Asteroid strike offers a feasible explanation for Biblical story of Sodom

[Sparko]

While I have no objection to the first part in spite of it being unprovable, the latter part runs afoul of creating a false appearance of history, which I don't think God would do.

I was not saying God was trying to make it look like an asteroid strike, just that the result could be the same, if he rained down supernatural fire and brimstone upon the city. The impact could still cause the same evidence as a natural strike he aimed at the city.

[rogue06]

I was not saying God was trying to make it look like an asteroid strike, just that the result could be the same, if he rained down supernatural fire and brimstone upon the city. The impact could still cause the same evidence as a natural strike he aimed at the city.

Thnx for the clarification.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I was not saying God was trying to make it look like an asteroid strike, just that the result could be the same, if he rained down supernatural fire and brimstone upon the city. The impact could still cause the same evidence as a natural strike he aimed at the city.

Why can you not accept the more plausible explanation? That, as the article's final comments note,

"As of September 2021, there are more than 26,000 known near-Earth asteroids and a hundred short-period near-Earth comets. One will inevitably crash into the Earth. Millions more remain undetected, and some may be headed toward the Earth now.

Unless orbiting or ground-based telescopes detect these rogue objects, the world may have no warning, just like the people of Tall el-Hammam."

[Sparko]

Why can you not accept the more plausible explanation? That, as the article's final comments note,

"As of September 2021, there are more than 26,000 known near-Earth asteroids and a hundred short-period near-Earth comets. One will inevitably crash into the Earth. Millions more remain undetected, and some may be headed toward the Earth now.

Unless orbiting or ground-based telescopes detect these rogue objects, the world may have no warning, just like the people of Tall el-Hammam."

Just saying that someone writing an article which actually confirms a biblical story but assigning it a "natural cause" doesn't mean that God "didn't do it" because God uses nature, which he created, to do whatever he wants with it. He caused plagues of insects, a natural occurrence, used leprosy, a natural disease, floods, which are also natural, crop failures, rain, etc.

Saying "an asteroid did it" <> "God didn't do it"

But it does mean that the Bible was correct in recording the history, eh?

Chalk up one more for biblical accuracy and confirmation.

[mossrose]

I'm just glad no one is blaming me for this one.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Just saying that someone writing an article which actually confirms a biblical story

It does not confirm a biblical story.

The evidence would seem to confirm that an asteroid hit an ancient city in this area and destroyed it.

but assigning it a "natural cause" doesn't mean that God "didn't do it" because God uses nature, which he created, to do whatever he wants with it. He caused plagues of insects, a natural occurrence, used leprosy, a natural disease, floods, which are also natural, crop failures, rain, etc.

Well that is your belief. Science would put a different interpretation upon those things.

However, with regard to this asteroid hit it could equally be postulated that little green men with heat rays did it. That leaves the origin of this event as being anything is possible.

But it does mean that the Bible was correct in recording the history, eh?

The biblical folktale [as is often the way with folktales] contains a kernel of truth, in this case an actual event. That tale was presumably handed down via an long oral tradition prior to being finally written down in an interpretation by those bible scribes, in the form in which we now have it.

[Sparko]

It does not confirm a biblical story.

The evidence would seem to confirm that an asteroid hit an ancient city in this area and destroyed it.

if the city was Sodom, then it confirms the bible.

The biblical folktale [as is often the way with folktales] contains a kernel of truth, in this case an actual event. That tale was presumably handed down via an long oral tradition prior to being finally written down in an interpretation by those bible scribes, in the form in which we now have it.

It says a city named Sodom was destroyed by fire from the sky. Your guy confirms that. That means it is a historical event recorded in the bible, confirming the bible. There is no way to confirm the rest of the story, as to the events taking place in the city before and after the event, nor the people mentioned in the bible, but until you can prove that it is fiction, we should at least consider it is also a historical account of the people as well as the event. More often than not archeology has confirmed events and locations mentioned in the bible over and over, even after "experts" have dismissed such stories previously.

You are free to dismiss it if you wish, but I find my faith confirmed by such discoveries.

[Juvenal]

Various folks have been linking the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to this or that cosmic impact for awhile now. Here is an article from 2008 that associates it to a massive landslide in Austria from 3123 B.C. that they suspect was the result of an asteroid coming in at a real low angle (six degrees), and the plume from which rained fiery destruction in its path.

There was another one around 3700 B.C. that got a good deal of coverage about three years ago where they figured an aerial burst flattened a city that has been considered a plausible site for Sodom.

I can remember reading about similar theories going back to the early 80s or late 70s.

(Your second ref is to the same strike as the o/p, 3700 yrs ago, not 3700 BCE.)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

(Your second ref is to the same strike as the o/p, 3700 yrs ago, not 3700 BCE.)

I missed that chronological typo.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

if the city was Sodom, then it confirms the bible.

It wasn't.

It says a city named Sodom was destroyed by fire from the sky. Your guy confirms that.

Firstly, the archaeologist who wrote the article is not "my guy" and secondly the survey confirms an asteroid strike on an ancient city. There is no sign telling us "Here Lie the Ruins of Sodom"

That means it is a historical event recorded in the bible, confirming the bible.

