The Nephilim: Sons of God, Daughters of Men

NephilimThe Biblical Truth of the Nephilim

A while ago I posted an article on the Nephilim stating that I did not believe that the Nephilim were demonic offspring.  I then deleted the t is obvious, and not contestedarticle because I became uncertain if I was indeed correct.  Since then I have been searching for the truth and I am happy to say I have found the TRUTH.  The reason I am so passionate about the answer to this question is because of the rise in interest in the supernatural, i.e, aliens, trans-humanism etc.  There are stories running abound that during the tribulation demons will be free to do as they please on earth, producing offspring like the Nephilim.  The bible is very clear that we are to not let our minds be captured by occult imagination because when human minds get hold of unbiblical ideas it runs free and causes all sorts of havoc.


The Hebrew word Nephilim is translated “giants” in the Old Testament. It only appears twice in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33.  A whole series of doctrines have been built around this word, in spite of the fact that the word only appears rarely. These doctrines on the Nephilim are based on Genesis 6:1-4.(It must be noted that most speculators lean very heavily on extra-biblical writings for most of their information.) The theories can basically be summed up as follows:

Demons / angels (sons of God) had illicit relationships with women (the daughters of men) and these perverted relations produced genetically mutated beings known as Nephilim (giants). God then imprisoned some of the angles who did this and in order to purify the bloodline of man God brought on the Flood. Through genetic engineering these Nephilim will be resurrected, one of which will be the Antichrist[i]. To these people, the Nephilim are also connected to so-called extra-terrestrial forms of life.

Since these theories are gaining ground and a number of books have been published based on this hypothesis, it is necessary to examine Genesis 6 again and see what exactly it teaches. We will discover that the proponents of these theories break every principle of hermeneutics. Here is the text:

“Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown“. (Genesis 6:1-4)

Sons of God

The first problem revolves around who in the passage are the “sons of God”. Some make the connection with Job 1:6; 2:1. “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.” (Job 1:6). It is obvious, that the “sons of God” in in the book of Job were Job and his family who came before God to pray.  Satan also came to listen to what they had to pray about.   This presentation of Job before the Lord did not happen in Heaven but on Earth!   Because God asked Satan:

Job 2:2  “And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

First, the bible is clear:  No angel in heaven or fallen angel is called a “son of God”

Hebrews 1:5  “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”

Second Jesus explicitly said that “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30) (See also Luke 20:34-36). Therefore in Jesus’ own words, angels are asexual and do not procreate.

So here is the problem. Genesis is obscure about who had the relations. Jesus said angels do not have relations. So either Jesus was mistaken or the “sons of God” were not angels. You choose! It is really as simple as that – there are no other options.

Some try to get around this by saying that the angels inhabited (possessed) human bodies to do this. That sounds good. But here is the question: A Christian man has the Holy Spirit in him. When that man produces a child by his wife, what is the child? God or man? Clearly, it is a man. There are multitudes of people in the world who are demon possessed and who procreate. What do they produce? Human babies or mutants? Obviously human babies. So why should Genesis 6 be any different. If demons entered into men to produce offspring the children would be human, and only human.

One of the principles of hermeneutics is that the Old Testament is interpreted in the light of the New Testament and not the other way round. In order to say that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are angels (or demons) we must discard the light of the NT and that should never happen.

The nature of the relationships

The next problem is that it is claimed that the angels had illicit relations with women. Yet the text is very clear: “they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose” (Genesis 6:2b). The phrase “took wives for themselves” only, and always, means marriage. It never refers to casual, illicit or adulterous relationships. (See Genesis 11:29 & Ruth 1:4). To suggest otherwise is reading into the text that which is simply not there.


The theory goes that the giants were the product of these illicit relationships. We have shown that the text does not refer to illicit relationships and that the fathers could not be angels.

Genesis 6:4, again is very clear: “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them.”  Notice that it says there were giants (fact number 1) and afterwards the sons of God came into… (fact number 2). There is NO connection between the fact that there were giants and the fact that people had children.

It is exactly like me saying: “There is milk in the supermarket and eggs are $1.50 a dozen” Milk has no effect on the price, or even the existence, of eggs and the other way around. I am simply stating two facts that describe things about food in the supermarket.

In Genesis 6 Moses is describing the state of the world before the flood. He makes no connection between the Nephilim and the sons of God and daughters of men. If the sentence had been reversed as follows: “The sons of God came into the daughters of men and they bore Nephilim” then you could postulate some theory about the nature of this process. But the text does not give us any room to connect the Nephilim with these marriages.

Genesis 6:4 does say that the children that were produced “were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown“. “Mighty men” is a term which is used 154 times in the OT and simply refers to powerful men, either physically or politically. Just like there are many mighty men today and some are men of God and others are worldly and unsaved, so there were mighty men in those days, of which Noah was one.

“Men of old” also holds no mystique, these were simply the heroes of bygone days.

