Videos
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.
14 Responses to “Videos”
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.
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.
Henry
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.
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
Ha! Forgot that was even on there. A good question. I’ve not written anything (published anywhere, anyway) on this, though I have a good bit written. Tell me what you see first.
Are you going to put anything on this up on the blog?
On what?
(This comment was appended to the Videos page).
is it possible that Jesus healed his natural sight..then healed his spiritual sight? that is in mark chapter 8?
What part of what video does this pertain to?
Hi
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
-Joseph
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).
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
speaking for God doesn’t require the loss of one’s mind – to zapping or anything else.
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.
Mark
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.