The Sons of God and the Nephilim (Genesis 6:1-4)

[GandalfTheWhite]

What DC said (thank you for saving me the time to type that out )

 

[dcontroversal]

You make a good point there. I honestly don't know. I did have a neighbour, many years ago, who had 6 fingers on each hand, but 5 toes on each foot and he certainly wasn't Nephilim (he had the extra thumbs surgically removed and was fine). I don't discredit the idea entirely (although I do mostly), but you really do have to be discerning with this topic. There are plenty of well-meaning, but confused Christians/non-Christians who post photos of giant skeletons from movie sets or giant skeletons that are just foreshortened photos. Also, there are some claims that people make about archaeological findings of 20 metre high people or more, which is frankly ridiculous! So there are some real 'gems' amongst the community. I don't believe there's some worldwide conspiracy to hush up all of this. The only conspiracy theory I believe is truth: that most people don't realise the Enemy exists and that they're doing his will (and that by proxy, Christianity is the one true faith).

To this post and the one above.....I will say the following.....

1. I really think is has a lot to do with genetics and Satan's attempt to corrupt the blood line from which Christ would come.
2. That which is going to be has already been....Solomon
3. I really believe there is a world wide conspiracy to corrupt and hide anything that can prove the bible to be true, whether global flood evidence or giant skeletons as the bible also states that the giants were as tall as the cedars of Lebanon. I have read reports of skeletons being destroyed here in the U.S. Smithsonian Institute for the exact reason of discrediting the Bible.
4. There is a definite sexual cannotation tied to the comparison in Jude between the angels which left their first estate and S and G and strange flesh.
5. Satan (Lucifer) was the sum of ALL WISDOM and we see the same genetical attempt today to breed (super men) and the crossing of genes and breeding of abominations between humans and animals, animals and animals etc.....
6. Whether sexual and or by genetics I do believe that the Giants were and are an attempt to corrupt the gene pool and the blood line of Christ, humanity and eve the nation of Israel itself......
7. It is obviously not a matter of salvation and or fellowship but seems to make sense in the grand scheme of things......
8. Noah was PURE....that can be translated and related to a forensic sense which means his three sons would have been the same.....the giants were wiped out in the flood (men of renown) MIGHTY MEN.....if it was just a reoccuring result of genetics (haphazardly) then why do we not see entire races of men 9-12 tall or even as tall as the cedars of Lebanon in this day and age......

even along that line...there are stranger things in the bible....do a study on chariots as applied unto the angels of God......the things they do and the way they move look like and sound just like what one would deem a U.F.O. or how about modern flight in the bible...WHO is this OVERSHADOWING with WINGS....how about the cities that show vitrification which only comes due to a nuclear blast? There are many interesting things in scripture that have nothing to do with fellowship, but put forth some very interesting possibilities for sure.......

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Gah. I honestly don't know what to think. I know we shouldn't use poetic language to interpret historical narratives (ala Genesis 1-11) but seriously, I don't think there's any doubts that the sons of God in Job are angels. Especially since they're mentioned elsewhere as watching God create the universe (Psalms, I think). Maybe I'm no closer to discovering what this Genesis 6 passage means.

Tintin my brother, seeing that DC has given you all the correct answers I am going to add my 5cents worth . The word nephilim is only find in two places in the Bible. The first in Genesis 6 and the other in Number 13. Now I have said it on this website almost everyday but God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and if He used the word nephilim to describe physical large men in Numbers why would He use the same word with a different meaning in Genesis 6?

 

[oldhermit]

Gah. I honestly don't know what to think. I know we shouldn't use poetic language to interpret historical narratives (ala Genesis 1-11) but seriously, I don't think there's any doubts that the sons of God in Job are angels. Especially since they're mentioned elsewhere as watching God create the universe (Psalms, I think). Maybe I'm no closer to discovering what this Genesis 6 passage means.

"Sons of God" is a term that seems to always applied to men. There does not seem to be any place in scripture where this term is ever applied to angels as many suppose with one possible exception.

