Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say

reply to post by SuperFrog


Abraham was from Ur of Chaldees, according to Biblical account. Generally thought to be southern Mesopotamia....

Some Biblical scholars think that it was Chaldeans who were high priest of the Babylonian empire

Blackmarketeer
reply to post by yuppa

 

hmm, you realize it was Jews who wrote the Bible, yes? Even the New Testament, since Jesus and those disciples of his who contributed books to it were Jews.

When they wrote the new testament they were no longer Jews. There is no such thing as a Jewish race just as there is no Christian race or Islamic race. It is a belief system nothing more.

To still be comparing historical fact to stories in The Bible is ridiculous as as idea.

It's only been since about the late 1950's that even religions started to look at The Bible as an actual historical account. Before then, it was looked upon as a collection of moral stories with a loose basis in facts.

Now, The Bible is looked upon by many right wing religious types as an absolute factual account of real historical events, even though it was actually written almost 300-400 years after those events.

If you think event recollection can survive intact after so many retellings of the stories, I bring you this challenge.

Get together with about 20 family members, and tell each other your recollections of a big family gathering from 10 or so years ago, and see how many different versions of the same event you'll get. And that's just after ten years, with all the major players having actually been at that event.

Now, imagine that same event being recollected 300 years in the future by your family ancestors, and how accurate a story it would be.

Another exercise. Even in today's age of information, try getting a large group of people to research a well publicized event from 50 years ago (say, the Assassination of JFK) and see how many different versions of those same events you'll get. Now, imagine those same events were only passed through history by word of mouth, not written down, and see how distorted the facts would be. Every story teller would put their own spin on events, and many of the story tellers would make up their own versions when they forget what really happened.

Christians will claim that the events of The Bible must be true, because we've uncovered many of the places where they occurred. By that thinking, they would have us believe that the events of modern day stories must be true, because they happen in real places, which actually exist.

Writers base stories in real places because it helps the reader to relate to the story, not because those events actually took place.

reply to post by SuperFrog


Well unless these guys really did live for hundreds of years, then something has always been amiss with time calculations. A shorter time period (900bc) would suggests they lived shorter lives, akin to our own, which makes sense.

Unless of course Noah's Ark was from another world where human's lived longer and after the Ark's journey the Earth's conditions caused successive generations to have shorter life spans..... (maybe due to radiation, since the Earth is closer to the Sun than, say, Mars for example - i'm no expert, though)

Or, The Ark was indeed built on Earth, but the great flood did something to the composition of the atmosphere that caused successive generations to have shorter life spans.....

The safest bet though is that the Bible's creators misinterpreted their ancestors method's for calculating time.

ignorant_ape
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

as an atheist - I read this with an irge to head butt the desk

just WTF ???

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

the dating of camel bones to 900 BCE does ONLY one thing :

demonstrate that domestic camels were at that site in 900 BCE

the bible has so many errors - its not funny - but this is not one of them

Completely agree - the tiny fragments of information we have prove only that we have tiny fragments of information. Imo, we should be avoiding anything like trying to create any kind of 'official' narrative.

Lets make a ton of different theories, and try to debunk them all - that to me is what science should be about. The problem with archaeology is that we are making a lot of assumptions based on other forms of science - especially geology, and nuclear physics, both of which I am extremely skeptical about.

Lets just try and get more information, especially taking into account anomalies - where there is a paradox or an anomaly then we have a great chance to debunk an existing theory - but sadly this rarely happens, instead it is the evidence that is discarded, not the theory.

All we have to do is wait for science to say.... Ahhh, what we once thought was A,... We now know is B. Seeing how science always contradicts itself. Earth is flat. Earth is round. Earth is center of universe. Universe is center of galaxy. Universe is in the armpit of galaxy. Actually we don't know who or where the F*** we are. lol

So...were camels on Noah's ark or not?

I would think bones from a domesticated/pack animal would show distinct signs of wear compared to a wild specimen. Might be one way to tell.

reply to post by SuperFrog


I think that this is implying that camels as a species, did not exist prior to the year 900 BC. That's just patently ridiculous. How can educated people come to such 'air headed' conclusions?

As an alternate possibility, perhaps the environment in which camels live is not conducive to the preservation of bones older than 900 years. Due to the size of the animals, it is hardly likely that they were given proper burials, so bones exposed close to the ground surface would be unlikely to be preserved for long periods.

reply to post by SuperFrog


The Bible comes from Babel more than likely...kinda like there is no such thing as a jew.

