Let’s just say–I come prepared.
Since I’m still new here, I’m currently unable to highlight specific portions of my posts or Scripture in red.
However, I can provide source links for every claim I make, so I’ll hold off for now and see how things go.
God bless you and your family.
Johann.
StephenAndrew, peace to you. I can see you’re reaching for something grand—but brother, your theology’s floating out to sea without a life vest.
Let’s anchor this in the Word.
God doesn’t “become again” anything. He is. Always has been. Always will be. “I AM WHO I AM” (Exodus 3:14). He doesn’t evolve into unity—He exists in perfect unity: Father, Son, Spirit. That’s not your “One Spirit Family”—that’s the Trinity. Not mystical, not metaphorical—doctrinal fact.
The Nephilim weren’t misplaced souls or spirit mutants treading water. They were wicked men. Violent. Fallen. And they died in the flood like everyone else outside the ark. Genesis 7:21: “All flesh died that moved on the earth.” No secret swimmers. No survivors clinging to theological metaphors. Judgment was total.
Rewriting the Gospel into a mystical family reunion guts the Cross. Jesus didn’t die so we could become metaphysical concepts. He died because we’re sinners. Real ones. With real guilt. In need of real grace. Through a real Savior. Who really rose.
“All faiths are just different Father names for the same Spirit”? That’s not Bible. That’s spiritual relativism. Jesus said, “No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). You can’t bend that into a cosmic group hug. You either come through Christ—or you don’t come at all.
The Flood wasn’t a parable—it was a purge. God didn’t reduce lifespan DNA through existential remorse. He judged sin. “The earth was corrupt… and filled with violence” (Genesis 6:11). And He saved a remnant through one man—Noah—so the Seed could still come. This isn’t metaphor. It’s the Gospel in motion.
Final word: theology isn’t abstract art. It’s blood, wood, nails, and resurrection. Don’t trade divine revelation for poetic confusion. Stick to the Word—where truth speaks plainly, not in riddles.
—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.
@Corlove13,
Yes, that is my humble opinion based on how I read the verses from Gen & Numbers. I feel @Johann’s points resonate the best for my little bible-view. The others’ commentaries I enjoy reading often on other topics. My studies are still newfound, considering I am older 
, but my faith is growing stronger.
The passage in Genesis 6 speaking of the sons of God, the daughters of men, and the nephilim is arguably one of the more befuddling passages in Genesis, if not in the whole Bible. And no shortage of ink has been used over the centuries trying to make sense of it. In such a short passage, seemingly so much is said, but almost no answers are provided. And people have been fascinated and bewildered by it since before the time of Christ.
We have, for example, the books which were later compiled into the singular work now known as 1 Enoch, which were written between around 300 BC and 100 AD, and there is a rather robust and fantastic exploration of this. Where we have angels known as “Watchers” who were seduced by the beauty of human women, and so became disobedient, they fell, and then taught human beings all manner of things and also siring offspring with human women to produce a race of “giants”. And this becomes, in the Enochian narrative, a principle reason for why the flood was necessary.
This is why we see in 2nd Temple Jewish works like the Enochian texts, and even among some early Christian writers of the first couple of centuries (who were avid readers of the Enochian texts, even though “1 Enoch” was never embraced as canonical Scripture by the ancient Church*)
In time, however, both Jewish and Christian authorities came to embrace a less fantastical interpretation of the Genesis 6 passage, and the general consensus both within historic Christian circles and historic Jewish circles is that the things described in the text are much more mundane–“children of God” isn’t an oblique reference to celestial beings (aka angels), but a group of humans, perhaps those descended from Seth; while “daughters of men” came to be understood as other humans, perhaps the descendants of Cain.
In modern times things have often become far more elaborate, with not only fantastical views echoing the ancient Enochian fiction; but all manner of ideas which look a lot like tinfoil hattery.
I think it is worth noting a couple things. The text mentions “sons of God” and “daughters of men” coming together because the “sons of God” found “the daughters of men” to be beautiful. It does not, however, mention that the resulting offspring of this union were the nephilim. It says “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”. Notice the phrasing, the nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward when; not as a result of. Though it is certainly tantalizing to speculate or imagine that perhaps this union of the two groups produced this mysterious “nephilim” (Hebrew for “fallen ones”).
The passage then continues “These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” Well, what the heck does that mean? Is this referring to the nephilim or to the children born of the sons of God and daughters of men? Are the nephilim actually the offspring? Yet it says they were on the earth when the sons of God took the daughters of men as wives and had children with them–that suggests the nephilim are already there when this happened.
