I know what Abraham saw. I know What he Witnessed and What Happened to Sodom.

eldensword,

Thanks for the kind words...May god bless you.

I went to Genisis 1:1.. and it still has the same meaning as before...

1. Who.
2. Who.
3. Who.

I noticed you really didn't try and answer the questions, but you were VERY eloquent in bashing me....

That's pretty cool..I bet you would stand up for YOUR belief and want to harm me in some way, the same way a ............

you fill in the blank.....

Just remember, if you tell a story over and over and over, it will finally become a truth to most people.....

namaste....

oxi

reply to post by ericblair4891


you think you know what happened but you dont know anything at all.. keep reassuring yourself though "my way or the highway!!!!!"

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by ericblair4891

 

Here:

Two scientists, one cup.

reply to post by ericblair4891

my problem with this is that the family was told not to look back at sodom and lot's wife did and turned into a pillar of salt... you see even if she were the last one of the group because she wasn't fleeing fast enough, how does a human body combust into a pillar of salt?

reply to post by ericblair4891


What a very interesting idea you have here! If this isn't completely believable (not saying true) I don't know what is!!

If you have other ideas about stories in the bible, please feel free to share with us on ATS.......I would love to hear more about your search for the truth!

Great job! Great thread! Great read! Overall

reply to post by ericblair4891


I thought you, and some others might find this interesting.
The following is claimed as a translated poem written from a witness account of the fall of Sodom and of special relevance since it's NOT associated with Biblical text.
I copied it from an archived copy of a dead webpage HERE.
Notes from the translator with proper attribution, and the translated text are as follows:


THE OVERTHROW OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH
(ACCADIAN ACCOUNT.)
TRANSLATED BY REV. A. H. SAYCE, M.A.

(The) following Accadian poem describes a rain of
fire similar in character and effect to that which
destroyed the cities of the plain. It seems merely a
fragment of a legend, in which the names of the
cities were probably given, and an explanation
afforded of the mysterious personage mentioned in
line 17, who, like Lot, appears to have escaped
destruction. It must not be forgotten that the
campaign of Chedorlaomer and his allies was directed
against Sodom and the other cities of the plain, so
that the existence of the legend among the Accadians
is not so surprising as might appear at first sight.
The original Accadian text is given in the tablet
as well as the Assyrian translation. Unfortunately
only one half of the tablet is perfect. A copy of
it will be found in the

Cuneiform, Inscriptions of Western Asia, Vol. IV., 19, I Obv.

There isn't a link to the volume referenced, but, I found the whole book online if you want to flip through the book to find the original Cuneiform. -Druscilla
Link to full volume here: Cuneiform, Inscriptions of Western Asia, Vol. IV

THE OVERTHROW OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH.

1 An overthrow ' from the midst of the deep 2 there came.
2 The fated punishment 3 from the midst of heaven descended.
3 A storm like a plummet the earth (overwhelmed).
4 To the four winds the destroying flood like fire did burn.
5 The inhabitants of the citie(s) it had caused to be tormented ; their bodies it consumed.
6 In city and country it spread death, and the flames as they rose 4 overthrew.
7 Freeman and slave were equal, and the high places it filled.
8 In heaven and earth like a thunder-storm it had rained ; a prey it made.
9 A place of refuge the gods 5 hastened to, and in a throng collected.
10 Its mighty (onset) they fled from, and like a garment it concealed (mankind).
11 They (feared), and death (overtook them).
12 (Their) feet and hands (it embraced).


1 Literally, "sinking down," or "darkness" (Aram.
3 Not the sea, but "the waters which were above the firmament."
3 Assyrian, "the oath" (mamitu).
4 Literally, " the goings forth of the flames."
5 Assyrian, " their god."

13 ... '
14 Their body it consumed.
15 ' the city, its foundations it denied.
16 ' in breath, his mouth he filled.
17 As for this man, a loud voice a was raised ; the mighty lightning flash descended.
18 During the day it flashed; grievously (it fell).

Lacunae. 2 That is, " the thunder.'
END

The text seems fragmentary as described by the translator as can be inferred by line 13 with the ... and missing portions after line 5 in the second stanza.
Hopefully this little piece of history, if anything is a welcome bit of additional insight into the event in question.

Of note, there's not really any mention of fire raining down, just "like fire"which may be up to translation, but, it's an alternative NON-Biblical historical account, or telling from a supposed witness to the event immortalized in poem on a clay tablet in Cuneiform. "Like fire" may support OP's stance of a chemical reaction resulting in fire and melting and such.

reply to post by Druscilla


My head is too full of fuzz to write too much today. But I couldn't help but notice a few things in the material you provided.

