Gen 6:1-5 The Historical Views

[makesends]

Actually your "concurrence" doesn't deny causation.

I didn't say it denies causation. I said it doesn't [logically, 'necessarily'] imply causation.

I'm saying that your claim is eisegetically derived.

 

[EarlyActs]

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?!

Wouldn't an important question related to these be 'why would God judge humanity for that which was done by rebel beings?'

 

[Arial]

Wouldn't an important question related to these be 'why would God judge humanity for that which was done by rebel beings?'

Good question. God did, after all, destroy all but Noah, his wife and their three sons.

To tie that back into the "one story", the historic plan of redemption unfolding: Noah was the bearer of the promised Seed of Gen 3. And so was Shem.

I am presuming here, but the presumption is based on what we know happened after the Flood. So I make the statement that God brought the judgment of the flood, not because of what angelic beings had done according to the Enoch account. Not because fallen angels produced a hybrid being that was wicked. But because humanity had become so wicked that judgment could not be withheld. The remaining people left to repopulate the earth had to recognize God as judge once again, the account of that judgment to be told for all future generations.

The Redeemer was still necessary because the Flood did not kill sin.

 

[CrowCross]

If you agree that God would not have fallen angels in his council (or his administration) why would angels who have left their assigned station. rebelling against God, be called sons of God? Hmmm? Even though Moses wrote that, he did so under the inspiration of God so in effect you have God calling fallen angels his sons.

The bible tells us what happened to the angels that rebelled with Satan.

There were some angels (sons of God) who eventually fell....This doesn't mean they were not still technically the "sons of God.
Perhaps you have a verse or two that suggest otherwise.

Does it change something by being through adoption?

Adoption is a legal term. Through adoption Christians are born again and become the "children of God".

You are a son of Adam also. So am I and everyone else. What does that have to do with anything in this conversation.

Adam was a direct creation with out any mother and father. Same with the angels. We are not.

 

[CrowCross]

REALIZE that. It is not news to me. I say fallen angels are not sons of God.

OK, you can try to explain it away if you like...but Angels were directly created by Jesus. That is Angels have no parents such as we do.

because they are a direct creation they would be considered as "sons of God". Fallen or not.
Perhaps we could identify them as the "fallen sons of God".

Yes, you did. And they were not fallen angels.

Not at that time. The fall came later. Then again you already knew that.

You will be getting yet another warning point for that. It is condescending, arrogant, provocative, and completely unnecessary. If I am not mistaken, you get a certain number of them in a given time period, and it is an automatic temp ban. Learn to post without insulting people or looking down your nose at them.

Perhaps you could explain to @Carbon where I insulted you or looked down upon you.
just asking for a friend...you mocked me the other day...I reported it...and got a reply back that you removed the mocking insult. Did you give yourself a "warning point"?

I know who doesn't say that. God. It is his word. So, no point in speculating about it, though logically, if the giants as you deem them to be were already there and grown (mighty men) you have gotten yourself into a pickle if you suggest that possibility of their falling in that moment. There is such a thing as stretching something to far just to appear to be right.

I said I don't know if the "sons of God" fell at Gen 6 or prior to it.

That is all irrelevant, one portion entirely untrue of what I believe or have ever said, and more important, does not answer the question of who gave Satan proxy over creation? The question was asked because that is what you claim.

No. It's relevant. The Prince of Persia is one of the rulers, one of the authorities, a part of the cosmic powers over this present darkness. One of the the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.....working for Satan.

These directly control certain humans....through proxy...and control certain events around the world.

 

[CrowCross]

Correct. The purpose of the book of Job is larger than the purpose of a single verse in one chapter.

But we weren't talking about Job overall, but rather that particular verse in that one chapter.

OK????

 

[CrowCross]

@CrowCross

Please give us your definition of "giant".

A being with a mixture of angelic DNA and Human DNA. Gen 6 speaks of it as Moses confirms Enoch 6.

Now, those verses don't mention DNA but I suppose you get the point. It's about genetics.

 

[Arial]

The bible tells us what happened to the angels that rebelled with Satan.

Relevance?

There were some angels (sons of God) who eventually fell....This doesn't mean they were not still technically the "sons of God.
Perhaps you have a verse or two that suggest otherwise.

When you provide scripture with careful exegesis, proving that fallen angels are called sons of God, you will probably have found that they are not called sons of God, because you will have found evidence all on your own, that anyone or anything that is in active rebellion against God, are not called sons of God, but rather the sons of their father the devil.

Adoption is a legal term. Through adoption Christians are born again and become the "children of God".

My question was, were Seth, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, David etc. sons of God? You replied, by adoption. I asked if "by adoption" changed anything and the above is your response. So, once again a question was asked and NOT answered.

BTW no one is ever a child of God but by adoption.

Adam was a direct creation with out any mother and father. Same with the angels. We are not.

So what?

 

[CrowCross]

To tie that back into the "one story", the historic plan of redemption unfolding: Noah was the bearer of the promised Seed of Gen 3. And so was Shem.

If Seth was the promised seed in Gen 3...

15I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”

Who was the "your offspring? Is this where you present Seth as a literal being and the "your offspring" as an analogy?

 

[CrowCross]

Relevance?

It's all part of the account. If tu don't see the relevance...then what can I say?

When you provide scripture with careful exegesis, proving that fallen angels are called sons of God, you will probably have found that they are not called sons of God, because you will have found evidence all on your own, that anyone or anything that is in active rebellion against God, are not called sons of God, but rather the sons of their father the devil.

I have pointed out your mistakes. Should I post them again?

My question was, were Seth, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, David etc. sons of God? You replied, by adoption. I asked if "by adoption" changed anything and the above is your response. So, once again a question was asked and NOT answered.

I believe it was answered ...clearly...because you reject the answer doesn't mean I didn't answer your question.
In fact YOU, you, you....didn't answer my question.

BTW no one is ever a child of God but by adoption.

Was Adam adopted? Was the angels adopted?

So what?

I answered your question...what is a son of God.

Perhaps you can answer the question not.

 

[Arial]

A being with a mixture of angelic DNA and Human DNA. Gen 6 speaks of it as Moses confirms Enoch 6.

Now, those verses don't mention DNA but I suppose you get the point. It's about genetics.

So it isn't a real definition, just one you made up. You will not find that definition anywhere---except in a mystical composite of writers in a book that is not even considered canon (the word of God) by the Jews. It was a line of Jewish thinking and thought processes of the intertestamental period. It expanded on Moses, adding things to the Bible that are not in it. Moses had been dead for multiple centuries when Enoch 6 was composed. Look it up. Don't take my word for it. Perhaps if you would address or at least acknowledge the evidence of this that has been presented by myself and @Joshed, you would not keep making that same embarrassing mistake.

 

[CrowCross]

I didn't say it denies causation. I said it doesn't [logically, 'necessarily'] imply causation.

Whatever. Now you play with words.

I'm saying that your claim is eisegetically derived.

My claim wasn't derived by me. It was derived by biblical study of many others long, long, long before I was born.

 

[Arial]

If Seth was the promised seed in Gen 3...

I DID NOT SAY THAT SETH WAS THE PROMISED SEED. JESUS IS THE PROMISED SEED. SETH WAS THE SEED BEARER. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?
Noah was the Seed bearer. Shem was the Seed bearer etc. etc.

 

[CrowCross]

So it isn't a real definition, just one you made up. You will not find that definition anywhere---except in a mystical composite of writers in a book that is not even considered canon (the word of God) by the Jews. It was a line of Jewish thinking and thought processes of the intertestamental period. It expanded on Moses, adding things to the Bible that are not in it. Moses had been dead for multiple centuries when Enoch 6 was composed. Look it up. Don't take my word for it. Perhaps if you would address or at least acknowledge the evidence of this that has been presented by myself and @Joshed, you would not keep making that same embarrassing mistake.

From what I understand the last 2 books of Enoch were written later. The first two are believed to have been written by the hand of Enoch.

