Home
What's New
Cults
Escaping the Cults
Apologetics
Current Trends
Bible Doctrines
Bible Explanations
 To Discern - selah
Ecumenism
Emergent church
Prophecy
Latter Rain
Law Keepers
Word Faith
Popular Teachers
Pentecostal  Issues
Trinity / Deity
World  Religions
New Age  Movement
Book Reviews
Testimonies

 

Audio 
Tracts for witnessing
DVD Video
Books
Web Search
 Persecuted Church

up               to date Religious News                       What is happening throughout the World

ChristianHeadlines.com

 

 

 

Micahel Heiser’s Liberal influencers p.1

Heiser’s writings/teachings are based on numerous false premises of the Bible that he has learned from liberal, non-Christian Scholars; those who do not hold to divine revelation. Heiser says that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible, but rather, that they were mostly written (added to) by others in 600 BC, roughly 800 years after Moses.

He was educated in two of the most liberal colleges in the United States, by liberal Professors. What he is conveying through these liberal authors supporting his theory (and theirs) is that Israel learned from the Canaanites and other surrounding pagan nations to form their God from these nation’s false gods. What believer in Christ would accept this? Nor would orthodox Jews would accept this.

To conclude these pagan nations and their false gods influenced the Hebrew’s personal view of God means God did not speak to the Hebrews as the Bible gives witness to. They instead use the teachings from their enemies to define history.

If this is true, it would mean that what Christians believe from the New Testament today is also not true. What Heiser is teaching, only false teachers teach! Can born again believers who study Scripture and history come up with Heiser’s teachings on their own, no. It takes a modern academic scholar to lead them to the muddied waters.

The Hegelian dialectic (is a 3 step form of convincing) in order to get you to believe something that is false, which is exactly what Heiser does with many of the essential teaching of the Bible, he manipulates people, in order for them to reject what the Bible teaches and then believe what he says about the Bible being true or untrue.

For example in his 4 week series Genesis and the Ancient Near East, " I was not raised in a Christian home, I became a Christian later as a teenager. He says his home was hostile toward Christianity, eventually he became absorbed in studying, taking commentaries to study hall ... “I was unusual... I felt called to do biblical studies full time . He learned quickly that "you can more or less let God defend himself, he doesn't need to be defended even though we have these impulses to defend him, to defend the Bible y'know, sort of go to bat for God and that sort of thing. I'm not saying that's wrong, but. one of the best things you can do is let God be God and let the Bible be what it is. You will be amazed at how disarming that will be to people that would be antagonistic toward it. Now having said that, there will be some things looking out to you, I'm going to see some furrowed brows, and see some expressions like 'what in the world is this guy talking about.' He then says “you might think he lost his mind, but bear with me.”

He then affirms “ I believe in all the things I’m assuming that those of you here believe in. yeah, I’m a semitic scholar, yeah, I went to really antagonist universities -university of Wisconsin perhaps the most liberal institution in the country, University of Pennsylvania, the Ivy league. These are not friendly places for which you would think of as traditional christianity, traditional view of the bible. I’m glad I went to those places because they sharpened me in ways I wouldn’t have gotten from anyone else .

“I still use words like inspiration I still use words like inerrancy, now I grant you that I might define them in a way that you don’t. There is somebody else wouldn’t, but you would be amazed of people who call themselves evangelical and who are scholars who just don’t like those terms.”

What good are these words like inspiration or inerrancy if they are not used in their intended and accepted meanings? Heiser says he will focus on them during the four weeks for you to understand his view.

Heiser immediately presents to his listeners, that God does not need you to stand up for Him, even though we see all through the Scriptures that God encourages and admonishes people, and even appoints certain men to do so. In his advice to not defend God or the Bible ‘I'm not saying that's wrong, but.” Of course that is what he means, it is wrong.

Paul speaks of defending God and his word. Phil 1:17 appointed for the defense of the gospel”

1 Peter 3:15 always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.” Jude says to the church “contend for the Faith that was once for all delivered delivered to the Saints.”

