The Destruction of Sodom

[Valka D'Ur]

Why? I'm not suggesting any divine action. I'm just saying IF there is evidence of a comet, it could be reasonably suggested to be the source of the Sodom story. And it would be just as natural as an earthquake (or a forest fire).

Comet orbits can be plotted in reverse, so show me where an astronomer said it's possible that a comet hit Earth at that time.

And I never said Sodom was destroyed by a forest fire.

 

[Berzerker]

I can't take the bible seriously as a source of science when it plays blatantly the role of presenting the backward slaves of the middle-eastern world as the chosen of a genocidal god. It would be like looking for mystical patterns or a proof of riemann's hypothesis in fox & friends.

Their traditions come from Sumer, the birthplace of science

Comet orbits can be plotted in reverse, so show me where an astronomer said it's possible that a comet hit Earth at that time.

How do we compute the orbit of a comet that blew up over a bronze age city 3,700 years ago? The site has elevated platinum, that indicates a meteor or comet.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The challenge with all this is that if you accept the biblical story as having some truth to it, you have to give credence to all the other stories from the ancient days as also being based on truth. If you don't, then most likely you are cherry picking events because you have some agenda.

 

[Kyriakos]

I did ask about another biblical story, where the hand of sauron appears and writes stuff on a babylonian wall. Could be tied to physics too

 

[Birdjaguar]

I did ask about another biblical story, where the hand of sauron appears and writes stuff on a babylonian wall. Could be tied to physics too

There are not enough Babylonians around today to care. Christians and Jews have an active interest in validating their mythology.

 

[Berzerker]

The challenge with all this is that if you accept the biblical story as having some truth to it, you have to give credence to all the other stories from the ancient days as also being based on truth. If you don't, then most likely you are cherry picking events because you have some agenda.

I dont know why we have to accept everything else in the Bible just because we might have evidence for the destruction of Sodom. Cherry picking would be using that evidence to claim the rest of the Bible is accurate. Kinda like using a passage in Genesis that appears wrong to invalidate everything else, I see critics do that constantly. They're doing it here with Lot's wife and the pillar of salt, a possible mis-translation (salt for vapor) invalidates the entire story.

 

[timtofly]

The challenge with all this is that if you accept the biblical story as having some truth to it, you have to give credence to all the other stories from the ancient days as also being based on truth. If you don't, then most likely you are cherry picking events because you have some agenda.

Why not have them based on truth? How many stories do you know of written before 100 CE that are not based on truth? The stories we tell the next generation may become legendary or mythological, but why pass them on if they are not based on truth? Do we pass stories along that are based on lies, and what would be their purpose? At a certain point we as literary humans wrote fiction. But it was for entertainment. It was not a form of passing down information from one generation to the next. At what point in history did we get to sit down and entertain ourselves with noxious lies?

The story was also told with a plea to stop the destruction. If the destruction would never have happened, would the whole area be different today, and would the story still have been told? It would seem a story of survival would be just as important to pass along. In a previous account the kings of the same cities had been attacked, and Abraham rescued them, so there is an account with a different outcome.

So even if the story has a twist to it, it still happened. We just get one interpretation passed down, until another account comes along with a different perspective.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

How many stories do you know of written before 100 CE that are not based on truth?

They had political propaganda in ancient times, too.

Do we pass stories along that are based on lies, and what would be their purpose?

What did your parents tell you the first time you asked where you came from (as in being born)? Did they tell you the truth? "The stork" or "the cabbage patch" or other equally ridiculous stories have been passed down for ages. The purpose is that adults are mostly too embarrassed to talk about human reproduction, assuming the kids will learn it in school. But when you have more conservative governments, they try to prevent that from being taught, if they allow any sex-ed classes.

At a certain point we as literary humans wrote fiction. But it was for entertainment

And propaganda.

 

[timtofly]

They had political propaganda in ancient times, too.


