Talk:Sodom and Gomorrah

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Tell el-Hammam[edit]

Forgot this part: From User talk:Joe Roe:

While you consider the theory WP:FRINGE, it is in fact published in Nature. The connection to Sodom and Gomorrah, I see, "is beyond the scope of this investigation" although twice it is stated "we consider".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the authors do love the creationist Steven Collins. Also see this Doug Weller talk 19:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First pont: That's hardly a criticism of Vchimpanzee's statement. What you said resembles a ad hominem, where you talk about the author's biases. Which authors always have. Your statement is bollocks, and it sounds like a low level, low IQ, Youtube comment you'd see on the top comments with hundreds of likes, though it was poorly thought out. I dont understand how you even thought this was a marginally good response to what he said.
Second point: I also saw on a WP article the author Richard Carrier and his fringe ideas about Jesus represented. Although the article did acknowledge it was fringe. I think it would be good to acknowledge, even if you put "this theory is not widely accepted by scholars"- which articles mentioning Richard Carrier do.
Third point: I just came back to this article after 2 years and was very confused the site wasn't at least acknowledged as a candidate people believed would be Sodom and Gomorrah. If it is not popular by scholars, it is popular in the public. Especially this video by "Inspiring philosophy": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-teJabFF90&ab_channel=InspiringPhilosophy. Say some of these 600k, maybe even more as time draws on, people come to this article and dont see the site. I think it should be acknowledged. As Chimp stated, it was published in Nature, you know this is a good journal, and you know this is reputable.
I just encountered this debate. But, I think Tell el-Hammam should at least be acknowledged as either a footnote of theorized sites, or just a possible site. 2601:204:4001:5930:C553:983F:CBB6:D555 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe this video may be relevant, to anyone researching this matter, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eMw1srgQ9k&ab_channel=TrowelingDown. In started watching the videos in 2020, they've a good amount of videos on the topic. 2601:204:4001:5930:42E:DA05:39F6:79EF (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"If it is not popular by scholars, it is popular in the public." How is this relevant? The policy on Wikipedia:Reliable sources requires us to use reliable scholarship:
      • "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." The public can not publish reliable sources. Dimadick (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The timeframe for the ash at this site corresponds with the Santorini volcano; and then it was uninhabited for 500 years. The actual timeline for Lot should be around 1250BC, around Ibiranu 2 in Ugarit, and Kudur-Enlil in Babylon, and Tudhaliya 4(Tidal). This is a Geographic proof, which can sometimes be correct(see Schliemann's Troy), but are mostly wrong.
This also ignores both Strabo's Geography(Moasada), and Ptolemy's; Ptolemy lists a "Zoara"; he also lists a "Gemmarouris". https://topostext.org/work/209 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58B:E7F:8410:3D48:45F0:B364:8AB7 (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Copied from my talk page:) The paper was published in Scientific Reports, which despite sharing a publisher is notoriously less respected and reliable than Nature. Its fringiness has been discussed at some length at WP:FTN (e.g. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Sodom_and_Gomorrah) and Talk:Tell el-Hammam. – Joe (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to https://presidentialwire.com/lost-biblical-city-reportedly-found/, an archaeologist named Steven Collins has been working at the site over twenty years and believes it is the site of Sodom. Collins is identified as the Executive Dean of Trinity Southwest University. Is this enough to add the site as an minority alternative view? Kdammers (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Collins isn't an archaeologist, and Trinity Southwest University isn't a university. The whole thing is a bit of a rabbit whole but here is a good recent summary: ahotcupofjoe.net/2023/05/younger-dryas-impact-science-or-pseudoscience. The fringe theory is covered briefly in Tell el-Hammam and Trinity Southwest University; I still think mentioning it in this article would be undue weight (see WP:ONEWAY). – Joe (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity[edit]

Only natural disasters are mentioned in Sodom and Gomorrah#Historicity when it should be obvious from the Biblical stories that if there is any truth to the stories, that it's a simple case of mass murder by religious extremists who did not approve of the lifestyle of the people living in these cities. In the Bible we read the perpetrator's account of what happened, and when the story is told and retold over many generations, it becomes an act of God.

If Hitler had won WWII and the Nazis would have ruled Europe for many generations, what would the Nazi history books have written about the Jews and how they ended up vanishing? Count Iblis (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this not included, meteor shower[edit]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97778-3 2604:EBC0:D143:4A:2148:931F:FF06:98B7 (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality[edit]

@IP: Homosexuality is what most people think the Bible is saying. But does the Bible say that? God and Sex says: no, it doesn't. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sodom_and_Gomorrah&oldid=1214557324"