Religion Ask a Christian

Remove this Banner Ad

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
15,991
12,964
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
If he is, he's an honest one, as he was quick to qualify the findings with a reminder that there's no *scientific* evidence for Tall el-Hammam actually being Sodom. He's a retired Earth Scientist, Professor Emeritus at UCSB in the University of California system. He's from New Zealand has no formal theological qualifications to indicate he is a Christian. He may be religious, but if I were guessing, I'd say no. Almost certainly no fundamentalist, even if he is religious.
So, the point of this is?

Even if it turns out that Tall el-Hammam is Sodom and it was in fact destroyed by a cosmic airburst, is this meant to somehow confirm the existence of a deity?

After all we've had the Tunguska incident in 1908 in which a fireball in the sky was followed by explosions and a large swath of Siberian forest was found leveled. The explosion is generally attributed to the air burst of a stony meteoroid about 50–60 metres (160–200 feet) in size. Or the Chelyabinsk meteor which was a small asteroid that broke up over the city of Chelyabinsk, Russia, on Feb. 15, 2013. The blast was stronger than a nuclear explosion, triggering detections from monitoring stations as far away as Antarctica.

And of course Luis Walter Alvarez and his geologist son Walter published a theory that a historic layer of iridium-rich clay was caused by a large asteroid colliding with Earth 66 million years ago at a site known as the Chicxulub crater which is centred on the Yucatán Peninsula in Mexico and caused around 75% of Earth's animals, including dinosaurs, to suddenly die out. It was initially controversial, but it is now the most widely accepted theory for the mass extinction at the end of the Mesozoic Era.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
15,991
12,964
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
The point is that recent findings very well may validate the biblical account of the destruction of Sodom.
What about Gomorrah? So are you suggesting that the story of Sodom - as outlined in Genesis - is actually true?

I thought that much was obvious.
Well yes...I got that.

The historical existence of many figures mentioned in the Bible are corroborated by external evidence.

Examples include Ahab, king of Israel (Assyrian records and Tel Dan Stele), Ahaz, king of Judah, Apries (Hophra), pharaoh of Egypt, Ashurbanipal (Asenappar), king of Assyria, Azaliah, scribe in the Temple in Jerusalem, Azariah, grandfather of Ezra, Baruch, scribe of the prophet Jeremiah, Belshazzar, regent of Babylon, Benhadad, king of Aram, Caesar Augustus, Cyaxares (Achiachar/Ahasuerus), ally of Nebuchadnezzar (in Tobit) and father of Darius the Mede (in Daniel), Cyrus II of Persia, Esarhaddon King of Assyria, Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, Gedaliah, governor of Judah, Gemariah, scribe in the Temple in Jerusalem, Geshem, Hezekiah, king of Judah (Siloam Inscription), Hilkiah, high priest in Temple in Jerusalem, Hoshea, king of Israel, Jehoiachin, king of Judah, Jehu, king of Israel (Black Obelisk of Shalmensar), Jezebel, wife of king Ahab of Israel, Johanan, grandson of the high priest Eliashib, Joram King of Israel (Tel Dan Stele), Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon, Omri King of Israel (Assyrian records and Moab stele), Pontius Pilate, Sennacherib, king of Assyria, Taharqa and Tiberius Caesar.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

indoistriku

Debutant
Nov 29, 2020
129
158
AFL Club
Fremantle
What about Gomorrah? So are you suggesting that the story of Sodom - as outlined in Genesis - is actually true?



Well yes...I got that.

The historical existence of many figures mentioned in the Bible are corroborated by external evidence.

