Giants, and the Sethite Theory.

[Bendito]

Mischievous Angels or Sethites?
Textual Controversy:
by Chuck Missler • August 1, 1997
Why did God send the judgment of the Flood in the days of Noah? Far more than simply a historical issue, the unique events leading to the Flood are a prerequisite to understanding the prophetic implications of our Lord's predictions regarding His Second Coming.1
The strange events recorded in Genesis 6 were understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, as well as the Septuagint translators, as referring to fallen angels procreating weird hybrid offspring with human women-known as the "Nephilim." So it was also understood by the early church fathers. These bizarre events are also echoed in the legends and myths of every ancient culture upon the earth: the ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the South Sea Islanders, the American Indians, and virtually all the others.
However, many students of the Bible have been taught that this passage in Genesis 6 actually refers to a failure to keep the "faithful" lines of Seth separate from the "worldly" line of Cain. The idea has been advanced that after Cain killed Abel, the line of Seth remained separate and faithful, but the line of Cain turned ungodly and rebellious. The "Sons of God" are deemed to refer to leadership in the line of Seth; the "daughters of men" is deemed restricted to the line of Cain. The resulting marriages ostensibly blurred an inferred separation between them. (Why the resulting offspring are called the "Nephilim" remains without any clear explanation.)
Since Jesus prophesied, "As the days of Noah were, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be,"2 it becomes essential to understand what these days included.
Origin of the Sethite View
It was in the 5th century a.d. that the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)
Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view.
Problems with the Sethite View
Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the "Days of Noah."3 Some of the many problems with the "Sethite View" include the following:
1. The Text Itself
Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.")
The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.5
The "Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain" interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the "angels" and the women of the Earth.
If the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of Seth?" There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)
And how does the "Sethite" interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support.
The Biblical term "Sons of Elohim" (that is, of the Creator Himself), is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order.6 In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a "son of God."7 The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam's initial immortality forfeited. Christ uniquely gives them that receive Him the power to become the sons of God.8 Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation,9 at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God10 and in every respect equal to the angels.11 The very term oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.12
The attempt to apply the term "Sons of Elohim" in a broader sense has no textual basis and obscures the precision of its denotative usage. This proves to be an assumption which is antagonistic to the uniform Biblical usage of the term.
2. The Daughters of Cain
The "Daughters of Adam" also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens:
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 6:1,2
It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the Benoth Adam, "the daughters of Adam." There is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain? All of Adam's female descendants seem to have been involved. (And what about the "sons of Adam?" Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in?)
Furthermore, the line of Cain was not necessarily known for its ungodliness. From a study of the naming of Cain's children, many of which included the name of God,13 it is not clear that they were all necessarily unfaithful.
3. The Inferred Lines of Separation
The concept of separate "lines" itself is suspect and contrary to Scripture.14 National and racial distinctions were plainly the result of the subsequent intervention of God in Genesis 11, five chapters later. There is no intimation that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves separate nor were even instructed to. The injunction to remain separate was given much later.15 Genesis 6:12 confirms that all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth.
4. The Inferred Godliness of Seth
There is no evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Seth was godly. Only one person was translated from the judgment to come (Enoch) and only eight were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah's immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others. (There is no evidence that the wives of Noah's sons were from the line of Seth.) Even so, Gaebelein observes, "The designation 'Sons of God' is never applied in the Old Testament to believers," whose sonship is "distinctly a New Testament revelation."16
