How much more evidence do people need to accept the reality of Noah's flood?
Hi reece, thank you very much for the information, very impressive for sure!
But, if I may, and you probably would agree, I'm sure, I'd just like to add that the archaeological evidence does very little for me, as far as my convictions or faith goes towards the historical veracity of the Bible. For, as Christians who have ears and eyes to hear and perceive, we know that the God-given inspiration of the Bible is predominantly proven by the wisdom within. That is, we understand the purpose behind what God does to such an extent, that the means by which God does things are extremely incidental. For example, if Exodus said that Moses crossed the Red Sea with a hovercraft, I would believe it. Not necessarily because the Bible says so, or that the Bible states itself that its content is God-breathed, but because the history, law, characters and all the events recorded in the Bible, are arranged and purposed in such a way that clearly surpasses man's wisdom.
I say this because if we were to go on archaeological evidence alone, who would believe that the world or universe is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, as the genealogies of the Bible would indicate? I wouldn't, and for the sake of rationality, I couldn't, for all the natural and material evidence proves otherwise (see Hugh Ross).
Thus, I truly believe that God added mystery into his creation to confound the wise and imprudent. i.e. I personally believe that he created an 'old' universe in 6 days.
reece, I just wanted to offer this so that Christians understand where the extent of their convictions should lie, in perceiving the wisdom and mystery of God. For our faith lies not in what is seen, but what is understood, and thus, acted upon despite the physical or superficial evidence, either declaring otherwise, or being lacking.
Thanks again reece, this definitely inspires either way, ...and again, please don't see this as a correction in any way, just as an a addition or supplement!