ON THE ERRORS OF THE UNBURIED BIBLE

1. INTRODUCTION

2- UNEARING THE SOURCE OF FINKELSTEIN'S IDEAS

3- ERRORS OF THE UNBURIED BIBLE

4- CONCLUSION

1. INTRODUCTION

The "Unearthed Bible" [1] is a book written by a Jewish archaeologist named Israel Finkelstein, this
book was published in 2001. That book is a frontal attack on the veracity of the Old Testament.

As many will know, excavations at biblical sites had provided evidence confirming the historical
veracity of the scriptures. Millar Burrows was a professor of archeology at Yale University who
wrote:

"Overall, archaeological work has undoubtedly strengthened the reliability of the biblical record.
More than one archaeologist has found that his respect for the Bible has been increased by the
experience of excavation" [2]

But Finkelstein is someone who opposes this position which favors the Bible, that is why he affirms
that what is related in the Old Testament are only myths and fantasies, Finkelstein does not mince
words and from the first pages of his book said:

"The historical epic contained in the Bible - from Abraham's meeting with God and his march to
Canaan to the liberation of the children of Israel from slavery by Moses and the rise and fall of the
kingdoms of Israel and Judah - was not a miraculous revelation, but a magnificent product of
human imagination" [3]

That book was a weapon used by Finkelstein against scholars who believe in the veracity of the
holy scriptures, as noted by L. Miller:

"The Bible Unearthed" is the latest salvo fired in a pitched battle between those who consider that
the Old Testament contains many reliable historical facts, and those who, at the opposite extreme,
say that it is pure mythology" [4]

Something that many scholars have noticed is that Finkelstein's work is a biased work since he
conveniently chose arguments that belong to higher criticism that have been used for decades to
attack the Bible. Finkelstein is not the first to take the view. brush and paint the Old Testament as
a myth, in fact, for decades the veracity of the Old Testament began to be denied, all Finkelstein
did was recycle ancient arguments proposed by other people.
Among the methodology used by Finkelstein, we find old and obsolete ideas which contain many
assumptions, speculations, etc., and most importantly, they have already been refuted. Kenneth
Kitchen is an archaeologist and Egyptologist who is an expert in the ancient Egyptian period of
Ramesside, Kitchen has written more than 250 books and articles in peer-reviewed journals,
Kitchen regarding the terrible methodology used by Finkelstein in his book "The Bible Unearthed"
noted:

"You do archeology, with the methodology of nostalgic documentary filmmakers who have been
refuted a century ago... Only those who are not interested in giving any value to the text seek to
cling to it, if that is your position, it is respectable, but it is outdated."

So before pointing out some of Finkelstein's mistakes, let's first "dig up" the source of the ideas
Finkelstein used to write his work.

2- UNEARING THE SOURCE OF FINKELSTEIN'S IDEAS

In Europe at the time of the Enlightenment, many materialist philosophers maintained that nature
was an uninterrupted chain of causal events, so there could be no intervention of God in the
events of the world. They conceived of nature as a closed system which could not be pierced by
divine action.

Several German theologians succumbed to this atheistic materialist argument and accepted that
miracles could not be possible; these theologians were known as liberal theologians. They denied
the miracle of the exodus, the virgin birth of Jesus, the resurrection and every event in which there
were supernatural elements. Liberal theologians maintained that the Bible was not divinely
inspired but was only the production of ancient men who wrote myths, the renowned German
liberal theologian Rudolf Bultmann wrote:

"We cannot use electricity and radio and at the same time believe in the world of spirits and
miracles that the New Testament proposes to us" [5]

Liberal theology was a theology that rotted to the roots, liberals became a weapon of attack
against the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, Nathan Busenitz professor of historical theology
noted:

"Every spring, in my church history class, we study a brief overview of 19th century German
theologians... It's a depressing sort of lecture, as we see the sad story of the intersection between
skepticism and scholarship, we can see the catastrophe that unleashed doubt and unbridled
disbelief. And how despite living in the same country as the Reformation, many German
Protestant theologians abandoned the historic doctrines of biblical Christianity due to the
popularity of the Enlightenment. In doing so, they shipwrecked their own souls and devastated the
faith of millions of people.

Promoters of higher criticism, such as Johann Eichhorn and David Strauss, denied the inspiration
and inerrancy of the Bible. According to them, Moses did not write the Pentateuch and the four
gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. To make matters worse, they suggested
that the Jesus of the Bible is not the same as the real Jesus of history. In their "search for the
historical Jesus" the critics created a "Jesus" of their own imagination, and essentially tried to
reduce him to a good guy who could never perform a miracle, never claimed to be God, and was
largely misunderstood by the first century judaism

Liberal theologians, from Friedrich Schleiermacher to Albrecht Ritschl, sought to dismantle the
truths of the Bible...we see theologian after theologian going off the rails of the most basic
foundations of biblical Christianity" [6]

As if that were not enough, then another attack on the Christian faith arose, after the amateur
naturalist Charles Darwin [7] published his book "The Origin of Species" many theologians
accepted these speculations and rejected the book of Genesis as real history, For liberal
theologians, humanity emerged from evolutionary processes and they said that the book of
Genesis was only a mythological story about origins.

Both liberalism with its biblical criticism and evolutionism dealt a severe blow to the gospel, that
was the reason why Christian Europe stopped being Christian, as Douglas Murray mentioned:

"However, in the 19th century [Europe] received two seismic blows from which it never recovered,
leaving a void that has never been filled. The effects of the wave of biblical criticism that swept
through German universities in the early 19th century are still felt two centuries later... He was
joined in 1859 by the other party to the double blow to the Christian faith, Charles Darwin and his
book "The Origin of Species" [8]

All that atheism that took hold of the souls of the theologians and archaeologists who carried out
biblical studies led them to create hypotheses against biblical truths, such as the documentary
hypothesis, the hypothesis of two sources of the gospels, a reduced chronology, denial of the
united kingdom of Israel, archaeological minimalism, etc., all of this infiltrated biblical science.

One of the proponents of archaeological minimalism was an Israelite archaeologist named Ze'ev
Herzog. Herzog many years ago said:

"The Israelites were never in Egypt, they did not wander in the desert, they did not conquer the
land of Canaan in a military campaign and they did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel.
Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon,
described in the Bible as a regional power, was at best a small tribal kingdom."[9]

Finkelstein's work "The Bible Unearthed" does not say anything new, in fact, Finkelstein is actually
not innovative at all, Finkelstein only recycled and reproduced the old arguments taught by Herzog
and other minimalist critics, Finkelstein's work is clearly biased since that he wrote his entire book
subordinated to the anti-fundamentalist prejudices that he defends like every biblical minimalist.

3- ERRORS OF THE UNBURIED BIBLE

A.- Documentary Hypothesis:

Finkelstein from the first pages of his book makes use of the documentary hypothesis, this
hypothesis maintains that the first five books of the Bible were not written by Moses but are due
to four types of sources invented by unknown scribes, Finkelstein constructed his entire book
about that assumption, but that hypothesis has been refuted a long time ago and no one seriously
defends such speculation today.

This hypothesis was promoted by a German theologian named Wellhausen, let's see how
Finkelstein cites that old liberal theologian and his outdated and outdated hypothesis:

"The German biblical scholar Julius Wellhausen argued that the accounts of the patriarchs, in both
the J and E documents, reflected the interests of the Israelite monarchy in its later times, interests
projected onto the lives of legendary fathers in the largely past. part mythical. The stories of the
Bible should therefore be considered a national mythology" [10]

"The first five books of the Bible as we now know them were the result of a complex editorial
process in which the four main documentary sources - J, E, P and D - had been combined and
linked by compiling scribes or "redactors." The last of these draftings was carried out in the period
after the exile" [11]

The so-called "documentary hypothesis" comes from a German heretic who denied that Moses
wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. According to Wellhausen, in the time that Moses supposedly
lived (between 1500 and 1450 BC) writing did not exist, therefore, it was impossible that Moses
could have written the first books of the Bible.

Wellhausen taught that Moses did not write anything but that different scribes in Israel had
invented writings in four different sources and that at the time of the Babylonian exile the four
sources were brought together and based on them a final text was written, which is the
Pentateuch as it is today. We know it in our Bibles.

For Wellhausen, all the first five books of the Bible were not inspired by God but were only fables
and myths of Jewish scribes.

Now, why did Wellhausen teach that? The answer is that this German theologian was someone
influenced by Darwin's materialist speculations. Atheistic evolutionism contaminated Wellhausen's
mind, which is why he stopped believing in the Bible as the revealed word of God. For Wellhausen,
God had not created humans. humans, humans had evolved from lower beasts and then invented
religion, John H. Tullock in his work entitled "History of the Old Testament" wrote:

"Wellhausen had been greatly influenced by Darwin's theory of evolution and saw an evolutionary
pattern in the development of the Pentateuch literature. Wellhausen saw four main stages in the
development of the Pentateuch" [12]

Wellhausen became a heretic and ended up calling the book of Genesis a myth [13] he denied that
God inspired the first five books of the Bible and denied that Moses had been the writer of the
first biblical books, the Pentateuch for him was only fiction mythological
But time showed that Wellhausen was wrong, today we know that even long before Moses was
born there were already several types of writing [14] in addition the Pentateuch contains
archaisms which are types of very old writings from an ancient Hebrew used before the exile [15 ]
the conservation of these vestiges of ancient writings through the TaNaK manuscripts
demonstrate the antiquity of said books, and finally, no material has ever been discovered to
prove that the documentary hypothesis is true, this imaginary hypothesis does not have a single
piece of evidence in favor. [16]

The scholar Cassuto of the University of Rome wrote several criticisms against Wellhausen's
theses, and after Cassuto, many European scholars wrote various works demonstrating the errors
of the documentary hypothesis (Gerhard, Ludwig, Sven, Rolf) the scholar Rendsburg after a
analysis concluded that the old, outdated analyzes used decades ago by Wellhausen no longer
work, Rendsburg noted:

"The evidence presented here points to the following conclusion: there is much more uniformity
and much less fragmentation in the book of Genesis than is generally assumed. The standard
division of sources J, E and P must be discarded. This method of sources is a method from an
earlier time and predominantly in the 19th century... New approaches to the text, such as literary
criticism of the type advanced here, consider the documentary hypothesis to be unreasonable and
invalid" [17]

The ancient documentary hypothesis has long been pointed out as invalid by scholars and students
of ancient texts, MH Segal explained why this hypothesis was invalid:

"We must reject the documentary hypothesis as an explanation of the composition of the
Pentateuch, the hypothesis is anomalous, it is based on assumptions that are not proven, it uses
unreliable criteria for the segmentation of the text. To these defects we can add many more faults;
by misusing the analytical method, the theory reduces the text to an incoherent mass of
fragments. It is a false evaluation of the pentateuch" [18]

If you build something on quicksand, your construction is doomed to crash to the ground, the
same thing happens with Finkelstein, he built his book on the already refuted and invalidated
documentary hypothesis, his book has a dependence on it, so his entire book It lost all meaning
when it was built on a useless hypothesis.

B.- Low Chronology

To support his work, Finkelstein relies on a lowered chronology which is discrepant with the data
of the Bible. By using a lower chronology, many archaeological data do not agree with the Bible,
and from that position, the Bible contains historical errors.

But supporting a low chronology is inadequate since dating methods support a high chronology,
which incidentally agrees with the Bible, and that is why Finkelstein rejects it.
Archaeologist Yosef Garfinkel is a professor of prehistoric archeology and archeology of the biblical
period at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. [19] Garfinkel wrote a critique of the lowered
chronology based on scientific and archaeological data and at the end noted:

"Biblical tradition and radiometric dating support each other. Placing the formation and
development of the kingdom of Israel before the kingdom of Judah, as Low Chronology
proponents have done, is simply another modern myth."[20]

C.- The United Kingdom:

Minimalists deny that a united monarchy existed in Israel as indicated in the Old Testament. Many
minimalists fabricated ingenious theories to affirm that the Jerusalem of David's time was a cow
corral, and that everything mentioned in the Bible about the kingdom were pure fictitious
fabrications of the scribes, the minimalist archaeologist Herzog said:

"The new theories imagine this modest chiefdom based on a Jerusalem that was essentially a city
of cows, not the glorious capital of an empire"

This idea was also reproduced by Finkelstein and in his book he stated that the Bible only relates
fantasies regarding the time of the first kings of Israel, but there is archaeological evidence that
supports the existence of a united kingdom and monarchy.

William G. Dever is an American archaeologist specializing in the history of Israel and the Near
East, he is Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Archeology and Anthropology at the University of
Arizona in Tucson, he is also Distinguished Professor of Near Eastern Archeology at Lycoming
College in Pennsylvania . [21] Dever on the evidence for a united kingdom said:

"Most of us leading archaeologists have also dated a number of monumental royal constructions
to the 10th century: the famous gates of Hazor and Megiddo and Gezer. And we have in the Bible,
in First Kings 9:15-17, the famous description of Solomon's construction of the gates of Jerusalem,
Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. I would therefore argue in favor of a United Monarchy of the 10th
century" [22]

Other recent excavations also support a united kingdom and monarchy, for example, in 2018
studies were published that excavations were carried out at Tel Eton, the construction that is from
the 10th century supports the monarchy and united kingdom, National Geographic noted:

"The excavation and investigation of a large residence that was already erected in the 10th
century BC supports the existence of the united kingdom of Israel... The excavations carried out at
Tel 'Eton by Avraham Faust and the radiocarbon dating published by this professor at Bar Ilan
University and by Yair Sapir in Radiocarbon provide new evidence that supports the existence of
the united kingdom of Israel and indicates that this kingdom extended further beyond the
immediate surroundings of Jerusalem" [23]

Archaeologists have unearthed large structures which are only possible in the existence of a great
kingdom, these structures date back to the 10th century BC. which is when the Bible places the
united kingdom and monarchy [24] for this reason many archaeologists support the existence of
an ancient united kingdom in Israel.

D.- New findings and the error of old criticisms:

The book of Genesis says that Edom was a kingdom long before Israel had its own kingdom,
Finkeltein in his book denies that this was possible and said that it was only an invention of the
Jewish scribes, Finkelstein wrote "archaeology has shown us that "There were no kings of Edom
with whom the Israelites could contend." [25]

Finkelstein pointed out that the Bible describes an early origin for the kingdom of Edom, he also
maintained that Edom only emerged as a state after the area was conquered by Assyria. Before
that time it did not have a proper State and the territory was sparsely populated.

But Finkeltein made a very hasty criticism, Edom had not been excavated or exhaustively
investigated, so based on incomplete evidence he set out to make categorical statements, but
subsequent investigations demonstrated Finkelstein's errors.

Archaeologist Adams of MCMaster University, Najjar of the Jordanian Department of Antiquities

and Levy of the University of California, investigated copper mining in Khirbat, through dating
methods they noted that the place was occupied in the 9th century BC Also a fortress was built in
the 11th century BC That is proof of the existence of an Edomite state hundreds of years earlier
than Finkelstein believed, archaeologists Thomas Levy and Mohammad Najjar even wrote a
critique of Finkelstein. [26]

But the final blow came last year in 2019 when new evidence turned Finkelstein's theories
completely upside down. Archaeologists confirmed the existence of the biblical kingdom of Edom,
Spain's La Razón newspaper noted:

"Archaeologists confirm the existence of the biblical kingdom of Edom... Three thousand years ago
there lived a powerful kingdom as recounted in the book of Genesis, contrary to what was
believed until now" [27]

E.- About the Exodus:

Finkelstein, as expected, also denied the historicity of the exodus, it should be noted that
Finkelstein has never done significant archeology work in Egypt, Finkelstein has spent most of his
life scratching the soil of Israel and Palestine, the assessment that Finkelstein made about the
exodus is one of the worst that a biblical critic has made, Finkelstein relied on fallacies of
argument from silence, asking for wrong evidence, etc., Egyptologist Kitchen, who is an emeritus
professor of Egyptology at the University of Liverpool, mentioned:
"His treatment of the exodus is one of the most ignorant and misleading I have ever read.
Finkelstein clearly has no personal knowledge of the conditions in Ramesside (or any other
approach to Egypt)" [28]

There is much papyrological and archaeological evidence that demonstrates that the biblical
Exodus stories fit perfectly with the cultural context of ancient Egypt, James K. Hoffmeier is an
Egyptologist and professor of Near Eastern History and Archeology at Trinity International
University. [29]

Hoffmeier published under Oxford University Press a book titled: "Israel in Egypt: Evidence for the
Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition" [30]

Hoffmeier presented a large amount of Egyptian evidence which supports the historicity of the
Exodus, but Finkelstein conveniently remained completely silent and said nothing about the
archaeological evidence that does support the historicity of the Exodus.

