Were the Nephilim to blame? Were they evil?

[DamianWarS]

That's true, the text doesn't come out and say that. But when the conquest began, some of the population of Canaan was devoted to destruction, some was to be put to forced labor, and others were merely to be driven out.

Here's a blog post (the author is a scholar) that identifies the clans containing giants as the ones to be exterminated.

The Giant Clans and the Conquest - Dr. Michael Heiser (drmsh.com)​

Why were the giants singled out for destruction? If the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6 is true, they represented a continuing danger to humanity. The rest of the population could be kicked out or forced into slavery, but the giants had to go.

Related to this, afaik the early Jews and Christians all held to the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6. Only later, sometime around Augustine, did the human interpretations begin. For example, the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus included the angelic interpretation in his book Antiquities of the Jews.

I think a race that grows 9+ feet who is your enemy is reason enough to get rid of them. No need to connect a bloodline of fallen angels from Gen 6 to find motivate. I'll leave Gen 6 where it is but I don't see this niphilim race of gen 6 continuing post flood and what we see post flood is of a different blood line.

 

[BPPLEE]

the word Nephilim is used in 2 spots in the bible. The original Gen 6 account and also in Number 13:33. no where else is that word used and in terms of Goliath his height is mentioned but no one calls him of the Nephilim.

The Number 13:33 refers to the post-flood people Fathered by Anak and his descendants are called the Anakim such as referenced in early Deuteronomy in 1:28, 2:10,11,21, 9:2 and also in Joshua 11:21, 14:12,15. In the final reference, (Jos 14:15) Arba is referred to as "greatest man among the Anakites" and in 15:13 Arba is revealed as the "forefather of Anak". So it would seem among the giant tribe of the Anakim Arba was the greatest. There is no reference however to a fallen angel bloodline that caused giant-like traits and the word "giant" doesn't even use except in the Num 13:33 reference calling them Nephilim which is translated sometimes as giant.

so how did they get so big? Goliath was something like 9'6" tall and that indeed is a tall man. Guinness has a 8'11" man as the tallest and I assume since Goliath was a chosen champion he was one of the tallest of his kind. But in the end I don't know how they got so tall and I don't think the text tells us that nor should we jump to conclusions that it was from fallen angels.

Gen 6:4

There 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 bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
It is the also after that that implies it. People with 6 fingers on their hands sound like some kind of mutation to me and needing a bed 6 feet wide and 13 feet long sounds like more than just a tall man. It may not have been from fallen angels we don't know.

 

[DamianWarS]

Gen 6:4

There 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 bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
It is the also after that that implies it. People with 6 fingers on their hands sound like some kind of mutation to me and needing a bed 6 feet wide and 13 feet long sounds like more than just a tall man. It may not have been from fallen angels we don't know.

I agree a different human indeed just not an angel hybrid. There are pygmy tribes in Congo that averages in the 4ft range. There are tribes in sudah where 6ft is considered short and have averages of 7ft. There are tiny dogs there are really big dogs, there are tiny cats and really big cats. It stands to reason the largest would have the biggest targets especially in a time where you are proven in battle and "giants" would be heavily exploited just as we see with Goliath who is put on the front lines to scare their enemy by his sheer size.

 

[timothyu]

Perhaps the giants had nothing to do with mighty men of renown but referred to species in general.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am confused a great deal about this because it has rarely been talked about in the 47 years I've attended church. It is in Genesis 6 where the title is The corruption of mankind. This is the only part of the Bible that I know of where it speaks about the Nephilim (children fathered by an angel); for reference I'm using NASB version of the Bible (Genesis 6:1-7).

To summarize, it says that the sons of God found the daughters of men beautiful. In verse 4 it says, The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of mankind, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

This is where my questions come in to play. My first question is this:

1. Were the Nephilim evil?

The only thing I can find that speaks of their character, is in the verse above where it says they were "men of renown." It says they were also mighty. But nowhere can I find anything that says they were evil. Neither "might" or "renown" seems to make reference to evil in these verses. If they were evil, were they born that way? It wouldn't be the child's fault that their father was an angel. My next question is 2 parts:

2. Did God view the Nephilim different from other humans? Were they born evil?

From what I can gather, the Nephilim still had a human soul. While they were mighty and renown...the Bible gives no reference to them having angelic powers or abilities. Did God give them the same chances to repent of their sins as He did with regular humans? If they were still human, I would have to say yes.

However, it was only after the Nephilim were born that God says in verse 5, Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of mankind was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. So the Lord was sorry that He had made mankind on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

I know that God is just and His judgement is true. I found 2 references stating that the angels who fathered them were the ones that fell with Lucifer. I might be wrong in my interpretation, and I hate thinking it, but this makes me think that the Nephilim were evil. I hate that thought because it wouldn't have been the child's fault to be born from a fallen angel.

So in the end, I am curious to know how did God judge them when they died? Did He view them differently than regular humans? Were they born evil?

The nephilim were just regular ordinary human beings. Genesis calls them "heroes of old and men of legend" (Genesis 6:4)

These are not half-angel/half-human hybrids. Angels can't procreate (Mark 12:25), because angels don't have physical bodies with sex organs, they are called "spirits" (Hebrews 1:14), and also that they are "winds" (the Greek is pneumata, which can mean "spirits" or "winds", as the word pneuma can mean spirit, breath, wind, etc) and "flames of fire" (Hebrews 1:7).

The idea of fallen angels impregnating human women and giving birth to a race of giants comes from later legends and folk stories that arose during the 2nd Temple Period (between the rebuilding of Solomon's Temple around 500 BC to the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD). Such as in the Enochian literature as contained in the Book of Enoch, a composite of multiple works written over several centuries which had varying degrees of influence and importance in the development of 2nd Temple Judaism and Christianity.

Further, it may be good to understand what biblical "giants" were. They weren't super-human, they weren't demi-human, they were ordinary flesh and blood human beings who happened to be taller than average sized people for the time. The most famous giant in the Bible, Goliath of Gath whom David slew as a shepherd, was huge compared to other people living in the Levant in the late bronze age, but wouldn't be that huge today. There are American athletes who would have dwarfed Goliath. Goliath only stood about 6 ft and 9 inches tall (the oldest Old Testament texts and sources we have all agree on this, only the much later Masoretic Text has Goliath's height as nearly 10 feet tall).

So no angel-man hybrids, no "giants" except in the sense that there were people over 6 feet tall while the average male height for the time and place was close to 5'5.

Genesis 6's passage on the nephilim is one of the most cryptic passages in the Bible; and there is lots of room for debate on the meaning; we can pretty safely reject interpretations that could be lifted straight from a Hollywood movie.

The nephilim were plain ordinary human beings, identified as ancient men of legendary status, who these people were or why they were called "mighty men of old, men of renown" is probably not something we'll ever have an answer for, because the Bible simply doesn't give us one. And at the end of the day, it's not even really important.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Might give credence to the legend of Atlantis being pre-flood.

Truth be told, Plato's Atlantis is a fiction; and if there is any truth in legends behind it, it is very likely re-tellings of catastrophic events surrounding the Bronze Age Collapse, such as the destruction of the island of Thera and the entire Minoan civilization. But these things happened only about 900 years before Plato.

Which is to say, there never was an Atlantis. And the whole reason Plato brings it up is to serve his own philosophical purposes in the Socratic Dialogues.

Stories and legends about Atlantis in modern times are mostly the work and product of 19th century Occultists.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RickReads]

Truth be told, Plato's Atlantis is a fiction; and if there is any truth in legends behind it, it is very likely re-tellings of catastrophic events surrounding the Bronze Age Collapse, such as the destruction of the island of Thera and the entire Minoan civilization. But these things happened only about 900 years before Plato.

Which is to say, there never was an Atlantis. And the whole reason Plato brings it up is to serve his own philosophical purposes in the Socratic Dialogues.

Stories and legends about Atlantis in modern times are mostly the work and product of 19th century Occultists.

-CryptoLutheran

There is underwater evidence that the Atlantian civilization stretched from the southwest edge of Europe to the Bahamas. It was likely the most powerful and most advanced kingdom of Noah's world.

You deny all evidence that is contrary to your outdated worldview.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There is underwater evidence that the Atlantian civilization stretched from the southwest edge of Europe to the Bahamas. It was likely the most powerful and most advanced kingdom of Noah's world.

You deny all evidence that is contrary to your outdated worldview.

No, no there is no evidence of this. I know what you're talking about, but just like Bigfoot and grey aliens in flying saucers, it's just bunk.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[timothyu]

No, no there is no evidence of this.

Like Noah's Ark?

 

[DamianWarS]

The nephilim were just regular ordinary human beings. Genesis calls them "heroes of old and men of legend" (Genesis 6:4)

These are not half-angel/half-human hybrids. Angels can't procreate (Mark 12:25), because angels don't have physical bodies with sex organs, they are called "spirits" (Hebrews 1:14), and also that they are "winds" (the Greek is pneumata, which can mean "spirits" or "winds", as the word pneuma can mean spirit, breath, wind, etc) and "flames of fire" (Hebrews 1:7).

The idea of fallen angels impregnating human women and giving birth to a race of giants comes from later legends and folk stories that arose during the 2nd Temple Period (between the rebuilding of Solomon's Temple around 500 BC to the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD). Such as in the Enochian literature as contained in the Book of Enoch, a composite of multiple works written over several centuries which had varying degrees of influence and importance in the development of 2nd Temple Judaism and Christianity.

Further, it may be good to understand what biblical "giants" were. They weren't super-human, they weren't demi-human, they were ordinary flesh and blood human beings who happened to be taller than average sized people for the time. The most famous giant in the Bible, Goliath of Gath whom David slew as a shepherd, was huge compared to other people living in the Levant in the late bronze age, but wouldn't be that huge today. There are American athletes who would have dwarfed Goliath. Goliath only stood about 6 ft and 9 inches tall (the oldest Old Testament texts and sources we have all agree on this, only the much later Masoretic Text has Goliath's height as nearly 10 feet tall).

So no angel-man hybrids, no "giants" except in the sense that there were people over 6 feet tall while the average male height for the time and place was close to 5'5.

Genesis 6's passage on the nephilim is one of the most cryptic passages in the Bible; and there is lots of room for debate on the meaning; we can pretty safely reject interpretations that could be lifted straight from a Hollywood movie.

The nephilim were plain ordinary human beings, identified as ancient men of legendary status, who these people were or why they were called "mighty men of old, men of renown" is probably not something we'll ever have an answer for, because the Bible simply doesn't give us one. And at the end of the day, it's not even really important.

-CryptoLutheran

I broadly agree but in the text I see the rise of nephilim as proof of the corruption of the earth which caused the judgment of God. the verse says "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."

it's a little vague but it seems implicit that the Nephilim were products of this union of "sons of God" and "daughters of man" but you could argue they are unrelated. I approach these earlier Genesis accounts not looking at the literal but looking at the deeper meanings so I'm not set out to prove angels literally procreated with humans which I think misses the point. The point is to show the earth was corrupted and it accomplishes this through this account of fallen angels interbreeding with humans. The Nephilim, in this case, is a type of anti-creation and if the flood represents baptism then the corruption of the world is the sinful nature that is put to death through the waters and the rise of Nephilim is the culmination of this point.

it's like in a story where wolves are always the evil the Nephilim may have been great they also seem unreconcilable. After the flood the Nephilim or the "Anakim" are the enemies and only a great obstacle to overcome. They are the "bad guys" and remain that way and in a sense, like a wolve, act as a literary device of evil and corruption.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Like Noah's Ark?

I don't interpret the Genesis Flood story as being literal history.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jipsah]

There is underwater evidence that the Atlantian civilization stretched from the southwest edge of Europe to the Bahamas. It was likely the most powerful and most advanced kingdom of Noah's world.

You deny all evidence that is contrary to your outdated worldview.

I'd be keen to see some of that evidence. Links? (No Youtube, please).

 

[RickReads]

I'd be keen to see some of that evidence. Links? (No Youtube, please).

You could pull it up as easy as I could. There are underwater ruins from Noah's day all over the world.
The ruins I'm referring to have been known for some years now.

Proving what they mean isn't so easy. The fact that they are there is a pretty credible assertion.

 

[DamianWarS]

I don't interpret the Genesis Flood story as being literal history.

-CryptoLutheran

how do you interpret it then?

 

[ViaCrucis]

how do you interpret it then?

Much like the creation stories are narrative theology that borrowed and appropriated language from surrounding Near Eastern cultures (e.g. the primordial ocean present at the beginning of creation out of which God fashions the earth), so does the story of Noah borrow the ancient near eastern flood motif to proclaim something distinctive and true--about God, about us, about the world, and most importantly about God's work of saving the world through Jesus Christ.

