Talk:Sodom and Gomorrah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sodom and Gomorrah article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents

[edit] Christian Views

The comment about Greek and Roman societies as an explanation of a story that was much older seems sort of irrelevant and it isn't well sourced.

Also this section claims to represent two different opinions, but really gives very little attention to the second. It really appears that the author of this section wants to stress the inhospitality part without giving any reference to equally held views that might be seen as a condemnation of homosexuality. I think both sides should be considered fully, I would like to offer a third view that the city was not destroyed for an particular sin but as it says in the text: "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave" --Kraftlos (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm more convinced now that a critical mass of sin was the reason, not for any particular sin. The sodomy/gangrape inccident would just have been a microcausim of the general sinful condition of the city as there were not authorities present to stop the inccident or the authorities were complicant in the activity (it is also evidenced by the fact that Lot offered his daughters to the mob).
"That they were all wicked, v. 4. Wickedness had become universal, and they were unanimous in any vile design. Here were old and young, and all from every quarter, engaged in this riot; the old were not past it, and the young had soon come up to it. Either they had no magistrates to keep the peace, and protect the peaceable, or their magistrates were themselves aiding and abetting.
That they had arrived at the highest pitch of wickedness; they were sinners before the Lord exceedingly (ch. 13:13); for, 1. It was the most unnatural and abominable wickedness that they were now set upon, a sin that still bears their name, and is called Sodomy. They were carried headlong by those vile affections (Rom. 1:26, 27), which are worse than brutish, and the eternal reproach of the human nature, and which cannot be thought of without horror by those that have the least spark of virtue and any remains of natural light and conscience."commentary by Matthew Henry (1706-1717)
Commentary by John Wesley. Another commentary by Adam Clarke. Also a more recent commentary by David Guzik. The commentary by John Calvin seems to express both views that it was both their sexual sin and their inhospitiblity.
What I'm noticing in this Christian views section is that someone is trying to make a case that homosexuality is not a sin. Such a debate is not what is trying to be accomplished here, we just need to present views as they are. The church has traditionally regarded homosexuality as one of many reasons that the city was destroyed and to diminish that would be to skew the article toward a more liberal position. I realize though that this is a serious topic of debate right now, especially in the Anglican denomication. Please try to keep WP:NPOV in mind and not try to impose one particular view over this section. I'm going to be working in some commentaries into this section, hopefully for both views. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Addendum, I appologize that my references are only to protestant commentaries. I'll try to get some pre-reformation and Catholic sources as well. --Kraftlos (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Catholic commentaries by Thomas Haydock Genesis 19. --Kraftlos (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References look wrong

It seems that at a certain point some error was introduced in the reference to Strabo and that messed up all the references. I deleted a 'REF' tag and now references look OK, but I see that a verb is missing in the last sentence. It seems that the last sentence should be "Strabo identifies a limestone..." or something like that Mariostorti (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Faulty References

I'm looking at Records of the Past XI page 115 and there is no such article cited here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.74.96 (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stolen?

Part of the introduction is word-for-word what Catholic Encyclopedia has for this subject. Any ideas?

I just looked it up, it's not word for word anymore, but it does seem like someone started the article by simply copying and pasting; which is borderline plagiarism. --Kraftlos (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Däniken

What about Erich von Däniken's view? He was saying something interesting about Soddoma, although not true probably. Shukalo83

[edit] Masturbation?

Isn't sodomite someone who commits masturbation? -Adrian

No, you're thinking of Onanism. - montréalais

[edit] "scientific view"

that section is full of religious propaganda. Since when are biblical scholars "scientists?" I'm thinking of revising that.

what if we add another view, called SKEPTICAL VIEW? 02:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

well, isn't "rational" = skeptical??? Coontie 04:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Too many quotes

RK, while you added some interesting material, but there are way too many quotes for my taste. Also, one of the main problems with the article was that it began in the end. The story of Sodom appeared before Lot's daughters, which I started getting to. Abraham's bargain with God, the war of the five kings, etc. I also have a problem with the abundance of Jewish interpretations, which give an unstated sense of Judaism versus Christianity in interpretting the story of Sodom (even though you did not do so explicitly). I do not think that is the case. It is more a result of interpretations reflecting particular social conditions at the time of their composition, whether by Jews, Christians, or others. I will take a better look at it Sunday night, when I get back. Danny

[edit] POV sentence

This sentence sounds like someone's POV:

However, it should be noted that the events that form the basis of this claim only occur in the narrative after God passes sentence on the cities.

The contributor appears to be making his own argument here. I'd prefer to see this POV attributed, but I'm not going to take it out. --Ed Poor

[edit] Start is arguably myth ?

The initial sentence, which appears to present fact, falls into the general category of arguable myth/biblical history, no ?

The opener has apparently been revised in reponse to this objection.Wetman 13:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "were generally depraved"

because the inhabitants were generally depraved (Monty Python influence here?) "General" depravity is not a sensible part of "Jewish views" Wetman 13:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Carnal knowledge

Can we assume that "know" is used "in the Biblical sense"? -- Error 01:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Doubtful - if I recall correctly (and I'm only going on what I've read), the verb "to know" is used may times in the Bible and only rarely explicitly means, and is translated as, "to have sex with". Furthermore in the context of Sodom there's a strong alternative meaning - bear in mind this is an ultra xenophobic city where two strangers arrive and immediately go to the home of the one foreigner. Naturally the mobs would be curious - they would want "to know" who these strangers are and why they're in town. Timrollpickering 00:16, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
See my comment at the bottom of the page. Drostie 06:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Syphillis

What's that mention of syphillis? According to our article, there are no evidences of it before 600 BC. -- Error 01:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looks suspiciously like vandalism to me. That sentence doesn't match the rest of that paragraph. --Jarsyl 06:52, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
From a Google of the words 'Ba'Hadra' and 'syphilis' this sentence is found on quite a few sites. Some sites say "do not show" and some say "do show". The most obvious reason is a vandal has removed the 'not' on wikipedia. But what is interesting to me is that this sentence is out of place in any form (with or without not). I can't find any other references to Ba'Hadra and skeletons being found there. If anyone can show research into finding skeletons at the site of Ba'Hadra, then this sentence can remain, otherwise it should be removed. 8 June 2005

I have removed the following sentence: "Therefore "Sodomite" is incorrect entirely as a term for homosexuals." Maybe we should not use the word "Trojan" because there is little evidence of "Trojan horse"? This is a word that has been around the English language for centuries, so why the need to question it now? Watcher 10:41, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Um..."nigger" was used for quite a long time to describe blacks. I am certain you can come up with additional examples. Used to describe gays, "sodomite" is far from neutral and obviously is a slur. Perhaps a resurrection of "papist" (also a word that has been around in the English language, probably for centuries) or perhaps "kike"? "Sodomite" is reserved as a term for an inhabitant of the city of Sodom.

[edit] What is the source of this section?

What is the source of this section? Reformist Torah Approach with Hebrew translations. Is this supposed to represent the views of Reform Judaism? That subject is covered in-depth, with references, in Jewish views of homosexuality. Wikipedia is not the place for original Biblical analyses, so matter how interesting or defensible. If this a Reform Jewish view (such as from the Plaut commentary on the Torah, by the UAHC) that is accepted within Reform, then we can note this. Is this supposed to be a historical-critical approach? Them why separate it from the above section? Sources? (The Anchor Bible Commentary, and the JPS Torah Commentary, would be a good place to look.) RK 21:03, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


- I don't know, but it was severely flawed; it was based on a complete textual misunderstanding ("anashim" is actually the plural of "ish" not a different word - it just has a somewhat irregular form.) I gave it an extensive edit to fix it up. I have no idea which denomination it is supposed to represent and I doubt that Reform Judaism has any single "official" textual interpretation.

I think this section would best work as a nondenomination example of what you might notice if you examine the text from a non-"traditional" angle. Perhaps, in this light, it should be merged into one of the previous sections.

[edit] The {} sign/s

One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning were removed by User:Sam Spade, and I even agree with him! Hopefully there will be further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 08:32, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Random musing...

