Nephilim -Mark 12:25

[Stu]

We're going around in circles here guys. Let's agree to disagree.

First off, this is Mallz' thread. He wants us to understand his perspective, and to get us to help him understand ours.

And second, until you stop asserting doctrine without biblical proof, you are going to get responses that ask you to back up your assertions.


Btw, I'm still waiting for scripture that says fallen angels can be called sons of God. Should I stop holding my breath, or do you have that verse for me?

And I'm waiting for the verse where it says that fallen angels can't be called sons of God. See, in circles we go.

[DBowling]

Btw, I'm still waiting for scripture that says fallen angels can be called sons of God. Should I stop holding my breath, or do you have that verse for me?

And I'm waiting for the verse where it says that fallen angels can't be called sons of God. See, in circles we go.

Here's what Jesus says about what it means to be a child of God.
And Jesus here explicitly contrasts being a child of God from being a child of the Devil.
John 8:41-47

41 You are doing the deeds of your father.” They said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of [o]lies. 45 But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”

Which of the categories that Jesus describes above do you think is an accurate description of fallen angels?
a. children of God
b. children of the Devil

[RickD]

We're going around in circles here guys. Let's agree to disagree.

First off, this is Mallz' thread. He wants us to understand his perspective, and to get us to help him understand ours.

And second, until you stop asserting doctrine without biblical proof, you are going to get responses that ask you to back up your assertions.


Btw, I'm still waiting for scripture that says fallen angels can be called sons of God. Should I stop holding my breath, or do you have that verse for me?

And I'm waiting for the verse where it says that fallen angels can't be called sons of God. See, in circles we go.

Stu,

You are using a faulty argument.

Let me try to explain what you're doing.

Let's say I'm making an argument that Jesus Christ is from the planet Kolob. And my biblical basis for my argument is John 17:16:

16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

See, that says Jesus is from Kolob.

And you should rightly say that the verse says no such thing. And my reply to you is, "Well, it doesn't say he's not from Kolob!"

[neo-x]

Stu, that is an extraordinary claim that Angels were designed as humans. And I am telling you that while we don't know about angels we do in fact know about dna. And the traits that it carries simply don't exist in angels. It is preposterous to assume otherwise.

That being said I do agree with you that it is likely that Genesis 6 refers to angels mating with humans.

So, let's see if I got this...

You're saying that angels cannot mate with humans, but you also think the Bible says they did?

Further, are you saying that even if you believe scripture says something happened, it doesn't matter, because it may not have happened that way anyways?

Yes I am saying that Angels and humans are impossible to breed, however it seems that author of Genesis 6 may have believed it or simply wrote it down as it was orally narrated to him by his source(s).

However, that is what I think. I have never excepted the Sethite view or Adamic, as it is only done in hindsight and to drift away from the natural wording and context of the passage which has obvious problems. Similarly, the dramatic event that follows it seems to prompt a flood that would wipe mankind from earth, except 8 souls, to be too important to be just against humans procreating.

As to your second question. Ofcourse it matters. How you resolve it is up to you?
Most Oecs don't read the plain language and add to the meaning of it e.g. local flood, longer creation period and others of the sort. They add to the meaning to keep up with as much as accepted science as it allows.

Others like me reject the story based on their impossibility, not in the sense of miraculous but based on how logical it would be to presume this would have happened. But I have to give up inerrancy.

Others like yecs stick to the obvious and admit miracle and inerrancy. Yet the evidence goes for the most part the other way. so they end up short on that front.

As far as I see all positions end up having problems, including mine. And I am not finger pointing nor do i want to start a debate on which position is correct.

I just think it was ironic - to quote your words "if you believe scripture says something happened, it doesn't matter, because it may not have happened that way anyways?"

Take for example, the scriptures says 6 days of creation but you obviously think that may not have been 6 days. so in one way you qualify for your own statement.

I do believe that you Sincerely don't think of your position as such and I understand and respect that. To me who comes from an opposite position it does seem a bit ironic though. That's all.

[DBowling]

So, let's see if I got this...

You're saying that angels cannot mate with humans, but you also think the Bible says they did?

Further, are you saying that even if you believe scripture says something happened, it doesn't matter, because it may not have happened that way anyways?

Yes I am saying that Angels and humans are impossible to breed, however it seems that author of Genesis 6 may have believed it or simply wrote it down as it was orally narrated to him by his source(s).

