Thoughts on Dr. Michael Heiser?

[cre8id]

I recently came across a good bit of work buy Michael Heiser, who is a pretty conservative Christian in many respects, but has some very controversial ideas to many... myself included. He is a Biblical/ancient middle East language expert and works for LOGOS on translations. He is not a 'fundi' (as I am) but, again, he is relatively conservative. Much of my conflict with him has to do with my own 'fundi' thinking (I am a young-earth creationist... he is most certainly not).

He is good at comparing the literature in the Bible with other Mid-East cultures and literature and looking at the text of the Bible and extra-Biblical works and bringing out what THEY (the ancients) actually thought and believed and not the beliefs of modern Christians filtered through many years of doctrine which may or may not be correct.

Heiser is probably most noted for his publications and videos (see YouTube) on the subject of what he calls the Divine Council and the modern misuse of the word "Elohim". Actually, I agree with with him on this issue... it answers a LOT of questions.

A little more controversial is his achedimic analysis of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 with other ancient literature... like the extra-Biblical book of Enoch. How the ancient and 1st century Jews and even early Christians viewed this subject is not taught by very many today. They believed the "watchers" of Enoch and the book of Daniel were angels who rebelled against God and actually had sexual relations with human women in order to produce an unholy abominable race overall called the nephilim. If the extra-Biblical books of Jasher and Jubilees are included, the "watchers" also polluted the genome of many animals also. The threat of completely polluting the human genome would mean that the promised "seed of a woman" (Gen. 3:15), our saviour, Jesus the Christ, could not be born a full human. Thus, if left unchecked, Satan would thwart God's plan of salvation... hence the whole reason for Noah's flood... to wipe out the nephilim and cleanse and preserve the genomes of the different "kinds" of animals. Part of these comments are my own elaboration but probably not too far off from what Heiser teaches.
Heiser is NOT a young earth creationist nor does he seem to believe in a worldwide flood... he seems to like Hugh Ross' ideas (just trying to add some perspective).

Anyways, please feel free to comment.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Much like any, he is wheat and chaff to me. I'm in opposition to his position on Genesis 6. It's been a while since I read his works, but I remember agreeing with some of it, but rejecting much of it.

 

[cre8id]

Much like any, he is wheat and chaff to me. I'm in opposition to his position on Genesis 6. It's been a while since I read his works, but I remember agreeing with some of it, but rejecting much of it.

Thanks for your thoughts. Do you wish to elaborate more?

 

[Dkh587]

I've read much of his stuff. His writings & teachings line up with the scripture. Especially regarding things like angels/the sons of God/the Elohim etc

I have learned a lot through his teachings. Many ppl will have a problem with what he says but if you are honest and true with yourself, you can see that he is actually not teaching against the Bible at all

 

[SeventyOne]

He seems very genuine and knowledgable to me.

That said, I'm not in agreement with all his conclusions, although I can see how he got himself there. I'm not saying he's wrong in the areas I disagree, such as the divine council aspect, I'm just don't know without a doubt if he's right. He does give you interesting things to consider.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Thanks for your thoughts. Do you wish to elaborate more?

if by elaboration you're meaning his entire body of work, that's a large subject. If you're meaning the Genesis 6 interpretation, I agree he gives an explanation but I find the explanation lacking substance. This is a subject that comes around on these forums, and is clearly being pushed in a major way these days. I'm sure there's a reason for the push.

Problems I have with it is that "sons of God" is used in the bible to clearly mean, men (Romans 8:14, Philippians 2:15). Men are the only beings in the scripture who are specifically called "sons" and "children" by God, who is even called "the Father" in relation to men (Exodus 4:22, 1 Chronicles 29:10, Isaiah 63:16, Jeremiah 10:20). But the phrase never clearly indicates "angels"(or, some, supernatural not-man beings) and the scripture expressly says that no angel was ever a part of the "father-son" relationship (Hebrews 1:5). So we off to a huge problem in just the understanding of "sons of God": adding to this that scripture indicates time and again that the "children of the Lord" kept getting involved with "strange wives" and thereby causing "abomination": Numbers 25:1-3, Numbers 31:15-16, 1 Kings 11:8-10, Ezra 10:10-11

So trying to make "non-men angels" into "sons of God" has no real support, and scripture supports men as "sons of God", and that "strange wives" were a constant problem to them.

