I read through the Flood account, replacing 'earth', with 'land' and could
agree that doing so would allow for a local rather than a global flood.
However, how does one account for Genesis 7:19:
'And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth/land; and *all* the
high hills, that were under the *whole* heaven, were covered'.
This verse was brought to my attention from another list where the
following 'difficulty' was also posited.
'. If ALL the high mountains under the WHOLE heaven were covered, then we
can reasonably conclude that at least several HIGH mountains were covered,
can't we? So how can this be harmonized with the fact that water will seek
its own level? In other words, how could water cover just some "high
mountains" without first leveling off, as it sought its own level, so that
NO high mountains could have been covered until the water had fallen to a
level that was higher than the "HIGH" mountain? To imagine the local-flood
scenario that Matt hinted at, one would have to visualize a "mound" of
water standing suspended over the mountains of Ararat in defiance of the
scientific law that says water will seek its own level.'
Isn't this a legitimate argument against a local flood?
Look forward to your reply.