“Men of renown” is also used in Numbers 16:2 and Ezekiel 23:23. These are famous men, or well-known men. The Hebrew term literally means “men with a name” meaning they had “made a name” for themselves.

The descendants of these relationships were not monsters, mutants, or anything extraordinary. Some were ordinary people and some were powerful, some were little known and others had made a name for themselves. Genesis 6:5 (the next verse) goes on to describe these people as wicked and worthy of God’s judgment.

Furthermore, the translation of the word Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 as “giants” is very arbitrary. There are many other possible ways this word could be translated here: “Bullies”, “mighty ones” or “tyrants”.  At least one dictionary states that the Nephilim in Genesis and in Numbers were two different peoples[ii]. Once again, we cannot build an entire doctrine on a word which we cannot translate or explain with any measure of certainty.

Genesis 6:4 is simply a description of life before the flood and not a commentary on mysterious genetic mutant life forms. Jesus obviously has this verse in mind when he says: “But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.” (Matthew 24:37-39) (note the reference to marriage in both verses).

One of the most important principles of hermeneutics is that the verse has to be read in its context. The context is clear, that life was going on as usual, people were becoming more and more self-absorbed and sinful but judgment was coming. This is the same point Jesus was making in Matthew 24 – people will be self-absorbed and fixated on every-day life and will not be ready for His coming.

The cause of the Flood

Those who speculate about the Nephilim, connect them with the reason for the Flood. Once again, there is no connection there. Genesis 6 describes life on earth. Yes, there were Nephilim, but more significantly, people were marrying and having children and becoming more wicked. Genesis 6:5-6 cannot be clearer. God’s judgment fell because of the wickedness of man. This had absolutely nothing to do with demons, angels or mutants. Look at these verses again: “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”(Genesis 6:5-7).

If the flood had anything to do with anything other than man’s sinfulness, either Moses or Jesus would have said something in that regard, but both are silent about demons, angels and mutants. The flood had nothing to do with clearing the gene pool. It was all about clearing the earth of sinful and wicked people. Even Sunday school children should be able to tell you that.

If the flood had anything to do with God wanting to destroy the giants because they were “contaminated seed” or to purge the gene pool then, Noah and his sons should have been destroyed also. Noah and his sons carried the gene from which giants were formed. This is obvious since giants (Nephilim) are born after the flood and were present in the Land when the spies were sent to scout out the land (Numbers 13:33). These giants were descendants of Noah since all of humankind after the flood descended from Noah.

Extra-biblical evidence

These speculators quote the Book of Enoch (and other apocryphal books) in support of their ideas as though they are Scripture. Yet, Enoch and the rest of the Apocrypha are not part of the canon of Scripture for obvious reasons – they are not, and have never been regarded as inspired except by apostate churches and false teachers.

Once again they break one of the fundamentals of Evangelical and Reformed hermeneutics: We hold only to Scripture and do not add, nor subtract from it (Revelation 22:18; Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32). It is especially reprehensible to formulate an entire doctrine on extra-biblical evidence as these people are doing.

The fact is that there is overwhelming evidence in very old writings that the Hebrew sages never regarded the “sons of God” as angels or demons. But we dare not use that as evidence lest we sink to the same level as these speculators.

Jude 6 is quoted in support of the theories. This verse says: “And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day” (Jude 1:6).

Once again, there is absolutely nothing in the verse, or the context, that connects it with Genesis 6. There is nothing in the context that gives rise to understand that “not keep(ing) their proper domain” has anything to do with having relations with women. These angels sinned by overstepping their boundaries – that is evident. But what those boundaries were can be any of a hundred things. We just cannot draw connection between Genesis 6 and Jude 6, except that the chapter number is the same as the verse number!

2 Peter 2:4-5

Verse 4 is similar to Jude 6: “For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly.” (2 Peter 2:4-5).

To those who pluck verses out of their context there appears to be a connection between the sinning angels and the flood. But look at the context:

2Peter 2:1-3 There were, and will be, false teachers and they will “bring upon themselves swift destruction“.

2Peter 2:4 Angels sinned and God “reserved them for judgment

2Peter 2:5 The ancient world sinned and God judged them by the flood but spared Noah

2Peter 2:6-8 Sodom and Gomorrah sinned and God judged them but spared Lot

2Peter 2:9 Therefore in the future, the Lord will judge the unjust and save the godly.

The angels and the pre-flood world are simply two of four examples that Peter quotes to show that God will punish sin. The connections between the sinning angels and the flood are the same connection with false teachers and Sodom – the connections have nothing to do with gene mutation but is all about sin and the consequences thereof.


The purpose of this brief article is not to provide answers to all the questions that surround Genesis 6. In fact, we do not have all the answers and those who claim they have a full and detailed explanation for these verses are speculating. The point of the text in Genesis 6, and 2Peter 2 is to warn that God will not tolerate sin and will judge it.

But what we are certain of is that the theories about angels producing mutant life forms are not Biblical and that the conclusions derived from this theory are fictional, at best.

“…charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith“. (1 Timothy 1:3-4).

“But reject profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise yourself toward godliness.”(1 Timothy 4:7).

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

[i] This is a very brief and highly sanitized summary of some very extreme and bizarre teachings. But it must also be noted that those who hold to these teachings differ greatly amongst themselves as to how far they take their conclusions.

[ii]Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.

1)  David and Goliath – 


Yes, there were giants but not in the sense of the pictures of Jack and the beanstalk. Goliath was anywhere between 6’9” to 10′ tall.  The oldest manuscripts – the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel, the first-century historian Josephus, and the fourth century Septuagint manuscripts – all give his height as “four cubits and a span”, about six feet, nine inches tall (two meters), but later manuscripts have it as “six cubits and a span,” which would make him almost ten feet tall (three meters). The average height of the LA Lakers basketball team is 6’4″, with a few of them at 6’9″.  Andre the Giant from the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) stood at 7’4″ while the Great Khali currently stands at 7’1″.  [Note that DTW has never referred to the dead-sea scrolls for information, but to help explain Goliath in this instance, it is very necessary.]

Saul stood “head-and-shoulders” above the rest of the people and David (it seems) could fit into his armour. David appears extra small to Goliath because he was just a youth when he fought and killed Goliath. However when David grew up he was able to use Goliath’s sword (1Sam 21). So as adults David and Saul were almost as big as Goliath! – now that’s a revolutionary thought!

The same goes for the Canaanites, they were giant men, but not from another world.  There is no possible way that these giants were of an extraterrestrial nature because the bible does not say so – the bible does say there were giants before the flood and their DNA must have been in Noah because the DNA is carried forward to beyond the flood. We need to remain silent on the things the Bible is silent on – we can’t go around and make wild speculations as many well known pastors are doing.  To again speculate that angels came down again to have relations with human women to produce more giants after the flood is just nonsense.

2)  Those giant skeletons they supposedly found in Greece and Middle East –

 width= width= width=


THERE’S A good reason we haven’t heard about this epic discovery in the New York TimesScientific American, or any other legitimate publication, and that is that these photos, like the one circulating since 2004 purporting to show a giant skeleton found in the Middle East, are fakes.

As if it weren’t preposterous enough to claim that one 15-foot-tall fossilized human skeleton had turned up without media fanfare, we’re asked to believe that archaeologists recently dug up four of them in a single location (Greece). In point of fact, each of the photos appears to have been taken at a different time and place.

So far I’ve only been able to locate the original of one of them, but it serves as clear proof that Photoshopping took place. Image #4 was created by inserting an outsized human skull into a photo of a 1993 University of Chicago dinosaur dig in Niger, Africa (see the original here). If you look at a blow-up of the doctored image, the skull appears flattened and unnatural (and one of the workers actually appears to be standing on it!).

Moreover, the same cut-and-pasted skull was used to create image #2 (see side-by-side comparison). A blow-up of image #2 with brightness and contrast enhanced reveals unnaturally dark “shadows” around the skull. The skull in Image #3 is marked by incongruously bright highlights on the teeth and around the edges of the gaping temple wound. And in image #5 the shadows coming off the skeleton fall more or less toward the camera, while the worker’s shadow falls due left, suggesting that elements of two different photos were combined.

Finally, despite frequent references to “giants” in ancient mythology and English translations of the Bible, there is no generally accepted scientific or historical evidence that such beings ever actually existed (unless you consider the Weekly World News a reliable source).


NB!! See here for more giant skeletons and why they are a hoax as well:

3)  Nephilim: A greater understanding of Jude 5-10:

And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day” (Jude 1:6)

Jude 6 is quoted in support of their theories connecting it to Genesis 6 that angels came down and had relations with women. Once again, there is absolutely nothing in the verse, or the context, that connects it with Genesis 6. There is nothing in the context that gives rise to understand that “not keep(ing) their proper domain” has anything to do with having relations with women. These angels sinned by overstepping their boundaries – that is evident. But what those boundaries were can be any of a hundred things. We just cannot draw connection between Genesis 6 and Jude 6, except that the chapter number is the same as the verse number!

To explain Jude 5 – 8 properly, it contains a number of separate examples of God judging  sin. Just like paprables where there is a central truth and the only connection between the parables is that truth (e.g. That which was lost is found: lost coin, lost sheep, lost son).  Here there are four examples showing the same truth that God judges sin. The examples are: 1) Israel’s unbelief in not crossing into the land, 2) angels who did not keep their proper domain, 3) Sodom and Gomorrah’s sexual sin and 4) false teachers.
If there is a sexual connection between Sodom and the angels (the angels sinned in a sexual way) then there must also be a connection between Sodom and Israel and between Israel and the angels. But that is not the link here.  The link is sin.In the case of Israel it is unbelief (Hebrews 3 & 4), in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah it is homosexuality and in the case of the angels it was rebellion when Satan was cast down from heaven and 1/3 of the angels followed.
Note that the text must be read in its context and we cannot simply make connections and draw conclusions that are not there. Now concerning the statement “who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode”. People connect that to Sodom and say that this means angels had relations with women. But we need to examine the statement carefully. The first word “proper domain” according to Thayer means:
 Original: oiketerion
– Transliteration: Arche
– Phonetic: ar-khay’
– Definition:
1.  beginning, origin
2.  the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3.  that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4.  the extremity of a thing
a.  of the corners of a sail
5.  the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
a.  of angels and demons
Note the word is “Arche” from which we get “arch-enemy”, “arch-rival” etc. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation but with primacy, authority etc. The second is “abode”. This is also a very common word: (oiketerion) which simply means house, habitation or abode.The verse then teaches that the angels did not remain in their proper authority and left their place. This could be construed to mean they had relations with the daughters of men. But it forces and construes a meaning that is NOT obvious to the sentence.
A more natural interpretation is that the angels rebelled against God’s authority at the very beginning when Satan was cast out of heaven and left their place in the order and hierarchy of God. The English Standard version (ESV) is one of the best translations available. The ESV has the verse as follows:  “And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day-
“This is supported by June 9-10 which speaks about false preachers who do not know their proper place when dealing with the Devil and demons(and yes, Satan is a “dignitary”  – powerful person ).
What we do not know is why some of these angels (demons) were chained in the “abyss” and others were left to roam the earth. We can only surmise that some sinned more grievously than others. But it also seems that the Lord can (and probably does) throw more of them into the abyss for whatever reason:
Luke 8:30-32   “30 Jesus asked him, saying, “What is your name?” And he said, “Legion,” because many demons had entered him. 31 And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss.  32 Now a herd of many swine was feeding there on the mountain. So they begged Him that He would permit them to enter them. And He permitted them..”
Now for Jude 7:  The cities around them refers to Admah and Zeboim:

Deuteronomy 29:23  “And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath:”

Hosea 11:8  “How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together.”

The words “similar manner to these” can only refer to the most recently mentioned subjects – the cities. There is no way, at all that it can refer to the Angels. No language works like that.

When we say “Tom went to church and John went to the mall and Jerry went to the beach and he got sunburned.” The “he” can only refer to the most recent subject – Jerry.

So the meaning is very clear and obvious that Sodom and Gomorrah gave themselves over to immorality and Admah and Zeboim did likewise. There is no other possibility.

The problem here is that it all begins with a bad exegesis is Genesis 6. If you read Genesis 6 to mean that Angels had relations with women (and reject the words of Jesus that they cannot) then you have to find further support. Once you have jumped to that conclusion, it is easy to misread and misinterpret Jude 6&7. But if you do not make assumptions about relations between angels and women, then there is no way you can read that into Jude. So, you have to force the meaning of Gen 6 and then you have to force the meaning of Jude 6 to come to a conclusion.

Read the more DTW articles on this very important subject located under the category Nephilim Teaching:

Please share:
Name or Username
Privacy Policy

Editing Comments: After commenting you have 15 minutes to EDIT your comment. Click the gear icon at the bottom right corner of the comment box, then click EDIT.

Previous Comments: Please read all previous comment pages if there are any. Thank you.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Daniel Knezacek

[deleted – Daniel I am not going to promote you or your book, please stop commenting on my website – that includes ALL articles]


The beginning of this seems faulty because one of the first points is basing the sons of God having relations with the daughters of men upon the Matthew scripture–

Quote:”Second Jesus explicitly said that “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30) (See also Luke 20:34-36). Therefore in Jesus’ own words, angels are asexual and do not procreate.”

To equate the preflood era with post resurrection Heaven is problematic. Preflood has flesh living to the age of 900 years of age. Postflood brought much change,such as limiting man’s lifespan, the breaking up of land into nations and limiting the devils (fallen angels) to a bodiless existence for a period of time. I have heard it told that the demons are (evil) spirits from those Nephilim but devils and demons are the same entity.


I meant to say that demons and devils ARE NOT the same entity. I must have missed the edit button!!

Deborah (Discerning the World)


What? No, you mis-read the article. Please read it again and properly.

Madaline Sanders


Your article concerning Genesis chap 6 and the giants is the WHOLE TRUTH, according to the infallible WORD OF GOD. I believe what Jesus said, ANGELS ARE ASEXUAL. They have never, and never will have sexual relations with human beings, or produce offspring. As children of God, we are to refrain from fables and doctrines of men and demons. Yes, demons do conjure up false doctrines; look at all the “synagogues of Satan,” who profess to be God’s churches. If Jesus said that angels don’t marry in the resurrection, He was stating an ageless FACT: they didn’t marry in heaven and they didn’t marry in Genesis 6. The angels that God created are the only angels there are; angels are not being born every day. Many cultures and professing Christians have been duped, or deceived by FABLES. Fables are LIES. The fact that someone believes a lie does not turn the lie into truth, or make it a reality. Children believe a red-suited benevolent, chubby man comes down a chimney, bearing gifts on Dec. 25th, but DOES HE, IN REALITY? NO!!! WAS JESUS BORN ON DEC. 25TH? NO! No flocks are out in the field after mid-October. People believe there were three wise men, but the bible doesn’t say there were three. If Christians are deceived by the Neph. LIE, what is going to happen when they see “demons working miracles” or the beast calling fire down from heaven? I stick with the Word of God and trust God to give me discernment and wisdom. GREAT ARTICLE!

Deborah (Discerning the World)

Thanks Madaline!

And this lie of the Nephilim is being preached by well known supposedly ‘good’ pastors out there – why? Because it’s a doorway to push the Christian into believing OTHER OCCULT beliefs. Watch out for any minister who preaches this Nephilim lie.

Burning Lamp

Debs said: And this lie of the Nephilim is being preached by well known supposedly ‘good’ pastors out there – why? Because it’s a doorway to push the Christian into believing OTHER OCCULT beliefs. Watch out for any minister who preaches this Nephilim lie.

You are absolutely corrent. Whether they are doing this intentionally or with full awareness is not clear. However, the end result is the same. Even so-called “discernment sites” are promoting this error. This seems to be a central “doctrine” to some folks, the mountain to die on instead of the Gospel. In fact the truth serves as a window dressing to build trust so this destructive belief can be ushered in through the back door.

Believers need to beware!!!


I read with interest your article about the Nephilim

A couple of questions:

What does it mean that Noah was “perfect in his generations” (Gen6:9)?

Who exactly were the sons of God? The context implies they were not the sons of men.

Deborah (Discerning the World)


>> What does it mean that Noah was “perfect in his generations” (Gen6:9)?

Noah Pleases God (NKJV)

9 This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.

Genesis 6:9 Amplified Bible (AMP)

9 This is the history of the generations of Noah. Noah was a just and righteous man, blameless in his [evil] generation; Noah walked [in habitual fellowship] with God.


>> Who exactly were the sons of God? The context implies they were not the sons of men.

Read the article again.


Deborah. Thankyou for your reply.

My NIV agrees with your translation of Gen 6:9. How can we know which translation is accurate??

Yes. I did read the section on the Sons of God, but it does not answer the question: If they were not men what were they?

Also: I find it very hard to believe that the Nephilim in 6:4 have nothing to do with the sons of God in the same verse. If this is the case it is very badly written.

Deborah (Discerning the World)


They are men. It’s clear.

Burning Lamp

The NIV uses dynamic equivalancy – thought for thought rather than a true rendering of the words – you should only stick to translations such as the KJV and the NKJV IMHO. There are many problems with the NIV. It would be worth your time to do the research.



So men married women? Hardly a scoop. :)

anon please

I really like your website, but I’m not convinced you are right on this one. Jesus: “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.”

To me, that sounds like he is talking about the angels of heaven…the good guys. I allow for the possibility that the evil angels have the ability/power to do otherwise.

I am really not sure what is the truth about this one.
God bless, and good luck.

Deborah (Discerning the World)

anon please

Jesus: “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.”

So what are you saying that the bad angels when they left heaven grew penises? Is God not The Creator? He alone CREATES right? I strongly doubt God gave them sexual organs – for what reason?

Secondly demonic spirits were sent into the atmosphere and remained there as principalities in the AIR – they are spirits, they can not fornicate with human beings.


Renjy stated…The term “sons of God” can never be interpreted as believers in this chapter because Christ hadn’t come nor died in order for man to be redeemed. Using John 1:12 would actually disprove your point than establish it. To use this verse to prove the point is far worse than someone using Job 1:6 to prove who the sons of God are.

Christ died for ALL the SINS of the world…past,present and future…God Himself CREATED TIME being OMNIPOTENT…a concept we cannot understand because we are limited in knowledge and intelligence.

In a sense Christ died for guys like David,Moses, Abraham etc as they believed in the coming Messiah…they believed in repentance and the need to obey and follow God.


The context clearly speaks of a cohabitation that is unusual and unnatural and causes the worldwide flood. Gen 5-6 deals with the human cause and Gen 1-4 deals with the angelic cause.

Cohabitation between Sethites and Cainites would not be unusual or unnatural, while cohabitation between angels and humans would be.

Matt 22:30 speaks of angels in heaven; the comparison is not with angels in general, but with angels in heaven. The emphasis is that in heaven good angels neither marry, nor are given in marriage. Matt 22:30 makes the same point about human beings – humans in heaven do not marry, nor are they given into marriage.

Humans on earth do marry and are given into marriage. This is a contrast between what happens in heaven as over what happens here on earth. Gen 6 speaks of angels in earth!

