New look days of Noah and the sons of God

[JudgeRightly]

I'm actually in agreement with you on that point concerning Genesis 6. Though I used to be somewhat intrigued by the claim that fallen angels married women, along with some of its trappings, for years I have rejected it.

God created Adam's genome perfect, and he and His wife would have produced (otherwise) perfect human beings, and there was not significant genetic decay present until much later, certainly not significant enough to cause gigantism, yes? Additionally, viruses being part of creation means they were also "very good." Thus, there would not have been any harmful viruses, let alone any harmful genes to transmit via viruses.

Question: Where did the genetic information come from to result in giants being conceived, if the genome was not significantly decayed enough to cause what would presumably be defects?

In other words, could you explain, at least conceptually, how they came about if their "fathers" were mere men.

Question: Why was the phrase "sons of God" used, and not "sons of Adam" or "sons of man," to refer to the beings that impregnated the women giving rise to these giants and men of renown?

 

[Ps82]

Perhaps there are some people who have a mind that likes to go outside the box of what everyone has said in the past.
So, I'm taking a chance to write about what I see in the KJV translation.
The Highlights:

• Even before Woman was brought forth, Adam [as mankind] was given the authority, the actual job, to name things. IOW, he was to begin creating language.
• All see he named animals and things, but I say he formed language to describe events taking place. By carefully watching his vocabulary grow amazing things begin to show up !!! To me at least.
• When the LORD manifested the existing female with her own body, Adam named her Woman. She was first called Female; so, her second name became Woman, but even that was not to be her last name. He explained his reason for why he chose the name Wo-man. He said, for she came from out of Man.
• Not long afterward there was a flurry of new words jumping out - like suddenly!!! By flurry I mean it was like something major was happening and it was quick. Adam needed a number of new words to name things!!!
• Adam began to describe by expressing what he was literally witnessing with new language. Watch closely see what was taking place and what Adam understood and why he began putting things into words.
• Adam finally, caught on to what Gen. 1:28 meant [be full of fruit and multipy].
• Gen. 2:2:24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
• There you go! A man does not become a father nor Woman a mother until they cleave and have a child [one flesh] like them!!! I think Adam witnessed the first birth of another fleshly child and proclaimed that he UNDERSTOOD what be fruitful and multiply meant. He was a father. Woman was a mother... and the Son they just had would leave them and cleave to his personal woman [wife] and they would to the same ... and so forth. Adam got it. Do readers here see it?
• What was the sex of that first born? Verse 24 says - a man, who had Adam and Woman as his parents... This fulfilled the first command God ever gave to male and female in Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them [male/female], and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and so forth...
• I believe Adam witnessed the process of a birth of another ONE like them in the Garden. Adam put it into words ... and announced his baby boy who was one and the same flesh as his parents.

Now, how might my conclusions fit into the picture of the sons of God who came unto the daughters of Adam and Eve on Earth?

• First remember, Adam renamed Woman yet again: Female, Woman, and then Eve. Why? Gen. 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve: because she WAS the mother of all living. [Past tense verb - she WAS ALREADY the mother of all the living ... then the two were expelled from the Garden.]
• Well, if I am correct that a son was born while in the Garden then how can we know whether there were more sons born before they were kicked out?
• There is a clue for there being more. Ps 82 suggests God Almighty was holding court one and judging between the godssss. [plural] Who were these gods?
• Ps.82: 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and ALL OF YOU are CHILDREN of the most High. Now the only two groups of sons belonging to their creator which my Bible mentions are angels and mankind. I strongly believe that these were the gods/sons of God who attended this court that day. I also believe that this trial took place not too long after Adam and Eve were expelled. Maybe they had started having Abel and Cain and daughters and so forth ...
• Now, we go to Genesis 6: 1-7 to learn more about whether there were more than one son [a son of God] born to Adam and Woman in the Garden. Watch carefully. You will see that Moses never referenced angels when he recorded the events of the flood.

