SONS OF GOD AND THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN

THE SONS OF GOD

AND THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN

Hello doves!!

(Important note: This is going to be perhaps the most controversial study of all. I have never read the Book of Enoch, and believe if the Lord wanted us to know something He would include it in His Holy Word. I do believe in fallen angels, but do not believe they mated with man. This study shows that the evil is more about the “daughters of men” then the “sons of God”!!!!)

This is a very important revelation, one that has to do with the foundation of the Truth, and the understanding of it, throughout the rest of the Bible. Because this is such a new and crucial revelation for me, I had to prove it to myself, first. This revelation is one of those jewels that can be found, in God’s Holy Word, only by digging. Yet, when discovered, seems so obvious.

Let’s ,first, take a look at the widely accepted interpretation of these two groups of beings; an interpretation that I was totally in agreement with, up until a few days ago. In all the books that I have read, and all the research I have done up to this point, the Sons of God are seen to be the fallen angels; the angels that fell to earth with Satan. These fallen angels are called “Nephilim” from the Hebrew word meaning “giants”.

A whole series of doctrine has been built up around this word, even though it appears only twice, (with the same meaning and usage) in the whole Bible; in Genesis 6: 1-4 and Numbers 13:33. The accepted hermeneutics on these passages is this: the sons of God are the fallen angels (demons) that had illicit relationships with woman; the daughters of men. These perverted relations produced genetically mutated beings known as Nephilim (giants). God then imprisoned some of the fallen angels that did this, and in order to purify the bloodline of man, God brought on the Flood.

It is also widely believed, especially in these end times, that through genetic engineering these Nephilim will be resurrected and one of them will be the Anti-Christ. To these people whom believe this, these Nephilim are also tied up with so-called extra-terrestrial forms of life. These theories are gaining ground and a number of books have been published based on this hypothesis.

Even one of my Bible scholar heroes, Chuck Missiler, with over 50 years of Bible research under his belt, comes to this same conclusion, and accepts this premise. He, too, has written books on this subject. Yet, he has always encouraged his readers to not necessarily believe his findings, and to find out for themselves, by studying the Bible on their own.

Genesis 6:1-2

“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

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.”

We know, at this point, that the accepted belief is that the “sons of God” represent the fallen angels, and “the daughters of men” represent the innocent descendants of the sons of Adam; man. The accepted view is that fallen angels mated with human women. So, that is probably why the Lord prompted me to find out who the “daughters of men” are, before researching the “sons of God”. For if we find who these “daughters of men”, truly are, it will greatly clarify who the “sons of God”, truly are.

We are going to research the phrase “the daughters of men”; find out the meaning of both words, and then, trace that meaning throughout the Bible. We will do this study, just like in the previous chapters, by using an updated edition of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible”, by James Strong; and the King James Version of the Holy Bible. We will also use this method to research the words “sons of God” and “giants”.

The Daughters of Men

Daughters

The word “daughters” is used hundreds of times throughout the Bible, and each time the meaning of the word stays about the same. In the Old Testament, it is a Hebrew word, and in the New Testament it is a Greek word. Because we know that the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed, let’s first take a look at the definition of the word “daughters” in Greek.

Strong’s Concordance, page 1676, G5043 states:

Tekcon (is the Greek word for daughter) which means “from the base of G5098; a child

G5098 states: “timoria”, vindication (through implication); penalty: -

punishment.

We see that the word “daughters”, in Greek, means: female children produced as a punishment or a penalty; as vindication of wrong doing.

Let’s now see what the word means in Hebrew.

Strong’s Concordance, page 1480, H1323 states:

“bat” from H1129 (as feminine of H1121); a daughter (used in the same wide sense of other terms of relationship, literally and figuratively).

H1129 - “bana” a primitive root; to build (literally and figuratively): -- build, builder, obtain children, make, repair, set up, set, surely.

H1121 – “ben” a son; (as builder of the family name). (We will look into this definition in much more depth when we address the meaning of the Sons of God).

From these definitions, we can see that the word “daughters” in Hebrew means, “a feminine builder of the family name”, as opposed to a male builder of the family name.

Putting both the Greek and the Hebrew definitions together, we see that the word “daughters” means much the same in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Yet, the word in Greek adds a new dimension to the word, and shows us that these daughters were produced as the result of something which deserved punishment or a penalty. Interesting! It gets even more interesting as we look into the definition of the word “men”.

Men

This time we are going to look at the definition in Hebrew first, as specific to the verses in Genesis where the phrase “daughters of men” are used.

