Who Were the Sons of God in Genesis 6?

Share/recommend this article:

Excerpt In Genesis 6:1–8 we read about some persons who may be a pre-Flood link between the Bible and the cultures of the ancient Near East. They are the “sons of the gods.” The biblical reference to them should have some relationship with historical fact. If so, we should be able to lift these early chapters of Genesis out of what may be to some a foggy mysticism, and make connections with extra-biblical historical accounts. Continue reading

Related Articles
Like this artice?

Our Ministry relies on the generosity of people like you. Every small donation helps us develop and publish great articles.

Please support ABR!

Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover & PayPal

Suggested Meanings for the “Sons of God”


Who actually were the “sons of god?” Some say they were fallen angels. However, to have children, they must have been sexual beings, and angels are not. From Matthew 22:30 we may conclude they are neither male nor female. Furthermore, if the judgment of the Flood was against the “sons of god” and they were angels, they would actually have escaped it since they are spiritual beings.


Another interpretation is that they were the sons of Seth, the godly line. Could this be so? Could the godly line become so totally corrupt that they were responsible for the Flood? It is difficult to imagine believers becoming that corrupt.


The third possibility is that of rabbinical Jewish interpretation. It is that “sons of god” were rulers or princes. What follows will be very close to this. The first two explanations have become the popular ones and most people have never heard of this third possibility. Even when considered, it is dismissed as untenable (cf. Keil and Delitzsch’s commentary on Genesis 6).


Perhaps a combination of the first and third is the best explanation. That is, that the “sons of the gods” may be demon-possessed rulers!


A New Interpretation


In 1962, Meredith Kline suggested a new interpretation in The Westminster Theological Journal. His thesis was that the “sons of the god” were tyrannical “divine” kings like those we know from historical times in the ancient Near East (www.ancientdays.net/nimrod.htm).


The fact that an historical theme so prominently treated in the Sumero-Babylonian epic tradition finds no counterpart [or connection with] Genesis 3–6 according to standard [traditional] interpretations is itself good reason to suspect that these interpretations have been missing the point (Kline 1962: 199).


If Kline is correct, then the Genesis 6 reference may be to real men (rulers) coming onto history’s stage with spurious claims to divinity in defiance of the authority of the Lord God. Instead of acknowledging His Lordship, they established their own authority as supreme head of a fabricated religio-politico system; then they held their subjects in gross spiritual darkness and abject physical slavery (www.ancientdays.net/opiate.htm). Each king, in his city-state (in historical times) claimed to be a “son of the patron god or goddess” (of his city or empire). In other words, he was the self-proclaimed representative of the local god on earth.


Thus, the king is divine, he is god, and manifested himself as such especially on the New Year Festival. And this is not the result of a long history of evolution, but goes back to the earliest times (our emphasis; Engnell 1967: 18).


We see no reason why historically well-established post-Flood patterns cannot also explain pre-Flood conditions. Paralleling the biblical record we have well-known accounts like the Sumerian King List and the Gilgamesh Epic which speak both of pre- and post-Flood situations; but only the Bible has the detail and accuracy to give the true picture.


In tracing the development of such a system, we see Cain first establishing a city-state when he deliberately forsook Yahweh and went into a condition of wandering (Gn 4:12). The despotic pattern inherent in this system is seen in Lamech’s polygamy and possible human sacrifice, all part of a humanly-established religious system. Historic parallels are again easily discernible in Genesis 10–11, with names of well-known post-Flood city-states listed. Then there is the account of the great rebellion at Babylon with the building of the first ziggurat or temple-tower, all part of a (post-Flood) re-established anti-Yahweh religion. At the very heart of this religion is a king claiming to be a “son of the gods.”


To digress a moment, some may wonder, “Where did all the people come from by Cain’s time for there to have been enough inhabitants to build a city?” To answer, we are not told how much time had transpired before Cain built a city; it could have been a long time. And, with an early “population explosion,” there may have been thousands born in only 100–200 years. Someone may ask, “But where did Cain get his wife to start it all?” The answer is that he married his sister. Adam and Eve had many children after Cain and Abel (Gn 5:4).


An excellent volume on ancient cities is that of Fustel de Coulange, The Ancient City. Although originally written in 1864, it has not become outdated. De Coulange says in regard to our topic,


With the ancients, a city was never formed by degrees, by the slow increase of men and houses. They founded a city all at once, all entire in a day...As soon as the families...had agreed to unite and have the same worship, they immediately founded the city as a sanctuary for this common worship, and thus the foundation of a city was always a religious act (our emphasis; 1956: 134).


This fact may well be the basis on which Cain founded the first city and on which many cities were subsequently founded until the Gospel came.


Divine Kingship


What is it? When did it start? How? Where? What are its chief characteristics? The study of divine kingship has been thorough and many insightful and helpful books and articles have been written (with only a few referred to here).


Perhaps there never were any gods without kings, or kings without gods. When we have discovered the origin of divine kingship we shall know, but at present we only know that when history begins there are kings, the representatives of gods (our emphasis; Hocart 1927: 7).


However, there may be more clues to the rise of divine kingship than the documents from earliest times contain. Genesis 6 seems to indicate that kings were acting like gods before the beginning of history as we know it—before the beginning of Sumer.


In considering divine kingship, it should be noted that “kingship” is not the same as “king,” the person; nor “kingdom,” the king’s domain (which includes people and property). “Kingship” is authority, the authority to rule. A problem in any political system is how to get this authority. In the USA we have a system based on consent by the governed. (This concept makes it difficult, incidentally, to understand the absolutism of the ancient system.) When one desires absolute authority, such as in the ancient Near East, he must get it by force or subterfuge, or a combination of both, which is the most usual method.


Thus, divine kingship did not evolve. It was fabricated— deliberately formulated— usually by a group of priest-nobles who supported one man in power.


Having said that, it follows that the purpose of myths, epics and literature on clay tablets, papyrii, parchments, and monuments, have the fundamental purpose of establishing and maintaining the right-to-rule a certain area and people. Clever men (priest-nobles) manipulated the populace’s religious instincts to cause them to follow and obey the local god’s “son.” He owned the people and land, in theory at least. And he acted either as god (in Egypt), or as his representative (in Mesopotamia and other cultures). When all the literature and monuments were used to glorify and exalt this man as the son, or representative, of god, religion became the opiate (binder and blinder) of the people! Manipulation of religion for political purposes began in Sumer, was picked up in Akkad (Old Babylon), revised with the same themes in Assyria and Neo-Babylonia, was enjoyed by Persian monarchs, captivated Alexander and his successors (Antiochus “Epiphanus” means “the revelation of god”), and was copied by Rome. (It is even found in Africa, the Far East, and the Americas.)


There would be nothing extraordinary in a worldwide diffusion of divine kingship: the doctrine evidently has exercised a great fascination over the human mind. Greece and Rome shook it off in their youth, but returned to it in their old age. When Alexander claimed to be the son of Zeus he was merely continuing, reviving, or borrowing from the East an ancient belief that the first-born of the king was really the son of a god who had assumed bodily form in order to lie with the Queen, a belief which was current in Egypt under the Early Dynasties of the Empire, if not earlier. The later Romans had to accept the divinity of kings with their empire...Having thus re-established their sway over Western Europe the divine kings of the world did not again surrender it except to another Divine King, a Spiritual King, incarnated once for all in order ever after to rule over the souls of men (Hocart 1927: 15–16).


This is most interesting when one recalls that Nebuchadnezzar (a “divine” emperor whose name may mean “Nebo has protected the succession-rights”) had a vision in which kingdoms having divine kingship were finally smashed by the kingdom of Christ, the true King who was truly Divine (Dn 2).


How Divine Kingship Works


There are three principles basic to the function of “divine” kingship in the ancient Near East. They are essential to using religion for political control.


1. The king is divine. From the beginning of written history, the Sumerians, after (and even before) the Flood (see the Sumerian King List), considered the king to be divine.


The earliest known religion is a belief in the divinity of the kings. I do not say that it is necessarily the most primitive; but in the earliest records known, man appears to us worshipping gods and their representative, namely kings (our emphasis; Hocart 1927: 7).


To make religion really work for government, the person at the top has to assume divinity or semi-divinity.


2. The king has absolute power. He is above the law; he makes it and changes it as he pleases since he gets direct orders from ”heaven.” For instance,


We must not think that Hammurabi felt that he was bound by his code of laws. That code he received from the hand of the god Shamash for the establishment of justice in the empire, for the rulership of which he had been predestined from the foundation of the world. From the gods he had his scepter and to them alone he was responsible (Luckenbill 1924: 4).


3. Documents supporting the right to rule. There must be something like a “constitution.” Written materials discovered by archaeologists are, to a great extent, documents related in some way to this “right” and its outworking in the kingdom.


Every individual, whether he realizes it or not, has the inclination to worship someone, even if it is only himself. If someone were able to trick a group of people into believing that the Creator had made him king as his “son” and get them to worship him, he could make the people his slaves. In the epic literature of the ancient Near East we frequently note that the hero has been chosen by the gods to rule. Actually, the literary texts (www.ancientdays.net/corancienttexts.htm) and monuments were fabricated to create this very impression on the people. In this literature the people were created for the purpose of serving the gods and their emissaries!


For instance in the Enuma Elish “creation” story, man was created from the blood of the gods (and clay), in order to take care of the gods. Georges Roux has this to say of its effect on Sumer:


Childish as this story might sound, it was loaded with grave significance for the Babylonians. To their deeply religious mind it offered a non-rational but nevertheless acceptable “explanation” of the universe. Among other things, it described how the world had assumed its alleged shape; it made good the fact that men must be the servants of the gods; it accounted for the natural wickedness of humanity, created from the blood of the evil god Kingu; it also justified the exorbitant power of Marduk (1966: 96).


