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]

It's still irrelevant. In announcing victories, nobody makes a point of how many they lost in any battle. I don't even know that a siege even took place. Sennacherib's lieutenants went there after Lachish fell, with the ability to have a siege and (as I argue) Hezekiah THEN gave in and paid tribute, not before then. And that was end of that campaign, and not because Sennacherib's army was wiped out as clearly it wasn't. Assyrian spin - in addition to the usual boasting - was that Sennacherib had not flattened Jerusalem but had done a deal. The spin is not trying to cover up that he lost his army. He still had the army at Libnah. If the army has been smit, Hezekiah would not have paid tribute or submitted which both the Bible and Assyria agree he did. But the Bible says it happened before the siege -threat not after. That's the spin, and frankly I think the Assyrian account makes more sense.

As recorded in the Bible, Sennacherib's army was smitten after the tribute was given. And the account of the army dying is also confirmed by Herodotus. So, there are two independent sources that agree and stands against the single account from the Assyrians. To me, it's clear the Assyrian account has spun the story in order not to embarrass themselves. Obviously you disagree with that and that's fine, I'll let readers decide which one makes more sense.

[otseng]

Getting back on topic with archaeology...

Let's discuss next one of the most significant events of the Bible - the Exodus out of Egypt.

The Exodus (Hebrew: יציאת מצרים, Yeẓi’at Miẓrayim: lit. 'Departure from Egypt') is the founding myth[a] of the Israelites.[1] It tells a story of Israelite enslavement and departure from Egypt, revelations at biblical Mount Sinai, and wanderings in the wilderness up to the borders of Canaan.[2] Its message is that the Israelites were delivered from slavery by Yahweh their god, and therefore belong to him by covenant.[1]

The consensus of modern scholars is that the Torah does not give an accurate account of the origins of the Israelites, who appear instead to have formed as an entity in the central highlands of Canaan in the late second millennium BCE from the indigenous Canaanite culture.[3][4][5] Most modern scholars believe that the story of the Exodus has some historical basis,[6][7] but contains little material that is provable.[8]

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

The story of Egypt and the Exodus is a significant portion of the Torah and most modern scholars believe it was written between 600 - 400 BC.

"The majority of Biblical scholars believe that the written books were a product of the Babylonian captivity (c. 6th century BCE), based on earlier written sources and oral traditions, and that it was completed with final revisions during the post-Exilic period (c. 5th century BCE)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

Traditional authorship of the Torah ascribes it to Moses and dates it before 1200 BC.

"Historically, Jews and Christians alike have held that Moses was the author/compiler of the first five books of the OT."
https://www.biblica.com/resources/schol ... o-genesis/

"The exact dates when Moses lived are still a matter of controversy. The reason is that the precise date of the Exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt is still debated. Two different dates, 1445 B.C. or 1290 B.C., are put forward to be the date of the Exodus."
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don ... rt_678.cfm

Archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog says, "This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel."
http://websites.umich.edu/~proflame/neh/arch.htm

Stephen Rosenberg says, "The Exodus is so fundamental to us and our Jewish sources that it is embarrassing that there is no evidence outside of the Bible to support it. So we prefer not to talk about it, and hate to be asked about it.... There is nothing in the Egyptian records to support it. Nothing on the slavery of the Israelites, nothing on the plagues that persuaded Pharaoh to let them go, nothing on the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea, nothing."
https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Con ... say-348464

"The Torah devotes more than four books to the proposition that the Israelites came to Canaan after having been subjugated in Egypt for generations, and yet there is no archaeological evidence to support that they were ever in Egypt."
https://www.reformjudaism.org/were-jews-slaves-egypt

So, does archaeology disprove the Biblical claims?
Were the Israelites never in Egypt and did not wander in Egypt and never had a military campaign in Canaan?
Is there no evidence of any of these Biblical claims?
Is Israelites in Egypt simply a fictional narrative?
Was the Pentateuch written after 600 BC, centuries after the alleged Exodus took place?

[TRANSPONDER]

"So, does archaeology disprove the Biblical claims?
Were the Israelites never in Egypt and did not wander in Egypt and never had a military campaign in Canaan?
Is there no evidence of any of these Biblical claims?
Is Israelites in Egypt simply a fictional narrative?
Was the Pentateuch written after 600 BC, centuries after the alleged Exodus took place?"

