12,399 views

Travis Jackson

@travisdon1981

, 152 tweets, 37 min read

My Authors

Were the “Sons of God” in #Genesis 6:1-4 just human #Antediluvian #kings?

Um, #NO, and here is why:

"Inspiring Philosophy" is one of the best apologetics sites on Youtube. Whether its tackling Jesus mythicism and the Omnipotence Paradox or defending the concept of faith itself, inspiring Philosophy does a fantastic job in defending Christianity as well as theism as a whole.

Michael Jones, who makes (and narrates) the Inspiring Philosophy videos, is an impressive scholar, and I encourage all Christians to visit his youtube channel (a link will be provided at the end of the article).

However, every scholar eventually gets things wrong, and Michael

Jones is no exception. Heck, we all get it wrong (me included) now and again.

Which brings me to one of his recent videos titled “Genesis 6: The Nephilim”.

The following is Genesis 6:1-4, the passage that is the subject of this video:

“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then

the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 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. These were the mighty

men who were of old, the men of renown.”

This is one of the most enigmatic passages from the Bible, and there are several theories as to what the Sons of God and the Daughters of Men were. Some believe that the “Sons of God” were righteous descendants of Seth, men who married

Cainite women (Women descended from Cain). Another theory is that the “Sons of God” were great Antediluvian kings who married multiple peasant women (similar to Lamech the descendant of Cain (Gen 4:19-24). This is a variation of another theory where the “Sons of God” are

aristocrats who take humble women as their wives.

Keep in mind; that’s a medieval interpretation.

Then…there’s the angelic theory.

In this theory, it was actually angels who married human women, had sex with them, and sired offspring. A shocking idea for sure, one reminiscent of tales of demigods siring heroic demigods with mortal women (stories of which were well known in the ancient word, including the

ancient near east). At first, many Christians might scoff at the idea. However, it was the consensus view among Jews at the time of Christ. Indeed, this theory best explains why the children of the Sons of God, the Nephilim, were not only “Mighty Men of renown” or great heroes,

but also giant. Indeed, they gave rise to the Anakites aka Anakim, a tribe of Rephaim (Biblical Hebrew for “Giants”). The Anakites were noted for their enormous size (Num 13:33, compare Deut 2:10-11, 21-21, 9:2). Indeed, is it any wonder that Goliath, who was himself a Rephaim

(2 Sam 21:15-22, 1 Chron 20:4-8) was from Gath, which was known to have Anakites during the time of Joshua (Josh 11:22)? This also explains how the Nephilim survived the flood; Genesis 6:4 states that the Nephilim were in the earth in those days…and also afterwards.

Thus, if angels are involved, then angels could have done this on more than one occasion in history (though to be fair, many, including IP, make a strong case for Noah’s flood being local. Thus the Nephilim could have survived by being far away from the deluge). Most Biblical

scholars nowadays accepts the angelic theory.

Michael Jones, AKA IP, does not.

Indeed, his video trying to debunk the theory, in favor of the King Theory, is over 36 minutes long. I watched it recently, and unlike most of his videos, I found several errors in it.

His whole case, when thoroughly inspected, falls short of proving his premise, which I will point out in this article.

Before I continue; I hold Michael Jones in high respect. I will do my best to be as respectful as possible in the following piece (though considering my autism

and how it affects social skills, I might fail LOL). I encourage any Christian to watch his videos and be ready to use the information in them so that we can always be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15).

So, let’s begin.

1. As Michael Jones admits early in his video, the angelic theory is the consensus among Biblical scholars.

An academic consensus doesn’t come out of thin air; it’s based on evidence. Evidence makes the consensus, not the other way around. And before anyone cries “Appeal to

Popularity” fallacy; its not an appeal to popularity to cite a consensus.

2. The argument that IP uses against the Sethite Theory can also be used against the King Theory.

Its very interesting that IP debunks the Sethite view initially in his video. He points out that if the Sethite view is correct, then the meaning of “Man” has to change from “all

mankind” to “Cainites”, a shift of meaning that isn’t indicated by the author of Genesis. He also goes on to say that the line of Seth isn’t distinguished as Sons of God (though if some were indeed kings or tribal leaders (almost an absolute certainty that some Sethites were

rulers of some kind), then they would ironically fall into the King Theory; the kings just wouldn’t all be Sethites).

