This is one of the worse misuses of this phrase I have ever seen. See the discussion in another thread.
I see no problem with the text in Bible.
Genesis 6 When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty 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 men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
It is just an explanation of who the sons of Adam married – not this incestuous idea of creationists that they married their own sisters but that they married the daughters of all those other people in the world (also spoken of in Genesis 4).
The only problem is when you try to force the creationist worldview on the text. That forces you to invent all kinds of weird fantasies. But then they want to keep it all magical and disconnected from reality so that they can be the sole authority on this made up magical history.
The Bible never speaks of or describes the earth as a globe but frankly what can only makes sense as a very small portion of that globe. Thus there is no basis whatsoever for understanding a flood described in the Bible as happening over the whole earth as a global flood.
Compared to most here I take a rather historical (but not literal) view of the text in Genesis. All real people and real events but since even the Bible treats some of these things as symbolic then I see no reason to believe in golems animated by magic, magic fruit, or talking animals. Chapters 2-6 tell the story of how self-destructive habits began among a chosen people to whom God had spoken and how they quickly expanded until “all the thoughts of mankind were only evil continually.” But there is nothing to suggest this had expanded to something global and the context of the whole story as it continues suggests this about a first human civilization which was destroyed. In chapter 11 we see an effort of people after the flood seeking to rally mankind in a united civilization and God objects to this causing them to spread out over the earth and to divide into many nations, cultures, and languages.
Others here see the Bible as religious text of made up stories written after the Babylonian captivity to teach and preserve the religious ideas of the Jewish people. It is a safe approach with regards to scientific discovery giving science free reign for discovery of what happened. I am not hostile to this way of thinking, but I don’t see how we gain anything by simply dismissing the stories in this way. If we would learn what these stories have to teach then I think we do better to take them more seriously. And more importantly I would rather defend the fact that science does not preclude the historicity of these stories even if we must not take them as a purely literal account of events. My policy is to maximize the meaning we get from the Bible and I don’t see either of the extremes as doing this very well. We lose meaning when the story becomes magical and contrary to reality and science. And we lose meaning when they become nothing more than vague metaphor. Besides, we can adjust our understanding of the stories as science discovers more. I have done so before and will do so again as needed.