No. Archaeology has no real evidence to support the Exodus -story and quite a bit that throws doubt on it. For example, the image of Egyptian public works done by slaves is refuted by archaeology because there were communities with payment, supplies, and medical care for a skilled workforce.

Aside the various dates for the Exodus and which Ruler was supposed to be the Pharaoah of the Exodus (Ramesses II is a favourite) there is no real evidence for Israelites in any significant numbers in Egypt - and yet we know of Libyans, Nubians, Greeks, Sherden and Peleset mercenaries (they later comprised the Sea peoples with other groups) and of course Canaanite immigrant labour. Canaan being a group of city states under Egyptian control. Israel would not have been able to swan in and start taking over Egyptian protectorates at such a time. Ramesses' son, Merneptah, went on Campaign in Canaan and apparently smote Israel as a tribal entity and there was no conquest by Israel possible at that time, never mind the lack of mention of Moab, Edom or Ammon.

The Bible itself says that Moses avoided the land of the Philistines. Now that is retrospective history for sure written after the Philistines had been settled in Canaan, but (if it is taken as a contemporary record of Moses' doings, then before the time of the Exodus, Philistia was already settled, if struggling with it's rival states - which includes Israel.

If so, Israel existed before the Biblical account of Exodus. It seems a fictional narrative as the archaeology and history indicates that the Israelites/Hebrews were an Amorite tribe that lived in the mountains to the NE of Canaan along with other Amorite tribes (Edom, Moab, Ammon and Assur (oh yes ) until the collapse of the 11th c and the repulse of the Sea peoples by Ramesses V as I recall (later than Ramesses II and Merneptah)and the settling of the Peleset in Gaza, which Helladic tribe (going by the pottery) became the Philistines (at least that's the hypothesis) and Canaan being devastated, the tribes (Moab, Ammon, Edom and Israel) filled the plain, fought each other and in due course Philistia which is where we get the account of the early kingdoms of the Hebrews. The 'conquest' may have some records of the invasion of the Canaanite plain from the east as the Exodus (according to the Bible) went around south and approached from the east, as I recall.

I need only say that the efforts to create evidence for Moses out of the odd blank column, a pile of carved - graffitied boulders and some spreads of scree, is not sound, not to say fiddled. And the effort to pass off the claims of Ahmose the I as putting right all the devastation (presented by Bible apologists as plagues, but referring to the evils of the Canaanite dynasty of the Delta which he drove out. Long before Ramesses of course and long before Israel was even mentioned) do not stand up to scrutiny.

I have a theory... ...that the writers of Exodus (and Genesis) in Babylon during the exile, trying to invent an origin for themselves and using a lot of Babylonian material, may have used a record of Ahmose I driving the Hyksos out of Egypt into Canaan and recast it as Moses leading his people into Canaan, combined with (as I say) the actual spread into the plains from the N.East. much later on - oh yes, and using the Tale of Sargon of Akkad found in the Bulrushes as an origin story for Moses. The rest of the stuff relating to the imposition of the books of Law and the rites of the tribal god that didn't appear until later is (I argue) anachronistic material.

I have heard it argued that it was Omri codified these rites and laws, and I suggest with the intent of Keeping Israel's identity from being absorbed by the idol -worshipping nations. This has worked very well for the Jews. But it was after the time of David and Solomon that these Laws and rites were formulated, not in a trek across the desert under Moses, whenever that was supposed to be.

What more? That's it. With the earliest books of Law around the 10th c. The silver scroll (600 BC I recall) has prayers or invocations very much like numbers/Deuteronomy, I recall (I imagine there will be questions before the collection tin goes around ) and is what was important to Hebrews at the time. During the Exile, I think Genesis and Exodus were written, then what I call the 'aramaic books' after the Persians let the people go recounting the rebuilt the Temple (or a plan to), Daniel using history as prophecy up to the later stages of the Ptolemaic wars when the Maccabean rebellion succeeded and Daniel goes wrong and peters out into the faithful as stars in the firmament (to encourage the zealots) and a couple of angels assuring the reader it was a true prophecy.

