LucyTheApe writes:
But nwr, it's easy to say that the scribes of old were idiots.
They wrote, and they're not here to defend themselves. Tell me, when did writers become intelligent.
Writers haven't become more intelligent, just more knowledgeable. A writer in the middle east could write about the continent of Australia now, for example, and mention its very interesting marsupial fauna, but at that time they knew nothing of it, which is why, unsurprisingly, you will find no mention in the Bible of any flora and fauna particular to Australia (for the Americas and Antarctica, ditto).
However, we do have ancient creation stories for Australia, yet you reject these, even though the aboriginal stories do actually relate to the environment you live in.
So why is this, we can ask ourselves?
And as we're talking history, we know the answer, which is that Europeans imported Jewish mythology with Christianity, and when some of them took over the continent of Australia, they brought their irrelevant mythology with them. It was already irrelevant to Europe, and belonged very much in the middle-east, so the end result is that European Australians who are inclined to believe in ancient mythologies believe in a garden of Eden in which there were never any Kangaroos, Wallabies or Koalas.
What I suggest you do, if you want a magical start to the world, is convert to the aboriginal dreamtime view. It "explains" the environment you're in, and is more accurate than Jewish mythology in at least one respect, in that it regards the world as being very, very old.
I think I'm right in saying that the Australian mythology doesn't have a world wide flood in it, as well, so there's the advantage that you won't have to desperately try and find evidence for something that didn't happen.
As for the O.P. question of whether we would look for flood evidence if the Bible were historically accurate, the Bible excludes your continent, and the aborigines were not drowned 4,300 years ago, so it isn't accurate. It's the very parochial history/mythology of one tribe and their near neighbours, fairly obviously.
Edited by bluegenes, : minor clarification
Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
