-cultural effects rather than a specific telling of that event. Another example, "The binding of Isaac" won't work because starting an article title with "the" doesn't jive with Wikipedia's naming conventions.

The results seem to have borne out my suspicion, that "Sacrifice of Isaac" is a far more common name for this event than either "Binding of Isaac" or "Near sacrifice of Isaac".

At first, I thought the phrase "Sacrifice of Isaac" to be inaccurate since I thought the term "sacrifice" was somewhat synonymous with "kill" which doesn't actually happen in the most common tellings of this event (hence the genesis, I suppose, of the term "near-sacrifice"). But looking at the Wikipedia article sacrifice, it occurs to me that the term probably refers to the whole ritual, not the specific part of it involving the actual act of killing. Therefore, regardless of the fact that the ritual isn't completed, it may nonetheless still qualify as the ritual of "sacrifice".

Given the above, I propose we rename (move) this article to the title "Sacrifice of Isaac" --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Google is not always the arbiter, and in this case "Sacrifice of Isaac" is imprecise and actually wrong. Because Isaac was not actually sacrificed. I have not heard the term in common use. I firmly support the present naming, or alternatively Akeidat Yitzchak. JFW | T@lk 18:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you add up all the various spellings of Akkeida with "Binding of Isaac" the result outweighs any other alternative. I submit that "Binding of Isaac" is the most suitable title by a long shot. JFW | T@lk 18:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, JFW. I don't consider Google to be the final word on popularity of a name, but it's probably a good place to start. If you can think of other means for determining what WP:NAME suggests as the main criteria for naming an article ("generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize"), let's use them. Here's one method: I notice that the name most commonly used throughout history for works of art about the event is "Sacrifice of Isaac". As far as "Sacrifice of Isaac" being wrong because Isaac isn't actually killed, that's what I originally thought too (as I describe above). But then I considered that despite the uncompleted nature of the ritual, Issac was still the subject of the entire sacrifice ritual.

Good point about the various spellings of "Akeda", though I'm not sure I'd combine them with "Binding of Isaac" even if the terms are synonymns. When we're considering a variety of terms that describe the same thing, synonymns should be considered separately. But combining simply the spellings of "Akeda" I come up with 98,140, which beats "Sacrifice of Issac". My concern with using "Akeda", however, is that it's a word more commonly used in Hebrew than English. Since this is the English version of Wikipedia, we're looking for the most common name used by English speakers. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My overall point is intuition tells me that, accurate or not, most English-speakers call the story the "Sacrifice of Isaac" not the "Binding of Isaac" and so, according to Wikipedia guidelines, we should go with the former name which is more commonly used. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Intuition is equivalent to original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. Sorry, I agree with the others that 'binding' is a much more appropriate term and would oppose any attempt to move the page. Daniel^C/_T+ 22:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, however, I don't see how having a hunch about what the appropriate title of an article might be is the same as adding personal opinions to the content of an article. Moreover, my proposal is not based on a hunch, that was only the stimulus that encouraged me to consider that renaming might be appropriate. It was by checking one reliable source (Google searches) that I confirmed my suspicion. Since Google searches are themselves suggested in various Wikipedia guidelines as a way to determine the most common name for an article (for example, see WP:NCON), it seemed like a good place to start. There are perhaps other sources we could consult to determine what the most common term would be. I invite you or anyone else to submit ideas for other sources that might help. I'm open to using whatever name our sources suggest is most common. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Another point about the accuracy of the proposed name: you could consider the story to be about God commanding the sacrifice of Isaac, in which case the act doesn't need to be completed for the story to still be about the command to sacrifice Isaac. The same would be true if you considered the story to be about Abraham dutifully carrying out the preparations for the sacrifice of Isaac. Even if he doesn't finish, the story is still about his preparation to sacrifice Isaac. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I did the Google search again, but this time followed the WP:NCON suggestions to search only English pages and to filter out the word "Wikipedia" (to see what other people are using, not Wikipedia's own usage such as in this article). I also discovered that Google was combining "The binding of Isaac" into its results of "Binding of Isaac" giving a falsely inflated result, so I filtered out the other phrase in my search for each ("Binding of Isaac" -Wikipedia -"The binding of Isaac" for one and "The binding of Isaac" -Wikipedia -"Binding of Isaac" for the other). I ran into the same problem with "near-sacrifice" and "near sacrifice" but couldn't figure out a way to make Google ignore either the hyphen or the space. It doesn't much matter anyway because even if the total hits for "near sacrifice" are inflated, they're still way lower than everyting else. Here are the results I got:

