A numeral system (or system of numeration) is a writing system for expressing numbers; that is, a mathematical notation for representing numbers of a given set, using digits or other symbols in a consistent manner.
The same sequence of symbols may represent different numbers in
different numeral systems. For example, "11" represents the number eleven in the decimal numeral system (used in common life), the number three in the binary numeral system (used in computers), and the number two in the unary numeral system (e.g. used in tallying scores).
The number the numeral represents is called its value.
Give every number represented a unique representation (or at least a standard representation)
Reflect the algebraic and arithmetic structure of the numbers.
For example, the usual decimal representation of whole numbers gives every nonzero whole number a unique representation as a finitesequence of digits, beginning with a non-zero digit. However, when decimal representation is used for the rational
or real numbers, such numbers, in general, have an infinite number of
representations, for example 2.31 can also be written as 2.310,
2.3100000, 2.309999999..., etc., all of which have the same meaning
except for some scientific and other contexts where greater precision is
implied by a larger number of figures shown.
Numeral systems are sometimes called number systems, but that name is ambiguous, as it could refer to different systems of numbers, such as the system of real numbers, the system of complex numbers, the system of p-adic numbers, etc. Such systems are, however, not the topic of this article.
Main numeral systems
The most commonly used system of numerals is the Hindu–Arabic numeral system. Two Indian mathematicians are credited with developing it. Aryabhata of Kusumapura developed the place-value notation in the 5th century and a century later Brahmagupta introduced the symbol for zero.
The numeral system and the zero concept, developed by the Hindus in
India, slowly spread to other surrounding countries due to their
commercial and military activities with India. The Arabs modified it
into simple numeral symbols as the hindi version was texts rather than
symbols. The Arabic numeral system then spread to Europe along with many
other science knowledge and due to merchants trading and using a stable
simple numeral system. The Western world modified them and called them
the Arabic numerals, as they learned them from the Arabs. Hence the
current western numeral system is the modified version of the Hindu
numeral system developed in India. It also exhibits a great similarity
to the Sanskrit–Devanagari notation, which is still used in India and
neighbouring Nepal.
The simplest numeral system is the unary numeral system, in which every natural number is represented by a corresponding number of symbols. If the symbol / is chosen, for example, then the number seven would be represented by ///////. Tally marks
represent one such system still in common use. The unary system is only
useful for small numbers, although it plays an important role in theoretical computer science. Elias gamma coding, which is commonly used in data compression, expresses arbitrary-sized numbers by using unary to indicate the length of a binary numeral.
The unary notation can be abbreviated by introducing different
symbols for certain new values. Very commonly, these values are powers
of 10; so for instance, if / stands for one, − for ten and + for 100,
then the number 304 can be compactly represented as +++ //// and the number 123 as + − − /// without any need for zero. This is called sign-value notation. The ancient Egyptian numeral system was of this type, and the Roman numeral system was a modification of this idea.
More useful still are systems which employ special abbreviations
for repetitions of symbols; for example, using the first nine letters of
the alphabet for these abbreviations, with A standing for "one
occurrence", B "two occurrences", and so on, one could then write C+ D/
for the number 304. This system is used when writing Chinese numerals and other East Asian numerals based on Chinese. The number system of the English language is of this type ("three hundred [and] four"), as are those of other spoken languages,
regardless of what written systems they have adopted. However, many
languages use mixtures of bases, and other features, for instance 79 in
French is soixante dix-neuf (60 + 10 + 9) and in Welsh is pedwar ar bymtheg a thrigain (4 + (5 + 10) + (3 × 20)) or (somewhat archaic) pedwar ugain namyn un (4 × 20 − 1). In English, one could say "four score less one", as in the famous Gettysburg Address representing "87 years ago" as "four score and seven years ago".
More elegant is a positional system,
also known as place-value notation. Again working in base 10, ten
different digits 0, ..., 9 are used and the position of a digit is used
to signify the power of ten that the digit is to be multiplied with, as
in 304 = 3×100 + 0×10 + 4×1 or more precisely 3×102 + 0×101 + 4×100.
Zero, which is not needed in the other systems, is of crucial
importance here, in order to be able to "skip" a power. The Hindu–Arabic
numeral system, which originated in India and is now used throughout
the world, is a positional base 10 system.
Arithmetic is much easier in positional systems than in the
earlier additive ones; furthermore, additive systems need a large number
of different symbols for the different powers of 10; a positional
system needs only ten different symbols (assuming that it uses base 10).
The positional decimal system is presently universally used in
human writing. The base 1000 is also used (albeit not universally), by
grouping the digits and considering a sequence of three decimal digits
as a single digit. This is the meaning of the common notation
1,000,234,567 used for very large numbers.
In computers, the main numeral systems are based on the positional system in base 2 (binary numeral system), with two binary digits, 0 and 1. Positional systems obtained by grouping binary digits by three (octal numeral system) or four (hexadecimal numeral system) are commonly used. For very large integers, bases 232 or 264 (grouping binary digits by 32 or 64, the length of the machine word) are used, as, for example, in GMP.
In certain biological systems, the unary coding system is employed. Unary numerals used in the neural circuits responsible for birdsong production. The nucleus in the brain of the songbirds that plays a part in both the learning and the production of bird song is the HVC (high vocal center).
The command signals for different notes in the birdsong emanate from
different points in the HVC. This coding works as space coding which is
an efficient strategy for biological circuits due to its inherent
simplicity and robustness.
The numerals used when writing numbers with digits or symbols can be divided into two types that might be called the arithmetic numerals (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) and the geometric
numerals (1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000 ...), respectively. The sign-value
systems use only the geometric numerals and the positional systems use
only the arithmetic numerals. A sign-value system does not need
arithmetic numerals because they are made by repetition (except for the Ionic system),
and a positional system does not need geometric numerals because they
are made by position. However, the spoken language uses both arithmetic and geometric numerals.
