Did angels mate with women in Genesis?

I recently came across a quote from a bestselling children’s author who based her bestseller on her understanding of a passage in Genesis.  Author Lauren Kate wrote the book Fallen about an angel who is romantically attracted to and pursues a relationship with a human teenager. In the January 11, 2010 issue of Publisher’s Weekly (PW) on p. 13, Kate claims, “The idea for the book came from a line I read in Genesis about a group of angels who were effectively kicked out of heaven because they lusted after mortal women. I became curious about what the experience might be of a teenage mortal who suddenly became the object of an angel’s affection.”

The passage Lauren Kate refers to is Genesis 6:1-6, but from her quote to PW it is obvious she did not read the passage for herself and probably just heard about it from someone.  The scripture never talks about anyone being kicked out of heaven for their lust.  Here’s what the passage says:

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4There 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.

5And 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.

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.  [Genesis 6]

It has often been claimed that the “sons of God” in this passage refers to fallen angels and that the giants (often called Nephilim) who walked the Earth in ancient times were the offspring of the angels and the women.  Those who hold to the belief that angels mated with humans use the argument that the phrase “sons of God” only refers to angels in the Old Testament (OT), using the book of Job as their proof–

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. [Job 1:6]

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. [Job 2:1]

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. …Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? [Job 38:4, 6-7]

They are correct that the phrase “sons of God” is talking about angels in Job, but a closer examination of the scriptures shows that Genesis 6 is NOT talking about angels.  It is referring to humans and this truth can be deduced from the principles and context of what the Bible teaches.  I will highlight a few points from the Bible as proof.

Point 1: Sons of God are humans who follow God. This is shown in both the OT and the New Testament (NT).  In the OT, God gives the message to Pharaoh through Moses that Israel is his son–

And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. [Exodus 4:22-23]

We also know from the OT that God said Solomon was his son–

I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: [2 Samuel 7:14]

When we look at the NT, we are plainly told that believers are the sons of God–

But as many as received him [Jesus Christ], to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: [John 1:12]

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. [Romans 8:14]

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God [1 John 3:1]

Now if we go back to Genesis 4, it establishes the context for chapters 5 and 6. At the end of Genesis 4, we are shown that two families of men are emerging in the Earth–Cain’s descendants and Seth’s descendants.  It was Seth’s descendants who “call upon the name of the LORD,” [Genesis 4:26].  In other words, Seth’s descendants were those who worshiped God and their lineage is highlighted in Genesis 5.  Since they worshiped God, they were considered sons of God and were the sons of God in Genesis 6.  It was Cain’s descendants and other unbelievers who were the “daughters of men.”

Point 2: Fallen angels are never called sons of God. Satan, who is the fallen angel Lucifer (see Isaiah 14:12-15, Ezekiel 28:12-17), first appears in the garden of Eden in Genesis 3.  We must also take into account that Satan, according to Revelation 12:4, convinced 1/3 of the angels in heaven to follow him in his rebellion against God as he started a war in heaven.  Revelation 12 also tells us that Satan lost the war and was kicked out of heaven with his angels.  It was at this point that

God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment, [2 Peter 2:4]  AND

…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. [Jude 6]

Since these angels “kept not their first estate,” they lost all the privileges and benefits they had in heaven, including the right to be called the “sons of God.”  Because Satan is present in Genesis 3, we know he has already been kicked out of heaven with his angels.  So by the time Genesis 6 comes around, neither Satan nor his angels would have been referred to as the “sons of God.”

Point 3: God did not create angels with the ability to procreate with each other or with humans. God, who knew from the beginning that he would be betrayed, established at the creation of the angels that angels in heaven would neither marry nor be given in marriage (see Mark 12:25).  He created them without this capability so that even when the fallen angels rebelled, nothing they could do would ever change this fact.  This is why the fallen angels who were not yet placed in the chains of darkness in hell, and who roam the Earth freely, can only go so far as to possess unbelievers.  If the immortal fallen angels could procreate, they would not waste their time possessing people since procreation would be a more direct route of affecting and infecting humanity for their evil purposes.  Even when they possess unbelievers, their possession cannot affect the reproductive cells of the man or woman they possess so that they can spawn children.  This is also why unbelievers in the Bible who are called “children of the devil” are only considered his children in the spiritual sense and not in the physical sense.

Point 4: God only complained about mankind in Genesis 6. The Lord makes several statements in Genesis 6 that prove he is upset with humans, not angelic beings.  Here is what he says–

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. …

5And 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.

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. [Genesis 6]

God was clearly angry by what he saw.  If fallen angels were actively participating in these events, why would he just focus on punishing men and not the angels who were involved?  Throughout scripture we see how God places boundaries on what fallen angels can do and how he rebukes devils when they go too far (e.g. the serpent’s judgment at Eden, the story of Job, Michael’s dispute with Satan over Moses’ body, Jesus casting out devils, Gabriel and Michael’s fight with the Prince of Persia to get to Daniel), so if they were involved here, why is it that there is no mention of him saying he would punish them?  He didn’t mention them because it was only humans involved in this situation.

Conclusion: Based on these four points, I’ve concluded that the big deal made over sons of God marrying and having children by the daughters of men speaks to the ongoing theme throughout scripture that God dislikes spiritually mixed marriages.  In other words, God gets upset when his followers marry unbelievers.  He did not like it in Genesis 6, or when he established the nation of Israel as his chosen people, or when he called believers in Jesus Christ to be separated from the world.  The Lord has never liked such relationships because it is always the spiritual state of the believer that gets the short end of the stick.  It is always the worshiper of God who ends up severely compromising their relationship with Yahweh when they get hitched to unbelievers.

Angels have never mated with humans and have never produced offspring by humans.  This is one thing God has never allowed and will never allow.

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

422 thoughts on “Did angels mate with women in Genesis?

Add yours

  1. Shalom,

    I was going dispute your four points, however, I decided to leave you with an suggestion from one brother to another. If you desire to know G-ds truth, do not allow your tradition Biblical education get in the way. As I read your four points, it became obvious that you have little or no scriptural or cultural background to make such claims. My hope and prayer is for you to rid of yourself of your traditional bias and cling to the truth that only the Spirit can lead you into. Please do not take this as an insult, it was not intended as such.

    Shalom Aleichem


    1. Traditionally I was taught that angels mated with humans whose offspring were the nephilim. What I have learned from extensive study of the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit as my teacher and guide is that angels never mated with humans. My post goes against the traditions I’ve been taught and my post reflects the truth of what is in God’s word on the matter, so your criticism of me is not accurate.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I agree, Mr. Gaylord. This guy/gal makes claims about your biblical interpretation which s/he doesn’t back up at all with any evidence. I, personally, was blessed to read your Bible study on this matter and I thank you for your wisdom and careful study, and comparison of scripture with scripture.

        This study actually gives me relief concerning a matter that had bothered me for a long time.

        It also makes me wonder when s/he says you don’t have the proper “cultural” background to make such claims. With his/her use of the words “shalom aleichem,” it makes me think that this person feels only Jewish people or Jewish Christians are qualified to interpret scripture. This is a faulty proposition to advance, and I totally reject it. My husband is a Jewish believer. We have extensive experience with messianic synagogues in four cities (Boston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and one town in New Jersey, all of which are places we have lived for years).

        In SOME messianic synagogues (not all, but in a sizable portion), there is the belief that messianic Judaism is a superior version of Christianitiy. We have to tear down this belief wherever we find it. All born-again Christians, Jewish or not, are able to worship God and teach/preach His Word in full brotherhood and equality, and having a Jewish background, while it can help with scriptural understanding in some ways, can also be a detriment if you can’t get free of the shackles and belief that one is bound to the Law. Certainly, there is enough false doctrine in enough messianic synagogues that this demonstrates that ANY of us can get off-track with our scriptural studies.

        So it’s important not to accept this type of superiority which says that we Gentiles cannot interpret scripture properly so we might as well hush up! I know this person tried to come in peace (shalom), and I appreciate that, but his/her claims are anything but peaceful in the Kingdom of God! To say that one’s cultural background completely disqualifies one from accurately handling the Word of God (which is essentially what s/he is saying) is not peaceful and is not good for the Body of Christ (Messiah). Mark those who cause division, and avoid them, we are urged.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Harry,
        Has God provided a mentoring relationship for you with any other believers? You said in this followup post that: “[you] learned from extensive study of the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit as my teacher and guide is that angels never mated with humans.”
        I’m concerned for you. That’s all.
        Hope you have a Great Day!


      3. Sure, David. You’re so-o-o concerned–SMH. I believe your so-called concern stems from the fact I reject your eisegesis of the scripture I discussed here and that I won’t conform to what you wish.


      4. Mr Gaylord: I also have been taught that the angels mated with women and the giants were the result. Then as I studied on my own I came to the conclusion to what the Bible was saying. Instead of Seth’s line only marrying their own kind, or believers they started looking at the the daughter’s of the descendants of cain. and from that cain’s line corrupted Seth’s and the result was evil continually. Simple as that. It always bothered me that people could come to that false conclusion on such a small amount of scripture! Thank you for being strong in your stance.. God bless.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. I would say that even the sons of God and morning stars in Job 38 are people. According to Hebrews 1:5, God has never called an angel a son. If you look at Gen 1:27, it is man, not angels created in the image of God. Then in Ephesians 1:4, we see that God knew us from before the foundation of the world. I am not suggesting a pre earth existence like mormons, only that God knew us in his mind. And his thoughts are as real as his actions. He speaks and the worlds are framed. He says his thoughts are higher than our thoughts. Also, in Revelation 2, we see Jesus saying he will give us the morning star. That means since we are created in the image of God, and he is the bright and morning star, he gives us himself! This is not promised to any angels! According to Psalm 8, man is given a crown, not angels. we will rule and reign with Jesus, not angels.


      6. AMEN! People that teach this whole angels mating with women nearly always quote some other source that God’s word the AV1611/1769 (commonly called the KJB)


      7. I read where the author of this article suggests that the term “sons of God” used in the book of Lot, is referring to the angels of God. I don’t you have sufficient cause from the Holy Scripture to show that God ever referred to his angels as His sons. They have always had the privilege to be called the angels of God. And God has only used sons of God referring to either His Son, Jesus Christ or to man. And we don’t need to wonder if angels could have mated with man ans sired offspring because Christ clearly stated that when man is made new that he will be as the angels in heaven. “KJ2 Matthew 22:30. “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven.” There is even one version that clearly specifies at least in one way how we will be like the angels. (AMP) For in the resurrection neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but they are like angels in heaven [who do not marry nor produce children].”


      8. I have read the post and am coming up with no Biblical reference showing that the term “son’s of God” found in the book of Job is referring to angels. Kindly provide this reference for me.


    2. So why are you saying “g-d” That sounds more like a cuss word, but moreover points out to the notion that you reject the Lord Jesus Christ, you are even to ashamed to say God.

      I’m sure you would want to quote other satanic sources such as the book of enoch…


      1. I’m going to take a wild guess and just assume you’re not of Jewish background. In our culture, we refer to him as adonai or in this case, G-d. We believe it’s disrespectful to use his real name and use these other terms instead.
        So please don’t call our ways satanic and try to educate yourself next time before ironically and hypocritically spewing hate.


      2. Hi Gary. I am wondering why the children of the sons of God (believers) and the daughters of men (non believers). Should produce super human but evil men of renoun . It would seem that genetically inferior (sin tainted) genes would result in a less viable hybrid by bringing down the superior ( less sin infected) genes of true believers. And why are believers called the sons of God while the sinful unbelievers are called the daughters of men? Hhhhhhmmmm?


    3. Lol.. I am glad you weren’t trying to insult the man. I think that is exactly what you did and it is obvious that you are clueless but you speak of things you are ignorant of. This is a verse you should examine a fool is known by the multitude of his words Ecc. 5:3


      1. Thank you. I’m really trying to figure out what the passage in Genesis 6 is talking about. Some say angels mixed genes with humans. Some say angels can’t procreate. I don’t believe the angels procreated with humans but don’t seem to be able to understand who were the nephilim? Why were they men of renoun ? From where did they get there “super powers “? Why? Why were they genetically superior ?


  2. you can make all the excuses you need to, but the word nephilim does not refer to anything from this earth—-this did not happen last tuesday——-long time ago. do some more studying on this. they came here, not kicked out, they chose to come here. and they can assume a human body, as the man who gave up his daughters to save his “guests.” they ate food.


    1. The word nephilim means “giants.” They weren’t supernatural beings, but large humans, like Goliath of Gath who was killed by David in 1 Samuel. Giant humans once roamed the Earth in large numbers. Their genetics still occur in modern humans from time to time as highlighted in the Guinness World Book of Records or Ripley’s Believe It Or Not. Some of the men who play professional basketball could also probably be called giants.


    2. Nephillim means merely fallen ones, and after GOD destroyed the wicked in the flood, there grew new members of the regrown race of man becoming fallen once again.


      1. in Ancient Celtic, Norse and other ancient cultures. I believe the term Giant was refered to as a MYTHOLOGICAL human like creature? Perhaps a story? perhaps a powerful successful rich man. fat, rude repulsive, and the fair daughters? were children. under aged girls the monsters could get, through money, having rescources to kidnap. This situation I believe would break Gods heart to the point of destruction. I would like to believe only Jesus came from Heaven born of the spirit. Not ANGELS unworthy but yet granted human bodys.


      2. 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). These people are described as men. They were men of renown, not giant freak-hybrids.
        Renown: the condition of being known or talked about by many people; fame.
        These were mighty men.
        I have a question for these people that insist angels can procreate. In heaven, will we be able to still procreate? if not, why not? Since you believe angels have that ability, even though they are of a different body, as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
        I will prove using scripture that a spirit can be seen by men using the disciples and Jesus. Matthew 14:26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a (spirit); and they cried out for fear. It is obvious that jewish people believed a spirit could be seen. When Jesus revealed himself to Jacob in the OT, he was called the Angel of the Lord, but he was not ever called a man. Jesus could not have taken on the likeness of men [then], [but] Philippians 2:7 [says] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the (likeness of men): When did Jesus do this? In the OT or NT? Jesus did this when He was conceived in Mary’s womb. Luke 1:35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God.
        Hebrews 2:Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
        Angels have never took part of the same, ever. Everything produces after its own kind, this decree was given by God himself. Angels and men are not the same kind, and never have been. They cannot become humans, by they can reveal themselves to our eyes. Do not confuse the two.


  3. Mr. Gaylord,
    My congratulations on your perception, interpretation, and your understanding of The Word. As one who is filled with the Holy Ghost you know the Holy Bible is only words to many, as Jesus parables were incomprehensible to many. To believers the bible stops being contradictions and written words. It is why they call it “the living bible”. With spiritual enlightenment comes the truth contained there in. I marvel at the knowledge it encapsulates translated by the Holy Ghost and the different meaning man tries to apply when they tell God what His book means.

    You did better than good but you already know that. Thanks for sharing.


    1. “Jesus parables were incomprehensible to many” No joke and I’ve even heard pre-tribbers make the claim that the parables were not for doctrine, no wonder they would claim such.


    2. He did better than good alright. In fact you both did. If the world was infested with hybrids spawn by demons it’s blatantly obvious that they could never and would never come to a knowledge of God. They would never obtain righteousness accounted to them through faith because demon spawn beings cannot repent. Yet Moses, by the spirit of Jesus supposedly preached to these hybrids. It makes no sense. But here’s proof that Moses was at least preaching to people by the spirit of Jesus.
      (1Peter 1: 9-12) proves this conclusively and 2 Peter 2: 4-5 confirms it and the next few verses show yet again that the entire context of Genesis six was about the sins of man. Not fallen angels.

      Therefore my question is this. Why would Jesus in spirit through His spirit Moses bother preaching to Hybrids that had no hope of repentance? And why would He be upset with them for sinning? That’s what demons do.

      They can influence and they can possess ‘willing’ humans but they cannot breed with us. In fact they cannot even breed with each other so by what power and authority did they have to recreate themselves and produce human, or at best human compatible sperm. Also an unbiblical assumption

      It’s just not right.



  4. Mr. Gaylord,
    Are you uncomfortable with the alternate possibility… I am – but, that doesn’t mean I get to change what God’s word says.
    Point 1:
    After a quick review of the Hebrew we find “Sons of God” in Gen 6 is “be•nei ha•’e•lo•him”, referring to a direct creation of God. Adam was as angels were. Those of us who have experienced the 2nd birth are also now “Sons of God” in the same manner.
    However, Exodus 4:22-23 uses the word “be•ni” without the “ha•’e•lo•him”; while 2 Samuel 7:14 uses a different word altogether, “le•ven”.
    Clearly, you’re not comparing apples to apples here between the references and Genesis 6. The best explanation so far is the “angel view” of Genesis 6.
    Point 2:
    We also find in the Genesis 6 account that there were nephilim, “han•ne•fi•lim”, in the land. What does that word mean? Turns out it comes from the root word naphal, meaning fallen ones. This sounds like Lucifer and his band of rebels. Let’s just double check that… when the old testament was translated to Greek this word became gigantes.
    So in regards to the Jude 6, “the angels which kept not their first estate”, the reference to first estate is actually the word “oikētērion” in the greek. It means habitation. Strangely, the only other place in the bible this word is used is in 2 Corinthians 5:2 “For most certainly in this we groan, longing to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven”. It would seem these angels stepped out of a God-given habitation for something else. Interesting!
    Point 3:
    Procreation as we all know is possible outside of the bonds of marriage – not exactly what God intended. But this reference of Mark 12:25 does not support your argument.
    Point 4:
    Wow, you’re missing this one wide. One of the things you may have overlooked in Genesis 6 was the reference to Noah in verse 9, where God is pleased with Noah and Noah’s generations are blameless/perfect/unblemished. What does that mean? Is it possible that Noah’s genealogy had not been corrupted by the unholy procreation business between fallen angels and the daughters of men? And if this had been happening and if the world of men had been corrupted to such a full extent, then a world-wide flood would have been the best thing God could have done… for you and me and everyone else to provide our Savior.


    1. Very clever tactic, David. Throwing Hebrew and Greek words around like you do in your argument to cause unnecessary confusion and to muddy the waters. However, this tactic doesn’t work on me. God went out of his way to keep his word simple and also grants wisdom to those who really want to understand it.

      The book of Job says, “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them,” [Job 1:6], and “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD,” [Job 2:1]. The phrase “Satan came also among them” is a phrase that points out the fact that Satan was not one of the sons of God–he was not considered part of their group.

      In your criticism of my Point 1, you claim that I was not comparing the same Hebrew word for “son”, but both the Exodus and 2 Samuel scriptures use the same word “ben” for son. So your criticism is totally incorrect. The word “leven” is not in either scripture. So it’s obvious you’re stirring up unnecessary confusion.

      In your criticism of my Point 2, you overlook the fact that the term “fallen” refers also to sinful men. Psalm 20:7-8 says that those who trust in the power of horses and chariots for battle instead of trusting in God are “fallen”, using the word “naphal.” As a matter of fact, “naphal” is used most of the time in the Old Testament for “fallen” because that’s the usual word for someone who falls whether it’s a normal physical fall to the ground, a fall in battle, or a spiritual fall from God. So your argument has no merit when you imply it only applies to Satan and his angels.

      Your criticism of my Point 3 is a failed argument. God created all of his creatures on Earth to procreate after their kind. Mark 12:25 is perfect for my argument. Jesus points out that angels are not created for procreation like humans. The fact that their purpose is not for marriage speaks to this truth. And since they were not created with the purpose or possibility of ever being married, they were not created with the possibility of being sexually involved with each other or with humans. As Jesus once said, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God.”

      My Point 4 was right on point and withstands your criticism. Noah was blameless on a spiritual level because he was devoted to God and what pleased God. He came from a line of godly people. He, like his descendant Abraham, believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Your argument is that giants were descendants of angels procreating with humans. You argue that Noah’s family did not procreate with fallen angels. Then why were some of Noah’s descendants giants? There were giants who were Canaanites and Philistines who descended from Ham, Noah’s son. They were the sons of Anak.

      So your argument doesn’t hold water. If giants only descended from angel/human mixing, and God decided to destroy the Earth with a flood for this purpose to destroy the giants, and to save Noah because he didn’t have these giants in his family, then there would have been no giants after the flood. Once again, ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.


      1. Regarding your reference to Job 1:6 and 2:1, let’s consider John 20:26 which reads
        “And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them…”
        Wouldn’t you agree, although Thomas is called out by name in this passage, it does not mean that he is not one of the disciples?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. In a rush to raise an argument with me and to prove yourself right, you overlooked a major component of understanding scripture–context. The context of John 20:26 is that Thomas in the previous verses was absent when the Lord appeared. When he was told Jesus paid a visit, Thomas said he wouldn’t believe it unless he saw Jesus himself and touched him. Then we come to John 20:26 which sets up the anticipation that Thomas is about to see Jesus so John lets us know Thomas was present this time with the rest of the disciples.

        In Job, when it says “Satan came also among them” it was denoting that he is separate from the sons of God. The context had already been set that Satan is the bad guy, the evil one. This scenario is the precursor to Paul’s teaching that the devil presents himself as an angel of light. And the mention of Satan lets us know something bad is about to happen based on what was established about Satan in previous books.

        So your “debate” falls flat and you fail once again to prove my points wrong. You tried to give your own private interpretation and that was your first mistake.


      3. I appreciate the feedback. I agree there are different contexts, but it seems like your approach is taking some liberties to say the context overrides the common understanding of this phrase both in the Old and New Testaments not to mention the fact that sentence structure does not semantically demand the interpretation you’ve assigned. Anyway, I guess what I’m saying is you still have not convinced me that my argument failed but I will think about what you said a little more.

        Hope you have a good weekend.


      4. In other words even if you show me the truth I refuse to believe you! No matter how many sources you provide??? Ya you are uncomfortable with the truth!


      5. I agree. Giants have come and gone since the flood. So there must have been some giant genes in either Noah, his wife or his daughters in law. Somebody? So were the nephilim men of renoun because of their height alone? They weren’t necessarily superhuman just extraordinarily tall? Like Saul who was chosen to be king based on his good looks and height.


  5. Point 2:
    I missed part of point 2 above… The word gigantes come from the root word gigas, which after some digging came up with a few additional meanings besides the most frequent one, “giants”. It also refers to “earth-born ones” and in another context to “a wild race related to the gods” (little ‘g’).
    Hope this also helps.


  6. This is your stump, Harry – not mine. And before I start let me say I truly appreciate your devotion of effort, time, and other resources to the study of God’s Word. My only hope is that you stop puffing up, drop the pride, and consider what you may not know.
    So let me see… if I understand your position… you basically saying…
    – Seth’s sons worshipped God and followed Him.
    – Seth’s sons were the “sons of God”, a.k.a. “believers”.
    – The daughters of men didn’t worship God.
    – So, the daughters of men were “un-believers”.
    – In a moment of weakness these two groups hooked up.
    – Their sin was rewarded with “GIANT” offspring.

    This might sound plausible, until we remember Goliath was over 9 1/2 feet tall. If this is all it took to create a star basketball team, I think we have raised the hoops a little higher than 10 feet by now. And, if the only requirement for worldwide flood was sinful man, then I think, we should all be walking around with life preservers today.
    Seriously though, here’s what’s at stake… by implying the flood was God’s first response to our “sin problem”, it makes the cross sound like it was a last ditch effort to save us – some sort of cosmic Plan B. Personally, I don’t think our all knowing God needs a Plan B. No, I believe that God set our time-space up exactly as he needed it, down to the placement of every sub-atomic particle. He was not surprised by any of the adversary’s plans, nor by Adam’s fall, just as He is not surprised by our everyday failures.
    He’s ALWAYS been on Plan A!
    Here’s another interesting sidebar… after studying Genesis, a 13th century rabbi’s concluded, that we live in 10 dimensions – 4 knowable and 6 unknowable. Today scientists and mathematicians agree there are at least 10 dimensions to our reality. With this in mind, combined with your study of the scriptures, I’m sure you would agree angels are enabled with freedoms and abilities within these 10 dimensions that WE do not share nor understand.
    Your final statements, quoted from above:
    “Angels have NEVER mated with humans and have NEVER produced offspring by humans. This is one thing God has NEVER allowed and will NEVER allow.”
    Do you realize how this sounds? You are implying either you know what God knows or that you’ve somehow been given “special” knowledge with respect to this subject that the rest of us don’t have. Your use of 4 absolutes is quite provocative – those should be used only when we truly know what we know. And even then, we should be careful. Wouldn’t you say?


    1. No, David, you misunderstand my position. The sin of believers marrying unbelievers was not rewarded with giant offspring. You were the one who said that the flood was the best thing for God to do to keep Noah’s genealogy line from being corrupted by the giants who were angel/human offspring.

      You claimed the flood’s purpose was to destroy the giants. My point was that giants existed after the flood, descending from Noah. The Bible tells us there were giants in the Promised Land who were Canaanites. So obviously your claim that God had to bring a flood to wipe out the giants was wrong. And your claim about angels mating with humans is wrong. And your claim that giants can only come from an angel/human mixture is wrong.

      God created man to populate the Earth. Therefore, God created man and woman with the physical ability to populate the Earth and to follow his command to be fruitful and multiply within the confines of marriage. But man used those physical abilities to sin against God with fornication, adultery, etc.

      Angels were not created to populate the Earth. They neither marry nor are given in marriage and were not created by God to physically procreate. God established marriage as the union for procreation. Since angels do not marry nor are given in marriage, this tells us it was not God’s intention for angels to procreate and he did not create them with the ability to procreate.

      And I can speak using absolutes because I know what the word of God says. This isn’t special knowledge since God reveals absolute truths to those who believe in Jesus if they are willing to humble themselves.

      Your arguments about a Plan A versus a Plan B don’t make sense either. When God destroyed the Earth the first time, he used water but gave the rainbow as a sign to man that water would never again be used to destroy this planet. But he eventually revealed to his prophets that the Earth would be destroyed again and the next time it would be destroyed by fire. So apparently God does have Plan Bs in operation. His plan Bs are not about whether or not he is omniscient, all-knowing. It’s about God giving mankind plenty of time to repent on God’s timetable and also leaving man with no excuse whatsoever for rejecting his plan of salvation.

      God also gave the Mosaic law to man for a limited time as a plan A. Then at his appointed time, he came in human form as the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Savior of the world. By coming as the Lord Jesus to fulfill the Mosaic law on our behalf, the old covenant of the Mosaic law was no longer needed. All that was needed to be cleansed spiritually was faith in Jesus Christ. It was God’s plan B but was paradoxically also God’s plan A since this was what he had in mind even before he established the foundations of this world.

      So who is Jesus to you? I noticed that you’re talking about what some Rabbi said about 10 dimensions. Where’s his proof of that? Your arguments about dimensions and what mathematicians and scientists and rabbis claim is just to stir up confusion. Especially since the men you’re talking about came up with these theories about dimensions to sidestep the truth found in God’s word. And you don’t provide any specifics. I’m holding to God’s word and you attack me for it yet you cling to teachings of fallible men and claim you’re correct. Christians are commanded to “keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called,” [1 Timothy 6:20]. We are also told “let God be true but every man a liar.” So again I ask who is Jesus to you? Has Jesus Christ come in the flesh?


      1. How about – we take one thing at a time. Let’s start with Jesus. You’re asking me who He is to me. Jesus is the I AM of the burning bush, the Creator of all, the Redeemer, the Lord. He created me just like he created you. He is my kinsman redeemer. He is my Lord and Saviour. He was born of a virgin. He walk among men as a man, yes – “in the flesh”. After He died on a wooden cross in Judea, He was buried.
        But that’s not the end. On the 3rd day He was resurected and walk among men again, until the day He ascended into heaven. He now sits at the right hand of the Father. He has sent the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, who will remain until the day Jesus comes back to gather His bride from among the living and the dead, to bring her home. On that day we will be changed, in the twinkling of an eye; and we will see Him as He is.
        But that’s not the end either, is it? – more on that later.


      2. Ask yourself why was it nor the Sons of Men and Daughters of Men? There must be some difference…

        Satans plan was to pollute the human race so Jesus could not be born in future generationsthat through a pure lineage.

        Satan had polluted all but a few people (Noahs family) before God plan moved to the next stage. Read Gen 6:4 :

        <q cite="GEN 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. “>

        “In those days” means “before Noah”
        “And also after that” means “after the flood”

        From this point on Israel was always being confronted by tribes and nations of the offspring of this event. At times Israel was even told to leave “none alive”.

        Withougt understanding the context and purpose of the Giants and pulluted offspring God appears like a barbarian.


      3. Norin,

        Thanks for sharing your viewpoint.

        However, the human race was already polluted by their own sin and didn’t need the help of evil angels. And as I highlighted in Gen. 6 above, God only addressed his disapproval with men in this scripture.

        Your explanation of “In those days” and “also after that” doesn’t agree with the context of the scripture. “In those days” is talking about the days where Gen. 6:1-3 were happening. “And also after that” refers to after the sons of God married the daughters of men and after giants began to appear on the Earth. It was AFTER these things that the offspring of these mixed marriages of believers with unbelievers that children were born who grew up to become mighty men and men of renown. That’s the meaning of Gen. 6:4.

        Noah was already walking the Earth during the time of Gen. 6:1-7 and he was mentioned in Gen. 6:8 as a contrast to the evil people mentioned in the previous verses. Gen. 7:6 tells us the flood started when Noah was 600 years old. God said in Gen. 6:3 that man would have 120 years left on Earth before he would destroy them. So if we subtract 120 years from Noah’s 600 years, we know God predicted man’s destruction when Noah was 480 years old when God said man would be destroyed. Noah saw the giants and saw how believers (sons of God) were intermarrying with unbelievers (daughters of men). So Noah was around “In those days” of the giants and also around “after that” when this intermarrying occurred. Those phrases are not about “before Noah” and “after the flood.”

        And even the Lord Jesus verifies that Genesis 6 is only speaking of humans when he said that the return of the Son of man would be like the days of Noah. When Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24:37 and Luke 17:37 about his second coming, he talked about what HUMANS were doing at the time. They were marrying, eating, and drinking. Why didn’t Jesus talk about angels marrying humans? He didn’t talk about this because no such thing was occurring.

        You have basically done what so many people do when approaching the scriptures. You formed an opinion based on what you have been told and then went to the scriptures and tried to make them fit your preconceived, man-made notions.


      4. @haraygaylord .you speak as one who is lead by the spirit.I do not know much about the GOD but what i know is that the word of GOD is meant to be simple.The theories of Men are proven to be false almost every decade and these are the same men who were held in great esteem in their times….The great philosophers etc…The word of requires a child like submission and nothing more.The kingdom of GOD is after all for children. we all know that children have a christ-like humility and are always willing to learn.as far as ive read many people here are always jumping at the opportunity to make a correction ,nothing wrong with that unless you are trying to look better than the next person.Truth is the same irrespective of who is presenting it.Can GOd not use the youth because they do not understand Figures of speech?
        does it not say in the word that GOD qualifies the called??


    1. Giants were humans. Being giants was part of their genetic make-up. Just as people of the same color who marry others of the same color and produce offspring of the same color, large humans married other large humans and produced large offspring. It’s as simple as that.


    2. D**n David just when I think the other guy Gaylord is coming with some strong points u come back just as strong…I’m at d edge of my seat reading both of ur’s interpretations…
      Shalom and bless alLAh


  7. So if “being giants” was in their DNA, that would have meant that some or all of their ancestors had to have had this giant_gene to naturally pass it along. Ultimately, what you’re saying then is Adam and/or Eve had the giant_gene, then. Is that right?


    1. Well, since we still have people today who have gigantism and they, like all humans, descended from Adam and Eve, I would have to say that Adam and Eve had the gene. Only human genes back then were not as corrupted as genes in our times, so I imagine giants back then may not have had some of the abnormalities of today’s giants.


  8. I’ve gone over this time and again… and I keep ending up confused that such a brilliant man (not a sarcastic put down by-the-way) is making the kinds of claims you are making. Can you help me understand what texts you are using to form the basis for your arguments? NIV, KJV, ASV, The Message? What is at the root of your bible study?


    1. I’m using the kjv and comparing scripture with scripture. My claims line up with what it says in the kjv and the textus receptus, the manuscripts used to translate the kjv. Your confusion is not from what I’ve said. It’s from the fact that you have learned traditions of men that have been drilled into your mind over and over and your unwillingness to let your traditions go to embrace what God’s word really said. And in your previous comments you placed words in verses that do not actually appear where you said they did. You are leaning to your own understanding instead of leaning on the understanding that God gives to us through his Holy Spirit when we are humble enough to listen.


  9. Interesting.

    Every time someone tries to dig a little deeper to get a better understanding of the differences in our positions, you come out swinging.

    It’s really too bad – because you are obviously a very sharp guy.

    The things you have said about my positions throughout your monologue – that they are based on traditions and my unwillingness, etc. is not true.

    What is true… is that I have been earnestly studying God’s Word the last several years and leaning completely on the Holy Spirit for insight and strength to bear the truth he reveals.

    One thing that I have learned along the way is encapsulated in this quote from Herbert Spencer. Perhaps, you’ve seen it before:

    “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

    If not, you – my friend, have certainly been putting it into practice. Let me be clear – I am not your enemy, nor are any others who would seek to keep you from straying too far. I hope you test the spirits a little more rigorously than you did me. They are after more than just deceiving you. Our adversary is out to deceive your audience. He is a liar, a thief, a murderer.

    Shalom aleichem

    Liked by 1 person

    1. David,

      Your previous comments were a sharp criticism of my views and you have to admit, you ridiculed them. I’m not taking a swing at you. I’m just explaining in the simplest terms I can what is really going on here. When I explain my position with clarity and simplicity, giving scriptures in the correct context to back up what I say, yet someone questions what the scriptures say and chalk it up to a misinterpretation on my account, what should I conclude?

      I have rightly divided God’s word here and yet I’m accused of being off and deceiving people, while those who criticize me don’t accurately use scripture to explain their points. But somehow I’m the bad guy?

      Liked by 1 person

  10. In regards to these two theories, I would have to lean towards the angel/human breeding interpretation.

    Archaeological records indicate an array of humanoid subspecies which are bipedal and yet clearly not homo-sapien. For example, Neanderthal – which for many years was claimed to have been an ancestor of Homo Sapien by the “public education system”. These creatures were similar but NOT humans. More muscular, thicker boned, and violent cannibals. Yet they made musical instruments and buried their dead. Gene research has shown them to have too many chromosomes to be an ancestor of Homo Sapien. In addition, evidence shows that Homo Sapien & Neanderthal lived at the same time. So where did they come from? And where did they go? If not the result of a demonic attempt to corrupt the Homo Sapien race, what is your explanation for the fossil record?

    Consider that many current testimonials exist of demonic “rape” occuring during possession/opression of females. But it seems, that God has already restrained the only order of spirit-beings that were both capable and motivated to commit this act with the result of offspring.


    1. Are you sure your info is correct? The science on Neanderthal is tainted by scientists who believe in evolution. You can’t take their word as truth since they fudge scientific data and create stories to pass it all off on the masses as being true so they can get funding and do away with the God of the Bible, who they hate.

      As far as demonic “rape” is concerned, devils can physically affect the human body, but this doesn’t mean they have ever had any offspring by humans.

      I think the word of God is clear that “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are not fallen angels. Fallen angels are not “sons of God.” What occurred in Genesis 6 happened after Satan and his angels rose up in rebellion. There’s no way they would have been considered sons of God hundreds of years after their fall. And let’s not forget Genesis 6:4, which says “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.” So this tells us in the days when sons of God began marrying the daughters of men, giants were already roaming the earth. Giants were in the earth in those days and AFTER THAT (after giants were in the earth), when sons of God married daughters of men, the children they had were mighty men, not mighty angel/human hybrids.


      1. evolution is something changing over time. We are constantly doing this now, I think it is how God intended. You probably think the earth is 5000 years old. In the end I don’t believe it really matters if I believe God created all of us through a evolutionary process or not. Accept Jesus as your savior and the rest is semantics.


      2. bill,

        Please research further. None of your assumptions really hold up to the evidence. There are no transitional fossils proving one family of creatures can become a totally different creature (macroevolution), which is the faulty centerpiece of the theory of evolution. Evidence backs a young earth and rejecting that has doctrinal and scriptural repercussions, as I discussed in the following posts:



        Liked by 1 person

  11. Besides fossil evidence and possession testimonies, there is also the discussion of this topic in the Book of Enoch – which supports the angel/human breeding theory. Say what you will about the Book of Enoch, just remember that Jude quotes from it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The quote in Jude may match what is in the apocryphal book of Enoch, but Jude is actually quoting from another source that the apocryphal book of Enoch also quotes from. Apocryphal books often plagiarize other sources. Some of them quote Psalms or Proverbs, but this doesn’t mean we can take them as truth. So the angel/human hybrid theory still isn’t proven as fact.


  12. Harry,

    yes I am quite sure of the info I posted. If you’re interested in the gene aspect of research I suggest reading Bryan Sykes “The Seven Daughters of Eve”. Written by the professor of genetics at Oxford.

    Regarding other reading material on this topic I will also add that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain a manuscript which also supports the angel/human breeding concept. Search “dead sea scrolls book of giants”.


    1. Michael, regarding Neanderthals, I’d like to refer you to this link, which is a timely article from a Christian perspective. And here’s a short article addressing the genetics of Neanderthal.

      The Dead Sea Scrolls are as unreliable as the apocryphal books because they were created by the Essenes, a heretical sect of the Jews. Yes, the scrolls have parts of the Old Testament in them but they also promote the confiscation of personal property for the sake of the group (we would call this the re-distribution of wealth or socialism/communism). They also believed in the coming of two Messiahs–one religious and one a governmental leader. In other words, they were hoping to see the coming of the Antichrist and his false prophet. Their doctrines are also a spin-off of gnostic beliefs.


  13. The articles were interesting but unconvincing. They present a a defense of strict “young earth” interpretation as the only “correct” version of Biblical events, and whenever evidence emerges that casts shadow, they just say “well that’s not Biblical”. What? That is unreasonable and definitely not science.

    They all but concede that Homo Sapien skeletal remains exist which pre-date their “version” of the creation account! Which is true – there are bones of fully modern humans located in areas where – according to BOTH evolutionists AND the 5,000 year-old young-earth – they shouldn’t be. This tells me 2 things:

    1. evolutionists were wrong, and their charts are worthless.
    2. creationists who fail to consider that time is a function of the material universe and doesn’t operate the same way at all points in the formation of the universe – are also wrong about the dates.

    In regards to the MtDNA of Neanderthal, the only tactic presented by the site you linked was to say “it could have been corrupted”. Really? All the samples were ineptly handled and corrupted?

    One major difference here is that the site you linked was debating with a Nat’l Geographic article depicting a hairy, dirty-looking Neanderthal woman as a primitive cave-dweller. I am making no such claim about the technological or hygene practices of the species.

    What I AM saying is: if angels and humans did mate and breed offspring, it would follow that there would be fossil evidence of human-like variants on the Homo Sapien model. Something that walked bipedally and talked and had its own culture – something that mostly looked human – but was NOT.

    Such evidence exists. And those who staunchly deny deny deny only look more foolish as the evidence mounts. Both in the evolution camp as well as those in the believer’s camp – but who will only accept one interpretation, theirs.

    For detailed reading on the subject of early Homo Sapien fossil evidence please see “Forbidden Achaeology” by Cremo and Thompson.

    And regarding extra-biblical texts – I find it interesting that many believers will point to an overwhelming multitude of Flood stories and myths from literally every part of the world – as support for the Biblical story. I am one of them. I cannot be a coincidence that every culture and language has a very similar story to the Noah account.

    But in regards to this theory, all the other similar extra-biblical accounts are meaningless?


    1. Here’s another article regarding Neanderthal DNA. Just like Ardipithicus ramidus (“Ardi”) proved to be an embarassment to evolutionists and just like they had to re-think their timelines for homo habilis and homo erectus, the Neanderthal DNA findings will eventually be shown to be mistaken. Neanderthal DNA is a rather recent finding and will have to be scrutinized more closely to see if the findings are correct. The jury is still out. The evidence is questionable at best for your belief.

      You can make all the arguments you want but the Bible is clear, although you wish to exercise your eisegesis to the Bible instead of exegesis. My previous arguments still hold firm–i.e. fallen angels aren’t sons of God and giants roamed the earth before the sons of God married the daughters of men. Angels never mated with humans.


    2. But how big was Neanderthal? Was it a giant? All of the drawings I’ve seen of Neanderthal have attempted to show it as being SHORTER than mankind.

      I can’t understand how you can assert it’s a giant.


  14. You said “the jury is still out”.

    This is to my point. One of the reasons I lean towards the angel/human theory is because there is more than one way to interpret the passage in question.

    Then, looking to extra-biblical texts (Enoch, Sea Scrolls) and fossil evidence – I see evidence which tends to confirm the literal face-value interpretation of inter-species breeding.

    But, sure the jury is still out. Oh, and Neanderthal is not the ONLY Sapien varient fossil. There are others. Take fallen angels out of the equation and, as Ricky Ricardo used to say, “You’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do.”

    Ha! I’ve seen strict dogmatic types invent all sorts of theories ranging from pre-adamic humans to God cleverly “planting” the fossils just to throw us off our game.


    1. When I said the jury is still out, I wasn’t saying that about the scriptures. I was saying that about your scientific theories. The word of God is already established truth. Your scientific theories are just unproven theories. God is not a man that he should lie. Scientists are men and they often lie, especially when they are desperate for funding like the Darwinists.

      You can cling to all the so-called “evidence” you wish, but God’s word is truth and no scientific evidence can ever prove it wrong if it is true science. The science you cling to is not the truth. The scriptures have already spoken concerning this issue, as I’ve pointed out time and again in my post above and in my comments. So “where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” [1 Corinthians 1:20]. “Faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” [1 Corinthians 2:5].

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Seriously!

    Michael, you need to be careful here – this blogger knows his stuff. I should know, I have a few scars to prove it.

    Needless to say – I’m in agreement with you, Michael. I would recommend you check out an article written by Bible scholar, Chuck Missler. It’s titled “Mischievous Angels or Sethites?”. This can be found at the following URL …
    In this article Mr. Missler discusses the concerns presented in this blog. For example that the early Church held to the Angel view as did those who translated the Old Testament into Greek before the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    You know that makes me wonder, why wouldn’t Jesus address that as a mistake in the translation, if it were in fact an incorrect assumption?
    Anyway, I chased this down to make sure Missler wasn’t feeding me a bunch of malarkey, buy reviewing the Greek and Hebrew texts. How can one do this you might ask… well, I found that get that answer in the King James, but if you take the time to do a little research with interlinear Bible tools – you will find some answers. There are plenty of hardcopy resources for this out there, not to mention online resources. One online resource in particular is …

    Regards to both you and the blogger.


    1. When I wrote… “How can one do this you might ask… well, I found that get that answer in the King James, but if you take the time to do a little research with interlinear Bible tools…”
      I meant to write…How can one do this you might ask… well, I found that YOU CANNOT get that answer in the King James, but if you take the time to do a little research with interlinear Bible tools…”


    2. [why wouldn’t Jesus address that as a mistake in the translation, if it were in fact an incorrect assumption?]

      Jesus did address this. He told his disciples that angels don’t marry, nor are they given in marriage. And Missler doesn’t touch on the fact that Genesis 6:4 says giants roamed the earth before the sons of God married the daughters of men. He talks of “ancient rabbinical sources” but which ancient rabbinical sources? He also talks about the Septuagint, which is based on corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts. He talks of the OT only using the phrase “sons of God” to refer to angels, but the NT which is based on better promises and a better covenant calls Adam the son of God when it discusses Christ’s genealogy. And the scriptures I mentioned in my first point negates his “sons of God” argument, since Elohim, speaking in the first person, calls Israel his son and calls Solomon his son so there was no need for the Hebrew term “ben ha Elohim” to be used.

      Missler also in his teachings believes the sons of Anak, like Goliath, were a continued attempt by fallen angels to corrupt the human bloodline and were ultimately an attempt to corrupt Christ’s bloodline. He stated this in a recent broadcast of GodTV’s “Apocalypse and the End Times” show. But scripture doesn’t bear this out. Missler also believes that these fallen angels will continue to mate with humans in the last days before Christ returns. If that’s the case, why didn’t Jesus warn us about it when he gave his Revelation to John? Additionally, Missler believes the fallen angels are the aliens who are abducting humans and experimenting on them.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Angels were made by God. They were made without genitals. Only God has the secret of their making. They had no genitals nor did they have DNA, no history,no possible way to pass on their angelic traits to their offspring. They had no parents no grandparents No DNA, no genitals. They were complete within themselves. It would be like trying to cross a door and a rose. They are made completely different, nothing in common with one another.Even if Satan was able to put genitals on a human still he had no clue as to how angels were made. Only God knows. He can enter into a person if they are willing,but he cannot make another human being. So he cannot make DNA to supply the angels. We all know God made everything and everything was made by God. So fallen Angels had no genitals and definately had no DNA and DNA is mandatory in creating new life and passing on our traits to our children. They had nothing that would make them compatable to humans. They could corrupt us and I believe they did and maybe their wicked influence made a difference in our minds and our physical stature as well. Like when people are married for 60 yrs they even start to resemble one another. I think we are spending far to much time on things that spur our imaginations, sensational ism seems to be the high these days. We need to concentrate on the simple things found in the word. On the awesome beauty of the Lord and bring our minds up to his teachings and truths.


  16. Thanks for the links, David.

    Oh, and Harry – bones are not theories. Question: how do you define a bipedal hominid which walks erect, makes tools, has a social structure, but is not Homo Sapien?

    If it’s not human – what is it?

    No need to attack me for “clinging to science” – as if there were no such thing as a good, ethical scientist, and everything they do and say should be cast into doubt. Where does this attitude come from?

    Sure, there have been corrupt liars in the field f science, and there have also been corrupt liars in the world of religion.

    You put yourself out there by claiming to have special knowledge about this passage. I contend that indeed you do not – and there is not only room for the angel/human theory – but some evidence to support it.

    But I could be wrong about it. It’s not going to rock my world either way, and I’m sure as heck not going to make claims on the internet that the Almighty has revealed this to me.

    I have my opinions about the theory and I’ve stated them here along with a few suggested reading materials. Both books I listed were written by scientists with credibility – and which faced great opposition in their fields because of the anti-evolution content.

    But I’m open. Can you say that?

    Yes the Bible is the Word of God – but it wasn’t written to be a science textbook. It was written so that we might enter into a relationship with God. There are things left out of the Word – mysteries for us to discover: “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.”


    1. Bones aren’t theories–that’s correct. But the interpretation of what the bones mean is a theory. I have no problem with science. I just have a problem with the way Darwinists interpret science. I don’t claim to have special knowledge. I’m just going by what the words in Genesis say. My opinion is the minority opinion on this matter. Most Christians who talk about the passage in Genesis 6 that I’ve heard talk about it make the same claims you do about angels marrying humans.

      And as far as your being “open” is concerned, you came here with the idea of getting me to change my opinion to match yours. So your claim of being “open” is rather disingenuous.


  17. Just read that article, which pretty well sums up the angel/human breeding concept – so thanks again David.

    I’d just like to add here as a tack-on to my previous post, that the founders of modern science were all believers. Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Pasteur, etc. These profound thinkers knew that God was a God of order and design, and that much could be learned about His goodness through a careful study of His creation. Through their attention to study and “out-of-the-box” thinking (but grounded in the Word), these men changed the course of history and technology and social development.

    I would like to also add that the man responsible for the “Big Bang” theory was Georges Lemaître – a physics professor and also a priest. The godless within the scientific community ridiculed his theory by calling it the “Big Bang” – but of course now they will never tell you that a believer came up with it and pretend that they themselves thought of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

    As history points out, some of these great minds were persecuted and rejected by the Church, because their teachings weren’t considered “accepted truth” as they taught it (see Galileo). In these cases, the Church was responsible for driving a wedge between the scientific community and the truth of God’s Word.

    I am hoping to live to see a reconnection and healing of the rift between the Church and the scientiofic community. But that means that both must be willing to reject lies and politics… it might be a hopeless dream after all.

    Sorry to digress, I just have seen poor leadership and corruption as well as beauty, nobility, and goodness in both camps. I have learned to be slow to judgment on things that are left unclear.


    1. Again, I’m not against science. I’m against scientific theories that contradict God’s word. God’s word far surpasses the reliability of what man says and God’s power to preserve his word far surpasses the ability of Satan and humans to corrupt his word or what it means. I have done plenty of posts showing how the correct interpretation of scientific findings prove how true God’s word is, but I don’t believe we need science to prove that God’s word is 100% true. And I have used the Big Bang theory in a few of my posts as scientific proof of God’s existence.


  18. From Josephus:

    “For 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; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land.”

    Antiquities, Book 1, Chap 2-3


    1. Josephus is an excellent source for some matters of history, but he did not write by divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit and some of what he wrote can be taken with a grain of salt. We don’t need Josephus to understand God’s word. That’s why we have the Holy Spirit. Having said that, in his preface to Antiquities he acknowledges “…those that read my book may wonder how it comes to pass, that my discourse, which promises an account of laws and historical facts, contains so much of philosophy…However, those that have a mind to know the reasons of every thing, may find here a very curious philosophical theory, which I now indeed shall wave the explication of…”

      He acknowledges that some of what he wrote is Jewish philosophy or traditions, not necessarily all of it is historical.


  19. From Justin Martyr:

    “God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and rotation of the seasons, and appointed this divine law – for these things also He evidently made for man – committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate needs, and all wickedness. . . .” (p. 363, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers)


    1. So Justin Martyr believed that demons (devils) are the children of humans and angels. Interesting. The Bible says that demons are fallen angels. Satan, in fact, is a demon. Justin Martyr’s theological views in this instance don’t hold up to what we find in scripture.

      Angels could not have married humans since Paul, by the Holy Spirit, said that God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” That “one blood” was the bloodline passed down from Adam and Eve. That’s the only blood any human has ever had on the Earth. If angels had been in the mix, Paul couldn’t have made this truthful statement. The term “hath made” means that God originally made, has throughout history continued to make, and continues to make, all humans from one bloodline.


  20. There really are so many quotes about this topic from various sources that I could post these for several days. I’ll just add this one more for today.

    From Philo of Alexandria (a man who knew the Apostle Peter):

    “But he [Moses] relates that these GIANTS were sprung from a combined procreation of two natures, namely, from angels and mortal women; for the substance of angels is spiritual; but it occurs every now and then that on emergencies occurring they have imitated the appearance of men, and transformed themselves so as to assume the human shape; as they did on this occasion, when forming connections with women for the production of giants. . . .” (The Works of Philo, page 811).


    1. Just because someone knew Peter doesn’t mean their beliefs are valid. Peter knew a lot of people and not every person he knew agreed with Christian doctrine. Here is some interesting info about Philo of Alexandria who corrupted some of the ancient manuscripts–

      Philo mixed Stoic philosophy of Greece with Plato and the Old Testament. He believed scriptures should not be taken literally but that they had hidden meanings. This belief in hidden meanings comes from Plato’s belief that the physical realm was simply a veil for the idea behind it and only the idea of a physical thing is real. Plato advocated the state control of all religion and state control of children. Philo held to these philosophies and mixed them into the manuscript he wrote which became part of the Alexandrian text.


  21. I ask one question, have you read the Book of Enoch? Also how would you explain Jude 1:6 And 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. How do you explain giants? I respect the time you placed in this article but allow God to give you full insight so that you aren’t accused of not fully looking at all God’s revelation.

    God Bless You

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’ve explained all of this in my previous comments. If you want to hold to man-made tradition that twists God’s word into saying angels mated with humans, that’s your choice, but that’s not what the Bible says.

      The book of Enoch is not scripture. In the days when the apostles wrote their letters, there were counterfeiters writing forgeries in their names, as Paul points out in 2 Thessalonians 2:2. This is true of some of the Old Testament teachings also. The book of Enoch is deuterocanonical, or apocryphal. Apocryphal books were known to quote from other texts and traditions, including the Bible. So Jude, who was inspired by the Holy Spirit was not quoting the book of Enoch, but another source that the book of Enoch plagiarized.

      Having said that, Jude 1:6 is talking about how the angels who joined Satan did not keep, or guard, their original territory in heaven that God gave them and like the rebellious Israelites who were led by Moses, they had their blessings of ownership in the Promised Land taken away. The angels lost their place in heaven and instead inherited hell, which God originally created for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41). Some of these devils are in hell’s jail awaiting the day of judgment when they will be placed forever in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10). This is what Jude is talking about and has nothing at all to do with angels mating with humans. Angels never mated with humans.


      1. And I already explained all I need to about giants in my previous comments. Genesis clearly says giants were already around when the sons of God married the daughters of men. Giants were (and are) 100% human.


      2. To me, you have not made your assertion plain and simple. For The Most High God is NOT the author of confusion. But, I think we do know 1 who is.
        There is no doubt that the author’s in the bible speak truth, and it’s not my job to persuade any1 to accept those. For, a TRUE believer will be open to, and willingly accept these truths; just as 1 should be to modify incorrect beliefs.
        For many will come professing to know my name, and and know me naught. Do take heed, for there are those who also seek to deceive you.

        All praises be to The Most High God, Ahayah… in the name of Yashia.

        Sometimes, we should exercise caution where we lay our pearls. Though there may be many who would read my words (and benefit from them) perhaps all they really want is to trample upon those, and render me up.

        For a worthy soul, this man would not hesitate.


      3. You compare the Pharisees to Enoch, the 1 who is naught and walks with Ahayah?

        Such blashphemy. You play with a very sharp double edged sword.

        Ever think that; even before man walked the earth, that old, wise, and cunning, serpent (the very same who TMH God gave authority and power to) slithered the land and did lay traps to snare unbelievers and his own?

        The word of my God stands on it’s own, and will NOT cause strife or confusion amongst the Annointed’s Sheep.
        As said B4, HE is NOT the author of confusion. HIS words, seek to cleanse and edify others; as do those within the loving fold.

        Okay. I suddenly have this odd tingly feeling on the back of my neck. Ever have that? That… Uhm, spidy sense?

        Before I 🏃… Edward, do be careful where you lay pearls. Some just take on the appearance of light. Yet, seek to deceive you.




  22. Harry- I just want to say, great job in explaining the truth of what the Bible says. All of the books, articles and reading materials presented by David were weak. Satan is a deceiver and he will twist the truth with a little lie to stumble a believer because his job is to deceive or distract. Everything we read and hear must be tested against the Bible, and if it contradicts the Bible then throw it out! Thank you for your steadfast faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. God bless you!


    1. Thank you, Victoria. God bless you too. Christendom would have fewer doctrinal troubles if we would just do what you said. For most of us, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak when it comes to wanting to read the Bible and take God at his word instead of clinging to our man-made, traditional doctrines. Thanks be to God that one day he will present to himself a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle that stands holy and blameless [Ephesians 5:27] and I look forward to that day when all false doctrines will be purged from among us.


  23. Hello Brother Harry, if you do not mind may I please request you to hear a sermon by Pastor G. Craig’s Lewis – Truth Behind Hip Hop Part 5. You may or may not want to believe it but would be great if you hear it. God bless


  24. I’m on the angel/human side. I know this is a late post but my question is harry if sons of god were “believers” then why in the next verse did god see that wickedness was great? wouldn’t there be less wickedness if believers were breeding? And in genesis 6:1 why would it say then MEN began to multiply and then later refer to us as sons of god noticing daughters of men? Wouldn’t we have noticed them already since we were multiplying? And Victoria this is why Christians seem to have Contradictions people read versus’ once and assume they know what they. He didn’t show any truth he only fogged it. Harry no insult but read the bible more and get a better understanding of it before you try to teach its word.


    1. Wickedness was great because, as happened to Israel, the believers married unbelievers and made spiritual compromises. This is why Paul tells us not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. Since the beginning of our existence, when there is spiritual intermarriage, the believers get the short end of the stick. Genesis 6:1 is simply stating that the Earth was being populated with a lot of people. This doesn’t negate anything I’ve said. The men who called upon the name of the Lord wanted the daughters of the unbelievers. You’re reading into it what it doesn’t say based on your traditions. Verse 3 clearly says God had a beef with MEN, HUMANS, not with fallen angels. If angels took the daughters of men and angels are more powerful than men, as explained in the Bible in many places, why would God blame humans for being overpowered by the angels who took their daughters as wives? And if angels were involved in this, they would be just as guilty as humans, but God did not mention his anger toward angels. The end result of the intermarrying was that sin multiplied because the believers compromised, just like what’s happening today. What happened back then and what happened to ancient Israel is going on today before our very eyes. There’s nothing new under the sun.

      Your traditions of men have fogged what you see. Your judgment against me falls flat since it is obvious that you’re the one who lacks knowledge of what this passage actually says. So practice what you preach. You’ve brought nothing new to this argument.


      1. Really? The reason why nothing new is brought to the argument is because almost every opposing viewpoint is obfuscated with emotional techniques.
        The only reason why I’m not surprised to see more replies being shared that favor the the angel-view of Genesis 6, is because they probably see how quickly the opposition is put in their place.

        If the primary reason for this site’s existence is to puff up one side over the other, then I truly feel like we’re almost there.
        On the other hand, if this site’s purpose is to help us ALL to rightly divide the Word of Truth, as 2 Timothy 2:15 commands, so everyone can clearly see what God is communicating to us at this time in history… then we have a ways to go.

        In His Grace – I’m continuing to pray for you man!


      2. If anyone is using emotional techniques, it’s you. As I told Robert in a previous comment, anyone who looks at comments for this post can clearly say most of them are from dissenters and only a few agree with me, so your observation is a skewing of the facts. And you’re only skewing the facts because you’re upset that I won’t let you repeat over and over the same weak arguments you’ve presented before or that I won’t give you infinite opportunities to tear down what I’ve said when you’ve already had plenty of opportunities to do so previously, but you failed in your previous attempts.

        And you can take your condescending tone elsewhere. You’re not the one who died for my sins so I don’t have to cater to your faulty opinions just to suit your ego. And I didn’t start this website or put up this post to be Mr. Popularity of Christendom. I speak what I believe God has shown me and I have already proven that I welcome dissenting opinions, so don’t sit there and insult me or try to guilt-trip me by your false claims that I’m puffing up one side over the other just because I have shown you where your opinions lack merit.


      3. Why won’t you discuss the similarities between the passage with Job and John? You said you don’t want to post weak repeated arguments. But I have not seen that argument posted and it does not seem to be lacking in substance.
        As I stated in my last reply – I’m not trying to fight you, I’m trying to debate the issue.
        You are not my enemy and I am not yours. Some day we’ll be on the other side of the curtain and we both be in Christ’s presence.
        What do you say?
        In His Grace – David.


      4. I not only implied I was weary of weak arguments, I also mentioned the fact that you’ve already had ample opportunity to present several arguments and you failed to tear down what I said. You claim you’re not trying to fight me just debate me, but a debate is an argument and last I checked, an argument is a verbal fight. My post on this issue is rock solid, but you don’t seem to care that my points are rock solid. It goes against your tradition and obviously traditions are so much more important than truth that you aren’t interested in letting them go in light of truth. No one with any argument can get around the fact that fallen angels are not sons of God. The ones who try to get around it usually hold to the false doctrine of Christian Universalism–the belief that all of God’s fallen angels, including Lucifer, will one day be reconciled to God, so they can still be called sons of God. This will never be true.

        Neither can any argument get around Acts 17:26, that God hath made of one blood all nations of men. That statement applies to the times before, during, and after the flood.


      5. I want to set the record straight. Because you keep saying that I’m falling back to my traditions. Quite frankly, I haven’t looked at what Roman Catholic teaching is on this topic. I was raised in that church but it’s been almost 3 decades since I’ve followed that tradition. About the time I went off to school/work on my own, I found that the “religion” presented by Catholic churches was lacking.
        Fortunately, God brought me into a circle of friends and a body of believers, who dug into the Word – which we clung to instead of the pulpit. I’ve been actively attending bible-based churches over the years since, then.
        And it’s only been the last 10 years that I’ve looked more closely at this issue of Genesis 6. As I look back at my “traditions” I would have probably aligned with the Sethite view or at best the Tyrant view of it. The Angel view of this passage would have been the furthest thing from my mind.

        So Please! Please stop telling me, telling yourself and telling your readers that David is still slogging through his hand-me down traditions.

        Thank you.


      6. I’ll stop saying you’re following traditions when you actually stop following tradition. The fairy tale that fallen angels married the daughters of men is a tradition, it’s Jewish folklore that became Christian folklore.


  25. It is interesting to note, Harry, that you’ve completely side-stepped my post. What are you afraid of? And why are you only picking and publishing those posts for which you have a ready answer, that you have been regurgitating for the past few years?
    Your eyes are obviously covered in darkness (John 8:44)


    1. I have no fear of anyone who comments here. If you will take note of all the comments left for this post, you will notice most of them try to tear down what I say and only a few agree with me. And you will notice that several commenters attempted several times to tear down my post but they failed miserably. When I don’t allow comments it’s because you commenters are only interested in attacking and not listening. And you think I’m supposed to let you bring up the same issues over and over again, ad nauseum, ad infinitum, when I have addressed your issues in previous comments. So, yes, I delete comments that cover areas I’ve already addressed because if I don’t you’ll return with the same comment worded differently without any new angle. As the blogger for this site, I reserve the right to run this blog as I see fit and if you disagree then so be it. Since I don’t hold public office and I don’t have to kiss up to people for a popularity contest, I don’t lose sleep at night when you complain about my not displaying all of your comments.


      1. Thanks for your analysis and comments on this passage from Genesis. The supposition that this passage referred to angels always bothered me as it did not fit with the rest of Scripture. Your 4-point explanation really does bring clarity. It is unfortunate that you are having to defend this in the face of the evidence provided. God bless!


  26. I have always wondered about Psalms 82:6-7 “I have said, Ye are god’s; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.”

    My question is, if they are going to “die like men” they must not be men?

    The first verse of this chapter says “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

    Any thoughts about these verses, and what they mean, Harry?


    1. Greg, you’re using eisegesis (reading into the scriptures what you want to get out of them) and not exegesis (getting out of the scriptures what is really being said) for this passage. The Lord Jesus himself addressed this scripture in John 10:

      33The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

      34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

      35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

      36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

      The Jews wanted to stone Jesus because he was a man and claimed to be God. Then Jesus pointed out the fact that the law called men gods. He was asking them “How can you stone me for being a man who claims to be God, when your law calls men gods when they received his word and were set as judges over the people?”

      The context of Psalm 82 is that God will judge the gods (human judges) who he set over the people to judge righteously because they refused to mete out justice, showing favoritism toward certain people and neglecting their duties to the poor, fatherless, and the afflicted (Psalm 82:2-4). They used their office without godly knowledge or understanding and were full of darkness, thinking very highly of themselves and this put the whole justice system out of whack (Psalm 82:5). God was telling them he had originally called them to the office of judge as children of the most High, but since they shirked their godly duties he would remove them from office. They thought that they were invincible in their lofty position, but he would show them they were mere mortals who would die just like any other man and would die like the sinful princes of their day.


  27. Harry – I was using neither eisegesis nor exegesis. I was simply asking for your thoughts on these verses. Thanks for your opinion on this passage.


  28. I don’t think I have seen this question answered.

    You contend that Seth’s sons were “the sons of God” and were believers and followers of God, correct? Why didn’t these godly folks get on the ark?

    Maybe you could also answer these two, I just thought of:

    Why does the “sons of God” marrying daughters of men produce giants? and then only “male” giants? We never once read of a female giant. The bible calls them “men of renown” Whenever the bible mentions “nephillim, they are always male.

    I know that we have some basketball players that reach 7′, but these giants in the bible would have dwarfed those guys, Goliath was over 11′ tall, and Og, king of Bashan, was somewhere near 13 and a half feet tall, this is based on the fact that his bed was 14′ long and 7′ foot wide.

    Please don’t call me bad, or that I don’t believe in God’s word, I would hope by now that you know that I do, or that I’m following tradition, I was not reared up to believe this, I have studied God’s word and these are legitimate questions that I have about the theory that “the sons of God” were a godly line of Seth marrying daughter’s of men, that created a race of wicked, male giants.


    1. Greg, I was hesitant to even deal with your comment because all of the information I’ve shared already touch on your questions. This makes me question your intent.

      Seth’s descendants were the sons of God. His godly line appears in Genesis 5. His descendants each had several offspring, but the only offspring who appear by name are the ones who lead to Noah. You’ll notice each one “begat sons and daughters”, but those sons and daughters names aren’t given. Even Noah had siblings, according to Genesis 5:30. But Noah, who would’ve had a bunch of uncles, aunts, and cousins by the time he came along, was the only one saved with his wife and kids. So obviously the majority of Seth’s descendants who were believers did what the Israelites did centuries later. The men of Israel married women God told them not to marry. They committed whoredoms with the daughters of Moab and Midian [Numbers 25]. After they returned from exile, they took “strange wives” [Ezra 10:1-11]. Notice how these scriptures don’t mention what the women did. So the majority of the males in Seth’s line did what the Israelite did centuries later.

      You asked why these godly folks didn’t get on the ark. Well, why is it that a whole older generation of the Israelites that left Egypt didn’t make it to the Promised Land, with the exception of two of them? God called the nation of Israel his son in Exodus 4:22, but only two of that older generation settled the Promised Land. Why? Answering that question accurately will answer yours.

      [Why does the “sons of God” marrying daughters of men produce giants? and then only “male” giants? We never once read of a female giant. The bible calls them “men of renown” Whenever the bible mentions “nephillim, they are always male.]

      I already answered this. Giants were roaming the Earth BEFORE the sons of God married the daughters of men (these daughters of men more than likely descended from Adam and Eve’s other children, see Genesis 5:4). How many times do I have to repeat the same thing? Obviously you’re not listening. “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,” [Genesis 6:4]. Giants were in the earth already and AFTER THAT, which is after the giants were roaming the earth, sons of God married daughters of men and the children of their mixed marriages were mighty and men of renown. The giants were called the Hebrew word “nephilim,” and all giants were human, from Adam and Eve, from one blood.

      If you’re familiar with the Old Testament, you should know it is patriarchal. It emphasizes what males do more than what females do. Men have a more prominent role. There very well could have been female giants, but they’re not mentioned. So what? Big deal. It doesn’t negate anything I’ve said. And it doesn’t make your false belief true about fallen angels marrying humans. You are following traditions of men that have been handed down for centuries. You may not have been reared up to believe it, but you have bought into the tradition. Additionally, in your nephilim-always-being-male argument, you forgot that when God said he “shall not always strive with man” in Genesis 6:3 and predicted their destruction, the word “man” applied to all humans male and female as it does in many places in the Bible. So nephilim probably was not always referring to males.


  29. Harry,

    Hey brother I’m just a simple man which often leads me to think in a simplistic way so please, bear with me and here goes,

    First of all I am in total agreement with you and would rather spend time accepting the Scripture instead of trying to disprove it. I would also like to encourage you to not be concerned with being outnumbered when standing for the truth,(seen that one a few times before ain’t we?).

    Secondly, still keeping it simple,
    Why didn’t Moses say angels if he meant angels? There are fifteen references to angels in the Pentateuch and each time it refers to angels it calls them angels—never the sons of God. The only exception is Genesis 3:24 when he calls them cherubim. (from Don Stewart, the Bible Explorer)

    And my third and last point/question, since my cache of knowledge must be approaching a critical low, is simply this;

    If for any one second in time, Satan and/or his demons could take it upon themselves to reproduce with, and infect the human race, why would they have ever stopped? Obviously he and his crew didn’t perish in the flood! Also, why would they need or take the time to marry? Why not just rape ’em all? Although some may say that the phrase “took wives” may not necessarily mean marriage, nothing in this context means otherwise and the Hebrew makes this clear,
    “The sons of God took wives.” The Hebrew verb here, laqah, commonly describes marital transactions, including taking a wife for oneself (4:19;11:29; 12:19; 20:2,3; 25:1; 36:2,6; Exod 34:16). (Victor Hamilton, Don Stewart).

    Again I apologize for the rationale and will quietly wait for the firing squad of the educated to squeeze.

    Keep up the good work brother, I admire your patience and perserverence, and may God continue to bless you!

    (no post expected, support will continue regardless)


  30. We certainly have some bright people here, brighter than i am. Egos are rampant, however. Name calling starts early. Some major part of this is posturing, esp right at the beginning by someone who offers criticisms but no alternatives, based on what, his superior intellect which to him is quite apparent. If i werent already a Christian i dont know where i would be after reading all this.

    My respect to Harry, the originator, thank you.


  31. Y NADIE SE PUEDE PREGUNTAR, SI UNO AFIRMA QUE EL DILUVIO AYUDO A LA DESTRUCCION DE GIGANTES y otros afirman por la cantidad de pecado, ,,, pero quiero decir esto en breve ,,, SI Supuestamente Dios aprovecho el diluvio para destruir gigantes? es que entonces Dios se equivocaría en no poder exterminar del todo a los gigantes en la época de David? y si ya se acabo la exterminacion del pecado supuesto de ángeles y las mujeres, entonces porque salen a relucir de nuevo los gigantes en el caso de David? sera que algún ángel escondido se metió de nuevo pario con alguna mujer en los tiempo de David? y si en los tiempos de Job una traducción diferente le llama HIjos de Dios y otras no, créeme que también eran los angeles porque se menciona satanas? no sera mejor que satanas aun se sigue vistiendo de LUZ y fue asi queridos amigos que hasta hoy el se sigue disfrazando de LUZ (entre los cuales) en muchas ocasiones ni lo distingues cuando escuchas a un supuesto teleevangelista, el es padre de mentira, que aun asi ni los angeles que se presentaron ante DIos lo pudieron reconocer,,, en realidad esta pagina fue la unica que dio una claridad a lo que otras no mencionan,,, gracias el que hizo esta pagina Amen

    Rough Translation: AND NO ONE CAN ASK IF ONE SAYS THE FLOOD AIDED THE DESTRUCTION OF THE GIANTS and others say the amount of sin,,,, but I want to say this briefly, if Supposedly God used a flood to destroy the giants? could God then have made a mistake in not being able to completely exterminate the giants at the time of David? and if he had already supposedly just exterminated the sin of angels and women, then why did he allow giants to be brought up anew in the case of David? Wouldn’t it be that any fallen angel would end up with any woman in the time of David? and if in Job’s times different translations calls them sons of God and others do not, would you believe me also that they were [good] angels because Satan is mentioned [separately]? It would not be better that Satan, although he keeps on dressing in light and it was so dear friends that to this day he is still disguised in light (among them)on many occasions, often not distinguished. When you listen to a supposed televangelist, he is the father of lies, which even the angels who stood before God could not recognize. in fact this page was the only one that gave clarity to what others do not mention, thanks to the one who made this page. Amen


  32. first of all the name: harryagaylord.. what does it mean?
    next, i am on the angel view but…
    angles cannot mate …
    there is a seed of Satan Gen 3:15
    2 rows of teeth, six fingers, six toes 1 cron. 20:6 …..
    one key word: Technology
    basically since its clear that there were fallen angels, there is a seed of satan so how would it be possible to go around doing this if you cant mate? Technology


  33. All that any of you have proven to me is that the word has been changed, interpreted, revised, altered, etc. over and over throughout the years. You are all so quick to argue the words used and their meanings, but you fail to recognize that your beliefs are tied directly to whichever version of the word(s) that you accept. This is why I’ve always been skeptical. From day one, even as a child, when a pastor tried to give me a King James Version of the Bible to me, I remember asking him instead for the original because I don’t want a version of something I’m supposed to 100% believe in. I want the real thing…only the real thing. Why? Well, look at all of this arguing going on basically based on the semantics of it all…what has been allowed to happen…what, if you do believe the actual words of God as printed, should have never been altered because he says “do not” do it.

    Now, do not think that I am a non-believer. I love and do believe in God. What I am fully convinced of is that man has continually gotten it wrong and has also changed things to suit his particular needs at points in history. The fact that such confusion fills the Earth (this is just one forum out of thousands that prove so) leads me to believe that we may again soon see another “version” of the Bible put into publication…and it still won’t be the original…which bothers me to no end. I wish he would just come back already.


    1. Cupid, in your arguments, you make some unfounded assumptions. Your first assumption is that only the originals are valid. Then you make the assumption that all Bibles have been altered by man and are therefore unreliable. You have bought into what the secular world has fed to you without doing research. If all of what man does is fallible and must be dismissed or seen with skepticism, then how do you even know that your view that we MUST have originals is valid when that is what fallible humans have told you?

      Your arguments are self-defeating. You claim our beliefs are tied to a particular Bible version, but your beliefs are tied to what you’ve heard from fallible humans, including yourself. So how do you even know your own beliefs are valid? How do you even know the manuscripts were changed throughout the years when you don’t even have the originals to compare them to?

      If you were to do research instead of speculation, you would know that the words used in the KJV agree with the oldest manuscripts in existence. For example, the oldest manuscript for Isaiah is in Hebrew, dating back to the 100s BC, and the KJV matches it in its English translation both in the words used and in their meaning. There are even ancient historical sources outside of the Bible from early believers who quote the Bible they had in ancient times in the first two to three centuries of the church. Those early believers include Justin Martyr, Athanasius, and Irenaeus. Their quotes from the Bible match what is written in the KJV.

      The KJV uses a family of manuscripts called the Masoretic text and the Majority text. There are over 5,000 Bible manuscripts in existence and the KJV agrees with 99% of them, based on studies done of the manuscripts. Other versions are based on 1% of existing manuscripts. Those versions include the New King James, NIV, NASB, TNIV, RSV, and all other non-kjvs. So can you really put 99% on the same level of reliability as 1%?

      The kjv has been proven 100% reliable in its historical accounts, in its science, and in its spiritual principles that have been documented in changed lives, including miraculous healings using the name of the Lord Jesus. God never said he would only preserve his word in the original manuscripts and only in Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic. That’s why there were scribes to make copies of his word throughout history. The scribes who feared God took great pains to make sure they copied everything correctly down to the smallest letter and smallest punctuation.

      And God, who is almighty and never lies, promised he would preserve his word forever. In Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God said his word is “not hidden from thee” that we can’t possibly know it because of man’s alterations. He also said it is not “far off”, such as in heaven where no living human can possess it. Additionally he said it is not “beyond the sea” in some foreign land where we have to spend thousands of dollars to go there to acquire it.

      Psalm 119:89 says God’s word is settled in heaven, meaning it pre-existed all manuscripts and published Bibles and continues to exist long after copies of the manuscripts or Bibles disappear. He has the power to see that it continues on Earth even when evil men destroy certain copies of it. God isn’t concerned about originals, which is why he told Jeremiah to throw an original manuscript in the river in Jeremiah 51:63. Yet here’s the kicker–Jeremiah 51 are the words Jeremiah wrote down on the original manuscript he threw in the river, but we still have Jeremiah 51 today.

      Jeremiah 36 gives an account where an evil man destroyed an original manuscript and how God handled it. Baruch wrote down the words God told to Jeremiah about judgment against Judah. When the words were read in public, the king’s servants took the original scroll to king Jehoiakim. When the king heard a few lines of God’s prophetic words, he grabbed the scroll from his servant, cut it up with a penknife then threw the original in the fire. When God saw it, he approached Jeremiah again and told Jeremiah to have Baruch write another scroll with his words. God gave him the same exact words to write down and even added more words to what was originally written. The words from that original scroll that Jehoiakim burned up appear in Jeremiah 36.

      The Bible says over & over that God’s words will stand forever and it hasn’t been proven wrong yet even when the most powerful men on Earth have tried to destroy it throughout the centuries. So your unbelieving words from a hardened heart are unfounded. Furthermore, you were educated using books that weren’t the originals, but you still learned from the copies you had and you graduated–right? Even when those books may have had man-made errors, you accepted what you were taught from those books, so why is it that you feel the need to single out the Bible as something to be completely rejected when it has proven more reliable than books you learned from in school?


      1. Jesus is not coming back. He says it with his own words in mathew 24.

        Wake up, they have deceived you. And it was in plain sight, even jesus saying it. He did warn you not to be deceived about this specific issue, yet you have been for all these years, and all your family members died in deceit.


      2. Alex,

        [Jesus is not coming back.]

        Maybe before you try to teach others, you should read the whole Bible for yourself instead of twisting scripture to deceive. Matthew 24:3 sets the context for the chapter when his disciples clearly ask for the signs of Jesus’ coming, or return. Then in verse 30 Jesus said he would return in the clouds, causing all tribes of men to mourn. Jesus also said in John 14:3 that he would come again. Acts 1:11 also speaks of his return.

        Peter even warned us about people like you:

        3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

        4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. …

        9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3


  34. I’m in agreement with Harry.

    Question though. Could it possibly be that “giants” doesn’t necessarily refer to actual physical stature, but perhaps intellect, wealth or power? No doubt to the fact there were actual physical giants then (and now).

    This is a position I have heard argued, and curious on thoughts.


    1. I’ve also heard this argument before. To get the answer I believe we have to look at all the instances where the word “giants” is used in the Old Testament to get a feel for how Moses, who wrote Genesis, would have used the word. In every single instance where the word is used in the OT, it is used to speak of physical stature and never is it used for intellect, wealth, or power apart from the physical power of the giants. So I believe the argument that it doesn’t necessarily refer to physical stature is an incorrect assumption.


  35. I have been studying this subject and wonder if it ever occurred to anyone that when Elohim (God) created man, he was created perfect just as the angels were and His – YHVH’s Glory was their covering until sin arose and they fell at which time the YHVH’s glory departed from them and they lost their dominion, power and authority given them by YHVH, and He gave them coats of sin. (both physical and spiritual because they became spiritually and physically naked) They are put out of the garden as a merciful act so as not to eat from the Tree of Life and live in a fallen state forever. Now we are in the process of being restored back to His-YHVH’s original plan and purpose. Yahusha ha Messiach’s death burial and resurrection was the fulling of the Promise to Adam and Eve that redemption and restoration would take place, When He died and rose He took back His creation from the power of hell, death and the grave and to who so ever will may come to Him (Teshuvah-repent-turn back). He always was and always will be in control of all things, however i am referring to man being given back His power, authority and dominion again in Yeshua ha Messiach (Jesus Messiah)
    However while man is in a fallen/blind nature and state and the seed of satan planted in him or the yetzer harah (evil inclination) and if man allows satan to rule his life rather than accept Yeshua (Jesus as Savior) then they would be open to being used mind, body by satan and strongholds set up in their lives which they could continue to pass to their generations ie offspring DNA is altered by many different means throughout generations so in this way a man could be uses by a fallen angel to alter mans DNA. But man also has been given free will and that is never taken from him, so until or unless each ones blindness is removed by YHVH/Yeshua and they repent of their wicked deeds including the lies inherited through their forefathers they will continue to multiply these seeds of the enemy.
    This is difficult to describe however anyone who hears the Ruach haKodesh (Holy Spirit) will understand what I am saying here. Thank you brother harry for what you have written her. Blessings and Shalom


  36. I believe it was angels because their offspring were giants yes that offends some people but not all the daughters of cain were evil now give me a break thats the only way your arguement fits


  37. I was just wondering, just a ? cause I am not understanding, if angels cannot mate, then where does the anti-Christ come from? Isn’t that supposed to be from satan, who is a fallen “angel”? I am confused 🙂


    1. Good question. It’s important to remember that if a person is “from Satan”, this doesn’t mean they physically came from Satan as his physical offspring. Jesus called Judas the “son of perdition” in John 17:12. And he told some of the Jews in John 8:44, “ye are of your father the devil”, but the devil wasn’t literally their father. He was their father in the spiritual sense. This is how it will be with the Antichrist. He will be a human used and possessed by Satan like Judas was used and possessed by Satan to carry out what Satan wants (see Luke 22:3, Revelation 13:2-4).


  38. I think the giants of Gen 6:4 were Neanerthals or Cro-Magnons or some other early phase of human evolution. Not taller so much as bigger and more ape-like. Or maybe the passage is based on encounters with dinosaur bones that the authors of Genesis thought were from skeletons of antedeluvian giants. How they had sex with human women and produced offspring, I don’t know. Perhaps God allowed interspecies viability back then. And perhaps they got the women drunk, as Noah’s daughters did with Noah.


  39. All I have to say is your pride is frightening. I’ve read everyone’s point of view and you use an old technique that Hitler used, I’m not equating you to Hitler so don’t even try to Hillary me by saying I have. You create an us and them environment which creates hostility rather than discussing the possibility of anyone else’s accuracy you immediately raise your opinion by citing credentials and how you are right and noone else is. You side step any issues when you cannot defend against them. You regurgitate the same stance with an unyielding arrogance as if you alone are the only one to understand the bible. Well the devil himself can quote scripture. There were valid points from individuals who merely wanted to discuss and you attack their character and judge their faith and loyalty to god. You should be ashamed to be so proud.

    I’m offended by your tongue and your skewed use of the word. You use it for your own purposes standing in the light or authority just like Hitler. Well I have news for you, you are NOT infallible and you are and will always be wrong in the light of God no matter how much you crave it. You will fall to your face before god and how dare you tell others what the father was saying as if you were there. We are to stick together as Christians and support one another and seek answers together not one knowing the truth beyond our own understanding of the word and since we are human we will NEVER understand the word the way it should be because we have our pride the need to be right and in your case be recognized as being right even when you’re not. The bottom line is god is love. I feel no love but criticism toward your brothers. You are not divine and the holy ghost is not exclusive to you. The ghost is our consciousness and the voice of god directing his children to live in accordance with his will which is love.

    Do you realize that EVERY SINGLE war in the name of God was because the individuals involved insisted they were right. Had u been king and those contrary to your beliefs another country this blog would suffice for acts of war. The facts are nobody can be proven right even if you cite the entire bible. I find it rude that you attack anyone with an idea asking you, one with a grasp of the bible, for your opinion, and don’t fool yourself u possess an opinion not truth. You are discouraging people from seeking god, asking questions, ans trying to understand the world god gave us. It is extremely dangerous to follow blindly anything especially authority. God doesn’t want us to follow blindly but to seek him out of love else he would have created robots but he gave us free will. He wants us to choose to come to him not because we are told to.

    we are curious creatures and like you have said god cannot be proven wrong so I never understand the feud between science and religion science is merely understanding the power of god but you act as if science is man’s attempt to usurp god and its not. I think much of what has been said deserves pondering and I respect peoples right and ability to think independently and unique to my own beliefs. I’m comfortable enough to hear them out and even change my own opinions if they make sense because I do not know everything and I learn daily by keeping my mind open. Ii also know enough to know your pride is your cross. It isn’t a deadly sin for nothing. You have some growing up to do, and I am standing up for those you have knocked down with your insistance on being right by not even hearing others out. I’m not sure what the purpose of your site is, but it certainly is not sharing and exploring ideas. To me, it is a tool for your own self aggrandizement and a medium to be heard. I’ll pray for your humbleness and that you allow god to remove your pride.

    Most preachers and preists fall victim to this forgetting that we are to teach Jesus’s love and not getting lost in pettiness. Remember how Jesus lived and preached. This is my own personal belief, but I feel all the doctorines of the world essentially say the same thing and are culturally exclusive so that god can reach everyone. We were born Christians, but ask yourself had you been born Muslim or Jewish would you be so solid in those beliefs nit knowing anything differently. It is the insistance of being the only one who is right that creates discord but when we realize that we are all right is when we will be able to obtain peace. Perhaps that will be the one church you speak. A church that reveals Tue universal truth in all religions; we were created divinely and were created to love our father and all of our brothers. I’ll pray for that day when we see past our own pride. God bless you and everyone else seeking to live their lives throuh father.


    1. Justin,

      You’ve betrayed yourself by your lengthy comment. It’s clear toward the end of your blah, blah, blah that you are a moral relativist. You say, “I feel all the doctorines [sic] of the world essentially say the same thing” and “A church that reveals Tue [sic] universal truth in all religions.” So you are also a Universalist. The true Jesus & true God as found in the Bible proclaims in John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father but by me.” The Bible goes on to say about the Lord Jesus Christ in Acts 4:12, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” So all religions of the world don’t say the same thing and there is only truth in the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Since Jesus Christ is God, the only spiritual truths are found in the Bible.

      This is why you falsely accuse me of pride. This is why you’re frightened. I refuse to bow down to your false god or your false doctrines which have been created in man’s image, not God’s. You have “changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever,” [Romans 1:25]. This is why you’re really upset with me. I know the truth & stand firmly on it without wavering, unlike you, and you wish I would waver like you. Yes, the devil quotes scripture, but he twists it to make it mean what it doesn’t really mean, as you have done in your comments. I have rightly divided the word of God. You on the other hand make a lot of false statements & false allegations.

      You are simply projecting onto me what you are guilty of–vain pride. In your pride you have questioned God’s word & claim I “skewed” it because I refuse to compromise like you have in your own pride. You would have us believe that we can interpret God’s word however we wish according to our own understanding, when the Bible commands us in Proverbs 3:5-6 “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.” But your fear toward God is taught by the precepts (doctrines) of men [Isaiah 29:13].

      Not only do you cling to the false beliefs of relativism and universalism, you have the false belief that “We were born Christians.” No one is born Christian. Becoming a Christian is a personal choice that an individual makes, for “if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved,” Romans 10. It is then, and only then, that one becomes a Christian. That’s Christianity 101 and since you don’t know that simple truth, then it becomes clear that the spirit by which you speak is not the Spirit of God. You preach a different Christ and a different gospel. Therefore, your comment can be dismissed as anathema. God’s word commands us to test the spirits and when comments don’t line up with God’s word they should be dismissed, like I’ve mentally done with your comment and other comments here.

      When someone knows the truth and is confident in the truth, it’s not pride, nor is it using truth for their own purposes, nor is it going against God’s love. It means that the person has humbly listened to what God’s Spirit has said by God’s grace. You also contradict yourself when you claim “since we are human we will NEVER understand the word the way it should be because we have our pride…” If we can never understand it as you claim, then how is it that you so vehemently state that I am full of pride? If we can’t understand it, then how do you presume to know what God’s love is? If we can never understand it, then how can you declare “the ghost is our consciousness and the voice of god directing his children to live in accordance with his will…”? You say we can’t understand God’s word, then contradict yourself by claiming you understand it enough to place yourself in a position to say I’m wrong but you’re right. You have made yourself out to be a liar.


  40. Joanna – You are onto something. I too believe that Satan will father a child, and that child will be the Antichrist. Satan is a copycat, so just as Jesus was born of a woman, so shall the antichrist be born of a woman. I believe the Antichrist will have the “spirit” of Judas. The KJV uses the phrase “son of Perdition” only twice, once in ref to Judas, the other in ref to the Antichrist. Judas is the “only” person in the scripture that is said of “he went to his own place”

    God does not want us to be ignorant of these things.


  41. I did my best to read every single comment left here, and I believe that in the coming days the knowledge will be useful. I believe that as you examine your previous statements made earlier that you used some langauge that indicated pride and that is why you were called on it. Perhaps you become closer or were closer to the Father later because your language become much better. My father used to tell me as a child that it was important to pray to God and ask Him to protect me from anything that is not true or anything that could lead to my deception. Sometimes logic can rule out deception easily when biases are passed aside. God is the author of Logic. God is the source of truth and light, so everything that you write for His children, every word you speak must be done in love and light if you wish truth to be in the essence of your communication. That means that if a word comes from your mouth, or is typed from your fingers it must be done literally with compassion in mind.

    —– “Giants were roaming the Earth BEFORE the sons of God married the daughters of men (these daughters of men more than likely descended from Adam and Eve’s other children, see Genesis 5:4). How many times do I have to repeat the same thing? Obviously you’re not listening. “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,” [Genesis 6:4]”.——

    I believe the point, Before, in this is unfounded. This happened “when” the sons of God took the daughters of man.

    “Noah’s generations are blameless/perfect/unblemished”- The scriptures are clear that all have fallen short of the glory of God. Each man has turned to his own way. all have sinned. The references to Noah and his generations being unblemished cannot be refering to his lifestyle because every man (besides God in human flesh, Jesus) requires God’s forgiveness. You may believe in the concept of original sin or not, but in this case I think that logic suggests “generations” as more than one life and so this simply cannot be refering to lifestyle as being unblemished, but rather something else: something which must be addressed.

    In point one you said “It was Cain’s descendants and other unbelievers who were the “daughters of men.” – I think you meant to say had the daughters of men. Daughter is solely female to my knowledge, and the term “men” is never equated to as a term bound solely to “fallen”.
    So the daughters of men does not mean only the daughters of men, or humans, not following the one true God at the time.

    Jesus is the son of Man and son of God. Therefore a man can be both a son of man and a son of God,
    even if he is adopted or recognized by God as being a “son of God”.

    Jesus was also called a “Man”. If you are born of human/earthborn you will be called a man, though you may be distinguished as separate depending on certain elements like Nephilim. I’m not making a claim, merely stating that you lack certain foundation in claiming that the Nephilim are 100% of original human genetics. You have in fact made several claims here.

    with regards to [Job 2:1],
    After the fall of man, it was Lord who presented Himself before men, not men who presented themself before the Lord. It was not as if they could approach His presence at any moment. Whether or not you believe that the Lord it refers to was in fact the most High, Alpha and Omega, Jesus incarnate, whom Satan was supposedly Jealous of, or -God the father, the literal in the moment, “sons of God” would not present themselves amongst Satan the Devil. It is stated many times that God’s actual presence does not tolerate sin, but Jesus in physical form can in fact be the light amidst sin it so that would suggest that, Satan was in fact presenting himself before the Lord Jesus. Can you tell me what are you saying about this exactly? that suddenly the sons of God, who are already following Him, appear on a rare day? Sons of God can mean different things in different contexts as addressed:

    – “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD,” [Job 2:1]. The phrase “Satan came also among them” is a phrase that points out the fact that Satan was not one of the sons of God–he was not considered part of their group.”

    Your assumption here is in fact open to error. The sons of god were numbering many, however Satan is named as being “also” among them. This could EASILY be that he was important enough/significant enough in history to actually be named or for his name to be acknowledged among them. “again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves” —– It is important to ask, if the angels in heaven are the sons of God, like all creations with free will who follow Him, why would there come a day when they would again present like it is so rare?

    “The Nephilim (Giants) were on the
    earth in those days. And the Sons
    of God saw that the daughters of
    Men were fair and they took wives
    unto themselves and bore children
    mighty men, of renoun.”

    -The distinguishment here that they saw them and THEN bore children who become: mighty men.THINK- Did God make it so that the sons of Seth who were then adopted as sons of God and/or recognized as such-got special genetics to have these Nephilim? perhaps the Calvinist viewpoint must be used in this case that He knew who would follow Him and kept there genetics capable of this?- why is there the sudden distinguishment of giants, as if they are a new thing? the presentation of sons of God see daughters of “man” (anyone born of man is of man) then bear children who become mighty men, suggests there was something else.

    “Josephus is an excellent source for some matters of history, but he did not write by divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit and some of what he wrote can be taken with a grain of salt. We don’t need Josephus to understand God’s word. That’s why we have the Holy Spirit. Having said that, in his preface to Antiquities he acknowledges “…those that read my book may wonder how it comes to pass, that my discourse, which promises an account of laws and historical facts, contains so much of philosophy…However, those that have a mind to know the reasons of every thing, may find here a very curious philosophical theory, which I now indeed shall wave the explication of…”

    He acknowledges that some of what he wrote is Jewish philosophy or traditions, not necessarily all of it is historical.”

    -How is it that you Know that he did not have divine inspiration of the holy spirit?

    Hint: “we don’t need Josphus to understand God’s word.”
    – Is this truly what you are trying to do? if you know anything about God or the scriptures you know that anything that is true, in accordance with the laws of the universe, or historically sound is in fact God’s Word. The word can mean truth, the word can mean the most high, and all things bound by God and for God. The cannonized scriptures are not the only things to be recognized as God’ word.

