the so fallible Bible

[xpastor]

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

So, was that just like I lost on FA when you made a fool of yourself trying to reconcile two incompatible accounts of the death of Judas? You are a legend in your own mind, but no one else sees it that way.

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.

You don't read very carefully, do you? I wrote "virtually unknown" and Min's quote said "sporadically attested" which amounts to much the same thing. His quotes went on to say

[The dromedary] was not regularly used until much later. Foreign conquerors (Assyrians, Persians, Alexander the Great) brought the camel on a greater scale to Egypt. ... 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. ... 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.

It seems pointless to italicize every word. You have a real gift for ignoring (accidentally on purpose?) anything contrary to your pre-established position.

The Egyptians 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.

That's an amazing paradox. In a single breath you demonstrate that you are a great bullshit artist and that you know fuck-all about farming. Large animals consume lots of feed, so people do not keep herds of large animals which they have no use for.

When I refute a point in your list, that point is suddenly not very important, even though you led off with it.

You can't have it both ways. Above you acknowledge that I have not conceded defeat on this issue, and here you try to claim that I dismiss the issue as unimportant. I never said that. Don't try to put words in my mouth.

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.

You seem really confused. The camel issue pertains to the unhistorical nature of the Bible and not to the subsequent question about contradictions which you have as yet made no attempt to respond to.
As far as I'm concerned, all the points I made for both questions are important, and until you respond to all of them, you have said jackshit worth listening to. You're just hiding behind this phony claim of having triumphed on one point, so that you can avoid making even more of a fool of yourself by trying to prove the unprovable.