Let's talk about the "Big Bang" (theory)

[Polymath257]

Foamy universes still have to come from a parent universe which has to come from ?????????????????

An infinite regress.

........SOMETHING OR SOMEONE OUTSIDE the laws of physics. And FOR A REASON.

Why do you assume that? Why is an infinite regress less likely than something outside of the laws of physics (which, I might add, would also eliminate causality, thereby making the whole endeavor pointless)?

 

[gnostic]

Anyhow, the Big Bang.
Read an interesting article, and saved it, which posits that you cannot have a recycling universe due to the laws of thermodynamics and entropy.
Our universe is a one off.

I think you are confused.

The Big Bang theory only covered the cosmological evolution of this Observable Universe, from the present, then exploring & investigating backward, of how stars & galaxies might have formed from matters,

• to how matters and smaller elementary particles might have formed, and...
• to how the fundamental forces that would have interacted with these particles, in the earliest aeon of our Observable Universe.

The Big Bang theory make no explanations and predictions beyond the Planck Epoch.

So theoretical models that posited the oscillating or cyclical universe model (which you referred to as “recycling universe”), eternal universe, the Multiverse models, etc, are beyond the scopes of the Big Bang theory.

Talking of “recycling universe” is a different thing to the premises of the Big Bang cosmology, hence a different subject, which the BB theory doesn’t cover.

Mind, you, the Big Bang theory only posit that the universe was infinitely hot and infinitely dense at the earliest epoch, it just don’t say anything about there being “anything before the Big Bang”; the BB theory just left a big unanswered question mark.

 

[PruePhillip]

I think you are confused.

The Big Bang theory only covered the cosmological evolution of this Observable Universe, from the present, then exploring & investigating backward, of how stars & galaxies might have formed from matters,

• to how matters and smaller elementary particles might have formed, and...
• to how the fundamental forces that would have interacted with these particles, in the earliest aeon of our Observable Universe.

The Big Bang theory make no explanations and predictions beyond the Planck Epoch.

So theoretical models that posited the oscillating or cyclical universe model (which you referred to as “recycling universe”), eternal universe, the Multiverse models, etc, are beyond the scopes of the Big Bang theory.

Talking of “recycling universe” is a different thing to the premises of the Big Bang cosmology, hence a different subject, which the BB theory doesn’t cover.

Mind, you, the Big Bang theory only posit that the universe was infinitely hot and infinitely dense at the earliest epoch, it just don’t say anything about there being “anything before the Big Bang”; the BB theory just left a big unanswered question mark.

I appreciate informed comment.Yes, I was addressing 'multiple Big Bangs' and oh... how I hate that tem 'Big Bang' - wasn't it Hoyle who coined it as a pergorative term? Hoyle is called the Big Bang Basher because he felt such a beginning implied a creator - this is my point.

 

[gnostic]

You mean, Abraham never existed? Surely we would have found some archaelogy about him by now? I mean, a camel, a tent, a pot... something with Abraham's name stamped on it. But what if we DID find a pot with Abraham's name on it? Well, there's a whole industry of nay-sayers who would tell you, 'Abraham was a common name late Bronze Age.' Game set and match.
But these things are slowly coming to light. Domestic camels DID go back a long way. There WAS a meteoric event in the Jordan Valley. Populations back then WERE a lot higher than we first thought. Hebrews DID have a language in Joshua's day. There WAS a House of David. There WAS a cultic center at Shiloh where the ark was housed, along with evidence of the Mosaic law.
ETC

You will find similarities between the Hebrew religion and other beliefs - there would have been tens of thousands of religious doctrines back then.

Many ancient civilizations and ancient cultures have their own origin myths or founding myths, where there are stories of first humans, or the earliest rulers or heroes of their cultures or civilizations.

The Hebrew people were no different.

In the 2nd millennium BCE, ancient Canaan have had a number of foreign kingdoms of invading and annexing some parts or whole of Canaan, eg Egyptians, Hittites, Mitanni, Amorites, Kassites, etc, but none of these invaders were the Hebrews or the Israelites.

The only mention of “Israel” in the 2nd millennium BCE was the Late Bronze Age, the Merneptah Stele, discovered at Thebes, Egypt.

The granite stele commemorated the victories of Merneptah over Libya and the Levant region (including Canaan), a 19th dynasty king (1213 - 1203 BCE), succeeding his more famous father Ramesses II. Only one line, saying that Israel has been “laid waste” and the people destroyed.

