This is about Thomas Lessing and Deborah Du Rand’s website Discerning the World and pastor Anton Bosch as it was to him that their turned for info on the Nephilim. Thus, their combined effort lead to the post The Nephilim – The Truth about the Sons of God, the Daughters of Men.
Overall it is a good review of certain views on the issue of the identity of the key player in the Genesis 6 affair, as I term it. Ultimately, they argue against the Angel view. I am very empathetic to how outlandish and annoying some people find this topic since, as the article offers, “a very brief and highly sanitized summary of some very extreme and bizarre teachings.” Thus, I can see how some people would rather do away with the whole Angel view. Yet, we are not to come to conclusions based on “very extreme and bizarre teaching” as anything can be turned into something “very extreme and bizarre.”
SONS OF GOD
The key text is quoted thusly (with emphasis in the original article:
“Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 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”. (Genesis 6:1-4)
One relevant comment that is made on this text is:
…the normal meaning of “sons of God” is “believers”. “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” (John 1:12). Job 1:6 (a poetic book) is the only place where angels are called “sons of God”. It is logical and reasonable therefore that the normal meaning be attached to the term here, rather than the exception, as found in Job, unless there were something in the text that made a connection between Genesis 6 and Job 1 – which is absent.
Yet, to conclude that such is “the normal meaning” is myopic as they pick and choose one single usage outside of Genesis 6 and draw a conclusion.
The article also notes:
One of the principles of hermeneutics is that the Old Testament is interpreted in the light of the New Testament and not the other way round. In order to say that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are angels (or demons) we must discard the light of the NT and that should never happen.
Yet, this too is myopic as interpreting the Old Testament in the light of the New is a general principle as, for example, there are thing mentioned in the Old which the New does not interpret.
The fact is that there are various references to “sons of God” within the Bible ranging from beings who witnessed part of God’s original creation (Job 38:7, also see 1:6 and 2:1) to Adam (Luke 3:38) to Jesus (various references such as Matthew 27:43) to believers (such as the Romans’ text). Overall, “sons of God” seems to refer to being directly created by God: the beings who predated most of creation were clearly directly created, Adam was created from dust/dirt/soil, Jesus was born of a virgin and believers are born again.
Thus, we are combining that which they Old and the New have to say on the subject.
The article asserts:
The fact is that there is overwhelming evidence in very old writings that the Hebrew sages never regarded the “sons of God” as angels or demons.
I stated The article asserts because it was just that: no quotations nor citations but a mere statement. Well, if, for example, you view my Early commentaries on Genesis 6: Angels or not? – interactive chart you will see that the most common view of Genesis 6 by both Jewish and Christian commentators is the Angel view.
THE ANGEL’S SIN
The article also states:
Jesus explicitly said that “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30) (See also Luke 20:34-36). Therefore in Jesus’ own words, angels are asexual and do not procreate…Jesus said angels do not have relations. So either Jesus was mistaken or the “sons of God” were not angels. You choose! It is really as simple as that – there are no other options.
Well, I agree that it is really as simple as that but they question is what is “that”? It is a non sequitur to conclude that this text means that “angels are asexual and do not procreate…do not have relations.” Note that Jesus was very specific in that He was referring to “angels of God” who are “in heaven.” It is really as simple as that He referred to loyal Angels but what of those that fell? Well, we shall see as the article notes:
Jude 6 is quoted in support of the theories. This verse says: “And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day” (Jude 1:6).
The next verse states:
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.
The article comments:
…there is absolutely nothing in the verse, or the context, that connects it with Genesis 6. There is nothing in the context that gives rise to understand that “not keep(ing) their proper domain” has anything to do with having relations with women. These angels sinned by overstepping their boundaries – that is evident. But what those boundaries were can be any of a hundred things.
True, Jude does not specify that he is commenting of Genesis 6 but for now, we know that “angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode…Even as Sodom and Gomorrha…going after strange flesh.”
So, perhaps it “can be any of a hundred things” and yet, if Genesis 6 is about Angels then that is one of the hundred things and/or if it is about Angels then it may be the one thing as there is no other indication in the Old Testament that Angels fell, sinned, etc.
The article also references 2 Peter 2:4-5:
Verse 4 is similar to Jude 6: “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 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.” (2 Peter 2:4-5).
The next verse states:
And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly…them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness.
Thus, much like Jude, Peter tells us “angels who sinned” with a reference to “the ancient world…Noah…bringing in the flood…Sodom and Gomorrha…lust of uncleanness.”
