The Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology posted an article titled Did Angels Marry Women and Breed Giants? by Christopher Eames.
I noted that org in my article Nephilim Giants Revealed in Ancient Egyptian Scroll—get excited and stuff!!!
Their self-description includes that it’s an, “academic and education institution…sponsors and participates in archaeological excavations to promote Israel’s biblical archaeology…sponsored by Herbert W. Armstrong College in Edmond, Oklahoma.” Armstong founded the Worldwide Church of God aka Armstrongism which has had a long and sorted history regarding it’s fidelity to God’s Word.
The title, “Did Angels Marry Women and Breed Giants?” and Eames noting that the question is, “asked quite a lot. Did angels marry women and conceive giants?…Did angels marry women and engender a race of giants?” begs these key questions: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s the questioners’ and Eames’ usage? Do those two usages agree?
This pertains to what I term the Gen 6 affair which he quotes thusly:
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose. … The Nephilim [or, giants] were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
His brackets imply that by giants he merely means Nephilim—stand by to see if we get more clues as to his usage(s?).
He notes:
This was posed in the latest issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. Jaap Doedens presented the following options:
Crucial to the understanding of Genesis 6:1-4 is the question: Who are these “sons of God”? The history of interpretation shows two main approaches: They are either human or nonhuman. This has resulted in four different explanations: the “sons of God” as fallen angels, mighty men, descendants of Seth or divine beings.
But there is a fifth option. Let’s examine here, first and foremost, whether or not the “sons of God” are human or angelic beings—and then present the evidence for this fifth option as to who these “sons of God” are.
See my article Jaap Doedens on The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4: Analysis and History of Exegesis.
Christopher Eames notes, “Angels or Humans? First question: Were the ‘sons of God’ human or spirit beings?” but such is a false dichotomy: why only those two options? A better, biblically contextual, question would be, “human or Angels.”
He points out, “there is no reference to the word angels anywhere in this chapter…‘sons of God” can refer to two things: angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:4-7) or men (e.g. Psalm 82:6; Malachi 2:10).” I’ll specify that Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that, “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as Angeloi: plural of Angelos) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth.
He asserted, “Angels are spirit beings (Psalm 104:4)” but I opted to swap, “human or spirit beings” to, “human or Angels” since that they’re spirits is not biblical Angelology—yes, even if one includes a citation.
See, he’s being myopic: he’s only reading a version that has, “spirits” in that single verse and asserting that such is the, only, case.
Yet, there are, at least, 46 English versions that have them being, “winds” rather than, “spirits” in that verse and that’s not simply due to a flip of the translator’s coin but due to the context. The context calls for a correlation to natural phenomena since that’s what the whole Psalm is doing and such is also why when that verse is quoted and played off of in Heb 1 it should also read, “winds” for consistency.
Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
He adds that since Angels are spirits but, “women are human beings. They are two different kinds; God established a law that each kind produces only after its own kind (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21).”
Well, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. We were created “a little lower” (Psa 8:5) than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.”
He further notes:
The evidence against the identification as “angels” is also demonstrated by the context of Genesis 6. God says of these unions, “My spirit shall not always strive with man …”(verse 3; King James Version). And the offspring of these “sons” and “daughters” were clearly human: “and they bore children to them [the ‘sons of God’]; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth …. And it repented the Lord that he had made man …. And the Lord said, ‘I will blot out man …’” (verses 4-7). The offspring of these unions were specifically men—not angels, or angel-men.
This is confused and also myopic. He fails to note that humans, Angels, Nephilim, and God are all referred to as man/men.
And, of course the focus is on humans since the Bible is more of an anthropological anthology than an theological (or Angelological) one: it’s about our creation, our fall, and our redemption.
He adds:
The New Testament is even more direct. Jesus said that angels (and spirit beings in general) “neither marry, nor are given in marriage” (Matthew 22:30; also Mark 12:25). The “sons of God” in Genesis clearly did marry, taking “wives.”
