Because Christianity is bigger than Biblical manhood or Biblical womanhood (Blog of Retha Faurie)

(Note: I am not teaching the contents of this blog entry. It is put out for evaluation. Correct me if I am wrong, learn from me only if I have some chance of being right.)

The men of power saw the women/ girls of the common people, and how beautiful they were. And they took and raped any women they wanted.

And God said: “My spirit shall not always be with man, he will only reach 120 now.” (Prior to that, people got a lot older.) “I cannot let any of the corrupt and powerful stay in power for too long.”

There were tyrants in the earth in those days and after that, when the men of power had children with the women/girls of the commonners, who also became mighty men who were honored, the men with authority.

And God saw that the people were very wicked (or perhaps that the wicked were powerful?) , and their imaginations and thoughts was only evil continually.

And God was sorry that he made humanity… (The story of all except Noah’s family being destroyed follows) – My paraphrase of Genesis 6:1-6

It seems to me that the above, by simply looking at the Strong’s Hebrew dictionary, could be the meaning of the much-bible women worrydebated Genesis 6:1-6.

Why would I translate “the sons of God/ gods” with “men of power”?

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek dictionaries tell us that “sons” means, in the broadest sense of the word, literally and figuratively, among others nation, quality, condition.

God/ gods come from a plural word (gods rather than god) in Hebrew. It also sometimes meant magistrates or judges, or the mighty, according to Strong’s.

Could “the sons of the gods” then be those who were among/ affiliated with the men of power? Even literal sons of those with power (nepotism at work)? Or were the sons of gods perhaps affiliated to the gods the people believed in, priests of the gods?
For the “daughters of men”, the entry for “men” in Strong’s gives the meaning firstly of humans, but also “the common sort”, men “of low degree”. Perhaps this could refer to the women/ girls among the common people.

Some theologians think that “sons of God” denotes despots1, and they were getting into polygamous marriages with the daughters of the commoners.

Could the Bible mention that these males “took any that they wanted”, because that is part of what makes this a story about wicked men? They took who they wanted, regardless of what the women wanted? Is this the wickedness which God wanted to eradicate with a flood?

And giants? Strong’s say that word can properly be translated as a bully or a tyrant. (It is derived from the verb “fall” in a way that means “feller”, one who cause another to fall.) Tyrants do not ask consent when they take what they want.

It sketches a picture of the violent ruling the earth, and the particular wickedness that is mentioned is raping women. After that, the Noah story starts: This is why God wanted to destroy the earth with a flood.

It has parallels with the Sodom and Gomorrah story, where a story of men apparently wanting to rape  (Genesis 19) is also told right before the destruction, in Sodom’s case by a fire.

Does this show that God, right from the beginning – in societies which were not influenced by anything like modern feminism – hated tyranny in general, and forcing another person sexually in particular? Rape is the sin, I believe, which God used as the reason when He destroyed. If so, it is understandable that the real meaning of this story would become obscured to mostly male Bible commentators for centuries.


1See the Despot interpretation as the second one here. For other possible interpretations of the passage, note al 3 ideas on the same page. The page favours the idea that it was angels sleeping with humans, but there are several reasons why I disagree.
The idea that this passage is about despots is something I learned from other writers, but to connect it with rape, and the rape scene in Genesis 19, is my insight.


Comments on: "Are the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” having giant children a story of tyranny and rape?" (3)

  1. Could be. I thought it was talking about polygamy though.


  2. I had heard teachings on this (one by Benny Hinn I believe), and also others who’s names I am not sure of, which taught that the sons of god were fallen angles that mingled with humans producing half humans/half demons and that is where Goliath and his brothers supposedly came from. Also,some people believe that humans with RH negative blood are the half breeds since RH negative mothers bodies will attack and kill their own babies in the womb or at least cause damage to the child in trying to do so if the father does not also have the same blood type and it gets mixed. However this does not happen if only the father is RH negative and the mother is not. in that case the mother will accept the child. The only other place in nature that it has been observed to happen is in mules who are a half breed of horse and donkey where the mothers body will kill the off spring if it does not match itself. That is the reasoning they use at least. I do not believe that there are people walking around who are half demon or half god though, I think it is ridiculous, but there are folks who claim so as per “bible evidence” concerning this portion and that was supposedly the evilness on earth, “half breeds”. :/


  3. I realize this is an older post but I wanted to comment because I really appreciated reading it. This is the sense I get from reading the passage, also.

    I read the Bible through many times before I started going to church. Once I was attending church I was amazed at the ideas people got out of various passages, ideas you would never get unless someone else introduced them, and this is one of those passages.

    We know that angels “neither marry nor are given in marriage” according to Christ, so why would they have reproductive organs? Angels are never referred to as male or female. Even if angels could procreate, the idea that they would be a genetic match with human beings and produce offspring is unbelievable. But most importantly, if the passage is speaking of angels, the human beings would have had no control over what was happening, they could not have fought against angels- yet in the narrative it is human beings that God is angry with and punishes! Does that make any sense? No.

    There are people who are deeply into this teaching about angels and have all sorts of doctrines that grow out of it, teachings about genetics, and a whole different concept of good/evil and salvation.

    I personally believe the passage is talking about the fact that men began to take advantage of their greater physical strength to feed their lusts and commit atrocities. They practiced rape/polygamy not just to feed their sexual lusts but also to feed their lust for power. The point was to build cities with their own offspring, through these many wives, gaining power and control over whole geographic areas in competition with other men- “the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them.” I believe this is the beginning of patriarchy: one man being the literal father and the absolute ruler of his own city/state. The beginning of rule by warlords.

    Right after this passage we read, “Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” We see that evil desires and purposes had taken over all of the thoughts and goals of mankind. God was sorry he’d made man. If angels were at fault, this would make no sense.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: