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

[TRANSPONDER]

You should have twigged by now that a problem with old historians writing about even older times was simply repeating old stories as history, whether or not it was true or legend. Now it is true that Moses as well as Abraham are still regarded as historical by many, and it might be true. But there is a case for it all being fabrication. And the reason why is because there is no real evidence for any of it,

My only goal in using archaeological evidence is showing alignment of the archaeological data with the Biblical account. Yes, I agree it is all circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence, but the cumulative alignment supports the plausibility of the Biblical account.

and quite a few reasons (textual and historical) to consider it myth, or rather fabricated history,

I'll post later about textual evidence.

You have tried to wangle Joseph in as Senusrets' advisor but had to drop that because of the gap to the Hyksos and I won't dwell on the way you pretended you didn't get the point even though you have now quietly dropped that king as 'evidence'.

Yes, I claim Senusret III was the Pharaoh of Joseph. But don't know what you are referring to of "dropping that because of the gap to the Hyksos". The only thing I said about dropping was the 3D artist's rendition of the palace at Avaris. But, the entire idea of the palace, the tombs, the statue of the dignitary (which matches the description of Joseph), and the seal still hold.

I will repeat that you are still waggling around the 3 colour statue

I don't see why you need to constantly repeat it. We've both made our cases and there's no need to constantly rehash things that we've already covered.

Even the actual Exodus has vanished, as the Hebrews had to stay behind making bricks after Hyksos rule was ended, and it's an 18th dynasty ruler where you date the Exodus.

I have not gotten to the point of the Exodus yet. The last major piece of evidence I produced was Moses. The Exodus will come later.

I still say that the anachronism of the Philistines as the clues of Babylonian aspects in Genesis and Exodus indicates a Babylonian story -telling.

I don't think the Philistines is clear to anybody. I'll elaborate more on that in a separate post.

And they might have used bits of history, spun to suit themselves, just as Josephus spun Manetho to make the Hyksos the Exodus.

You mean make the Hyksos the Jews?

The evidence is there for the Mesopotamian versions of Creation, Flood and Ark and Sartgon in the Bulrushes. Where is your evidence of The Jewish version before that? The Book?

If special creation and the flood were actual historical events, it doesn't really matter who wrote them first. Only if they were fictional events then it would matter. Since I believe creation and a global flood were historical events, your question would not be relevant. As for Sargon, if the account was written before 15th century BC, then you'd have a case, but it was written 8th century BC, which would be after my claim of when Moses wrote the Torah.

You already explained the reference to the Philistines as a 'Readaction'.

What I said was it could be explained by a future redaction. There are other possible explanations as well, which I will have to cover in a separate post about the Philistines.

The point is that models of Egyptian brick makers does not prove the Bible story that Hebrew slaves did this as it could have claimed that Hebrew slaves did any job in Egypt and you could find 'evidence' that they did so. It is NO evidence at all.

Again, all I'm pointing to is alignment. And my point is that Hebrew slaves hauling stone bricks would not have been alignment with archaeology.

I've been having a look at the origins of Phoenecian and it is is derived from proto -Canaanite supposed to be derived for Heiroglyphs. The Hebrew alphabet (I read) derived from Phoenecian. So as I said in the beginning, Canaanite is not Hebrew or even proto Hebrew but Hebrew borrowed it as indeed it later borrowed Aramaic. I agree that Hebrew - sounding names is a bit of an excuse on my part even though a few Hyksos kings had Hebrew sounding names. But you can say they were the Hebrew ones. It's 'arguable'.

Sure, everything is "arguable". And particularly since we are talking about things thousands of years ago, nobody really knows exactly how things went.

Senusret III end reign 1841 BC; Hyksos 1660 -1550 BC. I make that near 300 years between Joseph as advisor to Senusret to when his colour -coated statue was put up in Avaris. As I pointed out, that is unfeasibly long - lived so one has to go. It would be helpful if you actually remembered my 'evidence' so I didn't have to keep making the same arguments - which you complained about me doing earlier.

