Page 2 of 2

Re: Dr. Michael Heiser

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 6:12 am
by PaulSacramento
I never said he makes things up. I said he doesn't get his angels/human hybrid beliefs from consistent exegesis of scripture. If you look at the first link Philip posted, you'll see from where Mr. Heiser gets his beliefs. Legends and extra biblical writings, mixed with eisegesis of scripture
.

So did Paul and Jude and Peter.

Re: Dr. Michael Heiser

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:26 am
by RickD
PaulSacramento wrote:
I never said he makes things up. I said he doesn't get his angels/human hybrid beliefs from consistent exegesis of scripture. If you look at the first link Philip posted, you'll see from where Mr. Heiser gets his beliefs. Legends and extra biblical writings, mixed with eisegesis of scripture
.

So did Paul and Jude and Peter.

Huh?

Re: Dr. Michael Heiser

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:56 am
by thatkidakayoungguy
RickD wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
I never said he makes things up. I said he doesn't get his angels/human hybrid beliefs from consistent exegesis of scripture. If you look at the first link Philip posted, you'll see from where Mr. Heiser gets his beliefs. Legends and extra biblical writings, mixed with eisegesis of scripture
.

So did Paul and Jude and Peter.

Huh?

Book of Enoch ring a bell?

Re: Dr. Michael Heiser

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:18 am
by Philip
Just because Enoch is not canonical, does not mean that it doesn't contain important elements of truth or that some of the Bible writers didn't quote or refer to it. And this doesn't mean that the takeaway is that ALL of the Book of Enoch is validated as historical truth - even if large portions of it might be historical - but ONLY portions used or referred to by the Bible writers to make a point of truth should be so considered. And the context within the BOE and how it is being used by the New Testament writers has important things to reveal.

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

Jude BOE References: http://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Jude_14.php

Influences and references of and to the Book of Enoch in the New Testament: https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/the-book-of-enoch-as-the-background-to-1-peter-2-peter-and-jude/

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

Other instances of NT writers and Jesus quoting or paraphrasing extra-Biblical sources to make truthful points:
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5509/does-the-new-testament-quote-extrabiblical-writers

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

Re: Dr. Michael Heiser

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 1:04 pm
by PaulSacramento
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:
RickD wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
I never said he makes things up. I said he doesn't get his angels/human hybrid beliefs from consistent exegesis of scripture. If you look at the first link Philip posted, you'll see from where Mr. Heiser gets his beliefs. Legends and extra biblical writings, mixed with eisegesis of scripture
.

So did Paul and Jude and Peter.

Huh?

Book of Enoch ring a bell?

And others.

Re: Dr. Michael Heiser

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 1:07 pm
by PaulSacramento
Philip wrote:Just because Enoch is not canonical, does not mean that it doesn't contain important elements of truth or that some of the Bible writers didn't quote or refer to it. And this doesn't mean that the takeaway is that ALL of the Book of Enoch is validated as historical truth - even if large portions of it might be historical - but ONLY portions used or referred to by the Bible writers to make a point of truth should be so considered. And the context within the BOE and how it is being used by the New Testament writers has important things to reveal.

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

Jude BOE References: http://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Jude_14.php

Influences and references of and to the Book of Enoch in the New Testament: https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/the-book-of-enoch-as-the-background-to-1-peter-2-peter-and-jude/

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

Other instances of NT writers and Jesus quoting or paraphrasing extra-Biblical sources to make truthful points:
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5509/does-the-new-testament-quote-extrabiblical-writers

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



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

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

Re: Dr. Michael Heiser

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 7:20 pm
by Kurieuo
Actually, Rick, I do think Heiser makes things up, but then he serious believes the things he makes up so I wouldn't necessarily classify that as dishonest. :P

Re: Dr. Michael Heiser

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:27 am
by Philip
Most theologians have assertions I question, per what they think the text means. First thing I want to know, do they believe the text is inspired to have been written down as it is.

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


Please provide some examples.

Re: Dr. Michael Heiser

Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:33 am
by DBowling
PaulSacramento wrote:
I never said he makes things up. I said he doesn't get his angels/human hybrid beliefs from consistent exegesis of scripture. If you look at the first link Philip posted, you'll see from where Mr. Heiser gets his beliefs. Legends and extra biblical writings, mixed with eisegesis of scripture
.

So did Paul and Jude and Peter.


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

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

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

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

Re: Dr. Michael Heiser

Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:12 pm
by Kurieuo
Philip wrote:Most theologians have assertions I question, per what they think the text means. First thing I want to know, do they believe the text is inspired to have been written down as it is.

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


Please provide some examples.

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

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

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

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

Re: Dr. Michael Heiser

Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:23 am
by PaulSacramento
DBowling wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
I never said he makes things up. I said he doesn't get his angels/human hybrid beliefs from consistent exegesis of scripture. If you look at the first link Philip posted, you'll see from where Mr. Heiser gets his beliefs. Legends and extra biblical writings, mixed with eisegesis of scripture
.

So did Paul and Jude and Peter.


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

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

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

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



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