Introduction to the flood

Before commenting on the specifics of the flood account, a few preliminary observations are in order:

i) A basic purpose of the grammatico-historical method is to read a text from the past through the eyes of someone from that time and place. To set aside our modern preconceptions, our modern points of reference, and assume the viewpoint of the author and his target audience. 

When reading the flood account, our default perspective is to begin with the present, then extrapolate back in time and space from the present to the past. We take our view of the world as our frame of reference. We unconsciously (or even consciously) map that onto the ancient text. 

But this is backwards. We have to ask ourselves what the landmarks would represent to the ancient audience. What was their sense of scale? What was their frame of reference? What was their geopolitical center and circumference? 

Modern readers tend to have one of two reactions when reading the flood account. Either they say, "A global flood is impossible, therefore the flood must be local!" or, "A global flood is impossible, therefore the Bible must be wrong!"

But we can't prejudge whether the account depicts a local or global flood based on considerations extraneous to the text. We have to construe the text on its own terms, consistent with narrative clues, intertextual parallels, Pentateuchal usage, and the background knowledge of the original audience–insofar as we can reconstruct their cultural preunderstanding. That's grammatico-historical exegesis in a nutshell. 

The narrator wrote to be understood. So we have to ask how the target audience would likely understand his references. We need to clear our minds of our modern cultural conditioning.

What might be "worldwide" from the viewpoint of the original audience might be more limited from our own vantage-point. This wasn't written to readers living in North America. 

Conversely, what's impossible in a closed universe is not impossible–or even improbable–in a theistic universe. 

ii) Some critics say there's no evidence for a global flood. Some critics also say there's no evidence for a local flood within the ancient Near Eastern timeline of the narrative. 

However, the narrative doesn't give a calendar date for the flood. The closest it comes to dating the flood is to correlate the onset of the flood with Noah's age at the time of the flood. But we don't know Noah's birthdate.

iii) Christians need to avoid two opposing mistakes when reading the account. On the one hand, some Christians discount a global interpretation in advance because they think a worldwide flood is unscientific. However, we have to let the text speak for itself. We can't gag the text due to extraneous concerns. It means whatever it means. The converse error is to superimpose our modern map of the world onto the ancient text.

Let's consider the major arguments for the global flood interpretation. In so doing, we're simultaneously considering the arguments for the local flood interpretation, inasmuch as these are logical alternatives:

1) Universal quantifiers

Flood geologists appeal to universal quantifiers in the flood account to prove the universality of the flood. But that's inconclusive:

i) Even flood geologists exempt marine life, despite the universal quantifiers.

ii) In Pentateuchal usage, universal quantifiers can have a geographically restrictive scope. Let's take some examples:

12 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand over the land of Egypt for the locusts, that they may come upon the land of Egypt, and eat every herb of the land—all that the hail has left.” 13 So Moses stretched out his rod over the land of Egypt, and the Lord brought an east wind on the land all that day and all that night. When it was morning, the east wind brought the locusts. 14 And the locusts went up over all the land of Egypt and rested on all the territory of Egypt. They were very severe; previously there had been no such locusts as they, nor shall there be such after them. 15 For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they ate every herb of the land and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left. So there remained nothing green on the trees or on the plants of the field throughout all the land of Egypt (Exod 10:12-15, NKJV). 

Exod 10:15 mentions the "whole earth," but in context it is clearly referring to the land of Egypt. 

This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you (Deut 2:25). 

Although this mentions people-groups "under the whole heaven," in context this is clearly selects for Israel's neighbors. 

For who is there of all flesh, that has heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of fire as we have, and has still lived? (Deut 5:26).

Although this mentions "all flesh," in context it is clearly selects for humans in particular, not biological organisms in general. 

Moreover, all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth (Gen 41:57). 

Although this mentions "all the earth," in context this is clearly referring to people from famine-stricken lands surrounding Egypt. They didn't come from Iceland, Hawaii, Zimbabwe, Japan, Paraguay, or the Yukon to fetch grain from Egypt and take it home.   

1 Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. 2 And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there (Gen 11:1-2).

Although this mentions "the whole earth," in context it is clearly referring to immigrants from somewhere west of Sumer. They didn't ford the Amazon, cross the Rockies, or sail across the Pacific or Atlantic oceans to get there. That's not what's in view.  

Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground (Gen 2:5, NASB). 

Taking the "earth" in a planetary sense makes this harder to harmonize with Gen 1. Since the word (eretz) can mean "land" as well as "earth," and since the context is arguably local (i.e. the garden of Eden), some translations (e.g. ESV) rightly opt for "land" (i.e. land of Eden) rather than "earth." 

The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land [eretz] of Havilah, where there is gold (Gen 2:11).The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land [eretz] of Cush (Gen 2:13).

Although both verses say the "whole earth (eretz)," they mean "earth" in a local sense. 

