Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say
Published February 06, 2014/
FoxNews.com
Archaeologists say they've pinpointed the domestication of camels in the Middle East -- and the science directly contradicts dates in the Bible. (FoxNews.com / Jeremy A. Kaplan)
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.
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.
Notably, all the sites active in the 9th century in the Arava Valley had camel bones, but none of the sites that were active earlier contained them.
"The introduction of the camel to our region was a very important economic and social development," Ben-Yosef said. "By analyzing archaeological evidence from the copper production sites of the Aravah Valley, we were able to estimate the date of this event in terms of decades rather than centuries."
The arrival of domesticated camels promoted trade between Israel and exotic locations unreachable before, according to the researchers. Camels can travel over much longer distances than donkeys and mules, opening up trade routes like the Incense Road that stretched from Africa through Israel to India.
I suppose the significance of this hangs upon how central the events related for those times in the Bible hung upon the presence or absence of camels.
Otherwise we're talking a 1,000 plus year span here between the events and the actual appearance of camels, and then another 900 years before Jesus.
'This anachronism is direct proof that the [Bible's] text was compiled well after the events it describes.'
What, they expect the ORIGINAL compilation to physically endure whole eras?
How many times would texts/scrolls whatever be rewritten in all that time and how long would any written account last before it crumbled and had to be replaced? Could be a transcription error at some point.
Doesn't seem an unheard-of thing either that domestic camels prior to 900BC were simply fewer in number or otherwise simply missed.
Birdwatcher
Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say
...pinpoint ...The few camel bones found in earlier archaeological layers probably belonged to wild camels...
Nothing like discarding data that does not conform to the premise that triggered the funding for your research to give us confidence.
I wonder what percentage of bones remain findable and testable after a few thousand years. Heck, I have trouble finding the meds I bought at Rite Aid yesterday.
Then you can delve into the many competing versions, translations, etc of the Book to further mystify yourself over how anyone can waste their time trying to divine what the resulting jibberish really means.
It does of course mean that almost anyone with a slick tongue can buy a tent and pulpit and shakedown the multitudes for nickles even to the university level.
Where are you Mark Twain now that we really need you?
1B
George Carlin was our Mark Twain, tho not as eloquent. Letters From Earth hit it on the head.
Jesus was wise enough not to depend on the written word to spread His message.
Of course, there are those among us who think otherwise, and they'll argue about camel bones............. I'll pass.
Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say
.....
Broncos still lost.
Three things the study of bones tells us, is that we haven't found them all, when we make another find, it often refutes earlier evidence and finally, to make a profound statement based solely on the existing evidence is a foolish thing to do. So state that it's unlikely domestic camels existed prior to a certain date, simply based on a single find is foolish. It would be like trying to find the exact date of the domestic dog based only on the earliest find and suggesting that's the rule.
When one seeks proof, one seeks only validation. When one seeks evidence, they seek understanding. Evidence is waiting to be found. Unfortunately, a significant amount of evidence will never be found and our understanding will be incomplete and based on one of two things: #1, incomplete data, or #2, faith.
The article says the oldest KNOWN camel bones. So the oldest known bones are also the oldest bones in existence? These were found at a copper mine. All of the patriarchs named in the Bible were nomads. They didn't leave permanent settlements to be excavated so finding a pile of bones is almost impossible.
Half the climatologists swear we're experiencing man made global warming, as well.
Scientists are just pimps chasing research dollars. Throw enough money at it and they'll claim proof that our ancestors were aliens riding 707's.
On QANTAS stewardess Elaine's lovely lips, the Aussie accent was beautiful and irresistible when she asked for a lift farther into the park.
As we rode, she asked me what little creature left droppings oh, so big at the mouth of its burrow. I couldn't think of any � was completely mystified.
Back at that camp ground a day or so later, I noticed what she must've been referring-to � just a couple of feet in front of where she'd pitched her tent, a parka squirrel's burrow with a pile of moose marbles at the entrance.
