Literal belief in the flood story

[orangebox21]

I consider near omnicide far more wicked than anything we humans could have been doing.

Humanicide.

Omnicide wasn't required for this.

You asked what issues were solved, not was the flood required to solve these issues. Are you changing your initial question?

This isn't a "problem" that needs resolving, it's your god being a psychopath.

So you say.

4. A prototype for Christ was revealed.

Omnicide wasn't required for this.

Again, are you changing your initial question?

Because "kill every living thing in the world bar a small number," is not a justified consequence of any action that could possibly happen, ever.

There is no way you can support this statement as you have it written.

It wasn't necessary, and your god's little tantrum doesn't have a valid justification after the fact: "Well, everyone was wicked! Of course he needed to murder them all!" isn't an argument.

Why do you continue to misrepresent the position? We've presupposed the Biblical account for the thread. It says that God wiped mankind from the earth because they were exceedingly wicked. You translate that into 'he needed to murder them.' That's not consistent with the account, nor with my argument. I can understand you questioning whether the punishment fit the crime or not. You calling it murder just shows you don't understand the argument.

That's circular reasoning: who told you god was just? Was it, perhaps, the bible?

We have presupposed the Biblical God for this thread.

God identified a problem and proposed an action to deal with it. This is what people typically refer to as a solution. Unless you reject the notion that mankind becoming exceedingly wicked was a problem because the text never uses the word "problem."

Gotcha. It would be Biblically consistent to view the account as cause and effect. The wickedness was the cause and the judgement was the effect. We learn later that the problem wasn't solved, so why assume God meant it as a solution?

I get the impression that you are splitting hairs, since both of those can apply. God decided to wipe out mankind because it had become too wicked. This, therefore, was his solution to the problem.

Not intending to split hairs. While I do agree that it is logical to infer that God's actions were meant as a solution that doesn't necessitate it was. More investigation is required. Consider:
God is omniscient.
There is no man righteous no not one.
Noah is a man.
Therefore Noah is not righteous.

Given these Biblical premises, how can you conclude that God sent the flood as a solution to wickedness (unrighteousness) of men and let Noah survive?

Hard to say, the text does not include the word "before" or "after." I would assume that it was after, since it seems god came to his decision to wipe out humanity, then recognized Noah as deserving of an exception.

If God is omniscient then wouldn't He have always known?