Examples include Ahab, king of Israel (Assyrian records and Tel Dan Stele), Ahaz, king of Judah, Apries (Hophra), pharaoh of Egypt, Ashurbanipal (Asenappar), king of Assyria, Azaliah, scribe in the Temple in Jerusalem, Azariah, grandfather of Ezra, Baruch, scribe of the prophet Jeremiah, Belshazzar, regent of Babylon, Benhadad, king of Aram, Caesar Augustus, Cyaxares (Achiachar/Ahasuerus), ally of Nebuchadnezzar (in Tobit) and father of Darius the Mede (in Daniel), Cyrus II of Persia, Esarhaddon King of Assyria, Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, Gedaliah, governor of Judah, Gemariah, scribe in the Temple in Jerusalem, Geshem, Hezekiah, king of Judah (Siloam Inscription), Hilkiah, high priest in Temple in Jerusalem, Hoshea, king of Israel, Jehoiachin, king of Judah, Jehu, king of Israel (Black Obelisk of Shalmensar), Jezebel, wife of king Ahab of Israel, Johanan, grandson of the high priest Eliashib, Joram King of Israel (Tel Dan Stele), Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon, Omri King of Israel (Assyrian records and Moab stele), Pontius Pilate, Sennacherib, king of Assyria, Taharqa and Tiberius Caesar.
Regarding your first question, yes I am suggesting it is true. Am I hanging my hat entirely on the newly found evidence which may (or may not) validate/corroborate it? No. But it's interesting, nonetheless. Of course, one could read the discovery and conclude that nothing of significance has been added to the theological debates of the Bible, but one could conversely reconsider the truthfulness of the biblical account on account of this new finding.

The post is relevant to this thread and interesting (to me). It's not intended to be a 'you're stumped now, Bible deniers!' type post. Naturally, one will likely bring their own presuppositions into the news/finding.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
15,991
12,964
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Regarding your first question, yes I am suggesting it is true.
Well that's what I surmised.

So you are suggesting that the story of Sodom (and Gomorrah) were destroyed by Yahweh for their flagrant sinfulness is true.

Of course, one could read the discovery and conclude that nothing of significance has been added to the theological debates of the Bible, but one could conversely reconsider the truthfulness of the biblical account on account of this new finding.
So on the basis Sodom might have been destroyed by a meteor, the whole biblical account as outlined in Genesis could be true?

The post is relevant to this thread and interesting (to me). It's not intended to be a 'you're stumped now, Bible deniers!' type post. Naturally, one will likely bring their own presuppositions into the news/finding.
I really don't see how you can logically conclude that the Biblical account in Genesis is likely true on the basis that it might have been a meteor that destroyed a possible site for the legendary city of Sodom. Especially given that meteor strikes in other places at other times are known to have occurred.
 

indoistriku

Debutant
Nov 29, 2020
129
158
AFL Club
Fremantle
Well that's what I surmised.

So you are suggesting that the story of Sodom (and Gomorrah) were destroyed by Yahweh for their flagrant sinfulness is true.



So on the basis Sodom might have been destroyed by a meteor, the whole biblical account as outlined in Genesis could be true?



I really don't see how you can logically conclude that the Biblical account in Genesis is likely true on the basis that it might have been a meteor that destroyed a possible site for the legendary city of Sodom. Especially given that meteor strikes in other places at other times are known to have occurred.
Roylion, read my post again. I specifically said that I am not, nor would I advise someone, to conclude that the biblical account is true based on this evidence. I was very transparent that I posted this because I thought it was interesting and that it may validate (not prove - a big difference) the biblical account.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
15,991
12,964
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Roylion, read my post again. I specifically said that I am not, nor would I advise someone, to conclude that the biblical account is true based on this evidence.
I asked "What about Gomorrah? So are you suggesting that the story of Sodom - as outlined in Genesis - is actually true?"

You replied...

"Regarding your first question, yes I am suggesting it is true..."
 

indoistriku

Debutant
Nov 29, 2020
129
158
AFL Club
Fremantle
I asked "What about Gomorrah? So are you suggesting that the story of Sodom - as outlined in Genesis - is actually true?"

You replied...

"Regarding your first question, yes I am suggesting it is true..."
Ok, I see now. Again, and I don't mean to sound arrogant, as if I'm a person of importance, but I think the 5-10 posters who have regularly engaged with this thread over the past year would know by now that I am a Christian. So, for that reason, I am suggesting the Bible is true and that this account of history is also true. I'm not suggesting that the Genesis 19 account of Sodom and Gomorrah is true *solely* because of these new findings. Which is what I was trying to communicate with my next sentence. I didn't post this finding to prove the Bible true. I posted it because it is interesting and validates my worldview and offers content for discussion.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
15,991
12,964
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Ok, I see now. Again, and I don't mean to sound arrogant, as if I'm a person of importance, but I think the 5-10 posters who have regularly engaged with this thread over the past year would know by now that I am a Christian. So, for that reason, I am suggesting the Bible is true and that this account of history is also true.
I posted it because it is interesting and validates my worldview and offers content for discussion.
So in the interests of 'discussion', I've put forward the proposition that I'm not sure how you can logically conclude that the Biblical account in Genesis is likely true on the basis that it might have been a meteor that destroyed a possible site for the legendary city of Sodom. Especially given that meteor strikes in other places at other times, are known to have occurred.

