Talk:Mount Sinai (Bible)/Archive 1

Archive 1

What about a subdivision to the "Biblical Mt. Sinai" expression?

It has just struck me that contradictory information by Paul, in Galatians, locating Mt. Sinai in Arabia,and old testament references placing mountain's site in Sinai Peninsula, that is , in Egypt,recommends creation of the following subdivision of proposed sites: 1 Old testament Mount Sinai location 2 New Testament,or Christian-specific Mount Sinai location

Would this partition be adopted, the pointed out contradiction could be far easily be dealt with Thomas Bawden--200.163.96.163 03:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Rewrote and Reorganized

I rewrote and reorganized the article, and I added other candiates for the Biblical Mt Sinai.--Tomtom9041 20:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved Biblical Mount Sinai

Created its own article and moved pertinent pertinents to it. Its obvious that there are those who are conflicted and refuse to see that others do not agree that the Biblical Mount Sinai and Mount Sinai are coterminus.--Tomtom9041 01:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved additional Biblical Mount Sinai edits to that page.--Tombombadil 23:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Mount Sinai and Orthodox Judaism

I find the introduction of this article to be extremely misleading!

The Biblical Mount Sinai is an ambiguously located mountain at which the Hebrew Bible states that various laws were given to Moses by God; the laws in question include the Ethical Decalogue[1] (traditionally considered the Ten Commandments), Ritual Decalogue[2] (identified as the Ten Commandments by the Bible[3]), Book of the Covenant[4], Holiness Code[5], and elements of the Priestly Code.

Orthodox Jewish tradition asserts that the entirety of the Torah was presented and delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai over a period of 40 days and nights, while the Jewish nation camped at the base of the mountain. The article, with its introduction as quoted above, seems to assert that, on the contrary, only a relatively minute portion of the Torah was given at Mount Sinai. In fact, Orthodox Judaism does not even consider the Ritual Decalogue to posses any special religious significance over and above its general inclusion in the Torah. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WOW

Kudos to those who did the rewrite. Been away for a while. User:Tomtom9041 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What a great rewrite, just did some some phonetical stuff.--Tomtom9041 16:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Much better--71.185.193.98 02:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Saudi edits

Just wanted to note my very minor changes under the Saudi subhead. Categorized Larry Williams (whom I added) and Cornuke together since they made their trips as a team--labeled them as 'amateur adventurers' rather than the previous 'fundamentalist Christian apologists' because both trips were made on their own--and Larry Williams makes it clear that he does not claim to be a Christian whatsoever--he merely went as a part-time hobbyist.

Also included David Fasold (who has a wikipedia entry on him) with Wyatt since they were a team--and I added that they were treasure hunters, because that was their reason in going in the first place--and they got kicked out because they were apparently trying to take antiquities from Saudi. That doesn't sound like religious motivation to me! I left in the term psedoarchaeologists, though, since both went on to pursue other endeavors that went beyond treasure hunting. Also, Wyatt was a Seventh Day Adventist, not a fundamentalist--he was often was at odds with such groups (fundamentalists consider SDA to be a cult). Removed Howard Blum from the 'list' of supposed apologists as he was only the author of a book on Cornuke and Williams' expeditions and does not seem to be directly involved. Lastly, I (very) slightly altered the language of the final sentence that wasn't very non-NPOV but rather seemed bent on mocking Wyatt and the supposed fundamentalist apologists (not saying I agree with him/them, but hey, this is an encyclopedia). Efrafra (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Egypt

Why does the Egypt category keep getting removed?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on self-published works

See WP:SPS, specifically:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable."

Ralph Ellis publishes his own books. Thus, we don't use him. Policy does also say:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source."

But that doesn't apply here. Doug Weller (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Speculations Only

About the Mount Sinai location (Arabic: طور سيناء , Hebrew: הר סיני) the controversy continues, so important that all the scholars over history spoke about it including Sigmund Freud. The more it is talked about the more proof that there is something wrong or missing. Only linguistics can decipher the mystery because the search starts with the old Scriptures. However, and unfortunately, the reading of the Old Hebrew is mastered by scholars with European mind, ignoring the geographical landscape of Arabia. If we consider names like Harjab, Hareb and Horeyb in an area whith volcanic activity, the issue must be considered for investigation. In the Sinai Peninsula threre is no such volcanic activity, or at least an activity dating to a couple thousand years. The volcanic activity to the East of Petra-Jordan is far older than ten thousand years while the activity in Yemen offers a better understanding especially that the names of Horeb, Harjab and Horeyb are there until today bearing the same names. The Biblical scholars can identify the similarity if these names with the term: "Mount of the Lord".

--68.34.107.47 (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

In addition, the Moon God Sinn is from Yemen. Nonetheless, the history of migrations from Yemen to the north brought many names to the Lebanon area like: Mount Sannin, Mount Kharrob, Mount Baroch, and many other biblical names like Shehim, Jerzim, Harmel, Shoof, not to mention the hundreds of these names on the top of which is the name of Lebanon (Lubnan LBNN as pronounced by its own people). The Mount Lubnan in Yemen is famous for bringing the name of that country to the north through the trade caravans criss-crossing Arabia for centuries.

In addition, the local Arabian oral tradition before Islam is reflected in the Kuran telling the story of Moses the Prophet of God who was "called from the right side of the Tor". In another Surat the text repeats itself "...from the right shore of the Valley". Both citations reveal one meaning: the Tor is not a mountain, it is a river: it runs in one way and has a right side and a left side. Therefore, I do not agree with the Moslem belief that the Sinai is a mount. The Kuran says it is a river and perhaps this is the "Wed" where the annual torrential rain storm of Easter happens every year until today with catastrophic consequences in the Asir Mountains (Compare with the Exodus story).--68.34.107.47 (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Mount question entered the Islamic tradition by copying the Torah stories about the "Mount of the Lord". The mount question in the Kuran is one which had been flattened by God when Moses asked Him to reveal Himself to be seen, then God told Moses to watch "that" mountain how it is crushed by the greatness of God if he wishes to see Him.

The Sinai itself is pronounced "Seeneen" in the Kuran not "Sinai", which concurs with the name "Sannin" of Lebanon. Another confusion of mountain must have originated from the term "Tar" in Aramaic meaning "mount", which is confusingly close to Tor (Toor in Arabic). I humbly suggest further investigation in this direction. Respectfully, Noureddine (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sin is the Sumerian moon god, the semitic moon good is iah or el. at Serabit el Khadim in the Egyptian Sinai there are western semitic petroglyphs of iah and el. The name of the mountain between Edom and Midian is named hr(y)ib, the Egyptian word for middle. Rktect (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Amateurs

Are we required to insert amateur archeologists and scholars pseudo-research like Freud and Velikovsky? As far as the volcanic nonsense, we do have bona-fide scholars (nor really sure. Check me out here): A. Musil and Ed. Meyer (listed as "popularizers" maybe like Velikovsky I suppose). It seems to me that we quarrel over WP:RELY scholarship. Then we insert stuff from these guys which isn't even close. Almost worse than the History Channel! Student7 (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement to have content and references be worse than the history channel.

On the other hand like amateur astronomers some amateur archaeologists and autodictats have done some interesting work. I used to work with a German surveyor for ARAMCO. My job took me out to the back of beyond, he went out and surveyed what was beyond that. Turned out he discovered an abandoned city called Ubar in the middle of the Rub al khali that was once a hub of the Egyptian frankincense trade. He told Juris Zarins who has been all over that area. Zarins teaches at the University of Missouri and has some pretty interesting ideas about the Garden of Eden and the Fountain of Youth.

He puts Velikovsky to shame but has legitimate credentials, has put his time in in the desert and knows what he's talking about. We talked to him on the phone about what we were finding and he would go look at it when he got a chance. Turns out there are or were the remains of settlements all over the desert and in the crystal plateau that go back to a time when gazelle hunters roamed the forests and savanahs of Saudi Arabia and trade roots that run from Oman up through Hawta, Wadi Ad Wasr and Yabrin to eventually connect to ancient trade routes up the mountains of the Red Sea.

One Ramadan a borrowed a car from the company and compassed the Arabian penninsula from the Eastern region out to Taif in the mountains above Mecca, down through AbHa to Khamis Mushat and back up through Tathlith. What I saw out in the desert I'm pretty sure will never be seen again because oil and gas exploration has removed it all. The Saudis operate on the theory that if its older than the Koran its pagan and worthless. Archaeologists who have been to Israel and have that stamp on their passports can't cross the border so there is an amazing amount of stuff they have never seen and never will. Rktect (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are self-trained archeologists that are worth quoting, but I just wondered if Freud and Velikovsky were two of them. It wouldn't be the first time Freud was wrong. Velikovsky is, of course, preposterous.Student7 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't find Velikovsky of course preposterous, just worth taking with a grain of salt. His comments on the ipeuwer papyrus asked us to consider whether there could be an Egyptian record of a natural explanation for some of the miracles of Exodus. I'd give that a definite maybe on a case by case basis. Take for example his suggestion that if Hatshepsut could cross the Red Sea in a boat so could Moses. Sounds plausible to me. His suggestion that some of the "plauges of the Exodus could be explained by seismic activity are plausible given the Red Sea is a rift zone. What he failed to do was follow up his speculation with some evidence. Rktect (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's go back to an earlier version