1 And it came to pass, when men [mankind] began to multiply ... and daughters were born unto them. [Well, at least this is the first reference to daughters being born. Until that happened only Eve was a daughter of God and the female who was bearing children in the beginning. We know that she and Adam had sons and daughters after they were cast out of the Garden.]
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. [Well, this was something natural for sons of God/men to do - after all a man should leave his mother and father and cleave unto his human wife. Remember certain sons of God/angels were not created to bear children at all. They do not reproduce.]
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, ... [Notice still no mention of angels. It was certain men who were doing what came naturally in order to reproduce and multiply, but for some reason God was not happy about these particular men doing so.]
4a [These unions produced giants] There were giants in the earth in those days [those days being when sons of God took WIVES from among the DAUGHTERS OF EARTH.
4b ... and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same [their male children] became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5 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.
It repented the LORD that he had made MAN on the earth, and it grieve him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy MAN whom I have created from the face of the earth: both MAN, and beast ...etc ...

Do you see why God was probably angry only with MAN?
There was never a mention of "the other sons of God who were not created to reproduce-angels"
It was the sons of God born unto Adam and Eve while in the Garden. They were not expelled to Earth with their parents, but chose to leave their first estate in order to take daughters of Adam and Eve as their wives. Their children became famous and celebrated.

One last conclusion I have is: Their children became the other peoples on earth whom Cain feared in his day. He was afraid they would harm him for killing his brother.

 

[7djengo7]

God created Adam's genome perfect, and he and His wife would have produced (otherwise) perfect human beings, and there was not significant genetic decay present until much later, certainly not significant enough to cause gigantism, yes? Additionally, viruses being part of creation means they were also "very good." Thus, there would not have been any harmful viruses, let alone any harmful genes to transmit via viruses.

Question: Where did the genetic information come from to result in giants being conceived, if the genome was not significantly decayed enough to cause what would presumably be defects?

In other words, could you explain, at least conceptually, how they came about if their "fathers" were mere men.

I really don't claim to know what to make of all you say, there. It's just that, since nothing in Genesis 6, or in the rest of the Bible has led me to think Genesis 6 must be talking about fallen angels, instead of men, I have never felt compelled to seek for extra-Biblical "reasons" to think it must be doing so.

In Genesis 6:4, I read: "the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them". You wrote, "...if their 'fathers' were mere men'," putting quotation marks around the noun, 'fathers'. By the quotes, do you mean to signify doubt or denial that the sons of God mentioned in this passage were really fathers of the children whom the daughters of men bare to them (the "them" being, presumably, these sons of God)? I mean, it seems to me that the sons of God really were the fathers of the children whom the daughters of men bore them.

Question: Why was the phrase "sons of God" used, and not "sons of Adam" or "sons of man," to refer to the beings that impregnated the women giving rise to these giants and men of renown?

I don't know why God chose to use the phrase "sons of God" to refer to the men who married the women whom He chose to refer to using the phrase "daughters of men". It's never been clear to me, though, what is supposed to debar men from being called by God, "sons of God". I know that a handful of passages in the Bible are commonly claimed as "proof" that God calls at least some angels, "sons of God", but I've never considered such claims about those passages to be of any substance. As we all know, God is on record in Luke 3:38 as having referred to at least one man -- viz., Adam -- by the singular phrase, "the son of God". But, I do not recall having read in the Bible that God ever referred to Satan by that phrase; and, I don't recall any claimers of the fallen angels claim about Genesis 6 ever referring to Satan by saying "Satan, which was the son of God", or to some other fallen angel by saying "That devil, which was the son of God".

Also, in Genesis 6:4 --

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 renown.

-- I do not see that the giants in the earth in those days were the personages referred to by the noun, 'children', or the personages referred to by the phrase, 'the same', or the personages referred to by the phrase, 'mighty men which were of old, men of renown'. I do not see that it is being said that whomever or whatever are being referred to by the name, "giants", became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. I'm definitely open to hearing, and trying to understand whatever anyone has to say who favors thinking these giants that were in the earth "in those days" were the children born to the wives of the sons of God in Genesis 6. But, at the very least, it seems kind of strange to me -- seeing as the text says that giants were in the earth "in those days" before it even mentions the coming in of the sons of God to the daughters of men -- to think that, in the latter part of the very same sentence those same giants/Nephilim are re-introduced as the referents of the noun, 'children'.

In the NIV of the first half of Genesis 6:4, we have:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them.

The NIV seems to be making "those days" to be (at least in part) the same period as that "when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them". The question is, did the giants' being on the earth precede the daughters of men having children by the sons of God? If so, then it seems pretty clear that whoever or whatever these giants were, they were not the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men; for, how would these giants have already been on the earth prior to being born to the sons of God and the daughters of men, if the former (the giants) were really the children of the latter. And if not, then, at best, it would seem awkward and superfluous to write, as does the NASB --

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of mankind, and they bore children to them.

-- instead of simply writing "When the sons of God came in to the daughters of mankind, they bore their children, the Nephilim, to them."

Another way to put what I'm trying to say is that, if the Nephilim were the children of the sons of God and the daughters of men, then the Nephilim would be the referent of the phrase, "their children", and it seems that what we would have in that text would amount to:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of mankind, and they bore [the Nephilim] to them.

Or, similarly:

The [children born to the sons of God and the daughters of men] were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of mankind, and they bore children to them.

Which, at best, would seem a bizarre redundancy to me.

Now, again, the common claim is that, in Genesis 6, the sons of God are fallen angels, rather than men. But I find this interesting: according to https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nephilim:

The Hebrew word nefilim is sometimes directly translated as “giants” or taken to mean “the fallen ones” (from the Hebrew naphal, “to fall”), but the identity of the Nephilim is debated by scholars.

It seems peculiar to me that we are commonly told that the Nephilim were children born to fallen angels, and yet, in Genesis 6, the fallen angels, themselves, are supposedly (according to the common claim) referred to by a (I think) quite inapt phrase -- "the sons of God" -- a term which, in itself, seems to have not a trace of a suggestion of fallenness; whereas, only fallen angels' supposed children are supposed to be referred to in that passage by a term having to do with fallenness. If that's really what's going on in the text, I fail to see the point of such cryptography: referring to fallen angels by a term which, in and of itself seems to have nothing to do with fallenness, instead of by a perfectly apt term such as nefilim. To me, that would seem kind of akin to the bizarre practice in Celtic folklore of referring to evil spirits by the term, "the good people".

And, since we are told that the Nephilim -- the fallen ones -- were born to fallen angels and women, the question arises about them: In such case, from what, exactly, are these Nephilim supposed to be fallen, and to what? And, when did these supposed children of fallen angels and women fall? And, what was the nature of their fall?

I vaguely remember seeing a video on YouTube pushing the fallen-angels-married-women claim, in which they showed a clip of some guy named Rob Skiba making a show about how important it supposedly is to go along with that claim, and take it seriously. And, in that clip, he brought up Ephesians 6:12, in which Paul writes, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." And I thought to myself, what, really, is that supposed to have to do with your (Rob Skiba's) dire, sensationalist reporting about how we are to fear and be in some sort of ready, defensive stance against some supposed offspring of fallen angels and women? I mean, these supposed fallen angel/human offspring: are they supposed to be flesh and blood, or not? It seems like, if they're supposed to be flesh and blood, and he's all about trying to warn us that we wrestle against -- or are in danger of wrestling against -- these Nephilim, then he couldn't have more poorly chosen a Bible verse for trying to drive home his point, a verse expressly stating that we do not wrestle against flesh and blood.

Instead of posting it in this thread, I had thought to use the text of this post to start a fresh thread that would be more specifically a discussion of Genesis 6 and the fallen-angels-married-women claim, so as not to prolongedly diverge this present thread away from its OP subject matters. But then, I thought that this post, by the nature of it, just wouldn't quite make for an OP. If I get around to it, I'll try to start a new thread along those lines, unless someone else does so before I get around to it. It, to me, has some potential for some interesting discussion. I've wrangled with people in comment sections on YouTube on the topic, but, YouTube comments have quite a bit to be desired as a vehicle for sustained discussion.

 

[Ps82]

I appreciate the 35 people who took time to read my post.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

It was the sons of God born unto Adam and Eve while in the Garden. They were not expelled to Earth with their parents, but chose to leave their first estate in order to take daughters of Adam and Eve as their wives. Their children became famous and celebrated.

One last conclusion I have is: Their children became the other peoples on earth whom Cain feared in his day. He was afraid they would harm him for killing his brother.

I guess your idea is that the "sons of God" were children that Adam and Eve conceived before they ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

I see only 2 answers here:

1) You are wrong.
2) You are correct, but it is not very important because if it was then the Bible would tell us so.

For me personally, the risk/benefit analysis does not compute. Maybe I am just too set in my ways.

 

[Ps82]

I guess your idea is that the "sons of God" were children that Adam and Eve conceived before they ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

I see only 2 answers here:

1) You are wrong.
2) You are correct, but it is not very important because if it was then the Bible would tell us so.

For me personally, the risk/benefit analysis does not compute. Maybe I am just too set in my ways.

Didn't Jesus tell us that one day humanity will become like the angels who do not marry nor are given in marriage? Part of the meaning of marriage is that children will come from that. Adam proclaimed he was a Father, Woman had become a mother and they cleaved and became ONE. like in another one ... and off spring ...

Didn't God command male female to be full of fruit and multiply even before they had bodies? That was like one of their purposes.

Didn't Adam create new Language while in the Garden which described a FAMILY? That insinuates at least three humans.

How would Adam have know what having a family was like since in the beginning he had never experience having one? Unless at some point he did!!!

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

Didn't Jesus tell us that one day humanity will become like the angels who do not marry nor are given in marriage? Part of the meaning of marriage is that children will come from that. Adam proclaimed he was a Father, Woman had become a mother and they cleaved and became ONE. like in another one ... and off spring ...

Didn't God command male female to be full of fruit and multiply even before they had bodies? That was like one of their purposes.

Didn't Adam create new Language while in the Garden which described a FAMILY? That insinuates at least three humans.

How would Adam have know what having a family was like since in the beginning he had never experience having one? Unless at some point he did!!!

Is your idea that the "sons of God" were children that Adam and Eve conceived before they ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

 

[7djengo7]

How would Adam have know what having a family was like since in the beginning he had never experience having one? Unless at some point he did!!!

That seems as ridiculous as saying that Adam, in order to be able to take the first walking step he ever took, must have already walked at some earlier point.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

That seems as ridiculous as saying that Adam, in order to be able to take the first walking step he ever took, must have already walked at some earlier point.

I was kinda thinking the same thing at first. Would Adam have to fall off a cliff before he could know that could hurt him?

But it's not really the same thing is it? I didn't even know where babies came from until I was like a teenager I guess.

Did Adam know where babies come from? Did he already know this when he was first created or did someone have to explain it to him?

I can't figure out a good way to come up with an answer for that..

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

Question: Why was the phrase "sons of God" used, and not "sons of Adam" or "sons of man," to refer to the beings that impregnated the women giving rise to these giants and men of renown?

I think this is a good question. From a quick online Bible search, "sons of men" is used in several books in the Old Testament, including Genesis. And also in a couple places in the NT. So there's that..



I'm no expert. But it seems to me that men are only called sons of God if they are sons of the resurrection.

Luke 20:34 Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

The Bible is calling us "sons of God" to convey to us, that we will be resurrected and then made like the angels who ARE called sons of God. We will be like them. We will be equal to them.
But the idea that the angels are called "sons of God" is not something that is explained over and over again in the New Testament. So I don't think that Jesus was preaching to anyone who thought that "sons of God" might also sometimes mean "sons of Adam" or "sons of men".

It's clear in the New Testament that angels are called "sons of God"
It's also clear in Job that angels are called "sons of God"
There's several thousands of years of history between Job and the New Testament so I think that if "sons of God" ever meant something akin to "Adams other sons" or "People who lived in the Garden of Eden" ect., then we would have a clearer example of that somewhere..

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

Didn't Jesus tell us that one day humanity will become like the angels who do not marry nor are given in marriage? Part of the meaning of marriage is that children will come from that. Adam proclaimed he was a Father, Woman had become a mother and they cleaved and became ONE. like in another one ... and off spring ...

Didn't God command male female to be full of fruit and multiply even before they had bodies? That was like one of their purposes.

Didn't Adam create new Language while in the Garden which described a FAMILY? That insinuates at least three humans.

How would Adam have know what having a family was like since in the beginning he had never experience having one? Unless at some point he did!!!

I get your point.
I'm no expert, but for what it's worth, it's definitely not the worst idea I've ever heard about this issue before. And I think 7djengo7 makes some really good points as well. But for now at least, I'm sticking with the idea that "sons of God" means "angels". I posted some of the main reasons for this in the other thread.

​

 

[7djengo7]

Part of the meaning of marriage is that children will come from that.

Obviously it's false that having children is essential to marriage. Otherwise, any couple who have never had children would be unmarried.

 

[Ps82]

I get your point.
I'm no expert, but for what it's worth, it's definitely not the worst idea I've ever heard about this issue before. And I think 7djengo7 makes some really good points as well. But for now at least, I'm sticking with the idea that "sons of God" means "angels". I posted some of the main reasons for this in the other thread.

​

Fair enough. Will look for your reasons.
Just one last plug.
Psalm 82 does let us know that the phrases "sons of God and children of the Most High" point to men and angels and how God said, "I have called all of you."
Thanks again taking a look.

 

[Ps82]

One last reminder: The sons of God, who came and chose wives from among the daughters of men on earth. had children who in their times became MEN of renown.

They didn't have creatures ... like half-man and half- supernatural off spring. Their children were the human kind.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

It seems peculiar to me that we are commonly told that the Nephilim were children born to fallen angels, and yet, in Genesis 6, the fallen angels, themselves, are supposedly (according to the common claim) referred to by a (I think) quite inapt phrase -- "the sons of God" -- a term which, in itself, seems to have not a trace of a suggestion of fallenness; whereas, only fallen angels' supposed children are supposed to be referred to in that passage by a term having to do with fallenness. If that's really what's going on in the text, I fail to see the point of such cryptography: referring to fallen angels by a term which, in and of itself seems to have nothing to do with fallenness, instead of by a perfectly apt term such as nefilim. To me, that would seem kind of akin to the bizarre practice in Celtic folklore of referring to evil spirits by the term, "the good people".

That is good point also.
Jude does not call these fallen angels "sons of God", he refers to them "as angels which kept not their first estate"

Here's Jude 5-7

5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
6 And the angels who did not keep their [c]proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;
7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the [d]vengeance of eternal fire.

But even in here in Jude, I think it makes it sound more likely that these angels did engage in some type of sexual immorality. Even if it might not be exactly clear what "in a similar manner to these" is referring to (these angels or these cities), you have to ask yourself what are the chances that he felt compelled to mention Sodom and Gomorrah and their sexual immorality immediately after bringing up the fallen angels.

I can definitely see both sides here, neither of which is a hill I would want have to die on.

But to me, the case for the "sons of God" being angels is the slightly stronger one.

I have a feeling if someone here could read Jude to us in the Greek, it might help.

 

[Ps82]

Here's Jude 5-7

5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
6 And the angels who did not keep their [c]proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;

These two verses are example of what God will do to rebellious men and angels.
1. He destroyed the children of Israel who did not believe [by modeling trust and obedience] in their LORD.
2. He chained the angels [in some fashion- I suspect some word or command he spoke over them] and caused them to dwell in darkness [which to me usually means in invisibility] while they wait for judgment day.

The angels left their proper domain because God kicked them out in a stage called "WAITING." Just like he kicked out Adam and Eve out of the Garden and now all humanity WAITS.

Jude 5-7
7 as [those people in] Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these [wait for judgment day], having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the [d]vengeance of eternal fire.

Yes,angels and men await Judgment Day and the end and renewal of all things.

But even in here in Jude, I think it makes it sound more likely that these angels did engage in some type of sexual immorality. Even if it might not be exactly clear what "in a similar manner to these" is referring to (these angels or these cities), you have to ask yourself what are the chances that he felt compelled to mention Sodom and Gomorrah and their sexual immorality immediately after bringing up the fallen angels.

Correct it is not clear about the angels but very clear about the sin of the people in Sodom and Gomorrah. Did you know that sexual issues were not the only sins of the people in S & G?

Now, who were these angels who left their first estate? Satan and his horde
What was their first domain? The Garden of Eden on God's holy mountain where God walked among the coals of fire.
When and how were they cast out? God cast them out ... by attaching them to the ground for the rest of their lives.
Where were they sent? Earth
What bound them? God's command and their attachment to the ground.
What does it mean they would dwell in darkness? I believe Satan and his hordes/demons are body-less and invisible spirits. This is why they seek people to indwell and why Jesus sent them into pigs because it was not time for them to go to The PIT!

Ezekiel 28:12-17
Thou [Satan, and I find it appropriate to include his rebellious1/3 of angels at times] hast been in Eden the Garden of God [this was his first abode - just as Adam was there]; ...
14 Thou [there] as the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: Thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways ... till iniquity was found in thee.
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise [having been wonderfully blessed] they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God, and I will destroy thee, ...
WHY?
17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the GROUND, I will lay thee before kings [of the Earth], that they may behold thee.

There you go:

• Satan became so proud of his own perfection and glory that he acted like a fool.
• He wanted kill mankind and tried to bring their immediate death, but God had something up his sleeve. Death was not instantaneous!
• He committed at least two iniquities we know - the sin of rebellion and of tempting God's children [mankind] to cause them harm.
• Therefore he [God] chained him/them to partake of the dust of the ground for the remainder of their lives. Then God proclaimed He would ultimately DESTROY Satan /them!
• The chains which bound Satan were God's command to partake of the ground for the rest of his life ...
• and then the curse upon that dusty ground would be his ultimate destruction. So goes the dust - so goes Satan - to the Lake of Fire.
• God said in Ps 82 that Satan/and probably his followers, men and angels, will all die the same death.

No mention that angels left their first domain in order to go to earth to have children with daughters born outside of the Garden unto Adam and Eve.

 

[Ps82]

God created Adam's genome perfect, and he and His wife would have produced (otherwise) perfect human beings,

I agree.

and there was not significant genetic decay present until much later,

I see things like you.

certainly not significant enough to cause gigantism, yes?

If you infer that Gigantism in those days was a perverted happenstance resulting from Fall of mankind, IOW a flaw, then I have to ask why did those flawed abnormal children grow to become men of renown?

Now I will speculate as I seek to try to find possibilities to explore as I study.
First, I happen to believe that angels are very large ... so I am curious about from where this gigantism trait came. Since I cannot accept that angelic beings were created with the ability to mate and much less mate with humanoids, then I don't see those sons of God who mated with daughters of Adam born on Earth being angels.

The only thing that makes sense is the sons of God, who were sons of Adam and Woman/Eve born in the domain of the Garden, did the impregnating.

Adam put into his own words the act of becoming man and wife. AND after cleaving to one another then they were parents of a son. A son who would one day repeat this pattern and multiply as God planned.

If Adam and Woman did have sons while in the Garden and Adam already understood she WAS the mother of all the living even before they were expelled, then what might that first born son or even other sons have been like?

Adam and Woman/Eve were given cloaks of skin ...but what about them? Were their bodies still in perfection? We don't see that anyone left the Garden but Adam, Eve, and Satan, who were all cast to the ground

Why didn't Moses write about this? I don't know ... but perhaps he did mention them when he wrote - and the sons of God came into the world, chose wives, and had children who became MEN of renown. Moses did not write, The gods came among men and took wives ... or that angels came among men and had children whose offspring became renown.

Either way, men or angels I don't think The LORD was happy that they left the Garden in the holy mountain to go live on Earth. And we can't forget that it was due to the evil desires and actions of mankind that God brought the flood. It doesn't say he brought the flood to get rid of the giant mutant humanoids.

Not trying to be flippant ... just succinct.

It fascinates me to ponder things during the Fall. It was after Woman and Adam sinned that they noticed they were naked? They felt they were missing something having to do with their outer appearance.

We've heard they were naked and unashamed... so I ask: What was different in this instance? Was it something they expected to happen to their bodies and it didn't???? I do believe that the bodies they had when cast out was different from the one they had in the beginning. If IF IF I am correct those sons may not have been affected. Just questioning here...

 

[7djengo7]

But even in here in Jude, I think it makes it sound more likely that these angels did engage in some type of sexual immorality.

One problem is that Genesis 6, so far as I can tell, doesn't really seem to say anything about the sons of God or the daughters of men engaging in sexual immorality. And, besides that, it's never been clear to me exactly how Jude is supposed to be writing about what's written about in Genesis 6. It seems to me that the only way to arrive at making a subject-matter connection between these two portions of Scripture as is commonly done is by proceeding upon a presupposition that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are fallen angels.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

No mention that angels left their first domain in order to go to earth to have children with daughters born outside of the Garden unto Adam and Eve.

This is what we are debating Ps82! Right now!

And you have already agreed that "sons of God" refers to angels, in Job and in the NT! That's evidence spanning 1000's of years, of people understanding "sons of God" to mean "angels". And then in the NT Jesus says sons of the resurrection are also "sons of God"

But when it's used in Genesis 6, you want it to mean something else. You want it to mean "Sons of Adam who were born before him and Eve got kicked out of Eden" Right?

But your meaning is nowhere close to being implicitly stated anywhere in the Bible. So it seems the only hope you have of being right is if "sons of God" is just too archaic of term for anyone today to fully understand what it means.

 

[Derf]

I have a feeling if someone here could read Jude to us in the Greek, it might help.

No it wouldn't. It would just mean you have to translate from the spoken Greek instead of the written.