Sulfur balls (brimstone) found at Sodom & Gomorrah

The Pixie

Active member
Only location on Earth where brimstone is found with 96-98% purity (40% elsewhere). It's highly flammable and expels toxic fumes.
What is the purity of sulfur in Texas and Louisiana? It is described as native sulfur, so I assume pretty high (more than, say, 70%).

Also, as far as I know, the locations of Sodom and Gomorrah are not know, so kind of odd this guy can be sure these sulfur stones come from there.

Also, if it happened as the Bible describes, the sulfur would no longer be in its native form. As you say, sulfur is "highly flammable". The destruction of a city by fire and brimstone is going to lead to all the brimstone (i.e., sulfur) being consumed in the fire. The fact that there is native sulfur proves this cannot be Sodom or Gomorrah
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
What is the purity of sulfur in Texas and Louisiana? It is described as native sulfur, so I assume pretty high (more than, say, 70%).

Also, as far as I know, the locations of Sodom and Gomorrah are not know, so kind of odd this guy can be sure these sulfur stones come from there.

Also, if it happened as the Bible describes, the sulfur would no longer be in its native form. As you say, sulfur is "highly flammable". The destruction of a city by fire and brimstone is going to lead to all the brimstone (i.e., sulfur) being consumed in the fire. The fact that there is native sulfur proves this cannot be Sodom or Gomorrah
Nice bundle of speculation.

You started with an unproven conclusion and spin your speculation to affirm your bias.
You have not proven anything.
 

The Pixie

Active member
Nice bundle of speculation.

You started with an unproven conclusion and spin your speculation to affirm your bias.
You have not proven anything.
It is simple chemistry, Authie. As the OP states, sulfur is "highly flammable".

This is like pouring petrol of some trash, and setting fire to it. The petrol "highly flammable", so it burns, very fast. And when it burns it gets consumed, changed into something else - carbon dioxide and water mostly.

When native sulfur burns it is converted into something else - sulfur dioxide. Watch the first view - it says exactly that. No speculation here, Authie, just facts. If you had a clue about science you would know this. Sadly, you do not, so you pretend the facts do not exist.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Only location on Earth where brimstone is found with 96-98% purity (40% elsewhere). It's highly flammable and expels toxic fumes.


One of our regions absolute most famous and successful Petroleum Geophysicists with a consulting practice is a Young Earth Born again Creationist. His education is beyond Masters of Science. He used my connections to leave Texaco.

I know a lot of Independent Oil men and over the the years when oil business crashes and drillers go broke, they end up big time in churches. If you really study geology, there are so many questions that just don't have answers.

"How can uniformitarianism demonstrate development of a sub sea pay zone discovered with a well TD 5800 m at a water depth of 3400 m"?

90 foot pay zone

How did all the salt domes under Louisiana get deposited? I guess there are dozens of salt domes. Our America petroleum reserves are stored there underground.
The more science

we learn we discover more that supports the Bible and even more scientists just can't explain.
 

J regia

Well-known member
One of our regions absolute most famous and successful Petroleum Geophysicists with a consulting practice is a Young Earth Born again Creationist. His education is beyond Masters of Science. He used my connections to leave Texaco.

I know a lot of Independent Oil men and over the the years when oil business crashes and drillers go broke, they end up big time in churches. If you really study geology, there are so many questions that just don't have answers.

"How can uniformitarianism demonstrate development of a sub sea pay zone discovered with a well TD 5800 m at a water depth of 3400 m"?

90 foot pay zone

How did all the salt domes under Louisiana get deposited? I guess there are dozens of salt domes. Our America petroleum reserves are stored there underground.
The more science

we learn we discover more that supports the Bible and even more scientists just can't explain.
So what has that got to do with the S&G story, and whether or not it is just an imaginative story based on a volcanic eruption such as Santorini c1450 BC and the demise of the Minoan civilization?
Or do you think that S&G is in Louisiana?
 

The Pixie

Active member
One of our regions absolute most famous and successful Petroleum Geophysicists with a consulting practice is a Young Earth Born again Creationist. His education is beyond Masters of Science. He used my connections to leave Texaco.

blah blah blah
You really come up with some imaginative nonsense.

But none of that hides the fact that you were wrong about sulfur. If a highly flammable material is on fire, it will get consumed in the fire. If there are sulfur balls on the ground, then this cannot be where there was a huge sulfur fire. It is as simple as that.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Also, as far as I know, the locations of Sodom and Gomorrah are not know, so kind of odd this guy can be sure these sulfur stones come from there.





Also, if it happened as the Bible describes, the sulfur would no longer be in its native form. As you say, sulfur is "highly flammable". The destruction of a city by fire and brimstone is going to lead to all the brimstone (i.e., sulfur) being consumed in the fire. The fact that there is native sulfur proves this cannot be Sodom or Gomorrah
Not necessarily.

It's been a few thousand years since the event took place. There could've been sulfur in the ground there, and as the dead sea has long been known to be a mineral rich environment, there's no valid reason why this is not the case.


I've floated on the dead sea, it's as briny as briny can get..... The mineral density is so dense that it doesn't take much to float on it.


 

SteveB

Well-known member
the mineral density has been a long well-known phenomenon, which has made it a popular tourism destination.

People like to float on it, and read newspapers. I remember when I did mine back in 1979, I was wanting a bottle of Coca Cola, and a copy of the Jerusalem Post. This guy is reading the Jordan Times.
 

The Pixie

Active member




Not necessarily.

It's been a few thousand years since the event took place. There could've been sulfur in the ground there, and as the dead sea has long been known to be a mineral rich environment, there's no valid reason why this is not the case.
So first you cite a location where a meteor exploded in the air, then you say there was sulfur in the ground in mineral deposits. Which is it? Was the sulfur arriving from above? Or was it underground?

Or is this the usual Christian trick. Go with which ever story makes sense at the time. When you need about rationalise, just cite something else. Who cares if it contradicts what you said previous?

This is, of course, the Christian version of critical thinking.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
So first you cite a location where a meteor exploded in the air, then you say there was sulfur in the ground in mineral deposits. Which is it? Was the sulfur arriving from above? Or was it underground?

Or is this the usual Christian trick. Go with which ever story makes sense at the time. When you need about rationalise, just cite something else. Who cares if it contradicts what you said previous?

This is, of course, the Christian version of critical thinking.
Hey, I provided a valid basis for an historical event. If you don't want to know, then save yourself the humiliation.
As far as critical thinking goes, I'm definitely not seeing you present anything beyond simply denying what you don't want to know about.

What I do see is that you've imposed your own ideas on what the bible actually says took place.

23 The sun had risen upon the earth when Lot entered Zoar. 24 Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens. 25 So He overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.​

It doesn't say what the cause was, beyond God raining brimstone fire on Sodom and Gomorrah.
It seems to me that a meteor exploding in the air would indeed result in the raining of brimstone and fire. No different than what took place 112 years ago with the Tunguska event.

But, hey. I get it. Bias runs deep with folks like you. God forbid you'd actually learn something intelligent, which causes you to grow in understanding of the world in which you live.
 

The Pixie

Active member
Hey, I provided a valid basis for an historical event. If you don't want to know, then save yourself the humiliation.
As far as critical thinking goes, I'm definitely not seeing you present anything beyond simply denying what you don't want to know about.
You provided a valid basis for an historical event, fair enough. Maybe the event was inspired by a meteor; I find that perfectly plausible.

But then you flipped that around entirely, and said the sulfur was in mineral deposit underground. Which was it Steve?

These are two different and incompatible scenarios. And yet you flip from one to the other as convenient.

What I do see is that you've imposed your own ideas on what the bible actually says took place.

