I suppose.I'm not "pooh poohing it away."
Egyptology ain't my bag, and I can't give a satisfactory answer to someone who thinks there's an "unbroken continuity of the Egyptian Old Kingdom period" that goes right through the time of the Flood.
Egypt didn't even exist until after the Flood, when Noah's grandson sired the first Egyptian: Mizraim.
There are multiple lines of evidence to support early dates for Egyptian society that go back to and before the date you are taking for a local or universal flood. There are at least two other explanations:
1. World-wide Flood (if it occurred which most scholars of history and science reject) happened earlier than the date you gave. Even many fundamentalists see a flood occurring well before 3000 B.C. because of the wealth of evidence for civilizations such as the Egyptian and Sumerian before that time.
2. If you did take a much later date, the description of the world at the time (flood covering the whole world) referred in ancient near east was the surrounding area. The language was whole world because all they knew of the whole world was a local (although large area) area. They accurately called it the whole world because to them it was. There have been local floods in different parts of the world. Most people don't argue this point, at least to my knowledge.
They (Egypt) have an acceptable chronology back to at least 8000 BCE and quite good to about 3000 BCE. The Genesis account involves names that may have existed in the far distant past that Israel wished to connect to as their national history evolved in and around 600 BCE. One will look in vain for a clear early chronology connecting Israel to great civilizations like Sumer and Egypt other than the odd reference like this one in the Bible and none from outside (that were probably obtained by their interaction with very old civilizations such as Babylon). Many of these early Biblical characters, if they ever existed, were long since mythologized. People who came much later wrote about them from second hand sources. Even someone as late as David (around 1000 BC) has no unambiguous reference from outside the Bible (such as Egypt)
I would recommend you read up on these ancient civilizations to see this. There are lots of good books with a wealth of information and evidence of these civilizations. There is no such similar evidence (almost none) for what is recorded in the Bible, outside the Bible.
Genesis 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
1. I would have to see it in real time with my own eyes. Until then, the Bible rules.
So no amount of evidence could seem to convince you away from what you otherwise believe (probably not even a time machine, because you would distrust that it wasn't set up to deceive you! 
). This is no better than what any religious group could say in defense for believing whatever they believe. Unless one allows information to change ones ideas, they are not following where the evidence leads but simply following dogmatic beliefs (which some Christians criticize other religious groups for doing). I would recommend you take John Loftus' Outsiders Test for Faith if you consider yourself more than just a "yes" person for religion. To the credit of some Christians from the past, they followed the evidence, even though they realized they had to view Genesis as largely mythical.
2. Yes.
Ditto my last comment
3. Some things are easy to understand. In the case of what we are discussing, one does not have to be a Rhodes scholar to realize that an empire cannot be up and running, when the empire's founder hasn't even been born yet.Using that logic, why are you a skeptic then? and why do atheists exist?
In this case, the character is either mythical, came earlier or never existed at all (made up by Biblical writers). Menes was the first major ruler at about 3000 BC. You are assuming something that has no evidence to support it. Outside the Bible, where is your evidence that Mizraim is the son of Ham, and grandson of Noah, and the founder of Egypt?
If I should doubt the Bible, based on differing opinions on a given subject, then what about the subjects that contain 100% consensus?
There is nothing agreed to by 100% of people.
Such as: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD ...
100% don't agree on this - there are Christians who I've heard disagree with this.
We may differ on other subjects, but every Christian who ever lived, alive today, and will live tomorrow believes the above statement ... without fail.Yes, I know.
Only if you define Christian in such a way as to meet this requirement which is circular. There are Christians who don't believe Genesis and so don't necessarily believe in this statement. Probably most fundamentalist Christians would believe this statement (although there still might be the odd one who doesn't) but this isn't all Christians. As you know my friend, there is precious little to nothing on which 100% of any group of people agree on in life.
Scholars have a blacklist of "unacceptables" that they adhere to without exception.
In a certain social contexts and at certain times this may be true for a short time. But the list of "unacceptables" changes over time. What is unacceptable today may later become acceptable. But scholarly consensus (including fundamentalist Biblical scholarly consensus) changes over time. It is very much like science that tries to develop better understanding and models for given information over time. It is too simplistic to say this about scholars, even fundamentalist Biblical scholars. What is true is that ordinary fundamentalist people, ministers and other groups tend to do this with their beliefs - to allow for a stable worldview and some security in this hectic world. When I was young, the fundamentalist beliefs were quite different than today.
A blacklist, no doubt, forged in the classrooms of higher academia, run by the Muses.
