Talk:Sodom and Gomorrah

Stolen?

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

Däniken

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

Masturbation?

Isn't sodomite someone who commits masturbation? -Adrian

No, you're thinking of Onanism. - montréalais

"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)

Logic Question

If we assume that the sodomites are 'homosexual', and we assume that 'know' means the biblical. Why does Lot offer his daughters? Or, more importantly, why is it interpreted as a sacrifice to save his guests? If Lot understood the community (and since he and not we lived there we can assume he knew them better than us) and he understood them to be homosexual then he would have expected his daughters as an alternate to be rejected. To sum up: 1. If the sodomites where sexual predators interrested in men (and not criminal against 'any' guest), then Lot knew better than we do. 2. If they were homosexual then Lot's sacrifice is not a sacrifice, but a clever biding of time while he awaited God to smite them, or for the angels to get him out.

If Lot's act is a noble sacrifice then the Sodomites could not have been homosexual.

A good discussion on the probablility is On Religious Tolerance

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

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

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)

"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)

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)

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.

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.

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)

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).

Textual references and translations.

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)

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.

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.

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.

Gomorrah

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Dead link(s)

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

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.

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?

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?

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)

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.

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.

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)

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)