Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Given that there are 165 million years worth of dinosaurs bones lying about that are conveniently sidestepped by the bible, a few missing Camel bones are probably neither here or there to a bible believer. They are hardly worried about accuracy. Or truth. Or reality in any shape or form.
Correction: EVERYTHING challenges the Bible's timeline/story.
Sure seems that way
Just amazing (kind of frightening actually) that there are still people out there in this day and age who accept that ancient book as literally true and accurate.
Einstein still has the best quote about the book and this alleged god, in my view...
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
The Bible is not a history book and its timeline is not an issue. However, I don't understand how a set of of bones (attributed to a certain era) proofs that camels didn't exist before...
They did the same with human bones and decided modern humans didn't exist prior to X, only to "adjust" the theory when older remains were found. Being at odd with the findings, theoreticians now believe several branches of humans' ancestors existed...
With ancient humans, we had no idea where to look. And by 'no idea', I mean that we didn't even know which continent. Eventually that was 'narrowed down' to somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa.
In the above case. we know exactly where to look - human settlements in ancient Israel.
And what happens when we look there? We find the bones of camels in virtually every post-900BC settlement, and we find them almost completely absent in pre-900BC settlements.
So, we have two possible explanations:
*Sheer, and highly improbably, coincidence
or
*Domesticated camels did not, in fact, arrive in the southern Levant until approximately 900BC.
With ancient humans, we had no idea where to look. And by 'no idea', I mean that we didn't even know which continent. Eventually that was 'narrowed down' to somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa.
In the above case. we know exactly where to look - human settlements in ancient Israel.
And what happens when we look there? We find the bones of camels in virtually every post-900BC settlement, and we find them almost completely absent in pre-900BC settlements.
So, we have two possible explanations:
*Sheer, and highly improbably, coincidence
or
*Domesticated camels did not, in fact, arrive in the southern Levant until approximately 900BC.
Gee, I wonder which is more likely?
You can conclude something did not exist only because you didn't find it, especially when referring to 3000 year old artifacts.
As for Abraham, he could had lived later than we assume.
As far as archaeology goes, if they find a new set of bones or a partial message carved on a stone, they will not hesitate to develop a "new" theory that throws everything in new direction. Such findings are random. I can tell with much certainty that 100 years from now, archaeology will claim very different things from what they believe today.
Last edited by oberon_1; 02-08-2014 at 03:39 AM..
Reason: I
More an more evidence is popping up to suggest that the Bible's earliest date is the 1st millennium. It describes a world with the political entities of Edom and Ammon which didn't exist until the upheavals of the 12th c BC swept the old Canaanite city - states away.
While the questions of 'were you there' is blinkered. Nobody from the police or the law -court was 'there' either, but the evidence can sent someone to jail.
Appeal to negative evidence is a stock in trade of apologetics, but presumably the earlier levels were looked at and the absence of any camels along the trade route would be significant. It isn't lock -down, and camels in Abraham's train doesn't prove that Abraham lived about 2- 3,000 BC even if there are Caananite camel bones from that date. But an absence of camel bones where they might be expected is significant.
Just like an absence of the exodus in Egyptian records or archaeology, plus the indication that the account also dates from after the 12th c BC, when the Philistines settled Gaza.
Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence - where something is not found where it ought to be.
Bideshi's plonking assertion that the Bible is being supported by evidence more and more is simply blinkered denial. It is not. More and more, the evidence is demolishing the credibility of Bible as reliable historical fact.
You mean like the fact that there is no evidence for the exodus, or even that the Israelites were ever in Egypt?
That isn't necessarily true.
Someone was very familiar with Egyptian customs, especially those of high society, and also familiar with Egyptian culture, specifically they were familiar with the Book of the Dead, as well as certain other religious and cultural observances incorporated into Hebrew culture.
1] That all Hebrews were in Egypt is an impossibility;
2] That one to as many as 4 tribes, perhaps Benjamin, Reuben, Levi and Simeon stayed in Egypt because they had no land is a possibility;
3] that no Hebrews were Egypt, but that Egyptian suzerainty in the Sinai/Levant Region was stronger and more pervasive than currently believed is a possibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1
As for Abraham, he could had lived later than we assume.
Just like an absence of the exodus in Egyptian records or archaeology, plus the indication that the account also dates from after the 12th c BC, when the Philistines settled Gaza.
Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence - where something is not found where it ought to be.
Yes, and like the absence of the substantial secular coverage of the incredible events of the crucifixion and resurrection -- the preternatural darkness, the earthquakes, the people tumbling out of graves, the opening of the Holy of Holies. No public records, and not a single eyewitness account, or even a secondhand contemporaneous account. Just a handful of glancing mentions from a generation or two later, the most unambiguous of which is widely regarded as a forgery.
How about the absence of mass conversions, the implosion of Judaism, and an inexorable spread of The Truth all over the earth until 90% or more of the world is converted? How about those conversions never having to resort to torture, intimidation, threats or violence?
How about the fact we don't see a continuation of signs and wonders and other portents of the message's authenticity? What are we to make of that?
How about the absence of evidence of Christianity's salubrious effect on humanity? The lower rates of Christians in jail, getting divorced, committing suicide?
Lots of absence to contemplate, there and elsewhere.
I certainly note the thunderous absence of historical records of Jesus, so much so that someone round the 3rd c AD felt it necessary to forge one and slip it into Josephus.
The statistics on relative rates of god behaviour or criminality or indeed smarts on the part of Christians vs. atheists can be debated until Jesus comes for the ..ah...well, the umpteenth time, going by Matthew, Luke and John, not counting appearances in Paul's head.
The bottom line there is which is true, not which makes a person behave better. Removing a man's prefrontal lobes may turn a pathological killer into a peaceful citizen, but that does not make it the right answer.
You can conclude something did not exist only because you didn't find it, especially when referring to 3000 year old artifacts.
As for Abraham, he could had lived later than we assume.
As far as archaeology goes, if they find a new set of bones or a partial message carved on a stone, they will not hesitate to develop a "new" theory that throws everything in new direction. Such findings are random. I can tell with much certainty that 100 years from now, archaeology will claim very different things from what they believe today.
We know exactly where to look. The absence of camel bones in site after site in certain times is overwhelming evidence that domesticated camels were not present during that period.
There's no evidence of dogs (domesticated wolves) 50,000 years ago. You do not question that.
There's no evidence of extant Tyrannosaurs in the Holocene. You do not question that.
There's no evidence of a New World Iron Age. You do not question that.
Only when archaeology finds a compelling and telling absence of evidence that conflicts with the Bible do you suddenly cling to the "Just because we didn't find X doesn't mean it wasn't there!" notion. And that says all we need to know about what you selectively believe, and why.
Come now... I'm no Religious Fundamentalist, but there are some events (SOME, and not many) recorded in the Hebrew Bible that on a general level are found to be corroborated in extra-biblical records (such as the siege on Jerusalem by the Assyrians, for one example; of course, the two accounts differ in some ridiculous details such as the Angel of Yahweh bringing a plague on the Assyrians, but the main gist is there). This relates to events in the later books of the Hebrew Bible - not Patriarchal events, or Primeval events or even early monarchic events dealing with David or Solomon. Definitely nothing to do with the Exodus.
My point is that one cannot generalize and say "the Bible's events have been disproven by science and archaeology" as this is just plain incorrect. A little more specificity is in order here. Know your enemy, as they say. Otherwise, they will gladly throw you under the rug and use your own statements against you.
The main importance of the dating of the domesticated camel bones is not pertaining as to whether Abraham had camels or not at his disposal or whether the stories of Abraham and Job ever happened. The majority of Biblical Scholars see the figures of the Patriarchs as purely folkloristic, possibly representing tribes rather than individuals, but this still understands that the Patriarchal events did not happen at all, really. Too much evidence that the Israelites had come from indigenous Canaanite stock, rather than as pastoral nomads.
Rather, the main importance of the camel evidence is for the dating of the writing of some of the Biblical books, such as the book of Genesis and the Book of Job. That is all. It shows that these works were written many hundreds of years after the supposed facts they purport to relate. Of course, Biblical Scholars have known this already for hundreds of years from simple textual analysis and the stage of Biblical Hebrew used in the books, but the camel issue adds another piece of evidence to their disposal. But I'm not talking about Fundamentalist whackos here - I'm talking about professionals who have no problem admitting the very human nature of the Hebrew Bible and the many anachronistic errors it contains. It's part and parcel of their job, and any Fundamentalist notions that may be in their head are smashed out in their first year of higher education.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
