Genesis 13:5-7

"And Lot also, who went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents. And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together: for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together. And there was a strife between the herdsmen of Abram's cattle and the herdsmen of Lot's cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land."

The marvelous unity and cohesiveness of these three verses must be at once apparent to any thoughtful person. There were three factors that underlay the crisis. First, was the tremendous size of the flocks and herds belonging to both Abram and Lot. In the second place, the herdsmen of the two kinsmen, having no filial affection binding them together, strove over pastures and watering places available. And in the third place, there was an additional factor in the existence of substantial numbers of the old Canaanite populations, including the Perizzites. If there had not been the presence of those other citizens of the land, both Lot and Abram might have been sustained in it, but the existence of all three factors at once made the resolution of the problem impossible, except upon such a deal as that Abram offered to Lot.

But, let it be noted that some of the critics are unaware of these basic and elementary facts, and, therefore they allege "multiple sources" in this "legend," as they call it, actually charging a "contradiction," no less, alleging that "P" presented the problem as one caused by the wealth of Abram and Lot, and that "J" thought it was due to strife between the herdsmen![8] Such a conflict as that in view here is never the result of a single cause, but it is always complicated by multiple factors. One may only marvel at the ignorance that overlooks such a thing. What men should do is to read Moses' explanation of the problem here, where he carefully mentioned three of the multiple reasons that led to the problem. It is this very type of criticism that has done so much to discredit, absolutely, the entire system of source-criticism prevalent today.