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

[otseng]

The oldest writing systems in the world are hieroglyphics and cuneiform. Both hieroglyphics and cuneiform are based on pictographic symbols, that is, there is no correlation between the symbol and how it sounds. The alphabet is a phonetic writing system which is a major development in written languages that originated from hieroglyphics.

Some background on the history of the Hebrew alphabet...

The current modern Hebrew script originated from the Aramaic script after the Babylonian exile.

"The Canaanite “Hebrew” alphabet is a development from the Aramaic alphabet taking place during the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman periods (c. 500 BC – 50 AD)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... w_alphabet

The Aramaic script is based on the Phoenician script.

"The ancient Aramaic alphabet was adapted by Arameans from the Phoenician alphabet and became a distinct script by the 8th century BC."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_alphabet

The Phoenician script is from the Proto-Canaanite (Proto-Sinaitic) script.

"The Phoenician alphabet is a direct continuation of the "Proto-Canaanite" script of the Bronze Age collapse period."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet

The Proto-Sinaitic script borrowed Egyptian hieroglyphic symbols and used them in a phonetic way.

Proto-Sinaitic (also referred to as Sinaitic, Proto-Canaanite when found in Canaan,[1] the North Semitic alphabet,[2] or Early Alphabetic)[3] is considered the earliest trace of alphabetic writing and the common ancestor of both the Ancient South Arabian script and the Phoenician alphabet,[4] which led to many modern alphabets including the Greek alphabet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script

And evidence points to the Proto-Sinaitic script originating from the Hyksos in Egypt.

According to common theory, Canaanites or Hyksos who spoke a Semitic language repurposed Egyptian hieroglyphs to construct a different script.[6][7] The script is attested in a small corpus of inscriptions found at Serabit el-Khadim in the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, dating to the Middle Bronze Age (2100–1500 BC).[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script

Thirty incised graffiti in a "Proto-Sinaitic script" shed light on the history of the alphabet.[2] The mines were worked by prisoners of war from southwest Asia who presumably spoke a Northwest Semitic language, such as the Canaanite that was ancestral to Phoenician and Hebrew. The incisions date from the beginning of the 16th century BC.

It was generally accepted that the language of the inscriptions was Semitic, that the script had a hieratic prototype and was ancestral to the Semitic alphabets, and that the script was itself acrophonic and alphabetic (more specifically, a consonantal alphabet or abjad).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serabit_el-Khadim

The oldest inscription of the Proto-Sinaitic script dates to King Amenemhat III. And it can be interpreted to refer to the Hebrews.

"This is the oldest attested proto-consonantal letter in the world, dating to Year 18 of King Amenemhat III (ca. 1842 BCE). The oldest inscription completely inscribed in the proto-consonantal script (Sinai 377)—which derives from Wadi Nasb, the nearby water source for mining expeditions to Serabit—dates to only two years later. According to my reading, the caption on Sinai 115 reads, 'Six Levantines, Hebrews of Bethel, the beloved.'"
https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2017/04/h ... -alphabet/



"Sania 115, dates from 1842 BCE and is on display at Harvard’s Semitic Museum. It identifies Joseph and his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, and is inscribed with the words “6 Levantines: Hebrews of Bethel, the beloved.”

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/exper ... bet-474718

Near Thebes, limestone walls at Wadi el-Hol have Proto-Sinaitic writings that date to 1900-1800 BC.

Carved in the cliffs of soft stone, the writing, in a Semitic script with Egyptian influences, has been dated to somewhere between 1900 and 1800 B.C., two or three centuries earlier than previously recognized uses of a nascent alphabet. The first experiments with alphabet thus appeared to be the work of Semitic people living deep in Egypt, not in their homelands in the Syria-Palestine region, as had been thought.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes ... rigin.html


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... rawing.jpg

Evolution of letters of the alphabet from hieroglyphics:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

I'd say that its consistency over time seems strong evidence that there was deep reverence for what was written from the outset.