    At one point Jesus even states that the women will be like angels in heaven, it is not unplausible whatsoever that they in all their technology could have done something with genetics. There is nothing new under the sun. Sacred geometry, technologies and mathematics are all known in heaven. The streets are paved with gold. how is it that there are streets- do you think man has invented anything? do you think any of this is even about man? It’s all about GOd: proving for eternity that Jesus should be King and that only servants can be in heaven because God is a servant. Nothing is past the deceivers and God has given satan much power in this world, so that he may show His awesome Glory to us all. It is important to remember that Lucifer/Satan was perfect in beauty. The best of Gods creations. We will know forever to trust Him above all things that Jesus is King and no other thing that lives compares once God fulfills salvation of this world. Do you believe that mans primitive tampering with genetics is even close to the knowledge of the Angels that were in the presence of the most High?

    I wanted to write less originally to avoid the possibility of many points I made not being addressed so i’m sorry if this is a lot, but I think you need to understand that this is something that you need more than a few points founded on angled interpretations to “disprove”

    David A.


    1. David A.,

      If my language was prideful then God forgive me. However, I believe I answered my detractors in a way that was suitable to what they were saying. I came across as harsh because those commenters were injecting different words into the scriptures to bring about the meanings they wanted to get out of God’s word to firm up their man-made traditions. Yes, I get steamed when people mess with God’s word. That’s hardly prideful since God gets upset when people mess with his word. Messing with his word brings about deceptions.

      [logic can rule out deception…every word you speak must be done in love and light if you wish truth to be in the essence of your communication.]

      Logic only works when logic is based on truth. All my points were made logically from what the Bible says. Just because I used phrases like “How many times do I have to repeat the same thing?” does not mean my words were devoid of love and light. You are under the false impression that Christians should never be angry or have arguments. If that’s the case, you’re inadvertently saying Jesus sinned when he threw the money changers out of the temple and raised his voice loudly against them. Jesus argued with Pharisees & lawyers & called them fools [Luke 11:39-54]. Is that prideful, unloving, & lacking light? Paul disputed (argued) with the Greeks & Jews because they spoke against God’s word [Acts 9:29, Acts 17:17] was that prideful, unloving, or lacking light? You should check your premises.

      [I believe the point, Before, in this is unfounded. This happened “when” the sons of God took the daughters of man.]

      So now we get to the real reason why you accuse me of pride. I refuse to accept your misinterpretation of scripture, so I’m prideful. I’ve quoted the scripture enough so I won’t bother here, but the words in the verse you’re talking about never speaks of your “when” the sons of God took daughters of men. As I highlighted, giants roamed the Earth, then the scripture uses the term “after that.” So essentially you’re changing the words so they’ll fit your false premise. That’s not only bad grammar to change the word “after” to mean “when”, it’s also deception.

      [The references to Noah and his generations being unblemished cannot be refering to his lifestyle because every man (besides God in human flesh, Jesus) requires God’s forgiveness.]

      Again, your premise is a false one. You’re assuming Noah didn’t ask God’s forgiveness & that it can’t refer to his lifestyle. You clearly lack understanding of what the scripture says here–“But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God,” Genesis 6:8-9. As the Lord said in Amos 3, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” If Noah walked with God, they were in agreement. Noah found God’s grace & in order to find grace, repentance from sin precedes it. Since he was saved by grace, like all saints are, God considered him just & perfect. Righteousness was imputed to Noah, just like it was later to Abraham, because he had faith in God. His walk with God speaks of Noah’s lifestyle. Your premise is totally off.

      Since it’s clear that you lack knowledge of the context of this scripture and you obviously lack knowledge & wisdom concerning the meaning of this scripture in addition to your attempts to “wrest” or twist the scriptures with your eisegesis and subtle wordplay, your comments are simply blah, blah. I pray that no one who comes here genuinely seeking truth is foolish enough to buy into your deceptive practices. It’s obvious your understanding is not of God. Satan & his fallen angels are not sons of God in Job or Genesis. If you really understood the scriptures, you would understand that basic concept. So argue about the words all you want, at the end of the day, you are someone who is blind looking to lead others in their blindness and if the blind lead the blind, both of them will fall into the ditch.

      In summary, you just came here to project. You accused me of pride when it’s you who are full of it.


      1. Correct me if I am wrong, but having read the passage from Genesis 6, it seems to me that the purpose of this passage is to record the consequences of the sons of God intermarrying with the daughters of men – the increase of wickedness. When the logic of the ‘argument’ is so lucid, it is surprising to see the reluctance to ‘reason together.’


  42. This is the first adequate defense of the Cain/Sethite view I’ve ever come across. Until today, I held firmly to the belief that Genesis chapter six referred to the creation of angel-human hybrids, and that this was a contributing factor in God’s decision to flood the earth. But now that I step back and examine this view, I realize that you really have to read it into the text (eisegesis). I won’t say that it definitely didn’t happen, but it is not necessarily the obvious interpretation of the passage.

    I have to admit that most of my reason for believing the Angel View comes from extra-biblical sources and research. And even though it played a major role in leading me to the Bible and, ultimately, to a saving knowledge of the truth, that does not make it true.

    Harry, whether you are correct about Genesis 6, I know not: one thing I know, that, even though I want to believe the Angel View, you’ve provided reasonable doubt as to the validity of my beliefs, and I will most certainly be re-examining what I have been taught through the use of prayer and my King James Bible.


      1. It took some time, but I have officially abandoned the Angel view as of several months ago. I randomly came across a video on YouTube in which Steven Anderson make a very solid case against this bizarre interpretation of Genesis 6. Hebrews 1 was the kicker for me; God had never called any of the angels His son. It amazes me that I’ve read that passage so many times, yet it took someone else pointing it out for me to see the truth.

        Anyway, I recalled this blog post and decided to revisit it. I figured it couldn’t hurt to comment and let you know that you played a part in helping me reject this false doctrine.


  43. Harry,

    when you say “In summary, you just came here to project. You accused me of pride when it’s you who are full of it.”

    and the other claims concerning my knowledge or wisdom- it is you who are making claims- the main thing I did was bring to light that you are making claims and that many are unfounded- Anyone who makes statements that this person or that is just full of pride and then proceeds to list off their intentions is in fact the prideful man himself. you can state your belief- while thereby acknowledging and humbling yourself that you might be wrong when it’s about a person’s character- only God knows the heart and the intentions of people. …


    1. David A.,
      [only God knows the heart and the intentions of people]

      If only God knows the heart & intentions, then why are you so adamant to make the judgment that I’m full of pride? If your statement is true, you just contradicted yourself. Or you’re calling yourself God. Either way you’re wrong.

      [the main thing I did was bring to light that you are making claims and that many are unfounded]

      This from a guy in his previous comment who didn’t even know Noah was a saint. And you tried to inject your own meaning into the scriptures in your last comment instead of allowing the context of the scriptures render the meaning. That’s why I dismissed your comments. You showed your lack of understanding of the scriptures and implied that Josephus was inspired by the Holy Spirit, almost elevating his writings to be equal with scripture. I was pretty much done after those statements from you.


      1. brother.” lol just let it go.. already go spread the word. and you cant change ppl’s minds on what they believe my brother. and also you cant be using the bible as a sword. so just becareful on that. only God can judge my brother . spread the word save them lost souls that the devil stold agree?


      2. [you cant change ppl’s minds on what they believe]

        Anonymous, you contradict yourself. If you can’t change people’s minds, then why would you tell me to go spread the word, since the whole point of spreading the word is to change people’s minds about God?

        [you cant be using the bible as a sword]

        Maybe you should reconsider giving advice to a Christian who knows the Bible when you actually don’t. Hebrews 4:12 says, “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Ephesians 6:17 says “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Since writers of the Bible, who acted as the Holy Spirit’s secretaries, liken the Bible to a sword, who are you to tell me not the use the Bible as a sword?

        [only God can judge my brother]

        If that’s true, then why are you judging me by telling me I can’t use the Bible as a sword? By telling me only God can judge, you’re passing judgment on me. So you contradicted yourself, automatically making your statement untrue.


  44. Mr. Gaylord,

    It is very very wrong of you to edit my posts to your liking, not to mention I said a person who is making judgements/judging someone for asking a question and claiming to know their intentions is prideful- this is a truth revealed to us by God. God does not call you to do that or to compare your frustration with people questioning “your claims” as like Jesus having righteous anger when He overturned the tables. …


  45. Being an uneducated Biblical neophyte, I must ask the question “who were the sons of God that came before Him in Job when He asked Satan where he had been ?” Satan’s answer was “going to and fro on the earth”, If I’m no mistaken. So who were they ” ? Were they humans ? Could they see Satan ? Since he is an angel, did he appear to them as he did to Adam and Eve ? Why would the sons of God (the believers) come before God at a time that Satan was around to influence them through his presence ? Please help me to understand.


    1. Gary, the sons of God in Job are heavenly angels. Satan is also allowed access to heaven to appear before God even though he doesn’t live there any more since he and a third of the angels rebelled against God in a war and were kicked out [Revelation 12:1-4]. The sons of God knew who he was in Job. He no longer has the power to influence other angels. Satan usually goes to heaven to accuse the saints or to ask permission to do harm like he did to Job [Zechariah 3:1-5, Revelation 12:10]. Right before God is about to hand out his final judgments against sinful humans on Earth, he cuts off Satan’s access to heaven and Satan will no longer appear to accuse the brethren (saints) according to Revelation 12. 2 Corinthians 11:14 says Satan can transform himself into an angel of light to deceive humans, but like I said before, he can no longer deceive or influence God’s angels.


  46. Mr.Harry I have not read all the post here yet,I salute u in your efforts and admire your knowledge of scriptures…but sir u are taking a position as if u are a god among men,as if u cant be wrong,as if u have perfect knowledge…the bible speaks of satan has deceived the whole world,like sheep going to the slaughter,because of a lack of knowledge.sheep,lamb,represent good people,being led wrong.u should know that the bible is today still being tampered with,for the enslavement of man kind.

    …the fallen were created along with the heavenly,that makes them all sons of god,my child can be disobediant,its still my child,a son\daughter of man. u are speaking on good sead mating with bad sead,cain was a bad seed,his imediate offspring wasnt neph or giants.u seem to be using carnal thinking.who were the people in the land of NOD where cain was cast?noah supposedly was perfect in his ways.how is it paganism flourished almost imediatly after the flood?…


    1. Biggcuz,

      [ u are taking a position as if u are a god among men,as if u cant be wrong]

      No I’m not. Just because I’m confident in what God has shown me and you choose to disagree and want to tear me down, doesn’t mean I’m trying to say I know everything. When God reveals truth, then there’s no longer a reason to be sheepish & hesitant on speaking boldly about it or not standing firm on what you know. Just because you have doubts doesn’t mean I’m supposed to have your doubts.

      [u should know that the bible is today still being tampered with,for the enslavement of man kind.]

      Every other version besides the kjv is tampered with, but the kjv & the manuscripts it’s based on aren’t tampered with. God has the power to preserve his word & he’s done it by the kjv. So don’t try to lump all versions into the “tampered with” category in order to try to justify your attacks on the truth I’ve shared.

      [the fallen were created along with the heavenly,that makes them all sons of god]

      No it doesn’t. Those who reject God cannot be called the sons of God. That’s why Jesus will say on judgment day, “Depart from me ye workers of iniquity. I never knew you.” And you’ve shown the reason why you stated that all versions of the Bible are tampered with. You want to shape Christianity & the Bible according to your own understanding and want to create God in your own image. “Lean not to your own understanding.” That’s what it says in Proverbs. If everyone created by God was considered his sons, then he would not have said to the Jews in John 8, “Ye are of your father the devil.” And your analogy about having a disobedient child doesn’t apply to God’s truth about who belongs to him and who doesn’t. Stop trying to create God in your own image. That’s idolatry.

      [u seem to be using carnal thinking]

      Based on your comments it’s obvious you don’t know what carnal thinking is, seeing as you are guilty of it yourself as I’ve pointed out above.

      [noah supposedly was perfect in his ways.how is it paganism flourished almost imediatly after the flood?]

      Paganism flourished after the flood for the same reason it flourished after God delivered Egypt by his miracles and for the same reason it’s flourished after God has tremendously blessed America. People are prone to sin and they love sin. They want to do what’s right in their own eyes. That’s Christianity 101 yet you don’t understand that and presume to question me on my understanding that I’ve backed with spiritual truth.


  47. Mr.Harry l respect your knowledge of scripture but ‘u’ edited my post to fit your response,im not trying to tear u or anyone down,i have a spiritual thirst,i know i went from here to there with the post,but its your sight,but i feel that was wrong to edit my words,it takes away from the growth process,how can this sight reach its potential if u do that,how many others have u done that way,i made valid points that others may have wanted to ponder,whether they or u agreed with them,it stirs the mind to do more research,investigation,prayer,which equals spiritual growth…Is your sight about spiritual growth,expanding knowledge,or is it all about YOU.what u did was vain,pride has destroyed so many…


    1. @Biggcuz,

      I did you a favor by editing your post. You were just rambling on and on in your comment, so what do you expect? When people submit letters to the editor of magazines or newspapers, the editors reserve the right to edit them as they see fit. I reserve that same right here. My site is about glorifying God and tearing down every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. Many people who come here like you think that they can promote false anti-biblical ideas on this site and I let some of them have their say, then I tear down false ideas based on principles that are clearly stated in the Bible. If you don’t want your views torn down, then make sure you set aside your own pride to insure your views line up with God’s word. His word isn’t open to your own private interpretation. That’s not vain pride, it’s rightly dividing the word of truth.


  48. Hi Harry – I’m in agreement with you. I am not educated in any of the original biblical languages, so I can only comment on what the Bible tells me in plain English. Genesis 6 makes a clear distinction between the daughters of men, the Nephilim and the Sons of God.

    Nowhere, however, does it say that the Nephilim found the daughters of men attractive. It says that the Nephilim were there both before and after, but that the Sons of God (humans) found the daughters of men lovely and married them, producing the heroes and renowned men of ancient times.

    In the end, all that matters is the saving grace of God in Jesus.

    Go well.


    1. Dean,

      Thanks for your comment. Ultimately, it’s the Holy Spirit who teaches us what God’s word means. We don’t have to be educated in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic to understand the Lord’s word, thank God. That happens to be a fallacy often taught in our congregations today by people seeking to elevate themselves above everyone else, so you can rest assured it’s the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth [John 16:13], not our knowledge of the original languages.

      Be blessed.


  49. David and Harry,

    I think you both have brilliant comments and I don’t think either one of you is malicious in either way toward the other. You both seem very educated in the scriptures.

    But I have a question – where in the scriptures does it say that the daughters of men and the sons of God mated and created the Nephilim? Maybe I am missing something here, but to me they seem to be separate.


    1. Laura, thanks for your comment & question. The verse you’re looking for is 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.” They are separate, as you claim. If you look up the verse at blueletterbible.org, you can click on the “C” to the left of that verse and it will give you the Hebrew and where to find each word in Strong’s Concordance. The word “giants” in the verse is the Hebrew word “nephiyl” from which we derive nephilim. That’s the only place in this verse and this chapter where it appears.


  50. I am just wondering if this verse is really saying that the sons of God and daughters of men conceived the giants OR could it just be a side note that there were giants at the time that the daughters of men were conceiving men of renown?


  51. If the sons of God and the daughters of men were only referring to the believers and unbelievers, why would their offspring create the Nephilim?


    1. The nephilim roamed the Earth in the days prior to the flood. Then “after” the giants were already around, sons of God married daughters of men and the religiously mixed marriages produced men who were men of renown. That’s what Gen. 6:4 is saying.


  52. Thank you for your comments. Sorry I missed the one you referenced above. I did not take the time to read the entire post. I agree with you that the Nephilim and the men of renown were not the same.


    1. How do you take the verse in Corinthians where women are told to cover their head on account of the angels? Alo what aboutstories from around the world where gods come to earth and mate with human women? Could not these gods be fallen angels deceiving man into making us think they are gods


      1. 1 Corinthians 11:10 which tells women to cover their heads because of the angels is something I don’t understand. But what I do understand is that angels are spirits so they would be able to see a woman with her head uncovered in the privacy of her own home if they were around or watching from heaven. 1 Corinthians 11:10 is talking about procedures specifically during church worship.

        The stories in pagan cultures were started by humans deifying other humans by the inspiration of devils [Romans 1:20-23]. For example, Baal worship started at the Tower of Babel in Babylon when the people worshiped Nimrod. That religion was taken around the world as Baal became Jupiter, Sol, Zeus, and other false gods. Ancient Arabs worshiped the god Sin, the father of oriental civilizations who was Noah’s great grandson through his grandson Canaan. The Sinai Desert is named after him. The Bible makes it clear that false gods were created by men’s vain imaginations, not truth, and that those who worship false gods worship devils because they are the ones who inspired those “cunningly devised fables.” Since they are vain imaginations, the truth in the Bible has nothing to do with them and they in no way allude to angels mating with women, which is also a fable.

        Regarding your last question, yes–fallen angels are behind the worship of false gods [Leviticus 17:7, Deuteronomy 32:17, Psalm 106:37, 2 Corinthians 11:14].


  53. Sir your “Proofs” are very weak indeed! If sons of God are men who walk with God why are they producing GIANTS ???? The sons of God (disobedient angels) were punished (read 2 Peter 2 and Jude). What is the reason for God’s contention with the” Goim” not the worship of stones and wood but the worship of the “elohim” who had rebelled. Yahweh is a jealous God , so all the worshipers of false gods were to be wiped out by Isreal.


    1. Omar,

      Your comment is full of false assumptions. I’ve already covered why fallen angels are not considered sons of God. They were already fallen by the time Genesis 6 happened. And I covered the verses you mentioned in my previous comments. I also covered the fact giants were already around before the sons of God married the daughters of men. You drew your conclusions about my post without reading all of the previous comments by other commenters and my responses to them. If you had read all of them and taken into account the whole body of evidence I presented, you wouldn’t have brought up the same things again that I already covered.


  54. Wow!…To David and Harry. Firstly Harry for your own research you really should look deeper than a docterinte that has come from what “men” have deemed the populus read. I would suggest ~ “The Book Of Enoch” oh, you have the Bible to quote from it aswell. Then you may want ot look into ” Lilith ” Just to see if you’ve been told the WHOLE truth. then you may want to research the “Zohar”

    To David, such patience…I personally would never bother, people are going to believe whatever sways their way.

    Here’s the thing, I’ve been a “Born Again” Christian for most of my life and it’s taken me a long time to at least work out that you DO NOT get the truth at church on sunday’s or home group on wednesday’s and when you question their teaching you get shunned. Don’t get me wrong, I believe whole heartedly the basic facts but I’m also starting to believe that there’s more, obviously, than we’ll ever know. I just think that maybe we leave too much for humans to decide what we learn, read or teach.

    The other basic truth is that people don’t want to know the truth. They’re comfortable with what their pastor tells them and what they’re told they read in their Bible..


    1. Kim that’s interesting. You make the generalization that one can’t get the truth at church or in bible study as if you’ve visited every single one there is. You dismiss anyone who hasn’t drawn the conclusions you have as being human-centered when you rely on books that aren’t inspired as the scriptures are. Enoch & Lilith are humanistic and lack credibility yet you tout them as truth when God’s word alone gives spiritual truth. Enoch & Lilith add to God ‘s word & are therefore anathema to God’s true word which shall never pass away. You are deceived, which is what usually happens when people reject or despise the bible as you have.


      1. Harry I have never rejected or despised the Bible as you say. I have just come to realise that it’s merely “men” that have decided what’s inspired or not!
        Paul would be disgusted about the way Pastors act today and not just one or two of them a good 90% of them. How much of the Bible speaks on false teachers…loads.
        I really do think that there needs to be considerable reasearch on our part these days if we really want to get to the truth of God’s word. We need to break away from men’s traditions.
        You have to be careful what you put out there too Harry. It’s been proven beyond a shodow of a doubt that YES there were “messengers” that left their appointed posts and decided, with an oath or pact amonst themselves to take the daughters of men. This was done -the pact was made- on Mt Hermon.
        Do you know what’s worse than a lie Harry?
        A half truth. It’s a shame that people still after all we’ve seen through history are still keeping the King of the universe in a box.


      2. Kim,

        When you say that “merely men” have decided what’s in the Bible, that argument by default shows that you despise the Bible. God works in the affairs of men and the Bible was complete by the end of the first century. You’ve gotten the wrong history of the Bible and it’s based on what you’ve been told by men who question the validity of the Bible as you do. You criticize the Bible as being something conjured up by “merely men” but you embrace what mere, ungodly men have told you about books that aren’t in the Bible.

        The reason why we know the Bible goes way beyond what mere men can do on their own is because all the books in the Bible teach the same things, whereas the fairy tales you believe in like Enoch and Lilith contradict what the Bible says. We know the Bible is God’s complete word because we can look at the Bible’s prophecies, then look at history and see specifically how those prophecies have been fulfilled. The Enoch and Lilith stories don’t hold such a record. They don’t have predictions that have been fulfilled. Lilith & Enoch have not been proven, but the Bible has hundreds of historical facts that are already proven. But somehow you want to believe in the fairy tales instead of the facts.

        If anyone is espousing lies, it’s you. It’s no wonder that the churches you’ve encountered don’t want to cover the topics you want to bring up. Your topics aren’t true & the facts don’t back them up. You say we need to break away from men’s traditions, but the extra-biblical books you believe in are men’s traditions that aren’t even true. You talk against keeping the King of the universe in a box, but you have taken the fairy tales you believe in to create a god in the image that you want him to be based on your own understanding that is derived from what you embrace from ungodly men & their ungodly traditions. That’s putting God in a box. And those traditions you embrace are what have rendered the false idea that angels mated with humans.


      3. First of all Harry it’s quite wrong of you to constantly insult me, you don’t know me. And secondly you insist on assuming silly things like I ” Don’t believe the Bible” which I have already stated as incorrect.
        You are very obviously not comprehending the words that are being written.


      4. Kim,

        There are basically three things by which I have drawn my conclusions. I used your words then compared them to what the Bible says, mixed with spiritual discernment, and deductive reasoning based on the law of noncontradiction. The law of noncontradiction basically says that if you have a statement contradicting itself, then the statement can’t be true.

        In your first comment you said I should study the book of Enoch and the story of Lilith to get the whole truth. That statement implied the Bible isn’t the whole truth. When the Bible was completed in Revelation, we were commanded in Revelation 22:18-19 not to add to or take away from God’s words in the completed scripture. We know that the story of Lilith and Enoch aren’t part of scripture because we have the writings of early Christians like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Polycarp, and others who lived between 100-200 AD and quoted heavily from the 66 books in our current Bible, but never talked about Lilith or quoted from the book of Enoch.

        Genesis and other parts of the Bible tell us that only Eve was Adam’s wife. Therefore to say that Lilith was Adam’s other wife contradicts the Bible, which has the facts that prove what it says. The book of Enoch contradicts the Bible in several places. For example, it says the Lord Jesus will land on Mount Sinai when he returns to Earth. Zechariah 14 in the Bible says the Lord Jesus will land on the Mount of Olives when he returns to Earth. Both of them can’t be right.

        So the fact that you go against God’s word by embracing the story of Lilith & the book of Enoch, which add to the Bible & violate Revelation 22 & contradict the Bible, tells me you don’t believe the Bible as you claim. Those who believe the Bible reject notions that do not agree with what the Bible says. The book of Enoch preaches a different gospel and Galatians 1 tells us that if someone brings a different gospel than what is in the Bible, we are to reject them as anathema.

        Those who believe the Bible know that it was not just brought about by “mere men” but by the miraculous power of an inerrant holy God working through fallible men to give us his infallible word so that God alone could get the glory for it. We know God’s word is infallible because of all the accurate prophecies it spoke that came to pass and all the historically proven facts it has and all of the accurate scientific data it records. But you brought up the “merely men” argument to imply that God isn’t powerful enough to give us a Bible without errors and that we need to look in other places outside the Bible to get the whole truth. You’re wrong. And your words clearly show you really don’t believe the Bible.


  55. Anyone here read Enoch? I won’t get into all this discussion as I have read several points I find that little has been accomplished. It by no means makes this pointless etc as it is good for us to stretch our understanding. Salvation in Christ is always the most important and is the only key to the Kingdom.

    Weather it was fallen Angels or not in the end doesn’t really matter. Both can bring up good points and arguments for their point of view or interpretation. Led by the Holy Spirit is often over used and I have seen many bad things done by those claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit. I am not making a claim that this is one of those times, just stating that the phrase does not make it absolute truth.

    If one is truly led by the Spirit then their replies should also follow in the same manner. This I have found lacking on more than one occasion. But as I am not the Father I will leave that judgement for him. I will also add that I have been guilty of being aggressive and fall short; none are perfect that is why mercy and grace are so awesome. It allows forgiveness to flourish in the darkest places.

    So let’s sharpen our axes, but not to beat each other with but cause us to seek ye first the Kingdom. With passion speak to each other, never forgetting love. Our quest for knowledge can sometimes be over shadowed by our desire to be right.



    1. David,

      [Weather (sic) it was fallen Angels or not in the end doesn’t really matter.]

      Actually, it does matter for a number of reasons. When someone says that these “sons of God” were fallen angels, one is saying that devils are still considered sons of God. That view smacks of the universalist view that believes one day even the fallen angels will be redeemed and welcomed back into God’s kingdom. This belief contradicts Jude 6 that says the angels who turned against God are in “everlasting chains” which means they will never get out of being punished for their rebellion and that belief also contradicts Revelation 20:10 which says the devil will be tormented in the lake of fire forever.

      The false belief about fallen angels being sons of God also goes against the clear teaching of scripture that the term “sons of God” is reserved specifically for humans who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and angels who are loyal to him. Therein lie the dangers of clinging to the false idea that fallen angels mated with humans.

      And the Book of Enoch is also full of false doctrines that contradict God’s word, which is why it was never accepted as scripture.


    2. Hi David. Yes I have read the book of Enoch. Do I dare to say that here lest I become the horrible ungodly and unworthy person as has already been described by Harry.
      It seemed very interesting to me and gave alot of insight to what “may” be going on.
      Obviously God was right to keep it out of His word to us. I say this only because it really doesn’t give any teaching on Christ-like life or instruction on salvation. It also has topics which are too easily focused on, by which focus, in individual lives, could be taken off Christ and his sacrifice for us.

      I believe David, that it takes a very mature mind and belief to read anything else whilst studying Gods Word. People get caught up instead of letting it flow into the rest of the knowledge they seek on God, his Word, His Love, His Son Jesus our Lord and King and our obedience to those precious words.


    1. Kim,

      About your Jude question. It has been common practice for counterfeit scripture to be circulated. The Book of Enoch, like other apocryphal or deuterocanonical writings, plagiarize other writings (including the Bible) or take Bible characters and place them in situations outside of the proven historical facts. Incidentally, the Koran is the perfect example of that type of writing. Jude most likely was not quoting from the Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch took a passage from another source–a source that Jude also quoted.


  56. May I ask you then, where do you think the anit-christ will come from. Remebering this is a “man” that Jesus said will come to defile, desicrate and abomonate. Do you think this “man” will be conceived normally? Knowing full well who he is to serve.


    1. Kim,

      I find it odd that those who hold to the fallen angels-mating-with-humans theory think that someone as evil as the Antichrist has to be conceived supernaturally. I sometimes wonder if that’s because you think humans are basically not all that bad. If you just look at human history to see how depraved evil rulers can be, no supernatural mating with humans is necessary. We have people walking around in our society on a daily basis who serve Satan. They’re the majority on this planet. If you look in the kjv to see where the term “sons of Belial” or “children of Belial” are used, you will see it isn’t necessary for fallen angels to mate with humans for them to be considered children of the devil. “Belial” which refers to the devil has all but disappeared from newer versions to muddy the waters about who evil people subject themselves to.

      If you look at all prophecies in Daniel and Revelation and elsewhere in the Bible, not once do they ever mention that Satan will mate with a woman to conceive the Antichrist. That’s all a bunch of man-made myths and fairy tales and Hollywood nonsense.


  57. It is very extrordinary Harry that you have an answer for everything like you are some kind of authority. The truth is that there are a number of passages in the Bible that we “as obedient humans” just have to suck up and wait till we’re meant to know. I make it a point to never trust anyone who “thinks” they have all the answers. Only people who do not the indwelling of the Holy Spirit would make conjecture and run with it as gospel. Especially ones who show no love or compassion.

    People in the world can “use” Gods word to produce any kind of lie they like.
    David hit it on the head when he said that people use “I was lead by the holy spirit” Genoicide and murder has been committed with these words.


    1. [It is very extrordinary Harry that you have an answer for everything like you are some kind of authority.]

      Kim, the Bible and the Holy Spirit are the authority. For doctrine to be true, it must agree with scripture. Your angels-mating-with-humans theory doesn’t agree with scripture and must be tossed out as false.

      [The truth is that there are a number of passages in the Bible that we “as obedient humans” just have to suck up and wait till we’re meant to know.]

      You’re just saying that because you want to cling to your own private interpretation and lean to your own understanding instead of embracing what the scriptures actually say on this subject.

      [I make it a point to never trust anyone who “thinks” they have all the answers. Only people who do not the indwelling of the Holy Spirit would make conjecture and run with it as gospel. Especially ones who show no love or compassion.]

      I never claimed to have all the answers on everything in the Bible. I’ve just read it enough to know that angels never mate with humans. Your criticism stems from the fact you don’t like the confidence I have in what the Bible actually says because it doesn’t fit in with your tradition on this subject. Love and compassion or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are not confined to your private interpretations. Love, compassion, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit manifest themselves when people speak the truth for the benefit of others acquiring understanding & knowledge based on truth and to glorify God, no matter how inconvenient the truth or unacceptable that truth is to those who would rather believe in their misconceptions.

      [People in the world can “use” Gods word to produce any kind of lie they like.]

      Yep. And that’s how the false teaching of angels mating with humans came about.

      [David hit it on the head when he said that people use “I was lead by the holy spirit” Genoicide and murder has been committed with these words.]

      So where in my post did I promote doing bodily harm to people? This statement doesn’t apply to this conversation. It’s just smoke and mirrors conjured up to cast doubt on the truth I presented. When people make the false claims of being led by the Spirit, but their actions aren’t backed by what pleases God in the Bible, then they are liars. But when one tests their spirit to see if they’re truly of God by lining up their statements and actions to God’s word, that’s how we know if they are really led by the Spirit. The angels-mating-with-humans doesn’t line up with anything found in any scripture and I’ve pointed out in black and white how that theory is false with line upon line, precept upon precept from the scripture, but you still wish to inject your own understanding into the scripture because you don’t want to let go of man-made tradition. You are the one resisting the Holy Spirit on this issue. So please don’t try to serve me hater-aid because I’m humble enough to change my views from believing in angels-mated-with-humans to the truth that they didn’t when God showed me I was incorrect in my original views on this subject.