 

[Jimbone]

It fits very well with this one.

"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." Matt 22:30

Key words in this verse are "like angels in heaven", the angels that came here left their "first estate" and were no longer in heaven. This is still no problem for the half angel/human Nephilim in my opinion.

 

[oldhermit]

Key words in this verse are "like angels in heaven", the angels that came here left their "first estate" and were no longer in heaven. This is still no problem for the half angel/human Nephilim in my opinion.

This still not make the sexual creatures.

 

[Jimbone]

My thoughts are these: If my version is right, it makes me no better a christian, & if my version is wrong, it makes me no worse.

Since it does nothing positively spiritual for me, I don't care. I really can't positively prove any of them, so I'm not going to waste my time on it.

But didn't you just waste time typing this out? You mustcare somewhat, and did waste the time it took to write and post this comment.

 

[Jimbone]

This still not make the sexual creatures.

And you KNOW this how?

 

[oldhermit]

And you KNOW this how?

What does that text tell you?

 

[Jimbone]

What does that text tell you?

It tells me that these Nephilim are more than a simply "bad or tall humans", and this, to me of course, suggest that there was something much more sinister going on for God to wipe out the whole world save Noah and family. It also make the orders to wipe out entire groups of people down to the children and animals make a lot more sense in my head. To me the fallen angels mating with human women accounts for so very much and again “to me” makes all of history, the other world religions (most given by the wise serpent BTW), the technology explosion from the beginning of the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century, and much more I’m missing in such a quickly put together comment fit together like a glove.

This also makes Jesus word in Matt 24:37 "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.”, and Luke 17:26 "And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man” make so much sense. If this was a case of fallen angels genetically changing humans to corrupt the bloodline, then we see the same thing today with scientist trying to change out genetics and mixing animal DNA and such. To be honest the whole scenario fits together seamlessly in my honest opinion in a way the Sethite Theory never could. Again and one last time, in my opinion.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jud 1:8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

Oldhermit, I don't know if I understand this wrong but the Bible tells us that the fallen angels given themselves over to fornication and strange flesh (just like S&G). When man gives himself over to strange flesh it is homosexuality but when angels do it could it not be women?

Also the men of S&G wanted to have intercourse with the angels when they visited Lot.

 

[oldhermit]

It tells me that these Nephilim are more than a simply "bad or tall humans", and this, to me of course, suggest that there was something much more sinister going on for God to wipe out the whole world save Noah and family. It also make the orders to wipe out entire groups of people down to the children and animals make a lot more sense in my head. To me the fallen angels mating with human women accounts for so very much and again “to me” makes all of history, the other world religions (most given by the wise serpent BTW), the technology explosion from the beginning of the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century, and much more I’m missing in such a quickly put together comment fit together like a glove.

This also makes Jesus word in Matt 24:37 "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.”, and Luke 17:26 "And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man” make so much sense. If this was a case of fallen angels genetically changing humans to corrupt the bloodline, then we see the same thing today with scientist trying to change out genetics and mixing animal DNA and such. To be honest the whole scenario fits together seamlessly in my honest opinion in a way the Sethite Theory never could. Again and one last time, in my opinion.

This makes a number of unwarranted assumptions. This assumes that the term 'sons of god' can only refer to angels. It assumes that the angels which were cast down from heaven were cast down upon the earth. It assumes that if they were cast down upon the earth that they assumed human form. It assumes that if they took human form they became sexual creatures. It assumes that they were sufficiently genetically compatible with human DNA to produce offspring. It assumes that the appearance of the giants in the land can only be explained through this quantum leap of conjecture, non of which is supplied by any biblical text.