Days ago I wrote a publication where I spoke in more detail about this issue of the Exodus and its
historicity, so if you like you can read it. [31]

F.- Camels and the Bible

Finkelstein also says that the book of Genesis has errors of anachronisms, in Genesis the use of
camels in the patriarchal era is mentioned, Finkelstein says that this is not possible, he wrote:

"Take, for example, the repeated allusions to camels. In the stories of the patriarchs camels
abound, usually herds of camels; but, as in the case of the story of Joseph's sale into slavery by his
brothers (Genesis 37:25), camels are also described as pack animals used in the caravan trade.
Today, thanks to archaeological research, we know that camels were not domesticated to serve as
pack animals before the end of the second millennium" [32]

Finkelstein does nothing but repeat old and outdated criticisms of the Bible, as Glenn Miller
pointed out about people who still use that old and outdated argument:

"Unfortunately, this is another case of someone using 'old data' and not keeping up with the
information" [33]

Many decades ago there were many people who said that in the time of the patriarchs camels
were not used, Bulliet in a 1975 book pointed out the position of those biblical critics:

"Any mention of camels in the period of Abraham is a blatant anachronism. The Semites of
Abraham's time, he maintains, herded sheep, goats and donkeys, but not camels, since the latter
had not yet been domesticated" [34]
On this point there is something to be said, and that is that there is a lot of evidence of the use of
camels from very ancient times, inscriptions that come to us from ancient Mesopotamia, there are
ancient drawings of camels as well as written mention of these animals. [35] [36]

By the time of the patriarchs camels were already in use and several people had domesticated
them, archaeologist Kitchen, professor emeritus at the University of Liverpool, noted:

"The mention of camels here and elsewhere in patriarchal narratives is often considered
anachronistic. However, the accuracy of the Bible is supported by the depiction of camel riding on
cylinders from precisely this period from northern Mesopotamia."

He also noted:

"It is often claimed that the mention of camels and their use is an anachronism in Genesis. This
charge is simply not true, as there is philological and archaeological evidence of the knowledge
and use of this animal in the early 2nd millennium BC and even earlier... A Sumerian text from
Nippur from the same early period gives clear evidence of camel domestication" [37]

The use of domesticated camels on small scales is supported by archaeological evidence, it was
until after the end of the second millennium BC that domesticated camels were widely used for
caravans.

But the Bible does not mention that people in general used camels in trade caravans but that
some specific groups of people did, this agrees with the available evidence, so Finkelstein's
criticism is misplaced.

4- CONCLUSION

The book The Bible Unearthed is very questionable, Finkelstein is based on the discredited
documentary hypothesis, he uses a reduced chronology to defend his minimalist position,
archaeological findings have refuted several of his statements, etc., with these points mentioned it
is demonstrated that the bases on which which his book "The Bible Unearthed" was erected are
invalid points which is why his entire book rests on error.

The unearthed Bible is only a work to support the secularist-secularist vision that a small group of
atheist Jews have been carrying for a few decades in Israel, it is based on fallacies, and overall,
their work is only a great and giant sophistry.

The books written by Finkelstein are very bad, archaeologist Dever professor emeritus of
archeology at the University of Arizona pointed out Finkeltein's errors and said:
"It is impossible to summarize Israel Finkelstein's latest book in a brief review because its
numerous errors, misrepresentations, oversimplifications, and contradictions make it too
unwieldy. Specialists will be aware of these defects, since all of Finkelstein's fundamental opinions
have been published elsewhere" [38]

Archaeologist Kenneth who is emeritus professor of Egyptology at the University of Liverpool

mentioned the unearthed Bible:

"A careful critical reading of this work, which certainly has much to say about archeology and
biblical writings, reveals that we are dealing largely with a work of imaginative fiction, not a
serious or reliable description of the subject" [39]

Finkelstein's book is very biased, it is written under the biases and prejudices of the author,
Finkelstein does not even mention the alternative interpretations that many experts have about
the evidence he cited, Finkelstein only presents his side of the coin, the biased way used in
production of the book renders his work useless, Richard Samuel of Roehampton University in
London wrote:

"They always present their interpretation of the archaeological data but do not mention or
interact with contemporary alternative approaches. Therefore, the book is ideologically directed
and controlled" [40]

Errors, misrepresentations, biases, simplifications and contradictions are the only things that the
sophists who dedicate themselves to attacking the Bible have, that's why no one takes them
seriously, and when the evidence shows that the critics are wrong, they end up becoming a make
me laugh, that is the destiny of everyone who has dared to rise up against the holy bible, to
become a jester for posterity.

