There is quite a bit of hokum in this answer. The "Giza-complex" bit is conspiratorial assertion without desperately needed sources, just to name one example. And guest: please be aware that your claim about "Bible/1475/printed" is either deliberately misleading ("printed") or just not even wrong: "The Leningrad Codex is the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew, using the Masoretic Text and Tiberian vocalization. It is dated 1008 CE according to its colophon. The Aleppo Codex, against which the Leningrad Codex was corrected, is several decades older"

@LangLangC There is no "conspiratorial assertion" in the answer. The only conspiratorial assertion is the incessant attempt to revise history to insert people into Ancient Egypt in Africa who were not there, and did not exist until Shlomo Yitzchaki's ("Rashi") writings after 1040 C.E. The Gutenberg Bible was first printed in 1475. Even taking your reference of "It is dated 1008 CE according to its colophon. The Aleppo Codex, against which the Leningrad Codex was corrected, is several decades older" are fictional stories/allegories which has absolutely no relation to Ancient Egyptian history.

@T.E.D. What specific references are you requesting?

@T.E.D. "Notice added Citation needed by T.E.D.♦" Without specific references to what you are requesting for citations your "Notice" is meaningless. You need to be clear about what specific content you are refuting or disputing in the answer.

@LangLangC Am not familiar with the term "hokum". What does that mean? You need to be specific about precisely what you are refuting in the answer. To be direct, are you actually attempting to state 1) that the Bible, in any form, is a primary source historical document? 2) that the Bible, in any form, is a primary source for the history of Ancient Egypt? Can you answer "yes" or "no" to the above two questions? Else, again, be specific about what you are referring to. As your comment stands it is not at all clear what information your comment is trying to convey?

@T.E.D. Added citations. If those do not suffice to overcome your imposed "Notice" do advise. Kindly remove the label that you have attached to the answer.

@guest271314 Let me free translate "hokum": It really looks like you didn't mainly attempt to address the actual question asked, but just used it as a hook to answer another one ("Is the bible a trustworthy historical document?").

@Annatar OP brought up the Bible. Could not care less about the Bible; it has no place in historical questions and answers, period. No, the Bible is not trustworthy historically; the Bible is historically worthless; especially where the subject matter is the African Ancient Egyptians. The post directly answers the question: the African Ancient Egyptian civilization began up south.

@guest271314 It answers by a simple "This is correct", then directly moves on to the topic you actually wanted to talk about.

@Annatar Again, OP brought up the Bible. Edit the original question to remove references to the Bible and will remove the refutation of any relevance whatsoever of the Bible to Ancient Egypt. The Bible has absolutely nothing to do with the history of Ancient Egypt. You obviously have not read the entire answer, and are stuck on the fact that the flood story is just that, a story. Again, could not care less about the Bible, or any other religion. Though when there is an attempt to lend historical legitimacy to the Bible by using African Ancient Egyptians, that will promptly be refuted.

@Annatar If you want to ask about or quote the Bible, that is fine, though not at the expense of African Ancient Egyptians. The story of the flood is a story that is irreconcilable with the actual historical records of the African Ancient Egyptians. That cannot and will not go un-refuted. You can believe want you want, we have the historical records to prove our facts, without relying on mere belief. Again, edit the original question to remove references to the Bible and will do the same at this answer. Not everyone was indoctrinated into your belief system.

First 42-line bible was 1455/6, first complete German edition (OT+NT) printed 1522. Other codices are older. Alexandrinus, Ambrosianus, Sinaiticus etc. The "history" part relevant to Q here is just the TNK. Masoretic Text is extremely stable before the date of those relics we do have and dated reliably. With your dating scheme the reformation never took place. Just delete all of that date-related stuff and focus on your opinion of "bible=historically worthless". Keep that short, focussed on Egypt and have a reference for that handy.

@LangLangC Nothing about the Bible is "stable". It is the writings of men, no more no less. That is already a small part of the answer. Again, only refuted because the Bible was mentioned at the question in the same breath as Ancient Egypt. The Bible has absolutely nothing to do with Ancient Egypt. Get rid of that madness in the original question. Readers should focus on the entire answer instead of trying to defend their belief in books written by men far after Ancient Egypt.

@guest271314 All written material we have was written by men (& perhaps women). That makes this comment irrelevant to the Q we are trying to improve. That quote from the bible was the starting point of the Q. It's legitimate to ask what that means first, and if it has any connection to archaeology or history as we a know it today second.

You might try to defend a peripheral position of "irrelevant text, as it was written much too late", but that is a weak position from the start. Your own writings are even much later than the bible and you insist in holding them "true", despite their young age.

The authors of the bible passages may have been outsiders to ancient Egypt, but you certainly are even more remote in time to ancient Egypt.

That said, you may defend the bible=irrelevant to the second part of the question. The first part is actually about "what is written in that book and what does that mean". One conclusion might be that it "means nothing" (not my view) or it might mean "the wrong thing". You seem to aim with your argument at the direction of "the text has no right to exist", which is quite nonsensical.

Different parts of the book are of different ages. The attempt to late-date the entire book to an arbitrary printing date is just indefensible.