The Sons of God, the Daughters of Men: A comprehensive and in-depth treatise dealing with that most provocative of biblical passages (Genesis 6:1-4 and allied verses)

By James L. Head

Who are the Sons of God of Genesis 6? Who are the Nephilim and the Rephaim? What are demons? This book, The Sons of God, the Daughters of Men, answers these questions and much more! This subject of those supernatural beings and events is covered as never before in this newly published book. The book introduces the Ben Adam Key, which reveals the true identity of the Nephilim, first mentioned in Genesis 6:4. This is a must-read for any serious study of the subjects found in Genesis 6:1-4.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Covenant Books, Inc.
• Release date: Jan 5, 2024
• ISBN: 9798888515747

Book preview

Table of Contents

Title

Copyright

Preface

Introduction

The Ben Adam Key (Defining the Key Characters in the Study of Genesis 6:1–4 and Allied Verses)

The Various Views and Interpretations of Genesis 6:1–4

Demons: What Are They Really! And Where Do They Come From?

Genesis 6:3: A Vital Connection or a Misplaced Insertion?

Giants in the Bible (Making a Closer Examination)

Closing Comments (Putting It All Together)

General Index

Scriptural Index

About the Author

cover.jpg

The Sons of God, the Daughters of Men

A comprehensive and in-depth treatise dealing with that most provocative of biblical passages (Genesis 6:1-4 and allied verses)

James L. Head

ISBN 979-8-88851-573-0 (Paperback)

ISBN 979-8-88851-574-7 (Digital)

Copyright © 2023 James L. Head

All rights reserved

First Edition

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods without the prior written permission of the publisher. For permission requests, solicit the publisher via the address below.

Covenant Books

11661 Hwy 707

Murrells Inlet, SC 29576

www.covenantbooks.com

Preface

Research for this present work started over fifty years ago. I was in the US Navy stationed at NAS Cecil Field near Jacksonville, Florida. Our Church, Trinity Baptist, hosted a men's retreat on a Friday and Saturday at our youth camp near Keystone Heights, Florida. It was in the early fall of 1967. The guest speaker was Dr. Curtis McCarley from Balfour, North Carolina. He brought several messages from the little book of Jude. In verse 4, he spoke about the creepers that crept in unawares. He then spoke about the angels in verse 6. He pointed out that these angels were also synonymous with the sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6.

I had heard about the sons of God as mentioned in the New Testament but was unfamiliar with these sons of God in Genesis. He made it clear to us in a most convincing way that these sons of God were not, as many believed, to be the pious Sethites found in the previous chapter of Genesis. This was my introduction to the topic of the sons of God and the daughters of men.

Fast-forward to 1969. I was now out of the navy, married with a young son, and headed to Tennessee Temple College in Chattanooga, Tennessee, to begin training for the ministry. I secured a job with the Chattanooga Public Library as a lobby receptionist. This job allowed me to explore many books. Part of my job was to reshelve books that had been returned.

While speaking one day to a fellow student in the seminary, the topic of the sons of God and the daughters of men came up, and I told him of my interest in this subject. He then referred me to a book on the shelves of the public library entitled Astrology: The Ancient Conspiracy by the author Ben Adam. This book was published by Bethany Fellowship of Minneapolis. From the book's introduction, I learned that the original title to the book was The Origin of Heathendom and that it had originally been published in 1937 by Marshall, Morgan, and Scott in London.

I was also to learn that Ben Adam was a pen or pseudonym. Apparently, for some reason, Ben Adam wished to keep his real identity secure. It may have been because of the controversial nature of the subject of his book or another reason unknown to us. I was able to copy the edition from Bethany House and have had that copy for all these years. Then a few years ago, I was able to purchase an original copy of the book by Marshall, Morgan, and Scott from a used bookstore in London through the Internet. Outside of the Bible, I consider it to be one of the most valuable books in my very large library, and I was able to purchase it for a song!

The book is especially valuable for the study of our topic, the sons of God and daughters of men, in that it features a chapter with the title, The Sons of God of Genesis 6. Ben Adam was a Hebrew scholar. This is evident not only from the obvious mastery he reveals to have had of the language but by his admission of having been a dedicated student of prophecy and the Scriptures for some forty years.

It might also be noted that nowhere in the book did he mention the Greek Old Testament, otherwise known as the Septuagint or LXX. I am sure that in 1937, he was well aware of its existence but, as a Hebrew scholar, saw no need of its mention.

