I’m not an ANE historian, but I’m guessing that the kingdom of Isreal was disproportionately powerful per its size, especially under David. And Joshua defeated 31 kings in 5 years, losing only 1 battle. I don’t know of any other smaller nations at that time that were so successful on the battlefield.
I don’t think the ancient Hebrews made any Genesis 1 truth-distinctions between theology and science. The science was true, the science of their day, the 3-tiered universe, which God used to couch his theological truths, which I would imagine were more emphasized in the ancient mind since they were already acquainted with the ancient science. But even an ancient could see that the history wasn’t, “true”, the sun created on the 4th day and before plants, for example.
Thanks for the response.
“Theistic Evolution tends to be a little more liberal than progressive creation: common descent. Progressive Creation:”
It seems to me that if the data shows a causal chain from Big Bang to now, then what you call, “liberal” TE is actually the more conservative stance, sticking to the narrative with no addendums to ease presuppositions. In addition I agree with @BoltzmannBrain that if we accept any kind of common descent, then we accept that God used nature to get us here. And, following, the only acceptable theological stance would IMHO be that God endowed nature with the intelligence to do the job, not where it’s necessary that He help it along. You could respond with conservative Progressive Creationism, but that ignores the evidence of biological evolution and takes an inconsistent stance that nature got the job done in creating a biosphere through cosmological evolution, but couldn’t get life here through similar natural processes.