Would saying 'freezing rain at higher elevations' cure the water/gravity conflict in that the 'rain at higher elevations' stayed there for 150 days after the rain stopped? How much fine tuning can 24 passages give to the term 'day of the Lord'?
Saying it 'snowed' is enough to confuse you? Could you survive today if it started snowing and 40 days later it was 22ft deep and stayed that way for another 150 days before it started to melt that somebody could survive. Not even if they could prepare for it.
To cover the land with 22ft of water the ocean levels would drop just over 5 ft. If the rains came from the ice caps the ocean wouldn't drop at all, it would be 5 ft higher a year later though. That isn't am 'ungodly' amount of water.
I agree that much of the Bible is picturesque language, but I'm not convinced that all of it is. For instance, an entire linage of people is carefully detailed throughout the Bible. How do we dismiss that? Do we assume the entire lineage is symbolic? And what about all the geography that's mentioned? Even some archeology suggests a literal accuracy regarding many people and places mentioned in the Bible.
See, this is an example of the frustration. I offered a serious, practical conflict which is difficult to resolve. You simply respond with something about Goldilocks.
You suggest that only a minor percent of the population is supposed to survive the judgement. I would agree that the Bible does seem to present that thesis. But that supposition undermines the entire Bible. Isn't God supposed to be omnipotent? If so, why does God's creation culminate in a catastrophic failure? Why does he lose more to Satan than he keeps? Why is He ultimately forced to destroy His original creation and start over with a new Heaven and a new Earth?
What issue did I fail to address?
The Bible traces human lineage all the way back to Adam. So, are you saying that the lineage was real or symbolic? Can you understand what I'm asking?
Read this article about the possible finding of the garden of Eden. It clearly points to the metaphoric meaning in the biblical account. It may or may not have been a literal place but the rise and fall are over simplified in the biblical account to the point of making at a fireside story. I think one can deduce from this how the rest of the bible can be viewed as myth based on some reality, like a historical novel where the story is fiction based on historical fact: Do these mysterious stones mark the site of the Garden of Eden? | Mail Online
I'm not confused at all. You are the one who is twisting things to fit your misguided interpretation of the myth. You are the one who is not only ignoring basic physics, but there is nowhere in the myth that says anything about snow or freezing rain. Be careful you don't hurt yourself twisting your mind into a pretzel with your convoluted thinking processes.
