Interesting discussion about religion and evolution

[Kenny]

The known text clearly documents the Hebrew written language did not exist before 700-600 BCE. Not known that it may have been a copied version before this except for the Ugarit, Sumerian, Babylonian Phoenician, and Canaanite writings. It is well documented that the Hebrew written language evolved later than the above.

I disagree...

Old Hebrew script derived directly from Phoenician, and Christopher Rollston contends that Old Hebrew script did not split off from its Phoenician predecessor until the ninth century B.C.E. The Hebrew language existed well before then; the oldest extant Hebrew language texts are recorded in Phoenician script. Identifying the oldest combination of Hebrew script and language is hindered by a diverse set of complications including the poor condition of texts, the existence of cognates, regional variation, partial language preservation, limited number of artifacts and myriad other difficulties.

The Oldest Hebrew Script and Language

In the “What’s the Oldest Hebrew Inscription,” Christopher Rollston asks a seemingly straightforward question: What is the oldest Hebrew inscription?

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

And that is just what has been found to this date

Yes that is what is in the Pentateuch compiled and edited after 700-600 BCE from different sources including the traditions of the Northern Hebrews and Southern Judah.

No... that is what we have found - doesn't mean it wasn't there before

Actually, the first source is handed down oral traditions like in all primitive cultures.

Yes... but "write" still means "write" and "then read" still means "read"

"Might be" does not qualify as evidence.

correct... you have a "might" and I have a "write" and "read"

Really evidence! It is based on specific and documented archaeological evidence from many sources,

Which is painstakingly slow because of natural deterioration and destruction

The rate of continental drift is a measured uniform rate based on depositional rings in the ocean floor rock which is the same rate for millions of years.

I disagree. Science is not always perfect. I view it as they came to a conclusion through millennium's of evidence and then incorrectly thought it was consistent always.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is strange that the Bible as an ancient text from various parts of the BC era, is dismissed as evidence for complex religious writing in the time of the Kings and associated prophets.

Possibly. That sometimes means that the Pentateuch was made up then.

A vague insulting generalization is not a meaningful answer. That is not the total picture. It is certain that Noah's flood and the creation story are based on mythology.

Do you have any possible evidence these stories are based on fact.

That however is just opinion of people who dismiss the archaeology of the conquest and what is recorded in the Bible itself.

No archaeology was dismissed by academic historians, but it is abundantly apparent you are dismissing a great deal of archaeology. You have failed to cite any specific archaeological evidence that is dismissed.

The Bible record itself does however give reasons for why the archaeological record of Canaan is the way it is. There is no reason to make up other reasons.



The history of Moses being raised in a royal court and so knowing writing is there also.

No Egyptian records or archeological evidence to confirm this

The history of Moses being told by God to write certain things is there also.

No Egyptian records or archeological evidence to confirm this

It is all part of the history of writing in the Middle East.

No Egyptian records or archeological evidence to confirm this until after 700-600 BCE, when the Pentateuch was compiled, edited, and redacted.

Then modern historians come along and say "Ahh, we know better".

No

 

[shunyadragon]

I disagree...

Old Hebrew script derived directly from Phoenician, and Christopher Rollston contends that Old Hebrew script did not split off from its Phoenician predecessor until the ninth century B.C.E. The Hebrew language existed well before then; the oldest extant Hebrew language texts are recorded in Phoenician script. Identifying the oldest combination of Hebrew script and language is hindered by a diverse set of complications including the poor condition of texts, the existence of cognates, regional variation, partial language preservation, limited number of artifacts and myriad other difficulties.

The Oldest Hebrew Script and Language

In the “What’s the Oldest Hebrew Inscription,” Christopher Rollston asks a seemingly straightforward question: What is the oldest Hebrew inscription?

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

And that is just what has been found to this date



No... that is what we have found - doesn't mean it wasn't there before



Yes... but "write" still means "write" and "then read" still means "read"



correct... you have a "might" and I have a "write" and "read"

You do not have anything written or read concerning the Pentateuch in Hebrew before 600 BCE. I go by the evidence, which is Hebrew was a primitive evolving written language not capable of compiling the Pentateuch with nothing consisting of texts from the Torah. The known related texts that the Hebrews used are Canaanite, Ugarit, Phoenician, and Sumerian. This is documented by archaeology. The Middle East has been scoured for evidence for over 200 years to support many of the claims of the Maximalists, and the results are scant at best.

The evidence you cite above concerning the Hebrew language supports my argument not yours. I actually cited it in greater detail before.

Yes, King David has been confirmed, and Jericho was sieged and burned a number of times, but no invading Hebrew army.

One of the elephants in the room is 'What was written by Moses?' given there is no record of Moses or Exodus in Egyptian writings. Absolutely no Hebrew existed at the time of Moses. The Sinai and Egypt have been scoured for many years for evidence and none exists concerning the Exodus. The references oft used in Egyptian writings oft used to justify Exodus have been vague and do not document Exodus. Yes, small migrations occurred, but no Exodus. Yes, Jericho was sieged and burned several times, but absolutely no evidence of an invading army from Egypt.

Another elephant in the room is Noah's flood, which has no basis in fact as described involving the Hebrews or the world.

All you are doing is a vague meaningless 'arguing from ignorance' as to what may be found in the future. Considering the comprehensive archaeological search up til now don't hold your breath.

Which is painstakingly slow because of natural deterioration and destruction

I disagree. Science is not always perfect. I view it as they came to a conclusion through millennium's of evidence and then incorrectly thought it was consistent always.

No scientists have ever claimed perfection, but Biblical Maximalists often make the claim without evidence. Science and archaeology is evidence-based and driven. Yes, there may be discoveries in the future, and science does not say that there will not be change.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.

https://biblecharts.org/oldtestament/journeysofabrahamone.pdf

Yes this is what is found in the Torah concerning Abraham.

