Talk:Jabal al-Lawz

message: 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)
thread_title:  First hand knowledge? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Almonds? 

message: I corrected some very obvious errors, but this article is still far from encyclopedia-quality.
Pilby 20:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a lot of work 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Summit description 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Very simple match 

message: I removed both of two mutually contradictory points
*there is a "bush" on the mountain that is well over 2000 years old. 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)
thread_title:  Woody plants 

message: Supporters could be relevant for either or both of two reasons:
# 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
# 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)
thread_title:  Removal of Supporters secn 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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   and many, many other sources. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Almonds vs laws

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Jebel or Jabal? 

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

text: Cornuke doesn't.  Doug Weller talk 15:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sinai info move Suggestion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  My 2 cents