In 2002, I wrote a paper that examined a few proposed routes of the Exodus and associated locations, and offered suggestions on a possible route. I did not prove any route to be the correct one; but simply offered a route that fits with the Bible record to demonstrate that the Bible record is in harmony with what we can see and know from examining the region. It was my best guess for a viable route, given the resources available to me at the time.
I also argued against four views for the real location of Mt. Sinai and the route of the Exodus, and gave the bases of my arguments in my 2002 paper. One of those views continues to garner a lot of interest today, with many Christians still concluding that Gebel al Lawz (also Jebel al Lawz) is the true location of Mt. Sinai. The few Christians who have actually been to the site report their experiences with great enthusiasm and show that they were emotionally enthralled at being in the very place where Moses walked.
I can only guess why so many are pushing others to accept this site as that of the real Mt. Sinai. Are they so hungry to find something that is not associated with the Roman Catholic Church? Are they looking for an emotional high? Are they looking for a reason to conclude they know better than others? Are they looking to sell books, seminars, and videos to a gullible audience?
In my 2002 paper I addressed a few reasons why Gebel al Lawz cannot be the true location of Mt. Sinai. In this paper I wish to look a little more closely at the geographic reasons for rejecting Gebel al Lawz as a candidate for the true Mt. Sinai, especially the topography in the immediate vicinity of this mountain and the sites that have been identified by proponents of Gebel al Lawz as places referred to in the Bible.
There are two main camps of Lawz proponents. Both argue that the Red Sea crossing was across the Gulf of Aqaba to the east of what is called the Sinai Peninsula. One of them argues that they crossed from the alluvial fan/delta at Nuweiba (which I will call the Nuweiba group), about one third of the way down the western shore of the gulf. The other argues that they crossed at the Straits of Tiran that separates the Gulf of Aqaba from the main body of the Red Sea (which I will call the Tiran group). The Tiran group is further divided into those that think the Israelites came north through Al Bad (Tiran-A) and those who think the Israelites first went east along the shore before heading inland and finally turning north (Tiran-B).
I must say from the start that neither conclusion fits with both Scripture and geography. The crossing of the Red Sea was a miracle; but the miracle was parting the waters, not raising the seabed. The Nuweiba group argues that there is an underwater land bridge where the bottom of the sea is not as deep as it is to both the north and the south. Some of this group even supply graphics that show a relatively shallow bar all the way across the gulf. But while verifiable depth charts do show that there is deeper water to both the north and the south from that point, the depth of the water is still hundreds of feet deep and there is a 60% slope on the east side that would have been impossible for the Israelites to climb. The graphics that show a shallow water bridge are lies.
Both the Tiran groups point to the chain of islands at the straits and to a relatively shallow bar that almost completely spans the water portion of the straits. What they don’t tell you is that this bar is flanked on both sides by channels that are hundreds of feet deep. As with Nuweiba, a crossing at the Straits of Tiran would have been impossible without God raising the seabed.
Both the Tiran and the Nuweiba groups have problems with Scripture and geography before the Red Sea crossing, but his paper focuses attention of what comes after. I’ll start with the conclusions these groups share: the sites at Mt. Sinai/Horeb. (Scriptures equate the two names.)
In 2002, I read the claim that one of the reasons G.Lawz qualified as Mt. Sinai instead of the traditional site (which I also reject) is that unlike the traditional site, there is room near G.Lawz for the camp of Israel to be set up in accordance with God’s instructions. That camp would approximately measure a square roughly 1.5 miles per side. In 2002, my resources did not enable me to verify that claim. Today, in 2020, however, GoogleEarth enables me to see that G.Lawz does not have an adequate space any more than the traditional site. No matter where I try to place such a square, there is no place anywhere near G.Lawz for a camp that is not interrupted by hills, rocks, ravines, or other features that would enable the camp to be laid out as directed.
The Nuweiba and Tiran groups seem to agree in identifying certain features that can be found today as the site of the golden calf altar and the site where Moses had altars and animal pens. They also refer to what appear to be carved round stonework that must have been parts of stone pillars, corresponding to the twelve pillars Moses set up. The problem is that these sites are more than seven miles away from G.Lawz. The location of the site identified with Moses’ altars is up a valley from which G.Lawz is not visible at all, and the stream bed they say comes down from “the mountain” does not come down from G.Lawz, but from a pass some six miles south of G.Lawz.
The Bible makes it clear that the people could have had immediate access to the base of Mt. Sinai. Moses was instructed to establish a boundary (whether by fence or markers) around the mountain and to warn the people not to tread anywhere on the mountain. Though the people did leave the camp to approach Mt. Sinai, they stood “at the foot of the mountain.” How far around the mountain the boundary stretched, it had to be sufficiently around to be called “around”. The location where the people stood at the foot of the mountain had to be close enough that this boundary was necessary to keep them off the mountain.
Even if the people would have travelled close to seven miles to gather at the foot of the mountain, there is no place large enough around G.Lawz to do so, no place a boundary could be set “around” the mountain. G.Lawz is not an isolated peak, but part of a complex combination of peaks, and even if one could define a boundary for the entire complex (one cannot) that boundary would have to be some 40 miles circumference. There is one area on the south side of G.Lawz that could be called the “foot” of the mountain, but there is no room for the people to stand on anything approaching flat ground and it is inaccessible from the area the G.Lawz proponents have identified as the Israelite camp site without going over a steep and rugged mountain pass. A slightly larger area on the north side of G.Lawz might serve as the “foot” of the mountain, but that could be accessed only by a nine mile trek over very rough terrain or a thirteen mile walk via more negotiable valleys.
