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

 

 

 

Pt.8a  The sons of God, the Nephilim and Israel's conquest of the land of giants

In this last segment we are going to refute the majority of Heiser arguments he has used to convince his listeners of an alternate history of Genesis, the tower of Babel and the nations formed given over to the rulership of the 70 sons of God, and the Nephilim offsprings (giants) Israel had to remove to have the Promised land.

“Appointed over the nations he says allotting then nations to the other heavenly beings, the sons of god those divine beings also referred to as the host of heaven the gods, elohim, and quote unquote demons the shedim in Deuteronomy (at 3:00 Shema: The LORD our God is one ... makes demons shudder? Dr. Michael Heiser)

Questions that should be answered. Are the 70 sons of God (the council) like an elohim Sanhedrin in heaven that rule over the nations of the earth, even today? How does el or elohim become a proper name of God if it is a group of 70 elohim? Are they ‘divine beings.’ According to Heiser 70 elohim are all gods with the main elohim (The God) over them. Where does the Bible teach any of this?

The nations and all the earth belong to the Lord, it does not say anywhere in Scripture the Lord gave away the nations to any other god[s], i.e. to 70 elohim that were already fallen, that Heiser calls divine. The nations were actually left on their own, and God chose one man Abram to begin something new, a theocracy.

Heiser states, “He then assigned each of the seventy nations to the fallen sons of God (who were also seventy in number). (Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God p.71). Again God himself assigning each nation to a fallen god is not at all written in Scripture because it did not happen the way Heiser teaches. This is found in the Ugarit, not the Bible. And no one should be going to myths to define the Bibles truth.

Heiser states “ after the judgment at the tower of babel God called Abraham Gen.12:1-3 and these two events are juxtaposed back to back. When God called Abraham and promised his portion, the nation of Israel through Abraham and Sarah he disinherited all the other nations. Alotting them to the other heavenly beings, the sons of God, those divine beings are referred to elsewhere as the host of heaven, the gods, elohim and quote unquote,demons the shedim in Deuteronomy .” ( Michael Heiser - The True Meaning of Shema (Naked Bible Podcast)

First, they are not divine, he substitutes divine for created ‘spirit beings.’ They were fallen when he claims they were appointed over the nations. He is also changing his story, for he also claims God gave the nations away to these fallen gods before he chose Abraham, which is it?

It was after the flood when mankind was multiplying, nearly 400 years later God called Abraham away from paganism to make nation from him (Gn.12). So it was not at the same time as the 70 nations as Heiser teaches.

An important point to include is that Abram was already communicating with God before he got to Canaan so he did not learn about God from the Canaanites (The Ugarit, as Heiser supposedly influenced Israel). The Lord promised in prophecy he would give the land of the Canaanites to Abraham's seed. In other words, if anybody learned anything from anybody it would be that the Canaanites learned about the true God from Abraham. The people of this land merged their own speculations, and experiential contact with demons - their counterfeit false god's and idols, fully rejecting what God had given Abraham.

So we see Heiser is presenting a confused history, it is not correct and this presentation changes Scriptures accuracy drastically.

Exactly when did the 70 fall? In the book Unseen Realm Heiser tells us Eden (falsely) was their dwelling place and the headquarters of this divine council with man. He claims the serpent fell in the garden (who was one of the 70 council members in the garden). This serpent is called a divine spirit being by Heiser having nothing to do with an animal in the garden. That the serpent’s penalty removed him to the underworld. Where is this said in the Bible? Then why did the Lord pronounce judgment of the serpent to crawl on the ground.

“The original rebel was cast down, expelled from God’s presence to earth and under the earth in the realm of the dead. The fallen sons of God were likewise imprisoned in the underworld .” (Demons: what the Bible Really teaches about God’s heavenly host, Heiser)

If these sons of God were imprisoned, than how do they rule over the nations then, or today?

Unfallen Nephilim produced by the Sons of God?