This also suggests that there was some force at work to prevent gradual degradation of the text over time, humans are humans and are rarely free of bias, I think its reasonable to expect to see much more of a bifurcation of texts than we actually do see.

The Dead See scrolls show this consistency and the very few deviations amongst the thousands of New Testament manuscripts too, this strikes me as evidence that the text was inspired and has been protected from human corruption over many thousands of years.

[TRANSPONDER]

The oldest writing systems in the world are hieroglyphics and cuneiform. Both hieroglyphics and cuneiform are based on pictographic symbols, that is, there is no correlation between the symbol and how it sounds. The alphabet is a phonetic writing system which is a major development in written languages that originated from hieroglyphics.

Some background on the history of the Hebrew alphabet...

The current modern Hebrew script originated from the Aramaic script after the Babylonian exile.

"The Canaanite “Hebrew” alphabet is a development from the Aramaic alphabet taking place during the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman periods (c. 500 BC – 50 AD)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... w_alphabet

The Aramaic script is based on the Phoenician script.

"The ancient Aramaic alphabet was adapted by Arameans from the Phoenician alphabet and became a distinct script by the 8th century BC."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_alphabet

The Phoenician script is from the Proto-Canaanite (Proto-Sinaitic) script.

"The Phoenician alphabet is a direct continuation of the "Proto-Canaanite" script of the Bronze Age collapse period."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet

The Proto-Sinaitic script borrowed Egyptian hieroglyphic symbols and used them in a phonetic way.

Proto-Sinaitic (also referred to as Sinaitic, Proto-Canaanite when found in Canaan,[1] the North Semitic alphabet,[2] or Early Alphabetic)[3] is considered the earliest trace of alphabetic writing and the common ancestor of both the Ancient South Arabian script and the Phoenician alphabet,[4] which led to many modern alphabets including the Greek alphabet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script

And evidence points to the Proto-Sinaitic script originating from the Hyksos in Egypt.

According to common theory, Canaanites or Hyksos who spoke a Semitic language repurposed Egyptian hieroglyphs to construct a different script.[6][7] The script is attested in a small corpus of inscriptions found at Serabit el-Khadim in the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, dating to the Middle Bronze Age (2100–1500 BC).[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script

Thirty incised graffiti in a "Proto-Sinaitic script" shed light on the history of the alphabet.[2] The mines were worked by prisoners of war from southwest Asia who presumably spoke a Northwest Semitic language, such as the Canaanite that was ancestral to Phoenician and Hebrew. The incisions date from the beginning of the 16th century BC.

It was generally accepted that the language of the inscriptions was Semitic, that the script had a hieratic prototype and was ancestral to the Semitic alphabets, and that the script was itself acrophonic and alphabetic (more specifically, a consonantal alphabet or abjad).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serabit_el-Khadim

The oldest inscription of the Proto-Sinaitic script dates to King Amenemhat III. And it can be interpreted to refer to the Hebrews.

"This is the oldest attested proto-consonantal letter in the world, dating to Year 18 of King Amenemhat III (ca. 1842 BCE). The oldest inscription completely inscribed in the proto-consonantal script (Sinai 377)—which derives from Wadi Nasb, the nearby water source for mining expeditions to Serabit—dates to only two years later. According to my reading, the caption on Sinai 115 reads, 'Six Levantines, Hebrews of Bethel, the beloved.'"
https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2017/04/h ... -alphabet/



"Sania 115, dates from 1842 BCE and is on display at Harvard’s Semitic Museum. It identifies Joseph and his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, and is inscribed with the words “6 Levantines: Hebrews of Bethel, the beloved.”

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/exper ... bet-474718

Near Thebes, limestone walls at Wadi el-Hol have Proto-Sinaitic writings that date to 1900-1800 BC.

