Discussion on “A Strange passage, Who Were The Sons of God in Genesis Six? | Genesis 6:1-4”

To the video A Strange passage, Who Were The Sons of God in Genesis Six? | Genesis 6:1-4, Cindy Williams commented:

Thanks for covering this topic. I tend to lean toward the idea that they were angels who married women and therefore the giants/nephilims came to be. Does this mean that the Philistine giant David defeated could have been a nephilim?

The video channel, Calvary Tucson with Robert Furrow, replied:

The Hebrew word used to describe Goliath is different, so we are not sure But It is possible.

I, Ken Ammi, noted:

No, because there is no such thing as post-flood Nephilim. Goliath was a Repha.

Paul Bibbs chimed in with:

Genesis 6:4 begs to differ. It says the nephilim were on the earth in those days (pre-flood) and also afterward (post-flood).

Ken Ammi:

Friend, the reason that you inserted “(pre-flood)…(post-flood)” into the text is because it does not exist therein.

The text tells us twice when “those days” were, “Nephilim 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” and when was that?

Verse 1 tells us, “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them” which could have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children started having children.

Yet, whenever those days were, after that only means that: after it began but still pre-flood. Also, the flood is not mentioned until v. 17 so reading it into v. 4 is reading ahead and then looping back rather than taking the text for what it states in the order it states it.

Bradford Thompson posted three comments:

Yes! You got it!

“…and also afterwards…” Love Skiba but he got that one wrong.

Again, Love Skiba but he got that one wrong. -Peace!

[FYI: This was before Skiba passed away: R.I.P.]

Ken Ammi:

Indeed, he thinks that “…and also afterwards…” refers to the flood but it does not thus, his entire post-flood Nephilim theory, along with that they were “giants” (whatever that means) collapses so, what is left to love about him: I actually love him also, Christian love, but cannot love his demonstrably false teachings nor that he utterly refuses to discuss them with someone, such as myself, who would critique them.

Michael Prew asked:

I have a question Ken. Can you explain Numbers 13:33 if the Nephilim did not exist after the flood?

Ken Ammi:

Great question. Pop-researchers like Skiba (and some scholars) just pick up one single verse, disregard the context, run with it, and turn it into an all-encompassing worldview and hermeneutic via which they then misinterpret other texts.

That was stated by unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers who were said to present an “evil report” who were rebuked by God.

They made five assertions about which the whole rest of the Bible knows nothing.

They contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua and God.

After supposedly seeing the most awe inspiriting beings on the planet, who supposedly made them look like grasshoppers in comparison, they get back to camp and the first thing they say is, “Hey, check out this fruit!” rather than “OMG!!! We saw giant Nephilim!!!”

In fact, they may not have stated any such thing: compare it to Deut 1:28 and then check out the Num text in the LXX—it is likely a gloss.

In short, there are many, many problems with that one verse.

I’ve written various books on Nephilim and “giant” so stop by truefreethinker.com if you’re interested, I’ll cut you a deal.

Tan Ewelee then commenced what became a detailed discussion:

Cindy Williams, logically speaking angels don’t have genders and they are spiritual beings thus can’t produce offsprings.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, you’re confusing “spirit” with “spiritual.” Angels and humans can be spiritual but neither are spirit (or, rather, we’re embodies spirits, not spirits proper). You say “angels don’t have genders” but they are always described as looking just like human males and they doing physical things.

Tan Ewelee:

my friend, in your perception you say I am confused on certain issues and in this case between “spirit” with “spiritual”. Please then give me your proper definition on “spirit” and whether you are implying their noun or verb form?  Secondly, “spiritual” are you talking about its adjective or noun form?.

I am not denying in the bible angels were described as looking like human doing physical things. When angels are seen in Scripture, they usually appear in the form of human beings, specifically as men—adult males, not women or children.

When apparent age is indicated, it’s that of young men. Yet this does not mean these angels are truly male, just as they are not actually human in their true, glorious form in the spirit realm—and they are certainly not young by human years, having lived from before the world began.

Angels are not organic or natural beings. They cannot procreate! If they could, don’t you think God would have allowed them to reproduce with each other instead of creating untold numbers of them? Thank you

[Since I reply to comments once per week, on average, many people think I’m failing to reply. Thus, she posted another comment]

friend, are you now confused as to unable to respond to my questions? Have you heard lately fallen angels impregnated our women today?

Ken Ammi

Shalom friend, spirits, proper, are disembodied entities (yet, spirits can become embodied).

Spiritual has to do with being interested in the things beyond this world. Biblically, we’re told about being spiritually minded, etc.

Thus, Angels and humans are both embodied spirits and can both be spiritual but neither are spirits proper. Now, this gets complex, when we get nuanced, since by “proper” I mean that neither are disembodied spirits. Although both can be disembodied yet, our context is whether Angels mated with humans and so at that point they were embodied since being embodied is their ontological, natural, state of being.

Just ensure that when you say “appear in the form of human…men” you don’t mean that such a form is just an appearance since it’s more accurate to say that they are,” ontological, natural, “in the form of human…men.”

Thus, since they are described as males there’s no reason to then come along and say “this does not mean these angels are truly male.” See, since we were made “a little lower” than Angels, they look like humans (or, we look like them), and they can mate with us then it would seem that we are of the same “kind.”

The issue of age is not elucidated in the Bible in terms of Angels and resurrected humans but there seems to be a styled perfect age, or some such thing, such as optimal age, or something.

So, since they look just like human males than that alone is indication that they can procreate and rhetorical questions do not change that.

No, I’ve not “heard lately fallen angels impregnated our women today” nor would I believe it since there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible and both Jude and 2 Peter tell us that those Angels were incarcerated.

Tan Ewelee

#1. I quote; “@Tan Ewelee  Shalom friend, spirits, proper, are disembodied entities (yet, spirits can become embodied). In my opinion, the most direct connotation that comes to mind when we say something is “embodied” is that it is being materialized or incarnated. … Thus, when we say “embodied spirit” we mean that the body is not separate from the soul, just as the soul is not separate from the body.

#2. Quote “Spiritual has to do with being interested in the things beyond this world. Biblically, we’re told about being spiritually minded, etc.”  For me it is relating to religion or religious belief.

#3. Quote “Thus, Angels and humans are both embodied spirits and can both be spiritual but neither are spirits proper.” I don’t agree as an embodied spirit meaning; The most direct connotation that comes to mind when we say something is “embodied” is that it is being materialized or incarnated. … Thus, when we say “embodied spirit” we mean that the body is not separate from the soul, just as the soul is not separate from the body. The Angels can’t procreate as they are created beings made by God to serve Him. God alone is the Creator. Demons and angels do not have the power to create, so they could not have re-created, or reproduced with human beings. If these were a separate race created by demons reproducing with men — which would not be something God created — then I believe God would have made it clear that the demon-men were being destroyed along with the regular men. But in Noah’s flood God only says that He will destroy MAN who he created.

#4. Quote “.” See, since we were made “a little lower” than Angels, they look like humans (or, we look like them), and they can mate with us then it would seem that we e are of the same “kind.” Angels are never called by God at any time as Son of God; read in Hebrews 1:5  For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? “ While these Bible verses tell us that God created angels, the Bible also suggests that they don’t “exist” in the same way we do and further no biblical evidence Angels can mate as you have suggested . The author of Hebrews suggests that all angels are “spirits” (Hebrews 1:13-14). When Jesus appears to the disciples, he asserts that “spirits” don’t have bodies like he does (Luke 24:39). In the Bible, angels can’t usually be seen by humans unless God reveals them (see Numbers 22:31, 2 Kings 6:17, Luke 2:13). However, from time to time angels took on a bodily form and appeared to various people in Scripture (Matthew 28:5; Hebrews 13:2).

#5. Quote “So, since they look just like human males than that alone is indication that they can procreate and rhetorical questions do not change that”. 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.