Indeed, Jesus continues to describe the Genesis 6 period as one of “marrying, and giving in marriage” (Matthew 24:48). But again, the angels neither marry, nor are given in marriage.
He actually misrepresented Jesus by cutting His words in half—and just when He made the qualifying statement.
Jesus’ statement was very detailed, very nuanced, He employed qualifying terms, “the angels of God in heaven.”
So, not all Angels at all times in all places but the loyal ones, “of God” and “in heaven” which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.
In fact, Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.
So, if they’re not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we’ve no idea to what sin they’re referring.
He then gets into the, “fifth option: the ‘sons of God’ as the line of Cain” which is certainly a unique take on it since the late-comer Sethite view has it that they’re the line of Seth—yet, that view is based on myth and prejudice.
Blaming a son’s behavior on his parents, Christopher Eames asserts, “Given the way Cain turned out…it is clear he was raised a narcissistic, spoiled brat” rather than stating, “Given the way Cain turned out…it is clear he was…a narcissistic, spoiled brat.”
He then quotes, “to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh; then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.”
He adds, “Genesis 4 describes the ‘exploits’ of Cain’s lineage of ‘mighty men.’ These include the first city ever built (verse 17), famous murderers (verses 23-24), a pioneer musician (verse 21), a pioneer blacksmith and weapons-maker (verse 22), and the first noted polygamist (verse 19).”
There’s no reference to, “mighty men” in Gen 4.
The plural, “famous murderers (verses 23-24)” is actually one single person (you can add Cain to the list which would make it 2) since those two verse read, “Lamech said to his wives: ‘Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold.”
This may have been a case of self-defence so it’d be killing rather than murder since it was, “for wounding me…for striking me” unless it was an unjustified, over the top, retribution.
And, “the first noted polygamist (verse 19)” is that same Lamech.
He then mentioned, “the lineage of Seth. There are no great physical deeds given in this genealogy…prophet, Enoch, ‘taken’ in God’s mercy” and somehow, due to, “Methuselah, whose name appears to be a prophecy of the great Flood” and a different, “Lamech, who peculiarly lived 777 years” means that they were, “A line, then, of more religious-prophetic emphasis, as opposed to Cain’s line of so-called ‘mighties.’” So, this is part of the mythological prejudice—I’m starting to think that, “the ‘sons of God’ as the line of Cain” was a typo and he really mean to assert, “the ‘sons of God’ as the line of” Seth.
So, apparently, 2 or 3 on the record sins for Cain’s entire genealogy is enough to condemn that entire genealogy and Enoch being taken and old guys is enough to praise the entire Sethie genealogy.
Yet, he hyperbolizes and jumps from, “the very different genealogies” to, “the Genesis 6 overview of the antediluvian world” about, “‘mighty’ offspring as the ‘demigods’ of old.”
By appealing to Pagan mythology, he concludes, “Greek and Roman legends help illustrate that the ‘sons of God’ are the human line of Cain.”
One may wonder why there weren’t any attractive male Cainites nor any attractive female Sethites.
The Angel view elucidates why it was only exclusively strictly males on one side of the gender binary equation and only exclusively strictly females on the other: again, Angels look like human males.
He adds:
And as for the “giants”—nephilim—it has been speculated that these were the progeny of the “sons of God” and “daughters of men.” But it is apparent from this verse that giants were not exclusively the progeny of these unions. See our article “Cavemen Are People Too,” discussing the identity of this early race of humans.
That is just watering down terminology and playing word-games. Recall that his usage of giants was as an apparent aka for Nephilim but now it’s also cavemen.
Yet, the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
For details, see my linguistics book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
Yet, he also seems to mean something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average (and yes, that is how useless the common parlance usage of that modern English word is) since he ended with, “Different human groups got together with other human groups: some were 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 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.
Leave a Reply