Given the above, how does such an event validate your "worldview"?
 

indoistriku

Debutant
Nov 29, 2020
129
158
AFL Club
Fremantle
So in the interests of 'discussion', I've put forward the proposition that I'm not sure how you can logically conclude that the Biblical account in Genesis is likely true on the basis that it might have been a meteor that destroyed a possible site for the legendary city of Sodom. Especially given that meteor strikes in other places at other times, are known to have occurred.

Given the above, how does such an event validate your "worldview"?
Well, that's a good question. I don't know how to answer it, because I don't think you can logically conclude the account based on this sole piece of evidence. It is, in my best guess, one piece of the puzzle if the story is true (and I use *if* for the sake of furthering the discussion, of course, I believe it's true and I'm not on the fence).

I think your last comment though is a bit disingenuous. Yeah, other strikes have occurred. But have they occurred in a location that some experts claim is the location of a biblical city that was destroyed in a manner very similar to the biblical account?
 

indoistriku

Debutant
Nov 29, 2020
129
158
AFL Club
Fremantle
Wow…everything we know about biology, cosmology, geology, ecology etc, etc completely undermines your worldview. But this “validates“ it?

Dear oh dear.
Two things. One, no, your first statement is not true and is a gross oversimplification. Not *everything* we know about the aforementioned epistemological fields undermines the Bible. Second, yeah, it does in part. Naturally. I believe the Bible, and now there is evidence that what happened in the Bible, to some extent, is true. And if you'd read the conversation until now, you'll see that I am not claiming this is the tipping point for me, and that it should be for others too.

By the way, the discovery/finding of these scientists contradicts your first statement, too.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
15,991
12,964
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Well, that's a good question. I don't know how to answer it, because I don't think you can logically conclude the account based on this sole piece of evidence. It is, in my best guess, one piece of the puzzle if the story is true (and I use *if* for the sake of furthering the discussion, of course, I believe it's true and I'm not on the fence).
But why do you believe it is true, if the evidence doesn't necessarily support it?

I think your last comment though is a bit disingenuous. Yeah, other strikes have occurred. But have they occurred in a location that some experts claim is the location of a biblical city that was destroyed in a manner very similar to the biblical account?
Not to our knowledge. Incidentally where is Gomorrah?

But all it really demonstrates is a city in the Middle East was possibly hit by a meteor (which is a natural event as demonstrated by the other examples I have provided) and the memory of that event was written down. Angels, Lot, Lots's wife and daughters and the concept of destruction for sinfulness by Yahweh is all human storytelling born of human imagination. We can liken it to essentially historical fiction.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mcnulty

Premiership Player
Sep 18, 2019
3,248
4,528
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Two things. One, no, your first statement is not true and is a gross oversimplification. Not *everything* we know about the aforementioned epistemological fields undermines the Bible. Second, yeah, it does in part. Naturally. I believe the Bible, and now there is evidence that what happened in the Bible, to some extent, is true. And if you'd read the conversation until now, you'll see that I am not claiming this is the tipping point for me, and that it should be for others too.

By the way, the discovery/finding of these scientists contradicts your first statement, too.
Lol. You claim scientific evidence as ‘validation’ (your word) of your worldview, whereas the fundamental understanding of the scientific disciplines I mentioned (and others) have to be completely shredded to believe in a young earth.

Its laughably transparent cherry picking, I find it unbelievable that you can’t see that.
 

indoistriku

Debutant
Nov 29, 2020
129
158
AFL Club
Fremantle
Lol. You claim scientific evidence as ‘validation’ (your word) of your worldview, whereas the fundamental understanding of the scientific disciplines I mentioned (and others) have to be completely shredded to believe in a young earth.

