Or everything known to Noah? The word erets can mean earth (world), earth known to man, area of land, local area. The question is not what we think of as the earth but what did Noah think of as 'the earth', Certainly he did not think of the globe. Thus the flood could be on the 'earth' as seen by Noah .
Everything that contained the breath of life', was also as known to Noah. Nothing that he knew of would survive.
The face of which land? The land known to Noah. The thought is not of a 'local flood', that would be too limiting. It was of a vast flood. 'Worldwide' as far as ancient man was concerned. But no thought for example of Australia.
More than local, but less than we think of as global. It was Noah's whole land that would be affected.
In other words as far as Noah could see looking in all directions all he could see was water.
Consider that in those early days the landscape may have been fairly flat. the mountains may not have been huge. Great changes may later have been wrought by 'the fountains of the great deep' breaking up. We need not think of the world having the landscape it has today.
If at that time the world was relatively flat, and the mountains relatively small, and the oceanic valleys much less in depth, there was certainly sufficient water to cover 'the whole land'. And everything know to man. all in which was the breath of life, died. (What was the point of flooding Australia and America if mankind had not reached there?)
see above.
I don't get what you would call 'a local flood'. I get a vast flood which covered everywhere known to man, one which was carried down in folk lore. But that is different from a global flood.
That's ok. I just happen to think that we should think in terms of the thought of men of that day instead of reading modern geography into it.