Early man was not unintelligent. But, without God he was unscrupulous. The leaders may not have believed their superstitions, since they perpetrated them. The elite class deceived the working serfs and kept them in virtual slavery. There is really no way to know of the plight of the latter, for they were not taught to read and write. Most literature is found by archaeologists in the palace-temple complex of the ancient cities.


Thus, we suggest that the “shadowy” myths and legends of the ancient Near East are deliberately shadowy. They did not “evolve” as a sort of folklore. They were fabricated originally, copied and, in successive societies, revised and reused to retain control. These documents make up the “constitution” for the kingdom. They helped to maintain the palace and the temple in control, and included providing all the needs of the king, and the ruling class, as representative of the gods.


Scriptural Considerations


Reviewing the development of humanly devised religious systems in Scripture, we find them from the very beginning. A spirit of defiance of the Lord characteristic of these systems is seen in Cain’s unworthy sacrifice and his murder of Abel, a true worshipper of Yahweh. Lamech continued in the spirit of Cain (and Gn 6:1–4) opposing the Sethites, who were the first to “call upon (worship) the name of Yahweh.” (It is probably erroneous to think that Israel and the world first heard of Yahweh through Moses, as many imply in discussing Exodus 3:14 and 6:3.)


The genealogy of believers is listed in Genesis 5. What a contrast to the ungodly rebels of chapters 4 and 6! After the insertion of chapter 5, the narrative picks up again in chapter 6 with the cause of the Flood laid at the feet of the “sons of the gods.”


Who will be saved? The worshippers of Yahweh and no others. And so the theme goes throughout the Old Testament (Tanakh) into the New Testament (B’rit Hadashah), when Yahweh comes among men as Jesus (Yeshua), and throughout history to this hour. The anti-Yahweh, anti-Christ men could have come to the Lord and been saved too. But, they chose to defy Him and set up their own religio-politico system in opposition to Him.


Exposition of Genesis 6:1–5 in Light of “Divine” Kingship


 “Sons of the Gods”


In Scripture, adherents of a religious system were called “sons.” For instance, the “sons of Hamor” in Genesis 33:19 must have belonged to a cult in which donkeys were sacrificed while making a covenant (Wright 1965: 131). E. Kautzsch in Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar says,


ben denotes membership of a guild or society (or of a tribe, or any definite class). Thus benei haelohim (of Gn 6 and Job) properly means not “sons of god(s),” but beings of the class of elohim (1922: 418).


Many references are found in the Old Testament to “sons (followers) of the prophets.” Even in the New Testament, Paul called Timothy his “son” (or disciple). It may not, therefore, be out of line to suggest that a follower of a temple-order would be a “son” of the order (or “class,” as Kautzsch calls it), including the priest-king. But, in the latter’s case, he would be called “son of the god so and so...” For instance, the city of Ashur—which became the center of the Assyrian Empire—had a patron god also named Ashur. In the seventh century BC, the well-known Assyrian emperor, Ashurbanipal, came to power and took upon himself a name which means “Ashur Has Made a Son.”


Cities with their patron gods, then, developed a system that helps us understand the meaning of Genesis 6:2. Such a practice was so widespread that everyone reading this passage in ancient times would immediately understand what was meant. The “sons of the gods” include all city-kings. Or, it may be describing just one city’s typical religio-politico system, the king with the religious leaders.


Since the “sons of god” are temple adherents, the writer of Genesis is not necessarily calling them this in sarcasm. He is using the term in the oriental sense. However, he did not mean that they were actually divine, only that they were adherents of another religious system. On the other hand, believers were not called by this term in the Old Testament.


By this simple literary stroke the author at once caught the spirit of ancient paganism and suggested darkly the satanic shapes that formed the background of the human revolt against the King of Kings. For these “sons of the god” were of all the seed of the serpent most like their father (Kline 1962: 192).


The Ziggurat at Ur.


Sacred Marriage


If “the sons of the gods” are despots pretending to be “divine” kings, then who are the “daughters of men?” Possibly the children of Seth, that is, “believers.” Or, they may simply have been “men,” common people, in contrast to “divine” kings. Likely this latter is the sense in which it is used since it describes well the practices of the ancient Near East. There tyrants took (or “snatched away”) whoever they chose of the daughters of the common man. They were his “property.”


The Hebrew word laqach means “to take, to grab and pull away.” But the modern Hebrew meaning is simply “to marry.” In Genesis 6, it likely means that the sons of the gods forcibly took the daughters of “men,” whoever and whenever they chose. In the historical period, “divine” kings followed in their footsteps, for it is here we learn that the kings, in the name of their god-father, claimed to own all the people. Of course, this meant the women really belonged to him since he was “son of the creator.”


A very early example of this is the epic hero Gilgamesh. The men of his city, Uruk, raged at him for ravishing their wives and daughters. We see the problem in Scripture when Sarah was taken from Abraham by the Egyptian Pharaoh (Gn 12:10–20). Abimelech of Gerar took Rachel from Jacob. The “prince” of Shechem took Dinah from Jacob. Later, Esther was chosen from among the most beautiful (illustrating that the ruler could have whatever women he wished). Even in Israel, the practice was picked up (although not by kings claiming to be divine). David took plural wives and ended with Abigail, the fairest in the land. Solomon then went “all out” in the kingly tradition of wife-getting and ruined Israel.


Another practice from historic times may have a bearing on the meaning of this. Once each year in Mesopotamia the New Year’s Festival was celebrated.


Each city-state ensured the fertility of its own fields and the fecundity of its own people and cattle by means of a Sacred Marriage between its patron-god and one of its goddesses (Roux 1966: 90).


The king represented the god, and one of the most beautiful women in the land represented the goddess. In the “sacred” marriage the king represents Father God, or Heaven, and the woman represents Mother Earth being fertilized. This is the heart of the fertility cult concept. (It may be difficult for 21st-century evangelicals to grasp the complete depravity of these ancient societies. Even the Apostle Paul did not want to elaborate on their shameful activities.) If the practices described above follows after the pre-Flood situation, and it bears a remarkable resemblance, then it will help us to realize that this idolizing of immorality, brought on by complete rebellion against the Lord, and made the Flood necessary to cleanse the earth.


 “Flesh”...Not Gods


Further confirmation that Genesis 6 refers to human tyrants, “divine” kings, is seen in the way the Lord refers to them in verse 3. They are “flesh.” The Hebrew word is basar, and is used today for meat hanging on a hook in the meat market—just plain, perishable flesh. To Yahweh there is nothing at all divine about these “sons of the gods.” They have only assumed divinity to themselves, and have corrupted all mankind by directing the worship He deserves to their own foul selves. Thus, He will not “strive” any more to correct them. The decision has been made—obliterate them! (cf. Ez 28:2; www.ancientdays.net/universalflood.htm).


 “Fallen Giants”


“Giants” in verse 4 may mean tall men. The word niphal refers sometimes in Scripture to men of large stature. But it also means “to fall.” It may have a double meaning here—tall men who have fallen from Yahweh’s favor, men who sin grossly.




“Mighty men” are such in the sense of tyranny. Gibborim has that meaning. These were men who “made a name for themselves.” That is, men renowned for their infamy and “idolized” for it. (We can see a revival of this rebellious way in Genesis 11:4, “let us make us a name.”) On the other hand, a true believer should “humble himself under the mighty hand of God who will exalt him [make him a name] in due time” (1 Pt 5:6).




Verse 5 refers to the total state of corruption this whole system brings on. It should not be a new paragraph in Scripture. When men make a god in their own image and then worship that god, “every imagination and thought of the heart is only evil continually!” A vicious cycle of degeneration carries men downward. Man’s highest worship becomes that of his lowest nature. The gods act worse than men. People caught in a culture of this kind cannot escape. They cannot worship Yahweh there. For Abraham to do so, he had to come out of Ur and live as a nomad with his family. Lot tried to live in the city-state of Sodom, but lost his family. Sodom was dedicated to homosexuality.


If believers were to worship the Lord they would have to live as nomads. That explains why He gave them a special land and told them to exterminate the inhabitants when they finally settled there. To follow their ways would bring certain destruction. And so it is to this hour. Paul tells us today, “Wherefore, come out from among them and be ye separate [to the Lord]” (2 Cor 6:17).




Verses 1–8 are a unit, with the conclusion that only one man found grace in the eyes of the living, true God—Noah. Many ask, “How could a loving God destroy all mankind?” The answer is that His love is shown in that He saved anyone at all! They all deserved to die for their sins, including Noah. But he and his family were spared by the grace and love of God, and were used of God to reinstitute the race. Tragically, after some time, corruption again enveloped mankind and God had to tell Abraham to get out of Ur to save his own family. With Abraham—one faithful man and his family—God started over again to develop a faithful people.


Some Concluding Thoughts


1. Ancient rulers used religion as an “opiate.”


2. “To be as god” is the original temptation to sin. It is the great desire of Satan and men. They will do anything to try to attain it, even to deifying themselves while defying God.


3. Pre-Flood patterns were reinstituted as outlined in Genesis 10–11. Ham and his descendants were apparently the most responsible. We find the theme of “divine kingship” wherever his sons go.


