ABOUT
My name is Mike Heiser, and I’m a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania (M.A., Ancient History) and the University of Wisconsin- Madison (M.A., Ph.D., Hebrew Bible and Semitic Studies). I taught on the college level for twelve years before accepting my present position working for Logos Bible Software, a company that produces ancient text databases and other digital resources for study of the ancient world and biblical studies.
While I’m not anti-creedal, I am opposed to treating creeds as though they are the final word on articulating biblical theology. Creeds are selective, historically-conditioned, limited by their context and the resources available to their formulators, and often agenda-driven. I’m more concerned with what the text says and what it can sustain in the way of interpretation than I am with creeds, especially if they are recent (read: English-Bible based and flavored with the hermeneutics of 20th century evangelicalism). I also have what I think is a healthy disdain for the trendiness of academia and its own brand of self-assured dogmatics. I’d be a happier guy if every graduate student in biblical studies and theology was forced to take courses in logic and critical thinking. That’ll happen right after the Cubs win the World Series.
To contact me (other than through a posted comment), email me at mshmichaelsheiser [at] gmail [dot] com.
32 Responses to “ABOUT”
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.
a few days ago, I saw and read Very fast
a section you wrote about foreknowledge
intent was to go back and re-read slower
you mentioned a Bible verse? (please send me just the link) or the bible verse section.
thank you, for your help, I truly enjoy reading your posts. I had and used the Logos Catholic version for years. (currently do not have on my new computer)
Rev. Dr. Mike Balfour
Hello, I have been reading your articles about escatology, demons and ufo’s. I am more interested in what it is you beleive about all of this. Where can I find that information? I like to have several viewpoints to think about. I have been taught the pre-trib/milleniest point of view. Thank you for your response.
Gina Royer
333 Rock Creek Rd #40
Hansen, ID 83334
208-944-0845
For the UFO stuff, see my UFO Religions blog. Go to http://www.drmsh.com and then look at the top of the page for the link. For eschatology, stay tuned here. I’ll be going through a lot more material and then winding up with where I’m at (right now) and why. Angels, gods. divine beings, demons, etc. are my specialty (my academic focus). YOu can start at my website on the divine council: http://www.thedivinecouncil.com.
Hello Dr. Heiser–
do you watch Sid Roth’s It’s Supernatural on christian tv? what do you think about end time miracles? Almost every episode has testimonies of miracles. here is a link:
http://www.sidroth.org/site/PageServer
thanks!
Jay
haven’t seen it; I have no problem with the idea that God can intervene in “miraculous” ways, but usually that doesn’t involve suspension of the mechanics of the universe he has made. It may be that we don’t really understand the fabric of the universe as well as we think we do (but God does, of course).
Sir,
You might want to consider having your 2003 article “The Jesus Ossuary: A Critical Examination,” removed from the i-net. Your assessment was anything but critical. If you have posted or written an update since then I would love to read it.
First, I don’t even know where it is; I’d have to Google it. Second, the date is 2003, so it doesn’t address any of the later Talpiot furor and the associated research (i.e., I’m not clairvoyant). I do have something else on the web about the Jesus tomb, but your tone suggests you’re just looking for something you can agree with. Third, where is it uncritical? Maybe you’re reading something into the word critical – ? Maybe you mean to say “critical” = “that which affirms what I already think.” The paper was read at a society meeting, so I think if there was something so poorly done in it that I would have heard something by now. But I could be wrong, so let me know.
I Have one question at this time, is there a hell with punishment by burning for ever?
maybe. It depends on how one takes the “everlasting” terminology. Most uses of that term in either testament does not refer to a never-ending time, but a time of great duration, beyond normal comprehension (or even something shorter). However, there are in fact clear instances where the terms *do* refer to never-ending time (and even eternality, which is not the same thing as never-ENDING). That means that there are options for hell: (1) never-ending; (2) ending after a long time (some form of annihilation).
