Talk:Jabal al-Lawz

First hand knowledge?

this page says that the individuals who support this mountain as the biblical Mt. Sinai have "first hand knowledge". First hand knowledge of what? The mountain? The biblical story? I don't think anyone alive today claims they were there when Moses got the 10 commandments so I don't think "first hand knowledge" is really apt. I removed it. Michael.passman 19:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bob Cornuke of Base Institute (http://www.baseinstitute.org) has many photographs and videos that he has taken while standing on Jabal al-lawz in NW Saudi Arabia. That is what you call an expedition. It is an investigation. Bob Cornuke is a retired Police investigator who investigates biblical sites. The whole point is millions support the mountain as Mt. Sinai. It is a massive mountain in NW Saudi Arabia which is undeniably the ancient land of Midian. This influences many people to believe it is Mt. Sinai. Many other reasons such as ancient Hieroglyphs (Petroglyphs) influence people, as well, but again the point is people have taken expeditions to this location, and many people believe that it is Mt. Sinai. This is called a theory, and some people hold to the theory, and other people do not. Others think Mt. Sinai is located in the Sinai Peninsula based on tradition. This is outside of the Land of Midian, so it is a traditional site that fewer people recognize as the biblical Mt. Sinai. --Lampstand49 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Bob is incorrect in his location. Hieroglyphic etchings are located across the valley of Jabal al-Lawz (almond mountain) in Hebrew detailing the exact location of Mt. Sinai. Please note, this location aligns with SA locals that refer to the mountain, as Moses' mountain. In addition, the SA royal physician confirmed Mt Sinai location using extremely old, historical maps. To the north of Jabal al-Lawz is both the rock of Horeb (where Moses split open the rock), and a smaller mountain that has HUGE almond trees. Slightly to the east of the Mt Sinai is the golden calf alter sight. In addition, Elijah's cave can also be identified near the summit of the mountain.

Almonds?

Item 14: 14. Has a large olive tree (Aaron's staff sprouted almonds) Since when do olive trees produce almonds..? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.17.206.5 (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

When providing evidence, more is sometimes less. So there's a very old bush on the mountain. Two-thousand years old? That's still 1500 years after Moses. Besides, although I must confess to not knowing the area at all (beyond Google Earth), I can see that whole area, from S. Arabia to the Red Sea, is full of mountains. So it's hard to believe that that was the only bush around 3500 years ago.

Another thing. Almonds. What's the connection beyond the coincidence of species?

As I said, more is less. Those two arguments should be removed.

Besides that, the possibility is indeed very interesting.

• Added (10/19/19): Please note, there is a mountain to the north of Jabal al-Lawz, named Almond Mountain. If you use google earth, you can see pictures of numerous, and HUGE almond trees. Also note, this path from the north aligns with other historical, biblical sites including etchings noting the location of Jabal al-Lawz, the golden calf alter site, the split rock, and the charred summit of Mt. Sinai.

Needs a lot of work

I corrected some very obvious errors, but this article is still far from encyclopedia-quality.

Pilby 20:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Summit description

I've simply removed this illiterate and incoherent bullet point, which contradicts the lead paragraph, and in any case leaves the reader wondering why, if true, it would have anything to do with the topic:

• The Black top of the mountain is charred not Volcanic. When broken, the stones on top are pink Granite inside.

I suppose it may be trying to say

• The black area near the summit is not composed of volcanic rock: under their surface, stones found there are pink in color, and appear to be granite.

_ _ That editor seems to imagine that all that heat in a volcano makes the rock black internally, and that this granite is just black on the outside because it was "charred". Charring actually results when organic compounds with non-oxidized carbon are exposed to free oxygen, usually while hot. (The brown aging of paper could presumably be described as slow, cool charring, indeed as slow fire.) Carbon-bearing rocks (limestone, primarily) have oxidized carbon, and will not char. Black surfaces on rocks that are internally of other colors are the result of weathering, typically the removal of some compounds by friction, oxidation, and/or dissolution, and the oxidation of some of the remaining compounds.
_ _ (Utterly by coincidence, i happen to have on the table next to my desk a ten-inch long chunk of basalt that evidence suggests was outside, after being fractured off a larger chunk resulting in one extremely fresh surface, for at most a few weeks. That surface is what i would call black (tho i conjecture a geologist would insist it's lighter than that, perhaps charcoal gray), with tiny flecks what i take to be mica. That's despite having the same composition it did when it solidified in the absence of free oxygen. The most weathered surface is mostly dark gray, mottled with reddish-brown patches, which i understand reflect decomposition of the mica that becomes exposed by erosion, and the conversion of iron in it into otherwise unbound oxides of iron.)
_ _ I gather that all granite solidifies deep (at least thousands of feet) underground (as i am virtually certain is also the case with my particular source of basalt). That's important here: if Lawz is composed of granite (not what the discussion of "rocks" being granite suggests), it seems to me it is indeed exceptional if it is a volcano, as our article asserts in the lead 'graph. If there are loose chunks of granite at the top, either it is a granite mountain undergoing erosion, or somehow granite has gotten strewn about on its top. Hopefully it is obvious that the "pink granite" identification needs verification, and on the other hand perhaps a properly trained geologist (not me, and AFAI can see, clearly not the editor in question) can tell us what minerals dilettante geologists (like the two of us and presumably the Lawz-advocate observers) might mistake for pink granite - perhaps whatever mineral forms when granitic magmas cool faster than granite does, because of being near the surface than where granite solidifies, and thus has finer crystal structure than granite does, perhaps no discernible crystal structure. (That would be consistent with its apparently barely challenged volcanic origin.)
_ _ Now, let me also say that altho i fully expect that the two removed sentences will turn out to be incompetent bullshit, that's not the reason for removing them. Even if what they are trying to say turns out to be verifiable, it needs to be accompanied by enough context that a typical reader of this article can understand it without going out to read something else, or, in the most extreme case, can tell from this article what to go out and read.
_ _ I'm embarrassed to have written so much about two crappy sentences, and i hope that any readers, offended by the suggestion that they might need all this to accept the removal, will understand that it is here in case i am indeed also addressing someone who is so convinced that

truth = God's word

that they have not made the first effort toward knowing or caring whether they've gotten the science down right.
--Jerzy•t 05:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Added: 100% correct. The rocks at the summit of Mt. Sinai (currently identified as Jabal al-Lawz) are charred. When broken, the stones expose their natural color. There is video of this online. Only adding because the published post is INCORRECT in saying the color is part of the rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:C180:5AA0:1084:77BA:32C5:2791 (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Very simple match

I removed "very simply match", and an important part of its context, the non-sentence

Something that cannot be said of the current (alleged) site.

On the surface, few things could be more straightforward than "very simply match", but it is being stated as a contrast with something other than a "very simply match" between Musa and Exodus, which means that the something else being "evidence" against Musa has to rest on how much less than a simple match Musa and Exodus have. Otherwise the article claims victory by default, without evidence of there having been any agreement to play the game on its home field.
--Jerzy•t 06:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Victory, no one wins or loses here. Either we all win, or we all lose. This is an encyclopedia. When information is suppressed, we all lose. We need to cooperate to put out the facts. Trying to locate Mt. Sinai is called constructing a hypothesis, and some people hold to the theory, and other people do not. Encyclopedias report on theories, traditions, and religions without bias when hundreds of millions, if not billions of people are interested in reading about something they probably already know about. For example, I have read in my World Book Encyclopedia about Saint Nicholas (Santa Claus), more than once. This is called intellectual curiosity. It does not matter whether or not I agree with those who hold a particular theory, maybe I want to learn about the topic so that I can be more informed on the topic. --Lampstand49 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Woody plants

