Marriage in The Resurrection

I shall have to set up some context before getting to the passage I really intend to explain here.

First, what passage of Genesis ordains Marriage?  

If you have a positive view of marriage as a mutual co-equal partnership you are likely to answer Genesis chapter 2 verses 18, 23 and 24.  Where the word for “help meet” or Helper is a word also used of God in his relationship with Humanity in Exodus 18:4 and Deuteronomy 33:7-26-29 (I've seen it argued Rescuer would be a better translation then Helper) and where how the union happens is if anything seemingly Matrilocal.

But if you have a more cynical view, if the marriage you mean is the marriage that Marx and Engels wanted to abolish, you are likely to answer Genesis 3:16 where Patriarchy began.

In Hosea 2:16 we read “And it shall be at that day, saith YHWH, thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali”.  

Both of these are Hebrew words for Husband, but with different connotations.  Ishi is the word for Husband (or man in the KJV) used in Genesis 2:23 which is based on the same root as the word for Wife/Woman while Baali also means Lord or Sovereign or Ruler.  

The levirate marriage was an ancient custom explained in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 where if a husband died before producing an heir the wife would marry a near kinsman (brother preferably if available) and the son conceived would be considered legally a son of the dead husband in addition to his biological father.  This concept is relevant to Genesis 38, The Book of Ruth and explaining apparent genealogical contradictions involving Zerubbabel.

What fascinates me about this law is how while there are no references to Polyandry in The Hebrew Bible the logic behind this law can certainly open the door to it.  What if a husband becomes unable to reproduce but is still alive?  But in the time of Jesus the Pharisees were still dominated by the Shammai school for whom such a permissive reading would have been unthinkable, and the Sadducees were no doubt the same.

And so with those at first seemingly barely related subjects laid out I shall now interpret what Jesus said in Matthew 22:23-30 and Mark 12:18-25, and more different from the others Luke 20:26-37.

The Sadducees seek to discredit the promised future Bodily Resurrection of The Dead by bringing up the Levirate Marriage and implying that would result in Polyandry.

Jesus first says “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God”. The Greek word translated Power here is Dunamis/Dynamis which gets translated a number of ways including “abundance”.  Jesus is identifying their core error as an underestimation of God not an overestimation of the long term existence of marriage.

Next Jesus says “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven”. “Given in marriage” is one word in the Greek, Jesus uses two related verbs not the actual word for marriage itself.  

Who the “they” means in the context of what the Sadducees were talking about is key to understand here, they are thinking in the framework of marriage being a means by which a woman is possessed by her husband “whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her”.  It is women who Jesus is saying will no longer be passed around from one family or husband to another like a possession.

Luke’s version has a part about the Resurrected being “children of God” but that’s the same Gospel that called Adam the Son of God.  In Luke 17:27 Jesus also refers to marrying and “given in marriage” as part of what the people drowned in the Flood of Noah were doing.  Genesis 6 described their core Sin as Violence.

None of what Jesus said here can be interpreted as saying the Marriage of Genesis 2 where it was never about one party owning the other is discontinued.  In my view the “angels in heaven” are life forms living a Genesis 2 existence not the immaterial sexless phantoms Platonist Christian want them to be.

In the KJV the word Paradise only appears in the New Testament, that's because that Greek word is used for the Garden of Eden in the LXX and Revelation 2:7 confirms that’s still what it refers to.  That Paradise is in “Heaven” currently according to 2 Corinthians 12:4 but in Revelation 21-22 it returns to Earth as part of the New Jerusalem in the New Creation, which is also called The Lamb’s Wife. 

There is no marrying or giving in marriage in the Resurrection because the Body of Christ is a Communistic Polycule.

Against Monolatry

Monolatry is a term for a theology that is sort of a blurred line between Monotheism and Polytheism.  The idea is the Worship of only One God is allowed but others still exist.  There are a number of people in modern Apologetic circles like InspiringPhilosophy who are taking the position that The Bible's theology is Monolatry, but clarifies a form of it where the God you worship is the Supreme Creator, a "True God" in a way none of the lesser gods are.  Basically the "other Elohim" are Angels, Demons ect.

Now I am all for accepting that Christianity maybe doesn't qualify as true Monotheism because of The Trinity, the words Mono and Theos are never Biblicaly used together that way so if you can't be convinced Nicene Trinitarianism is Montheistic then so be it I'm not attached to the term.  But this post isn't about that, in the sense that The Trinity is a Single Deity, I believe that The Trinity is the only Deity that exists.

Christian Monolatry can easily become a Gateway drug to Arianism.  Once you deem it acceptable to refer to Angels as gods it becomes easy to argue The Word being called God is just a very special Angel.

