You are going to be arguing this forever if you don’t specifically state which Biblical references are for the Anatolian Hittites and which ones are for another group that is commonly (and erroneously) labeled as Hittites.
From the article linked by you yourself we read this very articulate discussion:
"There was a time when historians scoffed at the name Hittite(s) in the OT since it was not
known outside the Bible.[FN 4: For convenience, I shall use Hittite(s) to represent both
Hethite(s) and Hittite(s) in our English translations, until the end of the article when I shall
separate the two.]
Archaeological discoveries in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Turkey and
Syria from the early nineteenth century on, however, have revealed an Indo-European
group scholars have dubbed “Hittites” (as opposed to “Hethites”), who established an
empire in Anatolia that became a major power in the ancient Near East. But a serious
" The Biblical references to Hittites living in Canaan appear to be
unhistorical since there is no evidence—linguistic, historical, or archaeological—for a Hittite
presence in Canaan. Kempinsky attempted to establish an early twelfth-century migration of
Hittites to Canaan, requiring Abraham to be placed in the thirteenth-twelfth century BC,
but this scenario finds little support in the archaeological record.
Singer recently reviewed the finds and concluded:
the archaeological evidence seems hardly sufficient to prove a presence of northern
Hittites in Palestine. After a century of intensive excavations, all that has surfaced is a
handful of Hittite seals and about a dozen pottery vessels that exhibit some northern
artistic influences. The seals may have belonged to Hittite citizens who passed through
Canaan, and the vessels may have filtered gradually into Palestine through various Syrian
intermediaries. The paucity of tangible evidence becomes even more conspicuous in the
face of the absence of two salient features of Hittite culture—the hieroglyphic script and
the cremation burial—both of which seem to have extended only as far south as the
region of Hama in central Syria.
As for the Biblical use of the term Hittite(s) for residents of Canaan, Singer subscribes to an
anachronistic explanation. He believes the name came from the Assyrian period when the
term Ḫattiwas used for Anatolia, Syria, and Israel.
The difficulty, which Gelb said was “a historical enigma,” has been described succinctly by
Ishida: “although the Hebrew Bible often mentions the Hittites among the original
inhabitants of the Promised Land, we have had so far no definite evidence of a Hittite
presence in Palestine in the second millennium B.C. Therefore recent studies are reluctant to
regard biblical references to the Hittites in Palestine as historical.”
The purposes of this paper are to clear up the confusion by sorting out the non-Hittites from
the genuine Hittites, and offer a means to distinguish between the two."
@Bill_Smith, what is a shame is the author wrote this perfect sentence for you:
“There was a time when historians scoffed at the name Hittite(s) in the OT since it was not
known outside the Bible.”
And then he didn’t give us any examples of who these historians were. I suppose it doesn’t
matter - - if they were wrong.