Notes on the Demi-gods of Genesis 6

(source unknown)

Part I. Who Are The Nephilim?

Of all the imaginable phenomena on Earth, the progeny of this union between extra-terrestrials and humans is the most bizarre. Man has paid little attention to them until now, for the fact of their existence has been shrouded in legend. But can they be dismissed as myth any longer? In this end time hour many strange phenomena are occurring. Jesus said, "As the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matthew 24:37). It was the wickedness of humanity and the abominable union of the supernatural with the natural that moved God to judge the world. We are fast approaching a new period of God's wrath. The return of these super creatures may even now be a threat to us.


Who are these beings? A clue to their identity is found in their name--Nephilim. The word itself is Hebrew, and it is first used in Genesis 6:4.

There were giants in the earth in those days: and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Nephilim is translated "giants" in the Authorized King James Version, but "giants" is in no way a complete description.

Commentators like Lange trace the word "Nephilim" to the root "Niphal" meaning "distinguished ones." This corresponds perfectly with the "men of renown" at the end of Genesis 6:4, nevertheless it is not a generally accepted translation.

Others have sought the root of the word in the Hebrew consonants "npl" as found in Psalm 58:8. Here it means "miscarriage." Accepting this theory, the Nephilim would be those superhuman beings that resulted from miscarriages. Genesis Rabbah (26:7) seems to confirm this translation when it states:

Nephilim denotes that they hurled the word down, themselves fell (naflu) from the world, and filled the world with abortions (nephilim) through their immorality. (1)

Most scholars, however, reject both these interpretations and trace the word "Nephilim" to the Hebrew root "Naphal" meaning "to fall." The Nephilim are the "fallen ones." A direct reference to the fallen angels who sired them. Some writers such as Ben Adam believe the word "Nephilim" refers to the fallen angels themselves and not to their offspring.

Because of some uncertainty in the translation of the Hebrew word, more and more Bible versions are now leaving the original word untranslated. Thus the New International Version renders the passage: "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days..." (Genesis 6:4). This also does justice to the fact that the definite article precedes the word in the original. "The Nephilim were on the earth..." The same definite article is also found in the other biblical passage where the word "Nephilim" occurs, namely, Numbers 13:33. "We saw the Nephilim there..."

Interpreting the Nephilim as "the fallen ones" dismisses the suggestion of one modern author that belief in the Nephilim could lead to racism. He fears that people would boast of having celestial blood in their veins and consider themselves superior to those of ordinary, human ancestry. To claim descent from stellar explorers could lead to a class distinction surpassing anything ever seen in society, but he need have no such qualms! If the Nephilim are stellar, they are also infernal. To claim descent from such beings would be to admit an ancestry from Hell.

Although there is no etymological evidence to justify "giants" as an accurate translation for "Nephilim," such a translation is not without merit. In more senses than one, Nephilim were giants.


For one thing, they were giants in size and strength. Much documentation of the exceptional physical stature and super- human strength of the Nephilim exists, and this is not in the least surprising, knowing that they were "fathered" by angels. Angels as already stated, do "excel in strength" (Psalm 103:20). They are greater "in power and might" than men of earth (2 Peter 2:1 1).

What applies to holy angels, applies equally to (the offspring of these--ed.) rebellious angels. Their moral fall does not seem to have reduced their physical prowess. The Book of Enoch states that their "height was like the tallness of cedars and whose bodies were like mountains."

A modern author describes them in the following terms:

Perverted power and strength are (thus) conspicuous attributes of fallen angels. This titanic energy is displayed in the supernatural strength demons can impart to the human body when they enter it and possess it. (2)

The New Testament supplies many such examples. One of the most noted is that of the Gadarene demoniac, who by his super-human strength could snap fetters and break chains.

The Roman Catholic Church confirms this attribute of fallen angels when it demands the presence of super-human strength before it will diagnose a person as being demon-possessed.

Actually a person under investigation must reveal the presence of three phenomena before the Roman Catholic Church will categorize him as "possessed." First, he must be able to speak in a language unknown to him. Second, he must have knowledge of secret facts, previously unknown to him. Third, he must possess unnatural strength beyond his age and ability. (3)

Dr. Kurt Koch, from his vast experience and extensive research into occultism, has discovered that even children or delicately built women can offer effective resistance to three or four strong men when demon possessed. (4)

Similarly, Professor Oesterreich cites a number of examples from his research, demonstrating the same super-human strength in demon-possessed people. One example he gives is of a ten-year- old boy who could be scarcely held down by three adults. Another is of a young girl who could barely be controlled by two men. (5)

In a similar vein, Robert Pearson wrote from Borneo in 1967 concerning the Dyak uprising:

Evidences of demonic power were witnessed at Andjungan. Dyaks used their fists and feet to break display cases with glass flying all over the place. Some actually danced on it with bare feet but no one was injured. One missionary watched Dyaks step into pans of acid used to coagulate rubber. Undiluted, this acid can normally burn the flesh to the bone, but these men were unharmed. Others struck locked and barred doors with their bare hands, breaking them down so easily as if they had been rammed by a truck...These things are hard to understand, but we know that Satan is powerful to endow men with his power when it suits his purpose. (6)

John Wesley in his journal entry for May 2, 1739, writes of a certain John Haydon, a respectable person, present in one of his meetings, and who "fell off his chair and began screaming terribly and beating himself against the ground ...Two or three men were holding him as well as they could. The man then roared out, "O thou devil! thou cursed devil! Yea, thou legion of devils! thou canst not stay! Christ will cast thee out!"' Fortunately, after prayer, Wesley reports that "both his body and soul were set at liberty."

These and countless similar examples are reminiscent of what happened to the seven sons of Sceva in Acts 19. A demonized man out-numbered seven to one, was able to overcome all seven by a phenomenal show of strength. The Bible states that they were fortunate to escape from the house naked and wounded.


In Genesis 6, where the word "Nephilim" is first used, we are told that the Nephilim appeared on the Earth just before the Flood, and that their appearance was the main reason for the Flood.

(The main reason for the Flood was mankind's total rebellion against God, Genesis 6:5-8, "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.--ed.)

There followed another incursion of these fallen angels at a later date, (i.e., after the Flood,--ed.).

We read in Genesis 6: "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward..."
(N.I.V.). This data is found in Numbers 13:33: "We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim)" (N.I.V.).

This second eruption was probably on a more limited and restricted scale than the first.

Nevertheless, God ordered their complete destruction.

One has often wondered at the severe an extreme measures that God asked Joshua to put into effect once he entered the land of Canaan. God commanded him to "utterly destroy them."

(The Canaanites were not these giants, they were descended from Ham's son Canaan--the post-flood giants, the offspring of fallen angels merely lived in the same land--near Hebron and in parts of what is now Jordan.--ed)

We have found it difficult to reconcile this with the character of God. One can only surmise that God had a special reason to issue such a command. Could it be that God knew the heritage of these Nephilim?

God was aware that the Canaanites and their neighbors manifested the whole gamut of demonical practices, and that they were a threat to the character and destiny of His chosen people, who were entering the land at that time. This is why He warned the Israelites not to imitate the occult practices of these people whom they dispossessed. With the same unmatched anger that He had displayed in Genesis 6, God orders the complete extermination of the inhabitants of Canaan. "But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee" (Deuteronomy 20:17). However, Israel, as so often in her history, failed to obey God, and there is reason to believe that some of the Nephilim survived (Joshua 13:13, 16:1 0; Judges 1:28-34).

The progeny of these Nephilim went under various names. We read of the Anakim, descended from Anak (Numbers 13:28); the Rephaim, descended from Rapha; the Zamzummims, the Emims, the Avims, etc. All shared the characteristics of being huge, tall and strong. Rabbi Bahya ben Asher, a Spanish Cabalist, claimed the Nephilim were heads of the family called "sons of God." They were so called because terror fell on those who saw them. As the virility of the stock declined, they were called Anakim and later Rephaim. (7) Here is an Old Testament description of the Emim:

"The Emim dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakim; which also were accounted giants, as the Anakim; but the Moabites called them Emims. (Deuteronomy 2:10, 11)."

These men were such giants that the Israelite spies who went in to reconnoiter the land, cowered before them:

"And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." (Numbers 13:33).

Flavius Josephus, the noted Jewish historian of the first century A.D., described these giants as having "bodies so large and countenances so entirely different from other men that they were surprising to the sight and terrible to the hearing." (8) And he adds that in his day, the bones of the giants were still on display!

Deuteronomy 3:11 describes one of these giants in more detail:

"For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants: behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? Nine cubits was the length thereof and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man."

A super king-sized bed! In modem measurements it was 18 feet, 6 inches long, and 8 feet, 4 inches wide!

Some of these giants carried spears that weighed from ten to twenty-five pounds. One carried a spear whose staff was "like a weaver's beam" (II Samuel 21:19). Goliath wore a coat of armor that weighed 196 pounds, and he was said to be about nine feet tall. Some of these giants had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot.


These giants were not confined to the Middle East. Two dozen human footprints of abnormal size have been found in the Paluxi riverbed, Texas, some of them measuring eighteen inches long. Other giant markings have been discovered in such diverse places as Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and California. In the Mt. Vernon area of Ohio, Dr. Wilbur G. Burroughs of the Geological Division of the Berea College, Kentucky, reported finds of human foot prints 23.75 cm. long and 10.25 wide! Near Antelope Springs, Utah, William Meister discovered in 1968 two human footprints 32.5 cm. long and 11.25 wide.

Similar giant footprints have been discovered in other countries especially in the Mt. Victoria region of Australia.

Not only do we have footprints of giants but actual skeletons as well. In 1936 Larson Kohl, the German paleontologist and anthropologist, found the bones of gigantic men on the shore of Lake Elyasi in Central Africa. Other giant skeletons were later found in Hava, the Transvaal and China. The evidence for the existence of giants is incontrovertible. "A scientifically assured fact," says Dr. Louis Burkhalter. (9)


The Nephilim also were giants in knowledge. According to the Book of Enoch, God was incensed against the fallen angels partly because they disclosed certain classified information to humans. The ancient world associated demons with special esoteric knowledge and with superior intelligence. The word "demon" in Greek (daimon) comes from the root meaning "knowledge" or "intelligence." The Scriptures also testify to the fact that demons have access to knowledge and information denied to ordinary mortals. We read in the Gospels how they recognized and acknowledged the deity of Christ when humans seemed totally blind to the fact. When the Gaderene demoniac saw Jesus, he fell down before him, and cried out, "What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high?" (Luke 8:28). These demons recognized Jesus at the beginning of His ministry, way ahead of His own disciples.

In the Book of Acts, with the same supernatural knowledge, demons recognized the mission and message of the Apostle Paul. The possessed damsel at Philippi cried, "These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation" (Acts 16:17). This happened at a time when the people of Philippi had no idea who Paul was, nor did they know the nature of his mission. We cannot but note that every recorded statement made by demons in the New Testament concerning Christ or Paul was one-hundred percent accurate.

Clement of Alexandria suggested an interesting reason for this superior knowledge of demons:
It is evident, since they are demoniac spirits, that they know some things more quickly and more perfectly than men, for they are not retarded in learning by the heaviness of a body.

Examples of this trait in demons is supplied by various missionary organizations. They tell us how people possessed by evil spirits acquire superior knowledge, far above that of their brethren. In an editorial in Christian Life Magazine we find these words concerning the murder of five young American missionaries in the jungles of Ecuador in 1956:

"Indians at Arajuno mission base knew in a few hours what had happened when five missionaries deep in Ecuador's Auca territory in 1956 failed to make radio contact with anxiously waiting fellow missionaries. How? They asked a local witch doctor. He obliged by falling into a trance, calling up his favorite demons and asking them to tell him where the missing missionaries were. According to the friendly Indians, they heard demons leave the scene and, in a short time, returned with the message that the missionaries were in the Curaray River with Auca lances in them."

