Origins and Earth History:
I. Origin of the Universe
A. An Expanding Universe
Astronomer Edwin Hubble wrote in 1929 that the relation of the redshift of galaxies to their distance suggests that all galaxies are receding from one-another and therefore the universe is expanding. Since the universe is expanding it therefore had a beginning.
B. Universe Fine-Tuning
In the last few decades it has been discovered that many of the physical parameters of the universe are finely-tuned. The fine-tuning of the parameters suggests a Fine-Tuner. The following are some of the parameters that make the universe possible:
1. Higgs vacuum expectation value: 246.2 GeV
2. Mass of Up, Down, Strange Quark: 2.4 MeV, 4.8 MeV, 104 MeV
3. Fine-structure constant: 7.297 x 10-3
4. Strong nuclear force coupling constant: 0.1187
5. Weak nuclear force constant: 0.0719
6. Cosmological constant: (2.3 x 10-3 eV)4
7. Scalar fluctuation amplitude: 2 x 10-5
8. Entropy of the Universe: 4 x 10-81 J/K
9. Gravitational constant: G=6.67384 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
10. Plank's constant: 1.05457148 x 10-34 m2 kg s-2
11. Plank mass-energy: 1.2209 x 10-19 GeV
12. Gravitational coupling constant: 5.9 x 10-39
13. Boltzmann’s constant: 1.38 x 10-23 JK-1
14. Speed of light: c=299,792,458 m s-1
15. Proton-to-electron mass ratio: 1:1836.15
16. Electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant ratio: 1:10-37
Additional information: 
Fine structure constant:
if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
Strong nuclear force coupling constant:
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
Weak nuclear force constant:
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
Entropy level of the universe:
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
Gravitational force constant:
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
Speed of light:
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support
if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
Ratio of electron to proton mass:
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant:
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
Astronomer and cosmologist Fred Hoyle wrote:
“A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology.” 
Stephen Meyer, Ph.D. Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, notes:
“[The] fine-tuning of the universe exhibits extreme improbability and functional specification that invariably trigger an awareness of, and justify an inference to, intelligent design. Since the multiverse theory cannot explain fine-tuning without invoking prior fine-tuning, and since the fine-tuning of a physical system to accomplish a propitious end is exactly the kind of thing we know intelligent agents do, it follows that intelligent design stands as the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe.” 
A method of reasoning is inference to the best explanation. “This can be applied to different worldview hypotheses with respect to the origin of the universe...[M]aterialism has this problem: If matter itself comes into existence a finite time ago in the past, then there is no matter before it to do the causing. It is causally inadequate...
Theism, on the other hand, posits a God that is independent of the universe and therefore can provide a causally adequate explanation for the origin of the universe from something else, because there is a something else, there is a transcendent entity of great power that can bring the universe into existence. So applying this method we come up with a God hypothesis of some kind.
[The] assertion that the universe is as we would expect from the standpoint of a materialistic worldview is patently false. It looks exactly what we would expect from a theistic point of view...” 
C. Solar-Terrestrial Fine-Tuning 
Many parameters concerning the Sun-Earth system suggest that it is the product of design:
1. Parent star temperature (ultraviolet habitable zone)
If greater (above 7,100K): the UV habitable zone is located beyond the water habitable zone
If less (below 4,600K): the UV habitable zone resides closer to the star than the water habitable zone allows
2. Parent star mass (tidal habitable zone)
If greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would burn too rapidly
If less: range of planet distances for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the life planet’s rotational period; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen; the water habitable zone would be too close to the star
3. Distance from star (liquid water habitable zone)
If farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle
If closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle
4. Stellar wind plasma cocoon (astrosphere habitable zone)
If too large: stellar radiation particles would limit the planetary life spans of advanced species
If too small: planetary life would be exposed to deadly cosmic radiation
5. Parent star color (photosynthetic habitable zone)
If redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient
If bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient
6. Carbon dioxide level in atmosphere (photosynthetic habitable zone)
If greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
If less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis
7. Ozone level in atmosphere (ozone habitable zone)
If greater: surface temperatures would be too low
If less: surface temperatures would be too high; too much uv radiation at the surface
8. Rotation period (planetary rotation rate habitable zone)
If longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great
If shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great
9. Axial tilt (planetary obliquity habitable zone)
If greater: surface temperature differences would be too great
If less: surface temperature differences would be too great
Astrophysicist Hugh Ross summarizes:
“[A] Designer who knows all about habitable zones...and who knows about the changing physics of the solar system must have designed Earth...” 
II. Origin of Life
A. Origin of the Living Cell and DNA
The discoveries in modern science especially in the 21st century have had a significant impact on the question of the origin of living organisms. The abundant complex and specified information in the living cell has been called the DNA Enigma, and the questions which arise are these: 
1. What is the origin of the system for storing and encoding digital information in the cell, DNA’s capacity to store digitally encoded information?
2. What is the origin of the large amount of specified complexity or functionally specified information in DNA?
3. What is the origin of the integrated complexity- the functional interdependence of parts- of the cell’s information-processing system?
As Stephen Meyer has noted,
“[T]he presence of specified information-rich sequences in even the simplest living systems points definitely to the past existence and activity of a designing intelligence.” 
Over fifty years of experiments attempting to produce abundant complex specified information have shown that such information generation is beyond the reach of undirected processes without the input of intelligent design. 
Features discovered in the living cell include: 1) nested coding of information, 2) files within folders hierarchical filing, 3) distributed storage and retrieval informational modules, 4) automated error correction systems, 5) integrated circuit structures, 6) non-coding DNA as operating system, and 7) irreducibly complex molecular machines, which we would expect to find if living cells had been intelligently designed. Conversely, such features would clearly not be expected from undirected mechanisms. 
B. Origin of Humans: Genetics
A scientific study has been presented that a single human-couple origin is possible. 
In studies concerning the genomes of humans and chimpanzees: “A comparison of the complete human and chimp genomes has identified twenty distinct gene families, each with multiple genes, that are present in humans but absent from chimps and other mammals.” 
Early studies by some of those working within the philosophy of materialism claimed a 98-99% genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees. The studies were confined to segments of DNA and were limited to a fraction of the genome. More recently, the genetic similarity has been on a downward trend. Comparisons of the whole genome have shown an average 70% genome-wide similarity . The similarity to human Y chromosome was found to be only 43%. 
C. Origin of Humans: The Fossil Record
The fossil record of humans and apes confirms the genetic data. Both australopithecine apes and Homo erectus humans appear suddenly in the fossil record, without clear evidence for the 19th century notion that apes can gradually turn into humans. 
D. Origins and History of the Major Taxa and Predictions Concerning the Fossil Record
The fossil record prediction for the hypothesis of a common ancestry evolution of life is that there should be a bottom-up pattern of appearance of biological disparity, with innumerable transitional fossil examples. However, the major discovery after about one hundred sixty years of investigation of the fossil record is a top-down pattern with abrupt appearance.
Many scientists have also come to conclude that the problem with neo-Darwinism is the inability of the mutation-natural selection mechanism to generate genuine novelty. 
E. Origins of Taxa: Taxonomically Restricted ORFan Genes
Stephen Meyer writes:
“[G]enomic studies are now turning up hundreds of thousands of genes in many diverse organisms that exhibit no significant similarity in sequence to any other known gene. These ‘taxonomically restricted genes’ or ‘ORFans’ (for ‘open reading frames of unknown origins’) now dot the phylogenetic landscape. ORFans have turned up in every major group of organisms, including plants and animals as well as both eukaryotic and prokaryotic one-celled organisms. In some organisms, as much as one-half of the entire genome comprises ORFan genes....Since ORFans lack sequence similarity to any known gene—that is, they have no known homologs in even distantly related species—it is impossible to posit a common ancestral gene from which a particular ORFan and its homolog might have evolved.”
“As scientists have explored and sequenced more genomes, they have discovered more and more ORFans without finding anything like a corresponding number of homologs. Instead, the number of ‘unpaired’ ORFan genes continues to grow with no sign of the trend reversing itself.”
Ann Gauger notes:
“Perhaps we see so many species and clade-specific orphan genes because they are uniquely designed for species- and clade-specific functions. Certainly, this runs contrary to the expectation of common descent”
F. Origins and History of the Major Taxa: Interpretations of the Geological and Fossil Record
1. Slow and Gradual Erosion Hypothesis
In the early 19th century a theory was published which assumed a slow and gradual depositional explanation of the rock layers which took significant time. This was followed by the assumption of a timescale of millions of years to explain the many layers of the rock strata. A major problem with the theory of a slow and gradual formation for most of the theoretical geologic column is that while there should be evidence of millions of years of erosion between the layers of rock strata, the evidence for slow and gradual erosional rates is generally absent.
Lack of Slow and Gradual Erosion Between Layers
“[W]hen we look at the widespread, thick layers of the rock record we are hard pressed to see the erosion we would expect over a long period of time. Layers allegedly separated by millions of years show very little erosion on the top of the underlying layer. In the same manner, layers that supposedly took millions of years to accumulate show the same absence of erosional features throughout the thickness of the formation.
According to the geological time scale, the flat, horizontal rocks seen at the Grand Canyon—some 1,220 m (4,000 feet) thick—represent around 250 million years of deposition. If so, we would expect both the layers and their boundaries to be riddled with signs of erosion. But one reason these sedimentary rock layers are so distinct is the lack of such features. Where is all the erosion?...Each layer should be riddled by valleys, gullies, and canyons.” 
Original Biological Material in Fossils
Other discoveries related to the age of the geological and fossil record have been the finds of original biological material in many fossils. There have been eighty-five reports of biological remnants in dinosaur, mammal, bird, plant, reptile, amphibian, insect and other arthropods, clam, worm, and sponge fossils that span the globe.  Protein remnants were even found in layers below the Cambrian. Biological materials decay over time and although some might last for thousands of years, none should last into the tens and hundreds of millions of years.
Original biological materials found in some dinosaur bones include elastic blood vessels, blood cells, and DNA. The specific bone protein PHEX was also detected, as well as the DNA protein Histone H4 from the cells. Samples of unmineralized dinosaur bone have been Carbon-14 dated and yielded results between 17,850 and 49,470 years BP.  Carbon-14 dating has a limit just below 100,000 years. Material older than that should have virtually no radiocarbon left in them.
Age of the Rock and Fossil Layers: Carbon-14
In a study of ten coal seams from Paleozoic to Cenozoic, measurable carbon-14 gave an average result throughout in the thousands of years (0.247 +/- 0.25 percent modern carbon), showing that the layers are approximately the same age. 
Geologic ID C14/C12 (pMC +/- 1s)
Rock samples from the dacite lava dome from Mt St. Helens, only ten years old, gave potassium-argon (K-Ar) dates ranging from 34,000 years to 2.8 million years. Seven samples of lava from known dates ranging from 122 BC to 1915 AD gave K-Ar dates from 0.1-1.6 million years. Samples from the Grand Canyon and other areas of the American West using the various radiometric methods (K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, Pb-Pb) gave scattered dates which were different by up to a billion years.  This and other empirical data demonstrate that these radiometric methods are unverifiable.
2. Sedimentary Megasequences
“Each sedimentary rock layer across the globe is assigned to a group called a megasequence… Megasequences are not constructed based on the fossil record but rather on common erosional boundaries across the continents.”  Megasequences include multiple geologic systems, and are traceable on a continental scale. Megasequence boundaries have been correlated to those of other continents.
Clarey has found that the megasequences align with the stages of the worldwide Genesis flood. "The rock data tell the story of an ever-increasing global flood event.”  “Although there are erosional boundaries between the megasequences, there is no evidence of millions of years of missing time. The rocks were merely stacked one on top of another, layer by layer, sequence by sequence, as the Flood rose higher and higher.” 