Here's some key phrases I like,

"heaven descended,
A storm like a plummet the earth
To the four winds the destroying flood like fire did burn."

etc
their bodies consumed.
etc.

Well, I don't need convincing. But we knew that already.
I'm wondering if your information is the other account I came across, but never followed up on.

reply to post by MCCXLIV

How do you know the source isn't sound? Can you prove it isn't? Are you in doubt because the story originates from a controversial book, or is that just your personal opinion? Why are you opposed to considering it a plausible explanation? Are you an atheist?

Can you prove it is?

Of course it's my personal opinion....99% of all ATS content is personal opinion.

I'm opposed to considering it a plausible explanation because the bible reads like a Harry Potter novel.....I'm not entirely opposed to the existence of a "Jesus" character that was around 2000 years ago.....but as to him being the son of God, raising the dead, turning water to wine, burning bushes and pillars of salt......sorry, it's a no from me.

Yes....I'm an atheist.

reply to post by ericblair4891


Any information that can be followed to an original, or as close to original as possible PRIMARY source is important.

The bible is not a primary source for anything. It's a copy of a copy of a copy of a translation of a translation of a copy of translation, etc, and so forth. One needs go back to the oldest original documentations that can be found, especially where they have zero association with or contamination from religious sources.

If you can find tablets in Cuneiform, as described above you're doing great.
As it stands, however, the story of S+G is disputed due to lack of corroborating written accounts, where the above could very well be simply a spin-off story about some other misunderstood or otherwise undocumented event.

Nothing worth having or proving should be expected to be easy.

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by ericblair4891

 

Genesis 19 26
"But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt."
I say she was a pillar of salt- in the rain. It was raining sulfur. And she was a pillar of salt. What happens to a pillar of salt in the rain. It dissolves.

What you say is irrelevant......if you are quoting the bible, then quote it!......where does it say she was a "pillar of salt in the rain"?

Assumptions on a 2000 year old book that has been translated to death and then re-translated to form assumptions are nothing more than flights of fancy.

You are arguing about a nuance. And what the Bible tells us is hardly a flight of fancy. It's common knowledge that archaeologists of all nationalities and flavors used the Bible, particularly the old testament, as primary source material for where to look for artifacts in the middle east. In fact, it has an impeccable record of accuracy - 100%... far better than any other ancient document. Where we have believed the Bible to be wrong in the past, it is we who have been proven to be wrong.

So get off your high atheistic horse and consider reality before spouting your tired and flat out incorrect nonsense about the Bible.

Also, ever hear of the idea that something that has been translated may not have an exact equivalent in the target language. We have enough problems with Greek, which is a much richer language than English. Hebrew is exponentially harder. You run head on into the difference between a near-east culture and our Western civilization understanding of communication and relationship. It's pretty amazing we're able to decipher any of the ancient documents for that reason alone.

Originally posted by Snoopy1978
It's 2012 and people still believe in this godly bullcrap. You've got to be crapping me.

And you don't? Do you have any original reasons as to why? Look at the alternative - it actually takes more faith than the idea that there is one GOD...

Give me a rational defense of your faith instead of your oh so eloquent "you've got to be crapping me"

Originally posted by reject
I think its possible either they witnessed a phenomenon or just saw the area as it already is and they weaved a story around it to fit their beliefs.

Actually, it is quite possible people did the same thing when they saw the rock formation resembling a huge boat/ark on mount Ararat (pareidolia). They made up a story explaining how it got there.

jmvho to which I'm also entitled

Hmmm... Yep, you are definitely entitled to ignorance.

five years
it feels like another universe
i hardly recognize that feller
boy, was he ever enthusiastic
and naive
and in the wilderness
www.youtube.com...


I understand there is much contraversy when deliberating on the text. Although, in this case I think the text is incredible accurate and basically fact. I'm kinda disheartened we chose to debate religion, and judge my personal motives, but not surprised. I've been telling my young son that animals are big, stupid jerks. Meaning, they aren't always nice to each other, buy hey, I love nature anyway. Even though it's cruel. I'm expanding that thesis and applying it to the whole human race. By detaching myself and viewing the whole muddle through a far away telescope, I can handle this wriggling mass. I love you all. But children...

