This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Request to Open article and add Al-Baqara in See Also section. is an Very Important article, Perhaps reffering to Islam and Hindu relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.253.131 (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Moses did not disobey God by hitting the rock two times instead of one time. He disobeyed God by hitting the rock twice instead of SPEAKING to the rock. Numbers 20:1-13 It was wrong for Moses to do this because Moses misrepresented God. God asked him to speak to the rock in front of the people but instead Moses hit the rock after angrily yelling at the people. He made it look like God was mad at the man. Prophetsflow 16:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
What happened to the intro paragraph of this article? Something has been introduced into it that split it and spit out a bunch of things about user:Mošé. Would someone please clean that up? It's been a while since I've been on here, and I hardly know what I'm doing! - Yonah mishael 19:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I fixed it. Wrad 20:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
"According to the bible, he was acrazy jew." - WTF is this? I hope this is intended to somehow be "satirical" otherwise it is completely insulting and contradictory to wikipedia's policies!!
There is 100% proof that Moses was a ridiculous fabrication. His birth was a lie, his acts were a pack of fairy tales and the suggestion that an Egyptian army perished in the Red Sea is beyond ridiculous, it's downright offensive to anyone with half a brain. Chris Thomas Australia
It's disappointing that this article barely mentions the far greater likelihood that Moses is a mythical, rather than historical figure, akin to King Arthur in terms of historicity. It mentions the lack of corroborating evidence for his existence, then immediately explains it away with a dubious "oh, the Hyksos would have destroyed it". Contemporary archaeology certainly seems to show that there was no Exodus or sudden arrival of the Hebrews in Canaan, no conquest under Joshua and so on- without a real Exodus Moses fades into the realm of myth. The archaeology is pointing to everything up until Omri's foundation of Samaria being fabricated. Besides all else, there's not a trace of the millions of Israelites of the Exodus left in the desert sands- nada. Sure, religionists don't like to face up to such things. Nonetheless, this article should provide a more balanced point of view. It treats him almost exclusively as an historical figure, when the balance of scholarly evidence points in the opposite direction.
Just because you may not be Christian, we learn these facts as, well facts. and its not very nice to see people saying its not right and bad and its not true, because in my OPINION, it is (that moses was real)
Wiki writers have a habit of dismissing views contrary to their own by mentioning them and then immediately answering them, apparently "winning the argument" in the mind of the reader- as with the Hyksos mention here. It's bad practice.
More balance please. 82.71.30.178 01:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
If Moses' life was a fairytale then the Ten Commandments and Jewish law is also a fabrication and man may now go out and committ any immoral and hellish act that he chooses with no fear or concern of judgement. Moses lived and the law of man was given through him. Tom 12/13/06
How do you draw a comparison between Moses being a possibly mythical figure and an endorsement of total anarchy? Just because Moses may not have lived doesn't mean that Jewish law is therefore a fabrication. You seem to think that without divine rules to guide us we should literally get away with murder. People who don't follow the Jewish law can still be moral people, they just refrain from doing that which harms others. It's that simple.
If you care to read both factual Jewish and Middle Kingdom Dynasty Egyptian documents, Moses was a disgraced Egyptian General who was wanted for the murder of an Egyptian. He fled from Upper Egypt. In the Bible's own word, Moses was a violent, genocidal maniac, as the Books of Exodus and Leviticus will tell you.
I'm not going to say he did or didn't exist but comparing someone with a decent ammount of mentions outside religion to king Arthur (first heard from in a oviously fictional account) seems rather unconvincing, now whereever he did all those feats is based on faith alone (there is no way any kind of arqueological evidence to either prove it or disprove it can be found in an habitat as harsh as a desert after so many thousands of years). -Dark Dragon Flame 01:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the beginning of the article can be re-worded so that non-believers of Abrahamic faith, without much hitorical knowledge know that existnece of Moses cannot be proved archaelogically and all the facts mentioned are sourced in religious documents. (Ambar)
Moses is an artificial figure. Why is the name of the pharoh not given in the bible? if these stories happened in reality, the jews had remembered his name, as they did with Sennacheribs and Nebukanezars. The only explanation for this is, that when the story of moses was created, nobody knew the name of a pharao of the 2nd millenium.
the story of the exodus simply tells us the relationship of nomads and settled people. so in this way the exodus took place, not just once but maybe every day, when predacious nomads tried to rob peacefull farmers. After they where expelled by the police forces of the contry they attacked, they told their children fairy tails while sitting around the campfire. So the moses story is the attempt to compensate the inferiority complex of these nomads and to hide the cruelties they had done to the settled peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.113.233.236 (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The views that the Moses story was fabricated are also held by Karen Armstrong. The biblical accounts date from the 7-6th C BCE and gave the jews a history they lacked at that time. The exodus, if it happened, probably happened between the Mediterranean towns of Canaan and the mountains, no further than that. Mike0001 16:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
"God Himself buried him in an unknown grave (Deut. 34.)."
was added: - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Moses&diff=2791612&oldid=2780123
This sentence seems to violate NPOV.
There are several subheadings describing what various groups believe about Moses, and this accurately (right ?) describes the beliefs of one group, so I think that sentence is OK. -- DavidCary 05:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
how many times did moses go up on the mount sanai to speak with God? kneelinginprayer2004@yahoo.com
In the Moses and History section, it says that Josephus and Philo who are not reliant on Jewish tradition mention Moses, but this is entirely inaccurate, as they do rely on the tradition, just with their own twists. There's no other reason to suggest that they relied on any neutral documentation of Moses. All evidence points to Jewish tradition and scriptures as the ultimate source of Moses, with variations stemming from that. Like modern Judaism, interpretation on the scriptures varies greatly. Chris Weimer 13:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is not true. Manetho, when he wrote about a "renegade priest" who "taught the undesirables how to fight" was not necessarily writing about the Moses described in the Torah or the Qu'ran (Muslims in general freely admitting that the Moses of the Qu'ran is the Moses of the Torah). It is Josephus who made the connection, which in itself is a remarkable admission by a Jewish scholar that neither the account of Manetho nor the account finalised in the Mishnaic (written) version of the Torah were not completely accurate.
