Tom, what is your take on these verses? I have a friend who contends that these ‘sons of God’ were actually angels from heaven sent to mate with the women of the earth and this produced the giants spoken of here in verse four. I say that these ‘sons of God’ were the line of Seth who mated with Cain’s line. Did I explain my question clearly? Thanks
Concerning your question about “The Sons of God” and “Daughters of Men” in Genesis 6 and whether that refers to godly and ungodly linage from Adam, or Angelic and human women marrying and having children who were giants, has been debated with much heat. I’ve have been on both sides of the argument. What settled it for me was to finally let the Bible define the terms.
Luke tracing the genealogy of Jesus Christ all the way back to Adam in Luke 3 keeps saying: “which was the son of” so and so, each begotten of his father until it comes to verse 38 where Adam being a created being by God is called “the son of God.”
No other human is called “a son of God” until after the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ where He poured out the Holy Spirit. Only then did Believers “become sons of God” (John 1:11,12) and John could write: “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: … Beloved, now are we the sons of God, …” (I John 3:1,2).
Prior to the regeneration of man only Angels were called “the sons of God” as seen in Job 1:6 and Job 2:1. As Adam, Angels are created beings and therefore called “sons of God.”
Therefore the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 can only be Angels. Then comparing II Peter 2:4,5 with Jude 6, these Angels fell when they “left their first estate” and came down to the daughters of men.
Apparently Satan attached on the promised “seed of the woman” which would lead to the Lord Jesus Christ, but “…Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations” (Genesis 6:9) and God preserved the seed through him.
Give this some thought. It persuaded me.