I think it's very easy to read the flood story as just a play-by-play of events, but I think a closer look at the story has some very interesting things. The reason God brings a flood to the earth is due to human sin, the problem that began in Eden; we read that God regretted making man and so set to destroy the world and start over. To that end God chooses the single most righteous person alive, along with his family, to build an ark to keep him, his family, and a breeding pair of every animal alive through the flood. If the goal was to fix the problem of sin in the world by choosing a single righteous person to re-start Project Humanity, it didn't go very well. Right after the flood waters recede and Noah dedicates an altar to God, Noah drinks himself into a stupor, gets naked and passes out, when his son sees him Noah responds by cursing his own grandson. The problem of sin, the problem of us, wasn't fixed at all--it's right there in "Righteous Noah", the old man, the old Adam, the sinful flesh in all its ugliness.

Which begs the question, what was even the point? I'd argue the point is that the problem of evil in our world can't be solved by starting back at square one with some kind of massive reset--destroying everything and starting over won't make the world a better place. Instead, this gets us on the road to a kind of a nobody pastoralist in Mesopotamia, one named Abram, who was old and married to his wife Sarai. God tells Abram that his wife will bear him a son, and to Abram would be the promise of a blessing to all nations, for he would be the father of many nations, no longer just Abram, but now named Abraham.

It is through Abraham that God would bring about His way of healing the world, of fixing the problem we ourselves made. He's going to clean it up, and His way isn't going to be by sending a flood to destroy everything and start over. No, He's going to one day come right into our midst, as flesh and blood and bone, conceived in a virgin's womb, and give Himself freely to be destroyed by the most violent powers of this wicked world had: crucified and mocked and beaten and treated as less than refuse. And then three days later He destroyed death, and rose again. That is the promise, that is the point, the Scriptures declare that the Messiah must suffer and be crucified, and on the third day rise again, and His Gospel proclaimed to all nations.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Eloy Craft]

Polygamy creates a society of males competing for status. When some have many others have none.
Typified by Lamech seventh generation descendant of Cain. He is the first Nephilim.
Those who achieved great status became giants of legend and then known as Nephilim in myth

 

[DamianWarS]

Much like the creation stories are narrative theology that borrowed and appropriated language from surrounding Near Eastern cultures (e.g. the primordial ocean present at the beginning of creation out of which God fashions the earth), so does the story of Noah borrow the ancient near eastern flood motif to proclaim something distinctive and true--about God, about us, about the world, and most importantly about God's work of saving the world through Jesus Christ.

I think it's very easy to read the flood story as just a play-by-play of events, but I think a closer look at the story has some very interesting things. The reason God brings a flood to the earth is due to human sin, the problem that began in Eden; we read that God regretted making man and so set to destroy the world and start over. To that end God chooses the single most righteous person alive, along with his family, to build an ark to keep him, his family, and a breeding pair of every animal alive through the flood. If the goal was to fix the problem of sin in the world by choosing a single righteous person to re-start Project Humanity, it didn't go very well. Right after the flood waters recede and Noah dedicates an altar to God, Noah drinks himself into a stupor, gets naked and passes out, when his son sees him Noah responds by cursing his own grandson. The problem of sin, the problem of us, wasn't fixed at all--it's right there in "Righteous Noah", the old man, the old Adam, the sinful flesh in all its ugliness.

Which begs the question, what was even the point? I'd argue the point is that the problem of evil in our world can't be solved by starting back at square one with some kind of massive reset--destroying everything and starting over won't make the world a better place. Instead, this gets us on the road to a kind of a nobody pastoralist in Mesopotamia, one named Abram, who was old and married to his wife Sarai. God tells Abram that his wife will bear him a son, and to Abram would be the promise of a blessing to all nations, for he would be the father of many nations, no longer just Abram, but now named Abraham.

It is through Abraham that God would bring about His way of healing the world, of fixing the problem we ourselves made. He's going to clean it up, and His way isn't going to be by sending a flood to destroy everything and start over. No, He's going to one day come right into our midst, as flesh and blood and bone, conceived in a virgin's womb, and give Himself freely to be destroyed by the most violent powers of this wicked world had: crucified and mocked and beaten and treated as less than refuse. And then three days later He destroyed death, and rose again. That is the promise, that is the point, the Scriptures declare that the Messiah must suffer and be crucified, and on the third day rise again, and His Gospel proclaimed to all nations.