Carved in the cliffs of soft stone, the writing, in a Semitic script with Egyptian influences, has been dated to somewhere between 1900 and 1800 B.C., two or three centuries earlier than previously recognized uses of a nascent alphabet. The first experiments with alphabet thus appeared to be the work of Semitic people living deep in Egypt, not in their homelands in the Syria-Palestine region, as had been thought.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes ... rigin.html


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... rawing.jpg

Evolution of letters of the alphabet from hieroglyphics:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script

Well, we shall have to see. The reading of Joseph and his sons is just a bit of a coincidence, don't you think? And that very Bible -believer article (even if the site is legit) with the person riding on a donkey (which doesn't make it even a Semite, let alone Israelite) claims mentions of Israelites and Bethel, and as I say, we shall have to see.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

I'd say that its consistency over time seems strong evidence that there was deep reverence for what was written from the outset.

This also suggests that there was some force at work to prevent gradual degradation of the text over time, humans are humans and are rarely free of bias, I think its reasonable to expect to see much more of a bifurcation of texts than we actually do see.

The Dead See scrolls show this consistency and the very few deviations amongst the thousands of New Testament manuscripts too, this strikes me as evidence that the text was inspired and has been protected from human corruption over many thousands of years.

This makes two errors.
(1) meticulous and accurate transmission of fairy tales doesn't make them anything other than fairy - tales.

(2) meticulous transmission of OT text does not validate NT text, which is Not Jewish, nor part of oral tradition, nor to be trusted, but is a (clearly) Greco -Roman Paulinist -Christian polemic, the original of which was adapted, altered and fiddled by each of the writers of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John; and the supposed meticulous transmission of Torah simply does not apply to the Gospels, nor legitimize them.

The contradictions, misquotes of OT text and general fabrication of the NT pretty much guarantees that this is not divinely anything, no matter what claims you make for the OT.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, well. 88 pages - the same as on my former board in the ongoing denial of 'Evolution a Fairy tale' really referring to popular misunderstanding of Evolution rather than evolution being untrue. Explained in page 5 but still being fingered in the eared by page 88.

But, otseng, mate, while I hate to play the 'Bias card', Petrovich is a shill of Creationism, and his Interpretation of this 'proto Hebrew' (which as I said already, is taken as Canaanite script and nothing to do with Hebrew, is surely seen with the eye of faith.

The article is rebuffed in the site.
https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2017/04/r ... -petrovich

[TRANSPONDER]

The oldest writing systems in the world are hieroglyphics and cuneiform. Both hieroglyphics and cuneiform are based on pictographic symbols, that is, there is no correlation between the symbol and how it sounds. The alphabet is a phonetic writing system which is a major development in written languages that originated from hieroglyphics.

Some background on the history of the Hebrew alphabet...

The current modern Hebrew script originated from the Aramaic script after the Babylonian exile.

"The Canaanite “Hebrew” alphabet is a development from the Aramaic alphabet taking place during the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman periods (c. 500 BC – 50 AD)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... w_alphabet

The Aramaic script is based on the Phoenician script.

"The ancient Aramaic alphabet was adapted by Arameans from the Phoenician alphabet and became a distinct script by the 8th century BC."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_alphabet

The Phoenician script is from the Proto-Canaanite (Proto-Sinaitic) script.

"The Phoenician alphabet is a direct continuation of the "Proto-Canaanite" script of the Bronze Age collapse period."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet

The Proto-Sinaitic script borrowed Egyptian hieroglyphic symbols and used them in a phonetic way.

Proto-Sinaitic (also referred to as Sinaitic, Proto-Canaanite when found in Canaan,[1] the North Semitic alphabet,[2] or Early Alphabetic)[3] is considered the earliest trace of alphabetic writing and the common ancestor of both the Ancient South Arabian script and the Phoenician alphabet,[4] which led to many modern alphabets including the Greek alphabet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script

And evidence points to the Proto-Sinaitic script originating from the Hyksos in Egypt.

