Returning to the topic of those falsely called the "Fallen Angels":
1. No where in the Bible are they ever called the "Fallen Angels."
2. Their correct name is, quite literally, the "Sons of God," as indisputably stated in Genesis (6:2) and Job (1:6, 2:1, 38:7).
A fairly concise commentary on the subject is found for this subject at www.net.bible.org :
The Hebrew phrase translated “sons of God” (בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, bene-ha’elohim) occurs only here (Gen 6:2, 4) and in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. There are three major interpretations of the phrase here. (1) In the Book of Job the phrase clearly refers to angelic beings. In Gen 6 the “sons of God” are distinct from “humankind,” suggesting they were not human. This is consistent with the use of the phrase in Job. Since the passage speaks of these beings cohabiting with women, they must have taken physical form or possessed the bodies of men. An early Jewish tradition preserved in 1 En. 6-7 elaborates on this angelic revolt and even names the ringleaders. (2) Not all scholars accept the angelic interpretation of the “sons of God,” however. Some argue that the “sons of God” were members of Seth’s line, traced back to God through Adam in Gen 5, while the “daughters of humankind” were descendants of Cain. But, as noted above, the text distinguishes the “sons of God” from humankind (which would include the Sethites as well as the Cainites) and suggests that the “daughters of humankind” are human women in general, not just Cainites. (3) Others identify the “sons of God” as powerful tyrants, perhaps demon-possessed, who viewed themselves as divine and, following the example of Lamech (see Gen 4:19), practiced polygamy. But usage of the phrase “sons of God” in Job militates against this view. For literature on the subject see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:135.
While subsection (1) of this commentary attempts to suppose that these "Sons of God" somehow took physical form rather than having already inherently possessed same, there is nothing in the account itself that states or suggests this. In fact, for them to have actually sired children further indicates that they must have inherently possessed bodies compatible with Human procreation rather than just assumed a physical form on this occasion.
Subsection 2 of the commentary proposes the long-dispelled suggestion that these "Sons of God" were, in fact, another name for the descendants of Seth. Of course, as the commentary points out, if so then the descendants would have been merely Human when Genesis makes certain that it is understood these were superhuman. Additionally, if merely human, how could they have also been with God while the Earth was being created, as stated in Job 38:7? Obviously, this explanation also falls flat on its face.
Subsection 3 then suggests that perhaps these "Sons of God" "possessed" such bodies, perhaps in the same manner as the "demonic" possession you claim. Unfortunately, if this is supposed, we run into an even bigger problem: the text describes them as being non-Human and... as a result... siring superHuman children.
If they had merely possessed Human male bodies, then the progeny thereof would have been simply Human children, as well.
Thus... the only conclusion that matches all of the facts here is that these "Sons of God" were superhuman already and possessed their own superhuman bodies, thus making them entirly capable to mate with Human females and sire superhuman children... exactly as described in Genesis 6:4 : "They (the progeny of these "Sons of God" and Human women) were the mighty heroes of old, men of renown."
The commentary further states regarding these children who were "...the mighty heroes of old..." : The parenthetical/explanatory clause uses the word הַגִּבֹּרִים (haggibborim) to describe these Nephilim. The word means “warriors; mighty men; heroes.” The appositional statement further explains that they were “men of renown.” The text refers to superhuman beings... .
Obviously, these children were not "monsters" or "demons" but were wonderful heroes who benefitted Humankind, just as the progeny of the Sumerian Annunaki (their far-more ancient version of this same tale) were the very Kings that ruled Sumer and, later, Egypt, as well.
It is also obvious that these "Sons of God" who sired such superhuman children on Earth, were with God when the Earth was created and who, according to the Book of Job (Ch. 38:7), were perhaps even helpful in its creation at which time it is reported that they all "shouted for joy."
Now that we hopefully have a better understanding of who the "Sons of God" actually were... and still are... we can now take a look at the systematic conspiracy thereafter to deliberate lie and malign and vilify and ultimately demonized these "Sons of God," thereafter.
Between 4,000 and 2,000 BCE, Sumer/Babylon first recorded in written form its accounts of these "Sons of God" (Called "Annunaki" by them, which means in Sumerian: "Sons of the Heavenly Prince", which is pretty synonymous!) in which these Annunaki visitors were truly "heroes" and "men of renown" who sired a race of superhuman demigods that ruled over the Earth justly and revealed to them many wonderful skills and abilities called in Sumerian, the "me."
Between 2,000 and 1,000 BCE, the Old Testament was reported verbally and passed along verbally in which this same story is altered significantly in that, while these Sons of God are still still considered very beneficial and who sired equally wonderful children, called "...they mighty men (heroes) of old, men of renown"... yet they are also strangely blamed for Noah's Flood for no actual given reason. This was the first phase of vilification against them. During and then following the Babylonian Exile (ca 600 BCE), the Old Testament was formally written down as we have it today.
Then between 200 - 100 BCE, suddenly we find the "Book of Enoch" written in which these same "Sons of God" from thousands of years earlier are truly demonized horrifically and in complete contradiction with the Book of Genesis and Job. No longer are they called the "Sons of God" but are instead greatly demoted and portrayed as disobedient "angels" who came to Earth and sired not "heroes" and "men of renown," but instead are depicted as evil monsters, huge cannabilistic giants who devour men and livestock up to a thousand per day (?!) and who were also supposedly condemned to death due to what is described as "addition to lust." This is in complete contradiction with the accounts written a thousand years earlier of events that had occurred even thousands of years before that!
The point is that as the Book of Enoch and Jubilees so radically contradicts both Genessi and Job, then these two far-more contemporary books are indisputably wrong and, in fact, apparently quite deliberately so unless it is to be supposed that the author(s) of Enoch and Jubilees were somehow unforgiveably ignorant of what is found in Genesis and Job.
And if they are wrong... then so also is the Book of Jude and II Peter, Chapter 2 that so obviously and deliberately borrowed from Enoch and in despite of the Enoch's contradictions with Genesis. In fact, one quote in the Book of Jude was lifted directly from the Book of Enoch.
And if Enoch and Jubilees (and thus Jude and II Peter) are wrong... then these "Sons of God" were indeed agents for good and righteousness and their children were, just as Genesis declared them to be, "the heroes of old, men of renown"... and are to this day.
And, in fact, such is the case, indeed. And these children, this progeny of these ancient "Sons of God" who have been deliberately maligned and demonized ... both as demons and, later, as vampires... are, in fact, agents of utmost good who have been falsely demonized so as to incite Humankind to reject them and attempt to slaughter them.
Thus... yes... the Bible does speak of those later called "vampires" in Eastern and Central Europe. However, they are not as depicted in fiction... at all.
- Upir
