Discuție:Exodul

message: ===Wikisursă?===
Ce facem cu textul? Îl trimitem la Wikisursă? Aici cu siguranță nu e locul lui. Dacă îl trimitem, trebuie făcute multe editări. În special litera "ă" trebuie pusă în locul lui "ã". La fel e și pagina Geneza. — KlaudiuMihăilă Mesaj 18 septembrie 2006 00:36 (EEST)
=== Copyright ===
Ambele texte au fost aduse prin copiere de la: Biblia în limba româna on-line. Pentru verificare am luat o fraza cu greseli gramaticale, dar care nu contine caracterul "ã", deoarece "autorul" a înlocuit premeditat litera "ă". --GEO 18 septembrie 2006 01:09 (EEST)
thread_title: Despre articolul vechi (actualmente șters)

message: Ce facem cu textul? Îl trimitem la Wikisursă? Aici cu siguranță nu e locul lui. Dacă îl trimitem, trebuie făcute multe editări. În special litera "ă" trebuie pusă în locul lui "ã". La fel e și pagina Geneza. — KlaudiuMihăilă Mesaj 18 septembrie 2006 00:36 (EEST)
thread_title: Wikisursă?

message: Ambele texte au fost aduse prin copiere de la: Biblia în limba româna on-line. Pentru verificare am luat o fraza cu greseli gramaticale, dar care nu contine caracterul "ã", deoarece "autorul" a înlocuit premeditat litera "ă". --GEO 18 septembrie 2006 01:09 (EEST)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: criteriile dvs. pentru „irelevant și neexact” sunt extrem de neclare, ca să nu zic primitive, vedeți WP:CHOPSY pentru detalii. Tgeorgescu (discuție) 16 ianuarie 2020 04:26 (EET)
Cu privire la istoria Israelului antic, James Karl Hoffmeier este un cercetător marginal, profund minoritar în lumea academică mainstream. Vedeți WP:MARGINALE și :en:WP:MAINSTREAM. Tgeorgescu (discuție) 16 ianuarie 2020 04:45 (EET)
Citat din Istoria evreilor. Tgeorgescu (discuție) 16 ianuarie 2020 04:48 (EET)
Citate de pe :en:Talk:The Exodus/Archive 8. Tgeorgescu (discuție) 16 ianuarie 2020 04:53 (EET)
De altfel pentru Wikipedia Biblia nu este sursă de încredere. N-a fost niciodată și nu va fi niciodată, vedeți :en:WP:RSP. Tgeorgescu (discuție) 16 ianuarie 2020 05:05 (EET)
Articolul despre Liverpool arhivat pe https://web.archive.org/web/20160722024905/https://www.thesphinx.co.uk/2013/05/archaeology-and-the-bible-at-liverpool/ Tgeorgescu (discuție) 16 ianuarie 2020 07:07 (EET)
Chestiunea cu mitul fondator nu e „conținut subiectiv”, ci e :en:WP:RS/AC (consensul academic) din :en:WP:MAINSTREAM :en:WP:SCHOLARSHIP (cercetarea științifică mainstream) la nivel mondial. Între noi fie vorba, „mit fondator” nu înseamnă musai că e vorba de ceva fals, „nedovedit” e suficient pentru a fi considerat mit. Tgeorgescu (discuție) 16 ianuarie 2020 10:03 (EET)
Poftiți citat care satisface :en:WP:RS/AC:  Tgeorgescu (discuție) 17 ianuarie 2020 13:28 (EET)
