Wednesday, February 05, 2014


Bible critics assume what they have to prove

They say that domestic camels arrived in Israel after the times that the Bible says.  But they admit that some camel bones dated from earlier periods have been found.  To fit their theory they say that the earlier finds "probably belonged to wild camels".  How do they know?  They don't.  They are just assuming what they have to prove.

A more reasonable summary of the findings would be to say that most people were too poor in earlier periods for many of them to own camels  -- hence the rarity of camel remains in those earlier periods.

Dromedary camels are thought to have first been domesticated by humans in Arabia around 3,000 BC.  Considering that Arabia and Israel share a land border, how absurd is it to say that domestic camels were unknown in Israel at that time?

Atheists really give me the pip sometimes, even though I am one myself.  Why do they have to keep denigrating faith?  It seems childish and insecure to me

Camels are mentioned in Biblical stories involving Abraham, Joseph and Jacob as well as other famous characters.  But archaeologists have found that the mammals were not domesticated in Israel until centuries after famous figures were said to have ridden them.

They claim this shows that text in the Bible was compiled long after the events described in it and challenges the holy book as a historical document.

Camels were not domesticated in Israel until centuries after the Age of the Patriarchs – when Abraham, Jacob and Issac are said to have lived - between 2,000 and 1,500 BC.

Dr Erez Ben-Yosef and Dr Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel Aviv University's Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures used radiocarbon dating to pinpoint the moment when domesticated camels arrived in the southern Levant.

They found camels came in the 9th century BC, not the 12th as previously thought.

‘The introduction of the camel to our region was a very important economic and social development,’ Dr Ben-Yosef said.

‘By analysing archaeological evidence from the copper production sites of the Aravah Valley, we were able to estimate the date of this event in terms of decades rather than centuries,’ he said.

It is believed that camels were originally domesticated in the Arabian Peninsula for use as pack animals sometime towards the end of the second millennium BC.

The oldest known domesticated camel bones were discovered in the Aravah Valley, in the southern Levant, which runs along the Israeli-Jordanian border from the Dead Sea to the Red Sea and come from a time when the valley was an ancient centre for copper production.

Dr Ben-Yosef dated an Aravah Valley copper smelting camp where the domesticated camel bones were found in 2009 and discovered they dated to between the 11th and 9th century BC.

He led another dig in the area in 2013 to determine exactly when domesticated camels appeared in the southern Levant.

Together with Dr Sapir-Hen, he used radiocarbon dating and other techniques to analyse the findings of these digs as well as several others done in the valley.

In all the digs, they found that camel bones were unearthed almost exclusively in archaeological layers dating from the last third of the 10th century BC or later – centuries after the patriarchs lived and decades after the Kingdom of David, according to the Bible.

The few camel bones found in earlier archaeological layers probably belonged to wild camels, which archaeologists think were in the southern Levant from the Neolithic period or even earlier.

SOURCE

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).

2 comments:

Doom said...

It's the difference between those who disbelieve naturally, just because they don't feel it or see it, and those who are faking their atheism, or depending on it, to get away with doing what they know is wrong but can't otherwise face. Gays populate this group strongly in academia, as do feminists. Drug users are a common typical variety. There are many types. Their argument, really, is with God. But that conversation is a loser, as just having it would undo the psychology of denial.

If you simply don't believe, can't see it, but are secure, you don't need to attack anything. If you were an "atheist" so as to do what you wanted, and pretty much solely for that reason, you would be attacking Christianity too.

That doesn't mean you aren't gay, or a drug user, philanderer, or whatever, we all sin to a degree anyway, it just means, if you are, you honestly understand it isn't the best course, but choose it on your own initiative, not needing everyone to go along with it.

If, or should I say when, I was an atheist, or atheistic anyway, I just did my sins and crimes, and time if caught. I didn't worry about all that jazz, popular support, or social norms or approval. A bit more honesty would help the attackers, and everyone else. Yeah, we know the score.

slwlion1 said...

Well said !

Home

eXTReMe Tracker