Soddam and Gamorrah

[Spike~]

Is there any actual scientific evidence that these places existed, or that they were destoryed by comets?

Thanks.

 

[Mistermystery]

Destroyed by comets? Unlikely. Where did you hear that one btw?

 

[Spike~]

Well, that's how the Bible says it was destroyed, God rained fire down on them, so I guess that would mean comets, or meteors, ya know, big peices of space rock.

 

[Jet Black]

if we're going to take it literally, it has to be fire, not big lumps of rock, otherwise the bible would have said so.

1337 sig btw

 

[Mistermystery]

Well, that's how the Bible says it was destroyed, God rained fire down on them, so I guess that would mean comets, or meteors, ya know, big peices of space rock.

There are very little double meteors in the world. The chances that there were 2 cities underneath it are astronomical small.

 

[Mistermystery]

In fact the only real double meteor is in Libya namely: Arkenu 1 and 2. Others, like in Morasko (poland) are from one meteor that fragmented (and is horribly small btw).

 

[Tomk80]

Is there any actual scientific evidence that these places existed, or that they were destoryed by comets?

Thanks.

I thought I read something about the places being mentioned in Egyptian writings. They were cities that were traded with by the Egyptians. However, no mention is made of the total destruction of the cities. I'll try to look up some references.

 

[Jet Black]

nobody would ever call a city sodom. they would just get laughed at.

 

[JohnR7]

Is there any actual scientific evidence that these places existed, or that they were destoryed by comets?

I do not know about the comet thing, but there are people who feel they have found the remains of those citys.
So there is some evidence, but maybe not enough to convince everyone.

 

[Andre3000]

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm

Here's an interesting site I ran across a long time ago that gives scientific proof for the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah. Unfortunately, it is also scientifically inaccurate

And just for reference this is the biblical account of the event:

By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah-from the LORD out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities-and also the vegetation in the land. But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the LORD. He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace. So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.

 

[Spike~]

1337 sig btw

Touche.

Well, thanks guys, that pretty much answers my question. I think it's pretty safe to say with certainty that if there was a Saddam and Gomorrah, that weren't dstroyed in a reign of fire because of gays. Thanks.

 

[Jet Black]

besides, there would only have been a few dozen people alive at the time, Given john's growth curve in the "grain of rice" thread

http://christianforums.co.uk/t673955

 

[Adam Kadamon]

Maybe they got spit on by a volcano?

*shrugs*

 

[Mistermystery]

besides, there would only have been a few dozen people alive at the time, Given john's growth curve in the "grain of rice" thread

http://christianforums.co.uk/t673955

busy bees, those acient races. Destruction here, destruction there, building a pyramid allong the way, starting some american cultures. Busy busy busy.

 

[Tomk80]

Maybe they got spit on by a volcano?

*shrugs*

Thanks, now I remember what I read and where!

Sodom and Gomorrah. The ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah have not been located. The only possible candidates are Bab edh-Dhra and some related towns near the eastern shore of the Dead Sea, for they are the only sites in the area that were occupied before the Roman period (see Harland 1980 and van Hatten 1981). British geologists Harris and Beardow (1995) argue that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed when an earthquake liquefied the ground on which they stood. This leveled the cities, then caused them to sink beneath the waters of the Dead Sea. They theorize that the earthquake also ignited bitumen deposits, which are common to the area, resulting in the "fire and brimstone" description (19:24).

http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/RTOT/CH2/CH2_1B1.HTM

Not much real arguments for the existence of the cities here other than speculations.

 

[Pious Jedi]

Both cities were destroyed by God. Any civilization that supports the abomination of homosexual Sodomy is doomed.

 

[MissFirerose]

Both cities were destroyed by God. Any civilization that supports the abomination of homosexual Sodomy is doomed.

False. Such a view has been caused by false and biased translations of the original Hebrew (and Greek in some cases). Such intolerance and ignorance give Christians a bad name, and is along the line of those who twisted faulty and dubious translations to support their bigotry and intolerance of interracial marriages, for example. Hopefully, people will learn someday. From: http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html#Genesis19:5




[font=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman]Genesis 19:5:[/font]
"Bring them out to us that we may know them."

[font=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman]Author's Note:[/font][font=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman]"Know" simply means know! No hint at homosexuality exists in the original Hebrew. No later Bible references to Sodom ever mention homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. Many modern translations add words to the text to create the lie that the people of Sodom were homosexual.