Heiser does not want you to question him by the Word. Because it will unravel his myth making as doctrine. His attitude, of just let it be, takes away your ability to discern what you are hearing, we cannot underestimate how disarming that can be. This is Heiser’s attempt to neutralize Christians who discern the difference of what are true and false teachings in the church what he says and what it actually says. Iron is to sharpen Iron, meaning believers discuss the truth. Not discerning and testing makes you dull and open to what is false.

He says he was sharpened by going to the liberal schools, he doesn’t say how, and he does not say what commentaries he used, just that he chose to go to school to learn the Bible. Not just any school, but the most liberal schools in the nation. Heiser chose to go to a Non Christian college to get an education. I in fact Madison Wisconsin is a secular community noted for its especially liberal culture and secular activism (it is headquarters of the Freedom From Religion Foundation).

Of all the places he could choose he chose those not friendly to Christianity. Why?

Why would anyone do this to themselves if they are not friendly places to traditional christianity, traditional view of the bible. This brings into question his previous education. Heiser emphasizes that he has no regrets, he doesn’t say why, but it shows there is something very wrong. The question has to be asked, what truth did he learn about the Bible in colleges that teach that the Bible from a strong liberal perspective. For he ended up going to myths to understand the Bible? Heiser apparently teaches what he has been taught.

As a new believer being grounded in God’s Word I was fortunate to take Bible college course’s for over 10 years by reputable teachers; courses in theology and anthropology etc. If I had a liberal professor (which they did not allow to teach courses) that which Heiser himself teaches, I would walk out, I would have confronted them and not continued the course. There were those rare times I challenged the teacher according to the Word what was being said to be better explained. The dangerous things that Heiser teaches today, he never would have been allowed to teach at the Christian school I attended.

I had visited and sat through sessions in other schools that the Jesus seminar put on and interfaith dialogues at churches. I know what they do.

Think of what he has affirmed. These places of liberal education that he chose is where he got his education and degrees; this matters. The educational institutions where Heiser received his education and degrees is no different than somebody saying that they received their Bible education as a member in an anti-biblical cult group and saying that they are glad they did. For in the cults one learns what is not accurate with very little truth, if any.

This equates to a liberal college + liberal professors = a liberal un-biblical world view, which proves itself out in almost all of Heiser’s contorted and deceptive teachings of the Bible.

If you don’t know the basics of the Bible or test what you hear of the Bible from a teacher, how do you know that what you are learning is the truth?

Heiser does not come out of two top liberal non believing colleges without being a liberal graduate? Which is without the foundation of true Biblical accuracy?

He went on to speak of his goal, and those who look at the Hebrew text. He mentions Bruce Waltke and recently got in trouble with comments on Genesis saying, “ who really cares if evolution turns out to be right, I still believe in Scripture I still believe in inspiration. In the minds of many people those two things are completely incompatible (ed. Note: and rightly so if one looks at the Bible text)

It is not in some ways these are incompatible, but in all ways. Heiser speaks as a progressive as he holds to the same view, as he writes, “ Let me say first that, despite an interest in genetics, I find it hard to care about evolution, theologically. I’m not offended by the thought at all. I really don’t care what mechanism God used to do what He did .” https://drmsh.com/evolution-adam-additional-thoughts/

We know what mechanism God used, he created ex nihilo and the used the substances there to create further (he says so in Heb. 11). So the evolution alternative is a completely different procedure in creation of the world and man. He sounds like someone who has not made up his mind on this. In fact this is how Heiser expresses this….

Heiser further writes: “ But let’s assume he’s completely right for the rest of this post. Let’s assume we cannot speak of a historical Adam that produce all other humans, and that humans share a common ancestor with chimps…. Assuming evolutionary theory is valid, and that theists would either feel enthused about or compelled to embrace the idea that God used the evolutionary process to produce all life as we know it (including homo sapiens), what is to be done with Adam? I feel less trepidation here than many believers and believing scholars for two reasons. First, since I’m already on record as insisting that we not make the biblical writers what they weren’t (scientists) and let Scripture be what it is (a document produced over long periods of time by many human hands under the providential oversight of God, who decided to use humans in the first place to produce this thing we call the Bible ).”

Each book of the Bible was produced by the author and collected to be part of the whole revelation. There were no others who authored books later

He says of those “ who hold these views sincerely like people who take the scripture seriously that hold different views. They are not trying to be buddies with the unbelieving scientific world. they are still saying this is the word of God… but they have no problem with evolution, why is that? I’m going to show you why that is.”

Let me make this clear, if evolution is true than the Bible is false because God said he made things instantly, a number of them by speaking them into existence, that he is the originator of all creation, visible and invisible.

When Hesier says “I’m came there thinking that is clear and it takes a scholar to mess things up (Lecture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsCaBvQ8zaY )

The Bible explains faith is necessary in understanding the Scripture, to believe in creation instead of evolution. Heb. 11:3 “ By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible .”

Rom. 11:20 speaking of Israel, “ Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith.” So we who are in the New Covenant are grafted in by our faith, and we “ walk by faith, not by sight.” (2 Cor. 5:7-8)

Heiser also claims there is more than one view of creationism, that it is biblically possible and that other humans can be acceptable during the time of Adam. These are the inserts he puts in with the Bible record as he teaches.

As a product of his liberal education, I do not see what is considered a conservative view throughout his writings or teaching, it is rare when it pops up. So, what then is the intent of this man’s teachings? Since so much goes against Gods Word, arriving at a different conclusion than most reputable ‘Biblical Scholars,’ or ’Bible teachers’ in church history? What we see is introductions to bring one to accept the alternatives, the myths as relevant to and even necessary in understanding the biblical record

What are we to think about a Bible teacher whose conclusions are based on non believing academics who do not believe in the supernatural reception of God’s Word. Who teach that Gods Word comes from ancient pagan myths, and writings, the enemies of God and Israel.

Heiser states how the revelation of these pagan outside resources affected him, “I took Ugaritic during graduate school. It was a life-changing course, because it opened up the Hebrew text and Israelite religion to me in so many ways.”

Deciphering languages does not make one a Biblical scholar. Here Heiser explains that it helped him understand the Old Testament. From what I have read, it removed him from the Scriptures teaching given to the Hebrews and their instructions to be separate from the nation’s religions that surrounded them. Any Christian who puts the time into studying other religions of the ancient past needs to determine from the Bible what is true, not determine what is true in the Bible from the myths. Does the Bible accept or reject the concepts. You will find it rejects them, especially the pagan myths of other gods. But then this comes under the matter of faith, which according to Heiser’s professor/teacher and the other academics corrupts ones conclusions.

Speaking of the Canaanite Ugarit pagan writings, Merrill Unger of Unger’s Bible Dictionary warns, “It seems inconceivable that the Holy Spirit would have used an epic so contaminated with heathen philosophy as a source of spiritual truth. The employment of a poetical form or a certain type of meter as a vehicle for the expression of spiritual truth, of which there are clear Old Testament examples taken from contemporary literature, is an entirely different matter .”

Liberal unbelievers References

Heiser’s written works are filled with quotes from research of others, sometimes nearly as much as what he is writing. He seems to refute them at times, or, he affirms some of the authors after he challenges their hypothesis to adjust it. This of course makes it look like there is a disagreement and not a consensus by him. This is exhibited by the way he words his argument, which is often convoluted and does not bring clarity, but offers confusion instead. Some seem to think that this is what makes a great scholar, but the Bible says that God is not the author of confusion.

He intertwines his belief with his unbelief. He weaves them together as though they agree. He lacks Biblical logic based on the Scripture and in its place is disorder in the overall theme of Scripture.

Here is an example: “ But I have a question: Does Jesus or anyone else ever specifically quote anything in Genesis and attribute it to Moses? I raise this because in my earlier (and admittedly unsystematic) description of where I’m at on all this in light of the biblical data , I suggested that it was possible that none of Genesis came from Moses’ hand. Instead, Genesis seems best understood as the result of activity during the exile (Gen 1-11 ) and oral traditions about the patriarchs later codified at a time after Moses was dead .

Heiser further claims of the Pentateuch there is “ sound evidence that Moses did not write all or even most of it” https://drmsh.com/moses-law-moses-testament/

Heiser brings into question , “There’s just no specific indication in any other part of the Pentateuch that he wrote anything in Genesis.” “Any clear indicators that Moses wrote something in Genesis? Not really — at least nothing without uncertainty .”