The “mighty men of old, the men of renown” seems to suggest un-mentioned heroic figures, that is we don’t know who these men were, but they seem to have a legendary status of some kind, they are ancient. In the Hebrew of the text they are gibborim aser me-olam “mighty ones which [are] from old”, anshy ha-shem “men of the renown”/“mortals of renown”. Ancient, famous, but we aren’t told who/what they are, though they appear to be the offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men as the text connects the offspring to them with the word הֵמָּה (“these”/“they”).
So, again, what we have is a very short text, without virtually any answers to any questions we might pose to this passage. And this isn’t aided by the fact that the LXX would go on to translate both nephilim and gibborim with the word gigantes, “giants”. Which along with the nephilimic references later, including the Israelite spies who went into Canaan and returned to report that the inhabitants were as giants, and then we have the case of Goliath of Gath described as a giant (of course, the Masoretic version of Goliath’s height is quite fantastical, compared to the much older version of Goliath’s height given in e.g. the LXX and DSS, reflecting a far more sensible height of about 6.5-7 ft as opposed to nearly 10 ft. which would have still been massive compared to the average male height of 5’6" at the time and place). Though mention of “giants” and the tantalizing idea of “sons of God” and “daughters of men” producing offspring, the mention of a nebulous group called “fallen ones”, and of legendary–but not told to us in the text–people all creates a temptation to speculate endlessly about what it all means. At the end of the day, however, we have a lot of questions, but the text doesn’t give up its secrets. And perhaps the most prudent thing we can do is allow Scripture to say what it says, and simply say we don’t really know what it all means. It almost certainly made sense to the original readers, but sometimes the Bible just isn’t clear to us modern readers. And maybe that’s okay.
*Some ancient fathers, such as Tertullian (though Tertullian is himself a controversial figure due to his having abandoned orthodox Christianity and converting to the Montanist cult) seem to give Enoch scriptural status, but this is never reflected in the general consensus of the Church; and then there is the peculiar case of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church which, even today, has a biblical Canon with a far more extensive canonical list than any of the other historic churches which embraces 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and many others. However, again, speaking of the general and broad consensus of the Christian Church, Enoch has never been received or accepted as Scripture.
Hi, I’m new too. I think I met you in the other Forum and asked if you ministered or taught.
I actually like the whole discussion and not because
you theologians can know for sure an answer, but because you are teaching us logic in practice.
And here I see people are more humble in their responses… And prayerfully I continue to see this in Jesus name. It make correction easier to accept.
Keep bringing it..peace..
Opps that was for Johann
Johann
I certainly understand your point of view. I concede you are in good company as you hold to it; good, but not universal. I certainly have not been given the mission to try to convince anyone otherwise, so thanks for your clear and comprehensive response. I will tell you a bit about how I apprehend Scripture.
I rarely reach for understanding from historical figures, church fathers, parochial mythologies, secular approbations, opinionated saints, or even scholarly commentators as my initial approach to understanding what God is communicating to me through His word. I trust He has written what we hold as holy in such a way that a simpleton like myself can apprehend it and apply it to my life. Personally, when I study, I read, ask for help, wait, pray, wait, listen, wait, wait, pray, confess, wait, read again, cross reference, remember other places God has said something similar, write, wait, listen, ask for help, reexamine, and usually end up in thanksgiving for the providence of His promised help. It’s not that I am unfamiliar with all the other commenters on Biblical passages, it’s just that I read them later, sort of as safeguards, affirmations that I haven’t completely missed the boat. This kind of study requires a familiarity with the rest of revealed truth, because, as you have pointed out, it is a very consistent work of God. My way takes longer, it is much harder, and I recognize it too has pitfalls to avoid. But this is the way God raised me.
When I come to Genesis 6, I already know that Moses was not writing a smorgasbord of thoughts, but rather a linear, logical, accurate account of what God gave him to record. So, coming to Genesis 6, I have already trusted what I read in Genesis 1, 2, and so on. (I’ll bet this is the same for you).
e.g.
