119 Heiser interprets this shininess to prove it was a god, not an angel, being described (most commentators understand this as the pre-incarnate Christ). Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), p. Referring to Daniel 10:6, he states, “that shininess or brilliant luminescence is a stock description for a divine being.” 4) Michael S.
3) Michael Heiser, “Of Truth Watchers and Inept Readers,” Nov. Hieser endeavors to wedge a distinction between his “gods” with what all other researchers have understood as angels (but he considers me an “inept reader”). Heiser needs the “sons of God” from Genesis 6 to be understood as his classified second tier of gods, that is “the divine orientation” spoken of in the quote above, but it is clearly interpreted as angels in the New Testament and Second Temple literature. fn 11 So he is rejecting the very word choice that God used because God’s words don’t agree with what Heiser’s theological presupposition holds. Despite its imprecision, the divine orientation is clear.” 2) Michael S. 62 however, he rejects the use of “angels” in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 due to “the word choice (‘angels’) comes from the Septuagint.
He rightly accepts that elohim can mean “angels” in Psalm 8:5 (cf. What he has classed as “gods” is consistently considered angels during the Second Temple period, but he diligently attempts to blur this before his readers eyes.
While the Bible and ancient Hebrew literature used the word elohim in a generic way, he has forced a technical meaning that has no precedence in the Bible. In the last post about Michael Heiser’s theological conundrum, I expressed how he redefines the word “god” to mold his theology into what he finds from pagan literature.
0 kommentar(er)