Why isn't Lot condemned for offering his own two virgin daughters to a mob for sex? Just wondering... - Cheryl

It would be better to ask why he isn't condemned for having sex with them himself. Drostie 06:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
He's not chastised for offering them to the mob because, as their father, it was in his authority to offer them in such a manner if he saw fit. The fact that he was ruining any marriage prospects for them was his responsibility, and his offering up their virtue for the greater good of the laws of hospitality provided fair justification. As for his committing incest, he was not guilty, since it was at the initiative of the daughters, and they had gotten him drunk so he did not know he was doing it, and could not be regarded as responsible. --Svartalf 10:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, he is very much condemned for both acts in the Jewish tradition. Frikle 22:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Really? Never saw any such thing, mind sourcing that comment? --Svartalf 22:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I can't remember exactly where it was from. I'll try look for something in the next while. However as far as I see, many Jews would disagree with your above paragraph. Lot is NOT presented as a sympathetic figure in the Tanach. The fact that there is no specific condemnation does not mean anything, the passages around this incident follow the same pattern: no explicit condemnation. Also, where in halakha does a father have authority to give his daughter up for rape? Marriage maybe but not assault. As for the second incident, I'm pretty sure tradition gives this as an example of the horrors of alcoholism and condemns Lot for his negligence. Furthermore, by the second night I'm pretty sure he knew what was going on (according to commentaries).

Anyway the whole evaluation of the incident is not clearcut - and I've seen modern debates about these incidents. Frikle 03:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Honestly, your assertions surprise me. a) the Tanakh texts do specify he was loved of G*d, since he was saved from the destruction, even despite having offered his daughters to the mob in the presence of the angels; and nothing is said about his losing divine favor after his daughters begat children with him. Now, it's true, I have no access to talmudic sources, but I've never heard of Jewish doctrine being disapproving of Lot's action. --Svartalf 10:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I once heard it suggested that Lot's comment was sarcastic. "You want to abuse my guests? Huh? You might as well rape my virgin daughters!" Which would also explain why the crowd is insulted and angered by the suggestion. Food for thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.252.139 (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Textual references and translations.

[edit] Presentation

First off, I would like to suggest that the quote here come from the NRSV, not the KJV. The NRSV is the current scholarly translation, and Wikipedia is meant to be a scholarly resource. I'll be changing it myself if nobody's responded to this comment within a couple of days; tell me if you're extremely concerned about this.

Secondly, it's academically dishonest to say "In this context, 'know' is a euphemism for sexual intercourse." The Hebrew word used for "know" is indeed used occasionally to refer to carnally knowing your wife. However, this is a broad usage of a primitive root; the exact same construction appears in the following:

Psalm 39:4, "that I may know <03045> (8799) how frail I am,"
Psalm 101:4, "A froward [sic] heart shall depart from me: I will not know <03045> (8799) a wicked person" (which is explicitly not talking about sex),
Daniel 9:25, "Know <03045> (8799) therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time."
Jer 31:34, "And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know <03045> (8798) the LORD : for they shall all know <03045> (8799) me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

(Many of these come from the KJV because I'm intellectually lazy at the moment.)

... the list can go on and on. See this Google search for as many examples as you want.

Indeed, the specificness of the construction isn't particularly important (that is, you can ignore the (8799) part), because not all passages talking about sex use (8799)

Gen 4:1, "And Adam knew <03045> (8804) <0853> Eve."

So, I would challenge that statement as not being particularly NPOV given the textual data. Moreover, we have reason to think that this is not explicit, because the different Rabbis cited in the rest of the article never took it that way. These are people fluent in Hebrew who did not substantiate this interpretation.

I think we can delete that parenthetical comment safely, as it is neither factual nor NPOV.

I ask that replies to this Talk comment come in subsection form (see the first line of this section) so that it's clear to readers when someone else is speaking.

.Drostie 06:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Presense of Sulphur

Can someone add some "quick link" (As in... a link to an accredited article from a reputable site) confirming the "Sulphur from Earthquake" theory?

I'd like to add that followed a link from Google searching for "evidence of Soddom and Gomorrah" (not that exact string, however) and came accross this site with photographs of the sulphur deposits that appear to be circular in shape, thus backing up the claims that God really did "rain fire" down on the cities. I'm presently unable to do this, so can someone find the site with this info on? I remember it having a pale-blue (but not cyan) background with a reference to a comic-book on it.

A quick search turns out two bible-archaeology pages with photographic and some scientific evidence. [1] and [2]


I really wouldn't trust either of those pages. Ron Wyatt is a known fraud, and the other site could have easily been faked as well, and clearly has a religious agenda. I've done several google searches and all have failed to find any neutral sites that mention the sulfur. Smells like like bullshit to me.

Apparently the "sulfur balls" are nothing special; see this page [3]. Pfalstad 00:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

No. The "sulfer balls" are a big deal, and they were found. I do not agree with Ron Wyatt, but do not throw out the baby with the bath water. [4]

I don't get it. That article seems to acknowledge that the earthquake theory is very plausible (and I would argue far more plausible than the fireballs from God theory), but still says it must have been fireballs from God.

[edit] Lot and his daughters

The bible says that his daughters got him drunk to have intercourse, and he was unaware of what was happening so this statement: "...the incident where Lot's daughters have sex with their father soon after they escape the city, means that this is not a tale of sexual morality, but a condemnation of rape..." seems to overlook the context of the situation.

Even so, how is rape not about sexual morality? You seem to overlook the obvious.Boscobites (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Sodom?

Does anyone have any information on the archaeological evidence for the existence of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their locations?

Martin.

See the links above under "Presense of Sulphur"

Just found a link to an archaeological dig newsletter which claims that Bab edh-Dhra is unlikely to be the historical site of Sodom since it was destroyed way before Abraham and Lot were even born. It claims another site, Tall el-Hammam, is a more likely location of Sodom. [5]

Reply: That seems like a flimsy basis on which to throw out the Bab edh-Dhra theory. How can they even know for certain when Abraham and Lot were born in order to use those dates as proof?

Andy R.

[edit] Gomorrah

What is the sin of Gomorrah? The Sodomites are getting all the fame! -- Unknown

Seriously... there is a statement at the beginning of the article, explicitly stating that (in relation to the cities):

Since then, their names are synonymous with impenitent sin

Yet, there is absolutely no reference as to what sin "Gomorrah" is synonymous to. If there is a sin that Gomorrah is synonymous to, it should be added, otherwise this statement should be altered not to be confusing. --89.212.75.6 17:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what did Gomorrah ever do to deserve destruction? Mathwhiz90601 04:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religious tolerancewebsite as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not. Religioustolerance.org is agenda driven, but, of course, when you realize that people are attempting to split hairs and pose everything-but-the-kitchen-sink arguments to change the well known meaning of this passage when other passages in the Bible clearly state, without ambiguity, exactly what is and is not sexually moral, you will soon realize to argue with such types is almost pointless and that you most likely have much better uses for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boscobites (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
From what I read in that link, it appears that the concensus was that while it is a fairly popular and mainstream site, that it should probably be used as commentary and not as a primary source. So using it as an external link would be just fine in this case. --Kraftlos (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using the term Homosexual is an anachronism

I my opinion it is illogical to interpret any Biblical verse or commentary as directly related to homosexuality. The term itself was invented in the 19th century in Germany to tag a psychological behavior, regarded as a mental illness. The meaning of the term has shifted from a behavioral point of view to one of identity in the twentieth century (in western parts of the world).

The term "homosexual" is an anachronism? LOL Just because they used different words in 2000 BC? It's certainly not an anachronism today, the word is in common usage. Would it be less of an anachronism to use some comparable 2nd millennium term? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
No, the concept of being homosexual did not exist in 2000 BC. An ACT could be homosexual, but homosexuality in the sense of sexual orientation did not exist. There is no comparable term.
WE have created the concept of BEING and AFFIRMING homosexual acts, but whether or not you see a delineation between 'being' and 'doing' is your choice and, most importantly, missing the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boscobites (talk • contribs) 14:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The visitors' bed

One example is the story of the "bed" that guests to Sodom were forced to sleep in: if they were too short they were stretched to fit it, and if they were too tall, they were cut up.

Was this copied from the Procrustes story in Greek mythology, or was this a widespread myth amongst the eastern Mediterranean cultures? 66.245.84.235 07:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The destroying angels

At the end of Genesis 18, Abraham's encounter is with "three men". In the opening of Gen. 19, "two angels" arrive at Lot's house. Given that the three men at Abraham's are angels, what happened to the third by the time they arrived at Lot's? Was the third one Yahweh Himself? I've always wondered about that... Kirkesque 04:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

From Rashi himself:

18.2 and behold, three men One to bring the news [of Isaac’s birth] to Sarah, and one to overturn Sodom, and one to heal Abraham, for one angel does not perform two errands (Gen. Rabbah 50:2). You should know that [this is true] because throughout the entire chapter, Scripture mentions them in the plural, e.g., (below verse 8): “and they ate” ; (ibid. verse 9): “and they said to him.” Concerning the announcement, however, it says (ibid. verse 10): “And he said: I will surely return to you.” And concerning the overturning of Sodom, it says (below 19:22): “For I will not be able to do anything” ; (ibid. verse 21): “I will not overturn” (Gen. Rabbah 50:11). And Raphael, who healed Abraham, went from there to save Lot. This is what is stated:“And it came to pass when they took them outside, that he [the angel] said, ‘Flee for your life.’” You learn that only one acted as a deliverer.

