Why do Christians trust the Bible?

[Brian37]

We believe that it just narrates through mythology and real events how man came to understand god and how mankinds behaviour evolved. First the behavior was perfect, then it degraded to a level where telling humans the importance of loving your neighbour just wasn't understandable. (This was before Romans gathered to see lions eat prisoners)
In a world where Child sacrifice and the likes were prevalent, man had no sense to treat everyone with respect. The world was barbaric, and to keep a country (Israel) pure and alive till the messiah arrived, it was necessary for rules to be set up so that they wouldn't do anything wrong.

When the world's morality improved and people were able to understand Jesus' teachings of love and compassion (still note that this was while Romans gathered to see lions eat prisoners) god sent Jesus to explain it all to them.

This is one of the problems with Christianity - in order to believe your fantasies, you have to create and believe in fictional history. What the evidence actually indicates is that human moral behavior was far from perfect but has been steadily improving over the ages with a few setbacks. Things like value of human life and loving your fellow man were understood and practiced long before your Jesus came along. And the tribe of Israel was hardly "pure", given the actions attributed to them.

There are moral philosophies teaching love and compassion that do it better than Jesus that are older than him - so the story that the world was in a state of moral depravity and Jesus came to improve that is a lie. The world was nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be and Jesus didn't improve it much.

I hate the word "philosophy". Science has proven that our morality is evolutionary, we see the same acts of cruelty and compassion in other primates and mammals as well as other species.

I prefer "moral motifs" and all religions are peppered with statements of compassion and kindness, but you can also find those motifs in fiction as well. If everyone can accept the other outside their own label can be good and do good, then the reality is that is is HUMANS doing that, not a myth club or a fictional god.

Mind everyone reading this though, having said "You don't need religion to be moral" does not make atheists automatically moral either, we are all still the same species. Atheists need to accept that as well.

[Jenny A]

Here is what I get, looking up each word you disagreed with-
Seth- appointed / placed
Enoch- (verb) inaugurate/ train/ dedicate
Kennan- sorrow/ to chant a dirge/ dirge
Mahalalel- (I agree with your find)-praise of God and it does not change the meaning of the name sentence
Lamech- humilation/ for lowering
So the meaning of the sentence stands for me.
Most meanings came from this web site-
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meani...lalel.html

I'm looking at your site. Ironically many of the means I quoted come from it:

Notice Enoch does mean dedicate and inaugurate. Train is a synonym for teach but it has a rather different connotation doesn't it?

Your own site renders Kennan as possession. http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meani...ELoumPwrdU Lamenter is given as an alternate meaning.

The same site says of Lamech:

Etymology and meaning of the name Lamech

The word למך (lmk) does not occur in Hebrew, so we are left to guess at its meaning. BDB remains silent on he subject, but both Jones' Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names and NOBSE Study Bible Name List suggest relations to a Semitic root that doesn't occur in the Biblical narrative but which also exists in Arabic, meaning strong and robust young man. Jones' Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names reads Powerful; NOBSE Study Bible Name List reads Wild Man.

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meani...ELpKGPwrdU

It adds:

To a creative audience, the name Lamech may also be seen as constructed of the particle ל (le), meaning to or towards . . . and the verb מוך (muk), be low, depressed. . The whole name would thus mean For Lowering; For Humiliation.

So humiliation if we want to get creative. I think the whole process is creative rather than miraculous.

In other words, what you have here is a mare's nest. Choose the meaning you like out of the hat, and ta da, you can make sentences.

[Minimalist]

Jumping back in to the question of the OP, here is a goodie from the list of names sequentially from Genesis one,
making a sentence reading downward.

Adam- - -- - man
Seth - - --- appointed
Enosh- -- - mortal
Kenan - - - sorrow
Mahalaleh- the blessed God
Jared- - - - shall come down
Enoch- -- - teaching
Methuselah- his death shall bring
Lamech- - - the despairing
Noah- - --- rest / comfort

Please give me the odds of the above happening by accident written thousands of years BC.

Sequentially where? Because the first 4 names mentioned are Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel.

And that's not counting the place names which precede any of them.

Did you simply ignore the ones which interrupted your little fairy tale?

[Jenny A]

Jumping back in to the question of the OP, here is a goodie from the list of names sequentially from Genesis one,
making a sentence reading downward.

