Question about Michael Heiser

[Dennis1209]

3 hours ago, Bawb said:

Just an excerpt from this website:

https://truthwatchers.com/michael-heisers-gnostic-heresy-of-a-divine-counsel-in-psalm-82-part-1/

Heiser’s Hermeneutic

The root cause of the issue with Heiser’s theology is his interpretation method, which errs on multiple levels. First, he interprets Scripture in light of pagan literature to interject polytheism into the Bible. As Peter Jones suggested of Gnosticism, “Whenever ‘Christian’ theology looks to pagan polytheism for inspiration—as it is doing now and as it did then—it discovers a titillating variety of reading techniques, without which the Scriptures of the one, true God would be strictly unusable.”²⁾ Indeed, this hermeneutic method reigns supreme in Heiser’s writings. One critic of Heiser has similarly commented, “Heiser has a bad hermeneutical methodology because he has a bad hermeneutic philosophy. This bad philosophy has led him to bad conclusions. There have always been Christians who have tried to come up with some unique and revolutionary interpretations. Heiser is not the first to come up with this notion of a council of gods. You can see this in Gnosticism, and Marcionism, and in other adaptations of basic Christian doctrines. I’m sure he won’t be the last.”³⁾ Heiser responded to Howe’s criticism, stating, “I assume that the Scripture writers were communicating to people intentionally – people that lived in their day and who shared their same worldview. This assumption is in place because I’m sensitive to imposing a foreign worldview on the writers.”⁴⁾  In other words, he admits his hermeneutics is focused on imposing the pagan worldview on the Biblical authors, even though the Bible itself commanded the Israelites to not enquire into the theology of their pagan neighbors (Deuteronomy 12:29-32), and to destroy any Israelite guilty of doing so (Deuteronomy 13:6-18). One simple example of this is Heiser’s discussion of pagan deities were known to inhabit gardens and mountains which he formulates an entire theology revolving around this concept imported on the Bible.⁵⁾ However, the Bible condemns this pagan practice as idolatry on “high places” (Leviticus 26:30; Numbers 22:41; 33:52; Deuteronomy 12:2; 33:29; 1 Kings 3:2; 12:31-32; 13:32-33; 15:14; 22:43; 2 Kings 12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 33; 16:4; 17:11, 32; 21:3; 23:5; Psalm 78:58; Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 32:25; 48:35) and “groves” (Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5; 12:3; Judges 3:7; 1 Kings 14:15; 18:19; 2 Kings 18:4; 23:14; Isaiah 17:8; 27:9) with idols under “every green tree” (Deuteronomy 12:2; 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 16:4; 17:10; Isaiah 57:5; Jeremiah 2:20; 3:6, 13: Ezekiel 6:13). God rebukes this idolatry that Heiser thinks is valid biblical theology, “your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the Lord, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills” (Isaiah 65:7). Where is the logic of building a “biblical theology” by imposing pagan practices which are specifically condemned in the Bible? One of his foolish arguments for allegorizing his mountain opinion is presented in his citing of Psalm 48:1-2, stating, “As anyone who has been to Jerusalem knows, Mount Zion isn’t much of a mountain. It certainly isn’t located in the geographical north—its actually in the southern part of the country.”⁶⁾ Mount Zion is on the north of the city Zion, also called Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 5:2; Psalm 135:21; 147:12; Isaiah 10:32; 30:19). He contends, “This description would be a familiar one to Israel’s pagan neighbors, particularly at Ugarit. Its actually out of their literature.”⁷⁾

Another problem with Heiser’s hermeneutic is he focuses on ambiguous text, plays fast and loose with the Hebrew language whenever he can, and when he cannot twist an interpretation of the existing grammar to fit his presupposition, he becomes the textual critic and changes the text itself or uses a different text to justify his position. Other Christian apologists have complained about Heiser’s handling of the text. “Much of Dr. Heiser’s argument with respect to the text relies on a higher critical framework that is repulsive to the traditional evangelical scholar. This makes interacting with Dr. Heiser difficult from the standpoint of finding any common ground upon which to premise discussions.”⁸⁾ Giovanni Filmoramo, a Italian Gnostic scholar indicated the same issue with ancient Gnostics. “Gnostic editors manipulate the sacred text in order to make it suit their purpose… by retouching, adding a phrase or choosing a different translation.”⁹⁾ In all this we find that Heiser’s theology does not come from the Biblical text itself, but is read into it from foreign pagan literature and when it does not fit the grammar, he shifts the Biblical text to allow the pagan worldview into the sacred scripture.

