The SONS of God came in to the daughters of man

[Kokavkrystallos]

I know a lot has already been said here, so I'll try not to repeat.
The Hebrew is Benai Elohim בני האלהים in Genesis 6, and also in Job 1:6 and 2:1 בני האלהים referring to the angels that presented themselves before Yahweh, and in Job 38:7 it's בני אלהים Benai Elohim in regard to the angels that sang and shouted for joy at creation. The "Ha" ה is just the definite article "the."

It's also interesting that Josephus mentions this:
"Josephus 1:3:1
For many Angels of God (14) accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good; on account of the confidence they had in their own strength. For the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call Giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did: and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions, and their actions for the better. But seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married. So he departed out of that land.
(14)This notion, that the fallen Angels were, in some sense, the fathers of the old Giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity. What strong evidence may be produced for it, see Authent. Rec. Part. I. pag. 260–293. and Part II. pag. 872–938.
(15)Of the old giants, their several species, and statures, and remaining bones, see Authent. Records Part I. pag. 260–293. and Part II. 872–938. at large.
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-1.html

The Book of Enoch while not in the Canon of Scripture, was quoted at least twice in the New Testament, once by Paul in Hebrews, and the other by Jude. It also contains many references to the Son of Man and prophecies of Christ. And, it contains details about the angels that sinned by taking human wives and the creation of giants and mutants. Enoch was accepted by the early church.

Then there's the Book of Giants, little known, but well circulated, and found among the Dead Sea Scrolls:

The Book of Giants - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The First Epistle to the Corinthians in 11:10, according to the early Church Father Tertullian, referenced the Watchers.[34] He taught that the lust of the Watchers was the reason for Saint Paul's directive to Christian women to wear a headcovering.[34] Tertullian referenced the case of a woman who was touched on the neck by an angel "who found her to be a temptation".[35]

According to PrEv 1.10.1-2 of Philo of Byblos, Sanchuniathon mentioned "some living beings who had no perception, out of whom intelligent beings came into existence, and they were called Zophasemin (Heb. șōpē-šāmayim, that is, 'Watchers of Heaven'). And they were formed like the shape of an egg."[10]
(I shan't go into detail about the egg, but am aware of this phenomenon)

The Sons of God were and are Watchers, a class of angelic beings.

The term translated "Sons of God" is ALWAYS referring to angels in the Hebrew Tanakh, the Old Testament.
Sons of God in New Testament is men.

 

[Postvieww]

I know a lot has already been said here, so I'll try not to repeat.
The Hebrew is Benai Elohim בני האלהים in Genesis 6, and also in Job 1:6 and 2:1 בני האלהים referring to the angels that presented themselves before Yahweh, and in Job 38:7 it's בני אלהים Benai Elohim in regard to the angels that sang and shouted for joy at creation. The "Ha" ה is just the definite article "the."

It's also interesting that Josephus mentions this:
"Josephus 1:3:1
For many Angels of God (14) accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good; on account of the confidence they had in their own strength. For the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call Giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did: and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions, and their actions for the better. But seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married. So he departed out of that land.
(14)This notion, that the fallen Angels were, in some sense, the fathers of the old Giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity. What strong evidence may be produced for it, see Authent. Rec. Part. I. pag. 260–293. and Part II. pag. 872–938.
(15)Of the old giants, their several species, and statures, and remaining bones, see Authent. Records Part I. pag. 260–293. and Part II. 872–938. at large.
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-1.html

The Book of Enoch while not in the Canon of Scripture, was quoted at least twice in the New Testament, once by Paul in Hebrews, and the other by Jude. It also contains many references to the Son of Man and prophecies of Christ. And, it contains details about the angels that sinned by taking human wives and the creation of giants and mutants. Enoch was accepted by the early church.

Then there's the Book of Giants, little known, but well circulated, and found among the Dead Sea Scrolls:

The Book of Giants - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The First Epistle to the Corinthians in 11:10, according to the early Church Father Tertullian, referenced the Watchers.[34] He taught that the lust of the Watchers was the reason for Saint Paul's directive to Christian women to wear a headcovering.[34] Tertullian referenced the case of a woman who was touched on the neck by an angel "who found her to be a temptation".[35]

According to PrEv 1.10.1-2 of Philo of Byblos, Sanchuniathon mentioned "some living beings who had no perception, out of whom intelligent beings came into existence, and they were called Zophasemin (Heb. șōpē-šāmayim, that is, 'Watchers of Heaven'). And they were formed like the shape of an egg."[10]
(I shan't go into detail about the egg, but am aware of this phenomenon)

The Sons of God were and are Watchers, a class of angelic beings.

The term translated "Sons of God" is ALWAYS referring to angels in the Hebrew Tanakh, the Old Testament.
Sons of God in New Testament is men.

Thank you!

 

[Postvieww]

KJV –
John 1: 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his nam
Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God.
Luke 20:36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

Where are your OT examples where context actually supports your claim? Oh yea there are none!

 

[Postvieww]

What is not in scripture is "sinless angels mated with other species"

Yes you got this one right!

What is not in scripture is "fallen angels mated with other species"

You got this one wrong!

Jude: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.

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.


Genesis 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.


2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

All fallen angels are not held in chains so you are left what was the sin that got some of them bound in chains?

 

[Postvieww]

So that means Noah was also himself "large human" so no wonder we find Nephilim on the Earth AFTER the flood -- Noah was Nephilim.

Again I ask you to reference some scholar, pastor, Bible Teacher, Church anything or anyone who teaches what you claim above.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

So that means Noah was also himself "large human" so no wonder we find Nephilim on the Earth AFTER the flood -- Noah was Nephilim.

False Noah was not Nephilim!

Indeed he was since only Noah and his 7 other family members cross over from pre-flood to post-flood and scripture says there were Nephilim before the flood and afterwards. Noah and his family of 8 are the only humans to cross over - so Noah and his family were Nephilim. That is how biology works.

Again I ask you to reference some scholar, pastor, Bible Teacher, Church anything or anyone who teaches what you claim above.

1. All Bible scholars admit that the Bible teaches that only Noah and his family get on the boat.
2. Most Bible scholars admit that the Bible teaches that the only link between preflood humans and post-flood humans is Noah's family.
3. All Bible scholars admit that the Bible describes Nephilim as existing both before the flood and afterwards.

Gen 6:4 says this -- as all Bible scholars know
Gen 6:4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

All Bible scholars admit to these texts being in the actual Bible

KJV –
John 1: 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his nam
Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God.
Luke 20:36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.


Matthew Henry - Gen 6:2

• 2. Mixed marriages (v. 2): The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done, both for the preservation of their own purity and in detestation of the apostasy. They intermingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain: They took them wives of all that they chose.But what was amiss in these marriages?
  • (1.) They chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair, which was all they looked at.
  • (2.) They followed the choice which their own corrupt affections made: they took all that they chose, without advice and consideration. But,
  • (3.) That which proved of such bad consequence to them was that they married strange wives, were unequally yoked with unbelievers, 2 Co. 6:14. This was forbidden to Israel, Deu. 7:3, 4. It was the unhappy occasion of Solomon's apostasy (1 Ki. 11:1-4), and was of bad consequence to the Jews after their return out of Babylon, Ezra 9:1, 2. Note, Professors of religion, in marrying both themselves and their children, should make conscience of keeping within the bounds of profession. The bad will sooner debauch the good than the good reform the bad. Those that profess themselves the children of God must not marry without his consent, which they have not if they join in affinity with his enemies.

Commentary by ROBERT JAMIESON​

CHAPTER 6​

Gen 6:1-22. WICKEDNESS OF THE WORLD.

2. the sons of God saw the daughters of men--By the former is meant the family of Seth, who were professedly religious; by the latter, the descendants of apostate Cain. Mixed marriages between parties of opposite principles and practice were necessarily sources of extensive corruption. The women, religious themselves, would as wives and mothers exert an influence fatal to the existence of religion in their household, and consequently the people of that later age sank to the lowest depravity.

Where are your OT examples where context actually supports your claim? Oh yea there are none!

If instead of dismissing the scripture - you choose to read it in detail you will find that John 1 and Matt 5 and Luke 20 are all referencing Bible teaching BEFORE the cross event even happens. As all Bible scholars freely admit.

Hos 11:1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him, I called My son out of Egypt” NKJV, YLT, NIV

Ex 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord: “Israel is My son, My firstborn. 23 So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.” ’ ”

 

[BobRyan]

Matthew Henry Gen 6:
Gen 6:4-5

We have here a further account of the corruption of the old world. When the sons of God had matched with the daughters of men, though it was very displeasing to God, yet he did not immediately cut them off, but waited to see what would be the issue of these marriages, and which side the children would take after; and it proved (as usually it does), that they took after the worst side. Here is,

• I. The temptation they were under to oppress and do violence. They were giants, and they were men of renown;they became too hard for all about them, and carried all before them,
  • 1. With their great bulk, as the sons of Anak, Num. 13:33.
  • 2. With their great name, as the king of Assyria, Isa. 37:11. These made them the terror of the mighty in the land of the living; and, thus armed, they daringly insulted the rights of all their neighbours and trampled upon all that is just and sacred. Note, Those that have so much power over others as to be able to oppress them have seldom so much power over themselves as not to oppress; great might is a very great snare to many. This degenerate race slighted the honour their ancestors had obtained by virtue and religion, and made themselves a great name by that which was the perpetual ruin of their good name.
• II. The charge exhibited and proved against them, v. 5. The evidence produced was incontestable. God saw it, and that was instead of a thousand witnesses. God sees all the wickedness that is among the children of men; it cannot be concealed from him now, and, if it be not repented of, it shall not be concealed by him shortly. Now what did God take notice of?
  • 1. He observed that the streams of sin that flowed along in men's lives, and the breadth and depth of those streams: He saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth. Observe the connection of this with what goes before: the oppressors were mighty men and men of renown; and, then, God saw that the wickedness of man was great. Note, The wickedness of a people is great indeed when the most notorious sinners are men of renown among them. Things are bad when bad men are not only honoured notwithstanding their wickedness, but honoured for their wickedness, and the vilest men exalted. Wickedness is then great when great men are wicked. Their wickedness was great, that is, abundance of sin was committed in all places, by all sorts of people; and such sin as was in its own nature most gross, and heinous, and provoking; it was committed daringly, and with a defiance of heaven, nor was any care taken by those that had power in their hands to restrain and punish it. This God saw. Note, All the sins of sinners are known to God the Judge. Those that are most conversant in the world, though they see much wickedness in it, yet they see but little of that which is; but God sees all, and judges aright concerning it, how great it is, nor can he be deceived in his judgment.
  • 2. He observed the fountain of sin that was in men's hearts. Any one might see that the wickedness of man was great, for they declared their sin as Sodom; but God's eye went further: He saw that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually-a sad sight, and very offensive to God's holy eye! This was the bitter root, the corrupt spring: all the violence and oppression, all the luxury and wantonness, that were in the world, proceeded from the corruption of nature; lust conceived them, Jam. 1:15. See Mt. 15:19.
    • (1.) The heart was naught; it was deceitful and desperately wicked. The principles were corrupt, and the habits and dispositions evil.
    • (2.) The thoughts of the heart were so. Thought is sometimes taken for the settled judgment or opinion, and this was bribed, and biased, and misled; sometimes it signifies the workings of the fancy, and these were always either vain or vile, either weaving the spider's web or hatching the cockatrice's egg.
    • (3.) The imagination of the thoughts of the heart was so, that is, their designs and devices were wicked. They did not do evil through mere carelessness, as those that walk at all adventures, not heeding what they do; but they did evil deliberately and designedly, contriving how to do mischief. It was bad indeed; for it was only evil, continually evil, and every imagination was so. There was no good to be found among them, no, not at any time: the stream of sin was full, and strong, and constant; and God saw it; see Ps. 14:1-3.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

What is not in scripture is "fallen angels mated with other species"

You got this one wrong!

Jude: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.

Says nothing about "mating with other species"

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.

Another great example of a text that makes no mention of "mating with another species"

Genesis 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

Indeed - the giants were there in the days before the flood -- from Adam onward.
And they were still there even after the mixed marriages between the people of God and the worldly humans that did not follow God.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

All fallen angels are not held in chains so you are left what was the sin that got some of them bound in chains?

2 Peter 2 does not say "just some of the fallen angels were delivered into chains of darkness"

 

[Postvieww]

1. All Bible scholars admit that the Bible teaches that only Noah and his family get on the boat.

Many do but ALL Bible scholars do not even believe the account of the flood was as described in the Bible.

2. Most Bible scholars admit that the Bible teaches that the only link between preflood humans and post-flood humans is Noah's family.

Well at least you didn't use the word "all" here.

3. All Bible scholars admit that the Bible describes Nephilim as existing both before the flood and afterwards.

Maybe, it is very hard to speak for ALL Bible scholars.

Gen 6:4 says this -- as all Bible scholars know
Gen 6:4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

All Bible scholars admit to these texts being in the actual Bible

The problem here is that ALL Bible scholars do not come to the same conclusion as you on Noah. I ask you to show me any published work that agrees with your stance on Noah being nephilim.

Since you refuse or are unable (it may be both) to provide any sources I can only conclude you made this up by your own flawed reasoning.

Since you cannot provide any scholarly writings that agree with you on this issue I would encourage everyone who reads this thread to ignore your teaching on this specific topic.

 

[Postvieww]

BobRyan said:

What is not in scripture is "fallen angels mated with other species"

Then you should explain what " going after strange flesh" means in Jude 7

Says nothing about "mating with other species"

Another great example of a text that makes no mention of "mating with another species"

Jude 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh,

Again explain Jude:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, and committed fornication going after strange flesh. Compared with Genesis 6 this shoots down your false theory.

Indeed - the giants were there in the days before the flood -- from Adam onward.

There is no scriptural evidence giants were on earth from the beginning with Adam. This is why you have so little credibility on this topic.

And they were still there even after the mixed marriages between the people of God and the worldly humans that did not follow God.

2 Peter 2 does not say "just some of the fallen angels were delivered into chains of darkness"

It does say the ones that sinned are chained. Since we can prove with scripture all fallen angels are not in chains maybe you can tell us what the sin was that got only some of them chained?

 

[Postvieww]

Matthew Henry Gen 6:
Gen 6:4-5

We have here a further account of the corruption of the old world. When the sons of God had matched with the daughters of men, though it was very displeasing to God, yet he did not immediately cut them off, but waited to see what would be the issue of these marriages, and which side the children would take after; and it proved (as usually it does), that they took after the worst side. Here is,

• I. The temptation they were under to oppress and do violence. They were giants, and they were men of renown;they became too hard for all about them, and carried all before them,
  • 1. With their great bulk, as the sons of Anak, Num. 13:33.
  • 2. With their great name, as the king of Assyria, Isa. 37:11. These made them the terror of the mighty in the land of the living; and, thus armed, they daringly insulted the rights of all their neighbours and trampled upon all that is just and sacred. Note, Those that have so much power over others as to be able to oppress them have seldom so much power over themselves as not to oppress; great might is a very great snare to many. This degenerate race slighted the honour their ancestors had obtained by virtue and religion, and made themselves a great name by that which was the perpetual ruin of their good name.
• II. The charge exhibited and proved against them, v. 5. The evidence produced was incontestable. God saw it, and that was instead of a thousand witnesses. God sees all the wickedness that is among the children of men; it cannot be concealed from him now, and, if it be not repented of, it shall not be concealed by him shortly. Now what did God take notice of?
  • 1. He observed that the streams of sin that flowed along in men's lives, and the breadth and depth of those streams: He saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth. Observe the connection of this with what goes before: the oppressors were mighty men and men of renown; and, then, God saw that the wickedness of man was great. Note, The wickedness of a people is great indeed when the most notorious sinners are men of renown among them. Things are bad when bad men are not only honoured notwithstanding their wickedness, but honoured for their wickedness, and the vilest men exalted. Wickedness is then great when great men are wicked. Their wickedness was great, that is, abundance of sin was committed in all places, by all sorts of people; and such sin as was in its own nature most gross, and heinous, and provoking; it was committed daringly, and with a defiance of heaven, nor was any care taken by those that had power in their hands to restrain and punish it. This God saw. Note, All the sins of sinners are known to God the Judge. Those that are most conversant in the world, though they see much wickedness in it, yet they see but little of that which is; but God sees all, and judges aright concerning it, how great it is, nor can he be deceived in his judgment.
  • 2. He observed the fountain of sin that was in men's hearts. Any one might see that the wickedness of man was great, for they declared their sin as Sodom; but God's eye went further: He saw that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually-a sad sight, and very offensive to God's holy eye! This was the bitter root, the corrupt spring: all the violence and oppression, all the luxury and wantonness, that were in the world, proceeded from the corruption of nature; lust conceived them, Jam. 1:15. See Mt. 15:19.
    • (1.) The heart was naught; it was deceitful and desperately wicked. The principles were corrupt, and the habits and dispositions evil.
    • (2.) The thoughts of the heart were so. Thought is sometimes taken for the settled judgment or opinion, and this was bribed, and biased, and misled; sometimes it signifies the workings of the fancy, and these were always either vain or vile, either weaving the spider's web or hatching the cockatrice's egg.
    • (3.) The imagination of the thoughts of the heart was so, that is, their designs and devices were wicked. They did not do evil through mere carelessness, as those that walk at all adventures, not heeding what they do; but they did evil deliberately and designedly, contriving how to do mischief. It was bad indeed; for it was only evil, continually evil, and every imagination was so. There was no good to be found among them, no, not at any time: the stream of sin was full, and strong, and constant; and God saw it; see Ps. 14:1-3.

Matthew Henry did not agree with you on Noah in this commentary.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

The whole line of the "sons of Seth" argument are based on the premise that certain scholars found it just too far out fantastical that angelic beings mated with humans, and produced giant offspring.
However, the belief is supported way back in antiquity.
Even this website which supports the Sons of Seth theory has this to say,

"Probably the oldest explanation is that the ‘sons of God’ are angels. The Book of Enoch elaborated on that viewpoint. It is basically is a narrative expanding Gen 6:1-4: angels descend to earth in order to marry human women; their children turn out to be giants, the world almost spirals down into total chaos, but God intervenes and imprisons the fallen angels until the last judgment. Some scholars view Gen 6:1–4 as a condensation of the Enochic narrative, but it seems more logical to consider the Enochic tradition as an expansion of the story about the ‘sons of God’ in Gen 6:1–4."

and

"It is around the fourth century CE that the tide turns. The ‘sons of God’ are evermore explained as being humans, that is, godly Sethites, who mingle with the daughters of the godless tribe of Cain. It seems that this approach had its provenance in Syriac Christianity. As early as the second century CE on, Jewish exegesis also exchanged the ‘angels-interpretation’ for an explanation of the ‘sons of God’ as ‘judges’, ‘rulers’, ‘the elite’, who marry morally inferior women. The change in rabbinical exegesis is mainly connected to the rabbi Simeon bar Yoḥai (2nd century CE) who, according to Genesis Rabbah 26:5.1, put a curse on anyone who still referred to the ‘sons of God’ as angels."