Adam- - -- - man
Seth - - --- appointed
Enosh- -- - mortal
Kenan - - - sorrow
Mahalaleh- the blessed God
Jared- - - - shall come down
Enoch- -- - teaching
Methuselah- his death shall bring
Lamech- - - the despairing
Noah- - --- rest / comfort

Please give me the odds of the above happening by accident written thousands of years BC.

Sequentially where? Because the first 4 names mentioned are Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel.

And that's not counting the place names which precede any of them.

Did you simply ignore the ones which interrupted your little fairy tale?

He's got a hold of Genesis 5 which enumerates the generations of Adam. Not all the kids are listed.

[professor]

Jenny, you nailed it.
That list gives the people thru Seth, considered to be the line of the righteous I suppose.

[genkaus]

I hate the word "philosophy". Science has proven that our morality is evolutionary, we see the same acts of cruelty and compassion in other primates and mammals as well as other species.

What science has actually proven is that certain biological instincts are match actions that are normally regarded as moral. Human morality goes above and beyond anything akin to moral behavior found in the rest of the animal kingdom.

Mind everyone reading this though, having said "You don't need religion to be moral" does not make atheists automatically moral either, we are all still the same species. Atheists need to accept that as well.

The key fact to remember here is that we are not automatically moral - which is what we need philosophy for, to develop a system of morality.

[Minimalist]

Sequentially where? Because the first 4 names mentioned are Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel.

And that's not counting the place names which precede any of them.

Did you simply ignore the ones which interrupted your little fairy tale?

He's got a hold of Genesis 5 which enumerates the generations of Adam. Not all the kids are listed.

But he said...and I quote:

Genesis one

.

I guess his god is perfect but the prof is just a fuck-up?

[Aractus]

---

We don't have proof, we have something called evidence. Why do you think scholars use the term "Biblical Mount Sinai"? I'll give you a hint: because they acknowledge that Moses and the Israelites never went to Mt. Sinai!

The problem you have is in numbers. In the 15th-13th centuries BC, around the time when the exodus was supposed to have occurred, the population of Egypt was around 3.5 million at its height. The bible claims, several times, that 600,000 men aged from 20 left Egypt with their families - that would total around 2-3 million Jews leaving Egypt all at one time. That means they actually outnumbered the Egyptians. So therefore if they outnumbered the Egyptians - and we have hundreds (and probably thousands) of separate Egyptian writings on clay, pottery and stone that have survived from those centuries, where are the ones from the ancient Jews in those centuries (written in any language)? There aren't any! How can that possibly be?

---

Okay, so you mean this:

• Joshua conquers Jericho. “Joshua said to the people, ‘Shout, for the Lord has given you the city. And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the Lord for destruction. … But all silver and gold, and every vessel of bronze and iron, are holy to Jehovah; they shall go into the treasury of Jehovah.’ … Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword.” (6:16-17, 19, 21).
  
• Joshua conquers Ai. “Jehovah said to Joshua, ‘… you shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king. Only its spoil and its livestock you shall take as plunder for yourselves. Lay an ambush against the city, behind it.’ … And the men in the ambush rose quickly out of their place, and as soon as he had stretched out his hand, they ran and entered the city and captured it. And they hurried to set the city on fire. … And when Joshua and all Israel saw that the ambush had captured the city, … then they turned back and struck down the men of Ai. And the others came out from the city against them, so they were in the midst of Israel, some on this side, and some on that side. And Israel struck them down, until there was left none that survived or escaped. … And all who fell that day, both men and women, were 12,000, all the people of Ai.” (8:1-2, 19, 21-22, 25).
  
• Joshua makes the sun and moon stand still while he finishes slaughtering the Ai civilians ...“Joshua spoke to Jehovah …, and he said in the sight of Israel,
  “‘Sun, stand still at Gibeon,
  and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.’
  “And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
  until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.
  “Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord heeded the voice of a man, for the Lord fought for Israel.” (10:12-14).
  ** “it happened that the day was lengthened that the night not come on too soon, and be an obstruction to the zeal of the Hebrews in pursuing their enemies” - (Flavius Josephus - Ant., 5.61).
  