One of the major rules of Biblical hermeneutics is to interpret the Bible from passages that are clear and easy to understand, and do not emphasize difficult passages; and definitely do not produce an entire theological system based on a difficult passage. Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe have written in their book When Critics Ask, concerning these rules basic hermeneutic principles, errors are made when “Neglecting to Interpret Difficult Passages in the Light of Clear Ones.”¹⁰⁾ They also reference the mistake of “Basing a Teaching on an Obscure Passage.”¹¹⁾ Elaborating on this rule, they write,

First, we should not build a doctrine on an obscure passage. The rule of thumb in Bible interpretation is “the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things.” This is called the perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture. If something is important, it will be clearly taught in Scripture and probably in more than one place. Second, when a given passage is not clear, we should never conclude that it means something that is opposed to another plain teaching of Scripture.¹²⁾

Heiser’s theology is a perfect example of what happens when this fundamental rule is ignored. He attempts to persuade his readers that “we have layers of tradition that filter the Bible in our thinking.”¹³⁾ But he filters the Bible and his theology through ancient pagan Ugaritic theology, not the Israelite religion as we all read in the Bible. He is dependent on circular reasoning to find any nuance to confirm his presupposition of this divine council. He states, “As with everything else in biblical theology, what happens in the unseen world frames the discussion [of eschatology].”¹⁴⁾ So what frames everything in his theology is what he calls “the Deuteronomy 32 worldview”  which is his filter to read the Bible through.

He frequently uses allegorical interpretations when the text cannot be interpreted toward his view. Heiser repeatedly uses the terms “symbolic interpretation” or “supernatural interpretation” to express his allegorical hermeneutics, similar to how Origen distinguished between the physical/literal versus the spiritual/allegorical methods. He states, “Literal readings are inadequate to convey the full theological message and the entirety of the worldview context.”¹⁵⁾ Wrong! The literal interpretation is perfectly adequate unless you are attempting to force a foreign worldview into the text like Heiser is doing. He states, “Biblical writers regularly employ conceptual metaphors in their writings and thinking. Conceptual metaphor refers to the way we use a concrete term or idea to communicate abstract ideas. If we marry ourselves to the concrete (“literal”) meaning of words, we’re going to miss the point the writer was angling for in may cases.”¹⁶⁾ There is a validity to this point, such as Christ calling Himself the “door” (John 10:7, 9); but this does not justify the extremes of Dr. Heiser.

Heiser writes, “My task in this chapter and the next is to help you think beyond the literalness of the serpent language. If it’s true that the enemy in the garden was a supernatural being, then he wasn’t a snake.”¹⁷⁾ He then spends two chapter to explain why he needs to allegorize away the literal interpretation. But why could it not be both, a supernatural being possessing a snake. What could Genesis 3:14 possibly mean if not taken literally? Why did all the New Testament authors express it in literal terms (2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:5; Revelation 12:9)? Why did all the early translations such as the Septuagint¹⁸⁾ and the Peshita¹⁹⁾ translate the word literally as “serpent?” If allegorical interpretations are not enough Heiser will revert to monkeying with the grammar. “But n–ch–sh are also the consonants of a verb. If we changed the vowel to a verbal form (recall that Hebrew originally had no vowels), we would have nochesh, which means ‘the diviner.’”²⁰⁾ He also suggests nachash “copper, bronze (by implication, shiney)”²¹⁾ but says in a footnote, “I am not arguing that nachash should not be translated ‘serpent.’”²²⁾ But that is exactly what he is suggesting throughout the whole discussion, that the word should not be understood as a literal serpent.

