the so fallible Bible

[John V]

Well, this discussion has gone on for quite some time, and it's plain we all agree that the God represented in the Old Testament is an evil bastard. The only difference is that those who believe in him want us all to call evil good.

Moving on to the next question, I ask:

Q: How much reliability does the Bible have as a historical document?

A: Almost none.

Here is a summary of the findings of an important book on biblical archaeology. The Bible Unearthed: archaeology's new vision of ancient Israel and the origin of its sacred texts. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. The Free Press (Simon & Shuster), 2001. 385 pp.

There was no historical basis for the legends of the patriarchs recorded in Genesis. Here are a few historical discrepancies in the patriarchal narratives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. By the biblical chronology these patriarchs would have to be dated to the Bronze Age, ca 1800 - 1700 BC. Camels regularly appear in these stories, but in fact the camel was not domesticated until about 1000 BC, and camel caravans were not common until the 7th century BC when these stories were written down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#Domestication
Dromedaries may have first been domesticated by humans in Somalia and southern Arabia, around 3,000 BC, the Bactrian in central Asia around 2,500 BC.[14][62][63][64]

http://archaeology.about.com/od/cterms/g/camels.htm
Dromedaries were probably domesticated in coastal settlements along the southern Arabian peninsula somewhere between 3000 and 2500 BC. The earliest reference to camels in Arabia is the Sihi mandible, a camelid bone direct dated to ca 7100-7200 cal BC, or about 8200 RCYBP. Sihi is a Neolithic coastal site in Yemen, and the bone is probably a wild dromedary. The earliest camels in Africa are from Qasr Ibrim, Nubia, 9th century BC.

Evidence for the domestication of Bactrian camels has been found as early as 2600 BC at Shar-i Sokhta (also known as the Burnt City), Iran.

[Brakeman]

Evidence for the domestication of Bactrian camels has been found as early as 2600 BC at Shar-i Sokhta (also known as the Burnt City), Iran. [/i]

Evidence for the area in question though centers on this Syrian Seal.



And I can't make out the camel, can you? I'd say it is definitely in dispute.

[xpastor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel#Domestication
Dromedaries may have first been domesticated by humans in Somalia and southern Arabia, around 3,000 BC, the Bactrian in central Asia around 2,500 BC.[14][62][63][64]

http://archaeology.about.com/od/cterms/g/camels.htm
Dromedaries were probably domesticated in coastal settlements along the southern Arabian peninsula somewhere between 3000 and 2500 BC. The earliest reference to camels in Arabia is the Sihi mandible, a camelid bone direct dated to ca 7100-7200 cal BC, or about 8200 RCYBP. Sihi is a Neolithic coastal site in Yemen, and the bone is probably a wild dromedary. The earliest camels in Africa are from Qasr Ibrim, Nubia, 9th century BC.

Evidence for the domestication of Bactrian camels has been found as early as 2600 BC at Shar-i Sokhta (also known as the Burnt City), Iran.

All right, John. I will tentatively concede the presence of camels as an outside possibility pending any other research coming to my notice.

However, I will note that your sources say that camels were first domesticated for meat rather than transport and that they did not come into common use until 1000 BC. Moreover, it is said that the Egyptians did not even hear of camels until 525 BC, which would seem a bit odd if Abraham had vast herds of camels and his grandson Jacob moved to Egypt. There is another even bigger historical faux pas in Genesis 12 where Abraham lets the Egyptian Pharaoh take his wife Sarai, and in return he grows wealthy with the livestock (including camels) given to him by Pharaoh.

14 When Abram came to Egypt, the Egyptians saw that Sarai was a very beautiful woman. 15 And when Pharaoh’s officials saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh, and she was taken into his palace. 16 He treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, male and female servants, and camels.

[John V]

All right, John. I will tentatively concede the presence of camels as an outside possibility pending any other research coming to my notice.

However, I will note that your sources say that camels were first domesticated for meat rather than transport and that they did not come into common use until 1000 BC. Moreover, it is said that the Egyptians did not even hear of camels until 525 BC,

Said by whom? A lot of things are said. You said that camels weren't domesticated until 1,000 BC, and we see that that's wrong.

