Have They Found Lot's Wife?

From the Biblical Archaeological Review...

This might be the cover of BAR's next issue if we all vote for it.Do you think they know something? I doubt very much that they do, but if they do then let's give it a simple DNA test to see if there are traces of female DNA in it! LOL Why do we have to put up with this shit? Why does this stuff persist? Christians claim to have heard the howls of hell down through oil digs, too. What a sham this all is, and waste of time, space, effort, and intelligence. I think Hector Avalos is right. Biblical studies as we know it should end.

24 comments:

Maggie said...

Following your link, I ran across this delightfully whimsical piece of scholarship, wherein the writer flat-out acknowledges the complete lack of independent, contemporary historical documentation for the existence of Jesus...and then explains that this is why we have to rely on a thorough reading of the Gospels to figure out where Jesus was born.

*headdesk*

Forest for the trees, dude. Forest for the trees.

http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/nativity-02.asp

Lvka said...

Have They Found Lot's Wife?

NO. (Why? Has Lot been bothering You about her lately?)

Eternal Critic said...

You know... I love archaeology, but biblical archaeology is an embarrassment. When you come at archaeology with such preconceived conclusions you just ruin the point of science and make a joke out of the discipline.

And this goes for non-theists as well. I will say though, that biblical archaeology is still head and shoulders above Book of Mormon archaeology.

Jeff said...

Hey now, I can definitely see the face. It's a little eroded, but whether it's Lot's wife or not, I'm sure it's no older than 6000 years...

AIGBusted said...

"Why do we have to put up with this shit?"

We have to put up with it because of free speech. The claims of christians are ridiculous, but everyone has a right to their opinion, no matter how screwed up it is.

Paul said...

I loved the title on the other cover candidate. Freudian slip, perhaps?

Kenny said...

The top looks kind of like a pharaoh's head to me.

Badger3k said...

I gave up on BAR a while back. Their promotion of fradulent finds was the big one, and several hypocritical articles and editorials sealed the deal. They seem to go for sensationalism over actual archaeology, at least in my opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if Simcha Jocobovici (I think that's the spelling - the Exodus Decoded crackpot) isn't given star billing. Haggion is a good blog for this kind of stuff (not sure if it's on the blogroll, but it should be if you like this kind of thing.

Raul said...

So,they think it's "a pillar of salt"? :)

strangebrew said...

Without making up the ridiculous claims and speculation without a shred of evidence...intelligence or integrity...they unfortunately have nothing but delusion and wishful thinking left.

Might as well worship 'Aragorn' or 'Sauron'...for all the evidence they think they have accrued.
That makes more sense and it is a far better story.

As a literary piece to stroke the faithful readership...it is extremely crass.
But then again most of their 'articles' are...'speculative'
In other words made up to fit a deluded need to prop up a mythology.

Creationists and ID bunnies do it all the time...because...well they have to!
Seems it is a trait that is spreading in the afflicted.

Ironically it would suit xians better if they admitted it was a mythological and allegorical premise from the start...

If they had tried honesty in the first place maybe more folks would have respected the idea...

Folks are not swayed by woo and myth as easy as they once were...
attempting to frantically 'prove' authenticity they will never do...because it appears in all their researches not one shred of tangible fact can be demonstrable proven to be accurate in the detail regarding the saga.

And in perpetrating this nonsense they will effectively kill their own delusion far surer then any nasty atheist plot....
Only the severely hard of thinking will fall for it...although that still leaves quite a few 'sunbeams' of little brain!

Lying for jeebus is not a crime apparently...most of them even proudly admit it.

It just goes to show the desperation and blind panic they are in...

Brad Haggard said...

OK, it seems sensational, but BAR isn't even a Christian magazine. Those covers are only for circulation, the current issue's cover seems to promote the Jesus myth.

But if you want to keep building up straw men...

strangebrew said...

To quote Avalos, “The religionism and ideology of Shanks is also evident in how the magazine judges scholars by the degree to which they support Judaism, Israel, or Zionism… such characterizations also display the degree to which being for or against Israel (not just against Judaism) is important for Shanks."

Shanks is editor in chief...and is not totally innocent in certain behaviours!
Implying is is nothing to do with Christianity is not so much a strawman argument...more a refusal to be rational.
Judaism was an Abrahamic off shoot was it not?...bit like Christianity but with more Bar Mitzvah's.

busterggi said...

I gave up on the BAR when they went full blast into fundieland years ago.

Shame, it had been a pretty good read before that but fundies blasted them for questioning the bible & they sold themselves over to that bunch.

