Current excavations at The Tall el-Hammam Excavation Project

[Dr. Steven Collins]

No, no, no, no, no! There isn't a single archaeologist, including Dr. Wood, who'd agree that the chronological sequences of the archaeological periods can be overturned in general, much less so flippantly as saying in esence, "One man's Bronze Age is another man's Stone Age." This is simply preposterous. There is no mistaking the substantial difference between the EB and the MB. Remember, there's an entire archaeological period of about 350 years between them (the Intermediate Bronze Age).
The disagreement between Garstang and Kenyon, moderated by Wood, was one of the ceramic differences between MB III (old MB IIB) and LB I. One of the problems in that context is that there was basically no discontinuity, either culturally or ceramically, between MB III and LB I. So there was, and is, a lot of room for disagreement. It's simply not a clear and distinct cultural horizon.
But this is in no way the case between EB III and the MBA. As I pointed out previously, the EB and the MB are two entirely different cultural complexes, and there's no way in the world to miscontrue the distinctions between the two. In fact, even the IB is quite distinct from either EB or MB, and it separates the former and latter. Again, Abram belongs well into the MB, and thus Sodom, too. Now, Sodom likely does go all the way back to the EB, as reflected in the pre-Abrahamic period of Gen 10. Of course, many of the Jordan Kikkar sites north of the Dead Sea all reflect this occupational profile.
Please get hold of this unequivocal FACT: the southern sites had all been abandoned for hundreds of years before Abram was ever born.
Yes, at one time, the southern sites, during the Chalcolithic and EB, enjoyed a better climatological regime than in later times. But toward the end of the EB, the climate went south (no pun intended---Oh, maybe!), and their marginal existence came to a screeching halt. By 2350 BCE or so most of the southern sites were abandoned. A very few of them sustained small, open villages for a while, but by about 2200 they were all done for, never to be occupied again. Not because of some fiery destruction, but because of the lack of water. The existence of bigger towns like Bab edh-Dhra was marginal at best, even at their height of occupation. Even during its best days, Bab edh-Dhra would never have been interpreted as having existed in a well-watered area. That southern region never had a perennial river, but only seasonal runoff through the local wadis. It must also be noted that compared to northern sites like Tall el-Hammam, Bab edh-Dhra was a comparatively small, dreary place.
By comparison, Tall el-Hammam enjoyed continuous occupation from the Chalcolithic Period, through the EB, IB, and into the MB. It was THE big town in the rift valley for nearly 3000 years (maybe more, if she's got Neolithic, which is a distinct possibility). All of Bab edh-Dhra's occupations were contemporaneous with Tall el-Hammam, but when Bab edh-Dhra went belly up in 2350 BCE due to the climate change, Tall el-Hammam and her neighbors continued on without a hitch. Of course, this was due to the plentiful water resources on the eastern Jordan Disk: oft-running wadis, abundant springs, reasonable winter rainfall, and the mighty Jordan River itself which annually overflowed its banks like a Nile in miniature.
Magnificent Tall el-Hammam was in full swing long before and during the time of Abram. She was the power in the Jordan Valley. If she and her local mates were not the prominant Cities of the Plain in Genesis, then they are strangely missing, invisible to the Abrahamic narrative. This would be virtually impossible to explain.
Please put your logic-cap on and consider this: If EB Bab edh-Dhra was Sodom, then why in the world would Lot, traveling from the area of Bethel/Ai, have bypassed the nearby and wonderfully-watered southern Jordan Valley with its massive urban center, Tall el-Hammam (minimally five times bigger than Bab edh-Dhra!), in order to travel much further down to comparatively-dreary Bab edh-Dhra? Compared to Tall el-Hammam, Bab edh-Dhra was a rathole on the edge of survival and, indeed, was unable to withstand a shift in climate that the cities north of the Dead Sea barely noticed.
The biblical Cities of the Plain were the powermongers of the Rift Valley. And Sodom was the big dog on the block. They prospered together through the EB, IB, into the MB. They were the geographical darlings of the Genesis writer. Only Tall el-Hammam and the other EB-IB-MB cities on the eastern Jordan Disk (kikkar) fit the bill for this historical role. It's no wonder that the Albrightian myth of a southern Sodom is now, itself, history. The evidence emerging from exploration and excavation on the eastern Jordan Disk north of the Dead Sea is, at long last, revealing the world of Abraham and Lot precisely as the Bible describes it.
What else can I say?

