Talk:The Exodus Decoded

message: I don't have a copy, but you do get lots of this discussed in Ian Wilson's 1985 book "The Exodus Enigma".91.111.29.190 (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ian Wilson, 'Exodus Enigma']]

message: I'm not sure that the there is enough evidence to support a claim of limnic eruption.  Furthermore, while volcanic activity has indirect causal relationship by providing the source of gas-rich water inflows, volcanic activity is not the direct cause of a limnic eruption.  Limnically active lakes are noted for lack of direct lakebed volcanic activity.  A different trigger like landslides into a lake, excessive rainfall into a lake is noted as a more likely trigger. Also, where are your references for this claim?  Finally limnic eruptions are a lake feature, none of my research indicated that this was also a feature of delta.  I am less than inclinced to believe that a delta water system could support the thermal layers required to allow gas build up needed for a L.E. Revmachine21 11:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, but that documentatary certainly sounds like complete bollocks.  Reader beware! Revmachine21 06:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Limnic eruption]]

message: To see and a read list of criticism Mt.Sinai go to hashem-el tarif in wikipedia under comments.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.60.200 (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of his location of Mt.Sinai

message: Jacobovici is obviously pressing a religious agenda, probably in an attempt to refute Israel Finkelstein's (and others) conclusion that there is no archeological evidence to support the myths in the Torah (and Joshua), including the Exodus. 
Jacobovici's thesis is so full of holes, so speculative, and so archeologically and historically far fetched that it should be considered in the same vein as Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods. TimeDog 18:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that Bietak has already written a scathing criticism of this theory, and apparently Redford has denounced it as well. I own a copy of Bietak's article published in BAR, and I'll get ahold of it to begin writing somthing, however someone should look for Redford's comments as well. Thanatosimii 05:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article needs a criticism section, and I have started one drawing on criticism of the documentary at Biblical Archaeology Society.  I will leave it to someone else to mention the specific criticisms. --Skb8721 15:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism section is a good start, but I don't think the discussion on the message postings is becoming of the article. No matter how far-fetched Jacobovici's thesis is, it's best to stick to the scholarship. Anyone can claim to have trumped up credentials on a public forum.Imdugud 19:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a Criticism Section 

message: All the "references" for this article are links to the posts on the message board at historychannel.com, these are circular references.
:: Perhaps a valid critique, but I removed a "cite needed" tag inexplicably affixed to the word "detailed" before a weblink.  We need a citation from outside that a link is detailed?  Was this an error, or someone's attempt to make sure the article was tagged as having uncited material?  66.188.89.52 22:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some real references? 

message: I feel like this article is being overly critical of this documentary.
207.118.9.58 01:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly Critical 

message: I have no idea why these were added. The criticism section is thoroughly sourced, and each of the lines to which a Verification Needed tag was added has a verifiable source on which each claim was based. Therefore, I believe the tags are not needed, and moreover are misleading. Here's an explanation of all four tags. They can be verified simply by clicking the source at the end.
* "Jacobovici uses circular logic" is sourced to http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=228, which has the following passage: As with his “scientific” explanations for all the other plagues, the logic is circular: “The biblical text describes such-and-such, which could be explained by thus-and-so; therefore, thus-and-so happened, causing such-and-such.” The only evidence for the scenario is the notion that the alleged phenomena could produce effects similar to those described in the Bible. Yet even this latter claim is fraught with difficulty, for—contrary to Pellegrino’s assertions—the picture painted by Jacobovici and Pellegrino does not in fact match the biblical description;
* "Biblical scholars" line is sourced to http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=141, an article written by a biblical scholar;
* "Jacobovici greatly distorts the Biblical description" is sourced to http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=458, which contains an extensive explanation of how Jacobovici's description of the Ark differs from the Biblical narrative.
* "Altogether, there's absolutely no proof of any kind that any supporters of Moses left for Greece". Again, the line is sourced in the end.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboy Will (talk • contribs) 01:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Verification needed" tags in the Criticism section 

message: A minor point perhaps, but if the documentary is called The Exodus Decoded, should the page not have that same name (i.e., including the article)? This seems the convention with other book and film names which incorporate an article. Mooncow (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: Does this product of utter egyptological ignorance have enough common attention to justify an article? CUSH 21:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because a lot of uninformed people will be impressed by it and come here looking for further information. We should give it to them.PiCo (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability? 

message: The suggestion that Moses was named for the Egyptian suffix Mose (which I've seen in various places) is criticized because it doesn't match the Hebrew pronunciation "Moshe". The problem with this is that the letters Sin and Shin differ only in the position of the dot. But marks such as this dot are a modern invention. So how does Heard know it wasn't originally pronounced "Mose"? This suffix followed the name of an Egyptian god, so a hypothetical non-believing ruler would use the suffix by itself.
Anyway, I thought Moses was supposed to be Akhenaton? 198.228.228.157 (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name "Mose"