Sons of God, Daughters of Men
/reposted from the mysterious musings of brother blue
<http://www.brotherblue.org/>
which i'm rather sure he found in I.D.E. Thomas's work available
on amazon.com /
/ "The craving of demons for a body, evident in the Gospels, offers at
least some parallel to this hunger for sexual experience." /-Derek Kidner/
/
/ In 1947 an Arab boy tending his sheep accidentally discovered an
ancient cave near the Dead Sea. In it were found a priceless collection
of ancient scrolls which soon became known as the Dead Sea Scrolls or
the Qumran Texts. Among these writings was one known as the Genesis
Apocryphon. At first it was thought to be the long lost Book of Lamech.
Although the scroll consisted of a speech by Lamech and a story about
some of the patriarchs from Enoch to Abraham; it was not that book.
According to the Bible, Lamech was the son of Methuselah and the father
of Noah. He was the ninth of the ten patriarchs of the antedeluvian world.
It is significant, however, that the Genesis Apocryphon mentions the
Nephilim, and makes reference to the "sons of God" and the "daughters of
men" introduced in Genesis 6. The Apocryphon also elaborates
considerably on the succinct statements found in the Bible, and provides
valuable insights into the way these ancient stories were interpreted by
the ancient Jews.
The copy of the Genesis Apocryphon discovered at Qumran dates back to
the 2nd century B.C., but it was obviously based on much older sources.
When discovered in 1947, it had been much mutilated from the ravages of
time and humidity. The sheets had become so badly stuck together that
years passed before the text was deciphered and made known. When
scholars finally made public its content, the document confirmed that
celestial beings from the skies had landed on planet Earth. More than
that, it told how these beings had mated with Earth-women and had begat
giants.
Is this story myth or history, fable or fact? Specialized research has
revealed that many ancient legends have a basis in fact. But to answer
the question, let us consult the most authoritative document known to
man--the Bible.
In Genesis 6:1-4 the "sons of God" are captivated by the beauty of the
"daughters of men." They subsequently marry them and produce an
offspring of giants known as the Nephilim. Genesis goes on to say that
these Nephilim were "mighty men" and "men of renown."
"Sons of God"? "Daughters of men"? What sort of beings were these? Were
they human or did they belong to an alien species from outer space?
*IDENTIFYING THE SONS OF GOD*
There is no problem in identifying the "daughters of men" for this is a
familiar method of designating women in the Bible. The problem lies with
the "sons of God." Three major interpretations have been offered to shed
light on this cryptic designation.
First, a group within orthodox Judaism theorized that "sons of God"
meant "nobles" or "magnates." Hardly anyone today accepts this view.
Second, some interpret the "sons of God" as fallen angels. These were
enticed by the women of Earth and began lusting after them. Many
reputable Bible commentators have rejected this theory on
psycho-physiological grounds. How can one believe, they ask, that angels
from Heaven could engage in sexual relations with women from Earth?
Philastrius labeled such an interpretation a down-right heresy.
Third, many famed scholars contend that the "sons of God" are the male
descendants of Seth, and that the "daughters of men" are the female
descendants of Cain. According to this view, what actually happened in
Genesis 6 was an early example of believers marrying unbelievers. The
good sons of Seth married the bad daughters of Cain, and the result of
these mixed marriages was a mongrel offspring. These later became known
for their decadence and corruption; indeed, it reached such a degree
that God was forced to intervene and destroy the human race. This
comment of Matthew Henry could be taken as representative of those
holding this view:
"The sons of Seth (that is the professors of religion) married the
daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God
and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they
ought to have done. They inter- mingled themselves with the
excommunicated race of Cain." (1)
However, in spite of the excellent pedigree of the proponents of this
theory, their argument is not convincing. Their interpretation is pure
eisegesis--they are guilty of reading into the text what is obviously
not there.
*FALSE EXEGESIS*
Their interpretation fails on other grounds as well. At no time, before
the Flood or after, has God destroyed or threatened to destroy the human
race for the sin of "mixed marriages." It is impossible to reconcile
this extreme punishment with the mere verbal strictures found elsewhere
in the Bible for the same practice. If God is going to be consistent, He
should have destroyed the human race many times over!
The contrast made in Genesis 6:2 is not between the descendants of Seth
and the descendants of Cain, but between the "sons of God" and the
"daughters of men." If by "sons of God" is meant "sons of Seth," then
only the sons of Seth engaged in mixed marriages, and not the daughters.
And only the daughters of Cain were involved, and not the sons. And
another strange assumption is implied: that only the sons of Seth were
godly, and only the daughters of Cain were evil.
The strangeness is compounded when one seeks for evidence that the sons
of Seth were godly. We know from Genesis that when the time came for God
to destroy the human race, He found only one godly family left among
them--that of Noah. Where were all the other supposedly godly sons of
Seth? Even Seth's own son could hardly be called righteous. His name was
Enos, meaning "mortal" or "frail." And he certainly lived up to it!
Genesis 4:26 reads, "And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and
he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the
Lord." That statement seems harmless enough, but what does it mean when
it says that it was only now that men began to call upon the name of the
Lord? Upon whom did Adam call? And Abel? And Seth himself?
Some scholars give us a more literal and exact translation to this
verse: "Then men began to call themselves by the name of Jehovah." Other
scholars translate the statement in this manner: "Then men began to call
upon their gods (idols) by the name of Jehovah." If either of these be
the correct translation then the evidence for the so-called godly line
of Seth is non- existent. The truth of the matter is that Enos and his
line, with few noted exceptions, were as ungodly as the other line. The
divine record could not be clearer: "all flesh had corrupted his way
upon the earth" (Genesis 6:12).
In the Old Testament, the designation "sons of God" (bene Elohim) is
never used of humans, but always of supernatural beings that are higher
than man but lower than God. To fit such a category only one species is
known--angels. And the term "sons of God" applies to both good and bad
angels. These are the beings of whom Augustine wrote:
"Like the gods they have corporeal immortality, and passions like human
beings." (2)
The designation "sons of God" is used four other times in the Old
Testament, each time referring to angels. One example is Daniel 3:25,
where king Nebuchadnezzar looks into the fiery furnace and sees four
men, "and the form of the fourth is like the son of God." The
translation is different and clearer in our modern versions, "like a son
of the gods." Since Jesus had not yet become the "only begotten son" of
God, this "son" would have had to be angelic.
Another example is Job 38:7 which says the sons of God shouted for joy
when God laid the foundations of the Earth. Angels are the only entities
that fit this designation since man had not been created at that time!
In Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 the "sons of God" came to present themselves
before the Lord in Heaven. Among the sons of God is Satan--a further
implication that the "sons of God" must have been angels.
Since the designation "sons of God" is consistently used in the Old
Testament for angels, it is logical to conclude that the term in Genesis
6:2 also refers to angels.
*SONS OF GOD: THREE CATEGORIES*
In the New Testament, born-again believers in Christ are called the
children of God or the sons of God (Luke 3:38, John 1:12, Romans 8:14, 1
John 3:1). Dr. Bullinger in the Companion Bible states: "It is only by
the divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called
'a son of God.'" This explains why every born-again believer is a son of
God. It explains also why Adam was a son of God. Adam was specifically
created by God, "in the likeness of God made He him" (Genesis 5:1).
Adam's descendants, however, were different; they were not made in God's
likeness but in Adam's. Adam "begat a son in his own likeness, after his
image" (Genesis 5:3). Adam was a "son of God," but Adam's descendants
were "sons of men."
Lewis Sperry Chafer expresses this in an interesting way when he states:
"In the Old Testament terminology angels are called sons of God while
men are called servants of God. In the New Testament this is reversed.