Heiser writes, At this point we should point out another problem in the “fallen ones” view of the form of the word nephilim. At no point in Genesis 6 or Numbers 13 do we read that the nephilim sinned . We do get something like that idea from the book of Enoch (1 Enoch), but that isn’t preserved in Hebrew.” (The Meaning of the Word Nephilim: Fact vs. Fantasy)

[Heiser points out Enoch is wrong, Enoch explicitly says that they sinned].

Heiser ignores that they were part human who were said to be sinful, evil and were destroyed in the flood. Gen 6:12 “all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.” V.17 “all flesh in which is the breath of life; will die (7:21). Which is what the Nephilim offspring were, they were flesh,

In Gen 6:4 they are called mighty men, men of renown, they breathed and they died in the flood.

He further deviates “ The Fall of Adam and Eve passed on all humans (Romans 5:12), and the nephilim were not normal humans – they were hybridized beings (human + a foreign seed) and so not included in the Fall , at least as Romans 5:12 describes (this assumes the literal view of Genesis 6 – The beings that did the evil act of Genesis 6 were not the nephilim. The transgression in that passage was between human beings and the sons of God . The sons of God and the nephilim are not the same; that latter are offspring of the former we aren’t even told that the flood was the fault of the sons of God , and so how would it be that their offspring, the nephilim, are fallen in the sense of being inherently evil? (The Meaning of the Word Nephilim: Fact vs. Fantasy)

He uses Adam and Eves sin passed on as the example, which he clearly does not believe happened as an argument for the nephilim not being evil (sinful). Heiser uses whatever he needs at the time to make his argument.

“Even Genesis 6, where the nephilim make their grand appearance, does not say they are fallen.” (ibid.)

Of course they are not directly included in the fall (sin of disobedience) that came from Adam, (permeating to mankind) theirs is another lineage, that is not human. Trying to make them equivalent in origin is ludicrous.

What exactly is Heiser saying? The Sons of God, who rebelled against God in the worst way are fallen (but not sinless), that their offspring has no sin like Adam. Does Scripture must say the words ‘fallen’ or ‘sinful’ for them to be categorized as such. That it is only the Nephilim’s “offspring” that are evil/sinful. Yet Heiser states in his Companion book to Enoch these sons of God, “watchers’ sinful intercourse with women.”

Another problem surfaces to his theory, that the Nephilim of Gn.6 were not included in the cause of God’s judgment, he denies as sinful. They rebel, they are fallen but not sinful?

What we will see are more internal contradictions, as for their identity. Heiser teaches the offspring of the sons of God, Nephilim, were the demons when they died.

This academic says the Sons of Gods invasion on mankind was not why the world was judged. Heiser often uses the book of Enoch to interpret the Bible but purposely ignores statements like these in Enoch (106:13-17)... “ since my father Jared's day, the fallen angels have been sinning . They sin and are promiscuous with women. They have begotten children. Because of this, there will be great destruction on the earth … The earth shall be cleansed of the giants born to the fallen angels.” Enoch says the sons of God are fallen angels, Heiser disagrees.

Biblically the flood was about their violation to Gods parameters when they forcibly took women and the ‘giants’(Heb. Nephilim; Gr. Gigantes) born to them would also be removed in the judgment of the flood. But we do not need this book of Enoch to tell us this.

Heiser admits the 70 sons of God were fallen when they were assigned to the70 nations. How many sons of God are there? Heiser uses the book of Enoch as if it is scripture but then claims there were only 70 sons of God (as the Ugarit records), not hundreds like the book of Enoch says; why?

This quote of Heiser’s is key to proving his false theory, He then assigned each of the seventy nations to the fallen sons of God (who were also seventy in number)” (Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God p.71, Heiser)

So he says they are fallen in this book, which does mean sinful. When did these 70 fall? Heiser states they were imprisoned in the underworld. Are these another 70, ruling over mankind? This is how confusing his whole teaching is.

