Yesterday I returned from the ICRS (International Christian Retail Show) in Atlanta, GA. I enjoyed it. It was a worthwhile experience. I was there with members of the team (editors, marketers, publicist) that is helping make my divine council worldview book (actually, books – see below) a reality. We learned some things that will no doubt be put to good use in the coming months. I had thirteen interviews (radio shows, TV, podcasts) to help begin talk about the books. It will be a long process leading up to release, and then that’s when the real work of marketing the book begins.1
I want to give you all an idea of things to come, as well as give you a peek at the material. This post and those that follow in the next few days will get you up to speed. In a few days I’ll post the table of contents for each book along with sample chapters (uncorrected proofs). I’ll also be talking to all of you about your role. If you care about this content, I can tell you right now you’ll be a big reason it’s successful (presuming it is). I’ll have specific ideas as to how you can help. Here we go … and give the images time to load (I still don’t know how to work with image sizes).
Two Books and Two Titles
The original draft of the intended book was The Myth That is True. I still love the title, but everyone agreed (and I see the logic clearly) that having the word “Myth” in the title would deter many people from reading it. The book (as you old-timers will know) is going to be controversial enough without giving someone a superficial reason like the title to avoid it. So we changed the name. The “divine council book” is now called The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. Here’s the cover:
The Unseen Realm is the “revision” I’ve been talking about in earlier posts. It’s done except for line editing. It’s about 110,000 words. The original draft was 150,000. I’ve removed some things from the old draft and also added a good bit of material. But the big improvement is that it’s readable (no more chapters of 7500 words, for example). There are 42 chapters, none of which is longer than 3000 words. Unseen Realm is like the old “myth” draft — it’s an academic work, but not a book for the ivory tower. The intended audience is pastors, seminary students, and anyone academically minded with respect to the Bible and biblical theology.
The second book is not an academic book. It is a much shorter book (about one-third the length of the first) and is aimed at the person in the pew — basically, the Bible reader who has some knowledge of the Bible but hasn’t gone much beyond Bible reading. This second book is our effort to widen the audience for the material. The idea is to take the core ideas of Unseen Realm and distill them in simple language in this book. In industry terms, it’s a trade book.
Book 2 is entitled, Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches about the Unseen World and Why it Matters. Here’s the cover:
Notice how the covers look alike but are still different. We want people to know they belong together. I’ll be letting readers know in the prefatory material to each book that another companion book exists.
Other Items
You’ll notice from the covers that both are marked “The Bible Unfiltered.” That’s a series name. Basically whatever else I publish related to this initial material will fall under that series. Also included in the series will be a small group Bible study curriculum based on the content of Supernatural (not Unseen Realm). I won’t be writing that curriculum. The folks marketing the book for book stores will be doing that, though I have final review and approval. That material hasn’t been written yet.
Readers of the original draft will recall that I planned a companion website for further documentation. That’s still the plan. However, because I have taken a few things out of the book (Unseen Realm) and have now made a list of topics to cover in a follow-up volume at some point, I’m actually not sure what I’ll be putting on the website vs. saving for that follow-up book. We’ll see. I’m sure that will evolve.
Lastly, the current goal is that both books will release at the same time — first quarter of 2015 (Feb or March). There are reasons within the publishing world that insiders say this is the optimal time for a new book, so we’re on target for that. However, I will have full, uncorrected (bound) proofs months before that. I’ll be blogging on how you can get copies of the proofs for free in the near future. Like I said, this audience is going to be a big part of marketing the content. You all know that the book will create buzz (controversy and support alike). Despite the professionals helping me, word-of-mouth and persistence “on the ground” is going to be what really wins the day.
Stay tuned!
- If you’re new to this blog, you need to get up to speed by going to my divine council website and seeing what that’s all about. I’ve been working on a book dealing with how that subject – an ancient Israelite view of the unseen world – permeates all areas of biblical theology. I had released a draft of that book a couple years ago to folks who (way back) subscribed to the newsletter in which I started the book. I also sold it for a while “as is” on this site before signing a contract to make it a real book. ↩
BRAVO!!! This is like a mini-Christmas present, or for me, a pre-birthday gift.
Thrilled to death over the direction this is taking and the effort to put it out for both the academic side and layman side.
Anxiously awaiting now for more info as it becomes available. Will all updates be posted here or will there be a new location focused primarily on the book series itself?
Again, congrats on the hard work bearing fruit. Thank you for letting us be a part of it all.
J
updates will be posted here – and thanks!
Looking forward to the publication. The “myth book” fascinated me. I accidentally happened on your Divine Council website on a midnight shift at work and the rest is history.
thanks – I worked graveyard shifts for 15 years in grad school – I hear you!
Dr.Heiser,
I want to thank you for your ministry. Your material on the Divine Council, the Two Powers in Heaven, the Word in the OT, and others, have changed how I look at the Bible and deepened my faith. The Bible is much more exciting now! We have had some great family discussions about several of your topics. I have already read the “Myth” draft and wondered if the project was still going. I look forward to reading the new version!
thanks – stay tuned; things are moving now.
sigh… Market research and focus groups have just robbed us of a good title, The new ones seem so generic and bland… “In the midst of the gods” would be a good Title along with “the myth that is true”….But hey ho its the content we are all looking forward to. Good job getting all this done and look forward to the interviews also !
I hear you – but I’ll be recommending the “myth” title again for book 2. By then the people who embrace the material will know me, and those who hate the books would hate them no matter what the title is.
Being a lover of Tolkien and Lewis I absolutely loved the original title. I understand the change and don’t disagree with the logic. But I can’t help but feel that a beautiful idea was sacrificed for practicality. But I suppose it’s always been thus…
Still, very good news!
I look forward to the books and website and will spread the news to my church, friends, and family
Yep – see my reply to Nobunaga on the title.
The artwork, title design and the titles are amazing. Great call by the marketing team. Some detractors would read the thinking behind “the myth that is true”, and automatically launch into how Tolkien or CS Lewis weren’t Christians, or accuse you of thinking the Bible wasn’t true, blah blah blah.
In my own online ministry to provide a biblical framework to people who can perceive into the spirit realm more clearly than most of us (i.e., “seers”), the pages on what the spirit realm are basically just reference your interviews and available material, but I avoid using words like “myth” because most people don’t understand what that word means in context. And of course, in my youth and church ministries, I present the material but avoid the “m-word.” (Speaking of youth ministry, I need to get my copy of The Facade back from one of my teens!)
I think the marketing team’s two-tiered approach (aiming at leaders and aiming at the led) is excellent.
so true on Lewis and Tolkien. I’ve actually seen papers at evangelical academic conferences arguing Lewis wasn’t really a Christian. If it happens there, it’s going to surface elsewhere. There was actually a lot of thought and research that went into figuring out how the book “fell” into proximity to other books dealing with anything supernatural (in terms of the Bible). “Myth” just wasn’t part of recognizable vocabulary.
Looking forward to reading them. I also think the sub-titles are interesting as well. You use the words “Recovering” and “…why it matters.” My question is, why does it matter? Ok, so one can answer that just knowing the old theology is important for its own sake. True. But is there any other reason for recovering it? Part of your analysis on the Divine Council is that God gave control of the other nations to “lesser gods.” Does that mean by recovering that theology you mean to say: we OUGHT to believe in countries today being ruled by lesser gods? Since there are much more than 70 nations today, are we to understand that we OUGHT to believe God made more “bnei Elohim” for all these new nations (Equador, Iceland, etc)? Is all of this purely for academics, or are you interesting in reviving an old theology as well?
you’ll have to read the books! 🙂 Generally, the books will ask the reader if they believe what biblical writers believed about the unseen world. That would matter, at least if one cares about both testaments. But that’s just a broad example. Biblical theology about the unseen world touches every area of biblical theology. So if we want a complete and full picture of biblical theology, this stuff matters. If we don’t, it wouldn’t.