The first thing we notice, upon researching this word in the Concordance, is that the meaning of the Hebrew word “men”, as first used in chapter 6 of Genesis, is very rarely used in the whole of the Old Testament.

In the entire Bible, there are about 2000 verses where the word “men” is used, but only about 100 have the same meaning as in the phrase “daughters of men”. Thus, it figures that these are very specific men. These are a special group of “men”, whose bloodline began before the Flood, and continued, even after the Flood.

Strong’s Concordance, page 1462, H120 and H119 states:

H120 states:

“adam” from H119; ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species of mankind, etc.): -- another, hypocrite, common sort, low, man, mean man, man of low degree, person.

H119 states:

“adam”; to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy: -- be red, dyed red, made red, ruddy.

This unique definition of the word “men” describes a special breed of men those created to have flesh and blood. These men are of a ruddy complexion, red in the face with either shame or anger. They are men of low character and degree; hypocrites.

Now, let’s put this puzzle piece together. Who are these “daughters of men”? By their very unique definition we see that they are the female offspring of fallen man, Cain, which had mated with natural man. Not only that, but these “daughters” are the results of something that deserved punishment or became a penalty. As we can recall, from the previous chapter, there are only two descendants of Adam on earth at this point; those from the bloodline of Seth, the Sethites, and those from the bloodline of Cain, the Cainites.

It was Cain, who was wroth with anger when God rejected his offering; red in the face. We know that Cain was a fallen man of low character because he was of the seed of Serpent (Satan), and killed his brother Abel, and was banished to the land of Nod as punishment for his evil deed.

############

SIDE NOTE: It is interesting to note here that the land of Nod was most likely the place where the 6^th day creation lived. They were hunters and gatherers and lived among the wild beasts of the earth. In fact the word “Nod” is the Hebrew root of the verb "to wander". The sixth day creation of man were hunters and fisherman, therefore this would most likely force many of them to be nomadic, to track game animals. This would also answer two other important questions; where Cain got his wife, and who would seek to kill him. Thus enforcing the idea that there where indeed two creations.

############

It has become extremely clear to me that the “daughters of men” are the descendants of Cain; they are Cainite women. Remember also, that God made Cain a giant, so that no one would kill him. We see this seed line of “giants” carried on down from the mating of the “daughter of men” with the Sons of God. But, before we get into whom the sons of God are, let’s look at some other times that this specific meaning of the word “men” is used in the Bible.

The very next time we see the same usage of the word is further along in the Book of Genesis. Genesis chapter 11, verse 5, states; “And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.” By Moses using this same meaning of the word “men”, we know that these are the same men referred to in the phrase “daughters of men” in Genesis chapter 6. Let’s explore further:

The Book of Ecclesiastes, otherwise called the Book of the Preacher, is written by King Solomon. He is the richest, most intelligent and learned man that ever lived. In this book, he tells us that pursuing anything else in life, other than God, is like chasing the wind. All man’s endeavors come to naught if he has not the Lord in his life. That is why; it is so very interesting, and extremely informative, that Solomon chose to use the same meaning of the word “men” as was used in the phrase “daughters of men”. In fact, he uses this meaning throughout the entire Book of Ecclesiastes except in the last few verses; when he uses an entirely different meaning when speaking about an entirely different sort of men.

In summary, Solomon is preaching to the same men mentioned in Genesis chapters 6 and 11; men who are not sons of God. Just for contrast, let’s look at the meaning for the word “men” that Solomon uses in the last few chapters of Ecclesiastes. We find it is from H582 in Strong’s Concordance; which, by the way, is the most common usage of the word in the Old Testament.

Strong’s Concordance page 1469, H582 states:

“enos”: properly a mortal (and thus differing from the more dignified H120); hence a man in general, (singularly or collectively).

We will look at just a few more usages of this specific meaning of the word “men”, a little further along in the books of the Bible. In the Book of Hosea, chapter 13 verse 2, we find this certain type of men.

“And now they sin more and more, and have made them molten images of their silver, and idols according to their own understanding, all of it the work of the craftsman: they say to them, let the men that sacrifice kiss the calves.”

Clearly these men, spoken of so specifically, are fallen men, unbelievers and idol worshipers. This is a very specific group whose beginning can be traced back to the Garden of Eden, and the birth of Cain. The daughters of these men are Cainite women; the product of Cain mating with a woman of the 6^th day creation. There is nothing else that they could be, given the abundant proof from God’s own Holy Word. Does this definition hold true in the New Testament, too? Let’s find out.