John L. Nevius, a medical missionary in China at the end of the last century gathered a significant compendium of data on this subject. After sending a detailed questionnaire to Protestant missionaries all over China, he gleaned a vast amount of information about the symptoms of demonism. One characteristic he found again and again was the prevalence of superior knowledge and intelligence in the possessed person--even on subject matters of which the person had no prior knowledge.


This may well supply the key to the great knowledge and expertise that characterized certain men in ancient times. As already seen, such knowledge and expertise by "primitive" men continue to defy explanation. P.J. Wiseman admits to this mysterious factor:

It was expected that the more ancient the period, the more primitive would excavators find it to be, until traces of civilization ceased altogether and aboriginal man appeared. Neither in Babylonia, nor Egypt, the land of the oldest known habitations of man, has this been the case. (10)

Arthur Custance pertinently states this strange sequence right at the beginning of human history:
" unbelievably long time with almost no growth; a sudden spurt leading within a very few centuries to a remarkably high culture; a gradual slowing up, and decay, followed only much later by recovery of lost arts and by development of new ones leading ultimately to the creation of our modern world. What was the agency which operated for that short period of time to so greatly accelerate the process of cultural development and produce such remarkable results?" (11)

Could this agency be the Nephilim? Could this expertise have been imparted by beings from outer space? And could this explain the mysteries surrounding Stonehenge, the Mayan Caracol, Tiahuanaco, the Bay of Pisco, and particularly the Great Pyramid? Did the knowledge necessary to construct these monolithic structures come from the Nephilim? Were they the ones responsible for what Custance calls the "climax at the beginning"? (12)

As for the Great Pyramid, many scientists suggest a date back in the generations preceding the Flood. If so, those happen to be the very times of the Nephilim, the generations of the "giants" and of the "men of renown." But what if it could be proven that the Great Pyramid was not built until after the Flood? There is still no problem.

(Note: The pyramids are made of fossiliferous limestone derived from flood deposits, so the pyramids definitely do not predate the Flood--ed.)

Could not Noah and his family have carried this information with them into the Ark, and transmitted it later to their descendants? According to the Babylonian version of the Flood, the "Chaldean" Noah was made to bury his books before the Flood, and then disentomb them after emerging from the Ark. But there is still another possibility: Could this knowledge have come from the second eruption of the Nephilim, which occurred after the Flood?


If we go further back, could one find a linkage between this esoteric knowledge and the "tree of knowledge" found in the Garden of Eden? We know that this was the one tree whose fruit Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat, or even touch (Genesis 2:17, 3:3). Why was this tree so named? Few commentators have shed any light on its meaning. Many dismiss the account as mere symbolism, without even telling us what the symbolism is supposed to represent. Others look upon the passage as poetry, conveniently forgetting poetry is often the truest history. It not only relates facts but interprets them as well. Poetry has been described as "history written from the inside rather than from the outside, and therefore incomparably truer. (13) Or in the words of British author Graham Green, "Poetry is the photography of the invisible."

Supposing we applied this principle to the "tree of knowledge." If it is a symbol, then obviously it must be a symbol of something. Or if poetry, then it must convey some inner truth. But why should one speculate and search for cryptic meanings when the truth may well be on the surface. Obviously, the "tree of knowledge" must have something to do with knowledge, or why should it be so named? It undoubtedly contained the key to certain divinely classified material that God did not want early man to possess. But somehow, and it could well be by means of the Nephilim, early man did come to possess that knowledge--at least a part of it.

This was knowledge that primitive man could never have discovered on his own. Indeed, it was knowledge beyond the capacity of modern man! Kelly Segraves reminds us:

"With all our intelligences, we cannot figure out how pyramids were constructed." (14)

(not true, the construction of the pyramids has been reviewed and reexamined in recent years. No supernormal or supernatural factors need to be invoked to explain their construction--ed.)

We ask again, could this intelligence have been transmitted by the "sons of God"?

Egypt is not the only country that has pyramids. A whole network of them can be found around the planet--in Cambodia, Shen Shi, China, Thailand, Mexico, Nazca, Yucatan, Alaska...How does one account for such advanced scientific technology, on such a universal scale, and in such prehistoric times?

Could the answer be man's longevity at that time? The average age span before the Flood was close to nine hundred years-- thirteen times the proverbial "three score and ten." This, of course, provided exceptional opportunity for learning, research, experimentation and the accumulation of knowledge. If only modern-day scientists could live that long! But longevity alone could never account for the specialized knowledge that our forefathers possessed. Their awesome expertise indicates a source outside of themselves. No other viable explanation can be offered except that mankind was preprogrammed from the depths of space.

The Bible not only supplies the key to the source of this knowledge, but to the way it was transmitted--space-beings called "fallen-angels." As we have seen, such extraterrestrials possess superior knowledge. This they transmitted to man in direct contradiction to God's wishes.

Satan, the leader of fallen angels, is himself a creature of rare brilliance and inimitable genius. The Latin translation of his name, "Lucifer" (from the Hebrew "Helel"), comes from a root meaning "brilliance" or "magnificence." This is a trait he shares with his cohorts. He and they have access to classified, divine information, and are cognizant of hidden things (See Acts 16:16, 17).

According to Professor C. S. Dickerson, "The source of their knowledge is found in their superior created nature and in their vast experience, as they lived through many thousands of years observing and collecting information." (15)

John L. Nevius, after surveying demon possession in China, documents the amazing knowledge revealed by the demon- possessed:

"Many persons while demon possessed give evidence of knowledge which cannot be accounted for in ordinary ways. They often appear to know of the Lord Jesus as a divine person and show an aversion to, and a fear of Him. They sometimes converse in foreign languages of which in their normal states they are entirely ignorant." (16)


Betty and Barney Hill of New Hampshire, while returning home from a vacation in Canada in 1961, spotted a flying saucer and pulled off the road to watch it land. The engine of their car went dead, but they have no recollection of what happened after that. The next thing they remembered was being close to home... sixty miles south! After this bizarre experience, they suffered from nightmares, anxiety syndromes and ulcers. They finally consulted a psychiatrist, the noted Dr. Benjamin Simon of Boston. By the use of hypnosis, he was able to induce from them--quite independently of each other--the story of those missing hours. Both told the same story. Taken aboard the flying saucer, they underwent physical examination by the humanoid occupants. Tape recordings were made of their story (given under hypnosis), and a book was published. Later, an NBC television movie was made of the event.

Stanton T. Friedman, a nuclear physicist, studied these reports and was greatly impressed. But what finally convinced him was the map drawn in 1964 by Betty Hill of a star system unknown to science at the time. Betty claimed that she had been shown this map aboard the UFO, and revealed the details of it under hypnosis. The astronomers who examined the map at that time, dismissed it. But since 1964 new evidence has appeared on the subject--star systems that were invisible in 1964 have now been discovered. And an amazing fact has come to light. Dr. Friedman explains:
"Using these new data, a computer came up with a map of the Zeta Reticuli system--faint stars 220 trillion miles away - which astronomers agree matches Mrs. Hill's precisely." (17)


Giants in wickedness is another distinction of the Nephilim. Sired by demonic beings, their character and activity certainly reveal the nature of the "fallen ones."

Many of the legends surrounding the cross breeding between the natural and the supernatural depict subhuman behavior. To the last one, the semi-gods of mythology--Zeus (the Roman Jupiter), Poseidon (Neptune), Eros (Cupid), Hermes (Mercury)--were violent, wanton, lustful and promiscuous beyond restraint. They constantly engaged in sex orgies and seduction, and produced the strangest of offspring. Emil Gaverluk tells of Zeus:

"He disregarded marriage laws and engaged in love affairs with members of both sexes. Zeus married Hera, his sister. One of the loves of Zeus was Europa. He seduced her by becoming a bull and carrying her away. Another was Leda, daughter of Thestios, King of Aetolia and the wife of Tyndereus, King of Sparta. But this did not stop Zeus...Athene was the daughter of Metis by Zeus. Metis tried to evade him. He seduced her. She warned him that if he did this again and the child was a male, that child would depose and conquer him. Zeus didn't like the sound of this and took no chances. He swallowed the child whole. Zeus' amorous victories illustrate the actions of uncontrolled spirit-beings lusting after human flesh." (18)

This is only one example from Greek mythology of the evil associations between spirit-entities from space and human beings from Earth. But it was not only the spirit-beings who acted this way; they seem to have passed on the trait to their descendants.

The Nephilim, in this respect more than in anything else, were close imitators of their fathers. They reflected the works of their demon ancestry. And just as there are degrees of goodness among the saints, so there are degrees of evil among the demons. Evidence of this is recorded in Matthew 12:43-45. It tells of the unclean spirit returning to occupy the house from which he had been displaced, and returns with "seven other spirits more wicked than himself."

Irrespective of the degree of evil, all demons are regarded by God as vile and depraved. A recurring biblical adjective is "unclean" (Matthew 10:1, Mark 1:27, 3:11). These spirits are both morally and spiritually unclean, and the same distinctive applies to their progeny on Earth. What is more, those who traffic with such beings, frequently end up like them. Indeed such is the degree of their degradation that the Lord abandons them to their own depravity. Romans 1:24-32 graphically states that "God gave them up." The depths of their degradation and the infamy of their immoralities, puts them on a level lower than animals. Abandoned by God to the consequences of their wickedness, and deranged by demonic harassment, people have been driven to insane asylums and even to suicide.

Is it any wonder when incorrigible spirit-beings and rebellious humans cooperated to pollute Earth, to seek genetic control and produce hybrids that threatened the race itself, and even tried to thwart the very plan of God, that God should intervene in a judgment terrible to behold? (19)


The Nephilim were giants in pride also. Lord Acton claimed that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So does knowledge. With their superior intelligence and knowledge, the Nephilim soon succumbed to the sin that became the downfall of Lucifer--pride (1 Timothy 3:6). Like Lucifer, his followers also dreamed of being gods, desiring to control and rule the Earth. Their advanced knowledge was the desired diet for their egoism. Such knowledge wedded to an already arrogant nature led to self-deification. They craved divine honors and religious worship. This was the ambition of Lucifer, of the Nephilim, and of every fallen creature. They were propelled in all that they did by self-will, self-determination, self-glorification, and ultimately self-deification. No wonder Josephus refers to the Nephilim as "sons who were overbearing and disdainful of every virtue."

Man's fascination with the occult and otherworld phenomena is amazingly significant today. At no other time has he been more conditioned to accept the possibility of extraterrestrial life. Having once escaped his Mother Earth, man now strains at his celestial tether, wondering what or who lies beyond the final frontier. With this starward look, the stage could be set for the coming of the unwelcome guests from space. The "days of Noah" are again here; perhaps even now agents from another realm are plotting the return of the Nephilim.


1. Tr. I. Epstein 1.218.

2. Merill Unger, Demons in the World Today (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1971), p. 26.

3. Quoted by F. Seth Dryness, Jr., The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, Vol. 1, No. 2, Winter 1974, p. 51.

4. Kurt Koch, Christian Counseling and Occultism (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1973).
5. Ibid., p. 22.

6. Robert Pearson, Storm Over Borneo, (Overseas Missionary Fellowship, 1967).

7. Rabbi Bahya ben Asher., Biur al ha Toral (Venice, 1566), p. 179.

8. Josephus, The Work of Flavius Josephus; Antiquities of the Jews (London: G. G. Rutledge), 1.3.1., Book vii.

9. Revue du Musee de Beyrouth.

10. P.J. Wiseman, New Discoveries in Babylon about Genesis (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 2nd edition), pp. 28-29.

11. Arthur C. Custance, Genesis and Early Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House 1975), p. 103.

12. Ibid., pp. 81ff.

13. J. Cynddylan Jones, Primeval Revelation (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1897), pp. 206-7.

14. Kelly Segraves, The Great Flying Saucer Myth (San Diego: Beta Books, 1975), p. 52.

15. C. S. Dickerson, Angels Elect and Evil (Chicago: Moody Press, 1975), p. 165.

16. John L. Nevius, Demon Possession and Allied Themes (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1894), p. 161.

