“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.”

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.

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