Behold, a people has come out of Egypt. They cover the face of the earth, and they are dwelling opposite me (Num 22:5,11).

Clearly the newly-liberated Israelites didn't occupy the entire globe. Indeed, at that time they were confined to the Sinai desert. 

And they shall cover the face of the earth, so that no one will be able to see the earth (Exod 10:5, NKJV).

Clearly the plague of locusts was directed at the land of Egypt, and not the planetary earth. 

Indeed, the plagues of Egypt provide striking comparison. Like the flood, these utilize natural disasters as a form of divine judgment. And they also employ categorical language. Compare these statements back-to-back

Fifth plague:

3 Behold, the hand of the Lord will fall with a very severe plague upon your livestock that are in the field, the horses, the donkeys, the camels, the herds, and the flocks…6 And the next day the Lord did this thing. All the livestock of the Egyptians died, but not one of the livestock of the people of Israel died (Exod 9:3,6).

Seventh plague:

19 “Now therefore send, get your livestock and all that you have in the field into safe shelter, for every man and beast that is in the field and is not brought home will die when the hail falls on them.” 20 Then whoever feared the word of the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh hurried his slaves and his livestock into the houses, 21 but whoever did not pay attention to the word of the Lord left his slaves and his livestock in the field.22 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand toward heaven, so that there may be hail in all the land of Egypt, on man and beast and every plant of the field, in the land of Egypt.” 23 Then Moses stretched out his staff toward heaven, and the Lord sent thunder and hail, and fire ran down to the earth. And the Lord rained hail upon the land of Egypt. 24 There was hail and fire flashing continually in the midst of the hail, very heavy hail, such as had never been in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation. 25 The hail struck down everything that was in the field in all the land of Egypt, both man and beast. And the hail struck down every plant of the field and broke every tree of the field (Exod 9:19-25).

Tenth plague

29 At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock (Exod 12:29).

Even though the terminology in the fifth plague appears to be all-inclusive, it makes exception for subsequent plagues. For if all the livestock perish in the fifth plague, there'd be no leftover livestock to perish in the seventh plague. And if all the (remaining) livestock perish in the seventh plague, there'd be no leftover livestock to perish in the tenth plague. So the universal quantifiers are hyperbolic.  

Another problem with pressing universal quantifiers is that, taken strictly, this suggests a flat-earth:

For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die (Gen 6:17).And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered (Gen 7:19).

If all creatures and all mountains are literally under the sky, then that conjures up the image of the earth as a floor under the ceiling of the sky. But flood geologists usually regard this depiction as phenomenological. How the world appears to an earthbound observer, looking up at the sky. From that local perspective, the "earth" is underfoot while the sky is overhead. If the earth is round, then it's not under the sky, but surrounded by sky (Poythress 2006).

The fact that universal quantifiers don't always have a universal range of reference doesn't mean they never have a universal range of reference. It just means they don't have a default range of reference. Their intended scope must be contextually determined. 

2) The depth of the flood

Flood geologists measure the depth of the flood by the height of the mountains (Gen 7:19-20; 8:5). But there are problems with that appeal:

i) The appeal is equivocal. Flood geologists don't think the prediluvian mountains were the same as the postdiluvian mountains. They think the postdiluvian mountains were higher (Snelling 2009). But in that case, they can't use index mountains (e.g. Mt Ararat) to gauge the depth of the flood when the "mountains" lack a consistent referent. 

ii) What mountains is the text referring to? All the mountains of the whole world? But that violates grammatico-historical exegesis, for that identification relies on information that wasn't available to the original audience. They knew nothing about the Alps, Andes, Rockies, or Hindu Kush–to name a few.  

The ostensible audience for the flood account is Jews who resided in the Nile Delta before they were liberated. They had been there for generations.  About 400 years. The newly-liberated slaves have some exposure to mountains in the central and south Sinai peninsula. They hadn't seen any mountains or foothills in Mesopotamia. Neither had their parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents. So their frame of reference is pretty limited. In reading a text from the past, we need to project ourselves into the situation of the original readers. 

Of course, if the flood was global, then it would be global despite the geographical ignorance of the ancient reader. These hermeneutical constraints pose no constraints on the objective nature of the event. It was whatever it was. But they do constrain what we are entitled to impute to the text. Even if there may be more to it than that, we are not at liberty to substitute different landmarks based on modern world geography. 

All the mountains of the known world? If so, that automatically shifts the narrative viewpoint to a local perspective. The "world" geography which the original audience was familiar with. 

Also keep in mind that Gen 8:5 parallels Gen 1:9. That's the intertextual frame of reference. 

3) The duration of the flood

i) Flood geologists say a local flood wouldn't last a year. But that objection cuts both ways. If that's too long for a local flood, then it's too short for a global flood. In the case of a global flood, there's nowhere for the water to go. So the waters would never abate. 

