Sodom and Gomorrah Discovered

[shunyadragon]

Once again, if that were the case, the entire buildings of the cities should have been incinerated all at once, which the archaeological data says is not true.

Not necessarily so.

Save for the fact that the data shows that the roofs caught on fire first, and that the buildings collapsed 'because' of that.

False, there is no evidence of this. The evidence indicates that there was an earthquake and landslides that collapsed the buildings.



[quote]I'm not sure what "Oakum's" Razor is, exactly.

d sorry for the spelling error Occam's Razor. The Natural cause is the best choice without trying to contort things to fit the supernatural.

The evidence is listed, and sourced in the article. Sorry, but the article you cited isn't even talking about the site elaborated upon in the article I cited, heck, it isn't even talking about a specific site, at all.

Correct it is about the archeological and geological evidence for the sites including the one ones in your article. It is relevant to The first article does not support case.

[shunyadragon]

1) If it was a giant explosion of natural gas, as you say, the entire house should have been encased in flames instantaneously, not the roofs, and then worked its way down to the rest of the house.

Gas explosions such as these are not usually one big explosion. I fell I already made that clear. I do not believe you have the background for understanding this type of geologic events

2) The evidence that the roofs caught on fire first is, once again, in the article. Perhaps you should actually read it this time?

I just reread the article, and only found two reference that one wall apparently collapsed after the fire. Both not conclusive as you state.

Source: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/04/16/The-Discovery-of-the-Sin-Cities-of-Sodom-and-Gomorrah.aspx

Not infrequently there was mudbrick detritus over the ash, which had resulted from the collapse of the mudbrick superstructures after the final conflagration.

© Copyright Original Source

Another state a wall fell on ash.

Note the above is qualified by 'not infrequently,' which cannot be stretched for your supernatural conclusions. There is no problem with 'some' walls weakened by the earth quake to fall after the fire.

I did find this:

Source: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/04/16/The-Discovery-of-the-Sin-Cities-of-Sodom-and-Gomorrah.aspx

Clapp found that the region south of the Dead Sea is very unstable, being bordered by fault lines on the east and west. Earthquakes are common in this area. After surveying the geology of the district, Clapp concluded that combustible materials from the earth destroyed the cities. He found bitumen and petroleum in the area. Natural gas and sulfur, which normally accompany bitumen and petroleum, are also present. These combustible materials could have been forced from the earth by subterranean pressure brought about by an earthquake resulting from the shifting of the bounding faults (Clapp 1936a: 906; 1936b: 40). Geologists who have studied the area in recent times agree with Clapp's reconstruction (Harris and Beardow 1995: 360; Neev and Emery 1995: 13–14; 33, 37). If lightning or surface fires ignited these combustibles as they came spewing forth from the ground, it would indeed result in a holocaust such as described in Genesis 19. It is significant to note that both Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira lie at the edge of the plain, exactly on the eastern fault line!


That an earthquake occurred at the time the cities were destroyed is clear from the work of geologist Jack Donahue of the University of Pittsburgh. At Bab edh-Dhra he found that during the period of occupation there was sedimentation, or infilling, and a build up of cultural debris (Donahue 1985: 135). Following the destruction, this changed to an erosional regime, brought about by an uplift of the area (Donahue 1980: 50; 1985: 134–36). The uplift produced an increase in the elevation differential between the town site and the Wadi Kerak on the north side of at least 28 m (92 ft) (Donahue 1985: 134).This resulted in severe erosion on the north side of Bab edh-Dhra, causing the north wall to eventually collapse into the wadi (Donahue 1985: 136).

© Copyright Original Source

3) The data says the two cities were destroyed, in the same manner, almost instantaneously.

No problem if they were destroyed by the same natural event.

There's no way a natural gas explosion could have done that. The researchers know this, and that's why they try to assert that the destruction was at the hands of humans (which is also refuted in the article).

You need to cite sources to support this beyond simple assertions.

[TimelessTheist]

Not necessarily so.

Uh, yes, actually. If there was a gas explosion large enough to take out two cities, everything would've been incinerated instantaneously.

False, there is no evidence of this. The evidence indicates that there was an earthquake and landslides that collapsed the buildings.

It cites several sources saying so.

The Natural cause is the best choice without trying to contort things to fit the supernatural.

If you can't name a known natural cause then no, it is not.

