Dr. Michael Heiser

[PaulSacramento]

I never said he makes things up. I said he doesn't get his angels/human hybrid beliefs from consistent exegesis of scripture. If you look at the first link Philip posted, you'll see from where Mr. Heiser gets his beliefs. Legends and extra biblical writings, mixed with eisegesis of scripture

.

So did Paul and Jude and Peter.

[RickD]

I never said he makes things up. I said he doesn't get his angels/human hybrid beliefs from consistent exegesis of scripture. If you look at the first link Philip posted, you'll see from where Mr. Heiser gets his beliefs. Legends and extra biblical writings, mixed with eisegesis of scripture

.

So did Paul and Jude and Peter.

Huh?

[thatkidakayoungguy]

I never said he makes things up. I said he doesn't get his angels/human hybrid beliefs from consistent exegesis of scripture. If you look at the first link Philip posted, you'll see from where Mr. Heiser gets his beliefs. Legends and extra biblical writings, mixed with eisegesis of scripture

.

So did Paul and Jude and Peter.

Huh?

Book of Enoch ring a bell?

[Philip]

Just because Enoch is not canonical, does not mean that it doesn't contain important elements of truth or that some of the Bible writers didn't quote or refer to it. And this doesn't mean that the takeaway is that ALL of the Book of Enoch is validated as historical truth - even if large portions of it might be historical - but ONLY portions used or referred to by the Bible writers to make a point of truth should be so considered. And the context within the BOE and how it is being used by the New Testament writers has important things to reveal.

2 Peter references to Enoch: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_peter/2-4.htm

Jude BOE References: http://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-sol ... ude_14.php

Influences and references of and to the Book of Enoch in the New Testament: https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/ ... -and-jude/

The fact is that the New Testament writers use these BOE references ONLY to appeal to some specific truth in the passage referred to, and per the point being made by the reference. The NT writers were clearly very familiar with the BOE.

Other instances of NT writers and Jesus quoting or paraphrasing extra-Biblical sources to make truthful points:
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ ... al-writers

The obvious caution should be, that just because Biblical writers quote a some non-Biblical source and consider the statement or passage quoted, it would be a great mistake to assume that the NT writer is giving an endorsement to EVERYTHING the extra-Biblical source they quote is likewise, true. We have to remember, when these writers were making such quotes and endorsing the truth of them, they were under the influence of the Holy Spirit in writing them.

[PaulSacramento]

I never said he makes things up. I said he doesn't get his angels/human hybrid beliefs from consistent exegesis of scripture. If you look at the first link Philip posted, you'll see from where Mr. Heiser gets his beliefs. Legends and extra biblical writings, mixed with eisegesis of scripture

.

So did Paul and Jude and Peter.

Huh?

Book of Enoch ring a bell?

And others.

[PaulSacramento]

Just because Enoch is not canonical, does not mean that it doesn't contain important elements of truth or that some of the Bible writers didn't quote or refer to it. And this doesn't mean that the takeaway is that ALL of the Book of Enoch is validated as historical truth - even if large portions of it might be historical - but ONLY portions used or referred to by the Bible writers to make a point of truth should be so considered. And the context within the BOE and how it is being used by the New Testament writers has important things to reveal.

2 Peter references to Enoch: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_peter/2-4.htm

Jude BOE References: http://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-sol ... ude_14.php

Influences and references of and to the Book of Enoch in the New Testament: https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/ ... -and-jude/

The fact is that the New Testament writers use these BOE references ONLY to appeal to some specific truth in the passage referred to, and per the point being made by the reference. The NT writers were clearly very familiar with the BOE.

Other instances of NT writers and Jesus quoting or paraphrasing extra-Biblical sources to make truthful points:
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ ... al-writers

The obvious caution should be, that just because Biblical writers quote a some non-Biblical source and consider the statement or passage quoted, it would be a great mistake to assume that the NT writer is giving an endorsement to EVERYTHING the extra-Biblical source they quote is likewise, true. We have to remember, when these writers were making such quotes and endorsing the truth of them, they were under the influence of the Holy Spirit in writing them.

NT writers quoted the writings that their audience was familiar ( we always have to take the audience into account).
One of the reasons that audience of the NT writers didn't have issues with some of the things we don in the OT is because they understood the CONTEXT on them because of extra writings and such available to them at the time.

It is a mistake to NOT look at the writings of Jude, for example, without the benefit if understanding WHO he was writing to and how THEY would of understood him.

