See, that’s my point. It is not definitive one way or another. There is another interpretation where “the fallen” are actually the sons of Cain. Not of angels.
It’s not really defined in the Bible either way, but I’m OK with that. In reality, it’s not needed to be defined. It’s the overarching moral of the story - that even though some men were huge and physically strong and imposing, God could wipe them all out with a flood, and he could enable a small, young shepherd to beat them with just a rock.
It’s the lesson of the giants that matters, not that they might have come from angels or others.
Yeah, I get that but it doesn’t satisfy my mind. Maybe I’ve spent too much time on this topic and 37 years of reading and writing computer code. Ha!
What I do find most disconcerting is the fact the Christian church fathers stopped teaching this because they feared people would find it too lofty to believe. Guess they thought the Genesis story would sound too much like Greek mythology (Read: Hercules being half god, half human).
Also, scripture clearly states the Nephilim were on the earth before and after the flood. When the angelic beings visited Lot’s family seems they were in complete human form as some of the Sodomite men wanted to have sex with them.
IIRC, Christ only “likened the time” of his return with two biblical patriarchs; Lot and Noah. And from my viewpoint I see a common thread; Sexual interaction between angelic beings and humans. (yes, I see the simple meanings - celebrating sodomy like we see today - closing the door of the ark shutting out unbelievers, etc.)
My vigil continues.