Possible Location of Sodom from Genesis 19

People may wonder why creationists discuss archaeology so often, since it does not seem to have any bearing on creation evidence. While archaeology does not have direct application to the creation account, it provides useful evidence used for creation science. It also supports biblical history.

Archaeology is a relatively young science, obviously having inherent difficulties because of the time involved. E.g., some places are thousands of years old, possibly buried in sand, people have built homes or cities on sites of interest. When something like the location of Sodom and Gomorrah of Genesis 18-19 is announced, people tend to take notice.

Landscape with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah / Joachim Patinir, 1520

Sodom was not just a hick town, but rather a region that included a large city, its sister city Gomorrah, and several other cities. Because of the tremendous amount of time, ideas as to its location that have been proposed for its location are conflicting. Here we consider two possibilities, and one can be ruled out because it does not square with directions used in Genesis.

Archaeologists have found two competing sites for the location of the ancient city of Sodom, doomed for its great wickedness. Which site is the correct one?

Sodom—the very sound of the name evokes images of burning sulfur and violent destruction. This divine judgment, recorded in Genesis 19, is often dismissed as myth in our modern skeptical world. Yet in the 1970s archaeologists published remarkable evidence from a burned city that closely fits the Bible’s description.

Recently, another biblical archaeologist claimed he found Sodom at a very different location. Both camps quote Scripture. How do we decide who’s right?

To read the rest or listen to the audio, see "Have We Found Sodom?" You may also like "Geology and the Doomed Cities of the Plain."