This discussion often begins with The First Commandment.

I am Yahuah thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.  Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

That wording strictly speaking doesn't say other Elohim don't exist, in fact it has been taken as implying they do.  Thing is if you want to be nit-picky then that wording doesn't even entirely rule out the worship of other Elohim, it just says Yahuah must always come first, but later in the Torah we see worshiping these other gods at all is forbidden.  This verse's wording is ultimately neutral to if they exist or not.

A lot of verses that seem like they are conceding other gods exist can be taken rhetorically, like when Elijah is speaking to the Priests of Baal.  Atheists sometimes talk to us about our God as if He exists, and I will refer to the "God of Calvinism" but I certainly don't think that @$$hole exists.

The verse in the Exodus narrative that seemingly refers to the "gods of Egypt" I believe is a result of corrupted Masoretic vowel indicators.  The context makes more sense referring to "trees of Egypt".

The real question is does the existence of Angels make the Bible Monolatry?  Depends what you think about Angels.  If you think the Angels already existed prior to the Creation of the Material world, that is a very Platonist Monolatry.  If you think Angels are included in the "let us make man in our image" that is also an error, that is The Trinity talking, or if you want to reject Trinitarianism then it's some sort of ancient Hebrew "royal we".  In my view whatever the Angels are they didn't predate Adam's Creation.

Let's use our old friend Tolkien as a comparison.  The Theology presented in the Ainulindale, Valaquenta and Quenta Silmarilion is Monolatry because of the Ainur, especially the Valar but even the Maiar are fairly divine in my opinion, particularly Melian.  However something like the Elves would be a different matter, people that are kind of like what Man would be if Man hadn't fallen.

My first theory for an origin story for entities like that would be Genesis 2:18-20, I think the normal animals were created before Adam in Genesis 1 and this is the Creation of creatures that are Sapient enough to be potential mates for Adam, they include The Serpent in the next chapter, the Cheirbium/Seraphim and are perhaps the basis for the Lilith tradition as well.

A second could be the idea of there being more time between Genesis 2 and 3 then we usually assume.  Maybe Cain and Abel weren't Adam and Eve's firstborn and they had prior children unaffected by The Fall?  This is a bit less likely and more conjectural but Daniel does describe Gabriel using words for Human.  I admit the main thing that made me think of this idea was George MacDonald's Lilith which I haven't even properly read yet, but it seems like this must be the origin of Mara, but obviously a 19th Century fantasy novel is not something to build doctrine on.

I also reject the idea of a Divine Council, Heaven is an Absolute Monarchy not a Constitutional Monarchy.

Deuteronomy 32 reads "sons of Israel" in both the Masoretic and Samaritan texts, those groups diverged from each other long before the Qumran Community formed, so what they agree on certainly takes priority over a single DSS fragment which could also just be a scribal error.  And even so, since I've argued BeniElohim means believers in Genesis 6 and everywhere else the two terms don't even mean different things.  Christians should see this as explained by Paul in Romans 11.  Also the Qumran community were Platonist heretics if they were indeed a group of Essenes so I fundamentally don't trust them.

Psalm 82 is the real heart of arguing the "Divine Council" idea is Biblical.  In John 10:34 Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 clearly showing that "ye are gods" refers to the Israelites, and He expected that application of that verse to be one none of these Pharisees would object to.  But Michael Heiser is unimpressed by that, he believes secular scholarly theories about the "Ancient Near Eastern context" needs to trump The Lord Himself telling us what He meant.

Isaiah 41 also uses "ye are gods" in a context no one disputes is about mortal human beings.

Even leaving New Testament quotes out of it, Psalm 82 was a Psalm of Asaph, Asaph we are told was a Prophet (2 Chronicles 29:30, Seer is a synonym for Prophet according to 1 Samuel 9:9).  His mission was not to tell us what went on between Yahuah and other beings in Heaven, it was to tell Israel what messages Yahuah has for Israel.  

Psalm 82 starts with Yahuah standing in the midst of the Congregation, not a council, this is essentially the Hebrew word translated Ekklesia(Church in modern NT translations but means Congregation or Assembly).  In verse 6 Yahuah is speaking as if He's referring to something He said before, which explains why Jesus also seemed to claim He was quoting The Torah, this is referencing back to the BeniElohim doctrine of the Pentateuch, Exodus 4:22-23 and Deuteronomy 14:1.  Also in Exodus 7:1 Yahuah says He will make Moses a god to Pharoah.

