“What about Noah’s wife? Could she have been indirectly related to a Nephilim ancestor? If so, the mutated genes in her genetic makeup must have reappeared in the generations descended from her. Since the nations that were described as giants could be traced back to the descendants of Noah, and since it can’t have been Noah himself, then surely it must have been Noah’s wife who introduced the “Nephilim genes” (for lack of better terminology) back into the human genome.
The idea is supported by a flawed understanding of the text of Genesis 6, following the idea that when the Bible says, “all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth,” it must by necessity mean that everyone was genetically corrupted except for Noah himself. As mentioned earlier in our discussion of the “Sethite interpretation,” there are people out there who are happy to say “all means all” when we are talking about Noah’s family being genetically impure like the rest of the world, but somehow “all” never includes Noah. So, if “all” has one exception, why not eight exceptions? But let’s bear it out anyway.
Let’s take a moment to consider the implications of this theory since it appears to be the prevailing school of thought on this issue today. It seems everyone wants to chime in on this topic and be the one who can explain the return of the Nephilim, but not everyone wants to acknowledge the outworking of his or her hypotheses.
Suppose that Noah’s wife was somehow related by blood to the Nephilim. We don’t know how closely related she may have been. But regardless of the biological connection, we can understand that all offspring that she carried would have either exhibited or carried the corrupted genes. Therefore, all of her sons would have passed on that tainted bloodline into their descendants. It follows then, that every person ever born since the “days of Noah” would be genetically impure, and that includes you and me.
If you and I, and everyone else since the Flood, have received corrupt DNA, then we are by nature part man and part giant. Is that the way that God created us? No! Let us be abundantly clear on this: if we are no longer 100% human, then we are definitely 100% unsaved.
It was the sin of Adam that condemned humanity before God, and the only way to settle the debt of that sin was for God Himself to become a man and to die as an innocent man in our place. However, this works only because of the equality in the equation; that Adam was the same in his humanity as Christ was in His. Where we run into problems is that by taking the view that Noah’s wife introduced the corrupted Nephilim bloodline to the post-Flood world, we sever that connection between Adam and Christ. The equation is no longer balanced because humanity is no longer made in the image of God like Adam was. This was the reason that Noah “found grace in the eyes of Yahweh.”
The reason it is called grace that was given to Noah is that he was not sinless. Genesis 9 affirms that fact. It was grace given to him that allowed him to be saved when “all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” But Noah specifically received that grace for certain reasons. Noah was “perfect in his generation.” The Hebrew word here translated as “perfect” is tamiym, which is the same word used to describe a sacrificial animal as “without spot or blemish.” In other words, Noah was a perfect specimen of a man in the physical sense. It follows that his choice of wife did not disqualify him from the responsibility of preserving humanity, or else God should have chosen a different couple to save the species. There was nothing wrong with Noah’s wife.
Some will refine their “Noah’s Wife” argument by saying that the corruption of the genome must have been selective and corrupted only certain bloodlines from Noah’s family. This conveniently preserves the line of Christ from corruption in theory because His descent can be traced back not to Ham but Shem. However, all along the genealogies, we find instances where non-Semitic people appear in the line of descent. The obvious fact that there has always been intermarriage between the different people groups negates the idea that any particular group might have been spared from the influence of tainted DNA. Therefore, if we are going to take the view that there was any Nephilim blood passed down through Noah’s wife, we must accept that all humanity since then has become corrupt. That means that Jesus Christ (not to mention the rest of us) could not be 100% human.
Sin entered the world through Adam, as Moses (Genesis 3:17) and the apostle Paul (Romans 5:18-19) make clear. Christ’s death was to pay the exact price of that sin in order to forgive us all in accordance with the perfect justice of God. The idea that Christ’s death was a price somehow unequal to the debt owed by Adam means that the price was never paid in full. By extension, the justice of God has not been satisfied. Therefore, the death of Christ atoned for nothing, and we are all dead in our sins. We have inherited the sinful nature from Adam (Romans 5:12) but received no comfort from the sufferings of Christ. This heretical idea has no place in our faith and should occupy no space in our minds. Yet it is perhaps unwittingly promoted by many in these days who claim to have the answer to the return of the Nephilim.”
​
- Excerpt from “Answers to Giant Questions,” by T.J. Steadman.

1 Corinthians 9:22b - "I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some."
I don't usually post blog posts of a personal nature but there are times when it just seems appropriate. Today in my home country of Australia, Facebook blocked news providers from posting news, while also preventing users from having access to news through the platform. I don't do politics here and I don't care about the mainstream media enough to be bothered by it all, but it did get me thinking about news on a bigger scale. The Good News, to be more precise.
What would you do to get the good news of Jesus Christ out to the world?
For me, the answer is simple. I've never been a mainstream media kind of person, as I mentioned above, so for me, the priority has always been to reach the fringes and the marginalised; in particular those on the cultural outer limits. And that was why, back in 2004, I joined a heavy metal band.
Grave Forsaken began as an evangelistic effort to take the Gospel of Christ out into the world of heavy metal fans - to preach it to youth groups, play it in pubs, scream it at festivals and share it with music lovers everywhere as a personal testimony. More than fifteen years later, the band is still going and still bringing Jesus metal to the people.
Our debut album was entitled, "Beside The River of Blood" (2006), and it was unashamedly Gospel-centred, repentance oriented and apocalyptically driven. From the outset, we wanted people to know that there is a God who made us, who loves us, and who overcame death itself to welcome us into His presence for eternity.
Many years have passed, and in the time between my seasons in the band, I wrote "Answers to Giant Questions." It was actually friendly interaction between myself and some followers of Grave Forsaken in the music forums that motivated me at times to study and write. My passion has remained the same. While I didn't write the book as an evangelistic exercise, I doubt anyone could read it and not receive the good news of Jesus Christ and the message of His imminent return in glory.
I'm still active with Grave Forsaken today, and more than ever, as the world tries to tell us all what we can say and what we can share, and even tries to shut us down, we still have a mission to share the good news of Jesus Christ. He's coming back, and I want to be found to be about His business when He returns. Whether I'll be dressed in black, twirling drumsticks or in an online discussion group talking about ancient giants, who knows? But please keep thinking about my question to you:
​
What would you do to get the good news of Jesus Christ out to the world?

- T.J. Steadman

You can watch the full video of Grave Forsaken performing their entire debut album "Beside The River Of Blood" live and free on YouTube. Visit soundmass.com for more.

“Nimrod was indeed a city builder. His list of civil achievements appears quite impressive until you consider that to an ancient Israelite, it was considered a bad thing. Cities were associated with human efforts and ambitions. God’s way was Eden, living from the abundance of the land that God provided. The two are poles apart. When the Biblical writer tells of Nimrod’s city-building achievements, he is including Nimrod in a line of evildoers all the way back to Genesis 4. Interestingly, the word used most often to refer to a city is ’iyr, meaning “watchful place” in the sense that it is guarded or kept under watch. It is no coincidence that the Aramaic term for the Watchers as seen in Daniel 4 is identical.
The entities that Nebuchadnezzar refers to in the book of Daniel are the same kind credited with the origins of human civilization according to Babylonian tradition. They were the territorial spirits that watched over kingdoms or city-states. In fact, if we consider the Aramaic-speaking background for the composition of the Genesis 1-11 narrative, it is entirely plausible that there is an intentional play on the verbal connection between “cities” and “watchers” that highlights the connection between the line of Cain and the fallen “sons of God.” This would indicate all the more strongly that the Babylonian boast of having established the first cities was linked to the Biblical conception of evil.
Eridu (or Eridug) was the name of the first city, according to ancient Mesopotamian texts such as the Sumerian King List. It was regarded as the place where kingship first descended from heaven, the gift of the gods – a kingship that would eventually pass to Enmerkar (Nimrod). This appears to conflict with the record of Genesis 4, where the KJV text says:
Genesis 4:17-18a “And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. And unto Enoch was born Irad...”
However, the translation leaves some to be desired. It’s not hard to understand why it has its faults though. These verses do not follow correct Hebrew grammar. The English translation has muddled the Hebrew. If we attempt to follow the original text closely, this is how it comes out:
Genesis 4:17-18a “And Cain had relations with his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he [Enoch] builded a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son. [The name “Enoch” does not appear in the original at this point.] And unto Enoch was born Irad...”
Technically, once Enoch is mentioned in verse 17, he becomes the new subject of the following verb, meaning that it was not Cain who built the city, but Enoch. And since Enoch built the city, it was named after Enoch’s son, not Cain’s. Therefore, the name of the city was not Enoch, but Irad. “Irad” is transliterated from the Hebrew `Iyrad, meaning “city of dominion” (from `iyr, “city” or “watcher” and radah, “dominion”). Sounds a lot like Eridu! And as the center of Mesopotamian kingship, that city – which predates Babylon by centuries – became Nimrod’s capital.
Nimrod’s city-building achievements are interesting in that they are grouped into two lists of four cities. The first list of cities is found in Shinar; the second is found in Assyria. This is significant because the Babylonian tradition of assigning greatness, even divinity, to their kings associates their rule with the four corners of the earth as a symbol of universal dominion. This is a god-like attribution of power.”
It is no wonder then, that the Greek translation of the Old Testament tells us that Nimrod became a giant. The question is how...

Excerpt from T.J. Steadman, “Answers to Giant Questions,” chapter 9: “Nimrod the Giant.”