Who were these people of Israel, the stele doesn’t say, it certainly doesn’t say Israel included all of Canaan.

Plus, the Canaanite city of Megiddo have archive near the royal palace, that stored thousands of fragments of clay tablets, none of them mention anything about Israel, or of Abraham, Jacob or Joshua. What is funny is that there are pieces of fragments of the epic of Gilgamesh, but nothing remotely “biblical”.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An infinite regress.



Why do you assume that? Why is an infinite regress less likely than something outside of the laws of physics (which, I might add, would also eliminate causality, thereby making the whole endeavor pointless)?

He does not seem to realize that his version of God has the same "infinite regression" problem. Why can God have existed forever but not the Cosmos? He is using a special pleading fallacy for his God.

 

[PruePhillip]

Many ancient civilizations and ancient cultures have their own origin myths or founding myths, where there are stories of first humans, or the earliest rulers or heroes of their cultures or civilizations.

The Hebrew people were no different.

In the 2nd millennium BCE, ancient Canaan have had a number of foreign kingdoms of invading and annexing some parts or whole of Canaan, eg Egyptians, Hittites, Mitanni, Amorites, Kassites, etc, but none of these invaders were the Hebrews or the Israelites.

The only mention of “Israel” in the 2nd millennium BCE was the Late Bronze Age, the Merneptah Stele, discovered at Thebes, Egypt.

The granite stele commemorated the victories of Merneptah over Libya and the Levant region (including Canaan), a 19th dynasty king (1213 - 1203 BCE), succeeding his more famous father Ramesses II. Only one line, saying that Israel has been “laid waste” and the people destroyed.

Who were these people of Israel, the stele doesn’t say, it certainly doesn’t say Israel included all of Canaan.

Plus, the Canaanite city of Megiddo have archive near the royal palace, that stored thousands of fragments of clay tablets, none of them mention anything about Israel, or of Abraham, Jacob or Joshua. What is funny is that there are pieces of fragments of the epic of Gilgamesh, but nothing remotely “biblical”.

Yes, guilty until proven innocent.
And if we DID find there was a real Abraham people would just say, 'Sure, there's an Abraham, but that doesn't mean....'
I am fine with a wandering man founding a tribe who are today called Hebrews. We can identify them via these genes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, guilty until proven innocent.
And if we DID find there was a real Abraham people would just say, 'Sure, there's an Abraham, but that doesn't mean....'
I am fine with a wandering man founding a tribe who are today called Hebrews. We can identify them via these genes.

No, that is backwards. Innocent until proven guilty. The Earth is innocent of having an Abraham until someone finds some serious evidence for it. A book that was written largely during the Babylonian captivity is not very strong evidence.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, that is backwards. Innocent until proven guilty. The Earth is innocent of having an Abraham until someone finds some serious evidence for it. A book that was written largely during the Babylonian captivity is not very strong evidence.

Now... let's say the recent research on Tel el-hamman (Sodom and Gomorrah) pans out - that, as the 'shocked quartz' suggests, there was a meteroric air burst over the 'well watered plains of Jordan' and killed about 50,000 people. According to Genesis this happened at night and Abraham was on the lee side of the mountains - in the morning Genesis said he went to a high point in that mountain range to survey the damage. This at 1650 BC was a thousand years before Babylon times. The Jordan plains during Nebuchabnezar's time was a salt wasted desert, it only began to be productive during Roman times.
So there's a connection between Abraham and some historic event.

Now people have been looking for elephant DNA in the Alps to provide evidence for Hannibal's assault on Rome. Haven't heard they found any. Did this event actually happen? Not much doubt actually. So why the big deal believing in a wandering Hebrew called Abraham?

Because there's a lot at stake.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now... let's say the recent research on Tel el-hamman (Sodom and Gomorrah) pans out - that, as the 'shocked quartz' suggests, there was a meteroric air burst over the 'well watered plains of Jordan' and killed about 50,000 people. According to Genesis this happened at night and Abraham was on the lee side of the mountains - in the morning Genesis said he went to a high point in that mountain range to survey the damage. This at 1650 BC was a thousand years before Babylon times. The Jordan plains during Nebuchabnezar's time was a salt wasted desert, it only began to be productive during Roman times.
So there's a connection between Abraham and some historic event.