• "Genesis 22" = 194,000

• "Sacrifice of Isaac" = 119,000

• Akedah = 75,995
  • "Akedah" = 31,300
  • "Akeda" = 26,200
  • "Akeida" = 10,200
  • "Aqedah" = 7,360
  • "Akeidah" = 832
  • "Akedat Yitzchak" = 103

• The binding of Isaac = 32,560
  • "The binding of Isaac" = 31,300
  • "Binding of Isaac" = 1,260

• "Dhabih" = 16,800

• Near-sacrifice of Isaac = 1,441
  • "Near-sacrifice of Isaac" = 884
  • "Near sacrifice of Isaac" = 557

I grouped different spellings of the same term together and subtotalled them above. These results suggest an even stronger separation between "Sacrifice of Isaac" and "Binding of Isaac". I also tried WP:NCON's suggestion to do a Google News search to see what major English-language media outlets are using, but the number of hits were too small to be helpful (2 hits at best for each). --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed something remarkable when trying the Google searches. One of the links compared the Sacrifice of Isaac to the assasination of Yitzchak Rabin. On a hunch, I tried searching "Sacrifice of Issac" and "Binding of Isaac" excluding Rabin. Incredibly, of the 94,300 instances of Sacrifice, only 8,790 came up when excluding Rabin. Binding, which of course can't be applied to the assasination, came up with 42,000 without Rabin out of 43,300 with. Obviously, when talking about the event without political comparisons, Binding is far more used. Check it out and let me know what you think. Cheers, Keyed In (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating approach! But when I tried the searches you suggest, I got different results. I searched (using English pages only) "Sacrifice of Isaac" -Wikipedia -Rabin and got 75,700 total hits and I searched (again, English pages only) "Binding of Isaac" -Wikipedia -Rabin and got 6,730 total hits. What searches did you perform to get the results you gave? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

3 points for possible inconsistency:

1. I didn't exclude wikipedia
2. I searched all languages
3. and possibly most important, I noticed that typing "keyword" -exclusion gives far different results than using the advanced search page and typing in the appropriate fields. I will continue to experiment and post back if I find out anything. --Keyed In (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused...I copied the line "Sacrifice of Isaac" -Wikipedia -Rabin straight out of your article and searched google only english articles, and I got 13,400!! why so different?? any ideas? Keyed In (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange indeed. You might have "SafeSearch" enabled. Try the search using Google's advanced search page. Expand the Date, usage rights, numeric range, and more section and make sure SafeSearch is set to off. That'll give you unfiltered results (except for the filters you intend). --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You might also check to make sure no other filters are applied, such as Region. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is really strange- here's what I have:

1. "sacrifice of isaac" -rabin 8,150 English pages

2. "sacrifice of isaac" -Rabin 13,900 English pages

3. "sacrifice of isaac" -"Rabin" 8,150 English pages

4. "sacrifice of isaac" -"rabin" 13,900 English pages

This is not a typo- capital R results in more without quotes, and lowercase r results in more with quotes,

When I exclude wikipedia, it's even stranger:

5. "sacrifice of isaac" -rabin -wikipedia 7,630 English pages

6. "sacrifice of isaac" -rabin -Wikipedia 74,800 English pages

7. "sacrifice of isaac" -rabin -"Wikipedia" 74,800 English pages

8. "sacrifice of isaac" -rabin -"wikipedia" 13,400 English pages

How could excluding wikipedia result in more results??

I have no filters on (except English) and SafeSearch is off. I'm puzzled. Keyed In (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I am seeing the same differences in results depending on how I capitalize my queries that you are seeing. This flies in the face of Google's search documentation The Essentials of Google Search which says "Google searches are NOT case sensitive. All letters, regardless of how you type them, will be understood as lower case. For example, searches for george washington, George Washington, and gEoRgE wAsHiNgToN will all return the same results." I don't understand either. Maybe it has something to do with using exact phrases or unwanted word filters. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried their example. George Washington and gEoRgE wAsHiNgToN differ by a margin of 450,000 pages! Completely strange. I wonder if different browsers will yield different results. I'm using IE7. Do you have multiple browsers to test this? Also check this link [2]. Seems to be an ongoing problem w/ google searches. If so, why does wikipedia recommend using it to determine usage? Keyed In (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I see a margin of 600,000 between George Washington and gEoRgE wAsHiNgToN (no filters) when I use no language restrictions. When I restrict the results to English pages, the results are equal. I doubt different browsers would yield different results since the data on the page is generated by Google, not the browser. Nevertheless, I tried both IE7, Firefox, and Safari and the results were the same between the browsers. While I'm not ready to completely abandon Google searches as a tool for determining the popularity of a name, these anomalies do point to the need for corroborating sources. Not being an expert on theology or history, however, I'm uncertain which other sources might be good for determining how widely each name is used. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

