Turtle Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 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. i did tell you & you ignored it apparently. Global Volcanism Program | Volcanoes of the World | Volcanoes of the Mediterranean and western Asia | Map your assumption is wrong about how far volcanos can eject their material. start here, How Volcanoes Work - Santorini Eruption , read it all, then ask google and you'll find a mountain of information on other volcano histories in the region. here 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. the whole premise of a supernatural explanation is twaddle. :rainbow: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Peterman Posted August 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Okay so limestone doesn't burn, it decomposes at a high temperature and would turn back into limestone, but the presence of sulfur causes it to form calcium sulfate instead as it does in coal combustion. As for the sulfur balls, aren't they the ones that are in question that we are discussing? Just because people have been using them for a long time doesn't make them natural in the sense we are talking about. I admit that a volcano might could have shot sulfur out a long way, but I would expect to find this sulfur in other places closer to the volcano or even just somewhere else besides along the Dead Sea shore, like maybe on a mountain or something or in another country. Why would they land far apart but still on the plain and in enough concentration to burn the cities and why do the cities look targeted. Why aren't there any intact structures at all? Why did it only land on cities. And why are they still standing? I have other reasons to believe in the supernatural so I know how much of a fallacy it is to assume the supernatural isn't real, although I don't know of any way to prove it to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 I admit that a volcano might could have shot sulfur out a long way, but I would expect to find this sulfur in other places closer to the volcano or even just somewhere else besides along the Dead Sea shore, like maybe on a mountain or something or in another country. Why would they land far apart but still on the plain and in enough concentration to burn the cities and why do the cities look targeted. Why aren't there any intact structures at all? Why did it only land on cities. And why are they still standing? I have other reasons to believe in the supernatural so I know how much of a fallacy it is to assume the supernatural isn't real, although I don't know of any way to prove it to you. i would expect it to be other places as well. have you looked? even so, fallout doesn't distribute evenly due to variations in the eruptive phases, geographic features between the volcano and where the debri falls, and the weather patterns both during and after the eruption. as for cities "targeted", something has to be "up" before it can be burned "down". anyway, maybe kick your god down the road if you have to invoke it and just assume he/she/it lit the volcano. that way you can still study the science of volcanos and their potential relation to biblical archaeology. this is after all, a science forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 As for the sulfur balls, aren't they the ones that are in question that we are discussing? Ok, let's talk about sulfur balls. According to the following link, these sulfur balls have been found on both sides of the dead sea (not just at Ron Wyatt's site). They are considered evaporated sediments from an old lake bed (I'll look into this some more). Btw, the scientist quoted in the link is a devout Christian. There's also a good case to be made that any fire would have either burned or evaporated the sulfur. Holy relics or revelation - Google Books EDIT: Ok, I found a neat article of sulfur nodules found in sediment core samples. Interesting. A remarkable sedimentologic feature observed in the cores from Sites PI-6 and PI-3 (taken in 100 m of water) is the presence of large elemental sulfur nodules (photos above and page 5). These nodules often occur near the contact of lithologic units, between gypsum-rich and clayrich facies (above). They crosscut the bedding (photo page 5), indicating post-depositional formation, probably associated with microbial activity.Microorganisms involved in the sulfur cycle probably played an important role in both sulfate reduction and sulfide oxidation. Dr. Crisogono Vasconcelos (ETH-Zurich) collected geomicrobiological samples from the freshly split core surfaces to investigate the possibility of microbial involvement in the formation of the sulfur nodules. Preliminary results of culture experiments show an active microbial community associated with the sulfur nodules. Some strains grown in the enrichment cultures are precipitating elementalsulfur through metabolic sulfide oxidation.http://www.limnogeology.ethz.ch/DOSECC2.pdf Turtle 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Peterman Posted August 