Giants And The Bible

Giants And The Bible

Bodie Hodge M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, June 17, 2025 (Donate)

It’s common to find giants in fictitious stories like Jack and Beanstalk or the more modern Ella Enchanted. There are even football and baseball teams named “Giants”. But were giants real?

The Bible says they were. But in our secularized culture, the Bible often comes under attack—Genesis 1-11, The global Flood, Tower of Babel, the biblical age of the earth, unicorns, dragons, and so on. The Bible is like an anvil that has worn out many hammers. Let’s go back and see what God says in His Word—because there is no greater authority on the subject of giants, than God.

Giants In Scripture

So, were giants real? For those who follow the Bible, the answer is an immediate “yes”! Our minds usually flash to Goliath—arguably the most famous giant who ever lived and how he met his demise in battle against David—the future king of Israel.

A slingshot like this is how David killed Goliath

Besides Goliath, the existence of giants is revealed in several places throughout the Bible. These references are not just metaphorical or exaggerated accounts but describe real people in history.

The biblical term often used is “giants,” but other words like “Rephaim,” and “Anakim” also appear, each with nuances but consistently referring to men of unusual size and strength. Nevertheless, let’s start with Goliath and his family.

Goliath And His Kin

As mentioned, the most famous biblical giant is Goliath of Gath, the Philistine champion defeated by David with a slingshot and then David used Goliath’s sword to finish him off—literally (1 Samuel 17:51). About Goliath, the Bible says (verses NKJV unless otherwise noted):

"He had a bronze helmet on his head... the shaft of his spear was like a weaver's beam... and his iron spearhead weighed six hundred shekels" (1 Samuel 17:4–7).

Goliath’s height is given as “six cubits and a span,” approximately 9 feet 9 inches based on the small cubit of 18 inches and a span which is 9 inches). Thus, he could have been taller if the longer cubit was meant (e.g., a 20.4-inch cubit—that would make him slightly under 11 feet tall!).

Regardless, he was a man of immense size and strength, inspiring terror as an enemy of God’s people. Goliath was not the only giant among the Philistines. Other accounts mention his relatives:

• Ishbi-benob (2 Samuel 21:16)
• Saph (2 Samuel 21:18)
• An unnamed giant with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot (2 Samuel 21:20)
• Lahmi, Goliath’s brother (1 Chronicles 20:5)

All were referred to as "descendants of the giant" (possibly Rapha, linking them to the Rephaim). Goliath lived about 1000 BC in days of King Saul. Goliath came out of the lineage of Ham down through the Philistines (Genesis 10:6-14).

More Giants

Noah had three sons—Japheth, Shem, and Ham. Several groups under Ham’s lineage are named. Did some of Shem’s and Japheth’s lineage have giants? We are not told. But the genetic capability was there in Ham’s line because the Bible informs us that some of his descendants were giant in stature.

The Anakim

In Numbers 13:28–33, when certain Israelites spied out the land of Canaan, they encountered giants:

"We saw the descendants of Anak there... The land... devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature... and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight."

The Anakim were a large people descended from a figure named Anak. The Israelites feared them, describing them as being of such stature that they used a simile to describe the relationship as to being grasshoppers by comparison.

During the Israelite conquest, giants posed a significant obstacle. In Deuteronomy 9:2, it says of the Anakim: “a people great and tall, the descendants of the Anakim, whom you know, and of whom you heard it said, ‘Who can stand before the descendants of Anak?’”

Furthermore, in Joshua 11:21–22 it says that Joshua cut off the Anakim from the hill country, “only in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod did some remain.”

These surviving pockets became later threats, especially among the Philistines (Goliath’s origin).

The Rephaim

In Deuteronomy 2:10–11, the Rephaim are mentioned as former inhabitants of the land:

"The Emim had dwelt there in times past, a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim. They were also regarded as giants [Rephaim], like the Anakim..."

Rephaim were considered closely related to or synonymous with giants. They lived in regions later claimed by Israel and were associated with dread and strength. According to Deuteronomy 2, the Rephaim were driven out by the Lord previously possibly using the Moabites  and Ammonites (descendants of Abraham’s nephew Lot) and Edomites (descendants of Esau).

The Zamzummim and Emim

Also mentioned in Deuteronomy 2:20–21, the Zamzummim were a people "great, numerous, and tall, like the Anakim." These groups were dispossessed by the descendants of Lot.