This latter view can be (or not) held by what are called “universal salvationists” (not the same thing as universalists). Basically, that view has everyone being saved. Many are saved outright because they believed in Christ. Others are punished after death but then allowed to repent and believe, at which they join the former group in heaven. (Sort of like a purgatory idea but without the merit-based approach of catholicism).
Hello Dr. Heiser,
Do you have anything on Gen 3:22.
Thanks for reply.
Sam
in what regard (I believe I know but I don’t have the time to fish or hit and miss, so be more to your point).
Dear Dr. Michael S. Heiser:
Thank you for your articles, (especially on Sumerian I was reading)…
1. As I show in my own recent work, there were two councils (divine=of gods) in the early days: the Adam-Cain-Seth-etc. line 900-year-type, and the Ptah-AmunRa-Shw-etc. 9000-year-type, (Shw was killed ca-1033-years and birth-twin-brother T’Hwti replaced him as first-son-of-Ra)… POINT BEING– Two councils shared authority, the more-senior Ogdoad and the more-junior Ennead (both were missing many members due to murders) and some seniors served in both….
The “Two Powers in Heaven” may refer to some of both serving in the Sumerian mountain-heaven council, early-on ApSu-Kinaka (Upsukkinaku, Shekinah, Apsu’s gold/sons) but later after Shw was killed, the senior probably included only Noah Utnapishtim -whom the gods made immortal (9000-year-type)- Eloah Eloi “the only living god” (the one surviving all the murders and massacres)…
2. Nibiru/Neberu-tim bears a linguistic similarity to Nefer-Tem (cf even as Buranun Euphrates)… Nibiru/Neberu may have a larger sense of youth-early-fresh-beauty moreso than a crossing-starting-point (though obviously similar and assumptive)…
3. JOB 38:7: “morning stars” -probably- refers not so much to the gods (as planets going across the field: DIN.GIR), but as Job’s Feb. 26 1953 BC 5-planet conjunction.
4. N.B. On the point of birth-order, Adam and his rib–wife Eve were born the same year (see Jub.)… Get over it…. And too, Creation, was not Adam Geb and Eve Nuit, who’d had their childhood’s-distinction as the first Earthers (after the primordial), but Marduk’s first-chop removal of Cain Osiris’ genitals to inseminate aboriginal females, creating the new mankind whose later generations of daughters ‘were beautiful’….
5. The real whole story is very much more interesting… Even the fight between Cain and Abel, which left Abel alive (Yes Shw favored him because he’d sired him, so he gave him Cain’s mark-of-first-lineage and renamed him ‘Cain’, because he wanted to keep Abel from the death penalty, and because he owed Ra a son)… but that fight– was because of the primordial gap in the senior-sires, required Thoth to sire Awan, whence Cain wanted Awan because she was first-daughter but Abel wanted her because she was second-lineage, like Abel was second-lineage… (Shw should’ve sired a sister for Cain instead of a brother… such is the ‘pivotality’ of being ‘gods’)….
You might find my article, interesting, but do understand that I go for the actuality of the documented histories, the protolinguistics, over the assumptive linguistics, what the gods knew, over what mankind priesthoods struggled to learn, then to deduce….
Cordially, sincerely, yours,
Ray.
this has nothing to do with this blog. I don’t plan on answering any of it unless it is posted on the proper blog for this material (PaleoBabble). And even then, break it up into shorter pieces.
I greatly appreciate what you have written above about creeds. I think you have clearly and rightly distinguished them from the Scriptures.
Hi Mike. If you really wanted to stir up some controversy, you could do a ‘Naked Bible,’ approach in response to the New Perspectivalists – who claim they’re doing just that…
– Ben.
a decent idea; I just haven’t had much interest in it; it hasn’t caught my imagination in any way.
That’s interesting. How come?
not sure what you’re asking.