According to common theory, Canaanites or Hyksos who spoke a Semitic language repurposed Egyptian hieroglyphs to construct a different script.[6][7] The script is attested in a small corpus of inscriptions found at Serabit el-Khadim in the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, dating to the Middle Bronze Age (2100–1500 BC).[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script

Thirty incised graffiti in a "Proto-Sinaitic script" shed light on the history of the alphabet.[2] The mines were worked by prisoners of war from southwest Asia who presumably spoke a Northwest Semitic language, such as the Canaanite that was ancestral to Phoenician and Hebrew. The incisions date from the beginning of the 16th century BC.

It was generally accepted that the language of the inscriptions was Semitic, that the script had a hieratic prototype and was ancestral to the Semitic alphabets, and that the script was itself acrophonic and alphabetic (more specifically, a consonantal alphabet or abjad).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serabit_el-Khadim

The oldest inscription of the Proto-Sinaitic script dates to King Amenemhat III. And it can be interpreted to refer to the Hebrews.

"This is the oldest attested proto-consonantal letter in the world, dating to Year 18 of King Amenemhat III (ca. 1842 BCE). The oldest inscription completely inscribed in the proto-consonantal script (Sinai 377)—which derives from Wadi Nasb, the nearby water source for mining expeditions to Serabit—dates to only two years later. According to my reading, the caption on Sinai 115 reads, 'Six Levantines, Hebrews of Bethel, the beloved.'"
https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2017/04/h ... -alphabet/



"Sania 115, dates from 1842 BCE and is on display at Harvard’s Semitic Museum. It identifies Joseph and his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, and is inscribed with the words “6 Levantines: Hebrews of Bethel, the beloved.”

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/exper ... bet-474718

Near Thebes, limestone walls at Wadi el-Hol have Proto-Sinaitic writings that date to 1900-1800 BC.

Carved in the cliffs of soft stone, the writing, in a Semitic script with Egyptian influences, has been dated to somewhere between 1900 and 1800 B.C., two or three centuries earlier than previously recognized uses of a nascent alphabet. The first experiments with alphabet thus appeared to be the work of Semitic people living deep in Egypt, not in their homelands in the Syria-Palestine region, as had been thought.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes ... rigin.html


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... rawing.jpg

Evolution of letters of the alphabet from hieroglyphics:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script

Well, we shall have to see. The reading of Joseph and his sons is just a bit of a coincidence, don't you think? And that very Bible -believer article (even if the site is legit) with the person riding on a donkey (which doesn't make it even a Semite, let alone Israelite) claims mentions of Israelites and Bethel, and as I say, we shall have to see.

Jerusalem Post Reports With no cautions) the claims of Petrovich, which don't seem to be more than Faith -based Bibleclaims which detect evidence for Israelis (never mind references to Joseph himself) in 'proto semitic' writings which have been described by proper archaeologists as Canaanite and as I said, hi -jacked by Bible apologists who call it 'proto Hebrew' which is not actually wrong but misleading as it implies that early Hebrew is all it is; it isn't; it is Non Hebrew script adopted by the Hebrews later on (probably from the Phoenecians - just as the Greeks did, because the Phoenecian alphabet was incredibly useful). None of this is evidence for Israelites in Egypt before (at least) the time Israel became enough of a state for the people to emigrate and trade with Egypt after the 20'th dynasty rather than the 13th.

I don't know what to make of that Wiki rep of a line of pictographic script. There is no explanation or link, nor transcription. How does that support the claim that this is the writing of Israelis in Egypt before the Hyksos?

I think, Otseng mate, it's time to bear in mind the quote from Qualiasoup 'Open -minded' "It is not the skeptic who needs less evidence, but the Believer needs more". You willingness to post the dubious claims of "Answers in Genesis" hacks and frauds who post their crud in legitimate archeological websites and have to be busted otherwise the Bible apologists would wag them about as 'valid scientific archaeology' (and if their tosh gets non -accepted they whine about bias and cancel -culture by the skeptical orthodoxy) does you no credit and smacks of bias confirmation on your part (since you don't bother to check) and a willingness to bamboozle me, just to silence the skeptic.

