I accept God's creation of the universe. I reject your interpretation of the meaning of the Hebrew word "yom" as it is used in the Genesis account of the creation. The reason that I reject it is that by the science that was also created by God, we can make measurements with show that it didn't happen in six 24-hour days as we now measure days.
Again with respect to the flood I think the Bible says otherwise. Psalm 104 is a Psalm about creation. It describes the events noted in Genesis 1 concerning the separation of the land and the seas which originally covered the earth. It then says,
Psa 104:5 You placed the earth on its foundations. It can never be moved.
Psa 104:6 You covered it with the oceans like a blanket. The waters covered the mountains.
Psa 104:7 But you commanded the waters, and they ran away. At the sound of your thunder they rushed off.
Psa 104:8 They flowed down the mountains. They went into the valleys. They went to the place you appointed for them.
Psa 104:9 You drew a line they can't cross. They will never cover the earth again.
Wanted to reply a few days earlier but topic slipped my mind. Fortunately it was revived.
I don't think you can take scientific measurements as proof that the world is as old as science tells us it is.
We have to keep the option open that when God created the universe, it was created with the look and feel of a creation that was "mature".
Take for example Adam.
Adam was created as an adult. So if you would have measured Adam's age after 1 hour of his creation, you would have measured a human being of lets say 30 years old, or even older.
Eve too was created as an adult. God also created trees and animals, all full grown or in adulthood.
If you would have measured the age of these trees and animals, you would have made wrong conclusions.
So what makes you think God did not create a "mature" universe?
When God created the laws of nature, He immediately created the effects of these laws of nature.
For example: God did not only create planets with many light years distance between them, He also created the traveling light between them.
This would give an appearance of an old universe, but the reality is that it is young.
The fact that you reject the notion of "yum" meaning 1 day is vested in the fact that you measure something which is very old.
In the scenario I opt above however a 6 day creation is perfectly acceptable.
Factually my scenario is not unthinkable because God did create human beings and animals that looked much older than they were.
So why exclude this option from the rest of the universe?
As for your localization of the flood, although the verse in Psalms appears to place a boundary to the geographical location of the flood.
However you could also interpret the boundary as the moment God stopped the water from flooding.
The Bible states that that boundary was at 40 days. After 40 days and nights of flood, God stopped the flood.
The bigger problem I see with your notion that the flood was not worldwide however is that it defies various statements in Genesis.
It also defies logic.
If you take the account as stated in Genesis you see that on multiple locations the word "all" and "every" is used.
For example Gen 6:17"And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon this earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is in the earth shall die..."
Firstly we see that God does not make a limitation to the amount of life breathing flesh which will be destroyed.
Secondly the statement claims that "all flesh from under heaven
" will die. Now how big is heaven? It spans all around the globe.
The immensity of the flood is demonstrated in Genesis 7:11" In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."
Again you see a cataclysmic event taking place, ALL fountains and ALL of heaven poored water out on creation.
To take the flood as a localized event also begs the logic of the accounts.
Why would God want Noah to build an ark? If the flood was to be local, why not ask Noah to move to another location on earth?
Why build an ark? If the flood was local then animals in other parts of the world would not die. Surely they would re-occupy the flooded area at some point?
If the flood was local, why could the raven and the dove not find themselves dry land?
Why did it take 1 year for the flood to dry up? Surely a smaller patch of land would have dried up much earlier.
And if the ark was floating around for 1 year in a localized area, would it not have hit dry land much earlier?
I consider this one of the most important arguments against a local flood.
In the NT a few times the flood is compared with the return of Christ.
Well, we know that the event of Christs return will be a global event. So why the comparison if Noah's flood was only local?
Surely Jesus is not claiming that when He returns it will be only applicable to a small area of the world, or it will only be noticed by a select group of people?
No, there is no doubt in my mind that the flood was a global event.
To state that the flood was a local event raises grammatical, logical and theological questions that cannot be answered.