General comment: The numbers from the google searches above show that the overall number of ghits that include "Binding" or a variant of it (including the Hebrew word in its various English transcriptions) are more than the number that include "sacrifice" or a variant, so there just doesn't seem to be a prima facia case that "Sacrifice of Issac" is used more than "Binding of Issac". The data from the source supplied just don't seem to support the thesis. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure which of the Google search results above you're talking about. According to the results I added here on March 14, the number of hits for "Sacrifice of Isaac" is 119,000. The number of hits for "Binding of Isaac" is smaller at 32,560. Even if you're suggesting that we combine the results for "Akedah" with "Binding of Isaac", which as I said above I don't think we should do, the total hits is still smaller at 108,555. Perhaps you're looking at the results I added on February 20. In that case, if you're combining the various spelling of "Akedah" with "Binding of Isaac" then you're correct that there are more hits for "Binding of Isaac". However, those initial results include non-English pages and Wikipedia-related pages, both of which WP:NCON suggests we filter out. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

While there it's possible there's a slight preference (in Google anyway) for "Sacrifice of Isaac", it's not, in any event, a huge difference in numbers, and "Binding of Isaac" is clearly the more accurate term. I'm not seeing any support for this name change, and I certainly don't support it either. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Jayjg. I was particularly interested in your response since you originated this section on the talk page. It does indeed seem that so far consensus here among the editors favors "Binding of Isaac", which I will of course heed when it comes to making a decision whether or not to rename the page by the end date I (arbitrarily) set of March 20. I am confused by your assertion that the difference in number of hits is not significant between this article's current title and the one I propose. The number of hits for "Sacrifice of Isaac" (119,000) is over 2½ times larger than the number of hits for "Binding of Isaac" (32,560). Maybe I don't have a full understanding of statistical significance, but that seems to me like a big difference. How can it be insignificant? Also, on what basis do you assert that the term "Binding of Isaac" is more accurate? Is it the same basis I addressed earlier in this thread? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been 4 weeks since I originally posted my proposal here to rename this article to "Sacrifice of Isaac". It's been 1 week since I placed notices on several user and WikiProject talk pages asking for input on my proposal. I feel it is therefore time for me to make a decision whether or not to go forward with my proposal. Four editors have responded that they oppose the proposal (JFW, Daniel, Shirahadasha, Jayjg). One editor seems to be neutral (Keyed In). The consensus therefore seems to be opposed to the name change, and to be in support of keeping the article as currently named ("Binding of Isaac"). I'll therfore leave the article name as is and consider the matter closed. Thanks to all of you for your participation! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Mormon View

The pearl of great price tells of Abraham being tied down by his own father in the book of Abraham. His Father was wicked and idolatrous himself. Abraham abhored human sacrifice. Was symbol of The father sacrificing the son. One story was abraham had to learn about abraham. He himself was saved by Jehovah earlier making it more heart wrenching. He met the test and since Isaac was the covenant son would of had to be raised from the dead. Hebrews in the new testament tells of that Abrahams faith. Jesus was also raised from the dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southidaho (talk • contribs) 06:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Terah, Abraham's father, is mentioned briefly in Genesis 11, as well as in a genealogy, but for the most part, both the Old and New Covenant Books remain silent on him. This story about him you refer to is a clear addition made by Smith; it is hardly worth regard. In any case, what is this section? Is it a perspective? If it is, it seems only fitting it should remain here; the subject of the Akedah is most relevant to the Jewish and Christian communities. Of course a Moslem perspective is welcomed, too, seeing as it is the second most wide-spread religion. As for a Mormon view ... it seems ... to add little overall. And please, my friend, work on your grammar. I had a bit of trouble understanding. (Mr.Ligit was responsible for this comment) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.157.239 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job!

What an incredible article! Congratulations and thank you to everyone who has worked so hard on this article. This is a great example of wikipedia's success: people working together on an informative article with a fair treatment on a controversial topic dear to three major world religions. I know it's not perfect but it is being perfected. Good job guys.

I would like to see more about Kierkegaard's views on this subject if anyone has sufficient knowledge to do so. The person who posted above made me think that we should also include the LDS view in the article. --Victoria h 18:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be written in purple prose. Cansomebody fix this? --miqonranger03 18:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How so? The whole thing? A section? Please offer an example to help us correct this. Anyway, I have to agree: This article, one of a religious nature, is beautiful ... It's great to see interfaith cooperation like this. I wish the article about Jesus of Nazareth had some clean-up work from this crew! The balance between the three faith systems here is really terrific, guys! Keep it up. Please! (Mr.Ligit was responsible for this comment) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.157.239 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

BHI Addition (Welcomed?/Not Welcomed??)

I am a member of the so-called "Black Hebrew Israelites". We do not call ourselves by this name, but we do recognize it as a valid reference to groups of our kind. We are a fairly disorganized as religions go. We can best be described as "Sects" of Judaism, and Ethnic Christianity (an oxymoron to most).

Our claims have been called everything from "thought provoking" to "absurd", and none of the congregations in North America have gained much fame as "enlightened" spiritual groups.

Conversely. We are infamous for having disparate doctrines. I cannot post my view of this topic as being representative of all BHI groups. I am wondering if everyone who has contributed to this article has the complete backing of the organized religion that they represent?

We teach a very different view of the binding of Yitzchak, yet I fear that there is so much anti-BHI sentiment on wikipedia, that it will meet with a vigilant barrage of deletions, and I just don't have the time, and energy to keep fighting various editors.

Claiming to be the Israelites of the Bible is offensive to many, and you all need to understand that being descendants of slaves in America used to be offensive to many. At one time my ancestors were met with ridicule for even suggesting that they were "human". Later on they were met with indignation for suggesting that they should have civil rights. I just don't see how calling our self-affirmation in this area "fantastic" is any different a response from the status quos".

Moreh Qanaa Ben Yehudah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moreh Qanaa (talk • contribs) 18:37, 5 September 5 2006 (UTC)

Expansion of "Christian Views" Section

It seems a bit odd to me that the Akedah, one of the most important types in our Faith, has so little representation from the Christian perspective. While I agree with everything said ... a small expansion effort wouldn't hurt. (Mr.Ligit was responsible for this comment) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.157.239 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Muslim interpetation

First of all I'd like to echo other's comments and congratulate everyone on a great article.

I have just a minor point I'd like to raise about what I perceive to be a contradiction in the Muslim story (and which should probably be explained in the article). A pre-Islamic Arab story adopted by Muslims and included in the Hadiths tells of Abraham meeting a fully grown and twice married Ishmael (for the first time since him and his mother's flight) and building the Kaaba.

So when was this test by God supposed to have happened if Abraham had never met Ishmael before the construction? Or does this make sense in light of the Jewish belief that the son was in his early thirties (pre-Islamic Arabs learnt many similar stories from Jews, whom they envied until an Arabic book was revealed to one of their own; thus many stories in the Qur'an begin "And remember when..." confirming these tales and underlining God's involvement)?

Any thoughts? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 00:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Another TV adaptation

Another TV adaptation of the story was the episode ALTARED STATES on XENA, which changes the names but follows the story of the command and the final reprieve. In the story the heroines think the command is a hoax perpetrated by "Iccas"'s wicked brother and rival, but after the brother dies, the voice of God retracts the command at the last minute, leaving the pagan heroines bewildered as to what really happpened. CharlesTheBold 19:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the new TV reference. I've added it to the article. Bryan H Bell 21:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The term "story"

I notice that on 02:05, April 17, 2007 the user Str1977 removed all instances of the word "story" from this article, which resulted in some awkward replacements (i.e. "The Binding of Isaac, in Genesis 22, is a story narration from the Hebrew Bible"). The user gave no reason for this edit so I can only speculate about their intent. I wonder if the change was due to the user's perception that the term "story" carries a connotation of "fiction" ("it's only a story") or "juvenile" ("Children's Bible stories") when they might consider the Binding of Isaac to relate an historical event. I'd like to find a way to refer to the Binding of Isaac that paints it as neither a fiction nor a historical fact. Until now, I had considered the term "story" to fit the bill (the Oxford English Dictionary defines "story" as "A recital of events that have or are alleged to have happened; a series of events that are or might be narrated.") but perhaps there is something better. The term "narration" seems awkward and inexact to me. Ideas? Bryan H Bell 21:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Narrative" would certainly be better than "narration," though there still may be a better word. Keyed In (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In-Line Citations Needed

