Talk:Moses

Template:WP1.0

Mose's Name

Having studied the story of Mose's, as well as Hieroglyphics, I believe I can make some coherent comments. Pharoh's daughter first identified the baby by hearing it -mesu / -mose. Next she tried to see where he was: m' ssa (in the shallow water?), and m' sha (in the reeds?). This created several different spellings in Egyptian; not to mention further translations. Later, when he was written as a cartouche, he was referred to as the baby drawn out (of the marsh), because the Faroh's daughter's arm was added (perhaps this was the first formal reference).

reference: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=507558852701584314#

this isn't a "reference". Th--VimalaNowlis (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)e article is aware of suggestions of Egyptian etymology, something of the kind you seem to be suggesting. --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC) ok.

Why are people so myopic and try to prove what's in the Bible by quoting the Bible? Chinese have a saying, "You can't see the mountain when you are in the mountain." To see the big picture, you have to step away. The bigger the mountain, the further away you have to step. The Jews wrote the Old Testement during their Babylonian Captivity in the 6th century B.C. They learned of the well-known old story of the Akkadian, Sagon the Great who, as a baby, was pulled from the river in a reed basket by a gardener. They took the story and made it their own and gave it to their "savior". Moses is not a "name", it's a title. Many Egyptian pharoahs had that title, i.e. Ramoses, Ahmoses, Tutmoses, etc., all well before the Jews wrote their books. If the leader of the Exodus is a "prince of Egypt", he was probably a well educated man and should be well versed in Akhanaton's monotheism claims. As he needed unquestioned obedience when he failed to bring his people to the promised land but got them lost in the desert, he proclaimed Yehweh, the old Israelite God of Host worshiped by Abraham, their one and only god for the band of wanderers. He never claimed Yehweh was the one and only "God" for all people. If you ever read the Bible, you will know that Yahweh is an extremely racist vicious bigot. He was not even able to keep the few tribes of Jews in line. The kingdoms the Jews created were very small and did not last very long. So much for this all mighty Yahweh. When he failed to protect his "chosen people", he blamed the Jews. Christianity and Islam gained supremacy by violence and massacre, the more pagants you slaughter, the greater your sainthood. Have you noticed that only little children sees the world in black and white and their parents are all powerful? That's the simple religion of this simple people to reflect their unsophisticated society. Grown-ups know better. That's why all civilized societies had polytheism where gods were many and complex to reflect their multifaceted cultures. --VimalaNowlis (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Dating question

Currently, it is both 2011 CE and 5771 AM (in the Rabbininc Jewish tradition; assumed stated from now on). This means that 3761 AM was 1 CE. However, if I recall correctly, there was no 0 CE, and year 3760 AM corresponds to 1 BCE. As such, that would require subtracting 3761 from dates prior to 3760 AM to get the BCE analogue. This would make Moses's life from 1393 BCE until 1273 BCE. Am I mistaken? -- Avi (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You're correct about the lack of a Year Zero. The rest of it is beyond my limited arithmetic. I think the way to go is to consult a reliable book or website. Just out of curiosity, what do Jews who follow the traditional dating do with events that happened before Creation? (i.e., before 3700 BC or thereabouts?)PiCo (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

All dating from that epoch and earlier is approximate anyway. As as for carbon dating and red-shift age of the universe and similar, to paraphrase you from the section above, if one believes in an omnipotent creator, how hard is it to believe that the universe was created already aged (less carbon 14 than should have been, photon streams megaparsecs long created simultaneously with the galaxies that ostensibly emitted them, etc.)? -- Avi (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

um, but the 2nd century rabbis didn't have carbon dating? This isn't about historical events, it is about traditional calendars and how they relate to one another. Also, we don't know the date of the Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC) from carbon dating, we know it from historiography. Figuring out the 587 BC date has nothing whatsoever to do with believing or not believing in a creator god. Neither has the task of giving a clean account of the various calendar systems of Late Antiquity. --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea that God created the world very recently but with signs of great age is known as the Omphalos hypothesis (please forgive me if you already know this) - the wiki-article on it is quite good. As that article says, there's no way to either prove or disprove it - but on the other hand, it's not ver useful as a means of explaining the world and all things in it (because if God were capable of creating the world five minutes ago in such a form that it seems billions of years old, then he is also capable of creating me alone in that world, with the rest of you just figments of my God-given imagination... - this is known in metaphysical circles as solipsism, and is equally incapable of disproof or proof). PiCo (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood, PiCo. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just explaining how I can simultaneously remain an Orthodox Jew with all that entails and yet appreciate, recognize, and reap the benefits of the marvels of modern science. Religion, in the end, is a matter of faith, after all 8-) -- Avi (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is also the problem of Gregorian vs. Julian years. This makes for a difference of two years over this period. Then there is the Missing years problem, which basically says that the modern Jewish calendar is off 165 (or 163? Julian? Gregorian?) years relative to the ancient Jewish calendar. It's complicated, which (as PiCo says) is why we should base it on literature instead of figuring it out ourselves. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Delegation

Shouldn't more of the Moses#Moses in Hellenistic literature be moved to its "main" page? The section is as big as Moses in Hellenistic literature. There should just be a summary in the section.--Zakteh2 (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mose's Father-in-Law's Name

The article says that his father-in-law's name is Hobab (The Shepherdess's Father) , that was the name of his brother-in-law. His father's name as is well known was Jethro. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jethro_(Bible) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.45.100 (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Mosaic law . levites or cohen

im of the cohen/levite tribe and i found that when describeing the levite preists in this section would be more informative by the real name given to them they were cohen preists not levite's there is a blood difrence in levites and cohen tho they derive from the same tribe . the levites are the protectors of the cohen hipreist. if some one could change that that would be great i find it dishonest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.196.204 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

the herbrew word for authanticty is Kohanim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.196.204 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Pronoun addition

{{edit semi-protected}}

<The "law of Moses" was discovered in the Temple during the reign of king Josiah (r. 641–609 BCE) probably corresponds...>

likely meant to have relative pronoun before word <was> (eg <which was discovered>) Nickholbrook (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Merneptah?

The name of Merneptah appears in the middle of this article with no explanation - at the very least it neds wikilinking, and mentioning as the "Pharaoh of the Exodus", if that is what is intended. 109.154.68.162 (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)