this has to be ...

[eliyahu hanavi]

Well, sounds like some petulance to me--at least from one person. 

[eliyahu hanavi]

one of the deadest forums going.  i have been gone for awhile so it cannot be my fault.

The rest of us on this forum might refer to this as peacefulness rather than being "dead". I don't know if it is your fault or not, but I don't wish to trade it back in order to find out. Cheers!

[notalent]

how could i be wrong? my original mentioning of the issue said --2 destructions, not 2 burn layers.  and yes i was alluding to a possibility but no one knows if the FIRST destruction contained burning or not.  the article said, the first layer was in line with what was described in the Bible.

which still doesn't allow for T.H. to be considered sodom.  there is only 1 destructive layer which could have taken place when the israelite tribes of reuban, Gad and manessah occupied the land.

If a city is merely looted, you won't see that in an archaeological layer.  But if it is razed, then you will most likely see that.  And since the razing (by God) was so soon in time after the looting, then whatever detritus that could be detected from that would be hopelessly intermingled with the razed layer anyway.  The Bible text suggest nothing more than that Chedorlaomer looted the cities of all that was valuable, along with the intelligentsia.  So there's no requirement to find another destruction layer.

one cannot rely on the dating techniques of man because there are too many possibilities which undermine any hope of accuracy and the same goes for the 'ages' as the article pointed out so well.

in this country, you could ot get an accurate reading of the dating because ancienthomes as well as modern exist side by side and if you dug in the wrong spot you would get a very wrong idea of which 'age' the structures existed.

one has to be honest if they are going to get tothe truth, not manipulative nor fudging when fudging is in one's favor.

That's an ironic statement coming from a non-archaeologist, wouldn't you say?

[archaeologist]

If a city is merely looted, you won't see that in an archaeological layer.  But if it is razed, then you will most likely see that.

read the article from aish and then bryant wood's article. 

[notalent]

one of the deadest forums going.  i have been gone for awhile so it cannot be my fault.

Surely you must agree that it's less dead than your forum, where not only are you there, you actually run the place.

[archaeologist]

my forum is that way because i do not advertise, don't have the time nor the talent to be a salesman.

If a city is merely looted, you won't see that in an archaeological layer

you obviously have no idea what looters and plunderers do to a city.  try looking at a riot sometime and see what destruction takes place when one loots and plunders, then transpose that to a smaller town, weaker building materials, and so on.  you will get the idea.

[notalent]

my forum is that way because i do not advertise, don't have the time nor the talent to be a salesman.

I can think of two other forums that don't advertise which are 20 times busier than this one.  I'm not sure advertising has much to do with it.

If a city is merely looted, you won't see that in an archaeological layer

you obviously have no idea what looters and plunderers do to a city.  try looking at a riot sometime and see what destruction takes place when one loots and plunders

I lived through the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles in person.  I'll wager you can find no trace of that disturbance today, no matter how hard you dig to find it.  Perhaps you'll concede that in fact I do have some idea what looters and plunderers can do to a city.

Or find traces of the riots of the 1960's in any major US city.  I bet you can find no trace.

  , then transpose that to a smaller town, weaker building materials, and so on.  you will get the idea.

Yes, I get the idea that virtually no trace would be found during times of continuous habitation.

[archaeologist]

don't know about finding no trace... i guess detroit and new york along with chicago would have something to say about it.  but then you are comparing  two different types of cities, construction, plus, in 25 years who is to say what could be found.

also the size matters, the attitudes of those involved, how do we know the sodomites rebuilt over the destroyed homes?  they may have built on different land, they had plenty.

i do not have a problem with 2 destructions being evident i do have a problem with 1 as those who advocate one are looking for any excuse to justify their mis-interpretation of scripture.

you can't compare the riots of the 60's in america with sodom for evidence , you can on determining what looting and plundering can do.