• Joshua kills the Amorite Kings and takes Makkedah. “Then Joshua said, ‘Open the mouth of the cave and bring those five kings out to me from the cave.’ And they did so, and brought those five kings out to him from the cave, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon. … Joshua struck them and put them to death, and he hanged them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. But at the time of the going down of the sun, Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves, and they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day.
  “As for Makkedah, Joshua captured it on that day and struck it, and its king, with the edge of the sword. He devoted to destruction every person in it; he left none remaining. And he did to the king of Makkedah just as he had done to the king of Jericho.” (10:22-23, 26-28).
  
• Joshua takes Southern Canaan. “Then Joshua and all Israel with him passed on from Makkedah to Libnah and fought against Libnah. And the Lord gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel. And he struck it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left none remaining in it. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho.
  “Then Joshua and all Israel with him passed on from Libnah to Lachish and laid siege to it and fought against it. And the Lord gave Lachish into the hand of Israel, and he captured it on the second day and struck it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it, as he had done to Libnah.
  “Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish. And Joshua struck him and his people, until he left none remaining.
  “Then Joshua and all Israel with him passed on from Lachish to Eglon. And they laid siege to it and fought against it. And they captured it on that day, and struck it with the edge of the sword. And he devoted every person in it to destruction that day, as he had done to Lachish.
  “Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron. And they fought against it and captured it and struck it with the edge of the sword, and its king and its towns, and every person in it. He left none remaining, as he had done to Eglon, and devoted it to destruction and every person in it.
  “Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned back to Debir and fought against it and he captured it with its king and all its towns. And they struck them with the edge of the sword and devoted to destruction every person in it; he left none remaining. Just as he had done to Hebron and to Libnah and its king, so he did to Debir and to its king.
  “So Joshua struck the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings. He left none remaining, but devoted to destruction all that breathed, just as Jehovah the God of Israel commanded.” (10:29-40).
  
• Joshua takes Northern Canaan. “When Jabin, king of Hazor, heard of this, he sent to Jobab king of Madon, and to the king of Shimron, and to the king of Achshaph, and to the kings who were in the northern hill country, and in the Arabah south of Chinneroth, and in the lowland, and in Naphoth-dor on the west, to the Canaanites in the east and the west, the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, and the Jebusites in the hill country, and the Hivites under Hermon in the land of Mizpah. And they came out with all their troops, a great horde, in number like the sand that is on the seashore, with very many horses and chariots. .. So Joshua and all his warriors came suddenly against them by the waters of Merom and fell upon them. And Jehovah gave them into the hand of Israel, who struck them and chased them as far as Great Sidon and Misrephoth-maim, and eastwards as far as the Valley of Mizpeh. And they struck them until he left none remaining. …
  “And Joshua turned back at that time and captured Hazor and struck its king with the sword, for Hazor formerly was the head of all those kingdoms. And they struck with the sword all who were in it, devoting them to destruction; there was none left that breathed. And he burned Hazor with fire. And all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua captured, and struck them with the edge of the sword, devoting them to destruction, just as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded. …
  “For it was the Jehovah’s doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the Jehovah commanded Moses.
  “And Joshua came at that time and cut off the Anakim from the hill country, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the hill country of Israel. Joshua devoted them to destruction with their cities. There was none of the Anakim left in the land of the people of Israel. Only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod did some remain. So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord had spoken to Moses. And Joshua gave it for an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal allotments. And the land had rest from war.” (11:1-4, 7-8, 10-12, 20-23).

Whew. That's what you're claiming is real tangible history?

Here's your first problem: The destruction of Jericho dates (radiocarbon dating of organic material) to 17th-16th century BC, well before the exodus is meant to have occurred.

---

I didn't mean it that way. I made it clear that I had nothing to argue about there. I just said that a narrative like structure was very limited in the pentateuch. Starting from Joshua, there isn't any law-giving., just historical type narratives. We don't have to argue on EVERYTHING

Well that's not the Orthodox teaching at all - in fact it's not the teaching of any Christian faith that I know of that the exodus and conquest of Canaan are not historical events.

Ps- I don't treat the bible as the word of god. Maybe exodus never happened and the hebrews just went to fight against their neighbours for petty reasons. I'm not going to imply anything affirmatively before the new testament

Again, that's not the Orthodox teaching at all.

Listen to this:

• Okay, Kevin. This is, of course, a very common question. The short answer is that we use the Septuagint because the Septuagint was the Scripture of the early Church. The Jews, of course, standardized their Bible much later than [that,] quite a long time after the start of Christianity. The Protestants follow the Jewish tradition because Martin Luther, when he started the Protestant Reformation, believed that they should follow the Jewish tradition because if the Old Testament is supposed to be the Hebrew scriptures, then really we should be following what the Hebrews have that’s in the canon and the text. But remember the Protestant Reformation was a rejection of the Catholic Church and of the traditions of the ancient Church.
  
  So people who want to be the closest to what the Church was doing in the early Church should not be really looking at the Hebrew text, but looking at the Septuagint, because far more Jews were speaking Greek and using the Septuagint at the time of the early Church than were using Hebrew. There were millions of Jews in what we call diaspora. We call them Hellenized Jews or Hellenistic Jews. These were Jews who did not know Hebrew. The Jews who used and knew Hebrew were the ones who were living in Judea and maybe Galilee, and those [were] of [a] small minority of Jews in the world. Philo of Alexandria says that there were one million Jews in Alexandria, Egypt. That’s probably an exaggerated number, but there were millions of Jews throughout the Roman Empire—in Babylon, especially in Asia Minor, and Egypt, in Greece, in Rome—and those people used the Septuagint.
  
  That’s why when Christianity began, it began in the Jewish synagogues, and those people were using the Septuagint, so the Church simply continued that practice.
  
  Dr Jeannie Constantinou (an Orthodox theologian)

It's all untrue - every single part of it. The LXX didn't even exist at the time of Jesus. There were a number of competing Greek translations done in the mid-late 2nd century A.D. proving the widespread use of the Hebrew scriptures at the time by the early Christians. It also proves the LXX wasn't completed until this time otherwise why was there a need to do more translations from Hebrew? It can be proved that some of the N.T. authors were only familiar with the proto-MT text and never used the proto-LXX. There's no record of the Jews ever using a translation in the Synagogues. Both Jesus and Josephus are only familiar with the Hebrew version scriptures (proven for Jesus because he talks about the "Law and Prophets" and the "Law, Prophets and Writings" - the LXX is separated into four sections not three. Josephus writes that the scriptures are on 22 scrolls - that's how the Hebrew scriptures were written and there's no record of a Greek version ever being arranged that way - how could it be when the books are reordered? In the third century Origen modified it extensively.

Not a single complete ancient Greek manuscript of the LXX exists anywhere, not one, and the book of Daniel only exists in ONE (completely) and a recently discovered second manuscript (partially). It (ie Codex Chisianus) dates to the NINTH century. Therefore the complete LXX that exists today dates to the 9th century, and the complete Hebrew scriptures that exist to day date to the early 11th century. Dating the LXX to any other time is a LIE. How can you justify dating the LXX one way and the Hebrew another way? That's absolute rubbish. It may have had some of its antiquity in the 2nd century BC (which I doubt). The oldest manuscripts that exist today date from the 4th century - well the oldest Hebrew manuscripts that exist today date from the 2nd century BC! The pattern should be clear - everything the Orthodox scholar above says about the LXX has been disproved, is dishonest, and above all show absolute religious blindness when it comes to this.

Furthermore, the DSS agree with the Lennigard Codex 95% of the time (most of that last 5% is meaningless differentiations). To my knowledge no part of the MT has been shown to be a later addition, whereas much of the LXX is an addition to the Hebrew text.

[Aractus]

I got a little bit carried away last night, let me sum it up better. Also I should have quoted the question posed to the theologian which was this:

• Jeannie, let’s begin with the Hebrew scriptures, because we’ve got a lot of ground to cover tonight, and I want to get to it even if we have to go a little bit long. Let’s start with the Old Testament, or the Hebrew scriptures. The first translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, which was the common language of the Roman civilization at the time, is the Septuagint version, sometimes known as LXX to our listeners, written approximately 150-250 B.C. It continues to be the authorized version of the Hebrew scriptures that we Orthodox use liturgically.
  