Now people have been looking for elephant DNA in the Alps to provide evidence for Hannibal's assault on Rome. Haven't heard they found any. Did this event actually happen? Not much doubt actually. So why the big deal believing in a wandering Hebrew called Abraham?

Because there's a lot at stake.

Your example is very poorly chosen. That there was a Hannibal is very well supported by history. The existence of Abraham is not. There is no need to go any further. Find some substantial evidence for Abraham and then we can discuss events in their lives.

 

[PruePhillip]

Your example is very poorly chosen. That there was a Hannibal is very well supported by history. The existence of Abraham is not. There is no need to go any further. Find some substantial evidence for Abraham and then we can discuss events in their lives.

We can presume there was ONE AUTHOR for the Abrahamic account. Hannibal has essentially one author - though, like Moses, many wrote of him afterwards.
The Hannibal story is too fantastic to be true - his allies rode on giant scorpions, his nemesis was born of the gods. Yeah, right.
If we are going to apply a standard of skepticism towards Abraham or Moses then we need to apply the same standard of skepticism to all historic figures.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We can presume there was ONE AUTHOR for the Abrahamic account. Hannibal has essentially one author - though, like Moses, many wrote of him afterwards.
The Hannibal story is too fantastic to be true - his allies rode on giant scorpions, his nemesis was born of the gods. Yeah, right.
If we are going to apply a standard of skepticism towards Abraham or Moses then we need to apply the same standard of skepticism to all historic figures.

Why would you presume that? I can tell you right now that it is unjustified since scholars can explain to you why they are very sure that there was more than one and at times they disagreed with each other. And I am pretty sure that there are multiple known authors that cover Hannibal. There are multiple authors for the Abraham stories, but they are all anonymous.

Since when did the Hannibal story have magic scorpions? It only had one dubious element, and we do know that he had quite a few victories over Rome. You appear to be nit picking about one small part of his history. When Hannibal supposedly used elephants to help him cross the Alps. We know that somehow he got across and did win several victories after that.

It is highly doubtful that there ever was an Abraham in the first place, He may simply have been added to several already existing myths.

 

[joelr]

Google 'Timnah Valley' It's the first real evidence for there being seriously large populations in the Iron Age Levant. Most of these people did not live in towns.

The first people mining there were Egyptians then Edomites. Israelites probably mined there later. This has no impact on what archaeologists are saying about the kingdom of Solomon
"
Q: The Bible describes it as a glorious kingdom stretching from Egypt to Mesopotamia. Does archeology back up these descriptions?

Dever: The stories of Solomon are larger than life. According to the stories, Solomon imported 100,000 workers from what is now Lebanon. Well, the whole population of Israel probably wasn't 100,000 in the 10th century. Everything Solomon touched turned to gold. In the minds of the biblical writers, of course, David and Solomon are ideal kings chosen by Yahweh. So they glorify them.

Now, archeology can't either prove or disprove the stories. But I think most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom. It was very small-scale.

"

Google 'c, the destruction of the Jordan Valley by an air burst ca 1650 BC, and event Abraham witnessed.

From a scientific paper exploring all the known details


"We present evidence that in ~ 1650 BCE (~ 3600 years ago), a cosmic airburst destroyed Tall el-Hammam, a Middle-Bronze-Age city in the southern Jordan Valley northeast of the Dead Sea. "


"Regarding this proposed airburst, an eyewitness description of this 3600-year-old catastrophic event may have been passed down as an oral tradition that eventually became the written biblical account about the destruction of Sodom. There are no known ancient writings or books of the Bible, other than Genesis, that describe what could be construed as the destruction of a city by an airburst/impact event. This airburst/impact hypothesis would make Tall el-Hammam the second oldest known city/town to have been destroyed by an airburst/impact event that produced extensive human casualties, after Abu Hureyra, Syria at ~ 12,800 cal BP17. Similarly small but devastating cosmic events are expected to recur every few thousand years189, and although the risk is low, the potential damage is exceedingly high, putting Earth’s cities at risk and encouraging mitigation strategies."


There was a small mention in 1200 BCE of what seems to be the Israelites. They did not exist or have cities in 1650. This event is not related to the Israelites or Biblical stories at all beyond the mention of stories being passed down and used as inspiration for a myth in scripture.
Exactly what I said in the previous post.

