Michael Heiser Doesn’t Have the 82nd Psalm Right

I finally got around to reading "The Unseen Realm". I was prepared to like it, but unfortunately we don't see the two key passages used in the book the same way at all. One of those is in the 82nd Psalm ( Psalm 82:6 in particular ). Here I explain why, in my opinion, M. Heiser has this verse wrong, as well at the 89th Psalm. And if he has one of his two key verses this wrong, it is unlikely that his overall thesis is right.
Here is a link to my take on his other keynote passage from Deuteronomy 32 • Michael Heiser is Wron...
The Nephilim and the Sons of God in the Christ-Centered Model: • The Nephilim and the "...
And here is why scripture doesn't really teach that angels or spirit beings are "God's sons", with the discrepancy in Job explained: • The "Sons of God" are ...
Also "Do not delight in the religion of the angels" • Do not Delight in the ...
The 82nd Psalm takes place on earth, with humans, and is not like the meeting in 1 Kings 22 • Not That "Divine Counc...
I have put together some blog posts.......
Here is my written response to his "Naked Bible #249" podcast where he asks whether or not Israelites viewed their judges as Elohim. earlygenesistherevealedcosmolo...
Here is a blog post on why I think he has Deuteronomy 32 wrong.... earlygenesistherevealedcosmolo...
And why I think he has "Elohim" wrong..... earlygenesistherevealedcosmolo...
And probably "Sons of Elohim" wrong as well..... earlygenesistherevealedcosmolo...
I think he over-emphasizes places, or perhaps another way to put it is that he leaves off the very important ending- that they don't matter much now if they ever did because they were used for a purpose which has been fulfilled in Christ. earlygenesistherevealedcosmolo...
Link to my book: Early Genesis the Revealed Cosmology www.amazon.com/dp/B06XRLDYJB

[@boonedog4460]

I think Mike has it exactly right, as I have been a student of the scriptures, have read all his writings and books, and if there is one thing I can say about his work is that he wasn't trying to make it all about himself. He was truly working for the benefit of the called out ones today. He loved God Most High.

[@theouterplanet]

Mike has made it clear these aren’t his original ideas. He has taken what antiquity always believed ( until recent years) and packaged it all in The Unseen Realm. Mike often says there isn’t one original thought in his book.

[@JesusProtects]

He uses pagan books to justify his teaching. That can only lead to error.

[@ChileVerdeDavid]

There can only be so much original thought. The Bible is ancient and the most widely read and studied lump of documents in existence.

[@wunnagunna9608]

It's not obviously "what antiquity always believed (until recent years)", as the Targum of Psalm 82, Midrash, and patristic commentaries clearly interpret it as being about human judges who have the Torah. There's no actual historical evidence that it was ever interpreted as a divine council, Heiser just theorizes that this was the original interpretation but that later Jews tried to cover it up lol

[@franciscafazzo3460]

@@JesusProtects no he does not. he says these are curernt beliefs among the jews. they are angellic ranks

[@swadadon3706]

@@JesusProtects what pagan books does he use ?

[@EMMALITO]

Psalm 89 continues that this Elohim are in heaven my friend, Mike Heiser is a man put here by Christ, God bless him brother. Peace.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

You should listen to the video. The 89th Psalm does not really say this and the video explains why. Even a saint can be wrong!

[@JonTBH.]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 Sir, what is your academical background? You do know Heiser has a PhD in Hebrew/Semetic languages. He's a well respected Hebrew scholar of the old testament.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@JonTBH. nevertheless, he's wrong. Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy usually made by those without a good textual argument. I'm no Hebrew scholar, nor do you have to be since Jesus resolved the issue of who He was saying this passage referred to as "gods" by expounding that it was those "to whom the word of God came." Absoultely no knowledge of Hebrew is necessary (though I have picked up quite a bit over the years) to see in the Greek NT gospel how Jesus viewed the 82nd Psalm. In addition, his textual support for his position comes from the 89th Psalm, and one need only see the previous verse in English to see that he is wrong about 89th Psalm being all in heaven. It was talking about things in heaven and on earth, linked with v. 5. He has no coherent explanation about how taking verse five and six together clarifies the meaning. I would add that on his other go-to passage in Deut 32 I do go to the Hebrew to show how he, and the minority of scholars who translate v. 9 as starting with "but" are wrong and the majority of scholars who translate it "for" are correct, and this undermines his interpretation of the text. Sorry, he is a fallible man and this is one of those times. studio.kzbin.infoVLuz0BPWSgM/edit

[@andriod090]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 it’s the fact the same words are used in different contexts that mean the exact same way. You also see other forms of this in relation to “the one who rides on the clouds,” and even Daniel 7. I would NOT say that there is only two passages that mean the same thing, but rather there is contextual evidence that the biblical writers wanted to get across throughout the entire Scripture. Excluding the addition found in the Vision of Daniel, there are 5 other instances of Yahweh being the one who rides in the heavens.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@andriod090 I accept that this is one of the descriptors of Yahweh. We can agree about that. Psalm 89 is not talking about this however, but rather than He is incomparable in both heaven and earth.

[@fromthewrath2come]

Please simply state your position and have the grace to allow others to have theirs without trying to prove them wrong. Dr Heiser taught me so much, I will be forever grateful.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Is that how Jesus did it? Is that how His apostles did it? I must follow Him.

[@latona3078]

Always great to hear your take on such matters

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Latona, I am glad to hear from you. We are very blessed with a business project in the Kansas City region and rural areas to the east. How are you doing in England? I have thought about you from time to time.

[@latona3078]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 Glad to hear about the business project. I am doing great as well in England, well adjusted now. We should catch up this month? I'd email you? And before i forget have an amazing 2021

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@latona3078 I have already emailed you!

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@latona3078 I emailed you and have not heard back. Your GMAIL. Let's visit.

[@richardwest6593]

I liked this; It is foolish to dismiss a thing before you have heard it. So I will listen to it again and Heiser, I also like Ken Johnson, he has something similar to say. Knowledge puffs up while love builds up, and we know that everyone who loves God is known by Him.

[@lorenzosablaya8079]

M. Heiser made me more to love the scripture and think how they think at that time. Scripture interprets itself mot how you want to.

[@larrymoore2571]

Did you buy the Apkallu story? Dr. Heiser says that one cannot accurately interpret the word of God without this important resource? When a person endorses a secular writing as necessary to reveal God's word to us, that should set off red flags. Heiser was a great orator but wrong on almost every subject he wrote about.

[@binren3984]

The problem with your position is your going by a English translation and not the original Hebrew text. Peace

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Bin I looked and he's wrong in both languages. To show you that I look at the Hebrew when that is the issue, see this video on why he is also mistaken about Deuteronomy 32. The key there is the translation of a single Hebrew word kzbin.info/www/bejne/jH3Yq2N4hbyGna8

[@markandmargie7331]

The use of the word “mighty” stood out to me as well. What makes them mighty in Ps. 82?

[@TruthCeeker333]

Exactly.

[@stevo5584]

I would honestly say 'nothing to see here, move along now'. It is just a restatement of the traditional view of these scriptures. I'm not really sure why you feel the need to do that, given it's been done over and over in a myriad commentaries for decades. That is the whole point of the Heiser thesis, a fresh and very scholarly consideration of what lies behind. In my humble view, his perspective truely is a game changer.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

It is very strange how you could write those words when a few posts below you someone says they have been looking high and low for commentary that can refute what the good Doctor is saying about these verse. What I think is really happening is that the traditional view has been out there a while and he challenged it and made his case, but so many religious professionals don't want to fight about doctrine anymore, particularly with someone as well placed as he is in LOGOS. The traditional view has been out there for decades, but those supposed to be defending it seem to have quit caring. So basically he gets a "free shot" at the traditional teaching on the verse and none of the pros seem to want to go back and do what I have done- show why his critique of that few is incorrect and why a more traditional view is. And I've barely scratched the surface. There is lots more there, which I may or may not delve into. I also have some non-traditional views of early Genesis, so I am not against non-traditional views per say, it is a matter of what is in the text. PS for further replies, please see my comment where I cut and pasted yours. After several bad experiences where I have done a lot of work replying only to have a Heiser fan delete the whole thread, I have decided to answer such comments in a thread which I start by citing their original quote.

[@sammcrae8892]

Well spoken, good delivery and style, I'm not fully convinced that you are correct, but it is something to consider. Heiser's work (as others have said, is primarily that of a scholar and compiler of the work of others, and study of the world view of the people who wrote the Bible. He often admits that he might be wrong, and often points out alternative options. I do think he is mostly correct in the observation that the scripture has to be examined and interpreted in the context of the time, place, and people who wrote it, and that were the target audience. The scriptures are vast and complicated, and often seem to have more than one application. As in eschatology, you can see the yes, done and accomplished, but not yet, and not finally. This could go either way, yours, or Heiser's, OR, it might be a bit of both. I like Heiser's view because it helps reinforce the concept that the gods of old, the pagan gods, were very real, and your view helps with understanding why the ancient kings were considered to be gods, and worshipped (in some cases) as such. But to put in a point for Heiser -- who was the prince of Persia that withstood the angel of God in Daniel? Was he elohim, or a man? To be clear, we are not talking about Xerces, or Cyrus, or one of his sons. So how did he withstand an angel for 21 days? Just a thought. It's a shame Mike's not here anymore. I'd love to see you guys debate. 🙏✝️🙏

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

It is true that Dr. Heiser's views were not his own. He was taking 2nd Temple Period Jewish thought and seeing the scriptures through those teaching. But consider what 2nd Cor 3:15 says. Paul was speaking of 2nd temple period Jews when he wrote that. If one spends a life time study a view one is bound to be sympathetic to it, but this is the one group of people scripture tells us straight-up DID NOT get it. They are the LAST people we should be getting our theology from. Christ and the Apostles are the 2nd Temple Period Jews we should listen to. The Prince of Persia in Daniel was a divine being. I don't deny there are dominions and powers that are in operation even today- Paul said that Satan hindered him from visiting a region. But that doesn't mean that the nations don't belong to God. It doesn't mean they are not assureadly defeated like a football team down 59-0 with three minutes left in the game, just committing all kinds of fouls because they know the end is near. The classical view is that these entities were empowered by the fall of Adam. I favor a view that when God subjected the world to futility He created beings devoted to futility to implement that program. But they are not Princes serving God, they are Princes in the revolt against Him. As for a debate, I believe when I see him next there will be no need for debate, and our agreement will be full. He was too big to debate me while living, but if any man wishes to claim his mantle, that man I would debate.

[@sandracockrum17]

Jesus words puts the icing on the cake. Didn't the serpent also tell Eve that she would become like God or gods? Even the text agrees in saying: they have become like one of us knowing good & evil. Which makes me wonder how did Elohim know evil ? Well, that's another topic. Enjoyed the video. BTW you have a very nice easy listening voice for reading & skill in reading, I tell you, perfection! Why not do an audio of the Bible ? I'd subscribe, anyone else?

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Thank you. I think an upper-class English voice is so much more authoritative. I slip into my natural southern accent when tired. As for an audio file, I don't have the audio equipment to do all that right. Just an 80 dollar mic and sometimes a 125 dollar input. That's when microsoft doesn't do a system change that messes with the settings! I barely have time to do these videos, a labor of love. Saying "full time job, trying to build a side business, wife, three small kids and two houses that need work" does not even fully describe the busy.

[@glennshrom5801]

It is worth a look at Mike Heiser's paper "Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God" (Liberty University, 2001). That paper may give a better explanation of why Heiser says what he does in the book The Unseen Realm.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

I've heard a lot of Heiser's stuff. The things he says outside of this subject, I largely agree with. It is only what he is famous for that I find in error. A dangerous place to be for sure. For example his podcast #249. earlygenesistherevealedcosmology.blogspot.com/2020/12/a-fan-of-m-heiser-challenges-me-to.html

[@Sleeplessmclean]

Because Heiser says so, it does not mean it is so. Now you people glorify Heiser as if he were God incarnate. Oh boy, a lot of people will have the door slam shut in their noses.

[@lorenzosablaya8079]

​@@Sleeplessmcleanno we dont glorify Heiser, We thank God for USING him. Heiser's statement about Elohim, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the only true Elohim and those "gods" are not. Also, when God judges Egypt, He is judging, destroying also the "gods" false elohim of Egypt.

[@briansmith5995]

You seem not to take into account a very revealing passage of Ps. 82 "you are all sons of the Most High.’ But you will die like mere mortals.." Now why would God say 'you will die like mortals' if He was speaking to mortals. That just doesn't make sense.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

I do take it into account, I spend a lot of time in the video elaborating on it. Did you listen to the video? Have you noticed that it says "like Princes" too? That is the same word used in Daniel to describe the "Prince of Persia" that opposed the angelic messenger Gabriel. So if "like men" means they are CAN'T be men then why doesn't "like Princes mean they can't be the Divine Beings Dr. MH thinks is being spoken to here? And that word for prince means "official, commander, captain, prince". According to the same logic whoever he is talking to could not be an official either, whether earthly or divine, yet we know that they are at least one of those. The only way it makes sense is if the LORD is contrasting what He destined them to be with what they are instead. Finally, in Daniel 7:13 the prophet says he say one "like a son of Man", same modifier, ke. We know that is Jesus, who is fully God as well as fully man. It is contrasting what He looks like with what He really is in His fulness, it isn't saying that He is not "the Son of Man". He is. So the "like" clearly is not used in scripture the way you are trying to use it here.

[@briansmith5995]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 Heiser does not contradict that the "prince' or Persia is a spiritual being. So I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make. Seems like you're agreeing that we ARE, in fact, speaking of spiritual beings, not mere men.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@briansmith5995 Brian I am addressing your argument that the passage says "you shall dies like men" shows that they were not men. But the same verse says "fall like princes". And they WERE princes, whether men or angels. Look up the word. It means "official" or an authority and is the SAME WORD used to describe the "Prince of Persia" which opposed the heavenly messenger in Daniel. The same logic you are using to show that they are not men also rules out that they were officials of ANY KIND, including Heiser's spirit beings. Ergo, the use of the Hebrew "ke" there (translated "like" or "as") does not rule out that they are men, or that they were divine beings. We can't use that word like that. We must figure out which it means in other ways.

[@lincj07]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 Just because the KJV reads differently doesn’t invalidate his valid points using legitimate Hebrew scholarship… It’s a bit different than using google to look at one English interpreted Hebrew/Greek word at a time. “I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall as one man, O princes.”” ‭‭Psalm‬ ‭82:6-7‬ ‭ESV‬‬ “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, and against the worldly gouernours, the princes of the darkenesse of this worlde, against spirituall wickednesses, which are in ye hie places.” ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭6:12‬ ‭GNV‬‬

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

biblehub.com/interlinear/psalms/82-7.htm Link! that link is to an interlinear translation of the Hebrew. That, a reasonable amount of intelligence, and a willingness to change your mind are all that is required to see what a terrible translation of that verse the ESV does. Just wretched. It tortures the Hebrew. And I hate to see it because I am Lutheran and they use the ESV a lot. Nor is that my only line of evidence. If you keep listening, I am making the point that the text of P82 has some ambiguity. The ESV translators appear to have made a decision to translate out all of the ambiguity by fudging the translation, but Jesus in John 10 breaks the ambiguity. He says "those to whom the Word of God came" were the 'gods' referenced here. Did the Word of God come to the judges of Israel? Yes. Case closed.

[@shawnpayne505]

What translation are you reading from.?

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Kjv

[@michaelcham8822]

In Genesis the serpent make 2 statements to Eve, you shall be like gods and you shall not surely die. God Himself did not dispute that man has become like gods, in fact God confirmed it when He said man has become like 1 of us. So Psalm 82 agrees with Genesis 3:5 and 22 when God said ye are gods to men.The other statement the serpent make when he said to Eve you shall not surely die is false because it contradicts what God said to Adam and Eve earlier, that on the day you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall surely die. Psalm 82:7 you shall die like men, is a reminder of God’s warning and rebuttal about the serpent’s lie. We know that men are not truly god, they have no powers like the heavenly host but what caused them to become gods is the knowledge of good and evil which is the only thing common among them. Heiser should understand this because he knows that in the ancient near east religions, their rulers believe they are divine and the will rule again in the afterlife as gods. In Psalm 82:7 is again a reminder that this gods the believe to be in the afterlife shall fall as well. The Judaism in Jesus days had already been corrupted with Babylonian myth. This was confirmed by Stephen in Acts. Jesus was reminding them to go back to scriptures.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Good words.

[@baltichammer6162]

Tradition is not proof and it certainly won't save you.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

IOW an unfortunate new policy I have adopted where I put Heiser-supporter comments that could become a discussion on my own threads because the comments by Heiser fans have a habit of disappearing once I have done the hard work of laying out a reasoned response...here is a comment by.. @Stevo has said "I would honestly say 'nothing to see here, move along now'. It is just a restatement of the traditional view of these scriptures. I'm not really sure why you feel the need to do that, given it's been done over and over in variad commentaries for decades. That is the whole point of the Heiser thesis, a fresh and very scholarly consideration of what lies behind. In my humble view, his perspective truely is a game changer." My reply is ... It is very strange how you could write those words when a few posts below you someone says they have been looking high and low for commentary that can refute what the good Doctor is saying about these verse. What I think is really happening is that the traditional view has been out there a while and he challenged it and made his case, but so many religious professionals don't want to fight about doctrine anymore, particularly with someone as well placed as he is in LOGOS. The traditional view has been out there for decades, but those supposed to be defending it seem to have quit caring. So basically he gets a "free shot" at the traditional teaching on the verse and none of the pros seem to want to go back and do what I have done- show why his critique of that few is incorrect and why a more traditional view is. And I've barely scratched the surface. There is lots more there, which I may or may not delve into. I also have some non-traditional views of early Genesis, so I am not against non-traditional views per say, it is a matter of what is in the text.

[@zackxmagz6343]

Glad I found this Channel, will be going through your other stuff

[@zackxmagz6343]

Very interesting, I’m also trying to figure out if this worldview is correct. Not sold but I’ve heard great argues by heiser as well against his worldview

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Please see links in description of video. I have not been looking into it that long, but I was shocked at how he connects real dots in an unreal way with just small alterations to the intent of the text. That vid on Deut 32 is a good example.

[@zackxmagz6343]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 thanks, I’m watching it right now. I have grown up always fascinated at the supernatural aspects of the old world. And kinda just thought gen 6 (fallen angel interpretation) was the reason we see all these other strange things in old cultures. However now I’m leaning away from that interpretation and looking into different views. Thanks, continue making vids I’m all ears

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@zackxmagz6343 the true message of Early Genesis is even more amazing, and much more Christ-centered, than even what Dr. Heiser is saying about it. I am not defending the traditional view of the text, I am defending another different view than the different view he has. One that has incredible apologetic power because of the way the story fits so beautifully when you look at the text the way Christ said to - that Moses wrote about HIM. (John 5:46)

[@krisebbeler36]

One thing I will add. Jesus is the Spirit of all Prophecy. It even says of some of the Prophets that the Spirit of Christ was in them. I will also add that the Sons of God in Genesis 6 are the Fallen Angels who took wives for themselves. Their hybrid offspring were the Giants. You will see them in Genesis 14:5 and through out the promised land. King Og and Goliath who had 4 brothers. I know it sounds weird but the Fallen Angels are in chains see Jude. Peter talks about them too. In Revelation they will be released. You will see a lot of Angelic beings doing the LORD’S bidding. One last thing, when Jesus starts His ministry you will now see more demons everywhere. They are the disembodied spirts of the dead giants. They are not bound. They need a body to live in. Jesus casts some into the pigs etc. On the Cross Jesus over came the rebellions of Genesis 3,6,and 11. Remember the Apostle Paul said one day we will judge the very Angels. I’ve been studying this a long time and still trying to connect the dots. The Living creatures that stay in Heaven do not look like the ones who come to Earth. Let’s remember Jesus died and rose and ascended to make us free and to love one another. We still see dimly. Jesus is the Son of God who took on human flesh. He is the GodMan. We are washed in the blood of the Lamb.He’s our only hope!

[@larrymoore2571]

@@krisebbeler36 I know this is a controversial topic and I certainly respect your opinion on the Genesis 6 issue, but may I offer a different perspective? Angels are not in context with the story of Genesis 4,5 and the remainder of 6. We see the story of a group of mankind that have forsaken God, and another group of mankind that honors God (Gen 4:26 then people began to call upon the name of the Lord). Then comes the marriage of sons of God and daughters of men that creates problems for 'MAN". There are mighty MEN and famous MEN and God says the MEN are wicked and MEN's thoughts are only evil continuously. So, God is grieved in His heart for making MAN. It really centers around who are the 'sons of God' in Gen 6. God defines the 'sons of God here: ~ Romans 8:14; "For all who are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God." Genesis 6:3 reveals who are the 'sons of God' in Genesis 6:2. ~ Genesis 6; (2) the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. (3) 'THEN' the LORD said, “My 'SPIRIT' shall not 'ABIDE' in 'MAN' forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 'MAN' had the Spirit of God abiding in him, not angels or daughters, no, MAN. So, why was God so angry at MAN for these marriages? It is the continuous theme repeated over 50 times in the Old Testament, here is one example: ~ Deuteronomy 7:3-4; “Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you, and He will quickly destroy you." What about the Nephilim? The Hebrew definition is 'fallen ones'. I don't think this refers to stature or race, I believe it represents the apostasy that ruled the prediluvian world and after the flood as well. ~ Psalm 53:2-3; “God looks down from heaven on the children of man to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all ‘FALLEN AWAY’; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.” Just to wrap up there are no mentions of angels until Genesis 19, and angel/women hybrids are never mentioned in the Bible.

[@AndersonAlfred]

Who were the Sons of God - Job 38:7 - shouting for joy while witnessing creation?

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

A fair question Jim. The answer is not as simple as it seems. According to every witness but the Masoretic text, they were not Sons of God but angels of God. And even if the original said "Sons of God", Job was from outside the Mosaic stream. A man of the east. See this, skip to time 20 if you just want the answer to that one question. Thank you for your question. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3rGfpyMdph7nrc

[@paulcoffey2667]

I'm sorry but i think that your wrong and Dr Michael Heiser has these scriptures quite right ! . if i could encourage you to check out ( The Naked Bible Podcast 249 ) for a more indepth view on theses scriptures ... Thank you .

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Paul what makes you think I've not heard it? I have read the "Unseen Realm" too. I give very specific reasons why he's wrong. In the description section of the video I have links with a lot more. The text is the text. I am sorry but his defenders need to give specific answers to specific points if they expect to be heeded. What specific point can you make to counter what I say about, for example, why his take on the 89th Psalm is incorrect and in fact makes the opposite case that he wants it to make?

[@paulcoffey2667]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 I think that Dr Michael Heiser answers all of your point quite nicely and quite frankly far better than i could > check out that ( naked bible podcast ) your tradistional view of all of these texts don't make any sense ( i'm sorry but they don't ) ? .

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@paulcoffey2667 I either have heard this one before or it was 109 or both, but on your word I will listen.

[@paulcoffey2667]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 Thats the spirit mark ! > (249 nbp ) . thank you .

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@paul coffey I had a very light day to day, uncharacteristically, here is what I found out earlygenesistherevealedcosmology.blogspot.com/2020/12/a-fan-of-m-heiser-challenges-me-to.html

[@JustTheBasicsJS]

I’m not totally sure I follow what you’re saying. Basically is John you say that humans are referred to as gods therefore song is it necessarily referring to angelic hosts, is That right?

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

I am not sure I understand your question, but Jesus is quoting from the 82nd Psalm "ye are gods" and adds the BASIS on which they were called gods- that the word of God came to them. The Psalm is lamenting that they never became what they were destined to be, but the intent of giving the Word of God to humans is so that they can receive it in faith, be born again, and become the Image-Bearers and Sons of God that He wants them to be. That comment Jesus made describing the BASIS on which they were called "gods" in the 82nd rules out that these were already divine beings.

[@glennlarson9343]

Seems logical. Thanks

[@dandeliontea7]

Yeah no, you didn't even begin to address Mike's research or the copious citations about the Divine Council. I like how you used subtle manipulation to imply his view isn't Christ centred by claiming yours is. It was a nice attempt, though.

[@earthunveiled4169]

I like your view on this and may get your book. When the title says “restored cosmology” are you talking about true biblical closed cosmology?

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

It is "revealed cosmology". It is looking at the text as though the mystery of Christ was the true point all along. Hidden for ages, revealed for us in these times of doubt.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

I was challenged to look in more detail as to Heiser's position. Here is the follow-on earlygenesistherevealedcosmology.blogspot.com/2020/12/a-fan-of-m-heiser-challenges-me-to.html

[@LAURA093058]

Thank you for this affirmation. I fell for his hearsay at first. The HS is teaching me discernment. This video is my confirmation.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Laura, thank you for the kind words. It is always nice to hear a believer say that the Holy Spirit is acting through what I teach. I believe this too of course.

[@michaelferguson9679]

If you believe you understand the Scripture, by all means share your thoughts. Titling the post to say Michael Heiser is wrong, immediately puts up a wall. Dr Heiser knows Hebrew and other Semitic languages. He’s not the only scholar that interprets those passages as referring to God’s heavenly family rather than men.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

There IS a wall. I said that in my other video (Which really IS titled "Michael Heiser is Wrong...", this one just says isn't right"). The wall is in the head of those who have bought into the narrative he proclaims, shared by unbelieving Rabbis from that time. And they can't hear what I am saying about how the true message of Early Genesis is Christ. So yes, interventions are blunt. Anger and then denial are often the first two steps, but sometimes people intervene anyway.

[@brianbradford4023]

Ο ΘΕΟΣ ἔστη ἐν συναγωγῇ θεῶν, ἐν μέσῳ δὲ θεοὺς διακρινεῖ.

[@whatroads4x4]

Saw an interview with heiser about psalm 82 pretty much leading him to his lifes work. Kinda cool. Id like to think, if it wasnt for God tugging at his heart to follow on that path, there be so much not things learned , videos not viewed. Very cool discussions not being made, even possibly the inception of this video, but im sure God saw that coming. Its interesting how the body of Christ works. God's wisdom sure is deep. Side note. I do believe in fallen angels and and demons. They are real indeed. I and a bunch of kids saw an entity when i was young in a village in honduras. I didnt put them together till a few years ago. When i started believing in Jesus, then shortly after instumbled on Heseirs work. I remeber this entity standing 7 to 10 ft tall, was black as black and had crocodily skin. It had a very weird voice, deep sorta and called me by name in my mind. I was scared obviously, and remember lifting my wooden cross and saying the name of Jesus. This being laughed and said the cross did no such thing and we all scrambles outta there. But i believe it was taunting us. Whatever this entity was , it was real. And it was not there to be our friend.

[@brendaw.7597]

I do not know who you are Mr. Moore, but please, for your sake, go back and re-read what Michael Heiser has actually said in his books, only this time please try to hear what is actually being said, rather than looking for that which you “think” will support your view of GOD and mankind. The goal of ALL Christians should be to seek the truth. Your interpretation Mr. Moore, that the Israelites priest were the “gods” the LORD was speaking to in the Divine Counsel, where HE told them they would all die like men, but your position fails to mention that the Israelites did NOT even exist at the time. Sadly, this is the same misinterpretation that has been pushed on human beings for centuries. In fact, most preachers, ministers and others clergy simply avoid the passages of the Bible they do not understand, or that frightens them. Instead, they create some ridiculous story, or simply avoid the passages altogether. As an Old Testament Biblical scholar, Dr. Heiser’s insights into the ancient world, the beliefs and understanding of the ancient people of the Old Testament are just extraordinary and reflective of his many decades of research and study into the matter. Dr. Heiser provides ample evidence and explanations for passages in the Bible that have been misinterpreted, confusing and confounded by mankind over the centuries. He actually lifts the veil of darkness and ignorance from off of the truth. I personally have a much deeper understanding of and connection to, both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible than I ever did before, because of Dr. Heiser’s work. I am very grateful to him for that. Since each of us is responsible for the care and education of our own souls, I sincerely hope that folks who listen to Mark Moore and those like him, will take the time to read or listen to what Dr. Heiser has to say for themselves, rather than accepting Moore’s problematic interpretation. You will be glad you did.

[@jsb4959]

Absolutely

[@timbeauxclary]

Well said. I go with all those scholars that Dr. Heiser has cited as well as Dr. Heiser himself.

[@brianbradford4023]

Well said!

[@boyo3221]

Mr. Moore you are clueless on this....elohim is not humans

[@justjeremiah4255]

He's promoting and selling his book, we need to pray for this man to repent from this insult.

[@tamaran1979]

Psalm 82:1 (FSB): The Hebrew word used here, nitsav, is a singular verbal form, which means that its subject, which is elohim in Hebrew-and could be translated as “God” or “gods”-should be translated in the singular as “God.” The imagery that extends from this verb is one of presiding, since the setting is a formal council meeting. A descriptive phrase used of the heavenly host. Like other ancient Near Eastern cultures, the psalmist conceived of God as directing the affairs of the unseen world through an administration of divine beings. The members of the heavenly host are often referred to as a “council” or “assembly” (see 1 Kgs 22:19-23). Divine Assembly AYBD Council DDD The Hebrew preposition used here, qerev, requires the Hebrew word elohim to be translated as a plural here-as “gods.” The gods i

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Cliff there is no disagreement here about "God" vs. "gods". I think that is pretty much established. I don't see the application of 1 Kings 22 to Psalms 82 though. Except maybe to highlight how they were different things. For example, the spirits in the host of heaven are NOT described as Elohim. They are NOT administrating the earth- the LORD is telling them what He wants done and they are merely offering suggestions on how they will carry out His intent. With that level of control it doesn't fit the situation in Psalms 82 where the elohim have leeway and are blowing it. Finally, the LORD is seating in 1 Kings and in front of the host, where as He is standing in Psalm 82 and in the midst of the congregation.

[@ashleycharpentier1625]

Regarding the point of "die like men" not being Heiser's suggested contrast to supernatural beings: You said that the term used for "princes" or "rulers" is used for the Prince of Persia. However, is the term not uses dozens of other times in the OT to describe humans? And then to your point about Psalm 89:6 - many translations seem to not use "sons of the mighty." Many use terms of angels or spiritual beings. It appears to me that every translation could be argued to be pointing to spiritual beings (whether the more ambiguous sons of mighty or Sons of God that could be used for humans or supernatural beings), but many translations could never be argued to be talking about humans.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Hi Ashley. Your first point is correct. I don't know how many times it is used, but the word just means a ruler or authority. You need context to know if it is talking about human rulers or divine ones. But here we have the context. It starts by saying "Die like men". Then it contrasts with the princes. So it seems reasonable to assume that it is talking about something besides human rulers. Without that, there is no contrast or counterpoint to "men". And remember, in the ANE the pagan kings claimed descent from the gods anyway, so the distinction may be without a difference. The change that God implemented with Moses was that they were ALL, all the Children of Israel who received the Word of God in Faith, were meant to be gods. That is what Christ clarified in Matt 10. It wasn't just the kings on high who were of divine nature, but all of them by faith, were of TRUE divine nature in His Word (pointing of course to the Living Word Christ). In the same way, the OT word for "angel" just means "messenger". It is occasionally used in scripture to describe an ordinary human messenger, and I believe anyone who carried God's word, including people, were also considered "malak", angels. Heiser is right when he says it is a job description, not necessarily a class of beings. Regarding your second point, and I believe I have addressed it before in this thread, when the translations differ you should go look at the Hebrew. Here is a link to the interlinear of this verse... biblehub.com/interlinear/psalms/89-6.htm When you look at it notice that the actual Hebrew phrase is "bib-ne E-lim". That first word has a root of "ben" or "son". It is plural, so "among the sons". Any translation that does not use the word "sons" there isn't being faithful to the text. Next consider the world 'Elim". See below it on that link where it says in blue "N-mp"? That stands for "noun, masculine plural". That means that this word is a plural. "Elohim" is the plural version of El used in scripture to describe God. Elim is used four times in this form (click on word in link to see) and it is never used of the one true God. It basically means "mighty ones", those with "god-like" power in some way. Even if you insist Elim means "gods" instead of "god-like" or demi-gods, I would not translate this "Among the sons of God" but rather "Among the sons of godS." plural. So Unless you hold to the view that this is talking about the Nephilim (and please see my video on that if your are interested but the Nephilim are not the offspring of wicked spirit beings and people) I don't see how you can view it as divine beings. It says there is none like Him among THE SONS of the Elim. So not even the spirit beings themselves, but their sons. And not the sons of God but if spirit beings it would be 'gods'. So the "Heavenly Beings" translation is incorrect. It is incorrect no matter how many translations put it that way, or how popular any teachers who say otherwise might claim. I understand it is hard to accept that some obscure guy on the internet who isn't even a professional Christian is right and all of these others are wrong, but don't look at me, just look at the text. Not credentials, not the number of dollars backing anything, but the text itself.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

I would add that the same sort of incongruity occurs if you go back to 89:5. biblehub.com/interlinear/psalms/89-5.htm It says that the heavens praise His wonders and ALSO the assembly of the saints (holy ones), Can the term used for "assembly" and "saints/holy ones" apply to spirit beings? Yes, firstly the overwhelming usage of the term is of the human congregation of Israel and secondly the text says ALSO. So the second part is referring to something different than the first part. The first part is heaven the second part is earth. I am saying verse six follows the same pattern. Thank you for asking good questions.

[@mcgeorgerl]

I would think that if I told a group of men that they were going to die like dogs, the comparative insult would not be missed.

[@Keith-vz4ed]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 Credentials aside, what is your experience with the original languages of the Bible and the cultures within which it was written? I do not mean this question to be offensive - just trying to understand where you are coming from. My limited experience with other languages leads me to understand that, while you can get some understanding, there is a lot that can be missed, even if you are proficient in the languages themselves, if you don't know their cultural context.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Thank you for a serious and relevant question. Credentials aside, I would say that Dr. Heiser and I have very similar experience with the cultures and languages of the bible. Which is to say, very very little. We are both of similar age, I believe he was born a bit later than I, but not by more than two years. Both of us lived in the American Heartland and grew up in cultures equally distant from biblical Israel. Both of us had to rely on the perspectives of 2nd Temple Period Jews to inform our views. The biggest difference is which 2nd Temple Period Jews we adopt as foundational for our view of the text. To me, Christ and the Apostles are the 2nd Temple Period Jews we should look to for understanding. The ones who did not believe Christ did not understand Moses either (John 5:46) and a veil was over their hearts (2nd Cor 3:15). So those are the ones the bible tells us got it wrong. Therefore taking their view of scripture is a sure way to get it wrong, per the scripture. I would also point out that Dr. Heiser's view only caught on in the last 20 years, and it caught on in a big way. I do have a non-standard view of early Genesis but on these questions I am defending the dominant view of the scholars for the last thousand years. See my video on on "Angels are Not Sons Of God" or something like that, and the one on "Dr. Heiser is Wrong on Deuteronomy 32". There I go into the details of the text and why the translations that are more traditional are better on the one key word that changes the meaning. And that isn't whether it says "Israel" or "God". @@Keith-vz4ed

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

I have another one here I would like to preserve, since he too rationalizes the habit I have found in devotees of Dr. MH of drawing me into a long dialogue and then simply deleting the whole thing when it goes against them after I have put a lot of time, energy, and effort into addressing their points instead of playing with my kids or something else I find important. Michael Glass 4 days ago (edited) Mr. Moore: What do you mean by “false” gods? Is the bible telling the truth or is traditional bias clouding our beliefs about what is true? The following passage should trouble the traditional view that gods (lesser beings) do not exist. Here is a NT reference to there being an actual god of this world. 2 Corinthians 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. In John 12:31 it is called a ruler. ‘Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.” Here it is referred to royal authority calling it the son of a King. Ephesians 2:2 “in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-" And why would a biblical writer make these comparable statement in the following three passages if the gods were not real. Comparing the God to something that is make believe and do not exist would make the God sound rather Casper-milky-toast. It would be a non-sensical comparison. it would not be much of a compliment if my wife compared me to something that did not exist. It would be shallow to make such a comparison. “Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? Who is like Thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?” (Exodus 15:11). “For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised: He is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens” (Psalm 96:4-5). .Again in this passage...why would God execute judgment against something that did not exist. “For the Egyptians buried all their firstborn, which the LORD had smitten among them: upon their gods also, the LORD executed judgments” (Numbers 33:4). 3 Mark Moore Mark Moore 6 hours ago 1 Cor. chapter 8 "4 So, what about eating meat that has been offered to idols? Well, we all know that an idol is not really a god and that there is only one God. 5 There may be so-called gods both in heaven and on earth, and some people actually worship many gods and many lords. 6 But for us, There is one God, the Father, by whom all things were created, and for whom we live. And there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created, and through whom we live. Michael Glass Michael Glass 4 hours ago @Mark Moore Mike: Agreed…no idol is alive...idols are nothing. Paul is clear. In verse 5 Paul affirms there are many gods and makes it clear that for us there is only one [true] God. Also, the phrase “so-called” in not in the Greek…it added for emphasis and adds meaning that is not in the original. I deeply appreciate your response to me. I was extremely excited to see your video because I have struggled with this biblical view that Heirser’s and others hold and welcome a sound rebuttal. So far no one attempting to refute his stance has even stated his propositions accurately. That means so far no one has changed my mind on this view, but I am open to discussion and with sufficient evidence I can be persuaded. I am not a theologian and do not read ancient languages, so I do not want to come off as knowing something I do not. I think you may have more knowledge of scripture than I do but I am assuming that. I had a hard time getting past the idea that Elohim always meant a set of attributes that can only be assigned to the one and only true God of scripture. Once I got past that I then understood that I did not have to give up the true God and I was not an idolator for looking at the bible like Heiser is proposing. At any rate, I know you have read his book and I'm not trying to be rude, but I would suggest you go to these: drmsh.com/ and then go to An Introduction to the Devine Counsel kzbin.info/www/bejne/ip-roYCwirhri6s (this one specifically addresses 1 Corinthians 8 idol passage) Mark Moore Mark Moore 4 hours ago I am happy to engage in dialogue with reasonable people. I also have no difficulty with other elohim or some kind of divine court. I believe there is an unseen realm. The gods are false in the sense that you put (true) as a qualifier of our God above. Since I don't have a problem with those concepts I am not sure listening to more material over something I don't object to will help resolve anything. But the 82nd Psalm isn't talking about those guys. Jesus didn't think so, because He said the basis for them being elohim was that the Word of God came to them. That undoubtedly applied to both their ancestors and them. He was standing right in front of them, the Word Made flesh. I have heard Dr. Heiser talk for quite a while trying to make this into something else other than that. But he never deals with the bottom line as I just described it. He talks around it. If you have something on that that I have not listened to then that would be the one for me to listen to. I There is no reason for God to judge the earth, as the Psalm calls for if the problem was the "elohim who were given charge of the nations". Under his narrative THEY were supposed to judge the earth rightly even if they were not on it, so replacing them or rebuking them would not be judging the earth. This does not even mention the problem with his take on Deut. 82. Or just the glaring oversight of failing to look at 89:5 with a decent translation. It would be clear that the elim in verse six are on earth, so not only does it not support his contention about 82 but undermines it. The data points he is connecting are real, but either the data doesn't hold up or the way he connects those dots don't add up. I am sorry, put I think he has the Sons of God wrong. What he is saying about it fits with the Book of Enoch, and with 2nd Temple Period Jewish beliefs, but not with what the scriptures say about them. Michael Glass Michael Glass 1 hour ago @Mark Moore I think I see how you are looking at the last verse. My understanding of “Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!” is the Psalmist is proclaiming prophetically that God will bring all nations (under the misrule of these beings) back (inherit) to him through the salvific work of Jesus Christ. Jesus makes right what mankind has been encouraged and allowed to do under the rule of these beings. Jesus reverses what took place at Babble. This inheriting process (called the Kingdom of God) started at Pentecost with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and Apostles making disciples of thousands from other nations. These thousands would have taken the gospel of Jesus Christ back to their home nation after Pentecost; thus, nations were being inherited. However, the Kingdom of God comes in full after God judges the earth’s inhabitants in the end time. But there is no mercy for these gods, now chained in darkness as Jude and Peter mention in their writings. They lose and go from chains to die like men. I do not question your sincerity but reading something and understanding it are two different things. You do not appear to understand the points this Hebrew scholar is making or you are just not restating it accurately. I do not think you are purposeful with bad intent, but these propositions you claim to oppose are much more refined than it appears you are able to articulate. But you are bold to make a video that builds a strawman with such confidence. I see why people deleted their post to your comments now…it is like boxing a southpaw, no matter how well one dose both parties look clumsy and awkward. I will not attempt to face a strawman argument and will not respond to you again until you know and can state concepts you oppose effectively and clearly. ********************************* Mark here again. Just wow. Here is the definition of "strawman argument": "an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". Having an alternative take on a passage isn't a "strawman". If a strawman argument is just giving the impression you have refuted an argument while never actually addressing it, then surely Mike is the one doing just what he accuses me of, for my main argument is that Christ stated the basis on which they were called gods- that the Word of God came to them. Then I specifically say this is the part that gets talked around but never addressed. And then he did just that. It the talk around, Mike is shoehorning a bunch of true stuff into the narrative the have for P82, but putting it in the middle of a bunch of stuff which is true does not make it true. If the passage is about beings in the spirit realm being judged, then why does it end for a call for the LORD to judge the Earth? Everything he said in his first paragraph there also works with the judges being on earth, the elders of His chosen people failing in their duty to be a light to all nations, thus slowing His due inheritance of all the earth. It all works just fine without shoehorning spirit beings into the passage.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

That was his expertise, seeing how 2nd temple period Jews saw it. But they did not see it through the lens of Christ. Thus it is written (2nd Cor. 3:15) "Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. ". Better to get your take on the bible from a poor Arkie than a group that the scripture assures you does not understand it.

[@michaelcham8822]

Brilliant

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Thank you if directed at me.

[@michaelcham8822]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 yes brilliant to you and your assessment of Heiser's theory but his fans seems unimpressed.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@michaelcham8822 ....to put it mildly! Nice to get some positive feedback for a change!

[@JoeGraves24]

Your translation of Ps. 89:5-6 is very conservative indeed. Checking it against the ESV, NASB95, BSB, and the CSB: they all agree that it’s not “the assembly of the saints”. That’s a NKJV interpretation. I would suggest that the plain reading is “Who among the heavenly beings is like the LORD”. I don’t necessarily disagree with your stance on John 10, but it’s best to be intellectually honest. I believe that both Heiser’s and your interpretation can both be true at the same time. This happens all the time in scripture, double meanings.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Joe, I appreciate you making a text-based case. I'd encourage you to see which of those translations makes the most sense. The word in 89:5 is used 17 times in scripture. If it isn't speaking of God Himself as the Holy one, all or almost all uses are of God's holy people. See biblehub.com/hebrew/kedoshim_6918.htm The NKJV is a "conservative" translation, but it also seems to be a correct one and it is disturbing to me that this agenda to make it about spirit beings has influenced so many translations. I am afraid we can't both be right. If we could, I would not make an issue of it. Heiser is wrong on this one. Just dead wrong in every way here. But he has a lot more company than I do these days. Even verse six, those who translate it "heavenly beings" are WAY wrong. The actual phrase is BEN ELIM or "sons of the mighty". Elim is plural, so it isn't the "Sons of God" but could be "Sons of the gods". In an ANE culture where earthly rulers claimed descent from the gods it makes perfect sense to say that Yahweh is beyond compare to any heavenly or earthly authority. Since Elim is plural even if you made that "angels" or "spirit beings", it says their SONS. Heavenly beings don't have sons, unless you want to make the case that this verse is saying God is better than the Nephilim, and I don't think you want to make that case. These translations are obviously wrong, even to a non-Hebrew scholar. It's disturbing. Thank you for your comment.

[@clarkemorledge2398]

@Mark Moore I do not think that anyone would claim that your interpretation is implausible. Many have held it over the years. The problem, however, is that it assumes that the Scriptural writers were unfamiliar with the theological questions floating around during the Second Temple period. What Mike Heiser does is to connect Second Temple literature with what we actually have in the Bible, thereby making sense of a whole lot more, than what you are discussing in this video. It is the broad explanatory power of Heiser's view that makes his approach more probable, than the traditional view that you are arguing for.... which interestingly, is not all that "traditional" to begin with, as it is largely unaware of the historical context of the Jewish debates going on in Jesus' day. What you are contending for actually weakens Jesus claim to divinity, as compared to what Heiser is suggesting. See Heiser's summary explanation here: faithlife.com/posts/776815

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

//it assumes that the Scriptural writers were unfamiliar with the theological questions floating around during the Second Temple period.// The writer of Hebrews was presumably a 2nd temple period Jew, no? Read the first eight verses of Hebrews. Heck ALL of them except Luke were 2nd temple period Jews and one of the recurring themes of the NT is that WE are the sons and daughters of God in Christ. So the 2nd temple period Jews who became the apostles did not see it like the 2nd temple period Jews who demanded that Jesus be crucified. Why you would wish to give creedence to the latter group of 2nd temple period Jews over the first group of 2nd period temple Jews is baffling. l have read that link before. It is many words in order to try and make Christ's point something other than what it was. He says /The consensus view of this quotation is that Jesus was endorsing the human אלהים view and thereby arguing, “I have every right to call myself divine-you guys can do it as well on the basis of Psalm 82:6.” The problem, of course, is that this amounts to Jesus saying “you mere mortals can call yourself gods, so I can, too.” If this is what John intends to communicate to go along with verse 30 to put forth the idea of Jesus’ deity, it’s an inept strategy./ Well, that's wrong. It wasn't an inept strategy. He caught them again. What He says dovetails perfectly with what the rest of the NT says about our becoming the Sons and Daughters of God when the Word of God (Christ, the Living Word) comes to us! As a man, He was acutalizing what they were supposed to be. And His point that their own law declared them "gods" because the word of God came to them - so He is doing no wrong by saying He is God's son because He is not only man, but God and one with the Father. His logic is perfect and in no way diminishes His claims of uniqueness. It in no way diminishes His claim to be God to point out that according to their own law men can make the claim to be elohim- if the Word comes to them and the receive it rightly. That this only made them angry doesn't mean it was an inept argument. He ALWAYS made them angry when He caught them not honoring the Word. If there was a logical rebuttal they might have tried it, but their wasn't, and they were not going to repent so the result was anger. Not because it was a bad argument, but because it was a perfect one that showed not only who He was as God but who they should have been as men, and He was both! When he writes "This particular son of the Most High is one with the Father. The Jewish authorities got the message, too-they charged him with blasphemy. Now ask yourself, why would they do that if all Jesus was saying was “you mortal Jews get to call yourselves sons of God, and elohim, so I can, too.” That makes no sense at all." To the contrary. It makes perfect sense, because He was still claiming a special relationship with the Father while ALSO showing them that by their own law He was within His rights as a Jew to declare that He was God's son. It WASN'T "all He was saying". He said more than that, by claiming both a right even as man under their law and ALSO a special relationship with the Father that they did not have. After all "Israel is My son" Exodus 22:4. But they were not trying to kill Him because He was wrong, but because He was right. They had their own peculiar doctrines that had left out what God had been saying about sonship. Their doctrines in time became more important than what the real meaning of the law was trying to reveal- the NT doctrine of sonship, not about other divine beings. Even if the "word of God" came to some Divine beings in a heavenly court somewhere, the fact remains that the word of God ALSO came to the children of Israel. Thus Christ's statement making the basis of their right of godhood being that the word of God came to them would ALSO apply to the children of Israel, even if there was a heavenly court which was also divine on that basis. The one does not exclude the other, so Heiser's attempt to say it was about the word of God coming to other divine beings in some heavenly court does not hold up- it doesn't exclude the children of Israel. If Michael Heiser would read my book, instead of his disciples constantly asking me to read more of his stuff, then it could change the world.

[@clarkemorledge2398]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 Thank you for your engaging response, brother. But I think you have mainly three issues that are a hindrance here. First, it seems like you are making it sound like Dr. Heiser does not believe that Christians are called to be sons and daughters of God, as though there is some mutual exclusion that prevents the language of "sons of God" from having different meanings in the text, according to the context of particular passages. The fact that the elohim language of Psalm 82 refers to created divine beings does not in any way conflict with the NT teaching that we as believers are to be "sons of God." In fact, it further ENHANCES the impact of the teaching of 1 Corinthians 6:3, that we are to judge (rule over) the angels. In other words, the "sons of God" (Christian believers) will judge the disobedient elohim, who are in rebellion to Yahweh. Go back and read Heiser's material on Exodus 22:4 for some clarity on this, if you have not done so already. Secondly, I am not sure how you are understanding what we have in Second Temple Judaism, that scholars have been able to unearth in the last few decades (Heiser is not coming up with some innovative thought. Everything he references has been extensively peer reviewed). The Christian movement was following the Enochian tradition (the Book of Enoch), which was clearly Second Temple in thought, which was central to the debate about messiahship, during the period of Judaism, in the first century. Most Protestants today are unaware of how tightly Enochian themes resonate in the NT! Thirdly, and most significantly, it seems like you are not appreciating the broad explanatory power that Heiser's thesis is proposing. Before I started digging into Heiser's work, I was just as skeptical as you are. But I have slowly become accepting, seeing how Heiser's thesis amazingly makes sense of a whole set of "weird' Bible passages that have puzzled many Christians, including Genesis 6, 1 Corinthians 11, Jude, and Peter's teaching on the "spirits in prison", just to name a few. Sure, you could make the traditional interpretation work, as you seek to do. But you end up with rather ad hoc explanations for some of these weirder passages, that do not hold together that well. And guess what? The historical critics of the 19th century saw how embarrassing these ad hoc explanations were, and exploited these weaknesses to undermine the church's confidence in the Bible as the Word of God. Instead, what Heiser is advocating totally undercuts a good chunk of the 19th century higher critical conclusions, most importantly, by demolishing the idea that the ancient Jews were originally polytheists, who only embraced monotheism at a later point in time. Look, I am not saying that Michael is infallible on every point. But when one sees the amazing explanatory power his insights have to elegantly open up the Scriptures, helping folks to see how the Bible comes alive, THAT is what will "change the world," and not a traditional view, made of ad hoc explanations of the text, that are held together by rubber bands and paper clips. Give the Unseen Realm another look, brother, please.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@clarkemorledge2398 for some reason, your replies no longer show up in the comments section of my screen. Only in the notifications tab. This isn't the first time that has happened on these two videos with various commenters. Strange. I don't want to give the impression that Dr. Heiser does not think humans can be the sons and daughters of God, for I know he says repeatedly that God has a heavenly family and an earthly one. But he is trying to exclude the possiblity that the "sons of God" mentioned in several specific passages are human beings. He is trying to exclude the idea that the OT considers the "sons of God" to be humans, if not completely, then in every single OT passage where the phrase is used ambigously. If he believes that both qualified as the "sons of God" as he says, it seems incongruous that every ambiguous use including Deut 32 winds up pointing to the family upstairs! OTHO, I think it is fair to say that he is trying to exculde the idea that living humans can be considered "elohim". If I am wrong about that, lead me. I understand there was some buzz about the Book of Enoch in the very early church, along with some other strange ideas, but I dispute the contention that the NT was using themes from the book of Enoch. Rather it was drawing from a common tradition that the BOE drew from. See my video on whether the apostles considered the BOE to be canon. The so-called "Higher Critics" are a joke that was never funny. It is good that he disarms them, and I am not against other beings being "Elohim", I agree wtih his definition. But that definition would include men who also operated in the spirit world. However, the Christ-centered model also disarms them, and it has a different view of the Unseen Realm. Several have called for me to read his book again. I have read his book, and listened to his videos/podcasts. This is what is said to me when they have no sound answer for the questions that I raise. If they had good answers, it might be different but perhaps it is time he read my book once rather than me read his book twice.

[@artemusbowdler7508]

89 only mentions heaven; earth is not mentioned. If the psalmist was discussing both, he would have mentioned both.

[@davidmeyersonestep]

So it was said about the women who had returned from the Lord's tomb, and reported all they had experienced to the eleven disciples. Their words were not received "as right" by the eleven disciples, because what they had said did not fit the eleven disciples' theology, but nonetheless they were true. (Luke 24:6-11) Don't make the same mistake! Just because you don't believe something, doesn't make it not true. From what I can tell, Dr. Michael Heiser seems to be the kind of guy who wouldn`t mind a friendly discussion (or sharing of ideas) on this matter. It would be nice to see how that exchange would be, instead of just outright accusing him of not being right.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

You seem personally offended that I think he's wrong about his view of scripture on a non-salvation issue. It isn't a sin to be misunderstand the scriptures. It is a sin to be a respecter of persons.

[@shawnpayne505]

Job 1:6 ? Who are they?

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Shawn the witnesses are mixed on that. I talk about Job starting at time 20 (before that is making the nt case that angels are not Sons of God). kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3rGfpyMdph7nrc

[@shawnpayne505]

What is a nephilim?

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@shawnpayne505 not the offspring of demons and human women. Nor the line of Seth or of Cain. It all looks different and makes a lot more sense when viewed through the lens of Christ. See for yourself kzbin.info/www/bejne/ppfVm56Japl1msU

[@R3ldi]

In your version of psalm 89:5 the word saints is a mistranslation of בִּקְהַ֥ל קְדֹשִֽׁים , that is “the holy ones”

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Matthew take a look at how the same word is used in other passages. It can refer to anyone who is declared holy, including people, and it frequently is biblehub.com/hebrew/kedoshim_6918.htm

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

See also the word for "assembly". The normal course of use for the assembly of the Lord is on earth. biblehub.com/hebrew/bikhal_6951.htm

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

PS- that is the KJV. I wasn't using any novel translation.

[@ignatiusl.7478]

The traditional view which you so convincingly unpacked makes Christ’s argument the most powerful. Heiser needs to be take R.C. Sproul’s words to heart; “If upon reading a particular passage of scripture, you You come up with an interpretation that has escaped the notice of every other Christian for two thousand years, or has been championed by universally recognized heretics, chances are pretty good you had better abandon your interpretation.”

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Thank you IL. I have to admit that I am perfectly willing to take an interpretation of scripture that has "escaped the notice of every other Christian for 2,000 years" IF the textual support for it is strong AND it leads to a more Christ-centered view than tradition states. In Heiser's case his view takes it the OTHER way because Christ is saying that what makes men into divine beings is receiving the word of God in faith. Their ancestors did not receive the written word in faith and now they did not receive the Living Word in faith. Heiser's take on Matt. 10 would get rid of all that and say that Jesus was claiming to be the "most special" of a special class of divine beings.

[@Jeronimo_de_Estridao]

Than he better leave protestantism at all

[@debbieward9732]

He may have called them gods and they will still die like men. God judged the elders of Israel. Jesus also called them sons of the devil.

[@stevegonzalez8324]

In the book of Job the Bible clearly refers to angels as sons of God. The Bible does not only refer to men as sons of God. Job 1:6

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

I need to do one on the topic. I think the question here though, is whether it is referring to men or angles in Psalm 82? IOW, even if they can be, if men also are then we need to figure out which it is in this case, and Jesus answered the question for us, and the appeal to Psalm 89 as an out falls flat.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

And I did it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3rGfpyMdph7nrc

[@mutoncharly1315]

He hasn't responded to Gen 6 and Deuteronomy 32. Is he suggesting that the Sons of God mentioned in Gen 6 were humans?

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

The "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 were humans. Remember that even Adam is called a "son of God" Luke 3:38. I have a totally different way of seeing the text from the 2nd Temple Period Jews. I think Genesis is pointing to Christ from chapter one onwards. That produces a very different theology from those who deny the divinity of Christ. But when you look at it this way, not only is it more Christ-centered but it is astounding how much better it lines up with ancient history. For Gen. 5 see kzbin.info/www/bejne/ppfVm56Japl1msU For Deut. 32 there is a very strong case that while it should be translated "sons of God", that too was meant to be humans who are born again by receiving the Word of God in faith. Please see kzbin.info/www/bejne/jH3Yq2N4hbyGna8

[@anyoname]

In my opinion, you did not address the main thesis for Dr. Heiser coming to the interpretation that he did. Heiser insists that Scripture must be understood in the context of the people and cultures to which they were originally given. I do not believe that Jesus was trying to calm the crowds who were trying to stone him. Jesus was pressing the point that "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30) and the Jew's objection to that statement was "blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God." (John 10:33) A statement that we all are gods does not support Jesus' assertion, does not refute the Jew's accusation, nor does it explain why the Jews "again sought to arrest him." (John 10:39)

[@78LedHead]

Indeed. Jesus nails the correct interpretation of this home. He was NOT just saying, "chill, bros, we're all gods." He was saying "not only am I one of these beings, but I have the Father in me."

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

David I am happy to report that I "liked" a Michael Heiser video this morning. It was one he uploaded on April 19th about hermeneutics. It sounded like he had been listening to me talk about it, only he said it better because he has been through it and seen the abuses first hand. So even though he does use those methods, he recognizes their limitations, or at least has come to recognize them. What I said was "that argument is not going to work." I don't think I said anything about calming them down. I did not mean that Christ's goal was to calm down the crowd, I agree with you that it was to press the legitimacy of His claims. But He was answering their accusation with reasoning that would hold up. Heiser has Him using circular reasoning to answer their charges: "It is OK to make myself equal to God because I am even above the other Divine Beings" may be a true statement, but it is one which requires you to accept His premise of Divinity to begin with. I have Him using the same kind of logical reasoning that He used all the other times that He showed them up: In Psalm 82 your forebears were called "gods" because they were the ones to whom the word of God came, so what you are calling 'blasphemy' is what was meant for all of us." That defeats their point logically, and then Jesus goes on to press His claim, after He demonstrates that they have no basis to want to murder Him even if He WASN'T the unique Son of God, how much less then since He is! When we receive the Word of God in faith, we become born again, we get a new Image. We are to be one in the same way that Christ and the Father are one and He is to be in us (John 17:36). Their forefathers did not receive the Word of God in faith, and thus it did not do in them what God wanted it to do, so they failed to meet their destiny to become 'gods", to share in the Divine nature as we do (2nd Peter 1:4 et al). And here the Living Word of God was standing before them and STILL they did not receive Him in faith. Indeed His argument showed that they were making God's intent for us, which as man He fulfilled, into "blasphemy". // A statement that we all are gods does not support Jesus' assertion, does not refute the Jew's accusation, nor does it explain why the Jews "again sought to arrest him."// Jesus didn't quite say that "we are all gods". Those beings in the 82nd Psalm did NOT fulfill their destiny. Rather those who receive the Word of God in faith become gods. We share in the Divine nature and He is in us, as the scriptures I already cited and many others show. So it DOES support Jesus' assertion. He was the Living Word, direct from the Father, and they were not receiving Him in faith either (so He goes on to say "at least believe in the works" because He is chiding their unbelief which blocks God's intent). It absolutely DOES refute the Jew's accusation. It completely flips the script and shows what they are doing is in effect declaring God's intent for them to be 'blasphemy'. They in effect have their own religion where what God wants is forbidden! And it does explain why the Jews sought to arrest Him. It was the same reason that they were after Him those other times- He showed by fact, logic, and Divine acts that their religion was false.

[@glennshrom5801]

Psalm 82, v.8 does not just say that he will judge the earth, but also that he will "inherit all nations". I think the phrase "inherit all nations" gives more weight to Heiser's theory that once the gods of the nations are dispossessed of the nations, then the Messiah/God/church will take over the rulership of the nations from them.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Pretty covered up right now, but v 8 is actually a call for Him to judge the earth OR land. The Hebrew word is the same. The very fact that what God is being called to judge is on the earth indicates that the place where the mis-rule is going on is NOT the spiritual realm. That He will inherit all nations doesn't hurt Heiser's view but it doesn't help it either. This is because this logic also makes sense if Israel is to be a light unto the Gentiles. IOW "We call on you to judge the land (including its judges) because you are due to get the whole earth and the leaders of your chosen people are not being what they were called to be. So Heiser's position makes sense if you go in assuming Heiser's position. But isn't that circular logic? I think he needs some points that are true only in his view but not in the traditional view.

[@glennshrom5801]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 I saw your other comment and am following the link now. The Lord being called to judge the earth could mean (a) the land, in which case the Lord is being called on to remove the other heavenly realm judges from their judgeship duties over the earth, and take over from them in order to judge justly or (b) could it mean to judge the cosmos? The light to the Gentiles idea is a worthy thought. Have you read Heiser's early paper called Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God, (Liberty University)? This is one of the projects he is well known for and associated with. There are three big conflicts, in Heiser's view, set up from the beginning, for God to reverse and resolve: the sin of Adam and Eve, the rebellion of the divine council, and the dividing/apportioning of the nations (the origin of the Gentiles/heathen) at Babel. If Heiser is right, then Psalm 82 is addressing these last two conflicts. The problem is, we modern western readers don't get that story from reading only the Bible; we have to dig into other sources.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Glenn, you wrote "The Lord being called to judge the earth could mean (a) the land, in which case the Lord is being called on to remove the other heavenly realm judges from their judgeship duties over the earth.." Do you see what you did there, because of the lens you are looking through? The text is calling for the Lord to judge the EARTH (or Land). You just flipped that into a call to "remove the other heavenly realm judges" from their duties OVER the earth. A call to judge the earth isn't a call to judge heavenly realm judges. It is a call to judge the earth and earthly realm judges. You've got this Jewish 2nd Temple Period lens on (this is where Heiser gets his views, from the culture he studies) and you just sort of effortlessly insert it into the text as you go instead of just sticking with the text. It can't mean to judge the cosmos. That's a Greek concept. It isn't a call to judge the heavens either. It is what it says, literally the earth or the land. The word is used in ways that it is pointing to the people in the land rather than the actual dirt, but it isn't the heavens. Not in the Hebrew, just the Greek where Cosmos can mean "the orderly arrangement of things" and lump the spiritual and natural realm together. Heiser and others think this way of looking at things has credibility because it aligns with 2nd Temple Period Jewish thought. I see things in the opposite manner- those are the people who got it wrong. Christ had nothing good to say about their theology. Someone is going to have to explain to me why we should put confidence in a narrative that was held by the forebears of those who opposed Christ. Why do we think their theology is sound? Even the apostles are shown as clueless unto Christ opens their minds to understand the scriptures. Their culture was of no help to them. Paul said he considered his prior learning as rubbish. Who are we to tell him he was wrong? You write "There are three big conflicts, in Heiser's view, set up from the beginning, for God to reverse and resolve: the sin of Adam and Eve, the rebellion of the divine council, and the dividing/apportioning of the nations (the origin of the Gentiles/heathen) at Babel. If Heiser is right, then Psalm 82 is addressing these last two conflicts. The problem is, we modern western readers don't get that story from reading only the Bible; we have to dig into other sources." Those "other sources" are people who didn't get it and whose descendants opposed Christ. When you say "if Heiser is right" and then go on from there. That's circular reasoning. If Heiser is right then P82 is talking about what Heiser thinks it is. But this begs the question- is he right? Were the people he got these ideas from right? What if it ISN'T talking about either of those last two conflicts, but rather is all about the first? Those last two conflicts are what I find are not really in the bible. They have to be read into it. That's the way I see it. If I am wrong, how so?

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

See also the links in the description section of video. See, I have a over-arching narrative that connects the dots too, yet it is different from his. So just having an over-arching narrative that connects lots of dots isn't proof of correctness.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@glennshrom5801 see above, thanks.

[@bradharrison5293]

It’s probably to supernatural for most to believe that angels have bodies. I think people think angels are all woo woo misty and smoky. That the battles between the angels and the weapons used must be like playing paintball.

[@zachz1018]

Melcheizedek stands in the congregation of gods. Melcheizedek is who is passing sentence in psalms 82

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Do you think it takes place on earth or in heaven?

[@zachz1018]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 that is an amazing question. Melcheizedek, as he with firstborn right of inheritance, takes bodily form in several incarnations including as Jesus. That said, i believe Revelation is about us as individuals, and not about world events. We are the third temple. It seems every heart and every tongue will praise his name because eventually each of us meets that cross roads in life where we realize that greed and self-serving behavior, never did anything for our true level of happiness, so Christians, we over throw the sin of the world using the spirit of Melcheizedek. With Our sins forgiven by the fleshly Jesus the Melcheizedek, we find that we are truly free to choose the narrow righteous path, that leads to Promised land of endless joy. What im saying is i think that judgement by Melcheizedek in psalms 82, happens in the individuals soul, when we Embody the Holy Spirit, that is the first born. I think its not a trinity, but just God, his manifestation on earth, namely the Holy spirit. And Melcheizedek which is the the Physical manifestation in different human bodies. Melcheizedek is the pure spirit crossed with pure flesh. For the whole of deity resided within Jesus.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@zachz1018 Well, that is different. But I guess what I am saying is different too. Melchizedek was one of the earthly appearences of the Heavenly Man created in Gen. 1:27 from a fusion of the uncreated 2nd person of the Trinity and created humanity. All of the human-form appearances of God and "the Angel of the Lord" and yes Melch. in scripture were Him. A pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. That same being was made into flesh like ours as Christ.

[@zachz1018]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 Yes!!! Someone gets it. Lol

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@UCRo8gEBW9KPjQ-oOIG874GA Hi Riley. You must be a very patient and determined person to weed through all of the things here. Yes I really stepped into a hornets nest on this one. Some of his followers are more toxic than others but would you believe I have another video where he is wrong on Deut 32 kzbin.info/www/bejne/jH3Yq2N4hbyGna8 and the same thing goes on there or maybe worse? After that, I quit mentioning his name! Even if I made a video about a subject he was a proponent of and I had an alterantive view, I would not mention his name. I didn't want it to be an anti-Heiser channel but a pro-Jesus channel. Examples would be "Spirit Beings are not Sons of God" and the one on the Book of Enoch being over-rated, as well as one on "The Religion of Angels". Some of the stuff he is not famous for, I actually agree with him on. That must be a very dangerous place to be spiritually - the throngs approve of the titalating fluff that doesn't demand anything of them or make them better but the solid stuff you do doesn't get the enthusiasm. So I should pray for his deliverance from temptation. A part of him surely gets tired of it too. The ideal situation to me is if he converts. Regardless, the unsound theology must be opposed. Thank you for your comment.

[@joshf2218]

Arise O God and judge the earth traditionally has been referred to the resurrection. This whole psalm is clearly talking about Christ conquering the principalities and powers, spiritual forces of darkness.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Which interpretation would also fit with what I am saying. I can't agree that it is "clearly" saying what you claim though. If it was clear it would not be a topic for dispute. Christ no doubt did cast out Satan as legitimate ruler of this world by bringing a competing kingdom, the kingdom of heaven, to earth. But the phrase you sight asks God to judge THE EARTH. That's more textual support for the idea that this scene isn't happening in heaven. The complaint isn't that Satan's minions are not doing a good job like He hoped they would, but that the rulers of Israel were not. Those who received the Word of God were not letting it make them into citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. Ephesians 6:12 is a go-to verse when it comes to principalities and powers. In some translations, including the KJV, it is unclear whether the text is describing some enemies in the earth and some in the heavenly realm or whether they were all primarily located in the heavenly realm (which can be on earth but I mean not for example unjust human rulers but rather unjust spirit beings with authority). Look at it in the Greek and see how the punctuation and terminology looks. Those are supernatural forces it is talking about. They are in the heavenly realms even if they operate here so that "judging the earth" would not be judging them, just those that bought into their lies. Here is link to the interlinear on that biblehub.com/interlinear/ephesians/6-12.htm

[@navagatingthroughthebeasts2908]

You are respectfully disagreeing nothing wrong with that...... Im very unsure myself, but I am a believer in fallen angles & nephelum which are now demons, but again I dont know

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Thank you. It seems I have hit some raw nerves here. Keep "Tr'in to make sense of it all" and I believe you eventually will, for Christ said "He who seeks the truth shall find it."

[@prophet6154]

It's all very interesting and intriguing to think about it deeply without reading your own view into matters concerning the thoughts of God... I don't know myself, but it's dangerous territory misinterpreting what the bible means vs. What it actually says. I just recently stumbled upon Michael Heiser, so I'm investigating his theological view... It's crazy, but I think it has something to do with angel worship, hero worship, worldly pursuits, unrighteous deeds against God's creation... I appreciate your thoughts on this matter and I find my self in agreement with your presentation. Also, to the learned, scholars, theologians, ... Pharisees, etc. A half truth, is a whole lie. There are unseen realms, angels and demons exist in other dimensions, and some transgressed ... Sorry my comment seemed to ramble on. I'll look for more content Mark. And also compare to Michae to scripture. Even though I am not educated at University or seminary but I believe the gospel as well as the entire bible is easy to understand if studied and practiced and not hypothesized. Dr heiser seems to me, a gnostic... Maybe heritical. But definitely he is smart (educated)...

[@albusai]

You are right

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

You are one of the ones I thought of when I made this.... kzbin.info/www/bejne/ppfVm56Japl1msU

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

After several instances of M. Heiser supporters taking my time away from my job and family to address their questions and comments and then deleting the thread once things went in a way that they did not like I have decided to adjust the manner in which I engage here. I do want to engage, but it is discouraging to see the threads disapeer after you have worked to make your point. Therefore from this point forward I will cut and paste such comments and reply in a new thread of my own and we can continue the disccusion there. Thank you.

[@inquisitor4635]

Did you ever make any attempt to contact Heiser concerning your criticisms regarding his work or to seek any elaboration or explanation on his part prior to making this video? And if not, then why not?

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@inquisitor4635 No, because his position is well-known. I don't need any elaboration. I know his position. What I did look into, based on the comments of several of his supporters urging me to do it, was try to arrange a debate. I contacted a young friend associated with a few of these theological debate channels. He says it is well known that Dr. Heiser does not debate. Some fellow named James White has tried it. Based on a communication I received out of the blue from a mutual acquaintance who is fellowshipping with him personally, I have reason to believe that he already knows I am here.

[@inquisitor4635]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 I just know that for myself if I had a difference of interpretation of scripture with a book author and was openly criticizing and debasing their work while simultaneously promoting my own work that I would at least send off an email with my critique and counterpoint while seeking a response from that author before making a video publicizing it. I would make my differences known and at least allow for a response. If they did not respond in a reasonable amount of time then I would include that fact in the video critique that they had an opportunity to elaborate or defend their position before posting the video. Just seems like the decent and appropriate thing to do no matter who is in the right. This can be done absent any debate or willingness to debate. But these one-sided videos of people having a discussion with themselves seems to be the modern trend these days. I have listened to some of the criticism by James White of Heiser and White goes far beyond academic and scholarly criticism, but actually makes disturbing innuendos and character assassination concerning Heiser and even about Heiser's family or his relationship with his family. The guy sounds unhinged and toxic to me. I would deny such a person who stoops to such tactics any form of consideration or participation in a debate.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@inquisitor4635 I can go back and have my friend ask him, but what he told me wasn't that Heiser won't debate J. White, but that Heiser said he "does not debate". Maybe he was just trying to get away from one individual and made it a policy to depersonalize things, but as you can see here.....I do debate. Now let me ask you, since Heiser himself has taken on the traditional view, and really expressed exasperation with it, did HE do what you are suggesting that I should have done? That is, go to some of the theologians, or any of them, that take the traditional view and write them that email and offer to dialogue with them in private? Look, at this point, that would not do any good anyway. His views are out there and even if he never spoke up for them again they would still be bouncing around out there. This is not a personal grievance where I should approach him as if he has done something to me personally. This simply isn't that situation. This is a situation where a particular teaching has spread around the earth in the church. It is far too late to practically deal with the matter as you suggest. This is getting in the way of people seeing the real message of scripture IMHO. And I'm not going to be silent about it unless someone can show me with fact and reason from the text why I am wrong. In that case I will apologize. Outside of that, the more determined people are to get me to shut up about it the more I realize that there is a need to speak.

[@IbanezArtist85]

I agree with your interpretation of this scripture. It just makes more sense. I like Michael Heiser, in general, but let's face facts: No human being is always right. That's why we need to consider various interpretations of these things. In some cases, I prefer Chuck Missler's interpretations of things (sadly, dead also) or LA Marzulli. He also, has some great insights into the supernatural world. The great FALSE speakers / writers are people like Erik Von Daniken and Zechariah Sitchen who almost never got anything right.........but then, they are not (were not) Christians and were not, in any way, led by the Holy Spirit.

[@ronf968]

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: 2“How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah Context appears to take place in heaven to me right from the start. I understand your position but have to go with Michael on this one. I have over 40 years of Bible study,Bible college,linguistics,Greek and Hebrew. I appreciate your work on this and see why many take this view that you are espousing, but I believe Michael view is the better understanding.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

"God has taken his place in the divine council" is a poor translation. בַּעֲדַת־ is congregation or company, on earth, the other five times it is used in the bible and that's what it is here. "El" means "God" and is singular. Where else is it translated "divine" in all the many places it is used in scripture? Divine is an attribute of God, but El means God. The God who is royal in majesty, using a plural noun with a singular pronoun, walks in the congregation of God, singular with no definite article. האלוהי is "divine" but it isn't in the verse. "Elohim" can carry connotations of such but "El" means God. Whoever translated the ESV sure made a mess out of the translation. Fortunately Christ resolved the controversy by His words in John. He has no seminary degrees and at least on earth did not have over 40 years of bible study, but I trust Him.

[@ronf968]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 There is a God assembly with other elohim. Where would this God assembly be if not where God resides? I dont have to use divine counsel. I dont understand your comment about Jesus concerning this matter

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@ronf968 Ron in the video I ended with Jesus in John citing 82nd Psalm. But He connects their god-hood to "the word of God came" to them. Did the Word of God come to the Judges of Israel? Yes. Ergo, they were "gods", so it was no offense for Him to say He was God's Son. They were ALL supposed to be (Ex 4:22), but they were so far from the truth that they made God's intent for them blasphemy. Indeed their forefathers did not believe the written word and they did not believe the Living Word standing before them! Christ actualized what they were supposed to be. If you assume they are all spirit beings then you assume it is in heaven, but that is circular reasoning. The Psalm ends by asking God to judge the earth or the land. Check an interlinear and see the other five places the word translated "assembly" is used. They are all on earth. The judges of Israel were considered Elohim in scripture. Please see earlygenesistherevealedcosmology.blogspot.com/2020/12/a-fan-of-m-heiser-challenges-me-to.html

[@marcosbetances7186]

Normally where there is no explanation where it says sons of God it's talking about heavenly rulers,for we do not wrestle against flesh and blood but against the powers, the principalities, against the rulers of this present darkness, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

The scripture you paraphrase does not say these rulers are the sons of God. What is your bases for the claim "Normally where there is no explanation where it says sons of God it's talking about heavenly rulers"? A lot of people think that, but it is hard to make a good scriptural case as to why that should be so. Please see my video where it says that Angels or Spirit Beings are NOT sons of God.

[@marcosbetances7186]

I still agree with Doctor Hizer because all these instances can definitely be happening in heaven but using that kind of verbage it's a tall order to make it on earth. God bless.

[@danielcarranza1957]

The passage says I said you are gods Does not say you think you are gods And why would GOD say to a human mortal they will die like one, makes no sense

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Like He said to Abraham "I have made you the father of many nations" before it happened. I wasn't even claiming they think they were gods. I was claiming that God's intention was for them to become elohim. That is done by receiving the Word of God in faith and being born again. That is why Jesus in Mat 10 connected "Ye are gods" to "those to whom the Word of God came". He would say that because they failed to fulfill their destiny and become more than mortal men. But I discuss this in the video.

[@carlLackey-qk8sd]

Sorry got to go with Mike on this one, why is is so had to take the text at what it says. Anytime the supernatural pops out in the scriptures' people find a way to not take the text at its word and come up with some earthbound explanation

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

I would ask you the same question. Adding that the text is pointing to the work and person of Christ, OT and New. You seem to discount the supernatural work required to turn sinful men and women into the Sons and Daughters of the Living God. It's a Big Deal, because we are so far from that on our own. I have little tolerance for a theology that would re-interpret the bible as a long detour about these supernatural beings before finally winding back around to the work and person of Christ. History is His story.

[@michaelglass9604]

Mr. Moore: What do you mean by “false” gods? Is the bible telling the truth or is traditional bias clouding our beliefs about what is true? The following passage should trouble the traditional view that gods (lesser beings) do not exist. Here is a NT reference to there being an actual god of this world. 2 Corinthians 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. In John 12:31 it is called a ruler. ‘Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.” Here it is referred to royal authority calling it the son of a King. Ephesians 2:2 “in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-" And why would a biblical writer make these comparable statement in the following three passages if the gods were not real. Comparing the God to something that is make believe and do not exist would make the God sound rather Casper-milky-toast. It would be a non-sensical comparison. it would not be much of a compliment if my wife compared me to something that did not exist. It would be shallow to make such a comparison. “Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? Who is like Thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?” (Exodus 15:11). “For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised: He is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens” (Psalm 96:4-5). .Again in this passage...why would God execute judgment against something that did not exist. “For the Egyptians buried all their firstborn, which the LORD had smitten among them: upon their gods also, the LORD executed judgments” (Numbers 33:4).

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

1 Cor. chapter 8 "4 So, what about eating meat that has been offered to idols? Well, we all know that an idol is not really a god and that there is only one God. 5 There may be so-called gods both in heaven and on earth, and some people actually worship many gods and many lords. 6 But for us, There is one God, the Father, by whom all things were created, and for whom we live. And there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created, and through whom we live.

