Talk:Sodom

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is vastly opinionated.--Elamdri 03:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok, who did this? Someone had gone through this and found every mention of the words 'abomination' 'sodom' 'sodomite' 'sodomite religion' and so on and linked all of them to the article on homosexuality. We dont need to be so childish in attempts to create association here - not to mention factually incorrect, as I am fairly sure that soddom did not turn homosexuality into a religion, and the story also suggests several other sins asside from homosexuality. I am going to try to clean this up, but its a real mess. - Suricou
It's an open encyclopedia. fix it then. RightWolf2 03:07, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I feel that the changes are much more appropriate. They still advance the site's agenda without being blatantly hateful.--Elamdri 03:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
The Bible is not hate speech. I know the mass media and militant homosexual rights movement have intimidated most Believers into thinking so. I do tone things down and frame them properly, given time. RightWolf2 03:32, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I have a rather long piece cued up. I'll post it in 5 minutes if I don't hear back on this. You can always revert it anyway.Crackertalk 03:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I do not believe that the Bible is hate speech. However, I also do not trust the Bible to give non-biased depictions of events as it was written by men, divinely inspired they may be, but at the end of the day, still men.--Elamdri 03:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I posted that. See if you like it, if not revert. Crackertalk 03:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Very nice! I like--Elamdri 03:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Needs some additions. Particularly the fact that God explicitly stated they were destroyed for sodomy. Sodomy is explicitly defined in other passages as homosexual behavior. :-) RightWolf2 03:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Hmm? How can the text refer to or define 'sodomy' when this word has yet to be coined? It may refer to 'sodomites' but only with the meaning 'the occupents of the city of sodom.' And where are these explicit passages, as I have never heard mention of them. Besides, why does there have to be one reason God would destroy two cities? Homosexuality, other forms of sexual immorality, selfishness, idol-worship... what about 'all of the above'? - BornAgainBrit
Nice work there RW2!Crackertalk 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

"wikification?

At some point we're going to have to wikify this (as well as other articles on Conservapedia). By this I mean the process of adding the [[links]] that will enable browsers to skip through all of Conservapedia's othe articles. One of the things I liked about wikipedia was the ability of going from link to link to link, meandering through the articles. Something should ought to be set-up, a template perhaps(?), to alert editors that articles need to be linked. Crackertalk 14:08, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

why god smote the sodomites

ezekiel 16:49 claims it was because, from KJV, "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."

Entire article needs reworking

This article is basically presented as a Sunday school lesson or sermon, with some errors, and has virtually no references, as it almost all was copied verbatim from another site, which does allow it with attribution, but overall it hardly fits a encyclopedic format. However, the Bible does best evidence that "know" in v. 5 refers to sexual knowing, as its use v. 8 as well as in the parallel story (Jdg. 19:25: "they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning") and Jude 1:7 testifies to. The duplicity of pro homosexual polemicists who contend for the inhospitality interpretation is manifest in their striving elsewhere to impose a sexual meaning upon words which likewise depend upon context for such, ("clave" in Ruth and Namomui, "lovingkindness" in Daniel and Asphenez, etc.) when it would favor their unrighteous cause. There is no doubt that if "know" here could be used in a sense favorable to homoeroticism, like friendly guests expressing a desire to know a male host that night, that they would favor it. While homosexual relations in Gn. 19, are forced here, this is what homosexual apologists are often seen doing to the Bible. Here, it is the type of relations that make Sodom so notable, “The paradigmatic instance of such aberrant behavior is found in the demand of the men of Sodom to “know” the men visiting Lot, the nephew of Abraham, thus lending their name to the practice of “sodomy” (homosexuality) Jewish Ethics and Halakhah For Our Time (2002)Daniel1212 11:57, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

I did a major rewrite today, and hope to go back over it later.Daniel1212 23:39, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

Byrant Wood

Bryant Wood's research hasn't helped the Bible at all when it comes to Sodom and Gomorrah (unlike his work on Ai/Khirbet el-Maqatir). Wood is dead wrong when it comes to identifying Sodom, Wood thinks that Sodom is located at Bab edh-Dhra, which is incorrect, and debunked. In reality, the archaeological excavations of Steven Collins have located the ancient Sodom exactly where the Bible says it was: North of the Dead Sea in Jordan. Collins' research has been exemplified by many of the worlds leading experts, including Aren Maier, Robert Mullins, Joseph Holden, Alan Millard, David Maltsberger, etc. Sodom has been found, and it wasn't found at Bab edh-Dhra, it was found in the modern-day site Tall el-Hammam.

An astounding lecture by Steven Collins himself on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lf4rwTx3lc

So, we should completely delete the part that mentions Bryant Wood on this article. I'll eventually replace it with the findings of Steven Collins (and probably create a Conservapedia article on him as well).

I don't know much about Wood or Collins, but please do not completely delete the information about him. I think we should mention him and his views, as long as we point out he is wrong and how he is wrong. I personally don't think deleting wrong views is the right thing to do if people seriously hold to those views. Show that they are wrong. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2017 (EDT)
I find it very easy to dismount Bab edh-Dhra from being Sodom. For one, where there is a Sodom, there needs to be a Gomorrah. The site around Bab edh-Dhra is Numeira, so basically these people will tell you Sodom = Bab edh-Dhra and Gomorrah = Numeira. Initially, both of these cities were thought to have been destroyed by fire at the same time period (so it was looking good for them). Later, it was found out that Numeira's destruction occurred 250 years earlier than Bab edh-Dhra. So if Bab edh-Dhra is Sodom, Numeira can't be Gomorrah. However, there aren't any other candidates for Gomorrah aside from Numeira if Bab edh-Dhra is Sodom, basically meaning Gomorrah never existed on this view.
Steven Collins also shows numerous other errors in this view. It contradicts biblical chronology, it's in the completely wrong location, it isn't east of Bethel and Ai, etc, etc, etc. Watch the lecture from Collins I posted above to get some more context. Interestingly, even many of Wood's own colleagues (like Scott Stirpling) think Collins is right and Sodom is Tall el-Hammam. It's already been shown that Tall el-Hammam, aside from being in the right place and being destroyed in the right time, was destroyed by a fiery air burst (some have suggested a meteorite), which is amazingly similar to the Bible's description of Sodom being destroyed by fire and brimstone from heaven.Korvex (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
And I am by no means arguing that Wood is correct. In fact, while I don't know much about either Wood or Collins, I think you and Collins are correct based on what you just wrote. But can we still say something like "some archeologists like Bryant Wood have claimed so-and-so, but most archeologists, such as Steven Collins, have called such claims false because of so-and-so." Is there a problem with this? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
Nope, no problem with that. But the first thing we need to do is re-write the section about finding Sodom, and then after that, we can add in the views of Wood. I've already read upon the debate between Wood and Collins, so I'll be able to eventually take care of that. I'd hope to get this section of the page re-written by Friday.Korvex (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2017 (EDT)
OK. Assuming you keep Wood's views in the general format I described above, then I support your changes. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2017 (EDT)
I just replaced the old content with Collins identification. I will add in Wood's view either later today or tomorrow.Korvex (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2017 (EDT)