The Bible Takes It Up The Ass, Again!

[Drich]

As I learned from The Bible Unearthed, the Jewish tradition is that 38 of the 40 years were spent encamped at the oasis of Kadesh-Barnea. This nonsense of them walking around in circles seems to be a xtian thing not a jewish thing.

It was one reason why, after the 1967 war when Israel gained control of the West Bank and Sinai that teams of young Israeli archaeologists set off to places like Kadesh-Barnea to find evidence of their ancestors. They failed utterly, as Amihai Mazar notes in this essay from Amnon Ben Tor's Archaeology of Ancient Israel. Fortunately, this page made it into the Google Books preview.

http://books.google.com/books?id=m1b1VgN...&q&f=false

Note also how Mazar goes on to discuss the work of Yohanon Aharoni who also failed to find any kingdom of Arad at this time period.

These Israeli archaeologists gave an honest account of their findings and the fucking bible went down in flames!

BWHAHAHAHA!


BTW, this book was published in 1980. It's only "news" to jesus freak morons.

You know mini it's funny how you said my post was not worth responding too, and now you feel the need to explain and support yourself... Not on the OP mind you, (where you got your dentures kicked in) but on this red herring Rae set infront of this thread.

So is the above statement (that the Jews wandering in the desert purely a christian thing) really what you think?

If so it is the dumbest thing I think you have ever said. (Yes that even trumps the your OP)

Do you want to know why it is stupid? Can you guess? do you want me to tell you and show everyone else 'their emporer has no cloths?' (again) or do you want to retract?

See mini when you let other people do your thinking for you, you put yourself at their intelectual mercy. Which in of itself is not a bad thing. UNLESS Their theories can be shot down by the obvious that appearently you are not smart enough to see. Then it makes you look stupid for following crap like what you said in the OP and in your last post to me.

Maybe you should just let sleeping dogs lie. Or is it that you have lied to yourself for so long you can't tell when your flat out wrong anymore? Is this going to be tyre II?

---

Have to score one for Drich on this occasion - unless I am missing something....

Don't do that, you may be made to wear a scarlet "D" on your Avatar or something like that.

---

The atheist and others here have shown exactly how dishonest they are, you all ask for factual proof of things from scripture, when it comes you ignore it like the plague because what you asked for makes you look like an idiot (Min). You never tried to disprove what Drich gave you, you just ignored the facts that were given and came with your usual tripe to avoid any embarrassment. Each one of you is guilty of this and, showing others how you are dishonest not just with Christians but among yourselves. I've printed this off to use in future debates here where I live to show how dishonest atheist are, thanks for the ammunition and I'm sure atheist here will be dumb founded by the truth you are revealing about atheist and their only desire, to run down Christianity at all cost. You've payed a high price here to protect you god Min. Now who are you going to blame for your weak minded stupidity and, the atheist that have to come up against such dishonesty in the future will be rather upset with you guys, again thanks for the ammunition, I will enjoy dropping this bomb.

GC

PS, to Min, the elephant has yet to be domesticated but is used for heavy task all the time, so who made up the rule that camels had to be domesticated to use as beasts of burden before they were domesticated.

I'm sorry, how is the evidence of camels (or lack thereof) a validation for floods, divine plagues, or any other miraculous claim in that book? Each claim must be evaluated separately. For example; simply saying that Jesus ate a fish (a simple plausible claim, people eat fish all the time) doesn't count as evidence towards his claim to being the resurrected son of a god, even if you have evidence that plenty of people ate fish during that time and place in history....

that is not what the OP is about is it?

Mini very directly targeted the lack of evidence as evidence that the bible was false...
Which is stupid to anyone who truly seeks fact as the guid to what they believe. Mini is a commentary guy.. All one needs is some air of legitmacy and if what you say tickles his fancy, then he's sold. The only reason I am point this out is this is how most atheist do business. The dedication to 'facts' is only good when it suits you. It is my hope that you all can see this kind of foolishness in your own searches for 'truth.'

[EvolutionKills]

I'm sorry, how is the evidence of camels (or lack thereof) a validation for floods, divine plagues, or any other miraculous claim in that book? Each claim must be evaluated separately. For example; simply saying that Jesus ate a fish (a simple plausible claim, people eat fish all the time) doesn't count as evidence towards his claim to being the resurrected son of a god, even if you have evidence that plenty of people ate fish during that time and place in history....

that is not what the OP is about is it?

