It's not entirely clear to me by what you submitted, that if you agree Noah's flood = tribulation, or that you disagree it does?
The way I tend to try and view a time of trouble is in this manner. It involves conflicts between nations, for one. For example, WW1, WW2. Those are examples of conflicts between nations. Before the flood did nations even exist at that time the way they did after the flood, and that they were having conflicts with each other all the time, prior to the flood?
Look what the parallel to Matthew 24:21 records, regardless that some deny it's a parallel.
Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time
Now compare with this.
Genesis 10:1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
Genesis 10:32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.
It clearly spells it out for us. Thus Noah's flood can't be compared to anything, especially tribulation, not to mention, tribulation involves a time of trouble and persecution. Genesis10 is talking about nations after the flood, not before the flood. And that Daniel 12:1 says---ever since there was a nation.
The most absurd thing I have noted anyone doing is having Matthew 24:21 involving a local event and then having Daniel 12:1 involving a global event that happens much later. When Jesus already plainly told us that nothing in the past nor in the future can equal nor surpass this great tribulation in severity--proved by what He said here---no, nor ever shall be. What part of---no, nor ever shall be---are some failing to comprehend?
This interpretation implies that a local event can surpass a global event in greatness, in severity. Any reasonable person knows that that logic is backwards. That would be like comparing a local flood to Noah's flood, a global flood, then insisting that the former surpasses the latter in greatness, in severity. keep in mind what I said here. I said this interpretation implies. I never one single time said that anyone is saying nor thinks that a local event can surpass a global event in greatness, in severity.
Which then proves my point, since no one would agree that it could, therefore, it is absurd to insist Matthew 24:21 is involving a local event, and Daniel 12:1 a global event, and that Jesus already told us in Matthew 24:21 it can't be equaled nor surpassed in severity. Thus this causes a major problem, the fact, per this interpretation, the one meant in Matthew 24 precedes the one meant in Daniel 12. Therefore, per this scenario, making the former greater in severity than the latter. Which adds up to, that a local event can surpass a global event in greatness, in severity.
BTW, my position on Matthew 24:21 has zero to do with Premil vs Amil. Even if I eventually changed my position to Amil, I'm never going to change my position in regards to Matthew 24:21 by agreeing that Preterists are interpreting that verse correctly. Unlike some others who take verse 21 to be involving a future tribulation, I do not agree with them that it is involving a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem where animal sacrificing resumes, though. That's not the only way to understand some of these things.
I choose to try and understand some of these things in light of 2 Thessalonians 2:4, for example, and what all that is involving. And that I do not take the temple meant in that verse, in the literal sense. As if it is involving a brick and mortar temple. Yeah, right. Where then is there even one single mention of Jerusalem anywhere in 2 Thessalonians 2 in order to support this literal temple interpretation pertaining to verse 4? Nowhere. There you go then, nothing before verse 4 nor after verse 4 supports that verse 4 involves a literal brick and mortar temple. Which then means the 2nd temple before it was destroyed is not meant. Nor is a rebuilt literal temple in the future meant. Yet, it is involving a 3rd temple, a spiritual temple though, not a literal temple.