17. Stanton T. Friedman, UFOs A Complete Nightmare (Dick Adler, Los Angeles Times, October 20,1975), p. 14.

18. Emil Gaverluk, Did Genesis Man Conquer Space? (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1974), pp. 88-89.

19. C. S. Dickerson, Angels Elect and Evil (Chicago: Moody Press, 1975), pp. 170-174.


Part II: Sons of God, Daughters of Men

"The craving of demons for a body, evident in the Gospels, offers at least some parallel to this hunger for sexual experience." -Derek Kidner

In 1947 an Arab boy tending his sheep accidentally discovered an ancient cave near the Dead Sea. In it were found a priceless collection of ancient scrolls which soon became known as the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Qumran Texts. Among these writings was one known as the Genesis Apocryphon. At first it was thought to be the long lost Book of Lamech. Although the scroll consisted of a speech by Lamech and a story about some of the patriarchs from Enoch to Abraham; it was not that book.

According to the Bible, Lamech was the son of Methuselah and the father of Noah. He was the ninth of the ten patriarchs of the antediluvian world.

It is significant, however, that the Genesis Apocryphon mentions the Nephilim, and makes reference to the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" introduced in Genesis 6. The Apocryphon also elaborates considerably on the succinct statements found in the Bible, and provides valuable insights into the way these ancient stories were interpreted by the ancient Jews.

The copy of the Genesis Apocryphon discovered at Qumran dates back to the 2nd century B.C., but it was obviously based on much older sources. When discovered in 1947, it had been much mutilated from the ravages of time and humidity. The sheets had become so badly stuck together that years passed before the text was deciphered and made known. When scholars finally made public its content, the document confirmed that celestial beings from the skies had landed on planet Earth. More than that, it told how these beings had mated with Earth-women and had begat giants.

Is this story myth or history, fable or fact? Specialized research has revealed that many ancient legends have a basis in fact. But to answer the question, let us consult the most authoritative document known to man--the Bible.

In Genesis 6:1-4 the "sons of God" are captivated by the beauty of the "daughters of men." They subsequently marry them and produce an offspring of giants known as the Nephilim. Genesis goes on to say that these Nephilim were "mighty men" and "men of renown."

"Sons of God"? "Daughters of men"? What sort of beings were these? Were they human or did they belong to an alien species from outer space?


There is no problem in identifying the "daughters of men" for this is a familiar method of designating women in the Bible. The problem lies with the "sons of God." Three major interpretations have been offered to shed light on this cryptic designation.

First, a group within orthodox Judaism theorized that "sons of God" meant "nobles" or "magnates." Hardly anyone today accepts this view.

Second, some interpret the "sons of God" as fallen angels. These were enticed by the women of Earth and began lusting after them. Many reputable Bible commentators have rejected this theory on psycho-physiological grounds. How can one believe, they ask, that angels from Heaven could engage in sexual relations with women from Earth? Philastrius labeled such an interpretation a down-right heresy.

Third, many famed scholars contend that the "sons of God" are the male descendants of Seth, and that the "daughters of men" are the female descendants of Cain. According to this view, what actually happened in Genesis 6 was an early example of believers marrying unbelievers. The good sons of Seth married the bad daughters of Cain, and the result of these mixed marriages was a mongrel offspring. These later became known for their decadence and corruption; indeed, it reached such a degree that God was forced to intervene and destroy the human race. This comment of Matthew Henry could be taken as representative of those holding this view:
"The sons of Seth (that is the professors of religion) married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done. They inter- mingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain." (1)

However, in spite of the excellent pedigree of the proponents of this theory, their argument is not convincing. Their interpretation is pure eisegesis--they are guilty of reading into the text what is obviously not there.


Their interpretation fails on other grounds as well. At no time, before the Flood or after, has God destroyed or threatened to destroy the human race for the sin of "mixed marriages." It is impossible to reconcile this extreme punishment with the mere verbal strictures found elsewhere in the Bible for the same practice. If God is going to be consistent, He should have destroyed the human race many times over!

The contrast made in Genesis 6:2 is not between the descendants of Seth and the descendants of Cain, but between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men." If by "sons of God" is meant "sons of Seth," then only the sons of Seth engaged in mixed marriages, and not the daughters. And only the daughters of Cain were involved, and not the sons. And another strange assumption is implied: that only the sons of Seth were godly, and only the daughters of Cain were evil.
The strangeness is compounded when one seeks for evidence that the sons of Seth were godly. We know from Genesis that when the time came for God to destroy the human race, He found only one godly family left among them--that of Noah. Where were all the other supposedly godly sons of Seth? Even Seth's own son could hardly be called righteous. His name was Enos, meaning "mortal" or "frail." And he certainly lived up to it! Genesis 4:26 reads, "And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord." That statement seems harmless enough, but what does it mean when it says that it was only now that men began to call upon the name of the Lord? Upon whom did Adam call? And Abel? And Seth himself?

Some scholars give us a more literal and exact translation to this verse: "Then men began to call themselves by the name of Jehovah." Other scholars translate the statement in this manner: "Then men began to call upon their gods (idols) by the name of Jehovah." If either of these be the correct translation then the evidence for the so-called godly line of Seth is non- existent. The truth of the matter is that Enos and his line, with few noted exceptions, were as ungodly as the other line. The divine record could not be clearer: "all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth" (Genesis 6:12).

In the Old Testament, the designation "sons of God" (bene Elohim) is never used of humans, but always of supernatural beings that are higher than man but lower than God. To fit such a category only one species is known--angels. And the term "sons of God" applies to both good and bad angels. These are the beings of whom Augustine wrote:

"Like the gods they have corporeal immortality, and passions like human beings." (2)

The designation "sons of God" is used four other times in the Old Testament, each time referring to angels. One example is Daniel 3:25, where king Nebuchadnezzar looks into the fiery furnace and sees four men, "and the form of the fourth is like the son of God." The translation is different and clearer in our modern versions, "like a son of the gods." Since Jesus had not yet become the "only begotten son" of God, this "son" would have had to be angelic.

Another example is Job 38:7 which says the sons of God shouted for joy when God laid the foundations of the Earth. Angels are the only entities that fit this designation since man had not been created at that time!

In Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 the "sons of God" came to present themselves before the Lord in Heaven. Among the sons of God is Satan--a further implication that the "sons of God" must have been angels.

Since the designation "sons of God" is consistently used in the Old Testament for angels, it is logical to conclude that the term in Genesis 6:2 also refers to angels.


In the New Testament, born-again believers in Christ are called the children of God or the sons of God (Luke 3:38, John 1:12, Romans 8:14, 1 John 3:1). Dr. Bullinger in the Companion Bible states: "It is only by the divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called 'a son of God.'" This explains why every born-again believer is a son of God. It explains also why Adam was a son of God. Adam was specifically created by God, "in the likeness of God made He him" (Genesis 5:1). Adam's descendants, however, were different; they were not made in God's likeness but in Adam's. Adam "begat a son in his own likeness, after his image" (Genesis 5:3).

Adam was a "son of God," but Adam's descendants were "sons of men."

Lewis Sperry Chafer expresses this in an interesting way when he states:

"In the Old Testament terminology angels are called sons of God while men are called servants of God. In the New Testament this is reversed. Angels are the servants and Christians are the sons of God." (3)

It is thus clear that the term "sons of God" in the Bible is limited to three categories of beings: angels, Adam and believers. All three are special and specific creations of God. As for the use of the term in Genesis 6, since it cannot possibly refer to Adam nor believers in Christ, we conclude that it has to refer to the angels whom God had created.


Two New Testament passages shed further light on Genesis 6. They are Jude 6-7 and 2 Peter 2:4. These verses indicate that at some point in time a number of angels fell from their pristine state and proceeded to commit a sexual sin that was both unusual and repugnant. Jude 6-7 states:

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh..."

These angels not only failed to keep their original dominion and authority, but they "left their own habitation." Habitation is a significant word: it means "dwelling place" or "heaven." And the addition of the Greek word "idion" ("their own") means that they left their own private, personal, unique possession. (4) Heaven was the private, personal residence of the angels. It was not made for man but for the angels. This is why the ultimate destination of the saints will not be Heaven but the new and perfect Earth which God will create (Revelation 21:1-3). Heaven is reserved for the angels, but as for the beings referred to in Jude 6-7, they abandoned it.

Not only did these angels leave Heaven, they left it once-for- all. The Greek verb "apoleipo" is in the aorist tense, thus indicating a once-for-all act. By taking the action they did, these angels made a final and irretrievable decision. They crossed the Rubicon. Their action, says Kenneth Wuest, "was apostasy with a vengeance." (5)

As to the specific sin of these angels, we are given the facts in Jude 7. As in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah it was the sin of "fornication" and it means "going after strange flesh." "Strange" flesh means flesh of a different kind (Greek "heteros"). To commit this particularly repugnant sin, the angels had to abandon their own domain and invade a realm that was divinely forbidden to them. Says Wuest:

"These angels transgressed the limits of their own natures to invade a realm of created beings of a different nature." (6)

Alford confirms:

"It was a departure from the appointed course of nature and seeking after that which is unnatural, to other flesh than that appointed by God for the fulfillment of natural desire."

The mingling of these two orders of being, was contrary to what God had intended, and summarily led to God's greatest act of judgment ever enacted upon the human race.


Another New Testament verse may have bearing on Genesis 6. In I Corinthians 11:10, Paul instructs that a woman should cover her head as a sign of subjection to her husband, and also "because of the angels." This observation has intrigued commentators through the years. Why this sudden reference to angels? Could it be a reference to what happened in Genesis 6 where angels succumbed to the inducements and physical charm of the women of Earth? Obviously, Paul believed that an uncovered woman was a temptation even to angels. William Barclay mentions an old rabbinic tradition which alleges that it was the beauty of the women's long hair that attracted and tempted the angels in Genesis. (6)


The off-spring of this union between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were so extraordinary that it indicates an unusual parentage. In no way could the progenitors of such beings be ordinary humans. Their mothers possibly could be human, or their fathers, but certainly not both. Either the father or the mother had to be superhuman. Only in such a way can one account for the extraordinary character and prowess of the off-spring.

God's law of reproduction, according to the biblical account of creation, is "everything after his kind." God's law makes it impossible for giants to be produced by normal parentage. To produce such monstrosities as the Nephilim presupposes super- natural parentage.


"Nephilim" is a Hebrew word translated in the Authorized King James version as "giants." "There were giants in the earth in those days" (Genesis 6:4). It is true that they were giants in more senses than one. However, the word Nephilim does not mean "giants." It comes from the root "naphal," meaning "fallen ones," and most modern versions of the Bible have left the word "Nephilim" untranslated.

When the Greek Septuagint was made, "Nephilim" was translated as "gegenes." This word suggests "giants" but actually it has little reference to size or strength. "Gegenes" means "earth born." The same term was used to describe the mythical "Titans" -- being partly of celestial and partly of terrestrial origin. (7)

The Hebrew and the Greek words do not exclude the presence of great physical strength. Indeed, a combined supernatural and natural parentage would imply such a characteristic. Angels, according to Scripture, are known for their power. They are often referred to as "sons of the Mighty" (Psalm 103:20). Therefore, if the ones who sired them were strong and mighty, it could be assumed that their offspring were likewise.

No evidence exists in Scripture that the offspring of mixed marriages (believers and unbelievers) were giants, excelling in great strength and might. No evidence can be found anywhere in history for that matter. Such an interpretation poses impossible assumptions.

When the word "Nephilim" is used in Numbers 13:33, the question of size and strength is explicit. Here we are left in no doubt as to their superhuman prowess. When Joshua's spies reported back from Canaan, they called certain of the inhabitants of Canaan "giants." "And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."

Some commentators have speculated that the Nephilim of Numbers 13 belonged to a second eruption of fallen angels, since the earlier Nephilim had been destroyed in the Flood. And they see an allusion to this in Genesis 6:4, where it states that "there were Nephilim in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men." Could it be that the "after that" was a reference to the Nephilim found in Canaan during the Israelite entry into the land? If so, it could explain why the Lord commanded the total extermination of the Canaanites, as He had earlier ordered the near annihilation of the human race.


