Precursor to the Flood

Genesis 6 ends the opening period of the earth’s story, while at the same introducing readers to other important factors in our combined global history, opening with some very remarkable words that need consideration.

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said my spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is ?esh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Th ere were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.[i]

These verses describing God’s impetus for sending a global ?ood have caused more controversy among believers than perhaps any other segment of God’s Word. They have at the same time helped to convince an already skeptical non-believing audience that the Bible has its foundations in no more than amended Greek or Mesopotamian mythologies. The primary cause for this is what appears to be the mating that occurs between human women and spirit beings, as described in verses 2-4. For centuries, the Christian community has been creative in attempting to arrive at with various solutions to explain away such the perceived problem. Yet, if the Bible is not overly couched in mysterious allegory, we need to honestly re?ect upon what is being described and what its implications might be.

 The three groups involved are “men,” “the daughters of men,” and the “sons of God.” If you were to read the section several times over, you would, I am sure, quickly agree that no other reasonable conclusion could be drawn. Some have tried to soften this somewhat ominous truth by saying the sons of God are the godly descendants of Seth. The claim being that these less-decadent o?-spring of Seth (apparently the ?rst righteous son of Adam and Eve after Abel) took wives from among the ungodly seed of Cain. Nineteenth-century theologian James G. Murphy tries to convince his reading audience of this.

Having traced the line of descent from Adam through Seth, the seed of God, to Noah, the author proceeds to describe the general spread and growth of moral evil in the race of man, and the determination of the Lord to wipe it away from the face of the earth … The phrase “sons of God,” means an order of intelligent beings who “retain the purity of moral character” originally communicated, or subsequently restored, by their Creator…The sons of God, therefore, are those who are on the Lord’s side, who approach him with duly signi?cant o?erings, who call upon him by his proper name, and who walk with God in their daily conversation.[ii]

Noble as it may be to propose such a solution to this apparent dilemma, it is hardly acceptable since it ?ies in the face of the obvious statements proclaimed. There are many such statements within these verses that clearly militate against such an overly Victorian sense of arti?cial morality being applied to the drama. I don’t know about you, but there is nothing more annoying to me than bending the truth simply to replace it with a very questionable and highly misguided moral overtone. It is as oxymoronic as would be the expression “stealing for Jesus.”

Therefore, returning to the problem at hand; ?rst among the statements in the Genesis record is again the clear sense of di?erentiation in identifying the groups. If as descendants of Seth these “sons of God” retained “the purity of moral character originally communicated, or subsequently restored, by their Creator,”[iii] how is it that they chose a path obviously contrary to God’s will? Similarly, if they were no more than godly men, how did their copulation with presumably ungodly women produce o? spring that “became mighty men which were of old, men of renown?”[iv] This seems to be an unlikely course of events if both were merely human.

To this might be added the use of the term sons of God as found elsewhere in Scripture. In Job the term clearly refers to angelic beings.[v] Theologians have over the years attempted to apply New Testament meanings to that phrase,[vi] but rarely do we ?nd the progeny of born-again believers and mere reprobates becoming men of renown, as the text suggests. This in itself should cause one to ponder the reliability of the Victorian supposition.

We must also deal with the aspect of “giants,” another euphemism for the “men of renown” produced by these unholy unions.[vii] In the Hebrew, the word poorly translated as such, is Ha-Napiliym, which more appropriately means fallen ones. The question then becomes: fallen from where or from what? Once again, if the fall is from godliness, then truly all humans are in a similar condition, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”[viii] Still the question remains as to how these unions are producing physically and perhaps intellectually superior o? spring.

Lastly readers must also consider two rather obscure New Testament references and the possible impact they have on the question. In 2 Peter 2:4, God is said to have “spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved

unto judgment.” Again, in Jude 6, readers are told “the angels who kept not their ?rst estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” The point is that some angels are presently being kept in chains while others are not, for we know demons (fallen angels) abounded during the time of Christ,[ix] and 1 Peter 5:8 tells us that Satan himself “as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” So, what was the heinous sin that caused the incarceration of some fallen angels, while other such demonic ?gures were and can roam free? It seems that an answer may be found in one of Jude’s beloved apocryphal books, 1 Enoch 10–19, an excerpt from which goes as follows:

From now on you will not be able to ascend into heaven unto all eternity, but you shall remain inside the earth, imprisoned all the days of eternity.[x]

Here shall stand in many di?erent appearances the spirits of the angels which have untied themselves with women. They have de?led the people and will lead them into error …[xi]

Admittedly, aside from these small pieces of biblical and extrabiblical witnesses, the evidence for sexual unions between celestial and terrestrial beings is hardly overwhelming. There are certainly other passages inferring that mortals may indeed be referred to as “sons of God.”[xii] If, on the other hand, one takes the Bible literally and with a certain sense of perspicuity (meaning that its intent can be understood without need of doctorate or degree), it makes for a more plausible under-standing regarding the advent of these powerful children (giants) of the proposed unions. It may be di?cult to swallow for the overly pious, but nevertheless it seems to be what Scripture is saying.

 Whatever the actual case may be, it is an ancillary issue and only one cause for the ?ood God is said to have sent upon the earth. Th e other more generalized motive for calling down destruction upon the earth was the overall depravity of mankind, which, although hard to fathom considering our own debased natures, must have been even more deplorable than our conduct today.

The Flood is truly the most signi?cant event impacting modern man’s interpretation of geological formation and the last event that truly has any long-lasting scienti?c value. True, one might call into question the sun standing still as proclaimed in Joshua 10:13 or time moving backward, as depicted in 2 Kings 20:8–10, but they will be of little concern if one has overcome the previous hurdles and can overcome this one. Therefore, we ask, what is the evidence for the global cataclysm described in Genesis, and what would be the notable e?ects? There is little doubt in the minds of most that the earth was once covered in water. There is also signi?cant agreement between the biblical and scienti?c communities that there once existed a super-continent that arose from this coverage.[xiii] The Bible, however, speaks of another universal covering of the earth by water, which modern science refuses to acknowledge. So once again, let us try to resolve the matter as best we can.

 Per acceptable Bible chronology, the global ?ood occurred approximately 1,656 years after the last day of creation. This ?gure can be arrived at by adding the lifetimes of the antediluvian patriarchs together while avoiding the obvious overlapping periods referenced. The actual timeframe in Gregorian terms would be 1,632 years. Using much the same technique and calculating forward to the mutually accepted date of both archeology and religion for the ?rst destruction of Jerusalem’s Temple (586 BC), one can also determine the date of creation as having taken place in approximately 4273 BC.

Close examination will undoubtedly reveal that no group has yet chosen this date as authentic, but if you turn to the appendix at the end of this book, we will attempt to demonstrate the veracity of the claim. Applying that date to the easily found timeframe for the ?ood would indicate that it began in 2640 BC. To modern archeologists, anthropologists, paleontologists, or any such other learned individuals in or around those respective sciences (seventh and eighth-grade science teachers included), this date would seem laughable. It is, however, the information the Bible gives us to work with, so we might as well get a grip.

The apostle Paul told his young protégée Timothy, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is pro?table for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” [xiv] so Bible literalists would be hard-pressed to call in to question any data revealed through proper scriptural investigation. The point is that it is ?ne if you refuse to believe what the Bible says, but never misunderstand that this is precisely what it teaches. There is simply no point in trying to straddle the fence. Paul claims the Bible is the inspired Word of God.[xv] In the Greek, from which the New Testament linguistically originated, the term we translate as given by inspiration of God is Theópneustos. The word literally means God breathed. This implies that God breathed the very words of Scripture into being, just as He once breathed life into man.[xvi] So, once again, you can deny the truthfulness of biblical propositions if you like, but you cannot pick and choose which verses you care to believe and which you desire to cast to the side. That is logically inconsistent. Either you accept them all or throw them all away.

[i] Genesis 6:1–6.

[ii] James G. Murphy, Barnes’ Notes: Genesis. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1873), 177.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Genesis 6:4.

  [v] Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7.

[vi] John 1:12; Romans 8:14, 19; Philippians 2:15; 1 John 3:1–2.

[vii] Genesis 6:4.

[viii] Romans 3:23.

[ix] Matt. 8:31; Mark 1:34; Luke 4:41; 8:38; 10:17.

[x] James H. Charlesworth ed., Th e Old Testament Pseudopigrapha, Vol. 1. (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 1 Enoch 14:5.

[xi] Ibid., 1 Enoch 19:1.

[xii] Deuteronomy 32:5; Psalm 73:15; 80:17; Hosea 1:10.

[xiii] Genesis 1:7–10.

[xiv] 2 Timothy 3:16–17.

        [xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Genesis 2:7.