Sodom and Gomorrah : You Probably Have No Clue What "God" Really Meant...

reply to post by jackflap


don't you find it interesting that "strange flesh" is used in conjunction with the angels who had left their first estate? take it a step further: what made them think the "angels" that came into their cities on that day, were even interested?

reply to post by undo


I do find it strange alright. The depravity that they must have sunk to in those cities is unimaginable. Had they been exposed to other worldly entities before? I don't know, but I can tell from the texts that they were out there.

Originally posted by ToHoldaPigeon
From my Greek teacher, "God" was the Elders of the Hebrew society, thinking of ways, of keeping "society" in check.

Is it possible that the elders 'ordered the hit' on these cities? Is it possible that the only wrathful or vengeful "god" to ever exist were actually men who claimed to be doing god's work?

Not to pick on you specifically, but I think this is part of the problem I have noted with this discussion about Sodom and Gomorrah.

There are NO ELDERS. This is "Pre Israel" and the message brought forth is one ascribed to have been what Moses had taught which was eventually written in what is described as the Books of Moses.

The message was GOD inspired and the story is related as a lesson for Israel to learn from.

It also has been a difficult topic to review, due to the narrow scope or field of view. The Matter of Sodom and Gomorrah is one that is discussed and disclosed long before the Destruction of these Kingdom Cities.

Review of Genesis, gives us insight that this "Problem" was occuring, and I would tend to agree with UNDO, that there could have even been dieties and gods (The Fallen Angels) intermingling with the Daughters and possibly Sons of MAN in this region.

Genesis 13:10 And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of
Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar.
13:11 Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other.
13:12 Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom.
13:13 But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

We can see, several chapters previous to the Destruction, Sodom and Gomorrah are highlighted for their presumed activities, whatever they truly where.

This leads to the First Occurance, which basically removed the Kingdoms of the 5 Cities by the 4 as outlined in Chapter 14.

Genesis 14:1 And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations; (the 4)

14:2 That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar. (the 5)

and

14:8 And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar

and they joined battle with them in the vale of Siddim;
14:9 With Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with Tidal king of nations, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; four kings with five.
14:10 And the vale of Siddim was full of slimepits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there; and they that remained fled to the mountain.
14:11 And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way.

This was the first message for those who lived in these depraved neighbourhoods. The Kingdoms are destroyed and the Goods are Plundered. Actually Lot and his family also become part of the Loot, but is eventually saved by an Armed Group of some 300 servants of Abraham. (Seems Abraham is saving Lot a few times).

This is the ALERT, that Sodom and Gomorrah were bad places. 4 Pagan Kings are used by GOD to destroy the Structure of these cities and eliminate the Rule of these Kingdoms, and then see only 318 people defeated those 4 Pagan Kings.

As for the matter that is being discussed, I would offer that this was not just the case of LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION.

Certainly the LOCATION plays a part, much like Eygpt and it's LOCATION plays a part in the 10 Plagues during the Exodus, but the Location is not the reason for the destruction.

The Destruction was Scheduled, as is clear in the Chapters leading to this event. The Angels spoke with Abraham quite sometime, about what they planned for these Cities. This was no "SURPRISE"

Genesis 18:16 And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way.
18:17 And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;
18:18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty
nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
18:22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.
18:23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

And here is the Basic Problem in a NUTSHELL.

The manner inwhich the People of Sodom and Gomorrah live was apposed to the Way of GOD, but despite this, GOD would have not destroyed these cities if ONLY 10 Rightous People could be found.

The Only Rightous people unfortunately was Lot and his family. Only 4 people with any decency and respect for GOD out of the total population.

The Story echos of Noah and his Family.

And that is problem here. Sodom and Gomorrah lived as they saw fit and damm be GOD and his ways. Sounds like the Secular Society of Materialism awashed in the Depravity and I am god mindset we have today, is what was the downfall of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Just my observation about the topic.

It has been a good one though.

Ciao

Shane

Genesis

I think the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is much better (i.e. funnier) if taken literally, just like the rest of the Bible!



[edit on 14-2-2010 by Torgo]

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Torgo]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Thanks for this thread Spartan! I had a great time checking everything out. In the end, I believe I already knew what God meant by giving us this story. Looking forward to some more from you!