Do you have any support from the actual text of Genesis that the author of Genesis believed that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to angels?
Does the author of Genesis ever refer to angels as "sons of God" when they appear later in the text of Genesis?
You are making an assertion here with zero support from the actual text of Genesis.

I actually agree with your premise that it is physically impossible for humans and angels to procreate.
But I do have to take issue with your assertion that the author of Genesis thought that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were angels when there is zero evidence in the text of Genesis to support that assertion.

[neo-x]

So, let's see if I got this...

You're saying that angels cannot mate with humans, but you also think the Bible says they did?

Further, are you saying that even if you believe scripture says something happened, it doesn't matter, because it may not have happened that way anyways?

Yes I am saying that Angels and humans are impossible to breed, however it seems that author of Genesis 6 may have believed it or simply wrote it down as it was orally narrated to him by his source(s).

Do you have any support from the actual text of Genesis that the author of Genesis believed that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to angels?
Does the author of Genesis ever refer to angels as "sons of God" when they appear later in the text of Genesis?
You are making an assertion here with zero support from the actual text of Genesis.

I actually agree with your premise that it is physically impossible for humans and angels to procreate.
But I do have to take issue with your assertion that the author of Genesis thought that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were angels when there is zero evidence in the text of Genesis to support that assertion.

No. it's both literal and contextual. In any case, it is more likely to me that he did mean angels. That is what makes the most sense to the story. Otherwise why end up with such a dramatic cataclysmic event.

By the way I do think there is a counter argument to be made here on your emphasis on precedent from scriptures. I would propose that the older texts can be referenced to set precedent on the new but it's a one way street. You can't use newer texts to set meaning to the older texts. I do think that Job sets precedent on the term to be used for angels. It is an older text, older than Genesis itself.

But to be honest with you I really don't find the precedent argument strong anyway, because there are not enough texts from the similar time period to ascertain what the term meant conclusively as it later sometimes did which you defer to. I don't think your argument applies here. The text is quite ancient and quite unlike any in the bible. Again, I find it more probable that the Author meant angels rather than people. That makes the most sense of the chain of events that followed. Adamites marrying sethites would be eventual anyway since how else the human population would grow? It is a natural process, Bound to happen. But what wasn't bound to happen, at least in the story is angels marrying humans and begetting giants. Ask your self why would this be an issue if only humans were procreating with humans? Why would they breed giants and something that God was moved to kill all life.

It only makes sense if it was something else. That is what triggers a life wiping flood that is apocalyptic.

Atleast that is what I think.

[RickD]

Neo wrote:
Take for example, the scriptures says 6 days of creation but you obviously think that may not have been 6 days. so in one way you qualify for your own statement.

That's absolutely not true! I'm not sure if you just don't know my position, or there's another reason you're saying that.

As we've been over this countless times, frankly, I'm not sure why you would say that.

Neo wrote:
Yes I am saying that Angels and humans are impossible to breed, however it seems that author of Genesis 6 may have believed it or simply wrote it down as it was orally narrated to him by his source(s).

So maybe you believe in B.W.'s DNA manipulation theory. That way you could hold to the author of Genesis thinking angels and humans mated, but it only appeared that way because the author had no idea that fallen angels could manipulate human DNA, to make a race of giants.

As to your second question. Ofcourse it matters. How you resolve it is up to you?
Most Oecs don't read the plain language and add to the meaning of it e.g. local flood, longer creation period and others of the sort. They add to the meaning to keep up with as much as accepted science as it allows.

IMO, taking the text only in English, I'd agree with you. That's why I was a YEC. But when we go to the original Hebrew, the text allows for yom to mean long days, a local flood, etc.
Now, you may not agree that the best meanings of those words would allow, for an OEC interpretation, but you can't honestly say that the OEC interpretation doesn't fit into the literal meanings of those words.

[RickD]

So, let's see if I got this...

You're saying that angels cannot mate with humans, but you also think the Bible says they did?

Further, are you saying that even if you believe scripture says something happened, it doesn't matter, because it may not have happened that way anyways?

Yes I am saying that Angels and humans are impossible to breed, however it seems that author of Genesis 6 may have believed it or simply wrote it down as it was orally narrated to him by his source(s).

