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]

There is evidence that the Biblical account was later than the events described and some indications that it was fabricated to establish an origin for a tribe that was concerned about its' individuality.

Please present that evidence.

I suppose I'm going with the mainstream view of Pharonic history, and even if the Canaanites largely remained in the Delta, the evidence of Ahmose records as well as the Egyptian king list - which accepted the existence of the Hyksos dynasty, is that Hyksos rule came to an end.

Yes, of course the Hyksos rule came to an end. I'll get to that later and how it also corresponds to the Bible.

It is rather curious isn't it that there is a record of Ahmose pushing the Canaanites out of Egypt but no record of Israelite slaves leaving under Moses.

As we have seen, the Egyptians do not record anything that will embarrass them. So, it is to be expected of them not having any record of the Exodus.

but there is for ejecting the Hyksos.

There is actually no evidence the Hyksos were ejected out of Egypt. Rather, it's likely just more Egyptian propaganda.

"A soldier under the command of Ahmose I, Amenhotep I, and Thutmose I recorded the destruction of the Hyksos capital and ejection of its people in the Autobiography of Ahmose, son of Ibana. But there is no solid evidence to support this kind of damage. There is also evidence to suggest that the Hyksos may not have been unceremoniously tossed out of Egypt en masse; pottery uncovered at Avaris suggests that some may have stayed behind and lived there into the New Kingdom."
https://www.thecollector.com/second-int ... -of-egypt/

And again the bulrushes borrowing from Babylon suggests a Biblical borrowing from a later date for the story, which means it isn't a bit later but a lot later.

How does a bulrush demonstrate a Babylonian origin?

I see no decent evidence for the Hyksos including any Hebrews. Your '12 tribes' references turns out to be nothing but associating five symbols with various bits of the Jacob story and the lion just a general association with Judah.

The palace in Tell El-Dab'a is pretty convincing to me and aligns with the Biblical account. More evidence will be presented later of the existence of the Hebrews in Egypt.

Where in the OT or anywhere else is there a claim that Israelites ruled in Egypt?

Exod 1:7-9 (KJV)
7And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.
8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel [are] more and mightier than we.

Also those two hillocks under the ruler's feet are another couple of tribes (I suspect they may represent piles of enemy heads)? The effort to relate that object to Hebrews is strained and making a Hebrew a warlike ruler doesn't fit the history.

The author, Bar-Ron, posits either they are hills or shoulders. I don't think it's either. I think it better represents the spoils of war as mentioned in Gen 49:27

Gen 49:27 "Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at evening dividing the spoil."

I see the many coloured coat is related to that statue with the mushroom hat.

It was more a mushroom hairstyle, rather than a hat.

"However, the mushroom-like hair style and the fringed dress are plainly Levantine in style."
https://www.thecollector.com/second-int ... -of-egypt/

I mentioned a figure (in red and yellow) on wall plaster. Also a claim for a striped garment from the Minoan fresco from the palace. And now it's colours on the garment of this statue.

Most likely the Minoan fresco was created during the 18th Dynasty.

"At Avaris, Ahmose constructed a large fortified palace,
mostly built from recycled materials from the Hyksos citadel
he and his soldiers had conquered. A further piece of
intriguing evidence for the international outlook of the
city and the Egyptian state at the time, the walls of the
palace were decorated in part with a number of beautiful
—although very poorly preserved—frescoes which appear
Minoan in origin, possibly suggesting the presence of Cretan
artisans working for the Egyptian court at the time."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... a3ZBxoyp-Q

"you can still see evidence that this ruler was wearing a striped garment (inspect), made up of at least three colors: black, red and white." says the site. Black, red and white .'At least' (1). That's wishfully thinking that there are more colours without evidence for it.

Even if it's only 3 colors, it's still multi-colored, so not sure how many colors you require for something to be multi-colored.

Damn' I just lost my reply. I'll do it again tomorrow..hang on..yes I still have this from Wiki.

