Giants in Genesis 6

KJV, I admitted that it's nothing to do with genes. I was wrong.

It has to do with righteousness.

The concept of demonic beings impregnating a human woman is one possibly interpretation for Genesis 6, but the text does not require that interpretation, and there's no other Scriptural reference that supports it.  If this was possible we would expect it to be something Satan would love to do, but even in Revelation when he seems to be at the height of his powers there's not even a hint of it.

Additionally, in the context of the early chapters of Genesis, the focus is all on the sin of mankind and how even the righteous line of Seth has corrupted itself.  In that context, the interpretation of "sons of God" that makes the most sense is to see that as a reference to the line of Seth.  The people that were suppose to be righteous and holy were intermarrying with those that were not.

Yes, the term of measurement in the Book of Enoch for the height of these supposed half-demonic offspring is the "ell".  We actually do know what an "ell" is.  There are various historical definitions of the "ell", all of which range from a little over 17 inches to a little under 21 inches.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_and_Talmudic_units_of_measurement#Discrepancies_of_ell, also http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14821-weights-and-measures.  We don't know which definition of the ell the author of the Book of Enoch had in mind, but by any definition, someone three thousand ells tall is between four and five thousand feet.

   Well, I think we’d all have to admit that the “godly line of Seth” is not supported by scripture, is not mentioned in scripture, and is even denied by scripture (“all flesh had corrupted itself” no exception made for anyone’s “godly line”).

   Regardless of what an ell is, and even regardless of what the book of Enoch says (I am no expert on ancient languages or literature, but I’m seriously doubtful that Paul had respect for a book that claimed the giants were 5000’ tall), giants are not produced by unequal yoking of saved and unsaved humans.

I've seen a bull cow have sex with a horse and there were no offspring after many attempts. I don't see the mating of spiritual beings and human beings having offspring.

   I do think that we’d all have to agree (regardless of our final opinion of the matter) that the plain reading of the text is that the sons of God (angels) took wives of the sons of men and they bare them children and produced actual giants.

   That would have to be the plain reading of the Scripture. Anything about godly lines and  Cain vs Seth and “giants in reputation” would be an “interpretation” some would chose to believe for whatever reason.

No, that is not the plain reading.  You are interpreting "sons of God" as angels.  That is an interpretation, not the plain reading.  It's an interpretation that the text allows, but not one that it requires.

There's no direct evidence that the term "sons of God" means the line of Seth.

However, throughout Scripture, we see a focus on a particular geneological line, pointing towards the Messiah.  First we're told of the "seed of the woman".  In Genesis 4:1, Eve appears to believe that Cain is the promised one, but he is rejected and the line of Seth is chosen (4:25), and the descendants of Seth appear to be the only ones following the Lord (4:26).  We later see this focus narrowed down further, to Shem in Genesis 9, and later to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  The descendants of Jacob were God's chosen people through whom He would bring the Saviour.

Also, Paul did not indicate any respect for the Book of Enoch, and if he had that would have been quite contrary with contemporary Jewish perspectives and the perspective of the vast majority of the early church.  Jude does cite a prophecy of Enoch that is recorded in the Book of Enoch, but that is not necessarily quoting the Book of Enoch - it could be that both Jude and whoever wrote the Book of Enoch were quoting a third source.

As for the question of why the offspring were "giants" - maybe Seth was very tall and a number of his descendants inherited that trait.  Maybe Cain and his descendants were short, so Seth's line was tall by comparison.  We're not told.  But it is an interpretation that is not required by the text to read

The phrase "sons of God" appears three times in Job as a clear reference to angels.  But it also appears in the New Testament about half a dozen times as a reference to His people.  It can be used for either.

 In the Hebrew Old Testament, it is only angles.. we’re going to have to disagree. I see it says giants, I’m believing “giants”, not “important men”. 
    Also, the lineage of the Messiah narrows to one person in each generation. It is not necessary for the descendants of Seth in general to be godly for the Messiah to be born. Which of the sons of Jacob do you call godly, save for Joseph? And the Messiah’s lineage does not trace through  him.

   A “godly line of Seth” is totally irrelevant to the birth of Christ.

   But I’ve begun to repeat myself. I’ll bow out unless something new is added.

I see no reason to disagree with the view that "giants" means very tall men.

But there is no reason to believe that they are anything other than human.  Goliath is described as a "giant" too, and we're told exactly how tall he was.  There have been people in the modern era that have been close to the same height.  Even a 7-foot basketball player can legitimately be described as a "giant".

The "important men" interpretation is plausible, but I don't see any reason to chose that over men that are physically large.

It may be used for either but the context  can show which is the logical one to use.

Let us assume that the “sons of god” were angels or other heavenly beings. God did say “let us make man in our own image”, so it could be possible there was similar genetic material. There’s a theory that the Greek “gods” were real people, rather they were the giants, and so explains the half man, half deity. Not all of the myths may have been true, but if the “sons of god” had God-given abilities, it would also explain why some of the Greek gods have mythical powers. As for demons and Satan not impregnating other women in the Bible, what about the Antichrist in Revelation?

   I actually agree with that. I’m sure it makes me sound crazy, but I certainly do believe the ‘sons of God’ we’re angles as spoken of in the book of Job. I believe what it says when it says the sons of God took the daughters of men and the union produced giants. A “godly line of Seth” doesn’t produce giants when mixed with the worldly daughters of Cain.

   It seems to me that the pre-flood world was very different from the world we live in now. Talking serpent, 969+ year lifespans, mist from the ground, no rain, fruit that affected you spiritually and imparted mental abilities... Genesis 6 says that “all” flesh had corrupted its way. The idea of, say Pan (half man, half goat) actually being demon spawned is to me very plausible.

   It seems that even Christians who will stand up for the 6 day creation because it is the clear teaching of Scripture will usually explain away the first half of Genesis 6 because it isn’t part of the nature we are familiar with. Actual giants are the clear teaching of Genesis 6, so are demon/ human mixtures. Is this the basis of the world’s mythology? I’m giving that a hard maybe.

   And nice to meet you, Terminator.

Same to you  

John 4:24