Of course, flood geologists postulate special drainage mechanisms, but that expedient loses the simple appeal to the duration of the flood to determine the scale of the flood. 

ii) In addition, flood geologists tend to assert that a local flood wouldn't last a year, rather than explaining why that's the case. I'm no expert, but if a floodplain is enclosed by natural barriers (like hillsides), and there's a logjam downstream, wouldn't that be like plugging a bathtub? What if the water backs up because more water keeps gushing in, but there's no outlet (which generates counter-currents)?  

Likewise, isn't the drainage rate related to the gradient?

Once the surface of the land there [Mesopotamia] had been inundated, the comparatively high water table could sustain a flood for a considerable period of time (NIDBA).

The Mesopotamian alluvial plain is one of the flattest places on earth. The surface of the plain 240 miles (400 km) inland from the head of the Gulf is less than 60 feet (20 m) above sea level,25 and at An Nasiriyah, the water level of the Euphrates is only eight feet (<3 m) above sea level, even though the river still has to cover a distance of more than 95 miles to Basra (Fig. 1). Once As Samawah and Al ‘Amarah are passed, the waters of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers are lost in an immense marshland-lake region (Fig. 1), where water flows very slowly to the Persian Gulf. During spring this whole region—from the Euphrates east to the Tigris—can become severely inundated.26 The level surface of the plain and shallow river beds of the Euphrates and Tigris, which offer the right conditions for irrigation,27 can also cause immediate, widespread flooding. And, however difficult it is to get water to the land via irrigation canals, it is just as difficult to get it off the land when it floods.28 Before any dams were built (before ~1920), about two-thirds of the whole area of southern Mesopotamia (Babylonia) could be underwater in the flood season from March to August.29 

http://bibleapologetics.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/carol-hill-flood-hydrology-2.pdf

4) The size of the ark

Flood geologists say the ark is too large for a local flood. But that objection cuts both ways. If it's too large for a local flood, then it's too small for a global flood. It doesn't seem big enough to accommodate every kind of bird or land animal.

Flood geologists field that challenge by postulating explosive postdiluvial speciation, but that expedient loses the simple appeal to the size of the ark to determine the scale of the flood.

5) The purpose of the ark

Flood geologists say the ark would be pointless if the flood was merely local. With advance warning, Noah's family could evacuate the flood zone ahead of time. And animals outside the flood zone would repopulate the flood zone. However, that objection is deceptively simple:

i) Strictly speaking, the ark is unnecessary to protect Noah's family and the animals during a global flood. God could miraculously protect them, the way he miraculously shielded Daniel's friends in the furnace (cf. Dan 3:19-27). 

ii) The ark is emblematic as well as utilitarian. A floating temple. As one scholar observes:

The three stories of the ark correspond to the three stories of the world conceptualized as divided into the heaven above, the earth below, and the sphere under the earth, associated especially with the waters (cf. e.g. Exod 20:4; Deut 4:16ff.; Rom 1:23)…Clearly, the window of the ark is the counterpart to "the window of heaven," referred to in this very narrative (7:11; 8:2). Appropriately, the window area is located along the top of the ark, as part of the upper (heavenly) story (Kline 1989). 

Moreover, the covering of the ark (Gen 8:13) prefigures the hide covering of the tabernacle (Exod 26:14; 36:19; Num 3:25).

Furthermore, the ark foreshadows an incident in the life of Moses, when his mother put him in a watertight basket, by the riverbank, where the Egyptian princess used to bathe. 

6) The purpose of the flood

Flood geologists say a local flood is inconsistent with the stated purpose of the flood: to execute judgment on all sinners, as well as animals. However, there are some tensions in that argument:

i) Animals aren't sinners. So destroying every animal is secondary to the primary purpose of the flood.

ii) It isn't necessary to submerge mountain ranges to kill off the animals. If the floodwaters rose to the tree line, anything above the tree line would eventually perish from starvation or exposure. 

7) Fossil distribution

Flood geologists say an anthropologically universal flood is equivalent to a geographically universal flood, given the global distribution of human fossils antedating the flood. 

However, that argument cuts both ways. For the age of those fossils is much older, according to conventional dating techniques, than flood geologists are willing to concede. In addition, flood geologists routinely contest the identification of "early human" fossils.

8) Widespread flood traditions

Flood geologists appeal to widespread flood traditions to corroborate a global flood. But that's difficult to assess:

i) There's a difference between universal flood traditions and traditions of a universal flood. 

ii) Cultural diffusion can account for common, far-flung traditions. As the survivors of the flood migrated from Ararat to other parts of the world, they thereby disseminated the story of the flood. 