The traditional view, personified in such archaeologists as Albright and Wright, faithfully accepted the biblical events as history, but has since been questioned by "Biblical minimalists" such as Niels Peter Lemche, Thomas L. Thompson and Philip R. Davies. Israel Finkelstein[25] suggests that the empire of David and Solomon (United Monarchy) never existed and Judah was not in a position to support an extended state until the start of the 8th century. Finkelstein accepts the existence of King David and Solomon but doubts their chronology, significance and influence as described in the Bible.[26] Without claiming that everything in the Bible is historically accurate, some non-supernatural story elements appear to correspond with physical artifacts and other archaeological findings. Inscriptions such as the Tel Dan Stele and the Mesha Stele can be traced to a non-Hebrew cultural origin.

Origins of the Ancient Israelites – the Tel Aviv School
Following the collapse of many cities and civilizations in the eastern Mediterranean Basin at the end of the Bronze Age, certain local nomadic groups in eastern Canaan began settling in the mountainous regions of that land (the mountain ranges on both sides of the Jordan River, of which the western part is known today as the West Bank). In this period the Sea Peoples invaded the countries along the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, creating the Philistine city states along the seacoast of southwestern Canaan. Egypt lost its control of the land in the 12th century BCE – the exact date is currently being disputed, and this issue is closely linked to the Low Chronology / High Chronology dispute.[27]

According to Israel Finkelstein, this tendency of nomads to settle down, or of sedentary populations to become nomadic, when circumstances make it worth their while, is typical of many Mid-Eastern populations which retain the knowledge of both ways of life and can switch between them fairly easily.

I had a timeline of the generally -accepted ancient near east and how the Exodus and conquest fitted into it, or not.I'll do it again tomorrow. Right now the Palace at Avaris seems up in the air. The Palace seems rather Egyptian and the Hyksos palace demolished. The Minoan wall painting fragments were found in the yard. So who knows? I don't know where the mushroom -hatted sculpture was found but I'd want five colors really to be ;many coloured'.Three really is a Three coloured coat. Even primitive Hebrews can do better than 'one -two -three..-"Many".

[otseng]

The traditional view, personified in such archaeologists as Albright and Wright, faithfully accepted the biblical events as history, but has since been questioned by "Biblical minimalists" such as Niels Peter Lemche, Thomas L. Thompson and Philip R. Davies. Israel Finkelstein[25] suggests that the empire of David and Solomon (United Monarchy) never existed and Judah was not in a position to support an extended state until the start of the 8th century.

Yes, the Biblical literalist position is in the minority among archaeologists with most believing the Biblical account is in error or completely fictional. But, after looking at the evidence, I'm now even more convinced of the Biblical account.

Without claiming that everything in the Bible is historically accurate, some non-supernatural story elements appear to correspond with physical artifacts and other archaeological findings.

Since I'm not an inerrantist, I do not claim either everything in the Bible is historically accurate. But, there sure are a slew of archaeological evidence that corroborates with the Biblical account.

The illustration I pointed out earlier is like a puzzle:

It is like the Bible is a giant picture. And archaeology is like a box of puzzle pieces. When we find a piece, we can see if it fits on the picture. If it fits, then it affirms the Biblical claims.

We find pieces here and there that conforms to the Biblical account. With each piece we find that matches, it ratchets up the credibility of the Bible. And what we also find is that some have intentionally thrown in puzzle pieces to deceive people. And it worked for thousands of years. But archaeology has proven those pieces are incorrect.

Following the collapse of many cities and civilizations in the eastern Mediterranean Basin at the end of the Bronze Age ...

Doesn't this rather support the Biblical account?

The Palace seems rather Egyptian and the Hyksos palace demolished.

Avarice was reconquered later by the Egyptians. I'll cover that later.

but I'd want five colors really to be ;many coloured'.Three really is a Three coloured coat. Even primitive Hebrews can do better than 'one -two -three..-"Many".

It doesn't matter "what you want". Here are definitions of "multi-":

"more than two"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multi-

"more than two, or, sometimes, more than one"
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/di ... lish/multi

"more than one", "more than two"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/multi

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok here's the timeline from Wiki and of course somethings like dates and who ruled what are debated but are rather details than game changers. I read one article claiming that the Hyksos did not have chariots, but if not, I fail to understand how they beat the Egyptian army. And, given that the attack on Avaris was (necessarily) amphibious, the Egyptians seemed to have adopted chariots after pushing Hyksos rule (at least) out of the delata. I'd say the evidence indicates that chariots were the Hyksos secret weapon.

2nd intermediate period

14th dynasty 1720 -1650 BC Capital Avaris Canaanite (ruler Yaakim Sekhaenre)
15th dynasty 1650-1550 BC Capital Avaris Hyksos (rulers, Salitis, Khamudi)

Abydos dynasty 1650 -1600 (Egyptian)

Theban dynasties 16th dynasty. Capital Thebes (No- Amun) or Avaris. (ruler Anat- her)
17th dynasty 1580 - 1550 BC capital No- Amun. (Rulers Rahotep, Khamose)
(Hyksos rule eliminated)

New Kingdom
18th dynasty 1550 -1292 BC capitals No -Amun, Ahmose I Armarna (Akhenaten) Thebes Tutanhkhamun, Horemheb.

Amenhotep II, Hatsheptsut, Tuthmosis III (otseng suggests date of Exodus)

(possible slack control of Canaan under Akhenaten and Tutankhamun)

19th dynasty 1292- 1189 capitals Thebes (No - Amun) and Memphis (Mimpi) rulers Ramesses I and II, Merneptah later Ramessids.
Ramesses II capital Pi Ramesses in the delta. Battle of Kadesh. Egyptian control over Canaan. (suitable time for The Biblical Conquest?)
Merneptah campaigns in Canaan. mention of Israel.
Ramesses III bronze age collapse, attack by 'Sea peoples'.
Peleset (sea peoples tribe) settled in Gaza - 'Philistines'

20th dynasty capital Pi- Ramesh, 1189 -1077 BC (ruler Ramesses XI)

3rd intermediate (Egypt survives the Bronze age collapse but seems weaker)
21st Dynast capital Tanis. 1069 -943 BC (rulers, Smended, Psusennes II)

[otseng]

I read one article claiming that the Hyksos did not have chariots, but if not, I fail to understand how they beat the Egyptian army. And, given that the attack on Avaris was (necessarily) amphibious, the Egyptians seemed to have adopted chariots after pushing Hyksos rule (at least) out of the delata. I'd say the evidence indicates that chariots were the Hyksos secret weapon.

Surprisingly, the Hyksos actually were the ones to introduce chariots to the Egyptians.

"Chariots are thought to have been first used as a weapon in Egypt by the Hyksos[1] in the 16th century BC. The Egyptians then developed their own chariot design."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariotry ... ient_Egypt

"It is generally considered that the Hyksos introduced the chariot to Egypt."
https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/chariots/

"The chariot was introduced into Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period by the Hyksos."
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Jouko ... /9985.html

"The introduction of the light chariot in Egypt has been attributed to the Hyksos, who invaded the Nile Delta around 1650 B.C."
https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/ph ... an-chariot

[otseng]

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

According to the Biblical account, the Israelites would enter around the reign of Senusret III. There are some correlations between the Bible and this Pharaoh.



His reign is one of the greatest of the Pharaohs.

"His reign is often considered the height of the Middle Kingdom which was the Golden Age in Egypt's history in so far as art, literature, architecture, science, and other cultural aspects reached an unprecedented level of refinement, the economy flourished, and military and trade expeditions filled the nation's treasury."
https://www.worldhistory.org/Senusret_III/

"Pharaohs of the New Kingdom of Egypt would emulate his reign, and centuries after his death he was still prayed to and worshiped as a divine representative of the best gifts the gods gave to the Egyptian people."
https://www.worldhistory.org/Senusret_III/

"Senusret III was among the few Egyptian kings who were deified and honored with a cult during their own lifetime."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senusret_III

How was he able to gain so much power? According to the Bible, Pharaoh was able gain control of the entire region in exchange for food.