I removed both of two mutually contradictory points

• there is a "bush" on the mountain that is well over 2000 years old‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . It is a cedar tree gnarled and aged, eight feet in diameter. The only tree.
• there are almond trees further down on the mountain (the biblical story of Aaron's staff states that it sprouted almonds)

since neither is sourced and each is challenged.
--Jerzy•t 06:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Added: BS. There is clearly almond trees (and evidenced by Google Earth, and eye witness photographs). You should NOT be allowed to remove such references due to your BIAS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:C180:5AA0:3429:B1B2:90B8:58E1 (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Such evidence, e.g. "Google Earth, and eye witness photographs," represent your personal opinion only and is, thus, No original research and unacceptable as Wikipedia content. Your personal interpretations need to be published in a Reliable source to be acceptable for consideration for use in Wikipedia. It also would help if you sign your comments. Paul H. (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Supporters secn

Supporters could be relevant for either or both of two reasons:

1. Individually having outstanding qualifications to evaluate the case, and doing so on the basis of their own qualifications, so that their support serves to validate the pertinence and accuracy of the evidence
2. Having specific roles in the propagation of the thesis, e.g. writing a book on the thesis that people buy their own copies of, or giving seminars that people pay to take (or say, to send their pastors to)

If those apply (the 1st sounds far-fetched, but i'd be WA-Guessing as to the 2nd) provide the information that establishes it.
--Jerzy•t 07:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

. ==Supporters==

The other supporters of this view include

,

• Dr Lennart Moller, a medical doctor,
• Dr B. Michael Blaine, a qualified engineer< !-- a "qualified engineer"?? what in the world does that mean? -->
• Larry Williams, a stock market trader
• Josh McDowell, a Christian Apologist, known for being the author of Evidence that Demands a Verdict< !-- citation???? -->

To quote myself from below, “Estimates of how many people hold these views would be useful. With 4 billion Christians, Arabs, Jews and Muslims believing in a geographical Mt. Sinai, I know it is a lot of people. A link to the mountain in the Sinai Peninsula should be added, as well. But this page should focus on Jabal al-lawz which has a massive group of supporters, as well. Millions who search the Web or Watch television are aware of the Mt. Sinai connection to Jabal al-lawz. Search Google and you get at least 4,500 results on this connection. Bob Cornuke of Base Institute is working with secular TV networks to produce some documentaries, including The National Geographic Channel. He mentions this on TBN (Trinity Broadcast Network) at the following link: http://www.tbn.org/watch/files/index.php?file=2010_3_25_300k.wmv&show=85 . TBN is by far the largest audience in the world with a viewer base of over 2 billion people worldwide who have not only seen Bob Cornuke, but have seen Questar, inc. “Exodus Revealed”, as well. “ --Lampstand49 (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Link is now correct above!--Lampstand49 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Almonds vs laws

The real translation of this mountain means "mountain of laws" not "almonds". Many Jewish and Christian theologians believe this mountain to be the true Mt. Sinai because the Sinai Peninsula is still part of Egypt, and the Hebrews would't be out of Egypt if they were still in the Sinai peninsula. And since the top of Jabal al-Lawz looks scorched a burnt, they believe it proves the historical record of when "God descended onto the mountain in smoke and fire." The theologians believe that since by the mountain's real name "mountain of laws", it reveals where Moses got the Ten Commandments from God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye2Eye35 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. 'Lawz' is just a misspelling of 'laws' I presume? It's always been known by an English name but someone spelled it wrong? Sorry, that simply won't fly. The Arabic wordlawz (or luz in some dialects) means almonds [1] [2] and many, many other sources. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And if anyone wants to show that 'lawz' means 'laws', Wyatt is not an acceptable source, you'll need an explanation for all the uses of 'lawz' to mean almond, the dictionaries, etc. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Added: Jabal al-Lawz is a modern name for a very old mountain. Locals in SA refer to that location, as the mountain of Moses. I wouldn't be distracted by modern naming. Evidence for this location being Mt. Sinai is supported by physical evidence and numerous archeological sites.

Real Mt. Sinai?