At the same time, we also need a critical edition of flood traditions. We need sources with dates. James Frazer is not a reliable resource. 

iii) Conversely, it's striking that we don't have flood traditions from Egypt or Ugarit, even though we do have flood traditions from Mesopotamia that are clearly reminiscent of the Genesis account. That evidence points to a flood centered in Mesopotamia. 

iv) Appealing to flood traditions around the world to multiply attest a global flood generates a paradox. If the flood was global, then you can't have truly independent local reports by observers from different parts of the world who witnessed the flood firsthand at the time it overlook their part of the world. For, in the nature of the case, those observers perished in the flood. The only witnesses who lived to tell the story were the eight passengers on the ark. Even if there were humans in North and South America at the time, they didn't survive to share their experience or pass that along to posterity. All flood traditions, if authentic, trace back to the same point of origin. 

Of course, flood geologists don't assume that postdiluvian islands and continents correspond to the prediluvian islands and continents. I simply use "North and South America" to illustrate a principle. They can function as placeholders.  

9) The rainbow

Flood geologists contend that if the flood was local, then God has often broken his promise to never again flood the earth (Gen 9:8-17). However, that argument simply revisits the issue of how we should construe eretz: does it mean the (planetary) earth, or does it mean the "land"? 

10) The flood and the parousia

Flood geologists contend that Peter's comparison between the flood and the Parousia (2 Pet 3:3-7; cf. Mt 24:37) implies the universality of the flood. If the day of judgment is universal, so is the flood. 

i) But that's equivocal. The day of judgment isn't just a terrestrial event. Fallen angels will also be judged.

ii) Moreover, Peter's usage is more qualified. As one commentator notes: 

The phrase "ancient world" may suggest that Peter is thinking here of a universal flood that submerged the entire globe. But in the latter part of the verse, Peter uses the word we translate "world" again (kosmos), but this time he qualifies it as "the world of the ungodly people"…As often in the Bible, "world" refers to human beings rather than the earth itself (Moo 1996). 

iii) Furthermore, the Parousia involves time as well a space. It terminates fallen world history. It makes an epochal change from the fallen world order to the new world order. 

11) Population explosion

Flood geologists contend the longevity and fecundity of the prediluvians would result in a population explosion, leading to mass migration (Snelling 2009). 

i) However, that's, at best, a possible inference from Genesis. Genesis never says anything about a population explosion or mass migration.

Gen 2:10-14 situates Eden somewhere in Mesopotamia. So that would be the epicenter of human population. Man would migrate from that focal point.

And the ark lands in northern Mesopotamia (Gen 8:4). That would be consistent with a flood that originates in Mesopotamia. The diluvial point of origin would correspond to the human point of origin. The scope of the flood would correspond to the biogeography of human dispersion at that stage of human history, where man radiates out from Eden, but is still confined to the ancient Near east–which would also be consistent with the Table of Nations (Gen 10).

ii) In addition, the genealogies don't indicate a population explosion. Prediluvians only begin fathering children at an advanced age, and few offspring are recorded. Of course, it's quite possible that the genealogies are very selective. However, some creationists reaffirm the 6000-year-age of the earth by defending closed genealogies. 

12) The "fountains of the deep"

Flood geologists contend that this phrase indicates "vast geological disturbances" that are inconsistent with a local flood (Snelling 2009). 

i) This appeal is circular. Because rainwater is inadequate to supply a global deluge, flood geologists have to make the "fountains of the deep" the major source of floodwaters. So they don't really construe the extent of the flood from the "fountains of the deep." Rather, they construe the "fountains of the deep" from the extent of the flood. They take the universality of the flood as axiomatic, then interpret the "fountains of the deep" accordingly, since that's their only recourse.

ii) They overinterpret the "fountains of the deep" by reinterpreting that phrase according to their postulated flood mechanisms. That's not exegesis. 

iii) Commentators generally regard the phrase as poetic. It clearly alludes to the creation account. It represents the "waters below" in contrast to the "waters above." Based on passages like Deut 4:18, this probably carries the mundane sense that lakes, rivers, and oceans are lower than dry land. That's what makes the dry land dry. It's higher than bodies of water. Swollen rivers overflowing their banks would be quite consistent with this usage. It could also include spring water. 

Cyclonic Storms. The “Land of the Five Seas” refers to the lands encompassed by the Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, Caspian Sea, Red Sea, and Arabian Sea.1 This entire region is (and has been for thousands of years) controlled by the Asiatic pressure system.

Storm Surge. There is the possibility that a storm surge (in addition to rainfall and snow melt) may have helped maintain flooding in the southern part of Mesopotamia. Storm surges are where a low-pressure meteorological system causes high winds and tides, which can drive sea- water inland for hundreds of miles.

http://bibleapologetics.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/carol-hill-flood-hydrology-2.pdf

In conclusion, we didn't live during the time of Moses. What was common knowledge for the original audience isn't common knowledge for you and me. Likewise, we didn't live just before, right after, or during the flood. Given our distance from the original event as well as the historical horizon of the original audience, I think the most prudent course of action is to make allowance for both local and global interpretations of the text.

References:

Kline, M., Kingdom Prologue (1989), 156.

Moo, D., 2 Peter, Jude (Zondervan 1996), 103n5.