SC

[archaeologist]

only have a couple minutes here:

then what are the dates that you think the Bible says Abraham and Lot lived and when was Sodom destroyed

i am not even thinking about changing the b.c. years, just the categories because nations did not progress at the same rates and people didn't all of a sudden around the world drop their stone axes and started to make bronze weapons.

we see it even today as some countries are not as developed as others plus in the amazon, we still find tribes stuck in the stone age.  it is unfair to generalize and label all societies as the same.  it is too easy to mis-identify age.

[archaeologist]

that is still too far north, because I take a view of the Hebrew that Rashi  seems to take...that Abram and Lot tented at Bethel, but left the herd at the Negev and traveled to check on them every month or so.

this is a possibility as such a scenario does take place in scripture, we are not given minute details on all actions by the primary biblical figures. BUT if his flocks were down in the negev, he would still have to travel north then east as the passage does state he headed east.

a too literal interpretation leaves one in a corner sometime and we must be careful that we donot miss something.  it is possible that Lot traveled east and then turned south before pitching his tents near sodom.

there is nothing that says he stayed in the east.

No, no, no, no, no! There isn't a single archaeologist, including Dr. Wood, who'd agree that the chronological sequences of the archaeological periods can be overturned in general, much less so flippantly as saying in esence, "One man's Bronze Age is another man's Stone Age."

in my research i have found it quite possible as generalizations may make the work easier but they do not always fit the history.  i for one do not like generalizations since manis not on a time clock and everyone must change on cue.

i think mistakes have been made in dating and we know differences occur, just look at Finkelstein who is trying to down date everything from the 10th century to the 9th.  sorry but he has less proof than i do for my point.

he  uses the logic--because prosperity happened in the 7th or 8th (approx.) c. b.c. it didn't happen in the time of david. well that is like saying poverty didn't happen in 17th century america because the great depression took place in the 20th century.

such thinking confuses the issue and clouds the truth, which is how i feel about all the labeling of the centuries has done and which has opened doors to move historical events to where they do not belong.

[Dr. Steven Collins]

Unfortunately, your picture of the biblical world is way out of kelter with reality. The entire geography of the narratives in question is a very small stage, most of which is visible from any good single vantage point. From Bethel/Ai you can see the hills around Jerusalem and the eastern Jordan Disk north of the Dead Sea. From the eastern Kikkar (around Tall el-Hammam) you can see the hills immediately east of Jerusalem, and the hills around Bethel/Ai. Virtually without exception, what happens culturally in one city/town in the area, happens in them all. Pottery, architecture, general material culture, religion---it's all pretty much the same in a given period within a given region. We're not dealing with another planet here. Those of us who work in the field of archaeology in Jordan and Israel deal with these things practically every day. Although there's much we don't know, there is a great deal that we do know. And we do know intimately many of the distinctions between the cultures of the various periods. We've touched them on a thousand occasions. Some of us hold pieces of them in our hands nearly every day. I can confidently say that no one viewing the terrain from atop Tall el-Hammam can deny the reality of the Abrahamic geography, particularly of the Sodom tales. It is that dramatic.

SC

[Dr. Steven Collins]

You are sadly mistaken, once again. Abram and Lot moved their entire clans, flocks, and herds from the Negev to Bethel/Ai. While at Bethel/Ai fightings arose between their herdsmen. They parted ways from that location. Then after their separation, Abram departed and eventually wound up near Hebron. Ancient nomads didn't spread their flocks and clans over tens of thousands of square miles at once. They moved in tight groups for protection and family maintenance.
Archaeologist, it concerns me that you can say that you believe in the Bible, but yet you always change or twist any of it that you need to for purposes of maintaining a position that is contrary to the text. With all due respect, you're operating from a position of profound ignorance of the subject at hand. And worse, you seem unable to process new information, and to work with data in a productive manner. Whether you agree with me or not is of no consequence. The SST is dying out, but only partly because of my research. It's mostly disappearing because it never had any credible evidence in its favor from day one. However, the NST is a remarkable confirmation of the details of the biblical text, and that's what the next generation of scholars will come to appreciate as the mountains of data continue to unfold in the coming decades. I hope you understand that I hold firmly to the historical reliability of the Bible (for good and scientific reasons!). All the best to you.

