Source of biblical flood water?

Phatboy,Can you answer some short questions about the "orthodox" meaning of "literalism" ? I don't get the difference between this and what Arach did. He read the bible, and his understanding comes directly from the words of the Bible. How (other than that) can the bible "explain itself" ?Also, what would it mean if we read the Bible and, after reading once, we didn't understand? How could that be if the bible "explained itself" to me?I just didn't understand your explanation of "literalist," and I didn't find anything helpful via Google or Wikipedia when I tried a fast terms search.

I understand better now. I think there's two things you're saying:1. When interpreting the bible, we use human powers of reason (of course, we're human).2. When JUDGING the bible, Arach uses a combination of his interpretation (taken via reason) and scientific knowledge. When they don't match, I'm sure Arach double-checks his scholarship, the scientific knowledge and, if they're still conflicting, concludes that the Bible is simply not describing reality, i.e. is wrong.Then you're saying that classical literalists take a different way; when they come across a discrepency between scientific knowledge and their interpretation of the bible, then, because their most basic assumption is that the Bible cannot be wrong, they assume that there's error in either:
1. Their interpretation of the bible
2. The scientific knowledgeLet me know if this summary is not quite right. Thanks for the info.