Poythress, V., Redeeming Science (Crossway 2006), 127.

Snelling, A. Earth's Catastrophic Past (ICR 2009).

"Flooding," The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology (Zondervan 1983), 194.

The Nephilim

6 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown (Gen 6:1-4).

According to one commentator, 

What is entirely unnatural is the attraction these fair creatures held for the sons of God and the resultant marriages and births of superhuman warriors, the Nephilim. Interpreters have made every effort to explain this text in some way other than the plain and obvious meaning of the words before us. Such interpretive efforts have included theories of human marriages between the faithful Sethites and the wicked Cainites, or dynastic rules and their polygamous marriages and ruthless offspring, or otherwise demonic and/or angelic interpretations. However, the clear sense of the text is simply that of preternatural beings (i.e., not entirely supernatural creatures but certainly not wholly natural either) fathering semi-human offspring of great exceptional military strength, and perhaps of great stature. Such divine-human unions are attested in other cultures of the world, including Babylonian, Egyptian, Ugaritic, Hittite, and Greek. The Gilgamesh Epic attributes Gilgamesh's prodigious energy and power to his parentage, and the fact that he is two-thirds divine (Arnold 2009).

This is a useful foil. I'll use his set-up to contrast his interpretation with my own.

1) That's easy for Arnold to say. Given his liberal view of Scripture, it doesn't cost him anything to impute to Scripture an interpretation which he considers factually false or even preposterous. But for Christians who take the authority of Scripture seriously, we can't be so cavalier. Of course, Arnold pays a price. He just doesn't know it, given his compartmentalized faith.

2) It's antecedently unlikely that the narrator would suddenly endorse pagan mythology, given his polemical theology–which often skewers pagan mythology. 

3) If you use something like the Epic of Gilgamesh or Hesiod's Theogony as your frame of reference, then, of course, Gen 6:1-4 is mythological. But that's a reference frame you're bringing to the text, not reference frame you're getting from the text. That interpretation is the artifact of what you read into the text, not what you read out of the text.

4) Moreover, v2 isn't even consistent with Arnold's pagan comparisons. In that literature, high gods and low gods don't marry women. Rather, they seize them by force, then dump them. 

5) The fallen angelic interpretation is just as extraordinary as the mythological interpretation. So why would that avoid the "plain and obvious" sense of the text? It's not like that's a rationalistic or naturalistic interpretation. 

6) Notice the implicit premises in Arnold's argument:

i) The bene ha elohim are low gods.

ii) The Nephilim are demigods sired by low gods. 

But syllogism is dubious:

7) First of all, there's the identity of the bene ha elohim. 

i) This is the only occurrence of that phrase in the Pentateuch. So, frankly, we're at a loss to know for sure what the narrator meant by that. Commentators turn to Job and the Psalms for linguistic parallels. But is that reliable? Job's Hebrew is idiosyncratic. And the Psalms are poetic. 

ii) In the OT, "son" can be used abstractly or figuratively, viz. "sons of Belial" (Deut 13:13), "sons of valor" (Judg 18:2), "sons of fire" (Job 5:7), "son of the dawn" (Isa 14:12).

8) Conversely, elohim can sometimes be used as an adjective as well as a noun. Indeed, it's striking that commentators who render bene ha elohim in Gen 6:2 as "divine beings" are also inclined to render ruach elohim in Gen 1:2 as "awesome wind," or el gibbor in Isa 9:6 as "great hero." They translate the terminology down when they wish to demote orthodox interpretations, and translate the terminology up when they wish to promote heterodox interpretations. 

9) It's unclear from the syntax if the Nephilim are offspring of these unions. They could be contemporaries of the "sons of God(s)." 

10) Moreover, Arnold is using Num 13:33 to gloss the Nephilim in Gen 6:4. But that identification is dubious. For one thing, the Nephilim in 6:4 would perish in the flood. Since the Pentateuch is a literary unit, with the same narrator, their postdiluvian survival would be inconsistent with his storyline.

11) Furthermore, the description of the Nephilim in Num 13:33 comes from the spies who are looking for an excuse to retreat. So their description is hyperbolic. 

12) There's also the question of whether this pericope goes with the preceding genealogy or the succeeding flood account. If it goes with the genealogy, then there's less reason to think anything extraordinary is in view.

13) For many scholars, "mythical" is a synonym for whatever they deem to be impossible or unbelievable. "Mythical" is the measure of their secular education and experience. If nothing out of the ordinary has ever happened to them, then anything miraculous or paranormal is "mythical." 

14) There's nothing prima facie mythical about "heroes of old" or "men of renown." That hardly selects for demigods. 

To me, that suggests someone like Nimrod (Gen 10:8-12). Indeed, both passages employ the same designation (gibbor [10:8-9]; gibborim [6:4]). Of course he's postdiluvial, but he's the type of individual that 6:4 is referring to. Explorers. Conquerors. Warrior-kings. Founders of ancient empires. 

