the so fallible Bible

[Minimalist]

http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/foodpr...camel.html

The one-humped camel or dromedary (camelus dromedarius) is already sporadically attested in the Early Dynastic Period, but it was not regularly used until much later. Foreign conquerors (Assyrians, Persians, Alexander the Great) brought the camel on a greater scale to Egypt.

While trying to explain anything to a bible-thumper is usually a waste of time if it doesn't include the words "goddidit" the entrance of camels as beasts of burden is a much later addition in Egypt. There is no hieroglyph which makes use of a camel and transport in Egypt was normally done via the Nile rather than overland.

Whether or not anyone knew about camels and kept them or killed them for meat is irrelevant. We have firm archaeological evidence that they were domesticated en masse as beasts of burden by the 9th-10th centuries BCE.

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

The dromedary is easy to domesticate and the first evidence for tame dromedaries dates back to the late third millennium BCE. The domestication first happened on the Arabian peninsula, and it seems to have been connected to the exploitation of distant copper mines. However, it was only much later, in the tenth or ninth century BCE, that the dromedary became a really popular animal in the Near East.
From now on, long distance trade and desert nomadism became possible.

Importantly, however, the camel anachronism:

The use of dromedaries in the second millennium BCE by nomadic tribes, as implied in the Biblical book Genesis, is almost certainly unhistorical and shows that Genesiswas composed at a later age.

Provides evidence that the bible is full of shit. Like the Philistine anachronism, the Matty-Luke anachronism, and the David-Goliath anachronism.

Xtians avoid all of this by ignoring history and clinging to their silly bible.