This Sounds Pagan!

[Professor]

Genesis 6:4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days. That was when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. The Nephilim were the heroes of long ago. They were famous men. Nephilim were also on the earth later on.

This sounds pagan. Can anybody help interpret this for me? I think that the Nephilim were giants (don't we find this somewhere else in the bible, perhaps Numbers?) I also read that the Nephilim were legendary warriors, the result of intercourse between gods and men. How are we to interpret "sons of God" here? Might this have been a legendary (that is, fictitious) story included in Genesis? I'm puzzled.

 

[Radius]

good question. I'll watch for responses, too.

 

[TruthFromFrank]

Genesis 6:4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days. That was when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. The Nephilim were the heroes of long ago. They were famous men. Nephilim were also on the earth later on.

This sounds pagan. Can anybody help interpret this for me? I think that the Nephilim were giants (don't we find this somewhere else in the bible, perhaps Numbers?) I also read that the Nephilim were legendary warriors, the result of intercourse between gods and men. How are we to interpret "sons of God" here? Might this have been a legendary (that is, fictitious) story included in Genesis? I'm puzzled.

Which Bible are you using as my KJV does not quote your 'Nephilim'?

 

[nathan3]

Weather it sounds pagan to you, it is Not..... If it seems foreign , it's likely no one taught you about it, They didn't know themselves , or you never read it yourself. But if you read these notes, it can help a little.





Genesis 6 King James Version

6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Job 1: 6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

One way, your a son of God, is by being one through Christ, as stated in the NT... But in the Old, its through if you have been directly created .




It is only by the Divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called "a son of God". For that which is "born of the flesh is flesh". God is spirit, and that which is "born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6). Hence Adam is called a "son of God" in Luke 3:38. Those "in Christ" having "the new nature" which is by the direct creation of God (2 Corinthians 5:17. Ehpesians 2:10) can be, and are called "sons of God" (John 1:13. Romans 8:14,15. 1John 3:1).1
This why angels are called "sons of God" in every other place where the expression is used in the Old Testament. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Psalms 29:1; 89:6. Daniel 3:25. (no article). 2 We have no authority or right to take the expression in Genesis 6:2,4 in any other sense. Moreover, in Genesis 6:2 the Septuagint renders it "angels".
Angels are called "spirits" (Psalm 104:4. Hebrews 1:7,14), for spirits are created by God.
That there was a fall of the angels is certain from Jude 6. etc



4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

For this sin they are "reserved unto judgement", 2Peter 2:4, and are "in prison", 1Peter 3:19.
Their progeny, called Nephilim (translated "giants"), were monsters of iniquity; and being superhuman in size and character, had to be destroyed (see Appendix 25).This was the one and only object of the Flood.

Only Noah and his family had preserved their pedigree pure from Adam (Genesis 6:9 see note). All the rest had become "corrupt" (shachath) destroyed [as Adamites]. The only remedy was to destroy it (defacto), as it had become destroyed (de jure). (It is the same word in verse 17 as in verses 11,12.) See futher under Appendix 25 on the Nephilim.

This irruption of fallen angels was Satan's first attempt to prevent the coming of the Seed of the woman foretold in Genesis 3:15. If this could be accomplished, God's Word would have failed, and his own doom would be averted.

As soon as it was made known that the Seed of the woman was to come through ABRAHAM, there must have been another irruption, as recorded in Genesis 6:4, "and also after that" (that is to say, after the days of Noah, more than 500 years after the first irruption). The aim of the enemy was to occupy Canaan in advance of Abraham, and so to contest its occupation by his seed. For, when Abraham entered Canaan, we read (Genesis 12:6) "the Canaanite was then (that is to say, already) in the land."
In the same chapter (Genesis 12:10-20) we see Satan's next attempt to interfere with Abraham's seed, and frustrate the purpose of God that it should be in "Isaac". This attempt was repeated in 20:1-18.
This great conflict may be seen throughout the Bible, and it forms a great and important subject of Biblical study.

So, we read there is a mass to the sons of God, they are able to take them as wives and impregnate them as it states there . The result was the giants.


some notes on the word Nephilim : THE RAIN / THE NEPHILIM, OR "GIANTS" OF GENESIS 6, ETC.

 

[Professor]

It is in several versions. It is in both my New International Reader's Version and my Oxford Annotated Bible. If you go to bible.com and look at all the various versions, it is in several versions.

Which Bible are you using as my KJV does not quote your 'Nephilim'?

 

[BishopSEH]

There was a time when the discussion of the Nephilim was all the rage. People posited all sorts of theories as to what these were. Some believe that the were the spawn of the fallen angels (Satan's cohorts). Some believe they are the spawn of Homosapiens and the Neanderthal. I personally don't know and really don't care. The Nephilim have no effect on my faith and they shouldn't have any on yours.

As near as we know the Nephilim were "giants" and warriors. There is archeological evidence that shows that there were indeed very large humans in the ancients days just as there are now. One such account is that of David and Goliath. Goliath was very large. He had to be custom outfitted. He stood higher than the rest of the army he served in and may have truly been mighty.

I say may because giants have slower reflexes that normal sized humans. Personally, I believe the greatest use of these giants of men was sheer intimidation. It is likely an ancient form of a first strike weapon. Faced with an armed and armored 10' man many a warrior would have frozen allowing the slower giant a first and often fatal strike. David chose to take away the giants advantage by fighting from a distance with a sling and stone rather than sword. Even if he missed he would have had time to reload and fire again as well as move. Most would have engaged with sword or spear.

Looking at the description of Goliath's sword it matches that of a shield breaker. It is very heavy and has an edge. It was also longer than the average sword of that time in history. Basically, Goliath would aim for and strike the shield driving it to the ground and often breaking the wooden construct. At the same time injuring or breaking the arm of the man carrying it. Stunned and in pain the second strike would finish the fight. Ancient shock and awe tactics you would say.

Today, even if those still exist, and they do, (NBA players, just kidding), for we still have giants, our understanding of them and their inherent weaknesses would make them ineligible for military service. But faced with one directly our instinct would still raise an element of fear within us, at least for a moment.

To me the accounts are valuable from a historical aspect and for the edification of the body but little more. In is not to different from telling us how many wives and concubines Kings David and Solomon had. Should we go and find ourselves a harem based on the fact that they did? Of course not. But looking at all the trouble going outside of God's plan for marriage shows us is edifying. One man and one woman is hard enough but comes with great rewards. One man and multiple women only appeals to the carnal nature but does nothing good for the marriage covenant. Just as dwelling on this will do nothing good for your faith.

Rather, we should be focused on what God has to stay for our lives but here and now and that to come.

In Christ,

Bishop SEH

 

[nathan3]

Nephilim is how you would say giants , as its used there ,in the Hebrew: ( I used a Strong's to see the translation : Index - King James Bible with Strongs Dictionary - SpeedBible by johnhurt.com )


Genesis 6: 4 King James version :

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in4 unto the daughters of men, and they bare1 [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.

giant
5303


nphiyl
nef-eel'


or nphil {nef-eel'}; from 'naphal' (5307);\/ properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant:--giant.


5307);

naphal
naw-fal'


a primitive root; to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitive or causative, literal or figurative):--be accepted, cast (down, self, (lots), out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell(-ing), fugitive, have (inheritance), inferior, be judged (by mistake for 'palal' (6419)), lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (X hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present(-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, X surely, throw down.



Numbers 13:33

King James Version (KJV)

33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

same word as in Gen 6: 5303 nphiyl nef-eel'..
etc.

Your probably find, later down in life how important this was to know. because it ties into things we should know. Is it important for salvation no. But why did God put it there? I would learn it. It is important to me to learn this anyway.

 

[JaumeJ]

Nothing in the Bible is pagan by virtue of the origin of the Bible and the word, pagan. Pagan is nothing more than the nations other than the elect nation, Israel. The Bible is the written history of mankind according to God; that is if you believe God. I do. As for sounding pagan, many aspects of the Word may be described as sounding pagan according to the thinking of men, but that is according to the flesh. As for the Nephilim and their activities, I would venture this is one of those mysteries that may or may not be revealed come the Kingdom. Take a lesson from Mary, if you do not understand any specifics of the Word, keep them in your heart until understanding is given or until come the Kingdom. Whatever the Nephilim did, it probably has little or nothing to do with the Gospel as from our Lord and Savior .