[Kurieuo]

Actually, Rick, I do think Heiser makes things up, but then he serious believes the things he makes up so I wouldn't necessarily classify that as dishonest.

[Philip]

Most theologians have assertions I question, per what they think the text means. First thing I want to know, do they believe the text is inspired to have been written down as it is.

K: Actually, Rick, I do think Heiser makes things up, but then he serious believes the things he makes up so I wouldn't necessarily classify that as dishonest.

Please provide some examples.

[DBowling]

I never said he makes things up. I said he doesn't get his angels/human hybrid beliefs from consistent exegesis of scripture. If you look at the first link Philip posted, you'll see from where Mr. Heiser gets his beliefs. Legends and extra biblical writings, mixed with eisegesis of scripture

.

So did Paul and Jude and Peter.

Just to clarify... Paul, Jude, and Peter say absolutely nothing about angel/human hybrids.

For me, the two fatal flaws in the angel/human hybrid theory are:
1. As Rick points out, the angel/hybrid theory is not based on Scripture. It is based on extrascriptural traditions that came into being during the intertestamental period which is thousands of years after the time of Enoch or Noah. So these traditions are not even close to contemporary with the historical events of Genesis 6. And as I have pointed out elsewhere, there are portions of these extrascriptural books (like Enoch) that directly contradict Scripture.
2. The angel/human hybrid theory is based on the presumption that the phrase "sons of God" in Scripture refers to fallen angels or even Satan himself. Again, we've beat this dead horse with a stick, but there is not a single place in Scripture that refers to fallen angels or Satan as "sons of God". And this premise flies in the face of what Jesus says about being a child of God in John 8.

That said, I have a lot of respect for Michael Heiser, and my disagreement with him on the angel/hybrid theory does not mean that I do not appreciate his knowledge and scholarship. Which is why I actively search out Heiser's views on a number of topics.

And even where I disagree with Heiser, I do not think he "makes things up".

[Kurieuo]

Most theologians have assertions I question, per what they think the text means. First thing I want to know, do they believe the text is inspired to have been written down as it is.

K: Actually, Rick, I do think Heiser makes things up, but then he serious believes the things he makes up so I wouldn't necessarily classify that as dishonest.

Please provide some examples.

When I read Heiser, he mixes lot of rhetoric I find in with content here and there. He focuses more on the wrongness of others view, rather than necessarily building up a list of positive points for his own presented interpretations.

I had put together a detailed review of his posts on Genesis that you or DB previously referred people to. When I carefully read over him, I found a whole lot of irrelevancy fallacies throughout. A lot of time is spent disparaging others or their views, before then neatly sliding his own ideas. Why I suppose we ought to trust them because they are closer to how ANE people would have understood the words, and not a traditional view, or not reading science into the text, or something such.

I held off on posting my fuller response (and after taking a quick look around, I'm not sure I still have it) as you referred me to a book by John Miller. A book I purchased and read a fair way through, but found myself disagreeing with much also for similar reasons, which I recall marking in Kindle notes while reading. Rhetoric isn't necessarily bad, but I found when you scrape it away, there was often few positive points in favour of the ideas presented. And often the position being attacked before presenting their own, is presented in a very weak manner. That is my personal opinion.

If you want specifics, then you can get a gist of some of what I found offputting in Heiser by re-visting our exchanges starting with mine here.

[PaulSacramento]

I never said he makes things up. I said he doesn't get his angels/human hybrid beliefs from consistent exegesis of scripture. If you look at the first link Philip posted, you'll see from where Mr. Heiser gets his beliefs. Legends and extra biblical writings, mixed with eisegesis of scripture

.

So did Paul and Jude and Peter.

Just to clarify... Paul, Jude, and Peter say absolutely nothing about angel/human hybrids.

For me, the two fatal flaws in the angel/human hybrid theory are:
1. As Rick points out, the angel/hybrid theory is not based on Scripture. It is based on extrascriptural traditions that came into being during the intertestamental period which is thousands of years after the time of Enoch or Noah. So these traditions are not even close to contemporary with the historical events of Genesis 6. And as I have pointed out elsewhere, there are portions of these extrascriptural books (like Enoch) that directly contradict Scripture.
2. The angel/human hybrid theory is based on the presumption that the phrase "sons of God" in Scripture refers to fallen angels or even Satan himself. Again, we've beat this dead horse with a stick, but there is not a single place in Scripture that refers to fallen angels or Satan as "sons of God". And this premise flies in the face of what Jesus says about being a child of God in John 8.

That said, I have a lot of respect for Michael Heiser, and my disagreement with him on the angel/hybrid theory does not mean that I do not appreciate his knowledge and scholarship. Which is why I actively search out Heiser's views on a number of topics.

And even where I disagree with Heiser, I do not think he "makes things up".

My point was not that Jude or Paul or Peter believed in any type of angel/human hybrid ( we don't know either way), it was that they used extra-biblical writings in their writings to get their points across so, to them as example, those writings had great value.

[JButler]

Close to a year ago after the BSF study classes were done for the summer, I felt lost on what to study and where to go. So I prayed about it, asking for guidance. The answer came swiftly, first Dr. Hugh Ross and a couple weeks later, Dr Michael Heiser. I have been busy since then. Before I used to say the Bible was opening up, revealing itself, like a beautiful flower. But this was more like a field of flowers exploding into bloom. Actually I was overwhelmed for some time.

But as I studied, read, thought, meditated, read more, read repeatedly it began to come together. The Bible is so deep and wide its hard to comprehend. There is so much backstory that is not evident by just reading words its truly like an iceberg. Obscure passages, "meaningless" details, weird stuff, passages repeating a few lines down, and lots of misc., suddenly start to not only make sense but start coming together in context. Then the "Ah ha" moments increase in frequency.

One observation that was driven home to me is, never ever ever base your theology, belief system or even a single point based only on an English translation of any kind. Not unless you've done a bunch of study in the original sources. A good example is Psalm 82, the ESV is the only one I know of that translates it correctly. And that is a big deal because Psalm 82 has incredible insights into God and His work/organization. It also connects directly to why humans became so corrupt so quickly.

Why did Jesus take the disciples on a 25+ mile walk to Caesarea Philippi? Just to ask Peter a question? Hardly, there is a huge backstory behind this. The Bible does not tell you why because it was not written to you, it was written to those who knew what Caesarea Philippi was all about, so no need to explain it. The same applies to quotes from the Book of Enoch or passages with Enochian inspiration.

So many people fall into the trap of thinking they know what the Bible says, but unless they have the knowledge of a first century Jew they're missing huge blocks of revelation. Its that plain and simple. If you deliberately avoid learning by hiding behind "Well, its not in the Bible so its not true", it is your loss. Don't be like the Sanhedrin in Acts 7.

[Philip]

I started to re-read some of K's link - really long posts, so I'll have to get to it later. But one thing that strikes me constantly is when people are hyper-focused on, "What did it mean to the original audience?" Now, obviously the text must in some way make sense to them. But Scripture wasn't written ONLY to the original audience. God always knew of every eye and ear that would eventually absorb those ancient texts. It is my belief that it's not an "either / or" situation. I believe those Creation texts can be accurate and true while explaining things that have meanings understood by both - and those meanings, especially for the modern audience, looking back with scholarship AND with scientific understandings, can work accurately on two levels. The Johnny Miller beliefs about God (through Moses) using the sequencing and references to pagan theological teachings, to teach early Israel accurate, Yahweh-focused creation stories can work truthfully on that level for the early audience, and yet ALSO so that the sequencing and wordings are accurate for modern, Day/Age scientific understandings. Scripture has a richness and depth that we sometimes can oversimplify.

[abelcainsbrother]

I believe there is much more bias today than back in 1611 when the KJV bible was translated into english.I think since about the 1970's when young earth creation ministries rose up that bible scholorship has been totally changed to reflect a young earth view. I say this because the KJV bible is an old earth translation yet all new translations that I've read are young earth translations where they have removed phrases that reveal an old earth,changed the meaning of hebrew words and even english words in order to give a young earth bible translation.Christians complain about Jehovah Witnesses re-translating the bible to say what they want it to say and I think young earthers have done it too.Revelation 22:18-19.So I have problems trusting anybody who relies on modern biblical scholorship for truth. I also think that when it comes to the OT the Christian church has allowed itself to be influenced by religious jews who reject Jesus as their Messiah.

[JButler]

One observation that was driven home to me is, never ever ever base your theology, belief system or even a single point based only on an English translation of any kind. Not unless you've done a bunch of study in the original sources. A good example is Psalm 82, the ESV is the only one I know of that translates it correctly. And that is a big deal because Psalm 82 has incredible insights into God and His work/organization. It also connects directly to why humans became so corrupt so quickly.

I quoted the wrong passage for the text. It is Deuteronomy 32:8 not Psalms 82. I couldn't see how to edit the post. ??