Source of biblical flood water?

Hey, Sidelined! Even though I am not a strict Creationist as pertaining to Biblical literalism, I will attempt to answer your question: This site describes what a staunch literalist would think(from an I.D. perspective) The Bible, Genesis and Geology This site is even more crazy! I was rather intrigued by the authors "earthquake animation":http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/eq.htm Fountains of the deep=windows of heaven=

The only criteria that believers count on is the idea that the Bible...or at least parts of it...are a sort of Divine Wisdom. Not too many people argue that the bible was written by men. The question? Is the wisdom contained within an accurate prognosis on the behavior of humanity. If humanity can be shown to be influenced by forces outside of our bodies, a postulate could be made that outside forces can also influence other events in nature.Bible says: Quite naturally, this scripture makes no sense. Was the earth formed out of water? The source used here is by God's word Scoffers can be seen in this post, however. To wit: The Bible does mention a dragon, although not a pink one. Are we talking special rights, here? Theory: by Gods word.
1) How do we know it is Gods word?
2) Can any of it be tested against human nature?

I have never felt that I was a Biblical literalist. Did the story of Noah actually happen? Yes, in a theological sense. There was actually one righteous group of people. How they were righteous I do not know because All have sinned and All fall short of the glory of God.I never understood how God would bother wiping out most of the people whom He knew were predisposed to be evil and starting over in such a seemingly inefficient way. Why save the animals? Why not merely create more? Why step in and supernaturally create a Universe...(which I see no reason why He did not nor cannot do) and then have seemingly minor problems such as a rebellious humanity get wiped out by a global flood and the animals placed in a wooden boat?? (Where did they put the termites??)So....if the Flood story (and perhaps the Creation story) were parables...what are they trying to say?Here is one theory.(and one scriptural example) To Biblical Theists, human behavior is predictable. It is intrinsically selfish. It is intrinsically greedy. It is intrinsically self preserving.Biblical theology tells us different. Deny yourself. Consider others greater than yourself. Be a Servant to others in order to be Great in the eyes of Heaven.The supreme irony? Christians themselves do not do as their theology teaches them to do. Perhaps this validates the very points made about human nature.The means for change is there, for a Theist. They merely (merely! ) have to deny themselves in order to find true life and fullfillment.It is THIS belief and aspect of theology that differs from the naturalist theories of human development.

If you claim to be a literalist, you differ from the common definition of the term. You make the claim that you yourself determine what the Bible says and means. Human wisdom is NEVER the final authority in scriptural interpretation (according to most "literalists" who would claim that the Bible explains itself.)I am not challenging your reasoning. I am merely pointing out that your method--using your own human wisdom as the final arbitrator--is not orthodox as pertaining to literalism.

Hi, Ben, Perhaps I should correct myself. What I mean't to imply is that Biblical Inerrencists differed from Arachnophilias philosophy, which he has summized elsewhere as being this: My critique of Arachnophilia is that he is using scientific understanding as the arbitrator of scriptural interpretation.
Take as an example the age of the earth. Most old time thumpers that I know stick rather staunchly to a 6000+ year interpretation. (Kind of like that play, Inherit The Wind) When asked why they believe such an obvious contradiction to the "facts" of science, they would reply that the Bible says it and that settles it. They may throw a scripture out such as:
1 Cor 1:20-21= Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
A Biblical Inerrencist would never take any scripture in the context of the time or place that it was written. They would use any scripture in the bible to support any point of contention raised.
Their logic is that : You can never tell an inerrencist that they are wrong, because according to them, you have no basis to judge the Bible except through the Spirit of God, and if you are coming against them or questioning the Bible in any way, you are applying mere human wisdom and intelligence.Personally, I am between the two extremes. I think that parts of the Bible are wisdom imparted by the Holy Spirit through ancient believers to modern believers. Since I maintain that only parts of the Bible are inspired, I alienate the inerrencist. Since I agree that the Bible has a wisdom beyond intellectual and educated theory, I alienate the scientific method. Thus, I am stuck in the middle of this one.

This makes sense! Indeed...if God can create a universe out of nothing, why can He not also create a flood out of nothing?
He could even go so far as to place much of the supernatural miracles of the bible in the peoples minds whom experienced such events.Bottem line: The Bible is NOT natural. I agree with you that we should stop trying to get it to line up with natural explanations.