The common claim of scholars that the Hebrew vowels did not exist in the original is not established as fact, and history is strongly against the slim evidence presented for such claims.²³⁾ The mere similarity of consonants in the Hebrew language is no reason to suggest various interpretations that would contradict the context of Genesis 3. “First, the word nāhāsh is almost identical to the word for ‘bronze’ of ‘copper,’ Hebrew n^ehōshet (q.v.). Some scholars think the words are related because of a common color of snakes (cf. our ‘copperheads’), but others think that they are only coincidentally similar.”²⁴⁾ Concerning the similarity of “serpent” and “divination,” Robert Alden states, “some make a connection to snakecharming. More contend that there is a similarity of hissing sounds between enchanters and serpents and hence the similarity of words.”²⁵⁾ Of course, this similarity could be just as coincidental, but there are word-plays on similar words in Scriptures (Ecclesiastes 10:11; Jeremiah 8:17).

Heiser does not limit his textual criticism to ignoring vowel points, but he goes as far as altering consonants to completely change words in conjunction with his “symbolic” interpretation to fit his agenda. Speaking of Armageddon, he changes M-G-D to M-‘-D making it refer to the “mountain of assembly” [har mo’ed] (Isa 14:13) and explains away the final nun of the spelling in Zech 12:11.²⁶⁾ This is all based on his idea that the battle takes place at Jerusalem not Megiddo, but the text only says the armies are gathered to Megiddo (Rev 16:16) with no mention of a battle waged in the area. Heiser alters the text which reads מְגִדּוֹן and Ἁρμαγεδδών to read הַר-מוֹעֵד. He claims the Hebrew consonant ayin (ע) make the sound of the letter g, but ayin is a silent consonant. He is well aware of the fact that ayin and gimel are significantly different and the use of these different Hebrew letters reflect a humongous distinction. It would seem he is depending on his readers to be ignorant of Hebrew.

This sets himself as the authority for interpretation, making anyone not him unable to understand and thus be dependent on his teachings. “The Hebrew Bible has many examples, but they are obvious only to a readers of Hebrew who is informed by the ancient worldview of the biblical writers.”²⁷⁾ Apparently that means these “many examples” are only obvious to him since no one other than himself is offering his bazar interpretations. I can read Hebrew and am well acquainted with the ancient worldview of the surrounding pagan nations of Israel, but nothing in Heiser’s theology is apparent to me. To remark on his self-boasting, after reading over 1,000 pages of his material, I have not seen him once referenced the most basic scholarly text to be informed by the ancient world view popularly referred to as ANET (Ancient Near Eastern Text Relating to the Old Testament).²⁸⁾

He is also very selective in what he is willing to recognize and completely ignores the context that refute his presupposed theological view. He admits he uses “a few selective points of connection and issues relevant to those connection.”²⁹⁾ By ignoring the full counsel of God’s word in order to select only what fits his presupposed pagan worldview that he wants to force into the Scriptures, he has produced a hybrid religious opinion just as the ancient Gnostic heretics. We will assess particular points of where his major errors are in future articles. To say the very least, Dr. Michael S. Heiser falls into the category of what the apostle Paul meant when he wrote, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” (Romans 16:17)

Follow the entire series of assessing Hieser’s theology.

Michael Heiser’s Gnostic Heresy (Part 1) is focused on Heiser’s hermeneutic method as the root of his errors but is not very expressive of his theology.

Michael Heiser’s Gnostic Heresy: Polytheism (Part 2) is dealing with why he should be considered a polytheist even if he denies the accusation. Simply put, his term “divine plurality” is what he uses as a synonym to refer to his belief in many gods.

Michael Heiser’s Gnostic Heresy: Redefining אלהים (Part 3) further elaborates his polytheistic views and refutes his arguments against being labeled a polytheist.

Michael Heiser’s Gnostic Heresy: gods or Angels (Part 4) discusses how other Bible scholars that have similar research in Second Temple Jewish literature understand this language to refer to angels, not gods.

Michael Heiser’s Gnostic Heresy: Deification (Part 5) may be the most significant assessment of Heiser’s theology and draws on the many parallels of his theological views and Gnosticism and exposes his heretical doctrine that men become gods.

