How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[otseng]

I always preciate that otseng tells his truth, and clarifies where he must. There's no games with this'n.

Right or wrong, this man is as straight shooting as any you'll find.

Thanks Joey!

Both of these claims are so wrong "wrong" is an understatement. How on Earth an obviously allegorical story can be considered as fact is testament to the power of fable. Having been raised on such stuff, it is hard for some to get perspective. Looking at similar myths may help. Explanations for the origins of language are usually part of a larger creation myth.

We've covered the tower of Babel at great length. We're now covering archaeology, which is a massive topic by itself, and I'd rather not rehash past topics, but I can't resist responding.

Actually, my claims I made are correct and there has been no refutation of my claims. As I've pointed out, apart from the Biblical account, there is no viable explanation for the origin of the first human languages.

The general issue is the a priori rejection of the Bible. For the skeptic, if the Bible says so, it's wrong, period. It really doesn't matter what evidence is produced. The Bible is an archaic myth full of simplistic ancient fables that has absolutely no relevance to today. However, if that was true, there'd be no way this thread could be as long as it is. If I were to argue the Lord of the Rings is a historical account, I highly doubt I'd be able to present any empirical evidence at all. But, this thread is already 90 pages long, one of the longest on the forum. I've been presenting empirical facts and have never relied on faith claims. And with all the weak counter-arguments presented so far, I'm now even more convinced of the reliability and truthfulness of the Bible

The Sumerian-Hebrew creation myth is the familiar example in Judeo-Christian culture, but it is one of many. Why not take the other fables equally seriously?

Yes, why not take them seriously? Just like the worldwide flood myth, a reasonable explanation is that they all originated from a historical event and they all got embellished through time.

That it is the nature of subcultures to develop their own jargon and slang which border on separate languages can be seen easily enough by simply going to different parts of a large city.

Of course. But the question is not one language developing into another, but the origin of the first languages.

It's the same old debate, science or magic, Linguistic Anthropology or fables, the study of history or "God did it.'

False dichotomy. I take the approach of embracing all sources of knowledge - science, history, philosophy, fables, religion, etc - to form a basis for belief. Each one has their own strengths and weaknesses. Each one can contain an element of truth and it requires digging in to piece them all together.

[otseng]

Getting back to Egypt and archaeology...

The Bible says the Israelites in Egypt grew in power and number and eventually became "very, very strong" and "land was filled with them."

Exod 1:7-10 (ISV)
7 But the Israelis were fruitful and increased abundantly. They multiplied in numbers and became very, very strong. As a result, the land was filled with them.
8 Eventually a new king who was unacquainted with Joseph came to power in Egypt.
9 He told his people, “Look, the Israeli people are more numerous and more powerful than we are.
10 Come on, let’s be careful how we treat them, so that when they grow numerous, if a war breaks out they won’t join our enemies, fight against us, and leave our land.”

This is exactly what happened with the Hyksos.

"The Hyksos were a Semitic people who gained a foothold in Egypt ... resulting in a large population which was able to finally exert political and then military power."
https://www.worldhistory.org/Hyksos/

From Avaris, they grew in numbers and influence.

"Hence, by about 1720 BC, they had grown strong enough, at the expense of the Middle Kingdom kings, to gain control of Avaris in the northeastern Delta. This site eventually became the capital of the Hyksos kings, but within 50 years, they had also managed to take control of the important Egyptian city of Memphis."
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/hyksos.htm

They grew in such influence that they became rulers. Actually, the word "Hyksos" means "foreign kings".

"‘Hyksos’ is a word made up of two Egyptian words, and it was mistranslated often in the past. It used to be said that these people were ‘shepherd kings’. The idea was that they were nomadic wanderers who came into Egypt and somehow took over, but now the correct translation is ‘foreign kings’."
https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/an ... he-hyksos/

They became so powerful that they ruled during the second intermediate period.

