# Camels disproving Bible?



## davdavis (Feb 13, 2014)

Havent seen this discussed here so I thought I,d discuss it
Camels and the Bible: The Twisted Logic of the New York Times
That great theological journal, The New York Times, has published an article by John Noble Wilford, titled
"Camels had no business in Genesis.", the author quotes the rather bizarre claims of two Israeli archaeologists. Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen claim that their use of radio-carbon dating on an enormous total of two archaeological sites has "proved" that camels were not domesticated at the time of the Patriarchs.

This is being trumpeted by the NYT and other pillars of anti-Christianity as a proof the Old Testament is historically inaccurate. Interestingly the archaeologist found camel bones at the sites during the time of the Patriarchs but decided they were wild camels that were eaten. How they knew that these people didn't eat the camels they domesticated is not made clear.

Of course it is clear that both the archaeologists and the NYT have an agenda. On the one hand it is obvious
that in part it is an element in the struggle between secular and orthodox Jews in Israel. The NYT on the other hand is just concerned with attacking Christianity. The only surprise is that they haven't waited till Easter or Christmas like they usually do.

One thing we know is that eventually this story will be disproved, as so many of these, (like the Jesus tomb story) have. Also we know that when it is, the refutation will not be reported. Just as when liberals argued Pontius Pilate was a fictional character only to be proven wrong or when they denied the existence of the Hittites.

No doubt this will be up on every atheist website before the week is out. Christians will be confronted by this by everyone from liberals to neo-nazis as proof the OT is false. The Church will survive this attack , but many undiscerning individuals will be deceived. Clearly the publication of this article tells us more about the Times and its bias rather than the accuracy of the OT.


----------



## yeutter (Feb 13, 2014)

This "scholarly" attack is even less credible then the usual.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 13, 2014)

Rebuttal: 1. Archaeologists Dispute Camels in Genesis – Dr. Andrew Steinmann, 2/11/14 - Issues, Etc.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Feb 13, 2014)

What is troubling is not that "scholars" are doubting the Bible, but that the media is reporting it as fact. Yahoo!


----------



## Jack K (Feb 13, 2014)

Even if one doesn't believe the truth of the Bible... it takes some brashness to think that you, as a reporter in modern-day New York or as a 21st Century researcher digging up bones, have a better understanding of Ancient Near East society than did the people who lived there and were only a few centuries removed from the events and had both written and oral accounts to draw from. Really? You just discount them as uninformed compared to you?


----------



## arapahoepark (Feb 13, 2014)

camels


----------



## SRoper (Feb 13, 2014)

Regarding the question of whether a given camel was used as a pack animal, I believe they look at injuries to the bones.

It is unclear to me how the absence of the use of camels in Canaan copper mining in the 10C BC shows that the semi-nomadic patriarchs couldn't have used camels hundreds of years earlier. There is a pretty large gap after the patriarchs where we don't see any mention of camels in Canaan.


----------



## Jack K (Feb 13, 2014)

We're told in Gen. 12:16 that the family aquired their camels in Egypt. Perhaps it was unusual for people living in Canaan to own such beasts, but it's not out of the question unless one can show that they didn't exist in Egypt and other neighboring regions. If indeed camels were rare in Canaan, this only shows that God, in working out events so as to provide Abraham with such rare and valuable animals, was being even more generous and caring than we originally realized.


----------



## Philip (Feb 13, 2014)

I recall reading that camels, at the time, had not been domesticated as _pack_ animals, but were instead used for their milk and meat in the desert.


----------



## Gforce9 (Feb 13, 2014)

As a member of PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals), I would like to say that, whether domesticated or not, just about any animal taste delicious with Sweet Baby Ray's!


----------



## davdavis (Feb 13, 2014)

I'd walk a mile for camel ribs with a side of fries!


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Feb 14, 2014)

In light of the massive history of events, specific people, and places that are confirmed without doubt in the scriptures, the best they can do is camels? That is laughable.


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Feb 14, 2014)

If we domesticated the dog 70,000 years ago (as I recently read) the idea of going an additional 66,000 years to crack the Camel seems a bit odd.

If anything, the lack of a domesticated camel would be a proof of the young earth...


----------



## Free Christian (Feb 14, 2014)

Funny isn't it, the obsession that those like Dawkins, Hawkins and all the others have with disproving Christianity. So much fervour, so many relentless attacks, its as if their life mission is to disprove God. Funny they don't attack the other religions with the same amount of zeal. Makes me laugh at how the world see's them as the gurus, the go to men for the answer to our existence, holding them upon high pedestal's and waiting upon their every word! Bit like everyone relying upon the Marx brothers or Gilligan for the answers to everything really!


----------

