Category Giants and Antiquity

Genesis 4:26: Calling on or Profaning the name of YHWH?

Genesis 4:26: Calling on or Profaning the name of YHWH?

Genesis 4:26 is often interpreted as the first revival in the Bible. However, just the opposite is true.

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. (Gen 4:26)

In the fact the first profaning of the name YHWH would come in the days of Seth, when Adam was one hundred thirty years and would lead to the days of Noah and eventually the flood.

“And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth [only 7x in Bible], 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, [az hukhal likro b’shem YHWH אז הוחל לקרא בשם יהוה] (Gen 4:25-26).”

The word “men” is crossed out because it does not appear in the Hebrew text. If you look in your Bible, you may see that it is italicized; The translators are supplying the word “men” order for it to make sense.

The text in question says: “az hukhal likro b’shem YHWH.” The word hukhal (הוחל) is passive (hophal) from the root (חלל): “to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate, begin” according to BDB. “To begin” is a valid definition; however, so are “profane,”[i] “defile,” pollute,” “desecrate,” – with the latter usages being the most common. For us to know which meaning best fits our phrase, we first need to consider the subject of the phrase. The verb “hukhal” is in the passive voice. Consider some English sentences to understand the implications:

  1. “The man read the book.” – Standard English sentence (subject, verb, object).
  2. ‘The book was read.” A passive sentence: (Subject receives the action of the verb):
  3. “The reading of the book was interrupted.”

In sentence #3 the passive verb is “was interrupted.” What then is the subject? The book is not the subject; rather “the reading of the book” is the subject and “was interrupted” is the predicate.

The Hebrew phrase in question is analogous to sentence #3. The subject is “likro b’shem YHWH” “calling on the name YHWH.” Should hukhal (הוחּלַ) be translated as “was begun” or was “profaned?” Did men begin calling on the name of YHWH or was calling on the name of YHWH profaned?

Targum Onkelos Gen 4:26, one of the Targumim (ancient Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible) translates the word:

“…Then in his days the sons of men desisted [חלָוּ] (or forbore) from praying in the name of the Lord.”

According to that ancient witness, by the days of Seth, mankind was not having a revival and coming back to the true God. Rather, things had gone from perfection, to bad, to worse: God and man are in perfect harmony; then down a notch: Adam blew it. Then down another: Cain commits the first murder. Then down again and calling on the name of YHWH profaned. Then things would get even worse! Then the fallen angels would have relations with the daughters of Adam – something so bad that God would destroy the world.


[i] Brown Driver Briggs (BDB) Hebrew English Lexicon provides the following definition. “1. to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate, begin”. BDB then gives the various forms of how the root is used in each of the binyanim (verbal paradigms). (Niphal) it means to: 1. to profane oneself, defile oneself, pollute oneself; b. ritually; c. sexually; 1. to be polluted, be defiled; d. (Piel): 1. to profane, make common, defile, pollute; 2. to violate the honour of, dishonour; 3. to violate (a covenant); 4. to treat as common; e. (Pual) to profane (name of God); f. (Hiphil): 1. to let be profaned; 2. to begin; g. (Hophal) to be begun.”
The TWOT: “The Hiphil theme of the verb is only used twice; of the Name (“I will not let my holy Name be profaned any more,” Ezk 39:7) and of the need of man not to “break” his word (KJV “violate”) when it was a vow or pledge involving the Lord’s name (Num 30:3). For this reason, the frequent use of the Hiphil (106 times) as “to begin” is probably not to be derived from the same root (see ṭĕḥillâ below)…”

Mark of the Beast Genetic Alteration Conference Jan 2-3, Monrovia CA

I will be speaking at the Mark of the Beast Genetic Alteration Conference Jan 2-3 in Monrovia CA. You can register at I would love to see you there!

Conference Location Double Tree Hotel Monrovia

924 W Huntington Dr, Monrovia, CA 91016

Friday Jan 2 2015 7:00-9:30 PM

Saturday January 3rd, 2015 9:00 AM-9:30 PM





Sons of Seth or Fallen Angels?

The notion that Genesis 6 ‘sons of God’ is a reference to ‘the sons of Seth’ is surprisingly popular despite the fact that the Bible is replete with evidence that the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 were fallen angels (demons) and despite the fact that all of the ancient Jewish and Ante-Nicene Christian commentators believed the “sons of God” to be referring to demons (fallen angels).

Augustine of Hippo

The first, as far as we can see, to definitively deny the sons of God as being angels was Augustine of Hippo of the fifth century, approximately seventy five years after the drafting of the Nicene Creed. Augustine did much to spiritualize the history of the Bible and twist a simple straightforward reading of the Bible. His method of Bible interpretation made a profound impact and his legacy remains even to this day. Many centuries after Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, a doctor of the Catholic Church in the 13th century, quotes in his magnum opus, Summa Theologica, from Augustine’s work City of God (De Civ. Dei xv) concerning the sons of Seth:

Many persons affirm that they have had the experience, or have heard from such as have experienced it, that the Satyrs and Fauns, whom the common folk call incubi, have often presented themselves before women, and have sought and procured intercourse with them. Hence it is folly to deny it. But God’s holy angels could not fall in such fashion before the deluge. Hence by the sons of God are to be understood the sons of Seth, who were good; while by the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain. [i] Nor is it to be wondered at that giants should be born of them; for they were not all giants, albeit there were many more before than after the deluge. Still if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed bodies, but from the seed of men taken for the purpose; as when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and afterwards of a man; just as they take the seed of other things for other generating purposes, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii), so that the person born is not the child of a demon, but of a man, [ii] (emphasis mine).

The Irish Giant 12′ Tall. Son of Seth or Nephilim?

Just as Augustine fallaciously suggested the sons of God were the so called “godly line of Seth,” the daughters of men have been labeled as being from the “ungodly line of Cain”. Augustine says, “By the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain,” (Augustine as quoted in Summa Theologica, Aquinas). We must ask the important question – where in Scripture does it say such a thing? Augustine makes the claim above that Scripture designates those daughters as coming from the race of Cain, but just where do we see that? The answer is that we simply do not. It was first tentatively considered by Julius Africanus and then completely invented by Augustine and then repeated by all who would follow in his footsteps ever since. If the term “sons of God” refers to the “sons of Seth” as so many suggest, then why does the text not simply state it? Unfortunately neither Augustine nor Aquinas substantiates the claim. They simply presume their statement to be true and offer no biblical proof. Augustine states that “Scripture designates” that the daughters of men “sprang from the race of Cain”. But where in Scripture does it say that? Sadly, their unbiblical assertion has left its mark in the modern day creating a great deal of confusion regarding what the Bible literally teaches.