replies: text: imi pare rău că anume o persoană ca tine care 1)puțin ce a citit și a înțeles corect Biblia formulează propoziții cu conținut subiectiv și chiar cuvinte arhaice (pe alocuri), 2) nu include și citează surse demne de încredere, bazate pe descoperiri arheologice, nu pe criterii ale wikipedia, tot inventate de oameni și nedefinite clar, la 100% și 3) (logică impresionantă) citează singur din Facerea, Deuteronomul... etc. (pe alocuri) versete ce descriu, dupa părerea unora, trăsăturile negative sau de tiran a personajului, creând astfel pentru cei care nici nu au avut timp destul, ca și tine de defapt, să analizeze corect Biblia, o imagine greșită a lui Moise, dar nu-mi permite mie să citez versete ce descriu faptele sale bune. Referitor la genocid, analizează contextul sau pe înțelesul tău, capitolul respectiv și alte versete. Rezumatele exodului și a vieții lui Moise care le-ai făcut, ai observat și singur, le-am corectat cu argumente din Biblie, că logic din altă parte nu poți rezuma corect. Au fost foarte multe greșeli. Pe viitor, ca să înțelegi ce am avut în vedere referitor la subiectivism, permite altor utilizatori să includă nu doar surse ce tratează critic un subiect, ci și cele care vin în favoarea lui. De ce? CA oamenii singuri să aleagă punctul de vedere care îl vor ei, nu se li se impună părerea ta sau a altora. De ce zic a ta? Sunt propoziții unde îți expui sarcastic părerea ta, ce nu contează. Wikipedia are reputația de un site demn de încredere, nu de păreri confuze. Aș dori să menționez referior la criterii: orice utilizator poate adăuga sau scoate anumite puncte din listele celea. Ca să înțelegi, pot adăuga în mainnstream pe Hoffmeir și Biblia. În plus, dacă se tratează un anumit subiect din carte, e logic ca în primul rând să citezi ce zice cartea însăși despre ea, nu din surse externe să începi. Articolul în engleză despre Moise are secțiunea"criticism". Cred că nu am încălcat ceva scriind și în articolul care poți să-i spui deja al tău despre Moise. ← Acest comentariu nesemnat a fost adăugat de ViktoBn139 (discuție • contribuții).
replies: text: :Nu, nu e deloc „logic”: propriile dvs. analize ale Bibliei sunt interzise de politica Wikipediei WP:FCO. Numai experții contemporani (profesori universitari de Biblie, istorici specializați în Palestina antică, arheologi) au dreptul să analizeze Biblia pentru Wikipedia. Iar opinia lui Dawkins intră la „concepție teologică notabilă”, nu la „adevăr istoric”. Altfel, și Hitler era bun cu câinii, a adoptat legi de protecția animalelor—nu înseamnă că nu a fost un mare criminal. Morala citatelor de mai sus: Kitchen și Hoffmeier știu că sunt niște marginali cu privire la Exod și au recunoscut public asta. Tgeorgescu (discuție) 18 ianuarie 2020 07:59 (EET)

