Liars for Jesus.

Blindness is a good word for it, Smithy,
but there are none so blind as those who will not see. Denial of the blindness makes for inconsistency but it is the willfulness to not see that leads to incompetence. We have a generation that first calls out for evidence and then dismisses any evidence proffered, out of hand. It ought not surprise us that such evidence-deniers become themselves incontrovertible evidences of the truth of the thing they deny. They can’t help it, in my opinion.
Yours,
John/.

As an atheist or skeptic, reading the above comment you could quite easily believe it was written by an atheist or skeptic.

Sad to say, but not that surprising, it was written by a Christian.

Seriously, how on earth can a believer of even average intelligence claim such nonsense ?

(Yes, I know … indoctrination. I was being somewhat rhetorical)

For example, we have a generation of archaeologists who have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the Captivity Exodus and Conquest is simply geopolitical myth.

We have geological evidence that demonstrates beyond doubt that there was no global flood as described in the bible  and this is not withstanding the nonsense of the whole two by two fairy-tale or in fact the two stories of the same tale.

We have irrefutable evidence of evolution, including  the evidence of the Human Genome Project.

In the bible we have undeniable evidence of  forged text.

And no doubt anyone reading this post could offer a myriad of other examples.

”Honest, guv’nor. He was walking on the water. I saw him. Bloody miracle it was!”

 

Oh yes, ”evidence”. 

*sigh*

Ark

 

 


96 thoughts on “Liars for Jesus.

  1. Funny how he says evidence offered up by Christians is denied by non-believers. No one, not even the most militant of atheists would deny actual evidence. The problem is that there is no actual evidence being presented. Lies, mistranslations and unsubstantiated miracles are not evidence no matter how much you want them to be.

    Liked by 4 people

        1. Yes this so called lion calling you hypocritical has moderated my comments because he is frightened scientific facts will get in the way of his myths

          Liked by 2 people

  2. This one always makes my head spin. First, someone says that no one can ‘deconvert’ from Christianity (gloriously dismissing all the people born into other religions): even those who were never “true” Christians at all, or left the faith of their choice. Some little kids have the same perception of Jesus as they do the tooth fairy and Santa: at a certain age, it’s over. They see the holes in the curtain, they see the man behind the curtain, and once you’ve noticed him, you can’t unsee him.
    Then once it has been established that we all are Christians no matter what we say otherwise (nudge nudge wink wink) they turn around and tell us that those of us who are atheists are really (lying) Christians anyway, and those who take missteps in Christianity aren’t true Christians, and never were.

    Of course we believe hard cold facts. We can see the bloody things. What Christians seem to ‘see’ are beliefs that the facts existed, not the facts themselves. There is a difference.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Don’t you understand that philology is gods way of proving forged texts out of context and time is gods way of proving his word is timeless and true? Out of all the madness, yet we still have his word—the buybull. Even the Museum of the Bible contains admittedly forged documents, but that doesn’t hurt ticket sales. God uses the godless to provide sustenance to wealthy hoaxters to spread the love—it’s that important!

    Liked by 2 people

  4. They aren’t really concerned with evidence. It’s not why they believe. Their many protestations about evidence or reasons or philosophical justifications are really just efforts to calm their own insecurities about others challenging the foundations of what they believe to be “true” yet cannot demonstrate to actually BE true.
    It’s not about evidence at all… And they know it.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Exactly. And they will go to the wall protesting that because the Bible says so, that makes it real. Sort of second hand evidential belief.

    Right up there in believing in the tooth fairy because the tooth is gone in the morning, and voila, there’s money instead.

    Like

  6. The statement seems obviously written by a Christian, but I do not know if he is a literalist from what was shared, so he may not be a believer in Biblical myths. I think that, once again, we are preaching to the choir.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. There is a certain amount of entertainment value of posting such nonsense, if only to reinforce the reasons why most of those who deconverted in the first place.

