Huon

Matthew 3 4. Now John himself had a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey.
Matthew 19 24. "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Matthew 23 24. "You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
Mark 1 6. John was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist, and his diet was locusts and wild honey.
Mark 10 25. "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Luke 18 25. "For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Nothing in the Epistles John Paul Peter, or Acts

Clivedurdle

Basically three comments - an item of clothing and two sayings.

Methinks the gospels and NT were not written in an area where camels were common! Those two quotes feel like stuff someone from a non camel society would chuck in to make it look authentic.

Were camels common in Rome? Was not the main transport route to Rome by sea?

http://www.livius.org/caa-can/camel/camel.html

Berthold

Most facts will permit several interpretations, depending on the intentions of the user. I would not call such differences in interpretation lying.

Sven

In context of other facts, usually only one interpretation is reasonable. So of course we have the alternative that people are not lying, but dumb or too lazy to educate themselves about all the facts (the latter being in itself some sort of intellectual dishonesty). OK, I concede this.

Steven Avery

Agree 100%.
That is why I found Sven's position rather astounding.

(And often there are legitimate disagreements as to what are the
actual and pertinent facts involved in a particular question.)

So I would not accuse Finkelstein and Silberman or Paul Tobiin of lying when they flat-out assert that camels were not domesticated by the time of Abraham. Even if they are fighting evidence and using clearly deficient logic. They probably really and sincerely believe that it is a true interp and perhaps they even believe it is demonstrable by their preferred evidentiary standards.

The word lying loses its meaning as deliberate falsehood

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lying&x=&y=
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.

When it is used as an overall philosophical attack.
In such cases it may be technically without the semantic range -

6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

However imho it is preferable to use words like incorrect,
falsehood and untruth when there is no 'knowingly' aspect.

Incidentally, this BCH forum is often reasonably good on this distinction while I have found the evolutionary defenders to be among the worst offenders.

The abuse of the accusation of 'lying' can actually be considered as one of many cheap debating tricks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Aspirin99

I see he has posted new information:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/abraham.html

In my humble attempts at researching this, I tried to find as many photos of ancient Mediterranean art that depicted animals of bronze age. Where one would expect to see camels mixed in with the other depictions, there were none. Also, the stories of using donkeys where camels would have been a better solution are compelling (Henenu). However, you cannot read about the Frankinsense trade without the author assuming camels have been packing the stuff since 5000 BCE.

Frankly, I have not made up my mind on the matter, but my gut feeling is that camel use was rare at the time and the text makes it sound common.

Clivedurdle

http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopic...re-215573.html

Steven Avery

Hi Aspirin ... And I can't find the changes you referenced here. Did they go up and down ?

That would make for a rather nuanced argument that doesn't have a lot of anachronism pizazz. Rare things happen every day.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Sven

Problem is: You said "Lots of folks have agendas, blindnesses, and such without being a 'bunch of liars'.", while talking about people who should know the evidence. So they are at least willful ignorant - which, again, is not much different to lying.