"The Hyksos ruled the region of northern Egypt from 1638 BC to 1530 BC."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... ews-latest

"It is best known as the period when the Hyksos people of West Asia made their appearance in Egypt and whose reign comprised the 15th Dynasty, which, according to Manetho's Aegyptiaca, was founded by a king by the name of Salitis."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_In ... d_of_Egypt

"This era is marked by a divided Egypt with the people known as the Hyksos holding power in the north, Egyptian rule at Thebes in the center of the country, and Nubians ruling in the south. As with the First Intermediate Period of Egypt, this time is traditionally characterized as chaotic, lacking in cultural advancements, and lawless, but as with the earlier period, this claim has been discredited. The Second Intermediate Period of Egypt was a time of disunity and records of the time are confused or missing, but it was not as dark a time as later Egyptian writers claimed."
https://www.worldhistory.org/Second_Int ... _of_Egypt/

Around the 17th Dynasty, tensions arose between the Egyptians and the Hyksos.

"What is clear is that however the 'true Egyptians' at Thebes and the 'foreign kings' at Avaris felt about each other, the two cities were on peaceful terms and there was long-term interaction through trade. Further, neither city interrupted the other's relationship with the Kushites in the south, nor is there any evidence that they interfered with each other's trade or business in other areas. All of this changed shortly before or around the time the 17th Dynasty came to power at Thebes."
https://www.worldhistory.org/Second_Int ... _of_Egypt/

The enemies that the Egyptians feared the Hyksos would align with were probably the Nubians (Kush).

"'To what end do I know my (own) strength? One chief is in Avaris, another in Kush, and I sit (here) associated with an Asiatic and a Nubian! Each man has his slice in this Egypt and so the land is partitioned with me! (4) None can pass through it(2) as far as Memphis (although it is) Egyptian water! See he (even) has Hermopolis! No one can be at ease when they are milked by the taxes of the Asiatics. (5) I shall grapple with him that I might crush his belly, (for) my desire is to rescue Egypt which the Asiatics have destroyed.'"
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~afutrell/w%20 ... amose.html

During the Second Intermediate Period, the Egyptians were dealing with the Hyksos in the north and the Nubians (Kush) in the south.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_In ... d_of_Egypt

Even though the Hyksos achieved great power, as mentioned before, there was a systematic effort to expunge and rewrite the record of the Hyksos by the Egyptians.

"Though the Hyksos were the first foreigners to rule ancient Egypt, written records of their reign are scant. For hundreds of years, the only known mention of the Hyksos was in the Greek tome "Aegyptiaca," or "History of Egypt," written by a Ptolemaic priest named Manetho who lived in the early third century B.C. and who chronicled the rule of the pharaohs. "
https://www.livescience.com/hyksos-did- ... egypt.html

"The later Egyptian writers depict the Hyksos as brutal conquerors who destroyed Egypt, ransacked the temples, and oppressed the country until it was liberated and unified under the reign of Ahmose of Thebes (c. 1570-1544 BCE). Archaeological evidence and records of the time, however, strongly suggest a very different story."
https://www.worldhistory.org/Second_Int ... _of_Egypt/

"The Second Intermediate Period (c. 1782 - c.1570 BCE) is the era following the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (2040-1782 BCE) and preceding the New Kingdom (1570-1069 BCE). As with all historical designations of the eras of Egyptian history, the name was coined by 19th-century CE Egyptologists to demarcate time periods in Egypt's history; the name was not used by ancient Egyptians."
https://www.worldhistory.org/Second_Int ... _of_Egypt/

The Egyptians attempted to remove all records of the Hyksos so little records remain.

"Many details of their rule, such as the true extent of their kingdom and even the names and order of their kings, remain uncertain."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

Just as the Egyptians were biased against the Hyksos, I would argue modern historians remain biased and are not willing to admit the truthfulness of the Biblical account.

"The identity of the Hyksos remains unknown."
https://www.worldhistory.org/Second_Int ... _of_Egypt/

"Archaeological evidence does link Hyksos culture with an origin in the Near East, but exactly how they rose to power is unclear."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 142256.htm

[Diogenes]

Actually, my claims I made are correct and there has been no refutation of my claims. As I've pointed out, apart from the Biblical account, there is no viable explanation for the origin of the first human languages.

The general issue is the a priori rejection of the Bible. For the skeptic, if the Bible says so, it's wrong, period. It really doesn't matter what evidence is produced. and weaknesses. Each one can contain an element of truth and it requires digging in to piece them all together.

In particular "For the skeptic, if the Bible says so, it's wrong, period" is an absolutely false claim and unfair. It is easily refuted by posts here from skeptics who have repeatedly stated there are valid and valuable passages in the Bible, particularly about human psychology and wisdom. Its cosmology, although basically incorrect, reflects primitive human views from the non scientific era 3000 and more years ago; however, the Bible is not ALWAYS wrong since it occasionally, and incidentally coincides with established fact.

To automatically claim it is ALL false is just as dogmatic as to claim inerrancy.

The claim that "... my claims I made are correct and there has been no refutation of my claims" has a familiar ring. Because science and history are candid enough to admit there is still more to learn does not invalidate its temporal conclusions. For one example, the idea that ALL language originated from a single language is consistent with the absurd notion that ALL of mankind arose from a single pair of homo sapiens named 'Adam and Eve.' The truth, as usual, is more complicated.

"Language isolates are languages that cannot be classified into larger language families.[1][2] Korean and Basque are two of the most commonly cited examples, although Korean is actually a member of the Koreanic language family. Others include Ainu[1] in Asia, Sandawe in Africa, and Haida in the Americas. The number of language isolates is unknown."
__"Introduction to Language Isolates," edited by Lyle Campbell

There is a long list of language isolates and separate linguistic families. They are of course, sometimes reclassified since good science, unlike religion, tries to avoid dogmatism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_isolate

[Diogenes]

[Replying to otseng in post #892]
Scholars suggest humility should play a greater role in pronouncements, either supporting or disproving Biblical claims via archeology.

He also agreed with Ben-Yosef’s identification of this society as Edom. Still, he cautioned against applying Ben-Yosef’s conclusions too broadly in order to make a case for the accuracy of the biblical narrative. “Because scholars have supposedly not paid enough attention to nomads and have over-emphasized architecture, that doesn’t mean the united kingdom of David and Solomon was a large kingdom—there’s simply no evidence of that on any level, not just the level of architecture.” Nonetheless, he praised Ben-Yosef’s fieldwork as “a very good excavation.” 
....
What Ben-Yosef has produced isn’t an argument for or against the historical accuracy of the Bible but a critique of his own profession. Archaeology, he argues, has overstated its authority. Entire kingdoms could exist under our noses, and archaeologists would never find a trace. Timna is an anomaly that throws into relief the limits of what we can know. The treasure of the ancient mines, it turns out, is humility. 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180979011/

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't think you have ANY evidence. Not for Israelites in Egypt until Israel became a nation before it split into 2 Kingdoms. Then Israelites as such could well Immigrate and trade in Egypt. I don't think you can even point to indirect evidence.

I've produced multiple posts of evidence supporting the Biblical account. If necessary, I can summarize all the posts I've made so far regarding Egypt and it matching the Bible.

The current state of thought (as I understand it) is that Canaanites were working in Egypt and so any non - Egyptian script (especially if using Phoenecian script) is going to be Canaanite, not Hebrew.

There is no specific Canaanite language, but there are Canaanite languages.

The Canaanite languages, or Canaanite dialects,[1] are one of the three subgroups of the Northwest Semitic languages, the others being Aramaic and Ugaritic, all originating in the Levant and Mesopotamia. They are attested in Canaanite inscriptions throughout the Levant, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the East Mediterranean, and after the founding of Carthage by Phoenician colonists, in coastal regions of North Africa and Iberian Peninsula also. Dialects have been labelled primarily with reference to Biblical geography: Hebrew (Israelian, Judean/Biblical, Samaritan), Phoenician/Punic, Amorite, Ammonite, Philistine, Moabite, Sutean and Edomite; the dialects were all mutually intelligible, being no more differentiated than geographical varieties of Modern English.[2] This family of languages has the distinction of being the first historically attested group of languages to use an alphabet, derived from the Proto-Canaanite alphabet, to record their writings, as opposed to the far earlier Cuneiform logographic/syllabic writing of the region, which originated in Mesopotamia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_languages

The existence of the Proto-Canaanite alphabet during the time of the Exodus makes it plausible for Moses to have authored the Torah. If there was not an alphabet available at this time, then it would make it implausible for Moses to have written the Torah.