Correct it is about the archeological and geological evidence for the sites including the one ones in your article. It is relevant to The first article does not support case.

Since it doesn't actually talk about the site in particular, there's nothing to worry about.

[TimelessTheist]

Oh, and this:

"The excavation of Charnel House A22, however, has laid that theory to rest. It is now evident that the roof, engulfed in flames, collapsed into the building and caused the interior burning:
The extensive burn is clear evidence of the tomb's destruction by fire. Burning was concentrated along the interior wall in the center of both sectors, where the majority of posts and beams were uncovered. Along the south wall impressions of desiccated beams angled down toward the interior transverse wall, indicating that they had collapsed in the center across the interior wall (Rast and Schaub 1980: 37).
The destruction of the charnel houses at Bab edh-Dhra was brought about by the roofs first being set on fire, then collapsing, causing the interiors of the buildings to burn. This is entirely consistent with the Biblical description of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, when "the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens" (Gn 19:24)."

That pretty much puts the whole "natural gas" theory to rest. If the natural gas, set alight, came spewing out of the ground as the end result of an earthquake, it would be contradictory to have the roofs catch on fire first.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=TimelessTheist;59483]Oh, and this:

"The excavation of Charnel House A22, however, has laid that theory to rest. It is now evident that the roof, engulfed in flames, collapsed into the building and caused the interior burning:
The extensive burn is clear evidence of the tomb's destruction by fire. Burning was concentrated along the interior wall in the center of both sectors, where the majority of posts and beams were uncovered. Along the south wall impressions of desiccated beams angled down toward the interior transverse wall, indicating that they had collapsed in the center across the interior wall (Rast and Schaub 1980: 37).
The destruction of the charnel houses at Bab edh-Dhra was brought about by the roofs first being set on fire, then collapsing, causing the interiors of the buildings to burn. This is entirely consistent with the Biblical description of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, when "the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens" (Gn 19:24)."

That pretty much puts the whole "natural gas" theory to rest. If the natural gas, set alight, came spewing out of the ground as the end result of an earthquake, it would be contradictory to have the roofs catch on fire first.

No it would not. Natural gas eruptions during an earthquake event can occur during an earthquake, and note necessarily the end result. As cited the NATURAL EARTHQUAKES are an excepted explanation for the events by the evidence. It is also consistent with the natural cause. Earthquakes are not necessarily just one quake event. It is very possible that it was a series of quakes.

[TimelessTheist]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;59492]

Oh, and this:

"The excavation of Charnel House A22, however, has laid that theory to rest. It is now evident that the roof, engulfed in flames, collapsed into the building and caused the interior burning:
The extensive burn is clear evidence of the tomb's destruction by fire. Burning was concentrated along the interior wall in the center of both sectors, where the majority of posts and beams were uncovered. Along the south wall impressions of desiccated beams angled down toward the interior transverse wall, indicating that they had collapsed in the center across the interior wall (Rast and Schaub 1980: 37).
The destruction of the charnel houses at Bab edh-Dhra was brought about by the roofs first being set on fire, then collapsing, causing the interiors of the buildings to burn. This is entirely consistent with the Biblical description of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, when "the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens" (Gn 19:24)."



No it would not. Natural gas eruptions during an earthquake event can occur during an earthquake, and note necessarily the end result. As cited the NATURAL EARTHQUAKES are an excepted explanation for the events by the evidence. It is also consistent with the natural cause. Earthquakes are not necessarily just one quake event. It is very possible that it was a series of quakes.

Congratulations on setting the record for furthest distance put between a person and the point, at any given time.

[shunyadragon]

Congratulations on setting the record for furthest distance put between a person and the point, at any given time.

It still remains the case that the geologists cited attribute these disasters to natural events.

[TimelessTheist]

It still remains the case that the geologists cited attribute these disasters to natural events.

Course they do. However, all their work 'combined' shows that their naturalistic theories are all wrong.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Umm is this on the Jordanian disk?

