• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Gen 6:1-5 The Historical Views

If the "sons of God" are fallen angels and the Nephelite is a hybrid offspring of angel/human, why not say that?
Could I not say...if the "sons of God" are Cains people...why not say that?

Thing is...we know the sons of God are angels per the book of Job. Gen 6 tells us they produced the Nephilim.....Angels + Humans = hybrids.

Those hybrids are presented several times in the bible. In fact we even have found the remains of giants all over the world.
Now I know in previous post you have mentioned that you agree there are giants mentioned in the bible....but, to this date I don't remember you explaining where they came from.
On the other hand, I, using the biblical narrative have.
 
You do understand angels...fallen or not...are "sons of God" as mentioned in the book of Job?
What does "sons of God" mean?

I will need, along with your definition, to see an example from the BIBLE, that refers to a reprobate as a son of God or a fallen heavenly being as a son of God. That can't include Gen 6 or Job, as we have had you repeat that eisegetically derived proof often. It is eisegetical because it is derived from a source that has no inclusion ( and has been specifically excluded) in both the Jewish and Protestant canon, and read into those texts by presupposition.
 
It means they were not a hybrid person. You keep using Deut 3:11 to prove your point, focusing entirely on the size of his bed and ignore altogether that first of all, he was a king, and second that he is depicted as violent and formidable.
Yes, he was a king. A 1/2 breed proxy to Satan. The giant was partially human in DNA...which allowed him to be a king and rule over his section of the earth.

You said....That does not fit the definition of "proxy". Proxy is the authority to represent someone else. A person authorized to act on behalf of another.
That does not fit the definition of "proxy". Proxy is the authority to represent someone else. A person authorized to act on behalf of another.
Who do you think Og was serving?

Back to Ogs height...
No. What you need to do is first of all prove that because his bed was 131/2 feet the KING of Bashon was also 131/2 feet tall.
I never made the claim Og was 13 1/2 feet tall because that's how big his bed was. YOU, YOU, YOU....just made that claim for me and presented it as if I said it. I would imagine Og was shorter than 13 1/2 feet tall. Then again maybe Ogs feet stuck out from the bottom of the bed much like a quickly growing teenager who is too big for his race car bed. :)
There was a reason why they mentioned the size of Ogs bed. That reason was to show Og was a giant...the last of the Rephaim.
 
Could I not say...if the "sons of God" are Cains people...why not say that?
I said what I did because you had already said the above. It was my response to you asking "if" and "why not". Try not to confuse the issues. Read what you are responding to and the response it was related to. They are all in one place until you remove them with your unrelated response.
Thing is...we know the sons of God are angels per the book of Job. Gen 6 tells us they produced the Nephilim.....Angels + Humans = hybrids.
Read Gen 6 again. Just the plain text with no interpretation added to it or laid over it. It says no such thing.
Those hybrids are presented several times in the bible. In fact we even have found the remains of giants all over the world.
Now I know in previous post you have mentioned that you agree there are giants mentioned in the bible....but, to this date I don't remember you explaining where they came from.
On the other hand, I, using the biblical narrative have.
You say they are hybrids. The author/authors (Enoch the seventh from Adam was not one of them) of Enoch 5 say they are hybrids, but the Bible does not say that they are hybrids. Neither those words, or an argument from silence even suggests such a thing. You are not using the Bible narrative you are using your INTERPRETATION of the Bible narrative. Please acknowledge that so I know that you understand what that means.

If you read all the scriptures where "giants" are mentioned ( a quick internet search will list them or I gave them in post #16) the Bible gives the various places they came from and none of those passages so much as mentions fallen angels or an angel/human hybrid, even though it does mention giants. I assume you are aware that "giant" is never used to depict a particular hybrid being. Ever.

There is:
A giant of a man. Meaning either large in stature or power and influence.
In the medical profession there is "giantism" which refers to a condition characterized by excessive growth due to overproduction of growth hormone. It is mythology that has giants in the way that you are defining it, such as in "Jack and the Beanstock". I suggest you rethink your position.
 
What does "sons of God" mean?

I will need, along with your definition, to see an example from the BIBLE, that refers to a reprobate as a son of God or a fallen heavenly being as a son of God. That can't include Gen 6 or Job, as we have had you repeat that eisegetically derived proof often. It is eisegetical because it is derived from a source that has no inclusion ( and has been specifically excluded) in both the Jewish and Protestant canon, and read into those texts by presupposition.
It makes one wonder...did the angels fall prior to having relationships with the human women...or....was that act their fall.
My guess is that they defected prior.
Still, I see no reason to conclude why a "fallen angel"....watcher...could not be considered as a son of God as that is what they were called originally in the book of Job during the creation of the earth when they shouted for joy.