It would be textually wrong to state that “Man” means all mankind in 6:1 and yet changes meaning to be “Cainites” later in verse 2.

But if this is the case…

then why would it be okay to think that “man” is all mankind in verse 1, yet only means “peasant women” in verse 2?
One could respond by saying that the Kings married royal women as well, but if so, it would be odd to equate royal women as “daughters of men” instead of “daughters

of God”, or group them with peasant women under the moniker “Daughters of Men”.

Plus, there is no indication in the book of Genesis of a prohibition against Kings marrying peasant women. Indeed, later in the Torah, future kings were forbidden from having “many” wives

(Deut 17:14-17), but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have more than 1 (King David had 7 (1 Chron 3:1-9).

3. “First Night” isn’t the same thing as marriage

“First Night” was an ancient custom dating back to Sumer. Initially, it was priests who carried out first night, sleeping with other men’s wives on their wedding night. Later, however, Sumer had the idea of divinely-ordained kings, and these took over that role. Gilgamesh, the

mythical king of Uruk, did this on occasion (until one day the wild man Enkidu blocked him from his next conquest, and the two had a brawl worthy of a Wrestlemania).

Genesis 6:1-4 doesn’t describe a first night practice however. Notice the wording:

“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose…”

That’s not describing First Night.
That’s describing marriage.

To his credit, Michael Jones doesn’t argue for First night; he argues for polygamy.

We’ll get to that in a minute.

4. One can read the passage on its own and conclude that something supernatural is at work.

If the only part of the Bible that survived to the modern era was genesis 6:1-4, then it would still indicate that the Sons of God were supernatural beings who mated with mortal women. It reads just like stories of Zeus or Poseidon having intercourse with women and siring

demigods. True, only man is single out in a seeming reproof in 6:3, but if we had no other part of the Bible, then this would mean diddly squat.

In Greek myth, for example, Medusa was originally a beautiful temple virgin who was raped by Poseidon, god of the sea. Athena, whom

Medusa pledged her virginity to, was seriously ticked off, for not only had one of her temple virgins been raped, her temple was desecrated by the sex that occurred in it. One would expect Athena to kick Poseidon in the groin or ram her spear through him (she was the goddess of

war, and had fought gods that were stronger than her before (Hera, during the Trojan War). Instead, Athena…punished Medusa, turning her and her two sisters into gorgons. After Perseus killed her, Medusa’s corpse gave birth to both Pegasus and the giant warrior Chrysaor (sound

familiar)? Poseidon was never punished or wupped by Athena, nor did she ever go to Zeus to protest about Poseidon and ask for justice. Though Poseidon was hardly a friend of Athena, this rape was expected of him. He was a very powerful male god, and such Olympian

gods liked to do what they wanted, often with no moral qualms. However, in many ancient stories, women are punished for rape, and this story was no different.

True, the passage in Genesis doesn’t describe rape, but it does fit the pattern of a supernatural being getting off

scot-free (or seemingly getting off scot-free) from doing something wrong, while the human or humans involved are punished.

Thankfully, we do have all the Bible, which can enlighten us on what God thinks of rape (he's against it, Deut 22:25-27) as well as what Genesis 6:1-4

is all about.

It also shows us similarities to pagan tales of supernatural beings “seemingly” getting off scot-free while humans pay a divine sentence (keep reading…)

5. Just because the Sons of God are not condemned as angelic beings in the passage doesn’t mean that they were human, or were not condemned.

Its interesting to note how many times the bible indicates demonic activity seemingly without demons being condemned or judged in the

passages. There are numerous passages from the New testament that indicate that Satan and his demons are on the prowl, tempting people to sin (Ephesians 6:10-18, 1 Peter 5:8-9, James 4:1-8). Indeed, the Devil isn’t just targeting Christians, but none-Christians as well (Ephesians

2:1-5).

If Satan and his demons jacked with people after Christ died and rose from the grave…why wouldn’t he do it before?

Indeed, he did.