  However, and here’s the big question—I’ll phrase it—the Old Testament, or the Hebrew Bible that is considered authoritative today by Jews and Protestants is not the Septuagint, but it’s the most recent, more recent translation, rather, called the Masoretic text, circa 7-10th centuries after Christ’s death. So the Masoretic Old Testament or Hebrew text was based on translations from Hebrew manuscripts, original Hebrew manuscripts, that are at least ten centuries later than that which was used in the Septuagint.
  
  So here’s my first question: Why do the Orthodox churches use the Septuagint translation as the official version of the Old Testament, liturgically, when Jews and Protestants use the later and more recent Masoretic version?

If Jeannie disagreed with the premise of the question, she would have said. So she is agreeing that the Orthodox faith teaches that the LXX dates to the 3rd-2nd century BC, and that Masoretic Text (MT) is a later text.

There's also this:

• Mr. Allen: And is it true—correct me where I’m wrong—that most of—or maybe all of; I don’t know—the quotations of Hebrew scripture in the New Testament came, not from ancient Hebrew manuscripts, but came out of the Septuagint version of Old Testament Hebrew scriptures?
  
  Dr. Constantinou: Yes, especially that is the case with most of the New Testament. When they’re quoting from the Old Testament, they’re quoting it [from] the Septuagint version. The apostles didn’t find anything wrong with the Septuagint. They didn’t say, “Oh, we can’t use this, because it’s not Hebrew.” That was the common Bible of the Jews for 200 years before Christ. Those were their Scriptures. And the thing is that the New Testament is just saturated with words and images from the Old Testament.

So, to sum up Orthodox teaching on the OT and LXX:

1. The LXX (Septuagint) is an early translation of the OT and dates to the 3rd-2nd century BC.
2. The LXX was used widely by both the Jewish church AND the early apostles/Christians.
3. The NT authors quote from the LXX and not the MT.

Okay, now here are the facts:

1. The complete LXX does not exist anywhere in a single ancient manuscript, unlike the Hebrew scriptures which does (ie Leningrad Codex), and the New Testament scriptures which also does (ie Codex Sinaiticus and others).

So, here are the dates for the earliest complete manuscripts:

Hebrew OT: Early 11th century (Leningrad Codex - c. 1008 AD).
Greek NT: Mid 4th century (Codex Sinaiticus - c. 350 AD).
LXX: THERE ISN'T ONE!!

The Greek OT we have today is taken from just two manuscripts - Codex Vaticanus (which is nearly complete - but is missing most of Genesis, and small sections of Samuel and Psalms) and Codex Sinaiticus (which is quite incomplete), both of which are copies of the fifth column of the Hexapla. If Vaticanus had all its leaves then we would call it complete (even if some text was missing from some pages), however even then it wouldn't be a complete LXX copy because it has the Theodotion translation of Daniel. This isn't an opinion held by a few scholars, it's a fact: Jerome said that by the time he received the Greek text that the book had been replaced. There's actually more Theodotion influence than just this one book, but the fact that an entire book was replaced shows the nature of the "LXX" as a progressive text.

Here you can see the LXX and Theodotion texts translated into English side-by-side . They're not just a little different - they're hugely different!

There are only two ancient Greek manuscripts in the entire world that contain the LXX translation of the book of Daniel. The first is Codex Chisianus, 9th century - complete (for the book of Daniel). The second is Papyrus 967 which is not complete but contains some of the pages. P967 dates to the 3rd century.

1b. The oldest manuscripts...

The oldest known manuscripts containing the following are:

Hebrew OT: 2nd century BC (Dead Sea Scrolls).
Greek NT: late 1st or early-mid 2nd century AD.
LXX: 3rd century AD.

The first manuscripts of decent quality (ie. complete or near-complete for certain books):

Hebrew OT: 2nd century BC (various DSS including "great Isaiah scroll).
Greek NT: late 2nd - early 3rd century AD (Papyrus 75).
LXX: mid-4th century AD (Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus).

Any way you look equitably at it, there are older copies of both the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT than there are of the LXX.

2. Widespread use and the NT authors all quote from it.

Wrong.

Some NT writers were familiar with a proto-lxx for some books, that's probably true. Just like how Matthew and Luke probably had a proto-mark manuscript. But others were NOT.