Oh, sorry – was just wondering why you don’t find the New Perspective interesting, especially as it potentially completely redefines the gospel, justification, etc.
Because I don’t think it really redefines the gospel or justification; I think it redefines what Paul meant by “works of the law.” Accepting the New Perspective doesn’t add works to the gospel. It probably makes the task of “reconciling” James and Paul easier, but that wasn’t unworkable before the new perspective.
Maybe my lack of interest here stems from my apathy toward creeds and confessions. Since I wasn’t doing soteriology by virtue of them before the new perspective, I didn’t see an applecart being upset. Others married to creeds and confession would naturally be more disturbed by it, since it asks them to stop defining justification in only forensic terms. But I’d say that’s a distinctly reformed approach, not a biblical one. And that is not to say a forensic approach to justification isn’t biblical. I think it is, but I’d also say that the doctrine of salvation and terms like justification, redemption, atonement, etc. are multi-facted and defy a single definition. Defining justification in only forensic terms is too narrow, and as long as someone isn’t saying salvation is *merited* by human effort (in whole or part), I don’t see the gospel as compromised.
I think you’re right. I’ve actually benefited hugely from the NP in making me see those terms in those more multi-faceted ways. I think the danger comes when NP advocates say that the ‘new’ definition of, say, justification, is the only definition and can’t have elements of the ‘old’ definition at all. So, yes, I think justification is covenant membership… but is also the declaration that an individual sinner is in the right on grace alone, as the reformers declared.
Dr. Heiser,
I have a couple of questions. First, is the Greek word “ouros”, which I understand to mean “mountain” strictly limited to a prominence in relation to ‘level land’ about it, or can it be applied to say “continents” or “islands” rising above sea-level. Second, since, the word “continent” as used for land-masses is a fairly recent term, are there any ancient writings (Scripture, in particular, either Hebrew or Greek) that might view the continental land- masses as “mountains”, in relation to the ‘world ocean’ ?
please send this to me in an email.
Dr Heiser,
have you, or do you plan on providing any work regarding the passage in Matthew 11:12?
Thanks you.
Hi Doc, Just found your website, I was looking for a credible source against Sitchin. I am an open minded person and do not tend to believe right away, although at first if you read Sitchin’s work it would seem plausible.
I think I ended up here from Sitchin is wrong.
Just wanted to know what are your religious views that is if you believe that Jesus is a god, or do you even still believe in the Creator of all.
I believe in a creator, and I’m a Christian (trinitarian, though for reasons that are likely different than most).
While browsing in a used bookstore about 30 years ago, I happened upon a Bible with a preface with something in it about Hebrew/OT poetry. Unlike “modern” poetry, which relies upon rhythm and rhyme for effect, biblical poetry relies upon the repetition of key words, phrases and ideas. So I became interested in the repetition of words in Genesis 1:! – 2:4.
I was just dangerous enough with a computer to write a BASIC program to do that count. I recall stats something like 860 some odd words total with 160 some odd unique words (in English, using King James version). From this, you’d expect an average of 5-6 uses per word.
“God” appeared 35 times or so.
“The” appeared 115 or thereabouts.
“And” appeared 105 times or so.
The high incidence of the word “And” is surprising. It suggests interconnectedness, ONE-ness, unity of creation. (again, in English)
My question is: Is there a corresponding Hebrew word for “and”, or was this some adaptation of the King James translators? I am limited to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance for my Hebrew. It omits about 47 words, “and” being one of those omitted words.
I heard you on Coast to Coast 2/2/2012 and became aware of your knowledge of Hebrew. I’ve been hoping to contact someone to answer that question for 30 years now. I hope it picques your interest enough to dash out a reply.
I was thrilled to hear a sane voice on late night talk radio and look forward to future shows when you are a guest.
Dennis
A couple of items:
1) Hebrew poetry rhymes in thought, not sound, as you note. Rhyming in thought is not dependent of using the same vocabulary, though it will naturally involves similar vocabulary.
2) You can’t judge anything about the Hebrew text using an English translation.
3) As one who has actually been through every syllable of the KJV, matching it to all the Hebrew (it’s something I had to do for my employer, not a weird hobby!), I can tell you that the KJV tends to be very literal — meaning, the translators tried hard to account for most Hebrew words with a corresponding English word. They tended to use “and” for the waw-conjunction even when something better could have been chosen to reflect the context (like “but”; “so that”; “then”; etc.). But, as you have discovered, even the wooden literalism of the KJV didn’t mean that the translators would just choose not to translate the conjunction when they felt like omitting it. And in poetry that’s a good thing – it would sound very repetitive since the stanzas are short, and it would really mar the thought-rhyming (it would sound clunky).
Personally, I have a high regard for the KJV as a translation, though I will never trust it in Job again. Job is full of rare words that the KJV translators literally had no idea what to do with. We have cognate languages (Ugaritic, Akkadian, for example) to help us in such instances. They didn’t. They did the best they could.
Thanks for your response to my question.
I was prompted to ask by a comment you made about the monism of Buddhism. I have recently completed Goswami’s “Self-Aware Universe”. He proposes that a unitive consciousness is the foundation of the cosmos. He does a fair amount of comparative religion on points germane to the discussion (and supportive of his position). I began to revisit this old investigation of mine while I read various portions of his book.
Since posting the original inquiry here, I found my complete profiles. LOGOS may or may not have a feature which gnereates similar profiles, so I am including those below.
One list is sorted alphabetically, the other by number of occurrences.
The exact stats are 856 total words, 166 unique words. “God” appears 35 times, “The” 111 times, while “And” appears 104 times.
I gather from your reply that “waw” is the English version of the Hebrew word for which “and” was substituted. Also, if anything, “waw” may have appeared a few more than 104 times in the corresponding original Hebrew text . Ideas of ONE-ness or unity in a monistic religious text is probably not a stretch. Interconnectedness (such as “web of life” stuff) might be. This is new information, it’ll take some time to process more fully than that.
Thanks again.
Dennis
**************************************************************************
1 THE 111
2 AND 104
3 GOD 35
4 EARTH 22
5 OF 20
6 IT 18
7 WAS 17
8 IN 15
9 THAT 14
10 LET 14
11 DAY 13
12 WATERS 11
13 TO 11
14 AFTER 11
15 UPON 10
16 SAID 10
17 OVER 10
18 LIGHT 10
19 HE 10
20 EVERY 10
21 WERE 9
22 THEM 9
23 FIRMAMENT 9
24 BE 9
25 WHICH 8
26 MADE 8
27 SO 7
28 SAW 7
29 HEAVEN 7
30 GOOD 7
31 FROM 7
32 THEIR 6
