Did Jesus say he was God???

[1robin]

You have over and over again posted statements of what are simply your beliefs as if they were facts, and over and over again I have complained about you doing this, and I certainly ain't the only one who has done so. Whenever one uses language such as "God is...", "God wants...", etc, these are not put in terms of maybes but more in terms of absolutes; whereas if one uses terminology such as "I believe God is...", "I think God...", then this indicates one isn't making claims of supposedly knowing with certainty.

Then please supply some. I make several different kind of claims.

1. I make claims of what is true of the concept of God as expressed in the bible.
2. I make conditional claim. If X then necessarily Y.
3. I make probabilistic claims. If X then probably Y.
4. And I make claims about what scholars determine.

I do not make claims that my faith is true. Or at least I try very hard not to and any claim I constantly do can't be true.

Secondly, I asked to a link to a scientific source that substantiates your claim that the existence of God is objectively obvious, and yet you have produced nothing-- just more of the same. One simply cannot jump to a conclusion that there must be a God simply because many items found in the Bible are true.

Why not ask me to use a ruler to prove the water is hot? I jumped to the conclusion God exists when I met him, not by finding a few facts in the bible are true. Your distortion of my faith, of my statements, and of the subject as a whole is self defeating. It is an absurd request that is based on an unfamiliarity with debates of this type. I can supply objective evidence that is consistent with God however science contains no application to prove anything true or false in a supernatural context. Not to mention this is not how law, history, philosophy, and even science many times works and not how theology is debated. I will ask you an actually relevant question: Prove scientifically that science is true or prove mathematically that mathematics is true. BTW I have a math degree and work in a very technological field, so am qualified to evaluate your response.

Thirdly, in order to come up with a number of potential errors, we would have to know with some degree of certainty which verses are erroneous and which are not, and we simply do not have the know-how to do that. If anyone cites a stat, all they are doing is guessing, and there simply is no way of ascertaining what the potential range may be.

If you knew about textual criticism you would know we do know these things with almost certainty. The necessary ingredients are:

1. Prolific copying.
2. Early source material. Not just biblical from Early Church writings, hymns, creeds, etc..... I can construct over 90% of the NT from just early church writings alone.
3. You need freedom of censorship. Any one and everyone was free to copy the bible from it's inception. No controlling power had the influence to censure early texts. Unlike Islam.
3. You need parallel lines of transmission.
4. You need large numbers of surviving manuscripts.
5. It helps to have strong and early church traditions.
6. It helps to have works lost for long periods of time and only discovered much later.

The bible has all of these in spades and much more. It exceeds any other work of any kind in ancient history in all categories.

Don't take my word for it. How about probably the most famous living bible CRITIC?

Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back
to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached back to the “original” text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of his teaching.
The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. [audience laughter]

So, you say you find my approach "exasperating", and yet how many times have I and so many others said that it is you who write in a manner that is so "exasperating"? Are we all so delusional that we end up pretty much with the same conclusions about your posting style? I think we pretty much know what the problem is, and that's because you simply are so enamored with what you believe that you elevate your beliefs up the the "fact" level. They ain't-- they're beliefs.

I do not remember a single instance of any one linking exasperation to me. I get other complaints but few that are consistent. You guys do not end up with the same conclusions. Some accepts X but deny Y, others accept Y but not X. There is nothing as consistent as the inconsistency of atheistic objections. Chesterton famously said it was the incoherence of atheism that made him give it up. Not acquire faith but give up atheism all together. He said their complaints were the opposite extremes in all areas and mutually exclusive claims can't all be true especially hyperbolic ones.

OK, let's get back to what you have previously claimed, namely that there's objective scientific evidence to support your assertion that God exists? So far, all I've seen from you is song and dance while avoiding dealing with what you previously have claimed on many similar threads, and your statement near the beginning of your post above simply is not true as you have over and over again claimed that science supports your claims. Now it's time for show-and-tell, and it's your turn. Yes, I know you admit there is no direct proof of their being a God, but what you need to provide is some sort of link to a scientific source that concludes that there must be a God because the evidence overwhelmingly points in that direction.

Now that you have asked for evidence instead of proof which I never offered I will supply a bit.

1. Prophecy.
2. Knowledge known but unknowable by natural means to primitive men.
3. The absence of an natural explanation for the universe and many of it's parameters including life.
4. The exact match between the creation account (the part that is clear and emphatic, not analogies about trees and gardens) with cosmology.
5. The almost universal apprehension of an objective moral realm.

That out to be enough for now.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The majority of NT scholars agree (regardless of what side of faith they are on) that 4 (among a great many) biblical facts are historical.

1. Jesus appeared on the historical stage with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. That he was crucified by Rome and died on the cross.
3. That his tomb was found empty.
4. May people even his enemies sincerely believed they had interacted with a risen Jesus after his death.

No matter how many times you make this claim, it's still false.

 

[metis]

Then please supply some. I make several different kind of claims.

1. I make claims of what is true of the concept of God as expressed in the bible.
2. I make conditional claim. If X then necessarily Y.
3. I make probabilistic claims. If X then probably Y.
4. And I make claims about what scholars determine.

I do not make claims that my faith is true. Or at least I try very hard not to and any claim I constantly do can't be true.

Why not ask me to use a ruler to prove the water is hot? I jumped to the conclusion God exists when I met him, not by finding a few facts in the bible are true. Your distortion of my faith, of my statements, and of the subject as a whole is self defeating. It is an absurd request that is based on an unfamiliarity with debates of this type. I can supply objective evidence that is consistent with God however science contains no application to prove anything true or false in a supernatural context. Not to mention this is not how law, history, philosophy, and even science many times works and not how theology is debated. I will ask you an actually relevant question: Prove scientifically that science is true or prove mathematically that mathematics is true. BTW I have a math degree and work in a very technological field, so am qualified to evaluate your response.

If you knew about textual criticism you would know we do know these things with almost certainty. The necessary ingredients are:

1. Prolific copying.
2. Early source material. Not just biblical from Early Church writings, hymns, creeds, etc..... I can construct over 90% of the NT from just early church writings alone.
3. You need freedom of censorship. Any one and everyone was free to copy the bible from it's inception. No controlling power had the influence to censure early texts. Unlike Islam.
3. You need parallel lines of transmission.
4. You need large numbers of surviving manuscripts.
5. It helps to have strong and early church traditions.
6. It helps to have works lost for long periods of time and only discovered much later.

The bible has all of these in spades and much more. It exceeds any other work of any kind in ancient history in all categories.

Don't take my word for it. How about probably the most famous living bible CRITIC?

Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back
to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached back to the “original” text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of his teaching.
The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. [audience laughter]

I do not remember a single instance of any one linking exasperation to me. I get other complaints but few that are consistent. You guys do not end up with the same conclusions. Some accepts X but deny Y, others accept Y but not X. There is nothing as consistent as the inconsistency of atheistic objections. Chesterton famously said it was the incoherence of atheism that made him give it up. Not acquire faith but give up atheism all together. He said their complaints were the opposite extremes in all areas and mutually exclusive claims can't all be true especially hyperbolic ones.

Now that you have asked for evidence instead of proof which I never offered I will supply a bit.

1. Prophecy.
2. Knowledge known but unknowable by natural means to primitive men.
3. The absence of an natural explanation for the universe and many of it's parameters including life.
4. The exact match between the creation account (the part that is clear and emphatic, not analogies about trees and gardens) with cosmology.
5. The almost universal apprehension of an objective moral realm.

That out to be enough for now.

There simply is so little in the above that is in any way objectively sound, and all you are doing and continuing to do is to take your beliefs and elevate them to facts, which is polar opposite of what real scientists do. And it's voodoo theology that your masquerading as serious theology because real theology doesn't jump to conclusions that are impossible to substantiate. You write a lot of words but there's so little evidence or even logic for what you so often post. You make absurd claims both dealing with theology and science that simply defy what limited evidence there is. I think you're likely to be a nice guy, but somewhere there seems to be a disconnect in the area of providing objective evidence and realistic analysis, which you claim to do but really don't.

Sorry.

 

[metis]

Anyhow, "Did Jesus say he was God"? I highly doubt it, but then I wasn't there.

 

[1robin]

There simply is so little in the above that is in any way objectively sound, and all you are doing and continuing to do is to take your beliefs and elevate them to facts, which is polar opposite of what real scientists do. And it's voodoo theology that your masquerading as serious theology because real theology doesn't jump to conclusions that are impossible to substantiate. You write a lot of words but there's so little evidence or even logic for what you so often post. You make absurd claims both dealing with theology and science that simply defy what limited evidence there is. I think you're likely to be a nice guy, but somewhere there seems to be a disconnect in the area of providing objective evidence and realistic analysis, which you claim to do but really don't.

Sorry.

Why would I elevate anything to proof, SINCE FAITH does not offer proof. I and today stated facts as EVIDENCE consistent with God or leaving only God as an explanation, at least at this time. If your going to avoid dealing with what has been significant and cutting edge arguments concerning God since the Greeks still going strong on the formal debate circuit then I can not justify the discussion. If you watch debates from Cambridge, Oxford, etc.... you will hear discussion using the exact same arguments I gave.

 

[1robin]

Anyhow, "Did Jesus say he was God"? I highly doubt it, but then I wasn't there.

Do trees say "Hi I am a tree" Do cars tell you they are cars. Things are known by their attributes.

Christ's attributes:
1. All things were made through and for him.
2. He is eternal.
3. He is the co-occupant of the throne of God.
4. He forgave sin. Something only God can do. Other prophets forgave sin through God. Christ forgave it through himself.
5. He accepted worship.
6. He is perfect and without sin.

I can go but it wouldn't matter.
He looks like God to me but one thing is sure he is no mortal man.

 

[Muffled]

Or maybe this:

Archaeologists from Israel’s top university have used radiocarbon dating to pinpoint the arrival of domestic camels in the Middle East -- and they say the science directly contradicts the Bible’s version of events.

Camels are mentioned as pack animals in the biblical stories of Abraham, Joseph and Jacob, Old Testament stories that historians peg to between 2000 and 1500 BC. But Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel Aviv University's Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures say camels weren’t domesticated in Israel until centuries later, more like 900 BC. -- Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say | Fox News

This is on another thread. It is the null hypothesis. A lack of evidence of domesticated camels does not necessitate that camels were not domesticated only that there is no physical evidence for it. Since there is no physical evidence the Bilblical evidence will have to be enough for now.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

This is on another thread. It is the null hypothesis. A lack of evidence of domesticated camels does not necessitate that camels were not domesticated only that there is no physical evidence for it. Since there is no physical evidence the Bilblical evidence will have to be enough for now.

Since there are bones of various other domesticated animals, why are there no camel bones? What's your theory?

How (and why) did the people discard every camel carcass without leaving any trace of them?

 

[1robin]

Metis can you give me the verses this contradicts? I have never seen it before and wanted to investigate it a bit.

Archaeologists from Israel’s top university have used radiocarbon dating to pinpoint the arrival of domestic camels in the Middle East -- and they say the science directly contradicts the Bible’s version of events.

Camels are mentioned as pack animals in the biblical stories of Abraham, Joseph and Jacob, Old Testament stories that historians peg to between 2000 and 1500 BC. But Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel Aviv University's Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures say camels weren’t domesticated in Israel until centuries later, more like 900 BC. -- Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say | Fox News

 

[metis]

Metis can you give me the verses this contradicts? I have never seen it before and wanted to investigate it a bit.

You can find 66 verses here, and many of them deal with supposedly domesticated camels: Bible, Revised Standard Version

 

[metis]

This is on another thread. It is the null hypothesis. A lack of evidence of domesticated camels does not necessitate that camels were not domesticated only that there is no physical evidence for it. Since there is no physical evidence the Bilblical evidence will have to be enough for now.

So, you prefer the subjective Biblical evidence over the more objective archaeological evidence? Even though archaeological evidence isn't always conclusive, nevertheless it makes more sense to at least drift in that direction, especially since we know through glottochronology that the Biblical books were typically written long after the events they cover.

 

[1robin]

You can find 66 verses here, and many of them deal with supposedly domesticated camels: Bible, Revised Standard Version

Thanks but if you can, can you narrow it down to one or two that mention camels prior to the carbon dating results. I can't evaluate 66 verses for camel dates in the time I have.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Thanks but if you can, can you narrow it down to one or two that mention camels prior to the carbon dating results. I can't evaluate 66 verses for camel dates in the time I have.

Anyway, this camel thing means that you will have to change your claims of 35,000 historical corroborations for the Bible to only 34,999 historical corroborations for the Bible.

It is best to strive for accuracy in these matters.

 

[Muffled]

Since there are bones of various other domesticated animals, why are there no camel bones? What's your theory?

How (and why) did the people discard every camel carcass without leaving any trace of them?

Bury me not on the lone prairie, tra la.

Since there is no evidence I can only speculate that Camels were not treated the same as food providing animals. Although I believe I heard of someone eating camel, maybe on Bizzrre Food on the travel channel.

My theory is that camels have a tendency to die on the road and left there. I believe Archeological digs are usually done in a town where one might find artifacts.

 

[Muffled]

So, you prefer the subjective Biblical evidence over the more objective archaeological evidence? Even though archaeological evidence isn't always conclusive, nevertheless it makes more sense to at least drift in that direction, especially since we know through glottochronology that the Biblical books were typically written long after the events they cover.

I prefer evidence over a lack of evidence.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

My theory is that camels have a tendency to die on the road and left there. I believe Archeological digs are usually done in a town where one might find artifacts.

I see. So not a single camel died on the farm. They all died on the road.

OK. So can you tell me why mules and donkeys didn't all die on the road but were commonly buried on the farms?

 

[1robin]

You can find 66 verses here, and many of them deal with supposedly domesticated camels: Bible, Revised Standard Version

1. A 3.5 foot cord of camel hair from Egypt, dated around 2500 BC, shows that Camels were in use and domesticated enough to be groomed.

2. A bronze figurine from the temple of Byblos in Lebanon, which is dated to before the sixth Egyptian dynasty (before 2182 BC), depicts a camel. While the figure could be taken as a sheep, the figure is arranged with items that would strongly require it to be a camel (a camel saddle, camel muzzle, etc.)

3. Two pots of Egyptian provenance found in Greece and Crete, both dating 1800-1400 BC, have camels represented, and one literally has humans riding on a camel back.

4. A text from Alalakh in Syria (c. eighteenth century BC) contains a rations-list. There is a entry for 'camel fodder' written in that document in Old Babylonian. This shows that camels were domesticated at that time.

5. Soviet archaeologists found camel-headed wagons that date back to the first half of the third millennium B.C. This showed that two-humped camels were used in Turkmenistan for drawing wagons at that time.

6. A bronze figurine of a man on a crouching camel, found at Nineveh, in Mesopotamia, shows that camels had been domesticated by the middle of the second millennium BC,


Perhaps the most convincing find in support of the early domestication of camels in Egypt is a rope made of camel’s hair found in the Fayum (an oasis area southwest of modern-day Cairo). The two-strand twist of hair, measuring a little over three feet long, was found in the late 1920s, and was sent to the Natural History Museum where it was analyzed and compared to the hair of several different animals. After considerable testing, it was determined to be camel hair, dated (by analyzing the layer in which it was found) to the Third or Fourth Egyptian Dynasty (2686-2498 B.C.). In his article, Free also listed several other discoveries from around 2,000 B.C. and later, which showed camels as domestic animals (pp. 189-190). [3]

For even more compelling evidence read the rest of Lyons’ article here.

According to Columbia University history professor Richard Bulliet, “[T]his type of utilization [camels pulling wagons] goes back to the earliest known period of two-humped camel domestication in the third millennium B.C.” [4]

The case continues to get stronger when one learns:


Recent research has suggested that domestication of the camel took place in southeastern Arabia some time in the third millennium [BC]. 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 [5]

For even more evidence see this article.

Even more evidence is constantly being uncovered. Marlie-Louise Olsen writes for The National:


According to 3,000-year-old evidence discovered at two excavation sites in Sharjah, people in what is now the UAE were probably the first to domesticate the wild camel.

A team from Bryn Mawr College in Philadelphia has been digging at the sites in Tell Abraq and Muweilah along the border with Umm Al Qaiwain since early December.

The excavations have revealed almost 10 times as many bones of domesticated dromedaries as at any other single site in the Middle East. [6]

In order to avoid making this article unreasonably lengthy, we’ll just throw out some additional articles for those really interested in digging deep (no pun intended) into this issue:
Compagnoni, B. and M. Tosi, 1978. The camel: Its distribution and state of domestication in the Middle East during the third millennium B.C. in light of the finds from Shahr-i Sokhta. Pp. 119–128 in Approaches to Faunal Analysis in the Middle East, edited by R.H. Meadow and M.A. Zeder. Peabody Museum Bulletin no 2, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, New Haven, CT.
Younker, Randall W. (1997), “Late Bronze Age Camel Petroglyphs in the Wadi Nasib, Sinai,” Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin, 42:47-54.
Also see this article which includes several other reliable sources.