Yes, it's the Camel Bones that suggest factual errors in the Bible....

Nothing to do with the Giants, Dragons, Unicorns, Bigfoots (!! Satyr!!) 400 year old men, flying people, water walking etc etc...

Great collection of moral tales designed to illicit a certain response in the reader...very bad source of facts.

reply to post by khimbar


archaeology.about.com...
All.

Jukiodone
Yes, it's the Camel Bones that suggest factual errors in the Bible....

Nothing to do with the Giants, Dragons, Unicorns, Bigfoots (!! Satyr!!) 400 year old men, flying people, water walking etc etc...

Great collection of moral tales designed to illicit a certain response in the reader...very bad source of facts.

edit on 10-2-2014 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)

Where in the bible does it mention dragons, unicorns, bigfoot/s or satyr/s?

You seem to have assumed that mythical stuff from many sources is included in the Bible.

If you knew something about it, then perhaps your comment would be valid. Since you don't...

chr0naut

Jukiodone
Yes, it's the Camel Bones that suggest factual errors in the Bible....

Nothing to do with the Giants, Dragons, Unicorns, Bigfoots (!! Satyr!!) 400 year old men, flying people, water walking etc etc...

Great collection of moral tales designed to illicit a certain response in the reader...very bad source of facts.

edit on 10-2-2014 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)

Where in the bible does it mention dragons, unicorns, bigfoot/s or satyr/s?

You seem to have assumed that mythical stuff from many sources is included in the Bible.

If you knew something about it, then perhaps your comment would be valid. Since you don't...

It could be entirely likely that "behemoth" was of a similar nature to a dragon from other realms. And revelation menations all manner of crazy beasts.

Not that I am a Christian....just pointing it out.

superluminal11
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

The Bible comes from Babel more than likely...kinda like there is no such thing as a jew.

The Bible's name comes from the Greek word Biblios, which means 'books'.

It has had different names historically. The Hebrew people (called the derogatory term, 'Jews' because their religious and social life was centered around Jerusalem) called them "the scriptures" or "the law, the prophets and the writings", or sometimes just "the law" for brevity.

There definitely were descendents of Jacob (who changed his name to 'Israel' which means "wrestles with God" after an encounter one night/morning). These descendents arranged themselves into 13 'tribes' (a complicated story, Israel had 12 sons but 'adopted in' two of his grandsons after his son Joseph married an Egyptian foreigner).

bigfatfurrytexan

chr0naut

Jukiodone
Yes, it's the Camel Bones that suggest factual errors in the Bible....

Nothing to do with the Giants, Dragons, Unicorns, Bigfoots (!! Satyr!!) 400 year old men, flying people, water walking etc etc...

Great collection of moral tales designed to illicit a certain response in the reader...very bad source of facts.

edit on 10-2-2014 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)

Where in the bible does it mention dragons, unicorns, bigfoot/s or satyr/s?

You seem to have assumed that mythical stuff from many sources is included in the Bible.

If you knew something about it, then perhaps your comment would be valid. Since you don't...

It could be entirely likely that "behemoth" was of a similar nature to a dragon from other realms. And revelation menations all manner of crazy beasts.

Not that I am a Christian....just pointing it out.

Behemoth was a probably a hippopotamus. A land creature with legs like tree trunks which ate vegetation by the river. (Job 40: 15-24

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. 20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Although, as this was God pointing out to Job how little he actually knew, it could be a description of large dinosaur similar to Brontosaurus. This whole passage in Job (probably the oldest book in the Bible) is full of fairly advanced scientific knowledge (gravitational attractions of the constellations & etc). Pretty good fiction for some Bronze Age Shepherds if it wasn't from God!

Leviathan was a sea creature. Probably some kind of whale and possibly in reference to what the Philistine later made into the sea god, Dagon.

The Bible mentions "the serpent", an allusion to Satan, but no dragons.

it's a nice find OP, and I appreciate the information. you learn something new here almost every day. but, errors in the bible are so common that the book can be regarded more as a fictional novel, rather than a history of religious belief

AliceBleachWhite
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

... because most of the biblical canon was stolen from other cultures, plagiarized, rebranded, and adopted as the origin story of a group of desert nomads around 500BC.