The confusion comes from verse 7, people feel saying "like men" means these people aren't men.  The word for men here is Adam so it could be like how Genesis 6 distinguished sons of God from daughters of men. Or it's about how these people have gotten so arrogant they think they're no longer mere mortals like the Nagyim of Tyre in Ezekiel 28.

This is God rebuking Israel for their cultural sins like he does in Ezekiel 16, that is clear when you just read what it's actually saying in the verses that don't use controversial to translate nouns.  Making it some scene in a Fantasy novel distracts from that clear message.  Which matters because I feel this is a message God still has for many modern Christians.

I think the "gods" of Psalm 138 are probably the same as Psalm 82.

In 1 Corinthians 8 Paul says that the idols are nothing.  He does seem to acknowledge there being others called gods and lords, but they are not actually gods.  He is NOT saying there are other gods but only One matters.

The only beings outside of The Trinity who The Bible ever considers worthy of being called Elohim or Theos in the right circumstances are Humans. We were made in the Image and Likeness of God and made a Living Soul by the Breath of God, and then the Word of God incarnated as one of us and gave us the ablity to become Sons of God, granting us His authority, and now the Holy Spirit of God indwells within those of us who believe making us The Temple of God and Body of Christ.  But we are currently still in our fallen state, at the Resurrection we will be perfected.

Here are some prior posts I made about Angels before fully forming the position I argued for in this post but are still posts I agree with (mostly).

The Torah and Angels.

The Nephilim and the Sons of God.

The Torah and Angels

Josephus tells us that the Sadducees were a sect that limited their inspired Canon to only The Torah, the Five Books of Moses, (he also says they believed in no Ressurection or After Life and had a very extreme belief in human Free Will).  The New Testament doesn't tell us that directly but it's inferred in how Jesus stayed within the Torah to prove the Resurrection to them in Matthew 22.

In Acts 23:6-9 we get a further elaboration on what the Sadducees believed.

But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."  And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.  For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, "We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God."

They didn't believe in the Resurrection, angels or spirits.  Now based on this scene alone Paul only explicitly sides with the Pharisees on the Resurrection, we have to go elsewhere to try and figure out his (and the rest of The New Testament's) positions on the other issues. 

What I want to talk about here however is how I've seen a lot of online scholars say this can't be accurate, that a sect which upholds The Torah can't possibly have any grounds to reject the existence of Angels.  And indeed the modern Torah only people you'll encounter online tend to fit every aspect of Paul's description of the Sadducees except the part about Angels, like The Desert Tabernacle Wordpress blog or the Remember the Commands Youtubde channel.

The thing is, I as someone who's very unconventional, have looked into the possibility of rejecting the doctrine of Angels as it's traditionally understood.  I've concluded that many passages both within The Torah and elsewhere we assume to be referring to Angels can potentially be interpreted differently when you remember things like the word "angel" in the Greek and Hebrew being their word for messenger and definitely does refer to human prophets sometimes.  However I feel unable to fully reject the idea because of certain passages, but none of those passages are in The Torah.  If I decided to become a Torah Only person, I might very well reject the doctrine of angels as it's traditionally understood.

First of all I have already decided I believe the Sethite view of Genesis 6.  

Second, the majority of the time the word "Angel" appears in the KJV of the Torah, indeed every time it does so in singular form, it is referring to The Angel of YHWH or The Angel of God, an entity which even many Pharisees (like Trinitarian Christians) view as being a manifestation of YHWH Himself (The Word of YHWH) not a completely separate Angelic being.  Remember the Voice in the Burning Bush is technically called an Angel.

The Seraphim or "fiery serpents" from Numbers I believe originally refereed to a type of serpent or reptilian animal indigenous to the region (I lean towards the Pterodactyl aka Ropen), it is Isaiah alone who places some in the Throne Room of God, and those I think if they are "Angels" are Angels taking the form of that Animal, or appearing like them to Isaiah's three dimensional eyes.

Now I'd like readers to stop for a minute and read the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8.  Now imagine if that story had been recorded from the Eunuch's POV rather then Philip's?  It could very conceivably seem to readers generations later like an encounter with an Angel.

We know that during the time of the Patriarchs of Israel there were people worshiping YHWH in other places, like Salem ruled by Melchizedek or the Kenite Priesthood of Jethro.  So the two "Angels" of Genesis 18-19 could possibly have been Human Prophets that YHWH assigned this task to.

Likewise in Genesis 31:1-2 the "Host of God" could be a camp of believers sent to greet Jacob when he returned to the land.  In fact if we translated "Malakim" consistently in Genesis 32, it becomes plausible the "messengers" Jacob sent to Esau in verse 3 came from among these "angels".  The Hebrew word for "Host" here isn't the same one used in verses about the "Host of Heaven". It's a word elsewhere translated Camp including when referring to the Camp of Israel in the Wilderness and when the Red Heifer is described as being slain "without the camp".  So this Camp could have been of people from Isaac's household.

Genesis 28:12 is something Jacob saw in a dream and therefore iffy to build literal doctrine on. The point was to show this place as a "Gate of Heaven".

The "Host of Heaven" is simply a term for the stars, and no verse in The Torah can be taken to insinuate the stars are living sentient beings.  The worship of the stars is compared to the worship of Idols, inanimate objects.

That just leaves Genesis 3.  In the KJV of verse 14 Cattle is a mistranslation, Behemah I have come to view as simply the broadest Hebrew word for Animal.  The English grammar of verses 1 and 14 of Genesis 3 leave more room for interpretation, but in the Hebrew it is actually unambiguous that the Nahash/Serpent is a Behemah and a Beast of the Field.  Making it one of the Beasts of the Field created in Genesis 2:18-20.

The Beasts and Fowls created in Genesis 2:19-20 are a separate creation from the animals created before Adam was in Genesis 1.  These must be beings who were a bit more sentient since they are, as weird as we may find it, presented as potential Mates for Adam.  Frankly I think the Cherubim (as well as the Seraphim Isaiah saw in the Throne Room) could also be among the creatures created here.

You could define such creatures as Angelic, but that isn't the traditional view of Angels.

The problem is some may seek to use that origin for the Serpent against identifying it with the Satan, which identification the Book of Revelation clearly makes.  But I don't view it as a conflict, Satan is never called an Angel, only said to appear as one.

The verses outside the Torah that are the real obstacle to rejecting the traditional view of Angels are Psalm 8 (which seems to imply the Angels existed before Adam), 2 Kings 6:17, Daniel 10 (and perhaps other Daniel material), and then lots of New Testament stuff, but some New Testament Angels I think are OT Saints Resurrected soon after Jesus was based on Matthew 27:52-53.
[Update: I just realized Psalm 8:5 uses Elohim not Malakim, so we could translate that "a little lower then God" thus removing it from the equation.  I believe Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew so no I don't think Greek texts of it's quotation using Angels proves anything.]

So I still believe Angels exist, but people who limit their Canon to the Torah can easily decide otherwise if they want to.

Though I think it's also plausible that the Sadducees were influenced by the philosophy of Aristotle (and/or Epicureanism) who could be described as the original Deist as well as the first Materialist, Antigonus of Sokho may have been the key middle man in that transmission.

Some have mistakenly compared the Saduccess to Platonic Philosophy, but that's based on how within Christianity denial of a bodily Resurrection usually comes via allegorizing it away into a Spiritual rather then physical one.  The Sadducees didn't just deny the Resurrection but any notion of an After Life, they were Jewish Materialists.

So I'm not saying you have to reject the idea of Angels if you limit your Canon to just The Torah, or even that doing so is the most natural conclusion, but it is possible if for whatever reason you wanted to.

The Nephilim and the Sons of God

I had opposed the Sethite view for a long time.  My last major post on the Nephilim issue on my Prophecy Blog, The Sethite View and the Nephilim, was me still viewing the Nephilim and BeniElohim as fallen angels but arguing it doesn't actually depict any Hybridization.  An argument that was maybe a little convoluted.

First I want to advise fellow critics of the Hybrid view to stop making bad arguments.  What Jesus said about Marriage and the Resurrection in Matthew 22 had a specific purpose, I do still believe we will be having sex in the Resurrection because it's the Restoration of before the Fall.  The Marriage that is done away with is the patriarchal marriage of Genesis 3.  And nothing in Hebrews 1 proves Angels can't be called Sons of God, the key word in that verse is begotten, only Jesus is the begotten Son of God.

Calling this view the "Sethite view" does it a disservice because it makes it sound like it's the Racist view, when what made me grow more and more uncomfortable with the Hybride view is how it is constantly tied into racist beliefs.  The real point of the Sethite view reaffirms how spiritual intermarriage is the only mixed marriage Yahuah truly objects to.  Now it may have so happened that the peoples descended from Enosh may have been most likely to be followers of Yahuah in the Pre-Flood world, like how it was Israel Post-Flood, but that is not the actual point.

I get annoyed when people like Chuck Missler say that the end of Genesis 4 where it says "then began men to call upon the name of Yahuah" it actually says "profane the name of Yahuah" in the Hebrew.  Because this is actually the exact same Hebrew phraseology used when Abraham called upon the Name of Yahuah at Shechem and Bethel in Genesis 12.  If this "Profane" interpretation began among the Rabbis, it was probably a product of their Non-Biblical idea that you aren't supposed to pronounce the Name of Yahuah, that verbally saying it at all profanes it.  And it's the same wording used in Joel 2, quoted by Peter in Acts 2 and Paul in Romans 10 for saying that All who Call upon The Name of Yahuah shall be Saved.

The Bible definitely describes Gigantic people in certain narratives, but no word used in Genesis 6 or any other Pre-Flood narrative actually means that.  We don't need supernatural hybridization to make that happen, I think this ancient Gigantism, distinct from the modern known condition, was simply a natural part of Noah's genetic potential that has been lost.  But perhaps sometimes was triggered by cross breeding similar to why Lygers get so big.

Nephilim is a word used only three times in all of Scripture, in two passages, Genesis 6 and Numbers 13.  The problem is using Numbers 13 to help us define the word has a major problem.

In Numbers 13:21-25, the narrative voice describes the Anakim and it never calls them Nephilim or describes them as Gigantic.  Numbers 13:27-29 is the first description of the Anakim and others in Canaan the spies give, and still not yet called Nephilim or gigantic.

Caleb's good report comes next, and he doesn't use the word Nephilim or talk about giants.  Then comes Numbers 13:31-33.  In verse 32 the narrator says "and they gave an evil report of the land they had searched".  The Hebrew word translated "evil report" is also sometimes translated "defaming" and "slander", like in Numbers 14:36 referencing back to this report saying it was a slander.

It is this report that first talks about the Anakim having great stature and in verse 33 twice uses the word Nephilim.  What they are saying is not accurate, they are exaggerating, and may have themselves not been using this word correctly.  And this passage is probably the reason translations starting with the Septuagint translated it Giants.

Deuteronomy 1:27-28 is again referencing back to this evil report.  Deuteronomy 2:10 calls the Anakim tall, but Saul was also tall compared to most Israelites.  Verse 11 says that Emims like the Anakim were "accounted" Rephaim, this word for accounted is also translated esteemed, reckoned, and even imagined.  It is again describing a belief that may not be true.  Verse 20 again talks about them being "accounted' Rephaim.  Verse 21 again calls the Anakim tall, but nothing more.  Deuteronomy 9:2 again simply calls the Anakim tall while referencing back to the evil report.

The first time the Anakim are mentioned in Joshua is in 11:21-22, where there is no mention of them being large in size, or Nephilim or Rephaim.  Joshua 14:12-15 again references the evil report but without talking about Giants.    Joshua 15:13-14 again mentioned the Anakim but no gigantic size.  Joshua 21:11 and Judges 1:20 are the last two references to the Anakim and they are again not called Nephilim or Rephaim or giants.

The word Rephaim is also the name of a location in Israel, and sometimes gets translated "giants" even when referring to that location.  The Rephaim as a group of people are first mentioned in Genesis 14 and 15.

The remaining references to the Rephaim are in Deuteronomy 3:11, Joshua 12:4, and 13:12.  Which all call Og the king of Bashan the remnant or all the remains of the Rephaim.  Og was defeated and killed by Israel in the time of Moses, well before the Anakim were in the time of Joshua.  So if Og was the last of the Rephaim, then this repeatedly recorded belief that the Anakim were Rephaim must be wrong.

And it also proves the word Rephaim doesn't mean Giant because Goliath came later and he's never called a Rephaim, neither are his brothers.   If Rephaim means giant then Goliath's existence creates a contradiction.

The term BeniElohim, translated "Sons of God", only appears in Genesis 6 and Job in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible.  Many Christians on this issue have argued the idea of believers being Sons of God isn't introduced until the New Testament in John 1.  And that Luke 3 calling Adam the Son of God is different because Adam was a "direct creation of God".  The problem is that the debate about if this term refers to angels or humans or both and if so when forgets that more verses are relevant to this issue then just those that use that exact phrase.

Exodus 4:22-23 Yahuah says to Pharaoh "Israel is my son, even my firstborn: and I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.".   Deuteronomy 14:1 says "Ye are the children of Yahuah your God", the word for children being Ben.

In the Song of Moses, Deuteronomy 32:8-9 says in both the Masoretic and Samaritan texts...

"When the Highest divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.  For Yahuah's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.". 

A DSS manuscript of this verse however says BeniElohim instead of "sons of Israel", which has lead many scholars to insist that must be the original and tie it into Daniel 10 and Ephesians 6 to create an idea that Elyon divided the 70 nations of Genesis 10 between 70 divine/angelic Principalities.  However, whatever is the original maybe the copyist who changed it simply felt "sons of Israel" and "sons of God" meant the same thing?  When Jacob came into Mizraim his family was 70, and in Numbers 11 we see another 70 for Israel.  Jesus had His 70 Disciples also.  Deuteronomy foretells Israel to be scattered to all the nations.  And Romans 11 tells us the fullness of the gentiles will be grafted into Israel.