text: :Citat de Tgeorgescu (discuție) 18 ianuarie 2020 08:33 (EET)

text: :Nu știu la ce „descoperiri arheologice” vă referiți: după câte știu există 0 dovezi arheologice pentru Exod și 0 dovezi arheologice pentru două milioane de evrei în Egiptul din al doilea mileniu î.Hr. Dacă s-ar descoperi așa ceva, știrea ar domina câteva zile jurnalele din toată lumea. Închipuiți-vă ce dezastru social și economic ar fi fost pentru Egipt ca mai mult de 50% din populație să părăsească brusc țara, taman cei mai muncitori. Iar Antichitatea n-a văzut niciodată o armată de șase sute de mii de luptători. Ar fi fost suficientă să cucerească nu doar Canaanul, ci întreg Imperiu Egiptean plus Imperiul Hitit. De fapt, ar fi fost suficientă să cucerească Imperiul Roman, la extinderea sa maximă. În Antichitate ar fi fost imposibil de transportat și aprovizionat o armată mai mare de o sută de mii de luptători.

text: :Un curs universitar de la Harvard de acum șase ani discută Exodul: https://vimeo.com/76323651 . Observație magistrală: . Tgeorgescu (discuție) 18 ianuarie 2020 10:28 (EET)

text: :De exemplu, pe https://player.vimeo.com/video/76323651 doi profesori universitari de la Harvard discută despre Exodul evreilor din Egipt, subliniind că nu există dovezi pentru acesta, iar dacă povestea ar fi reală, e mult diferită de cea din Biblie. Da, asta satisface cerința :en:WP:RS/AC, deoarece discută de  sau . Notele care însoțesc prelegerea: http://ruml.com/thehebrewbible/notes/09-Notes.pdf

text: :Citat de Tgeorgescu (discuție) 18 martie 2020 21:29 (EET)

text: :Citat de pe . Tgeorgescu (discuție) 18 ianuarie 2020 11:26 (EET)

text: :Alt wikilink: :en:WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Tgeorgescu (discuție) 24 februarie 2020 17:49 (EET)
=== Talk:Abraham ===

text: === Talk:Moses ===

text: === Premiul Dan David ===
Pentru cine va găsi dovezi obiective și incontestabile ale Exodului există :en:Dan David Prize în valoare de un milion de dolari. Cine va repeta cu privire la Exod ce-a făcut :en:Heinrich Schliemann cu privire la Troia va primi garantat milionul de dolari. Tgeorgescu (discuție) 1 februarie 2020 20:43 (EET)
=== Camera goală ===
Citat de Tgeorgescu (discuție) 4 februarie 2020 14:51 (EET)
=== Biblia NRSV ===
Citat de Tgeorgescu (discuție) 17 februarie 2020 03:07 (EET)
Ediția cea mai nouă:  Tgeorgescu (discuție) 17 februarie 2020 04:05 (EET)
=== Minimalism/maximalism ===
Citate de Tgeorgescu (discuție) 7 mai 2020 15:22 (EEST)
=== Fecale ===
Eliminarea fecalelor a două milioane de oameni care au stat 38 de ani la Tell el-Qudeirat ar fi fost un proiect ingineresc gigantic, mai ceva decât Al Doilea Templu restaurat de Irod. Așezarea lor ar fi avut o suprafață mai mare ca Bucureștiul, având în vedere că în București sunt blocuri, iar în Antichitate aveau cel mult vile, nu blocuri. Ia gândiți-vă: în lipsa unei lucrări inginerești majore un om din centrul așezării (inclusiv pruncii) ar fi trebuit să meargă mulți kilometri de fiecare dată când trebuia să-și facă nevoile (regula era că evreii își făceau nevoile în afara taberei). De la Universitate la Drumul Taberei sunt vreo 7 km, ei ar fi trebuit să parcurgă cel puțin 10-15 km dus și 10-15 km întors. Iar râuri sau fluvii nu aveau la dispoziție pentru a arunca fecalele în ele. Și nu, nu sunt nisipuri acolo, e teren dur și pietros (plin de bolovani). 
Efectivul maxim al Imperiului Roman: 450 000 soldați. Efectivul evreilor din Exod: 600 000 soldați. Iar ei se ascundeau de armatele egiptene, de frica lor? Să se fi ascuns de egipteni e ca și cum am pune populația Bucureștiului să meargă toată-n marș spre Arad și le atragem atenția să nu cumva să-i vadă transilvănenii. Tgeorgescu (discuție) 7 iunie 2020 01:22 (EEST)
thread_title:  Ștergeri 

message: :
thread_title:  Talk:Abraham 

message: :
thread_title:  Talk:Moses 

message: Pentru cine va găsi dovezi obiective și incontestabile ale Exodului există :en:Dan David Prize în valoare de un milion de dolari. Cine va repeta cu privire la Exod ce-a făcut :en:Heinrich Schliemann cu privire la Troia va primi garantat milionul de dolari. Tgeorgescu (discuție) 1 februarie 2020 20:43 (EET)
thread_title:  Premiul Dan David 

message: Citat de Tgeorgescu (discuție) 4 februarie 2020 14:51 (EET)
thread_title:  Camera goală 

message: Citat de Tgeorgescu (discuție) 17 februarie 2020 03:07 (EET)
Ediția cea mai nouă:  Tgeorgescu (discuție) 17 februarie 2020 04:05 (EET)
thread_title:  Biblia NRSV 

