Under continued review, from part 1, is the paper Theological Analysis of the Interpretation of “Sons Of God” Based on Genesis 6:5 by the Adventist University of Indonesia’s Ludwig Beethoven J. Noya, Stimson Hutagalung and Milton T. Pardosi. Note that the English in the paper is only very slightly broken.
I previously covered their view on the issue of the Genesis 6 affair pertaining to aliens.
ANGELS
We are then told that “the interpretation of the ‘sons of God’ as the angels, is divided into two conditions: (1) The fallen angels, for instance, proposed by John W. Milor which states that the children of God in Genesis 6 refers to the fallen angels who held marriages with humans” this is the majority and ancient view, see Early commentaries on Genesis 6: Angels or not – interactive chart.
For some reason it is asserted that the angels “beget offspring who were descendants of the giant, also called the nephilim, which is an indication that they had a physical appearance.” They seem to have dropped an “s” and are thusly referring to the giants who are aka Nephilim (actually, they are Nephilim who are aka giants according to some translations). In any case, the angel’s offspring were not descendants of the giant/Nephilim: they are the giant/Nephilim.
They note that Milor argues against the Sethite view by noting the mistaken “assumption that humans would not have a giant baby.”1 But the only reason to think that the Nephilim were giants is that as noted, that some translated the term as such (as they do a few other Hebrew words). No height ranges are offered for the Nephilim and also the term “giant,” even if applicable here, merely means taller than average and the average Hebrew male of those days was 5.5 ft.
They then reference David Guzik regarding that “‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6: 4 clearly refer to angels, as had been used in three other verses in the Old Testament. This view had been supported by the Septuagint translators who translates the word ‘Sons of God’ as angels, not human descendants of Seth.2
This brings us to the view of the authors who make clear that “the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Seventhday [sic. Adventists), who are the ones that God prepared for bring souls to come closer to God.”
This gets us into the subsection titled, “The Experts’ Views Regarding The Identity Of Sons Of God In Genesis 6:4 Sons Of God As The Angels.” Guzik is referenced again along with Claus Westermann who “commented through the appearance of a giant in Genesis 6: 4 which was the result of a marriage between angels and daughters of men.”3 Henry Morris “commented upon as the angels sinned, who chose to follow Satan, with comments of John W. Milor stating the impossibility of a marriage between common man can produce a giant baby”4 which would be contra the Sethite view (and yet, mistaken about the “giant” issue).
Lastly within this subsection is a reference to the apocryphal Book of Jubilee 5:1 which affirms that angel view: see my chart linked above.
Back to aliens, Sitchin asserted that Nephilim “actually means people who came from a rocket ship” about which you can cut to the chase by reading Dr. Michael Heiser’s site: Heiser offered to debate Sitchin on such issues for a decade and Sitchin never accepted. We are then told that Immanuel Velikovsky “claimed that Genesis was written relics associated with the visit of intelligent beings from other planets”5 (as an FYI: see The L. Ron Hubbard & Immanuel Velikovsky connection – Scientology/Dianetics & Worlds in Collision). Reference is also made to Claude Vorilhon aka Rael, the leader of the UFO cult Raelianism who “claims that he had met a intelligent beings from other planets who claimed to be the creator of all things on this Earth” which is about as relevant as well, referring to Rael who claimed to have had his experience in the early 1970s AD.
JUDGMENT ON ALL FLESH They argue that Genesis 6’s “intermarriage event…continues to [the] Flood events in Genesis 7 which is a God’s judgment on the sins of mankind…This judgment was not addressed to the angels, because God says ‘I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth;.both [sic.] man, and beast.’ This verse clearly refers to human beings that God has created, not the angel that he has created…further clarified with the presence of the statement ‘All flesh.” Their conclusion is that since “angels are formed from fire and wind (spirit) and not of the flesh.”
Yet, all of this is irrelevant for three reasons: 1) Adam was formed of or from dust/dirt/earth and yet was still flesh, 2) as I already noted: angles are regularly referred to as “man” or “men” (see Genesis 18:22, 32:24, 37:15, etc.) and 3) the text is not very detailed but it seems to imply that as did the sons of God with humans so did the Nephilim with humans so that by the time of the flood humans were generally hybridized as we may say.
SEMI-DIVINE BEINGS OR SEMI-ANGELS
The issue just addressed carries over to the Nephilim as the paper notes that they are “not mentioned as semi-divine creatures or semi-angelic beings” but as “mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” That they are “men” is not problematic to the angel view which would identify them as half-angel and half-human since angels look like human males yet, more directly because, as per a modern example, we refer to Barack Obama as the first “Black” president even though he is half-Black and half-White.
They further claim that “the phrase ‘At that time the giants (Nephilim) were on Earth…,’ In Hebrew does not say that it is the offspring of the marriage…This sentence seems to appear as a parenthetical statement, which is clauses or phrases used in sentences that contain secondary.” Well, the grammar, at least in English, is rather odd, “There were giants [Nephilim] in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men…” and I am tempted to think that a better rendering would be “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, there were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that” as in “as a result of when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, there were giants…” Yet, the meaning seems clear unless for some odd reason, reference to the Nephilim is being made in a passing and thus un-contextual, meaningless and useless manner.
But the paper seeks to explain this by stating, “Ancient Nephilim was destroyed by the Flood, but in Numbers 13:33 the same expression is used to describe people who have high [height], body size, and cruelty are the same as the ancient Nephilim. In other words, the word “Nephilim” is an adjective, not a noun or personal pronoun.” I will note that the reason that the term Nephilim only appears in one text beyond Genesis 6 is just that: the Nephilim drowned. As I elucidate in How to bring the Nephilim down to Earth: the term is being used in Numbers by the spies who were dissuading the people from following God’s command and thus, they were employing it as a scare tactic. There were no post-flood Nephilim and the Bible does not speak of any such a concept as a return of the Nephilim or any such thing.
Find part 3 here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.