Their actions proved the sons of God were sinful, as were their offspring as God judged them and the world together. If their offspring, the Nephilim were not evil (sinless), why would God choose Noah a sinful being (whom he called righteous) to begin humanity again? Biblically, only Noah and his family preserved their lineage at the time of this invasion into humanity (Gn. 6:9). Noah and his family were completely uncorrupted in his lineage, Gen. 6:9 ‘perfect in his generations. Perfect, refers to a physical condition or lifestyle, as he walked with God (others did not). All the rest of mankind had become "corrupted" and the remedy was to destroy by the flood, (the same word used in v. 17 is in v. 13.)

But Heiser introduces doubt by his opinion, Scripture does not specifically exempt Noah and his family from the sinful cohabitation of Genesis 6:1–4, but since the event was so heinous, it would be absurd to presume otherwise.” (Unseen Realm)

Insinuating someone in Noah’s family was a Nephilim, is more than speculation, it changes the whole Bible.

And their offspring “ the other clans that spring from the nephilim are the enemies of Israel for sure (like the Anakim), and so could be seen as evil. The giants in the book of Enoch and other Jewish literature composed after the biblical material (as far as the existing texts we know about) are certainly evil ." (The Meaning of the Word Nephilim: Fact vs. Fantasy, Heiser)

From what I can put together from his writings, the sons of God according to Heiser are not fallen, their offspring, the Nephilim are not but the Nephilim’s offspring are? He claims the offspring of the Nephilim were in the Canaanite tribes Israel encountered in the land of Canaan, and were evil.

He construes this argument on the basis that these Nephilim are the demons, “1 Enoch teach that demons are actually the spirits of dead Nephilim . Saying, “Demons were the disembodied spirits of dead Nephilim in Second Temple thought, the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim. the death of the Nephilim and their descendants was the explanation for the origin of demons.” (Demons: what the Bible Really teaches about the powers of Darkness, Heiser)

It does not matter what this book of 1 Enoch says, it’s not canonical, it was not accepted because it has no verification of it being written by Enoch, nor is true by Scripture.

Yet he also says of the Nephilim They weren't given some name because of some inherently fallen spiritual state (as though they could not be redeemed and were "more fallen" than humans ).” (The Meaning of the Word Nephilim: Fact vs. Fantasy)

So according Heiser, the sons of God are fallen but their offspring are not as fallen as man? Did the female humans who have the sin of Adam, produce offspring of Nephilim (giants) that did not have sin? Did the Nephilim offspring who survived the flood that he claims repeat this same act produce numerous giant humans after the flood? To rebel in this way indicates that it is sinful. So they carried the gene to make them giants but not Adams sin as they reproduced sinless humans from fallen sons of God and fallen humanity. That they may even be able to be redeemed like man? Is this how to understand this unbiblical interpretation of their rebellious act that he inserts into the Bible. Not only does the word Naphal itself mean fallen but their actions prove it. He disagrees.

Using the book of Jubilees which he says is based on the Watcher myth of 1 Enoch, whereby evil spirits proceeded from dead bodies of the fallen giants, who were born as a result of the miscegenation of angels with women.” (Demons WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS ABOUT GOD’S HEAVENLY HOST)

He claims these Nephilim (giants) who died are the demons. As the sons of God offspring they are doing the same, repeating what the so called ‘divine sons’ (sons of God) did in Gn.6, so why is this not sin? This is a whole new myth he has concocted around the Nephilim and their activity.

Can this happen again NOW; why not? Are the demons not with us today? Nephilim are the demons but demons are not fallen? Are demons sinless? This is not only confusion, but demonic teaching to the church.

And it is not surprising, since he does not believe in an Adamic sin nature, that these hybrid beings who were also human are not affected by sin? But his view is that the Nephilim are the demons (which are sinful, called unclean and evil in the New Testament). Furthermore anyone from humanity is sinful, so how does this become a coherent argument that makes any sense, not only with his own view but especially the Bibles. It doesn’t!

Heiser’s attempt to say rebellious spirits of divine hybrid beings continued to have sex with women after the flood does not mean they are sinful is the opposite of what the Bible says is sinful.

That is what is called CONFUSION!

Why is mankind made of sinful humans, and the offspring of the Nephilim that came from fallen man not sinful! They took women again (according to Heiser), just as their fathers did. This does not make any sense, especially when compared to the Bible! So to rebel in this way does not indicate the being is evil, fallen? One begins to wonder what side Heiser is taking.

Heiser sets up his argumentation using Hegelian dialectic to convince the reader that God divided the nations “among the sons of God,” a new conclusion. the Scripture itself says nothing of this appointment in dividing them to 70 gods who God made before creation.

Heiser views on these matters are extracted from the work of ancient pagans: “ The notion that different nations were allotted to different gods or heavenly beings was widespread in the ancient world ” (p. 119). Yes, Pagans held these views, but does that mean it’s true? His conclusion is God’s divine plan would parallel them, when the Scripture does not say this at all, it actually goes against it (the one true God that rules over all).

What he does say, “ From this the battle lines between themselves (the gods) are drawn challenging Gods control of the planet ” (Unseen Realm p. 123). Yet he also says in the same book “Yahweh alone commands the nations and their gods. Other gods serve him.” (Unseen Realm)

Do fallen (false) gods who rebel serve God? To serve means ones will is involved to cooperate.

As usual we find Heiser saying the opposite, “He then assigned each of the seventy nations to the fallen sons of God (who were also seventy in number) As noted earlier, at Ugarit there were seventy sons of El {KTU 1.4:VL46). The sons of God are referred to here as "fallen" in light of Genesis 6 as well as Deuteronomy 4:19 .”(Unseen Realm)

We find Heiser’s extractions from the Ugarit merged with the Bible as being similar to the Gnostics. “Seven Archangels stand before the throne. Sabaoth is the eighth, and he has authority, and so there are seventy-two figures in all . From this chariot the seventy-two gods took shape, so that they might rule over the languages of the seventy-two nations .” The nations in Gen.10.

Heiser, “He then assigned each of the seventy nations to the fallen sons of God (who were also seventy in number). (Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God p.71)

He also says two opposite things, “The fallen sons of God were likewise imprisoned in the underworld.” And also says, the nations are currently ruled by fallen sons of God, who oppress their populations (Deut32:8; Ps 82:1–5). (ANGELS: WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS ABOUT GOD’S HEAVENLY HOST, HEISER)

So how are the sons of God ruling the nations if all 70 were imprisoned? If the nations are divided up to the sons of God then they are still with us today for they have not been judged. And if one son of God is over each nation, who rules all the other nations, for there are now over 190 nations today?

Heiser does not answer the obvious problems with his Swiss cheese theoretical postulations that have more holes than cheese. This is why none of this fits the Biblical record, but must come from outside unbiblical sources. Heiser uses these non-canonical books treating them as if they are equal to Scripture. The Ugarit is a false book, one of myths, whom he mainly uses to prove his fake theory (and others) are found in the Bible. Also 1 Enoch, Jubilees, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, with an assortment of non-sectarian texts from Qumran fragments. These literatures challenge Gods word in the Bible and say the opposite of what God is teaching.

Heiser writes, “ Enoch was considered God’s mouthpiece by Jewish readers primarily because he was the person who delivered God’s words of judgment to the fallen sons of God after the Genesis 6:1–4 incident (1 Enoch 13–16). The New Testament also reports that Enoch “prophesied,” he then quotes Enoch words in Jude (Unseen Realm)’

But the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament say nothing of this. He is trying to prove that the book of Enoch was written before Noah’s calling, that what Jude spoke is was not a prophetic rebuke to mankind in the last days but changes the focus to the elohim (sons of God) that rebelled. The problem is Enoch was already removed from the earth when the invasion first came in Gn.6, so he could not have said this to the sons of God. We have only a few references to him after Genesis, on his lineage in 1 Chron1: and Lk 3:37. One mention by the writer of Hebrews, 11:5 “By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death.”

P.8b Who are these sons of God?