You must also recognize that the reprobate argument works against you because all of mankind became reprobate when Adam fell.
If mankind is a reprobate than according to your argument that disqualifies them from being the 'sons of God" in Gen 6...just as the fallen reprobate angels would be disqualified as you suggest.
 
It makes one wonder...did the angels fall prior to having relationships with the human women...or....was that act their fall.
My guess is that they defected prior.
Still, I see no reason to conclude why a "fallen angel"....watcher...could not be considered as a son of God as that is what they were called originally in the book of Job during the creation of the earth when they shouted for joy.

You must also recognize that the reprobate argument works against you because all of mankind became reprobate when Adam fell.
If mankind is a reprobate than according to your argument that disqualifies them from being the 'sons of God" in Gen 6...just as the fallen reprobate angels would be disqualified as you suggest.
I repeat. Why does son of God mean?
 
I said what I did because you had already said the above. It was my response to you asking "if" and "why not". Try not to confuse the issues. Read what you are responding to and the response it was related to. They are all in one place until you remove them with your unrelated response.

Read Gen 6 again. Just the plain text with no interpretation added to it or laid over it. It says no such thing.

You say they are hybrids. The author/authors (Enoch the seventh from Adam was not one of them) of Enoch 5 say they are hybrids, but the Bible does not say that they are hybrids. Neither those words, or an argument from silence even suggests such a thing. You are not using the Bible narrative you are using your INTERPRETATION of the Bible narrative. Please acknowledge that so I know that you understand what that means.

If you read all the scriptures where "giants" are mentioned ( a quick internet search will list them or I gave them in post #16) the Bible gives the various places they came from and none of those passages so much as mentions fallen angels or an angel/human hybrid, even though it does mention giants. I assume you are aware that "giant" is never used to depict a particular hybrid being. Ever.

There is:
A giant of a man. Meaning either large in stature or power and influence.
In the medical profession there is "giantism" which refers to a condition characterized by excessive growth due to overproduction of growth hormone. It is mythology that has giants in the way that you are defining it, such as in "Jack and the Beanstock". I suggest you rethink your position.
" I suggest you rethink your position.".....I did. Several times....then I ran across a lot of information showing giants pretty much all over the earth....even in the mounds of Ohio.
They are often found with red hair, six digits and some with double rows of teeth. Many of the "traditional" scientist nay-say the giants because that would be an admission that the bible is correct....and they can't have that.

So, not only do I have biblical proof but I also have archeological proof.

Keep in mind I haven't forgotten that you haven't answered the question...how did a human to human act of procreation produce giants?
 

The Sethite View Explained​

The Sethite View (or "godly line" interpretation) arose early in Jewish and Christian thought (e.g., Julius Africanus, Augustine, Luther, Calvin) and became the standard view in much of the Reformed tradition. It argues that:
  • the "sons of God" are the descendants of Seth, the line that "called on the name of the LORD" (Gen 4:26).
  • the "daughters of men" are the descendants of Cain, whose line culminates in violent, godless figures like Lamech (Gen 4:19-24).
  • the "marrying" of these two lines blurred the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, leading to universal corruption and the flood.
So, on this view, the narrative is not about angels mating with humans but about the collapse of moral and covenantal boundaries between those belonging to Yahweh and those who reject him—a theme that runs throughout the Old Testament.

Exegetical Arguments for the Sethite View​

I would argue that the Sethite View preserves the covenantal and moral focus of Genesis. The flood comes not because of some mythic monsters but because humanity's covenantal identity was collapsing. The godly line lost its distinction, the image-bearers abandoned their calling, and chaos was reasserting itself over creation.

Literary Context and Genealogical Continuity​

Genesis 4–6 presents two genealogies: Cain's line (Gen 4:17–24) characterized by violence, polygamy, and self-exaltation, and Seth's line (Gen 4:25–5:32) characterized by worship and faith (e.g., Enoch "walked with God").

The immediate literary context suggests that these two lines are meant to be contrasted, climaxing in their intermingling in 6:1–5. The toledot structure of Genesis—the section divisions marked by "these are the generations of ..."—reinforces this continuity between chapters 4–5 and 6:1–5. The narrator traces the spread of corruption from Cain's line into Seth's, explaining how the earth becomes filled with violence and wickedness (6:11–12).