Psalm 82:6, a verse Jesus quoted, says "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Highest.".  This is a Psalm of Asaph, and it sounds like it's referencing back to something.  When Jesus quotes it He attributes it to The Torah.

Also in the Book of Hosea, just read 1:10 and 11:1.  In the latter Yahuah called Israel collectively His Son singular.  But in the former he says the children of Israel are sons of the living God, present tense.

In II Samuel 7:14 Yahuah through Nathan tells David that Solomon will be His Son and He will be Solomon's Father.  And eventually Solomon's great failing in 1 Kings 11 is tied to exactly what Sethite View proponents think the Sons of God did wrong in Genesis 6.

Ezekiel 16 begins by speaking of Israel as Yahuah's adopted daughter.

Malachi chapter 3 warns against marrying the Daughter of a Strange god. If the followers of strange gods are refereed to as their children, then clearly the followers of Yahuah are His children as well.

Even what's said in John 1 is not contradicting that believers already were God's Children.  It says The Word came unto "His Own" and "His own received Him not" and then He gave others the ability to become Sons of God.   The implication is that "His Own" were Sons of God already, or were supposed to be anyway.

Job provides the only place where the Hebrew term "BeniElohim" is used in a way where it seems impossible to say it's human believers and not Angels.  And it's not even at the beginning, one could argue those are deceased believers in Heaven, or that this takes place in the congregation of an Earthly Mishkan, which is repeatedly refereed to as the Presence of Yahuah, as well as of Eden when Cain left it in Genesis 4.  Ezekiel 28 tells us Satan was in the Garden of God and the Mountain of God (a term used only of Sinai), and because of the stones mentioned maybe implies he was the High Priest of that Mishkan.

It's the reference to BeniElohim and Morning Stars singing and shouting for joy when the foundations of the Earth were laid, in 38:4-7.  Which then gets cross referenced with other precedent for calling Angels stars.

Thing is, Job unlike Deuteronomy and Psalm 82 isn't quoted by Jesus in the New Testament.  But even with viewing it as God's Word it could still be viewed as a poetic narrative or parable and not literal history.  And maybe how all these things said in Job 38 connect to each other is being misunderstood.  In Revelation 2:28 Jesus says He will give the Morning Star to the over-comer.  And Job 38:6 refers to The Corner Stone, something everywhere else we know is a title of Christ, so God could have been speaking Prophetically.  And then there is the theory many Nephilim theorists like that the Great Pyramid was a Pre-Flood monument built by Sethites and the Corner Stone was it's Capstone.  Verse 7 does seem to be about the Flood.

What Nebuchadnezzar says of the Angel who appeared in the Fiery Furnace in Daniel 3 also gets cited.  This is an Aramaic term (that should be translated sons of the gods, plural) being used by a Pagan Gentile King who didn't became properly a believer till chapter 4.  It's definitely not for building doctrine.  (But also this scene is commonly viewed as a Theophany, this is The Angel of Yahuah, The Word of God, not a common ordinary Angel.)

And that Pagan belief is why Skeptics agree with the Hybrid interpretation of Genesis 6 (they just don't think it actually happened) because they're seeing it in the context of how the Pagan texts of Ugarit called the gods of their pantheon the sons of El their chief god, and one at least says there were 70.  Actual Believers should be resisting that Pagan interpretation of the text rather then embracing it.

But perhaps it's disingenuous to use external sources or even later Torah verses to interpret Genesis 6 either way.  Let's think about what this term likely meant in the context of reading through Genesis blind chronologically.  The only prior precedent for something like Angels are the Cherubim and maybe the Serpent, none of them are in any way called sons of Elohim.

But when Eve gave birth to Seth near the end of Genesis 4, Seth is called a Son and then Eve says that Elohim appointed her another seed.  Seth is called at his introduction a Son as well as from Elohim. (Additionally Genesis 4:1 could be read as saying Yahuah is a co-father of Cain in some way.)  Even if I acquiesced to the Skeptics who think this text was originally written from a Pagan viewpoint, the ancient Pagans often didn't view the idea of having a Human father and a Divine father as contradictory, Alexander didn't think of it as denying Philip as his father when he claimed to be the Son of Zeus-Amon, Herakles was still heir to his father's royal line, and Oedipus was called a Son of Helios even though his story is built around him being the son of Laius.  So there is both a Pagan and a Monotheistic justification for reading that verse as proclaiming Seth a son of Elohim.  Also God-Human Hybrids (or Demigods) were mainly a Greek concept in antiquity, I've found no solid evidence of Near Eastern, Mesoptamian or Egyptian belief in similar Divine-Human Hybrids.