Pretty strong evidence of this is the Armarna letters.

We'll get to the Amarna letters later.

That is the evidence (direct and Indirect) and nothing is evidence for Israelites/Hebrews in Egypt under the Hyksos or before.

Are you saying your claims (with no references) are actual evidence? But all the facts (with corresponding references) I've produced are not evidence?

You seriously expect me to believe that Moses was found in the Bulrushes in Egypt and later writers in Babylon decided to wish that on the king of Akkad who ruled before Babylon was even a state?

Like I said, it all depends on which account was written first.

In the same way the tower of Babel (clearly the ziggurat of Babylon) cannot be the real origin of different human languages as you admit by postulating an earlier Ziggurat of 'Babel' really before Sumer, let alone Akkad and then Babylon even existed (why not the tower of Ur? Why not the tower of Eridu?).

I've already argued in length about the tower of Babel.

On top of that the Flood which comes down from Sumer in two later versions and works well enough in a river valley does not work in a global flood as in Genesis.

I've also argued at length about the flood.

You may (clearly do) believe the Bible as broadly reliable through Faith - not evidence as there really is none.

I have not appealed to faith to support my arguments. I've produced verifiable evidence that anyone can look up for themselves.

It's worth looking up what is sometimes called proto - Hebrew' an obsolete term mainly maintained by Bible apologists who want to show that Israelites were in Egypt whenever they think the Exodus happened.

Where have I said "Proto-Hebrew"? So far, I've only said "Proto-Canaanite" and "Proto-Sinaitic".

The script is attested in a small corpus of inscriptions found at Serabit el-Khadim in the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, dating to the Middle Bronze Age (2100–1500 BC).

Yes, I've already presented this in post 873.

While this looks tantalisingly familiar to Jewish stuff, the mainstream view is that the Hebrews, when they appeared in former Canaan borrowed much of this and it is in no way support for tyhe Bible -based belief in Hebrews in Egypt before the 11th c BC realistically, in any significant numbers.

Well, this further supports the Proto-Sinaitic script had Hebrew connections.

More from your reference...

The inscriptions Darnell and his team discovered at the Wadi el-Hol -- which are themselves surrounded by other inscriptions from the late Middle Kingdom, around 1850 to 1750 B.C -- represent a particular kind of script associated with Semitic language-speaking people from a region far to the east of the Wadi el-Hol.

This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that, nearby, another inscription in non-alphabetic Egyptian writing refers to a certain Egyptian Bebi, who is designated as a general of the "Aamou," or "Asiatics," explains the Yale researcher. "The word 'Aamou' is what you would expect an Egyptian to call a Semitic language speaker, someone out of western Asia," Darnell says, adding that historians know that "Asiatics" from the Sinai and Syria-Palestine area in the north worked for the Egyptians as mercenary soldiers and laborers during the Middle Kingdom.

Although he has not yet translated the inscriptions, Darnell is fairly certain that the first word of one section is "rb," for "rebbe" or "chief" (from which the word "rabbi" is derived). This most likely indicates that the person referred to is an Asiatic employee of the Eygptian Bebi.

http://archives.news.yale.edu/v28.n16/story4.html

No it does not support your view which is that the Hebrews were in Egypt substantially enough to be a en enslaved population once Hyksos rule was ended so as to perform the Exodus later on. The view that the Hebrews adopted the Phonecian alphabet when they replaces Canaan long after the time suggested by anyone for the Exodus does not in any way support you argument for Joseph of a Hebrew component of the Hyksos before the New Kingdom dynasty.

Canaanite language/s or script or whatever, you have to show that this was in any way at all connected with Hebrews. Sure Moses could have used Canaanite or even Egyptian to author the Exodus, but I see no decent evidence produced by you to show that he did.

You have produced nothing but claims or suggestions that Joseph was some kind of advisor to ...I forgot that Pharaoh's name, and that he was connected with that statue with the 3 - color coat, and the claim that the cylinder -seal was related to the tribes of Israel, none of which really stick and are only going to appeal to those with Faith in the Bible.

The rest is, at best trying read 'Semitic' or Canaanite' as Israel-Hebrew and there is no persuasive evidence for that - unless as I say one has Faith in the Bible. I remind you that Manetho does not connect the Hyksos with Hebrews and Josephus, evidently makes the connection himself to suit his own agenda.

It might be otiose to say it but a heap of poor evidence does not add up to good evidence. Again it's the Faith thing, isn't it Do I have to prove that the Hyksos/Canaanites were not Hebrews or do you have to prove that they were? My 'claims' are refuting yours that the evidence you presented is making the Canaanites/Hyksos Hebrews, or substantially so.

It is a nit -pick that you haven't used the term proto Hebrew. You are arguing that Proto- Canaanite or proto- Sinaic is Proto - Hebrew or what is the point of talking about it? To say (as you suggested with Moses) that it wasn't Hebrew but Hebrews used it is no evidence for Hebrews, but a Faith -claim.

We have indeed argued about the Flood and Babel and I reiterated the results which don't support your case, though you argued as well as any could have done. Is the Flood geologically feasible or Babel anthropologically feasible? You appealed to a pre -ziggurat ziggural which has no support outside your take on the Bible. It comes down to Faith in the Bible and trying to adapt the science to fit it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Getting back to Egypt and archaeology...

The Bible says the Israelites in Egypt grew in power and number and eventually became "very, very strong" and "land was filled with them."

Exod 1:7-10 (ISV)
7 But the Israelis were fruitful and increased abundantly. They multiplied in numbers and became very, very strong. As a result, the land was filled with them.
8 Eventually a new king who was unacquainted with Joseph came to power in Egypt.
9 He told his people, “Look, the Israeli people are more numerous and more powerful than we are.
10 Come on, let’s be careful how we treat them, so that when they grow numerous, if a war breaks out they won’t join our enemies, fight against us, and leave our land.”

This is exactly what happened with the Hyksos.

"The Hyksos were a Semitic people who gained a foothold in Egypt ... resulting in a large population which was able to finally exert political and then military power."
https://www.worldhistory.org/Hyksos/

From Avaris, they grew in numbers and influence.

"Hence, by about 1720 BC, they had grown strong enough, at the expense of the Middle Kingdom kings, to gain control of Avaris in the northeastern Delta. This site eventually became the capital of the Hyksos kings, but within 50 years, they had also managed to take control of the important Egyptian city of Memphis."
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/hyksos.htm

They grew in such influence that they became rulers. Actually, the word "Hyksos" means "foreign kings".

"‘Hyksos’ is a word made up of two Egyptian words, and it was mistranslated often in the past. It used to be said that these people were ‘shepherd kings’. The idea was that they were nomadic wanderers who came into Egypt and somehow took over, but now the correct translation is ‘foreign kings’."
https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/an ... he-hyksos/

They became so powerful that they ruled during the second intermediate period.

"The Hyksos ruled the region of northern Egypt from 1638 BC to 1530 BC."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... ews-latest

"It is best known as the period when the Hyksos people of West Asia made their appearance in Egypt and whose reign comprised the 15th Dynasty, which, according to Manetho's Aegyptiaca, was founded by a king by the name of Salitis."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_In ... d_of_Egypt

"This era is marked by a divided Egypt with the people known as the Hyksos holding power in the north, Egyptian rule at Thebes in the center of the country, and Nubians ruling in the south. As with the First Intermediate Period of Egypt, this time is traditionally characterized as chaotic, lacking in cultural advancements, and lawless, but as with the earlier period, this claim has been discredited. The Second Intermediate Period of Egypt was a time of disunity and records of the time are confused or missing, but it was not as dark a time as later Egyptian writers claimed."
https://www.worldhistory.org/Second_Int ... _of_Egypt/

Around the 17th Dynasty, tensions arose between the Egyptians and the Hyksos.

"What is clear is that however the 'true Egyptians' at Thebes and the 'foreign kings' at Avaris felt about each other, the two cities were on peaceful terms and there was long-term interaction through trade. Further, neither city interrupted the other's relationship with the Kushites in the south, nor is there any evidence that they interfered with each other's trade or business in other areas. All of this changed shortly before or around the time the 17th Dynasty came to power at Thebes."
https://www.worldhistory.org/Second_Int ... _of_Egypt/

The enemies that the Egyptians feared the Hyksos would align with were probably the Nubians (Kush).