First of all, it is not "first hand knowledge" as you say. The fact is, through most of history, it has been spoon-fed to people that the mountain in the Sinai Peninsula was Mt. Sinai. But they didn't know that an Egyptian Phoenecian princess (after the Exodus) was wandering around that area in a wagon, pointed at the mountain and said "Oh, wow, that looks like Mt. Sinai" and it was called that ever since. But she didn't know that. The Bible historically indicates that it took the Pharoah's army three days to catch up with the Israelites. It couldn't have taken that long if the Israelites had just crossed near the present-day Suez Canal, as they claim; they would have to be a lot father away. It is scarcley revealed that they crossed at the Gulf of Aqaba. On that gulf there is a huge beach, large enough to hold 2 to 3 million people. Ron Wyatt claimed to have found on both sides of that gulf two rock cyclinder columns that had Hebrew inscriptions written on them that said, "These columns were erected by King Solomon to commemorate the Red Sea crossing". And they went scuba diving down in that area of the Gulf of Aquaba and found remains of human and horse bones, and chariot wheels! Plus, when you look at pictures of Jabal al-Lawz, you can see that the top of the mountain is clearly scorched and burnt; this is further evidense that portrays the passage from the Bible that states, "And mount Sinai was altogether on smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly." in (Exodus 19:18). There has been controversey questioning whether the Bible does say if Mt. Sinai was in Saudi Arabia after all; while the answer in the Bible happens to be "mount Sinai in Arabia" (Galatians 4:25).

[3]

I don't think "First hand knowledge?" is accurate or making any sense. I removed it. Eye2Eye35 19:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The "First hand knowledge" section above does make sense when you look at the date. The editor was referring to the article as it was in December 2006. I have put back his comment. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see that Eye2Eye35 editing not logged in also removed my comment. I shall give the editor another warning. Further removals of text like this will end up in a block I am sure. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent for simplicity in quoting) One further comment. Wyatt is not a reliable source by our standards, which I explained to the editor on their talk page. He isn't even accepted by most Christian fundamentalists. As for the 'burnt' top, see [4]:

"". . . Geologists, who are familiar with the geology of the area, in which Cornuke and Halbrook (2000) claimed to have found Mt. Sinai, would certainly not regard their ideas about Jabal al Lawz being Mt. Sinai a "remarkable geological find." Rather, they would regard their interpretation that the top of Jabal al Lawz had been both melted and charred by any event during the last few thousand years to be a remarkable geological blunder on the part of Cornuke and Halbrook

Any geologist looking at the pictures of Jabal al Lawz readily recognizes that the dark-colored rocks shown in the pictures of Jabal al Lawz shown at Bob Cornuke's web page are quite clearly roof pendants of darker-colored rocks intruded by younger, light-colored rocks. In fact if a person examines the published geological maps of the Jabal al Lawz, i.e. Bramkamp et al. (1963) and Trent and Johnson (1967), they would find that these geological maps confirm this interpretation. These maps show the bulk of Jabal al Lawz to be composed of light-colored granite and red or salmon granite. The dark-colored rocks comprising the summits are small areas mapped as (older) greenstone. These greenstone outcrops are roof pedants of older rocks that have been intruded by the red or salmon granite. North of this mountain are additional outcrops of older gabbro into which the granites have intruded."

And again:

"The descriptions of the units from youngest to oldest in the stratigraphic column within the in the Jabal al Lawz area as given by Bramkamp et al. (1963) are:

"gm = Granite. Massive, light-colored calc- alkaline granite, mostly without large dikes, in large discordant stocks and batholiths on the flanks of Jabal al Lawz, Jabal Rawa, and Jabal ash Shati.

gr = Granite. red or salmon, coarse-grained, commonly highly altered espcially in the mountains on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba; widely scattered throught the Underlying granite and granodiorite and cut by many dikes of basalt, rhyolite, and diabase. (This unit intrudes an older granite and granodiorite, unit gg in places).

gb = Gabbro. In stocks and sills associated with the greenstone. Some basic intrusives may be younger than the granite and granodiorite unit, gg.

gd = Greenstone. Diabase, andesite, and basalt; mostly flows, somewhat metamorphosed to greenschist facies, locally to amphibolite."