What did your parents tell you the first time you asked where you came from (as in being born)? Did they tell you the truth? "The stork" or "the cabbage patch" or other equally ridiculous stories have been passed down for ages. The purpose is that adults are mostly too embarrassed to talk about human reproduction, assuming the kids will learn it in school. But when you have more conservative governments, they try to prevent that from being taught, if they allow any sex-ed classes.


And propaganda.

Are you trying to infer that all propaganda is based on lies?

What is the point about where humans come from? The truth is that they have a beginning. The lie would be they evolved from the pet dog, or the stork, which is not original everytime it is told. Nor is it really passed down by all parents. So your analogy is still propaganda based on a truth, that there is a story about storks, and it is assumed all parents use it. The truth is there is a story, and the lie would be inferring it is used by all, thus an exaggeration or propaganda passed on to prove your point. Did you intentionally set out to tell a lie to make your point?

I was the oldest of 6. My sisters were born when I was 2 and 7. At that point it was obvious where they came from. The question I asked at 18 months was, "Why was mom always sick, and her tummy was more rounder than normal?" The answer was, I had a little brother or sister on the way. Telling me about the stork at that point would have been useless, cause it would be harder to explain how the stork put the baby in my mom, than to explain how my sister came out.

I am not sure how the story of Sodom is propaganda, even if propaganda is based on lies. Although, propaganda is based on some truth, but twisted to bring about a result because it may be perceived as a lie, or an exaggeration of a lie or a truth. Perhaps it was to rally the Hebrews into taking over the Promise Land? Abraham in the text was downplayed as a political figure though. Most do not even see him as that, but he may have been. Who really knows?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Why not have them based on truth? How many stories do you know of written before 100 CE that are not based on truth? The stories we tell the next generation may become legendary or mythological, but why pass them on if they are not based on truth? Do we pass stories along that are based on lies, and what would be their purpose? At a certain point we as literary humans wrote fiction. But it was for entertainment. It was not a form of passing down information from one generation to the next. At what point in history did we get to sit down and entertain ourselves with noxious lies?

The story was also told with a plea to stop the destruction. If the destruction would never have happened, would the whole area be different today, and would the story still have been told? It would seem a story of survival would be just as important to pass along. In a previous account the kings of the same cities had been attacked, and Abraham rescued them, so there is an account with a different outcome.

So even if the story has a twist to it, it still happened. We just get one interpretation passed down, until another account comes along with a different perspective.

That was my point. Most stories, even those written today, usually arise from things that did happen or were experienced by people. Those experiences do get altered and perhaps are made fanciful. That is not to say all are true. Is the Anabasis a true story? Probably, mostly. Stories that don't get too fanciful tend to be believed more readily. Did the Jews leave Egypt? Probably. Were their plagues? Did god part the Red Sea in a dramatic way? Less likely. Once you venture into the realm of religious texts and the more miraculous events, trouble can begin. It is easier to assume that Troy was a real city and was destroyed and that Xenophon led a group of warriors across Persia than to assume God acted to part the waters of the Red Sea. To believe the latter you have to accept first that god can and does take a very active role in world events and he violates the normally accepted rules of physics. He stops the sun. He knocks down the walls of Jericho. etc. etc. In addition, you have to accept that while he did this in the past he doesn't do it any more for whatever reasons.

Some people will not venture on to the path of supernatural acts and they will look at the old stories with a different eye. Where your thinking begins and what you assume will determine where you end up in regards to stories.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Are you trying to infer that all propaganda is based on lies?

Some of it is used to exaggerate a basic truth. But the point is that propaganda is intended to convince the public of something that is usually not true.

Did you intentionally set out to tell a lie to make your point?

We don't agree on most things. I've been very critical of your posts in the past and will probably continue to be critical.

But not once have I ever accused you of lying, not even obliquely. This is a really damned rude thing you posted.