-CryptoLutheran

I'm not defending the literal so don't misunderstand my intentions. I see these accounts as goal-driven and if we can determine the goal then all the details that make up the account are all there to support that goal and begin to make more sense.

I'm I right to say to you the flood (literal or not) shows us that a restart event doesn't work and ultimately points to the need for a savior to fix us?

Noah is 1 righteous man, and through his righteousness and belief in him he saves humanity (and all others perish) which is an easy parallel to Christ or a Jn 3:16 event told in a different way. Although not perfect himself, in a vacuum, the flood account is about his righteousness, not his unrighteousness. There is a sense that since the flood didn't accomplish its goal (because clearly, we are all still evil) that one greater still needs to come to fix us and I think that this is left unspoken.

Noah getting drunk and cursing his grandson is a different account with a different goal and doesn't apply to the flood account because those actions are supporting a different goal. There is a thing called Hebraic block logic where blocks of information may be parallel to each other but each has its own goal. So the details in a block are there to support its goal but may in fact conflict with another. A perfect example is the creation account in Gen 1 and the creation account in Gen 2. It's the same event, but with different details/goals. This is what I see going on with the flood. the flood is its own block and the getting drunk/cursing grandson is a parallel block but the two are never meant to share the same goal and their details don't need to agree. Ultimately it does present a question if Noah is truly righteous? which is a greater goal and thread that runs deep throughout the bible ultimately pointing to Christ.

The goal of the flood account is to show the corruption of the world and its need for redemption (to be fixed). The earth itself seems to need to be redeemed and the flood is its baptism experience where the old dies away and what emerges (when the floodwaters drain) is a new body and new life free from the corruption of the old. I see the Nephilim as the culminating point of this corruption, a type of anti-creation that without question shows the state of the earth's return back to the chaos of Genesis before light was spoken.

Noah and his protective circle are saved through this experience and Noah's faith then the command to multiply, just as from the beginning, is reinstated (Gen 9:7/Gen 1:22). Creation has its own baptism/flood event as we see directly after light (day 1), the waters above and below are separated (day 2) and from this emerges land (day 3) and this is the foundation of the new believer starting with light, the old dying and emerging in new life but before all this was darkness and chaos where we find the earth returns to in Gen 6. Days 4,5,6 have a focus of filling these bodies (light with sun, moon stars [day 4], water with sea/land animals [day 5], and land with land animals [day 6]) then finally ending in God's rest, the goal of light coming, to begin with, is to give order and rest from the chaos and state of unrest. it is this rest that is the broader goal and the flood proclaims this as well.

The flood account has different details but echoes the same goal since creation. We miss this all when we obsess over the literal. half-angel super breeds is the common takeaway but has nothing to do with the goal of the account. With these accounts, interpretation through the lens of Christ is a more noble goal and the one we should be focused on.

 

[BPPLEE]

Much like the creation stories are narrative theology that borrowed and appropriated language from surrounding Near Eastern cultures (e.g. the primordial ocean present at the beginning of creation out of which God fashions the earth), so does the story of Noah borrow the ancient near eastern flood motif to proclaim something distinctive and true--about God, about us, about the world, and most importantly about God's work of saving the world through Jesus Christ.

I think it's very easy to read the flood story as just a play-by-play of events, but I think a closer look at the story has some very interesting things. The reason God brings a flood to the earth is due to human sin, the problem that began in Eden; we read that God regretted making man and so set to destroy the world and start over. To that end God chooses the single most righteous person alive, along with his family, to build an ark to keep him, his family, and a breeding pair of every animal alive through the flood. If the goal was to fix the problem of sin in the world by choosing a single righteous person to re-start Project Humanity, it didn't go very well. Right after the flood waters recede and Noah dedicates an altar to God, Noah drinks himself into a stupor, gets naked and passes out, when his son sees him Noah responds by cursing his own grandson. The problem of sin, the problem of us, wasn't fixed at all--it's right there in "Righteous Noah", the old man, the old Adam, the sinful flesh in all its ugliness.