On my former forum we did a lot of discussion about thi: the Jebl Laws site, the red Sea chariot wheels (I recall we had that here, too) and the 'storm papyrus' (which i saw claimed as a Stele of Ahmose I - but in a dubious video that claimed it was being kept hidden , though why, since the inscription is well known anyway, escapes me. I learned a lot about the 14th -17th dynasties, including the Hyksos kings, some of whom had Semitic names. But not the slightest trace of Hebrew religion. So I learned a lot and none if it supported Exodus, but rather raised doubts about it.

[Diogenes]

It has been hard to refrain from addressing the issue of the inerrancy of the Bible in this thread, despite the fact it is about trusting a flawed Bible, rather than whether it is flawed. For that reason I have posted a new topic at viewtopic.php?f=17&t=39094&p=1068466#p1068466 rather than bring it up here.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's still irrelevant. In announcing victories, nobody makes a point of how many they lost in any battle. I don't even know that a siege even took place. Sennacherib's lieutenants went there after Lachish fell, with the ability to have a siege and (as I argue) Hezekiah THEN gave in and paid tribute, not before then. And that was end of that campaign, and not because Sennacherib's army was wiped out as clearly it wasn't. Assyrian spin - in addition to the usual boasting - was that Sennacherib had not flattened Jerusalem but had done a deal. The spin is not trying to cover up that he lost his army. He still had the army at Libnah. If the army has been smit, Hezekiah would not have paid tribute or submitted which both the Bible and Assyria agree he did. But the Bible says it happened before the siege -threat not after. That's the spin, and frankly I think the Assyrian account makes more sense.

As recorded in the Bible, Sennacherib's army was smitten after the tribute was given. And the account of the army dying is also confirmed by Herodotus. So, there are two independent sources that agree and stands against the single account from the Assyrians. To me, it's clear the Assyrian account has spun the story in order not to embarrass themselves. Obviously you disagree with that and that's fine, I'll let readers decide which one makes more sense.

It's a good point that Herodotus appears to have a different take on the matter. The way you present it, it sounds like he has heard that the Assyrians had to give up the siege because mice ate their tent -ropes. That in itself sounds like a poor reason to call off a siege and does not fit with the Biblical account of Sennacherib besieging Libnah. Though one could argue that he knew that Jerusalem was too strong to take with just half an army. But then you'd take Libnah rather than give up completely. It is just 'odd' that way, as that presenter put it. But it makes perfect sense if you read it the Assyrian way, putting the peace deal where I argue it belongs - at the end of the campaign, not the start.

That said, I'll look up Herodotus and see what he actually says (I'm too familiar with the Bible apologist ploy of the 'Pliny confirms the gospels' kind (1). The invasion of mice sounds like a tall story he'd heard, though if it was a garbled account of camp disease, that still does not alter anything. A ssiege given up because of camp disease is still not (demonstrably) God smiting the Assyrians, but natural causes; and that is the claim in dispute, not whether any Assyrian soldiers died.

You may try to leave it at that with a (hopefully winning) parting shot, but I still have a couple left in my locker.

It has been hard to refrain from addressing the issue of the inerrancy of the Bible in this thread, despite the fact it is about trusting a flawed Bible, rather than whether it is flawed. For that reason I have posted a new topic at viewtopic.php?f=17&t=39094&p=1068466#p1068466 rather than bring it up here.

That's very specific and we will probably end up with the same debate 'Is the Bible wrong, or right?' (with especial reference to Genesis -literalism).

Which is really half of the debate...or one third maybe.

Fundamentalists argue Genesis -literalism;

Christians (fundamentalist or not) argue the NT. Particularly Jesus' resurrection.

There's also the peripheral arguments like First cause, Morality and 'all the Good that Christianity has done' (3). But those aren't really the two main discussions, where we seem to end up on any thread -topic.

It's an odd thing about Genesis -literalism. It's actually irrelevant. Like First cause. A Cosmic Creator, God being necessary for Life or indeed evolution to happen (which is what I/C argues, though IC proponents seem to use it to argue that evolution could not happen when it actually argues that evolution could not happen without God helping it along, but who supposes these people even question their own theories?), and OT literalists (which is whether the OT events happened, not whether God is micromanaging his Book, which clearly he isn't, so that's a red -herring), and I can't do better than point to our pal and Rt .Hon. moderator, otseng who has done such a stout job of putting the case for the Noachian Flood, the tower of Babel and the historical reliability of the OT.

