There are two general positions debated among good Christians as to the identity of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4. However, because "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20), of these two opposing positions, only one can be correct.
This two-part message explains why the pop-view and its resulting Nephilim/Alien infatuation promoted by Thomas Horn, Steve Quayle, LA Marzulli and others, that the sons of God in that chapter are fallen angels who abduct and mate with human women to produce a cross-bred race of monstrous giants called the Nephilim, is BY FAR the least Biblical and most objectionable of the two positions.
Part One of the series lays out the two opposing views, exposes the folly of reliance upon extra-biblical sources such as the alleged books of Jasher and Enoch, and exposes those two sources as fabricated frauds filled with fantasy, fairy tales, folklore, and outright HERESY. Those that rely on these sources to support their position do so to their own shame and embarrassment.
Part Two presents three well grounded arguments from the Bible showing that the sons of God in Genesis 6, COULD NOT have been fallen angels:
1. Angels are created spirit beings, not physical, cannot transform themselves into humans, and are not capable of mating with human women.
2. The text itself of Genesis 6 does not support the fallen angels/nephilim theory.
3. Hebrews 1:5 - God does NOT call angels sons. Especially DEVILS who conspire to corrupt the human blood line to thwart God's plan to send the Messiah. This theory has no basis in scripture whatsoever.
Featuring a sermon puts it on the front page of the site and is the most effective way to bring this sermon to the attention of thousands including all mobile platforms + newsletter.
Text-Featuring a sermon is a less expensive way to bring this sermon to the attention of thousands on the right bar with optional newsletter inclusion. As low as $30/day.
“ Thankyou for Asking ” Thanks for the comment and question Suez. Angels are spiritual beings that can appear in human form, but that does not enable them to mate with human women to produce physical offspring. I believe Christ made it clear at Matt. 22:30, Mark 12:25 and Luke 20:36 that angels cannot reproduce. Genesis 6:2 describes marriage unions, not abduction. Lucifer has seed (Gen. 3:15) - but his seed is of a spiritual nature and his children are those who follow him in rebellion against God (John 8:44). As stated, based on Hebrews 1:5, Rom. 8:14 & 8:19, Php. 2:15 and 1 John 3:1-3, I say God would never refer to rebellious devils who conspired to destroy the human race as His sons.
The giants did not result from the union of angels and humans - the text says they were in the land both before and after the sons of God married with the daughters of men. They were also in the land after the flood, encountered by the Israelites after the Exodus. Did the angels repeat their great sin again after the flood? Did the giants of Noah's day survive the flood? I think not. I'd say the giants were, both before and after the flood, the result of genetic mutations.
Suez (1/31/2015)
from Midwest
“ Great Sermon! ” Thank you! I believe the same, but my friends doubt my "opinion"...LOL Just a question. We know by science, that there were giants, also because of Joshua and Caleb, for another instance, and the large grapes...looking like grasshoppers, Goliath, etc. So, where did the giants come from? I know they didn't come from mating with women, but where from. I'd like to have a answer to give to people...I thought perhaps they came from the sixth day creation, if that could be true. Any answers on that???