Genesis 6:4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days. That was when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. The Nephilim were the heroes of long ago. They were famous men. Nephilim were also on the earth later on.

This sounds pagan. Can anybody help interpret this for me? I think that the Nephilim were giants (don't we find this somewhere else in the bible, perhaps Numbers?) I also read that the Nephilim were legendary warriors, the result of intercourse between gods and men. How are we to interpret "sons of God" here? Might this have been a legendary (that is, fictitious) story included in Genesis? I'm puzzled.

 

[Professor]

Thanks Nathan
Here's a Wikipedia link. It's interesting to follow the "sons of God" thread in that link.
Nephilim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[


QUOTE=nathan3;982764]Weather it sounds pagan to you, it is Not..... If it seems foreign , it's likely no one taught you about it, They didn't know themselves , or you never read it yourself. But if you read these notes, it can help a little.





Genesis 6 King James Version

6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Job 1: 6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

One way, your a son of God, is by being one through Christ, as stated in the NT... But in the Old, its through if you have been directly created .




It is only by the Divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called "a son of God". For that which is "born of the flesh is flesh". God is spirit, and that which is "born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6). Hence Adam is called a "son of God" in Luke 3:38. Those "in Christ" having "the new nature" which is by the direct creation of God (2 Corinthians 5:17. Ehpesians 2:10) can be, and are called "sons of God" (John 1:13. Romans 8:14,15. 1John 3:1).1
This why angels are called "sons of God" in every other place where the expression is used in the Old Testament. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Psalms 29:1; 89:6. Daniel 3:25. (no article). 2 We have no authority or right to take the expression in Genesis 6:2,4 in any other sense. Moreover, in Genesis 6:2 the Septuagint renders it "angels".
Angels are called "spirits" (Psalm 104:4. Hebrews 1:7,14), for spirits are created by God.
That there was a fall of the angels is certain from Jude 6. etc



4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

For this sin they are "reserved unto judgement", 2Peter 2:4, and are "in prison", 1Peter 3:19.
Their progeny, called Nephilim (translated "giants"), were monsters of iniquity; and being superhuman in size and character, had to be destroyed (see Appendix 25).This was the one and only object of the Flood.

Only Noah and his family had preserved their pedigree pure from Adam (Genesis 6:9 see note). All the rest had become "corrupt" (shachath) destroyed [as Adamites]. The only remedy was to destroy it (defacto), as it had become destroyed (de jure). (It is the same word in verse 17 as in verses 11,12.) See futher under Appendix 25 on the Nephilim.

This irruption of fallen angels was Satan's first attempt to prevent the coming of the Seed of the woman foretold in Genesis 3:15. If this could be accomplished, God's Word would have failed, and his own doom would be averted.

As soon as it was made known that the Seed of the woman was to come through ABRAHAM, there must have been another irruption, as recorded in Genesis 6:4, "and also after that" (that is to say, after the days of Noah, more than 500 years after the first irruption). The aim of the enemy was to occupy Canaan in advance of Abraham, and so to contest its occupation by his seed. For, when Abraham entered Canaan, we read (Genesis 12:6) "the Canaanite was then (that is to say, already) in the land."
In the same chapter (Genesis 12:10-20) we see Satan's next attempt to interfere with Abraham's seed, and frustrate the purpose of God that it should be in "Isaac". This attempt was repeated in 20:1-18.
This great conflict may be seen throughout the Bible, and it forms a great and important subject of Biblical study.

So, we read there is a mass to the sons of God, they are able to take them as wives and impregnate them as it states there . The result was the giants.


some notes on the word Nephilim : THE RAIN / THE NEPHILIM, OR "GIANTS" OF GENESIS 6, ETC.[/QUOTE]

 

[Professor]

Thanks. I am a new believer and decided to re-read the bible cover to cover, and I was curious when I ran across this passage yesterday.

There was a time when the discussion of the Nephilim was all the rage. People posited all sorts of theories as to what these were. Some believe that the were the spawn of the fallen angels (Satan's cohorts). Some believe they are the spawn of Homosapiens and the Neanderthal. I personally don't know and really don't care. The Nephilim have no effect on my faith and they shouldn't have any on yours.