#6. I quote “of Angels in the Bible and both Jude and 2 Peter tell us that those Angels were incarcerated.” You quoted these two verses; 2Pe 2:4  For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (tartarus), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;”-Please show proof that these angels were involved in gen6 account; how can these fallen angels who have been casted into “tartarus” and chained be involved in gen6 account? this verse didn’t identify the angels are the sons of God; thus 2pet2:4 has no connection whatsoever to gen6:1-4. Further you quoted this verse: jude1:5-8; in Jud 1:6  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”.  Firstly it didn’t say these angels committed sexual intercourse or performed ungodly inter-marriage with human beings;  1st estate = dominion, rule, authority; habitation= domain, dwelling, throne or area of rule; as a result the angels were in everlasting chains as in 2pet2:4;

#7. In conclusion – There is no Biblical indication that the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6 refer to spirit beings. Jesus Christ makes it clear in Luke 20:28-36 that angels do not marry and consequently do not reproduce. In addition, we saw that this does not fit God’s design of ‘kind after kind’ in Genesis 1:25. Further when you compare scripture with scripture as evidenced by Hebrews 1:5 God never at any time addressed angels to be His Son. Thank you.

Ken Ammi

Friend, FYI, I’ve been loving this interaction but I just finished working two full time jobs back to back as of the last couple of months—including working 24 hours just the other day—and I won’t be able to trade essays. Thus, I will make an attempt to get to everything you wrote but we will then have to get succinct—perhaps by just focusing on one issue at a time.

To #3 you state, “when we say ‘embodied spirit’ we mean that the body is not separate from the soul, just as the soul is not separate from the body” but we were discussing spirit, not soul.

Just as a side note: I would base viewing ourselves as body, soul, and spirit in reading Gen 2 thusly, “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground [body], and breathed into his nostrils the breath [spirit] of life; and man became a living soul.”

You say “when we say something is ‘embodied’ is that it is being materialized or incarnated” which is actually what I was saying when I noted what you quoted, “Angels and humans are both EMBODIED spirits” since we are “being materialized or incarnated”—it is just that Angels and humans are both materialized or incarnated at our respective creations.

You say “The Angels can’t procreate as they are created beings made by God to serve Him” but then you would also have to say “The[n] humans can’t procreate as they are created beings made by God to serve Him.” What does that Angels were created beings made by God to serve Him have to do with that they supposedly, “can’t procreate.”

Likewise, if “God alone is the Creator” then you would claim that humans can’t procreate.

I agree that “Demons…do not have the power to create” since they are spirits, but Angels do since they look just like human males.

By “a separate race created by demons reproducing with men” (actually Angels reproducing with women) you seem to refer to Nephilim and say “I believe,” which is subjective, that “God would have made it clear that the demon-men were being destroyed along with the regular men. But in Noah’s flood God only says that He will destroy MAN who he created.”

But you are missing that Angels are referred to as man or men and so their offspring are also referred to as man or men so that “destroy MAN” would include them.

#4. You are reading Angelology into Heb 1 which is not about Angelology. Rather, it is about the uniqueness of Jesus so that God never called an Angel His son in the same way that Jesus is His Son since Jesus is utterly unique.

Who are the sons of God in Job 38:7?

Indeed, Angels “don’t ‘exist’ in the same way we do” since, for example, they can be visible or invisible, they can appear before God, etc.

But when you say “no biblical evidence Angels can mate” you are just re-affirming the topic of our discussion.

To what sin of Angel were Jude and 2 Peter 2 referring?

The author of Hebrews was quoting and then applying Psalm 104:4 which many versions right have as calling Angles “winds” rather than “spirits”: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Psalm%20104:4

Since that Psalm’s context is that it make constant reference to natural phenomena then that informs us that the “winds” translation is accurate and “spirits” is not.

In Hebrew, the word “ruach” can be translated as either spirit or wind or breath. In Greek, “pneuma” can be translated as either spirit or wind or breath. Thus, since the Hebrew of the Psalm needs to be translated as “winds” then the Greek of Hebrews needs to be translated as “winds.”

Indeed, “‘spirits’ don’t have bodies” but Angels are not spirits.

#5. I have been referring to Angels so when you ask about “If the demons were reproducing offspring…” you need to argue with someone who makes that claim, not with me. On that point, I agree that “it simply isn’t possible.”

#6. Above I asked to what sin of Angel Jude and 2 Peter 2 were referring since either Gen 6 is about a sin of Angels or there is no sin of Angels in the Bible at all and no one would know to what Jude and Peter were referring. So, the question is just that: to what sin were they referring?