19.1 the…angels But elsewhere (18:2) Scripture calls them men! When the Shechinah was with them, it calls them men. Another explanation: In connection with Abraham, whose power was great, and the angels were as frequently with him as men, it calls them men, but in connection with Lot, it calls them angels. — [from Gen. Rabbah 52; Tan. Buber, Vayera 20] SF2K1

[edit] Possible?

Could the Fire and Brimstone be the Biblical interpertation of a nuclear explosion above Sodom? An aerial deliveration of devistation could be a result of extraterrestrial, time travelers, anything. If you even remotely belive, for a moment, that extraterrestrials or time travelers could possibly exist, then would this be logical? The descriptions of the damage done fits the description of a nuclear attack, but no radiation or fallout is mentioned. - 70.109.72.185 23:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a violation of Occam's Razor. A more plausable explanation would be a city-busting meteorite. Has that theory ever been advanced by anyone? 74.71.238.25 03:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A far more plausible explaination would be a volcanic erupion of some sort. Brimstone is sulfer.--Phiddipus 20:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute the volcanic explanation: "Considering its supernatural origin, one would expect to find unique characteristics in such sulfur, and this is indeed the case. Its composition reveals lengthy exposure to high temperatures. Sulfur found in geothermal regions is invariably the "rhombic" form, evident from it's familiar bright yellow colour.

By contrast, the brimstone from these Dead Sea sites is the pale white "monoclinic" form. Sulphur changes to this form when exposed to high temperatures for an extended period of time, as would have been the case.. X-ray Fluorescence Semiquant analysis and other tests reveal the sulfur balls to be up to 98.4% pure sulphur, significantly more pure than naturally occurring sulphur.

The sulfur balls have been found at all five destroyed cities, and although numerous geologists have been consulted, no other examples of naturally occurring sulfur is found anywhere on earth that remotely resembles the form found at these sites."

And elsewhere on the same site (http://users.netconnect.com.au/~leedas/sodomgom.html): "Inside Pompeii, paintings in pristine condition can still be seen on the walls of the houses. People and animals buried during Pompeii's destruction have been unearthed as empty cavities. By contrast, everything at the Sodom & Gomorrah sites have been turned totally to ash. A skeleton found by Ron Wyatt in one of the lost cities still had human form but was composed of ash. Even the marrow, visible in the bones, was totally turned to ash.

The cities were built largely of limestone, and when limestone is incinerated with sulphur, it produces calcium sulphate ash. Analysis of the remains at Sodom & Gomorrah reveals it is very clean calcium sulphate, with virtually no trace elements. The fact that few trace elements remain is indicative of intense, fierce heat, enough to break down entire limestone buildings and vaporise all other minerals. Volcanism does not produce this kind of clean ash."

What do you say to that? (sorry for the length--but I think it's worth it for the sake of discussion and learning) --Sunshine, on 16th March, 2008.

Here is a new story concerning the "explosive asteroid" theory: Asteroid Destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Perhaps there should be a section concerning the debates as to how it was destroyed, if there is enough literature on the topic. BobertWABC (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

An asteroid hitting the Earth just a few thousand years ago would have left an enormous crater and unmistakable evidence. It would have also destroyed numerous other cities in the region. But there is another possibility, what if the story is just a story told to children to teach them about hospitality; I am not saying that the bible isn't the truth, I am saying that the book of genesis is mostly traditional Hebrew moral fables recorded by Moses, i.e. the truth is in the lesson, not the facts--Phiddipus (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the article, the scientists believe from interpretation of the planisphere that the asteroid would have hit in Austria at a place where there are unexplained geological features consistent with an impact. The question was not about whether or not the story is true, but whether there should be a section (and if there is enough literature to create a section) about possible explanations for the event assuming it were true. BobertWABC (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link(s)

The link to a webpage that presumable described "strange flesh" interpretations is dead: http://leesbiblepgs.topcities.com/Dictionary.html

[edit] Virgin Sacrifice

The article states that virgin sacrifices were common in Sodom, and suggests that Lot offered his daughters for such a purpose... This does not explain how they would have made a suitable substitute for the angels, unless the Sodomite crowd wanted to sacrifice them to the idols rather than simply rape them. I just wonder : how do we know that the Sodomites did practice human (and more specifically : virgin) sacrifices? I may have misread my bible, or just be victim from a crappy translation, but I did not see any mention of human sacrifice in connection with Sodom. --Svartalf 09:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is full of religion anti-homosexual propaganda without considering any actual valid source.