Interestingly enough, many of the arguments against the proposition, say for example, that Moses was the older brother of Akhenaten, are in fact self-defeating. The argument that -mose, the Coptic affix for "son of" or "begotten of", is not the name of the "Moshe" who either "delivered the Hebrews" out of slavery or who was "delivered out of Nile" ignores the possibility that all three interpretations are correct. If "Moses" was Prince Thoth-mose, he would have dropped the "Thoth" part as soon as he believed that "Thoth" did not exist. And although it is unlikely that a "daughter of Pharoah" would have named a Hebrew infant marked for death by her father with a Hebrew name, it is not inconceivable that Moses may have had an "Apiru" mother (e.g. Queen Tiy?), the variance of the Hebrew word "Habiru" and the Coptic "Apiru" being a typical example of a "dropped h" and a substitution of a p for a b.
The same is even more true for the word "Aton". Both the Hebrew "Adone" and the Coptic "Aton" may have had a common root - the Semitic "idn" root which indicates "father". A "father" is certainly how Akenaten saw God, and it is the insistence by many people (who should know better) that "Aten" means "sun-disk" instead of just the phonetic structure of the glyph that represented the single Deity portrayed as the sunlight that "gave life" - like a father, or the insistence that Adone means the same as El or Baal ("lord" or "master"), that ignores the obvious relationship with both Adone and Aton. The tranliteration of a d for t (or vice versa) and the fact that it is not "lord" but "The Lord" in the Bible, and not "giver of life" but "The Giver of Life" in the Hymn to the Aten
Were Moses himself to write autobiographically, would he include the Unitarian Universalist and ethical dilemma commentaries? Such expression best fits a Unitarian Universalist entry in Wikipedia. A better secular source would be the more contemporary today "Antiquities of the Jews", Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D.)--DanB 05:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I find this strange as having attended Unitarian churches for perhaps a decade I recall no mention of Moses, or indeed of Jesus. That there is a general position I don't doubt, but as references to Moses play a vanishingly small role in the life of the church perhaps this article should not give UUs such a prominent role in the article. Fred Bauder 17:40, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
Apparently the UU text remains... As my first wikipedia experience, I didn't want to remove something! But the ethical dilemna section mischaracterized traditional (as opposed to what the article terms liberal) views of the Torah and the Bible in general - I gave an expanded description of how a traditional Christian tends to view Moses and his writings, and the ethical dilemnas they pose, using a NPOV to describe the beliefs as characteristic of a traditional Christian point of view. --69.17.45.251 00:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Who claims dates as early as the 18th century?? AFAIK, even Jewish tradition doesn't place Moses earlier than the 15th century. Could we say 15th-13th in the intro?
If the bliblical account is correct, then the dating should be something like this: Forty years after the exodus we have the invasion of Caanan by Joshua. Then a few hundred years of the Israelite "judges" fighting the Caananites and the Phillistines (but note - NEVER the Egyptians). Then David takes Jerusalem around the 10th century BCE.
Now the non-biblical historical account is rather sparse, but there is evidence of the Israelites being in Caanan in the 12th century BCE, the Phillistines being in Gaza in the 14th century BCE, and the Jebusites being in Jerusalem in the 14th century BCE. Which puts the exodus sometime between the 14th century (when the exodus had to deviate from a direct exit to Caanan on account of the Phillistines being in the way, presumably in Gaza), and the 12th century (when the Israelites were numerous enough to be "defeated" as recorded on the "Israel stele").
Corresponding records of "Apiru" in Egypt date from between 15th century and 11th century BCE. If not all "Apiru" went on the exodus (or if some went back, as is suggested in the biblical account), then this again allows for a 14th century BCE exodus.
Corresponding events in Egypt: a 14th century pharoah who was a "religious heretic" who believed in only "one God", where this God had no name, only a title, where this title was very similiar to the title for God used by Jews when they recite the "Schma", where this God was adamant about one thing above all others - no "idolatry", and where this God demanded that bulls blood be used in sacrifices to him. And David's psalms to God 300 years later being so very much like the hymns to the Aten (Adonai).
Throw in the fact that Egyptian priests of Ra were circumcised at the age of 13, that Moses was supposed to be wearing "horns" like the Egyptian priests of Osirus when he came down from Mount Sinai, that the name of the god "Amon-Ra" means something like "invisible sun", and that Tutankamun said something along the lines of "the invisible sun is the most important aspect of God" when he changed his name, and you have clear evidence that there is some sort of connection between the biblical persecution of the Egyptian Hebrews and the religious purge that followed the reign of Tutankhamun. Which places the exodus at that time.
This article needs some dates in the intro to say about when did Moses live. I think it was around 1200 BC, but I can't remember. Just a suggestion
--anon on 29 October 2005
Genesis 6:3 is probably a better foundation for the blessing:
And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Of couse, this has no real bearing on the subject at hand, but I thought you should know.
I believe that the killing of the Medianites ordered by Moses should be called as so and have it's own title. When other genocides have been conducted by men through history, it is boldly stated. Why would it be different in Moses's case?
Accoding to a Discovery Channel program, Moses was a full true son of Ramses, who followed Atenism, and killed his brother, the acting-Pharoah... does this theory hold any weight whatsoever?
How is Atenism a "couch potato" theory? And how is it not mainstream? Freud wrote a book about it--is Freud suddently considered "not mainstream"?
Actually, it is a very well recieved theory. The important detail that appears to be missing in the programme, if the description above is accurate, is that the theory states that Moses was Akhenaten (inventer/introducer of Atenism). The one thing to note though is that it is not Ramses/Ramesses, but Amenhotep III (Akhenaten's father), in the theory, the biblical naming of Ramses as the pharaoh simply being down to the pharaoh at the time the bible was written down being named Ramses/Ramesses, as well as his predecessor, his predecessor, etc. for a few generations.
The relationship between the identities of Akenaten and Moses is highly controversial, and widely discussed, and there are many arguments both ways, from both sides of religious POV. Akenaten's father's high priest was Yuya, who many think was the biblical Joseph (of the technicolour coat), the name "Yuya" being, in such a case, a misreading of the extremely similar (in hieroglyphs) "Yusef". The connection between Moses and Akhenaten is one of the unsolved problems in Egyptology.
N.b. Moses is an egyptian not hebrew name, and means "born of X" where X is the name of a god, curiously missing from Moses' name. The name occurs in "Ramses/Rammesses" which is "Ra-Moses" meaning "born of Ra", "Tutmose" meaning "born of Thoth", "Ahmose" meaning "born of Amun", etc. ~~~~ 16:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Any chance someone can revert this article to pre-64.113.110.11 times? He's made too many changes, I can't undo them all at once. unixslug 2:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
This is in reference to a section on the section on the Tribulation that I removed. It can be found here:
First of all, including this passage is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Moses makes literally hundreds of pronouncements in the bible. This one is included not because it is especially informative for someone who wants to learn about Moses. In stead, it is included because it is a proselytizing passage. At least in its current form.