 

[Kenny]

All you are doing is a vague meaningless 'arguing from ignorance' as to what may be found in the future. Considering the comprehensive archaeological search up til now don't hold your breath.

I find all to often that these types of statements are more of an attempt not have to substantiate something so a "fallacy" argument is used.

I think we need to crate a "fallacy of using fallacy quotes to not have to answer"

And please note that your statement of no Hebraic language before 600 BC was wrong.

You do not have anything written or read concerning the Pentateuch in Hebrew before 600 BCE. I go by the evidence, which is Hebrew was a primitive evolving written language not capable of compiling the Pentateuch with nothing consisting of texts from the Torah. The known related texts that the Hebrews used are Canaanite, Ugarit, Phoenician, and Sumerian. This is documented by archaeology. The Middle East has been scoured for evidence for over 200 years to support many of the claims of the Maximalists, and the results are scant at best.

One of the elephants in the room is 'What was written by Moses?' given there is no record of Moses or Exodus in Egyptian writings. Absolutely no Hebrew existed at the time of Moses. The Sinai and Egypt have been scoured for many years for evidence and none exists concerning the Exodus. The references oft used in Egyptian writings oft used to justify Exodus have been vague and do not document Exodus. Yes, small migrations occurred, but no Exodus. Yes, Jericho was sieged and burned several times, but absolutely no evidence of an invading army from Egypt.

Another elephant in the room is Noah's flood, which has no basis in fact as described involving the Hebrews or the world.

Again... Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


I don't see what part did Moses actually write as an issue. If Moses spoke and someone else wrote what he wrote, Moses (or God speaking to Moses) is still the author.

You haven't really proven that what was written didn't happen

No scientists have ever claimed perfection, but Biblical MAximalists often make the claim without evidence. Science and archaeology is evidence-based and driven. Yes, there may be discoveries in the future, and science does not say that there will not be change.

Exactly. But archaeologist do use the TaNaKh to help them locate cities and judge events accordingly. Why? Because of the reliability of what was written.

 

[Brian2]

A vague insulting generalization is not a meaningful answer. That is not the total picture. It is certain that Noah's flood and the creation story are based on mythology.

Do you have any possible evidence these stories are based on fact.

Why is it certain that Noah's flood and the creation story are based on mythology?
Why isn't the flood story of Gilgamesh evidence that the flood of Noah is real?
Is any creation story the same as the Biblical one, which imo can even fit what science has discovered about the early earth etc. That is good evidence for me and I believe it even if I don't have other evidence except faith.
I'm not splitting up what is academically true and what is truely true. True is true for me and I disagree with people deciding the Bible is false because of their opinion and what they see as a lack of evidence even when evidence exists.

No archaeology was dismissed by academic historians, but it is abundantly apparent you are dismissing a great deal of archaeology. You have failed to cite any specific archaeological evidence that is dismissed.

The domestication of camels is shown archaeologically to go back to the 3rd Millenium but Finkelstein and his university say no domestication until the first millenium. This is the mindset of minimalists. The camels of Abraham have to be anachronistic.

No Egyptian records or archeological evidence to confirm this

No Egyptian records or archeological evidence to confirm this

No Egyptian records or archeological evidence to confirm this until after 700-600 BCE, when the Pentateuch was compiled, edited, and redacted.

It's good for people who go by the changing opinions science and in particular archaeology no matter what and no doubt they have what they see as good reasons.
I'll stick to my faith and the archaeological evidence that supports it even if it is not as significant in parts of academia and the parts of academia where it is significant are just maximalists anyway.
But discoveries keep happening and opinions change.

No

Well they justify their opinions of course.

 

[shunyadragon]

I find all to often that these types of statements are more of an attempt not have to substantiate something so a "fallacy" argument is used.

I think we need to crate a "fallacy of using fallacy quotes to not have to answer"

And please note that your statement of no Hebraic language before 600 BC was wrong.



Again... Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No, what we have is actual documented evidence of the evolution of the Hebrew form a primitive form not capable of compiling the Pentateuch.

The problem is you have failed to present the positive evidence to support your argument.

I don't see what part did Moses actually write as an issue. If Moses spoke and someone else wrote what he wrote, Moses (or God speaking to Moses) is still the author.

It is a very very real issue as far as the credibility of the Pentateuch, and when it was written.

All the argument you are presenting here is that you believe the Bible justifies itself without evidence, which is circular reasoning and not convincing. You still have failed to present any convincing evidence for your claims.

You haven't really proven that what was written didn't happen

Well . . . the archaeological evidence actually does confirm the limits of a primitive Hebrew language that could not compile the Pentateuch and there was absolutely no Hebrew during the time of Moses.

Exactly. But archaeologist do use the TaNaKh to help them locate cities and judge events accordingly. Why? Because of the reliability of what was written.

Yes, the archaeologists have extensively used the TaNaKh to locate cities and judge events accordingly, and this is also true of the Iliad and Odyssey , but the Biblical record cannot stand alone as evidence. In fact, the whole Bible is a Narrative set in history that, of course, refers to places and people in history, but it is not a historical record. There is absolutely no evidence that the Pentateuch, and by the way the gospels, were written by eyewitnesses recording history.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

evolutionary science completely ignores why an all powerful creator would simply place the mechanisms in place and then let nature take its course.

Perhaps because there is insufficient evidence for an all-powerful creator, and therefore no reason to postulate one.

Most of us don't want to die.

Along with magical thinking and a deference to parents and their beliefs, such thinking defines childhood. If we are allowed to, we can outgrow such thinking and come to terms with the notion that there may be nobody not on earth watching over us or judging us, that life ends, that consciousness may be extinguished by death, that we are autonomous moral agents, that truth derives from reason properly applied to evidence.

Or we can be maintained in that juvenile state with religions that teach the opposite and in so doing, remain fearful of death and engaging in magical (irrational) thinking. It should be apparent which is the preferred state. I have no fear of death. I expect it to be a lot like the eons preceding birth, which passed easily and peacefully by the standards of conscious existence.

There are those here who believe in evolution and also that God is somewhere maybe but are unwilling to discuss it. I guess it cuts too close for them.

You're describing the agnostic, atheistic humanist. I'm one. The evidence convinces me that the theory of evolution is correct beyond reasonable doubt. It does not allow me to rule out gods in general (although I have ruled out the Abrahamic god empirically, but not the deist god, for example). And we're generally willing to discuss that as I just have.

You seem to think that atheism is also an emotional position and that atheists find many subjects difficult to discuss and avoid them. Read what I wrote again about the transition from the faith-based thinking of childhood to a humanist worldview. The former is emotional and irrational, characterized by juvenile fears and magical thinking, the latter the escape from that.

If I thought that evolution as perceived by the majority of scientists is true beyond question, I'd have a different viewpoint. I do not see it as truth and fact beyond question.

The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt, but can be rejected anyway by those who don't value critical thought over faith.

It comes down to this: either a person has faith in God or he does not. It's simple. We make choices, also based on rationality.

If you make that choice using reason applied to evidence, you will also be an agnostic atheist.

The more I think about it, the greater God becomes and I realize He made us, He made life. We did not create God or life.

Then that thought meets a need you have but atheists don't have.

To believe there is something greater in store for mankind than this life is not irrational.

Yes it is. Irrational mean not arrived at through reasoning. To hope for that is not irrational, but to believe it lacking sufficient evidentiary support is, because there is no rational path to theism. There is no validly reasoned argument that ends, "therefore god" - the sine qua non of rational thought.

Jesus said he is the truth. I believe Jesus and the Bible

And that is not rational, either, for the same reason. But it may be practical to believe such a thing if it comforts or centers you.

Irrational is not an insult. Maybe you'd like the word nonrational better. I like strawberries, and the pleasure of eating one is not a rational experience. It doesn't involve reasoning. I simply discovered that eating strawberries is a pleasant experience. Where reason comes into it is in acquiring strawberries, and that is the value of reason (the rider) - to facilitate the passions (the horse), which are irrational. The rational mind serves the irrational mind, without which life is empty and meaningless. Without reason, unbridled passion is destructive. Life tends to be shorter and less pleasant. The two are a team.

Or, if you prefer, reason is the brush and the pigments on the palette are the passions. One needs both to avoid either a blank canvass (colorless reasoning) or a messy canvass (chaotic passion)

 

[shunyadragon]

Why is it certain that Noah's flood and the creation story are based on mythology?

The absolute impossibility of Noah's flood is a clincher here. The existence of preexistent older evolved mythology is evidence. The Creation story has absolutely no relevance to what is the documented historical, geological, and paleontological evidence we have.

Why isn't the flood story of Gilgamesh evidence that the flood of Noah is real?

It is not evidence for Noah's Flood involving the Hebrews, It is the origin of the Noah myth handed down through the Babylonians and Canaanites a record of a local catastrophic flood on the Tigris Euphrates Valley recorded in Sumerian records. Yes, mythology in all cultures evolves from some facts like the Greek Epic Iliad and Odyssey.

Is any creation story the same as the Biblical one,

Well, as far as mythology goes every ancient culture writes its own story, but like the Noah flood, there is abundant evidence the Creation story evolved from older oral myths, and written Sumerian, Babylonian, and Canaanite Creatin stories. The names change based on the culture, but the stories are similar.

which imo can even fit what science has discovered about the early earth etc. That is good evidence for me and I believe it even if I don't have other evidence except faith.

Nothing is the scientific knowledge of the history of the Earth fits the Biblical Mythology.

I'm not splitting up what is academically true and what is truely true. True is true for me and I disagree with people deciding the Bible is false because of their opinion and what they see as a lack of evidence even when evidence exists.

What is claimed as true or 'Truth' is not an issue with science and academic history. The factual evidence is what stands as true facts and not ancient historical narratives.

The domestication of camels is shown archaeologically to go back to the 3rd Millenium but Finkelstein and his university say no domestication until the first millenium. This is the mindset of minimalists. The camels of Abraham have to be anachronistic.

Finkelstein is referring to the Palestine region and he is correct.

The actual archaeological evidence for the domestication of camels is different for different regions. In the Palestine region, it is ~930 BCE, In Sumeria it is 2000 to 1500 BCE

Domesticated Camels Came to Israel in 930 B.C., Centuries Later Than Bible Says

Domesticated camels weren't known in Israel until about 900 B.C., when there were major changes in copper production throughout the region.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Historians believe these stories took place between 2000 and 1500 B.C., based on clues such as passages from Genesis, archaeological information from the site of the great Sumerian city of Ur (located in modern Iraq), and an archive of clay tablets found at the site of Mari (in modern Syria).

Using radiocarbon dating and evidence unearthed in excavations, Israeli archaeologists Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen have pegged the arrival of domesticated camels in this part of the world—known to scholars as the Levant—to a much later era. They were also able to more precisely pinpoint the time span when that arrival occurred.

"By analyzing archaeological evidence from the copper production sites of the Aravah Valley, we were able to estimate the date of this event in terms of decades rather than centuries," Ben-Yosef said in a press release put out by Tel Aviv University last week.