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:11-12
Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:20-21
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:24-25
And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Genesis 2:18
And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. Genesis 3:20
Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the LORD.” Genesis 4:1
And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.” And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the LORD. Genesis 4:25-26
This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. Genesis 5:1
Do you see how much of what I’ve referenced (above) I need to think differently about in order to adopt the idea that beings of very different makeup (different kind, to say the least) somehow subverted the plain design of creation and somehow produce a race of superhumans (or depleted angels), or whatever I am asked to believe. Everything reproduced acording to its kind. This sounds like what we now call Genitics; the possible reproduction only within kind; only with matching DNA strands. . The folklore is tantalizing, but do I really also need to rethink what God meant when He said “It’s not good that man be alone”, if procreation was possible with incorporeal beings. I have to think differently about what God meant when he said “Eve is the mother of all living”. And so on. This is just referring to the previous writing in the same book. Once I take in the entire volume of scripture, the plain truth of progenerative design pours from nearly every page. I’m only showing how I arrived at my understanding of this passage. I hope you can understand my approach.
I do appreciate your detailed academic approach. It is notable and commendable. Thanks for sharing it with me. At the end of the “day”, I don’t think this is going to be on the final.
Resting in The Living Loving One with you.
KP
Solid take, TheologyNerd. You kept your boots on the ground and your head in the text—respect. Genesis 6 isn’t playground material for Enoch fanfic or Nephilim survival theories. It’s a warning wrapped in mystery. The main thing is still the main thing: human corruption, divine judgment, and the preservation of a righteous remnant. Amen to letting Scripture be Scripture—even when it doesn’t hand us all the answers on a silver tablet.
—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.
I appreciate the clarity and sincerity in how you’ve explained your approach. That said, I would offer a friendly but direct challenge to the idea that we can, or even should, understand Scripture primarily by bypassing the historical, linguistic, and theological labors of those who have gone before us.
The notion that the Bible speaks so plainly that no external input is needed—no grammar, no history, no context, no instruction from those who have devoted lifetimes to exegesis—has no real support in Scripture itself. In fact, 2 Peter 3:16 warns that in Paul’s letters “there are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort,” clearly implying that training and teaching matter. Proverbs 11:14 also says, “In the multitude of counselors there is safety.”
Even Ezra “set his heart to study the Law of the LORD, and to do it and to teach his statutes and rules in Israel” (Ezra 7:10). Nehemiah 8:8 records the Levites reading the law “clearly,” and “they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.” If the raw reading alone were enough, that clarification would not have been necessary. Paul didn’t write, “Timothy, just read the Scriptures and let the Spirit speak,” but instead said, “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15), using a word that implies precise cutting, careful handling, skilled interpretation.
You also mentioned reading, waiting, praying, confessing, listening—and yes, I agree, all of that matters deeply. But none of that cancels out the God-ordained roles of teachers, elders, apostles, or prophets (Ephesians 4:11–13), whose very job is “for the equipping of the saints.” We are part of the body, not solo interpreters–“the eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’” (1 Corinthians 12:21).
Nowhere in Scripture are we taught that sincerity is a substitute for sound hermeneutics. The Bereans were noble, not because they waited in silence, but because they “examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11)–in context, that means they verified Paul’s apostolic preaching by comparing it with the Scriptures they already had, which required sharp discernment.
I say this not to be argumentative, but because I’ve seen too many shipwreck their faith by relying on personal impressions while neglecting the hard work of rightly handling the text. We are not more spiritual for ignoring the historical and linguistic context—if anything, we are more susceptible to error. Scripture must interpret Scripture, yes—but that includes grammar, syntax, audience relevance, covenant structure, historical setting, and even intertextual links across testaments. That’s not “man’s opinion”—that’s faithful stewardship.
You’ve mentioned that your method takes longer, and I respect the seriousness with which you approach it. But the danger lies in assuming that long hours and private impressions ensure accuracy. As Proverbs 18:1 warns, “Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire; he breaks out against all sound judgment.” A self-contained interpretive method, however devout it may feel, is not what the apostles modeled or what Scripture calls wise.
In short, I believe the Holy Spirit works powerfully through humble study, communal testing, historical awareness, and Spirit-filled scholarship—not in spite of them.
To ignore those tools is not humility–it’s presumption.
Let God be true, and every man a liar, yes–but that includes our own inner voices too.
Shalom Achi/brother.
Johann.
Johann
Understood. I accept everything you said. I know I am a poor communicator; I am often misunderstood, as I was this time. I should have put MORE EMPHASIS in the phrase:
" as my initial approach to understanding what God is communicating to me through His word.".
I sincerely meant THAT. My INITIAL approach. here’s why.
Just as you can say:
“The notion that the Bible speaks so plainly that no external input is needed—no grammar, no history, no context, no instruction from those who have devoted lifetimes to exegesis—has no real support in Scripture itself.”