I was thinking yesterday about this argument that if Genesis is true then The Noachian Flood and Ark predates the Sumerian one. Leaving aside the clues that this is a Mesopotamian tale that the Hebrews borrowed (including other clues in other stories, like Sargon in the Bulrushes, the tower of Babylon and the 'anachronism of Philistia), it comes down to burden of proof. Or rather the mindset ones brings to the argument. I am quite sure that your view is that the Bible is true until proven false. The skeptical view is rather that so much has been shown dubious (by science) that it can no longer be taken on trust, and anything it says has to make a better case than 'Oh, they made bricks, therefore the Hebrew slaves did it' or Pyramids, Mayan temple and ziggurats are vaguely pointy so this proves the tower of Babel.

The upshot being, apart from the Sumerian ark looking more primitive and possible in a flooded valley never mind other clue like Babel, and the post 11th c states being evidence for a date for Genesis and Exodus later than the 11th c BC, the burden of proof falls rather on the Bible apologists to provide a better apologetic than sitting on Bible veracity as a given and offloading the burden pf proof.

I've long been a bit suspicious of the story of the Eponymous names of the founders of Edom (born out of Incest and deserving to be slaves of the Hebrews - a nice bit of political polemic ) and really has to point to a composition -date - after the time of the appearance of those entities (post 11th c BC as I said). Phoenecia I suggest was re -founded after the Bronze -age collapse from Carthage and became very influential in the new -look middle east, which is why Israel adopted Phoenecian letters rather that Canaanite or indeed Egyptian. They were never there before.

[TRANSPONDER]

Looking at 100 - page thread

The Brooklyn Papyrus is from the 13th Dynasty that contains a list of Canaanite servants, several of which are Hebraic names.

So as I said in the beginning, Canaanite is not Hebrew or even proto Hebrew but Hebrew borrowed it as indeed it later borrowed Aramaic. I agree that Hebrew - sounding names is a bit of an excuse on my part even though a few Hyksos kings had Hebrew sounding names. But you can say they were the Hebrew ones. It's 'arguable'.

If either of you is interested, the Internet Archive has a scan of a book-length monograph discussing the personal names found in the Amarna tablets. Nearly all scholars would consider these to predate the Hebrew culture as distinct from Canaanite culture, but there are a number of interesting parallels between Canaanite or Amorite names and names found in the Bible. One of the names mentioned as Hebrew in the linked article otseng linked, ‘Ayyabum, is also found in a very similar form, a-ia-ab in the Amarna tablets.

Another interesting correlation is a number of biblical names or name forms in the Amarna letters. The syllables li, ili, and ilu, for example, correspond to the biblical theophric element el meaning "god" or "El" (it's generally unclear which is meant. One that I happened to notice while looking through the list is mil-ki-li, which would correspond to the Hebrew Melchi-el. Compare that with both Melchi-zedek ("My king is Zadok") of Genesis 14 and Malchi-jah ("My king is Yah") which appears multiple times (1 Chronicles 6:40 is the first).

From this standpoint, one way to distinguish Semitic names that are specifically Hebrew would be to find names with a "iah" or "jah" theophoric element. Abi-el ("My father is God") could come from just about any Semitic culture. Abi-jah ("My father is Yah") is Hebrew.

Thank you. I was waiting for the discussion to come up, but the Armarna letters (Akhenaten's diplomatic corespondence written in Akkadian and showing Canaanite states nominally under Egyptian control complaining about being threatened and Egypt being rather weak atthe time. Let Otseng make what he can of that.

I had a look at the Hyksos kings. Apart from one Egyptian name (Apepi) they look or could look more Semitic and I'll leave it to Otseng to try to show that they resemble Hebrew names or not.

Sheneh, Shensenek, Wazad, Yakareb, Yakub -kar, Senquen, Aper -Anat, Sekir -har, Khyan, Khamudi.

[TRANSPONDER]

The passage I had in mind was Gen 19.36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.

Of course an apologist can argue that the tribes of Moab and Ammon could be descended from Lot's daughters and they gave their names to the tribes that appeared in Canaan after the Bronze age collapse. But my money is on a concocted retrospective history putting Moab and Ammon in a bad and subjective light, as well as Edom, descended from Esau and having lost the birthright. The political polemic is obvious, if that's what it is.

And I meant to mention is I didn't already that the king of the Sumerian gods is 'El' and 'El' seems to be a popular element in Canaanite names and 'El' is of course an epithet for the Hebrew god.

[otseng]

Senusret III end reign 1841 BC; Hyksos 1660 -1550 BC. I make that near 300 years between Joseph as advisor to Senusret to when his colour -coated statue was put up in Avaris. As I pointed out, that is unfeasibly long - lived so one has to go. It would be helpful if you actually remembered my 'evidence' so I didn't have to keep making the same arguments - which you complained about me doing earlier.

Why do you say the "Joseph" statue was made after 1660 BC? That period would fall in the period of the Hyksos Dynasty. I've never claimed Joseph was ever a Hyksos king during the Hyksos 15th Dynasty. So, I don't see how your "evidence" is relevant.

What I did claim was in post 794:

"Tell el-Dab'a is an archaeological site in the Nile Delta region of Egypt where Avaris, the capital city of the Hyksos, once stood. Avaris was occupied by Asiatics from the end of the 12th through the 13th Dynasty (early second millennium BC)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_El-Dab%27a

The 12th Dynasty would be 1991 BC – 1802 BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Dynasty_of_Egypt

The statue was in the palace at Avaris. So, it would've been created sometime within this time or early 13th Dynasty, not in the 15th Dynasty.

I am quite sure that your view is that the Bible is true until proven false.

In this thread, this is not assumed. Where have I assumed that in this thread? All I've claimed is that Bible should be treated as any other ancient historical document.

The skeptical view is rather that so much has been shown dubious (by science) that it can no longer be taken on trust

This might be hard for you to believe, but I have been relying on science so far. Perhaps not what mainstream scientists "believe", but all the evidence I've produced have been empirical evidence that anyone can verify for themselves and I have not invoked any supernatural causation up to this point. I have not also given the Bible any special advantage over any other historical document.

However, I will admit when discussing the plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea, supernatural causation will have to enter the picture.

the burden of proof falls rather on the Bible apologists to provide a better apologetic than sitting on Bible veracity as a given and offloading the burden pf proof.

The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. The only thing I've claimed is the early date of the Exodus aligns with the Biblical account. And I've been quite methodical in presenting this evidence.

If anyone else wants to claim the late date aligns with the Biblical account, then that person should present the evidence for it. We can then compare our positions and the evidence that supports them.

which is why Israel adopted Phoenecian letters rather that Canaanite or indeed Egyptian.

However, for the Torah, it would've been written in Proto-Sinaitic script since it would've been written before the introduction of the Phoenician alphabet.

[otseng]

In the books of Moses, it always refers to the king of Egypt of Pharaoh and never says what is the actual name of the king. Why doesn't the Torah mention any of the names of the Pharaoh?

Pharaoh originally did not refer to a person, but to the governmental palace. It means "great house". However, starting in the New Kingdom, the term Pharaoh started to be identified with the Egyptian king.

pharaoh, (from Egyptian per ʿaa, “great house”), originally, the royal palace in ancient Egypt. The word came to be used metonymically for the Egyptian king under the New Kingdom (starting in the 18th dynasty, 1539–1292 bce),

https://www.britannica.com/topic/pharaoh

"The early monarchs of Egypt were not known as pharaohs but as kings. The honorific title of `pharaoh' for a ruler did not appear until the period known as the New Kingdom (c.1570-c.1069 BCE)."
https://www.worldhistory.org/pharaoh/

"Although the term pharaoh was used to refer to the king, the first recorded instance of this connection is in the reign of Thuthmosis III (dynasty eighteen)."
https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/names-pharaoh/

"The word pharaoh originates from the Egyptian term "per-aa," which means "the Great House," Leprohon wrote. The term was first incorporated into a royal title during the rule of Thutmose III (reign circa. 1479 to 1425 B.C.), Leprohon wrote."
https://www.livescience.com/55578-egypt ... ation.html

