Sarfati appears to be a bit selective with his theology here. Because that verse in Gensis about the sons of gods and giants is covered in the books of Enoch. Books that the Church decided to leave out, although they are referenced in the NT.
What Is the Book of Enoch and Should it be in the Bible? | Christianity.com
Christian website link above. This is also where the fallen angels stuff comes from. Stuff that is in Church theory, but not in the Bible.
Given that the link is to a Christian site, it is notable where it says this.
Quote:" Biblical scholars do not consider The book of Enoch to be Scripture. A book must be considered God’s inspired and written Word to qualify as Scripture. Those books fit into the scripture canon, which has a long history of being accepted as accurate, true, and authoritative teaching. For example, they need to have teachings that fit the accepted books of the Bible. "
So it was decided it was not the inspired word of God, but is accepted as accurate and true. And " they need to have teachings that fit the accepted books of the Bible."
For sure, the site I linked puts the date of Enoch at 2-3 hundred BC, so handwave away. They don't do that with the Gospel of John of course, that was written about 100 CE at the earliest.
So basically it's men who are deciding what fits.
It's the same as the story of Asherah that @GarlicSound mentioned in their excellent post above.
Seems to be a common theme here. It's the priests and the scholars who are deciding what is inspired by god, or gods. And if it don't fit, it don't go in the book.