4. The unseen “city of God” is the ultimate destination for believers. (Heb 11:9–10; 12:28; Rv 21:2–4.)


5. God’s program is centered in the family where He is worshipped. The church is like an enlarged family.




1. This article was published by Dr. Livingston in Bible and Spade 22 (2008): 34–40, and posted on his website at www.ancientdays.net/sonsofgod.htm. Scripture quotations are from the King James Version. For additional resources, see Leroy Birney, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Winter 1970; Manfred Kober, The Baptist Bulletin, March 1974; and Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: University Press, 1948).




Engell, Ivan

1967 Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, 2nd ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell.


Fustel de Coulange

1956 The Ancient City, a Study on the Religion, Laws and Institutions of Greece and Rome. Garden City NY: Doubleday.


Hocart, Arthur M.

1927 Kingship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Kautzsch, Emil F., ed.

1922 Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Cary NC: Oxford University Press USA.


Keil, Carl F., and Delitzsch, Franz J.

1949 Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody MA: Hendrickson.


Kline, Meredith

1962 Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1–4. Westminster Theological Journal 24: 187–204.


Luckenbill, Daniel D.

1924 The Annals of Sennacherib. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


Roux, Georges

1966 Ancient Iraq. Baltimore: Penguin Books.


Wright, G. Ernest

1965 Shechem. New York: McGraw-Hill.


Dr. David Livingston is founder and former director of the Associates for Biblical Research. Involved in Christian ministry for over 50 years as an archaeologist, pastor, missionary, church planter and founding president of a Christian college, he currently serves as a member of ABR’s Board of Directors and writes articles defending the historical reliability and inerrancy of Scripture. He and his wife Esther reside in Lititz, PA.

Comments Comment RSS

2/7/2011 3:38 PM #

Thanks for this upload. Very intresting article. I had similar thoughts that these 'sons of god' were kings or rulers but I did not develop that thought further. I come to see what is new on your site and bam you have written on this topic. I was sceptical at first cuz I thought you will write the typical article on 'fallen angels' or the 'sethite view' and affirm one over the other but I am glad you guys brought this new view to light. I was more of a 'fallen angels' view guy myself but this king and rulers view makes more sense because all world empires since the flood have in some form or another been ruled by men of supposed divine king status. I think this new view makes more sense. Thanks for your firm stand on scripture. Not that many people do that any more these days. As a former athiest I just cant stand people who comprimise on the Bible especially Gen 1-11. It is litteral history not alegory or some gap theory. Thanks again. Bless.

mir - 2/7/2011 3:38:18 PM

2/23/2011 4:27 PM #

This is surprising and disappointing for ABR. It seems to be another case of modern man attempting to demythologize the Bible. You seem to be ignoring the fact that nearly all of the ancient witnesses understood the “sons of God” as fallen angels.  Even more, Sons of God in the Pentateuch refers to angels in every other instance, so this really seems to be special pleading. Furthermore, Matthew 22:30 is not a proof text for elohim not having the ability to function biologically. The text says they do not marry, that is all it says. Are you suggesting that unmarried folks cannot function sexually? You are also overlooking the overwhelming NT evidence for the fallen angel view.

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties, ” (2 Peter 2:4–10, NAS)

“Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. ” (Jude 5–7, NAS)

Clearly, the New Testament authors understood the sons of God of Genesis 6 as supernatural beings. It is quite apparent that both are referencing the same episode. It is completely clear that this episode involved “angels” and a decision those divine beings made to violate some sort of God given boundary (“proper dwelling”). The 2 Peter accounting unquestionably situates this sin at the time of Noah and the Flood.  That the sin committed by the angels was sexual is clear from the vocabulary (“sensuality “lust of defiling passion”; “sexual immorality”; “unnatural desire”) as well as the linkage of the angel’s sin to the Sodom and Gomorrah. To deny the supernatural view of Genesis 6 puts one in the position of suggesting that Peter and Jude, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, misunderstood the passage.

Cris Putnam - 2/23/2011 4:27:41 PM

2/23/2011 5:05 PM #

Regarding the 'fallen angels' interpretation: With all due respect, I believe that Dr. Livingston has overlooked that Matthew 22:30 says, "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."  Jesus said that 'the angels in heaven' neither marry nor are given in marriage - He did not say that all angels or fallen angels abide by this principle.  It is the specific violation of this principle among the fallen angels (the ones not in heaven, siding with God, rather than Satan) that is the reason that God judged them, giving the proper explanation of Genesis 6, 1 Peter 3:19-20, 2 Peter 2:4-5 & Jude 6-7.  This may also explain why some demons (seen as fallen angels) fear the abyss (Luke 8:31) and others are held in the abyss (Revelation 9:1-11).

Passages that also make the distinction between angels of heaven and all angels or fallen angels, aside from Matthew 22:30 include:  Matthew 13:41; 16:27; 18:10; 24:31, 36; Mark 12:25; 13:27, 32; Luke 1:19, 26; 2:15 22:43; Acts 12:11; 2 Thessalonians 1:7;  Revelation 1:1; 3:5; 12:7; 22:6, 16.

A concise one page summary chart of the major positions, arguments and proponents of each position on the identification of the 'sons of God' in Genesis 6 can be found here:  


The chart has been edited to add Dr. Livingston as a proponent of the ambitious despots view.

Vern Peterman - 2/23/2011 5:05:55 PM

2/23/2011 7:33 PM #

Jesus actually explained what it means to be known as "sons of God." "Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your law, "I said, Ye are gods?" If He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken...'" - John 10:34-35. Jesus was quoting from Psalm 82:6a. "They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, 'Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.'" - Psalm 82:5-7 In support of the conclusion in this article, sons of God, i.e., gods, are those that have heard the word of God. But these specifically have rejected divine knowledge and walk in darkness, i.e., evil judgments and selfishness (Psalm 82:2ff). In addition, Nephilim, or "giants" of Genesis 6:4 has the same Hebrew root as "fall" in Psalm 82:7 - "But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." Because of these rebellious "sons of God," the spiritual "foundations of the earth are [were] out of course," which eventually caused the judgment of the worldwide flood. Certainly, this same behavior of "falling away" and "scoffer walking after their own lusts" will also bring about the final judgment of fire written about in 2Thessalonians 2:3 and 2Peter 3:3-7.

Roy - 2/23/2011 7:33:59 PM

2/23/2011 9:41 PM #

I too am disappointed with this interpretation of Genesis 6.  The extra-biblical book of Enoch is plan in saying that the sons of God are fallen angels and even their leader, Azazel, is mentioned as the scapegoat in Leviticus 16, to whom all sin is ascribed.  The products of these unholy unions were the giants that even survived after the flood (most likely in caverns) and are mentioned to have been in the promised land.  It should not be difficult to believe angels can assume human flesh since even the angels that appeared to Abraham and then to citizens of Sodom that they wanted to engage in sexual relations with.
Although, there does exist a divine right of kings and Satan appears to have his own parallel false genealogy from Cain that the ancient mysteries and secret societies are relying on in the salvation of secret knowledge (Gnostics), this should not be inserted into Gen 6.

John Kabitzke - 2/23/2011 9:41:54 PM

2/24/2011 11:23 AM #

Good article.  Regarding those who defend the fallen angel interpretation, since marraige is God's requirement for procreating, and since angels never marry, then they were never intended to procreate.  Humans are intended to "be fruitful and multiply" on earth, but not in heaven, as Jesus indicates.  Angels don't have the earthly mission that humans have, so there is no reason to think that they would be given the equipment to carry it out.

Also, I think Calvin has a good point in his commentary on Genesis when he points out that Genesis 6 does not say that the Nephilim were giants.  Their commonality with the Nephilim that the Israelites found in Canaan is that they were ruthless warriors.  This means that there is no reason to speculate about how some strange (angelic/demonic) genes got into the antedeluvian offspring.  Calvin says:

"Moses does not indeed say, that they were of extraordinary stature, but only that they were robust. Elsewhere, I acknowledge, the same word denotes vastness of stature, which was formidable to those who explored the land of Canaan (Numbers 13:33).  But Moses does not distinguish those of whom he speaks in this place, from other men, so much by the size of their bodies, as by their robberies and their lust of dominion."

Mike - 2/24/2011 11:23:53 AM

2/24/2011 12:53 PM #

Unfallen angels were called "Sons of God" (Job chapt.s 1-2-;38).So the "Sons of God" in Gen.6 can't be unfallen angels because the Sons of God in heaven would not commit evil.Lucifcer  and his angels now called demons no longer called Sons of God had already fallen before man did as God told man to keep or 'carefully guard' the garden and we see the serpent in Gen.3 as Satan.
So we know there was an entire Godly line through Seth,and they were called the Sons of God harking back to the Godly line called angels before their partial fall .This line broke down when they followed the daughters of Cain and married them thus leading up to the condition of mankind before the flood Gen.6.See man and men -everything there points to humans being evil,etc.not angels.Princes or kings are not mentioned just collective mankind.

Dr.H.Davis - 2/24/2011 12:53:08 PM

2/24/2011 1:41 PM #

Mike – Unless we fully understand what it means for angels to be spirit beings, “sons of God”, their nature and the spiritual/material dimensions and how they interact, I wouldn’t be quick to rule out anything. I can’t imagine that angels have the need to rest and eat, but Abraham said to the two angels and the Son of God at their physical appearing to him:

“Please let a little water be brought and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree; and I will bring a piece of bread, that you may refresh yourselves; after that you may go on, since you have visited your servant." And they said, "So do, as you have said."

Concerning Calvin’s view of what the Nephilim were, I will let the Bible interpret it:

Duet 3:10 11 (Only Og king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaites [who reigned in Ashtaroth and Edrei, Josh 12]. His bed was made of iron and was more than thirteen feet long and six feet wide. It is still in Rabbah of the Ammonites.)

