The Camel's Nose Is Under The Tent

[subllibrm]

or maybe not.

The jig is up kids, they are finally on to us.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/camels-in-the-bible-182042100.html

 

[Smellin Coffee]

or maybe not.

The jig is up kids, they are finally on to us.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/camels-in-the-bible-182042100.html

Not surprising they came to that conclusion. I'm just surprised it took them that long to discover that.

I have not done near enough study to buy into this but in light of how the OT prophets minimized the practice of sacrifice and emphasized humility, repentance and obedience before God for the removal of sins, the below theory might make some sense into how the OT was actually put together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

 

[ddgently]

or maybe not.

The jig is up kids, they are finally on to us.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/camels-in-the-bible-182042100.html

Not surprising they came to that conclusion. I'm just surprised it took them that long to discover that.

I have not done near enough study to buy into this but in light of how the OT prophets minimized the practice of sacrifice and emphasized humility, repentance and obedience before God for the removal of sins, the below theory might make some sense into how the OT was actually put together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

Cue christundivided to (hypocritically) call you a heretic.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

or maybe not.

The jig is up kids, they are finally on to us.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/camels-in-the-bible-182042100.html

Not surprising they came to that conclusion. I'm just surprised it took them that long to discover that.

I have not done near enough study to buy into this but in light of how the OT prophets minimized the practice of sacrifice and emphasized humility, repentance and obedience before God for the removal of sins, the below theory might make some sense into how the OT was actually put together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

Cue christundivided to (hypocritically) call you a heretic.

He's already done that.

I think he is a modern-day Marcionite the way he promotes Paul's teaching seemingly over everything else.

 

[biscuit1953]

or maybe not.

The jig is up kids, they are finally on to us.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/camels-in-the-bible-182042100.html

Not surprising they came to that conclusion. I'm just surprised it took them that long to discover that.

I have not done near enough study to buy into this but in light of how the OT prophets minimized the practice of sacrifice and emphasized humility, repentance and obedience before God for the removal of sins, the below theory might make some sense into how the OT was actually put together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

Cue christundivided to (hypocritically) call you a heretic.

He's already done that.

I think he is a modern-day Marcionite the way he promotes Paul's teaching seemingly over everything else.

Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure.  The Bible has been proven to be what it says it is beyond any doubt by fulfilled prophecies that no human could predict.  It has been attacked for centuries by people like you who question everything from the apostle Paul's teachings to whether 2 Peter is inspired to who knows what.  The latest assault on the Bible by trying to make it out to be nothing more than a tainted Jewish book of history with the camel issue is just one more for the books.  The answer to the dilemma is quite simple.  "There is no reason to assume that the abrupt appearance of camel bones at a certain level in the copper mining region of the southern Aravah Valley precludes their use as pack animals by Abraham and his nomadic neighbors."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/02/10/carbon-dating-camels

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure.  The Bible has been proven to be what it says it is beyond any doubt by fulfilled prophecies that no human could predict.  It has been attacked for centuries by people like you who question everything from the apostle Paul's teachings to whether 2 Peter is inspired to who knows what.  The latest assault on the Bible by trying to make it out to be nothing more than a tainted Jewish book of history with the camel issue is just one more for the books.  The answer to the dilemma is quite simple.  "There is no reason to assume that the abrupt appearance of camel bones at a certain level in the copper mining region of the southern Aravah Valley precludes their use as pack animals by Abraham and his nomadic neighbors."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/02/10/carbon-dating-camels

And yet, there is another side with logical and historical reasons on how Moses did not write the Torah as we see it. That doesn't mean he didn't write any of it (Jesus' teaching would suggest he penned at least some of it), just not as we read it today. Fits the Jeremiah 8:8 premise where Jewish scribes interpolated the Torah. IMHO, this led to the rise of the Pharisees and their interpretation of the Law.

http://www.mesacc.edu/~thoqh49081/handouts/torahclues.html

 

[ddgently]

Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure.  The Bible has been proven to be what it says it is beyond any doubt by fulfilled prophecies that no human could predict.  It has been attacked for centuries by people like you who question everything from the apostle Paul's teachings to whether 2 Peter is inspired to who knows what.  The latest assault on the Bible by trying to make it out to be nothing more than a tainted Jewish book of history with the camel issue is just one more for the books.  The answer to the dilemma is quite simple.  "There is no reason to assume that the abrupt appearance of camel bones at a certain level in the copper mining region of the southern Aravah Valley precludes their use as pack animals by Abraham and his nomadic neighbors."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/02/10/carbon-dating-camels

I think its sad that so many Christians (but thankfully fewer and fewer, I hope) rely on what was called the other day a "post-Enlightenment, Western" reading of Scripture, that any challenge to an interpretation that takes everything as literal history is an attack on the text itself.

I would encourage you to do some reading on ancient (and especially 1st Century) Jewish literature/culture. N. T. Wright's work is a good resource on this. I think you'll find that their conception of history is very different than ours. I think you'll also find that they would affirm (and emphasize) the Capital-T-truth of a story over the lowercase-t-truth (bare facts).

 

[ALAYMAN]

I think it's funny (translate "sad") that a "Fundamentalist Forum" has become the podium for so much high criticism of the Bible and its reliability.


Here's some thoughts on the Camel matter by a reliable conservative Bible believer (my bff Al Mohler ).  Click on the link for yesterday's (02/12/14) "The Briefing".

http://www.albertmohler.com/category/the-briefing

 

[biscuit1953]

Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure.  The Bible has been proven to be what it says it is beyond any doubt by fulfilled prophecies that no human could predict.  It has been attacked for centuries by people like you who question everything from the apostle Paul's teachings to whether 2 Peter is inspired to who knows what.  The latest assault on the Bible by trying to make it out to be nothing more than a tainted Jewish book of history with the camel issue is just one more for the books.  The answer to the dilemma is quite simple.  "There is no reason to assume that the abrupt appearance of camel bones at a certain level in the copper mining region of the southern Aravah Valley precludes their use as pack animals by Abraham and his nomadic neighbors."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/02/10/carbon-dating-camels

I think its sad that so many Christians (but thankfully fewer and fewer, I hope) rely on what was called the other day a "post-Enlightenment, Western" reading of Scripture, that any challenge to an interpretation that takes everything as literal history is an attack on the text itself.

I would encourage you to do some reading on ancient (and especially 1st Century) Jewish literature/culture. N. T. Wright's work is a good resource on this. I think you'll find that their conception of history is very different than ours. I think you'll also find that they would affirm (and emphasize) the Capital-T-truth of a story over the lowercase-t-truth (bare facts).

I think its sad that so many Christians (but sadly more and more, I fear) rely on what was called the other day "Higher Criticism" reading of Scripture, that any challenge to an interpretation that agrees with what the scriptures teach is an attack on the modern god known as "science" when other simple explanations are easily found.

There are those on this site who consistently side with agnostics and atheists when it comes to their world view.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

or maybe not.

The jig is up kids, they are finally on to us.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/camels-in-the-bible-182042100.html

This article is overflowing with stupid. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure.  The Bible has been proven to be what it says it is beyond any doubt by fulfilled prophecies that no human could predict.  It has been attacked for centuries by people like you who question everything from the apostle Paul's teachings to whether 2 Peter is inspired to who knows what.  The latest assault on the Bible by trying to make it out to be nothing more than a tainted Jewish book of history with the camel issue is just one more for the books.  The answer to the dilemma is quite simple.  "There is no reason to assume that the abrupt appearance of camel bones at a certain level in the copper mining region of the southern Aravah Valley precludes their use as pack animals by Abraham and his nomadic neighbors."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/02/10/carbon-dating-camels

I think its sad that so many Christians (but thankfully fewer and fewer, I hope) rely on what was called the other day a "post-Enlightenment, Western" reading of Scripture, that any challenge to an interpretation that takes everything as literal history is an attack on the text itself.

I would encourage you to do some reading on ancient (and especially 1st Century) Jewish literature/culture. N. T. Wright's work is a good resource on this. I think you'll find that their conception of history is very different than ours. I think you'll also find that they would affirm (and emphasize) the Capital-T-truth of a story over the lowercase-t-truth (bare facts).

I think its sad that so many Christians (but sadly more and more, I fear) rely on what was called the other day "Higher Criticism" reading of Scripture, that any challenge to an interpretation that agrees with what the scriptures teach is an attack on the modern god known as "science" when other simple explanations are easily found.

There are those on this site who consistently side with agnostics and atheists when it comes to their world view.

No, it works like this: truth eventually finds its way out. Where the Bible is accurate historically and scientifically, history and science will back it up. (See "Flat Earth" view as an example.)