Google 'Joshua curse table Mt Ebal' to read how Hebrews in Moses' day DID have a written language

"Inscribed on a tablet of Aegean lead, the curse in proto-Canaanite script was a legal document, says team that deciphered it using high-tech scanners"

Yes which backs up what archaeologists are saying, the Israelites came from the Canaanites (peacefully). They spoke the Canaanite language and slowly formed their own. Early versions would reflect the Canaan origin and that is exactly what we see. Of course people had language?

Google 'DNA Aaron haplotype Cohen' to read about the genetic line to Moses

Yes, fundamentalist apologetic sites want this to be the brother of Moses. Which is easily done by leaving out information they don't want to present (did I not say Stanton Friedman? This is more of his type of narrative building on the Roswell "alien" crash)


"The original scientific research was based on the discovery that a majority of present-day Jewish Kohanim either share, or are only one step removed from, a pattern of values for 6 Y-STR markers, which researchers named the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH). However it subsequently became clear that this six marker pattern was widespread in many communities where men had Y chromosomes which fell into Haplogroup J; the six-marker CMH was not specific just to Cohens, nor even just to Jews, but was a survival from the origins of Haplogroup J, about 30,000 years ago.[citation needed]

More recent research, using a larger number of Y-STR markers to gain higher resolution more specific genetic signatures, has indicated that about half of contemporary Jewish Kohanim, who share Y-chromosomal haplogroup J1c3 (also called J-P58), do indeed appear to be very closely related. A further approximately 15% of Kohanim fall into a second distinct group, sharing a different but similarly tightly related ancestry. This second group fall under haplogroup J2a (J-M410). A number of other smaller lineage groups are also observed. Only one of these haplogroups could indicate ancestry from Aaron.

The J1e and J2a possible Cohen clusters (only one of them could indicate ancestry from Aaron), when including those tested who are of Sephardi background, have been estimated as descending from most recent common ancestors living 3,200 ± 1,100 and 4,200 ± 1,300 years ago respectively. Ashkenazis only have been estimated by the same article as descending from most recent common ancestors living 2,400 ± 800 and 3,800 ± 1,200 years ago respectively."


Even if one person were the father of a new group of people, this demonstrates the group of people are real. It doesn't mean the myths about supernatural beings are real?
What a waste of time?

You need to update your sources.

To fundamentalist narratives that tell a made-up version of reality because fundamentalists are not interested in what is true but rather false narratives that confirm what they want to be true? Those sources? I'll stick with science over myth.

What next? Google fake moon landing, flat Earth?

 

[rational experiences]

We are alive and conscious.

In a light cooled water oxygenated bio life mind.

Conscious exact. Terms only because of light to live survive. Not about pre types. Just conscious self idealism.

Conscious alive says the light came from the sun. As consciousness can only discuss what it claims it's aware of.

The sun itself big banged.

An ego can make up any story and make it seem reasonable as just a bio status. When others can agree. Depending on group status to say seems reasonable.

When you're not an egotist. You look at the group and think a many worded term about your behaviour. The group.

Therefore as the sun was always really the human scientists science terms. Then big bang was about a cold sun mass. Which you own no clue about where it came from originally as what type.

As the sun had in fact converted both the atmosphere and also the planets mass that you as just a human stand upon.

Is basic non egotism advice.

Egotism is a practice as you agree to the types of behaviours.

 

[PruePhillip]

...

The 1650 BC thing is interesting. Genesis gave details. It happened at night. Some on the lee side of the mountain range near Jericho survived. There was a migration away from the area immediately afterwards.
Lot's wife was with Lot when he fled to the city of Zoar, but she turned back. She became a 'pillar of salt' - most likely MANY became pillars of salt as this mineral blasted out for a radius of 25 km, coating those killed in the blast.
The destruction demonstrates that little got into history books back then, even the instant death of 50,000 people. What hope then for some itinerate Hebrew shepherds? Interestingly, that 1650 BC rang a bell - it's about the time the Hysos seized lower Egypt. Hyksos being semitic, Canaanite people. When Joseph was sold into Egypt (and historic slave wages accord closely with the bible's accounts BTW) he was promoted by 'Pharaoh' who was likely a 'Hyksos' king, allied to Joseph. And Moses came out of Egypt at an interesting time too - the mass migration of peoples all over the Aegean, Levant and Middle East during the Bronze Age Collapse. And now we know the Hebrews had their own written text at this time - something long denied. We found Joshua's site of cursing on Mt Ebal, and then we found the cultic centre of Shiloh where the 'horns of the altar' were found, along with animals butchered according to the law of Moses. A few generations after Moses.