In a sense, Arnold is half-right. It's a familiar theme. But Arnold has the order wrong. Historical figures can morph into legendary figures, then mythical figures. Ambitious, ruthless, adventurous young men who are bent on conquering the world. Making a deathless name for themselves. 

A modern counterpart would be the Conquistadors. In relation to the New World (i.e. Latin America), they were the "heroes of old." Don't let the positive connotations of the English word "hero" throw you. It doesn't mean the good guy. It means heroic. Rapacious men can do heroic deeds. 

15) This, in turn, might throw light on the "sons of God(s)." Let's assume (ex hypothesi) that the "sons of God(s)" fathered the "heroes of old." 

If a son has a famous father, the son is known in association with his well-known father. Likewise, if your father is a king, that makes you a prince. You are born into a socially high status (unless you're the bastard son of a royal mistress).

But it can work in reverse. A famous son will retroactively elevate the social status of his father. No one would remember who Jesse was if his son hadn't been a great king of Israel. 

Assuming that the "sons of God(s)" in 6:2 are fathers of the "heroes of old" in 6:4, they might come by that honorific title after the fact. They could be ordinary men who fathered extraordinary sons. Sons whose fame confers status on their fathers. 

The prediluvian world was waiting to be explored and colonized. An opportunity for prediluvian counterparts to Napoleon, Alexander, Tamerlane, Cortés, Pizarro, and Genghis Khan to make their mark on a wide-open world. 

And for their insolence, God either reduces their lifespan or expedites the flood (depending on how we construe Gen 6:3). 

16) One scholar thinks this may be a polemic against cult prostitution, where men had sex with a priestess who represented a goddess (Wenham 2003).

That's interesting, but it doesn't seem to fit the wording of the text:

i) The text uses stock marital terminology. 

ii) If it was alluding to cult prostitution, we might expect it to refer the "sons of Adam" and the "daughters of goddesses" rather than the "sons of gods" and and "daughters of Adam." 

iii) The wording is too generic to specify cult prostitution. If that's the subtextual target, it's pretty oblique. 

17) Finally:

i) There's nothing in Gen 6:1-4 about the "sons of God" coming down from the sky, much less their banishment from heaven. No descent. No heaven/earth contrast. That's reading 1 Enoch back into Genesis. 

ii) In Pentateuchal usage, divine fatherhood/sonship is employed metaphorically (e. g. Exod 4:22-23; Deut 14:1; cf. 1:31; 8:5; 32:6). I think it best to construe Gen 6:2,4 in the same figurative sense. 

References:

Arnold, B. Genesis (Cambridge 2009), 89-90.

Wenham, G. Exploring the Old Testament, Volume 1: A Guide to the Pentateuch (IVP 2003), 27.

Genesis and genealogies

5 This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.

This is significant because it demonstrates that the image of God is transmitted through procreation. If we didn't have this statement, along with Gen 9:6, the reader might be left to wonder if the image of God was unique to Adam and Eve. But this shows the reader that the image of God is shared by all of Adam's posterity.

21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah. 22 Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.

This doesn't explicitly say that Enoch eluded death. However, that seems to be implicit in the studied contrast between the usual obituary notice ("Thus all the days of X were Y years, and he died") and the absence of that refrain in Enoch's case. 

If so, this is highly significant. It means that hope of immortality wasn't necessarily or essentially tied to physical access to the tree of life. Of course, Enoch's case is quite exceptional. But exceptional in a typological sense. Faith is the route to immortality. 

I) The function of genealogies

The Biblical genealogies became very significant and controversial in church history for two reasons. One, because these were used to date the origin of the world. In addition, many modern readers find the ages of the prediluvians incredible. 

It's important to keep in mind that using the genealogies to construct a timeline for world history is not their original design. That doesn't mean there's anything inherently wrong with using the genealogies to extract general chronological information. After all, Biblical archeologists often ransack the Bible for information in their historical reconstructions. 

But before we turn to that application, we need to consider their original function. Genealogies function as bridging devices to transition between one historical episode and another. They also place individual episodes within a larger narrative framework or continuous storyline. Finally, the genealogies track the progressive fulfillment of the seed of promise motif (Gen 3:15). 

II) Open or closed? 

Are the genealogies of Genesis open or closed? By "open," are they selective? Do they skip over some descendants? 

By comparing different genealogies in Scripture, William Henry Green concluded that the genealogies were open. Green's basic analysis has been supplemented by subsequent analysis. For instance, scholars have pointed out a 10-generation pattern. In addition, Gen 5 & 11 both terminate in 3 sons. The combination of 10+3 is improbably symmetrical if the genealogies are closed. Scholars have also documented the emphatic 7th position in genealogical lists. As one scholar noted:

Biblical genealogists, as is argued here, oftentime display a defi­nite prediliction for placing in the seventh-position personalities of importance to them…Minimal alterations were made in inherited lists of ancestors in order to place individuals deemed worthy of attention in the seventh, and, to a much lesser extent, fifth position of a genealogical tree. 