I was the oldest of 6. My sisters were born when I was 2 and 7. At that point it was obvious where they came from. The question I asked at 18 months was, "Why was mom always sick, and her tummy was more rounder than normal?" The answer was, I had a little brother or sister on the way. Telling me about the stork at that point would have been useless, cause it would be harder to explain how the stork put the baby in my mom, than to explain how my sister came out.

But they didn't explain all of it to you then, did they? People like me who have no siblings don't even get that much of an explanation. One person gave me the cabbage patch story while my mother gave me a story even more bizarre. Seems none of the parents are willing to be honest.

Stories that don't get too fanciful tend to be believed more readily. Did the Jews leave Egypt? Probably.

It is easier to assume that Troy was a real city

It was real. Schliemann found the site where successive "Troys" were built (they may have had different names), but not being a trained archaeologist, he looted it rather than making a proper study as modern archaeologists would have done.

But just because the site was found, it doesn't mean the rest of it's true.

Some people will not venture on to the path of supernatural acts and they will look at the old stories with a different eye.

Some venture, realize the supernatural isn't real, and return to reality. And others venture, find it interesting, but realize it's not real and they should keep that clearly in mind.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It is easier to assume that Troy was a real city

You should at least quote my whole sentence and capture the full meaning of what I was saying rather than quote a part and change my meaning.

It is easier to assume that Troy was a real city and was destroyed and that Xenophon led a group of warriors across Persia than to assume God acted to part the waters of the Red Sea.

My post was all about comparing the Iliad, the Anabasis and the books of Moses and how much easier it is to accept the two former rather than the last.

It was real. Schliemann found the site where successive "Troys" were built (they may have had different names), but not being a trained archaeologist, he looted it rather than making a proper study as modern archaeologists would have done.

But just because the site was found, it doesn't mean the rest of it's true.

Was Homer a real person? Do you believe that Homer told a story (the Iliad) based in part on facts? Do you believe that the Trojan war happened? If so, did you believe it was real prior to 1985?
Was Xeonophon a real person? Did the Anabais actually happen?
Was Moses a real person?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You should at least quote my whole sentence and capture the full meaning of what I was saying rather than quote a part and change my meaning.
My post was all about comparing the Iliad, the Anabasis and the books of Moses and how much easier it is to accept the two former rather than the last.

I'm unfamiliar with the Anabasis.

Was Homer a real person?

I would like to think so, but that doesn't mean he was a real person. There are questions surrounding the true authorship of The Iliad the same way that there are people insisting Shakespeare didn't really write the plays and poems attributed to him.

Do you believe that Homer told a story (the Iliad) based in part on facts? Do you believe that the Trojan war happened? If so, did you believe it was real prior to 1985?

What I believe matters less than what the archaeological record says.

Was Xeonophon a real person? Did the Anabais actually happen?

I'm unfamiliar with these, so I have no opinion on them.

Was Moses a real person?

I once watched a documentary in which Jewish scholars stated that they don't believe any of the biblical patriarchs really existed, that the first five books of the Old Testament were fiction designed to be teachings in the form of stories.

I've also read an analysis of what would be required to get that many people out of Egypt in the way related in Exodus. The conclusion is that it couldn't have happened, at least not as told.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm doin a little reading on the Battle of Siddim... Seems strange the same cities that rebelled from Mesopotamian rule got torched a few years later and one of the heroes argued for their mercy.

 

[timtofly]

Some of it is used to exaggerate a basic truth. But the point is that propaganda is intended to convince the public of something that is usually not true.


We don't agree on most things. I've been very critical of your posts in the past and will probably continue to be critical.

But not once have I ever accused you of lying, not even obliquely. This is a really damned rude thing you posted.


But they didn't explain all of it to you then, did they? People like me who have no siblings don't even get that much of an explanation. One person gave me the cabbage patch story while my mother gave me a story even more bizarre. Seems none of the parents are willing to be honest.

I was not accusing you of deliberately lying. That was my point. Even people who strongly disagree with their intended audience do not base propaganda on a solid lie. Much less do those who are passing down information from generation to generation.