I think there's a chemical signature across the Dead Sea. There is a zone where the rain hit and the residue is there and will have a unique chemical ion structure and would be identifiable if a geologist we're looking for it. The problem is that there is sulfur all over the region. You'd need to be looking for two different types and not dismissing the sulfur as all native. Besides. The sulfuric acid reacted and therefore it won't be pure sulfur. It will be a byproduct of the reaction. Crap. I told you chemistry is my weakest suit. But, I've read enough to understand it when it relates to geology. They can differentiate one type of ash from another. But once again, they have to be looking for it.

five years
really
it's been that long since i did that stupid little experiment in my bathroom
but damn it worked

The you tube video i'm Linking to is my experiment of a Yellowstone Mega Hydro-Thermal Eruption. That is if Yellowstone Lake inudates the magma chamber. This is my real hypothesis, and this is how material is ejected. Not just local pyroclastic flows. Thera/Santorini exploded and disappeared. It didn't sink. Watch the ice as it is launched.

stupid me
i thought the whole thing was so obvious and no one could ignore the perfect circle in Hudson Bay. but they do

fortuitous - ya right..

sorry- often i talk to myself.
my real name isn't eric-
say hi robin

hi robin

www.youtube.com...




if anyone wants maybe they can post the you tube link to make it play on here. i should really take the time and figure it out

reply to post by JimmyNeutron

It's common knowledge that archaeologists of all nationalities and flavors used the Bible, particularly the old testament, as primary source material for where to look for artifacts in the middle east. In fact, it has an impeccable record of accuracy - 100%...

The bible has a 100% accuracy record in the search for artefacts?......get outta town!

Originally posted by smurfy
Volcanic eruption has been debated as the likely S&G destruction both in and out of religion for some time,

www.lexiline.com...

www.godsaidmansaid.com...

The problem lies in the Lot's wife looking back, and being turned to stone, or a pillar or salt, while Lot was able to dander on, okay so Lot got lucky, the ash missed him/or he did not look back, which is it? but his wife is still the mystery, since no one that survived seems to have looked back, so could not confirm that Lot's wife perished, because she looked back. Makes no sense to me.

edit on 3-12-2012 by smurfy because: Text.

Just a thought. A look back alludes to a necessary hesitation. In a sulfuric, or otherwise "ash" and gaseous cloud "rain," perhaps this might be enough, given the right circumstances chemically and ecologically. Remember Pompeii, and the unique "in place and time" preservation of its victims.......

What is so fascinating about ops theory is that it seems quite a bit might be archeologically possible to backtrack and verify about the writings of the Bible. Another post suggested it is preposterous just because the event is described in the Bible, and the person's wholesale rejection of anything linked to biblical writing is so complete because of their preconceived notions about religion makes it impossible for them to even consider the evidence and description of the OP. This, I find, is just as close minded as the evangelically religious.

Once you consider physics discrepancies, the true meaning of time and the possibilities of vortexes, vaccums and black holes, quantum mechanics, quantum string theory and dynamics, the LHC, and the possibilities of quantum computers, varying historical accounts and information, a cyclical link of time influencing information and re-information, etc......and view this information in this light, along with the chemical composition of what we consider to be reality, and how consciousness and the influences upon it may boil it all down to a matter of perception even within the realm of what we can physically prove in a chemical reaction.......

do you get what I am getting at here? It's really all up for grabs, in a way, if seen through the lens I describe above..... Add to that, the ability to affect people's perception of events both locally (and I mean really locally, within their own minds and bodies), and non locally ( in this sense, that could mean the environment on a very small scale. i. e. the room you are in or perceive you are in at this very moment and no larger, all the way to the scope of the earth geologically.), without futzing with the actual environment, but just your perception of it, per se.... I think you see where I am going, here.
It is, quite literally, a completely open question, on absolutely everything. To reject out of religious or non religious views, or evil vs. good, even. is to be limited in a way described legally as prejudice, for lack of a better term.

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by JimmyNeutron

 

It's common knowledge that archaeologists of all nationalities and flavors used the Bible, particularly the old testament, as primary source material for where to look for artifacts in the middle east. In fact, it has an impeccable record of accuracy - 100%...

The bible has a 100% accuracy record in the search for artefacts?......get outta town!

Show me when it was inaccurate... or take your sardonic chortle elsewhere.

Originally posted by tetra50

Originally posted by smurfy
Volcanic eruption has been debated as the likely S&G destruction both in and out of religion for some time,

www.lexiline.com...

www.godsaidmansaid.com...

The problem lies in the Lot's wife looking back, and being turned to stone, or a pillar or salt, while Lot was able to dander on, okay so Lot got lucky, the ash missed him/or he did not look back, which is it? but his wife is still the mystery, since no one that survived seems to have looked back, so could not confirm that Lot's wife perished, because she looked back. Makes no sense to me.

edit on 3-12-2012 by smurfy because: Text.