Do you have any support from the actual text of Genesis that the author of Genesis believed that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to angels?
Does the author of Genesis ever refer to angels as "sons of God" when they appear later in the text of Genesis?
You are making an assertion here with zero support from the actual text of Genesis.

I actually agree with your premise that it is physically impossible for humans and angels to procreate.
But I do have to take issue with your assertion that the author of Genesis thought that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were angels when there is zero evidence in the text of Genesis to support that assertion.

No. it's both literal and contextual. In any case, it is more likely to me that he did mean angels. That is what makes the most sense to the story. Otherwise why end up with such a dramatic cataclysmic event.

By the way I do think there is a counter argument to be made here on your emphasis on precedent from scriptures. I would propose that the older texts can be referenced to set precedent on the new but it's a one way street. You can't use newer texts to set meaning to the older texts. I do think that Job sets precedent on the term to be used for angels. It is an older text, older than Genesis itself.

But to be honest with you I really don't find the precedent argument strong anyway, because there are not enough texts from the similar time period to ascertain what the term meant conclusively as it later sometimes did which you defer to. I don't think your argument applies here. The text is quite ancient and quite unlike any in the bible. Again, I find it more probable that the Author meant angels rather than people. That makes the most sense of the chain of events that followed. Adamites marrying sethites would be eventual anyway since how else the human population would grow? It is a natural process, Bound to happen. But what wasn't bound to happen, at least in the story is angels marrying humans and begetting giants. Ask your self why would this be an issue if only humans were procreating with humans? Why would they breed giants and something that God was moved to kill all life.

It only makes sense if it was something else. That is what triggers a life wiping flood that is apocalyptic.

Atleast that is what I think.

With a local flood, the population of the entire earth wasn't wiped out. The line of Adam had gotten so corrupt, that every thought was evil. Of the line of Adam, the line that God set apart to be a witness and a special people, from which the messiah would eventually be born, became completely evil. So, God wiped out all of Adam's descendants, except Noah and his family.

I don't see why that isn't dramatic enough in and of itself, without having to believe in Magic angel/human giants, or crazy Frankenstein DNA manipulation theories.

[Philip]

And I'm waiting for the verse where it says that fallen angels can't be called sons of God.

And that, I think, is the wrong question - because you could put that question to buttress all manner of absurdities:

"I'm waiting for the verse that says Jesus didn't tell a lot of silly jokes - because I think he had a huge sense of humor and that he wasn't always nearly so serious as we make him out to be."

Here's my question: IF there is a legitimately curious passage in which REASONABLE, Scripturally knowledgeable people understandably have a range of opinions, or at least two polar opposite ones, and the text can equally support each interpretation, then what does this tell us about how clear God meant for us to understand it?

Could it truly be an important point if God has given us no way of resolving it? Because, remember, IF a mystery is a crucial thing that God wants us to perfectly understand, then He could have made it crystal clear per how it is worded and fleshed out in the surrounding context, or the illumination from other pertinent passages. Or it might just be a thing that - at least FOR NOW - that God wants to keep it a mystery for us. I can't think of ANY doctrinal or critical to understand issue (like how to come to faith, the key teachings of Jesus, or about the Resurrection, seeking forgiveness, etc.) that isn't clear, or that those asserting such things are unclear usually have a personal motive for asserting so. This is why I have come to roll my eyes at people going tooth and nail at each other over an issue like the scale of the Flood, or the age of the earth, etc. - cause these aren't simply aren't critical things to perfectly understand. And yet, people act as if they are critical, and as if we can know. Angel / human hybrids - obviously we have no way of KNOWING. And so when people insist we CAN know, when it's completely unclear to be the case - my skepticism and caution lights come on - particularly so if I think it's a critical issue - like, for me, the inspiration and trustworthiness of Scripture.

[Philip]

Rick: I don't see why that isn't dramatic enough in and of itself, without having to believe in Magic angel/human giants, or crazy Frankenstein DNA manipulation theories.

EXACTLY! Because what is important is NOT so much the cause of God's wrath - we know He hates evil - it's the impact and aftermath of His wrathful response of the flood. As God demonstrated both His wrath AND His love for those who love Him - people often forget about that second part! Especially as it leads to the Messiah, payment of sin, and makes salvation possible for all.

[DBowling]

So, let's see if I got this...

You're saying that angels cannot mate with humans, but you also think the Bible says they did?

Further, are you saying that even if you believe scripture says something happened, it doesn't matter, because it may not have happened that way anyways?

Yes I am saying that Angels and humans are impossible to breed, however it seems that author of Genesis 6 may have believed it or simply wrote it down as it was orally narrated to him by his source(s).

Do you have any support from the actual text of Genesis that the author of Genesis believed that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to angels?
Does the author of Genesis ever refer to angels as "sons of God" when they appear later in the text of Genesis?
You are making an assertion here with zero support from the actual text of Genesis.

I actually agree with your premise that it is physically impossible for humans and angels to procreate.
But I do have to take issue with your assertion that the author of Genesis thought that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were angels when there is zero evidence in the text of Genesis to support that assertion.

No. it's both literal and contextual.

Not buyin' it... it's neither literal or in context.
As I've pointed out many times "sons of God' never refers to fallen angels anywhere in Scripture.
And Genesis does refer to Angels elsewhere, but the phrase "sons of God" is not used to refer to those angels.
So there is no Scriptural basis for asserting that "sons of God" literally refers to fallen angels.

In any case, it is more likely to me that he did mean angels.

And that's ok. Everyone is entitled to personal opinions (myself included) but that is very different from claiming that it is both "literal and contextual"

That is what makes the most sense to the story. Otherwise why end up with such a dramatic cataclysmic event.

Here is how I responded to that issue earlier

I believe God is consistent throughout the OT in his response when his covenant people intermarry with and are corrupted by an ungodly indigenous population. God punishes the people involved in the sinful activity.
That is true in Genesis 6 where the people "in the land" where the sinful behavior took place were punished for their wicked behavior.
When God's covenant people entered the promised land, and intermarried with and were corrupted by the ungodly indigenous population, they were punished (see Sampson as a specific example)
Solomon's family and the kingdom of Israel as a whole were punished for Solomon intermarrying with and being corrupted by ungodly people.
Israel being taken into captivity by the Assyrians is another example of God punishing his covenant people for intermarrying with and being corrupted by ungodly people.

So the behavior of God in Genesis 6-9 is consistent with how he responds to similar behavior by his covenant people throughout the Old Testament.

Adam's family line represented God's covenant people similar to how Jacob's family line represented God's covenant people later in the OT.
The purpose of God's covenant people is to bring God's truth to all people.
God's covenant people can obey God and they can disobey God (ie... Sampson and Solomon mentioned above), but when God's covenant people disobey God then their wicked behavior will be punished by God because they are misusing the truth that God has given them.

God's desire is for his covenant people to be salt and light in a wicked world to free sinful people from darkness and sin and bring them to truth and relationship with the one true God.
That is why it is such a big deal when God's covenant people (who God has entrusted with his truth) are corrupted by a sinful world instead of being salt and light in a sinful world.

God's goal for his covenant people (in both the OT and NT) is to bring his light to all people.

By the way I do think there is a counter argument to be made here on your emphasis on precedent from scriptures. I would propose that the older texts can be referenced to set precedent on the new but it's a one way street. You can't use newer texts to set meaning to the older texts. I do think that Job sets precedent on the term to be used for angels. It is an older text, older than Genesis itself.

I think you need to reevaluate your position there...
There are some references in Job that post-date the time of Moses. And most scholars place the writing of Job somewhere between the 4th and 7th century BC.
So your premise of not using newer texts to set meaning to older texts doesn't work because Genesis predates Job.
The interesting thing is Deuteronomy also predates Job. And Deuteronomy refers to God's chosen people (humans) as sons of God.

[neo-x]

So, let's see if I got this...

You're saying that angels cannot mate with humans, but you also think the Bible says they did?

Further, are you saying that even if you believe scripture says something happened, it doesn't matter, because it may not have happened that way anyways?

Yes I am saying that Angels and humans are impossible to breed, however it seems that author of Genesis 6 may have believed it or simply wrote it down as it was orally narrated to him by his source(s).

Do you have any support from the actual text of Genesis that the author of Genesis believed that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to angels?
Does the author of Genesis ever refer to angels as "sons of God" when they appear later in the text of Genesis?
You are making an assertion here with zero support from the actual text of Genesis.

