“This predicates the interpretive process on a presumption of infallibility; it is thus presupposed outright rather than demonstrated on its own. I strongly disagree with this condition because it can lead the interpreter to adopt rather strained and improbable (if not impossible) interpretations in order to harmonize what is written with what science and history have to say.”
History is not science. Science does not conflict with the Bible unlike ancient history. Some people believe the Babylonian astronomical tables of which certain dates were derived is scientific evidence of a certain date. Nothing is farther from the truth. Their elaborate dating system originated from their astrological beliefs.
The farther back in dated history, the more obscure history becomes:
The Straight Dope: Is there any historical basis for the events of the Jewish Exodus?
I don't want to get your column embroiled in biblical debates, but I must know the answer to a question that has been bothering me for some time. I need to know if the Egyptians record the Jewish Exodus in their ancient historical documents. If so, does it differ from the historical accounts? Do they record a "Moses" raised as a pharoah's son? Did they notice that they were hit with ten plagues? Finally, do they record the destruction of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea?— Rufino O., Chicago
Dear Rufino:
If you're hoping for a clipping from the Egyptian News-Gazette reporting a spate of unusual weather--e.g., partly sunny with occasional torrents of fire--I have to disappoint you. Apart from the Old Testament and related sources, there are only a few surviving records of any sort from the Mosaic era, mostly in the form of inscribed stone slabs called stelae.
There's a large body of Hellenic literature dealing with Moses, but all of it was written long after the fact and was considerably embroidered in the process. One stela from the reign of Merneptah (1235-1227 BC, thought to be roughly the time of Exodus) does refer to the nomad tribe of Israel, but claims to have destroyed it. Plainly the war correspondence of the time was no more reliable than that of the present era.
http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/Chronlgy.htm
Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible volume I Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews
A word of caution
Ancient history cannot be proven, because there are no living informants. And any attempt to make a chronological scheme of the kings of ancient nations is tentative. The Oslo chronology does not claim to represent the final word of the matter, but it represents a new approach to chronology. It does not generally challenge the interpretations and datings of astronomical tablets by experts such as Sachs, Hunger, Watson, Steel, and Brack-Bernsen, but it asks about the origin and quality of the tablets in question, thus scrutinizing the connection between the dates and regnal years of real kings. Its advantage is that the cuneiform data are not seen through the glasses of the traditional chronology, but the evidence of each tablet is presented in its own right. It is also an advantage that published cuneiform sources are much more numerous and much more complete than was the case 50 years ago when Parker and Dubberstein did their work. The real importance of the Oslo chronology, therefore, is not that it has established "the only true chronology", but that it has demonstrated that neither the accepted chronology which is based on P&D is "the only true chronology" .
Considering 1,610 years was involved in producing the Bible, it would be unreasonable to conclude historical accounts will not at times conflict with the Bible. If a person has solid reason to conclude the Bible was inspired of God, conflicting accounts are relative.