I saw your article on historical and archaelogical evidences for the bible
and I was intrigued. I have been reading about a guy you may have heard of
Bob Cornuke. His story is amazing. A former LA SWAT police officer he
joined up with a rich guy to pursue biblical archaeology. He believes the
bible is 100% historically accurate, and that the mountain of Sinai, as it
is referred to in the bible, is actually in Saudi Arabia – They actually
snuck into Saudi Arabia and went to see this mountain where they found
everything described in the bible. Moses cave, the altar, the rock that
was split with the water flowing out, markers at the base of the mountain,
etc. If you havent seen the pictures that they took it is really
astounding, they are on their website. I’d be very interested to know your
insights on this and have attached an excerpt below and their website
link. For centuries Bible scholars and religious pilgrims have been
seeking the location of the real Mt. evidence has been produced to verify
that what is traditionally designated at “Mount Sinai” in the south
central Sinai Peninsula is indeed verifiable reason that the traditional
site is designated “Mount Sinai” at all is because a Roman mystic
designated it and Helena, mother of century AD. (Helena also claimed she
discovered the true “holy sepulchre” in Jerusalem and the true cross of
Christ.). Several other proposed sites for the true Mount Sinai have been
suggested by biblical scholars, but thus we are ever to discern a correct
Exodus, it?s important to use the Scriptures as a guide, just as we would
use any other ancient documents that have proven reliable in the past. In
the New Testament, Paul wrote in Galatians 4:25, “Now Hagar stands for
Mount Sinai in Arabia…”Although some argue that here the Roman
designation of Arabia includes the Sinai Peninsula, Arabia in Paul?s day
encompassed a larger region that primarily designated the populated
regions of ancient Midian, or modern-day Saudi Arabia. As a “Hebrew of
Hebrews,” Paul?s understanding of Arabia would Kings 10:15, 2 Chronicles
9:14, clearly identified with the region east of the Gulf of Aqaba, where
“kings” ruled and the “Dedanites” co-dwelt with other nomadic peoples. as
being in Midian: “Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his
father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of
the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.” Here, there are two
important issues. First, the region of “Midian” referred to here is
undeniably the same as present-day Saudi Arabia. Second, at the
traditional cause it to be geographically identified with the “back” of a
desert, in distinction from its surroundings. By contrast, the site
proposed by BASE ancient Midian. However, can ancient Midian be identified
with the Sinai Peninsula, which in the time of Moses, was considered a
part of Egypt (although designated as the “wilderness” of Egypt)? It is
apparent from Exodus Moses fled Egypt for safer ground: “When Pharaoh
heard of this, he tried to kill Moses, but Moses fled from Pharaoh and
went to live in Midian.” Egypt and its holdings would not have been safe
for Moses under any circumstances. He would not have fled to multiple
mining interests and military. The Bible makes several references to Moses
returning to Egypt from Midian, including Exodus 4:19 where we read, “Now
the Lord had said to Moses in Midian, ?Go back to Egypt, for all the men
who wanted to kill you are dead.” All passages associated with Moses? stay
in Midian point toward present-day Saudi Arabia bush, and then returned
with the (or the lack of it) pointed away from the historical mountain of
Moses, a site found to support this theory. Saudi Arabia?s closed borders
made it impossible for a team of scholars and archaeologists to enter the
country. country, traced what appears to be the consider to be the true
Mount Sinai.

The Answer.

Thanks for writing. I am glad you are thinking about the Bible and
Archaeology. Have you read my book “Reasons for Belief: A Handbook of
Christian Evidence”? It is available through www.ipibooks.com. It contains
a summary of archaeological evidence in support of the Bible, as well as a
lot of other general Christian evidences. If it is not available at your
book ministry, you could perhaps ask them to get it.

Anyway, yes I am well aware of the non-Mt Sinai theories. I think it is
fair to say that no one knows for sure where the Law was received. There
are hundreds of examples of local peoples in the Near East making very
dubious claims that a particular site is the location of Old Testament
events. There is nothing easier than finding a guide in Palestine to help
you visit the “true” site of particular biblical scenes.

As to the claims that the biblical Mt Sinai is actually in present-day
Saudi Arabia, I would say that this may in fact be true. However, the
biblical arguments above are not convincing to me at all. The author
claims that it is all but proved that Midian is beyond the Gulf of Aquaba.
It is easy to make such a claim, but his statement that the Sinai was
Egyptian territory, while generally true, does not convince me that the
Law could not have been received there or that parts of the Sinai could
not have been controlled by Bedoins such as the Midianites. The author
above claims that there is no physical evidence that the traditional Mt.
Sinai is the biblical one. I believe this is true. However, a very strong
dose of skepticism toward this particular person’s conclusions would be
wise. If one looks at a map and asks whether the Israelites may have
traveled all the way through the Sinai peninsula, around past Aquaba, out
into the Arabian peninsula before the events recorded in Exodus, I am a
bit skeptical of that, but would not rule it out. The author claims that
Helena was the first to designate the traditional Mt. Sinai. I do not
believe this is true. You may want to do your own research into this, but
I believe you will find that this is not accurate. The author also says
that Midian is present-day Saudi Arabia is not convincing. Certainly
Midian did not have the exact same borders as modern Saudi Arabia. “The
Bible is clear that Moses went out of Egypt, to the land of Midian east of
the gulf of Aqaba.” This is not clear from any biblical passage I can
think of. Does the author quote his sources for this claim? I find the
argument for some particular mountain on the Arabian peninsula at least as
unconvincing. The fact that the authors can point to some pictures does
not help. I guarantee that supporters of the traditional location will be
able to point to similar geological features etc.

In summary, I would not be surprised if the traditional Mt. Sinai was not
the site of the receipt of the Law. There is not direct evidence, other
than tradition and the fact that Mt. Sinai is the largest peak in the
Sinai Peninsula, as far as I know to support this site being the biblical
Sinai. To say that we do not know where Sinai is, is a far cry from saying
that a particular peak on the Arabian peninsula is the correct one unless
we have some sort of verifiable evidence.

In any case, this is fun and interesting stuff, and I encourage you to
continue your researches, but to also maintain a skeptical eye. Bear in
mind that as interesting as the search for the true Sinai is, in the end,
it really does not affect significantly our view of God or of the Old
Testament.

John Oakes, PhD