Did Angels Marry Women Before the Flood?

Thousands of people are being deceived by fables and superstitions that masquerade under the guise of truth. Most “modern” interpretations of those “sons of God,” “mighty men” and “giants” are really age-old fables! Instead of just accepting human interpretations without proof, let’s search the Scriptures for the Biblical answer. Were the antediluvians angels who married women and produced giants? Or were they pious children of Seth? Is it scientific to believe there ever were giants, or nephilim as they are called in Hebrew?

Bible Definitions of “Sons of God”

Here are the Bible usages.

WHO Were the Giants?

The progeny of those marriages were not the giants, but “mighty men, which were of old, men of renown” (Gen. 6:4).

Because the Septuagint translates the word nephilim as "giant" -- and the King James Version of the Bible carried this definition through -- the majority of scholars are inclined to believe that these were indeed men of gigantic stature. This is consistent with the only other occurrence of the word in Numbers 13:33, where the returning spies describe themselves as being "grasshoppers" by comparison with the nephilim. The word itself is generally considered to be derived from the verb naphal -- meaning "to fall." From this some so-called experts take a huge leap and interpret nephilim to mean "those fallen from heaven" -- in reference to their supposed angelic origins. Thus, according to this line of illogical thinking, the nephilim are thought to be a fantastic race of beings because they are assumed to be the offspring of the mythological marriages described in verse 2 of Genesis 6!

Or, extrapolating in the reverse direction, it is argued that the "sons of God" must be angels because the word nephilim means fallen from heaven! In either case no one proposes that Goliath, or the sons of Anak, had angelic forebears -- so WHY suggest it here? Note that the "from heaven" part has to be provided artificially. In fact, the New Hebrew and English Lexicon by Brown, Driver and Briggs provide several definitions, including to fall by accident -- by violent death; in prostration -- upon (attack), and others.

According to the Bible dictionary Insight On the Scriptures, the word nephilim is defined as follows --

"(Neph'i.lim) [Fellers; Those Who Cause [Others] to Fall Down]. This is a transliteration of the Hebrew word nephi.lim', plural in its three occurrences in the Bible. (Ge 6:4; Nu 13:33 [twice]) It evidently stems from the causative form of the Hebrew word na.phal' (fall) as found, for example, in 2 Kings 3:19; 19:7" (Vol. 2, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of NY, Inc. 1988, page 491).

While it is clear that a tribe of tall people lived in those days, they were NOT the offspring of the marriages or liaisons mentioned in verses 2 and 4. The nephilim, as a people, were also violent attackers, invaders and the like -- based on the idea that naphal should be interpreted as "to fall upon." Moses noted that these men lived prior to the flood and also AFTERWARD in the land of Canaan -- which, in itself, indicates that Noah and his family weren't the only ones who made it through the flood. (Send for our article, Did Noah's Flood Cover the Highest Mountains?).

In the antediluvian world the Sethites may well have become warlike as part of their assimilation into the Cainites through the marriages mentioned in Genesis 6:2 and 4 or, perhaps, they were subjugated by tyrants. So one should consider not so much the FACT of the nephilim -- but the EFFECT they may have had on the population. Moses, writing through YEHOVAH's inspiration, is more than likely making a comparison between the influence of the godless (which could include the nephilim) BEFORE the flood and their influence AFTER the flood when the Israelites were trying to occupy the Promised Land. The result in the case of the former was a flood that emptied the land and, in the latter case, YEHOVAH's people were condemned to forty years' wandering in the wilderness. On each of these occasions it seems evident that these fierce warriors of large stature caused the faithful to loose faith through lack of courage -- rather than trusting in YEHOVAH God and acting according to His will.

It is preferable, we believe, to seek an explanation that takes into account MORE than the mere existence and physical attributes of the giants mentioned in Genesis 6:4. Just like the mere fact of the marriages is NOT the key problem in verse 2 -- but rather the EFFECT of those marriages on those who desire to be faithful to YEHOVAH God -- so also the effect of the tyrannical warrior-type people should be given a SPIRITUAL, rather than wholly physical, interpretation.

Startling Evidence Proves Giants Existed

Much of the evidence about pre-flood life can be found in an easy-to-read book entitled, Mankind So Far, by William Howells. Although written by an evolutionist, this book contains facts which substantiate the historical account in Genesis. The author did not understand the evidence he found, because he rejected the Bible revelation and invented his own theories.

Most every child has heard of the cave-men or the Neanderthals. Far from being sub-men, they were the giants of old. Here is what Howells says of them:

Far from being “half-way up from the ape,” these giants who roamed the earth possessed a “squat, heavily built physique of great strength”; their “teeth were robust and somewhat larger than ours, but not more primitive” (p. 168).

But the facts prove it! The Bible says so. “There were giants in the earth in those days!”

They were divided into several races, being scattered over much of Europe, North Africa and parts of Russia. The Bible does not give their specific origin other than they must have been descendants of Adam, the first man (I Cor. 15:45). Genesis 1:9 disproves the possibility that they roamed before the creation of Adam. They appeared in the earth in the days soon after Adam and before the flood -- “in those days.” Undoubtedly they were biological mutations.

The Heidelberg jaw is also immense.

The Wajak skulls of the Australian area also have a large brain and heavy bone construction. Few skulls of much the same sort (and date) have come to light in South Africa; the important ones being the Florisbad, Fish, Hock, Boskop, and Springbok Flats crania. They are all old and big. “This is especially true of the enormous Boskop skull (with a capacity of perhaps 1,800 cubic centimeters)” (pp. 191-192).

In old river gravels near Bathurst, NSW, Australia, huge stone artifacts -- clubs, pounders, adzes, chisels, knives and hand axes -- all of tremendous weight, lie scattered over a wide area. These weigh anything from 8, 10, 15, to 21 and 25 pounds, implements which only men of tremendous proportions could possibly have made and used. Estimates for the actual size of these men range from 10 to 12 feet tall and over, weighing from 500 to 600 lbs.

Even during David’s time the Bible speaks of giants such as Goliath, who may have measured 10 feet tall, and who carried armor weighing 180 pounds, as well as a spear whose head alone weighed 21 pounds. Goliath had several children who are mentioned in 2 Samuel 21, who were later slain by Abashai and Elhanan. Goliath’s brother had a "spear which was like the staff of a weaver’s beam," and one of his sons "was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number" (2 Samuel 21:20).

Near Braytown, on the headwaters of the Tennessee river in the United States, were found some remarkable footprints impressed in what is now solid rock. The tracks included those of a human heel ball thirteen inches wide! The marks clearly showed that the fellow whose stride in that distant day turned to stone had six toes on each foot (Source: Stranger Than Science by Frank Edwards).

In the late 1950’s, during road construction in the Euphrates Valley of south-east Turkey, many tombs containing the remains of giants were uncovered. At the sites the leg bones were measured to be 47.24 inches. Joe Taylor, Director of Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, was commissioned to sculpt the human femur. This giant stood some 14-16 ft tall. Deuteronomy 3:11 states that the bed of Og, king of Bashan, was 9 cubits by 4 cubits (approximately 14 ft long by 6 ft wide). In his book Fossils Facts & Fantasies Joe Taylor cites several accounts of giant human skeletons or depictions being discovered, from Egypt, Italy, Patagonia in Argentina, and the western US. The largest humans in recent history are like Robert Wadlow of Alton, IL (who was just under 9ft tall) who died in 1940.

In 1833, soldiers digging a pit for a powder magazine at Lompock Rancho, California, hacked their way through a layer of cemented gravel and came up with the skeleton of a giant man about twelve feet tall. The skeleton was surrounded by carved shells, huge stone axes, and blocks of porphyry covered with unintelligible symbols. The giant was also noteworthy in still another respect: He had a double row of teeth, both upper and lower.

This particular giant, incidentally, bore marked similarity to another, that of a giant man with double rows of teeth whose skeletal remains were dug up on Santa Rosa Island, off the California coast. Subsequent research has shown that he, or his descendants, feasted on the small elephants which once lived on that island and which have vanished like the giants who ate them, countless ages ago.

Near Crittenden, Arizona, in 1891, workmen excavating for a commercial building came upon a huge stone sarcophagus eight feet below the surface. The contractor called in expert help, and the sarcophagus was opened to reveal a granite mummy case which had once held the body of a human being more than twelve feet tall -- a human with six toes, according to the carving of the case. But the body had been buried so many thousands of years that it had long since turned to dust. Just another silent witness to the truth of Genesis, which tells us that there were giants in the earth in those days.

Did Violence Fill the Earth?

In China the bones of ancients were discovered to have been “split lengthwise in a fashion which no animal can manage, but which has been used by man to get at the marrow of a bone in other times and places” (p. 149). Cannibalism!

Many skulls of Neanderthal men show plain evidence of having been opened by chisel-type instruments; having obvious tool marks around the hole in the skull. Had the hole in the skull been caused by a dull instrument, such as a stone axe or bludgeon, it would have been broken and splintered, and crushed inward. But the skulls are intact except for a fairly neat, round hole. This presents proof of cannibalism, where severed heads were thrown into a fire, and a hole cut into the skull to access the cooked brain inside. Many such skulls, along with other large bones of the human body, have been found in the remains of ancient fire circles.

Neanderthal violence is highlighted in a recent report by BBC News Online --

"Evidence has emerged to suggest the Neanderthals had a war-mongering nature. The early hunter-gatherers got into fights and used weapons, according to the results of a study of a skeleton uncovered in French caves. A crack in the skull of the 36,000-year-old Neanderthal was caused by a sharp tool, say anthropologists.

"Scientists are tracing back the origins of sophistication
They think another Neanderthal or an early modern human attacked the young adult.
The Neanderthal survived but would have had to be nursed by other members of the tribe.
The findings indicate that the contemporaries of early modern humans were more sophisticated than their popular "caveman" image suggests.
They would have needed social skills and organised networks to take part in armed conflict.
It may have been a crucial factor in the evolution of Neanderthal and human behaviour, say scientists in Switzerland and France.

"Social skills
The evidence comes from a computer-aided reconstruction of the skull of a Neanderthal found near the village of St Cesaire in 1979.
Dr Christoph Zollikofer of the University of Zurich and colleagues say a healed cranial fracture shows the Neanderthal was hit by a sharp tool or weapon.
'These findings add to the evidence that Neanderthals used implements not only for hunting and food processing, but also in other behavioural contexts,' they report in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
They say the potential for violence might have spurred the evolution of social behaviour.
Neanderthal social groups gave support to their members

"Prof. Chris Stringer, Natural History Museum
Professor Chris Stringer at the Natural History Museum, London, UK, is an expert on the origins of humans.
He says several Neanderthal skeletons showing signs of injury have been uncovered in the past.
But to his knowledge injury by another 'person' can be implicated in only one other find -- a healed wound to a rib on a Neanderthal from Shanidar Cave, Iraq.
Professor Stringer told BBC News Online: 'In both these cases the individuals survived long enough for the wound to heal, suggesting that Neanderthal social groups gave support to their members.
'Given that this is one of the most recent Neanderthals known, it is even theoretically possible that the weapon used was wielded by a contemporary Cro-Magnon [earliest anatomically modern human],' he added.
'But it is much more likely that the injury was caused by another Neanderthal.'" (BBC News, April 22, 2002.)

Evidence of the Mighty Men of Old

In Genesis 6:5 (equivalent to 6:4 in other versions) of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, we find the following:

"Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore children to them, those were the GIANTS of old, the men of renown."

Unfortunately, the word "GIANTS" in the last part of the above verse is a translation from the original Greek which, in turn, was a BAD translation from the Hebrew, and should read "mighty ones." There are TWO different Hebrew words involved here: The word "giants" in the first part of the verse is translated from the Hebrew word nephilim, while the word "GIANTS" in the last part of the verse comes from the Hebrew word gibbor -- meaning "mighty one," "valiant man," "warrior" or "tyrant."

