I thought I’d embed some video lectures I’ve done in church over the last couple of years in one location. I’ve bogged about these here and there, but this seems more convenient. I may not remember to update future videos here, so the best place for that is my Vimeo Channel page for future reference.

Genesis & Creation – Class 1 of 4 – September 15, 2010 from Grace Church Bellingham on Vimeo.


Genesis & Creation – Class 3 of 4 – September 29, 2010 from Grace Church Bellingham on Vimeo.


Genesis & Creation – Class 4 of 4 – October 6, 2010 from Grace Church Bellingham on Vimeo.

Class 4 – Jesus & the Old Testament – Michael Heiser – January 3, 2010 from Grace Church Bellingham on Vimeo.

Class 3 – Jesus & The Old Testament – Michael Heiser – December 20, 2009 from Grace Church Bellingham on Vimeo.


The Jewish Trinity – Class 4 – February 29, 2012 from Grace Church Bellingham on Vimeo.

40 Responses to “Videos”

  1. Henry says:

    Hi Dr. Heiser,

    I’m currently reading your draft copy of Myth that is True.

    Great work, very interesting, I haven’t finished it yet, but am really enjoying it.

    I had a question not part of the subject in the book but I did not know who to ask this question.

    So, here it goes.

    In Mark 8:22-26, Jesus makes a blind man see.

    Why does the man see the men as walking trees? Is this in some reference to the circulatory system of the body or a reference to the Good tree or bad tree that bear their own fruit?

    And why did Jesus have to do it twice to restore the blind man’s sight? This is the only miracle he does twice on one person.

    I heard a bible teacher say if there is something strange in the bible, it is meant to draw your attention and seek out the matter.

    Mark 8:22: And He came to Bethsaida. And they carried a blind one to Him, and begged Him that He would touch him.
    Mark 8:23: And laying hold of the blind one’s hand, He led him forth outside the village. And spitting into his eyes, laying His hands on him, He asked him if he saw anything.
    Mark 8:24: And looking, he said, I see men as trees walking.
    Mark 8:25: Then He placed His hands on his eyes again, and made him look up. And he was restored and saw all clearly.
    Mark 8:26: And He sent him to his house, saying, You may not go into the village, nor may tell anyone in the village.

    Thank you for your time once again.

    • MSH says:

      Henry – can you email this to me so it stays on my radar this week? Once I approve comments here I at times forget to revisit them.

  2. Byron Glaspy says:

    Dr. Heiser,

    At the end of the Q&A section of your third Genesis & Creation lecture, you issued the challenge of trying to decipher what Paul refers to in Rom 1:20 and his Rom 10:18 reference to Psa 19. Do you have any material where you comment on your understanding of these verses? Thanks.

    Byron Glaspy

  3. Mary Tadusz says:

    is it possible that Jesus healed his natural sight..then healed his spiritual sight? that is in mark chapter 8?

  4. Joseph says:


    I really enjoyed these videos, but, I do have some issues with some conclusions. I apologize for the length of this

    1) Though this is not directly related to the overall discussion, you make a mistake by stating the scientists are still debating evolution. You can find discussions about the particulars, but evolution through natural selection is something that is accepted by all for the past 150 years and it doesn’t look like it’s going anywhere. There is too much corroborating evidence through many scientific fields that come to the same conclusion.

    2) You “stapler” metaphor is very useful, but my problem, is how far does that extend? Meaning, you can say this about the Prophets, but can you say that about Moses? And this is [perhaps] where you will get into a bind. The foundational Revelation is that of Moses to the Israelites. This is recorded in the Torah. Is this also recorded at a later time? If so, how can one trust it? The only reason you would say it was edited later, is because Science has told you it was, but then, you go counter to what even Jesus believed which is that Moses was the lawgiver and the Torah was given by God in the wilderness. In fact, it is that ‘ZAP’ (that you are against) that separates true Revelation than, me being “Inspired” to write a good song.