I added the nofootnotes template to this page. Although we've got a good list of references going on this page, none are referenced specifically in the text of the article. I suspect that there are a fair number of statements in this article that are unsupported, but without in-line citations there isn't any way to separate supported statements from unsupported ones. Let's improve this article by adding in-line citations. Bryan H Bell (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've split the "References" section into two sections:

1. "References" which contains the reflist template that will automatically fill in after people put in-line citations in the article's text.

2. "Further Reading" which now contains all the content from the previous "References" section.

You can copy entries from the "Further Reading" section and place them in the text of the article to get them to appear as footnotes in the "References" section.

I hope this helps. Bryan H Bell (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Abraham as schizophrenic

I've removed the following speculation that was added to this article on 04:39 May 11, 2008 by 208.3.137.73. It's an intriguing idea perhaps worthy of exploration in this article if we can find sources to support it:

No one seems to have explored the possibility that Abraham suffered from schizophrenia in that he heard voices telling him to kill his son, a commonly known symptom of this mental illness. Moreover, there is no hypothesis that this could be the reason for the origination of child sacrifice in general.

To improve this article, which is poorly sourced as it is, my feeling is that we should probably start taking a somewhat hard line on not permitting new material unless it's accompanied by reliable sources. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Parable of the Old Man and the Young"

• The Parable of the Old Man and the Young: 1920 poem by Wilfred Owen. It used the binding of Isaac, altered to a successful slaughter, as an allusive metaphor for World War I.

Given that Owen died in 1918... this is a bit dubious --jftsang 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

1920 is the year the poem was first published, after Owen's death. I don't think the date he wrote it is known. Regardless, as with much of the information in this article, I agree that we should find a source for this and cite it. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-religious interpretations

Surely there has to be a place here for what non-religious people make of the story? For Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, for instance, the whole account is morally monstrous. In an encyclopedia, surely this should be acknowledged? Otherwise the article is in complete hock to the religious minorities.

Also including allusions to the story in cartoons is ridiculous, like Wikipedia parodying itself. Cut them?? 217.154.102.195 (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms by Philosophical/Religious/non-religious sources

This page is currently strongly POV. There is no mention at all of the large amount of criticism of this story by Philosophical/Religious/non-religious sources. This needs to be added probably as a "Criticisms" section. Fig (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Issac's sacrifice in Hindu Mythology

The story of Issac's sacrifice (just like many others in the Holy Bible) seems to be plagiarism. this seems to be a straight adaptation of King Harischandra's story in the Rg veda/ Brahmanas

" A certain king named Harischandra had no son. ...He went to Varuna, saying--

Let but a son be born, O king! to me, And I will sacrifice that son to thee.

Varuna heard the prayer, and granted a son. When the boy grew up, his father told him of the vow he had made; but unfortunately the son was not willing to be sacrificed, and left his home. Varuna, not being at all pleased at the non-fulfilment of the king's vow, afflicted him with dropsy. For six years the boy wandered in the forest; at length, happening to meet with a poor Brahman with his three sons, the prince proposed to purchase one of them to offer to the god as a substitute for himself. The father could not give up his firstborn, the mother would not yield her youngest; the middle one was therefore taken. 

The prince then returned home, taking with him the Brahman's son. At first the king was delighted at the prospect of being able to keep his promise to the deity; but a difficulty now arose as to who would slay the boy. After some time, on the consideration of a large present being made to him, the boy's father consented to do this The boy was bound, the father ready to strike, when the boy asked permission to recite some texts in praise of the gods. Of course this was granted; and as a result the deities thus lauded were so pleased with the boy's piety, that they interceded with Varuna to spare him. Varuna granted their request, suffered the boy to live, and Harischandra recovered from his sickness." Hindu Mythology, Vedic and Puranic, by W.J. Wilkins I may also mention that Varuna is usually coupled with Mithra as Mithra Varuna whose followers ( Mithraism) was the most prevalent religion before Christianity took over

Issac's sacrifice in Hindu Mythology

The story of Issac's sacrifice (just like many others in the Holy Bible) seems to be plagiarism. this seems to be a straight adaptation of King Harischandra's story in the Rg veda/ Brahmanas

" A certain king named Harischandra had no son. ...He went to Varuna, saying--

Let but a son be born, O king! to me, And I will sacrifice that son to thee.

