There are 21 references to camels in the first books of the Bible, and now we know they are all made up.
Some of them are quite startlingly verisimilitudinous, such as the story of Abraham's servant finding a wife for Isaac in Genesis 24: "Then the servant left, taking with him 10 of his master's camels loaded with all kinds of good things from his master. He set out for Aram Naharaim and made his way to the town of Nahor. He made the camels kneel down near the well outside the town; it was towards evening, the time the women go out to draw water."
But these camels are made up, all 10 of them. Two Israeli archaeozoologists have sifted through a site just north of modern Eilat looking for camel bones, which can be dated by radio carbon.
None of the domesticated camel bones they found date from earlier than around 930BC – about 1,500 years after the stories of the patriarchs in Genesis are supposed to have taken place. Whoever put the camels into the story of Abraham and Isaac might as well have improved the story of Little Red Riding Hood by having her ride up to Granny's in an SUV.
Read more here
14 comments:
1- "There are 21 references to camels in the first books of the Bible, and now we know they are all made up." No we don't.
2- "But these camels are made up, all 10 of them." He doesn't know that.
3- "which can be dated by radio carbon." Radio carbon dating schemes are notoriously unreliable.
4- "All these considerations make it clear that camels were not domesticated anywhere in the region before 1000BC." Major point still not proved.
5- "Obviously it has upset fundamentalists." It's irrelevant how the fundies feel.
6- "Everyone else has known for decades that there is even less evidence for the historical truth of the Old Testament than there is for that of the Qur'an." Everyone else has not known this.
7- "The idea of a promised land is based on narratives that assert with complete confidence stories that never actually happened." He doesn't know this.
8- "histories invented" He doesn't know this.
This article is an exercise in logical fallacies.
Like we need anymore proof that the genocide/incest/fairy tale-promoting jewish book is a pack of lies.
Whooli, you need to look up "Russell`s tepot" on wikipedia. The way you try to "debunk" this article can be used to debunk anything.
Russell`s teapot does not apply to me. And it does not apply to my response to this article.
It really does, you are brushing off scientific evidence by saying that it`s not ultimately proven that the jewish collection of fairy tales is false. Just like there is not ultimately proven that a teapot does not orbit the sun somewhere in space or that David Icke`s lizard theory is not true.
It really does not. The guy did not prove his camel case in that article.
newsflash : The bible was written by Jews
I for some years said the New Testament actually predates the old ergo the old is a fraud based on older civilisation myths and histories with a large helping of Jewish horror, something they seem to have a knack for
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=77604
Whooli is using the teapot to say he's not using the teapot and ends up sounding like a crackpot
A camel is only a horse designed by a committee lol
Oh goody! A religious thread. LOL....Del
Be wise as serpents :)
and beware of people that believe that donkeys can speak
Yeah, be wary of the donkey whisperer.
You have to ask why did the Jews fake the Dead Sea Scrolls. And the Nag Hammadi scripts? Because absent these frauds the OT pre 1000 AD (Fuck this CE bullshit) was an 'oral tradition', And if you don't think the DSS were a fake look at my linked thread, or check out the forger Shapira
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Shapira
Like Holocaust evidence. OT is shruken heads and human soap
Post a Comment