In certain areas of computer science, a modified base k positional system is used, called bijective numeration, with digits 1, 2, ..., k (k ≥ 1), and zero being represented by an empty string. This establishes a bijection
between the set of all such digit-strings and the set of non-negative
integers, avoiding the non-uniqueness caused by leading zeros. Bijective
base-k numeration is also called k-adic notation, not to be confused with p-adic numbers. Bijective base 1 is the same as unary.
Positional systems in detail
In a positional base b numeral system (with b a natural number greater than 1 known as the radix), b basic symbols (or digits) corresponding to the first b
natural numbers including zero are used. To generate the rest of the
numerals, the position of the symbol in the figure is used. The symbol
in the last position has its own value, and as it moves to the left its
value is multiplied by b.
For example, in the decimal system (base 10), the numeral 4327 means (4×103) + (3×102) + (2×101) + (7×100), noting that 100 = 1.
In general, if b is the base, one writes a number in the numeral system of base b by expressing it in the form anbn + an − 1bn − 1 + an − 2bn − 2 + ... + a0b0 and writing the enumerated digits anan − 1an − 2 ... a0 in descending order. The digits are natural numbers between 0 and b − 1, inclusive.
If a text (such as this one) discusses multiple bases, and if
ambiguity exists, the base (itself represented in base 10) is added in
subscript to the right of the number, like this: numberbase. Unless specified by context, numbers without subscript are considered to be decimal.
By using a dot to divide the digits into two groups, one can also
write fractions in the positional system. For example, the base 2
numeral 10.11 denotes 1×21 + 0×20 + 1×2−1 + 1×2−2 = 2.75.
In general, numbers in the base b system are of the form:
The numbers bk and b−k are the weights of the corresponding digits. The position k is the logarithm of the corresponding weight w, that is . The highest used position is close to the order of magnitude of the number.
The number of tally marks required in the unary numeral system for describing the weight would have been w. In the positional system, the number of digits required to describe it is only , for k ≥ 0. For example, to describe the weight 1000 then four digits are needed because . The number of digits required to describe the position is (in positions 1, 10, 100,... only for simplicity in the decimal example).
A number has a terminating or repeating expansion if and only if it is rational; this does not depend on the base. A number that terminates in one base may repeat in another (thus 0.310 = 0.0100110011001...2).
An irrational number stays aperiodic (with an infinite number of
non-repeating digits) in all integral bases. Thus, for example in
base 2, π = 3.1415926...10 can be written as the aperiodic 11.001001000011111...2.
Putting overscores, n, or dots, ṅ, above the common digits is a convention used to represent repeating rational expansions. Thus:
14/11 = 1.272727272727... = 1.27 or
321.3217878787878... = 321.32178.
If b = p is a prime number, one can define base-p numerals whose expansion to the left never stops; these are called the p-adic numbers.
This is used in punycode,
one aspect of which is the representation of a sequence of non-negative
integers of arbitrary size in the form of a sequence without
delimiters, of "digits" from a collection of 36: a–z and 0–9,
representing 0–25 and 26–35 respectively. A digit lower than a threshold
value marks that it is the most-significant digit, hence the end of the
number. The threshold value depends on the position in the number. For
example, if the threshold value for the first digit is b (i.e. 1) then a
(i.e. 0) marks the end of the number (it has just one digit), so in
numbers of more than one digit, range is only b–9 (1–35), therefore the
weight b1 is 35 instead of 36. Suppose the threshold
values for the second and third digits are c (2), then the third digit
has a weight 34 × 35 = 1190 and we have the following sequence:
a (0), ba (1), ca (2), .., 9a (35), bb (36), cb (37), .., 9b (70), bca (71), .., 99a (1260), bcb (1261), etc.
Unlike a regular based numeral system, there are numbers like 9b
where 9 and b each represents 35; yet the representation is unique
because ac and aca are not allowed – the a would terminate the number.
The flexibility in choosing threshold values allows optimization
depending on the frequency of occurrence of numbers of various sizes.
The case with all threshold values equal to 1 corresponds to bijective numeration, where the zeros correspond to separators of numbers with digits which are non-zero.
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood
is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13
These two verses have historically been interpreted by Jews and Christians
as clear overall prohibitions against homosexual acts in general. More
recent interpretations focus more on its context as part of the Holiness Code, a code of purity meant to distinguish the behavior of Israelites from the polytheisticCanaanites. One of those interpretations is from Janet Edmonds, which says:
"To
interpret these passages of Leviticus, it’s important to know that this
book of the Bible focuses on ritual purity for the Israelites, and
setting guidelines for the Israelites to distinguish themselves from
their pagan neighbors, the Egyptians and Canaanites, who lived in the
lands before they were settled by the Jews. This is shown in Leviticus
Chapters 18 and 20 by three specific scripture passages (Leviticus
18:2-3, 18:24 and 20:23) that state that the Israelites should never do
what the Egyptians and Canaanites did."
Other interpreters state that God was commanding the Israelites to not to imitate anal sex between men practiced at the temples of Molech.
Daniel A. Helminiak,
a Christian author and theologian says "the anti-gay 'unnatural'
hullabaloo rests on a mistranslation." and that "nowhere does the Bible
actually oppose homosexuality"
The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis
does not explicitly identify homosexuality as the sin for which they
were destroyed. Some interpreters find the story of Sodom and a similar
one in Judges 19 to condemn the violent rape of guests more than
homosexuality, but the passage has historically been interpreted within Judaism and Christianity as a punishment for homosexuality due to the interpretation that the men of Sodom wished to rape, or have sex with, the angels who retrieved Lot.
While the Jewish prophets spoke only of lack of charity as the sin of Sodom,
the exclusively sexual interpretation became so prevalent among
Christian communities that the name "Sodom" became the basis of the word
"sodomy", still a legal synonym for homosexual and non-procreative sexual acts, particularly anal or oral sex.
