Appendix I
The Exodus
As an example for what has been discussed I will turn to the Exodus controversy to illustrate some of the problems believers will encounter when they look at archaeology and how it applies to the Bible.
I. Arguments against the Exodus
A. Eric Cline—‘So, did the exodus even occur? My own belief is that there is no clear answer. Whatever theory we choose to adhere to will depend upon our own belief system. As an archaeologist, I again must point out that there is no archaeological evidence yet available to prove that the Exodus, as described in the Bible, took place…We do not see a single shred of evidence to date. There is nothing [available] archaeologically to attest to anything from the biblical story. No plagues, no parting of the Red Sea, no manna from heaven, no wandering for 40 years.’1
B. N.A. Silberman— ‘Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University…has gone far beyond the conventional chronological limits imposed by the biblical story in crafting a new reconstruction of events. Having traced settlement patterns and ecological adaptations in the hill country of Canaan over hundreds of years, Finkelstein is convinced that the demographic revolution of the early Iron Age can no longer be seen in isolation. In fact, he believes that the phenomenon of Israelites settlement is intimately connected to developments that began a half a millennium before…According to Finkelstein; the people who would later become the Israelites were already there.2
Basically, what is being said by Dr. Cline is that we have no proof for the biblical exodus and that what one believes or doesn’t, will determine their opinion on the issue. For Silberman, who is the professional partner of Finkelstein {which is why he defers to him}, he is saying that Israel Finkelstein believes the exodus never happened and that the origins of the Israelites is strictly Canaanite.
For the Finkelstein position, notice, as Hoffmeier complained, that he ignores his own research on nomads in the desert when it comes to the Israelites nomadic wanderings in the desert and places them in Canaan and regards them as originally Canaanite.
These are but an example of the arguments against the biblical exodus and the versions may change depending upon which secular scholars or for that matter Christian ones.
II. Rebuttals
I am going to turn to K. A. Kitchen for multiple quotes to rebut Silberman, and by extension Finkelstein, for he presents probably the best argument against his [their] theory of the Israelites and where they originated. I will address a couple points found in Dr. Cline’s position after that.
A. K.A. Kitchen—here we owe a fluently written volume on ancient Israel and archaeology to Drs. Finkelstein and Silberman. However, a careful, critical perusal of this work…reveals that we are dealing with very largely with a work of imaginative fiction, not a serious or reliable account of the subject. Messrs. F. & S. do believe in a real historical ancient Israel, particularly from circa 930 onward but only fitfully before that date…otherwise we have fiction…
The whole correlation of the archaeological record for the 11th to early 8th centuries is based upon Finkelstein’s arbitrary, idiosyncratic, and isolated attempt to lower the dates of 10th century strata by up to a century…On the patriarchal and exodus periods our two friends are utterly out of their depth, hopelessly misinformed, and totally misleading. They content themselves largely with rehashing the equally misleading 1970s work of Thompson and van Seter for the former period, and merely show 100 percent ignorance of fats for the latter…
Their treatment of the exodus is among the most factually ignorant and misleading that this writer has ever read. E. & S. clearly have no personal knowledge whatsoever of conditions in Ramesside Egypt. Their approach to chronology is totally naïve…For those of us with some firsthand knowledge of the fuller data from, and the ancient procedures in, the ancient Near East, this nonsense just will not do…F. & S. fulminate against Israelites being able to escape from Egypt, given the massive Egyptian military presence along the Mediterranean coast route to Gaza—and almost fail to remember that the Hebrews were explicitly told NOT to go that way…
What is more, from Sinai the Hebrews expected initially to be in Canaan in a year, not in forty years. They had no need to lug tons of heavy pottery around with them (just to oblige F. & S. with a few sherds!) if leatherwork or skins would do. So no sherds at Qadash-Barnea (where they did not stop for 38 years –a common misunderstanding!) means nothing…Stuck with their a priori dogma of solely indigenous Hebrews (no exodus, no entry into Canaan), F. & S. are entirely unable to account for the massive population explosion in Canaan in Iron IA…3
What Mr. Kitchen is saying then is that both Finkelstein and Silberman play fast and loose with the evidence to fit their own theories because they reject the Biblical accounts. Their theory is, like what most scholars think about the exodus, sans evidence to support it and it is made up to fit their preferences.
B. Myself—in looking at DR. Cline’s argument, several points stand out that need to be addressed and explained more clearly but only two will be examined in detail.
#1. ‘No plagues, no parting of the Red Sea, no manna from heaven, no wandering for 40 years.’
One must ask, why should there be any evidence for all of these events, scholars dismiss or re-date what we have. I shall take these one by one. First, his contention that there is no evidence for the plagues, I disagree for we have the Ipuwer Papyrus which is misdated by so many scholars does record similar events,
It is impossible to give a date for the composition of this document. The surviving papyrus (Papyrus Leiden 334) itself is a copy made during the New Kingdom. Ipuwer is generally supposed to have lived during the Middle Kingdom or the Second Intermediate Period, and the catastrophes he bewails to have taken place four centuries earlier during the First Intermediate Period.
On the other hand, Miriam Lichtheim, following S. Luria, contends that
the 'Admonitions of Ipuwer' has not only no bearing whatever on the long past First Intermediate Period, it also does not derive from any other historical situation. It is the last, fullest, most exaggerated and hence least successful, composition on the theme "order versus chaos."
M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume I, p.150. 4
It is possible that we do have an eye-witness account of the plagues. Second, the argument that there is no evidence for the parting of the Red Sea, what would he like to see in the way of evidence? Moses held up his hands, the waters parted, when he stretched them out again, the returned to normal, what physical evidence could possibly remain from those simple acts? The request for evidence that the Sea parted is unrealistic especially in view of the fact that Dr. Cline rejects the Bible as a historical document.
Then, third we have his contention that the providing of manna left no trace. Again why would there be? It was a gift from God to sustain His people and it was perishable or it could not be eaten and providing it in a non-perishable state would be cruel. Also, why would God continue to send manna down to earth for anyone and everyone to partake even if they do not follow Him nor would give Him credit? After the wanderings there was no need to provide this food so why should it continue to be provided? It is unrealistic to hope or expect that the manna would become petrified, when it did not last till the next day, just so modern day archaeologists can be satisfied.
The fourth contention, no evidence for the 40 years of wandering by the Israelites, completely ignores the studies done by Finkelstein, and others, who concluded that nomadic life is basically archaeologically invisible. Why should there be any evidence for a group of people from 3,500 years ago, approx., when we cannot even find any for those who traveled the desert a hundred years ago or even 350 years ago?
This call for evidence for many un-provable acts demonstrates how unrealistic the critics of the Exodus really are as they would not be able to produce proof for what they ate last week or where the traveled last month if their records and other physical evidence were destroyed. All we have is their word that they had eggs and bacon or that they went to the zoo with their kids, nothing else and that, according to them, is not proof, so why should we believe anything they say because they can’t prove the un-provable? Their dismissing of the Bible simply because the physical evidence for the past is lost, destroyed or left no trace is ridiculous and makes even less sense than our rejecting their arguments based upon their failure to produce evidence for their activities from a week ago.
#2. ‘I again must point out that there is no archaeological evidence yet available to prove that the Exodus, as described in the Bible, took place’
Again, we must ask, what evidence are the looking for? Are they looking for artifacts that are comparable to the ones the Israelites produced once they got settled in the Promised Land after the conquest? If so, they would be out of luck for those artifacts were produced much, much later than the Exodus itself.
Are they looking for strictly Jewish artifacts produced by a group of people who were a separate nation than all the rest of the ancient civilizations? If so, how would we know what it was if we found it? We have no indication pre-Exodus or Pre-Sojourn of their material culture. They were a small group of people who were herdsmen not manufacturers of cultural artifacts. Even the coat of many colors would not be significant for many nations would have those.
Then we must trace their culture back to Abraham, who came from Ur of the Chaldeans, thus we need to be looking for Chaldean artifacts for the Israelites were not set apart or given a distinct identity till Sinai, and if we find Chaldean artifacts how would we know they belonged to Abraham and descendents?
Then we have the problem of the Sojourn in Egypt. We are not given any indication that the Israelites were anything but herdsmen and we do not know if pre-slavery, that they made distinctive cultural items during that time and if they did, how would recognize them? They would be identified as one form of Egyptian production because they were found in the land of Egypt.
Finally, we need to look at the Biblical description of the situation prior to and during the Exodus {there will be some overlap here for sake of coherence and continuity}:
1. Joseph sold into slavery- Gen. 37:28, 36. This was done by his brothers to a middle man who eventually sold Joseph to the Egyptians. No records or steles, or monuments would be erected to preserve this transaction.
2. Joseph's promotion--Gen. 41:39-40. Done as a reward and given an Egyptian name which removes the idea of a foreigner being in charge of the country. If records were kept, this would only deserve papyrus NOT a stone monument or stele as no great deed was done to achieve this award.
