You can find all of my articles regarding TJ Steadman here.
When it comes to Nirmod, TJ Steadman commits the same error as most, if not all, of the people I featured in my book Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers and that is to claim that since Nephilim are referred to as gibborim in pre-flood days (the only days in which they existed) and Nimrod is described as having become a gibbor post-flood then he, somehow, became a Nephil.
As noted in my article “TJ Steadman claims ‘gibbowr can have other meanings besides ‘giant,’” he claims that gibbor can mean giant—with what he means by giant being a different issue (he means many things by it and leaves it to his readers to guess what he means at any given time).
Referring to a stone monster, as per Hurrian/Hittite mythology, TJ Steadman writes, “Ullikummi is referred to as a giant. Nimrod is called a ‘mighty one’ or ‘gibbowr,’ a term previously used in Scripture only to describe giants” pause: Note that when it comes to Ullikummi he is using giants to mean something vague about unusual height but when it comes to Scripture he means Nephilim (and since we have no reliable physical description of them, we cannot rightly claim they were even one inch taller than average).
As a side note: I am taking “a term previously used in Scripture only to describe giants” to refer back to Gen 6:4 since he knows very well that gibbor is used to describe non-giants (again, whatever that means) such as Boaz, David, his soldiers, Angels, God, etc.
Thus, at this point, the correlation between Ullikummi the giant and Nimrod the mighty one/gibbowr is well, no correlation at all.
TJ Steadman goes on to write, “Ullikummi is so tall; he reaches from the depths of the underworld right up to heaven. Nimrod wasn’t that big, but something else was…Nimrod’s tower of Babel! The connection is obvious. Where the Hittite giant is made of stone, Babel is made of another impervious material – bricks. The poetic nature of the text allows the writer to combine these ideas seamlessly.”
I would agree that “Nimrod wasn’t that big” for two reasons: there is no reason to imagine he was taller than average and we have no physical description of him (so “imagine” is all that anyone could do when it comes to his height).
Then again, we have no measurement of the Tower of Babel either, not any reason to think that its foundations were from the depths of the underworld.
When it comes to Nimrod, TJ Steadman makes another claim that is like unto claims made by many people I featured in my book Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers and that is to claim that Nimrod was aka many names/terms/titles and some go onto concoct elaborate eschatological scenarios therefrom—such as that Nimrod will be the “anti-Christ,” etc.
For example, TJ Steadman writes the following about Ezekiel 31:3-9 (see my article The Apocalypse of the Hidden Hand), “The passage was intended by Ezekiel to compare the proud Egyptian Pharaoh and his people the Egyptians to ‘The Assyrian’ or Nimrod and his people, the Assyrians” so that Nimrod is aka The Assyrian—there is much more to come on this point.
He adds that “What the prophecy also does is explain to us more about the source of Nimrod’s power” and that “This passage may reaffirm Nimrod’s giant physical stature with the metaphor of a cedar tree, but more likely it is a reference to his dominion as a king.”
So, the height of a cedar is Nimrod’s height “but more likely it is a reference to his dominion as a king.” Now, of course, if this “may reaffirm” Nimrod’s “giant physical stature” that means it has already been affirmed but, pray tell, where?
First, however, he is quite right about the metaphor and goes on to note that “In
Biblical and other literature, kings are often likened to trees; specifically…‘cedars of Lebanon’ and the ‘oaks of Bashan,’” etc.
Such is the case, for example, in Amos 2:9 wherein the Amorites are referred to as being strong as oaks. Now, who even imagines that this implies conducting a one-to-one ratio based mathematical calculation between a person’s strength and that of an oak? Hopefully, no one: it is a mere metaphor for that they were strong.
Now, it also states that their “height was like the height of the cedars” and yes, in my aforementioned book I get into how many “giant” obsessed people do actually claim this was literal so they will measure cedars and tell us that is how tall Amorites were yet, these are mere metaphors for that they were big and strong.
