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

[Moontanman]

Mr. Peterman, lets play devils advocate and say the pics are indeed the remains of dwellings. They do not prove a city nor do they prove God rained fire and brimstone down on them to destroy the wicked. All they prove is that at some point in the past dwellings were at this site. It does not prove age, why they were abandoned or what happened to make people abandon them. if indeed they are remains of human dwellings they simply show humans once lived there, nothing more. Sulfur deposits do not prove or even indicate fire and brimstone were rained out of heaven, sulfur was used in antiquity for various reasons and it most probably just show this was a site where sulfur was used for some purpose.

[Mr. Peterman]

The remains prove the anomalies were buildings. The many anomalies prove there was a city. The difference between the brickwork and ash prove that the brickwork was turned to ash. This proves the city was destroyed somehow.

[freeztar]

The remains prove the anomalies were buildings. The many anomalies prove there was a city. The difference between the brickwork and ash prove that the brickwork was turned to ash. This proves the city was destroyed somehow.

 

Well, it must have been God. No other explanation makes sense. :eek_big:

[Moontanman]

The remains prove the anomalies were buildings. The many anomalies prove there was a city. The difference between the brickwork and ash prove that the brickwork was turned to ash. This proves the city was destroyed somehow.

 

This proves human habitation if it's true, whether it's a city or not is debatable but the ash and brick work only show dwellings were abandoned at some point and possibly parts of it burned at some point. It most certainly does not show this place was Sodom or Gomorrah or that it was destroyed by god.

[HydrogenBond]

Let me play devil's advocate. Say this city shows all the signs of being the original place of S&G, it does not prove God acted. What it does prove are the observations (subject to interpretation) within the bible, have a grain of observational truth.

 

For example, say we read an account of someone looking at the sun's movement across the sky, 2500 years ago. The account might say, I was standing in the temple, when Helios, in his golden chariot, moved across the sky, entering the earth on the other side of arch rock. The next day, he rose from the earth near the large olive tree.

 

We know Helios is not real and he didn't enter and leave the bowels of the earth. But if we factor that out, the observer still gave us observational data, from which we can tell the time of the year. We know where the sun rose and set, as well as the place he made his observation. There is a tendency to say, helios is a myth therefore this account has no observational credibility. We throw out the baby with the bath water. I work under the assumption, the ancients could only explain what they saw in the context of knowledge of that time. But whether we call it helios or the sun, the olive tree and arch rock are simple of observations, we should not just dismiss with philosophical bias.

 

When Darwin wrote his book, the origin species, we knew nothing of genetics. He was describing genetics without actually saying the word genetics. We can see where he was heading in the context of then and now. Because science likes Darwin, it will read between the lines, and try to understand the limitations of the time. We realize he was not trying to deceive anyone. He had good powers of observation even if he was not modern proper. We use the same data again and reinterpret it to include genes.

[modest]

That's a good point, HB. There is archeological evidence for early bronze age settlements near the Dead Sea. Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira have been credibly dated to the time. There is no reason to assume that the writers of Genesis were unaware of this, and there may well have been an oral tradition or they could have seen some of the remains.

 

In fact, it has always interested me how the story of Lot's wife looking back at the cities and becoming a pillar of salt got started. As we've seen in this thread, there are a lot of outcroppings around the dead sea. Some of them are made of halite (rock salt). For example:

 

Salt Pillar -- Dead Sea

 

Ancient authors and story tellers could easily see a human-looking pillar like that and come up with a story like that of Lot. And, if the pillar appeared to be looking back toward the remains of an ancient city and heading in the direction of a cave then it would be easy to see how the folklore of the area included some aspects of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

I think there is a great deal of truth to be discerned from books of Theology. The books tell us how people of the time thought as well as revealing their version of History which is inevitably wrapped up with real observations and real history.

 

~modest

[UncleAl]

Religion cannot abide empirical evidence. All artifacts must be frauds. Anything else would not require faith, thereby killing god. Yahweh is singularly disinterested in human suffering other than to inflict it.

In the whole of human history across the entire planet not one deity has volunteered Novocain. It is a telling omission.

 

Test of faith!

[Mr. Peterman]

Hello, I just noticed that you can see a picture of the man made building (with brickwork on top) in ancient Sodom, on the movie you can watch and download for free at the website Tomb of Jesus, Soddom and Gomorrah, End Times, The Bible Real Discoveries. at this moment. How do you argue that Ron Wyatt's Sodom site isn't man made now? How do you argue that these sites are not valid archaeological sites. That's right, you can't. Now does anyone want to admit that these places are good candidates for the real Sodom and Gomorrah, cities of the plain? Now you can easily see for yourself the brickwork and wall and stuff I was talking about for free right now. Now how did that volcano single these places out?

[Essay]

How do you argue that these sites are not valid archaeological sites.

Is anyone arguing that? I think the argument surrounds a theological interpretation for the destruction of the city.

 

Surely you've seen links to Gobekli Tepi. There are more pictures and biblical interpretations. Cool, huh!?

[Moontanman]

Hello, I just noticed that you can see a picture of the man made building (with brickwork on top) in ancient Sodom, on the movie you can watch and download for free at the website Tomb of Jesus, Soddom and Gomorrah, End Times, The Bible Real Discoveries. at this moment. How do you argue that Ron Wyatt's Sodom site isn't man made now? How do you argue that these sites are not valid archaeological sites. That's right, you can't. Now does anyone want to admit that these places are good candidates for the real Sodom and Gomorrah, cities of the plain? Now you can easily see for yourself the brickwork and wall and stuff I was talking about for free right now. Now how did that volcano single these places out?

 

 

I argue Ron Wyatt wouldn't know Sodom if it was being done to him! How can you even consider that this guy knows where these cites were much less that any tiny ruins he finds are cities at all much less Sodom. Every time someone finds evidence of human buildings doesn't mean city, and calling these ruins Sodom is about as reasonable as me claiming rings of mushrooms are where fairies dance. Believe what you will Mr. Peterman but so far there is no evidence to support anything even close to what you want to see or what Ron Wyatt claims to see.. As for how did volcanoes single these places out, humans have always liked to build farms and eventually cities on the slopes of volcanoes, the humans singled out the volcanoes, not the other way around.

[pamela]

Hello, I just noticed that you can see a picture of the man made building (with brickwork on top) in ancient Sodom, on the movie you can watch and download for free at the website Tomb of Jesus, Soddom and Gomorrah, End Times, The Bible Real Discoveries. at this moment. How do you argue that Ron Wyatt's Sodom site isn't man made now? How do you argue that these sites are not valid archaeological sites. That's right, you can't. Now does anyone want to admit that these places are good candidates for the real Sodom and Gomorrah, cities of the plain? Now you can easily see for yourself the brickwork and wall and stuff I was talking about for free right now. Now how did that volcano single these places out?

 

Mr Peterman.. I realize that you are on a quest for evidence in support of the God of the Bible. So let's look at this objectively. Do you think that given the nature and scriptures used pertaining to God, would suggest that evidence will be found? Clearly God in many scriptures has required faith in absence of evidence. So why would this God allow for evidence in your opinion?

[Mr. Peterman]

I don't believe in all the bible. In my opinion after studying, I concluded that the New Testament was bunk. That leaves the Old Testament. I would say that most of it is bunk too. A lot of it was probably written during feuds between different groups. Also I have no doubt that some of it was written as if something was commanded by God for political reasons as it says happened in other parts of the Old Testament. I also believe that after Moses died that those remaining would "make the Word of God of none effect." as it says in some place in the same Old Testament. So yes there are a lot of contradictions and I believe they can for the most part be used to at least give someone who studies it definite things to choose between. It may be that one story is true, or the other, or neither. I personally believe that whatever scriptures were true somebody came along and abused their power and revised everything to suit them leaving perhaps only a few small grains of truth lost in a sea of text. But based on some physical evidences in the near east and the supernatural and weird things that have happened to me personally, I have to believe something different than the majority of people believe, especially more than people who don't care.

 

I think I'm actually finding out that things may be more clear cut than I thought. If you study the whole Old Testament you will find that according it, and the criteria in the New Testament, Jesus definitely qualifies as a false prophet. No wonder most Israelites continued to follow their traditions. The Old Testament also gives warnings about listening to "cloud watchers". That makes me wonder whenever some other "Prophet of God" predicts that a storm will come when he looks out and sees one single cloud. I haven't studied these new things out yet, but I kind of wonder if people are missing the obvious things. Anyway I believe there are some true things in the Bible.

 

Now about faith. It is clear in the story of Mount Sinai that God spoke to Moses in the sight of all the people of Israel so that they would believe that God spoke to him. That's not faith. It also says that a jar of the manna from heaven was to be saved as a testament to future generations of Israelites so that they would believe the story of the wandering in the wilderness. That's not faith either. It also says that God made all the miracles happen so that the Israelites would believe that God was among them or something like that, I don't remember exactly. But it explicitly says so they would believe.

None of that says we have to depend on faith and I think the idea is more of a modern Christian dogma or theological dogma. There are probably some places elsewhere in the bible that require faith, but those places may not be credible. Especially the New Testament.

[Mr. Peterman]

Oh, the sites of the proposed Sodom and Gomorrah are not near volcanoes. You can't say these places were built by people who decided to travel to a volcano because it isn't near enough to them. If they were attracted to volcanoes they would have built them a lot closer. I said closer but they are really not even close. Unless there are volcanoes under the Dead Sea, but I think there aren't. I don't remember.

[Viral]

...I'm not sure I can call if proof of God. ... This is THE place, but what is actually evidence of God. Would a gigantic split rock sticking up in the middle of the desert on the top of a hill, that shows evidence of water erosion and has even been carved out by water on the inside of the crack in the rock enough to convince someone to believe in God.

 

I think that people are often so caught up in the 'search of proof' that they often forget one of the biggest words of religion, the biggest in my opinion, is the word of faith. To be faithful requires a leap, a bridge of trust built on what might be shot logic. It is EASY for someone to accept the idea of evolution (although, those who do not still escape me) which is documented with great precision and evidence, but it is not easy to accept their is a big man in the sky. If there ever was 'proof' in the sense that you're looking for, we'd all be living under a single religion, without contention (most likely). The 'proof' you are looking for, just maybe, is how you take things. Just as people seek to justify happenings with science, people also try to prove them with religion.

 

I guess my moral here, from the above little rant, is that you are unlikely to find that smoking gun of God, a foot print, or a rock, or a handwritten-note from Him, to prove he exists. The 'proof', and proof is different for everyone, of God being there, if you want it to be, exists; it's just dependent on how you take it.

 

Also, on a side note - I'd like to point out that God has never really went looking for people to join his club of faith. It's the people in it, who think they should impose it on everyone else. To take a concept from Dogma the movie, people take a good idea, and turn it into a bad belief.

 

Finding God, I think, in my naive understanding of something infinite, is that it's very personal and you have to do it on your own.