by Pastor Mark Downey
The scriptural fact is that God did NOT identify these "sons of God" as "angels", but rather "man" and "flesh" (Gen. 6:3,7), and if they had been "angels", their conduct would hardly fit the definition of the Hebrew word "malak". The scriptural fact is that these "sons of God" were mere, mortal men, "judges" or otherwise (Gen. 6:3,7), who reverted to paganism ("took unto them wives of the daughters of men" meaning they embraced paganism), and, thereby, became "hypocrites" ("one who feigns to be what he is not; especially, one who pretends to be pious, virtuous, etc. without really being so." Further confirmation is found in the succeeding scripture:
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth and it grieved him at his heart." (Gen. 6:5,6)
Obviously, the actual "celestial" "sons of God" were the same in the days preceding the great flood, as they were in the time of Jesus, the Christ.
It was Jesus that told us that the celestial "angels" did not lust, nor copulate, nor marry. On the contrary, "celestial angels" are asexual: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (M't 22:30). Celestial angels are asexual and do not reproduce as does mankind. This being the case (Mt.22:30), then they probably do not possess the reproductive organs as does Adamkind. Nor do such celestial angels have the power to create life… only God has that power. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that the celestial angels did not get the heathen women ‘in the family way’, so that they would produce offspring that would be “Mighty men and men of reknown.” The celestial angels have been given a bad rap in the paternity charges that have been made by neo-heathen Christian theologians (nhCt).
Interestingly, the later nhCt completely contradicted the interpretation that was made, that celestial angels were prone to carnal lust, because it was on the basis of complete fidelity to God, that the later orders of celibates (monks and nuns) were established. As though only humans can remain celibate!
Further, if these “sons of God” had been the celestial angels that were the “fallen angels” (Rev. 12:9), according to the perverted interpretations of the nhCt, then these fallen angels would have had to be demons and devils of unlimited evil. Now, in the name of sweet reason, would these creatures have bothered to “Take themselves wives”? Why would they bother, when all they would have to do is simply rape the helpless heathen women? Why would they “Take themselves wives”, when they would obviously have no concern about the fact that intercourse without marriage is fornication and condemned under God’s Law?
It is such an openly ridiculous distortion of the Scriptures that makes it possible to unmask the fraud perpetrated by the nhCt in their contrived hoax of the supernatural “Satan” promotion.
Finally, in the book of Revelation in the New Testament, it is made quite clear that any person that was a true "son of God", would, thereby, be a "malak" or a "messenger" of God, thus, an "angel" by definition ("malak" = "aggelos" = "angelus"= "messenger" = "angel"). See, for example, Rev. 1:20; 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,14).
So, what has this symbolic story told us? Did God become angry because these "sons of God" began copulating with the "daughters of men"? Note that they were not fornicating, because they took them "wives", and under that stipulation, copulating would be proper under God's Law: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth..." (Gen. 1:28). It was not the sexual acts of these "sons of God" that God was condemning by saying, "...every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually..." just as we now know that "imagination" and "thoughts" occur in the brain and not the "heart".
What is symbolically said here is that even though people profess to be righteous, they do not follow God's law, ergo, becoming "sons of God", but disobey God's Law (symbolized by "taking as wives" (embracing) the "daughters of men" (paganism), and do this routinely ("only evil continually").
Having, thus, taken the tarnish off of the good name of "angels" (both the righteous celestial, or righteous earthly "messengers" of God), it is now time to fully restore that good name by destroying the remainder of the hoax of the so-called "carnal-minded", "fallen celestial angels" that was conceived and perpetrated by the nhCt in fashioning a state religion for the pagan Roman Empire.
To prop up their flimsy "fallen angels-sons of God" fraud, the nhCt attempted to employ another contiguous Scripture: "There were giants 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 reknown." (Gen. 6:4). The word "giants" is the translators interpretation of the Hebrew word: "5303 nephil, nef-eel'; from 5307; prop. a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant:-giant.
" 5307 naphal, naw-fal'; a prim. root; to (intrans. or causat., lit. or fig.):-be accepted, cast (down, self, [lots], out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let)fall, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fugitive, have [inheritance], inferior, be judged [by mistake for 6419], lay(along), (cause to) lie down, light(down), be (x hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present(-ed, - ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, x surely,throw down."
"5303...Those who used to interpret the passage in Genesis of the fall of the angels, were accustomed to render...fallers, rebels, apostates.
"5307 (1) To fall (down, on ground, from horse or seat, into ditch, into snare, in battle, by sword, sick, by decay, off, out, upon, from one's purpose or counsel) to fail, to happen.
(2) To cast (themselves, to ground, into embrace), to fall upon, to throw oneself, to attack, to alight, to encamp, to ask, to fall away, to desert, to bring forth, to request."
From the above, the general meaning of the Hebrew words, "nephil" and "naphal" relates to something or someone that has, can be, or will fall (-en, -ing) in a literal and/or figurative sense. The nhCt would have one believe that these "sons of God" were, literally and figuratively, physical "giants", as such, superhuman, therefore "fallen celestial angels". If you can buy that, then you will be very interested in a formula using water and sand that turns lead into gold!
The English word "giant" is a distortion of the Hebrew words, "nephil" or "naphal", as Webster's Dictionary makes quite clear:
"giant, n. [ME. giaunt; OFr. geant; L. gigas (-antis); Gr. gigos (-antos), a giant; ge, earth, and genes, born.]
1. in Greek mythology, any race of huge beings of human form who warred with the gods.
2. any imaginary being of human form but of superhuman size and strength.
3. a person of great size, strength, intellect, etc."
In the above, note that the word, "giant", from the Greek means "earth born" (i.e. mankind). Also, "giants" were from Greek mythology, hence, "imaginary" (not real). Note that these "giants", in earthly form "warred" (fought with) the "gods", just as the "Satan” promoters have created the "imaginary", unreal, "fallen angels" in the guise of earthly "sons of God", who, by disobeying God's law, were, in effect, "warring” with God.
Finally, notice that "giants" are any imaginary being of earthly form, therefore, not real or actual living beings, just "dreams"...or "nightmares"...MYTHS...just like "SATAN"! Why didn't the "Satan” promoters designate Samson, of such prodigious strength, a "giant"? After all, didn't Samson pull down a mighty stone temple of Dagon with his bare hands (Judges 16:23-30), and slay a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass (Judges 15:15, 16)?
Probably the reason the nhCt "Satan” promoters didn't call Samson a "giant", or desire to call to attention the fact that, as a "judge", Samson was a "malak" or "angel", who was, also, a "son of God". (Judges 13:24, 25). Why didn't the nhCt properly interpret the Hebrew symbolism of the story that Samson lusted after Delilah, a heathen daughter of man (Judges 16:23-30), which made Samson both a "fallen angel" and a "fallen son of God"! Why didn't the nhCt point out that Samson had, in fact, betrayed his high position as a "malak", an "angel", a "messenger", or "judge" of God? Why didn't the nhCt correctly clarify the moral of that story by emphasizing that despite prodigious strength, or the highest office of "judge", those, as with Samson, who departed from God's Law (symbolized by Delilah) would lose their righteous strength (the cutting of Samson's hair), be punished (the blinding of Samson) and inevitably be condemned to death (under the rubble of the temple of Dagon). Though Samson was a "giant" in physical strength, his genes were weak, because he did not produce offspring that became "mighty men and men of reknown".
It has now been shown, in the Old Testament, that the term, "sons of God", has been exclusively directed toward mankind with only one exception (Job 38:7; more on that later). Those nhCt who continue to promote “Satan” still employ the tactic of taking Scriptures out of context, to perpetuate the evil MYTH of an IMAGINARY "evil fallen archangel", who went under the many aliases of "the great Dragon...that old serpent, called the devil, and Satan" and "Lucifer"!
Such is their use of Genesis 6:2, from which these nhCt would have one believe the hoax that evil "fallen angels" were the "sons of God", who, as "giants", carnally copulated with the earthly "daughters of men", and, out of this unholy joining, came other "giant" offspring who were "mighty men, men of reknown".
These neo-heathen "Christian" theologian-mythologists explain that these "giants", "mighty men" and "men of reknown" were probably much larger in stature, and with greater intelligence than the ordinary people "which were of old".
But this is as much sophistry, as saying, for example, that Germanic tribesmen were descended from the copulation of the "mighty men" and "men of reknown" by the comparison of the much larger Germanic tribesmen that opposed the shorter-statured Roman legionnaires of Julius Caesar. Or the Norsemen (Vikings), who were larger than most other Europeans or Latins. Or the Watusi tribes, whose descendants in Rwanda and Burundi, are not infrequently of heights approaching seven feet or over. Or the Ainu of Hokkaido and Karafuto, whose heights were commonly six feet, or more, making them tower like "giants" or "mighty men" over the other much smaller Japanese people. Interestingly, it was these Japanese "giants", who provided a great surprise to the American armed forces, when they encountered these "giant" Japanese Royal Marines on the Pacific isles in World War II.
We now know that the Adamic gene pool possesses the genetic potential to produce comparative physical "giants", and these are now commonly seen in present day athletic stadiums and gymnasiums. With the rapid advances in genetic engineering, perhaps, one day, people will be "cloned" into "giants", "mighty men and men of reknown". Modern medicine can now explain the occurrence of a rare "super-giant" of upwards of eight feet caused by tumors or other interferences with proper pituitary and/or hypohyseal function with or without an accompanying prolactin cell component in childhood.
Possibly Goliath (1 Sa 17:4,22;21:9;22:10; 2 Sa 21:19; 1 Ch 20:5) suffered from this disorder.
