Talk:Moses

Template:WP1.0

Date of Birth

Okay, Doug, perhaps I was a bit too bold. But the 1593 date and Insight ref should be considered even if Jerome's citation for 1592 can't be not verified; apparently both authors had similar reasons for their early date, even as Ussher. — Glenn L (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd leave it as it is. If they used the same chronological calculations in order to arrive at this date (a year's difference is neither here nor there because of uncertainty over the year of Jesus' birth) then the Insight ref does not add anything independent. asnac (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the point, we could probably add a lot more if we did this. Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

1 Kings 6:1 says the Exodus took place 477 years before Solomon became king. Solomon became king in approximately 971 b.C. and Exodus 7:7 says that Moses was 80 years old so another age of birth would be 1528 b.C. This would make Thutmoses III pharaoh during the Exodus (1448 b.C.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nielsdolieslager (talk • contribs) 19:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The article can either quote the bible and use dates strictly from the bible or it can try to develop material from archealogy or some other secular means. But the above appears to use both. Can't pick and choose. "Moses", the person, cannot be confirmed outside of Genesis/Exodus and biblical references back to Genesis. Pinning him down by a year is a " real challenge," to say the least. We can probably date the conquest/domination of "Canaan" by the Egyptians, leading to some Israelis being taken to Egypt. The return of their offspring is "difficult" to chronicle, however. Student7 (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Historicity

I understand that ideologies, policies and even people need critics, but I fail to see the need for such vague statements as this:

"Others, such as Hector Avalos, in "The End of Biblical Studies," states that the Exodus, as depicted in the Bible, is an idea that most biblical historians no longer support. He argues that "biblical studies as we know it must end," and writes of the "irrelevance of the Bible for modern times.""

This line is accompanied by a source, but it offers no information other than that someone named Hector thinks no one should study the bible anymore because it's irrelevant. It basically says, "The story of the exodus is fake and nobody should study the bible." It could (and should) be removed and if it was, the page would lose nothing.

Like I said, I understand the need for a criticism section, but since we all know that there are individuals and even groups that make it a point to dispute the bible, should a "disclaimer" really be added to every page about a biblical subject on wikipedia that states that there are people that think the specified subject is make-believe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.85.168 (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It annoys me to quote WP:NN authors on any topic, though sometimes we have no choice. We had a choice here, so I removed Avalos.

From a purely scientific/historic/secular pov, there is no need to consider the story of Moses as an actual fact, word by word. It may be inspired. It may be a lot of things. But historians haven't been able to find anything to corroborate it. Doesn't mean anything for believers. But it does for historians. Student7 (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Avalos is a professor of religious studies at Iowa State University, and therefore a "reliable source" as Wikipedia defines the term. However, he's only one such reliable source - you can find others saying all sorts of things, some of them contradicting Avalos. The point, for Wikipedia, is to find what the majority of such reliable, authoritative sources say. This isn't impossible: from time to time a scholar will say, "The majority of modern scholars believe that...", or even "An overwhelming majority of modern scholars believe that..." (fill in the blank). This is what we should be doing, not quoting one person, however authoritative he might be. (In other words, I support the removal of the Avalos quote, but would like to see it replaced with something along the lines I've indicated - try the Introduction to any recent commentary on Exodus). PiCo (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw in the film Zeitgeist that there is an Egyptian god called Mises with a very similar history to Moses why there is no wikiarticle for Egyptian Mises and whay there is no mention of Egyptian Mises in this article?

I saw in the film Zeitgeist that there is an Egyptian god called Mises with a very similar history to Moses why there is no wikiarticle for Egyptian Mises and whay there is no mention of Egyptian Mises in this article?

heinh?

Humanbyrace (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Um... because that movie is a lunatic collection of conspiracy theories and other drivel? I'm just guessing. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Now now Lisa, keep it polite :) PiCo (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly. I can only imagine what you'd have to say about it. ;) - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 December 2011

82.12.255.114 (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC) A citation tn that appears to take you to a Encyclopedia Britannica source actually takes you a wikipedia page, can this be changed? Wouldn't a link to the source be more useful.

"Moses", note no. 89

 Done Link removed, I can't link to the actual source because apparently you have to pay for it online. CTJF83 15:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Asiya, the wife of Pharaoh

No where in Islam is it claimed that Asiyah is not the daughter of Pharaoh. The article suggests something significant. Faro0485 (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)