The Primeval History makes a great deal of sense when we understand it as three distinct events that account for the depravity of the world. But another look at the text reveals a truth that is glaringly obvious once we lay it out in plain sight. The narrative of Genesis 1-11 details two cycles of the same story, one after another. Rather than two accounts of the same event, these are different and consecutive stories in which the same lesson must be learned over again.
The first cycle begins with creation, followed by God’s warning and covenant issued to Adam. We then have the Fall of Man, exemplified in the murder of Abel. After this, mankind divides into various clans, develops technological innovations and then attempts to reclaim the divine status lost back at the Garden. This is done through interactions with the spiritual realm that culminate in the advent of giants on the earth, before God intervenes to save humanity. Over the course of ten generations from Adam to Noah, the cycle is complete and man’s effort to achieve glory on his own merit is rewarded only with the erasure of the stain of his evil.

The second cycle is similar. It begins with the renewal or re-creation brought about by the Flood. Again, there is a warning and a covenant, this time issued to Noah, who functions as Adam in this cycle. Noah’s disgrace as a result of overindulging in the vineyard echoes Adam’s ill-fated meal in the Garden. As a result, Canaan is cursed (given an evil destiny, as the ancients might say) like Cain. Even the names Cain and Canaan are similar to make this connection. Following this episode, the families branch out and account for all the nations and languages of the known world, with attention paid to one individual who discovered a technology that allowed him to dabble in the divine. And Nimrod brought about Babel, the event that saw the reintroduction of giants to the world, the worship of the fallen sons of God, and the division of the world as God’s judgment. Perhaps it is now clear why the Table of Nations precedes the Tower of Babel in the text – it preserves the literary structure of the two cycles we have just seen, without the chronology harming the message. And like the first cycle, the second also spans ten generations, from Noah to Abraham, who becomes the new protagonist and God’s agent of change in the new world.
​
The writer of the Primeval History ingeniously structured the text so that we would see a pattern repeating in the world according to the tendencies of mankind toward depravity and corruption. Each time, the result was the rise of tyrannical giants that threatened to destroy humanity, were it not for God’s intervention.
The Jewish people have long known that in order to understand the future, one must look into the past, recognizing that it is only then that we can see where we are in our own history. By seeing the world and its history as a series of cycles or retellings of the same stories in new settings, the people of God can learn to anticipate what must change in order to continue into the next phase.

Extract from “Answers to Giant Questions,” chapter 10: “The Tower of Babel” by T.J. Steadman

Many of you reading this will be aware that I'm an Australian. I have very little interest in all things political, especially in other parts of the world. But even though I generally avoid major news media and my idea of a good time these days usually involves a book or a podcast, something did reach my ears recently about a spot of bother occurring in the USA.
Okay, so I'm playing. It's all I seem to hear about these days. Racism in the streets, sexism on the socials, party politics everywhere. Wherever I turn these days, people are divided. And then I hear that there are people claiming that there are non-humans among us, silently blending in, whether they be from outer space or from a remnant of escaped giants that fled the Holy Land at the Conquest. It seems that if people aren't divided enough already, we'll make up just about anything to divide us further.

I'd like to take a moment to remind my readers about the Biblical Leviathan.
Leviathan was depicted as a fierce and untameable sea dragon with many heads, the very image of chaos in ancient culture (see Psalm 74). Unpredictable, violent and cunning, the Leviathan could strike at any time. But one thing we often miss is that when chaos strikes, it does so in more than one way, from more than one direction, and with multitudes of servants doing its bidding. Readers of "Answers to Giant Questions" will know that Job's encounter with "the satan" did not come as a straight-up fight - it was a staggering onslaught of chaos and destruction that came from all sides. Whether bands of murderous looters sweeping across the plains, or painful sickness and disease, one thing was for sure: the Leviathan had come upon Job, and with fury.
God had already displayed His mastery over this adversarial sea monster, and probably more than once, in spectacular fashion. But those narratives are buried deep in the subtext of the Primeval History (Genesis 1-11). For Job, it was playing out in real time in the most personal way, and Yahweh seemed at times to be very far away. Perhaps worst of all, Job didn't seem to understand what was going on. He didn't realise that he was the red rag in a cosmic tug-of-war where his loyalty was the prize.

Today we may feel that we are under attack. Whether it is the removal of our voice or the destruction of order, loss of loved ones, or illness in our homes, it is natural to feel overwhelmed, and perhaps distant from God. But a few essential truths can keep us in good hands. Firstly, the character of God can be relied on. He is good, He is merciful and He abounds in grace and love. If we can focus on drawing near to Him, it will reduce the perceived distance between ourselves and God, and hopefully also between ourselves and a hurting world that so needs love right now.
Secondly, what the world needs so badly is to experience the one true God - and the expectation from our Lord and Saviour is that we are the ones to show Him to the world. We don't show by telling so much as by doing. Remember that the sin of Adam was in his actions failing to align with God's instruction! We must represent God in our lives.
Thirdly, we need to have our eyes open. Can't we see that we are being played? The satan is wreaking havoc in our world today, filled with fury and malice. But he doesn't do it by walking around with horns and a cape and poking people with a pitchfork. He does it by dividing us, by silencing us, by infecting us. He stirs us against one another and against the Lord. And it isn't hard to do, because we are all naturally inclined to do it. Let's not blame the devil while we throw stones at others.
​
How can we win? The answer is in unity. We need to place our faith in Jesus Christ and our trust in one another as a community of believers. We are one in Christ, no matter what colour, language or nation, no matter what gender or status or age. It's the same message that Paul preached to the Romans (Rom. 12), the Galatians (Gal. 3:28), and the Colossians (Col. 3:11) - we are all one. And we need to stay together. Not just enduring the same problems, but sharing the same hope. While Leviathan attempts to divide and conquer, we must unite as humans. We must bring a common gospel to the world - that Jesus Christ is Lord and that His return is imminent. Let's make sure we're all on His side when He comes. Romans 12:21 "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." 

- T.J. Steadman.

Back in December, 2020, I took part in a debate with Ken Ammi of truefreethinker.com, which aired live on Jack Ashcraft's program, "Expedition Truth" (see link under "Other Media Appearances" on this page). The debate came about as a response to a challenge issued by Ken after my initial appearance on Jack's program back in July of that year, and centred around the issue of post-Flood giants. Ken wished to argue that there was no such thing affirmed by Scripture.
So we had the debate (or at least, a start on one) and although it was very brief, there was time to get a feel for each other's positions. I will discuss the debate itself at a later time, primarily because I note that Ken has begun posting his own thoughts post-debate on his blog, and I'd like to allow him to finish that before I interact with it.

What I can talk about for now is a video that appeared shortly after the debate aired, on a YouTube channel that Ken Ammi co-hosts with Zakary McGaha, oddly titled IndieRockDinosaur. The episode was impromptu, owing to the fact that a scheduled guest appearance on the program had fallen through, so in the absence of the planned content, Zak and Ken fell back on Ken's immediately-preceding debate appearance as fodder for the slot. I say all that just to show that the video was not a premeditated attempt at rehashing the debate unopposed, in fairness to Ken. You can find a link to it on Ken's site.

Much of the video does not relate to either the debate, to myself or to my book, so to spare you the hour, thirteen minutes and ten seconds of your life (fifteen minutes of which was Ken repeating himself and rehashing his opening statement from the debate), I’ll only touch on the stuff relevant to my work.
As for the actual content of the debate itself and Ken’s thoughts on that, as mentioned above, I’ll respond to it once Ken has finished tabling his thoughts on it (in an intended four-part series, no less!) on his blog, and then I’ll respond to that. 
What I will tackle here is the material in the post-debate video that touches on Ken’s understanding of my views and of my work that did not arise purely from the debate. I’m doing this because to my way of thinking, the debate itself (or a subsequent debate given the lack of time) would have been a more appropriate forum for that discussion, so that I might have had an opportunity to work through the issues with Ken in real time. In the absence of that, and since I haven't received an invitation to defend my view, I will do so here.

Ken referred to the exchange with me as "iron sharpening iron," and I think that it was. I appreciated Ken's fairness and willingness to listen, and his clear presentation of his points. Ken was then, and remains, polite and respectful of me as far as I can see, for the record.

So, what am I taking issue with?

In reference to my position being informed by the cultural context of the authors of Scripture (including, but not limited to, that of their pagan neighbours) Ken stated “it (pagan worldview) does bleed into his (T.J. Steadman’s) theology to a certain extent.” He did not elaborate on that statement. Since he appears to have made extensive notes during his reading of my book, I would have thought he might have been able to produce at least one example, and given that he appeared here on his own show in his own time, with a sympathetic co-host, and my book in front of him for reference, there really wasn’t any obstacle to him substantiating that claim - if indeed he could. He didn’t. 

Ken takes issue with the fact that I frequently refer to "my view" on what the Biblical text means, and he is implying that my view is at odds with a plain reading of Scripture. The fact is that I formulated my views from study of the history, culture, and literature of the Bible’s authors as part of the context in which the Biblical text was written, on top of detailed study of the Biblical text. That means that I take into account issues of genre, style, and purpose, as well as date, authorship, audience, historical interpretation, geography, geopolitics, religion, even the climate! - all of which I give lesser status than the affirmations of the text itself. But the challenge for the modern reader is to determine what those affirmations are. 
Ken’s main objection to what I had to say came down to what was in essence a simple assertion (granted, he does not say this in so many words) that the text has to mean what it says at face value. Well, that’s great except for where it doesn’t work. Let me show you some examples of where a face-value reading of the text gets you nowhere:
“Women shall be saved through childbearing.” 1 Tim. 2:15 NIV (Are barren women going to Hell?)
“Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness.” Gen. 9:22 KJV (So what - Noah curses his grandson into slavery because his own son saw him in the nude?)
“I am the door of the sheep.” John 10:7 KJV (Jesus is a wooden barrier in a pasture?)
“The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.” Ecc. 1:5 ESV (Well, it might look like it does, but isn’t the point here about the passage of time rather than the perceived movement of celestial bodies?)
“Saul went in to cover his feet.” 1 Sam. 24:3 KJV (We’d rather not just come out and say that the king was pooping, and had his pants down.)
“Moreover, all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth.” Gen. 41:57 ESV (So, indigenous Australians and South Americans traveled to Egypt for meals?)
And we could go on. 
The point is, you can’t always arrive at an affirmation of truth by taking things at face value, for a wide variety of reasons. In order to understand the author, you have to understand the context. I’m sorry that it takes more work for us than it did for the original audience of Scripture. But that’s the reality of our situation in the 21st century. The idea that Scripture can’t communicate truth by non-literal interpretation because it requires additional knowledge, is not how Sola Scriptura works. Sometimes (in fact, very often!), we need to reach beyond the covers of our Bible to get more information and fill in the blanks left behind. We are separated from the Bible’s authors by over two millennia, different cultures, different geography, different science, different languages, and a host of other factors. 
This is a sharp contrast to the audience of Scripture, who were what we call a “high context audience.” They were already intimately familiar with the affirmations of the text because they were steeped in the same culture that produced the text (to say nothing of the oral tradition that preceded it). For that reason, the author is not compelled to explain every name, cultural reference, poetic structure or geographical relationship identified in his work. It’s accepted as a given that these things were understood - by the original audience, not by us. We have to do the work. And that’s why God appointed in His Church (among others) pastors and teachers. God doesn’t expect everyone to have to do this. In fact, it’s not even a salvific issue if you can’t. But we are called to be a complete body in Christ, and part of that completeness is having people who can do this work, involved in educating and edifying the rest of the body. Ken (at least, in his words) does affirm that context is important, but it seems that it’s not important enough to allow that information to change his position. 
So, that’s why I have an interpretation of the words on the page that might differ from Ken’s. And I don’t have a problem with that. If Ken wants to correct my understanding on any of these matters, he needs only to show how his own interpretation makes better sense of the available data. 

Ken appears to believe that my hermeneutical approach lends itself to “science fiction” in that it leads to making “everybody into “giants.”” He goes on in his usual style to claim that “giants” is a vague, generic, subjective, unspecified term (see my argument above concerning the high-context audience of Scripture), which demonstrates that perhaps Ken’s issue is that he really doesn’t want to get pinned down on word definitions or meanings at all. He doesn’t appear to understand the words “science,” “fiction,” or “giants,” for example (and let’s not go into “Nephilim” or “Anakim”).
I wrote a book about unusually large and powerful people, for a contemporary audience which naturally associates the term “giants” with unusually large and powerful people, and yet Ken would have us believe that there’s some reasonable basis on which to question what I mean by the word. This is some high-level pedantry going on here, and it doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the discussion. But I can put that aside and still see Ken as a brother. Everyone has their trademark spin; this is Ken's.

Here’s where Ken crosses a line between casually implying that I’m in danger of misleading people, and outright misrepresenting me: He claims that I affirm that the Biblical Samson was in fact a giant. 
This comes despite the fact that I never actually say, nor even imply, that Samson was a giant. In fact, I affirm the opposite and I wrote half a chapter in pursuit of that fact. The subtitle of that portion of my book is actually called, “Samson Was Not a Giant” (Answers to Giant Questions, pp. 245-250).
Ken needs to pay more careful attention to the difference between affirmation of a person’s attributes and portrayal of a character. He didn’t misrepresent my book, per se. He just misread and misunderstood it (Ken actually says in his video, “Overall, I didn’t really understand it.”), and used that misunderstanding to misrepresent my view.
My view, as per the text of my book, which Ken actually quoted in part, is that the author is PORTRAYING Samson as a giant - not AFFIRMING that he was one. It’s a characterisation. It’s an allusion. It’s rhetoric designed to communicate a truth - not a truth about size or strength, but about the character of Samson; his sin, his depravity, his violence, all of which ties back to Genesis 6 through the lens of his questionable conception, his great strength and a plethora of other textual cues. This is theological messaging designed to show that God was working out His purposes for the world in Israel, using a fallible, imperfect and indeed wilfully rebellious instrument in Samson, as a means of beginning to overturn Israel’s misfortune. And the means by which the author chose to show this, was more than just blandly stating the events of Samson’s life. The author crafted his story into a subtle reminder that the entire creation needed to be restored, that the spiritual forces of evil still needed to be dealt with, and that Samson might have helped to deliver Israel but he was insufficient to be the Messiah. In other words, the hope of Israel (and by extension, the world) was yet to come, and this story serves to remind us of that fact. 
This is the kind of theological messaging that later gave rise to the apocalyptic literature of the Second Temple Period, and which equipped Jesus’ followers with the interpretive framework to process the meaning of His life and ministry, His accomplishments on the cross, and even beyond His resurrection. So it is vitally important that we recognise what the authors of Scripture are telling us, not only in their affirmations of history, but in the way they tell those stories. To see Scripture at only the surface level is to miss so much of what the Bible has to tell us; especially the wonderful promise it holds.

I enjoyed the debate with Ken; I wouldn't mind doing it again, although going by what Ken had to say on the post-debate video, it sounds like he'd rather not have another debate as such. Call it a conversation; I don't mind. At any rate, Ken is a brother in Christ Jesus. Don't let the perceived tone of my words say things I'm not saying about him. I respect Ken for his dogged pursuit of truth, even if I disagree with his conclusions, and I find much of the content he presents on other matters to be well worth checking out.

As mentioned above, once Ken has finished releasing his thoughts on the debate, I'll have something to say in response. Until then, keep searching - and Get Answers!

- T.J. Steadman

Have you ever wondered why the Scripture makes such a point of repeating the fact that mankind was created “in the image of God?”
Genesis 1:26-27 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So, God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
In these two verses alone, man’s creation by God in His image is mentioned five times in different ways. Five times, plus another four times in Genesis 5. And perhaps most importantly of all, we find it again in Genesis 9:6, after the Flood (which destroyed the Nephilim). If something comes up ten times in the first nine chapters, it’s obviously very important. The writer of Genesis has a point to get across here; especially keeping in mind that God was preparing this (in fact the whole of Genesis 1-11) as among the foundations of all Biblical doctrine.
The very fact that humanity was created personally by Yahweh Himself and made to represent Him is part of the absolute backbone of the Scriptures and our faith as a result.
How we represent God is really what this is all about, after all. For we are uniquely placed in all creation, as human beings, the physical beings created by God for a personal connection with Him. To be made in the image of God is more than just a design template. It is a revelation to us, to a certain degree, of what God is like. And it is indicative that above all, God desires a relationship with us. We are not slaves or machines or pets to Yahweh. We were always intended to be members of the Father’s family. And that is why the Most High went to such great lengths to ensure that there would be a means of forgiveness available to us, so that when we fall short, when we miss the mark, when we mess things up completely and even deliberately, our Savior can always bring us back through faith in Him.
Bearing God’s image isn’t easy though. It’s not just a matter of existing as a human being. That might be all it takes to hold the title of an image-bearer. But God is looking for representation from us, not just default status. That is a functional responsibility. He wants us to show the world, through our every thought, word and deed, what He is like. Our Heavenly Father reveals Himself to His imagers in order that we might bear His Name as a light to the world around us. That means that being made in God’s image comes with a responsibility to honor the intent of our Creator. There is a purpose behind His selection of mankind as His image-bearers. There is something God wants.
Jesus spoke about this when asked about whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. His response to that question is fundamentally important to all believers:
Matthew 22:17-21 “Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.”
Jesus looked at the coin presented in front of Him. He asked simple questions. Whose image is this? Whose name is it? This object belongs to the person that is represented by it. The coin can go to Caesar. God wants for Himself that which was made in His image, and which bears His Name. We bear God’s image by default. But we bear His Name by obedience to His will, honoring His character in our lives. That’s what makes God’s Law so important, even for Christians today.
We take it for granted today in our Christian worldview that there is only one requirement for salvation from sin; just one thing needed for everlasting life with Yahweh in eternity to come. We delight in the freedom of that classic saying of old, that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. And it holds true as it ever has. But what would you say if you found out there was another less obvious requirement for salvation?
No, this is not about some kind of subsequent experience or some additional religious requirement. There’s nothing else you have to do, nothing extra you have to believe, no price to pay. You just have to be. You have to be – human! Does that sound strange? You have to be human to be saved – think about it. The Most High God, the Creator made you in His image, according to His likeness, by the express working of His will. Like the coin that bore the image and the name of Caesar, only the genuine article holds value in his kingdom. You can’t buy a soda with Monopoly money, and likewise, the King of Heaven will accept only those who bear the identification of the King. Salvation is offered only to those who are genuine creations of God because nothing else holds value to the Creator.

​- Excerpt from “Answers to Giant Questions,” chapter 1: From Order to Chaos,” by T.J. Steadman.