As far as New Testament verses referring to Believers and Adam as Sons of God. I have shown that we are not actually Sons of God strictly until the Resurrection. When we become like The Angels and like Adam was before The Fall.
The Pastor I do not like to name used a verse from Hebrews to try and prove Angels can't be called Sons of God. That passage was about how Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God, (John 3:16). This same Pastor never brought up Job at all, besides the beginning of Job, in verse 38:7 God says "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" in a Context talking about Creation. Before Adam was Created.
Before 30 AD the only Sons of God were The Angels.
Thing is, I have become skeptical of the traditional Angel-Human Hybrid view. I accepted it for the longest time. I argued against Rob Skiba about second incursions once. And I still stand by what I said there that the Angels falling out of Lust for Women has continued post-Flood.
I still believe Sons of God refers to Angels, and I still believe the word Nephilim probably refereed to the Angels not the Mighty Men offspring.
Here is the thing, all of the New Testament verification that Angels fell to marry women in II Peter and Jude, and also Paul in 1 Corinthians when he talks about head coverings. Never confirm the angels were the fathers of any children.
The text of Genesis 6 as it's usually translated has insertions. In Verse 4.
There were Nephilim in the earth in those days; (and also after that_, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.Notice I put "to them" in italics, that isn't in the Hebrew. The text says the women the Angels married bore children, but doesn't necessarily say the fathers were the Angels.
Genesis 21:1-3 says.
And YHWH visited Sarah as he had said, and YHWH did unto Sarah as he had spoken. For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.It wouldn't be hard actually for a fringe theorist to suggest this passage is saying YHWH fathered Isaac. But we know from the context of Genesis 18 this is about YHWH making a barren woman fertile so He can keep His promise. Maybe what the Beni-Elohim did for the women in Genesis 6 was something similar.
As far as Rob's interpretation of the "And also after that", it's already at the 120 years left point this happens the first time.
A lot of people believing the Hybrid view make that their only apologetic answer to the issue of the apparent commands of Genocide from God in The Old Testament. That is very dangerous, to allow yourself to think Genocide is ok if you become convinced some group of people are Nephilim.
Lots of Christians have dealt with the issue in more natural ways. The Tirbalouge Blogspot blog is Clainvist which means I object to much of their theology. And they support the Sethite view. But they do a good job archiving answers to this Genocide issue without needing to bring any Science Fantasy into it. Whatever the reasons, those kinds of things don't apply on this side of The Cross.
In the case of the Amalekites, God explains why this command is being given, nothing about them being less Human.
The Reason for the Flood is always given as the people's sinful and violent nature. Not that their DNA had been corrupted.
Rob Skiba while promoting his bizarre Nephilim theory decided to try and de-mystify the Giant issue by showing a video talking about how Lygers grow very large just from how their cross bred. Well he overlooked something, that refutes the idea of needing unnatural crossbreeding altogether, Lions and Tigers are of the same Kind, they're Cats, they had the same ancestors on Noah's Ark.
So everyone in the past who's mocked the idea of interbreeding causing Giants, well it does have a scientific basis, the Genetic potential just no longer seems to exist among the remaining descendants of Noah. The last Biblically documented giant was before 1000 BC.
That's just one fact to point out, meanwhile it's highly possible Angels themselves could sometimes manifest as Giants. William Schneoblen tell a story of seeing a Giant Angel guarding a house he was in after praying for protection. Biblically one Angel killed the entire Assyrian army by himself.
At any-rate, none of the three words translated giant mean that, the ones described as Gigantic are all post Flood. However The "Fossil Record" seems to indicate that most everything was a lot bigger before The Flood.
What about the Anakim? They are defined as being of the Nephilim. Maybe they were fallen angels themselves, not hybrids. Maybe "Children of Anak" is like a poetic title and not really an identifier of an ancestor. Arba, founder of Hebron and namesake of it's prior name is called both a great man among the Anakim and the father of Anak. Seems contradictory unless the descriptions are poetic in some way.
Or maybe I'm wrong about what Nephilim means, if it does mean Giant then it just means the Anakim were for some reason Gigantic.
I'm just saying I'm unsure. The Holy Spirit has been convicting me lately about how this Nephilim issue seems to be a gateway drug into a lot of Occult Neo-Pagan weirdness. My advice is to at least be very careful looking into this area of research.
But don't let aversion to the weirdness scare you into to accepting the Sethite view which ties into Racism. My issue with Skia is he rejects the Sehtite view but gives his version of the Nephilim story the exact same issue I have with the Sethite view. By tying it into vilification of Ham's descendants.