# Michael Heiser's work on the Divine Council



## Myson

Michael Heiser's work on the Divine Council

Has anyone read any of this stuff before? I heard about it on The Bible Project podcast, which I love significantly less than the videos. They brought up this guy Michael Heiser and seem to be totally sold that the Bible demands this worldview of God doing more with this council than himself. It seems a bit... Fishy... To me. Why haven't I ever heard of this before? Why have I never seen this in church history? Maybe I have they just used different names for it? Any thoughts?

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition...ering-the-supernatural-worldview-of-the-bible


----------



## arapahoepark

I inte d to read it but,from what I gather it is similar to even just how the Puritans thought of angels.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

I have read his books and watched many of his videos. It is not that fishy or is it a new discovery. There have been many peer reviewed papers on this topic. There is a lot of content in the Old Testament that is of a polemic nature in regards to Near Eastern mythology. You find a divine council in many Near Eastern myths.
I can't say I agree with everything in his books or videos but I think the argument is solid for a divine council. Either way, It doesn't change anything in our theology. The problem is we assign set attributes to the word, "elohim." He argues that we should view it as a name that establishes a divine location. The Divine Council or these lesser elohim are created and ruled over by the One true uncreated God. They bend to His will and carry out His will just as humans do. It goes without saying, He doesn't need these lesser elohim to accomplish His will. He doesn't need humans either but He graciously uses us. They, along with us, are created for His glory and good pleasure.

"One day the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them." -Job 1:6

"19 And Micaiah said, "Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; 20 and the Lord said, 'Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said one thing, and another said another. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, 'I will entice him.' 22 And the Lord said to him, 'By what means?' And he said, 'I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And he said, 'You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.' 23 Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you." - 1 Kings 22:19-23

"God has taken His place in the divine assembly; He judges among the gods" Psalm 82:1

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

I've read everything Heiser has written. His view has precedents and it is not fishy. 

Kline was writing about Divine Council decades before Heiser wrote, and yet the Reformed community, when they attacked Kline for his oddities, never attacked him on that point.

If we take the term "elohim" and import into it attributes like omniscient et al, then we have some bizarre conclusions. Yahweh is an elohim (God is a spirit) but not all elohim are Yahweh.

If we say Psalm 82 refers to Jewish elders, then we are committed to the idea that there are Jewish dudes in the sky who rule over the nations.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Myson said:


> Why have I never seen this in church history?



Several reasons:

1) Until the Renaissance, very few thinkers in church history (except Jerome) knew Hebrew and almost zero knew any other semitic language (outside of Isaac the Syrian, Ephrem, and Issac of Nineveh). And Ugaritic wasn't discovered until 100 years ago.

2) Even an anti-Nephilim thinker like Augustine believe in incubi, succubi, and other demons. Those are clearly spirit-beings (I am not saying they exist, only that Augustine said they did), yet Augustine didn't know enough Hebrew to work through those issues.

3) Usually the most important issues of the day (justification, etc) get the most attention. That's only natural. 

I've written a lot on this topic, but I've generally not posted it here because this topic has been controversial. I can give you links in a PM.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Here are some reviews I've done on Heiser. And for the record, Heiser's worldview approach really helped save me from a certain type of conspiracy gnosticism (which I might go into later).
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2348495619?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2484094449?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

BayouHuguenot said:


> Several reasons:
> 
> 1) Until the Renaissance, very few thinkers in church history (except Jerome) knew Hebrew and almost zero knew any other semitic language (outside of Isaac the Syrian, Ephrem, and Issac of Nineveh). And Ugaritic wasn't discovered until 100 years ago.
> 
> 2) Even an anti-Nephilim thinker like Augustine believe in incubi, succubi, and other demons. Those are clearly spirit-beings (I am not saying they exist, only that Augustine said they did), yet Augustine didn't know enough Hebrew to work through those issues.
> 
> 3) Usually the most important issues of the day (justification, etc) get the most attention. That's only natural.
> 
> I've written a lot on this topic, but I've generally not posted it here because this topic has been controversial. I can give you links in a PM.


I would be interested in reading the material you've written on this topic. Heiser had this author on his show one time. Have you read this book?

God's Rivals: Why Has God Allowed Different Religions? Insights from the Bible and the Early Church https://www.amazon.com/dp/0830825649/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_UYRLBbKBXN51Y

Heiser has a new book coming out in nine days. It should be another interesting read.

Angels: What the Bible Really Says About God’s Heavenly Host https://www.amazon.com/dp/1683591046/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_c0RLBb2AF20V7


----------



## RamistThomist

And Heiser is one of our best allies against critical scholarship. He is quite in the norm on these issues. Liberal scholars know that the OT teaches this wacky supernatural stuff. Of course it does, but they think it is all pious bunk anyway. Heiser takes their premises and draws the supernatural conclusion. Here is the scholarship on this. This is not out of the ordinary.

