Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To say that Heiser doesn't have a clue what he's talking about is an irresponsible and uninformed statement. Heiser's views on ancient Near East cosmology of which the Hebrew Bible is a part are hardly unique to himself. For instance, the commentary in The Jewish Study Bible (The Jewish Publication Society Tanakh translation) states the following concerning the Genesis creation and flood stories.
Largely because of its focus on creation, the primeval story exhibits a number of contacts with Mesopotamian mythology. The account of creation with which Genesis opens (1.1-2.3), for example, has affinities with Enuma elish, a Babylonian epic, which tells how one god, Marduk, attained supremacy over the others and created the world by splitting his aquatic enemy Tiamat (cf. Heb tehom, ''the deep'') in half. The story of Adam and Eve's sin in the garden of Eden (2.25-3.24) displays similarities with Gilgamesh, an epic poem that tells how its hero lost the opportunity for immortality and came to terms with his humanity . And the story of Noah (6.5-9.17) has close connections with Atrahasis, a Mesopotamian story in which the gods send a flood to wipe out the human race, with the exception of one man and his children from whom humankind begins afresh (the story was eventually incorporated into Gilgamesh as well.) In each case, the biblical narrator has made use of the Mesopotamian forerunner but also adapted it to Israelite theology. The primeval story thus evidences both the deep continuities and the striking point of discontinuity between biblical Israel and its Mesopotamian antecedents and contemporaries.
So here is an example of scholarship outside of Protestant fundamentalist circles which recognizes the Bible's ties with ancient Mesopotamian myths. Of course there are also dissimilarities with those myths as well which give rise to the polemical intent of the biblical writers.
As for the Bible's cosmology, scholars, again outside of Protestant fundamental circles recognize that the Bible's ancient cosmology is as pictured below.
Actually, all I had to do was point you to the references and bibliography at the bottom of the Wiki article to see the amount of scholarship attesting to the ancient Near East cosmology of the Bible.
I never said heisers view were unique unto himself i said he does not have a clue what he is talking about. He says it is a polemic against the views of the other Mesopotamian views of creation but he does not seem to understand what a polemic is.
He holds that the jew held the same views of creation as the other Mesopotamian people except that it was the Jewish God that created everything.
That is not a strong argument against the other Mesopotamian views it is just saying your god didn't do it my God did.
That is NOT a polemic.
By the thing's that were made we can understand the Godhead. So how can that which was made then be in error? If it is in error then so would the view of the Godhead be in error.
You simply cannot view God via error and understand God. You cannot view Gods ways of creation via error and understand Gods ways of creation.
Part of the problem is one of language and jargon. Evangelicals tend to choose certain words and phrases from scripture and use them as shorthand for their theology. The term "God Breathed" appears only once in the Bible yet you say that term is the basis of your entire personal theology.
One of the many things that separate different groups of Christians is the way we describe and name certain concepts. Describing things clearly and avoiding jargon would go a long way to bringing us together.
All Christians have the Bible. We may not think of it in the exact terms you use but it is still our holy book.
Read Psalm 119. You get a pretty good idea of how the Psalmist thinks of the word of God.
This is a non answer . The question is legit . How do you decide which is Scripture? Is there a list within the NT that lists the the books considered scriptural? If so, where ? How do you know 1 and 2 Maccabees isn’t scriptural? How do you know the Gospel of Peter isn’t ?
Simply saying “ faith” is a cop out to avoid a direct answer to a difficult question.
This is a non answer . The question is legit . How do you decide which is Scripture? Is there a list within the NT that lists the the books considered scriptural? If so, where ? How do you know 1 and 2 Maccabees isn’t scriptural? How do you know the Gospel of Peter isn’t ?
Simply saying “ faith” is a cop out to avoid a direct answer to a difficult question.
Tis why she has ignored my question also, it to difficult to answer via her understanding that every word in the bible is. Literally God breathed.
The passage in Jude refers to the Israelites' scouting of Cannan and their deliberation about whether to invade (see Num 13-14). Moses thought that God approved the invasion, but many rank-and-file Israelites doubted it and complained about the plan. As punishment, God kept the complainers out of the promised land, and caused the Cannanites to successfully repel the first invasion.
Why Jude uses the name Jesus for God in his reference I do not know. Some translations say "The Lord" rather than "Jesus".
No, Jesus is not reported to have destroyed anybody, apart from a misreading of Jude.
Because Jude realized Jesus is God the Son. And he said he destroyed unbelievers.
But take it at face value. Do you believe Jesus destroyed unbelievers in the wilderness?
BF's heart seems to be far away from Jesus because he interprets scripture from a heart of wrath and vengeance and not agape love and forgiveness, IMO.
I simply quoted it. If you're unwilling to deal with the realities of what it says, that says more about you than me.
I don't know because I don't reject the Scriptures nor do I give "lip service" to Christianity, an answer I've given to you time and time again. I reject the idea that the Scriptures are meant to be taken literally and without error and that Scripture = God.
You already know this, so no, it's not an honest question. It's a question designed to make other readers think something of me that is not true.
Honestly. I'm trying to understand the draw of the Christianity I'm describing. That's it. I'm not trying to label you.
Honestly. I'm trying to understand the draw of the Christianity I'm describing. That's it. I'm not trying to label you.
Why do you feel your only method of knowing anything about God and what it wants is through the Bible that must be literal ? How did illiterate Christians get along without a personal Bible for 1700 or so years ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