[xpastor]

Said by whom? A lot of things are said. You said that camels weren't domesticated until 1,000 BC, and we see that that's wrong.

When was the camel domesticated and does it agree with the chronology of the Bible?

Ancient Egyptians did not have or even know about camels until they were reintroduced by Persian conquerors in 525 BCE (Camels had once been indigenous to Egypt but had become extinct, perhaps due to hunting for food). Since the Egyptians were the undisputed colonial masters of Palestine until 1200 BCE, and were involved in Palestine at various times through the first millennium BCE, we can confidently say that domesticated camels had not been introduced into Palestine until the first millennium BCE.

Whether or not the Book of Genesis could be correct in referring to
camels in Mesopotamia in the time of Abraham, Genesis 37:25 seems to make an unlikely reference to Ishmaelites taking camels from Canaan (Palestine) down into Egypt - such a valuable pack animal would certainly have been adopted by the Egyptians. Exodus 9:3 seems to be anomalous, since the Lord spoke of camels as among the prized herds of the Egyptians, along with cattle, horses, donkeys and sheep.

[Minimalist]

All right, John. I will tentatively concede the presence of camels as an outside possibility pending any other research coming to my notice.

However, I will note that your sources say that camels were first domesticated for meat rather than transport and that they did not come into common use until 1000 BC. Moreover, it is said that the Egyptians did not even hear of camels until 525 BC,

Said by whom? A lot of things are said. You said that camels weren't domesticated until 1,000 BC, and we see that that's wrong.

Actually, it was said by W. F. Albright who, bible-thumper that he may have been, still has far more impeccable credentials as an archaeologist than you do....which is not a hard bar to get over.

Truthfully, when even a bible-thumper admits that his fucking bible has anachronisms it is quite a compelling argument. Takes a lot to get you fuckers to give up the fight.

[John V]

Said by whom? A lot of things are said. You said that camels weren't domesticated until 1,000 BC, and we see that that's wrong.

When was the camel domesticated and does it agree with the chronology of the Bible?

Ancient Egyptians did not have or even know about camels until they were reintroduced by Persian conquerors in 525 BCE (Camels had once been indigenous to Egypt but had become extinct, perhaps due to hunting for food). Since the Egyptians were the undisputed colonial masters of Palestine until 1200 BCE, and were involved in Palestine at various times through the first millennium BCE, we can confidently say that domesticated camels had not been introduced into Palestine until the first millennium BCE.

Whether or not the Book of Genesis could be correct in referring to
camels in Mesopotamia in the time of Abraham, Genesis 37:25 seems to make an unlikely reference to Ishmaelites taking camels from Canaan (Palestine) down into Egypt - such a valuable pack animal would certainly have been adopted by the Egyptians. Exodus 9:3 seems to be anomalous, since the Lord spoke of camels as among the prized herds of the Egyptians, along with cattle, horses, donkeys and sheep.

OK, it's said by SGOTI at wikianswers.

---

Actually, it was said by W. F. Albright who, bible-thumper that he may have been, still has far more impeccable credentials as an archaeologist than you do....which is not a hard bar to get over.

Truthfully, when even a bible-thumper admits that his fucking bible has anachronisms it is quite a compelling argument. Takes a lot to get you fuckers to give up the fight.

Albright thought they weren't even domesticated until 1,000 BC, which is late by 1500 - 2500 years, so I'll take his opinion on camels in Egypt with that in mind.

[Minimalist]

Again, it's W. F. Albright against a bunch of asshole apologists like you and those other xtian shitheads. Guess who has more credibility?

BTW, try to get it through your thick jesus-freak head that camels did live in the region among the humans. They weren't suddenly poofed into existence...in the manner of your silly-assed god...but as Finkelstein makes clear it is when they were domesticated as beasts of burden for the Assyrian trade that really matters.

Oddly, the priests who wrote this shit had a far better grasp of historical timelines than modern jesus-freaks.