"'To what end do I know my (own) strength? One chief is in Avaris, another in Kush, and I sit (here) associated with an Asiatic and a Nubian! Each man has his slice in this Egypt and so the land is partitioned with me! (4) None can pass through it(2) as far as Memphis (although it is) Egyptian water! See he (even) has Hermopolis! No one can be at ease when they are milked by the taxes of the Asiatics. (5) I shall grapple with him that I might crush his belly, (for) my desire is to rescue Egypt which the Asiatics have destroyed.'"
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~afutrell/w%20 ... amose.html

During the Second Intermediate Period, the Egyptians were dealing with the Hyksos in the north and the Nubians (Kush) in the south.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_In ... d_of_Egypt

Even though the Hyksos achieved great power, as mentioned before, there was a systematic effort to expunge and rewrite the record of the Hyksos by the Egyptians.

"Though the Hyksos were the first foreigners to rule ancient Egypt, written records of their reign are scant. For hundreds of years, the only known mention of the Hyksos was in the Greek tome "Aegyptiaca," or "History of Egypt," written by a Ptolemaic priest named Manetho who lived in the early third century B.C. and who chronicled the rule of the pharaohs. "
https://www.livescience.com/hyksos-did- ... egypt.html

"The later Egyptian writers depict the Hyksos as brutal conquerors who destroyed Egypt, ransacked the temples, and oppressed the country until it was liberated and unified under the reign of Ahmose of Thebes (c. 1570-1544 BCE). Archaeological evidence and records of the time, however, strongly suggest a very different story."
https://www.worldhistory.org/Second_Int ... _of_Egypt/

"The Second Intermediate Period (c. 1782 - c.1570 BCE) is the era following the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (2040-1782 BCE) and preceding the New Kingdom (1570-1069 BCE). As with all historical designations of the eras of Egyptian history, the name was coined by 19th-century CE Egyptologists to demarcate time periods in Egypt's history; the name was not used by ancient Egyptians."
https://www.worldhistory.org/Second_Int ... _of_Egypt/

The Egyptians attempted to remove all records of the Hyksos so little records remain.

"Many details of their rule, such as the true extent of their kingdom and even the names and order of their kings, remain uncertain."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

Just as the Egyptians were biased against the Hyksos, I would argue modern historians remain biased and are not willing to admit the truthfulness of the Biblical account.

"The identity of the Hyksos remains unknown."
https://www.worldhistory.org/Second_Int ... _of_Egypt/

"Archaeological evidence does link Hyksos culture with an origin in the Near East, but exactly how they rose to power is unclear."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 142256.htm

But I have already shown that the Hyksos are not at all like Hebrews so much that you had to excuse this by saying they were in some formative state where they sacrificed people and donkeys. All you are doing is taking the Hyksos and making them Hebrews, even though you have previously accepted that they weren't, but Hebrews were part of them. Since the script and the names suggest links with Canaan that is who they were.

You further point up the kingship of the Hyksos and the devastation they supposedly caused to Egyptians. That hardly fits with the state of the Hebrews according to Exodus. You are talking about the Hyksos and wabbling between the hyksos were the Hebrews unless it's inconvenient and then they wern't.

[Diogenes]

I'll add, the statement "For the skeptic, if the Bible says so, it's wrong," is for many skeptics an overly broad claim. There is no reason a skeptic of religious faith should automatically dispute any of the Bible's non supernatural, historical claims. In fact it is reasonable that the Bible skeptic would generally accept (at least provisionally) Old Testament as readily as those from other ancient sources. Certainly a historian or archaeologist would consider that all sources, whether secular or religious, should be examined for personal, tribal, national, and religious bias; but that they should not be rejected automatically because of potential bias. I am not in the least surprised that many, if not most of the historical claims found in the Bible would be generally supported by archaeology.

I certainly would not put Old Testament historical claims in the same category as (for example) claims made from The Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, or any other writing whose provenance cannot be traced back to the time it claims to references; especially when such provenance includes a supernatural source (like "An angel gave it to me, I 'translated it' and then the angel took it back).

[TRANSPONDER]

I'll add, the statement "For the skeptic, if the Bible says so, it's wrong," is for many skeptics an overly broad claim. There is no reason a skeptic of religious faith should automatically dispute any of the Bible's non supernatural, historical claims. In fact it is reasonable that the Bible skeptic would generally accept (at least provisionally) Old Testament as readily as those from other ancient sources. Certainly a historian or archaeologist would consider that all sources, whether secular or religious, should be examined for personal, tribal, national, and religious bias; but that they should not be rejected automatically because of potential bias. I am not in the least surprised that many, if not most of the historical claims found in the Bible would be generally supported by archaeology.

I certainly would not put Old Testament historical claims in the same category as (for example) claims made from The Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, or any other writing whose provenance cannot be traced back to the time it claims to references; especially when such provenance includes a supernatural source (like "An angel gave it to me, I 'translated it' and then the angel took it back).

Entirely agree. Even if the imputed bias on the part of the Bible skeptic was valid, they would soon have to admit certain claims stood up on evidence - if they did; and the Bible -believer would still be obliged to validate their claims with more than 'you just don't want to believe it'.

The Bible apologists iconically point to undoubted persons, places and events as credible - Pilate, Antipas, Caiaphas, Capernaum, Jericho, Caphtor, The sieges of Tyre and Jerusalem and the Maccabean revolt. But other claimed people, places and events are open to question. Whether Jericho was even occupied in the time allocated for the Conquest, whether Nazareth even existed in the time of Antipas and (as being debated right now) whether Israel even existed as anything bit an Aramaean hill -tribe at the time of the Hyksos.

[Diogenes]

When we consider Bible inerrancy and interpretation, there are several levels of interpretations of stories.
There are clearly allegorical stories such as Job where God and Satan appear to walk along and discuss Job and agree he can be tested by Satan. These almost certainly were meant as fictional dramas designed to illustrate principles or themes.

There are other stories such as the creation account in Genesis, the story of Adam and Eve, the flood and the story of Noah, the Tower of Babel which Biblical scholars also see as allegorical, offering explanations for natural phenomena.

There is a third type which seem to report events as they appear to a human observer, but can be assumed to be misperceptions. Elijah and the fiery chariot to heaven, the Sun appearing to ‘stand still’ at Joshua’s command, a worldwide flood as opposed to a local event, and the Egyptian plagues may be examples. The flood is an example of a story that could fit into more than one category.

A forth type may be the depiction of historical events, times and places, which may be factual reporting, subject to the bias of the reporter or recorder.

Christians differ on which, if any, should be taken literally as actual events and which were never intended to portray actual historical events or phenomena.

It seems to me that fundamentalists do themselves and their Faith a disservice to insist all of these passages be treated the same, as literally true historical events.

[TRANSPONDER]

I agree. There are Bible stories that seem to require a different approach. Job is surely allegorical. Some are akin to creation - myths. Others relate to known historical events but as I have argued, have a Biblical spin. Others - and i know I have argue a case about this - are presented as reliable facts like the gospels, and Acts. Up to now the general approach has been to interpret them as broadly reliable but given a Christian Gloss. You know the sort of thing: Jesus was not a sort of proto -Christian but a Jewish reformer. Or others say a subversive of some kind. A subversive from the occupying Romans, that is.

I'm fairly confident of my line but I have to argue it.

I'm also fairly confident in my view of the OT.

First are the books of the Law, then the histories dealing with the wars with the Philistines, Babylonians and Assyrians.

The books of origin are written in Exile and Ezekiel's are post Exilic and looking for a restored Judea.

Then we have Daniel which i think is a polemic document for the Maccabean war. The 'prophecy' has been traced as retrospective history up to the call to fight the Macedonian war, correct until the prophecy of the end of the Seleucid king. Thus you can put a date on it.

I haven't made such a study of the OT but I think that's the way of it. But as I say, it's the Gospel story that really matters because even if the OT was reliable and the NT wasn't that would mean as Toby the demon says 'Sorry, The Jews were right'.