The true identy of the Nephilim

I am not sure if anyone has talked about this, but I think I have discovered (at least to my knowledge) the "true identity" of the Nephilim famously mentioned in Genesis 6. The long-standing debate on Genesis 6:1-8 is whether the "Sons of God" are fallen angels who mated with women or if the "Sons of God" are the godly lineage of Seth mentioned in Genesis 5. Those who hold to a fallen angels interpretation generally hold that the Nephilim are these giant beings who are angel-human hybrids. Those who hold to the "godly lineage of Seth" view (defended famously by St Augustine) usually push back and say angels as spirit beings cannot have flesh relations with humans, and thus the godly lineage of Seth makes the most sense given that the world was described here as turning completely wicked and thus the flood (Deluge) was now necessary. (Note: Antediluvian means the world before the Deluge, before the Flood.)

But what about the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6:4? In my research, there are three possibilities popularly put forth: (a) the Nephilim are angel-human offspring, thus making them "giants" (Greek) or "fallen" beings (Hebrew), depending on how you understand the mysterious term; (b) the Nephilim are the wicked human offspring from the intermarriage between the righteous and the pagans; or (c) the Nephilim are some other race or being who were famous at that time, possibly just tyrannical kings or very tall giants like Goliath, or possibly fallen angels who manifested as the ancient Greek gods who were then enshrined into pagan mythology. This post will discuss why none of these options fit the evidence and thus I will reveal a "new" possible identity of the Nephilim, which I've not yet seen anyone mention. 

I think the best place to begin our look into this is looking at the text of Genesis 6:1-8,

Why was Paul not sent to Baptize but to Preach? (Protestants misuing 1 Cor. 1:17)

A popular example of "Protestants behaving badly" that usually comes from those of the Baptist or Non-Denominational groups of Protestants is when they seem to think it's better to denigrate Baptism than to concede it does anything salvific. This is known as the fallacy of "cutting off your nose to spite your face," where someone mistakenly thinks that an argument against their opponent is "worth it" even if that same argument ultimately undermines their own position as well. In this case, a favorite "proof text" against Baptism as "necessary for salvation" is for these folks to point to 1 Corinthians 1:14-17, where Paul says: "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius... for Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel..." These Protestants will allege that Paul is saying baptism is not important, even non-essential to salvation, because preaching and believing are what really matter, and that thus Baptism must not be that important. But is that really what Paul is alleging? I will show why this is absolutely the worst interpretation one can have. 

We will begin by looking at the full passage:

Is Romans 7 about life as a Christian?

I was involved in a Calvinist/Reformed discussion on Romans 7, specifically discussing whether Paul in Romans 7 is speaking of himself as a "Christian struggling with sin" versus whether Paul here is speaking of his former life as an  "unconverted Jew". Biblical commentators have argued both as possible readings, but generally the Protestant side (especially Reformed and Lutheran) comes down strongly on the "Christian struggling with sin" reading of Romans 7. While that Protestant reading is understandable, I think it is a very problematic and inferior to the more likely "unconverted Jew" interpretation of Romans 7. This might not seem like an important debate, but I think we really need to care what Paul actually wants to teach us in Romans, and we should care if certain agendas are causing us to read Paul incorrectly in order to prop up erroneous theological ideas.  

Before delving into the text, it is important to affirm that everyone agrees that the Christian life involves an inner battle with one's flesh, which Paul speaks of elsewhere (e.g. Romans 6; Galatians 5:16-24). After we delve into the actual text and do actual exegesis, I will then share why I suspect the Reformed/Lutherans are trying so hard to hold to their reading.