Desert, we might be using the same words in different contexts here.  What exactly do you mean by an "open view?"

Again, the reason for which I pointed out the beginning is because (as Andrew wrote a couple of comments above) a proper understanding of the beginning dictates a proper understanding of the end.  I pointed out that there are assumptions which Andrew is reading into the story, such as man not being able to eat from the tree of Life, when in fact we know from the story that Adam and Eve were allowed to eat from the tree of life.

Now I am not saying that the story of creation, the fall and the flood is a literary device only, but it does serve a double meaning to readers in that it tells the same story outlined throughout the scriptures, climaxed by God’s deliverance of mankind from sin through the flood.  For example, Andrew should know very well that Noah’s flood did not have the intention of literally and physically destroying and re-creating the entire world; water (and fire) has always served as a cleansing device in ancient literature and the flood serves as a type for baptism and cleansing, for what happened with Israel’s system of animal sacrifices and temple worship, when the covenant world was likewise cleansed by fire and thus “renewed” into what God intended it to be.  During the flood, God’s covenant people were saved…and the wicked were washed away, taken by the waters of the flood.

Interestingly, John the Baptist made the same observation I am making, namely that Jesus “will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matthew 3).  Based on Andrew’s view of the end, the baptism of fire predicted by John the Baptist will involve the actual, literal destruction of the physical universe and the re-creation of it.  Unless I am misunderstanding Andrew, this view seemingly overlooks the typology of flood/baptism, water/fire, and the cleansing, non-destructive nature of such baptism.