 

[joelr]

The 1650 BC thing is interesting. Genesis gave details. It happened at night. Some on the lee side of the mountain range near Jericho survived. There was a migration away from the area immediately afterwards.

Right, the writers of Genesis were using older legends and myths. This is the consensus and exactly what we see. There were no Israelite cities in 1650 because they would be known.

Lot's wife was with Lot when he fled to the city of Zoar, but she turned back. She became a 'pillar of salt' - most likely MANY became pillars of salt as this mineral blasted out for a radius of 25 km, coating those killed in the blast.

Perfect example of taking a real life event and making a myth. People don't turn into salt when caught in explosions. They turn into salt in re-imaginings in religious mythology.
Lot was fine because he didn't look. It's a mythical story.


"Sodom and Gomorrah (/ˈsɒdəm ... ɡəˈmɒrə/) were two legendary biblical cities destroyed by God for their wickedness.[1] Their story parallels the Genesis flood narrative in its theme of God's anger provoked by man's sin ("
Sodom and Gomorrah - Wikipedia


Legendary. Same thing the previous article said. The stories passed down and were used in Genesis for the Sodom story.

The destruction demonstrates that little got into history books back then, even the instant death of 50,000 people. What hope then for some itinerate Hebrew shepherds? Interestingly, that 1650 BC rang a bell - it's about the time the Hysos seized lower Egypt. Hyksos being semitic, Canaanite people. When Joseph was sold into Egypt (and historic slave wages accord closely with the bible's accounts BTW) he was promoted by 'Pharaoh' who was likely a 'Hyksos' king, allied to Joseph. And Moses came out of Egypt at an interesting time too - the mass migration of peoples all over the Aegean, Levant and Middle East during the Bronze Age Collapse. And now we know the Hebrews had their own written text at this time - something long denied. We found Joshua's site of cursing on Mt Ebal, and then we found the cultic centre of Shiloh where the 'horns of the altar' were found, along with animals butchered according to the law of Moses. A few generations after Moses.

Moses appears to be a literary creation. Much of the tales of his life are found in older Egyptian mythology. The Sodom story appears to be written using information from the event. In those times religions always created stories demonstrating the Gods terrible wrath for humans. No exception here. Syncretic mythology just like you would expect.

The Mt Ebal curse didn't say Joshua. However curses like that were found all over the place, in graves, it was a very common thing to do. No one denies the Israelites created a language once they left Canaan. This language shows they were working with Canaanite language and attempting to create a new language. It was a proto-Canaanite language.


"“The curse is a legal inscription with a legal verdict addressing a still-unknown person or group."

"There are some other very early mentions of YHWH, such as the inscription found at Kuntillat Ajrud in the Sinai from the 8th century B.C.E. (where somebody drew a picture of God, and possibly his genitals and wife too), and in a glyph from 18th dynasty Egypt which mentioned the land of the Yahweh."


"
But actual tablets with hexes are more familiar from the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Never mind those put in graves, dozens of curse tablets were found down a 2,500-year-old well in Athens, through which the ancient Greeks seemed to believe they could communicate with the chthonic gods. Another curse tablet was found in Jerusalem, in the ruins of a luxurious Roman villa in Jerusalem’s City of David.


The tablet from Mt. Ebal seems to be older. If the tablet is as old as the ABR archaeologists have postulated – dating from the Late Bronze or early Iron Age, "

 

[PruePhillip]

Right, the writers of Genesis were using older legends and myths. This is the consensus and exactly what we see. There were no Israelite cities in 1650 because they would be known.

This is my point - we have gone from 'There is no evidence there ever was a place called Sodom or Gomorrah' .... to .... there probably WERE cities called that, but Genesis made a legendary story around the calamity.'

That's a back down.