It is tough if not impossible to 'prove the Bible wrong' even to the open -minded reader. I think that the hydroplate theory was shown to not quite work when applied to the actual globe (as well as the geology), and argument from the Grand Canyon was shown to fail (the meanders). The argument about Maya ziggurats could be made to work better than I'd thought since temple building started a lot earlier than I'd realised, but even then, it's contemporary with the Romans and a bit damn' late for the refugees from Babel to turn up. And then the culture is so totally different and the buildings before terraced temples stared being built, building was so developed, I don't think anyone will buy influence from the West unless they already buy the 'Quetzacoatl the Atlantean' story, whether or not it has a Biblical dimension.

But even the OT debate is really only relevant in the Fundamentalism debate as the OT is flipped off (at need) because Jesus rewrote the book of rules. At need OT rules are thrown in the bin, (though believers never like to hear that the sabbath was one that Jesus threw in the bin all the time). And I don't care for the atheist apologetic of 'No jot or tittle of the Law shall pass', any more than ' Miracles don't happen' because it's blindingly obvious that the 'Law' does not pass but it is 'Fulfilled' which evidently means replaced by the 'spirit of the law rather than the letter. Jesus (which is to say Pauline Christianity) has no time for the letter of the Law and wants to see it binned, along with the Sabbath, the Temple, ritual cleanliness, diet ......and most of the rest of the rules.

So I find it funny that Fundamentalists make such a big deal about the Commandments, when the NT aims at replacing them with helping your fellows, being poor and humble, and a lot of stuff the OT -enthusiasts don't seem to care for.

Like I say, I think it is more science skepticism than Bible literalism, that makes them battle for Genesis, but I could be wrong there. Many a Believer is happy to adapt Genesis to Science (a Biblical 'day' is the age of the universe divided into seven) and even the lunacy of the ice - globe or cloud -cover hypotheses are trying to fit Genesis to science, not deny science altogether.

Probably not Axiom 15 but 'you'll find find evolution -deniers in Bible literalism, but not many flat - earthists'.

(1) an Axiom, though..'Never take anything a Bible apologist says on trust'.

(2) not to mention the backhand apologetic of 'All the evil that secularism has done' and the many variant ploys intended to debunk the the Evilooshunists and leave Jesusgod and His Word as the only other possible option.

[TRANSPONDER]

Herodotus Book 2

"141. After him there came to the throne the priest of Hephaistos, whose name was Sethos. This man, they said, neglected and held in no regard the warrior class of the Egyptians, considering that he would have no need of them; and besides other slights which he put upon them, he also took from them the yokes of corn-land 125 which had been given to them as a special gift in the reigns of the former kings, twelve yokes to each man. After this, Sanacharib king of the Arabians and of the Assyrians marched a great host against Egypt. Then the warriors of the Egyptians refused to come to the rescue, and the priest, being driven into a strait, entered into the sanctuary of the temple 126 and bewailed to the image of the god the danger which was impending over him; and as he was thus lamenting, sleep came upon him, and it seemed to him in his vision that the god came and stood by him and encouraged him, saying that he should suffer no evil if he went forth to meet the army of the Arabians; for he himself would send him helpers. Trusting in these things seen in sleep, he took with him, they said, those of the Egyptians who were willing to follow him, and encamped in Pelusion, for by this way the invasion came: and not one of the warrior class followed him, but shop-keepers and artisans and men of the market. Then after they came, there swarmed by night upon their enemies mice of the fields, and ate up their quivers and their bows, and moreover the handles of their shields, so that on the next day they fled, and being without defence of arms great numbers fell. And at the present time this king stands in the temple of Hephaistos in stone, holding upon his hand a mouse, and by letters inscribed he says these words: "Let him who looks upon me learn to fear the gods."

It may relate to Hezekiah but it is very garbled, if so. This Sethos seems to be at Pelusium (Egypt) not Jerusalem, and heaven knows where the tale of mice damaging the weapons of the 'Arabians'. I think, otseng, mate, Bible apologists are scrabbling for evidence to make that historical support for the Bible, even aside that even if mice did render the Assyrian weapons unusable (where did that tent - ropes stuff come from?) that is no more than the fortunes of war and no evidence for God saving Jerusalem - unless one wants to believe it.

