The Biblical Truth of the Nephilim
A while ago I posted an article on the Nephilim stating that I did not believe that the Nephilim were demonic offspring. I then deleted the t is obvious, and not contestedarticle because I became uncertain if I was indeed correct. Since then I have been searching for the truth and I am happy to say I have found the TRUTH. The reason I am so passionate about the answer to this question is because of the rise in interest in the supernatural, i.e, aliens, trans-humanism etc. There are stories running abound that during the tribulation demons will be free to do as they please on earth, producing offspring like the Nephilim. The bible is very clear that we are to not let our minds be captured by occult imagination because when human minds get hold of unbiblical ideas it runs free and causes all sorts of havoc.
Nephilim
The Hebrew word Nephilim is translated “giants” in the Old Testament. It only appears twice in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33. A whole series of doctrines have been built around this word, in spite of the fact that the word only appears rarely. These doctrines on the Nephilim are based on Genesis 6:1-4.(It must be noted that most speculators lean very heavily on extra-biblical writings for most of their information.) The theories can basically be summed up as follows:
Demons / angels (sons of God) had illicit relationships with women (the daughters of men) and these perverted relations produced genetically mutated beings known as Nephilim (giants). God then imprisoned some of the angles who did this and in order to purify the bloodline of man God brought on the Flood. Through genetic engineering these Nephilim will be resurrected, one of which will be the Antichrist[i]. To these people, the Nephilim are also connected to so-called extra-terrestrial forms of life.
Since these theories are gaining ground and a number of books have been published based on this hypothesis, it is necessary to examine Genesis 6 again and see what exactly it teaches. We will discover that the proponents of these theories break every principle of hermeneutics. Here is the text:
“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)
Sons of God
The first problem revolves around who in the passage are the “sons of God”. Some make the connection with Job 1:6; 2:1. “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.” (Job 1:6). It is obvious, that the “sons of God” in in the book of Job were Job and his family who came before God to pray. Satan also came to listen to what they had to pray about. This presentation of Job before the Lord did not happen in Heaven but on Earth! Because God asked Satan:
Job 2:2 “And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
First, the bible is clear: No angel in heaven or fallen angel is called a “son of God”
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?”
Second 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.
So here is the problem. Genesis is obscure about who had the relations. 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.
Some try to get around this by saying that the angels inhabited (possessed) human bodies to do this. That sounds good. But here is the question: A Christian man has the Holy Spirit in him. When that man produces a child by his wife, what is the child? God or man? Clearly, it is a man. There are multitudes of people in the world who are demon possessed and who procreate. What do they produce? Human babies or mutants? Obviously human babies. So why should Genesis 6 be any different. If demons entered into men to produce offspring the children would be human, and only human.
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.
The nature of the relationships
The next problem is that it is claimed that the angels had illicit relations with women. Yet the text is very clear: “they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose” (Genesis 6:2b). The phrase “took wives for themselves” only, and always, means marriage. It never refers to casual, illicit or adulterous relationships. (See Genesis 11:29 & Ruth 1:4). To suggest otherwise is reading into the text that which is simply not there.
Giants
The theory goes that the giants were the product of these illicit relationships. We have shown that the text does not refer to illicit relationships and that the fathers could not be angels.
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.
It is exactly like me saying: “There is milk in the supermarket and eggs are $1.50 a dozen” Milk has no effect on the price, or even the existence, of eggs and the other way around. I am simply stating two facts that describe things about food in the supermarket.
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. Just like there are many mighty men today and some are men of God and others are worldly and unsaved, so there were mighty men in those days, of which Noah was one.
“Men of old” also holds no mystique, these were simply the heroes of bygone days.
“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. Some were ordinary people and some were powerful, some were little known and others had made a name for themselves. Genesis 6:5 (the next verse) goes on to describe these people as wicked and worthy of God’s judgment.
Furthermore, the translation of the word Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 as “giants” is very arbitrary. There are many other possible ways this word could be translated here: “Bullies”, “mighty ones” or “tyrants”. At least one dictionary states that the Nephilim in Genesis and in Numbers were two different peoples[ii]. Once again, 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).
One of the most important principles of hermeneutics is that the verse has to be read in its context. The context is clear, that life was going on as usual, people were becoming more and more self-absorbed and sinful but judgment was coming. This is the same point Jesus was making in Matthew 24 – people will be self-absorbed and fixated on every-day life and will not be ready for His coming.
The cause of the Flood
Those who speculate about the Nephilim, connect them with the reason for the Flood. Once again, there is no connection there. Genesis 6 describes life on earth. Yes, there were Nephilim, but more significantly, people were marrying and having children and becoming more wicked. 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. Look at these verses again: “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”(Genesis 6:5-7).
If the flood had anything to do with anything other than man’s sinfulness, either Moses or Jesus would have said something in that regard, but both are silent about demons, angels and mutants. The flood had nothing to do with clearing the gene pool. It was all about clearing the earth of sinful and wicked people. Even Sunday school children should be able to tell you that.
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.
Extra-biblical evidence
These speculators quote the Book of Enoch (and other apocryphal books) in support of their ideas as though they are Scripture. Yet, Enoch and the rest of the Apocrypha are not part of the canon of Scripture for obvious reasons – they are not, and have never been regarded as inspired except by apostate churches and false teachers.
Once again they break one of the fundamentals of Evangelical and Reformed hermeneutics: We hold only to Scripture and do not add, nor subtract from it (Revelation 22:18; Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32). It is especially reprehensible to formulate an entire doctrine on extra-biblical evidence as these people are doing.
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. But we dare not use that as evidence lest we sink to the same level as these speculators.
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).
Once again, 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. We just cannot draw connection between Genesis 6 and Jude 6, except that the chapter number is the same as the verse number!
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).
To those who pluck verses out of their context there appears to be a connection between the sinning angels and the flood. But look at the context:
2Peter 2:1-3 There were, and will be, false teachers and they will “bring upon themselves swift destruction“.
2Peter 2:4 Angels sinned and God “reserved them for judgment“
2Peter 2:5 The ancient world sinned and God judged them by the flood but spared Noah
2Peter 2:6-8 Sodom and Gomorrah sinned and God judged them but spared Lot
2Peter 2:9 Therefore in the future, the Lord will judge the unjust and save the godly.
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.
Conclusion
The purpose of this brief article is not to provide answers to all the questions that surround Genesis 6. In fact, we do not have all the answers and those who claim they have a full and detailed explanation for these verses are speculating. The point of the text in Genesis 6, and 2Peter 2 is to warn that God will not tolerate sin and will judge it.
But what we are certain of is that the theories about angels producing mutant life forms are not Biblical and that the conclusions derived from this theory are fictional, at best.
“…charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith“. (1 Timothy 1:3-4).
“But reject profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise yourself toward godliness.”(1 Timothy 4:7).
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
[i] This is a very brief and highly sanitized summary of some very extreme and bizarre teachings. But it must also be noted that those who hold to these teachings differ greatly amongst themselves as to how far they take their conclusions.
[ii]Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
1) David and Goliath –
Yes, there were giants but not in the sense of the pictures of Jack and the beanstalk. Goliath was anywhere between 6’9” to 10′ tall. The oldest manuscripts – the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel, the first-century historian Josephus, and the fourth century Septuagint manuscripts – all give his height as “four cubits and a span”, about six feet, nine inches tall (two meters), but later manuscripts have it as “six cubits and a span,” which would make him almost ten feet tall (three meters). The average height of the LA Lakers basketball team is 6’4″, with a few of them at 6’9″. Andre the Giant from the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) stood at 7’4″ while the Great Khali currently stands at 7’1″. [Note that DTW has never referred to the dead-sea scrolls for information, but to help explain Goliath in this instance, it is very necessary.]
Saul stood “head-and-shoulders” above the rest of the people and David (it seems) could fit into his armour. 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). So as adults David and Saul were almost as big as Goliath! – now that’s a revolutionary thought!
The same goes for the Canaanites, they were giant men, but not from another world. There is no possible way that these giants were of an extraterrestrial nature because the bible does not say so – 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. We need to remain silent on the things the Bible is silent on – we can’t go around and make wild speculations as many well known pastors are doing. To again speculate that angels came down again to have relations with human women to produce more giants after the flood is just nonsense.
2) Those giant skeletons they supposedly found in Greece and Middle East –
THERE’S A good reason we haven’t heard about this epic discovery in the New York Times, Scientific American, or any other legitimate publication, and that is that these photos, like the one circulating since 2004 purporting to show a giant skeleton found in the Middle East, are fakes.
As if it weren’t preposterous enough to claim that one 15-foot-tall fossilized human skeleton had turned up without media fanfare, we’re asked to believe that archaeologists recently dug up four of them in a single location (Greece). In point of fact, each of the photos appears to have been taken at a different time and place.
So far I’ve only been able to locate the original of one of them, but it serves as clear proof that Photoshopping took place. Image #4 was created by inserting an outsized human skull into a photo of a 1993 University of Chicago dinosaur dig in Niger, Africa (see the original here). If you look at a blow-up of the doctored image, the skull appears flattened and unnatural (and one of the workers actually appears to be standing on it!).
Moreover, the same cut-and-pasted skull was used to create image #2 (see side-by-side comparison). A blow-up of image #2 with brightness and contrast enhanced reveals unnaturally dark “shadows” around the skull. The skull in Image #3 is marked by incongruously bright highlights on the teeth and around the edges of the gaping temple wound. And in image #5 the shadows coming off the skeleton fall more or less toward the camera, while the worker’s shadow falls due left, suggesting that elements of two different photos were combined.
Finally, 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 (unless you consider the Weekly World News a reliable source).
source: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/supernaturalwonders/ss/giants_in_greece_6.htm
NB!! See here for more giant skeletons and why they are a hoax as well: http://yowcrooks.blogspot.com/2008/12/giant-skeleton-hoax.html
3) Nephilim: A greater understanding of Jude 5-10:
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)
Jude 6 is quoted in support of their theories connecting it to Genesis 6 that angels came down and had relations with women. Once again, 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. We just cannot draw connection between Genesis 6 and Jude 6, except that the chapter number is the same as the verse number!