I think everyone here cares about the biblical books. At the same time, you have also spoken about biblical theology not being created out of a vacuum. The Israelites were after all, part of the ancient near east, so some of their theology about how they view God is sort of “borrowed.” As an example, had God taken the Israelites out of Egypt and set them in S. Africa, would they have had a concept of Divine Council? Probably not. Given this realization, how much of biblical theology do we REALLY need today to be connected to God? Again, do we HAVE to believe in a divine council or that God separated nations according to 70 lesser dieties? Is this true for us today just because it was their theology in the past?
As you can see, these are questions I don’t think can wait for your book 🙁 Remember, i am not asking what is biblical theology, I am asking for today’s theology.
I don’t deal with hypotheticals (except in fiction). We have what we were providentially been given, in the place and time in which we live. God did that with foresight. Consequently, I don’t see a disconnect between biblical theology (the revelation God wanted us to have) and what we need (and are responsible for) today.
>I don’t deal with hypotheticals.
Exactly, so A) given the bible says what it does – God separated the 70 nations according to the 70 sons of God – and that today there are obviously well over 70 nations, how does the theology fit now? Did God make new bnei Elohim to keep up with new nations?
B) There actually IS a disconnect if you say (and you have said) that Israel borrowed theological ideas from the surrounding nations. If it’s borrowed…than how is it actual truth? How are we responsible for borrowed concepts from Ugarit?
Shall we use a real world example? Let’s take a look at Jewish commentators throughout the centuries. Depending on the time and location you will find many ideas “taken” from their surrounding cultures (i.e. Aristotelean, Mystical. etc.). All of these are within the corpus of Jewish thought, yet at the same time, borrowed. So what am I supposed to do? Am I responsible to believe in them simply because Jewish thought has adopted it? Remember, that is the important question. I am not arguing against WHAT the theology of the bible (or for that matter Maimonides, Ibn Ezra, etc etc) is. I am asking WHY if it is borrowed and influenced from the OUTSIDE are we SUPPOSED to believe in it?
Also, all of this depends on a LITERAL reading of the beginning of scripture, where there was
1)A global deluge (yes, it has to be global or else the next part make no sense)
2) 70 nations came out of Shem, Ham & Yaphet.
3) No other nations were around anywhere else in the world or else God left some nations out of Deut 4.
I wouldn’t mind some other of your readers to chime in with their opinion, because in a nutshell, this is the theology at stake here.
There are seventy because that is the number in the Table of Nations – it’s “the whole world” known at the time. It is meant to be comprehensive. And the comprehensive intent is the point. And it isn’t hard to understand: “Israel is Yahweh’s portion — all other nations aren’t – they are under dominion of other gods.”
A face-value reading of the text of Genesis can also quite easily produce a global flood. “Literal” doesn’t mean what I think you think it means. Words like “all” and “land” are “literally” found in many passages that, *in context* are not to be taken “literally” – meaning is all about context, not what words are found in a given place. See the link below, which extends from a “literal” reading of Psalm 104:9 –
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html
Just a thought here, but those 70 nations were not nation states like we have today. They were basically peoples separated by their language and ethnic groups which settled across the world. The Book of Daniel talks about the prince of Greece, and the prince of Persia. These two empires didn’t exist when the original nations were formed, yet they can be traced back to the 70 nations. As can every other nation today. It’s very doubt these principalities rule based up man-made imaginary boundaries.
good point – the boundaries and names are “artificial” in that sense – the point is “Israel is Yahweh’s, everywhere / everyone else isn’t – having been given over to other gods.”
Hi Michael.
It’s very interesting idea of nations being given to other elohims after the Babel and that Israel is Yahweh’s nation.
As KTA mentioned the book of Daniel, there we see that Michael is the prince of Israel (10:21, 12:1). This raises question whether Michael is actually the Angel of the Lord who was with Israel in the wilderness, i.e. are Jesus and Michael one and the same?
I know there are some groups that affirm that (like JWs, Adventists) but than again in Daniel 10:13 it says that Michael is one of the first princes – meaning that he is not that unique as the Word/Jesus is.
Could it be that Israel was given to Michael (as one of God’s sons) to rule Jews in the name of the Godhead (Jesus included)?
Could you please comment on this.
Ty
I would agree (not taking the Adventist view) that Michael and Jesus are not the same. That idea is, in part, predicated on:
(1) presuming that the language of Dan 8:11, 25 *which is parallel to Dan 11:36* means that the “Prince of the host” is also “the God of gods.” That would seem to work with a second Yahweh / divine co-regent until you hit the phrase in Dan 10:13, where Michael is but ONE of the chief princes. If Michael is Jesus, then there seems to be more than one Jesus!
(2) an assumption, never actually made in the text, that the language of Dan 10:13, 21; 12:1 about Michael (variously called “one of the chief princes”; “your [Israel’s] prince”; and “the great prince who has charge of your people [Israel]”) is synonymous with that of Dan 8:11 (“prince of THE HOST”). Michael is not in view in Daniel 8 (and neither is Gabriel this “prince of the host” – both have to be inserted into the narrative – in fact Gabriel is distinguished from this figure elsewhere in Daniel).
There is, apparently, a prince over ALL the heavenly host and, therefore, over ALL other princes. That isn’t Michael — and that figure could, of course, be identified with Yahweh as co-regent. THAT figure is the one to be identified with Jesus because of how the NT re-purposes the OT second Yahweh language.
Hi Michael. Thanks once again for the reply.
I would agree with your explanation.
But it’s still a bit surprising to me that Michael is the one identified as Israel’s prince. You would expect Yahweh (or the second Yahweh) would be the one :/
Dr. Heiser,
Congratulations, and it was a long time in coming. Can’t wait to get in my pre-order. Thanks for the good news.
J
thanks!
Awesome, Mike! Looking forward to getting both digital and hard copies of these, and to trying to teach these to my troops, in whatever format I can! (I’m still reading through for the second time the 2nd draft of the Myth PDF, some good stuff.)
God be glorified!– It looks like we have a group of people here who are all overflowing with Gods Spirit ready to get the word out on this labor of love!–It is good how we all arrive here together by Gods working!– I want to work with this, and descern it is from God, So much can be understood, by just going back to origins.For instance, I would of said in the beginning of this comment “Alaha be glorified”!, but for the same reasons concerning the “Myth” word, I didnt, because it would be mis-understood by many. But following a guidline that I noticed in many of Mikes replies, about “Saying something that is helpful to all”, lets get this word out by telling people that if they want to get back to the original , pure, consciensness of things, we could follow Gods directive that, “Wisdom is first pure”, and the whole idea of really going back in history, like as if you were there, and take on their consciensness. Maryah Allahas grace be upon us all!–Ok, I said it, just to enliven and promote further loving interest in this whole gloriful labor of love.
it will be an interesting ride for sure.
This is so exciting. I have been using your websites and material as references for some of my Sunday school classes for a few years. I have directed many people to check out your information online. I will be buying multiples of both these books to hand out. Thanks so much for your scholarship.
stay tuned – around November I hope to tell people working in churches in any capacity how to get proofs before the books are out and free copies when they are.
>There are seventy because that is the number in the Table of Nations – it’s “the whole world” known at the time. It is meant to be comprehensive. And the comprehensive intent is the point. And it isn’t hard to understand: “Israel is Yahweh’s portion — all other nations aren’t – they are under dominion of other gods.”
Ok. I believe you are not really realizing the disconnect. In one instance you are quoting me passages. I get the passages. In another instance, you are telling us we should believe in biblical theology. Is that correct? I just want to make sure I understand you.
The disconnect lies in two very important places:
1) the fact that REALITY (i.e. OUR reality) does not jive with biblical explanation. I understand the seventy comes from the Table of nations. But if NOW there are more than 70 nations does that mean some nations are not under the dominion of any other gods, while some still are? Or, does that mean over time God created more gods to meet the demand of a growing world?
2) You have to accept a face value “literal” understand of scripture. In order for you to get to the number 70, you have to accept a global flood; 70 descendants of Noah; a literal dispersion of people at Babel. For all of this to work the story cannot be talking about a local flood for the reason I spelled out before above. If none of these things ever actually happened in time/space, there cannot be 70 nations to be dispersed, therefore no 70 bnei elohim, therefore how can you tell people that THAT is the biblical theology they have to accept. If it was just a local flood, than there are other descendants of people that were around the world at the time that were not part of the 70 on the table of nations.. That table of nations is VERY specific.
So………IF (and I emphasize IF) you are giving your thoughts on biblical theology and telling us we OUGHT to accept that theology as historical truth, than you are basically telling us we have to accept what I just laid out in #2
😀
Yes – but biblical theology doesn’t extend from, or depend on, exclusive literalism.
I don’t see the disconnect because there isn’t one. The writer in one time period, under inspiration, is claiming that all turf other than Israel is the domain of other gods. A later person can still say that’s correct. When did God add another nation as his own to make the statement incorrect?
I think what’s confusing you is that you are assuming that biblical writers all wrote with the intention of being understood (exclusively) as literal, and that we need to approach the text exclusively that way as well. I’m saying they didn’t and we don’t. The truth claim remains consistent: there is ONE people of God no matter how many nations there are (and I’d add, no matter if there are other worlds – tip of the hat to you Facade / sci-fi fans).
>Yes – but biblical theology doesn’t extend from, or depend on, exclusive literalism.
Agreed. But does biblical theology depend on historical literalism? Meaning, since you are telling us biblical theology is X, and the reason it is X is because ABC, does that mean you or us ought to believe in ABC ACTUALLY occurred? (I laid out what ABC is above).
>there is ONE people of God no matter how many nations there are.
Agreed. That is the overall point of it all, but what about the finer details at how that conclusion arises? Is that historically true that we have have to accept it? I’m not asking about inspiration, I am asking did God actually flood the earth which led to 70 descendants of Noah’s sons which led to the dispersion at Babel? Did all that actually occur?
Yes, biblical theology ought to be linked to reality. But that isn’t the problem here. Reality and literalistic interpretation of the Bible are not synonyms. They are going to at times overlap, at other times they will not. Metaphorical interpretation is not “un-real”. I think the disconnect you have is that you apparently assume that any sort of “non-literal” interpretation means “not real”. That reflects a misunderstanding of the way language works and what all those terms mean. When I say “my wife is hot” and am not referring to her temperature, or a case of imminent spontaneous combustion, my statement, metaphorical as it is, is nevertheless real.
Maybe my wife will read my blog after that one!
Ok, so given what you just said, can you please explain to me the following “equation.”
Noah’s global flood brings forth 70 descendants (i.e. table of nations). Add in the dispersion at babel = 70 bnei elohim ‘adopting’ those 69 remaining nations.
That is the “theology,” that is recorded. I get that. But I want to understand how that theology parallels reality. So given what you just said, how do I understand it’s basis in reality. Metaphor? Historical realism?
I’d correct this to say Noah’s descendants populated seventy nations. Some of the names are place names vs. personal names. There’s no 1:1 person:nation equivalency going on (a nation isn’t one person). Rather, the nations’ populations are traced back to Noah’s sons and some of the nations take the names of their penultimate descendant. So the theological and historical claim is that the nations of the ANE / Mediterranean region so-named got their population from Noah’s descendants. That would make sense in either a global or local flood view. If such a regional/global flood happened, and if survivors (with their wives) were capable of bearing children, given enough time, this would make real time sense. Whether in Israelite theology there are more benei elohim than seventy (I would think so) is incidental. The seventy sons of El comes from Ugarit. Within biblical usage, seventy (as you no doubt know) is a number that telegraphs “completeness” or “totality” (in this case, all the nations in the given region). The theological point corresponding to the historical circumstances would be that ALL the nations that arose after the flood weren’t Yahweh’s chosen. He would choose his own portion and create his own people in the wake of the Babel incident. Unless you know of another chosen people during the OT period, that would be a coherent theological claim that aligns with the regional circumstances. In other words, given the elements of the story, the historical circumstances are reasonable — and a theological claim follows upon those circumstances.
