Dear Steven

I happened upon your website, and I thought it was well-written and dealt with many subjects of interests to me, and you seem equipt to answer some of the more obscure and difficult questions so many of us have. Which is just why I am so very reluctant to level even a hint of any criticism against such much-needed work as you are undertaking.

But, I have to say that I found your reply to the question concerning the Giants in the Scripture inadequate to say the least. In the first place, I think you will find that the phrase “call upon the name of the Lord” a long-established Hebrew aphorism reaching far into antiquity which no amount of modern re-interperative tampering can alter, as the phrase speaks of the recognition of worship of Yahweh as duty among those who first began to do so.

Also, according to the principle of first mention, Genesis 6:2 established the meaning of Sons of God.It was applied to the progenitors of the Nephelim only, which is just what God was talking about in verse 3 (and completely overlooked by most teachers) “And the Lord said, My spirit shall not strive with man, for that he is ALSO FLESH” Also flesh beside what else we must ask, if not the must larger more immediate question why did God destroy the entire inhabited world at the time too? What corruption was there, which prompted our loving and merciful Lord to remove the race of man off the face of the whole earth, all except this one man Noah, who is was said, found grace in the eyes of the Lord, because he was perfect in his generations, a word which refers to his sperm.
For these Bible scholars who hold that God destroyed all the people on earth because they were partying and getting married, and having a good time, is tantamount to saying that God is an evil and despotive monster every bit a frivilous and mean-tempered as the Greek gods were said to behave in the mythical accounts we have from that culture.
The fact is,there is nowhere in the Old Testament where humans are ever called the Sons of God.
In the book of Job, the oldest book in the Bible, in the creation scenes of the 38th chapter, the Sons of God are said to have “shouted for joy”. Could these Sons of God be humans watching the creation of the Earth, or indeed, the throwing down of the cosmos in the Big Bang, as the text seems also to imply?

The angels of God certaintly were there, and they must have had powers over the physical laws of the natural world, just as the little book of Jude tells us they did. for what else could he have refered to when he wrote:”And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their habitation…” but just what The two greek words here refers to, which is the celestial “realm” of Heaven to which they originally belonged and from which they wickedly left, and for the same purpose of wickedly indulging themselves sexual sins with others, not of their kind, just as comparative group of Sodomites left the natural use of women and “burned in their lust one towards another” also did, which is the meaning of the parallel given in these verses here.
Indeed, a careful search of the Scriptures will attest to the proposition that demons cannot be the fallen angel, who are of a totally different order, but were the eariier non-human inhabitants, and this can be seen by a proper understand of Jeremiah 4 which used the very same words that connected this time, to the another era or time period, as when “the earth was “without form and void” in Genesis, which speaks of a time on the earth before the creation of Adam.
Therefore, its from all these separate prooftexts which must of themselves be accounted for or lacking answers, we must ask; can anyone deny the strong argument made, that the whole purpose of Satan leading these wicked angels in the fall, was to defile the whole human race so that the Son of God would not be born of a human woman.

Please, I hope you will forgive my over-indulgence in taking up so much of your valuable time, but I feel rather strongly about this subject, and do hope nothing I said here was of any offence to you, or you wonderful work in the Lord which I do value very highly, Steven.

Yours in Yahshua


Dear Phillip,
To answer your last paragraph first, I am not offended at your taking issue to my commentary on the “giants” question. One of my favorite expressions is that “the truth will always bear scrutiny.” You have brought some scrutiny to bear on my answer, so let’s examine the questions you raised in greater depth.
The expression “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 also has to be examined in a “whole Bible” approach wherein the scriptures must come together in a way that the Bible does not contradict itself. Since all scripture is inspired by God (II Timothy 3:16), it cannot contradict itself. One thing is for certain: either the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 are angels or men. Those who assert that they were angels have a massive hurdle to climb. Genesis 1 repeatedly states that all life can only come from males and females of the same Genesis “kind” mating together. Mankind was made in the likeness and image (i.e. the Genesis “kind”) of the Elohim, but in human form. No angel is in the “Elohim” kind. Mankind and angels are not are different Genesis “kinds” of beings, they don’t even exist in the same dimension! I cannot see how anyone could claim that angels could have blood-nourished human DNA sperm (inside their non-physical bodies) that could fertilize an egg in a human female. Angels are devoid of blood-nourished human sperm and they have no human DNA; therefore, they cannot reproduce offspring with a human female. God would have to repeal the “”after its kind” law of Genesis 1 for this to happen.
Genesis 6:2 also needs to be understood properly in the context of Genesis 6:1. Genesis 6:1 clearly states that “men” (human males) were begetting children with human females in large numbers on the earth, and verse 2 needs to be understood as a logical continuation of verse 1 as they are discussing the same subject! The “sons of God” in verse 2 refers to the “men” mentioned in verse 1 who were engendering many children via human women. Also, verse 2 says the women who mated with the “sons of God” were their wives. Men can have wives as that is a Divinely-ordained institution. Nowhere in the Bible does it indicate that God ever did (or ever would) permit angels to make “wives” of human females.
Also, Hebrews 1:5 states “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you.” [Emphasis added.] This passage clearly states God has never regarded angels as “Sons.” John 3:16 also refers to Jesus/Yahshua as the Father’s “only begotten Son.” [Emphasis added.] This passage does not allow for any other “Son” of God in heaven besides Jesus/Yahshua. Job 38:7 has to be understood in light of Hebrews 1:5 that angels are not “Sons” of God. My Young’s Concordance (see “Son,” p. 907 & Hebrew Lexicon, p. 9)) states that the Hebrew word “ben” (translated frequently as “son” or “sons” can mean “offspring” as well, and that the Hebrew word “ben” has been translated into about 30 different English words in different biblical contexts. Obviously, the “sons of God” in Job 38:7 cannot be men because men came into being long after the earth was created (see my article “Is the Earth Really 6,000 Years Old?”). These “sons” had to be spirit beings who “shouted for joy” at the earth’s creation. However, Hebrews 1:5 asserts God does not regard angels as “Sons” and John 3:1`6 asserts the Father has only one begotten Son in his image so the plural reference to “sons” in Job 38:7 indicates that a different English word than “sons” should have been used in Job 38:7. Job 38:7 also refers to the “morning stars” as singing together with the “sons of God” at the earth’s creation, and “stars” are a biblical symbol for angels (Revelation 1:20, 12:4, etc.). Young’s Concordance indicates such generic terms as “children” or “offspring” and other words are acceptable translations of the Hebrew word translated “son.” Since angels were all personally created by God, they could be generically referred to as the generic “offspring” of God. That would not conflict with Hebrews 1:5.
Your assertion that “demons cannot be the fallen angels” is a concept I have never heard anyone else express. I think the Bible is clear that demons (called “devils” in the KJV) have to be the fallen angels who joined Satan’s rebellion against God. Whether angels are righteous or fallen, they are still are not considered “Sons” by God (Hebrews 1:5).
Hope this explanation makes the subject clearer.