SC

[archaeologist]

You are sadly mistaken, once again

it is amazing how so manypeople, especially those who think they are smart, assume and then accuse the wrong person.  i did not say that is what happened.  i said it was a possibility then i went into a but.

Archaeologist, it concerns me that you can say that you believe in the Bible, but yet you always change or twist any of it that you need to for purposes of maintaining a position that is contrary to the text.

i am not twisting anything but followed your strict rules of staying with the text which you seem to ignore when the passage goes against you.  again you have failed to address the points i have raised and went to the insult.

not only have i dismissed the northern theory and on the evidence i have dismissed you as someone who is trying to justify his work by avoiding the truth.

there is not one mention of any destruction of the jordon valley on the level of what is described in Genesis.  if it took place where you said it was then archaeologists greater than you would have discussed it by now and everyone would be aware of the event.

your northern theory contradicts the Bible by focusing only on a part of the valley when the text--your rules-- strictly says all of it was destroyed, swept away, overturned.  you don't have the crucial evidence you think you have.

who cares if the southern theory is 'dying out'  that doesn't change the truth or what happened and your location is not the truth but a just another revisionist history in another vain attempt to re-write history.

remember i read your articles and  they contained nothing of substance but a lot of bragging about yoourself and whatyou have done.  the Bible says, he who speaks of his own testimony that testimony is not true..'  you really have nothing.

[eliyahu hanavi]

i am not even thinking about changing the b.c. years, just the categories because nations did not progress at the same rates and people didn't all of a sudden around the world drop their stone axes and started to make bronze weapons.

we see it even today as some countries are not as developed as others plus in the amazon, we still find tribes stuck in the stone age.  it is unfair to generalize and label all societies as the same.  it is too easy to mis-identify age.

What you state is naturally true. However, this aspect is taken into account when comparing archaeological finds from say the A.N.E. to a find in Meso-America. Scientists do not label all societies' cultural development and other aspects as being the same. Comparative history! You might see a reference to one MB A.N.E. site being compared to a Stone age site in the Americas in order to highlight the different cultural developmental stages each was going through. This does not change the dates significantly or alter the categorization of eras for the respective comparative areas.

Having said that, I am not an archaeologist so you may not wish to take my word on the above. That is, however, the way that I have seen the science in action. Therefore, it is difficult to make any radical date changes without throwing everything else "out of whack" as it were.

Also, Dr. Collins noted the clear distinctions between EB and MB while noting that under the old schema there may have been some fuzziness between MBII, MBI, MBIIB/C, etc. I have had the privilege of taking some very small seminars and courses in archaeology in the past and what he stated is relatively universal.

When I first started here 3-4 years back in looking at the various chronologies in the Bible, I was confronted with some very conflicting data (well, conflicting insofar as my methodology). For instance, initially I failed to place Abraham into the proper cultural context. Also, it was full on six months before I realized the covenant/treaty connection (thankfully by that time, I had already determined a MB date so it just fell into the framework rather easily). Then there was all of the other data to try and synchonize so that it all started to make sense. It was full on 3 years before I go to the point where I am now and there is a ton of data and research to pour through. I have but scratched the surface and some people spend decades on such matters.

There are very distinct differences in the various eras and Dr. Collins already pointed out many of the areas such as pottery, socio-economic, etc. so I won't reiterate those. I am certainly not a professional (and most likely never will be...haha), but my personal chronology is within a little over a hundred years of DC/DG et al. I continue to read through their material as well as others and I have already found some synchronisms that I missed and did not take into account. Even so, while I continue in that endeavor, I still see many other things that start to fall into place within that general chronology without any kind of "force-fit" whatsoever (i.e. the covenant issue mentioned above). This helps to enforce my belief that I am going in the right direction with my chronological research. Bear in mind that my research is for personal enlightenment and understanding.

