I agree precisely with you on this point. It is always easier to accept
prevalent views than to go groveling in the dustbin of history for your
paradigms. But maybe the dustbin has a few good ideas left, and maybe some
brave souls will make major breakthroughs in our understanding of earth
history by resurrecting discarded ideas. It would not be the first time.
> I am confident that when I die and stand before the judgement seat of
>the Father, He is NOT going to ask me "Son, did you or did you not believe
>in a geologically-recent global flood?" I too take the Bible seriously
>and know the important issue is my acceptance of the Salvation offered by
>the sacrifice on the cross made by Jesus Christ.
Yes, but remember this same Jesus referred to the flood as a literal event,
whose literalness he placed in direct parallel to the literalness of His
return (cf. Luke 17:26 vs Luke 17:30), and Peter likewise placed the
literalness in direct parallel with Gods power to save (cf. 2Peter 2:4-8 vs
2Peter 2:9). Maybe they did not have our present enlightened understanding
of earth history though. But come to think of it, the next chapter of
2Peter is a 2000 year old prophecy of the present state of things in 1997.
How DID he know that in 1997 otherwise intelligent people would choose to
ignore the biblical account of a world that was destroyed by water?