Just a thought. A look back alludes to a necessary hesitation. In a sulfuric, or otherwise "ash" and gaseous cloud "rain," perhaps this might be enough, given the right circumstances chemically and ecologically. Remember Pompeii, and the unique "in place and time" preservation of its victims.......

What is so fascinating about ops theory is that it seems quite a bit might be archeologically possible to backtrack and verify about the writings of the Bible. Another post suggested it is preposterous just because the event is described in the Bible, and the person's wholesale rejection of anything linked to biblical writing is so complete because of their preconceived notions about religion makes it impossible for them to even consider the evidence and description of the OP. This, I find, is just as close minded as the evangelically religious.

Once you consider physics discrepancies, the true meaning of time and the possibilities of vortexes, vaccums and black holes, quantum mechanics, quantum string theory and dynamics, the LHC, and the possibilities of quantum computers, varying historical accounts and information, a cyclical link of time influencing information and re-information, etc......and view this information in this light, along with the chemical composition of what we consider to be reality, and how consciousness and the influences upon it may boil it all down to a matter of perception even within the realm of what we can physically prove in a chemical reaction.......

do you get what I am getting at here? It's really all up for grabs, in a way, if seen through the lens I describe above..... Add to that, the ability to affect people's perception of events both locally (and I mean really locally, within their own minds and bodies), and non locally ( in this sense, that could mean the environment on a very small scale. i. e. the room you are in or perceive you are in at this very moment and no larger, all the way to the scope of the earth geologically.), without futzing with the actual environment, but just your perception of it, per se.... I think you see where I am going, here.
It is, quite literally, a completely open question, on absolutely everything. To reject out of religious or non religious views, or evil vs. good, even. is to be limited in a way described legally as prejudice, for lack of a better term.

After a little armchair google research, I think the OPs premise is plausible. It might be an interesting trip to the Dead Sea area to pick up a couple of mud fired bricks made from the local mud. Then use a similar bituminous tar mortar to cement a couple of them together and then rain a little high molar concentration of sulfuric acid on it to see what happens.

After a little armchair google research, I think the OPs premise is plausible. It might be an interesting trip to the Dead Sea area to pick up a couple of mud fired bricks made from the local mud. Then use a similar bituminous tar mortar to cement a couple of them together and then rain a little high molar concentration of sulfuric acid on it to see what happens.

reply to post by JimmyNeutron


Absolutely. I concur, and have thought through the chemical processes and done some armchair stuff of what you describe myself. It would most certainly be interesting. But I suppose the point of what i wrote above is broader in nature, and accepts at face value that this is possible, meaning so much more is, too, and even probable. Why not? Why do we in such a forum believe in conspiracies, galore, of intricate and time worn nature, of the possibility of off world life, and even question what "on- world" even means, by virture of my descriptions of perceptions of reality and its actual nature in my above post, through so called science and philosophy, but when it comes to religions and their texts, we find it so shocking that the actual history of what is written might be so remarkable?
The OP has many posts on other threads which I find quite interesting, as well, about the idea of volcanic activity as it relates to the creation, even, of other planets and stars. IMHO, NONE of this should be rejected. We should, especially at a scientific level, be embracing and open to ALL such thinking ,outside our current box, if you will, to re visualize, describe, define and draw that box, or framework of thinking, so that we might continue to find realistic (for lack of a better word) of truth, lacking of prejudice, for what we are and are surrounded by and what we and it are composed of. All the better to compare, put into context, and appreciate and understand and enjoy each other and where we are, wherever, whomever and whatever that is.

reply to post by JimmyNeutron


Also, chemically speaking about the OP, he mentions fire from the sky encompassing and overtaking, and might I suggest gaseous types of explosions, which have a visual effect of fire in the sky. Also, I would think the chemical composition of Dead Sea mud might encompass elements of flint.....ergo flammability in certain circumstances, especially with vibration, friction

reply to post by JimmyNeutron


What are you people arguing about?
There's corroborating historical evidence regarding events portrayed in that Bible all over the place.
Simply the mention of city names, locations, and personalities can be independently verified in the Historical data with zero attachment, reference or association with the Bible.

While I'm not a follower of, or believer in The Bible, what with being an Atheist, it's entirely a complete fallacy to not respect the book for some of its historical context alone.
Stories of supernatural acts by superbiengs may need be interpreted as attributable to natural occurrences as framed by the OP, and many stories due similarity found in other cultures are certainly made-up stories with made-up characters spun around real events that people during the times these stories were written may have had at least generational word-of-mouth memory.

There are, however, depictions of real events, even if the characters, and their roles in them are open to dispute as having existed at all.