As for “proof that these angels were involved in gen6 account” well, there’s not a very direct route but there are a few data points that lead to that conclusion:

  1. As noted: there’s either a one time sin of Angles in the Bible or no sin at all—in which case Jude and Peter were mistaken.
  2. Jude can be read as correlating the sin of Angels to, “Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh.”
  3. Peter refers to “angels that sinned” then to “Noah” and then to “Sodom and Gomorrha” so this is a chronological list of examples of judgment with the sin of Angels coming before the time of Noah which fits the Gen 6 timeline.

As for “how can these fallen angels who have been casted into ‘tartarus’ and chained be involved in gen6 account?” That’s just an anachronism: it’s not cast into Tartarus and THEN involved in the Gen 6 affair but rather, first involved in the Gen 6 affair and THEN cast into Tartarus.

Indeed, as per Jude the Angels left their “1st estate” which is easily understood as heaven but you have as “= dominion, rule, authority; habitation= domain, dwelling, throne or area of rule” but then what did they do when they left?

#7. In conclusion, agreed “There is no Biblical indication that the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6 refer to SPIRIT BEINGS” but to beings who are incarnated/embodied in a flesh of their own sort.

Since we have more than Luke’s account of what Jesus said about marriage then we need to consider them together:

Matthew 22:30 has it that “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

Mark 12:25 has it that “when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.”

Note the very specific emphasis in both: this was not just about any and all Angles but only exclusively about loyal, “angels of God in heaven…angels which are in heaven” which is exactly why those who did marry “left their first estate” when they did so and are considered sinners, they were then no longer “angels of God in heaven…angels which are in heaven.”

Thus, such is how you have to understand Luke 20:36—and did you notice that it reads, “they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection” so that since humans “are equal unto the angels” as in being “the children of God” then Angels are “the children of God” aka “sons of God”? So, what does this do to your assertion that “God never at any time addressed angels to be His Son”?

In addition, we saw that this does indeed well fit God’s design of “kind after kind” since I already explained that.

Shalom!

Tan Ewelee (you’ll see why I ended up replying, in part, with “Friend, you wrote over 1,200 words after I noted, ‘I won’t be able to trade essays’”):

#1. Quote; “You say “The Angels can’t procreate as they are created beings made by God to serve Him” but then you would also have to say “The[n] humans can’t procreate as they are created beings made by God to serve Him.” What does that Angels were created beings made by God to serve Him have to do with that they supposedly, “can’t procreate.” Yes, certainly Angels can’t procreate that is why they were being created by God primarily to serve God. But human being, Adam & Eve were originally created by God but He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply (Gen1:28) though men were told to serve God as well. Angels who dwell in the presence of God live to serve and worship Him. The Bible never hints at the idea that angels reproduce or that they have any need to. As far as we know, angels do not die, so angelic reproduction is not necessary to continue the race of angelic beings. God created angels, He sustains them, and, if He desires more angels, He can create them.

#2. Quote “Likewise, if “God alone is the Creator” then you would claim that humans can’t procreate.” Certainly God is absolute sovereign and humans can’t procreate like Angels, if God don’t want them to procreate.

#3. quote “I agree that “Demons…do not have the power to create” since they are spirits, but Angels do since they look just like human males.” God took the initiative to send Angels to earth to serve His divine purpose and though they appeared in a human males they were not given the power by God to procreate.

#4. quote “By “a separate race created by demons reproducing with men” (actually Angels reproducing with women) you seem to refer to Nephilim and say “I believe,” which is subjective, that “God would have made it clear that the demon-men were being destroyed along with the regular men. But in Noah’s flood God only says that He will destroy MAN who he created.” in the first place I don’t believe in Gen6 that they were fallen Angels that cohabitate with human beings as God didn’t gave his power  to them to procreate and their divine purpose are to be ministering spirits. (Heb1:14). Agreed in Gen6 it says God destroy man.

#5. quote “Job 38:7 who were the sons of God?  “The sons of God” here must necessarily be the angels since there were no men as yet in existence. But are you also aware the sons of God appeared 31 times in the Bible? However, the alleged Angels doesn’t fit into the immediate context of Gen6.

#6. Quote “ To what sin of Angel were Jude and 2 Peter 2 referring?  in Jude1:6 “Angels that kept not their own principality” … These were the angels of Satan mentioned by the Saviour in Matthew 25:41. “He hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness”  An apostle of Jesus Christ had already given Jude all of the authority he needed for making such a statement as this. Peter said, “God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment” (2 Peter 2:4). According to these verses these fallen angels were casted into the bottomless pit in everlasting chain then how come these fallen angels from Jude and 2Peter2 cohabitated with human beings in Genesis 6, besides that, “angels” are not even mentioned in the Genesis passage.

#7. Quote “Indeed, “‘spirits’ don’t have bodies” but Angels are not spirits.” I disagree as Angels are created, invisible, spirit-beings. Humans and angels will keep their distinction in the ages to come. Humans will not become angels, and angels will not become human.

#8. Quote “#6. Above I asked to what sin of Angel Jude and 2 Peter 2 were referring since either Gen 6 is about a sin of Angels or there is no sin of Angels in the Bible at all and no one would know to what Jude and Peter were referring. So, the question is just that: to what sin were they referring?” Until the early 20th century, scholars interpreted the sins of the angel was due to primeval rebellion against God, based on the texts like Isa14:12-20; Eze28:11-19 and Rev12:7-9. However, the Genesis 6 account of the Angels have no scriptural evidence and it came from mythology of the book of Enoch which was excluded from the canon of Scripture.

#9. Quote “Note the very specific emphasis in both: this was not just about any and all Angles but only exclusively about loyal, “angels of God in heaven…angels which are in heaven” which is exactly why those who did marry “left their first estate” when they did so and are considered sinners, they were then no longer “angels of God in heaven…angels which are in heaven.” Ultimately God didn’t give Angels, whether the holy or the fallen ones to procreate and it is just your mere presumptions that fallen angels can procreate but there are no biblical evidence.

#10. Quote “which is exactly why those who did marry “left their first estate” when they did so and are considered sinners, they were then no longer “angels of God in heaven…angels which are in heaven.” You are gravely in error by stating “left their first estate” meaning because they did marry and are considered sinner. Does the text in Jude intend to communicate in the sense you interpreted? Far from it, the meaning of “left their first estate” is in point of rank and honor; or pre-eminence, priority, precedence, princedom. Here it refers to the rank and dignity which the angels had in heaven. That rank or pre-eminence they did not keep, but fell from it. Sounds like it means they gave up their rank or position, in addition to their “habitation” (residence) in exchange for some wicked thing rebellion against God) they desired. Now, as a result, they are enjoying their 2nd estate–in chains. Certainly you are reading into the text and made the text to fit into your mould of doctrine to support Gen6 contention.

#11. Quote “” so that since humans “are equal unto the angels” as in being “the children of God” then Angels are “the children of God” aka “sons of God”? So, what does this do to your assertion that “God never at any time addressed angels to be His Son”? I certainly disagree with your notion. The primary usage of “sons (children)of God” is found in the New Testament as a designation for people, both male and female, who are in a covenant relationship with the Eternal (they are true Christians). It should be noted that humans are not automatically considered to be in this kind of familial relationship simply by virtue of their birth. True sons (and daughters) of God are those who repent of their sins, accept Jesus as their personal Savior, and receive the Holy Spirit. Several Bible passages referencing converted humans as being a part of God’s family including John 1:12, Romans 8:12 – 19, 2Corinthians 6:18, Philemon 2:15, Galatians 4:4 – 6, 1John 3:1 – 2 and others. Righteous angels are only considered “sons” in the sense that they were initially created to possess the same spiritual composition or essence as their Creator. Humans, on the other hand, though born with flesh, have a far greater potential than any angelic being. In fact, in the near future, converted humans whom God has resurrected from the dead will be given the responsibility of judging angels (see 1Corinthians 6:1 – 3). Thank you

Ken Ammi

Friend, you wrote over 1,200 words after I noted, “I won’t be able to trade essays” so what am I to do now? Maybe pick one thing that we can focus on, just like I noted last time, “perhaps by just focusing on one issue at a time.”

Tan Ewelee

Well you know as well as I do, this is a controversial subject and there were countless debates n it for centuries. I too don’t intend to enter into a debate with you as it wouldn’t be beneficial to both parties as ultimately we have different views. I suggest we lay our discussion to rest and move on. Thank you.

Ken Ammi
Well, as someone who has studied and written books on Angelology, and Cherubology, and Seraphology, and Nephiliology, and Satanology, and Demonology: it’s sad that someone will go away from a discussion still holding to mistaken views. Shalom!

For more details, see my relevant books.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.