I've been saying and I keep saying
that it's one thing to do the 'critical thinking' about a worldwide, multi/cross-cultural legends/myths global/local flood;
and quite another to do the critical thinking about the biblical multi translated version. Jesus no speaka da Englis. Doesn't the account, in Hebrew, specifically state 'inhabited earth'. Wasn't the purpose of the flood, in the account, to get rid of destructive people? So a flood that only covered the 'inhabited earth' would be more than sufficient.
And as far as any survivors were concerned, 'the world' as far as they could see would be covered with water.
If there's one thing I walked away from the JW's with, it is: Not to take a stand on something that doesn't need a stand taken on. Blood transfusions, shunning/disfellowshipping, rape resistance, dumb stuff like this (especially with regard to children) needs a stand taken on.
But does the controversy of a flood that cover 1/16, 1/8, 1/104 of the earth surface deserve all the resources that have been devoted to it?
Just my 1/2 cent worth.
In 1975 a crack team of publishers was sentenced to death by a judicial commiteee. They promptly escaped from the cult and now live life on the run. If you have a problem ... and if you can find them ... maybe you can contact the A--postate Team"