Since I love people, especially brothers, who seek interaction, especially on polemical issues, I deeply appreciated that Fabrice Iram reached out to tell me, “Just came across your website review of the video I posted of Dr Abel Damina teaching on Genesis 6. I would love to converse with you and send you a free book I wrote on that subject. Great grace abounds to you in all things” the video review to which he referred is here.
He was kind enough to send the book which is, bluntly, titled, “ANGELS NEVER HAD SEX WITH WOMEN TO PRODUCE THE NEPHILIMS [HUMAN-DEMON HYBRIDS]” and I also love it when people are blunt. The book describes him as, “Evt. Fabrice Iram is a Canadian Based Preacher and a Social Media Personality.”
I found that I agreed with a lot of what he wrote and yet, must say that I find that he made a few fundamental key errors that result in some erroneous conclusions.
I appreciated that Fabrice Iram wrote things such as, “REMEMBER TO OPEN YOUR BIBLE WHEN READING…because something scriptures were not put down. It’s important that you read every single verse from your Bible” (the book contains a little bit of broken English—so does my website since English is not his nor my first language). He emphasizes that his book “is loaded with Scriptural references and basis so that we do not read our opinions into the Bible” and points out, “Many have a lazy approach to study the Bible in context.”
He quotes:
“‘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. There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterwards, when the sons of God came into the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown’ (Genesis 6:1-2; Genesis 6:4).”
He noted, “Genesis 6:4 is one of the most controversial passages in the Bible” and that it is a “difficult section.”
Fabrice Iram comments, “Some have taught that this refers to fallen angels interbreeding with human women to produce half-demon giants.”
Here we have our first problem. He moved from “angels” to “demon”: “fallen angels…half-demon.” He tends to correlate these but then also distinguished between them—and recall that his book title includes the term “HUMAN-DEMON HYBRIDS.”
Since I can only speak for myself: I will note that my Bible-based theory is that fallen Angels were incarcerated bodily after the Genesis 6 affair, as I term it, and that their spirits roam the Earth as demos. Thus, Angels have a body of their own sort of flesh but demons are spirit. I know that my new friend will take issue with most of what I just noted but I will iron some of it out herein—for my theory, see my book and the succinct version in my article Demons Ex Machina: What Are Demons?
Referring to the Angel view, Fabrice Iram notes:
“The first possibility offered here is not really a possibility at all, even though angels are referred to as ‘sons of God’ in Job 38:7 because God is their ‘Father’ through creation…‘sons of God.’…is sometimes used to refer to angels (Job 1:6; 21:1 [he surely means “2:1”]; Psa. 29:1)…Gen 6:4…when people read this, they firstly jump to the book of Job to support their opinion that ‘sons of God’ refers to angels.”
He rightly notes, “if we conclude that Job called angels sons of God therefore wherever we see sons of God it mean angels! Now, that would be a gross error because” yet, I am unaware of anyone who would do that.
Fabrice Iram also rightly notes, “One must demonstrate from the context of the passages in Genesis and Job that ‘sons of God’ means the same thing in both passages and not simply assume this is the case because the words are the same…‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6 doesn’t have to mean fallen angels just because that’s what it means in Job 1:6…Most advocates of the view that the sons of God point to Job 1:6 and 2:1 to support their claim that ‘sons of God’ refers to angels. They argue that since it refers to angels in Job, then it also refers to angels in Genesis 6” (and yes, his book is very repetitive).
So, “angels are referred to as ‘sons of God’ in Job 38:7” but that does not automatically mean that the Genesis 6:4, which is fair enough.
Yet, he goes on to claim, “If you read carefully the book of Job, you will realize that the sons of God does not refer to angels…the book of Job alone cannot establish that the ‘sons of God’ were ‘angels’ and it did not suggest so.”
Now, I appeal to Job chaps. 1, 2, and 38 for support in identifying who the “sons of God” are in Genesis 6 but I cannot claim that Job was specifically referring to Angels since he never refers to them as much—even if the Septuagint/LXX for Job 1:6, 2:1 and 38:7 have ἄγγελοι/Angels.
However, from Job 38:7, most specifically, we can affirm that those “sons of God” are not human since they at least witnessed the creation of the Earth.
Thus, context permitting, “sons of God” can mean (can, not necessarily does) refer to non-human beings.
Iram also cited Psalm 29:1 for support that “‘sons of God’…is sometimes used to refer to angels” which reads, “Give unto the LORD, O ye mighty, give unto the LORD glory and strength” with the oddity in the rendering is that “ye mighty” is from the Hebrew “ben ‘El” much like the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2, 4 is from “ben ‘Elohim” and much like Psalm 82:6 “ben ‘Elyon.”
Yet, he claims, “The same idea, of God as the Father and Israel as His son, is found in Deuteronomy 32:5,6. A similar phrase is found in Psalm 82:6 which reads, ‘I said, You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High.’”
Simply stated, whether “sons of God” refer to humans or not is ultimately elucidated by the context in which the term is found.
Fabrice Iram notes, “Angels are spirit beings (Hebrews 1:7 ‘In speaking of the angels he says, ‘He makes his angels spirits’’), not fleshly creatures. They neither marry nor sexually reproduce.”
That “Angels are spirit beings” is a common misconception and some translations do not help clear up that misconception.
Now, Hebrews 1:7 is actually quoting Psalm 104:4 so we need to determine how that Psalm should read. To make a long interpretation short, the Psalm makes constantly ongoing correlations to natural phenomena and so when it gets to v. 4, what Iram is reading “He makes his angels spirits” it should read (as many versions have it, actually[fn]https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Psalm%20104:4[/fn]) that “He makes his angels winds.” Thus, Hebrews 1:7 (and v. 13 which plays off of it) should also read winds. It just to happens that in both Hebrew and Greek the words ruach and pneuma can refer to spirit or wind/breath.
Thus, Psalm 104:4 (quoted in Hebrew 1:7 and noted in 1:13) is whence Iram is getting that Angels are “spirit” and as he note, “Any doctrine must be established by more than one witness” and he really only has one (since the other two are based on the one).
In any case, we will see what else we are told about Angels since this will not turn out to just be about one verse.
Fabrice Iram writes, “Heb 1:5 ‘God never said to any of his angels, ‘You are my Son. Today I have become your Father.’ And God never said to any of his angels, ‘I will be his Father, and he will be my Son.’” Yet, that is only one verse from an entire statement. The context is that God never called Angels His sons within the context of that Jesus is the one and only uniquely begotten authoritative Son of God—that is what Hebrews chap. 1 is all about and not about labels.
Thus, his argument is that since Angels are “spirits” then “They neither marry nor sexually reproduce” to which he appeal to Luke 20:34-36 for support, “Jesus replied, ‘The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels).”
Note that this has to do with “the age to come” and that “they can no longer die” which is the way they are said to be “like the angels.”
As for the focus on marriage and reproduction, the parallel text to Luke are even more specific, “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). Thus, Jesus not just speaking of Angels but about “angels of God in heaven”: the loyal ones. This is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having “left their first estate” as Jude put it.
You see, the issue for Fabrice Iram is that “Jesus explained that spirits are not able to manifest themselves materially” and appeals to Luke 24:39, “a spirit does not have flesh and bones.”
Thus, I am unsure what point he was making but, in any case, from Genesis chap. 18 we learn of three “men” who visit Abraham and form chap. 19 we learn that two of them were Angels. These Angels were not only described as “men” but ate and drank as men.
Fabrice Iram wrote:
“I have had many ask me why then they ate food in the Bible! I would say that angels have no stomach otherwise after they eat they must go to the toilet. Angels do not need food because they never feel hungry! Think about that! Angels know what they do with that food but am convinced they have no stomachs! Nor saliva! Nor anus!”
Perhaps, “Angels do not need food” but they still ate—much like a lot of people overeat because they eat even when they do not need food. Yet, his assertions are irrelevant because we have instances of Angels eating in the Bible. But what about Angels going to the toilet, again not that it matters since we have evidence that they eat (or, can eat): well, their bodies are not fallen so that may be an indication that their bodies would efficiently process every single calories, macronutrient, etc. with not waste products being a byproduct.