The Book of Isaiah says that the Nephilim and their descendants will not participate in a resurrection as is the portion of ordinary mortals. Isaiah 26:14 reads: "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise." The original Hebrew word translated "deceased" here is the word "Rephaim." It would have saved a lot of misinterpretation if the translators had left the word as it was in the original. The verse actually reads: "Dead, they shall not live; Rephaim, they shall not rise." The Rephaim are generally understood to be one of the branches of the Nephilim, and God's Word makes it clear that they are to partake in no resurrection. But with humans it is different: all humans will be resurrected either to life or to damnation (John 5:28-29). (Note: the Nephilim had human mothers, but no human fathers, so they were not considered members of Adam's race. Only the members of Adam's race are offered redemption--the angels are not. Thus when they died the Nephilim spirits could have become disembodied and free to roam, seeking other bodies of men or animals to possess and dwell in. It has been suggested that this group of fallen spirits is responsible for the phenomenon of demon possession in the world today--ed.)

We have already seen that the Greek Version of the Old Testament (The Septuagint) translated "Nephilim" as "gegenes;" we shall now inquire how it translates "sons of God." In some of the manuscripts it is left as "sons of God," but in the others-- including the Alexandrian text--it is rendered by the word "angelos." This text was in existence in the time of Christ, but there is no indication that He ever corrected or queried it. Can we not assume from His silence that He agreed with the translation!


Having studied all the arguments in favor of "sons of Seth," one concludes that the only argument that is valid among them is that of rationality. "Sons of Seth" is an interpretation that is more palatable to human reason. Reason can never subscribe to the incredible notion that fallen angels could have sex relations with women of Earth. Angels have no physical bodies! They do not marry! They belong to an entirely different species of being! The mind revolts against such absurdity. So, what does one do? Settle, of course, for an easy, rational interpretation--sons of Seth and daughters of Cain. But what if the meaning of Scripture is clearly otherwise? There is the rub! Scripture is clearly otherwise! To impose a human interpretation at the expense of the obvious meaning of the divine Word, is a rape of the biblical text. Furthermore, when one deals with the world of the supernatural, rationality is never an argument.


The Jewish Fathers, when interpreting this expression from Genesis 6:2, invariably interpreted it as "angels." No less an authority than W.F. Allbright tells us that:

"The Israelites who heard this section (Genesis 6.2) recited unquestionably thought of intercourse between angels and women." (8)

Philo of Alexandria, a deeply religious man, wrote a brief but beautiful treatise on this subject, called "Concerning The Giants." Basing his exposition on the Greek version of the Bible, he renders it as "Angels of God." Says Bamberger, "Had he found the phrase 'sons of God' in his text, he most certainly would have been inspired to comment on it." (9)

Philo certainly took the Genesis passage as historical, explaining that just as the word "soul" applies both to good and evil beings, so does the word "angel." The bad angels, who followed Lucifer, at a later point in time failed to resist the lure of physical desire, and succumbed to it. He goes on to say that the story of the giants is not a myth, but it is there to teach us that some men are earth-born, while others are heaven- born, and the highest are God-born. (10)

The Early Church Fathers believed the same way. Men like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Ambrose...all adopted this interpretation. In the words of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, the angels fell "into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh...Of those lovers of virgins therefore, were begotten those who are called giants." (11) And again, "...the angels transgressed, and were captivated by love of women and begat children." (12)

Nowhere before the 5th century A.D. do we find any interpretation for "sons of God" other than that of angels. We cannot deny the Jewish Fathers knowledge of their own terminology! They invariably translated "sons of God" as "angels." The testimony of Josephus, that colorful cosmopolitan and historian, is also of paramount importance. In his monumental volume, "Antiquities of the Jews," he reveals his acquaintance with the tradition of the fallen angels consorting with women of Earth. He not only knew of the tradition but tells us how the children of such union possessed super human strength, and were known for their extreme wickedness. "For the tradition is that these men did what resembled the acts of those men the Grecians called giants." Josephus goes on to add that Noah remonstrated with these offspring of the angels for their villainy. (13)

Perhaps the most conclusive argument for interpreting the expression as "angels" is the simplest one of all. If the writer of Genesis wanted to refer to the "sons of Seth" he would have just said so. If God had intended that meaning, then the verse would undoubtedly read, "the sons of Seth saw the daughters of Cain that they were fair..." But the Bible meant something far more sinister--the sexual union between angels from Hell and evil women from Earth. Because of the gravity of such a union, and its dire consequences for the human race, God moved to destroy the race before it could destroy itself--except for one family which had not been contaminated.


God made man in His own image, the highest of all His earthly creations. While God said that everything He made was good, He considered man very good. Man had been made for fellowship with God Himself, but he soon turned his back upon his Maker and worshipped the creature more than the Creator. Before many generations, the human race was being polluted by this abominable union with demons. It seemed that Hell and Earth were in league together against the God of Heaven. God's righteous anger was such that He regretted having made man.

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man. ..."(Genesis 6:5-6)

It was specifically because of this ultimate sin that God brought about a deluge of such magnitude that man and beast were drowned from the face of the Earth. In the words of old Joseph Hall:
"The world was so grown foul with sin, that God saw it was time to wash it with a flood: and so close did wickedness cleave to the authors of it, that when they were washed to nothing, yet it would not wash off, yea, so deep did it stick in the very grain of the earth, that God saw it meet to let it soak long under the waters." (14)


Why Noah and his immediate family were the only ones immune from this great judgment is significant. Genesis 6:9 says, "Noah was a just man." He stood out as an example of righteousness and godliness in a perverse age. Like Enoch before him, Noah also "walked with God." But there was another reason why Noah was spared, one that seems to have escaped most commentators. Genesis 6:9 says that Noah was "perfect in his generation." Does this mean moral and spiritual perfection? Hardly. Genesis 9:20-23 disproves any such perfection. What, then, does the Bible mean by calling him "perfect"? The Hebrew word is "tamiym" and comes from the root word "taman." This means "without blemish" as in Exodus 12:5, 29:1, Leviticus 1:3. Just as the sacrificial lamb had to be without any physical blemish, so Noah's perfection. In its primary meaning, it refers not to any moral or spiritual quality, but to physical purity. Noah was uncontaminated by the alien invaders.