Its laughably transparent cherry picking, I find it unbelievable that you can’t see that.
We're not talking about a Young Earth, so I don't know why you've inserted yourself into the conversation to talk about an unrelated topic. And yes, it does validate my worldview regarding Genesis 19. It doesn't prove it. There's a difference and there's a reason I used that word, rather than 'prove'.
 

mcnulty

Premiership Player
Sep 18, 2019
3,248
4,528
AFL Club
Hawthorn
We're not talking about a Young Earth, so I don't know why you've inserted yourself into the conversation to talk about an unrelated topic. And yes, it does validate my worldview regarding Genesis 19. It doesn't prove it. There's a difference and there's a reason I used that word, rather than 'prove'.
Inserted myself into the conversation😂

I could have sworn you said you were a YEC a page or so back. Happy to be corrected. But it seems you’re uncomfortable called out over your own hypocrisy.
 

indoistriku

Debutant
Nov 29, 2020
129
158
AFL Club
Fremantle
But why do you believe it is true, if the evidence doesn't necessarily support it?



Not to our knowledge. Incidentally where is Gomorrah?

But all it really demonstrates is a city in the Middle East was possibly hit by a meteor (which is a natural event as demonstrated by the other examples I have provided) and the memory of that event was written down. Angels, Lot, Lots's wife and daughters and the concept of destruction for sinfulness by Yahweh is all human storytelling born of human imagination. We can liken it to essentially historical fiction.
I support it because I don't only rely on scientific evidence to believe something to be true. I also rely on trust and faith. That is why you've probably been banging your head against a brick wall when talking to Christians. What you use to define something as truthful is probably very different than what I use, which is why, whilst your evidence is compelling to some, it is not as compelling to others. It's not as though I believe the bible because someone 'proved' it to me. I heard it, had it taught to me, and believe it. Scientific evidence is only one component of the wheelhouse of epistemology. I place as much, if not more, trust in the theological 'sciences' as I do the scientific approach, which is why we have wildly diverging worldviews. You say that that is misguided or naive, or stupid, I don't mind. But that's why I believe in the Bible, whilst others won't due to the lack of scientific evidence to support it. I don't know why I am the way I am, but a psychologist could probably shed more light as to why people have different standards for their definition of truth.

I don't know where Gomorrah is.
 

indoistriku

Debutant
Nov 29, 2020
129
158
AFL Club
Fremantle
Inserted myself into the conversation😂

I could have sworn you said you were a YEC a page or so back. Happy to be corrected. But it seems you’re uncomfortable called out over your own hypocrisy.
I am a YEC. But I didn't post this article/scientific finding to 'validate' that view of mine. The context was and very clearly is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. It's not like I'm saying, 'look, this proves that I'm right about everything I believe'. Maybe it was more accurate for me to say that this finding validates one small section of my worldview.
 

mcnulty

Premiership Player
Sep 18, 2019
3,248
4,528
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I am a YEC. But I didn't post this article/scientific finding to 'validate' that view of mine. The context was and very clearly is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. It's not like I'm saying, 'look, this proves that I'm right about everything I believe'. Maybe it was more accurate for me to say that this finding validates one small section of my worldview.
We get it, mate. You want to use science to support your worldview under the flimsiest pretext when it suits you (as Roylion has pointed out), but are prepared to ignore the mountains of scientific evidence which undermines your worldview.

You're really struggling here.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
15,991
12,964
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
I support it because I don't only rely on scientific evidence to believe something to be true.
I question everything that is claimed to be 'truth' by others. I prefer to weigh up the evidence for and against, particularly when someone claims something is 'truth'.

I also rely on trust and faith.
Why would you do that? What makes you believe someone who claims for something to be true based on simply trust?

It's not as though I believe the bible because someone 'proved' it to me. I heard it, had it taught to me, and believe it.
So you believe it because someone or a number of people you trust told you that what they believe is true.

I place as much, if not more, trust in the theological 'sciences'
I see no reason to place much trust in the theological 'sciences'. To put it simply, they are the product of human imagination - attempts to explain phenomena in the absence of empirical evidence.

I don't know where Gomorrah is.
Well it was supposedly destroyed at the same time.
 
Last edited:

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
15,991
12,964
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
I am a YEC.
On the basis of what? That the Book of Genesis supposedly claimed it to be so?

Maybe it was more accurate for me to say that this finding validates one small section of my worldview.
It doesn't really validate the Biblical account in Genesis that you apparently believe in. That a meteor may have possibly hit an ancient city, that may or may not be Sodom, in no way validates that Yahweh caused it to happen. Not does it validate the existence of angels, Lot, Lot's wife or Lot's daughters or that the city was destroyed because of the sinfulness of its' ancient inhabitants.
 
