Truthseeker, you should do a little research.

Celtic Legends:
DWYVACH (Welsh) [DOO'ee-vhk] Also Dwyfach. With her husband Dwyvan, they built the ark called Nefyed Nav Nevion in which they and their animals escaped the great flood caused by the dragon king Addanc. In Welsh their names simply mean God and Goddess.
Welsh legend says that she and her husband were each part of one river which flowed in to Bala Lake shish was at one time called Lake Dyfrdwy, from the term dyfr-dwyf meaning 'water of the divinity'.
This confluence image links them to lost creation myths. Dwyvach embodies the feminine principle of creation.

DWYVAN (Welsh) Also Dwyfan. Dwyvan and his wife, Swyfach, are the heroes of the Welsh flood myth.
Together they built an ark, filled it with animals, and survived the great flood caused by Addanc, a lake God/dragon/faery. Though later versions of this myth are distorted in order to make it conform to the Biblical version, the old story shines through and we see that Dwyvan was the personification of the male creative principle........

A quick glance at the stories you collected shows that indeed, they are all different, some are local, some obviously distorted by the Biblical fictions, some are multiple floods.....in short, as I said, they don't apply. Some cultures have flood myths, some don't. Also, the Bible myths are stolen from earlier Middle Eastern peoples, as everyone knows...

[b]turton originally wrote: great list, truthseeker. Unfortunately, (1) they all have different flood stories, (2) floods are common all over the world (3) the flood in the bible is impossible as history (4) the biblical flood story is borrowed from earlier near eastern flood stories (5) the list you have represents less than 1% of all world
cultures. Have you surveyed them all?
---------------------------------------------

turtonm ,
1. i no this.

If you know this, what;s your point?

2. i see that to

3. why? , what makes you say that?

What makes me say that the Bible Flood is absurd? The whole world covered to the tops of the mountains? Please....where did the water go? How did corals, water plants and many fish survive? etc etc etc. The Flood myth is impossible.

4.i no this to(babylonians probably)

Then why bother to list this? The hebrews borrowed somebody else's gods and myths. Does that make them true?

5.I haven`t survayed them all, but it seems like alot more than 1%. can you tell me how you come to that percentage.

Easily. Consider that Kenya alone has more than 200 identifiable cultures, while a large country like India might have a couple of thousand. You listed about 200. Of course, thousands of cultures have vanished completely. And some of your listings are bogus -- "Greenlander" is not a culture, and neither is "Nicaragua" or "Panama"! Perhaps those refer to geographical categories.


Michael

Wasn't the world Flooded? I can not find any in the bible where that China was flooded. Back then China was not part of the world, nor is it today. The world was a small area in Judea and this small area may have had rocks called by such names as Chaldees and Babylon. The wadi's may have been nick-named the river Euphrates and the river Jordan. It is obvious that Tyre was not on the Mediterranean (Great Sea) so that king Hiram must have been a Hebrew, and, likewise, also the pharoah of Egypt (another rock). The bible is simply loaded with figurative speech. Just find me a virgin that was not a Hebrew or where it says that Jesus feet were pierced, or how about those 185,000 Assyrian zombies? or, how about the earth reversing its rotation for ten days or about the earthquakes during the crucifixion? Get a life!

thanks, offa

Big D:
If you read my post in this thread you should recognise why your dating of the flood is faulty.

Tercel, I did read it and you are, well, wrong. The Bible is clear. You are doing back flips to avoid the truth!
"-- the relevant geneaologies are not vague, but assert clearly that two events are seperated by X number of years [for example, Abram was born when Terah was 70, Terah when Nahor was 29, etc.]. "Yo9ur begat means . . is silly at best!

Big D:
I notice I did make one mistake:
My example with Terah and Abraham was not a particularly good one because Gen 11:31 makes clear that Terah is the actual father of Abraham.
The English translations of the Bible generally translate the words to "had a son" or "became the father of". But we see from the way that Jewish Geneologies are given in the Bible that they can skip many generations without mention. (Watch out, some translations take a bit of liberty here so you may not always see my point when you look up the references) Compare 1 Chronicles 6:3-14 with Ezra 7:1-5 (Note that in 1 Chronicles it is explictly stated that every generation is given). Or see 1 Chronicles 26:24 (Chronologically it isn't possible for Shebuel to be the Grandson of Moses). Or compare Matthew 1:8 with 1 Chronicles 3:11-12. (Matthew's Uzziah is called Azariah here btw)
Clearly the usual thing is to show the line of descent and not to list every single generation. -It is interesting that in the passage where every single generation is given we are specifically told this.
In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT probably done about 200BC or so) there is an extra name (Kainan) in verse 12. Kainan is stated to have lived 130 years and the phraseology matches the other names. This is intriguing because it means that this Genealogy contains 10 names, the same number as the othere Genealogy in Genesis 5. This is extremely suspicious and reminds us of Matthew's Genealogy of Christ in Matthew 1 which groups all the names into groups of seven, omitting names in order to do so. Did the author of the Genealogies in Genesis do a similar thing with the number 10?
Do you now see the reason why the text might well be meaning "Y begat someone who lead to X" as opposed to "Y was the direct father of X"?
We also have an interesting thing happening in Genesis 10:2. A man begetting entire countries. And in 10:4 entire races. Were they all his direct sons? I hope not. Verse 7, a man begets the entire population of places again. Verse 13, more entire peoples are begat. Verse 15-18 continues the trend. It is clearly impossible to read such passages as "X was the direct father of Y". They must be read as "Y was descended from X".
Furthermore if the Geneology was to be read chronologically:
Noah and all his descendents down to Abraham would still be living when Abraham was fifty! Shem, Salah and Eber would have outlived Abraham! Eber would still be living when Jacob was with Laban!

It clearly does not make sense to read the Geneologies given in Genesis as if they were Chronologies. Thus we cannot date the Flood from the Bible. Interesting in quite an old book I read a while ago, the Christian author insisted that the Flood was not to be dated any closer than 20,000 BC and that frozen mammoths in Siberia (often used for evidence of the Flood and dated to around 10,000 BC when he was writing ) could not possibly have been a result of the Flood because they were too recent.

-Tercel

Sorry if this post is a little bit redundant, repetitive, or tending to say the same thing over and over. I haven't the time (or desire) to read all 34,783 posts on this thread to see whether or not my ideas have already been posted by someone else, but if they have already been posted by another, you need not waste your time reading it here.

The Hebrew word translated as 'day(s)' in the early chapters of Genesis simply means "era". It can mean a literal, 24-hour day, but since the rotation of the earth around the Sun had not yet been started, I see no need for such an interpretation in Genesis 1.

By the way, dinos are the least of problems for young-earthers; we can see the light of stars (and thus there light has reached earth from their location) that are billions of light years away. Some young-earthers have proposed theories that God put dinosaur bones in the ground, or that he created light in transit, simply to 'fool the foolish'. This doesn't hold much water, though, since in Romans 1 Paul said that creation bears witness to God's existence (even his nature). All truth is God's truth, after all; if indeed God included in creation things to make belief in his Son harder, then Paul was wrong, it seems to me.