If you only read what is said line by line, then you are a literalist.
Which is probably why you stopped reading and dismissed the Bible as nonsense, right Stash?
Take this passage:
21 The Lord said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.’”
24 At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26 So the Lord let him alone.
At this point, a literalist would quit. Hard. God has sent Moses to stop Pharaoh, now he wants to kill him, what is going on?!?
Well a literalist (like you) just reads the text and concludes this is all meaningless, and God is random or something.
No. God takes his wife and children on a donkey, as previous sections mentioned after previous sections.
There's a problem though. He was living in Midian with the Midianites (after fleeing from Egypt, and never getting a strong background on Jewish custom) and he followed Midian customs. Midians are Baal and Ishtar worshipers. Moses was himself raised by Egyptians so it is unclear whether he is even circumcised, but let's give his mom the benefit of the doubt and say she did so before that basket incident.
So now this mixed marriage happens and it's fine that Moses is doing that off in a sheep farm, but Moses is sent back on mission now, and his Baal-worshiping wife come with. And God wants to know of Moses "are you with her? Or me?" And Tzipora answers for Moses, "I'm with you, God." And she circumcises the kids to show this. This is actually an awesome scene, but the context is lost to non-Jews, especially those who don't read the text beyond literal.
Now, here's what we know of the text.
1. Six Days of Creation: God mentions a firmament, of waters about the Earth.
"But we don't have waters above the Earth," I hear you say. Then you tell me this proves the Bible is a lie.
2. During the Flood: God opens up a vault in the sky, and it rains for 40 days.
3. After the Flood: They mention a taper off of lifespan.
There would need to be about 9.000.000 liters of rain per square meter of the Earth to make this happen. This would mean that we would need about 10.000 liters of rain per hour in those 40 days; which is about 25 times more than the strongest recorded rain ever in an hour (401 l /m² in 1947, Shangdi, China).
Fucking periods, when you might mean commas. Is that 10 liters with extra decimals or 10,000 liters. We're gonna assume this jackass meant ten thousand.
But we're not looking to totally flood the Earth, so that there is no land. We are looking to rain worldwide, and completely disappear a few islands (Beringia, northern Australia, some of China).
But since we're not looking to completely flood the world but raise the water level, let's assume all but 1% (100 liters per hour or 90,000 liters total) are permanently added to the ocean, and the rest goes to icecaps and clouds. Let's say a substantial amount goes to arctic regions instead of back to the sky.
Glaciers store about 69% of the world's freshwater, and if all land ice melted the seas would rise about 230 feet.
But we're probably not looking at further rise in water. That freshwater along with about 100 ft or so of our existing saltwater was what was the firmament.
Would about 330 ft worldwide be enough water to restore the firmament? Yes, it would. Would this much water lost from the atmosphere make a sizable dent in human lifespan? Yes it definitely would. This is a thick later of protective moisture that screens out IR & UV rays that hit humans repeatedly through our 80 or so years of life.