But we don't put too much weight on historicity of scripture, do we? The Philisitines (Akkadians, Hittites, and goodness know how many other tribes and nations) vs Hebrews was recorded in detail by one side. Being sacred texts, the chroniclers were most interested in recording God's perspective and relationship. So, if we were to move the Hebrew methodology to present-day Palestine history would start roughly in the 1920's with God commanding the Zionists to kick some arab butt.

In the same sense, the chroniclers of the old testement didn't give a care about the history of Canaan before God commanded the boyz to stake turf. Now if one were to take scripture as historical, then the Hebrews could always exersize a prior claim on any handful of dirt on the planet. Yaweh was their God, not a god of a buncha gentiles.

Dunno where I'm going with all of this except perhaps that I think invoking scripture to settle factual disputes is a misuse of both reason and of scripture.