We have the Genesis Apocryphon found in the Dead Sea scrolls, dated to be anywhere from 3rd century BC to 1st century AD, well before the Sons of Seth theory came into being:

"Cols. 0-5
This passage is very fragmentary, but seems to contain the story of the Watchers (Heb: עירין) or Nephilim found in 1 Enoch 1-36, based on Gen 6:1-4.[9] Columns 2-5 tell the story of the birth of Noah, using both third person accounts, and first person language from the point of view of Lamech, Noah's father.[9] The text details an exasperated Lamech, who questions whether the child being borne by his wife, Bath-Enosh, is his own, or belongs to one of the Watchers. A portion of column 2 states:

She said to me, "O my master and [brother, recall for yourself] my pregnancy. I swear to you by the Great Holy One, by the Ruler of Hea[ven] that this seed is yours, that this pregnancy is from you, that from you is the planting of [this] fruit [and that it is] not from any alien, or from any of the Watchers, or from any heavenly bein[g.

Dated to about 100 BC for that found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but thought to have existed earlier, The Book of Jubilees narrates the genesis of angels on the first day of Creation and the story of how a group of fallen angels mated with mortal females, giving rise to a race of giants known as the Nephilim, and then to their descendants, the Elioud.

However,
The Ethiopian version states that the "angels" were in fact the disobedient offspring of Seth (Deqiqa Set), while the "mortal females" were daughters of Cain.[27] This is also the view held by Clementine literature, Sextus Julius Africanus, Ephrem the Syrian, Augustine of Hippo, and John Chrysostom among many early Christian authorities.

Obviously someone changed the portion of Jubilees to conform to a more naturalistic form, and these earliest writers we find from about 200 AD and on. Yet we find much literature regarding the sons of God as angels going back 400-500 years before them.

I could go into personal experience, but will leave that alone for now.

 

[BPPLEE]

No.

Rom 8:14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
John 1: 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Matt 22 says angels do not form family arrangements within their own species let alone across other species.

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

So the Nephilim (large humans) where on the Earth BEFORE the mixed marriages between God's people and Cain's people, and also AFTER that mixed marriage age of man pre-flood.

So that means Noah was also himself "large human" so no wonder we find Nephilim on the Earth AFTER the flood -- Noah was Nephilim.

Noah was perfect in his generations according to Genesis. That means he was not Nephilim

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

I'll also bring in Greek mythology here. I had a pastor once who believed the Greek gods and titans were in fact the Sons of God and the Nephilim written down as a mythology.

"The Greek myths were initially propagated in an oral-poetic tradition most likely by Minoan and Mycenaean singers starting in the 18th century BC;[2] eventually the myths of the heroes of the Trojan War and its aftermath became part of the oral tradition of Homer's epic poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey. Two poems by Homer's near contemporary Hesiod, the Theogony and the Works and Days, contain accounts of the genesis of the world, the succession of divine rulers, the succession of human ages, the origin of human woes, and the origin of sacrificial practices"

While Greek mythology is embellished, we can see correlations between it and Genesis 6, as well as the Book of Enoch and other extra biblical sources in both BC and early AD times before the Sons of Seth idea got traction.
"Zeus even managed to impregnate mortal women when he was a swan or a bull. Hercules was the illegitimate child of Zeus and a mortal woman, as were Perseus, Helen of Troy and Minos (among other very, very famous offspring of Zeus)"

 

[BobRyan]

Noah was perfect in his generations according to Genesis. That means he was not Nephilim

No text says being Nephilim was a sin.
No text says "Being a giant" was a sin.
Moses simply says that giants were on the Earth in those days - before the flood.
then he points out that they were also on the Earth after the flood

 

[BobRyan]

I'll also bring in Greek mythology here. I had a pastor once who believed the Greek gods and titans were in fact the Sons of God and the Nephilim written down as a mythology.