"Sometime during the era of the New Kingdom, pharaoh became the form of address for a person who was king. The earliest confirmed instance where pr ꜥꜣ is used specifically to address the ruler is in a letter to Akhenaten (reigned c. 1353–1336 BCE) that is addressed to "Great House, L, W, H, the Lord".[8][9] However, there is a possibility that the title pr ꜥꜣ was applied to Thutmose III (c. 1479–1425 BCE), depending on whether an inscription on the Temple of Armant can be confirmed to refer to that king. During the Eighteenth dynasty (sixteenth to fourteenth centuries BCE) the title pharaoh was employed as a reverential designation of the ruler."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh

It was not uncommon in the early 18th Dynasty to only refer to the kings as Pharaoh. It was only later, in the 22nd Dynasty, personal names were used along with the title Pharaoh.

"About the late Twenty-first Dynasty (tenth century BCE), however, instead of being used alone as before, it began to be added to the other titles before the ruler's name, and from the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty (eighth to seventh centuries BCE) it was, at least in ordinary usage, the only epithet prefixed to the royal appellative.[11]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh

"The early kings are always mentioned under the general title Pharao, or Pharao the King of Egypt; but personal names begin to appear with the twenty-second dynasty, though the older designation is still used, especially when contemporary rulers are spoken of. The absence of proper names in the first books of the Bible is no indication of the late date of their composition and of writer's vague knowledge of Egyptian history, rather the contrary. The same is true of the use of the title Pharao for kings earlier than the eighteenth dynasty, which is quite in keeping with Egyptian usage at the time of the nineteenth dynasty."
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11788c.htm

"As noted by the late Jaroslav Černý, the term “Pharaoh” first appears without the name of the king in early biblical usage, and only later (from 950 B.C.) does it appear combined with the actual name of individual kings of Egypt, as for the names of Pharaohs Shishak I, Hophra, and Necho."
https://www.quora.com/When-was-the-titl ... Smith-3106

This fits with the Biblical usage of the term Pharaoh since in the Torah, the title is used by itself, without the name of the king. However, in later books, the name of the king is used.

Shoshenq I
943–922 BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshenq_I

2Chr 12:5
Shemaiah the prophet visited Rehoboam and the leaders of Judah who were assembled in Jerusalem because of Shishak. He said to them, “This is what the Lord says: ‘You have rejected me, so I have rejected you and will hand you over to Shishak.’”

Taharqa
690–664 BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taharqa

Isa 37:9
The king heard that King Tirhakah of Ethiopia was marching out to fight him. He again sent messengers to Hezekiah, ordering them:

Necho II
610–595 BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necho_II

2Kgs 23:29
In his days Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates: and king Josiah went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him.

Whoever wrote the Torah seemed to have intimate knowledge that during the 18th Dynasty, it was acceptable to use the title Pharaoh for the king and to also not use the name of the king. If the Torah was written during the Babylonian captivity, how would they have known this and incorporated a style that was only applicable during that time?

[TRANSPONDER]

That's all interesting but I never doubted that the writers were well aware of the events from, say, 8th century B.C. Also I note they know the names of the Pharaohs but not the name of the king of the Exodus.

[TRANSPONDER]

Senusret III end reign 1841 BC; Hyksos 1660 -1550 BC. I make that near 300 years between Joseph as advisor to Senusret to when his colour -coated statue was put up in Avaris. As I pointed out, that is unfeasibly long - lived so one has to go. It would be helpful if you actually remembered my 'evidence' so I didn't have to keep making the same arguments - which you complained about me doing earlier.

Why do you say the "Joseph" statue was made after 1660 BC? That period would fall in the period of the Hyksos Dynasty. I've never claimed Joseph was ever a Hyksos king during the Hyksos 15th Dynasty. So, I don't see how your "evidence" is relevant.