Yes, no Jewish cities at that time. Bible says that. Come to think of it, I don't know of any city the Jews built fromthe ground up. They took Canaanite cities! The Patriarchs purchased land for burials, and some of these were found, not in so-called Babylonian-writer-times but today. Strange Bronze Age customs mentioned in the Bible were seen as bizarre to Jews of Babylonian times.
I used to think that Lot's wife 'looked back' and 'turned into a pillar of salt' to be bizarre myself. But read the passages thoughtfully, and bear in mind the translation issues - Lot and family fled to Zoar, which was way down south. The 'turn back' probably means to us - 'went back.' And the 'pillar of salt' referred to the thousands of dead people and animals blasted by millions of tons of vaporized or molten salt from the Dead Sea. 'Turned to a pillar of salt' would have seemed a strange thing for Babylonian era Jews to contemplate.
You can't say something is 'myth' because you don't have evidence. We had no evidence for the calamity of 1650 BC, which the world had not seen before, yet not a single record of it outside of Genesis. Until 20 or so years ago people said King David was myth. Not anymore.

 

[joelr]

The 1650 BC thing is interesting. Genesis gave details. It happened at night. Some on the lee side of the mountain range near Jericho survived. There was a migration away from the area immediately afterwards.
Lot's wife was with Lot when he fled to the city of Zoar, but she turned back. She became a 'pillar of salt' - most likely MANY became pillars of salt as this mineral blasted out for a radius of 25 km, coating those killed in the blast.
The destruction demonstrates that little got into history books back then, even the instant death of 50,000 people. What hope then for some itinerate Hebrew shepherds? Interestingly, that 1650 BC rang a bell - it's about the time the Hysos seized lower Egypt. Hyksos being semitic, Canaanite people. When Joseph was sold into Egypt (and historic slave wages accord closely with the bible's accounts BTW) he was promoted by 'Pharaoh' who was likely a 'Hyksos' king, allied to Joseph. And Moses came out of Egypt at an interesting time too - the mass migration of peoples all over the Aegean, Levant and Middle East during the Bronze Age Collapse. And now we know the Hebrews had their own written text at this time - something long denied. We found Joshua's site of cursing on Mt Ebal, and then we found the cultic centre of Shiloh where the 'horns of the altar' were found, along with animals butchered according to the law of Moses. A few generations after Moses.

Every culture sacrificed animals. The Israelites are from the Canaanites so they probably have similar rituals.

Everything in Genesis has been found in older cultures. None of it is true, they are legends and myths.

Basically all historical scholars have come to this conclusion. So the Lot. story was taken from some other story. It isn't about being caught in an explosion. That was just a meteor. It's a metaphor about disobediance.



Religion, Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel

K.L. Sparks, Baptist Pastor, Professor Eastern U.

As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible's account of early Israel's history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israel's origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel's history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. Its primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all), who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories); he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn 'what actually happened' (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002, pp. 37-71; Maidman 2003). As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are

 

[joelr]

This is my point - we have gone from 'There is no evidence there ever was a place called Sodom or Gomorrah' .... to .... there probably WERE cities called that, but Genesis made a legendary story around the calamity.'

That's a back down.

No we have not gone anywhere? That is a legendary city with metaphorical meaning.

"Sodom and Gomorrah (/ˈsɒdəm ... ɡəˈmɒrə/) were two legendary biblical cities destroyed by God for their wickedness.[1] Their story parallels the Genesis flood narrative in its theme of God's anger provoked by man's sin (see Genesis 19:1–28).[2][3] They are mentioned frequently in the prophets and the New Testament as symbols of human wickedness and divine retribution, and the Quran also contains a version of the story about the two cities.[4] The legend of their destruction may have originated as an attempt to explain the remains of third-millennium Bronze Age cities in the region, and subsequent Late Bronze Age collapse.[1]"

I used to think that Lot's wife 'looked back' and 'turned into a pillar of salt' to be bizarre myself. But read the passages thoughtfully, and bear in mind the translation issues - Lot and family fled to Zoar, which was way down south. The 'turn back' probably means to us - 'went back.' And the 'pillar of salt' referred to the thousands of dead people and animals blasted by millions of tons of vaporized or molten salt from the Dead Sea. 'Turned to a pillar of salt' would have seemed a strange thing for Babylonian era Jews to contemplate.

No it would not seem strange because it had a theological meaning, demonstrating the story is a parable and a mythology.


