Does this physical "evidence" make you believe in God?

[Moontanman]

Just trying for a little humor There Turtle, evidently very little. :shrug: But you do make a very good point, historical references in a book or story do not make it true. I have often wondered why these "Biblical Archaeologists" do not see this. Could it be because their brand of archeology is not scientifically oriented but is in fact based in religious belief and has nothing to do with studying the past but is all about proving the Bible? :)

[pamela]

from the creator of Moontanmanism

I have often wondered why these "Biblical Archaeologists" do not see this.

Could it be because their brand of archeology is not scientifically oriented but is in fact based in religious belief and has nothing to do with studying the past but is all about proving the Bible?

 

Here is the Wiki take on Simcha findings as the Naked Archaeologist

Jacobovici sometimes makes claims that are not endorsed by most scholars. In this episode he makes the argument that Hebrew slaves invented the Proto-Sinaitic script, the first known consonantory script. He claims a connection between a possible reference to El at Wadi el-Hol and the God worshiped by the ancient Israelites. The El name was also used by other Semitic peoples and can be a Proto-Semitic root that simply means "a god" as opposed to any specific deity.

 

He also claims that the script found at Serabit el-Khadim reflects a Hebrew slave praying to his God. The script remains largely undeciphered and other theories have the wording read "to Baalat" which is possibly a reference to the Egyptian goddess Hathor or a Semitic goddess

 

The Naked Archaeologist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Essay]

Poor MTM,

One little joke, and now all this...

But a good opportunity to share a neat link.

===

Could it be because their brand of archeology is not scientifically oriented but is in fact based in religious belief and has nothing to do with studying the past but is all about proving the Bible? :)

 

Mistaken impressions like that are probably why they changed their name. I don't think they ever had an editorial policy to try and "prove" or even validate the Bible. Maybe some authors had an agenda, but the magazine is just interested with archaeology of that region.

 

The Biblical archaeologist [0006-0895]

From 1938 until 1997

 

Continued By: Near Eastern archaeology [1094-2076]

From 1998 to present.

 

Near Eastern Archaeology - Articles from Near Eastern Archaeology | Encyclopedia.com: Find magazine and journal articles!

 

I used to read this at our library, back in the 80's and 90's, and never felt they had an agenda--it was just an archaeology magazine, but I haven't seen their earlier issues--maybe they were different way back then.

 

What I find interesting is that many discoveries allow one to see how the metaphors of the Bible arose, and how the book also serves as a moderately accurate (though very equivocal and incomplete) history and geography book.

 

~ :)

[Turtle]

Here is the Wiki take on Simcha findings as the Naked Archaeologist ...

 

This is one of those times where Wiki doesn't hold any water with me because I saw the show. That's why I knew to reference it. The question of a volcano & the Exodus was raised here and Simcha's show proposed that it was Santorini/Thera and he includes supporting evidence to make his case above and beyond Wiki's criticism about some writing. The on-location filming is worth every penny I paid to watch the program on cable. :)

 

Yes Mooner I knew it was a joke, but not everything is funny everytime. :)

 

YEssay, Biblical Archaeology Review Magazine is an old, informative, and friendly friend where the religion is confined largely to the adverts. Hallelujah!!. :)

 

I'm off to eat an enormous bowl of bran flakes & then retire to the WC to phone friends. That's how I roll on Sunday. :Alien:

[Mr. Peterman]

Sorry to bring this up so much later than the discussion began but there is proof that the Sodom site is indeed a city and not just a natural formation like everyone seems to want to claim, even for those who believe building like structures can be carved out by wind and water. This evidence exists on the back of a book and in a movie made by Simon Brown entitled Our Search for Sodom and Gomorrah which I have. It shows a bricked area set on top of one of those "natural" anomalies which is obviously a continuation of the ashen structure. It also shows what is obviously brickwork and part of a doorway nearby. And since the sulfur balls were tested to be sulfur and have burn rings and were not deposited by water because the area is obviously a city and not deposited sediment, now someone definitely needs to explain why a city near the dead sea got burned up by brimstone and turned to ashes.