Calvin’s Interpretation

John Calvin in the 17th century carried on the tradition started by Augustine that the sons of God are in fact the sons of Seth. He states in his commentary:

The principle is to be kept in memory, that the world was then as if divided into two parts; because the family of Seth cherished the pure and lawful worship of God, from which the rest had fallen. Now, although all mankind had been formed for the worship of God, and therefore sincere religion ought everywhere to have reigned; yet since the greater part had prostituted itself, either to an entire contempt of God, or to depraved superstitions; it was fitting that the small portion which God had adopted, by special privilege, to himself, should remain separate from others. It was, therefore, base ingratitude in the posterity of Seth, to mingle themselves with the children of Cain, and with other profane races; because they voluntarily deprived themselves of the inestimable grace of God. For it was an intolerable profanation, to pervert, and to confound, the order appointed by God. It seems at first sight frivolous, that the sons of God should be so severely condemned, for having chosen for themselves beautiful wives from the daughters of men. But we must know first, that it is not a light crime to violate a distinction established by the Lord; secondly, that for the worshippers of God to be separated from profane nations, was a sacred appointment which ought reverently to have been observed, in order that a Church of God might exist upon earth; thirdly, that the disease was desperate, seeing that men rejected the remedy divinely prescribed for them. In short, Moses points it out as the most extreme disorder; when the sons of the pious, whom God had separated to himself from others, as a peculiar and hidden treasure, became degenerate, (emphasis mine). [iii]

Calvin rightly describes the world as being wicked, but he vainly asserts that the world had been “divided into two parts.” Where do we see such an idea in the Bible? He also introduces his deterministic philosophy of predestination by stating that apparently the sons of Seth were adopted by “special privilege.” His denial of who the sons of God truly were creates a tremendous amount of confusion that has clouded the interpretation of the text for potentially millions of people over the centuries. Furthermore, nowhere do we see that the daughters of men are from the so called ungodly line of Cain.

Calvin continues with his unbiblical prohibition of inter-class marriages. Notice that again he does not offer any biblical support for any of his positions. He does not seek to prove his point with Scripture but with opinion and conjecture. Having simply asserted his position, Calvin then ridicules the ‘sons of God as demons [m1] ‘ interpretation.

That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious. The opinion also of the Chaldean paraphrase is frigid; namely, that promiscuous marriages between the sons of nobles, and the daughters of plebeians, is condemned. Moses, then, does not distinguish the sons of God from the daughters of men, because they were of dissimilar nature, or of different origin; but because they were the sons of God by adoption, whom he had set apart for himself; while the rest remained in their original condition, (Calvin Commentary Genesis 6:1 emphasis mine).

We have already seen how “sons of God” is used in Scripture – furthermore that there were no human “sons of God” before the resurrection of Jesus. However Calvin introduces great confusion into the text by dogmatically declaring that God’s terms are very capricious and that they sometimes mean one thing in one context and quite another someplace else. The simple biblical definition, as we have seen, is that sons of God are direct creations of God. Calvin is unable to define sons of God because of bad exegesis.

Should anyone object, that they who had shamefully departed from the faith, and the obedience which God required, were unworthy to be accounted the sons of God; the answer is easy, that the honor is not ascribed to them, but to the grace of God, which had hitherto been conspicuous in their families. For when Scripture speaks of the sons of Godsometimes it has respect to eternal election, which extends only to the lawful heirs; sometimes to external vocations according to which many wolves are within the fold; and though in fact, they are strangers, yet they obtain the name of sons, until the Lord shall disown them. Yea, even by giving them a title so honorable, Moses reproves their ingratitude, because, leaving their heavenly Father, they prostituted themselves as deserters, (emphasis mine). [iv]

Now, to support his presuppositions, he must explain away the giants (Nephilim) that are introduced in Genesis 6:4 and are the result of the sons of God (or as he would say the sons of Seth) and the daughters of men (or as he would say the daughters of Cain).

Moses does not indeed say, that they were of extraordinary stature, but only that they were robust. Elsewhere, I acknowledge, the same word denotes vastness of stature, which was formidable to those

Goliath was a Nephilim

Goliath was a Nephilim

who explored the land of Canaan, (Jos 13:33.) But Moses does not distinguish those of whom he speaks in this place, from other men, so much by the size of their bodies, as by their robberies and their lust of dominion, (emphasis mine). [v]

He downplays the fact that the fruit of the union between the sons of God and daughters of men were men of extraordinary size. He simply asserts that they were “great” in their evil. His interpretation is unfounded and he is not completely honest here for the word (Nephilim) used in both places is exactly the same. Calvin and numerous others turn to Genesis 4:26 in order to substantiate their case. Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary is very typical of those that leap to the conclusion that sons of God must be referring to the Sons of Seth.

Observe the different expressions: sons of God, and daughters of men. If you turn to Gen 4:26 you there discover that the children of Seth are said to call on the name of the Lord; including both sons and daughters; and hence, therefore, these are meant by the sons of God. [vi]

They suggest that this passage in some way proves that the term “sons of God” is really a hidden meaning for sons of Seth. Let’s take a look at the passage to see if their claims are valid.

Seth and His Sons

Seth appears a total of seven times in both the Old Testament and the New Testament (NKJV). We get a brief glimpse of his life by stringing together all of the passages [vii] that speak of him.

And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth […], 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).
And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons and daughters. So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died. (Genesis 5:3-4, 6-8).

Here 130 years after creation, Adam has a son named Seth; then 105 years after that Seth had a son named Enosh. Thus we learn that a total of 235 years after creation men began to call upon the name of the Lord. The Hebrew term for Lord is YHWH which is the personal name of God. God told Moses: “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty [El Shaddai שַׁדָּ֑י אֵ֣ל], but by My name LORD [YHWH יְהוָה] I was not known to them,” (Exodus 6:3). Thus to think that this was the first time that humans began to worship the Lord is unfounded. Rather we simply read that they began to use his personal name at that point for some purpose. While it appears to have begun with a son of Seth, we should not infer that it was limited to that line. After all, the Hebrew text very literally says az hukhal likro beshem YHWH [בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְהוָֽה לִקְרֹ֖א הוּחַ֔ל אָ֣ז] “then was begun (the) calling by (with, in) the name YHWH” (translation mine). The term hukhal (הוּחַל) is the passive (hophal) of begin. The subject of the verb hukhal is “calling” (likro’ לִקְרֹא). The word “men” does not even appear in the text. Thus we see that apparently, up until that point, men were not invoking God by His proper name. It could be that they didn’t know it, though we cannot be sure. Nevertheless this reading of the verse does not in any way substantiate the notion that Seth’s sons were the sons of God. Another reading is possible which may clarify the passage.

A Possible Translation

Conversely, the verb hukhal (הוּחַל) comes from the root (חלל) the basic meaning is “to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate, begin” according to Brown Driver Briggs’ [viii] Lexicon of the Hebrew Bible. Thus, the alternative reading would be “then calling by the name of YHWH was profaned”. This alternative reading actually finds endorsement by the ancient Aramaic Targumim. Targum Onkelos interprets the passage as:

And to Sheth also was born a son, and he called his name Enosh. Then in his days the sons of men desisted [חָלוּ] (or forbore) from praying in the name of the Lord, (Genesis 4:26, Targum Onkelos, emphasis mine).

Targum Jonathan is similar though it amplifies that reading even more:

And to Sheth also was born a son, and he called his name Enosh. That was the generation in whose days they began to err [למטעי], and to make themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the name of the Word of the Lord, (Genesis 4:26, Targum Jonathan, emphasis mine).

While neither “began” nor “profane” supports the sons of Seth theory, the latter would seem to make more sense in light of the entire story of the Bible. The divine name seems to have been known from the very beginning of creation. Adam was familiar with it because he heard the voice of the LORD (YHWH) God in the garden after he had sinned. Calling by the name of the Lord was until that time respected and honored but it was in the days of Enosh when calling by the name of the Lord was defiled. God then destroyed the world because of the continual wickedness. Noah retains knowledge of the name and then apparently at the tower of Babel the name is forgotten or lost. God chooses not to reveal His name again until Moses has the encounter at the burning bush.

The Sons of Seth Were Not Sons of God

Regardless of which reading we take, there is simply no evidence whatsoever to support the concept that Genesis 4:26 can be used to interpret the sons of God as the sons of Seth. There is no indication that Seth’s sons were somehow more godly than the rest of humanity. Furthermore, it must not be missed that Adam lived another 800 years after begetting Seth and that he had sons and daughters. Likewise “Seth lived eight hundred and seven years and had sons and daughters,” (Genesis 5:7). All of the sons and daughters of Seth as well as the sons and daughters of Cain were in fact sons (and daughters) of Adam. Technically speaking every human ever born on this planet is a son or daughter of Adam; the Hebrew language uses the term to mean “human”. Thus the text is driving home the point that there are two dissimilar groups: the daughters of Adam on the one hand and the sons of God on the other. To suggest that the daughters of men were actually the daughters of Cain is fanciful. Rather, the daughters of Adam are contrasted with the sons of God: the daughters of men were human and the sons of God were not.

Furthermore, we can in no way infer that all of these sons and daughters remained so godly that they would be distinguished from the sons of Cain. After all, only eight people were saved out of the entire world. These sons of Seth must not have been so godly after all. Simply put, the sons of God do not refer to the lineage of Seth, but to direct creations of God, which before the redeeming work of Christ was limited to Adam himself and to angels. Therefore, the sons of God in Genesis six refers to fallen angels who had relations with human women.

Get the book Corrupting the Image. Read More Articles HereDouglas Hamp Ministries DVD Covers

[viii] Brown Driver Briggs (BDB) Hebrew English Lexicon provides the following definition. The most common definition is “1. to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate, begin”. BDB then goes on to give the various forms of how the root is used in each of the binyanim (verbal paradigms). In the a. (Niphal) it means to: 1. to profane oneself, defile oneself, pollute oneself; b. ritually; c. sexually; 1. to be polluted, be defiled; d. (Piel): 1. to profane, make common, defile, pollute; 2. to violate the honour of, dishonour; 3. to violate (a covenant); 4. to treat as common; e. (Pual) to profane (name of God); f. (Hiphil): 1. to let be profaned; 2. to begin; g. (Hophal) to be begun”(emphasis mine). The Hophal is simply the passive of the Hiphil – therefore, if the Hiphil occasionally means to let be profaned then the one occurrence of the Hophal might also be translated as profaned rather than begin.

Part Ten: Modern Discoveries of Giants

The Bible clearly teaches that the union of demons and women produced a race of hybrids known as the Nephilim, who were on the earth before the flood and afterwards. All ancient Jewish and (ante-Nicene) Christian literature (that spoke of the days of Noah) unanimously agreed that demons mingled their seed with women and produced the hybrid race known as the Nephilim. We should expect to find, therefore, some archaeological evidence of the Nephilim.

In addition to the many written modern accounts of explorers and miners discovering men of extremely large proportions, there are also some archaeological findings. However, in our day seeing is not always believing because computer programs like Photoshop can make the unreal look very convincing. Unfortunately there are many photos floating around the internet that are hoaxes that look fairly authentic. Thus our challenge, short of going out and doing the dig ourselves, is to sort through what is legitimate evidence and what is not. In this chapter I have, with care, selected photos taken before the advent of the computer and news reports from actual newspapers – all of which come from sources which can be verified for the skeptical reader. While the thesis of this book does not stand or fall on such evidence, it is important to help us see that there were giants in those days and afterward, always keeping in mind that Jesus said that His coming would be like the days of Noah.

Irish Giant

One way to test the genuineness of pictorial evidence is to find such pictures that were taken before the invention of the computer and Photoshop. That is not to say that the object in the picture is necessarily real, but the photograph itself is not something that has been created (or altered) with the aid of a computer. One such example is brought to us by W. G. Wood-Martin, who in 1901 wrote of the Irish Pre-Christian Traditions in his book Traces of the Elder Faiths of Ireland: A Folklore Sketch (Volume 1). In his book he includes both textual and photographic evidence of giants. The text is intriguing and corroborates what we have been investigating on giants. Wood-Martin quotes Augusthie from his chapter on “The Lives and Sizes of the Antediluvians” (De Civitate Dei, xv. 9):

Concerning the magnitude of their bodies, the graves laid bare by age or the force of rivers and various accidents, especially convict the incredulous where they have come to light, or where the bones of the dead of incredible magnitude have fallen. I have seen, and not I alone, on the shore of Utica, so huge a molar tooth of a man, that were it cut up into small models of teeth like ours, it would seem enough to make a hundred of them. But this I should think had belonged to some giant, for beside that the bodies of all men were then much larger than ours, the giants again far exceeding the rest.” Kirby, in his Wonderful (and Eccentric Museum), published in 1820, devotes a chapter to a description of ” Gigantic Remains,” and states that ” all the public prints make mention of an extraordinary monument of gigantic Iniman stature, found by two labourers in Leixlip Churchyard, on the 10th July, 1812. It appeared to have belonged to a man of not less than ten feet in height, and is believed to be the same mentioned by Keating — Phelim O’Tool, buried in Leixlip Churchyard, near the Salmon Leap, one thousand two hundred and fifty years ago. In the place was found a large finger-ring of pure gold. There were no inscriptions or characters of any kind upon it. One of the teeth is said to have been as large as an ordinary forefinger, (emphasis mine).

Wood-Martin then includes a story and photograph taken from Strand Magazine December, 1895 edition and he says to “let the reader judge as to the genuineness of the fossilized Irish giant, which is thus described:”

Irish Giant

Irish Giant

Pre-eminent among the most extraordinary articles ever held by a railway company is the fossilized Irish giant, which is at this moment lying at the London and North-Western Railway Company’s Broad street goods depot, and a photograph of which is reproduced here… This monstrous figure is reputed to have been dug up by a Mr. Dyer whilst prospecting for iron ore in County Antrim.

