the so fallible Bible

[John V]

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

I know you didn't concede, but you did lose.

It is quite clear that camels were virtually unknown in Egypt until much later.

According to Minnie's links, they were known in Egypt in the early dynastic period, ~3,000 - 2,500 BC.

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.

On the contrary, if they had little need of them, it makes perfect sense that they'd give away what they had.

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.

No, what's weaselly is your habit of elephant hurling. When I refute a point in your list, that point is suddenly not very important, even though you led off with it.

You posted multiple alleged contradictions. Tell us up front which aren't that important so I don't waste time on them. That should be easy - if you're not a weasel.