A Fan of M. Heiser Challenges Me to Listen to Naked Bible Podcast 249 "Did Israelites View Their Judges As Gods"

 Michael Heiser argues that they did not, taking the view that when the 82nd Psalm says "I have said, Ye are gods" (Elohim) that it is referring to a heavenly Divine Council and not the elders and judges of Israel. Due to Christ's use of the verse in John 10:33-36 where He says "if He called them gods, to whom the Word of God came", most theologians believe this was referring to human judges. Heiser disputes this and argues that Christ is also referring to members of a Divine Counsel here, and that the scene for the 82nd Psalm is in heaven. 

I described why I thought he was wrong about the 82nd Psalm in this video (note that the links in the description section of the video point to more articles with more topics and details about where I think he is missing it). A fan of Heiser then challenged me, with good intentions I believe, to listen to Heisers podcast on the question of "Did Israelites View Their Judges as Gods". I had read "The Unseen Realm" and listened to his podcasts before but I decided to listen again on his word and, because, well if you are going to say a fellow has something wrong then the right thing to do is to listen and understand his position thoroughly. 

His video is an audio-only monotone near monologue. It is hard to listen to. But I did. While I did learn some more details of his position, and I usually learn things every time I delve into the text, my bottom line hasn't changed much if any on this question. Heiser thinks that there was a group of supernatural beings that were counted as "Elohim" that were also God's sons but that His earthly sons (Israel) were not Elohim. I think God sees us as we shall be, the same basis on which He referred to Gideon as a valiant warrior while he was hiding in a winepress. Like Christ said in John 10, some were elohim (gods) simply on the basis that the Word of God came to them. He knew what it would make out of those who received it in faith. Heiser himself, at 52:50 of that link, describes an elohim as "A being that is part of the supernatural world". That's a fair definition, but I think Abraham, Moses, Elijah and others fit that definition. They were in this world, but they were also a part of the supernatural world.

Heiser starts by talking about Gen. 35:7 and making the point, at great length, that the Elohim here could be the angels Jacob encountered in two earlier events in his life, described for example in Genesis chapter 32. But this argument is not really at issue for me. I am not saying that Angels can't be considered elohim, our disagreement is whether or not spiritual people who receive God's word can also be considered as such.  

Two of the verses that he talked about that most take to be places where humans are referred to as Elohim were Exodus 21:6 and 22:8. The word for "judges" is "elohim". Here is 21:6:

Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Heiser points out (minute 43) that there was no dispute here for the judges to judge, but this was an important legal agreement, one man is pledging to serve another for life even though the law says he is otherwise to go free after six years or in the year of Jubilee. It is reasonable to suppose that this is the kind of thing that should be brought before judges to insure the statement is not made under duress and that both parties understand the consequences of the contract they are about to enter. There should be no accusation later that this was a forced labor situation, or question whether the master followed the law. 

Heiser later notes that the requirement to bring him before the "judges" is "deleted" when this part of the law is cited in Deuteronomy 15. It isn't "deleted", it just isn't mentioned. The passage there mostly deals with being merciful and forgiving debt in a variety of circumstances and this one was just on the list. There is no indication that the requirement in Exodus changed or dropped, it just wasn't mentioned in the shorter run-down in Deuteronomy. 

He even (time 49-51) suggests that the "judges" or "elohim" were clay figures often kept in houses to represent one's departed ancestors. He said it was the equivalent of swearing before one's ancestors. Thus Heiser floats the idea that dead people may have been considered elohim, just not live ones. Of course, to God, all souls that are His are alive, that's why He told Moses I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If the dead ancestors of the typical law-abiding Israelite home could be considered "elohim" then how much more a living Moses and the prophets!

The other verse is Ex 22:8

If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods.

Because the word judges is linked to plural verbs in these two verses, Heiser goes to some trouble to show that there can be references to the One True God which are linked with plural verbs. While that may be so, I don't lean on the use of plural verbs to make the connection that these are human judges rather than God. I start with what Jesus said in John 10  and work my way back to the context in which these words are used. God did not personally arbitrate these disputes or serve as a legal witness to these agreements, rather human judges serving under the law of Moses did so. They were the elohim, standing in for the ultimate Elohim. 

This is very consistent with chapter 18 of Exodus, which Heiser attempts to debunk when he says that the human judges are never referred to as "elohim" within chapter 18. And he is almost right about that. Exodus 18:15 says:

"And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to inquire of God:"

So if they wanted to ask God something, they asked Moses. I am not saying that they thought Moses was God, but they thought Moses was speaking for God. They thought he was a man with access to the supernatural realm- which fits Heiser's definition of an elohim! And the judges which are discussed later in the chapter are to stand in for Moses even as Moses stands in for the people before God. So when 22:8 says "brought unto the elohim" for them to decide (next verse) it IS consistent with the events of chapter 18. They came to Moses to hear from God and now the people are going to the judges he appointed to hear from God. Even if, as Heiser claims, the verse is about hearing from the One True God, the unrivaled Elohim, that is done through men. Men decide these cases. 

Moses had already been made an Elohim by God in Exodus 7:1. I know that most translations insert the word "as" in the verse. It is often rendered "I have made you as God to Pharaoh" but I am going to link to the interlinear so that you can see this is assumed and there is nothing in the actual Hebrew to justify adding the word "as" into the text. Moses was already an elohim on behalf of Yahweh Elohim as regards to Pharoah. He was declaring the Divine Will on earth. In chapter 18 he is acting in the same capacity for the children of Israel. His father-in-law suggests he share that burden, and this is the right thing to do because all of Israel (God's son per Ex 4:22) can also reflect His image and be elohim. Just like daddy. 

Look, we are meant to be a royal priesthood and a holy nation. We are even meant to be the Temple of the Holy Spirit, and the very Body and Bride of Christ. How can it be, if an Elohim is simply a being with access to the supernatural realm and not a Deity in the western sense, that spiritual men and women who have been "born of the flesh and of the spirit" in Christ are not also elohim? And God didn't get a new program. His OT one pointed to His NT one. I'm not saying M. Heiser is a bad guy, I'm saying he's wrong about something, and that he can just as easily be right about it. 

Look, this stuff is fascinating and all that, but I would rather turn your attention to a higher excellence. Though I don't have a problem with God having a court full of Divine Beings, I don't see them all over the Old Testament. I see Christ all over the Old Testament, and that's what my book is about. 

You Tube Channel

Michael Heiser Doesn't Have the 82nd Psalm Right

 I was prepared to like "The Unseen Realm", but if he has his two "go-to" passages wrong, what are the chances he has the rest right? Here I address his take on the 82nd Psalm

The Book of Enoch: Did the Apostles Consider it Inspired?

Probably not, for reasons made clear here...

Other Options for A Local Flood

 The Christ-Centered Model for Early Genesis posits that Adam's biblical role was not to be the first man, except in the sense that Christ is the second man. He is a figure of Christ, not the father of humanity. He was formed to bring Messiah. Thus, there were other people in the world when Adam was formed, even as Christ came into a world full of people. 

In such a case, the flood need not be global in extent to have global consequences, ending the line of Messiah would doom the entire planet, even if that line existed only in a small geographic region in the ancient Near East. I call this a "local flood with global consequences" and the language used in the text allows for this view. It was still a flood that threatened to bring the entire world to ruin by cutting off the line of Messiah and thus cutting us off from God. 

In the book, I speculated about the timing and location of the flood. The text has more give in the date than Bishop Ussher's methods would indicate, but not a great deal more. Perhaps we look a few thousand years further back than his numbers, but not much further. As for the location of such a flood, I have proposed we look to eastern Anatolia, perhaps the Araxes River Valley and nearby. But I don't think the text demands this location at all. It is a speculative matter. Perhaps it was a bit further east, in the Kura River Valley or beneath the Lesser Caucus Mountain. Less likely but still possible in my view is that they were further west and north, for example in the Ezurum Plain near Pasinler. 

I am basing these locations on the idea that the Garden of Eden was near the source for the Tigress and Euphrates Rivers, not their mouths. That and also that their movement appears to have been "east". After the flood it says they journeyed "from the east" to reach a plain in the land of Shinar. Based on that, you would think that the flood and the landing point of the ark were east of Mesopotamia. But some have said that this verse is only saying they journeyed "in the east". I don't buy that, but if that is true then perhaps the area of the line of Adam was in the area later inhabited by the Hurrians, circled in black below. Notice that the land in this region forms, with a couple of exceptions, a fairly effective "bowl" in which flood waters could accumulate. There are a couple of wide valleys that would argue against this, but suppose those valleys had been made wide by run-off from the great flood? 

I would add that the eastern-most portion of this choice is in the area of "Mount Judi" where many say that the Ark landed. The text of Genesis says only that it landed on "the mountianS of Ararat". This is a broad region from the old land of Uratu that includes both today's Mt. Ararat and Mount Judi. If the clans of Noah went down the Tigress to find the plains, known in antiquity as "the River of the East" then I suppose one could even keep some sense of a journey "from the east" to reach the land of Shinar. It would just mean from the river which defined the eastern boundary of that land.  

The diagram below also shows circled in black part of the more southernly reach of where I think the flood was, which is just my best guess right now. This is in the Lake Urmia basin area. 

Now many of my brothers and sisters are convinced of a southern location for Eden. One where the mouths of the Tigress and Euphrates are, and not their source. If that is so, it would be unlikely that the ark of Noah would drift north and wind up on "the Mountains of Ararat" as the region drains south. There was a land named "Arratta" that was probably to the east somewhere in the southern part of Iran, and if that is what is meant then I suppose a southern Eden is reasonable. I have drawn an arrow pointing to the direction of this unlikely location of the local flood of Noah. 

Click on picture to get a larger view 

You Tube Channel

"Evolutionary" Radiations Don't Match Mass Extinctions

 Report in Popular Mechanics 

The article notes that mass extinctions seem to occur at 27 million year intervals. It also says that evolutionary radiations do not match up well with recovery from mass extinctions! Mass extinctions have been a go-to explanation when asked why organisms change is spurts and then have long periods of stability. This seems to challenge that explanation.

What causes periods of rapid change in natural forms if not mass extinctions with new niches opening up? It seems nature operates independently of the events that naturalists have been saying drive it. So it is something else!

Jews Don't Believe in the Doctrine of Original Sin. Have We Misinterpreted Paul?

 Jews do not believe in "original sin" as taught by most Christian denominations. That is, they do not believe that we inherit sin nature by virtue of being the offspring of Adam and Eve. They would say that they do not believe in it at all, though of course the Ultra-Orthodox would agree that Adam committed the first or original human sin. It seems that they do not extrapolate that to mean anything about our spiritual condition today. They sort of dodge question of whether we have a sin nature and if so, what its origin might be, saying "Whether man is a sinner by nature or not is immaterial." because repentance provides a way out. 

While I could take issue with how material it is, I was fascinated that they don't "believe in original sin". Again, when they say that, they mean that they don't think Adam's sin means anything for the rest of his offspring. His sins were his alone, not something for which we are accountable. If this is true, it resolves some theological questions regarding Adam being formed as a figure of Christ, a representative for an already-existing, though in innocence, humanity. 

Could Christian theologians have been misinterpreting the Apostle Paul in Romans 5:12? I think they have been. Not in the sense of "there is no such thing as original sin" but the nature by which Adam's original sin effects the rest of us has been misconstrued. For more on why I think that, and what Romans 5:12 really means, see....

You Tube Channel

On Utnipishtim and Noah

 This are some rough notes, a comment I made in a FB group, that I wish to flesh out later. The question being "what evidene is there that the account in Genesis predates that of Utnipishtim?
He didn't "predate" him, because they are the same person! What we have to do is look at the elements of the account and determine which is most reasonably the derived version. The Babylonians kept using clay tablets while the Isralites adopted more Egyptian methods such as scrolls made of hide so unfortunately we can't just see who has the oldest record- you can't expect the hides to last as long. Scholars who accept the historicity of Moses put him in the 15th century BC, but the tolodoth phrase in the first 36 chapters of Genesis indicates he was stringing together an anthology of older accounts. That easily gets you prior to the 18th century BC record of Utnipishtim.

So let's look at the elements of the accounts and see which is most reasonably a derived version. Both say that the ark landed near the northern edge of Mesopotamia. This is a good distance from Babylon, and much farther from Uruk where Gilgamesh reigned. It is on the edge of the other end of Mesopotamia. It is even farther from Israel but the most common Y-haplogroup among Cohen surnamed Jews is J-M172 and J-M267 is the most common among the rest. This points to an origin in the Caucuses/Armenian region. This fits better with an origin account of people from the mountains that moved in to "the land of Shinar". So this fits better with the idea that they told the story to those dwelling in Mesopotamia when they got there, and those folks passed on a derived version.

Utnipishtim and his wife gain immortality. Noah lived much longer than a normal human, and his descendants revereted to more normal life-spans in a few generations, but the former seems more likely to be a dervived version of the latter, and more fanciful.

The conflicting account of what the god Ea said to Utnipishtim is also far more significant than the overlapping instructions of Elhohim and Yahweh to Noah. Did the god appear to him in person or in a dream? The Bablonian tale conflicts on this. The Genesis account can easily explain this as a coflation of the instructions Noah got from Elhomin, in a vision or voice or dream, and Yahweh, who seems more anthropomorphic (He shut them in the ark Himself).

The Babaloynian account also seems garbled when it comes to the process of landing. It makes it seem like he saw the slopes of the mountain that he landed on, as if it was out of the water, and yet still had to release the birds, who at first could not find land, even though Utnipishtim saw the slopes of the very mountain they were resting on. This indicates a garbled version of the Genesis account where they ran aground but the tops of the mountians were only visible either at a great distance or still under the water. This makes more sense with the birds not finding land at first.

So I would say the elements of the account make it clear which is the derived version.

The Proper Place of Places in our Christian Walk

 I recently read "The Unseen Realm" by Michael Heiser. I was prepared to like the book, but unfortunately I found a lot to disagree with. Those points of disagreement can be found in other articles on this blog. This is an area where there is only "disagreement by omission." That is, he doesn't tell the other, very relevant, side of things. This is on the issue of geography and places. 

On page 284 of the Kindle edition he makes the claim that when Christ says "on this rock I will build my church" He is talking in part about the physical rock of Mount Herman. He further claims that this was believed to be the "gates of Hell" in that culture. He attaches great importance to places and weaves place-significance into the meaning of numerous passages. 

He doesn't have to be wrong about what he is saying in some of these places, but 1) it is majoring in the minors and 2) he leaves off something very important- how our view of place-significance should change in the light of Christ. 

In Galatians 4 we read: 
" Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

So then when Paul assigns significance to place names, he does it in terms of what it says about the work of Christ. And he doesn't even identify us with the earthly Jerusalem, the holiest city in Judasim. Rather he associated believers with "the Jerusalem which is above." 

Jesus Himself makes this plain in John chapter four:

20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The place you worship doesn't matter. How you worship matters. The obsession with worshipping in places was part of the old way. The new way is worshipping in correct spirit and truth rather than geography. The places and days and ceremonies and even events were all to point to Christ and His work. Since He has come, they don't have their former significance. 

Hebrews chapter nine speaks of things on earth being a mere pattern of the true things in heaven, and that Christ entered a Holy Place "made without hands", the true one in heaven. Further on, in 11:16 it reads "they that say such things declare that they seek a better country, that is, a heavenly..."

Time after time, place after place, this world is declared to be just the pattern. One day, there will be a new heaven and a new earth for us to dwell. The pre-occupation with religious acts and ordinances in specific places on this earth is out of balance with the real message of scripture. This world is not our home, and that's OK, because this life is merely the test. 

Surely we are to "go to all the world to preach the gospel" and 1 Tim. 2:8 "I want the men to pray in every place", but these instructions don't point to a pre-occupation with particular places. Rather all places are equally to be prayed in, and preached in. God isn't as interested in the dirt in this fading material realm as He is the souls of the eternal beings within it. 

You Tube Channel

"Intelligent Evolution"? And Are We Lucky to be Here?

 A couple of papers came out that I want to make note of. One claimed that "Intelligent Life is Rare" and suggested that based on the transition windows between biological milestones like mulit-cellularity, we are probably the only intelligent life in the cosmos, based on naturalistic assumptions. Even with all of the planets that are out there, the advancement of life to sentience may be against the odds. This is separate and apart from the issue of the "fine tuning" of the fundamental forces of the universe "just so" in order to allow a universe able to support life to exist. 

Of course I don't think "the odds" matter because we were meant to be here. It wasn't chance at all, but intent. If an intelligent agent brings about an effect, it doesn't matter how unusual it would be for nature alone to produce it. This is the opposite take from the shallow assumption that nature alone has produced universe full of planets and alien life because there are so many planets out there. If intelligent life is difficult enough to obtain, even this universe doesn't give enough chances to make it probable. 

It also cited a 2007 study: 

The fact that eukaryotic life took over a billion years to emerge from prokaryotic precursors suggests it is a far less probable event than the development of multicellular life, which is thought to have originated independently over 40 times (Grosberg and Strathmann, 2007)

Wow. Some scientists think that multi-cellular life arose independently over 40 times? So much for evolution from a common ancestor! 

A second paper was discussed in an article with the ridiculous title "Is Evolution More Intelligent than We Thought"? "Evolution" is a label for a set of ideas about nature's role in shaping life. It can't be "intelligent" at all, nor can nature itself in any ordinary sense. Rather nature could have been designed by some Intellect to operate in an intelligent manner. In the case of the article it was noticed that "nature" seemed to learn from its "mistakes" in evolution. Of course the skeptic could say that an all-knowing God would not have to learn from His mistakes, but the Christ-centered model for early Genesis expects creation to operate like this. Nature has some power to bring forth living things, but only with God's help. It is almost amusing to watch scientists try to explain why nature looks as though it is designed when it really isn't. 

You Tube Channel

Did the Apostles Accept the Book of Enoch as True?

 

The Book of Enoch is an apocryphal work which claims to be from the Enoch mentioned in the bible, who was taken up and never saw death. The earliest parts of it can be attested to in the 4th century B.C., but so far as I know all experts think that it was added to over time and did not take its final form for centuries. It is said to have been written before the flood of Noah and much of the book is warning of the flood and God's judgement. Since the flood was well before 400 B.C., it clearly wasn't written by Enoch, nor even a single person. It makes many fantastical claims, such as that the Nephilim were three-hundred feet tall. The book as a whole is not seen as canon by either Jews or Christians, except perhaps by one ancient sect of African Christianity. 

Nevertheless, the book has gotten more attention from American Christians and been more thoroughly  studied than many books of scripture which are canon. Part of it is no doubt its mysterious subject matter while at the same time the book doesn't demand anything of us. Quite the opposite, the flood seems to be brought on as a result of demons deciding that they want to be a part of the material world, whereas the text of Genesis pins the blame for the flood on Man and his works. 

The thing is, several passages of scripture seem to allude to the Book of Enoch. This makes the case that at least some of the apostles either thought at least parts of the book were inspired or that there were things that actually happened which are mentioned in the book, or at least the book was an elaborate exaggeration of things that happened. 

I'd like to go over these instances one by one.....

Jude

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Jude seems to cite the first chapter of the Book of Enoch. It is pretty much a word-for-word match of verse nine. Some have mentioned that the first segment, verse 14 of Jude, also sounds like Deuteronomy 33:2, but Jude is citing "Enoch, seventh from Adam". My personal theory here is that the first chapter of Enoch is inspired writing and that Deuteronomy 33:2 borrowed a phrase from it. If you read the Book of Enoch, the first chapter sounds completely separate from the second and succeeding chapter. Perhaps the first chapter of Enoch was lore for a long time and other men added to the original prophecy. If this were true then, while this word would be legitimately inspired by God, you could not rely on the book as inspired. It would be like someone taking a page out of scripture and using it as the first page in their own book.

The second verse sometimes attributed to the Book of Enoch is in First Peter:

First Peter 3:19

"in which He also went and preached to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the great patience of God was waiting in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark......

This doesn't really line up well with the Book of Enoch. Michael Heiser says that this verse describes Christ basically rubbing the fallen spirit's noses in it that He has saved man after all. That doesn't make any sense to me. They are in prison, why bother? It makes more sense that He was doing so to "set the captives free". In Matthew chapter eight the demons specifically ask Him if He is there to "torment them before the appointed time."  He doesn't, He just casts them out. I have another explanation for First Peter 3:19 in my book, but I'd rather not get on a rabbit trail here. The bottom line is, there really isn't much evidence that this verse is connected to the Book of Enoch. It is supposition. 

That isn't the case in the other reference that the Apostle Peter makes which has been connected to the Book of Enoch: 2nd Peter 2:4-7 

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

The Book of Enoch has almost the exact same language. That is, Angels that sinned were bound and cast down into a place of darkness. So on the face of it, this looks like it could be a reference to the Book of Enoch. Does this mean that the Book of Enoch is true? No, but it means that something did happen which is similar to what is described in the book of Enoch. This passage isn't saying that angels mated with human women and produced the Nephilim, and it isn't saying that the fallen angels were responsible for corrupting mankind and bringing the flood (as the Book of Enoch claims while the text of Genesis says differently, that the sons of Adam themselves were to blame). But it does seem that at some point, probably associated with the flood because of the way verse seven is connected with verse six, that some angels did sin and they were confined to a place of darkness as punishment. 

We see near the end of Luke chapter eight that the demons in a possessed person begged Jesus not to command them to go "into the abyss". He granted their plea that they instead be allowed to go into a herd of swine. He granted them permission, and the whole herd went mad and plunged to their deaths into the water. In what is probably a different eye-witness to the same account in Matthew chapter eight the demons ask if He has "come to torment us before the appointed time?" So apparently there are "rules" even for demons, lines they are not allowed to cross. Most respond right away when caught by God's servants but others, of a different "kind", do not (Matthew 17:21). They seem "wilder", not recognizing the authority of the believer in the Name of Christ, but will push it until heaven acts. This is much like some criminals on earth will back away when you tell them you are calling 911 if they don't leave but others will push things until the call is made and the police sirens are closing in. 

So it is clear that there is a place of punishment for demons who go beyond some boundaries, but it is also clear that taking mortal bodies and mating with human women aren't the only crimes which would make them think that they would be due such a punishment. The demons which Jesus gave permission to enter the swine thought they were in danger of being so confined for doing a mass case of violent possession. 

The strongest verse in the bible to support the idea that the Book of Enoch is a true account, and that the demons were imprisoned for co-habiting with human women is also found in Jude. I will cite the surrounding verses as well:

4For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
5I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
9Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
10But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

One thing I get out of this passage is that perhaps Christians should not focus on demonology and railing against evil spirits. We don't understand their role in God's plan. Maybe we should focus on the work of Christ and what that means for how we should live! Of course it is always more fun to go off on the bad guys and brag about our authority than it is to put to death the flesh in us, but that's our calling. Yet verse six and verse seven have often been construed to be taken together rather than as separate examples and therefore imply that the angles which kept not their first estate (dominion) were those who took human wives and produced the Nephilim. 

The Greek in verse seven isn't as clear cut as advocates of this position would have you believe. The truth is that it is ambiguous as to whether it is saying that the demons participated in a like manner as Sodom and Gomorrah, or that the cities around them participated in a like manner. Going back to the Old Testament we see that the cities around them did indeed participate and were judged with them. 

Further, verse eight seems to be treating the three examples given in verses five, six, and seven separately. The third thing listed is "defiling the flesh" which was what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah. In the middle it says they "despise dominion" which is "authority". This is what the angels did when they "kept not their first estate" and left their own habitation." They did not do their rightful duty. The last thing mentioned in verse eight is "speaking evil of dignitaries" or "glories" and this is what happened when the wicked Children of Israel in Numbers 26 when the earth swallowed up those who strove against Moses and Aaron, the "glories" mentioned. So the fact that verse eight lists three separate complaints and three examples are given previously which match well in reverse order indicates that verses seven and eight are not the same offense. They are separate examples, and the ungodly men which had crept in, mentioned in verse four, did all of these things. They were not going to escape the consequences for them any more than did the unbelieving Israelites, the angels who left behind their original dominions or jurisdiction, and those of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding cities. 

We don't know exactly what is meant by the angels leaving their first estate and original habitation, but Jude isn't connecting it to sexual sin. That's what the example of Sodom and Gomorrah is for. Compare also the Archangel Michael's behavior in verse nine of Jude with passage or chapter nine of The Book of Enoch. In Enoch 9 Michael does bring what pretty much sounds like a "railing accusation" against the head of the fallen angels. This makes me wonder if Jude was even paraphrasing from the book of Enoch for verse six. Would he then turn right around in verse nine and point out how Michael behaved differently than the Michael from Enoch 9? Jude verse six does describe something similar to what the Book of Enoch says happened to the angels in prison, but is this appealing to the Book of Enoch or was it appealing to a common tradition found in the book of Enoch?  

I would further note that when Jude does appear to quote Enoch from the Book of Enoch a bit further down (v14), he identifies the quote as being from Enoch, as if it were the first time he was introducing material from that source. And again, it is only from the first chapter of Enoch, and an extrapolation on Deuteronomy 33:2. So it could have been a legitimate prophecy which was lifted and put into an otherwise uninspired work.  

The bottom line is that the church fathers rightly did not include "The Book of Enoch" in the canon of scripture. Paul, who advised that we "pay no attention to Jewish fables", doesn't cite any of it. Nor does His associate Luke. Peter makes allusions which refer to what seems to be a common tradition regarding the fate of devils, but we don't need the book of Enoch for that. Luke chapter eight discusses evil spirits being confined to the abyss and it isn't citing Enoch. It is the demons themselves mentioning it as something they fear will happen to them in the present. Nor does Jude offer the support for the Enoch narrative that many have imagined. A close look at the text shows the passage isn't connecting the sin of the angels to Sodom and Gomorrah, but it is a separate example of a separate sin.

You Tube Channel

Michael Heiser Probably Has "Sons of God" Wrong as Well

I finally got around to reading "The Unseen Realm" by Michael S. Heiser. I was prepared to like the book, because I too believe that there is an "unseen realm" and that in a way, it is under-emphasized in American Christianity. The business-model that has taken over our "Evangelical" churches has moved the focus to this world and this life, in a way that is out of balance. I don't even have an issue with God having some sort of celestial court. So I was primed like it. 

I hated it. He got almost everything wrong in the foundation that he built, and jumped to lots of conclusions based on his faulty premises. He got Psalm 82 wrong. He got Deuteronomy 32 wrong both for what he claims it says about "disinheriting the nations" and concerning what Elohim means in scripture. Click on that last link and I think you will see that scripture refers to humans in certain functions as "Elohim", not that he necessarily denies that, but if humans can be "Elohim" then we should be very careful about saying that the "sons of Elohim" are something other than human.

If he has "Elohim" wrong, the Hebrew word used for "God" or "gods", or even of lesser beings including humans who exercised divine authority on His behalf, then he probably has "Sons of God" wrong too. I say "probably" because this one is less certain than the others I listed because of the book of Job. 

Let's start from the New Testament and look back. Whatever the "Sons of God" may have been in the Old Testament, by the New Testament it is clear that human beings are the Sons of God, at least when their life is in the Son of God. Hebrews chapter one makes a distinction between the angels, and the Son. ...

For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”?

and a bit further down in the chapter...

13Yet to which of the angels did God ever say: “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet” 14Are not the angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?…

These are meant to be rhetorical questions showing the superiority of Christ to the angels. Heiser cites the earlier verse but never addresses how it argues against one of his main points, that the other Divine Beings are also His "sons" and "heavenly family."  If he had, I anticipate that he would claim that Elohim are yet another class of spiritual beings above those serving in the job described by the word "angel". But this would undermine the intent of these passages demonstrating the superiority of Christ. It is ridiculous to make a big point of Christ being superior to the angels if there is another class of spiritual being which is also superior to them. It would leave the question of Christ's superiority open. The speculation about such a class of spirit beings diminishes anyway. All the talk of angels as "Sons of God" is definitely gone by the New Testament and is replaced by our being His sons and daughters in Christ. 

To find passages where the "Sons of God" may refer to angels, Heiser goes to the Old Testament. But in doing so, he uses texts where it is ambiguous as to whether the text is talking about humans or spiritual beings, such as Genesis chapter six. But perhaps his "strongest" such cite is Psalm 89:6. It also has a translation issue, because it is often translated "sons of the mighty", but Heiser has a fair point here that the word translated "mighty" is "elim" which is from the same root as "El". It could be fairly translated "gods" or "god-like ones".  If you look at verse six alone, it seems to use the "Sons of God" to refer to heavenly beings. But let's look at it in context, by including the prior verse with it...

5 And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O Lord: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints.

6 For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord?

Verse six starts with the word "for", indicating we should look to the previous verse for context. Verse five mentions what the heavens will do, and also what the congregation of saints will do. It is a poetic way of saying that the heavens and the earth will praise God. Therefore, it is reasonable to understand verse six doing the same thing. Verse five describes what those on heaven and earth will do, and verse six gives a reason why those in each place will do it. Ergo, Psalm 89:6 isn't evidence that the "sons of God" or "sons of the gods" or "sons of the mighty", however one translates it,  are in heaven, but more evidence that they are on earth. This is confirmed by the way Psalm 29:1 uses the same phrase in a passage which only references things on earth.

 Heiser also relies on other places where the translation is disputed, including Deuteronomy 32 and Job. The Septuagint has "angels" in Job each place that the Masoretic text says "sons of God". Meanwhile, people are referred to as the "sons of the living God" and Israel is repeatedly referred to by God as "my son" in Exodus. 

Let me add here that his strongest proof that the "sons of God" were not humans comes from Job 38:6. Yet there we find that the language is different. Although it is often translated "when the sons of God shouted for joy" the text is really strange there and not like the other places "the sons of God" is used. The other places say "bene HA-Elohim" while here it just says "bene-Elohim". The "Ha" is missing. Maybe that is OK in Hebrew grammar because of the word "kal" before it, meaning, all, the whole, or every, but unless there is some kind of exception like that it would just read "every son-God shouted" and the meaning is obscure. I haven't figured this one out, in case you could not tell.  

Job is his clearest example in this class of scripture. If one accepts Heiser's case that the original text in these disputed places originally said "sons of God" in these places, and the setting in Job is not on earth, then it would seem that the New Testament and the Old Testament have a conflict over whether or not angles or non-human spirit beings can be "sons of God." 

To resolve the question perhaps we should use a tool that Heiser speaks highly of- seeking the Ancient Near Eastern context of the accounts. In the ANE, the "Sons of God" were applied very often to kings and rulers who were said to have received the kingship from heaven. There were whole pantheons of Gods who could mate with each other or with humans, leading to a diverse array of beings, some part human, and part divine. This wasn't the case by the time of Moses however. He has one God, with angels, and only humans are unambiguously referred to as "sons of God" until we get to the pagan ruler of Persia in Daniel. 

As an adherent of the tablet theory I think early Genesis was a very ancient document. The pantheon of gods and demigods came later. It seems like Israel was pulled out of that stream, because the writings of Moses, in agreement with the New Testament, consistently refer to human beings as children of the Almighty, with some passages being ambiguous. Job is an exception to this rule. Job seems to be an older book, older than even the writings of Moses, except for Genesis material which Moses got in the form of tablets from his ancestors. Job also seems to be culturally separate from the Israelites. The text says he was in the east, closer to Mesopotamia. 

Thus, it is possible that we are dealing with two streams of thought on "the sons of God". One is the view that Moses and the Israelites had gotten from their ancestors- once which is echoed in New Testament writings on the subject, and another stream of thought from their former homeland in Mesopotamia, as exhibited in Job and the Persian monarch in Daniel. Men didn't quit trying to invent their own religion after the scattering at Babel. They were still at it, distorting the original revealed cosmology. God called Abraham out of all of that, preserving his view of the universe even while "the old country" kept spinning new tales every generation, writing God and Kings in and out of the story as politics dictated. Those who made gods of their ancestors had to invent a new class of beings, and of course write them into the story by saying they were the son of this or that god. It is my view that this is where the elaborate classes of beings comes from, not the original view of creation recorded in Genesis, sustained by Moses, and confirmed by the apostles. 

You Tube Channel

Nor Does Michael Heiser Have "Elohim" Right

 I finally got around to reading "The Unseen Realm" by Michael Heiser. I was prepared to like it. I don't have a problem with the idea that God has a court of royal attendants.  I also believe there is an unseen realm, one that is more real than the one in which we live. We are the shadow, and the realm which is unseen to us is the eternal substance into which we will pass once the test of this life is over. That is the classic orthodox Christian position, but one which is almost incomprehensible to American Evangelicals today because business-model churches make it "all about us" and how to do well in this life. But that's another article. 

Unfortunately, I did not care for the book. He makes a couple of gigantic interpretative blunders to start out and uses them to springboard into all kinds of theology that really isn't in the bible. I have already addressed some of the problems with his view of the two main "go to" scriptures that he uses: The 82nd Psalm and Deuteronomy 32. He goes back to those scriptures for so much of his foundation that if he has them wrong it is very doubtful that he has the rest of it right. In the case of Deuteronomy 32, I focused on his claim that there was a "disinheriting of the nations" after Babel. But the other part of his view of things comes from his view of "Elohim".

The word "Elohim" in scripture is used to describe God, but is also used to describe false gods. In Gen. 23:6 Abraham is described as a "Mighty Prince" by the inhabitants of the land. The word for "Mighty" is "Elohim". Some translations that acknowledge that "Elohim" should be translated "God" or "gods" put it as "a prince of God" but the Hebrew doesn't have any preposition there. It just describes Abraham as a "chief Elohim". That's the way Hebrew is, all thoughts in a sentence segment are grouped together and we have to figure out from context whether a preposition works in there. Here, I think it doesn't because elsewhere, when someone is prince of a place, it means they have authority over that place. Further, the men talking to Abraham were in his larger culture but not necessarily monotheists. If the "of" is assumed it should read "Prince of gods" (or Divine Beings), which implies that Abraham is among them. 

In Exodus 7:1 it says that God has made Moses Elohim to Pharaoh. Some people also like to used Exodus 4:6 where Moses is "as Elohim" to Aaron, but the Hebrew there has a different form so that it can be more fairly translated "as God" or "like God". In Exodus 22:8, when people are to be brought before the "judges" in Israel who are to judge according to the Law of Moses, the word for judges is "Elohim". The judges of Israel were "Elohim" when they were administering God's law. 

In First Samuel 26, when Saul persuades the Witch at Endor to communicate with the deceased prophet she describes him, without rebuke from Samuel, as an Elohim, often translated as "a Divine Being". And this I think is a good translation of "Elohim".

God is an "Elohim", the ultimate Elohim. The arch-Angel Michael is also an Elohim, a Divine Being. And so is Abraham, and Samuel, and any ruler who is supposed to be operating and exercising authority on behalf of God. Besides the fact that the term was applied to Abraham while he was alive, those who argue against the term being applied to humans on the grounds that Saul was dead when it was applied to him don't see things as God sees them. Jesus explained that God said "I AM" the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob because He knows they are still alive. God calls what is not as though it were because He sees the end of things, not just what we see trapped in our space in time. 

This is the other half of what Heiser is missing in the 82nd Psalm. Those who exercise authority on behalf of God and carry out His Word in the earth meet the criteria of Divine Beings. If they do well, and fulfill their destiny, they become that indeed.

The rulers of Israel were meant to do this. They were to carry His word to the nations and be an example for the rest to look up to. This fits very well with the context of Deuteronomy 28, the first half of the chapter, where God describes the blessings they would get if they hearkened to His word. And it describes very well the situation at the end of revelations when "the nations" bring their glory into the gates of Jerusalem. Israel did a terrible job of being God's "example nation" set on high for the others to follow. This is what Psalm 82 is complaining about.

Some dismiss the idea that the Elohim referenced here are men (in spite of what Jesus said about the passage) because it says "you will die like men". As far as the "like men" reference goes, I can be and sometimes is translated "as men". It isn't ever translated "like men even though you are not". IOW God is telling them that even though He has pronounced them gods, they will not fulfill their destiny. Further, if you are going to take that tack, it must be noted that when it says they will fall like "princes" that word is the same word used in the book of Daniel of Michael and the "prince" of Persia. So whoever this group is, they are like men in a sense and like the supernatural princes in another. So then the message is, by not fulfilling their destiny they will get the worst of both realms. As men, they will die, as Elohim, they will fall.

Heiser runs right past the truth at the start of Chapter 28 in The Unseen Realm when he notes that it was common for Ancient Near East civilizations to believe that the Kingship was a divine institution and that therefore kings were considered to be descended from the gods. IOW, they were "sons of the gods", and therefore part god themselves. One of his footnotes from page 103 is very interesting in that it says that Gilgamesh was considered "2/3rds god through his mother and 1/3 human through his father". In addition, he was considered a "Nephilim" who had pre-flood knowledge. This fits far better with the Christ-Centered model's view of early Genesis than the take Hesier proposes. 

The rulers of nations were considered "Elohim" in the Ancient Near East. For someone who insists we understand scripture in the context that the audience of the day would have understood it, Heiser has a real reluctance to accept that some humans were considered Divine Beings. Israel was supposed to be, if they obeyed God, above all other nations. They were supposed to be "a royal priesthood and a holy nation." They were supposed to be a light to the gentiles. Psalms 82 is where they are rebuked for their failures. If it has anything to do with other nations, then it applies to their earthly rulers who ruled with some divine mandate. There may be a "Divine Council" of supernatural beings, but the 82nd Psalm isn't a reference to them. I  base this on the way Christ spoke to the passage.  And my link above on Deuteronomy 32 dispenses with the idea that these were assigned to rule the "disinherited" nations after babel. 

Humans therefore, could be "Elohim" when serving as the representative of the Type Elohim in heaven. It meant a "Divine Being" who exercised authority on behalf of God (or the gods for the pagans). It could apply to humans, both before and after their life on this earth ended. And this is who it is talking about in the 82nd Psalm. Next I should talk about "the sons of God", but that's enough for now. 

You Tube Channel

 

Michael Heiser Doesn't Have the 82nd Psalm Right Either

 I finally got around to reading "The Unseen Realm" by Michael Heiser. I was prepared to like it. I wanted to like it. I believe there is an unseen realm which is more real than this one. I am not saying he is wrong about everything. But he is wrong about enough that, having finally read it, I felt obligated to say why. Foremost among the things he has wrong is his interpretation of his two "go-to" scriptures. These are Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and Psalm 82. 

I've already talked about part of the reason he has Deuteronomy 32 wrong here. On this post, I'd like to discuss his other go-to scripture- the 82nd Psalm.

82 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Heiser says that this passage describes God standing in His heavenly "Divine Council." The ones He is chastising are the lesser Elohim - heavenly beings that He put in charge of the other nations when He "disinherited" them after the tower of Babel. Here God is upbraiding them for their failure to pursue justice. He goes to some length trying to discredit they idea that this is God talking to earthly rulers, in particular the rulers of His people.

The problem is that Jesus Himself uses this scripture to make the point that men are called "Elohim", the word translated "gods" here, when the Pharisees sought to kill Him for saying that He was God's son. 

33 "The Jews answered him, ‘It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came – and Scripture cannot be broken – do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” John 10:33-36

Christ's whole point was that the scripture called certain of the sons of Israel "gods", so why try to kill Him for claiming that He was God's son? Christ is reminding them that their own law considers them "Elohim." Heiser's view of this passage assumes that it is not talking to humans, and thus is at odds with how Christ viewed the passage. The word translated "gods" isn't just used of the one true God, but of false gods and even "divine beings" that we would not think of as "gods". For example, when the witch at Endor called Samuel from the dead she described him as an "Elohim". Beings, including humans, who exercise divine authority on earth seem to be considered "Elohim". 

I could spend a lot of time here talking about how different terms are used, and why his view of the passage is flawed, but showing that Christ Himself did not hold Heiser's position on it should be enough to convince all believers that this position is incorrect. 

You Tube Channel

Michael Heiser Doesn't Have Deuteronomy 32 Right

 Michael Heiser's book "The Unseen Realm" has become a pivotal work in American Evangelical Christianity. Like him, I believe there is an unseen realm. It is more real than this one! Nevertheless, I think he is mistaken on some of his major themes, even if he is right on many of the details and intriguing ideas he describes. I can see why his book is extremely popular. 

One of his key passages, perhaps the one he relies on the most for his thesis, is Deuteronomy 32. 

7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.

8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. (note that the Septuagint says "sons of God" and Heiser argues this is the correct wording. Some sources also say "Angels of God")

9 For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

10 He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.

Heiser argues for the "sons of God" translation, and then uses that to say that this means that Divine Beings from God's "heavenly family" were given charge over the nations after Babel, and that these are the "sons of God" referenced. The dividing. according to him, was associated with the scattering after the Tower of Babel and is the one documented in the "Table of Nations" in Genesis chapter ten. This he claims, is a "disinheriting" of the other nations. They were turned over to the authority of other spiritual entities, in some cases wicked ones, while the LORD took possession of Jacob. 

I find this view of the text problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, with the idea that the other nations were "disinherited" due to the disobedience at Babel. The text doesn't say so. It is imposed on it. If we were disinherited, it was due to the decision of Adam, who stood in for the whole human race. Surely Israel and Judah committed sins as egregious as those at Babel. Our behavior never changed, yet God never gave up on His people, even when He had to let them go their own way for a while. I think this claim also detracts from the work of Christ as the Second Adam (1 Cor. 15). There was nothing more to undo once Christ undid the fall of Adam.   

The claims is also disconnected with what the text says about other nations even within Deuteronomy. Verse 14:2 says "For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth."  The word "peculiar" there means "a special treasure". This verse sheds light on how the verses in chapter 32 should be interpreted. The other nations were not "disinherited". It was just that Israel was especially singled out. It was the "apple of God's eye" so to speak. 

Exodus was contemporaneous with Deuteronomy and it supports this view of the nations. Chapter nineteen says 

"4Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
5Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6 ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

So it isn't that these other nations were "disinherited" or given over to fallen angels by God's decree. It was just that Israel was His focus, His special project. Why send the prophet Jonah to Nineveh if the only nation that mattered was Israel? 

Indeed the text of Deuteronomy chapter seven goes into some detail to explain the situation, and it makes it clear that the only nations being "dis-inherited" are those which God authorizes the children of Israel to dispossess. It explains the process by which Israel was chosen, and it mentions nothing about a dispossession of the scattered nations at Babel. It rather says:

6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

7 The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

8 But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt

If there had been some sort of "disinheritance" at Babel, this would have been the perfect time to say so but it doesn't mention anything about that. Instead it reads like other people were also His, but Jacob was his special people, due not to any special traits they had, but because of who He is. This is consistent with the character of the God of the Bible in that our position is not due to our own works or our own awesomeness.

Is there anything about chapter thirty-two of Deuteronomy that indicates the division of the nations is the one referenced in Genesis chapter ten? Not really. They are both places where it mentions that nations are divided, that's about it. In chapter ten it is the clans of Noah who are dividing the nations. In Deuteronomy 32 it is the LORD assigning them their boundaries. The timing is off by about ten generations of very long-lived people. Of course Israel isn't mentioned in the table of nations. Jacob wasn't even born until long after Babel. The other nations mentioned in Deuteronomy as having specific inheritances aren't a part of the Table of Nations either. They came around long after. I am speaking of Edom, Moab, and Ammon. In chapter two God basically tells them to leave these nations alone, that He isn't going to give any of their land to Israel. Instead, they are to dispossess other nations as He directed. 

So the subject of nations having inheritances from God and being dispossessed from their national inheritance is discussed at length in Deuteronomy and it is in the context of then-existing nations, not hearkening back a thousand years or more to the scattering after Babel, or nations from the Table of Nations. I don't even think the text of Genesis 11 supports the idea that all the clans of Noah were a part of that scattering anyway. Most of the Japheth line seems to have broken off earlier and never went to "the Land of Shinar" in large numbers. There is just no reason to connect Deut. 32 to either the table of nations division of lands or a "disinheritance after Babel". It is writing stuff in between the lines. Any disinheriting going on is explained quite well by what is said in the rest of Deuteronomy in terms of the then extant nations, most of which were not even mentioned in the Table of Nations. 

Another theological problem with Heiser's view, especially for two-population models of early Genesis, is that it would leave many ethnicities in a no-man's land. The table of nations describes seventy nations which have sprung up within the last 10,000 years or more recently than that. It isn't inclusive of every nation on the earth. What of the "nations" of the far east, or sub-Saharan Africa, or the Amer-Indians? On what grounds were they "disinherited", or were they never in the club in the first place? Did they get assigned a fallen angel to rule them at that time or was it only the seventy nations mentioned in the Table of Nations? Heiser's view creates situation where much of the world is in limbo. Humans are in this undefined category. 

I think he's wrong about the "Sons of God" part too, and if he is, his take on this passage falls apart on that score too. I wanted to take one of his two main "go to" passages and show why he was it wrong on just about everything else he is saying about the passage. And if he does, then what are the odds that he has the more obscure stuff right?

I continue to advocate for a Christ-centered approach to early Genesis:

You Tube Channel

 

A Low Bar is Set When it Comes to Evidence for Naturalism

I was reading this article the other day, which purported to be about new evidence concerning the evolutionary origin of hoofed mammals. I believe the text of early Genesis portrays a more complex relationship between creationism and evolution than most on either side are at this point willing to acknowledge. Therefore, what I write isn't written from any position you are likely to have heard on the issue. These issues are real, and we should all approach them honestly if we want to make real progress. 

In this case, the issue that the researchers were hoping to make progress on is well-described by this quote from the article:

"The modern orders artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates), perissodactyla, and primates appeared abruptly at the beginning of the Eocene around 56 million years ago across the Northern Hemisphere, but their geographic source has remained a mystery," explained Ken Rose, emeritus professor at Johns Hopkins University and lead author of the study.

So the problem is that three new orders of mammals make an abrupt and mysterious appearance across the Northern Hemisphere around 56 million years ago. I am sure my evolutionary friends will just chalk this up to the "niches opened up by the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs", but scientists in the field are not as convinced as the armchair-professors. Indeed it seems to me that reptiles pretty much quit "evolving" and mammals did not, which makes sense in the context of changes coming based on what an Intelligent Designer was willing to continue tweaking but not in the context of blind nature driving all changes, even ones large enough to produce new orders. 

To address part of this question, the researchers proposed that one of the groups (perissodactyla) which abruptly and mysteriously showed up across the northern hemisphere 56 million years ago got its start in the Indian sub-continent, and only spread to the rest of the world once the Indian land mass collided with Asia. The idea was that they were "hiding out" and developing there, and that is why they seem to appear so abruptly.

They did their searching and what they found, and offer as evidence to support their hypothesis, was some 55 million year-old fossils of a beast called Cambaytherium. To their credit, they don't even claim that this critter was a perissodactyl or even basal to them, but a cousin to them with basal features.

Why does finding a cousin to the perissodactyls on the Indian sub-continent from 55 million years ago explain the sudden emergence across the northern hemisphere of the group 56 million years ago? All that can be said is that a similar animal was also on the subcontinent- a mystery in itself.

It is amazing what passes for "evidence" these days when it is offered in support of a naturalistic paradigm. I have been assured by my naturalist friends for example, that a phyla is simply a species that has had half a billion years to evolve into many other things. This however, is a faith-based statement. It assumes naturalism is true, that it is the total explanation for all that we see. The evidence suggests that in the oceans the phyla rose much more rapidly than this, and there were few species within each for millions of years until all of them at basically the same time started spitting out new orders. 

I still think a phyla is "a basic body plan" and so far the censors haven't changed that definition yet! I also think that if nature were left alone, a species with a half a billion years to work with would, instead of becoming a new phyla, produce a series of species or genera in a relatively narrow range. Nature alone can generate change, but I see no natural mechanism that can come close to the rate of change we see at certain key points in earth's history, nor does the change we see at these points come in the pattern one might expect of Nature.

This topic is one of the least important I write about in "Early Genesis, the Revealed Cosmology". Rather, the book is mostly a proof for the existence of Christ as God via showing how He is pointed to even in the very earliest parts of the text. Reconciling the text to what He said it was about (Him) also largely reconciles it to evidence from history and the natural universe. This is a vanishingly unlikely scenario except in the case that He really is who scripture says that He is and those scriptures are indeed inspired by God. 

Below is a link to the book, which is available in E-book version for no charge to those with access to a Kindle Unlimited Account. A link to the YOU TUBE channel is also given, and of course this blog is dedicated to issues related to the Christ-centered model. 

You Tube Channel

Proof that Jesus is God and that Scripture is True, Oh Yeah, Also Creationism

 BE ADVISED: I am not offering support for this proof within this post, because of the complexity of the proof and the amount of work required to go through the steps to validate it. I am just pointing to the nature of the proof and where it can be found.

One can benefit greatly from listening to those with other viewpoints. Recently someone in a Facebook group I was in challenged people to present the best evidence for Creationism. Years ago, I probably would have advanced a very truncated teleological argument. That is, we can tell there is a creator God, and some things about Him, by observing the nature of His creation. 

I say truncated because I am sure I would have focused on modern discoveries about the fine-tuning of our universe. If indeed our universe is the only one there is, it is very obvious that we are "meant to be here". Almost any other balance of forces other than those extant in the cosmos would result in either a vast thin cloud of hydrogen atoms (if any atoms at all) or the whole thing collapsing into one or a few black holes.

None of that however, was what Paul was talking about when he wrote in Romans 1:20 that "For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, Hi eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,  being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse." Paul wasn't talking about just, or even primarily, astrophysics-  and certainly not what we have learned about it in modern times. He was talking about the entire orderly arrangement of existence, including how nature seems to have a moral disposition even while immorality is permitted to run rampant. 

For example, many have gotten ahead by dishonest means, but those who gain wealth in this way also have a tendency to lose it and fall in disgrace. Another example: One might think a man who is a "player" and spreads his seed to many women has an "evolutionary advantage" over those who commit themselves to a single woman. The reality is that "playas" tend to die alone sitting in their own feces. Societies that honor the biblical model for family are so superior to other methods, such as "mothers-brothers" cultures, that the latter are virtually extinct from the earth. Governments that are unjust tend to fall while those more just endure, and the kinds of things that count for "justice" are universal, not cultural. In ancient China it was called "losing the Mandate of Heaven" but the principle is similar whatever the name. Despite all the lawlessness, the universe has an underlying moral order. It "cares" about the moral choices of its inhabitants. This points to the Creator and even tells us something about His nature.

Though Paul writes that these attributes have been seen, it doesn't mean that all people will see them or that all who do will admit to seeing them. Some people are uncaring or oblivious to life's larger questions. Scripture also speaks of those who "deny the truth in unrighteousness." Men may be "without excuse", but that doesn't seem to stop would-be excuses from being proffered. Even the fine-tuning arguments have an escape hatch- it could be that a near infinite number of universes have bubbled up, and we, by chance, just happen to live in the one where things turned out right. In such a case, what looks like intent in the universe- that we were meant to be here- has another potential explanation. Chance could still be accepted as a reasonable explanation for what we see, if what we see is only an infinitesimal fraction of what "is". 

Of course, there is no way to determine that such a vast number of other universes exist, or if they do that they have random laws instead of laws like our universe, also fine-tuned. It is speculation beyond the reach of the Scientific Method. It seems a desperate evasion to me, but I've heard it used, and I really can't prove they aren't out there any more than the atheist can prove that they are. 

While these speculations are not vigorously testable, the ultimate and specific answer to the question of "is there a God" is testable. Jesus Christ made a testable statement about Himself, which could only be true if a) He was indeed who the scriptures say that He is and b) those scriptures were Divinely inspired from the start. He said (John 5:46) that Moses wrote about Him! In Luke, on the road to Emmaus, something similar is communicated in that it said that "beginning with Moses" He showed the apostles "things concerning Him".

These are astounding claims for a number of reasons, and coming from almost anyone else they would be considered ridiculous and dismissed out-of-hand. Genesis was compiled more than a thousand years before the Incarnation. Even the most secular critics would say more than five hundred years. The idea that they could be speaking of the work and person of Christ is basically impossible- except in the case that He is indeed who scripture says that He is and those scriptures are inspired by Him. In any other set of circumstances, it is an outlandish claim. It would be like President Trump saying that St. Thomas Aquinas was writing about him!

Further, institutional Christians denominations have not incorporated the words of Christ into their view of the text. Many, particularly evangelical sects in the United States, have largely adopted the view the rabbis who opposed Christ when it comes to early Genesis. This is less true of say, Eastern Orthodox, but the idea of systematically reinterpreting the text with a view to seeing if Christ's words about it are even feasible isn't something churches seem interested in. That's bad for obvious reasons, who are they supposed to be representing? But it is also good. If an elegant fit is found, the accusation that the fit is only so elegant because church priests forged the text to make it so falls flat. If such a thing had been done, that would have been the "party line" for viewing Genesis, not some rabbinical spin-off. Does this mean that Christians will have to give up their view of what the text means in order to put Christ into it? Yes. Are many of them willing to do so? Not that I have found, but there is still time.

It is as if, in these times of doubt, what was there all along becomes visible to us. It turns out that viewing the text the way Christ said to look at it, that it was about Him, is not more consistent with the rest of the text but also reconciles the text with much of the evidence from the natural world that has troubled so many people.

For a few examples, and I can make a strong case textual case for every one of these ideas, but it takes a lot of work to peel back all the misinformation and theology that isn't really in the bible first:

1) The initial state of the universe was not "perfect". Rather it was a place that needed a lot of improving.

2) The "days" of Genesis chapter one are not about illumination from our sun, but rather the true illumination produced when the Word enters the cosmos, Creator enters creation. Each instance improved the state of things until man was formed as Divine Agents to complete God's work of taming the unruly world. 

3) Therefore the "days" are not about a 24-hour solar cycle and are not limited in time. Indeed scripture teaches that the morning of the 7th "day" didn't even start until after the Crucifixion and is still ongoing. 

3) The seeming conflict between creationism and evolution is mostly an illusion, we live in a creation that was "meant" to be able to bring forth creatures on God's command (theistic evolution), after all, this was God's original command to both earth and seas. But this lower realm is one fit for us. Nature can't do God's will without God's help anymore than we can. The gulf between creationism and naturalism remains.

4) The conflict between the apparent great age of mankind and a relatively recent (less than 15Y ago) Adam is resolved in the Christ centered model because Adam's true role is to be a figure of Christ (Rom 5:14) and not the father of humanity. He was formed to bring the line of Messiah who would reconcile the world to God and complete God's assignment to mankind in Himself. 

5) Baptism is connected to the flood. It is where God's people are purified and what is unclean in them is put to death while what is approved safely passes through the waters of God's judgement due to the work of Christ. Baptism isn't about those who are not His getting wiped out. This is just a small part of the reason that a local flood, aimed only at the line of Adam in particular through Seth, fits the text better than a global flood. Not every kind of land animal was on the ark. It was a local flood with global consequences (since the works of God from chapter TWO would be wiped out and God's ordained method of deliverance through Messiah would be ended, causing the world to eventually perish). Other people, outside the line of the Seed, survived the flood. 


******
These are just a few examples how the reasons secularists use to dismiss the bible are beating on a strawman, albeit a strawman that is proclaimed to be the Real Slim Shady by so many churches. 

We should not be able to do this. We should not be able to re-examine the text and by seeing it all about Christ and His work have it still make sense, make even more sense and fit even better together within the body of scripture than the rabbinical view. Yet not only are we able to do this, but doing so also resolves many of these paradoxes with evidence from the natural universe. 

This is like a vast and complicated math equation with a number of variables. We put in different variables trying to come up with a consistent and reasonable answer. Then someone suggests putting in a value that shouldn't be among the possibilities as the variable. We do so, and the results elegantly fit! And it was the same value for each "variable", that is, you assume the answer that most points toward the work and person of Christ and make that the meaning at each "fork in the road" of the text. If you do that, and only if you do that, the text is both internally most consistent and also best resolves paradoxes between the text and the rest of nature.

Is verifying all of this a lot of work? Yes, but the truth is only assured for those who seek it, earnestly. Not for those who are willing to consider it if it isn't too much trouble, or messes with their existing opinions. This world is designed to see if we care to prioritize seeking truth over other things. I've done my part, and it took me years to finish it.

Below is a link to the book, which is available in E-book version for no charge to those with access to a Kindle Unlimited Account. A link to the YOU TUBE channel is also given, and of course this blog is dedicated to issues related to the Christ-centered model. 

You Tube Channel