Who Are the Sons of God in Genesis 6? (The Sethite View Debunked)
After making Age of Deceit: Fallen Angels and the New World Order, I’ve come across a lot of people who do not think that the “sons of God” referenced in Genesis 6 were actually fallen angels at all. So, I thought it would be a good idea to show my logic as to why I believe that the “sons of God” are in fact, fallen divine angelic beings. The common accusation towards this view is that books like the book of Enoch and Jasher are used to prove the fallen angel view, and thus it’s unfounded in the Bible. To combat that view, I will only be using Biblical references, along with some relevant commentary, to prove that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were fallen divine angelic entities.
The section in question is found in Genesis 6 verses 1 through 4 quote:
“Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came into the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” 
There are two main theories regarding the identity of the sons of God and the daughters of men. 
The first is that the sons of God were fallen divine angelic beings and the daughters of men, human females. This is the view I hope to demonstrate here.
The second view is that the “sons of God” are the human Godly line of Seth, and the daughters of men, the human ungodly line of Cain. This is the popular view and the view taught in most Seminaries today.
There is a third view, that these sons of God were the dynastic kings or rulers and the “daughters of men” simply commoners. However, I will not specifically address this theory here because it falls closely in line with the Sethite view.
THE SETHITE VIEW
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia references the Sethite view as quote:
“Some commentators hold that by “sons of God” is to be understood the pious race descended from Seth, and by “daughters of men” the daughters of worldly men. These commentators connect the passage with Genesis 4:25, where the race of Seth is characterized as the worshippers of Yahweh and is designated as a whole, a seed.” 
This argument that because Seth was the replacement child of Abel as mentioned in Genesis 4:25 and therefore they were the worshippers of Yahweh is not accurate. The passage in question is Genesis 4:26 which states quote:
“And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.” 
The translation of “then began men to call upon the name of the LORD” is a very poor English rendering. The Hebrew reads “chalal qara shem yhwh.” Chalal is defined as “to pierce, defile, be profaned, or be desecrated” . Qara means to “call, summon, announce, or proclaim .” Shem is defined as “name”, and YHWH is the name of God [7,8]. So if we render this properly, we can translate this as “men defiled the name of God.” Quite different from what we read in the English and a blow to the idea that the sons of God are the sons of Seth whose descendants worshipped Yahweh properly.
OBJECTION #1: The Meaning of Chalal
An Objection to this concept of men defiling or profaning the name of God is that the word “chalal” does not refer to profaning the name of God, but rather the state of mankind. Thus, the argument follows that it was profaned, or fallen humanity that began to call upon the name of the Lord at this time giving them the title “sons of God.”
There are a couple problems with this idea. First, we see in places like Leviticus 19:12 where it states:
“You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.” 
Here, the word for “profane” is the same word used in Genesis 4:26, “chalal” demonstrating that the use of the word can certainly be to describe a negative attribution to calling upon the name of the Lord.
Second, we read in Exodus 6:3 quote:
“I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.” 
The phrase “God Almighty” is the Hebrew “El Shadday” and LORD is translated “Yahweh”, the proper name for God and the same name used in Genesis 4:26 . Thus, the idea that Genesis 4:26 is referring to men beginning to worship the name God Yahweh is unfounded. In fact, the word for “men” in Genesis 4:26 does not appear in the original Hebrew text .
Thus, we can conclude that at the very least, the name “Yahweh” was invoked at this point in time for some reason, but to suggest it was to worship His name is not found in the text.
DAUGHTERS OF MEN
Next, the Sethite view declares that the daughters of men were simply the daughters of Cain and his evil line. This is a problem again when looking at the original Hebrew words. The daughters of men are translated, “benovt ha ‘adam” or more directly, the daughters of Adam . The distinction is that they are literally daughters of humanity or man. Why would there be a distinction made between the “daughters of Adam” and the “sons of God”? Wouldn’t the line of Seth also be considered sons and daughters of Adam? Again, one must read into the text what’s not there to derive that the “sons of God” are the “sons of Seth.” It is simply not found in the Biblical account.
The Sethite view also fails to address one very important factor. The offspring that results from the union between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” were giants; Nephilim. I plan to do an entire message on the Nephilim in the near future since it is an important factor missing from understanding much of the Old Testament and end times prophecy. But for now, it’s another strike against the Sethite view since clearly the union between the sons of God and daughters of men caused the corruption of flesh. We read in Genesis 6:12 quote
“And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.” 
The word for flesh is “basar” and literally means “flesh, soft tissue, meat, skin” . The word for corrupt is “sahat” and means, “corrupt, ruined, marred, spoiled” . It is quite clear that the literal flesh of humanity became corrupt, ruined, marred, and spoiled at this time. This makes sense when we consider that just a few chapters back, God declared that the seed of Eve would triumph over the seed of Satan . Because the Messiah was promised through the seed of Eve, it became the goal of Satan to destroy the human lineage in order to prevent the Messiah from being born. This idea also makes sense when we consider the fact that God flooded the entire earth except Noah who was described as being “perfect in his generations” . The Hebrew word used “perfect in his generations” is “Tamim” and is defined “without blemish, without defect, blameless, perfect” .
So for the Sethite theory to hold up to this scrutiny, they would have to show that the marriage between Godly human men and ungodly human women produced a race of giants but also caused a complete corruption of the flesh of humanity, to the point where God had to flood the earth.
OBJECTION #2: Angels Don’t Procreate
A common objection I often hear to the fallen angel view is that angels do not procreate. The passage often used to make this argument is in Matthew 22:30 which states, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels of God in heaven.” 
Let’s take a look at a parallel passage in Luke 20:34-36 where it states, “But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.” 
Notice Jesus refers to “that age” which is the age to come. This is referring to the future time after Jesus’ return, or what is commonly known as the Millennium reign of Jesus on earth. Jesus also clarifies that it is those who are worthy to attain the resurrection from the dead who won’t marry nor be given in marriage. This is because we will have eternal life. Pro creation will not be necessary. In other words, the passage from Matthew 22:30 and subsequently Luke 20:34-36 has nothing to do with the ability of angels to procreate or not, but rather, it is Jesus stating that procreation will no longer be necessary in the future state of eternal life. The confusion may be with the fact that Jesus refers to us who are saved as “sons of God.” I will address this a little bit later when we look at the phrase “sons of God” in the New Testament.
But what these passages do show us is that angels, and equally, the “sons of God” are eternal beings. It would logically follow that there are passages like 2 Peter 2:4 that states quote
“For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment…” 
And as a subsequent verse, Jude verse 6 states quote:
“And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” 
In other words, these angels who left their rightful domain of the spiritual dimension took on fleshly bodies. We read in Galatians 5:19 quote:
“Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality…” 
And Romans 8:5…
“For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.” 
Once these angels took on human flesh, it logically follows that they did what the flesh desires as alluded to in Galatians 5:19.
And if that weren’t enough, we read in 1 Corinthians 11:10
“That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” 
It is very peculiar that in a chapter that speaks about the role of women in the church, Paul encourages women to have some form of covering over their heads “because of the angels.” This again is quite clear that it is in reference to Genesis 6.
OBJECTION #3: Angels Don’t Have Bodies
In conjunction with the argument that angels cannot procreate is the argument that angels do not have physical bodies. We just saw how the Bible describes angels that left their own habitation and committed sins that landed them in a dark prison called Tartarus. But this idea is further verified when we consider the reality of angels appearing in physical form in the Bible.
First, it’s fascinating to consider the possibility that angels actually have food. In Psalm 78:25 it states quote:
“Man ate of the bread of the angels; he sent them food in abundance.” 
Here, King David is referencing the manna that was provided while Moses and the Israelites were wandering in the desert during the Exodus from Egypt. The Hebrew word for “angel” here is “abbiyr” and is translated “mighty, powerful, strong animals, social leaders, and angelic beings” . It’s fascinating to consider that manna was in fact, food for the angelic beings. But there’s more.
We read in Hebrews 13:2 quote:
“Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” 
While this is startling and serves as enough evidence, there are even more verses that allude to the physicality of angels. In Genesis chapter 19, verse 1 we read quote:
“The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth…” 
We go on to read about the people in the town lusting after these two angels. In Genesis 19:5 it states quote:
“And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” 
This event is also referenced in Jude verse 7 where it states quote:
“Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” 
Passages that allude to men going after strange flesh are often thought to have been commentary about homosexuality, especially pertaining to Sodom and Gomorrah. While it is true, that there was homosexual activity in Sodom and Gomorrah, the word for “strange” in the Greek is “heteros” and means “of uncertain affinity, other or different” . If homosexuality were the main point, why would the word reflect something “different”? I believe it is because the point here was that men lusted after these angels.
