Camels had no business in Genesis


#1

nyti.ms/1gnlX2z


#2

I don’t recall the Bible ever saying the Wise Men came on camels.

Insofar as Abraham, I wouldn’t know about camels.


#3

What is “your” point in this post.


#4

I started a thread about this (and another) issue a few days ago here.


#5

Big above-the-fold headlines declaring the errors of the Christian faith…much later, retraction or correction article on page D17, next to the car ads.

This is a few “scientists” who are declaring something in a silly manner using a lack of evidence as proof. In a few years we’ll see some small article about how they found even older camel bones which proves camels were domesticated back then.


#6

Sounds like an argument from silence.

It’s not a new argument, and is down there with Hislop’s claim that “it was too cold in December for shepherds to be out at Christmas time.”

Despite what tabloid archaeology would have you believe, there is evidence for camels at that time: apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=858


#7

Indeed. I’ve also found this article by Glenn Miller over at the Christian Think Tank, dating back to… 1998.


#8

I think camels looked a lot different back then, too.


#9

The articles you and Arizona Mike posted were written awhile ago, compared to the OP, which is recent. Also, these bones have been just recently carbon dated.

Let’s say for arguments sake that Scripture is wrong about the camels, what does that mean for our faith?


#10

I can’t find a retraction.


#11

Give it a few years.

Honestly I was surprised they announced this now. Usually these claims are announced closer to Easter


#12

I’m not sure we understand your point, Faith. The article refers to recent finds of early bones; the earlier articles refer to depictions of camels from much earlier periods, which support the biblical stories. The recent article just makes the claim that the earliest bones they can find are from comparatively late in history, it doesn’t mean that camels didn’t exist in the region earlier. It doesn’t affect our faith one way or another.


#13

The camel hair and bones in your article said nothing about those items being carbon dates, like the camel bones in the recent article. :frowning:


#14

This is a repeat thread. Is there really anyone here that needs to have the rather glaring logical fallacy of this whole camel-less theory pointed out to them?


#15

Yeah, me. :(. I’d appreciate it if you’d point it out to me and anyone else who might be :confused:.


#16

Okay. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The only thing that the research can prove is that camels were in the area at least by the time of the earliest bones found. Actually, even older bones were found, but they were not deemed to be domesticated because they were too old to be. Go figure. So data was interpreted to fit the desired outcome.

But the real fallacy is that since camel bones of the proper age have not been found, they do not exist. Even though only a fraction of even the Holy Land has been excavated, anyone should know that the vast majority (99. every how many nines it is %) has not been excavated. What lies beneath that land from 3000 years ago? Think of the Coelacanth that was thought to be extinct 60 million years ago. Then one came up in a net. Science, at that time, was proven wrong, or at least incomplete. Both the Assyrian and the Hittite Empires covered enormous areas, far more vast than just Israel, but it wasn’t until the Nineteenth century that the first physical evidence came to light. That would be like missing the Persian Empire. Yet that extra thousand years left those two obscure to history outside the Bible.

So now this camel evidence is presented to ostensibly disprove the Bible. I truly takes one dedicated to the task of disproving the Bible to reach the conclusions that these two from Tel Aviv reached.


#17

Again, Faith, if I dig up the backyard of the home in which you grew up, and I only find some toys you left there, that does not prove that you were the only child who ever lived in that home. It only means I didn’t find anything from the earlier kids who lived there. Makes sense, right?


#18

Yeah, but since I’m an only child who lived there from birth until adulthood, it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to say iwas the only kid there. :slight_smile:

And even though I see and understand your point, it can go the other way, too. While you couldn’t know by finding the toys I’d left behind that I was the only kid who’d been there, you couldn’t know there had been others, either. And in this hypothetical example, there wouldn’t have been.


#19

To stretch the analogy a camel’s hair more, if we had drawings made of kids who had lived in the house, as we do with camels, I think we would agree that it is more reasonable to believe there had been children there, than not.

We also need to look at the soil and climate conditions of the middle east - it’s rare to find any bones from thousands of years before.


#20

Are there drawings of camels from that same time period
the new article is discussing that have been accurately dated by carbon dating or some other reliable method that definitively tells us camels were there in that region during the days of early Genesis?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.