By looking into the variations of the meaning of the word “men” in New Testament Greek, let us see if these same sorts of men are still around. There are many definitions of the word used in the New Testament, and we will not go into all of them here, but there are a few very specific definitions that clearly point to the same kind of men described in Genesis. In fact these definitions are so specific that they are used only ONCE in the entire New Testament!! Before we define their usage, let’s see in which Book, and which verse, this very specific definition is used.

Most interestingly, we find this usage in the Book of Jude, the very last book of the New Testament, in which much about the end-times is discussed. The Book of Jude is only one chapter long, and we find what we are looking for in verse 4;

“For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

There are two different definitions for the word “men” used in this verse. Certain “men” pertains to the most general use of the word in Greek, which is G444 in Strong’s Concordance, and means: ‘man faced or human being’. In stark contrast, and only used once in the entire New Testament, is the meaning for the word “men” used in the phrase “ungodly men”.

This meaning is G765 in Strong’s Concordance:

Strong’s Concordance, page 1610, G765 states:

asebes: from G1 (G1 means first); (as a negative particle) and a presumed derivative of G4576; irreverent, i.e. (by extension) impious or wicked: --ungodly (man).

G4576 states: Sebomai: middle of an apparently primary verb; to revere, i.e. adore – devout, religious, worship.

We can see, that the men that Jude is speaking of in verse 4 are religious men, who are devout in their worship, but they are also ungodly men that do not worship God and Jesus, in Spirit and in Truth, but in spirit only, and the only other spirit around is Satan’s.

Yet, even more importantly, we can see that they are the exact same men first spoken of in the 6^th chapter of Genesis, when Moses describes the “daughters of men”. These “men” are so unique in description, that the words used to define them not only pin points who they are, in Genesis 6, but also show how these men still exist and will play a major role in what happens in the end-times.

The Lord could not be clearer about these men. There is no doubt that they are evil men that are also religious, but do not worship God. These men are of the seed of the Serpent, Cain’s bloodline, that shall, down through history, be the enemies of God. Now that we know who the “daughters of men” are, it has become increasing clear whom the sons of God will be.

The Sons of God

There are only two Bible passages that are used to defend the position that the sons of God are fallen angels. It is amazing to me, that as a rule, we totally trust what mainstream Christianity tells us. We need to find out the truth, at this point of the Bible record, in order to follow its’ course through the rest of God’s Holy Word.

Before we look into each word and what it means, let’s take a look at these two passages. The first one we have already looked into, it speaks of the marriage of the sons of God with the daughters of men, found in Gen. 6 verses 2 and 4. The second passage is found in the Book of Job, and this one passage has been the foundation of the argument that the “sons of God, mentioned here, must be the fallen angels.

Job 1:6; “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.”

On the surface, this passage does seem to support that these sons of God have something to do with Satan, because he appears before God at the same time. But, when we find out whom the sons of God really are, this passage will no longer be a foundation stone for the continued belief that they are fallen angels.

Sons

The definition of the word “sons” as used in both Gen. 6: 2,4 and in Job 1:6 is found in Strong’s Concordance as H-1121. The first thing we notice, about the usage of this word, is that it is the most common; used over 99% of the time, throughout the Old Testament.

Strong’s Concordance, page 1477, H-1121 states: “ben”; son (as a “builder” of a family name; from H-1129 which means “to build”), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality, or condition).

This is a very broad definition that covers all male offspring; whether they are sons of man, sons of nations, and even sons of a condition or quality such as misery or grace. The very fact that this is by far the most common usage shows us that these are not fallen angels! Fallen angels would have a very unique definition, not the most common one.

Now we will look at two verses in the New Testament, which uses the exact phrase “sons of God” and find out what meaning is used. We find these two verses in 1 John 3: 1-2:

1 John 3:1

“Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

1 John 3:2

“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”

According to Strong’s, these passages use the same definition number, which is G-5043; the same number used to describe “daughters”. We need only look back to the definitions of the word “daughters”, to find that the general definition of the word “sons” is exactly the same. Thus proving that there is nothing special about how this word is used in either of the above passages, or the passages in Genesis and Job. The use of the word “sons” in the Old Testament is basically the same as the word used in the New Testament. Therefore, it must be the use of the word “God”, in these various passages, which will shed more light on the truth of who these specific groups of “sons” really are. Let’s look into that, now.

God

What we will find out here is very interesting. In regards to the Old Testament verses in question; Gen. 6:2,4, and Job 1:6, the definition in Hebrew is the same. According to Strong’s Concordance, it is also the most common use of the word throughout the Old Testament. As you can imagine, this word, “God” is one of the most abundant words in the Bible, used thousands of times, much like the words “sons” and “daughters”. This general meaning in Hebrew is:

Strong’s Concordance, page 1467, H-430 states: “elohim” plural of H-433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: -- God, gods, very great, mighty, and angels.

As you might recall, this is the same usage as in Genesis 1, where God is creating natural man. When only the word God is mentioned, it could mean and probably does mean God with the angels. Let’s see if this general meaning of the word “God” holds true in the New Testament, too.

When we look at the verses from 1 John, we see they use the exact same phrase as used in the Old Testament; “sons of God”. According to Strong’s, the definition of this usage, is found to also be, the most common usage in the New Testament; it is G-2316 and it states:

Strong’s Concordance, page 1634, G-2316

“theos; of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebrew very:--exceeding God, godly, godward.

The most important thing that we see in researching the word “God”, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, is that the definition, for this particular usage, is consistent. The “sons of God” in Genesis are the same “sons of God” mentioned in the New Testament.

Clearly these sons are believers and worshipers of the God of the Universe, the Creator. They are sons in the most ordinary sense, but, become extraordinary by the mere fact that they have a relationship with God.

Knowing that the Lord is consistent, that He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, I, for one, can now rest assured that my conclusions are sound. The “sons of God” are the Sethite believers; and the “daughters of men” are Cainite women. To make this conclusion even clearer, we will look into the meaning of the words “Seth” and “Cain”.

SETH

It is interesting to find that the name Seth is found only eight times in the whole of the Bible. Seven of those eight, are found within the first eight chapters of the Book of Genesis, and they all have the same meaning in Hebrew.

Strong’s Concordance pages 1589, H-8352 states:

“set” from H-7896; to put, i.e. substituted, Sheth, third son of Adam:--Sheth, Seth,

The name Seth is only mentioned once in the New Testament, in the Book of Luke. Seth is listed in the genealogy of Christ in Luke 3:8.

“…which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.”

Let’s see what the name Seth means in Greek.

Strong’s Concordance, page 1668, G-4589 states:

“Seth”; of Hebrew origin, (H-8352); Seth (i.e. Sheth), a patriarch; --Seth

Clearly, Seth is the beginning of the blood line of the “sons of God”, the patriarch of the family of “believers” that was formed before the Flood, and was continued long after the Flood, and became the bloodline from which the Son of God, Jesus Christ would come. The “sons of God” of the Old Testament are the born again Christians, of the New.

Another interesting fact is that both definitions in Hebrew and Greek allude to the possibility that these sons could be magistrates of God, which would represent the believers of the human race. At this point, we know the “daughters of men” are the religious unbelievers of the bloodline of Cain; therefore these “sons of God” must be the believers that worship God in Spirit and in Truth, of the bloodline of Seth.

It, now, makes perfect sense that the “sons of God” are believers. Certainly, we can see they are “believers” when the same term is used in 1 John. Keeping in mind how the New Testament reveals the Old, this would mean that the believers of John’s day are representatives of the line of Seth, because that is the bloodline, out of which, Jesus is born.

Certainly, God would not change the meaning of the phrase “sons of God”, and not somehow point out how or why that change was made. God is the same in both the Old and New Testaments, and the fact that He stays consistent through various ages within the Bible, and the various writers of the Bible, proves that the Holy Bible is the infallible Word of God.

CAIN

Now, as we will look into the word/name Cain, we find that there are two definitions combined in Hebrew.

Strong’s Concordance, pages 1568 and 1569;

H-7014: “qayin,” (with a play upon the affinity to H-7069); Kajin, the name of the first child, also a place in Palistine and of an Oriental tribe: Cain, Kenite, Kenites.

H-7069: “qana” a primitive root; to erect, i.e. to create; by extension to procure, especially by purchase; by implication to own: -- attain, buy, teach to keep cattle, get, provoke to jealousy, possess, purchase, recover, redeem.

Cain was the name of the first child according to the Hebrew definition. It is interesting to note that the definition does not say whose first child he was, nor mentions the name of Adam. It tells us that Cain became the father of a blood line, a tribe of people called the Kenites. Then, referring to H-7069 it shows that these people had something to do with building, or erecting something, in an attempt to buy, purchase, or redeem something.