However maybe Genesis shouldn't be interpreted so independently. The first 5 books of The Bible are called the "books of Moses", but only 4 are directly about Moses.  Perhaps Genesis is meant to be looked at as a Prequel, and everything in it should be interpreted in terms of how it anticipates, foreshadows and sets the stage for the Mosaic narrative.  As a long time Star Wars Prequel Trilogy apologist and more recently a fan of Fate/Zero, I feel uniquely qualified to analyze Genesis as a Prequel.

In which case there is nothing in Exodus-Deuteronomy defining Angels as Sons of God, but plenty of precedent for believers being sons of Yahuah which I already cited above.  And there is no narrative from Moses time about Angels interbreeding with Humans, but a number of passages about the danger of Yahuah's people marrying those who serve other gods.  Numbers 25:1 even says "daughters of Moab" in a way that parallels "daughters of Adam".  In fact later parts of Genesis say "daughters of Canaan", "daughters of the Canaanites", and "daughters of Heth" talking about the same issue.  And beyond the Torah, Judges 14 uses "daughters of the philistines".

When defending the genealogies of Jesus, we love to point out how in the Hebrew mindset you can be called the Son of anyone your parents descended from.  So Luke 3 calling Adam the Son of God absolutely proves Humans can be called sons of God.  But during this mortal life non believers are currently estranged children, I of course believe God intends to bring everyone back in eventually, but it's us believers who already are.

The main reason lots of Christians have supported the Hybrid view is the apparent New Testament references in 2 Peter and Jude.  Even though offspring of these "rebel angels' are not refereed to in those verses.

2 Peter 2:4 and 5 are possibly not even about the same thing.  Verse 4 could seemingly be describing Dathan and Korah's rebellion.

Jude verses 6 and 7 are viewed as comparing the Genesis 6 incident to Sodom and Gomorrah.  In my past studies on what Jude says about Sodom, I said both these incidents are about lust between angels and humans, emphasizing how "strange" in strange flesh means different, alien, foreign, ect.  But now I recall how my greater point about the Sin of Sodom is how Ezekiel and Jesus define it has being inhospitable to foreigners.  I should have realized sooner that Jude's intent was to condemn them for their desire to rape foreigners traveling through them. 

Jude mentioned Korah in verse 11, could it be this is all connected and he was also thinking of that incident in verse 6?  Verse 5 seems to set up the context as after the Exodus.  And you can't object to Jude then going backwards chronologically when he mentions Sodom in verse 7 because verse 11 also listed the people it refers to out of their chronological order.

Chuck Missler makes a thing out of a rarely used word for Habitation in Jude 11.  Paul's use of Oiketerion in 1 Corinthians 5:5 follows a reference to the Tabernacle in verse 1.  Thing is, Mishkan also means Habitation, Dathan and Korah created their own Tabernacle that their followers chose over the Tabernacle of Moses and Aaron.

I think the Greek root normally translated Tabernacle in the KJV is the Greek equivalent to Ohel, since it literally means Tent and is used of both the Mishkan and the Sukkots of the Feast of Tabernacles in John 7.  I think Oiketerion should be viewed as the proper Greek equivalent of Mishkan.  A number of OT verses use Ohel and Mishkan interchangeably.

In the past I've argued Nephilim means Fallen Ones because it comes from Naphal meaning fall.  And viewed that as supporting it being of Fallen Angels because of Isaiah 14:12's use of Naphal.  But believers can also "fall away" or "fall from grace".  Maybe Nephilim originally meant Apostates or Apostasy?  It is often said that Apostasy is the theme of Jude.  Numbers 14:43 is also considered relevant to the issue of Apostasy, being possibly drawn on in Hebrews 6, and it uses Naphal.

Now in Number 13:33 it could be a wrong understanding of the word already existed, again we are told not to trust that account.  But hypothetically if at least that word was used accurately, there are ways one could argue the Anakim were Apostates, maybe people who once followed Melchizedek and then fell away and traveled south towards Hebron. 

Rob Skiba has attempted to make a point for his peculiar view by saying the second use of Nephilim in Numbers 13:33 is spelled the same as in Genesis 6 but the first use is different.  Hence him arguing these Nephilim came from the Genesis 6 Nephilim.  In the view I've proposed here, it could be these contemporary Anakim were not technically Apostates, but being called something similar because they descended from Apostates. Or more simply I could translate it "Apostates of the Apostasy".

The Enochian literature is all influenced by Greek mythological and philosophical ideas.  I've been arguing against viewing such apocryphal literature as canon since way back when I did still believe in Angel-Human Hybrids.  Same with the Dead Sea Scrolls, none of them predate Greek influence.

But what's annoying is how people act like Apocryphal literature is universal in taking the Hybrid view.  The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan is one example of a text that clearly depicts the Sethite view.  The Book of the Cave of Treasures is an older Syriac version of the same story that one tells.

But what really surprised me was to find that Rob Skiba's own precious Book of Jasher supports the Sethite view.  Jasher chapter 4 verses 16-18, is clearly that book's version of Genesis 6.  Jasher chapter 3 verse 23 does use "Sons of God" seemingly of Angels in heaven, but this is unrelated to anything like the Genesis 6 account.  In chapter 4 it's clear that the people who's corruption is linked to marrying "daughters of men" are the men of Seth's clan who this chapter is chronicling. 

Jubilees chapter 5 I think could be interpreted as supporting either view, so I'm not gonna go into it.  It uses the word Angel but again that can be used of human believers. 

I've heard it claimed the Septuagint uses the word Angel in Genesis 6 which Hybrid view supporters point to, but the texts I've seen do not, either way the word can be used of human believers since it means messenger.

The Septuagint's main role in how views on this developed is in translating Nephilim as Gigantes, which is the origin of it being translated Giants, the English word Giant comes from Gigantes.  What the Gigantes were originally in Greek mythology however was not even partly human, they were siblings of the Titans.

Which interpretation is older is irrelevant to which one is true.  But regardless the Angel view can't be proven to exist before the time of Alexander bringing Greek influence to Judea.

The idea that Genetic Impurity was the reason for The Flood is what makes it the inherently Racist view.  The only intermarriage The Torah truly opposes is Spiritual intermarriage.  Malachi who is affirmed as a Prophet by the New Testament said it was marrying the daughter of a strange god Yahuah objected to.

Many Racists will use the Sethite view of course. Especially since the most blatantly racist Christians I've found online aren't even Young Earth Creationists and believe the first mixed marriage was Cain and his Wife who they wrongly claim didn't descend from Adam.

And what I'd say in a debate with them, is that if biological intermarriage was the point why did God describe it in Spiritual terms that made this confusion inevitable?  If their version of the Sethite view was the intent it would have just said Sons of Seth or Sons of Enosh.  But if the Hybrid view was true, it would have simply said Angels or just said Elohim which is already plural and sometimes used of Angels and thus not needed the "sons of" part.

In Genesis 6:11 the reason for the Flood is defined as being that the Earth was filled with Violence.  The word translated "corrupt" there is also a word often associated with warfare, being also translated things like perish and spoiler.  Verse 12 says man corrupted His way upon the Earth. 

And this emphasis on violence is also consistent with the first 4 verses of chapter 6 because the word translated "mighty men" in the KJV is gibborim, which also gets accused of being a word for Giant, but what it means is warrior.  It's sometimes used of good warriors in The Bible like David's Mighty Men, and  is used of the first Warrior King Nimrod.  But in this context it's about the world becoming filled with violence.

Also Genesis 6:4 calls them "Enosh of renown" which in a Pre-flood context I feel verifies they paternally descended from Enosh, since tribal identity in The Bible is usually identified by the father's line.

And the book of Jasher's interpretation of this situation of Sethites taking daughters of men is describing those daughters of men as spoils of war.  And even Hybrid view supporters have pointed out that the language in Genesis 6:1-4 can be interpreted as implying the daughters of Adam were taken by force.

The line of Cain was also associated with Violence. From Cain being the first murderer, to whatever Lamech did.  To Tubal-Cain's clan being perhaps the world's first weapons manufacturers.

The New Testament says Noah preached repentance, you can't repent of being born a hybrid, but you can repent of living by the sword.

Now you may object that I've made two different thematic connections, a connection to the theme of foreign pagan women leading Israelites astray, and women being raped as spoils of war.  But I'd argue those themes do go together.

The main obvious Torah example of the foreign women theme is what happened with the Moabite women because of Balaam.  People forget that happened after Israel had just been militarily victorious over Moab.  And Solomon's many wives also came mostly from nations David had conquered, and chronologically Rehoboam's Ammonite mother he was married to while David still lived.

Taking women as spoils of war can lead to unwanted foreign cultural influence.  To a moderner that's not the actual reason to morally object to the practice, and I'm sure God agrees.  But when writing people a religious guide book unintended consequences are what people are more likely to listen to.