23 The sun had risen upon the earth when Lot entered Zoar. 24 Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens. 25 So He overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.​

It doesn't say what the cause was, beyond God raining brimstone fire on Sodom and Gomorrah.
It seems to me that a meteor exploding in the air would indeed result in the raining of brimstone and fire. No different than what took place 112 years ago with the Tunguska event.
And again, I find that plausible. I do not think God did it, though I cannot rule that out entirely, but I find it quite believable that the event in the Bible is trying to explain such an impact

What is not plausible is that native sulfur is still present on the site of that event.

That is just not going to happen. As the OP say, sulfur is highly flammable. It is ALL going to burn. Watch that first video, it actually shows sulfur burning. There is no way these sulfur balls came from a burning meteor.

And let us not forget that out of the other side of your mouth you are saying the sulfur is underground:

"It's been a few thousand years since the event took place. There could've been sulfur in the ground there, and as the dead sea has long been known to be a mineral rich environment, there's no valid reason why this is not the case."

Which is it Steve? Did it come from the meteor? Or mineral deposits? Oh, right. Whatever is convenient to your argument at the moment.

But, hey. I get it. Bias runs deep with folks like you. God forbid you'd actually learn something intelligent, which causes you to grow in understanding of the world in which you live.
Right, I am biased to explanations that make sense and that are coherent. But that is because I clearly have a better understanding of the world than you do. Hey, I know positrons do not bounce off electrons.

Hence, I reject your nonsense. It does not make sense for native sulfur to survive a meteoric fireball. It is not coherent for the sulfur to come from both the meteor and mineral deposits.

So, yes. I am strongly biased against your nonsense fantasy.

God forbid you should come up with anything that make sense.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
You provided a valid basis for an historical event, fair enough. Maybe the event was inspired by a meteor; I find that perfectly plausible.

But then you flipped that around entirely, and said the sulfur was in mineral deposit underground. Which was it Steve?
I said it's possible, because there are large deposits of minerals in the region, and I then provided some descriptions, and examples of this.

These are two different and incompatible scenarios. And yet you flip from one to the other as convenient.
No. You misread what I stated.

And again, I find that plausible. I do not think God did it, though I cannot rule that out entirely, but I find it quite believable that the event in the Bible is trying to explain such an impact
What I find curious is that God showed up, and told Abraham he would do it, and was motivated to get Lot, and his family out of Sodom/Gomorrah, to spare them.
God didn't have to warn his friend. God didn't HAVE to listen to Abe's pleas for sparing the righteous from the judgment of the wicked. But God did warn his friend that he was going to judge the wicked, and he did listen to Abe's pleas to spare the righteous from the judgment of the wicked.
So, whether you think that's the case or not does not mean that God did not do it.
It's an historical even that the bible says took place during Abe's lifetime.


What is not plausible is that native sulfur is still present on the site of that event.
Here's an anecdotal narrative in which sulfur smell is residual to the normal activities of the region.

Here's a research paper on the topic.


And another.


That is just not going to happen. As the OP say, sulfur is highly flammable. It is ALL going to burn. Watch that first video, it actually shows sulfur burning. There is no way these sulfur balls came from a burning meteor.
Sulfur requires a heat source to ignite. It's stable up to 160°C. It auto-ignites at 232°C. (320°-450°F)

The MSDS sheet provided by West Liberty University in West Virginia says that the flashpoint is 205°C


I remember playing with it as a child, and while it would burn when I took a match to it, it wasn't explosive, nor was it something I became afraid of in handling it.

And let us not forget that out of the other side of your mouth you are saying the sulfur is underground:

"It's been a few thousand years since the event took place. There could've been sulfur in the ground there, and as the dead sea has long been known to be a mineral rich environment, there's no valid reason why this is not the case."

Which is it Steve? Did it come from the meteor? Or mineral deposits? Oh, right. Whatever is convenient to your argument at the moment.
You really are anal. I said their COULD'VE been.... I didn't say there was.