    3) YOu seem to want the Bible to speak on its own merit and not let others define what the Bible is. But don’t your realize that THAT seems to be the problem? People that become atheists or unbelievers become that, BECAUSE they read the Bible and conclude it was nothing but a man-written document. The only presupposition you differentiate with them is you claim “inspiration” and Doctrinal Development. But it seems you only do that, because science forces you to do that. A teen atheist is going to approach you and ask you if foundational doctrine is always changing, then what is the point? You said that God doesn’t change the people, and that God sort of flows with their existing beliefs, so if a teen atheist asks you if believing in a Divine Council is required, what would you tell him? If THAT is just a consequence of them living around Pagans, then how can they be sure about the rest

    4) This is actually related to #3. Don”t you think it would be a little short-sitted of God to use a creation story that mimics false beliefs of the time? After all, God being all knowing, wouldn’t he know the problems it would cause when man enters the scientific era? It is stuff like Genesis that makes people question the whole edifice. I mean, great, it helped ancient Israelites, but how on earth does Genesis help people today if it is so dated?

    Thank you,
    Keep up the Good work though

    • MSH says:

      you need to read some other items on the blog. On one hand, I have no trouble with evolution. On the other, it’s mechanisms and results are in fact still debated with some regularity. There is no divine zapping in inspiration. God can influence someone without taking control over their mind. Heck, I can do that. In my experience, people don’t become atheists when reading the Bible themselves. They become atheists because of other issues, one of which is bad theology for which they don’t get coherent answers or explanations. Atheists are often born from confrontations with church authority figures who can do little more than parrot the party line and defend their turf, having never thought critically about their positions and having been content to define their spiritual identity by those positions, never examining if the text really supports them or if they are derivative of some traditional teaching (i.e., if the positions have basically been proof-texted).

      I’d basically have to re-watch all the videos to respond better (without more precise questions).

      • Joseph says:

        Thank you for the reply

        You said

        “There is no divine zapping in inspiration”.

        Ok, so would one make of Moses? Was he prophesying or just being inspired? Was he even the author of his “inspiration” or were others inspired to write down the history of when Moses was prophesying to his people? This goes back to your stapler analogy. Other prophets may have had an academy where their students would later put it all together. But what about Moses? Did he author the first books of the OT, or were they written later? If someone else put it together, how are they to be trusted as an accurate testament to revelation?

        My fourth question is more of a philosophical question of the merit of God using an ancient cosmology for his holy book when it would be virtually useless to future generations (us). How does Genesis serve us today when it is full of dated info?

        By the way, I was only talking about the first three videos.

        thank you

    • Joel Scott says:

      Mark wrote:
      “Don”t you think it would be a little short-sitted [sic] of God to use a creation story that mimics false beliefs of the time? … how on earth does Genesis help people today if it is so dated?”

      Much the theology and anthropology that the Creation accounts correct is still adhered to by both polytheists (eg. Hindus), false religions, New Agers and even some secularists.

      ANE paganism believed in many gods and goddesses that somehow stem from a primordial Metadivine Realm outside and above the gods who are subject to it. Nature is seen as divine, and gods might be seen/manifest as water, darkness, fate, etc.

      The pagan gods have a beginning, a gender, and wills that sometimes collide and dominate other gods, and most gods are limited to controlling things like fertility, healing, wisdom, war, rain, etc. Pagan gods who (and sometimes resurrect).

      The boundaries between the divine, the human and nature are fluid – fire, sky, the Nile, etc. are gods, and apotheosis (men/kings becoming gods or sons of a god) is possible.

      Magic harnesses, manipulates and utilizes gods’ power or life force through substances like blood, bones, etc. and divination is used to circumvent or protect people from misfortune or the power of gods.

      Pagan gods are capricious and can be overruled by other, more powerful gods and by magic, and rituals to wield supernatural powers, appease or bribe a god function automatically.

      Evil is built into the universe, negative primordial stuff, the equal opposite of good (dualism). Good and evil gods, and demons exist, so morality and ethics depend on what will please/displease these beings. So there is no transcendent, absolute morality – some gods are good and just, others are malevolent and destructive.

      Salvation is escape from illness, misfortune, etc. through magic.

      And humankind is created from the mixture of clay and the blood of a demon, the spilled guts of an eviscerated goddess, or the semen of a god, etc., and man was created to be slaves or playthings of the gods.