[Moontanman]

Mr. Peterman I think you have to explain why you would assume that God raining down sulfur from heaven is the only explanation for sulfur balls found in the suspected remains of a fire.

[Essay]

...now someone definitely needs to explain why a city near the dead sea got burned up by brimstone and turned to ashes.

 

Geology?

 

"In this part of the world there is a rift forming where two crustal plates are spreading apart. The East Rift Valley runs through most of Africa, but it starts north of the Dead Sea and runs south along the eastern side of the continent. The Sea is located right along the Rift Valley where the earth's crust is being stretched thin."

 

Lowest Elevation | Dead Sea

===

 

I suppose this is not "definitely" an explanation, but it's certainly suggestive....

[HydrogenBond]

I tend to believe the bible accounts are accurate, but the explanations of events were given in the context of what they knew. For example, the science of 1850 could see a tornado. But if they explained it in the science of the day, their explanation would be wrong, but not their observations. The wrong explanation does not mean tornados did not exist in 1850, only the explanation was wrong.

 

With Sodom and Gomorra, I am sure it existed and the events described were observed, but they were explained in the context of the time. Science may not like the explanation, but it should consider an explanation is different than an observation.

 

Here is how I see it happening. Science has shown that gay has been around since the time of apes and have been part of civilization since the beginning. So one might expect the gays might have had a hay day in context of a large connected community. Like P-town and San Francisco of modern times, they migrated to Sodom and Gomorra. But like the modern two cities above, the gays were not the only ones there.

 

Lot describes the cities. If he was from a small rural straight town he would be shocked by what goes on in the big city. But if one lived in the city, and one is used to this, things won't be as shocking. People in NY might see a mugging and walk. The person from Ohio would be shocked by all this.

 

The ancients knew about sulfur. It is possible the area may have been seismically active, with sulfur a common smell. The ancients would know that was sulfur. Lot telling them to leave the city could have been an early warning to what to about to happen and not a threat. If a scientist says to leave this area, a volcano is about to erupt, he is not trying to be bully or loot you. But that warning may not be enough and will require the authorities to act. Lot uses the explanation of the authorities of his time (god). If you do leave, the volcano will rain down fire on you. This is fact but might look like a joke.

 

The bible tells about what appears to be an intense heat blast, which turns Lot's companion into a pile of ashes due to radiational heating. From a distance, this may have looked like salt. Lot may have been on the move, escaping the destruction, and not willing to go back for a 3 point sample. It is doubtful many scientists, would also go back to get the sample. For safety they would rely on what they thought they saw. This could still be useful data for inference.

 

As time goes by, the account gets sort of a mythology attached to it. In modern times, science does like the mythology and looses sight of the fact that observation is different than explanation.

[Essay]

I tend to believe the bible accounts are accurate, but the explanations of events were given in the context of what they knew.

 

 

The ancients knew about sulfur. It is possible the area may have been seismically active, with sulfur a common smell. The ancients would know that was sulfur. Lot telling them to leave the city could have been an early warning to what to about to happen and not a threat.

 

The bible tells about what appears to be an intense heat blast, which turns Lot's companion into a pile of ashes due to radiational heating. From a distance, this may have looked like salt. Lot may have been on the move, escaping the destruction, and not willing to go back for a 3 point sample.

 

Yes, I can imagine many scenarios that would lead to such an account--such stories.

 

As you say they knew about sulfur. I think they also new about ashes and salt. I'm not arguing that the mistake or misinterpretation was made, but that ashes and salt may have been much more equivalent in the ancient's mind. Maybe they didn't even need to go back for a sample....

 

This is probably common knowledge (and the ancients probably also realized this), but I just fully realized this at the recent Biochar Conference.

Ashes retain most of the salts contained within any biological tissue as it is charred, carbonized, and finally reduced to ashes. That's why ashes will make soil alkaline and neutralize acids--like liming.

