Genesis 2

[outhouse]

Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say | Fox News

Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say

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



Oh no! more errors for you to sort out and deny

 

[Thief]

One more crutch for your denial and disbelief.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly Yes, it does make perfect sense theologically because it was the Creator GOD who made all that is seen;

Yet there is not one bit or even the smallest shred of evidence, your personal deity not worshipped by even a third of the world, has every done anything, let alone create everything

Hi outhouse, Like you have said, "it will be the facts of the matter" which determines whether the Scriptures are true or just a myth as "most believe". Everyone will make the decision for or against---Just as those Scriptures state.
And your frequent "facepalm"s reveals much.

Neither has the evolutionist produced "one bit or even the smallest shred of evidence" for that "theory" which you have labeled as "fact".

Originally Posted by sincerly and Life only comes from life as Pasteur proved those many years ago.

Nonsense.

he did not prove anything about life only coming from life.

On a side note, I love how you pick and choose which science you will and will not accept.

Bet your hiney when you have a heart attack or stroke you be begging for 100% of science to buy you as much more time then you would have without it.

Hypocritical is what it is called.

FirPasteur'ser's work attested to the fact that heat to a specific degree kills. Your theory of a "big bang" for the creation of this planet would produce a "sterile"/life-less planet.----Therefore, there would not enough time after the billions now suggested---to "produce all that is seen and has been seen upon this earth" even before writing/recording began.

I'm happy that you find something about my posts that you love.

As far as my "hiney", When my GOD and Saviour has determined that I no longer am of use to HIM, I am ready to be Put in that "sleep" awaiting the promised "resurrection day". I have a "DNR" established.
Not "hypocritical", but plan practicality or "fact".

 

[outhouse]

One more crutch for your denial and disbelief.

I can see how you pervert reality to meet your own biased needs.

the article is clear and uncontested by content.


Th eonly people who have issues are certain biased unsubstantiated apologist.

 

[outhouse]

Neither has the evolutionist produced "one bit or even the smallest shred of evidence" for that "theory" which you have labeled as "fact".

.

This is a statement of extreme ignorance of ths tpic at hand. Nothing more.

It is fact because of all the massive amounts of uncontested evidence.

Your theory of a "big bang" for the creation of this planet would produce a "sterile"/life-less planet.----Therefore, there would not enough time after the billions now suggested---to "produce all that is seen and has been seen upon this earth" even before writing/recording began

Nosense. More severe ignorance.

The planet cooled and when water was present, life developed. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the big expansion.

I am ready to be Put in that "sleep"

You cannot get anything right can you?

Its called death. not sleep. That is the only fact you will address.

 

[Thief]

I can see how you pervert reality to meet your own biased needs.

the article is clear and uncontested by content.


Th eonly people who have issues are certain biased unsubstantiated apologist.

None of that takes anything away from Genesis.

 

[outhouse]

except that genesis was a book compiled between 400 and 600 BC describing events that had a mesopotamian flavor, and that they knew nothing about.

 

[sojourner]

except that genesis was a book compiled between 400 and 600 BC describing events that had a mesopotamian flavor, and that they knew nothing about.

That might also explain why camels were included in the stories. They'd been domesticated by then and would have been familiar to the writers.

 

[outhouse]

That might also explain why camels were included in the stories. They'd been domesticated by then and would have been familiar to the writers.

Which explains much of the OT.

They had no clue about their past, so they created one that met their needs, wishes and wants.

They were beaten down and oppressed so may times, they didnt have a good enough past to record

 

[Thief]

And the focus is still to Genesis?.....
which makes good sense no matter where it came from.

 

[greentwiga]

That might also explain why camels were included in the stories. They'd been domesticated by then and would have been familiar to the writers.

The problem is that Camels had been domesticated in Yemen by 2000 BC, but they hadn't entered Canaan in sufficient numbers until 900 BC or 1200 BC depending on which scholar.

Egypt was an unusual country. They actively sought out and imported any animal they could find and tried to domesticate them. There is even a picture of them trying to domesticate a hyena, a task doomed to failure. Therefore, the Pharaoh would have imported a few camels very early on. Abraham was given his Camels by the Pharaoh, so this story is very possible.

Notice when Abraham sends his servant to get a wife for Isaac. The Servant goes with camels, and Rebeccah and Laban go wild over the camels. It would be like two high school students showing up at a girls house. One in a Chevy and the other in a Lamborghini. Rebeccah's response indicates the rarity of camels.

I would agree, if the story claimed everyone had camels, or if Abraham got them from an ordinary source, the story could be doubted. As it is, the story is very possible. Thus, the story does not prove the Bible is inaccurate.

 

[outhouse]

Thus, the story does not prove the Bible is inaccurate.

Sure it does.


Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say | Fox News

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.


So your wrong. These are trusted professionals from Israel.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by greentwiga
Thus, the story does not prove the Bible is inaccurate.

Sure it does.

Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say | Fox News

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.

So your wrong. These are trusted professionals from Israel.

Outhouse, My source is the Scriptures which greentwiga alluded to(Gen.12:16) and that was about 1921 B.C. "And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he *****, and menservants, and maidservants, and she *****, and camels."
In Gen.24: is the details of Rebekah being espoused to Isaac and the ten camels used there. Approx, 1857 B.C.

I'll believe the Scriptural account rather than the opinions of modern man's spectulations.

 

[outhouse]

I'll believe the Scriptural account rather than the opinions of modern man's spectulations.

Of course you believe ancient, ignorant, primitive, and barbaric people, that much is completely obvious. :slap:


What error did these modern men make?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I'll believe the Scriptural account rather than the opinions of modern man's spectulations.

Translation: "I'll believe the speculation of 2000 year old Arabic goat-herders, rather that the evidence provided by modern man."

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
I'll believe the Scriptural account rather than the opinions of modern man's spectulations.

Translation: "I'll believe the speculation of 2000 year old Arabic goat-herders, rather that the evidence provided by modern man."

Hi TL,Those "arabic goat hearders" were recorded as present at the time. Modern man only speculates concerning some artifacts and recordings without a valid date other than as is in relationship to the dynasties of kingdoms. That is similar to the Bible from the "original end" rather than looking back and wondering.

 

[outhouse]

Hi TL,Those "arabic goat hearders" were recorded as present at the time. .

FALSE


Your factually incorrect.

Events were not written or recorded as they happened.


No Hebrew writing exist beyond 1000 BC.


Israelites did not exist before 1200 BC. This is claimed as factual.



Provide credible sources to back up your nonsense

 

[Thief]

Of course you believe ancient, ignorant, primitive, and barbaric people, that much is completely obvious. :slap:


What error did these modern men make?

Perhaps the same error as you are making.
A written account at the time of the event ....as proof?

You already know and said so....that does not exist.

The topic at hand will then be dealt....as is.
No proof.

Just discussion.

I say Genesis Chapter Two stands well regardless of it's source.

 

[outhouse]

I say Genesis Chapter Two stands well regardless of it's source.

And yet your ignorant to every single aspect surrounding the books creation after generations and generations of collecting and redacting



It factually does not stand scientifically.


You can believe what you want, but provide sources for your nonsense

 

[Thief]

And yet your ignorant to every single aspect surrounding the books creation after generations and generations of collecting and redacting



It factually does not stand scientifically.


You can believe what you want, but provide sources for your nonsense

There won't be any experiment of science for your approval.
Science can take us to the 'point' of creation....no further.

Believing is not the function of science.