The principal measurements are: entire length, 12 ft. 2 in.; girth of chest, 6 ft. 6 in.; and length of arms, 4 ft. 6 in. There are six toes on the right foot. The gross weight is 2 tons 15 cwt.; so that it took half a dozen men and a powerful crane to place this article of lost property in position for the Strand magazine artist. (Strand Magazine December 1895, C.F. Wood-Martin, 1901:58, emphasis mine)

Just how much is 2 tons 15 CWT? Due to the fact that this artifact was measured in England, we must use the Imperial (British) units of measurement. The British ton, known as a long ton is equal to 2240 pounds whereas the American ton is 2000 pounds. The centrum weight abbreviated CWT is equal to 112 pounds. Thus the total weight of two (long) tons is 4480 pounds and 15 CWT is 1680. The entire weight in pounds therefore is 6,160. Of course, the man in the coffin did not weigh that much when alive and the fossilization process added to the overall weight. Nevertheless, the Antrim Giant corroborates what King Og of Bashan must have been like. If we return to the original calculation, first made by Galileo, then measuring twice the height of today’s man (of six feet and optimal weight of 200 lbs.), the Antrim Giant ought to have had a net weight of 1600 lbs. Not only was this Irish Giant also two feet taller than Goliath, but he also had six toes on the right foot just like the Rephaim (which were counted among the Nephilim).

Yet again there was war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, with twenty-four fingers and toes, six on each hand and six on each foot; and he also was born to the giant [Rephaim, LXX reads: giants, γιγαντες], (1 Chronicles 20:6).

The Fossilized Irish Giant is by no means the only evidence. There are many reports, written and archaeological that attest to the fact that giants were real. Like the evidence of the Irish Giant, I have sought out evidence that is not subject to Photoshop types of tricks.

Petrified Foot More Than Two Feet Long

Petrified Foot

Petrified Foot

A news report from the Chillicothe Weekly Constitution, 1917 also speaks of an enormous foot that was found in a coal mine in Iowa.

A petrified foot more than two feet long was found in a coal mine near Lehigh by miners at Fort Dodge Iowa. It is perfectly formed and weighs more than 30 pounds. The foot was dislodged by the miners at the 90 foot level of the mine.

The owner of the foot was probably about 13 feet tall (the formula is 6.6 inches in height for every inch of length of the foot).

New York Tribune: Prehistoric Giant

According to the New York Tribune, February 3, 1909 a 15 foot human skeleton tall was unearthed in Mexico. We recall that King Og of Bashan was that tall and he was reported to be of the Nephilim.

News was received here Monday from Mexico that at Ixtapalapa, a town 10 miles southeast of Mexico City there had been discovered what was believed to be the skeleton of a prehistoric giant of extraordinary size.

NY Tribune

NY Tribune

A peon while excavating for the foundation of a house on the estate of Augustin Juarez found the skeleton of a human being that is estimated to have been about 15 feet high, and who must have lived ages ago, judging from the ossified state of the bones.

Romulo Luna, judge of the District, has taken possession of the skeleton which is complete with the exception of the skull. Judge Luna says that as soon as the search for the skull is finished the skeleton will be forwarded to the national museum of Mexico, which has an almost priceless collection of Aztec antiquities. The National museum, it is said, has made arrangements to investigate this “find.”

NY Tribune Excerpt

Giant Found in Mexico

The discovery of the skeleton has revived the old Aztec legend that in a prehistoric age a race of giants lived [in the] valley of Anahuac, a name given by the aboriginal Mexicans to that part of the Mexican plateau nearly corresponding to the modern valley of Mexico City. These giants, known as Quinatzins, the story goes, were afterwards destroyed by the Ulmecas, also of great stature, who in turn, perished by earthquake, interpreted as an expression of the wrath of God, (emphasis mine).

Oelwein Register

Giants of Prehistoric France

The Oelwein Register on November 8, 1894 reported that scientists confirmed the find of a race of giants between 10 and 15 feet tall.

Figure 40  Oelwein Register on November 8, 1894

In a prehistoric cemetery recently uncovered at Montpellier, France, while workmen were excavating a waterworks reservoir, human skulls were found measuring 28, 31 and 32 inches in circumference. The bones that the workmen discovered were also of gigantic proportions. The discoveries were sent to the Paris Academy for study. One of the scientists engaged in examining the skeletons says that they belonged to a race of men who stood between 10 and 15 feet in height,” (Emphasis mine).

Strange Find by Miners of Apollo Mines

Charleroi Mail

Petrified Foot

Figure 51 Newspaper “Charleroi Mail”, July 1909

Appearing in the Newspaper “Charleroi Mail”, July 1909 edition, was a news report of a petrified giant whom the finders considered to be absolutely human. The problem is that according to evolution, no human should be found at such a depth as it would indicate the person to be millions of years old. According to the Bible, there were giants on the earth before the days of the flood and hence finding a giant so far below the ground only serves to confirm the veracity of the Bible and the flood. “75 Feet Below the Surface – Petrified Human Head and Shoulders Discovered – No Doubt About it Being Human Remains – Museums Making Inquiries Specimen is Very Hard.”


The evidence we have seen in this section confirms what the Bible has said. Given that there are so many fake pictures out on the internet, it seemed prudent to look for sources that predate things like Photoshop. Therefore we found sources that are copies of old newspapers including testimony and sometimes pictures of strange finds. All of the sources are given for the inquisitive reader to verify the details. Therefore the conclusion that we have arrived at is that there have been extraordinarily large men in the past. Some were found at a great depth under the earth which only serves to confirm that they were buried during a great cataclysm that came upon the earth – which obviously was the flood in the days of Noah.

Summary of Part Two: Satan’s Failed First Attempt

Let’s recap what we have seen concerning the days of Noah. First of all, we have seen that men began to multiply on the face of the earth and there were conceivably over ten billion people at the time! We investigated and without reservation concluded that the sons of God were fallen angels; they were the same fallen angels that Jude and Peter spoke about that are kept in chains of darkness reserved for judgment. They came to the daughters of Adam and from their union were born Nephilim, which consisted of human-demonic genetic material. The Nephilim (fallen ones) were known as gegenes (of the earth) in Greek. These were the famous men of the ancient world. The gegenes in the Greek traditions were hybrid creatures – half human and half god (demonic). We also saw that all of the ancient Jewish traditions believed the Nephilim to be hybrids – half human and half demonic.

The ancient Christians believed in like manner; the idea that the sons of God were the sons of Seth did not even come about until Augustine. We discovered that Augustine simply asserted that the sons of God were the sons of Seth but he in no way had any supporting evidence (or verses) to back up his claim. As such, he declared it to be true and since then Bible commentators have repeated his words without offering any more evidence than he did. We have shown that the sons of God were not the sons of Seth but were in fact fallen angels, and the daughters of Adam (men) were not the daughters of Cain, but were simply women or as the writer of Genesis already put, they were the descendants of Adam. Thus, the contrast is between direct creations of God, which the angels were (and the sons of Seth were not) and between female humans, which were procreations via Adam. With this backdrop do we read that God was grieved by the wickedness of man. Indeed, given that women were having offspring which were half demonic – how could God not be sorry that He had created man?

