Sodom and Gammorah

Hobbit

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2004
5,099
423
48
Near Atlanta, GA
I was watching a History Channel documentary recently that showed some archeologists who found a pair of cities at the south of the Dead Sea. It looked as though one was created as an extension of the other when it got too full. By carbon dating and other techniques, the archeologists concluded that both cities ended abruptly at about the same time, and that there was a terrible fire involved, apparently involving at least some measure of sulphur. Nearby, a shrine was found that was apparantly a temple dedicated to the rescue of Lot and the destruction of the two cities, though it was built, by both historical accounts and archeological evidence, 2500 years after the fact. However, they did find a cave nearby with evidence of a brief occupation dating around the same time as the cities, which is consistent with the Biblical account. They even found an eerily pure salt deposit in the area, though if it was Lot's wife, ages of geological and weather effects had removed its humanoid shape.

It's still quite a leap from conclusive evidence, but it makes one think...
 
I think I saw that special about a year ago. Pretty cool. There is tons of archeological (sp?) evidence to legitamize the Bible's claims, and this adds to it.
 
Hobbit said:
I. By carbon dating and other techniques, ...



If you are going to accept carbon dating to suggest that the cities authenticate a Biblical story, you're going to have to accept evidence contrary to Biblical teachings that has reulted from carbon dating.
 
listopencil said:
If you are going to accept carbon dating to suggest that the cities authenticate a Biblical story, you're going to have to accept evidence contrary to Biblical teachings that has reulted from carbon dating.
Perhaps.... however, the site that Hobbit describes is intriguing. Many of the accounts in the book of Genesis have a basis in fact.

1. The story of Noah is told over and over again in different forms and in different countries. Recent archeological finds at the bottom of the Black Sea reveal a Stone Age civilization that was suddenly wiped out by a flood at the end of the last Ice Age.

2. The Jews are genetically similar to the Kurds of Northern Iraq, which gives credence to the Biblical passage that Abraham, the father of the Jews, was from "Ur of the Chaldees" i.e. Ur was a city near modern day Baghdad in the northern part of Iraq.

3. The tower of Babel, was built in Babylon. The desciption of the tower matches those given by Herodotus of ziggaruts, which the Babylonians built.

4. Inscriptions on Egyptian temples list a town the Egyptians conquered as belong "to the House of David"
....

I could go on, but many of the events described in the Bible actually happened as described or are fairly accurate accounts, if not precise, nonetheless.
 
Hobbit said:
I was watching a History Channel documentary recently that showed some archeologists who found a pair of cities at the south of the Dead Sea. It looked as though one was created as an extension of the other when it got too full. By carbon dating and other techniques, the archeologists concluded that both cities ended abruptly at about the same time, and that there was a terrible fire involved, apparently involving at least some measure of sulphur. Nearby, a shrine was found that was apparantly a temple dedicated to the rescue of Lot and the destruction of the two cities, though it was built, by both historical accounts and archeological evidence, 2500 years after the fact. However, they did find a cave nearby with evidence of a brief occupation dating around the same time as the cities, which is consistent with the Biblical account. They even found an eerily pure salt deposit in the area, though if it was Lot's wife, ages of geological and weather effects had removed its humanoid shape.

It's still quite a leap from conclusive evidence, but it makes one think...

Naaaaaa.... can't be. Sodom and Gammorah are on the west coast of the United States. They're now called Los Angeles and San Fransico I believe... :D
 
KarlMarx said:
The Greek researcher and storyteller Herodotus of Halicarnassus (fifth century BCE) was the world's first historian.

http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodotus/herodotus01.htm


A ziggurat is a temple tower of the ancient Mesopotamian valley and Persia (Iran), having the form of a terraced pyramid of successively receding stories


http://www.crystalinks.com/ziggurat.html


Then how do you explain this?
zagat%202004.jpg
 
rtwngAvngr said:
Then how do you explain this?
zagat%202004.jpg
Well... it's a long story, see....

The present day guy is related to the Ziggarut Construction Company from Babylon, but then there was a scandal in the family (I think that one of the brothers, trying to make a name for himself, was cutting corners and zagging when he should have been zigging), so I think they changed their name and eventually got out of the business entirely...
 
listopencil said:
If you are going to accept carbon dating to suggest that the cities authenticate a Biblical story, you're going to have to accept evidence contrary to Biblical teachings that has reulted from carbon dating.

what evidence contrary to Biblical teachings that has reulted from carbon dating?
 
manu1959 said:
what evidence contrary to Biblical teachings that has reulted from carbon dating?

He may be referring to fossils that seem to predate Biblical creation. I, personally, don't think it directly contradicts the Bible. I mean, where in Genesis does it say God created the Earth in exactly 168 hours (7 days). It's also nonspecific as to how long Adam lived in the Garden of Eden before losing his immortality to sin.
 
listopencil said:
If you are going to accept carbon dating to suggest that the cities authenticate a Biblical story, you're going to have to accept evidence contrary to Biblical teachings that has reulted from carbon dating.
This is true. Science requires some measure of consistency. However, I heard an archaeologist on the Discovery Channel say once that he carried a Bible with him on digs. Not bc he was religious, but bc it was good historical info.
 
mom4 said:
This is true. Science requires some measure of consistency. However, I heard an archaeologist on the Discovery Channel say once that he carried a Bible with him on digs. Not bc he was religious, but bc it was good historical info.

There have also been countless generals who pulled their tactics straight out of the Bible. That was yet another History Channel documentary.
 

Forum List

Back
Top