The article comments:
The angels and the pre-flood world are simply two of four examples that Peter quotes to show that God will punish sin. The connections between the sinning angels and the flood are the same connection with false teachers and Sodom – the connections have nothing to do with gene mutation but is all about sin and the consequences thereof.
As I noted in my article Nephilim in 2 Peter and Jude I would not say that Jude and Peter are writing a detailed commentary on Genesis 6 but are employing the Angels’ rebellion as a subtext. Of course, they are tying together the sin of Angels, the flood and sexual sin. However, I would personally not claim that is has anything to do with “gene mutation.”
Moreover, the article states:
Jude 5 – 8…contains a number of separate examples of God judging sin. Just like parables where there is a central truth and the only connection between the parables is that truth…The examples are: 1) Israel’s unbelief in not crossing into the land, 2) angels who did not keep their proper domain, 3) Sodom and Gomorrah’s sexual sin and 4) false teachers…If there is a sexual connection between Sodom and the angels (the angels sinned in a sexual way) then there must also be a connection between Sodom and Israel and between Israel and the angels.
Well, the conclusion is not necessarily the case since the central truth is rebellion, sin, judgement, etc.
Next, the article focuses on “the statement ‘who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode’”:
The first word “proper domain”…is “Arche” from which we get “arch-enemy”, “arch-rival” etc. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation but with primacy, authority etc….“abode”…simply means house, habitation or abode. The verse then teaches that the angels did not remain in their proper authority and left their place.
I agree that “left their own abode” “has nothing to do with sexual orientation” but they “left their own abode” so as to engage in sexual sin unlike the loyal Angels who remained loyally “in heaven.” The article admits, “This could be construed to mean they had relations with the daughters of men” but claims that “But it forces and construes a meaning that is NOT obvious to the sentence.”
The article further notes that “A more natural interpretation is that the angels rebelled against God’s authority at the very beginning when Satan was cast out of heaven and left their place.” Yet, this is an assertion and no quotations or citations are provided. In fact, it is a generic statement as we are told that “angels rebelled…at the very beginning” but when was that? The beginning of what? Well, “when Satan was cast out of heaven and left their place” but there is a difference between Satan in this regard and Angels—for two reasons. One is that that Satan is not an Angel but a Cherub (Ezekiel 28:14) and Satan’s sin and the Angels’ sins are different.
Succinctly stated: Satan is cursed after the Genesis 3 deception, temptation and sin. At that time he falls as in get fired from his job as a guardian Cherub but must still report before God. Angels fell due to the later occurrence of the Genesis 6 affair and were incarcerated in the Abyss/Tartarus in which Satan was not involved—at least not directly. Revelation 12 tells us that at some unspecified after Jesus ascension Satan and fallen Angels war against Michael and loyal Angels, lose and are cast out of heaven never to return.
The article notes that their conclusion “is supported by Jude 9-10 which speaks about false preachers who do not know their proper place when dealing with the Devil and demons.” Yet, the text does not state anything about “the Devil and demons” but states:
Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
Thus, “evil of dignities” and Michael “contending with the devil” is not about false preachers dealing with “the Devil and demons.” Based on this, the article also states, “What we do not know is why some of these angels (demons) were chained in the “abyss” and others were left to roam the earth.”
Now, the article is correlating Angels with demons and while this is common they do so without quotations or citations but merely assert it—as is common. I will explain my view on this in detail in an upcoming book but for now I will state it simply as that the bodies of fallen Angels are incarcerated in the Abyss/Tartarus but their spirits roam about as demons.
ANGELS, NEPHILIM AND THE FLOOD
The article notes:
Genesis 6:4, again is very clear: “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.” Notice that it says there were giants (fact number 1) and afterwards the sons of God came into… (fact number 2). There is NO connection between the fact that there were giants and the fact that people had children. [ellipses in original]
Granted, English translations are somewhat vague on this verse. Now, the term “giants” is from the Hebrew “Nephilim” and so given the prior verses of the chapter the verse seems to be stating, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them, there were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward or There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward as a result of when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them.
The article notes:
If the flood had anything to do with God wanting to destroy the giants because they were “contaminated seed” or to purge the gene pool then, Noah and his sons should have been destroyed also. Noah and his sons carried the gene from which giants were formed. This is obvious since giants (Nephilim) are born after the flood and were present in the Land when the spies were sent to scout out the land (Numbers 13:33). These giants were descendants of Noah since all of humankind after the flood descended from Noah…the bible does say there were giants before the flood and their DNA must have been in Noah because the DNA is carried forward to beyond the flood.