"The Greek myths were initially propagated in an oral-poetic tradition most likely by Minoan and Mycenaean singers starting in the 18th century BC;[2] eventually the myths of the heroes of the Trojan War and its aftermath became part of the oral tradition of Homer's epic poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey. Two poems by Homer's near contemporary Hesiod, the Theogony and the Works and Days, contain accounts of the genesis of the world, the succession of divine rulers, the succession of human ages, the origin of human woes, and the origin of sacrificial practices"

While Greek mythology is embellished, we can see correlations between it and Genesis 6, as well as the Book of Enoch and other extra biblical sources in both BC and early AD times before the Sons of Seth idea got traction.
"Zeus even managed to impregnate mortal women when he was a swan or a bull. Hercules was the illegitimate child of Zeus and a mortal woman, as were Perseus, Helen of Troy and Minos (among other very, very famous offspring of Zeus)"

Agreed - lost of pagan myths/beliefs surrounding that idea.

But the Bible does not teach it.

 

[BobRyan]

The whole line of the "sons of Seth" argument are based on the premise that certain scholars found it just too far out fantastical that angelic beings mated with humans, and produced giant offspring.
However, the belief is supported way back in antiquity.
Even this website which supports the Sons of Seth theory has this to say,

"Probably the oldest explanation is that the ‘sons of God’ are angels. The Book of Enoch elaborated on that viewpoint. It is basically is a narrative expanding Gen 6:1-4: angels descend to earth in order to marry human women; their children turn out to be giants, the world almost spirals down into total chaos, but God intervenes and imprisons the fallen angels until the last judgment. Some scholars view Gen 6:1–4 as a condensation of the Enochic narrative, but it seems more logical to consider the Enochic tradition as an expansion of the story about the ‘sons of God’ in Gen 6:1–4."

The problem is that the book of Enoch is not very old.

It is not scripture

It teaches that humans were 4500 feet tall in the day of Noah -- and called Nephilim.

1 Enoch 7: "1 And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms 2and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they 3became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells:"

An "ell" is 1.5 feet (18 inches) so 3000 ells is 4500 feet!!

Next we have someone defending the book of Enoch as if it were some sort of inspired biblical text - but then admitting to the outright glaring problem with it -- 4500 foot tall giants - as the accurate and most reliable translation of the text. Where the "fix" is to "imagine" that the ancient text has an error in it - all the while have no prior copy of it to show that any such error is in the manuscript!!.

Were the pre-flood giants REALLY two miles tall?!? No! Read on...

ells.thebookofenoch.info

"To be clear, “3,000 ells” in the Charles translation, is not an error of English translation. It began with an ancient copyist's mistake which changed a verse about the “3” races of Watcher offspring, (one of those races was called “Elioud”), into a comment about the giant's height. “Elioud” became “ells” and “3” became “3,000” in my understanding. George Nickelsburg and James Vanderkam (as do Daniel Olson, and John Baty) translate a Greek fragment (Synchellus) for the verse to restore a more original reading. The only mistake by translators was in not discerning the ancient scribal error and ferreting out the better reading"

They insist that the "better reading" is in Greek texts rather than the Ethiopic version (where the Ethiopic Aramaic is in fact our only complete version of the book) accurately translated into English as "3000 ells".

Notice this "hopeful wish" form of statement in the author's statement

"Actually, the Book of Enoch originally probably did not say how tall the giants were. Contrary to Charles, Schodde and Laurence, Enoch 7:2, contains a scribal corruption in the Ethiopic."

His/her "hope" is that the well known older Ethiopic version "probably" has a mistake in it.

Bottom line - the book of Enoch as we know it today - is not credible in many of its claims.