The study was able to "narrow down the range in which domesticated camels were introduced to 30 years," said Sapir-Hen, an archaeozoologist who studies the role of animals in ancient human culture, in a phone interview. It's "sometime between 930 and 900 B.C."

Copper and Camels

The Aravah Valley marks the Israeli-Jordanian border as it runs from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba in the Red Sea. This area was a center of copper production beginning as early as the 14th century B.C. and ending in the late 9th century B.C.

Archaeologists have identified an interesting pattern in their studies of animal remains from sites in this valley. Large quantities of camel bones appear only in the levels dated from the last third of the 10th century through the 9th century B.C.

The camels appear suddenly, following major changes in copper production throughout the region.

This period coincides with the invasion of Egyptian king Sheshonq I—known in the Bible as Shishak-in 925 B.C.

Archaeologists now wonder if the events are connected. After Egypt conquered the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, it may have reorganized the copper business and introduced camels as a more efficient means of transport than the donkeys and mules used previously.

This would have had huge economic and social consequences for the Levant, opening it to parts of the world that lay beyond vast deserts, to which it had never before been connected.

Camels were probably first domesticated in the Arabian Peninsula in the early first millennium B.C. Archaeologists base this date on mortality profiles of excavated skeletons, the gender of the animals, and lesions on leg bones that would have resulted from the repetitive stress of working as pack animals.

It's good for people who go by the changing opinions science and in particular archaeology no matter what and no doubt they have what they see as good reasons.

With science, archaeology, and history it is the objective evidence that stands, and of course, this is constantly changing

I'll stick to my faith and the archaeological evidence that supports it even if it is not as significant in parts of academia and the parts of academia where it is significant are just maximalists anyway.
But discoveries keep happening and opinions change.

The problem remains the archaeological evidence as a whole does not support what your faith believes. The best you can do is that individual persons and events of the Pentateuch have been confirmed by archaeological and historical evidence.

Well they justify their opinions of course.

No, it is based on actual evidence supported by every major academic university in the world concerning the nature of ancient narratives of all ancient religions. When you go beyond the scientific, archaeological, and historical objective evidence it does represent many diverse conflicting opinions where many disagree. The work of the major academic universities pretty much agrees with healthy constructive debate and the search for more evidence and research.

 

[Kenny]

No, what we have is actual documented evidence of the evolution of the Hebrew form a primitive form not capable of compiling the Pentateuch.

The problem is you have failed to present the positive evidence to support your argument.

Whether it was an evolution and updated what was written into their updated language means what? If green was changed to grass green, does it really change what was written. If LXXVII was changed to 77... so? It really doesn't make a difference in my book... the message and information is the same.

It is a very very real issue as far as the credibility of the Pentateuch, and when it was written.

All the argument you are presenting here is that you believe the Bible justifies itself without evidence, which is circular reasoning and not convincing. You still have failed to present any convincing evidence for your claims.

The Bible justifies itself because it is reliable for archaeological finds and its prophetic capacity. Now... you personally don't have to agree with me but no one has provided me with evidence contrary to my position.

Well . . . the archaeological evidence actually does confirm the limits of a primitive Hebrew language that could not compile the Pentateuch and there was absolutely no Hebrew during the time of Moses.

Again... as you said you like evidence... what evidence do you have that one could not have compiled the Pentateuch as Moses received the messages from God? There is no evidence that it did not happen at the time that is was recorded that it happened (Whether in archaic Hebrew or the language used before then).

Yes, the archaeologists have extensively used the TaNaKh to locate cities and judge events accordingly, and this is also true of the Iliad and Odyssey , but the Biblical record cannot stand alone as evidence. In fact, the whole Bible is a Narrative set in history that, of course, refers to places and people in history, but it is not a historical record. There is absolutely no evidence that the Pentateuch, and by the way the gospels, were written by eyewitnesses recording history.

Yes... that is a position that some people hold... not evidenced by any letter, papyri, chard or stone written corroborated evidence... just a statement of belief which you can have.

 

[shunyadragon]

Whether it was an evolution and updated what was written into their updated language means what? If green was changed to grass green, does it really change what was written. If LXXVII was changed to 77... so? It really doesn't make a difference in my book... the message and information is the same.

In your 'book' and belief yes, but I approach the history of Judaism and the Torah form a more objective basis first,

The Bible justifies itself because it is reliable for archaeological finds and its prophetic capacity. Now... you personally don't have to agree with me but no one has provided me with evidence contrary to my position.

No, actually a generalization such as this is circular reasoning and not remotely rational as far as the factual events of history. The only way a religious scripture can justify itself is with those who believe in it regardless of the evidence. For example: By your argument Noah's Ark and flood as described in the Bible justifies itself.

Absolutely no, the archaeological evidence as whole does not justify the scripture. The best you can do is that the archaeological evidence confirms of people and events.

Again... as you said you like evidence... what evidence do you have that one could not have compiled the Pentateuch as Moses received the messages from God? There is no evidence that it did not happen at the time that is was recorded that it happened (Whether in archaic Hebrew or the language used before then).

The evidence is clear and specific. The Hebrew written language did not exist and there was no evidence. The basis for valid arguments is the one proposing that something is true it is their responsibility to justify the claim based on EVIDENCE, which you have absolutely none even for the existence of Moses.

Yes... that is a position that some people hold... not evidenced by any letter, papyri, chard or stone written corroborated evidence... just a statement of belief which you can have.

The basis for valid arguments is the one proposing that something is true it is their responsibility to justify the claim based on EVIDENCE, which you have absolutely none even for the existence of Moses.

If you are going to present an argument for the existence of the Pentateuch before 600 BCE, The existence of Noah's Ark and flood, and Moses the claimed author of Exodus it is your responsibility to provide independent evidence to support your claims. The alternative is the fallacy of demanding negative evidence.

