Then we are in agreement. Because what you were saying is that the works were 100% false, meaning that nothing mentioned in them had any historical basis or correlation. Which is factually incorrect.

I agree that they cannot be relied upon in absence of many, many other sources both primary and archeological to discern what’s bullshit from what was a kernel of truth.

But the idea that mythological histories don’t contain any kernels of truth at all is not a position that’s held up well over time, such as the consensus being Troy didn’t exist until some nerds followed the geography in Homer exactly and found the damn thing.

So while you are correct that Hebrew slaves didn’t build the pyramids, there are records that groups of twelve tribes were brought into captivity into Egypt not long before there was a large battle with Egypt where some of those tribes were recorded as fully circumcised (as opposed to the partial circumcision of the time). Tribes who later ally together to conquer their homelands unlike the anachronistic book of Joshua’s conquering. Their later non-Biblical mythologized history even talks about how their prophet died in the desert as they were wandering back by foot from a battle in North Africa, and while there’s zero evidence of the Israelites mentioning Moses until much later on, there’s two separate 8th century BCE inscriptions of one of these tribes of people claiming someone by the same name as the prophet who died in the desert as the ancestor of their rulers. These last people were the Denyen, part of the sea peoples, which included the tribes brought into Egyptian captivity and who were fighting Egypt while circumcised.

Sometimes history gets appropriated and changed, and it’s important to keep an eye out for things like that. So when the Bible has a story about how the ancestors of one group of people have their birthright stolen by the ancestor named ‘Israel’, even if those mythological eponymous founders didn’t actually exist or trick their father with soup, a story of stealing one people’s history and making it Israel’s shouldn’t just be ignored, particularly in light of emerging evidence of Israel in its infancy having had trade relations and cultural exchange with the area those people were in before major religious reforms and rewriting of history.