Christians Rejoice? Sodom & Gomorrah Ruins, including 'homosexual' males in coitus, Discovered

Let's at least be honest about what we're talking about here: the OP refers to a "headline grabber" in "The Week" magazine.

This "story" is not published in anything resembling an authentic scientific/archeological journal.

The so-called lead archeologist, Steven Collins, has a Ph D in Biblical Studies from a seminary.

This is a really bad pseudo-scientific/religious article that has been picked up and blown out of proportion by the OP.

so two brothers get buried to gather on the cheap.
and you all say they are guy?
sick and stupid.

any way guys have been around since what
ever humans started to evolve from.
animals have guys to! as you think they have No soul.
why would they be guy?

and you still tell your child that his dead pet goes to heaven.

originally posted by: Antidisestablishment
a reply to: ketsuko

Highly unlikely, this sounds like an apologist's reading to me.
I don't belive that it would ever happen that young daughters would purposely get their father drunk in order to have intercourse with him. This simply does not happen. Besides, he as the "adult" should have had some responsibility. We do not know the ages of the girls, but this is largely immaterial. Only a seasoned abuser would have sexual intercourse with his children and say that they wanted to do it. Some fathers make this assertion, but it is always a lie. Incest motivated by the child simply does not happen. It's victim blaming.

We are talking about two young girls who were raised in the two cities and the area in question. Culture has its impacts. Remember, pretty much nothing was off limits.

By the way, the reading I cited was an official Bible (KJV), not an apologist writing. Remember, it was not uncommon in royal dynasties of that time for incestuous marriages to occur to preserve the bloodline, and that was their reasoning. There were no men where they were at, so they were going to preserve the line of their father.

originally posted by: ketsuko

a reply to: ketsukothe reading I cited was an official Bible (KJV), .

you should really be calling the original "official", not the 2000 year later new edition
www.mechon-mamre.org...

a reply to: Milah

It validates the Bible, but I a confused as to this being a new find. I saw pics like this more than ten years ago, on a television show. The show didn't discuss them, but you ould freeze frame and see what we see here.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

How does it validate the Bible? it doesn't at all but please show us how you come up with that conclusion.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

How does it validate the Bible? it doesn't at all but please show us how you come up with that conclusion.

It sure does validate the bible.
That those cities were all perverted from what the world at that time considered perverted. I would say a majority in the world still see it as perverted.
You use the phrase "show us"
Who is us? Those who agree with you?

Two males skeletons in a deaths embrace in the city of old which the bible says was a city of sexual deviance sure would validate what the bible says about that city. It isn't total proof, but it does illustrate what is being said and what was said were characteristics of the people of those cities named Sodom and Gomorrah.
Are you going to deny this? I do not say this with any bias one way or another, it just is what it is, and is there to see as plain as day.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I wonder why certain people keep ignoring the Bible's interpretation of the Sodom story.

As one guy said, let the Bible interpret itself - NOBODY ELSE!

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I wonder why certain people keep ignoring the Bible's interpretation of the Sodom story.

Because it plainly condemns them.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You sure?

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

Ezekiel 16:49

Even Jesus has something to say about this:

14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

Matthew 10

Does it not concern anyone that after everything that's been done in the name of the bible it's still needing some validation????

Isn't it better to first verify the damn thing before you start using it to run countless lives and taking other lives as well???

You skipped a major step there!!!

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I'm not tracking your meaning..

The people on this site who have been ignoring the clear meanings and themes of those two cities are only doing that because they won't acknowledge the sins of those cities. They wish to rewrite the nature of those two cities being two cities that weren't perverse in their ways.
Going back to that prior post:

I wonder why certain people keep ignoring the Bible's interpretation of the Sodom story.

Because it condemns their behavior, (rephrased for clarity).

I stand by that. I have no idea what your meaning was though.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So God buried them afterwards?.

I still do not see how on earth you can tell these are for certain MALE skeletons.
There is really no way to tell for sure, only assumptions which you have to twist to fit your story.
I'm half expecting one of you to tell me they are definitely male because they have one less rib! Lol, that's what you fundie lot teach kids isn't it? Well, it isn't true. Archeologists can never be sure of the gender of skeletons, they can only guess from certain signifiers such as stress on joints and where ligaments join onto the bones which suggest they did a lot of heavy work. This usually means they were male but is by no means an exact art.
These two people died embracing each other. They must have loved each other very much. That is sad that you even have to hate on them thousands of years after their deaths.

well then. Now that all you bible bashers are on record here as claiming this validates the bible, because an Evangelical Christian made an unsupported claim. I think I should point out that not only is Tall el-Hammam in the wrong place,

In favor of a southern location, Scripture associates Sodom geographically with the “Valley of Siddim, which is the Salt Sea” an area distinct from the Kikkar of the Jordan (Gen. 14:3, 8, 10). The meaning of Siddim, “lime, whitewash” (LXX “salty”) and the pits in the region suggest a more southern location for Sodom. Also, locating Sodom and Gomorrah in the south fits better the post-destruction environment described by the prophets (Deut. 29:23, Isa. 13:19-20, Jer. 49:18, 50:40; Zeph. 2:9) and a later battle between Judah and Edom at the site of Zair (from the same Hebrew word as Zoar to which Lot fled, 2 Kings 8:21).

but the chronology is wrong too

both archaeological and biblical chronological data rule out Hammam as a candidate
for patriarchal Sodom. After a great deal of analysis Collins has concluded, based on
stratigraphy, pottery assemblages, destruction layers, and architectural features, that the evidence
points to the late MB2 period (ca. 1600 BC) for the cataclysmic overthrow of the site, thus
necessitating a date for the Abraham-Lot narrative at the same time. But it is precisely at this point that Hammam must, on biblical chronological grounds, be precluded from being a candidate as one of the cities of that narrative.

here is a link which contains these refutations, which you will note are written by recognised experts
www.biblicalarchaeology.org...

I hope this teaches some of you a valuable lesson about placing your faith in a middle east cult religion, adapted by Rome as a form of mass control
But considering most of your approach to real evidence, I doubt you have the ability to admit you got it wrong

a reply to: Antidisestablishment

There are many ways of determining whether a male or female.


anthropology.si.edu...

a reply to: boymonkey74

Granted, but have these remains been scrutinised by an actual forensic anthropologist? Or just published by a bible bashing moon fruit with an adverse agenda?

a reply to: Antidisestablishment

Oh I agree it is hogwash an interesting archaeological site but the things stated in the OP here poppycock.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

How does it validate the Bible? it doesn't at all but please show us how you come up with that conclusion.

I thought the Hebrew bible was re-gurgitation of the "Gilgamesh" Sumerian Cuneiform texts after the Hebrew exodus of Babylon where they learned these myths/truths and reformed them to translate a moralistic story to suit themselves. There was no actual Noah, Moses or Abraham; just the truth of the Sumerians deep knowledge (same stories) and precise *recording of* their history regarding: interpretation of creator Gods, the flood ; the information was borrowed and then changed to meet another itinerary/agenda.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: John333
if you pay attention to the gospels. you may or may not have realised one thing. John is the only one who was actually there. and the gospels are of John's words. copies with probable translations. so you want to hear what matthew mark and luke said john said? or do you want to hear what john said himself?

If this is John's eyewitness account then why are there at least 3 authors who made multiple revisions with the final form of the Gospel being compiled at the tail end of the 1st century? There are very clear differences in the Greek indicating multiple authorship and the tail end of the 1st century attribution is a rather generous estimate based on grammar styles as the oldest actual manuscripts date from the very early 3rd century. There are definitely 'copies and probable translations' involved as you allude to, but within this one Gospel itself, including redactions. Who redacts portions of their eyewitness account? It is many things, but an eye witness account it is not. Bottom line is that there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus anywhere in canonical text or contemporaneous Roman documents.

the other accounts were written as confirmation after Jesus death by the mathew mark and luke characters to emphasize that they had validated the information and the source from which they got it is true. the gospels are actually, exactly the same save for a few lines that are different between them. this no doubt would be because of translational, transpositional reasons. but it all begins with John who provides the ancient equivalent of a sworn affidavit before the court. and later other apostles of the christian church, verified and confirmed that by all regard. the information contained within was considered completely true by the people of the time and region. with king james being yet another confirmer of the content.

i know where we're going next just as i knew this question would come. and i had constructed the answer for you days ago, right after i wrote my last post. and without reading yours. we will deal with the context of contradictions among the gospels. i will also like to add that there is another version of the gospel in the Quran. each version, if you read them all together, sheds light on what message is really trying to be conveyed through their differences.