Community Discussions

Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our
community around the world.

Home Forums Evidence for Biblical miracles Naturalistic vs. spectacular supernatural Reply To: Naturalistic vs. spectacular supernatural

  • Thomas Donlon

    Member
    May 28, 2021 at 8:13 pm

    Deborah perhaps I can get around to reading some of the academic papers that I’ve opened up links to on the Dead Sea area. I suppose after reading some of them I’ll either see merit to earthquake fault lines being the cause of destruction, or I’ll be in a better position to argue against bitumen and phosphorus and whatever else is postulated to have caused destruction around the Dead Sea. Some of the papers deal with the volatiles or whatever they are called, and I assume some of the papers I’ll be looking at will be promoting a position similar to what you believe.

    In the meantime it isn’t worth getting in too many discussions since neither of us are high-level experts of this area (or rather we might both be well–read in areas that don’t overlap). I’ve read some six-part history of the Dead Sea a while back from a natural historian who holds to an ancient earth. He has put forth the case for an ancient Dead Sea. Yet who knows? A more recent flood “Noah’s flood” could have made the Dead Sea more freshwater in recent times and we might both be right in some respects. Different mechanisms for a flood in that area of the world could produce different levels of salinity or fresh water that filled the Dead Sea. Rain fall would have produced fresh water, ultra-mega tsunamis from the ocean could have brought salt water, but ocean salt water is less salty than the general history of the Dead Sea which has very concentrated salt levels.

    I’d like to focus on research and then we can debate later if need be.

    You probably didn’t catch my earlier concession that you’ve helped push me to think Steven Collins location isn’t Sodom, but rather than it was one of the other cities destroyed in the destruction event.

    And the dating that is coming in for the destruction event (see my first post on this) doesn’t match the dating that Todd claims Steven Collins is supporting. Todd’s paper was written about a decade ago. Papers about three years ago in support of Collins theory came out… and I understand another peer-reviewed paper is on the way, in support of the Collins’ theory. I’m not counting “chickens before they hatch” nor am I boasting “about tomorrow” though we don’t know what a day will bring forth. My point is this field of study is dynamic and developing. Manfred Bietak learned new things. One or both of us may also learn new things as research by different scientists progresses. And as you pointed out the Bible itinerary is also helpful.

    I’d like to stop debating and spend the time researching.