Periods................Megasequence.....Flood and post-Flood
Pleistocene............................................. -Ice Age
Pliocene............ Tejas......................... -Receding Phase
Cretaceous..... Zuni........................... -High Point
Triassic.............. Absoroka................. -Land Flooding
Permian........................................................ -Land + Marine Fossils
Ordovician................................................. -Marine Fossils
Cambrian........... Sauk.......................... -Begin Flooding
“In the first 40 days of the Flood, the fountains of the deep formed the tectonic plates, which began to subduct into the mantle. These subductions caused tsunamis over the continents that laid down the first major megasequence: the Sauk, which includes the Great Unconformity and the Cambrian Explosion. Since most of the fossils in the Sauk are marine, these early waves likely buried the shallow seas of the pre-Flood world.” 
“Tectonic plate subduction created tsunamis that continued throughout the first 40 days of the Flood. They formed the Sauk Megasequence and then the second megasequence, the Tippecanoe. The two megasequences are roughly equal in thickness and composition, but the Tippecanoe rose slightly higher on the continents than the Sauk. At this point in the Flood, it’s possible that some human settlements noticed the increasing pulses of water and began retreating to higher ground.” 
"As the tectonic activity continued, the Kaskaskia Megasequence was being deposited—still within the first 40 days of the Flood. This third megasequence rose slightly higher and shows a slight increase in average thickness over the two previous megasequences. At this point in the Flood, the waters still did not cover much land. The Sauk, Tippecanoe, and Kaskaskia megasequences contain almost 100% marine fossils. It’s possible that creatures such as dinosaurs retreated to higher ground or were still living at high enough elevation during these early parts of the Flood. That’s why so few dinosaur fossils exist in these megasequences.” 
“The Absaroka Megasequence marks a critical turning point. Things went from bad to worse. Land was now being flooded. Land animals and plants begin to appear as fossils in these rock layers. The Absaroka increases dramatically in thickness, more than double any of the earlier megasequences. This shows that floodwaters washed much higher on land than during the Sauk, Tippecanoe, or Kaskaskia. The Ark began lifting off the ground. Increasing global subduction, creation of new seafloor, and increasing thickness of the Absaroka all remarkably correspond, logging a critical chapter in the story of the Flood.” 
“During the Zuni, the fifth megasequence, the Flood reached its high point, probably marking Day 150. The continents were completely submerged, and no land-dwelling creatures outside the Ark remained alive. The Zuni began at around Day 100 of the Flood and nearly tripled in thickness compared to the Absaroka. Fossils such as dinosaurs and mosasaurs are found in the Zuni on every continent, supporting the global nature of these deposits. The mixing of massive terrestrial and marine creatures also supports their catastrophic deposition. At this point in the Flood, 10,000 duck-billed dinosaurs are found buried together catastrophically. The rock data tell the story of an ever-increasing global flood event.” 
“The floodwaters receded during the sixth and final megasequence, the Tejas. It seems clear from the biblical text that the receding began on Day 150, so this is probably when the Tejas began to be deposited. Even though the water was receding, there was still significant plate tectonic activity—about one-third to one-half of the ocean crust formed during the deposition of the Tejas. This megasequence also shows a reversal in water-flow direction…[S]ignificant amounts of water were draining off the continents during the deposition of the Tejas. The massive drainage probably carved Grand Canyon. The sea level also suddenly dropped, corresponding with the recession of the floodwaters. Geologic rock data give deep insights into the final recession chapter of the Flood story.” 
Sheet Flow Phase
The Retreating Stage of the Flood includes the Sheet Flow Phase and the Channelized Flow Phase, distinguished by the width of the Flood currents, from wide to narrow. During the Sheet Flow Phase, erosion of the continents would have been widespread. Mountains continued to rise, and as the continents uplifted and ocean basins lowered, the Flood water retreated into the oceans.
Once the currents encountered the deeper waters of the sinking ocean basins, their velocity reduced dramatically, and seaward thickening of sediments occurred at the continental margins. In the Gulf of Mexico, these sediments are over 20 km thick. Wide sheets of water flowing off of the continents would be reduced to broad channels. It first planed mountain heights, then plateaus, and finally the continental lowlands.
Thousands of planation surfaces (e.g. Serengeti Plain, Africa; Arnhem Land, Australia) and erosional remnants (e.g. Monument Valley, AZ; Spitzkoppe, Namibia; Uluru, Australia) were carved by the vast sheets of water that rushed off of the uplifting continents. Significant planation surfaces are not being formed today, but these surfaces exist globally.
Channelized Flow Phase
As the water lowered during this phase, it would have gone into progressively smaller sheets, and later into large channels, until only large rivers flowed into the valleys. The world-wide Flood paradigm predicts that channelized flow features, such as valleys and canyons, would commonly be superimposed on top of sheet flow land forms, and this is exactly what is found over many areas of the Earth.
End of the Flood
The Tejas Megasequence represents the time when the floodwaters were receding. It includes most of the Tertiary system, which is divided into the Paleogene and Neogene systems. The Neogene-Quaternary generally represents the Flood/post-Flood boundary.
The Genesis vessel of Noah came to rest on the mountains of Ararat at the end of the Flooding Stage at Day 150, but they did not leave the vessel until the end of the Retreating Stage of the Flood, at Day 371. The mountains of Ararat are thought to be the area of eastern Turkey or western Iran.
In the Alborz mountain range of north-western Iran on a mountain called Takhte Soleyman, expeditions from 2005 and 2006 found a huge black object at 13,125 ft elevation.
While having the appearance of rocks from a distance, close inspection revealed areas of apparent petrified planks, which gave the expeditions reason to bring samples back for further study. Microscopic analysis of the rock specimens revealed that the object is composed of petrified soft wood, with a marine fossil found in a sample. 
From the mountains of Ararat, all life that was aboard the vessel began to spread across the earth. Post-Flood log and vegetation mats would have contributed significantly to both animals and plants spreading across the Earth. Log mats that were thick enough to survive the Flood would have been huge, and could have remained afloat for a few hundred years. Some animals could have embarked and unwittingly been transported over the ocean.
The necessity of an oceanic dispersal by rafting to explain the biogeography has been theorized by some scientists  who have not considered a worldwide flood. The worldwide flood hypothesis is in a better position to explain the biogeography as there would have been much more vegetation available for rafting.
