Hello Leolaia,
Thanks for clarifying where you are coming from with "myth" versus "legend".
But that can also become "circular" depending upon personal reference and evidence. In other words, if someone actually saw angels and God spoke to them directly, whether they were delusional or not, it would affect their belief structure. If an angel came down from heaven and convinced YOU he was an angel, maybe did a few tricks or made a few predictions to your satisfaction, then you might be inclined to believe. Like they say, "there are no atheists in fox holes."(probably a poor analogy, but nonetheless).
So getting back to my point, "hypothetically" or "theoretically", if the flood event mentioned in the Bible which is presented as "history" actually took place then it might explain parallelism of some beliefs, folklore and traditions in contemporary cultures. That's ALL I'm saying.
But I'm also personally out of the loop because I've seen angels, Jesus and spoken to the Creator personally. Even if I was on drugs or deluded about it, if the experience was real enough and consistent with a particular belief system of possibility, then it tends to substantiate a confidence level in Scripture or whatever that others who have not seen this have.
I'll tell you, I've thought of this and there seems to be three reference points on some of these things. One is personal experience, which is limited to convincing another; the other is a convincing Biblical argument, but sometimes people can't go along with that or have another view. But another issue of reference is some demonstrated miracle or out-of-the-ordinary phenomenon, which is what I sometimes refer to for those who, say, have no reason in particular to believe the Bible or any particular person.
But that's why I think God provided some of that type of evidence. That being the "sign of the son of man" is supposed to appear in the clouds. That meant imagery of the nature of the Messiah would be manifested to the anointed in the form of cloud imagery consistent with their understanding of the Messiah and who he was, physically, etc. What is critical though, is that this is not a "vision" totally. Sure it involves interpretation of what you see at some point, but it's still a PHYSICAL EVENT. And that means it an be recorded on film and then preserved and SHARED with others.
So the "sign of the son of man" occurred on December 26, 1992 and then again on the same date in the afternoon between 3 and 6 pm on the 7th anniversary of the sign, December 26, 1999, only this time it appeared to a skyscape photographer who captured the images on film. Those images match images found in the WTS publication which proves they were seen before.
When you have that sort of evidence though, everybody has to relate to it since the only way to dismiss it is to say, "it's a COINCIDENCE". But the law of averages comes into play on that one. I mean, if you took photos every day all day of cloud images, you might come up with a couple really good combinations over a period of time. If you increase the number of places you take photographs then the number of "matches" would likely increase. But that's with random observation. It becomes quite another matter when you are EXPECTING a certain image on a specific date, at a specific time and to appear in a specific location. When you take photos during that period at that location and you come up with specific imagery, then it tends to increase your belief in the supernatural.
But of course, it means a lot more to the people who already were believers, who saw similar signs themselves and who experience holy spirit on a daily basis. To THEM, it's easier to believe in the global flood or angels, than understandably others who do not experience these things. But this is consistent with God's manner of informing his servants, that is, "he with a lot will be given more, he with little, even that will be taken away" meaning that if there are any "miracles" to be seen or personal appearances by spirits it will not be to the doubters but to those who already have enough faith anyway.
All to say this: from your point of view, I can appreciate your doubt. You want PROOF first. Until you get it, then it remains a question mark. But that doesn't mean others are in your same position; others who have experienced God more personally have legitimate REASON to have more faith in the written word.
So in the end, it becomes quite subjective depending upon at what point you enter the room, so to speak. But I think the photography of the clouds, the manifestation of a physical event that could be recorded were to answer those who, perhaps from a purely academic point of view, have no reason to believe the Bible or in angels or any of the extranatural things. Those cloud image photos are for those who are ALMOST CONVINCED but just need that extra little confirmation, like doubting Thomas.
Anyway, if you want to see the photos, they are posted at my website.
In a separate post I'll relate what the angels are up to these days per my experience, however, subjective that is, it might be amusing or informative, depending upon your disposition.
Anyway, I can't relate to your position of there not being angels per my personal experience so I'll have to excuse myself from that rationalization since it doesn't fit my reality. Which is interesting. Perspection in the end, it everything finally.
JC