He alone had preserved their pedigree and kept it pure, in spite of prevailing corruption brought about by the fallen angels. (15)

And again:

Noah's bloodline had remained free of genetic contamination. (16)

This implies, of course, that all the other families on Earth had been contaminated by the Nephilim. It also proves that the assault of Satan on the human race had been far more extensive than realized. It is no wonder that God pronounced such a universal fiat of judgment.

As for the fallen angels who participated in the abomination, God put them in custody "in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" (Jude 6). This is sometimes interpreted as Tartarus or the "nether realms" (2 Peter 2:4). This would also explain why some fallen angels are in custody and why others are free to roam the heavens and torment mankind.

Such a drastic punishment, both for men and angels, presupposed a drastic sin, something infinitely more evil and more sinister than mixed marriages. It was nothing less than the demonic realm attempting to pervert the human world. By genetic control and the production of hybrids, Satan was out to rob God of the people He had made for Himself.

If Satan had succeeded in corrupting the human race, he would have hindered the coming of the perfect Son of God, the promised "seed of the woman," who would defeat Satan and restore man's dominion (Genesis 3:15). If Satan had by any means prevented that birth, he would obviously have averted his own doom. Satan did succeed to a large extent. It was for this reason that God drowned mankind in the Deluge.


Interpreting the "sons of God" as fallen angels, the question immediately arises--do angels marry? In Matthew 22:30, Jesus said angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. This seems a clear and emphatic negative. However, it does not preclude the possibility of such a thing happening--obviously contrary to the will of God. And it does not preclude fallen angels, who had rebelled against God already, from cohabiting with women of Earth, as the Scriptures state.
Some interpret the words of Jesus as meaning that angels do not marry among themselves. Is it because they are all male? Or is it because celestial beings are deathless and thus need no offspring. Only terrestrial beings need to find immortality in their children. (17) But if they do not need to marry and procreate, is it still possible that they could engage in sexual acts? If not among themselves then with human spouses? Jude seems quite explicit on the matter: the angels left their own habitation, and gave themselves over to fornication, going after strange flesh. In other words, they were capable of performing human functions--eating, drinking, walking, talking, even sexual activity and fathering children.

The fact that angels do not marry does not in itself prove they are sexless. Throughout the Bible, angels are referred to only as men. Finis Drake writes: "It is logical to say...that the female was created specifically for the human race in order that it could be kept in existence; and that all angels were created males, in as much as their kind is kept in existence without the reproduction process. Angels were created innumerable to start with (Hebrews 12:22) whereas, the human multitudes began with one pair." (18)

Even in the next world, when the saints will dwell in their resurrection body and live forever, it does not imply that they will be sexless. The Bible teaches that everyone will have his own body in the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:35-38). No suggestion is made that they will be unsexed. Furthermore, Christ remained a man after His resurrection.


One other question has been raised. If the fallen angels who lusted after women of Earth in Genesis 6 have been interred in Tartarus with "everlasting chains," how does one explain the demons who have been operating since then? They seemed to have been quite active during the ministry of Jesus, and are busy again in our day. Following this reasoning, some share the conclusion of Kent Philpott:

However one might wish to interpret Genesis 6: 1-4 to link this passage with the verses in 2 Peter and Jude seems to post far more problems than it would solve. But 2 Peter 2.4 and Jude 6 clearly assert that the rebellious angels are being kept prisoner in the "nether gloom." If they are prisoners, they could not very well function as the demons are described as functioning in the New Testament. (19)

But Philpott failed to see that there are two categories of fallen angels: Those cast out of Heaven with Lucifer, and who are still free to torment mankind; and those who fell the second time by committing carnal acts with the daughters of men. The spirits in this second category are those chained in the nether regions.

It seems clear to me that the "sons of God" are none other than fallen angels, and, because of their further sin of lusting after the "daughters of men," many (of the responsible angels) were imprisoned by God. Both the near annihilation of the human race and the incarceration of the fallen angels in Tartarus indicate the magnitude of the sin they committed. By such drastic judgment, God saved the human race from a calamity worse than the physical death originally imposed upon them.


l. Matthew Henry's Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961).

2. Aurelius Augustine, The City of God (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1949), Transl. Marcus Dods.

3. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Volume 2. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947), p. 23.

4. Kenneth S. Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek N.T (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966), Vol. 4, p. 240.

5. Ibid., p. 240.

6. Ibid., p. 241.

7. Unger, Biblical Demonology (Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1957), p. 48.

8 W. F. Allbright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1940), p. 226.

9. Bemard J. Bamberger, Fallen Angels (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1952), p. 53.

10. Philo, DeGigantibus, pp. 58-60.

11. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 8, pp. 85 and 273.

12. Ibid., p. 190.

13. Josephus, The Work of Flavius Josephus; Antiquities of the Jews (London: G. G. Rutledge), 1.3.1.

14. Joseph Hall, Contemplations (Otisville, Michigan: Baptist Book Trust, 1976), p. 10.

15. Companion Bible (Oxford University Press). Appendix 26.

16. The Gospel Truth Magazine, Vol. 18, (June 1978), No. 7.

17. Dr. Morgenstem, Hebrew Union College Annual, XIV, 29- 40,114ff.

18. Finis Dake, Annotated Reference Bible, p.63.

19. Kent Philpott, A Manual of Demonology and the Occult (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 77-78.


Notes added by Lambert Dolphin, December 10, 1998. Although the original author is not known, many of the references listed are from reliable sources. This article is dated and not necessarily fully reliable.

See also As The Days of Noah Were by Chuck Missler, Tim Unruh's paper The Days of Noah and the Sons of God, and Ray C. Stedman's commentary on Genesis 6, entitled Signs of Collapse.

Lambert Dolphin's Web Site