According to the Research of Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson (Traced, 2022), who discovered a DNA-based generation by generation family tree for global humanity after correlating the DNA data with the genealogies in Genesis 10, global humanity can be shown from the Y chromosome data to be descendants of the three sons of Noah, who along with their wives populated the post Flood world:
The female mtDNA data show three early nodes, which apparently reflect the mtDNA of the wives of Shem, Ham and Japheth.
About 500 years after the Flood the Ice Age began, a natural result of a climate imbalance. The oceans had warmed from extensive volcanic activity and the rapid separation of the continents, and continued volcanism injected tiny particles into the atmosphere, which caused cooler summers. The contrast between the temperatures of the continents and the oceans resulted in a dramatic climate. Eventually, snow and ice storms would pelt the continents.
The earliest fossils of humans have been found around this time, in what is termed the Pleistocene. During the Ice Age, the level of the sea lowered, with the result that land bridges were exposed. Precipitation would have been heavy immediately after the Flood, but it would have decreased over time as the oceans cooled and ice sheets built up. Midway through the Ice Age, precipitation decreased, and grasslands would have mostly replaced forests. By the end of the Ice Age, expanded sea ice further reduced winter air temperatures.
If the Genesis Flood occurred in fairly recent times, in the thousands of years, we would expect evidence for a global Flood to be left in the memory and early records of people groups in many areas of the world, and this is what is found. 
Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9)
1. Mention of baked bricks in the construction of the tower. (11:3)
The invention of baked bricks was made around the end of the Uruk Period.
2. Building of a tower with its top/head in the heavens. (11:4)
J. H. Walton in Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (pp. 80-81) writes, ‘Throughout Mesopotamian literature, almost every occurrence of the expression describing a building ‘with its head in the heavens’ refers to a temple with a ziggurat. For example, here is a description by Warad-Sin, king of Larsa…‘He made it as high as a mountain and made its head touch heaven.’”
Biblical Names: Ebla Archive
1. ab-ra-mu (Abram, Gen 11:26)
2. e-sa-um (Esau, Gen 25:25)
3. ish-ra-il (Israel: "Struggles with El", Gen 32:28)
4. ish-ra-ya (Israya: "Struggles with Ya")
5. ish-ma-il (Ishmael: "El has heard", Gen 16:11)
6. ish-ma-ya (Ishmaya: "Ya has heard")
7. mi-ka-il (Michael: "Who is like El?")
8. mi-ka-ya (Michaya: "Who is like Ya?")
9. eb-ri-um (cf. Eber, Gen 10:21; ebri Hebrew Gen 14:13)
10. a-da-mu (Adam. A governor, Gen 2:20)
11. ya-ra-mu (Joram: "Ya is exalted", 1Kgs 16:22)
12. da-ni-lum (Daniel, Dan 1:6)
13. sa-u-lum (Saul, 1Sam 9:2)
Biblical Names: Mari Archive
1. El-Laban; Ahi-Laban (Laban, Gen 24:29)
2. abi-ram, a-bi-ra-am (Abram, Gen 11:26)
3. yaqob-el (Jacob, Gen 25:26)
4. bi-ni-ya-mi-na (Benjamin, Gen 35:18)
5. ki-na-ah-num (Canaanites, Gen 12:6)
III. Biblical History: Egypt to the Messiah
A. Egyptian Sojourn, Exodus and Conquest.
In the Middle Bronze Age (MB II A/B) in the 13th Egyptian Dynasty, a slave papyrus (Brooklyn 35.1446, Sobekhotep III) mentions the Hebrew names:
1. Ashera (fem. Asher Gen 30:13)
2. Sekera (fem. Issacar Gen 30:18)
3. Shiphrah (Exo 1:15)
4. Hy'b'rw (Hebrew Gen 39:14)
5. Aqoba (fem. Jacob Gen 25:26)
6. Menahema (fem. Menahem 2Kings 15:14)
7. Hayah-wr (Eve compound Gen 3:20)
8. Dawidi-huat (David compound 1Sam 16:13)
Also during the MB II A/B, the Egyptian site of Avaris in the Delta (area of Biblical Goshen) was abandoned by its population of workers at the end of stratum G/1. Plague pits were found at the end of this stratum. At Kahun in MB II A/B, the people suddenly left their work and abandoned the site en masse, sometime after the reign of Neferhotep I in the 13th Dynasty (latest inscription so far discovered).
In Canaan during the MB IIB, the walls of Jericho fell down, and then the city was burned, leaving several feet of ash layer. The city was not under a long siege, since jars of grain were still full. At Hazor in MB IIB, the massive 200 acre site was destroyed and torched, and a tablet revealed that the king of Hazor’s name at that time was Jabin. Other cities in Canaan show destruction levels at this time in the MB IIB.
The approximate date of the MB IIB destruction of Jericho is based on Egyptian chronology and has therefore been thought to date to c. 1550 BC, which is about 140 yrs earlier than the date given in 1 Kings 6:1.
Amenemhat III of the 12th Egyptian Dynasty has been thought to have begun his reign in either 1861 or 1817 BC. Papyri with 21 lunar sightings from his reign have been discovered. Only one astronomical solution achieves a 100% fit, viz. Amenemhat III Year 1 = 1679 BC . This result lowers the MB IIB date of the destruction of Jericho 140 years, to c. 1410 BC.
Following this time, in the Late Bronze Age (Egyptian 18/19th Dynasty), inscriptions show that the nation of Israel is already in the land of Canaan: The Berlin Pedestal fragment inscription (Thutmose IV/Rameses II, 18th/19th Dynasty, Late Bronze Age) names in Canaan: “Israel.” The Merneptah Stela (19th Dynasty) names in Canaan: “Israel.”
Egyptologist David Rohl writes:
“The stories of Sojourn, Exodus and Conquest…fit into a Middle Bronze Age setting. The pattern of evidence in that timeline is entirely consistent with the biblical narrative.” 
B. Names of Biblical People in Inscriptions and Seals 
-Ahab (1 Kings 16:28, etc). A king of Israel. The Kurkh Monolith of Shalmaneser III, col. 2, lines 91–92, reads: a-ha-ab-bu sir-ila-a-a “Ahab the Israelite.”