While the Jewish prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos and Zephaniah refer vaguely to the sin of Sodom,
Ezekiel specifies that the city was destroyed because of its commission
of social injustice as well as its commission of 'abomination':
Behold, this was the iniquity of
thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness
was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of
the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination
before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
The Talmudic
tradition as written between c. 370 and 500 also interprets the sin of
Sodom as lack of charity, with the attempted rape of the angels being a
manifestation of the city's violation of the social order of
hospitality; as does Jesus in the New Testament, for instance in Matthew
10:14–15 when he tells his disciples that the punishment for houses or
towns that will not welcome them will be worse than that of Sodom and
Gomorrah.
Later traditions on Sodom's sin, such as Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, considered it to be an illicit form of heterosexual intercourse. In Jude
1:7 the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are stated to have been
"giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh", which may refer to homosexuality or to the lust of mortals after angels. Jewish writers Philo (d. AD 50) and Josephus (37 – c. 100) were the first to assert unambiguously that homosexuality was among the sins of Sodom. By the end of the 1st century Jews commonly identified the sin of Sodom with homosexual practices.
David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi
The account of the friendship between David and Jonathan in the Books of Samuel has been interpreted by traditional and mainstream Christians as a relationship only of affectionate regard. Some sexual scholars have concluded, "There is nothing to show that such a relationship was sexual." It has also been interpreted by some authors as of a sexual nature. Michael Coogan addresses the claim of their homosexual relationship and explicitly rejects it.
One relevant Bible passage on this issue is 1 Samuel 18:1:
When David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan and David
became bound together in close friendship. Jonathan loved David as much
as he did his own life. (NET)
Another relevant passage is 2 Samuel 1:26, where David says:
I grieve over you, my brother Jonathan. You were very dear to me. Your love was more special to me than the love of women. (NET)
The story of Ruth and Naomi in the Book of Ruth is also occasionally interpreted by contemporary scholars as the story of a lesbian couple. Coogan states that the Hebrew Bible does not even mention lesbianism.
New Testament
Romans 1:26-27
“
For
this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women
did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And
likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in
their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is
unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error
which was meet.
”
This passage has been debated by some 20th and 21st-century
interpreters as to its relevance today and as to what it actually
prohibits: although Christians of several denominations have
historically maintained that this verse is a complete prohibition of all
forms of homosexual activity,
some 20th and 21st-century authors contend the passage is not a blanket
condemnation of homosexual acts, suggesting, among other
interpretations, that the passage condemned heterosexuals who
experimented with homosexual activity
or that Paul's condemnation was relative to his own culture, in which
homosexuality was not understood as an orientation and in which being
penetrated was seen as shameful. These interpretations are in a minority. Several scholars believe these verses are part of a much larger non-Pauline interpolation, a later addition to the letter.
Know
ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not
deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit
the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye
are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and
by the Spirit of our God.
”
The Greek word arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοῖται)
in verse 9 has been debated for some time, and has been variously
rendered as "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "sodomites"
(YLT), or "men who have sex with men" (NIV). Greek ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην [arrhēn / arsēn] means "male", and κοίτην [koitēn] "bed", with a sexual connotation.
Paul's use of the word in 1 Corinthians is the earliest example of the
term; its only other usage is in a similar list of wrongdoers given
(possibly by the same author) in 1 Timothy 1:8–11:
In the letter to the Corinthians, within the list of people who will not
inherit the kingdom of God, Paul uses two Greek words: malakoi and arsenokoitai. Malakoi
is a common Greek word meaning, of things subject to touch, "soft"
(used in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 to describe a garment); of things
not subject to touch, "gentle"; and, of persons or modes of life, a
number of meanings that include "pathic". Nowhere else in scripture is malakoi used to describe a person.
Interpretation
Bishop Gene Robinson
says the early church seemed to have understood it as a person with a
"soft" or weak morality; later, it would come to denote (and be
translated as) those who engage in masturbation, or "those who abuse
themselves"; all that is factually known about the word is that it means
"soft".
“
But we
know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that
the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and
disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane,
for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For
whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for
menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other
thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious
gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
”
Most scholars hold that Paul had two passages of the Book of Leviticus, 18:22 and 20:13, in mind when he used the word ἀρσενοκοῖται (which may be of his coinage) with most commentators and translators interpreting it as a reference to male same-sex intercourse.
However, John Boswell states that it "did not connote homosexuality to
Paul or his early readers", and that in later Christian literature the
word is used, for instance, by Aristides of Athens (c. 138) clearly not for homosexuality and possibly for prostitution, Eusebius (d. c. 340) who evidently used it in reference to women, and in the writings of 6th-century Patriarch John IV of Constantinople, known as John the Faster. In a passage dealing with sexual misconduct, John speaks of arsenokoitia as active or passive and says that "many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives".
Although the constituent elements of the compound word refer to
sleeping with men, he obviously does not use it to mean homosexual
intercourse and appears to employ it for anal intercourse, not generic
homosexual activity.
Particulars of Boswell's arguments are rejected by several scholars in a
way qualified as persuasive by David F. Greenberg, who declares usage
of the term arsenokoites by writers such as Aristides of Athens and Eusebius, and in the Sibylline Oracles, to be "consistent with a homosexual meaning".
A discussion document issued by the House of Bishops of the Church of
England states that most scholars still hold that the word arsenokoites relates to homosexuality.
Another work attributed to John the Faster, a series of canons that for
various sins provided shorter though stricter penances in place of the
previous longer penances, applies a penance of eighty days for
"intercourse of men with one another" (canon 9), explained in the Pedalion as mutual masturbation – double the penalty for solitary masturbation (canon 8) – and three years with xerophagy or, in accordance with the older canon of Basil the Great,
fifteen without (canon 18) for being "so mad as to copulate with
another man" – ἀρρενομανήσαντα in the original – explained in the Pedalion
as "guilty of arsenocoetia (i.e., sexual intercourse between males)" –
ἀρσενοκοίτην in the original. According to the same work, ordination is
not to be conferred on someone who as a boy has been the victim of anal
intercourse, but this is not the case if the semen was ejaculated
between his thighs (canon 19). These canons are included, with
commentary, in the Pedalion, the most widely used collection of canons of the Greek Orthodox Church,
an English translation of which was produced by Denver Cummings and
published by the Orthodox Christian Educational Society in 1957 under
the title, The Rudder.
Some scholars consider that the term was not used to refer to a
homosexual orientation, but argue that it referred instead to sexual
activity.
Other scholars have interpreted arsenokoitai and malakoi (another word that appears in 1 Corinthians 6:9) as referring to weakness and effeminacy or to the practice of exploitative pederasty.
Jesus's discussion of marriage
In Matthew 19:3, Jesus is asked if a man can divorce his wife. In that context,
“
He
answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning
“made them male and female” [Genesis 1:27], and said, “For this reason a
man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and
the two shall become one flesh” [Genesis 2:24]? So they are no longer
two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one
separate.’
”
(Matthew 19:4-6, NRSV translation; Mark 10:6-9 is a parallel text)
Robert Gagnon, an associate professor of New Testament studies,
argues that Jesus's back-to-back references to Genesis 1 and Genesis 2
show that he "presupposed a two-sex requirement for marriage".
In Matthew 8:5–13 and Luke 7:1–10, Jesus heals a centurion's servant
who is dying. Daniel A. Helminiak writes that the Greek word pais, used in this account, was sometimes given a sexual meaning.
Donald Wold states that its normal meaning is "boy", "child" or "slave"
and its application to a boy lover escapes notice in the standard
lexica of Liddell and Scott and Bauer. The Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott registers three meanings of the word παῖς (pais):
a child in relation to descent (son or daughter); a child in relation
to age (boy or girl); a slave or servant (male or female). In her
detailed study of the episode in Matthew and Luke, Wendy Cotter
dismisses as very unlikely the idea that the use of the Greek word
"pais" indicated a sexual relationship between the centurion and the
young slave.
Matthew's account has parallels in Luke 7:1–10 and John 4:46–53.
There are major differences between John's account and those of the two
synoptic writers, but such differences exist also between the two
synoptic accounts, with next to nothing of the details in Luke 7:2–6
being present also in Matthew. The Commentary of Craig A. Evans states that the word pais used by Matthew may be that used in the hypothetical source known as Q used by both Matthew and Luke and, since it can mean either son or slave, it became doulos (slave) in Luke and huios (son) in John. Writers who admit John 4:46–53 as a parallel passage generally interpret Matthew's pais as "child" or "boy", while those who exclude it see it as meaning "servant" or "slave".
Theodore W. Jennings Jr. and Tat-Siong Benny Liew write that
Roman historical data about patron-client relationships and about
same-sex relations among soldiers support the view that the pais
in Matthew's account is the centurion's "boy-love" and that the
centurion did not want Jesus to enter his house for fear the boy would
be enamoured of Jesus instead.
D.B. Saddington writes that while he does not exclude the possibility,
the evidence the two put forward supports "neither of these
interpretations",
with Stephen Voorwinde saying of their view that "the argument on which
this understanding is based has already been soundly refuted in the
scholarly literature" and Wendy Cotter saying that they fail to take account of Jewish condemnation of pederasty. Others interpret Matthew's pais merely as a boy servant, not a male lover, and read nothing sexual into Luke's "valued highly".
Matthew 19:12
In Matthew 19:12, Jesus speaks of eunuchs who were born as such, eunuchs who were made so by others, and eunuchs who choose to live as such for the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus's reference to eunuchs who were born as such has been interpreted
by some commentators as having to do with homosexual orientation; Clement of Alexandria, for instance, cites in his book "Stromata" (chapter III,1,1) an earlier interpretation from Basilides that some men, from birth, are naturally averse to women and should not marry.
"The first category – those eunuchs who have been so from birth – is
the closest description we have in the Bible of what we understand today
as homosexual."
Acts 8
The Ethiopian eunuch, an early gentile convert described in Acts 8,
has been interpreted by some commentators as an early gay Christian,
based on the fact that the word "eunuch" in the Bible was not always
used literally, as in Matthew 19:12.
Religious commentators generally suggest that the combination of
"eunuch" together with the title "court official" indicates a literal
eunuch — not a homosexual — who would have been excluded from the Temple
by the restriction in Deuteronomy 23:1.
According to the Torah, the kingdoms of Sodom and Gomorrah were allied with the cities of Admah, Zeboim, and Bela. These five cities, also known as the "cities of the plain" (from Genesis in the Authorized Version), were situated on the Jordan River plain in the southern region of the land of Canaan. The plain was compared to the garden of Eden[Gen.13:10] as being well-watered and green, suitable for grazing livestock. Divine judgment was passed upon Sodom and Gomorrah and two neighboring cities, which were consumed by fire and brimstone. Neighboring Zoar (Bela) was the only city to be spared. In Abrahamic religions, Sodom and Gomorrah have become synonymous with impenitent sin, and their fall with a proverbial manifestation of divine retribution.
Sodom and Gomorrah have been used historically and in modern discourse as metaphors for homosexuality, and are the origin of the English words, sodomite, a pejorative term for male homosexuals, and sodomy, which is used in a legal context to describe sexual crimes against nature, namely anal or oral sex (particularly homosexual) and bestiality. This is based upon exegesis
of the biblical text interpreting divine judgement upon Sodom and
Gomorrah as punishment for the sin of homosexuality, though some
contemporary scholars dispute this interpretation. Some Islamic societies incorporate punishments associated with Sodom and Gomorrah into sharia.
Etymology
The etymology of both names is uncertain, and scholars disagree about them.
They are known in Hebrew as סְדֹם (Səḏōm) and עֲמֹרָה (‘Ămōrāh). In the Septuagint these became Σόδομα (Sódoma) and Γόμορρᾰ (Gómorrha; the Hebrew ayin is pronounced as a voiced uvular fricative in Mizrahi, which is rendered in Greek by a gamma, a voiced velar stop).
According to Bob Macdonald, the Hebrew term for Gomorrah was based on the Semitic root ʿ-m-r, which means "be deep", "copious (water)".
In the Book of Genesis
The Book of Genesis is the primary source that mentions the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Battle of Siddim
The Battle of Siddim is described in Genesis 14:1–17. Sodom and Gomorrah's political situation is described when Lot
had encamped in Sodom's territory. At this time, "the men of Sodom
[were] wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly". Sodom was ruled
by King Bera while Gomorrah was ruled by King Birsha. Their kingship was not sovereign, because all of the river Jordan plain was under Elamite rule for 12 years. The kingdom of Elam was ruled by King Chedorlaomer.
In the 13th year of subjugation to Elam, the five kings of the river
Jordan plain allied to rebel against Elamite rule. These kings included
those of Sodom and Gomorrah as well as their neighbors: King Shinab of Admah, King Shemeber of Zeboiim, and the unnamed king of Bela (later called Zoar).
In response, Elam's King Chedorlaomer, gathered additional forces from Shinar, Ellasar and Goyim to suppress this rebellion from the cities of the plain. They waged war in the Vale of Siddim in the 14th year. The battle was brutal with heavy losses in the cities of the plain, with their resultant defeat, Genesis 14:10.
Sodom and Gomorrah were spoiled of their goods, and captives were
taken, including Lot. The tide of war turned when Lot's uncle, Abraham, gathered an elite force that slaughtered King Chedorlaomer's forces in Hobah, north of Damascus. The success of his mission freed the cities of the plain from under Elam's rule.
The Judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah
Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed in the background of Lucas van Leyden's 1520 painting Lot and his Daughters
The story of the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah is told in Genesis 18–19. Three men came to Abraham in the plains of Mamre. After the angels received the hospitality of Abraham and Sarah,
the Lord revealed to Abraham that he would confirm what he had heard
against Sodom and Gomorrah, "and because their sin is very grievous."
In response, Abraham inquired of the Lord if he would spare the
city if 50 righteous people were found in it, to which the Lord agreed
he would not destroy it for the sake of the righteous yet dwelling
therein. Abraham then inquired of God for mercy at lower numbers (first
45, then 40, then 30, then 20, and finally at 10), with the Lord
agreeing each time. Two angels were sent to Sodom to investigate and were met by Abraham's nephew Lot, who convinced the angels to lodge with him, and they ate with Lot.
Genesis 19:4–5 described what followed, which confirmed its end:
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the
men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the
people from every quarter. 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto
him: 'Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out
unto us, that we may know them.'
(NRSV: know them, NIV: can have sex with them, NJB: can have intercourse with them).
Lot refused to give his guests to the inhabitants of Sodom and, instead, offered them his two virgin daughters "which have not known man" and to "do ye to them as [is]
good in your eyes". They refused this offer, complained about this
alien, namely Lot, judging them, and then came near to break down the
door. Lot's angelic guests rescued him and struck the men with blindness
and they informed Lot of their mission to destroy the city. Then (not
having found even 10 righteous people in the city), they commanded Lot
to gather his family and leave. As they made their escape, one angel
commanded Lot to "look not behind thee" (singular "thee"). As Sodom and
Gomorrah were being destroyed with brimstone and fire from the Lord, Lot's wife looked back at the city, and she became a pillar of salt.
Other biblical references
The Hebrew Bible refers to Sodom and Gomorrah. The New Testament
also contains passages of parallels to the destruction and surrounding
events that pertained to these cities and those who were involved. Later
deuterocanonical texts attempt to glean additional insights about these cities of the Jordan Plain and their residents.
Your children who follow you in
later generations and foreigners who come from distant lands will see
the calamities that have fallen on the land and the diseases with which
the LORD has
afflicted it. The whole land will be a burning waste of salt and
sulfur—nothing planted, nothing sprouting, no vegetation growing on it.
It will be like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboyim, which the Lord overthrew in fierce anger.—NIV
Isaiah 1:9–10, Isaiah 3:9 and Isaiah 13:19–22
addresses people as from Sodom and Gomorrah, associates Sodom with
shameless sinning and tells Babylon that it will end like those two
cities.
In Ezekiel 16:48–50, God compares Jerusalem
to Sodom, saying "Sodom never did what you and your daughters have
done." He explains that the sin of Sodom was that "She and her daughters
were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and
needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me."
In Amos 4:1–11, God tells the Israelites that although he treated them like Sodom and Gomorrah, they still did not repent.
In Zephaniah 2:9, Zephaniah tells Moab and Ammon, southeast and northeast of the Dead Sea, that they will end up like Sodom and Gomorrah.
New Testament
In Matthew 10:1–15, cf. Luke 10:1–12,
Jesus declares certain cities more damnable than Sodom and Gomorrah,
due to their response to Jesus' disciples, in the light of greater grace
(RSV):
And
if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the
dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to
you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of
Sodom and Gomor'rah than for that town.
In Matthew 11:20–24, Jesus prophesies the fate of some cities where he did some of his works (RSV):
And
you, Caper'na-um, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought
down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in
Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it
shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom
than for you.
In Luke 17:28–30, Jesus compares his second-coming to the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (RSV):
Likewise
as it was in the days of Lot—they ate, they drank, they bought, they
sold, they planted, they built, but on the day when Lot went out from
Sodom fire and sulphur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will
it be on the day when the Son of man is revealed.
In Romans 9:29, Paul the Apostle quotes Isaiah 1:9 (RSV):
"And as Isaiah predicted, 'If the Lord of hosts had not left us
children, we would have fared like Sodom and been made like Gomor'rah.'"
In 2 Peter 2:4–10, Saint Peter
says that just as God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and saved Lot, he
will deliver godly people from temptations and punish the wicked on
Judgement Day.
Jude 1:7
records that both Sodom and Gomorrah were "giving themselves over to
fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an
example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire".
Wisdom rescued a righteous man when
the ungodly were perishing; he escaped the fire that descended on the
Five Cities. Evidence of their wickedness still remains: a continually
smoking wasteland, plants bearing fruit that does not ripen, and a
pillar of salt standing as a monument to an unbelieving soul. For
because they passed wisdom by, they not only were hindered from
recognizing the good, but also left for mankind a reminder of their
folly, so that their failures could never go unnoticed.
Wisdom 19:17
says that the Egyptians who enslaved the Israelites were "struck with
blindness, like the men of Sodom who came to the door of that righteous
man Lot. They found themselves in total darkness, as each one groped
around to find his own door."
Sirach 16:8 says "[God] did not spare the neighbors of Lot, whom he loathed on account of their insolence."
In 3 Maccabees 2:5,
the high priest Simon says that God "consumed with fire and sulphur the
men of Sodom who acted arrogantly, who were notorious for their vices;
and you made them an example to those who should come afterward".
2 Esdras 2:8–9
says "Woe to you, Assyria, who conceal the unrighteous in your midst! O
wicked nation, remember what I did to Sodom and Gomor′rah, whose land
lies in lumps of pitch and heaps of ashes. So will I do to those who
have not listened to me, says the Lord Almighty."
2 Esdras 5:1–13 describes signs of the end times, one of which is that "the sea of Sodom shall cast up fish".
In 2 Esdras 7:106, Ezra says that Abraham prayed for the people of Sodom.
Painting from William Francis Lynch book The Narrative of the United States Expedition of the River Jordan and the Dead Sea. Published in 1849
There are other stories and historical names which bear a resemblance
to the biblical stories of Sodom and Gomorrah. Some possible natural
explanations for the events described have been proposed, but no widely
accepted or strongly verified sites for the cities have been found.
Sites
The ancient Greek historiographer Strabo states that locals living near Moasada (as opposed to Masada) say that "there were once thirteen inhabited cities in that region of which Sodom was the metropolis”. Strabo identifies a limestone and salt hill at the southwestern tip of the Dead Sea, and Kharbet Usdum (Hebrew: הר סדום, Har Sedom or Arabic: جبل السدوم, Jabal(u) 'ssudūm) ruins nearby as the site of biblical Sodom. Archibald Sayce translated an Akkadian
poem describing cities that were destroyed in a rain of fire, written
from the view of a person who escaped the destruction; the names of the
cities are not given. Sayce later mentions that the story more closely resembles the doom of Sennacherib's host.
The Jewish historian Josephus identifies the Dead Sea in geographic proximity to the ancient biblical city of Sodom. He refers to the lake by its Greek name, Asphaltites.
Southern Theory
In 1973, Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub discovered or visited a number of possible sites of the cities, including Bab edh-Dhra,
which was originally excavated in 1965 by archaeologist Paul Lapp, and
later finished by Rast and Schaub following his death. Other
possibilities include Numeira,
al-Safi, Feifa (or Fifa, Feifah), and Khirbet al-Khanazir, which were
also visited by Schaub and Rast. However, in 1993 Nancy Lapp, from
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, reported that Feifa had no Bronze age
occupation and merely an EB cemetery with Iron Age walls. She reports:
"In the final season of the present series of excavations of the
Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain (1990–1991), the walled site of Feifa
was investigated and the EB cemetery that stretched to its east was
excavated. The most recent surveys suggested that the visible structures
of the walled site belonged to the Iron Age or Roman period." At khirbet al-Khanazir the walls which Rast and Schaub identified in 1973 as houses were in reality rectangular charnel burial houses marking EB IV shaft tombs and not occupational structures.
According to Schaub, who dug at Bab edh-Dhra, Numeira was destroyed in
2600 BCE at a different time period than Bab edh-Dhra (2350–2067 BCE).
Northern Theory
Another candidate for Sodom is the Tall el-Hammam dig site which began in 2006 under the direction of Steven Collins.
Tall el-Hammam overlooking the Jordan Valley 2007
Tall el-Hammam is located in the southern Jordan river valley
approximately 14 kilometres (9 mi) northeast of the Dead Sea, and
according to Collins fits the biblical descriptions of the lands of
Sodom. The ongoing dig is a result of joint cooperation between the unaccredited Trinity Southwest University and the Department of Antiquities of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
Professor Eugene H. Merrill
believes that the identification of Tall el-Hammam with Sodom would
require an unacceptable restructuring of the biblical chronology.
Natural disaster
Certain
skeptics of the biblical account have theorized that, provided that the
cities existed at all, they might have been destroyed by natural disaster. One such idea is that the Dead Sea was devastated by an earthquake between 2100 and 1900 BCE. This might have unleashed showers of steaming tar. It is possible that the towns were destroyed by an earthquake, especially if they lay along a major fault such as the Jordan Rift Valley. There is a lack of contemporary accounts of seismic activity within the necessary time frame to corroborate this theory.
In 2018, it was proposed that this ancient city was destroyed
about 3700 years ago by a meteoritic explosion in the atmosphere
equivalent to 10 megatonnes, laying waste to Tall el-Hammam and
degrading the fertility of the local land.
Other hypotheses
In 1976 Giovanni Pettinato claimed that a cuneiform tablet that had been found in the newly discovered library at Ebla contained the names of all five of the cities of the plain (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela), listed in the same order as in Genesis. The names si-da-mu [TM.76.G.524] and ì-ma-ar [TM.75.G.1570 and TM.75.G.2233] were identified as representing Sodom and Gomorrah, which gained some acceptance at the time. However, Alfonso Archi states that, judging from the surrounding city names in the cuneiform list, si-da-mu lies in northern Syria and not near the Dead Sea, and ì-ma-ar is a variant of ì-mar, known to represent Emar, an ancient city located near Ebla. Today, the scholarly consensus is that "Ebla has no bearing on ... Sodom and Gomorra."
