Announcement

Collapse

Archeology 201 Guidelines

If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.

Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?

Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.

Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Sodom and Gomorrah Discovered

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by OldHat View Post
    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.
    Would you please give us a specific example of what you are posting about? An event that occurs even though before that some people thought it was improbable is still real.
    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

    [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

    Comment


    • #32
      I thought this thread was gonna be about San Francisco.
      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
        I thought this thread was gonna be about San Francisco.
        Heh.
        Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

        -Thomas Aquinas

        I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

        -Hernando Cortez

        What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

        -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
          This is pretty old, but since no one has posted it yet: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...-Gomorrah.aspx

          Unless anyone can find a discrepancy, I'd say the case is pretty much settled. It's found in the same place as described in the Bible, and went through the exact same stuff as described in the Bible.
          This OP source relates a natural occurance of an earthquake with a natural gas pocket under pressure. Within the gas pocket area were sulfer and bitomen. If the explosion and earthquake was powerful enough to raise the large areas as high as described in the article, you would have the fire and brimstone described in Genesis.

          This is a justifiable natural occurance. Expect no more from science as it can't be used to prove any supernatural occurance. Be content that both views can be used to describe the same event. The academics provided the natural explanation, if there wasn't a natural explanation for the event there wouldn't have been an event. Duh! Notice the same academics went no farther than that, it takes a different kind of person to close the door on the supernatural. And he will soon appear after I post this. I have a natural and a supernatural explanation for existence of that person as well.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Mr. Anderson View Post
            This OP source relates a natural occurance of an earthquake with a natural gas pocket under pressure. Within the gas pocket area were sulfer and bitomen. If the explosion and earthquake was powerful enough to raise the large areas as high as described in the article, you would have the fire and brimstone described in Genesis.

            This is a justifiable natural occurance. Expect no more from science as it can't be used to prove any supernatural occurance. Be content that both views can be used to describe the same event. The academics provided the natural explanation, if there wasn't a natural explanation for the event there wouldn't have been an event. Duh! Notice the same academics went no farther than that, it takes a different kind of person to close the door on the supernatural. And he will soon appear after I post this. I have a natural and a supernatural explanation for existence of that person as well.
            You're actually trying to suggest that a natural gas explosion and an earthquake shot sulfur, thousands of feet into the air, only to fall back down and land on the roofs of the houses, and only the roofs of the houses? Not to mention, something like that wouldn't have been able to cover two cities, and a graveyard ways away from the cities.
            Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

            -Thomas Aquinas

            I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

            -Hernando Cortez

            What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

            -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by OldHat View Post
              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.
              No it is not a problem. The roofs of the houses would be flammable materials the wall are not. Ignited exploding natural gases could easily ignite whatever was flammable in the event.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-10-2014, 05:17 PM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                You're actually trying to suggest that a natural gas explosion and an earthquake shot sulfur, thousands of feet into the air, only to fall back down and land on the roofs of the houses, and only the roofs of the houses? Not to mention, something like that wouldn't have been able to cover two cities, and a graveyard ways away from the cities.
                This reflects quite an imagination, and not necessary for the flammable roves of the houses catch fire when the nonflammable walls did not. Your stretching just 'some of the observation of some houses to reach a supernatural conclusion. Again . . .

                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?

                You have failed to respond.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  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.
                  IF there was indeed a prophesy involved. It is very common in all ancient cultures to attribute natural disasters to Divine intervention by wrathful vindictive God(s). It makes good press to keep people in line and obedient, or elephants will fall on your house.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                    You're actually trying to suggest that a natural gas explosion and an earthquake shot sulfur, thousands of feet into the air, only to fall back down and land on the roofs of the houses, and only the roofs of the houses? Not to mention, something like that wouldn't have been able to cover two cities, and a graveyard ways away from the cities.

                    As recorded in the source you gave yes, that is the natural explanation. Which describes fully all occurances within the narrative. What I suggest is that God instigated it by natural sources, which science can't verify. Science is an impotent (yes I left the r out because that is a better description) tool that can only speak to the natural. Which means science is unqualified to speak for or against God. Don't feel bad that's the way it works. At the end of this argument neither side wins, and hopefully your faith is strengthened.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      IF there was indeed a prophesy involved. It is very common in all ancient cultures to attribute natural disasters to Divine intervention by wrathful vindictive God(s). It makes good press to keep people in line and obedient, or elephants will fall on your house.
                      Some cops are corrupt, therefore all cops are corrupt? Not the kind of argument that I have come to expect from you, Shunyadragon.
                      It is also very common in all ancient cultures for people to be wary of offending the gods. If the story teller was recounting what he knew to be false claims about the prophecy, and the acts of supernatural messengers, he, in his own beliefs, would be risking divine retribution.

                      The "It makes good press to keep people in line and obedient, or elephants will fall on your house" argument cuts both ways.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        Some cops are corrupt, therefore all cops are corrupt? Not the kind of argument that I have come to expect from you, Shunyadragon.
                        Not particularly relevant.