 

For anyone without a corner supermarket, ashes may have been their only (if not their cheapest) source of salt or "liming." So I'd think there's even more liklihood that in translation and retelling, the two--ashes and salt--might be interchanged....

...or maybe there were some pillars of salt thrust up due to some geological phenom., but it certainly sounds as if something volcanic was hapenning.

[Mr. Peterman]

Well if there are sulfur balls are found somewhere whether you believe in God or not the they have to come from somewhere, that is from some direction, they can't just appear there from nowhere. So which direction did they come from? If they came from under the earth after the top was eroded away, the cities would have been carved out of this erosive ash stuff with sulfur balls embedded in it, which isn't reasonable and besides that you can see that the city was some kind of rock because of the brickwork you can see. Geological forces don't build cities and top them with bricks. Is it possible the sulfur balls were deposited by water? They couldn't be because the ash wasn't deposited by water and the sulfur balls were imbedded in it. We know the ash wasn't water deposited because water doesn't usually deposit building like structures and brick them on top and brick walls and doorways. So the only reasonable thing to think that I know of is that the sulfur balls came from above in the sky. Was there a big fire? Well something happened to change the composition of the bottom part of a rock building from rock to ash. I don't know that God rained fire and brimstone on the cities of the plain and burned them to ashes, I just know fire and brimstone fell on the cities of the plain and burned them to ashes. I suppose a volcano somewhere or something like that from a fault line could have shot the sulfur into the air that proceeded to land on these cities in large enough quantities to burn them to smithereens, but I don't even know if there is a way to tell if this is what happened. Maybe there isn't a way. But I would think there would probably be evidence of such an explosion or vent in the earth where this sulfur would have come from, if it wasn't a miracle, and according to some people even if it was. It's just that no one would know where to look, right? I've also kind of thought about if this could be something of a weather phenomenon were sulfuric acid in the clouds creates something similar to hail that fell on the cities. I suppose finding such a cause could easily be in vain. But whether God had anything to do with it or not, I think these city ruins have enough going for them to deserve the title "cities of the plain" and these places being recognized as major discoveries worthy of further research and to be taken seriously.

[Moontanman]

So sulfur balls means God did it? God has sulfur balls? I see nothing in the bible that says sulfur balls rained down on anything any where. Nor are sulfur balls a good way to set fire to anything. Sulfur burns slowly, goes out easily, and is not exactly like napalm. Raining sulfur down on anything is a very inefficient way of setting something on fire. Sulfur is more likely the remnants of a fire not the cause of one. But even if this is a town that was burned and there is sulfur left over from the fire how does this prove it was one of the cities burnt by god? More likely the sulfur was there before the fire and survived the fire since sulfur isn't exactly super flammable. From what I understand there is considerable doubt to there even being a city where the sulfur was found. You are several beers short of a six pack if you are looking for proof.....

[Turtle]

Well if there are sulfur balls are found somewhere whether you believe in God or not the they have to come from somewhere, that is from some direction, they can't just appear there from nowhere.

 

dude, how many times do you have to be told about volcanos? hey i got an idea, look for volcanos in the region. :) good grief. :eek2:

 

Global Volcanism Program | Volcanoes of the World | Volcanoes of the Mediterranean and western Asia | Map

[Mr. Peterman]

Did any of you understand my last post. These places have brickwork, man made looking structures that were destroyed, and are covered with brimstone. Obviously the brickwork and man made looking structures should make it a valid archaeological site which you deny, and the brimstone and the fact that it is destroyed should make it a good candidate for one of the cities of the plain don't you think? So what's with calling this nonsense. There is not just sulfur balls here, there is this ash stuff that is the byproduct of limestone and sulfur which means there is more sulfur than just the sulfur balls, and do people build cities out of ash? So we can reason that the extra sulfur was not there before the cities were built and so you cannot explain it as being preexisting in the soil as being the reason it is there. Volcanoes are a possibility perhaps. The closest volcanoes I can find are north and east of the Sea of Galilee which is too far to be a reasonable explanation without the high probability of sulfur balls being found somewhere else in the vicinity of the volcano in question. I am not aware of any volcanoes associated with the fault in the dead sea, so tell me if you find any. Maybe there is nothing that makes sulfur too terribly destructive, I'm not sure. So that makes me think it was a miracle even more considering how high of a concentration of sulfur there would have to be to cook limestone and turn entire cities to ash.