The Burden of Proof

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

You are making the assertion or proposition that the Pentateuch was written before 600 BCE, a true historical document supported by archaeological evidence. It is your responsibility to provide independent evidence for this,

 

[Brian2]

The absolute impossibility of Noah's flood is a clincher here. The existence of preexistent older evolved mythology is evidence. The Creation story has absolutely no relevance to what is the documented historical, geological, and paleontological evidence we have.


It is not evidence for Noah's Flood involving the Hebrews, It is the origin of the Noah myth handed down through the Babylonians and Canaanites a record of a local catastrophic flood on the Tigris Euphrates Valley recorded in Sumerian records. Yes, mythology in all cultures evolves from some facts like the Greek Epic Iliad and Odyssey.

So the flood of Gilgamesh could be memory of a real flood and that of Noah also could remember the same flood, a large local flood.
The creation story seems to be relevant to what science has discovered about geology and paleontology.

Well, as far as mythology goes every ancient culture writes its own story, but like the Noah flood, there is abundant evidence the Creation story evolved from older oral myths, and written Sumerian, Babylonian, and Canaanite Creatin stories. The names change based on the culture, but the stories are similar.

Similar but different, not all the same.

Nothing is the scientific knowledge of the history of the Earth fits the Biblical Mythology.

I would have thought otherwise but I don't know much about the scientific knowledge of the history of the earth.

What is claimed as true or 'Truth' is not an issue with science and academic history. The factual evidence is what stands as true facts and not ancient historical narratives.

Factual evidence is completely different to the academic opinions stated as facts in the history books.

Finkelstein is referring to the Palestine region and he is correct.

The actual archaeological evidence for the domestication of camels is different for different regions. In the Palestine region, it is ~930 BCE, In Sumeria it is 2000 to 1500 BCE

Domesticated Camels Came to Israel in 930 B.C., Centuries Later Than Bible Says

Domesticated camels weren't known in Israel until about 900 B.C., when there were major changes in copper production throughout the region.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Historians believe these stories took place between 2000 and 1500 B.C., based on clues such as passages from Genesis, archaeological information from the site of the great Sumerian city of Ur (located in modern Iraq), and an archive of clay tablets found at the site of Mari (in modern Syria).

Using radiocarbon dating and evidence unearthed in excavations, Israeli archaeologists Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen have pegged the arrival of domesticated camels in this part of the world—known to scholars as the Levant—to a much later era. They were also able to more precisely pinpoint the time span when that arrival occurred.

"By analyzing archaeological evidence from the copper production sites of the Aravah Valley, we were able to estimate the date of this event in terms of decades rather than centuries," Ben-Yosef said in a press release put out by Tel Aviv University last week.

The study was able to "narrow down the range in which domesticated camels were introduced to 30 years," said Sapir-Hen, an archaeozoologist who studies the role of animals in ancient human culture, in a phone interview. It's "sometime between 930 and 900 B.C."

Copper and Camels

The Aravah Valley marks the Israeli-Jordanian border as it runs from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba in the Red Sea. This area was a center of copper production beginning as early as the 14th century B.C. and ending in the late 9th century B.C.

Archaeologists have identified an interesting pattern in their studies of animal remains from sites in this valley. Large quantities of camel bones appear only in the levels dated from the last third of the 10th century through the 9th century B.C.

The camels appear suddenly, following major changes in copper production throughout the region.

This period coincides with the invasion of Egyptian king Sheshonq I—known in the Bible as Shishak-in 925 B.C.

Archaeologists now wonder if the events are connected. After Egypt conquered the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, it may have reorganized the copper business and introduced camels as a more efficient means of transport than the donkeys and mules used previously.

This would have had huge economic and social consequences for the Levant, opening it to parts of the world that lay beyond vast deserts, to which it had never before been connected.

Camels were probably first domesticated in the Arabian Peninsula in the early first millennium B.C. Archaeologists base this date on mortality profiles of excavated skeletons, the gender of the animals, and lesions on leg bones that would have resulted from the repetitive stress of working as pack animals.

This site certainly has a different opinion on camel domestication.

The Date of Camel Domestication in the Ancient Near East

Joomla! - the dynamic portal engine and content management system

biblearchaeology.org

As a result of the aforementioned data, many archaeologists regard the date for domestication of the camel to be sometime in the 3rd millennium BC. Scarre states that “both the dromedary (the one-humped camel of Arabia) and the Bactrian camel (the two-humped camel of Central Asia) had been domesticated since before 2000 BC.” 40 Saggs sees evidence for an early camel domestication date by “proto-Arabs” of the arid regions of the Arabian Peninsula.41 Macdonald’s research in southeast Arabia caused him to argue that based on archaeological remains, camels were probably first domesticated for milk, hair, leather, and meat, and subsequently travel across previously impassible regions in Arabia as early as the 3rd millennium BC.42 Heide regards evidence from multiple areas of the ancient Near East to demonstrate the presence of domesticated camels by at least the 3rd millennium BC.43 For those who adhere to a 9th century BC or even 12th century BC date of domestic camel use in the ancient Near East, archaeological and textual evidence must be either ignored or explained away. Bones, hairs, wall paintings, models, inscriptions, seals, documents, statues, and stelae from numerous archaeological sites all suggest the camel in use as a domestic animal in the ancient Near East as early as the 3rd millennium BC, and certainly by the Middle Bronze Age. The wide geographical and chronological distribution of findings related to camel domestication further strengthen the argument that the camel was domesticated far before the Iron Age, and with new excavations and analyses, additional evidence will likely reinforce this theory.

The thing about the Tel Aviv University article is that it want to pull what the Bible says down with the research and no doubt convinces people who are not Bible literate that it has done that, but the Bible does not tell us that camels were domesticated in Israel or used extensively. It has Abraham being given some camels from Egypt and a camel train going to Egypt for trade. This fits the actual evidence of camel domestication in the region. The Bible does not say that camels were used widely in Canaan at the time of Abraham etc..

The problem remains the archaeological evidence as a whole does not support what your faith believes. The best you can do is that individual persons and events of the Pentateuch have been confirmed by archaeological and historical evidence.

I actually see that individual persons have not been confirmed but that archaeology does confirm the grand sweep of events, including the conquest and therefore the Exodus. And there is also evidence for Joseph and Israel being in Egypt in Goshen when the Bible says, especially if the Egyptian chronology is not reliable, as many scientists and historians think.
There are different opinions on the evidence and the truth is not a matter of taking a vote to see what most archaeologists think. But those archaeologists pour out their books that tell us that the Bible is completely wrong anyway, even if it is just a matter of opinion.

No, it is based on actual evidence supported by every major academic university in the world concerning the nature of ancient narratives of all ancient religions. When you go beyond the scientific, archaeological, and historical objective evidence it does represent many diverse conflicting opinions where many disagree. The work of the major academic universities pretty much agrees with healthy constructive debate and the search for more evidence and research.

It is based on interpretation of evidence and misinterpretation in a small area leads to wrong conclusion on the data and that leads to going down a path of wrong interpretations and conclusions. It does not take much for that to happen.
But it is good that healthy constructive debate is encouraged but from what I hear, there is bias against the evidence that supports the Bible.

 

[shunyadragon]

So the flood of Gilgamesh could be memory of a real flood and that of Noah also could remember the same flood, a large local flood.

There is objectively verifiable evidence of a flood in the Tigris Euphrates Valley that directly relates to the records in the Sumerian writings The story of this flood can be found in Babylonian writings, then Canaanite/Ugarit writings before it was found in later Hebrew versions of Genesis.

There is absolutely no evidence of any such flood worldwide or involving the region of Palestine regardless of whether it was a world or regional flood.

The same is true for other catastrophic river floods like those in ancient China. They are documented as a local river flood, and in China, the date is provided by the Chinese writings that fit the geologic evidence for the flood.

The creation story seems to be relevant to what science has discovered about geology and paleontology.

Not remotely relevant, because there is absolutely no evidence of catastrophic flood involving the Hebrews, local, regional or worldwide,

I would have thought otherwise but I don't know much about the scientific knowledge of the history of the earth.

You have apparently no knowledge of the geologic record based on your responses.

Factual evidence is completely different to the academic opinions stated as facts in the history books.

There is not factual evidence for Noah's flood. Academic history books are not based on opinion.

This site certainly has a different opinion on camel domestication.

The Date of Camel Domestication in the Ancient Near East

Joomla! - the dynamic portal engine and content management system

biblearchaeology.org

As a result of the aforementioned data, many archaeologists regard the date for domestication of the camel to be sometime in the 3rd millennium BC. Scarre states that “both the dromedary (the one-humped camel of Arabia) and the Bactrian camel (the two-humped camel of Central Asia) had been domesticated since before 2000 BC.” 40 Saggs sees evidence for an early camel domestication date by “proto-Arabs” of the arid regions of the Arabian Peninsula.41 Macdonald’s research in southeast Arabia caused him to argue that based on archaeological remains, camels were probably first domesticated for milk, hair, leather, and meat, and subsequently travel across previously impassible regions in Arabia as early as the 3rd millennium BC.42 Heide regards evidence from multiple areas of the ancient Near East to demonstrate the presence of domesticated camels by at least the 3rd millennium BC.43 For those who adhere to a 9th century BC or even 12th century BC date of domestic camel use in the ancient Near East, archaeological and textual evidence must be either ignored or explained away. Bones, hairs, wall paintings, models, inscriptions, seals, documents, statues, and stelae from numerous archaeological sites all suggest the camel in use as a domestic animal in the ancient Near East as early as the 3rd millennium BC, and certainly by the Middle Bronze Age. The wide geographical and chronological distribution of findings related to camel domestication further strengthen the argument that the camel was domesticated far before the Iron Age, and with new excavations and analyses, additional evidence will likely reinforce this theory.

The thing about the Tel Aviv University article is that it want to pull what the Bible says down with the research and no doubt convinces people who are not Bible literate that it has done that, but the Bible does not tell us that camels were domesticated in Israel or used extensively. It has Abraham being given some camels from Egypt and a camel train going to Egypt for trade. This fits the actual evidence of camel domestication in the region. The Bible does not say that camels were used widely in Canaan at the time of Abraham etc..

The information and evidence previously referenced stand. Domestication of camels began in Sumeria than the Arabian Peninsula and no evidence of domestication was found in Palestine until the 9th century, The actual objective evidence has nothing to do with the Bible. Textual evidence is not objective verifiable evidence. Your reference distorts the actual real evidence that the camel was not domesticated in Palestine until the ninth century.

I actually see that individual persons have not been confirmed but that archaeology does confirm the grand sweep of events, including the conquest

There is absolutely no archaeological evidence of a conquest or mass migration of Hebrews from Egypt. Simply evidence of Jericho being captured in a battle is not evidence of a Hebrew invasion of Canaan by a Hebrew army.

I will be starting a thread on the problems of Exodus including internal contradictions in Torah,

 

[Brian2]

There is objectively verifiable evidence of a flood in the Tigris Euphrates Valley that directly relates to the records in the Sumerian writings The story of this flood can be found in Babylonian writings, then Canaanite/Ugarit writings before it was found in later Hebrew versions of Genesis.