2Peter 2:6-9 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomor'rah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; 7 and delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (for that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds 9 the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

[edit on 15-2-2010 by jackflap]

To each and everyone who has contributed to, disagreed with, or agreed with me.

I have to say over all I am pleased that this thread has sparked off an intelligent discussion, and that for the most part it did not resort in hurt feelings, name calling, and or talk of heresy of one person's religion, nor has it infringed upon any person's religion as far as I can see, and I am truly impressed.

My apologies if I have not been able to reply to every one of you in a quick and succinct manner.

I have been doing a lot of things offline in the past week and it has taken me away from ATS.

Over all, I knew ATS could bring about an intelligent discussion, however I did anticipate it going into the usual religious diatribe in how one person or another was completely off base, incorrect, or a non-sanctioned religious nutcase.

Bravo to you ATS'ers and my hat is off to you in your ability to discuss this topic.

I will come back and answer each and every post as I can in an intelligent manner as most people on ATS have come to expect of me, and whether we agree, disagree, or come to an agreement to disagree, I want to thank all of you for your past, current, and or future communications on a controversial topic.

Surely LOT should have been consumed with the tar-pit explosions in the towns surrounding the valley of the plains after that earthquake in antiquity? Oh I forget Elohim did it (or YHWH if you read some of the lines closely)

LOT certainly in any case was JUST AS DEPRAVED as the locals of Sodom and Co. were, after all, didn't he too like to get drunk alot (just like Noach come to think of it)...went and had incestuous sex with his daughters (presumably not homo-sex though i.e. hanky pany with his sons too...) ...(wow, just like Noach too, oddly enough !) you know, like the one younger one he was going to throw to the Sodomite crowds so they could gang rape her (nice father - protect his men at all costs - but to hell with the females...).

Why would 'angels' (or 'men' = depending on what literary source strand you are reading in this depraved story--you DID know there were TWO didn't you? If not, you've got some reading to do---the whle story hardly 'god- inspired' in any case)) try to save a depraved sexual brute like LOT who would without any hesitation whatsoever THROW HIS OWN VIRGIN DAUGHTER TO THE DRUNKS OF THE TOWN and then turn around and have sex with all of his own girls?

But then again, maybe it was just 'misisonary position' when he had incestuous sex with them (none of that anal stuff) so it's ok then, right?

But then, come to think of it, back in those days (like in some parts of the Middle East today, come to think of it) ONLY men counted for anything--especially in the Levant : and 'women' were just...well, 'property to be disposed of'...or 'sold' into slavery for CASH like it says in the Torah...but naturally for a good price if possible, so I guess it's ok..at least according to the supposedly high 'moral standards' (!!!) of the VOMIT placed into the paleoHebew mouth of YHWH the vicious clan-god of the Jews in the Torah including the Exterminatory Holocaustal Genocidal MONSTER that penned the book of Deuteronomy (part of the supposedly ancient TORAH, STILL the absolute CORE of Judaeism, oddly enough, considering what happened in Nazi Germany...) and that heinous book of Genocide called JOSHUA...

And (some of) you people seem FULLY to approve of such 'morality'it seems to me from the garbage being spouted on this threadlet about how WICKED the drunks of SODOM were and how RIGHTEOUS AND MORAL and UPSTANDING good ole LOT was - but these same persons (for what ever prejudicial reasons) tend to think that 'gay-marriage' between two consenting adults (the operative word is CONSENTING ADULTS) today in the West is some kind of ABOMINATION (Heb. 'Toq'ebah' ritually-hateful cult object or non-jewish practice, like cutting your forelocks or wearing linen and cotton in the SAME garment - that kind of stuff could get you stoned if you weren't careful !)

Oh, the Blatant Hypocrisy & Ignolrance of some of you displayed on this thread...I have only one thing to say to those who espouse such VOMIT: shame on you !!!!!




[edit on 16-2-2010 by Sigismundus]

reply to post by Sigismundus


do me a favor, if you'd be so kind, and do a study of every reference to man as "ish" or "enowsh" and every reference to man as "adam" in the old testament. include a comparative analysis when both enowsh and adam are translated to man in the same verse or set of verses. i agree, something is not right about that whole scenario, but i'm trying to figure out if the answer to the problem has perhaps been inadvertently or deliberately camoflaged by incorrect translation.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by undo]

Hi UNDO--

Here are some preliminary notes off the top of my head to get you started. I can add to this kind of commentary this week, that is...if I can find the time for you !