Anyway, I hope some of that helps elaborate at least upon my understanding of the general topics being discussed. Cheers!

[Brianroy]

DGraves writes:

You first need to find ruins before you can even think about applying for a permit. If there was anything there others would have likely spotted it before. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and now someone must raise $200,000 and go over and dig. Let us know what you find.


DGraves,
I'm sorry...but I was under the impression that if I flew into Israel, rented a car,  bought a shovel, and did my own digging of the desert locations I so named, that I would face lengthy prison time for attempting to locate such a site.  Being law abiding, it is not a prospect that I would even wish to entertain the very thought of having to experience...i.e., prison...especially in a foreign country.  And when I would hear the cells clang shut and remember the question, "Business or Pleasure", I would...at such a time as hearing and feeling those prison doors shut behind me...be musing how that I came to dig for "pleasure", and got the "business"!  

So I gather that you mean that something that is visible above ground lending cause to excavate, with pictures, GPS location, a plan of donor sponsorship, a plan of academic sponsorship, environmental impact study, land ownership identification from the Bureau of Records, etc. -- would be what I would require for a minimum cost of 200k in US dollars to dig...is that close to correct?

I figured that the exploratory cost of digs would have been closer to 600-700k.  But isn't there a type of high tech sonar that can be used, like the kind in which an engineer blows off a stick of dynamite, and reads off the waves between the posts to map what's underground?  I would assume that such outfits are probably either non-existent in Israel, or would clearly not be allowed to operate in an archaeological capacity...for obvious reasons.

Humorously, I can just imagine...here we have the one and only definitive 1000 B.C. King David inscription a matter of 6 or 8 inches under the surface, and "boom"...we blow it into 17 pieces,  Then when presenting it for view, BAR finds out we used Krazy Glue or some other superglue (perhaps "gorilla glue"?) to hold it together and declares the inscription a fake.    Great day in the morning!

 I guess we ought to tack on another 100 - 200 k for the camera crews to document how "amateur hour" meets the science of archaeology.  Maybe if we create scene where we use hook up oversized industrial vacuums, like some kind of sand blaster sucker-upper, we could vacuum these holes in the desert and fill them back up again.     I'm kidding...I'm just kidding.

Seriously, though.  Investing even 200k is out of my price range, and I wouldn't even try without utilizing experts and the networking perhaps only a university (such as Chicago or Harvard or Hebrew) could provide.  I am sure I would have to at least double or triple the 200k figure then.  

In regard to Tall el-Hammon, the commentator in Barnes notes on Genesis speaks of a need to ascend to higher ground, and up a mountain to safety.  But Lot negotiates for Zoar, which is simply something nearby.  
If Tall El-Hammon's 3 feet of ash shows the city was but 60 feet in elevation, maybe I should be looking for a Zoar at 200 or 300 feet in elevation.  By the same token, my guess at Zoar in the south may also have to be changed to something that would have been naturally topographically higher at the time, something as partial up a slope, but high enough for someone who is either sick or obese to ascend without trouble.   Perhaps I should be looking for a small plateau? 

When landscapes are altered in time, it becomes difficult to adjust the mind to the concept of valleys and plains being as they once were.  An example is the now shallow depths of the Kidron and Hinom Valleys in Jerusalem.  The Romans and who knows who else, covered at least 30 feet against the Eastern Wall that we know of.  How deep the Valley was when David knew it and when Jesus went through it, we don't know.

  Josephus lists the southeast corner of the Temple Mount as over 450 feet in height in his day.  I don't recollect reading where anyone has gone down to the base to discount or confirm the height of that corner.  Since the southern wall collapsed a bit at its bulge not that long ago, I would wager that unless it becomes an exclusive new Moslem entrance in that Southeastern Temple Mount corner, that no one ever will know the true height of that corner...if they haven't done so already.

 But to see the Valleys of the Kidron and Hinom in pictures, one could easily get a sense of exagerration as to the height of valleys and the city, etc., by applying current visualization of topography against the past...until one knows differently by either excavation, or a study of the literary historical texts, and takes them at their word that it was once so.  