BTW, that link to local flood was horrible.
– Har would refer to hill and not mountain in this story?
– All the earth would become a desert because it said the waters “dried”, therefore it HAS to be local?
– That since Noah was an exception to the human corruption, that implies “Kol ” Haaretz doesn’t mean ALL the earth but that there is an exception as we’ll…..and some of the earth was left alone?
Come now.
You’re missing the point about the literalism of Psalm 104. That’s the point of the actual link. You can’t be literal there and have a global flood. If you are literal there, his point is that the language of the flood is malleable to accommodate Psalm 104. You need to go back and digest what he’s saying framed as he’s saying it.
And then let’s hear your approach to the psalm.
That was a great question by Hanan, and
point by KTA. And to go along with that. Thinking spiritually!—One of the main issues in all of this, is, God condescending to our languages. And we do see that idea in scripture–“Tongues of angels”— The fact that “God is Spirit”–” Remember, He says, “The whole of scripture can be summed up in this one sentence” Love your neighbor as yourself” -Thats the Holy Spirit, The Spirit that guided the heathen,or perhaps they rebelled against, who didn’t have a bible, its the Spirit that was from the beginning, the Spirit of “not doing any harm to your neighbor”. Another place,He says to us,don’t you understand, that I was not talking about bread?” And He asks us all “Are you so dull” that we don’t understand the spiritual meanings of His revelations to us? Its the “Spirit of the word”,the Spirit which will lead us into ALL truth, the Holy Spirit says, “not the letter”–If we just remember that the “Canon” and the idea of an exclusive authority, was not around in the beginning. It was just WHOEVER, was speaking by love, (the Holy Spirit),was listened to as speaking from God. That is why it is SOOOO spiritually understood,(which is the whole purpose of the book, to restore spiritual, pure understanding ) as to what actually is , the word of God, and what kind of language He uses, and what He is actually saying.I pray that this chimes to your heart Hanan
It’s really not that safe to presume there was no idea of canon before there was an agreement about the entire canon. All literate ancient cultures elevated certain texts as sacred above others. (In other words, the playing field wasn’t level with respect to all literary works). Incidentally, that doesn’t mean they were sacrosanct, either (i.e., could not be edited or added to). Even later Judaism’s concept of “oral Torah” wouldn’t conform to that notion.
Dr. Heiser,
I will try to keep this short and not take up much of your time. I have been using the Logos Software since 2008 and that is how I know about you. Why the Lord led me to you and your site I am not sure, but I have not been the same since (that is a good thing).
I have purchased most of the documentation on your site that is for sell and downloaded probably all of your free stuff too. I am fascinated by your simplicity in how you seem to approach the scriptures.
I am going through your completed first draft again and I visit your Divine Council site often and your other blogs too. Hopefully I will be able to get a copy of the proofs when they are available. I would love to see these books show up in the Logos Software too!!!
thanks – stay tuned for details. They will be in Logos format for sure.
While we are on the subject of what can be accepted into Canon-Can I ask you, was it possible that when the author of Enoch titled the writings “Words of Enoch” that He meant it in the sense of a Title, like Jesus said of John,”If you can accept it, He is Elijah” speaking of John?
I’m not sure I follow the question.
The question is about the issue of “Who actually wrote the book of Enoch?–I am going to take it as written by Enoch,until I am shown otherwise. And if it was not actually written by Enoch,the question above was, “Did the Qumran writers
just use “Enoch” as a title, like Jesus seems to of used “Elijah” as a title, when He said what He did about John? I am taking that you did not understand how that tied into “The Canon” in my question. It was just because I was wondering if they would take Enoch out of the Canon because they thought it was false, simply because the writer used anothers “name” like that , when it could of been just a title. While we are here brother Mike, I want to say I really want to flow with this project. When I saw the truth and teaching that God is “Restoring us as the Divine council” I fell in love with you, and all of those who are helping in this–LoL–Some of us are still searching on this issue of “Who actually wrote the book of Enoch?”–But I think it is so neat to be able to converse with you like this. I am your neighbor , here in Bend Oregon, and want to see this spread throughout the churches in the Northwest, and everywhere. It is sooo helpful. Anyway, I pray that God gives us love and light. –And speaking of light, I wonder if the answer to “Who actually wrote the book of Enoch” is simply to just “Lighten up” because, Whoever wrote it, had a Godly spirit, and so, no harm done.
No one knows who wrote 1 Enoch (2 Enoch and 3 Enoch are later; post-Christian). 1 Enoch seems to have been originally in Aramaic (fragments at Qumran). Given that much information (Aramaic is the oldest material), the person Enoch was certainly not the writer (Aramaic as a written language is nowhere near that old). It gets its name from Enoch being a / the central character.
Thanks for the insights into your own personal history, BTW.
I guess I need to be a little more clear on what the question I am trying to ask. I probably should tell you a little about myself so you know where I am coming from–I am 52 and like you, I was reborn when a very young teenager, and just like you, I was the guy in the school library who would spend hours reading Bible Theology, and deep books by Jesuit priest and other stuff. -LoL—But I went off to New Tribes Bible institute at 17, right there in Waukesha Wis, not to far from where you went to school to. Since they are a mission that goes to the most “other conscienced” people in the world, you can know that this idea of trying to put yourself in another consciousness, is not a new exercise for me and those who go to remote tribes like that.Enough–just to let you know where I am coming from—So when I say “Do you think that the people back then just didn’t have the idea that writing a book as if you were someone else was lieing, or plagiarism, or something like that”? You will know that I am thinking they had a different consciousness about it. I know you might say to me”There is tons of material on my website, concerning Enoch”, and I have read a good deal of it, and the Enoch 4 site is very helpful, but, (so far) I have not been able to find anyone thinking like I am on this. Do you have anything to tell us on this? Just now I am thinking though “Duh”–The “Spirit of Christ” in the prophets wrote these things, and “The law, given through Angels” Anyway Mike, can you help us with this?, Faithfuly yours, Robert Combis
The question still isn’t quite clear to me. The ancients didn’t have an ownership mentality to intellectual property like we do. There was no sense of copyright, and hence plagiarism is, by definition, sort of off the board. Pseudonymity was also common (and foreign to us, given our view of intellectual property). But beyond that, I’m not sure if I’m reading the question well.
Ok, the question is no longer revelant in light of what you said. But to be honest, I really didnt know what the word”plagiarism ” meant exactly, and it is not the word I would of used if I had known its exact meaning. But I thought you would understand what I meant when I refered to Jesus saying, ” Elijah has already come” in the person of John. That Elijah was a Title from that verse, not a personal name. And wondered if thats what they were doing in reguards to Enoch. Anyway, it doesnt matter now. But you said” Pseudonymity” was common,(but foreign to us) and THATS the thing I was looking for.
It seems than that were in agreement. Theology in the Bible is following are particular historical narrative. I think the only place I would disagree with you is that I believe the ancients believed what the bible says, which is that it was a global flood and that ALL people around them were descended from those that were begotten from Shem, Ham and Yapheth. Which after some time, coalesced into 70 different nations. It wasn’t just them joining other nations that existed around.
You said:
>The theological point corresponding to the historical circumstances would be that ALL the nations that arose after the flood weren’t Yahweh’s chosen.
Right. Now the next question would be, what happens if you don’t believe in ANY flood? What happens if you don’t believe in a “literal” Noah existing? What happens if you don’t believe such a table of nations came forth out of the flood and joined any other existing nations around (that is, if it was a regional flood)? How does it affect me today
I would also say the ancients believed what they wrote. The issue in regard to the flood is what were they actually claiming? Since that regions (Mediterranean, ANE) was all the world they knew, they would of course have believed the flood was total. Since the narrative can be read as a description within the bounds of their own worldview, to us the flood (taking that trajectory) would be less than global (the latter being an idea with which they were unfamiliar).