[Moontanman]

If the brimstone was burning why is it left behind? Sulfur is not a rare thing, sulfur was used in many ways in the past. It could have just been part of a stock pile that in the city when it burned. The rocks the city was made of could have had a high sulfur content and it was baked out of the rocks by a fire. I see no reason to see sulfur and make a connection between fire from heaven and the sulfur. Sulfur occurs all over the world, it not uncommon. Would you assume divine intervention every time you see sulfur? BTW brimstone refers to the smell of sulfur dioxide not directly to sulfur it's self. In that day and age the smell of brimstone was connected with volcanoes and hell. The red hot rocks thrown out by volcanoes reeking of sulfur dioxide was brimstone not necessarily sulfur. Pure sulfur has no smell and so would not have been thought of as brimstone. Why could the sulfur not have been there before the fire and or baked out of the rocks by a fire? The very idea of sulfur balls tells me they were man made, possible trade items, sulfur would not naturally form balls. Sulfur could not have cooked limestone into ash, you are beating the horse pretty hard Mr. peterman but I don't think he's going to get up and walk ever again...

[Mr. Peterman]

Sulfur dioxide might be around if there is burning sulfur. Hence the name brimstone. The fact that the brimstone is burning IS what makes it round I would think. If the limestone supposedly had a large amount of sulfur in it, a good question would be how much sulfur would there have to be in it to turn almost all of the limestone to ash and would such a concentration make the limestone worthless as a building material. Can sulfur burn limestone and turn it to ash? Well the ash is a byproduct of limestone and sulfur. That should tell you something. If you look at the videos by Ron Wyatt, you can see that if Ron Wyatt faked them, he would have to burn the sulfur balls into the limestone. That shows that sulfur can burn limestone. There has to be a byproduct of the reaction.

[modest]

Here is a site putting forward some of the claims with supposed evidence that Mr. Peterman is talking about:

 

Welcome to 6000years.org

 

Natural features of the landscape are mistaken for human architecture and natural sulfur evaporites are mistaken for supernatural.

 

There are sulfur springs in the Jordan Valley and "sulfur balls" are natural and common:

7. SULPHUR is found in the lower end of the Jordan valley and in the environs of the Dead Sea. For the most part it is met with in lumps, some of which are pure sulphur, whilst others may contain as much as 65 % to 80 % sulphur, but average samples show a sulphur content ranging from 30 % to 35 %. Although the sulphur deposits are not extensive, there is enough of the mineral to supply local needs, and the sulphur can be used in the manufacture of sulphuric acid and of carbon bisulphide (used as a solvent).

Full text of "The industrial development of Palestine"

Sulfur occurs here naturally and has been used by the local inhabitants for a variety of things, including the preparation of gunpowder for weapons and repelling snakes. Sulfur is also found between layers of lissan marl and gypsum, formed largely due to the unique climate in the region. This particular sulfur hardens rapidly and is useful for construction, sculpture, and casting. It is also used in medicine.

Geological Structure of The Dead Sea

 

-source

 

~modest

[freeztar]

Limestone can not burn.

It can decompose, under intense heat, to form [ce]CaO[/ce]. But [ce]CaO[/ce] is not stable in the presence of [ce]CO2[/ce].

 

Calcium oxide is usually made by the thermal decomposition of materials such as limestone, that contain calcium carbonate (CaCO3; mineral name: calcite) in a lime kiln. This is accomplished by heating the material to above 825°C,[1] a process called calcination or lime-burning, to liberate a molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2); leaving CaO. This process is reversible, since once the quicklime product has cooled, it immediately begins to absorb carbon dioxide from the air, until, after enough time, it is completely converted back to calcium carbonate.

Calcium oxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia