[snip] Some biblical scholars argue that this was the site of “Sodom”. Other archaeologists disagree. Unlike the neighboring ruins of Numeira, Bab edh-Dhra does not appear to have been destroyed by fire. Instead, archaeological evidence suggests that the site was abandoned by its inhabitants. Other possible reasons this site may not be the biblical Sodom are because the village was too small, not in the designated geographical area and did not exist in the appropriate time period. Supporters of the Sodom theory have argued that, on closer examination to the biblical account, this does fit the geographical description of where Sodom would be located. They also argue that a set time frame for its destruction is not necessarily reliable. [/snip]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bab_edh-Dhra
Some biblical scholars argue that this was the site of “Sodom”. Other archaeologists disagree.
*****************************************
That’s not unusual. Books of the Bible/Torah written based on oral folklore passed down through a dozen or more generations later should never be trusted as the absolute truth.