In a sense, the current topography 4,000 years later, appears to favor Tall el-Hammon as the Kikkar. But what of 4,000 years ago?  Perhaps the entire Dead Sea lake area was more kikkar than the Tall el-Hammon area...the former Dead Sea Plain then being the Great Kikkar versus the Lesser Kikkar of Tall el-Hammon's area.  (Just exploring ideas and concepts here.)

In some ways...the search for lost cities is placed on an error factor of utilizing and depending to much upon surface geography that might not have existed 2000, 3000, 4000 years ago.  Sometimes rivers and streams dry up, landscapes change with wars, natural disasters, and time...and it falls to mountains or known sites, and the nuance of this or that word which will either point us to or away from a site we know to have existed, but can't as yet prove.  

Perhaps Lot could have turned east at Masada when the Dead Sea Region was as yet but a Plain and the river Jordan ran fresh water through its fields...I don't know.  We as yet cannot verify that the exact distance the Jordan ran in the Sodomic era, can we?  I am of a mind that this might also have some significance to it; but maybe not.

But before conceding to the northern theory, something always nags at me about the Dead Sea being for a reason...and the certainty of extinction which Jesus places upon it...


And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.  Matthew 11:23

The qualifier is not on the goodness or badness of a repopulation of Sodom society, but upon an original population, which therewith negates the possibility of a repopulation...to remain until the day Jesus spoke this saying as recorded in Matthew 11:23.

 If nothing else, this above point of matthew 11:23 is a chasm that cannot be crossed by the fact that there are various post-Sodomic destruction strata at Tall el-Hammon through the Iron Age into the NT era which I believe you have testified to have assisted in excavating.  Is that not correct?  When in the Roman era was Tall el-Hammon existing versus Jesus' words in circa 27-29 A.D.? 

Thanks in advance. 

Peace.

[eliyahu hanavi]

And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.  Matthew 11:23

The qualifier is not on the goodness or badness of a repopulation of Sodom society, but upon an original population, which therewith negates the possibility of a repopulation...to remain until the day Jesus spoke this saying as recorded in Matthew 11:23.  If nothing else, this is a chasm that cannot be crossed by the fact that there are various post-Sodomic destruction strata at Tall el-Hammon through the Iron Age into the NT era which I believe you have testified to have assisted in excavating.  Is that not correct?  When in the Roman era was Tall el-Hammon existing versus Jesus' words in circa 27-29 A.D.?  

Ah, but then it seems to me that you get into interpretive and theological issues rather than simply geographical. For instance, the reinhabiting, rebuilding and renaming of the area/site does not negate or conflict with Yeshua's statement. Simply put, Sodom as such, did no longer exist from the moment that it was destroyed and yet there could just as easily have been a city/town rebuilt upon the ruins. I suppose that it all depends upon whether one is a literalist or not. I read no contradiction, but I do see how others might. Cheers!

[turanclancath]

Honorable Dr.Collins.
I have a question about Chronology.
Would you be so kind to  inform me please.

on 3 April you wrote about Chronology:



there's an entire archaeological period of about 350 years between them (the Intermediate Bronze Age).
The disagreement between Garstang and Kenyon, moderated by Wood, was one of the ceramic differences between MB III (old MB IIB) and LB I. One of the problems in that context is that there was basically no discontinuity, either culturally or ceramically, between MB III and LB I. So there was, and is, a lot of room for disagreement. It's simply not a clear and distinct cultural horizon.
But this is in no way the case between EB III and the MBA. As I pointed out previously, the EB and the MB are two entirely different cultural complexes, and there's no way in the world to miscontrue the distinctions between the two. In fact, even the IB is quite distinct from either EB or MB, and it separates the former and latter. Again, Abram belongs well into the MB, and thus Sodom, too. Now, Sodom likely does go all the way back to the EB, as reflected in the pre-Abrahamic period of Gen 10. Of course, many of the Jordan Kikkar sites north of the Dead Sea all reflect this occupational profile.
Please get hold of this unequivocal FACT: the southern sites had all been abandoned for hundreds of years before Abram was ever born.
Yes, at one time, the southern sites, during the Chalcolithic and EB, enjoyed a better climatological regime than in later times. But toward the end of the EB, the climate went south (no pun intended---Oh, maybe!), and their marginal existence came to a screeching halt. By 2350 BCE or so most of the southern sites were abandoned. A very few of them sustained small, open villages for a while, but by about 2200 they were all done for, never to be occupied again. Not because of some fiery destruction, but because of the lack of water. The existence of bigger towns like Bab edh-Dhra was marginal at best, even at their height of occupation. Even during its best days, Bab edh-Dhra would never have been interpreted as having existed in a well-watered area. That southern region never had a perennial river, but only seasonal runoff through the local wadis. It must also be noted that compared to northern sites like Tall el-Hammam, Bab edh-Dhra was a comparatively small, dreary place.
By comparison, Tall el-Hammam enjoyed continuous occupation from the Chalcolithic Period, through the EB, IB, and into the MB. It was THE big town in the rift valley for nearly 3000 years (maybe more, if she's got Neolithic, which is a distinct possibility). All of Bab edh-Dhra's occupations were contemporaneous with Tall el-Hammam, but when Bab edh-Dhra went belly up in 2350 BCE due to the climate change, Tall el-Hammam and her neighbors continued on without a hitch. Of course, this was due to the plentiful water resources on the eastern Jordan Disk: oft-running wadis, abundant springs, reasonable winter rainfall, and the mighty Jordan River itself which annually overflowed its banks like a Nile in miniature.
Magnificent Tall el-Hammam was in full swing long before and during the time of Abram. She was the power in the Jordan Valley. If she and her local mates were not the prominant Cities of the Plain in Genesis, then they are strangely missing, invisible to the Abrahamic narrative. This would be virtually impossible to explain.
Please put your logic-cap on and consider this: If EB Bab edh-Dhra was Sodom, then why in the world would Lot, traveling from the area of Bethel/Ai, have bypassed the nearby and wonderfully-watered southern Jordan Valley with its massive urban center, Tall el-Hammam (minimally five times bigger than Bab edh-Dhra!), in order to travel much further down to comparatively-dreary Bab edh-Dhra? Compared to Tall el-Hammam, Bab edh-Dhra was a rathole on the edge of survival and, indeed, was unable to withstand a shift in climate that the cities north of the Dead Sea barely noticed.
The biblical Cities of the Plain were the powermongers of the Rift Valley. And Sodom was the big dog on the block. They prospered together through the EB, IB, into the MB. They were the geographical darlings of the Genesis writer. Only Tall el-Hammam and the other EB-IB-MB cities on the eastern Jordan Disk (kikkar) fit the bill for this historical role. It's no wonder that the Albrightian myth of a southern Sodom is now, itself, history. The evidence emerging from exploration and excavation on the eastern Jordan Disk north of the Dead Sea is, at long last, revealing the world of Abraham and Lot precisely as the Bible describes it.
What else can I say?

SC

-----------------------------------------------------


Well all these periodisations and abbreviations swarm like butterflies around
and in this topic.

Would you be so kind to give for instruction here your periodisation  with DATA,

like Early Bronze IA  from circa ..... till circa...

Intermediate Bronze from circa ... till circa ...

Middle Bronze IIA from circa .... till circa ....

etc  down to Iron II or III

Without this periodisation i cant follow the discussion  its like arimethics

( i think i,m not the only  1 who cant follow the arimethics )
In appreciating and understanding your  work it would be very helpfull.

And if not to much labour could you say i place the Venerable Patriarch Abram in circa .....

Again i would be very pleased if you are so courtois to honour  my request.

By the way for a Bar publication as you plan i think the general reader absolutely needs such a grid to understand the paper .

