Talk:Hashem el-Tarif
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on August 29, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
[edit] Deletion?
Not sure why this article is being nominated for deletion. It seems like this is relevant and in fact should be expanded due to the recent claims put forth about the mountain.
[edit] Simcha's bad assertions:
The below menetion a few of things that were overlooked, not stated, or assumed, or asserted.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Assertion: Mose's "Health was poor", Not Backed Up In The Torah,! :
This is not supported by the Torah at all!
Simcha Jacobovici, claims to believe the Holy Hebrew scriptures of the Torah, he has asserted the Moses was to "old" to climb up, to "frail", having "poor health", the site of the Traditional & commonly regarded Mount Sinai/Horeb. Even calling him "thy old guy" (which some, as no surpise, found very, rude & disrespectful!), assuming Moses had poor health adds much confliction to what his "beliefs" are. Because the scriptures he claims to respect tell something contary to he says he believes. See the scripture listed below: (According to the Bible Moses was at the time 120 years old, too) Moses was said has having vigor, having vital strength & manifested in his eyes, he was alert, & as the scriptures in the bible which Simcha Jacobovici claims to respect show he was aided by Holy spirit as support. Moses live well to be 120 years old, he lived in the region previous to the Exodus spending 40 years there, herding sheep, & etc, he knew information being edcuated by his fleshy parents, Moses was nursed by his Jewish mothers, (no doubt knew his roots,) evidently for a some years. & see Acts 7:23-25 , the Egyptian court Ex 2:1-10; Ac 7:20-22., & the Nomadic Midian bediouns for many years.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- See: Deuteronomy 34:7, which says otherwise to Simcha Jacobvici's claim.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)== Assertion: Of The Traditionally Mt. Sinai (Gebel Musa) Is Not In Midian's Territory ==
Simcha Jacobovici says the traditionally claim/suggested Mt Sinai (Jebel Musa) is to far anyway from Timna. Midians were noted as nomads, they also commonly raised many sheep, also showing that their a very nomadic society, therefore the traditional Mt. Sinai is the right place. Moses' father-in-law is quoted in the Torah as a shepherd also, Check out Exodus 3:1.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S., Timnah doesn't equal: Midian, the land of Midian was no doubt vast!., not confinded to a city. So without more information on the land/territory of Midian the diagram is no doubt, inaccurate!.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This leaves us to be thinking was Moses family-in-law was a Midian by blood (A descendant of Abraham's son, Midian) or was it a term of geogrpahic location, or culture/way of life. Was he father-in-law a midianite in Midian, does a Lebanese man have live in Lebanon.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Quoting good a reference source., Bracklets mine
At times the Bible seemingly refers to them (Midians) as Ishmaelites. (When talking about Midianites) (Ishmael was a son of Abraham, thru Hagar) [Compare Genesis 37:25, 27, 28, 36; 39:1; Judges 8:22, 24.) This may imply that the descendants of Abraham through his sons Ishmael and Midian were much alike in their way of life, and there may have been a further amalgamation through intermarriage among the two peoples. It also appears that at least some of the Kenites were known as Midianites.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
(Ishmaelite, Midianites, & Kenites Can refer to rough geographic standpoint, & since they're a connected culture term in ancient hebrew could refer to any.)--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Is Timna is With Out Question a Midianite Site?
It is true it is likely a Midainite. As good refernce book says: However, the exact location of any such region named for Timna is currently unknown. the land of Midian is changing terrioty our imformation on the their lands & how the terr., changed over the years is far from anyway near from complete modern knowledge it only sketchy at best.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Asssertion/Assumed: That Mt. Sinai Has to be in the Land of Midian
Just because Moses shepherded he father-in-laws flock at Horeb, who was a Midianite (Moses's father-in-law) in doesn't necessarally suggest that for a fact Mt.Sinai/Horeb is in the Land of Midian. And since little to nothing is know about the Midianite land and terroity or maybe many of them, and the time span of such, leaves scholars, and many other people alike thinking that Jebel Musa is still more likely, because it is.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Assertion, Assumed North route (El Haj route) was the exodus because "need" of food:
Simcha Jacobovici also assumed the southern route couldn't the right one, why? Because of "lack of food". He claims to believe or have respect in the torah & miracles, but what about manna provided, as menetioned in Exodus Chapter 16, & Jewish tradition concerning the manna provided for food. Not to menetion the bible said that they were in a wilderness, they were going to plant plants they to would be quickly migrating northwards to the future land of Israel, the land of the promise, then at that time: the land of Canaan. Another name for Mt. Sinai is Mount Horeb, the name Horeb meant (dry waste) the word is a perfect piece of evidence they're not in some kind of foodland, they could survive, but it still not overflowing with the "milk & honey" of the land of Israel.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Asserted/Assumed: Thus: Assertioned Their Diagram Based is Accurate facts (See the Above 3 Assertions that were assumed)
As Shown above in, the diagram then would, both show it inaccurate assuming. The diagram in the program/programs is therfore to say the least, very, inaccurate, on almost, if not all, of all features of they how it is organized. The diagram was the main "piece of evidence" to support their claim to "point" the location of the mount. It is the product on innaccurcy! Thus inaccurate!
And the estimated of the walking diastance is just that an estimated. the diagram should included Min, TO Max, also.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Assumed: That The Stones Organized at Mt. Sinai Were Real Proof of it being Mt.Sinai
The Bedouins and or nomads there too, and ancient peoples were there too alike, they left their "marks" too, it just doesn't make the real Mt.Sinai, we need more proof then that the person and or persons were there. Many mountains have some sign of life being there, but what proof is it that is was the Israelite, and not bedouins, none yet proven!.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Is the Site of Hashem El-Tarif, Really Ancient, or at least that Ancient?
Is the site of Hashem el-Tarif really ancient?, no one on the program or programs seems to state that (interesting), has a profession dating research been done there? or wait a minute. That's right, please don't forget the words: Permission for archeological excavation must be granted by the Egyptian government, which closely guards and often denies access to any locations which may be related to Biblical history.
Interesting there they said "may" but everyelse say it is correct site, interesting!...--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)== Assumed: The Traditional Mount Sinai Gebel Musa (Arabic: طور سيناء , Hebrew: הר סיני), is not the right one, as if a fact ==
Simcha Jacobovici., was not politically correct!
He doesn't say that the Traditional for Mount Sinai (Gebel Musa) maybe is not the right one. Mount Sinai, he is very direct, he's also stating a mere theory as fact. This is more then suggestive. Simcha never even examined pros vs. cons of the traditional Mount Sinai(Gebel Musa) its days & route on the program & etc. The program never really showed how the site is truly more likey the other Traditional Mount Sinai site (Gebel Musa) succesfully. --72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This all adds up to Simcha's work is in a effort make him look better, rather reveal real accurate facts. They narrative to their side of the theory, they like the theory more since it their theory, no accurate big scale measurement of how they compared.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
http://theexodusdecoded.com/ve.jsp?ID=10 is added proof to show his craftiness, say finding the correct Mount. Sinai assuming the old trad, site is totally wrong.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Why not, compare the time to go to Jebel Musa, or get there?.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Asserted/Assumed: More than Gebel Musa was the wrong mountain but the traditional route as a whole
The traditonal route believed as such has an old history, it is one thing to suggest it is the wrong route or scholar should menetion it should be considered (according to his view). But it he said it was without question,as if it was flat-out wrong, plus never showing good evidence to the claim.