Heiser goes on to say it was written by others around 800 years later, 600Bc.

He says (Readers of course know that I view this in the context of a process of inspiration, the unseen hand of Providence working through very human authors and editors to produce the intended result. I do not view inspiration as a series of paranormal events.)

What he means is that many authors over an extensive period of time (hundreds of years) Got to write what God wanted and kept the original name to the book.

To suggest the possibility that none of Genesis came from Moses’ hand --That inspiration is a process (to more than one person ) to produce the end result. That he does not view inspiration as a series of paranormal events.”

Paranormal is not the same as divine revelation, it is often associated with the strange and the mysterious, such as ghosts, the supernatural realm i.e. the occult, UFO’s but not related to God. Activities such as clairvoyance or extrasensory perception are associated with paranormal events. Why use this obtuse word?

To say that Moses did not write his 4 books along with Genesis (number 5) is to say that Israel did not have possession of their history and revelation from God. This goes directly against the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures and against Hebrew eyewitness evidence. It is unbelieving (often liberals or skeptics) writers do not hold to direct divine revelation. Heiser is saying Moses did not write the Pentateuch. And that it was mostly written in 600 BC by others. The fact is we have numerous mentions of Moses writing as an eyewitness to the events recorded in Exodus to Deuteronomy.

Numbers 33:2
“At the Lord’s command Moses recorded [wrote down] the stages in their journey.”

Ex. 24:4 “And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD.”

Num. 33:2 Now Moses wrote down the starting points of their journeys at the command of the LORD.” Deut.31:24 “ After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end . . .”v.26 book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant”

Ex. 24:7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people .”

And what of all the quotes of Genesis throughout the Old Testament Bible? Job mentions Adams transgression. Was the book of Job written or added to Scripture later in the 600’s BC?

The New Testament quotes or refers to Genesis’ content more than it does any other book. Of the 165 passages quoted or referred to in the New Testament, about 100 are taken specifically from chapters 1 to 11. Jesus referred to Genesis numerous times during His ministry. Refers to Moses writing in all kinds of questions.

The creation of the first man and woman (Mat. 19:4- Gen.1:27; 5:2).

The Sabbath day (Mk. 2:27-Gen. 2:1–3).

The marriage of Adam and Eve (Matt. 19:5-Gen.2:24).

Cain murdering Abel (Matt. 23:35-Gen.s 4:8).

Noah (Matt. 24:37-Gen.5:28–29).

Marriage and life before the Flood along with its destruction (Matt.24:38-Gen. 6:2; Matt. 24:39-Gen.6:17; 7:1–24).

Luke 16:29-31 Jesus tells a story (not parable because of the real names given in it) Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.”

a certificate of divorce ” (Matthew 19:7). If a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him’ ” (Matthew 22:24).

John 1:45 We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote.”

John 5:45-46 “ For if you believed Moses , you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me ” This is contained throughout his books. Luke 24:27 “ And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

Are we to believe this book of beginnings is what Heiser says (as scientism and philosophy says), that this was not available to Israel until 600 BC. 1,000 years after Moses lived?

Remember Genesis contains the history of Abraham also. Which would have been necessary to know as the promises of Abraham were being fulfilled by Moses.

John 7:22 Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers) Circumcision is mention 15 times in Genesis as part of the covenant for males. To Abraham, Gen 17:10-11 descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised” In Ex 4:24-26 the LORD sought to kill Moses because he did not obey Abraham’s covenant. Israel did not begin with their deliverance from Egypt, but hundred of years prior with ABRAHAM  taken out of his land of pagan worship.

Heiser’s Liberal influencers p.2 Heisers liberal professor

 

Copyright (c) 2022 The material on our website can be copied and used in its original format Portions lifted from articles can be reproduced for ones personal use for witnessing or for teaching and apologetics.  Any other use, such as posting is to have the permission of Let Us Reason ministries. 

If you have trouble printing an article please copy the web page. Highlight the text first - then click copy -  then paste the article into a word program on your computer.

 

We would like to hear from you. Please send us  an e-mail and let us know how we can be of any help.   Our time is just as valuable as yours.  Please keep in mind, that we only have time to answer sincere inquiries. We will use discretion in answering any letters.