Replies

I tend to find attempts to write off the Biblical flood as a local or regional catastrophe to be a stretch given that the same record indicates an awareness of other lands, physical distance. They meant the entire world as it was then known to them.

I also find attempts to paint such a global catastrophe as being impossible to be a stretch. A large, icy comet would fit the bill quite nicely. We have record of such collisions in the form of craters now. Catastrophism isn't the heresy or the laughingstock that it once was as recently as a few decades ago.

Looking to the Biblical text and the record there, of antediluvian conditions on the planet, we see no surface bodies of water, plants thrived off of a sort of mist arising from the ground itself, no seasons per se, a very stable climate that was at least semitropical and very mild.

We see advanced human ages being recorded that sound bizarre to us, nine humpndred years or more. Such a collision might alter the meaning of time as pertains to a day or a year just as severely as it is recorded as having altered climate and geography.

The planet, absent this large quantity of water from an icy comet, would have been smaller. Faster rotation on it's axis, shorter years in absolute time, too, due to a faster orbit. “Continental drift” would be the remnants of the original planetary surface.

Sounds fantastical, yes, but then so much of the antediluvian world from the Biblical account does, especially if you delve into extra-Biblical accounts such as the Book Of Enoch.

Science does not have to automatically negate religion. That it invariably does indicates an unhealthy, unscientific bias to me.