[@michaelglass9604]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 Mike: Agreed…no idol is alive...idols are nothing. Paul is clear. In verse 5 Paul affirms there are many gods and makes it clear that for us there is only one [true] God. Also, the phrase “so-called” in not in the Greek…it added for emphasis and adds meaning that is not in the original. I deeply appreciate your response to me. I was extremely excited to see your video because I have struggled with this biblical view that Heirser’s and others hold and welcome a sound rebuttal. So far no one attempting to refute his stance has even stated his propositions accurately. That means so far no one has changed my mind on this view, but I am open to discussion and with sufficient evidence I can be persuaded. I am not a theologian and do not read ancient languages, so I do not want to come off as knowing something I do not. I think you may have more knowledge of scripture than I do but I am assuming that. I had a hard time getting past the idea that Elohim always meant a set of attributes that can only be assigned to the one and only true God of scripture. Once I got past that I then understood that I did not have to give up the true God and I was not an idolator for looking at the bible like Heiser is proposing. At any rate, I know you have read his book and I'm not trying to be rude, but I would suggest you go to these: drmsh.com/ and then go to An Introduction to the Devine Counsel kzbin.info/www/bejne/ip-roYCwirhri6s (this one specifically addresses 1 Corinthians 8 idol passage)

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

I am happy to engage in dialogue with reasonable people. I also have no difficulty with other elohim or some kind of divine court. I believe there is an unseen realm. The gods are false in the sense that you put (true) as a qualifier of our God above. Since I don't have a problem with those concepts I am not sure listening to more material over something I don't object to will help resolve anything. But the 82nd Psalm isn't talking about those guys. Jesus didn't think so, because He said the basis for them being elohim was that the Word of God came to them. That undoubtedly applied to both their ancestors and them. He was standing right in front of them, the Word Made flesh. I have heard Dr. Heiser talk for quite a while trying to make this into something else other than that. But he never deals with the bottom line as I just described it. He talks around it. If you have something on that that I have not listened to then that would be the one for me to listen to. I There is no reason for God to judge the earth, as the Psalm calls for if the problem was the "elohim who were given charge of the nations". Under his narrative THEY were supposed to judge the earth rightly even if they were not on it, so replacing them or rebuking them would not be judging the earth. This does not even mention the problem with his take on Deut. 82. Or just the glaring oversight of failing to look at 89:5 with a decent translation. It would be clear that the elim in verse six are on earth, so not only does it not support his contention about 82 but undermines it. The data points he is connecting are real, but either the data doesn't hold up or the way he connects those dots don't add up. I am sorry, put I think he has the Sons of God wrong. What he is saying about it fits with the Book of Enoch, and with 2nd Temple Period Jewish beliefs, but not with what the scriptures say about them.

[@michaelglass9604]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 I think I see how you are looking at the last verse. My understanding of “Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!” is the Psalmist is proclaiming prophetically that God will bring all nations (under the misrule of these beings) back (inherit) to him through the salvific work of Jesus Christ. Jesus makes right what mankind has been encouraged and allowed to do under the rule of these beings. Jesus reverses what took place at Babble. This inheriting process (called the Kingdom of God) started at Pentecost with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and Apostles making disciples of thousands from other nations. These thousands would have taken the gospel of Jesus Christ back to their home nation after Pentecost; thus, nations were being inherited. However, the Kingdom of God comes in full after God judges the earth’s inhabitants in the end time. But there is no mercy for these gods, now chained in darkness as Jude and Peter mention in their writings. They lose and go from chains to die like men. I do not question your sincerity but reading something and understanding it are two different things. You do not appear to understand the points this Hebrew scholar is making or you are just not restating it accurately. I do not think you are purposeful with bad intent, but these propositions you claim to oppose are much more refined than it appears you are able to articulate. But you are bold to make a video that builds a strawman with such confidence. I see why people deleted their post to your comments now…it is like boxing a southpaw, no matter how well one dose both parties look clumsy and awkward. I will not attempt to face a strawman argument and will not respond to you again until you know and can state concepts you oppose effectively and clearly.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@michaelglass9604 I have copied this thread in its own post, and have answered there. I don't want another deletion after I have spent time on this, and you seem to be warming to the idea of doing so.

[@jboreal7982]

I was intrigued by the title of the video. It seems to me that the gauntlet has been thrown and a debate should take place. I would handicap you Mr. Moore as the underdog in such a debate; however I would keep an open mind by allowing you to bring forth your thesis concerning Psalm 82. Which judging from this video alone lacks depth.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

I am all for it, but I heard he doesn't do them. Maybe if you and a few dozen supporters of his went on his pages and ask him, he'd make an exception?

[@thekriskokid]

Heiser won't debate this for one reason only. In his words, "Debates are for the lazy and accomplished little or nothing. Hardly no one changes their mind because of a debate." YOU need to read and watch Heiser's material as well as that from the opposing side. THIS WILL TAKE MANY HOURS! Certainly at least 20 or 30 of intense, deep study of both sides. Then YOU need to draw YOUR OWN conclusions. Are we lazy, or are students of the Word?

[@suburbanrapper]

I like Heiser on some things but on some stuff absolutely not. wow.... way to Go! like how you break down how the Hebrew is used each word is very important. .. your work is revolutionary sir... the bible states "do you not know that we will will become... do you not know that you will judge angles?"... This video puts real meaning into God saying... "let us create man in our own image" I know there is only one begotten son of god.... but after that by adoption and redemption... well it is not know what we will be... by the Grace of God and by His mercy... the point you made about the principalities... the prince of Persia ... these demonic principalities are inferior to the adopted redeemed blood washed sons of God.... wow... it makes me tremble... let us all be good stewards of what the blood of God has done... you are doing a great work edifying the the body of Christ and glorifying the amazing WORK the Lord Jesus Christ had done in the redemption of man by His blood. Heisner r

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Thank you for listening, I appreciate the kind words. We should pray for M,. Heiser. He is right about a lot of the things he is not most famous for, but wrong on what he is famous for. That is a dangerous spiritual place to be.

[@zachz1018]

You need to read dead sea scroll 11q13 the coming of Melcheizedek

[@albusai]

Jesús you are gods, right before the Father is in me and I’m in the Father,, so no Jesús was not saying I can say this like you can say it

[@78LedHead]

Correct. Jesus referring back to that passage nails it in. The Pharisees reaction to him gives it all away. These are not human judges. Jesus wasn't saying "hey bro, we're all gods... just chill."

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

He said that to show that He was in an even more exalted status than those to whom He was speaking in the 82d Psalm. M. Heiser and I agree on that point, it is that obvious. Therefore your argument does not follow. His argument was "you COULD say it if you had received the Word in Faith, so then how much more am I right to say it."

[@artemusbowdler7508]

KJV does not translate 89:6 correctly. The ESV does: "For who in the skies can be compared to the LORD? Who among the heavenly beings is like the LORD,"

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Do you keep deleting your posts and my answer and then post something like it again with my answer gone? I've put in in a blog post so that I don't have to keep retyping why your claim is incorrect earlygenesistherevealedcosmology.blogspot.com/2022/02/heiser-and-new-translations-are-so-so.html

[@Joshuaengels]

Job 1:6

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

does not contradict what I say in this video. For details, see this video on whether the "sons of god" are spirit beings. Time 20 is when I address Job specifically. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3rGfpyMdph7nrc

[@cherten1]

what makes your interpertation right. It is only what you think and nothing else

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

This is the traditional church view of this passage. It isn't "just what I think". Is Dr. Heiser's view "just what he thinks and nothing more?" If you answer "he is a scholar", well so were those who developed the traditional view. Christ ID's those who were being called "gods", it was "those to whom the Word of God came". But they did not receive it in faith. Those who do are born again and as scripture says, partake of the Divine Nature.

[@bertgoat]

If the sons of god in gen 6 were humans how on earth did that union produce giants with 6 digits on their feet and hands?

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

If you look closely at Gen 6 you may see that the text does not actually say the giant were the products of that union. The heros were. As for the six fingers, that applied only to the giant in gath in 1 Cor. that was a "Rapha" giant, not a Nephilim. Extra digits (and teeth) is sometimes associated with regular giantism. For another way to look at the Nephilim and Sons of God that ties into the stories from many cultures, please see kzbin.info/www/bejne/ppfVm56Japl1msU

[@bertgoat]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 Jude and Peter confirm there was hanky panky between the fallen angels and human woman. I believe it was augustine who was one of the first to postulate the sethite view with zero biblical support. I will stick with the early view which i believe to have scriptural support,

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@bertgoat I am not postulating the Sethite view. If one has good reason to say I am wrong, I am willing to hear it, but you do not seem to understand my position. Neither Jude nor Peter claim there was hanky-panky between fallen angels and human women, though I wish the Greek had been a bit clearer on that. See kzbin.info/www/bejne/fmSknH1ma79jjas

[@larrymoore2571]

@@bertgoat Hello John Does Jude & 2 Peter support angel/human unions? Let's break down Jude: ~ Jude 1:5; "Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe." ~ Jude 1:6; "And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day," ~ Jude 1:7; "just as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." ~ NOTE: Jude 8 is a summary of the preceding verses in reverse order... (parenthesis are my notes). ~ Jude 1:8; "Likewise also these filthy dreamers 'DEFILE THE FLESH' (Verse 7, SODOM & GOMMORAH), 'DESPISE DOMINION' (Verse 6, ANGELS WANTING TO BE LIKE GOD), and 'SPEAK EVIL OF DIGNITIES'' (Verse 5, EGYPT REFUGEES LIKE 'KORAH' THAT REBELLED AGAINST MOSES)." The following explains Jude 6 when Satan & 1/3 of the angels 'did not keep their own domain and abandoned their proper abode’. ~ Isaiah 14:12-14; "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." ~ This has nothing to do with angels making demigod hybrids by marrying women.

[@mauriciosweeney6542]

Go back brother and try to connect with Dr. Michael S He.ser and I will pray for you!

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

I am happy to report that I just "liked" a M. Heiser video. The one he posted on April 19th about "hermeneutics". Thank you for the prayers.

[@artemusbowdler7508]

In John 10:34, the term “god” (Elohim used in Psalms 82) is applied to others than God himself (this was His point); in other words, God in Psalms 82 is calling supernatural beings--other than Himself--Elohim (plural used in Psalms 82). If angels, fallen or unfallen, could be termed “gods,” how much more rightly Jesus! He was not saying that humans can be called Elohim (plural used in Psalms 82). However, He is saying that we can be called son's of Elohim (singular used in Psalms 82). The spiritual ruling class in Israel found fault with the phrase "Son of God." This verse does not grant you the status of a god (Elohim singular used in Psalms 82). Murry states: "Those addressed as 'gods' are angelic powers who had authority over the nations but misused it. J. A. Emerton has shown that such was the probable understanding of the LXX translators in their rendering of Ps 82, and quite certainly that of the Peshitta translators, who rendered El in verse 1a and Elohim in 1b by the term malke, “angels” (“Sortie New Testament Notes,” 331)." Beasley-Murray, G. R. (1999). John (Vol. 36, p. 176). Word, Incorporated.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

And the "supernatural beings" were humans who had received the word of God. But not in faith. Their receiving the word of god is connected to them being called gods by Jesus. He makes the connection. This would not apply to Divine Beings. they don't get called gods because the Word of God came to them, they are so by nature. Jesus was saying even in your own law those to whom the word of God came were called "gods" (and that DOES apply to the judges of Israel) then as a man I have a right to be called that, and how much more as the Unique One do I have a right to be called that. He was arguing that even as a man he had the right, and how much moreso since He was more than man. The idea that "these lesser divine beings were gods and I am a greater divine being" doesn't even address the issue of the accusations against Him. I am amazed that anyone could see it that way. Why would He specify that it was those "to whom the word of God came" that were called gods if that was the case?

[@artemusbowdler7508]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 Humans are not supernatural beings. You are trying to defend this idea that humans can become gods. This is balderdash. Now, I know why you are obsessed about discrediting Heiser. You are no god.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@artemusbowdler7508 If my life is in the one Unique Son, if I am a member of the body of Christ, if I have a new life in me that does not sin. then yes, that part of me is a divine being, partakes of the Divine Nature (as it says in 1 Peter) and we are sons and daughters of God. It is not yet revealed what we are, but in Him, we are divine beings, which is what the OT term Elohim means.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

careful that you don't find yourself among the Pharisees, condemning as blasphemy what God intends for us all along.

[@artemusbowdler7508]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 You are no god. Adoption does not make us a god. You have created your own hermeneutic that says so much about what is not so.

[@3BadBostons]

I pray God Almighty will be gracious to you that you would see the Truth.

[@mthulisidube5502]

Vs 8 of psalm 82 makes sense in heiser’s model because the nations are taken back from the gods

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

It makes sense within his model, but his model doesn't make sense within the larger context of scripture. Please see my video about why he had Deut. 32 wrong as well. Short version, Deut teaches elsewhere that all nations are the LORD's. Ch 7:6-8. "His" model was really based on 2nd temple period Rabbinic thought. These were the folks who Paul told us (2nd Cor. 3:15) had a veil over their hearts whenever Moses was read. IOW, they didn't get it. I would caution against building one's theology around the positions of a group that scripture assures us didn't get it!

[@mthulisidube5502]

Let me pick your thoughts on Deut 38, particularly vs 8; was the nations divided per the sons of Israel or per the sons of God/ angels. I’m sensitive to my loose use of the term angels.

[@mthulisidube5502]

On him relying on intertestamental period literature. That I’m it’s own can not be a problem, the question is; is it scriptural or not. Some writers of the NT, Peter & Jude in particular also relied on the Sme literature!

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

I agree with the late Dr. Heiser as regards to what the original text said in 32:8. It likely was "sons of God" because that is what the Septuagint says. Where we part ways is what that means. As you may know, the Masoretic text which is the basis for the OT in our western bibles was compiled by rabbis who lived in the centuries after Christ and who were hostile to Christ. Christians took THEMSELVES to be "Sons of God" because that is what scripture teaches we are. I suspect the rabbis made it "Children of Israel" to keep those pesky Christians from thinking the nations were divided according to the number of Christians who were meant to inherit them, and instead made themselves the ones to inherit them. The key is what "Sons of God" means. I think Genesis was written a very long time before the Psalms, and the law, in a different culture. The same with Job. Please see my video on why the Sons of God are not angels or spirit beings kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3rGfpyMdph7nrc @@mthulisidube5502

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

and here is the one on why I say he was wrong on Deut. 32 kzbin.info/www/bejne/jH3Yq2N4hbyGna8

[@lorenzosablaya8079]

I still lean on M. Heiser. His interpretation is still the best.

[@larrymoore2571]

Did you buy his Apkulla story he was selling, because he says it is impossible to rightly discern the scriptures without it? I had always been taught that discernment came from the Holy Spirit, but Dr. Heiser showed me that secular writings can be added to the Bible to create amazing stories.

[@Brandon-bm]

Will Jesus saying "You Jews are just like me, we are all sons of God" make the Jews angry?

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Thank you for your question. I don't think He was saying that, because the Psalm wasn't saying that. It was saying that they were meant to be so, but they failed. I believe they failed because the written word was not recieved in faith. Now the Living Word was not received in faith either, so they did not receive the New Life that shared the Divine Nature (2 Peter 1:4). So what He was saying was that He was being what according to their own scriptures, they were all meant to be, but failed to be. They had actually twisted tings around so that God's intent for them ( to be His sons) was declared "blaspemy" by them. So it was just like He said in Matt 23 "“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." As it says in Hebrews 2, He suffered to bring many sons to glory. So God's plan is consistent from the OT to the gospels to the rest of the NT. That's why this makes so much more sense than theology wihch teaches the OT references to the Sons of God were spirit beings and His interest in making us sons onlly seems to get rolling with the epistles. I admit Job is confusing on this but it can be explained. So Jesus was telling them "You are wrong, it isn't blaspemy for me to say this, I am doing and being what you all were meant to be. You just arent' doing it and declare Me who is doing it to be worty of death". I do think that would make them angry. Don't you agree?

[@rizkylumempouw6047]

“To whom the word came? To the children of Israel” Ohhh come one! The word also came to the elohim in Psalm 82. And even if you do not count Psalm 82 is for gods. What is the odd that God did not say His word to his angelic beings.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

The question is "on what basis were those in question called "elohim"?" If an "elohim" is "a divine being" or "a being which operates in the spiritual world" (Heiser's def), then one would have to say that the angelic beings were ALREADY spirit beings who operated in the spirit realm. It is MEN who are made into such when the Word of God is received by them in faith, producing a new life within them which partakes of the Divine Nature (as it says in Peter). So yes the Word of God came to the angelic beings, long before men received it, but they were not made into elohim on that basis. Elohim is what they were created as.

[@rizkylumempouw6047]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 You are making too much assumption here. You have made up your mind that Psalm 82 is the verse where God declared men (non-elohim creatures) as elohim. You then conclude that when Jesus says in John 10 “to whom the word came”, it means the word came to Israel because Psalm 82 is about God declaring non-elohim creatures as elohim. Some people do not make such assumption. Some people (like me) do not interpret Psalm 82 as declaration of non elohim creatures as elohim. Some people (like me) interpret Psalm 82 as simply God REAFFIRMING the position of elohim as elohim. It’s similar to people saying: you are a man so act like a man! Since we do not see that this verse should only be interpreted a declaration of non-elohim creatures as elohim but rather could also be interpreted as reaffirmation of elohim as elohim, we are open that “to whom the word came” in John 10 could also be interpreted that the word came to elohim (heavenly beings). My argument: 1. “to whom the word came” may not be only limited to Israel. It could also mean to Elohim (heavenly beings). 2. Psalm 82 also does not have to be interpreted as declaration of non elohim creatures as elohim. It could be interpreted as reaffirming the position of elohim creature as elohim: you are elohim act like elohim! 3. Plain wording in verse 1 and 6 of Psalm 82 favors the interpretation: “you are elohim, act like one” 4. When Psalm 82 is still in dispute, do not take one possible interpretation and then interpret John 10 in light of this one possible interpretation.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@rizkylumempouw6047 you keep saying "non elohim creatures as elohim" but Heiser himself defines elohim as beings who operate in the supernatural realm. By that definition, Moses and Abraham and the prophets were all elohim. MANY instances of humans being referred to by that term earlygenesistherevealedcosmology.blogspot.com/2020/11/nor-does-michael-heiser-have-elohim.html

[@billyjackson9107]

Isn’t it amazing that there are “ministries “ that exist to tear down other ministries?,,, and the devil goes unopposed destroying peoples lives?

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

I do not think you should speak ill of Dr. Heiser like that. Just because his career was built on tearing down the traditional view of things that was preached by other ministries doesn't mean he was wrong about everything. I think he was right about most of the things that he was not famous for, and I look forward to seeing him in heaven. Where I expect him to thank me for setting the record straight.

[@artemusbowdler7508]

Only the KJV and the NKJV use the word "saints." All the other translations use the phrase "holy ones."

[@mutoncharly1315]

Is he suggesting that we are gods then? And if he does, is he a polytheist or a Monotheist? I see a lot of problems with this form of interpretation

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

I am suggesting that's the goal, that's God's intended end of the matter. Because that is what the bible teaches. It teaches when we are born again there is a new life in us which partakes of the Divine Nature (2d Peter 1:4). Are we not made sons in Christ? In the flesh we struggle with the old man, but one day we will become like Him because we will see Him for who He is (see this and many other scriptures on the subject. Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, Galatians 4:6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” Romans 8:14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 2 Corinthians 6:18 “And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty. Hosea 1:10 Yet the number of the sons of Israel Will be like the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered; And in the place Where it is said to them, “You are not My people,” It will be said to them, “You are the sons of the living God.” Romans 9:26 “And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘you are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.” Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. 1 John 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. 1 John 3:1 See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Luke 20:36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. Revelation 21:7 He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. Hebrews 2:10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. John 11:52 and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. Romans 9:8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. Galatians 4:7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. Hebrews 12:5 and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, Nor faint when you are reproved by Him; Source: bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Believers-As-Sons-Of-God The Pharisees sought to kill Jesus for making this point. They had turned God's intent for them into "blasphemy". Jesus actualized the Father's intent.

[@Luis-jg4db]

😂 .. this was funny !!!! Back to Micheal Hisner I go …

[@theangel219]

you are brave (or something else) to disagree with mike. i have read all of his books and as for me and my house, we will listen to Mike.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

A scary post.

[@theangel219]

guess it doesn't take much to scare you.@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982

[@truthbebold4009]

If 2nd temple Judaism understood scripture then Heiser might have a stronger case. Either 2nd temple Judaism knew scripture or Jesus knew scripture but there's no way they both understood scripture.

[@loveistruth5713]

I don't know... all I know is God said let us make man in our image he was speaking to the Elohim. There were no other human beings at that point. We are all descendants of Adam and Eve. I believe the first chapter of Hebrews explains our position in God's hierarchy...

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

He was speaking to the Son. And the Spirit. Not the divine council. We are not made in their image, but His. Or at least we are meant to be kzbin.info/www/bejne/eqjFgauMnsusiK8

[@loveistruth5713]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 God doesn't need to speak to himself and the image of God isn't referring to physical image God is a spirit and you must worship Him in spirit and in truth. Please explain Hebrews chapter 1 to me please in context

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@loveistruth5713 Explaining Heb1 in context is what the vid does, as it applies to Sonship. If you have a specific question I can give a specific answer. You are Trinitarian, right? Like when Jesus was praying in the garden of Gethsemane, He was not talking to Himself.

[@jamesfulmer7080]

There is a fantastic teaching on this subject at a KZbin channel called (PERFECTED BY BLOOD). The name of the video is (YOU ARE GODS). You will be blessed.

[@Kintizen]

Sounds like New Age.

[@vegetasapologetics3214]

If the text says, in your framework, that they are mortal judicial officials as you claim, then why does it express that these "gods" will DIE like men... I checked the hebrew and it never says as men

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Hi Vincent. You may want to look a little closer at the Hebrew. The Hebrew character stuck in front of the word for men (Adam) does indeed translate to "as". It can also be translated as "like" but usually when combined with a hash. See www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-meaning-of/hebrew-word-8af3842462324e4d5443b28852f9368b3e9aa672.html

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

and here is the link to the interlinear on 82:7 so folks can see that the Hebrew there does indeed have just the "ke" character in front of the word for men.... biblehub.com/interlinear/psalms/82-7.htm

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

So that the explanation is the same as I gave in the video.

[@biblehistoryscience3530]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982, because the Hebrew words for “man” and “prince” in Psalm 82:7 are prefixed with the letter _Kaf_ (“as” or “like”), that means they’re similes, figures of speech in which two dissimilar things are compared through the words “as” or “like”. So God was comparing the ones he was addressing here to men and princes, which means they cannot themselves be men or princes. God was saying these beings shall be punished with death like men and princes are.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@biblehistoryscience3530 yeah, and the two different things being compared were what they were supposed to be per God's statement (elohim) vs. that which they were born into and living out (men). The contrast is between what they were meant to be and their present low state. This same tension is expressed in the NT with believers. But by your reasoning, whoever God is talking to it can't be spiritual supernatural beings, because the same word for "princes" is used in Daniel when it says that "the Prince of Persia" resisted the heavenly messenger and slowed his coming, and the Prince of Daniel's people helped the messenger. Fortunately this is no problem for my approach.

[@RaisingRoosters123]

Although you are fully aware of this, I want to remind you that after Jesusa had delivered His people out of the land of Egypt, He destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not stay within their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling-these He has kept in eternal chains under darkness, bound for judgment on that great day. In like manner, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, who indulged in sexual immorality and pursued strange flesh, are on display as an example of those who sustain the punishment of eternal fire. Jude 1:5-7

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Laura I am going to que up the video where I discuss this verse and set it to the time I talk about this specific passage. There is a LOT of textual evidence that these verses are NOT referring to the Book of Enoch. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fmSknH1ma79jjas

[@searchingtheword]

Your argument is built on the idea that "there can be Elohim that are 'human' ". In Hebrew, conveying this idea is done in a very specific way. The language will use words that speak of human nature, אִישׁ which means man. Deut 33:1 is one of these instances where "the man of God" is used. While Elohim is used in this case you have the context of Elohim being human because the Hebrew states it is a human man prophet. (אִישׁ אֱלֹהִים transliterated as is ha Elohim or man prophet of God) This is true for ALMOST every instance where Elohim is used in connection to a human. This is because the language is trying to convey the divine connection since the "man" is being used as a mouthpiece for God. If the author of Ps. 82 wanted to convey this idea he would have to use the human connection in the original text. This Lemma or word connected to "man prophet" isn't used ANYWHERE in Ps. 82. There isn't ANY connection to a human idea in the text. In fact, it is quite the opposite of what you are arguing. In verse 6, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you." Sons of the Most High are only used in the OT in connection with divine beings. There is ZERO Hebrew language that connects any idea of Human connection to Ps. 82. Unfortunately, your argument, while it sounds logical is greatly flawed from a Hebrew Language and Grammar standpoint. I completely disagree with your points and stance. God Bless!

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Mike at least you didn't just say I was wrong because MH is such a great scholar as many of his fams seem to have done here and on the other video. You are presenting a textual arguement instead of a simple argument from authority wrapped in an insult. That said, I do take issue with some of your factual claims about Hebrew. "אִישׁ" only means "man" in the sense of a male. It could be referring to a stallion or a bull in other contexts. There are two other words used which mean "man" in the sense of a member of the human race, "a-dam", same as the ancestor of line of Messiah who was named for the race he was standing in for, and "Enosh", which is more specifically "mortal". Man as a mortal vs. immortal. Just because Deut 33:1, or several other places, uses the phrase "Man of God" to refer to one who serves God Almighty does not undo the places where men are referred to as Elohim themselves. Further, the intent for humans to be the sons and daughters of God starts in Moses and is only made clearer through the prophets and the OT. Are we to believe that there are other Divine beings that are "elohim" but that God's sons and daughters are excluded from that status? The Author and the Finisher of our faith as already resolved this dispute in Matthew when He gave the basis for which they were called elohim- that the word of God came to them. This clearly applies to the judges of Israel. For more examples of where this is used to describe humans earlygenesistherevealedcosmology.blogspot.com/2020/11/nor-does-michael-heiser-have-elohim.html

[@searchingtheword]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982, I think it is important for the audience to recognize that the views expressed around Ps 82 with Michael Heiser aren't just Heiser's 'views'. Every thought and concept in the Unseen Realm is backed by peer-reviewed scholarly work. Thousands of peer-reviewed works. It is mildly comical to me that you are attempting to discredit the Unseen Realm the view of Ps 82 in a short 20-minute video when the content of the Unseen Realm is massive and the scholarly work behind it is quite impressive. I'm not saying that all of the work I agree with. I'm just stating that the evidence that you presented in your video doesn't address any of the scholarly points that are clearly laid out in the Unseen Realm. I will also attach a Journal Entry from Heiser so that the audience can get a better understanding of the scholarly approach that Heiser is attempting to make accessible to the average Bible student. drive.google.com/file/d/1PsL5FC2fgmNY5IWB-eiKURE_aZzdwRCz/view?usp=sharing

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@searchingtheword Annnd there it is. The appeal to authority. Disappointing. Especially since the traditional view of the scholars is the position I take here.

[@searchingtheword]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 If you are wanting to have a scholarly debate then you need to bring the same level of knowledge to the discussion. I am not a scholar and haven't put the time into the topic like someone like Heiser. From what I watched in your video, I do not see the same level of scholarly approach. That doesn't mean one is right over the other. But your arguments do not address the scholastic items in the text. Based on my study using Logos Bible Study software and a resource library of over 20k books, I do not agree with your arguments and feel like they fall short. I wish you the best of luck!

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@searchingtheword M. Heiser is intimately connected to Logos Bible Software so it is not surprising that if this is where you get your information that you come to this conclusion. Get away from the scholars and go directly to the text. It has never been easier with online interlinear translations. That is my counsel. Good luck to you as well.

[@Sleeplessmclean]

Heiser's book assaulted my faith in an all powerful GOD, JHWH. I rejected his writings from a very visceral part of my soul.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

I'd say your instincts were good, and we got to about the same place from different directions.

[@TheGudsdotter]

John 10: 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Did the Word of God come to the Israelites?

[@TheGudsdotter]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 Yes, the word of God came to all the prophets in Israel.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@TheGudsdotter you have answered correctly, Therefore, even as living men, they meet the criteria to be called "gods" per Psalm 82. Indeed they even meet Dr. MH's definition of an "elohim" in that they were beings who operated in the spiritual world, even as they also operated in this one. Hence I conclude that Jesus was telling them that their own law said that men could be elohim. Too bad neither they nor their unrighteous forefathers had the faith that the prophets had in believing the Word of God which came to them. They died like men when God had meant for them to be elohim.

[@rustydespain]

I think the lesser gods were Sasquatchs..

[@josephde-zordi7324]

It is good to debate these scriptures, but your conclusion is not so clear cut. As they stand, the passages in Psalm 82 and Johns's gospel are ambiguous. ( unless one connects all the relevant scriptures), and I note, you did not mention the critical passages in Genesis 6 and Job. Furthermore, there is no account of the Almighty God/ Elohim/ Elyon/Yahweh/ Yeshua ever addressing humans unambiguously as .. elohim... although in contrast, Epiphanies are some times described as men, Furthermore, the Deut 32: verse , should read sons of God, as in the DSS, and supported by LXX. The Masoretic text has probably been corrupted here, as in a few other key areas. This reading is more logical, and harmonizes with the other scriptures. So M. Heiser does have an argument, and does help to offer a richer and connected view of scripture. The non human sons of God view atleast is a a much better one than all of those mental straight jacket theologians who have for years have pushed the rationalist view that the Ben Elohim, and nephilim, were human descendants of Seth, thus limiting the spiritual dimension of scripture, in order to fit their narrow mindset, a flawed trajectory some what parallel to the notion of theistic evolution.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Thank you for your comment Joseph. It seems the nature of your objection is that I did not address all relevant scriptures to show an interlocking picture, and of course as regards to just this video, this is so. But you are comparing what M. Heiser was able to say in a 300 page book to what I was able to say in a twenty minute video. Of course his take on things will seem more complete, because he had much more of your time and attention to weave together an integrated narrative. Obviously his narrative will be more complete than mine, whether it is right or wrong. I didn't have the scope to deal with an integrated view of the text here, because it is hard enough to get people to sit through a 20 minute video on academic topics. My goal was to show that his position on the 82nd Psalm is flawed. I did that by showing his take on his main supporting verse for his view of the 82nd Psalm, in the 89th Psalm, is mistaken. And also by showing his refutation of the main NT verse in John to refute his view of the 82nd Psalm is also mistaken- He called them Gods on the basis that the Word of God came to them. This undoubtedly applies to the children of Israel whether or not it would also apply to heavenly beings. There is an alternative take on all of those passages that he weaves together into a narrative. For example, you use the LXX to justify reading Deut. 32 as "sons of God". Let's say you are correct about that. The LXX also translates the "sons of God" in Job as "angels". IOW, the clearest place that heavenly beings are called "sons of God" is based on a questionable translation (as is the case with Deut. 32) of Job, a book out of the literary mainstream of the OT. Without that, all you have is words coming out of the mouth of a pagan king in Daniel, and some passages in which it is ambiguous as to who is referred to as "sons of God". This allows us to take the first chapter of Hebrews in a straight-forward manner and conclude that angelic beings are NOT His sons. So then if you will indulge me with but a tithe of the attention it would have taken to read "The Unseen Realm" I would ask that you read this short blog post on why he has "Elohim" wrong as well. I noticed that you carefully crafted your statement about their being no place that GOD unambiguously calls humans Elohim. You know there are places in the text where other humans call humans Elohim, and indeed that was the typical understanding of the time. But I would argue that Exodus 7:1 IS an example of such a place, the only ambiguity being the word "as" added by translators and not extant in the Hebrew of the passage, or extant in the Greek of the Septuagint. God makes Moses "Elohim" for Pharoah. earlygenesistherevealedcosmology.blogspot.com/2020/11/nor-does-michael-heiser-have-elohim.html

[@johnmichaelson9173]

It's just opinions about opinions. Didn't Heiser say he was asked by a friend to read 82 in the Hebrew form & both men agreed on the interpretation. I like Heiser's interpretation, God giving the lesser Gods a good telling off. Sometimes it's good to get a little fun outta the OT it can be pretty gruesome read. God definitely has some anger management issues going on.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

If only you could see Genesis as I do you would know that God doesn't have any anger management issues. His anger is completely appropriate and justified and pained Him deeply enough to shake heaven itself. I like the idea of God giving those who were supposed to be preaching and living His Word a good telling off. Figure another round of that is overdue. BUT we should seek to understand what is true over what seems most fun at the moment.

[@johnmichaelson9173]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 And there's me thinking Moses was the most humble man on Earth, smh.

[@rubenorozco9164]

Why is Heiser's theology such a threat? He recognizes one true God (YahWeh), he recognizes Jesus as the savior fully human and fully God and died for our sins and resurrected. So why?

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

I agree with him on all of that. It was the theology he was famous for that I objected to. If you are already there, his Unseen Realm stuff won't take you from there, but it won't get you further focused on those things as the Christ-centered model for early Genesis does. Heiser saw the Divine Counsel everywhere, I see Jesus everywhere. For those who are not there, not Christians, I think showing how the text of even early Genesis points to Christ has tremendous apologetics potential. Far superior to the apologetics power the text would have if it were speaking of Unseen Realm theology everywhere. I personally experienced people unable to process how Genesis is pointing to Christ because they were viewing all of the material through the lens of second temple period Judaism. Well, the NT tells us that those people had a veil over their eyes whenever Moses was read. They were his area of study, but as far as considering them an authority on Moses they seem to be the last people we should listen to.

[@gregpremo6898]

you have a right to your opinion and it is an opinion he reviewed it in Hebrew, gotta go with Mike on this one

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Don't you think those generations of scholars with a traditional view of this text, which is what I am defending here, "reviewed it in Hebrew"? This is not a case of the supporters of one view reviewing the hebrew and the other not.

[@gregpremo6898]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 it's interesting the last 25 years of thinking about a verse in Daniel,,,, it's 12:4 in the latter days people will go to and fro and knowledge will increase I dig through commentaries from hundreds of years ago and they did not see Israel returning, they did not have the modern recent archeological discoveries and look into surrounding cultures to understand some of the words we find "adopted" by the Hebrews and translated to english, the problem has been understanding the true root of the word and then there being no english word that can replicate the original meaning,,, Michael took the time to also dig through the cultural considerations you have a right to your opinion, but consider doing the level of work he did to confirm before you deny by older english translation from the now archaic english of king James era

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@gregpremo6898 why do you say that the issue is how the Hebrew is translated? I think it hinges on what the statement Jesus made about it means. We agree on the translation of what it said, just not what it means. On Deut. 32 we disagree on the translation of one key word and in that vid I go into great detail to show why I think it should be translated the other way. What Hebrew word do you think we are disagreeing on in P82?

[@artemusbowdler7508]

I heard your video, and I am not impressed. If you are going to entice me to change my mind about Heiser's views on the divine council, you are going to have to provided a stronger argument. I am not trying to be disrespectful, but your rebuttal shows a cursory attempt. You even interject additional meaning to passages that go beyond the scope of the text. I thank you for trying. I have read many scholarly commentaries and watched many scholarly lectures on Psalms 82 and 89 to exhaust all possible ways of interpreting because I do not want to be in error. I thought maybe your video was going to provide a substantive interpretation, but you are like most. Thank you for trying. In John 10:34, the term “god” (Elohim used in Psalms 82) is applied to others than God himself (this was His point); in other words, God in Psalms 82 is calling supernatural beings--other than Himself--Elohim (plural used in Psalms 82). If angels, fallen or unfallen, could be termed “gods,” how much more rightly Jesus! He was not saying that humans can be called Elohim (plural used in Psalms 82). However, He is saying that we can be called son's of Elohim (singular used in Psalms 82). The spiritual ruling class in Israel found fault with the phrase "Son of God." This verse does not grant you the status of a god (Elohim singular used in Psalms 82). Murry states: "Those addressed as 'gods' are angelic powers who had authority over the nations but misused it. J. A. Emerton has shown that such was the probable understanding of the LXX translators in their rendering of Ps 82, and quite certainly that of the Peshitta translators, who rendered El in verse 1a and Elohim in 1b by the term malke, “angels” (“Sortie New Testament Notes,” 331)." Beasley-Murray, G. R. (1999). John (Vol. 36, p. 176). Word, Incorporated.

[@quantumquatro]

I realize this is an older video But I think your misunderstanding the term Elohim . I could be wrong as its been awhile since reading Unseen Realm but I'm fairly certain Heiser's take on the definition of Elohim was that we wrongly assume Elohim refers to a Title such as GOD or KING but he says its more of a place of residence ie the spiritual realm which it refers to many different times of many different beings including human dead as in Samuel 28:13 that being said your Idea of psalm 82 referring to men cannot be as Elohim can only reference those in the spiritual realm . Final thought if psalm 82 were referring to men why would it say you are Gods (human) but you will die like men to me makes no sense where as if they were gods yet would die like men makes perfect sense as that was part of there punishment. GOD bless

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

Friend it does not seem like you watched the video. Heiser himself defined an elohim as a being who operates in the supernatural realm. Surely Abraham, Moses and the Prophets did so. While they were in the flesh. The idea that elohim does not apply to God alone is essential to my argument. It also applied to those who carried and administered the Word of God on earth, as in the judges of Israel.

[@Melben316]

MH has better explanation.

[@rizkylumempouw6047]

Not convincing… I saw a leap of logic here. Why should we interpret Elohim as world rulers instead of gods? Even in other passage we can interpret Elohim as world rulers, Elohim is also used for gods.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

That isn't my argument. The judges were declared "elohim" so it isn't INSTEAD OF. They were supposed to have received the Word of God in faith, and adjudicated by same. They were supposed to be implementing the Word of God on earth. This would have made them into divine beings operating in the spirit realm (definition of Elohim) even through and in their judging and ruling. I say they were judges and rulers because that is what the text says they were doing. I say they were SUPPOSED to be "gods" because this is what happens to people who receive the Word of God in faith. We become His sons via being in The Son.

[@rizkylumempouw6047]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 My problem with your explanation is that you presuppose the word elohim in verse 1 as men. That is why you said that “the judges were men” and YHWH declared them as elohim in verse 6. I’m not saying you are wrong, but some people also believe that the judges were gods especially because in verse 1 it refers to “elohim”. These people, when reading verse 6, interpret that YHWH reaffirmed this in verse 6 by saying “you are elohim, sons of the most high.” By far the use of Elohim most likely refers to god. So the second interpretation is better since it is plain reading and does not make the same presupposition as the first interpretation. The first interpretation violates plain reading of the word elohim in verse 1 and presuppose that the judges were men (exactly why it is a leap of logic).

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@rizkylumempouw6047 What I am doing is interpreting the verse in the light of the NT. Specifically what it says we are to become when we receive the Word of God in faith and what Jesus said about this passage in Mat. 10. I see you commented on that below so I will deal with that elsewhere. Nevertheless, the OT also supports this view. Exodus 21:6 for example "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." - the word for "Judges" there is "elohim". In addition, Exodus 22:8 uses Elohim for "Judges" - "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." I think Dr. Heiser argues that this should be translated as big-G "God", but I find that absurd. Was God to personally try every case of theft in Israel? I think you have to try hard not to see it- the judges of Israel were called "elohim" in scripture. 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. 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.

[@rizkylumempouw6047]

​@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 I really appreciate your explanation and the details of your argument. You are also very polite. These are my counter arguments: Counter Argument 1: the verses you cited from Exodus do not necessarily have to be interpreted as judge. Why did I say this? Because some English translations (such as ESV or NLT) use the word God instead of judge. Do I mean that God (and not human) try every theft case in Israel during Moses's time? No! I believe that it was humans as judges that tried those cases. However, one COULD interpret the author of Exodus is trying to tell Israel that every case that was brought before humans as judges was actually brought before God. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not argue that those verses from Exodus have to be interpreted as God. I am open that it could be interpreted as human judges. The problem is those verses could have two ways of interpretation Counter Argument 2: Even if we assume that those verses in Exodus can be interpreted as judges, the use of "Elohim" tends to be interpreted as God or divine beings. If you count the number of time the word "Elohim" is used in the Old Testament, most of them refer to God or divine beings. This will weaken your position that Psalm 82 has to be interpreted as judges. On the other hand, this will strengthen the position that Psalm 82 COULD be interpreted as divine beings. Does this counter argument destroy your argument? absolutely not. Counter Argument 3: The setting of Psalm 82 is a bit strange if we interpret God stood in front of human judges. Why? Given the nature of God's holiness, it is very hard for humans to meet God in the Old Testament. I am not saying that God never met humans in the Old Testament. I am fully aware that God met some people in the Old Testament such as Abraham. But not all people had the privilege to meet God in the Old Testament. Does this counter argument destroy your argument? absolutely not. Does this counter argument weaken your position on Psalm 82 and strengthen the position that Psalm 82 could be interpret as divine beings? absolutely yes. Counter Argument 4: I'm not sure about your argument on Temple of the Holy Spirit. I don't think we can call ourselves elohim just because we are the Temple of the Holy Spirit. Conclusion: If you see my previous argument, I stated "By far the use of Elohim MOST LIKELY refers to gods". Why did I say this? Because I am fully aware that your argument could be right. You are not wrong that Psalm 82 could be interpreted as judges. However, you are wrong if you think that it has to be interpreted as judges and cannot be interpreted as divine beings. Given my reasoning above, I would argue that your position is weaker. There is a leap of logic that you need to reconcile: why do we have to interpret Elohim as judges instead of gods, given my counter arguments above.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@rizkylumempouw6047 thank you Rizky I try, though not all agree that I am being deferential enough to them. Regarding the translation of the verses in Exodus, look at the Hebrew to see what translation makes more sense, and then look at the context of the verse. biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/21-6.htm That is a link to an interlinear of EX 21:6 but the other has it the same way. It doesn't just say "bring them to Elohim". It says "Bring them to THE Elohim". Not just "elohim" but "HA-elohim". And Elohim is plural there. Exodus would not say "bring them to THE God" if that was "Elohim" in the sense of the One True God. It would just say "Bring them to God" because there is only one of Him. If it is using "Elohim" in the sense of judges, or beings who are divine because they are operating in God's word in administering His law, then the "the" makes sense. I think you also have to consider what the verse is actually saying to do. God isn't a personal witness to a slave's declaration, but His magistrates are. Same with the trial for theft. Whoever the "elohim" is in these verses, they are doing what judges do. You can argue for "most common usage" but CONTEXT trumps "common". The most common meaning for the word "pitcher" to a waitress would be a container with a spout used to pour liquids. This is true even if the sports section of the newspaper overwhelmingly uses the word to mean something else. The word can mean what I am saying or what you are saying, and it may on average be used in the sense you mean it more often, but the context is overwhelmingly in the sense I mean here. I would also say that if you are going to count ever contested context as one sense of the word and not the other, you are going to get a skewed idea of how often the other meaning is used. It is circular reasoning of a sort. Your counter-argument three does not apply if the Psalm is describing a day of visitation, a well-known concept in the OT. The psalm isn't saying that these are regular business meetings. It is describing an event. I doubt the LORD chewed them out regularly and nothing changed! As for your counter-argument four, it points to a good reason why I am so against this teaching. We CAN call the new life within us "Elohim" because of the New Birth that we have when we receive the Word of God in faith. The old man can't, he's still gotta die. But the new man, that's the point. That's what we were meant to be. Not God with a big "G", but His sons and daughters who partake in His very nature. (2nd Peter 1:4). An elohim is a divine being, and that's what God wants us to become (in Christ, it is absurd to think that we can do that, but He did it for us and we simply need to get in Him). I don't like how this teaching turns people away from that.

[@josephtupiri5980]

Very shallow. Your views are no match to Dr. Heisers comprehensive research and academic work to back his views up. Sorry.

[@sealcycle2020]

MAYBE . . you need to read it again!

[@zachz1018]

Here i got it for you 11QMelch II... And concerning that which He said, In [this] year of Jubilee [each of you shall return to his property (Lev. xxv, 13); and likewise, And this is the manner of release:] every creditor shall release that which he has lent [to his neighbour. He shall not exact it of his neighbour and his brother], for God's release [has been proclaimed] (Deut. xv, 2). [And it will be proclaimed at] the end of days concerning the captives as [He said, To proclaim liberty to the captives (Isa. lxi, 1). Its interpretation is that He] will assign them to the Sons of Heaven and to the inheritance of Melchizedek; f[or He will cast] their [lot] amid the potrtions of Melchize]dek, who will return them there and will proclaim to them liberty, forgiving them [the wrong-doings] of all their iniquities. And this thing will [occur] in the first week of the Jubilee that follows the nine Jubilees. And the Day of Atonement is the e[nd of the] tenth [Ju]bilee, when all the Sons of [Light] and the men of the lot of Mel[chi]zedek will be atoned for. [And] a statute concerns them [to prov]ide them with their rewards. For this is the moment of the Year of Grace for Melchizedek. [And h]e will, by his strength, judge the holy ones of God, executing judgement as it is written concerning him in the Songs of David, who said, ELOHIM has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgement (Psalms lxxxii, 1). And it was concerning him that he said, (Let the assembly of the peoples) return to the height above them; EL (god) will judge the peoples (Psalms vii, 7-8). As for that which he s[aid, How long will you] judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@Zach Z That is very interesting. It reads to me as a first century Jewish source who 1) Understood M was a Christophany and 2) understood that P82 is speaking of things on earth and the judges of Israel who were supposed to act as elohim administrating His word.

[@zachz1018]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 yes, thou im begining to feel like calling it a Christophony is the wrong language that should be used. Almost like the flesh of Jesus didnt matter. (Take that with a pile of salt please) jesus says. No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven-the Son of Man. John 3:13 NIV This hints that Enoch and Elijah were more than we credit them as. Or is it that anyone who is embodying God in the flesh is the Melcheizedek? That is the one with firstborn right of inheritance. Later Jesus says "father let them become one with me as I am one with you" which in combination with the other verses starts to ... Bring forth questions, that i dont have answers to.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@zachz1018 Mike Winger does a good job breaking down the Greek on Matt 3:13. He makes the case that Christ's point is that there are no eyewitnesses of God on earth except Him. Not that no one goes to "heaven", though there is more than one level apparently even in the next realm. The flesh of the Incarnation matters, because this is where God took on flesh as ours. Recal 1 Cor 15 where it talks about different kinds of flesh and how our new bodies will be better than our old- but we will still have bodies. The Christophanies were not Christ taking on flesh as we have now, but as I see it in a body such as we will have in the resurrection. There is a place, I have this in the book but I forget the reference, where Christ said He came from the Father and is going back to the Father. The Greek there makes it clear that He is returning to His prior condition and location. Yet Ephesians et al say that He is "sitting at the right hand of God". He has a body. Not of corruptible flesh as we have but something else. He isn't incorporeal Spirit alone. So it is my contention He must have had one before the incarnation that was in the same state. In my view, since Gen 1:27 but that is too long a case to lay out here. \

[@artemusbowdler7508]

To interpret Elohim to mean humans who minister or administer for God is not correct; this is imposing wester theology upon the text.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

No, it is imposing NT theology upon the text. Jesus cleared up the meaning of the passage when He connected the declaration that they were gods to the Word of God coming to them. The writer of Hebrews cleared it up when he clarified that angels were not sons, and Paul cleared it up when he said we would judge angels. We are meant to be more than we seem to be now, but not all will attain.

[@artemusbowdler7508]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 Are Christians gods based on what Jesus quoted from Psalms 82.? Was Jesus declaring that we can be gods?

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

​@@artemusbowdler7508 Yes. IN Him. Or as Peter put it in first Peter 1 "3His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. 4Through these He has given us His precious and magnificent promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, now that you have escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. " When we are born again, that new life in us is a son of God. That is what we are meant to do. If you are not careful, you could find yourself in the shoes of these who tried to declare God's purpose for man to be blasphemy! As it says in Hebrews "10 In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting for God, for whom and through whom all things exist, to make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. " If we are His sons (in the one Unique son in whom we live and breathe and have our being Acts 17:26-28a, and partake of His nature then what else could we be? We may never get there in this life because flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, but one day we will put off these bodies for new ones.

[@artemusbowdler7508]

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 Are you a Mormon? Now, I know why you disagree with Heiser; if he is right, you cannot be a god.

[@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982]

@@artemusbowdler7508 I am a Lutheran Christian. Michael Heiser is only right about the stuff he isn't famous for. A dangerous place to be.