I quoted a highly qualified Hebraist though.
The thing is, he isn't the only highly qualified Hebraist/theologian who's looked into this. People like William Henry Green, B.B. Warfield, Charles Hodge, James Oliver Buswell, R.K. Harrison, and Francis Schaeffer all believe there are gaps.
It seems like the passages are talking about future generations and it's also hard to determine whether or not the word 'dor', the Hebrew word for 'generations', means the same as our generation of 30 years. I found a lexicon using the word 'become' as a simple definition for 'generations.' Maybe it just means the birth of a child.
but then it would simply use 'begat' rather than generations. From Adam to christ there are roughly sixty-six generations that have been recorded. thousand generations is much longer than roughly seventy.
It usually gets calculated from 4,300 to 4,500, but I think 4,300 is the more accurate number.
But the geneologies were not intended to be counted to establish a chronology. They were given to name the basic line from Adam to the second Adam and the troubles they faced. Don't you agree..?
Naturally, there would be gaps. There is no reason to think that the Bible would include ALL 1,000 generations. That would take up too much space!
Most of the planet was already covered in water so it didn't need to be destroyed, but all of the land (erets) was destroyed.
Actually, given such huge amounts of volcanism and tectonic activity, this would, indeed, completely ravage and restructure/destroy the entire planet. Tebel is never used to describe the Flood. It would be simple to say, like we do today, the whole planet was underwater, which it was, rather than just the world. The Bible is seemingly careful never to use Tebel to describe the Flood.
Noah was told to bring two of every kind of bird on board the ark. Most birds are more than capable of escaping local floods because they have the ability to quickly fly out of the region experiencing the flood. Most land animals could have easily exited the region as well.
As soon as the animals left the region people would start to get suspicious. This is not what happened in Genesis, so we can be sure the animals did not migrate. In the local flood model this presents no problem.
The birds, however, would not fly out of the region when the rain began. During such thunderous downpour, as would be expected, they fly to their nests and would try to keep dry until they were drowned by the flood waters. That's why there were birds on the ark, besides Noah preaching to the people about judgement and such.
Notice that even the mountains were covered. Once this occurred, the Flood could not have been a local event. Water will level itself out. Even if the Flood started in just Mesopotamia, it would have gone worldwide as soon as the mountains were covered.
It would cover all the high hills and all the high mountains in that region. Perhaps fluctuating sea levels (which were common at that time) rose quickly, at the same time as the Caspian Sea was flooding. The two might have connected, the sea and the huge lake, to engulf the entire region in water. It was so huge Noah could only see water all around him. Thus, it covered all the high hills and all the mountains and such. That doesn't mean it covered the Andes or the Himalayas. It merely covered the mountains in the 'world'. Noah was far from Ararat, so Ararat was not covered in water. Given the vast extension of the Ararat range, Noah could have alighted on any one of these mountains. Most probably were covered twenty feet in water. Basically, the verse implies there was water as far as the eye could see.
Wouldn't God have lied when he said that the waters will never again "become a flood to destroy all life."(Gen. 9:15) Plenty of life destroying floods have happened since that time, but there haven't been any floods that have destroyed all life since that time.
Recently we humans have begun to think globally. To us, 'the world' means the entire planet, because we now know the entire planet, we've conquered all of it. Before, the entire planet was not the world. Nobody would have lived outside the middle east, and thus the world would have been restricted to that region. Just like perhaps in the future (for the sake of illustration), if we colonize the entire solar system, the entire system would be considered part of 'the world', and might lead to misinterpretations of the Bible, indicating at one time the floodwaters covered the planet.. Just an analogy for you. Local floods never kill off all of humanity like they did during the flood of Genesis. So when the Bible says everybody died in the world, everybody did die in the world. God promised never to flood 'the world' again, meaning humanity.
On the night that God planned to send the disaster, he could've told Noah to leave in the middle of the night (so no other people would notice). Also, why would they move away with him? Nobody believed him and probably thought he was crazy. They would've been glad to see him leave. I'm sure there were also plenty of wicked people living outside of that region. Why weren't they judged?
God wouldn't have told Noah to leave in the middle of the night, because the people wouldn't be warned of the impending judgement and wouldn't have a chance to repent.
1,500 years is hardly enough time to migrate across the globe. People still lived together in the middle east, and thus nobody lived outside of that region(s).
It was a huge wooden barge meant to carry a bunch of animals through a global flood. If it was just a local flood, God could've easily preserved the life of that entire region by sending them out of that region, without making Noah spend all those years building that huge barge. Why would God tell Noah to build such an enormous boat? Noah could have housed all of the local fauna on a much smaller vessel.
If it was meant to survive the global flood currents of 190 miles per hour, I doubt it would be barge-shaped. I'm not an expert on seafaring, but I know this was left out of the young-earthers equations.
God wouldn't have sent them out of the region. There already probably were many other examples of the species living in mesopotamia outside of this particular region that could have, and would have, just filled back into the basin. However, Noah took two of every animal in that region (it doesn't say HOW he got them. Perhaps God indirectly guided them to Noah) and told the people there would be a flood that covered the whole world (which it did). Much more powerful sounding and purposeful than sneaking off in the middle of the night, and having all the animals file out of the region as well before the flood can engulf them. The reason it was so large might have been to accomidate the possibility of people repenting and going aboard the ark, or perhaps the animals on the ark were 'species' and not the YEC term 'kinds', and thus would make good use of all the space.
On what basis can you make the judgement that the word 'yom' in Genesis means a longer period of time than twenty-four hours? 'Yom' is used more than twenty-three hundred times throughout the Hebrew scriptures, but its meaning is only questioned in Genesis. Every time the words evening and morning are used, they're referring to an ordinary day and everytime a number is used with the word 'yom', it means an ordinary day. How did the plants (day 3) that require insect pollination (day 5 & 6) survive during the time period before insects were created?
"but its meaning is only questioned in Genesis."
Well, the context is different. All 2,300 times used in the OT is in reference to ordinary everyday spectacles, like the sun going down and the moon coming up. Of course the usual meaning of yom (yes, it can mean a period, even AiG accepts this but demands the context is different) means 24 hour days, but given that this is an entirely different context (the creation of the universe) and the fact that days are established prior to the actual things that establish them (sun, moon, stars) leads us to question if ordinary 24 hour human earth days are what God really intended us to believe in this era, when science (detailed observation of nature) tells us how God did it, as he commanded us to use science to determine things.
Every time the words evening and morning are used, does NOT always indicate a single day. That's a mistake by other young earth proponents. For example, the grass flourishing and withering described in Psalm 90 is using 'morning' to simply mean in the beginning, and evening to mean the ending. In Genesis, it is used in this very same beautiful poetic way, as it should be. The whole point of making it seven days is to set an example for humans, whether it be poetically described or literal. Of course it would say evening and morning. It's only natural.
As for your plant problem, first of all the Bible is separating the creation of individual organisms into days. In reality the plants were indeed created first (along with the billions of microoranisms it somehow leaves out) and God continued creating plants, probably up to the present day. I know it sounds incredible, but it's called creation day overlap and is commonly accepted in old-earth circles. "And it was so." translates better into "and it did come to pass." Does this imply theistic evolution? I don't know, but it's a possibility.
Another example would be the fifth day. Note that it uses tanniyn (big whales and such) and for the 'swarming' things', it uses 'nephesh', to describe them. The fifth day only includes the creation of 'soulish' mammals, whales and (the swarming things) dolphins and porpoises. It completely ignores fish, which we know are not soulish. As for the animals in the sky, it uses the word 'owph', which is normally restricted to birds and bats, which are soulish. This is the same term used to describe the birds that went onto the ark. If we were to interpret it to mean 'insect' as well, it would obviously mean there were all 'kinds' of insects on the ark as well, and we know that is impossible.
The sixth day is used to describe 'behema', large four-legged mammals like oxen and buffalo that are easy to domesticate (no triceratops or apatosaurus here), 'remes' (small mammals like rodents and POSSIBLY small reptiles. Notice it is not SHERES, but REMES), and 'chay', mostly carnivores, wild and free. Lions, cheetahs, dogs, etc. The creation account obviously leaves out the creation of other animals. It was only mentioning the animals directly relevant to us. It completely leaves out things like dinosaurs (which Answers in Genesis tries squeezing so disharmoniously into Scripture), insects, spiders, snakes, plesiosaurs - they're all left out. The facts tell us that the text does not support the idea that all flying creatures were made in day 5, nor the sea creatures, nor all the land animals to include the dinosaurs. It's as simple as that, and practical only in the old earth/theistic evolution viewpoint.