"SODOMY" is not a biblical word. Laws against sodomy not only violate the Constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state; they also use an incorrect and wrongly translated term for the laws. A "Sodomite" in the Bible is simply a person who lives in Sodom, which included Lot and his family. The term "sodomite" in the King James Version of Deuteronomy 23:17 and I Kings 14:24 is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew word for "temple prostitute." (See the recent book by Mark D. Jordan: The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology. University of Chicago Press, 1997.)

The average person assumes that the Bible clearly condemns male to male sexual intercourse as "sodomy" and that the city of Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, which is seen as the worst of all sins in the Bible. These assumptions are based on no evidence at all in the Bible.

No Jewish scholars before the first Christian century taught that the sin of Sodom was sexual. None of the biblical references to Sodom mention sexual sins but view Sodom as an example of injustice, lack of hospitality to strangers, idolatry and as a symbol for desolation and destruction. See Deuteronomy 29:22-28; 32:32; Ezekiel 16:49-50; Jeremiah 49:18; 50:41; Isaiah 13:19-22 and Matthew 10:14-15. In Jude 7, the term "strange flesh" is Greek hetero sarkos("different flesh" and from which the word "heterosexual" comes) and refers to foreign idols or people. It is not homo ("the same") flesh or people. Sarkos is never used in the New Testament as a word for "sex."

The word "know" in Genesis 19:5 is Hebrew YADA. It is used 943 times in the Old Testament to "know" God, good and evil, the truth, the law, people, places, things, etc. It is a very flexible word, as are many Hebrew words. In Genesis 19:5, the word was used to express the request of the people of Sodom that Lot should bring out the strangers in his house so that they could know who they were. Sodom was a tiny fortress in the barren wasteland south of the Dead Sea. The only strangers that the people of Sodom ever saw were enemy tribes who wanted to destroy and take over their valuable fortress and the trade routes that it protected. Lot himself was an alien in their midst.

Lot's strange response to the request was to offer his young daughters to the men, an offer that seems to me to be far more reprehensible than any problem of sexual orientation. If the men were homosexual, why did Lot offer to give them his daughters? These hostile and violent people were heterosexual, and homosexual orientation had nothing to do with the incident.

Special note on YADA: The Hebrew word YADA "to know" is never used in the Old Testament to mean "to have sex with". People have been conditioned to think that "to know someone biblically" means to have sex. The use of YADA in Genesis 4:1-2 to say that Adam knew Eve and she conceived and gave birth to Cain is followed by saying that later she gave birth to his brother Abel without any reference to YADA. Why? Simply because YADA does not mean to have sex. It is a general term that describes many kinds of intimate relationships. I have studied all of the uses of YADA in the Old Testament, and my personal conclusion is that it never means what we mean by sexual intercourse. Just substitute a common slang expression for sexual intercourse instead of the word "know" in Genesis 4:1 and you will see how inappropriate the idea is. The Old Testament Hebrew writers never thought or wrote in those terms. The Bible never gives any details about sexual acts. The only clear Hebrew term for sexual acts is "to lie with," which is left without any further explanation.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN SODOM?

To twist the story to say what it does not say is to miss what it does say. The story does not deal with sexual orientation or with homosexuality and has no bearing at all on the issue of God's acceptance or rejection of Gays and Lesbians. The story of Sodom clearly teaches that evil and violent people who attack aliens and strangers whom they do not know or understand receive God's quick and terrible punishment.

The purpose of the story is to show that misunderstood, strange, or feared minorities in any community are in danger from violence by the majority when that majority is ignorant, ungodly, selfish and afraid. The real message of Sodom is backwards from the claims of homophobic preachers and teachers. The Gay and Lesbian minority in our society today is more like the guests in Lot's house who were protected behind closed doors ("in the closet") than like the frightened mindless mob that wanted to expose, humiliate and destroy people that they did not "know" and control.

Set the record straight! Genesis 19 is about the fear (like homophobia) and anger of a mob (like many misguided religious fanatics) directed against a small group of isolated strangers (like Gays and Lesbians today) in their midst. Sexual orientation is not the issue here or anywhere else in the Bible.

