the so fallible Bible

[xpastor]

You're tired of losing. There was nothing weaselly about camels. It was the first item in your list, so it was natural to first address it, and your source was wrong. You could save yourself some embarrassment by checking these things yourself. But, like all of us, you suffer from confirmation bias, and accept charges against the Bible without verification.

I never conceded that I lost. My response to your first post on camels was very measured.

All right, John. I will tentatively concede the presence of camels as an outside possibility pending any other research coming to my notice.

However, I will note that your sources say that camels were first domesticated for meat rather than transport and that they did not come into common use until 1000 BC. Moreover, it is said that the Egyptians did not even hear of camels until 525 BC, which would seem a bit odd if Abraham had vast herds of camels and his grandson Jacob moved to Egypt. There is another even bigger historical faux pas in Genesis 12 where Abraham lets the Egyptian Pharaoh take his wife Sarai, and in return he grows wealthy with the livestock (including camels) given to him by Pharaoh.

So it is far from clear to me that camels were known in the region of Palestine at that early date (ca 1800 BC). In the pre-missile days it was not very close to Iran.

It is quite clear that camels were virtually unknown in Egypt until much later. Some say they were introduced by the Persians, some even later by the Romans. In ancient Egypt long distance transport was all by water along the Nile. They had little need of camels, so the story of the pharaoh giving Abraham herds of camels is evidently unhistorical.

I did not say that your response about camels was weaselly. However, it is definitely weaselly to preen yourself on having won an argument, when you have made a stab at answering one of eleven points.

It's time for you to shit or get off the pot. I don't care which.