I will direct the interested reader to Did Caleb and the spies see Nephilim giants in the land? for details but the short of it is that the term Nephilim only appears in Genesis 6 and Numbers 13 when it is employed within a “bad” or “evil” report form the spies so that there is no indication that there were actually any post-flood Nephilim: no post-flood incursions, no return of the Nephilim, etc.
I empathize with why many people read it this was because the rest of the text is about the flood. However, the context upon which the statement is premised is “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them” then I take “in those days” to be the aforementioned any time after Eve began bearing and take “and also after that” to mean at any time after Eve began bearing and yet, still pre-flood.
The article deals with my reconstruction of the key verse and more commentary:
In Genesis 6 Moses is describing the state of the world before the flood. He makes no connection between the Nephilim and the sons of God and daughters of men. If the sentence had been reversed as follows: “The sons of God came into the daughters of men and they bore Nephilim” then you could postulate some theory about the nature of this process. But the text does not give us any room to connect the Nephilim with these marriages. Genesis 6:4 does say that the children that were produced “were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown”. “Mighty men” is a term which is used 154 times in the OT and simply refers to powerful men, either physically or politically…
“Men of renown” is also used in Numbers 16:2 and Ezekiel 23:23. These are famous men, or well-known men. The Hebrew term literally means “men with a name” meaning they had “made a name” for themselves. The descendants of these relationships were not monsters, mutants, or anything extraordinary.
I agree that “Mighty men” is nothing special, in a manner of speaking, as it does not specify Angels or Nephilim but is a general descriptive term which may not be about “monsters, mutants” but may be, in this case, about the “extraordinary” since the Nephilim are, on my view, Angel and human hybrids.
The article further notes:
…we cannot build an entire doctrine on a word which we cannot translate or explain with any measure of certainty. Genesis 6:4 is simply a description of life before the flood and not a commentary on mysterious genetic mutant life forms. Jesus obviously has this verse in mind when he says: “But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.” (Matthew 24:37-39) (note the reference to marriage in both verses).
I would be much more emphatic than the article and state that way too many Angel view of Genesis 6 and those who speak a lot on the Nephilim and giants (and UFOs and aliens) use, misuse and abuse Matthew 24:37-39 which only refers to being unaware of coming judgment or, rather, being aware of it but carrying on as if it were not coming.
Yet, the article is pushing towards a point which it touched upon by referring to “Those who speculate about the Nephilim, connect them with the reason for the Flood” and conclude that “there is no connection there.”
Now, Genesis 6 does refer to the Nephilim as “men” and yet, even on the Angel view of these were half human and are therefore rightly called “men”—we do the same in, for example, referring to Barack Obama as the first US “black” president even though he is half “black” and half “white.”
The reason to speculate that the Nephilim are part of the reason, perhaps the premise, for the flood is that the text moves from referring to the Nephilim to referring to the overall corruption of humans which leads to God’s judgment.
The article emphasizes that “Genesis 6:5-6 cannot be clearer. God’s judgment fell because of the wickedness of man. This had absolutely nothing to do with demons, angels or mutants.” Yet, the text can be seen to give the reason for the wickedness of man, within its own context, to the Nephilim—this is why there are speculations about the Nephilim marrying 100% humans leading to a dilution of the genepool with subsequent generations doing likewise, also keep in mind that this was before the dispersal of humanity and so everyone lived relatively close.
GIANTS?
I also agree with the article that “the translation of the word Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 as “giants” is very arbitrary” particularly as other Hebrew words are translated as “giant” and “giant” only means taller than the average—average Hebrew males were 5.5 ft.
I also mostly agree that “Goliath was anywhere between 6’9” to 10’ tall” as per an 18 inch cubit and the discrepancy is between Greek and Hebrew manuscripts—although I would specifically set the height ranges as 6.7 ft.-9.8 ft.
A good point made within the article is that “David appears extra small to Goliath because he was just a youth when he fought and killed Goliath. However when David grew up he was able to use Goliath’s sword (1Sam 21).”
The article also notes that “the Canaanites, they were giant men” and I will again point out that “giant” is generic and the article continues by noting that they were “not from another world” or “of an extraterrestrial nature.”
Lastly, the article states, “despite frequent references to ‘giants’ in ancient mythology and English translations of the Bible, there is no generally accepted scientific or historical evidence that such beings ever actually existed.” However, there are many cases of giant bones having been interpreted as being those of very, very tall humans or humanoids but these turned out to be the bones of dinosaurs, mammoths, etc. which ancient people did not know how to reconstruct—see Adrienne Mayor “The First Fossil Hunters” – book review.
I will close with these images from the peer reviewed science journal (NOT!!!!) Weekly World News for December 28, 1999 AD since the article had noted the very many faked supposed photographs of alleged giants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.