These cities likely thrived on the salt and asphalt trade discussed by historians such as Strabo and Pliny. During antiquity, the southern Dead Sea was famous for its sulfur-rich asphalt, which was highly prized for its use in mummification. Scientists who have chemically analyzed the asphalt have concluded that it is brought up from depth during earthquakes, most likely accompanied by highly flammable hydrogen sulfide gas. Brimstone is another name for sulfur, and scholars speculate that earthquake-released hydrogen sulfide caught fire, engulfing the cities in flames. According to the Bible, Abraham, watching from the city of Hebron, observed acrid smoke rising above the plain — the kind of smoke that would be produced by burning asphalt. The Dead Sea paleoseismic record identifies a candidate earthquake that occurred about 2100 B.C.​

So, undo the wad you're winding your panties in.

Right, I am biased to explanations that make sense and that are coherent. But that is because I clearly have a better understanding of the world than you do. Hey, I know positrons do not bounce off electrons.
And yet, here you are, getting your panties in a wad.


Hence, I reject your nonsense. It does not make sense for native sulfur to survive a meteoric fireball. It is not coherent for the sulfur to come from both the meteor and mineral deposits.
I'm not the one who isn't doing the research to verify my statements. I've provided you with numerous scientific, anecdotal, and historical sources. There's nothing preventing you from doing your own.
My search parameters for this post's links are
"is sulfur in the ground around the dead sea?"
"flashpoint of sulfur"

So, lose the attitude. It makes you look like a bully.

So, yes. I am strongly biased against your nonsense fantasy.
I'm not the one living in a fantasy world.
But, I understand your need for me to be. It's the only way you can appear justified by your ignorance.
God forbid you should come up with anything that make sense.
I have a far more intelligent idea.
Do your own research.
Prove me wrong.
I've provided you my search parameters, and the links I thought were apropos to this discussion. You're more than welcome to verify them, and provide me with counter data.
 

J regia

Well-known member
What I find curious is that God showed up, and told Abraham he would do it, and was motivated to get Lot, and his family out of Sodom/Gomorrah, to spare them.
God didn't have to warn his friend. God didn't HAVE to listen to Abe's pleas for sparing the righteous from the judgment of the wicked. But God did warn his friend that he was going to judge the wicked, and he did listen to Abe's pleas to spare the righteous from the judgment of the wicked.
So, whether you think that's the case or not does not mean that God did not do it.
It's an historical even that the bible says took place during Abe's lifetime.
IOW the S&G story is just another imaginative fantasy about a god sharing a non-kosher meal with Abraham, and having a face to face chat about the number of righteous children in Gomorrah, and how the god then walked down to Gomorrah to count them for itself since it was neither an omniscient or omnipresent type of god.

And the story in Gen 19 describes how Lot mocked his sons-in-law after he tried to pimp their future wives when they wanted to know what two blokes were up to after Lot picked them up down-town, and how Lot then sexually assaulted them after sneaking out of Zoar with a stack of grog.
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Active member
As we go though this, I want to keep in mind what Steve said previously, in post #13:

It seems to me that a meteor exploding in the air would indeed result in the raining of brimstone and fire. No different than what took place 112 years ago with the Tunguska event.

Just a couple of days ago, Steve's position was that the destruction of Sodom could be due to a meteor exploding above the city, raining for and sulfur (brimstone).

I said it's possible, because there are large deposits of minerals in the region, and I then provided some descriptions, and examples of this.
But how does that fit with the sulfur coming from space, via a meteor.

It seems to me that a meteor exploding in the air would indeed result in the raining of brimstone and fire. No different than what took place 112 years ago with the Tunguska event.

Here's an anecdotal narrative in which sulfur smell is residual to the normal activities of the region.

Here's a research paper on the topic.


And another.
Which is consistent with mineral deposits.

But not with a meteor.

Have you now abandoned the meteor Steve?

Sulfur requires a heat source to ignite. It's stable up to 160°C. It auto-ignites at 232°C. (320°-450°F)

The MSDS sheet provided by West Liberty University in West Virginia says that the flashpoint is 205°C
But you said it was burning. Remember this?