At the outset, the following cautionary statements should be made: 1- This method of attracting attention to specific individuals is but one of others available to Biblical writers3; 2- It should be emphasized that this procedure, which might almost be regarded in terms of a 'convention', was neither universally applied, nor slavishly followed; 3- The origin and development of this 'convention' could but be guessed at, since we have no comparative material from Israel's neighbors to control our speculations. It is not unlikely, however, that this procedure was promoted within intellectual circles, most probably among individuals who shared a desire to instruct. When organizing their lists, such individuals often had a didactic purpose in mind. The context in which their lists were placed, however, to a great extent determined a framework in which to work. Thus a certain equilibrium was achieved between the genealogist's eagerness to teach worthy lessons and the disciplining exigencies of a narrative. With their freedom somewhat constrained, genealogists, therefore, concentrated their didactic effort on one, or at most, two positions in a genealogical tree.In view of the prediliction that Semites in general, and Hebrews in particular, had for the number 'seven' and its multiples, the favo­ring of the 'seventh-position' should prove understandable (Sasson 1978).

I think there's compelling evidence that Genesis uses open rather than closed genealogies. They are selective and schematic rather than continuous and complete. For that reason alone, I don't think the genealogies supply exact intervals. To that extent, Usher's chronology flounders on faulty assumptions.

However, that, by itself, is not a fatal concession for young-earth creationism. Indeed, many young-earth creationists grant the fact that the genealogies are open rather than closed. I'll have more to say on this issue in a moment.

III) The Longevity  of the Prediluvians

i) Many readers balk at the longevity of the prediluvians. They disbelieve, or find it hard to believe, that human beings could live that long. However, it's important to keep in mind that from a theological standpoint, the longevity of the prediluvians is not an isolated or anomalous phenomenon. According to Gen 2, unfallen man, although he was mortal, was created with the potential for immortality. Eating from the tree of life would either confer immortality or at least rejuvenate him. Likewise, Scripture teaches the resurrection of the body.  

So, according to Scripture, it is possible, in principle, for a human body to live forever. Indeed, that's more than a hypothetical possibility. That will actually be realized. 

Of course, unbelievers will deny this. However, Christians shouldn't balk at the ages of the prediluvians. How can you believe the saints will live forever if you don't even believe someone can live for 900 years? 

ii) One commentator raises the following objection: "Paleoanthropologists have not yet uncovered any ancient skeletal remains that even remotely approach such advanced ages" (Youngblood 1999). However, I have two problems with his objection:

a) Youngblood doesn't bother to explain how paleoanthropologists would be able to determine the age of prediluvians from skeletal remains. If, say, they aged very slowly, could you tell that from skeletal remains? 

Don't we generally determine age of death from skeletal remains by comparison with normal lifespans? So what would be the frame of reference in the case of prediluvians? By definition, they fall far outside normal standards of comparison. 

b) Strictly speaking, Gen 5 doesn't say prediluvians in general lived that long. It's possible that those lifespans were confined to the line of Seth. If so, what are the odds that skeletal remains would even survive the ravages of time, much less be fortuitously discovered, by archeologists, given such a small initial sample group?

One might object that restricting the extraordinary longevity to the prediluvian line of Seth is arbitrary. However, there's something "arbitrary" about God singling out the line of Seth in the first place. But God selecting one individual or kin-group while excluding another is a major theme in the Pentateuch.

iii) Another problem with trying to cut the prediluvians down to size is that we have a steady decrease in longevity from the prediluvians through the patriarchs to the Mosaic era and beyond. For whatever reason, it starts high, then drastically lowers over time. Don't we need to interpret the ages consistent with that overall trend? Otherwise, we're depressing the pattern. 

iv) Another "solution" is to say the names stand for dynasties rather than individuals. But there are problems with that:

a) It fails to distinguish between linear genealogies, which trace through one descendant per generation, and segmented genealogies, that include more than one descendent per generation. Moreover, even segmented genealogies name each individual descendent.

b) It doesn't work for Enoch, where it's clearly describing a unique individual experience.

IV) Are the figures artificial? 

i) Some scholars argue that the figures are artificial. For instance, in his commentary on Genesis, Umberto Cassuto noted that the ages of the prediluvians in Gen 5 were divisible by 5, sometimes with the addition of 7. If true, that's striking. However, I have some reservations about his analysis:

a) This assumes the numbers in the Massoretic Text were transmitted with absolute accuracy for centuries on end. But numbers are highly susceptible to mistranscription, and once a numerical error creeps into the text, it's difficult to detect and correct. This is a problem with all those "Bible code" books that presume to discover subtle numerical patterns hidden in the text. There's no margin for error in their calculations. The transmission of the text must be exact.  

b) Unlike some numbers, such as 7 or 12, no special numerological significance attaches to the number 5 in Biblical usage. So it's not obvious to me why the narrator would be using multiples of 5 for symbolic reasons. 

c) If those aren't the actual ages of the prediluvians, why did the narrator assign those ages to the prediluvians? Cassuto's analysis fails to explain why each prediluvian is assigned that particular age, rather than some other age. 

d) Assuming that the ages are multiples of 5, sometimes with the addition of 7, does that mean these are artificial figures? Or does it mean these are round figures? Rounding the ages to make them divisible by 5 doesn't make them imaginary. That might be a mnenomic device. The occasional addition of 7 indicates the narrator was constrained by objective data, not just making it up whole cloth. Otherwise, why not make them all neatly divisible by 5? If he has to add 7 in some cases, that indicates the figures are not artificial. 

One might argue that 5 plus 7 equals 12, which is a figure with numerological significance in Scripture. However, the alternation between ages that use 7 and ages that don't seems random. 

e) If the ages symbolic, shouldn't that be a consistent numerological pattern in the genealogies of Genesis? What about other genealogies in Genesis? 

ii) An even more ingenious explanation was proposed by Barnouin, who correlates the ages of some prediluvians with the synodic periods of the seven "planets." However, I have reservations about his analysis:

a) As with Cassuto's analysis, this assumes the absolute accuracy of our extant Hebrew manuscripts.

b) There are 10 prediluvians in the Gen 5 genealogy, but Barnouin only finds astronomical correlations for a handful. That randomness suggests to me that his correlations are coincidental rather than intentional.

c) Why think the original audience for Genesis would even recognize these patterns? And even assuming they were detectable, why would they be significant to the original audience?

The approaches of Cassuto and Barnouin both seem to be rather ad hoc. 

V) From gaps to geological ages

In his classic, seminal essay, Green was very optimistic about the value of his analysis in harmonizing Scripture with geology. For instance:

And it is to be observed that the Scriptures furnish no collateral information whatever respecting the period covered by the genealogies now in question.  The creation, the Flood, the call of Abraham, are great facts, which stand out distinctly in primeval sacred history.  A few incidents respecting our first parents and their sons Cain and Abel are recorded.  Then there is an almost total blank until the Flood, with nothing whatever to fill the gap, and nothing to suggest the length of time intervening but what is found in the genealogy stretching between these two points.  And the case is substantially the same from the Flood to Abraham.  So far as the biblical records go, we are left not only without adequate data, but without any data whatever, which can be brought into comparison with these genealogies for the sake of testing their continuity and completeness. 

If, therefore, any really trustworthy data can be gathered from any source whatever, from any realm of scientific or antiquarian research, which can be brought into comparison with these genealogies for the sake of determining the question, whether they have noted every link in the chain of descent, or whether, as in other manifest instances, links have been omitted, such data should be welcomed and the comparison fearlessly made.  Science would simply perform the office, in this instance, which information gathered from other parts of Scripture is unhesitatingly allowed to do in regard to those genealogies previously examined(Green 1890).

i) A basic problem with Green's analysis is that you can accept his premise, but reject his conclusion. The fact that the genealogies are internally open doesn't mean you can fill the blanks with corresponding geological, prehistorical, or historical epochs. Green doesn't show how they correlate. There's a twofold challenge:

(a) Intercalating additional intervals within human history–within the genealogical gaps; (b) intercalating additional intervals before human history. An obvious problem is that Green is trying to harmonize the genealogies with 19C science. Let's compare the sequence in Genesis with the sequence posited by modern mainstream science:

Big Bang (14 billion years ago) Creation

Solar System (9 billion years ago)         Day 1

Earth (5 billion years ago) Day 2

Precambrian ( 4.5 billion years ago) Day 3

Paleozoic (1.5 billion years ago) Day 4 

Mesozoic (250 millions years ago)         Day 5

Cenozoic (60+ million years ago)         Day 6

Stone age (c. 10,000 BC) Day 7

Copper age (4000-3000 BC)

Bronze Age (3000-1200 BC)         The Fall

Iron Age (1200-600 BC)

Prediluvian civilization

The Flood

The Patriarchal period

How do gaps in the genealogies correlate with cosmic history or earth history according to mainstream science? I don't see that Green has solved the problem he posed for himself. 

ii) In addition, it's not just a matter of making room for modern scientific claims. Not just extra time, or empty intervals of time, but what events fill those intervals. Mainstream science has a detailed narrative of what was happening during those chronological slots. 

Green's solution is too facile to meet the challenge. It requires drastic, unforeseen theological concessions that I doubt he'd be prepared to make. 

References:

Green, W. H. "Primeval Chronology, "BibSac 47 (1890), 285-303. 

Sasson, J. "A Genealogical 'Convention' in Biblical Chronology?" ZAW 90 (1978), 171-85.

Youngblood, R. The Book of Genesis (Wipf & Stock, 2nd ed., 1999), 73.