In 1990, Ron Wyatt, and Richard Rives explored the area around Masada and uncovered large sulfur chunks embedded within natural rock. These sulfuric deposits are most likely the result of calcite and gypsum reacting with the local strata following a seismic event. Wyatt's reliability is discredited by many scholars, historians, historical organizations, the Israel Antiquities Authority and even religious institutions, including Answers in Genesis.
Religious views
Jewish
Rabbi Basil Herring, who served as head of the Rabbinical Council of America from 2003 to 2012, writes that both the Rabbinic tradition and modern orthodox position consider the Torah
to condemn homosexuality as an abomination. Moreover, that it "conveys
its abhorrence of homosexuality through a variety of narrative
settings", God's judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah being a "paradigmatic"
instance of such condemnation.
Rictor Norton views classical Jewish texts as stressing the cruelty and lack of hospitality of the inhabitants of Sodom to the "stranger".
The people of Sodom were seen as guilty of many other significant sins.
Rabbinic writings affirm that the Sodomites also committed economic
crimes, blasphemy and bloodshed.
Other extrabiblical crimes committed by Sodom and Gomorrah included extortion
on crossing a bridge/or swimming a river; harshly punishing victims for
crimes that the perpetrator committed, forcing an assault victim to pay
for the perpetrator's "bleeding" and forcing a woman to marry a man who intentionally caused her
miscarriage to compensate for the lost child. Because of this, the
judges of the two cities were referred to as Shakrai ("Liar"), Shakurai
("Awful Liar"), Zayyafi ("Forger") and Mazle Dina ("Perverter of
Justice"). Eliezer
was reported to be a victim of such legally unjust conduct, after Sarah
sent him to Sodom to report on Lot's welfare. The citizens also
regularly tortured
foreigners who sought lodging. They did this by providing the
foreigners a standard-sized beds and if they saw that the foreigner was
too short for the bed, they would forcibly stretch their limbs but if the foreigner was too tall, they would cut off their legs;
As a result, many people refrained from visiting Sodom and Gomorrah.
Beggars who settled into the two cities for refuge were similarly
mistreated. The citizens would give them marked coins (presumably used
to purchase food) but were nonetheless forbidden, by proclamation, to
provide these necessary services. Once the beggar died of starvation,
citizens who initially gave the beggar the coins were permitted to
retrieve them, provided that they could recognize it. The beggar's
clothing was also provided as a reward for any citizen who could
successfully overcome their opponent in a street fight.
The provision of bread and water to the poor was also a capital
offense (Yalḳ., Gen. 83). Two girls, one poor and the other rich, went
to a well; and the former gave the latter her jug of water, receiving in
return a vessel containing bread. When this became known, both were
burned alive (ib.). According to the Book of Jasher, Paltith, one of Lot's daughters, was burnt alive (in some versions, on a pyre) for giving a poor man bread. Her cries went to the heavens.
Another woman was similarly executed in Admah for giving a traveler,
who intended to leave the town the next day, water. When the scandal was
revealed, the woman was stripped naked and covered with honey. This
attracted bees as the woman was slowly stung to death. Her cries then
went up into the heavens, the turning point that was revealed to have
provoked God to enact judgement upon Sodom and Gomorrah in the first
place in Genesis 18:20.
Jon D. Levenson views a rabbinic tradition described in the Mishnah
as postulating that the sin of Sodom was a violation of conventional
hospitality in addition to homosexual conduct, describing Sodom's lack
of generosity with the saying, "What is mine is mine; what is yours is
yours" (m. Avot 5.10).
Jay Michaelson
proposes a reading of the story of Sodom that emphasizes the violation
of hospitality as well as the violence of the Sodomites. "Homosexual
rape is the way in which they violate hospitality—not the essence of
their transgression. Reading the story of Sodom as being about
homosexuality is like reading the story of an ax murderer as being about
an ax."
Michaelson places the story of Sodom in context with other Genesis
stories regarding Abraham's hospitality to strangers, and argues that
when other texts in the Hebrew Bible mention Sodom, they do so without
commentary on homosexuality. The verses cited by Michaelson include
Jeremiah 23:14,[Jeremiah 23:14]
where the sins of Jerusalem are compared to Sodom and are listed as
adultery, lying, and strengthening the hands of evildoers; Amos 4:1–11
(oppressing the poor and crushing the needy);[Amos 4:1–11] and Ezekiel 16:49–50,[Ezekiel 16:49–50]
which defines the sins of Sodom as "pride, fullness of bread, and
abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she
strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and
did toevah before me, and I took them away as I saw fit." Michaelson uses toevah in place of abomination to emphasize the original Hebrew, which he explains as being more correctly translated as "taboo".
Christian
Two areas of contention have arisen in modern Christian scholarship concerning the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Whether the violent mob surrounding Lot's house were demanding to engage in sexual violence against Lot's guests.
Whether it was homosexuality or another transgression, such as the
act of inhospitability towards visitors, that was the principal reason
for God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The first contention focuses primarily upon the meaning of the Hebrew verb Hebrew: ידע (yada), translated as "know" in the King James Version:
And
they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came
in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. —Genesis 19:5
Yada is used to refer to sexual intercourse in various instances, such as in Genesis 4:1 between Adam and Eve:
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.—Genesis 4:1
Some Hebrew scholars believe that yada, unlike the English word "know", requires the existence of a "personal and intimate relationship".
For this reason, many of the most popular of the 20th century
translations, including the New International Version, the New King
James Version, and the New Living Translation, translate yada as "have sex with" or "know ... carnally" in Gen 19:5.
Those who favor the non-sexual interpretation argue against a
denotation of sexual behavior in this context, noting that while the
Hebrew word for "know" appears over 900 times in the Hebrew Scriptures,
only 1% (13–14 times) of those references are clearly used as a euphemism for realizing sexual intimacy. Instead, those who hold to this interpretation see the demand to know as demanding the right to interrogate the strangers.
Countering this is the observation that one of the examples of "know" meaning to know sexually occurs when Lot responds to the Gen 19:5 request, by offering his daughters for rape, only three verses later in the same narrative:
Behold
now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you,
bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes:
only unto these men do nothing.... —Genesis 19:8
The following is a major text in regard to these conflicting opinions:
Even
as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving
themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set
forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. —Jude 1:7
This reference to "going after strange flesh" is understood in
different ways to include something akin to bestiality, having illicit
sex with strangers, having sex with angels, but most often God's
destruction of the populations of the four cities is interpreted to mean
homosexual (same-sex) relations.
Many who interpret the stories in a non-sexual context contend
that as the word for "strange" is akin to "another", "other", "altered"
or even "next", the meaning is unclear, and if the condemnation of Sodom
was the result of sexual activities perceived to be perverse, then it
is likely that it was because women sought to commit fornication with
"other than human" angels, perhaps referring to Genesis 6 or the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Countering this, it is pointed out that Genesis 6
refers to angels seeking women, not men seeking angels, and that both
Sodom and Gomorrah were engaged in the sin Jude describes before the
angelic visitation, and that, regardless, it is doubtful that the
Sodomites knew they were angels. In addition, it is argued the word used
in the King James Version of the Bible for "strange", can mean unlawful
or corrupted (Rm. 7:3; Gal. 1:6), and that the apocryphal Second Book of Enoch condemns "sodomitic" sex (2 Enoch 10:3; 34:1), thus indicating that homosexual relations was the prevalent physical sin of Sodom.
Both the non-sexual and the homosexuality view invoke certain classical writings as well as other portions of the Bible.
Now this was the sin of Sodom: She
and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not
help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things
before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. —Ezekiel 16:49–50
Here the nonsexual view focuses on the inhospitality aspect, while the other notes the description detestable or abomination, the Hebrew word for which often denotes moral sins, including those of a sexual nature.
In the Gospel of Matthew (and corresponding verse) when Jesus
warns of a worse judgment for some cities than Sodom, inhospitality is
perceived by some as the sin, while others see it fundamentally being
impenitence:
If anyone will not welcome you or
listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that
home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom
and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. —Matthew 10:14–15
The nonsexual view focuses on the cultural importance of hospitality,
which this biblical story shares with other ancient civilizations, such
as Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, where hospitality was of singular importance and strangers were under the protection of the gods.
James L. Kugel, Starr Professor of Hebrew Literature at Harvard
University suggests the story encompasses the sexual and non-sexual: the
Sodomites were guilty of stinginess, inhospitality and sexual license,
homo- and heterosexual in contrast to the generosity of Abraham, and Lot
whose behavior in protecting the visitors but offering his daughters
suggests he was "scarcely better than his neighbors" according to some
ancient commentators, The Bible As It Was, 1997, pp. 179–197.
Within the Christian Churches that agree on the possible sexual interpretation of "know" (yada) in this context, there is still a difference of opinion on whether homosexuality is important. On its website, the Anglican Communion
presents the argument that the story is "not even vaguely about
homosexual love or relationships", but is instead "about dominance and rape,
by definition an act of violence, not of sex or love". This argument
that the violence and the threat of violence towards foreign visitors is
the true ethical downfall of Sodom (and not homosexuality), also
observes the similarity between the Sodom and Gomorrah and the Battle of Gibeah
Bible stories. In both stories, an inhospitable mob demands the
homosexual rape of a foreigner or foreigners. As the mob instead
settles for the rape and murder of the foreigner's female concubine in
the Battle of Gibeah story, the homosexual aspect is generally seen as
inconsequential, and the ethical downfall is understood to be the
violence and the threat of violence towards foreigners by the mob. This
Exodus 22:21–24 lesson is viewed by Anglicans as a more historically accurate way to interpret the Sodom and Gomorrah story.
Scholar in history and gender studies Lisa McClain has claimed
that the association between Sodom and Gomorrah with homosexuality
emerged from the writings of 1st century Jewish philosopher Philo, and that no prior exegesis of the text suggested such a linkage.
Islamic
Lut fleeing the city with his daughters; his wife is killed by a rock.
The Quran contains twelve references to "the people of Lut", the
biblical Lot, but meaning the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah, and their
destruction by God is associated explicitly with their sexual
practices.
The 'people of Lot' transgressed
consciously against the bounds of God. Lot only prayed to God to be
saved from doing as they did. Then Gabriel met Lot and said that he must
leave the city quickly, as God had given this command to Lot for saving
his life. In the Quran it was written that Lot's wife stayed behind as
she had transgressed. She met her fate in the disaster, and only Lot and
his family were saved during the destruction of their city,
with the understanding that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are
identified in Genesis, but "the location remains unnamed in the Qur'an"
In the Quran, surah (chapter) 26 Ash-Shu`arā' (The Poets) –
So, We saved him and his family, all. Except an old woman among those who remained behind.
Commentary: This was his wife, who
was a bad old woman. She stayed behind and was destroyed with whoever
else was left. This is similar to what Allah says about them in Surat
Al-A`raf and Surat Hud, and in Surat Al-Hijr, where Allah commanded him
to take his family at night, except for his wife, and not to turn around
when they heard the Sayhah as it came upon his people. So they
patiently obeyed the command of Allah and persevered, and Allah sent
upon the people a punishment which struck them all, and rained upon them
stones of baked clay, piled up.
The site of the present Dead Sea Works, a large operation for the extraction of Dead Sea minerals, is called "Sdom" (סדום) according to its traditional Arab name, Khirbet as-sudūm (خربت السدوم). Nearby is Mount Sodom
(הר סדום in Hebrew and جبل السدوم in Arabic) which consists mainly of
salt. In the Plain of Sdom (מישור סדום) to the south there are a few
springs and two small agricultural villages, Neot Hakikar and Ein Tamar.
Second World War
"Operation Gomorrah" was the name given to the Bombing of Hamburg in July 1943,
in which 42,600 civilians were killed, and where use of incendiaries
caused a vortex and whirling updraft of super-heated air which created a
460 meter high tornado of fire.