[otseng]

while I hate to play the 'Bias card', Petrovich is a shill of Creationism, and his Interpretation of this 'proto Hebrew' (which as I said already, is taken as Canaanite script and nothing to do with Hebrew, is surely seen with the eye of faith.

The bias card is fallacious.

“They’re biased, so they’re wrong!” That’s a fallacy. We can call it the bias fallacy. Here’s why it’s a fallacy: being biased doesn’t entail being wrong. So when someone jumps from the observation that So-and-so is biased to the conclusion that So-and-so is wrong, they commit the bias fallacy. It’s that simple.

https://byrdnick.com/archives/11072/the-bias-fallacy

Present counter-evidence instead of simply playing the fallacious bias card.

The article is rebuffed in the site.
https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2017/04/r ... -petrovich

In the article, the main point Millard is critiquing is Petrovich should've put his thesis under peer review first before writing a popular book about it.

"Many scholars have written about the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, some examining the originals themselves, none agreeing completely on their decipherment, for anyone to present such astonishing claims for his research to the general public in a book as Petrovitch has done, seems irresponsible. His work should be submitted to rigorous scholarly examination first, lest it prove as misleading as some other attempts to read the Proto-Sinaitic texts. If it meets approval, then is the time to publicize it."

The author does not reject Proto-Sinaitic script is the first alphabet nor does he offer an alternative translation.

As for Petrovich's claims, I see it more as an interesting take rather than a conclusive argument. The entire argument about the first alphabet does not rest on how it should be translated, but that it exists in the first place.

Jerusalem Post Reports With no cautions) the claims of Petrovich, which don't seem to be more than Faith -based Bibleclaims which detect evidence for Israelis (never mind references to Joseph himself) in 'proto semitic' writings which have been described by proper archaeologists as Canaanite and as I said, hi -jacked by Bible apologists who call it 'proto Hebrew' which is not actually wrong but misleading as it implies that early Hebrew is all it is; it isn't; it is Non Hebrew script adopted by the Hebrews later on (probably from the Phoenecians - just as the Greeks did, because the Phoenecian alphabet was incredibly useful).

All I'm saying is Proto-Sinaitic script is the first alphabet. Are you saying Proto-Sinaitic script is not the first alphabet?

None of this is evidence for Israelites in Egypt before (at least) the time Israel became enough of a state for the people to emigrate and trade with Egypt after the 20'th dynasty rather than the 13th.

No, but it is a necessarily step in order for Moses later to have written the Torah right after the exodus.

You willingness to post the dubious claims of "Answers in Genesis" hacks and frauds ...

Actually, it is wikipedia that confirms Proto-Sinaitic script is the first alphabet, not AIG.

"Proto-Sinaitic (also referred to as Sinaitic, Proto-Canaanite when found in Canaan,[1] the North Semitic alphabet,[2] or Early Alphabetic)[3] is considered the earliest trace of alphabetic writing and the common ancestor of both the Ancient South Arabian script and the Phoenician alphabet,[4] which led to many modern alphabets including the Greek alphabet."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script

And here are more sources that confirm that:

Sinaitic inscriptions, also called proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, archaeological remains that are among the earliest examples of alphabetic writing; they were inscribed on stones in the Sinai Peninsula, where they were first discovered in 1904–05 by the British archaeologist Sir Flinders Petrie. Apparently influenced both by Egyptian hieroglyphic writing and by the Canaanitic writing system (1900–1800 bce; probably ancestral to the North Semitic alphabet), the Sinaitic inscriptions date from approximately the beginning of the 16th century bce. Although not fully deciphered, the writing system appears to be alphabetic rather than ideographic.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sinaitic-inscriptions

Sometime during the second millennium B.C. (estimated between 1850 and 1700 B.C.), a group of Semitic-speaking people adapted a subset of Egyptian hieroglyphics to represent the sounds of their language. This Proto-Sinaitic script is often considered the first alphabetic writing system, where unique symbols stood for single consonants (vowels were omitted).