This SECULAR book actually uncovers facts IN SUPPORT of Bible geography and even explains some logic in the miraculous.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Y%2BNwio8oL._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

A lot of Christians believe that science and perhaps history is the enemy of the Bible. That is not the case. Science and history are in search of truth within their respective fields regardless of religious texts that might support/deny. IOW, these fields don't exist in an effort to combat God or religion.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

A lot of Christians believe that science and perhaps history is the enemy of the Bible. That is not the case. Science and history are in search of truth within their respective fields regardless of religious texts that might support/deny. IOW, these fields don't exist in an effort to combat God or religion.

In some cases they do exist to combat God.  And those are usually the discoveries that get the most press. 

However, we can put our full trust in the findings documented in this particular camel article, because the god of science spoke to the archaeologists in a dream and told them "these are the only remains of domesticated camels you will ever find, anywhere, therefore your carbon dating of these particular camels tells the whole story about exactly when camels were domesticated." 

 

[ALAYMAN]

A lot of Christians believe that science and perhaps history is the enemy of the Bible. That is not the case. Science and history are in search of truth within their respective fields regardless of religious texts that might support/deny. IOW, these fields don't exist in an effort to combat God or religion.

I tire of beating a dead horse, but the notion that historians and scientists have epistemological objectivity is a rank turd, and that's being kind.  Philosophical presuppositions color EVERYBODY's worldview, whether they admit it or not.  The kind of dung that regularly gets accepted in such publications and circulations as the one in the OP (often times to be quickly relegated to the trashpile quicker than you can say cold fusion) prove that there's an axe to grind from our "truth seeking" scientific community.

 

[biscuit1953]

Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure.  The Bible has been proven to be what it says it is beyond any doubt by fulfilled prophecies that no human could predict.  It has been attacked for centuries by people like you who question everything from the apostle Paul's teachings to whether 2 Peter is inspired to who knows what.  The latest assault on the Bible by trying to make it out to be nothing more than a tainted Jewish book of history with the camel issue is just one more for the books.  The answer to the dilemma is quite simple.  "There is no reason to assume that the abrupt appearance of camel bones at a certain level in the copper mining region of the southern Aravah Valley precludes their use as pack animals by Abraham and his nomadic neighbors."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/02/10/carbon-dating-camels

I think its sad that so many Christians (but thankfully fewer and fewer, I hope) rely on what was called the other day a "post-Enlightenment, Western" reading of Scripture, that any challenge to an interpretation that takes everything as literal history is an attack on the text itself.

I would encourage you to do some reading on ancient (and especially 1st Century) Jewish literature/culture. N. T. Wright's work is a good resource on this. I think you'll find that their conception of history is very different than ours. I think you'll also find that they would affirm (and emphasize) the Capital-T-truth of a story over the lowercase-t-truth (bare facts).

I think its sad that so many Christians (but sadly more and more, I fear) rely on what was called the other day "Higher Criticism" reading of Scripture, that any challenge to an interpretation that agrees with what the scriptures teach is an attack on the modern god known as "science" when other simple explanations are easily found.

There are those on this site who consistently side with agnostics and atheists when it comes to their world view.

No, it works like this: truth eventually finds its way out. Where the Bible is accurate historically and scientifically, history and science will back it up. (See "Flat Earth" view as an example.)

This SECULAR book actually uncovers facts IN SUPPORT of Bible geography and even explains some logic in the miraculous.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Y%2BNwio8oL._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

A lot of Christians believe that science and perhaps history is the enemy of the Bible. That is not the case. Science and history are in search of truth within their respective fields regardless of religious texts that might support/deny. IOW, these fields don't exist in an effort to combat God or religion.

Then why do some as yourself read an article on Yahoo and instantly come to the conclusion that the Bible is wrong and the archaeologist that comes with some theory that contradicts the Bible is right?  The answer is you along with others on this site aren't bound by scripture and delightfully promote and insist that "science" can never be questioned.  If an answer can be given that agrees with scripture or an answer that agnostic scientists come up with - well then let's take the agnostic's answer.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

A lot of Christians believe that science and perhaps history is the enemy of the Bible. That is not the case. Science and history are in search of truth within their respective fields regardless of religious texts that might support/deny. IOW, these fields don't exist in an effort to combat God or religion.