Varuna heard the prayer, and granted a son. When the boy grew up, his father told him of the vow he had made; but unfortunately the son was not willing to be sacrificed, and left his home. Varuna, not being at all pleased at the non-fulfilment of the king's vow, afflicted him with dropsy. For six years the boy wandered in the forest; at length, happening to meet with a poor Brahman with his three sons, the prince proposed to purchase one of them to offer to the god as a substitute for himself. The father could not give up his firstborn, the mother would not yield her youngest; the middle one was therefore taken. 

The prince then returned home, taking with him the Brahman's son. At first the king was delighted at the prospect of being able to keep his promise to the deity; but a difficulty now arose as to who would slay the boy. After some time, on the consideration of a large present being made to him, the boy's father consented to do this The boy was bound, the father ready to strike, when the boy asked permission to recite some texts in praise of the gods. Of course this was granted; and as a result the deities thus lauded were so pleased with the boy's piety, that they interceded with Varuna to spare him. Varuna granted their request, suffered the boy to live, and Harischandra recovered from his sickness." Hindu Mythology, Vedic and Puranic, by W.J. Wilkins I may also mention that Varuna is usually coupled with Mithra as Mithra Varuna whose followers ( Mithraism) was the most prevalent religion before Christianity took over —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karnalakshmi123 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

THE BINDING OF ISAAC IN ISLAM

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: Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"

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  :)

please mind my grammmer and rush in the talk page thank you 84.255.149.155 (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The verses of Sacrifice in the Quran

another thing which is wrong here is that someone wrote that Isaac was given to Abraham after the sacrifice

That makes no sense! because like I proved UP Isaac was the sacrificed son and the reason why the Quran says 'we gave glad tidings of Isaac' after the mention of sacrifrice ... was because the Quran wanted to make people know that the un-named blessed son given in tidings was Isaac ... and another thing is the verses talks about the un-named child being sacrificed when he was old enough to walk and work with his dad Abraham

clearly in Islamic tradition and the Hadiths ... Abraham left Ishmael and his mother in the desert when Ishmael was still a kid who WASNT ABLE TO WORK NOR WALK .... so this is another proof that the mentioned Quranic verse in chapter 37 talks about Isaac

why?

• Because he grew and walked and worked with his dad
• He was born miraculously
• He was given to his Abraham when Abraham left the pagan people

so this proves this un named son is Isaac!

 the verses in the Quran which talks about the sacrifice clearly in detail talks about those three points 

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

this verse talks about Abraham leaving his people in Ur and then given a son in the later verse

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.

we all know that Isaac was foretold by god .. never was Ishmael foretold by god or any angels

037.102 YUSUFALI: Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so

Isaac grew and walked and lived with Abraham while as Ishmael was left alongside his mother in the desert when he was still a kid

84.255.149.155 (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A Response to the Ishmael claim

1. We arent christians nor should we use the bible to prove anything,because the bible also stated that Lot impregnated his daughters and that God came in the form of a man and ate with Abraham .. so I dont think we should be using the bible to proove anything because we belive the bible is corrupted and If youd ask a christian about the term "Only Son" he'd say that God recognizes Isaac as Abraham's only son because Ishmael was "cast out" .. so literally this statement posted is offensive towards the christian as well as has no relation with Islam Because when ONE JUDGES A CASE HE SHOULD USE THE UNCORRUPTED QURAN WITHOUT INVOLVING ANY OTHER TEACHINGS THAT CONFUSE !

2.Abraham was never given Isaac as a reward the Quran clearly states that After Abraham left his people Isaac was given to him and after that he grew with him and was sacrificed,Abraham prayed to his lord for another child especially to please a old barren women who suffered with him for a long time.. and if you read arabic you can clearly say that Abraham said 037.100 YUSUFALI: "O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!" and the Quran uses the arabic word Hab meaning give me .. and then in other accounts say WE GAVE ABRAHAM ISAAC AND JACOB

   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.

by using the word WAHABNA meaning we gave 

.. so clearly thise verse is talking about the birth of Isaac and then Isaac growing and then being sacrificed .. Just because the verse after that says 037.112 YUSUFALI: And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous. doesnt mean that the sacrifice happened before Isaac .. the Quran didnt say "AND THEN" it just said "and" .. in Arabic it says WA meaning "and" it didnt say FA meaning and then

The Quran describes itself clearly .. After Abraham left he was given Isaac because he wanted a child and when that child grew with him he sacrificed him

It isnt Ishmael because Abraham didnt stay in Mecca he clearly left him when he was a kid

014.037 YUSUFALI: "O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring to dwell in a valley without cultivation, by Thy Sacred House; in order, O our Lord, that they may establish regular Prayer: so fill the hearts of some among men with love towards them, and feed them with fruits: so that they may give thanks.

and then Abraham came up to Mecca to build the Kaaba later on when Ishmael grew alone 

.. the Quran states that when the child of sacfirice grew with Abraham ... ISHMAEL DIDNT GROW WITH ABRAHAM ISHMAEL WAS LEFT WHEN HE WAS A CHILD AND THEN ABRAHAM CAME UP TO ISHMAEL WHEN ISHMAEL HAD GROWN OLD "ALONE" AND WAS STRONG ENOUGH TO BUILD THE KAABA

so according to Quran the child which was given as good news by the angels that is Isaac

so accordint to the Quran the child that was given by the angels as good news when Abraham left his people and prayed for a kid that is Isaac

so according to the Quran the child that lived and grew with his father and his father stayed with him that is Isaac

It cant be Ishmael because then there would be a contridiction in the Quran WHICH IS NEVER THERE

According to you you state that the burning of Abraham happened in a diffrent account to him leaving his people but let me prove to you why that cant be true

the burning of Abraham and him leaving his people is one incident followed by the Birth of Isaac

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?

you can see here that his father is mentioned alongisde hime but there is no mention of fire .true but wait

.......

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.

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

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

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

after they wanted to burn him and HIS FATHER WAS THERE he left and then when he left he was given Isaac ITS THE SAME STORY BUT SAID IN DETAIL MORE IN ONE SURA OTHER THAN THE OTHER SURA the Quran ansewrs itself clearly

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.

037.102 YUSUFALI: Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"

here is the story again this time INCLUDING THE FIRE AND HIS FATHER SO CLEARLY THE QURAN STATES THAT ABRAHAM PRECHED TO HIS FATHER AND HIS PEOPLE AND WAS THEN BURNED AND THEN LEFT AND WAS THEN GIVEN ISAAC AND THEN SACRIFICED THIS CHILD

simple .. and then when Ishmael grew old and strong Abraham went again to Mecca to build the Kaaba with THE CHILD WOM GREW UP ALONE NOT WITH HIS FATHER!

88.201.1.30 (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Source

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: Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"

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 more 

82.194.62.25 (talk) 18:01, 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) 19:37, 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.62.25 (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That source says nothing about the attempted sacrifice. Quit screaming. Also, Wikipedia does not prove anything, it simply presents a summary of sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

but it states that Ishmael was a kid when he was left never to see his dad again .. so how can he grow old with his father . thats what the Quran says .. the son grew to walk! with his FATHER and then was to be sacrificed... u continue to make up claims when its common sense and both Hadiths history the Quran and common sense state so ,.. wt else do u want? i provided triple sources than the Ishmael claim did!82.194.62.25 (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

what is your problem do u speak english! do u!

I SAID THAT IAM GNNA PROVIDE A SOURCE CONCERNING ISHMAEL AND HAGAR IN MECCA BECAUSE PROVIDED THE SOURCE PROVING THE SACRIFICE WAS ISAAC FROM THE QURAN

AND U ACCEPTED IT AND STATED THAT U WANTED A SECONDARY SOURCE AND U TOLD ME THAT IN HISTORY PAGE

SO NOW WHEN I TALK ABOUT HAGAR AND ISHMAEL U GO BACK TO THE SACRIFICE WHICH WAS DESCRIBED AND PROVED CLEARLY WITH NO INTERPRETATION OR DOUBT !!!

I KNOW WHERE YOUR GOING WITH THIS AND I SPOKE TO ANOTHER USER AND I WANT U TO JUST LEAVE ME ALONE AND STOP STALKING ME!

AND STOP CHANGING YOUR WORDS U WANTED TWO THINGS I PROVIDED THEM CLEAR AND SIMPLE! ENOUGH!!!!!82.194.62.25 (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you completely skip the last paragraph? It says:

Then Abraham stayed away from them for a period as long as Allah wished, and called on them afterwards. He saw Ishmael under a tree near Zamzam, sharpening his arrows. When he saw Abraham, he rose up to welcome him (and they greeted each other as a father does with his son or a son does with his father). Abraham said, 'O Ishmael! Allah has given me an order.' Ishmael said, 'Do what your Lord has ordered you to do.' Abraham asked, 'Will you help me?' Ishmael said, 'I will help you.' Abraham said, Allah has ordered me to build a house here,' pointing to a hillock higher than the land surrounding it." The Prophet added, "Then they raised the foundations of the House (i.e. the Ka'ba). Ishmael brought the stones and Abraham was building, and when the walls became high, Ishmael brought this stone and put it for Abraham who stood over it and carried on building, while Ishmael was handing him the stones, and both of them were saying, 'O our Lord! Accept (this service) from us, Verily, You are the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.' The Prophet added, "Then both of them went on building and going round the Ka'ba saying: O our Lord ! Accept (this service) from us, Verily, You are the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing." (2.127)

The source actually opposes your claim. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:07, 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) 21:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

my response

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).

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

Image Placement

Isn't it odd that the image for the stain glass image, from a Catholic church, is under the "Jewish perspective" heading. I don't think the image is bad but including "The Lord will provide" is a bit off for that section. 96.247.124.209 (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think the image is from a Catholic church and not from a synagogue? Especially since it has several Jewish stars on it (and no crosses)? Dutchmonkey9000 (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Historic memetical significance.

I wish to propose that this be considered as the first implementation of the more contemporary LOLJKS comeback. 121.216.42.144 (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

¿Did he REALLY?

There are at least versions of the Old Testament/Torah that say that Abraham wasn’t actually told, specifically, to take Isaac into the mountain, to the alter, and murder him; That when Abraham asked God what to sacrifice he was told “God will provide” and then told only to take his son, to which Abraham assumed god meant for him to kill his son. I submit this should be CAREFULLYBold text reviewed.174.25.4.28 (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Hi A. REDSON, which versions of the Hebrew Bible (OT)/Torah fail to say that Abraham was told to offer Isaac as a sacrifice? Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Did Abraham believe he wouldn't sacrifice Isaac

More evidence that Abraham thought that he won't actually sacrifice Isaac comes from Genesis 22:5, where Abraham said to his servants, "You stay here with the ass. The boy and I will go up there; we will worship and we will return to you." By saying that we (as opposed to I), he meant that both he and Isaac will return. Thus, he didn't believe that Isaac would be sacrificed in the end.

What needs to be noted here is first whether servants knew what God asked of Abraham. If they knew then it could be said that Abraham didn't believe Isaac would be sacrificed because he said "we will return to you." But if they didn't know what was about to happen then he could simply say that in order to avoid confrontation and left them there to wait.

Another issue arises in how it is translated. As it is known some argue that NKJV is more accurate than KJV and vice verse. So we need to take into the account of how language was used at that time. 115.70.177.166 (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Editors Imitating Half-Wits

Some editor is showing off their ability to imitate a half-wit by posting a prominent intrusion into the entry. It reads "This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (June 2011)"

Good encyclopedias do not get their style by striving for something this fool thinks is "encyclopedic style." They get their style by attempting to write things that are as true as the author and the editors can manage.

An' furthermore: "encyclopedic style" would not mean "in the style of encyclopedias," which I think is what this dope is trying to say. That would be "encyclopedeic style," or something of the sort. "Encyclopedic style" would be the description of an article about everything.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I just scanned my eye over the article to see if the tag could be removed, but I saw statements like "It was passing this test that was remarkable even for someone of Abraham's stature" which is the sort of thing the tag was describing. As to the tag itself, and whether "encyclopedic" is the right word, the best venue to discuss it would be at Template talk:Essay-like. StAnselm (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Binding of Isaac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050307120048/http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org:80/programs/2004/09/09_abraham/britten.shtml to http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/2004/09/09_abraham/britten.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001040057/http://www.g-dcast.com:80/roshhashanah to http://www.g-dcast.com/roshhashanah

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)