Undergoing consideration is that which TJ Steadman wrote about the flood and Rephaim as Nephilim 2.0.
You can find all of my articles regarding TJ Steadman here.
In his book Answers to Giant Questions, he claims “Now, while the Canaanites venerated El as head of the pantheon, we know as Christians that their god is not, in reality, the top dog” indeed, and that “Only Yahweh has the power to animate the spirits of the Rephaim.”
Now, this is because he takes a particular, and peculiar, view of Rephaim as Nephilim 2.0 which Nimrod somehow manufactured via occult means—see my article TJ Steadman on the rise and fall and rise of Nimrod aka Enmerkar, Giant, Nephil, Repha, Assyrian, Rahab, Leviathan.
Biblically, the root word repha is used to reference healing, the dead, a people group (the Rephaim), etc. so that, as always, context is king since context always determines meaning.
TJ Steadman continues thusly, “Only He can command Leviathan to release His ‘treasures of darkness’ upon the earth” whatever that means.
He then refers to “the hidden purpose of the Flood” and asks, “What could God have been doing with a world filled with giants” Nephilim, actually, “knowing that their spirits would not perish in the Flood?” but who said so or, who said not?
He is getting that idea from pseudopigraphical texts from millennia after the Torah was written, two of which claim that demons are Nephilim spirits (Jubilees and Ethiopic Enoch)—for my biblical view of who/what demons are, see the article Demons Ex Machina: What Are Demons?
Now, it is true that spirits would not perish due to the bodies they inhabited being covered by water but that does not mean that they became demons.
TJ Steadman asks, “Could those spirits have escaped judgment for so long, having been reserved for a time such as this?” there is zero biblical indication of any such thing.
He noted, “While the Canaanites falsely attributed this power to their usurping deity who was really a fallen son of God, the truth is that there was nobody in Canaanite religion who had the power to set the demons loose, so people who believe that they might be able to summon the Rephaim on their own are sorely mistaken,” good to know.
He states, “We can become so fixated on the idea of the Flood being a global event that was survived by nobody except Noah’s family” let us pause: Bible believers are “so fixated” because that is what we are so very clearly told.
Setting aside the issue of global vs. local flood for now, note that regarding who survived: it was Noah, his wife, their three sons, the three sons’ wives, and some animals (Gen 6 and 1 Peter 3:20).
He is, in part, stating that because, as he continues directly from where I paused quoting, “that we flatly refuse to think about the fact that the Scripture states that the giants that came after the Flood came from those that existed before it.”
This ranges from misguided to vague to wrong.
It is not enough to make statements such as “the Scripture states” because that is a reification fallacy: the Scriptures is not a person and so states nothing. Rather, God inspired words written in Scripture including many that we should not believe such as those statements made by Satan, the father of lies, that are recorded in Scripture.
Thus, “the Scripture states” or “the Bible says” or “it’s in the Bible” or “God inspired…” or “Moses wrote” or any such things are vague.
More accurately, “the Scripture” record a claim that “states that the giants” Nephilim, “that came after the Flood came from those that existed before it.”
So, the key questions are who said it, in what context was it said, was is accurate, how was it received, what was the reply, etc.?
TJ Steadman claims and also denies post-flood Nephilim and builds his entire case upon one single verse, as all post-flood Nephilim believers are forced to do, which then becomes a worldview hermeneutic via which they then misread and misinterpret other verses.
He is actually telling us that “the Scripture states” that but that was stated by unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing, rebuked spies who made four claims about which the whole rest of the Bible knows nothing within an “evil report” and were rebuked for it by God Himself.
For my detailed interaction with the relevant portion of Num 13, which is to what he is referring, see the opening statement I made in my debate with TJ Steadman, here.
Since the one and also post-flood Nephilim text is utterly unreliable—for many reasons—then the logical and theological conclusion is that the last of the Nephilim died in the flood, did not return, and never will in any way, shape or form.
So now, contextual to Nephilim discussion: whether the flood was global or local matters not. If global then the Nephilim died in the flood since only eight people and some animals survived. If local then the Nephilim were living in the locality that was flooded since there is no such thing as post-flood Nephilim.
TJ Steadman further writes, “Naturally, this will result in the text being forced to fit concepts that it plainly doesn’t support, to defend certain theological systems. This is the point at which for many, the literalism dissolves, and words like ‘giant’ are explained as being references to power, royalty, influence or pride.”
Ironically, it is he who is expecting us to take his preferred late-comer English word “giant” to mean something unspecific about unusual height literally.
Biblically, the English term “giant” is not a “references to power, royalty, influence or pride” but is used to render (no, not even translate) either “Nephilim” or “Rephaim.”
He offers this:
A common example is the interpretation of the Numbers 13 account which draws particular attention to the phrase “we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight,” which is taken to mean that the spies considered themselves diminutive compared to their supposedly normally-proportioned enemies. It might read well as a moral lesson on selfesteem, but the direct mention of giants (” … and there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants”) throws that idea out – unless you transliterate, and then you are left with “Nephilim” left happily unexplained and unquestioned.
Note that it was not “the spies” who said that since there were twelves spies who were all “the spies.” Rather, that was stated by the unfaithful, disloyal, rebuked ones who concocted that tall tale.
Thus, it was not “a moral lesson on selfesteem” nor a “direct mention of giants,” Nephilim actually, and since “Nephilim” does not mean what TJ Steadman sometimes thinks of when he uses the term “giants” then it also has nothing to do with a “happily unexplained and unquestioned.”
I have dealt with this issue in every book I have written about Nephilim related issues.
He notes:
However, avoidance of these questions and their associated issues will lead to other problems. We have already seen that the avoidance of giants in the pre-Flood world raises the question of how God might justify the destruction of that world and its inhabitants.
Similarly, writing off the post-Flood accounts of giants causes further problems, notably the issue of the apparent genocides committed by the Israelites at the command of God in the conquest of Canaan.
Indeed, avoidance leads to other problems as much as does turning them into theo-sci-fi.
The “giants in the pre-Flood world” were Nephilim and the “post-Flood accounts of giants” are accounts of Rephaim.
We should not chase the English word “giants” around a Hebrew Bible: Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, the Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans and there is no relation between them.
But what of “the apparent genocides”? Well, I have a whole chapter, titled “Herem: Were Post-Flood Nephilim Dedicated to Destruction?,” just on that issue in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim?: the bottom line is that God tells us many times why He is commanding such things and never states one single word about Nephilim nor relation to them—never, ever.
TJ Steadman seeks the escape-clause-loophole of asserting that Rephaim are Nephilim 2.0 who were all but manufactured by Nimrod but such is the stuff of which theo-sci-fi is made.
The deeper problem is what will happen when TJ Steadman—and essentially all pop-researchers (see my book Nephilim and Giants As Per Pop-Researchers) tell people that it is okay, since they were just wiping out post-flood Nephilim (because, apparently, the flood did not do that) but anyone can see that such is not the case. Thus, this is a case of creating problems under the semblance of solving them.
He goes on to note:
If we take the responsible approach, we are forced to take the Biblical account in its entirety quite seriously. That implies thinking about by what possible means these difficult passages might be reconciled after we have done the Word of God the simple dignity of seeking the best translation.
Then we must consider any possible explanation of the existence of giants after the Flood, and the relationship they might have to those mentioned prior to the Flood. As ignorance tends to create more problems than it solves, the hope is that by carefully expounding the Scriptures we may arrive at a solution.
The idea of the floodwaters coming from the “fountains of the great deep” is meant to indicate that the Flood was of supernatural origin, and that the power responsible for releasing such destructive force may have been a malevolent entity compelled by God to carry out His will. It does not mean that we should expect to find vast reserves of water deep in the core of a supposedly hollow earth.
Indeed, the responsible approach is that which he noted. I am not aiming this, as it were, at him specifically but be careful since sometimes, “seeking the best translation” is used to mean seeking the ones that already state what one wants to hear—such as one that peppers the word “giant” through the Bible and leaves one to pour preconceived, fairytale spiked, meaning(s) into it.
As for “the existence of giants after the Flood”: the first question is “What do you mean by ‘giants’?”
Nephilim did not exist post-flood and Rephaim did because of well, the birds and the bees.
Again, he thinks that Rephaim are a post-flood name for Nephilim but he actually argues that the one and only verse that refers to Nephilim post-flood—the rebuked evil report—was actually edited by a redactor during the Babylonian captivity (even though there is no manuscript evidence of such a claim)—centuries after the Torah was written—so, apparently, we do not and cannot actually know what the rebuked spies stated.
As for “the relationship they might have to those mentioned prior to the Flood”:
1) there is no relationship between Rephaim and Nephilim (and no, you cannot even get that if you actually believe the rebuked evil report).
2) the relationship is one of reference, the rebuked spies referred to Nephilim and claimed to have seen them (the Israelites did not) so the relation is one in name only like conjuring up a boogey man in order to concoct a “Don’t go in the woods” style fear mongering scare tactic tall tale.
As for “may have been a malevolent entity compelled by God,” what we are told is, “I will destroy…I will destroy…I Myself am bringing floodwaters…I will cause it to rain…He destroyed” (Gen 6:7, 13, 17, 7:4, 23).
Ironic that he refers to creating more problems than one is solving.
The issue of floodwaters is fascinating as it serves as a very telling example of how TJ Steadman appears to cross the line into actually accepting Pagan mythology as is and then using it to interpret or re-interpret or mis-interpret the Bible—I know that he is cautious about not doing any such thing and I am just offering word of caution to a brother.
You see, in the ANE the abyss/absu was the watery chaos. Thus, he is reading the biblical reference to water coming from the fountains of the great deep as maybe coming from a malevolent entity who would dwell in that chaos and brought chaos to Earth.
Now, note the well, what I will call manipulation whereby he refers to “a supposedly hollow earth” which I also noticed when he refers to that “The Greeks described Tartarus as being under the earth, but that is not meant to be understood in terms of literal ‘flat earth’ geography” and “The Abyss is no more a physical place than the earth is flat” so that the trigger is to get us to think that since we do not want to be associated with a hollow or flat Earth then we must reject water coming from the fountains of the great deep and Tartarus being under the Earth (in the Earth, actually)— I would pay cash money to hear a debate between an hollow-Earther and a flat-Earther!!!
So, we should not expect to find vast reserves of water deep in the core of a supposedly hollow earth but why qualify that statement with “core” and “hollow”? Why not tells us to not expect to find vast reserves of water deep beneath the Earth’s surface?
The simple fact, that we now know more that it ever was in the past, is that there are, in very point of fact, many reserves of water deep beneath the Earth’s surface.
Thus, perhaps at sometime in the past someone, maybe even a Bible believers, thought that water coming from the fountains of the great deep must have been symbolic but we know that it is as literal as it gets: the floodwaters were a combination of rain and water coming from the fountains of the great deep.
Under the heading “Judgment on Evil Powers, Not Sin,” TJ Steadman wrote:
The Flood was not a judgment on sinful humans, or an eradication program directed toward God’s image-bearers, but a means of preserving the remnant of our species so that humanity could start over again.
Had it not been for the Flood, Noah’s family would certainly have been killed by the Nephilim, and the last hope of humanity would have been lost. The Flood was God’s means of saving His people from the trouble that was otherwise going to befall them.
There is an amazing irony in the work of God seen in the Flood though – the God of order bringing non-order upon an already chaotic world to set everything right again.
Part of this is attempting to understand the precious little we are told about Nephilim: which is merely their parentage and that they became mighty and well known—period.
He claims, “The Flood was not a judgment on sinful humans” but Gen 6:5-7 note, “the wickedness of man was great…every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…the LORD was sorry that He had made man…So the LORD said, ‘I will destroy man…’”
And no, I have no problem with “man” referring to humans and to Nephilim and even to Angels since the former is obvious, Nephilim were half “man” so can be referred to as such (like Barak Obama is the “first Black President” even though he is half Black), and Angles look just like human males and thus, are referred to as such.
Now, he claims “The Flood was not a judgment on sinful humans” but during our debate he stated, “we don’t have in scripture any account of the purpose of the flood being for eliminating the Nephilim.” So, if it was not to contra humans nor contra Nephilim then God must have flooded the Earth not for the reasons He stated but to judge Angels.
The issue of ending “an eradication program” so that “humanity could start over again” is made difficult since he denies and also accepts that there were post-flood Nephilim. On the post-flood Nephilim view, the “eradication program” did not end with the flood and “humanity could” not just “start over again” since Nephilim were still running amok doing whatever they were doing.
Now, if “The Flood was God’s means of saving His people” then any concept of post-flood Nephilim means that God flooded the Earth only to, somehow and contradictory to His Word, have Nephilim survive or return and continue going at it.
TJ Steadman then asks, “What do we make of this?” and replies:
During the Flood, God opened the spiritual portals through our material world. In 40 days and nights, He passed judgment on all flesh. He sealed the fate of those wicked giants, detaching them from the powerful bodies they once had. He closed the gateway between the material world and the spiritual so that the spirits became trapped in their disembodied state.
After 150 days of disembodied existence, the Nephilim changed. They became the next iteration – unclean spirits seeking an opportunity for embodiment. We have no evidence to suggest that these spirits were able to achieve embodiment by their own power. Thus, the iniquity of Azazel had resulted in the “offspring of the goat” – the elohim (spirits) later referred to as Rephaim…
There is another way to view the cryptic “150 days” along similar lines. This time instead of goats, we will look at locusts. In an agrarian society, it was common knowledge that the life cycle of a locust averages 150 days. In that time, locusts undergo metamorphosis. Later we will see how important this illustration is, in describing the same thing that we just learned regarding the dead Nephilim and their subsequent form.
If you are thinking that most of that is unbiblical, even if it appears reasonable, then you are correct.
As far as I know, that “God opened the spiritual portals” is made up stuff but he makes if up in order to then claim “He closed the gateway” and so Nephilim spirits, “became trapped in their disembodied state” which he is arguing based not on the Bible but, again, based on folklore from centuries after the Torah was written.
Now, that he assets that precisely “After 150 days…Nephilim changed” into their “next iteration,” hence my term Nephilim 2.0 is part of his post-flood Nephilim view.
Yet, I state Nephilim 2.0 for another reason: because he also claim we can know how tall they were via Num 13:33, the rebuked evil report, and one cannot measure the height of a spirit so he claims they were actually alive and embodied at the time—yet, he also claims a redactor inserted the tern Nephilim into that verse centuries after it was written.
Yet, he also, also thinks that Rephaim are embodies Nephilim 2.0.
If you are having a hard time tracking all of this, welcome to the club.
By appealing to “the iniquity of Azazel” he is denoting that he is creating a problem—that of “unclean spirits seeking an opportunity for embodiment”—and supposing to solving it by, again, quoting pseudepigraphical folklore from centuries after the Torah was written, this time in the form of Ethiopic Enoch/1 Enoch—see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.
There is absolute zero biblical indication that Rephaim were “offspring of the goat,” whatever that means (I actually know he is erroneously playing off of the scapegoat issue). So, “Nephilim” were “elohim (spirits)” and “later referred to as Rephaim” and such watering down and playing with words either means that TJ Steadman is the greatest contextually relevant scholars in history—since, as far as I know, no one else in history has ever claimed any such thing—(which may be), or he is mistaken.
Yes, there are texts wherein locusts are symbolic of, say, a destructive army but to study the life cycle of insects to correlate them to a tale about “dead Nephilim and their subsequent form” does not end up working out.
Under the title, “There is a Hidden Purpose of God at Work,” TJ Steadman wrote:
As we are going to find out, there was another purpose of God at work in the Flood.
This one is not referred to explicitly, but in the light of what we have just seen, and as we continue, it will become apparent that the death of the Nephilim was not the end of them, and it was never supposed to be.
Our omniscient God always has a plan, and the disembodied giants would soon be part of it, whether they liked it or not.
So, the flood was our omniscient God’s “means of saving His people” so that “humanity could start over again” but “another purpose” that “is not referred to explicitly” results in that “the death of the Nephilim was not the end of them” which is rather odd.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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