message: Citate de Tgeorgescu (discuție) 7 mai 2020 15:22 (EEST)
thread_title:  Minimalism/maximalism 

message: Eliminarea fecalelor a două milioane de oameni care au stat 38 de ani la Tell el-Qudeirat ar fi fost un proiect ingineresc gigantic, mai ceva decât Al Doilea Templu restaurat de Irod. Așezarea lor ar fi avut o suprafață mai mare ca Bucureștiul, având în vedere că în București sunt blocuri, iar în Antichitate aveau cel mult vile, nu blocuri. Ia gândiți-vă: în lipsa unei lucrări inginerești majore un om din centrul așezării (inclusiv pruncii) ar fi trebuit să meargă mulți kilometri de fiecare dată când trebuia să-și facă nevoile (regula era că evreii își făceau nevoile în afara taberei). De la Universitate la Drumul Taberei sunt vreo 7 km, ei ar fi trebuit să parcurgă cel puțin 10-15 km dus și 10-15 km întors. Iar râuri sau fluvii nu aveau la dispoziție pentru a arunca fecalele în ele. Și nu, nu sunt nisipuri acolo, e teren dur și pietros (plin de bolovani). 
Efectivul maxim al Imperiului Roman: 450 000 soldați. Efectivul evreilor din Exod: 600 000 soldați. Iar ei se ascundeau de armatele egiptene, de frica lor? Să se fi ascuns de egipteni e ca și cum am pune populația Bucureștiului să meargă toată-n marș spre Arad și le atragem atenția să nu cumva să-i vadă transilvănenii. Tgeorgescu (discuție) 7 iunie 2020 01:22 (EEST)
thread_title:  Fecale 

message: === 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:  Copiere de pe pagina de discuție a articolului din limba engleză 

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 

message: Încercați să ștergeți de pe :en:The Exodus informația că Exodul este un mit, să vedem cum veți fi întâmpinați. Nu este spirit de clică deoarece:
* asta este ce predau WP:CHOPSY despre Exod;
* asta este ce predau dacă nu toate, cel puțin majoritatea covârșitoare a top 100 universități de pe https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2020/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats .
Wikipedia este obligată să părtinească ce predau acestea. Chiar dacă eu aș alege vreodată contra CHOPSY, Wikipedia nu va putea face altfel decât să susțină în continuare ce predau CHOPSY.
Știu că am alte opțiuni decât consensul medical la :en:Health effects of salt și :en:Abortion, dar nu fac probleme la aceste articole pentru că eu cunosc bine regulile jocului.
Citat de Tgeorgescu (discuție) 6 mai 2020 22:58 (EEST)
thread_title:  en.wiki 

message: La facultățile de istorie și arheologie, dacă se predă ce spune IP-ul (adică două milioane de sclavi evrei au fugit din Egipt), înseamnă că nu e vorba de o universitate mainstream sau e facultate de fanatici religioși. Nici măcar marile facultăți din Israel nu predau așa ceva (de la Universitatea din Tel Aviv, Universitatea Bar Ilan, etc.) V. #Camera goală.
La circa 600 mii luptători evrei asta înseamnă intre 2 și 3,5 milioane de evrei fugiți din Egipt. Deci majoritatea covârșitoare a egiptenilor erau de fapt... evrei (pe ipoteza Exodului biblic).
Iar faraonul a trimis 600 care de luptă pentru a înfrânge 600 mii de soldați??? tgeorgescu (discuție) 2 februarie 2023 10:13 (EET)
thread_title:  „Există totuși o serie de argumente ce oferă istoriei Exodului credibilitate.” 

message: Adăugirile mele la acest articol ar putea fi șterse fără ca articolul să aibă mult de suferit. Prin ștergerea acestor adăugiri nu se va schimba sensul articolului. Eu doar am subliniat ce ține de consensul academic cu surse conforme cu :en:WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (discuție) 23 septembrie 2023 06:01 (EEST)
thread_title:  Adăugirile mele