Angels are never declared to be sexless! The masculine gender is always used! Read the Greek and Hebrew and notice the word-play: angels do not procreate after their own kind, meaning that angels do not give birth to other angels. Angles are never described in feminine or neuter. When angles in Scripture become visible they always appeared as young men.

Matt 22:30 cannot be used as an argument against the angelic interpretation of Gen 6:1-4 because it is dealing with a situation on earth, not in heaven, nor does Matt 22:30 teach that angels are sexless.

In context of Genesis as a book, Gen 6:1-4 was a satanic attempt to corrupt the Seed of the woman by having some of his angels take on human form, again, angels always appear as young males when they take on human form, and intermarry with humankind to try corrupt the Seed. It was an event were satan attempted to nullify the prophecy of Gen 3:15.

The result was Gen 6:3, Gods judgement. The judgement was to destroy the product in Gen 6:4.

Deborah (Discerning the World)


Did you read the article?


Yes, Debs, I did read the article!

I know Anton quite well and respect his teachings – like many other things in Scripture, this topic is open to debate.

I do not claim my view as doctrine or as 100% correct – there is only one Word, and Scripture can only interpret scripture, but we all view the Scripture differently,e.g. hermeneutics tough in University’s and Bible Colleges today are not found in Scripture, Paul for example used methods derrived from Midrash etc.

I also do not hold to aliens etc running around today, any such sighings are pure demonic.

Just for interest, the ancient Jews tranlated the phrase “sons of God”, as “angels of God” in their Septuagint. The hebrew word bene elohim can be nophing except angels in its contextual meaning. Also, the word “wives” hebrew: ishshah can be translated “woman”. There is no necessary intimation of actual marriage involved.

Anyhow, this topic does not and should not affect our relationship with God the Father and our fellow brethren, as it’s not a 100% made out scenario nor will it affect our salvation unless we allow it to become a total extra-biblical issue!

Deborah (Discerning the World)


You are right, it should not affect our relationship with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, unless you start off on a Chuck Missler tangent and start seeing UFO’s all over the place and expect the return of the Nephillim in the last days.

>> Just for interest, the ancient Jews tranlated the phrase “sons of God”, as “angels of God” in their Septuagint.

I think this is why God told us to not worry about other scripts and use the Bible alone, for the Word of God is TRUTH.


Amen – just remember our O.T are derived from the Septuagint and other writings, so in effect that is the Bible…

Therefore we cannot read into Scripture what is not there, I believe we should read and interpret plainly, as well as accept the obvious! I don’t agree with Anton that we should interpret the O.T with the new, but rather the known should intepret the unknonw, the clear should explain the unclear ect. It’s like a shadow when you walk down the street, the one cannot exist without the other!

I’m not saying by this I’m right, rather that I would be ignorant to think I understand this passage! I don’t think anyone does and I might even agree with what Anton says 100%, but for now I like to be different…lol!

One day we wil know!

Chris Rasmus

I just wanted to note that it doesn’t seem so outrageous that “angels” came down and had sexual relations with the daughters of men when you put 2 and 2 together. I.e., The “angels” that came down are the same ones that LEFT their FIRST ABODE.

In other words, they weren’t “angels” they were what we would call demons.

Or so it appears to my often prone to fail, see through a glass darkly incredibly frail and all too human mind. :P

Anyway, try to follow my line of reasoning…

If there were “angels” who left their first abode (Heaven) they obviously went somewhere. If they left Heaven and went somewhere, then where? Where else is there? Earth!

Ok so now we’ve got angels who left Heaven and came to Earth…to LIVE. Remember we’re talking about abodes and not just relocation. They left their first abode and came to their next one, Earth.

So now they’re living on Earth. But doing what? Apparently something so bad that they deserved to be thrown in the abyss for it.

But what?

I proffer that they were doing what is described in Genesis: taking wives of the daughters of men and birthing extra-ordinary offspring.

I would even go one step further and proffer that these offspring and their sires are what gave rise to many of our myths and mythologies (e.g., Greek gods = demon sires and Greek demi-gods = their renowned offspring).

I’d also like to throw in the reference in Daniel (3:25?) to “one like unto the son of God” referring to the 4th figure in the fire. Checking in my Strong’s it appears that the language used is identical to that used in Genesis. I find it hard to believe that the 4th figure was not an angel. Additionally, I’m finding the usage in Job is also identical. How could the term “son(s) of God” NOT refer to angelic beings?

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Take care!

Martin Horan

Hi, I’ve just found this part of your site about five minutes ago and it’s really a soundly biblical and soundly logical argument.
Oddly enough, a day or maybe two ago (my memory’s not what it was!) I posted a similar thing on another part of your site, stating some of the same objections against this idea of angels having sex with women.
The sad thing about such loopy ideas is that holes are easily popped in them and then people who think that these fictions actually build their faith end up with it being destroyed. That’s because many–maybe even most–Christians do not really apply 1 Thess 5:21 & 1 John 4:1 to their thinking.
Also, when logical people hear these arguments they conclude that Christianity itself is stupid and so reject it outright. These fables do not glorify God even though their proponents may intend that. They really dishonour Him.
I have seen this happen when people have fallen into the trap of Anglo-Israelism. They believed all what they were hearing & reading and thought they were receiving deeper insight into the Bible.
Often Christians can be like Freemasons, astrologers, numerologists, palmists, flat-earthers, God-was-a-spaceman believers and the like. Extraneous “knowledge” makes them feel that they have a corner on truth which no-one else has. That can be heady. Sadly, it can turn people into fantasists. That, of course, suits Satan–the author of these things–because it leads people away from God.
The English poet Alexander Pope wrote four lines of verse which I wish Christians (who don’t take the above Scriptures seriously) would think on. They are:
A little learning is a dang’rous thing;
Drink deep or taste not of the Perian Spring,
For there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain
While drinking largely sobers us again.
I don’t wish to be offensive but it is usually people who do not have much learning who grasp at these superfluous straws. Learning is not the be-all-and-end-all in this life. Indeed, Paul, a highly-educated man, warned us that knowledge puffs up. I also think that if people could reason more logically it would help. Though that is not the be-all-and-end-all either. Something else is:
The Holy Spirit will guide us into ALL truth–truth necessary to salvation, that is.
Is any of this superfluous knowledge necessary to salvation? Not a bit of it!
All it means is that concerned Christians have to go to the trouble of refuting it. Thankfully, Anton Bosch did so definitively, hammering the last nail, as it were, into that coffin of confusion.
One thing I do have to thank him, and your site, for is that I had thought the photographs of the giant skeletons were genuine. As I have no problems believing that there were giants on the earth–the Bible says there were–I simply took it for granted that the photos were real. Alas, even they were hoaxes.
Thanks again to Mr Bosch and your site, I now have a more realistic view even of the sizes of the Biblical giants.
Keep up the good work!


Any thoughts about how the giants after the flood came to have six fingers and six

1Sam. 21:20 and 1Chron.20:6

Deborah (Discerning the World)


Firstly, there is no verse 1 Sam 21:20.

1 Chronicles 20:4-6
4 Now it happened afterward that war broke out at Gezer with the Philistines, at which time Sibbechai the Hushathite killed Sippai, who was one of the sons of the giant. And they were subdued.
5 Again there was war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
6 Yet again there was war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, with twenty-four fingers and toes, six on each hand and six on each foot; and he also was born to the giant. 7 So when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea, David’s brother, killed him.

Now if you read the article and comments properly you will read that David was almost as big as Goliath (a Giant) was when he grew into a man because he could wield Goliath’s sword. Sippai (v4) who was the son of a Giant was also a Philistine, the same tribe as Goliath killed by Sibbechai (1 man). Then there was another Philistine born to the same Giant who was of ‘great statue’ (meaning he was renown and well known) and he clearly had deformities and a deformity in no way implies that they were offspring from demons. Are people who are born with deformities today offspring from demons? No. David’s brother Johathan was obviously as big as his brother when he killed him this man with 24 fingers and toes.

PLEASE read the article and comment properly as these answers have already been provided. Do you really think that God would flood the world to wipe out these ‘giants’ and make a mistake by missing a few when he CLEARLY only saved Noah and his family?


Thanks for your reply. I’m not being argumentative – I’ll go back and take a look again. And sorry for my mistake on the first ref. it was 2Sam.21:20.


There is no proof that I can see that David was the same or similar height to Goliath. David was able to handle the Golliath’s sword when he was a youth – 1Sam. 17:49-58.

Aside from that, your article is thought provoking and I’m going to look into this subject re how these giants came to be further ’till I’m satisfied I have arrived at the right conclusion from scripture.

Deborah (Discerning the World)


>> David was able to handle the Golliath’s sword when he was a youth

So you can’t see the logic that David can easily wield a giants sword in battle. David would have to be almost the same size as Goliath when he grew up? Have you ever held a normal sized sword? Goliath’s sword was made to his size and “There is none like it” (1 Sam 21:9) and David (when he was KING) was big enough to use it in battle.

I am not being argumentative either. You go do your research as I have for the past 2 years on this subject. I have gone back and forth, back and forth between the two notions and I am now thoroughly satisfied that this is the truth.

You quote 2 Samuel 21: “20 Yet again there was war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also was born to the giant.”

…This is the same guy as 1 Chronicles 20:6

And you quote the wrong verse, (1Sam. 17:49-58.) David killed Goliath with a stone, but later when he was KING he used Goliath’s sword in battle. You show me scripture to prove nothing.

This is what you want to read:

1 Samuel 21:8-11
8 And David said to Ahimelech, “Is there not here on hand a spear or a sword? For I have brought neither my sword nor my weapons with me, because the king’s business required haste.
9 So the priest said, “The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom you killed in the Valley of Elah, there it is, wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod. If you will take that, take it. For there is no other except that one here.
And David said, There is none like it; give it to me.
David Flees to Gath
10 Then David arose and fled that day from before Saul, and went to Achish the king of Gath. 11 And the servants of Achish said to him, “Is this not David the king of the land? Did they not sing of him to one another in dances, saying:
‘Saul has slain his thousands, And David his ten thousands’?”

Irma van der Colff

I only just came across your website, and what a pleasure it is! Soooo much work has gone into this and I pray that God will use and bless this work abundantly.

I would like, however, too suggets a different view on this matter:

1]The article states that it’s quite clear that the sons of God refers to humans, but if you consider it truthfully, you must admit that it is equally clear or unclear to both sides. Actually, it is clearer to the deamon-interpretation, because there is:
1)a clear distinction made between ‘the sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men'[or are women not children of God then, and what about unsaved men – are they referred to as son of God?] and
2) the only beings ever referred to as sons of God were Adam [the 1st man:created by God personally, and angels:also created by God personally [of whom 1/3 became demonic]. All other humans are called sons and daughters of men – they were all born of women, thus God created them indirectly through the laws of life that He set in motion – even Jesus called Himself the son of man [very specifically so to identify Himself with us]. It is only through the new birth that a human can become a son of God. This to me is much clearer.

If you read accounts of satanists, i.e. Rebecca Brown’s: He came to set the captives free, you will learn that deamons indeed can have intercourse with humans, and that they can indeed take on different shapes – I really advise you to read the book.The demons locked away refers to those from before the flood. There are, it seems, the demons throughout the ages also leave their boundaries, just as the men in Sodom did, and they were punished for it, yet many others do the same without taking head of what had happened to the Sodomites – but the day of punishment for them too, is approaching.

I agree with your interpretation of the giants – it does not take a rocket scientist to note that the nefillim-photo’s are fake. I do believe that Goliath’s tribe [the Refaiets-2Ch20-family of Goliath]were exceptionally large men. My brother is a very big man. He went to and he was literally like a giant in their midst – standing not only shoulders above them but up to his waist. I have a gardener who is 5 foot tall but as strong as an ox [david and Goliath’s sword]. The Bible describeGoliath as 9ft 8’, and they have indeed found a scull of a man approximately 10 feet in Jerusalem. You will find a photo at Google images: Goliath’s head. I copied one of the article for you: It was reported on in the Jerusalem Post’The ‘Kingdom Times,’ Belfast, May 1994, carried the story of how a leading archaeologist had found Goliath’s skull in a valley west of Jerusalem with the stone from David’s slingshot still embedded in his forehead! Dr. Richard Martin says the discovery proves that David’s battle with the 10-foot giant happened just like the Bible said it did, 1,000 years before the birth of Yahshua. ‘This is the archaeological find of the century, if not of all time,’ Dr. Martin told reporters at a conference in Jerusalem. ‘Many people, including scholars and clergymen, would have us believe that the biblical account of David and Goliath is little more than an interesting piece of fiction,’ he said. ‘But we found this skull in the valley of Elah, in the foothills of the Judean mountains, where David’s battle with Goliath was said to have taken place. Even more intriguing, the skull is HUGE and clearly belonged to a man of ENORMOUS STATUE. ‘And if you believe the Bible, you know that Goliath was 9 feet 8 inches tall. ‘But the most telling piece of evidence is the small round rock we found embedded in the forehead. The Bible tells that David killed Goliath with a stone flung from a leather sling. ‘Dr. Martin found the skull during an archaeological survey 20 miles south-west of Jerusalem on 23rd March, 1993. He and his assistants instantly realized that the find was important; but it was only when they had performed tests which showed the skull to be between 2,900 and 3,000 years old that they began to think they had found the remains of Goliath. ‘The Bible places the battle between David and Goliath around 990 B.C., or 1,000 years before the birth of Yahshua,’ Dr. Martin said. ‘According to the Bible the battle began as a band of Israelites were preparing to fight a band of Philistines in the Valley of Elah. ‘At that point in history it was common for enemies to avoid massive casualties by allowing one man fron each side to fight for their respective armies. To quote the Bible, Goliath, challenged the Israelites to ‘choose a man and let him come to me. If he be able to fight with me and kill me, then we will be your servants. But if I…kill him, then you will serve us.’ ‘David answered the challenge and killed Goliath with a single stone thrown from a leather sling. When Goliath hit the ground, David chopped off his head with Goliath’s own sword. ‘As I said before, the skull that we found had a rock stuck in the forehead. There was also evidence to suggest that the head had been SEVERED from the body by a sharp object, most likely a sword. There can be little doubt that this is Goliath’s skull. To be perfectly frank, I’m staking my career on it,’ said Dr. Martin.’ — Michael A. Clark, Wake Up! July/August 1994

Irma van der Colff

You should wangle your page so that the latest comments show at the top, not at the bottom :)

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x