This view maintains the integrity of Genesis as a unified primeval history focused on human rebellion and divine response, not on angelic intrusion.

The Idiomatic Range of "Sons of God"​

While bene-ha’elohim can indeed refer to divine beings (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; Ps 29:1; 89:6), it can also function covenantally, referring to those in special relationship with God. For example:
  • Deut 14:1 – "You are the sons of the LORD your God."
  • Exod 4:22 – "Israel is my firstborn son."
  • Hos 1:10 – "You are sons of the living God."
So, the term can describe a class of people defined by divine election or relationship, not just celestial beings. In Genesis 6, the covenantal contrast between two lines—those who call on the LORD vs. those who do not—fits naturally with this idiom.

Thematic Parallel: Intermarriage Leading to Corruption​

The pattern of intermarriage between the righteous and the wicked leading to apostasy is repeated throughout the OT:
  • Gen 24:3; 26:34-35; 28:1-2 – Abraham and Isaac warn against intermarrying with Canaanites.
  • Exod 34:16; Deut 7:3-4 – Israel forbidden to intermarry with pagan nations "for they will turn away your sons from following me."
Genesis 6:1-5 prefigures this same covenantal danger. It portrays the first instance of the faithful line compromising through mixed allegiance, resulting in universal moral decay—a precursor to Israel's own later covenantal failures.

Structural and Theological Coherence​

Genesis 6:5 summarizes the moral state of the world:
"The LORD saw that the wickedness of humankind had become great on the earth. Every inclination of the thoughts of their minds was only evil all the time."​
The entire focus remains on human depravity (raʿat ha’adam), not angelic transgression. To read "sons of God" as angels introduces an abrupt ontological shift that fragments the narrative. The Sethite view maintains a consistent anthropological focus: the corruption of humanity as the rationale for the flood.

Theological Coherence via Analogia Fidei

The analogia fidei principle—that scripture interprets scripture, and no interpretation may contradict the whole counsel of God—further supports this view:
  • Jesus identifies the days of Noah as characterized by ordinary human activity (“eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage,” Matt 24:38), not by the intrusion of angels or demigods.
  • Angels, being asexual spirits, “neither marry nor are given in marriage” (Matt 22:30). Thus, an angelic reading introduces a biological absurdity inconsistent with biblical angelology.
  • The broader canonical theme from Genesis to Revelation consistently locates the problem of sin within human rebellion, not hybrid offspring.
Therefore, the Sethite view aligns both anthropologically (sin is human) and theologically (judgment is covenantal) with the Bible's overarching story.

The Nephilim Problem​

The mention of the Nephilim (v. 4) does not require an angelic interpretation. The Hebrew term nephilim (נְפִילִים) likely derives from npl ("to fall") and means "fallen ones" (or "violent ones"). The Septuagint translates it as gigantes (γίγαντες)—not "giants" in the modern sense, but mighty men, warriors, or tyrants.

Thus, the text is saying that human corruption produced a class of powerful, violent men—"men of renown" (v. 4). The moral emphasis remains human, not hybrid.
Excellent post. For the record: Is there an example in scripture where the phrase "sons of God" is applied to fallen angels?
 
" I suggest you rethink your position.".....I did. Several times....then I ran across a lot of information showing giants pretty much all over the earth....even in the mounds of Ohio.
They are often found with red hair, six digits and some with double rows of teeth. Many of the "traditional" scientist nay-say the giants because that would be an admission that the bible is correct....and they can't have that.

So, not only do I have biblical proof but I also have archeological proof.

Keep in mind I haven't forgotten that you haven't answered the question...how did a human to human act of procreation produce giants?
You need to provide links to your claims so we have a chance to examine the material. Without that, once again we are supposed to just take your word for it?

But that aside, even if what you say is true, does that prove they are the product of fallen angels producing children with human women? Does it? You have no proof of that either from the Bible or science. Both simply use the term giant and are both qualified by very large stature.

You left something out that needs to be responded to when in the post you are quoting from. Don't think I am not going to hold your feet to the fire so to speak in this conversation. You are going to have to address everything that is said not just select portions while ignoring the rest because---who knows why. I can only assume, and with no choice, I will. Here is what needs to be addressed from post #24. Including the part I marked in red.,
You say they are hybrids. The author/authors (Enoch the seventh from Adam was not one of them) of Enoch 5 say they are hybrids, but the Bible does not say that they are hybrids. Neither those words, or an argument from silence even suggests such a thing. You are not using the Bible narrative you are using your INTERPRETATION of the Bible narrative. Please acknowledge that so I know that you understand what that means.
 
This is the way i see things. If you disagree...that's OK as salvation isn't dependent on my beliefs.

The angels are presented as the sons of God in the book of Job.
Not fallen ones.
Moses summarized Enoch 6 in Gen 6. Jude even quoted from the book of Enoch.
That does not make the book of Enoch scripture or correct. John and Paul also referenced Greek philosophers. Should we then think the Greeks are scripture and treat what they said as equal to scripture?

The book of Enoch is not considered canon by Jews or Christians. The book is estimated to have been written in the third century BC. It was not, therefore, written by Enoch (who lived four millennia earlier). If Moses did make mention of something Enoch wrote, then it was not the book of Enoch we have today. You may as well cite a novel by Nalini Singh or Becca Fitzpatrick.
Then why not say that?
That is what the Bible says! If you looked up and read every mention of "sons of God" you would learn two facts: 1) the phrase is always a reference to humans and angels who follow God, and 2) never a reference to rebellious angels. That is what the Bible says.
Where does the bible say the sons of God are Seths linage and. the daughters of men are Cains people?
That is the implication of Genesis 4:26

Genesis 4:26
To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD.

Now let's ask you the exact same question as it pertains to your position: Where does the Bible say the sons of God are fallen angels? Nowhere. Where would we find anything leading up to Genesis 6:1 commenting on fallen angels in a way that would define Genesis 6:1? Nowhere!
How does Seths people and Cains people procreate and produce Nephillim giants? Explain the genetics.
It's not about genetics. It is about great men. Understand the text as the original readers would have understood it, not as 21st century sci-fi influenced imagination reads it.
Same as above....where does the bible say that? How did they produce the Nephillim giants?
Where does the Bible say they are fallen angels?
The bible isn't a book of myths.
Non sequitur. No one here thinks the Bible is a book of myths but if we were going to attend to that premise then it is the position you are asserting that would be mythological. The book of Enoch is myth. It is myth, not scripture>
I would say fallen angel influence...the watchers...that had offspring with human women. The demons are the spirits of dead hybred Nephillim.
Myth
 
Yes, he was a king. A 1/2 breed proxy to Satan. The giant was partially human in DNA...which allowed him to be a king and rule over his section of the earth.
If you are not going to provide biblical evidence of that you need to stop saying it. Your declaration of an unproven statement is not acceptable as fact without real evidence from the Bible.
You said....That does not fit the definition of "proxy". Proxy is the authority to represent someone else. A person authorized to act on behalf of another.
Yes, that is what I said. ??
Who do you think Og was serving?
I did not say that in response to anything about Og. Keep the posts applied to what they are being applied to. This is what my definition was applied to:
Hybrid or Composite Modern Views
  • "Sons of God" as angelic powers working through human rulers (spiritual and political corruption).
You called that proxy.,
I never made the claim Og was 13 1/2 feet tall because that's how big his bed was. YOU, YOU, YOU....just made that claim for me and presented it as if I said it.
Since all you ever mention is the size of his bed it is natural to assume that that is what you are basing his height on. He could have been 6'11" and wanted a great big bed.
There was a reason why they mentioned the size of Ogs bed. That reason was to show Og was a giant...the last of the Rephaim.
It mentions it because he was quite large----and large is something that is a relative designation. It is being compared to others of a smaller size. What the passage does not say is that he was a fallen angel/human hybrid and it does not say that about the Rephaim either. Who does the Bible say they are? Every time they are mentioned, and sometimes by different names, it is connected, not to a hybrid, but to different groups of people.
 
I repeat. Why does son of God mean?
Not referring to Jesus and His title as the Son of God....the sons of God are a direct creation of God. Those created directly into the family of God. This would include the angels as having no "parents" as well as Adam not having a physical mother and father. That is no procreation involved.

A human can now be considered as a "son of God"...through adoption. Through the saving work of Christ Jesus.
John 1:12 tells us....But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God.
 
If you are not going to provide biblical evidence of that you need to stop saying it. Your declaration of an unproven statement is not acceptable as fact without real evidence from the Bible.

....and so must you.
I have presented direct evidence from the bible that angels are called the sons of God. That is indisputable evidence taken from scripture.
Yes, that is what I said. ??
Yup, and Satan has tried and pretty much tried and succeeded in usurping authority over earth via proxy. Earth was given to man. legally.
Satan through his forms of proxy throughout the ages has employed several techniques to legally rule earth....Rev 13 shows the finality of Satans attempt with the final authority redeemed by the man Christ Jesus who takes back the dominion of earth and defeats Satan, the fallen angels and demons.
I did not say that in response to anything about Og. Keep the posts applied to what they are being applied to. This is what my definition was applied to:
Og was ruling for Satan legally via proxy.
You called that proxy.,
You never explained how it wasn't.
Since all you ever mention is the size of his bed it is natural to assume that that is what you are basing his height on. He could have been 6'11" and wanted a great big bed.
That argument fails as the bible is speaking of a very large individual. There is no biblical reason to assume Og was only 6' 11".
Secondly the name Rephaim in the bible is mentioned as individuals who were gifts, tall in stature. From what I read the ancient Jews certainly considered them to be giants. They are described generally as being between 7 and 10 feet tall and are called “mighty men.”
It mentions it because he was quite large----and large is something that is a relative designation. It is being compared to others of a smaller size. What the passage does not say is that he was a fallen angel/human hybrid and it does not say that about the Rephaim either. Who does the Bible say they are? Every time they are mentioned, and sometimes by different names, it is connected, not to a hybrid, but to different groups of people.
Gen 6 tells us...The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward,
 
Not referring to Jesus and His title as the Son of God....the sons of God are a direct creation of God. Those created directly into the family of God. This would include the angels as having no "parents" as well as Adam not having a physical mother and father. That is no procreation involved.

A human can now be considered as a "son of God"...through adoption. Through the saving work of Christ Jesus.
John 1:12 tells us....But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God.
Which would mean unsaved angels and unsaved humans are not His sons.

Assuming it is possible, is it acceptable to God for angels to have sex with humans?
 
Which would mean unsaved angels and unsaved humans are not His sons.
Where does the bible explicitly say that fallen angels are not sons of God?

You completely skipped over the part where i said..."the sons of God are a direct creation of God. Those created directly into the family of God. This would include the angels as having no "parents" as well as Adam not having a physical mother and father. That is no procreation involved."
Assuming it is possible, is it acceptable to God for angels to have sex with humans?
No, it wasn't acceptable....this is why the punishment is described in the new testament. Do I need to present those verses again?
 
I have presented direct evidence from the bible that angels are called the sons of God
No, you haven't

  • There's no evidence from the Bible angels can have sex with humans.
  • There's no evidence from the Bible fallen angels are able to produce progeny with humans.
  • There's no evidence from the Bible fallen angels are called sons of God.
  • There's no evidence from the Bible Genesis 6:2's sons of God are not human.

In point of fact, God's response "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years," mentions only man (ha'adam). There is no mention of angels. Had the problem been fallen angels and humans copulating to produce half-breeds, God would have said, "My Spirit shall not strive with humans and angels forever...." and He'd have included some kind of comment about the angelic existence (after all, they'd already been bound). The evidence, therefore, is that everyone in the preceding voice is man, not angelic.
 
Here you go again...being deceptive.
Prove it.

Titus 1:12
One of them, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”

There is the proof Paul referenced a Greek philosopher. The phrase "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons," is a reference from Epimenides. Neither Paul, nor Christianity as a whole, considers anything Epimenides ever wrote to be canonical or, in any way, equal to scripture. You have argued the content in Enoch is evidence of something in scripture and we should consider that content the measure of Genesis 6:2.

It is not.

No Deception at all on my part.
 
No, it wasn't acceptable....this is why the punishment is described in the new testament.
If it is not acceptable then those supposed angels were sinning. They were rebelling against God. If they'd sinned, then they became dead in their transgression and enslaved to sin. They became sons of the devil, not sons of God.
Where does the bible explicitly say that fallen angels are not sons of God?
The following verses apply:

1 John 3:8,10 NIV
The one who practices sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the very start.... This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child...

1 John 5:2-4
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and follow His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. For whoever has been born of God overcomes the world...

Romans 8:14 KJV
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Those who disobey God are NOT His sons. Those who carry out the devil's desires are called sons of the devil (John 8:44). Stop calling fallen angels sons of God. They are not sons of God.
You completely skipped over the part where i said..."the sons of God are a direct creation of God. Those created directly into the family of God. This would include the angels as having no "parents" as well as Adam not having a physical mother and father. That is no procreation involved."
I skipped it because it is dross. Scripture defines sons of God as those who follow God, which is what I told you many posts ago. It is you who repeatedly is skipping salient content.
Do I need to present those verses again?
No. What you need to do is make sense, stop deluding yourself, stop posting falsehood, and start reading scripture correctly.
 
Back
Top