Read also the strange story in Judges 19:1-30 of the Levite in Gibeah, which was patterned after the story of Lot and the angels in Genesis 19. Jewish teachers before the time of Christ never saw either of these stories as having any connection with homosexuality or sexual orientation. Neither should we.
[/font]

 

[JohnR7]

I think it's pretty safe to say with certainty that if there was a Saddam and Gomorrah, that weren't dstroyed in a reign of fire because of gays. Thanks.

Jude 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

 

[MissFirerose]

Jude 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Read above. Or read the shortened version below.
http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html#Genesis19:5

No Jewish scholars before the first Christian century taught that the sin of Sodom was sexual. None of the biblical references to Sodom mention sexual sins but view Sodom as an example of injustice, lack of hospitality to strangers, idolatry and as a symbol for desolation and destruction. See Deuteronomy 29:22-28; 32:32; Ezekiel 16:49-50; Jeremiah 49:18; 50:41; Isaiah 13:19-22 and Matthew 10:14-15. In Jude 7, the term "strange flesh" is Greek hetero sarkos("different flesh" and from which the word "heterosexual" comes) and refers to foreign idols or people. It is not homo ("the same") flesh or people. Sarkos is never used in the New Testament as a word for "sex."

The word "know" in Genesis 19:5 is Hebrew YADA. It is used 943 times in the Old Testament to "know" God, good and evil, the truth, the law, people, places, things, etc. It is a very flexible word, as are many Hebrew words. In Genesis 19:5, the word was used to express the request of the people of Sodom that Lot should bring out the strangers in his house so that they could know who they were. Sodom was a tiny fortress in the barren wasteland south of the Dead Sea. The only strangers that the people of Sodom ever saw were enemy tribes who wanted to destroy and take over their valuable fortress and the trade routes that it protected. Lot himself was an alien in their midst.

Lot's strange response to the request was to offer his young daughters to the men, an offer that seems to me to be far more reprehensible than any problem of sexual orientation. If the men were homosexual, why did Lot offer to give them his daughters? These hostile and violent people were heterosexual, and homosexual orientation had nothing to do with the incident.

Special note on YADA: The Hebrew word YADA "to know" is never used in the Old Testament to mean "to have sex with". People have been conditioned to think that "to know someone biblically" means to have sex. The use of YADA in Genesis 4:1-2 to say that Adam knew Eve and she conceived and gave birth to Cain is followed by saying that later she gave birth to his brother Abel without any reference to YADA. Why? Simply because YADA does not mean to have sex. It is a general term that describes many kinds of intimate relationships. I have studied all of the uses of YADA in the Old Testament, and my personal conclusion is that it never means what we mean by sexual intercourse. Just substitute a common slang expression for sexual intercourse instead of the word "know" in Genesis 4:1 and you will see how inappropriate the idea is. The Old Testament Hebrew writers never thought or wrote in those terms. The Bible never gives any details about sexual acts. The only clear Hebrew term for sexual acts is "to lie with," which is left without any further explanation.

 

[kenneth558]

Touche.

Well, thanks guys, that pretty much answers my question. I think it's pretty safe to say with certainty that if there was a Saddam and Gomorrah, that weren't dstroyed in a reign of fire because of gays. Thanks.

You guys are really sad.

One of the cities destroyed in that rain of burning sulfur can be viewed from Massada. Here is a quote from "Ron Wyatt" web site:

Mr. Wyatt has also found the ashen remains of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other three cities of the plain that were destroyed by God with fire and brimstone. The outline of the remains of Gomorrah can be clearly seen from the top of Massada. The walls and buildings are still standing as encrusted ashen forms. When the brick-like chunks are removed, they can be easily crushed in the hand to powdered ash. These chunks have been chemically analyzed, and they have been proven to be ash.
Mr. Wyatt also found millions of encrusted sulfur balls that were tested to be 94% pure sulfur, with other trace elements. The mixture of sulfur and trace elements would have burned at about 5000 degrees Fahrenheit. This is hot enough to burn even the stone and metal that would have been used in the construction of the city. The sulfur was found in a form that is not found naturally anywhere in the world. Evidence of gold was also found in the city, but it turned out to be gold salts, since even the gold had been vaporized. The writer has a video showing the archaeological find that he would gladly loan to anyone requesting it. The video pinpoints the location of all five cities of the plain with biblically confirmed accuracy. The locations are not the traditional sites.