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Some people say it is ash that is calcium sulfate and some say it is calcium carbonate. They could have gathered samples of different things. Maybe the sulfur did evaporate and someone is lying. Either way the limestone the cities were built from decomposed under intense heat and now they are not buildings anymore. That they were cities can be proven now. Remember the arches, brickwork, and bricked doorway? So that means the layers of calcium sulfate or calcium carbonate were not sedimentary deposits. In my opinion, and I am not sure how to think about this, I don't really have a problem believing that Gomorrah could have extended across the valley to the other side of where the Dead Sea is today. Maybe one of the cities was over there because I think the bible or Josephus mentioned that there were other towns destroyed that no one has accounted for if I remember correctly. If the calcium sulfate or calcium carbonate was a sedimentary deposit, why would people carve a city out of that erosive stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Some people say it is ash that is calcium sulfate and some say it is calcium carbonate. They could have gathered samples of different things. Maybe the sulfur did evaporate and someone is lying. someone is lying? preposterous. Either way the limestone the cities were built from decomposed under intense heat and now they are not buildings anymore. That they were cities can be proven now. Remember the arches, brickwork, and bricked doorway? So that means the layers of calcium sulfate or calcium carbonate were not sedimentary deposits. no. by definition any layering is sedimentary. sedimentary - definition of sedimentary by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.sedimentary (sd-mnt-r)Relating to rocks formed when sediment is deposited and becomes tightly compacted. Depending on the origin of the sediments they contain, sedimentary rocks are classified as clastic sedimentary rocks, chemical sedimentary rocks, or evaporites. Sandstone and conglomerate, for example, consist of fragments of broken preexisting rocks or minerals and are classified as clastic sedimentary rocks. Limestone forms from the precipitation of calcium carbonate through water and is classified as a chemical sedimentary rock. Gypsum and halite deposits form through the evaporation of mineral-rich water and are classified as evaporites. In my opinion, and I am not sure how to think about this, I don't really have a problem believing that Gomorrah could have extended across the valley to the other side of where the Dead Sea is today. Maybe one of the cities was over there because I think the bible or Josephus mentioned that there were other towns destroyed that no one has accounted for if I remember correctly. If the calcium sulfate or calcium carbonate was a sedimentary deposit, why would people carve a city out of that erosive stuff. why carve/use it indeed? maybe because it's what is there? :doh: why did the Anasazi earlier in n. america use sandstone in zion? ZionCanyon.com - Zion National Park - Zion National Park Information Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Either way the limestone the cities were built from decomposed under intense heat and now they are not buildings anymore.If the limestone had decomposed under intense heat, they would have found calcium oxide, [ce]CaO[/ce].If the calcium sulfate or calcium carbonate was a sedimentary deposit, why would people carve a city out of that erosive stuff. Limestone is calcium carbonate.It's not as erosive as you might think. Water dissolves it over time, but we're talking about thousands, if not millions, of years. I would assume people would use it as a structural material because it was readily available (maybe the only rock available for miles) and it is hard as a rock (limestone is a rock) yet easily workable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Peterman Posted August 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 The cities were not carved out which can be proven because part a building is made from brick, which shows they were bricked not carved. I may not be talking about limestone here, I'm talking about the material the building like structures are made of as being very erosive. Nobody would carve out a city from that stuff because it crumbles in your hand to powder. Limestone is calcium carbonate but not all calcium carbonate is limestone. Geological forces don't deposit cities as sedimentary rock. Anyway, it can be proven that the buildings were made from brick. Anyway, I guess you could argue that the bricks already contained sulfur. I guess one of the remaining bricks could be tested. So what destroyed the cities. If not a fire then what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 So what if a fire destroyed a city, how does that prove God did it? Mr. Peterman you are assuming a result from evidence that could fit many different scenarios. A fire does not show evidence of god, just a fire. Sulfur deposits in a fire site doesn't show evidence god rained burning sulfur down on the site. I doubt very seriously after all this time that such evidence could be found if indeed you have found the fabled cities. You seem to desperately want to prove these cities existed and that they were destroyed by God. Good luck, I'm not sure what such proof would look like but so far all you have is evidence of fire, nothing more, even that is questionable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 The cities were not carved out which can be proven because part a building is made from brick, which shows they were bricked not carved. I may not be talking about limestone here, I'm talking about the material the building like structures are made of as being very erosive. Nobody would carve out a city from that stuff because it crumbles in your hand to powder. Limestone is calcium carbonate but not all calcium carbonate is limestone. Geological forces don't deposit cities as sedimentary rock. Anyway, it can be proven that the buildings were made from brick. Anyway, I guess you could argue that the bricks already contained sulfur. I guess one of the remaining bricks could be tested. So what destroyed the cities. If not a fire then what? :doh: dear dear mr. p. :lol: if you spent half as much time searching the web as you do keying your posts we would be a fair way better off. there is no such thing as physical evidence of god. period. biblical archaeology is a valid topic here, so let's look at some of that from the actual scientific evidence that is substantial. Biblical Archeology: Sodom and Gomorrah...Sodom and Gomorrah were part of a metropolis assumed to have been located on the eastern bank of the Dead Sea consisting of five cities, each with its own king. There was (1) Bera, king of Sodom, (2) Birsha, king of Gomorrah, (3) Shinab, king of Admad, (4) Shember, king of Zeboiim, and (5) the king of Bela, which is also called Zoar (Genesis 14:8). This thriving group of city-states is referred to in the Bible (Genesis 13:12) as the Cities of the Plain. The five kings were under the dominion of a coalition of eastern Mesopotamian overlords. According to the Torah, with the help of the patriarch Abraham, the cities gained their independence, though their independence was only short-lived. A few years later, God destroyed the cities in a hail of fire and brimstone...."Fire and brimstone" is a common expression used to describe the sermon of an overzealous preacher, but exactly what is brimstone? The Hebrew word for brimstone in the Biblical verse is gafrit and is usually understood to mean sulfur. The Targum Yonathan ben Uziel translates the word into Aramaic as kivraitah. The term kivraitah appears in the Talmud (Babylonian Talmud Shabbos 89b, 90a; Nidah 62a) and is used in the context of a cleaning agent. It is likely that the Biblical gafrit is the hydrocarbon bitumen, which is the essential ingredient of asphalt. Bitumen can also be distilled into a cleaning agent. Bitumen/asphalt is a naturally occurring, highly flammable substance found in the Dead Sea area. In fact, Josephus refers to the Dead Sea as Lake Asphaltites. [7] It is of interest to note that Josephus writes that the Lake Asphaltites was formed as a result of the devastation that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. ...The entire areas of Bab edh-Drha and Numeira are covered with a spongy ash. These two cities show clear signs of utter destruction. The layer of ash ranges from 4-20 inches in depth. [8] Parallel to these five cities is fault line where two large plates of earth are exerting great pressure on each other. This tectonic feature has caused a number of earthquakes in the region. ... there is a veritable cornucopia of similar information at the link. i invite you to read it , nay insist, and then invite you similarly to respond to it. no more repeating the same old word-salad business! against the rules here and all, and any one well versed in biblical literature knows well enough about following rules and rendering to caesar what is caesar's. wouldn't want to find yerself crucified, unjustly or not, now would ya? :rant: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Peterman Posted August 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 Why should I believe that the Bab edh-Dhra site is any better a candidate than the places rediscovered by Ron Wyatt and Simon Brown. Weren't the people of Sodom and Gomorrah burned up instead of buried. How did they deduce that the Bab edh-Dhra was burned? I'm just wondering. Would these places have been visible enough for Josephus to refer to the traces of their shadows. There isn't much reason for me to think that these weren't just some other cities. Yeah there was a lot of people in the region and there was Mesopotamian influence in the area. None of that stuff implies anything of reasonable surety about this place being Sodom and Gomorrah except if the place was burned the same way as Ron Wyatt's sites where the limestone stopped being limestone and you find brimstone there. Then I would say these are probably more of the destroyed cities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 Why should I believe that the Bab edh-Dhra site is any better a candidate than the places rediscovered by Ron Wyatt and Simon Brown. Weren't the people of Sodom and Gomorrah burned up instead of buried. you have drawn an illogical conclusion. people died & were buried that lived in the city before its destruction. prolly a lot of venereal diseases, eh what? :) How did they deduce that the Bab edh-Dhra was burned? I'm just wondering. 4 to 20 inches of ash = volcano = burning. the article is clear. did you do any further research on your own to find an answer? why should i give another answer given your established pattern of simply denouncing whatever we provide? just wondering. :hyper: Would these places have been visible enough for Josephus to refer to the traces of their shadows. There isn't much reason for me to think that these weren't just some other cities. Yeah there was a lot of people in the region and there was Mesopotamian influence in the area. None of that stuff implies anything of reasonable surety about this place being Sodom and Gomorrah except if the place was burned the same way as Ron Wyatt's sites where the limestone stopped being limestone and you find brimstone there. Then I would say these are probably more of the destroyed cities. so again, we have your opinion vs actual field work by qualified archaeologists. so again this is a science forum and your opinion doesn't stack up to the science. who ya gonna call? :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 None of that stuff implies anything of reasonable surety about this place being Sodom and Gomorrah except if the place was burned the same way as Ron Wyatt's sites where the limestone stopped being limestone and you find brimstone there. Then I would say these are probably more of the destroyed cities. Did they find CaO there, yes or no?I have a vast mineral collection of all types of absurdities. Limestone with suplhur embedded is a new one to me, but it's not surprising seeing all the weird conglomerates I've seen. Here's a question: Why would limestone stop being limestone?Would fire account for sulphur inside of limestone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Peterman Posted August 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 fact: Ron Wyatt's Sodom site was a city whose buildings were built from hard rock brickwork, some of which remains. fact: The majority of what is left of the city is some material that breaks away and crumbles in your hand. fact: There are decomposed arches, bricked doorways, and a bricked wall still standing in Sodom. Care to argue about the facts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 Weathering can and does make rock crumble, I see no connection between crumbling rock and God raining fire and brinmestone out of the sky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 fact: Ron Wyatt's Sodom site was a city whose buildings were built from hard rock brickwork, some of which remains. fact: The majority of what is left of the city is some material that breaks away and crumbles in your hand. fact: There are decomposed arches, bricked doorways, and a bricked wall still standing in Sodom. Care to argue about the facts? Do you have a link documenting these things? ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Peterman Posted August 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 I don't have a link to direct information. I got the information from the movie "Our Search for Sodom and Gomorrah" by Simon Brown which you can buy from realdiscoveries.com. There is also a book but it doesn't suffice well for the information. I think they are supposed to be available for free sometime soon, but I just paid for mine. The fact that what is left crumbles can be seen in Ron Wyatt's videos online as well at arkdiscovery.com or whatever. You can also find on YouTube a video called "The Physical Ashen Remains of Sodom and Gomorrah" which shows the crumbliness of the material. As for weathering, the building that has some bricks left on top should give a reason to believe the crumbliness isn't due to weathering perhaps because there would have been just as much weathering on the top as weathering on the bottom and yet there does not appear to be any degree of this type of weathering on the top brickwork or the brick wall. And I'm not sure weathering can cause the rock to change composition and form into layers and I don't see any reasoning for such layers to be horizontal, but I'm not familiar with all this. Also if it was layering, it would seem like the weathering should be confined to the exposed portion of the structures, and as far as I know it is consistent throughout. Anyway, If you want to see what I'm talking about regarding the walls, brickwork, doorway, and arches, you will have to get the movie by Simon Brown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.