Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Archaeologists announce there were no domestic camels in Israel during Biblical times. Bill Nye nods satisfactorily   (foxnews.com) divider line 120
    More: Interesting, archaeologists, Bibles, camels, smelts, carbon datings, archaeological evidence, Dead Sea, Neolithic  
•       •       •

2417 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Feb 2014 at 9:28 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-06 08:12:22 AM  
I'm sure those Old Testament allusions to camels weren't meant to be taken literally. They are clearly metaphorical. Duh!
 
2014-02-06 08:28:33 AM  
error in Bible


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-06 08:39:44 AM  
God put the camels where He wanted them at the time. It wasn't till later that just everyone got to use them.
 
2014-02-06 08:45:32 AM  
But they had Winstons, right?

That's what Jesus smoked.
Jesus smoked Winstons.
 
2014-02-06 09:00:21 AM  
they all went through the eye of a needle
 
2014-02-06 09:33:18 AM  
They weren't literally talking about camels. It's a mistranslation. "Camel" is the Aramaic word for Land Rover.
 
2014-02-06 09:37:06 AM  
Do we know that the word used for camel always meant the specific animal we now identify as a camel? Or is it possible it meant something more general and later came to have a more specific meaning? It certainly would not be the first word to transform a bit. Not defending biblical literalism, just saying this conclusion seems premature.
 
2014-02-06 09:38:35 AM  
Guys, whatever interpretation lets me say I follow Jesus without actually listening to anything He ever said is fine with me
 
2014-02-06 09:40:36 AM  

djscram: Do we know that the word used for camel always meant the specific animal we now identify as a camel?


I'm no linguist, but I'm pretty sure we can still read those languages. (well not me. But someone).
 
2014-02-06 09:44:53 AM  
While I'm fine if this is the case, they were only able to date the bones of camels they've found. If there were domesticated camels elsewhere at earlier dates, and they have not found the bones, they certainly can't test those.
 
2014-02-06 09:45:36 AM  
The article says "Domestic camels".  For all we know, they were feral.
 
2014-02-06 09:51:14 AM  

INeedAName: While I'm fine if this is the case, they were only able to date the bones of camels they've found. If there were domesticated camels elsewhere at earlier dates, and they have not found the bones, they certainly can't test those.


FTFA, it appears that they've found domesticated camel bones from the 10th century BC and later, but none before that. So either the civilizations prior to the 10th century successfully destroyed all evidence of their domestic pack animals, or they simply weren't there.
 
2014-02-06 09:54:22 AM  
Whatever. When God came and transcribed His Book to King James, He obviously told him exactly what we needed to hear.
 
2014-02-06 09:54:54 AM  

INeedAName: While I'm fine if this is the case, they were only able to date the bones of camels they've found. If there were domesticated camels elsewhere at earlier dates, and they have not found the bones, they certainly can't test those.


Well sure but I thought the Old Testament was kind of specific about names and places. I can't remember now. Moses lived on Mt. Ararat, right?
 
2014-02-06 09:55:28 AM  

croesius: Whatever. When God came and transcribed His Book to King James, He obviously told him exactly what we needed to hear.


Because the King James bible is the only translation....
 
2014-02-06 09:57:22 AM  

Gary-L: The article says "Domestic camels".  For all we know, they were feral.


They aren't native to the region. They come from east asia. Around the 6th century AD the wheel and oxen was abandoned in favor of camels that were better at hauling crap through the desert and could forage on the way, with six camels being operated by each man.

It's only an issue because theists see camels in the bible. I'm not sure what they were saying when they wrote that bit about "camel through the eye of a needle" but that existed in greek. Like, Athenian greek.
 
2014-02-06 09:57:46 AM  
Is it possible that, before that time, the bones of dead/slaughtered camels were actually used for something, but that practice was stopped?

How many buffalo bones were found at Native American sites?
 
2014-02-06 09:59:37 AM  

WippitGuud: Is it possible that, before that time, the bones of dead/slaughtered camels were actually used for something, but that practice was stopped?

How many buffalo bones were found at Native American sites?


Well the better question is how many damn buffalo skeletons you could find without human intervention. And that's plenty.
 
2014-02-06 10:00:42 AM  
wildcardjack:It's only an issue because theists see camels in the bible. I'm not sure what they were saying when they wrote that bit about "camel through the eye of a needle" but that existed in greek. Like, Athenian greek.

The "Eye of the Needle" is supposed to be a gate in Jerusalem. A camel could fit through it, but only if it wasn't carrying anything. Much like a rich man can't carry anything into heaven.
 
2014-02-06 10:02:02 AM  

Confabulat: WippitGuud: Is it possible that, before that time, the bones of dead/slaughtered camels were actually used for something, but that practice was stopped?

How many buffalo bones were found at Native American sites?

Well the better question is how many damn buffalo skeletons you could find without human intervention. And that's plenty.


True. But buffalo are native to the land.
Camels weren't.

I can't think of a valid comparison... horses maybe.
 
2014-02-06 10:03:54 AM  

WippitGuud: True. But buffalo are native to the land.
Camels weren't.

I can't think of a valid comparison... horses maybe.


The only real historical comparisons to humans grinding up bones and eradicating evidence of a species? That's isolated Donner Party shiat.
 
2014-02-06 10:04:55 AM  

wildcardjack: Gary-L: The article says "Domestic camels".  For all we know, they were feral.

They aren't native to the region. They come from east asia. Around the 6th century AD the wheel and oxen was abandoned in favor of camels that were better at hauling crap through the desert and could forage on the way, with six camels being operated by each man.

It's only an issue because theists see camels in the bible. I'm not sure what they were saying when they wrote that bit about "camel through the eye of a needle" but that existed in greek. Like, Athenian greek.


My comment was tongue in cheek. :D
 
2014-02-06 10:05:16 AM  
The Bible did not treat camels as special.

You'd think they'd have mentioned that.
 
2014-02-06 10:07:25 AM  
Maybe I misread something but saying "we've analyzed the oldest bones found" and conclusively decided that X is wrong seems like quite the leap.
 
2014-02-06 10:07:40 AM  

WippitGuud: How many buffalo bones were found at Native American sites?


Confabulat: WippitGuud: True. But buffalo are native to the land.
Camels weren't.


Not going to find any BUFFALO bones in the land of BISON.

Just sayin.
 
2014-02-06 10:10:02 AM  

wildcardjack: WippitGuud: How many buffalo bones were found at Native American sites?

Confabulat: WippitGuud: True. But buffalo are native to the land.
Camels weren't.

Not going to find any BUFFALO bones in the land of BISON.


Why you gotta be mean about naming convention? I know they're bison, sheesh.
 
2014-02-06 10:12:03 AM  

Fizpez: Maybe I misread something but saying "we've analyzed the oldest bones found" and conclusively decided that X is wrong seems like quite the leap.


Well ffs, it's a Fox News link and you still couldn't understand the concept.
 
2014-02-06 10:13:05 AM  

WippitGuud: croesius: Whatever. When God came and transcribed His Book to King James, He obviously told him exactly what we needed to hear.

Because the King James bible is the only translation....


It is the best and most Holy understanding of His Word. I DARE you to go to your local Gospel Supply Store and ask for a copy of the lesser Judaist or even Arameiac mis-translations. The reason the Holy See, not to mention every Pope since Creation, uses this copy of His Word is because it is the purest, truest, and still most topical transcribation of His Book. Even the precariously edgy NIV is based of this definitive Text. It gets a free pass from the true Believers due to the ease youngsters can grok it. It's akin to the Trainer Torah, or the "Kinder-Kabbalah": a good introduction to His Power and Love, and paves the way for a true enlightenment when reading King James' Gospel.
 
2014-02-06 10:15:05 AM  

croesius: WippitGuud: croesius: Whatever. When God came and transcribed His Book to King James, He obviously told him exactly what we needed to hear.

Because the King James bible is the only translation....

It is the best and most Holy understanding of His Word. I DARE you to go to your local Gospel Supply Store and ask for a copy of the lesser Judaist or even Arameiac mis-translations. The reason the Holy See, not to mention every Pope since Creation, uses this copy of His Word is because it is the purest, truest, and still most topical transcribation of His Book. Even the precariously edgy NIV is based of this definitive Text. It gets a free pass from the true Believers due to the ease youngsters can grok it. It's akin to the Trainer Torah, or the "Kinder-Kabbalah": a good introduction to His Power and Love, and paves the way for a true enlightenment when reading King James' Gospel.