It seems to me that a meteor exploding in the air would indeed result in the raining of brimstone and fire. No different than what took place 112 years ago with the Tunguska event.

How hot do you think an exploding meteor is, Steve?

I remember playing with it as a child, and while it would burn when I took a match to it, it wasn't explosive, nor was it something I became afraid of in handling it.
Sure, you can watch the first video to see a guy handling it.

But YOU said it was in an exploding meteor. That is, a meteor that has got so hot whilst falling into the atmosphere that it instantly vapoured. You really think the sulfur did not burn in that?

You really are anal. I said their COULD'VE been.... I didn't say there was.
Do you still think it could have been a meteor? Or have you now realised that that makes no sense? You tell me Steve. I can only go on what you say, and your last statement with regards to the meteor hypothesis is that you think it is plausible.

I say it is not, because it is not possible for native sulfur to survive such an explosion.

On the one hand if you have a location with mineral deposits of sulfur, but nothing to actually link it to Sodom. On the other hand you have your meteor. Two half explanations, that each sounds half-way plausible. Put them together and you have... something that makes no sense.

I'm not the one who isn't doing the research to verify my statements. I've provided you with numerous scientific, anecdotal, and historical sources. There's nothing preventing you from doing your own.
My search parameters for this post's links are
"is sulfur in the ground around the dead sea?"
"flashpoint of sulfur"
So what? What do you think you have proved here, Steve?

Sure, there are mineral deposits of sulfur around that area. But that in no way suggests a city was ever destroyed in the manner the Bible describes.

Sure, the flash point of sulfur is 232°C. That in no way suggests native sulfur will survive an exploding meteor.

Again, you have two half explanations. When I point out sulfur burns, you head to your mineral deposits. When I point out the Biblical account, you head to the meteor. Great, you can explain everything.

But putting together two half-explanations does not necessarily give you one full explanation. In this case the two halves contradict each other.

So, lose the attitude. It makes you look like a bully.
Oh, here we go. The poor Christian martyr, persecuted because he spouts incoherent nonsense.

How about you settle on one scenario; tell us what that is, and show us the evidence for that. If you have now abandoned the meteor BS, man up and say so.
 

J regia

Well-known member
Hey, I provided a valid basis for an historical event. If you don't want to know, then save yourself the humiliation.
As far as critical thinking goes, I'm definitely not seeing you present anything beyond simply denying what you don't want to know about.

What I do see is that you've imposed your own ideas on what the bible actually says took place.

23 The sun had risen upon the earth when Lot entered Zoar. 24 Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens. 25 So He overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.​

It doesn't say what the cause was, beyond God raining brimstone fire on Sodom and Gomorrah.
It seems to me that a meteor exploding in the air would indeed result in the raining of brimstone and fire. No different than what took place 112 years ago with the Tunguska event.

But, hey. I get it. Bias runs deep with folks like you. God forbid you'd actually learn something intelligent, which causes you to grow in understanding of the world in which you live.
Unlike meteorites and exploding asteroids or meteoroids, meteors are tiny and burn up in the upper atmosphere.

The story about Lot's wife is more akin to a volcanic eruption such as the destruction of Pompeii.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
As we go though this, I want to keep in mind what Steve said previously, in post #13:

It seems to me that a meteor exploding in the air would indeed result in the raining of brimstone and fire. No different than what took place 112 years ago with the Tunguska event.

Just a couple of days ago, Steve's position was that the destruction of Sodom could be due to a meteor exploding above the city, raining for and sulfur (brimstone).


But how does that fit with the sulfur coming from space, via a meteor.

It seems to me that a meteor exploding in the air would indeed result in the raining of brimstone and fire. No different than what took place 112 years ago with the Tunguska event.


Which is consistent with mineral deposits.

But not with a meteor.

Have you now abandoned the meteor Steve?
What's wrong Pixie?
Didn't you ever learn how to think?
I don't have any problems with either and both scenarios.
Perhaps the problem here is that you're afraid that the world isn't as you want it to be.

But you said it was burning. Remember this?

It seems to me that a meteor exploding in the air would indeed result in the raining of brimstone and fire. No different than what took place 112 years ago with the Tunguska event.

How hot do you think an exploding meteor is, Steve?
Hot enough to blast you where you stand.
I'm thinking that the scene from the first terminator movie where Kathryn's character is fried while holding onto the chain link fence.

Sure, you can watch the first video to see a guy handling it.

But YOU said it was in an exploding meteor. That is, a meteor that has got so hot whilst falling into the atmosphere that it instantly vapoured. You really think the sulfur did not burn in that?
You really need to learn how to think.

Do you still think it could have been a meteor? Or have you now realised that that makes no sense? You tell me Steve. I can only go on what you say, and your last statement with regards to the meteor hypothesis is that you think it is plausible.
I think it is exactly whatever it actually was when it happened.
I simply put forward the different possible scenarios.


I say it is not, because it is not possible for native sulfur to survive such an explosion.
Pity. You should learn to realize that we have no idea, and only have the results of the actual event that occurred.
Everything else is pure speculation.

On the one hand if you have a location with mineral deposits of sulfur, but nothing to actually link it to Sodom. On the other hand you have your meteor. Two half explanations, that each sounds half-way plausible. Put them together and you have... something that makes no sense.
This just tells me that unless it fits your biases, what actually took place could not have taken place.


So what? What do you think you have proved here, Steve?
That you're more interested in being right than in learning how reality actually happens.
Sure, there are mineral deposits of sulfur around that area. But that in no way suggests a city was ever destroyed in the manner the Bible describes.
Well then!
That settles it!
You obviously know everything, so what really happened doesn't actually matter!

Thank you for sharing your extensive experience and awareness of a past that took place some 3800-4200 years ago.

I am however curious.... if you're so old, and know so much, why haven't you ever written anything about it?
Being that age, you'd know all about Egypt, Jesus, the real causes of the rise and fall of all the biblically described countries, and the kings who came and went.
A guy with your extensive experience surely would not waste their time on a backwater forum like this.
I'd expect to be able to locate at least 100 books which detail the ancient history of the world.
Moreover, you'd have documented the climatic conditions of the other countries on earth, so we could have a more accurate perspective of whether or not it really is a problem or just another cyclical condition that earth's been experiencing for millennia.

Sure, the flash point of sulfur is 232°C. That in no way suggests native sulfur will survive an exploding meteor.
I didn't say that the entire situation was fully understood. From the articles I provided, they're still working through it.
But, since you obviously know so much, you could have simply pulled out your notes, and written books about it.

Again, you have two half explanations. When I point out sulfur burns, you head to your mineral deposits. When I point out the Biblical account, you head to the meteor. Great, you can explain everything.
Yep. Because I wasn't there.
So, since I wasn't there, I'm not bothered with my description.
And I definitely would not consider my descriptions half..... I'm thinking more like eighths.


But putting together two half-explanations does not necessarily give you one full explanation. In this case the two halves contradict each other.
This is part of your problem.
You apparently don't understand that the only way to get a complete explanation would require firsthand observation of the event.
I can't because I wasn't born until 1960, and it took place somewhere between 4200 to 3800 years ago.

Oh, here we go. The poor Christian martyr, persecuted because he spouts incoherent nonsense.
You're the one who is acting like you were there.
How about you settle on one scenario; tell us what that is, and show us the evidence for that. If you have now abandoned the meteor BS, man up and say so.
I'm not the one who wants to be right.
History is history. And considering that this particular piece of history took place somewhere between 4200 and 3800 years old, I'm fine with it and my limited awareness of it.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Well, that's pretty clear. Steve supports both of two individually inadequate and jointly incompatible explanations, and anyone who dares question him simply doesn't know how to think and is pretending to know everything. Perfectly reasonable!
 
Top