In Ancient Near Eastern Mythology the place of the annuniki varied
according to which work was written i.e, the creation epic, the
epic of Gilgamesh, the flood epic, etc., and which era they were
written about, (e.g. whether during Sumerian, Akkadian, Old
Babylonian time periods.). Their role ranged from lower tier
deities to the great over-all deities, who controlled the cosmos
from the destruction of Tiamat (from whom's corpse, the heavens and
earth were created) onward. Obviously, they were the result of a
poly-theistic and animistic cosmogony, more closely related to
Hinduism than occidental mono-theistic religious beliefs.
More specifically they were the beings who directly benefitted from
the food and drink offerings (taxes) of the people who believed in
their religion, as the flood epic points out: when almost all the
people were destroyed, they were the gods that went hungry and
thirsty. In keeping with Mythological Purpose, the lesson here
for the rulers of Sumer, Akkad, and Old Babylon: don't destroy
the people who put the food on your table.
Though there are similarities in the "headings" of these myths to
the accounts in the Bible of Creation, the Flood, and the tower of
Babel, these similarities end regarding the person and nature of
God, and His actions. To equate the fanciful annuniki with 'the
sons of God' of the ante-deluvian (pre-flood) world is more of a
stretch than saying that these sons were 'fallen angels'.
In the pre-flood era, people consistently lived close to a millenium long,
the physical effects of the fall had not yet completely
worked its way into the physical genetic constitution of mankind,
until after the flood. So by the time of Moses (when the Pentateuch
was written) these lifespans were considered "god-like".
God's choice in destroying mankind in Noah's 600th year, was because of
the severe nature of sin which had immediate effects on the
people's ethical and behavioural preoccupation with evil and
violence. In response, God also chose to limit man's life-span to 120
years.
Now you are probably wondering about my assertion concerning
Genesis 6:2 and 6:4 of natural, fleshly, men being called "the sons
of God". What's my support? Or at least my rationale?
'1. The "according to their kind" restriction in Genesis 1.
I have yet to see a germster or hambil (hamster and gerbil). The
closest "kind" cross-over is the horse/donkey mix, which leads to a
sterile mule unable to reproduce. I find it difficult to believe
that an angel, fallen or otherwise is able to pro-create a
human/angel hybrid.
'2. Then why verse 4? "There were giants on the earth in those
days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the
daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the
mighty men who were of old, men of renown."
a) sons of God (notice the small 's') in Genesis 6 has more of a
sense of a Title, than of a description of nature.
b) these sons and their offspring were as guilty from the fall
of Adam as all mankind.
c) the description of nature following 6:4 is of the evil and
sinfulness all mankind. Though fallen, man had still been
originally created in the image of God, in His likeness. Adam had
for a time been perfect and without sin before the fall. In Genesis
5:3, we read, "And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and
begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him
Seth." If Adam had been created in the image of God, and Seth in
the image of Adam, the expression of 'sons of God' is not far
removed, making the description of the line of Seth comingling with
the line of Cain a much more likely understanding of 6:2 and 4.
But:
There are appearances of angels in the form of men elsewhere in
scripture, so why not here?
To pro-create there must be the actual "kind" nature of flesh,
not merely an appearance of it. The only time in history where the
male contribution was not active was in the conception of Jesus.
As in Hebrews 1: 5, "to which of the angels did He ever say: 'You
are My Son, Today I have begotten You'? And again: "I will be to
Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"?" Notice as well the
statement in relation to Genesis 6, "to which of the angels did He
ever say: 'You are my Son, Today I have begotten You'?"
But:
Wouldn't the 'fallen angels' have taken on the title of sons
of God?
Answer: It would be just as likely (and more so) for men to do
so.
Since the Annuki/Nephalim/fallen angel conversation is
speculative in nature, I hope I have at least represented in
some degree, the beginnings of a rational critique of the issue.