Discuție:Regatul Iuda

message: Denumire        	Număr </br> rezultate
Iudeea          	8310
Regatul Iuda    	26
Regatul Iudea   	5
Regatul Iudeea  	8
Regatul Iudeei  	3
Regatul Iudeii  	11
Regatul lui Iuda	34
Țara Iudeei     	7
Țara  Iudeii    	18
Țara lui Iuda   	46
Ținutul Iudeei  	1
Ținutul Iudeii  	88
Ținutul lui Iuda	6
Provincia Iudea 	3
Provincia Iudeea	11
Provincia Iudeii	1
  11 ianuarie 2008 14:24 (EET)
În adevar în manualele și cărțile de istorie în Romania s-a învățat mult timp, dupa câte cunosc, și poate se mai învață despre regatul Iudeei sau Iudeea, dupa forma latină a numelui regiunii, care a fost preluată și de limba si istoriografia  rusă.  (În cehă  se zice Iudsko, în polonă nu știu) Se învață nu despre regii Iúdei, ci ai Iudéei.
În schimb în traducerile românești ale Bibliei, inclusiv ale Evangheliei, numele regatului ca și al tribului, din care se trăgeau  regele David și Iisus, este Iuda. 
În restul limbilor, într-adevar se spune regatul Iuda, termen folosit de obicei numai pentru perioada de dinaintea cuceririi babiloniene. Daca nu mă înșel, pentru regatul hasmoneilor se folosește mai mult Iudeea, poate fiindcă era deja în contact cu romanii și fiindcă, de această dată, el se întindea aproape pe tot cuprinsul Palestinei (Țării lui Israel) nu numai în provincia triburilor Yehuda și Binyamin. Bineințeles că in ebraică numele Yehuda (adica Iuda) se aplica și acestui regat.
În acelaș timp astăzi se zice Munții Iudeei și nu Munții Iudei sau Munții Iuda, iar Cisiordania în diferite limbi e cunoscuta și ca Iudeea și Samaria, nu Iuda și SamariaEwan 28 iunie 2008 23:40 (EEST)
replies: text: ::"Iuda" și și mai mult "al Iudei" în românește, spre deosebire de franceză și engleză (unde există deosebirea clară între Juda și Judas) și alte câteva  limbi, are o conotație cu totul peiorativă, din cauza renumelui Iudei, Iuda Iscariotul din Noul Testament, de la care a derivat și unul din numele Satanei - Scaraoschi. Acesta e motivul pentru care în românește a fost preferat și este preferabil numele Iudeea, denumire latinizată,potrivită, care a predominat în manuale și cărțile de istorie românești în ultimele decenii. În românește și pentru creștinii din România când vorbești de Iuda , primul gând e la Iuda Iscarioteanul, vânzătorul, ce poate fi mai abominabil. etc etc. Când se vorbește de regatul Iudei e ca și cum s-ar vorbi de împărăția dracului. Nu e ca și Kingdom of Judah în engleză sau Royaume de Juda în franceză. Ewan (discuție) 30 septembrie 2012 22:09 (EEST)
thread_title:  Rezultate Google 

message: Legenda nașterii lui Isus la Betleem este considerată de istorici neverosimilă, vezi :en:Census of Quirinius. Tgeorgescu (discuție) 9 august 2014 22:19 (EEST)
replies: text: Dupa mine daca Regatul Iudei ar fi imaginar nici creierul celui cafre a scris n-ar fi mai presus decat un fel de organ imaginar. Si Wikipedia doar un basm. Terminati cu prostiile ateilor care l-ati tradat pe Domnul pentru Mamona.Si ziceti ca Biblia si Isus nu sunt reale. N-aveti minte.

text: --86.124.115.164 (discuție) 26 decembrie 2014 21:35 (EET)Eu
replies: text: :Utilizator:Tgeorgescu#Ateism. Christine Hayes says  Tgeorgescu (discuție) 19 noiembrie 2019 04:31 (EET)
thread_title:  Legendă neverosimilă 

message: Din punct de vedere arheologic, monarhia unită a lui David și Solomon este în comă profundă. Cine spune altfel vinde gogoși. „Arheologii biblici” (din școala lui Albright) când descopereau un vestigiu căutau să-l potrivească la Biblie. Dar șmecheria asta n-a ținut mult. La un moment dat n-a mai ținut deloc. Și nu, nu e vina minimaliștilor, minimaliștii doar au tras concluzia care se impunea, dovezile nu le-au inventat ei. Arheologia Orientului Mijlociu Antic s-a emancipat de religie și de Biblie, după cum spune Thomas Römer pe . Nu e neapărat anti-biblică sau anti-creștină, ci doar emancipată. Pentru detalii: :en:Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy). Tgeorgescu (discuție) 11 decembrie 2019 10:12 (EET)
Poftiți citat care satisface :en:WP:RS/AC:  Tgeorgescu (discuție) 17 ianuarie 2020 13:29 (EET)
Poate că Finkelstein n-a nimerit-o cu cronologia lui. Dar are perfectă dreptate că acea cronologie pe care o contestă el are o bază foarte șubredă (și anume „arheologii biblici”, din școala lui Albright, când descopereau un vestigiu căutau să-l potrivească la Biblie). Tgeorgescu (discuție) 15 februarie 2020 06:58 (EET)
Sunt multe probleme cu cronologia biblică, uite una singură dintre ele:
Citat de Tgeorgescu (discuție) 15 februarie 2020 16:49 (EET)
thread_title:  Monarhia unită 

message: Oamenii fără știință de carte cred că mit înseamnă minciună. Dacă vreți să aflați ce înseamnă mit pentru cei cu știință de carte, vedeți mai jos.
Pe scurt: admițând că Exodul se bazează pe un eveniment real, acel eveniment real este insignifiant în comparație cu mitul căruia i-a dat naștere. Mitul Exodului este mult mai important decât evenimentul real pe care se bazează mitul.
Arheologii mainstream ai Levantului antic sunt de acord că Exodul nu este 100% fabulație și sunt de acord că nu este 100% realitate. 
Exemplu recent: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_and_Eve&curid=11473533&diff=1080854540&oldid=1080853777&diffmode=source tgeorgescu (discuție) 4 aprilie 2022 01:42 (EEST)
=== Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2020 ===
The Exodus is a central theme of the second book of the old testament and the basis for the Passover Holiday celebrated by Jews throughout the world
(I am requesting this change because the opening phrase of the Exodus being a "charter myth of the Israelites) is offensive and inaccurate. The balance of the article sets forth the scolarly questions regarding the story, but the opening phrasing I believe is highly objectionable Botach1 (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: People repeatedly trying to remove things they find offensive from this page is precisely why it's semi-protected. Alephb (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Not done: Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I should have expressed my concern regarding the phrasing differently
First of all, the first sentence--charter myth of the Israelites seriously needs to be re-written. First of all--"Israelites" has no valid meaning in this discussion. The Exodus is a major story from the Old Testament and the basis for the Jewish Holiday of Passover. Regardless of the veracity of the story, calling it the Charter Myth of the "Israelites" is meaningless.
The entire discussion of the article is whether there is any basis in fact for the story in the Bible. Starting the article with the word--myth--denegrates and pre-judges the rest of the discussion. The first sentence should be an introduction to the discussion, not an unsupported conclusion. I am not suggesting that the body of the discussion be changed, but the first sentence I believe gives an inaccurate explanation of what THE EXODUS represents, and does not properly summarize the discussion that follows— Preceding unsigned comment added by Botach1 (talk • contribs)

text: "Myth" is often used to refer to stories that have cultural importance, whether they are true or not. For example, a passage in The Pentateuch (2012) by Walter J. Houston, describing Jan Assmann's perspective on myth (p. 139): "…Assmann applies the term 'myth' to foundation stories… without necessarily implying anything about the actual historicity of those that are set in historical time. The heroic defense of Masada and the suicide of its defenders in 73 CE is an example of an undoubtedly historical event that has become a myth for modern Israelis. The past enters cultural memory, becomes a 'myth', when it has meaning for the present and the future, when it is 'a reality of a higher order, which not only rings true but also sets normative standards and possesses a formative power.'"

text: Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Exodus did not happen in the form described in the biblical text. At most, there was a small group of people who migrated out of Egypt, and some current hypotheses suggest there was no such migration and the story originated in Canaan. If there was an event that inspired the story, it was of vastly less significance than the story itself, whose significance comes from its status as a founding myth. A. Parrot (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
===The Exodus vs. the Nephites ===
Re: " Not a single one of the above examples concern me as I do not edit in those fields" If you read :en:User talk:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased./Archive 1#"We are biased towards bible scholarship, and biased against biblical inerrancy." you will find why I chose to not feature the exact way that IZAK's edits are unacceptable on Wikipedia. Here at Wikipedia we respect pure religious beliefs. No Wikipedia article will ever say that God does not exist, but we may describe people who hold that view. The problem is when the religious make pseudoscientific claims. Young-earth creationists say that when the Book of Genesis talks about a person being formed from a rib and a snake talking, these claims should be accepted as true because they are in their holy book. When fundamentalist Mormons claim that horses existed on the American continent during the timeframe of the Book of Mormon, they say that these claims should be accepted as true because they are in their holy book. When certain Muslims claim that the sky is solid and that it is possible for the sky to fall and hit someone, they say that these claims should be accepted as true because they are in their holy book. And when IZAK claims that the exodus actually happened, he says that these claims should be accepted as true because they are in his holy book. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

text: The major difference between :en:The Exodus, and Creationist arguments, horses in America, and the sky falling, is that The Exodus was experienced and witnessed BY AN ENTIRE NATION of millions of people, and that has been recorded and handed down from generation to generation by that entire people, the Israelites/Jews, to this very day. The :en:Hebrew Bible records that. It was not something made up one day in someone's imagination, like a novel. IZAK (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :No need to ping me. When I post a comment I watch the page for replies. Also, NO NEED TO SHOUT.

text: :Let's examine your claims, using primary sources for the claims. The Book of Exodus gives us 600,000 adult men in the Exodus, plus however many women and children. Assuming 2 children per couple (actual families in the ancient past were usually larger than that) gives us roughly 2.5 million Israelites leaving Egypt (which had a total population of around 2.8 million), all of them leaving at the same time.

text: :The Book of Mormon says that in the final battle at the Hill Cumorah, the Lamanites killed 230,000 Nephite soldiers. Horses are mentioned multiple times, and the Nephites even had horse-drawn chariots. This was supposedly around 350-400CE. So if (according to the primary sources) the Israelites in the Sinai Desert were a nation of millions, then it is equally true that (according to the primary sources) the Nephites in the Americas were a nation of at least a million.

text: :Scientists, of course, say that the stories about millions of Israelites fleeing Egypt and the stories of Nephites with horses are just stories. They never actually happened. See :en:The Exodus# Origins and historicity and :en:Historicity of the Book of Mormon. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::"the Lamanites killed 230,000 Nephite soldiers" is a fable because there are no "Lamanites" or "Nephites" around today to affirm or deny what happened. Nor did any Mormons see what happened with the "Lamanites" or "Nephites". On the other hand, the Hebrews aka the Children of Israel aka the Israelites aka the Jews did have the historical experience of leaving Ancient Egypt and they are very much around today as a people and nation. In fact they even have a festival that they have been celebrating for over 3,300 years from the time of the 1st Exodus known as :en:Passover universally and historically observed by Jews with its Seder that commemorates :en:The Exodus, so this is an unbroken chain of history reliably and meticulously handed down from one generation to another, and no one at any point "made anything up" and somehow by "voodoo'" got an entire nation of Hebrews/Children of Israel/Israelites/Jews to one day buy into a "myth"! It also happens to be that the :en:Hebrew Bible aka the Torah records and affirms this and codifies the observances/commandments/mitzvot related to it. Secular anti-religious atheist modern-day scholars violate what we know on WP as :en:WP:NOR and come up with far-fetched theories that border on what we here on WP call a :en:WP:HOAX and :en:WP:NOTMADEUP. IZAK (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Re: "The Hebrews aka the Children of Israel aka the Israelites aka the Jews did have the historical experience of leaving Ancient Egypt", no they didn't. You are asking me to reject the Mormon fable while accepting your fable, when the overwhelming consensus of scientists is that neither actually happened.

text: :::* Mainstream scholarship does not accept the biblical Exodus account as accurate history.

text: :::* No period in Egyptian history matches the Biblical accounts of the Exodus.

text: :::* Egypt kept pretty good records, and there is no record matching the plagues of Egypt or the Egyptian military defeat described during the crossing of the Red Sea.

text: :::* No contemporary Egyptian text mentions a large-scale exodus of slaves like that described in the Bible.

text: :::* The Sinai Desert could never have supported the number of Israelites mentioned in Numbers.

text: :::You are pushing religious pseudoscience. Your claims are no better than those of the creationists or the Mormons. (I am only comparing the quality of your evidence, not any other aspects) Your view will never be included in Wikipedia. You might as well  give up trying. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
You are not paying attention to what I am saying. Why would ancient Egypt keep a "record" of its defeat? Have you never heard of :en:Historical revisionism? For example, see how they tore down statues at the fall of Communism, or the fall of Saddam, or how statues of the Confederacy are being torn down in America today, history gets re-written by the "modern scholars" of the day every generation. So when talking of events that took place 3,300+ years ago of course there is a dearth of information. Secular History neither affirms nor negates the Exodus, because History is a limited tool. So from a Jewish point of we are not concerned because we have our method of recording history. Now I am not trying to convince WP of anything, I am only trying to faithfully depict what :en:Judaism, :en:Orthodox Judaism and :en:Torah Judaism have to say. That's all. You don't have to buy into it. Now we come to the question if the :en:Hebrew Bible aka Tanach can be taken as a reliable record of :en:Jewish history. I say yes. You say no. So what? You are bothered that God made the Universe and that he created  a talking snake. Well I know lots of humanoid "talking snakes" as Hitler was. So Judaism sees the Torah as not just history by also teaches parables and :en:morality. IZAK (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

text: IZAK, with respect, on Wikipedia we follow the modern historiography to discuss the history of something. Scholarly consensus would be the determining factor here, per due weight. El_C 20:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :So what do you say to Jewish observance of :en:Passover and :en:Sukkot and :en:Mitzvot? Are you going to re-write those articles according to "modern historiography" which is good tool in the secular domain but not in the religious domain. WP is not into :en:WP:OR and about to re-write the beliefs and practices of every religion on the planet. IZAK (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::IZEK, Wikipedia reflecting what the scholarly consensus is —with an especial emphasis on 2ndry sources— cannot be original research, by definition. El_C 20:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I am not arguing that point. But we have a problem when it comes to religion, WP cannot re-write the religious beliefs and practices of any religion. In America for example, that is why we have :en:Freedom of religion recognized by the entire word as a basic :en:human right. As long as it can be presented in a NPOV. IZAK (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::IZEK, I suppose I just don't see what freedom of religion has to do with the due weight. El_C 21:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::I always stick to WP:NPOV and WP:RS all the time. That's how I have survived around here for 17 years. I have to go now, :en:Shabbat :en:Shalom! IZAK (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::You and me both. See ya. El_C 21:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ce înseamnă un mit 

message: The Exodus is a central theme of the second book of the old testament and the basis for the Passover Holiday celebrated by Jews throughout the world
(I am requesting this change because the opening phrase of the Exodus being a "charter myth of the Israelites) is offensive and inaccurate. The balance of the article sets forth the scolarly questions regarding the story, but the opening phrasing I believe is highly objectionable Botach1 (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: People repeatedly trying to remove things they find offensive from this page is precisely why it's semi-protected. Alephb (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Not done: Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I should have expressed my concern regarding the phrasing differently
First of all, the first sentence--charter myth of the Israelites seriously needs to be re-written. First of all--"Israelites" has no valid meaning in this discussion. The Exodus is a major story from the Old Testament and the basis for the Jewish Holiday of Passover. Regardless of the veracity of the story, calling it the Charter Myth of the "Israelites" is meaningless.
The entire discussion of the article is whether there is any basis in fact for the story in the Bible. Starting the article with the word--myth--denegrates and pre-judges the rest of the discussion. The first sentence should be an introduction to the discussion, not an unsupported conclusion. I am not suggesting that the body of the discussion be changed, but the first sentence I believe gives an inaccurate explanation of what THE EXODUS represents, and does not properly summarize the discussion that follows— Preceding unsigned comment added by Botach1 (talk • contribs)

text: "Myth" is often used to refer to stories that have cultural importance, whether they are true or not. For example, a passage in The Pentateuch (2012) by Walter J. Houston, describing Jan Assmann's perspective on myth (p. 139): "…Assmann applies the term 'myth' to foundation stories… without necessarily implying anything about the actual historicity of those that are set in historical time. The heroic defense of Masada and the suicide of its defenders in 73 CE is an example of an undoubtedly historical event that has become a myth for modern Israelis. The past enters cultural memory, becomes a 'myth', when it has meaning for the present and the future, when it is 'a reality of a higher order, which not only rings true but also sets normative standards and possesses a formative power.'"

text: Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Exodus did not happen in the form described in the biblical text. At most, there was a small group of people who migrated out of Egypt, and some current hypotheses suggest there was no such migration and the story originated in Canaan. If there was an event that inspired the story, it was of vastly less significance than the story itself, whose significance comes from its status as a founding myth. A. Parrot (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2020 

message: Re: " Not a single one of the above examples concern me as I do not edit in those fields" If you read :en:User talk:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased./Archive 1#"We are biased towards bible scholarship, and biased against biblical inerrancy." you will find why I chose to not feature the exact way that IZAK's edits are unacceptable on Wikipedia. Here at Wikipedia we respect pure religious beliefs. No Wikipedia article will ever say that God does not exist, but we may describe people who hold that view. The problem is when the religious make pseudoscientific claims. Young-earth creationists say that when the Book of Genesis talks about a person being formed from a rib and a snake talking, these claims should be accepted as true because they are in their holy book. When fundamentalist Mormons claim that horses existed on the American continent during the timeframe of the Book of Mormon, they say that these claims should be accepted as true because they are in their holy book. When certain Muslims claim that the sky is solid and that it is possible for the sky to fall and hit someone, they say that these claims should be accepted as true because they are in their holy book. And when IZAK claims that the exodus actually happened, he says that these claims should be accepted as true because they are in his holy book. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The major difference between :en:The Exodus, and Creationist arguments, horses in America, and the sky falling, is that The Exodus was experienced and witnessed BY AN ENTIRE NATION of millions of people, and that has been recorded and handed down from generation to generation by that entire people, the Israelites/Jews, to this very day. The :en:Hebrew Bible records that. It was not something made up one day in someone's imagination, like a novel. IZAK (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :No need to ping me. When I post a comment I watch the page for replies. Also, NO NEED TO SHOUT.

text: :Let's examine your claims, using primary sources for the claims. The Book of Exodus gives us 600,000 adult men in the Exodus, plus however many women and children. Assuming 2 children per couple (actual families in the ancient past were usually larger than that) gives us roughly 2.5 million Israelites leaving Egypt (which had a total population of around 2.8 million), all of them leaving at the same time.

text: :The Book of Mormon says that in the final battle at the Hill Cumorah, the Lamanites killed 230,000 Nephite soldiers. Horses are mentioned multiple times, and the Nephites even had horse-drawn chariots. This was supposedly around 350-400CE. So if (according to the primary sources) the Israelites in the Sinai Desert were a nation of millions, then it is equally true that (according to the primary sources) the Nephites in the Americas were a nation of at least a million.

text: :Scientists, of course, say that the stories about millions of Israelites fleeing Egypt and the stories of Nephites with horses are just stories. They never actually happened. See :en:The Exodus# Origins and historicity and :en:Historicity of the Book of Mormon. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::"the Lamanites killed 230,000 Nephite soldiers" is a fable because there are no "Lamanites" or "Nephites" around today to affirm or deny what happened. Nor did any Mormons see what happened with the "Lamanites" or "Nephites". On the other hand, the Hebrews aka the Children of Israel aka the Israelites aka the Jews did have the historical experience of leaving Ancient Egypt and they are very much around today as a people and nation. In fact they even have a festival that they have been celebrating for over 3,300 years from the time of the 1st Exodus known as :en:Passover universally and historically observed by Jews with its Seder that commemorates :en:The Exodus, so this is an unbroken chain of history reliably and meticulously handed down from one generation to another, and no one at any point "made anything up" and somehow by "voodoo'" got an entire nation of Hebrews/Children of Israel/Israelites/Jews to one day buy into a "myth"! It also happens to be that the :en:Hebrew Bible aka the Torah records and affirms this and codifies the observances/commandments/mitzvot related to it. Secular anti-religious atheist modern-day scholars violate what we know on WP as :en:WP:NOR and come up with far-fetched theories that border on what we here on WP call a :en:WP:HOAX and :en:WP:NOTMADEUP. IZAK (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Re: "The Hebrews aka the Children of Israel aka the Israelites aka the Jews did have the historical experience of leaving Ancient Egypt", no they didn't. You are asking me to reject the Mormon fable while accepting your fable, when the overwhelming consensus of scientists is that neither actually happened.

text: :::* Mainstream scholarship does not accept the biblical Exodus account as accurate history.

text: :::* No period in Egyptian history matches the Biblical accounts of the Exodus.

text: :::* Egypt kept pretty good records, and there is no record matching the plagues of Egypt or the Egyptian military defeat described during the crossing of the Red Sea.

text: :::* No contemporary Egyptian text mentions a large-scale exodus of slaves like that described in the Bible.

text: :::* The Sinai Desert could never have supported the number of Israelites mentioned in Numbers.

text: :::You are pushing religious pseudoscience. Your claims are no better than those of the creationists or the Mormons. (I am only comparing the quality of your evidence, not any other aspects) Your view will never be included in Wikipedia. You might as well  give up trying. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
You are not paying attention to what I am saying. Why would ancient Egypt keep a "record" of its defeat? Have you never heard of :en:Historical revisionism? For example, see how they tore down statues at the fall of Communism, or the fall of Saddam, or how statues of the Confederacy are being torn down in America today, history gets re-written by the "modern scholars" of the day every generation. So when talking of events that took place 3,300+ years ago of course there is a dearth of information. Secular History neither affirms nor negates the Exodus, because History is a limited tool. So from a Jewish point of we are not concerned because we have our method of recording history. Now I am not trying to convince WP of anything, I am only trying to faithfully depict what :en:Judaism, :en:Orthodox Judaism and :en:Torah Judaism have to say. That's all. You don't have to buy into it. Now we come to the question if the :en:Hebrew Bible aka Tanach can be taken as a reliable record of :en:Jewish history. I say yes. You say no. So what? You are bothered that God made the Universe and that he created  a talking snake. Well I know lots of humanoid "talking snakes" as Hitler was. So Judaism sees the Torah as not just history by also teaches parables and :en:morality. IZAK (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

text: IZAK, with respect, on Wikipedia we follow the modern historiography to discuss the history of something. Scholarly consensus would be the determining factor here, per due weight. El_C 20:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :So what do you say to Jewish observance of :en:Passover and :en:Sukkot and :en:Mitzvot? Are you going to re-write those articles according to "modern historiography" which is good tool in the secular domain but not in the religious domain. WP is not into :en:WP:OR and about to re-write the beliefs and practices of every religion on the planet. IZAK (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::IZEK, Wikipedia reflecting what the scholarly consensus is —with an especial emphasis on 2ndry sources— cannot be original research, by definition. El_C 20:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I am not arguing that point. But we have a problem when it comes to religion, WP cannot re-write the religious beliefs and practices of any religion. In America for example, that is why we have :en:Freedom of religion recognized by the entire word as a basic :en:human right. As long as it can be presented in a NPOV. IZAK (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::IZEK, I suppose I just don't see what freedom of religion has to do with the due weight. El_C 21:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::I always stick to WP:NPOV and WP:RS all the time. That's how I have survived around here for 17 years. I have to go now, :en:Shabbat :en:Shalom! IZAK (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::You and me both. See ya. El_C 21:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: The Exodus vs. the Nephites