The text should be better comprehended before quoting it foolishly and on first impression. The preamble verse says it applies only to Noah's household and his possessions; this makes the flood a regional one only, and the animals domestic ones only. Where it says the world was covered with water - becomes an expressionism, and applies only to the 'then known world' - 5,200 years ago, well before egypt existed. Grammar comes from here.
The animals were not brought to the flood; the text says the animals 'came to Noah' of and by themselves: only domestic animals would do this. Your pet dog will follow you - but snakes and lizards will not!
The above is validated also by historical cross-evidence writings: there are manuscipts found in Babylon which speaks of this flood, and evidencing the genesis story - this is an impossibility if the expressionism, grammar and text is read incorrectly, and assumed no life existed the flood.
Its the TEXTS! - not the legends and leaps of imagination which rule here.
If we look at the texts with any reasonable deliberation, it inclines only with a regional flood, as per all its relevent and pivotal verses on this issue:
' Gen 7/8. Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the ground'
The verse relates to 'clean and unclean' in its pointer - of beasts, fowl and creeping things in Noah's 'possessions' only [the text], which includes fowls and all that creepeth, some of which can be clean and some of which are not, including those that creepeth [some insects are kosher, while the kosher laws were not yet handed down]. I note that no life form is specified which would not/could not be of Noah's possessions, such as snakes, tigers and elephants [wild life forms] - these fulcrum requirements are not in the texts, thus the leap to include these appears not logical, and not grammatically allowable.
To examine another relevent verse, it again appears only related to personal stock:
6/19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
Here, 'every living thing' cannot refer to all life forms, because it is sufficiently qualified, namely that it is subject and limited to being: of 2 of every kind; only which Noah can bring into the arc; only which Noah can and has been keeping alive; and that they shall be male and female. Note also, the texts elsewhere says the animals 'came to him' - wild animals, aside from the domestic kind, won't do that. Such qualifications, when factored in, surely negates the leap of all life forms upon the earth, which would require Noah to discern male and female of snakes and crocodile, and wasps and ants; which Noah has to locate himself; which he has been or can keep them alive. Grammar rules require the subject to take the coherent path.
Further, it makes the verse relating to Noah's household [possessions] as superflous or not for accounting ["7/1 And the LORD said unto Noah: 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark"]. Noah had animals in his household, but which did not/could not include wild animals and all life forms. We are told also, the animals came to Noah - which cannot refer to snakes and other wild animals coming to Noah. Granted here, that 'all thy house' can have a different application elsewhere, same as 'wild beasts' in Gen Ch 3., but the Torah is contextual, and there is a transcendent contextual applicability here; its reverse conclusion contradicts many premises.
Grammar & comprehension rules as the first evidence.
The Torah is the highest form of grammar in all recorded history, and perhaps this is among its greatest attributes of viability, and not sufficiently recognised. Its pristine words are the shortest distance between two points, and perfectly equationalised so they cannot be further reduced, enabling the most exacting focus possible. Its construction is also of a sublime nature, deliberated in forums today, and a utiilisation of the greatest writers in recorded history: grammar is the transcendent determining factor here, and the precedent application in all areas of empirical determinations. However, correct grammar also requires that where there is any confusion by the reader, then the only possible and realistic pathway be taken, and concluded therein. Thus I list grammar here as one of the deciding elements in reaching a correct conclusion of the texts.
Re: 7/19. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered.
This is an expressionism which accomodates no other reading of it, and fits only with a regional flood. When we consider it from Noah's point of view, no other meaning is possible - namely it refers to the 'then known' world and terrain, as seen by Noah in his space-time, as opposed today's space-time which would include then non-existant lands such as Tasmania and London. At this time, 5,200 years ago, even ancient Egypt never existed. Thus it can only be concluded that the waters covering the mountains relates only to the surrounds viewable by Noah. In biblical times, most of a town's people never ventured outside their environs to another town all their lives: how could the Torah direct the world's mountains to Noah - it appears a less than satisfactory and inappropriate premise, and contradicts the premise of 'HE SPEAKETH IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLES'; 'HE UNDERSTANDETH THE NATURE [SITUATION?] OF MAN'. Just as we would not include the Moon & Mars in our world today, despite that in 500 years from today mankind may conquer those territories, so too we cannot include Tasmania and London in a space-time 5,200 years ago. The texts is correct; today's ubsurd comprehension is incorrect.
The flood appears to also be reported by other writings, but here too, it is limited to the region only: there are no reportings of a flood in Asia, China or South Americas, while the Arc was said to have come to a rest not far from Noah's area, indicating th Arc did not travel around the world.