You can find all of my articles regarding TJ Steadman here.
TJ Steadman writes, “gibbowr can have other meanings besides ‘giant,’ and Boaz [Ruth 2:1] was certainly not a giant! Gibbowr is the same term applied to Nimrod. So, we are reminded of the problem that the Messiah must deal with – the legacy of the giants.”
This is rather odd since, in a few ways, one is something rather typical of Nephilim related issues researchers and that is employing the vague, generic, subjective English term in an undefined or multi-defined manner.
In other words, we are generally left to pour our own subjective meanings into it since the author is not defining it for us or, the author is actually using it to mean more than one thing in which case we have to attempt to guess what is meant by it at any given time.
Moreover, if it is meant to mean something about unusual height (with “unusual” also being subjective) then we are generally left to guess as to whether what is implied is a few inches taller than average (with “average” being subjective), or a few feet, or a few entire body lengths, or more.
In this case, we are told that “gibbowr can have other meanings besides ‘giant,’” the issue with which is that it never means any such thing to begin with so it cannot have “other” meanings.
TJ Steadman goes on to write:
As we go through the Biblical accounts of David’s exploits, we encounter another use of the term we looked at earlier to denote giants – the Hebrew gibborim, and it gets applied to David’s elite warriors, the ones called David’s “mighty men” (see 2 Samuel 23:8-22 among many other examples).
It even gets applied to David himself (1 Samuel 16:18)! Were they giants?
Many good folks out there in Internet Conspiracy Land would like to say that they were. The truth is, nothing in the text tells us anything of the sort.
“Gibborim” is frequently used to describe warriors, and it doesn’t mean they were big men or demonically empowered or anything like that. But the question needs to be asked, if they weren’t giants, then why use a word that conveys that idea?
This is a prime example of the way Scripture is written with an overall theme of reversing or undoing what is wrong with the world. And since David is the prime example of getting rid of the giants, it makes sense that the author uses David and his men to reverse that problem literarily. David’s (and by extension, God’s) gibborim kill the enemy’s gibborim.
It’s a wonderful irony in true Biblical style. Who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor? One of David’s “good gibborim” is especially noted for his heroic deeds in ridding the land of the “bad gibborim.”
This is a case of seeking to solve a problem that one creates for themselves, in all actuality, by beginning with a faulty premise.
There is a reason that Boaz, David himself and his fighting men are referred to as “mighty men” since mighty/might is all that gibborim means. In fact, TJ Steadman claims that “Nephilim” also means giants so, somehow, the very different root words naphal/naphiyla and also gabar both mean the same thing: so that npl and gbr mean the same thing—which they most certainly do not.
Interestingly, he is claiming that giants is a meaning of gibborim and that Boaz, David and his men were not but that Samson well, was and also was not—even though he is not referred to as a gibbor not is he physically described (besides that he wore his hair long), see my article TJ Steadman on Samson: giant or not?
So, “if they weren’t giants” the reason to use that word is that it does not ever conveys the idea of giant: so that is the actual solution to a problem that is not biblical but is concocted by TJ Steadman’s faulty premise.
As far as David “getting rid of the giants” pause: note that since he told us gibbor can mean giants then one would naturally read David “getting rid of the giants” as David “getting rid of the” gibborim, right? Well, he is really speaking of David “getting rid of the” Rephaim and such is the problem with writing vaguely and having us wonder and guess. By the way, some Rephaim were surely gibborim in that some of them were mighty but that is about all.
It is also not just a case of David’s (and by extension, God’s) gibborim kill the enemy’s gibborim” but that God is also a gibbor since he is called “El Gibbor” the Mighty God (Isaiah 9).
Now, what I discern in these claims are not only the results of misunderstanding gibbor but that it forms the basis for TJ Steadman’s prior misunderstanding of what it means for Nimrod to have become a gibbor which is something we shall get in other articles featuring TJ Steadman.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Leave a Reply