Without doubt we have seen that fallen angels mingled their seed (genetic information) with humans both before and after the days of Noah (more fallen angels did it again). It is this genetic mixing that makes God’s complete destruction of every man, woman and child in Noah’s day reasonable. Without question the Bible says that man’s thoughts were constantly wicked and the first four verses of Genesis 6 provide the answer to the question of how they became so wicked; the Nephilim, who had demonic fathers, were on the earth in those days!

It seems incredible, but considering that out of the billions of humans (see chapter five) on the earth only eight were saved out of it – a major reason for the flood seems to be that many of the human race had been tainted genetically. The Bible tells us that Noah was a just man (tsadik צַדִּ֛יק), perfect [tamim תָּמִ֥ים] in all his generations (Genesis 6:9), meaning that he was without genetic defect. Consider that of the eighty some times tamim is used in the Bible, it always refers to an animal without any physical blemish. Thus it would also explain why the Israelites were to destroy the people of the land, every man, woman and child – that is, they were all tainted because they were Nephilim . Whether or not all but Noah’s family were Nephilim is uncertain. However the strong implication is that many, perhaps a majority, were. When the Children of Israel saw the Nephilim they lost heart and did not trust that God could overcome the Nephilim.

Among the Nephilim that they had to fight was King Og of Bashan whom we have seen measured about 15 feet tall. He also weighed approximately 3100 lbs. and needed a minimum of about 22,000 calories just to get through each day. Judging from his stature, Canaan was indeed a land that devoured its inhabitants. Lastly, we looked for evidence of such enormous people and found that as recently as one to two hundred years ago, giant mummies, footprints and accounts all gave witness to the reality of such unnaturally enormous beings. With the thought in mind that the inhabitants of the land were Nephilim, we can understand why God commanded the Israelites to completely exterminate those seven nations. The genetic mingling of demonic and human could not be tolerated. It was not tolerated in the days of Noah and for that reason God commanded the extermination of the inhabitants of the land of Canaan. Everything was to reproduce according to its kind (Genesis 1:24) and the demons clearly broke this commandment. The book of Daniel prophesizes that the mingling of demons with humanity will happen once again and Jesus Himself stated that as the days of Noah were, so the coming of the Son of Man shall be (all hearing those words would have associated the destruction of the world with the Nephilim).

If the sons of God were mingling with the human race in Noah’s days then that means that the last days will be marked by a similar occurrence. God gave the human race 120 years until the flood He would bring to destroy the world. During that final time of 120 years until the flood the mingling continued (married and given in marriage) until the very last day when Noah entered the ark and God closed the door. If we are truly in the last days of time then we ought to see biblical proof that events similar to Noah’s will repeat. We ought to see the following:

  • Demons materializing physically in some manner
  • The taking of woman
  • Demonic-human hybrids

Do we see any of these things happening in our day? Predictably all of these are happening and these are what we will examine in the next section.

Part Nine: The Size of the Nephilim

The spies’ report determined the next forty years for the Israelites. Their lack of trust in what God could do denied them the opportunity to see the hand of God work in their lifetime. However, we must not discount the facts of their report. They first of all mention that the people of the land were stronger than they were. It is a land that devours its inhabitants and “all the people that we saw in it are of great height“. There were not just a few tall people there – but all of the people were enormous. In fact these people were so tall and large that the Israelites likened themselves to grasshoppers compared to these Nephilim “and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight” (Numbers 13:33).

Having first described the people of the land, they then mention them by name “the descendants of Anak came from the giants [Nephilim],” (Numbers 13:33). Notice that Joshua and Caleb do not deny the report. They simply have the faith that God will do what he said. The Nephilim are the reason why the children of Israel did not possess the land right after leaving Egypt. The presence of the Nephilim disheartened the spies who consequently gave a bad report. God, though very upset at the people’s lack of trust, nevertheless agreed with the description of the people of the land being of a great height and also agreed with the comparison of the Israelites appearing like grasshoppers. Though years later, in Amos 2:9 God says:

Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them, Whose height was like the height of the cedars, And he was as strong as the oaks; Yet I destroyed his fruit above And his roots beneath, (Amos 2:9).

God’s endorsement is significant; He states the height of the Amorites was like the cedars and God also likens the tail of the mighty Behemoth [i] to a cedar in Job 40. “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox. See now, his strength is in his hips, and his power is in his stomach muscles. He moves his tail like a cedar,” (Job 40:15-18). God is clearly not saying that his tail was merely stiff for any tree might be used to communicate that message. However, the cedar is a tree that was renown in the ancient world and the cedars of Lebanon were famous for their immense height. According to one source cedar trees can grow anywhere from 40-85 feet tall [ii] and the cedar of Lebanon being among the tallest. In my book The First Six Days, I discuss size of the tail of the mighty behemoth because God there likens it to a cedar of Lebanon. “God states what his bones are like […] the picture is given that the bones of this creature were of immense strength implying that the creature itself was extremely big to need such strong bones.” [iii]

The description fits the Sauropod class of dinosaurs extremely well and the dinosaur with the longest tail is thought to be the Diplodocus. One source suggests that the tail [iv] may have been up to 46 feet long! God’s description of the behemoth is not an exaggeration but consistent with what we currently understand about dinosaurs. It could be that the cedars that Job was associated with measured more in the 40-60 foot range. Thus, just to be as conservative as possible – if we assume the minimum height of the cedar that God had in mind was only 40 feet then we have a likely maximum height for the Amorites. How can we calculate the minimum height of these giants (at that time)?

Size of a Cubit in Moses’ Day

Moses describes the size of the bed of King Og of Bashan, who, as we saw, was one of the Nephilim.

For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim [NKJV Giants]; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbah of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man, (Deuteronomy 3:11 JPS).

Moses clearly says that this man’s bed was nine cubits but just how big is a cubit? According to the Oxford Dictionary a cubit was:

1. The part of the arm from the elbow downward; the forearm.

2. An ancient measure of length derived from the forearm; varying at different times and places, but usually 18 to 22 inches. The Roman cubit was 17.4 inches; the Egyptian 20.64 inches.

Tim Lovett, an expert on ancient shipbuilding, reviewed the references for cubits from around the world in order to get a firm understanding of how long the cubit was that Noah used in the Ark. [v] He notes that the shortest was the Greek Short Cubit of 14 inches (356 millimeters) and among the longest were the Persian (Royal) cubit of 25.2 inches (640 millimeters) and the Arabic (Hashimi) of 25.56 inches (649 millimeters). The cubit varied over the centuries by as much as nearly one foot! However, we can be quite confident of the measure that was being referred to concerning King Og. Clearly, the Greek, Persian and Arabic Empires were not around in Moses’ day, so that immediately eliminates their running in this race; the only empire that fits is Egypt.

