Well, the myth still holds many, many people's minds in an age when the idea of a 'world wide flood' is completely contradicted by all available evidence . . . so obviously, you're incorrect in your assumption. People could have believed it because they were told it.
People clearly are willing to believe just about any stupid thing that someone tells them. Look at Jonestown or Heaven's Gate, for goodness' sake. Look at many Muslim teachings. Heck, look at some of the 'Catholic' teachings ('when you drink this wine it becomes the blood of Christ').
A small flood could easily have been blown up into 'a flood of the whole world', because people would have just believed what they were told, without questioning, "on faith". As they do every day, up to this day.
Which passages aren't 100% accurate and which ones are ?
Um, first you assume that none are 100% accurate, because no other writing like it has been 100% accurate. Small details always change, or are wrong. Especially if we're talking about 6,000 years here!
If you start out assuming that some of it is 100% accurate, you've started with a pre-concieved notion that is unsupported -- in fact, contradicted -- by past experience.
I don't read them except so far as to understand they require me to achieve something I cannot attain to be saved.
Until you treat the bible the same way you do all other religous texts, it's you who is being closed-minded, I'm afraid. You can't just pick one of the world's religions to be the "word of god' while ignoring all the others that also claim to be.
Well, the myth still holds many, many people's minds in an age when the idea of a 'world wide flood' is completely contradicted by all available evidence . . . so obviously, you're incorrect in your assumption. People could have believed it because they were told it.
The myth would have had to be sold by those who experienced the flood to those whom they met later. Assuming that this flood was very local then the world wide flood would have been a tough sell to folks who had their own history. If I understand correctly all sorts of cultures have similar myths. I would assume that whatever flood took place it would precede the disbursement of the population of humans throughout the world.
People clearly are willing to believe just about any stupid thing that someone tells them. Look at Jonestown or Heaven's Gate, for goodness' sake. Look at many Muslim teachings. Heck, look at some of the 'Catholic' teachings ('when you drink this wine it becomes the blood of Christ').
The fact that people believe stupid things doesn't have a bearing on whether something is true. We still need evidence.
A small flood could easily have been blown up into 'a flood of the whole world', because people would have just believed what they were told, without questioning, "on faith". As they do every day, up to this day.
What makes this myth unique is the many various cultures that hold a similar story.
Um, first you assume that none are 100% accurate, because no other writing like it has been 100% accurate. Small details always change, or are wrong. Especially if we're talking about 6,000 years here!
First it has been shown that the oral tradition was amazingly accurate and it has also been shown the parrallel sources of the text are often identical. Second, many texts have parallel passages which increase the chances of their accuracy. (For example the passage about the "SEA" that physicist is so desperately attempting to contort into an obviously ridiculous interpretation was repeated twice). A third part of the equation is the idea of information theory that you don't need all of the information to convey the orginal. (An example of this is my numerous spelling erros. Even though spelled wrong, the reader can figure out the meaning).
If you start out assuming that some of it is 100% accurate, you've started with a pre-concieved notion that is unsupported -- in fact, contradicted -- by past experience.
You are correct that starting out believing the text has been preserved acurately is an assumption. Its somewhat safer in that over the thousands of years its existed others have pulled every verse in it apart piece by piece so I do have the benefit of their analysis. There are a number places where the text is corrupt and this is explained.
Until you treat the bible the same way you do all other religous texts, it's you who is being closed-minded, I'm afraid. You can't just pick one of the world's religions to be the "word of god' while ignoring all the others that also claim to be.
I happen to treat all texts the same whether its the bible or the tax code. I apply the same sort of scrutinty to them. My critical reading isn't any different.
As to your presumption that I am closed minded about religion because I have concluded based on reason that other religions are wrong is perfectly true. I am also closed minded about my choice of spouse, career and favorite soft drink. All of those decisions are based on reason (well maybe except for the soft drink). The reasons for the religious choice would really hijack the thread into theology but they are logical at least to me.