So the argument that angels do not or cannot have physical bodies is once again unfounded in the Bible. So it logically follows that since they can manifest with physical bodies, they have the capacity to commit sinful acts right here on earth.
THE ORIGIN OF THE SETHITE VIEW
In my opinion, the historical origin of the Sethite view provides a nail in the coffin.
The first person to popularize this idea was Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century C.E . Augustine’s commentary on the Genesis 6 account has become the predominant view, adopted by familiar names such as Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century to John Calvin in the 17th century.
In an article entitled “Sons of Seth and the Daughters of Cain Refuted” author and Hebrew scholar Douglas Hamp states quote:
“…Augustine says, “By the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain,” (Augustine as quoted in Summa Theologica, Aquinas). We must ask the important question – where in Scripture does it say such a thing? Augustine makes the claim above that Scripture designates those daughters as coming from the race of Cain, but just where do we see that? The answer is that we simply do not. It was first tentatively considered by Julius Africanus and then completely invented by Augustine and then repeated by all who would follow in his footsteps ever since. If the term “sons of God” refers to the “sons of Seth” as so many suggest, then why does the text not simply state it?” 
Prior to Augustine inventing the Sethite claim, the common view held was that the “sons of God” who had unlawful relations with the daughters of men were in fact fallen divine angelic beings .
BOOK OF JOB
The phrase “sons of God” in the Hebrew text is, “benei ha elohim” and appears in the Bible five times in the Old Testament, six if you include the proper translation of Deuteronomy 32:8 . The first two times we see the phrase is in Genesis 6. The next three appear in the book of Job.
Job 1:6 states quote:
“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.” 
and similarly in Job 2:1
“Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.” 
and finally in Job 38:7 it states quote:
“When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?” 
In all of these instances in the book of Job, it is quite clear that the “sons of God” are angelic or divine beings. We know this because first, they present themselves “before the LORD” and His throne. We know that in the Old Testament times, no human can see God’s face without losing his or her life. We see an example of this in Exodus 33 when Moses asks God in verse 18:
… “Please, show me Your glory.”
God replies in verse 20:
“You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.” 
Furthermore, Satan, a spiritual being, is among them in this heavenly meeting, also presenting himself before the LORD. This clearly shows that the entities described as “sons of God” here in the book of Job are in the spiritual realm.
In a commentary by John Brown of JOB 1:6 he states quote, “The scene changes from earth to heaven and we see God’s angels gathering for a meeting with Jehovah!” 
Matthew Henry commenting on JOB 2:1 states quote, “The angels attended God’s throne and Satan was among them.” 
The NET commentary states quote, “In the Book of JOB the phrase (sons of God) clearly refers to angelic beings.” 
The account of Job 38:7 is especially intriguing because here God is describing the creation account of the earth. At the end of God’s decree of how he created the earth, He proclaims that the “morning stars” and the “sons of God” shouted for joy. If the “sons of God” here are humans, how would they be present in the time before humans were created?
The point of reference is clear. The “sons of God” in JOB 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7, all derive from the Hebrew “be·nei ha·’e·lo·him” the same Hebrew phrase that’s used in Genesis 6 translated “sons of God.” And while many who hold the Sethite view do agree that the “sons of God” in Job references divine angelic beings, they deny it when it comes to the same phrase in Genesis 6 exposing their inconsistent Hermeneutic.
PSALM 82 AND JOHN 10
There is another element to help understand what is going on in the Old Testament and the divine angelic beings or gods. In Psalm 82, we see a classic example of what is called “The Divine Council.” Dr. Michael Heiser is the leading authority on this topic who has helped me and many others to understand this idea that the “sons of God” mentioned in the Old Testament are not human, but divine beings.
In Psalm 82:1-2 it states quote:
“God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? 
Later in the same chapter, in verses 6-7 we read quote:
I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.” 
This passage in Psalm 82:6 is quoted by Jesus Himself in John 10:34-36. Here, after the Pharisees accuse Jesus of blaspheme because He claimed to be equal with God Jesus states quote:
“…“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 
In other words, Jesus was declaring His divinity in this passage by claiming to be equal with God, who in Psalm 82 is described as judging the lower-case-g gods. This is confirmed when we read just a few verses before where Jesus declares:
“I and the Father are one.” 
The objection often heard is that the “gods” in Psalm 82 are not in reference to divine beings, but rather human judges. But a passage to lay this idea to rest is found in Deuteronomy 32:8 where it states quote:
“When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.” 
Many translations of Deuteronomy 32:8 may read instead, “the sons of Israel.” However, Dr. Michael Heiser in a document entitled Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God clearly demonstrates why the text should more accurately read “sons of God.” This passage is alluding to God assigning divine angelic beings who rejected Him to take dominion over the various regions of the earth. Dr. Heiser makes the connection between the passage here in Deuteronomy 32:8 with the table of nations that we see in Genesis 10. In short, there is no way this can be the “sons of Israel” when Israel had not yet become a nation. 
Getting back to the issue of Psalm 82 and John 10, in another document by Dr. Heiser called Jesus’ Quotation of Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34: A Different View of John’s Theological Strategy, states quote:
“John wants his readers to know that Jesus was divine – a claim consistent with “sons of God” being used of divine beings…The “mortal” view of Psalm 82 therefore does nothing to assist the claim of Jesus’ deity, whereas the view offered here males the inclusion of Psa 82:6 consistent with John’s rhetorical goal.” 
Thus, there is another example of divine angelic beings present in the Old Testament referred to as the “sons of God.”
SONS OF GOD IN THE NT
Part of the reason why there is so much skepticism for the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 being angelic beings is because the text doesn’t come out and directly say they were angels or divine beings. If the text had, there would be no debate to begin with. But to help clarify what the “sons of God” really meant, and why the fallen angels theory best fits, let’s look at what the phrase actually entails from what we can gather from the New Testament.
To put it simply, the “sons of God” represents a direct creation of God. In other words, they were not born from other beings or have human parents but were assembled deliberately and directly by God.
The best example, while it shows in the singular “son of God” is in Luke 3:38 which states in the genealogy quote, “Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” 
Here, Adam is clearly stated as the Son of God. This makes sense because Adam did not have a human parent, but was rather created directly by God. This is why Jesus is called the “second Adam” according to 1 Corinthians 15:47 where it states quote:
“The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.” 
The rest of humanity including you and I, apart from Jesus, is born as sons and daughters of a fallen Adam.
But this brings up an important question. Does this mean that Jesus, who is also referred to as the Son of God, is equal with Adam and the Angels? No. This is because Jesus is the uniquely begotten Son of God. Let me explain.
The key to understanding how the title of “Son of God” is different when it refers to Jesus can be understood in the most popular verse in the whole Bible. John 3:16 where it states:
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” 
The word begotten in the Greek is monogenḗs. It is a combination of two words. “Monos” which means “only, solitary, alone”, and “genos” which means “offspring” or “kind” . So Jesus was, the one and only begotten Son of God. The idea of “begat” was a well-understood concept in antiquity as reference to producing the same kind. We read in Genesis 1 in several places that each plant, and animals were made after their own kind .
It’s common logic that a human begets a human. A dog begets a dog. A cat begets a cat. In the same way when God begets a son, Jesus, He is just as much God as the Father. This also serves as an example of why the corruption of all flesh in Genesis 6 grieved God who sent the flood.
While Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, the rest of us who are saved are also called “sons of God” in the New Testament. This is to identify the new nature of those of us who are saved.
Jesus tells us in John 3:6 that “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” 
Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 5:17 that “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” 
And in Ephesians 2:10 it says, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” 
So in light of all these verses, it becomes clear that in Christ, we have given up our nature of being sons of Adam, and are now direct creations of God and therefore the “sons of God”.
We see direct evidence of this when we read in John 1:12-13 where it says, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become sons of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” 
And Romans 8:14 says, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.” 
And again in Luke 20:36 it says “for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.” 
This plays right into the well-understood Christian theology of adoption. While we were born as children or descendants of Adam, those of us who are saved in Jesus Christ are adopted into the family of God, first spiritually, and eventually physically. We see evidence of this in 1 Corinthians 15:53 where it states:
“For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.” 
