Toto

You persist in the delusion that Dr. Collins and his supporters have a secular case for locating a Biblical location, known only from the Bible. Collins started with his own interpretation of the Bible and looked around for a place that might fit.

This is not a dispute between the bible and science, but between two different readings of the bible, both of which assume a basic historicity to the bible.

semiopen

If not noting that Toto provided this first was the only error in my post, I'm astounded.

Toto seems to have deciphered your comment, but I'm still not sure.

As I mentioned in my post, Jericho and Hammam seem very similar, they are also quite close. The link mentions that Joshua camped at Hammam before crossing the Jordan to attack Jericho. The destruction layer at Jericho can be attributed to an earthquake. If this is true, it could well have also hit Hammam.

Interestingly Xians have no interest in an earthquake (or divine meteorites) at Jericho because if it wasn't conquered by Joshua, they don't give a fuck.

ThePainefulTruth

Hammam is the modern name for town located at an ancient Tel or Tall. "Hammam" occurs nowhere in the Bible. The last encampment of the Israelites before crossing the Jordan R. and attacking Jeicho is Shittim, which means acacias, probably a region of acacias near the plentiful water of the Jordan.

Keep in mind that geography is pretty much the only real world anchor the writers of the books of Moses could tie their legends of Abraham, Lot, Moses, Joshua and the Exodus (which is apparently pure myth) to. Those books weren't written until 500-1000 years after the events they claim to relate. No written narrative survives even from the time of the glory days of the united monarchy under David and Solomon.

At least at Hammam, we're talking about a volcanic, not just a seismic event, an event that occurred at both places in the Late Bronze Age. Plus the rapid cooling of the shards at Hammam wouldn't have happened with volcanic activity. There's no magma (lava), and if the ash wouldn't explain the heat or the conflagration of the ash layer. It would have looked like Pompeii.

semiopen

Thanks for the lecture, but I'm hoping that I haven't regressed far enough to need one yet.

For Joshua's campground, I was quoting the link which you made the incoherent comment about -

Aside from not making sense, your comment seemed to ignore that the link was responding to comments by Ritmeyer about the biblical location of Sodom which I posted. As such, the comments I quote here are quite appropriate. It seems as if you totally misunderstand them. You also don't seem to understand Toto's point that even if Hammam was destroyed by something nasty and hot, that doesn't make it Sodom.

Your explanation of the volcanic events is incoherent. You seem to say there was and wasn't one at the same time.

I don't think a volcanic event can have happened in the timeframe Dr Steve suggests. The volcanic history of the area is well understood.
The Destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jericho: Geological, Climatological, and Archaeological Background (or via: amazon.co.uk)

This book is available for much less than the price on the link.

4350 BP is too early for Abraham and Genesis, it is also the end of early bronze instead of the dates Dr. Steve gives based on his middle bronze pottery.

I'm suspicious of the middle bronze dates he gives in any case, the four hundred year span I think he gives is huge and usually you see further subdividing like MB1 MB2 etc. If he's looking at pottery that is presumably the same as the stuff found in Jericho why is he having a problem like this?

The book suggests that Jericho was destroyed by the Egyptians. I mentioned an earthquake as speculation, they were not infrequent in the area. If the Egyptians would do that kind of damage why wouldn't they go a few miles down the road (and over the river) and do the same thing to Hammam?

The book also gives an explanation for the pottery fuck up on page 102 (search the google book for Jericho).

resulting in several wall collapses (many by earthquake) resulting in the introduction of newer pottery into an older strata.

Keep in mind that the authors do not make claims about where exactly Sodom was, they are simply discussing the geological history of the general area.

Based on this, isn't it reasonable to guess that Hammam and Jericho were caught up in the same events which the book says happened based on known geological activity.

The only unbelievable part is that I sort of figured this out on my own (I vaguely recall the book though so maybe I just remembered something I forgot).

I'm not sure what to make of the glass shit, but somehow I feel that is not that important.

You know Dr Steve has been farting around there for over 10 years, that's a long time without publishing anything. None of the many excavations at Jericho over the last 100 years or so took this long.