Or
“Nowhere in Scripture are we taught that sincerity is a substitute for sound hermeneutics.”
I would agree. I never suggested otherwise, at least I didn’t mean to, but that is how you read it.
But should I therefore scold you by saying
" Scripture never tells you that you can only understand God by having it interpreted to you by priests, or by charismatic preachers, or by scholars, or by ancient writers. You should not try to understand God apart from trained professionals?"
Of course not. I know you know better.
Please don’t assume my devotional methods reject all other teachers or educators. They surely do not. (you should see my library) I don’t say this for my own defense, but for your edification, that you not take what someone says and reflect it as hyperbole. We are here to help each other. (I know that is your intent too).
I was sharing my initial approach to study. I find this kind of trust, reliance, and dependence on the leading of God’s promised Holy Spirit is obedience.
He promised it, I am not about to short-cut it;
He promised it, I endorse it,
He promised it, and I suggest you consider it.
God’s word is not an esoteric puzzle, able to be deciphered only by highly educated gurus. I have been involved in many, many, bible studies where the “teacher” only parrots the commentaries, or the “pastor” only regurgitates his pet principles. If you ask something not contained in their specific reference material they are stymied. “Learners” are expected to keep quiet, take notes, and politely nod from time-to-time. The participants are not encouraged to study for themselves, but tacitly discouraged by sophisticated sophistry, byzantine Greek tenses, and esoteric insights into complex Hebrew vernacular, and prolific namedropping of ancient theologians that the teacher himself has never really read, but only repeats what someone else said someone else said was said. This form of “teaching” does little to elucidate but does much to alienate. Everything gets packaged in a neat digestible snack and tied up with a promise of prosperity. Need I mention the reformation, which dared to put bibles into parishioners’ hands. Once again, many Christians do not believe they have direct access to the promised teaching of The Holy Spirit because there are too many “smart guys” indirectly telling them they have no hope of ascertaining the truth because they don’t know Hebrew, or haven’t studied Tertullian. This leaves the student thinking “I have the Holy Spirit indwelling, but I need someone else to tell me what He’s saying to me.” I hear all the time saints lamenting that they have no way to understand the Scriptures, because they don’t have the tools, or don’t know how to use them, as If the tools are the only way to hear the Holy Spirit. When I say, “have you tried asking God for help” they shrug, as if I have presented them with an impossibility. Sorry, I feel like I’m piling on. Teachers should be helpful, not try to make themselves indispensable; teachers should help folks find the truth, not present it so pressed and starched that it is impossible for the learner to wear. Some teachers (as we have been warned in scripture) actually promote this error for the sake of their own popularity and honor. (I don’t think I need to explain this. There are many references. You know them already.)
I don’t intend to reverse-hyperbole you, and I am not saying you are personally party to this perennial problem. You are bright, educated, and well versed in the Scriptures; that is very clear. You keep being you. I am going to keep encouraging the saints to trust God; trust He knows how to speak to each individual in their own language, trust He meant what he promised, trust He knows how to teach you better than anyone else. You don’t need advanced degrees, you don’t need to be bilingual, you don’t need to have a above normal IQ to hear from God. Devote the time and effort, be patient, and dig in for yourselves FIRST. (not “only”, please don’t read “only”, I’m not saying “only”, I’m saying “first”, not ONLY, just to be clear. Understood? First, not only…) Good teachers are great, and should be honored for the work they do, but if people don’t know the scriptures themselves, how can they know which teachers to trust?
I’m sorry this sounds like a reaction to your reaction. I apologize.
Now that we have completely side-stepped the topic… what about what I shared on topic?.. Any purchase?
KP
No need to apologize, brother. As for your rather lengthy response—where to begin?
You certainly made your point clearly, and that didn’t escape my notice. But it’s late here in South Africa.
I’m still browsing this site, trying to discern where I might fit in, so to speak–looking for a place where I can receive edification more than instruction, and do more reading than posting for now.
I’m used to pushback and strong reactions–mentioning Hebrew, the LXX, Koine Greek, and Jewish sources doesn’t usually sit well with most people. I appreciate you dokimazō‑ing me, since I’m new here.
All good? Now I have a sense of how you approach study, and you know how I’m approaching it–and that should be complementary, right? After all, there’s no place for “lone rangers” who rely on commentaries in place of the written Word itself, agreed?
Shalom to you and family.
Johann.
Johann
“Complementary”! Yes, I LOVE that. You mentioned the metaphor "If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? " Perfect !
I have my place guarding the right side of the ditch and you the left. Soldier on brother.
Grace and Peace in the Love of Jesus
KP
Kevin
Correct, we need each other and there are “ditches” everywhere.
Galatians 6:1 - Restoration, not rejection
“Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.”
Paul calls not for condemnation but for gentle restoration, reminding the church that even the strong must remain humble and watchful.
2 Corinthians 4:8–9 - Pressed but not crushed
“We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed.”
For those who’ve stumbled or fallen under pressure, Paul reminds us: the fall is not the end-God sustains the broken.
Romans 8:1 - No condemnation in Christ
“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”
Fallen saints are not castaways; if they are in Christ, their standing is secure.
2 Timothy 2:13 - His faithfulness holds
“If we are faithless, He remains faithful—for He cannot deny Himself.”
Even when the soldier fails, the Commander never changes—His covenant stands.
Philippians 1:6 - The work continues
“And I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”
The fallen are not forgotten—God finishes what He starts.
1 Thessalonians 5:14 - Help the weak, be patient with all
“And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all.”
Paul instructs the church to build up the weary, not break them down.
Ephesians 6:13 - Stand after the fall
“Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.”
Paul doesn’t assume perfection—he assumes battle. And he urges the soldier, however battered, to stand again.
1 Corinthians 10:13 - No temptation is unique
“No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and He will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation He will also provide the way of escape…”
Paul assures the fallen that their struggle is not uncommon or hopeless—God provides a path back.
Romans 15:1 - Bear with the weak
“We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves.”
The fallen soldier is not left alone—the stronger ones are charged to lift and bear.
2 Corinthians 1:3–4 — Comfort for the afflicted
“Blessed be the God… who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction…”
Paul sees affliction as a training ground for compassion—God restores us so we can restore others.
Ever read Pilgrims Progress?
Johann.
Johann
Yes, it’s been years, but I remember it well. It was very enjoyable and edifying.
What did you think of my using Genesis chapters 1 - 5 to help teach about God’s created plan for procreation? Did you understand what I was saying about the previous chapters must be remembered, kept in mind, when we come to chapter 6 for the passage in question to make sense. I know saints and sinners alike have all jumped on the “hot sex with angels” angle, (Ha ha. I always wanted to put “angel” and “angle” in the same sentence) , but the first five chapters sort-of lay-out that fantasy as an impossibility (if you get my intention). It seems unlike everything we already know about God to suggest he left a loop-hole in creation for angels to get into some Friday-night trouble at the expense of human women, and furthermore produce something monsterous. Maybe Stephen King would write this, but not Moses (IMHO) If we read the Genesis account with understanding, and without a knowledge of a-priori theories of others; if we read Chapters 1-6 “green” as-it-were, then how does this story read to you? Paying close attention to the verses I mentioned:
e.g.
“And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.” And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the LORD. Genesis 4:25-26
What does this expression “Then men began to call on the name of the LORD” mean to you; how does it inform the story in our topic? What ties this with our topic as it fits into the grand story of Genesis?
Blessings.
It is enjoyable to talk with you on this subject.
KP
I’ll need to sign off here, Kevin. It’s now 12:54 AM in a quiet and dark South Africa.
On another note, our Bible certainly doesn’t stop at Genesis 6. There’s no need to slam the brakes just yet.
One of my professors used to say that Scripture is filled with paradox and tension. And truly, we see that throughout the Word—mystery and revelation, judgment and mercy, promise and fulfillment.
For me, what matters most is living the gospel of Christ. That means walking in both His indicatives and His imperatives.
“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15, NASB).
“Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me… for My yoke is easy, and My burden is light” (Matthew 11:29–30, ESV).
It is about knowing Him in a real relationship.
“This is eternal life, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3, ESV).
I would rather pursue that life in Him than get lost in speculation or human philosophy.
“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men… rather than according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8, NASB).
Grace to you, brother. Let’s pick this up again when the sun rises.
I come to realize that in some quest we don’t have enough information to clearly be dogmatic.
What I can say is I can see both views.
Johann
If you felt like I was slaming the breaks, that’s on me. I surely didn’t intend to. ( I think my wife “slams onthe brakes” when she drives too, and she doesn’t think so , so I have some experience here (smile)) I was refering to our exegesis of Genesis 6 because that is the topic of this thread. That’s all. I’m happy to both discuss and learn other viewpoints on any section of our Holy word.
I love this! Ditto!
Thanks
KP