I actually agree with your premise that it is physically impossible for humans and angels to procreate.
But I do have to take issue with your assertion that the author of Genesis thought that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were angels when there is zero evidence in the text of Genesis to support that assertion.

No. it's both literal and contextual. In any case, it is more likely to me that he did mean angels. That is what makes the most sense to the story. Otherwise why end up with such a dramatic cataclysmic event.

By the way I do think there is a counter argument to be made here on your emphasis on precedent from scriptures. I would propose that the older texts can be referenced to set precedent on the new but it's a one way street. You can't use newer texts to set meaning to the older texts. I do think that Job sets precedent on the term to be used for angels. It is an older text, older than Genesis itself.

But to be honest with you I really don't find the precedent argument strong anyway, because there are not enough texts from the similar time period to ascertain what the term meant conclusively as it later sometimes did which you defer to. I don't think your argument applies here. The text is quite ancient and quite unlike any in the bible. Again, I find it more probable that the Author meant angels rather than people. That makes the most sense of the chain of events that followed. Adamites marrying sethites would be eventual anyway since how else the human population would grow? It is a natural process, Bound to happen. But what wasn't bound to happen, at least in the story is angels marrying humans and begetting giants. Ask your self why would this be an issue if only humans were procreating with humans? Why would they breed giants and something that God was moved to kill all life.

It only makes sense if it was something else. That is what triggers a life wiping flood that is apocalyptic.

Atleast that is what I think.

With a local flood, the population of the entire earth wasn't wiped out. The line of Adam had gotten so corrupt, that every thought was evil. Of the line of Adam, the line that God set apart to be a witness and a special people, from which the messiah would eventually be born, became completely evil. So, God wiped out all of Adam's descendants, except Noah and his family.

I don't see why that isn't dramatic enough in and of itself, without having to believe in Magic angel/human giants, or crazy Frankenstein DNA manipulation theories.

All mankind is inherently evil and completely fallen. That has always been the case. Nothing has changed. Virtue is not a quality that God needs from a line of people from which the messiah would come. Because he would be God's seed, he would be taking nothing from a human parent. Are you saying that everyone in Jesus line was a saint who never did anything evil?
Of course not. And that is why I find it a weak argument.

The idea that the line was destroyed to cleanse it from evil never achieved its goal. Evil remained captive on everyone until Christ came.

These are my reasons why I don't agree with your argument.

[neo-x]

Rick: I don't see why that isn't dramatic enough in and of itself, without having to believe in Magic angel/human giants, or crazy Frankenstein DNA manipulation theories.

EXACTLY! Because what is important is NOT so much the cause of God's wrath - we know He hates evil - it's the impact and aftermath of His wrathful response of the flood. As God demonstrated both His wrath AND His love for those who love Him - people often forget about that second part! Especially as it leads to the Messiah, payment of sin, and makes salvation possible for all.

By the way Phil. The story of the flood is one of my favorites in the Bible. However I would also contend that its not what leads us to the messiah particularly. The idea of payment of sin is already established earlier. And it doesn't make salvation possible for all, but only 8 people.

I don't think it is as particular to Christ as it is to its own context.

[neo-x]

So, let's see if I got this...

You're saying that angels cannot mate with humans, but you also think the Bible says they did?

Further, are you saying that even if you believe scripture says something happened, it doesn't matter, because it may not have happened that way anyways?

Yes I am saying that Angels and humans are impossible to breed, however it seems that author of Genesis 6 may have believed it or simply wrote it down as it was orally narrated to him by his source(s).

Do you have any support from the actual text of Genesis that the author of Genesis believed that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to angels?
Does the author of Genesis ever refer to angels as "sons of God" when they appear later in the text of Genesis?
You are making an assertion here with zero support from the actual text of Genesis.

I actually agree with your premise that it is physically impossible for humans and angels to procreate.
But I do have to take issue with your assertion that the author of Genesis thought that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were angels when there is zero evidence in the text of Genesis to support that assertion.

No. it's both literal and contextual.

Not buyin' it... it's neither literal or in context.
As I've pointed out many times "sons of God' never refers to fallen angels anywhere in Scripture.
And Genesis does refer to Angels elsewhere, but the phrase "sons of God" is not used to refer to those angels.
So there is no Scriptural basis for asserting that "sons of God" literally refers to fallen angels.

In any case, it is more likely to me that he did mean angels.