Angels are the servants and Christians are the sons of God." (3)
It is thus clear that the term "sons of God" in the Bible is limited to
three categories of beings: angels, Adam and believers. All three are
special and specific creations of God. As for the use of the term in
Genesis 6, since it cannot possibly refer to Adam nor believers in
Christ, we conclude that it has to refer to the angels whom God had
created.
*LIGHT FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT*
Two New Testament passages shed further light on Genesis 6. They are
Jude 6-7 and 2 Peter 2:4. These verses indicate that at some point in
time a number of angels fell from their pristine state and proceeded to
commit a sexual sin that was both unusual and repugnant. Jude 6-7 states:
"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own
habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto
the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities
about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and
going after strange flesh..."
These angels not only failed to keep their original dominion and
authority, but they "left their own habitation." Habitation is a
significant word: it means "dwelling place" or "heaven." And the
addition of the Greek word "idion" ("their own") means that they left
their own private, personal, unique possession. (4) Heaven was the
private, personal residence of the angels. It was not made for man but
for the angels. This is why the ultimate destination of the saints will
not be Heaven but the new and perfect Earth which God will create
(Revelation 21:1-3). Heaven is reserved for the angels, but as for the
beings referred to in Jude 6-7, they abandoned it.
Not only did these angels leave Heaven, they left it once-for- all. The
Greek verb "apoleipo" is in the aorist tense, thus indicating a
once-for-all act. By taking the action they did, these angels made a
final and irretrievable decision. They crossed the Rubicon. Their
action, says Kenneth Wuest, "was apostasy with a vengeance." (5)
As to the specific sin of these angels, we are given the facts in Jude
7. As in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah it was the sin of "fornication"
and it means "going after strange flesh." "Strange" flesh means flesh of
a different kind (Greek "heteros"). To commit this particularly
repugnant sin, the angels had to abandon their own domain and invade a
realm that was divinely forbidden to them. Says Wuest:
"These angels transgressed the limits of their own natures to invade a
realm of created beings of a different nature." (6)
Alford confirms:
"It was a departure from the appointed course of nature and seeking
after that which is unnatural, to other flesh than that appointed by God
for the fulfillment of natural desire."
The mingling of these two orders of being, was contrary to what God had
intended, and summarily led to God's greatest act of judgment ever
enacted upon the human race.
*TEMPTING THE ANGELS*
Another New Testament verse may have bearing on Genesis 6. In I
Corinthians 11:10, Paul instructs that a woman should cover her head as
a sign of subjection to her husband, and also "because of the angels."
This observation has intrigued commentators through the years. Why this
sudden reference to angels? Could it be a reference to what happened in
Genesis 6 where angels succumbed to the inducements and physical charm
of the women of Earth? Obviously, Paul believed that an uncovered woman
was a temptation even to angels. William Barclay mentions an old
rabbinic tradition which alleges that it was the beauty of the women's
long hair that attracted and tempted the angels in Genesis. (6)
*STRANGE PARENTAGE*
The off-spring of this union between the "sons of God" and the
"daughters of men" were so extraordinary that it indicates an unusual
parentage. In no way could the progenitors of such beings be ordinary
humans. Their mothers possibly could be human, or their fathers, but
certainly not both. Either the father or the mother had to be
superhuman. Only in such a way can one account for the extraordinary
character and prowess of the off-spring.
God's law of reproduction, according to the biblical account of
creation, is "everything after his kind." God's law makes it impossible
for giants to be produced by normal parentage. To produce such
monstrosities as the Nephilim presupposes super- natural parentage.
*GIANTS?*
"Nephilim" is a Hebrew word translated in the Authorized King James
version as "giants." "There were giants in the earth in those days"
(Genesis 6:4). It is true that they were giants in more senses than one.
However, the word Nephilim does not mean "giants." It comes from the
root "naphal," meaning "fallen ones," and most modern versions of the
Bible have left the word "Nephilim" untranslated.
When the Greek Septuagint was made, "Nephilim" was translated as
"gegenes." This word suggests "giants" but actually it has little
reference to size or strength. "Gegenes" means "earth born." The same
term was used to describe the mythical "Titans" -- being partly of
celestial and partly of terrestrial origin. (7)
The Hebrew and the Greek words do not exclude the presence of great
physical strength. Indeed, a combined supernatural and natural parentage
would imply such a characteristic. Angels, according to Scripture, are
known for their power. They are often referred to as "sons of the
Mighty" (Psalm 103:20). Therefore, if the ones who sired them were
strong and mighty, it could be assumed that their offspring were likewise.
No evidence exists in Scripture that the offspring of mixed marriages
(believers and unbelievers) were giants, excelling in great strength and
might. No evidence can be found anywhere in history for that matter.
Such an interpretation poses impossible assumptions.
When the word "Nephilim" is used in Numbers 13:33, the question of size
and strength is explicit. Here we are left in no doubt as to their
superhuman prowess. When Joshua's spies reported back from Canaan, they
called certain of the inhabitants of Canaan "giants." "And there we saw
the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim, and we were
in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."
Some commentators have speculated that the Nephilim of Numbers 13
belonged to a second eruption of fallen angels, since the earlier
Nephilim had been destroyed in the Flood. And they see an allusion to
this in Genesis 6:4, where it states that "there were Nephilim in the
earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in
unto the daughters of men." Could it be that the "after that" was a
reference to the Nephilim found in Canaan during the Israelite entry
into the land? If so, it could explain why the Lord commanded the total
extermination of the Canaanites, as He had earlier ordered the near
annihilation of the human race.
*NEPHILIM -- NO RESURRECTION*
The Book of Isaiah says that the Nephilim and their descendants will not
participate in a resurrection as is the portion of ordinary mortals.
Isaiah 26:14 reads: "They are dead, they shall not live; they are
deceased, they shall not rise." The original Hebrew word translated
"deceased" here is the word "Rephaim." It would have saved a lot of
misinterpretation if the translators had left the word as it was in the
original. The verse actually reads: "Dead, they shall not live; Rephaim,
they shall not rise." The Rephaim are generally understood to be one of
the branches of the Nephilim, and God's Word makes it clear that they
are to partake in no resurrection. But with humans it is different: all
humans will be resurrected either to life or to damnation (John 5:28-29).
We have already seen that the Greek Version of the Old Testament (The
Septuagint) translated "Nephilim" as "gegenes;" we shall now inquire how
it translates "sons of God." In some of the manuscripts it is left as
"sons of God," but in the others-- including the Alexandrian text--it is
rendered by the word "angelos." This text was in existence in the time
of Christ, but there is no indication that He ever corrected or queried
it. Can we not assume from His silence that He agreed with the translation!
*RAPE OF THE TEXT*
Having studied all the arguments in favor of "sons of Seth," one
concludes that the only argument that is valid among them is that of
rationality. "Sons of Seth" is an interpretation that is more palatable
to human reason. Reason can never subscribe to the incredible notion
that fallen angels could have sex relations with women of Earth. Angels
have no physical bodies! They do not marry! They belong to an entirely
different species of being! The mind revolts against such absurdity. So,
what does one do? Settle, of course, for an easy, rational
interpretation--sons of Seth and daughters of Cain. But what if the
meaning of Scripture is clearly otherwise? There is the rub! Scripture
is clearly otherwise! To impose a human interpretation at the expense of
the obvious meaning of the divine Word, is a rape of the biblical text.
Furthermore, when one deals with the world of the supernatural,
rationality is never an argument.
*JEWISH AND PATRISTIC FATHERS*
The Jewish Fathers, when interpreting this expression from Genesis 6:2,
invariably interpreted it as "angels." No less an authority than W.F.
