Hi Neels

You will agree that in our studies of the Bible, we have only two alternatives to consider: truth and lies. John 14:6 says that Jesus is the very essence of truth, while John 8:44 declares that Satan is the father of all lies. The title “father” indicates that he is the source and originator of ALL lies. Unless Satan is anything but a demon, the Nephilim hypothesis cannot be anything but a doctrine of demons. It cannot be a doctrine of Jesus Christ, as you yourself agreed to in your comment.

As for the Nephilim not being a salvation issue, the following. It may not have any bearing on salvation per se, but it surely disparages the unique incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which are two core elements of salvation. I wrote the following :

If Jesus’ reference was to fallen angels rather than the saints in heaven, then we must conclude that the fallen angels had at some time experienced a miraculous incarnational transformation from spirit to flesh.

Only the bond between two fleshly entities constitutes a divinely ordained marriage (Mark 10:8-9). Consequently, the Nephilim hypothesis undermines not only the doctrine of resurrection but also the doctrine of incarnation. This is very serious and dangerous.

Demons cannot incarnate themselves, and it is inconceivable that God would engage in such an act, which would be considered unholy.

A small amount of leaven can lead one astray. Truth is not a matter of varying shades of grey; rather, it is an absolute quality of God (John 14:6). This unwavering truth delineates a precise gate and path that believers are encouraged to enter and traverse. (Matthew 7:13-14).

If the Nephilim is not considered a doctrinal issue, what justifies Jack Hibbs’ extensive focus on it, including preaching, developing an entire YouTube series, and authoring a book on the topic?

But calling Jack Hibbs’ view a “doctrine of demons” goes further than Scripture requires. This is a secondary interpretive issue, not a salvation issue. Christians have disagreed on the identity of the “sons of God” for centuries without accusing one another of demonic doctrine.

A few key points matter here:

Jesus explicitly states that angels do not marry or reproduce. If angels could take reproductive bodies, Jesus’ statement would be false. That alone rules out angel‑human offspring.

Angels appearing as men is not the same as becoming biological men. They can manifest physically, but they do not take on DNA, chromosomes, or reproductive capability. Hebrews 1:14 and Luke 24:39 make that clear.

Genesis 6 describes marriage. The text says the “sons of God” took wives. Marriage is a human covenant, not an angelic activity.

The Nephilim appear again after the flood in Numbers 13:33. If they were hybrids wiped out by the flood, they couldn’t reappear. That shows they were human warrior clans, not supernatural beings.

And the flood judged human sin, not angelic sin. Genesis 6:5 says “the wickedness of man was great.” The text never blames angels for corrupting the earth.

Where your article is strong is in its angelology and its critique of the hybrid theory. Where it overreaches is in treating this as a heresy-level issue and attacking the man instead of the argument. We can reject the hybrid view without dividing the body of Christ unnecessarily.

The biblical data supports a human interpretation of Genesis 6, but the tone should match the weight of the doctrine. This is not a gospel-level issue.