To explain Jude 5 – 8 properly, it contains a number of separate examples of God judging sin. Just like paprables where there is a central truth and the only connection between the parables is that truth (e.g. That which was lost is found: lost coin, lost sheep, lost son). Here there are four examples showing the same truth that God judges sin. 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. But that is not the link here. The link is sin.In the case of Israel it is unbelief (Hebrews 3 & 4), in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah it is homosexuality and in the case of the angels it was rebellion when Satan was cast down from heaven and 1/3 of the angels followed.
——
Note that the text must be read in its context and we cannot simply make connections and draw conclusions that are not there. Now concerning the statement “who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode”. People connect that to Sodom and say that this means angels had relations with women. But we need to examine the statement carefully. The first word “proper domain” according to Thayer means:
——
Original: oiketerion
– Transliteration: Arche
– Phonetic: ar-khay’
– Definition:
1. beginning, origin
2. the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3. that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4. the extremity of a thing
a. of the corners of a sail
5. the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
a. of angels and demons
Note the word is “Arche” from which we get “arch-enemy”, “arch-rival” etc. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation but with primacy, authority etc. The second is “abode”. This is also a very common word: (oiketerion) which simply means house, habitation or abode.The verse then teaches that the angels did not remain in their proper authority and left their place. This could be construed to mean they had relations with the daughters of men. But it forces and construes a meaning that is NOT obvious to the sentence.
——
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 in the order and hierarchy of God. The English Standard version (ESV) is one of the best translations available. The ESV has the verse as follows: “And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day-
“This is supported by June 9-10 which speaks about false preachers who do not know their proper place when dealing with the Devil and demons(and yes, Satan is a “dignitary” – powerful person ).
——
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. We can only surmise that some sinned more grievously than others. But it also seems that the Lord can (and probably does) throw more of them into the abyss for whatever reason:
——
Luke 8:30-32 “30 Jesus asked him, saying, “What is your name?” And he said, “Legion,” because many demons had entered him. 31 And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss. 32 Now a herd of many swine was feeding there on the mountain. So they begged Him that He would permit them to enter them. And He permitted them..”
——
Now for Jude 7: The cities around them refers to Admah and Zeboim:
Deuteronomy 29:23 “And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath:”
Hosea 11:8 “How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together.”
The words “similar manner to these” can only refer to the most recently mentioned subjects – the cities. There is no way, at all that it can refer to the Angels. No language works like that.
When we say “Tom went to church and John went to the mall and Jerry went to the beach and he got sunburned.” The “he” can only refer to the most recent subject – Jerry.
So the meaning is very clear and obvious that Sodom and Gomorrah gave themselves over to immorality and Admah and Zeboim did likewise. There is no other possibility.
The problem here is that it all begins with a bad exegesis is Genesis 6. If you read Genesis 6 to mean that Angels had relations with women (and reject the words of Jesus that they cannot) then you have to find further support. Once you have jumped to that conclusion, it is easy to misread and misinterpret Jude 6&7. But if you do not make assumptions about relations between angels and women, then there is no way you can read that into Jude. So, you have to force the meaning of Gen 6 and then you have to force the meaning of Jude 6 to come to a conclusion.
Read the more DTW articles on this very important subject located under the category Nephilim Teaching:
Jan Markel – “Embracing the spirit of error” – Jan Markell started promoting Jonathan Cahn’s book, The Harbinger, back in 2012.
Need more Debbie? :nope:
Proofs that the Sons of God Were Angels:
Since the sons of God in Gen_6:1-22 cannot be the sons of Seth or the offspring of godly men and ungodly women, they must be fallen angels. This is clear from many scriptures:
1. The expression “sons of God” is found only five times in the Old Testament and every time it is used of angels (Gen_6:1-4; Job_1:6; Job_2:1; Job_38:7). It is indisputable that the passages in Job refer to angels. Dan_3:25, Dan_3:28 calls an angel “the son of God.” Is it not possible then, that the sons of God of Gen_6:1-22 could be angels?
2. Some translations (the Septuagint, Moffatt, and others) read, “angels of God” in Gen_6:1-4, which is the only idea that harmonizes with this passage and many other.
3. Josephus says, “many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength … these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants” (Antiquities, Book 1, 3:1). Again he says, “There were till then left the race of giants, who had bodies so large, and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing. The bones of these men are still shown to this very day” (Antiquities, Book 5, 2:3).
4. The Ante-Nicene Fathers also refer to angels as falling “into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh. Of these lovers of virgins, therefore, were begotten those who are called giants” (vol. 2, p. 142; vol. 8, p. 85, 273). Justyn Martyr (A.D. 110-165) says, “But the angels transgressed … were captivated by love of women, and begat children” (vol. 2, p. 190). Methodius (A.D. 260-312) says, “the devil was insolent … as also those (angels) who were enamoured of fleshly charms, and had illicit intercourse with the daughters of men” (vol. 6, p. 370).
5. Both testaments teach that some angels committed sexual sins and lived contrary to nature. Gen_6:1-4 gives the history of such sinning. 2Pe_2:4-5 says that angels sinned before the flood and were cast down to hell to be reserved until judgment. It doesn’t reveal the sin as fornication, but Jud_1:6-7 does, saying, “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 Gomorrah , and the cities about them in like manner (as did the angels), giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” If Sodom, Gomorrah and other cities lived contrary to nature and committed fornication, as the angels did, then it is clear that the sin of angels was fornication. According to Gen_6:1-22, this sexual sin was committed with “daughters of men.” See notes on 2Pe_2:4; Jud_1:6-7.
6. The one scripture used to teach that angels are sexless (Mat_22:30) doesn’t say they are. It states that “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” The purpose of this verse is to show that resurrected men and women do not marry to keep their kind in existence. In the resurrected state they live forever, but not as sexless beings. The Bible teaches that every person will continue bodily as he was born, throughout eternity. Paul said that everyone will have his own body in the resurrection (1Co_15:35-38). Both males and females will be resurrected as such, though their bodies will be changed from mortality to immortality (1Co_15:35-54). There is nothing in the resurrection to uncreate men and women. Christ remained a man after His resurrection and so will all other males.
Throughout Scripture angels are spoken of as men. No female angels are on record. It is logical to say then that the female was created specifically to keep the human race in existence; and that all angels were created males, inasmuch as their kind exists without reproduction. Angels were created innumerable to start with (Heb_12:22), whereas humanity began with one pair, Adam and Eve, who were commanded to reproduce and make multitudes. That angels have tangible spirit bodies, appear as men, and perform acts surpassing those of the human male is clear from many passages. See note, Heb_13:2.
When Jude states that some angels “kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation” (Jud_1:6), he makes it understandable how a sexual sin could be accomplished by them. The Greek word for “habitation” is oiketerion (G3613). It is used only twice in Scripture: of the bodies of men being changed to spiritual bodies (2Co_5:2), and the angels having a bodily change, or at least a lowering of themselves in some way (Jud_1:6-7). Thus, the New Testament helps explain the history of the Old Testament
7. There are two classes of fallen angels—those loose with Satan who will be cast down to earth during the future tribulation (Rev_12:7-12), and those who are now bound in hell for committing fornication (2Pe_2:4; Jud_1:6-7). Had the ones in hell not committed the additional sin of fornication, they would still be loose with the others to help Satan in the future. Their confinement proves they committed a sin besides that of original rebellion with Satan. That it was sexual sin is clear from 2Pe_2:4 and Jud_1:6-7, which identifies this class of fallen angels as the sons of God of Gen_6:1-4.
8. In 1Pe_3:19-20 we see that Christ “went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing.” Who are these spirits in prison, if not the confined angels who at one time lived contrary to their nature—in sin with the daughters of men (Gen_6:1-4)? We read “Who maketh his angels spirits” (Psa_104:4; Heb_1:13-14). If angels are spirits, we conclude that the imprisoned spirits Christ preached to were angels and the sons of God referred to in Gen_6:1-22, especially since they “were disobedient … in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing.” The very purpose of Noah’s flood was to destroy the giant offspring of these angels known as the sons of God who “came in unto the daughters of men.” See Ten Proofs Spirits Are Angels.
The Purpose of Satan in Producing Giants:
It was the purpose of Satan and his fallen angels to corrupt the human race and thereby do away with pure Adamite stock through whom the Seed of the woman should come. This would avert their own doom and make it possible for Satan and his kingdom to keep control of the earth indefinitely. It was said to Adam and Eve that the Seed of the woman would defeat Satan and restore man’s dominion (Gen_3:15). The only way for Satan to avoid this predicted defeat was to corrupt the pure Adamite line so that the coming of the Seed of the woman into the world would be made impossible. This he tried to accomplish by sending fallen angels to marry the daughters of men (Gen_6:1-4), thus producing the giant nations through them.
There are two episodes with fallen angels taught in Gen_6:4. There were giants in the earth “in those days (before the flood), and also after that (after the flood), when the sons of God (fallen angels) came in unto the daughters of men (any daughters of men—Cain, Seth and others), and they bare children to them (to the angels).”
Satan almost succeeded in his plan during the first episode, for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth; of all the multitudes Noah and his sons were the only pure Adamites left to be preserved by the ark (Gen_6:8-13; 1Pe_3:19-20). The main object of the flood was to do away with this Satanic corruption, destroy the giants, and preserve the pure Adamite line, thus guaranteeing of the coming of the Seed of the woman, as God planned.
Being defeated before the flood didn’t stop Satan from making a further attempt to prevent the coming of the Redeemer who would be his final downfall. It was now to his advantage that God had promised never to send another universal flood upon the earth. Satan therefore reasoned that he should make a second attempt to do away with the Adamite line. If he came within “eight souls” of doing it before the flood, his opportunities were now even greater with the promise that there would be no such flood. This is the reason the second group of fallen angels married the daughters of men. Again the unions produced giants whose races occupied the land of promise—where the Seed should be born—in advance of Abraham. Limited by His promise of no flood, God had to destroy the giants another way. This explains why He commanded Israel to kill every one of them, even to the last man, woman and child. It also explains why He destroyed all the men, women and children besides Noah and his family, at the time of the flood it answers the skeptics’ question regarding why children were taken away with adults in the flood. God had to end this corruption entirely to fulfill His eternal plan and give the world its promised Redeemer. The Redeemer has come now, so Satan is reserving his forces for a last stand at the second coming of Christ.
Thus, it is clear from Scripture that there were giants in the earth both before and after the flood and that they came from a union of fallen angels and the daughters of men.
You can tell me I am the devil and obsessed with the occult all you want. Fact is this is what our early church fathers closet to the apostles understood of scripture. This is why we have structures of this earth we cannot understand. This is why we have mythology. This is why we have the book of Enoch and the book of giants and many other books that deal with these writings. (not for canon but for historical writings.) Satan has been trying to hide the truth of Giants on this earth because it proves the bible. You can research hundereds of old news paper articles of the discovery of giants all over the world and tons in the middle east and almost everyone of them say “taken by the Smithsonian institute for further research” Yet, they claim they have none at all. This is why as the days of Noah so shall the coming of Jesus be. They are doing it again right now with A.I.
Matthew 22:30 [as the angels of God in heaven] The purpose of marriage is to replenish the earth and keep the race going. Resurrected saints and angels do not die and do not need to marry to keep their kind in existence. Hence, there is no marriage among angels or resurrected men and women. Jesus did not say that angels were sexless or that they could not marry and have offspring with women. That fallen angels did leave their own first estate and marry the daughters of men and produce races of giants is clear from Gen_6:1-4, notes. That those who committed fornication are now in hell is clear in Jud_1:6-7; 2Pe_2:4, notes. Angels are capable of many human activities.
Genesis 6:2
Sons of God
Seth didn’t have a son until 235 years after creation, and his son didn’t have a son until 325 years after creation (Gen_5:3, Gen_5:6, Gen_5:9). Where did these sons come from? They couldn’t have been sons of Seth, because these marriages took place when men began to multiply—in the very beginning of the race before Seth had sons of marriageable age. The term “sons of God” proves they were the product of God, not Seth. They were the fallen angels of 1Pe_3:19; 2Pe_2:4; Jud_1:6-7. See the Septuagint; Josephus, Antiquities Book 1, 3:1; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII, p. 273; and Giants and the Sons of God.
Genesis 6:4
[giant] Hebrew: nephiliym (H5303), plural of nephil (H5303), tyrant, giant. Trans. giant only here and in Num_13:33. The Hebrew gibbowr (H1368) is translated “giant” in Job_16:14; the seventeen other occurrences of “giant” or “giants” is the Hebrew rapha’ (H7497).
[they bare children to them] Women had children by both fallen angels and men. It wasn’t necessary to emphasize children by men, but having children by angels was significant (Gen_6:4; Jud_1:6-7). Because of this sin “it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth” (Gen_6:1-6). Read the whole thing in context. The giants were born and then evil filled the earth continually.
Proofs that Giants Were the Sons of Angels:
1. The fact that giants have lived on earth is clearly stated in Scripture. The Hebrew nephil (H5303) means “giant” or “tyrant” (Gen_6:4; Num_13:33). The men of Israel were as grasshoppers compared to them (Num_13:33). The Hebrew gibbowr (H1368) is also translated “giant,” meaning powerful, giant, mighty, or strong man (Job_16:14). To say these original words refer to their degree of wickedness instead of bodily size is a mistake.
The Anakims were a great and tall people (Deu_1:28; Deu_2:10-11, Deu_2:21; Deu_9:2; Jos_11:21-22; Jos_14:12-14). Anak himself was a giant (Num_13:33). If all Anakims were as big, we can be assured other giants were also. The land of Ammon was “a land of giants,” for “giants dwelt therein in old time” (Deu_2:19-20). The Emims were also “great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims” (Deu_2:10-11). The same was said of the Zamzummims who formerly inhabited the land of Ammon (Deu_2:19-21). Og, king of Bashan, is described as a giant whose iron bedstead was thirteen and a half feet long, and six feet wide. This is not a measurement of wickedness, but of a material bed for a giant body measuring nearly thirteen feet tall (Deu_3:11; Jos_12:4; Jos_13:12). Bashan is called “the land of the giants” (Deu_3:13).
A “valley of the giants” is mentioned in Jos_15:8; Jos_18:16. This is the valley of Rephaim, the name of another branch of the giant races mentioned in Scripture (Gen_14:5; Gen_15:20; 2Sa_5:18, 2Sa_5:22; 2Sa_23:13; 1Ch_11:15; 1Ch_14:9; Isa_17:5). The Rephaims were well-known giants, but unfortunately, instead of retaining their proper name in Scripture, the translators used dead (Job_26:5; Psa_88:10; Pro_2:18; Pro_9:18; Pro_21:16; Isa_14:8; Isa_26:19); and deceased (Isa_26:14). It should have been a proper name in all these places, as it is ten times otherwise.
Rephaim is translated “giant” in Deu_2:11, Deu_2:20; Deu_3:11, Deu_3:13; Jos_12:4; Jos_13:12; Jos_15:8; Jos_18:16; 2Sa_21:16, 2Sa_21:18, 2Sa_21:20, 2Sa_21:22; 1Ch_20:4, 1Ch_20:6, 1Ch_20:8. The phrase “remnant of the giants” in Deu_3:11; Jos_12:4; Jos_13:12 should be “remnant of the Rephaims,” because there were many nations of giants other than the Rephaims who filled the whole country trying to contest God’s claim on the promised land. They are listed as Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaims, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites, Jebusites, Hivites, Anakims, Emims, Horims, Avims, Zamzummims, Caphtorims, and Nephilims (Gen_6:4; Gen_14:5-6; Gen_15:19-21; Exo_3:8, Exo_3:17; Exo_23:23; Deu_2:10-12, Deu_2:20-23; Deu_3:11-13; Deu_7:1; Deu_20:17; Jos_12:4-8; Jos_13:3; Jos_15:8; Jos_17:15; Jos_18:16). Og was of the remnant of Rephaims, not the remnant of all other giant nations (Deu_3:11; Jos_12:4; Jos_13:12).
All these giant nations came from a union of the sons of God (fallen angels) and daughters of men after the flood. Beings of great stature, some of them even had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot and carried spears weighing from 10 to 25 pounds (2Sa_21:16-22; 1Ch_20:4-8). Goliath, whom David slew, wore a coat of armor weighing 196 pounds and was nine feet and nine inches tall (1Sa_17:4-6). The pyramids of Egypt, the giant cities of Bashan and other huge monuments of construction may remain a mystery until they are accepted as the result of the labor and skill of giants.
The revelation we have of giants in Scripture gives us a true picture of what Greek mythology tries in vain to give. Mythology is but the outgrowth of traditions, memories, and legends telling of the acts of supernatural fathers and their giant offspring—the perversion and corruption in transmission of actual facts concerning these mighty beings. The fact that giants were partly of supernatural origin made it easy for human beings to regard them as gods.
2. The fact that the Rephaim have no resurrection (Isa_26:14) proves the reality of giants and that they were not ordinary men. All ordinary men are to be resurrected (Joh_5:28-29); therefore, giants must be a different class from pure Adamites. Isaiah makes it clear that the dead (Hebrew: Repha’iym (H7497)) are now in hell (Isa_14:9). Solomon confirms this in Pro_2:18; Pro_9:18; Pro_21:16 where the Hebrew word for dead is Rephaim. See notes, Isa_26:14, Isa_26:19.
3. The fact that giants came only from a union of sons of God and daughters of men proves that their fathers were not ordinary men of Adamite stock. No such monstrosities have been produced from the union of any ordinary man and woman, regardless of the righteousness of the father or the wickedness of the mother. Many converted men who are sons of God in the sense of adoption and righteousness through Christ have been married to unconverted women, and no offspring the size of Biblical giants has ever resulted from these unions. If, as some teach, giants were born of such unions both before and after the flood, then why do not such marriages produce that kind of offspring today? Why did this happen in every case then and never today?
4. God’s law of reproduction from the beginning has been everything after its own kind. It was not possible then that giants could be produced by men and women of ordinary size (Gen_1:11-12, Gen_1:21, Gen_1:24-25; Gen_8:19). It took a supernatural element, the purpose and power of Satan and his angels, to make human offspring of such proportion. After giants came into being, they then produced others of like size instead of ordinary sized men (Num_13:33; 2Sa_21:16, 2Sa_21:18, 2Sa_21:20, 2Sa_21:22; 1Ch_20:4-8).
5. Not only is it unscriptural but unhistorical to teach that giants came from the union of ordinary men and women. The great question has been: Where did giants get their start? Gen_6:4 makes it clear—from a union of the sons of God and daughters of men. If the sons of God were ordinary men in the same sense that the daughters of men were ordinary women, then we must conclude four things:
(1) Ungodly women have the power to produce such monsters if married to godly men.
(2) Godly men have the power to produce giants when married to ungodly women.
(3) A mixture of godliness and wickedness produces giants.
(4) Extreme wickedness on the part of either parent will produce giant offspring.
All four conclusions are wrong, however, as proven every day by the ordinary offspring of wicked and godly parents. Thus, the theory that giants came from the marriage of Seth’s sons with Cain’s daughters is disproved.
6. The sons of God could not have been the sons of Seth or other godly men for the following seven reasons:
(1) There were no men godly enough to be saved during the Antediluvian Age except Abel (Gen_4:4; Heb_11:4), Enoch (Gen_5:21-24; Heb_11:5), and Noah (Gen_6:8; Gen_7:1; Heb_11:7), as far as Scripture is concerned. Shall we conclude that these three men were the sons of God who married the daughters of Cain and produced races of giants in the earth in those days before the flood (Gen_6:4)? We have no record of any marriage or offspring of Abel before he was murdered. Regarding Enoch, are we to believe that Methuselah and his other children were the giants? Are we to believe that Noah’s three sons—Shem, Ham, and Japheth—were giants? If so, where is our authority for this? Had this been true, there would have been nothing on earth after the flood but giants, for by Noah’s children the whole earth was replenished (Gen_10:1-32). That would cause another unsolved mystery—how giants became ordinary sized men again.
(2) The time of the marriages of the sons of God disproves the theory that they were the sons of Seth. Marriages of Seth’s sons could not have taken place during the first 325 years. He had only one son of marriageable age up to that time (Gen_5:1-8) and he (Enos) was not godly (see The Line of Seth). To say there were no such marriages before Enos contradicts Gen_6:1-2 which shows that sons of God married daughters of men when they began to be born. Shall we conclude that daughters were not born in the first 325 years? If so, where did Cain, Seth and others get their wives?
Furthermore, such marriages between godly sons and ungodly daughters could not have been during the last 600 years before the flood, because Noah was the only son of God by righteousness during this time (Gen_6:8-9; Gen_7:1; 2Pe_2:4-5). His sons were preserved in the ark because of being pure Adamite stock, not because of personal righteousness. The above facts then limit these marriages to the 731 years between the first 325 years and the last 600 of the Antediluvian Age, whereas sons of God actually married daughters of men throughout the entire 1,656 years of that age. Gen_6:1-2 makes it clear that this happened “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth.”
(3) Gen_6:4 teaches that there were giants on the earth “in those days” (before the flood), “and also after that” (after those days which were before the flood), as a result of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men. If the sons of God were the sons of Seth, we can account for them “after that” (after the flood), for the line of Seth was continued through Noah. But with the daughters of Cain (supposed by some to be the daughters of men) the story is different. Cain’s line perished in the flood, which means there were no daughters of Cain after the flood for sons of God to marry.
(4) The Bible gives us no reason to believe that the statement “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair” should be limited to Cain’s daughters. Thousands of families from the many branches of the race both before and after the flood had daughters too. In the 1,656 years before the flood (which is the period in which Seth and Cain lived), there must have been from 150 million to 500 million people. It is unbelievable that so many as half of these were godly and half ungodly; and we know that they were not limited to two lines—the line of Seth and the line of Cain. Regarding Seth’s daughters we have reason to believe that they were as fair as the daughters of Cain—beautiful enough to attract men as husbands for themselves. The line of Seth alone survived the flood, so we know this is true. Gen_6:1-2 therefore, cannot be said to refer only to the daughters of Cain; and the term “daughters of men” cannot be limited to the daughters of Cain.
(5) The very expressions “sons of God” and “daughters of men” indicate two different kinds—one the product of God, the other the product of man. Seth was not God, so why call the sons of God the sons of Seth?
(6) It is a matter of record that Seth’s children were as ungodly as Cain’s. The firstborn of Seth even started idolatry, as proven in The Line of Seth.
(7) With the exception of Noah and his family all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth before the flood (Gen_6:12), which means the entire race (besides Noah’s family) had become a mixture of fallen angels and men, or giants. Only Noah and his family had kept their lineage pure from Adam, which is really why they were saved in the ark. They were the only ones capable of giving the race a new, clean start after the flood. It is said of Noah that he was a just man and perfect in his generations (Gen_6:9). The Hebrew for “perfect” is tamiym (H8549), which means without blemish. It is the technical word for physical perfection, not moral perfection. It is so used of the sacrificial animals of the Old Testament which had to be of pure stock and without blemish (Exo_12:5; Exo_29:1; Lev_1:3; Lev_3:1-6; Lev_4:3, Lev_4:23-32; Lev_5:15-18; Lev_6:6; Lev_9:2-3; Eze_43:22-25; Eze_45:18-23), without spot (Num_19:2; Num_28:3-11; Num_29:17, Num_29:26), and undefiled (Psa_119:1). Used of Noah, this word means that he and his sons were the only pure Adamites left, and for such purity, they (regardless of their position in personal holiness) were all preserved in the ark.
Sorry, I am not sure why my comments came out like they did. Hope you can make sense of it.
Josh Gilbert
Your Nephilim hypothesis is another Gospel. Let me repeat that: Your Nephilim hypothesis is another Gospel. It is not the Gospel of God. You said that Satan’s plan was to prevent the Redeemer from coming to earth to fulfill his redemptive work on the cross for all mankind. To accomplish this, he defiled all womankind (with the exception of Noah’s wife and his three sons’ wives) by sending his fallen angels to marry and have sex with them and to produce giants on the earth.
You said: “It was the purpose of Satan and his fallen angels to corrupt the human race and thereby do away with pure Adamite stock through whom the Seed of the woman should come.” What do you mean by pure Adamic stock? Are you suggesting that Adam and Eve’s sin did not putrefy the entire human race that followed them in their generations, including Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives, and that only those who were tainted by the fallen angels’ “semen” (God forbid) and had giants of 450 feet tall (according to the gnostic book “Enoch,”) deserved to perish in the flood. What happened to Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:”
Noah and his household (the Adamic stock) were defiled sinners as much as the rest of the pre-Flood stock. The only difference was that Noah and his household followed the way of Abel who brought an offering of his flock (blood had to be shed for the remission of sin) as an act of faith in the coming Redeemer whilst the rest of mankind followed the way of Cain (Jude 11:11 – a bloodless offering) as an act of their rebellion and rejection of the coming Redeemer. Yet you, like the late Chuck Missler, would like to attribute the rest of mankind’s fall into sin to a physical blemish. Missler believed that the word “tamiym” in Genesis 6:9 always refers to a physical blemish, and in this case the physical blemish was caused by fallen angels having sex with earthly women. What utter rubbish.
Physical contamination cannot and will never play any part in God’s governance to declare someone righteous or unrighteous – not even the alleged contamination of human being’s DNA and genetics by fallen angels, if that had been possible to any degree. Such a notion is sheer nonsense and vilifies God and his Gospel. Unless, of course, righteousness could be attained through physical health and spotless or unblemished DNA in those ancient times. This sounds so much like today’s Word of Faith teaching that sickness is a sign of unrighteousness. An unsullied physical frame was applicable only to the priests and the sacrificial animals because both represented the perfect sinlessness of Jesus Christ. (Leviticus 21:16-23). This brings us now to Strong’s etymological description of the word: tamiym (taw-meem’). Our illustrious scholar, Vernon Gray, says the word tamiym (taw-meem’) is used for physical blemishes. Well, let’s see whether he is correct. The Strong’s Bible Dictionary defines the word as follows:
From H8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as a noun) integrity, truth: – without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (sincerity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright (up-rightly), whole.
In the New Testament “without spot or wrinkle, and “without blemish” refer to the spiritual nature of the church (Bride of Christ) (Ephesians 5:27). The question now, is this: At what stage in the history of the children (sons) of God did the meaning of the terms “without spot,” “undefiled” and “without blemish” change from a uniquely physical to a spiritual? If the antediluvian sinners were saved in the very same way the New Testament and present-day sinners are saved, all the attributes mentioned above have a spiritual and not a physical meaning. Yes indeed, the word refers to a physical blemish, but always in the context of the sacrificial system in the Old Testament, because it represents the sinlessness of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ.
It is never used for mankind in general to designate his or her physical makeup, let alone the naturalness or unnaturalness of their DNA or genetic substance. When it is not used in connection with the sacrificial animals and the priestly office in the Old Testament, it always refers to moral and spiritual integrity and not to unblemished physical substance. For instance; May we say that tamiym (taw-meem’) in Ezekiel 28:15 refers to Satan’s physical perfection before his fall?
It is inconceivable to associate the word tâmı̂ym with physical substance in Ezekiel 28:15 because Satan is an invisible spirit being. Oh, I just love it when a single verse in the Bible is so powerful that it puts to rest once and for all an erroneous doctrine like the Nephilim and zips the mouths of those who herald their false teaching. Are they going to listen and repent of their evil? I doubt it.
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (like the Nephilim gibberish). (2 Timothy 4:1-4).
Read this article if you will.
https://www.discerningtheworld.com/2017/05/19/nephilim/
https://www.discerningtheworld.com/2017/05/24/nephilim-part-2/
John Gilbert wrote:
I have already proven that you hold to another Gospel and not the Gospel of God, and here again, you show that your Gospel is another gospel. Since when must you be godly enough to be saved? Oops, I’m sorry I now recall what Jesus once said:
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which is godly enough. (Luke 19:10). Are you godly enough, John?
The word “nephil” (giant) does not always refer to the physical stature of a man or a woman. It also means to be a “bully” or a “tyrant” like Nimrod who hunted and eliminated other tyrants (Nephilim) to establish his kingdom of Babel in revolt against God.
John Gilbert wrote:
Once again, you vilify the true Gospel of God. The ark Noah built was in many respects a type of Jesus Christ which I won’t go into now. What you are saying in effect is that you can be in Christ without being righteous. You only need to be of pure Adamite stock, whatever that may mean. Could it mean that all those who are of pure Adamite stock were not conceived by a fallen angel and an earthly mother?
John, could you please tell us how you were saved?
John Gilbert wrote:
If Jesus is the Son of God, as you may know, He truly is, then he must have had a lineage before Shem and, in fact, from the very beginning. Or was Shem the beginning of Christ’s lineage? The Nephilim hypothesis has its origin in paganism when they began to believe that kings and queens were the offspring of the copulation between a pantheon of gods and humans.
Hi, I have seen the films on https://gensix.com/true-legends-films, and it was interesting.