Moses had just come out of Egypt and Stephen in Acts 7:22 tells us that Moses was “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” Since we have no record of God instituting a new form of measurement, we can safely conclude that any measurements given would then be in the one that all of the people of Israel would have been familiar with. In fact, considering that they were slaves forced to make bricks and to build store houses, measurements would have been very important for them. The most natural and in fact only measurement that they could have known was the Egyptian. Thus when Moses says that Og’s bed measured nine cubits long we are obligated to calculate using the Egyptian standard of that day.

Tim Lovett notes that the original Royal Egyptian [vi] cubit had a range of 20.62 inches (523.75 millimeters) to 20.65 inches (525 millimeters) while the average was 20.63/4 (524.00 millimeters). This is corroborated by two places in the Scriptures which make reference to this older and longer cubit. King Solomon used the older measure where we read in 2 Chronicles 3:3: “The length was sixty cubits (by cubits according to the former measure).” In Ezekiel’s vision of the future temple the measurement that will be employed will be apparently the older and hence longer measure. “These are the measurements of the altar in cubits (the cubit is one cubit and a handbreadth)”, (Ezekiel 43:13).

Figure 4 – Egyptian Royal Cubit
Egyptian Royal Cubit

Therefore we can confidently conclude that the cubit Moses was referring to was in fact the Egyptian Royal cubit which was 20.63 inches. [vii]

Multiplying 20.63 inches, (524.00 millimeters) by nine (cubits) we arrive at 185.67 inches (4716 millimeters) for the total length of his bed. Converted into our measurements, it was almost fifteen feet six inches (15.47 feet 4.716 meters) long and its width six feet ten inches (6.87 feet, 2.094 meters)! This is one massive bed! Moses also mentions that the bed was made of iron which would preclude the idea that a small man with a big ego slept on it otherwise there would be no need to mention the fact that the bed was physically strong (of iron) in order to support someone of such enormous proportions. Thus we can assume that Og must have been slightly shorter than the bed that he slept on and therefore make him roughly 15 feet (4.55 meters) tall!

However, it is plausible that by “bed” Moses in fact meant his final bed – that is his sarcophagus (coffin). This would make sense from the fact that: a) there is no unique word for sarcophagus in Hebrew other than bed and b) this “bed” was apparently on display “Is it not in Rabbah of the people of Ammon?” (Deuteronomy 3:11). It would seem strange to just have the bed of their former king lying around apparently on display. However, being able to visit the sarcophagus of their fallen king is very plausible. If that is the case, then it would suggest that the “bed” was not for nightly sleeping but was made just big enough for his body to be placed in. Thus, those dimensions more aptly describe the true size of this Rephaim king who measured nearly fifteen feet five inches tall and had a shoulder width of almost six feet ten inches.

Just How Tall Was That?

To get an idea of just how massive a person of this size was, consider the following chart. Note that the man on the left is six feet, the approximate height for most western men. Next to him stands Goliath measuring about 10’ 4”tall, the twelve foot man then doubles today’s man and finally King Og, who measured some fifteen feet tall dwarfed today’s average man!

We must point out that the giants that inhabited the land were not just tall men like basketball players of today. Nor were the ancient Israelites significantly shorter than today and thus upon seeing men over six or seven feet they thought them to be giants as some liberal theologians would suggest! King Og was at least 2.5 times taller than a man measuring six feet tall. These measurements are conceivable if indeed fallen angels took women and procreated the Nephilim according to Genesis 6. However, these measurements are illogical in light of the sons of Seth and daughters of man theory because a godly person and a non-godly person will not have children 15 feet tall! However, demons and humans would presumably produce such enormous children.

How Heavy Was King Og?

Let’s just consider the implications of a person that tall. Let’s assume that he would be equivalent to a man of 200 pounds – someone who is in shape, but not trying to be a professional athlete and is approximately 6 feet tall. We know that king Og of Bashan was 2.5 times taller – but how much heavier would he be? Galileo in the early 1600s considered the issue in relation to animals, but the principle is true for people as well. The Indian Institute of Astrophysics notes Galileo’s theorization concerning the relation of size to strength (of bone [m1] ) and structure:

Consider two animals of different sizes that are geometrically similar. If the larger is twice as long as the smaller animal, it is also twice as wide and twice as high. The larger creature outweighs its smaller counterpart eight times. (Indian Institute of Astrophysics 2006)

The above formula is 2 x 2 x 2 = 8. Therefore to calculate King Og’s weight we need the cube of 2.5 which is 15.625. That is to say that King Og of Bashan would have weighed 15.625 times more than a six foot man today and thus he would weigh (15.625 x 200 =) 3125 pounds (1420 kilograms). Considering that King Og was a warrior, we can presume that he could at least lift the equivalent of his own body weight (a 200 hundred pound man can potentially lift 400-500 pounds or 2 times his own body weight). Thus, even if he could only lift his own body weight, he still would have been able to lift two war horses (1500 pounds each) at once with its rider and throw it! In modern terms he could lift a midsize car!

A Land That Devours Its Inhabitants

The Israelites also said that it is a “land that devours its inhabitants”. It would be easy to suggest that they were simply exaggerating or using hyperbole. However, when we consider how much King Og must have eaten, we begin to see that they were giving an accurate description of what the giants were like! If we use the more conservative weight calculation then he would have needed to consume at least 22,657 calories per day just to stay alive as per the Basal Metabolic Rate [viii] which calculates, based on a person’s height and weight, how many calories they need to live if they are not doing any significant work per day. Let’s put that into perspective to see how he and the other giants his size were devouring the inhabitants, which were presumably animals and hopefully not humans.

First of all today’s average American eats about 4000 calories per day [m2]. In 1909 the average American was eating about 3500 calories per day – about 500 less than today [ix] (although the recommended daily calorie intake is only two thousand). King Og therefore was eating the amount equivalent to about six or seven modern Americans. However, how much was the average person in his day eating? While they didn’t leave us detailed records, based on their stature 5’6” to 5’7” and the type of food they had plus the fact that none of today’s sugars and processed foods were available, we can estimate that their calorie intake was about 1600 calories [x] per day. That means that King Og needed, just to stay alive, the same as approximately nine normal sized persons. However, if we convert his needs into pizzas he would need 12 – 12 inch pizzas (1840 calories each). If we convert that to cheeseburgers then he would need 63 cheeseburgers [xi] daily and converted into lamb he would consume an entire lamb about every two or three days [xii] just to just to maintain his daily basic needs. [m3] Just imagine if he were having a party or getting ready to go to war! Of course, all of these calculations are only for his Basil Metabolic Rate which is the minimum needed to stay alive each day.  His actual consumption was quite possibly double and that is assuming that he was not an overeater. Given the fact that he was a giant, he may have just kept eating and eating! He might have had the equivalent of over 30 pizzas or 150 cheeseburgers per day!

