You see, you start with the a priori assumption that a global Flood didn't happen, you see all stories on this as being made up in some way...I, on the other hand, view it as an historical event, which other stories allude to, but which the Bible captures most accurately. We have different starting points, that's all.
you start with a few a priori assumptions too. for instance, the contents of the bible. everyone does it, and it's really hard to ignore sometimes.
for instance, we all know the fruit adam ate in the garden was an apple, we all know moses crossed the red sea on foot, and we all know that noah took exactly two of every animal on his boat. we've heard a lot ABOUT these stories from our own cultural tradition that when we actually read them we forget to actually pay attention and read them for what they say.
i'm not blameless here either -- i've been caught in an assumption or two myself. we all do it.
so here's the question. when the hebrew word for "country" is used to describe what got flooded, what context makes you think it was global? what translators say? what you've heard about the story in church? or something in the text? because i don't see any literal indication in the text.
don't get me wrong, i'd LIKE to read it as global. i just can't totally justify it.
אָרַח