      Like

      1. If you can convert one way … you can convert the other way, no?

        Not unless to do so is a death sentence—and this is where Islam scores with a very loud “Gotcha!”

        Liked by 1 person

  7. hahahaha, “evidence” you people are hilarious!!!! It seems like you people have some serious issues. The pharaohs were afraid of God as well. The pharaohs considered themselves the rulers of the universe as many believe today. Funny how things never change, when you people talk ad nauseam about evolution.

    Like

    1. Funny how things never change — when Christians talk ad nauseam (sic) about the “truth” of events that are ONLY described in a book that was written over 2000 years old.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I take it you and Ark have checked out this keyboard warrior for jesus website, he’s doing it for the publicity to try and generate traffic. The word ‘trolls’ is being used, pot kettle black.

        Like

        1. Ahhhh yes … thy name is desperation.

          Clearly the childish way of “getting even.”

          (I did take a quick look a bit ago — no “likes,” no comments … and I doubt any followers either.)

          Like

          1. @Nan

            And he’s also only semi-literate. There seems to be something of a correlation between the more devout theists and illiteracy.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Checked out his (?) latest post to see what he/she is about. Quite open about what he/she doing, there is a cut from your blog comments where you said you were deleting him, which he ridicules. The post is about trolls so is presumably alluding to you and Ark, which I find beyond hypocritical. The blog has over a hundred followers and his/her post had four likes and three comments from their flock.

            Liked by 2 people

  8. Best evidence EVER of the truth of a religion can be found within the Quran: “This Book is not to be doubted…. As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or not you forewarn them; they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their hearts and ears; their sight is dimmed and grievous punishment awaits them.”
    Quran 2:1/2:6-2:10

    And this one, too: “The only true faith in God’s sight is Islam.”
    Quran 3:19

    MIC DROP BABY!!! He shoots! HE SCORES!!! Only an idiot would not believe that Islam is the one and only faith/religion after reading this! We are ALL Muslims. Some have just not accepted the truth yet. Allahu Akbar

    Like

  9. For some people, the psychological need to cling to a belief outweighs all evidence. These are the people who remain religious in an increasingly secular age. To them, non-religious people are a profound psychological threat and need to be name-called until they shut up (since they can’t be burned at the stake any more). You can’t argue against this using logic any more than you can argue a rabid dog out of trying to bite you.

    Like

  10. Thank you for the illustration of unbelieving blindness in action, Ark.
    You suggest four major areas in which I must be lying but you’ve failed to expose a single one of these putative lies in any of the extensive conversations that we’ve had.
    • Archaeology: again and again you’ve put forward archaeological evidence that refutes what the Bible does not say as though that is sufficient reason to accuse it of lying. You seriously need a checklist so that you do not revisit arguments that you have depended on only to have had them proven to be unfounded.
    • Geology: As geological knowledge grows about the potential for a single catastrophe to cause mass extinction all over the world I cannot see how you can stick with the veritably ancient and inadequate uniformitarian insistance that a Flood could not have happened.
    • Biology: This is an interesting one. Unlike Richard Dawkins, I believe in evolution, but have no faith in it. It seems to me that Dawkins departs from his self-imposed task — in The Greatest Show on Earth — to show that evolution exists, every time he decides to demonstrate how angry Creationists must be about certain facts, which he then gets wrong. (I could be partly or completely wrong; call this a work in progress.) What does seem to be the case is that the huge number of anti-evolutionists in the States has been caused by the sheer arrogance of a few anti-Creationists. Funny that, they seem to be more concerned to make a name for themselves than they are to promote the benefits that acrue from the phylogenetic interrelativeness of all living things.
    • Forged Bible Texts: Why would a forger of money copy something that he didn’t know to be legal tender? I think your contention that the pastoral epistles are forgeries is stuff and nonsense but if they are that only adds to the general consensus that other Pauline letters are genuine. Accusing believers of lying does not get you out of that conundrum.
    Yours,
    John/.

    Like

  11. that a Flood could not have happened.

