Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network posted a reply to a question which is titled, Did Fallen Angels Have Sex with Humans and Create a Race of Giants? the reply to which is by Craig von Buseck. I am posting the following there since it is indicative as to how I tend to fall between extremes when it comes to the issue of the Nephilim—such as I elucidated in Going too far & not far enough on the issue of the Genesis 6 Nephilim.
Craig von Buseck noted that “A viewer writes”:
I have questions regarding “the sons of God” and giants from Genesis 6. Some Bible teachers believe that angels took the form of flesh (actual incarnation) to engender offspring with women, thus “Giants” came into being (Nephilim). What do you believe?
The reply to which I will parse as we go along beginning with “This theological position from Genesis 6 is common — that fallen angels had sex with humans to create a race of giants — but I don’t subscribe to it.”
The reason why I fall into the middle is that I disagree that “angels took the form of flesh” and also disagree that “fallen angels had sex with humans to create a race of giants” (given a mythological definition of “giants”) and also disagree because I do subscribe to “that fallen angels had sex with humans to create a race of…” well, a race called Nephilim (a term which some unhelpfully translate as “giants”).
Craig von Buseck also noted, “God made only man as a fleshly being with a soul. Demons, which most theologians believe are fallen angels, have a soul/spirit, but no body.” That “God made only man as a fleshly being” is an assertion, that demons are fallen angels is one of two options the other of which is that they are not—but you probably already knew that—and that they “have a soul/spirit, but no body” is an assertion following from the first one about humans.
Following from these assertions, Craig von Buseck further asserts “Demons cannot take on flesh — there is nowhere in the Bible that says that they can. Of course we know that angels, both heavenly and fallen, can appear in human form, but they remain spirit beings only.” I agree that demons cannot take on flesh and will also state that angels cannot take on flesh—because they do not have to since they are fleshly beings by their very nature and essence. We are told that angels can appear in human form yet, there is nowhere in the Bible that says that they do—only appear to be in what appears to be a human form, that is.
Biblically, angels are not “spirit beings” (as in having not flesh and bone, Luke 24) but look like human males (no wings nor halos) and are as physical as the post resurrection glorified Jesus: able to eat, be touched, etc. yet, able to appear and disappear, walk through closed doors, etc. There is no such biblical statement as that they shapeshift, morph, take on bodies, only appear to be physical, etc.
Craig von Buseck attempts a pretty good argument since Genesis 1 states, “‘Let the earth produce living creatures according to their ‘kinds’’…’ A fish can not produce with a bird. And a man cannot produce with an animal — or a demon. All creatures on the earth produce only according to their ‘kind.’” The issue is that different sorts of fish that are similar enough to each other could reproduce with each other and result in crossbreeds. If and since the definition of “kind” is they which can interbreed—mate and produce offspring—then if angels and human can do so then they are of the same “kind”—and yet, whether they can do so is the question at hand. I will note that since angels look like human males they and we are apparently similar enough to be able to interbreed.
I utterly agree with Craig von Buseck’s statement that “A key of biblical interpretation is to allow the Scripture to interpret itself. People fall into error when they try to make the Bible say something to fit their particular doctrinal position when the text does not say it.” Yet, people on any of various sides of any issue will claim that they are allowing the Scripture to interpret itself—which they may or may not actually be doing, etc. The issue is that this text is succinct and a bit vague so the issue becomes a styled exercise in Ockham’s Razor: who is asserting less, forcing less interpretive gymnastics, able to back up their view from the immediate and greater context, etc.
Craig von Buseck asserts “In this case, the text simply says ‘sons of God’, which is a designation for humans. There is nowhere in the Bible where demons are called ‘sons’, and especially not ‘sons of God.’” So, now we have a manner whereby to see if they are really allowing the Scripture to interpret itself or not. Keep in mind that they view demons as fallen angels and thus, as angels. Thus, the statement is stating, “There is nowhere in the Bible where demons/fallen angels/angels are called ‘sons’, and especially not ‘sons of God.’” Job chaps 1 and 2 both state, “there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.” Well, perhaps one could assert that these sons of God were well some humans or other and that, that coming before God means well, whatever it may mean and that for whatever reason Satan came along. Yet, Satan is clearly reporting to God and so the context does not seem to be humans gathering to worship God on Earth or what have you.
Yet, it is Job 38 which seals the deal as God asks Job rhetorical questions regarding the foundations of the Earth, “who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Well, Job cannot answer because he did not exist before the creation of the Earth—nor was any human. Thus, here the Bible is referring to angels as sons of God1.
Oddly, Craig von Buseck quotes the Job texts and explains, “There are three passages in Job that refer to the ‘sons of God’, that seem to indicate that these were godly angels” indeed, and he goes on to note that this is the case, “since mankind had not received access to God’s presence before the resurrection of Christ, and Demons had been expelled from God’s presence.” Indeed, they were godly angels and so as to inform us of what is being stated Genesis 6 tells us how some of the originally godly angels came to fall.
Craig von Buseck then notes that “Throughout the rest of the Bible, and particularly in the New Testament, when the term ‘sons of God’ is used it is referring to human beings…Paul also referred to humans as ‘sons of God’” so that he affirms the angel identification but is now attempting to abscond from it.
But he may have good reasons for doing so as he argues that Genesis 6, “says ‘mankind’ — not a mix of man and demon. In verse 4 it says the Nephilim were ‘…powerful men…’ Again, not powerful demon-men.” However, it is not as simple as quoting the English words “mankind” and “men.” For example, the text states, “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men [‘adam H120], and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men [‘enowsh H582] of renown” (as an FYI: “mighty men” is being translated from the Hebrew which only refers to might [gibbowr H1368] and does no state “men”). Well, but being half human they are referred to as men much like Barack Obama is referred to as the USA’s first “black” president even though he is half “black” and half “white.”
He also notes, “in verse 7, ‘…the Lord said, ‘I will wipe off the face of the earth: man, whom I created…’’ Here we see an explicit reference to who and what God intended to bring judgement to — man.” This is ‘adam and the context tells us that God stated as much since “God saw that the wickedness of man was great…And it repented the LORD that he had made man…” (some claim that this came about from interbreeding of humans and Nephilim).
Craig von Buseck then asserts “God alone is the Creator. Demons and angels do not have the power to create” but note the conclusion “so they could not have re-created, or reproduced with human beings.” But why, beside creating an anti-angel view loophole, assume (note that he provides not quotations or citations) that “Demons and angels do not have the power to create”? Indeed, “God alone is the Creator” of all things but we humans create in a manner of speaking as we reproduce. Since angels look like human males they appear to possess the same ability—not to originally produce but to re-produce (I will actually have a section on this specific issue in an upcoming book).
He notes that if the angel view is correct then the Nephilim would have been “a separate race…which would not be something God created” but God also did not create Chihuahuas. Yet, canines hybridized time and again to the point when that dog came about—likewise, angels and humans hybridized. He then states that if this was the case then “God would have made it clear that the demon-men were being destroyed along with the regular men” but this is exactly what the text does by employing a collective reference to “men.”
Craig von Buseck then states, “If the demons were reproducing offspring with humans then, why don’t we see any other instance of this in the Bible — and why aren’t they doing it today? The answer, I believe, is that it simply isn’t possible.” Well, I do not accept that the fallen angel sons of God are “demons” but will answer that the fallen angles were incarcerated in the Abyss/the Bottomless Pit/Tartarus and the loyal angels got the picture.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.