This is the hope we have in Jesus Christ. While we are saved spiritually now, the ultimate fulfillment of His promise is to have new immortal bodies so that we may live in the presence of God. In fact, Paul even tells us in 1 Corinthians 6:3 that we will be even higher than the angels: “Do you not know that we shall judge angels…” 
BACK TO GENESIS 6
So how does this entire concept deny the Sethite view and help us understand the identity of the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6? Because whoever those “sons of God” were in Genesis 6, they had to be a direct creation of God. And since Adam, the first “son of God”, as mentioned in Luke 3:38, fell in the Garden, all those who were born from Adam are sons and daughters of Adam, or in the case of Genesis 6, daughters of men.
If we go back to Genesis 6 and read the passage again, it might become clear why the “sons of God” cannot be of human descent.
Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose…There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came into the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” 
There are many avenues of inquiry that can come from this study. But I hope this demonstrates that the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6 were in fact rebellious divine angels and not the sons of Seth or dynastic kings.
I do want to clarify one thing before we end. The phrase “Fallen Angels” that is often referenced to the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 is more of a title rendered in modern vernacular rather than any clear translation from the Hebrew or Greek word for “angels”. The more precise description may be phrased “Divine beings” or “gods” with a lower case g. Hence my use of “fallen divine angelic beings” as a description of who the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were. Nevertheless, the case for the “sons of God” being non-human is quite evident.
I also hope that I was able to demonstrate our own identity as adopted sons and daughters in Christ and why we are given the title “sons of God” in the New Testament. It is my opinion that the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6 were not necessarily demonic entities with evil intentions to start but rather divine angelic beings with great authority that sinned under the influence of lust and accepted worship from humans. As a consequence for their actions, God had to flood the earth because His heart was grieved at the complete corruption of human flesh. Much like how we read about the fall of Satan from anointed Cherub to leader of the rebellion against God, it is possible that these “sons of God” who were sent initially to serve mankind who were made in the image of God, fell and became part of the satanic rebellion.
 Genesis 6:1-4 NKJV
 Genesis 4:26 ESV
 “chalal” http://biblesuite.com/strongs/hebrew/2490.htm
 “Yahweh” http://biblesuite.com/strongs/hebrew/3068.htm
 Leviticus 19:12 ESV
 Exodus 6:3 ESV
 “Shadday” http://biblesuite.com/strongs/hebrew/7706.htm
 Genesis 6:12 ESV
 “basar” http://biblesuite.com/strongs/hebrew/1320.htm
 “sahat” Accordance Bible Software “corrupt” also look up “shachath” http://biblesuite.com/strongs/hebrew/7843.htm
 Genesis 3:15
 Genesis 6:9
 “tamim” http://biblesuite.com/strongs/hebrew/8549.htm
 Matthew 22:30 ESV
 Luke 20:34-36 ESV
 2 Peter 2:4 ESV
 Jude 1:6 ESV
 Galatians 5:19 ESV
 Romans 8:5 ESV
 1 Corinthians 11:10 ESV
 Psalm 78:25
 “abbiyr” KM Hebrew Dictionary
 Hebrews 13:2 ESV
 Genesis 19:1 ESV
 Genesis 19:5 ESV
 Jude 1:7 ESV
 “heteros” http://biblesuite.com/strongs/greek/2087.htm
 Augustine of Hippo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
 Job 1:6 ESV
 Job 2:1 ESV
 Job 38:7 ESV
 Exodus 33:18-20 ESV
 Psalm 82:1-2 ESV
 Psalm 82:6-7 ESV
 John 10:34-36 ESV
 John 10:30 ESV
 Deuteronomy 32:8 ESV
 Luke 3:38 ESV
 1 Corinthians 15:47 ESV
 John 3:16 ESV
 “monogenes” http://biblesuite.com/strongs/greek/3439.htm
 Genesis 1:11-12, 21, 24-25
 John 3:6 ESV
 2 Corinthians 5:17 ESV
 Ephesians 2:10 ESV
 John 1:12-13 ESV
 Romans 8:14 ESV
 Luke 20:36 ESV
 1 Corinthians 15:53 ESV
 1 Corinthians 6:3 ESV
 Genesis 6:1-2, 4