Quotes From him
1. The Southern route which it is namely a route. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
2. It believe The Haj route of the Sinai Peninsula is not the Exodus route, it was where there where intense heat baked the gravel & limestone plateau it was built more for trade (it was a trade route) more then a place for a mass exodus with children & sheeps & etc.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Compare with Deuteronomy 8:15--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Exodus 16:35--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Assertion/Assumed: That Mount Sinai Was the Lowest Mountian not the Highest
Simcha Jacobovici, claims the bible shows over & over again & says that the Mountain of Sinai, that is it humble, small, & tiny, mountain. Our question is where, where in the bible, where in the torah where is the exact say that, At least reference it, that part was silence not menetion, (interesting!).--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to menetion, even if it did say that is was small, to God all mountians are small anyway! Check out Isaiah 40:12-14, to compare with that statment. Also this goes againist the tradition menetion in the work of Flavius Josephus, thus not in line the common first Century Jewish taught. What are his sources? please back it up!--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Flavius Josephus vs. Simcha Jacobovici:
[edit] Describing Mount Sinai:
Jewish Antiques, Book 2, Chapter 12:
1. NOW Moses, when he had obtained the favor of Jethro, for that was one of the names of Reuel, staid there and fed his flock; but some time afterward, taking his station at the mountain called Sinai, he drove his flocks thither to feed them. Now this is the highest of all the mountains thereabout, and the best for pasturage, the herbage being there good; and it had not been before fed upon, because of the opinion men had that God dwelt there,(Note this reference to Mount's is considered Holy before Moses accurancy is doubted)--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Jewish Antiques, Book 3, Chapter 5:
1. (76)"He ascended to the highnest mountain that in that country, and is not only very diffcult to be ascended by men, on account of it vast altitude, but because of the sharpness of it precipices also, indeed it cannot be looked at without pain." Sound like Jebel Musa, not "Hasem el-Tarif"
Flavius Josephus comment argues contray to claim of Simcha Jacobovici. Flavius Josephus recorded valuble Jeiwsh tradition & history, it has to be said the shows seemed to quit on Josephus.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A small Detail of the traditon of the land of Midian:
Jewish Antiques, Book 2, Chapter 11:
1. (257) ". . . When he came to the city, Midian, which lay upon the Red Sea. . ." Interestingly Simcha Jacobovici thinks the Timna is the only place Midianite.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Flavius Josephus also menetioned Letopolis, a location near Memphis.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Josephus refernce on food, & Simcha claim of the El Haj for food.
Jewish Antiques, Book 3, Chapter 1:
1. (3) ". . . Marah which had that name from badness of it water, for Mar denotes bitterness. There came afflicted both by the tediousness of their journey, and by their want of food, for it entirely failed them at that time."--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Assertion/Assumed: that a "trend" of a few persons who believe in other sites show trad., Mt. Sinai isn't the real Mt. Sinai
Just because a few believe that is posssible, doesn't make it in anyway a fact. Use a real fact or facts not "craftiness" to make person believe in your side or viewpoint. Simcha likes people to think he has something exciting, that's it programs are organized as such, there is no critic of on the programs., Why?!., We know why, to make a program look better, not to make it better, just look better. Nothing more!--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Assertion/Assumed:: is Was a Holy Mountain Before Moses No Direct Evidence in the Torah:
An “interesting” assertion but there’s no evidence which is in the Torah at all, nor suggests/supports it in anyway found. And through out the thousands of years of the writing of bible interestingly not one reference says it, yet somehow, it’s menetion, as if, (which it is not) a fact in the show. If he’s basing it on the Mishnah or the Talmud, most experts agree the history in both books in better for the 1st century B.C.E., to 1st Century C.E., over a thousands years and half since the writings. The Torah said God did call it holy, but this does not suggest or prove that it was really that before Moses.--19:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)72.38.211.144 (talk)
[edit] Assertion/Assumed: that of "Tombs" at the foot of the hill support them:
Why does Simcha Jacobovici claim tombs add or give proof? Since there not really any proof that it was consider Holy before then, the tombs it probably a waste of time menetioning.
No where in the bible shows Mount Sinai had tombs near it, nor did ever as much as suggest it. Is he basing the his information on the Torah, guess not, how about the Mishnah or Talmud, he's not direct in quoting his sources on the program (Why,?). On the program did they even prove they were tombs, also, crafty (willing or not). Even profession as Mr. Z Hawass, don't jump to assumed something is a tomb without after proving it is.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Simcha Jacobovici loses all creditability!--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Assertion: Simcha seemed to assumed That Jebel Musa needs more archeological proof
They were migranting not planting or leaving. Sandals lasted longer Deuteronomy 29: 3.. Manna was provided. They mostly left footprints. According to Rabbic tradition, manna was consumed by the body, thus no need to excerete if that is accurate. They were not taking the easy route.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Don't forget The Tradition Mount Sinai called Jebal Musa
The Tradition Mount Sinai:
Has the some of the "important" factors that the other claim mount has & more.
Ancient Tradition (Information Josephus (having access to jewish tradition also), bedioun, & tradition since 4th Cenutry C.E) even in the 3rd Century maybe much, much longer.
The Ancient tradition is not infallible true, but the tradition surrounds the area, & many the sites near-by are claim to be linked. Tradition is not vital, but serves as a reference.
Has Hashem el-Tarif any ancient tradition?., well the programs were silent on that, are these tradition ancient?.,
Has a cleft that overlooks a natural amphitheatre!
- Has an ancient spring! A monastry built on it.
- Has a plateau below large enough to hold several hundred thousand people and containing enough foliage to sustains large flocks.
Remember the food for flocks differ greatly in ancient times then now even more.
- A long traditional belief it was the Mountian.
- Supporting Geographry.
- Perhaps on the plain of Er-Raha, is the site where they camped, & listened to Moses.
- Taditional site of the Cave where Elijah hid [1 Kings 19:8-13].
- Site of Spring has a tradition said to linked with [Exodus 33:21-23].
- Seems to agree with Flavius Josephus.
- Traditional site of the burning bush.
- Even a traditional bush said to be the same as the burning bush moses approach.
- A traditional site on the mount where Moses recieved the ten commandments or words.
- A traditional site of trail of Moses.
- A traditon site of rock which struck for water.
- A traditional route to there.
- Connections to other traditional sites on the route.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
basics on Gebel Musa Mount Sinai (Arabic: طور سيناء , Hebrew: הר סיני), also known as Mount Horeb, Mount Musa, Gebel Musa or Jabal Musa ("Moses' Mountain") by the Bedouins, is the name of a mountain in the Sinai Peninsula.
At 2,285 meters high, Mount Sinai is a minor mountain next to Mount St. Catherine,[1], at 2,637 meters high the highest in the Sinai peninsula. It is surrounded on all sides by higher peaks of the mountain range.
According to Bedouin tradition, this is the mountain where God gave laws to the Israelites. However, the earliest Christian traditions place this event at the nearby Mount Serbal, and a monastery was founded at its base in the 4th century, it was only in the 6th century that the monastery moved to the foot of Mount Catherine, following the guidance of Josephus's earlier claim that Sinai was the highest mountain in the area. Jebel Musa, which is adjacent to Mount Catherine, was only equated with Sinai, by Christians, after the 15th century.
Other reference.
When constructing a tall building, a wrong assumpation or assumpations esp., a early one can be vital to the safty of the building as is similar the case with he's his theory of the route see below: I quoting a great reference book also: bracklets mine--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Red Sea (Yam-suph′) Menetioned in the Exodus is the Red Sea! :
The Red Sea is not a swamp! Plus to miss located where they crossed as Simcha J. did it will effect the timing of the route being about some 50 kilometers from the traditonal site of the crossing, thus changing the diagram again.