[edit] Appropriate Statement:

It was written in the article that "A similar event is recorded in the Judges 19:20-22, this time involving the town of Gibeah. This suggests that the occurrences in Sodom were not unique."

The only problem I see with this statement is that most of the bible, especially the Old Testament, has a number of stories that are reiterated again and again in a slightly different (or sometimes) completely different light in an effort to prove a point. Many of these stories have been accepted by biblical historians and archaeologists as being written backwards into the bible as a way of explaining why something happened in their contemporary day.

Thoughts about elaborating on that topic?

[edit] Ron Wyatt's stuff

someone have something to say about it? if you find something out thats conclusive - yes.. or no.. POST IT HERE!!! (or fix the main page)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! someone provide some insight.. are there really balls of sulfur? are there really no volcanos nearby? is there really evidence of cities at this place? things incinerated to insane temps?

[edit] Baucis and Philemon

Are there any links between the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and Baucis and Philemon? --67.68.29.215 00:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] i removed the line saying sodom means "burnt" and gamohora means "heap"

i speak hebrew very well and this is just false sodom has no meaning besides sodom and gamohora isnt used without sodom

There are lots of words in ancient Hebrew without modern parallels. To understand them, you look at a concordance or compare cognates from other ancient Semitic texts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.252.139 (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Reformists Torah section

I found problem with this section in its presentation of information. I think the information is good on the reformist view, but its obviously written by a reformed and almost in the style of a sermon, particularly the use of "we", etc. I suggest a revision to a more objective presentation of the section. Merely stylistically, not in regards to information.

By all means do so. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be in "we" form anyway. --Kraftlos (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Film section

The intro to the section talks about film portrayals of the Biblical story. Sodom and Gomorrah: The Movie isn't one of those. It's a contemporary film about a Christian man struggling with homosexuality. Obviously the title was chosen for the association with the cities' putative sin, but that's a pretty tenuous connection.

I fail to see what a video game weapon that happened to borrow the names of the cities has to do with the article. If we were to drag in every pop-culture mention of Sodom and/or Gomorrah, it would comprise the bulk of the article. It's not a "Film" in any event. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Commentary: large section quoted verbatim

The section "Christian Commentary" consists entirely of a passage quoted from a 1706 book by somebody called Matthew Henry. The book must be in the public domain, but isn't it still inappropriate to crib so totally from a single source? DanB†DanD 01:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It should go less because of the cribbing -- many Wikipedia articles began as imports of the old Encyclopedia Britannica -- but because it only presents one POV and badly unbalances the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Removed. 68.39.174.238 21:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Root

Why would gh m r be the root for Gomorrah when in its original form there is no g or h in the beginning? The correct spelling is ayin-mem-vav-resh-heh. It would seem to have a relation to the Amori.

Huh? Gomorrah is an anglicized name. My text says `Amorah. Strong's definition I'm not really good with Hebrew, but I'm pretty sure that the translators and scholars would have picked up on this if it were an obvious mistake like that. --Kraftlos (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second paragraph

"God's just wrath".. is that POV? I wouldn't say that destroying an entire city is a just act JayKeaton 09:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few people today wouldn't say so either, then there has also been the view that true "justice" is defined by God as Judge, and not man. But because these are both significant POVs, it would probably be more neutral to simply remove the word 'just'. I don't know if any reliable sources have ever speculated on what they think might have been a more just or fitting punishment for the actions of the Sodomites. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
A more fitting punishment would be for them to lose their sex drives if they were sexual deviants. It seems incredibly POV to say that such a punishment was justified, it reads more like an activist sermon; "And it was-ah Jees'us-ahs just wrath that reigned down upon them, can I get a hallelujah brothers!". "Grandiose punishment" or "colossal punishment" seems to actually describe the nature of the act, without seemingly being purely POV for the sake of POV JayKeaton 18:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
But I think you're missing the point. The context is "a proverbial manifestation of..." For those who would use the story proverbially, it would be a manifestation of "God's just wrath." I don't the article is necessarily taking a stance on the justice of the act by stating (factually, I might add) that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah has become or is sometimes seen a "proverbial manifestation of God's just wrath." But that's just my opinion. Just keep in mind that the article was merely explaining how certain people interpret the act (and how the Bible quite obviously interprets it). It's proffering one world view among many. And the sentence has now lost its purpose--which was that of explaining how the story is often viewed in today's culture. You've castrated the poor sentence. (just my opinion)