ADAM – ‘mankind’ – related etymologically to the Heb. word DAM (‘red Blood’) hence EDOM (‘red’) –

Generally has a collective meaning of 'MANKIND' especially in the Hezekielite Priestly P strand source in the Creation Myths in Genesis and elsewhere in the Torah (‘in the day when ADAM was created by Elohim in his own Image, HE CALLED THEIR NAME ADAM’ and he blessed them = Gen 5:2):

The Hebrew term ADAM is used 562+ times in the Hebrew Bible generally as a collective noun for MANKIND – but has an undertone of ‘red blood-guilt’ about it in the OT.

In related Levantine cultures ADAM can mean ‘field hand’ or ‘serf’ (i.e. someone who works outside in the fields (cf: ‘and Adam was a gardner tending the garden in Q’eden’) and therefore is darkened or ‘sunburnt’ i.e. for being out in the sun, literally); The Akkadian has a cognate term ADOM, meaning ‘to ‘darken with shame’ or ‘blush red in the face with guilt’
This could be the root of the redness of mankind in the Old Testament – he is literally ‘guilty-faced’ i.e. blushing.

‘Though your sins be as Scarlet, they shall be made as White as Fresh Snow, Though they be Crimson, they shall be as white as pure wool in that Day ’ (from the MT of proto-Isaiah Chapter 1:18, the LXX and other MSS have roughly the same kind of language here)

Certainly the whole idea of 'blushing-guilt' plays an important role in the Israelite/Canannite religious heritage underlying the Hebrew Scriptures (which required blood sacrifice, i.e. something involving RED BLOOD to remove the ‘Red’ (guilt) of man (at least temporarily) and make the person (or community etc.) white and ‘pure’ again, at least ritually).

cf: the ancient Cannanite Sacrifice of the 2 Goats on YOM KIPPUR later taken over by the post Exilic Yahwistic Priests (one goat was sacrificed for YHWH and the other for the Canaanite desert clan god Azazel, whose goat sacrifice held a RED / CRIMSON RIBBON or STRAP tied to its left horn – (the so-called Crimson Strap of Azazel) a piece of which was torn off and later hung outside the temple door / tent of the Meeting on the Day of Atonement Sacrifice which every year like clockwork blanched pure white in the sun to symbolize that the COMMUNITY GUILT had been taken away from the land and that the sacrifice had been ‘a sweet smell to YHWH’ i.e. accepted by the clan god.

GEBER – generally means ‘strong man’ as opposed to a ‘weak woman’ and can sometimes refer to strength or power (hence Gabriel - 'the Strength of EL')

ISH – the male partner in a marriage, i.e. a husband (opposed to an ISHAH, ‘wife, woman’)

cf: HaIsh ve haISHO ('the husband and his wife')

ENOSH – ‘a individual mortal man’ as opposed to ADAM (‘mankind’) which is more of a collective noun, and sometimes used to refer to gentile nations. Sometimes ENOSH and BEN-ADAM (son of man) are used in parallelism in poetical passages such as we see in Psalms 8:4-9 in the MT

QUOTE:

What is ENOSH that you are mindful of him?
And what is any BEN ADAM, that you should care for him at all? Behold, you have made him lower than the MALAKHIM (angels),
Yet still have crowned him with CAVOD (shine) and HONOUR,
Giving him DOMINION over the works of your hands,
and have put everything under his feet…

UNQUOTE

Also see Isaiah 2:10-12 in the MT

Enter the cave
And hide yourself in the rock,
For the Terror of YHWH
And for the CAVOD of his Majesty !

The Proud Face of ADAM shall be degraded in that Day
Yea, the Haughtiness of ENOSH shall be humiliated
For YHWH-alone in that Day shall be exalted !

ENASHA – (Aram.) ‘mortal man’ ‘human being’ – used as such in one of the Aramaic sections of Daniel 7:13 (And I looked, and behold I saw, someone resembling a son of man’) which is quoted by R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (‘Bar-Enasha’ = son of man – ‘Behold I saw in my night visions, lo, one LIKE UNTO A BAR-ENASHA approaching me on clouds, and he moved towards the Ancient of Days, and lo, they bring him to the place, and he was given a kingdom and power and glory &tc.)

The term SON OF ADAM (Heb. ‘Ben-Adam’) is also translated into English as ‘Son of Man’ in the Scroll of the Book of the Prophet Hezekiel to refer to the prophet himself who is sent by heavenly beings to the SONS of YISRO’EL. .

The Phrase BEN-ADAM (‘son of Man’) occurs exactly 100 times in the Masoretic pointed Text (probably the number is a deliberate move by the scribes who eventually coded the Masoretic Text version in 960 AD near present day St Petersburg in Russia) and also appears under the Aramaic phrase BAR ENASHA in the later Aramaic Targum paraphrase of Hezekiel,which can be roughly translated, ‘child of earth’ or ‘earthling’ i.e. human (being), as opposed to ‘heavenly being’.

This should get you started on some of the nuances in the textual traditions that lay behind Gen 18/19

reply to post by Sigismundus


thanks for that. i'm particulary interested that the translators say this:

ENASHA – (Aram.) ‘mortal man’ ‘human being’

is a mortal human being. oh boy. thank you for that one for sure.


so 3 enowsh approach abe in his tent. one of them he refers to as yehovah. and another as adonay. so does the term really mean MEN? or perhaps a male of some kind? because, errm, yeah, if abe is talking to yehovah and adonay, he's not talking to humans.

We turned the place completely upside down and rained down on them stones of hard-baked clay. There are certainly Signs in that for the discerning. They were beside a road which still exists. There is certainly a Sign in that for the believers. (Qur'an, 15:74-77)

Originally posted by jackflap
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

I have to say the Bible was written by men, and men as we know it, usually have ideas, agendas, and or desires for control.

This I can definitely agree with my friend. You have to admit though, there are some very unexplainable instructions given in the scriptures. Some of them, if you use your mind to see what the agenda of man is, cannot be explained. What would the agenda be behind telling the story of Sodom? To make people afraid of angering God? Or is it to clearly show what will happen if we collectively dismiss what He has told us by creating a society that has no morals?

2Timothy 2:16: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Now, there is a way you can be sure that what you are reading is from God and not an agenda of control. I believe that God tells us to ask and it shall be given. Knock and the door opens. Simply explain to God that you are having trouble knowing if what is written is really from Him. Ask Him to show you the truth. I believe you will be given what you ask for.

My personal thoughts are that the telling of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is one of a lack of forethought, on many levels, with the inbreeding, incest, beastiality, homosexuality and lesbianism, those people chose the physical enjoyment of sex, only, instead of the forethought of continuing their society.

Anger has nothing to do with it, my friend, forethought, or continuance of a race, as well as their families, is what I believe it is all about, in other words, if you concentrate on the current timeline, the physical of now, you miss out on the future timeline, the physical of a decade or even century from the present.

In other words, just focusing on physical pleasure and sexuality, without thought of the procreational act of man and woman, can lead to a race dieing off.

Am I saying homosexual or lesbianism is wrong?

Not necessarily.

I am however saying, that focusing on that physical pleasure, can be shortsighted.

Think about it that those cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, were never carried into this existence.

Let us take out that they were destroyed, if the Wrath of God had not destroyed them, for a moment, do you honestly believe they would have lasted to our current timeline if that destruction had not wiped them from the face of Earth?

Think of all the inbreeding jokes we as a society have about brother marrying sisters, or the proverbial mother being a cousin, etc, and place that in the Middle East.

Just food for thought, food for thought, jackflap, that's all.

Originally posted by undo
There's an extra-terrestrial angle to this as well. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was going after "strange flesh." People have always assumed it meant same sex relations, but I don't think that's descriptive enough, although that is in there. Later verses in the new testament recall the event in conjunction with the "angels leaving their first habitation" and "going after strange flesh", which is a kick back to Genesis 6:2, where it describes the "bene elohiym" coming down to earth and breeding with the human women. In other words, nephilim. two cities, filled with hybrids. the big fellas don't appear to like that very much. apparently, the first time it happened, caused a great deal of disease and death on the planet.

also note: the "angels" that went to sodom and gomorrah, were at abe's house before that!

[edit on 11-2-2010 by undo]

I'm not sure about your thoughts there, undo, because "strange flesh" would to me mean something not normally accepted within the confines of society.

I am not saying you're wrong and I'm right either.

I am however saying that the words "strange flesh" to me is a stretch to speak of "aliens".

Yes, allegedly, angels, or the Fallen Angels, or colloquially called demons were supposed to have had sex with humans, but what if this is where Cromagnon man became Homosapien?

Not saying either of us are right or wrong but to me the entire alien angle is reaching.

Originally posted by woodwytch
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

I just wanted to say that this has been the most interesting thread I have read in a very long time.

The OP was an excellently written and thought provoking piece of work ... and I like the way the thread has actually developed into an intellectual debate with only the tiniest attempts at derailment that thankfully have been sidestepped with ease.

I sincerely hope this thread continues for many more pages, so that I can continue to enjoy the read (even though I have nothing constructive to add to the content at this time).

S&F for the OP.

Woody

Thank you, woodwytch.

I do try to write threads which not only spark off interesting intellectual conversations, but as well make people think about what some people would consider as preconceived notions and or programmed or indoctrinated beliefs.

So far, I see this thread has done a bit of all of the above, not only because of my writing of the original post, but because I can see other ATS'ers are just as thinking.

Your thoughts about it being thought-provoking are constructive and appreciated.

reply to post by Sigismundus


Thank you for your thoughtful and lengthy reply.

Earthquakes, fissures, and hot springs and being susceptible to different land shifts is exactly the sort of thing I was heading towards.

We are constantly seeing news stories where earthquakes happen and bringing to that the lack of understanding of that back in Biblical times and the belief in superstitious happenstance only adds weight to this discussion.

Very early on in the thread ( Which is amazing by the way ! S&F For the author. ) about volcanoes.
There would have not been activity for the last 4000 years. and so on.

I still have to read some pages, but if someone already wrote something similar. I'm sorry please point me to it.

1. where can with certainty be found the story is not a lot older then 4000 years ?
2. Santorini blew up around the same time of the Exodus story and can so be a possible explanation for the plagues and splitting of the sea. Even the cloud guiding them. Ash clouds have a tendency not to fall apart very fast.
3. What could make someone be or look like a salt pillar ?
The only thing I can come up with is Pompeii. There are are just filled op space from people no longer there..

My own idea about many bible stories is that they are really easy linked with genetics, DNA. More important the abuse of it. The reason for the flood, Why there is said the fallen angels or watchers learned them to the people knowledge.
And further a point people were so advanced they became a thread.
A war between two sides.With us in the middle.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

... people were so advanced they became a thread.
A war between two sides. With us in the middle.

I think your right.

I think it is entirely possible and realistic that there are two groups of advanced beleivers out there that hold opposing viewpoints that are at war with eachother and we are caught in the middle.

And the majority of the masses are still clueless and out to lunch about the entire affair.

[edit on 22-2-2010 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
Both Council's of Nicaea, are where the Bible was put into it's current configuration.

Sorry, Negative.
The Books of the Bible had already been pretty much accepted well before either of those councils. Even Bishop Irenaeus had quoted from the accepted books, hundreds of years before either council. If you want to be all technical about it, then the Roman Catholic Church set its scripture in stone at the Council of Trent, if I am not mistaken.

The Old Testament canon entered into Christian use in the Greek Septuagint translations and original books, and their differing lists of texts. In addition to the Septuagint, Christianity subsequently added various writings that would become the New Testament. Somewhat different lists of accepted works continued to develop in antiquity. In the fourth century a series of synods produced a list of texts equal to the 39-to-46-book canon of the Old Testament and to the 27-book canon of the New Testament that would be subsequently used to today, most notably the Synod of Hippo in AD 393. Also c. 400, Jerome produced a definitive Latin edition of the Bible (see Vulgate), the canon of which, at the insistence of the Pope, was in accord with the earlier Synods. With the benefit of hindsight it can be said that this process effectively set the New Testament canon, although there are examples of other canonical lists in use after this time. A definitive list did not come from an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Trent (1545–63).

However, the first publicly available bible was written by Martin Luther, much to the displeasure of the RCC, and he did not use Catholic sources in the writing of that Bible.

So your already off on the wrong foot here before even getting in to the rest of your post.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
Very early on in the thread ( Which is amazing by the way ! S&F For the author. ) about volcanoes.
There would have not been activity for the last 4000 years. and so on.

1. where can with certainty be found the story is not a lot older then 4000 years ?

Well we can look at who is taking part in these events, and what is occuring around their time. I would suggest Abraham himself would be the best source for this, since more would be detailed in respects to him.

Abraham

Abraham and the biblical chronology
The standard Masoretic Hebrew text of the Bible places Abraham's birth 1,948 years after the Creation, or 1948 AM (Anno Mundi, "Year of the World"). The two other major textual traditions have different dates, the Greek Septuagint putting it at 3312 AM and the Samaritan version of Genesis at 2247 AM. All three agree that he died at the age of 175.[42] There have been over two hundred attempts to match the biblical chronology to dates in history, two of the more influential being the traditional Jewish dates (Abraham lived 1812 BCE to 1637 BCE), and those of the 17th century Archbishop James Ussher (1976 BCE to 1801 BCE); but the most that can be said with some degree of certainty is that the standard Hebrew text of Genesis places Abraham in the earlier part of the second millennium.[43]

So we can see there is some contention within the varied texts, but what else is new with that.

2. Santorini blew up around the same time of the Exodus story and can so be a possible explanation for the plagues and splitting of the sea. Even the cloud guiding them. Ash clouds have a tendency not to fall apart very fast.

This would be the expulsion of the Hykos, that occured during the time of Santorini, which is of course just an Eygptian way of expressing the Exodus. (You can not be a Pharoh, and have proof of your failures and defeat to immortalize you, so you candy coat and revision the occurance to show you, a god, the Pharoh had control)

Actually there is a very nice show called Exodus Decoded which is produced/narrated by James Cameron, and echos your suggestions.

Exodus Decoded
A quick review shows that this effort contains volumes of distain, which to me is an indicator they maybe correct.

3. What could make someone be or look like a salt pillar ?
The only thing I can come up with is Pompeii. There are are just filled op space from people no longer there..

The thing you are missing here is She never would have turned into a pillar of salt if she OBEYED the instructions not to turn and look. She would still have been fine if She only listened to the Angel who told them what to do. It was Her inability to follow what GOD had wished for them to do.

So to answer your Question, is quite easy. GOD could make someone be or look like a pillar of Salt.

My own idea about many bible stories is that they are really easy linked with genetics, DNA. More important the abuse of it. The reason for the flood, Why there is said the fallen angels or watchers learned them to the people knowledge.

You view is of course your to have, but if I may suggest, the Bible is a Trail of DNA from two sources.

1: The Descendants of Adam, through Seth.
2: The Descendants of the Serpent through Cain.

One line brought us Christ.
One line will bring us the Anti Christ.

Noah, was Perfect in his Generations, meaning his family had NOT been part of the Fallen and their spawn. Thru Noah comes Abraham and eventually David, and ultimately Christ.

The Bible is the Family Tree of Christ, and ending with the New Testament which is, or should be, the Teachings we are to learn from. And in case we wish to ignore the matter, we are to know who the Cainite (Decendants of Cain) are. If this was a questionable matter to anyone, I would suggest rereading the Opening letter to the Seven Churches in the Book of John the Revelator, Revelations.

Revelations
To the Church of Syrmna

2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

To the Church of Philidelpia

3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
I think it is entirely possible and realistic that there are two groups of advanced beleivers out there that hold opposing viewpoints that are at war with eachother and we are caught in the middle.

And the majority of the masses are still clueless and out to lunch about the entire affair.

And you my friend win the GOLDEN PRIZE. But we can point fingers directly at the CHURCH (pick one, any one) today, since they ignore teaching the Word of GOD, and only opt to utilize segments which conform to the Doctrines and Dogmas MAN imposed on the perticular sects, (pick one, any one) of Christianity.

Ciao

Shane





[edit on 24-2-2010 by Shane]