Mini very directly targeted the lack of evidence as evidence that the bible was false...
Which is stupid to anyone who truly seeks fact as the guid to what they believe. Mini is a commentary guy.. All one needs is some air of legitmacy and if what you say tickles his fancy, then he's sold. The only reason I am point this out is this is how most atheist do business. The dedication to 'facts' is only good when it suits you. It is my hope that you all can see this kind of foolishness in your own searches for 'truth.'

Nice to see your reading comprehension is just as shit over here as it is on TTA.

Notice that I was questioning GC's post, regardless of the OP (... how is the evidence of camels (or lack thereof) a validation...). Point being that camels or no, it's a very trivial piece of a puzzle that includes claims to the divine, plagues, world wide floods, etc. In light of all that, camels one way or another seems pretty trivial, because even if they were there and the Bible mentioning them is true, it's trivially true. It does nothing to validate miracle claims. I could care less about your pissing match with Minimalist, the entire thread doesn't revolve around you dumbass.

[Drich]

that is not what the OP is about is it?

Mini very directly targeted the lack of evidence as evidence that the bible was false...
Which is stupid to anyone who truly seeks fact as the guid to what they believe. Mini is a commentary guy.. All one needs is some air of legitmacy and if what you say tickles his fancy, then he's sold. The only reason I am point this out is this is how most atheist do business. The dedication to 'facts' is only good when it suits you. It is my hope that you all can see this kind of foolishness in your own searches for 'truth.'

Nice to see your reading comprehension is just as shit over here as it is on TTA.

Notice that I was questioning GC's post, regardless of the OP (... how is the evidence of camels (or lack thereof) a validation...). Point being that camels or no, it's a very trivial piece of a puzzle that includes claims to the divine, plagues, world wide floods, etc. In light of all that, camels one way or another seems pretty trivial, because even if they were there and the Bible mentioning them is true, it's trivially true. It does nothing to validate miracle claims. I could care less about your pissing match with Minimalist, the entire thread doesn't revolve around you dumbass.

ooooooooopsssss

[max-greece]

Drich,

From the article you linked to:

"The proposed time of camel domestication is before 2000 B.C.
(Free, 1944; Zeuner, 1963; Bulliet, 1978 and Ripinsky, 1985).
Epstein (1971), taking into consideration the earliest Egyptian and
Mesopotamian archaeological evidence, dates domestication as early
as 4000 B.C. Walz (1956). However, it believes that camels were
domesticated perhaps during the 13-12 century B.C. but not before
2000 B.C. (camels are mentioned in the Bible, Genesis, chap. 12, as
being used by man in Abrahamís time, about the 18th Century B.C.). "

So before we crack open the champagne on a win for you there does appear to be some room for doubt that even in Egypt camels had been domesticated at the time of Abram's visit.

If that's true - and it could be as much as 500 years later then min's point would stand.

As I said in my support of your position - subject to camels being in Egypt at that time.

After a bit more searching http://archaeology.about.com/od/cterms/g/camels.htm states:

"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."

Frankly I've had enough of camels now - but the case for Camels in Egypt at the time of Abram now looks weaker than it did.

[Jacob(smooth)]

I think this might be the most pointless argument I've ever read!

Atheists. These people believe the earth is 6000 years old in defiance of cosmology, astronomy, archeology, geology, paleontology, and probably a dozen other ologies I don't even know about. If the grand canyon and brontasaurus skeletons are not convincing them that the bible has some historical problems then a study on when camels were domesticated is hardly likely to make much of a dent!

And theists, if you could prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that camels were in use in OT times, how much closer would that move our heathen friends towards salvation ™? I submit, not very!

[Rampant.A.I.]

What's a Brontosaurus?

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/09/166665795/...en-existed

[Jacob(smooth)]

What's a Brontosaurus?

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/09/166665795/...en-existed

One of those big fuckers which was in jurassic Park. Whatever name you want to give it.

[Chad32]

Appatasaurus. People got confused about what parts of skeletons went with what, and the Brontasaurus is actually a mix of at least two.

[Cyberman]

No, that was Laura Dern.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Appatasaurus. People got confused about what parts of skeletons went with what, and the Brontasaurus is actually a mix of at least two.

Whatever. It's a fuckin large piece of evidence.