I’m not sure if this is worth the time and space. Walk away if it’s not your kind of piece.
Does Genesis 6:1-2 teach us satanic angels “had sex with women” (which is how I’ve heard it phrased again and again)? Well, whatever those verses teach us they don’t teach us that anyone “had sex with women.” They tell us someone (“sons of God”) married women and had children by them (6:2,4).
This is a far cry from painting the picture of satanic angels manufacturing human bodies and “sleeping with women/” If these were satanic angels it seems they had more virtue than a host of humans today since they had the decency to get married. 
The picture of evil angels having a night out on the town with women is more bizarre but surely easier to swallow than seeing them settling down to marriage and raising a family.
Maybe, after all, though it still leaves us wondering, the more conservative view is correct: “sons of God” is a reference to godly people giving way to ungodly ways. (The context certainly suggests some evil involved and the implication may be, and I take it to be, that they were committing polygamy. See Genesis 5:19.)
The Jerusalem Bible renders 6:2 this way, “the sons of God, looking at the daughters of men, saw they were pleasing and married as many as they chose.” The NJB retains that reading and several other versions seem to agree though the language is a bit ambiguous. Note Genesis 4:26 that is suggestive of existence of a godly line.)
Psalm 82:6 has an equivalent expression (“you are all sons of the Most High”) which Jesus seems to use to refer to human rulers. See John 10:34-35. It’s clear enough that in the psalm God is rebuking wicked rulers of the vulnerable and dependent, The psalmist may be using mythological speech (God calling the gods into a council meeting to expose their wickedness in oppressing the vulnerable but being worshiped instead of abandoned). I take it that Jewish apostate human rulers are the embodiment and instruments of evil forces worshiped as “gods”.
And Luke 3:38 has the Greek equivalent used of Adam who was a “son of God” (the word “son” is in 3:21 ). If this is a legitimate use of the phrase then perhaps it can refer to some in the line of the godly that behaved in an ungodly fashion. Note again Genesis 4:26
(When people tell you that the phrase “sons of God” MEANS angelic beings tell them that a word or phrase MEANS what the writer MEANS IT TO MEAN. In the end, CONTEXT is king and not doubtful lexical claims. Because a word or a phrase is characteristically used in one way does not mean it isn’t used in another. We hear of “agape” MEANING godly love, God’s love for us and our love for Him and our fellow-believers. We find it used that way all over the place (1 Corinthians 13, the books of John). So we’re told that’s what it “means”. But Paul uses it of Demas “loving” the world in 1 Timothy 4, 1 John 2 uses it of people who would “love” the world. Jesus uses it of people who would “love” only those that “love” them (as pagan did) and implicitly rebukes them for such love. The word “agape” means what a writer means it to mean and context, near and remote, determines that, though we can’t get to the bottom of some questions.)
No one’s sure about the derivation of “Nephilim”. Some say it is “the fallen (ones)” and have fallen angels in mind but the passage doesn’t call the sons of God Nephilim, that’s the name given to the alleged offspring. . I say “alleged” because the text doesn’t expressly say the Nephilim were the offspring; it says the offspring were “the heroes of old, men of renown” (6:4). It’s perhaps an open question whether these two groups are to be identified or perhaps I’m being too cautious and missing the obvious.
In any case, there’s this interesting sidelight. This was all before Flood behavior and presumably (since all humans died but eight) the Nephilim were dead. But Israel came across the Nephilim (Numbers 13:33)  in Canaan and we’re given their tribal connections. If we’re to take the stance that Nephilim are the offspring of satanic angels and women we’d have to suppose that these marauding predators who believed in marriage (!) must have been active more than once. And on we go like a string of Hollywood movies.
It’s possible that the Nephilim were the mighty men of renown in Genesis 6:4. It may even be likely. If this is true, the Nephilim were men and men who gained for themselves a great reputation as heroic (whether good or bad we aren’t told). There is the suggestion in Numbers 13:32-33 that the Nephilim may have been very tall men. See Deuteronomy 1:28. Joshua 11:21 says Joshua defeated the Anakites and the record makes no big deal about it. Apparently they were simply tall men rather than half angel/half human aliens.
I’ve taken a fair amount of space on this question mainly, I think, to suggest how tricky texts like these can be. To read them, make sweeping assertions and then use them to build a far-reaching theology of Satan and satanic angels is precarious indeed.  it says the offspring were “the heroes of old, men of renown” (6:4).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s