[1] Schniedewind, W. (2000). Historiography, Biblical. In D. N. Freedman, A. C. Myers & A. B. Beck (Eds.), Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible (D. N. Freedman, A. C. Myers & A. B. Beck, Ed.) (594). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

[2] Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman (2001), The Bible Unearthed (New York: Free Press). p. 37. Cited by Apologetics Press

[3] Free, Joseph P. (1944), “Abraham’s Camels,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 3:187-193, July. via Apologetics Press

[4] Bulliet, Richard (1990-05-20) [1975]. The Camel and the Wheel. Morningside Book Series. Columbia University Press. p. 183.

[5] MacDonald, M. C. A. (1995) North Arabia in the First Millennium BCE. Pp. of Civilizations of the Near East, Vol. 2, ed. J. M. Sasson, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. p. 1357

[6] Olson, Marie-Louise. &#8220;Sharjah&#8217;s 3,000-year-old Clue to the First Domesticated Camels.&#8221; The National. N.p., 8 Jan. 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. <http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/sharjahs-3-000-year-old-clue-to-the-first-domesticated-camels>.

Read more at Are domesticated camels in the Old Testament an anachronism? | End the Lie &#8211; Independent News

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

One writer, Robert Alter, is of the opinion that it seems odd to have camels used in this
account, because everything else in the account is historically accurate. He wrote,
What is puzzling is that the narrative reflects careful attention to other details of historical
authenticity: horses, which also were domesticated centuries later, are scrupulously
excluded from the Patriarchal Tales, and when Abraham buys a gravesite, he deals in
weights of silver, not in coins, as in the later Israelite period. The details of betrothal
negotiation, with the brother acting as principal agent for the family, the betrothal of the
dowry on the bride and betrothal gifts on the family, are equally accurate of the middle of
the second millennium B.C.E.103
As we look at this statement, Alter himself is recognizing that it does not make any sense for this
one historical inaccuracy to have been placed in the text when so much attention to detail has
been displayed through the rest of the narrative. This is actually evidence to show that
domesticated camels do belong in the text just the way it reads. The &#8220;problem&#8221; only comes up if
one tries to make the case that domesticated camels should not be present in this time period.
However, it has been demonstrated from archeology that between around 2000 and 1200
BC, camels were used, albeit minimally.105 And there has been actual extra-biblical
archaeological evidence that shows camels were domesticated very early on. Klingbeil notes
that both the Bactrian two-humped camel, along with the one-humped dromedary had been
domesticated in lower Mesopotamia and southern Arabia by 2500 B.C.106 Among the earliest
and most convincing evidence is from Egypt, where a portrait of a camel in pottery was found
dating from circa 2000-1400 BC.107 In Canaan, a camel jaw was found from a Middle Bronze
tomb at Tell el-Far'ah North around 1900-1550 BC.108 And in Byblos, there has been found a
figurine kneeling on a camel, with the hump and load missing.

There is also mention ofdomesticated camels from a Sumerian lexical work (called HAR.ra-hubullu) going back to early
second millennium.110 Kitchen sums up, &#8220;The camel was for long a marginal beast in most of the
historic ancient Near East (including Egypt), but it was not wholly unknown or anachronistic
before or during 2000-1100.&#8221;111
Not only can we see that camels do have evidence to support the historicity of an early
domestication within the period of the patriarchs, but also that Abraham112 and Isaac113, Jacob,114
Esau,115 and Jacob's sons116 had access to these animals. Stephen Caesar describes,
The Biblical portrayal of the Patriarchs as wealthy agro-pastoralists who traveled between
Mesopotamia and the Levant meshes well with historical reality in the Fertile Crescent.
Both in the Bible and in secular history, camel domestication was almost certainly the
exclusive domain of the wealthy. The Biblical narratives unequivocally portray Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob as extraordinarily wealthy men who, like the tamkârum, traveled
frequently, operated in family groups, owned and farmed land, and amassed fortunes in
precious metals and livestock.117
Caesar comes up with the only proper conclusion. He writes,
Based on extra-Biblical literary evidence and the Genesis narrative itself, there is every
reason to accept the likelihood that the Patriarchs occupied the highest echelon of
Levantine society&#8212; the only social group that was able to afford domesticated camels.
When combined with the archaeological evidence supporting the plausibility of limited
camel domestication in the Bronze Age from Mesopotamia to Egypt, it stands to reason
that the mention of camels being owned by the wealthy, mobile, combatant Patriarchs is
not an anachronism but a reflection of historical reality.118
Klingbeil also agrees, as he summarizes his research saying,
It would thus appear that Abraham&#8217;s &#8220;camel connection&#8221; is not a good example for an
anachronism but rather can be confidently explained in the context of either the early or
late date connected to the patriarchal period, beginning around the end of the third
103 Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary (W. W. Norton & Company, 2008),
118.
104 Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis, vol. I (Morrison and Gibb Limited, 1899), 386.
105 K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, annotated edition (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2006), 338.
106 G. A. Klingbeil, T. Desmond Alexander, and David W. Baker, eds., &#8220;Historical Criticism,&#8221; in Dictionary of the
Old Testament: Pentateuch (IVP Academic, 2003), 411.
107 Kitchen, Reliability of the Old Testament, 339.
108 Ibid.
109 Ibid.
30
109
110 Ibid.
111 Ibid.
112 Ge 12:16
113 Ge 24:61
114 Ge 30:43; Ge 31:17,34; Ge 32:8
115 Ge 32:16
116 Ge 37:25
117 Caesar, &#8220;The Wealth and Power of the Biblical Patriarchs.&#8221;
118 Ibid.
31
millennium B.C.119
So there is no reason to think that the presence of camels in Genesis 24 is any kind of textual problem. First, we have archaeological findings that support this understanding. Second, this view takes the Genesis account for what it is &#8211; a historical document. Most importantly, we have
the assurance that this is God's Word. Early camel domestication (especially among the wealthy
patriarchs) presents no problem for us whatsoever.

 

[metis]

The issue is when did domesticated camels become used in eretz Israel, so one might actually check this link out: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ated-camels-israel-bible-archaeology-science/

or this from Wikipedia: Recent excavations in the Timna Valley by Lidar Sapir-Hen and Erez Ben-Yosef discovered what may be the earliest domestic camel bones found in Israel or even outside the Arabian peninsula, dating to around 930 BCE. This garnered considerable media coverage as it was described as evidence that the stories of Abraham, Joseph, Jacob and Esau were written after this time. -- Camel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or this: Camel Domestication History Challenges Biblical Narrative &#8211; Biblical Archaeology Society

 

[1robin]

The issue is when did domesticated camels become used in eretz Israel, so one might actually check this link out: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ated-camels-israel-bible-archaeology-science/

or this from Wikipedia: Recent excavations in the Timna Valley by Lidar Sapir-Hen and Erez Ben-Yosef discovered what may be the earliest domestic camel bones found in Israel or even outside the Arabian peninsula, dating to around 930 BCE. This garnered considerable media coverage as it was described as evidence that the stories of Abraham, Joseph, Jacob and Esau were written after this time. -- Camel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or this: Camel Domestication History Challenges Biblical Narrative – Biblical Archaeology Society

The issues are far more complicated than that. I have shown that Camels were domesticated in the ANE long before 900BC. Now your asking me to evaluate the bible on:

1. The basis of a 4000 year old word Gamal which simply means: A. as property, as beast of burden, for riding, forbidden for food. Of course 5th century compilers are going to translate that as camel but it could mean a whole range of animals.

2. Despite the evidence suggests Camels plagued the rest of the ANE like locusts that for some reason a culture right near the spice road were vacant of them. Are Camels racist?

3. That for some reason a book that is careful enough to omit horses, give accurate details about marriage arrangements, and include historically accurate currency, etc...ad-infinitum is suddenly going to give up all that carefully crafted lie based on the unnecessary incorporation and ambiguous pack animal that apparently was anti-Semitic.

4. I am also only to consider data that comes from less that 2% of the Mideast land mass and digs that include less than 1% of that 2%.

5. Also note that only the wealthiest had camels. Only a few families in Israel could have afforded them in any significant amounts. Are we to deny the bible because the few camels (or whatever beast of burden Gamal signified when written) they had did not happen to die and be preserved (which is extremely rare) in the few holes your sources found younger aged camels given all of this.


I think your work is still all ahead of you and will completely fall apart just as the "no Hittites claims and the Luke's Roman official titles" did once upon a time.