      The clarity and sublimity of the theology and anthropology of the Genesis accounts stands in stark contrast to these beliefs, and many of them are alive and thriving right now, all over the world.

      I hope this helps.

      – Joel

      • Joel Scott says:

        “Pagan gods who (and sometimes resurrect)” should read:

        Pagan gods die (and sometimes resurrect).

        • MSH says:

          There is no physical resurrection of the NT variety in pagan texts, so “resurrection” is misleading.

          • Joel Scott says:

            Thanks, Dr. Heiser — I see what you’re saying, but what term would you prefer, other than ‘resurrect’?

            • MSH says:

              I’d just add a qualification; there’s “bodily resurrection” and “spiritual resurrection” as two broad categories. For example, the “resurrection” of Osiris is clearly the latter category since he’s green (!) and is lord of the dead – but still “animated” and “conscious”. That’s the sort of (frankly) dumb parallel the Zeitgeist crowd tries to use for Jesus, but it isn’t even close to what the NT describes. Baal is also a poor analogy, since Ugaritic scholars can’t even decide if he actually dies (and even if he does, scholars like Mark Smith have pointed out – with considerable ease – that ANE gods never really die). Even if some “die” – like are hacked up and their blood is used to make something, like humans, they show up later in other episodes.

              Again, these sorts of parallels that aren’t parallels are the stuff of Wikipedia and Zeitgeist. Anyone who wants to be taken as being more competent needs to word things more carefully.

              • Joel Scott says:

                Excellent. Thanks.

                Can I ask you something unrelated? Do see the NT ‘ekklesia’ (assembly, aka ‘church’) as the reconstituted/reborn Divine Counsel?

                • MSH says:

                  yes; I see believers that way, for a number of reasons (specific intersections between testaments). For some scholarly material that gets you into some of the important threads on that specific theme, see the following books:

                  Brendan Byrne, Sons of God-Seed of Abraham: A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of All Christians in Paul Against the Jewish Background

                  James Scott, Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background in the the Pauline Corpus

                  Matthew Vellanickal, The divine sonship of Christians in the Johannine writings

                  • Joel Scott says:

                    Many thanks! I don’t want to gush, but your work is … impressive. It has helped me to see the whole Bible as more about Jesus and less about us and our redemption (although, of course, it’s about that, too).

                    Your generosity with your knowledge and you’re gentlemanly demeanor in debate are both exemplary, too. We need more like you. If cloning becomes viable… ‘-)

                  • MSH says:

                    thanks; I’m not always on my best behavior, but I try.

              • Joel Scott says:


          • Joel Scott says:

            BTW – what’s happened to ?

            • Joel Scott says:

              Mea culpa — I just read that the link won’t be live until The Myth that is True is published.

            • MSH says:

              The site has never existed. The notes on my draft (at least the early ones, as I recall) say something to the effect that the site will exist when the draft becomes a book. I wanted to let people know that when the book is born the real nuts and bolts will be available somewhere (since the book itself is not aimed at an academic audience – i.e., for people with degrees in these fields).

      • MSH says:

        It helps illustrate what poor occult thinking looks like (just my insertion between you and Mark).

    • Arklen says:

      Forgive my long post Dr.Heiser but as an Anthropology Student I have serious problems with Joseph’s number 1 here.

      No sir you are incorrect that there is a unified evolutionary decision in the entire scientific community; that there is some unified consensus on how life originated and where it started. Besides which aspect of evolution are you declaring for here, or are you saying Scientist have made their minds on on all of it? What “particulars”? That through an inductive process all theories have reached a focal point? Or as you put it, the same conclusion. Hardly. I’m not stating this to be rude by the way, just to explain a few things here.
      Here’s some of the branches,
      Micro-evolution, Macro-evolution, Chemical-Evolution; Besides the varied debates within those three, another baffling question, How the process of Natural Selection chooses gene selection? Does biology display an independent intelligence in itself that selects according to what nature gives it, or is it a equation programmed into each individual gene itself to act independently of each-other and adjust accordingly to health of each individual species; are they monitoring and adjusting accordingly in each genus as time goes on? Baffling? Oh yes. possible through chemical evolution, ummm maybe. (input humongous question mark here)
      We will see.
      Most important theory of all since it is the foundation of all of it, the origin of life. Im not referring to Darwin’s Origin of Life as we are all way past him on what we know and do not know (which has not been solved; hence the latest theories pertaining to Panspermia).
      By all means, if you have an article where a scientist created life in a lifeless environment with bringing in an outside variable of any-kind. please post, that would be revolutionary, cause Im still looking.
      As a side note in media headlines, (google it if you need to); Haven’t noticed “Life came from Mars” news articles in recent times? Or “Life could have come from deep oceanic vents”. These are Hotly debated in the Scientific Community!
      I mean to just say “evolution” is a broad term. There are many varied debates throughout each individual theory.
      The biggest problem of all Macro-evolution, to put it simply is a transition from species to species; this has various problems, specifically how an organism is able to survive when its biology morphs any of its features at any given time permanently altering it’s physical state, or in fact how it is able to “gain” mitochondrial DNA information, therefore allowing it to fill the gained DNA with the appropriate new gene allowing it to adapt to 100 percent perfection according to that given time or environment in nature. Even if this happens to be 100 percent true, we still need to figure out how biology itself “knows” how to do this. A chameleon changes color by losing one color and gaining a different one, vice versa. It already has “information” for this process in its DNA, how it acquired this process starts with a big philosophical question mark.
      The fact of the matter, the very foundation of how the “spark” of life began on this planet is a debate in itself. Yes, there are aspects of natural selection that ring true, according to the micro-evolutionary scale but this small piece does not answer for the remaining dozens of other steps in the all evolutionary scales.
      Let’s look briefly at the proposed Hominid ancestors with a basic question; Each evolutionary species in the hominid ancestors has an increase on average of 400 cc’s of brain size, since this is proposed to be true how did natural selection create bigger brains and weed out smaller ones. If there is a random diversity in the output of all species (example, different size brains), how does evolution work if it does not follow exactly the process of natural selection?
      Okay, one more than thing here, if all species work according to the evolutionary scale in natural environments, how has modern man defied natural selection by creating it’s own law and process to live by?
      Wherein all animal species the weak will die, the strong will survive (this is theory proven true by direct observation); Modern man has created something “outside” a naturalistic evolutionary model by creating tools and resources to allow the proposed “weak” or in-firmed of society to not only survive on but reproduce. Why has Man done this?
      The Scientific community must always be questioned and held up to the most scrutinized standards. This does not mean that you are declaring they are wrong, it just means that you want to know exactly how and why? Secondly, “scrutinizing” is the standard they proclaim to live by, therefore hold them to that. Research every modern theory on each section and their sub sections in Evolutionary theory. Ask the tough questions.
      I believe what Dr. Heiser is saying, is yes there are debates on how evolution exactly works period; there is also room to say they some aspects of evolutionary theory work and others “do” not.
      Divulge your mind into both sides of the equation, ask the philosophical questions that Science needs desperately now more than ever; than formulate the balance in between the two if that applies, of the complete facts weigh only in one direction? Than you have your stance..
      This topic is too broad and varied to make a final conclusion on at this point in time.

      Excuse the lengthy post again Dr. Heiser but I simply must state these things above.

      An excellent set of videos and I have watched all of them at least twice over the past few years.

      Salutations and Godspeed

  5. Mark Nigro says:

    Hi Dr. Heiser,

    Thank you so much for this series. I’m just about to watch #3 from your Genesis and Creation videos. This is a topic of highest interest to me, and your background in semitic studies is a blessing to learn from. I also share your position on the creation account in Scripture.

    One observation from video #1 is in reference to the comparison with the LXX. You rightly pointed out that ἀρχὴ is lacking the definite article in Gen 1:1. However, your insight on that caused me to look further into the use of the article with ἀρχὴ in both the LXX and the GNT. I discovered something interesting. It appears that every single time the preposition Εν is used with ἀρχῇ, it lacks the definite article.

    I’m not an expert in Greek, but I wonder if we should avoid pointing to the LXX as a support for the indefinite use of בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית since it seems to be the common construction in the Old and New Testament Greek texts?

