> Again, totally agree. While I can accept
> "antediluvian" to represent one or more extinction
> level conditions that spared the few individuals
> who managed to survive underground, etc., I really
> don't consider it to be a conventional "flood" in
> terms of water inundation, e.g., due to rain that
> literally fell for 40 days and nights. The
> original Hebrew translation of Genesis actually
> goes beyond a mere water level and implies
> something far more profound and auspicious as do
> some other cultures' legendd of that same concept.
> In my opinion, our traditional characterizations
> of the "ark" and "flood" are just more examples of
> Mother Goosing something we really don't
The Bible says that not only did it rain for 40 days and forty nights but that the "...on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open...". It also says that the Garden of Eden was watered from below.
There would have been a decrease in rainfall after the "flood" though one is left to ponder if it could have been a significant decrease. The water that welled up in the garden was said to be the headwaters of four rivers and even a stinky footed bumpkin would know that this is impossible for rainwater to feed four rivers. It implies more confusion on OUR part rather than the authors were sun addled.
We can't see our own ignorance or confusion because we're too busy seeing what we believe. We simply ignore what we don't understand because we live in the models made by our science. We see reality only in terms of these models and in terms of what we believe. Sop naturally ancient people with whom we share no perspectives and no understanding are perceived as being sun addled. They said things that to us sound confused, contradictory, and that fly in the face of our models so we assume it is their deficiency that causes the problem rather than our own.