Jude 6-7 “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation [oikétérion], he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
2 Corinthians 5:1-5 “For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house [oikétérion] which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.”
In both of the Scriptures quoted above, the Greek term oikétérion is employed to convey the idea of some kind of glorified form that certain beings can assume. In the first, Jude tells his audience that some angels (called “sons of God” in Genesis 6, or “watchers” in 1 Enoch and Daniel 4) abandoned the glory they once had in order to indulge in mortal, fleshly experiences which resulted in the birth of the Nephilim.
In the second passage, the mortal human form is referred to as a “tabernacle” (like a kind of tent in which God’s presence was said to reside), and the “house not made with hands” is the immortal form that Jews and Christians aspire to in the age to come.
The idea of it being “not made with hands” alludes to creation by God, which ties into the “sons of God” terminology and also implies divinely ordained purpose.
We can see that “oikétérion” makes no sense interpreted as a physical place of residence, as many believe. Note that it comes from heaven but it is not heaven itself; additionally both angels and men have physical forms whether glorified or not, whether in heaven or not.
So what is the oikétérion? Paul’s use of clothing as an illustration (probably borrowed from the Mesopotamian myth of Adapa) is helpful, showing that it is bestowed by God and can be put on or taken off - but we have no evidence that this action is reversible. The angels that remove theirs never get it back, and the humans that will put it on will enter eternity that way. The glory of immortality is not something to consider lightly.
The oikétérion is the glorified form that God gives those created personally by Him. It implies a status, an authority and a responsibility as His representatives - to be His image bearers, whether that be in heaven or on earth.
Now do you see why Adam and Eve realised that they were “naked” after their actions failed to represent God’s Word? They had lost their own oikétérion, traded for fig leaves and humiliation.

Ancient texts tell of the fall of the Akkadian Empire at the hands of an army of immortal, inhuman warriors. The evil hordes were summoned by the gods to overthrow the kingdom and establish a new order. These otherworldly, demonic beasts were called variously the Umman-Manda, or the Gutians.
Many Biblical scholars have noted that the way the Bible describes the Amorites and various other groups appears similar to the use of these terrifying beasts in the Akkadian myths. They argue that in books like Deuteronomy and Joshua, which have many features of military writing, it would be culturally appropriate to find ”propaganda” decrying Israel’s enemies as inhuman savages. Therefore, the mention of giants (Rephaim) in Scripture is meant to be understood as nothing more than military trash-talking, and the giants were just ordinary men who happened to be on the wrong side of the fight. Dehumanising the enemy is a way of ensuring that popular opinion stays on your side, based on fear of the other.
But people who hold such a view of the Bible need to ask the questions raised by this position.
If the invading hordes of beastly warriors are driving out the native inhabitants of the land, doesn't the Conquest account place Israel in the position of being the monsters rather than the good guys?
If the Amorites were so evil, why don't the Akkadian legends include them among the demonic invaders?
Is it ok for people (especially God's chosen people, and even more so, the Biblical writers) to dehumanise other people made in God's image?
How are we to account for the gigantic proportions of certain characters in the Biblical narrative if they were not really that big?
And perhaps most importantly, does portraying an enemy as an evil supernatural hybrid lend any justification to the Conquest of Canaan? What other possibility is there that makes the eradication of the Anakim and other giant clans acceptable?

The simple answer is that this model of interpretation does not align at all with what Scripture presents. Jesus teaches us not to dehumanise our enemies but to love them; to view them as equals or even treat them better than ourselves.
Matthew 5:44-45a "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven."
Mark 12:31b "Love your neighbour as yourself."
Matthew 5:41 "If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles."
Further, when we acknowledge that the "propaganda" interpretation of the giant clans doesn't hold water because you have to turn the good guys into bad guys to make it work, we are forced to recognise that the giants were not just ordinary men playing for the other team. The descriptions of great size and strength, along with the depraved religion that they practiced, make it clear to us that these were evil people with an intrinsic connection to forces oppositional to God and humankind - a connection that had corrupted their nature so deeply that they had wilfully forgone the capacity to represent Yahweh Elohim in either form or function.
The first Nephilim were removed with a flood. The latter giants were removed with a military campaign. In ancient literature, both judgments were often described with the same language. The Conquest served a similar purpose to the Flood in that respect; it was a restoration of order by means of devastation. In that respect alone, the fearsome Umman-Manda's invasion of Akkad did have something in common with the Israelite Conquest. The Most High had decreed an end to the old civilisation, and the commencement of a new one, bringing with it a restoration of divine order.
​
- T.J. Steadman

In the book of Numbers, chapter 16, the story is told of an uprising led by one of the leaders of the Israelite tribe of Levi, against the leadership of the nation. 
Korah accused Moses and his brother Aaron of making themselves higher than the people and lording it over them. He believed that all of the people were fit to dwell in the presence of the LORD, not just the priests. Korah stirred up 250 men against Moses to advance his cause. 

Moses’ response was to consult with God. He returned with a proposal to resolve the conflict: God would act to show who was really holy in His sight. The spectacular result of this divine intervention would go down in Israelite folklore. In fact, it went down in poetry. 

Num. 16:28 “And Moses said, “Hereby you shall know that the LORD has sent me to do all these works, and that it has not been of my own accord.
29 If these men die as all men die, or if they are visited by the fate of all mankind, then the LORD has not sent me.
30 But if the LORD creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the LORD.”
31 And as soon as he had finished speaking all these words, the ground under them split apart.
32 And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the people who belonged to Korah and all their goods.
33 So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.”

The poetic form employed here is called chiasm. It starts with a problem, reaches a climactic turning point, and then shows the resolution of the problem. Korah’s rebellion is swiftly dealt with. The earth opens, Korah and his followers fall in, and the earth closes over them. It’s a spectacular scene. But there’s something even more amazing about this little story. 

The story of Noah and the Flood is also a chiasm. And it also features this concept of “opening and closing” in order to deal with a problem. Remember how the “windows of heaven” and the “fountains of the great deep” were opened and closed in the Flood narrative? God was dealing with a problem. 

In both cases (and there are more of these, by the way), God was dealing with a rebellion. And He did so by opening the way to another dimension. Heaven, the Deep, and Sheol are all terms used to designate the spiritual realm - a “place” that living mortals cannot inhabit, but where spirits can exist. God restores holiness and order by separating the holy from the profane, and by covering the sin of the transgressors in an act of justice.

In Korah’s story the rebellious people were removed to stop a catastrophic violation of sacred space, and the same applied to the situation in Noah’s day. The Flood removed the rebellious sons of God and their giant offspring. As for where they went, and how long they remained there, well, that’s another story. 

- TJ Steadman