3. Joseph's family invited to move to Egypt--Gen. 45: 16-18. An invitation does not warrant permanent preservation for the move was done by invite not conquest. Joseph's family came voluntarily not by force thus no record would be made or if there was, it would not be done in stone.
4. Jacob's death-- Gen. 50: 2-3. Jacob's body was prepared for burial the Egyptian way and accompanied back to Canaan by a host of Egyptians. Any remains would look Egyptian not Hebrew.
5. Joseph's death-Gen. 50:26- His body was prepared for death the Egyptian way and buried n the country. It was moved in the Exodus and we have an idea where it is today {http://www.thebereancall.org/node/6551}
6. Slavery--Ex. 1:811. The Hebrew people were already living in Egypt when they were made slaves, they were not captured in some great battle that would be carved into a stele or made into a monument. It was an oppression of existing inhabitants of Egypt so no slave camps would have been erected either. No fanfare or glorifying of the pharaoh for his accomplishments would be needed as it was a decree not a capturing of slaves after a great victorious battle.
7. The Plagues-- Ex. 7:1 to 12:1. There is an ancient record of these events but it is either dismissed or re-dated to another era. {http://www.geocities.com/regkeith/linkipuwer.htm}
8. Hebrew property- Though there is no specific scripture reference, just reading Exodus 1 to 6 one sees that the Hebrew people did not have their own manufacturing plants, their own wares or their own cultural artifacts or property. They could not leave anything distinctly Hebrew behind in Egypt for all they owned was basically Egyptian.
9. The Start of the Exodus-- Ex. 12:33-36. God had the Egyptian people give the Israelites gold, silver, clothing, so they did NOT take anything that was basically Hebrew with them. They carried Egyptian articles thus if anything was discarded, it would be Egyptian not Hebrew.
10. 40 yrs. of wandering-- Nbrs. 14: 32-35. The Hebrew adults would die in the desert for their unbelief and rejection of the Promised Land. If their skeletons could be found, we would find only Egyptian clothing and artifacts buried with them. There would be no opportunity for the Hebrews to make their own cultural items and even if they did create their own cultural identity, how would we know? There would be nothing from pre-sojourn to compare the items with, thus all such discoveries of artifacts would be considered Egyptian or some other nation's remains.
11. No 38 year sojourn at Qadash-Barnea (Deut. 1:2-3 & 2: 14). The Israelites wandered for 40 years thus there would be no remains of a long term campsite(s).5
There is nothing in the Biblical record that indicates that the Hebrews had their own material culture or possessed their own artifacts that would identify them when modern day archaeologists went looking for physical evidence to prove the Biblical accounts true.
The call by the critics and opponents of the Bible for physical evidence needs to remain in the realm of reality and the correct evidence needs to be sought, not some arbitrary, imaginary demand for that which was not produced 100 or so years later. Yet as we see by the arguments against, they will not do that but search for what they think should be there, according to their beliefs or rejection of the Biblical record.
Appendix II
This section will be done a bit differently than Appendix I because the issue is different and is taken from an actual discussion which the lead archaeologist for Tell-Hamman and I were a part. It is being included here because, one, it illustrates many of the points discussed in this dissertation and two, it shows that the common believer cannot trust those who claim to be Christian as they do not follow God but science and their own ways.
The archaeologist in the discussion supports a northern location for Sodom and the other cities of the plain, I do not and neither does Dr. Bryant Wood, who wrote a very good piece entitled, The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which he details the correct evidence to show that S. & G. were located in the south.
The format that will be followed here will be that a few select quotes from the archaeologist’s, Steven Collins, actual comments (his position has not changed over the years) followed by commentary or rebuttal from myself. If the need arises, quotes from the actual final reports will be used as well. Dr. Wood’s comments will also be used to help demonstrate how far astray ’Christians‘can go.
The main problem for this Appendix is that there is a wealth of material in Dr. Collin’s remarks to demonstrate the point of this section that it is very difficult to edit and a separate paper would be needed to address all the issues pertaining to this subject. Even Dr. Wood’s paper contains far more information than can be laced here, which shows that Dr. Collins is way off the mark and leading people down a garden path. Dr. Collin’s remarks will be noted like previous footnotes for clarity sake.
If anyone will bother to put his/her biases (biblical; anti-biblical; conservative; liberal; personal) aside, and approach the subject from a strictly empirical direction, you'll quickly see that my ideas about Tall el-Hammam being a (the) most-likely candidate for biblical Sodom are thoroughly reasonable, rational, and based entirely on logic arising from actual evidence (textual, geographical, chronological, archaeological). I have written, and continue to write, extensively on the subject.1
The first underlined passage shows that Dr. Collins does not want people to think when they look at ‘his’ argument. The words used are basically the same words cult leaders use to entice people to join their false religion. Of course, if we put aside all rational thought and bias aside we would see his point for that is all that is left, his point and this comment tells us that he does not like competition nor criticism of his views. He is also asking people to do what he will not as he uses his bias and non-empirical approach to re-interpret and re-translate scripture.
The second underlined passage is influencing the reader via the use of manipulative adjectives and it basically states that only his view is rational, reasonable, and the only one based upon logic arising from actual evidence. He is wrong as Dr. Wood states:
It is clear that the cities were located in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Since mountains come close to the shore on both the east and west, the cities must have been located either in the north or the south of the Dead Sea…The reference to ‘bitumen pits’ in Genesis 14:10, however, tips the scale in favor of the southern location.2
Right away, we can see that Dr. Collins is not telling the truth but trying to alter the facts by misrepresenting the issue. Even his second field report does the same thing:
It was also theorized coming into the excavation that Tall el-Hammam
was a reasonable candidate for biblical Sodom, based on a detailed analysis of the relevant
Biblical data regarding the date and location of the city.10 Thus far, no data from the
excavation contradicts this idea3 {bold mine}
The bolded words make use of the generality of the artifacts and structures found. There is nothing in those discoveries that point to tell-Hamman as being ancient Sodom. They could, and do, apply to any ancient city and occupied by any number of groups of people.
Relative to Sodom, for the skeptics I here offer a little set of unequivocal facts (check them out!): (1) ancient Near Eastern storytellers/writers never invent fictitious geography; (2) the primary historical text on Sodom (Genesis) identifies it as the largest city among five on the eastern Jordan Disk north of the Dead Sea during the Bronze Age; (3) Tall el-Hammam was the largest (by several orders of magnitude) of (at least) five cities on the eastern Jordan Disk north of the Dead Sea during the Bronze Age.4
There are several things to point out here and they will be addressed by his numbers. #1. What reports? Dr. Collins never lists their titles nor links so one could read for themselves. This is a deceptive and desperate maneuver whenever someone has a very weak argument, if they have one at all. It is also his own opinion not a consensus of scholars based in fact. It forgets or ignores the reality that ancient people lied and did not always tell the truth and he provides no evidence that they always told the truth or that the reports he is referring to did not lie. Storytellers do change geographical settings to fit their stories, as he is doing to have tel-Hamman fit his theory.
#2. The primary historical text, the Bible, DOES NOT say Sodom was the largest of the 5 cities. This is an assumed idea to justify his misidentification of his dig site to fit his theory. So we do not know if that was true or not.
#3 doesn’t prove his case and is merely a justification to enable him to use the term Sodom in his reports. It also raises the question that if there were more than 5 cities in the general area, why weren’t they destroyed as well? Dr. Collins does not clearly answer the problems that arise with his location.
1. The principle (and only) primary historical text regarding the location of Sodom is Genesis, mainly 13:1-12 (with chapters 10 and 14 conforming).5
Here Dr. Collins is limiting the allowable text that can be discussed when talking about his theory and location. This is a major mistake because there are other pertinent references throughout the Bible that provide more information and clues concerning what took place at Sodom’s destruction and its length. Dr. Wood makes no such limitation. This restriction implies that Dr. Collins is manipulating the discussion to achieve a desired result and that is a big mistake as he is not even making the attempt to be objective and proves he is not doing what he asks others to do- put aside their bias.
2. Late sources such as Josephus and the Byzantine Christian pilgrim accounts are, at best, anecdotal in comparison to the biblical materials.6
This discounting and dismissal of those who disagree with him is hypocritical as he would use those same sources if they supported his idea without such restrictions. It also demonstrates his unwillingness to listen to contrary thinking and points of view. This is also bad as it shows that DR. Collins is not being honest in his work and thinking.
3. Genesis 13 and 14 are typical ANE stories set forth in a serial geographical framework (as opposed to a strictly chronological one). This geography clearly places the Cities of the Jordan Disk (kikkar hayarden) east of Bethel/Ai, north of the Dead Sea, where, in fact, a group of Bronze Age cities with commensurate dating exists.7
This is simply just not true. The Bible does NOT do that nor does it limit the location to the place he wants it to be. His use of the word ‘kikkar’ is designed to limit the geographical area to what he wants it to be, not what it is. It is his own translational work that imports this word into the Biblical account and God does not grant anyone the right to change the definitions of His words. It is strictly Dr. Collin’s opinion to make this change not God’s and he has no authority to do so.
