Ash on Nostr: Yes, the Nephilim are not angels. That isn't the claim. (C'mon, guy... ) They're not ...

Yes, the Nephilim are not angels. That isn't the claim.
(C'mon, guy... )

They're not giants, as some say, either. They are "the fallen," as their name translates.
They are the offspring of the "sons of God" who took wives of the "daughters of men."
They are also described physically, later in Joshua and Numbers, as they are encountered. The descriptions are not of normal men.

And, yes, I agree wholeheartedly there are plenty of times (I would even say most of the time) when "sons of God" refers to Israelites--those times being *once there are Israelites.*
(Even at some of the times the link you provided, when the researchers say the term at those times "certainly refers to angels"--such as in Job--it's referring to Israelites.)
Christ even acknowledges the term as referring to Israelites, making (I believe, off the top of my head) a reference to a psalm, when the Pharisees take offense at the term.

And, yes, as the link you provided states *just as certainly*, there are times when "sons of God" clearly means angels.

So, when we read the term as used in Genesis 6 *before* there is a Jacob (the man Israel), meaning before there are Israelites... and the term is being specifically contrasted with the "daughters of men"...

Any state-safe researchers stamping their question mark and wagging a finger at implications means nothing. (I'd remind you that these are the same voices that shy away from saying perhaps niggers aren't suitable for White civilization; who use "Jew" and "Israelite" as synonyms, even calling Moses a "Jew" when he lived and died well before there was a kingdom of Judah; that say the dispute over "the body of Moses" in Jude is some angelic fight over Moses' physical body rather than the Moses and accusers disputing in leading the congregation of Israel, exactly what the term "body of Moses" means, as it is used elsewhere in scripture.)

Catch notice that "disputed at best" does not pass any weight at all to "not the case" (especially when the dispute, really, is for the sake of anti-racism, of not promoting a race.) It could be claimed by the same standard (just "being in despute") that your stance of rejection rather than acceptance is equally then "disputed at best."

There is nothing wrong conceptually (nor scripturally, which is the important basis) with God supremacy. It is not that we are White that is the inherant superiority and favor. It is that God gave to *us* His Spirit, from Adam onward, and restored us by His grace through His coming in the flesh--He being the true vine and we the branches.

(Btw, why are there unclean animals? How did this come to be? It's clearly not the law that makes them unclean, as Noah is instructed to take seven of each clean and two of each unclean animal. This is 1,500 years before the law.)