As near as we know the Nephilim were "giants" and warriors. There is archeological evidence that shows that there were indeed very large humans in the ancients days just as there are now. One such account is that of David and Goliath. Goliath was very large. He had to be custom outfitted. He stood higher than the rest of the army he served in and may have truly been mighty.

I say may because giants have slower reflexes that normal sized humans. Personally, I believe the greatest use of these giants of men was sheer intimidation. It is likely an ancient form of a first strike weapon. Faced with an armed and armored 10' man many a warrior would have frozen allowing the slower giant a first and often fatal strike. David chose to take away the giants advantage by fighting from a distance with a sling and stone rather than sword. Even if he missed he would have had time to reload and fire again as well as move. Most would have engaged with sword or spear.

Looking at the description of Goliath's sword it matches that of a shield breaker. It is very heavy and has an edge. It was also longer than the average sword of that time in history. Basically, Goliath would aim for and strike the shield driving it to the ground and often breaking the wooden construct. At the same time injuring or breaking the arm of the man carrying it. Stunned and in pain the second strike would finish the fight. Ancient shock and awe tactics you would say.

Today, even if those still exist, and they do, (NBA players, just kidding), for we still have giants, our understanding of them and their inherent weaknesses would make them ineligible for military service. But faced with one directly our instinct would still raise an element of fear within us, at least for a moment.

To me the accounts are valuable from a historical aspect and for the edification of the body but little more. In is not to different from telling us how many wives and concubines Kings David and Solomon had. Should we go and find ourselves a harem based on the fact that they did? Of course not. But looking at all the trouble going outside of God's plan for marriage shows us is edifying. One man and one woman is hard enough but comes with great rewards. One man and multiple women only appeals to the carnal nature but does nothing good for the marriage covenant. Just as dwelling on this will do nothing good for your faith.

Rather, we should be focused on what God has to stay for our lives but here and now and that to come.

In Christ,

Bishop SEH

 

[Professor]

I found this excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on "sons of God":

Saint Augustine subscribed to this view, based on the orations of Julius Africanus, in his book City of God which refer to the "sons of God" as being descendants of Seth (or Sethites), the pure line of Adam. The "daughters of men" are viewed as the descendants of Cain (or Cainites).

 

[Andy03]

I found this excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on "sons of God":

Saint Augustine subscribed to this view, based on the orations of Julius Africanus, in his book City of God which refer to the "sons of God" as being descendants of Seth (or Sethites), the pure line of Adam. The "daughters of men" are viewed as the descendants of Cain (or Cainites).

If you do a hebrew study on the phrase "sons of God" you will see that this is wrong

 

[sinless]

Genesis 6:4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days. That was when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. The Nephilim were the heroes of long ago. They were famous men. Nephilim were also on the earth later on.

This sounds pagan. Can anybody help interpret this for me? I think that the Nephilim were giants (don't we find this somewhere else in the bible, perhaps Numbers?) I also read that the Nephilim were legendary warriors, the result of intercourse between gods and men. How are we to interpret "sons of God" here? Might this have been a legendary (that is, fictitious) story included in Genesis? I'm puzzled.

Well I think your first problem is you are using a bad translation that is saying what it thinks rather than what scripture actually says.

Genesis 6:[SUP]4 [/SUP]There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

 

[sinless]

The text itself does not say that the Nephilem (giants) are the heroes or the children of the sons of God/daughters of men God/daughters of men union

 

[RickShafer]

The hebrew word 'nephal' means - to fall.
Fallen ones, I would say.
Fallen from their first estate (angelic).
Some say they are a sinful creed of humans. But this to me seems trite and incongruous to the reading of the text.
How could giants come from a mere sinning ethnicity? Really stupid.
They were fallen angels who practiced genetic mutations on mankind so the promised child couldn't be born(of the seed of woman).
The writer says "the sons of god found the daughters of men to be fair".....but c'mon, read between the lines.
How is God (and Moses) going to explain genetic manipulation to the ancient world? - Modern science didn't even know about single living cells-(germs), until Louis Pasteur.

 

[PS]

H5303 nephı̂yl nephil From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant.

giants — The term in Hebrew implies not so much the idea of great stature as of reckless ferocity, impious and daring characters, who spread devastation and carnage far and wide.

Sons of men means they were heathen.

 

[Angela53510]

You have to remember that the Bible is the story of Jesus. There are parts which describe pagan things. Such as the prophets of Baal trying to light their altar against Yahweh and Elijah the prophet. They danced, cried out and cut themselves, is my memory. That doesn't mean we are to do that, just that it is the record of something that occurred between a pagan and a prophet.

This is a weird verse, and I always say it is one of those things I will ask Jesus when I see him, and worry about living and serving God and others in this life.

Sometimes we are not meant to know or understand everything in the Bible, because we did not live then. The Bible is the revelation of Jesus Christ. Does this story about the nephilim or fallen ones add to that story, is it neutral or does it distract from the story of Jesus?

Since Jesus is about the Redeemer, the living Savior, there is a part of this chapter this is relevant. There was even more wickedness and evil than even God could stand. So he sent a flood to wipe them out, including most of the Nephilim. They were wicked, but in the end, they really do not add to the story of Jesus. We may never understand in this lifetime what that means, because we are not God.

It is true, because I believe the Bible. But it does not help me grow as a Christian, to delve deeply into the fallen ones, or giants, so my thought is to just keep on reading, and ask God to show you the things he wants you to know. The devil would love to sidetrack us with majoring in minors.

Genesis is a wonderful narrative, so keep reading!! And living for Christ.

 

[RickShafer]

H5303 nephı̂yl nephil From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant.

giants — The term in Hebrew implies not so much the idea of great stature as of reckless ferocity, impious and daring characters, who spread devastation and carnage far and wide.

Sons of men means they were heathen.

As opposed to the righteous?
Who were the righteous?
So, when it says "the sons of god found the daughters of men to be fair"; does that mean the women were bullies?
Because in other references to "the sons of god" in the Old Testament it is referencing angels. - [FONT=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][SIZE=+1] Job 1:[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]6[/FONT][FONT=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][SIZE=+1]; 2:[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]1[/FONT][FONT=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][SIZE=+1]; 38:[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]7[/FONT][FONT=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][SIZE=+1]. Psalms 29:[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]1[/FONT][FONT=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][SIZE=+1]; 89:[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]6[/FONT][FONT=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][SIZE=+1]. Daniel 3:[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman]25[/FONT][FONT=Aldine,Kuenst,Clarendon,Times New Roman][SIZE=+1]. [/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[gotime]

The Nephilim

In order to properly gain an understanding of the events that take place in Genesis 6 just prior to the flood, We must understand the direct context surrounding the event.

Gen 1 and 2 we have the creation of the world and how it is very good in the eyes of God.
Gen 3 shows how Satan deceived Eve and thus the fall of the human race.
Gen 4 shows us the line of Cain through his descendants. Cain was not a follower of God and this is seen
through his actions. when God tried to warn Cain about his anger, Cain did not listen and killed his
brother Abel. When God punished Cain for this sin, Cain's response was to leave God altogether.

Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.



Gen 5 We have the line of Seth through Adam.

It's important then to note that the bible has made or distinguished between two groups of people on the earth. We have the line of Cain which turned from God and the line of Seth which followed God.

Let us now examine Genesis 6.

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

Let's ask ourselves, when did men begin to multiply?

We just read in chapter 4 and 5 the multiplication through the lines of Cain and Seth. but here it says that Daughters were born unto them.


Lets note a few things here. If you go and check the lines of Cain and the lines of Seth you will notice that only in the line of Cain are women mentioned. In fact the Line of Cain ends with a daughter named, Naamah.


Now this is not to say that no women or daughters were born in Seth's line, but we are now seeing the reason that women and finally a daughter are mentioned in Cain's line. This directly links the term Man in verse 1 to the line of Cain.


Men simply means mankind, and one might argue that even Seth's line was included here. the issue with that is even Noah as we will see later is excluded from this term as it is used in this chapter. Otherwise Noah would have been destroyed also. so the term mankind is deliberately used here to refer to the line of Cain.

Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Notice now that the "sons of God" saw the Daughters of men. Again we know who the daughters of men are and they are not Seth's Daughters but Cain's.

Here is another issue with this passage. The expression here is not just have sex with them, but took them as partners. the issue is also that they took wives plural. Polygamy. this polygamy first showed its face where? In the line of Cain through Lamech. Again a direct link to the line of Cain and a learned evil from the line of Cain.


Could these sons of God be angels? the short answer is no. there are a number of problems with this view. Genesis has set us up with two lines. those who follow God/sons of God and those who do not follow God/men and daughters of men. Gen 6 we can see connects the men and daughters of men directly to the line of Cain. thus it is only logical and contextually sound that the sons of God are referring to the line of Seth who followed God.


This is backed by the numerous bible examples of those who follow God as being children of God, sons of God.

also we have two lines one uses female/Cain the other only male/Seth. two are seen in chapter 6, sons/male and daughters/female.

The other issue is that Jesus himself said that Angels do not marry/take wives.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

So here we have Gods people marrying women who do not follow God and also taking up their practice of polygamy. So Gods people are being influenced by evil.

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Notice that God says he will not strive with man, yet he did with Noah and Noah was a man. thus Man again is used in a specific way. it refers to the line of Cain who did evil and also any of Seth's line that would do evil because of their unholy union. It is pertinent to note that Gods issue here is with humanity there is no mention of angels here at all. on top of that why did Moses not use the word for angels if that was indeed the intent here. Some may say it's symbolic, then one would have to ask the question why when this clearly is not that important to know. symbols were used by God to teach important lessons that needed to be understood.

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.


Now we have already been told in verse 2 that they did not simply have sex but actually took them as wives. this is a human relation that is forbidden by God. (Deut 7:3,4; Joshua 23:12,13; Ezra 9:2; Neh 13:25; 2 Cor 6:14,15).

Giants what does this mean? Many interoperate this to mean large in stature. while this can be one of the meanings applied it is less forceful in this case do to the fact that everyone was a giant in size at this time. this word has another meaning that fits the passage more fully, it means to be violent in nature. bullies etc. thus it is here a characteristic of their characters not there physical stature. (Patriarchs and Prophets show this same thing.)

This fits with verse 11 which confirms this interpretation.


Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

notice again the issue is with flesh/humans not angels. there is no hint at all that these men are anything other than men.

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

notice again that the issue is that their thoughts are evil all the time. thus again it is a characteristic of the people that causes the evil which God wishes to destroy.

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Notice again that the Lord is upset that he made man on the earth. these are people that God has created. they are not some freak almost evolutionary being. They were knit in the womb by God. however the word again is mankind used here, yet even though Noah was a human he followed God and thus was not included in this description of destruction to come.

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.



God is going to destroy all flesh/humans who are evil. the flood was to destroy the people who had done these things. or as we discovered in the first few verses. the Flood was to destroy Cain's line and all those who joined with it and became evil because of this union.

In fact lets add one more bit of information to clarify this point.

We have two lines, one from Adam through Seth and another from Adam through Cain.

Did you know that from this point Cain's line disappears? After the flood Cain's line is gone but Seth's continues all the way down to Jesus.

Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Luk 3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
Luk 3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
Luk 3:26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
Luk 3:28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
Luk 3:29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
Luk 3:30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
Luk 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Luk 3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
Luk 3:33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
Luk 3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
Luk 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Luk 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

There is no mention of Cain's line after the flood, it is cut off. yet Seth's line continued. but another important piece of information is that here Adam is called the son of God. Thus it is accurate that the line of Adam through Seth refer to the sons of God, those who followed God.

The Flood did exactly what God intended to do, to wipe the line of Cain out altogether. and all who perverted their ways with the Canaanites. blessings.

 

[RickShafer]

The people who inhabited Canaan land were Canaanites.
"land of Canaan" - Ex6:4; 15:15; 16:35; Lev. 14:34; 18:3; 25:38; Numbers 13:2; 13:17; 26:19;32:30; 32:32;33:40; 33:51; 34:2; 34:29; 35:10; 35:14; Deut. 32:49; Joshua 5:12; 14:1; 21:2; 22:9,10,11; 22:32; 24:3; Judges 3:1; 4:2; 4:23,24; 5:19; 21:12 ................and on and on.
All these are obvious references to a 'land of Canaan' that survived well after the flood.