Grades:

[1] https://www.amazon.es/Biblia-desenterrada-arqueol%C3%B3gica-or%C3%ADgenessagrados/
dp/8432311847

[2] Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones?, Meridian Books, New York, 1956 p. 1

[3] Israel Finkelstein, Neil a. Silberman., The Unearthed Bible, 2003 Edition p. twenty

[4] L. Miller, King David was a nebbish Feb. 7, 2001

[5] Bultmann cited in: Rosino Gibellini, Theology of the 20th Century 1998 p. 37

[6] Nathan Busenitz, What we can learn from liberals, July 22, 2016

[7] Darwin was not a scientist, he was studying medicine at the University of Edinburgh but
dropped out, Darwin was an amateur naturalist all his life and in fact the professional scientists of
the time (such as Pierre of the French Academy of Sciences and Agassiz of Harvard University)
pointed out and refuted Darwin's errors, as Vance Ferrell points out:

"Darwin was not a professional scientist but an amateur, and one who did work of poorer quality
than most of his time."

—Vance Ferrell, The Evolution Handbook, Edition 1996 p. 113

[8] Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, identity, Islam, London, 2017 pp.
210–211

[9] Herzog cited in: Nur Masalha, The Bible and Zionism, 2007 p. 245

[10] Israel Finkelstein, Neil a. Silberman., The Unearthed Bible, 2003 Edition p.53

[11] Israel Finkelstein, Ibid. p. 31

[12] John H. Tullock, The History of the Old Testament, 1981 p. eleven

[13] For a detailed explanation see: Ronald White III, Evolutionary Cosmology as a Barrier to the
Gospel in Europe, Continental Theological Seminary, Sint-Pieters-Leeuw, Belgium, October 2007

[14] For more, see: Eric Lyons, Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch--Tried and True, 2003

[15] Faith and Thought, Volume 45, The Victoria Institute, 1913
[16] All the theses proposed to undermine the reliability of the scriptures by higher critics are not
supported by any evidence, they only remain speculations and inventions by biblical critics, for
more see:

José Hutter, The dead end of High Criticism, May 16, 2018

[17] Rendsburg, The Redaction of Genesis, Eisenbrauns, 1986 pp. 104-105

[18] M.H. Segal cited in: Josh McDowell, More Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Historical
Evidences for the Christian Scriptures, 1975 p. 167

[19] See biography: https://archaeology.huji.ac.il/people/yosef-garfinkel

[20] Yosef Garfinkel, King David Kills Biblical Minimalism, BAR 37:03 May/Jun 2011

[21] Gerard Gertoux, The Pharaoh of the Exodus: Fairy tale or real history? 2017 p. 3

[22] William Dever in interview "Archaeology of the Hebrew Bible" PBS Tuesday, November 18,
2008

[23] https://www.nationalgeographic.com.es/historia/actualidad/existieron-david-y-
salomonnuevas-evidencias-sobre-reino-unido-israel_12654

[24] See the note:

https://www.lavanguardia.com/cultura/20180502/443185521855/ruinas-david-israel-salomon-
reino.html

[25] Israel Finkelstein, Neil a. Silberman., The Unearthed Bible, 2003 Edition p. 77
[26] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233660096_Some_Thoughts_on_Khirbet_En-
Nahas_Edom_Biblical_History_and_Anthropologya_Response_to_Israel_Finkelstein

[27] https://www.larazon.es/cultura/arqueologos-israelies-confirman-la-existencia-del-
reinobiblico-de-edom-CG24996062

[28] Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 2003 p. 466

[29] Heiko Riemer, Desert road archeology in ancient Egypt and beyond, 2013 p. 501

[30] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/israel-in-egypt-9780195130881

[31] Exodus: Myth or History?

Read:
https://m.facebook.com/105377721015376/photos/a.105379257681889/178037593749388/?
type=3&source=57

[32] Israel Finkelstein, Neil a. Silberman., The Unearthed Bible, 2003 Edition p. 53

[33] Glenn Miller, was the Bible wrong about Abraham having camels that early? Apr 18/98

[34] Richard W. Bullie, The Camel and the Wheel, 1975 pp. 35-36

[35] Glenn Miller, was the Bible wrong about Abraham having camels that early? Apr 18/98

[36] Megan Sauter, Did Camels Exist in Biblical Times? November 12, 2018

[37] Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 1966 pp. 79-80
[38] W.G. Dever cited in: Kingdom divided, critics united, July/August 2014 issue of BAR

[39] Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 2003 p. 464

[40] Richard Samuel, Review of The Bible Unearthed: Archeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel
and the Origin of It's Sacred Text, by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman