Continuing the discussion from Exegesis of Noah's Flood from a Biologos perspective:
I don’t believe it’s saying that all people can trace themselves back to Noah’s sons. The Table of Nations does not mention certain nations which were known to Israel at the time of writing (the exile), or North Africa, or nations in the Far East (India and eastward). This would be odd if it’s supposed to explain where those nations came from.
Additionally, we have a description of Nimrod as the son of Cush, and we are told that “The primary regions of his kingdom were Babel, Erech, Akkad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar”. We are not told he founded these regions, they are represented as already existing, which is further evidence that the flood was local. Then we are told he went to Assyria, which indicates Assyria was already an established city state, again demonstrating that the flood was local (since Assyria is still around after the flood), and again demonstrating that this is not intended to be an explanation of where nations came from.
The Nephilim were an ethnic group which was around at the time of the flood, and afterwards; Genesis 6:4 says explicitly “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this)”. They also appear in Numbers 13:33, where we read of the Anakim being descended from the Nephilim. This indicates they survived the flood, which again tells us the flood was both geographically and anthropologically local.
-
‘In Genesis 6, the Nephilim are connected with the multiplication of humanity on the face of the earth (v 1) and with the evil of humanity which brings about God’s judgment in the form of the flood (vv 5–7). Verse 4 includes a reference to later (postdiluvian) Nephilim. The majority of the spies who were sent by Joshua to spy out Canaan reported giants whom they called Nephilim, and who are designated in the account as the sons of Anak (Num 13:33).’, Hess, ‘Nephilim’, in Freedman (ed.), ‘Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary’, volume 4, p. 1072 (1996).
-
‘From Numbers 13 we learn that the Anakites are said to be descendants of the “Nephilim.” If the Nephilim of Num 13:33 and Gen 6:4 are taken as the same group, the verse indicates that the Nephilim and their descendants survived the flood.’, Matthews, ‘New American Commentary’, p. 336 (2001).
-
‘It is not clear why or how the Nephilim survived the Flood to become the original 'Canaanites; probably a duality of older oral traditions can be detected in the clash between these two texts.’, Hendel, ‘Nephilim’, in Metzger & Coogan (eds.), ‘The Oxford guide to people & places of the Bible’, p. 217 (2004).
-
‘The nephilim of Num 13.33 are the people whom the men saw when they were sent to spy out the land of Canaan while Israel was in the wilderness. These beings described as giganteV in LXX present the reader with the problem of how giants survived the Flood, in contrast to the Watcher tradition that conveys that all the giants were physically killed.’, Wright, ‘The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1-4 in Early Jewish Literature‘, p. 81 (2005).
-
‘Thus, within the Flood narrative itself, the sole continuity of life between pre-Flood and post-Flood is represented by Noath and the others in the ark. Beyond the Flood narrative proper, however, there are implicit pointers in a different direction. One issue is the presence of “the Nephilim” both before the Flood (Gen. 6:4) and subsequently in the land of Canaan as reported by Israel’s spies (Num. 13:33). Indeed, there is a note in the text of Genesis 6:4 which expliciitly points to the continuity of Nephilim pre-and post-Flood: “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterwards” (my italics), a note which of course poses the problem rather than resolves it.’, Barton & Wilkinson, ‘Reading Genesis After Darwin’, p. 12 (2009).
-
‘Although in Numbers 13 the inhabitants of Canaan are considered enemies of the Israelites, both the use and co-ordination (LXX) or derivation of the designation (MT) in an allusion to Genesis 6 betrays an assumption that one or more of the Nephilim must have escaped the great deluge.’, Auffarth & Stuckenbruck, ‘The Fall of the Angels’, p. 92 (2004).