 |
| My photo of Tall el-Hammam it was uploaded to wikipedia by me. The red arrows are two of the hot springs. |
1. They report "A number of biblical scholars and archaeologists, however, are skeptical." When have all biblical scholars and archaeologists agreed on anything and especially about Sodom. It is usually based on their underlying biases which I have attempted to expose in my previous post dealing with the Christianity Today article by Gordon Govier.
2.Second they claim that "Such destructions, Ortiz and Maeir argue, should be attributed to warfare, not cosmic events." I guess they did not read the scientific report that rules this out and have not provided any scientific tests done on their destruction debris. I dealt with this argument as well earlier and not news but see they have read the Christianity Today article.
3. On Mullins who is quoted “This is an example of evidence being marshaled to support the identification of the site as Sodom, as opposed to letting the site speak for itself,” Mullins said. What do you think having all the various material remains tested is doing but letting the site speak for itslelf. Also this was raised in the earlier Christianity Today article that I dealt with.
There is nothing new here in this Biblical Archaeology Review magazine other than someone has read the Christianity Today article and regurgitated what someone else has reported. Really deplorable journalism being done on this historic discovery and not unexpected given that it deals with the Bible.
Perhaps Christianity Today Magazine will allow Dr. Collins to publish an article and rebuttal. Time will tell.
In my opinion, the journalism quality of BAR has gone downhill since it was sold.
Follow me on Academia.edu or Selected WorksFor Books see Amazon or Amazon
Updated Oct. 1, 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment