THE SONS OF GOD MARRIED THE DAUGHTERS OF MAN: With links to 2 Peter 2, the Letter of Jude and Paul By Andre Austin Gary Greenberg’s explanation of the Sons of Man and daughters of man is reasonable and explains more details on Paul. His theory goes like this in his 101 myths of the bible p.87-89: The Myth: The Sons of God came in unto the daughters of man, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown (Genesis 6:4) The Reality: This story describes political conditions during Egypt’s first Intermediate period (2300BC-2040BC) At the core of Egypt’s political problems at this time was the diminishing authority of the ruling kings of Memphis and the rising rebelliousness of local warlords from the Egyptian city of Herakleopolis. The challengers achieved enough power to declare themselves the official rulers of Egypt, but later Egyptian writers considered the Herakleopolitan dynasty illegitimate and several Egyptian kings lists even omitted it from the roster of Egyptian monarchs. According to Egyptian reliefs, the king personified the god Horus, a solar deity who became ruler of Egypt after the death of his father Osiris, and any challenge to the authority of Horus/Pharaoh constituted a challenge to the natural order of the universe. The Egyptians were very conservative in their traditions and did not easily recognize major changes. Memphis had been the seat of royal authority for almost eight hundred years when Herakleopolis challenged it for the right to rule. The opposition had to be based on both theological and political arguments. Theologically, Herakleopolis had to show that its kings, not those of Memphis, continued the line of Horus. Politically, they had to have a reasonable basis for making such a claim. The unity of the theological and political arguments would most likely arise from a marriage between members of the Herakleopolitian and Memphite ruling families. The children from that marriage would provide a basis for a political and theological challenge to any alternative successor favored by Memphis. This brings us to Genesis, which places the flood and its preceding era of wickedness during Egypt’s first Intermediate period (2300BC-2040BC). Genesis 6:5 indicates God’s desire to destroy humanity because of its wickedness. Immediately prior to this verse, Genesis provides an introductory passage to explain why things had gone wrong. The “sons of God” had married the “Daughter’s of man” and they had children. As a result, the offspring had become corrupt and wicked. Who were the “sons of God and the daughters of man? The traditional explanation holds that the sons of God were the descendants of Seth (they carry the donkey image, the third son of Adam and Eve, and ancestor of the Hebrew people. And the daughters of man were the descendants of Cain (see Jude 11) this created a bloodline mixing the cursed and the blessed. Jude 10 and 11 accuses People of being unreasonable animals (Mules/Donkeys) of following Cain. Because Seth in Egypt was symbolic of the Donkey we can see this run down in 2 Peter 2:16 of the donkey being brought up. If we look at the story in an Egyptian context, another interpretation makes more sense. The sons of god would be the sons of a ruling Pharaoh, that is the sons of Horus. The daughters of man would be the daughters of a non-royal family. In the first intermediate period, Herakleopolis challenged Memphis for the right to rule. Behind that challenge would have been a marriage between a son of the Memhite royal family and the daughter of the Herakleopolitan ruling family. When the Pharaoh died, various factions from Memphis and Herakleopolis would have jockeyed for position as the legitimate successor. The power vacuum resulted in competing claims to the throne, a period of widespread corruption and chaos, and civil war. The events of this time found their way into Genesis as the story of the sons of God and daughter’s of man”. When it came time for the Letters of Jude and 2 Peter 2:4 to be written they didn’t know the original context so they liken the sons of man with Angels. So when they wrote they put it in the context of past, present and the future. So they put their own twist and turn to Genesis to fit their own commentary during the time Jude and 2 Peter were written. In order for Paul to be considered he must have be thought of as an angel and an Egyptian/Arab. Does it fit? Yes A. Some welcomed him as an Angel (Galatians 4:14) also see Paul and Thecla “Paul had the countenance of an Angel chapter 1:7. If Paul wasn’t meant in context of 2 Peter 2 then his name shouldn’t have been brought up in the third chapter B. Paul was considered an Egyptian in Acts 21:38. Paul was related to the Herod’s (Romans 16:11) and they were Arab. All Arabs are ancestors to Ishmael whose mother was an Egyptian lady named Hagar (Genesis 16:1-12) with the tale of the wild donkey image also being included. C. Paul was linked with Hermes (Acts 13:12) In Egypt Hermes was called Thoth and was identified with Horus. Thoth would settle battles between Horus and Seth and disputes about Maat (Law, origin of the Ten Commandments). Thoth was linked with funereal functions also. And in Jude we have disputes over the body of Moses, about the change of the Grace of God which is in line with Paul (Romans 3:24-28 and Romans 4:4).