John Gilbert wrote:

Gen_6:4 teaches that there were giants on the earth “in those days” (before the flood), “and also after that” (after those days which were before the flood), as a result of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men. If the sons of God were the sons of Seth, we can account for them “after that” (after the flood), for the line of Seth was continued through Noah. But with the daughters of Cain (supposed by some to be the daughters of men) the story is different. Cain’s line perished in the flood, which means there were no daughters of Cain after the flood for sons of God to marry.

If Jesus is the Son of God, as you may know, He truly is, then he must have had a lineage before Shem and, in fact, from the very beginning. Or was Shem the beginning of Christ’s lineage? The Nephilim hypothesis has its origin in paganism when they began to believe that kings and queens were the offspring of the copulation between a pantheon of gods and humans.

John Gilbert wrote:

” . . . Noah was the only son of God by righteousness during this time (Gen_6:8-9; Gen_7:1; 2Pe_2:4-5). His sons were preserved in the ark because of being pure Adamite stock, not because of personal righteousness.”

Once again, you vilify the true Gospel of God. The ark Noah built was in many respects a type of Jesus Christ which I won’t go into now. What you are saying in effect is that you can be in Christ without being righteous. You only need to be of pure Adamite stock, whatever that may mean. Could it mean that all those who are of pure Adamite stock were not conceived by a fallen angel and an earthly mother?

John, could you please tell us how you were saved?

John Gilbert wrote:

There were no men godly enough to be saved during the Antediluvian Age except Abel (Gen_4:4; Heb_11:4), Enoch (Gen_5:21-24; Heb_11:5), and Noah (Gen_6:8; Gen_7:1; Heb_11:7), as far as Scripture is concerned. Shall we conclude that these three men were the sons of God who married the daughters of Cain and produced races of giants in the earth in those days before the flood (Gen_6:4)? We have no record of any marriage or offspring of Abel before he was murdered. Regarding Enoch, are we to believe that Methuselah and his other children were the giants? Are we to believe that Noah’s three sons—Shem, Ham, and Japheth—were giants? If so, where is our authority for this? Had this been true, there would have been nothing on earth after the flood but giants, for by Noah’s children the whole earth was replenished (Gen_10:1-32). That would cause another unsolved mystery—how giants became ordinary-sized men again.

I have already proven that you hold to another Gospel and not the Gospel of God, and here again, you show that your Gospel is another gospel. Since when must you be godly enough to be saved? Oops, I’m sorry I now recall what Jesus once said:

For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which is godly enough. (Luke 19:10). Are you godly enough, John?

The word “nephil” (giant) does not always refer to the physical stature of a man or a woman. It also means to be a “bully” or a “tyrant” like Nimrod who hunted and eliminated other tyrants (Nephilim) to establish his kingdom of Babel in revolt against God.

Josh Gilbert

Your Nephilim hypothesis is another Gospel. Let me repeat that: Your Nephilim hypothesis is another Gospel. It is not the Gospel of God. You said that Satan’s plan was to prevent the Redeemer from coming to earth to fulfill his redemptive work on the cross for all mankind. To accomplish this, he defiled all womankind (with the exception of Noah’s wife and his three sons’ wives) by sending his fallen angels to marry and have sex with them and to produce giants on the earth.

You said: “It was the purpose of Satan and his fallen angels to corrupt the human race and thereby do away with pure Adamite stock through whom the Seed of the woman should come.” What do you mean by pure Adamic stock? Are you suggesting that Adam and Eve’s sin did not putrefy the entire human race that followed them in their generations, including Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives, and that only those who were tainted by the fallen angels’ “semen” (God forbid) and had giants of 450 feet tall (according to the gnostic book “Enoch,”) deserved to perish in the flood. What happened to Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:”

Noah and his household (the Adamic stock) were defiled sinners as much as the rest of the pre-Flood stock. The only difference was that Noah and his household followed the way of Abel who brought an offering of his flock (blood had to be shed for the remission of sin) as an act of faith in the coming Redeemer whilst the rest of mankind followed the way of Cain (Jude 11:11 – a bloodless offering) as an act of their rebellion and rejection of the coming Redeemer. Yet you, like the late Chuck Missler, would like to attribute the rest of mankind’s fall into sin to a physical blemish. Missler believed that the word “tamiym” in Genesis 6:9 always refers to a physical blemish, and in this case the physical blemish was caused by fallen angels having sex with earthly women. What utter rubbish.

Physical contamination cannot and will never play any part in God’s governance to declare someone righteous or unrighteous – not even the alleged contamination of human being’s DNA and genetics by fallen angels, if that had been possible to any degree. Such a notion is sheer nonsense and vilifies God and his Gospel. Unless, of course, righteousness could be attained through physical health and spotless or unblemished DNA in those ancient times. This sounds so much like today’s Word of Faith teaching that sickness is a sign of unrighteousness. An unsullied physical frame was applicable only to the priests and the sacrificial animals because both represented the perfect sinlessness of Jesus Christ. (Leviticus 21:16-23). This brings us now to Strong’s etymological description of the word: tamiym (taw-meem’). Our illustrious scholar, Vernon Gray, says the word tamiym (taw-meem’) is used for physical blemishes. Well, let’s see whether he is correct. The Strong’s Bible Dictionary defines the word as follows:

From H8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as a noun) integrity, truth: – without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (sincerity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright (up-rightly), whole.

In the New Testament “without spot or wrinkle, and “without blemish” refer to the spiritual nature of the church (Bride of Christ) (Ephesians 5:27). The question now, is this: At what stage in the history of the children (sons) of God did the meaning of the terms “without spot,” “undefiled” and “without blemish” change from a uniquely physical to a spiritual? If the antediluvian sinners were saved in the very same way the New Testament and present-day sinners are saved, all the attributes mentioned above have a spiritual and not a physical meaning. Yes indeed, the word refers to a physical blemish, but always in the context of the sacrificial system in the Old Testament, because it represents the sinlessness of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

It is never used for mankind in general to designate his or her physical makeup, let alone the naturalness or unnaturalness of their DNA or genetic substance. When it is not used in connection with the sacrificial animals and the priestly office in the Old Testament, it always refers to moral and spiritual integrity and not to unblemished physical substance. For instance; May we say that tamiym (taw-meem’) in Ezekiel 28:15 refers to Satan’s physical perfection before his fall?

It is inconceivable to associate the word tâmı̂ym with physical substance in Ezekiel 28:15 because Satan is an invisible spirit being. Oh, I just love it when a single verse in the Bible is so powerful that it puts to rest once and for all an erroneous doctrine like the Nephilim and zips the mouths of those who herald their false teaching. Are they going to listen and repent of their evil? I doubt it.

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (like the Nephilim gibberish). (2 Timothy 4:1-4).

Read this article if you will.

https://www.discerningtheworld.com/2017/05/19/nephilim/
https://www.discerningtheworld.com/2017/05/24/nephilim-part-2/

Genesis 6:2
Sons of God
Seth didn’t have a son until 235 years after creation, and his son didn’t have a son until 325 years after creation (Gen_5:3, Gen_5:6, Gen_5:9). Where did these sons come from? They couldn’t have been sons of Seth, because these marriages took place when men began to multiply—in the very beginning of the race before Seth had sons of marriageable age. The term “sons of God” proves they were the product of God, not Seth. They were the fallen angels of 1Pe_3:19; 2Pe_2:4; Jud_1:6-7. See the Septuagint; Josephus, Antiquities Book 1, 3:1; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII, p. 273; and Giants and the Sons of God.

Genesis 6:4
   [giant] Hebrew: nephiliym (H5303), plural of nephil (H5303), tyrant, giant. Trans. giant only here and in Num_13:33. The Hebrew gibbowr (H1368) is translated “giant” in Job_16:14; the seventeen other occurrences of “giant” or “giants” is the Hebrew rapha’ (H7497).

[they bare children to them] Women had children by both fallen angels and men. It wasn’t necessary to emphasize children by men, but having children by angels was significant (Gen_6:4; Jud_1:6-7). Because of this sin “it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth” (Gen_6:1-6). Read the whole thing in context. The giants were born and then evil filled the earth continually.

Proofs that Giants Were the Sons of Angels:
1.    The fact that giants have lived on earth is clearly stated in Scripture. The Hebrew nephil (H5303) means “giant” or “tyrant” (Gen_6:4; Num_13:33). The men of Israel were as grasshoppers compared to them (Num_13:33). The Hebrew gibbowr (H1368) is also translated “giant,” meaning powerful, giant, mighty, or strong man (Job_16:14). To say these original words refer to their degree of wickedness instead of bodily size is a mistake.
The Anakims were a great and tall people (Deu_1:28; Deu_2:10-11, Deu_2:21; Deu_9:2; Jos_11:21-22; Jos_14:12-14). Anak himself was a giant (Num_13:33). If all Anakims were as big, we can be assured other giants were also. The land of Ammon was “a land of giants,” for “giants dwelt therein in old time” (Deu_2:19-20). The Emims were also “great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims” (Deu_2:10-11). The same was said of the Zamzummims who formerly inhabited the land of Ammon (Deu_2:19-21). Og, king of Bashan, is described as a giant whose iron bedstead was thirteen and a half feet long, and six feet wide. This is not a measurement of wickedness, but of a material bed for a giant body measuring nearly thirteen feet tall (Deu_3:11; Jos_12:4; Jos_13:12). Bashan is called “the land of the giants” (Deu_3:13).
A “valley of the giants” is mentioned in Jos_15:8; Jos_18:16. This is the valley of Rephaim, the name of another branch of the giant races mentioned in Scripture (Gen_14:5; Gen_15:20; 2Sa_5:18, 2Sa_5:22; 2Sa_23:13; 1Ch_11:15; 1Ch_14:9; Isa_17:5). The Rephaims were well-known giants, but unfortunately, instead of retaining their proper name in Scripture, the translators used dead (Job_26:5; Psa_88:10; Pro_2:18; Pro_9:18; Pro_21:16; Isa_14:8; Isa_26:19); and deceased (Isa_26:14). It should have been a proper name in all these places, as it is ten times otherwise.

Rephaim is translated “giant” in Deu_2:11, Deu_2:20; Deu_3:11, Deu_3:13; Jos_12:4; Jos_13:12; Jos_15:8; Jos_18:16; 2Sa_21:16, 2Sa_21:18, 2Sa_21:20, 2Sa_21:22; 1Ch_20:4, 1Ch_20:6, 1Ch_20:8. The phrase “remnant of the giants” in Deu_3:11; Jos_12:4; Jos_13:12 should be “remnant of the Rephaims,” because there were many nations of giants other than the Rephaims who filled the whole country trying to contest God’s claim on the promised land. They are listed as Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaims, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites, Jebusites, Hivites, Anakims, Emims, Horims, Avims, Zamzummims, Caphtorims, and Nephilims (Gen_6:4; Gen_14:5-6; Gen_15:19-21; Exo_3:8, Exo_3:17; Exo_23:23; Deu_2:10-12, Deu_2:20-23; Deu_3:11-13; Deu_7:1; Deu_20:17; Jos_12:4-8; Jos_13:3; Jos_15:8; Jos_17:15; Jos_18:16). Og was of the remnant of Rephaims, not the remnant of all other giant nations (Deu_3:11; Jos_12:4; Jos_13:12).

All these giant nations came from a union of the sons of God (fallen angels) and daughters of men after the flood. Beings of great stature, some of them even had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot and carried spears weighing from 10 to 25 pounds (2Sa_21:16-22; 1Ch_20:4-8). Goliath, whom David slew, wore a coat of armor weighing 196 pounds and was nine feet and nine inches tall (1Sa_17:4-6). The pyramids of Egypt, the giant cities of Bashan and other huge monuments of construction may remain a mystery until they are accepted as the result of the labor and skill of giants.

The revelation we have of giants in Scripture gives us a true picture of what Greek mythology tries in vain to give. Mythology is but the outgrowth of traditions, memories, and legends telling of the acts of supernatural fathers and their giant offspring—the perversion and corruption in transmission of actual facts concerning these mighty beings. The fact that giants were partly of supernatural origin made it easy for human beings to regard them as gods.

2.    The fact that the Rephaim have no resurrection (Isa_26:14) proves the reality of giants and that they were not ordinary men. All ordinary men are to be resurrected (Joh_5:28-29); therefore, giants must be a different class from pure Adamites. Isaiah makes it clear that the dead (Hebrew: Repha’iym (H7497)) are now in hell (Isa_14:9). Solomon confirms this in Pro_2:18; Pro_9:18; Pro_21:16 where the Hebrew word for dead is Rephaim. See notes, Isa_26:14, Isa_26:19.

3.    The fact that giants came only from a union of sons of God and daughters of men proves that their fathers were not ordinary men of Adamite stock. No such monstrosities have been produced from the union of any ordinary man and woman, regardless of the righteousness of the father or the wickedness of the mother. Many converted men who are sons of God in the sense of adoption and righteousness through Christ have been married to unconverted women, and no offspring the size of Biblical giants has ever resulted from these unions. If, as some teach, giants were born of such unions both before and after the flood, then why do not such marriages produce that kind of offspring today? Why did this happen in every case then and never today?

4.    God’s law of reproduction from the beginning has been everything after its own kind. It was not possible then that giants could be produced by men and women of ordinary size (Gen_1:11-12, Gen_1:21, Gen_1:24-25; Gen_8:19). It took a supernatural element, the purpose and power of Satan and his angels, to make human offspring of such proportion. After giants came into being, they then produced others of like size instead of ordinary sized men (Num_13:33; 2Sa_21:16, 2Sa_21:18, 2Sa_21:20, 2Sa_21:22; 1Ch_20:4-8).

5.    Not only is it unscriptural but unhistorical to teach that giants came from the union of ordinary men and women. The great question has been: Where did giants get their start? Gen_6:4 makes it clear—from a union of the sons of God and daughters of men. If the sons of God were ordinary men in the same sense that the daughters of men were ordinary women, then we must conclude four things:
(1)    Ungodly women have the power to produce such monsters if married to godly men.
(2)    Godly men have the power to produce giants when married to ungodly women.
(3)    A mixture of godliness and wickedness produces giants.
(4)    Extreme wickedness on the part of either parent will produce giant offspring.
All four conclusions are wrong, however, as proven every day by the ordinary offspring of wicked and godly parents. Thus, the theory that giants came from the marriage of Seth’s sons with Cain’s daughters is disproved.

6.    The sons of God could not have been the sons of Seth or other godly men for the following seven reasons:
(1)    There were no men godly enough to be saved during the Antediluvian Age except Abel (Gen_4:4; Heb_11:4), Enoch (Gen_5:21-24; Heb_11:5), and Noah (Gen_6:8; Gen_7:1; Heb_11:7), as far as Scripture is concerned. Shall we conclude that these three men were the sons of God who married the daughters of Cain and produced races of giants in the earth in those days before the flood (Gen_6:4)? We have no record of any marriage or offspring of Abel before he was murdered. Regarding Enoch, are we to believe that Methuselah and his other children were the giants? Are we to believe that Noah’s three sons—Shem, Ham, and Japheth—were giants? If so, where is our authority for this? Had this been true, there would have been nothing on earth after the flood but giants, for by Noah’s children the whole earth was replenished (Gen_10:1-32). That would cause another unsolved mystery—how giants became ordinary sized men again.

1.    The expression “sons of God” is found only five times in the Old Testament and every time it is used of angels (Gen_6:1-4; Job_1:6; Job_2:1; Job_38:7). It is indisputable that the passages in Job refer to angels. Dan_3:25, Dan_3:28 calls an angel “the son of God.” Is it not possible then, that the sons of God of Gen_6:1-22 could be angels?

2.    Some translations (the Septuagint, Moffatt, and others) read, “angels of God” in Gen_6:1-4, which is the only idea that harmonizes with this passage and many other.

3.    Josephus says, “many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength … these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants” (Antiquities, Book 1, 3:1). Again he says, “There were till then left the race of giants, who had bodies so large, and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing. The bones of these men are still shown to this very day” (Antiquities, Book 5, 2:3).

4.    The Ante-Nicene Fathers also refer to angels as falling “into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh. Of these lovers of virgins, therefore, were begotten those who are called giants” (vol. 2, p. 142; vol. 8, p. 85, 273). Justyn Martyr (A.D. 110-165) says, “But the angels transgressed … were captivated by love of women, and begat children” (vol. 2, p. 190). Methodius (A.D. 260-312) says, “the devil was insolent … as also those (angels) who were enamoured of fleshly charms, and had illicit intercourse with the daughters of men” (vol. 6, p. 370).

5.    Both testaments teach that some angels committed sexual sins and lived contrary to nature. Gen_6:1-4 gives the history of such sinning. 2Pe_2:4-5 says that angels sinned before the flood and were cast down to hell to be reserved until judgment. It doesn’t reveal the sin as fornication, but Jud_1:6-7 does, saying, “the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah , and the cities about them in like manner (as did the angels), giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” If Sodom, Gomorrah and other cities lived contrary to nature and committed fornication, as the angels did, then it is clear that the sin of angels was fornication. According to Gen_6:1-22, this sexual sin was committed with “daughters of men.” See notes on 2Pe_2:4; Jud_1:6-7.

6.    The one scripture used to teach that angels are sexless (Mat_22:30) doesn’t say they are. It states that “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” The purpose of this verse is to show that resurrected men and women do not marry to keep their kind in existence. In the resurrected state they live forever, but not as sexless beings. The Bible teaches that every person will continue bodily as he was born, throughout eternity. Paul said that everyone will have his own body in the resurrection (1Co_15:35-38). Both males and females will be resurrected as such, though their bodies will be changed from mortality to immortality (1Co_15:35-54). There is nothing in the resurrection to uncreate men and women. Christ remained a man after His resurrection and so will all other males.

Throughout Scripture angels are spoken of as men. No female angels are on record. It is logical to say then that the female was created specifically to keep the human race in existence; and that all angels were created males, inasmuch as their kind exists without reproduction. Angels were created innumerable to start with (Heb_12:22), whereas humanity began with one pair, Adam and Eve, who were commanded to reproduce and make multitudes. That angels have tangible spirit bodies, appear as men, and perform acts surpassing those of the human male is clear from many passages. See note, Heb_13:2.
When Jude states that some angels “kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation” (Jud_1:6), he makes it understandable how a sexual sin could be accomplished by them. The Greek word for “habitation” is oiketerion (G3613). It is used only twice in Scripture: of the bodies of men being changed to spiritual bodies (2Co_5:2), and the angels having a bodily change, or at least a lowering of themselves in some way (Jud_1:6-7). Thus, the New Testament helps explain the history of the Old Testament
7.    There are two classes of fallen angels—those loose with Satan who will be cast down to earth during the future tribulation (Rev_12:7-12), and those who are now bound in hell for committing fornication (2Pe_2:4; Jud_1:6-7). Had the ones in hell not committed the additional sin of fornication, they would still be loose with the others to help Satan in the future. Their confinement proves they committed a sin besides that of original rebellion with Satan. That it was sexual sin is clear from 2Pe_2:4 and Jud_1:6-7, which identifies this class of fallen angels as the sons of God of Gen_6:1-4.

8.    In 1Pe_3:19-20 we see that Christ “went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing.” Who are these spirits in prison, if not the confined angels who at one time lived contrary to their nature—in sin with the daughters of men (Gen_6:1-4)? We read “Who maketh his angels spirits” (Psa_104:4; Heb_1:13-14). If angels are spirits, we conclude that the imprisoned spirits Christ preached to were angels and the sons of God referred to in Gen_6:1-22, especially since they “were disobedient … in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing.” The very purpose of Noah’s flood was to destroy the giant offspring of these angels known as the sons of God who “came in unto the daughters of men.” See Ten Proofs Spirits Are Angels.

The Purpose of Satan in Producing Giants:
It was the purpose of Satan and his fallen angels to corrupt the human race and thereby do away with pure Adamite stock through whom the Seed of the woman should come. This would avert their own doom and make it possible for Satan and his kingdom to keep control of the earth indefinitely. It was said to Adam and Eve that the Seed of the woman would defeat Satan and restore man’s dominion (Gen_3:15). The only way for Satan to avoid this predicted defeat was to corrupt the pure Adamite line so that the coming of the Seed of the woman into the world would be made impossible. This he tried to accomplish by sending fallen angels to marry the daughters of men (Gen_6:1-4), thus producing the giant nations through them.
There are two episodes with fallen angels taught in Gen_6:4. There were giants in the earth “in those days (before the flood), and also after that (after the flood), when the sons of God (fallen angels) came in unto the daughters of men (any daughters of men—Cain, Seth and others), and they bare children to them (to the angels).”
Satan almost succeeded in his plan during the first episode, for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth; of all the multitudes Noah and his sons were the only pure Adamites left to be preserved by the ark (Gen_6:8-13; 1Pe_3:19-20). The main object of the flood was to do away with this Satanic corruption, destroy the giants, and preserve the pure Adamite line, thus guaranteeing of the coming of the Seed of the woman, as God planned.
Being defeated before the flood didn’t stop Satan from making a further attempt to prevent the coming of the Redeemer who would be his final downfall. It was now to his advantage that God had promised never to send another universal flood upon the earth. Satan therefore reasoned that he should make a second attempt to do away with the Adamite line. If he came within “eight souls” of doing it before the flood, his opportunities were now even greater with the promise that there would be no such flood. This is the reason the second group of fallen angels married the daughters of men. Again the unions produced giants whose races occupied the land of promise—where the Seed should be born—in advance of Abraham. Limited by His promise of no flood, God had to destroy the giants another way. This explains why He commanded Israel to kill every one of them, even to the last man, woman and child. It also explains why He destroyed all the men, women and children besides Noah and his family, at the time of the flood it answers the skeptics’ question regarding why children were taken away with adults in the flood. God had to end this corruption entirely to fulfill His eternal plan and give the world its promised Redeemer. The Redeemer has come now, so Satan is reserving his forces for a last stand at the second coming of Christ.

Thus, it is clear from Scripture that there were giants in the earth both before and after the flood and that they came from a union of fallen angels and the daughters of men.

You can tell me I am the devil and obsessed with the occult all you want. Fact is this is what our early church fathers closet to the apostles understood of scripture. This is why we have structures of this earth we cannot understand. This is why we have mythology. This is why we have the book of Enoch and the book of giants and many other books that deal with these writings. (not for canon but for historical writings.) Satan has been trying to hide the truth of Giants on this earth because it proves the bible. You can research hundereds of old news paper articles of the discovery of giants all over the world and tons in the middle east and almost everyone of them say “taken by the Smithsonian institute for further research” Yet, they claim they have none at all. This is why as the days of Noah so shall the coming of Jesus be. They are doing it again right now with A.I.