-Ahaz/Jehoahaz son of Jotham (2 Kings 16:1, etc). A son of Jotham and a king of Judah. The Cuneiform Annals of Tiglath-pileser III, Summary Inscription 7, reverse, line 11, reads ia-u-ha-zi ia-u-da-a-a “Jehoahaz of Judah.” A bulla reads: “Ahaz, (son of) Yehotam, king of Judah.” A seal reads “Ushna, servant of Ahaz.”
-Ahikam son of Shaphan (2 Kings 22:12; Jeremiah 26:24, etc). A son of Shaphan the scribe and father of Gedaliah governor of Judah. A bulla reads: “Ahiqam, son of Shaphan.”
-Alexander son of Simon the Cyrenean (Mark 15:21). Alexander was one of two sons of Simon the Cyrenean who carried the execution stake of the Messiah. An ossuary inscription reads: “Alexander (the) Cyrenean...(son) of Simon.”
-Amariah and Hananiah (2 Chronicles 26:11, 31:15; Zephaniah 1:1). Amariah served king Hezekiah of Judah. Hananiah may have been a captain under king Uzziah of Judah. A bulla reads: “Amaryahu, (son of) Hananyahu, servant of Hizqiyahu.”
-Asaiah (2 Kings 22:12, 14; 2 Chronicles 34:20). An official of king Josiah of Judah. A seal reads: “Asayahu, servant of the king.”
-Azaliah son of Meshullam (2 Kings 22:3). The father of Shaphan the scribe, at the time of king Josiah of Judah. A seal reads: “Azalyahu, son of Meshullum.”
-Azariah/Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:3, etc). A king of Judah. Stone seals reads: “‘Abiyau, servant of ‘Uzziyau” and “Shubnayau, servant of ‘Uzziyau.”
-Azariah son of Hilkiah (1 Chronicles 5:39, 9:11; Ezra 7:1). A son of Hilkiah the priest. A City of David bulla reads: “Azaryahu, son of Hilqiyahu.” Seals read: “Azaryahu, (son of) Hilqiyahu” and “Azaryahu, (son of) Hilqa.”
-Azzur (Jeremiah 28:1). The father of Hananiah the false prophet. A seal reads: “Hananyahu, son of Azaryahu.” A Gibeon jar handle reads: “Gibeon. Wall of Azaryahu.”
-David (1 Kings 12:19; 2 Chronicles 10:19, etc). Davidic dynasty. The Tel Dan stele, line 9, reads: byt dwd “House of David.” The Dhiban Mesha stele, line 12, reads: w'sb msm 't ar'l dwdh “I captured from there it’s Davidic lion.” Line 31 apparently reads: bt-[d]wd "House of David." According to Egyptologist K. A. Kitchen, an Egyptian inscription listing territories conquered by Pharaoh Sheshonq I mentions in Southwest Judah and the Negev: b(y)dlt dwt “the Heights of David,” where Egyptian dwt transcribes Semitic dwd. In "Egyptian inscriptions a t could and sometimes did transcribe a Semitic d." Examples include Megiddo which in Egyptian is Mkt, Adummim is Itmm, and Damascus is Tmsq.
-Eliakim son of Hilkiah (2 Kings 18:18; Isaiah 22:20). A son of Hilkiah and overseer of the palace of king Hezekiah of Judah. A bulla reads: “Elyaqim, son of Hilqiyahu.”
-Elishama (Jeremiah 36:12, etc). A scribe and servant of king Jehoiakim of Judah. A bulla reads: “Elishama, servant of the king.”
-Elishama (2 Kings 25:25; Jeremiah 41:1). The father of Nethaniah, father of Ishmael of royal descent. A seal reads: “Elishama, the king’s son.”
-Gedaliah son of Pashhur (Jeremiah 38:1). An official of king Zedekiah of Judah. A City of David bulla reads: “Gedalyahu, son of Pashhur.”
-Gemariah son of Shaphan (Jeremiah 36:10-12). A son of Shaphan the scribe and servant of king Jehoiakim of Judah. A City of David bulla reads: “Gemaryahu, son of Shaphan.”
-Hananiah son of Gedaliah (Jeremiah 42:4 LXX/35:4 MT, which has aquired a yod and is vocalized differently). A prophet whose sons occupied a chamber in the Jerusalem temple at the time of Jehoiakim king of Judah. A bulla reads: “Hananyahu, son of Gedalyahu.”
-Hezekiah son of Ahaz (2 Kings 18:1, etc). A son of Ahaz and a king of Judah. The Sennacherib (Taylor) Prism, reads: (iii 74): u (m).kha-za-qi-a-u KUR.ia-u-da-a-a…“ (iv 25) URU.ur-sa-li-im-mu URU LUGAL-[ti-shu] "Moreover, Hezekiah of the land of Judah ... city of Jerusalem, [his] royal city.” A City of David royal bulla reads: "Belonging to Hizqiyahu (son of) Achaz king of Yehudah." Bullae read: “Yehozarah, son of Hilqiyahu, servant of Hizqiyahu,” “Amaryahu, (son of) Hananyahu, servant of Hizqiyahu,” “Azaryahu, son of Yehoah, servant of Hizqiyahu,” and “Domla, servant of Hizqiyahu.”
-Hilkiah (2 Kings 22:4, 1 Chronicles 6:13; Ezra 7:1). Father of Azariah and a high priest of the Jerusalem temple at the time of king Josiah of Judah. A signet ring with seal reads: “Hanan, son of Hilqiyahu the priest.” A City of David bulla reads: “Azaryahu, son of Hilqiyahu.” Seals read “Azaryahu, (son of) Hilqiyahu” and “Azaryahu, (son of) Hilqa.”
-Hoshea (2 Kings 17:1, etc). A king of Israel. Tiglath-pileser III’s Summary Inscription 4, 49, line r10, reads: [...a-u-si-i a]-na LUGAL u-ti-ina UGU-shu-nu “[...I installed Hoshea as] king over them.” A seal reads: “Abdi, servant of Hoshea.” See also, Pekah.