Genesis 11:31

King James Version (KJV)

31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

But the Chaldeans did not enter the region until c 1,000 BC.

The homeland of the Semitic Chaldean people was in the far south east of Mesopotamia. It is not certain when they migrated at an unknown period into the country of the Mesopotamian sea-lands about the head of the Persian Gulf. They seem to have appeared there at about the same time that other new Semitic peoples, the Arameans and the Sutu appeared in Babylonia, c. 1000 BC. This was a period of weakness in Babylonia, and its ineffectual kings were unable to prevent new waves of peoples invading and settling in the land.[

which means that unlike you shitheads they were placing their "abraham" character in an actual historical time when camels were becoming important as beasts of burden.

Sadly, it is the pathetic attempt by jesus-freaks to push their timeline much further back than history will allow which gets you in trouble in the first place. This is a first millennium story....and not written down until the end of the first millennium or early first millennium AD at best.

When you can understand that you will begin to become less of an asshole.


I'm not holding my breath.

[John V]

Again, it's W. F. Albright against a bunch of asshole apologists like you and those other xtian shitheads. Guess who has more credibility?

Apparently you didn't bother to read the references (no surprise there) in the wiki link, which include
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Scarre
He's a PhD and head of a university archaeology department.

There's also this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bulliet
He has a PhD from Harvard and is a "professor of history at Columbia University who specializes in the history of Islamic society and institutions, the history of technology, and the history of the role of animals in human society."

So you were saying something about Christian apologists?

BTW, try to get it through your thick jesus-freak head that camels did live in the region among the humans. They weren't suddenly poofed into existence...in the manner of your silly-assed god...but as Finkelstein makes clear it is when they were domesticated as beasts of burden for the Assyrian trade that really matters.

Oddly, the priests who wrote this shit had a far better grasp of historical timelines than modern jesus-freaks.

Genesis 11:31

King James Version (KJV)

31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

But the Chaldeans did not enter the region until c 1,000 BC.

The homeland of the Semitic Chaldean people was in the far south east of Mesopotamia. It is not certain when they migrated at an unknown period into the country of the Mesopotamian sea-lands about the head of the Persian Gulf. They seem to have appeared there at about the same time that other new Semitic peoples, the Arameans and the Sutu appeared in Babylonia, c. 1000 BC. This was a period of weakness in Babylonia, and its ineffectual kings were unable to prevent new waves of peoples invading and settling in the land.[

which means that unlike you shitheads they were placing their "abraham" character in an actual historical time when camels were becoming important as beasts of burden.

Sadly, it is the pathetic attempt by jesus-freaks to push their timeline much further back than history will allow which gets you in trouble in the first place. This is a first millennium story....and not written down until the end of the first millennium or early first millennium AD at best.

When you can understand that you will begin to become less of an asshole.


I'm not holding my breath.

You don't source your quote - is it from the same people who incorrectly think that camels weren't domesticated until 1,000 BC?

[xpastor]

Apparently you didn't bother to read the references (no surprise there) in the wiki link, which include
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Scarre
He's a PhD and head of a university archaeology department.

There's also this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bulliet
He has a PhD from Harvard and is a "professor of history at Columbia University who specializes in the history of Islamic society and institutions, the history of technology, and the history of the role of animals in human society."

So you were saying something about Christian apologists?

I am not questioning the scholarly credentials of Scarre or Bulliet. Likewise, the credentials of Finkelstein and Silberman are impeccable. The book by the latter two (2001) is several years after Scarre (1993) and Bulliet (1975) so it is plausible that they had reasons for disagreeing. I don't have their book in my personal library, so I can't check immediately.

You are going on and on about the camels, which suggests to me that you lack any response to the many other substantive issues covered in The Bible Unearthed: Isaac's conversation with a Philistine king half a millennium before that nation got off the boat, the lack of archaeological evidence for the sojourn in Egypt, the wandering in the desert, the conquest of Canaan, the presence of a powerful united monarchy in the time of David and Solomon, polytheism among the Israelites from the beginning.