We know that there are attested historical events recorded in the various Hebrew texts. However, those events do not "confirm" everything else in the Bible.

What this archaeological evidence shows is that a folktale in Genesis appears to have some echo of a real event. It does not follow that the narrative in Genesis is accurate in all its details.

[tabibito]

if the city was Sodom, then it confirms the bible.

It says a city named Sodom was destroyed by fire from the sky. Your guy confirms that. That means it is a historical event recorded in the bible, confirming the bible. There is no way to confirm the rest of the story, as to the events taking place in the city before and after the event, nor the people mentioned in the bible, but until you can prove that it is fiction, we should at least consider it is also a historical account of the people as well as the event. More often than not archeology has confirmed events and locations mentioned in the bible over and over, even after "experts" have dismissed such stories previously.

You are free to dismiss it if you wish, but I find my faith confirmed by such discoveries.

It is considered likely but by no means certain. The biggest (not the only) problem is that the time is wrong based on Biblical data - but it wouldn't be the only event that matches all the details except the date in the Torah. Tel el Hamman does meet most of the Biblical criteria - including a 700 year absence of occupation, attributed to high concentratons of salt and sulphur in the soil in that time frame.

[Juvenal]

if the city was Sodom, then it confirms the bible.

It says a city named Sodom was destroyed by fire from the sky. Your guy confirms that. That means it is a historical event recorded in the bible, confirming the bible. There is no way to confirm the rest of the story, as to the events taking place in the city before and after the event, nor the people mentioned in the bible, but until you can prove that it is fiction, we should at least consider it is also a historical account of the people as well as the event. More often than not archeology has confirmed events and locations mentioned in the bible over and over, even after "experts" have dismissed such stories previously.

You are free to dismiss it if you wish, but I find my faith confirmed by such discoveries.

So I finally got around to reading the o/p article and the related paper, and it's probably the best proposed solution to the biblical destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah I've run across. The time frame is right, better than any I've seen, but the location is difficult.

Traditionally, biblical scholars locate the cities of the plane on the south or southwest side of the Dead Sea, possibly near Mount Sodom, c. 70 miles from Tall el-Hammam (TeH), Jordan, the site of the asteroid blast, northeast of the Dead Sea. For comparison, Jericho, c. 20 miles west of TeH, the strike location, was similarly heavily burnt and damaged by the blast, with toppling of its walls. But as the energy decreases according to the inverse square of the distance, I'd expect the area around Mount Sodom to have received perhaps ten percent as much damage, not enough to destroy a city.

There's the additional detail that, unlike in previous destructions via earthquake or war, where Jericho was reinhabited and rebuilt within a couple of decades, after this devastation, Jericho remained uninhabited for centuries, bringing the time frame forward to the period of the Judges in early Israel. With kindness, and care for your beliefs, Sparko, this is further evidence that the biblical story of the capture of Jericho was crafted to explain a city that the early Israelites found after it had already been destroyed.

At the same time, the fiery airburst would have been visible for a hundred miles, I guess, so there would have been plenty of witnesses outside the death radius, and it was a story that almost certainly would have been passed down, possibly even in writing, though obviously not in Hebrew, which hadn't yet emerged. Given the timeframe, and the widescale destruction, unequaled by any later event, I think this is it, the origin of the biblical tale of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Juvenal]

It is considered likely but by no means certain. The biggest (not the only) problem is that the time is wrong based on Biblical data - but it wouldn't be the only event that matches all the details except the date in the Torah. Tel el Hamman does meet most of the Biblical criteria - including a 700 year absence of occupation, attributed to high concentratons of salt and sulphur in the soil in that time frame.

What's the date range you're considering?

Based on harmony with the law code of Ur-Nammu, dating to the last gasp of the Sumerian empire, Ur II, I generally date Abraham himself (to the extent there was an individual around whom the epic stories were gathered) to c. 2000 BCE, or perhaps a century or two later. The stories of Abraham appear to cross centuries, making a date of c. 1650 BCE a good fit for time-frame, from my understanding.

[tabibito]

What's the date range you're considering?

Based on harmony with the law code of Ur-Nammu, dating to the last gasp of the Sumerian empire, Ur II, I generally date Abraham himself (to the extent there was an individual around whom the epic stories were gathered) to c. 2000 BCE, or perhaps a century or two later. The stories of Abraham appear to cross centuries, making a date of c. 1650 BCE a good fit for time-frame, from my understanding.

Given that data - I'll have to accept that the Bible chronology is possibly more accurate than I had believed - which also would indicate the a lot of other things might be more accurate than I had thought, too.
I have always thought that anything before Moses was questionable.

[mossrose]

Firstly, the archaeologist who wrote the article is not "my guy" and secondly the survey confirms an asteroid strike on an ancient city. There is no sign telling us "Here Lie the Ruins of Sodom"

Then why in the world did you specify Sodom in the title of this thread?

Why didn't you just say that an asteroid strike offers a plausible explanation for the destruction of an ancient city?

Are you just trolling us? Again? Trying to show your "superior" knowledge of scripture?

Honestly, you make me sick.