"THERE WERE GIANTS IN THE EARTH IN THOSE DAYS..."
Posted on 11/27/2001 5:41:01 AM PST by Sir Gawain
PS - should have know this article would be from you when I saw the headline!
08034 shem {shame}
a primitive word [perhaps rather from 07760 through the idea of
definite and conspicuous position; TWOT - 2405; n m
AV - name 832, renown 7, fame 4, famous 3, named 3, named + 07121 2,
famous + 07121 1, infamous + 02931 1, report 1, misc 10; 864
1) name
1a) name
1b) reputation, fame, glory
1c) the Name (as designation of God)
1d) memorial, monument
cf. Jn 5:43
Even if you believe in biblical prophecy, even if you believe in 'the Anti-Christ', even if you believe that Abdullah has some connection to these...what is your point? Or do you even really have a point?
"Who can stand before the sons of Anak. 12 we are..." anyone else remember this quote? The Anakim had a number system based on the number twelve. Partly becuase of the 12 sons of Anak, partly because polydactylism(6th finger on each hand) was a common occurence in that society. Few fragments of their people exist to say, "We were here." Grim reminder of the Isrealite orders 'destroy everything.'
Yesodei HaTorah 2:7, notes ten levels of angels:
1. Chayos,
2. Ofanim,
3. Erelim,
4. Chashmalim,
5. Seraphim,
6. Malachim,
7. Elohim,
8. B'nai Eleohim (Sons of God),
9. Cherubim, and
10. Ishim.
* * *
The Artscroll Tanach on Bereshit (Genesis) provides some insights into the "sons of God":
"The Talmud, in Yoma 67b, states that the rite of Azazel on Yom Kippur, in Vayikra (Leviticus) 16, is so called 'because it obtains atonement for the affair of Uzza and Azel.'"
"Rashi ad. loc. explains Uzza and Azel as 'angels of destruction who descended to earth in the days of Naamah, sister of Tuval-Cain. Referring to them the verse says, 'and the godly beings saw the children of man'"
"Accordingly, the Azazel obtains atonement for immorality.'"
* * *
Rashi calls the sons of God the "sons of the judges", the "sons of the lords". Alternatively, they are the angelic "lords" who go on the mission of the Omnipresent.
There seems to be some indication, therefore, that the sons of God are angels.
***
and it goes on and on and...
The Days of Noah
Greg Killian
I believe it is reasonable to assume that the "sons of God" in the context in which it is used means divine beings; in other words, angels. While angels throughout our western traditions have often been depicted as feminine and even as infants, i.e. cherubs, the Scriptures distinctly describe angels in masculine terms. Also, there are only 3 angels actually named in Scripture; Michael the Archangel, Gabriel, and Lucifer, all masculine. In the Old Testament the angels were often referred to as the sons of God. Jesus would later be referred to as the only begotten Son of God and the redeemed as adopted "sons," but His followers under the Old covenant were referred to as His people, for they were led of God externally (i.e. He went before them as a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night). Only under the New Covenant in Christ's shed blood did the Spirit come to dwell within making us sons and daughters of the Most High.
The angels were a completely different order of created being than man. After considerable study and reflection, I came to the conclusion that angels had a dual nature. We see throughout the Scriptures many appearances of angels which support that theory. They invariably appeared in one of 2 ways. Often they appeared to men in all their heavenly glory, and the reaction was always one of fear and awe, exhibited in such ways as falling to the ground as if dead, being overcome with great fear or even trying to worship them. But there were also times when the ministry of angels required them to "blend" with humans, such as the visitors to Lot's home in Sodom to deliver his family from the coming destruction. We also see the ability to fit in when it is said in the Scriptures that we may "entertain angels unawares." That would be quite impossible were they to appear in their heavenly nature.
All that said, it is presumably unnatural for angels to marry or be given in marriage, because the New Testament describes the redeemed in terms of neither marrying nor being given in marriage, but becoming like the angels in heaven. But, we also know that angels, like man, were created as beings with a free will to serve God or not and were also subject to sin, though not in the same sense as man being that there seems no plan of redemption for restoring fallen angels. When Lucifer, the most perfect of all created beings, rebeled against God, he took a third of the leagues of heaven with him.
There is no evidence that the fallen "sons of God" lost tbe powers they had possessed previously. They were still able to plead their causes before the throne of God, but it does appear that since they were obviously vulnerable to the sin of pride which had been their downfall, that their fallen state opened them up to other sins as well, such as lust. It is also evident that when overcome by this lust they were able to assume their "human form" which would have been very fair to look upon. Going back to the story of Sodom and the desire of the men of the city to have sex with them for they were very fair. Perhaps this is the origin of the feminine depiction of angels. Anyway, this would suggest that it would have been no problem at all for the "daughters of men" to succumb to the charms of these beings. What I do find both interesting and odd however, is that in their physical shape they had the ablity to procreate. Did they possess this ability before they fell or was it a result of the fall? Any thoughts?
As has been mentioned, the earth is full of myths and legends that permeate most, if not all cultures at some level. Often the word "myth" is used as synonymous with "fictional." This is not the case. A myth is simply a story generally dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that often take on legendary proportions and no matter how fantastic the stretch in proportion to reality, all seem to contain an element of truth or some "essential" kernal of history. In short, I think it is a logical assumption that these gods and demons, fairies and giants, heroes and villians were the supernatural inhabitants of the heavenlies who had the capability to assume many forms. These were creatures which were full of mystery and mischief, folly and vengeance and incredible powers of persuasion over the minds of men and even to manipulate the elements and events to suit their whims. We still deal with these beings today and there are yet stories to be told.
Just my thoughts. I would enjoy your responses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.