Back to the DNA....will you ever tell me where the giants came from?
How did humans procreated and make giants?
In a previous post you told me the biblical giants were real....so, where did they come from?

 

[CrowCross]

I DID NOT SAY THAT SETH WAS THE PROMISED SEED. JESUS IS THE PROMISED SEED. SETH WAS THE SEED BEARER. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?
Noah was the Seed bearer. Shem was the Seed bearer etc. etc.

You didn't answer the question...instead you decided to YELL at me and deflect from answering the question.

However I did make a mistake by saying Seth...you meant Shem. Though Seth was in the linage of Shem and Jesus was in the same linage.

But as I said...you failed to answer the question about the seed of Satan.

 

[CrowCross]

You said, "To be honest, you don't have much of a point," so there is no point to answering this.

If Goliath was only a 6' 9" tall..then why would the biggest, baddest Israelite not want to fight him...especially when Goliath was weighed down with all of his heavy armor?

On the other hand if Goliath was 9' 9" tall....4 feet taller than some of them I could see where they would back down.

Do you understand the point yet?

 

[CrowCross]

I do not think you understand how foolish it is to make appeals to Enoch

Are you now saying Jude was foolish when he quoted from it? How about Moses?

Did you not read post 57?

 

[Arial]

t's all part of the account. If tu don't see the relevance...then what can I say?

You could say what the relevance is.

I have pointed out your mistakes. Should I post them again?

Yes, please do. But demonstrate exegeticallly why they are mistakes. Don't just say they are or quote the same thing as though that all by itself proves that you are correct.

I believe it was answered ...clearly...because you reject the answer doesn't mean I didn't answer your question.
In fact YOU, you, you....didn't answer my question.

No. Saying they were adopted because Christians are adopted as sons through faith in Christ does not even touch on my question about Seth, Noah, Shem Abraham, Jacob, David and whether or not they are sons of God.

What question was that that I didn't answer?

Was Adam adopted? Was the angels adopted?

They were created. There was no need of adoption. The need for adoption concerning man, comes after the fall. So, what exactly is your point and how does it relate to "sons of God"?

I answered your question...what is a son of God.

I don't recall asking that question. I asked about specific people and were they sons of God.

Would it be possible to move this conversation forward instead of bickering? Mod hat: Every thread in which you have disagreements with someone end up like this. Bickering and arguing over the same ground over and over. It is nauseating. And a bad look for the forum. The reason that happens is because you pay no attention to what anyone else says and will not discuss their POV or the evidence they put forward. It is in fact a direct violation of this rule:
2.1. All members must engage in discussions with humility, respect, and peace (Eph 4:2; Rom 12:18; Matt 7:12; 1 Cor 13:1-13). Discussions should be constructive, seeking to edify rather than tear down. Approach discussions with a willingness to listen, a readiness to learn, and a heart that seeks to edify fellow believers in unity with Christ Jesus.

You have been told this, shown this, given good examples of how it is done by other posters, so this should not keep happening!

 

[Arial]

You didn't answer the question...instead you decided to YELL at me and deflect from answering the question.

I didn't even read the question. When someone starts out their post by making claims about me that are untrue, I dismiss the rest of it. But just to be clear there are dozens of question posters ask you in every thread you are in that you do not answer. And dozens more responses to your posts and information given that you fail to address the content of. So you are on wobbly ground when you come after someone for not answering a question. Most of the time when asked a question, you respond by asking another question.

However I did make a mistake by saying Seth...you meant Shem. Though Seth was in the linage of Shem and Jesus was in the same linage.

Were Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham Jacob, David etc. sons of God? Sayin by adoption does not answer the question. No one since the fall is a son of God except by adoption.

But as I said...you failed to answer the question about the seed of Satan.

Satan is a fallen angel. He doesn't have seed and neither do any angels. They do not propagate. They are a fixed number.

 

[Arial]

From what I understand the last 2 books of Enoch were written later. The first two are believed to have been written by the hand of Enoch.

Where do you get that understanding from? Let's see it.

Back to the DNA....will you ever tell me where the giants came from?