Grandma?
 
2014-02-06 10:17:55 AM  
From the article:
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.

To find the first camel, Sapir-Hen and Ben-Yosef used radiocarbon dating to analyze the oldest known camel bones in the Arabian Peninsula, found at the remains of a copper smelting camp in the Aravah Valley, which runs along the border with Jordan from the Dead Sea to the Red Sea.


1) The Jews tried to kill Jesus but their sinister plot was thwarted by His resurrection. Now they're trying to undermine the Christian Bible. How about you criticize your own religious texts, Jews?

B) Radiocarbon dating? Pffffft.  Everybody knows that's a discredited pseudoscience, like global warming.

3) Were you there?  Did you personally observe the absence of camels? No? Without observation, this isn't science.  Checkmate, atheists!
 
2014-02-06 10:19:04 AM  

Confabulat: djscram: Do we know that the word used for camel always meant the specific animal we now identify as a camel?

I'm no linguist, but I'm pretty sure we can still read those languages. (well not me. But someone).


Yes and no. It's Hebrew which is still was revived as a language in the early 20th century. Some words are the same. Some words are just...lost.

A good example is phylacteries (tefillin). The phrasing in the text is (translated from Hebrew) "And you shall bind them as a sign to your hand/arm*, and they shall be totafot between your eyes." The italicized word doesn't have a translation we're aware of. Taken with the first half, we get the gist, but the word totafot, as plural of totaf or totafa, has no direct translation of which we're aware.

However, the modern Hebrew word for camel - gamal - appears many, many times in the OT (Gen 24, for example).

* the same word - yad - means both hand and arm
 
2014-02-06 10:21:20 AM  

Fizpez: Maybe I misread something but saying "we've analyzed the oldest bones found" and conclusively decided that X is wrong seems like quite the leap.


No, it stated that all sites dated to a certain date and after had camel bones and all sites dated before it had none. That's fairly conclusive.
 
2014-02-06 10:23:43 AM  

AntiGravitas: croesius: WippitGuud: croesius: Whatever. When God came and transcribed His Book to King James, He obviously told him exactly what we needed to hear.

Because the King James bible is the only translation....

It is the best and most Holy understanding of His Word. I DARE you to go to your local Gospel Supply Store and ask for a copy of the lesser Judaist or even Arameiac mis-translations. The reason the Holy See, not to mention every Pope since Creation, uses this copy of His Word is because it is the purest, truest, and still most topical transcribation of His Book. Even the precariously edgy NIV is based of this definitive Text. It gets a free pass from the true Believers due to the ease youngsters can grok it. It's akin to the Trainer Torah, or the "Kinder-Kabbalah": a good introduction to His Power and Love, and paves the way for a true enlightenment when reading King James' Gospel.

Grandma?


Please tell me that your grandma uses the word "grok." That would be cool.
 
2014-02-06 10:29:41 AM  
Wait until someone figures out there weren't entire tribes of Jews enslaved in Egypt and there is no evidence of the Exodus either...

Also... Egyptian Jews: You make sucky wine, I'm just saying....
 
2014-02-06 10:34:19 AM  
Lack of domestic camels in Israel does not negate the existence of God nor the basic tenets of the Bible.


/Thanks for playing though.
 
2014-02-06 10:36:40 AM  
oral history and or stories compiled much later after they were supposed to happen having errors, because the writers used current events or and or examples when writing things down

heaven forbid
 
2014-02-06 10:41:45 AM  
Earguy: 

Please tell me that your grandma uses the word "grok." That would be cool.


it's feasible his grandmother could know the word without reading Strangers in a Strange Land


It's sort of sneaking into the lexicon slowly


/almost fell over laughing when I heard a technologically impaired sales guy use it, especially since I knew for a fact he didn't read novels
 
2014-02-06 10:43:14 AM  

Whodat: Lack of domestic camels in Israel does not negate the existence of God nor the basic tenets of the Bible.


/Thanks for playing though.


No, but it reinforces the fact that for millennia the Bible was an oral tradition handed down and changed quite a bit from whatever it was that it started as. It's the end-result of a very long game of telephone.

