TJ Steadman on “giants”—from Nephilim to Rephaim as Nephilim 2.0, part 3 of 3

nephilim debate.jpg

Concluding 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.

You can find all of my articles regarding TJ Steadman here.

After assuring us that Nephilim did not survive the flood, even if local, TJ Steadman goes on to write:

Concluding 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.

You can find all of my articles regarding TJ Steadman here.

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.

We will pick it up from here in the next segment.

Check out my Nephilim related books.

nephilim debate.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites listed on the left hand menu and/or on the “Share/Save” button below the tags.