E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., “Divine Assembly,” _The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, vol. 2_ (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 215–216

S. B. Parker, “Sons of (The) God(S),” _Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible_ (Leiden; Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999)

Michael S. Heiser, “Divine Council,” _The Lexham Bible Dictionary_ (ed. John D. Barry and Lazarus Wentz; Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012)


Michael S. Heiser, “Divine Council,” in the _Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, and Writings _(Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2008
E. Theodore Mullen, _The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature_ (Harvard Semitic Monographs 24; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980)

Lowell K. Handy, _Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy_(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994)

Matitiahu Tsevat, “God and the Gods in Assembly,” _Hebrew Union College Annual_ 40_–_41 (1969_–_1970): 123-137

Mark S. Smith, “Astral Religion and the Representation of Divinity: The Cases of Ugarit and Judah,” _Prayer, Magic, and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World_ (ed. Scott Noegel, Joel Walker, Brannon Wheeler; University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003), 187-206

Alan Scott, _Origen and the Life of the Stars: The History of An Idea_ (Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford University Press, 1994.

asper J. Labuschagne, _The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament_ (E. J. Brill, 1966)

Catrin H. Williams, _“I am He”: The Meaning and Interpretation of “ANI HU” in Jewish and Early Christian Literature_ (WUNT 113, Reihe 2; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1999)

Nathan MacDonald, _Deuteronomy and the Meaning of” Monotheism _(FZAT 1, Reihe 2; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2012)

Mark S. Smith, _The origins of biblical monotheism: Israel’s polytheistic background and the Ugaritic texts_. Oxford University Press, 2001.

Kline, M. G. “Creation in the Image of the Glory-Spirit.” _WTJ_ 39 (1977) 250–72.

J. M. Lundquist, “What Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology” In _The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George Mendenhall_ (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 205-219

J. M. Lundquist, “The Common Temple Ideology of the Ancient Near East,” in _The Temple in Antiquity_ (Religious Monograph Series 9; ed. T. G. Madsen; Provo, Utah, 1984), 53-76

I. Cornelius, “גַּן,” _New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis_, ed. W. A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), 1.875–78

Daniel T. Lioy, “The Garden of Eden as a Primordial Temple or Sacred Space for Humankind,” _Conspectus: The Journal of the South African Theological Seminary_ 10 (2010): 25-57

I. Cornelius, “The Garden in the Iconography of the Ancient Near East,” _Journal of Semitic Studies_ 1 (1989) 204–28

G. J. Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” in _“I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern and Literary Approaches to Genesis 1–11_, ed R. S. Hess and D. Tsumura (SBTS 4: Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994) 19–25

L. Michael Morales, _The Tabernacle Prefigured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus_ (Biblical Tools and Studies 15; Peeters, 2011

John H. Walton, _Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 123-124, 196-198

*On the Watchers in Daniel 10 and Daniel 10 more generally:*

John J. Collins, “Watcher,” _Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible_ (ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst; Leiden; Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999)

M. J. Davidson, _Angels at Qumran. A Comparative Study of 1Enoch 1–36, 72–108 and Sectarian writings from Qumran_ (JSP Sup 11; Sheffield 1992), 38–40

R. Murray, “The Origin of Aramaic _ʿîr_, Angel, _Orientalia_ 53 (1984): 303–317

Aleksander R. Michalak, _Angels as warriors in late Second Temple Jewish literature_(Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2 Reihe 330; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012

Skinner, J. _A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis_. ICC. 2d ed. Edinburgh: Clark, 1930

Johann Jakob Stamm, “Die Imago-Lehre von Karl Barth und die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft,” _Antwort. FS Karl Barth, Zürich-Zollikon_ (1956): 84-98.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Bookworm said:


> I would be interested in reading the material you've written on this topic. Heiser had this author on his show one time. Have you read this book?
> 
> God's Rivals: Why Has God Allowed Different Religions? Insights from the Bible and the Early Church https://www.amazon.com/dp/0830825649/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_UYRLBbKBXN51Y
> 
> Heiser has a new book coming out in nine days. It should be another interesting read.
> 
> Angels: What the Bible Really Says About God’s Heavenly Host https://www.amazon.com/dp/1683591046/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_c0RLBb2AF20V7



I've read other stuff by that author. I have that show on my iPod. I'll send you my "Enochian Intelligence Agency Files" when I get home. 

Yeah. I can't wait for Angels to come out.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

BayouHuguenot said:


> I've read other stuff by that author. I have that show on my iPod. I'll send you my "Enochian Intelligence Agency Files" when I get home.
> 
> Yeah. I can't wait for Angels to come out.



Michael Heiser's papers for Liberty are also available for free.

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/do/search/?q=Michael heiser&start=0&context=7247398&facet=


----------



## Scott Bushey

Last time I cited Heiser here, I was laughed off stage....

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Scott Bushey said:


> Last time I cited Heiser here, I was laughed off stage....



I think he is fluent in about a dozen semitic dialects and languages. He regularly gives papers at ETS and SBL. He is the one who should be laughing at us. His exegesis completely changed my apologetics

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Scott Bushey said:


> Last time I cited Heiser here, I was laughed off stage....



It is a sad reality in the Reformed community. I fear we are too quick to dismiss supernatural realities of Scriptures.


----------



## py3ak

One of the ways changes occur in Biblical interpretation, is that an element or theme is taken from a sidelight and made into a perspective. Sometimes that's good, and sometimes that isn't. The advantage can be that a certain topic receives a much fuller discussion and airing than previously. The downside is that the excitement of the "new" can have a distorting influence on what should be settled doctrine. The safe way is to critically appropriate what is on offer in careful dialogue with the history of interpretation; but that last part rarely happens, at least not until there's been a big hairy fight about it.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

In general I am not a big fan of the man:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/satan-in-job-is-not-the-devil.94176/#post-1149464

If you use Logos and are a Faithlife Connect (formerly _Logos Now_) subscriber, the next update you run will likely install a sneak peek at the first three chapters of Heiser's _Angels: What the Bible Really Says About God’s Heavenly Host_.

For example, concerning 1 Kings 22:19–23, Heiser writes in the preview...

"When the council meeting commences, God asks the spirit beings present how Ahab’s death should be accomplished. God had decreed Ahab was going to die at Ramoth-Gilead, but he allows debate and participation when it comes to the means of Ahab’s demise. One of the spirit beings proposes a plan (vv. 21–22): “I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” God approves, knowing full well that the plan will succeed. Had the omniscient God of Israel known the proposition would fail, he would have heard another one or proceeded on his own account.

"The text presents us with a clear instance where God has sovereignly decided to act but allows his lesser, intelligent servants to participate in how his decision is carried out. God wasn’t searching for ideas, as though he couldn’t conceive of a plan. He allowed those who serve him the latitude to propose options. In other words, the members of the host were involved in the divine decree."

"There is no hint that the suggestion of the spirit being to deceive Ahab was preprogrammed. God was also not bound to it. Had a member of the heavenly host proposed an idea God in his omniscience knew would not succeed, he could have vetoed it. The criterion was simple: will it succeed? The omniscient God knew the suggestion would succeed and approved it."​
Heiser, Michael S. Angels: _What the Bible Really Says about God’s Heavenly Host_ (Advance Preview). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018. Print

Like I said, I am not a fan.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Bookworm said:


> It is a sad reality in the Reformed community. I fear we are too quick to dismiss supernatural realities of Scriptures.



One time on Facebook I said "The Nephilim are real." You know, just quoting a bible verse. A guy threatened to call my Presbytery.

Reactions: Funny 2 | Sad 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

BayouHuguenot said:


> One time on Facebook I said "The Nephilim are real." You know, just quoting a bible verse. A guy threatened to call my Presbytery.


That is truly unfortunate. Jonathan Edwards certainly embraced the reality of them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

More from the preview:

The interest in free will as it relates to members of the heavenly host arises from questions about how and when Satan turned against God, or whether angels still can, at some future time, rebel. There is no scriptural indication in either the Old or New Testament that the ability to rebel against God’s authority was “turned off” at any time. Consequently, they can still conceivably fall. But one would suspect that, given the fate of divine rebels recounted in Scripture, those who remain faithful would be much less inclined toward rebellion.​
Heiser, throughout the preview, relies heavily upon Miller's _Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology_.

The quote above is not surprising, given this:
http://drmsh.com/predestination-and-free-will-a-summary-of-the-naked-bibles-position/

And some subtle flirtation with open theism:
*"7. Do Free Decisions of Divine and Human Imagers of God Overturn God’s Predestination and Foreknowledge and Mean the Future is Open?*

"It may sound contradictory, but my answers to the above questions are, respectively, “no/no” and “yes.” "​
See: http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/ETS 2009 Heiser.pdf


----------



## RamistThomist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> More from the preview:
> 
> The interest in free will as it relates to members of the heavenly host arises from questions about how and when Satan turned against God, or whether angels still can, at some future time, rebel. There is no scriptural indication in either the Old or New Testament that the ability to rebel against God’s authority was “turned off” at any time. Consequently, they can still conceivably fall. But one would suspect that, given the fate of divine rebels recounted in Scripture, those who remain faithful would be much less inclined toward rebellion.​
> Heiser, throughout the preview, relies heavily upon Miller's _Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology_.
> 
> The quote above is not surprising, given this:
> http://drmsh.com/predestination-and-free-will-a-summary-of-the-naked-bibles-position/
> 
> And some subtle flirtation with open theism:
> *"7. Do Free Decisions of Divine and Human Imagers of God Overturn God’s Predestination and Foreknowledge and Mean the Future is Open?*
> 
> "It may sound contradictory, but my answers to the above questions are, respectively, “no/no” and “yes.” "​
> See: http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/ETS 2009 Heiser.pdf



Yeah, he is inadequate on that. I don't go to him for systematic theology. I am more interested in the Hebrew text and in not getting my angelology from Kant and Milton. And Reformed guys (Doug Van Dorn) and scholars (Meredith Kline) say more or less the same thing on imago dei and divine council.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> More from the preview:
> 
> The interest in free will as it relates to members of the heavenly host arises from questions about how and when Satan turned against God, or whether angels still can, at some future time, rebel. There is no scriptural indication in either the Old or New Testament that the ability to rebel against God’s authority was “turned off” at any time. Consequently, they can still conceivably fall. But one would suspect that, given the fate of divine rebels recounted in Scripture, those who remain faithful would be much less inclined toward rebellion.​
> Heiser, throughout the preview, relies heavily upon Miller's _Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology_.
> 
> The quote above is not surprising, given this:
> http://drmsh.com/predestination-and-free-will-a-summary-of-the-naked-bibles-position/
> 
> And some subtle flirtation with open theism:
> *"7. Do Free Decisions of Divine and Human Imagers of God Overturn God’s Predestination and Foreknowledge and Mean the Future is Open?*
> 
> "It may sound contradictory, but my answers to the above questions are, respectively, “no/no” and “yes.” "​
> See: http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/ETS 2009 Heiser.pdf


As I stated in my first post, I certainly don't agree with him on everything. I'll refer to Edwards or Calvin when I want to study free will.


----------



## lynnie

I am reading his book on the Unseen Realm right now. I found the chapter about Babylon to be very helpful. People try to figure out what Babylon in Revelation means, and I think his analysis answers that. 

Yeah, some of the comments about free will are kind of funky.


----------



## arapahoepark

BayouHuguenot said:


> Yeah, he is inadequate on that. I don't go to him for systematic theology. I am more interested in the Hebrew text and in not getting my angelology from Kant and Milton. And Reformed guys (Doug Van Dorn) and scholars (Meredith Kline) say more or less the same thing on imago dei and divine council.


What are Kline's works on this?


----------



## RamistThomist

arapahoepark said:


> What are Kline's works on this?



Images of the Spirit. 
God, Heaven, and Har-Magedon touches on aspects of this.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Paul.Barth

Heiser certainly doesn’t seem to hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, although he claims to. At the very least it’s not anything that resembles the historic Christian doctrine of inerrancy. Anything positive that can be gleaned from him can be gleaned from orthodox scholars. Listen to his Naked Bible podcast episodes on hermeneutics and you’ll easily see how dangerous he is.


----------



## RamistThomist

Paul.Barth said:


> Heiser certainly doesn’t seem to hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, although he claims to. At the very least it’s not anything that resembles the historic Christian doctrine of inerrancy. Anything positive that can be gleaned from him can be gleaned from orthodox scholars. Listen to his Naked Bible podcast episodes on hermeneutics and you’ll easily see how dangerous he is.



All he said was that he didn't believe in the divine stapler. There is an editor who collected some of the papyri. This is evident from Ezekiel 1, where Ezekiel switches from 1st person to 3rd person for no apparent reason.

He's easily my favorite scholar. He is the reason I restudied Hebrew and am beginning to learn Ugaritic.

Here is his defense of Moses.
http://drmsh.com/mosaic-authorship-torah-problems-documentary-hypothesis-jedp-part-1/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

The problem with saying, "Anything good he said, others have said it better," is that you are going to have to provide a list. That raises other problems. I've tried to provide part of a bibliography way up above. Here is some more.

Barker, Margaret. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God. Louisville, KY: Westminster / John Knox Publishers, 1992

Bauckham, Richard, “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus” Pages 43-69 in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus. Edited by C. Newman, J. Davila, and G. Lewis. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999

Bauckham, Richard, God Crucified: Monotheism & Christology in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998

Boyarin, Daniel. “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John,” Harvard Theological Review 94:3 (July, 2001), 243-284

Boyarin, Daniel, “Two Powers in Heaven; or, The Making of a Heresy,” Pages 331-370 in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel. Leiden: Brill, 2003

Fossum, Jarl E. The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1995

Gathercole, Simon. The Pre-Existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006

Hannah, Darrell D. Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 109. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1999

Hurtado, Larry W. “What Do We Mean by ‘First-Century Jewish Monotheism’?” Pages 348-368 in Society of Biblical Literature 1993 Seminar Papers. Edited by E. H. Lovering Jr. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993

Hurtado, Larry W. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988

Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003

Hurtado, Larry W. “First-Century Jewish Monotheism.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 71 (1998): 3-26

Hurtado, Larry W. “Jesus’ Divine Sonship in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” Pages 217-233 in Romans and the People of God. Edited by N. T. Wright and S. Soderlund. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999

Hurtado, Larry W. “The Binitarian Shape of Early Christian Worship.” Pages 187-213 in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism, Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus. Edited by Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila and Gladys S. Lewis, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, ed. John J. Collins. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999

Hurtado, Larry W. How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005

Lee, Aquila H. I. From Messiah to Pre-existent Son. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 192. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2005; reprinted Wipf and Stock, 2009

Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977

Victor Matthews, Old Testament Parallels: Laws And Stories from the Ancient Near East

Kenton Sparks, Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the Background Literature

Larry Helyer, Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Testament Students (Christian Classics Bible Studies)

Craig Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature

D. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance

Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature

Foster, From Distant Days: Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia

Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others

Jacobsen, The Harps that Once … Sumerian Poetry in Translation

Ugaritic Texts:

N. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit

digital version

Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends

digital version

M. Coogan and M. Smith, Stories from Ancient Canaan

David L. Fouts, “A Defense of the Hyperbolic Interpretation of Large Numbers in the Old Testament,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997): 377-387

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

BayouHuguenot said:


> All he said was that he didn't believe in the divine stapler.


One can perhaps tease out where Dr. Heiser stands on inerrancy by reviewing his assessments of the Chicago Statement:

http://drmsh.com/the-chicago-statement-the-good-the-bad-and-the-wish-it-had-said-more/

http://drmsh.com/the-rest-of-my-comments-on-the-chicago-statement/

His stance about "pre-scientific worldview" (which is incorporated into some of the above) leads me to worry that he is reducing all inspired Scripture concerning matters of science is but phenomenological:

1 Cor. 11:14
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

"...Paul is clearly in error in terms of his understanding of nature on this point (he’s a pre-scientific man). "​See:
http://drmsh.com/pre-scientific-worldview-problem-and-inerrancy/

His often sardonic views of the Confessions are enough to signal caution to glean what one can from any man's writings and discard the remainder. For example:
http://drmsh.com/the-biblical-teaching-on-baptism-part-1/
http://drmsh.com/the-biblical-teaching-on-baptism-part-2/
http://drmsh.com/the-biblical-teaching-on-baptism-part-3/
http://drmsh.com/the-biblical-teaching-on-baptism-part-4/

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> One can perhaps tease out where Dr. Heiser stands on inerrancy by reviewing his assessments of the Chicago Statement:
> 
> http://drmsh.com/the-chicago-statement-the-good-the-bad-and-the-wish-it-had-said-more/
> 
> http://drmsh.com/the-rest-of-my-comments-on-the-chicago-statement/
> 
> His stance about "pre-scientific worldview" (which is incorporated into some of the above) leads me to worry that he is reducing all inspired Scripture concerning matters of science is but phenomenological:
> 
> 1 Cor. 11:14
> Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
> 
> "...Paul is clearly in error in terms of his understanding of nature on this point (he’s a pre-scientific man). "​See:
> http://drmsh.com/pre-scientific-worldview-problem-and-inerrancy/
> 
> His often sardonic views of the Confessions are enough to signal caution to glean what one can from any man's writings and discard the remainder. For example:
> http://drmsh.com/the-biblical-teaching-on-baptism-part-1/
> http://drmsh.com/the-biblical-teaching-on-baptism-part-2/
> http://drmsh.com/the-biblical-teaching-on-baptism-part-3/
> http://drmsh.com/the-biblical-teaching-on-baptism-part-4/



Fair enough on the stuff on confessions. He's a low church baptist, so I saw that one coming. I don't agree with him on 1 Cor 11 (though I am familiar with the Greek medical texts on that point). As to the Chicago statement, some of his criticisms are on how ambiguous some statements are. 

If verbal inspiration means word-for-word (ghost writing), then it's rather odd that the Holy Spirit had two different guys alter some of the NT quotations of the OT, places where there is clear editorial work ("Moses was the most humble man,").

I think inerrancy can accommodate those issues. I have never had a problem with that. 

And some of the OT language *is* phenomenological. Are there really pillars of the earth? Are there physical floodgates over our heads?

For the record, I actually believe there are physical pillars of the earth. I believe Sheol is a quasi-physical realm under our feet where the shades of the Rephaim live (and who will be unleashed in Rev 9, when the Abyss is opened).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Fun fact on Heiser: If you ever want to see James Jordan's disciples go into full Red Alert mode, just mention Michael Heiser. One of the key aspects of Jordan's theology is the "Sethite" thesis. They will defend this line at all costs.

What's even more ironic is that neither Jordan nor Heiser have probably ever heard of each other.


----------



## TheInquirer

I got into Unseen Realm a bit and have listened to some of Heiser's lectures on YouTube this past week and caught a bit of a whiff of what Patrick is highlighting. You can tell Heiser has a bit of an ax to grind as you listen to him. One example is his stress on the importance of context - which he defines as 2nd Temple extra biblical writings - as essential for understanding Scripture, especially 1 Enoch. I am very leery of that approach to hermeneutics.

Who would you guys recommend that has put together a biblical theology of "sons of god" or the supernatural battle in the unseen realm from more of a Reformed Perspective? Interested in seeing how the theme plays out over the entire course of Scripture. I would agree with Heiser that, from my experience, this topic is under-emphasized and deserves greater attention.


----------



## RamistThomist

TheInquirer said:


> One example is his stress on the importance of context - which he defines as 2nd Temple extra biblical writings - as essential for understanding Scripture, especially 1 Enoch. I am very leery of that approach to hermeneutics.



It can be taken the wrong way. On the other hand, every single hermeneutics book ever written says you have to know the original _sitz im lebel. _2 Temple Judaism has a bad rap because of the mischief from the New Perspective.

As to Enoch, here's my take. At the very least, Jude, and probably Peter, thought they were quoting the ancient Enoch. It just so happens that their quotes match up with the intertestamental text. My understanding is that there was indeed an ancient Enochian tradition that was later codified.


TheInquirer said:


> Who would you guys recommend that has put together a biblical theology of "sons of god" or the supernatural battle in the unseen realm from more of a Reformed Perspective?



Doug Van Dorn and Brian Godawa
https://www.amazon.com/Giants-Sons-...preST=_SY344_BO1,204,203,200_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
https://www.amazon.com/When-Giants-..._rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=KBQS4M4G0FZ1DWMJM5PC
https://www.amazon.com/Unseen-Realm..._rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=SF4GGZWCHSRMQ9R8THX5

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## lynnie

Jim, I read Van Dorn and am 2/3 of the way through Unseen Realm. You will definitely prefer Van Dorn if you get into any conversations and want to recommend a book. Reformed Baptist. But I am enjoying UR and impressed by the Hebrew scholarship on this topic.

I don't think the author intended this reaction of a reader, but there has not been a day when I read a chapter that I didn't think how very very glad I am to wear a head covering at church "because of the angels". That fact has hit home in a way that it never did in all the years I've believed in headcoverings.

So Jacob...are there any Nephilim today? I googled it and read about a 12' giant in Afghanistan cover up, but the site was questionable. And giants today could be pituitary problems. But do you believe this is happening now? ( not that the evil realm even needs to reengage in such activities if God permitted, they seem to be doing just fine inhabiting and influencing ordinary humans into the grossest evils).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

lynnie said:


> Jim, I read Van Dorn and am 2/3 of the way through Unseen Realm. You will definitely prefer Van Dorn if you get into any conversations and want to recommend a book. Reformed Baptist. But I am enjoying UR and impressed by the Hebrew scholarship on this topic.
> 
> I don't think the author intended this reaction of a reader, but there has not been a day when I read a chapter that I didn't think how very very glad I am to wear a head covering at church "because of the angels". That fact has hit home in a way that it never did in all the years I've believed in headcoverings.
> 
> So Jacob...are there any Nephilim today? I googled it and read about a 12' giant in Afghanistan cover up, but the site was questionable. And giants today could be pituitary problems. But do you believe this is happening now? ( not that the evil realm even needs to reengage in such activities if God permitted, they seem to be doing just fine inhabiting and influencing ordinary humans into the grossest evils).


This is a topic I have done a lot of research on as I was planning on writing a book on the topic. I'll gather some stuff together as soon as I have time at work. Do you own Jonathan Edward works? He has an interesting write up in volume 2. I am also familiar with the "Afghanistan Giant." I believe that was disclosed by the GenSix crew, Steve Quayle, Tim Alberino, and L. A. Marzuli. They are an interesting bunch. Timothy Alberino has an interesting video series on the "Red haired Giants of America" in the "Alberino Analysis." You can find it on YouTube.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

lynnie said:


> So Jacob...are there any Nephilim today? I googled it and read about a 12' giant in Afghanistan cover up, but the site was questionable. And giants today could be pituitary problems. But do you believe this is happening now? ( not that the evil realm even needs to reengage in such activities if God permitted, they seem to be doing just fine inhabiting and influencing ordinary humans into the grossest evils).


I think that giant is real, though it might not have anything to do with Nephilim.

I don't have any evidence today that fallen kosmokratoras are fornicating with human women. With that said, however, transhumanism and genetic splicing is able to achieve the same results as the ancient Nephilim, which the demonic entities involved probably know, so no need to bother with the early reasons.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheInquirer

BayouHuguenot said:


> It can be taken the wrong way. On the other hand, every single hermeneutics book ever written says you have to know the original _sitz im lebel. _2 Temple Judaism has a bad rap because of the mischief from the New Perspective.



Yes, my reaction was to Heiser using the material and then making some large assumptions about what is going on in the heads of the original authors of Scripture. Understanding what is going on in anyone's heads is tough to do let alone people that lived thousands of years before us. 

The Jude quote of 1 Enoch is intriguing and I don't quite know what to do with it yet as far as it reflects on the rest of 1 Enoch. I have read the first 36 chapters of 1 Enoch. They are intriguing but I can't help but think that if they are reliable and accurate and necessary to understand the rest of Scripture, why aren't they in our Bibles?



Reformed Bookworm said:


> Do you own Jonathan Edward works? He has an interesting write up in volume 2.



I might on Kindle. I will have to check.

Thanks for all the recommendations, I appreciate it.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

TheInquirer said:


> Yes, my reaction was to Heiser using the material and then making some large assumptions about what is going on in the heads of the original authors of Scripture. Understanding what is going on in anyone's heads is tough to do let alone people that lived thousands of years before us.
> 
> The Jude quote of 1 Enoch is intriguing and I don't quite know what to do with it yet as far as it reflects on the rest of 1 Enoch. I have read the first 36 chapters of 1 Enoch. They are intriguing but I can't help but think that if they are reliable and accurate and necessary to understand the rest of Scripture, why aren't they in our Bibles?
> 
> 
> 
> I might on Kindle. I will have to check.
> 
> Thanks for all the recommendations, I appreciate it.


I was pretty excited when I came across this while reading Edwards' notes on Genesis six.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/edwards-on-giants.96166/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Also, Heiser's new book arrived today. I have been looking forward to it's release. It should be an interesting read. As always, I go into his books knowing I won't agree with him on everything. I am surprised he hasn't put out any videos or interviews promoting it as he did his others.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Also, Heiser's new book arrived today. I have been looking forward to it's release. It should be an interesting read. As always, I go into his books knowing I won't agree with him on everything. I am surprised he hasn't put out any videos or interviews promoting it as he did his others.


In anticipation of what was planned:
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/?page_id=37


----------



## RamistThomist

TheInquirer said:


> They are intriguing but I can't help but think that if they are reliable and accurate and necessary to understand the rest of Scripture, why aren't they in our Bibles?



There are a lot of true things that are accurate and reliable that don't need to be in Scripture. That's not a sufficient condition for canonicity. It's a necessary condition, but that's all.


----------



## RamistThomist

Regarding the "Two Powers in Heaven." Ecumenists like Miroslav Volf do not like that, as it means that the Jewish and Christian understanding of God is radically different from the self-enclosed monad of Islam. And since Volf is an apologist for Islam, that bothers him.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> In anticipation of what was planned:
> http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/?page_id=37


I do apologize but I am not following this as a response to my quoted message. Can you please clarify?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Reformed Bookworm said:


> I do apologize but I am not following this as a response to my quoted message. Can you please clarify?


I was simply pointing you to earlier videos on the same topic that "promote" what Heiser planned to publish.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I was simply pointing you to earlier videos on the same topic that "promote" what Heiser planned to publish.



I also wondered about that, because I was super stoked if he had videos on angels. Sadly, he really didn't (well, nothing outside his larger corpus). He did give a list of underdeveloped topics in biblical studies. He's not necessarily endorsing the conclusions, but only that scholars haven't paid a lot of attention to many of these.

http://www.moreunseenrealm.com/?page_id=153


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I was simply pointing you to earlier videos on the same topic that "promote" what Heiser planned to publish.


Oh, got you. Thanks for clarifying. I am familiar with the "Two Powers in Heaven." Thanks.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

BayouHuguenot said:


> I also wondered about that, because I was super stoked if he had videos on angels. Sadly, he really didn't (well, nothing outside his larger corpus). He did give a list of underdeveloped topics in biblical studies. He's not necessarily endorsing the conclusions, but only that scholars haven't paid a lot of attention to many of these.
> 
> http://www.moreunseenrealm.com/?page_id=153


Yeah. His website was also down at some point yesterday. I was able to get on it around 5:30 in the morning but none of the articles would load. I tried again late last night and there was a server error. Not much on his Twitter besides political "retweets."


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Yeah. His website was also down at some point yesterday. I was able to get on it around 5:30 in the morning but none of the articles would load. I tried again late last night and there was a server error. Not much on his Twitter besides political "retweets."



I don't think it is down so much as you need to hit refresh on your browswer.


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Oh, got you. Thanks for clarifying. I am familiar with the "Two Powers in Heaven." Thanks.



Very powerful apologetic against JWs, Muslims, and Miroslav Volf.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

BayouHuguenot said:


> Very powerful apologetic against JWs, Muslims, and Miroslav Volf.


I couldn't agree more. I will be incorporating it in my evangelistic methods towards Muslims and my polemic writings against Islam. Have you read Segal's "Two Powers in Heaven?"


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Bookworm said:


> I couldn't agree more. I will be incorporating it in my evangelistic methods towards Muslims and my polemic writings against Islam. Have you read Segal's "Two Powers in Heaven?"



Not yet, as i thought it was published by Brill. Since it's not, I might get it for Christ-mass.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

An excerpt from Augustin's "City of God" Book xv:

"But the large size of the primitive human body is often proved to the incredulous by the exposure of sepulchres, either through the wear of time or the violence of torrents or some accident, and in which bones of incredible size have been found or have rolled out. I myself, along with some others, saw on the shore at Utica a man’s molar tooth of such a size, that if it were cut down into teeth such as we have, a hundred, I fancy, could have been made out of it. But that, I believe, belonged to some giant. For though the bodies of ordinary men were then larger than ours, the giants surpassed all in stature. And neither in our own age nor any other have there been altogether wanting instances of gigantic stature, though they may be few. The younger Pliny, a most learned man, maintains that the older the world becomes, the smaller will be the bodies of men.800 And he mentions that Homer in his poems often lamented the same decline; and this he does not laugh at as a poetical figment, but in his character of a recorder of natural wonders accepts it as historically true. But, as I said, the bones which are from time to time discovered prove the size of the bodies of the ancients,801 and will do so to future ages, for they are slow to decay. "

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

An excerpt from Abraham Lincoln's poem on the Niagara Falls:

"But still there is more. It calls up the indefinite past. When Columbus
first sought this continent — when Christ suffered on the cross — when Moses
led Israel through the Red Sea — nay, even when Adam first came from
the hand of his Maker; then, as now, Niagara was roaring here. *The eyes
of that species of extinct giants whose bones fill the mounds of America *have
gazed on Niagara, as ours do now. Contemporary with the first race of
men, and older than the first man, Niagara is strong and fresh to-day as ten
thousand years ago. "


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

An excerpt from Cotton Mather's "Biblia Americana:"

"_The Giants that once Groan’d under the Waters, are now Found under the Earth, and their Dead Bones are Lively Proofs of the Mosaic History"
_

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## KGP

TheInquirer said:


> One example is his stress on the importance of context - which he defines as 2nd Temple extra biblical writings - as essential for understanding Scripture, especially 1 Enoch. I am very leery of that approach to hermeneutics.



As you ought to be.
Extra biblical writings are not essential for our understanding of scripture however helpful we may find them when it comes to developing a more robust and precise etymology or in giving depth to certain imagery or illusion.

Confession of sin and needfulness, consecration of heart, willingness to hear and do the will of God, the grace and mercy of God, and the indwelling and illuminating Holy Spirit are the essentials for scriptural understanding.


----------



## RamistThomist

KGP said:


> As you ought to be.
> Extra biblical writings are not essential for our understanding of scripture however helpful we may find them when it comes to developing a more robust and precise etymology or in giving depth to certain imagery or illusion.
> 
> Confession of sin and needfulness, consecration of heart, willingness to hear and do the will of God, the grace and mercy of God, and the indwelling and illuminating Holy Spirit are the essentials for scriptural understanding.



I think you mean "allusion" instead of "illusion." In another thread we talked about to what degree ancient culture was important. You don't need to know ancient culture to be saved. But you do need to know it to know the context in which the Bible was written. That sentence is probably in every Evangelical and Reformed hermeneutics textbook.

Heiser is simply saying when God communicated to ancient man, he did so in the conceptual framework they already had. He didn't use Einsteinian science, Lockean democracy, and the UN Charter of Human Rights. 

As to 1 Enoch. Jude and Peter read the book. Heiser is simply saying that it might not be a bad idea to read what those two guys were reading.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## KGP

BayouHuguenot said:


> I think you mean "allusion" instead of "illusion." In another thread we talked about to what degree ancient culture was important. You don't need to know ancient culture to be saved. But you do need to know it to know the context in which the Bible was written. That sentence is probably in every Evangelical and Reformed hermeneutics textbook.
> 
> Heiser is simply saying when God communicated to ancient man, he did so in the conceptual framework they already had. He didn't use Einsteinian science, Lockean democracy, and the UN Charter of Human Rights.
> 
> As to 1 Enoch. Jude and Peter read the book. Heiser is simply saying that it might not be a bad idea to read what those two guys were reading.




Haha, yes, I certain do mean allusion  good catch.

I'll need to go check that thread you mention. I recognize that familiarity with contemporary sources/contexts adds color to the theological outlines and often helps make additional connections, adding layers of information that is helpful and illuminating. However if one claims that ANE or others such contemporary sources are "essential" to understanding the Bible at a fundamental level, or views those sources as the KEY to unlocking the REAL perspective and right understanding of the text; that is where I start to get skeptical quite quickly, I generally see it as a move against the perspicuity of scripture fundamentally and a good way to inject a new and convenient meaning in the place of orthodoxy.

I do not assume that to be the case in this situation mind you; just seen it enough before to commend a cautious stance against similar claims.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

KGP said:


> However if one claims that ANE or others such contemporary sources are "essential" to understanding the Bible at a fundamental level, or views those sources as the KEY to unlocking the REAL perspective and right understanding of the text;



Agreed, but I don't think anyone is saying that. Heiser in his podcasts said if all you can do in Bible study is use Strong's Concordance, that's better than nothing.


----------



## RamistThomist

If you have volume 2 of Bavinck on _Reformed Dogmatics_, look up the section on angels. While he disagrees with the Nephilim reading of Genesis 6 (he ignores or is unaware of any discussion linking Jude/2 Peter with Genesis 6), the rest of his discussion sounds like Heiser's. With Heiser he notes that the Prince of Persia was a territorial spirit and not the Persian king.

With Heiser he notes that angel is a term of function, not of metaphysics.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## a mere housewife

He may have some things to say that are a good corrective for a modernist mindset, but I'm not inclined to trust the scholarship of people who fudge interpretation of texts I do know about, when they are talking about those I don't.
Heiser:
'Did God select and intend the death of Jesus as a penal substitution, or did he just foreknow what would happen to Jesus on earth (not intending that he die) and then, through raising him from the dead, endorse him as a substitution? It seems to me that God foreknew humanity would suffer the loss of immortality (i.e., Eden would fail and with it, everlasting life with God). God knew this meant that death separated him from the humans he loved and wanted in his family forever.' (http://drmsh.com/random-thoughts-substitutionary-atonement/)

I may not be comfortable with what Scripture says on many topics, but there's no denying its clarity on those topics. On the level of scholarship, this seems equivalent to altering our perception of the gulags.

I'm also unimpressed with a report from someone who is enthusiastic about what he teaches that there was no sacrifice in the Jewish administration for intentional sins and the sacrifices were not about forgiveness. The last verses of Leviticus 5 in the Hebrew Bible, first in chapter 6 in the English Bible, deal with intentional sins. I suppose one could write off the Jewish tradition of interpretation of these verses in the Mishnah, which clearly takes them as intentional, but I'm not sure how you deal with the reality of OT practice (as when David offered a sacrifice after numbering the people). When someone's scholarship in the context of the OT leads him to tell me to remove Christ from how I read the OT sacrifices -- the Bereans wouldn't have cared if he were the apostle Paul, if he were contradicting the clear teaching of the prophets. And it makes me doubt the carefulness of his scholarship with texts other than Scripture. I'd want a second opinion from a scholar who was reliable with texts I knew something about.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

a mere housewife said:


> He may have some things to say that are a good corrective for a modernist mindset, but I'm not inclined to trust the scholarship of people who fudge interpretation of texts I do know about, when they are talking about those I don't.
> Heiser:
> 'Did God select and intend the death of Jesus as a penal substitution, or did he just foreknow what would happen to Jesus on earth (not intending that he die) and then, through raising him from the dead, endorse him as a substitution? It seems to me that God foreknew humanity would suffer the loss of immortality (i.e., Eden would fail and with it, everlasting life with God). God knew this meant that death separated him from the humans he loved and wanted in his family forever.' (http://drmsh.com/random-thoughts-substitutionary-atonement/)
> 
> I may not be comfortable with what Scripture says on many topics, but there's no denying its clarity on those topics. On the level of scholarship, this seems equivalent to altering our perception of the gulags.



Whether those criticisms are true or not has no bearing on his specific claims on the Divine council.


a mere housewife said:


> he teaches that there was no sacrifice in the Jewish administration for intentional sins and the sacrifices were not about forgiveness.



I'll double check on that, but in his recent talks on Ezekiel 40-48 he acknowledges the guilt-forgiveness-sin aspect. But many sacrifices in Leviticus aren't about that. They are about ritual purity.


a mere housewife said:


> When someone's scholarship in the context of the OT leads him to tell me to remove Christ from how I read the OT sacrifices -- the Bereans wouldn't have cared if he were the apostle Paul, if he were contradicting the clear teaching of the prophets.



The Berean angle works both ways: I've been double-checking all this stuff in Hebrew and am now learning Ugaritic and I am seeing that Heiser's thesis works.

I am not boasting, for I have far to go, but I can't remember the last time I did "a devotional" in the English language. 



a mere housewife said:


> And it makes me doubt the carefulness of his scholarship with texts other than Scripture.



That only works if you can show logical or linguistic fallacies in the texts under discussion.


a mere housewife said:


> I'd want a second opinion from a scholar who was reliable with texts I knew something about.



I've listed bibliographies on this page with dozens upon dozens of scholars, many of whom are Evangelical. I don't know what else to say.


----------



## a mere housewife

Jacob, he may be right on the divine council -- I don't know. I was saying that from what I know if him, I wouldn't trust his word for it. I'd check the other resources that handled Scripture more accurately on subjects that are clear to me. I'm glad you've posted other resources!


----------



## RamistThomist

And he is certainly wrong on other stuff. He's an amillennialist, after all.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## a mere housewife

Jacob I'm not even talking about his theological positions. He could be a practicing theosophist and still come to grips with what Scripture actually says about the foreknowledge of God. I'm talking about the reliability of his scholarship per these claims he makes about texts I am familiar with. I have not been impressed that it is careful or accurate. So I would not trust what he says about other texts that I don't have access to. I would want a more careful source.

I think it is more important to point this out because people who are overly impressed by scholarly credentials are enthusiastically accepting everything he says, including his views on God's foreknowledge and the doctrine of the atonement. But it's not really even a criticism of *those views*, it's about his claims regarding a text that says some things very clearly which he is not being careful with. Scholars ought to be careful with texts. Even if they disagree. And even if they have insights to bring to the table which we are benefited from listening to.


----------



## RamistThomist

a mere housewife said:


> I'm talking about the reliability of his scholarship per these claims he makes about texts I am familiar with.



He has a PhD from one of the leading Semitic-language programs in the Western hemisphere. Granted, academia doesn't equal accuracy, as I have ridiculed the university system for much of the past 15 years, but it does mean his scholarship has passed peer review.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Thread closed. It has run its course.


----------