If we go by your definition, there were no giants. Maybe this will help you see where I and many others are coming from, concerning all the other mentions of mighty men that you call giants as only the KJV does.

1. The Reformed View in Brief​

In Reformed interpretation, the “Nephilim” are not supernatural hybrids of angels and humans.
Rather, they are violent, tyrannical men — powerful warriors or rulers who arose as a result of the moral corruption of humanity before the Flood.

The “sons of God” and “daughters of men” are understood not in angelic terms, but in terms of two human lines:

• The “sons of God” = the godly descendants of Seth (Genesis 4:26 — “then people began to call upon the name of the LORD”).
• The “daughters of men” = the ungodly descendants of Cain (Genesis 4:17–24 — the line marked by violence and rebellion).

The mixing of these lines (the faithful marrying the unfaithful) brought about widespread corruption — moral, social, and spiritual — which led to the Flood.

---

🕊 2. Biblical and Theological Reasoning​

a. Angels Do Not Marry​

Reformed theologians appeal to Jesus’ statement:

“In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”
— Matthew 22:30

They reason that Scripture presents angels as non-physical, non-procreative beings.
Therefore, Genesis 6 cannot refer to angels engaging in sexual relations.

b. The Term "Sons of God" in Context​

While the phrase bene ha’elohim can refer to angels in some passages (Job 1:6; 38:7), Reformed interpreters emphasize contextual meaning:

• Genesis 5–6 focuses on human genealogy, not heavenly beings.
• Genesis 4–5 set up the contrast between two human lines (Cain vs. Seth).
• So “sons of God” = covenant people; “daughters of men” = unbelievers.

c. The Nephilim as Men of Renown​

Genesis 6:4 describes them as “the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”
Reformed scholars note:

• The text never says the Nephilim were offspring of the unions — just that they were present “in those days.”
• “Nephilim” comes from a root meaning “to fall,” so possibly “fallen ones” or “those who cause others to fall.”
• The emphasis is moral corruption and violence, not genetic mutation.

d. Redemptive Historical Context​

In the Reformed framework, Genesis 6 is part of the progress of sin after the Fall:

• Genesis 3: sin enters.
• Genesis 4: Cain murders Abel; civilization develops in rebellion.
• Genesis 6: even the “godly line” becomes corrupted through compromise.
  This moral decline culminates in the Flood — God’s judgment on universal depravity.

---

How Reformed Interpreters Understand Nephilim

• Nephilim נְפִלִים (nephilim) Itterly "fallen ones"-- or "those who cause others to fall human men of great power, violence, or renown. Possibly a clan name known to the early Israelites.
• Human tyrants

“Rephaim” (Deut 2–3; Josh 12–13)​

Background​

The Rephaim appear later in Canaanite regions, often linked to ancient peoples defeated by Israel (Emim, Zamzummim, Anakim).

Reformed understanding​

• Simply an ancient ethnic group, possibly of exceptional stature or reputation.
• The word may have become a generic title for any formidable people.
• The ESV and NASB keep it untranslated (“Rephaim”) precisely because it denotes a historical people group, not mythical beings.
• Reformed scholars like Meredith Kline and John Currid treat them as remnant pre-Israelite tribes, remembered for their might — not supernatural remnants of the Nephilim.

5. Anakim and sons of Anak (Num13; Deut 1-2​

Reformed interpretation​

• A Canaanite clan known for large stature (Deut 2:10–11 compares them to the Rephaim).
• Their reputation fed Israel’s fear, but Scripture treats them as ordinary humans, though strong.
• The connection to “Nephilim” in Num 13:33 is the spies’ language, not a divine statement.
• Therefore, the Reformed reading sees no genetic or spiritual link between Genesis 6 and the Anakim — just a borrowed term of awe or exaggeration.

6. Mighty Men (gibborim)​

• Genesis 6:4 calls them “the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.”
• Reformed commentators read this as a moral description: men famous for violence, conquest, and pride, echoing Lamech’s boast in Gen 4:23–24.
• So “gibborim” is not a supernatural class but the early world’s idolized heroes of power, the very kind of humanity God would judge in the Flood.