Allbright tells us that:
"The Israelites who heard this section (Genesis 6.2) recited
unquestionably thought of intercourse between angels and women." (8)
Philo of Alexandria, a deeply religious man, wrote a brief but beautiful
treatise on this subject, called "Concerning The Giants." Basing his
exposition on the Greek version of the Bible, he renders it as "Angels
of God." Says Bamberger, "Had he found the phrase 'sons of God' in his
text, he most certainly would have been inspired to comment on it." (9)
Philo certainly took the Genesis passage as historical, explaining that
just as the word "soul" applies both to good and evil beings, so does
the word "angel." The bad angels, who followed Lucifer, at a later point
in time failed to resist the lure of physical desire, and succumbed to
it. He goes on to say that the story of the giants is not a myth, but it
is there to teach us that some men are earth-born, while others are
heaven- born, and the highest are God-born. (10)
The Early Church Fathers believed the same way. Men like Justin Martyr,
Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Ambrose...all
adopted this interpretation. In the words of the Ante-Nicene Fathers,
the angels fell "into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the
flesh...Of those lovers of virgins therefore, were begotten those who
are called giants." (11) And again, "...the angels transgressed, and
were captivated by love of women and begat children." (12)
Nowhere before the 5th century A.D. do we find any interpretation for
"sons of God" other than that of angels. We cannot deny the Jewish
Fathers knowledge of their own terminology! They invariably translated
"sons of God" as "angels." The testimony of Josephus, that colorful
cosmopolitan and historian, is also of paramount importance. In his
monumental volume, "Antiquities of the Jews," he reveals his
acquaintance with the tradition of the fallen angels consorting with
women of Earth. He not only knew of the tradition but tells us how the
children of such union possessed super human strength, and were known
for their extreme wickedness. "For the tradition is that these men did
what resembled the acts of those men the Grecians called giants."
Josephus goes on to add that Noah remonstrated with these offspring of
the angels for their villainy. (13)
Perhaps the most conclusive argument for interpreting the expression as
"angels" is the simplest one of all. If the writer of Genesis wanted to
refer to the "sons of Seth" he would have just said so. If God had
intended that meaning, then the verse would undoubtedly read, "the sons
of Seth saw the daughters of Cain that they were fair..." But the Bible
meant something far more sinister--the sexual union between angels from
Hell and evil women from Earth. Because of the gravity of such a union,
and its dire consequences for the human race, God moved to destroy the
race before it could destroy itself--except for one family which had not
been contaminated.
*THE ULTIMATE SIN*
God made man in His own image, the highest of all His earthly creations.
While God said that everything He made was good, He considered man very
good. Man had been made for fellowship with God Himself, but he soon
turned his back upon his Maker and worshipped the creature more than the
Creator. Before many generations, the human race was being polluted by
this abominable union with demons. It seemed that Hell and Earth were in
league together against the God of Heaven. God's righteous anger was
such that He regretted having made man.
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that
every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil
continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man. ..."(Genesis
6:5-6)
It was specifically because of this ultimate sin that God brought about
a deluge of such magnitude that man and beast were drowned from the face
of the Earth. In the words of old Joseph Hall:
"The world was so grown foul with sin, that God saw it was time to wash
it with a flood: and so close did wickedness cleave to the authors of
it, that when they were washed to nothing, yet it would not wash off,
yea, so deep did it stick in the very grain of the earth, that God saw
it meet to let it soak long under the waters." (14)
*WAS NOAH IMMUNE?*
Why Noah and his immediate family were the only ones immune from this
great judgment is significant. Genesis 6:9 says, "Noah was a just man."
He stood out as an example of righteousness and godliness in a perverse
age. Like Enoch before him, Noah also "walked with God." But there was
another reason why Noah was spared, one that seems to have escaped most
commentators. Genesis 6:9 says that Noah was "perfect in his
generation." Does this mean moral and spiritual perfection? Hardly.
