Giants in Genesis 6

Also, in Genesis 6, while it says "giants", there no reason to think it means anything other than very tall people.  There was a man in Illinois who was almost 9 feet tall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wadlow.  He could be described as a giant.  Goliath was only a few inches taller than that.

Perhaps the righteous line of Seth ("sons of God") or the wicked line of Cain or of Adam's other children ("daughters of men") included some very tall people.  Anyone over 7-8 feet tall would be legitimately described as a giant.  There's no reason to take the word "giant" as a reference to a mythical creature 30 feet tall.

Would we take Adam and Eve to be relatively our height? If true, then how can a very micro number of mutations that we see in 1 generation give rise to tall and short features in humans? It's also to be noted that Seth and Cain had very few mutations because they were the children of Adam.

Ah! I found an idea. What if the mark of Cain has to do with regulating the heights. Maybe Adam was the giant. And Cain was cursed to be short. God set spiritual laws that they should not impregnate. But they violated it and did it anyway and this gave rise to giants.

But I see a flaw in my reasoning. It presupposes that Adam was indeed tall.

It may be that a mutation suddenly caused Adam's offspring to be giant tall and the other offspring to be dwarfed to our own height.

We have no idea how tall Adam and Eve were.

In any case, by the time we get to Genesis 6, we've had more than one generation.  Seth and Cain would and their siblings presumably had relatively few mutations (which would explain why there was no concern over inbreeding when they married their siblings - the restriction against marrying a close relative didn't come in until later).

There are known mutations that can cause people to be quite tall.  My dad had a friend in university that was over 7 feet because his body was over-producing a growth hormone; he had an operation to stop that or he would have been even taller.  Maybe Cain or someone else in that line had a similar mutation, and passed it down to his descendants.

Kjv, I know. I was just thinking through of the consistency of the godly line, walking in someone else's shoes. I personally don't support it.

👍

I know, but if they had the same mutation, would they have also caused to be giant-ed? Maybe there was some other gene that would negate the effects of such mutation since they all had a small mutation load.

Godly line of Seth. And the line of Cain. Did Cain's child suddenly get tall, or was Cain made to suddenly grow tall?

The "godly line of Seth" is not proven by the text.  But it's consistent with the text, and consistent with the rest of Scripture.  God's people are called "sons of God" elsewhere in Scripture.  God has always ensured that there were some people who still followed him - his 7,000 in Israel that had not bowed the knee to Baal.  And yet these people get into sin too - and this looks like just such a case.  Human corruption is becoming so bad that God had to send a flood.  That view is consistent with the text, consistent with the surrounding context in the book, and consistent with the rest of Scripture.  That does not prove it's true, but it should not be rejected out of hand.

The alternative idea that it's demonic beings impregnating human women is also not proven by the text, and is also an enormous presupposition.  And it's an idea that, based on other passages, has plenty of reason to question it.  We don't see demonic beings participating in sexual activity with each other or with humans anywhere else in Scripture, and if they were capable of doing so we know they would - they love evil and corruption.  But they are spiritual beings, not physical beings.  God can send an angel to take on the appearance of a physical being when it suits Him to do so, but we don't actually have any record in Scripture of a demon doing that.  When demons interact with the physical world in a physical way they always seem to possess a human (or, in one case, pigs) rather than actually taking on human appearance themselves - which would suggest that taking on human appearance is beyond them, either because it requires divine power and not mere angelic power, or because God has put boundaries on what He allows them to do.  And again, we have the words of Jesus that we won't marry in heaven but will be "like the angels", thus indicating that marriage is something they don't do either.

There's another theory about the "giants".  I'm not convinced by it, as it doesn't seem to fit the broader context of the book.  But some people have suggested that the "giants", rather than being the offspring of sinful marriages, were actually dinosaurs.  The "men of renown" that came from these marriages, then, might have been people who were good at killing dinosaurs and made a name for themselves by hunting these dangerous animals.  However, this doesn't seem to make as much sense in the broader context of the book where it talks about how mankind was corrupting itself.

No reason to think Cain suddenly grew tall, but maybe one of his children had a mutation that made him get really tall, and passed that down to his descendants.

The "line of Cain" would include Cain's direct offspring as well (Generation 3). Or would it not?

If it's not, then you would have to define the line of Cain in a different way.

In what way is a “godly line of Seth” consistent with scripture? Where do you see a family that is godly generation after generation after generation after generation?

   And I’m really not trying to be antagonist with this comment, but saying that demons and giants are not implied in the text does not mean that demons and giants are not clearly implied in the text. It’s very obviously the clear teaching of the text and a “godly line of Seth” is nowhere mentioned. Every time the OT mentions the “sons of God” it is a reference to angels. Saved and unsaved mixing do not produce giants.

@MainframeSupertasker, the line of Cain is Cain's descendants.  If one branch of this line had a genetic mutation that made them very tall, that could easily explain the giants.

@Kjav, there are multiple examples in Scripture of a family being faithful for many generations.  For example, in Jeremiah 35, the descendants of Jonadab the son of Rechab are still following his instructions hundreds of years later.  Additionally, it's clear from Genesis 5 that multiple individuals in the line of Seth through Noah were still following the Lord - we're told specifically about Enoch and Lamech.  Two of Noah's sons also appear to have remained faithful.

The term "sons of God" is used in the Old Testament only in Genesis (where the definition is not stated) and Job (where it's clearly angels).  However, it's also used multiple times in the New Testament, where it's clearly talking about God's people, not angels.

Additionally, there's a significant theological problem with the "demon" explanation in Genesis 6:

1. Demons cannot become human.  When Jesus became human, that was an unprecedented miracle.  While it's possible that a demon could appear as a human (although we have no record in Scripture of them doing so - which might suggest that only God can cause an angel to appear as a human), a demon that only appears to be human could not impregnate a human.  It has no DNA, no genetic material.  It is a purely spiritual being.  Even if it were possible for a demon to take on a physical form and participate in sexual activity (which I seriously doubt), there would be no way for it to lead to pregnancy.

2. Demons cannot create life.  Not only can they not impregnate a human by normal human means, they can't miraculously create new life in a human womb.  When God caused Mary to miraculously conceive, that was an unprecedented miracle.  There was no "oh, Satan can do that too".  It was unprecedented.  Demons can't do that.  God alone is the giver of life.

3. We have plenty of records in Scripture of demonic activity.  Not a single one of them involves the demon taking a physical form.  That strongly indicates that this is something they can't do.  Angels do on a few occasions, which might indicate that this is a miracle only God is capable of doing.  This one isn't as strong as the other two points, but shouldn't be understated.

In my view, the "demon" interpretation of Genesis 6 ascribes to demons powers that belong to God alone.  It takes away from the uniqueness of the Incarnation and makes it something that Satan has more or less already done.  I understand why people find it appealing, but the theological implications are massively problematic.

Why did these unions, whatever they were, lead to "giants"?  Probably because one line or the other had a genetic mutation that resulted in people growing tall enough that they could be considered giants.  This doesn't necessarily mean 30 feet tall or anything like that.  Goliath is called a giant, and he was a little over nine feet tall.  Anyone in the 7-10 foot range could be considered a giant.

There are certainly some unanswered questions on this passage.  But the "demon" interpretation of "sons of God" raises some serious theological problems and diminishes the Incarnation.

Well, MGleason, there is no reason for us to continue arguing about this, I see no logic in your “doctrinal proofs”, they all amount to an “absence of proof is proof of absence” type reasoning, in other words...”we have no example of this in Scripture so it can’t happen” type argument that I’m sure you wouldn’t accept from me if I was using that.

  Multiple times you say there is no example of demons mating with human women in Scripture, but it is because the one time it is clearly laid out, you don’t accept it.

   You and I will need to leave it there I suppose. If you want the last word, now’s your chance, I bow out unless something different is added.

Daughters of "humans". Makes me think that the 'sons of God' were not humans.

"They were the heroes of old, men of renown." That's part of the theory that the Nephilim were the Greek gods. If they were hybrids, it would explain the half-deities in Greek mythology.

"the one time it is clearly laid out"

That's where I disagree.  It's not clearly laid out.

There is a passage that can be interpreted that way.  That's not the same thing as it being clearly stated.  There are other interpretations that are consistent with that passage.

You have chosen an interpretation that is consistent with the text of that passage.  But the text does not require that interpretation.

You believe "sons of God" can only be interpreted to mean angelic being (in this case, fallen angels).  I disagree; only in Job do we see that phrase clearly used that way, and it's frequently used in the New Testament to refer to God's people.
As for the giants, I believe that simply refers to very tall people, perhaps 7-10 feet tall, which could come about through a genetic mutation.  I'm not entirely sure if you actually disagree with that, other than that you do not believe a genetic mutation is what caused it.

perhaps sons of God means angelic beings in the Old Testament, and sons of God means God's children in the New Testament.

One could interpret it that way, but the text doesn't require it.

It's used in two books in the Old Testament: Genesis, where it's not defined, Job, where it's clearly angelic beings, and multiple New Testament references where it's clearly God's people.

If you want to take the definition from Job and apply it to Genesis and say that's a possible interpretation, fair enough.  If you want to say the definition from Job is the only possible interpretation, you need some supporting evidence.