The above reason is grounds enough to remove the section. However, beyond this, the biblical passage is heavily edited to give a certain impression. Here is a different version of the same passage:
DEUTERONOMY CHAPTER 4 (JPS)
23 Take care, then, not to forget the covenant that the Lord yur God concluded with you, and not no make for yourselves a sculptured image in any likeness, against which the Lord your God has enjoined you. 24 For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, an impassioned God.
25 When you have begotten children and children's children and are long established in the land, should you ack wickedly and make for yourself a sculptured image in any likeness, causing the Lord your God displeasure and vexation, 26 I call heaven and earth this day to witness against you that you shall soon perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to posess; you shall not long endure in it, but shall be utterly wiped out. 27 The Lord wull scatter you among the peoples, and only a scant few of you shall be left among the nations to which the Lord will drive you. 28 There you will serve man-made gods of wood and stone, that cannot see or hear or eat or smell.
29 But if you search there for the Lord your God, and you will hind him, if only you seek him with all your heart and soul --30 when you are in distress because all these things have befallen you and, in the end, return to the Lord your God and obey Him. 31 For the Lord your God is a compassionate God: He will not fail you nor will He let you perish; He will not forget the covenant which He made on oath with your fathers.
You should notice two things.
One, the removed portions of the version that was put in the wiki entry all pertain to the prohibition on idolatry. This passage is not speaking to general sin, rather, it speaks to a very specific sin, namely, the third commandment.
Second, this version of the passage (a translation from the original Hebrew) does not use the terms "tribulation" or "latter days". The passage is not referring to the end of days. Rather, it is referring to repentance while still alive on this world.
So, in sum, I oppose the inclusion of this passage, both because I feel it is an inaccurate representation of the biblical text, and because even an accurate representation would have no place in a wiki entry on Moses.
Anyone else find it disturbing that the history section effectively bases the belief in Moses' existence on "the evidence could have been destroyed"? The wording of the first few sentences deliberately attempts to marginalize people who doubt Moses ever existed (i.e. people who need evidence outside of the Bible) and throws out some What ifs as possible "explanations" for why there is no shred of evidence that Moses ever existed outside the Bible. Not only is this factually inaccurate, it is far from neutral. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-7 23:02
What does physics and math have to do with religious/cultural history? ~OZ
Just because there is a lack of accepted "historical" documents in existence it does not necessarly follow that something did not occur. Censorship his not a recent phenomenon. Furthermore people don't bother writing about something inwhich they have no vested interest.
~OZ
I think Brian only accepts "Coherentist Theories" of Epistemic Justifications. But, I think you fail to realize there is very little in philosophical, religious, cultural doctorines that is incorrigible and indubitable. Lastly, much of our understanding of the past seems to be a foundherentism view. Obviously coming across "Justified True beliefs"(Socrtes) are hard to come by. ~oz 20:13 1 dec 2005
I've made some relatively minor changes to the first paragraph. I've explained every edit separately so as to avoid confusion. I'm also requesting a citation for the statement "some Biblical scholars believe that the Exodus might have occurred during the end of the Hyksos era in Egypt". If there are any problems with my edits, please explain here.
One of the problems in defining an "Exodus" in any serious way is the use of a capital letter in the name, the same way that Diaspora or Holocaust is often capitalised, when describing Jewish history. This makes a distinction that marginalises the fact that there are many instances of all three in Jewish history. At least one instance of an "exodus" of Hebrews or religious "heretics" from pre-Hellenistic Egypt is a probable fact, since we know that the Biblical account existed in much it's present form from at least 500 BCE. It is an account unlikely to have been merely a mythical invention of a Caananite "tribe" who otherwise would have been ashamed to admit that they came orginally from Ur in Syria, only had their own kingdom in Caanan for about 500 years, and who spent at least a tenth of that in exile in Mesopotamia and the rest of the time fighting each other. It is an account in other words, that is proved at least partly true by it's many inconsistencies - a completely mythical account would be much more consistent. The problem only exists because some people regard an admission that the "parting of the Sea of Reeds" is based on historical fact as an admission that everything described in Exodus is based on historical fact. Moses' wife herself (a "Arabian" Midianite), who would have known the difference between a Hebrew Egyptian and a Coptic Egyptian, described Moses to her father as merely "an Egyptian" in the Bible. That is in essence much of what confuses people about any "exodus" from Egypt - it is highly likely that the biblical account describes the exodus of "people who suffer for God" (which is what the word Israel means) and that it was only later that the Israelites claimed a common Hebrew ancestry and (possibly) concealed the fact that their lawgiver was (for example) the older brother of Akhenaten, and at most only half Hebrew, by making Aaron his "brother".
Hyksos just means a people like Bedouin, a semitic people who are "shepherd kings" of the "desert uplands" (e.g. Caanan), or something like Hebrew - a people from "across the [Euphrates] river". Yes, it is possible that the "pharoah" who "knew Joseph" was himself a semite, and the pharoah who came later and did not "know Joseph" would have been the Ah-Mose who defeated the Hyksos. But there is evidence of "Apiru" being in Egypt from the time of Thoth-Mose to long after the death of Ra-Mose. The belief that the pharoah of Exodus was Ra-Mose is based on the argument that the "city of Ra-Mose" described in the Bible places Ra-Mose as a contemporary of Mose (Moses). However, this theory has several defects. One - the so called "Hebrew slaves" of the Exodus actually had their own slaves, and are never described as "slaves" - just as a people being in "servitude to Pharoah". Two - the "passover" lamb's blood would have been a useless protective mark for slaves without any property they could mark with blood. Three - whether you describe Kadesh as a victory for Ra-Mose or a defeat, the fact is that after his supposed "defeat" Egypt controlled all of Caanan. Far more likely that the "Israel Stele" describing the defeat of "Israel" by his sucessor describes the defeat of people who had been his enemies ever since they fled to Caanan to escape a religious and ethnic pogrom. Four - the obvious relationship of the God of Akhenaten and the God of Moses suggests that the absence of any Egyptian account of the exodus of "undesirables" and "religious heretics" (other than that of Manetho) corresponds to the known deliberate erasure of the history of Akhenaten and his "religious heresy". And Five - there is evidence that there were important people in Egypt during this time who "could have" been semites - people like Queen Tiy (mother of Akhenaten), Nefertiti (wife of Akhenaten), Ka-Mose (vizier to pharoah Thoth-Mose), and especially Aper-El (an Atenist priest with a Hebrew name).
Actually, your edits are pretty good, even improvements. It is kind of funny that you added a cite request for "some Biblical scholars believe the Exodus occurred during the Hyksos", right after you added the word "Biblical" yourself...! I would just as soon take "Biblical" out of that sentence again. I am aware that some scholars at one time had a fashionable theory that the Exodis occurred during the Hyksos era, but I'm not too sure where these scholars were coming from, or if calling them 'Biblical' really adds anything. It goes without saying that any scholars who have anything to say about the Exodus, even those who deny it existed, may be called "Biblical scholars", beause this is a Biblical subject, so sticking Biblical in here is just a little unnecessary IMO. The word "chiefly" seems extra too... So one of my minor changes is to take out 'Biblical' and 'chiefly', another is to tweak the clauses in the first sentence around slightly to try and make clearer that the term "minimalist" as used here is defined more by their rejection of Exodus. ፈቃደ 21:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the anon considers it POV because it just says "so fragmentary", without providing a reference point. Fragmentary compared to what? I agree with the anon, and think this could be solved by providing some sources. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-23 21:58
Reworded a sentence that introduced the topic of miracles. tried to make the sentence a little more clear. -dantedanti
There are plenty of sections in this article that review Moses from the religios point of view; I hope I can be allowed to rewrite the history section from the point of view of mainstream history. Most of the pro-Moses theories are written by people with little to no background in Egyptlogy or even history, for example Freud. It's important to note that these theories are not widely accepted; the section as it is right now almost makes it appear that they are, and that historians only disagree on the exact nature of historical Moses.
For Christians, Moses – mentioned more often in the New Testament than any other Old Testament figure – is often a symbol of the contrast between traditional Judaism and the teachings of Jesus. New Testament writers often made comparison of Jesus' words and deeds with Moses' in order to explain Jesus' mission. In the book of Acts, for example, the rejection of Moses by the Jews when they worshipped the golden calf is likened to the rejection of Jesus, also by the Jews.
This is not NPOV AT ALL, it is christian POV. Biggest problem of all, it seems to claim all Jews worshipped the golden calf. When this wasn't the case,
especially when you consider that Jews did not exist as a people until the "Babylonian Exile" of the people of the kingdom of Judah. Lets be clear about this: Israelite means Jews and Samaritans BEFORE they fell out over a minor religious issue.
Rashi says it was about a few hundred people, most of which where not the Bnei Yisrael or Ben Israel - "sons of Israel", but rather the others who where also slaves in Eygpt and went with the Hebrews out of Eygpt.
But why would they not less likely to be "sons of Israel" when they worshipped the "golden calves", when it was Moses own brother who made the first one? There is of course the possiblity that the "non-Hebrew" people of the Exodus were Atenists, and they would have just as much as much an objection to idolatry as Moses himself. And just as much a tradition of sacrificing bulls to God.
Sorry did I say christian POV. I meant christian biasness and taken out of context to make things look worse. I am going to wait for IZAK and JFW's replies (probabbly still shabbos for both them, unlike for Australia). They both can explain this biasness better than me, I haven't really explained it. Let just say it isn't the christian POV, it is the christian POV in a zelous way and goes to say more than what they hold.
However, it doesn't make Jews "look bad" if you see the obvious flaw in the "Pauline comparison". Moses receives the law of God, his brother then breaks the law, some people (whether descendants of Jacob or not) follow his brother's lead, and the tribe of Levi then punishes the trangressors when Moses finds out. Whereas for 1st century CE Jews who already obey the law, all they have to do is be "doubting Thomases" and they have every right under Jewish law to regard Jesus as someone other than a "messiah". The statement that it "isn't the case" that ALL "Jews" worshipped the golden calves seems to imply the suggestion is that NO Jews accepted Jesus as messiah. Many did, and Paul himself critcised his fellow Jewish Christians for refusal of many of them to accept Gentiles (other than by marriage)
I agree with the objectors here that this is somewhat POV. The verses in Acts that you mention do not make any explicit comparison between the idolatry and the rejection of Jesus. They read (by the way, this is Stephen talking, not Paul):
"But our fathers refused to obey him. Instead, they rejected him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt. 40They told Aaron, 'Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who led us out of Egypt—we don't know what has happened to him!' 41That was the time they made an idol in the form of a calf. They brought sacrifices to it and held a celebration in honor of what their hands had made. 42But God turned away and gave them over to the worship of the heavenly bodies. This agrees with what is written in the book of the prophets: "'Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the desert, O house of Israel? 43You have lifted up the shrine of Molech and the star of your god Rephan, the idols you made to worship. Therefore I will send you into exile' beyond Babylon."
Acts of the Apostles 7:39-43 (NIV)
And I should point out that when Stephen quotes the Bible, it's the Septuagint translation he's referring to. This is all during a long speech Stephen delivers before he's stoned to death (next, he talks about the Tabernacle). Nowhere in these verses does Stephen compare the idolators to those Jews that reject Jesus, and so such a comparison is un-biblical. I added a paragraph in the "Moses in Christianity" section regarding additional comparisons of Moses to Jesus that later Christian commentators saw in the texts. If the author of the original paragraph feels as though this is a good example, let them include it there (personally, I feel it should be left out - it is un-biblical and possibly offensive to not only the traditionalist Jews, but also to Messianic Jews who have accepted Christ - it implies they haven't). Remember that such an interpretation is not explicit in Acts, and shouldn't be cited that way. I won't change anything, but rather let other editors consider my suggestions. Thanks for spotting that paragraph - I wouldn't have caught it by myself.
I think this page gets enough traffic in editors that everyone overall has done a pretty good job of NPOV-ing it, for the most part, or at least keeping it reasonably so. I was wondering if folks watching this could take a look at another Torah-related (Genesis) topic: Sons of Noah. We have a user who hijacked it to a completely different title and turned it upside-down in November, and rewrote the whole thing with a lot of very one-sided pov edits, and I have been doing my best to neutralize it, but for the most part, been on my own. He's suddenly back now, and we desperately need more knowledgeable editors to pore over and watch this article, and keep it npov and balanced (meaning of course, not leaning too much toward one pov or the other - my reasoning, as proven by this article is, the more editors with different views, the better). He is very persistent, and today unilaterally tried to move the article to his essay-title again, even after abstaining from a unanimous requested-move vote to return to the old Sons of Noah location. If you look at the history first you will see all the wars, especially in Nov. and Dec. Thanks in advance. Codex Sinaiticus 02:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph but kept the link (see below):
According to tsunami experts, the massive volcanic eruption on the Greek island of Santorini in 1600 BC could have generated a giant tidal wave or tsunami that struck the Nile Delta, parting of the sea, triggered the ten plaques during the time of Moses' escape from Egypt. For more information, visit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/moses/ All the evidences are based on scientific facts and findings, and not based on religion.
I removed the ((Template:factual)) tag because it's fairly unlikely that that would actually happen.... Aaronw 00:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
In what language does "Moses" mean "to draw out"? I think it means simply "son" in the Ancient Egyptian language; it's not a Semitic word. This should be explained in the article. Badagnani 06:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This can be backed up with the name Ramesses, meaning son of Ra. Dropping the Ra would leave "Messes", —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.151.196 (talk • contribs)
? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
No, this is absolutely not a non sequitur! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Please follow the discusion here--Striver 16:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Is Moses YHWH?? Was he ever been called YHWH in the torah or bible?? is there more than one YHWH? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.29.199 (talk • contribs)
I really think the whole Ethical Dilemmas section should be taken out or moved somewhere else, most of it has nothing to do with Moses directly.216.90.56.122 20:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The Ethical Dilemma section is being moved to the talk page on Criticism of the Bible. Maybe it belongs on the talk page of Ethics in the Bible, but I will let another user determine that. Unfortunately, the Ethical Dilemma section is a large conglomeration of Original research (see policy page WP:OR) and facts that belong on pages other than this page. In need not mention in detail all the other policies it violates or might violate (follow the link to WP:OR and you can get to the other policy pages from there). As for the references, the Unitarian interpretation will be moved to Biblical inerrancy, and the Apologies for the Bible will be moved to Criticism of the Bible. Again, there may be a more correct place, but another user may determine that. JBogdan 01:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I see alot of pictures of Moses and hes a caucasoid. In moses time the egpytians were black/negroids. According to leviticus 24:10(i think) the israelites went from 70 souls to 3 million souls becuz they mixed with the black kemetics.
Well, if that made sense then how come pictures of egyptians in 1600-1300 BCE show the egyptians as black/darker than modern egpytians? hmm?
So just cuz someone is lighter than their neighbor that makes them white? just because the egpytians were lighter than nubians that means the egpytians werent Black/African/Negroids? Even if they werent(which they were), the 70 israelites that went into egpyt had Negroid heritage. Abraham was from Ur, Ur is less than a "Kuwait" away from Elam. The Elamites pertrayed themselfs as Black/Negroids(similar lookin to indian dravidians). Type in "Elamites" on google and tell me what color the people are in the last picture on first row...
Be quiet,black people cant be racist, if we are "racist" then its justifyed. When i say "black" obviously i dont mean the actually color black, no one is actually black. You know what i mean, he egpytians were Negroids. Accodring to the OT/Bible the Israelites mixed with the black/negroid egpytians so by the time of the exodus Moses would be black! if he wasnt already, which he was....
lol,well i learn something.....BUT THERE IS STILL A CHANCE MOSES WAS BLACK!!! Go get a bible and read leviticus 24:10.....
But ive seen pictures of egyptians in that time and they were black!!!
So becuz sum1 doesnt depicted themselfs as "black" that means to you that they arent black/negroes? I guess that means you dont think Beyoncé, Chris Brown, Aaron McGruder, and Louis Farrakhan are black either, to you...???....
What when did i say he would color himself in??? And i mispelled(on purpose) only 2 times. and you ignore the main point of my last response: Just cuz they werent as dark as the nubians doesnt mean they werent black!
If they werent black or white, what were they? Every population on earth has a "color", or at least we assaigned them one in america.
The Egyptians were caucasoid.
How is that "silly"?
The ancient egpytians were Negroid.
TCC said earlier that there is no evidence of Egyptians being black. Perhaps this image from Seti's tomb will shed some light on it. Of course it will be speculated away that what appears to be black is only symbolically black. I would dare say that Moses looked very simular to the Egyptian in this original drawing from the tomb. This debate only exists when dealing with ancient prominent black civilizations. The drawings in the tombs are ignored. The carvings and monuments with their clear negroid features are ignored. The fact that their was no recorded literature proving the existence of any caucasion race during the early Egyptian Dynasties is also ignored. Even the column effigy showing Seti I as a broad shouldered black man (here in Wikipedia) is from the nineteenth Dynasty and probably considered a caucasion in disguise. Even so, the 19th Dynasty is modern history by Egyptian standards. The farther you go back in Egyptian history the more difficult it becomes for modern scholars to inject caucasions into the picture. TCC even fails to mention the doll and guards in Tut's tomb (18th Dynasty) are more than clearly black. Thanks to the discovery channel I have Tut's opening on vhs. Modern Scholars do not want the Ancient Egyptians to be black. So much so, that there lips drip with conjecture and loose speculation against solid Archeological findings. http://www.catchpenny.org/race.html Tom 12/12/06
See what I mean. In reality if this Egyptian was in 1950s Missisippi he would be arrested if he didn't immediately go to the back of the bus with the other black people on the bus. I'm also sure that no caucasion DNA could have produced him. Like Italians are caucasions yet darker than Scandinavians, the Egyptians were black yet lighter than Nubians. I agree with you that the Ancient Egyptians did not define race as we do today. They didn't have to deal with race differences as we do today. There is no record that I know of of any prominent intellectual caucasion races in existence during the early Egyptian Dynasties. This is why I suspect that Caucasions are trying to inject themselves into Egyptian lineage. Of course the farther you go back, the more difficult this becomes. Even though we're talking about the 18th and 19th Dynasties, we're not in anyway talking about the most ancient of Egypt. There was no reason for them to define that which didn't exist. Had they to deal with what we've dealt with racially for centuries, they would have opinions about it as well. You mentioned that you didn't have anymore images of King Tut, but I do. You will see him as dark as Denzel Washington defeating the Nubians who are as dark as Wesley Snipes. http://www.nilemuse.com/muse/TutBoxB.lg.html The image on the other side of the box shows his destruction of the asians. Remember this is still not Early Egypt and even the Asians have an earlier intellectual history than the caucasions. Also note the image of Tut's cane submitted by Paul on july 13th. Look deeply at the features of the lightened figure. Notice the broad lips and nose of that figure. In all honesty, if you saw that person on the street today you would think him a light skinned black person. But even here you can't make an argument for caucasion Egyptians, but rather only a light skinned conquered enemy of the 18th Dynasty. There was a time in Egyptian History when there were simply no white people to deal with. Tom 12/12/06
Robin this is just another attempt to un-African or un-blacken the Ancient Egyptians. If the Egyptians cannot be catagorized by race, then neither can the Scandinavians, British, Native Americans, Polish, Greeks etc. Of course we will never have this debate over the caucasioness of the Scandinavians. This debate is almost exclusive to prominent ancient Black Civilizations. I can't imagine myself saying that race isn't significant to the Greeks or Native Americans. The race of an indigent black civilization or a significant white civilization is almost never brought into question. It only becomes questionable when an Ancient Black Civilization has been proven to have had significant influence on history and modern culture. Somehow it gets speculated that they may not be as black as they appear. Somehow it always get mentioned that race in this case doesn't really matter and therefore should not be referenced. Or that somehow the historical figures aren't accurate or the pigment colours aren't accurately represented in this case. If the Ancient Egyptians weren't black, then the Greeks weren't white and the Chinese aren't oriental. Tom 02/09/07
The following portions are being placed here until there are reliable resources, etc. (see policy page WP:OR and the other policy pages associated with it):
"Moses or Moshe (Hebrew: מֹשֶׁה, Standard Mošə Tiberian Mōšeh; Arabic: موسى, Mūsa; Ge'ez: ሙሴ Musse) is a legendary Hebrew liberator, leader, lawgiver, prophet, and historian. Moses is one of the greatest figures in Biblical history."
NPOV violation? --Jontsang 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The narrative within this article starts with the story of Moses being sent down the Nile and plucked out by Pharaoh's daughter. Then it says: 'After Moses had reached adulthood, he went to see how his brethren who were enslaved to the Egyptians were faring'. How did Moses know they were his brethren? (Or did he? — I assume so as later in the story he asks Pharaoh to 'let my people go', at least in English). So how did he discover his Hebrew heritage? The book of Exodus says Pharaoh's daughter knew: 1) How? 2) Do we assume she told him, or did his mother, or God (and if he was brought up as Egyptian — remind me: was he? — did he believe instantly)? Njál 17:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I know this is a odd request, but what is Moses's name in Sanskrit? Zazaban 20:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
If you read in Heb 11:24 the bible says it is by faith that when Moses was grown up he refused to be called Pharoh's daughter, I belive that no one told him, His step mother. But through faith he discovered that
Some of the content as to whether or not the Exodus took place did not belong in this article. It has been moved to the talk page of The Exodus, where the editors on that artcle can determine what to do with it. JBogdan 00:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The citation "karnu panav" poses some problems. Ex. 35:29 (source: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0201.htm) sais: קָרַן עוֹר פָּנָיו where the "u" in "karnu" is obviously missing whereas we see a complete extra word in between. The right transliteration would be something like "qaran or panaiu". Where was the "karnu panav"-citation taken from?
The letters which could form words meaning "horn" or "ray" are ambiguous by definition. To say that there is an absolute "correct" translation violates NPOV. Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the Bible's crucification to take place on a "stake" instead of a "cross." My religion may believe that Moses had horns. That is the nature of ambiguity, folks. Sure, most people may believe the correct translation is "ray." Ray might even make more sense in the context. But we are talking interpretation of religous text here, which has been done to Biblical text many different ways by many different peoples (for example, see the sections of this article on Judeaism, Islam, etc.); a encylcopedia entry shouldn't declare one interpretation to be "correct." 74.129.231.106 21:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This section needs to be rewritten. It provides that the same word can be "horn" or "ray," but then completely dismisses "horn" with no apparent reason or explanation. We're supposed to just accept this because the writer claims the mistranslation was discovered during the Renaissance and corrected. If the same saying could mean Moses had horns or glowed, shouldn't both be offered up without dismissing one or the other without proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.20.98 (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I am placing this Good Article candidate on hold. While, by and large, this article seems quite good, I have some issues with some of it which I think make this article too close to a GA to call. The first problem I see is this:
Firstly, self-references are pretty much never ok. The wording almost makes it look like there was some sort of dispute about this that made someone self-reference it as some sort of comprimised, and while this may of been well-intentioned, it almost strikes of some hidden POV agenda, as if it was to say "Although Wikipedia can't confirm it, this and that and so on and so forth.....", which strikes me as introduction of views which are so undue weight, there are no reliable references for any of it. I recommend this all just be deleted, it sticks out like a sore thumb, and honestly, is some obscure association with a character in a work of Josephus really helpful to readers for learning about Moses? Nextly, i'd like to call into question the extremely long quotation of Tacitus and Strabo, are their views really important enough in an article like this to warrent such long quotations? It also seems like you could use summary style, except of course, there doesn't appear to be an article to move it to. Why not just summarize the most important parts of what their saying? Think of it this way, with an article this large, a reader likely should be getting the most important aspects and impressions of Moses, and I think quoting those two people at such length seems like just going way off track of a general look at Moses :/. (Plus, its almost like its giving undue weight to historian type figures from the distant past.)
I expanded the lead, removed the uncited paragraph. I think the Cultural Depictions is ok. Wiki-newbie 15:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Wtf does South Park has to do with a real Moses. Anything that has to do with South Park is just a joke. Dont add anything about any South Park satire in any serious article unless it s about South Park itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.86.16 (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Leader of the Israelites Shit happened. That is all that is appearing when the article is viewed however the normal info is viewed with the editing page yet isn't (after refreshing it of course.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.246.213.116 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
I changed the spelling of Mosheh to Moshe since that is the way it is most commonly spelled.
I have heard that Moses might not have crossed the Red Sea, that it is a mistranslation of Hebrew. He might have actually crossed what is meant to translate into "Reed Sea," and there is a lake in Egypt which some think could be this "Reed Sea." I'll put up some sources in a bit. A section or subsection should be made regarding this issue; even in the articles introductory paragraph it mentions him crossing the Red Sea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.144.254 (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
This is not an attack on anyone. I simply want to point this out...
Here's the thing about the "Reeds Sea/Red Sea" theory. This has only come up in the English-speaking world, and it has stayed there, which is a pretty good indication that it is not reliable. How can one explain this "false translation" in another language? That the original Aramaic(sp?) words for "red" and "reed" also happen to be similar? The Spanish Bible calls it the Red Sea, and it was not a translation from any English version. The French, German and Italian Bibles all call it the Red Sea. Why is it only in English that this is a problem? Do all of these other languages have this similarity between these two words. I know for a fact that Spanish, Italian and French do not. This theory was brought about because of the coincidence of the two words solely in the English language.
Besides, even if it were the Sea of Reeds, it would be no small feat (miracle) to have all the Egyptian army drown in supposedly knee-deep water (as some have suggested). Basically, it all comes down to a question of faith. I have no reason to doubt if God could or could not literally part the Red Sea in two as the Bible states. If He made the earth--or for those who reject this yet believe He is at least in control of the earth--could He not do what He wish with it? Clindz 04:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Isn't Moses a saint? 71.98.224.230 20:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
No he is not. Zazaban 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Moses is indeed a saint. See List_of_saints#M and [4] 75.129.170.228 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Some of us have been working on a new category, [[Category: Founders of religions]]. To our, mostly, non-Jewish perspective it seems like Moses established the practices of the Jewish religion, even though Abraham, of course, is the father of the Jewish people. I hope that no one thinks that any disrespect was meant by our trying to add the category tag to Moses' article as well as to Abraham's. Steve Dufour 13:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I read the passage in the Bible about God trying to kill Moses and it had nothing to do with his son not being circumsized. The event is unexplained. Many people think ot was just a folk tale that got mixed up with the moses story and was put in the Bible. Please edit this to what it should have been. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.176.253.2 (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
Please provide sources for your claim or it's Original Research. Zazaban 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The verse following this incident seems to indicate that Moses' wife unconfomingly circumcised their son as a result of this encounter. At least that is how I see it with the inclusion of the word "then" in Exodus 4:25 KJV. This word in spanish, "entonces" (which indicates a past occurence leading to this act), is also found in the Reina-Valera version of the Bible. Incidentally, these two versions are not translated from the exact same manuscripts which further establishes probability of the inclusion of this word in the original. Apparently, at least his wife thought that this is why God came to kill him.
Another way of interpreting this (Exodus 4:24-26) is that the Lord came to kill Moses' son because he was not circumcised. That certainly would have pressured his wife into circumcising him--not to mention being angry with Moses. Clindz 04:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
"and certainly one weaker that Rameses II." - "that" should be replaced by "than" Pna 17:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed the unsourced comment that this is "one of many" Latin mistranslations: Jerome's version is in general rather more reliable than LXX. Also, I placed a "citation needed" to the claim that "many rabbinical studies" interpret the "shining" metaphorically (as opposed to literally, light emanating from Moses' face). dab (𒁳) 08:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
RE:"Later Christians found numerous other parallels between the life of Moses and Jesus to the extent that Jesus was likened to a "second Moses." For instance, Jesus' escape from the slaughter by Herod in Bethlehem is compared to Moses' escape from Pharaoh's designs to kill Hebrew infants. Such parallels, unlike those mentioned above, are not pointed out within Scripture."
Actually, this parallel (or at least His leaving Egypt, which is where His family fled to avoid Jesus' being killed) is pointed out in Scripture. Matthew 2:15 cites Hosea 11:1, "And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."
Most evangelical Christians do not consider Jesus a "second Moses" in the sense of an equivalent, though we do see many parallels. The book of Hebrews clearly teaches that Jesus is greater than the several early, highly-regarded persons in the Jewish faith (and the Christian faith as well), including angels, Moses and the high priest. Clindz 04:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the trivia section of the article, per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles; aside from everything else, the article was already long enough, at 59k. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Despite living to 120, he did not enter the Land of Israel, or the promised land, because he hit the rock twice instead of speaking to the rock. According to scripture, God never instructed Moses to smite the rock.
This is very confusing. "The rock"? What rock? This has to be rewritten to make it more clear, cause now I haven't got a clue (and probably not me alone) what is meant by this. --Soetermans 08:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I will make a small clean up in the "Moses in the Bible section", because almost every biblical source is noted and that doesn't make it easy to read. Besides, the sources are added on the bottom, there is no need to put in the article itself. --Soetermans 08:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Java has copy-pasted over 80k of information from the Jewish Encyclopedia verbatim. This has more than doubled the article's size. Wouldn't it be better to just provide a link? Or if it really is better to completely mirror the Jewish Encyclopedia on Wikipedia, wouldn't it be better to follow the suggested suggested guidelines on article size and split the info off into its own separate article, perhaps 'Rabbinical Teachings on Moses'. Edward321 13:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The Mormon thought section says that the idea that Moses never died "stems from" his appearance to Joseph Smith and O. Cowdery, but it actually comes from a scripture in Alma in the Book of Mormon. I'd like to correct this, but also keep the important fact of his appearance to JS and OC in the section. Any thoughts on this? Wrad 22:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Found in a long forgotten section of the dead sea scrolls God released an 11th plague, Plantman. Although the scriptures are vague regarding the size and shape of Plantman rest assured that it indeed is an important part of Jewish mythology and Plantmania, the Jewish high holiday is still celebrated by several small sects in eastern Europe.
Portion removed
According to the book of Exodus, Moses was born in a time of dynastic change in Egypt when the Sons of Israel had become numerous enough to raise concerns lest in a time of war they might take arms against Egypt.
Text it refers to
Exodus:1 7-9 But the descendants of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong; so that the land was filled with them.
8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9 And he said to his people, "Behold, the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us. 10 Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and, if war befall us, they join our enemies and fight against us
Portion removed
Moses and his brother Aaron were born to a Hebrew mother who hid him when a Pharaoh ordered all newborn Hebrew boys to be killed, and ended up being adopted into the Egyptian royal family. After killing an Egyptian slave master, he fled across the sea where he tended the sheep of his father in law on the slopes of mt Horab at Elat on the Gulf of Aqaba which borders Midian, Moab, Edom, the Rephidim and the Amalekites of the Negev. The port of Elim where Hatshepset built her fleet and the port of Elat are closely linked in the story. Rktect 06:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Text it refers to
3:1 Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Mid'ian; and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness, and came to Horeb, the mountain ... 15:27 Then they came to Elim, where there were twelve springs of water and seventy palm trees; and they encamped there by the water.
16:1 They set out from Elim, and all the congregation of the people of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin
17:1 All the congregation of the people of Israel moved on from the wilderness of Sin by stages, according to the commandment of the LORD, and camped at Reph'idim; but there was no water for the people to drink. 2 Therefore the people found fault with Moses, and said, "Give us water to drink." And Moses said to them, "Why do you find fault with me? Why do you put the LORD to the proof?" 3 But the people thirsted there for water, and the people murmured against Moses, and said, "Why did you bring us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?" 4 So Moses cried to the LORD, "What shall I do with this people? They are almost ready to stone me." 5 And the LORD said to Moses, "Pass on before the people, taking with you some of the elders of Israel; and take in your hand the rod with which you struck the Nile, and go. 6 Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb ... 8 Then came Am'alek and fought with Israel at Reph'idim.
18:1 Jethro, the priest of Mid'ian, Moses' father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses and for Israel his people, how the LORD had brought Israel out of Egypt. 2 Now Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, had taken Zippo'rah, Moses' wife, after he had sent her away, 3 and her two sons, of whom the name of the one was Gershom (for he said, "I have been a sojourner in a foreign land"), 4 and the name of the other, Elie'zer (for he said, "The God of my father was my help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh"). 5 And Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife to Moses in the wilderness where he was encamped at the mountain
Since Jethro lives in Midian and Moses tends his flocks at Horab, Horab is either in Midian or adjacent to it as its border. Since the Rephidim and Amalek are of the Negev and Moses stands on Horab to oversee the battle the only place it can be located is at Elat, a port at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba between Midian and Rephidim in Sin. Since the people move from Elim to Sin (the Negev) and camp at Rephidim and Rephidim is at Elat it would be logical that they moved by boat and convenient that Hatshepsets new fleet was at Elim at that time.
Rktect 06:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is going to discuss a character in a story which may or may not be historical, why isn't it germane to the discusion or verifiable to reference parts of the story to the history and archaology of the period in order to see if there is verifiability?
How is there a point of view involved in just refering to what the story actually says? Is it a point of view to even reference the opening scenario of Exodus because some might then note there are periods when it matches the historical geopolitical climate?
As to verifiability there is quite a lot of evidence that stripped of their religious gloss the people, places and things discussed in the story do agree well with the facts. There was trade across the Red Sea between Elim and Elat documented in Egyptian literature going back as far as the Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor.
Hatshepset built a fleet in this period to capitalize on this trade and voyaged herself as far south as Punt (modern Yemen) in search of the Frankincense and Myhr used in Egyptian mortuary rituals and mummification.
Cargos of benjamin or juniper oil was combined with bitumen and Naptha, from Napthali, Salts came from the Dead Sea region, were collected at Elat where they were traded for the Egyptians nubian gold. All of this came back to Elim the Red Sea port servicing Thebes. At that time Thebes was the location of the royal court mentioned in the story.
Across the Red Sea at Timna near Elat there were Egyptian pottery and faience found dating to the period c 1350 at sites evidencing Egyptian miners exploited a copper boom going on there then.
Many people seem to throw these tags around simply because something is mentioned they personally have no knowledge of. That doesn't mean it isn't common knowledge in academic circles Rktect 12:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
In this article there is discussion on dating the exodus, route of the exodus etc, which is different than and in some places much better or worse than that in the article entitled "Exodus". Should there be a new article called "Dating of the Exodus" and "route of the Exodus" which other articles should link to?
-rethinker
Twice I have added text that presented an unbiased view according to modern scholarship. In the history section, I wrote:
"Critical consensus is devided as to how historically accurate the Biblical narrative is regarding Moses. Few scholars believe the Bible to be completely reliable in the subject, and some more critical scholars even doubt that Moses existed at all. Further complicating the matter is the almost complete lack of contemporary corroborating evidence for either Moses, the Exodus, or the subsequent conquest of Canaan. This has led to numerous theories of who Moses might have been, when he might have lived, and what really happened regarding the Exodus."
Then in the first paragraph I added a note that most scholars doubt Moses wrote the Torah, and I included a link to the Documentary Hypothesis. This is extremely important information if this article is to even have a pretense of balance. Both edits were removed (very quickly). Why?
This article appears to be locked from editing by non-registered editors. Fair enough, but could someone please add a banner to the article to indicate this has been done? I believe that's Wikipedia policy. In the popular depictions section, DeMille's Ten Commandments film from 1956 is mentioned, but missing is a reference to his equally classic silent version of 1923, of which the 56 version is a remake. 68.146.8.46 04:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This page is either protected or semi-protected.
You can view and copy the source of this page:
Dbiel (Talk) 07:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
"To Orthodox Jews, Moses is really Moshe Rabbenu, `Eved HaShem, Avi haNeviim zya"a. He is called "Our Leader Moshe", "Servant of God", and "Father of all the Prophets". In the Hebrew calendar, he was born on the 7th of Adar 2368 and died on the 7th of Adar 2488. The Torah is his work, as much for the revealed (written and oral) and the hidden (the `hokhmat nistar, which gave Judaism the Zohar of the Rashbi, the Torah of the Ari haQadosh and all that is discussed in the Heavenly Yeshivah between the Ramhal and his masters). He is also considered the greatest prophet."
This is not the view of Orthodox Jews. This is the view of heretics. Such a statement would send Tzvi Ashkenazi rolling in his grave.
Do I need to explain myself or is this just vandalism? 203.214.137.16 15:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
"Some archaeologists believe Moses was a fictional character, since no physical evidence like pottery shards or stone tablets have been found to corroborate his existence."
Probably true, but isn't this favoring the non-existence of Moses in the introduction? Wouldn't it be better to say something like "There is a debate to whether Moses existed or not". Plus as it stands it should be deleted under Wikipedia's policy on weasel words. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AbcXyz (talk • contribs) 22:33, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
Hah this imbecile says he is from Israel, see http://samspade.org/whois/71.202.172.104 he is from New Jersey--66.142.92.161 (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Let the historical accuracy based on evidence stand! Would the same argument be used about Perseus or David Copperfield? In fact the whole article should start with a health warning that none of this is verifiable. Indeed, the miraculous parts are clearly unverifiable unless perchance you believe in fairies too. Mike0001 09:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I've made 2 edits. There was no verb as to the 40 years in the desert. And I've supplied the reason for Moses's denial of entering the promised land:
I couldn't believe that I was the only one who saw this, but the picture of Moses at the top of the page shows him with horns! I know this was how most Jews were thought to look in the 15th century when the painting was created, but to wiki Moses for a project and come up with a Jew with horns is just downright offensive. I strongly suggest wikipedia find another picture to substitute this with!
-Jew from da' hood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.28.93 (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Moses did not disobey God by hitting the rock two times instead of one time. He disobeyed God by hitting the rock twice instead of SPEAKING to the rock. Numbers 20:1-13 It was wrong for Moses to do this because Moses misrepresented God. God asked him to speak to the rock in front of the people but instead Moses hit the rock after angrily yelling at the people. He made it look like God was mad at the people. Prophetsflow 16:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)