There is absolutely no evidence of any such flood worldwide or involving the region of Palestine regardless of whether it was a world or regional flood.

The same is true for other catastrophic river floods like those in ancient China. They are documented as a local river flood, and in China, the date is provided by the Chinese writings that fit the geologic evidence for the flood.

Noah was not a Hebrew and no doubt did not live in Palestine.
I don't see the Noah flood as world wide and the story can be translated as a local flood.
Other local floods around the same time however could have brought God's judgement on other cultures of the time.

Not remotely relevant, because there is absolutely no evidence of catastrophic flood involving the Hebrews, local, regional or worldwide,

You are the one who brought up the creation story, and now it is not relevant it seems.

You have apparently no knowledge of the geologic record based on your responses.

How so?

There is not factual evidence for Noah's flood. Academic history books are not based on opinion.

No record of a world wide flood, true. But it was a local flood imo.

The information and evidence previously referenced stand. Domestication of camels began in Sumeria than the Arabian Peninsula and no evidence of domestication was found in Palestine until the 9th century, The actual objective evidence has nothing to do with the Bible. Textual evidence is not objective verifiable evidence. Your reference distorts the actual real evidence that the camel was not domesticated in Palestine until the ninth century.

The studies of the Tel Aviv University about the domestication of camels in Palestine have no bearing on the what the Bible tells us about camels in Genesis, so why does the article say the Biblical record is false?
How does camel domestication in a small part of Palestine in the 9th century even show that some people did not have or use domesticated camels in other parts of Palestine then, on a limited basis?

There is absolutely no archaeological evidence of a conquest or mass migration of Hebrews from Egypt. Simply evidence of Jericho being captured in a battle is not evidence of a Hebrew invasion of Canaan by a Hebrew army.

We have the written record of Jericho destruction at a certain time, we have the archaeological record of that event. Of course they confirm each other,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, especially when the archaeology of Canaan in the same era also confirms the Biblical record.

 

[YoursTrue]

No

There's many claims and assertions that many people make about what happens after people die. None of them can be substantiated. What I see, though, is that all biological functions end when something dies. That's all anyone knows for sure. Until more/better evidence comes along, that's my default

I guess because I believe what the Bible says about a resurrection (like Jesus resurrecting several persons who died), I believe in God's ability to restore life. It makes a lot of sense to me when put together with the history in the Bible and Jesus appearance on earth.

 

[Soandso]

I guess because I believe what the Bible says about a resurrection (like Jesus resurrecting several persons who died), I believe in God's ability to restore life. It makes a lot of sense to me when put together with the history in the Bible and Jesus appearance on earth.

I suppose different folks have different things that brings them happiness. If everyone believed exactly the same things as me, the world would make for a dull place to live, so I'm thankful for the diversity in opinion even - if I disagree from time to time with those opinions. If your beliefs bring you peace of mind, my opinions really play no part in the matter

That said, where you find the information you have from the Bible convincing - I do not. What I do find convincing is what little about the world broad empirical consensus grants. My beliefs are subject to change as better information comes along. Sounds simple, but being a student of life for my entire life is a daunting prospect. Still, that's the thing that gives me peace of mind and happiness

Hope you have a good night!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I don't think so. But that's how I see it now.

When you say, “I don’t think so” (IOW, ‘you don’t think everyone living now is going to die’), it is probably lost on @Soandso , about what you meant. I think I know what you meant…

Jesus’ conversation with Martha, in John 11, explains your meaning. Vs.24 establishes the time period spoken of, is “in the last day”. So within that context, Jesus says those who die will be resurrected, and those who are living - in the last day - will never die at all.

Let’s hope that time comes soon! I am eager to hug my old friends and relatives again!

Take care, my sister.

Isn’t it wonderful to “speak in agreement “?! - 1 Corinthians 1:10

 

[shunyadragon]

Noah was not a Hebrew and no doubt did not live in Palestine.

Hebrews are descendants of Noah. There is no evidence of a local catastrophic flood in Palestine.

I don't see the Noah flood as world wide and the story can be translated as a local flood.

It cannot be a local flood as far as Palestine is concerned, and it would conflict with the New Testament that confirms the world flood and Noah.

Genesis flood narrative - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Christianity. The Genesis flood narrative is included in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible (see Books of the Bible). Jesus and the apostles additionally taught on the Genesis flood narrative in New Testament writing (Matthew 24:37–39, Luke 17:26–27, 1 Peter 3:20, 2 Peter 2:5, 2 Peter 3:6, Hebrews 11:7).

Other local floods around the same time however could have brought God's judgement on other cultures of the time.

It is well documented that none of the known catastrophic local floods in the world occurred at the same time ie China's catastrophic river flood, and catastrophic floods related to the Ice Age.

You are the one who brought up the creation story, and now it is not relevant it seems.

Possibly, but responded to and documented that no such Noah's flood ever occured

No record of a world wide flood, true. But it was a local flood imo.

The known local floods do not remotely fit the Biblical Testimony in the Torah and the NT.
If you believe the Tigris Euphrates flood is the flood of Noah or related you would have to accept the fact that the Pentateuch records evolved from more ancient stories in earlier cultures of the Middle East.

The studies of the Tel Aviv University about the domestication of camels in Palestine have no bearing on the what the Bible tells us about camels in Genesis, so why does the article say the Biblical record is false?
How does camel domestication in a small part of Palestine in the 9th century even show that some people did not have or use domesticated camels in other parts of Palestine then, on a limited basis?

The above is false because the domestication of the camel in the 900s BCE is well documented by the evidence not only by the Tel Aviv University but other research as well following the earlier domestication in Sumeria first, then the Arab Peninsula, and last in Palestine.

You cannot challenge the evidence with conspiracy accusations. You need to cite specific evidence of domestication in Palestine before the 900s BCE.

We have the written record of Jericho destruction at a certain time, we have the archaeological record of that event. Of course they confirm each other,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, especially when the archaeology of Canaan in the same era also confirms the Biblical record.

All we have is an archaeological record of the wars and sieges of Jericho and no evidence of an invasion of Canaan by Joshua.

The Biblical record is Not confirmed by archaeological evidence for details see:

Unresolvable problems with Exodus in archaeology, history and contradictions in the Torah

Off-topic discussions have bounced around in other threads concerning Exodus. In this thread, I will provide specifics Bart Ehrman, a historian at UNC University has done research over the years concerning the Bible. First, the Biblical contradictions concerning Jericho...

www.religiousforums.com

Respond here to this post #1 and the thread documents the archaeological evidence does not support the invasion of Canaan by Joshua.

 

[Brian2]

Hebrews are descendants of Noah. There is no evidence of a local catastrophic flood in Palestine.

As I said, Noah was not a Hebrew and no doubt did not live in Palestine, so a local catastrophic flood would not have to be in Palestine to be real for Noah.

It cannot be a local flood as far as Palestine is concerned, and it would conflict with the New Testament that confirms the world flood and Noah.

Genesis flood narrative - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Christianity. The Genesis flood narrative is included in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible (see Books of the Bible). Jesus and the apostles additionally taught on the Genesis flood narrative in New Testament writing (Matthew 24:37–39, Luke 17:26–27, 1 Peter 3:20, 2 Peter 2:5, 2 Peter 3:6, Hebrews 11:7).

When the New Testament says the world that then was, was destroyed with the flood, it can mean the known world and people, and not necessarily the entire globe, which was not even a thing in the mind of the writers of both the New and Old Testaments.
But yes, Jesus and his disciples confirm Noah and the flood.
Actually Psalm 104:5-9 seems to be saying that after the earth was made with water covering it and God made the dry land appear, that the water that initially covered the earth never did that again and will never. So the Bible itself tells us that the flood was not a global one.

It is well documented that none of the known catastrophic local floods in the world occurred at the same time ie China's catastrophic river flood, and catastrophic floods related to the Ice Age.

The problem we have with the flood is that we don't know exactly when it happened. I hear that generations are missed entirely in the genealogies of the time in the Bible and so it cannot be worked out that way. So there is a chance that catastrophic floods related to the ice age happened at the same time. Whether that is needed for the local Noah's flood to be valid Biblically, I don't know, but it is a possibility.
I don't see the floods as having destroyed all life on the whole globe however.

Possibly, but responded to and documented that no such Noah's flood ever occured

Well not a global flood anyway.

The known local floods do not remotely fit the Biblical Testimony in the Torah and the NT.
If you believe the Tigris Euphrates flood is the flood of Noah or related you would have to accept the fact that the Pentateuch records evolved from more ancient stories in earlier cultures of the Middle East.

I accept that other flood stories in that ancient culture are probably memories of the same flood.
The OT testimony as I said, actually denies a global flood (Psalm 104) and the flood story in Genesis can be legitimately translated as a large local flood that flooded the whole land and all the animals and people in the land were killed and covered all the high hills (and these hills I am told could have even been ziguratts)

The above is false because the domestication of the camel in the 900s BCE is well documented by the evidence not only by the Tel Aviv University but other research as well following the earlier domestication in Sumeria first, then the Arab Peninsula, and last in Palestine.

You cannot challenge the evidence with conspiracy accusations. You need to cite specific evidence of domestication in Palestine before the 900s BCE.

The documentation of the Bible is evidence that camels were used by traders and that rich people had camels. Abraham got his camels from the King of Egypt.
So why isn't that evidence seen as valid if recorded histories of other cultures are seen as evidence?
What Tel Aviv University found seems to have been a large scale use of camels in one place. The Bible is talking about nomads with small scale operations and who did not leave huge grave yards of bones.
The whole idea that the Tel Avid study refutes what the Bible says is rubbish.

 

[Brian2]

All we have is an archaeological record of the wars and sieges of Jericho and no evidence of an invasion of Canaan by Joshua.

The Biblical record is Not confirmed by archaeological evidence for details see:

Unresolvable problems with Exodus in archaeology, history and contradictions in the Torah

Off-topic discussions have bounced around in other threads concerning Exodus. In this thread, I will provide specifics Bart Ehrman, a historian at UNC University has done research over the years concerning the Bible. First, the Biblical contradictions concerning Jericho...

www.religiousforums.com

Respond here to this post #1 and the thread documents the archaeological evidence does not support the invasion of Canaan by Joshua.

#1 presumes that the Pentateuch and Joshua were written about 600 years after the events.
The post also wants the conquest to have happened in the 13th century,, which is not the Biblical timing for the events.
The post also cannot allow the miraculous into history and so that is just a presumption of "not true" from the start.
The post has the writer (Bart Ehrmann) seemingly not understanding what is written in Joshua about the destruction caused by the conquest and so what would be expected to be found in the archaeology after the conquest.
The combination of errors made would no doubt make it compelling that the conquest did not happen, for a person who did not realise they were making so many errors.
It is interesting that so many people who know that the Biblical timing is around 1400 BC for conquest and that the archaeology of Canaan does fit this timing when Joshua is read carefully, still want to deny the conquest and make up their own version of what happened based on the archaeology of a false date and purposefully reading Joshua and interpreting it in such a way that the archaeology does not fit it. (I say "purposefully" because there are so many articles around about the way to interpret Joshua that fits the evidence, that they must know they are just saying the Biblical record is wrong when they know it can easily be shown to be accurate)
It is weird imo.