    Thanks for any feedback you can offer on that.


    • MSH says:

      I’d agree; it’s hard to know what the LXX translator was trying to “show” with the use or non-use of the article.

  6. Joel Scott says:

    Rev. 2:26-28 says that believers/overcomers will rule the (gentile) nations “with a rod of iron.”

    Do you have any idea who/what these gentile nations might be? It doesn’t sound like they can be angels.

  7. […] not in that camp is not because I don’t think God capable of recent creation. I just don’t think the Bible was ever intended to teach us science. The Bible itself makes that clear if we just take it for what it says in its original context. […]

  8. […] not in that camp is not because I don’t think God capable of recent creation. I just don’t think the Bible was ever intended to teach us science. The Bible itself makes that clear if we just take it for what it says in its original context. […]

  9. DLC says says:

    Hi MSH Concerning 1st video, understanding the divine word is a great mystery. I am going to share my concept of gen. In gen. 1-26 I think image=spirit for in john 4-24 christ says god is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit. So man made in his image was spirit. Gen.5, adam,seth,enos,cainan,mahalaleel,jared,enoch,methuselah,lamech, and noah. All were spirit beings not mortal / flesh and they lived tens or hundreds or millions of years and were creators on earth. This is when they were imortal before the fall. These could possiby be the 10 great rulers(sons of god=shining ones) which ancient historians(herodotus,manetho) say exsisted before the flood.(I believe the whole earth was edin) and adam was a shining one and so was the serpent(gen. 3). In gen. 5 where is cain and able?They are not here because they were born mortal after the fall(adam became flesh), which is why cain could kill abel. Gen. 6-3 the LORD said my spirit shall not always remain with man,(adam) for that he(singular-adam) also isflesh(adams not 1st to become flesh); yet his days shall be an hundred and tweenty years.( I think adam lived 810 god years and he became flesh and he lived 120 solar years=930 years. Gen 4-26 and to seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos;(human, frail, mortal) then began men(flesh) to call upon the name of the LORD.(enos was 1st to become flesh) Gen.6-9 These are the generations of noah; noah was a just man and perfect(without blimish-this means noah is still a shining one,not flesh). You know the egyptians said that in the begining(zep tepi) gods(spirits) only worshiped in egypt and they had supernatural power to transform themselves into a man,woman,animal,plant they could do anything. Michael, I know this is hard for the finite mind but it is probably the truth.

  10. Rene Ponce de Leon says:

    Hello Mr. Heiser,

    I have greatly enjoyed and learned a lot from the way you analyze the bible. You are right when you say that it is hard to not use the knowledge gained from the discovery of the divine council while continuing bible studies. I just recently discovered your studies and you have given me inspiration to dig deeper into the bible. What made me susceptible to accept Christianity was when I started to look into creation science, specially after viewing the videos of Dr. Kent Hovind. I was wondering if you have ever done any studies in relation to living dinosaurs, dinosaurs making a re-appearance during the end days ( Isaiah 34 & 35 sounds like the end times ). What I find specially intriguing are the testimonies of people who claim to have seen dinosaurian like creatures recently and even through history. Would love to hear your understanding about this, thank you very much for the work you do and God bless you!

    Rene Ponce de Leon

    • MSH says:

      I have not. I also don’t believe there are dinosaurs in the Bible (e.g., Leviathan and Rahab are well-known symbols from ancient texts outside the Bible that have nothing to do with dinosaurs). Nor do I think dinosaurs have any role in eschatology.

  11. Joseph Uhric says:

    Hello Doctor Heiser,
    Watching and reading all your published work via internet connection. Find your work to be exceptional in academic and its helping me in the Bible study. Recently I watched the video “Prophecy In The Stars And The Birth Of Christ by Dr. Michael Heiser” very interesting approach to identify the birth of Christ. Just for the fun of it I’d google -triple conjuction, found a website that have the same date of Christ birth as you indicate in your video. I have no idea who is/are the publishers but find that interesting, if you wish check the site Dr Heiser. Sorry for my English grammar I did learn the language without the benefit of english school education. I do not know any other way to contact you except through this link. God bless Joe

Leave a Reply

Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.