                        It is also very common in all ancient cultures for people to be wary of offending the gods. If the story teller was recounting what he knew to be false claims about the prophecy, and the acts of supernatural messengers, he, in his own beliefs, would be risking divine retribution.
                        Story tellers rarely if never report false prophesies, and most accounts are after the fact. Prophetic claims up the threat.

                        The "It makes good press to keep people in line and obedient, or elephants will fall on your house" argument cuts both ways.
                        Yes, it does and it is part of the argument that the ancient OT narrative is not unique attributing catastrophic events as Divinely ordered or threatened.

                        The biggest problem I have with this thread, is the claim that the events of the supposed miraculous catastrophies of Sodom and Gomorrah cannot be explained by natural events.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-11-2014, 04:11 PM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          The biggest problem I have with this thread, is the claim that the events of the supposed miraculous catastrophies of Sodom and Gomorrah cannot be explained by natural events.
                          Was that in response to post #6 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post57587 ?
                          You notice in that post Timeless Theist only claimed that a particular naturalistic explanation is wrong. However, I suppose it's true that a naturalistic explanation of how an event occurred can be always be conceived. For example, claim mass delusion.
                          The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                          [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Mr. Anderson View Post
                            As recorded in the source you gave yes, that is the natural explanation. Which describes fully all occurances within the narrative. What I suggest is that God instigated it by natural sources, which science can't verify. Science is an impotent (yes I left the r out because that is a better description) tool that can only speak to the natural. Which means science is unqualified to speak for or against God. Don't feel bad that's the way it works. At the end of this argument neither side wins, and hopefully your faith is strengthened.
                            Eh, well, I hope you have a better explanation than that, as that explanation is clearly impossible.
                            Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                            -Thomas Aquinas

                            I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                            -Hernando Cortez

                            What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                            -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              [QUOTE=shunyadragon;77466]Not particularly relevant.


                              Story tellers rarely if never report false prophesies, and most accounts are after the fact. Prophetic claims up the threat.
                              And where it can be shown that the prophecy precedes the event, the only possible explanation is that the narrator made up the story of the prophecy.
                              Jesus predicts that the temple will be destroyed: ergo, the author wrote the story after the temple was destroyed and inserted the prediction as a means to assert Jesus' status as the Christ. There are a couple of problems with that story - 1/ the authors do not mention that the prophecy has been fulfilled, which they do when other prophecies have been fulfilled. 2/(unconfirmed, but I'd be surprised if the report is incorrect) At least one other person, between the time of the crucifixion and the fall of Jerusalem also foreshadowed the sacking of the temple.


                              Yes, it does and it is part of the argument that the ancient OT narrative is not unique attributing catastrophic events as Divinely ordered or threatened.
                              Nor is the Old Testament the only ancient narrative that claims people have died.
                              That the majority of natural events were wrongly attributed to supernatural causes is not denied. When those events follow on prophecy, I'm quite comfortable with accepting the events as being directed by God, or by gods as the case may be.

                              The biggest problem I have with this thread, is the claim that the events of the supposed miraculous catastrophies of Sodom and Gomorrah cannot be explained by natural events.
                              This particular event could quite easily be incorrectly ascribed to nothing more than natural occurrences. Ordinary scientific explanations satisfactorily account for the damage to the cities - but they don't account for the prophecy. Even if the cities were shown to have been destroyed by a meteor storm, or bolide strike, nothing would indicate from the available physical evidence that it wasn't a natural occurrence.
                              It is one thing to ascribe supernatural action to destruction AFTER the event. It is another thing altogether to ascribe destruction to supernatural action BEFORE anything has happened.
                              Jesus did not foreshadow any action by God in the destruction of the temple - he simply stated that it would be destroyed. So - God did not bring Rome against Israel ... it would be a reasonable assessment to accept that all of it was entirely generated in the natural order (On the basis of the record.) - but that still doesn't explain how Jesus knew about it in advance.
                              Last edited by tabibito; 07-12-2014, 02:05 AM.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                                Was that in response to post #6 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post57587 ?
                                You notice in that post Timeless Theist only claimed that a particular naturalistic explanation is wrong. However, I suppose it's true that a naturalistic explanation of how an event occurred can be always be conceived. For example, claim mass delusion.
                                I do not think mass delusion is necessary. In fact there were possibly a limited number of survivors as portrayed in the Bible, and a very traumatic experience for those that did survive. The testimony could very well reflect this. Simply a natural event involving one or more earthquakes and natural gas explosions can represent a spectacular catastrophy that could be the basis for the stories that lead to the ancient narrative of the destruction of the cities (towns?).

                                Considering the literary history of Genesis as compiled ~800 to 600 BCE, nothing here remotely should be considered an accurate first or even second or third person testimony, and actually simply like many of the stories in Genesis, a handed down oral legend, and possibly from older cuneiform written legends.
                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-12-2014, 06:42 AM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 05:38 AM
                                0 responses
                                9 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by tabibito, 09-07-2023, 02:41 PM
                                30 responses
                                134 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X