Michael S. Heiser
Author • 10 members • 870 followers
About this group
- 19 “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. 20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” When I got to chapter 18, I am puzzled at the conclusion. I can envisage an alternative, which works better for me. So I am going to try it out on you haha. There is an Angel of YAHWEH. There is a YAHWEH. There is a Jesus - thank God!! haha. I have a not insignificant gifting in spiritual discernment, seeing, knowing and operate accordingly with the LORD and my Lord to heal and deliver. 'my Name is in him'. YAHWEH sends His Angel. (He probably has a few). He, YAHWEH, has a constant and direct cord connecting Him via highways of holiness - we would call it the grid - to the Angel - continuously if He YAHWEH so desires. The cord is such that He, YAHWEH, can speak to the Angel - 'Thus says the LORD', or He YAHWEH can take over the Angel and become his direct voice - YAHWEH speaks directly. If He, YAHWEH, so desires, He can translate across the highway of holiness and be present, manifested, in the Angel. Phillip translated, Jesus translated in this manner. It's the ultimate Facetime. The Seven Eyes of the LORD are in the Angel, the newagers call them Chakra Points haha. YAHWEH does not necessarily have to be manifested at a place to be in full cognisance of the surroundings, and instant interaction. He can choose, depending upon the moment and its significance. (He YAHWEH sent His angels down to take a look at Sodom. (He had to 'go', He wasn't there yet)). He YAHWEH can switch modes, be there, not be there, speak as Himself, because He can, speak through the Angel as messenger, because He can. But He YAHWEH, can also be in the Angel manifested. Stand back when He does that!. You can see it on anointed men of God. There is a shift in the Spirit of God, who is in them. The Spirit moves beyond the physical form of the human. You can discern the presence of God, because it is real. You can discern the flesh if it is not the Spirit of God speaking and see the difference in the realms when the Spirit of God is silent. He didn't go away, He slipped back into His own realm. He's in him, but not active. Praise God I am seated in heavenly places, with my Jesus, whilst simultaneously being on earth, toeing into the waters of theology haha. Jesus can be used just like the Angel of YAHWEH in this context. He is so directly connected to the Father, by a highway of holiness, a silver cord perhaps, which cannot be broken, cannot be corrupted, cannot be invaded. What you have written is profound for me. Forgive me for finding what appears to be a slightly different conclusion to your analysis and piecing together of the jigsaw puzzle. Jesus, Elijah, Melchizedek, are unique individuals, gods, but with such a powerful cord of connection to the Father, then they are the Father, when the Father so chooses. They can carry His YAHWEH's entrusted authority and release His power. Blessings Simon TThe Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the BibleThe most familiar way to process what we’ve seen is to think about the way we talk about Jesus. Christians affirm that God is more than one Person, but that each of those Persons is the same in essence. We affirm that Jesus is one of those Persons. He is God. But in another respect, Jesus isn’t God—he is not the Father. The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. Nevertheless, they are the same in essence. This theology did not originate in the New Testament. You’ve now
- How is it that pre-flood Nephilim can have living descendents in the post-flood era when only Noah & his family were saved?Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches about the Unseen World—And Why It MattersThey are specifically said to be living descendants of the Nephilim—the offspring of the sons of God back in Genesis 6:1–4.
- There were no descendants alive after the flood. That poor scout was freaked out with what he saw, and was exaggerating from stories he had been told.
- Warren Dane — EditedYour comment on pg. 191 TUR the option 2 of the translation of Gen 6:4 is IMO a reasonable approach to the appearance of the giants related to the Nephilim that are indicated in later scripture accounts. It also explains the reason these "giant" clans were devoted to destruction at Yahweh's command. "The 'when' in the verse could be translated 'whenever,' thereby suggesting a repetition of these preflood events after the flood. In other words, since Genesis 6:4 points forward to the later giant clans, the phrasing could suggest that other sons of God fathered more Nephilim after the flood. As a result, there would be no survival of original Nephilim, and so the post-flood dilemma would be resolved. A later appearance of other Nephilim occurred by the same means as before the flood. The whole issue of a response to the Mediterranean worldview by the biblical writer of Genesis (Moses in my view) does make sense. Moses, educated in the household of Pharaoh would have been aware of that worldview and under the influence of the Holy Spirit dealt with it. Thanks for your careful exegetical comments on the matter of Rephaim, Anakim and Nephilim existing before and after the flood.
- Mike, it looks like Hebrews 11: 17-19 specifically identifies Isaac as a type. He is Abe's "only begotten," and vs 19 specifically says: "He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type."The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the BibleNot only does no New Testament author ever cite the story as a picture of either the crucifixion or resurrection, but Isaac didn’t die in the incident
- Dr. Heiser, would it be possible to read your dissertation?
- In Chapter 28, page 240 you say: "The apostasy of his people and their subsequent exile prompted a change in Yahweh's approach to restoring his rule on earth". I have a problem with the word "change" since we are told in multiple places in the Bible, beginning in Genesis when God pronounces the curses, outcome, etc. of Adam and Eve's sin, that God had an ultimate plan. Using the word "change" defies the idea that God knew what and how he was going to redeem mankind. This, in effect, is saying He is not all-knowing. In Ephesians 1:4 Paul says: "For He chose us in Him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy ad blameless in his sight. In love He predestined us to be adopted through Jesus Christ for Himself, according to His favor and will, to the praise of His glorious grace that He favored us with in the Beloved." So, why do you use the word "change"?
- Anything that is not God, was created and is sustained by God. Before God created the world, He knew exactly how this would all work out, so none of this is a surprise to Him. That being said, God does change how He deals with us. Not because anything happened He did not expect, but because of our actions, we have different needs. God walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, but after they rebelled He did not any longer. God loved them and continued to love them, but their actions had consequences.
- In Genesis 6:1-5, I've always thought that this is the first genetic attack on the human race, eliminating the line of Christ since the line would be corrupted resultant cancelling the cross. How does that line up to what you said in the book? Thanks...Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches about the Unseen World—And Why It MattersThis time there was more than one rebel. The evil contagion spreading through humanity in Genesis 6:5 is linked to the story in Genesis 6:1–4 about the sons of God fathering their own earthly children known as Nephilim.
- Maybe I am wrong, but there seems to be a major scientific problem, that flies in the face of genetic research, if we understand "sons of God" in Genesis 6 to refer to angels. The problem is this. There is a fixity of species. A being from a different genre cannot reproduce with a being from another genre (I am not referring to Liger, that is Lion mated with a Tiger, etc born from related species). The Bible is clear in Genesis, that each will bring forth according to its kind. In 1 Corinthians 15:39 we again find that all kinds of flesh is not the same. Also, for as in Adam all die, and the work of Christ as the last Adam is for fallen humans, what is to be the status of the hybrids in the day of judgment?
- In chapter 8, under Free Imagers, you write that human beings must have free will in order to be God’s Imagers. But to what extent does fallen, unregenerate Man have free will? Even as a regenerate believer I cannot, for example, employ my free will to purpose to “sin no more.” I may desire that, but I do not possess the ability to accomplish it by willing it. Can unregenerate Man use his free will to express faith in Christ, when John 6:44 tells us “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him”? And John 6:65 confirms, “I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” Moreover, it seems clear that post Fall Adam and Eve could not utilize free will to choose to “restore” themselves to a relationship with God, but that was the solely the prerogative of God. So it seems that there are two kinds/types of ‘will;’ moral – and spiritual. And although unregenerate Man has great latitude in exercising moral free will, it appears he does not have spiritual free will (as 1st. Corinthians 2:14 also seems to confirm). Please give me your thoughts as to how far unregenerate Man’s free will extends. Thank you.
- Hi Michael, I love your writings. This paragraph seems to state that possessing free will dooms a heavenly or earthly creature to rebel against God. Is this logically and theologically reasonable?Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches about the Unseen World—And Why It MattersBut there’s a dark side to God’s decision. Granting intelligent beings freedom means they can and will make wrong choices or intentionally rebel. And that’s basically guaranteed to happen, since the only truly perfect being is God. He’s the only one he can really trust. This is why things could, and did, go wrong in Eden.
- The concept of Free Will is greatly clarified as we see current advances in Artificial Intelligence. Robots Shibuya Mirai, Sophia are programmed with do's and dont's as they "relate" with their environment. The principles may not be the Golden Rule or the law of Moses but some code of ethic as in the "Asilomar AI Principles" guides the programmers. Of course we do know that the Robots are not 'free' but strictly determined in their behaviour. So, at the end of the day, the culpability of the Robot is really the culpability of the programmer. In order for real good or for that matter real sin to be attributed to an entity, it needs to be self determining to that extent that it knows/understands and chooses to obey/disobey. Since we are created in the image of God, I guess, free will had to be a part of the design.
- The closer AI moves towards becoming sentient, the greater the possibility those sentient devices can become inhabited by demonic (bastard) spirits.
- I am having a hard time with this idea of throwing out our filters. Aren't filters necessary? Don't we always read through a filter? It seems that we should be looking to replace filters that have been shown to not work but not simply throwing out filters. For example, I am writing a chapter on Sheol, and it is clear that at least some, if not all, of the biblical authors thought of Sheol as literally being under the earth and heaven as literally being above. I tell my readers that we should not take this spatial language literally. Are you suggesting that I should let the mosaic speak and that if I want to be faithful to Scripture I should believe that if we could dig far enough we would find Sheol? (We could do the same thought exercise with the ideas of pillars of the earth.) In other words, why assume that everything that is expressed by a biblical author in a biblical text is part of the mosaic and should not be filtered out? Don't we need to leave room for the idea that God was accommodating his speech to the systems of thought of the ancients, and that some of those systems needed to die and would get exposed either in later biblical texts or in later developments in our knowledge?The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the BibleOur traditions, however honorable, are not intrinsic to the Bible. They are systems we invent to organize the Bible. They are artificial. They are filters. Once I’d been awakened to this, it struck me as faithless to use a filter. But throwing away my filters cost me the systems with which I’d ordered Scripture and doctrine in my mind.
- Hi David! Heiser has been slammed with his new book and hasn't responded to his wall in a minute so hopefully you will allow me clarify in his absence... Filtering the text through modern prejudicial bias that we bring to the ancient text is not the same as "should we take this passage literally or not?" Explained below... Like you, Heiser does not believe that we can drill down to sheol or fly high enough to reach Heaven. But the reason he believes this may or may not differ from why you reach the same conclusion as he does. A) Heiser will tell you that cosmic geography and physical geography are not the same, so while sheol is talked about as below and Heaven is talked about above they don't have a gps coordinate. No matter how deep you drill, you'll still be in this physical realm. B) Heiser believes that the ancient Israelites literally thought of the earth's cosmology as that of a snow globe, flat earth, hard sky, water above, water below, edged limit to the water (Genesis 1:6-7; Genesis 7:11; Proverbs 8:27; Proverbs 8:28; Job 26:10; Job 37:18; Amos 9:6; Isaiah 40:22). Now most Christians never even notice these verses... they *FILTER* them right out. They aren't looking for them, because to them, the Bible is a science book. The Christians that DO notice these verse either become flat earth Christians (it's a thing and to date the most popular post on Heiser's website with well over 200 posts from a lot of very angry flat earth Christians) or they insist that these verses are just metaphors. Both of these perspectives assume the Bible is a science book because that is what each side is bringing to the text. So they are filtering the text through a modern scientific lens. They don't stop to think that the Bible is about who is God and who is not and that YHWH didn't feel the need to correct their science (which is always changing) when He corrected their theology (which is unchanging Hebrews 13:8). Filters matter. They affect which verses you unconsciously discard and the interpretation of the ones you don't. One could argue that we always have some sort of filter going on... indeed Heiser explicitly states this Unseen Realm not far from the citation you just posted. But Heiser's argument is that those filters should not be denominational (Calvinists, Catholic etc.) but rather supernatural. We need to be reading with a supernatural lens because that is how the Biblical writers, saw the world and it's how they wrote about their world in what we call the Bible. Hope that helps.
- As far as I understand, it is not whether you have a filter or not, rather it is which filter is the best filter to be filtering with.
- In your course on Hebrew in Logos, you warn about the idea of root fallacy a common theme among those who teach against errors in determining a passage's meaning. I understood that as trying to apply meaning to a word based upon the meanings of its particular root or their variants and misusing that in forming a false hermeneutic or exegesis of a particular passage. Here you readily apply the root as important in adding a dimension to the meaning of Hermon. I have ordered your latest book on the subject and am in anticipation in reading it. Can you explain how roots then help while avoiding the pitfalls of the root fallacy?
- etymology doesn't matter, except when it does. the age old example is butterflies aren't butter and flies, but that's english. For Hebrew (Akkadian, Ugaritic), many of the three letter roots tend to have the same semantic domain as their derivatives, but this is not a strict guideline. It takes using a lexicon to find out if and how these derivations are still related. Here (and with the serpent etc) Heiser is playing with roots, but a glance through HALOT and my Akkadian/Ugaritic lexicons tells me that the lexical forms he's using all share meaning.