This is a great problem in archaeology as many archaeologists and scholars learn the ancient languages then proceed on their own egos, not the leading of the Holy Spirit, to make changes in the words translated by far more qualified and Spirit-led men in biblical passages. It is not sanctioned by God and it leads to trouble as Dr. Collins, in this case, is leading people to the wrong location and saying the Bible is in error. Dr. Wood, in his article, does no such thing and defers to God and better men.
4. The configuration of the Dead Sea hasn't changed appreciably in the past 15,000 years (please study the geology of the area), and, since the onset of human history in the region, it never has been anything other than a very salty body of water fed by the Jordan River and local wadis (and it's really deep!). Ancient settlement patterns from the PPN through EB confirm this.8
Here Dr. Collins shows an evolutionary influence and makes a statement he cannot prove. This undermines any credibility he thinks he may have s he desperately tries to justify saying tel-Hamman is Sodom.
I must emphasize that the only geo-criteria that can legitimately enter into the discussion are those in Genesis. This is so because Genesis is the only ancient text that deals with the subject! Any sources later than the Iron Age must be considered with skepticism, and certainly should not be trusted at any point of departure from the Genesis geography. Josephus and the Byzantine pilgrims weren't always stellar biblical geographers9
The underlined portion shows where Dr. Collins contradicts himself with his earlier claim that the ‘ancient sources describe…’ He can’t have it both ways, either he has ancient sources or he does not and the italicized part emphasizes his refusal to accept other views that go in contrast to him. Both show an intellectual and professional dishonesty as he tries to manipulate public opinion to his side of things. Dr Wood again does the opposite and even quotes later sources, even modern ones:
A thick layer of debris was found in almost every area excavated (Rast 1981:41, 1987b:45) Michael Coogan, one of the excavators of Numeira, described what the archaeologists encountered…10
One can see that Dr. Collins is not being forthright nor considering all the facts of the issue (notice how Dr. Wood refers to actual evidence) and the following displays a very unchristian attitude-arrogance:
What I'm currently getting back in this exchange is part of the very reason why most scholars avoid these kinds of email interactions in public forums. I simply cannot waste my time dealing with all the nebulous cacophony of disjointed ideas and rhetoric that have absolutely no scientific value in the discussion of Sodom's location. There is nothing that you can throw at me that I have not analyzed already in detail. And please don't quote the Bible to me on the point, as I have already done an extremely detailed analysis of every word of it relevant to this discussion. You obviously have not read my papers on the subject. I suggest that you go to BiblicalResearchBulletin.com and educate yourself on what I've already said.11
He is not the sole authority on the topic, he is not God but this attitude permeates the archaeological field and Christians are not immune to it either. He does not know everything about Sodom simply because he was not there and he is drawing conclusions from very incomplete and minute as well as very generalized discoveries. This stand is detrimental and shows his immaturity and lack of professionalism as he insults others for disagreeing with him and presenting evidence to the contrary. He looks like he is saying it is his baby so it will go his way and that is not what archaeology is all about nor is the Bible, for the latter goes God’s ways not Dr. Collin’s.
If there are others out there with rational comments or questions, I welcome them. However, I simply don't have time to interact with people who refuse to educate themselves on the issue enough to enter into a meaningful discussion. Please come up to speed (read my material!), then give a cogent response.12
This just adds evidence to the above point and tells everyone ‘they are not educated unless you read with Dr. Collin’s work and that he has something new to say. Unfortunately, he has not unearthed one thing that proves he is correct, it is all assumption and conjecture, as the previous quote from his 2nd final report declared as does his 2009 final report:
—that Tall el-Hammam remains a logical candidate for biblical Sodom based on a detailed analysis of the relevant biblical and historical materials regarding the chronology and location of the city …
Extensive research, along with archaeological data from four seasons of excavation, is now leading many
Scholars to entertain or adopt this theory on its evidential merits. That the enduring and powerful
presence of Tall el-Hammam and its associated towns and villages on the eastern Jordan Disk
during the Bronze Age gave rise to the Cities of the Plain tradition reflected in the stories of
Genesis 10-19 is a reasonable theory commensurate with all of the available geographical and
archaeological data.12 {bold & italics mine}
You will notice that the bolded words refer to nothing specific, as do the italicized words. In other words, Dr. Collins has nothing to support this idea that tel-Hamman is Sodom or that he is in the correct location. If he did, he would have mentioned it in his reports and to the world, such grand, definitive discoveries do not remain secret, everyone hears about it quickly. These final reports contradict his words from quote #1, where he states his opinion comes from ‘actual evidence’. It does not. Whereas, Dr. Wood cites actual evidence in his paper on the southern location:
The location of the EB Age sites along the eastern edge of the plain fits the Biblical description of the cities being ‘of the plain’…not ‘in’ the plain or ‘on’ the plain…there is little doubt that agriculture was an important component of the economic base of the EB cities in the region…Babe dh-Dhra had imposing fortifications…burned destruction…evidence of violent destruction…graveyard…thick layer of debris…14
Tel-Hamman and Dr. Collins has none of this evidence plus it is a lush desirable area now whereas the southern location remains desolate and destroyed, in keeping with all the biblical data from all the books of the Bible not just one.
Deut. 29:23 states:
The whole land will be a burning waste of salt and sulfur-- noting planted, noting sprouting, no vegetation growing on it. It will be like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, which the Lord overthrew in fierce anger15
This was written at the time of Moses and it indicates that the land where S & g resided was still barren and desolate. The land Dr. Collins refers to was desirable, not barren and not desolate in the time of Moses for the tribe of Reuben asked for it as their inheritance. 16 Which shows that D. Collins is wrong in his work and goes against the Biblical record to prove his theory.
The final point that will be addressed in this section and that completely rules out tel-Hamman as Sodom is that the area was not going to be re-populated again;
Jeremiah 49:18:
As s. & g. were overthrown, along with their neighboring towns, so no one will live there; no man shall dwell in it
In other words, Sodom, Gomorrah and area was not going to be restored, even with people. On the other hand, Dr. Collins shows in his site constant occupation with maybe a minor gap:
Although not as large as the Bronze Age occupation, the Iron Age city at Tall el-Hammam was
obviously an important crossroads center that played a considerable role in the local sociopolitical
milieu. Without a doubt, the excavation of this magnificent site will contribute a wealth
of new information for all of its represented periods. It is possible that it has direct links to Solomonic Jerusalem and the subsequent Israelite hegemony as a Transjordan district
commercial center17
This cannot be for all biblical authors refer or infer that Sodom, and area, was never re-populated nor regained its lush, watered state from its pre-destruction area. Here is a list of biblical references that show this fact:
Deut. 29:23, Jeremiah 49:18, Jeremiah 50:40, Ezekiel 16:49-53, Amos 4:11, Zeph. 2:9, Luke 10:12, 17:29, rom. 9:29, 2 Pet. 2:6, Jude 7. 18
It is clear that Dr. Collins, who claims to be a Christian, is neither in tune with God nor the Biblical record as he continues to dig at a site that has no hope of being what he declares it should be. He is taking advantage of people by misusing the word Sodom and he is misleading them due to whatever reason he may have including faulty translational work. This is evident in his contention that one part of one verse, Genesis 13:11, which states,
So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the Jordon and set out toward the east
The choice was not limited to just the kikkar, but ALL of the Jordon plain and Dr. Collins uses the latter bolded words as indication that Lot STAYED traveling east even though the verse says he simply ‘started’ toward the east and does not indicate that he stayed in an easterly direction.
Collins said. "The Bible clearly says they were located on the eastern edge of the Jordan Disk, that well-watered circular plain of the southern Jordan Valley just north of the Dead Sea."19
So it is possible that lot turned south at some point and with the evidence provided by Dr. Wood and others, it seems most likely that he did. The fudging of scripture is not smart and it is not biblical but this section demonstrates how Christians detour from God’s ways in pursuit of their ideas and goals. The believer has to be discerning, even when it comes to professional Christians, and not blindly accept everything they say as gospel fact simply because a Christian says them. They will get the wrong information and be deceived and led astray if they do so.
The actual physical evidence, much not discussed or included here, points to the southern location not the northern one as does the biblical evidence and it is wise for the believer to stick with the Bible and not be lured away from its truths, even though experts disagree with it and declare certain artifacts agree with them.
Dr. Collins, and supporters, is wrong, plain and simple and his theories need to be dismissed as easily as he dismisses other ancient writers simply because they show him to be in error or disagree with him. Dr. Wood and others present a much better example and proof for the southern location and that is the one I side with as it agrees with what we know from the Bible.
**For all five parts, endnotes and bibliography presented upon request.