Now, the "nephilim" aren't the "sons of God", as the Genesis 6 account makes plain by contrasting the two: "The nephilim were in the earth, when the sons of God...": and if the "nephilim" are the offspring that raises serious problems. How does an "non-man angel" reproduce? If we say that they took the form of natural man, then they would have the seed of natural men, and beget natural men. Unless supported by scripture, there is no such a thing as "angelic DNA"; all all functions of the "natural man" would be in accordance with being a "natural man": and so no offspring should be peculiar.

There is also the problem of how the nephilim continued, after the flood. They are in Canaan, how did they get there? A second Jared event that the scripture is mysteriously silent about, as are all other extra-biblical texts? Why is God allowing this since scripture makes clear any power is submissive to the will of God, and cannot act without authorization (Job 1).

There are more problems, but the entire hypothesis seems very weak, contrary to established scripture, based on specious non-biblical texts, and full of imaginary conjecture.

 

[cre8id]

if by elaboration you're meaning his entire body of work, that's a large subject. If you're meaning the Genesis 6 interpretation, I agree he gives an explanation but I find the explanation lacking substance. This is a subject that comes around on these forums, and is clearly being pushed in a major way these days. I'm sure there's a reason for the push.

Problems I have with it is that "sons of God" is used in the bible to clearly mean, men (Romans 8:14, Philippians 2:15). Men are the only beings in the scripture who are specifically called "sons" and "children" by God, who is even called "the Father" in relation to men (Exodus 4:22, 1 Chronicles 29:10, Isaiah 63:16, Jeremiah 10:20). But the phrase never clearly indicates "angels"(or, some, supernatural not-man beings) and the scripture expressly says that no angel was ever a part of the "father-son" relationship (Hebrews 1:5). So we off to a huge problem in just the understanding of "sons of God": adding to this that scripture indicates time and again that the "children of the Lord" kept getting involved with "strange wives" and thereby causing "abomination": Numbers 25:1-3, Numbers 31:15-16, 1 Kings 11:8-10, Ezra 10:10-11

So trying to make "non-men angels" into "sons of God" has no real support, and scripture supports men as "sons of God", and that "strange wives" were a constant problem to them.

Now, the "nephilim" aren't the "sons of God", as the Genesis 6 account makes plain by contrasting the two: "The nephilim were in the earth, when the sons of God...": and if the "nephilim" are the offspring that raises serious problems. How does an "non-man angel" reproduce? If we say that they took the form of natural man, then they would have the seed of natural men, and beget natural men. Unless supported by scripture, there is no such a thing as "angelic DNA"; all all functions of the "natural man" would be in accordance with being a "natural man": and so no offspring should be peculiar.

There is also the problem of how the nephilim continued, after the flood. They are in Canaan, how did they get there? A second Jared event that the scripture is mysteriously silent about, as are all other extra-biblical texts? Why is God allowing this since scripture makes clear any power is submissive to the will of God, and cannot act without authorization (Job 1).

There are more problems, but the entire hypothesis seems very weak, contrary to established scripture, based on specious non-biblical texts, and full of imaginary conjecture.

Well, you certainly bought up some things that need discussing. Thanks for respinding. However, I shall be on the road for a little while today, and will try to get back to you tonight or tomorrow as this looks like it will get a little "involved".

 

[OcifferPls]

Ancient iconography is an amazing, and fascinating visual record of ancient Christian belief.

Take images of John the Baptist for instance, and compare with Mat 11:10:

For this is he of whom it is written:
‘Behold, I send My [messenger/aggelos/angel] before Your face,
Who will prepare Your way before You.'

Additionally there is the ladder of divine ascent. Compare with John 1:51:

And He said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”

These are really the most obvious examples, and only the tip of the iceberg when taking theological implications into consideration, but without diving in that deep, it's obvious to me that the early church believed differently than many christians today on this, if we're no longer to believe as they did. The reason for that is open to debate, but one thing I'm certain of is that the expositors of early church traditions were not idiots, and from there, there are more interesting questions to be found, such as, how did they arrive at their belief system? If they were interpreting scripture, surely there must be a scriptural basis for it within the OT. That is where Michael Heiser and others have an opportunity to explore forbidden theologies of the original christian faith, and my hat's off to him for having the courage to put his professional career on the line to do it.

 

[cre8id]

if by elaboration you're meaning his entire body of work, that's a large subject. If you're meaning the Genesis 6 interpretation, I agree he gives an explanation but I find the explanation lacking substance. This is a subject that comes around on these forums, and is clearly being pushed in a major way these days. I'm sure there's a reason for the push.

Problems I have with it is that "sons of God" is used in the bible to clearly mean, men (Romans 8:14, Philippians 2:15). Men are the only beings in the scripture who are specifically called "sons" and "children" by God, who is even called "the Father" in relation to men (Exodus 4:22, 1 Chronicles 29:10, Isaiah 63:16, Jeremiah 10:20). But the phrase never clearly indicates "angels"(or, some, supernatural not-man beings) and the scripture expressly says that no angel was ever a part of the "father-son" relationship (Hebrews 1:5). So we off to a huge problem in just the understanding of "sons of God": adding to this that scripture indicates time and again that the "children of the Lord" kept getting involved with "strange wives" and thereby causing "abomination": Numbers 25:1-3, Numbers 31:15-16, 1 Kings 11:8-10, Ezra 10:10-11

So trying to make "non-men angels" into "sons of God" has no real support, and scripture supports men as "sons of God", and that "strange wives" were a constant problem to them.

The problem is that scripture does indeed use the term "sons of God" for more than just men (mankind). In several places in the OT, the term plainly refers to or includes angels:
Job 1:6, 2:1,38:7
Psa. 29:1 & 89:6
Dan. 3:25

It would seem the term is used to describe beings specifically created by a divine act of creation... those who are "born again" would fit into that. Humans are not born "sons of God", they are born sinners (reproductions of Adam as his descendent)... hence the necessity for the "seed of the woman" in Gen. 3:15 and the virgin birth via Mary.

Furthermore, the Septuagint version of the OT Scriptures plainly translates the terms used in Gen. 6:3 as "angels of God" (footnote, page 7, Alexandrian text).

Now, the "nephilim" aren't the "sons of God", as the Genesis 6 account makes plain by contrasting the two: "The nephilim were in the earth, when the sons of God...": and if the "nephilim" are the offspring that raises serious problems. How does an "non-man angel" reproduce? If we say that they took the form of natural man, then they would have the seed of natural men, and beget natural men. Unless supported by scripture, there is no such a thing as "angelic DNA"; all all functions of the "natural man" would be in accordance with being a "natural man": and so no offspring should be peculiar.

I agree the nephilim are not the same as the "sons of God". The nephilim are the offspring of whatever took place then, regardless of what view you hold of the use of "sons of God" in Gen. 6... the other two now more popular view is that the "sons of God" were either the Godly line of Seth or were kings while the "daughters of men" were of the ungodly linage of Cain. These views were adapted long after the first century Christians and the early Church fathers were in agreement that it was fallen angels that seduced humans. It was not until the time of Augustine that the other more popular views took over the Catholic Church and was adopted by Martin Luther and other now conventional theologians of mainstream Christianity.

I also agree that there are problems or at least serious questions that arise trying to apply our understanding of natural biology and genetics to the issue of angel/mankind hybrid beings.

People often quote Jesus when He was asked about the woman who had multiple husband's as to whose wife she would be... his reply indicated there was to reproduction or sexual intercourse taking place IN HEAVEN because at the resurrection we would be like the angels IN HEAVEN. But, we are not talking about those angels, we are talking about fallen angels who were kicked out of heaven. And the Bible in multiple instances indicates that angels can take on physicality here in the earthly realm and eat and drink and interact with humans... look at the story of Lot in Sodom for example.

The Bible is therefore not explicit on ruling out the possibility of angel/human hybridization.

Biology, however, does give us pause. When Carl Sagan was once asked about the possibility of "ancient astronauts" and aliens from another planet hybridizing with humans, he chuckled and said something like, "a human has more of a chance of mating with a petunia than an alien". And, this is true... from what we know of natural DNA. But we know nothing of the DNA or whatever of an unnatural (not from Earth) being like an angel created in heaven but cast upon the earth and vountarily assumes physicality... I believe it is Jude where it says "they left their first estate".
To assume that just because something is biologically impossible for natural creatures is also impossible for beings from the angelic realm also requires an unwarranted leap of logic and faith.

There is also the problem of how the nephilim continued, after the flood. They are in Canaan, how did they get there? A second Jared event that the scripture is mysteriously silent about, as are all other extra-biblical texts? Why is God allowing this since scripture makes clear any power is submissive to the will of God, and cannot act without authorization (Job 1).

We are not told how the later nephilim appeared after the flood. One way may have been through contaminated genes in either Ham or Japeth's wives. While we are told that Noah and his family were pure, nothing is said about Noah's son's wives. Giants did come from Ham's defendants... they were met by Joshua in Caanan. In fact, the four tribes that Joshua was told to utter kill all of them were apparently "nephilim" descenders... and this would make sense for God to wipe them out severely as opposed to the other tribes. This slaughter draws considerable criticism today from skeptics, but if these tribes were not really human...

As to why God allows this or that, I can't answer. God allows evil to sometimes flourish in this world. Such questions are well beyond the scope of this post.

There are more problems, but the entire hypothesis seems very weak, contrary to established scripture, based on specious non-biblical texts, and full of imaginary conjecture.

I've shown weakness in your arguments using only scripture and reliable historical sources.

 

[John Hyperspace]

The problem is that scripture does indeed use the term "sons of God" for more than just men (mankind). In several places in the OT, the term plainly refers to or includes angels:
Job 1:6, 2:1,38:7
Psa. 29:1 & 89:6
Dan. 3:25

None of those verses "plainly" refer to angels. For "sons of God" to be "plainly" referring to angels we'd need a passage that says something like "and the angels also are the sons of God": the verses you cite can be understood as angels or men (or, a number of things). But unsupported explanations are one thing, supported explanations are entirely different. The use of "sons of God" as being men is heavily supported in scripture. The use of "sons of God" as angels is not supported at all. Not only this but you are dodging the passage in Hebrews that plainly states no angel enjoys the father-son relationship:

Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Furthermore, the Septuagint version of the OT Scriptures plainly translates the terms used in Gen. 6:3 as "angels of God" (footnote, page 7, Alexandrian text).

The LXX is a translation, and there is no support for translating "sons of God" as "angels": the Hebrew for "angels" is "malakim"

I agree the nephilim are not the same as the "sons of God". The nephilim are the offspring of whatever took place then, regardless of what view you hold of the use of "sons of God" in Gen. 6

That's speculative conjecture. Nothing in the passage linguistically links the two. The passage implies they have nothing to do with one another by stating the nephilim were in the earth "when the sons of God..." as if they were already present. Note I'm not saying thus there is factually no connection: but that "no connection" is supported, while "connected" is not.

... the other two now more popular view is that the "sons of God" were either the Godly line of Seth or were kings while the "daughters of men" were of the ungodly linage of Cain. These views were adapted long after the first century Christians and the early Church fathers were in agreement that it was fallen angels that seduced humans. It was not until the time of Augustine that the other more popular views took over the Catholic Church and was adopted by Martin Luther and other now conventional theologians of mainstream Christianity.

What other people believe is of no concern to what I'm saying. I'm looking at what the scripture says.

The Bible is therefore not explicit on ruling out the possibility of angel/human hybridization.

Again, a claim is one thing, a supported claim is something entirely different. If angels took the form of men, they would have the DNA of men, and the offspring would not be unusual. If the angel cannot reproduce in his angelic nature, then there is no such a thing as "angelic DNA" with which to contaminate any offspring. The entire hypothesis is not only without support, it makes no sense.

But we know nothing of the DNA or whatever of an unnatural (not from Earth) being like an angel created in heaven but cast upon the earth and vountarily assumes physicality... I believe it is Jude where it says "they left their first estate".

Then you must prove angelic DNA exists, and that angels have reproductive organs designed by God for what purpose? To reproduce? God gave the angels the means to mate with women? It makes no sense.

To assume that just because something is biologically impossible for natural creatures is also impossible for beings from the angelic realm also requires an unwarranted leap of logic and faith.

That statement is backward. To assume that something is biologically possible for beings from an "angelic realm" is the proposition you must support, and which is the proposition making unwarranted leaps of logic and faith in spite of no support whatsoever from scripture or biology.

We are not told how the later nephilim appeared after the flood. One way may have been through contaminated genes in either Ham or Japeth's wives.

Again, baseless claims and hypotheses are not worth believing without supporting evidence. If there was a second influx, why is it not in scripture? It would be very important, just as important as Genesis 6. But there is no a hint of any "second influx" in scripture because there was not even likely a "first influx"

I've shown weakness in your arguments using only scripture and reliable historical sources.

I don't believe you've done anything but advance an entirely unsupported hypothesis based on nothing but imaginary conjecture.

 

[Der Alte]

None of those verses "plainly" refer to angels. For "sons of God" to be "plainly" referring to angels we'd need a passage that says something like "and the angels also are the sons of God": the verses you cite can be understood as angels or men (or, a number of things). But unsupported explanations are one thing, supported explanations are entirely different. The use of "sons of God" as being men is heavily supported in scripture. The use of "sons of God" as angels is not supported at all. Not only this but you are dodging the passage in Hebrews that plainly states no angel enjoys the father-son relationship:
Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
The LXX is a translation, and there is no support for translating "sons of God" as "angels": the Hebrew for "angels" is "malakim"...

Do you have any credit hours at all in Hebrew? If not then your unsupported opinion about בני האלהים /beni helohim being translated angels, in the LXX, as they are in the following verses has virtually no weight.

LXX Job 1:6
(6) And it came to pass on a day, that behold, the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came with them.
LXX Job 2:1
(1) And it came to pass on a certain day, that the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came among them to stand before the Lord.
LXX Job 38:7
(7) When the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a loud voice.
​

 

[John Hyperspace]

Do you have any credit hours at all in Hebrew? If not then your unsupported opinion about בני האלהים /beni helohim being translated angels, in the LXX, as they are in the following verses has virtually no weight.

LXX Job 1:6
(6) And it came to pass on a day, that behold, the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came with them.
LXX Job 2:1
(1) And it came to pass on a certain day, that the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came among them to stand before the Lord.
LXX Job 38:7
(7) When the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a loud voice.
​

All of those are improper translations; beni means "sons of" and not "messengers of": citing bad translations of Hebrew doesn't change what the word "ben" means. How do you translate "Benjamin" or "Ben-Hadad" or "Benoni": "ben" means "son". There is no support of translating "ben" as "messenger": it takes only a cursory knowledge of Hebrew to know this fact.

If you wish to translate "ben" as "messenger", fine; you'd be mistranslating the word. If you wish to understand "ben" as "messenger" because someone before you mistranslated the word, also fine. But still wrong.

 

[Der Alte]

All of those are improper translations; beni means "sons of" and not "messengers of": citing bad translations of Hebrew doesn't change what the word "ben" means. How do you translate "Benjamin" or "Ben-Hadad" or "Benoni": "ben" means "son". There is no support of translating "ben" as "messenger": it takes only a cursory knowledge of Hebrew to know this fact.
If you wish to translate "ben" as "messenger", fine; you'd be mistranslating the word. If you wish to understand "ben" as "messenger" because someone before you mistranslated the word, also fine. But still wrong.

Again what are your qualifications in Hebrew? It was not me who translated beni ha-elohim in the scripture I listed, it was native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars, for the LXX 100 or more years before the Christian era and for the JPS in 1917. It does not matter how people with no qualifications in Hebrew try to explain scripture to make it support their assumptions/presuppositions. If those scholars were wrong it must be proved from competent Hebrew language sources.
I have shown from scripture that the congregation of God was the nation of Israel. There is no Biblical evidence of some divine tribunal of Elohim in heaven or on earth ruled over by God. But there are several verses which identifies Israel as the congregation of God.

Joshua 22:16​

Thus saith the whole congregation of the LORD, What trespass is this that ye have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away this day from following the LORD, in that ye have builded you an altar, that ye might rebel this day against the LORD?
1 Chronicles 28:8 Now therefore in the sight of all Israel the congregation of the LORD, and in the audience of our God, keep and seek for all the commandments of the LORD your God: that ye may possess this good land, and leave it for an inheritance for your children after you for ever.
2 Chronicles 1:3 So Solomon, and all the congregation with him, went to the high place that was at Gibeon; for there was the tabernacle of the congregation of God, which Moses the servant of the LORD had made in the wilderness.
Nehemiah 13:1 On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever;
Psalms 68:10 Thy congregation hath dwelt therein: thou, O God, hast prepared of thy goodness for the poor.
Numbers 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD
Psalms 82:1 <A Psalm of Asaph.> God standeth in the congregation of the mighty [אל/el]"; he judgeth among the gods. [אלהים/elohim]​

 

[cre8id]

None of those verses "plainly" refer to angels. For "sons of God" to be "plainly" referring to angels we'd need a passage that says something like "and the angels also are the sons of God": the verses you cite can be understood as angels or men (or, a number of things). But unsupported explanations are one thing, supported explanations are entirely different. The use of "sons of God" as being men is heavily supported in scripture. The use of "sons of God" as angels is not supported at all. Not only this but you are dodging the passage in Hebrews that plainly states no angel enjoys the father-son relationship:

Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?



The LXX is a translation, and there is no support for translating "sons of God" as "angels": the Hebrew for "angels" is "malakim"



That's speculative conjecture. Nothing in the passage linguistically links the two. The passage implies they have nothing to do with one another by stating the nephilim were in the earth "when the sons of God..." as if they were already present. Note I'm not saying thus there is factually no connection: but that "no connection" is supported, while "connected" is not.



What other people believe is of no concern to what I'm saying. I'm looking at what the scripture says.



Again, a claim is one thing, a supported claim is something entirely different. If angels took the form of men, they would have the DNA of men, and the offspring would not be unusual. If the angel cannot reproduce in his angelic nature, then there is no such a thing as "angelic DNA" with which to contaminate any offspring. The entire hypothesis is not only without support, it makes no sense.



Then you must prove angelic DNA exists, and that angels have reproductive organs designed by God for what purpose? To reproduce? God gave the angels the means to mate with women? It makes no sense.



That statement is backward. To assume that something is biologically possible for beings from an "angelic realm" is the proposition you must support, and which is the proposition making unwarranted leaps of logic and faith in spite of no support whatsoever from scripture or biology.



Again, baseless claims and hypotheses are not worth believing without supporting evidence. If there was a second influx, why is it not in scripture? It would be very important, just as important as Genesis 6. But there is no a hint of any "second influx" in scripture because there was not even likely a "first influx"



I don't believe you've done anything but advance an entirely unsupported hypothesis based on nothing but imaginary conjecture.

Well, thank you for you time and effort to put forth your response. But we both have our biases, and you plainly do not see what I plainly do see. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I will just say in closing that the pre-Christian Jews and most Christians up to the time of Augustine believed the angelic interpretation. If you wish to believe an explanation invented by Augustine, then that's your business.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I recently came across a good bit of work buy Michael Heiser, who is a pretty conservative Christian in many respects, but has some very controversial ideas to many... myself included. He is a Biblical/ancient middle East language expert and works for LOGOS on translations. He is not a 'fundi' (as I am) but, again, he is relatively conservative. Much of my conflict with him has to do with my own 'fundi' thinking (I am a young-earth creationist... he is most certainly not).

He is good at comparing the literature in the Bible with other Mid-East cultures and literature and looking at the text of the Bible and extra-Biblical works and bringing out what THEY (the ancients) actually thought and believed and not the beliefs of modern Christians filtered through many years of doctrine which may or may not be correct.

Heiser is probably most noted for his publications and videos (see YouTube) on the subject of what he calls the Divine Council and the modern misuse of the word "Elohim". Actually, I agree with with him on this issue... it answers a LOT of questions.

A little more controversial is his achedimic analysis of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 with other ancient literature... like the extra-Biblical book of Enoch. How the ancient and 1st century Jews and even early Christians viewed this subject is not taught by very many today. They believed the "watchers" of Enoch and the book of Daniel were angels who rebelled against God and actually had sexual relations with human women in order to produce an unholy abominable race overall called the nephilim. If the extra-Biblical books of Jasher and Jubilees are included, the "watchers" also polluted the genome of many animals also. The threat of completely polluting the human genome would mean that the promised "seed of a woman" (Gen. 3:15), our saviour, Jesus the Christ, could not be born a full human. Thus, if left unchecked, Satan would thwart God's plan of salvation... hence the whole reason for Noah's flood... to wipe out the nephilim and cleanse and preserve the genomes of the different "kinds" of animals. Part of these comments are my own elaboration but probably not too far off from what Heiser teaches.
Heiser is NOT a young earth creationist nor does he seem to believe in a worldwide flood... he seems to like Hugh Ross' ideas (just trying to add some perspective).

Anyways, please feel free to comment.

Basically, I think he's got some interesting angles on things pertaining to the "council of God." But, I'm more interested in the side of his arguments which refute the liberal contention that all of the "God-council talk" is more or less leftover from pagan or henotheistic notions that the Israelites supposedly had. Whether Heiser is completely right on the other side of this area of study--as it pertains to Christians attempting to understanding the Bible "correctly"--remains to be seen. But, his material is interesting, to say the least.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[John Hyperspace]

Again what are your qualifications in Hebrew? It was not me who translated beni ha-elohim in the scripture I listed, it was native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars, for the LXX 100 or more years before the Christian era and for the JPS in 1917. It does not matter how people with no qualifications in Hebrew try to explain scripture to make it support their assumptions/presuppositions. If those scholars were wrong it must be proved from competent Hebrew language sources.
I have shown from scripture that the congregation of God was the nation of Israel. There is no Biblical evidence of some divine tribunal of Elohim in heaven or on earth ruled over by God. But there are several verses which identifies Israel as the congregation of God.

Joshua 22:16
Thus saith the whole congregation of the LORD, What trespass is this that ye have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away this day from following the LORD, in that ye have builded you an altar, that ye might rebel this day against the LORD?
1 Chronicles 28:8 Now therefore in the sight of all Israel the congregation of the LORD, and in the audience of our God, keep and seek for all the commandments of the LORD your God: that ye may possess this good land, and leave it for an inheritance for your children after you for ever.
2 Chronicles 1:3 So Solomon, and all the congregation with him, went to the high place that was at Gibeon; for there was the tabernacle of the congregation of God, which Moses the servant of the LORD had made in the wilderness.
Nehemiah 13:1 On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever;
Psalms 68:10 Thy congregation hath dwelt therein: thou, O God, hast prepared of thy goodness for the poor.
Numbers 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD
Psalms 82:1 <A Psalm of Asaph.> God standeth in the congregation of the mighty [אל/el]"; he judgeth among the gods. [אלהים/elohim]​

I don't have to prove "beni" means "sons of"; it is a fact. Only someone who has no knowledge of the Hebrew language would not understand this fact. I couldn't care less if Jews of long ago improperly translated "beni" in order to push a biased understanding.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Well, thank you for you time and effort to put forth your response. But we both have our biases, and you plainly do not see what I plainly do see.

I have no bias but scripture. I don't "see what you plainly see" because not only is it not in scripture, in is the opposite of scripture which plainly states no angel enjoys the father-son relationship.

I will just say in closing that the pre-Christian Jews and most Christians up to the time of Augustine believed the angelic interpretation. If you wish to believe an explanation invented by Augustine, then that's your business.

Unlike you, I do not base my beliefs on what others believe, but by that which is evidenced and supported by scripture. I have no agenda to push.

 

[Der Alte]

I don't have to prove "beni" means "sons of"; it is a fact. Only someone who has no knowledge of the Hebrew language would not understand this fact. I couldn't care less if Jews of long ago improperly translated "beni" in order to push a biased understanding.

Yeah, that's the way to do it. The Jews were wrong about translating their own Hebrew scripture because they were "biased" but someone today who doesn't know a hithpael from a hatpin claims to have a better understanding of the Hebrew scripture. And who interprets scripture to support their assumptions/presuppositions about men being/becoming gods.
The Jewish understanding of Psalms 82:6 does not contradict all these verses where God says, "There is no other God. There was no God before me, there is no God beside me, there will be no God after me. Is there is another God? I know not any."
Deuteronomy 4:35
Deuteronomy 4:39
Isaiah 40:25
Isaiah 43:10-11
Isaiah 44:6
Isaiah 44:8
Isaiah 45:5-6
Isaiah 45:21-22
Isaiah 46:5
Isaiah 46:9
But there are those who will still say men can become gods.

 

[cre8id]

I have no bias but scripture. I don't "see what you plainly see" because not only is it not in scripture, in is the opposite of scripture which plainly states no angel enjoys the father-son relationship.



Unlike you, I do not base my beliefs on what others believe, but by that which is evidenced and supported by scripture. I have no agenda to push.

Believe it or not, we are ALL biased. I recognize mine.

 

[cre8id]

Because I am somewhere between a "conservative" Christian and a "fundamentalist", I guess one of my issues with Heiser has to do with his interpretation of Genesis to fit his "old earth" POV (which is similar to Hugh Ross' view). I am NOT trying to derail things and start an "old earth/universe" vs. "young earth" argument here (I noticed there were other forums/threads more appropriate for that), I am simply stating his position as opposed to mine (which is a "young earth/universe" position) and leave it at that. I understand his position, I was once an atheist and, when I became a new Christian, I held to a type of "theistic evolution" loose interpretation of Genesis myself with a very old earth/universe.

Heiser in his articles and videos on the net, talks about the Biblical cosmology presented in Genesis and the OT as a "myth that is true"... with a flat earth, dome, and foundation. He is constantly comparing the Biblical account to similarities in other ancient Middle Eastern cultures... which, to me (obviously I am not an achedimic as he is, merely an interested and curious layman with a more technical background in design and engineering), his comparison has its pluses and minuses. He almost seems to spout out the normal "liberal" viewpoint of the almost evolutionary development of OT scripture. Heiser then evaluates the scripture and seems to force the scripture to conform to "everyone else" rather than have scripture be unique in divine inspiration and judge the other cultures by it.

Comments?