Even the New Testament (minus a few of the letters) was passed around orally for a century or two before it was written down.
 
2014-02-06 10:44:05 AM  

Earguy: Please tell me that your grandma uses the word "grok." That would be cool.


Using the word "grok" is never cool.
 
2014-02-06 10:44:41 AM  

ampoliros: Whodat: Lack of domestic camels in Israel does not negate the existence of God nor the basic tenets of the Bible.


/Thanks for playing though.

No, but it reinforces the fact that for millennia the Bible was an oral tradition handed down and changed quite a bit from whatever it was that it started as. It's the end-result of a very long game of telephone.

Even the New Testament (minus a few of the letters) was passed around orally for a century or two before it was written down.


hence the bit about a "Q" document that some of the books could be sourced from (look the wiki article up your damn self)
 
2014-02-06 10:46:22 AM  

Epicedion: Earguy: Please tell me that your grandma uses the word "grok." That would be cool.

Using the word "grok" is never cool.


You sound like someone that shouldn't be given a drink of water
 
2014-02-06 10:52:14 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Confabulat: djscram: Do we know that the word used for camel always meant the specific animal we now identify as a camel?

I'm no linguist, but I'm pretty sure we can still read those languages. (well not me. But someone).

Yes and no. It's Hebrew which is still was revived as a language in the early 20th century. Some words are the same. Some words are just...lost.

A good example is phylacteries (tefillin). The phrasing in the text is (translated from Hebrew) "And you shall bind them as a sign to your hand/arm*, and they shall be totafot between your eyes." The italicized word doesn't have a translation we're aware of. Taken with the first half, we get the gist, but the word totafot, as plural of totaf or totafa, has no direct translation of which we're aware.

However, the modern Hebrew word for camel - gamal - appears many, many times in the OT (Gen 24, for example).

* the same word - yad - means both hand and arm


That's helpful. I'm also not a linguist, but I do remember that some words, like chicken and fowl, etc., have changed in what species of birds they apply to over a fairly small amount of time (couple hundred years). I wonder if camel--though the word is obviously old, has always meant the same thing. Again, it may be that someone knows the answer and it's pretty clear, but I'm just curious if the question has been asked.
 
2014-02-06 10:52:17 AM  

Gary-L: The article says "Domestic camels".  For all we know, they were feral.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-06 10:53:40 AM  

Whodat: Lack of domestic camels in Israel does not negate the existence of God nor the basic tenets of the Bible.


/Thanks for playing though.


In which creation story were camels created?
 
2014-02-06 10:53:47 AM  
Carbon dating bones from 900BC does not preclude camels at 2000BC. You would need the older bones to prove earlier camels, but you can't disprove them 100% either
 
2014-02-06 10:55:35 AM  
Whodat:

Lack of domestic camels in Israel does not negate the existence of God nor the basic tenets of the Bible.


/Thanks for playing though.


Which would be great, and a perfectly reasonable response were there not people actively trying to defend putting the existence of God or the literal interpretation of the Christian Bible into legislation and schoolbooks.
 
2014-02-06 11:01:48 AM  

big pig peaches: Carbon dating bones from 900BC does not preclude camels at 2000BC. You would need the older bones to prove earlier camels, but you can't disprove them 100% either


As said before, it's not that there's no record before 900BC, it's that the records before this time don't include camels. Most archaeological sites are basically garbage dumps. For domesticated camels to exist before that time but still not show up in the record, there would have to be some reason to systematically destroy every bit of a camel when it died (beginning this during settlement of the areas) and then later completely stop that and dispose of them as any other animal was.

The likelihood of that happening is effectively zero.
 
2014-02-06 11:05:42 AM  

Gary-L: The article says "Domestic camels".  For all we know, they were feral.


how exactly do you ride a feral anything let alone something that can out run you, kicks, spits and bites?
 
2014-02-06 11:07:04 AM  
Wait a minute... isn't Archeology a science? Discounted, no science allowed. Case closed people. case closed.
 
2014-02-06 11:08:09 AM  

tom baker's scarf: Gary-L: The article says "Domestic camels".  For all we know, they were feral.

how exactly do you ride a feral anything let alone something that can out run you, kicks, spits and bites?


graphics8.nytimes.com
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report