Considering the fact that the ancient egyptians changed their history on a whim, I don’t know why we trust it to determine the timelines of ancient history.
It is a question of authority. The Enlightenment was partly a project of discrediting the Bible as history and religion as a form of knowledge. The Egyptologists want their knowledge to be the historical standard. Where the Bible doesn’t fit their standard, they declare it to be in error. Pretty much the same way with scholars working in the general history of the Fertile Crescent. The latter has far more to do with the events of the Bible than Egyptian history does. Ironically, they more they uncover the literary remains of Mesopotamia etc. the more intellible the Biblical record becomes. The Bible is mainly about God and his people. What I realize as I read the comparisons between the God of Israel and the gods of the surrounding peoples are the radical differences and the how the convenant law molds a consciousness very different from that of the Canaanites and the Assyrians, for instance. Even the Zarathustrian religion seems to have but a superficial influence more or less like the influences of the Greek philosophers, a matter of imagery rather than substance. The religion of the Jews is sui generis, a fact that surrounding people attribute to stubborness and “superstitition.”