  58. harry,
    i totally get your understanding as i have issues with the angelic/demonic beings mating with humans as well. this idea of some demonic race mating with humans seems a bit far-fetched in many instances and i have listened to chuck messler and several others on this subject trying to make sense of it. its definitely a subject that has very strong views on those holding to the traditional idea. thus far your blog seems to be the closest to what i would think logically rather than this race of aliens or angels impregnating human women when scripture says that these angels cannot mate with mankind. while i do think demons may possess humans the idea of them actually taking on a body form and then impregnating human females is dodgy. everything seems clearer to me to some extent. however did i miss something cause i still do not know who these humans are so tall? we are talking about an entire ethnicity of people. no one grows that tall today. there are serious health issues with the height of these ‘giants’nephilim mentioned if they are to be as tall as mentioned. however tall they were they were not height of a basketball player who plays center obviously. i am sure yao ming is no nephillim nor is shaquille o’neil. these were 14 ft, in other instances 3000els. how does a being like that mate with a normal woman?
    anyway your points on this would be appreciated. thanks


    1. yehu,

      The only thing I can think of as to why these humans were so tall is that it was part of their genetics. The humans back in those days had genes that were less mutated than our genes, so maybe the tall genes were more prominent than they are today. Mating back then was the same as it is today so I don’t believe there was any special way for them to mate with a normal-sized woman. Those are my opinions.


      1. “The only thing I can think of as to why these humans were so tall is that it was part of their genetics. The humans back in those days had genes that were less mutated than our genes, so maybe the tall genes were more prominent than they are today. Mating back then was the same as it is today so I don’t believe there was any special way for them to mate with a normal-sized woman. Those are my opinions.”

        This is only a kind of a rubbish guess Harry!! Again not scripturly true…


      2. [This is only a kind of a rubbish guess Harry!! Again not scripturly true…]

        Kim, it kind of figures you would leave a comment after I soundly criticized the book of Enoch. It’s not a rubbish guess. It’s based on what science has shown through the laws of thermodynamics. I made it clear that this was my opinion, but the opinion was based on what scripture and science tell us. Jesus said in Matthew 24 ” But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark…”

        This shows us Ecclesiastes 1:9 was right– “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.” Scientists have proven that the majority of changes in the genetics of life forms (mutations) from one generation to the next tend to make things slightly worse instead of better. So the macroevolution of Darwinists that people apply to us becoming superhuman isn’t true. That’s what my opinion is based on. Adam & Eve had perfect genes, but when sin came, the genes became subject to more and more degradation as each generation passed. People back then had better genes than us. That would explain why they lived longer and why Adam was able to name animals in a matter of hours. Just because the specifics aren’t in the scriptures doesn’t mean it isn’t true.


      3. harry,“The only thing I can think of as to why these humans were so tall is that it was part of their genetics. The humans back in those days had genes that were less mutated than our genes, so maybe the tall genes were more prominent than they are today. this is a plausible instance. kinda falls in line with people becoming’white’ as a result of climate change to adapt to the harsh temperatures north f the afican/asian lands. so i can speculate that with you as well. i realise you said its your opinion but it makes theidea still with a big hole. secular history has not supported such a people of such a large build. secular history has suggested gigantic animals but not people. unless i am missing something again. so i am still not solid on how the giants are that size and still be human. any added info will help. thanks.


      4. [secular history has not supported such a people of such a large build. secular history has suggested gigantic animals but not people.]

        Secular history has never been 100% reliable to base all facts on. Secular history has always been slow in catching up to what the Bible says. Most of the ancient secular texts weren’t discovered until the 19th & 20th centuries and acted as evidence that what the Bible said was true. Most people tend to make the assumption that we can’t accept what the Bible says unless secular history backs it up and that is a bad position to be in. Personally, I don’t care if secular history doesn’t mention giants. The Bible has always proven itself to be true and secular history has always been shown to be incomplete which is why archaeologists continue to dig up ancient civilizations. They haven’t discovered everything yet, so if that’s what you’re placing your hope in–that nothing is true unless secular history says so–then you’re going to be caught in error in the end.


  59. oh i notice you feel strongly agree enoch is not from god. despite the fact that the ethiopic bible accepts it as such. whats your theology for say it is not. the reason wwhy i ask is because at some point the book must have been taken out in western versions of scripture. and for a along time the apocryphal books of maccabees jubilees, etc were in the catholic versions. so i am am wondering why your view as these being non-scripture is so strong when at some point in time they were considered scripture by early xtians. this is nothing to do with gnostic writings just the ones that were debatably canonical and non canonical


    1. yehu,

      For any book to be truly of God, it has to be tested to see if it agrees with the rest of scripture. Ultimately, it is God who decides what is part of his word and what isn’t.

      Enoch 1 speaks of the Messiah’s return to earth and here’s what it says:

      …The Holy Great One will come forth from His dwelling,
      And the eternal God will tread upon the earth, (even) on Mount Sinai,
      And appear from His camp
      And appear in the strength of His might from the heaven of heavens.
      Enoch 1:3-4

      This disagrees with Zechariah 14:3-4 which says:

      Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

      Enoch 9:3 teaches that we should pray to angels:

      And now to you, the holy ones of heaven, the souls of men make their suit, saying, “Bring our cause before the Most High.”

      But prayer is a form of worship and the Bible forbids praying to angels, telling us to go directly to God:

      Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,” Colossians 2:18

      And I fell at his [the angel’s] feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 19:10

      But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.” Matthew 6:6

      In Enoch 13, it says Enoch petitioned God on behalf of the fallen angels because they were sorry for their sins:

      Then I went and spoke to them all together, and they were all afraid, and fear and trembling seized them. And they besought me to draw up a petition for them that they might find forgiveness, and to read their petition in the presence of the Lord of heaven. For from thenceforward they could not speak (with Him) nor lift up their eyes to heaven for shame of their sins for which they had been condemned. Then I wrote out their petition, and the prayer in regard to their spirits and their deeds individually and in regard to their requests that they should have forgiveness and length 〈of days〉.

      The Bible teaches in Job and Zechariah that Satan still has access to heaven to request permission from God to do evil and to accuse believers. So fallen angels are unrepentant and would not ask a human to take a petition to God for them.

      These are just three of several doctrinal errors in the book of Enoch that cause it to be rejected.


      1. We have all come to expect stronger arguments from you. These missed the mark and fall flat.

        The only conflict between Enoch 1:3-4 and Zechariah 14:3-4 appears to be a subjective limitation. Any of us as mere men can truthfully claim (as a historical fact) to have stood two or more places. For example I can say I have stood on top of the Sears tower in Chicago and then later state I’ve stood on top of one of the Rocky Mountains. These were independent events that no one would confuse as being the same event and then accuse me of contradicting myself. And in the same manner, suggesting that God can not prophetically claim Christ will stand in two or more places is equally limited in scope.

        Enoch 9:3 does not teach that we should pray to angels, only that at one point men did petition angels. This is clearly a historical reference not doctrinal reference. There are plenty of historical references in the Bible of sinful things that people did … sometimes without immediate consequences that we would all agree are not to be taken as a lesson for proper conduct.

        Enoch 13 refers to a group of fallen angels that did something put them in chains. Obviously, if satan had committed this same offense he’d be in chains now too. As I read the text here, what I see is a group of angelic beings who know they’re in it deep. I don’t know why they asked for this unconventional petition via a human, perhaps they were trying to confirm their worst fears. Whatever! Either way, this text does not inspire a doctrine of forgiveness for angels as you presuppose. Again this text can simply be viewed as historical.

        Are there any other conflicts in the text you would like to explore?

        Peace Out


      2. [We have all come to expect stronger arguments from you. These missed the mark and fall flat.]

        David, you’re being disingenuous with this statement. You have opposed me at just about every point I make, especially when I rightly divide the word of truth. These arguments against the false doctrines of the book of Enoch are only rejected by you because you want to add to the scriptures God has already established in the Bible. We are told NOT to add to God’s words at the end of Revelation and by embracing the book of Enoch, that’s exactly what you are doing. People who want to add stuff that doesn’t belong in God’s word are placing themselves under a curse and you’re trying to get others to join you under the curse the comes with accepting the book of Enoch.

        [The only conflict between Enoch 1:3-4 and Zechariah 14:3-4 appears to be a subjective limitation… These were independent events that no one would confuse as being the same event and then accuse me of contradicting myself.]

        Proof once again that you aren’t rightly dividing the word of truth and aren’t reading Enoch or Zechariah within their contexts. The context of both passages is where the Lord Jesus will step foot first when he returns to Earth. The book of Enoch said it would be Mt. Sinai. Zechariah said it will be the Mt. of Olives. The Lord Jesus has no interest in Mt. Sinai, which is symbolic in scripture of the old covenant that “gendereth to bondage,” [Galatians 4:24].

        [Enoch 9:3 does not teach that we should pray to angels, only that at one point men did petition angels. This is clearly a historical reference not doctrinal reference.]

        You’re so anxious to promote the book of Enoch that you willingly ignore the false teachings it promotes. In Enoch 9, the angels in heaven acknowledged that the people on earth prayed to them and asked them to take their cause to the Most High. Then the angels did just that. They took the cause of the people on earth to God. That promotes the idea of praying to angels and falsely setting them up as mediators between God and man when the Bible says in 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

        In the following chapter of Enoch, chapter 10, it claims that God said, “…heal the earth which the angels have corrupted.” It teaches that angels corrupted the earth. But in Genesis 6:12 it says, “And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” And we are told who the “all flesh” is talking about a few verses earlier in Genesi 6:3– “And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” Man corrupted the earth, not angels.

        [As I read the text here, what I see is a group of angelic beings who know they’re in it deep… Either way, this text does not inspire a doctrine of forgiveness for angels as you presuppose.]

        David, that’s just your “I-love-the-book-of-Enoch” bias talking. The Bible teaches that Satan (Lucifer) is the prince of the devils. The book of Job tells us he still has access to heaven to make requests of God. Zechariah shows that Satan goes before God’s throne to accuse Joshua the high priest. Revelation 12 says Satan accuses the brethren before God’s throne day & night and will do so until the great tribulation. So if Satan is the leader of the fallen, he is the one who barks out the orders for their evil plots and he goes before God sometimes to request to be allowed to do certain things, which would be on behalf of the fallen who are under him. The idea that any of the fallen would petition Enoch to petition God is complete anti-biblical nonsense.

        If you indeed want to see your relationship with God improve, may I suggest that you toss out the book of Enoch as anathema? Because that’s exactly what it is. And as long as you believe in the doctrines of devils that it teaches (which adds to the word of God) if you have a genuine relationship with the Lord, your belief in that false book will serve only to hamstring your walk with the Lord.


  60. Harry, regardless of what you may think. There is no denying that “Son’s of God” in Gen 6:1-2 in Hebrew is “Ben HaElohim”. This means a Direct creation of God.
    Adam or the Angels are direct creations of God and we are not.

    Nephilim means “Fallen ones”
    Also referred to in the Hebrew as HaGibborim meaning “Mighty Ones”
    When this wast ranslated in the Septuagint (Greek) they translated it into Gigantes and although the Nephilim were giants this word does not mean giant. It comes from the word Gigas which means “Earth Born”


    1. [There is no denying that “Son’s of God” in Gen 6:1-2 in Hebrew is “Ben HaElohim”. This means a Direct creation of God.
      Adam or the Angels are direct creations of God and we are not.]

      Kim, one thing that is noticeable about those of you who tend to question what God’s word actually says is that you wish to be gods unto yourselves by giving your own private interpretations of scripture. The scriptures are not based on private interpretations. You can’t be considered truthful if you just come along & ignore context & just tell what you want the word of God to say so that it falls in line with your own bad theology. That’s how false teachers, false prophets, and imitation Christians are made.

      I showed clearly by comparing scripture with scripture how “sons of God” means those who have God as their spiritual father or are godly angels, depending on the context. That’s what it means in Hebrew and English. Your interpretation that it only refers to Adam or angels is an outright lie according to scripture.

      [Nephilim means “Fallen ones”
      Also referred to in the Hebrew as HaGibborim meaning “Mighty Ones”]

      “Nephilim” has several different meanings so one has to compare scripture with scripture and look at context to see which meaning applies as one is led by the Holy Spirit. How do we know that Nephilim means giants? Because that is the definition given to us in Numbers 13:32-33. Both Genesis & Numbers were written by Moses, so we can be assured they mean the same. Numbers 13 says “And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants [nephilim], the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” The word “nephilim” means giants because it says they were of great stature, or height. In Deuteronomy this is verified because the Anakims, sons of Anak, were said to be very tall. The Bible, i.e. the kjv, has its own built-in dictionary. You just have to pay attention to see it.


  61. It seems now Harry that you’re actually denying the actual TEXT of Gods word. You are simply wrong. You’re dancing around the actual fact of the meaning of the origin of the Word…seriously?

    “I showed clearly by comparing scripture with scripture how “sons of God” means those who have God as their spiritual father or are godly angels, depending on the context. That’s what it means in Hebrew and English. Your interpretation that it only refers to Adam or angels is an outright lie according to scripture”

    You see how wrong you are again…this is NOT my interpretation…it is FACT.


    1. [It seems now Harry that you’re actually denying the actual TEXT of Gods word.]

      Kim, you’re the one dancing around the facts and denying God’s word, so you should really stop projecting onto me what you yourself are guilty of. You can deceive yourself into believing your lies all you want, but no lie is of the truth [1 John 2:21] even if you think I’m wrong. The word of God has spoken for itself about the sons of God, but you’re so spiritually blinded by false beliefs like your precious book of Enoch that you will not accept truth even when it’s right in front of your eyes. You’re much like the devilish Darwinists who come up with elaborate theories, falsely passing them off as science and calling them facts when in reality they’re just lies. When it comes to choosing between what you think versus what the Bible actually says, I’d rather stick with the Bible. You’re blind trying to lead others who are blind and you’ll all fall in the ditch. So you can spout your arguments ad infinitum and ad nauseum, but they will never become the truth.


      1. Sam, you’re making an assumption here. You’re assuming the Bible quotes the book of Enoch when that has never been proven. There are several deuterocanon or apocryphal books that have the same wording or similar wording to what is in the Bible, but that doesn’t mean the Bible is quoting those books. It is more likely those books plagiarize what the Bible states. This has always been a practice of the devil and his ministers of unrighteousness.


      2. harry, i would love a quote or link to your theory of these “man-made traditions” and please DO NOT reply with “the proof is in the bible” because you always seem to use you’re own words.


      3. […you always seem to use you’re own words]

        No, I don’t Sam. I’ve given example after example of what I’m talking about, but people such as yourself choose to believe what your traditions have told you so no matter how many links or proof I provide, you’re not going to change your opinion.


  62. I just wish to put in my 2 cents worth after reading through all of this.

    Harry obviously put in a lot of time, effort and study so I applaud that. I do have to say that I don’t agree though.

    I have believed in the human/angel hybrid theory for a long time. Through all the research I have done, I know one thing for a fact, for every thing God does throughout the Bible, Satan has a cheap trick that seems like the same thing but it’s not.

    Jesus is Christ – Satan is Anti-Christ (just one example)

    Jesus was not born of sexual relations. He was born by the spirit. So because of the Spirit of God, Mary became physically pregnant and had a physical baby of flesh in whom God also dwelt.

    Satan does not have any power and cannot compare to God, but He is a liar and deceiver and master of cheap tricks. Is it so hard to believe that fallen angels were able to create spirit/human hybrids in order to pollute the lineage of Christ?

    Obviously you cannot compare these “hybrids” to Jesus, but I view them as a cheap trick.

    ———The following is just my opinion based on what I have read and studied, but I do not express that the following is gospel truth other than what Jesus said.—————————-

    Jesus also says that we will return to the days of Noah when Christ’s return is at hand. I think it is kind of funny that there have been many reports of alien abductions and aliens doing unspeakable things to women and men.

    There are no aliens, just demons and fallen angels. Solomon said “There is nothing new under the sun.” Basically what once was will also be again. I believe that the aliens people see are nephilim and are another cheap trick from Satan to make a comeback and distract people from the truth and knowledge of God.

    There may yet again be human/giant hybrids in the earth….

    Please don’t take this as an attack but my findings and convictions regarding the topic at hand.


  63. why is it that the angels mentioned in jude 6 are in chains and waiting for judgment while 1/3 of the heavenly hosts lucifer deceived in following him to rebel against God in revelation 12 are roaming the earth following the prince of the power of the air? why the bias? .. don’t know if this has been asked and/or answered .. didn’t read all the replies 😦


    1. The Bible doesn’t say so it’s something that God has determined isn’t important. All we need to concern ourselves with is that any man who rebels against God like those angels did and follows after Lucifer like those angels, will suffer the same fate–being kicked out of God’s presence forever to be punished forever. Sometimes God’s punishment will happen right away while at other times he delays the punishment for his own righteous reasons.


  64. Wow, harry, i am impressed by your knowledge of the bible, it has touched me, it makes me want to know the word of God as much as you do, you seem to be able to back up everything with scripture and disprove with scripture too. This is a quality the Jesus had to use as a rebutle againts the devils lies(ability to twist the word for his gain), People need to remember the devil is perfect at what he does, infact contrary to peoples believes are about him being ugly etc he was very handsome and had a wonderful sweet voice that can convince you to do anything, he wasnt 2nd in comand to God for no reason, so when people believe in these so called enoch books etc, I look at them and think, this contradicts the bible, so why believe in it?, unless your faith in the word of God is not strong enough and your faith in Jesus is weak, Jesus himself “the son of God” said that was not the purpose of angels so why are people still clinging to this theory?…. The fact that you have single handedly destroyed your opposition shows how true the word of God is in itself, and you have even backed up that it is the answer to everything, People need to know that God wasn’t lying when he said all you need to know is in this book. And like you i also have great faith in what the word of God states, and get angry when people deny it or try to twist it because the have their own beliefs that they want hold on to and are willing to sin to do that, i say sin because the Holy Spirit was with these great sons of God when the bible was being written, to believe in things that contradict the bible is calling the holy spirit a liar, and we all know what Jesus says about that…..its an unforgivable sin. your knowledge of the word of God has really impressed me, you are very sharp and blessed…. thank you


    1. Actually Mark, Harry does not back up everything he says with scripture…..You can just read through the earlier comments to see this is true…Apparently before you made this comment you hadn’t done that.


  65. Oh my goodness! Awesome article dude! Thanks, However I am having difficulties with your RSS.
    I don’t know why I am unable to subscribe to it. Is there anybody having the same RSS issues? Anybody who knows the answer will you kindly respond? Thanx!!


  66. you guys are crazy and there is a lot that is not known in this world and the heavens have many things that will never be solved.


    1. Anonymous, that is a statement often used when people need an excuse to cling to their traditions. The Bible is clear on this matter. All one has to do is accept what it says & be humble enough to toss out any pre-conceived notions one holds.


  67. It is what exactly it says. Sons of god wanted women of men. Why would it even specify if it weren’t t angels and men mating. Your context clues… well here s a fun fact. You have to get it from context and not entirely diff books. There is what 66? Books? Maybe more or less but the point is they are books, not chapters. Thousands of years apart. And it’s supposed to be the first so how can you get context from the future. But that means nothing to anyone lol. I believe in god Jesus and Holy Spirit but I think it’s pretty clear what the passages say. Really just some other tribe cast out starts gettin freaky with other tribe and thee are giants?!!! I m not exactly an expert but the word GIANT Doesn t get thrown out often in the bible. And if the angle is thrown out if heaven… Than who s to say that they can t reproduce. There not angels but still sons of god? My question I wanna see answered is why are women less than man throughout the whole entire bible. Oh and slavery and polygamy are also cool but today are condemned? If you wanna go hardcore word is word I bet 90 percent of us don t make it to heaven. Idk. Just someone real voicing opion. It s gonna be lonely and sad up there watching everyone burn for eternity…. And that’s hilarious to me. Burn for ever or conform to save yourself. Glad my dad wasn t like that lol. I could loathe the guy but he d never wish to burn me forever lol.


    1. Dustin, I think I’ve covered all arguments sufficiently pointing out why the fairy tale about angel-human mating doesn’t work. And I believe your closing comments about people in heaven being lonely and sad shows your lack of understanding of what the bible actually says about heaven & hell. And please do a spellcheck of what you type in the future. 🙂


  68. Just a thought. Most people always wonder about the age of this world being approximately 5,000-6,000 years old. The bible doesn’t talk about the amount of time Aden and Eve spent in the garden prior to their sin or their children prior to that. The only indication they had kids before that was the statement that “from this day forward your child bearing will be in pain”, this would indicate to me that Eve had kids before and they had spent many years in the garden before their sin. Adam didn’t start dying until after the sin, therefore, they could have spent many thousands of years in the gardens before time as we know it started. What are your thoughts on this?


  69. Hi Harry, long time since I’ve posted on here. I disagree with the earth being around 6,000 years old.

    Genesis does not say that the heavens and the earth were created on the first day. It says he divided the light from the darkness on the first day.

    Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
    3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

    Some commentaries say the earth BECAME without form and void. Some even believe it became this way after the angels rebelled. So it is actually saying that the earth, and the heavens, already existed before God divided light from darkness on the first day.


    1. Hi, Laura.

      Let’s look at some other scriptures since God always gives two or three witnesses for what he says. When God gave the 10 commandments in Exodus 20, here’s what he said about the sabbath, “10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

      Then Jesus tells us in Mark 10:6 “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”

      And in John 5, Jesus endorses what Moses wrote (why wouldn’t he since he told Moses what to write?) when he said “46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?”

      Since we know from the scriptures God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days in the beginning, and mankind was created in the beginning like Jesus said, then we can count on the fact that the genealogies are accurate in the calculations I used. The Earth is approximately 6,000 years old.


      1. Harry, I also want to point out that in Gen.1:2 it says “And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” There was water on earth before the 1st day of creation. The earth was already created.


      2. Laura,

        I think your interpretation of Gen. 1:2 just shows how far you and others are willing to go to twist the Bible into saying what you want it to say. You look at the Bible, then you seek man’s opinions to tell you what the Bible means, whether consciously or subconsciously. Man is not the measuring stick for truth. God’s word is. God has proven himself over and over with the historical accuracies, scientific accuracies, and spiritual accuracies through his fulfilled prophecies that are all in the Bible. So when he says in Exodus 20 that he created everything in six days and when Jesus endorses it, that should be enough. Let God be true but every man a liar. When one compromises this scriptural truth, that is when doubts like the ones you have creep in and chip away at one’s faith.


      3. Harry, I have no doubts and it does not ‘chip away’ at my faith to believe that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. If anything else it gives me a clearer understanding as to what may have been happening when 1/3 of the angels rebelled.

        The creation week in Genesis is a REcreation. In Genesis 1:1,2 The Hebrew word, hayah, is translated “was” but is more correctly translated “became”, or “had become.” A correct translation would be:

        “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth HAD BECOME without form and void (empty, chaotic and confused) and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” Notice again it says the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Meaning there was already an earth that even had water.

        Plain and simple, the earth was not created on the first day. The first day was the creation of light on an earth that had become void of light.


      4. Laura,

        Your attempts to render “a correct translation” is nothing more than sleight of hand that is often used today to twist the scriptures into saying what you want them to say. We already have a correct translation. It’s called the kjv, which is based on the correct manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus. You’re following what false teachers have done for centuries–questioning God’s word–which is how we ended up with so many bad versions of the Bible. Your translation is nothing more than the false teaching of the “gap theory” which has been debunked.


  70. Hi Harry,

    Well, guess we will have to agree to disagree. Remains of dinosaurs date back earlier than 6,000 years ago. Therefore the earth had to have been here more than 6,000 years ago.


    1. The carbon-14 dating that scientists do to date dinosaur fossils is inaccurate, although they refuse to admit it. When they date dinosaurs back millions or billions of years ago, that’s impossible since carbon-14 has a half life in the thousands of years range. It’s impossible for dinosaur bones with carbon-14 to be millions of years old since carbon-14 would not even be present in such bones given its short half life. That holds true for anything with carbon-14 in it, including rock layers and other fossils they falsely claim to date back to millions of years ago.


      1. i am ignorant on carbon dating. hary what is half-life of one thousand of years. half-life? not sure what that means in carbon dating. break it down for me please. would love to be able to build on this as well with others


      2. yehu,

        The half life of an element is the amount of time it takes for half of its radioactive atoms to decay. In the case of carbon-14, its half-life is 5,730 years. Carbon dating takes into account the amount of carbon-14 that a fossil sample contains and uses that amount to calculate how old it is.


      3. cool so if the scientists enter another carbon 14 which is another 5700 years to the same will it not just keep adding to the half life.? in other words 5730 years is the dating accurately given by carbon 14 dating. if you add a 2nd carbon 14 it just keeps doubling? sorry if i am not getting this.


      4. Here’s how the carbon-14 half-life works theoretically, “The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 ± 40 years. This is the ‘half-life’. So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.”

        But there are factors that can affect radiocarbon dating. You can read more about it in the first seven pages of this pdf: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf


  71. Harry, you seem to think that if people believe in the gap theory that they also believe God didn’t create the earth.


    1. M K,

      That’s not what I said or implied in my comments. The gap theory is false doctrine. Embracing one false doctrine tends to lead to the acceptance of other false doctrines. There are people who believe God created the earth, but that he did it in an evolutionary way over millions or billions of years. God’s word makes it clear that it was done in six days.

      Now if a person questions this, they will question other things that God’s word speaks clearly about. This is what is happening in our time of great apostasy in churches today. Churchgoers are questioning everything from Christ’s virgin birth to eternal security. They downplay the sins of fornication, whether the fornication is with the same or opposite sex. They’re teaching that the Bible isn’t literal but is entirely figurative. This is the type of nonsense that flows out of accepting falsehoods like the gap theory.


  72. You can argue any point you want with the Bible, if you call what you wrote an argument. I know nice people who call themselves athiests because they don’t want to be confused with people like you. The job that Christ gave us is to bring souls into the church, not scare them away.


  73. For many years I too was taught that the “giants” were offspring of angels who mated with humans. I’ve been a born again believer for a long time and always, when reading my bible, pray that the Holy Spirit will lead me and give me understanding. I’ve come here not to debate, but to learn. So please understand, I’m not here to be told how ignorant I am or how wrong I am. My only interest is learning the truth that comes from the Word of God. Thank you for any information.
    Just today, I found this at gotquestions.org
    “Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4?”

    Answer: Genesis 6:1-4 refers to the sons of God and the daughters of men. There have been several suggestions as to who the sons of God were and why the children they had with daughters of men grew into a race of giants (that is what the word Nephilim seems to indicate).

    The three primary views on the identity of the sons of God are 1) they were fallen angels, 2) they were powerful human rulers, or 3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain. Giving weight to the first theory is the fact that in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). A potential problem with this is in Matthew 22:30, which indicates that angels do not marry. The Bible gives us no reason to believe that angels have a gender or are able to reproduce. The other two views do not present this problem.

    The weakness of views 2) and 3) is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary human females does not account for why the offspring were “giants” or “heroes of old, men of renown.” Further, why would God decide to bring the flood on the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) when God had never forbade powerful human males or descendants of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendants of Cain? The oncoming judgment of Genesis 6:5-7 is linked to what took place in Genesis 6:1-4. Only the obscene, perverse marriage of fallen angels with human females would seem to justify such a harsh judgment.

    As previously noted, the weakness of the first view is that Matthew 22:30 declares, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” However, the text does not say “angels are not able to marry.” Rather, it indicates only that angels do not marry. Second, Matthew 22:30 is referring to the “angels in heaven.” It is not referring to fallen angels, who do not care about God’s created order and actively seek ways to disrupt God’s plan. The fact that God’s holy angels do not marry or engage in sexual relations does not mean the same is true of Satan and his demons.

    View 1) is the most likely position. Yes, it is an interesting “contradiction” to say that angels are sexless and then to say that the “sons of God” were fallen angels who procreated with human females. However, while angels are spiritual beings (Hebrews 1:14), they can appear in human, physical form (Mark 16:5). The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to have sex with the two angels who were with Lot (Genesis 19:1-5). It is plausible that angels are capable of taking on human form, even to the point of replicating human sexuality and possibly even reproduction. Why do the fallen angels not do this more often? It seems that God imprisoned the fallen angels who committed this evil sin, so that the other fallen angels would not do the same (as described in Jude 6). Earlier Hebrew interpreters and apocryphal and pseudopigraphal writings are unanimous in holding to the view that fallen angels are the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4. This by no means closes the debate. However, the view that Genesis 6:1-4 involves fallen angels mating with human females has a strong contextual, grammatical, and historical basis.

    Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/sons-of-God.html#ixzz2W7Ra9mtZ


    1. @bellus,

      [However, the view that Genesis 6:1-4 involves fallen angels mating with human females has a strong contextual, grammatical, and historical basis.]

      That’s only if you approach the Bible with preconceived notions that angels had to have mated with humans so you can twist the context, grammar, & history to match your preconceived notions. Hebrew interpreters, the apocrypha, and pseudepigraphal writings have never been the basis for which to interpret the Bible correctly. No matter which angle you try to argue this angel-mating-with-humans nonsense, you cannot tear down the arguments I made in my original post above. The sons of God never ever in scripture refer to fallen angels. God never called fallen angels his sons, ever.

      You clearly aren’t listening to the Holy Spirit or scripture in your comment regardless of the false claim that you are. You just came to push your eisegesis & baseless conjecture to make your preconceived notions fit, just like everyone else who holds your position has. This belief that fallen angels mated with women is nothing more than paganism trying to impose itself into what the Bible really says. It goes all the way back to the myths about Nimrod, who claimed to be part man and part god. Then other pagan traditions like Hinduism, Greeks, and Romans adopted the idea of gods mating with humans. And these pagan traditions have been trying to force their way into the worship of Jehovah since then. Those false ideas coupled with the notion that man can become super-human are the doctrines that fuel such nonsense. Maybe you should try getting a grip on God’s truth.


  74. Actually I wasn’t twisting anything. i merely posted this as an example of what you’ve been saying all along…that the whole idea of humans mating with angels is a false doctrine. I also made myself clear…I only came here to learn. I’ve got a firm grip on God’s truth and found it interesting that a website like gotquestions.org was espousing this false doctrine. In my own defense (you’ve certainly made me feel as though I need to defend myself, so thanks for that), my post was not an example of what I believe, it’s an example of how so many people, especially those who may be new Christians or have never heard the truth, could be led in the wrong direction. Perhaps I should have made myself [more] clear…Maybe you should be nicer. But this is your blog and if you see fit to “shine God’s light” as an angry man, so be it. Your reaction was pretty hurtful…


      1. Indeed, I could have been more concise. Apology accepted, and I will take care to make my thoughts better known when I comment again.


  75. I came seeking truth and was directed to this wonderful discussion.. Thank you, Gaylord. I’m not a Bible scolar but based on a few simple Bible truth you can see that it’s not possible for angels to procreate.. The Bible said it and that settles it.. Whenever you’re reading your Bible you have to put away all your preconceive notions and accept the Bible for what it is.. ‘precept upon precept, line upon line and there a little. Isaiah 28:10


  76. It does not say that the fallen angels are the sons of God who took wives for themselves from the daughters of men. It says the angels left there first habitation. I believe these were separate from the fallen angels of Lucifer. They were in fact Angels in heaven, sons of God that left there first habitation to come to earth and take the daughters of men because they saw that they were ( fit extensions) original hebrew… Since Angels could not have children they must have entered into an animal and possessed it. And then impregnated the daughters of men. Scripture also states that the angels sinned against the animals. This would allow a human like being to be born in which the Angel could then possess. And he would then have what he originally coveted life in the flesh on earth like humans. (Gods precious ones he loved so much) us. And recent findings within the african genome state that there is an unknown hominid related only to africans while the neandertal is related to europeans. One of these could have been the part animal mixture.


    1. Jerri, your comment is based on the lies of evolution mixed with fairy tales and folklore. Animals cannot produce offspring with humans. Humans are a higher creation than animals. God established the natural law in Genesis that creatures can only produce their own kind. There is one race–human. All of us came from Adam, according to the scriptures.


  77. You clearly have an excellent grasp of scripture, and I am in complete agreement with your article. For further proof that angels did not mate with humans, I offer the following scripture: Eve is the mother of ALL living, in Adam ALL die, and he hath made of one blood ALL the nations for to dwell upon the face of the earth. Pretty clear to me.


    1. Hebrews 13:4 says “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” There really shouldn’t be confusion with what it means. However, since Satan is the author of confusion, people only get confused about this verse when they want to justify their immoral behavior. The writer here is simply stating that marriage is an honorable thing for all people to be involved in and sexual intercourse within marriage is undefiled in and of itself. And by marriage, it means only traditional marriage between one man & one woman. In contrast, whoremongering and adultery are unacceptable in God’s eyes and will be judged. The word whoremonger refers to men who fornicate under any circumstance, whether they be gay or straight, or sell themselves for sex and it by default speaks against whores also, which would be a woman who fornicates.


  78. Hi Harry, Thanks for your blog. I would just like to add my 2 cents for what it’s worth. When reading Job 1:6 the “sons of God” are humans on earth assembling together. Satan came among them but I’m sure they were not aware of it. We can’t see Satan in the physical realm today nor could they. Gods conversation with Satan was in the spiritual realm.
    “Sons of God” is a privilege only for humans because we were made in His image. The angles were not made in His image. They are ministering spirits without the ability to reproduce. Of course the human race forfeited it’s sonship at the fall but can now be adopted back in because of our redeemer Jesus Christ and the sacrifice He made on the cross. The angles that fell can’t be brought back in because they were never sons to begin with.
    During the time of Noah’s flood the Lord had to do what He did because the inter marriages with godless people left more and more godless people and eventually there was no righteous people left except Noah and his family. If it got to the point where there was no righteous left the blood line for the coming messiah would die and the promise given to Eve for a redeemer couldn’t happen.
    I believe that the “Giants” were a result of hundreds of years of the people selecting certain people to mate with that would produce mighty men. Kind of like what we do now with vegetables. Picking the biggest best ones and using those seeds. Just my thoughts though I didn’t get that from scripture. God Bless & thanks for standing in the truth of the word of God.


  79. But Kevin Zacher, where is your quotation for “Eve is the mother of ALL living, in Adam ALL die, and he hath made of one blood ALL the nations for to dwell upon the face of the earth.”?


  80. Satan is a son of God, and he did not lose his abilities. He flew Jesus around, and goes into heaven when called to report. Michael didn’t bring a blasphemous charge against him. Satan and the demons will yet war in heaven and be kicked out, revelations. Mankind was given over to his tyranny for sinning via Gods sovereign command, and a human can only be saved by graciousness of God. This page is filled with contextual errors’. Satan can also hear your thoughts because your spirit is aloud to him, if he is in proximity to you. He like Gabrielle can get into your mind, Joseph dream, johns visions. Can demons have sex with humans, sure. Context of scriptur show. The Talmud is the most hellish perversion on earth!


    1. [Satan is a son of God]

      That’s nothing more than Universalist false doctrine that claims that fallen angels will one day be saved so they can still be called the sons of God. The fallen angels did not keep their first estate in heaven. Therefore, God hath reserved everlasting chains for them under darkness (Jude 6). If the chains are everlasting, they will never regain what they lost. Jesus said all fallen angels will be cast into everlasting fire (Matthew 25:41). These scriptures & others in my post above prove you’re wrong. Get your facts straight.

      [He flew Jesus around, and goes into heaven when called to report]

      He carried Jesus when he tempted Jesus to sin. He reports to God seeking permission to do evil against God’s people or to accuse them (Job 1, 2; Zechariah 3:1-5; Revelation 12:10). This doesn’t prove your lies.

      [Michael didn’t bring a blasphemous charge against him.]

      You’re misquoting Jude 9, which says “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.” The word “railing” means using scoffing, insulting, mocking language. Blaspheming is to speak a lie about something pertaining to God & his attributes. Michael rebuked the devil in the Lord’s name because Satan still has some rank but God is higher and the devil is a liar. Satan wanted something that violated God’s will, so Michael appealed to someone higher than himself and Satan. This is no way means Satan is a son of God. He’s a murderer, and “no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him,” 1 John 3:15. Liars aren’t allowed in God’s kingdom (Revelation 22:14-15). Anyone without eternal life & not part of God’s kingdom is not a son. Get your facts straight.

      [Satan can also hear your thoughts because your spirit is aloud to him, if he is in proximity to you]

      This isn’t in scripture. If Satan can hear our thoughts, he would have known his attempts to get Job to turn on God would be futile. Satan is at best an evil psychologist who studies humans’ behavioral patterns closely. He can plant thoughts or situations to try to get people off God’s track. Many times he succeeds, but he often fails. If he heard people’s thoughts, his failure rate wouldn’t be as high as it is. There wouldn’t be as many Christians as there are.

      [This page is filled with contextual errors]

      The only contextual errors here are errors like yours that claim to be biblical but really aren’t.

      [Can demons have sex with humans, sure]

      This is nowhere in scripture. You’re probably referring to some apocryphal or deuterocanonical book that’s based on lies. Please stop trying to force your presuppositions onto and into the Bible.


  81. Adam and even were supposed to be first human ever created, then how the h*@% would there be a bunch of people already existed on earth??
    If man and women can produce giants, but yet they weren’t created as giants, this make little sense. And on top of that, basketball player are no giant. The tallest men in the world were no giants neither, they were suffering from a decease at they can barely walk, I would call them weakest men on earth. Makes me laugh when someone referring these mortals as “mighty men” or “men of renown”


    1. jake,

      The time period in Genesis where this is talked about is hundreds of years after Adam and Eve when the earth was populated by their offspring. Giants were 100% human and were produced based on the genetics of that day. Your comment is assuming that genetics thousands of years ago were as they are today. The laws of thermodynamics apply to genes as well. During that time, thousands of years ago, genes had fewer imperfections than they do today, which is why people back then lived longer. People back then were closer to physical perfection. After thousands of years, the giants we have today suffer from more deformities than back then.


  82. WOW!!!!! I have so much to say, but I have never read such a wonderful blog. I am full of respect for you Mr. Gaylord. Many Christians today get their Christianity from other Christians and what you teach is not taught in the Church….Keep up the good work and Blessings to you and yours. M.J.


  83. I can understand where you are coming from, but I am also able to see where others get their views from. God has said that it is not for mankind to know everything, but that in HIS time it will all be revealed. I don’t think He would want us all fighting over what one sentence in the Old Testament was about. Whether it was rebellious angels, or whether it was rebellious men, the fact is, it happened. Myself, I tend to lean more towards angels, but I am not going to browbeat anyone that believes otherwise. My husband is a minister and he spends a LOT of time in the Word. He and I have talked about this topic some, and we both lean in the same direction…angels, whom God created with wills of their own (hence the rebellion that caused Satan to be evicted from Heaven), found the women of the earth to be an enticement that they decided they would not resist.
    I know I will come under fire for posting this, as I have read a large part of this “comment” section, and have seen the fire that those that think or feel otherwise come under. However, as I stated before, when the time comes, and God is READY for us all to know the answers, we’re all going to be spouting our beliefs and theories and resisting what anyone else might have to say.
    In His time, He will reveal it all.
    Until then, God bless, and stay engrossed in God’s Word. Whether we agree or disagree on various parts, we’re all still HIS.


    1. [God has said that it is not for mankind to know everything, but that in HIS time it will all be revealed.]

      That’s only true of some things not all things. Why do you think we have the Bible in the first place? So God can reveal what he wants us to know and he’s made the incident in Genesis quite plain. I can understand why you would want to sow your seeds of doubt to cause confusion as others have done. You want people to lean toward the falsehoods you and so many others have taught. Your comment is very subtle and manipulative. No matter how you try to twist it, fallen angels at the instant they fall will never be considered “sons of God.” That point alone exposes your faulty thinking in addition to the other points I’ve made. You may wish to buy into the false idea that God will one day redeem his whole creation, including the fallen angels, but that’s nothing more than a Universalist pipe dream and a false gospel.

      So basically, you’ve proven the Lord Jesus correct when he rebuked the Jewish leaders of his day. You reject what God has made plain “that ye may keep your own tradition.”


      1. You are a genuine piece of work! Sowing seeds of doubt? Hardly! I expressed the fact that I can understand where BOTH sides get their belief. I did not say that I KNOW for a fact that one or the other is wrong. I am not TEACHING falsehood, and angels HAVE been called Sons of God. They fell and lost their status, yes, but they were, at one time, Sons of God, regardless of how much you so self-righteously try to say you know everything there is to know about it all. Just because I do not 100% agree with you, my thinking is faulty. Pride much?
        I never said a THING about God “redeeming His whole creation, including fallen angels.” That is YOUR words, not mine.
        I truly think you need to go back and study the parts about humility and humbleness. Jesus would NEVER have spoken in such lofty and arrogant tones to another.
        Have a blessed evening, and maybe I will pray for some humility for you.


      2. [They fell and lost their status, yes, but they were, at one time, Sons of God, regardless of how much you so self-righteously try to say you know everything there is to know about it all.]

        Thanks for revealing here how little you understand. Your view, like others who believe in the angels-mating-with-humans myth, is that fallen angels married humans in Genesis. When angels fall, they cease to be called sons of God so if these were fallen angels in Genesis, they would not have been called sons of God by the Holy Spirit-inspired writer. Yet you insist where it says the sons of God married the daughters of men, it means angels. You’re so blind you don’t see the contradiction because you must have your tradition. So, whatever.


      3. And you are blind to what it means to be polite. You catch more fish with tempting bait than you will with hatefulness. You see everyone that doesn’t agree with you totally as completely wrong, and those that worship your every word as wonderful.
        I did NOT say (yet again, you’re putting words in my mouth) that I INSIST they are Sons of God. I said I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE WOULD THINK THEY ARE BECAUSE IN OTHER PASSAGES THEY ARE CALLED SONS OF GOD.
        You have managed to lose a reader that would have truly enjoyed your blogs and might possibly have even learned from you because of your attitude of self righteousness and your tendency to put words in other people’s mouths. It is people that do these kinds of things that cause so many others to be turned off of Christianity. I pray, and I know that God hears my prayers, for He has answered many of them, that God will bridle your hateful tongue and will enlighten your wisdom with temperance.


      4. Just because I don’t agree with your assumptions and doubt what God makes plain doesn’t make me self righteous. I am also more concerned with spreading truth than trying to make others feel good about their mistaken ideas so if that offends you… Bottom line–all the points I made here are backed by scripture and to walk away with mythical ideas is to say one’s traditions are more important than God’s word.


      5. You are telling it like it is Harry. A lot of people are getting their Christianity from other Christians and believe them and do not check into what they are being told. I think that people have checked their brains at the door. We have to use the common sense that the Lord has given to us – the Word being first of course. All traditions come to naught!! If only we could have the faith as a little child.


  84. Good day Harry
    Great work on above article. Glad to see I am not the only one in my home town to think that the Fallen angel + mortal women = Nephilim theory is crazy.
    Just two little questions I’m wondering about:
    1. Why did God only use the word “created” 3 times in the creation of the heavens and earth as seen in Genesis chapter 1. First it stated in the beginning God created heaven and earth. Second where God created Fish and Fowl, and lastly when God made Man and Woman. If this is all that was created where dis the other elements e.g water (which covered the earth), the Sun and Moon/stars, grass, et cetara. Come from?
    2. In Isaiah 14:12-17 we are informed that Lucifer was cast out of heaven because he wanted to be like God. He said he shall be lifted above the stars and shall soar above the clouds. We see in Genesis that Lucifer had access to the Garden of Eden and came in the form of a serpent to Eve and Adam to tempt them into sinning. So Satan has already fallen from heaven once God made the earth and heavens as in Genesis 1. If Satan was already fallen, when did it happen? Before or during Gods creation of Earth as we know it today? Also if Satan said he shall be like the most High and soar above the clouds and be lifted above the stars of God, is it not possible that he could have been on Earth before he was cast out of Heaven? Because it’s noticible that in the Bible Earth is regarded as the 1st Heaven, the outer universe and stars is the 2nd Heaven and the 3rd Heaven is where God, Jesus and the angels are.
    These are things that I dont really have answers to.
    Any help to clarify these matters shall be greatly appreciated.


    1. Hi, Andrew.

      To answer your 1st question, the actual word “create” doesn’t have to be used to let us know God created everything in the beginning. When God created heaven and earth, water was created as part of heaven and earth which is why Genesis 1:2 tells us darkness was upon the face of the deep, the deep meaning the water. Phrases like “let there be” and “God made” are terms that are synonymous with the word “created” and such phrases are used throughout the creation account to let us know God created all of it.

      Your 2nd question touches on the gap theory, the belief that there was an extended period of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 when war broke out in heaven. That theory is debunked in detail at this link. We aren’t told definitively when Satan and his angels were kicked out of heaven, but we ARE told God made the heavens (universe) and the earth in 6 literal 24-hour days. And God called his whole creation good. God tells us in Job 38:4-8 that all the angels were singing praises and shouting for joy when God created earth. Lucifer was most likely still the choir director at this time. My guess would be that Lucifer began the rebellion after Eve was made from Adam’s rib. We don’t know how much time passed between that 6th day and when the serpent appears in Eden, but that is most likely the period where he rebelled and became Satan.

      When Satan said he would soar above the clouds, this doesn’t have to mean he was on earth at the time. The Psalms and Revelation tells us that there are clouds in heaven and around God’s throne and that’s probably what Lucifer was referring to. And his desire to rise above the stars of God meant that he wanted to be lord over the angels, who are the stars of God.


  85. Thank you for the reply Harry. That answers my questions.
    After reading the article in the link, I went and re-read Genesis 1 and saw that God said avter every creation act it was “good”. In Genesis 1:7 KJV reads
    “And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so”, here during day 2 God did not say it was good. Why do you think this could be?


    1. God did call it good, just not in this particular verse. In verse 31, God looked at “every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” This is all-inclusive from day 1 to day 6.


  86. (1)Jhn 3:6…That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
    I cannot see how spirit can mate with human. Even now, the Laws of the Most High govern how far cross breeding can occur; especially in creating a fully functional creature. These laws are constant and never changing.
    (2) Why do the verses in Job have to refer to angels? I believe the text in Job refers to followers of the Most High coming to present themselves before their Creator and The Adversary was with them. In fact, it makes more sense, because among those believers would be Job, of whom the Adversary then points out specifically.
    I don’t believe in an adversary to the Most High; except it be mankind. I believe the agent known as Satan follows the commands of the Most High. The Adversary performs his duty exactly as he is supposed to in all text, and that is to test or stand against humans; to be the adversary to humans.
    A quick note of conclusion. I don’t read and even believe in the Greek text of the Christian bible the same as I did when I was a child. I believe they hold importance though for different reasons. I see the Hebrew text as the foundation of truth. That said, I don’t believe anywhere in that text does Satan, by that name, ever go against his post and especially even YHWH. The references of Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:12-17 (if I’m not mistaken) are Christian references (and therefore interpretations) to support the Hellenistic view of good and evil.

    Since I’m human though, perhaps something is slipping my mind.

    I appreciate the effort in the post and the constant endeavor for truth. I look towards to the day (coming soon) when we will all be able to hear it and learn it wholly with no spin.



    1. [I don’t read and even believe in the Greek text of the Christian bible the same as I did when I was a child. I believe they hold importance though for different reasons. I see the Hebrew text as the foundation of truth]

      So you’re saying the Almighty who created the universe out of nothing, who worked supernatural miracles in both the Old & New Testaments, who created all the different human languages at the tower of Babel, who raised the dead, and who raised himself from the dead in the person of Jesus Christ doesn’t have enough power to preserve his word in any other language than Hebrew. Do you even realize what you’re saying? If God can’t preserve his words which are above his name (Psalm 138:2), then he can’t preserve your salvation or his church when he said the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Then you also don’t believe 1 John 4:4, “…greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.” You should re-check your premises and assumptions.


      1. My first thought was replay with simply “ok”, because you didn’t really reply back about anything I said, and was pointing things out based on your belief that you have everything about “the Word” clearly understood. The part that really stuck out to me was the latter half of your reply starting with “If God can’t…then he can’t” (your words not mind). Then I thought I suppose I will write more, and I first want to start with that I agree with your post that angels and humans cannot procreate.
        (1) If you are going to “converse” with me, you cannot reply with “So you’re saying…”, particularly as a statement. It’s bad form, it’s not a real conversational reply, and generally has one (you in this case), heading down the wrong path of thought. Your approach is close to the straw-man argument practice, in which, with nothing to reply back, one argues back with assumptions that make the person and platform of the 1st “look bad”. The thing is, I don’t care about looking bad in front of you or anyone. In any case, that type of response is very rude, condescending, and even egotistical on your part for believing you know all of my thoughts, and gauging them against all of your thoughts, and you can judge that your thoughts are better than mine. You didn’t even have the politeness to put a question mark, (?), at the end of your 1st sentence. Then you tried to prove “what I was saying”, when I didn’t say any of it at all. I take that back, that pretty much is the straw-man approach. You have already replied back on the wrong foot if you want to have a conversation. You now must work harder to convince me of anything. That said, I point back to my last sentence of the 1st paragraph in this reply.
        (2) Surely, the Almighty can do all you have assumed I was stating in my statement. The Almighty can do anything. The first question is, does {He} [do anything and everything — especially in preserving {His} word/way]? I will offer one example about preserving “The Way”, and I know there are many, many more. The Hebrews were to be the light to the world when they were in their land in their time. Did the Almighty preserve that light, or did he let them pervert the ways written down for them to follow [to be that light]? Is this conclusive evidence that the Catholic (or at least church and state) approved canonized library of specific books is perverted? That takes much more than a comment section of a post to discuss. So no, but it’s a start on showing that The Almighty allows man to pervert the practice of [His] ways and the understanding of [His] words. There is a plan and that said, I do believe [His] ways are preserved and have been masked over by translation, interpretation, and dogma. Do you believe that every English word you read is the word that was supposed to be there? Believe it or not, I would answer yes. I suppose the better way to describe my approach though is I believe it is allowed to be there. We have an obligation to unbury [His] story. Arguing dogma does not do this.
        (3) The next question is, where in my comment did I say that the Greek text was “the Word”?
        (4) You and I are in the same boat in that we are searching for the truth. There is a problem, though when one says, “The Holy Ghost has shown me…”, and the other says the same things with the opposite conclusion. This happens continually across the panel of “the religious”. I offered my perspective on three things. The first (1) is your point on angels mating with humans. The second (2) is that the text you pointed to in Job, I offered the thought that the written Word does not declare it’s angels and therefore we cannot declare they are angels. Further more, I offered the perspective that without a placing a template [that I was given by another] to place of that text, the language can very well mean something other than a band of angels coming before YHWH. The third (3) was about my understanding [after much studying] regarding HaSatan, The Adversary.
        I can point to you and say “you are on the wrong path” just as quickly as you can to me. That really gets us no where.


      2. Virgil,

        (1) You made a statement that was clear where you stood on how you view the Greek text that the English bible is based on and I addressed the statement you made using logic and deductive reasoning and critical thinking, so it wasn’t as straw-man approach.
        (2) God gave fallen angels and man free will and allows them in their sin to create forgeries of his word. On that we agree.

        [I do believe [His] ways are preserved and have been masked over by translation, interpretation, and dogma… I suppose the better way to describe my approach though is I believe it is allowed to be there. We have an obligation to unbury [His] story. Arguing dogma does not do this.]

        On this point we disagree. God has allowed fakes of his word but they compete in this world with his true words which aren’t masked by translation, interpretation, etc. if it’s the proper translation. Paul states clearly:

        Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. [including God’s words in every language]

        Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

        But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:12-14

        God’s word is freely, openly given to us, but it has to be spiritually discerned. God has purposed every word in the Majority Text, or Textus Receptus, and every word translated from that set of manuscripts to be where it is in English, Spanish, Hebrew, French, or any other language. The words go beyond being “allowed” as you claim, which implies they may not be the best to use in the text. The only masks are in man’s natural mind or in bad translations that use the 1% corrupted manuscripts like the Catholic Bible, the New World Translation, and all other Bible versions in English except the kjv. That’s where they get their bad dogmas from. This is why 2 Timothy 2:15 says, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

        Paul argued dogma when false brethren entered the church and told Gentiles they had to be circumcised. John argued dogma when Diotrephes took over the church and proclaimed himself pre-eminent to lord it over other believers, telling the church to reject John’s teachings and the teachings of others who upheld God’s word. Jude argued dogma when ungodly men “crept in unawares” into the church and spread anti-Christian practices and doctrines.

        (3) […where in my comment did I say that the Greek text was “the Word”?]

        When you made the following statement that I addressed in my previous response to you: “I don’t read and even believe in the Greek text of the Christian bible the same as I did when I was a child. I believe they hold importance though for different reasons. I see the Hebrew text as the foundation of truth”

        The “Greek text of the Christian bible” = God’s Word.

        Here’s why I responded to that statement as I did in my previous comment. God’s word is God’s word in any language. For you to say you don’t believe in the Greek text of the Christian bible is implying you think it’s corrupted. All Christian bibles of all languages used the Greek text to translate the New Testament. Your not believing in the Greek text therefore is saying you believe all New Testaments of all languages are corrupted. By saying all of them are corrupted, you are saying God allows forgeries, but does not have the power to preserve his genuine word in this world. Furthermore, you consider the Hebrew as the foundation of truth. Yet you overlook the fact that more than half of the New Testament, which is translated from Greek manuscripts, is actually quoting from the Old Testament, which is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text. They are in complete agreement with each other. Your words are contradictory.

        People can misuse God’s word just like they misuse his name as a curse word. But just as his name still heals people and saves people and casts out devils, showing that he has preserved his name in a corrupt world, he has the power to do the same with his word, which is above (exalted higher than) his name.

        (4) As far as the “sons of God” issue in Job, by arguing they are humans and not angels in that book, you overlooked the context. God himself defined who the sons of God were in Job 38 when he said, “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. …Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” The two statements I bolded define each other. They are synonymous. God’s word has a built-in dictionary. No Bible dictionary is required here. These would have to be angels because man was not made until the 6th day of God’s creation. The morning stars, or sons of God, or heavenly angels, were singing (shouting for joy) when God laid the foundation (cornerstone) of the Earth. We also know the sons of God are angels who present themselves in Job because Genesis told us that Jacob had a dream where he saw the angels ascending and descending on a heavenly ladder (Genesis 28:12). Then Jesus verified in John’s gospel that he was the ladder the angels ascended and descended on (John 1:51). This is an example of how we can really tell who “The Holy Ghost has shown” something to regarding an issue. And there are occasions where two people can come to different conclusions about a Bible passage and they can both be right, especially when it comes to prophecy because God prophesies things that have parallel meanings where the prophecy is fulfilled in two or more situations at different time periods.


  87. Thanks for your reply Harry.

    I’ll start off with point 4. That’s a fair point you make about Job 38, and I will look at it more, but one has to be careful in applying an understanding of a phrase or word used in one context with words in another context. To say that “sons of God” means angelic beings in 38 and therefore also in the beginning of Job, and then therefore also in Genesis to me means you and I can never be called a “son of God”. Now I understand I was only referencing Job (while your article was the one that connected to Genesis), so as I stated, your point is taken and being considered…

    Point 3. I wasn’t asking you to pin-point my words of my original comment. I was asking of the meaning of that comment. …Where did I say that I believe the Greek text (that you call the New Testament) is the Word of God? You see, I call it the Greek text instead of the New Testament, and that is probably what throws you off. Do you catch my meaning now? Your New Testament quotes fall light to me…and just so you know, I was a hard-core New Testament believer, oh and I used the KJV. Then I started comparing the Hebrew references quoted in the New Testament and started seeing some major problems. HINT: You can use NT quotes, and I don’t believe they are meaningless. I just see them differently than you. …it will be better to stick with the Tanakh.

    Now to you (and many reading this article) it means I’ve lost my way and am under huge deception from [your] Satan…who is trying to steal me away from Salvation. Well, that’s between me and YHWH, and you do not have the authority to judge me. … This very well could be true that The Adversary is testing me, and I would believe at the command of YHWH. In the end, my testing will make me a “better” person. You see, people who try to attribute evil and bad things to Satan (for the sake of battling against YHWH), really take glory away from YHWH. Now please, don’t do your straw-man arguing (see below in my point 1 reply) about that last sentence.

    Point 2. There are mistakes in every translation. There is bias in every translation. … Your point 3 reply hasn’t changed my mind, and in fact, most of your reply doesn’t really go against the intent of what I said. BTW, I never said fallen angels have free will. I never said I believe in fallen angels. That said, I was watching a study today on the Hebrew text, which has got me thinking that there was some sort of release of authority given to “watchers”. The question I must answer, if I’m going to follow this thinking through, is “who are the watchers”….and I already know your answer.

    Point 1. Yes, your original reply was pretty much a straw man argument, for your argument rearranged the intent of my 1st statement. I’m referring to the words you put in my mouth. That is the underlying tone of a straw-man argument. It’s not that you didn’t have a logical reply, or discerned some conclusion through critical thinking. Keep the whole definition. Your conclusion (and assumption of what my comment meant) was not only your own, it was extreme and misrepresented my position. Then you went on defending something that YOU declared was my meaning…which were not points in my original comment at all. … What was your point?…

    From http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/what-is-a-straw-man-argument

    “… In its simplest definition, it’s the name of a logical fallacy, which means that if you carefully dissect the argument or statement, it doesn’t make sense. Debaters invoke a straw man when they put forth an argument–usually something extreme or easy to argue against–that they know their opponent doesn’t support. You put forth a straw man because you know it will be easy for you to knock down or discredit. It’s a way of misrepresenting your opponent’s position.


    1. Virgil,

      In this comment, you basically proved the point I was making by contradicting yourself and proving that my original assessment in your first comment was fair and accurate. You question God’s word. The NT is God’s word whether you like it or not or whether you believe it or not. God’s truth is God’s word and his word is both the OT and NT which will always be true even if you don’t agree with it in any language. You admitted I’m right. I took your original statement to mean, as I already explained, that you don’t believe in God’s power to preserve his word–that Christian bibles are corrupt. Then I went on in my original response to you to say that if we follow your statement to its untruthful conclusion, it would mean God can’t preserve salvation or his church. You just said “There are mistakes in every translation. There is bias in every translation” and that is what I understood you meant in your statement “I don’t read and even believe in the Greek text of the Christian bible…” So my argument doesn’t fit the straw-man label that you’re trying to place on it even by the definition of “straw man argument” that you provide. When people speak against God’s word as you do, they always eventually trip themselves up as you’ve done. So thanks for your contradictions.

      [I started comparing the Hebrew references quoted in the New Testament and started seeing some major problems…it will be better to stick with the Tanakh…to you (and many reading this article) it means I’ve lost my way and am under huge deception from [your] Satan]

      I never said that about you, but your latest comment brings that possibility into play. You’re attempting several lies in your comment. One lie is that the Almighty (the one that you probably don’t believe in since you deny the validity of the NT, i.e. you can’t have the Father without having the Son) only shares his truth and plans in Hebrew. Job was not a Hebrew, yet he and God talked to each other. Melchizedek was not a Hebrew. Noah and his godly ancestors weren’t Hebrew and followed God before Hebrew even existed. Adam wasn’t Hebrew, yet he wrote down the early history of this planet, which Moses then translated and included in the Torah (Genesis 5:1). Another lie is that we can’t trust the Christian Bible. Your arguments go right back to Satan’s lies in the Garden of Eden, “Yea, hath God said…?” He questioned God’s word and made Adam & Eve doubt it, just like you’ve done with your falsehood that “there are mistakes in every translation.” You, just like Satan, are trying to get us Christians to drop our Godsword, an important part of our spiritual armor that we use to tear down every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. You want to make us defenseless against the enemy. But I’m determined never to drop mine. It won’t even be pried from my cold, dead hands since it’s hidden in my spirit and will be with me eternally.

      So you’re lying when you say you believe in the Tanakh. The Tanakh has Satan questioning God’s word in the Garden, showing what happens when we do and commanding us not to, yet you question God’s word. Let’s compare the English translation of the Tanakh with the New Testament:

      …I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. Isaiah 49:6

      I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. Acts 13:47

      Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell? Proverbs 30:4

      And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. John 3:13

      Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14

      Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matthew 1:23

      …but the just shall live by his faith. Habakkuk 2:4

      as it is written, The just shall live by faith. Romans 1:17

      Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. Psalm 2:9

      And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers… Revelation 2:27

      …he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods… Daniel 11:36

      …that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped… 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

      [just so you know, I was a hard-core New Testament believer, oh and I used the KJV. ]

      No, you were just a liar who pretended. You were a poser, a fake, a counterfeit. “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us,” 1 John 2:19. He that endures to the end shall be saved, Mark 13:13. You didn’t endure because you weren’t saved. You deceived yourself and now deceive others.

      [I started comparing the Hebrew references quoted in the New Testament and started seeing some major problems.]

      I showed above how the Tanakh agrees with the NT, so the major problem was that you had a veil of sin over your eyes that prevents you from seeing that the major problem lies within your heart and clouds your mind.

      [To say that “sons of God” means angelic beings in 38 and therefore also in the beginning of Job, and then therefore also in Genesis to me means you and I can never be called a “son of God”]

      Wrong conclusion. Who’s presenting a straw man argument now? If you read my post, I gave all instances of who is called a son of God and when they receive such a designation. You also show that you are lacking in knowing how to read the Tanakh. The whole book of Job is one context. What comes at the beginning of Job refers to what comes later in Job. What comes later in Job can be referred back to what came previously in Job. Then the whole book of Job is within the context of the whole Old Testament. Then it is within the context of the whole Christian Bible. This is the type of contextual evidence that God started in Genesis. Genesis 1-2:7 gives the general context of what he did in Creation. Then Genesis 2:8-25 gives the context within the context, giving more details of what happened in events surrounding the specific creation of the first man and woman and the place they lived in. We also see this type of thing in the books of the Kings where they give several accounts of the Hebrew kings, but some slightly different details about them in each book. Then that carries over into the four gospels. Unless you have a personal relationship with the author of the Book, you will continue to draw such incorrect conclusions without being able to correct them.


  88. How do you put up with these people Harry. You are really, really, really patient. It is amazing how people can mess the Word up. About the gap theory – I do not think that I care either way. Is it really important to our Christianity???? I will ask the Lord when I get to Heaven. They should take your information and ask the Lord whether you are right or wrong – not just from their opinions without really studying any of the subjects thoroughly. My spirit bears witness with those who are speaking the Truth…… MaggieJo


    1. Hi, MaggieJo.

      They indeed do everything to try my patience and get on my last nerve, as the saying goes. One of the things that encourages me to even bear with their comments is the knowledge that I have Christian brothers and sisters out there who have to deal with people like this whose theology is off and I hope to help them use critical thinking, prayer, and the Holy Spirit along with God’s word (the Godsword) to fend off their arguments skillfully with whatever godly method they choose that works for their situation.


  89. Just to be clear. I am not trying to try anyone’s patience. I simply offered some thought and hoped to have a conversation about it…but when you look at Harry’s first reply…he went way off topic and introduced a lot of assumption. You may not understand, but that takes a lot of patience as well.

    People cannot learn if questions and comments are made. All this can be done respectfully. I’ve not been rude to Harry or anyone here. That is a poor testimony.

    People don’t generally just reject things. They study, in hopes to show themselves approved and discover things. Because another person doesn’t stumble upon those things, or doesn’t accept what someone else has accepted or is looking into, should not invalidate their thoughts, curiosity, or confusion ALONE. Mark that I’ve said ALONE. It takes more discussion and study by anyone that will.

    I’m always searching for truth. I know I don’t know it all, and I also don’t believe Harry knows it all. I agree with the premise of this article, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with it all UNTIL I can fully study something all the way through…and that is my intent.

    If this tries peoples patience, then I will not ask questions and offer thoughts. To be clear the thread I’ve been involved in has really gotten off topic simply because of the way that Harry answered my original comment.


    1. Virgil,

      I answered your original comment correctly as I showed in my reply above, which you admitted without knowing you were admitting it.

      [I’m always searching for truth]

      All of us are. But unless or until you accept the spiritual truth of the NT, backed up by it’s fulfilled prophecies and changed lives, you will be “[e]ver learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth,” 2 Timothy 3:7. Greater and additional truths cannot be obtained pertaining to spiritual things unless one’s foundational truth is established and that foundational truth is Jesus Christ is Lord, the way, the truth, the life; no one comes to the Father but by him. The NT is where that 100% truth is recorded. Reject that and you reject truth.


      1. Harry, please relax. I’m not going to run in circles around with you any more. … I have not contradicted myself. … [I cannot do this anymore with people who don’t listen and get up on a high horse.] Yes, Harry, this is how I see you now. It’s very unfortunate, and I don’t believe that is how [God] wants you to be perceived.

        Yes, I know you believe all you say about the NT and my perception about it. Remember, I believed in the NT very similar to how you did when I was young. I have plenty of study that shows the opposite, and until you accept the Truth of YHWH, you will never see what I see about the NT. See how statements like that work? They don’t. That statement doesn’t work on you, and it doesn’t work on me. It’s a devilish statement.

        I’m not sure what you mean by answering my original statement correctly unless you are referring to the only question I had about the meaning of the “sons of God” in Job, and you did answer that, correct or not; I am doing further study. [Think Harry, rejoice in the fact that you got me studying this…but no, you want to argue something else. Is this what you really like doing?]

        The rest of your response was unwarranted as you berated my effort to search for truth… I don’t appreciate that and it was a mean spirit YOU brought upon this conversation; not me. Think upon this next statement Harry. It’s your approach and responses like this that actually stop people from search for what you call the Truth. How will you answer to the Creator on this?

        I really didn’t come here with a mean spirit, but you are treating me as such, and you are trying MY patience…your responses have ruined my enthusiasm.

        This “conversation” has gotten way off topic. I agree with the premise and conclusion of your article. I’m searching out “sons of בֵּן אֱלֹהִים (ben ‘elohiym) further… I personally can see that in Job 1 and 2, after the creation of Adam (during the time of feasts), the verses can be men [son’s of God] presenting themselves with HaSatan tagging along. I can see that in Job 38 it can mean something different since seems to be before the creation of Adam…

        Frankly, I repent of every making a comment on your post, because it seems you can’t handle this kind of discussion without berating or projecting false conclusions (and I’ve seen this in your other comments to others)…

        Please note that I have not done anything in my previous comments like “Poor brother Harry. I’m praying for you. It’s obvious you need real help”. I don’t believe in that kind of talk…Please stop treating everyone who my have studied something and come to a different conclusion than you (and your claim to the [Holy Spirit]) as devils.

        That said, I don’t think I will ever talk to people on a comment section like this again. It’s not a forum for studying and trying to determine Truth. This is the impression and experience I’ve gotten out of this.


      2. [This “conversation” has gotten way off topic.]

        Not really. As I recall from your very first comment, you introduced the idea that you dismiss the Greek text of the Christian Bible and only accept the Hebrew text as the truth. I simply addressed this topic you introduced among the other topics you mentioned. You later said the NT had “major problems” when you compared it to the Hebrew text and you said it was better to stick with the Tanakh. Your words have spoken all I need to know about your spiritual state. You simply don’t believe in the NT although you state you did in your younger years. You’ve tried to dance around it, but that’s what it boils down to. If you don’t believe in the NT as we have it right now, then that means you really don’t believe the Tanakh either despite your claims you do. The NT is predicted and spoken about on several occasions in the Tanakh. If you were to genuinely review Yeshua Ha’Mashiach’s life and compare it to the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh, you would see the Truth you claim to be searching for, but really aren’t.

        In the OT, the “sons of God” issue was tied to belief in Jehovah and his promise for a future Messiah. Now that Messiah has come, the sons of God issue is tied directly to belief that Jesus is Lord since he established the new covenant and that new covenant is revealed in the Greek text underlying every book from Matthew to Revelation. This is important because your soul is in eternal jeopardy as evidenced by the fact you have stated your rejection of the new covenant the Tanakh even talks openly about. Maybe I didn’t tell you what you wanted to hear, but you’ve been told what you need to hear. The book of Job, this post, your comments, the NT, the Tanakh, all of it is about the “sons of God”, so it’s really right on topic.


  90. …I went back and reread your last long reply again, and you are so way off… Calling me a counterfeit and liar. How dare you?

    I really cannot talk to you anymore. You are a horrible person. …You are the reason why I lean less on Christianity as the truth. Not YHWH. He IS showing me TRUTH.


  91. I’ll have you know that my convictions as I was growing up all the way through teenage life kept me from partaking in may of the things “of this world”. I was in the world but not part of it. From what I witness, that is not how I see many (especially younger) Christians today…Yes, you’ve steamed me up, and that doesn’t mean that you are on the right track either…Yah’shua had the right to be able to confront people like the Pharisees because he knew them…. He knew their heart. You are only assuming. You have very little to go on as to what my comments mean simply because you didn’t ask and immediately categorized me [judged me] as one of the devil…

    Reply back all you want now. You have ruined reaching me.


    1. Virgil,

      The wording you’ve used reminds me of kabbalah. Nevertheless, I’m pleased to disappoint you if you assumed I’d be a ‘liberal Christian’ who loves to entertain the possibility of more than one spiritual truth that leads to God.


      1. gaylord… It appears you fall into that category, like a lot of religious folk do, of people who cling to a belief within their particular biblical world view despite being confronted with irrefutable scriptural evidence…


      2. Actually, Kurt, what you just said really applies to you. Have you considered that maybe you should stop projecting and take stock of what scripture really says as opposed to clinging to man-made traditions that you have been taught?


      3. lol… I’m sorry… your responses though are quite school yard… So let me paraphrase what you just said… “no I’m not, you are”… good one… quite the debater (paul)… the bottom line is satan is and always has been an imitator of God… How did God take authority on the earth? He conceived a child within the womb of a women… Why is it so crazy to you that satan wouldn’t attempt to imitate this?
        how you posture yourself so confidently as a kind of biblical authority on this matter is almost as humorous as it is haughty and know it all… There are in fact so many flaws within your attempt at exegesis… I could easily write for days on the error in your approach… luckily for us though we have the bible.. which means in this case it won’t take all day… but only a matter of seconds… so here you go.. the one scripture when read in proper context that shatters your entire argument… enjoy 🙂
        Jude 1:6-7
        And 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 Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
        and that my friend… settles it… and this is just one example… i could go on and on…. Do your research brother…


      4. Kurt,

        Your argument is clever but not convincing, especially since you use eisegesis regarding the passage in Jude by omitting the greater context to come to your fallible conclusion. Let’s look at Jude again:

        3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

        4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

        5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

        6 And 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.

        7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

        8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

        Jude was simply giving specific examples of how various created beings sinned in specific cases and missed out on the blessings God had intended for them. I already explained this passage of Jude in this previous comment, so you’re not covering any new territory that hasn’t been addressed and revealed to be in error. This is in no way saying, “Angels were punished because they were having illicit sex with humans like the people in Sodom and Gomorrha.” You’re stretching to reach that conclusion.

        The points I made still stand. Yet you choose to ignore them so you can have your tradition. You contradict yourself even in the midst of using Jude. Here’s how. If angels kept not their first estate and left their own habitation to receive everlasting judgment, they then cannot be God’s heirs. Therefore, they cannot be called “sons of God” because that title is reserved for those who are part of God’s estate, which the fallen angels “kept not.” So Moses, who was inspired and empowered by the Holy Ghost to write Genesis with God’s point of view, would not have called fallen angels “sons of God” during Noah’s time since Lucifer’s rebellion had already taken place way before Noah’s days. Duh!

        What Jesus said about angels not marrying still stands and what Paul said by the Holy Ghost also debunks your eisegesis: “God that made the world and all things therein… hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;” Acts 17:24, 26. God not only established, but also preserved his “law of kinds” which states that created things, including human beings, can only reproduce their own kind, not human-angel hybrids. Paul verifies what is stated at the beginning of Genesis. Then on top of that, God has established boundaries that man cannot cross, and that boundary which preserves the “one blood” that all humans have had in times past up to today would include the prohibition and impossibility of human-angel mating.

        [How did God take authority on the earth?]

        God already had authority on the earth before he was born of a virgin. That’s why he said, “Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die,” Ezekiel 18:4. That’s why he said in Jeremiah 18 that he had power to build up a nation or cause it’s demise based on that nation’s actions.

        [Why is it so crazy to you that satan wouldn’t attempt to imitate this?]

        Satan is a created being with built-in limitations God put in him. He is not the equal opposite of God, which your question implies. When he attempts to imitate God, his weaknesses ultimately reveal themselves, just like they did with Jannes and Jambres the occultist magicians who stood against Moses in Pharaoh’s court. They failed to imitate every plague handed down from God and Aaron’s rod that became a serpent consumed their staffs which they by their occultic Satanic power turned into serpents. Neither Satan nor his fallen angels were created with the ability to reproduce and they cannot overcome this weakness created in all angels by God himself. That’s why they have to settle for possessing people. Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. Hence, your arguments are as weak as those who came here before you to argue the same, tired, played out, and debunked arguments.


      5. bro… you’re delusional… all re-reading the additional text you provided (yes i had already read that fyi) at any rate- all re-reading it in proper context did was solidify the conclusion implied in my previous response… Those particular angels (unlike other angels who now roam the earth) are locked up because of fornication… anyone reading the text properly would conclude this… you want to be right so bad that you’re really grasping at straws here bro… argue with me? fine… but please stop arguing with the scripture… I’ll ask… What significance does believing either way on this issue have to you I wonder? What impact does believing these were not angels have for you? why is it so important to you??? I know why it’s important to me… just wondering why you are taking such a firm stance here???


      6. [anyone reading the text properly would conclude this]

        Actually, anyone who wishes to hold to tradition would ignore all the scriptures and their contexts to draw your conclusions, Kurt, which happens when eisegesis is exalted above exegesis as you’ve done.

        [What significance does believing either way on this issue have to you I wonder? What impact does believing these were not angels have for you? why is it so important to you???]

        Try asking yourself those questions. Please start with the man in the mirror. Just because this “angels-mated-with-humans” nonsense is accepted by a majority of churchgoers doesn’t make it correct. After all, just look at how most “Christian” churchgoers now believe Roman Catholicism is Christian when really it’s actually pagan. You haven’t examined the roots or results of this false doctrine, which is why you consider it so important that you have to come here to argue with me about how right you are about twisting scripture to fit your stance.

        Both Peter and Paul warned us about incorporating fables into our Christian doctrine, and that’s all this teaching about human/angel hybrids is.

        “Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying…” 1 Timothy 1:4

        “For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake… Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.” Titus 1:10-11, 14

        “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ…” 2 Peter 1:16

        The first false doctrine this fable is based on is called inclusionism. It’s the belief that all fallen beings will be reconciled to God regardless of their beliefs–i.e. universalism or universal reconciliation. It’s why people like you keep referring to fallen angels, the devils, as sons of God. This flies in the face of Christ’s basic doctrines, which of course is why you keep ignoring Christ’s words about angels not marrying, meaning by default that God did not create them with the capacity to reproduce sexually.

        Do you know what the theory of evolution is? It’s the belief that one kind of creature can, of it’s own volition and/or mating with other kinds of creatures, become another kind of creature. It pre-dates Darwin who is mostly given credit for it. That’s what this human/angel fable teaches. That angels mated with humans to evolve into a transhumanist, more powerful, giant mutant superhuman. This idea has spawned the belief that real, physical extraterrestrials regularly invade Earth, abduct humans, and experiment with them or have sex with them in efforts to invade Earth with their offspring. Does any of this sound remotely familiar to you? I would venture to guess that you probably believe in some of these ideas. I would also venture to guess you also believe Roman Catholicism is Christian and that all of us should be in unity regardless of doctrine.

        It’s also fables like these that are prompting rogue scientists to experiment with trying to make human hybrids by mixing human DNA with the DNA of animals. And in it’s most radical fringe form, it’s a fable being used to downplay or promote bestiality.


  92. Brother… You are the worst proponent of your own beliefs i have ever encountered in a debate… first off you’re so stuck on the term “sons of god” you actually think that because people (such as me) believe that fallen angels were being referred in that scripture that we by default believe that fallen angels can be reconciled to God? or believe that all religions lead to God??? or that somehow because of the christian masses belief that it was fallen angels being spoken of,,that this belief would eventually lead to christians believing in breeding animals and humans together??… or that this belief some how is a slippery slope towards christians being ok with beastiality???!!! are you stinking kidding me gaylord??? That is the most moronic argument I’ve literally ever heard… and by the way… I asked you a question about you… Yet all you seem mostly interested in doing is talking about what you presume I believe… as if you know me or my religious affiliation or doctrinal stances… Why don’t you quit making presuppositions about me and just stick to talking about someone who you actually do know (((you))) No I’m not a catholic… I believe catholicism is a cult… and Jesus is the only way to the father… literally every presumption you’ve made about me couldn’t be further from the truth…

    In the New Testament, born-again believers in Christ are called the children of God or the sons of God (Luke 3:38, John 1:12, Romans 8:14, 1 John 3:1). Dr. Bullinger in the Companion Bible states: “It is only by the divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called ‘a son of God.'” This explains why every born-again believer is a son of God. It explains also why Adam was a son of God. Adam was specifically created by God, “in the likeness of God made He him” (Genesis 5:1). Adam’s descendants, however, were different; they were not made in God’s likeness but in Adam’s. Adam “begat a son in his own likeness, after his image” (Genesis 5:3). Adam was a “son of God,” but Adam’s descendants were “sons of men.”

    Lewis Sperry Chafer expresses this in an interesting way when he states:
    “In the Old Testament terminology angels are called sons of God while men are called servants of God. In the New Testament this is reversed. Angels are the servants and Christians are the sons of God.” (3)

    It is thus clear that the term “sons of God” in the Bible is limited to three categories of beings: angels, Adam and believers. All three are special and specific creations of God. As for the use of the term in Genesis 6, since it cannot possibly refer to Adam nor believers in Christ, we conclude that it has to refer to the angels whom God had created. Sorry, You can’t logically and scripturally argue with that… try as you might.

    unlike your belief.. I actually have a important scriptural reason for my stance on this issue… which in no way has to do with mans traditions… I believe the truth on this single issue is one of the most important truths one might be armed with in facing the great deception to come which the groundwork is being laid for even in this generation… spoken of in prophetic scriptures through out the bible… but you’re not interested in actually learning why i believe this issue is so important… you’re more interested in being “right” and would apparently rather indirectly call me or anyone else who disagrees with you one who aligns himself with those who practice beastiality??? very lame… and frankly, Offensive


    1. [You are the worst proponent of your own beliefs i have ever encountered in a debate]

      If that was really your opinion, I seriously doubt you would keep coming back over & over to rehash the same arguments everyone else has already stated. I’m of the opinion that you just like to argue. After all, you already know what I believe and why I believe what I believe. You also know that no matter what arguments those before you presented, I haven’t been swayed from my opinion and have exposed the various weaknesses in the points that people like you have presented. So why do you even bother? Your ego, perhaps.

      […you’re so stuck on the term “sons of god” you actually think that because people (such as me) believe that fallen angels were being referred in that scripture that we by default believe that fallen angels can be reconciled to God?]

      I’m not the one stuck on the term since I know what it means. It’s people such as yourself who are stuck on it because your eisegesis won’t allow you to realize that fallen angels aren’t sons of God, so you get stuck in the rut of believing angels mated with humans. The sons of God issue is one of the biggest weaknesses for your argument.

      [I asked you a question about you… Yet all you seem mostly interested in doing is talking about what you presume I believe]

      I’ve openly proclaimed just about everywhere on this blog what I believe. So your questions about me had already been answered. Usually when people debate, they present what they believe and why to argue against my statements. And that’s true for atheists, Hindus, Catholics, and many others who have come here to debate. Yet all you do is give vague points like “I actually have a [sic] important scriptural reason for my stance” and get all huffy and pretend like I don’t have you pegged as to what you believe, then you fail to give specificity to your vagueness by attempting to deny my accuracy. All you’re doing is shadow boxing.

      [Dr. Bullinger in the Companion Bible states: “It is only by the divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called ‘a son of God.’”]

      Kurt, here you are just repeating what has already been discussed at length prior to your comments. You just castigated me for being stuck on the sons of God issue and yet you continue to run it into the ground. You’re contradicting yourself again. If you were tired of the sons of God issue, why not just move on to another original point that I haven’t thought of? So like I said before, it’s really you who’s stuck on it. Bullinger’s statement, if it’s really his (you didn’t provide the source so I don’t know if it is), is bull. God created unbelievers also. Are they sons of God? Hardly. This Bullinger statement is universalist when presented by itself as you have done here. Lucifer and his fallen angels were created by God. Based on what Bullinger says, they can be called sons of God. But they’re not. We are not sons of God only by the divine specific act of creation as this statement says. We are sons of God when we have an ongoing right relationship with God after he has created us.

      [Adam’s descendants, however, were different; they were not made in God’s likeness but in Adam’s. …Adam was a “son of God,” but Adam’s descendants were “sons of men.”]

      Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” This statement applies to all mankind, starting with Adam AND Eve. Genesis 5:3 is merely a statement that Adam had offspring that looked like him but in no way says they were no longer in God’s likeness. Genesis 9:6 confirms this after Noah stepped off the ark. God wanted the death penalty instituted in society for anyone who murdered another human because all humans are made in God’s image. More faulty eisegesis from you. Having the likeness or image of God means we have a body, a soul, and a spirit.

      [Lewis Sperry Chafer expresses… “In the Old Testament terminology angels are called sons of God while men are called servants of God. In the New Testament this is reversed. Angels are the servants and Christians are the sons of God.”]

      Wrong, wrong, wrong. Ye (and Chafer) do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. Did you even read my post above? I gave specific OT scripture where God called Israel and Solomon his sons. He also called other believers his sons in the OT. In both the OT and NT, good angels and believers in God are called both servants and sons. You are so caught up in theology and eisegesis of what theologians are telling you from man-made traditions that you haven’t even read the Bible thoroughly enough for yourself to find out what it really says. No wonder you’re stuck.

      […you’re not interested in actually learning why i believe this issue is so important]

      You’re not interested in actually sharing why you believe this issue is so important. You’ve made several comments already and have had plenty of opportunity to share this, but you chose not to. Instead, all you’ve shared is your bad doctrine you’ve based on what theologians have said about the Bible. Your latest statement is glaring with contradictions and errors, yet you’re too blind to see because as Proverbs says, “The ways of a fool are right in his own eyes.” You are attempting to teach the fear of God by the precepts of men. Both Isaiah and Jesus warned against this (Isaiah 29:13, Mark 7:7). I think it’s time for you to quit while you’re behind. All anyone has to do to find out that this doctrine is linked to belief in alien invasions, transhumanism, and other such nonsense, is do a search for nephilim and aliens on YouTube. Chuck Missler is in a lot of them.


  93. Why don’t you all leave this subject alone and get on with something else……I will solve the problem…..you are both right and if not, then we will see when the Lord returns….Let’s discuss something else…… MaggieJo


    1. MaggieJo,

      That doesn’t solve the problem. Can you imagine if Paul would have said that to the early church when the topic of physical circumcision was being taught by false brethren? I am not about to concede or compromise truth for the sake of some false sense of unity or to play nice to avoid conflict. Conflict only arises when people question God’s word as negative commenters have done here. They have even gone so far as to imply Jesus himself, who created the angels, didn’t know what he was talking about. This topic has already been settled this side of heaven in God’s word. The arguments have shown that many “Christians” today are like the Pharisees who would rather hold to man-made traditions and I’m not about to give in to that mentality for fake unity.


  94. god bless you all.The Bible is something that should never be argued upon for the word is God and the Word is with God.only one being knows the truth GodAlmighty and blessed be the name of the Lord.


    1. [The Bible is something that should never be argued upon]

      Not true, David. Paul disputed with the Jews he met on his missionary trips several times about God’s word, especially when they tried to push circumcision & fulfilling Jewish law as a means of salvation. When certain of the legalist Jewish churchgoers found out Peter went to preach the gospel to Cornelius, they “contended” or argued with him about going in a Gentile’s house which they based on the Old Testament and Peter came back at them with God’s word from the New Testament.

      [only one being knows the truth God Almighty]

      Yet God reveals his truth in his word so that those who have ears to hear can hear what the Spirit says to his church. The Spirit leads us into all truth, just like Jesus promised he would, which is why Jesus told us angels don’t marry nor are they given in marriage and why Paul was Spirit-led when he said all nations came from one blood in Acts 17, not angel blood mixed with human blood.


      1. but it is true what your saying no angels came down from heaven and lay with women. it was the sons of God that Lay with the women. believers that lay with non believers which caused mighty men to be born. because angels were not give the ability to reproduce.
        thank you for sharing and god bless


  95. I have some questions for you Mr. Harry Gaylord:-

    1. Why did Jesus refer to himself as “Son of Man”? Isn’t he the Son of God?
    2. Did the law of marriage existed in the time of Noah?
    3. Why the Angels who left their abode are being punished? and what are they being punished for (Jude 1:6) ?
    4. Was it against God’s rule for Angels to leave their abode?
    5. In Job 1: 6 stated, that the Sons of God (King James version) presented themselves before the Lord. Who are these sons? Angel or men? and where was the place they presented themselves to the Lord?
    6. Was Cain banished because he did not believe that their was a God?
    7. Was it sinful for man to multiply?
    8. Are Angels not capable of carrying out human functions? e.g eating, touching, emotions etc.
    9. Some of the men in scripture did not recognized Angels who was next or among them (Hebrews 13:2). Why did they not recognize them?
    10. Why where men in that era permitted to marry their family members? e.g. Sister, Aunt, Cousins etc.

    These are the questions Mr. Harry Gaylord that still lingers for your article to make a solid point.


    1. [These are the questions Mr. Harry Gaylord that still lingers for your article to make a solid point.]

      Some of these questions were already answered and others have nothing to do with the points I made–points which are rooted and grounded in God’s word despite your criticism to the contrary.

      1. He was both.
      2. What do the first 2 chapters of Genesis say?
      3. I covered this in several comments above.
      4. Yes.
      5. I covered this several times in previous comments.
      6. Read Genesis 4.
      7. It depends on what circumstances under which they multiply.
      8. God does what you listed, but he doesn’t have sex, if that’s what you’re implying about angels. Jesus said angels don’t marry although many comments here show people don’t care what Jesus said.
      9. Can you please clarify your point here? Angels only appeared for brief moments in human form.
      10. The gene pool was different. Their genes didn’t have as many defective mutations as ours do today. Once genes became more defective, God outlawed marriage to close relatives. And FYI, blue bloods (like the Roosevelts) married their cousins in recent history.


  96. The Holy Sprit does lead us to truth, the Bible backs it up. God wrote the Bible for all, smart, or dumb to comprehend His Plan for each of our lives which we come to know through the love of Christ. So, I cannot believe God would allow angels to interfere with the DNA of Christ.and humanity. So all your intellectual studies have unfortunately taken you away from the love of God and the truth of the Bible, which is far more simple. God bless you all and I ptay your ego and pride of knowledge will be set aside to just read the Bible and Believe it!


  97. Harry, I am so concerned that you are promoting such error here! The Nephilim are indeed a hybrid race and we need to understand the implications of this! We would ALL be giants if this was just coming from sinful men!
    There is more than one way to interpret some things. For example, Satan being mentioned among the Sons of God never meant to me (and to at least a couple here) that this meant a “differentiation” of what type beings they were! I saw this as special mention, if you will, that Satan was also among them. You refuse to see that neither interpretation is fact and that at least these 2 very possible interpretations exist.
    The Book of Enoch explains in detail how these angels left their post of watching the earth. They also are under free will. They are named in the book of Enoch and the pledge they made among themselves is described. The flood was indeed done to rid the “overridden” earth of these giants who were consuming all the vegetation and beginning to canabalize the people. Because there were giants “afterwards” (after the flood) means to many people that angels kept trespassing after the flood, not like in your take, that it means the giants were coming from sinful, regular men.
    Enoch is mentioned many times in the Bible and let me make mention that he was considered righteous and he was taken to be with God without experiencing death! He is that highly regarded by God, but we are going to consider his writings untrue? The comments about enoch in the Bible can be easily found I believe people who do not read His writings are left with great deficits in understanding the demonic. Amazon.com sells the Book versions–and with many reviews to consider. His book also explains so much physics about the earth etc that we know to be scientifically true for a while now, but certainly not known in those days.
    Satan has been out to destroy God’s creation, corrupt our DNA, and fight God by these methods. The end times, which we are in the season of now, are told to be “as in the days of Noah.” Well there is nothing new under the sun and men have been sinful and evil since the early says on the earth—so what does this mean in particular about the Days of Noah? It means, this very issue of the Nephilim! Please pray and read up online about as in the days of Noah.
    Because of time I must name drop and say if anyone is interested in the fullness of this topic, read the Book of Enoch and read online the studies of L.A. Marzulli on the nephilim issue–riveting! He has a website, sorry I can not post the exact address here right now.
    Satan would just love for us to be ignorant on this issue! Oh, how he would love it!
    Get online and study up and continually pray for the Holy Spirit to teach and reveal the absolute truth to you.
    Be blessed.


    1. [ Satan would just love for us to be ignorant on this issue!]

      Yes he would. And he uses non-scriptural, non-inspired books like the Book of Enoch to promote the lie that angels mate with humans. No matter how you slice it or from what vantage point you look at it, fallen angels aren’t sons of God. Period.


  98. I have a question. Do either of you know how an Angel of God like Lucifer or any other angel have a difference of opinion with the Lord concerning mankind? I was always under the assumption that they were created to serve God and carry out His plans. It seems that they were given an amount of free will. Were they Angels in Gods service or were they something altogether different?


    1. The Book of Enoch explains that the angels do have a free will. (makes perfect sense since God deals that same way with us–no forced relationship. Another topic but when satan fell from his position in heaven, he took 1/3 of the angels with him,those that were persuaded into his rebellion against God.)There was a group assigned to watching the earth at that time and they began to notice the beauty and lust after the women. They left their post and went in unto the women of the earth. The product of the angel-human hybrid were giants. Many of these nephilim skeletons have been found in various places in the world–they are huge! You can see them on You Tube, just type in Nephilim skeletons or giant skeletons etc. All the angels were created for God’s service, yes but yes, with a free will. One does not dismiss the other.


      1. Paula,

        You reveal your true colors by using the Book of Enoch in your response instead of the Bible. The Book of Enoch isn’t biblical, but of course that doesn’t matter when you ascribe to man-made traditions that you try to equate with God’s word. People such as yourself must hold onto anything to prove themselves correct. God said several times in his word not to add to his words or take away from them (Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:5-6, Revelation 22:18-19). The Book of Enoch does both– which reveals what spirit you are really of. Your idea that fallen angels are sons of God is straight from pagan beliefs of Universalism that ancients such as Origen of Alexandria believed–i.e. that even devils will one day be reunited in salvation to God.

        In case you didn’t notice, we live in a time of visual manipulations, special effects, and conspiracies, so if you believe everything you see on YouTube, that’s really a sad commentary on your discernment.


        The best way to find out about angels is to read the Bible. If you go online and do a Bible search of words like “angels”, “devils”, “Lucifer”, “dragon”, and “sons of god”, you’ll discover a lot.


      2. The people who have ears to hear here, will see through these shaky bridges that you are trying to make…..as in my using the Book of Enoch for information is my not using the Bible….as in implying what to the readers?
        Better not ever take any truthful information from any book in the world or you will be showing your true colors that you are not using the Word of God. Ridiculous.
        As for Enoch, this righteous man in the BIBLE that God took to heaven without seeing death (quite an honor and if he was a liar, he would not be getting that honor that what, maybe 2 people ever in the BIBLE were given!) He is also mentioned in the NT.
        The Book of Enoch is not one of the books of the BIBLE we were left with–whether ever a Bible book, or after tens of books were pulled from the original grouping of BIBLE books by political councils in history….and after. Still being argued is this topic about whether anything should have ever been removed. Mostly the influence of the Catholic church was behind much of it. I will paraphrase a statement by Martin Luther that makes the point–just because a book was removed or not included in the BIBLE along the way, does not make it unprofitable. ….too many MEN with too many spiritual and political agendas have created the “number and selection” of books in the Bible we have today! Praise the Lord that we have enough truth in what we have to know God’s plan from start to finish and much more.
        The term Sons of God is used more than once in the OT to clearly refer to angels. Genesis is referring to angels that came in to the daughters of MEN. This trespass caused giants born on the earth and contaminated DNA. The giants were the result of this union and their skeletons are being unearthed today. They were evil beings and had God not flooded the earth, His creation, His DNA would have been totally corrupted in us. This repeated itself after the flood but to the degree as prior flood. By this time the angels were all well aware of the cost to the angels that started this and it appears it was much less appealing at that point. Enoch gives the details.


      3. Paula,

        You’re not covering any new territory. Same ol’ same ol’ lies. You’ve repeated the same things people have already said above. Repeating lies won’t bring them closer to the truth. You admit these angels sinned like others mentioned. That makes them fallen angels. Fallen angels, like it says in Jude are no longer in their first estate–heaven. Therefore, they cannot be called sons of God. I’ve given all kinds of scripture in my post where sons of God specifically refers to holy angels, the true Jews who follow Messiah, and other believers. Please show us ONE scripture–just ONE–where fallen angels, or devils, or Lucifer is called a son of God. All you do is make empty claims and don’t point to an actual scripture where this is so. It’s because you have an empty argument without spiritual or biblical substance, but you MUST have your man-made tradition at any cost–including the use of deception.

        [just because a book was removed or not included in the BIBLE along the way, does not make it unprofitable]

        You really don’t know your Bible, do you? Not that you really care what it says or anything, but Paul, by the Holy Spirit, says plainly in Galatians 1, “8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” The book of Enoch–which has been shown NOT to have been written by Enoch for several reasons, such as the use of more modern terminology than would have been present in his time–preaches a different gospel and is therefore justifiably rejected by true believers (not that it matters to you).

        I highlighted some glaring anti-Christ doctrines that come from the book of Enoch in a previous comment at this link: https://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/did-angels-mate-with-women-in-genesis/#comment-13192 (not that you would really read it or care about the false doctrines)

        Here are a few more false doctrines from the lying book of Enoch:

        *Enoch 1:7 says “And the earth shall be wholly rent in sunder, And all that is upon the earth shall perish, And there shall be a judgement upon all (men).” But the Bible says that the Earth will still be whole when Jesus returns because “all the tribes of the earth” shall see him coming in the clouds (Matthew 24:30). This also means that the book of Enoch lies when it says “all that is upon the earth shall perish” when the great judgment of earth comes. Jesus even said he would cut those days short because if he didn’t, no flesh would be saved (Matthew 24:22). So Jesus cuts the judgment short so all would not perish. The book of Enoch is a different gospel.

        *Enoch 12:7 says Enoch went to the land of Dan, south of the west of Hermon. This is specifically talking about the tribe of Dan’s land located south of the west of Hermon in the land of Israel. But Enoch came thousands of years BEFORE anyone knew that Israel would exist one day. He was caught up to heaven way before Dan and his forefathers, starting with Noah, were even thought of. So the book is historically inaccurate, proving it’s a lie.

        If this is the kind of garbage you’re basing your conclusions on, you’re building your foundation on sinking sand. Your understanding of the Bible–and how it came to be, and what it says or means–cannot be trusted.


  99. Thanks to all of you for your input. I’ve been away for a while on vacation and just read these. The main reason I ask is because I am looking and was guided toward discussions like these. It seems that I was born with an open mind and I can’t help but want to learn more than what has been written in the Holy Bible. I guess that in another time I would be accused of blasphemy and burned for wanting to hear or read more. I will continue to look and if the Lord grants me His council I will listen, if not I hope He has mercy on me for my thirst for knowledge when I stand before Him in judgement. Thanks again and God bless.


  100. Mr. Gaylord
    I have also been praying about and studying Gen 6:1-4 and find I disagree with most commentators (that I greatly respect). They have not convinced me that God would allow Angels to change their own beings from spirit to human just to corrupt a world so that God could act surprised and destroy it. And they tell me that my reasoning is faulty…..No wonder 1 Enoch is not part of inspired scripture.


  101. That’s the true explanation about genesis 5:1-6. i understand, i believe that demons never were sexual with humans. god bless u


  102. Hello Harry. May God bless you for your patience. I don’t understand how these people can think the immaterial/demons can mate with the material/humans? So what does that mean Samson and Goliath were by-products of human-demon mating because they were tall or very strong? Are the demons more powerful than God. Is God not capable of creating humans with awesome traits? It says God created humans in his image so I don’t see how there is another race of humans. And also does that mean people who are really tall today, does that mean they are related to demons? Since they are supposedly by-products of human/demon mating. Harry these people and I am in no place to judge because i am also a sinner, but these people who believe such fairy tales obviously have some sort of spiritual deficiency so I pray God open their spiritual eyes


    1. Every angel encountered in the bible took on human form. Not sure where you get that they are immaterial demons…they are rebellious angels


      1. Troyo,

        Search the scriptures. In Mark 3:22, the scribes said about Jesus, “He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.”

        Jesus responded, “How can Satan cast out Satan? …if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. …he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.” Mark 3:23, 26, 29-30

        This attests to the fact that Satan, a fallen angel, is the prince of the devils, who are fallen angels under his command. It also attests to the fact that they possess people. Furthermore, we have these scriptures showing that fallen angels = immaterial devils (evil spirits that possess evil people)–

        3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

        4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them. Luke 22

        7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

        8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

        9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Revelation 12

        13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. Revelation 16


      2. Angels are spirit beings (Hebrews 1:14), so they do not have any essential physical form. But angels do have the ability to take on human form. When angels appeared to humans in the Bible, they resembled normal males. In Genesis 18:1-19, God and two angels appeared as men and actually ate a meal with Abraham. Angels appear as men many times throughout the Bible (Joshua 5:13-14; Mark 16:5), although they never appear in the likeness of women.

        Jesus says the angels in heaven do not marry; didn’t mention sex, but we can assume not; He didn’t mention fallen, disobedient Angels

        If they can sit down and eat meals, even Paul said we may entertain angels unbeknownst to us, then saying they cannot mate is just an assumption. Them falling was part of God’s plan; so to say YOU KNOW the right answers and that wasn’t God’s will or plan is rather presumptuous.


      3. Thanks for displaying what lengths people will go to in order to promote the fairy tales and fables they embrace. When you state “Them falling was part of God’s plan” it makes me wonder if you really know what constitutes the plans of God and what doesn’t. You’re essentially saying God planned for them (wanted them) to fall. Sounds like Calvinist nonsense. Look at the scriptures and you’ll see God allows beings of higher intelligence the free will to choose to fall and knows ahead of time what choice they’ll make and responds accordingly. Yet your argument still cannot get around the fact fallen angels are not considered sons of God and that’s what Genesis calls them. To believe that means you hold to the false doctrine of Christian Universalism, so I refer you to this previous comment.


      4. God created all things, knew what his creation would do; when He created man and knew man would fall; are you saying rebellion against God is possible even though God won’t allow it? Of course
        not; if it happens He allows it; if He allows it it is His plan

        for you to imply God was caught off guard or shocked by the Angels disobedience and mans rebellion goes against His omniscient and omnipresent nature ; of course He knew it would happen, He allowed it to happen as nothing happens without His allowing it, so that’s Yes it is His plan


      5. It’s no wonder you’re confused about who the sons of God in Genesis were since you can’t decipher what constitutes God’s plan. God’s will is God’s plan. I never said anything close to what you say I implied. In Ezekiel 28, God tells us what his plan (will) for Lucifer was. He wanted him to be the anointed cherub. Then iniquity was found in him. So he rebelled against God’s plan. And God dealt with him and his followers accordingly. I think it’s clear you’re blinded by Calvinism and Christian Universalism. God’s plan is always to get glory from his creatures and to bless them in return. So before rebellion came he devised a plan for humans called salvation to get them back on track with his plan. And please stop bugging me about Chuck Missler. I already addressed his false doctrines in a previous comment to this post. If you missed it, too bad.


      6. I don’t know when these people are going to wake up. What will it take?????? How many times do you have to explain this issue…… Blessings……..


      7. Well, MaggieJo, traditions and habits are so hard to give up. That’s one of the reasons they crucified our Lord and why Christians are persecuted to this day. BTW, sorry your comment isn’t showing so far even though I approved it. From time-to-time comments don’t show at WordPress. Could be someone censoring them or a malfunction of an app.


  103. I recently surrendered to preach, I’m 35, and I’ve studied the bible since I got saved at seven. Somehow, though I’ve read through Genesis several times, I read over and missed the whole sons of God, daughters of men thing. It was only about a month ago that a good friend of mine pointed out the scripture and shared his believe in human/angel hybrids. I’m not saying that I have a stronger bond with The Lord, or His Spirit than anyone else does, but I guess because I had no preconceived notions on the subject, and I approached it as a child, ready to learn, I immediately felt that his opinion was impossible, even before I studied into it. I knew in my heart of hearts that God would never allow such a union. Finding this site strengthened what God had already shown me. I read every single, comment, argument, and point above, and the ONLY thing that bothered me was, if Enoch walked with God, why would he write such things, and it took Harry’s last few comments here to enlighten me on the fact that Enoch did not write that garbage. I’m so glad Harry is standing strong on the kjv, ( which is, I believe the only English transalation of Gods word period) and on his faith, and just to let you know, I’ve directed people to this site with intent of helping people, some really good people who are just confused, and I’m so thankful it’s here. As we say here in Texas, y’all have a blessed day


      1. Thank you sir! May God continue to bless you as well, I’d like to add one last thing for your other readers if you’ll indulge me this. James chapter 1 verse 5 says that ” if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask it of God who giveth liberally and upbraideth not.” It does not say if you lack wisdom ask it of the book of Enoch, or your bible commentary, or concordance. Most people tell me they read the new American standard, or not inspired version (niv) or something similar because they cannot understand their kjv. But I claim God’s promise in James to give me wisdom when I seek Him faithfully for it and “lean not to my own understanding.” The bible is not complicated, men complicate it when they choose to disobey God and try to justify by making the bible say something it clearly doesn’t. Angels can not, and do not mate with humans, the earth is between six and ten thousand years old, if you’re every truly saved, you’re saved eternally, and there were Giants in the land because the pre flood conditions of the earth, like increased air pressure, and decreased radiation from the sun ( because of the layer of water outside the ozone layer) among other things that God made to be perfect and good before sin destroyed the earth. Before you criticize a site or folks on it again, please seek God in prayer, and I promise you, if your in the Spirit, and humble, and obedient to Him, He will show you these truths and more!


  104. “The passage Lauren Kate refers to is Genesis 6:1-6, but from her quote to PW it is obvious she did not read the passage for herself and probably just heard about it from someone.”

    Only an arrogant–and probably sexist–jerk would write that.


    1. Lauren Kate got her facts wrong. Plain & simple. Her gender had nothing to do with it so please throw out the smokescreen. Newsflash–women can be just as wrong as men & my follow-up comments to everyone who is as deceived as Ms. Kate prove it.


      1. “Newsflash”: Your smug, cute arrogance doesn’t stop. Do you think that, as a Christian (from the Greek kristos: Christ-like), you should discuss God’s word with some humility?

        Let’s imagine that your interpretation of a Toradic text could possibly ever be proved to be “true.” Then let’s imagine that Lauren Kate got it wrong. That still wouldn’t make your smug, cute, arrogant assumption that she probably just heard about the Torah passage from someone else any more Christ-like.

        Newsflash: Christ wasn’t petty and mean. And terribly, desperately insecure.


      2. [Newsflash: Christ wasn’t petty and mean. And terribly, desperately insecure.]

        Aren’t you projecting, meg? After all it was your pettiness and insecurity that prompted you to make the false accusation I was being sexist simply for calling a woman out for her mistaken information. I am an equal opportunity critic. I don’t care if you’re black, white, hispanic, asian, jewish, gentile, male, or female–if you’re spreading bad information regarding the Bible, I’ll call you out on it just like Jesus and his apostles did. So please get over yourself. You’ll be the better off for it.


      3. What is truly in my heart is disgust for pompous a**** who hide behind a self-congratulatory moral “understanding” of poetry they don’t understand at all.

        You continue to refuse to address why I wrote in the first place: Your d******* statement that LK didn’t read the verse she mentions. You refuse to address it, because you know it’s a pompous and condescending thing to write. It is also impossible for you to know.

        That’s what’s in your heart. That, and a fundamental inability to grasp the concept of fiction.


      4. I addressed my belief on what I said about Ms. Kate in my original post. I’ve given more than sufficient evidence to back it up. But your original comment showed no concern for any of this. You were just appalled that a man would have the audacity to criticize a woman when she’s wrong. That’s what you were really hung up over. So maybe it’s time for you to move on since there’s nothing more to see here.


      5. You still haven’t addressed why you pompously claimed LK didn’t read the Torah passage upon which her 5-book, 10+ million-selling series is based.

        And you sure are hung up on the (obviously accurate) suggestion that you made this pompous statement because of what I would wager is a vast, tangled morass of inner hatred.


      6. Let me help you with your reading comprehension skills. First, I quoted verbatim what Lauren Kate said in her interview. Then I pointed out that based on what she said in reference to the Bible was incorrect. The passage she was referring to had nothing to do with anyone being kicked out of heaven for lust. Nor are there any passages in the Bible anywhere stating angels were kicked out of heaven for lusting after humans. Then I quoted verbatim the passage she was referring to as a means to prove my point. Therefore, by deductive reasoning (do you know what deductive reasoning is? If not click here–> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning) and critical thinking toward her misinformed statement on claiming something was in the Bible that really wasn’t, I came to the very astute observation that she could not have read the Bible as she claimed. Hence, this statement in my post above–

        The scripture never talks about anyone being kicked out of heaven for their lust. Here’s what the passage says…

        You were so hellbent on fomenting belligerent false accusations that you failed to see the obvious. Now shouldn’t you stop wasting your time here and go work on your homework or research a term paper or something? Please move along. There’s nothing more to see here.


  105. I see this whole thread has gone on for a few years and I’m pretty late to the game. I am in total agreement with Mr. Gaylord. I skipped over all the comments since there were so many, so I’m not sure if this was already mentioned or not. I’d like to point this out…

    Gen 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.

    This is where this doctrine comes from. It seems, though, that everyone always ignores chronology. The giants were mentioned BEFORE the sons of God had children with the daughters of men. See the phrase “and also AFTER that” following the giants? So no matter whether you think “sons of God” mean men or angels, it does NOT credit the offspring as being giants. 🙂


    1. Unfortunately that is an incorrect statement in reference to the “chronology” contained in the passage. The entire “line of Seth” theory is illogical on it’s face, as it the line of reasoning which asserts that fallen angels could not be referenced as “Sons of God”.

      What evidence is there, to suggest that these angels were fallen BEFORE the act of taking human women as wives? Thus, they would’ve BEEN “holy angels”, “sons of God”, right up unto the moment they sinned by having sex, which despite the assertion to the contrary, the Bible actually never says is impossible. It says, the angels IN HEAVEN, do not marry and aren’t given in marriage.. i.e., according to God’s design… The rebellious angels were clearly not adhering to that design, and were not operating within the bounds of heaven either, thus the argument is nullified twice.

      In the end, there isn’t any explanation other than fallen angels mating women that would explain the bizarre phenomenon of giants being created. “Godly” women mating with “ungodly” men hardly creates giant offspring! Beyond this, if those particular women descended from Seth were choosing to go marry the heathen offspring of Cain, then how could it even be said that they were still living in a “godly” manner?

      The entire “line of Seth” theory/explanation relies on a subtle assumption of genetic godliness, which a concept that is in fact far more incredulous, and more at odds with the Truth of the Gospel than is the simpler idea that fallen angelic beings do actually have a genetic component. There’s no inherent heresy in the teaching that angels can have hybrid offspring with humans. It actually goes a long way to explain things like the Flood, and the “cleansing of the Land” during the Israelites taking of Canaan. The line of Seth theory however is really a much riper breeding ground for heretical offshoots if it were to actually be taken to it’s logical outworkings….

      You just have to stop and really think it all through, without being afraid to challenge assumptions you might have held for most of your life, and get over the “weirdness” factor. 🙂


      1. [Thus, they would’ve BEEN “holy angels”, “sons of God”, right up unto the moment they sinned by having sex, which despite the assertion to the contrary, the Bible actually never says is impossible. It says, the angels IN HEAVEN, do not marry and aren’t given in marriage.. i.e., according to God’s design… The rebellious angels were clearly not adhering to that design…]


        Don’t you see your contradiction here? If they were holy angels, they would not have the capacity for marital relations. God did not create them with the ability to carry out marital relations if by God’s design the holy angels do not marry nor are given in marriage, as you yourself admit. And angels don’t have the capacity to re-create themselves into giving themselves the body parts necessary for marital relations even if they rebel against God’s design. That’s your first mistake.

        Your second mistake is saying they would have been holy angels up to the point of having sex. If, by your own admission, holy angels are designed by God NOT to marry, then going against God’s design by marrying would mean that they would have been fallen angels at the moment they married so by the time they had sex, they would not be counted as sons of God.

        Either way, your argument falls flat–like splat. Angels aren’t more powerful than God, even if they combine forces. God created them without the possibility of them marrying. To say that they somehow gave themselves genitalia and reproductive cells is to say they were more powerful than God in their fallen state. If you’ve read Job, you know God puts limits on Satan’s abilities.

        And whenever God was upset with devils in the scripture, he rebuked them by addressing them directly. In Genesis 6, God specifically spoke about judging humans, not angels (point 4 above). If he were judging angels, he would have mentioned them specifically. Furthermore, there were giants in the Earth long after the flood when God wiped out the original giants. It was never even hinted that those giants were anything but human. So they had to descend from Noah’s 100% human bloodline. So your implication that angels have to be involved to make giants isn’t scriptural.


      2. Yes, I used to hold to the types of assumption being made in your arguments here. There were the ones I was raised with, and so I held them for many years without question. However, upon closer examination, I eventually had to admit that they built on just that, assumptions….

        Where does it actually say that it is preposterous to think that angels couldn’t possibly have genitalia? That is assumption, based on the fact that the Holy Angels weren’t created to marry. But think about this, if I asked you if there were female angels, what would your answer be…? For all those years I accepted the assumption that angels couldn’t possibly have sex organs, I also accepted the assumption that angels were all male. Which, again if you think about it, is a strange idea in itself, since how does “maleness” really exist without it’s female counterpart? And if they had no male “parts”, then God merely decided to make them look male in their overall appearance, for, what reason now? In essence, the whole conception of what the “holy angels” are like is really based upon a single proof text, and then a whole mound of assumption on top of that…

        But again, the whole argument about “Sons of God” not being something that could be applied to fallen angels, (only the unfallen ones) and then debating the exact timing at which the fallen angels fell, etc., is really besides the point anyhow. (I would actually respond by saying yes, you’re right, their sin would’ve actually occurred the moment they decided in their hearts to sin, but nevermind…) The point is, you’re saying “Sons of God” can’t be used to describe fallen angels, but it can be used to describe fallen men?

        Which is more of a stretch….? Nowhere in the Bible does it actually talk about this “righteous line of Seth” idea, it is really just an invention that was come up with in order to explain away the obvious reading of Genesis 6… How could it even make sense? Yes, Cain sinned by killing Abel and was cursed by God, but this doesn’t change the underlying fact that ALL mankind was fallen and sinful (that’s a pretty crucial element of the Gospel itself, is it not?) So in reality, in order to make this claim that the “Sons of God” and the “daughters of men” are actually describing two different subsets of humanity, then well, do you not see what an even MORE problematic assertion is being made in terms of it’s theological impact?

        Is “the way of Cain” spoken of elsewhere in the Bible, a way of describing the sinful, rebellious path he took that others throughout history chose to follow, or is it actually describing some kind of actual genetic damnation, completely removing personal accountability and basically condemning everyone who was a descendent of Cain to hell because somehow their DNA was “more fallen” than those from Seth…..??

        No one said angels were more powerful than God. (did I say that?) Surely not! But stop and remember, did Satan “outwit” or “overpower” God when he slithered into the Garden and tempted Eve, or did God simply allow that to happen…? Why would God do such a thing? Allow such corruption of His corruption!? Honestly, I can speculate, but I doubt I will ever fully understand it all this side of eternity. The fact is, He did, just as He also allowed all sorts of other profane atrocities to occur all throughout human history.

        To think that fallen angels having hybrid giant offspring with human women is something that God just simply wouldn’t allow to happen in the first place, is again, really just another assumption, an assumption we are more than willing to make if for no other reason that it is admittedly a very shocking and disturbing thought! Of course we don’t want to believe such a thing could happen! It’s horrific! It’s freaky, and more than this, I think it upsets us most because it challenges our assumed concepts of the separation between our realm and the spiritual realms. If Genesis 6 is allowed to read the way common sense would dictate, then our world suddenly feels a whole lot less “snug and secure” in terms of thinking that human beings are basically safe behind the “veil” separating our existence from that of the angelic, holy or otherwise…. Ask yourself this, would the personality of Satan be such that he would hold back from tampering with the very genetics of mankind, if he had the opportunity? Of course not! And then, we see in this very day and age right now, God allowing men to tamper with human genetics, so… God is apparently allowing it to happen in this modern context, so, how can we explain that? God allows evil to occur, because He uses it ALL in His plans to eventually redeem every last bit of Creation….

        But as to God pronouncing judgment prior to the flood, it actually says, “And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.”

        He pronounces judgment on “all flesh”. Did the animals sin too? Why/how were they corrupted…

        Also, (and I’m sure this is where you’d probably really get resistant), if we look at the Book of Enoch, it talks about little ELSE than judgment upon the angels! And before you start to protest about why that’s a totally heretical book or something, then I’d have to ask why it was then that Jude quotes it? (and quotes it as a piece of “prophecy” no less..?) I’m not saying Enoch is “scripture”, but after looking into that whole matter, I’ve had to at least conclude one thing. Jude is unquestionably referring to some piece of writing, not in the Bible, is he not? And he is calling that text “prophecy”, in a manner which essentially assumes that the reader totally knows what he is referring to…. It definitely gives you food for thought.

        Also, you are correct that there were of course giants after the Flood as well. People love to speculate on that one, whether is was latent “Nephilim” genes in one of Noah’s son’s wives (which I don’t particularly find plausible), or… that it probably has to do with Nimrod, who the Bible says, “became a Gibborim, a “mighty man”. Nimrod was basically the first pagan king after the Flood, in fact he is still today revered as almost the “patriarch” of occultism by folks like the Freemasons. I believe that Nimrod essentially took part in some sort of ritual, or vile process of some kind, which somehow altered his very DNA as a full-grown adult.

        There is in fact an astonishingly large amount of evidence to suggest that giants were around throughout much of history, not just in Canaan either, but even all throughout the Americas. And when start to research these kinds of reports, and see the repeated findings of things like six-fingered hands, and even double rows of teeth (!?), you have to admit that whatever you’re dealing with here, they are not simply just larger-than-normal humans….

        And finally (and I know, I’m sorry this comment is so huge), there is the matter of the many “church fathers”, those living and writing in the first few generations after the apostles, who to a surprisingly unanimous degree, all believed in the “Genesis 6 referred to angels” paradigm. If you don’t believe me, check it out for yourself. Not that this “proves” it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but wow, it’s certainly interesting, to think that angels mating with women wasn’t even something being debated amongst the men who were themselves only a degree or two of separation from the first-hand teaching of the Apostles themselves. I don’t believe the “line of Seth” theory came into being until several hundred years later, from Augustine or something like that I think…. Anyhow. That’s my piece. ttyl.


      3. stranger,

        It’s interesting how you imply we shouldn’t make assumptions, then give a lengthy diatribe full of your own assumptions.

        [The point is, you’re saying “Sons of God” can’t be used to describe fallen angels, but it can be used to describe fallen men?]

        No, I never said that. That’s you setting up a straw man of assumption to project onto me so you can then try to tear me down by your own assumption.

        And you’re missing a huge truth. When God gives us info in his word, he allows us to extrapolate using that info to draw conclusions. That’s how we as Christians can conclude that gambling is wrong even though the Bible never says so. God tells us why he formed the bodies of men and women as he did in Genesis. He did it so men could unite with women in holy matrimony to fulfill his command to be fruitful and multiply. Therefore, since men & women were created with God’s intent to have them marry to bear offspring as commanded in Genesis, then we can extrapolate that God did NOT create angels with that capability since Jesus, their Creator, said angels were not intended to marry in order to bear offspring.

        You can basically try to argue ad infinitum in your feeble attempts to tear down what I say and twist the scriptures to try to build up your own false doctrine, but the points I made in my original post still stand. It’s really sad that people such as yourself choose to be deceived and try to deceive others with your faulty, non-biblical reasoning.

        [Nowhere in the Bible does it actually talk about this “righteous line of Seth” idea, it is really just an invention that was come up with in order to explain away the obvious reading of Genesis 6… How could it even make sense? Yes, Cain sinned by killing Abel and was cursed by God, but this doesn’t change the underlying fact that ALL mankind was fallen and sinful]

        By making this statement, you’ve shown that you really don’t know some basic principles taught in the Bible. When people call on the name of the Lord, as Seth and his descendants did, God imputes righteousness to them. He no longer considers them fallen even if they have their sin nature. That’s why they are called saints. The righteous line of Seth is like the rapture–the actual term is not in the Bible, but the concept is. If you were taught by the Holy Spirit on understanding scripture, you would know the context renders the meaning. The concept of Seth’s righteous line is established in Genesis 4:26 when we are told Seth and his family were the first to call on the name of the Lord–he that calleth on the name of the Lord shall be saved. They became saints.

        This righteous line is then verified by Enoch, who walked with God and was caught up to heaven without dying (Genesis 5:22-24). Then was further verified in Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah. The flood did not come until after the deaths of Methuselah & Lamech, which is a testimony of how he spared the righteous. And only Noah’s family went onto the ark–although Genesis 5 tells us Noah had several siblings, uncles, aunts, cousins–because Noah found God’s grace (Genesis 6:8). God called Noah a just and perfect man because of this. So your argument again falls flat–like splat. Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God.


  106. Every single culture in the world has stories of the gods descending to have relations with women and in our own day we have alien abduction stories involving sexual encounters

    If it is impossible why is it universally attested to?


    1. Sorry, but that’s hardly a valid argument. Every culture also has fairies who work magic, gold at the end of rainbows, and superstitious routines done for “good luck.” That doesn’t mean we should just automatically accept them as true.


      1. Serious question here, for me, is the 2 Peter 2:4 reference in the article…You suggest that the punishment that was described in past tense–bound by chains in hell, etc—was for the sin of the original rebellion.
        Were only the worst offenders sent immediately to hell for rebelling? Why wasn’t Satan sent immediately, then?
        We all agree there is demonic activity here on Earth, now. Jesus called him the “God of this world”.
        But its clear that SOME demons have been chained.
        What did THEY do that caused God to judge them immediately? It doesn’t make sense that He punished some and not others for the same offense. In fact, the Bible says that the immediate result of the war in Heaven was that the rebellious angels were cast out of Heaven….
        (Lots of questions here…I didn’t mean to do that. Just the one idea: Why did God chain some, but not Satan or others, for rebellion? Why are the demons that are chained in that situation?)


      2. DavidH,

        I don’t know why some fallen angels were chained while others weren’t. It would be a matter of speculation.

        [It doesn’t make sense that He punished some and not others for the same offense.]

        We don’t have the whole picture like God does, so that statement may be a bit presumptuous. There were other homosexuals in various societies in ancient times (like the Spartans), but God only destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. We have this statement from Jesus in Luke 13 that kind of indirectly may address your statement–

        1 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.

        2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?

        3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

        4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?

        5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.


      3. Thank you.

        You’re right that it doesn’t say specifically why some angels were chained, and others not….although you could reasonably infer the reason if you believe that fallen angels had sex with women, so back to the original question….

        (Not sure if I could agree with the application of Luke 13, which describes Man and sin and redemption–as redemption is a concept that clearly does not apply to angels anywhere in the Bible).

        If the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” were simply God’s people intermarrying/reproducing with non-believers, then why would their offspring be designated as “giants” and “men of renown”?

        I’m interested and truly investigating…..Great topic, btw.


      4. DavidH,

        I referred to Luke 13 to highlight the Lord’s take on punishment, not the repentance part. Something bad happened to some rebellious people, so Jesus posed the question (paraphrased), “Do you think those guys were the worst offenders just because these terrible things happened to them?” We could pose the same question regarding fallen angels–should we just assume that just because those angels were chained that they were the worst offenders? In other words, Jesus was saying just because something really severe happens to someone who deserves it doesn’t automatically mean they were the worst of the worst.

        As far as your giants and men of renown question, you misread the scripture. They were separate groups of people. I already covered this at the comment here–> https://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/did-angels-mate-with-women-in-genesis/#comment-7340 as well as several other previous comments.


  107. Great article brother, keep up on doing God’s will, funny when people need to resort to playing the greek and hebrew game like they actually can understand it, they only want to seek to change God’s word and the only way they can do such is by going to older text than english so they can redefine words they and we do not know, hebrew and greek have changed over the last 2000+ years same as english has changed in the last 500.


  108. Thank you Harry. I have presented the same view like yours too. I want to humbly implore you to let the opposers of truth know that the Bible does not contradict itself. The word of God is of no private interpretations. There are three that bear witness in heaven. The Father the Word and the spirit. Christ the Word says immortals don’t marry. Period. My regards. Tim


  109. Having stumbled upon this site in a study I was doing – I found it so engaging that I couldn’t stop reading until I came to the end. Thank you so much, I really appreciate it all and found it an excellent resource for my study! May God bless each of you for taking time to create this communication file – especially you, Harry. Nina


  110. I came across this site looking for answers about God. I have very little knowledge of the Bible. I am completely neutral on the subject. Goliath was the only giant I know of in the bible and that’s because I heard it from someone else. Harry, I was completely turned off by the way you present yourself. You come off as arrogant, rude, and condescending. Anytime someone presents an alternate view, you blame their traditional way of thinking. Perhaps, you’re the closed minded one. Attitudes like yours is what turns away people seeking the Truth. You don’t answer questions from folks that wants to learn; it’s always some sarcastic comment. You my friend should not be in the bible teaching business. You are way too offensive. I don’t think Jesus taught this way.


    1. Janet,

      As you stated, you have very little knowledge of the Bible. Could it be that maybe you should gain more knowledge of the Bible to have a broader base from which to judge me? I am offensive to those who embrace man-made traditions and I make no apologies for it considering the lateness of the hour we’re in before the return of the Lord. People whose heart isn’t towards God will always be offended, but don’t seem to be offended in their offending God. As I pointed out in previous comments, people have tried to push their views on this topic by omitting scripture, equating unholy books as equivalent to scripture, and quoting scripture out of context.


  111. Did demons genetic engineer semen for their children and used human women to bare the children as suggested by Sumerian tablets? Have modern demons created the nuclear industry so we can destroy the earth?