Og the Giant

Og's bed is described in Deuteronomy 3:11. Here's what the Bible says:

“For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the giants. Indeed his bedstead was an iron bedstead. (Is it not in Rabbah of the people of Ammon?) Nine cubits is its length and four cubits its width, according to the standard cubit.” — Deuteronomy 3:11 (NKJV)

How big is that? Og’s bed was approximately 13.5 feet long and 6 feet wide (using the small cubit). It was made of iron in that day likely due to his unusual size and strength as one of the last of the Rephaim (a group associated with giants in the Old Testament).

Poetic and Prophetic Literature

The Bible also uses possible references to giants in poetic passages, “The dead [repha] tremble, those under the waters and those inhabiting them” (Job 26:5).

Some take this to mean the “Rephaim”, a possible spiritual link to dead giants. Consider, “Will You work wonders for the dead? Shall the dead [rapha] arise and praise You?” (Psalm 88:10). Again, the Hebrew root behind this may refer to the “Rephaim.”

There may be a spiritual aspect to giants’ judgment, perhaps regarded in Israelite thought as restless or cursed beings in Sheol/grave. Of course, their eternal judgment for unrepentant sin against God is an eternity in Hell (Daniel 12:2).

While giants are not emphasized heavily in any prophetic books, there may be hints. For example, Amos 2:9 recalls God’s power over the Amorites:

"Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was as strong as the oaks..."

This likely refers to giant-like strength and stature, symbolizing a formidable but ultimately defeated foe.

Were There Pre-Flood Giants: The Nephilim?

So far, there is no doubt giants existed in the past. Let’s turn our attention to a controversial instance of alleged “giants”. Genesis 6:1–4 (NASB) says:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."

This passage describes a group of men called the nephilim (from the Hebrew word “to fall”) before the Flood. The godly term "sons of God" had children who had fallen into terrible wickedness and sin—hence, why God was about to judge their sin with a Flood. God described the world being full of violence, wickedness, and sin.

So where are the giants? To be blunt, they are not there. Some later translations presume nephilim means giants, but that is not warranted by the context. this idea was first suggested more than a half a millennia later. 

So why would some translations, beginning 700 years later, put giants? Because in Numbers 13, they were giants and the context reveals that.

So, there is an assumption that maybe the pre-Flood nephilim were giants as well. But is this warranted? No. The context says nothing of gigantic size. Just because both groups are described and called the fallen (nephilim means the fallen), doesn’t mean their bodies were built the same.

Consider it this way—if the nephilim, who were also titled and called “mighty men”, were giants, would it be justifiable to say David’s “mighty men” were giants too (2 Samuel 23:8-9)? See the fallacy.

Nephilim In Genesis 6 Vs. Numbers 13 – Are They The Same?

The word "Nephilim" (נְפִילִים) appears only twice in the entire Hebrew Bible:

“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” (Genesis 6:4, NASB)

"There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight." (Numbers 13:33, NASB)

In both cases, the Hebrew spelling is essentially the same but with a slight variation but both being a plural form from the root npl (נפל), meaning "to fall."

The Septuagint (LXX)—the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (done quickly by Jews in Alexandria) around the 3^rd  century BC—translates nephilim in Genesis 6:4 as "gigantes" (γίγαντες), meaning “giants.” This term is also used in Numbers 13:33.

However, gigantes in Greek mythology didn’t necessarily mean beings of great stature alone—they were often rebellious and semi-divine figures. So, the LXX likely introduced a mix of size, strength, and mythological association into the text that wasn't explicitly present in the Hebrew context.

As we learn extensively from biblical history in the Old Testament, the Israelites commonly compromised God’s Word with the local religious flavors of their conquerors (e.g., serving false gods like Baal, Molech, etc.) —so when they incorporated Greek beliefs of demi-gods (e.g., when appealing to angel-human mixtures giving rise to giants), it shouldn’t surprise us. Nevertheless, these Jewish myths need to be rejected.  

Context Is King: Genesis 6 Vs. Numbers 13

 Genesis 6:4 – Pre-Flood Nephilim

The context does not emphasize great height or size. Instead, it says:

“...when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men... They were the mighty men (gibborim) who were of old, men of renown.”

So while these beings are described as “mighty men” and “men of renown,” there's no direct mention of great size in Genesis 6. The nephilim are a group of men who instead describe violent, fallen, or tyrannical men—perhaps linked to spiritual rebellion—but not necessarily tall.

Numbers 13:33 – Nephilim As Giants

Here, the text of Scripture clearly emphasizes physical stature:

“We were like grasshoppers in our own sight...”

Also mentioned was the Anakim, who were “of great stature” (Numbers 13:28), and they were associated as the nephilim—who had fallen into so much sin that God has already decreed they would be judged by the His hand through the Israelites for their sin.

The Genesis 6:4 "nephilim" are called mighty men and renowned, not giants. There was no explicit reference to any enormous size. The “giant” association comes largely from the Greek LXX rendering (gigantes), not the Hebrew text itself. Thus, it is was an idea of the translators disconnected from the events by about 700 years who were influenced by Greek thought.

The Numbers 13:33 “nephilim” are clearly described as giants, linked to the Anakim—would we giants. Therefore, it is unwarranted to say that the two (pre-Flood and post-Flood) fallen groups of men should be equated in they physiques. Although a number of people point to Genesis 6 as evidence of giants in Scripture, other passages are better to use due to the context.

Were Giants Real—The Conclusion

Giants existed in the past because God revealed they did in His perfect Word in many places.

 

 

What About Defense and Attack Structures (DAS)?

What About Defense and Attack Structures (DAS)? 

Andy McIntosh, Professor of Thermodynamics, University of Leeds and Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, June 16, 2025 (Donate) 

The Relevance Of The Issue Of DAS (Defense/Attack Structures) 

Many people question the goodness of God when they see “nature red in tooth and claw” and accuse those who believe in the Bible of not seeing reality, and the fight for survival which in the view of the secular scientists substantiates evolution. 

Spider! Photo by Bodie Hodge

William Paley in 1802 wrote the now classic book Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature.  Charles Darwin had a great respect for Paley’s arguments and wrote in his Autobiography that, 

“In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was, also, necessary to [read] Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy…The logic of this book and as I may add of his Natural Theology gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the Academical Course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley's premises; and taking these on trust I was charmed and convinced of the long line of argumentation.”[1] 

Darwin took from his reading of Paley a belief in adaptation—that organisms are somehow fit for the environments in which they live. In other words, they were well designed for what they do—sometimes to cause pain, suffering and death. However, Darwin later saw difficulties with Paley’s argument. 

A suffering creation seemed to deny a good and loving God. Why would a benevolent Designer make cats that play with mice before killing them, or parasites that eat their hosts from the inside? 

Darwin could see that the idea of a benevolent designer did not square with the world that he observed. How could a good God be the Author of death and bloodshed? The answer of Darwin and many others is to turn from the God of the Bible to a belief in man’s ideas about the past that include millions of years of death and suffering. 

A most notable adherent to this view is David Attenborough (the presenter of many very popular BBC nature documentaries). In a similar journey to that of Darwin, he argues strongly for belief in evolution because of the suffering that the natural world exhibits. The quote below is very revealing as to what has motivated Attenborough to an evolutionary position. 

“When Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things.

 

But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind.

 

And [I ask them], “Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all- merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy.” [2] 

These examples (Darwin and Attenborough) show why the issue of defense/attack structures (DAS) is important, and is closely related to the existence of suffering and death in the world around us. Defense/attack structures are anything from claws and flesh-tearing beaks on birds of prey to claws and teeth of cats to a wasp’s stinger or poison dart frogs’ toxin.    

Eagles Have Pointed Claws And Sharp Beaks! Photos of models by Bodie Hodge

What Are Some Defense/Attack Structures (DAS)? 

Examples of defense/attack structures are numerous in the world around us, and exist in plants as well as animals. Here are a few: 

Plants—Venus Fly Trap 

A great example in plants is the Venus fly trap which snaps two lobes of the plant on any unsuspecting fly which ventures inside. The mechanism by which the trap snaps shut involves a complex interaction between elasticity, osmotic pressure in the cellular plant material and growth. 

In the open state, the lobes are convex (bent outwards), but in the closed state, the lobes are concave (forming a cavity). It is stable in both the open and closed positions, but when triggered it changes states to close quickly.[3],[4] 

Insects—Spider’s Web 

A good example in the insect world is the spider. Spider’s webs are renowned for their ability to catch other flying insects, such as flies and moths. The sophistication of silk production through special glands that keep the polymer soft right up until it is excluded behind the spider is still not understood.[5] 

Furthermore, the ability of the spider to make some strands sticky and others not, so that the spider itself only walks on the non-sticky parts is clearly a clever design feature. Not all spiders make webs. They are all capable of producing silk in several varieties, but though the predatory nature of spiders is universal the actual prey-catching technique of web building is not the same for each species. 

Insects—Bombardier Beetle 

There are many other examples of course in the insect world, and perhaps one of the most extraordinary is the bombardier beetle and its sophisticated defense apparatus which involves a hot (100° C) noxious mixture out of a special swivel nozzle out of its backside, into the face of predators such as rodents, birds, frogs or other insects such as spiders or ants. 

Other Animals 

Of the numerous examples in the animal world the meat-eating lions and tigers and other large cats (cheetah, lynx, etc.) would be the most obvious. It should be noted though that these creatures are not solely dependent on a carnivorous diet with known cases of their being able to survive on a vegetarian diet when meat has been not available in zoos.[6] 

Many others can be quoted in the reptile world such as chameleons with the ability to send out in fractions of a second its tongue to capture prey, crocodiles, alligators and snakes with poisonous fangs, and deadly coils of an anaconda which can kill bulls and tapirs easily with its extremely strong muscles.[7] 

Alligator Teeth And Powerful Jaw! Photo by Bodie Hodge 

These are but a few of the DAS found around the world.  In fact, if you check the plants and animals in your area, you can probably spot some of these DAS.  

Even turtle and tortoise shells are consider defensive structures. They use them for protection. 

Box Turtle! Photo by Bodie Hodge

Why, Biblically Is The World Like This? 

The biblical response is that the theology of Darwin and Attenborough has made a major assumption—that the world is now what it always has been. The Bible, as early as the third chapter, makes it clear that this is not the case. 

The original creation was perfect, but there has been a drastic change. This was caused by the Fall of man which has fundamentally altered the world in which we live. The world (and indeed the Universe) was originally perfect. Six times in Genesis 1 it states that what God had made “was good” and the seventh time (Genesis 1:31) God declares everything very good “…and God saw every thing that He had made and behold it was very good.” A perfect God would make nothing less. In fact, Moses, who also penned Genesis, declared that all of God’s works are perfect in Deuteronomy 32:4. 

The original world had no boring parasites in children’s eyes and “nature red in tooth and claw.” The death and suffering experienced now is as a result of man’s sin and rebellion. The original perfect world has been changed by God, due to man’s actions of sinning against Him so that death, disease and suffering are experienced. The world is now marred by sin and is under a curse.  

Genesis 3 states of Adam, 

Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: "Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return." Genesis 3:17-19, NKJV 

And of Eve earlier, God states: 

To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." Genesis 3:16, NKJV 

And earlier still when God spoke to the serpent, He said:           

            So the LORD God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life. Genesis 3:14, NKJV

So in essence there were several changes. In Genesis 3:14 verse, it shows that animals were cursed.

 

Verse	Some of the known effects	Said to:
Genesis 3:14	1. Serpent cursed more than other animals specifically mentions crawling on its belly and eating dust; 2. Other animals are cursed, to what extent, we aren’t told	Serpent
Genesis 3:16	1. Increased pain and sorrows with childbearing and raising children; 2.  They will desire/have a longing for their husbands	Woman/Eve
Genesis 3:17-19	1.  Ground is cursed specifically mentions thorns and thistles and the pain and sorrow associated with working the ground but the other affects of the curse,  we aren’t told;  2.  Death, return to dust	Man/Adam

This is not just an Old Testament doctrine. The New Testament picks up on the inseparable connection of the world state with man’s condition. Paul states in Romans 8, 

For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pains together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. Romans 8:22-23, NKJV 

The world has been cursed because of man’s rebellion in Adam, but there will come a day (“…redemption of our body ...” in Romans 8:23) when at the resurrection of God’s people, the world will also be liberated from the corrupting effect. In fact, Paul makes it clear that the extent of this curse encompasses the whole creation.  

Image from Presentation Library

It is in context of Biblical theology that we look at defense/attack structures. But first, let’s review the following points that are clear from the Scriptures (NKJV): 

• Man and animals were vegetarian at the original Creation described in Genesis 1:29-30. Throughout Genesis 1 repeatedly the Lord states that the created order was “good” and then Genesis 1:31 “very good” and thus nature “red in tooth and claw” was not the original order.
• In verse 30, God explicitly states “Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so.” Literally in the Hebrew, the phrase “in which there is life” is “chay nephesh” and by implication distinguishes animals and man from plant life which has no nephesh type life. Genesis 1:20-21, 24 have the same phrase “chay nephesh” and the phrase occurs in Genesis 2:7 where it is translated “living soul”.
• The curse in Genesis 3 caused a major change in plants and animals. (a) The curse to the animals (Genesis 3:14 “You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field”). (b) The curse that affected plants (thorns and thistles). Genesis 3:17, 18 “…Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field.” There is evidence that thorns are formed from altered leaves.[8]
• After the Flood, meat eating (Genesis 9:3) was allowed for man.
• Later in Scripture the prophet Isaiah 11:6-10 refers to a future time when there will be a reverse of the curse now experienced upon all creatures. Isaiah 11:6 states “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them”. The vision is of a paradise regained similar to that which at present is lost.
• Revelation speaks of a time when the curse will be removed (Revelation 22:3) and there will be no more pain and suffering and death (Revelation 21:4).  

The Bible provides a big picture to look at DAS.  

The Two Major Perspectives To Understand DAS Biblically 

There are two primary alternatives that can easily explain defense/attack structures from a Biblical perspective.  One lesser view has drastic changes at the Fall. It says that all creatures with DAS were created after the Fall but Scripture seems to contradict this in many places.  Therefore, most reject this out of hand.  

1) That the present features used in defense and attack were not originally used for that purpose. 

This perspective indicates that DAS were used for a different function before the Fall. Let’s take sharp teeth for example. The most common interpretation of sharp teeth is that the animal was a meat eater.  Is this s proper interpretation?  Sharp teeth mean one thing, sharp teeth.  

Creatures with sharp teeth do not necessarily use them to rip other animals apart today. The giant panda eats entirely bamboo shoots yet has very sharp teeth. The fruit bat similarly might appear at first sight to have teeth consistent with a carnivorous diet, but in fact eats just fruit. Conversely, there are things that have dull teeth and eat meat today—take us humans for example! 

We merely assume many extinct animals ate meat because they had sharp teeth. Originally though, they were vegetarian (Genesis 1:30). This is just a brief look at teeth. 

T-Rex Originally Ate Vegetables! Image from Presentation Library

Claws could have been used to grip vegetarian foods or branches for climbing, chameleon tongues could have been used to reach out and grab vegetarian foods, etc.  This approach has the advantage of never having to suggest that God designed a structure and system feature which was harmful to another living creature of His Creation. So, the design was the same but the function was different in this perspective.  

It is evident that for some defense/attack structures (e.g. spider silk) it is hard to establish an alternative function for these glands, though spiders have been shown to catch and eat pollen.⁸ The evidence seems to point to such structures being designed as they are to effectively catch things like insects. However, we may simply not know the original function and that should be no detriment to this perspective.   

Consequently, many have suggested the fact that some creatures have maintained plant eating indicates that predatory habits came due to altered function. Bears commonly eat vegetarian foods, There have been lions[9] and vultures[10] documented to refuse eating meat. ^{5, 9} 

Bears eat many vegetarian meals and they have sharp teeth! Photo by Bodie Hodge

Even viruses (genetic carriers which are not themselves alive infect to a host where almost always today the result is deleterious) may have been originally used in a different and beneficial role before the Fall. In a similar manner, harmful bacteria may have had a different and better purpose than their current function.  

However, there are still some shortcomings of this perspective if we apply it to the whole of DAS.  One such problem is that of thorns.  Thorns, and thistles too, are a result of the curse and yet it can be argued they are used as a defense mechanism for the trees, bushes, etc. that have them.  The Bible indicates they came forth after the Fall. So, something indeed changed at the curse.    

 

Thorns and Thistles! Photos by Bodie Hodge

This perspective avoids God designing DAS in a perfect world for the purpose of harming something that was alive. Let’s take a look at another perspective.   

2) The design features were brought in as a result of the Fall by God Himself 

This perspective calls for design alterations after the Fall to allow such attack and defense structures. To clarify, this was the result of man’s sin, not God’s original design.  The consequences of sin still remain.  Such “cursed deign” is from God’s intelligence as a punishment to man, woman and the serpent’s disobedience.  This view would then better explain some things like the special glands that make the spider silk, sharp teeth, claws, etc. 

There is some warrant for this in Scripture, since we know that plants have been made such that now some of them have thorns (physically changed form). The serpent changed forms to crawl on its belly (physically changed forms). Since there was a physical change and this was passed along to offspring, then there had to be genetic alterations. Some of these changes could have been immediate, and others could have been slower in revealing themselves.  

Regardless, there must have been a change in the genetic blueprint of these systems such that DAS became evident. Recall God knows the future so it is possible that under this scenario the devices were placed latently in the genetic code of these creatures at Creation and were “turned on” at the Fall.  

Another possibility is that the Lord redesigned the creatures after the Fall to have such features as DAS in them. We would lean toward the latter possibility because if this information in the genome for DAS would have been latent, then it would still be “very good”. However, since DAS are a reminder of a sin-cursed world full of death and suffering, then it was more likely changed at the Fall as opposed to being latent.    

Scripture that gives implied support to this perspective is that after the Fall, man would know pain and hard work and eventually die (Genesis 3:19). Some biological change is experienced. Pain and sorrows in childbirth is a direct result of the Fall, and the serpent is radically redesigned after his rebellion. So, this overall position may be the better of the two, though we wouldn’t be dogmatic.  

Conclusion 

There are two main perspectives that are biblical that explain the changes that occurred when man sinned and the world fell from a perfect one to an imperfect one. Both perspectives have merits but the Bible doesn’t specifically say one way or another.  In fact, there could be aspects of both that may have happened and there are variations in these models as well.  

Not all creatures with DAS need to be explained in the same way. For some it was an may have been an adjustment of existing function. For other mechanisms there seems to be every indication that they were adapted after the Fall. 

Regardless, the accusation that a loving and perfect God made the world like this ignores the Bible’s teachings; specifically, the curse which resulted in major changes came in as a result of sin.  A proper understanding of why there are defense/attack structures in the world today should be a reminder that the world is sin-cursed and that we are all sinners in need of a Savior. 

During the Fall, God acted justly.  He did what was right.  But during the curses in Genesis 3, God did something that only a loving God would do.  He gave the first prophecy of redemption.  A promised Savior in Genesis 3:15, 

And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel." Genesis 3:15, NKJV 

The one who would crush the head of the serpent would be born of a virgin, the seed of a woman.  This is the first of many prophecies of Jesus Christ coming as the seed of a woman—a virgin birth. It was truly a loving and gracious God to come and die for us and take our sins on the Cross with Him. 

DAS should be a reminder that when God says something, it will come to pass. When one accepts Christ as their personal Savior, they will one day enjoy eternal life in a world that no longer has any curse or death or suffering or pain (Revelation 21:4, Revelation 22:3).  

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:16-18, NKJV 

Originally here: https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/design-in-nature/how-did-defense-attack-structures-come-about/; Republished by permission. Features in the New Answers Book 1.

---

[1] Charles Darwin, The Autobiography Of Charles Darwin, Edited by Francis Darwin, Cambridge 1828-1831, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2010/2010-h/2010-h.htm. Darwin also heavily borrowed from Edward Blyth and his work on variations within kinds; See: http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar0.html.

[2] M. Buchanan, Wild, Wild Life, Sydney Morning Herald, The Guide, March 24, 2003, p. 6.

[3] Y. Forterre, J.M. Skotheim, J. Dumais, L. Mahadevan, How the Venus Flytrap Snaps, Nature 433 (7024): 421-5, 2005, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7024/abs/nature03185.html.

[4] How a Venus flytrap snaps up its victims, New Scientist, January 29th, 2005, http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg18524845.900.

[5] G. De Luca, and A.D. Rey, Biomimetics of spider silk spinning process, Design and Nature III: Comparing Design in Nature with Science and Engineering, Vol. 87 of WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Editor Brebbia, C.A., WIT Press, 2006, ISBN: 1-84564-166-3, pp. 127-136.

[6] D. Catchpoole, “The lion that wouldn’t eat meat”, Creation Ex Nihilo 22(2):22–23 March 2000.

[7] H. Mayell, Anaconda Expert Wades Barefoot in Venezuela’s Swamps, National Geographic News, March 13, 2003, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0430_020503_anacondaman.html.

[8] S. Carlquist, “Ontogeny and Comparative Anatomy of Thorns of Hawaiian Lobeliaceae”, American Journal of Botany, Vol. 49, No. 4, April, 1962, pp. 413-419.

[9] Nature Australia 26(7):p.5, Summer, 1999–2000.

[10] D. Catchpoole, The ‘bird of prey’ that’s not, Creation Ex Nihilo, 23(1):24–25, December 2000.