Did All Humans Come From Adam & Eve?

[abelcainsbrother]

But why can't we just put all pre-Adamite races in a former world,then have God creating Adam and Eve about 6000 years ago,especially when you agree with me about old earth,young Adam?

We have already discussed at length the Scriptural problems with the Gap Theory, so I don't see any reason to go there again. So I'll focus on issues directly relating to the topic of this thread.

Everything I am discussing takes place after the creation of mankind in day 6. The former world asserted by the Gap Theory is a pre Genesis 1:2 world which was allegedly destroyed prior to the six creation days in Genesis 1. This means there could be no continuity or coexistence between the inhabitants of the hypothetical Gap theory former world and the current world which is a result of the Genesis 1 creation days.

So here are some practical problems for the Gap theory.
1. Mankind populated the planet, reaching the Americas by around 15,000 years ago. The Americas have been continuously populated by humanity since then. And there is no possible point in time that the pre adamic human population of the Americas could have been destroyed by a pre Genesis 1:2 deluge and then repopulated by humans after the time of Adam in 5000 to 6000 BC.
2. There is genetic continuity between the first physically modern humans and the current populations of existing humans, so physically modern humans which first appeared 150,000 to 200,000 years ago could not belong to a previous world that had been destroyed.
3. According to Heiser and Walton (and I agree with them) there are Scriptural indicators that pre-Adamic humans and humans from the lineage of Adam coexisted and interacted with each other. If pre-Adamic humans coexisted and interacted with humans from the line of Adam, then the pre-adamic humans alluded to in Scripture could not be members of a hypothetical former world that was destroyed prior to Genesis 1:2.

Well just so you know the Gap Theory allows for mankind being created in Genesis 1 and then Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 I have brought it up before on here sometime back and I tend to accept it because it does away with incest.However it still impacts this world and I'm convinced that based on our bible knowledge that a former world better explains the fossil evidence because there is nothing biblical after Adam and Eve to produce fossils,only with the Gap theory can we have fossils,as in Noah's flood whatever died would have just decayed away.It would not have produced fossils.

[Kurieuo]

Let me build upon something that Philip and K have focused on more than I have.

When I think of Genesis 1:26-27 I tend to focus on the beginning of our species (homo sapiens sapiens) and the time frame of humanity's common genetic progenitors, mitochondrial eve and Y chromosome adam.

However, there is another time frame when two other significant events took place for humanity.
Around 50,000 to 60,000 years ago, as K noted, humans started exhibiting what anthropologists call "modern human behavior".

This fish exhibits modern human behavior:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpdlQae5wP8

Yet, it's not the same. There are different levels of consciousness seen in spurts, but there is most evidently an explosion which only happens 12k years ago, possibly pushing out to around 20k.

This is also the roughly the same time frame when humans successfully crossed the red sea and migrated out of Africa into the Levant and eventually onward to populate the whole planet. One could potentially link "modern human behavior" with the "image of God" in Genesis 1:26-27 and the migration of humanity out of Africa as the beginning of humanity's journey to "fill the earth" as Philip points out in Genesis 1:28. Based on these two events, one could possibly place Genesis 1:26-28 in a time frame of around 50,000-60,000 years ago.

We might go by physiological traits of anatomically modern humans, but then I think behavioral traits is a better guide for understanding when more civilised humans like us came onto the scene. Our level of consciousness again, I see, is exhibited by the agricultural revolution amongst other things, where nature is clearly being bent (dominated) to fit our lifestyle.

[DBowling]

Yet, it's not the same. There are different levels of consciousness seen in spurts, but there is most evidently an explosion which only happens 12k years ago, possibly pushing out to around 20k.

I think the 'explosion' that you are referring to is the Neolithic Revolution which interestingly enough begins in Mesopotamia, the cradle of human civilization within a couple of thousand years of the Scriptural date for Adam and Eve. The relationship between the time and location of the Neolithic Revolution (the birth of human civilization) and the Scriptural time and location for Adam and Eve is not lost on me.
Agriculture and domestication of animals do appear to predate Adam and Eve, but the Scriptural time frame for Adam and Eve appears to correlate very closely with the first Mesopotamian cities, which provides some historical corroboration for Genesis 4:17.

[Philip]

K: We might go by physiological traits of anatomically modern humans, but then I think behavioral traits is a better guide for understanding when more civilized humans like us came onto the scene. Our level of consciousness again, I see, is exhibited by the agricultural revolution amongst other things, where nature is clearly being bent to fit our lifestyle.

I agree that traits indicative of modern humans is a better measure than mere anatomy. Scripturally speaking, we don't have any indications of ANY non-spiritual humans that weren't also made in God's image. I don't believe in evolution, so I certainly believe any potential pre-Adamic men were also made in God's image. But Christ's line would have begun with Adam.

Certainly the genealogies aren't exhaustive. But how much time could even very significant gaps add up to? As a bigger issue would appear to be, we do have evidence of modern humans well before the calculated dates of Adam, based upon a literal reading of the years given between Adam and Noah. From those, referenced are 1,665 years from the creation of Adam until Noah entered the Ark. Add a year of floating around, the flood was over by about 1,666 after Adam's birth. The question is, how much time is there between the flood ending and Jesus birth, of about 4 - 6 B.C.? Could the genealogical gaps in the genealogies be THAT huge?

[Kurieuo]

This is as you say, something we'll all have greater insight on hereafter, but it doesn't stop us trying in our ignorance to piece some sort of picture together. This is going to be like a brain dump, of where I currently stand in thought.

Re: the flood accounts, I think we should treat this separate from human (us-human) origins. Focus on piecing them together, if such is possible, separately, without imposing dates one way or the other. This isn't to ignore such do need to be reconciled, but we just have a lot of grey and even black areas in our knowledge, such that intellectual honesty demands we stop and say we do not have enough knowledge to be decided, even if this is what I see as possible.

That said, on the flood, I believe it is important to realise that we don't just have Israel's flood account, but literally 100s of flood accounts in various locations around the world. This needs explaining apart from the Bible, and simply saying every culture experiences floods just doesn't cut it for the similarities found in many. These various accounts, I attach great significance to. In fact, I would have likely written off Noah's Flood to the realm of fictional myth with theological benefit if it weren't for them.

Bruce Masse is really the expert here, so far as finding the truth in myths. He has successfully matched features in a range of myths to real historical events. It seems to be what he does. The book that changed my mind from local flood, to localised worldwide events at the same time, was after reading the book Noah's Flood: Literal or Figurative by a Ronald L Conte Jr. I don't agree with Conte's "figurativeness", but I do think Day-Age thought (which is much more extensive than simply understanding the "days" as "ages") offers up better tools for navigating Scripture than what Conte presents. In the end, I think Conte is on the right track regarding a flood catastrophe.

I really think, the difficulty we, you and DBowling and myself are experiencing, is that for a long while we grew alongside of Reasons to Believe, and eventually out of their beliefs. I don't know about you, but to first read The Genesis Question, first published in 1998, it all fit so nicely. Then books like the Fingerprint of God, seeing debates between Hugh Ross and Ken Ham. It was like the difference between "butter" and "cheese". Then they have discussions with secular scientists, and really seemed to hold their own. Yet, over much time, I felt RTB's dates and timings kept becoming muddied, and their responses weren't successfully dealing with my increasing doubts.

I remember first feeling troubled by their dates for "Peleg" and the land bridges happening around I believe it was 11K years ago. Then that got toppled, or seems to have too many inconsistencies, as mankind got pushed further back in time. Humanity then kept being pushed further and further backwards -- first it was 40-50k years ago, then 50-60k years ago, then 75k years ago maximum, and now 100-125k years ago. I mean, how on earth they stretch "genealogical gaps" so far back, I think they prefer to evade now, I don't know. It's just too much, and a 200k figure would knock it out of the park. So for me, the elastic band eventually snapped.

In a way, I resent them, for not being more intellectually honest, and just saying, look we previously postulated this, but it has failed in certain areas. I'm sure we're not the only Christians who have fallen to the wayside. I still think there is merit to much of their thinking, it isn't an all or nothing, and I do my best to now piece the puzzle together myself. Yet, RTB continue trying to hold a breaking ship together, and those who saw it break like you, DB, myself, well we were part of the collateral damage, and now left trying to really piece things together. So then, when someone like Heiser or Walton comes along, well, it's similar enough... but if there's something I've learnt, it's not to too quickly jump on anyone's bandwagon again. I have a better chance I think, of figuring out a picture myself that I can live with, than depending upon other apologetic organisations built up around one or two person's ideas who I don't know I can trust. I've been doing creation debates now for 20 years, quite strongly so, and it is really something I feel comfortable swimming in. I can keep on swimming while I try piece something together, and I think I've been doing just that the last couple of years.

So far as the flood is concerned, I took a closer look into it, and I really feel if there's to be an explanation had, that Masse is on the right track to explaining the Noah flood "myth" in context of all other world flood myths. Presenting evidence for a comet striking Earth approximately 5000 years ago with computer simulations of the destructiveness such would cause. For me right now, simply having a possible explanation is enough, until our knowledge of the world increases. I'll keep floating on such a possibility. His ideas will either fall or become more sustained as time goes on. Time will tell, or I'll die first. But, we always have the support of truly 100s of flood myths with many similar features to them, often in the geography of their land. If it wasn't for such, I think my skepticism would put the Noah flood to rest, and simply rest alone on Jesus' words there was a man called Noah and a flood came and killed people (Luke 17:27).

As for humanities' origins, there is a glaring oddity in the evolutionary accounting of human origins, given the bursts onto the scene of higher levels of consciousness. As part of the puzzle, unlike RTB, I don't believe it is true that even fish are soulless, they have some sort of intelligence, and even creativity, even if such might be more mechanically coded into their nature (like the video above illustrates). Elephants can learn to paint quite well, in large part I believe because given our higher intelligence we tap into their soul and give them more freedom. They can even play music, not well, but really do enjoy doing so once taught.

I think animals do experience a host of human (us-human) "spiritual" features, and exhibit such more or less in different areas. We seem to be able to unlock such "us-qualities" in various animals, perhaps not too much different to how our Lord God may have unlocked such in us (in singling us out for relationship). Hominids are particularly interesting, because presumably many physically like us did walk the earth. How much their soulish side was heightened, is anyone's guess. Today, physicalism likes to drain out the "soul", declare such an idea is all but dead, yet that doesn't stop in philosophy and even science "soul" becoming simply replaced with talk of higher and lesser levels of consciousness. We can talk in either way, it makes no difference to me (and as a side Thomas Nagel's Mind and Cosmos really shines light on a big gap between physical evolution and consciousness). Animals possess higher and lesser states of consciousness. Some human species, not like us, but then like us physically, were Neanderthals. Built to be more hunter-like, and no doubt had a "mind" for creating more sophisticated tools than say chimps (also this video) that were oriented towards hunting live prey. Such may have accompanied also more primitive spiritual expression, simple paintings, basic ornaments, even a primitive capacity to mourn their dead (some believe various animals today even exhibit mourning their dead) -- yet clearly they weren't masters of pottery and complex tools like we use, which didn't happen until the last 20k years or later in time.

It's not until the agricultural boom, that we really see a dramatic improvement in sophistication that a species (us-humans) really start bending the natural environment to our way of life, rather than simply living within the natural environment. I'd attribute this to our level of intelligence, and indeed where God says to have dominion over creation. We have the ability to truly rise above nature, even our natural selves, to take advantage of all God's created -- true image bearers of God in the world. Such sadly, often leads to our abusing the created order, while others wish to look after it like good caretakers.

I think here, RTB might have influenced our thinking, leading us off down a wrong pathway, to see anatomically modern humans as just "us-humans". I think BioLogos here is on better ground in noticing differences between biology and spirituality where they say:

• We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order. ....
  
  If the image of God refers to our spiritual capacities, God could still have used the natural process of evolution to create our bodies and human abilities. God could have used a miraculous process to create our spiritual capacities, or used some combination of natural processes and divine revelation to develop these capacities. Either way, God is the creator of our whole selves, including both our physical and spiritual aspects.

In a way, this doesn't differ much from what I believe. We do see what could be called "punctuated" spirituality here and there prior to 20k years ago, and then like the Cambrian explosion, this higher level of spirituality seems to burst onto the scene in full force. When it does, I think this is a good clue we're now dealing with "us-humans". And this picture better aligns with Scripture. Like I say, it's likely in the margin of error in timings. Such is the only thing that makes me uncomfortable, not having it all down-pat like the picture RTB often presented, but given how grey this whole area is, a real possibility rather than (delusional ??) certainty is one I can live with.

[abelcainsbrother]

I think it is important to notice the kinds of life that once roamed this earth and compare it to the life we have in this world. Sometimes when we discuss Pre-Adamic men-like creatures it becomes our sole focus but we should also consider the kinds of animal and plant life even that once existed on this earth.Like for instance there was a great ice age at about 13,000 to 10,000 years ago and we had a mass exctinction of Wooly Mammoths,Mastadons,giant ground sloth,wooly Rhino's,rats the size of dogs,armadillos the size of Volkswagons,and about 200 other known species.They all disappeared.The leading scientific theory was that humans hunted these animals to extinction but the scientific community is greatly divided on this issue.Some hold that it was by disease,some by their inability to adapt to a changing post-glacial climate,and some by a combination of them all.But why would'nt it wipe out the hominids that hunted them?Could a population of nomadic hunters quickly switch to an agriculturally sustained society? I mean for a time it was believed Neanderthals were related to man,which turned out to be wrong when DNA testing was done.This forced evolutionists to look back in the fossil record for a common ancestor branch from the primates. And then Cro-Magnon and it turned out modern man is not related,atleast on the female side.This shows that modern day evolutionary science still cannot provide a fully satisfactory answer to the origins of man,and it is much speculation.Evolutionary science must claim they are related to modern man,but they still speculate much.And the dirty little secret is that there are big morphological differences between modern man and primitive man,and so they just speed up evolution. I think the better answer is biblically based that modern man is a new creation.If this is the case then we have reason to believe a gap of somekind happened and I think it is the best answer eventhough scientific minded people will cringe when you bring the bible into it.So they are stuck in the evolutionary thinking mode.

[Philip]

K, RTB really resonated with a lot of Christians who realized that the earth and universe reveal many evidences that it is ancient (billions of years old), that appear contradictory to a literal reading of Scripture. But in their zeal to match evidences to Scripture, they've painted themselves into a corner, most particularly with the growing knowledge hominids, DNA, and ancient culture sites. Two big problems: Hugh is an astronomer, the other key staffers are a bio-chemist, another astronomer, a molecular biologist. But as for geology and anthropology - these are not their strong points. They do have a trained theologian, but no one who brings a scholar's insights to ancient Hebrew, not to my knowledge. They may be learning some hard lessons on trying to do too much. If they had previously enjoyed better theological and ancient Hebrew scholarship, they may not have put out positions that aren't holding up. And why do so? Is it not enough to show the massive evidence of why there HAS to be a Creator? They have done so much good with such evidences.

One thing is certain, God, at some point, clearly created creatures similar to us. But man is the ONLY one truly like us. All those millions of species - and none come close to our intelligence and abilities. I think it could be that hominids were what existed before, that are being claimed as human. Some very high functioning, certainly, but not like us.

[Kurieuo]

I can agree with some things mentioned re: RTB, but others not so much. Especially on the Hebrew side of things. I don't think the issue is with the people at all, their education, experience or knowledge. Rather, it's just the human nature, to not want to give up on their positions, especially when there's so much of your life that been vested in. And then, there'd be the fact there is so much more to RTB as an apologetics organisation than merely a dating issue... for me, it'd just be nice, or I think at least honest, if they were more open with noting regarding dates that they're "shifting the goal posts" of their "testable scientific creation model".

Re: Hebrew, they have access to great scholars. Gleason Archer was one go-to guy when alive. Ross teamed up with him several times. Archer was really a first-rate and well-respected Hebrew scholar, perhaps second to none. Here's what John Ankerberg says of him:

• Well, the fact is, is uh—for folks who don’t know Gleason Archer, Gleason Archer has taught most of your Hebrew scholars, he graduated from Harvard with his Ph.D. I think he knows like 22 different languages, he used to take notes in Hittite when he was in class. I used to quote from the lexicon and he said that’s wrong, he would correct the lexicon. I never knew anybody that corrected the dictionary, he’d write a letter and they would correct it. He got my attention, and so if he’s open to the idea, I’m open to the idea [of Day-Age], but the fact is, is regardless, let’s go on here in terms of the order. What happened on day two?

So then, I'm not sure why Hebrew would have anything to do with matters, but really, I think it comes down to human nature to be dogmatic with whatever positions they come to believe or invest themselves in.

[Philip]

I'm very familiar with Archer. Have a couple of his books - including "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties."

Here is some critiquing of Hugh Ross from Michael Heiser - an outtake from this page (http://drmsh.com/pre-scientific-worldvi ... inerrancy/)


MSH: And I'm well familiar with Hugh Ross. He's a brilliant scientist, but he's like the rest of them: he will bend the text to his will when he needs to (and I say that not judging his integrity). He's being consistent with his approach. He just isn't informed as to a lot of the detail of the text since that isn't his focus. You have to realize that scholars of necessity can't be masters of every domain (one is tough enough). People (like me) who deal with the minutiae of the text have both an advantage and an added burden. Since my focus starts at the ground level in the text in the original languages, I'm just more aware of its warts, along with the panoply of methodological issues that relate to the examination of the text. Ross isn't, really at all. What he does is entirely based on the English Bible. He only appeals to Greek and Hebrew when he needs to in order to keep his approach afloat and give it coherence in his mind. That he does that does NOT invalidate all (or even most) of what he does. He has done the church a great service in my view. He's far from being an exegete, though. Same with Geisler, actually. He is little Greek and Hebrew training, and what he had he has long forgotten, since his focus (thankfully for the church) shifted to philosophical theology and apologetics. His task is systematizing and going beyond the text when philosophical argument is needed. He has little appreciation of knowledge of the kind of thing OT grunts deal with in the text, especially the comparative ANE (Ancient Near East) material. What OUGHT to happen within the church and its scholars is that text-people (like me) should be doing their work with the goal of articulating a text-based biblical theology, and then handing the results over to people like Geisler and Ross for systematizing and apologetics. Sadly, text-based scholars rarely care about theology (even evangelical ones). They love the nuts and bolts. They're like moles, and would spend their entire careers digging through the text just for the love of it. The result is that my category of scholarship has let the theologians down, and left them to do their work with superficial understanding of the text (English / translation based). They are left to think about the big picture, and only drill down into the the text when they need a band aid for the pretty theological picture they are creating - and that can lead to theological formulations that just don't reflect the textual reality (hence this discussion about inerrancy). It's a situation I often lament on my own, since I'm one who sees text work as being FOR biblical theology. I'm a dinosaur in that regard, sad to say. It just is what it is.

[Kurieuo]

I disagree with Heiser. Seems like he is creating hearsay to muddy RTB. And, he's ignoring the broad shoulders they do actually stand upon, who have an adept understanding of Hebrew and the like much better than he himself would. I mean we're talking Gleason Archer! You'd know his credentials. It also sounds a little pompous if you don't mind me saying -- like what often happens to "educated" folk who often start thinking themselves superior in knowledge. I'm sure you're very aware as a previous RTB follower, Ross and Archer participated in The Genesis Debate book together. RTB have had contact also with Geisler and likely helped influence him in his views of allowable creation positions (to the discontent of YEC organisations like AiG).

With interpretation, I wouldn't say they twist interpreting the text. Rather, RTB are overenthusiastic, and overstate, and overplay on interpretations. For example, their article, Big Bang - The Bible Taught It First!. Their raw interpretation can be taken as valid regarding God stretching. Yet, then, to make such a scientific statement like the Bible is teaching Big Bang cosmology.... err, yes, perhaps the concept can be found within when understood as merely a stretching, but would the authors have originally been teaching "Big Bang" cosmology? I don't think so. The Bible isn't really teaching such, but where the "stretching of the heavens" verses they use exist, the author has some other goal in mind. This is where interpretation (valid) becomes scientific interpolation in their excitement (often invalid).

In a way, it's kind of like how different cultures mould Jesus, Christianity, the Catholic faith even to their own audience. RTB delves into science, and so is reinterpreting Scripture in new light, to give a different perspective. In doing so, they often interpolate. This doesn't mean their interpretation is invalid, but rather the interpolations they make based upon such I see as overreaching. Whether these insights are valid or not, such is up for discussion, and discussion is something I've always seem them (Ross, Fuz) happy to enter into, in their enthusiasm for their views.

Re: Heiser, I must say I'm not quite as impressed with his views. I have analysed his page on Gen 1-3, and as an unintended consequence had several pages worth of my own comments on it (which I'll first structure and go over further before posting here).... really, it left me thinking him passionate, but rather less than honest and misleading. Re: Genesis 1-3, I'd expect someone like him, pushing the boundaries of interpretation to pre-Adamic human races, to also deal with JEDP. I dare say most of these scholars would laugh off his interpretation. In such, as I understand, Genesis 2:4-3:3 is said to have come from the north in Israel, and Genesis 1:1-2:3 the south. Some even posit that 2:4 actually belongs at the beginning of the Genesis 1 creation, as a prescription to it. Yet, when Genesis 1-3 was composed, the stories were recompiled and essentially placed back-to-back. So there you have your differences. One account describes God is very almighty, powerful and impersonal yet poetic terms (Gen 1:1-Gen 2:3), such that God merely has to speak and it is done. The other account describes God in a very personal way, such that He has to form man from the ground, mould him, and breath life.

So then, Heiser's view on 2:4 is very much old-school traditional as I see, and even a common view. Yet, he makes it out to be something new. In doing so, he ignores much of JEDP scholarship, of which I entertain little and discourage in my own thinking, but nonetheless should be given treatment. Heiser mentions it nowhere, because he's trying to maintain that his translation is a new look, contemporary, new, fresh, "naked", and the like over and against some ambiguous more conservative "traditional" view never referenced which prevents further investigation by the reader into such. JEDP scholarship would just rain in on his parade, with the contemporary gloss he's trying to paint his view with. I'm often left puzzled even as to what he considers "traditional", it seems to be a label he attaches to whatever view he sets up in opposition to challenge and knock down. There's a term for that in philosophy, it's called strawman. Heiser just does it a whole lot more convincing-like, but it doesn't go by me unnoticed.

[DBowling]

I'm often left puzzled even as to what he considers "traditional", it seems to be a label he attaches to whatever view he sets up in opposition to challenge and knock down. There's a term for that in philosophy, it's called strawman. Heiser just does it a whole lot more convincing-like, but it doesn't go by me unnoticed.

I think Heiser's definition of "traditional' is pretty straightforward.
There are positions held by Christians and Christianity that proceed directly from the Scriptural text.

Then there are positions held by Christians and Christianity that do not proceed directly from the Scriptural text, rather they depend upon extrascriptural presuppositions being imposed on the text.
Those extrascriptural presuppositions may be right, they may be wrong, but if a position is not supported directly by the Scriptural text then that position falls under the category of "tradition".

I disagree that his approach to "tradition" is a strawman. I may or may not agree with his categorization of a certain position as "tradition", but that doesn't mean that he is arguing against a strawman. It means I need to go back to the position in question and check the Scriptural text to see if it really does proceed from Scripture text, or if it proceeds from extrascriptural presuppositions that are imposed upon the text... ie "tradition".

I do think Heiser does a good job of pointing out areas where positions that we thought proceeded from Scripture could possibly be functions of "tradition" instead.

And then if another Hebrew scholar (say Walton for example) independently comes to a similar conclusion as Heiser, then I have a valid reason to reevaluate my own position to see if it is based on the Scriptural text or "tradition".

In Christ

[Kurieuo]

@Phil, I am quite surprised Heiser goes after Norman Geisler. You couldn't have someone, more experienced with a plethora of interpretations and positions, who is really one of the best evangelical Christians who has done much to defend the faith and Scripture. On such shoulders, many Christans today owe a lot to.

He's rubbed shoulders more with all sides of Evangelical scholarship, liberal scholarship and what-not. I don't think he can seriously be challenged, especially not with a hand-waving away without any real justification. Geisler has helped lay very strong foundations for correct doctrinal boundaries re: Scripture. One just needs to look over the books he has authored and co-authored to date.

If you can't tell, I have the utmost respect for Geisler, and if he says something, you know you can at least trust the guy with his knowledge and way he conducts himself in life, to at least take seriously what he says as a Christian. So Heiser has some gall there, and his self-importance seems apparent to me. It seems Heiser thinks there's some magic pixie dust so far as interpreting Scripture is concerned, and only he has 10/10 vision which others who disagree with his "direct reading" lack.

Perhaps Heiser might be raw, that his position would be flatly rejected by those apart of the ICBI, which had many respectable Hebraic scholars? I'm sorry, but Heiser can't argue from a position of authority here. No matter his credentials, there are those no doubt greater than him who would disagree with his views.

[Kurieuo]

@DB, Scripture itself forms "tradition". You just cannot separate Scripture from Christian tradition, or vice-versa.

Constructing an opposing position and labeling it a "traditional" view in contradistinction from one's own views, it is really a red herring (something intended to mislead or distract). For Heiser himself cannot escape tradition, but is just as much a part of it also. Any position taken today, has tradition attached to it in some form. Such possibly shows the lack of attention he pays to his own sources which shaped his thinking, the lens that he now carries when performing his work, which actually isn't free from tradition (and can be seen even in his own interpretations here and there).

To really understand what I am saying here, it is important to understand different theological sources, particularly in this situation the relationship of "tradition" and "Scripture". Please read my old paper on sources of theology to understand more deeply I'm getting at, reading through to my concluding statements.

[Philip]

Geisler is one of my favorite theologians. I can tell you Mike Heiser thinks highly of him. He was once a student of Geisler.

[Kurieuo]

Geisler is one of my favorite theologians. I can tell you Mike Heiser thinks highly of him. He was once a student of Geisler.

My words were just based off your quote of Heiser. I'm puzzled by some things said then, but I'm sure he's had his disagreements. It'd be interesting to hear a discussion between Heiser and Geisler (lol, just realised their names are very similar).