Generally the strongest people get first pick on their food preferences, it would be easy to see how just to feed one giant could easily require numerous animals, plants, fruits, plus water and wine. Therefore, the spies were not exaggerating when they said that it was a land that devours its inhabitants. The Nephilim were certainly eating continually and many animals must have been given to satisfy their nearly insatiable appetites. Therefore we can empathize with the Israelites and the fear they had of the inhabitants of the land who “devoured its inhabitants!” Nevertheless, how sad that they did not (and often we do not) take God at His Word when He exhorted them with these mighty words:

Therefore understand today that the LORD your God is He who goes over before you as a consuming fire. He will destroy them and bring them [the gigantic inhabitants] down before you; so you shall drive them out and destroy them quickly, as the LORD has said to you, (Deuteronomy 9:3).

Approximately 500 years later David would face the giant Goliath, who was also descended from the Rephaim (I Chronicles 20:5, 6). Goliath, measured a mere six cubits (20.6”x6 cubits = 10.3 feet [10’ 4”]). That means that Goliath was 1.72 times taller than a man of six feet. Again, using our cube formula for calculating weight, we need to find the cube of 1.72 which is 5.088 and multiplying that times our 200 lb. man Goliath would weigh 1068 lbs. Thus King Og weighed about 3100 lbs. and Goliath, who was one third shorter than Og, weighed approximately 1000 – they were two enormous people which simply underscores the reason the Israelites feared them. The biblical evidence is conclusive that the Nephilim were in fact men of extraordinary stature and that they descended from human mothers and fallen angel fathers.

Extra-Biblical Confirmation

Numbers 13 of Targum Jonathan states that the giants were masters of evil:

The country through which we have passed to explore it is a land that killeth its inhabitants with diseases; and all the people who are in it are giants, masters of evil ways. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, of the race of the giants; (Targum Jonathan, Numbers 13, emphasis mine).

The Targum makes reference to the giants of the land as being of the same stock as those that perished in the flood, which again, would prove that they believed them to be Nephilim.

The Emthanaia dwelt in it of old, a people great and many, and mighty as the giants. The giants who dwelt in the plain of Geyonbere were also reputed as the giants who perished in the Flood; but the Moabites called them Emethanee, (Targum Jonathan, Deuteronomy 2, emphasis mine).

Lastly we see in Targum Jonathan how the ancient Jews believed and understood Moses’ saying that the Lord your God is “He who goes over before you as a consuming fire. He will destroy them and bring them down before you.” They understood it as a reference to His Shechinah which is also known as the Word. Notice that the giants were indeed bigger and mightier than the Israelites. In fact they were so great, God said that He personally would take care of them.

Hear, Israel: you are this day (about) to pass Jordan to enter in and possess (the country of) nations greater and stronger than you, and cities many, and fortified to the height of heaven. A people (are they) strong and tall as the giants whom you know, and of whom you have heard (say), Who can stand before the sons of the giants? Know, therefore, today that the Lord your God, whose glorious Shekinah goeth before you, whose Word is a consuming fire, will destroy them and drive them out before you; so shall you drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the Lord your God hath said to you. (Targum Jonathan Deuteronomy 9, emphasis mine).

Josephus and Baruch

We next turn to Josephus who described the giants as being extremely large and whose bones were still available even in his day.

For which reason they removed their camp to Hebron; and when they had taken it, they slew all the inhabitants. There were till then left the race of giants, who had bodies so large, and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing. The bones of these men are still shown to this very day, unlike to any credible relations of other men, (emphasis mine). [xiii]

Very much like Josephus, the writer of the book of Baruch mentions their fame and great height. “There were the giants famous from the beginning, that were of so great stature, and so expert in war.” (Baruch, Chapter 3:26).

Book of Jubilees

The book of Jubilees, from the Dead Sea Scrolls, also records the fact of the giants’ great height and even gives specific measurements. “But before they used to call the land of Gilead the land of the Rephaim; for it was the land of the Rephaim, and the Rephaim were born (there), giants whose height was ten, nine, eight down to seven cubits.” (emphasis mine). [xiv]


We last turn to the church father, Tertullian, who wrote that the giants’ bodies were still around in his day. He believed that their remains would contain the needed DNA (germs was the term of his day) to bring them to life again.

There are the carcasses of the giants of old time; it will be obvious enough that they are not absolutely decayed, for their bony frames are still extant. […] the lasting germs of that body which is to sprout into life again in the resurrection, (emphasis mine). [xv]

Biblical and Extra-Biblical Conclusions

Thus we can conclude that Nephilim and all of the other names that are in Scripture for them were not merely the offspring of a human father with a human mother. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Nephilim came about as a result of the “good” sons of Seth turning “bad” and then connecting with the bad daughters of Cain. The ancient world believed until the time of Augustine about the Nephilim. Every ante-Nicene interpreter (Jewish and Christian) understood the sons of God to be angels who had sexual relations with women. The offspring of those relationships were the Nephilim. If there were demonic-human (Nephilim) hybrids in the days of Noah and afterwards then what will there be at the time of Jesus’ return?

Man reading the bible intently

Part Five: The Coming of the Watchers in the Days of Noah

“Her seed brought forth the Savior; Satan’s seed will bring the Destroyer.”

We have explored half of the promise given so many years ago – that “he” that is the Messiah-Jesus, would bruise the serpent’s head. Jesus came in the flesh from Heaven by way of the Holy Spirit who mixed with the seed of woman. If this was true of “her seed,” then according the hermeneutical consistency, the seed of the serpent ought to be interpreted in like manner. What this means is that since Jesus (in his bodily incarnation) was a genetic mix between the heavenly (Holy Spirit) and earthly (Mary), the same ought to be for the other part of the verse and therefore true of Satan’s seed; that is to say that he (and his angels) would mix his (genetic) seed (gametes) with a human thereby creating a hybrid between the demonic and human. The Bible calls this kind of progeny Nephilim – that is, fallen ones. We will explore in detail in this section just what happened in the days of Noah and in part 3 what is happening now and how events will culminate at the time of Jesus’ coming.

[Notes will be included in final version – sign up to be notified on right]

Jesus gave his disciples an important key to understanding what the last days would be like – they would be like the sudden destruction that came upon the earth in the days of Noah.

But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be, (Matthew 24:37-39).
What happened in the days of Noah has a direct correlation as to what we ought to expect in the last days. The inhabitants of the earth had been warned repeatedly by Noah, the preacher of righteousness, but they failed to listen. Peter, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, makes this revelation concerning the days of Noah and the destruction that came: “the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water,” (1 Peter 3:20). In his second epistle Peter writes:

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell[tartarosas ταρταρώσας the underworld prison]  and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly, (2 Peter 2:4-5).

Jesus and Peter are telling us more than just the swiftness of the destruction that came upon the earth. Their words give us clues to the condition of the world at that time. We must not miss that the first century Jew, without any apparent exception, believed that in the days of Noah, demons (sons of God) came down to earth and had relations with women spawning a race of demonic-human hybrids (the proof will be given in the following chapters).