 

[Bowhunter2394]

an evil spirit, when it has the right and ablility to possess flesh and bone, most often the flesh/bone of that person they are possessing will 'resemble the 'devil' or devils (unclean spirits) When fully possessed or vexed by the unclean spirit the persons flesh will resemlbe its 'jailor' and the key characteristics are found in the 'eye's, the eye brows, brow precipice. how does this tie into the Nephilim? oh that is a Mystery .. and I know what that is about... we study the greek word #1141 daimoniōdēs----> means to be demon devil like, resembling a devil,
here is a person who is fully devil possesed, to give you an example! the Nephillim mystery ties into those spirits that left their habitation.. indeed.. take a close look at this man. indeed.. 'devil like in appearance'.. His Anointing will show you that!

 

[oldhermit]

Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jud 1:8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

Oldhermit, I don't know if I understand this wrong but the Bible tells us that the fallen angels given themselves over to fornication and strange flesh (just like S&G). When man gives himself over to strange flesh it is homosexuality but when angels do it could it not be women?

Also the men of S&G wanted to have intercourse with the angels when they visited Lot.

Yes. You are absolutely correct. Rom 1 uses this same language to convey this very point. But, Jude six is not linking the angels to any type of sexual conduct one way or the other. This is connected with the inhabitants on Sodom and Gomorrah not the angels.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Yes. You are absolutely correct. Rom 1 uses this same language to convey this very point. But, Jude six is not linking the angels to any type of sexual conduct one way or the other. This is connected with the inhabitants on Sodom and Gomorrah not the angels.

If I may ask another question why then "in like manner giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh....."?

 

[PennEd]

When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the LORD said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.

GENESIS 6:1-4 (5-8 must also be read for context, so...)

The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created—people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord.


I've heard/read four views concerning the 'sons of God' in this most mysterious of Bible passages.

The sons of God:
1. Refers specifically to 'fallen' angels.
2. Represents the 'godly' descendants of Seth, one of Adam's sons.
3. Were kings or rulers who were described as 'gods'.
4. Were human beings possessed by demonic fallen angels.

Ever since my childhood, I've held to the first option being true. But in the past few years, I've reconsidered my position. I was possibly more influenced by Greek mythology than what the text truly said. The second option doesn't seem viable in my opinion, nor the other two, although I did consider them for a time. I'm going to propose a fifth option.

Taking into consideration the preceding chapters and the verses following Genesis 6:1-4:

5. a) We know Adam and Eve had many children (both sons and daughters) following the births of Cain, Abel (deceased) and later, Seth. Cain, after killing his brother, Abel, greatly feared God, while Seth followed in His ways. The two patriarchs would've passed their beliefs/attitudes/values onto their children eg. Enoch, Enosh). As numbers increased, some of Adam's children fell away from God (not just Cain's bloodline). It's very likely the different families moved away (Cain before all others) and that they later encountered each other in their travels/trade. During this time, the men of God fell for the ungodly women and married them (remember Sethites weren't all godly and all Cainites weren't evil). Therefore, the sons of God turned from God.

b) 'Nephilim' is an untranslated word meaning 'fallen ones'. This probably means nothing more than those people who followed their own hearts rather than God's. In one word: sinners - people who only did what was right in their own eyes. A pre-Flood example is the proud and violent Lamech (not Noah's father) who was the first to take two wives (Genesis 4:17-24 - Adah and Zilla), not one as God had commanded. Post-Flood examples abound: descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth (Noah's sons) and their wives, made names for themselves through their tyrannical rules or ferocious military exploits and were recognised as great heroes. As we can see from history, many ancient cultures made religions of violence and war. Finally, possibly 'heroes' and 'warriors of renown' refer to early post-Flood descendants who lived considerably longer lives than their children and could be seen as 'great' for that reason alone.

Thoughts?

Humans could not have been called the Sons of God AFTER the fall. I still believe the passage refers to number 1 or 4. 4 I hadn't heard before and it might make sense.

I have been thinking about this passage as well and I will propose another theory. Virtually the entire Bible deals with the redemption of Adam's progeny AFTER the fall. The command to be fruitful and multiply came BEFORE the fall. I believe it is possible that Adam and Eve had children BEFORE the fall. These could have rightly been called the Sons of God. Why would Adam and Eve wait til the fall to obey the mandate to be fruitful and multiply? How could God have INCREASED Eve's pain in childbirth if she hadn't experienced it before? How long were they in the garden before the fall? If they had children before the fall they probably wouldn't have been cast out of Eden like their parents.
I want to be clear. I am not insisting this theory is true, only presenting it. If it is it from the Holy Spirit and not me.

Any thoughts on this theory?

 

[Jimbone]

This makes a number of unwarranted assumptions. This assumes that the term 'sons of god' can only refer to angels. It assumes that the angels which were cast down from heaven were cast down upon the earth. It assumes that if they were cast down upon the earth that they assumed human form. It assumes that if they took human form they became sexual creatures. It assumes that they were sufficiently genetically compatible with human DNA to produce offspring. It assumes that the appearance of the giants in the land can only be explained through this quantum leap of conjecture, non of which is supplied by any biblical text.

That is admittedly true, but I think there are just as many assumptions with any of the theories, and the fallen angels one makes the most logical sense to me. It simply fits the best. Everyone just being “bad humans” doesn’t mesh with me, if that was true then how is this world today still here? If it was just “bad humans doing bad things”, then I think we’ve earned judgement 1,000 times over since the flood. It just doesn’t make sense to me. I will sum it up like this, I don’t KNOW either way, and I also agree with someone that commented earlier that it’s not essential for salvation so I wouldn’t even argue about it (not like now we are just having a conversation, but I wouldn’t debate it with anyone), but to me it makes the whole bible and my personal understanding of who God is make so much more sense. I just feel it connects everything in world history and everything we see today better. That is just how I’ve been led to see it at this point, but again I don’t claim to KNOW, nor am I against learning and continuously trying to draw closer, so I could very well change my view in light of new understandings I’ve yet to learn. It’s possible, but from the information I have now, and what I think scripture says very clearly the fallen angel theory is the best option to fit the information given.

 

[oldhermit]

If I may ask another question why then "in like manner giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh....."?

Look at the construction of the text. "Which likewise indulged in sexual immorality" is not linking Sodom and Gomorrah to the angels who left their first estate, it is linking the behavior of the "surrounding cities" to the like behavior of Sodom and Gomorrah. The sin of the angels is specified simply as having left their "own position of authority" not sexual immorality.

"just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

 

[oldhermit]

That is admittedly true, but I think there are just as many assumptions with any of the theories, and the fallen angels one makes the most logical sense to me. It simply fits the best. Everyone just being “bad humans” doesn’t mesh with me, if that was true then how is this world today still here? If it was just “bad humans doing bad things”, then I think we’ve earned judgement 1,000 times over since the flood. It just doesn’t make sense to me. I will sum it up like this, I don’t KNOW either way, and I also agree with someone that commented earlier that it’s not essential for salvation so I wouldn’t even argue about it (not like now we are just having a conversation, but I wouldn’t debate it with anyone), but to me it makes the whole bible and my personal understanding of who God is make so much more sense. I just feel it connects everything in world history and everything we see today better. That is just how I’ve been led to see it at this point, but again I don’t claim to KNOW, nor am I against learning and continuously trying to draw closer, so I could very well change my view in light of new understandings I’ve yet to learn. It’s possible, but from the information I have now, and what I think scripture says very clearly the fallen angel theory is the best option to fit the information given.

This is not an issue of which one makes the most sense to us it is a matter of allowing the biblical text to define its own terms. You will have a very difficult time finding the terms sons of God applied to angels anywhere in scripture. Angels and 'sons of god' never appear together.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Look at the construction of the text. "Which likewise indulged in sexual immorality" is not linking Sodom and Gomorrah to the angels who left their first estate, it is linking the behavior of the "surrounding cities" to the like behavior of Sodom and Gomorrah. The sin of the angels is specified simply as having left their "own position of authority" not sexual immorality.

"just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

Ok. I see it now.