I mention this book and its author simply because I will refer to its treatment of the topic of the sons of God and daughters of men as the Ben Adam Key. It will be our purpose, as we will mention in the Introduction, to exhaust all objections to any and all contradictory thoughts against our main conjectures of what these verses of Genesis 6:1–4 are about. We are asking that you, the reader, will give us the benefit of the doubt while we seek to prove what we believe to be God's intended purpose and meaning for these verses of His Word.

Introduction

Many books, commentaries, articles, blogs, college papers, and even sermons have been presented on the meaning and purpose of Genesis 6:1–4. Like very valuable and prized land, these verses have changed hands many times. That is to say that at certain periods of church history, various views and interpretations have held to these verses so that they have become the most controversial verses in Scripture. Not everyone will agree with that statement, which is exactly our point! No set of verses have been brought into question for examination, debate, and mystery over so many centuries as have these four verses of Genesis 6 and allied verses that in some way affect how they are interpreted.

Much like prime real estate that for various reasons becomes so desirable, these verses have gone to the highest bidder on numerous occasions. If the man hours invested by a multitude of scholars could be counted for gold, as in book sales, articles, lectures, debates, and even battles (!) over this prime area of research – the cost would indeed be astronomical.

With all the references to these and allied verses—given over the centuries by a host of theologians, scholars, pastors, laymen, not to mention unbelievers—it is no wonder that even at this late date on the calendar, the issues, interpretations, and conclusions about the meanings involved are still far from being settled! Dare I think that by adding my book to the list of so many volumes, articles, blogs, Internet postings, sermons and the like, I can expect to finally resolve all the issues? Unfortunately, as long as those interested in this biblical topic will hold tenaciously to their particular preconceived notions and views, slants, opinions, and convictions on the topic—probably not. However, I feel that there is still much to contribute, even to long-held notions that have simply not sustained the test of time or true biblical scholarship and investigation.

We will certainly seek to knock down some sacred cows not because we wish to be controversial or argumentative but because so many layers of confusion have coated the simple biblical truths that God intended for us to understand, that our purpose must focus on exhausting all basic arguments that have encrusted the layers of misinformation on this subject.

Our focus will be on giving all sides of the issues a fair review. Because multiple problems arise in the thinking of individuals as they look at these verses, if we don't post the opinions and projections of those who disagree with our perspective, then we cannot honestly say that we have been fair to present a balanced display of the possible best answers and interpretations.

One particular author made the statement in his book that, to his knowledge, there had never been a doctoral dissertation on the subject of the sons of God and daughters of men. This is in error. For many years, I have had a copy of just such a dissertation, published in Rome in 1936. We will discuss this later in this work.

We will refer to many commentaries in this book but must caution that, as someone once observed, commentaries are often like sheep—one goes astray and they all follow. Also, many of the commentaries today don't actually try to persuade you; they just make a brief statement of their views on whom the sons of God and daughters of men are and move on to the next subject or verse. They simply present a brief pick your own view for the reader. This often may cause the student learner to realize that they don't see a permanent understanding of the text at hand.

If you are willing to agree that the Bible, as we examine the clear wording of it, provides us with a way to understand its meaning, then we can overcome the fact that there is a long history of alleged scholars and church authorities who downplay this notion, saying that the proper interpretation of Scripture requires men of great learning who have mastered the languages and all the technical terms before being able to understand passages like Genesis 6:1–4 and all the allied verses that pertain to it.

Returning for a moment to the idea of real estate, why is it that some property is considered prime real estate while other property is sold for a song? Some property becomes valuable simply because of the price that had to be paid to obtain it. In battles of one kingdom over another, the toll in human life alone demands a ransomed price. Take for example the Holy Land of Israel and, more specifically, the city of Jerusalem. Its history is replete with one nation after another taking possession of this sacred soil. It has changed hands many times over the centuries.

Another factor that affects the value of some property is not what is on the surface but what is beneath it. My father, John R. Head, purchased 110 acres just before joining the army in 1938. He bought the land for a fair price, and when he hit on hard times in the army, he sold the property for a little more than he paid for it. Six months later, oil was discovered on the land, and it has produced that oil over many decades. Needless to say, the value of the property skyrocketed, with only regret on the part of my father. Thus, we will seek to look further than the surface of this passage.

In this work, we intend to prove who the Nephilim really are. We will distinguish the Nephilim from the Rephaim (noting that things that are different are not the same). We will show by Scripture that the Emims, Zamzummims, and Anakims are all under the umbrella of the Rephaim. We will demonstrate that Rephaim were the offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men. We will show that the Emims, Zamzummims, and Anakims were various tribes or clans that were representative of the giants that were legendary in the various passages.

We intend to prove that these various tribes of giants, represented by the Rephaim, were a bastard race that were not created by God but were in allegiance to Satan and his fallen angels. We will also show that the Rephaim have no resurrection (that is, with physical bodies) and that they will definitely be judged and cast into hell.

We will show that the sons of God, as identified in the Old Testament, are synonymous with the Nephilim and that the term Nephilim is a behavioral or representational name derived from the Hebrew root verb to fall. To offer this proof, we will introduce what we have termed the Ben Adam Key.

We will show that the term sons of God as found in the Old Testament is a relational term that shows their unique identification with their creator, just as Satan is a created being and identified in the Book of Job as one of the sons of God. This same relationship applies to Adam, who was a direct creation of God. The term also applies to Christ Jesus in a unique way in that He was the only begotten Son of God. New Testament Christians are also called sons of God by title but not in the same way as in the Old Testament. There, the title applies in the sense of being created in Christ Jesus by the new birth, as mentioned in John 1:12.

Additionally, we will show that the daughters of men of Genesis 6 are the daughters of all men on the earth at that time and not restricted to any particular group of women such as the daughters of Cain and, akin to this, that the pious Sethites were not of a so-called godly line. We will show that demons, as described in the New Testament, are not fallen angels and why they are not, citing various verses of Scripture while at the same time dispelling the myth that the Scriptures do not tell us what demons are or where they came from.

Finally, we will demonstrate that the Watchers in the Book of Daniel represent the angels of God and that Satan and Lucifer are one and the same individual, dispelling the myth and confusion which would separate them as two distinct beings.

The Ben Adam Key

(Defining the Key Characters in the Study of Genesis 6:1–4 and Allied Verses)

(Defining the Key Characters in the Study of Genesis 6:1–4 and Allied Verses)

As we mentioned in the preface, years ago, I discovered through the advice of a friend, while a student in Bible College, the wonderful book entitled The Origin of Heathendom by Ben Adam. If it were not for this book, I would have followed the bulk of the commentaries that lead the reader astray by improperly identifying the key characters involved in the Genesis 6 narrative. Until you understand who the Nephilim were, all else fails to fall into a cohesive framework of understanding.

Most scholars and Bible educators that focus on this passage of Scripture almost invariably understand and define the Nephilim as being the offspring of the sons of God. Why do they come to such a conclusion? We strongly suggest that the reason lies at the feet of the Old Testament Greek translation that uses the word giants in place of the Hebrew word Nephilim. Before we proceed to prove that this is not the proper translation for that Hebrew word, we want to show, by a number of references, that this is what most scholars suggest is the direct reason for doing so.

"The translation giants (verse 4, Nephilim) goes back to the LXX."¹ "The word Nephilim occurs in two locations in the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 6:4, Numbers 13:33), in both cases the Septuagint translated the term with gigas (giants). Note #15²

In speaking of the word Nephilim, Rev. John Fleming says, "The LXX and Theodotion have rendered this word gigantes."³

"So what does the LXX say about the Nephilim? Each time the word is translated in the Septuagint, it uses the Greek word for giants—gigantes in Genesis 6:4 and gigantas in Numbers 13:33."⁴

The association of the Nephilim with tall people in Numbers 13:33 suggests that the Nephilim were in fact giants, as the LXX translates the term.⁵

"The decision of the Greek translators [of the LXX] to render the Hebrew Nefilim as Greek Gigantes is a separate matter. The Hebrew Nefilim means literally the fallen ones and the strict translation into Greek would be peptokotes, which, in fact, appears in the Septuagint of Ezekiel 32:22–27. It seems then that the authors of the Septuagint wished not only to simply translate the foreign term into Greek but also to employ a term which would be intelligible and meaningful for their Hellenistic audiences."⁶

These references should suffice to show the reader that the translation of the word Nephilim lies squarely at the feet of the LXX or Septuagint, otherwise known as Old Testament Greek. At this point, we are strongly suggesting that this method of translation was never the intent of Jehovah God, or Moses, his mouthpiece, for the Hebrew word Nephilim to be translated by the Greek word Giants.

Even the Authorized Version translates the word as giants, and it is freely admitted in the 1611 preface of the translators as given to the readers that they were profoundly affected by the seventy⁷—that is, the idea that seventy to seventy-two Jews from Jerusalem came to Alexandria and translated a pure Hebrew into a successful Greek Pentateuch. This never happened, yet it shows just how much they were influenced by the notion of it being so. In speaking to the reader, they even mentioned the narrative of how "it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greeke Prince…even of Ptolome Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Booke of God out of Hebrew into Greeke."⁸

The entire matter is based on the spurious Letter of Aristeas, which claimed to have the authorization of the king, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, plus the blessing and sanction of Eleazar, the high priest in Jerusalem. Several things are in error in this so-called letter. It is actually more like a book. It claims to have been written between 285 and 247 BC.⁹ Several alternate dates have been suggested, some as late as 40 BC.¹⁰ Other dates in-between suggest approximately 100 BC.¹¹ Thus, Dr. Bruce, a highly respected scholar, said in reference to the origin of the name [LXX] that it is to be found in an ancient document known as the Letter of Aristeas. This document was written not long before 100 BC, but it purports to have been written over a century and a half earlier by Aristeas, an official at the court of King Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt (285–246 BC), to his brother Philocrates.¹²

"Professor Paul Kahle, a renowned Semitics scholar (1875–1964), argued that there never was any LXX, at least until Christian times, and that our Letter of Aristeas is propaganda for a revision of the Greek Bible, which was made in Alexandria. Kahle claimed that there was no official translation undertakings in Judaism such as Aristeas suggests, but rather there was a number of local attempts in Alexandria, in Ephesus, in any town with a sizable group of Greek-speaking Jews. These translations naturally differed in quality, and there was no standardization. But about 130 BC, the theory continues—Jews in Alexandria revised the competing, ragged renderings, which were circulating in their area of Egypt, and put out a sort of ‘revised standard version' intended to be the norm thereafter. The Letter of Aristeas was an attempt to give this revision authority by cloaking it with antiquity."¹³

Before dismissing the strength of the words of Dr. Kahle on the subject, we might consider the following brief biography on him: He was born in 1875 in Hohenstein, Prussia. He earned his first doctorate in 1898. He worked as a Lutheran pastor, was promoted to a full professorship at Gieben University, and then immigrated to England where he joined the University of Oxford in 1939 and gained two further doctorates. He then returned to Germany where he became editor of the Hebrew Bible.¹⁴

In addition to the question of timing (i.e., exactly or even approximately when the alleged LXX was translated) is the fact that it is based on the word Septuagint, which refers to seventy-two Jews that are said to have come to Alexandria to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek. This was said to have the blessing of not only the Egyptian king but also the high priest in Israel, Eleazar. This simply could not have happened! Two scholarly works dedicated to proving the falsehoods of this assertion are: Did Jesus Use the Septuagint? By David W. Daniels and The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones.

Dr. Jones, in his book, states that "the story [of the Letter of Aristeas] relates that six scholars were selected from each of the twelve tribes and that these seventy-two men came down to Alexandra, Egypt, and produced the translation. This cannot be true." ¹⁵Jones then quotes Malachi 2:7, which tells us that it is the priest's lips [that] should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts.

Again, Jones quotes Deuteronomy 31:24–25, which shows that it was the Levites who were entrusted with the care of the Law of Moses, and in Israel, only the males of the Tribe of Levi could copy Scripture.¹⁶

Jones further relays, Actually, in all of Scripture, no record exists whereby the Hebrews ever translated their sacred writings into any other language. Nevertheless, we have seen that the Levites were the sole custodians over all the affairs concerning the Writings such that if a translation were indeed required, it would undeniably have been executed by these selfsame men. Thus, there could not have been six men from each of the twelve tribes engaged in such an undertaking as translating the Hebrew sacred writings under the holy sanction of God appointed authorities. The Levites would never have allowed men from the other eleven tribes to go down to Egypt for such a purpose. The high priest, himself, a member of the tribe of Levi, would hardly authorize so blasphemous an act.¹⁷ Not only this, but trying to find six Jewish scribes from each of the twelve tribes in the middle of the Diaspora would be quite impossible, as the twelve tribes were scattered with only God Himself knowing their whereabouts (see James 1:1)!

But what is blatantly intolerable is the notion that Jesus and His disciples actually quoted the alleged LXX! David W. Daniels