The "Sons of Elohim" saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them wives of all that they chose. It appears that the women had little say in the matter. The domineering implication hardly suggests a godly approach to the union. Even the mention that they saw that they were attractive seems out of place if only normal biology was involved. (And were the daughters of Seth so unattractive?)
It should also be pointed out that the son of Seth himself was Enosh, and there is textual evidence that, rather than a reputation for piety, he seems to have initiated the profaning of the name of God.17
If the lines of Seth were so faithful, why did they perish in the flood?
5. The Unnatural Offspring
The most fatal flaw in the specious "Sethite" view is the emergence of the Nephilim as a result of the unions. (Bending the translation to "giants" does not resolve the difficulties.) It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which seems to be cited as a primary cause for the Flood.
Procreation by parents of differing religious views do not produce unnatural offspring. Believers marrying unbelievers may produce "monsters," but hardly superhuman, or unnatural, children! It was this unnatural procreation and the resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood.
The very absence of any such adulteration of the human genealogy in Noah's case is also documented in Genesis 6:9: Noah's family tree was distinctively unblemished. The term used, tamiym, is used for physical blemishes.18
Why were the offspring uniquely designated "mighty" and "men of reknown?" This description characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merely men, even if godly.
A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no "women of reknown" are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only "Y" chromosomes available in this line?)19
6. New Testament Confirmations
"In the mouths of two or three witnesses every word shall be established."20 In Biblical matters, it is essential to always compare Scripture with Scripture. The New Testament confirmations in Jude and 2 Peter are impossible to ignore.21
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5
Peter's comments even establishes the time of the fall of these angels to the days of the Flood of Noah.
Even Peter's vocabulary is provocative. Peter uses the term Tartarus, here translated "hell." This is the only place that this Greek term appears in the Bible. Tartarus is a Greek term for "dark abode of woe"; "the pit of darkness in the unseen world." As used in Homer's Iliad, it is "...as far beneath hades as the earth is below heaven`."22 In Greek mythology, some of the demigods, Chronos and the rebel Titans, were said to have rebelled against their father, Uranus, and after a prolonged contest they were defeated by Zeus and were condemned into Tartarus.
The Epistle of Jude23 also alludes to the strange episodes when these "alien" creatures intruded themselves into the human reproductive process:
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, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 6,7
The allusions to "going after strange flesh," keeping "not their first estate," having "left their own habitation," and "giving themselves over to fornication," seem to clearly fit the alien intrusions of Genesis 6. (The term for habitation, oivkhth,rion, refers to their heavenly bodies from which they had disrobed.24)
These allusions from the New Testament would seem to be fatal to the "Sethite" alternative in interpreting Genesis 6. If the intercourse between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were merely marriage between Sethites and Cainites, it seems impossible to explain these passages, and the reason why some fallen angels are imprisoned and others are free to roam the heavenlies.
7. Post-Flood Implications
The strange offspring also continued after the flood: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days, and also after that..."25 The "Sethite" view fails to meaningfully address the prevailing conditions "also after that." It offers no insight into the presence of the subsequent "giants" in the land of Canaan.
One of the disturbing aspects of the Old Testament record was God's instructions, upon entering the land of Canaan, to wipe out every man, woman, and child of certain tribes inhabiting the land. This is difficult to justify without the insight of a "gene pool problem" from the remaining Nephilim, Rephaim, et al., which seems to illuminate the difficulty.
8. Prophetic Implications
Another reason that an understanding of Genesis 6 is so essential is that it also is a prerequisite to understanding (and anticipating) Satan's devices26 and, in particular, the specific delusions to come upon the whole earth as a major feature of end-time prophecy.27 We will take up these topics in Part 2, "The Return Of The Nephilim.")
In Summary
If one takes an integrated view of the Scripture, then everything in it should "tie together." It is the author's view that the "Angel View," however disturbing, is the clear, direct presentation of the Biblical text, corroborated by multiple New Testament references and was so understood by both early Jewish and Christian scholarship; the "Sethite View" is a contrivance of convenience from a network of unjustified assumptions antagonistic to the remainder of the Biblical record.
It should also be pointed out that most conservative Bible scholars accept the "angel" view.28 Among those supporting the "angel" view are: G. H. Pember, M. R. DeHaan, C. H. McIntosh, F. Delitzsch, A. C. Gaebelein, A. W. Pink, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Henry Morris, Merril F. Unger, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Hal Lindsey, and Chuck Smith, being among the best known.
For those who take the Bible seriously, the arguments supporting the "Angel View" appear compelling. For those who indulge in a willingness to take liberties with the straightforward presentation of the text, no defense can prove final. (And greater dangers than the implications attending these issues await them!)
For further exploration of this critical topic, see the following:
• George Hawkins Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages, first published by Hodder and Stoughton in 1875, and presently available by Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids MI, 1975.
• John Fleming, The Fallen Angels and the Heroes of Mythology, Hodges, Foster, and Figgis, Dublin, 1879.
• Henry Morris, The Genesis Record, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI, 1976.
• Merrill F. Unger, Biblical Demonology, Scripture Press, Chicago IL, 1952.
• Clarence Larkin, Spirit World, Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate, Philadelphia PA, 1921.
1. Matthew 24:37.
2. Matthew 24:37.
3. Matthew 24:37; Luke 17:26, as well as Old Testament allusions such as Daniel 2:43, et al.
4. Cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 (where they are in existence before the creation of the earth). Jesus also implies the same term in Luke 20:36.
5. A footnote in an edition of the famed Scofield Bible, in suggesting that "sons of Elohim" does not always denote angelic beings, points to one ostensible exception (Isaiah 43:6) but the term in question is not there used! God simply refers to Israel as "my sons" and "my daughters." Indeed, all of Adam's race are termed God's "offspring" in Acts 17:28 (although Paul is here quoting a Greek poet).
6. The sons of Elohim are even contrasted with the sons of Adam in Psalm 82:1, 6 and warned that if they go on with the evil identified in verse 2, they would die like Adam (man). When our Lord quoted this verse (John 10:34) He made no mention of what order of beings God addressed in this Psalm but that the Word of God was inviolate whether the beings in question were angels or men.
7. Luke 3:38.
8. John 1:11, 12.
9. 2 Corinthians 5:17.
10. 2 Corinthians 5:1-4.
11. Luke 20:36.
12. This term appears only twice in the Bible: 2 Corinthians 5:2 and Jude 1:6.
13. Genesis 4:18.
14. Genesis 11:6.
15. This instruction was given to the descendants of Isaac and Jacob. Even the presumed descendants of Ishmael cannot demonstrate their linkage since no separation was maintained.
16. A.C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (Penteteuch), p. 29.
17. Gen 4:26 is widely regarded as a mistranslation: "Then began men to profane the name of the Lord." So agrees the venerated Targum of Onkelos; the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel; also the esteemed rabbinical sources such as Kimchi, Rashi, et al. Also, Jerome. Also, the famed Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah, 1168 a.d.
18. Exodus 12:5, 29; Leviticus 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, 23; 5:15, 18, 25; 22:19, 21; 23:12; Numbers 6:14; et al. Over 60 references, usually referring to the freedom from physical blemishes of offerings.
19. Each human gamete has 23 pairs of chromosomes: the male has both "Y" (shorter) and "X" (longer) chromosomes; the female, only "X" chromosomes. The sex of a fertilized egg is determined by the ***** fertilizing the egg: "X+Y" for a male child; "X+X" for a female. Thus, the male supplies thesex-determining chromosome.
20. Deut. 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 26:60; 2 Corinthians 13:1; et al.
21. Jude 6, 7; 2 Peter 2:4-5.
22. Homer, Iliad, viii 16.
23. Jude is commonly recognized as one of the Lord's brothers. (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:9; Jude 1:1.)
24. The only other use in the New Testament is 2 Corinthians 5:2, alluding to the heavenly body which the believer longs to be clothed.
25. Genesis 6:4.
26. 2 Corinthians 2:11.
27. Luke 21:26; 2 Thess 2:9, 11; et al.
28. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Vol V, p.2835-2836.
This article was originally published in the
August 1997 Personal Update News Journal.

