Discuție:Exodul

Despre articolul vechi (actualmente șters)

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)

Ștergeri

ViktoBn139 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)

„Peter Enns, un cercetător evanghelic, fost profesor la Seminarul Teologic Westminster, deși credea pe atunci că Biblia este infailibilă, recunoștea următoarele: pentru poziția că relatarea biblică a Exodului s-ar fi petrecut în mod real nu există dovezi, iar pentru poziția că relatarea ar putea fi plauzibilă (nu dovedită) există cărțile unora ca Hoffmeier și Kitchen.”

Citat din Istoria evreilor. Tgeorgescu (discuție) 16 ianuarie 2020 04:48 (EET)

At [1] there is a report upon Hoffmeier's speech during the 'Archeology and the Bible' conference at University of Liverpool, stating that Hoffmeier (among other speakers) tried to show that the scholarly consensus upon the historicity of the Exodus must be false. Well, that's and oblique way of admitting that there is a scholarly consensus and that Hoffmeier disagrees with the scholarly consensus. Q.e.d. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A year before that, Kitchen was there, arguing that the scholarly consensus must be false. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

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: Grabbe, Lester L. (23 februarie 2017). Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?: Revised Edition. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-567-67044-1. The impression one has now is that the debate has settled down. Although they do not seem to admit it, the minimalists have triumphed in many ways. That is, most scholars reject the historicity of the 'patriarchal period', see the settlement as mostly made up of indigenous inhabitants of Canaan and are cautious about the early monarchy. The exodus is rejected or assumed to be based on an event much different from the biblical account. On the other hand, there is not the widespread rejection of the biblical text as a historical source that one finds among the main minimalists. There are few, if any, maximalists (defined as those who accept the biblical text unless it can be absolutely disproved) in mainstream scholarship, only on the more fundamentalist fringes.  Tgeorgescu (discuție) 17 ianuarie 2020 13:28 (EET)

Tgeorgescu 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).

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)

„I’ve read these books. And others. On Hoffmeier, note his conclusion re: his own archaeological work is that the idea of an exodus isn’t impossible. He knows very well he hasn’t proven anything. You should also know that in virtually any academic discipline there is always a voice of dissent. This is good, but for the few names you list here, many more could be listed voicing the opposite view”

—Peter Enns

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

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.

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

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 "most scholars" sau "most modern Bible scholars". Notele care însoțesc prelegerea: http://ruml.com/thehebrewbible/notes/09-Notes.pdf

„Common view of MBS: some tribes/groups/clans that would later go on to join the Israelites told stories of their miraculous departure from Egypt; the story of these few became the story of the many. Most Israelites were actually of Canaanite stock; their ancestors did not participate in an Exodus from Egypt;"•Israelites did not build the pyramids!!!”

—Shaye J.D. Cohen

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

„for in fact

11:26 for five centuries from the fifteenth 11:28 century on Egypt ruled an empire the 11:30 largest at that time which extended 11:33 2,000 miles as the crow flies from a 11:35 little north of Khartoum all the way to 11:37 near the Euphrates River and the 11:40 Egyptian army and occupation forces and 11:43 its economy were extremely strong they 11:47 held all of Canaan of course their 11:49 sphere of influence extended to the 11:50 Greek islands and Crete and there is no 11:54 indication whatsoever in the records 11:58 either archaeological or written of any 12:00 major hiatus such as would have been 12:03 created by the expulsion of upwards of 2 12:07 million people if we believe the 12:09 biblical record that would have made 12:11 such a hole in the population that would 12:12 have brought the economy to a standstill 12:14 it would certainly have turned up in the 12:17 record somewhere 12:19 now that's an argument from silence I 12:20 understand but nevertheless the silence 12:22 is absolutely watertight that there is 12:25

no indication whatsoever”

—Donald B. Redford

Citat de pe Bible Unearthed Discoveries of Old versions of the bible) pe YouTube. Tgeorgescu (discuție) 18 ianuarie 2020 11:26 (EET)

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

Note

Talk:Abraham

"Kenneth Kitchen, one of our greatest current Archaeologists" Kenneth Kitchen is not remotely reliable when it comes to Biblical history. The man has a serious bias: "Kitchen is an evangelical Christian, and has published frequently defending the historicity of the Old Testament. He is an outspoken critic of the documentary hypothesis, publishing various articles and books upholding his viewpoint, arguing from several kinds of evidence for his views showing that the depictions in the Bible of various historical eras and societies are consistent with historical data." In other words, Wikipedia:Fringe theories applies. In general evangelical pseudo-scholars should be distinguished from reliable, secular sources. Dimadick (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I think Kitchen comes up so often in these sorts of discussions because he's a serious, credible scholar on Egypt but super-maximalist on ancient Israel and the Bible. It's like a trained rocket scientist opposing evolution -- the rhetorical gambit used is to transfer credibility from one field onto another one. That and his avoidance of full-blown Young-Earth-Creationism can create an impression that his works on the Bible are somehow mainstream. Alephb (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Moses

Well, the IP seems to think that the historical method is the most pestilential doctrine ever vomited out of the jaws of hell. Sorry, we cannot turn back the clock several centuries! Hoffmeier and Kitchen don't say "the Exodus has been proven true", but "it has not been proven false". Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

True; I misspoke. There is no evidence proving the Exodus true, so "It has not been proven false" is all they can say while retaining any scholarly credibility. A. Parrot (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Hasson, Nir (2 martie 2016). „New exhibition chronicles meeting of ancient Israel and Egypt”. haaretz.com. Accesat în 4 februarie 2020. The most provocative items in the huge archaeological exhibition opening March 4 at the Israel Museum are the ones that aren’t there. The exhibition, “Pharaoh in Canaan: The Untold Story,” is about the long relationship between the land of Israel and ancient Egypt. The hall devoted to the best known part of the story — the Exodus from Egypt — is an empty room with exactly one exhibit on display: a movie featuring co-curator and Israel Museum Egyptologist Dr. Daphna Ben-Tor, who explains that the hall is empty because there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever to support the biblical tale. 