Now, every single time the Bible describes Angels, it describes them as man/men, as looking just like human males. From this, we can logically and theo-logically conclude that such is the way the look ontologically, in their created nature and essence: they look like us and we were made a “little lower than the angels” (Psalm 8:5 and Hebrews 2:7).
Reading one word in one verse, “spirit,” leads to denying the many, many times they are described as looking like us, and leads to having to invent unbiblical claims about how they take on temporary bodies or only appear to be embodied, etc.
He refers to “the assumption of interaction between heavenly Beings and earthly beings” and that “The problem arises when people say that Angels can appear as a man and be able to reproduce.” This is why I agree on some issues and disagree on others since I too disagree “when people say that Angels can appear as a man” if by that they mean that they normally do not look that way.
Fabrice Iram argues, “no angel has ever existed in these 3 dimensions” but then writes, “Angels can appear in the form of man (exactly like him outwardly) and speak, run, etc…however, they cannot have the likeness and appearance of man.”
I am unsure what the difference is between “appear in the form of man” and “have the likeness and appearance of man” except that he seems to think that when they “appear in the form of man” it is either an illusion or a an empty shell (meaning no organs, blood, etc.) yet, we know they “have the likeness and appearance of man” since they walk on the ground, eat, hold swords, etc.
He wrote, “Angels can appear in the form of a man…When you meet them you can think they are flesh, bones and blood” so if when you meet them you can think they are flesh, bones and blood because they look, feel and do thing in keeping with being flesh, bones and blood then why claim they are not what they seem? Well, as we saw already, because of one word, “spirit,” that was wrongly translated in some versions.
For example, he goes on to write:
“If angels can reproduce with humans, then they have blood, brain, muscles, heart, stomach, sperms…and once they have these, they are subject to pain and death. Etc. which is impossible. They are spirits as Heb 1:7 says and Jesus said that a Spirit has no flesh and bones in Luke 24:39 despite that they can appear as humans. Angels remain spirits eternally…they cannot decide to be humans just like humans stay humans forever despite that one day our bodies will be glorified in immortality.”
Since they look just like human males and we are made a little lower than then then why assume that is merely outward? Why assume they are missing key features that we have?
Why assume that if “they have these, they are subject to pain and death” I know not. Adam and Eve had them pre-fall and were only subject to pain and death after the fall (at least the death part).
Thus, Angels stay Angels forever despite that some of them fell and some never lost their glorified state, their glorified bodies—which is what makes them different from us.
In fact, he claims, “Angels cannot have lust” but why not? The fallen ones, “saw the daughters of men that they were fair” and even Paul tells us, “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels…if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her” (1 Corinthians 11:10, 15).
While this is somewhat enigmatic, he seems to realize that Angels can be attracted to human women. Now, there is no indication that anymore Angels fell or will fall post-flood but that does not mean that it is acceptable to allure them anymore than it is acceptable for a human woman to allure me because I am already married. In other words, even in 100% human to 100% human interactions there are times when allurement is not acceptable.
Interestingly, Fabrice Iram wrote, “I know you know it well that in our day angels will not fall from heaven to pursue a woman to enjoy sexual relations!” and I do, I agree: yet, we agree for different reasons.
Now, note something interesting:
“It is known that the physical elements cannot affect Spiritual beings…spirits cannot die and be buried. I do not know if the angels have the breath of life but I can assume so!…Angels…don’t have sex organs to be aroused and have a desire for sexual pleasure! Secondly, they have no ability to create for themselves a fleshly body, only God can!…Only one Spiritual being became a full human being since creation with all capacities and abilities that man has.”
Note that he writes “Spiritual” and “spirits” and “Spiritual” yet, spirit and spiritual are very different. Spirits have no flesh or bone (in and of themselves) but humans can be spiritual and we do have flesh and bone (we even have spirits, embodies ones: which is why I distinguished spirits in and of themselves). So, Angels are not spirits but can be said to be spiritual.
I also agree that “they have no ability to create for themselves a fleshly body” but, again, we agree for different reasons: “they have no ability to create for themselves a fleshly body” and do not need to since an unfallen-glorified fleshly body is what they always inhabited, that is how they were created.
He notes that the Angel view, “would violate the principle made clear in Genesis 1:24 ‘…And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, land crawlers, and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.’ And it was so.’ that each living kind reproduces only ‘according to its kind.’”
Yet, since Angels look like human males, are called man/men, and can mate and reproduce with us that just means that we are of the same kind.
And so, when he writes, “we see demons in Scripture only possessing individuals or appearing as ghostly apparitions” I would not put it that way but fair enough: yet, these are demons, not fallen Angels. In fact, demons did not exist until after the fallen Angels were incarcerated. It was Angels who mated with women, not demons.
Again, when he writes, “those who hold consistently to a Biblical worldview must reject the notion that women and demons can engage in sexual relations” I can agree since he is writing about “demons.”
Likewise, Fabrice Iram wrote:
“If the fallen angels were able to impregnate females, then even today, demons should be impregnating women.
Let us listen to Jesus:
Lk 17:26-30 ‘Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying, and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. It was the same in the days of Lot.
People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed.’”
Again, note shifting from “angels” to “demons.”
Now, when it comes to the text he quoted, I was very glad he did so since I am constantly telling people that Jesus likening His return to the days of Noah has nothing to do with Nephilim especially since He said the same about the days of Lot—which had nothing to do with Nephilim.
Yet, he quoted it to argue “Jesus did not say ‘people and the fallen angels/angels’ NO! He even mentioned that the marriage in Gen 6 was between humans, not humans and angels.”
Thus, humans were marrying humans, etc., which was surely the case. Yet, Jesus’ context was to offer examples of people going about business as usual being unaware of unconcerned with coming judgment.
He tells us, “my friend told me this ‘Before Jesus will come again, Angels will sleep with our sisters again and produce giants because Jesus said as it was in the days of Noah so shall it be before the Son Of Man comes back.’”
There is only one problem with that: there is no indication of any such thing in the whole Bible.
Fabrice Iram wrote:
The proponents of the concept that Angels slept with women have a serious problem! If they say that Angels can take up the body of a male human, which they say they did, then we have a serious problem! Ask yourself this: Why is it that the angels impregnated our women? Why didn’t some angels themselves get pregnant? Because, if they can take up any fleshly body, then am positive they can take up the body of a woman! And they can get pregnant too? If they can create themselves, any fleshly body then what will stop them from creating themselves a female’s body?”
Again, “that Angels can take up the body of a male human” is not my view and Angels did not get pregnant because, apparently, there are only male Angels.
It is a good point that “if they can take up any fleshly body, then am positive they can take up the body of a woman!” but that is part of the problem with beginning with a faulty premise, one tends to come to faulty conclusions.
He is also correct when he notes, “demons are nonsexual, nonphysical beings and, as such, are incapable of having sexual relations and producing physical offspring” yet, when he follows with “If demons could have sex with women in ancient times, we would have no assurance they could not do so in modern times” he, again, is failing to distinguish between demons and fallen Angels.
He also wrote, “a Biblical worldview does allow for fallen angels to possess unsaved human beings” which his quite true.
He also wrote, “Angels rebelled individually, are judged individually, and are offered no plan of redemption in Scripture” but every indication is that Angels rebelled together and were judged together: there is only a one time fall of Angels in the Bible and if Genesis 6 is not the record of it then, pray tell, what is?
Fabrice Iram states that those who hold to “THE TYRANT VIEW…smuggle this” into the text, “They assume that the demon-possessed men produced the giants. However, a demon-possessed man cannot produce a superhuman” and I agree.
His “far more reasonable” elucidation is:
“Genesis 4 gives the story of Cain and Abel and follows with the genealogical descent from Cain. Genesis 5 is called ‘the book of the genealogy of Adam’ (Genesis 5:1). It starts with Gods creation of Adam and how Adams line continued through Seth…
Genesis 6, we see ‘the sons of God’ (men of Seth’s godly line in this explanation) intermarrying with ‘the daughters of Men’ (women of Cains ungodly line). There is also another sensible…
I believe the better interpretation is that ‘sons of God’ simply refers to the godly descendants of Seth, and ‘daughters of men’ to the ungodly descendants of Cain. Their cohabitation caused humanity to fall into such utter depravity that God said; ‘‘I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth — men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air — for I am grieved that I have made them.’ But Noah found favour in the eyes of the Lord.’ (Genesis 6:7-8)…”
Let us be careful about what is subjectively “reasonable” and “sensible” because something can be reasonable and sensible and mistaken.
Yes, Genesis chaps. 4-5 gives genealogical descents and 6 tells us what happens to all peoples.
I have often noted that the claim that there was a holy line of Seth and a wicked line of Cain is a myth. Yet, Fabrice Iram attempts to make the point:
“Cain’s line is recounted in Genesis 4, and this line displays proliferating wickedness, capped by Lamech, who was the first polygamist (v. 19) and who rejoiced in murderous, vengeful use of the sword (Vv. 23– 24). By contrast, the line of Seth, which is traced in Genesis 5, displays righteousness. This line includes Enoch, who ‘walked with God, and … was not, for God took him’ (v. 24). In the line of Seth was born Noah, who was ‘a righteous man, blameless in his generation’ (6:9). Thus, we see two lines, one obeying God and the other willfully disobeying Him…two lines, one godly and one wicked…
Seths descendants…‘began to call upon the name of the Lord’ (4:26), ‘walked with God’ (5:24), and ‘found favor in the eyes of The Lord’ (6:8)…
Cain is driven out from the presence of God…primary characterization of Cain’s line is that they were becoming increasingly separated from God…
If Seth is likened to Abel then it means he walked in the paths of righteousness as Abel did. Heb 11:4 ‘…Abel…was righteous…
Noah, Enoch, and others from his line were describe as righteous! Abraham was also of the genealogy of Seth and he is the father of the Jews who were called sons of God in Deut 32. So, Seth’s children were the sons of God because they were obedient to the Word of God.”
I am afraid that I am not prepare to praise an entire line of people no condemn another due to some good examples from the one and two examples of bad from the other.
In fact, Fabrice Iram will force himself to end up claiming that the holy, righteous, good, loyal, Godly line of Seth was no such thing after all since they became utterly corrupt.
Fabrice Iram also wrote:
“Israel, is identified by God as ‘My son, My first-born.’ These sons of God were about to enter the Promised Land, which was populated with people who were not part of the Abrahamic covenant. God warned Israel not to take foreign wives (Deut. 7:3 ‘Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons’). This would become a recurring problem for Israel…
Genesis 6 could simply be speaking about the intermarriage of those who manifested a pattern of obedience to God in their lives and those who were pagans in their orientation. In other words, this text likely describes marriages between believers and unbelievers.”
He has to argue this because he takes the Sethite view, Sethites “were about to enter the Promised Land” but it was “populated with people who were not part of the Abrahamic covenant” and so “God warned Israel not to take foreign wives” and tells us “Moses used this story in Genesis 6 to warn Israel not to abandon Gods instruction” yet, Deuteronomy record a time long, long, long after the Genesis 6 timeline (and before Genesis 6 since, again, the mating referenced therein began whenever it was that “men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them”).
Thus, when he notes, “Moses warned the Jews never to marry outside their nation. why? because the other nations would lead them away towards God and turn them to evil” that was much later in history.
Thus, there is no indication that Sethites marrying Cainties was forbidden.
Again, it is accurate that “Nephilims were destroyed by the Flood” but that this is “proof that the Nephilims were merely human beings” is inaccurate: they did not make it past the flood which is why the one and only reference to Nephilim post-flood was within an “evil report” and God rebuked the spies who presented it.
He then, quotes, “Deut 2:19-21…Deut 3:10-11…1 Sam 17:4-7” which are all about Rephaim, not Nephilim. In fact, he wrote, “Nephilim and giants still appeared after the flood.[Num 13:33, Deu 2:11]” (brackets in original) but Deuteronomy 2:11 reads, “Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites called them Emims” with “giants” rendering “Rephaim.”
