Sons of God (Sethite view)
To see read my exegesis of the angel view CLICK
Though I don't agree with the "Sons of Seth" (SOS view hereafter) explanation of who the "Sons of God" of the Old Testament are, but I feel it's necessary to discuss it. This article will be a quick overview to some of the SOS people, and their rebuttals to those that take the Sons of God (AOG view hereafter) as being angels. Keep in mind that not everything I cite will be the unanimous view of all the proponents of the SOS view, but I'll include some of the various arguments/rebuttals that I have read on websites, seen in videos and experienced in debates etc.
1. STATEMENT: Evil fallen beings could never be "sons of
ANSWER - Such a statement is purely derived from emotion over being rooted in any Biblical reference. It has been said that being a "Son of God" means being a direct creation of God such as Adam (Luke 3:38) and those that are regenerated (born again) since the new covenant was established via the resurrection of Christ (Romans 8:14). We can't be so dogmatic as to say this is the only way it's applied since Israel in the Old Testament is called Sons of God too, and also rulers, but I'm merely showing how it can apply to angels that fell, hence fallen angels. Also to note, I am my dad's son no matter what I do, but my rebellion to his/my family, can make me lose my inheritance and relationship. The difference is that the fallen angels have no chance of redemption whereas humans do.
2. STATEMENT: Angels in Heaven do not marry or begat (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25).
ANSWER - There's some context that needs to be applied to such reasoning. One being, is that the angels in Heaven are the ones referenced, ones that no doubt please God and serve him. The evil ones wouldn't care about pleasing him therefore who's to say what they can and cannot do. The Bible is silent on much of the details of the angels, even their names. Surely they have names but in my opinion God left the details out so we wouldn't be too consumed with their dealings instead of his. The assumption is that since they don't marry therefore they can't begat. We can say that nuns and priests don't marry but that doesn't mean they can't procreate, they just have an oath not to. If we are to read Jude 6&7, we see that there were angels (fallen angels) that left their spiritual body, and with this, perhaps came the ability to do things in the flesh, such as to begat. The same can be said about the holy angels that appeared to men in the flesh in the Old Testament. They were able to eat physical food with mere mortals (Genesis 18, Genesis 19) or was that just an illusion? Jacob even wrestled an angel of manifested flesh, and as a result, left the scene with a limp (Genesis 32).
3. STATEMENT: The reference to “strange flesh” in Jude 7 means homosexuality not angel "flesh".
ANSWER - I see a major issue with this word "strange" (flesh) in Jude 7 meaning mere homosexuality. The Greek word used for strange, is "heteros", which is the root word for where we get the word heterosexual. This word means "another" of a different kind. The Greek word "allos" is the word that means another of the same kind. We also must keep in mind that there is an entirely different Greek root word for homosexual, and that word is "homos". Some have said that the "strange flesh" means bestiality, which it could, but it's my position that the men of S&G desperately went after Lot's two visitors (which were angels) for one reason. They were accustomed to going after angels, and there were "bragging rights" that went with such an encounter. Either this, or there was just a bunch of desperate homosexuals roaming the streets hungry for any new prey that came to town.
4. STATEMENT: The text does not say that the Sons of God took every woman alive at that time.
ANSWER - This is a response to when one uses the mankind's DNA was corrupted argument (hence the reason for the flood), given by the people that view the Sons of God as being angels, albeit fallen ones. For the fallen angels to corrupt the seed of man, they wouldn't have to have personal relations with all the women for the demonic seed to spread amongst mankind. The same can be said about a virus that's introduced to a few humans via inoculation. Once this is initiated, they can spread it to others by various means.
5. STATEMENT: The "angel view" people say that some Nephilim survived the flood.
ANSWER - Odd as it is, some SOS people have actually claimed that the AOG people think this. I can't recall an "AOGer" ever making such a statement. Josephus did, but I haven't heard Christians parroting such a view. The Bible clearly says that the "and also after that" part of Genesis 6:4 means AFTER the flood. In simple, there was a second installation of the same phenomenon. Since the line of Cain didn't survive the flood, the second wave of this intermingling wouldn't have included his line. So the question is, what were the two lineages that led to the reemergence of the Nephilim after the flood?
6. STATEMENT: This new hybrid spirit creature would have to have God's approval.
ANSWER - Modern man has been making hybrid chimeras (part animal part human) and clones for decades. Scientists have also been making other species in the lab, that have never existed before. I doubt this corruption of nature has God's approval either. I guess I can only speculate.
7. STATEMENT: Only God can breathe a spirit and soul into a human.
ANSWER - I completely agree here but there's some interesting things to consider. Who's to say that the Nephilim really had a true soul or spirit of a man? Some such as Tom Horn, have said that if a chimera were made, it would have neither the spirit of man nor of an animal since it was a hybrid. With that being said, an unclean spirit could incarnate itself into the body instead. By the means of cloning, it's my suspicion that if a man were cloned, he/it would be a "hanimal". It would basically be a human animal (or image of a beast) that has some sort of instinct, but not a conviction or conscience that only comes with the life (spirit, soul) that God gives humans.
8. STATEMENT: The wonder and miracle of God being manifest in the flesh would be considered a common occurrence if fallen angels had already done it.
ANSWER - There are many ways that we can go with such a statement, but I'll keep in short. None of the manufacturing of hybrids could compare to the scale of the Messiah's incarnation, death, burial, and resurrection that redeemed man from the curse of sin. In comparison, it's a cheap magic trick. This fallen angel version was the very act of trying to preempt the Messiah's incarnation in the first place! We must not forget that Christ's incarnation was through a virgin, theirs was not.
9. STATEMENT: The AOG view comes partly from the 13th century superstition of the Incubus and Succubus mythology.
ANSWER - The AOG view is actually the oldest view, coming from both the Jews B. C. E. and the early Christians in the first few centuries A. D. The SOS theory is actually the new kid in town.
10. STATEMENT: No devil has ever appeared as a man in the Bible as the angels of God did.
ANSWER - If one will conclude that the Sons of God were not fallen angels, then this is true in essence of absence but not in language. What do I mean? Satyrs are mentioned throughout the Bible, especially in the King James Version (Leviticus 17:7, Isaiah 34:14 etc). Within the Hebrew definition, they are sometimes described as demon "he goats" which are half man, half goat. Has anyone seen the movie Pan's Labyrinth ? The word "Satyr" can mean goat in general, but it also means devil with a masculine gender.
11. STATEMENT: The word "spirit" is neuter in language therefore one has no sexuality.
ANSWER - The word "child" is also neuter but obviously has sexuality. This reasoning is flawed.
12. STATEMENT: The text plainly says that giants were already around before the "two lines" mixed.
ANSWER - I'm afraid I can't follow such reasoning. The narrative mentioned first in Genesis 6:4 is not an exact chronological order, as is also the case with other writings in the Bible. There are statements, recollections, and more expansions to thoughts that are about the same event. This not always to be in order of the events mentioned first. Consider the creation account of Genesis 1, and compare it to Genesis 2. Some have actually said that it's two different creations. But to suggest such, is to ignore this ancient style of writing to which I just explained. There are many other books, chapters, and verses that carry out similar literary styles, to be sure.