He tried to tempt Christ to sin in the Wilderness (Matt 4:1-11, Mark 1:12, Luke 4:1-13). Though Jesus corrects him on his twisted use

of scripture, and basically at one point tells him to “Get Lost!” (Matt 4:10), he doesn’t cast judgment on Satan. He never states “Because you have tempted me, cursed are you!” or “My spirit will not strive with you forever; you only have 2000 years left before I send you to

Hell.”.

Indeed, there is a good reason for that.

Satan had permission.

Satan told God that if he took away everything Job has (Job 1:9-11) that Job would turn on God. God gave him permission to do so, only that he was not to harm Job (verse 12). Later, when Job didn’t turn on

God (Job 2:4-5). God once again allowed Satan to do his mischief, but not to kill him (Job 2:6).

This is a very peculiar passage. God allows the Devil to cause death and destruction. Although Job stayed faithful to God even after boils broke out on his body, he nevertheless

wanted to question God in a disrespectful manner (Job 10:2-3, 18-22), which led to the greatest sarcastic speech that God ever gave (Job 38-41). Satan is partly to blame for Job’s sin here; though he didn’t force Job to be disrespectful to God, he nevertheless worked to get Job

to sin, and it worked. If we had done as such, we would be guilty as well, and yet just as we are at times allowed to sin by God (though most don’t realize it like Satan did), God allowed the Devil to harm Job.

Given this, we could see why Satan is not condemned here; after all

, God gave him permission, right?

To execute his plan, yes.
To come up with the idea to harm Job? No.

You see, Jesus equated sinful anger with murder (Matthew 5:21-22), and looking upon a woman to lust after her with adultery (Matt 5:27-28). Indeed, its no coincidence that covetousness is the last of the ten commandments (Exodus 20:17), because covetousness is the foundation

stone for many sins. Do you want that other guy’s cash? That can lead to theft (as well as murder, and lying (when I was a little kid, I lied to get another boy’s toy shark). You want that guy’s wife? That can lead to physical adultery (as well as murder).

Before you do the sin physically…you do it spiritually.
You do it on the inside.

This is why God judged the Babylonians for what they did to Judah, even though he sent Babylon to demolish Judah (Jeremiah 25:8-9, 50:1-20, Jeremiah 51:1-64, Habakkuk 1-2). This becomes crystal

clear when we realize that the Babylonians longed to sack Jerusalem and take its treasure as far back as during the reign of Hezekiah, who ruled decades before Jeremiah (2 Kings 20:12-19). Long before the Babylonians slaughtered the people of Judah physically…they plotted it.

They wanted it. They desired it.

They already did it in their very hearts.

Satan is no different!

Remember, Satan was rebellious from the beginning (Job 8:44), and there were many good reasons why ancient Israelites at times equated the Serpent in the Garden with the Devil

(as will be shown in a youtube vid in my sources list). Indeed, he later made similar accusations against Peter and the Disciples, (Luke 22:31-34). Judging by this, we can conclude that just as Satan challenged Job’s faith, he challenged Peter and the disciples’ faith, wanting to

put them to the test. He wanted them in predicaments so bad that they might just turn on Christ.

And, sure enough, Peter failed the test; he denied Jesus three times (Matt 26:69-75). Indeed, all of his disciples abandoned Jesus (Matthew 26:56).

And let’s not forget the

Serpent tempting Eve with the forbidden fruit?

Given this, can we not conclude that Satan and his demons were tempting others besides Eve and Job before Jesus walked this earth? That he’s behind the scenes, tempting humans into worse sins? Can we not see the hand of the Devil

when David slept with Bathsheba and later killed her husband (2 Sam 11)? Or when Moses struck the rock instead of speaking to it (Numbers 20:1-13)? Or when Noah got drunk (Gen 9:20-21)? Or when the men of Sodom tried to rape God's

angels, who were visiting Lot (Genesis 19:1-4)?

Or the violence of the pre-flood era?

It would be absurd to think that the Devil and his demons weren’t tempting mankind to do these wicked things.

Even if they are not mentioned, their activity is obvious.

6. The parallels between Eve and the Sons of God do not prove that the latter were human.

Eve’s story does mirror that of the Sons of God. Compare Genesis 3:6 with Genesis 6:2 and you can see how both were led astray by temptation. Both stories (especially when the latter is

properly understood) serve as a warning against falling into sinful temptation. They do parallel.

However, this doesn’t mean therefore that both are discussing only human sin.

Indeed, if The Sons of God were human, because Eve was human, then we also have to conclude that the

“Daughters of Men” were fruit.

Angels are no strangers to sin (Genesis 3, Job 4:18, Isaiah 14:13-14, Matt 4:1-11, Luke 22:3, John 8:44, Rev 12:4-7), and like humans, some have fallen into sinful temptation.

7. Though humans (including kings) have been called “Sons of God”, no human in the bible was ever

specifically called specifically “Bene Elohim” in Hebrew.

There is more than one way to be called “Sons of God”, and “Bene Elohim” is one of them. This particular phrase was known to the ancient Canaanites, who understood to refer to supernatural beings. Indeed, this term is

always used in Semitic languages to refer to supernatural beings. Along with this, there was an ancient view that God was surrounded by lesser spirit beings (bene Elohim (also “bene elim”) in a council. Some scholars believe that these too were gods (a belief perhaps shared by

Israelites who gave in to worshipping other gods on occasion), though this is due in part to a confusion of “Elohim” one of the names of God (it can also simply refer to a supernatural being as well). Its possible that the Sons of God in Genesis could be non-angelic supernatural

entities that serve the Lord (some debate over this) but either way, “Son of God” denotes a supernatural being.

Indeed, this term also conveys with it the meaning that the being or beings in question weren’t born, but created. This not only fits angels to a serious T, its also

fits Adam and the first man as well, who was created and never born (which is why he’s called “the son of God” in Luke 3:38 (though Luke wrote in Koine Greek Text instead of Hebrew, and thus didn’t use “Bene Elohim”, the same meaning of having being created instead of born is

nevertheless conveyed).

You can’t say this for human kings.

8. There is no indication of polygamy in the passage.

Though some bible scholars have tried to read this into the passage, it does not state that the Sons of God each had more than one wife. It just states “When man

began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose…”

This is simply describing the Sons of God choosing wives and getting married. It doesn’t

state how many wives that each married. It just states that they saw some gorgeous women, liked them, then married them. It never states that they were marrying more than one. Its possible some were polygamous (just as the thoroughly mortal Cainite Lamech was), but its not stated

as such in the passage. Hence, the King Theory is trying to force polygamy into the text. It has no more weight than if someone said that they were marrying tall women, fat women (in some cultures obesity was considered beautiful), etc.

9. Though the Hebrew of Genesis 6:4 can

be interpreted to mean that the Nephilim were not the same as the children of the Sons of God, the ancients interpreted the Hebrew to mean otherwise.
And when we consider the fact that the ancients of Jesus time (and long before) equated the Nephilim with the mighty men of old,

then we can better understand what the Hebrew is trying to convey here.

10. Just because the Nephilim were called “Men” doesn’t mean that they were not considered half human giants or enormous Demi-angels.

Sounds contradictory, doesn’t it?

Well, not really…

For one, what is a giant? It’s not just a folkloric human-like monster of vast size. It also means a person of extraordinary size. From Andre the Giant (7 feet tall, 525 pounds) to the Alton Giant Robert Wadlow (8 feet 11 inches), we have had giants in the modern world. Heck, the

NBA is downright full of them! Nobody would say that they were not human because they are giants.

Having said that, we also have to realize that giant, inhuman races in ancient literature were often at times called “men”.

For example, the ancient Greeks believed in 5 ages of

men: an age of Gold, an age of silver, an age of bronze, and age of heroes and an age of iron. The men of the age of gold lived lives similar to that of Adam and Eve. Those of the Silver race were shorter and weren’t as smart. The bronze race was strong but had so many wars that

they eventually went extinct. The race of heroes came next, which were…demigods. Indeed, the race of bronze before them are likewise called demigods in the Argonautica (which tells the story of Jason and the Argonauts). These too eventually disappeared, replaced with the race of

iron (us).

Interesting to note: out of all the races listed…only one, the race of iron, were not consider giants.

