Discuție:Regatul Iuda

Rezultate Google

Denumire	Număr 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

^{_GEO✍ 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)

"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)

Legendă neverosimilă

Legenda nașterii lui Isus la Betleem este considerată de istorici neverosimilă, vezi en:Census of Quirinius. Tgeorgescu (discuție) 9 august 2014 22:19 (EEST)

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.

--86.124.115.164 (discuție) 26 decembrie 2014 21:35 (EET)Eu

Utilizator:Tgeorgescu#Ateism. Christine Hayes says "And it was explicitly referred to as biblical archaeology — an interesting name, because it suggests that the archaeologists were out there searching for evidence that would verify the details of the biblical text. We're doing biblical archaeology; archeology in support of the biblical text. [...] Increasingly, practitioners of what was now being termed Palestinian archaeology, or Ancient Near Eastern archaeology, or archaeology of the Levant, rather than biblical archaeology — some of these archaeologists grew disinterested in pointing out the correlations between the archaeological data and the biblical stories or in trying to explain away any discrepancies in order to keep the biblical text intact." Tgeorgescu (discuție) 19 noiembrie 2019 04:31 (EET)

Monarhia unită

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 fr römer la bible.m4v pe YouTube. 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: 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 13:29 (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:

„The Torah, held to be the most ancient of histories, existeth today in three separate versions: the Hebrew, considered authentic by the Jews and the Protestant clergy; the Greek Septuagint, which was used as authoritative in the Greek and other eastern churches; and the Samaritan Torah, the standard authority for that people. These three versions differ greatly, one from another, even with regard to the lifetimes of the most celebrated figures. In the Hebrew Torah, it is recorded that from Noah's flood until the birth of Abraham there was an interval of two hundred and ninety-two years. In the Greek, that time span is given as one thousand and seventy-two years, while the Samaritan, the recorded span is nine hundred and forty-two years. Refer to the commentary by Henry Westcott for tables are supplied therein which show the discrepancies among the three Torahs as to the birth dates of a number of the descendants of Shem, and thou wilt see how greatly the versions differ from one another. Moreover, according to the text of the Hebrew Torah, from the creation of Adam until Noah's flood the elapsed time is recorded as one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years, while in the Greek Torah the interval is given as two thousand two hundred and sixty-two years, and in the Samaritan text, the same period is said to have lasted one thousand three hundred and seven years. Reflect now over the discrepancies among these three Torahs. The case is indeed surprising. The Jews and Protestants belittle the Greek Torah, while to the Greeks, the Hebrew version is spurious, and the Samaritans deny both the Hebrew and the Greek versions.”

Citat de Tgeorgescu (discuție) 15 februarie 2020 16:49 (EET)

Note

Ce înseamnă un mit

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

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)