Authors who do so, actually indicate that is what they are doing and it is a known deliberate intention.

I think people who are changing facts of history are over thinking things and coming up with their own fake versions of history because of personal preferences and not finding an actual independent source from the time of the occurance. I am not afraid of any new discoveries as I cannot change my own experience after the fact.

I'm doin a little reading on the Battle of Siddim... Seems strange the same cities that rebelled from Mesopotamian rule got torched a few years later and one of the heroes argued for their mercy.

What is even stranger is some think whatever happened caused a poisonous cloud to travel east from there and that is why the Sumerian/ Mesopotamian civs seems to have disappeared or scattered until the whole area was habitable again. All the way down the Euphratis River vally. Of course the cloud was not as bad as ground zero. But it was enough to disrupt life for decades it seems.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Here's where I have an issue with the article from the start. Possibly as a result of not being informed enough about the research done and evidence found.

Title

A meteor may have exploded in the air 3,700 years ago

A meteor may have exploded

A meteor that exploded in the air near the Dead Sea 3,700 years ago may have wiped out communities, killed tens of thousands of people

A meteor that exploded, may have wiped out ...

The title puts the uncertainty at whether there was a meteor, the start of the article places it at whether it has wiped out communities, killed tens of thousands of people.

and provided the kernel of truth to an old Bible story.

Now, this may be because English is not my first language, but isn't the way it's phrased here telling me that the kernel of truth is already provided? If we're still in the land of speculation from the previous part of the sentence and title, shouldn't it have read: "providing a kernel of truth", linking it to the "May have". As I read the sentence, the meteor provided a kernel of truth and it may have wiped out ...

Lastly, shouldn't this thread have been called: The destruction of Tall el-Hammam?

 

[Yeekim]

The challenge with all this is that if you accept the biblical story as having some truth to it, you have to give credence to all the other stories from the ancient days as also being based on truth.

Why?? This just does not follow.
Moreover, it is clear there is some truth to biblical stories.
Starting with Genesis ... it is quite evident that Earth, featuring day-night cycle, fish, fowls, animals, humans etc does indeed exist, so this much of the story (and every other creation myth there is) is true.
A natural cataclysm that could have wiped away cities would certainly become important part of local oral tradition.
Explaining bad events as "divine retribution" happens to this day, it would certainly happen back then as well.

If you don't, then most likely you are cherry picking events because you have some agenda.

There certainly are people who'll use anything to advance an agenda. The entire story of divine punishment that befell Sodom was clearly created by people with an agenda.
Does not mean the city didn't get destroyed somehow. Using an actual, well-known calamity as a warning example is certainly more effective than inventing something from scratch.
Moreover, if the story was "invented", the storyteller likely would have it take place in some faraway location.

 

[Yeekim]

Here's where I have an issue with the article from the start.

And here's what I like about it

The Bible is interesting from a historical perspective, because it sometimes interweaves actual events from history with the Christian mythology. Now that it seems reasonable that a meteor airburst did destroy the area that may have contained Sodom, we can lay to rest the idea that the Christian God sent down fireballs to punish homosexuality. It looks like once again, it was a perfectly natural event that led to an apocalyptic, mythological story, and that what people once attributed to Gods and Goddesses is just nature.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And here's what I like about it

Oh you militant atheist you! Don't you know that God uses natural events to punish baddies?

But I agree, the Bible is a very interesting document just because of that, and it's fun to speculate. It's just I want a clear distinction where the evidence stops and the speculating begins.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Moreover, it is clear there is some truth to biblical stories.

Which ones?

Explaining bad events as "divine retribution" happens to this day,

Uh-huh. Gods don't like certain portions of the populace, so that's why Katrina happened. Seriously, as a species we need to move past that nonsense. It's holding us back.

I was not accusing you of deliberately lying.

You said:

Did you intentionally set out to tell a lie to make your point?

Looks like it to me.