ESV is pretty awkward here; the topical change from receding water to the movement of mountains makes less sense than a continual treatment of waters. This seems to have the Genesis Flood in view with the reference to waters never covering the earth again, which they would have to if this was set before then.
Water Trapped in Rocks Under China 
Still receding to never rise again.
Massive Hydroxyl Stores Near Earth’s Core? 
I think the fact we extract a sort of “payment” from people through imprisonment might imply the debt transfer in penal substitution might be valid. That is, is the fact that our justice system has certain debts paid off through monetary compensation OR being bound by physical coercion seems to imply that debt can be converted into an amount of physical reprisal. As it stands, I cannot tell exactly why we should think the former can be paid off by proxy but not the latter, either by first transferring the monetary debt to another and then applying it as physical coercion or just transferring the physical coercion which has a kind of equivalence to money.
Would this be like someone selling themselves into slavery or signing a contract and then using the proceeds to pay for another’s debt?
This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. – Luke 2:2
This implies that there was ANOTHER census “when Quirinius was governor of Syria”, correct?
Presumably the (a) not-first is or includes the 6 CE census. Yes?
[I re-posted another thing arguing for the earlier census]
How do comparisons of the same incidents across the Gospel compare to our own comparisons? That is, if you described the same event to multiple people, how alike would the language be?
Any reading on source theory and such, or other Responses Welcome.
What do you do with accurate predictions in the former part of Isaiah such as the oracle against Babylon in Chapter 13?
The split of Isaiah can’t drive it out, right?
If we accept that Matthew’s counternareative proposing the idea that the disciples stole Christ’s body suggests that the idea the disciples stole Christ’s body had currency, it seems reasonable to reckon that the more frequent references to the idea that Christ cast out demons by Beelzebul suggests the idea Christ cast out demons by a demonic power had traction.
In both cases, the calumny seems to rest on the supposition by the accuser that Christ had vanished from his tomb and had cast out evil spirits. I reckon this suggests both of those facts are true, as broad belief grounded in personal testimony gives cause to suppose it’s true. (Like through the widespread proclamation of the leper in Galilee)
Why would a 2nd-century person write their Jewish apocalyptic text under the name of someone that had no cultural clout?
It’s an issue I don’t know if anyone’s raised with the 2nd-century BC Daniel date.