Proponents of G.Lawz often make reference to its blackened top, which they attribute to its having been shrouded in the smoke of God. What they don’t tell you is that G.Lawz is not the only mountain in the vicinity with a black top. A whole group of mountains just to the south is black. So is another nearby mountain to the northeast.
Much is made of the pictoglyphs of both people and animals found on the rocks. “Here’s the people dancing!” “Here’s a sacred bull!” What they don’t tell you is that there are about 300 different rock art sites in northwest Saudi Arabia, 50 of them within 20 miles of G.Lawz. And if petroglyphs of bovines proves the sacrifice of bulls, what do the petroglyphs of Ibexes prove? Secular archaeology of these sites concludes they are Nabatean sites from the First Century. The proponents identify a large boulder with a bovine petroglyph on it as the altar of the golden calf, but forget that Aaron built the altar; he didn’t use an existing rock.
I will say this much for the Tiran-B group, even though their crossing site and their Sinai site are unacceptable: at least they propose locations for the various places the Scripture says were between the crossing and Sinai, and their proposed route after the crossing is reasonably possible for such a group.
A feature that is shared by the Nuweiba and Tiran-A group, but not the Tiran-B group, is an unusual rock formation that they identify as the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the people at Rephidim.
At least two problems are associated with this rock and its location. First, the proponents of G.Lawz commonly call this the “rock of Rephidim”. They conclude the camp at Rephidim was in the open spaces near this rock. But the Bible says this rock was not at Rephidim. The rock was at Horeb. Moses took the elders ahead to Horeb and the water flowed from there to the people at Rephidim. The split rock near G.Lawz is about 6½ miles northwest of G.Lawz and the mountain is not visible from there. How can a rock be said to be “at Horeb” when Horeb isn’t even visible? Note also that the Bible says nothing about this rock being split.
Secondly, if the Israelites were at or near this rock, how did they get from there to the place that all these G.Lawz proponents say was the location of the camp at Sinai? There’s a whole range of rugged mountains between the two sites. They are in opposite directions from G.Lawz. The shortest reasonable way for a large group with children and flocks to get from this split rock at “Rephidim” to the proposed camp at “Sinai” would require going north and west directly away from G.Lawz for about 10 miles and then a trip around the mountains for a total of over 45 miles.
Both Neweiba and Tiran-A have a major problem with their proposed routes from the Red Sea crossing to what they identify as Rephidim. While Tiran-A does have places to which they apply “Desert of Shur/Etham”. “Marah”, and “Elim” (with which they associate Al-Bad), they have no satisfactory explanation for the camp by the Red Sea after Elim and no suggestions for the other locations between Elim and Rephidim. The Nuweiba group has no satisfactory identifcations for any of the named sites between the Red Sea crossing and their Rephidim. Some of the Nuweiba group have opined that Al-Bad was Elim, but that would mean the Israelites went all the way south to Al-Bad, and then came north again to Rephidim. As I pointed out in my 2002 paper, the time for wandering was after the spies came back from Canaan, not before. Until that time they had definite destinations to go to.
There is no question that the things people have found around G.Lawz are interesting. But in their zeal to have the status of the enlightened who know better than others were the true Mt. Sinai is, or in their zeal to peddle their opinions, they seem to have jumped to wild conclusions about what they have seen and have ignored the practical realities of the site. A puzzle piece here, a puzzle piece there, but they don’t consider how they fit into the whole picture. And yet they assert, “This is the place. There can be no other. We’re 100% sure.” The sad thing is that so many swallow it, even though they’re 100% wrong.
But, it might be asked, so what? Does this erroneous identifcation of G.Lawz with Sinai pose as great a threat as, say, the Hebrew Roots movement, the Critical Race Theory, and the Leftist domination of the U.S. Democratic Party? Does thinking G.Lawz is Mt. Sinai destroy a Christian’s faith? Does it really matter where Mt. Sinai was? No. As noted in the introduction of my 2002 essay, for the Christian the fact of the Exodus is what’s essential, not the location.
But as also noted in my 2002 essay, we’re not presenting the message of Scripture only to those who are already dedicated believers. We’re reaching out to people who have been told repeatedly that the Bible is a fanciful collection of myths and fables written by people who came to their beliefs first and then wrote the Scriptures to try to support them. If we start with a conviction that G.Lawz is the true Mt. Sinai and then change the definitions of ancient locations, move national boundaries, redraw maps, force archaeolical evidence to support our theory, ignore real world topography, and invent “evidence” that contradicts reality, we are, in effect, arguing against the reliability of Scriptures. We re-enforce the mispercetions of the unbelievers, and give them evidence that their conclusions are correct.
I don’t know where Mt. Sinai really was or is. My guess in my 2002 and 2019 essays is just that: a guess, my best guess given the resources available to me. G.Dalal is just one of what could be many mountains that meets, as well as I can determine, all the Scriptural and geographic criteria. I don’t accommodate myself to the unbelievers so much that I deny God’s power to do miracles – and the Red Sea crossing was that – but I don’t need to invent more miracles than the Bible records. Start with the Bible and let its words lead to your conclusion; don’t start with your conclusion and try to force the Bible and everything else to conform to it.