Talk:Amraphel

Amraphel and Hammurabi
I've always heard that Amraphel == Hammurabi. However, The Oxford Companion to the Bible states, in the article about Hammurapi, that "In the past, Hammurapi has been identified with Amraphel, king of Shinar (Gen.14), but current knowledge does not support this." Does anybody know more about this? I would hate for Wikipedia to perpetuate a commonly-believed but discredited notion. Josh Cherry 12:48, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * So far as I know, and I am quoting someone from an Ancient Near East message board, the Amraphel/Hammurabi connection belongs to "the dustbin of historical fancy." Lots of commonly-believed but now-discredited biblical interpretations arise from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when the historical reliability of the Bible was taken for granted by almost all Western scholars.  Amraphel and Hammurabi were identified because of similar-sounding names, but there is no reason to believe this is anything other than coincidence.  Hammurabi never led an alliance of Babylonians, Elamites, and Hittites into Palestine as Genesis has Amraphel doing.--Rob117 04:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Rob117 is quite correct. However, it should be pointed out that Genesis 14:4-5 seems to be saying that Chedorlaomer, rather than Amraphel, was the leader of this imperial alliance. Either way, the existence of this coalition cannot be confirmed by archaeology or by history, and seems to be fictitious. See Abraham in History and Tradition. Erudil 16:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To Josh Cherry, letters for Hamurabi mentioned Amraphel so the equation was made that shifted 21-year Venus tablet dates 1646-1625bc to 275 years earlier so Hamurabi 1792-1750bc would also be 275 years earlier as Hamurabi 2067-2025bc during Abram to wage war together. The 8-year Venus pentacle of 5 conjunction points rotates one point in sidereal 235 years, sothic 243 years, seasonal 251 years where 275-year Venus then meets the same 19-year lunar dates be it a 235+40 or 243+32 or 251+24. Hamurabi's 1750bc death is Joseph getting a Messiah king coat. This information inspired me in 1982 by Douglas New Bible Dictionary. Nor is Nimrod the Amraphel of Jasher who claims Esau killed Amraphel (Nimrod), and nor is he Hamurabi (however Nimrod at 500 according to Moslems, dies when baby Judah is born in Masoretic 2256am which if 1770bc is during Hamurabi inspiring him to go conquer to acquire Nimrod's fame). His destruction of Mari Syria in 1762-1761bc is yet another reason Jacob ended his 20 years in Harran. 75.86.64.46 (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * re: Josh Cherry, the timeline should be around - 1251-1228BC. Looking at the Ugarit Kinglist around this timeline we see: Ibiranu II(1274-1251BC), Niqmaddu III(1251-1228BC), Ammurapi(1228-1205BC). This Ammurapi, 500 years after Hammurabi, could have been contemporary with Ampraphel; Shinar is Shenir, or Mount Hermon in Lebanon, not Sumer.


 * Ibiranu II(1274-1251BC) is probably Abraham. Tidal is Tudhaliya 4(1274-1251BC). Kudur-enlil(1251-1228BC) (l and n reversed, same letters) is probably Chedorlaomer.

Missing identification & relation
This article should be identified by a template and related to other Biblical articles. Otherwise it appears as an orphan entry.Ineuw 00:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the Old Testament a religious text
An unidentified editor has demanded that the Old Testament not be described as a religious text. The claims of this unidentified editor are that
 * it is "unnecessary";
 * it is "not how WP does it";
 * the article "seems more neutral without it";
 * other articles don't use this descriptive term;
 * there is a "longstanding consensus".

Necessity
There is no established standard as to what is or is not necessary. There is no WP policy that only necessary facts be included in articles (probably for the reason that no emprical standard can be established). Even if there were such a standard, the unidentified editor, firstly, has never challenged the truth of the fact sought to be included in the article, and, secondly, if WP is to be regarded as a source of information to people who do not know, it is desirable to include this descriptive term in the page to provide some sense to the lede which relies entirely on that text for its factual assertion of notability of the subject. Very few articles on a subject commence with a a single textual source of information as the foundation of notability; something factual and descriptive to explain may be described as essential. Most important, though, is that it is a fact not challenged by the unidentified editor.

How WP does it
Who is this enigmatic "WP"? What is "it"? The unidentified editor's claim can only mean that he/she has not seen WP articles where the Old Testament is attended by the descriptive term "religious text". Is this relevant? Is there a special WP exception applying to the Old Testament which says it shall not be attended by factually-accurate descriptive terms? It behoves the unidentified editor to explain the basis for this assertion because it is that editor who is attempting to suppress the uncontested fact from WP.

More neutral without it
To an observer who is a believer and reveres the text, this is an easily understood assertion: it's all too obvious. WP is not a forum for the exclusive use of believers, though; it is a World Encyclopaedia for all readers of all faiths and no faith at all. If a special rule is to be applied to the Old Testament excluding its being described for readers who have never heard of it (and there are countless millions of such people), then WP is adopting a POV.

Not the same as other WP articles
That other treatments by other editors can be seen elsewhere in WP is no basis on which it determine whether text in any given article is factually sound and helpful to readers. Practices adopted must be subjected to inspection applying WP objects irrespective of how often or prevalent certain informal (and biased) practices may be. If this were not so, progress and improvement could never be achieved on WP; everything would be written in rock.

Longstanding consensus
I am unable to find any trace of the consensus alleged by the unidentified editor but will be intrigued to be directed to where such a debate has been conducted and consensus arrived at. The main point here is that the unidentified editor objects to an uncontroversial factual description being used on a WP page. That is a highly controversial position to adopt and it is suggested that that position is grounded in faith, thus strongly biased and POV-driven. WP is agnostic, inclusive and written for the benefit of all readers. sirlanz 00:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

David Rohl
Recently, added a book by fringe scholar David Rohl (Lords of Avaris) to the Bibliography section of this article. Unfortunately, David Rohl is a scholar out on the fringes of Ancient Near Eastern history. Mainstream scholars all ignore him -- I haven't been able to find a single academic review of Lords of Avaris. Therefore, according to the WP:FRINGE policy, David Rohl and his book should not be cited as an authority in articles. Alephb (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

David Rohl
This is misusing the WP:FRINGE policy for censorship, when it merely states that alternative ideas that are not mainstream should be stated as such and not given undue weight in the article. Rohl's research is cited in numerous wikipedia articles this way. Therefore, restore the section and stop wasting my time.


 * Censorship? We're not burning books here, or prosecuting David Rohl. The question is whether Lords of Avaris should be one of two items in a bibliography on Amraphel. It shouldn't for several reasons. Simply listing it that way in the bibliography passes it off as if its a normal, reliable source (in the sense of WP:RELIABLE), which it isn't. Though in this case the heading is "bibliography," in this case we're talking about the kind of section covered under WP:FURTHER, which contains further books "that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject." It makes no sense to avoid basing a Wikipedia article on fringe sources, but then to stick them, without notice, into a "further reading" section. Lords of Avaris is an unembiguous fringe source, and it isn't even about Amraphel. It just mentions him.


 * If there are other articles promoting Roh's works as if they were recommended general-references sources, and which do so without pointing out the fringe status of these works, I'd be interested to know what those articles are. Alephb (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)