Gen 47:18-20 (ESV)
18 And when that year was ended, they came to him the following year and said to him, "We will not hide from my lord that our money is all spent. The herds of livestock are my lord's. There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our land.
19 Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh. And give us seed that we may live and not die, and that the land may not be desolate."
20 So Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh, for all the Egyptians sold their fields, because the famine was severe on them. The land became Pharaoh's.

The fact that the Pharaoh was able to gain absolute control while the local leaders willingly ceded authority is confirmed by secular historians.

He divided the country into three large districts – Lower Egypt, Upper Egypt and south past Elephantine (modern day Aswan), and Egyptian-held northern Nubia – and these were governed by a council, appointed by the king, who reported to the king's vizier. This policy disenfranchised most of the nomarchs but, interestingly, there is no evidence of resistance to it, nor is there any indication that the king was resented for a move which should have significantly affected the standard of living of a number of formerly powerful families. Inscriptions on the tombs of these nomarchs at Beni Hassan repeatedly give evidence that these people continued to be employed by the state and took pride in their positions and their king. This policy resulted in a much stronger and more secure central government. The militias of the different nomes were disbanded and absorbed into the standing army of the king and the removal of the nomarchs facilitated greater wealth for the crown. Senusret III's redistricting also had the unforeseen effect of creating a segment of the population which had not existed previously: the middle class.

https://www.worldhistory.org/Senusret_III/



Even though he was one of the greatest and most powerful Pharaohs, as far as I can tell, he is the only Pharaoh to have been depicted with a somber expression.

"Senusret III is well known for his distinctive statues, which are almost immediately recognizable as his. On them, the king is depicted at different ages and, in particular, on the aged ones he sports a strikingly somber expression: the eyes are protruding from hollow eye sockets with pouches and lines under them, the mouth and lips have a grimace of bitterness, and the ears are enormous and protruding forward."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senusret_III

Why in the world would he have a somber expression? Could it be related to experiencing a massive famine during his reign?

Gen 41:1-8 (ESV)
1 After two whole years, Pharaoh dreamed that he was standing by the Nile,
2 and behold, there came up out of the Nile seven cows attractive and plump, and they fed in the reed grass.
3 And behold, seven other cows, ugly and thin, came up out of the Nile after them, and stood by the other cows on the bank of the Nile.
4 And the ugly, thin cows ate up the seven attractive, plump cows. And Pharaoh awoke.
5 And he fell asleep and dreamed a second time. And behold, seven ears of grain, plump and good, were growing on one stalk.
6 And behold, after them sprouted seven ears, thin and blighted by the east wind.
7 And the thin ears swallowed up the seven plump, full ears. And Pharaoh awoke, and behold, it was a dream.
8 So in the morning his spirit was troubled, and he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt and all its wise men. Pharaoh told them his dreams, but there was none who could interpret them to Pharaoh.

[TRANSPONDER]

I like your work, but again I have to say this is damn' thin material to try to relate the story of the Israelites in Egypt as per Genesis and exodus to a particular ruler. Egypt was upper and lower since the unification in the 1st dynasty. The point about 'divided into three' appears to be claiming the regions formerly Nubian as a third 'land'of Egypt.

I doubt that the face of the Pharaoh is notably realistically grim because of some famine. You will probably be aware that Spin was politically used and a conventionally calm expression would be used rather that reminding everyone of it with a sad expression. Rather a pharaoh during a good time would feel able to say 'sculpt me the way I really look'.

The story of Joseph could apply to any Egyptian king before the end of Hyksos rule and I suspect there are a number of famines. But of course relating Joseph to a particular Pharaoh will give the impression of a solid historical link, won't it?