I'd like to revert to [1] as a starting point for any new edits. It's only about 3 weeks ago and it preserves the lost references and is (except for 2 edits which got rid of the references list) just before Rkect started to heavily revamp the article adding original research - for which he now has an indefinite block. I was editing by hand but this seems the easiest and most sensible thing to dodougweller (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your problem. I'm going to guess that my later edits were made to the newer version we are trying to revert from. I'm going to have to trust you on this one. I think you have been following this a bit better than I. Go ahead. (I'll scream later!  :) Student7 (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. And setting aside any content issues, none of the references match our WP:MOS, and the 'Sources' section - what's that? See WP:Layout as we shouldn't have a 'sources' section, and WP:Cite - virtually none of them have the information we'd require in a good article.

Midrash

So far, so good.

Question: does a Midrash qualify as a "biblical source?" It seems to me that is merely commentary, however revered.Student7 (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I don't see any reason to keep it in. I've found several differing sources, eg [2] and [3], it should probably be removed. dougweller (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mount Horeb article

There have been some substantial edits recently to Mount Horeb. Editors of this article might wish to get involved. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added the passages which refer to Horeb and Sinai to this article. Its interesting that those which mention Horeb give the most specific and detail location and description of events while those which refer to Sinai refer to the desert of Sinai where it adjoins the mountain of Horab and to the covenants made there Rktect (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What are the coordinates? Longitude and latitude of these places. - Thank-you!--Anaccuratesource (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Qualification for editors of religious pages

As I read these discussions, it became increasingly clear that much of the trouble in editing a page which is religious in nature comes from editors who don't believe in the subjects they are writing about. What I mean is, if you have a page on a Biblical location, it should be edited by those who believe in what the Bible says, otherwise a great deal will end up being thrown out just because it is deemed "fictional" by the editors. Religious topics are sensitive issues, and nearly every point a critic makes could be countered by another point, which could then be countered yet again. To avoid this endless debate, perhaps the "believers" of the particular religion should be given preference. If you have a page on a Jewish practice, permit Jewish practitioners to edit it. If you have a page on a Christian church, allow Christian scholars to write about it. If you have a page on Islam or the Qur'an, let some Muslims fill it in. If a person wishes to look up a particular religious subject, he or she wants to read what its adherents have to say about it, not the arguments of the religion's opponents. It can prove frustrating if no information is available about certain beliefs or practices, because the editor of the article believes those beliefs or practices to be nonsense. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, and the best and most complete results will come about if the adherents and not the critics are considered the highest authorities on their respective pages.

If you are a critic but also an expert on the geographical region which is related to a religious subject, then please confine your expertise to a particular section which deals with geography; if the space allotted proves to be insufficient, then perhaps the article can be split into two pages, as happened here. 96.227.62.189 (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That would require re-writing our basic policies, and that isn't going to happen. This is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias don't give just one view of a subject. Articles would end up completely biassed if only 'believers' were allowed to edit. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that only "believers" be allowed to edit, but only that people who are not "believers" should not take it upon themselves to write about subjects they don't believe in. This would not apply to most articles, but religious articles by definition require a bias in favor of, or in opposition to, the religious tenets. There is no middle ground, no impartiality. You either believe something or you don't. Because of this fact, a true encyclopedia should present the most complete and detailed analysis of the religious subject at hand, and that can best be done by those who take the subject seriously. If a person wishes to look up a religious topic, it's safe to say that they want to see a "believer's" perspective on the subject. In other words, someone who looks up a Muslim belief does not want to see a Christian or Jewish criticism of the entire theological premise; they want to see what the belief entails, and that is best described by a Muslim. If adherents to another religion, or non-religious people, edited the page, they would write in a biased fashion, because they couldn't help it. They are biased against it. A Muslim would write with a bias also, but a bias in favor of it. You can't get away from bias in religious topics, so you have to decide which bias is most likely to be desired by the readers, who are the ones for whom we are creating the encyclopedia. Since most people who visit a religious page want to get an insider's view of the topic, the best choice is to defer to those biased in favor of the religion. Thus, we arrive at my original idea of leaving religious topics alone unless you believe in them. If you want another page full of criticisms of the religion, create a separate "criticism page" and label it as such. In this way, people who visit a religious page will receive the most detailed information from the viewpoint of those within the religion, and those who want to view criticism of the religion can go to the criticism page. 96.227.62.189 (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate page to discuss a major change of policy, but frankly you shouldn't waste your time, as there's no chance of such a major change to WP:NPOV. Please if you insist on continuing this discussion, take it to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view because that is the core policy you think should be changed. Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Legitimate Sources & Allowable Reference Consistency

Although I personally agree that Mt Sinai and Mt Lawz are one and the same in the “Suggested Locations” section on the Biblical Mt Sinai page, I would suggest that you remove the “Ron Wyatt and Bob Cornuke” reference sentence as these two and their BASE Institute is not a legitimate scientific source - of course this is IMHO. If one spends more than a minute looking at the source website, one can come to opinion that their evidence is questionable at best and at worst is an example of Christians looking for archeology to fit the Bible rather than the other way around. I would love to have every part of the Bible reliably proved or pinned to modern day site. However, even an idiot like me can tell that Wyatt and Cornuke were out "looking for evidence" and using them as legitimate source degrades actual Christian research/archeology - again IMHO. Just a suggestion for discussion.

Also References 42 & 45 point to the Arkdiscovery.com website - which I’ve been told by Wikipedia editor Doug Weller is “not a reliable source for biblical articles”. To be consistent, which I assume that Wikipedia is striving for as a true web resource, these two references should be deleted. OR - Arkdiscovery.com can be considered a legitimate source. Either/or. To me, the article on Arkdiscovery.com regarding Joseph and Imhotep being one and the same (http://www.arkdiscovery.com/joseph.htm) is very well written and researched and I would think that others going to “Joseph” or “Imhotep” Wikipedia pages would be interested in other points of view. However as it has been pointed out, this site is not a recognized source and also looks like it has financial gain in mind (but also doesn’t the Smithsonian, National Geographic, and other legitimate investigative/scholarly sources?). I don't know if you can cherry pick good or bad sources off a site. Not poking at Wikipedia's editing, editors - I assume something slipped or it was marked as a "minor edit" (which I've learned from reading editorial comments is not necessarily reviewed). Just saw the reference to Arkdiscovery while I was browsing other Wikipedia pages and I thought I'd bring it up for comment since I'd recently been counciled not to use Arkdiscovery. Ckruschke (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Ckruschke

Gone now, thanks. Funny though, it was used to cite 'a number of researchers support this', while it actually shows researchers for and against!. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Jabal al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia - Or Is It Jebel

re: Suggested Locations - Saudi Arabia section

Not a big deal obviously, but Google Earth lists this mountain as "Jebel al Lawz" - not spelled "Jabal". Not an expert in place names or arabic so I am unsure whether it can be spelled either way or whether it is a typo. I have raised the same question on the "Jabal al-Lawz" Wikipedia discussion page. Again this is probably idiotically minor, but when you type in "Jabal al-Lawz" into Google Earth and you get Jabal Abu al-Lawz, a mountain in Isral, I'm kind of wondering if that's a good thing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckruschke (talk • contribs) 17:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Two things - one, we should stick with the name that is the same as the title of the article. Secondly, the title of the article should be the most commonly used English name (and if it isn't, you'd change the title, then the link in this article). Shame about Google Earth of course, but there you are. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

re: mount sinai significance

  is there a specific reason why god choose mount sinai why couldn't he choose anoyher mountain was there a signicance in mount sinai?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.120.251 (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 

Bias in "Suggested locations"

This sentence bothers me.

 Modern scholars differ as to the exact geographical position of Mount Sinai,[8] and the same has long been true of scholars of Judaism. 

It's the classic error of begging the question -- the way it's written assumes that there is in fact an exact geographical position of Mount Sinai to be found. It's as biased as asking, "Modern scholars differ as to the exact geographical position of Eden." Instead I think it should be narrowed to "biblical scholars":

 Biblical scholars differ as to the geographical position of Mount Sinai.

Any objections? --Quasipalm (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and make this change. Feel free to make a comment here if you have an objection. --Quasipalm (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm going to have to disagree with you. Your reasoning denotes a bias that there is no Mt Sinai when there actually several non-"Biblical Scholars" who point to an actual Exodus with an actual Mt Sinai (Dr. Rudolph Cohen springs to mind as one respected archeologist). There are many many reasons why an geographical Eden is impossible to find - especially for those people who believe it existed - so comparing the two is apples to oranges. I've reverted your change until we can discuss this a little further. Ckruschke (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Jabal al-Lawz

If this is going to be in the article, then it shouldn't start with fringe writers and say that reliable sources also agree. It should discuss what reliable sources have to say about the question and only then, if there is enough significance to their views, mention any fringe writers. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I understand your points here. I feel that there are a number of comments on this theory by numerous reliable sources, which are based on empirical field studies which were performed by amateur researchers. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Since you are going to include this section, and since the location is based upon biblical information, shouldn't you at least include a line stating that biblical sources (Gal 4:25) state that Sinai is in Arabia which agrees with a location in Sinai Arabia rather than the traditional Sinai Peninsula? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joenitwit (talk • contribs) 15:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Joenitwit (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