    There may well have been floods as Mark pointed out on the wee flea, but THE Flood as per the biblical tale is simply nonsense and geological evidence – including the fossil record – has demonstrated this, so please stop with this ridiculous posturing.
    I hope you finally understand?

    Archaeology: again and again you’ve put forward archaeological evidence that refutes what the Bible does not say ….

    The bible is emphatic that the Israelites were in Egypt and were involved in a mass exodus, a decades long sojourn and an invasion and conquest of Canaan.
    Archaeology flatly refutes this.

    I believe in evolution,

    Then do us all a favour and once and for all shut up about it.

    think your contention that the pastoral epistles are forgeries is stuff and nonsense but if they are that only adds to the general consensus that other Pauline letters are genuine. Accusing believers of lying does not get you out of that conundrum.

    The epistles that are regarded as genuine(sic) I have no real issue with. They are considered to be written by the same hand, If you wish to call this hand Saul/Paul, so be it. There is no evidence for this character outside of the bible.
    Did I mention the Pastorals anywhere in this post?
    My view of the Pastorals is based on the view of modern biblical scholars.

    Like

    1. No, Ark,
      and again, no. You can’t think that it’s proper behaviour to call me a liar and then just come up with the same tired old statements about what you believe without the demonstration of a single lie from me in support of your contention. As for ‘Then do us all a favour and once and for all shut up about it.’ Perhaps you want to apologise for that.
      Yours(?),
      John/.

      Like

      1. Ben said it best.

        Funny how he says evidence offered up by Christians is denied by non-believers. No one, not even the most militant of atheists would deny actual evidence. The problem is that there is no actual evidence being presented. Lies, mistranslations and unsubstantiated miracles are not evidence no matter how much you want them to be.

        Produce evidence for your claims and I will apologise unreservedly. Of this you have my word.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. The apology I suggested you might want to make, Ark,
    was for telling me to shut up about Evolution! Nevertheless, I’ll take you up on Ben’s ‘Lies, mistranslations and unsubstantiated miracles’. You have consistently rejected evidence presented by certain scholars in spite of their impecable academic credentials so I’m asking: are you prepared to reject as a presentation of evidence Kitchen and Laurence, Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East on the grounds that it contains lies, mistranslations and unsubstantiated miracles? Because if not, another basis for dismissing us all as liars without evidence needs to be found.
    Yours,
    John/.

    Like

      1. We have a generation that first calls out for evidence and then dismisses any evidence proffered, out of hand. It ought not surprise us that such evidence-deniers become themselves incontrovertible evidences of the truth of the thing they deny. They can’t help it, in my opinion.

        And there you have it, Ark:
        • You call out for evidence.
        • when evidence is proffered you reject it out of hand.
        • you dig a trap and then by falling into it yourself, you become evidence of the truth of what you wish to deny..
        • you don’t see it.
        • and it’s pretty obvious that you can’t help it.

        What’s more, Smithy,
        (If you just happen to be following this) I’m pretty sure that none of Ark’s friends will be able to tell him how he’s just shot himself in the foot. I know I’ll never be able to persuade him, either.
        Yours,
        John/.

        Like

        1. I think what Ark is trying to point out there can not be an unbiased discussion when Christians use Christian scholars to prove their point.

          In most instances, atheists/non-believers rely on evidence presented by scientists for the simple reason these individuals perform systematic investigation to establish facts … they don’t just rely on an ancient book’s contents or on individuals who use that same book to validate their claims.

          Like

          1. Your point might have more validity if someone else was citing me or the likes of me, Nan,
            but Kenneth Kitchen is Personal and Brunner Professor Emeritus of Egyptology and Honorary Research Fellow at the School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of Liverpool and having a title like that ought to mean something around here.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          2. It probably would … in the right circles. But as Ark indicated, the guy is a fundamentalist Christian … which can’t help but color his opinion/research/conclusions.

            Look, I’ve been there, done that. Those that “believe” can’t help but put the “Godly” slant on anything/everything they do. It’s just part of who they are. All the degrees and titles do is show a person spent extra time learning about a particular subject, but rarely does any of it change their core beliefs.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Again, he has NEVER produced evidence for the Captivity., Exodus or Conquest as per the biblical tale.
            He is a christian fundamentalist. and believes a narrative construct rose from the dead after being crucified.

            Like

          4. Actually, he isn’t a fundamentalist, Nan,
            and nor am I for that matter. Ark uses the term prejoratively but also confusingly when there are real Fundamentalists who probably wouldn’t give Ken Kitchen the light of day. I’m more concerned though with the way you’re dismissing Liverpool University as though it were some sort of backwater degree mill in the MidWest. Being a professor is not generally a thing to be sneezed at in the UK.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          5. Liar.
            You ARE a fundamentalist.
            You believe in the fundamental truth of the bible (sic) and that the character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.

            How much more fundamental can you get?

            Like

          6. I don’t think anyone is doubting Kitchen’s work when it comes to general Egyptology. He’s as good as the next Egyptologist when it comes to Egyptian fabrics, pottery, etc. Unfortunately, he throws himself in the bin of disrepute when it comes to his side project of being a Christian apologist. Nothing he has done in this side project has been taken seriously by anyone… except desperate, reality-hating evangelical apologists like yourself.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Be that as it may, Ark,
            ‘Fundamentalist’ has come to have a particular meaning in Christian nomenclature and calling someone a fundamentalist when they’re not a Fundamentalist is confusing. There are less confusing ways of calling me for what I am.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          8. I find the idea of Ken Kitchen taking on the role of an apologist quite funny, John,
            but labelling Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East as a ‘side project’ is quite delightful. I’ll quote you on that one.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          9. Kitchen is an evangelical Christian, and has published frequently defending the historicity of the Old Testament.

            Wiki.

            That pretty much says it all.
            All such Christians I have encountered generally put god belief ( and their faith in the bible) above all else so John Z could be forgiven for suggesting certain aspects of Kitchen’s work were a ‘side project.’

            Anyone who is able to stand in defense of the historicity of the OT – and by this I think we all know what he is defending as history – in the face of the consensus scholarly view when he has produced no evidence to support his views of Captivity, Exodus, and Conquest suggests he is primarily concerned with pushing his unsubstantiated Christian beliefs above intellectual honesty.

            I am not familiar with his views of Adam and Eve and the Flood but I am going to suggest he is probably like you in this regard, which would only compound his penchant for turning a blind eye to recognised evidence.

            Like

          10. Yes, Side Project. He is an Egyptologist by qualification. His focused expertise is in Egyptian fabrics, culture, etc. He is not an archaeologist, and he’s certainly not a bible scholar. So, his apologetic work is a Side Project.

            And when he’s dead (which will be soon), there’ll be no one following in his wake to keep his ‘work’ going… Because he hasn’t produced a single scrap of actual evidence.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. Oh dear… A review of this book by Luis R. Siddall Macquarie University

            Had the authors demonstrated that the elements common in the Ancient Near Eastern treaties also appear in the Old Testament, it would have been very helpful, but reconguring the biblical passages themselves as texts alongside extant ancient documents is denitely ‘a bridge too far’

            There is also a problem with the transliterations of the Hebrew Scriptures. Kitchen and Lawrence have not offered readers transliterations that follow the agreed Masoretic texts or even Qumran documents, but rather they have converted those texts into an archaized Late Canaanite (14th –13th centuries BCE) styled text that imitates non-biblical texts from Canaan and Ugarit (see the discussion in I xxv-xxvi). It is hard to see how any of this is factually based. The fact that the authors have recongured the biblical materials to make them look like texts matching the period to which Kitchen and Lawrence date the texts is misleading and not consistent with state-ments in the introduction to Volume I and throughout Volume III claiming that their methodology is agenda free.