[TRANSPONDER]

The traditional view, personified in such archaeologists as Albright and Wright, faithfully accepted the biblical events as history, but has since been questioned by "Biblical minimalists" such as Niels Peter Lemche, Thomas L. Thompson and Philip R. Davies. Israel Finkelstein[25] suggests that the empire of David and Solomon (United Monarchy) never existed and Judah was not in a position to support an extended state until the start of the 8th century.

Yes, the Biblical literalist position is in the minority among archaeologists with most believing the Biblical account is in error or completely fictional. But, after looking at the evidence, I'm now even more convinced of the Biblical account.

Without claiming that everything in the Bible is historically accurate, some non-supernatural story elements appear to correspond with physical artifacts and other archaeological findings.

Since I'm not an inerrantist, I do not claim either everything in the Bible is historically accurate. But, there sure are a slew of archaeological evidence that corroborates with the Biblical account.

The illustration I pointed out earlier is like a puzzle:

It is like the Bible is a giant picture. And archaeology is like a box of puzzle pieces. When we find a piece, we can see if it fits on the picture. If it fits, then it affirms the Biblical claims.

We find pieces here and there that conforms to the Biblical account. With each piece we find that matches, it ratchets up the credibility of the Bible. And what we also find is that some have intentionally thrown in puzzle pieces to deceive people. And it worked for thousands of years. But archaeology has proven those pieces are incorrect.

Following the collapse of many cities and civilizations in the eastern Mediterranean Basin at the end of the Bronze Age ...

Doesn't this rather support the Biblical account?

The Palace seems rather Egyptian and the Hyksos palace demolished.

Avarice was reconquered later by the Egyptians. I'll cover that later.

but I'd want five colors really to be ;many coloured'.Three really is a Three coloured coat. Even primitive Hebrews can do better than 'one -two -three..-"Many".

It doesn't matter "what you want". Here are definitions of "multi-":

"more than two"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multi-

"more than two, or, sometimes, more than one"
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/di ... lish/multi

"more than one", "more than two"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/multi

My response to this seems to have got lost, but the point is that 'many' gives a very different impression of the number of colors requiresd while 'multi'(which is not the word used - 'multicolored coat' can (technically) get away with three colours.

And, no, the bronze age collapse does not confirm the Bible. Rather, it dives a different view of how the Hebrews (and other tribes) were able to expand into a weakened (if not actually devastated) Canaan.

Famine seems to have occurred at several periods in Egypt. This is the one that gets mentioned most often.

Answer and Explanation:
The Great Famine in the Old Kingdom of the Egyptian Empire occurred between 2200 BC and 2150 BC. The Old Kingdom of Egypt was dealing with many political and internal problems which culminated in a massive drought that led to the final collapse of the empire".

There was a general famine in the time of Ramesses II but he had stored enough grain to see them through this and even send out grain to countries that hadn't made such preparations. There is another in 930 BC. So pick whichever you like as the Biblical one.

[TRANSPONDER]

Just so I know, I looked up this term 'minimalist'

(Wiki)Biblical minimalism, also known as the Copenhagen School because two of its most prominent figures taught at Copenhagen University, is a movement or trend in biblical scholarship that began in the 1990s with two main claims:

that the Bible cannot be considered reliable evidence for what had happened in ancient Israel; and
that "Israel" itself is a problematic subject for historical study.[1]
Minimalism is not a unified movement, but rather a label that came to be applied to several scholars at different universities who held similar views, chiefly Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas L. Thompson at the University of Copenhagen, Philip R. Davies, and Keith Whitelam. Minimalism gave rise to intense debate during the 1990s—the term "minimalists" was in fact a derogatory one given by its opponents, who were consequently dubbed "maximalists", but in fact neither side accepted either label.

Maximalists, or neo-Albrightians, are composed of two quite distinct groups, the first represented by the archaeologist William Dever and the influential publication Biblical Archaeology Review, the second by biblical scholar Iain Provan and Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen.[2] Although these debates were in some cases heated, most scholars occupied the middle ground evaluating the arguments of both schools critically.

Since the 1990s, while some of the minimalist arguments have been challenged or rejected, others have been refined and adopted into the mainstream of biblical scholarship.[3]

As is often the case (everything from 'Big Bang'to 'New Atheism'), the term is slightly derogatory and I find misrepresents the situation. I'd tend to say that critical analysis of what may be termed 'Biblical archaeology' is taking a larger view than 'Bible history true'. Though I understand entirely the idea of not being 'inerrantist' - not Godsword micromanaged Biblescript, but nevertheless taking the Bible as reliable (more or less) as other historical records of the time.

I perceive a real problem, though in what is sometimes guyed as 'because the Bible tell me so'. And it is looking for connections that historically would never be historically posited were it not that the Bible says so. That three -colored statue would never be thought to be Joseph (especially as it may be considered to represent a Hyksos ruler) unless Bible believers wanted to validate the Exodus - story.

I have referred to Biblical 'spin' before and one of the most common manifestations of it is claiming everything that happens is God's doing. Alexander's siege of Tyre is historical, no doubt. But making it God's doing (for whatever reason) and making Alexander God's instrument for punishing Tyre, is spin, and the fact that the prediction that it would never be rebuilt (which, despite all manner of convoluted efforts to say that it wasn't, it was, and fairly soon, too) shows how Biblical Spin works (as well as showing retrospective prophecy - it has to have been written after the causeway was built to the island, but before the city was put to rights.

Nobody would connect a statue of a Hyksos notable with a red, white and blue robe as connected with Joseph, or a Pharaoh with a face like Fredrick the great as showing that Joseph saved Egypt from a famine, unless the believers wanted to. It's just too thin a hint.

It might be good to look at that long famine that seems to get mentioned all the time and see just how early it was that Joseph would have had to have predicted it. And I still await your comments on the anachronistic mention of the land of the Philistines in connection with the Exodus (which would put it long after the expulsion of the Hyksos) and the resemblance of the story of Sargon of Akkad being found in the bulrushes with the story of Moses.

[otseng]

The point about 'divided into three' appears to be claiming the regions formerly Nubian as a third 'land'of Egypt.

I don't think it's saying there was no Upper and Lower Egypt prior to this. But rather it's talking about how he split up political power.

The main point I was referencing was the local leaders willingly gave up their authority to Pharaoh in their territories. And the article as well gave no explanation why they would do this. The Biblical account however fully explains why this would happen.

I doubt that the face of the Pharaoh is notably realistically grim because of some famine.

Nobody really knows why he was portrayed with a somber expression. But, again, this would fit with the Biblical account.

I suspect there are a number of famines.

Yes, there are other famines as well, but the scale of this famine was much larger than any others according to the Bible.

My response to this seems to have got lost, but the point is that 'many' gives a very different impression of the number of colors requiresd while 'multi'(which is not the word used - 'multicolored coat' can (technically) get away with three colours.

I was looking at this, and technically, the verses just say "colors". There is actually no word "many" in the Hebrew in the text. "Many" is added by the translators as indicated by italics.

Gen 37:3 (KJV)
Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colours.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/37/3/s_37003

Gen 37:32
And they sent the coat of many colours, and they brought it to their father; and said, This have we found: know now whether it be thy son's coat or no.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/37/32/s_37032

So, technically it is just a plural of color.

Rather, it dives a different view of how the Hebrews (and other tribes) were able to expand into a weakened (if not actually devastated) Canaan.

The timing though is interesting that the Israelites entering Canaan was during the time of the weakened Canaanites. This would be the best time to attack them.

Famine seems to have occurred at several periods in Egypt. This is the one that gets mentioned most often.

Yes, there were other famines. There was also a time that the Nile was quite low that could be related to the famine of Joseph's time.