Last edited:

indoistriku

Debutant
Nov 29, 2020
129
158
AFL Club
Fremantle
On the basis of what? That the Book of Genesis supposedly claimed it to be so?



It doesn't really validate the Biblical account in Genesis that you apparently believe in. That a meteor may have possibly hit an ancient city, that may or may not be Sodom, in no way validates that Yahweh caused it to happen. Not does it validate the existence of angels, Lot, Lot's wife or Lot's daughters or that the city was destroyed because of the sinfulness of its' ancient inhabitants.
It does 'validate' those claims, but it doesn't prove them. Especially if some doubted that Sodom (according to some experts) was destroyed by a fire and/or brimstone-type event.

'validate' - demonstrate or support the truth or value of

The keyword being, in my usage, 'support'. I'm not saying these findings prove or even validate the entire story, but they offer support. But now we're just engaging in a semantic argument.
 

indoistriku

Debutant
Nov 29, 2020
129
158
AFL Club
Fremantle
We get it, mate. You want to use science to support your worldview under the flimsiest pretext when it suits you (as Roylion has pointed out), but are prepared to ignore the mountains of scientific evidence which undermines your worldview.

You're really struggling here.
Well, again, if you'd seen (or paid notice) to the greater context of the discussion, you'd see that I:

1) Found the article interesting and posted it for discussion, not to 'prove' or 'support' anything. I have acknowledged the debate about whether or not this city even is Sodom.

2) Did not post the article as a 'gotcha' for atheists, as if this indisputably proves the Bible to be true.

Of course, whether you acknowledge it or not, the article does happen to support a small part of my worldview, but it's not as those I only 'listen to science' (as if science were some deity/being that could be listened to :rolleyes:) when it supports my worldview, and ignore it when it doesn't. I've been very transparent that I'm largely ignorant of the actual scientific data that 'undermines' my worldview. I've hardly had the time to invest the proper amount of energy or time or consideration that should be given when doing such an activity.

But if it's easier for you, just keep on accusing me of 'ignoring' things which I haven't even read. Have you, by the way? I don't mean 'have you heard people tell you science disproves the bible?', but I mean have you actually taken the time over a long period to read and consider the data and argumentation from both sides and come to a thoughtful and deliberate conclusion? If not, jump off your moral high-horse and stop accusing me of things that I haven't done.
 

indoistriku

Debutant
Nov 29, 2020
129
158
AFL Club
Fremantle
Why would you do that? What makes you believe someone who claims for something to be true based on simply trust?



So you believe it because someone or a number of people you trust told you that what they believe is true.



I see no reason to place much trust in the theological 'sciences'. To put it simply, they are the product of human imagination - attempts to explain phenomena in the absence of empirical evidence.
I don't know why I, or anyone else, does that. But I do. The Bible isn't logical and I'm being illogical and irrational to believe it. I already know, but my beliefs can not be deliberately changed (I believe God exists, I can't just choose not to). Some external force would have to change my beliefs. It be interesting to hear from a clinical psychologist why some people hold only to empirical evidence, and why others 'trust' or 'have faith' in something that cannot be shown to exist with empiricism.

I don't believe everything that people tell me. I don't believe you, for example. I don't think you're a liar, I just think you're wrong. I don't know what my psychological filter is for deciphering what to believe and what not to believe. But I'd be interested to know.

One thing I can say, though, is it's not as though I cherry-pick science to believe what I do (as at least one poster here has falsely accused me of doing). I believed the account of Sodom and Gomorrah before these findings. I believe in the Genesis creation account whilst being largely ignorant as to any science which supports it or disproves it. I really just don't feel the need to have everything I believe be empirically proven.
 

mcnulty

Premiership Player
Sep 18, 2019
3,248
4,528
AFL Club
Hawthorn
have you actually taken the time over a long period to read and consider the data and argumentation from both sides and come to a thoughtful and deliberate conclusion
To suggest there’s any equivalence between the two would require you to inhabit an alternate reality where the normal rules of logic and evidence don’t apply. You could choose any number of established sciences where the accepted fundamentals blow creationism out of the water in five seconds flat.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad