I read it fine. The context determines the meaning. In the context, it clearly means the whole Earth, as I said.
land, earth
whole earth (as opposed to a part)
earth (as opposed to heaven)
earth (inhabitants)
[...]
The fact doesn't hang on that one word anyway.
"and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth"
"in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up"
Why were every animal required if it was not the whole Earth?
"the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered"
I read it fine. The context determines the meaning. In the context, it clearly means the whole Earth, as I said.No, you are reading your pre-conceived notions into the Bible.
Geology confirms to us that there was no world-wide flood. If there was a world-wide flood, don't you think that there would be signs of it? And, yes, I've read plenty of YEC "scientific" papers claiming evidence for a world-wide flood. Unfortunately, they're garbage.
So which is it: (1) Did God lie to us in his word; (2) Did God lie to us in his creation; (3) Are you misinterpreting the Bible?
The correct answer is number 3. You're just like the people in Galileo's time whose misinterpretation of God's world led them to fight the evidence that the sun revolves around the earth.