“1. When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2. the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in[a] man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” (Gen. 6:1-4)
There are two prevailing views that explain away this passage. The first is the “Sons of Seth” interpretation. This essentially says that the term “sons of God” means the sons of Seth, who were apparently the righteous descendants of Adam’s son, Seth. They fell into sin, after being seduced by the attractive daughters of men (which is supposedly a fancy term for “women”), and bore children who happened to be dominating heroes that became quite famous in those days.
The other interpretation (the “Fallen Angels”) says that the “sons of God” were angels in heaven who laid eyes on the women of the earth, and sinned against God by descending onto the earth and breeding with them. They then bore half-supernatural offspring who were pretty powerful blokes, perhaps inherently damned for hell (but that is the shakiest claim in this speculation).
Now, rather than giving a formal defense on my position, I’m only going to present reasons why I believe the “Fallen Angel” interpretation, because at the moment, I am simply not in the mood to pull apart and argue against every possible objection.
1. The interpretation traditionally stems from the pseudopigraphal book known as I Enoch, which gives a notably elaborate account of the entire situation. This book is attributed to Enoch, the seventh descendant of Adam, who walked with God (Gen. 5:22). In Jude 1:14, the writer says, “It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,” and in all fairness, this refers to the last days. But it is generally believed that here, Jude is referring to the book of I Enoch, for it was a widely read book at the time, and it does, in fact, prophesy of the last days. In conclusion, Jude apparently thought that the book of Enoch was worth some value in order to site is as a Jewish/Christian prophecy, so perhaps the rest of the book is valuable for other information.
2. The only other time in the Old Testament that uses the exact phrase “sons of God” is in the book of Job. And I believe it is pretty well determined that these passages are referring to angels. (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7)
3. Is it mere coincidence that the gods of ancient Greece and Rome (and I’m sure others) were promiscuous human-like gods with super-human power? I admit it may be a little bit of a stretch, but I still think there might be something to this. Check out http://www.theoi.com/Gigante/GigantePolyphemos.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(mythology) . I mean, do they fit the description even a little? Every legend originates somewhere.
These are the main reasons why I think it can be quite a relevant suggestion. Whether or not it would be possible for a supernatural being to breed with a human, or if God would allow his angels to fall after Lucifer’s charade, are both irrelevant, for angeology and demonology are both pretty obscure topics in the Bible. And to say that bizarre supernaturalism just isn’t God’s “style” is putting quite a limit on the transcendent Creator of the universe, who turned a flooded altar of massive stones into a tiny heap of dust, torched by a mighty fire from heaven, just to show that He was a little more capable than everyone else.