What I did claim was in post 794:

"Tell el-Dab'a is an archaeological site in the Nile Delta region of Egypt where Avaris, the capital city of the Hyksos, once stood. Avaris was occupied by Asiatics from the end of the 12th through the 13th Dynasty (early second millennium BC)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_El-Dab%27a

The 12th Dynasty would be 1991 BC – 1802 BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Dynasty_of_Egypt

The statue was in the palace at Avaris. So, it would've been created sometime within this time or early 13th Dynasty, not in the 15th Dynasty.

I am quite sure that your view is that the Bible is true until proven false.

In this thread, this is not assumed. Where have I assumed that in this thread? All I've claimed is that Bible should be treated as any other ancient historical document.

The skeptical view is rather that so much has been shown dubious (by science) that it can no longer be taken on trust

This might be hard for you to believe, but I have been relying on science so far. Perhaps not what mainstream scientists "believe", but all the evidence I've produced have been empirical evidence that anyone can verify for themselves and I have not invoked any supernatural causation up to this point. I have not also given the Bible any special advantage over any other historical document.

However, I will admit when discussing the plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea, supernatural causation will have to enter the picture.

the burden of proof falls rather on the Bible apologists to provide a better apologetic than sitting on Bible veracity as a given and offloading the burden pf proof.

The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. The only thing I've claimed is the early date of the Exodus aligns with the Biblical account. And I've been quite methodical in presenting this evidence.

If anyone else wants to claim the late date aligns with the Biblical account, then that person should present the evidence for it. We can then compare our positions and the evidence that supports them.

which is why Israel adopted Phoenecian letters rather that Canaanite or indeed Egyptian.

However, for the Torah, it would've been written in Proto-Sinaitic script since it would've been written before the introduction of the Phoenician alphabet.

That is just an assumption on your part based - as I said - a Faith in the veracity of the Bible. You didn't have to say it in so many words. I'm happy to treat the Bible as any other historical document - on its' own merits. That's what I've been doing all along. However that might put pressure on your supernatural events of the Exodus.

As to Joseph, since the colored coat was given to him as a mark of favour, how does that translate into the statue at Avaris which you now seem to say isn't actually of Joseph? So you are now supposing that Joseph was advisor to Senusret III and died before the Hyksos dynasty?

[Diogenes]

There is no scholarly consensus on the date of the exodus because the consensus is that there IS NO exodus as described in the Bible. It is a myth as has been previously recounted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus
The components of the Torah were written at different times, but there is consensus about the date of compilation. "The final Torah is widely seen as a product of the Persian period (539–333 BCE, probably 450–350 BCE).[57] This consensus echoes a traditional Jewish view which gives Ezra, the leader of the Jewish community on its return from Babylon, a pivotal role in its promulgation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah#Date_of_compilation

As to authorship, I suppose no one knows, but the consensus is that it was NOT written by Moses, despite the traditional belief.

Again, evidence is more relevant in debates here than what any authority might state. So, on what basis do they believe the Torah was written post-exile and the Exodus was fictional?

Opinions of experts in a field ARE evidence. You've been citing claims of non experts, journalists and film makers. In fields like archeology and linguistics (this is especially true when we get into the genetic support for evolution) when it gets to the finer points, we must rely on well qualified experts, at least most of us.

But I take your point. I suppose I'd have to invest $30.95 and many hours of study in a book like Grabbe's to answer in detail.

In Ancient Israel Lester L. Grabbe sets out to summarize what we know through a survey of sources and how we know it by a discussion of methodology and by evaluating the evidence. The most basic question about the history of ancient Israel, how do we know what we know, leads to the fundamental questions of Grabbe's work: what are the sources for the history of Israel and how do we evaluate them? How do we make them 'speak' to us through the fog of centuries?

Grabbe focuses on original sources, including inscriptions, papyri, and archaeology. He examines the problems involved in historical methodology and deals with the major issues surrounding the use of the biblical text when writing a history of this period.

https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-What-Know-Revised

In the meantime, we can look at sources which are very friendly to the traditional Biblical view, sources like CHRISTIANITY TODAY. They have reviewed the works of 'minimalist' scholars who insist on evidence.

'"The actual evidence concerning the Exodus resembles the evidence for the unicorn," writes Baruch Halpern of Pennsylvania State University.

