Originally posted by wolfgang59Why you noobs continue to assault the world of God with your futility is pitiful. Its a great pity that you dont spend as much time reading the sacred text as you do watching lame videos attempting to discredit it. That presenter made RJ Hinds look like a rocket scientist.
The writers of the OT knew about camels ...
but unfortunately camels were not around at the time of some of their stories.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdCj0rUY41k
Another one of god's tests for believers?
CAMELS were among the domestic animals that Abraham received from Pharaoh, says the Bible. (Gen. 12:16) When Abraham’s servant went on a long journey to Mesopotamia, he “took ten camels from the camels of his master.” So the Bible clearly states that Abraham owned camels about the beginning of the second millennium B.C.E.—Gen. 24:10.
Some do not accept this. The New International Version Archaeological Study Bible reports: “Scholars have debated the historicity of these references to camels because most believe that these animals were not widely domesticated until approximately 1200 B.C., long after the time of Abraham.” Any earlier Biblical reference to camels would therefore be considered an anachronism, or a chronological misplacing.
Other scholars, however, argue that although the domestication of camels became a factor of importance about the end of the second millennium, this does not mean that camels were not used earlier. The book Civilizations of the Ancient Near East states: “Recent research has suggested that the domestication of the camel took place in southeastern Arabia some time in the third millennium [B.C.E.]. Originally, it was probably bred for its milk, hair, leather, and meat, but it cannot have been long before its usefulness as a beast of burden became apparent.” This dating to before Abraham’s time seems to be supported by bone fragments and other archaeological remains.
Written evidence also exists. The same reference work says: “In Mesopotamia, cuneiform lists mention the creature [the camel] and several seals depict it, indicating that the animal may have reached Mesopotamia by the beginning of the second millennium,” that is, by Abraham’s time.
Some scholars believe that South Arabian merchants involved in the incense trade used camels to transport their goods northward through the desert, heading to such areas as Egypt and Syria and thereby introducing camels to these areas. This trade was probably common as early as 2000 B.C.E. Interestingly, Genesis 37:25-28 mentions Ishmaelite merchants who used camels to transport incense to Egypt about a hundred years after the time of Abraham.
Perhaps camels were not widely used in the ancient Near East at the beginning of the second millennium B.C.E., but evidence seems to confirm that they were not completely unknown. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia therefore concludes: “It is no longer necessary to regard the mention of camels in the patriarchal narratives as anachronisms, since there is ample archeological evidence for the domestication of the camel before the time of the patriarchs.”
jw.org (peace be upon them forever and ever amen)
11 Mar 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd you, of course being a Phd archaeologist and extremely familiar with all dating methods, having done the research yourself and found them wanting and have published papers in Nature to show this work, right?
Yeah, that guy is an idiot. He seems to think science can't be wrong. How stupid can you get.
He is relying on radiocarbon dating and everyone should know that is based on assumptions and the dating nearly always is wrong when testing something of known date. 😏
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140210-domesticated-camels-israel-bible-archaeology-science/
I suppose National Geographic is part of the vast left wing democrate led atheistic conspiracy with the direct aim of destroying Christianity.
If only that were true. I would join up in a trice.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
11 Mar 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYes, but no.
Yeah, that guy is an idiot. He seems to think science can't be wrong. How stupid can you get.
He's an idiot because he claims the science proves there were no camels back there, back then; but that doesn't mean that science is wrong, it means that he gets the science wrong.
This is not about science being wrong or right; this is about fundamentalists, both you and him, being fundamentally wrong because they, both you and him, will twist the facts (yes, there were camels in the Middle East back then, even if you couldn't be bothered to look a bit better) to suit their theory.
11 Mar 15
Originally posted by Shallow BlueLook at the National geographic piece I posted just above yours.
Yes, but no.
He's an idiot because he claims the science proves there were no camels back there, back then; but that doesn't mean that science is wrong, it means that he gets the science wrong.
This is not about science being wrong or right; this is about fundamentalists, both you and him, being fundamentally wrong because they, both you and ...[text shortened]... dle East back then, even if you couldn't be bothered to look a bit better) to suit their theory.
Originally posted by Shallow BlueOkay, science so-called. 😏
Yes, but no.
He's an idiot because he claims the science proves there were no camels back there, back then; but that doesn't mean that science is wrong, it means that he gets the science wrong.
This is not about science being wrong or right; this is about fundamentalists, both you and him, being fundamentally wrong because they, both you and ...[text shortened]... dle East back then, even if you couldn't be bothered to look a bit better) to suit their theory.
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
(1 Timothy 6:20-21 KJV)
12 Mar 15
Originally posted by RJHindsMore mealy mouthed sayings from humans. No deity needed or wanted. Humans screw up religion quite well on their own. Just look at you, for instance.
Okay, science so-called. 😏
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
(1 Timothy 6:20-21 KJV)
13 Mar 15
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsI guess it's people like me that made it possible for people like you to troll the internet we have now as a result of all that work done in the world of electronics by me and millions of other hard working folk.
It is so-called science and people like you that screw up everything.
You never worked a day in your life in a cleanroom so you have absolutely no idea how things are made, how they were developed, how the science of electronics and semiconductors came about.
I do, since I grew up with electronics. I built my first radio at the age of 8 and have been at it ever since, both professionally and in amateur radio. My call sign is AI3N, the top amateur licence, the 'amateur extra'. Go take THAT test sometime if you want to poo poo how hard that test is. Or the 20 word per minute Morse code test that goes with it. I bet you never learned any code other than dit dit dit dah dah dah dit dit dit. Know what that is?
What were YOU doing at the age of 8? Learning tittlywinks?
I was reading by the age of 2. How bout you?
13 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseI was playing happily with my cotton stuffed toy camel. Ha ha. 😏
I guess it's people like me that made it possible for people like you to troll the internet we have now as a result of all that work done in the world of electronics by me and millions of other hard working folk.
You never worked a day in your life in a cleanroom so you have absolutely no idea how things are made, how they were developed, how the science ...[text shortened]... YOU doing at the age of 8? Learning tittlywinks?
I was reading by the age of 2. How bout you?
13 Mar 15
Originally posted by RJHindsSo did I but fortunately for me I had a Lutheran upbringing, K-8 in First Lutheran School in El Monte California but at the age of 8 (remember, I had already learned soldering and such by then and had built my first radio then) my grandmother, a dyed in the wool Pentacostal, informed me I would be damned in hell if I wasn't baptized in the total dunking Pentacostal way as opposed to the 'holy water' sprinkled on the forehead Lutheran/Catholic way.
I had a childhood, with Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy and all that fun stuff.
Well it turned out I was actually thinking for myself by the age of 8, which you admitted you were not, and aren't even now, but I saw the inherent BS brought about by the dichotomy of these religions both supposed to be the same religion but clearly at each other's throats in many ways.
I saw all that at the age of 8 and that was when I opted out of the religion thing and have been totally happy with that decision ever since.
Humans telling me about supernatural events. Right.