3

This question is one I have thought a lot about. In Genesis 6:2, the fallen angels came down and created the Nephilim. After that, God caused the flood and the Nephilim were presumably all destroyed. Then Lot in Sodom and the angels in human form warned him (Genesis 19:1), they looked like people so much so that the Sodomites were convinced they were people.

If angels could do that, could not other angels (perhaps a "stay-behind group" either sympathetic to Lucifer or upset that God destroyed creation) have also fallen after the flood and done the same thing as the earlier ones?

agarza
  • 4,297
  • 6
  • 15
  • 32
jw noord
  • 31
  • 3
  • It is vehemently disputed that "sons of God" in Gen 6 even refers to angels - some would insist that it refers to the faithful followers of God as per NT usage. The fact that it is not occurred might be evidence that it did not occur originally. – Dottard Jul 24 '23 at 00:40
  • Firstly congratulations on accepting what the Bible says and not finding the need to redefine sons of God into humans when they were only ever heavenly beings in the OT. Secondly both Peter and Jude speak of the fact that some heavenly beings are held in chains until the day of judgment. Their punishment was so great no other heavenly being would dare to this day do what the original 200 did. And thirdly the DNA of their offspring survived the flood through the three wives of Noah’s sons. All of this and more I’ve addressed with Bible verses in other posts. There is no dispute they were angels – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 24 '23 at 08:50
  • @jwnoord. Interesting Q. If the sons of God were men and not angels, why does the verse say "the sons of God came unto the daughters of men", Aren't all women, except for Eve, daughters of men? Any possibility that these "sons" may have been materialized angel like the angels that came to Lot? Jude 6. 1 Peter 3:20 – Alex Balilo Jul 24 '23 at 11:20

4 Answers4

1

The "nephilim" are not described in the Bible as being angels, nor giants. The word occurs but three times in the Bible in this form, a form which was determined by the Masoretes who added the vowel pointings (niqqud) and cantillation marks (te'amim) to the original Hebrew text.

The Masoretes apparently accepted the apocryphal accounts from the Book of Enoch.

From Chapter 7 of the Book of Enoch, we read:

  1. And the women conceiving brought forth giants,
  2. Whose stature was each three hundred cubits. These devoured all which the labour of men produced; until it became impossible to feed them;
  3. When they turned themselves against men, in order to devour them;
  4. And began to injure birds, beasts, reptiles, and fishes, to eat their flesh one after another, and to drink their blood.

This is as mythical as a fairy tale. If such giants had actually existed, their humongous bones would be easily found in the fossil record. Their femurs alone would be over 100 feet long. According to this they were 300 cubits tall--equivalent to between 450 and 600 feet (one "cubit" is the measure of the arm, from fingertips to elbow, and the cubit was larger for larger/taller people; most scholars would put it at between 18 inches and two feet on average).

The influence of the Book of Enoch, which is entirely apocryphal and not part of the Biblical canon, reached even to the translation of the Septuagint, which is where we first see the idea of the nephilim being "giants." In fact, however, the word "nephilim" should not mean "giants" at all.

The Hebrew root word for "nephilim" consists of the nun, peh, and lamed (נפל). When one looks up these root letters, one quickly learns what this Hebrew root means. As a verb, it would be translated as "to fall." In participle or noun form, it would mean "ones who fall," or "fallen ones."

Here are the places where it is commonly mistranslated:

There were giants (nephilim) in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:4, KJV)

And there we saw the giants (nephilim), the sons of Anak, which come of the giants (nephilim): and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. (Numbers 13:33, KJV)

However, these two verses do not agree with the meaning of the same Hebrew root used elsewhere--and it occurs over 400 times in the Old Testament, though mostly as a verb in expressions like "fallen upon his bed," "fallen by the sword," "Babylon is fallen," etc.

An example of the exact same root letters where it clearly does not refer to "giants" is found in Ezekiel.

And they shall not lie with the mighty that are fallen (נֹפְלִ֖ים/nō·p̄ə·lîm) of the uncircumcised, which are gone down to hell with their weapons of war: and they have laid their swords under their heads, but their iniquities shall be upon their bones, though they were the terror of the mighty in the land of the living. (Ezekiel 32:27, KJV)

Notably, this text also refers to "the mighty," yet it does not translate these "nophilim" as "giants."

The context of Genesis 6:4 is that of the wickedness then existing among the people who lived before the Flood which prompted God to send the Flood. It makes perfect sense, then, that "nephilim" should mean "the fallen ones." They had certainly fallen into sin.

Consider the message if this translation were corrected.

There were fallen ones in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Even after the Flood, many were fallen, of course. This is one of the difficult parts to explain for those who suggest these "nephilim" were angels--how would this have been true after the Flood? But it is easily explained when the true meaning of the root letters is followed.

The "sons of God" is a reference to the godly, the righteous ones, among the people--largely the descendants of Seth. Throughout the Bible, "sons of God" carries this same meaning. Consider:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (John 1:12, KJV)

The "daughters of men," conversely, would be those women who were not God-fearing. When the righteous men married unrighteous women, their children were influenced to become wicked even as were their mothers, thus increasing the magnitude of their guilt.

Genesis 6:2 gives a big clue as to what was taking place.

That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. (Genesis 6:2, KJV)

The expression "of all which they chose" implies even polygamy. This was not according to God's design. These men who knew the truth and knew better were giving in to their lusts, and the results stand plainly on record.

Biblasia
  • 4,923
  • 6
  • 25
  • This answer is almost correct. Nephilim was used in Numbers as a subset of the Anakim, who were giants. It does mean fallen ones, but it also means a bully. And, the giants would most probably have been very mean bullies being taller than the other tribes of the earth. Goliath is a good example, and he was about 9-1/2 ft tall. King Og was about 13-16 ft tall. – Gina Jul 24 '23 at 08:06
  • @Gina There are giants in the Bible: it's just not the nephilim. Two other Hebrew words are correctly associated with giants in the Bible: the rephaim, and the anakim (the family to which Goliath belonged). However, this question was not about the giants; it was about the nephilim and the mythology which has so often obscured the truth on their identity. – Biblasia Jul 24 '23 at 08:25
  • Thank you, and I must have misread your post. Please also see my answer below. – Gina Jul 24 '23 at 08:49
  • Nephilim are not angels, they are the offspring of the angels as per Gen3:15 angels would produce offsprings. This is not the view held by everyone until the 2nd century AD, this is a new and foreign view to the disciples, Jesus and the temple period Jews. – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 24 '23 at 13:09
  • @NihilSineDeo There is zero Biblical evidence that angels have ever had offspring--even with angel partners, much less humans. Humans seem to have a penchant for the strange and mythical, and enjoy a bit of fantasy--hence the tall tales of angels copulating with women. When Jesus told the Pharisees that they were of their father the devil, he did not mean that their mothers had had an affair with Satan. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. – Biblasia Jul 24 '23 at 13:49
  • @NihilSineDeo - You are right that "your father the devil" was not meant literally. But there IS biblical evidence of angels copulating with women. The term 'bene elohim' usually refers to angels. It is possible to dismiss this as a wrong understanding of course. In my case I accept it as the right translation but dismiss it as legendary as do the the editors of the NABRE and other scholars. – Dan Fefferman Jul 24 '23 at 13:58
  • @DanFefferman "Bene elohim" refers to God's children--not to angels. Angels may be God's children, but so may people. Consider the Israelites who were addressed as follows: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God: . . ." (Deuteronomy 14:1, KJV). – Biblasia Jul 24 '23 at 14:23
  • The fact that you choose to ignore or reject what the passages read doesn’t mean there is zero Biblical evidence that angels have ever had offspring. I pointed to G3:15 I’m willing to wager you didn’t even read the passage much less expound it. Furthermore benei ha’elohim is never used of humans in the OT, thus rendering your interpretation of G6:4 invalid. Peter and Jude make reference to Scriptures that are not in the canonized version we hold today but yet they referred to those events which are about heavenly beings being likened to Sodom sexually promiscuous and punished. – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 24 '23 at 14:41
  • @DanFefferman so you accept this is speaking of angels but you dismiss it as mythological and therefore not an accurate historical account. Is that correct? My question for you besides showing precedent is what other Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures do you dismiss out of hand as not historically factual? – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 24 '23 at 14:44
  • @NihilSineDeo "I pointed to G3:15 I’m willing to wager you didn’t even read the passage much less expound it." You are right that I did not read it. This is because I understood you to be referring to "Genesis 3:15," and have it memorized and did not need to read it. I remembered that it is the prophecy of the Messiah's coming, the first intimation of this given to Adam, through symbolic imagery--yet Adam and Eve understood this, which is why Eve mistakenly thought Cain would be the promised one. He was not. The text has absolutely nothing to do with angels mating with mankind. – Biblasia Jul 24 '23 at 14:50
  • @Biblasia the Deu14:1 passage doesn’t use the benei ha’elohim phrasing. No credible scholar would accept to mash up phrases like you are doing and say that a different phrase given to humans is equivalent to the phrase used of heavenly beings. Also doing Bible exposition from the English is not sound scholarly practice. You’re welcome to your views, you are not welcome to redefine words and phrases in the Hebrew to make them say what you want them to say based on your theological tolerance. – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 24 '23 at 14:51
  • @NihilSineDeo Again, you are right. Deuteronomy 14:1 goes even further than just "bene elohim" and says "bene attem Yahweh elohekim" (sons you [are] of Yahweh your God). It cannot be more clearly the sons of God than this. – Biblasia Jul 24 '23 at 14:52
  • And your last response @Biblasia tells me everything I need to know about your exegesis or lack therefore. Your credibility is shot based on your superficial non contextual reading of the text. Rev12:9 makes the nachash a heavenly being and it’s his offspring that will have enmity with the offspring of the woman. G3:15 demands you interpret both offsprings the same way, the nachash’s and the woman’s. Did the woman have a spiritual child or a physical child? Don’t worry about this is above the level of detail you want to delve in. Stick to your Scripture denying opinions – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 24 '23 at 14:57
  • @NihilSineDeo asked "what other Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures do you dismiss out of hand as not historically factual?" I think the Holy Spirit inspired the scriptures in a more general sense than you do, apparently. I never dismiss them out of hand, but approach them prayerfully and hopefully with discernment. I mention some specific examples of legendary material in the pre-Flood biblical narrative in my answer below. – Dan Fefferman Jul 26 '23 at 12:00
0

No. The question would be logical if it were based on fact. But, as there are no fallen angels, then the idea of breeding heavenly angels with earth-born women is complete science fiction. All of that mythology originated from pagan Greek and Persian religions during the intertestamental period between 300 BC - 100 AD. The book of Enoch is not scripture and has been proven to contradict scripture by many scholars.(1)

The word angels comes from the Gr. "aggelos" which means a messenger, one who is sent. (2) Messengers can be either heavenly or earth-born men. The prophets were messengers, as were the priests and kings (David), and John and Jesus (Mal. 3:1), and all of Jesus' disciples and Apostles. So, the context will determine which kind of messenger is under discussion.

Further, Jesus made it clear that the heavenly messengers did not marry, which further implies they did/do not have sex (which would be a sin of fornication) and therefore could not reproduce (Matt. 22:30).

There is no basis for imagining that angels are fornicating with women on earth. Not only does Matt. 22:30 tell us that the physics of angels are different than those of mankind, but Genesis 1 sets the rules that science today teaches .. all species propagate or bear “after their kind”. Genesis 5 reinforces the physics set by God as Adam, “… begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:” Gen. 5:3. You cannot plant an orange seed, and get an apple tree!

To imagine that God would be discussing a science fiction scenario in Genesis 6 is the very same kind of imagination of wicked and evil men He repented that He had made! It is also not a logical progression of the subject matter.

The word “giants”, or “nephilim” or “fallen ones” are not sons of God in Gen. 6:4, or it would have been translated as sons of God both times within the same verse! That means that the sons of God in the second half of verse 4 are not the fallen ones in the first half of verse 4. They are different!

The sons of God in verse Gen 6:4 are the same sons of God in Gen. 6:2 that took wives of all of the fair daughters of men. Wives are married to husbands. The connotations must also be acknowledged.

The giants that the spies saw in the land of Canaan were very tall people, men and women, of the species of mankind. Their height was a product of DNA, just as is our hair color, eye color, skin color, etc. That they were in the land after the flood means that Noah and his sons carried that DNA, or they would not again have been in the lands when God led the tribes of Israel to conquer them.

Young’s translated the word “Nephilim” in only one place, and that was in Numbers 13:33. In that verse it is a clear reference to giants. Moses sent the spies into the land of Canaan to bring back a report, and they gave an account of the Nephilim, sons of Anak.

Num 13: 33, “and there we saw the Nephilim, sons of Anak, of the Nephilim; and we are in our own eyes as grasshoppers; and so we were in their eyes.’”

The name “Nephilim” was of the same people called the “Anakim”, sons of Anak. Young’s only has it this one time. He did not use it in Gen 6:4; where the King James has “giants”, Young’s has “fallen ones.” The best reasoning for this difference is that the word “nephilim” is from the root word “nephal,” meaning he fell.

Nephilim is the transliteration of Strong’s Heb 5303, “נְפִילִים” ; and Strong’s concordance has “Or nphil {nef-eel’}; from naphal; properly, a feller, i.e. A bully or tyrant — giant.” (3)

The giants had become bullies and wicked people most probably because their height and strength gave them advantage over others, which they then used for selfish, evil purposes. Remember that saying – absolute power corrupts absolutely ? They used their power and strength for evil, and became fallen ones – fallen from grace. The fallen ones were (and still are) those people who became wicked children of wrath (Eph. 2:3) and children of disobedience (Eph. 5:6).

Please see the following posts:

Nephilim... & the Sons of God - ShreddingTheVeil

Giants: Rephaim... Zuzim - ShreddingTheVeil

Testing The Spirits - Part IV(a)- Slandering Angels ShreddingTheVeil

Testing The Spirits - Part IV(b) - Slandering Angels ShreddingTheVeil

Notes:

  1. 7 Reasons Historic Christianity Reject the book of Enoch here

  2. Strong's Gr. 32 "aggelos" - Biblehub

  3. Strong's Heb. 5303 - nephal - Biblehub

Gina
  • 10,037
  • 2
  • 20
  • 38
  • The number of erroneous assumptions and extrapolations you have taken the liberty to make is indeed very shocking to me. There are no fallen angels? Isa 14:12. Also just because angels are not given in marriage and do not marry is not proof that they can’t reproduce sexually Gen3:15. The earth and everything under the second heaven was instructed to reproduce that doesn’t give you the freedom to apply it to the angels. Historically speaking your view comes from the 2nd century AD and is popularized after the 4th not on Scriptural basis but theological. Thus angels copulating was original view. – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 24 '23 at 13:07
  • @NihilSineDeo - did you bother to read the posts cited? Isa. 14:12 is about the King of Babylon. There is no Lucifer. The language was literally "O shining one, son of the dawn..." which was the descriptive words God used for the King's pagan god Ashtar, the Venus morning star. God did not use the pagan idol's name b/c the pagan god is not real. You r repeating pagan mythology that so many ppl for centuries have been taught. Please read the supporting evidences in the posts cited. – Gina Jul 24 '23 at 15:41
  • Not even taking into account the double- reference principle, or Ezekiel’s parallel text that speaks of the king of tyre, Jesus speaks of Satan falling, that’s proof enough to refute your claim that there are no fallen heavenly beings. And that was the whole point was to refute your claim that there are none. – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 24 '23 at 18:04
  • 1
    The fall of the King of Tyre was speaking of the fall of Adam in the garden, not of any "satan". Jesus' saying "satan" falling is apocalyptic language for the fall out of political power of the evil wicked Sanhedrin, as the use of "satan" was really the "adversary" that stood against Him as the Son of God. The current views of "satan" & the "devil" are completely misunderstood & incorrectly taught b/c of a lack of knowledge of the OT. You should at least be curious enough to check it out at those posts. – Gina Jul 24 '23 at 20:03
  • You can be certain I’ll check them out and if I’m wrong I’ll admit to it but if you’re wrong or only partially right are you truth seeking enough to amend your current view? – Nihil Sine Deo Jul 24 '23 at 21:17
  • 1
    @Nihil, as most here know by now I only go where the scriptures lead. If you can find scriptural support for reading into His word the pagan beliefs, then I will look at them. – Gina Jul 24 '23 at 23:20
-2

According to Genesis 6, fallen angels, called "sons of God," took women, called "daughters of men," for sexual relationships, and the result of these unions was the Nephilim, who were giants 1. Angels can take the form of men when desired, as seen in Genesis 18:2, where three men were standing opposite Abraham, and they were eating with him and speaking with him, yet they were not men 1. However, the Bible does not provide any indication that other fallen angels created Nephilim after the flood 1.

Some Christian scholars have theorized that the "sons of God" were fallen angels who reproduced with human females or possessed human males who then bore children with human females 4. However, other scholars do not subscribe to this theory and believe that God alone is the Creator, and demons and angels do not have the power to create or reproduce with human beings 3. Therefore, there is no clear evidence in the Bible that other fallen angels created Nephilim after the flood.

Citations:
1 How did fallen angels and humans produce Nephilim?
2 Wikipedia: Nephilim
3 Did Fallen Angels Have Sex with Humans and Create a Race of Giants?
4 The Nephilim in the Bible - Fallen Angels or Giants?
5 Who Were the Nephilim?
6 The Nephilim Connection

agarza
  • 4,297
  • 6
  • 15
  • 32
-4

Events described in the Bible prior to the Flood fall into a different category than post-Flood events. Gen. 1-6 contains a good deal of material that can be considered legendary rather than historical. Among these:

  • the snake moves on its belly because God cursed it
  • people lived for 900 years or more
  • angels produced offspring with human women
  • "there were giants in the land."
  • the millions of species that live on land today all fit into Noah's ark.

Regarding the Nephilim, the Catholic editors of the NABRE explain:

The text, apparently alluding to an old legend, shares a common ancient view that the heavenly world was populated by a multitude of beings, some of whom were wicked and rebellious. It is incorporated here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation—the constantly increasing wickedness of humanity.

One need not be a Catholic to appreciate this view. There will be no future offspring between humans and angels. The Nephilim were legendary, not historical.

Dan Fefferman
  • 15,919
  • 2
  • 12
  • 62