Quote:

I wish no-one could have read the crap that got into the bible, what a lot of trouble it has caused.



Same thoughts here.

There is evidence indicating other reasons why certain cultures have been destroyed, certainly not all by a flood. Infact, as far as I know there is no culture that has been destroyed by a flood, mostly it would only mean a decrease of a population and maybe a technological change, if they were hit that bad at all.



"These Aztec translations are controversial. Many have no credible source and there is no proof of their authenticity. Some are based on the pictograph story of Coxcox, but other translations of this pictograph mention nothing of a flood. Most significantly, the time that these myths were heard from the local people was well after missionaries entered the region."



Like in this Aztec example, eventhough many cultures have floods in their myths, I think a lot of it might aswell be traced back to be infact just western interpretations. Does any text referring to 'and he (a south-east asian king in this case) made 40.000 stupas' really mean that the king made 40.000 stupas? There has been no evidence for such a huge amount of structures being build by one king at all.
Texts are full of things that are being exaggerated. I see world wide floods as just another exageration.

Quote:

"Many myths represent the experience of the populace writ large. People who live in regions with large reptiles tell stories of gigantic reptiles. People who live in areas prone to forest fires tell of the fire big enough to destroy the world. People who live near glaciers have myths of when the world was consumed by ice. The prevalence of flood myths needs no explanation except that humans like to live near water and water sources have a tendency to flood periodically."



Religion is a result of fear and living in a relatively hostile environment will cause myths to be told and written down.
Furthermore translational errors, wrong interpretations of pictograms, ignorance of world views that are very different from our current views and plain speculation can as a result pretty much make the Christian flood story be seen everywhere. Something we identify as being a flooded plain on a pictogram, might aswell be something totally different.

Quote:

"Other myths appear amongst many cultures. Numerous cultures recognize creatures that live off of stolen human blood, frequently identified as unnaturally prolonging their lives after death. Nearly every (if not actually every) culture has myths of humans who can change shapes into animals, either at will or under some imposed circumstance. Does the prevelance of these myths indicate that vampires and werewolves actually exist? The average creationist would certainly reject the idea that there are many gods, despite the fact that belief in Pantheons occurs worldwide."



Similar stories, yet different events occured or no event occured? Or one event and a lot of different stories about it? I definately believe most of those stories to be myths and exagerations of what really happened because of the lack of geological evidence supporting for example huge floods (there is zero evidence for a worldwide flood), and I think that eventhough one event would not necessarily mean one story-version of what happened, most stories don't share enough details to beyond any doubt indicate one event at all, let alone the different times and for example prophecies that never came true.

Quote:

One approach to this problem is to state that between the six days of Creation and the Fall of Man and the subsequent initiation of human history there must have been a "gap" in the story of thousands of years, perhaps even tens of thousands or millions of years.



This would mean there should be no human fossils dating older than 4000BC? Then how do you explain humanoids fossils that are older than that? Gap or not, it sounds pretty odd and vague if Adam and Eve were to be the first humans. I'm not going to claim dating methods are perfect and that all those million+ years dates are correct, but our current dating methods are definately reliable past or just past 4000BC. Well we've found a lot of bones and fossils which are older than 4000BC...

Cheers

Last edited by PHeMoX; 05/04/06 21:57.
PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software