The greenstone (gd) overlies older folded calcareous and siliceous schist and slate Silasia formation elsewhere in the area. Bramkamp et al. (1963) regards these rock units to be Pre-Cambrian age. It is intruded by the red or salmon (gr) and preserved as roof pendants as observed by both Bramkamp et al. (1963) and Trent and Johnson (1967)."

Thus, the darker colored rock at the top of Jabal al Lawz are classic roof pendants. This same geological formation is demonstrated in the picture reproduced in my post # 254."

Bramkamp, R. A., Brown, G. F., Holm, D. A., and Layne, N. M., Jr., 1963, Geologic Map of the Wadi As Sirhan Quadrangle Kingdom of Suadi Arabia. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-200A. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Scale: 1:250,000.

Cornuke, B., and Halbrook, D., 2000, In Search of The Mountain of God. Broadman & Holman Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Shelton, John S., 1966, Geology Illustrated. Freeman Press. San Francisco, California.

Trent, Virgil A., and Johnson, Robert F., 1967, Geologic map of the Jabal al Lawz Quadrangle, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; U.S. Geol. Survey, Mineral Investigation Map MI-13, 1:100,000.

Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Howard Blum, The Gold of Exodus. Howard Blum 1998. (about expedition Larry Williams and Bob Cornuke, evidences - it's Mt. Sinai - Horeb.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.52.16 (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Added: BS. The stone isn't that color, but has been burnt/ashed that color. This is evidenced both in video (smashing of the rocks on the summit), and in pictures. Don't fall for the waxed intellectual geology above. I live in the heart of the Rocky Mountains, where we have rocks melted into other rocks due to volcanic explosions and all kinds of bizarre, natural geologic examples around us (Moab, Arches, Mesas, 14ers, etc).

Also, follow the physical evidence left behind that supports this location as Mt. Sinai. I've studied this for about 4 years, and have seen/witnessed numerous atheists try to naysay and disprove. They have ZERO answers for the burnt rock at the summit dissipating when smashed, the golden calf location, the Hebrew hieroglyphics in SA, Moses Alter, the livestock pins for sacrifice, Elijah's cave, the almond trees, the 12 wells and 70 palm trees, the crossing of the Red Sea at the Gulf of Aqaba (gulf of Jacob), Solomon's pillars at each beach location. God has left his breadcrumbs to be found. I don't expect an atheist to understand, but I can testify the archeological evidence is there and aligns 100% to what is written in the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:C180:5AA0:3429:B1B2:90B8:58E1 (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Videos, especially videos by fringe authors of quite dubious and greatly disputed reliablity are not valid Reliable sources for use in Wikipedia. In case of "...I can testify the archeological evidence is there...", No original research is allowed as Wikipedia content and is inadmissiable as Wikipedia content. Wikipedia is edited by a wide variety of people of various faiths. Just because they do not accept your personal beliefs as being inerrant truth does not make them atheists. Paul H. (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, as far desert rocks that are dark, "burnt-colored" colored on the outside and a different color on the inside are quite common in deserts because of a coating of desert varnish, also called "rock varnish." There is nothing either unusual or inexplicable about the rocks that you described. Paul H. (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The Exodus Conspiracy

No wonder people call it a conspiracy! Whether or not Jabal al-Lawz is the biblical Mount Sinai is irrelevant! The fact that there are many whom believe it to be and have documented exploration of the mountain is what should be included somewhere in this article. Obviously there is a clear agenda to suppress any information that would shed light on the fact that there is an ongoing debate as to whether this mountain is "Mount Sinai." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbradley381 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No conspiracy or agenda. It's simply a case of (1) inadequate sourcing for the statements that are being added; and (2) reverting the frequent attempts to mistranslate "Lawz" as "Law" instead of the correct "Almond" and thereby justify the theory. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this article once upon the time, and I ended up defending it from nonsense. I even found a couple of semi-decent sources, but I really don't have time and interest to incorporate them. If someone has, here they are:

