Quotes in bold are from the gotquestions link.
The three primary views on the identity of the sons of God are 1) they were fallen angels, 2) they were powerful human rulers, or 3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain. Giving weight to the first theory is the fact that in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).
That would mean that the sons of God spoken of in Gen 6 were fallen angels, which would make them not sons of God. There are godly men who are referred to as a son of God in the OT and if the passage is speaking of more than one, it would be plural "sons". Gen 6 is not a chapter isolated from what came before it. What came before it in Chapt 4:25-26 is
And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, "God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him." To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord.
In Chapt 5 we have a genealogy that follows only the line of Seth to Noah and his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth. These could be called "sons of God" because God speaks of those who follow him as sons and daughters. So, who are the "men" in the "daughters of man"? If it is godly men who are the sons of God, then the "man" would be ungodly men. That word translated "man" is adam. I looked up both the Hebrew and Greek text analysis and discovered a curious thing. And it is the same in both languages.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
another, hypocrite, common sort, low, man mean, of low degree, person
From
'adam; ruddy i.e. A human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.) -- X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
Since the passage is making a sharp contrast between sons of God and man and absent any preceding mention of angels procreating with humans, and no mention of it afterwards anywhere, it seems safe to assume the contrast is being made between the godly and the ungodly.
Got Questions assertion that "sons of God" always refers to angels is false. There are godly men who are called a son of God, and if, as in Gen 6 it is speaking of many, it would be phrased sons of God.
.
A potential problem with this is in Matthew 22:30, which indicates that angels do not marry. The Bible gives us no reason to believe that angels have a gender or are able to reproduce. The other two views do not present this problem.
It is not a potential problem. It is a problem. Jesus' words cannot be ignored. Gen 6 says the sons of God married the women, took them as wives.
The weakness of views 2) and 3) is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary human females does not account for why the offspring were “giants” or “heroes of old, men of renown.”
The passage does not say they were giants. It says the Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward. There are a number of references to the mighty men, Nephilim, and by other names, but all are associated geographically and with specific people groups. Some were tyrant kings as was Og.
Further, why would God decide to bring the flood on the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) when God had never forbidden powerful human males or descendants of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendants of Cain?
There was a law in Israel forbidding the Israelites to marry pagans. Though it had not been given at the time of the flood, the principle is sound and eternal. Bad company corrupts good morals. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. The good by the time we get to Gen 6 had been so polluted and corrupted that only Noah remained.
Only the obscene, perverse marriage of fallen angels with human females would seem to justify such a harsh judgment.
Oh really?!
