Top Israeli Archaeologists ignore evidence validating the Bible's narrative on Camels - caught lying about "proof"

Fox News is reporting this week the following story which tragically and horrifically butchers the truth of an archaeological find archaeologists from Israel’s top university say "directly contradicts the Bible’s version of events."

The Fox News story headlines the article with:

"Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say"

The headline should rather read:

"Top Israeli Archaeologists ignore evidence validating the Bible's narrative on Camels"

Via Fox News:

Archaeologists from Israel’s top university have used radiocarbon dating to pinpoint the arrival of domestic camels in the Middle East -- and they say the science directly contradicts the Bible’s version of events.

Camels are mentioned as pack animals in the biblical stories of Abraham, Joseph and Jacob, Old Testament stories that historians peg to between 2000 and 1500 BC. But Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel Aviv University's Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures say camels weren’t domesticated in Israel until centuries later, more like 900 BC.               

'This anachronism is direct proof that the [Bible's] text was compiled well after the events it describes.'

- American Friends of Tel Aviv University

“In addition to challenging the Bible's historicity, this anachronism is direct proof that the text was compiled well after the events it describes,” reads a press release announcing the research.

To find the first camel, Sapir-Hen and Ben-Yosef used radiocarbon dating to analyze the oldest known camel bones in the Arabian Peninsula, found at the remains of a copper smelting camp in the Aravah Valley, which runs along the border with Jordan from the Dead Sea to the Red Sea.

Notice, please, the words "oldest known camel bones in the Arabian Peninsula." Since when, except when it fits with the atheistic evolutionary model, does the lack of knowledge offer "proof" of anything? It doesn't. And atheists are always quick to point this out to creationists i.e. answering the question of "where did the first subatomic particles come from?" They don't know, and they are always the first to point out that they will, some day, know... if we wait long enough.

And that is exactly the answer we have given them for many centuries. If you wait long enough you will find evidence of this city or that war mentioned in the Bible. And there have been many examples of this throughout history.

Via Yahoo, Charlotte Kuchinsky, Yahoo Contributor Network:

Many skeptics of the Bible also dismiss any or all of its contents. Some think the book is just that; a wonderful book full of interesting fictional stories. But are the stories of the Bible fictional accounts, misinterpretations of events, or could they actually hold factual information?
Recently, I did an article entitled "Did the Walls of Jericho Actually Tumble Down?" In it, I discussed both those excavations that attempted to prove the story was false and those that seemed to document its accuracy. Now, I'd like to do the same with concern to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Sodom and Gomorrah were two of the five cities located in the plain area near the Dead Sea. The other three cities included Admah, Zeboim, and Bela (which also known as Zoar).
Christians are familiar with the story about the two cities, which according to the Bible were destroyed by fire and brimstone because of the sinful behavior of their inhabitants. None of us even question its accuracy. Like a lot of biblical tales, the story is a matter of faith which is an important part of the Christian religion.
However, having said that, it might interest many to know that archaeological evidence has not only proven that the two cities actually existed, but may even hold testament to how they were destroyed. Let's take a look.
Many writers throughout history have discussed the destruction of these two cities. Greek geographers and Roman historians wrote about them in such a way as to make them seem believable. Even the Jewish historian Josephus wrote about them.
In 1924, a team led by William Foxwell Albright, actually performed the first archaeological survey of the area where the cities were believed to be located. Even then, it would be fifty more years before any kind of real proof surfaced that seemed to document their existence as more than conjecture.
In 1975, archaeologists discovered underneath the mounting dust of the desert region near the Dead Sea, the remains of a large settlement that dated back to the Bronze Age. They were able to uncover a temple as well as the remains of a massive defense wall that appeared to run around the entirety city. Made completely of stone and mud brick, the wall was estimated to be several feet thick.
However, that wasn't all that the team uncovered. They also found more than twenty thousand tombs containing burial remains and pottery. The city, which was known as Bab edh-Dhra, held yet another clue as to its previous origin. Lumps of what looked like spongey charcoal were located throughout, baring evidence of some kind of fiery catastrophe.
No one gave a great deal of thought to the evidence, however, since many sites in Palestine had also been destroyed by the same method. It wasn't until a second Bronze Age site was discovered seven miles to the south that had also suffered the exact same fate, that archaeologists began to speculate on the history of the two sites.
With further exploration, another three nearby cities were also located nearby. They also appeared to date back to the same period in time and had suffered the same fate as the previous two cities. After mapping out the locations of each of the cities and their relationship to the Dead Sea, archaeologists were ready to speculate that they might actually represent the five cities of the plains; two of which were known as Sodom and Gomorrah.
These findings, of course, were not very popular and historians and geologists from all over the world came forward to help "disprove" such fantastic tales of fancy. There were those who claimed the location was all wrong and those who decried that such cities ever existed in the first place.
In 1995, two new voices were added to the mystery. David Neev of the Geological Survey of Israel and K.O. Emery of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution of Massachusetts wrote a book about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. In it, they argued that the sites as excavated proved that it was entirely possible that a seismic activity had occurred amongst the five cities of the plains.
They even referenced the Bible where is speaks not only of "fire from heaven" but also states that the cities were "overthrown," which could very well attest to the validity of earthquake. In fact, they proclaimed that the whole area to the south and east of the Dead Sea bore what would appear to be scars of past earthquakes. One major such event would appear to have taken place around the time documented within the Bible.
They went on to explain how fires would have been fed as hydrocarbons were released from the fractures caused in the ground by the earthquake. And the region, which was naturally rich in sulfur, could have easily produced what would have appeared for the world as "brimstone" from God himself.
Men of science would, of course, have us believe that what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah was just a trick of nature. They say that seismic and climate changes could have easily made a once fertile area into an arid desert wasteland. That would, of course, explain why the area wasn't resettled and why the cities were for so long lost to the world.
Others, however, know that just because science can document "how" something might have happened, it doesn't necessarily do away with the miracle behind the occurrence. After all, it is just as easy to believe that God might used the natural elements available to Him to express His wrath as it is to believe that everything occurred in a precise, logical fashion in order to achieve the end result.
Like most things within the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah remains one of those stories that must be taken as a matter of faith. That faith may not understand the exact "how" of the event or even the precise reason behind it. It only recognizes that such acts of God are possible.

And even with all of that said, we needn't look far to see evidence that the archaeologists claiming "proof" that the Bible is wrong are actually themselves hiding evidence that camels did in fact exist during the times they are listed in scripture. The archaeologists are refuted in the very same article posted by Fox News. Check it out:

The bones were in archaeological layers dating from the last third of the 10th century BC or later — centuries after the patriarchs lived and decades after the Kingdom of David, according to the Bible, the researchers said. The few camel bones found in earlier archaeological layers probably belonged to wild camels, which archaeologists think lived there during the Neolithic period or even earlier.

So, they readily admit that camel bones were found in the area dating from earlier times and assign them a made-up designation (a language made up by the deep-time community) of belonging to the "Neolithic period." Imagine that.

There are two noteworthy things going on here which make the conclusions quite disingenuous. First, lack of evidence, as described by the archaeologists, is not proof of anything. Just because their find consists of oldest "known" camel bones from the area this is not sufficient proof of anything at all. It simply shows a lack. Second, according to the article, there were bones found from a previous time, only to be ignored because they don't fit the proposed narrative given by the Israeli Archaeologists, brushed off as "wild" specimens.

There are several atrocities being committed here. Fox News is guilty of entertaining this without digging (pun intended) a little deeper. The archaeologists claiming "proof" that the Bible is wrong are actually hiding evidence and lying to everyone. And even if there were no bones found from a previous time (which there were) lack of evidence is not "proof" of anything.

By Mike Shoesmith