Same, this was a lame attempt at being 'historical' and 'funny'.

Which is religion, not history

The story of Moses for the most part is historically correct, someone freed the Jews from the Egyptions, but whether it was Moses or that he cause the plagues and parted the seas is not 100% confirmed

According to some people Ancient Aliens are real and amongst us since the dawn of our shamefully inapt days — it doesn't make it a historic fact, Alan. You might want to keep historical and religious facts separate.

"According to some people" does not make it fact or our history. According to some people the pyramids were for grain, aliens abduct and probe us on a constant basis, and mass shootings are all faked.

What makes something a fact, regardless of direction (ie historical, scientific, etc) is the ability to prove the "idea" or hypothesis through the convergence of evidence. That is simply put, and is not including the further steps taken given the area of direction it is based within. Facts are not; facts to some and not to others. Once a hypothesis of any sort graduates to fact, it is a proven reality without dispute. I think that might be the wording you might be searching for is opinion. What you provided was an attempted humour play on a event recorded by a faith based doctrine. Im not saying this event did not happen. It is a well known THEORY, which as of yet is not fact due to the inability thus far to provide previously mentioned converged evidence. What I am saying is get it together and, stop trying to validate through passive agressive argument the blatantly obvious defects that are begining to overwhelm your site. It should be common sense to avoid referring to Christian bible stories ( or any faith based story/ tale/ legend) as fact. There is a very long history we collectively have world wide, which is rich in funny (actual) facts that you have access to. Religious stories can be funny, just be aware of your audience. If you told that as a joke in a christ based bible study or church im sure everyone would have been positive.

I'd say that it could count as historical because whether or not it was true, the story of Moses is one of the most influential of all time. Like Jesus, we can't prove he existed, but the impacts that have stemmed from the story have been extremely influential.

Thats fine, you have an opinion. History is a single or series of events that have occured. Documented and supported facts took place. Opinion and fact are not the same. Because of the impact and influence of the story of Moses was great, it is considered a legend. Because it has not been historically proved it is not history. Which is why "the story of moses is a fact to some people" is an utter logical fallecy

Science proved that the sea can be parted

#48 - "Like Jesus, we can't prove he existed." We have TONS of historical data to prove that a Jewish man, named Jesus, went around preaching and was eventually executed during the time of Jesus Christ. What ISN'T proven is that he was born of a virgin and, after death, came back to life. But otherwise yes. We have proof that there was an influential man named Jesus during that time period.

A fact isn't what's accepted by "some people" it's what's been proven by the scientific community. Anything else is just theory.

@49 Fun fact, but calling anything in history a fact is by your own definition false. Nothing in history (especially from that time period) can be proven to be true, all we have are ruins, and documents. Are they proof? No they could be false and no one can -prove- that the source was true.

I wouldn't say it was one of the most influential of all time. If you were raised outside of Christianity, the story didn't really have any influence at all

he was a real person though.

@66 Colectively?

Pedantic at the best

Historical FML's are pretty funny - you just have to look at the author and location when you read them. This is an entertainment app/website, and this is an original idea which is entertaining. I heard that some people can't see the author or location on their device, so if you're one of those people then it's by Moses from Egypt.

Finally someone voices out that the new FML is weird!

Not everyone thinks they're funny. This is the first one I've found amusing.

I can see it but this history one is poorly written and honestly it's not what people really want, like we come here to read well written, funny FMLs not badly edited and boring ones. Idk it feels childish and not really funny anymore... We don't even have YDI anymore probably because it offended people and they listened.. The good thing about Fml was we are all c*nts and like laughing at the expense of others you know? Now it feels all bubblegum history class

Yeah but it's confusing and this "Fml" is downright silly? Like I don't see the point in it myself

Completely agree jen1007. Hopefully FML will stick more to their roots.

No, I also like the new stuff...

It's ok, but I like the old way better. Easier to use.

I don't like the new options. "Phew, Glad It Wasn't Me" and "That Could've Happened To Me" are the dumbest ******* things this site has done. One means pretty much the same thing as FYL and the other doesn't tell you shit, as nearly any adversity on this site has the potential to happen to nearly anyone. YDI was a perfectly viable option and there was no need to change it. The historical FMLs are unique and it is an interesting concept to add variety, but right now they are just not funny and seem to lack potential. The photo FMLs have lots of potential, but the way they are being used now is just utterly dumb and not funny. Overall I find this update to be kind of a niusance. On the bright side, us Android users can see gender and location again.

I think U a are rare, some changes are oke, but for instances both the historical FML as mostly just bad taste jokes that a 10 year old could think of, not to mention the image options. If I wanted those jokes I would go to established sites that present those jokes. I also find it sad that they don't have a turn down vote. It is like the people behind the site do not want to see if people actually like it or not. They only hear the positive but none of the negatives. Overall basic changes to websites are good, BUT they new additions like these are just bad.

No.