Num 13:32 They spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, "…. All the people we saw there are of great size. 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."

Duet 2: 10 (The Emites used to live there—a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. 11 Like the Anakites, they too were considered Rephaites, but the Moabites called them Emites. 12 Horites used to live in Seir, but the descendants of Esau drove them out. They destroyed the Horites from before them and settled in their place, just as Israel did in the land the LORD gave them as their possession.)

Duet 2: 20 (That too was considered a land of the Rephaites, who used to live there; but the Ammonites called them Zamzummites. 21 They were a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. The LORD destroyed them from before the Ammonites, who drove them out and settled in their place.

Duet 9: Hear, O Israel. You are now about to cross the Jordan to go in and dispossess nations greater and stronger than you, with large cities that have walls up to the sky. 2 The people are strong and tall—Anakites! You know about them and have heard it said: "Who can stand up against the Anakites?" 3 But be assured today that the LORD your God is the one who goes across ahead of you like a devouring fire.

1 Chron 20: 4 In the course of time, war broke out with the Philistines, at Gezer. At that time Sibbecai the Hushathite killed Sippai, one of the descendants of the Rephaites, and the Philistines were subjugated. 5 In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod. 6 In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot—twenty-four in all. He also was descended from Rapha. 7 When he taunted Israel, Jonathan son of Shimea, David's brother, killed him.

Josh 15: 13 In accordance with the LORD's command to him, Joshua gave to Caleb son of Jephunneh a portion in Judah—Kiriath Arba, that is, Hebron. (Arba was the forefather of Anak.) 14 From Hebron Caleb drove out the three Anakites—Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai—descendants of Anak. Josh 14: Arba, who was the greatest man among the Anakites.

John Kabitzke - 2/24/2011 1:41:26 PM

2/24/2011 2:18 PM #

Was Noah righteous because he was without sin? What was so special about his familial tree, he was a decendant of Seth? You mean Seth's family never sinned? Why did God say there was so much corruption he had to destroy all living creatures?
I find it more plausible to think that because Satan didn't want the original prophecy to be fulfilled he tried everything he could to destroy the line of Christ. Now what better way then to interject some strange combo of humans and fallen angels? Kind of like our scientists messing with genetics today! Ever hear of "Splicing"?

Francine - 2/24/2011 2:18:22 PM

2/24/2011 2:27 PM #

Angels do not have DNA needed to reproduce "after its kind" a law of God.The Sons of God "married" females of the Cananites those that were offering the 'fruits of the ground' i.e.good works for salvation and forgiveness of sin instead of -like Able -a sacrifice as a substition for sin. Jesus said human beings glorified as spirits (Heb.12:23b)are like the angels- they do  not marry or are given in marriage. Matt.22.
Marriage involves sex and reproduction "be frutiful and multiply."The people in heaven are like the angels i.e.they do not marry and do not reproduce.That's what marriage was about plus all of the human personal factors, of course;but Jeus is talking about marriage and the ability to produce humans as per God's command.

No angel ever gets 'tired 'spirit as the angels are cannot tire only flesh or humans do.I have carefully studied angleology since 1963.,including Greek/Hebrew.I would like a proof text they get tired! Yes Jesus consumed food to show the apostles he was not a "spirit"as they thought.He was real it -was Him!Did Jesus need food no.It says in Gen.18 the "Lord appeared" to Abraham.
At least one of those 'men'was the Lord in a preincarnate form.Like Jesus thousands of years later they ate food.This is not a proof text saying angels have sex organs and DNA and reproduce children!

Abe said to rest it does not mean they were actualy tired!One those who dwell on earth were comanded to reproduce and God gave that ability to them not to the angels which he created a set number of in Heaven.

Dr.H.Davis - 2/24/2011 2:27:41 PM

2/24/2011 3:00 PM #

The main stay and then salt of the earth were the descendants of Godly Seth holder of the truths of God and proper sacrifices,etc.,from his father Adam who learned them from God.Righteous Abel as Jesus implied when he spoke of Abel -reflects this fact.Cain killed him.Abel in a violent manner.He tought his desendents his doctrine which his condemned in Scripture.The "way of Cain"is vilified(Jude 11a ).

When many of the Sethites joined in unholy alliances of marriage- as did Solomon leading to his fall-with beautiful (Heb.)females of Cain's line the real last bastion of truth and segregation of the two lines of good and evil crumbled.This shows us they were no longer in God's truth and holding the line of evil at bay.They became part of it.
ONLY Noah was considered' righteous in his generations.'He was called a "preacher of righteous,"but not even the line of Seth would listen.

Every single reference blames the coming flood of judgment on humans not angels.See each mention of men/man,etc., in Gen.6.
It was the collapse of the line of truth ,sound doctrine and righteousness that  or comingled with the world that God gave them up to judgment.The salt had lost it's savor and there was no longer light.

In the last days we have growing apostasy that will culminate with the coming judgment of God.False doctrine and churches of error, etc., are growing every day.More and more compromise is causing those of the 'way of Cain'  to form a world super church.Jesus said when I come 'will the Son of Man find the(def.article) faith on the earth?'Jesus said 'as it was the days of Noah so will the coming of the son of Man be.'Nothing changes -when the Godly decrease and evil increases  it necessitates, eventualy, judgment.

Dr.H.Davis - 2/24/2011 3:00:03 PM

2/25/2011 10:32 PM #

Dr. Davis – I am making an observation from the Word that I do not fully comprehend, but unless you have your doctorate in angelic biology or spiritual/material transformational science, please forgive me if I don’t accept your assertion that angels do not have DNA when they appear in the physical realm or in the spiritual realm for that matter (unintended pun).  I don’t know what “chemistry” makes one angel different from another.  All I was intending with the Gen 18 -19 passage was to point out that angels assumed physical bodies.  So much so, that Abraham washed their feet, gave food for them to eat and the Sodomites wanted to do unspeakable things to them.  They had ability over the material realm to blind the Sodomites: “they struck the men … with blindness”.  Even Satan has power over the material world (i.e. Job).  All angels, even the fallen ones, are classified as being called “sons of God” since they were directly created by God.  Even Adam was called that, though he fell: “Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.”   But according to Enoch, they were holy angels that fell: “Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons? And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those [also] do who die and perish.”

John Kabitzke - 2/25/2011 10:32:53 PM

2/26/2011 1:15 PM #


You simply have no Biblical evidence for your position.  Nothing in the Bible says that angels can have sex, and Jesus' statement about marriage is a strong presumption against it.  Enoch's statement is striking in its contrast with God's word in Genesis 6, in which the blame is fully placed on "man" who is "flesh."

"Sons of God" can refer to angelic beings, but it also undeniably applies to humans in many passages (Deut. 14:1, Psalm 73:15, Hosea 1:10).  Psalm 82 is considered a polythiestic passage by liberals, but these sons of God are being condemned for siding with the rich and powerful against the weak and poor in disputes between them.  This reflects a common biblical theme of God condemning unjust human judges.  That these are human judges is the only view that makes sense.  They will die like any human prince (v. 7) because that is what they are.  It's also the view of Jesus (John 10:34-36), which reflects the traditional Jewish interpretation of this psalm.  Likewise, the sons of God of Genesis 6 are best seen as rulers.

As for the Nephilim, you're simply going beyond what is written.  The antedeluvian Nephilim were sons of rulers who achieved their positions through gross violence in an age dominated by violence, so it would make sense if they were big brutes, but they weren't necessarily all tall.  And even if they were, they no more needed to be the offspring of angels than the postdeluvian Nephilim were.

Mike - 2/26/2011 1:15:17 PM

2/26/2011 2:14 PM #

Angels are "ministering spirits."As spirits they were never created to reproduce!A set number of angels were created.Only creatures of this earth were commanded, and had the ability, to reproduce-not angels.Gen.is very,very clear here..unless one wants to accept this this theoretcal teaching regardless.

Enoch's book- so called- is not inspired.It was not recognized as canoncial and for this reason was not included in Holy Writ.
Rabbi's-Jewish teachers lacking the truth and Spirit of God  were notorious for false fanticiful sometimes intricate doctrine and this is reflected in that book.
Paul quoted from two unknown poets as did some Christian -Jude/Peter- inspired writers with the book of Enoch,but only under special inspiration to denote a truth.Besides they could have easily received their teachings here from the Spirit free from any human (Enoch)book.I can go into 'strange flesh' and 'left their first estate' in my next post in detail.

Jesus was aware of this pagan-like mythological teaching and refuted it by his statement  that angels 'neither marry nor are given in marriage.('Matt.22)They are incapable of sex or reproduction.
It's an old worn out theory that some people find fascinating for various reasons.
Again in Gen. 6 it is ALL man or human oriented-nothing about angels.MAN is the reason and cause for the flood.Read every word/verse where man or men is found in Gen.6 without interjecting some preconceived theoretical teaching in your mind into the inspired verses .
Adam was called the "son of God" and since Seth (Abel was first but was killed by,yes Cain who spawned a line of disciples that taught good works for salvation-free of sacrifice as God had taught Adam then he to his son Seth  and the Cainites lived a materialistic life )was the main progenitor of his teachings from the Lord. Seth's disciples were called 'sons of God.'

Howard - 2/26/2011 2:14:55 PM

2/27/2011 11:49 PM #

Job 1-2 -38 all of the angels were called the sons of God before 1/3 fell(Rev.12-Jesus said 'I saw(as a witness in the distant past)Satan fall from heaven like lightning') with their head Lucifer.Those that remained loyal to God were still the sons of God, but now their status is permanet-likewise the 1/3 of the sons of God and Satan were permently in a state of evil becoming demons  or the 'devil's angels' for which the lake of fire was created.They are no longer sons of God.
BEFORE man fell this heavenly fall had taken place for man was told by God  was 'dress the garden and KEEP(carefully guard)it.'Then we see-before the fall of man- the serpent i.e.Satan in the garden- man having failed to 'guard' it- tempting Eve and man fell.
Then we go to Gen.6 and this again,of course,is after the fall of angels and man and we see the sons of God engaging in evil.If they were the holy angels or the sons of God  they would not be called the sons of God in Gen.6 because for the very simple fact they would NOT do such a thing as they were perfect and holy having past the great Test in heaven and stayed loyal to God.
I say these are the sons of Seth as given in my previous post -others say kings or leaders.Either way they were NOT angels.

Also,ONLY holy angels manifested as humans-not evil angels.But we know they were not 'men,'etc.,but showed themselves as 'human'so man could communicate with them.
In Gen.18-19 there are three beings.Some believe this is the Trinity due to the wordage(including 19 angel means messenger as one meaning-here it can ean Noble or powerful one,etc.),but at least one of them was the Lord.They spoke as one and ate and drank as one,but this does not prove spiritual beings have sex and create off spring! A scriptual stretch that is as large as the Grand Caynon!

Howard - 2/27/2011 11:49:59 PM

2/28/2011 8:43 AM #

Matt 22:  If “Jesus was aware of this pagan-like mythological teaching [200 ‘angels did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode’]” as you say, and that was a basic belief system of the Jews, then Jesus’ argument (humans will not be marrying in the next life) would be ineffective, since He based His argument (angels do not marry) on a teaching the Sadducees didn’t agree with.   Unless the basis of His argument was that in God’s perfect order, angels do not marry which makes sense since they are all referred to in the male gender? (No female angels are mentioned in the Bible).  This raises an interesting question: Will we keep our male/female characteristics when we receive our new spiritual bodies?  I tend to thing we do, but I have no basis for it except for thinking the final consummation will be similar to the original paradise, except without procreation.
Psalms 82:  I have a difficult time hanging my hat on this passage when the book of Job is referred to the oldest book of the bible, the account occurred shortly after the flood and “sons of God” refer to angels, “the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD”and “all the sons of God shouted for joy”.  I take psalms 82 to be a figurative reference to rules being “sons of the Most High”, so why would I apply a figurative reference when there is a literal occurrence that happened in the same time period?
1 Enoch: I have to admit that past a certain point, the book of 1 Enoch become questionable.  But the first portion sounds like an apostle could have written it, and I get great encouragement from it.  I encourage every Christian to read it.  I find it amazing how many early Christians quoted from it to justify their positions and Jesus also did: www.johnpratt.com/.../enoch_cal.html
Enoch says plainly:  “It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful. And when the [200] angels, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.”
The Sumerian Kings lists gives credence to this: “After the kingship descended from heaven…then the Flood swept over.”  

John Kabitzke - 2/28/2011 8:43:09 AM

2/28/2011 8:24 PM #

Enoch has many false teachings, including mythological statments like the 'giants' were 450 ft high!!!
Again,'Enoch' is in error as I gave in my post as they or the fallen sons of God i.e.demons/devil's angels as Jesus calls them -had aready fallen BEFORE Gen.6!!They could not be angels that were called sons of God so it was not angels that took these women for wives. Think about this carefully.
Seems like a large number of marriages so kings are few in any generation ,but the sons of Seth were not!

We don't need Enoch- all that is needed for doctrine as Paul told Timothy is in the completed canon or the Bible.Everyone wants 'more' and when I question them carefully they do not have a complete knowlege of what has been revealed in the Book.I have studied it since '63 from Heb./GK.and I can say I am still scratching the surface,but what a wonderful surface!

Paul says that all for 'all who are in Chirst there is neither male nor female' so how much more when procreation is no longer a 'command' or needed in heaven.Angels only appeared as 'men' for purposes of communication.
Jesus taught they are sexless and they are ministering "spirits."

Howard - 2/28/2011 8:24:21 PM

2/28/2011 10:43 PM #

I believe your reference to Rev 12 is in error.  The passage in Luke 10 says the following: “The seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name." And He said to them, "I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.”  Note that Satan fell from heaven due to the disciple’s activity on earth in the present, most likely to shore up his defenses.  The Rev 12 passage refers to a future event (except vs. 4,5) when Satan is expelled from the heavenly realm in a battle with Michael during the tribulation, attacks the woman (Israel) but is frustrated by God’s intervention and then goes after the woman’s offspring (gentile believers).  
In Job 1, Satan is already in his fallen state and is reporting on his activity on earth.  God gives Job as an example of a righteous man but Satan makes his challenge that it is because Job has been blessed.  
Gen 18-19: The three men are not the Trinity.  Note “The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD.”  If one was the Lord to begin with, that would leave two going to Sodom.  Whola! “The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening” Gen 19:1.  I did well in Math.

John Kabitzke - 2/28/2011 10:43:58 PM

3/4/2011 12:55 PM #

You are clearly taking the scripture out of context when you quote, "there is neither male nor female".  It is a description of position that I think is what Paul is referring to in that passage because God made an EVERLASTING COVENANT with Abraham and to the nation of Israel. One won't stop being a Jew on the new earth, though presently there is no distinction.

John K: As far as extra-biblical writings, let's stick to the scripture. The book of Enoch is not inspired, so I agree with the posts that it doesn't give much backing to the topic.

I am not equating the power of the Holy Spirit to created angels, but the H.S. did somehow impregnate Mary the mother of Jesus. We simply do not know the capabilities of these demons after leaving their first estate. They are now manifesting themselves as "aliens" and doing sexual things to those who think they've had an "encounter".

To say that the un-godly line of Cain took for themselves of the daughters of Seth and corrupted the line of true worship does not give much credit to mothers! A woman is the most influencial person in a child's life. If she knew JAWEH she would surely teach that belief to her young ones; thus passing along the truth.

I also have a question for Dr. Livingston. How does this sentence make sence?  "1. The king is divine. From the beginning of written history, the Sumerians, after (and even before) the Flood (see the Sumerian King List), considered the king to be divine." All but Noah and his family were destroyed, so what pre-flood history did the Sumerians have? Were Noah's family the ones to  perpetuate this lie, because they were the only ones left ?

You all really think that tyranny, slavery, and general bad behavior caused God to wipe everything including animals out? He could have just done what he did to S&G. Why the whole world? I do think it goes much deeper than a line of pompous, delusional, self-made deities. There is a contrast between the sons of God and the daughters of men. What was the main advantage to taking from the daughters of men if not some un-natural union that would try to prevent the Christ from appearing as the son of man to crush the head of the serpent? Ordinary men could not do this no matter how vile they were or what sins they committed. Remember Rahab?  Her sinful acts didn't stop her from becoming an ancestor of the Lord. God raises up Godly seed wherever and whenever He chooses.

Francine - 3/4/2011 12:55:04 PM

3/5/2011 12:18 AM #

You are partially correct.But I did post 'how much more in heaven'though  in reference to male -female,to my greater point that in heaven there is no marriage because all male/female are glorified,etc. I was at work and should have been more specific.Sorry.

Seeing the Triune God in Gen.18-19 is  a study in itself in looking at grammar,etc.Many conservative scholars down through the centuries see the Trinity.And two angels (Messengers-great noble ones Heb.) going to Sodom does not negate this teaching whether they know 'math' or not.Perhaps this can be done as to a post,but we are talking about and this is the subject here about demons having sex with human beings or females and creating offspring.

What was God's reaction to this disaster? He blamed human beings in every verse for these marriages as well as all the worldwide wickedness. In no place- and God is always specific-does it say the Lord was displeased with demons marrying women! Certainly this was-for those who assert this doctrine-totally  unprecedented i.e.demons marrying women and having children by them !!!The inspired writer would no doubt have pointed out the exact nature of these unions.

Using inspired Jude(I agree totally with Francine)not the supurious book of Enoch- will do no good to support the demon-marriages.I have carefully studied this small book in Greek off/on since 1966 and I say Jude simply lists examples of apostasy from God and His rule of law so he mentions some of the angels or sons of God leaving heaven or their' first estate.'
'Going after strange flesh' in Jude is used for angels 'going after' females i.e.strange flesh as compared to angels' 'bodies.'In Gen.6(inspite of the fact the sons of God were pure then Gen.6 as I have posted and a portion had fallen with their leader Satan by the time we find him as the evil serpent in the garden.
'Going' is to rush,chase,run.'After' up behind (opiso-Gk.). In the grammatical context it refers to the Sodomites-not fallen angels  chasing 'strange'(hetros -different than human flesh-real flesh, but it is animal flesh-Paul writes of 'different kinds of flesh'animal'-bird-fish).
The Sodomites as well all the cities of the Plain were 'chasing animals' as sport and for the practice of beastility,etc.The Law of Moses condemns this act.The Greek is very graphic.They were a people who practiced great wickeness before the Lord-it wasn't just homosexuality.

My past post."I saw Satan as lightening fall from heaven."Saw is imperfect in Gk.so there is no exact point of time here.It is not aorist. It can be Jesus in His preincarnate state 'seeing as a witness'Lucifer's fall (Isa.14-Eze.28) and 'seeing' to the end of time when he is not only evicted from heaven (Rev.12)but his final doom when he is 'thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur' (Rev.20).There is the near and far in Scripture.We have it here.
I asert Satan took 1/3 of his angel when he first fell.Rec.12).his tail swept a third of the stars or his angels.Swept is influenced.Satan influenced his angels to rebel against God as his pride of sin in his personal beauty and power have him  at a point of time saying "I will"(5 times)sin entered the universe.Michael had a third of the angels and so did Gabriel as did Lucifer.They were the 'chief' angels.
Lucifer took his third with him.
Each of the grand three angels symbolized the Trinity-Michael as the Spirit;Gabriel as the Father and the 'son of the morning' or Lucifer(light bearer) the Son.FYI only

Howard - 3/5/2011 12:18:17 AM

4/12/2011 10:52 PM #

I noticed no one has addressed the overwhelming intertestamental and NT support for the fallen angel view. The arguments based on angels not marrying are completely vacuous as marital status says nothing about biological function. The fellow that claims to be an expert on angel DNA or lack of it is really out on a limb.

This article on ABR soundly refutes the non angel view: www.biblearchaeology.org/.../...end-the-Flood.aspx

Cris Putnam - 4/12/2011 10:52:02 PM

4/13/2011 3:21 PM #

There is NO NT support for the hybrid angel-human beings teching which is out and out pagan.

Anything outside  inspired Writ is as you say is vacuous.  Church fathers were not inspired to write scripture or to comment free of error on what the apostles wrote and these 12 men were certainly inspired.

The sons of God (Adam was called the "son of God")of Gen.6 'married' those beautiful daughters of the Cainites.
Jesus said humans do NOT marry or are married because they are as the angels i.e.they don't marry and by inference do not reproduce.
Marriage was meant by God for reproduction and perpetuation of the human race.
Be blessed and "MULTIPLY."I believe like reincarnation Jesus was familiar with this pagan doctrine and this is how He refuted it. When asked by the disciples 'Did this man sin or his parents' a common belief in the Middle East concerning reincarnation -Jesus simply said it was for the glory of God in that case of healing-instead of going into a long dissertation on reincarnation.
His teachings were meant to refute all false doctrine and the apostles' writings added to it. Jesus said you must be born again. Aorist tense or only once thus refuting reincarnation,which teaches multple births,etc.These fals teachings are a test for each generation to see how they will accept or reject it.Scripture does not address such teachings directly ,but by rendering or giving inspired sound teaching or doctrine based on all revelation,etc.
Angel men are no different!
A LAW was set down by our Creator"Everything AFTER it's OWN kind."No half bred angel humans.Absurd on the face of it or up against after it's KIND!
Christians have no command or business promulgating paganisn in all of it's various forms.

Dr.H.Davis - 4/13/2011 3:21:36 PM

10/1/2011 7:13 AM #

     Great article with many lively responses.  I find it somewhat amazing, that by interpreting one verse, Matt. 22:30, with the assumptions of men, we have built a giant doctrine of what men, and angels can, and can’t do in heaven.

     First of all, simply stated, marriage is an earthly covenant, spoken and ordained by the titular head of mankind, Adam, in the Garden of Eden in Gen 2:23,24.  No doubt he spoke it under the inspiration of God, with Jesus confirming a divine recognition of the marriage covenant in Matt 19:4-6.  No doubt He also foreknew all the negative consequences the lack of a marriage covenant would engender, especially considering mankind’s soon coming fall from grace, which He also foreknew.  Most importantly though, marriage was a life-giving covenant necessary for His plan to redeem mankind with a Messiah coming through the seed of the woman.  

     Now we, being lovers of God submit ourselves to this covenant.  The results, a firm understanding that no marriage equals no sex, and no marriage equals no children.  But isn’t it an assumption that heaven’s covenants, should they even be necessary, mirror those that are on a fallen earth. And when Jesus says that in heaven the angels don’t participate in a marriage covenant, and neither will we, that’s all He’s saying.  Period.

     A quick look at a couple of assumptions make concerning Jesus statement that men will be like the angels in heaven, and not marry.
1) There are no female angels, angels don’t have sexual relations, and men will be the same.
     The Bible is remarkably vague on the personal lives of angels.  Outside what God deems necessary for us to know as they interact with man in God’s redemptive purposes, we know relatively little about angels.  True, there are no Bible accounts of angels of female gender working with men, nor does it speak of their existence in heaven, but on the other hand, if God hasn’t ordained that they interact directly with man, than on a need to know basis, we just don’t need to know.    

     On the other hand, there will definitely be both genders of mankind in heaven, which leads to a second assumption that needs to be addressed.
2) That because there is no like marriage covenant in heaven, as we have on earth, there will be no intimate relationships between men and women either and that because the number of created angels is fixed, so the number of the saved will be eternally fixed.

     On the point of ‘marital’ unions, there are other covenant paradigms even here on earth.  Swans mate, and remain faithful unto death, for their entire lives, without a marriage contract.  To me, there’s more of the Holy revealed in their approach to union than ours.  Perhaps in heaven, where there is no sin, no lying, no cheating, perfect faithfulness with no evil whatsoever, there’s a better alternative to the earthly marriage covenant.

     On intimate relationships and procreation.  Angels were created and their numbers were fixed.  On the other hand, men were created and told to multiply, until their issue were as the number of the stars in the heavens.  Was God being literal or figurative in His speech?  If literal, than we have a few trillion, more births to go through before our numbers are “fixed” and we qualify for eternal sterilization.  

     The nature of God is from glory to glory, and ever-increasing in life. Can it be that the blessings of parenting were only for the fall, but not for the glorification?  Or childbirth only to be experienced under the pangs of the curse, but never as a joy in the blessing? Mankind began with a mandate to increase and I don’t believe the nature of heaven will be to negate it, but to magnify it.  I may be wrong, but in my book, it’s just not God to do it that way.

     One might hold that those in heavenly Jerusalem will not increase in numbers, and those in earthly Jerusalem will fulfill the mandate to increase, but until we get to that place in time and find out in reality, I believe we shouldn’t read into Matt. 22:30 more than what Jesus simply said, the covenant of marriage, as we practice it on earth, is not the practice of angels in heaven, and will not be practiced by those who make it to heaven.


Terry - 10/1/2011 7:13:55 AM

11/1/2011 3:27 PM #

You are giving us Mormon theology. I have researched Mormonisn since 1963 so I know it when I see it!

'Multiply and fill the earth'-not heaven -was given to Adam by God.
Jesus said human beings will not marry or be given in marriage ,but are as the angels in heaven.'This is plain pure and simple to understand,but not if a 'latter day prophet' places a different meaning to it.

When one reads in the book of Revelation about ALL of the the redeemed in heaven thoughout all eternity they are are ALL equal and ALL are singing and praising God 'day and night' with the Lamb or Jesus at the center of adoration. This is as it should be.

Angelology is a vast subject and we know that much and that we need to know has been revealed in Scripture or the Bible only so your remark is not justified about what we know about angels.

Dr.Howard - 11/1/2011 3:27:56 PM

11/25/2011 6:46 PM #

This is a most fascinating - and bewildering - area of research. I have been inundated with a veritable torrent of hypotheses regarding these "sons of God" and their liaisons with the "daughters of men". These are enumerated as follow:

(1) The "sons of God" were rebel angels who materialized upon the Earth and contaminated the human gene pool;
(2) The "sons of God" were members of a non-Adamic race of man nevertheless reproductively compatible with Adamic human females;
(3) The "sons of God" were of the Adamic human line, but hailed from such a superior civilization (Atlantean?) as to appear godlike to the majority of humanity;
(4) The "sons of God" were extraterrestrial/alien humans nevertheless reproductively compatible with human females. This is argued by Deshpal (Paul) Sandhu on his website;
(5) The "sons of God" were of the godly Sethite, non-Cainite line;
(6) The "sons of God" were the rulers and aristocrats who mated with women of the common folk.

Is there another biblical account which continues to spin such a kaleidoscopic fabric of hypothesization? I mean, now even aliens in spacecraft have entered the picture?

Sean - 11/25/2011 6:46:10 PM

11/28/2011 11:11 PM #

This Sons of God scenario is riddled with contraversy. I think the common sense (horse sense is 'stable' thinking lol)wise approach is to be considered.
These sons (heirs)of God 'married' females. So we have godly men marrying ungodly Cainite females. We have the Cainites and their 'beautiful' women, but followers of false teaching about God. So they were a race of unbelievers and everything has it's opposite. So there had to be a godly line.
Where did the godly line of Seth go?They did not vanish! They must have continued as the progenitors of Adam's teachings as he got it from God Himself. Adam is called "the son of God" by Luke so those following his teachings were called the sons of God or the line of Sethites who forsook their godly females for the outwardly beautiful Cainite women.
God told males to marry females.They then 'reproduce after their kind.'
Males and females have DNA not angels which are only spirits.

The sons of Seth failed and their offspring became 'fallen ones.'Hebrew
Not only fallen spiritually, but they fell on others to attack them.They were 'famous' in their day. Kind of like the mafia is today.
If you read Chapter 6 in Genesis it's all about human beings-zero on angels or aliens,kings,etc. Read each verse to prove this.

So once the godly fall there is no recourse, but judgment and it came as a flood to wipe out all except those eight on the ark.

Dr.H.Davis - 11/28/2011 11:11:40 PM

11/28/2011 11:30 PM #

Must of deleted my own message!
Will reproduce later. Genesis 6-7 my quotes regarding man and the flood.
No angels or space aliens.

v.2 Daughters of "men."
v.3 strive with "man."
v.4 mighty "men."
v.5 wickness of "man."
v.6 sorry He had made"man."
v. 7 blot out "man."
v.12 "all flesh."includes man.
v. 13 end of all "flesh."    "     "
v. 17 all "flesh."    "      "
v. 21 all "mankind."
v. 23 from "man" to animals.

Dr.H.Davis - 11/28/2011 11:30:11 PM

11/29/2011 7:00 PM #

The ultimate Authority states angels do not marry or are given in marriage,yet there are those because of their fascination and belief in angel sex with females ignore this word. It says the sons of God married the daughers of men.
Jesus is saying and was no doubt well aware of the pagan angel sex theory of Gen.6 says angels do NOT get married. Period.

If those were angels in Gen.6 (to leave us without doubts  Moses could have used the word maleck or angels)and they were evil or fallen angels why bother with marriage -why not simply 'take'or force  them ? I guess they wanted to be respectable and live with these women as husband and wife (the way the Hebrew is set it shows a normal maritial setting with a family-honey can you fly over and pick up the kids!) Gez.

I showed all scriptures in Gen.6-7 and ALL focus on human beings with no verse indicating the judgment fell on angels or because of them having sex and spirit babies with females! Not one place-it's all about 'man.'
going to create part ll as it keeps 'flipping.'

Dr.H.Davis - 11/29/2011 7:00:01 PM

11/29/2011 7:44 PM #

Jude 7 is a poor proof text for angel sex (KJV ll):
"Just as Sodom and Gomorah (and the cities[Adamah and Zeboiim-Zoar was spared] around them[Sodom and Gomorah]in the same manner [committing fornication,etc.]with them[Sodom and Gomorah]) had given themselves to fornication and had gone after other flesh..."
This simply says unless one twists it that not only were Sodom and Gomorah committing daily (Gk.grammer) acts of fornication the Greek indicates  these or all five cities were totally obsessed with this immoral activity.Note only 5 cities where humans dwelt are discussed. No angels are mentioned. I must be modest in presenting these words on a Christian site from the Greek where it says these people were "...going after strange flesh... "KJV  "Going" means here 'chasing.' "After" means opiso Gk.up behind with the root word hole. Strange comes from hetros('different' or animal flesh -not human flesh,but real flesh or sarz.
Paul says in l Corth.15;19, "Not all flesh is the same flesh, but one flesh of men and another flesh of animals..." Then link to Lev.18:22(esp.23,4).

Jude under inspiration says that not only were they or these 5 cities of the plain engaged in out and out homosexuality(note the descriptive Gk.words I gave)but were also running after animals.Bestality was also being practiced.Just as it says in Lev.18:23-4They 'gave themselves over' to all of these evil acts.One of the 5 cities was named Zeboiim or gazelle. Adamah means Adam or man.

Dr.H.Davis - 11/29/2011 7:44:32 PM

11/29/2011 9:09 PM #

We will say the sons of God are angels for the sake of argument. Lucifer fell and became Satan or the Devil and his angels became demons.
We know by the time Adam and Eve were created they were told to 'guard the garden' indicating an enemy was present.
Satan is called by Moses the serpent. John calls him the serpent or the devil. Rev.12:9 So satan and by implication his angels or demons were fallen during this garden testing period (40 days?) thus losing the appellation sons of God.
So Satan and his angels had already fallen from AMONGST the sons of God or those angels that had become holy and stayed with the Lord.

So it is a major contradiction of no mean proportion to say these sons of God (in Gen.6)a term applied ONLY to unfallen holy angels and have them or sons of God seeking marriage/sex/children with females!!!

Dr.H.Davis - 11/29/2011 9:09:24 PM

12/17/2011 11:13 PM #

angels being only spirits....as Paul said, be careful you don't know if your guest is an angel....We are spirits too, but don't have enough of the Spirit of God to be translated in the body (some do) ....but angels do...
As the son of the serpent, Cain was in the form of a human being, and nowhere does it states that any of his sons had not looked human....the sons of God producing giants couldn't have been human. It is clear in the Bible that there were races of giants, clearly not true humans, as archeology also now lets us know.....instead of the 3 plates of headbones, their skull was in two parts, separated across at ear level.
There also are mentioned in the Bible another type of human like race, the devils....if Jesus meant what He said when He informed his followers that even though He chose all of them, one of them is actually a devil. I believe Him. More mysteries out there than what you can put in your box Smile

terezia - 12/17/2011 11:13:01 PM

5/18/2012 11:17 PM #

The book of Enoch is obviously a mythological book and not to be trusted in interpreting Genesis 6.  This article is quite convincing in that the "Sons of God" were likely demon-possessed god-kings who married common women ("daughters of men").

Danny - 5/18/2012 11:17:20 PM

5/5/2013 4:59 PM #

I always figured that demons/fallen angels, whatever they are called, simply crafted artificial bodies somehow and bred with women that way. Of course they don't have the desire or the need to breed, but if they want to taint the human blood line as well as all of creation, then why not?

There are so many things on the web and on other "Christian" websites that talk about genetic engineering and using animal eggs in cloning. I believe they are called cytoplasmic hybrids. You can Google this. Now, wasn't there a quote in the bible about Satan mixing the DNA of animals to anger the Lord? I just read an article about cytoplasmic hybrids, and apparently in the UK they have even created real chimeras.

The entire point I am trying to make is, if the "sons of God" really were angels, I really doubt that the angels simply decided to breed with women. They probably created artificial bodies with who knows what for the DNA, with the sole purpose of contaminating the bloodline of humanity. It wasn't because they were attracted to women.

Now, why weren't any giant skeletons discovered? Why are there no cave drawings of giants? Wouldn't the early ancestors have made note of them somewhere on their stone tablets or cave walls?

Doe - 5/5/2013 4:59:27 PM

5/7/2013 12:53 PM #

The main issue is not what fallen angels can do, but the Bible teaches that they have done.  That requires looking at the text of Genesis 6, which ascribes all the blame to man who is flesh.

Mike Warren - 5/7/2013 12:53:21 PM

8/18/2013 8:51 AM #

Like others VERY VERY disappointed with this article from a founder and director of ABR.

Also somewhat disappointed with the pathetic arguments from some of the correspondents above who clearly just haven't a clue what they are talking about.

Angels - whether good or evil - have the power to take both human and animal form in this world.  Satan tempted Eve as a serpent don't forget.

Anyone who knows anything about occult religions will know that corrupt sex is a massive part of their belief system and sex with "the gods" or spirits is an active part of it.

It is clear that the fallen angels mated with women and their offspring became these "mighty men" some of whom I'm sure became the founders of these towns and kingdoms dedicated to false gods etc...

Note that the bible says Noah was "perfect in his generations" ie an uncorrupted genetic line.

All flesh was destroyed except for those God chose to spare.  There were no giants hiding out in caves or people hanging onto the outside of the Ark etc...

A final point: this is the sort of unprofitable wrangling that destroys faith in people.  Some people are just unable to accept some things and have to invent wild hypotheses to live with their own misgivings.  We can't do that with scripture we must accept it as it is.  If we don't understand something it is good to try and investigate it and come to a conclusion but don't let questions like this become so much of an issue that you lose sight of good sense and destroy yourself in the process.


l gould - 8/18/2013 8:51:04 AM

8/19/2013 7:29 PM #

The Angel god theory is just that a theory not a proven fact.
It is an assumption that these "sons of God" were angels. Some writers even suggest these so called angels-and  is not used - took these women and enforced sex on them thus producing children. But it has these sons of God 'marrying' the daughters of men! No rape or sexual attack!
Marriage was 'formal' in those days, and throughout the OT period.
Our Savior said in heaven people '...neither marry nor are given in marriage but ARE AS the angels...'' This means angles do not marry and are sexless as marriage is to procreate and replenish the earth as given by the Lord.
No where are we told angels can have sex with women. It is all speculation!
Because righteous are seen as 'men' or 'young men' it does not prove there have a physical body that can have sexual relations and produce offspring! That takes DNA. And all reproduction is decreed by God Himself to be 'after it's kind' including humans!
The Bible indicates when Satan fell he took 1/3 of the angels with him to this earth. They ALL fell at the same time and could not be called sons of God any longer. Yet if we suppose these sons of god were angles this means that the righteous angels married wives for the evil line of Cain. Impossible here as they are said to BE SONS of God!!!
It says in Gen.6 that the sons of God married females which means they could not be the sons of God mentioned in Job that Satan appeared and joined them as he was distinct from them as he was NOT a son or righteous angel as were those 'sons.'
Incidentally, son is bene in Heb., and  can be translated in different  ways as hero, mighty one, solider,,king, powerful one, heir,strong one, son,etc. So in Job we could translate bene elohim Heb. as 'mighty or powerful (ones) of God.'

When one reads Gen.5 it shows righteous Seth's descendants and names them. Adam taught him and Seth carried on the teachings of God from Adam who was called the " son of God"(so Seth's line was called the 'son/s of God' by Luke. Whereas Cain did not teach God's will and plan, etc. His line was wicked and God spoke against them.
Everywhere in Gen.6 it speaks of 'men' i.e. human beings. My Spirit shall not always strive with man. No where does it say  God was displeased with angels, etc. ONLY man is to blame!
Angels that  were Satan's already(not the sons of God) had fallen before man was created and Satan was in the garden speaking to Eve. Adam and eve were told to 'guard' the garden and dress it.
They could not be called sons of God in Genesis 6!!! They would not have sex with women. Indeed,NO proof angels can procreate at all in Scripture.
The angel god teaching was known in Jesus' time and He could have affirmed it, but indicated instead the angels were sexless and did not marry!

And where does it say 'giants' (just means tyrants/fallen,bully, evil as it used here -these men were like an ancient mafia and just like the modern day mafia they were infamous or' renowned'- made a 'name' for themselves Heb.-no where does it say these people were half angel as it were or were supernatural in any way) were the result of an unholy union with the daughters of men. They' 'were of old' or BEFORE the union of the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain. It simply says there were giants then and later as well as' of old' or before !!! Gen.6:4

This false teaching is only a theory and a pagan doctrine.

Dr.H.Davis - 8/19/2013 7:29:33 PM

8/23/2013 4:01 PM #

No Scripture that says Satan mixed the DNA of animals with humans,etc. Maybe in the 14th chapter of Jude lol

Dr.H.Davis - 8/23/2013 4:01:36 PM

8/23/2013 7:02 PM #

Dr Davis

You do greatly err...as another might have said.

Job states quite clearly in 2 places that Satan presented himself among the sons of God to report on his actions like the rest of them.

A corroborating incidence of this is when the prophet Micaiah saw the host of heaven standing with the Lord and one came out and suggested he would be a lying spirit to Ahab ie: a fallen angel.

Further in Revelation we are shown the future day when the "accuser of our brethren...which accused them before our God day and night" is thrown out and goes to make war with those of them on the Earth because he knows he only has a short time.

You show a very poor understanding of what is happening in heaven right now and angelic power whether good or evil.  Satan is certainly the "God of this world" to an extent and has a following of other fallen spirits.  However what you fail to comprehend is that while there was an original fall of these beings to a sinful state their power and place is reserved to an extent until the time of "restitution of all things".  "Proceedeth not out of the mouth of the Most High not evil and good?"  The Lord controls everything including the limits of action of the evil angels.  This world was made for a purpose - to be a vehicle to demonstrate to the spiritual powers in the heavens God's wisdom, justice and goodness.  While it may be difficult to grasp this and take ourselves out of the centre spot of everything the reality is that it is ALL about him.  Not in a vain, cruel, selfish way but in a way which brings life, joy, peace and understanding.  You may remember that God revealed his name as "I am who I am".  One thing about the Lord is that he is humble even though he has no need to be.  This world exists to demonstrate that there is no pride in him.  He just is who he is.

This whole creation both above and below was made for God and he controls everything.  In Isaiah he states as a fact that he has controlled history from the beginning.

All we can do is say "Lord I don't understand but I believe and I want to be on your good side.  I trust that everything will be fixed in the end and the seeming injustices to so many will be rectified."  Remember the parable of Lazarus who was carried to Abraham's bosom as a reward for the trouble he had in this life.  Nowhere does it say that he was a believer.  And remember those who said in the judgement that they had done this, that and the other and God says "I never knew you".  Just some food for thought to try and get you thinking that the ways of God are more wise and unfathomable than we know - and when we think we know them then we will quickly find out that we don't.

As for the fall of the angels and what point it occurred: in Job it says all the sons of God shouted for joy when the world was made.  In Ezekiel it says regarding Satan that he was in Eden the garden of God.  Those angels fell due to their pride and lust not long after the foundation of the world.

Finally as to the often abused statement of the Lord's about marriage in the new world: angels like men have the ability to sin.  Just because the good angels don't do something doesn't mean that they don't have the capacity to do it.  The evil angels do all sorts of bad things that the good ones don't.  That's why the blackness of darkness is reserved for them forever.

The false doctrine which exists here is this nonsense of the children of Seth and the children of Cain - invented by those who do not handle the scriptures through the Spirit of God but by their own human understanding.

Let's not dote about "questions and strifes of words".  The "sons of God" refers to ALL angels good or bad.  And they did come in human form to women and have children with them.  It states it in black and white backed up by other sources eg: Enoch.

l gould - 8/23/2013 7:02:41 PM

8/26/2013 11:05 AM #

Okay, I commented on this over a year ago and updates showed up in my email inbox. In the last year I have gained some sense and now realize that this is all impossible. Angels never bred with women and produced mutant giant hybrids of any kind. The last reply from Dr. H. Davis is very well written and logical. As a Christian I know that I should not believe too much in crazy paranoid ideas, too much mythology stories that sound too ridiculous to be true, etc. Which just makes the church and all believers in Christ look stupid. In fact, in this day and age, simply believing in God, Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, etc. will get one laughed at and shunned. If one were to go on and on about angels coming down and breeding with human females to taint the human bloodline, well that would just be the cherry on top of the sundae, and then people would think Christians are all stupid, crazy, and paranoid and in need of medication.

There were never any skeletons of giants found and there are no old drawings or artworks depicting giants and angels coming down. Usually cave art and other ancient art depicts things that happened and there are no stories of this happening. Plus, I don't think that God would allow the angels to do such a thing anyway. I wish Jesus had mentioned it but he didn't.

Although from what I've heard and seen on the internet, many people now believe in the Space Jesus idea, that Jesus was an alien and that all accounts of divine intervention in the past were really with extraterrestrials. Since, in the bible, anyone who encounters angels usually describes bright light (like people who claim to see aliens, saying that see bright light UFOs) and in the bible people are taken up into heaven or have out of body experiences, like UFOs abducting people and bringing them up to their ship. They even made a movie about it, called Prometheus. The idea is that aliens once came down and mated with women, and it produced giant offspring kind of how like Ligers are hybrids between Lions and Tigers and are GIANT because something in the DNA hybrid process goes wrong. But still, without any skeletons of fossils we cannot believe any of it, and I don't believe in aliens either.

I used to think, wow the universe is so big surely there has to be life out there. As Jodie Foster said in that movie "Contact" it sure is a waste of space if God made us and there is no life anywhere else but Earth. If Earth were the only planet with life even in just our galaxy, that is still something because NASA says there are thousands of galaxies and some could be even bigger that our Milky Way.

AND if God did make other humans that does not mean that they are aliens. All these stories of aliens. Little or tall gray beings, insectiod beings, reptile beings, and blonde blue eyed Nordic looking beings. Well I've been lead to believe that Satan is trying to deceive people into believing in these beings. Notice how they always look different. The grays are sometimes short, tall, with noses and mouths and clothes and other times, they are not. If there are billions of planets in the universe with human beings on them, that would mean that there were other Adams and other Eves and that Jesus had to go to all of those planets and die for them too. Plus, Jesus did mention something about having other flocks to attend to, and something about THIS generation not ending until certain things come to pass, so. Which makes me wonder, how the heck does Satan and all the other demons get to those other planets and then to this one with such a vast distance. Maybe it is not an issue, because they do not operate in the physical world and are outside of time.

Danny - 8/26/2013 11:05:04 AM

8/26/2013 5:31 PM #


A simple internet search - if you are careful about it - will lead you to resources on giant skeletons and skeleton parts along with other archeological traces.  A number of independent finds relate to humans averaging around 12 feet tall.  Others seem to have been about 20 feet tall.  This information has been largely swept under the carpet by academia.
There are also a lot of fakes and false stories and finds.

As for aliens there is simply no such thing.  The vast majority of alien encounters and ufo experiences started after new flight and other technology was developed by the Nazis and others.  There is a wealth of solid information on these subjects.  The main alien story was started by the intelligence agencies and departments of psychological warfare to cover up the immense military and scientific expansions they were undertaking.  It has now taken on a life of its own and I would point out that the vast majority of supposed abductions and what I would term "creepy" experiences are revealed under hypnosis and we know as christians what power lies behind that.

The stars and planets etc were not made until the 4th day and they were made for the earth and the life God placed on it the apex of which is man.  There are no advanced civilisations living anywhere else.  And Jesus is most certainly not an alien.

Satan has used this ufo fear and alien issue to corrupt faith and to harm people clearly.  We must think straight about these things.


l gould - 8/26/2013 5:31:09 PM

12/9/2013 2:31 AM #

My understanding of Genesis 6 is simple.  The "sons of God" were space travelers that came from another galaxies.  The off springs were militated beings that polluted the human race.  God had to intervene by flushing away those beings.  He preserved the human race's purity by sparing Noah and his family.  There is evidence to suggest that there were giants in the land.  Archeological evidence of giant human remains have been discovered, suggesting giants were part of the human geno pool.  Why would we humans be so egocentric to thinks we are the only life form with intelligence, created by God.

Maria - 12/9/2013 2:31:39 AM

1/22/2014 5:45 PM #

In a passage where Jesus is teaching the Sadducees how to take the scripture word for word literally you sure blew it.
He said,  "they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the
angels who are in heaven".   This rules out any comparison to fallen angels to start with and ignores the biblical fact that angels take on the form of men. There for it is logical that they could replicate reproductive parts to some level of detail and function.

Rich - 1/22/2014 5:45:26 PM

2/15/2014 9:48 PM #

Thanks for this enlightening article.  Now I can perceive that these "sons of the gods" aren't any more divine than the "god of this world".  The cults of today are a regurgitation of this same self-aggrandizing theme.

jasonc65 - 2/15/2014 9:48:00 PM

Research RSS Feed

AddThis Feed Button

Recent Articles

In this article we will discuss why the decree of Daniel 9:25 must be identified with one issued by the...
II. Analysis and Discussion 3. Liber Biblicarum Antiquitatum 4. Augustine’s Renegade Scribe Theory 5....
II. Analysis and Discussion 2. Straw Men and Ad Hominems
II. Analysis and Discussion 1. The Rabbinic Deflation of the MT’s Primeval Chronology
Associates for Biblical Research
  • PO Box 144, Akron, PA 17501
  • Phone: +1 717-859-3443
  • Toll Free: 1-800-430-0008
Friend ABR on Facebook.com Join us on Twitter Join us on Twitter