Most of the information you find on the LXX will not comprehensibly look at the quotation styles per author, and that's really what you have to look at. If all you do is look at all the quotations of the OT in the NT as a whole and then ask "where did it come from" you will find yourself with examples of where the NT follows the Hebrew very closely, where it seems to follow the LXX letter-for-letter, and also where it doesn't follow the original text quite so adherently.

What you need to do is separate the quotations per author, starting with Mark. All the quotations in Mark are the work of a single author. You then discount those passages that are duplicated among Matthew and Luke, and you also consider the quotations that come from "Q", and you are left with only a handful of quotations in Matthew that you can attribute to Matthew and in Luke-Acts that you can attribute to Luke.

Next you have John - all the quotations in John are from a single author.

Then you have Paul - again, all his undisputed epistles are the work of single author.

When you look at it this way, which I did a while ago, you find that some authors seem to be familiar with a proto-lxx for some quotes, and others never use it and only know the Hebrew.

For example, John:

John 2:17/Psalms 68:9 - No difference (between LXX and MT)
John 6:45/Isaiah 54:13 - Follows MT
John 10:34/Psalms 81:6 - Follows LXX (letter-for-letter).
John 12:38/Isaiah 53:1 - No difference
John 13:1/Psalms 40:9 - MT (again, it's very similar but the Greek text itself is clearly distinct).
John 15:25/Psalms 68:4 - MT (past tense).
John 19:36/Psalms 33:20/Exodus 12:4 - Neither.
John 19:37/Zechariah 12:10 - MT

Now here's a good Example. John 6:45 - clearly very literal translation in the Gospel.

This is the LXX Isaiah 54:13:

καὶ πάντας τοὺς υἱούς σου διδακτοὺς θεοῦ

And this is John 6:45:

Καὶ ἔσονται πάντες διδακτοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ

(note that's just the quoted section "they will all be taught by God", and not the full verses).

There's simply no way to explain differences like that if they're using the LXX as the basis. If he was copying from the LXX it would be near letter-to-letter identical, like the John 10:34/Psalms 81:6 example. What you see above is a clear example of two independent translations of the same few words in Hebrew.

Besides just one example, John follows the MT and not the LXX. And since the LXX was revised by Origen (and others), it's entirely possible that the LXX passage was altered to match John's quote.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

1) I don't think the Israelites spoke hebrew while in Egypt. Furthermore Moses was raised in an Egyptian household. The earliest known hebrew writing dates from 1000 BC give or take a few years. (The gezer calendar)

Because they were never in Egypt. If they were in Egypt, and they were slaves, something would have been written down - regardless of whether or not they felt it fit to record the Exodus, a record of their stay in Egypt would exist.

2) Abraham wasn't native to Canaan. It's more likely he spoke and taught his children Sumerian or aramaic. Though we can be certain he could communicate with other Canaanites.

Abraham didn't write anything. The Bible doesn't claim that he wrote anything, so what he spoke is irrelevant.

4) when moses went for a total of 80 years out of Egypt he must have picked up certain words from the natives.

---

Moses is meant to have written down the Ten Commandments on stone tablets, twice. He's also meant to have done so on Mt. Sinai, however he and the ancient Israelites never actually went there!

---

6) when the hebrews settled in Canaan I doubt they'd speak Egyptian as fluently as their parents since they weren't born in Egypt. They'd probably have knowledge of local languages.

Right, even though Egyptians had heavily fortified strongholds like this one in Canaan at the time (there have also been two more that have been excavated and also date to the 15th - mid 12th centuries BC)? The entire Canaan region was controlled by Egypt through to the mid 12th century, and they still had a presence there after that (this is confirmed not just by their strongholds, but by hundreds or thousands of cuneiform tables of communication between Egypt and Canaan).

When the Bible was written (i.e. the Pentateuch), it was done so to tell the Israelites that they this grand history and that they were stronger than Egypt.

8) The first appearance of classical hebrew around 10th century BC fits perfectly with the Saul- David timeline

Except that no 10th century BC Hebrew has ever been discovered.

---

According to the fairy tale God himself wrote the Ten Commandments the first time. Exodus 31:18

Moses then broke the stone tablets that God had written. Exodus 32:16-19.

In Exodus 34:1-28 God told Moses to chip out two new stone tables and to write down the Ten Commandments himself. BTW, the actual Ten Commandments are found in Exodus 34:10-28.