Whatcha reckon scientists would make of that juxtaposition, centuries hence?
I still think all the family [bleep] in the Noah family clan as a fun story for the kids.
So these guys are dating the Bible based on Camel Toes.?
Not sure how scientific that approach is gonna be...
The idea that the Bible is anachronistic because it mentions that Abraham had camels is an old one, at least 100 years. It has pretty much been debunked if you choose believe any of the many of pieces of evidence that have been uncovered that suggest that camels were known in those days.
Here is a useful link:
Yes, there were camels Think of it this way. Someone might in the future claim that domesticated horses were unknown in North America until the 18th century or so because all the bones found before that were of wild horses in the western plains.
Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say
.....
Broncos still lost.
You, you, you mean Bob bet on the Broncos. Didn't he hear that the monkey chose the Hawks????
Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say
.....
Broncos still lost.
You, you, you mean Bob bet on the Broncos.
I don't know for sure.
I'm just stirring the pot in the opposite direction to Bob.
It hasn't vortexed into a whirpool yet.
Give it time.
I get far more excited about what is found than what isn't. What isn't still can be.
I can't find my keys, but I assure you they were here.
Can't speak to your quoted study; haven't had time to look at. But, briefly, we've just had fifty years (with its roots in The Enlightenment) of the information elite intensely marginalizing and deriding Christianity, and painting it's adherents as ignorant putzes. Since you are maybe in your late 40's to 50's, this mental climate has no doubt informed your world view as well as many others; I.e., the researchers.
Previous well-documented archeological research findings have not only not refuted any Biblical stories, persons, places, or events, but have corroborated them. Just one example is found in the Gulf of Aqaba (AKA the Red Sea) where robotic submarines have shown the sea bottom strewn with Egyptian chariots. See Exodus.
I suppose the significance of this hangs upon how central the events related for those times in the Bible hung upon the presence or absence of camels.
Otherwise we're talking a 1,000 plus year span here between the events and the actual appearance of camels, and then another 900 years before Jesus.
'This anachronism is direct proof that the [Bible's] text was compiled well after the events it describes.'
What, they expect the ORIGINAL compilation to physically endure whole eras?
How many times would texts/scrolls whatever be rewritten in all that time and how long would any written account last before it crumbled and had to be replaced? Could be a transcription error at some point.
Doesn't seem an unheard-of thing either that domestic camels prior to 900BC were simply fewer in number or otherwise simply missed.Birdwatcher
very true.....
� Previous well documented archeological research findings have not only not refuted any Biblical stories, persons, places, or events, but have corroborated them. Just one example is found in the Gulf of Aqaba (AKA the Red Sea) where robotic submarines have shown the sea bottom strewn with Egyptian chariots. See Exodus.
Many years ago, an old preacher countered the then-popular notion that the "parting" of the Red Sea had allowed wading across in water only knee-deep or hip-deep �
"Glory be to God! All Phay-ray-oh's army drowned in two foot of water!"
� Previous well documented archeological research findings have not only not refuted any Biblical stories, persons, places, or events, but have corroborated them. Just one example is found in the Gulf of Aqaba (AKA the Red Sea) where robotic submarines have shown the sea bottom strewn with Egyptian chariots. See Exodus.
Many years ago, an old preacher countered the then-popular notion that the "parting" of the Red Sea had allowed wading across in water only knee-deep or hip-deep �
"Glory be to God! All Phay-ray-oh's army drowned in two foot of water!"
saw a show recently that said odds are roughly every 3000 years give or take the weather systems line up and wind can push a fair bit of water away from the northern end of the Red Sea where Moses likely crossed exposing the sea floor and would allow the people to cross and when the conditions change water would rush back in rapidly......miracle wasnt so much that the Red Sea "parted" but that it did so at the exact moment Moses and his people needed it...
� Previous well documented archeological research findings have not only not refuted any Biblical stories, persons, places, or events, but have corroborated them. Just one example is found in the Gulf of Aqaba (AKA the Red Sea) where robotic submarines have shown the sea bottom strewn with Egyptian chariots. See Exodus.
Many years ago, an old preacher countered the then-popular notion that the "parting" of the Red Sea had allowed wading across in water only knee-deep or hip-deep �
"Glory be to God! All Phay-ray-oh's army drowned in two foot of water!"
saw a show recently that said odds are roughly every 3000 years give or take the weather systems line up and wind can push a fair bit of water away from the northern end of the Red Sea where Moses likely crossed exposing the sea floor and would allow the people to cross and when the conditions change water would rush back in rapidly......miracle wasnt so much that the Red Sea "parted" but that it did so at the exact moment Moses and his people needed it...
The how was it that they passed through the Red Sea on "dry ground"? All kinds of people spend all kinds of time trying to explain away Gods miracles.
The bible has withstood attacks of greater magnitude than a few old camel bones. I suppose it will withstand this one too. (With or without a strong arguement from the likes of me.)
Acts 19:20 So mightily grew the word of God and
prevailed.Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is
a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.There's the rub . . . . the Bible judges the thoughts and intents of the heart. Get rid of the Bible, and you can live your life however you like without fear in your mind of retribution.
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the
word of our God shall stand for ever.Maybe the diggers in the sand have their heads buried in the sand.
they didnt explain away the miricle, just explained how it could have happened with in the natural laws set up by god.......still a miracle that a once every several thousand year event happened exactly when Moses needed it and ended before the Egyptians got across.....
and just maybe it didn't part exactly when they needed it and there was no miracle. stories change everytime they are re-written.most get changed to suit the writers beliefs.
Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say
.....
Broncos still lost.
You, you, you mean Bob bet on the Broncos.
I don't know for sure.
I'm just stirring the pot in the opposite direction to Bob.
It hasn't vortexed into a whirpool yet.
Give it time.
Poor Bob.
Quote from Wikipedia article on camels:
Dromedaries may have first been domesticated by humans in Somalia and southern Arabia, around 3,000 BC, the Bactrian in central Asia around 2,500 BC,[14][62][63][64] as at Shar-i Sokhta (also known as the Burnt City), Iran.[65]
In accord with patriarchal traditions, cylinder seals from Middle Bronze Age Mesopotamia showed riders seated upon camels.[66]
-------------------------------------------------
According to Wikipedia�s article on the Bronze Age: Middle Bronze Age (MBA) was 2100 - 1550 BC
-------------------------------------------------
Abraham moved to Canaan from Ur, which was in Mesopotamia. There were not just domestic camels in Mesopotamia prior to 1550 BC; there were also camels that had been domesticated to the point of people riding them. So that�s one possibility for Abraham having camels.
However, the first mention of camels in the Bible was in Genesis 12:16, when Abram (who later became Abraham) was in Egypt:
Genesis 12:16 (NASB)
Therefore he treated Abram well for her sake; and gave him sheep and oxen and donkeys and male and female servants and female donkeys and camels.
When were domesticated camels first in Egypt? Egypt isn�t far from either Somalia or southern Arabia, where camels were domesticated around 3000 BCE. Could domesticated camels have been introduced to Egypt in the 1000 to 1500 years after camels were domesticated in Somalia and southern Arabia? Based on the evidence, there is no reason to doubt there were domesticated camels in Egypt in the period around 2000 to 1500 BCE, and that�s when and where domesticated camels were when first mentioned in the Bible.
When Dad went back to seminary in 1947, to finish work that had been interrupted in 1926, he was of course appreciably older than his class mates. Usually, he said nothing when they spewed their modern gibberish. Occasionally, the gibberish simply got too inane to tolerate.
Like the time when some of 'em were "explaining away" the miracles (they couldn't be miracles if they could be explained, don'tcha know). They came to one miracle that they couldn't think of a way to "explain," so they concluded that it hadn't actually occurred.
"You mean to say," Dad asked, "that if you can't explain it, God couldn't do it?"