Fabrice Iram
“Deut 32:7-8 ‘Remember the days of old; consider the years long past. Ask your father, and he will tell you, your elders, and they will inform you. When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He divided the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.’
The ‘sons of God’ here refers to Israel. It does not refer to angels. However, some Greek translations have put it this way ‘according to the number of the Angels of God;’ an arbitrary departure from the original text, in accommodation, probably, to the later Jewish notion of each nation having its guardian angel…According to the number of the children of Israel…he reserved for Israel, as the people of his choice…so as to reserve a sufficient place for the great numbers of the people of Israel….the other nations.”
Well, each nation having its guardian Angel does not seem to be a “later Jewish notion” since, for example, the Angel Gabriel battled it out with the “Prince of Persia” which seems to refer to an entity much like the different between the king and prince of Tyre, Babylon, Egypt, etc. and much like the Archangel Michael is a prince over Daniel’s people—see my article The Apocalypse of the Hidden Hand: The Bible’s teaching on the spiritual sovereign behind the human sovereign.
One question is: when did the Most High give the nations their inheritance. I am uncertain but we know “when He divided the sons of man” which was at the Tower of Babel event—when “sons of God” could not have meant “the children of Israel” since neither Israel/Jacob, not his children existed yet. And if “inheritance” has something to do with who ruled the nations then the people of Israel never ruled any nation but their own.
Fabrice Iram notes that in Genesis 6, “human beings were clearly the problem here— not angels. God says amid the verses of Genesis 6 quoted above, ‘My Spirit shall not strive with man forever’ (Genesis 6:3) and ‘I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth’ (Genesis 6:7).”
One issue is that, again, Angels are called man/men so that their offspring are also man/men and yet, since the Bible’s focus is humanity—our origin, fall, and redemption—its focus always and quickly returns to us no matter what subject is being addressed. Thus, the premise for the corruption if the Genesis 6 affair and “man” is judged as a result.
Yet, he claims, “the ‘giants’ mentioned must have been human also—descendants of Adam and Eve” well, they were half-human and so half-descendants of Adam and Eve.
Fabrice Iram wrote:
“The wickedness was of man, not man and angels…The Lord regretted that he made man not that he made man and angels…verse 7: ‘every man, beast, crawling creature and birds of the air’. God vows to destroy those things which were taking part in that wickedness but interestingly, God never mentioned Angels which meant they were never involved.”
Indeed, the text focuses on us but Jude and 2 Peter 2 refer to a sin of Angels and there is only a one time fall/sin of Angels in the whole Bible.
Jude wrote:
“…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. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh…”
Peter wrote (v.4):
“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.”
Fabrice Iram quoted, “2 Peter 2:5 ‘if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, among the eight;’” and commented, “Peter didn’t say the ungodliness was produced by angels and humans” but, again, he had noted the sin of Angels just before this and note that it is chronological: sin of Angels followed by the flood thus, the Genesis 6 timeline.
He wrote, “God is righteous and shows no favoritism. If it be so, why does he vow to destroy only men, animals, and plants in Gen 6:5-7,1317,23 but segregates angels out? It is because the angels NEVER HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH WOMEN.”
Well, there is no requirement that God reveal everything involved with every situation every time. Jude and Peter revealed that God “segregates angels out.”
He notes:
“…the word is used of people of giant stature later in Num 13:33 ‘We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them’…the very powerful, and possibly very tall, people of Genesis 6 were destroyed in the Flood.
But there would be other giants following the Flood, who were descended, just as everyone else in the post-Flood world, from Noah—again, not angels COMPARE Deut 2:20-21 ‘That too was regarded as the land of the Rephaim, who used to live there, though the Ammonites called them Zamzummites. They were a people great and many, as tall as the Anakites. But the LORD destroyed them from before the Ammonites, who drove them out and settled in their place’…
Deut 3:11 ‘Og king of Bashan was the last of the Rephaites. His bed was decorated with iron and was more than nine cubits long and four cubits wide. It is still in Rabbah of the Ammonites’…
Goliath…was more than nine feet tall (1 Samuel 17:4). But he was still just a man (1 Samuel 17:24-25; 1 Samuel 17:33) not some human-demonic hybrid. ‘The Nephilim were on the earth in those days — and also afterward — when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.’”
The point is that “the very powerful, and possibly very tall, people of Genesis 6 were destroyed in the Flood” and yet, post-flood “word is used of people of giant stature later in Num 13:33.”
Well, I am glad he said “possibly very tall” since they “were destroyed in the Flood” and Numbers 13:33 is just recording an “evil report”: Nephilim were not there, the unfaithful and disloyal spies just claimed that they saw them as a fear-mongering scare-tactic.
But when Fabrice Iram states, “there would be other giants following the Flood” he is switching from the specific Hebrew term “Nephilim” to the undefined, subjective, generic, and vague English word “giants.”
Sure, some versions render Nephilim as giants but they also render Rephaim as giants and that just causes confusion. For example, the post-flood “giant” are Rephaim and so have no relation to Nephilim.
He is arguing that Nephilim were 100% human which is why he traces them to Noah.
Deuteronomy 2:20-21 is about Rephaim aka Zamzummites (who were subjectively “tall” compared to Israelites, male of whom averaged 5.0-5.3 ft.) and Anakites who were a subgroup of Rephaim.
King Og was also a Repha as was Goliath. While we do not know Og’s height, there is a discrepancy regarding Goliath’s height: early manuscripts such as the LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, and also Flavius Josephus have him being just shy of 7 ft. while latter Masoretic manuscripts have him at just why of 10 ft.
So yes, of both Og and Goliath it is right to say “he was still just a man.”
Yet, when Fabrice Iram quotes, “in those days — and also afterward” he seems to think this has to do with the flood and that is explains why 100% human Nephilim and thus, 100% giants are mentioned pre and post-flood.
Yet, those days refers to “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them” which was “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them” so that after those days is simply after they first did so—yet, still pre-flood.
Fabrice Iram also argued:
“The Nephilims/Giants existed before the ‘sons of God’ issue came into view. This means they existed before Genesis 6!
‘The Nephilim were on the earth in those days’ which days is it referring to? V1 ‘And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,’ In these days when men began to multiply, the Nephilim were already present before the ‘sons of God’ married the ‘daughters of man.’”
Likely due to somewhat clunky English renderings, it may see that “Nephilim were already present” yet, that would make the reading even more clunky since it would not make sense for a narrative to relate a series of interrelated events that is interrupted by “Nephilim were on the earth…” without anything being elucidated about them. They were there and? So? What of it? Just a mention and nothing else said about the within the context in which they are mentioned? Thus, the text is better—contextually—understood to mean Nephilim were there as a result of when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men.
Fabrice Iram wrote:
My regular readers know that I constantly tell people who claim that the flood was meant to (at least part of the reason for it was) to be rid of Nephilim but that there were post-flood Nephilim that they are implying that God failed.
Thus, I was please to see that Fabrice Iram argued much the same in arguing, “So, do we say that God failed to phase out the Nephilims? Did other Angels from heaven fall again and enjoy sexual pleasure with women to produce the re-appearance of the Nephilims?” some claim that Angels did do it all again but that is not biblical.
He continues, “Or maybe God that day was asleep when some of his angels came secretly on earth and impregnated our women and returned into heaven unnoticed??? How do you explain this re-appearance? Many people would say that one of the surviving people with Noah in the ark had already the gene inherited from the Nephilims which is not true! Why? Because God is all-knowing! How could that go undetected? God could have told Noah not to accept such into the boat! There is no way God could have winked at that!” AMEN!!!
That is another unbiblical tall tale that some people invented because they actually believe rebuked spies.
Fabrice Iram referred to “The assumption in this interpretation of Genesis 6 is that ‘the sons of God’ refers to angelic beings” and goes on to write in terms of “Assumption…assumed…assumption…assumption…assume…assumption…assume,” etc., etc., etc.
Now, speaking for myself: I assume no such things, my views are the result of much, much (much) research.
He also tells us “The doctrine of angels getting women pregnant is a doctrine of devils and seducing spirits” and that “It is of a pagan nature” so we should “Get rid of that little pagan doctrine of devils.”
If that is the case then virtually the entire early church, for centuries, was following a doctrine of devils and seducing spirits since it is a simply verifiable fact that the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jews and Christians who commented on this was the Angel view: from BC days until well beyond the 500 AD—see my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A survey of early Jewish and Christian commentaries including
notes on giants and the Nephilim.
As for being “of a pagan nature,” he may want to consider how Pagans tend to copy but corrupt. Before the Tower of Babel event humanity lived in relative proximity to each other and knew commonly known and share history. When humanity was dispersed though the Earth that history eventually came to be changed on this or that point and came to be called myth and legend. Thus, it would seem that Pagans were playing off of ancient memories of true history.
He also wrote:
“Angels have absolutely no ability to create themselves a human fleshly body and partake in his nature. FULLSTOP! The problem today, Believers don’t believe what Jesus said. He said angels are incapable of sexual activity yet someone will reject that!”
Again, there is no indication that Jesus “He said angels are incapable of sexual activity.”
Fabrice Iram wrote:
“I am open to correction if you find any scriptures apart from Job (which am confident too that it never referred to angels)…Clearly, angels are never called sons of God in the scriptures! I said, I am open to correction if you bring a verse apart from the Book of Job…another verse or three apart from Job…If you cannot find another author to support the issue, then it cannot be taken. Or it has a different meaning…sons of God refers to men, not angels. And I said that unless you bring another book in the Bible that support the book of Job to establish the testimony, it is not valid. The book of Job did not say the sons of God were angels.”
Again, Job seems to refer to Angels but I can only go as far as firmly arguing that it refer to some sort of non-human beings—just like the “morning stars” to which 38:7 refers.
Recall that he, himself, noted of Psalm 29:1 that “‘sons of God’…is sometimes used to refer to angels” and I added Psalm 82:6.
We also have Jude and Peter clearly commenting on the Genesis 6 affair so that this goes beyond asking about verses that read “sons” followed by the term “of” followed by the term “God.”
Now, having argued in favor of the Sethite view—as a line of holy people who committed the such an Earth-shattering sin that it caused the flood—Fabrice Iram proposes “THE BILLION DOLLAR ANSWER” which is found in Luke 3 which “gives us the genealogy of the [spiritual] sons of Christ. From verses 23-35 is a list of men who existed after the flood. Let us look at the men who were alive before the flood of Noah” (brackets added) and his point is that they are all Sethites.
Now, I would argue that Cain’s genealogy is wholly other, in a manner of speaking, since he absconded from Adam and Eve, started his own family elsewhere, etc.
In any case, he concludes, “it only gives us the genealogy of Adam through Seth which were those who manifested a pattern of obedience towards God” and “John 3:10 ‘In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother’” so that “The children of God[sons of God] do righteousness. Those who do righteousness are called ‘sons of God’. The lineage of Seth was that of righteous generation until to Jesus” (brackets in original).
But, he then writes about what I just noted:
“Adam’s Obedient Line began to desire women from Cain’s line and they began to intermingle and intermarry them. This was the corruption that yielded wickedness in those days because the children of Cain diverted the children of God from the true God to idols and evil ways and yield disobedience towards the Gospel which resulted in…destruction.”
So for one, “Adam’s Obedient Line” was not so obedient after all (and, by the way, there is no biblical indication that “the children of Cain diverted the children of God from the true God to idols”).
Moreover, there are Goyim/Gentiles from Pagan nations in Jesus’ genealogy so that attempting to claim a pure line of Sethites leading to Jesus is a faulty claim.
Lastly, I was glad to see that he wrote a subsection titled, “SHOULD WE RELY ON THE BOOK OF ENOCH OR APOCRYPHAL BOOKS?” wherein he notes, “I also preached from them even today, I still have the notes I used to take” but that “During my time studying apocryphal books, I realized that they heavily contradicted the Bible and what Jesus and the Apostles taught.”
I also agree with that and have a whole chapter about how it contradicts the Bible in my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.
Overall, I appreciate Fabrice Iram’s motivations, spirit, and heart. Yet, it is clear that he has made some errors on fundamental issues which lead him to come to tome erroneous conclusions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.