Under consideration is the article Giants of the Bible by Petri Paavola (note that I am quoting the English version of the article which contains very slightly broken English in places)—find all segments of this review here.
It begins with the Genesis 6 affair, as I term it, and the term found therein “sons of God” is correlated to the same term in Job 2 which states that “the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also” to which I will add that Job 1 states the same. Thus, Paavola notes that “the sons of God are angels” to which I will add that Job 38 notes that during the creation event, “the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.” Thus, Paavola is taking the Angel view of Genesis 6 which is the traditional and majority view of virtually all early Jewish and Christian commentators—see, Early commentaries on Genesis 6: Angels or not? – interactive chart.
Genesis 6 is quoted to the effect that “There were giants (nephilim)…” which is a good way to put it since various Hebrew words are often translated “giant(s)” and the term in this text is Nephilim which, we are told in the article, “comes from the word naphal, which means to fall.” This is the case if naphal is the root whence comes nephiyl. Yet, it may come from the Aramaic root naphiyla which means giant which may explain the common translation of Nephilim as “giant” and yet, brings us full circle. Note that “giant” only means taller than average (and the average Hebrew male of those days was 5.5 ft.).
We then run into a presupposition as it is asserted that “The giants were descendants of fallen angels and the daughters of men. Before the Flood” and that the “Text says that also after that were giants in the earth, that means that fallen angels had the sexual relationship with the daughters of men also after the Flood.” Yet, this is concluded based on the issue of Numbers 13, to which we shall get, as it would explain the appearance of Nephilim and/or giants which appear therein.
However, the text does not states pre-flood and post-flood but “in those days, and also after that” which is being taken to mean pre-flood and post-flood. Yet, one can just as easily, and more in keeping with immediate as well as greater context, to take is to mean “in those days” with a timeline beginning point which verse 1 has as “when men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them” which could be as early as when Adam and Eve’s offspring first started having offspring, and “also after that” being just that: after that beginning point and yet, still pre-flood.
POST-FLOOD GIANT NEPHILIM
Numbers 13 is quoted at the point when the spies return from reconnoitering the land and state, “there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight” (Jewish Publication Society, 1917 AD). Petri Paavola tells us that this “proves that also after the Flood fallen angels had been sexual intercourse with the daughters of men” because the Nephilim would have all drowned. Thus, this text is being take to be another incursion, as it is popularly termed.
Additional arguments are offered in that the Numbers text “says that the Israelites saw the giants in the land of Canaan, the sons of Anak, who descended from the giants (fallen angels).” Note that now “the sons of Anak, who descended from the giants (fallen angels)” yet, before “the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim.” The Nephilim are not the fallen Angels and so one must be very accurate when inserting parenthetical statements into a text.
Paavola then quotes the text again thusly, “we saw the giants (nephilim), the sons of Anak, who come of (descendants) the giants (nephilim).” This is taken to mean that “The fallen angels impregnated satanic seed to the daughters of men” and since this led to “their descendants (the giants) made filthy and satanic sins” so that “For this reason God decided to destroy the satanic seed from the earth, and the Flood drowned all people, except Noah’s family” and since Number refers to Nephilim then “fallen angels had been sexual intercourse with the daughters of men after the Flood….because after the Flood in the earth had lived the giants.”
Petri Paavola then mentions, in passing, that “The fallen angels are evil spirits” and so apparently spirits, which “does not have flesh and bones” (Luke 24) somehow impregnate women. Yet, it is stated that “fallen angels are not limited and bound by the borders of the human body, because they are evil spirits and the fallen angels didn’t die in the Flood, but they continued deceiving the men by sins after the Flood.”
To unpack this, as per the Bible, Angels are not disembodied spirits but are as physical as is Jesus post resurrection: able to be seen, heard, touched, eat, etc. and yet, able to walk through closed doors, to appear and disappear, etc. In this regard I agree that “fallen angels are not limited and bound by the borders of the human body.” Biblically, Angels look like human males (no wings and no halos) which is why it is only male “sons of God” with only female “daughters of men.” Now, “fallen angels didn’t die in the Flood” but they did not continued deceiving men after the flood. This is because they were incarcerated in the Abyss/the Bottomless Pit/Tartarus (I have my own theory about the identity of demons but that will have to wait until I publish my upcoming book).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.