That's the bottom line - even if everything you argued was correct, none of that requires a god to be involved. So that's still the Spin, and Assyrian spin is irrelevant as Assyrian soldiers getting killed as regards the claim that God saved Jerusalem. There is no shred of reason to think that was so, even if your argument is correct, which (as I say) I have reason to doubt and I credit the Assyrian record more.

But as you say, we shall have to leave the reader (should we have one) to decide.

[otseng]

As I'm currently reading through the entire Bible, I happen to be in Isaiah 36 today. And one thing really stood out to me while reading what Rabshakeh said - the Assyrians were masters of propaganda. They were so good at the art of persuasion that even Eliakim responded to him to not speak to them in Hebrew so that the army could not hear what he was saying.

Isa 36:2-12 (KJV)
2 And the king of Assyria sent Rab-shakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem unto king Hezekiah with a great army. And he stood by the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field.
3 Then came forth unto him Eliakim, Hilkiah's son, which was over the house, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, Asaph's son, the recorder.
4 And Rab-shakeh said unto them, Say ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence this wherein thou trustest?
5 I say, [sayest thou], (but [they are but] vain words) counsel and strength for war: now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me?
6 Lo, thou trustest in the staff of this broken reed, on Egypt; whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so Pharaoh king of Egypt to all that trust in him.
7 But if thou say to me, We trust in the LORD our God: not he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and said to Judah and to Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar?
8 Now therefore give pledges, I pray thee, to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them.
9 How then wilt thou turn away the face of one captain of the least of my master's servants, and put thy trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen?
10 And am I now come up without the LORD against this land to destroy it? the LORD said unto me, Go up against this land, and destroy it.
11 Then said Eliakim and Shebna and Joah unto Rab-shakeh, Speak, I pray thee, unto thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand: and speak not to us in the Jews' language, in the ears of the people that [are] on the wall.
12 But Rab-shakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? [hath he] not [sent me] to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

Here are some things that stood out to me:
- Rabshakeh knew fluent Hebrew
- They had a lot of intelligence information about them - their military strategy, how many people they had
- They knew a lot about their religion and even claimed Yahweh spoke to the Assyrians
- He used the sacred personal name of God, Yahweh, which is rarely invoked even by the Jews
- They claimed Yahweh commanded them to attack Jerusalem and implying God was blessing their attack in order to judge the nation of Judah
- Rabshakeh had a wide range of speech skills - he could speak very cordially and also crudely
- With just a few sentences, he could convince the Jerusalem soldiers they were going to lose

[otseng]

No. Archaeology has no real evidence to support the Exodus -story and quite a bit that throws doubt on it.

Yes, it will be challenging to provide empirical evidence to support any of the claims surrounding the Exodus, esp since there are professionals in the field that say there is absolutely no evidence for it.

I might not be able to produce any direct evidence, but there is indirect evidence that fits and supports the Biblical narrative to make the story plausible. I grant there are some aspects of the Biblical narrative to be incorrect, but I believe the major claims would be correct - Israelites living in Egypt, Joseph having a high position in Egypt, Israelites becoming slaves, a series of calamities affecting the Egyptians, Israelites leaving Egypt and then going into Canaan.

[TRANSPONDER]

As I'm currently reading through the entire Bible, I happen to be in Isaiah 36 today. And one thing really stood out to me while reading what Rabshakeh said - the Assyrians were masters of propaganda. They were so good at the art of persuasion that even Eliakim responded to him to not speak to them in Hebrew so that the army could not hear what he was saying.