This page has never been archived. I think it's time, especially as people are posting to threads from years go where the original authors are no longer around. Any objections? Maybe anything over a year old? Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Just do it... Vsmith (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio removed

Just removed a large addition which appears to be copied from an undated blog post ,,, which in part is copying part of this article. Confusing ... ? Vsmith (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the blog and I also added the section to Wikipedia (the blog form is biased and the Wiki form is unbiased & encyclopedic). Both the material on the blog and on Wikipedia is my own material. From what I understand in order to use my own material in a Wikipedia article I must add the following to my blog: "The text of this website [or this page, or this section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover text). CWatchman (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... thanks for clarifying the relationship between your edits to this article and your blog. That would solve the copyright violation problem. However, the content removed from the article has other problems: see WP:OR and WP:SYN. You used references - but the way you used them and constructed the text would appear to be WP:original research and specifically WP:synthesis. That would be fine for your blog, but not for adding content to a Wikipedia article. I would suggest that you proceed with small edits and discuss proposed additions here on the talk page before adding to the article. That way other editors working on this article can discuss and work with you. That would avoid large additions of synthesized content which would most likely be reverted. Also note that your blog posts may indicate a WP:conflict of interest. Vsmith (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. CWatchman (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. What is fine in an essay or a blog is usually nnot fine for our articles. You seem to think you know the truth, but there is no single 'truth' about the biblical Mount Sinai. And claims such as the suggestion that Jebel Musa might be a "conductor of plasma phenomenon" certainly have no place here. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The word "volcano" occurs five times in this article, suggesting that Mount Sinai was a volcano. Other references refer to it as being a "thunderstorm" or a "wind being funneled down the Siq."

You say that, "claims such as the suggestion that Jebel Musa might be a conductor of plasma phenomenon certainly have no place here" and yet the very same paragraph about the wind being funneled down the siq says "The dramatic biblical descriptions of devouring fire on the summit,would fit with the fact that there have been many reports and sightings of plasma phenomena at al-Madhbah over the centuries; the pre-requisite that storm conditions exist before plasma phenomena usually occur would fit with the storm-like biblical description of thunder, lightning, and a thick cloud." So what you say I should not suggest for Jebel Musa has already been suggested for al-Madhbah.

Jebel Musa has been rejected in other articles because it was never a volcano. Even this article several times suggests Mount Sinai as a volcano. What I added demonstrated that Jebel Musa ALSO has been suggested by others as experiencing plasma phenomenon. In other words, al-Madhbah is not the only place this phenomenon has been reported.

Personally I am not "suggesting" Jebel Musa as plasma phenomenon because I personally believe it was not, but that it was a spiritual reality.

But if we are going to site what critics suggest such as "volcanos" and "plasma" and "thunderstorms" for the relatively NEW contenders for Mount Sinai, let's be fair and show the old traditional one has just as many claims as the others.

When I read this article it seemed lopsided. It seemed to tell me why the southern Jebel Musa was NOT Mount Sinai and why the NEW contenders just MIGHT BE Mount Sinai. All negatives for the traditional Jebel Musa and mostly all positives for the new fringe theories. CWatchman (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Fringe material

Having removed the bit about plasma added by a fringe editor several years ago, I want to raise the question about how to treat the other fringe material in the article. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we are using the word "fringe theory" a bit loosely. After all, unless you are a "believer" the whole article is based on a myth and any new discoveries about the location of the myth could be considered frivolous. However, as a believer I believe there was a physical Mount Sinai and I find more credence in the traditional location which has been the accepted view of centuries of scholars. But I think that other theories and locations should also be explored. I am not so much concerned about being too liberal about fringe theories as I am about being too conservative. This is a very exploratory subject. CWatchman (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

When I first read the article I felt I was reading an article which was saying: "Mount Sinai cannot be in the southern Sinai Peninsula but it seems like it might be in these other locations." CWatchman (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Overhaul

This article needs a serious rewrite overhaul. To be a separate article from Mount Sinai it needs to contain significantly different material.

I would suggest the following:

1. A brief definition of the Biblical Mount Sinai story;
2. An overview of the two main rabbinical views (1. Literal, 2. Allegorical);
3. A reasonable list of the possible locations of the literal Mount Sinai;
4. Each possible location should contain "pros" followed by "cons" as to why each contender is considered a possible location (intelligent research material).
5. Each possible location given equal space, INCLUDING the southern peninsula (the Jebul Musa/es Susafeh/Jebel Katrina peaks).

CWatchman (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

1 and 2 seem ok, 3, 4 and 5 all need to follow WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE which means 5 would violate our NPOV policy. The nutshell definition in our Fringe guideline says "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear." I suggest that you read the guideline as the details are important. Our NPOV policy says "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship." This would apply to 3 and possibly 5. Our NPOV policy states " Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." Read carefully the section on Due and undue weight, which starts "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." Footnote 3 says "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered". So your point 5 is out of the question. Point 3 will have to be constrained within the limits of WP:Fringe, but you do say 'reasonable' and not 'all'. As for point 4, I'm not convinced that your format will work. What are the locations you want to include in the article, or rather are there locations in the article that you think should not be in the article or locations not in the article that should be there? WE need to look at the sources for the Jebul Musa/es Susafeh/Jebel Katrina peaks to see if that location is significant enough to include. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Numbers 3 and 4 are ALREADY in the article. My only additions to these were that number 4 have a “REASONABLE” list and number 4 include “INTELLIGENT RESEARCH MATERIAL” of pros and cons.

If a reasonable list of contenders backed by intelligent research material are added to the article then in number 5 each should be given equal space. As it is right now the most significant contender is given ZERO space to scholarship which has investigated the southern Sinai Peninsula (the Jebul Musa/es Susafeh/Jebel Katrina peaks) but provides questionable resources for the new contenders.

Again this article seems to be saying: "Mount Sinai cannot be in the southern Sinai Peninsula but it seems like it might be in these other locations."

A plethora of both ancient and modern scholars have placed Mount Sinai in the Southern Sinai Peninsula. It is the new theories that are coming out that has pushed the traditional one in the background. CWatchman (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what 'intelligent scholarship' means but it is not a concept that we use in our articles to determine whether we should be using certain sources or how to treat them. Our sourcing policy is at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS is a guide to determining what are "reliable sources" that can be used in articles. I repeat, "equal space" would be in most cases a violation of our policy. There are of course reliable sources that discuss the southern Sinai peninsula idea, eg [4] and [5]. I don't understand what you mean about the most significant contender being given zero space. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

'Intelligent scholarship' is simply a shorter way of saying 'academic and peer-reviewed publications.' Again this article gives space to the new contenders citing new theories and speculative ideas but when it comes to the traditional contender all it cites is it's Christian history.

None of the new contenders have a single shred more evidence of being the original site than the traditional one does. CWatchman (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have it in front of me today, so I can't say what it says about this subject, but I would think that the best way to proceed with this article would be to consult sources like the Anchor Bible Dictionary and other, more recent, neutral encyclopedic sources, and see what they say on the topic. Should there be major changes in the academic views apparent in the academic literature since those sources, of course, they would have to be considered in account with WP:RECENTISM and other guidelines. I think I can get my hands on the ABD tomorrow. Given its overall length, it probably has one of the longer articles on this topic, and might serve as a good baseline indicator of weight and such matters at least up to its own date. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Not as much in the Anchor as I would have hoped, unfortunately, in its articles on "Ararat" (v. 1) and "Noah's Ark" (v. 4). Anyway, here's what comes to mind to me:

The article would probably better be titled Mount Sinai in the Bible. We generally start with the most clearcut words, and "Mount Sinai" is the name used in the Bible, so it would logically be first in the title. It also eliminates the possibility of people thinking that "Biblical" is part of the name of a place, which, I suppose, some Asians and others not familiar with Christanity might think from the present title.

From the ABD, the listed locations in v4 p 1131, in the "Noah's Ark" article, are Jabal Judi in the 'Aja range, Jabal Judi in the Gordian Mountains, Mt. Baris in the Caucasusus Mountains, in western Turkey near the city of Apamea, Alwand Kuh and Demavand in Iran, and Masis/Agri Dag in NE Turkey. It also notes in that paragraphs Genesis 8:4, which indicates a mountain in the kingdom of Ararat, and notes that eyewitnesses in 1972 and 1974 published works in which they say they saw a boat protruding from a glacier in the area of Masis/Agri Dag which they identify as the Mount Ararat of the Bible, and, and I quote, Masis/Agri Dag is the mountain "that modern ark searchers have designated as "Mount Ararat". It also concludes with a statement that "[t]here is no reason, then, to believe that remains of Noah's ark are to be found anywhere in the world (regardless of one's decision about the historicity of the biblical account of the Flood." I can check more recent sources in the next few days, but I tend to think that if any clear evidence which ran counter to the above information had been presented in the past few years, a lot of us would have heard as much about it as we did about the DaVinci Code, and I for one don't remember anything earth-shattering (or similar) in recent years. Like I said, though, I'll check on more current reference sources in the next few days. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying but it seems you may have the Mount Sinai of the Bible and the Mount Ararat of the Bible confused. The Mountain Moses ascended is not the same mountain which Noah rested upon.CWatchman (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I had quite a bit of material I added to the Southern Peninsula section which was deleted because I had the same material (although in a more opinionated form) posted in one of my personal blogs. From what I understand in order to use my own material in a Wikipedia article I must add the following to my blog: The text of this website [or this page, or this section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover text).

I intend to revise and condensed that material and resubmit it a little at a time while discussing the article in this talk page. I think for starters I will submit a condensed version of the first paragraph which stated the findings by Graham Davies of Cambridge University. CWatchman (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I did apparently confuse them, and didn't actually read the article in advance. I suppose one might question whether Alzheimers' might be kicking in already here, but I think (and hope) that I just misread. Today, I don't have ABD, which is at another location, so I can't find what it says. But I do have The Oxford Companion to the Bible by Metzger and Coogan. It's article on "Sinai" is on pp. 696-697. The 5-paragraph article has three or four of those paragraphs dealing with the issue of location, so I can reasonably see that the location would be the bulk of the article. That article mentions the fact that the Bible calls it both Mount Sinai, Horeb, and the "mountain of God" and "the mountain," and the article expresses concerns that they are not necessarily all the same place. It says the most popular location is Jebel Musa, although the article falls short of actually saying anything about real "probabilities," possibly because there is some serious academic discussion whether Moses himself is historical, let alone any of the stories in which he appears. It also says that "there is no evidence to show that they [the monks of St. Catherine's Monastery] had any local data that are not known today for choosing the site [as the location where Moses received the commandments]." It also names as candidates "several mountain of northwestern Arabia," including Mount Karkom in Machtesh Ramon. The article also points out that neither Josephus nor Paul referred to the peninsula as "Sinai," and that no one knows when the peninsula was first referred to as such. The last proposed location, Karkom, is apparently based on dating the Exodus to the 3rd millenium BC, which is apparently open to question.

Now, like I said, it has only one article on "Sinai," nothing on "Mount Sinai". The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, 2009, has a 3 page article on pp. 526-528 of v. 5. In that article, pretty much 1 full page relates to the locations, which would indicate again that location is a major subtopic here. Other locations specifically named include a number of mountains near Kadesh Barnea, including Meribah; in the "land of Midian," at Jerbal Serbal, Jebel Sin Besher, and of course Jebel Musa. Jebel Musa itself gets about 3/4 page.

The New Interpreters' Dictionary of the Bible, 2006, also has about 3 pages on Mount Sinai. It contains a short named section on the name of the mountain, a slightly longer section on the various Sinai and Horeb traditions, about a column on the various locations, and surprisingly, at least to me, about a full page on the "theological meanings of Sinai/Horeb". Some of that might, potentially, be better included in articles on Mountains in Judeo-Christianity or similar, but I don't think there necessarily is such an article yet and if there isn't this would be a reasonable location for it at least for the short term.

Based on what I've seen in theses sources, I'm not honestly sure that they necessarily indicate that there would necessarily be sufficient reason to discuss every individual site separately, particularly thinking of the multiple mountains near Kadesh Barnea apparently considered candidates. A rather lengthy section on the various locations in general, perhaps with individual paragraphs for the major differentiated proposals, would however seem reasonable. There also seems to be sufficient basis to give Saint Catherine's Monastery a fair amount of specific coverage, as it gets a fair amount of coverage in each of the reference works, but most of that is probably better included in that separate article.

I am making copies of the texts of the Interpreters' Dictionary article, Zondervan article, and (maybe, when I see it) the right ABD article (sorry again about the screwup there) and would be more than willing to forward them in a few days (when I have them all) to anyone requesting such of me. I will also check for any other recent reference works with substantial entries on these topics. Between them all, I tend to think that going through them and following their various leads in terms of WEIGHT, etc., would probably be sufficient to bring this up to FA, unless there are perhaps one or more specific individual churches or other groups which give particular weight to other views. I myself don't know of such, but with about 20,000 Christian groups out there, I also know that there are a lot I don't know about. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for researching this. As you state, Jebel Musa is usually given 3/4 the space of all the other contenders. I once made a list of the most seriously studied locations for the original Mount Sinai. I think they included Jebel Musa, Jebel Serbal, Jabal al-Lawz, Hala-'l Badr, Jebel Hellal, Jebel al-Madhbah, Har Karkom, Jebel Yeroham, Jebel Sinn Bishar and Hashem el-Tarif.

There can be some confusion when referring to the Mount Sinai of the southern peninsula. Some consider the whole mountain as Mount Sinai while others prefer to call just one of the peaks of the mountain "Mount Sinai." Mount Sina actually consists of three main peaks which are Jebul Musa, es Susafeh, and Jebel Katrina (Mount Catherine). Some think Moses communed with God on one peak and then went to the other peak to pronounce the laws he received to the children of Israel. I am among those who consider Jebel Musa, es Susafeh and Mount Catherine as simply being three peaks of Mount Sinai.

The main problem I first saw with the article was the fact that Jebel Musa/Katherine was treated as a Christian invention while the other sites were given space to serious consideration as being the original. Yet none of the others to date have any more claim to being the original than Jebel Musa/Katherine. There are those who have submitted serious scholarship to Jebel Musa but the new contenders have pushed the traditional one in the background.CWatchman (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I just found a reference in a very old Bible Dictionary which says that one of the contenders for Mount Sinai was "Mount Seir, on the edge of Arabah." An old photograph in this dictionary shows two views from "Mount Seir." One view from Mount Seir was "the theater at Petra, ancient Sela," and the other view showed "the great circular ceremonial court before the Temple of Ed Deir." Do you have any idea which mountain this is referring to?CWatchman (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a question I have posted all over the internet and to date not one person has been able to answer it: Is Eilat part of the Sinai mountain range? I do not mean politically but geographically. On the map it seems as though the physical Sinai mountain range ends in Eilat. Does anyone here know? Thank you.CWatchman (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Since there is such an extensive list of contenders for Mount Sinai would it be possible to make a section in the article for these contenders accompanied by a link to a website which has researched that location? It could provide valuable material for someone studying the subject. Instead of spending hours googling various contenders they would have them all in one place. We could give reasonable space to the major contenders and cite scholarly reliable sources which cover the pros and cons as to why each contender is considered, giving more space to the Jebel Musa location. Then we could briefly name the other less known contenders linking them to appropriate web sites or material. CWatchman (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The location of Mount Seir isn't known. See [6] and [7]. And no, we wouldn't name the lesser known contenders unless they meet WP:UNDUE and then we would have to use reliable sources, not simply websites that discuss them. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I realize the location of Mount Seir is not known. That was not the question. The question was WHAT mountain is the author referring to which is "on the edge of Arabah" which from the top of it one would have a view of "the theater at Petra, ancient Sela" and another view of "the great circular ceremonial court before the Temple of Ed Deir."

Concerning adding a list of contenders for Mount Sinai we should consider gathering a brief list of all of the most important contenders which are significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, excluding fringe and minority opinions. This would be simply a list which one could research. Those of the greatest consideration should be given more space with most space given to Mount Jebel which, as John Carter wrote above, is usually given 3/4 the space of all the other contenders in reliable sources.

Again, Is Eilat considered part of the geological Sinai mountain range?

Thanks. CWatchman (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. Eilat is on average about 10m above sea level - it's at the southern end of the Negev desert. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Check the following link: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/dte/userfiles/images/Sinai-Peninsula(1).jpg Look far south in the Sinai Peninsula where the traditional Mount Sinai is. Now follow the Sinai mountain ridge on the far east side northward all the way up up Eilat. It seems to me by visibly looking at the map that Eilat is part of the mountain range. Yet I can find no references or verifiable sources which confirm this. CWatchman (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

DELETED: Some material has been deleted from the Biblical Mount Sinai article which clarified two important statements made by ancient historian Josephus. (1) The general location where Mount Sinai was regarded to exist in his day (a mountain that lay between Egypt and Arabia) (2) That the mountain was "the highest of all mountains" in that area.

Also deleted was the fact that Mount Sinai is not one peak but a series of peaks (which the average person is not aware of) and Etheria's confirmation that it appears as one mountain but actually contains several peaks when entered.

The average reader misreads Josephus as referring to Mount Catherine when he was more than likely referring to "Mount Sinai" as a whole.

Mount Katherine and Jebel Musa are both much higher than any mountains in the Sinaitic desert, or in all of Midian.

The above facts contribute reason for consideration of the traditional Mount Sinai as a suggested location for the alleged original.

When I first came upon this article it gave great weight to fringe theory locations and gave space to wild theories of plasma phenomena, etc. When I first read the article I felt I was reading an article which was saying: "Mount Sinai cannot be in the southern Sinai Peninsula but it seems like it might be in these other locations." The traditional site has for decades been broadly supported by scholarship and meets the test of notability but undue weight was given to newer, untested ideas.CWatchman (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Why use websites saying what someone said instead of the actual source?

I should have posted here, sorry. We should always use the original source when we can. We certainly shouldn't use a site that links God with UFOs as biblepro.com does, or the other fringe site Baseinstitute. I gave the editor the actual source[8] which would allow both verification that the text is accurate and any enhancement etc needed. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Why not replace the sources, instead of removing them and sending the source to me? :) Debresser (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biblical Mount Sinai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120707212938/http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645192466,00.html to http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0%2C1249%2C645192466%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mount Sinai which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)