Could this be the building of the Tower of Babel, in order to reach heaven; having to buy their way back into the grace of God? Certainly these are the unbelievers, the sons of religion, not the “sons of God”. Cain is only mentioned three times in the New Testament, and each time the definition is the same:

Strong’s Concordance, page 1637, G-2535 states:

“Kain”; of Hebrew origin (H-7014); Cain (i.e. Cajin), the son of Adam:--Cain

This definition does mention that Cain is the son of Adam, and does so, most likely, as a point of origin, rather than a description of character. Certainly the wealth of information given, in the Hebrew definition, could only point to the descendants of a wicked and fallen man, whom are in great need of being redeemed, but try to buy their redemption using their own efforts. They have fallen from the grace of God, and now feel that they must buy their way into heaven. These people could only be the unbelievers.

Further evidence that Cain is the son of Satan is found in John chapter 8:42-47, where Christ identifies him while speaking to his offspring (the Kenite), who were attempting to entrap Christ in Hebrew law, so they could order his death.

John 8:42-47 (King James Version)

⁴²Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

⁴³Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

⁴⁴Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

⁴⁵And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

⁴⁶Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

⁴⁷He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

(And just a bit more information)

I think it is now easy to see who, and what, Genesis 6: 2,4 is speaking of. The “sons of God” are the descendants of Seth, and what they represent, here in these verses, will remain constant throughout the whole of the Bible. They are the “believers” in the Old Testament and they will become the “Christians” of the New Testament.

The only thing that could change this meaning would be man conceived, and man caused. In these end times we are seeing millions of these “believers” become apostate, and fall away from the Truth, but they will still be called “sons of God” because they will be considered the true believers.

We will talk more about this later, when we look into the Book of Revelation; but for now, let it be understood that there has come a time of great delusion, and what seems like the Truth, will be far from it! Perhaps, most importantly, these “sons of God” could not possibly represent fallen angels. There is no way! Instead, there was a mating between the pure line of Seth, which these sons represent, and the, sin corrupted, bloodline of Cain mating with natural man. We have seen how this holds true in the Book of Genesis, but will it still hold water when we address the meaning in Job?

Job 1:6

“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.”

This is where most come to the conclusion that because these “sons of God” appear with Satan, they must be of Satan, and therefore fallen angels. Yet, now knowing what we know, (the definitions of the meaning of the word “God”, used in the verses in question), leads to the possibility that these “sons of God” are believers, which “came to present themselves before the Lord”; as in, ‘praying’ to the Lord. Believers gathered together in prayer, presenting themselves before God. They are magistrates of God, presenting themselves to the Lord, as a way of preparing to help Job; a fellow believer.

This idea really hits home when we read the rest of the Book of Job. These believers become a major source of Job’s misery, by trying to convince Job that he had done something wrong to deserve God’s wrath. Much like Satan, in that, he accuses man before God, these believers are doing a similar thing by accusing Job before men.

Another interesting thing that the Book of Job tells us about the “sons of God” is that they can, and often do, go apostate.

Satan can and often does walk among them, as he hates it when we worship the Creator, and not him; the created. The use of the words “came also among”, instead of “came with”, indicates that Satan showed up at about the same time, but he did not necessarily come “with” the “sons of God”.

One more interesting thing to point out about the relationship between Cain and Abel is that they seem to be the origin of the “elder serving the younger”, as we see this repeated with Ismael and Isaac, and then again with Jacob and Esau, and then once more with Joseph being served by his older brothers. I believe this is all a reflection of what happened with Cain and Abel. But that is another study.

############

Wow!!! I know this is probably contrary to what you all believe, but it sure makes much more sense to me, and can be proven by using the Bible. Since this study I have found out that the early church leaders also gleaned this from their studies, so feel I am in good company!!

I totally believe that if the Lord God wanted us to know otherwise, He would have made sure that the books that speak of this were included in the Holy Bible. The other books that people are reading to glean this information could have been written later, and become part of the grand delusion, and Satan’s plan to deceive mankind. Plus, there were two men named Enoch, one from Cain’s bloodline and one from Seth’s…who wrote the book of Enoch anyway?? Do we really know for sure??

Yes, there are fallen angels and UFO’s and all that, and maybe they learned to take on physical form like Satan did when he possessed the serpent. But, it was this seed line of the serpent, Cain, which was the guilty party, not the seed line of Seth.

Whatever the Lord wanted us to know, He gave to us in His Holy Word, and we need not go outside of that to find out the TRUTH. That is just my opinion, but one that I hold firmly to.

Many blessings and keep looking up!!

Patti C.