I am not certain how verifying the historical accuracy of the Flood will prove that God was involved, any more than proving the historical accuracy of the New Testament proves that Jesus was God. Both support the credibility of the claim of theological reliability, in contrast to something grossly historically inaccurate like the book of Mormon.
Another possibly contributing line of evidence, though not definitive or exclusive, is the historical durability of Christianity. Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? (Is. 36:19; see also Acts 5:34-39). This obviously does not eliminate all other contenders, but it does suggest that the Hebrew account is more credible than the Bablyonian, whose deities have failed to do anything about millenia of neglect.
Some things do seem historically verifiable with regard to the resurrection. For example, the inability of hostile authorities to disprove it in the face of public claims by the early Christians. The response of the early Christians is also historically notable. Pagan sources indicate that Christianity spread within a few years to the point of being considered a nusiance in Rome. Novel religions from the east were nothing new in Rome, though not generally of Jewish origin, but none had the success of Christianity.
Dr. David Campbell
"Old Seashells"
Biology Department
Saint Mary's College of Maryland
18952 E. Fisher Road
St. Mary's City, MD 20686-3001 USA
dcampbell@osprey.smcm.edu, 301 862-0372 Fax: 301 862-0996
"Mollusks murmured 'Morning!'. And salmon chanted 'Evening!'."-Frank Muir, Oh My Word!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 24 2001 - 16:20:13 EST