Which begs the question, what was even the point? I'd argue the point is that the problem of evil in our world can't be solved by starting back at square one with some kind of massive reset--destroying everything and starting over won't make the world a better place. Instead, this gets us on the road to a kind of a nobody pastoralist in Mesopotamia, one named Abram, who was old and married to his wife Sarai. God tells Abram that his wife will bear him a son, and to Abram would be the promise of a blessing to all nations, for he would be the father of many nations, no longer just Abram, but now named Abraham.

It is through Abraham that God would bring about His way of healing the world, of fixing the problem we ourselves made. He's going to clean it up, and His way isn't going to be by sending a flood to destroy everything and start over. No, He's going to one day come right into our midst, as flesh and blood and bone, conceived in a virgin's womb, and give Himself freely to be destroyed by the most violent powers of this wicked world had: crucified and mocked and beaten and treated as less than refuse. And then three days later He destroyed death, and rose again. That is the promise, that is the point, the Scriptures declare that the Messiah must suffer and be crucified, and on the third day rise again, and His Gospel proclaimed to all nations.

-CryptoLutheran

Your view makes God a failure and a baby killer. What sin did babies commit? Creation had been corrupted. That's why the flood was necessary literal or not

 

[ViaCrucis]

Your view makes God a failure and a baby killer. What sin did babies commit? Creation had been corrupted. That's why the flood was necessary literal or not

Could you please explain how my view makes God "a failure and a baby killer"?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm not defending the literal so don't misunderstand my intentions. I see these accounts as goal-driven and if we can determine the goal then all the details that make up the account are all there to support that goal and begin to make more sense.

I'm I right to say to you the flood (literal or not) shows us that a restart event doesn't work and ultimately points to the need for a savior to fix us?

Noah is 1 righteous man, and through his righteousness and belief in him he saves humanity (and all others perish) which is an easy parallel to Christ or a Jn 3:16 event told in a different way. Although not perfect himself, in a vacuum, the flood account is about his righteousness, not his unrighteousness. There is a sense that since the flood didn't accomplish its goal (because clearly, we are all still evil) that one greater still needs to come to fix us and I think that this is left unspoken.

Noah getting drunk and cursing his grandson is a different account with a different goal and doesn't apply to the flood account because those actions are supporting a different goal. There is a thing called Hebraic block logic where blocks of information may be parallel to each other but each has its own goal. So the details in a block are there to support its goal but may in fact conflict with another. A perfect example is the creation account in Gen 1 and the creation account in Gen 2. It's the same event, but with different details/goals. This is what I see going on with the flood. the flood is its own block and the getting drunk/cursing grandson is a parallel block but the two are never meant to share the same goal and their details don't need to agree. Ultimately it does present a question if Noah is truly righteous? which is a greater goal and thread that runs deep throughout the bible ultimately pointing to Christ.

The goal of the flood account is to show the corruption of the world and its need for redemption (to be fixed). The earth itself seems to need to be redeemed and the flood is its baptism experience where the old dies away and what emerges (when the floodwaters drain) is a new body and new life free from the corruption of the old. I see the Nephilim as the culminating point of this corruption, a type of anti-creation that without question shows the state of the earth's return back to the chaos of Genesis before light was spoken.

Noah and his protective circle are saved through this experience and Noah's faith then the command to multiply, just as from the beginning, is reinstated (Gen 9:7/Gen 1:22). Creation has its own baptism/flood event as we see directly after light (day 1), the waters above and below are separated (day 2) and from this emerges land (day 3) and this is the foundation of the new believer starting with light, the old dying and emerging in new life but before all this was darkness and chaos where we find the earth returns to in Gen 6. Days 4,5,6 have a focus of filling these bodies (light with sun, moon stars [day 4], water with sea/land animals [day 5], and land with land animals [day 6]) then finally ending in God's rest, the goal of light coming, to begin with, is to give order and rest from the chaos and state of unrest. it is this rest that is the broader goal and the flood proclaims this as well.

The flood account has different details but echoes the same goal since creation. We miss this all when we obsess over the literal. half-angel super breeds is the common takeaway but has nothing to do with the goal of the account. With these accounts, interpretation through the lens of Christ is a more noble goal and the one we should be focused on.

The answer is, yes, to this question:

"I'm I right to say to you the flood (literal or not) shows us that a restart event doesn't work and ultimately points to the need for a savior to fix us?"

That's exactly correct. The story is ultimately Christocentric, as is all of Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran