The Hebrew phrase translated “sons of God” (בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, beneha’elohim) occurs only here in Gen_6:2; Gen_6:4 and in Job_1:6; Job_2:1; Job_38:7 where angels are clearly understood. In the Book of Job the phrase clearly refers to angelic beings. Nowhere else is the phrase “sons of God” (בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, bene ha’elohim) used. Hence, the verse is better understood as, “the angels saw the daughters of.” The word bene, literally sons of, when used in a term such as beneha’elohim, means members of the “category of elohim” (gods). An example of such usage can be seen in the term “sons of the prophets” as “bene hanebiim”(1 Kgs. 20:35; 2 Kgs. 2, 3, 5, 7, 15).
A close reading of Genesis indicates that the term (בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, beneha’elohim) is not referring to human beings. The contrast is drawn between bene haelohim and benot haadam.
Some take “the daughters of man” to be the daughters of the Cainites only. However, it is sufficient to understand by this phrase, the daughters of man in general, without any distinction of a moral or spiritual kind, and therefore including both Cainite and Shethite females. “And they took them wives of all whom they chose. In the Hebrew this is written as, “the daughters of Adam” (aw-dawm’) or benot ha Adam .
Hence, we read the passage as, “the angels saw the daughters of Adam that they were fair”.
"The children of the supernatural beings who had married these women became famous heroes and warriors. They were called Nephilim and lived on the earth at that time and even later." Gen6:4
The word "Elohim" is a loan word from a previous culture, which is why they had so much trouble incorporating it into their language with proper rules of grammar. We don’t dispute that "Elohim" is used both as a plural and a singular.
What we see is that the word Elohim is a clue to the antiquity of the Bible, showing a much older influence.1. He has a fallacy of incorrect analogy. He compares the word Elohim to Sheep, Fish or Deershowing how the grammar can change the meaning to either singular or plural. The reason this is a fallacy of incorrect analogy is that we use the same word in English for the singular and the plural. Sheep, Fish and Deer do not have singular roots in them. The word "Elohim" contains the root singular form of god that is pronounced "Eloah." If you wanted to say god says (singular), you could say it as "Eloah" says and it would be correct.
The reason the Hebrews use the word "Elohim" is that it is a holy word to them and they must not change that word that to a believer in one god must and can only mean "God." But was the word "Elohim" meant to be singular to represent a single deity by the original culture that created the usage, or was it borrowed and used later on by scribes with monotheistic philosophies? Wasn’t the purpose of using so many different god names in the Bible to show differences in those characters?
Many Dead Sea Scroll translations are in dispute anyway, and the group that controlled the scrolls for so many years has gotten into trouble, they have even mistranslated Nephilim as watchers. It was the Igigi who could be called watchers.
Use of translations from the Book of Enoch for any translation is irrelevant because, first it is not part of the canonized Bible, and second it is younger than the canonized Bible. Still have not seen one original Hebrew version of this document that can be dated back to BCE era. The book is supposed to be very old, but there is no verification as to the modern version that is currently available. There is no chain of evidence to make the case that the version we have is actually older than the canonized Bible.