Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Archeology 201 Guidelines
If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.
Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?
Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.
Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.
Forum Rules: Here
Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?
Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.
Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Camels in Genesis
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostIn your humble opinion, right?Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Outis View PostNot my opinion. That's the mainstream scholarly consensus. The arguments that I can evaluate are sound, and the evidence, in sum, agrees."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kbertsche View PostBut the issue is not a slam-dunk. There are also scholarly arguments for a much earlier composition of the Pentateuch, and a number of conservative scholars who hold this position.
I would like to here more the 'recent' scholarly arguments.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post'a number of conservative scholars?'
I would like to here more the 'recent' scholarly arguments.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...g-of-the-Torah-The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
Sir James Jeans
-This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
Sir Isaac Newton
Comment
-
Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View PostYou all might want to debate this over here to avoid derailing the thread.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...g-of-the-TorahGlendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI have been on this thread, and I may respond more, but as it ended I did not see anything that reflected physical nor linguistic evidence. The conservative scholars rely on internal scripture arguments and tradition to justify earlier dates, and I find this inadequate.
How much physical evidence would you expect (especially if orality was valued over written word)?
The linguistic evidence isn't exactly much and the text we have now could have been a transliteration.
Here BTW is Glenn Miller's argument for a pre-exilic date.
http://www.christianthinktank.com/qmoses1.html-The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
Sir James Jeans
-This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
Sir Isaac Newton
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post'a number of conservative scholars?'
I would like to here more the 'recent' scholarly arguments.
As someone else suggested, this issue is probably best discussed in the JEDP thread so as not to derail the discussion of camels. Most theological conservatives reject the documentary hypothesis (JEDP), though some who accept it would still call themselves theologically conservative (I suspect Peter Enns might fall into this category)."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kbertsche View PostAlso, don't ignore or overlook the paper that I recommended on page 2:
http://moodle.tau.ac.il/pluginfile.p...tion%20ANE.pdf
I don't know who wrote it, but it is well footnoted and seems to have a good bibliography.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...tic-camel.html
I had coincidentally just received a copy of Martin Heide's paper from a mutual friend:
"The Domestication of the Camel: Biological, Archaeological and Inscriptional Evidence from Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel and Arabia, and Literary Evidence from the Hebrew Bible" -- Martin Heide, Marburg
http://www.academia.edu/2065314/_The...g_2011_331-384
Here are the first two paragraphs of his "tentative conclusion":
Originally posted by Martin Heide, The Domestication of the CamelA tentative conclusion
The archaeological evidence points to the fact that the Bactrian camel was domesticated before the dromedary and was put into use by the middle of the 3rd millennium or earlier. The gradual spread of the Bactrian camel from the areas east of the Zagros Mountains to the west seems to have reached the Mesopotamian civilization sporadically by the middle of the 3rd millennium and more frequently at the end of the 3rd / beginning of the 2nd millennium.
The “camel” (ָּג ָמל gāmāl) in the patriarchal narratives may refer, at least in some places, to the Bactrian camel. Abram is seen as having employed camels for long-distance journeys in north-south direction, very probably commencing in upper Mesopotamia. From there, he migrated to Canaan and moved further down to Egypt (Gen 12:5.9.16). The same can be said for the opposite direction, from Canaan to upper Mesopotamia and back again (Gen 24:10–64). His son Isaac, who dwelt all his life in Canaan, is not portrayed as having used any camels. His grandson Jacob, however, who spent a considerable time of his life in upper Mesopotamia, did not only use, but bred a small herd of camels (Gen 30:43; 31:17; 32:7.15). After he had settled down in Canaan again, camels are not seen as belonging to his moveable property any more. Albright’s dictum that “any mention of camels in the period of Abraham is a blatant anachronism” (Albright, 1942, 96) is questionable. The archaeological and inscriptional evidence allows at least the domesticated Bactrian camel to have existed at Abraham’s time. In the daily life of the patriarchs, however, the camel played a minor role. The later Hebrews never adopted it and regarded it as unclean (Lev 11:4).
(Question: where did the "cite" tag go, or what was it replaced by?)"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View PostOne comment here
How much physical evidence would you expect (especially if orality was valued over written word)?
The linguistic evidence isn't exactly much and the text we have now could have been a transliteration.
Here BTW is Glenn Miller's argument for a pre-exilic date.
http://www.christianthinktank.com/qmoses1.htmlGlendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Outis View PostTo those to whom literalism is an a priori belief, no evidence would be a "slam dunk." When one takes an a priori position, evidence is subservient to belief."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kbertsche View PostPerhaps. But the same argument could be made of those who take an a priori position of atheistic naturalism (i.e. God does not exist, God did not inspire any holy books.) Evidence for God is subservient to their atheistic commitment. The argument applies both ways.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Outis View PostNow, one potentially huge problem with the article: while this is the earliest they have discovered, what happens if there are more skeletons out there that have not been discovered? This is the biggest pitfall of such claims.
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 05:38 AM
|
0 responses
11 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-26-2024, 05:38 AM |
Comment