OK that's great. But you said:
As for a worldwide flood, I suggest that you do a study on the word eretz. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I believe in Noah and I believe that there was a flood. However, there is no reason to believe that it was global. A local flood confined to the area around the Black Sea or Mesopotamia (in other words, where humans were located)
OK so first 'erets,
Strong's Number 0776 yes that means the whole Earth in this case. So then I said:
so you believe in Noah, and that the flood killed all people except for Noah & family. So do you believe chinese, africans, europeans, aborigines, and eskimos are all descended from Noah in about 5000 years?
I do, I think it would be easy to get that kind of diversity in 5000 years. But do you? It's against mainstream scientific thinking. TOTALLY against it. Lots of people on this thread would have all kinds of names for people who believed something like that.
But you've just said you think all humans apart from Noah were killed, because all humans lived in that little region.
So which wins for you, the Bible and your statement, or mainstream science?
I would be really interested what you think, because my theory is that you want to fit the Bible around science that you believe is proved. The problem with that is (a) the science is not true, just widely accepted. (b) it reduces Christianity to a fabrication that you mould as you see fit, allegorizing what you think science is against. Fortunately, that way is the wrong one.