Michael Heiser’s Gnostic Heresy: Paradigm passages (Part 6) will discuss Heiser’s paradigmatic passages to explain his errors and provide an accurate exegesis of Psalm 82; Deuteronomy 4:19-20; 32:8-9; and John 10:34.

I've read this criticism article before and am aware of it. In the world of biblical scholarship, there's always higher criticism. It's been going on well before Augustine. 

Heiser's work is peer reviewed and accepted, he is not out of the mainstream. 

Acts 17:11 (KJV) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

I try to be a Berean; I check and verify what someone is teaching to see if it is so. I agree with 95% of his books and podcasts. 

I will not rant on about his critics, I have critics on here myself. I find Michael S. Heiser's theology, hermeneutics, and exegesis; exceptional, well researched and sound.

To better understand the Bible, the people, the story, and the remedy; the Western mind has to think like the people of that time period and culture. What they read, oral tradition, thought and believed. Hence, the reason for Mesopotamian, Greek, and other historical literature. Greek mythology is not all myth, as with the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Titians, etc. 

Having 2 scholars with 180 degree opposing views, they both cannot be right. Where do we go to discern who has the correct view? We keep Acts 17:11 in mind, and dig into the Word and see for ourselves. 

[teddyv]

4 hours ago, Bawb said:

In other words, he admits his hermeneutics is focused on imposing the pagan worldview on the Biblical authors, even though the Bible itself commanded the Israelites to not enquire into the theology of their pagan neighbors

I don't see Heiser doing what the writer there interpreted him as saying. Heiser is viewing Israel's culture and worldview within the contemporary/parallel pagan cultures and worldviews. The Israelites did not exist in some cultural vacuum.

[MrBear]

7 hours ago, angels4u said:

Our daughter is planning to buy the book,that's what I asked if anybody knows him

It’s a good read 

my bathroom reading material, brings a new perspective on the Old Testament 

he has a YouTube channel as well he just posted a lecture last night, it’s worth checking out

SHALOM❤️

[GandalfTheWise]

4 hours ago, angels4u said:

Interesting information, I have the Bible besides me when I listen to his video and I'm sure there are other in the forum who studied his books,thank for you reply!

@Justin Adams@Dennis1209 ? Does any of you can add to what he's saying?

The Truth Watchers site leans toward the fringes of Christian beliefs on some things. One article is about why the Bible teaches Christian men should have beards.  Another is about why it is unbiblical for Christian women to wear makeup (and claims early Christians believed cosmetics were demonic).   Still another describes how any Christian scholar engaged in textual criticism or translation of the wrong Bible versions into English is in danger of hellfire because they are making changes to the Bible.

Here's a quote from that site (among other info about Bible versions) about those who create new Bible versions.  "In this day and age of prominent Christian scholars promoting multitudes of Bible versions and practicing textual criticism, it may seem extreme to many reading this article that altering the Scripture comes with a judgement of eternal damnation. Indeed, this is an uncomfortable and undesirable conclusion. However, in light of the cultural context and the literal meaning of Revelation 22:18-19, no other conclusion is possible without twisting the Scripture which Peter warns about bringing to oneself destruction (2 Peter 3:16). It appears the Bible itself places the altering of the Scripture in the same unforgivable category of sin as blaspheme of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10)." 

In other words, the person criticizing Heiser's works believes that creating any English version of the NT not based on the Textus Receptus (the version of the Greek NT used for the KJV) is as unforgivable a sin as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  This person's testimony (which I do like) includes that he tried out close to 70 churches before finding one that preached the Bible (which is in a denomination with some definite isolationist tendencies).   I suspect that any Christian scholar outside a limited denominational circle would like Heiser also considered to be heretical in various ways.

 

[angels4u]

15 minutes ago, GandalfTheWise said:

The Truth Watchers site leans toward the fringes of Christian beliefs on some things. One article is about why the Bible teaches Christian men should have beards.  Another is about why it is unbiblical for Christian women to wear makeup (and claims early Christians believed cosmetics were demonic).   Still another describes how any Christian scholar engaged in textual criticism or translation of the wrong Bible versions into English is in danger of hellfire because they are making changes to the Bible.

Here's a quote from that site (among other info about Bible versions) about those who create new Bible versions.  "In this day and age of prominent Christian scholars promoting multitudes of Bible versions and practicing textual criticism, it may seem extreme to many reading this article that altering the Scripture comes with a judgement of eternal damnation. Indeed, this is an uncomfortable and undesirable conclusion. However, in light of the cultural context and the literal meaning of Revelation 22:18-19, no other conclusion is possible without twisting the Scripture which Peter warns about bringing to oneself destruction (2 Peter 3:16). It appears the Bible itself places the altering of the Scripture in the same unforgivable category of sin as blaspheme of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10)." 

In other words, the person criticizing Heiser's works believes that creating any English version of the NT not based on the Textus Receptus (the version of the Greek NT used for the KJV) is as unforgivable a sin as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  This person's testimony (which I do like) includes that he tried out close to 70 churches before finding one that preached the Bible (which is in a denomination with some definite isolationist tendencies).   I suspect that any Christian scholar outside a limited denominational circle would like Heiser also considered to be heretical in various ways.

 

I logged in "The truth watchers" site,sounds like a very legalistic site and they're missing the point, Jesus set us free from the law, thanks for bringing it. to my attention.

[Guest]

Update on Dr. Michael S. Heiser's Health:

Quote

Brief Health Update

Posted by MikeHeiser | Nov 2, 2021 | NakedBible |

 

Well, this week wasn’t the news producer we thought it would be. I met with the surgeon today and was encouraged by his approach to people in my situation (short version: he’s not looking for reasons to back out of a surgery; he’s aggressive and informed). That’s the good news, as somehow the oncologist’s office dropped the ball with getting the surgeon the images of the latest CAT scan. I’m again shocked by the bureaucratic circus that is the healthcare system. Eyes wide open now, though. The surgeon seemed to think the likelihood of surgery any time soon was low anyway, but he added he’s eventually see the most recent images. At the beginning of this process, I was told 3-6 months of chemo. The six-month plateau is normative for people in my situation. That means it will surprise no one if I am in chemo the rest of the year. I expected that. If I’d still in chemo next April, that will be discouraging, but this isn’t. Next up (the surgeon ordered this one and it will be done at Mayo) is an MRI, something he prefers to work with. That’s in 2-3 months. All this means that having a serious surgical conversation (i.e., actually scheduling something) will likely only happen in January at the earliest. I’m hoping to have surgery by June or July at latest, as that would mark a year of going through the cancer. But I’d take earlier for sure. The honest answer is that no one knows and cannot guess at this point. So, please continue to pray:

(1) That chemo does its job; separating the tumor from the arteries;

(2) That my nausea and diarrhea are controlled;

(3) That I can gain back lost weight in between chemo cycles. This past week I gained seven lbs, something that had no happened for quite a while, so I know it can be done. It’s important for enduring chemo;

(4) That I can exercise. I have the surgeon’s permission (I have been concerned about ANY calorie loss) because any maintained / added muscle mass helps with recovery from surgery;

(5) That I can be productive in terms of (mostly) writing and prepping some school content going forward. It helps to maintain routine and mental activity.

Source: Health Update

Edited January 5, 2022 by Saved.One.by.Grace

[Guest]

Dr. Michael S. Heiser Websites:

More Unseen Realm

Dr. Michael S. Heiser

Professor Heiser YouTube Channel

[other one]

one of the problems I have run into is if you watch the video's of the seminars he does on subjects it kind of makes his books redundant and hard to concentrate to read.  It's way more than just reading a book twice, you find out why he wrote that part the way he did.

[Guest]

On 1/3/2022 at 10:46 PM, other one said:

No it isn't free as far as I know.

I did buy and read "The Divine Council in the Pentateuch" on Kindle by Dr. Michael S. Heiser.  It's a good read about 25 pages in length.  It's got adjustable font, which makes it easier to read.  I bought it and read it 6 months ago.