The bible literalists would say that a flood referred to as covering all the world meant a flood covering the entire surface of the planet simultaneously, rather than just the part of the world the storytellers knew.
Why are the Bible writers taken for such iidiots? Of course they knew their own experience didn't define the world, and the Bible itself makes that clear. If the earliest writers were that limited certainly the later writers weren't and they wouldn't put up with the earlier accounts if they knew them to be false. But they treated them as God's own revelation. They knew there was a worldwide Flood, Peter described a worldwide Flood.
But the bible is clearly not to be taken literally (There obviously were rainbows before the time of Noah, for example).
Well, being a Bible literalist myself, though that term is not really accurate as some ppeople misuse it, but anyway since I take the Bible as a revelation of the truth about everything, I know there were no rainbows before the Flood because it didn't rain before the Flood.
A citation for lithification not needing thousands of years? You need a citation showing that it does rather than that it's just the usual assumption of ppeople who are guessing as usual. But hey if I find a lab experiment that makes my point I'll post it for you.
The fact that you use "backwater" without thinking it strange indicates how familiar people are with water!
People living near water (which is a lot of people throughout history) would have often been subject to floods. Some they would have stronger memories of (just as the 1927 Mississippi floods come down to us through history). They would form the basis of a myth.
Or maybe someone just made up the story, needing some catastrophe familiar to their audience to fit into a narrative of their god scouring the unclean and sinful from the face of the earth. They might have used an earthquake or a pestilence just as easily.
You really thlnk ppeople are iidiots don't you, ppeople who lived before the modern era for sure, which is really just a form of cultureboundness. All those iddiots just made thlngs up, they had no sense of reality, didn't care about facts. Hm. Just the way you all put yourselves above us peole who believe in God.
The Earth before the Flood was watered by a mist from the ground according to scripture. That changed after the Flood. There had to have been a huge blanket of vapor over the earth too for rain to be possible when it did come. I've never been sure what "the fountains of the deep" refers to, or "the windows of heaven" that were opened to allow the rain, but something dramatic happened that permanently changed the climate of the Earth.
Well, all those pagan demon gods were quite real though placating them with offerings didn't do much in the way of protection. They still exist in places like India too, wherever Christianity hasn't had much influence.
If God hadn't given us His revelation we'd really be in bad shape.
All I know is that things were different before the Flood, and how exactly doesn't matter to me. I don't know what a lot of the terminology means. But whatever it means it's God's revelation and the later Bible writers believed that and treated it all as God's truth, including Jesus. The Flood changed the climate, people lived much much longer before than after and so on.
The Flood changed the climate, ppeople lived much much longer before than after and so on.
Where is the evidence to support that assertion Faith?
Unfortunately for you, we have examples of how long people and things lived going back tens of thousands of years before the Garden of Eden and all of the evidence shows that folk before either of the claimed Biblical Floods actually lived just about as long as folk did afterwards.
Faith you make lots of unsupported claims but the fact remains that there has never been a world-wide flood at anytime humans lived.
If you want to be a bible literalist, at least be consistent. The "mists" stuff was only during the days of creation before humans were created, "...for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground..."
On the contrary, without religion we'd be in better shape. Good people do good things, bad people do bad things, but in order to persuade good people to do bad things you need religion or some other ideology that brings in enthusiastic fanatics.
On the contrary, without religion we'd be in better shape. Good ****** do good things, bad ****** do bad things, but in order to persuade good ****** to do bad things you need religion or some other ideology that brings in enthusiastic fanatics.
Let me remind you of the context in which I said what I said. You had said:
Otherwise you'd be offering up offerings to placate Hephaestus every time you were worried about a volcano.
To which I replied something to the effect that all those pagan gods were real and did torment humanity (and in some places still do)...which led me to the next thoght that if God hadn't given us His revelation we would be in bad shape.
THAT IS, we would still be "offering up offerings to placate Hephaestus" or whatever demon god ruled over our tribe. The revelation of the God of the Bible isn't just a "religion," it's the most important body of truth humanity ever received. We would never have had western civilization or any of the great civil rights insights and laws that it produced both in Europe and the US. There's nothing primitive about it if you understand it. And now it is being ******* as if it were just one of those demonic pagan religions it overthrew, as if it were the cause of all the ills in the world that it went such a great distance toward correcting. Now the demonic hordes are rising up to destroy it. Of course. It supplanted them. It improved the state of humanity that they preferred to keep under their own tyranny.
So that's what I said or had in mind anyway. You'll disagree of course. But that's what I said/meant.