Talk:Exodus

Redirect

This page needs to redirect to Exodus (disambiguation).

Why? If there is no primary topic then [[Exodus (disambiguation)] should be moved to Exodus. If that is your intent, then please propose the move, with reasons, following instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. older ≠ wiser 11:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So moved, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. bd2412 T 21:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, now I'm happy! Didn't know that could be done... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasSixten (talk • contribs) 05:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i couldnt find out the meaning to exodus until i came to wikipedia and i recommend that every one that needs help uses wikipedia to get help and does not help try something else but i would trust wikipedia,from a student at hillside school birana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.123.181 (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dating of the Book of Exodus, neutrality

There are two issues I'm going to discuss before going through with this. First is the dating of the Book of Exodus purported in the Wikipedia article of the Book of Exodus. This article under authorship, and slightly in the third paragraph of the article, advocates a 5th century/6th century composition of the Book of Exodus. However, recent information has brought forth 7th/8th century BC manuscripts of the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible, being Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), completely eliminating a 5th/6th century composition date for this document. Here is two sources discussing this for anyone to read on; http://www.bpnews.net/17741 http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/01/06/The-Blessing-of-the-Silver-Scrolls.aspx

There is no question among Scholars about the dating of these manuscripts (manuscripts? perhaps its not on a manuscript, maybe a pot or something or a wall, i forgot), nor is there any question that they do in fact contain verses from the Pentateuch. Thus, any dating as last as the 5th/6th century is inappropriate and misleading, as clear and overwhelming evidence is inexcusably forcing a much earlier date. The edit will remove any references to such a late dating, and will reference other Scholarly datings, such as the 15th century BC dating, which is consistent with evidence regarding the dating of the actual exodus based upon Biblical passages (that will in fact be mentioned in the edit), and other evidences that will by cited from Scholarly sources. The point will be made however, that no certain dating is known but it at least likely predates the 7th/8th century BC by a considerable time range.

Secondly, regarding neutrality, under Genre and Sources the following quote is purported; "The story of the exodus is the founding myth of Israel"

Calling the exodus a "myth" is definitely not a neutral term, and thus is in violation of any neutrality rules on Wikipedia, and implies clear bias. This is not a manner of being a Jew/Christian or an Atheist, this is a manner of honest and neutral discussing. Wikipedia is not a debating website, it simply is an encyclopedia, bringing out fair insight on the content and information about certain material. There <are in fact> good reasons to consider the exodus, in case anyone is wondering; https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/53931078/posts/1199336321

This link of course is just to dispell any biases stopping someone from accepting this edit on neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korvex (talk • contribs) 22:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is to a non-mainstream website, ie a Creationist one. The WordPress one is pointless, a believer giving his personal viewpoint. I need to find the peer reviewed material, if any, behind the other one. And you're wrong about 'myth', that's been discussed many times. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretend I never posted that (I do hold those views though, I wrote that when I was like 1 day old on Wikipedia though, before I knew the rules). Do you know how to delete your own talk sections on the talk page, by any chance? Korvex (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not customary to alter (or delete) material once it's been posted, and certainly not after someone has responded. There's nothing wrong with what you wrote. You felt it was an issue worth raising. Doug responded. No reason to be embarrassed. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joef. One question -- every once in a while on a Talk Page, I see a sign that says "THIS THREAD HAS BEEN ANSWERED" or something in green. Do you know how I can add that to this section?Korvex (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Nevermind, I got it. Thanks for reading anyways.

Article The Exodus is not Religion, but challenge to the Bible story!

Bkonrad why did you revert my edit without input on talk page? are you the Boss of the article? please assume good faith!

my edit, "The Exodus is an article dealing with controversy of the Biblical story of The Book of Exodus - migration of the ancient Israelites from Egypt into Canaan." is for clarification between Book of Exodus and The Exodus. The Exodus Article is not Religion, but challenge to the Bible story!

Sorry, but your edit was badly formatted, poorly written, and inaccurate. older ≠ wiser 16:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok let's improve it to clarify the point Igor Berger (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wiser unless you going to work with me to improve the edit i will assume POV pushing and add a POV template and seek third opinion. please do not remove the POV template. thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What POV template? I don't see that any improvement is needed based on the barely intelligible rant above. older ≠ wiser 16:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Igorberger and Bkonrad:This is obviously the wrong page to have this discussion since there's no reason to think that people watching Talk:The Exodus will be watching this page. Please go to that article. Igorberger, when you do, please explain what you mean by "not Religion". But the discussion is not about this article so shouldn't be here. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why is the organizations section in the article? Should'nt they be redirects rather than being mentioned on a page that has nothing to do with those groups? SamsonKriger (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disambiguation page, so it is reasonable for it to list organizations with "Exodus" in their names. Zero^talk 03:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]