I don't get it. Maybe one of you gents could point how how this is supposed to change anything?
Just so we are on the same page.
The OP presents secular speculation and the archaeological 'evidence' that said speculation is based on, to refute Christian traditional beliefs on a Jewish book?
Has anyone of the 'very smart men' who complied all of this work, addressed the dates and the discrepancies between the church's views and time lines with those held in the Jewish community? If so why wasn't any of that 'evidence' Incorporated into the conjecture about the origins of Genesis? Why focus solely on the popular church beliefs, unless one was intentionally painting a very specific one sided picture?
Just so we are on the same page.
The OP presents secular speculation and the archaeological 'evidence' that said speculation is based on, to refute Christian traditional beliefs on a Jewish book?
Has anyone of the 'very smart men' who complied all of this work, addressed the dates and the discrepancies between the church's views and time lines with those held in the Jewish community? If so why wasn't any of that 'evidence' Incorporated into the conjecture about the origins of Genesis? Why focus solely on the popular church beliefs, unless one was intentionally painting a very specific one sided picture?