Tom Ballinger very rightly disputes a widely accepted yet mistaken interpretation of this passage as if it, means that those called "Sons of God" were the sons of Seth, and as if the incident recorded concerns the breakdown of a previously preserved separation between the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain, which we agree is NOT Scriptural. He defines the meaning of "sons of God" which he reminds us is a term set in contrast to "the daughters of men", but if the "sons of God" had been really sons of Seth there would have been no contrast, for "the daughters of men" included also daughters of Seth, and we are nowhere told that the sons of Cain saw the daughters of Seth "that they were fair". It is only natural that the sons of men are attracted to the daughters of men. What we are told here in Genesis is quite different; that the sons of God as one kind of beings were attracted to the daughters of men from a separate kind of beings. The sons of God did something NOT natural in taking the daughters of men as their wives and the progeny of that misalliance became giants, resulting in great wickedness on earth, so that God was grieved at His heart.
Cecil J. Blay
http://www.geocities.com/tws490/zTTgl.html