33 SEED 6
34 MORNING 6
35 KIND 6
36 FOWL 6
37 FOR 6
38 EVENING 6
39 CREATED 6
40 THERE 5
41 ITS 5
42 FORTH 5
43 CALLED 5
44 ALL 5
45 YIELDING 4
46 THING 4
47 NIGHT 4
48 KINDS 4
49 HIS 4
50 HAVE 4
51 HAD 4
52 FRUIT 4
53 DARKNESS 4
54 WORK 3
55 TREE 3
56 SEVENTH 3
57 SEA 3
58 RULE 3
59 MULTIPLY 3
60 LIVING 3
61 LIGHTS 3
62 IS 3
63 IMAGE 3
64 FACE 3
65 DIVIDE 3
66 CREEPS 3
67 CATTLE 3
68 BRING 3
69 BLESSED 3
70 AIR 3
71 YOU 2
72 WHOSE 2
73 VEGETATION 2
74 UNTO 2
75 UNDER 2
76 TOGETHER 2
77 SEAS 2
78 RESTED 2
79 PLANTS 2
80 PLANT 2
81 OUR 2
82 ON 2
83 MOVES 2
84 MAN 2
85 LIFE 2
86 LAND 2
87 ITSELF 2
88 I 2
89 HAS 2
90 GREAT 2
91 GIVEN 2
92 GIVE 2
93 FRUITFUL 2
94 FOOD 2
95 FISH 2
96 FILL 2
97 EVERYTHING 2
98 DRY 2
99 DOMINION 2
100 DIVIDED 2
101 CREEPING 2
102 CREATURES 2
103 BROUGHT 2
104 BEHOLD 2
105 BEASTS 2
106 ABUNDANTLY 2
107 ABOVE 2
108 YEARS 1
109 WITHOUT 1
110 WINGED 1
111 WHEREIN 1
112 VOID 1
113 VERY 1
114 US 1
115 TWO 1
116 THUS 1
117 THIRD 1
118 THINGS 1
119 SUBDUE 1
120 STARS 1
121 SPIRIT 1
122 SIXTH 1
123 SIGNS 1
124 SHALL 1
125 SET 1
126 SECOND 1
127 SEASONS 1
128 SAYING 1
129 SANCTIFIED 1
130 PLACE 1
131 OWN 1
132 OPEN 1
133 ONE 1
134 MOVING 1
135 MOVED 1
136 MIDST 1
137 MAY 1
138 MALE 1
139 MAKE 1
140 LIKENESS 1
141 LESSER 1
142 HOST 1
143 HIM 1
144 HEAVENS 1
145 GREEN 1
146 GREATER 1
147 GATHERING 1
148 GATHERED 1
149 FOURTH 1
150 FORM 1
151 FLY 1
152 FIRST 1
153 FINISHED 1
154 FIFTH 1
155 FEMALE 1
156 ENDED 1
157 DEEP 1
158 DAYS 1
159 CREATURE 1
160 BEGINNING 1
161 BECAUSE 1
162 BEAST 1
163 BEARING 1
164 APPEAR 1
165 ALSO 1
166 A 1
856 856
*************************************************
1 A 1
2 ABOVE 2
3 ABUNDANTLY 2
4 AFTER 11
5 AIR 3
6 ALL 5
7 ALSO 1
8 AND 104
9 APPEAR 1
10 BE 9
11 BEARING 1
12 BEAST 1
13 BEASTS 2
14 BECAUSE 1
15 BEGINNING 1
16 BEHOLD 2
17 BLESSED 3
18 BRING 3
19 BROUGHT 2
20 CALLED 5
21 CATTLE 3
22 CREATED 6
23 CREATURE 1
24 CREATURES 2
25 CREEPING 2
26 CREEPS 3
27 DARKNESS 4
28 DAY 13
29 DAYS 1
30 DEEP 1
31 DIVIDE 3
32 DIVIDED 2
33 DOMINION 2
34 DRY 2
35 EARTH 22
36 ENDED 1
37 EVENING 6
38 EVERY 10
39 EVERYTHING 2
40 FACE 3
41 FEMALE 1
42 FIFTH 1
43 FILL 2
44 FINISHED 1
45 FIRMAMENT 9
46 FIRST 1
47 FISH 2
48 FLY 1
49 FOOD 2
50 FOR 6
51 FORM 1
52 FORTH 5
53 FOURTH 1
54 FOWL 6
55 FROM 7
56 FRUIT 4
57 FRUITFUL 2
58 GATHERED 1
59 GATHERING 1
60 GIVE 2
61 GIVEN 2
62 GOD 35
63 GOOD 7
64 GREAT 2
65 GREATER 1
66 GREEN 1
67 HAD 4
68 HAS 2
69 HAVE 4
70 HE 10
71 HEAVEN 7
72 HEAVENS 1
73 HIM 1
74 HIS 4
75 HOST 1
76 I 2
77 IMAGE 3
78 IN 15
79 IS 3
80 IT 18
81 ITS 5
82 ITSELF 2
83 KIND 6
84 KINDS 4
85 LAND 2
86 LESSER 1
87 LET 14
88 LIFE 2
89 LIGHT 10
90 LIGHTS 3
91 LIKENESS 1
92 LIVING 3
93 MADE 8
94 MAKE 1
95 MALE 1
96 MAN 2
97 MAY 1
98 MIDST 1
99 MORNING 6
100 MOVED 1
101 MOVES 2
102 MOVING 1
103 MULTIPLY 3
104 NIGHT 4
105 OF 20
106 ON 2
107 ONE 1
108 OPEN 1
109 OUR 2
110 OVER 10
111 OWN 1
112 PLACE 1
113 PLANT 2
114 PLANTS 2
115 RESTED 2
116 RULE 3
117 SAID 10
118 SANCTIFIED 1
119 SAW 7
120 SAYING 1
121 SEA 3
122 SEAS 2
123 SEASONS 1
124 SECOND 1
125 SEED 6
126 SET 1
127 SEVENTH 3
128 SHALL 1
129 SIGNS 1
130 SIXTH 1
131 SO 7
132 SPIRIT 1
133 STARS 1
134 SUBDUE 1
135 THAT 14
136 THE 111
137 THEIR 6
138 THEM 9
139 THERE 5
140 THING 4
141 THINGS 1
142 THIRD 1
143 THUS 1
144 TO 11
145 TOGETHER 2
146 TREE 3
147 TWO 1
148 UNDER 2
149 UNTO 2
150 UPON 10
151 US 1
152 VEGETATION 2
153 VERY 1
154 VOID 1
155 WAS 17
156 WATERS 11
157 WERE 9
158 WHEREIN 1
159 WHICH 8
160 WHOSE 2
161 WINGED 1
162 WITHOUT 1
163 WORK 3
164 YEARS 1
165 YIELDING 4
166 YOU 2
no idea what the point of such counting is supposed to be (in English or Hebrew for that matter).
I wasn’t sure what I’d find when I did this. I sorta’ expected to find “God” the most used word. It wasn’t. “And” & “The” were used about triple that.
I began to entertain a sort of “weighting” idea. If ideas were rhymed, then the more times a related rhyme appeared, the more important the idea being rhymed. Since I was not sophisticated enough to look for that, I aimed at something I could do, which was count words.
One interesting rhyme is “and the Earth”. This phrase ends verse 1 and begins verse 2. Except for the fact it is there, I can think of little to recommend it.
It’s somewhat like the riddle: Why did the fly fly? Because the spider spider (as in “spied her”).
Another phrase repeated verbatim is “after his kind”. Appearing 8 times, it had to do with procreation of plants and animals.
The most prominent idea rhyme is “And the evening and the morning were the [next] day.”
This lends the idea of progress to creation and history (as this introduces the OT, or the “5 books of Moses” at least) The universe is unfolding (as it should) – Desiderata.
Back to “And”. It is tempting to ignore “The”. And, as you might gather from the fact I did not inquire about a corresponding Hebrew word, I did ignore it. But upon visiting this issue with you, I find myself challenging that decision. I notice that “an” is not used. “A” is used only once (Let there be A firmament . . .)
With all the handy gadgets presently available to store and retrieve information, I have what would have 100 years ago been a terminal case of lazy brain. I say this because by some accounts, minstrels of old typically could hear 1,000 words once and repeat them verbatim, flawlessly and with confidence. The cited portion of Genesis is only 856 years. Even after studying it at length for many years, I could not recite it if my life depended on it.
I say this because it may tell something about the likely abilities of the author(s) of this text and those who edited, copied and transmitted it. Myself, I may need a computer to arrive at this profile. It’s not hard to imagine that a devoted writer of some skill could compose something weighted and “rhymed” in this manner on purpose.
Honestly, I don’t see any coherence in this approach.