We are all sons of God, believers and non-believers but I think there is a special meaning for this use. For God to send a flood it seems to me that it would be much more than that many, if not all, didn't believe.
These are some of the reasons, in a study done by E.W. Bullinger, that I believe that these "sons of God" are angels.
It is only by the Divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called "a son of God". For that which is "born of the flesh is flesh". God is spirit, and that which is "born of the Spirit is spirit". Hence Adam is called a "son of God" in Luke 3:38. Those "in Christ" having "the new nature" which is by the direct creation of God can be, and are called "sons of God".
This is why angels are called "sons of God" in every other place where the expression is used in the OT. We have no authority or right to take the expression in Gen. 6:2,4 in any other sense. Moreover, in Gen.6:2 the Sept. renders it "angels".
He also goes on about the Nephilim, or giants, in great detail.
The reference to the nephalim is the only instance where a possible interpretation of angels procreating with humans exists.
I believe that the serpent in the garden is the first instance of that type of procreation. Satan was trying to interfere with the line to Christ. He knew it started with Adam and Eve and continued through the Adamic line (Hebrews).
In Gen.6:2, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair.... The word "men" is (Heb. ha-'adham, sing. - the man Adam). This isn't mankind, "men", but Adam. It should have been translated as: That the sons of God saw the daughters of "ADAM" that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Satan wanted that line to Christ wiped out.
Also, your understanding of prior ages is dependent upon the translation of key words. Do you believe that when the vowels were added to the Masoretic text mistakes were made?
Yes, I do. That is why I use the Companion Bible, by E.W. Bullinger. "Readers of the Companion Bible are put in possession of information denied to former generations of translators, commentators, critics, and general Bible students." Bullinger had access to notes by Ginsburg, or he himself took notes (I don't know the proper story) but because of Bullinger or Ginsburg, this Bible has scripture tested against the Massorah.
.....Ping
We are just going to disagree. As I disagree that satan fathered Cain. However, I see a lot of folks seem to want to believe the nephalim were fallen angels, so this belief may not be as extreme as people say, that does not make it true though. In my limited study of Scripture one thing I have noticed is major points are revealed to us numerous times. Here a whole new theological perspective is being fashioned from a questionable interpretation of a single passage and this point is found nowhere else in Scripture.
How does reincarnation play out in this interpretation of Scripture?