"it should be noted that the waters were sufficient to cover Pharaoh’s military forces. [Exodus 14:28, 29] This would have been impossible in a mere swamp. Also, Acts 7:36 and Hebrews 11:29 rule out a mere swampy place, for these texts mention the same incident and use the Greek expression e·ry·thra′ tha′las·sa, meaning “Red Sea. The historian Herodotus (fifth century B.C.E.) used the same Greek expression to refer, not to a swamp or an insignificant body of water, but to “the Indian Ocean, in which the Red Sea” is located.—A Greek-English Lexicon, by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, revised. Since Israel crossed the sea in one night, it could hardly be assumed that the waters parted in a narrow channel. Rather, the channel may have been a kilometer or more in width. Though in fairly close marching formation, such a group, along with what wagons they had, their baggage, and their cattle, even when rather closely ranked, would occupy an area of perhaps 8 sq km (3 sq mi) or more. It appears, therefore, that the sea-opening allowed the Israelites to cross on a fairly wide front. If there was about a 1.5-km (1 mi) front, then the depth of the Israelite column would probably be about 5 km (3 mi) or more. If it was about a 2.5-km (1.5 mi) front, the depth might be about 3 km (2 mi) or more. It would take such a column several hours to get into the seabed and travel across it. While they did not go in panic, but maintained their battle formation, they would no doubt move with considerable haste. It is obvious that such an overwhelming inundation would be impossible in a marsh. Moreover, in a shallow marsh dead bodies would not wash up on the shore, as actually took place, so that “Israel got to see the Egyptians dead on the seashore. In so holding, however, they do not agree (those who diagree as it being the Red Sea) with the translators of the ancient Greek Septuagint, who translated yam-suph′ with the Greek name e·ry·thra′ tha′las·sa, meaning, literally, “Red Sea.” ””--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pharaoh Did Die, Show By In The Torah!
Yes, the pharaoh of the Exodus did die, compare with this, Psalms 136:15. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
If he got the wrong pharoah then everything could change, places & their connects & etc.,
There is much detate of which pharaoh is believed to the one of the Israel that fact that his name is anonymous adds more diffculty in knowing which one it was.
[edit] Egyptian Dates & History:
. . . This is important it is "vital" to his theory, if wrong on this, it changes locations of the assumed sites. . .
Quoting a good reference book:
"Modern historians rely principally on certain documents in the form of Egyptian king lists or annals. Among these are: the fragmentary Palermo Stone, presenting what are considered to be the first five “dynasties” of Egyptian history; the Turin Papyrus, very fragmentary and giving a list of kings and their reigns from the “Old Kingdom” into the “New Kingdom”; and additional inscriptions in stone, likewise fragmentary. These separate lists and other independent inscriptions have been coordinated in chronological order by means of the writings of Manetho, an Egyptian priest of the third century B.C.E. His works, dealing with Egyptian history and religion, arrange the reigns of the Egyptian monarchs into 30 dynasties, an arrangement still used by modern Egyptologists. These sources, together with astronomical calculations, based on Egyptian texts dealing with lunar phases and the rising of the Dog Star (Sothis), have been used to produce a chronological table.
Problems of Egyptian chronology. Uncertainties are multiple. The works of Manetho, used to give order to the fragmentary lists and other inscriptions, are preserved only in the writings of later historians, such as Josephus (first century C.E.), Sextus Julius Africanus (third century C.E., hence over 500 years from Manetho’s time), Eusebius (fourth century C.E.), and Syncellus (late eighth or early ninth century C.E.). As stated by W. G. Waddell, their quotations of Manetho’s writings are fragmentary and often distorted and hence “it is extremely difficult to reach certainty in regard to what is authentic Manetho and what is spurious or corrupt.” After showing that Manetho’s source material included some unhistorical traditions and legends that “introduced kings as their heroes, without regard to chronological order,” he says: “There were many errors in Manetho’s work from the very beginning: all are not due to the perversions of scribes and revisers. Many of the lengths of reigns have been found impossible: in some cases the names and the sequence of kings as given by Manetho have proved untenable in the light of monumental evidence.”—Manetho, introduction, pp. vii, xvii, xx, xxi, xxv.
The probability that concurrent reigns rather than successive reigns are responsible for many of Manetho’s excessively long periods is shown in the book Studies in Egyptian Chronology, by T. Nicklin (Blackburn, Eng., 1928, p. 39): “The Manethonian Dynasties . . . are not lists of rulers over all Egypt, but lists partly of more or less independent princes, partly . . . of princely lines from which later sprang rulers over all Egypt.” Professor Waddell (pp. 1-9) observes that “perhaps several Egyptian kings ruled at one and the same time; . . . thus it was not a succession of kings occupying the throne one after the other, but several kings reigning at the same time in different regions. Hence arose the great total number of years.”