Thus, to fully understand Jesus’ statement “as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be,” we must first understand what life was like in Noah’s days. If we fail to understand what this passage means, we will not only miss some very significant historical issues but also our view of the end times will be lacking as well. First of all, let’s analyze the text and build our comprehension one level at a time.

When humankind began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God [benei haelohim בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים] saw that the daughters of humankind [banot haadam הָאָדָם בְּנוֹת] were beautiful. Thus they took wives for themselves from any they chose. So the LORD said, “My spirit will not remain in humankind indefinitely, since they are mortal. They will remain for 120 more years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this) when the sons of God were having sexual relations with the daughters of humankind, who gave birth to their children. They were the mighty heroes of old, the famous men. But the LORD saw that the wickedness of humankind had become great on the earth. Every inclination of the thoughts of their minds was only evil all the time. The LORD regretted that he had made humankind on the earth, and he was highly offended. So the LORD said, “I will wipe humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth – everything from humankind to animals, including creatures that move on the ground and birds of the air, for I regret that I have made them,” (Genesis 6:1-7 NET).

At the time of Noah (and the subsequent judgment), the population of the earth grew dramatically. The text says that men (adam – this is a general Hebrew expression for men in general, who are of course, sons of Adam in a literal sense) increased in numbers; there were conceivably over ten billion people [i] at the time! As a natural consequence, daughters were born to the race in general but then another group took notice of these female humans, namely, the sons of God. The sons of God took them and fathered offspring known as Nephilim. To understand what was happening then we need to clearly identify the sons of God.

The Sons of God

The phrase the “sons of God” appears ten times in the Bible (NKJV), twice in Genesis six, three times in the book of Job and five times in the New Testament (which we already examined). In Hebrew this phrase benei haelohim (בְּנֵ֣י הָאֱלֹהִ֔ים) appears four times while benei elohim (אֱלֹהִֽים בְּנֵ֥י) appears once in Job 38:7 – the only variation is the definite article. God responds to Job’s request to show up and explain the meaning of the tremendous suffering that Job has just endured (chapter 38:7) by asking where he was in the beginning: “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:7).

God makes reference to the fact that Job was not there when He laid the foundation of the earth and the implication is that no human was there for that matter. Therefore we see from the usage here that “sons of God” refers to angels. This is backed by the Septuagint which translates all three of the Job passages as “angels” instead of the Hebrew sons of God – evidently the Jews who translated Job into Greek from Hebrew felt that sons of God were angels and not humans. [ii] The NET Bible commentary confirms this understanding: “In the Book of Job the phrase clearly refers to angelic beings,” (NET Bible Commentary Genesis 6:2). In the beginning of the book of Job we read:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. And the LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?” So Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.” (Job 1:6-7)

Again, we note that the Septuagint has translated “sons of God” as “the angels of God” (oi angeloi tou theou οι αγγελοι του θεου). To the ancient Jew at least, this phrase was clearly talking about angelic beings. The fact that Satan appeared among their number would suggest that these “sons of God” are fallen angels. After all, from what we read concerning angels in both the Old Testament: (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc.) and New Testament (especially Revelation), angels (that is the good ones) already have access to the presence of God. Thus, to state that one day they came before the Lord, would seem a bit odd unless it referred to demons. We should also remember that the term (malakh מַלְאַ֧ךְ) in Hebrew and (angelos αγγελος) in Greek both generally mean “messenger.” The messenger can be either good or bad and can be earthly (a man) or heavenly (an angelic being). Jesus at the judgment of the nations ” will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels [tois angelois τοις αγγελοις],’ (Matthew 25:41). If the devil has angels and they are cast into the lake of fire, then they cannot be good angels. Thus they are fallen angels also known as demons.

From the references in Job, and how the term is translated in both the Septuagint and Targumim, we conclude that the term “sons of God” is referring to angelic beings (good or bad). The fact that Satan appeared with the sons of God and the fact that Jesus refers to the devil and his angels, leads us to further conclude that the reference in Genesis chapter six is talking about fallen angels (demons).

The New English Translation (NET Bible) commentary discusses the three different positions commonly held and emphasizes that the “angel” interpretation is favorable over the others.

There are three major interpretations of the phrase here. (1) In the Book of Job the phrase clearly refers to angelic beings. In Genesis 6 the “sons of God” are distinct from “humankind,” suggesting they were not human. This is consistent with the use of the phrase in Job. Since the passage speaks of these beings cohabiting with women, they must have taken physical form or possessed the bodies of men. An early Jewish tradition preserved in 1 En. 6-7 elaborates on this angelic revolt and even names the ringleaders. (2) Not all scholars accept the angelic interpretation of the “sons of God,” however. Some argue that the “sons of God” were members of Seth’s line, traced back to God through Adam in Gen 5, while the “daughters of humankind” were descendants of Cain. But, as noted above, the text distinguishes the “sons of God” from humankind (which would include the Sethites as well as the Cainites) and suggests that the “daughters of humankind” are human women in general, not just Cainites. (3) Others identify the “sons of God” as powerful tyrants, perhaps demon-possessed, who viewed themselves as divine and, following the example of Lamech (see Gen 4:19), practiced polygamy. But usage of the phrase “sons of God” in Job militates against this view, (NET Notes Genesis 6:2, emphasis mine).

Neither Marry nor Are Given in Marriage

To some people, fallen angels having the ability to take physical form and procreate would seem to create a contradiction in Scripture. In Matthew 22:30 we read: “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” This would seem to say that angels are not capable of having offspring and if that is the case, then Genesis 6 could certainly not be referring to fallen angels having some type of sexual relations with women. The parallel passage in Luke sheds more light on the text and seems to be a fuller rendering of what Jesus said on the subject whereas the Matthean and Markan accounts are abbreviated. In Luke we read:

but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection,” (Luke 20:35-36).

Notice that Jesus says that those who attain that age and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage “for they cannot die anymore.” The thrust of the passage is not the potential of sexual ability in heaven! Remember, the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, were trying to pull a fast one on Jesus by asking whose wife [m1] the woman (having seven husbands) would be in heaven. The question and answer had nothing to do with the ability to pass on seed but rather to the fact that there is a resurrection of the dead; the new order is different than the here and now. God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful (that is to have sexual relations) and fill the earth. From Jesus’ words we see that there will be no need for any more procreation (to fill the earth) “for they cannot die anymore.” However, this verse cannot be used to prove that angelic beings lacked the ability to mingle their seed with the daughters of men. It would seem that they were merely forbidden to do so (as we will see from 2 Peter and Jude as well as extra-biblical sources).


We saw earlier that the term “sons of God” refers to angels and humans who are direct creations of God. Angels are all by definition sons of God since they do not have parents but were produced directly by God. We therefore conclude that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were in fact angels who had relations with the daughters of Adam. The text in Genesis 6 doesn’t say if they were good or bad angels but based on the flood that followed it is safe to assume that they were fallen angels.

Read More Articles on Corrupting The Image