"The Nile level peaked in his regnal year 30 at 5.1 m (17 ft), but was followed by a dramatic decline so that it measured 0.5 m (1.6 ft) by regnal year 40."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenemhat_III

It says it was during the time of Amenemhat III, which would be son of Senusret III. But, they were also co-rulers for some time, so it's hard to exactly determine the chronology.

I perceive a real problem, though in what is sometimes guyed as 'because the Bible tell me so'. And it is looking for connections that historically would never be historically posited were it not that the Bible says so.

For thousands of years, the prevailing view of the Hyksos would be the marauding picture that Manetho painted. There was no extra-Biblical support the Hyksos matched the Biblical account. Now, we've discovered the Bible has actually been right. So, it's not the Bible looking for existing facts to try to match it up with, but archaeology proving the Egyptian record is wrong and the Bible is correct.

That three -colored statue would never be thought to be Joseph (especially as it may be considered to represent a Hyksos ruler) unless Bible believers wanted to validate the Exodus - story.

It is not just the three/many/multi-colored tunic that is presented that matches the Bible. But everything surrounding the the timing of the rise of the Hyksos, peacefully taking over the best land (Goshen), 4 room houses (Israelite houses), how they gained in power, the palace, 12 tombs, one tomb shaped as a pyramid, no bones found, and to seal the deal, the seal of Joseph.

And we have to ask why the Egyptians, in particular Manetho, would launch a false propaganda campaign against the Hyksos.

If the Biblical account is false, then what is the alternative explanation that would account for all of these facts?

[TRANSPONDER]

The point about 'divided into three' appears to be claiming the regions formerly Nubian as a third 'land'of Egypt.

I don't think it's saying there was no Upper and Lower Egypt prior to this. But rather it's talking about how he split up political power.

The main point I was referencing was the local leaders willingly gave up their authority to Pharaoh in their territories. And the article as well gave no explanation why they would do this. The Biblical account however fully explains why this would happen.

I doubt that the face of the Pharaoh is notably realistically grim because of some famine.

Nobody really knows why he was portrayed with a somber expression. But, again, this would fit with the Biblical account.

I suspect there are a number of famines.

Yes, there are other famines as well, but the scale of this famine was much larger than any others according to the Bible.

My response to this seems to have got lost, but the point is that 'many' gives a very different impression of the number of colors requiresd while 'multi'(which is not the word used - 'multicolored coat' can (technically) get away with three colours.

I was looking at this, and technically, the verses just say "colors". There is actually no word "many" in the Hebrew in the text. "Many" is added by the translators as indicated by italics.

Gen 37:3 (KJV)
Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colours.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/37/3/s_37003

Gen 37:32
And they sent the coat of many colours, and they brought it to their father; and said, This have we found: know now whether it be thy son's coat or no.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/37/32/s_37032

So, technically it is just a plural of color.

Rather, it dives a different view of how the Hebrews (and other tribes) were able to expand into a weakened (if not actually devastated) Canaan.

The timing though is interesting that the Israelites entering Canaan was during the time of the weakened Canaanites. This would be the best time to attack them.

Famine seems to have occurred at several periods in Egypt. This is the one that gets mentioned most often.

Yes, there were other famines. There was also a time that the Nile was quite low that could be related to the famine of Joseph's time.

"The Nile level peaked in his regnal year 30 at 5.1 m (17 ft), but was followed by a dramatic decline so that it measured 0.5 m (1.6 ft) by regnal year 40."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenemhat_III

It says it was during the time of Amenemhat III, which would be son of Senusret III. But, they were also co-rulers for some time, so it's hard to exactly determine the chronology.

I perceive a real problem, though in what is sometimes guyed as 'because the Bible tell me so'. And it is looking for connections that historically would never be historically posited were it not that the Bible says so.

For thousands of years, the prevailing view of the Hyksos would be the marauding picture that Manetho painted. There was no extra-Biblical support the Hyksos matched the Biblical account. Now, we're discovered the Bible has actually been right. So, it's not the Bible looking for existing facts to try to match it up with, but archaeology proving the Egyptian record is wrong and matching up with the Bible.