6. Outside the Old Testament, among the Semitic cognates and Egyptian,
kikkar/kakkar/kakkaru/kerker is never used as a geographical referent, but means only a “talent,
a flat, circular weight of metal” or “circular, flat loaf of bread”; in Egyptian there is also the
meaning “to draw a circle in the sand with a stick.”
7. kikkar (disk, circle) in OT Hebrew likewise refers (well over 50 times) to a talent of metal or
a circular, flat loaf of bread; but these meanings never use the definite article, suggesting its
general substantive, non-locative quality in such contexts.
8. The thirteen rare geographical uses of kikkar, found exclusively in the OT, ten of which are
in the Sodom tales, denote the disk-shaped southern Jordan Valley north of the Dead Sea
(linguistically a phenomenological secondary referent—i.e., from all angles the area looks like a
disk, thus its name); of these thirteen instances four are constructed kikkar hayarden (disk of the
Jordan, with the definite article), while the remaining nine are hakikkar (the Kikkar, with the
definite article), suggesting a well-known geographical area (on a par with the Negev). There are
many standard Hebrew terms (primary referents) for "plain" and "valley," but these are explicitly avoided when referring to the geographical region known to the Yahwist as the Kikkar and
Kikkar of the Jordan.
9. The kikkar of the Jordan is confined to the area north of the Dead Sea because (a) hayarden
(the Jordan) never refers to anything other than the fresh water system of the Jordan River proper
and the valley through which it flows; and (b) hayarden is never extended to include any part of
the Valley of Siddim (Valley of the Dead Sea), but ends at “the mouth of the Jordan below
Pisgah” (another known geographical quantity, easily documentable; cf. Num 34:12; Deut 3:17,
27; 4:47-49; Josh 15:5; 18:19).
10. Thus, the kikkar of the Jordan can only refer to the disk-shaped alluvial plain north of the
Dead Sea which was well-watered (a) like the garden of Yahweh (streams, rivers, springs), and
(b) like Egypt (annual river inundations depositing new layers of water-laden silt; indeed,
hydrologically speaking, the Jordan is a "Nile in miniature").

http://www.biblicalresearchbulletin....ints_Sodom.pdf

[shunyadragon]

Course they do. However, all their work 'combined' shows that their naturalistic theories are all wrong.

False

[TimelessTheist]

False

Nope, true. Just saying it's false, doesn't make it false. Sorry, but the other evidence, combined with the fact that the fires started on the roofs, and worked their ways downward, means that the fires could 'not' have had a natural cause. What it does point to, however, is the Biblical evidence of fire raining from the sky.

[shunyadragon]

Nope, true. Just saying it's false, doesn't make it false. Sorry, but the other evidence, combined with the fact that the fires started on the roofs, and worked their ways downward, means that the fires could 'not' have had a natural cause. What it does point to, however, is the Biblical evidence of fire raining from the sky.

False, just saying it's false does not make it so. What you need to do is demonstrate a falsifiable hypothesis that can demonstrate that the miraculous destruction of the cities occurred. Lots of luck trying to falsifiable the claim of s miracle.

Can you cite the research of academic geologists that could falsify a hypothesis that the catastrophic events surrounding the destruction of the towns and/or cities could not be caused by natural forces?

[TimelessTheist]

False, just saying it's false does not make it so. What you need to do is demonstrate a falsifiable hypothesis that can demonstrate that the miraculous destruction of the cities occurred. Lots of luck trying to falsifiable the claim of s miracle.

Can you cite the research of academic geologists that could falsify a hypothesis that the catastrophic events surrounding the destruction of the towns and/or cities could not be caused by natural forces?

Because the fires started on the roofs of the houses.

[OldHat]

The problem with some naturalistic hypotheses is that they stretch out the believability too far. Fires on roofs of houses done by a naturalistic explanation seems quite strange.

[tabibito]

Proven??? Nothing in reality is proven here. ancient cities were found in the region where the Sodom and Gomorrah story was described. They very well may be cities (towns?) victims of the same disasters that befell the cities of the Biblical accounts. It is never been a problem that many of the accounts of events in the Bible are related to actual events, but it is a stretch to conclude that the evidence necessarily leads to a supernatural cause as described in the Bible.

Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens.
That is the sum of the description, as far as I know. There isn't a lot to go on in trying to determine the origin of the "fire and brimstone", beyond that it rained down on the cities. Even your gas explosion account would be likely to throw burning debris into the air - and burning bitumen would meet in any fair assessment - a description of "fire and brimstone". Sulfur wouldn't be an unlikely component of the debris - it is a common component of tar pits. No conflict with the Biblical account in any way.
The main element of this story is not what happened to the cities, but the fact that Lot knew what was coming ... and prophecy is assuredly an indication of divine intervention.