Citat de Tgeorgescu (discuție) 4 februarie 2020 14:51 (EET)

Biblia NRSV

„It is impossible to discern what historical events lie behind the book of Exodus. Given the lack of contemporaneous evidence outside the Bible, we can hope only to attain a plausible reconstruction. Reconstructions run the gamut from identifying the Pharaoh of the plagues with Rameses II (1279-1213 BCE) to asserting that the entire story is metaphorical, and Israel was never in Egypt. Those favoring a historical reading of the book have noted that no nation is likely to make up a story that its ancestors had been slaves. Those favoring a metaphorical reading have suggested that the tyranny experienced reflects Egypt's political and economic domination of the land of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. They emphasize the continuity of Israelite culture with Canaanite (rather than Egyptian) culture in architecture, crafts, language, and worship. There is also uncertainty about most of the place names in the book, even about the location of Mount Sinai. Nor is there a consensus on the authorship and date of the various parts of this complex work.”

—Zaine Ridling, Ph.D., NRSV Copyright ©1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Copyright ©2001, New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version. Ed. Michael D. Coogan. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Citat de Tgeorgescu (discuție) 17 februarie 2020 03:07 (EET)

Ediția cea mai nouă: Meyers, Carol (1 martie 2018). Coogan, Michael D.; Brettler, Marc Z.; Newsom, Carol A.; Perkins, Pheme, ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version (ed. Fifth). Oxford University Press. pp. 81–83. ISBN 978-0-19-027605-8. HISTORICAL CONTEXT The diverse materials in Exodus are situated within a story line describing the departure of a group of oppressed people from Egypt to a sacred mountain in Sinai where they enter into a covenant with the God they believed rescued them; then, at that God's direction, they construct a portable shrine for their deity before continuing their journey. The historicity of that story has been questioned, partly because the literary strands comprising Exodus date from many centuries after the events they purport to describe. The events themselves, which involve the escape of a component of Pharaoh's workforce, the disruption of Egyptian agriculture, and the loss of many Egyptian lives, are not mentioned in Egyptian sources (although the Egyptians would not necessarily record such events). Similarly, the larger-than-life leader Moses is not mentioned in contemporaneous nonbiblical sources; and no trace of a large group of people moving across the Sinai Peninsula has been found by archaeological surveys or excavations. In addition, features of the story—such as the signs and wonders performed in Egypt, the exceedingly large number of people said to have left Egypt (see 12.37n.), and the huge quantities of precious metals (e.g., ca. 2,482 pounds of gold; see 38.24) used to construct the tabernacle and other ritual objects—defy credibility. Virtually none of the places mentioned in Exodus, including the holy mountain, can be identified with sites discovered in Sinai or with names known from other sources (see 12.37n.; 19.1n.). Finally, the Exodus story culminates in the book of Joshua, with the conquest of the land of Israel; here too the archaeological record does not corroborate the main biblical narrative.  Tgeorgescu (discuție) 17 februarie 2020 04:05 (EET)

Minimalism/maximalism

Conform cu http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2015/01/minimalists-versus-maximalists-and-contemporary-scholarship/ , disputa maximalism-minimalism a fost specifică anilor '90, iar acum este depășită. Au apărut lucrări importante care nu sunt nici minimaliste, nici maximaliste, iar aici cred că s-ar încadra și cartea lui Finkelstein. Tgeorgescu (discuție) 4 mai 2017 17:34 (EEST)

The minimalist debate of the late 20th century is essentially over, but when it was a live issue it applied to the books of Samuel and Kings, not to the Pentateuch, whose historicity has been rejected since the 80s.Achar Sva (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

Copiere de pe pagina de discuție a articolului din limba engleză

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2020

Conținut extins

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) 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) 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) "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.'" 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

Conținut extins

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) @Guy Macon: 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) No need to ping me. When I post a comment I watch the page for replies. Also, NO NEED TO SHOUT. 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. 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. 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) "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) 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. Mainstream scholarship does not accept the biblical Exodus account as accurate history. No period in Egyptian history matches the Biblical accounts of the Exodus. 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. No contemporary Egyptian text mentions a large-scale exodus of slaves like that described in the Bible. The Sinai Desert could never have supported the number of Israelites mentioned in Numbers. 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) You and me both. See ya. El_C 21:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

en.wiki

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.

Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Citat de Tgeorgescu (discuție) 6 mai 2020 22:58 (EEST)

„Există totuși o serie de argumente ce oferă istoriei Exodului credibilitate.”

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.

„The size of the population has been estimated as having risen from 1 to 1.5 million in the 3rd millennium bce to perhaps twice that number in the late 2nd millennium and 1st millennium bce. (Much higher levels of population were reached in Greco-Roman times.)”

—Britannica

„Mărimea populației a fost estimată ca crescând de la 1 la 1,5 milioane în mileniul III î.Hr. la poate de două ori mai mare decât acest număr la sfârșitul mileniului II și I î.Hr. (Niveluri mult mai ridicate ale populației au fost atinse în perioada greco-romană.)”

—Britannica

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)

Adăugirile mele

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)