Agreed. I think it is a testament to the evolution of religion -- which stems from progress in human moral reasoning -- the result of which is that certain aspects of earlier religious texts and traditions are either expanded on, explained later in nuanced terms or even discarded/rejected.
Of course, this is suggestive of the whole enterprise as a human invention, IMO. In fact, it resembles
Kolberg's stages of moral development just at the national level.
I'm sure there was such an event -- at a regional level -- that inspired the story. In fact, I pointed out once before the
Epic of Gilgamesh which is the likely
source for the biblical Flood story.
In any event, it does not support a world wide flood as described in Genesis. Noah and his family were not the sole humans left on earth, they did not have an Ark full of all the remaining animals, etc. IOW, most of the story is bunk even if it is partly based on a real event (ca. 2700 BC) that most scholars believe predates biblical Israel.
I don't know what the difference would be. People have used bad reasons to do stupid and immoral things throughout recorded history. 'Thus saith the Lord' does not change the moral implication of an act or the rationalization regardless of whether it is used in modern times or in the Bronze age.
I'm not sure what you are asking for.