TJ Steadman claims that “the tree of Ezekiel 31 is the great ‘cosmic tree,’” unsure what he is quoting there, “found in ancient cosmology” which seems to be what he was quoting there, “as the connection point between the realms of heaven, earth and underworld” so that “This was Nimrod’s representation of himself as the channel by which man had access to divine power.”
Now, whether or not we can correlate a Tower the stated purpose of which was to “make a name for ourselves” must be or can be interpreted via other ANE literature, we have no indication that Nimrod channeled divine power.
He specifies that “this metaphor, Nimrod, his great tower, and the cosmic tree” are about “a king drawing power from the underworld.”
To buttress this, he refers us to “Daniel 4 and its description of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream” about a tree but it states nothing about channeling divine power from the underworld or anywhere else—TJ Steadman seems to read such a concept from trees deriving sustenance from the ground via roots.
In any case, this is what we are contextually told about Nimrod, “Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar” (Gen 10:8-10).
Thus, biblically, Nimrod was a regular guy, a hunter, who became mighty—period.
Yet, TJ Steadman has it that “The Biblical text says that Nimrod ‘began’ to be a mighty one. The Hebrew phrase chagal is used. This word is rendered ‘began’ many times” fair enough, “What Nimrod did specifically when he ‘began’ to be a mighty one is not revealed in detail (by the grace of God, thankfully!)” but he does not stop at this fact but goes on to argue that “but we can reasonably deduce a few things about what happened” because “The actual term used here for ‘mighty one’ is gibbowr (from which we get gibborim [masculine plural], the same term first used in Genesis 6:4 to describe the Nephilim, among its other uses in Scripture)” at which point we may reply “So what?”
He continues directly with “It is used three times in the Genesis 10 passage in reference to Nimrod; typically, in Hebrew thought such insistent repetition is intended to indicate the extreme or superlative nature of the condition. The term denotes strength, power, influence, tyranny, dominance and the like” indeed, such as in telling us the record of a regular guy who became might, established kingdoms, etc. which is quite a feat on its own.
Yet, for some that is not enough for some people.
TJ Steadman goes on to write, “It is also used to refer to giants. The Septuagint prefers that rendering here.” Now, an ongoing problem with TJ Steadman’s authorship is that at this point we know not if by “giants” he means something unusual about height, if so does he mean inches taller than average or feet or entire body lengths and if so how many more or any given one or does he mean Nephilim or Rephaim or what?
Well, I am emphasizing that as a general concern. I realize he is referring to Nephilim in this case (even though it is best to not refer to them as giants for more than one reason).
So, gibbor is used to refer to Nephilim and Nimrod so, what of it? They are both being referred to as mighty, so what? TJ Steadman is noting that they are both referred to as gigantes or gigas but again, so what?
In fact, this is a good time to example why rendering more than one word with only one word is problematic. The LXX render Nephilim and also gibborim and also Rephaim all as gigantes/gigas which only causes problems. For example, Gen 6:4 notes that Nephilim became gibborim, Nephilim became mighty, so that LXX has it that Gigantes became gigantes which is nonsensical, circular, and one does not need to become something that one is already.
In any case, to TJ Steadman, that Nimrod “began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD…the mighty hunter before the LORD” means that there is a “strong implication of the text is that Nimrod had initiated something that made him both corrupted and defiled; an abomination of sorts, and also very powerful” so that someone who did that which he did “before the LORD…before the LORD” was actually “corrupted and defiled; an abomination,” go figure.
Granted, I am granting that any one of us can do thing before the LORD, as in His name, pleasing to Him, etc. and end up botching things up—such as creating a Tower that the LORD then destroys. But the issue is to be very careful about what we are told, what we are not told, and what we make of such.
TJ Steadman notes “the Septuagint says three times that he became a giant, it would be reasonable to conclude that by some means he had become physically changed and that this was not simply political or persuasive power.”
Yet, this is utterly folly and why he really needs to exorcise the term giant from his vocabulary. In no way, shape, form or linguistic-etymological gymnastics is anyone including the LXX telling us that he became a “giant.”
TJ Steadman thinks that Nephilim or naphal/napiyla means giant and also that gibborim or gabar can mean giant. Now, he cannot claim that Nimrod became a giant because he is called a Nephil since he is not and he also cannot claim, at least not outright or exclusively, that Nimrod became a giant because he is called a gibbor since he has admitted that it does not always mean giant—and, in fact, it never once means any such thing.
TJ Steadman seeks to buttress his claims by appealing to an apocryphal text from circa the 3rd-4th AD centuries which is millennia after the Torah was written, “One example of a tradition regarding Nimrod’s transformation is Pseudo-Clement’s Homilies (9.4), in which Nimrod is associated with some dark magic, he is called a giant, and he is also given the name Zoroaster, father of the cult of Zoroastrianism. This is associated with a worship of fire, which according to other traditions…was a rite that Nimrod practiced.”
Well, there is a reason that the text is known as “Pseudo” since it consists of such incoherence.
Zoroastrian tradition dates him to 628 BC which is millennia after Nimrod died.
Pseudo has it that of “Of this [Noe’s] family there was born in due time a certain one, who took up with magical practices, by name Nebrod, who chose, giant-like, to devise things in opposition to God. Him the Greeks have called Zoroaster. He, after the deluge, being ambitious of sovereignty, and being a great magician, by magical arts compelled the world-guiding star of the wicked one who now rules, to the bestowal of the sovereignty as a gift from him…the magician Nebrod, being destroyed by this lightning falling on earth from heaven, for this circumstance had his name changed to Zoroaster, on account of the living stream of the star being poured upon him.”
Thus, they “buried the remains of his body, and honoured his burial-place with a temple among the Persians, where the descent of the fire occurred, and worshipped him as a god. By this example also, others there bury those who die by lightning as beloved of God.”
TJ Steadman also points out “Incidentally, fire (literally ‘burning’) comes from the same Hebrew word used to describe a venomous snake (‘saraph’). In this way, a venomous insect or scorpion’s sting might also be considered to ‘burn’ (for reasons we shall consider in a later chapter).” But what same Hebrew word? No such thing is stated about Nimrod in the Hebrew Bible and Pseudo was not written in Hebrew.
TJ Steadman also tells us:
Contact with the Nephilim is implied by the fact of the similar language in use (gibbowr from Genesis 6:4) and the change in body size that the Septuagint makes clear in the translation “giant.”
This explains the Sumerian tradition of the Apkallu – Nimrod had used divination to contact one of the ancient spirits from before the Flood. Nimrod’s (Emnerkar’s) use of divination is mentioned in the ancient text of the Cuthaean Legend, and a tradition of his coming into contact with the corpse of an ancient person is preserved in a version of Enmerkar and Adapa.
According to various Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) traditions, the coronation of kings was associated with rituals whereby the ancient gods were summoned to guide and empower the new king and to impart the wisdom of the great kings from before the Flood. Nimrod had probably “begun to be a mighty one” by this means and used his considerable power and influence to motivate his subjects to commence construction.
I realize that we are covering the same ground time and again but I am attempting to get the data from the horse’s mouth—since when I do not do so, I end up coming across as a horse’s well, opposite end. TJ Steadman covering the same or similar ground time and again as his book progresses and I am simply being as fair as I can be in variously quoting him.
Now, how can Nimrod have had “Contact with the Nephilim” since he accepts that “At the end of the Flood narrative…the Nephilim have all died.” It is because he buys into the folkloric notion from millennia after the Torah was written that asserts that demons are Nephilim spirits (for my biblical argument as to the identification of demons, see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?).
https://midwestoutreach.org/2019/10/03/demons-ex-machina-what-are-demons
His claim is that it is because of the term gibbowr and something not found anywhere in the entire Bible, “the change in body size.” Well, if he had contact with Nephilim (in any form) then so did Boaz, David, his soldiers, Angels, God, etc. for reasons noted earlier. Also already reviewed is that the LXX’s reference to Nimrod as “giant” is a non-issue since that does not state nor even imply anything about height: the LXX has the Nephilim as “earth-born” (gigantes/gigas) and so also Nimrod.
I will focus on TJ Steadman’s claims about Apkallu in another article. For now, note that there is no such thing as “the” singular “Sumerian tradition” singular “of the Apkallu” but various ones, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to correlate Apkallu with Nimrod or Nephilim or sons of God.
Somehow, TJ Steadman now has Nimrod having “used divination to contact one of the ancient spirits from before the Flood” dead Nephilim due to Pagan legends into which he is reading references to Nimrod—by any other name.
In fact, note that he is claiming that Nimrod was aka The Assyrian and also aka Emnerkar. Yet, he will go on to refer to “The Assyrian, the entity that empowered Nimrod.” Yet also, “It appears that the Amorite kings, beginning with Nimrod, were associated somehow with Leviathan.”
He also wrote in terms of that “the spirit of Nimrod, also known as ‘the Assyrian’ or ‘Rahab’” and “Enmerkar, the man the Bible calls Nimrod…the Sumerian King List including Enmerkar (Nimrod)…” (http://giantanswers.com/blog/master-of-chaos and http://giantanswers.com/blog/the-apkallu).
Also, “Ezekiel 31, where the prophet uses this imagery to denounce the Pharaoh of the day. Ezekiel compares the Pharaoh to an ancient ruler who embodied the nature of the world tree – a man who controlled the world of his day by harnessing a dark power from the Great Deep. Ezekiel calls him ‘The Assyrian.’ The writer of Genesis calls him that too – after he calls him ‘Nimrod’” (http://giantanswers.com/blog/the-cosmic-tree).
Thus, Nimrod is aka Emnerkar and the Assyrian but that really refers to a spirit that is also aka Rahab and has something to do with Leviathan.
In addition, to read an actually functioning form of apotheosis into ANE traditions and that this must apply to Nimrod is as far a stretch as it sounds.
TJ Steadman throws this into the speculative mix, “Nimrod was called a hunter. Some say he merely hunted animals, some that he hunted men. There was even a rabbinical tradition that he hunted the Nephilim and fallen angels!”
He also writes, “Nimrod was a man when he became a giant, and he was not born that way…references to Nimrod as a gibbowr or ‘giant’ indicates supernatural interaction” (emphasis in original).
As aforementioned, biblically, Nimrod was a regular man when he became mighty, and he was not born that way since he was first a regular guy. By now we are well aware that writing in terms of “gibbowr or ‘giant’” is unsubstantiated and cannot be unsubstantiated—in any language—so that a conclusion of “supernatural interaction” is a faulty one based on a faulty premise.
Earlier, I noted that TJ Steadman had written “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.’” I reviewed the first portion time and again and as for the last portion: the Bible knows of no such thing anywhere in any way, shape, or form.
TJ Steadman also claims, “Nimrod put the sons of God into himself and his followers” which is wholly made-up stuff.
He writes, “as far back as Moses, it was foretold that the vengeance of God would come upon the faithless by means of the ‘venom… laid up in store… among My treasures’ – the power that Nimrod had discovered that transformed him into a gibbowr and made him a giant!” which we know very well by now is faulty on various levels—and in various languages.
He claims, “Nimrod was able to connect to a fallen son of God in order to bring about the Rephaim, essentially bringing the Nephilim back to life.” So, he not only had “Contact with the Nephilim” who were dead (and gone) but with a, singular, fallen son of God/Angel so that Rephaim are the return of Nephilim.
Now, biblically, Nephilim are strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim are strictly post-flood humans (Rephaim as a people group, with the root rapha also referring to healing, to death, etc. which is another issue).
There is no biblical indication whatsoever that Rephaim are anything but 100% human (even if, again, the root rapha has other usages—which, actually, TJ Steadman compounds).
But that is not all, TJ Steadman further claims that “Having found some means by which he was able to transform himself into a giant…his plan to overthrow God by transforming the whole world into giants” about which I think I need not reply since it is merely the stuff of theo-sci-fi.
TJ Steadman wrote the following of Gen 4:26 “to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD”:
On the face of it, this looks like the origin of prayer or praise. Unfortunately, our English Bibles do us a disservice here. The problem lies in the word “began.”
The Hebrew is chalal. We will spend a lot more time on this word later in the book, but for now, it will serve us to be aware that it means more than just “started to do something.”
There are all kinds of bad connotations associated with it, indicating that it was the start of something that defiled or profaned the people involved in it. This was not praying to Yahweh or praising Yahweh.
It was more like “men profaning and defiling Yahweh’s name, possibly by applying it to themselves.” Incidentally, Enos means, “man.”
His point in claiming this is so as to tie it to Nimrod because Gen 10:8 states, “And Cush begat Nimrod: he began” chalal “to be a mighty one in the earth” so he wants to read this as a negative thing.
He also wrote of this issue thusly, “Genesis 4:26, indicating when ‘men [Sethites] began to call upon the name of the Yahweh,’ they were actually profaning His name (possibly calling themselves by His name), and the same word is used again in the account of the Nephilim, in Genesis 6:1.”
Now, that it is employed “in the account of the Nephilim” is generic since, sure, it is in the account but how so?
“And it came to pass, when men began” chalal “to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them…” and there is nothing wrong with this. In fact, this is what God had commanded Adam and Eve and thus, humanity. Also, that is just about what humanity was, rightly, doing after which comes a reference to son of God and then Nephilim.
Yet, it matters not since there is nothing inherently negative about chalal. For example:
Gen 9:20 “And Noah [chalal] to be an husbandman,” nothing wrong with that.
Deu 2:24 “Rise ye up, take your journey, and pass over the river Arnon: behold, I have given into thine hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land: [chalal] to possess it, and contend with him in battle” which is what God commanded.
Deu 3:24 “O Lord GOD, thou hast [chalal] to shew thy servant thy greatness, and thy mighty hand: for what God is there in heaven or in earth, that can do according to thy works, and according to thy might?” which is a good thing.
Deu 16:9 “Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee: [chalal] to number the seven weeks from such time as thou [chalal] to put the sickle to the corn” again, non-issue.
Jos 3:7 “And the LORD said unto Joshua, This day will I [chalal] to magnify thee in the sight of all Israel, that they may know that, as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee” which is another good thing.
Thus, just because a word can sometimes be used in a negative context, does not mean it must always be understood that way—and this is true of any language since context ultimately determines meaning.
TJ Steadman also referred to “the original giants after the Flood (Nimrod being the first of this kind).”
Also, “Nimrod found a way to become a giant, a fate with which he had planned to infect all of humanity at Babel.”
Also, “ancient kings of the world were empowered by the Rephaim, like Nimrod, Og, Sihon, Amalek/Agag, Arba, Anak and many others.”
In an article titled “Master of Chaos” (http://giantanswers.com/blog/master-of-chaos), TJ Steadman wrote, “The religions and political structures of the world were not invented by Nimrod. They came from the fallen sons of God – known to the Mesopotamians as the Anunnaki” whom he also refers to as “Anunnaki/Igigu” and claims that “Anunnaki and the Igigu serve as ministers to the gods, the Apkallu” (http://giantanswers.com/blog/the-apkallu).
He continued thusly, “And once Nimrod had drawn on their power to invoke the spirits of the dead Nephilim giants from the Flood, the Anuna-gods had an army that would do their bidding. They were the Rephaim, and they enforced the enslavement of humanity to the new gods of the ancient world.”
He also refers to Nimrod as “the first giant of the post-Flood world” who “brought the Rephaim into existence by summoning a power from the great deep” (http://giantanswers.com/blog/the-cosmic-tree).
He continues by referring to the Tower of Babel as “the birthplace of the post-Flood giants” and that Nimrod “was little more than a tool in the hands of a greater, darker power. The Leviathan” to whom/which he also refers to as “Leviathan (or Lotan)” (http://giantanswers.com/blog/dancing-with-the-stars).
He also wrote, “The astrology of the ancient world strengthens the Biblical position of Ezekiel 31 that Nimrod the mighty hunter, the giant, pursued the ancient pre-Flood spirits, becoming joined with one of them; one associated with the Light-bringer, Satan” (http://giantanswers.com/blog/dancing-with-the-stars).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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