• http://newprovidencebc.com/Mt%20Sinai/Biblical%20significance%20of%20Jabal%20al%20Lawz.pdf This is a doctoral dissertation on a Christian university, elaborating on the possibility that the mountain is Biblical Mt. Sinai. Not a WP:RS as such, probably, but it may have some decent sources itself within it.
• http://stronans.org.nz/documents/The%20First%20Passover%205%20Sept%202005.doc. An overview paper. Quote: "Blum, Howard: The Gold of Exodus - the discovery of the most sacred place on earth, Hodder and Stoughton, London , 1998. This is a book written for television, and proposes Jabal al Lawz, a mountain in Saudi Arabia, not far from the Israeli border, as the real Mt Sinai. This is a good yarn, has some interesting observations, but Jabal al Lawz is not a volcano. "
• http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sites/index.html?action=SitHTMDetails.asp&sid=8256&m=0 BirdLife IBA Factsheet. Not related with the Bible, but has some interesting stuff for moderate expansion.

Hope this helps, No such user (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

With all respect, I have read the paper on the First Passover above. It is loaded with supposition. This paper imagines that a volcano in Greece initiated 10 plagues in Egypt, and I quote from the paper "Thera exploded with enormous force in 1365 BC. It has been suggested that this was the event which triggered the series of plagues in Egypt ". I don't know about you, but when Mount St. Helens Exploded or Mount Pinatubo erupted, I didn't even notice until I turned on the news. Can someone tell me how a volcano 1,000 miles away could produce millions of frogs from the Nile river? This unscholarly word document has more speculation and error than any document that I’ve ever read on the Exodus. Let's report what we do know. These are called facts, and facts sell themselves. The fact is many people from all over the world have proposed Mt. Sinai is in the Sinai Peninsula. In addition, millions of people from all around the world have proposed that Jabal al-Lawz is Mt. Sinai. This is an encyclopedia which would benefit from hearing the facts about both of these highly regarded viewpoints. What are the history of these points of views? What is the historical and geographical setting of the land of Midian? Estimates of how many people hold these views would be useful. With 4 billion Christians, Arabs, Jews and Muslims believing in a geographical Mt. Sinai, I know it is a lot of people. A link to the mountain in the Sinai Peninsula should be added, as well. But this page should focus on Jabal al-lawz which has a massive group of supporters, as well. Millions who search the Web or Watch television are aware of the Mt. Sinai connection to Jabal al-lawz. Search Google and you get at least 4,500 results on this connection. Bob Cornuke of Base Institute is working with secular TV networks to produce some documentaries, including The National Geographic Channel. He mentions this on TBN (Trinity Broadcast Network) at the following link: http://www.tbn.org/watch/files/index.php?file=2010_3_25_300k.wmv&show=85 . TBN is by far the largest audience in the world with a viewer base of over 2 billion people worldwide who have not only seen Bob Cornuke, but have seen Questar, inc. “Exodus Revealed”, as well. Now the link is correct and signed!--Lampstand49 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm very dubious about those figures, for a start. But that doesn't matter, we have a non-fringe source for this, [5]. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added a sentence, anything more belongs elsewhere, either in the author's articles or at Biblical Mount Sinai. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Gmail sent your email to spam saying it might not be from whom it purported to be, or words to that effect. If you want to add geological etc detail that also has to be from reliable sources, not your experience and knowledge I'm afraid, although you can add your own photos (you'd be giving the copyright to Wikipedia). Dougweller (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Jebel or Jabal?