"The Book of Joshua is of no historical value as far as the process of settlement is concerned," contends Volkmar Fritz, director of the German Protestant Institute of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

"The period of the patriarchs, exodus, conquest, or judges as devised by the writers of Scriptures ... never existed," declares Robert Coote of San Francisco Theological Seminary.

The Genesis and Exodus accounts are "a fiction written around the middle of the first millennium," states Niels Peter Lemche at the University of Copenhagen, and, "The David of the Bible, David the king, is not a historical figure."
....
Answering these skeptics, however, is not always so easy as one might expect. The fact is that not one shred of direct archaeological evidence has been found for Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob or the 400-plus years the children of Israel sojourned in Egypt. The same is true for their miraculous exodus from slavery. '
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/19 ... ta044.html

[otseng]

As to Joseph, since the colored coat was given to him as a mark of favour, how does that translate into the statue at Avaris which you now seem to say isn't actually of Joseph? So you are now supposing that Joseph was advisor to Senusret III and died before the Hyksos dynasty?

I've always suggested the statue in the palace at Avaris was most likely Joseph. I claimed in post 807 that Joseph would've been during the reign of Senusret III.

So, the date of entering Egypt was 1876 BC (1446 + 430).
During this time would be the Pharaohs of the 12th Dynasty:
Senusret III - 1878 BC to 1839 BC
Amenemhat III - 1818–1770 BC

But I take your point. I suppose I'd have to invest $30.95 and many hours of study in a book like ...

I likewise have invested money in books and much hours of study just for this discussion on archaeology. The amount of resources I've invested in on par with any coursework I've had in graduate school. This is hard work and not much people are willing to put in the time into this. But I'm learning a lot diving into all this and it's actually all quite fascinating.

[TRANSPONDER]

As to Joseph, since the colored coat was given to him as a mark of favour, how does that translate into the statue at Avaris which you now seem to say isn't actually of Joseph? So you are now supposing that Joseph was advisor to Senusret III and died before the Hyksos dynasty?

I've always suggested the statue in the palace at Avaris was most likely Joseph. I claimed in post 807 that Joseph would've been during the reign of Senusret III.

So, the date of entering Egypt was 1876 BC (1446 + 430).
During this time would be the Pharaohs of the 12th Dynasty:
Senusret III - 1878 BC to 1839 BC
Amenemhat III - 1818–1770 BC

But I take your point. I suppose I'd have to invest $30.95 and many hours of study in a book like ...

I likewise have invested money in books and much hours of study just for this discussion on archaeology. The amount of resources I've invested in on par with any coursework I've had in graduate school. This is hard work and not much people are willing to put in the time into this. But I'm learning a lot diving into all this and it's actually all quite fascinating.

Thank you. So far as I can see you can only dispute the chronology of those Egyptian kings, claim an extraordinary long life for Moses or drop his involvement with either Senusret or the Hyksos. Of course there is 'making something up ) e.g the many colored coat was a Hyksos/Hebrew Royalty thing and the statue of king Mushroomhed derives from the Joseph tradition but isn't Joseph himself). But that's probably something you'd prefer not to do. Though it is not unknown in apologetics.

(bring me me pipe and slippers and lock those doors again, Gareth..) in a debate about Paul's escape from Damascus where I pointed out that Luke (Acts) contradicts Paul's account, my opponent 'wove them together' though it amounted to 'making stuff up' whereby the Jews conspired to kill Paul by selling him out to the general of the Nabatean army. This of course relied on the 'you can't prove that it didn't happen' (shift burden of proof (1) ploy, but really one would expect Paul to have hinted at rumbling the plot prompting him to leave or indeed Acts saying that the plot to kill him involved the Nabateans.

Quite apart from my never believing Paul's assertion that the Nabatean army claimed a tuppenny damn' about him, and it looks like he simply fled the danger, not having learned to trust in God that much, the simplest, the most obvious and (circumstantial) evidence -based explanation is that Paul fled, and Luke tweaked the story to make Paul look better and (of course) smear the Jews, as well.

(1) though with an invented story, not based on the Bible.