Indeed, the bronze giant Talos (who was so big that he could walk around Crete 3 times a day) was said in the Argonautica to have been the last survivor of the

race of Bronze (though other versions of his myth state that he was made by Hephaestus, Greek god of fire).

Giants that were not human beings…giants that WERE demigods (and in the Bronze race’s case, seemingly WERE magical robots)…and they were referred to as…men.

Likewise, Hercules was considered the “Ideal Man” of ancient Greece, yet he was half human and half god. Even to this day some will call him “the strongest man who ever lived” despite not being fully human. Likewise, Gilgamesh, a super strong king of ancient Uruk who was 1 third

human, 2 thirds divine, is called a…man, in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Indeed, we use the word "man" in a similar fashion in the modern world.

Neanderthals are often called “Neanderthal Man”, and are in the genus homo (‘man”), but they are not considered by scientists as the same species as we are (Homo Sapiens). This is also the case for the tall Heidelbergs (aka Heidelberg Man) who lived before them, or Homo Habilis

(“Handy Man”), who looked like a dwarf sasquatch (so did Paranthropus Boisei, the Australopithecines and many other supposed early human ancestors). Indeed, we even call such creatures “early Man”, even though they are not actually homo sapiens.

Thus, the objection is groundless.

11. Just because Nimrod is called a “Mighty Man” in Gen 10:8, and is fully human, doesn’t mean that the Mighty Men of Genesis 6:4 are fully human.

With that line of argument, we might as well say that every ancient Greek hero wasn’t considered

a demigod, because Odysseus wasn’t a demigod.

12. Noah wasn’t just righteous because he practiced Monogamous marriage.

Does the Bible say “and the earth was filled with polygamy” in Genesis 6:11, 13? Though genesis 6 mentions the wickedness of the antediluvian world, at times

it specifically mentions violence. This was the key sin that brought the flood. The people at the time were doing other sins as well, but violence is indicated by the text as the main one.

Violence, not polygamy.

Yes, Noah and his sons each had 1 wife, but considering that

Noah found favor with God (Gen 6:8) and was considered both righteous and blameless (Gen 6:9) in an age of extreme violence, we can conclude that he was also not a violent man, not given to rage. This is most likely the case for his wife, their sons and their wives.

Indeed, if

polygamy was the root cause for God bringing the great flood, then why wasn’t it outlawed right after the Flood? Why didn’t God decree that humans weren’t to marry more than one person? Why is it that Moses himself allowed for polygamy in the Torah (Exodus 21:7-11, Deuteronomy

21:15-17)? We see laws dealing with violence right after the Flood occurs (Gen 9:5-6), but none about Polygamy.

True, we don’t see laws about forbidding angels and women from marrying and having children either (though it may have occurred in the heavens, most likely long before

the Sons of God mated with mortal women), but this wouldn’t be necessary, considering that a blending of the mortal and immortal violated a significant boundary. Boundaries were big in ancient Israel,

which is why they had laws against having sex with animals (Leviticus 18:23, 2016), breeding two types of cattle, mixing crops and wearing clothes of two types of woven material (all in Leviticus 19:19) and marrying certain non-Israelites (gentiles could be married by Israelites

if they converted, as seen with the Canaanite Rahab and the Moabite Ruth. Compare Deuteronomy 7:3 with Matthew 1:5 and the Book of Ruth).

This would have been a BIG boundary to cross.

Thus, its pretty obvious why God didn’t make that kind of law after the flood.

He didn’t have to.

Now, none of this is to say that polygamy was 100% okay with God. After all, marriage was originally intended to be monogamous (Gen 2:23). However, due to several circumstances in

history (including occasional gender imbalances), polygamy was invented, and God himself did allow for such practices (though also noting in his word the problem the practice caused).

However, polygamy isn’t pictured in Genesis 6:1-4, nor is polygamy the chief sin that led to

Noah’s Flood.

Violence was.

Polygamy wasn’t one of its root sources; the Sons of God and the Nephilim were.

13. The parallels between Gen 3-8 and 9-12 aren’t evidence that the Nephilim were only human.
(see IP’s video (17:12-32) then my 10th point).

