Talk:Jabal al-Lawz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saudi Arabia Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Saudi Arabia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Saudi Arabia because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove the {{Stubclass}} template from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{Saudi}} template, removing the {{Stubclass}} template from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
Please expand this Saudi Arabia-related article.
This template may be found on the article's talk page, where there may be further information.
Please remove this message once the article has been expanded.

Contents

[edit] First hand knowledge?

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

[edit] Almonds?

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

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

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

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

Besides that, the possibility is indeed very interesting.

[edit] Needs a lot of work

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

Pilby 20:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summit description

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

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

I suppose it may be trying to say

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

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

truth = God's word

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

[edit] Very simple match

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

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

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

[edit] Woody plants

I removed both of two mutually contradictory points

  • there is a "bush" on the mountain that is well over 2000 years old[citation needed]. 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)

[edit] Removal of Supporters secn

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

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

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

. ==Supporters==

The other supporters of this view include

 This section may contain information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter.
Please help improve this article by clarifying or removing superfluous information. (talk)

,