            Like

          12. Call me an evangelical and people will know what you mean, Ark.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          13. There would be a thing, Ark,
            ‘An evangelical is someone like Ken Kitchen.’
            If you use that definition, don’t expect people to read all your side-project nonsense into it.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          14. Well done with the Siddall review, John,
            I was beginning to think that you guys were never going to take the book seriously. It’s refreshing to read a different order of challenge from the unsubstantiated lies and mistranslations jibes. A link so that I can read the whole review would be helpful; I can’t find it, myself.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          15. What’s to take “seriously”? From the reviews I’ve read, others seem happy to have the body of work done, as a reference, but they’re not at all fond of the unfounded leaps when Kitchen triers to insert the bible. To quote:

            the provocation arises from the handling of the biblical materials and the influence this has had on the historical conclusions drawn.

            reconfiguring the biblical passages themselves as texts alongside extant ancient documents is definitely ‘a bridge too far’.

            It is hard to see how any of this is factually based.

            Bridge too far, not factual… Not ringing endorsement of what Kitchen *tried to do* with an otherwise scholarly work.

            Like

          16. Once again, thanks for the reviews, John.
            Some names and place of publication would be a help since I haven’t been able to find the comments and although I think I know what these reviewers are saying, I’m capable of getting things backwards. For instance, the middle review seems to be saying the same as the Siddall review but due caution says that it might be saying more or less.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          17. Of course the review is Sidall’s, John,
            my bad; this is a sign that we are beginning to bury ourselves in our own erudition and this whole conversation will peter out soon. How could I have overlooked the repetition of ‘a bridge too far’?

            You are quite right to make the point that Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East will sit on many a library shelf for years on end, unopened; but it’s there and that the body of work can no longer be ignored by workers in the field is the greater part of my point. I heard Kitchen lecture once round about the turn of the century when he bemoaned the fact that supposed experts in A.N.E. Covenant Documents could seemingly still simply ignore all the comparative work — which he has been doing since the 1950s — as though they hadn’t read it. Well, even as the volumes gather dust on the shelves now, woe betide any graduate student in the field who doesn’t at least acknowledge their existence.

            Sidall’s gripe as far as I can make out, is that Kitchen and Laurence have not included the Massoretic text of Deuteronomy in volume 1 of TLCANE but critical editions of the Hebrew Text — Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia — are by far the most easily obtained texts from that time so including the text in TLCANE would actually hinder rather than help comparison (in my far-from-expert opinion.)
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

        2. For goodness sakes, John. Kitchen NEVER produces evidence. Ever. Nothing that is *actual* evidence. And I’ll give an example of one piece of “evidence” he thinks compelling: a Bronze Age Egyptian prefabricated BEDROOM SUITE. Now, wait for it… Kitchen actually wrote a paper about this bedroom suite claiming it might just resemble the tabernacle design in Exodus 26/36. Bells and whistles, look at this, look at that, Oh My! And then, the conclusion reads: “We have not proved that the Tabernacle of Exodus 26/36 actually existed in (say) the 13th century BCE. nor have we sought to. But the overall evidence to hand does – in its own right – point clearly to an origin long before the supposed ‘pipe-dreams’ of the Neo-Babylonian Exile.”

          Absolute bullshit polished as best as he can.

          Like

          1. Wasn’t that a peer-reviewed paper, John?
            I thought that a couple of years ago your defence rested on Kitchen not having dared to produce one about the Exodus. I’m not suggesting that you go out and buy Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East and I doubt that your JSTOR access would stretch that far; but I deliberately chose it because Kitchen’s reputation will rest on that far more than on “The Tabernacle — a Bronze Age Artifact” and all I wanted Ark to do was to pull back from labelling the Magnum opus of the leading Ramesside Period expert as ‘lies, mistranslations and unsubstantiated miracles.’ Sadly, he wasn’t able to do that. Pity! but it figures.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          2. I don’t know if it was peer reviewed, and it really doesn’t matter, because it DOES NOT present any evidence for the exodus tale. What it is is a superb example of the fact that Kitchen has nothing.

            Seriously, trying to suggest an Egyptian bedroom suite (2600 BCE) *might* resemble the tabernacle description is so outlandishly stupid its hilarious. And even he seems to have recognised that fact, as seen in his conclusion.

            That, John, is the extent of your “evidence.”

            Absolute nonsense that has been cited by no one since.

            Please, just go away. You’re a terrible bore.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Cited 17 times so far, John,
            according to Google Scholar; but you’re also ignoring the fact that Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East will be much harder to ignore.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          4. Followed up a bit on your claim re Adam and Eve.
            Why is it that so few Christians who happen to be in one scientific field or another seem not to be able to square away evidence with their faith?
            Joshua Swamidass is another example of one pushing his christian agenda in this regard. Cited on one of the links I followed.

            Cherry picking hypocrites the lot of them.

            Such people simply do not follow where evidence leads, as if they were truly honest this would inevitably lead to deconversion.

            Like

          5. Cited by whom, John? And for what? Dig a little further. It’s not pretty.

            Listen, aren’t you even the slightest bit embarrassed that the very best thing you can produce is some ridiculous maybe-perhaps-this-might-be-something? ball of nothing?

            Seriously. Doesn’t it bother you… at all?

            I can produce libraries of ACTUAL evidence produced by ACTUAL archaeologists, most of them Israeli who lead digs, like Dr. Erez Ben-Yosef, who’s paper “A New Chronological Framework for Iron Age Copper Production at Timna (Israel)” was recently heralded as the most influential paper published in BASOR (Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research). Ben-Yosef also co-authored a startling paper in 2013, titled, “The Introduction of Domestic Camels to the Southern Levant: Evidence from the Aravah Valley,” which further dismisses the Pentateuch as a “historical” document.

            Camels, John. Camels PROVE the Jewish origin narrative is nothing but inventive geopolitical myth invented in the 6th and 7th Century BCE to satisfy the territorial ambitions of Judah after the sacking of Mamlekhet Yisra’el (Kingdom of Israel) in 722 BCE.

            You don’t even have camels to support you.

            So, seriously, aren’t you embarrassed?

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Seriously, if Jewish rabbis can embrace the facts and meld their beliefs to them, why do evangelicals find it so bloody impossible? People like John here just look like total idiots on threads likes this.

            Like

          7. Because without Jesus their beliefs disappear like dirty water down the plug hole.
            It doesn’t matter what they beleive regarding the bible as long as Jesus is front and centre and only then if is he is crawling out of some hole in the ground and whizzing off into outer space.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. It is evidence that Deuteronomy was written contemporaneously with the events recounted in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers and refutes the nonsense that that the Pentateuch could have been written in Babylon, centuries after the event. I’m not saying you should read it; just that you should not take for granted that it is full of lies and mistranslations. I’m quite sure Ben was not meaning such a work when he made his remark, since he was speaking from his own experience only, but if you are going to extrapolate then you ought to draw a line somewhere.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          9. Cherry-picking hypocrites, Ark?
            I’ll be sure to put that one on my c.v.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          10. Well, of course you are, John.
            You consider yourself not to be a biblical literalist yet claim the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth an historical fact – base don no evidence whatsoever, I might add.
            I am sure <i could list a great many more examples but the only thing that is really important is belief in the exploits of your make-believe god man.

            Like

          11. Read the ‘Camels’ article, John,
            and no I’m not embarassed.
            There are a few things in the paper itself that, if you’d noticed them, would have made you less sure of your ground. First of all the paper is careful to say ‘it cannot be concluded, based on early artefacts and drawings, that camels were exploited as pack animals prior to the Iron Age.’. Also, it is suggested that these original pack animals were introduced from Egypt after a military campaign: the earliest reference to camels in Genesis recounts how Abraham was given camels after his brief sojourn in Egypt. Maybe just a coincidence but at least Moses got the source right.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          12. Perhaps you should re-read your quote, John. It says the opposite of what you seem to think it does.