Genesis 9:20-23 disproves any such perfection. What, then, does the
Bible mean by calling him "perfect"? The Hebrew word is "tamiym" and
comes from the root word "taman." This means "without blemish" as in
Exodus 12:5, 29:1, Leviticus 1:3. Just as the sacrificial lamb had to be
without any physical blemish, so Noah's perfection. In its primary
meaning, it refers not to any moral or spiritual quality, but to
physical purity. Noah was uncontaminated by the alien invaders.
He alone had preserved their pedigree and kept it pure, in spite of
prevailing corruption brought about by the fallen angels. (15)
And again:
Noah's bloodline had remained free of genetic contamination. (16)
This implies, of course, that all the other families on Earth had been
contaminated by the Nephilim. It also proves that the assault of Satan
on the human race had been far more extensive than realized. It is no
wonder that God pronounced such a universal fiat of judgment.
As for the fallen angels who participated in the abomination, God put
them in custody "in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment
of the great day" (Jude 6). This is sometimes interpreted as Tartarus or
the "nether realms" (2 Peter 2:4). This would also explain why some
fallen angels are in custody and why others are free to roam the heavens
and torment mankind.
Such a drastic punishment, both for men and angels, presupposed a
drastic sin, something infinitely more evil and more sinister than mixed
marriages. It was nothing less than the demonic realm attempting to
pervert the human world. By genetic control and the production of
hybrids, Satan was out to rob God of the people He had made for Himself.
*If Satan had succeeded in corrupting the human race, he would have
hindered the coming of the perfect Son of God, the promised "seed of the
woman," who would defeat Satan and restore man's dominion (Genesis
3:15). If Satan had by any means prevented that birth, he would
obviously have averted his own doom. Satan did succeed to a large
extent. It was for this reason that God drowned mankind in the Deluge. *
*ARE ANGELS SEXLESS?*
Interpreting the "sons of God" as fallen angels, the question
immediately arises--do angels marry? In Matthew 22:30, Jesus said angels
neither marry nor are given in marriage. This seems a clear and emphatic
negative. However, it does not preclude the possibility of such a thing
happening--obviously contrary to the will of God. And it does not
preclude fallen angels, who had rebelled against God already, from
cohabiting with women of Earth, as the Scriptures state.
Some interpret the words of Jesus as meaning that angels do not marry
among themselves. Is it because they are all male? Or is it because
celestial beings are deathless and thus need no offspring. Only
terrestrial beings need to find immortality in their children. (17) But
if they do not need to marry and procreate, is it still possible that
they could engage in sexual acts? If not among themselves then with
human spouses? Jude seems quite explicit on the matter: the angels left
their own habitation, and gave themselves over to fornication, going
after strange flesh. In other words, they were capable of performing
human functions--eating, drinking, walking, talking, even sexual
activity and fathering children.
The fact that angels do not marry does not in itself prove they are
sexless. Throughout the Bible, angels are referred to only as men. Finis
Drake writes: "It is logical to say...that the female was created
specifically for the human race in order that it could be kept in
existence; and that all angels were created males, in as much as their
kind is kept in existence without the reproduction process. Angels were
created innumerable to start with (Hebrews 12:22) whereas, the human
multitudes began with one pair." (18)
Even in the next world, when the saints will dwell in their resurrection
body and live forever, it does not imply that they will be sexless. The
Bible teaches that everyone will have his own body in the resurrection
(1 Corinthians 15:35-38). No suggestion is made that they will be
unsexed. Furthermore, Christ remained a man after His resurrection.