Explains Kaiser, Davids, Bruce and Brauch --

"The word gibborim comes from gibbor, meaning 'a mighty man of valor, strength, wealth or power.' Nimrod, in Genesis 10:8, was such a gibbor. He also was clearly a king in the land of Shinar. Hence the meaning...is NOT 'giants,' but something more like 'princes,' 'aristocrats' or 'great men'" (Hard Sayings of the Bible, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL. 1996, p. 108).

With this in mind, the above verse from the Septuagint should read:

"Now the giants [nephilim] were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore children to them, those were the MIGHTY ONES [gibborim] of old, the men of renown."

So the offspring from the union between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were the mighty ones or men of valor -- NOT the nephilim giants!

“Over such a large population rose rulers of yet unheard-of power, able to construct temples and palaces. And through all this ran knowledge, writing, and mathematics. That was the Bronze Age. Before 3,000 B.C. there arose the Indian cities, Mohenjodaro, Harappa, and others in the Indus Valley, and Kish and the Sumerian Ur in Mesopotamia” (Mankind So Far, p. 230). It is significant that these cities perished by water according to archeologists!

Since we have the historical facts in mind, let’s look at the record Moses gave. Who were those “sons of God” who married and reproduced the mighty men?

Were those “Sons of God” Angels?

Notice that there are three distinct, three different punishments. YEHOVAH God cast down the angels and degraded them to chains of spiritual darkness before He destroyed the antediluvian world. The punishment of the angels was not at the flood. It was at a prior, a DIFFERENT time.

The sin of the angels was not descending to the earth to marry women. They sinned by leaving the earth which was their estate, to rival YEHOVAH God in heaven.

They were cast back to the earth (Jude. 6; Isaiah 14:13-14).

The interpretation that the "sons of God" were angels is inconsistent both contextually and doctrinally, and the definition is totally unnecessary. The KEY to this passage in Genesis is to determine its relationship to the characteristics of the antediluvian generations described in preceding chapters -- and the ensuing judgment in the form of Noah's flood.

As the authors of Hard Sayings of the Bible point out,

"some, however, will appeal to the New Testament passages of 1 Peter 3:18-20, 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6-7 for further support of the angel theory. But these passages DO NOT say anything about angelic marriages. To argue from the phrase 'in a similar way' in Jude 7 that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is the same as the sin of Genesis 6:1-4 CLAIMS TOO MUCH, for the sin of sodomy is not the same thing as marrying a wife from another part of the universe! In fact, 'in a similar way' does not compare the sin of the angels with the sin of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah; instead, it compares the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah with the sins of 'the cities about them' (that is, Admah and Zeboiim; see Deut. 29:23 and Hos. 11:8). Thus the sins of Jude's angels (Jude 6) and the sins of the five cities of the plain (Jude 7) are held up as warnings of the judgment that could come to others" (page 107).

Notice, now, the CONTRAST between the descendants of Cain and the descendants of Seth. It can be perceived from their activities that the Cainites possessed the characteristics of cleverness, culture and civilization. Also, by the ungodly behavior of Lamech, they are generally portrayed as earthly, selfish, sensual and not willing to be under YEHOVAH's authority. While there is nothing necessarily wrong with the professions associated with the Cainites, nothing positive is said of them in a spiritual sense.

On the other hand, one cannot help but notice the CONTRAST given in Genesis 4 and 5 in regard to Seth. The Sethites were known for their devotion (4:25), consecration (4:26), fellowship (5:22), testimony (Hebrews 9:5), service (5:29) and RIGHTEOUSNESS (6:8) in the eyes of YEHOVAH God.

Therefore, after the generations of Cain and Seth have been outlined in chapters 4 and 5 -- and Genesis 6:2 then speaks of TWO GROUPS OF PEOPLE -- is it not reasonable to conclude that the earlier familial division is being carried on into the later discussion? This being the case, the "sons of God" expression is used in a SPIRITUAL or COVENANTAL sense -- that is, referring to those who possessed characteristics of faithful service to YEHOVAH God. The "daughters of men" however, would then be those of a WORLDLY disposition. Given the CONTRASTING NATURE of the two lines of descendants described above, the "sons of God" were clearly the godly Sethites -- while the "daughters of men" were the worldly, ungodly Cainites. Such a distinction also parallels the Israelites of the Old Covenant and the Christians in the New. The events of the antediluvian world now fall logically into place.

While interpreting "sons of God" as angelic beings may at first seem an obvious and attractive option, this view CANNOT be substantiated with regard to the TOTAL biblical teaching on angels. Neither does it provide a satisfactory explanation in the context of the first few chapters of Genesis.

The wicked angels who followed Satan were in chains of darkness imprisoned by their own folly (Jude 6). Remember, the Bible reveals that angels are created spirits (Hebrews 1:14). They are not mortal flesh like humans. In I Peter 3:19, 20 we read of spirits -- angels -- not human beings, but angels who were imprisoned, bound -- when? “When once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing.”

Notice it! Before the flood destroyed the land, while the ark was still under construction, the angels who are spirits, were already imprisoned, “in hell“ -- tartaroo -- not at liberty to co-habit with human women!

It is a fable that angels were imprisoned as a result of the flood.

Two different Biblical kinds cannot gender sexually. This is one of the most thoroughly established laws of science. YEHOVAH God did not make it possible for angels to reproduce with human beings.

He did not intend to beget angels as His sons (Hebrews 1:5). Beside, nowhere in the Bible do we find that degraded angels have the power to manifest themselves in the form of human beings -- a power now possessed only by righteous angels who serve YEHOVAH God.

Originated in Paganism

The doctrine that angels married women is not new. It came from garbled heathen traditions. Jewish fables which Paul condemned also contain the same superstitions. Where did they acquire them? From the Babylonians!

The True Answer

Years after the flood there was recorded for us in the book of Job a description of antediluvian life (Job 22:15-18). Notice what the narrator says! “Hast thou marked the old way which wicked MEN have trodden?” Did you notice it! The scripture says “men,” not angels. Men, human beings, say to YEHOVAH God “Depart from us: and what can the Almighty do for them? Yet he filled their houses with good things.”

Not one word about angels!

They persisted in having their own way and married their neighbor’s daughters -- beautiful, but unconverted women -- who led them further astray and into the cares of this world.

Conclusion

While Genesis 6:1-4 contains a number of topics that have proved difficult to interpret for many -- and have been outright abused by some -- the TRUE meaning of these verses can be determined by examining the peripheral context and doctrinal principles in both the Old and New Testaments. The latter procedure COMPLETELY ELIMINATES a popular interpretation that claims the "sons of God" were angels -- and refutes another idea that touts the "sons of God" as a class of nobility. Instead, the overall context CLEARLY shows that the "sons of God" and "daughters of men" existed together in the land as opposites, and refer to the righteous Sethites (Genesis 4:26) and the unrighteous and worldly Cainites (4:11) respectively.

The unapproved and ill-conceived liaisons or marriages between these two groups (6:2) inevitably led to the total moral breakdown of the existing order in the land (6:5). The exception to this was Noah and his family (6:8).

The nephilim were NOT the strange, mythological offspring of these unions, but rather a group or class of large, tyrannical warriors who maintained a faith-breaking reign of terror against the righteous Sethites in particular -- and the unrighteous Cainites in general. The nephilim of the antediluvian world served as a deliberate parallel to the nephilim of Numbers 33, who also caused YEHOVAH's people to stumble as they approached the Promised Land.

This also indicates that Noah and his family weren't the only ones to survive the flood.

Problems in the interpretation of the phrase "sons of God and daughters of men" -- and difficulties in defining the nature of the nephilim in verse 4 -- can easily be overcome when we consider the effects of an overwhelming majority of the ungodly on the spiritual integrity of a lesser group of righteous people. So rather than focusing merely on the act of marriage, or the presence of the nephilim, we should take into account the effect of these evil influences in order to understand YEHOVAH's judgment on the land and its inhabitants.