Shhhhh-boom! Silence.
Half the climatologists swear we're experiencing man made global warming, as well.
Scientists are just pimps chasing research dollars. Throw enough money at it and they'll claim proof that our ancestors were aliens riding 707's.
Gotta agree with this. I always love the agnostic/atheist threadstarters, or thread participants, and how they can't wait to assault Christian beliefs or Christians themselves. The Bible is so very true in referring to them as "fools".
RWE, I just found that an ape knowing how to bet football better than he was somewhat telling.
Can you imagine him telling you, "Don't worry, they will find you not guilty"?
I'll take the Bible account every time.
When Dad went back to seminary in 1947, to finish work that had been interrupted in 1926, he was of course appreciably older than his class mates. Usually, he said nothing when they spewed their modern gibberish. Occasionally, the gibberish simply got too inane to tolerate.
Like the time when some of 'em were "explaining away" the miracles (they couldn't be miracles if they could be explained, don'tcha know). They came to one miracle that they couldn't think of a way to "explain," so they concluded that it hadn't actually occurred.
"You mean to say," Dad asked, "that if you can't explain it, God couldn't do it?"
Shhhhh-boom! Silence.
So many people try to fit God in their little box. "Professing themselves to be wise they became fools".
"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."
If PROBABLY is good enough to prove the bible is wrong then why doesn't it work the other way?
and just maybe it didn't part exactly when they needed it and there was no miracle. stories change everytime they are re-written.most get changed to suit the writers beliefs.
as proven by my past posts i dont believe in alot of the literal translation of the Bible but archeologists are finding that most the people places and a fair number of the major events did happen.....i do believe Moses and his people crossed the floor of the Red Sea ahead of the Egyptians.....just dont believe it happened like it did for Charlton Heston
It happened again 40 years later. God stopped up the Jordan River to allow the Israelites to cross before the battle of Jerico.
It happened again 40 years later. God stopped up the Jordan River to allow the Israelites to cross before the battle of Jerico.
Good point.
Well now, if they had just picked some camel bones from the dry sea bed, we could pitch them out and see what they said (as a shaman).
2 Cor4:4 For the god of this world has blinded them so they can not see the light of The Lord. (or something like that)
It happened again 40 years later. God stopped up the Jordan River to allow the Israelites to cross before the battle of Jerico.
with most miracles it isnt so much that the event happened but that it happened at the exact moment it was needed......
It happened again 40 years later. God stopped up the Jordan River to allow the Israelites to cross before the battle of Jerico.
with most miracles it isnt so much that the event happened but that it happened at the exact moment it was needed......
what 'natural event' explains the pillar of fire and cloud than held the Egyptians at bay while the Israelites crossed?
Ex 14:20 coming between the armies of Egypt and Israel. Throughout the night the cloud brought darkness to the one side and light to the other; so neither went near the other all night long.
It happened again 40 years later. God stopped up the Jordan River to allow the Israelites to cross before the battle of Jerico.
with most miracles it isnt so much that the event happened but that it happened at the exact moment it was needed......
C.S. Lewis makes the excellent point that the miracles of Jesus were explained when He said;"The Son only does what the Father does".
God uses a few kernels of wheat to create a field full of wheat. Jesus used a few loaves of bread [ not rocks ] to make many loaves.
God uses the rain falling on the vines to make grapes for wine. So He was the first to turn water into wine.
In raising the dead, He just reversed the natural order of death and decay at particular moments in time. It is presumed that Lazerous etal later experienced a normal death.
The miracles of Jesus are of a different sort than the Old Testament miracles.
It is a mistake to lump them together IMO.
Who claimed otherwise? Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Nobody I know ever claimed he was there when Abram was called?
Weird stuff here.
So hind sight isn't 20-20
Who claimed otherwise? Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Nobody I know ever claimed he was there when Abram was called?
Weird stuff here.
Yep. Them old Jews were a tough bunch. If you were gonna be their leader, you damn well better have ALL the answers, so he had to start at the beginning.
Who cares what beast of burden Abram used when he traveled? I don't. I also don't know that camels are mentioned by name in the passage cited. There is an awful lot of useful information left out of the OP's story that would be useful in assessing the usability or credibility of the "study".
Problem with so much of this, as has already been pointed out, is that too many scientists (and not just in those seeking to prove higher criticism) start out with a conclusion in mind & construct "experiments" or "studies" to prove their position.
Again I ask, "Who ever claimed Moses was there when Abram was called?"
Everybody needs a "from whence have we come" narrative and God used Moses to codify what He'd already established in His people through oral tradition. The question of what beast of burden Abram used after called from Ur was not, at least in my view, important to the post-Exodus people of God.
Nor was the specific method God used in creating the world ex nihilo. The important thing was Abram answered the call, and God was faithful to Him... As He would be to them... In faithful & faithlessness. Same w/ creation. God made the world and everything in it. Whether He used evolution or not didn't matter to those people and I don't think it should matter to us.
Oh well... Whatcha gonna do? Haters gonna hate...
The Bible's 1st mention of a camel was when Abraham's future daughter-in-law arrived to marry his son Isaac:
Ge 24:64 Rebekah also looked up and saw Isaac. She got down from her camel
"Rebekah lighted off her Camel"
The Bible's 1st mention of a camel was when Abraham's future daughter-in-law arrived to marry his son Isaac:
Ge 24:64 Rebekah also looked up and saw Isaac. She got down from her camel
Actually, Gen 12:16 is first mention of a camel (camels) in the Bible.
"He thought it and it was."
That satisfies my intellectual curiosity.
If that qualifies me as a simpleton in the eyes of some, I'll point out that I'm a simpleton who is at peace with myself and the God that made me.
There is no higher station to aspire to than THAT.
If that qualifies me as a simpleton in the eyes of some, I'll point out that I'm a simpleton who is at peace with myself and the God that made me.
There is no higher station to aspire to than THAT.
Preach on brother; I am right there with ya. I think there is a particular powerlessness that you and I have accepted that gives us a bit of an advantage in some of this... And I say that as a humble admission of our "advantage" over others, NOT as a proud example of how we're "better".
I am always more than a little disappointed with Christians' willingness to allow this "debate" to take place under the terms set forth by those who begin from a position of cynical unbelief ala Ken Hamm & his ilk.
The Bible's 1st mention of a camel was when Abraham's future daughter-in-law arrived to marry his son Isaac:
Ge 24:64 Rebekah also looked up and saw Isaac. She got down from her camel
Actually, Gen 12:16 is first mention of a camel (camels) in the Bible.
Nobody really knows when the book of Job was written but many date it as far back as 2000-1800 BC. Genesis was written in about 1450-1410. If that is correct, then Job would be by far the oldest book and in Job 1:17, we are told that he owned 3,000 head of camels.
Bible Written Long After Events It Purportedly Describes?
I'm sure that Moses wasn't there when God began to create Heaven and Earth �
� but I'm equally sure that the Holy Spirit, Who told Moses all about it eons later, was there at the time � and He seems unfailingly reliable.
The Bible's 1st mention of a camel was when Abraham's future daughter-in-law arrived to marry his son Isaac:
Ge 24:64 Rebekah also looked up and saw Isaac. She got down from her camel
Actually, Gen 12:16 is first mention of a camel (camels) in the Bible.
Nobody really knows when the book of Job was written but many date it as far back as 2000-1800 BC. Genesis was written in about 1450-1410. If that is correct, then Job would be by far the oldest book and in Job 1:17, we are told that he owned 3,000 head of camels.
Abraham died long before Moses recorded the accounts found in Genesis, too (more than 400 years before). I'm not aware of any internal evidence in the book of Job to indicate when Job lived - so he could have lived before or after Abraham or could have been Abraham's contemporary - we just don't know. I guess to be more definitive I should have written that the earliest "dated" mention (i.e., event that we can approximately date) of a camel in the Bible was in Gen 12:16.
The Bible's 1st mention of a camel was when Abraham's future daughter-in-law arrived to marry his son Isaac:
Ge 24:64 Rebekah also looked up and saw Isaac. She got down from her camel
Actually, Gen 12:16 is first mention of a camel (camels) in the Bible.
You're right. My search didn't pick it up because I searched for camel and that one is plural. It didn't catch it like it should have.
Well, it still astounds me how some can be so wrong about the outcome of a game , and then still be so certain they are right about the lack of a creator, when even a monkey can pick a a winner.
Is the monkey smarter, luckier, or more sensitive to his Creators direction than is an intelligent being?
What are the odds of a monkey picking the winner 7 times in a row?
Mark 4:12 so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"
"He thought it and it was."
That satisfies my intellectual curiosity.
If that qualifies me as a simpleton in the eyes of some, I'll point out that I'm a simpleton who is at peace with myself and the God that made me.
There is no higher station to aspire to than THAT.
Yep. Same here.
Bible critics have long used use the "lack of evidence proves something" tactic. One explanation for the lack of camel bones in copper mines is that camels were too valuable to be used in the day to day operation of such mines, but were used for what they do best, which is long distance transportation. It's to be expected then that their bones rarely ended up in copper mines. The critics dismiss the presence of such bones in early layers as being those of wild camels, as if any wild camel would hang around a working copper mine.
What the research really shows is at what time camels became cheap enough to use in copper mines, but of course such a claim wouldn't win any notoriety or research grants.
Bible critics have long used use the "lack of evidence proves something" tactic. One explanation for the lack of camel bones in copper mines is that camels were too valuable to be used in the day to day operation of such mines, but were used for what they do best, which is long distance transportation. It's to be expected then that their bones rarely ended up in copper mines. The critics dismiss the presence of such bones in early layers as being those of wild camels, as if any wild camel would hang around a working copper mine.
What the research really shows is at what time camels became cheap enough to use in copper mines, but of course such a claim wouldn't win any notoriety or research grants.
And look where the mine is located. I'm not sure that's the location I would choose for archaeology attempting to disprove the Bible narrative.
So how do they distinguish between wild and tame camel bones anyway?
So how do they distinguish between wild and tame camel bones anyway?
Context and stress markers. An animal used as a beast of burden will have stress markers in the bones.
Bible critics have long used use the "lack of evidence proves something" tactic. �
If this isn't a forensic law, it oughta be �
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Bible critics also try to wring mileage out of the notion that mention of something or other in another ancient writing (Noah's flood, for example), as evidence of a "borrowed myth," destroys the credence of its mention in the Bible.
Pardon me, but I thought that two pedestrians testifying that they saw Banjoe mug the nun was customarily considered pretty good evidence that Banjoe mugged the nun.
And, consistent with this thread, oftentimes it's the two pedestrians who mugged the nun and are framing Banjoe.
So how do they distinguish between wild and tame camel bones anyway?
Look at the toe, the wild ones are hairy.
And the tame ones are shod.
And the tame ones are shod.
ill pay you to nail shoes on a camel's feet......but only if you have someone running video at the time
One God, One Savior, One Holy Spirit. Behold, O' Israel, the Lord thy God is One!
You can have the camels.
And, consistent with this thread, oftentimes it's the two pedestrians who mugged the nun and are framing Banjoe.
THAT'S funny.
Worthy of Bristoe, even.
So how do they distinguish between wild and tame camel bones anyway?
That's easy. If "wild" supports their hypothesis then they must be wild, but if "domestic" supports their hypothesis then they must be domestic.
Human nature is at work and if evidence is open to interpretation then almost always it's claimed to support the hypothesis that brings the discoverer the most fame and money. Science, after all, is a career and to have a successful one means publishing stuff that extends the boundaries of accepted orthodoxy. Extra points are awarded if the researcher can claim it disproves something in the Bible.