>Christkeks believe this
>>17282640Kek. Frog God wouldn't attack his people for kikes.
>>17282640doesn't matter anyway. touching afrog makes you unclean until sunset in judaism (so you cannot pray), but egyptians ate frogs, they would not have been fazed the least bit about them, it would have been like a plague of snacks. the goatfucker making up the fairy tale in question knew jack shit about egyptians and even forgot that the promulgation of the rules about ritual cleanliness come later in the story, even his fictitious jews in egypt would not have cared about frogs falling on them.
This makes me want to look this up to see if the word is a collective noun like "deer" or something>t. not religious
>>17282640Not even religious myself, but you're telling me the Xtians are using their imagination and critical thinking skills in a non-retarded and non-moralistic way?That gives me hope for the future. Thank you for sharing, Anon.inb4>noooooo we're supposed to despise eachother and shitpost for eternity on this board!
>>17283126Okay, the dictionary does indeed say collective. The only odd thing that could trip you up if you're prone to autistic interpretations is that a pluralized form also exists, so you could walk away with the naive black and white belief that this necessarily means the lexically singular form is in fact semantically singular. Actually the word is just really odd from a Semitic language perspective because of its length. Perhaps it's a compound. There is a tendency to prefer "triconsonantal roots" in Semitic languages and since this word is unusually long, there is a tendency to drop the explicit plural ending.
>>17282640>It’s just kek
