Genesis 7:11-12 “In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.”
In describing the bringing of the rain (the onset of the Great Flood), the author mentions the “fountains of the great deep” and the “windows of heaven.” At first, this appears to be just a colorful way of describing the rainclouds or maybe subterranean springs opening up from the earth. But a closer examination reveals that this is not the case. Throughout the whole canon of Scripture, these terms are always used figuratively, so it is clear that they are not just names for physical objects. It is important to remember this, as there are many who hold to the idea that the ancient Israelites really did believe that the “vault of the heavens” actually was a physical barrier between the sky and the abode of God, which had windows in it so that God could tip the rain in. I would contend that the use of a figurative “firmament” in Genesis One does not necessitate the belief that such a thing was a tangible reality. Ancient people were not idiots. They knew that rain comes from clouds and that if you climb a mountain you are not going to bang your head on an invisible ceiling. And given that a passage in the book of Job actually does describe the hydrological cycle accurately, it would appear conclusive that ancient people did not really think that rain was the result of God opening a window in the ceiling of the “cosmic snow globe” to add more water:
Job 36:27-28: “For he [God] maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly.”
So how are we to understand this language of “fountains and windows”? I would contend that it is much the same as when you say to me, “The man upstairs was looking out for me.” Now, you and I both know that when you use that expression, “the man upstairs” is not real. God is real, and we both know that you are referring to God, but there is no man, and there are no stairs. Because I know this expression and what it means, I don’t actually believe that there are stairs somewhere, and at the top of those stairs, I should find a man who is looking out for me. What you and I both believe, and what is intended to be communicated, is that there is a personal being, capable of observing and protecting us, who dwells in an inaccessible realm that we cannot reach. That Person is God, and He is understood to dwell in Heaven. Thus, He is “the man upstairs,” the object behind this phrase.
Similarly, when I say, “That guy’s a few sausages short of a barbecue,” I don’t mean that he is a grill or that his food is missing. If you know this expression, you know that the person in question could be compared to a grill that is missing the most important part – the meat that goes on top! In other words, that person is operating with a deficiency of brains, or intelligence.
That’s how we use idioms in our language. Idiom is a way you might describe an abstract or immaterial thing. These nouns (“fountains” and “windows”) work together with the cosmological terms (“the great deep” and “heaven”) to illustrate something spiritual. Thus, the physical rainfall has a purpose in the spiritual realms. Ancient people made no distinction between the physical and the spiritual.
As in all Biblical texts, the main thrust is always concerned with function. Therefore, the verbs are critical to our understanding of this peculiar passage. The fountains of the great deep were “broken up” (Hebrew baqa` baqa`) and the windows of heaven were “opened” (Hebrew pathach). Literally, the fountains of the great deep were divided or forcefully split apart, and the windows of heaven were moved so as to create an opening. Remember that we are looking at a spiritual phenomenon here. Jesus used this idea when He welcomed Nathanael as His disciple:
John 1:51 (NIV) “He then added, “Very truly I tell you, you will see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”
Jesus, like the OT writers, associated the opening of heaven with the ascent and descent of spiritual entities. So now we are closer to understanding what was going on during the Flood and how it served as an act of judgment upon supernatural beings. The Flood separated the spirits of the Nephilim from their mortal bodies, preserving them for a future purpose that Scripture would reveal later. The bodies of the giants were lost forever to the waters of primordial chaos.
- Adapted from an excerpt of “Answers to Giant Questions,” chapter 5: “The Flood Vs. The Immortals,” by T.J. Steadman.

In the book of Numbers, chapter 13, the Anakim are introduced to Bible readers. Unlike ourselves as modern Bible readers, the people of Israel were what we call a “high context audience.” They were not just relying on scant written records, they were living out the experience and immersed in the culture. Ancient Israelites had a much better grasp of who the Anakim were than we modern readers have traditionally had. So what did the Israelites know that made them so afraid of the Anakim? Why would the Biblical author connect them with the pre-Flood Nephilim - a word that translates as “giants”?
Israel had just left Egypt and knew of the Anakim from Egyptian interactions with them. Archaeologically, we have evidence of Egyptian contact with the Anakim from the now-famous “Execration Texts.” The purpose of these was a kind of magical ritual for cursing one’s enemies. The fact that Egyptians considered them formidable enough to require sympathetic magic against them tells us that they were no ordinary enemies.
Joshua, as military leader under Moses, was likely of Egyptian heritage (his father’s name “Nun” is probably Egyptian). If anyone in the group was going to be familiar with the Anakim, Joshua was most likely.
Caleb was the other non-Israelite of the group - who as a Kenizzite was familiar with the people groups concerned and not worried about how to deal with them. That’s why he later took their capital Kiriyath Arba (Hebron). The remaining ten spies were faithless in the face of the Anakim and never made it into the Promised Land.
So what’s in a name?
“Anakim” does not mean “long-necked.” That comes from the assumption that Anakim is a word of Hebrew origin. In fact, it has early Egyptian and later Greek derivation, hence the connections with proto-Greek cultures like the Hittites and Hurrians, and later Phoenicians, from which we get Perizzites, Philistines etc.
The royalty connection is exemplified in the Anakim. The Biblical account tells us of some of the kings among the Anakim, the “sons of Anak.” “Anak” is not just a name but also a title, from the Greek anax, meaning, “king.” It is one of the many titles of Apollo, who had a temple in Athens dedicated to the worship of the Anakes, protector gods similar to the Mesopotamian Apkallu. The Bible tells us that the Anakim, or more accurately, ben `anaq, “sons of Anak,” were descended from a man named Arba, father of Anak, after whom was named Kiriath Arba (“city of the tree,” later Hebron). The name “Arba” comes from Arbion, a verdant mountain on the island of Crete featuring a prominent temple to the deity Zeus Arbios (god of the tree). According to the ancient Greek author Pausanius in his work, The Description of Greece, the father of Anax, named Asterius, was said to be at least ten cubits in height. According to Homer, Anax was an archaic title, most suited to legendary heroes and gods rather than for contemporary kings.
Taking it back further, the Egyptian derivation of “anaq” can be traced back to the earliest hieroglyphs. The ankh is a symbol that looks like a Christian cross but with a loop on the top. In its earliest use, it was intended to describe a spirit within a person - not their physical organic life or quality of being alive, but a spirit within the person. This was originally not for the common man, but was used of divinised rulers - in other words, it represented a different spirit which imbued the king with the qualities of the deity. The hieroglyph shows a tree reaching up to touch the sun, and is suggestive of glorification or deification. We see now how it is that the author of Numbers 13:33 was able to say that “the Anakim come of the Nephilim.”
This image is maintained in the Greek use of “Anax,” when we consider Zeus Arbios and the idea of the deified ruler represented by a tree on a mountain that “reaches to heaven.” In the Bible we get this imagery in Ezekiel 31 - a passage that connects us back to that enigmatic character known as “the Assyrian,” or “Nimrod.” He was the guy responsible for a man-made mountain that was built to reach heaven...
Seeing Babel as the origin of royal human deification makes sense of all of these ethnic variations of the concept. It ties in with the worldview that Scripture presents, showing that the nations were subjected to the rule of lesser gods following the rebellion at Babel.
Those who had participated at Babel became the divinised rulers of the nations - imbued with the spirits of the Nephilim and recognised as such by their tall stature. They were known by many tribal names, but collectively they were called Anakim - “the ascended masters.”

- T.J. Steadman

What about those rock giants in the 2014 film, “Noah” by Darren Aronofsky - are they Biblical?

Giants made of stone are not uncommon in ancient mythology. Their popularity and timeless appeal have seen them feature in more modern imagination such as J. R. R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings.” But what is the connection to the Biblical narrative?
There is an ancient Hittite text known as “The Song of Ullikummi.” The Hittites were lost to history outside of the Biblical sources, until the late 19th century AD brought archaeological discoveries to light; this sacred text being one of them. This manuscript tells a story of a change in the divine authorities over Anatolia. A deity finds himself deposed by a younger god and decides to fight back to reclaim his turf. He does so by creating a giant of stone out of the earth. 
This stone giant is called Ullikummi. He begins to dominate the world, and the gods are fearful of him. Deciding that something must be done about this towering stone giant, they appeal to the creator god to save them. 

The Biblical primeval history (Genesis 1-11) features two major cycles in which ancient powers attempt to control the destiny of humankind, only to be thwarted by the Creator. In the first, the Nephilim accelerate the depravity of man and resort to violence to attempt to destroy them. In the second, man begins to summon those ancient spirits in order to make themselves godlike, at the Tower of Babel. 
Conflating the two cycles into a single story with a unified message was one way that this tradition found expression in Anatolia. The result is the Tower of Babel itself becoming personified as a monstrous giant made of stone. The idea of giants born of the earth itself, was popular enough to outlive the Hittite Empire and inspire the ancient Greeks. 
Greek influences later began to pervade Jewish thought in the Second Temple Period, to the extent that the Septuagint and other works like First Enoch show evidence of awareness of these ideas. 
And it was that literature (among other sources) which inspired the recent adaptation of the “Noah” story. 
So the stone giants are not Biblical. But the Bible illuminates the truth of the matter once you get a little context. 

For more fascinating insights into the ancient world of "Noah", check out the new episode of "The Commentarians Podcast" which is essentially a feature-length discussion of the film between podcast host Joe Zaragoza and myself. You can listen to the audio or if you have access to the movie, play it while you tune in to the podcast so you can follow the discussion in sync with the film. Enjoy!

​- T.J. Steadman

Numbers 21:1 (KJV) “And when king Arad the Canaanite, which dwelt in the south, heard tell that Israel came by way of the spies; then he fought against Israel, and took some of them prisoners.”

This seemingly straightforward verse in Scripture is actually an amazing insight into the world of the paranormal. 
Moses was leading the Israelites toward their Promised Land, having escaped from Egypt in the Exodus. As they traveled, their route detoured into the northern parts of the Arabian Peninsula. This was necessary because the Edomites would not allow them to go through their land to enter Canaan. 
While the wandering Israelites were still many miles away from Canaan and going in the opposite direction, a band of Canaanite warriors attacked them, capturing Israelite civilians and dragging them away. 
How did the enigmatic King Arad know about the Israelite presence many miles to the south of his land, on the other side of a neighbouring kingdom?
The simple answer is that he had spies. 
Here’s where it gets interesting: the usual word for spies in Hebrew is “ragal.” Moses uses that word many times to refer to spies. But not here. In this instance, he chose “Atharin.” That’s not even a Hebrew word. Moses borrowed it from the land and language of the place where this attack occurred. It’s Arabic. 
So why would Moses pick one Arabic word and use it in his Hebrew text? 
Because Hebrew doesn’t have a word for “spies without feet.”
The Israelites were being watched by supernatural spies. King Arad was employing some form of divination when he learned about Israel’s presence to the south. And the tip-off came when Moses’ brother Aaron passed away. Aaron’s death was detected by the spirits of the Rephaim, and they armed Arad with that knowledge so he could strike while the Israelites were mourning. It was a cruel blow to a suffering people. And it would be answered with swift vengeance - now that Israel had finally learned that this was spiritual warfare. 

- T.J. Steadman

Recently, a paper was released by the archaeological team currently excavating the site of the Biblical city of Gath, once the home of Goliath, the Philistine giant (link to media article here). They are exploring the 11th-10th century BC layers (corresponding to the time of David and Goliath), and they have discovered an interesting phenomenon. The thickness of the city walls happens to exactly match (in the number of cubits employed) with the height of the giant Philistine as recorded in the earliest manuscript traditions of the Hebrew Bible (which exclude the Masoretic Text). The discovery has led to talk of Goliath himself as perhaps not really a giant but rather a literary representation of the city of Gath; a way of embodying the strength of the city by personifying it as a giant soldier.
But this interpretation is not without its flaws. Here we will see why it is incoherent to arrive at the conclusion that Goliath may not have been a giant on the basis of this discovery:

1. The Biblical text explicitly refers to Goliath’s height: 1 Sam. 17:4 “And there came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named Goliath of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.”
2. Height is not the same as thickness, and the words are not easily confused (gobahh “height” as in 1 Sam. 17:4, against rochab “thickness” as in Ezek. 40:5).
3. If a comparison or simile was intended, it would have made more sense to use consistent dimensions, for example Goliath’s height vs. wall height or Goliath’s thickness (perhaps a chest measurement?) vs. wall thickness. Drawing a comparison using measurement of differing dimensions (height vs. thickness) is not an effective illustration, especially as a literary device. 
4. A cubit of 54cm (21.25” as seen at Tell Es-Safi, as opposed to the common cubit of 18”) would make Goliath taller (from 6’9”to 7’11”). Biblical authors generally make less of Israel’s enemies rather than glorify them, so making Goliath any bigger actually works counter to the narrative. 
5. Nothing else in the description of Goliath has been shown to correlate with any other aspect of the city of Gath, save for the fact that he came from there. This makes the single coincidental statistic seem out of place. 
6. Adding to the cognitive dissonance of this suggested correlation is the fact that the battle in which Goliath is defeated does not take place at Gath, nor does that city fall in the aftermath of said battle. It would have been presumptuous to compare Goliath’s death with the anticipated fall of a city that was clearly still standing at the time. 
7. The repeated epithet “Goliath of Gath” serves not to equate Goliath with Gath, but to associate him with the Anakim, who were said to be of great stature (Num. 13:32-33) and known to have fled there at the Conquest of Canaan under Joshua (Josh. 11:22). The association reminds us that he comes from a land of giants, thus reinforcing the understanding that he really was an enormous warrior. 

These seven points outlined above ought to be sufficient to show that the traditional understanding of Goliath as a giant warrior is not seriously challenged by this coincidental statistic discovered at Tell Es-Safi. And we would do well to remember that earlier reports from the dig confirmed megalithic construction consistent with large inhabitants. When pressed about bodily remains of giants, officials stated that they had not found any remains of people taller than an average NBA center (see media article here) - an average that happens to be exactly the same as the height of Goliath (6’9”) according to the Greek Old Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls and the records of the Roman historian Josephus.
​Remember that the average Israelite man at the time was around 5’3”. Even if Gath’s inhabitants were no taller than seven feet, we are still justified in referring to some of them as giants, and the Bible's assertions in this regard continue to be upheld as truth.

- T.J. Steadman