Isa 36:2-12 (KJV)
2 And the king of Assyria sent Rab-shakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem unto king Hezekiah with a great army. And he stood by the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field.
3 Then came forth unto him Eliakim, Hilkiah's son, which was over the house, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, Asaph's son, the recorder.
4 And Rab-shakeh said unto them, Say ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence this wherein thou trustest?
5 I say, [sayest thou], (but [they are but] vain words) counsel and strength for war: now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me?
6 Lo, thou trustest in the staff of this broken reed, on Egypt; whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so Pharaoh king of Egypt to all that trust in him.
7 But if thou say to me, We trust in the LORD our God: not he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and said to Judah and to Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar?
8 Now therefore give pledges, I pray thee, to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them.
9 How then wilt thou turn away the face of one captain of the least of my master's servants, and put thy trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen?
10 And am I now come up without the LORD against this land to destroy it? the LORD said unto me, Go up against this land, and destroy it.
11 Then said Eliakim and Shebna and Joah unto Rab-shakeh, Speak, I pray thee, unto thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand: and speak not to us in the Jews' language, in the ears of the people that [are] on the wall.
12 But Rab-shakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? [hath he] not [sent me] to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

Here are some things that stood out to me:
- Rabshakeh knew fluent Hebrew
- They had a lot of intelligence information about them - their military strategy, how many people they had
- They knew a lot about their religion and even claimed Yahweh spoke to the Assyrians
- He used the sacred personal name of God, Yahweh, which is rarely invoked even by the Jews
- They claimed Yahweh commanded them to attack Jerusalem and implying God was blessing their attack in order to judge the nation of Judah
- Rabshakeh had a wide range of speech skills - he could speak very cordially and also crudely
- With just a few sentences, he could convince the Jerusalem soldiers they were going to lose

I could equally well say that it works with a Hebrew writing the story as he thought it might have gone.
It isn't easy to parse but it looks like the lieutenant of Sennacherib is suggesting that God sent Assyria to bother Judah. Which is very much from the Hebrew writer's point of view as is the vulgarity attributed to the Assyrians and the suggestion that he spoke Hebrew to them when for sure someone in Hezehiah's serve could be found to speak Assyrian. The more I look, the more it looks like a Hebrew writers take on how the negotiations would have gone. The two thousand horses is mere hyperbole or suggesting a bribe from Sennacherib to give in, unless he's talking about some other ruler who worshipped the god of the High Places that Hezekiah destroyed. It's a bit confused. But I don't credit that number as evidence of a eyewitness testimony, even though Sennacherib could have had spied the place out weeks beforehand.
I might argue an element of retrospective history in that the writer knew that Egypt wouldn't assist the Hebrews. Or if Sennacherib had already seen Egypt off, he's say so. I'd also imagine the Assyrians saying 'You think those walls will stop us?" (I read that the fortification work on Jerusalem may have one reason a deal was offered; though Assyria would take the city. it would not be quick or easy) rather than referring to the Judean trust in God which, frankly is seeing it as a plot device - the Assyrians mock trust in God whereas that is what saves them. Not their walls or paying tribute. It's all part of the Spin.

[TRANSPONDER]

No. Archaeology has no real evidence to support the Exodus -story and quite a bit that throws doubt on it.

Yes, it will be challenging to provide empirical evidence to support any of the claims surrounding the Exodus, esp since there are professionals in the field that say there is absolutely no evidence for it.

I might not be able to produce any direct evidence, but there is indirect evidence that fits and supports the Biblical narrative to make the story plausible. I grant there are some aspects of the Biblical narrative to be incorrect, but I believe the major claims would be correct - Israelites living in Egypt, Joseph having a high position in Egypt, Israelites becoming slaves, a series of calamities affecting the Egyptians, Israelites leaving Egypt and then going into Canaan.

I shall be interested to see it. But I would expect some feasible chronological setting in between Canaanite city states as an Egyptian protectorate, and the emergence of Edom and Moab which would seem to need to be after the supposed conquest in which Israel took the land from the Canaanites.

I probably wouldn't even comment on the story of Joseph. While there is nothing impossible about a foreigner becoming a top official in Egypt, it has no bearing on the later situation of Israelites as a group enslaved in Egypt, which makes no sense because the Hebrews hardly existed as a people before Moses had imposed one God and his laws. Never mind they were a bunch of goatherders in the Zagros at the time. I don't credit the tale any more than I credit the suggestion that Esther was somehow the Israelite puppeteer who made the Persian king dance.

So I'd be looking at a workable chronology, some evidence for Israelites as a distinct group in Egypt, not to mention as slaves,

anything to support that tale of Moses up to the conquest when all the archaeology seems to be against it.