Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say - Religion, God, and Theology

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Religion, God, and Theology

Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 1 of 2

1 2

Page 1 of 2

1 2

02-06-2014 , 02:58 PM

Mightyboosh

mmm mmm good

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,560

Source:

Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say

(How did this show up on the FAUX News site, didn't they actually read it?)

Won't be a problem for Creationists of course since they don't accept Carbon dating as reliable.

Quote

02-06-2014 , 05:55 PM

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15,982

Fox News' bias isn't of the form "we never say anything that could ever possibly be perceived in a negative light for religion, ever".

Quote

02-06-2014 , 06:07 PM

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

I think all the previous camels drifted on trees across the oceans. That's why camels are like everywhere.

Quote

02-07-2014 , 04:41 AM

Mightyboosh

mmm mmm good

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,560

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

I think all the previous camels drifted on trees across the oceans. That's why camels are like everywhere.

Comments like this give me the hump.

Quote

02-07-2014 , 11:57 AM

festeringZit

old hand

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,442

Funny, I didn't see threads being started in here for the multiple recent archeological findings the affirmed/confirmed Biblical history?

Quote

02-07-2014 , 11:58 AM

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by festeringZit

Funny, I didn't see threads being started in here for the multiple recent archeological findings the affirmed/confirmed Biblical history?

How about you start them, since you seem to know about these events?

Quote

02-07-2014 , 12:15 PM

Mightyboosh

mmm mmm good

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,560

Quote:

Originally Posted by festeringZit

Funny, I didn't see threads being started in here for the multiple recent archeological findings the affirmed/confirmed Biblical history?

Such as?

Quote

02-07-2014 , 01:00 PM

Bladesman87

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 14,543

Quote:

Originally Posted by festeringZit

Funny, I didn't see threads being started in here for the multiple recent archeological findings the affirmed/confirmed Biblical history?

Probably because ones that violate its historicity are far more interesting.

Quote

02-07-2014 , 06:15 PM

DeuceKicker

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 5,359

Martyrs don't start threads; they just complain about their lack

Quote

02-07-2014 , 06:29 PM

#10

LEMONZEST

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mightyboosh

Comments like this give me the hump.

Cite?

Quote

02-07-2014 , 09:21 PM

#11

NotReady

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 10,519

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mightyboosh

Even a brain dead rock would know that archeological evidence for domestication doesn't say anything about earliest possible use.

Also:

http://archaeology.about.com/od/cterms/g/camels.htm

Quote

02-10-2014 , 03:41 AM

#12

starvingwriter82

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 7,793

Quote:

Originally Posted by festeringZit

Funny, I didn't see threads being started in here for the multiple recent archeological findings the affirmed/confirmed Biblical history?

Oh trust me, they're all here.

Seriously though, the overwhelming number of times that they find something that confirms some piece of Biblical history, it's just because they found ruins somewhere that roughly matches a city mentioned in the Bible. Nothing found ever confirms the parts of the Bible that are actually in question (miracles, angels, the supernatural, etc... lol at Christians for still being on the lookout for a four thousand year old boat, though).

I mean, that's like an archaeologist digging up London three thousand years from now and saying, "Well, I guess this proves the Chronicles of Narnia are true!"

Quote

02-10-2014 , 11:03 AM

#13

festeringZit

old hand

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,442

Quote:

Originally Posted by starvingwriter82

Oh trust me, they're all here.

Seriously though, the overwhelming number of times that they find something that confirms some piece of Biblical history, it's just because they found ruins somewhere that roughly matches a city mentioned in the Bible. Nothing found ever confirms the parts of the Bible that are actually in question (miracles, angels, the supernatural, etc... lol at Christians for still being on the lookout for a four thousand year old boat, though).

I mean, that's like an archaeologist digging up London three thousand years from now and saying, "Well, I guess this proves the Chronicles of Narnia are true!"

You donks in here act like bashing YECism actually proves anything.

Quote

02-10-2014 , 11:16 AM

#14

Mightyboosh

mmm mmm good

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,560

Quote:

Originally Posted by festeringZit

You donks in here act like bashing YECism actually proves anything.

What could it prove?

Quote

02-10-2014 , 11:18 AM

#15

Mightyboosh

mmm mmm good

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,560

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotReady

Even a brain dead rock would know that archeological evidence for domestication doesn't say anything about earliest possible use.

I thought that the bile spoke of camels being used as pack animals. Isn't that Domestication?

(I'm using this definition - "adaptation to intimate association with human beings")

Quote

02-10-2014 , 02:05 PM

#16

Husker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 12,887

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mightyboosh

I thought that the bile spoke of camels being used as pack animals. Isn't that Domestication?

(I'm using this definition - "adaptation to intimate association with human beings")

Freudian slip?

Quote

02-10-2014 , 02:47 PM

#17

Mightyboosh

mmm mmm good

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,560

Quote:

Originally Posted by Husker

Freudian slip?

Oops...

Caught myself making that typo before, missed it this time.

Quote

02-10-2014 , 05:14 PM

#18

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by festeringZit

You donks in here act like bashing YECism actually proves anything.

We're just noting that it isn't supported by the evidence.

Quote

02-10-2014 , 06:50 PM

#19

starvingwriter82

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 7,793

Quote:

Originally Posted by festeringZit

You donks in here act like bashing YECism actually proves anything.

Please, feel free to sidestep the point of my post with some generic namecalling. It makes you look awesome.

Quote

02-11-2014 , 12:52 AM

#20

NotReady

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 10,519

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mightyboosh

I thought that the bile spoke of camels being used as pack animals. Isn't that Domestication?

(I'm using this definition - "adaptation to intimate association with human beings")

Fine with me if you accept the Bible as evidence.

Quote

02-11-2014 , 01:21 AM

#21

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotReady

Fine with me if you accept the Bible as evidence.

I think everyone would agree that the Bible saying something is evidence for the Bible saying something...

Quote

02-11-2014 , 01:40 AM

#22

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by festeringZit

You donks in here act like bashing YECism actually proves anything.

According to Gallup between 40 and 50% of Americans say they believe that humans were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years, and 30% say that the Bible should be taken literally, word for word. So yeah, certainly does seem like showing that YECism is wrong does prove something. If you yourself reject YECism, then you should be glad when people show its faults.

Quote

02-11-2014 , 06:22 AM

#23

Mightyboosh

mmm mmm good

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,560

Pat Robertson implores creationist Ken Ham to shut up: ‘Let’s not make a joke of ourselves’

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotReady

Fine with me if you accept the Bible as evidence.

You said that "archeological evidence for domestication doesn't say anything about earliest possible use." But use by humans is domestication and the Bible describes them as 'pack animals' i.e. domesticated.

So you're saying that the Bible was wrong to describe them as 'pack animals'? Or that the Bible was right about the terminology but was wrong that it was possible at that time?

Do you accept the Bible as evidence for anything?

Quote

02-11-2014 , 06:28 AM

#24

Mightyboosh

mmm mmm good

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,560

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

I think everyone would agree that the Bible saying something is evidence for the Bible saying something...

That's not really what I'm doing is it. Seems to me the argument to be had here isn't about the differences between 'use' and 'domesticated' (which I think just creates a situation where the Bible has to wrong about something) but the what the evidence actually shows and whether it's meaningful. However, I come off badly even when compared to a brain dead rock, so what would I know.

I would have made a comment about irony, given that 'brain dead rock' is close to my poker style, but that's not what irony means apparently.