            It’s really very simple. 900 BCE. That is the finding of when camels entered the Levant. There is nothing before then, and heaps (of bones) after.

            So, even though the paper isn’t even bible-story orientated, even camels prove the Pentateuch fiction.

            Camels.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. I am a Bible Literalist, Ark,
            of the deepest water.
            And yes, your denial of the rock-solid evidence of the eywitness records is the crowning evidence is proof of the thesis that you were pleased to put up under the heading Liars for Jesus.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          14. No, John,
            I’m not fazed by a switch to using camels as pack animals at the beginning of the iron age. Wild camels were always there and it is obviously much easier to find evidence of domesticated camels that have been used as pack animals at a mine than it would be to find evidence of domesticated camels that have been gifted to a high-status nomad by the Egyptians.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          15. That is Siddall’s. The book hasn’t generated much interest given the sparsity of reviews, although I suppose the subject matter targets quite a small academic audience. And like I said, from the 3 reviews I read there was general approval of someone compiling the various texts, it was welcomed as a reference source. But, as Siddall notes: “the provocation arises from the handling of the biblical materials and the influence this has had on the historical conclusions drawn.” Clearly, Kitchen’s mishandling of biblical material (revealing his hidden “agenda”) has not been received well.

            That’s all there is to say on the matter. I, for one, am not interested in Lagash-Umma treaties of the later third millennium or the Babylonian Laws in the mid-first millennium. Are you?

            Like

          16. No bones of obviously domesticated camels before 900 BC, John,
            but there are bones of presumably wild camels datable before then; besides camels are pretty wide ranging and until we find the place where camels go to die it will be difficult to reproduce the results from the mines for wild camels; far less for camels that definitively died in the course of nomadic wanderings.
            I’ve reread the early Bible mentions of camels: there is a Biblical Theology of camels waiting to be extracted from the text but more importantly for our current discussion, in the Patriarchal Narratives, there would be no point to the mention of camels were it not to express their extreme rarity in captivity at that time. Owning and using camels was very definitely a status symbol in Genesis. Rarety and mobility must provide an obstacle to certainty in this case. I’d lose sleep if there were no bones of wild camels from before the mines, but there are.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          17. Are you trying to sound stupid?

            Camel bones are camel bones, John. Period.

            The OT is rife with claims of camels. Abraham, we’re told, owned many, his servant Eliezer used them as both beasts of burden and transportation, we’re informed that they were in the Canaanite foothills in great numbers, in the north in Padan Aram, the Ishmaelites apparently had huge herds, the Hagarites had 6,000, 1 Chronicles 5:21 speaks of soldiers mounted on 50,000, and the Midianites had so many that:

            “Their camels were without number, as the sand by the sea side for multitude” (Judges 7:12).

            Camels are everywhere, from the Sinai to northern Syria.

            While there’s reason to believe camels might have been domesticated in small numbers in Egypt as early as 2,000 BCE there is simply no evidence (bones and teeth, textual references, inscriptions) of their presence on the Levant until after 1000 BCE, roughly a thousand years after the Patriarchal age. There ARE bones, plenty have been found and are documented in the National Museum of Natural History, Tel Aviv, but none that date from before this period. None.

            1 Kings 10:2 talks of “very great camel trains” entering Jerusalem supposedly around 950 BCE, yet by cross-referencing texts and trade practices it’s known today that camel trains did not start passing through Judah until some 250 years later in the 7th century BCE when it became a vassal state of the Assyrians and villages like Jerusalem began to grow in import; precisely when the story was first conceived of. Prior to this period Jerusalem was little more than a hillside hamlet, “a typical mountain village… [with] wretched material infrastructure,” as noted by famed Israeli archaeologist, Israel Finkelstein.

            So, again: even camels prove the Pentateuch to be historical fiction. That, John, is how deep the evidence goes… Camels.