https://www.history.com/news/who-create ... t-alphabet

The alphabet seems to have been invented just once, by Semitic workers in Egypt nearly 4,000 years ago. The script they devised, known as Proto-Sinaitic script, was an attempt to repurpose hieroglyphics for their own language.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... came-to-be

[TRANSPONDER]

Nobody is contesting Canaanite script in the Sinai. I have been talking about Canaanite immigrant workers and no doubt servants and possibly slaves in Egypt itself for some time. The question is whether there is a shred of decent evidence that these were Hebrews/Israelites, and there is none. Everything you have presented has failed - the four room house, the three colour mushroomhead statue, the Hyksos cylinder - seal, which was quite a nice attempt I must say
the effort to wish Joseph on Senusret III and the hoary old misrepresentation of Canaanite as 'Proto - Hebrew', which is true in that Hebrew script derived from it but untrue in that it was not early written Hebrew, written by Hebrews.

The point about Petrovich is not that I'm dismissing him because he is a Creationist, or that he plonked his crummy Bible -apologist article on an Archaeological forum without getting it reviewed before rather than afterwards, but that there is no validity behind his claim of this or that chunk of script as being Hebrew (or early Hebrew) written by Hebrews.

There is no validity in trying to turn Canaanites in Egypt into Hebrews in Egypt because the evidence (see Finkelstein) over the past few decades has rather suggested that Israel did not become a state or Kingdom (though it was no doubt a hill tribe, herding goats) until after the Bronze age collapse.

Which would fit nicely as a 'conquest' of Canaan (after the Canaanite city states had fallen) a hundred or so years after the earlier New Kingdom Pharaohs - I have never denied that the dates would work. But all the evidence is actually against an Exodus as described in the Bible, even shorn of the miraculous and fantastical elements, and I maintain that, unless one is already a Bible -believer, there is a very good case for disbelieving that the Exodus ever happened.

I won't claim that I was the first to suggest that it was an Exile - date couple of books written in Babylon and drawing on Babylonian traditions - the Flood and Ark of Ut-Napishtim, Sargon in the bulrushes, even the absurd story of the Ziggurat of Babylon as the start of diverse human languages (1). Or that they used the history of the Hyksos expulsion (which Manetho recited and did not connect then with Jews or Judea; Josephus did that without any justification) and turned Ahmose into Moses and the expulsion of the Hyksos (even as Pharaonic Spin) into Pharaoh being forced to let them leave. But I never saw the idea online when I first mooted it and now I do.

This is how the evidence actually points when all the fiddling and Interpretation (not to say misrepresentation) is done, and the current state of evidence is given fair weight.

As was the case from the start (and again, nobody else seemed to have noticed this) the hard fact is that the avoiding of the 'Land of the Philistines' by the Exodus- trek is anachronistic and proves that it was written after the Bronze age collapse - 11th c at earliest.

Do you have anything more?

(1) and the story of a very early Ziggurat influencing Pyramid and Maya Temple architecture and everyone suddenly speaking different languages frankly strikes me as craziness.

[otseng]

The question is whether there is a shred of decent evidence that these were Hebrews/Israelites, and there is none.

I do not claim to have any direct evidence the Israelites were in Egypt. Everything I have presented (and will present) have been indirect evidence. So I disagree there are no evidence, there has only been no direct evidence.

The argument I present is that all these facts fit the Bible. Of course, it could all be wrong and everything are just coincidences. But, there are just too many coincidences to discount it and there has been no other viable cohesive alternative explanation proposed that explains all the facts. (Later I will present an alternative view and will discuss the weaknesses of it.)

but that there is no validity behind his claim of this or that chunk of script as being Hebrew (or early Hebrew) written by Hebrews.

The article you cited does not claim that. So, on what basis can you make this claim?

There is no validity in trying to turn Canaanites in Egypt into Hebrews in Egypt because the evidence (see Finkelstein) over the past few decades has rather suggested that Israel did not become a state or Kingdom (though it was no doubt a hill tribe, herding goats) until after the Bronze age collapse.

I don't see that as necessarily in conflict with anything I've presented so far. Israel was not a kingdom until 1037 BC.

I won't claim that I was the first to suggest that it was an Exile - date

Yes, most scholars claim the Bible was written post-exile. I've already presented the argument that if it was written post-exile, the story of the Bible was contrary to the prevailing view of the Hyksos as presented by the Egyptians. Why would they construct a story that would not be verifiable until over 2000 years later?

Later I'll post internal evidence that argues against a post-exile authorship.

couple of books written in Babylon and drawing on Babylonian traditions - the Flood and Ark of Ut-Napishtim, Sargon in the bulrushes, even the absurd story of the Ziggurat of Babylon as the start of diverse human languages (1).

As for the flood and ziggurats, if they were historical events, then it doesn't really matter who wrote about it first. If they were not historical events and only fictitious stories, then your argument would apply.

As for Sargon and the bulrushes, as I argued before, it depends on when the Torah was written. I accept the traditional dating, so the Biblical account would predate the Sargon account.

Or that they used the history of the Hyksos expulsion (which Manetho recited and did not connect then with Jews or Judea; Josephus did that without any justification) and turned Ahmose into Moses and the expulsion of the Hyksos (even as Pharaonic Spin) into Pharaoh being forced to let them leave.
But I never saw the idea online when I first mooted it and now I do.

I'll present evidence later of the time of Moses and look at what the evidence says.

[TRANSPONDER]

The question is whether there is a shred of decent evidence that these were Hebrews/Israelites, and there is none.

I do not claim to have any direct evidence the Israelites were in Egypt. Everything I have presented (and will present) have been indirect evidence. So I disagree there are no evidence, there has only been no direct evidence.

The argument I present is that all these facts fit the Bible. Of course, it could all be wrong and everything are just coincidences. But, there are just too many coincidences to discount it and there has been no other viable cohesive alternative explanation proposed that explains all the facts. (Later I will present an alternative view and will discuss the weaknesses of it.)

but that there is no validity behind his claim of this or that chunk of script as being Hebrew (or early Hebrew) written by Hebrews.

The article you cited does not claim that. So, on what basis can you make this claim?

There is no validity in trying to turn Canaanites in Egypt into Hebrews in Egypt because the evidence (see Finkelstein) over the past few decades has rather suggested that Israel did not become a state or Kingdom (though it was no doubt a hill tribe, herding goats) until after the Bronze age collapse.

I don't see that as necessarily in conflict with anything I've presented so far. Israel was not a kingdom until 1037 BC.

I won't claim that I was the first to suggest that it was an Exile - date

Yes, most scholars claim the Bible was written post-exile. I've already presented the argument that if it was written post-exile, the story of the Bible was contrary to the prevailing view of the Hyksos as presented by the Egyptians. Why would they construct a story that would not be verifiable until over 2000 years later?

Later I'll post internal evidence that argues against a post-exile authorship.

couple of books written in Babylon and drawing on Babylonian traditions - the Flood and Ark of Ut-Napishtim, Sargon in the bulrushes, even the absurd story of the Ziggurat of Babylon as the start of diverse human languages (1).

As for the flood and ziggurats, if they were historical events, then it doesn't really matter who wrote about it first. If they were not historical events and only fictitious stories, then your argument would apply.

As for Sargon and the bulrushes, as I argued before, it depends on when the Torah was written. I accept the traditional dating, so the Biblical account would predate the Sargon account.

Or that they used the history of the Hyksos expulsion (which Manetho recited and did not connect then with Jews or Judea; Josephus did that without any justification) and turned Ahmose into Moses and the expulsion of the Hyksos (even as Pharaonic Spin) into Pharaoh being forced to let them leave.
But I never saw the idea online when I first mooted it and now I do.