Looking for the hill based upon another Wikipedia page, I found Google Earth has the subject mountain being called "Jebel Al Lawz". "Jabal Abu Al Lawz" was the closest I could find to the other spelling and it's in Israel. Typo? Ckruschke (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Ckruschke

Could be. This name is the most common spelling. See WP:NAME. This, by the way, is a page I watch - one of about 6000. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sinai info move Suggestion

I would think that a lot of the information about Wyatt, et al, on the location of Mount Sinai could be moved to the relatively new article at Jabal Maqla, which seems to be the location intended by them. It appears that the two mountains are about 5 miles apart. Perhaps those interested in this article can move some stuff there, and keep some small details here. I like to saw logs! (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Uduriamme: We'd need sources saying that they meant Jabal Maqla. Doug Weller talk 20:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller and Uruiamme: the article already says so, more or less, but the reference to geological maps would seem to be a case of WP:OR, and the Caldwells’ qualifications seem dubious (although I haven’t seen the cited book—a quick browse of their website shows they identify J. Maqla with Mt. Sinai, but I didn’t see anything directly confronting Wyatt et al.). At any rate, if the above authors refer to “Jabal al-Lawz”, here is where people will look for information about their theories regardless. That said, if sources can be found to explicitly support the idea that the J. al-Lawz proponents have conflated this location with J. Maqla, that would certainly be worth mentioning there, with a link to this article.—Odysseus1479 21:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, the article already says that the two sites are conflated. I figured that this would be a good time to move most of that (hopefully sourced) information to the other article. It seems that this article is fairly well followed by the people who would rather get the Wyatt stuff excised, or at least minimized here. So I take your responses as "yes, good idea"? As to a reliable source for this confusion, I am not certain. It appears to be a simple geographical error. I am not aware of anyone who has seen the Wyatt/Moller research and criticized them for using the wrong mountain name. Maybe look back in the history and ask them. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Cornuke doesn't. @Paul H.: Doug Weller talk 15:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple of sources that mention the mixup, which I currently know of. Unfortunately, both sources are fringe and not reliable. I will look through what else I can find. Paul H. (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

My 2 cents

In his book Sinai & Zion, American Hebrew Bible scholar Jon D. Levenson discusses the link between Sinai and the burning bush (סנה səneh) that Moses encountered at Mount Horeb in verses 3:1-6 of Exodus. He asserts that the similarity of Sînay (Sinai) and seneh (bush) is not coincidental; rather, the wordplay might derive "from the notion that the emblem of the Sinai deity was a tree of some sort." Deuteronomy 33:16 identifies YHWH with "the one who dwells in the bush." Consequently, Levenson argues that if the use of "bush" is not a scribal error for "Sinai," Deuteronomy might support the connection between the origins of the word Sinai and tree.

Thus, since "seneh" = "thorny bush", Sinai may mean "Mountain of thorny bushes".

Almost all translation of the Bible translate "seneh" with "thorny bush". One translation, the Nuova Riveduta, instead, translates "seneh" as "plum" (pruno in Italian).

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Esodo%203&version=NR2006

I have not found an explanation for this choice they made, but plums are thorny bushes.

Almonds are called "Prunus Amygdalus", so they belong to the genus Prunus. Wild almond trees are thorny bushes.

On YouTube you may find reportages of people who actually saw and photographed almond trees while climbing Jebel Al Lawz.

Thus, since "seneh" = "almond tree", Sinai may be called "Mountain of Almonds" AKA "Jebel Al Lawz".

Moreover, in the episode of the burning bush (or shall we start calling it "the burning almond tree") we read:

4 And Moses answered and said, “But they will not believe me, nor listen to my voice. For they will say, ‘The Lord has not appeared to you.’ ”

2 The Lord said to him, “What is that in your hand?”

And he said, “A rod.”

This same rod flowered, budded, and produced ripe almonds in a subsequent episode of Exodus. The rod was so important that it was put in the Ark of the covenant.

The Menorah, the 7 branched oil lamp which stand in the tabernacle before the Ark of the covenant was explicitly forged as a stylized almond tree.

Finally, a very similar dialogue happened between God and prophet Geremiah:

11 The word of the Lord came to me: “What do you see, Jeremiah?”

“I see the branch of an almond tree,” I replied.

The hebrew word for "rod" and "branch" is the same: matteh.

So, if the burning bush should represent the God which had such a predilection for almonds, why shouldn't the burning bush be an almond tree on the Mountain of Almonds?

84.18.132.42 (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)