Have a nice weekend.

turanclancath

[archaeologist]

but then it seems to me that you get into interpretive and theological issues rather than simply geographical.

i am going ot disagree with you here as deut. 29:23 states:

the whole land will be a burning waste of salt and sulfur-- noting planted, noting sprouting, no vegetation growing on it.  it will be like the destruction of sodom and gomorrah, admah, and zeboiim, wich the Lord overthrew in fierce anger

there is no room for repopulation and we can turn to jeremiah 49:18:

as s. & g. were overthrown, along with their neighboring towns, so no one will live there; no man shall dwell in it

jeremiah 50:40 repeats the same curse but against babylon, the above was for edom.

ezekiel 16:49-53 talk about sodom being restored but that is about 1000 years later or more before that took place.  dr. collins gave a figure of 500 years yet we do not know if the city was restored as Jesus' words imply that it wasn't.

amos 4:11 does not mention a restored sodom:

i overthrew sme of you as i overthrew s. & g....

zeph. 2:9 sheds more light on the destructivenss of God's actions:

Therefore as i surely live, declares the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel surely, moab will become like sodom, the ammonites like gomorrah-- a place of weeds and salt pits, a wasteland forever

there we have the clear words that sodom was not restored but was to be a wasteland for ever.  which applies to the southern theory not the northern one.

luke 10:12, 17:29; rom. 9:29; 2 pet. 2:6, jud. 7  all indicate that sodom was not re-populated but remained destroyed.

this is the danger of sticking only to one passage as one misses out on further information which clarifies what really took place and how long the destruction was for.

as i said earlier when God destroys something it stays destroyed thus any idea of building on top of the ruins is out of the question and not in line with all the passages that speak on the topic.

also, as i said earlier, there is not one scholar that i have read who has even hinted at some immense catastrophe or destruction happening in the jordon valley.  this is an event we would have known about long ago if it tookplace in such a beautiful spot.

again, a wasteland is not fertile valley and in reading the description of the type of action that took place i doubt there was any regrowth of anything.

[archaeologist]

in this heated debate, posts get lost and it is difficult to track them down agan after so many long replies are posted.  to answer d. graves on this one:

What is your criteria for complete or incomplete data?

actually i use a lot of Kitchen's statements from his book, The Bible in Its World, pages 10ff.  plus others.  also knowing that when a town is dug up the majority of writings are gone. 

as for the other questions i can't quote them.  i understand what everyone means by the categories but i think that they have been sub-divided way too much and the fine line is crossed far too often.

so many sub-divisions makes it easier to say one event did not happen when the Bible says but happened earlier or later and it is a good tool to hide the truth.

[eliyahu hanavi]

It is still interpretive and theological as you are taking a literalist approach. I do not and I also know about the culture's penchant for hyperbole. I'll look at each verse you mentioned as I only see one that might be definitely taken as being "forever" and only if taken literally and not as being hyperbole.

Deuteronomy 29:23
The whole land will be a burning waste of salt and sulfur—nothing planted, nothing sprouting, no vegetation growing on it. It will be like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in fierce anger.

And at the time that Moses wrote it, this was indeed true. There is nothing in this verse that states that any/all of those cities would remain that way forever.

Jeremiah 49:18
As Sodom and Gomorrah were overthrown,
       along with their neighboring towns,"
       says the LORD,
       "so no one will live there;
       no man will dwell in it.

The future of Edom is being compared to the past of Sodom and Gomorrah. It does not state that Sodom and Gomorrah would remain that way (or that the areas were even then that way). As Jeremiah 50:40 is a reiteration of the same curse for Babylon, then I won't repeat it.

Ezekiel 16:49-53
I won't copy these verses, but if anything should be read in a theological light then these should. They are clearly teaching a moral and spiritual lesson and do not in any way compare to a physical Sodom and Gomorrah. Some of the above verses seem to be theological as well, but not nearly like these. I wouldn't even consider using these as evidence for/against any theory about the location of Sodom.

Amos 4:11
"I overthrew some of you as I overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. You were like a burning stick..."

You are correct. It mentions nothing about a restored Sodom. It also does not preclude a restored Sodom and Gomorrah under other later names. Once again, interpretive. You are interpreting verse in an entirely different manner from me, but you are still interpreting (which kind of goes against your own disagreement)

Zephania 2:9
Therefore as I surely live...a wasteland forever."

I agree that if read in a literal manner and not considering all of the hyperbole that this looks like a situation where Sodom and Gomorrah would never become inhabited again. I don't interpret it that way because of the exaggerated nature of the verse. Moab (a large area) and Ammon (a large area) will become a complete and utter wasteland forever without inhabitants? No, I don't think so--hyperbole.

