As I noted in other articles covering what TJ Steadman has to say about Nephilim and Rephaim and Anakim and “giants” is challenging partly through no fault of his own yet, partly though a fault of his.
No fault of his own since these issues are generally considered as a packaged deal which leads to a lot of material to handle from his book Answers to Giant Questions.
Fault of his own because he employs the undefined, subjective, generic, and vague English term “giants” to mean many things and so, sometimes means something about unusual height, sometimes meaning Nephilim, sometimes meaning Rephaim, sometimes meaning Anakim, etc.
Thus, in this case I thought to attempt to focus on his definition, description and usage of “giants.”
He writes:
Before we reach the conclusion of this epic history of the giants, it is time for a reminder or perhaps a cautionary word regarding interpretation. The texts we have been reading are full of all kinds of symbols and imagery, letting us know plainly that we are not meant to take every word at literal face value. Certainly, to do so produces a simply incomprehensible account that is of little, if any value to us.
Knowing that so much of the text is symbolic, we must then guard ourselves against the error of explaining away the events that inspired the original symbols as being merely symbolic in and of themselves. As an example, we cannot use the man Adam as only a symbolic representation of the idea of humanity. Without the real Adam, there is no symbol. The use of Adam as a symbol has to be based on the existence of Adam as a fact.
It is interesting that TJ Steadman tends to offer cautions even whilst failing to be cautious regarding certain issues.
For example, indeed, some texts are “full of all kinds of symbols and imagery” but he will end up claiming that “giants” have something to do with unusual height and even seeks to specify what that height is, or those heights are.
But before you get lost in pondering giants in the Bible just keep in mind that there really is no biblical term for what most people, and especially most pop-researchers, are referring to by “giants”—which is along the lines of the stuff of which tall tales are made, which I contextually term theo-sci-fi. The Bible refers to some people who are “tall” or of “great stature” and tall” and of “great stature” are subjective—in this case, subjective to the average Israelite male who in those days was 5.0-5.3 ft (which means women were short than that, on average).
The issue with the common sense concept of not “explaining away the events that inspired the original symbols as being merely symbolic in and of themselves” is that along the way people do, in fact, just make up stuff out of whole cloth—or rather, out of moth-eaten cloth.
For example, if an explorer travels to a distant land and returns to present a report to the sovereigns who funded the exploration the explorer must sell the exploits or risk not being granted further funding.
Thus, if defeated, might as well claim defeat at the hand of “giants.” And if victorious, might as well claim victory against “giants.”
This is exactly the situation of the contextually relevant portion of Num 13 wherein 12 spies are sent to explore the land, 10 return with a tall tale about what they saw: a tall tale that is termed an “evil report” for which they were rebuked, by the way, you can hear my step by step consideration of this as the opening statement of my debate with TJ Steadman.
Furthermore, he wrote:
The Most High had laid out a plan for the purification of the world from the abomination of the giants. At the time of the dispersion of the nations from Babel, that plan began to unfold, and the dispersion itself was the first stage of a process that would slowly but surely result in God’s people being placed in a position to begin to draw the nations back to Yahweh.
Genesis 11 :8-9 “So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”
Deuteronomy 4: 19-20 “And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.”
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (NETS) “When the Most High was apportioning nations, as he scattered Adam’s sons, he fixed the boundaries of nations according to the number of divine sons, and his people Iakob [Jacob] became the LORD’s portion, Israel a measured part of his inheritance.”
It is rather oddly anachronistic to claim that “the purification of the world from the abomination of the giants” took place “At the time of the dispersion of the nations from Babel” which is when “that plan” first “began to unfold” since that was post-flood and since Nephilim lived pre-flood and eight people and some animals survived the flood then that was when “a plan for the purification of the world from the abomination of the giants” was enacted.
Yet, note that the problem is that I am forced to guess that by “giants” he is referring to Nephilim—since even on TJ Steadman’s own particular, and peculiar, theory the only “giants” pre-Babel were Nephilim.
Now, he quotes three texts but did you notice that none of them make even one single statement about “a plan for the purification of the world from the abomination of the giants. At the time of the dispersion of the nations from Babel”?
Now, he goes on to help us define to what he was referring in a latter portion of his book wherein he writes, “Since the original giants after the Flood (Nimrod being the first of this kind) were normal living humans prior to their transformation at Babel, they already had their own body and spirit just like any normal person.”
He wrote, “God dispersed the giants of Babel throughout the land of Canaan and its surroundings and then set about calling Abraham to create a nation.”
If I may read (biblically) into this, “God dispersed the” people group which eventually came about, who were called Rephaim “throughout the land of Canaan and its surroundings” but it had nothing to do with them being “of Babel”—it is just that he has invented a tall tale about Rephaim being Nephilim 2.0 who were created at Babel.
So now, pre-flood “giants” were Nephilim about whom TJ Steadman and I agree were half-human and half-Angel, as he puts it, “These angels produced giant offspring with human women, and the giants were known as Nephilim,” even though “produced giant…giants were known as Nephilim” is unbiblical and confused. Rather, a biblical statement would be “These angels produced…offspring with human women, and the” offspring, “were known as Nephilim.”
As for the clearly theo-sci-fi claim that Nimrod was the first original giants (OG!!!) after the flood who was human prior to this transformation, see TJ Steadman on the rise and fall and rise of Nimrod aka Enmerkar, Giant, Nephil, Repha, Assyrian, Rahab, Leviathan.
On his view, Nephilim died in the flood, but live on in spirit form as demons (which he gets from pseudopigrapha from millennia after the Torah was written), and/but also that Nephilim physically lived post-flood so that we can know how tall they were based on (the “evil report” mind you) in Num 13:33, and/but that millennia after v. 33 was written a redactor actually edited in the term “Nephilim” (replacing we know not what since there is no manuscript evidence of this), and/but that Rephaim were Nephilim 2.0 so well, that is all very, very messy.
TJ Steadman also writes of being “released”:
…from the awkward position of requiring a worldwide event to eliminate the giants without having proof of a global flood.
A regional flood can still be regarded as effective against the corruption wrought by the sons of God and the Nephilim, despite its locality, because the whole earth relevant to the Biblical context (including everything that unfolded in Genesis 4-6), was indeed inundated.
I will not get into the issue of “proof of a global flood,” since that is not my context, and so will focus on two points: 1) note what I pointed out about him employing the term “giants” to refer to “Nephilim,” in this case and 2) as I have posted elsewhere indeed, whether the flood was global or local is irrelevant to the issue of Nephilim because in either case, they did not survive it—yet, on my (biblical) view they also did not return and never will, in any way, shape, or form: with the qualifying term that of course spirits survive physical calamities but that does not necessarily mean that Nephilim spirits are demons.
After telling us that “giants…Nephilim” did not survive, TJ Steadman goes on to write about “Survival of the Giants” thusly:
…there is more than adequate Scriptural material stating explicitly that only Noah’s family and the preserved animals survived the Flood, but there persist more than a few followers out there of various theories that the giants may have been able to survive the Flood as well.
Let’s consider the logistics of this to humor this absurd notion to its natural conclusion. Suppose the Nephilim delved into some rumored underground tunnels or caves deep in the earth to wait out the Flood. The Flood lasted overall for a long time, whether we take the time given as literal or figurative.
Suppose one found a subterranean air pocket in a cave; could there be enough breathable air for such a long time? What would a family of giants (or a whole race of giants) eat for that time? What about sanitation? It’s clearly not feasible. Especially when we consider that Jesus told us:Matthew 24:38-39 “For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away.”
The Flood event took the Nephilim by surprise, because either they had no idea it was coming and had no time to prepare, or they simply didn’t believe Noah, the “preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5). As far as “doomsday preppers” go, these guys were the worst!
Again, he cautions us regarding not believing that “giants may have been able to survive the Flood as well” but he just ends up replacing “survive” with were conjured up via occult means by Nimrod and just came right back so that the end result is virtually the same: both are unbiblical views.
After assuring us that Nephilim did not survive the flood, even if local, TJ Steadman goes on to write:
The text of Genesis 6:4 says plainly that the Nephilim existed both before and after the central event of the pre-historic narrative, namely the Flood, which is the focal point of Genesis from chapters 4 to 9.
Supporting this assertion is the text of Numbers 13:33, in which it is written that the giants found in Canaan came from those same Nephilim that existed before. This raises an important question. Did the original Nephilim survive the Flood, or did the angels procreate once more with human women, or are there other possibilities?
He asserts that “The text of Genesis 6:4 says plainly that the Nephilim existed both before and after…the Flood” but would be unable to quote any such a statement—because no such statement is made, not “plainly” nor vaguely, nor symbolically, etc.
Indeed, since Nephilim did not survive then who are “giants” (this time biblically meaning Rephaim) come from “those same Nephilim that existed before”?
I have gone over this in articles, books, interviews, etc. so the bottom line is that Gen 6:4 states that Nephilim were “in the earth in those days; and also after that,” it does not say “flood” but refers to “days” which TJ Steadman, and most/all pop-researchers (mis) read as referring to the flood.
The question becomes when were “those days” and thus, when was “after that”?
Well, the verse actually tells us since it states, “in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them” so that is when “those days” were.
But when was that?
Verse 1 tells us, “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them” which could have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children started having children.
Thus, “after that” simply refers to after when they first did so which was “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them.”
So, they did so and kept doing it yet, whenever those days were, after that only means that: after it began but still pre-flood.
Also, the flood is not mentioned until v. 17 (a full 13 vss. Later) so reading it into v. 4 is reading ahead and then looping back rather than taking the text for what it states in the order it states it.
Now, his reasoning is that he finds support for his mischaracterizing of Gen 6:4 by reading all the way to the “evil report,” actually believing it, and then turning that one single verse into a worldview and hermeneutic via which to (mis) interpret other texts—such as Gen 6:4.
His qualifying term “assertion” regarding Num 13:33 is appreciated, and key, yet, he ends up actually believing the “evil report” and running with it.
That the assertion has it “that the giants” Nephilim, “found in Canaan came from those same Nephilim that existed before” actually “raises an important question” which is not the question he poses but rather: why would we believe unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing, spies who presented an “evil report” for which they were rebuked, wherein they made four claims about which the entire rest of the Bible knows nothing, and who also contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the whole rest of the Bible?
He does make it clear that “At the end of the Flood narrative…the Nephilim have all died.” So, no, there is no biblical indication that “Nephilim survive[d] the Flood” nor that “angels procreate once more with human women” post-flood—since they were incarcerated for their sin, see Jude and 2 Peter 2.
After affirming the supposed accuracy of the “evil report” reference to that “all” mind you “the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature” which is referring to the Anakim and the Amalekites and the Hittites and the Jebusites and the Amorites and the Canaanites—and the Nephilim, TJ Steadman tells us “the presence of giants within the population does not necessarily define the entire people group as giants”—but, as generally is the case, he leaves me having to guess to what he is referring by “giants” with any given usage he makes of that useless term.
He also claims “God placed…nations of inhuman giants for destruction” during the conquest narratives yet, those very narratives wherein God tell us many time why He is commanding such things never have God stating one single word about Nephillim nor relation to them—see chapter “Herem: Were Post-Flood Nephilim Dedicated to Destruction?” of my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.
In my article TJ Steadman on King Og, the Repha “giant” of Bashan, I quoted TJ Steadman to the effect that “Og’s bed measured 13.5 feet long, and six feet wide. It would obviously be safe to assume that Og himself was under these dimensions in the flesh. That does not negate by any means the notion that Og was actually a giant.”
So, here “giant” means something about unusual height—even though he knows that that bed was not an object upon which Og slept but was a ritual bed, “the bed itself was significant because of its intended function” as he puts it, “It was not for sleeping on. It was a bed or couch for the purpose of sexual rituals held in temple worship.”
Thus, the size of the “bed” has no relation to Og’s size.
TJ Steadman asks if we “can expect the giants to return for a final battle, or is this just language conveying the idea of condemnation and judgment?” and replies, “The text of Revelation certainly does not state clearly anything about giants, despite countless allusions to their history.”
That “The text of Revelation” or any other eschatological text “certainly does not state clearly anything about giants” whatever that means in this case, is accurate but I am unsure to what he is referring by “despite countless allusions to their history” much less who “their” is.
TJ Steadman also referred to:
…arguments against the literal giants (or any other supernatural forces, good or bad) as being simply a form of dehumanizing language designed to cast outsiders as undesirable beasts or as utopian representation of the ideal…
The Scriptures never cast enemies as giants simply to (ironically) belittle them. Look at the faithless report of the spies in Numbers 13. If the spies had considered the inhabitants of the land as inferior, then what were they so afraid of?…Joshua didn’t say that the Canaanites were not giants. His only point of difference with the report of the other spies was in Yahweh’s ability to overcome them.
Now, without defining the term “giants” there cannot be a discussion about “literal giants,” especially when he uses that term in many different ways.
Again, biblically there is no such word as “giants” but there are references to Nephilim, to gibborim, to Rephaim, to Anakim (a Rephaim subgroup), and to being tall or of great stature. Thus, there have been such things as Nephilim, gibborim (merely meaning might/mighty), Rephaim, Anakim and people who were tall/of great stature.
The actual case is that “The Scriptures never cast enemies as giants” period—unless we need to replace the useless term “giant” for something like Rephaim, which the context would dictate, which the Hebrew would actually state, actually.
As for the “faithless report,” indeed, they did not consider “the inhabitants of the land as inferior” because, as the reliable part of the report, the original report states, they (itinerate tent dwellers) were faced with “the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great.”
One problem with the statement “Joshua didn’t say that the Canaanites were not giants” is that this was not a point-by-point formal debate. We know that it is untrue that “all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature” because such a thing is not even hinted at anywhere else in the whole Bible and so we can only believe that if we take the word for it of utterly unreliable people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.