User talk:1Lt2be5

This article is really a mess.
This Wiki article needs start-over rewriting to better reflect the best evidence, not opinion.

There are only a few high points in the vicinity of the so-called Temple Mount, and the best evidence for the history of these high points that we have now are the Hebrew and Gentile Bibles. Nevertheless, it makes no sense to refer to anything as a "Mount" that is not a high point. Further, according to the Gentile and Hebrew Bibles, there has been a well-known Mount Moriah at least since the time of Abraham -- it is where he took his son Isaac for sacrifice (Genesis 22:2), and where Solomon constructed the first Jewish temple (2 Chronicles 3:1). These documents also refer to a higher Mount Zion a little to the southwest that was occupied and fortified by the Canaanite Jebusites, whom King David conquered (2 Samuel 5:6-9, 1 Chronicles 11:4-9). The Psalmist (often King David) refers to Mount Zion as a physical place many times (cf, Psalm 2:6, Psalm 20:2, Psalm 48:2, Psalm 48:11-14, Psalm 74:2, Psalm 87:2), and he certainly knew better than to confuse Mount Zion with Mount Moriah. There was also a Mount of Olives to the east and overlooking the Temple Mount in New Testament times where Jesus often stayed (Luke 22:39).

None of these Mounts (not "Mountains," but high points) have ever moved, either in location or concept. They were very important during the Bronze Age since the high points were where the military folks would put their fortresses - so that no one could shoot down at them from a nearby higher elevation, and they could shoot down on everyone else, thus protecting their cities below. This coupled fortress-city construction practice existed throughout the time of the bow and arrow and even into the post-renaissance era (see, for example, nearly all middle-age cities in Europe with a castle perched on a nearby height). In the time of David, Mount Moriah was not fortified since he built an altar there on a pre-existing Jebusite threshing floor (2 Samuel 24:18 and 2 Chronicles 3:1). Therefore, we know from certainty that King David conquered a Jebusite fortress atop Mount Zion, the highest mount in the area, that protected the so-called City of David below. So, the city was sometimes called Zion, in keeping with the nearby mount, and sometimes called the City of David, since David rebuilt and enlarged it as his capitol, until it grew and became later known as Jerusalem. This is why the city names Zion and Jerusalem are often taken to be synonymous. But Mount Zion has always been a mount, the highest geographical high point in the area of the Temple Mount.

To imply that Mount Moriah has ever been the same as Mount Zion is nonsense, and that Mount Zion is a non-physical concept that has been moving around is not worthy of comment. I know that there are many forces trying to confuse the history of the Temple Mount area for various purposes. These attempts are usually lame and the current Wiki article is right in there with the rest of them. Wikipedia would do well to stick to the best evidence, not opinions. 1Lt2be5 (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)