I'll present evidence later of the time of Moses and look at what the evidence says.

I don't think you have ANY evidence. Not for Israelites in Egypt until Israel became a nation before it split into 2 Kingdoms. Then Israelites as such could well Immigrate and trade in Egypt. I don't think you can even point to indirect evidence. You have no evidence of Joseph as advising Pharaoh, no evidence of Hebrews amongst the Hyksos, no evidence that Canaanite script was written by Hebrews, Nothing. They are not even coincidental; they are nothing. The Only thing you have is that an Exodus under the New Kingdom earlier kings fits the calculations, but that means nothing. If the calculations were different it would just come down to a different king. You have absolutely Nothing - not even Indirect evidence.
You can present what you like but I fail to see any point in discussing the weaknesses of no evidence.

The evidence, direct and indirect, is rather of the first 2 chapters being written after the 11th-12th c BC (or BCE) and likely as late as the Exile. The anachronism of the Philistines and the pointers to Babylon.

The article does (indirectly) claim that; there is no validity in the claim of the script being Israelite. The claim of reading 'Bethel'; and the like is not accepted. The current state of thought (as I understand it) is that Canaanites were working in Egypt and so any non - Egyptian script (especially if using Phoenecian script) is going to be Canaanite, not Hebrew.

Pretty strong evidence of this is the Armarna letters. This is the diplomatic correspondence of Akhenaten which would come after your dated exodus. It includes clay tablets in Akkadian from Canannite city states including Jerusalem under a governor with a Mesopotamian name and clearly Canaanite. There is NO Israel or Hebrew to be seen.

Later on we get the sea peoples under Ramesses II (who took some into his armies) then the mention of Israel under his son, Merneptah, and then the Bronze age collapse and the defeat of the sea peoples under Ramesses III and the appearance of the Philistines and then the Canaanites appear to be replaced by Israel, Moab and the new Amorite states, which is when we can expect to see Hebrews, in numbers, as traders, workers and slaves in Egypt, not before.

That is the evidence (direct and Indirect) and nothing is evidence for Israelites/Hebrews in Egypt under the Hyksos or before. Certainly not those bits of script which don't at the moments seem to have a translation.

Your cart before the horse claim of the Babylonian borrowings actually copying Hebrew originals is absurd. You seriously expect me to believe that Moses was found in the Bulrushes in Egypt and later writers in Babylon decided to wish that on the king of Akkad who ruled before Babylon was even a state? In the same way the tower of Babel (clearly the ziggurat of Babylon) cannot be the real origin of different human languages as you admit by postulating an earlier Ziggurat of 'Babel' really before Sumer, let alone Akkad and then Babylon even existed (why not the tower of Ur? Why not the tower of Eridu?). Even without the claims that Pyramids and Mayan temples copy the ziggurats and Egyptians and everyone else alll spoke Adunaic before this postulated pre -Sumer ziggurat and then suddenly they all spoke different languages. On top of that the Flood which comes down from Sumer in two later versions and works well enough in a river valley does not work in a global flood as in Genesis. So in all reason, and evidence (indirect, if it must be said) points to an Exiliic date for Genesis and Exodus and every reason to suppose that they can't really be true, even without the evidence of borrowing.

On all textual, historical and reasonable considerations, The Bible chapters 1 and 2 are without credibility. You may (clearly do) believe the Bible as broadly reliable through Faith - not evidence as there really is none. You can fiddle and wish the evidence to fit Genesis and Exodus (though the attempt to make Babel work looks frankly as crazy as Flat earthism) but I have to remind you that it is not about you maintaining your faith through Faith -based denial, but what case you can make to convince anyone who is undecided between the Biblical theory and the mainstream history, let alone anyone who credits the mainstream version, which these days is increasingly sceptical of there ever having been an Exodus of Hebrews (though an expulsion of Hyksos in some form is reliable).

Back to you and let's see what you have.