Should I wait for the responses to the 3 & 4?
If we are to believe that the genesis text referring to Sons of God it would be the only text. No other time does an angel call his Son, Sons. My 3rd point was to validate that the Nephilim were very tall humans and the term used for giants is used both before and after the flood. So did angels come down again after the flood? No. The text makes more sense spiritual and rationally that they were the seed of Seth, a holy line. That holy line had descendants who saw the line of Cain as desirable and began to reproduce. Angels/Demons are spiritual being. Are we to believe that these spiritual demons laid with mankind, God's creation and God allowed it? I don't believe so. In against its completely acceptable to call Seth's seed the Sons of God as God references Jesus as the second or last Adam. In addition to that Man became a living soul having the breath of God in him. Man is the only created being with a soul (breath of God).
Do not wait! These were more exegetic. Eisegesis (reading into the text things it does not say) is unsound hermeneutics. The term Nephilim comes from an ancient cognate root meaning "fallen" which could imply angels of humans (but see Jude 1:6).
2 Peter 2:4-5 says "
For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly" The semi colon between 4 and 5 implies this is all referring to the same event (the angels sin and the flood)...
Genesis 6:4 says "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.
So the exegetical problem is that the reference to giants may be referring to a time period or just a subspecies of Human,
after which the sons of God came in and so on...we just do not KNOW. I am fine with the "sons of Seth" theory but that is all it is.
And you say "
No other time does an angel call his Son, Sons." when in fact nothing tells us this was being said, or they were being called sons, by some "angel". The passage more likely comes from the book of the generations of Noah or the book of the generations of Adam that Moses used in compiling Genesis 1-11...
"
Angels/Demons are spiritual being. Are we to believe that these spiritual demons laid with mankind, God's creation and God allowed it?"
No, if the angel theory is correct these would be
in the flesh angels. They are corporeal when manifest (appearing in human form), plus:
a) some orders of angels have free will (like Satan and his rebellious cohorts), and
b) because it was
God's will that they would have free will, it was not a matter of whether God allowed it (thus this is a form of the old notion
"if God was really loving why would he allow war, or poverty, or disease", etc.). One could equally ask why would God allow mankind (His creation) to become so perverse and corrupt?
When God gave man "dominion" over the things on the earth, we as free will beings gave the legal authority (by submitting to and following the Serpent's lead) to Belial (Satan, who is now the god of this world). To not let man go through the consequences of his choice (Genesis 3:5...to be a god unto himself, deciding good and evil as he saw as right in his own eyes) would be God being unfaithful to His own word of promise. God is not a man that He should lie.
(
Then the Devil led Him up and showed Him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And the Devil said to Him, "To You I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please) Luke 4:5-6
There are three "theories", the third being the magistrate or King/Son theory which shows from history and archaeology that after the alleged Babel events the kings or magistrates having authority over life and death were thought of as sons of, or manifestations of, the gods. I do not allow myself to be dogmatic as to which one is correct. The Lord (blessed be His name) simply has not given us enough information here to be sure, and that is probably because it really is not important to our salvation or to His plan of redemption.
Please note...No one before Augustine (450 years after the Christ events) ever even mentioned the "sons of Seth" position...just saying...since the earliest fathers did not hold this view (who were taught by the Apostles as to what these things mean, or were taught by their immediate disciples) it is likely that this was NOT what was taught to or by the Apostles.
Finally, the Dead Sea scrolls, the Targums, Philo, and Josephus, all hold the meaning to imply the fallen angel theory...so we each of us as brothers and sisters must go with what keeps our conscience clean before God not dividing the unity of the Spirit. When He comes again (the Parousia) we will KNOW even as we are known. Until then, be blessed and may the grace and peace of God be with us all.