The fact that the narrative of Genesis 19:26 describes Lot’s wife being turned into a pillar of salt, and not some other substance, is consistent with the use of salt in the violation of a covenant and its associated curse (ḥêrem) in the ANE, and with the practice of throwing salt on property that symbolized infertility and barrenness. Lots’ wife, in being turned into a pillar of salt, was seen through ANE eyes as now being infertile and barren and under the covenant curse. The importance of fertility in the context is further reinforced in the narrative by the necessity of the incestuous union between Lot and his daughters (Gen 19:30-38). In addition, the present soil analysis and the mysterious Late Bronze gap in the Jordan Valley also seem to converge in supporting this infertility hypothesis. The ANE readers of the account would have clearly understood the association of Lot’s wife being turned into a pillar of salt with the ANE covenant curse (Deut 28:15–68). In Van Rooy’s study of infertility in the ANE he concludes that it: demonstrates to what extent the subject of fertility as blessing and infertility as curse lived in the hearts and minds of the people of the Ancient Near East. Without this much of the myth and ritual of the Ancient Near East cannot be understood precisely because it was directed to fertility, while in Israel petition and sacrifice often had the same aim (1985: 232). In this context salt, was the perpetual reminder of infertility and the violation of the covenant and the archaeological evidence also appears to converge and bear witness to this fact.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...n_Their_Ancient_Near_Eastern_Cultural_Context

You can't say something is 'myth' because you don't have evidence. We had no evidence for the calamity of 1650 BC, which the world had not seen before, yet not a single record of it outside of Genesis. Until 20 or so years ago people said King David was myth. Not anymore.

Did you just say "because you don't have evidence"? Well you don't have evidence for God or any of the Biblical claims, stories or anything?

You can say it's a myth because it's in a book of religious mythology, is about a fictional city. The apologists sites dated it around - Gomorrah was a biblical place always associated with Sodom. They are found on the Biblical Timeline between 2000 BC and 1900 BC.
Sodom and Gomorrah – Amazing Bible Timeline with World History

then when archaeologists began finding evidence of a meteor strike suddenly it became the same year as the meteor?
Of course articles that are honest and not apologetics will report all the story -

"The presumed destruction around 1,700 BCE also doesn't seem to fit the biblical chronology. Additionally, the geological evidence suggesting a catastrophic end of Tall el-Hammam remains controversial, particularly because there is no impact crater to be found."

"The destruction of the city may have also been caused by an invasion and a large fire, explaining the partially melted artifacts and why the site was abandoned. Zircon is a common mineral, and not strictly associated with impact events. "


Just because there was a King David does not mean the stories about him are accurate.

If Prince Arjuna was a real prince does that mean Krishna really came to speak with him.
Joe Smith is real, did angels really give him updates on Christianity?

 

[PruePhillip]

No we have not gone anywhere? That is a legendary city with metaphorical meaning.

Biblical chronology was a bit dicy because of this very reason - there was nothing to anchor dates to because there was no evidence.
Now we have the Jordan Valley catastophe, and Abraham was exactly 100 years old when it happened. So presumed dates for presumed myths was out a few centuries.
The salt issue - says Lot's wife turned to salt. More likely, as was the case for thousands of other people, animals, buildings, crops etc.. - they were coated with millions of tons of salt. The land lay fallow until Roman times. I.T...R.E.A.L.L.Y...H.A.P.P.E.N.E.D. Early Genesis is full of metaphor, but from Abraham onwards, the beginning of the Hebrew text, I take this as more-or-less-historical.
No crater, yes. Air bursts don't leave craters. What they DO leave is 'shocked quartz.' The jury is still out on Tell el Hammond, but if they DID find shocked quartz then that would settle it - no fire, or army or volcano can create that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biblical chronology was a bit dicy because of this very reason - there was nothing to anchor dates to because there was no evidence.
Now we have the Jordan Valley catastophe, and Abraham was exactly 100 years old when it happened. So presumed dates for presumed myths was out a few centuries.
The salt issue - says Lot's wife turned to salt. More likely, as was the case for thousands of other people, animals, buildings, crops etc.. - they were coated with millions of tons of salt. The land lay fallow until Roman times. I.T...R.E.A.L.L.Y...H.A.P.P.E.N.E.D. Early Genesis is full of metaphor, but from Abraham onwards, the beginning of the Hebrew text, I take this as more-or-less-historical.
No crater, yes. Air bursts don't leave craters. What they DO leave is 'shocked quartz.' The jury is still out on Tell el Hammond, but if they DID find shocked quartz then that would settle it - no fire, or army or volcano can create that.

You should talk to archaeologists and historians then. They do not seem to think that Moses was real.

The history of the Bible is largely mythical. It improved as time went on. The Bible is mixture of legends, myth, and history, with the history getting stronger as the Bible gets younger.