I really like that line! If you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything."

 

[Bendito]

Demolishing the Sethite Theory with Historical Facts
Genesis 6:
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
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.

From time to time, various people will write to me, attempting to refute the angelic view of the above Scripture. The alternate view is often referred to as the Sethite Theory. That thesis suggests that the "sons of God" is a reference to the good sons of Seth and the "daughters of men" is a reference to the bad daughters of Cain. This is the dominant view taught in seminaries today and now many in the Torah/Messianic community are beginning to teach the same bogus nonsense.

The simple fact of that matter is, the angelic view of the "sons of God" is a Biblical and historical fact, the understanding of which was held by virtually everyone until the 3rd Century AD. You have to literally ignore massive amounts of data to believe otherwise. Furthermore, you'd have to employ eisegesis in your interpretation of Scripture, which leads to all sorts of gross error. There is absolutely nothing in Genesis 6, which in any way refers to Seth or Cain or their offspring. Rather the phrase "sons of God" is a reference applied to angels, just as it was in the book of Job (which actually predates Genesis):

Job 38:1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Were the alleged "good sons of Seth" there at the time of Creation? No. They were not. However, the angels were - as various Biblical commentaries also agree:

Barnes' Notes on the Bible on Job 38:7...

When the morning-stars - There can be little doubt that angelic beings are intended here, though some have thought that the stars literally are referred to, and that they seemed to unite in a chorus of praise when another world was added to their number. The Vulgate renders it, astra matutina, morning-stars; the Septuagint, ὅτε ἐγενήθηναι ἄστρα hote egenēthēnai astra - " when the stars were made:" the Chaldee, "the stars of the zephyr," or "morning" - צפר כוכבי. The comparison of a prince, a monarch, or an angel, with a star, is not uncommon; compare the notes at Isaiah 14. The expression "the morning-stars" is used on account of the beauty of the principal star which, at certain seasons of the year, leads on the morning. It is applied naturally to those angelic beings that are of distinguished glory and rank in heaven. That it refers to the angels, seems to be evident from the connection; and this interpretation is demanded in order to correspond with the phrase "sons of God" in the other member of the verse.Sang together - United in a grand chorus or concert of praise. It was usual to celebrate the laying of a cornerstone, or the completion of an edifice, by rejoicing; see Zechariah 4:7; Ezra 3:10.

And all the sons of God - Angels - called the sons of God from their resemblance to him, or their being created by him.

Shouted for joy - That is, they joined in praise for so glorious a work as the creation of a new world. They saw that it was an event which was fitted to honor God.

Pulpit Commentary on Job 38:7...

And all the sons of God shouted for joy. "The sons of God" here must necessarily be the angels (see Job 1:6; Job 2:1), since there were no men as yet in existence. They too joined in the chorus of sympathy and admiration, perhaps lifting up their voices (Revelation 5:11, 12), perhaps their hearts only, praising the Creator, who had done such marvellous things.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible on Job 38:7 (NOTE: this one actually plays into your Hebrew breakdown of the term "sons of God")...

...and all the sons of God shouted for joy; which are usually understood of angels also, so the Targum; who are the sons of God, not by birth, as Christ, nor by adoption, as saints; but by creation, as Adam, Luke 3:38. And because they bear some likeness to God, as holy spirits, and honour and obey him in doing his will; though the character of sons of God, as distinct from the children of men, given to professors of religion, obtained before the times of Job; see Genesis 6:2; and who might be said to sing together, and shout for joy, when they met for social worship; see Job 1:6; and especially when any fresh discoveries were made to them of the Messiah, and salvation by him.

Jamieson-Faussett-Brown Bible Commentary on Job 38:7...

...morning stars—especially beautiful. The creation morn is appropriately associated with these, it being the commencement of this world's day. The stars are figuratively said to sing God's praises, as in Ps 19:1; 148:3. They are symbols of the angels, bearing the same relation to our earth, as angels do to us. Therefore they answer to "sons of God," or angels, in the parallel. See on [549]Job 25:5.

Matthew Poole's Commentary on Job 38:7...

The sons of God, as it here follows, the latter clause of the verse being explicatory of the former, as is most frequent in this and some other books of Scripture, to wit, the angels, who may well be called stars, as even men of eminent note, and particularly ministers of God’s word, are called, Daniel 8:10 12:3 Revelation 1:16,20; and morning stars, because of their excellent lustre and glory, for which they are called angels of light, 2 Corinthians 11:14, and Christ for the same reason is called the Morning Star, Revelation 22:16. The sons of God; the blessed angels; for man not being yet made, God had then no other sons; and these are called the sons of God, partly because they had their whole being from him, and partly because they were made partakers of his Divine and glorious image. And all these are said to join in this work of praising God, probably because none of the angels were as yet fallen from their first estate, though they did fall within a very little time after.

I could go on, but hopefully, you get the point. Job predates Genesis. The term "sons of God" in Job was understood to be angels. Thus, it is also understood exactly the same way in Genesis 6. This is not confirmed by just "two or three witnesses" either. It is confirmed by the entire Ancient Near Eastern historical record (including in the canonized and non-canonized Hebrew texts)!

Here's the issue: If you toss out the well documented historical, Hebraic understanding of the Nephilim as the offspring of angels (and genetic tampering), you basically turn YHWH into a schizophrenic, prejudice God who is into random acts of genocide. Why? Because with the Sethite view, you have no plausible explanation for why YHWH would allow the Israelites to take women, children and animals as spoils of war in some military campaigns, while in others, they are commanded to "utterly destroy" everything - including the women, children and animals. A careful reading of the Scriptures in the Torah and elsewhere, wherein the Israelites are commanded to utterly destroy everything is consistently found to be within the context of the Nephilim. Without the hybrid understanding, you also have no explanation for the descriptions of the Canaanites given all through the Scriptures either. For instance, you'd be hard-pressed to find a reasonable answer as to why proud parents would name their newborn children things like "terror" (Heth - Genesis 10:15) and "enclosure of wrath" (Hamathite - Genesis 10:18). And I'm sorry, but kissing cousins simply do not produce "cedar tree" sized Amorite giants (Amos 2:9) who are of "great stature" (Numbers 13:28-33).

And to top it all off, Sethite theorists have no reasonable explanation for the numerous accounts of giants found all over the world (both pre-and post-Flood). They can ignore the "DNA tampering issues" too if they'd like, but then they'll have no explanation for characters like this either:


And no. Cranial head-boarding does not account for 25-40% larger brains and the totally different suture patterns, as well as the other anomalies often associated with these skulls. Those people were born that way and skulls like this have been found all over the world. Recent DNA testing has shown that they are "not quite human" either. Yes, they have human DNA, but they also have "other DNA" as well. This of course - at least in my mind - perfectly conforms with the Nephilim thesis as laid out in the ancient texts, which you must ignore to hold to the Sethite views. Furthermore, you must also deny the fact of animal-human hybridization taking place (as reported in mainstream news) in our days, just as it was "in the days of Noah."

The canonized texts alone provide ample reason to accept the angelic view, but if you include the testimonies of Enoch and Jubilees, that view is absolutely unmistakable. Some claim that Enoch has been "grossly mistranslated and misinterpreted," but the burden is on them to prove it. You can't just make that claim, based on opinion. And not only would you have to prove there were errors in translation, but also that entire chapters, which clearly describe the issue of the "angels that sinned" in great detail, have to be completely cut out of the text.

As I said above, today, unfortunately the so-called "Sethite view" is what is taught in seminaries and now many Messianic and “Torah Teachers” are perpetuating the same entirely unsubstantiated nonsense. But to accept this view is to deny the massive weight of an enormous amount of ancient testimony – first and foremost the Biblical text, then the Biblically-endorsed texts (such as Enoch and Jubilees) and finally, the testimonies of historians and so-called, “Church Fathers” and other early and recent Christian apologetic authors – just a handful of which are quoted below. I don't want to do your homework for you, but this is surely enough to get you started on your own...

Writing at some point prior to 50 AD (at the same time as the Apostles), the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, Philo wrote:

On what principle it was that giants were born of angels and women? (Gen. 6:4). The poets call those men who were born out of the earth giants, that is to say, sons of the Earth {the Greek name Gigas is said to be derived from geμ and gennaoμ, "to bring forth."} But Moses here uses this appellation improperly, and he uses it too very often merely to denote the vast personal size of the principal men, equal to that of Hajk {hajk is an addition of the Armenian translator; it is the name of a fabulous patriarch of the Armenian nation} or Hercules. But he relates that these giants were sprung from a combined procreation of two natures, namely, from angels and mortal women; for the substance of angels is spiritual; but it occurs every now and then that on emergencies occurring they have imitated the appearance of men, and transformed themselves so as to assume the human shape; as they did on this occasion, when forming connections with women for the production of giants. But if the children turn out imitators of the wickedness of their mothers, departing from the virtue of their fathers, let them depart, according to the determination of the will of a depraved race, and because of their proud contempt for the supreme Deity, and so be condemned as guilty of voluntary and deliberate wickedness. But sometimes Moses styles the angels the sons of God, inasmuch as they were not produced by any mortal, but are incorporeal, as being spirits destitute of any body; or rather that exhorter and teacher of virtue, namely Moses, calls those men who are very excellent and endowed with great virtue the sons of God; and the wicked and depraved men he calls bodies, or flesh.

- Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, Book 1, Point # 92

 

[Bendito]

He thus describes the Israelite encounter with the Post-Flood giants when they spied out the land of Canaan...

They also surveyed all the strongest cities, looking upon them in two points of view; first, with reference to their advantages of situation, and also to the strength of their fortification; also, when they inquired respecting the inhabitants, they saw that they were very numerous indeed, and giants of exceeding tallness with absolutely gigantic bodies, both as to their magnitude and their strength.

- Philo On The Life of Moses, 1, Chapter XLI

Clement of Rome is said to have been a disciple of Peter, who lived at the close of the first century. The following is attributed to his writings...

"All things therefore being completed which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, and the human race also having multiplied, in the eighth generation, righteous men, who had lived the life of angels, being allured by the beauty of women, fell into promiscuous and illicit connections with these; and thenceforth acting in all things without discretion, and disorderly, they changed the state of human affairs and the divinely prescribed order of life, so that either by persuasion or force they compelled all men to sin against God their Creator. In the ninth generation are born the giants, so called from of old,not dragon-footed, as the fables of the Greeks relate, but men of immense bodies, whose bones, of enormous size, are still shown in some places for confirmation. But against these the righteous providence of God brought a flood upon the world, that the earth might be purified from their pollution, and every place might be turned into a sea by the destruction of the wicked. Yet there was then found one righteous man, by name Noah, who, being delivered in an ark with his three sons and their wives, became the colonizer of the world after the subsiding of the waters, with those animals and seeds which he had shut up with him."

- Recognitions of Clement, Book 1, Chapter XXIX, The Giants: The Flood

"The ten pairs of which we have spoken have therefore been assigned to this world from the beginning of time. Cain and Abel were one pair. The second was the giants and Noah; the third, Pharaoh and Abraham; the fourth, the Philistines and Isaac; the fifth, Esau and Jacob; the sixth, the magicians and Moses the lawgiver; the seventh, the tempter and the Son of man; the eighth, Simon and I, Peter; the ninth, all nations, and he who shall be sent to sow the word among the nations; the tenth, Antichrist and Christ. Concerning these pairs we shall give you fuller information at another time." When Peter spoke thus, Aquila said: "Truly there is need of constant teaching, that one may learn what is true about everything."

- Recognitions of Clement, Book III, Chapter LXI,Ten Pairs

From the Clementine Homilies:

Chapter XIII.-The Fall of the Angels.
But when, having assumed these forms, they convicted as covetous those who stole them, and changed themselves into the nature of men, in order that, living holily, and showing the possibility of so living, they might subject the ungrateful to punishment, yet having become in all respects men, they also partook of human lust, and being brought tinder its subjection they fell into cohabitation with women; and being involved with them, and sunk in defilement and altogether emptied of their first power, were unable to turn back to the first purity of their proper nature, their members turned away from their fiery substance: for the fire itself, being extinguished by the weight of lust, and changed into flesh, they trode the impious path downward. For they themselves, being fettered with the bonds of flesh, were constrained and strongly bound; wherefore they have no more been able to ascend into the heavens.

Chapter XV.-The Giants.
But from their unhallowed intercourse spurious men sprang, ranch greater in stature than ordinary men, whom they afterwards called giants; not those dragon-footed giants who waged war against God, as those blasphemous myths of the Greeks do sing, but wild in manners, and greater than men in size, inasmuch as they were sprung of angels; yet less than angels, as they were born of women. Therefore God, knowing that they were barbarized to brutality, and that the world was not sufficient to satisfy them (for it was created according to the proportion of men and human use), that they might not through want of food turn, contrary to nature, to the eating of animals, and yet seem to be blameless, as having ventured upon this through necessity, the Almighty God rained manna upon them, suited to their various tastes; and they enjoyed all that they would. But they, on account of their ******* nature, not being pleased with purity of food, longed only after the taste of blood. Wherefore they first tasted flesh.

Chapter XVIII.-The Law to the Survivors.
Since, therefore, the souls of the deceased giants were greater than human souls, inasmuch as they also excelled their bodies, they, as being a new race, were called also by a new name {demons}. And to those who survived in the world a law was prescribed of God through an angel, how they should live. For being bastards in race, of the fire of angels and the blood of women, and therefore liable to desire a certain race of their own, they were anticipated by a certain righteous law.

- Clement, Homily VIII, Chapters XIII; XV; XVIII

At about the same time, or not long after, the Jewish/Roman historian Josephus wrote:

Now this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers; and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness, whereby they made God to be their enemy. For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants.

- Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 3

Then, when describing the events of Genesis 14, Josephus says...

At this time, when the Assyrians had the dominion over Asia, the people of Sodom were in a flourishing condition, both as to riches and the number of their youth. There were five kings that managed the affairs of this county: Ballas, Barsas, Senabar, and Sumobor, with the king of Bela; and each king led on his own troops: and the Assyrians made war upon them; and, dividing their army into four parts, fought against them. Now every part of the army had its own commander; and when the battle was joined, the Assyrians were conquerors, and imposed a tribute on the kings of the Sodomites, who submitted to this slavery twelve years; and so long they continued to pay their tribute: but on the thirteenth year they rebelled, and then the army of the Assyrians came upon them, under their commanders Amraphel, Arioch, Chodorlaomer, and Tidal. These kings had laid waste all Syria, and overthrown the offspring of the giants.

- Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 9

Regarding the later conquests of Israel, the historian goes on to say...

For which reason they removed their camp to Hebron; and when they had taken it, they slew all the inhabitants. There were till then left the race of giants, who had bodies so large, and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing. The bones of these men are still shown to this very day, unlike to any credible relations of other men.

- Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 2.3

Writing sometime prior to 190 AD, Athenagoras of Athens said...

For this is the office of the angels,-to exercise providence for God over the things created and ordered by Him; so that God may have the universal and general providence of the whole, while the particular parts are provided for by the angels appointed over them.90 Just as with men, who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honour the good or punish the bad, unless vice and virtue were in their own power; and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them by you, and others faithless), so is it among the angels. Some, free agents, you will observe, such as they were created by God, continued in those things for which God had made and over which He had ordained them; but some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the government entrusted to them: namely, this ruler of matter and its various forms, and others of those who were placed about this first firmament (you know that we say nothing without witnesses, but state the things which have been declared by the prophets); these fell into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh, and he became negligent and wicked in the management of the things entrusted to him. Of these lovers of virgins, therefore, were begotten those who are called giants. And if something has been said by the poets, too, about the giants, be not surprised at this: worldly Wisdom and divine differ as much from each other as truth and plausibility: the one is of heaven and the other of earth; and indeed, according to the prince of matter, "We know we oft speak lies that look like truths."

- Athenagoras, A Plea For The Christians, Chapter XXIV.-Concerning the Angels and Giants

These angels, then, who have fallen from heaven, and haunt the air and the earth, and are no longer able to rise to heavenly things, and the souls of the giants, which are the demons who wander about the world, perform actions similar, the one (that is, the demons) to the natures they have received, the other (that is, the angels) to the appetites they have indulged. But the prince of matter, as may be seen merely from what transpires, exercises a control and management contrary to the good that is in God.

- Athenagoras, A Plea For The Christians, Chapter XXV.-The Poets and Philosophers Have Denied a Divine Providence

Writing some time prior to 220AD, Tertullian wrote:

But, you say, in the case of the dead, mortality is already swallowed up of life. No, not in all cases, certainly. For how many will most probably be found of men who had just died-so recently put into their graves, that nothing in them would seem to be decayed? For you do not of course deem a thing to be decayed unless it be cut off, abolished, and withdrawn from our perception, as having in every possible way ceased to be apparent. There are the carcases of the giants of old time; it will be obvious enough that they are not absolutely decayed, for their bony frames are still extant. We have already spoken of this elsewhere. For instance, even lately in this very city, when they were sacrilegiously laying the foundations of the Odeum on a good many ancient graves, people were horror-stricken to discover, after some five hundred years, bones, which still retained their moisture, and hair which had not lost its perfume. It is certain not only that bones remain indurated, but also that teeth continue undecayed for ages-both of them the lasting germs of that body which is to sprout into life again in the resurrection.

- Tertullian, On The Resurrection of the Flesh,
Chapter XLII.-Death Changes, Without Destroying, Our Mortal Bodies. Remains of the Giants

Contemporarily, Marcus Minucius Felix writing sometime before 250AD, wrote:

III. -The Worship of Demons
When Almighty God, to beautify the nature of the world, willed that that earth should be visited by angels, when they were sent down they despised His laws. Such was the beauty of women, that it turned them aside; so that, being contaminated, they could not return to heaven. Rebels from God, they uttered words against Him. Then the Highest uttered His judgment against them; and from their seed giants are said to have been born. By them arts were made known in the earth, and they taught the dyeing of wool, and everything which is done; and to them, when they died, men erected images. But the Almighty, because they were of an evil seed, did not approve that, when dead, they should be brought back from death. Whence wandering they now subvert many bodies, and it is such as these especially that ye this day worship and pray to as gods.

Marcus Minucius Felix, The Instructions of Commodianus in Favour of Christian Discipline. Chapter III

Likewise, at about this same time Julius Africanus, while appearing a bit conflicted about this issue wrote the following – being the first to propose what would later become known as the “Sethite theory” of Genesis 6:1-4...