==========================================

Notice how the Ethiopic is considered the more accurate original if not speaking of 1 Enoch 7:2

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0951820719875726

ABSTRACT:

"Greek and Ethiopic versions of 1 Enoch 5:8 preserve a different text at the end of the passage.
This note aims to demonstrate the superiority of the Ethiopic text of 1 En. 5:8 over the version
preserved in Codex Panapolitanus by arguing that the Greek reading must be treated as a scribal
addition influenced by Gnostic terminology"

from: First Book of Enoch | Summary, History, & Facts.
"First Book of Enoch, pseudepigraphal work (not included in any canon of scripture) whose only complete extant version is an Ethiopic translation of a previous Greek"

"I Enoch is a compilation of several separate works, most of which are apocalyptic. Its oldest portion is the “Apocalypse of Weeks,” written shortly before the Maccabean uprising of 167 bc against the Seleucids."

"No fragments of the longest portion of the work (chapters 37–71), however, were found among the Qumrān writings. This has led scholars to theorize that this section was perhaps written in the 2nd century ad by a Jewish Christian who wished to imbue his own eschatological speculations with the authority of Enoch, and added his work to four older apocryphal Enoch writings."

Scholars regard the book of Enoch as a "syncretic blending of Iranian, Greek, Chaldean, and Egyptian elements."

hmm "syncretism" yep - we've seen that before.

Bottom line: a lot of toying around with the book is considered a "Given" by scholars that look at the book.

 

[BPPLEE]

No text says being Nephilim was a sin.
No text says "Being a giant" was a sin.
Moses simply says that giants were on the Earth in those days - before the flood.
then he points out that they were also on the Earth after the flood

Nephilim means “fallen” Noah was perfect in his generations meaning that his bloodline had not been corrupted by the unholy union of the Sons of God and daughters of men.

 

[Postvieww]

No text says being Nephilim was a sin.
No text says "Being a giant" was a sin.

Then why did God have them killed?

 

[BobRyan]

Again I ask you to reference some scholar, pastor, Bible Teacher, Church anything or anyone who teaches what you claim above.

1. All Bible scholars admit that the Bible teaches that only Noah and his family get on the boat.
2. Most Bible scholars admit that the Bible teaches that the only link between preflood humans and post-flood humans is Noah's family.
3. All Bible scholars admit that the Bible describes Nephilim as existing both before the flood and afterwards.

Gen 6:4 says this -- as all Bible scholars know
Gen 6:4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

All Bible scholars admit to these texts being in the actual Bible

KJV –
John 1: 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his nam
Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God.
Luke 20:36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.


Matthew Henry - Gen 6:2

• 2. Mixed marriages (v. 2): The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done, both for the preservation of their own purity and in detestation of the apostasy. They intermingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain: They took them wives of all that they chose.But what was amiss in these marriages?
  • (1.) They chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair, which was all they looked at.
  • (2.) They followed the choice which their own corrupt affections made: they took all that they chose, without advice and consideration. But,
  • (3.) That which proved of such bad consequence to them was that they married strange wives, were unequally yoked with unbelievers, 2 Co. 6:14. This was forbidden to Israel, Deu. 7:3, 4. It was the unhappy occasion of Solomon's apostasy (1 Ki. 11:1-4), and was of bad consequence to the Jews after their return out of Babylon, Ezra 9:1, 2. Note, Professors of religion, in marrying both themselves and their children, should make conscience of keeping within the bounds of profession. The bad will sooner debauch the good than the good reform the bad. Those that profess themselves the children of God must not marry without his consent, which they have not if they join in affinity with his enemies.

Commentary by ROBERT JAMIESON​

CHAPTER 6​

Gen 6:1-22. WICKEDNESS OF THE WORLD.

2. the sons of God saw the daughters of men--By the former is meant the family of Seth, who were professedly religious; by the latter, the descendants of apostate Cain. Mixed marriages between parties of opposite principles and practice were necessarily sources of extensive corruption. The women, religious themselves, would as wives and mothers exert an influence fatal to the existence of religion in their household, and consequently the people of that later age sank to the lowest depravity.

Many do but ALL Bible scholars do not even believe the account of the flood was as described in the Bible.

Are you now opposing your own request that this teaching be shown as supported by Bible scholars??

Seems you are "reaching" for a way to resolve the issue.