Luke 10:12
I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.
 
No indication that Sodom will remain uninhabited or destroyed.

Luke 17:29
29But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.

Once again, no indication that Sodom would remain that way forever. Just stating what happened during Lot's time.

Romans 9:29
It is just as Isaiah said previously:
   "Unless the Lord Almighty
      had left us descendants,
   we would have become like Sodom,
      we would have been like Gomorrah."

As all in Sodom and Gomorrah were supposedly destroyed (except Lot), then no original inhabitant had descendants. If reinhabited centuries later, then this verse also remains intact.

2 Peter 2:6
if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;

Once again, God did do this, but it talks nothing about the area remaining uninhabited.

Jude 1:7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

I presume this to be the verse you refer to here. Yes, the original inhabitants would be the example. It does not indicate anything else.

as i said earlier when God destroys something it stays destroyed thus any idea of building on top of the ruins is out of the question and not in line with all the passages that speak on the topic.

Okay. However, I read a similar argument from this site...

Destruction of Tyre

Here is a quote:
In verses 19-21, Ezekiel said that there would come a time when the city is "desolate," "no longer inhabited," and submerged underwater. I believe that this was fulfilled completely by Alexander when he tossed the ruins of mainland Tyre into the sea to build the land bridge that helped him to conquer the island of Tyre. Alexander's conquest brought an end - a permanent end - to the Phoenician Empire. And from that point on, the Phoenician city of Tyre ceased to exist. A city cannot be more desolate or more uninhabited than one that no longer exists. And yes, there is indeed a city called Tyre in modern-day Lebanon, and indeed it might be sitting on the exact same spot as the original Tyre. But this is Lebanon's Tyre - not the Phoenician Tyre that had taunted the Jews and had gloated over the destruction of the Holy City of Jerusalem. It was the Phoenician Tyre that Ezekiel was speaking of, and that city no longer exists:

So, we have someone here who maintains a similar stance and then they acknowledge that there is a modern Tyre that is "Lebanon's Tyre-not the Phoenician Tyre". They fail to recognize that a prophet engaged in exaggeration as well. It does not mean that I don't believe in God, but I am not a Fundamentalist.

also, as i said earlier, there is not one scholar that i have read who has even hinted at some immense catastrophe or destruction happening in the jordon valley.  this is an event we would have known about long ago if it tookplace in such a beautiful spot.

As the Northern Theory has been proposed for many years, then that is indeed more than a "hint". It has been proposed by many scholars. If they locate it there, then it follows that they "hint" or rather propose that some catastrophe, destruction, war or something happened there. Also, what makes one think that we would have known about it long ago? Consider Herod's tomb. Josephus told us what city and it has just recently been discovered. What's worse is that there is still no firm proof that it is his tomb--just extremely high probability. How long did Troy remain hidden? Wait, the Bible talks extensively about some Ark with tablets, a jar of manna and Aaron's rod so why don't we have it? There are thousands of sites in Israel that won't be excavated any time soon (if ever). We didn't have Biblical mention of Ebla (to my knowledge). Considering the vast amount of things we DO NOT KNOW, it seems strange that you would argue that we would or even should know about Sodom and Gomorrah.

[DGraves]

jeremiah 50:40 repeats the same curse but against babylon, the above was for edom.

ezekiel 16:49-53 talk about sodom being restored but that is about 1000 years later or more before that took place.  dr. collins gave a figure of 500 years yet we do not know if the city was restored as Jesus' words imply that it wasn't.

The fact that Babylon and Edom (Petra) were repopulated argues against your interpretation of the curse and for the repopulation of the Sodom area. There are Roman ruins at Petra the famous Edomite territory.

Your examples make my point. Thanks

DG

[turanclancath]

Time for a poll but i cant see a poll button.
Who can fix it?

Poll.

I.
The northern hypothesis is more convincing.

II.the southern hypothesis is more convincing.

III.both are only an unproven hypothesis.


And Dr.Steve or Magister David
can you answer please my question under nr 204 of this postings before its snowed under

thanks in advance.

turanclancath