Direct answer first: In Genesis 6, the phrase “sons of God” is interpreted in several ways by scholars and traditions, with the most common options being:

• Fallen angels or heavenly beings who took human wives, producing the Nephilim.
• Descendants of Seth (the godly line) intermarrying with the descendants of Cain (the ungodly line).

Because Genesis 6:1–4 is brief and highly allusive, Jewish and Christian interpretations have varied for centuries, and newer scholarship continues to discuss the possibilities with different emphases. Below is a concise overview of the main mainstream views and the considerations that accompany them. main interpretations

• Fallen angels/divine beings view
  • What people claim: “Sons of God” are heavenly beings who took on human form and had children with human women, yielding the Nephilim.
  • Why some support it: linguistic cues in ancient translations and later biblical and extra-biblical literature frame “sons of God” as divine or semi-divine beings; the presence of "Nephilim" as mighty, legendary offspring is seen as fitting this line of thought.
  • Common counterpoints: some argue that Genesis uses the term more ethnically or genealogically, and that explicit biblical references to angels mating with humans are sparse or interpretive.
• Descendants of Seth view
  • What people claim: “Sons of God” refers to the godly line of Seth, contrasted with the ungodly line of Cain, and the passage emphasizes intermarriage between the two lines.
  • Why some support it: it preserves the moral warning of the text—separating faithful descendants from the influence of those who do not follow God.
  • Common counterpoints: this view is often seen as an interpretive late-comer in the history of exegesis and rests on reading the phrasing at a level not explicit in the text itself.
• Kings or rulers view (gibborim context)
  • What people claim: “Sons of God” are powerful rulers or kings who took wives from among the people.
  • Why some support it: fits ancient Near Eastern patterns where rulers were thought to be divine or semi-divine; the term “gibborim” (mighty men) in the same context reinforces a political elite interpretation.
  • Common counterpoints: it shifts focus to social-political critique rather than a supernatural explanation, and it may strain a straightforward reading of the parallel “daughters of men.”
• Other nuanced readings
  • Some scholars explore literary and theological angles, suggesting the text uses polemic or mythopoeic motifs to address concerns about corruption, violence, and divine judgment.
  • Some commentators treat the passage as a compact narrative with theological emphasis rather than a precise historical claim about origins.

considerations and cautions

• The text’s brevity means interpretation relies on extrapolation from related biblical themes and ancient Near Eastern literature.
• The phrase appears in a single short passage (Genesis 6:1–4 in many traditions), which has led to a wide range of readings rather than a single, universally agreed-upon explanation.
• In later biblical books (Psalms, prophets) and in extrabiblical literature, the language sometimes shifts toward or away from the idea of divine beings interacting with humanity, which adds to interpretive diversity.

If you’d like, I can tailor a deeper dive to a particular tradition (Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, or scholarly) or compare how specific scholars defend each view, with representative passages and arguments.