***@TheWorld.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
<snippo>
Post by Paul CiszekWell, my english translation (supposedly directly from the oldest available
When men began to multiply on earth and daughters were born to them,
the sons of heaven saw how beautiful the daughters of man were, and so
they took for their wives as many of them as they chose.
Then the LORD said: "My spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he
is but flesh. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years."
At that time the Nephilim appeared on earth (as well as later), after
the sons of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man, who bore
them sons. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.
This is usually interpreted as Angels f*cking human women, as an elective,
extra-curricular activity and not under orders from God. What is your
take on it?
Revving up the Bible Library CD-ROM, the Gray Home Bible Commentary
reports that
"Some think the Sethites are meant by 'the sons of God,' but others
regard it as a reference to fallen angels ..."
It also cites works purporting to give /scientific/ evidence for the
view that they were "fallen angels", which seems unlikely. Since the
Nephilim were "giants", perhaps archaeological evidence of really tall
people is meant. Of course, in ancient Palestine, six feet might be
considered "really tall", for all I know.
The /Interpreter's Bible/ commentary appears to be above such issues,
apparently being written on the theory that a commentary need not
concern itself with the meaning of the passage concerned, but the
exposition asks
"Were the sons of God rebellious and fallen agels, as Milton conceived
them in /Paradise Lost/?"
an indication of the age of this belief.
The /Britannica 2002/ reminds us that this is an area where Judaism
and Christianity were heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism. There are,
of course, no Zoroastrian holy books (as opposed to books influenced
by Zoroastrianism) in the Bible, thus explaining the difficulty in
finding a Biblical basis for the Zoroastrian viewpoint.
The issue of "angels" was (when I subscribed, some years ago)
discussed a lot on other usenet groups (alt.bible being the most
obvious). An enormous amount of Biblical material was stretched,
twisted and deformed to meet whatever version of angelology /
demonology is being defended. The "sons of God are angels" theory is
one example. The "Lucifer" passage in one of the prophets is another
often applied to Satan yet also said to be, in context, referring to a
human monarch. Another example is the Cherub set to guard the Garden
of Eden: some count it as an angel (a specific "order" of angel) --
and yet "cherub" and "gryphon" are one and the same thing, what Graves
called a "calendar beast", symbolizing the seasons of the sacred year.
The passage in Paul which scholars think actually /is/ a list of
angelic orders (thrones, dominions, etc) does not usually appear in
these discussions because these amateur angelologists (as it were)
tend to interpret it as referring to ordinary human power structures.
However, I have to agree that reducing angels, who if nothing else are
God's messengers, to the status of robot is ... bizarre. And unlikely
to be correct. Even the film /Dogma/ (which may be considered the very
definition of blasphemy) only gives one choice that angels are unable
to make -- the choice of ignoring God.
--
You are not being ignored! With rare exceptions:
I download on Saturdays. I upload on Sundays. Patience is a virtue