And that's ok. Everyone is entitled to personal opinions (myself included) but that is very different from claiming that it is both "literal and contextual"

That is what makes the most sense to the story. Otherwise why end up with such a dramatic cataclysmic event.

Here is how I responded to that issue earlier

I believe God is consistent throughout the OT in his response when his covenant people intermarry with and are corrupted by an ungodly indigenous population. God punishes the people involved in the sinful activity.
That is true in Genesis 6 where the people "in the land" where the sinful behavior took place were punished for their wicked behavior.
When God's covenant people entered the promised land, and intermarried with and were corrupted by the ungodly indigenous population, they were punished (see Sampson as a specific example)
Solomon's family and the kingdom of Israel as a whole were punished for Solomon intermarrying with and being corrupted by ungodly people.
Israel being taken into captivity by the Assyrians is another example of God punishing his covenant people for intermarrying with and being corrupted by ungodly people.

So the behavior of God in Genesis 6-9 is consistent with how he responds to similar behavior by his covenant people throughout the Old Testament.

Adam's family line represented God's covenant people similar to how Jacob's family line represented God's covenant people later in the OT.
The purpose of God's covenant people is to bring God's truth to all people.
God's covenant people can obey God and they can disobey God (ie... Sampson and Solomon mentioned above), but when God's covenant people disobey God then their wicked behavior will be punished by God because they are misusing the truth that God has given them.

God's desire is for his covenant people to be salt and light in a wicked world to free sinful people from darkness and sin and bring them to truth and relationship with the one true God.
That is why it is such a big deal when God's covenant people (who God has entrusted with his truth) are corrupted by a sinful world instead of being salt and light in a sinful world.

God's goal for his covenant people (in both the OT and NT) is to bring his light to all people.

By the way I do think there is a counter argument to be made here on your emphasis on precedent from scriptures. I would propose that the older texts can be referenced to set precedent on the new but it's a one way street. You can't use newer texts to set meaning to the older texts. I do think that Job sets precedent on the term to be used for angels. It is an older text, older than Genesis itself.

I think you need to reevaluate your position there...
There are some references in Job that post-date the time of Moses. And most scholars place the writing of Job somewhere between the 4th and 7th century BC.
So your premise of not using newer texts to set meaning to older texts doesn't work because Genesis predates Job.
The interesting thing is Deuteronomy also predates Job. And Deuteronomy refers to God's chosen people (humans) as sons of God.

And that's ok.
While I appreciate your emphasis of the precedent from scripture argument. I just don't see it.

Please refer to my response to Rick above on this. I agree with you that God punishes people but in the story of Noah, the flood wipes all mankind. Not just the line of Adam. Its total, its complete utter destruction so 8 people can repopulate the earth. That is why the rainbow is a sign of promise not just for One specific people but for everyone.

I don't agree that this argument carries weight in the event of Noah and the flood. And I can see it happening even in the absence of your (well put) points.

[DBowling]

I agree with you that God punishes people but in the story of Noah, the flood wipes all mankind. Not just the line of Adam. Its total, its complete utter destruction so 8 people can repopulate the earth.

This is where we get back to the meaning of the 'erets' and what the writer of Genesis would consider the scope of 'erets' to be.

The text of Genesis says says that everyone "in the land/erets" was destroyed.
Do a quick word study of how erets is used throughout Scripture.
Do a quick study of how erets is used throughout the book of Genesis.
For that matter look at how the word erets is used throughout the Flood account in Genesis 6-9.
- does it make sense to replace erets with planet throughout the Flood account?
- do we really think the author of Genesis is asserting that the whole planet became a desert after the water dried up from the 'erets'?

I think understanding how 'erets' is used throughout the book of Genesis and the rest of Scripture is the key to understanding the scope of the Flood as understood by the author of Genesis.

Once we understand the Scriptural scope of the Flood, then we see the consistency of God's response to the wickedness of the people "in the land (erets)" in Genesis 6-9 with what we see later in the book of Genesis when God judges the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah. In both cases we have God destroying a wicked people, and in both cases we have God saving a "faithful remnant" (Noah's family and Lot and his daughters) from the destruction of his punishment.

And yes, Scripture does teach that through Noah, God preserved his line of covenant people which began with Adam (who Scripture refers to as a "son of God") and found it's climax in Christ (the One and Only Son who was God).