"This is such a great example of how hungry some people are to decry the veracity of the Bible. After all, a good amount of news organizations have heralded this research as a fatal blow to scripture."

I have no desire to "decry the veracity of the Bible". That would imply that I give any sort of shit about the Bible - apart from the fact that some people insist on taking it literally.

My reasons for drawing people's attention to the 'anachronistic camels' piece were partly provocative and partly mischievous. The Creationists, who are desperate to believe that everything in the Bible is true, and represents absolute truth, insist on also believing that science is a competing form of absolute truth. They continually 'nit-pick' scientific findings in the belief that if they find enough 'flaws' the edifice of science (particularly evolutionary biology) will crumble and the Bible will 'win'.

The 'camels' piece demonstrates that you can (if you give a shit) employ the same tactics with respect to the Bible. My guess, though, is that the Bible is a mix of (translated, re-translated and mis-translated) historical accounts, myths and legends. To take it literally is as absurd as attempting to destroy the edifice of modern science by obsessively searching for 'flaws'.