            Liked by 1 person

          18. While Neolithic to Iron Age I camel remains have been reported from several sites (reviewed in Horwitz and Rosen 2005; Grigson 2012), the assemblages are meagre (and in several cases their dating is questionable), and most probably represent wild camels

            Lidar Sapir-Hen and Erez Ben-Yosef, “The Introduction of Domestic Camels to the Southern Levant: Evidence from the Aravah Valley”, Tel Aviv Vol. 40, 2013, p. 280
            Horwitz, L.K. and Rosen, B. 2005. “A Review of Camel Milking in the Southern Levant”. In: Mulville, J. and Outram, J.K., eds. The Zooarchaeology of Fats, Oils, Milk and Dairying. Oxford: 121–131.
            Grigson, C. 2012. “Camels, Copper and Donkeys in the Early Iron Age of the Southern Levant: Timna Revisited.” Levant 44(1): 82‒100.

            I haven’t read either of the two references, John,
            but you have to start trusting your sources somewhere.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          19. Context is important, John. Please don’t try your tricks again. In context:

            Previous studies also support an Iron II date for the introduction of domestic camels to the southern Levant. [YOUR QUOTE HERE]. The compilation of Horwitz and Rosen shows that camel remains become common only in contexts from the Iron II.”

            And the “meager” as it is written refers to a “A single bone fragment was found in an 11th century BCE and none were reported from the extensively excavated early mid-10th century BCE”

            And, of course, “questionable dating.”

            From the paper:

            It was recently suggested that the introduction of the camel to the southern Levant occurred in the early Iron Age (late 2nd–early 1st millennia BCE). Our study of faunal remains from Iron Age sites at Timna, together with previous studies of Late Bronze and Iron Age sites at Timna and Wadi Faynan, enable us to pinpoint this event more precisely. The new evidence indicates that the first significant appearance of camels in the Aravah Valley was not earlier than the last third of the 10th century BCE. This date accords with data from the Negev and the settled lands further to the north when the low chronology is applied to the early Iron IIA.

            So, to remind you: the bible speaks of camels EVERYWHERE, in their TENS OF THOUSANDS.

            “Their camels were without number, as the sand by the sea side for multitude” (Judges 7:12).

            So, to repeat: even camels prove the Pentateuch to be historical fiction. That, John, is how deep the evidence goes… Camels.

            And I’m serious. Don’t try and play tricks again. You fundamentalists don’t seem to have any qualms are lying and cheating and deceiving if you think it serves your purpose.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. You do realise that you’re bullying, John.
            I’m afraid I’ve just got more of the same for you — p.278 op. cit.

            the identification of the camel’s status (domestic or wild) is based on the animal’s relative frequency (e.g., Horwitz and Rosen 2005)

            ‘Meagre assemblages’ in context means probably wild.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

          21. Suit yourself, John,
            but arguing that camels got from Arabia to Africa or vice versa without passing through the Levant is not going to win you any prizes in geography. The presence of wild camels is obvious.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

        3. @ J.K.,
          And just so’s we get this on the record.
          From the outset, the discussion has been about evidence for the following.
          a) The Israelites sojourning in Egypt, as per the biblical tale – no evidence.
          b The Exodus, as per the biblical tale – no evidence.
          c) the invasion and conquest of Canaan as per the biblical tale – no evidence.

          Further discussions now include, the Flood,as per the biblical tale – no evidence
          Adam and Eve as per genesis. no evidence.

          In fact, there is evidence, archaeological, geologic, genetic etc that refutes every single one of the above tales.
          And this evidence is agreed upon by the overwhelming number of relevant people in the respective fields.

          So the most I can offer under these circumstances to your whining, fundamentalist apologetic bullshit is.

          Go fuck yourself.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. One always has to remember that Kitchen, notwithstanding his bona fide credentials, believes some bloody itinerant narrative construct Rabbi was crucified and rose from the dead, wandered around unnoticed by the general population then a short while later floated off to outer space – and his eternal soul is dependent on such belief.
            When one keeps this in mind it tends to makes one question the man’s objectivity.
            about a great many things.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s