*DEMONS AT LARGE*
One other question has been raised. If the fallen angels who lusted
after women of Earth in Genesis 6 have been interred in Tartarus with
"everlasting chains," how does one explain the demons who have been
operating since then? They seemed to have been quite active during the
ministry of Jesus, and are busy again in our day. Following this
reasoning, some share the conclusion of Kent Philpott:
However one might wish to interpret Genesis 6: 1-4 to link this passage
with the verses in 2 Peter and Jude seems to post far more problems than
it would solve. But 2 Peter 2.4 and Jude 6 clearly assert that the
rebellious angels are being kept prisoner in the "nether gloom." If they
are prisoners, they could not very well function as the demons are
described as functioning in the New Testament. (19)
But Philpott failed to see that there are two categories of fallen
angels: Those cast out of Heaven with Lucifer, and who are still free to
torment mankind; and those who fell the second time by committing carnal
acts with the daughters of men. The spirits in this second category are
those chained in the nether regions.
It seems clear to me that the "sons of God" are none other than fallen
angels, and, because of their further sin of lusting after the
"daughters of men," many were imprisoned by God. Both the near
annihilation of the human race and the incarceration of the fallen
angels in Tartarus indicate the magnitude of the sin they committed. By
such drastic judgment, God saved the human race from a calamity worse
than the physical death originally imposed upon them.
*Notes:*
l. Matthew Henry's Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,
1961).
2. Aurelius Augustine, The City of God (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1949),
Transl. Marcus Dods.
3. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Volume 2. (Dallas: Dallas
Seminary Press, 1947), p. 23.
4. Kenneth S. Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek N.T (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966), Vol. 4, p. 240.
5. Ibid., p. 240.
6. Ibid., p. 241.
7. Unger, Biblical Demonology (Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1957), p. 48.
8 W. F. Allbright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore: John
Hopkins Press, 1940), p. 226.
9. Bemard J. Bamberger, Fallen Angels (Philadelphia: The Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1952), p. 53.
10. Philo, DeGigantibus, pp. 58-60.
11. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 8, pp. 85 and 273.
12. Ibid., p. 190.
13. Josephus, The Work of Flavius Josephus; Antiquities of the Jews
(London: G. G. Rutledge), 1.3.1.
14. Joseph Hall, Contemplations (Otisville, Michigan: Baptist Book
Trust, 1976), p. 10.
15. Companion Bible (Oxford University Press). Appendix 26.
16. The Gospel Truth Magazine, Vol. 18, (June 1978), No. 7.
17. Dr. Morgenstem, Hebrew Union College Annual, XIV, 29- 40,114ff.
18. Finis Dake, Annotated R,?ference Bible, p.63.
19. Kent Philpott, A Manual of Demonology and the Occult (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 77-78.
My Faith is baised on the Scriptures and Canon in the Greek Bible, the Aramaic Peshitta Bible and the ancient sources from the Second Temple era among Jewry and Christianity between 500 BCE until Nicaea, as well as those Scriptural and Didactic Texts discovered in Egypt and the Holy Lands (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) since 1947.
I confess i hold to the Faith as promulgated from the lips of the Apostles and their Ant-Nicaean Successors known to us as the Apologists, Confessors, Doctors and Bishops.
All deviation from the General faith began immediately following Imperial Sanction and Protection. After Nicaea I the church split along ethnic lines (Latin, African, Greek, Egyptian, Syrian and Assyrian. Yet all retained and promulgated this doctrine of the fallen angels and their offspring the Nefilim (demons). Anthropology is taught in Scripture, but Angelic Ranks and their worlds, natures, forms and abilities are refered to but not explained. If God can become Human via Virgin birth...without explaination...then the fall (descent of the pagan gods) of angels, their cohabitation with women and birth of heros of might (pagan demigods) before and after the Flood (which is the Scriptural explaination of heathenism's pantheon and demigods) is not hard to accept. Paul called the worship of the gods pagan demon worship...so it is. Scripture explains in this way the fall of man into polytheism from this story...which Moses was not alive to to witness, as STEVE WOULD SAY..... It explains all the giants and is alluded to in the Gospels and in the writings of the Apostles. Sola Scriptura.
In Love,
Rev. Ken
