The flood of Noah-worldwide or regional?

The first thing that must be addressed is whether the flood of Noah was worldwide or regional has no affect on ones salvation. This post, and others in the future, will simply show the evidence that supports the likelihood that it was regional. The evidence for a worldwide event, as far as i am concerned, is very minimal, and is usually easily refuted in one way or another. In this post i will outline a couple of hebrew reason that may indicate that it was regional. Although these are not 100%, i find them interesting, nevertheless.

"upon the earth" עַל־הָאָרֶץ - al-ha-eretz

This phrase is utilized in the Noah account 13 times, directly in the manuscripts. There are numerous 100% correct translations that could have been derived from this phrase:

al= on, upon, over, above
ha= the
eretz= earth, ground, land

on, upon, over, above, the earth
on, upon, over, above, the ground
on, upon, over, above, the land

When reading this phrase with one of these translations "on, upon, over, above, the ground", or "on, upon, over, above, the land", it gives it a totally different look, or meaning. Lets look at a couple of these verses where this was used.

Genesis 7
17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth;-("on, upon, over, above, the ground", or "on, upon, over, above, the land") and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth-(ground, Land)

18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth-("on, upon, over, above, the ground", or "on, upon, over, above, the land"); and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

As we see here, when we use any one of these potential translations, as all are correct, it clearly shows that there may be something to this. The word "earth", could lead one to believe that it means the whole earth, the words "land", or "ground", gives it a much different look, and remember, all are correct.

"hills" and "mountains"

The word הַר har, in the hebrew was translated numerous different ways in the king james. We will pin point 2 of them within the Noah account, one was translated "hills" and in the very next verse it was translated "mountains"

Genesis 7
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

all the high "hills"- (הַר har), were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

"mountains"- (הַר har), were covered

The word "mountains" in verse 20, is the exact same hebrew word=(הַר har), that was translated "hills" in verse 19. If we were to read verse 20 as this:

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the hills were covered.

it would make much more sense, especially when we are to factor in that Fifteen cubits=between 25.9 foot or 31.3 foot depending on which ancient measurment of cubit is used. This depth would in fact cover the high hills, but covering the mountains? (mt everest=approx 29,000 foot high), seems very unlikely.

As i stated earlier, this is not a salvation issue, and we should never allow this topic of conversation to cause division, heated dispute etc. I simply intend to show why i truly believe that the flood of Noah was regional. In future posts i will show how the historical evidence clearly indicates the exact same conclusion.