That three -colored statue would never be thought to be Joseph (especially as it may be considered to represent a Hyksos ruler) unless Bible believers wanted to validate the Exodus - story.

It is not just the three/many/multi-colored tunic that is presented that matches the Bible. But everything surrounding the the timing of the rise of the Hyksos, peacefully taking over the best land (Goshen), 4 room houses (Israelite houses), how they gained in power, the palace, 12 tombs, one tomb shaped as a pyramid, no bones found, and to seal the deal, the seal of Joseph.

And we have to ask why the Egyptians, in particular Manetho, would launch a false propaganda campaign against the Hyksos.

If the Biblical account is false, then what is the alternative explanation that would account for all of these facts?

The point I'm making is Egypt from the earliest dynasty being 'two lands' means that an extension was made into Nubia and that was annexed as a third 'Land'.There was no reorganisation of Egypt itself. A pharaoh had authority over the governors (unless interregnums allowed local dynasties) and there is nothing special in the addition of Nubia that makes any kind of case for ..Sesostris, wasn't it?...reorganizing Egypt, let alone claiming that his cupbearer was behind it.

Yes, I'll look at Amenemhat II or Senusret and see how the dates play out. Particularly as regards relating Joseph to King Mushroomhat of the Hyksos and his coat of three colors.

It is, as I said, too thin to be evidence for Joseph, unless one believes the Bible on Faith and is looking for clues at to the history. If one doesn't believer the Bible already, then none of that adds up to a row of beans, and that's why 'Biblical archaeology' is not really archaeology, no more than I/C is Real Science.

We could (I shall) look at the Hebrew around the 'many colors' passage, but I suppose the reading as 'many colors' is based on the text. However, if not, then a coat of one, two or even three colors or even colours, implies a coat that has been dyed at great trouble and expense with two or even (damn' there goes our holiday money) three different colors as a sign of authority. But I argue that one would have to have five colours at least to be notable and a Hyksos king with a mushroom hat having a coat of three colours is not so remarkable that the link to the Joseph -story is anything more than the familiar 'undisprovable possibility'. And I won't labour the old ploy of presenting the evidence to look persuasive when it really isn't. Though that of course is exactly what we are debating here.

I'm going to have to extend the timeline to see where this Pharaoh -of-Joseph fits in, though I don't doubt that the Chronology fits well enough, as does the Exodus with the earlier New Kingdom Pharaohs, though Not with the expulsion of Hyksos rule, at least even if it is claimed (without any real evidence that I can see) that the Hebrews as a separate tribe were made slaves in post - Hyksos Egypt. I accept that Canaanites stayed, even if the rule of the Hyksos ended, and if there was another leaving of Egypt, outside the Bible, there is no decent evidence for it that I can see.

Four room houses, as I said, just show (at best) Canaanite influence on Hebrew architecture too, I'd suppose. So it doesn't prove that they were Hebrew houses, in particular.

And I don't recall that you answered why the Exodus happened after the land of the Philistines was set up if it happened in the time of Amenophis II, or why the finding of Moses in the Bulrushes is so like the story of Sargon of Akkad? Rather like the Ark of Noah is like that old Mesopotamian tale of Ut- Napishtim. I'd suggest that this is evidence for an Exilic date for Exodus and Genesis (including the Ziggurat of Babel) and there are two major clues debunking the Exodus as reliable history, leaving an Exilic origin -story for the Hebrews (1) and the hypothesis with better evidential support.

And yes, the entry of Israel, Moab and Edom into Canaan after the collapse is effectively the 'conquest'.But it does not support the Exodus- story. Nor does (as I mentioned) the archaeology of Jericho.

(1) not to mention the rather anachronistic naming of Moab and Edom (as I recall) as brothers (though inferiors and rightful slaves of 'Israel') as an origin - story highly suitable for Hebrew preferences.