J.L. Hinman said...

O well, they haven't found Lott's wife hu? Ok I guess all of Christianity is a lie and there can't be a God. boo hoo if we can't find Lott's wife than it must all be BS.

wait a minute, this slat shaker on the table. I think this is proof of Lott's wife. O, hazah and harah Christianity is saved! wait until I tell Pat Robertson about this!

J.L. Hinman said...

Following your link, I ran across this delightfully whimsical piece of scholarship, wherein the writer flat-out acknowledges the complete lack of independent, contemporary historical documentation for the existence of Jesus...and then explains that this is why we have to rely on a thorough reading of the Gospels to figure out where Jesus was born.


where is the contemporary historical proof that Tacitus existed? Don't say his writings we didn't know about them until the 1100s.

J.L. Hinman said...

You know... I love archaeology, but biblical archaeology is an embarrassment. When you come at archaeology with such preconceived conclusions you just ruin the point of science and make a joke out of the discipline.

can you name three Biblical Archaeologists? You are assuming you know how they work, I'm betting you can't name three.

what's wrong with the excavation of Nazareth? The one in the 90s. atheists used that as argument that Nazareth didn't exist in Jesus day until I talked to the guy who did the excavation and pointed out they were quoting him wrong. Suddenly he went from being a fine scholar to a third rate hack overnight.

x said...

To JL Hinman

Whats important about naming Biblical Archaeologists? Isn't it important what the actual archaeology is and that there is none of jesus!

J.L. Hinman said...

Whats important about naming Biblical Archaeologists? Isn't it important what the actual archaeology is and that there is none of jesus!

You don't know who did the work but you claim to know that the work has been poor. That's a stereo type. I know there have been bad biblical archeologists. they have been good one's too.

you are just content with a stereo type?

Steven Bently said...

Well if the story is even remotely true, it would have been written more like this.

For a long while, Lot had in his mind to rape his two daughters; so his wife (who's name was conveniently not mentioned) found out because her daughters confided in her and was very furious and upset and she was killed by Lot and disposed of and the tale of looking back at the oh so wicked city was god's justified punishment for her.

This made Lot look like a great man in the eye's of god.

My wife told me the last person on earth any woman would want to have sex with would be their father, much less getting him drunk just so as to coax him to have sex with her.

The whole story is a sham.

Kevin H said...

BTW, I think the "pillar of salt" depicts the complete evaporation of everything but mineral content or solid material due to an intense blast. Can anyone shed light on that?

strangebrew said...

'BTW, I think the "pillar of salt" depicts the complete evaporation of everything but mineral content or solid material due to an intense blast.'

Possibly an earthquake collapsed a cave formation where these pillars formed .
The collapse left isolated pillars of salt and subsequent measured uplift rate, 9.3 ± 3.5 mm/yr tended to give them lift in the landscape.
That seems to be the consensus surrounding the Mt Sedom area where at least one 20 m pillar has intrigued folks for a while.

John W. Loftus said...

My guess is that pillars like these helped create the story itself.

Harry McCall said...

I can't wait until they find
Onan’s semen on the ground (Genesis 38: 9).

You know it’s there and you know it just a matter of time before Biblical Archeologist find it too thus proving yet another Biblical fact!

Aquaria said...

where is the contemporary historical proof that Tacitus existed? Don't say his writings we didn't know about them until the 1100s.

You, sir, are wrong. Horribly, pathetically wrong.

To say that Tacitus was lost until the 1100s is an egregious assertion, a blatant falsehood of the lowest, most ignorant order.

Pliny the Younger corresponded extensively with Tacitus. You knew that, right? You do know that we have the quote that Pliny believed that Tacitus would survive through time as a great historian, right? And you realize that Pliny's letters survived his death? So Pliny surely counts as a contemporary of Tacitus for confirmation of his existence. Now if you want to say both are figments of imagination, you are falling down the solipsism rabbit hole that theists seem so fond of.

But I digress. Tacitus is under discussion.

As for his works themselves not being available to some mythical "us," the last of the Roman imperials are known to have studied Tacitus extensively starting around 400 AD--indicating that many of his works had survived well over 200 years after his death. In 840 AD, the French biographer Einhard makes it clear that he was familiar with at least Germania and Historiae, again clearly establishing that Tacitus's works may have been lesser known, maybe even obscure, but they were certainly not lost to Europe between the fall of Rome and 1100 AD.

So that assertion is likewise bunk.

Please--please--stop taking the word of whoever is feeding you this doggerel and research something yourself.