Most of the Historicity of these stories has been telephone gamed across time from a perspective and understanding in 500BC where visits to cities that existed in 500BC are detailed in times well before the cities, and even entire cultures existed.

Here we have example again. Camels were common domestic stock in 500BC, so, the story tellers assumed these animals were always domestic livestock.

this is incorrect.

the first five books of the bible, called the pentateuch or torah, were written around 1500 BC. the prophets and poems, were added along the way, till closer to the advent of jesus. jump ahead to the compilation of the first greek and latin bible, compiled by constantine in 325 AD, which took the first five books, prophets and poems, added the gospels, the letters of paul and the book of revelation, and included an additional section called the apocrypha which contained several other books as well. skip ahead again to the advent of protestantism, where it was translated into english and other non-roman languages, for the first time and the apocryphal books removed, and wallah, the king james bible of today.

the hebrews of mesopotamia (called the habiru, habru of nibru) did not steal the biblical texts. they lived them. the israelites of egypt were the hyksos shepherd kings.

the hebrews (hyksos shepherd kings migrating into egypt)


well, let me give you the moses story as far as i can get it:

moses was raised in the house of pharaoh ahmose, the pharaoh responsible for the "hyksos expulsion" (biblical exodus). he learned from pharaoh's scholars the history of creation, the flood events (there were 2), the babel event, and the nimrod event but from an egyptian perspective. this was not a bad thing since noah's son ham, had migrated back to egypt following the black sea flood, repopulating the area. in fact, egypt's egyptian name is khem, and that's the egyptian spelling of ham. egypt was named after him.

pharaoh ahmose expelling the hyksos from egypt



ham took the mesopotamia story of creation, the flood, babel and nimrod with him and over time, it took on its own cultural spin and spelling variants. moses' mother worked as his nanny in the pharaoh's household and being from mesopotamia, she taught him the story also, but from the mesopotamian viewpoint, and its spelling variants and cultural spins as a result of what is known as generational layering. i theorize that when moses heard the story from his mother and read it from the egyptian scribes, that he must've realized how similar they were.

for example, atum=adam (same as elohim. long story but suffice it to say, the adam were named after their creators. to avoid confusion, moses chose the mesopotamian name for the creators, which would've been ALULIM, at the time, the first name on the sumerian kings list, which would've been spelled ELOHIM by the time of moses, and the egyptian name for the created -- atum/adam. the text says adam were created male and female in the image of elohim. had he written it as adam created the adam, people would've thought it was ancestor worship)

Atum, egyptian god of creation (notice his skin color is quite relevant as the name adam means red skin)

reply to post by chr0naut


That was a fairly simplified version of the verbage around Behemoth. In any event, this could be argued ad nauseum. Since I am not really in a position of having skin in the game....ill just leave this

www.openbible.info...

reply to post by chr0naut

The Bible mentions "the serpent", an allusion to Satan, but no dragons.

Not that I think it's important, but there is a dragon in Revelation, and of course the "Apophryca" Bel and the Dragon. Also, unicorns are mentioned several times in the Old Testament and "satyrs dance" in Isaiah.

windword
reply to post by chr0naut

 

The Bible mentions "the serpent", an allusion to Satan, but no dragons.

Not that I think it's important, but there is a dragon in Revelation, and of course the "Apophryca" Bel and the Dragon. Also, unicorns are mentioned several times in the Old Testament and "satyrs dance" in Isaiah.

Revelation mentions the "serpent", in the 'medieval' King James Version translation it translate this to "dragon". "Dragon" (δράκων,) in the New Testament occurs only in Revelation. In the Septuagint translation the word is of frequent occurrence. In the LXX. δράκων is used seventeen times to express the Hebrew tannin (a sea or land monster, especially a crocodile or serpent); five times it stands for leviathan; twice it represents kephir (young lion); twice nachash (serpent); once attud (he-goat); and once pethen (python). Tannin (singular) is always rendered by δράκων except in Genesis 1:21, where we find κῆτος; but twice it is corrupted into tannim (viz. Ezekiel 29:3; Ezekiel 32:2). The latter word, tannim, is the plural of tan (a jackal), and is found only in the plural; but once it is found corrupted into tannin (Lamentations 4:3). There is no doubt as to the signification of the appearance.

Similarly the KJV mistranslates wild goats into "satyrs" in Isaiah.

The apocrypha is not accepted as part of the Biblical canon (the official list of books).