[edit] Nuclear War

From the Sumerian bible is'nt Sodom and Gomorrah a nuclear war. The bible is kind of a rip off from the Sumerian bible.

The Sumerians had nothing like a Bible, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah appears nowhere in their extant myths. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common Thread

As in so many like discussions, the common thread continues to be individual interpretation. Possibly to put each interpreter in his/her own comfort zone by shoring up that which he/she chooses to believe? In this case pro/con homosexuality. As with so many bible discussions each person's interpretation is designed to neatly fit their desired conclusion. Notably absent is the design and role of NATURE. Perhaps the bible's stories, fables, parables and conflicting interpretations are by design or ignorance of the authors. Within this discussion we have conflicting interpretations of two cities that may or may not have existed; may or may not have been destroyed due to immoral values; may or may not have involved a technology that many believe is a 19th century invention. All bypass the obvious Natural sexual intent, BY DESIGN, of the human species, be we designed by creationism or evolution. Man and woman are design to intercourse with one another, as opposed to same sex intercourse, for the purpose of recreating and survival. Clearly same sex intercourse is contrary to this design and thus a manmade deviation from sexual purpose be the cause of homosexuality be biological or mental, voluntary or involuntary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.144.42 (talk) 06:54, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Since this page is not for spouting off our personal opinions, but for discussing edits to the article, your proposed edit to the article in consequence of the above is what? TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymological Inconsistency

The meanings attributed to the names 'Sodom' and 'Gomorrah' are inconsistent. Note the introductory paragraph vis a vis the Historicity section.

Vacancy 18:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian views section vandalized?

I noticed the Christian Views looked oddly too short as I remember it was larger before.. found in the edit history that someone removed a huge chunk of it on 10/23/07.. most of it was showing the other interpretation than just the typical evangelical one... this person didn't even have an account which makes it slightly more suspicious. I don't want to undo it without discussion though because it's been two months and no one else has noticed this. There is no "prevailing explanation" among all Christians.. so this is definitely POV & requires the other interpretation, which was removed, to maintain NPOV. Petrichor (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I can't say I've done a survey or anything, but the 'prevailing explanation' described is not one that I have observed amongst Christians, including ministers, that I have been exposed to. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Since there appears to be no contention I have put it back to its original state per Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Inhospitality as the sin of Sodom is a common thread in biblical scholarship and also has grounding in the Bible, see Ezekiel 16:49-50. Petrichor (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
First off, if you're going to claim there are two 'prevailing' views, you should at least be accurate. The view that was relegated below the so-called hospitality view IS the prevailing view, like it or not. Second, the inclusion of "informed by certain interpretations of other Biblical texts" in the second suggests that this is just a result of a certain view point, thus it is not "factual" and or accepted. The absence of this same sentence in what was labeled here as the first view point then suggest that it is more credible than the "second" view point. The exhaustive explanation of the "hospitality" view (complete with further explanatory links) and the relative diminutive explanation of the homosexual view suggests the writer to be heavily biased, or at the very least woefully uninformed. Hospitality is most certainly a recurrent theme in the Bible, however it in no way is represented here. Furthermore, as it is currently written, it makes no sense:

The Biblical text itself seems to suggest that the sin is based in part on inhospitality to some (if not a major) extent (although traditionally, the reason promulgated for the punishment has been focused on sexual immorality and not assault):

1]Why is the so-called "traditional" explanation a note at the end of the sentence? If its TWO prevailing view points, why would one be mentioned as if it were a foot note?
2]So one of the viewpoints is "traditional." Whats the other one?
3]The reason for what is referred to as the "homosexual" viewpoint isn't even mentioned (which is yet more evidence of the authors willful misrepresentation or, hopefully, accidental negligence; however I suspect the former as it is not difficult to find such information)
4]The writer first talks about "inhospitality" then notes "assault?"
5]It makes no sense to interweave ones own views on homosexuality into this Biblical story as there are far more, and rather blunt, examples of what the Christian view of homosexuality is:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

—Corinthians 6:9-11

In any event, what should be plainly noted is the reasoning behind the "homosexual" viewpoint. There isn't even any mention of homosexuality, just a suspiciously vague mention of "sexual immorality" when in fact Genesis 19:4-5 notes exactly the kind of "sexual immorality" present:

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

—Genesis 19:4-5

This is a place for information, not misinformation. Let us be mature and professional with the information. As such, I think the "second" view point should be on the top, and the suggestive language should be revised --Boscobites (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, it seems like someone is trying to push a specific Christian view because they're afraid the other one is offensive or they don't agree with it. I'm not sure that it IS in fact the prevailing view that inhospitality was the sin, I'd hardly say that the second view is in the minority. I think the wording now seems a bit more neutral, still I think both views need some more verifiable sources. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Kraftlos. And the Bible makes it no secret that the sin for which God punished the cities was homosexuality. The angels visited the city to "see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me." And what the found was that the men of the city wanted to have sex with them. And that's certaily the traditional Christian interpretation--hence the equivalence of "sodomy" and "homosexuality." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.182.95 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we seem to have a consensus, I'm going to re-write the section. I'm going to place the so called "traditional view first", using reputable commentaries as sources (as it is, the section barely has any sources). In order to maintain NPOV, this is no longer going to focus on a specific sin that caused the city to be destroyed since the passage doesn't say it was destroyed for any particular sin. Homosexuality and inhospitality have to be mentioned of course, but the purpose of a Christian view is not to do original writing and to speculate as to what particular sin was being punished here, but to describe the existing Christian interpretation and what makes it specifically different to say the Jewish interpretation. So just a warning, this entire section is going to be changed. No reverts without discussing it here, Thank you. --Kraftlos (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I don't think that the city was destroyed just for homosexuality or for inhospitality or any other sin. It seems apparent that the city has simply reached a critical mass of sin. I'm not sure if I was clear on that. However I also want to be clear that the Pentatuch (the first five books of the Bible) is not at all unclear in saying that homosexuality is a sin. I think people were trying to engineer this passage to say the opposite, which would not be supported by the context. --Kraftlos (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent claim about an asteroid

Can't be in the article, but anyone interested might want to read "A Sumerian Observation of the Köfels Impact? Almost Certainly Not…"Doug Weller (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)]

Which, by the way, means that the book can't be used as a reference on Wikipedia, as it is self-published. Funny.Doug Weller (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Their book being self-published is quite true. The printer "Writersprintshop" advertises itself as being "designed to support self-publishers". It is curious that a few web pages and press releases indicate that it was published by an apparently nonexistent publisher called "Aclin Academic".Paul H. (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Half a Mile? Really?

Now, I'm not exactly a specialist, but I'm under the impression that an asteroid "over half a mile wide" is a dinosaur killing, planet busting sort of thing. Not "Oops, caused a nasty landslide, hope there isn't a city at the bottom of this mountain". 80.192.22.220 (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to determine what sort of damage that an asteroid 0.5 mile (0.8 km) in diameter will do, go to Earth Impact Effects Program. For example, a stony (density of 3000 kg/m3) asteroid 0.5 mile (0.8 km) in diameter impacting in crystalline rock at a 6 degree angle will have an impact energy of 9,000 MegaTons and create a final crater that is 1.11 miles miles (1.78 km) in diameter. If this asteroid consists of iron (density of 8000 kg/m3), the impact energy will be 70,000 MegaTons and the final crater will be 4.95 miles (7.97 km) in diameter. You can also calculate what the effects of an impact will be at a distance of 1800 miles, which is the distance between Kofels and Israel, away from the point of impact.

Can we leave the Köfels thing out of this article? Like, completely? It's silly, unnotable, and doesn't hold any interest to the topic of Sodom and Gomorrah. It can be discussed, for better or worse, at the Alan Bond (rocket developer) article. dab (𒁳) 08:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification Needed

I've just read the article, and I don't know what the sentence "Lut is also in Islam a revered Prophet and the accusations against him in Christian literature considered a fabrication." is referring to. Could someone who does know please clarify this?