Scientists in Israel have made news recently because they say that the Bible is wrong. It says that camels were domesticated somewhere between 2000 and 1500 BC. They believe that they weren’t domesticated in Israel until centuries later, more like 900 BC.
But they are wrong. Camels were domesticated 1,000 years earlier. We know this because we have a historically reliable record:
“And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel.”
Genesis 24:64 doesn’t say she “lit up” a camel—she lighted off a camel, which means she was riding the domesticated beast. Still, many in the world will prefer to believe scientists over the Bible, and it doing so they strain at a gnat and—well you know the rest.
43 comments
We know this because we have a historically reliable record:
Wait, the scientists say the Bible is wrong, but you say no, the Bible's right because there's a source for it's content: the Bible?
Don't get dizzy going around in circles.
So the Bu¥Bull is a "historically reliable record" now~
Ray Cumfart, I refer you here . There are many arguments as to how the Bu¥Bull is historically inaccurate, particularly in the flood myth.
And the point sails many miles over Ray's head yet again.
Ray, the bible is the claim, not the evidence.
You mean like how bats are birds? Or how you can disinfect a house by sprinkling blood through it? Or animals are the born the color their dames see when they fed? Or how bananas were created specifically for the human hand (not in the bible, but I did hear some moron make that claim)?
Ray, you are a lying fuckhead. Give it up and get a real job.
Of course scientists in Israel are going to say that the Bible is wrong, as it's a bastardization of their Torah, and some new-fangled fairy-tale.
So, where's the evidence that Genesis 24:64 speaks about 1900 BCE and not 900 BCE (is there perhaps a cross reference in historical records that can be made to Rebekah or Isaac, for example)? Where's the evidence that what the Bible says is true, and not the fantasy of the author?
Looking up the history of the domestication of camels proved to be more interesting than I had anticipated:http://archaeology.about.com/od/cterms/g/camels.htm
Whenever camels were domesticated, it has nothing to do with when they first were introduced to the area we now call Israel. Failure to understand the question, Ray. No, I don't know or care where the Rebekah story takes place.
Oh dear. Yet another fundie who doesn't know his Bible. Genesis 24:10 says Abraham went to Aram Naharaim to find Rebecca and that is where what is described in Genesis 24:64 happens. We learn from Genesis 24:6 that Aram Naharaim was in Abraham's native land. Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees. So the verse Ray Comfort is using against the scientists takes place in what is now southern Iraq. Nowhere near Israel, ancient or modern.
So there is no contradiction between Genesis 24:64 and what the scientists found. Ray, you could have used it to say "The Bible confirms science once again!" But you had to have a go at the scientists. Ray Comfort, you are an imbecile.
Ray... Horses were domesticated thousands of years ago, yet were non-existent in America just 1,000 years ago.
But your argument would say that Native Americans were riding domesticated horses for thousands of years before anyone took horses over there...
historically reliable record
Stars stuck onto the Firmament? World is a circle (not sphere) with the heavens stretched over it like a tent? Stars about the size of a soccer ball? Egyptian chariots when they didn't even have the wheel??
Yeah... really reliable that Ray.
Whaaaat? Evidence that teh bible is wrong somehow? You could knock me over with a feather... Yes, I prefer reality over fables, thanks.
"Genesis 24:64 doesn’t say she “lit up” a camelshe lighted off a camel"
image
TRANSLATION: Scientists have brought into question the reliability of the Bible as an historical record. But they are wrong because we have an historically reliable record in the Bible.
FURTHER TRANSLATION: Did not. Did so. Did not. Did so......
The bible is wrong? But that can't be true, it says so in the bible!
Circular reasoning, ladies and gentlemen.
So basically Ray is too lazy to actually refute their findings. Instead he covers his ears and goes "Lalalalalalala, I can't hear you!".
And oh joy, the troll with the reading incomprehension is back.
This is quite an insight into the way that fundie pundits like Ray Comfort work.
The Bible is not wrong in this case and nor are the scientists; it's Ray Comfort that's wrong because Rebecca getting off a camel doesn't happen in Israel. Had Ray Comfort just read the rest of Genesis 24, he would have found that out. Had he known his Bible well enough, he would have known that anyway. But he didn't know his Bible and he didn't even read the chapter his verse came from .
So what goes on? Ray Comfort wanted a) publicity; b) donations; and c) to be seen by other fundies as a doughty champion for their cause by attacking secularism in the form of scientists that "deny" the Bible, even if in this case it's Ray Comfort denying the Bible, not the scientists. So all Comfort did was look up references to "camel" in the Bible, picked an early likely verse, and go from there. In fact, the earliest verse which shows unequivocal possession of camels by Israelites comes from 1 Chronicles, putting it at around 400BCE.
Among atheists and non-fundies, he gains notoriety, because they take Comfort at his word that the scientists are contradicting the Bible,. This leaves them with the idea that this verse is contradicted by science - it isn't - and plays to their view of the Bible based on other places where the Bible contradicts science. So it helps to raise Comfort even further in the pantheon of leading fundies, thereby increasing his kudos and earning power with his home crowd.
It shows what can be achieved with a little intellectual laziness.
Domestication and existence are two very different things, though they do intertwine. However, the intertwining is irrelevant in this context, as the camels of Biblical times would have looked radically different from the camels of today.
1- Therefore we'll hear no more about you right-wing Fundamental ist Christains and your 'Supporting Israel' bollocks, mm'kay? Jews don't even recognise your Jesus as their 'Messiah', so there's further reason to reject these heathens (along with proving the Bible is wrong). But then, where does that leave you Christains & your precious 'Armageddon', Revelation/Beast etc etc...?! [/hyper-paradox]
2- The Bible - as you bang on & on about - is a book of prophecy , is it not o Ray Cumfart? It simply references the future of the tobacco industry, and how more and more people reject the evil weed, by Lighting off their Camel cigarettes . Seems we Atheists - and Jews - have more of a handle on this 'Interpretation' malarkey (PROTIP: If it says it that way, it means it that way; the Bible is Literal, is it not - except when it isn't , natch: Leviticus; you Gentiles not obeying the rest of Jewish law because it doesn't/never applies to you lot, but your life-or-death need to cling to one part of such to justify your bigotries against certain people, eh? )
3- ?????
4- No Smoking in this area
(emphasis added):
J.J. McClure (Burt Reynolds): 'What's Dr. Gay do?' He was smoking bananas . He gets very upset when he talks to 'Him'.'
-"Cannonball Run"
X3
@Polonium
'Still, many in the world will prefer to believe scientists over the Bible'
Medical scientists - physicians - certainly do, re. Smoking, and how damaging it is to one's health.
When no one was looking, Ray Cumfart toked 40 bananas. He smoked 40 bananas. That's as many as four tens, and that's actually a bad thing. [/Lex Luthor] X3
@DAR31337
Just imagine if Sir Walter Raleigh had got it wrong: we'd be eating tobacco, and smoking potatoes. [/Surreal] [/Blackadder II] X3
@Miles
"Ray-Ray, you cray-cray."
More than, say, the Titan , that's how Cray he is.
Historically reliable record??
HAHAHAHAHAHA...gasp...HAHAHAHAHAHA....splutter...HAHAHAHAHAHA
Thank fuck I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that. Of course, if your stupid book had said "she lit up a Camel" it might have got something right - for a fucking change.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