Since the Bible points to the year 2370 B.C.E. as the date of the global Flood, Egyptian history must have begun after that date. The problems in Egyptian chronology shown above are doubtless responsible for the figures advanced by modern historians who would run Egyptian history all the way back to the year 3000 B.C.E.
Greater confidence is placed by Egyptologists in the ancient inscriptions themselves. Yet, the carefulness, truthfulness, and moral integrity of the Egyptian scribes are by no means above suspicion. As Professor J. A. Wilson states: “A warning should be issued about the precise historical value of Egyptian inscriptions. That was a world of . . . divine myths and miracles.” Then after suggesting that the scribes were not above juggling the chronology of events to add praise to the particular monarch in power, he says: “The historian will accept his data at face value, unless there is a clear reason for distrust; but he must be ready to modify his acceptance as soon as new materials put the previous interpretation in a new light.”—The World History of the Jewish People, 1964, Vol. 1, pp. 280, 281.
Absence of information concerning Israel. This is not surprising, since the Egyptians not only refused to record matters uncomplimentary to themselves but also were not above effacing records of a previous monarch if the information in such records proved distasteful to the then reigning pharaoh. Thus, after the death of Queen Hatshepsut, Thutmose III had her name and representations chiseled out of the monumental reliefs. This practice doubtless explains why there is no known Egyptian record of the 215 years of Israelite residence in Egypt or of their Exodus.
The pharaoh ruling at the time of the Exodus is not named in the Bible; hence, efforts to identify him are based on conjecture. This partly explains why modern historians’ calculations of the date of the Exodus vary from 1441 to 1225 B.C.E., a difference of over 200 years."--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Thoughts On The Burning Bush
I can't prove the acclaimed bush at the monastary is the same as the exact same burning bush that Moses saw, I can't used this evidence to argue Hashem-el-Tarif for not having a traditional burnign bush site. But still Jebel has a traditional bush a Blackberry bush (rubus santus) in the monastary, it is a thorn bush in union with the Torah [Exodus 3:2-5; Deuteronomy 33:16] (Hebrew: seneh′), & the works of Flavius Jospehus Jewish Antiques book 2 chapter, 12, 1 (-266), Quoting a good reference book: "In referring to this event, the Christian writers of the Greek Scriptures employed the Greek word ba′tos, which means a bramble or any thorny bush. (Mr 12:26; Lu 20:37; Ac 7:30, 35) In Greek the blackberry is called ba′ton (derived from ba′tos) In Greek the blackberry is called ba′ton (derived from ba′tos), and hence some lexicographers connect the thorny bush (seneh′) with the blackberry bush (Rubus sanctus),."
The traditional tree which just happens to a Rubus sanctus. So it not so much an argument as a reference to Jebel Musa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A Summary Comment
Thus Simcha's "body of evidence" at best is a conjecture, and many errors which are used as "proof" therefore, there's no tradition to back it up, Hashem el-Tarif seems to not mount Sinai! Nothing compeling presented at all! To the contray it might have confused more, then present a real case. Everything that "structured" the "case" was showned as inaccurate, so I can say safly that with little doubt the mount: Jebel Musa is still & will remain at this time the mostly likely candiate.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Quote from the wiki article on him
The list of scholars who signed the open letter's criticism included:
Professor Jodi Magness, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Professor Eric M. Meyers, Duke University Choon-Leon Seow, Princeton Theological Seminary F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Princeton Theological Seminary Lee McDonald, Princeton Theological Seminary, visiting Rachel Hachlili, Haifa University Motti Aviam, University of Rochester Amos Kloner, Bar Ilan University Christopher Rollston, Emmanuel School of Religion Shimon Gibson, University of North Carolina at Charlotte Joe Zias, Science and Antiquity Group, Jerusalem Jonathan Price, Tel Aviv University C.D. Elledge, Gutavus Adolphus College —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
