Literal belief in the flood story

[orangebox21]

So... what was the issue the flood resolved? Just saying it's present isn't the same as presenting it.

If you're asking what 'problem did the flood solve permanently?', then I'd have to think more about it, but for now I'd have to say I don't know of any problem it permanently solved. If your asking what issues were temporarily solved a few come to mind.
1. The world was no longer exceedingly wicked (though wickedness and its potential were not permanently eliminated).
2. The bloodline for the messiah was protected and maintained.
3. God's wrath was temporarily satisfied.
4. A prototype for Christ was revealed.
There may be more topics of this nature to discuss, just a few examples.

But... killing everyone but Noah's family didn't solve that problem,

True it didn't solve the problem but I'm not convinced the text says it is meant for a solution to the problem rather than a consequence for it. The text says it was because of something God did something. If I said I went to the store to buy milk because I was in need of milk and had none, would you conclude that I bought milk to solve my lack of milk problem? Certainly you wouldn't conclude that I bought milk at the store to permanently solve my 'milk need' issue. You would accept that buying milk was a consequence of having no milk, not necessarily a permanent solution to the problem of not having milk. So why the difference in conclusions?

so... why do it?

We'd have to get more into the character and nature of God to fully explore the reasoning here. Understand, God is Holy (set apart), and God is just. God actions are always consistent with His character and nature. If God is Holy and just and acting in a manner consistent with His character and nature, then at the proper time justice would be brought about. God acts because it is His nature to do so.

You mean I'm... *dramatic pause* ...MISINTERPRETING it?

Maybe so, maybe not, I'm not sure I fully understand your position yet so as to make an accurate judgement. Let me rephrase, the text says that God was going to wipe mankind from the face of the earth because they had become exceedingly wicked. Nowhere in that text does the word 'solution' occur. In order to maintain logical consistency you would have to insert the word 'solution' into the text to conclude that God did what He did as a solution to the wickedness problem. Why have you choosen to do this?

You will note that god's initial intent was to destroy all of humanity because it had become so wicked.

True. But that doesn't necessarily mean He did it to rid the world of evil versus because the world was evil. You could do something because of (as a result of) something without that necessitating it was as a solution to the initial something (see above 'milk' analogy).

As I said, that would have rid the world of all of those problems.

But killing every last human would have rid the world of wickedness, etc.

Of human wickedness I would agree.

God changed his mind because a single man turned out to find favor in his eyes.

Did Noah find favor with God before or after He decided to send the flood?

Heck, if he'd only saved Noah he still might have rid the world of wickedness.

Not consistent Biblically. For it is written, "there is no one righteous no not one." This position if further supported by Noah getting drunk after the flood.

Unless he was to poof up another wife for him. That seems to be the flaw in god's design of man: as soon as a second human enters the picture it all goes to hell.

Why would you presume it was Eve's fault that Adam sinned? The Bible teaches that sin entered into the world through Adam.

It would be termed a "contradiction in terms" I think sir.

It depends on how we are defining contradiction. If someone were to both simultaneously regret and not regret the same thing at the same I would say that is a contradiction. Being both all-knowing and not all-knowing at the same time would be a contradiction. If you wouldn't mind, please further discuss how both regreting something and being omnipotent and omniscient are a contradiction in terms. In what way do those terms contradict one another?

How does a God "regret" something he knows he is going to do?

Perhaps a bad analogy, but have you ever said: "I know I"m going to regret this, but ...." and then did it and regreted it?

More aptly, why would a god regret something he has absolute control of across time and space?

he couldn't have regrets because he could change anything anyway he wishes.

Why not? Why do you pressupose that God would use his "perfect knowledge" to create in such a way as to eliminate any personal regret? Why couldn't He choose to create in such a way as to willingly create regret?

Since god can change anything in the past he wishes to anything his "perfect" knowledge can imagine,

I'm not sure this is a Biblically accurate statement or not. Let me look into this assertion and I'll discuss more later. For now, when we say that God can do anything we have to define what 'anything' means. The Bible says that God can't lie. So does that mean there is something that God can't do? And if so does that mean that God isn't 'all-powerfull?'