I tire of beating a dead horse, but the notion that historians and scientists have epistemological objectivity is a rank turd, and that's being kind.  Philosophical presuppositions color EVERYBODY's worldview, whether they admit it or not.  The kind of dung that regularly gets accepted in such publications and circulations as the one in the OP (often times to be quickly relegated to the trashpile quicker than you can say cold fusion) prove that there's an axe to grind from our "truth seeking" scientific community.

Strawman. Just because everybody has a worldview lens from which they look doesn't mean that all do so in an effort to disprove God or the Bible. Do some exist? Sure, just like there are some who choose to believe all apologetic material (Catholic, Evangelical, Muslim, Mormon, whatever) that backs up what they want. And the ones that hit the top pages of press are generally those that don't support previous theories of thinking.

Christians in this country really aren't being martyred so the practice is to perceive persecution from the scientific and historic community as a whole. The broadbrush we ex-fundys are told we use is also being used by others against seekers of science and history.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Strawman. Just because everybody has a worldview lens from which they look doesn't mean that all do so in an effort to disprove God or the Bible. Do some exist? Sure, just like there are some who choose to believe all apologetic material (Catholic, Evangelical, Muslim, Mormon, whatever) that backs up what they want. And the ones that hit the top pages of press are generally those that don't support previous theories of thinking.

Christians in this country really aren't being martyred so the practice is to perceive persecution from the scientific and historic community as a whole. The broadbrush we ex-fundys are told we use is also being used by others against seekers of science and history.

Dan, the shape and trajectory of our conversions experiences are polar opposite.  I was not raised in a Christian home, and saw my father (RIP) drunk most everyday (but praise God for a mama who was a Christian and doing the best she knew how).  I came to Christ as a young adult, from a worldview that was skeptical to say the least, steeped in a logical and scientific background.  You were burned by overly insular fundamentalist hypocrisy.  Your belief that you have begun a search for truth apart from your childhood influences has caused you to swing the pendulum the other way.  There are such things as vain philosophies and false science (knowledge).  The world has never been, and never will be the friend of God nor His word.  Do some secular scientists discover truth(s) devoid of a passion for God?  Sure, but make no mistake about where their worldviews begin.  Pure natural materialism leaves the possibility of God out intentionally, and "historical" science (as Ham called it) is predicated on all sorts of assumptions that start with the impossibility of God.

 

[subllibrm]

A lot of Christians believe that science and perhaps history is the enemy of the Bible. That is not the case. Science and history are in search of truth within their respective fields regardless of religious texts that might support/deny. IOW, these fields don't exist in an effort to combat God or religion.

I don't find science and history to be enemies of scripture. I see them as subservient to scripture. The enemies are the people who use "science and history" to seek to discredit scripture.

As the tomato pointed out, there is a hubris that assumes that the camels found are the only that will ever be found. Then the "fact" is used to disprove scripture. For what purpose? Next week if a much older specimen of domesticated camel is found should we expect that the top of the fold story will be how the new evidence proves the veracity of Abraham's flocks? Not holding my breath for that conclusion to be drawn by the open minded, truth seeking experts.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I don't find science and history to be enemies of scripture. I see them as subservient to scripture. The enemies are the people who use "science and history" to seek to discredit scripture.

Exactly as I thought about replying.


Nye employed the same efforts to discredit "Ken Ham's model" of origins.  Truth be told, many hardcore scientists were disappointed with Nye for even giving a platform for YEC to be heard, because they want to marginalize it by not even giving it a voice.

 

[subllibrm]

I don't find science and history to be enemies of scripture. I see them as subservient to scripture. The enemies are the people who use "science and history" to seek to discredit scripture.

Exactly as I thought about replying.


Nye employed the same efforts to discredit "Ken Ham's model" of origins.  Truth be told, many hardcore scientists were disappointed with Nye for even giving a platform for YEC to be heard, because they want to marginalize it by not even giving it a voice.

Usually be means of the "moonbat" argument: "I have no answer for your position so I will call you a moonbat and ignore your evidence"

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Higher criticism existed well before David  Strauss publicly declared Jesus wasn't God and, in effect, started an organized movement. Today, many so called evangelicals rather than combating 'it', embrace the principles it lays out.

Being an old dispensational dinosaur, I chalk it up to the influence of the coming end times apostasy!

NOT a broad brush accusation that those who disagree with me are apostates....