-Isaiah the prophet (2 Kings 19:20). The prophet Isaiah. A City of David seal reads: lysayh nvy: "Belonging to Isaiah the Prophet." Found within ten feet of the king Hezekiah royal seal. Hezekiah was a contemporary of Isaiah. The word for prophet usually occurs with an aleph at the end, but this is not an exclusive spelling for prophet in Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. For example, Dead Sea Scroll 1QIsa(a) for Isaiah 28:7 reads wnvy "and the prophet." Dead Sea Scroll 1QDeut(a) for Deuteronomy 13:4 reads hnvy "the prophet."
-Ishmael (2 Kings 25:23; Jeremiah 40:8). A son of Nethaniah and of royal descent, at the time of the governorship of Gedaliah. A bulla reads: “Yishma’el, the king’s son.”
-Israel (Genesis 32:28, 1 Samuel 13:19, etc). Jacob, grandson of Abraham, was renamed Israel. The Merneptah stele, line 26, reads: i-s-r-r(=l) “Israel.” The Berlin Relief No. 21687 (Amenhotep II-Rameses II), name ring 3, reads: i3-shr-i-r(=l) “Israel,” while name ring 2 reads: k-y-n-'3-nw "Canaan", and name ring 1 reads: i-s-q-l-n "Ashkelon."
-Jaazaniah (2 Kings 25:23, Jeremiah 40:8). A son of the Maacathite and an officer at the time of the governorship of Gedaliah. A Tell en-Nasbeh (ancient Mizpah) seal reads: “Ya’azanyahu, servant of the king.”
-Jaazaniah son of Azzur (Ezekiel 11:1). A son of Azzur and a false prophet, at the time of Zedekiah king of Judah, and is in a vision of Ezekiel. Accounting ostracon, line 3, reads: “Ya’azanyahu, son of Azzur.”
-Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30). A son of Josiah and a king of Judah. A seal reads: “Yehoahaz, the king’s son.”
-Jehoash/Joash (2 Kings 12:1, etc). A king of Israel. In the Tel el Rimah Stele of Adad-Nirari III, line 8, it reads: ia-'a-su mat sa-me-ri-na-a-a "Joash, the Samarian.”
-Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:8, etc). A king of Judah. In the Ration Tablets of Babylon it reads: [ia]-'-kin lugal sha-kur ia-[a-hu-du] “Yaukin king of the land of Judah.” A seal impression on jar handles reads: “Eliakim, steward of Yaukin.”
-Jehu (1 Kings 19:16, etc). A king of Israel. The annals of Shalmaneser III, col. 4, line 11, and the Kurba’il Statue, lines 29–30, read: ia-u-a mar hu-um-ri-i “Jehu, son of (the land of) Omri.”
-Jehucal son of Shelemiah (Jeremiah 37:3). An official of king Zedekiah of Judah. A City of David bulla reads: “Yehukal, son of Shelemyahu, son of Shobi.”
-Jerahmeel the king's son (Jeremiah 36:26). A son of king Jehoiakim of Judah. A bulla reads: “Yerahme’el, the king’s son.”
-Jeroboam II (2 Kings 13:13, etc). A king of Israel. A seal found at Megiddo reads: “Shema, servant of Jeroboam.”
-Johanan (Nehemiah 12:22). A son of Joiada and a high priest of the Jerusalem temple after the Babylonian exile. An Elephantine papyrus P13495 (Darius II), line 18, verso, reads: “the high priest Johanan and his associates, the priests in Jerusalem.” A silver coin (378-368 BC) from the Persian period reads: “Yohanan the priest.”
-Jotham (2 Kings 15:38, etc). A king of Judah. A bulla reads: “Ahaz, (son of) Yehotam, king of Judah.”
-Malchiah the king's son (Jeremiah 38:6). A son of king Zedekiah of Judah. A seal reads: “Malkiyahu, the king’s son.”
-Manasseh (2 Kings 21:11, etc). A king of Judah. In the Annals of Ashurbanipal, Cylinder C, col. 1, line 25, it reads: [me]-na-si-i MAN KUR.ia-u-di “Manasseh, king of Judah.” A seal reads: “Manasseh, the king’s son.”
-Menahem (2 Kings 15:17, etc). A king of Israel. In the Annals of Tiglath-pileser III, Fragment 2, line 10, it reads: me-ni-hi-im-me URU.sa-me-ri-na-a-a “Menahem of the city of Samaria.” Tiglath-pileser III, BM 118899 + BM 118900, Nimrud wall slab, line 2, reads: me-ni-hi-me URU.sa-me-ri-i-na-a-a “Menahem of the city of Samaria.”
-Mikneiah (1 Chronicles 15:18). A Levitical lyrist and singer at the time of king David. A seal reads: “Mikneyau, servant of Yahweh.”
-Nathan-Melech (2 Kings 23:11). A court official of king Josiah of Judah. A seal reads: “Nathan-Melech, servant of the king.”
-Omri (1 Kings 16:16, etc). A king of Israel. The Mesha stele, lines 4-5, reads: *mry.mlk.ysr'l. “Omri was king of Israel.”
-Pedaiah (1 Chronicles 3:18-19). A son of Jehoiachin king of Judah. A seal reads “Pedayahu, the king’s son.”
-Pekah (2 Kings 15:27, etc). A king of Israel. A building inscription of Tiglath-pileser III, Summary Inscription 4, 42, lines 17, 18, reads: u-ra-a pa-qa-ha LUGAL -shu-nu [x]-du-x-x-ma a-u-si- 18 [a-na LUGAL -ti i]-na “[I/they] killed Peqah, their king, and I placed Hoshea 18 [as king o]ver them.” 44 17, 18 reads: [KUR.E-hu-um-ri-a] ...18 URU.sa-me-ri-na e-de-nu-ush-shu u-mash-shi-[ru pa-qa]-ha LUGAL-shu-nu "[the land of Omri]...18 and the city of Sameria I isola[ted]-(now) [they overthrew Peqa]h, their king"
-Seraiah son of Neriah (Jeremiah 51:59). A brother of Baruch the scribe and disciple of the prophet Jeremiah, at the time of Jehoiakim king of Judah. A Lachish seal reads: “Serayahu, (son of) Neriyahu.”
-Shebna (2 Kings 18:37, etc). A scribe, and possibly overseer of the palace, at the time of Hezekiah king of Judah. A seal reads: “Shebnayahu, servant of the king.”
-Zedekiah son of Hananiah (Jeremiah 36:12). An official of king Jehoiakim of Judah. A bulla reads: “Tsidqiyahu, son of Hanani.”
Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen writes:
“The periods most in the glare of contemporary documents—the divided monarchy and the exile and return—show a very high level of direct correlation (where adequate data exist) and of reliability...When we go back (before ca. 1000) to periods when inscriptional mentions of a then-obscure tribal community and its antecedent families (and founding family) simply cannot be expected a priori, then chronologically typological comparisons of the biblical and external phenomena show clearly that the Hebrew founders bear the marks of reality and of a definite period.” 
C. Archaeology and Jesus of Nazareth
1. Ossuary of Alexander son of Simon of Cyrene
An undisturbed tomb was discovered in 1941 by archaeologists from Jerusalem’s Hebrew University during a survey of tombs in the Kidron Valley, just south of Jerusalem. The tomb was sealed and the pottery inside the tomb helped the archaeologists to confidently date the tomb's last use to before the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70. The inscriptions on some ossuaries point to a family with Cyrenian Origins. The inscriptions were first published in 1962.
Ossuary Serial No. XXXI. Inventory No. 1965, reads
Lid: (Greek and Hebrew) “of Alexander” “Alexander (the) Cyrenean”
Back: (in Greek) “Simon Ale…” “Alexander” “(son) of Simon”
Mark 15:21: “And they compelled one passing by, coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go with them, that he might bear his cross.”
P. W. van der Horst remarks:
“[T]here is at least a good chance that we have here the ossuary of the son of the man who carried Jesus’ cross.” 
T. Powers writes:
“When we consider how uncommon the name Alexander was, and note that the ossuary inscription lists him in the same relationship to Simon as the New Testament does and recall that the burial cave contains the remains of people from Cyrenaica, the chance that the Simon on the ossuary refers to the Simon of Cyrene mentioned in the Gospels seems very likely.” 
2. Earthquake of 33 A.D. in Dead Sea Core Samples.
Twenty-foot deep cores of sediment were taken around the Dead Sea. Mixed layers in the core samples were found to match historical earthquakes. An unknown first-century earthquake was found and the date was calculated by counting the yearly rings in the core sample. The result was 31 A.D. +/-4, listed as “33 A.D.” in the scientific literature. 
Matthew 27:50-51: “And Jesus shouted again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit. And suddenly, the veil of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split.”
3. Ossuary of James son of Joseph brother of Jesus
A first-century ossuary was discovered with an Aramaic inscription, reading
“Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua” which is translated “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”
James was the half-brother of Jesus and was martyred in 62 A.D. A recent archaeometric analysis of the James ossuary found that the ossuary and its engravings are likely authentic.  A statistical analysis of the three names with the relation on the ossuary showed that there would be only 1.71 (one or two) people named James with a father Joseph and a brother named Jesus.  The rare Aramaic spelling for “brother” has been found on one other first-century Jerusalem ossuary.
4. Early External Source Testimony
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in ca. 94 A.D. wrote:
“At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he appeared to them after three days from his crucifixion and that he was alive. Therefore, perhaps he was the Messiah about whom the admirable prophets spoke.” 
In a second passage, Josephus writes that the high priest Ananus brought James, the brother of Jesus, before the Sanhedrin:
“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah, whose name was James, and some others. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.” 
The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus in ca. 115 A.D. wrote:
“Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.” 
5. Early Manuscripts and Witnesses of the New Testament
Date Written (A.D.) Book Earliest Manuscript, Dates Earliest Quote/Allusion: Author/Work, Date, NT Verse
42-45 Matthew P104 100-200 Ignatius (c.110-117), 10:16; Polycarp (110-155), 7:1
64-67 Mark P45 200-250 Polycarp, 9:35, 14:38; Barnabas (100-150), 2:17
53-57 Luke P45 200-250 Ignatius, 6:46; Polycarp, 6:20
67-96 John P52 100-150 Ignatius, 3:8, 8:29; Barnabas, 1:14
60 Acts P45 200-250 Clement, 20:35; Polycarp, 2 :24
57-58 Romans P46 150-250 Clement, 1:32; Polycarp, 14:10
53-57 1Corinthians P46 150-250 Ignatius, 4:20; Polycarp, 6:9
56-57 2Corinthians P46 150-250 Ignatius, 6:14-16; Polycarp, 4:14
48-55 Galatians P46 150-250 Ignatius, 2:20; Polycarp, 6:7
58-63 Ephesians P46 150-250 Ignatius, 6:12, 16; Polycarp, 2:5, 8, 9
58-63 Philippians P46 150-250 Ignatius, 3:18-19; To Diognetus (c.130), 3:20
58-63 Colossians P46 150-250 Ignatius, 1:23; Irenaeus, 3:5
50-53 1Thessalonians P46 150-250 Ignatius, 5:17; Polycarp, 5:22
50-53 2Thessalonians P30 200-300 Ignatius, 3:10; Polycarp, 3:15
55-65 1Timothy Sinaiticus 330-360 Ignatius, 4:10, 12; Polycarp, 6:7
58-67 2Timothy Sinaiticus 330-360 Ignatius, 3:4, 6; Polycarp, 2:12
57-65 Titus P32 100-300 Clement, 3:1; Irenaeus (182-188), 3:10
58-63 Philemon P87 125-225 Polycarp, 3; Muratorian Canon (170-210)
50-67 Hebrews P46 150-250 Clement, 1:3-5:7; Polycarp, 6:20
40-60 James P23 200-300 Clement (96), 4:6; Polycarp, 5:10
58-68 1Peter P72 200-350 Clement, 3:20; Polycarp, 1:21
64-68 2Peter P72 200-350 Clement, 2:5; Justin (c.138-165), 3:8
57-95 1John P9 275-500 Ignatius, 3:7; Polycarp, 4:3
57-95 2John Uncial 0232 250-450 Polycarp, 6; Irenaeus, 10, 11
57-95 3John Vaticanus 300-325 Polycarp, 1:8; Dionysius (246-265)
66-68 Jude P72 200-350 Irenaeus, 7; ClementA, (193-220), 5,6
68-97 Revelation P98 100-200 Didache (120-150), 12:9; Justin, 20:4,5
1. H. Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 118-19; Idem, Big Bang Refined by Fire. Posted on reasons.org 1998.
2. F. Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics (1982): 20:16.
3. S. C. Meyer, “Yes, intelligent design is detectable by science.” Posted on evolutionnews.org April 24, 2018.
4. Meyer, Dallas Conference on Science and Faith Jan 18-19, 2019. 41:14ff.
5. H. Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos.; Ross, "Fine-Tuning For Life On Earth." Posted on reasons.org June 8, 2004. G. Gonzalez, and J. W. Richards, The Privileged Planet, 128-168.
6. Ross, “Astrosphere Habitable Zones Display Fine-Tuned Characteristics.” Posted on reasons.org July 7, 2014.
7. Meyer, Signature In The Cell: DNA And The Evidence For Intelligent Design (2009), 135.
8. Meyer, Signature In The Cell, 343.
9. Meyer, Signature In The Cell, 334.
10. Meyer, Signature In The Cell, 477; Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, 364-365.
11. O. Hössjer, and A. Gauger, "A single-couple human origin is possible." BIO-Complexity 2019 (1):1–20. doi: 10.5048/BIO-C.2019.1. (Ann Gauger has a Ph.D. in developmental Biology. Ola G. H. Hossger is Prof. Mathematical Statistics at Stockholm University)
12. D. Axe, "Darwin's Little Engine That Couldn't," in Science and Human Origins (2012), 41, citing J. P. Demuth, et al., PloS One 1 (2006). (Douglas Axe has a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering)
13. R. Buggs, Chimpanzee? Reformatorisch Dagblad. Posted on refdag.nl. October 10, 2008; Buggs, 70% Chimp? Reformatorisch Dagblad. Posted on refdag.nl. December 5, 2008.
14. J. Tomkins, "Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%." Answers Research Journal 6 (2013):63–69. (Jeffrey P. Tomkins has a Ph.D. in Genetics)
15. C. Luskin, "Human Origins and the Fossil Record," in Science & Human Origins, 73-74: “The Darwinian belief that humans evolved from apelike species requires inferences that go beyond the evidence and is not supported by the fossil record.”
16. Cf. Meyer, Darwins Doubt, ix-x, 287, 450 n.13; "New Trends in Evolutionary Biology." The Royal Society, London. Nov 7-9, 2016.
17. Meyer, Darwins Doubt, 215-16.
18. Gauger, "Orphan Genes: A Guide for the Perplexed.” Posted on evolutionnews.org July 30, 2013.
19. M. J. Oard, and J. K. Reed, How Noah’s Flood Shaped Our Earth (2017),180-81. (J. K. Reed has a Ph.D. in Geology. M. J. Oard has an MS in Atmospheric Science)
20. B. Thomas, and S. Taylor, “Proteomes of the Past.” Expert Review of Proteomics. 2019 Nov-Dec; 16 (11-12): 881-895.
21. B. Thomas, and V. Nelson, "Radiocarbon in Dinosaur and Other Fossils." Creation Research Society Quarterly. 51(4): 299-311.
22. T. Clarey, Carved in Stone: Geological Evidence of the Worldwide Flood (2020), 75
23. Clarey, 81
24. Clarey, 48
25. Clarey, 52
26. Clarey, 194
27. Clarey, 216
28. Clarey, 234
29. Clarey, 256
30. Clarey, 282
31. Clarey, 312
32. R. Cornuke, Search For Noah’s Ark: The Lost Mountains of Noah (DvD. 2008); Idem, Ark Fever (2005), 222-254; F. Turek, The Search for Noah’s Ark in Iran (PowerPoint CD. 2008).
33. R. H. Cowir, and B. S. Holland, Dispersal is fundamental to biogeography and the evolution of biodiversity on oceanic islands. J. Biogeography 33:186, 2006; M. Vences, D. R. Vieites, et al. Multiple overseas dispersal in amphibians. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 270: 2435-2442, 2003.
34. Oard and Reed, How Noah’s Flood Shaped Our Earth, 177.
35. D. Lappin, "Illahun Lunar Texts and the Astronomical Dating of the 12th Dynasty," in van der Veen & Zerbst, Volk ohne Ahnen? 2012. See also P. J. Furlong, Aspects of Ancient Near Eastern Chronology (c. 1600-700BC), (Univ. Melbourne, Feb 2007), 291-293.
36. D. Rohl, Exodus: Myth or History, 331.
37. J. Mykytiuk, Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 BCE (2004); Mykytiuk, Corrections and Updates to “Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E.,” (2009); K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (2003), 16-21, 93. Additional inscriptions of interest: Soleb (Amenhotep III) and Amarah-West (Rameses II) hieroglyphic inscriptions read: t3 sh3sw ya-h-wa: “the land of the nomads of Yahweh.”
38. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 499-500.
39. P. W. van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs (1991), 140-41.
40. T. Powers, Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August 2003, 51.
41. R. Ken-Tor, et al., Journal of Geophysical Research. 106 (B2): 2221-2234, “Table 3…33 A.D. Reports were from Judea region. The Temple in Jerusalem was damaged.”; J. B. Williams, et al., International Geology Review, Volume 54, Issue 10 (2012); S. A. Austin, GSA Poster (2012), “Jerusalem Earthquake of 33 A.D.”
42. A. Rosenfeld, et al., Open Journal of Geology, Vol. 4 No. 3 (2014).
43. H. Shanks, Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August, 2012.
44. Josephus, Ant. 18:63-64, Arabic version
45. Ant. 20.9.1
46. Annals 15:44