Talk:Sarah/Archive 1

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)