14. Just because the

people of babel wanted to make a name for themselves like the Nephilim doesn’t mean that the Nephilim were human.

Demons can’t seek to make a name for themselves? See Ezekiel 28:13-18, Isaiah 14:12-14, and 1 Timothy 3:6.

If demons can be prideful, and humans can be prideful,

why not those who are in between?

14. The Atrahasis epic parallels to the story of Noah’s Flood do not debunk the angelic theory.

Just because the Atrahasis epic has Kingship come down from Heaven doesn’t mean that the same thing happened in Noah’s story. Indeed, there are many

differences as well as many similarities with these tales. The Atrahasis epic has many gods while the Genesis tale only has 1. The Atrahasis epic states that the flood came because mankind was too numerous and loud, while the Genesis version is due primarily to violence.

The gods deceive each other and not one of them is fully in control, while in the Genesis version God is the undisputed master.

So, should we really expect both to agree on Kingship? Kings aren’t even mentioned in Genesis until Gen 10:10, and that was Nimrod, who lived long

after the Flood.

BTW: I do find it fascinating that the gods in the Atrahasis epic tried to exterminate humans on 23 occasions until the flood came.

Supernatural beings causing havok with judgments in the Atrahasis Epic…
Angels causing havok by siring giant heroes, which seems

to aid in the growing violence of mankind…
Both stories ending in a flood…

15. One biblical passage (and the ancient historical and cultural background) can enlighten us about another biblical passage.

Michael has a stronger position when he states that other passages should

not trump the context of another, but this is not an entirely sound idea.

For example, remember the story of Abraham going to offer his son Isaac? God had commanded him to do so, even though Isaac was the child of promise (Gen 17:15-19, Gen 22). Having been raised in a pagan

culture which believed in gods who acted like people, one might conclude that Abraham, after thinking about it, felt that God changed his mind, wanting Isaac sacrificed to him instead (child sacrifice was practiced in the ancient near east). This may seem to some like a strong

possibility, considering that Abraham didn’t have a Bible (it hadn’t been written yet) and thus would have known far less about God than we do today. Perhaps he thought that God would give him another son instead. Whatever the case, everyone who reads this story, without any

further biblical information, would conclude that Abraham thought he was going to lose his son forever.

And they would be wrong.

“By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it

was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named. He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.”

Hebrews 11:17-19.

Thus, Abraham thought that God would resurrect Isaac if he did end up

sacrificing him.

Likewise, if one read 1 Samuel 15 alone, one can conclude that the Amalekites were exterminated by King Saul (Sam 15). And yet, the Amalekites are mentioned again in 1 Sam 27:8, 30:1-18, and 1 Chronicles 4:43, the latter of which tells of King Hezekiah’s time,

who lived several centuries after Saul.

Why does 1 Sam 15 seem to describe a genocide, while later passages state that there was no genocide?

Because 1 Sam 15 is an example of ancient near eastern war rhetoric, which used hyperbole (on par with when a little league coach tells

his team “we’re gonna murder ‘em out there!”). We have numerous ancient examples of this in the archeological record of the ancient near east.

Thus, we shouldn’t ignore other passages because of an adherence to context.

16. Goliath and Og were considered giants.

Both Goliath and Og were of the Rephaim or Rephaites (Deut 3:11, 2 Samuel 21:15-22, 1 Chron 20:4-8). The Rephaim were known for their great height (Deut 2:10-11, 20-21). It is true that while the Masoretic text states that Goliath was 9 feet 9 (6 cubits and a span), the

Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus all state that he was about 6 feet 6 to 6 feet 9 (4 cubits and a span). However, in the ancient world, if you were 6 feet tall, you were huge. If you were over 6 feet tall, you’d be a giant. Most men in David’s day would have been on

average about 5 feet 3 to 5 feet 5 inches tall (the ancient Greeks were of a similar height). Josephus indicate this when he describes Goliath in the following manner:

“A man of vast bulk, for he was of four cubits and a span in tallness, and had about him weapons suitable to

the largeness of his body, for he had a breastplate on that weighed five thousand shekels; he had also a helmet and greaves of brass, as large as you would naturally suppose might cover the limbs of so vast a body.” (Josephus, “Antiquities of the Jews, 6.9.1).
Indeed, several

skeletons of individuals over 6 feet high have been found in archeological excavations in the Levant. In one find (in a region that would have been part of Bashan, the land of Og), the bones were so thick that they were initially mistaken for cattle bones. They turned out to be

those of humans over 6 feet tall.

Now, it is also true that people can get to that height without the aid of supernatural parentage. You can either have good genes or pituitary gigantism to reach that size. However, this isn’t a problem for the angelic theory, considering that

neither Goliath, nor any other Rephaim of his age, was a full-fledged Nephilim.

He was descended from them.

If you look at Numbers 13:33, which gives the exaggerated (and wrong) report about the land, it mentions that the scared spies saw the Nephilim (“And there we saw the Nephilim…”). However, a statement follows that looks like a corrective note, written either by Moses or a later

scribe:

“…(The Sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim)…” (ESV)

In some translations the statement is more direct:

“…(the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim)…” (NIV)

Now, Caleb and Joshua, the two spies who gave the more authentic report, did mention that the

people of the land were tall, and then mention the Anakites (Numbers 13:28). Considering that the Anakites were known for their great size, this seems to be their way of singling them out from the rest of the people that they saw, indicating that they were the tallest people that

they encountered.

However…they didn’t call then Nephilim.

Likewise, when Moses mentions the Anakites later in Deuteronomy 9:1-2, he does mention their great size…but not that they are actually Nephilim.

Why?

Because they weren’t Nephilim;
they descended from the Nephilim.

We see something similar in Greek myth. The Heraclids were a group of people descended from Heracles (aka Hercules). It wouldn’t make sense to call any of these Heraclids Hercules himself, or to think that they

were as strong as Hercules (over many generations, the divine half would have been watered down by Heracles’ children breeding with mortals, whose offspring bred with more mortal, and on and on) just as it wouldn’t make sense to call the Anakites Nephilim, or to think that they

were as tall as their giant Nephilim forebears; they only descended from them.

Thus, we can imagine the reason behind Goliath only being six and a half feet tall instead of truly enormous; the bloodline had long been watered down.

However, this doesn’t seem to be the case with

Og.

Yes, beds in the ancient world were not just for sleeping but for reclining during parties, but Og’s bed is truly enormous, even more so when you consider that beds were nothing more than single couches during that era. Indeed, this is the reason why the ancients recognized

him as being giant. Josephus himself indicates that not only was Og a giant, but that people could tell that he was gigantic by the size of his bed (Josephus “Antiquities of the Jews”, 4.5.3). Indeed, his height seems to be compared to that of Goliath’s in a fragmentary text of

the Dead Sea Scrolls titled “Stories About the Tribe of Israel”. This, combined with the fact that he is called “The last of the Rephaim” (most likely meaning the last full blood Rephaim in the region of Bashan), and Rephaim means “giants”, we can conclude that he was a very

enormous individual, far larger than Goliath. Indeed, estimated height ranges for Og are anywhere from 11-15 feet. Neither height is biologically attainable for humans, not without evolving into a new giant species.

Or without supernatural aid…

The bed doesn’t represent

Og's wealth; it represents his size as a Rephaim or giant.

17. If the scared spies were using wordplay with the Hebrew word Nephilim and the Aramaic word “Nephal”…then why did Moses or the scribe who wrote the clarifying statement in Numbers 13:33 do the same thing?

Also, does “The Anakites come from the Nephilim” sound like something the spies would say if they were exaggerating the danger of the Holy Land? Would they cause their bad report to have less of an impact and effect by correcting themselves as they engaged with the people?

(Numbers 13:25-26, 14:1)?

18. One can easily say that the true historical event of the Sons of God and the Nephilim gave rise to the myth of the Apkallu (as well as to other tales of demigods the world over) instead of vice versa. The Gen 6:1-4 story is God’s way of saying “Hey,

you know all those stories about demigod heroes? Well, this is where they come from…”

And why would only the Jews of the Second Temple Period be influenced by the tale of the Apkallu? Those myths predate the Second Temple period by millennia.

19. Jude relied on both Enoch and Genesis. The former was about the latter.

20. Just because Enoch and the Testimony of Moses are rejected as scripture doesn’t mean that they don’t have historical events in them.

21. The books of Enoch and the Testament of Moses were not written in the genre of fiction. They were religious texts that purported to tell real events. This doesn’t mean that everything in them really happened, but they might contain some events that actually did.

22. There is no indication that these stories from Enoch and the Testament of Moses found in Jude and 2 Peter 2:4 didn’t happen.

At least with the story of the watering rock following the people (In Jewish lore, the rock that gushed water when Moses struck it followed the

people) mentioned in 1 Corinthians 10:4, we seen clear signs in the passage that Paul is using the tale allegorically to describe Christ and how he as God the Son never left the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness. There is no indication in Jude or 2 Peter that a

they are likewise making allegorical interpretations of folkloric tales.

23. Though Tartarus was from Greek myth, it’s also found in other Jewish literature of the ancient world, where it is shown to be a prison for fallen angels. Thus it wasn’t understood in a Jewish context

as a make-belief place that only Pagans believed in; it was real.
Also, in the ancient world, the judgment of the Gen 6 angels was linked with the judgment of Noah’s generation, because both were found in Genesis chapter 6.
Plus, the Hebrews also adopted "Hades", the Greek name

of the underworld, for their own underworld (It was originally called “Sheol”). If the Hebrews did this for Sheol/Hades, why not for other supernatural realms?

I do have to hand it to Michael Jones; he made a very long and powerful case. However, just like a dam that’s about to

fail, it can look strong, until you see the holes and cracks within it. Having said that, his video is the absolute best argument I have ever seen for the King Theory of Genesis 6:1-4, as well as the best argument against the angelic theory. However, after careful examination and

consideration, I found it to be flawed. Nevertheless, Michael Jones is a fantastic scholar, and I do hope that whoever reads this will look not only at his video (which will be in a link below), but also his other vids, which can be very useful and informative when it comes to

1rst class Christian apologetics.

“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." -John 8:32

Sources:

See also the video below by Ben S (another fantastic scholar) who argues for the angelic or supernatural interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4;

“Origins: The Ancient Impact and Modern Implications of Genesis 1-11” by Paul Copan and Douglas Jacoby, 146-48.
“The Hebrew Bible” A Translation with Commentary” by Robert Alter, 25, 627-28, 729
“Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible” (NIV), 2191
“Archeological Study Bible” (NIV), 215

“The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation” translated with commentary by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook, 420-22
“Josephus: The Complete Works” by William Whiston, A.M. (Translator), 128, 196.
“Penguin Classics: The Epic of Gilgamesh” An English version with

an introduction by N.K. Sandars, 65
“Jason and the Golden Fleece (The Argonautica)” by Apollonius of Rhodes (translated by Richard Hunter), page 137-38 (Book 4, 1623-1709).
“The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Red Letter Edition)” by James Strong

LL.D, S.T.D, and John Kohlenberger, III, page 303 of the concordance, page 265 of the Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary.
“Theogony and Works and Days” by Hesiod (translated and with introductions by Catherine M. Schlegel and Henry Weinfield, 60-63
“Penguin Classics: The Histories” by

Herodotus (Translated by Aubrey De Selincourt. Revised with introduction and notes by John Marincola), 299 (Book 4, 168)
“Is God a Moral Monster?” by Paul Copan, 170-74
“The First Fossil Hunters” by Adrienne Mayor @amayor , 199-202

“Epics of Early Civilization: Myths of the Ancient Near East” by Michael Kerrigan, Alan Lothian and Piers Vitebsky (Consultant Jeremy Black), 51-55
“Titans and Olympians: Greek and Roman Myth” by Tony Allan and Sarah Maitland (consultant: Dr Michael Trapp), 36-38
“Giants in

Ancient Warfare” by Adrienne Mayor (see link below)
academia.edu/541118/Giants_…
“Footsteps of Goliath” documentary.

theoi.com/Gigante/Gigant…
“Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Pentateuch” by Gordon Wenham, 25-27
“The Penguin Dictionary of Mythology”