When men multiplied on the earth, the angels of heaven came together with the daughters of men. In some copies I found "the sons of God." What is meant by the Spirit, in my opinion, is that the descendants of Seth are called the sons of God on account of the righteous men and patriarchs who have sprung from him, even down to the Saviour Himself; but that the descendants of Cain are named the seed of men, as having nothing divine in them, on account of the wickedness of their race and the inequality of their nature, being a mixed people, and having stirred the indignation of God. But if it is thought that these refer to angels, we must take them to be those who deal with magic and jugglery, who taught the women the motions of the stars and the knowledge of things celestial, by whose power they conceived the giants as their children, by whom wickedness came to its height on the earth, until God decreed that the whole race of the living should perish in their impiety by the deluge.

- Julius Africanus, III.-The Extant Fragments of the Five Books of the Chronography of Julius Africanus, Section II
Again, during this same time period, Bishop Alexander of Cappadocia acknowledged the Jewish historical account (of Genesis) as pertaining to angels...

Jewish history relates that angels came down to hold intercourse with the daughters of men; for this saying signifies that the nutritive powers of the soul descended from heaven to earth.

- Alexander, Of the Manichaeans, Chapter XXV

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is a constituent of the apocryphal scriptures connected with the Bible. It is a pseudepigraphical work comprising the dying commands of the twelve sons of acob. It is part of the Oskan Armenian Orthodox Bible of 1666. Fragments of similar writings were found at Qumran, but opinions are divided as to whether these are the same texts. The Testaments were written in Hebrew or Greek, and reached their final form in the 2nd century CE. Regarding the events of Genesis 6, we find...

Therefore flee fornication, my children, and command your wives and your daughters that they adorn not their heads and their faces; because every woman who acteth deceitfully in these things hath been reserved to everlasting punishment. For thus they allured the Watchers before the flood; and as these continually beheld them, they fell into desire each of the other, and they conceived the act in their mind, and changed themselves into the shape of men, and appeared to them in their congress with their husbands; and the women, having in their minds desire toward their apparitions, gave birth to giants, for the Watchers appeared to them as reaching even unto heaven.

- The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 1 - The Testiment of Reuben Concerning Thoughts

The Kebra Nagast, orThe Glory of the Kings, is a 14th-century account written inGe'ez of the origins of the Solomonic line of the Emperors of Ethiopia. The text, in its existing form, is at least 700 years old and is considered by many Ethiopian Christians and Rastafari to be an inspired and a reliable work. This is what it had to say about the events of Genesis 6...

And straightway God was wroth with them, and He bound them in the terror of SHEÔL until the day of redemption, as the Apostle saith, "He treated His angels with severity. He spared them not, but made them to dwell in a state of judgement, and they were fettered until the Great Day." The word of God conquered, Who had fashioned ADAM in His likeness (or, form), and those who had reviled and made a laughingstock of ADAM were conquered. And the daughters of CAIN with whom the angels had companied conceived, but they were unable to bring forth their children, and they died. And of the children who were in their wombs some died, and some came forth; having split open the bellies of their mothers they came forth by their navels. And when they were grown up and reached man's estate they became giants, whose height reached unto the clouds; and for their sakes and the sakes of sinners the wrath of God became quiet, and He said, "My spirit shall only rest on them for one hundred and twenty years, and I will destroy them with the waters of the Flood," them and all sinners who have not believed the word of God. And to those who believed the word of their fathers, and did His Will, no injury came from the waters of the Flood, but He delivered them, saying, "If thou believest My word thou canst save thyself from the Flood."
• The Kebra Nagast, Chapter 100: Concerning the Angels Who Rebelled
This (proper) angelic view of Genesis 6 was the dominant view of antiquity. You simply cannot ignore this fact. It only began to lose ground in the 3rd Century with Julius Africanus, then later with Augustine. Then much later, Calvin came along and really made the bogus “Sethite Theory” view popular. For a great article on this, please read Douglas Hamp's blog:

http://www.douglashamp.com/the-sons-of-seth-and-daughters-of-cain-theory-refuted/

Again, in short, you have to literally ignore HUGE AMOUNTS of literary and historical data, as well as the countless reports of giants and the subsequent discoveries of their remains, which have been recorded by numerous cultures all around the world in order to believe and teach the completely bogus Sethite Theory. In my view, anyone who teaches that theory is being exceptionally dishonest with the ancient record as well as with their listeners, proving only an agenda that is absolutely contrary to the facts. As a researcher, I cannot do that. If you subscribe to this Sethite doctrine, I would hope you will now seriously reconsider your wholly unsubstantiated position in this regard.