Are you the person in the question paragraph? Your switch from the second person description (which really points to a third person) to the first person in the last line is a little confusing. In other words, I doubt a person who doesn’t believe any of this would even ask the question of how it affects them. It would be like first concluding that there is no alien base on the moon and then asking how an alien base on the moon affects us. Since I don’t believe there’s an alien base on the moon, not only wouldn’t that idea affect me, I wouldn’t even ask the question.
I just need a little more clarity on what it is you’re asking.
Sorry for the confusion.
In a nutshell here it is: My “angst”, if you will. I believe in the concept of choosiness but not in the “pre-history.” So I believe in that God chose Israel (meaning, it actually happened in time and space), but I also believe much of that pre history to be myth. Myth with a purpose of teaching, but that it did not happen in time and space.
So is there a problem with such a theology? Does one NEED that pre-history (i.e. flood narrative, dispersion, table of nations etc) in order for choosiness to have validity?
(so yes, I am the one in the paragraph).
If this is your position (“the text is mythic, but still teaching something about what is real / true, but without corresponding point-for-point to real-time events/reality”), I’m actually not negatively predisposed to it. I know that the point of myth is to convey truths in a “different” way than a newspaper would. But I’m generous with the supernatural possibilities (i.e., I don’t know on what basis it’s really safe to say God couldn’t have done X).
To someone who takes that (your?) position above, the issue at hand becomes what is it that you DO believe (vs. what you don’t)? In simplest terms, who is your God – the one to whom your believing loyalty belongs, and no other? From that point on, the conversation would be about truth propositions with respect to the nature of that God and other theological items.
In other words, I think it’s quite possible (read: not a paradox) for someone to consider primeval biblical material as mythic and still be a believer in Yahweh and Jesus. Many would not see that as possible, but in my experience, I’ve met folks who navigate that way, and their faith in God/Jesus is genuine. It really comes down to the status people assign to theological propositions, not how much “real time accuracy” they see in the early chapters of Genesis. Personally, I think the approach bears some inconsistency in that it limits (on what basis?) the intersection of the divine with human life/presence on earth. But those are separate issues (related, yes, but separate).
Does that help?
Yes, it does help.
I guess to answer your question very simply (what I believe?), I would say I believe in everything from Abraham onwards. That to me, is where the actual story begins in time and space. That is what actuallyis, if you get my drift.
BTW, I am also not against supernatural possibilities, but as you have said before, Israel was not just the chosen people, they were also the product of their time and place. Meaning, along with their real life obligations and beliefs, crept in other beliefs (flood, Noah) that were native to their surrounding area. Yes, they utilized these ideas for their own theology (Babel) , but in the end, they do not reflect actual history. They reflect what they thought happened. I believe that is what Denis Lamoureux suggested in the last post you mentioned him.
So how does my respond sound to you? 🙂
which?
“mini-Christmas”? are you kidding, this is so much better than Christmas…Christmas is a pagan holiday (haha) just playing. Seriously though, I absolutely can not wait to buy these books. My blog should be up and running in time to do my part to promote. This stuff is priceless….thanks so much for helping us learn ! EddieGnz
you’re welcome, but note that they won’t launch until Feb or March (that’s the plan anyway).
Ok, so we have Christ, in whom are hidden ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge , and we have Adam, who was just like Christ in every way except for not having the knowledge of good and evil, which made him like God. Now, think of dreams, where reality is created from the inside out, and we have the truth and the light to understand.Dreams show us that reality is outside of what sinful man has tried to put forth as reality. Sinful man has made a DEcent from truth and light.But Christ brings us back to it. So there is no time with God, .You do believe what happens in your dreams? I am not talking about the content of our dreams here, but simply that things are created in them. This is hard to understand for some because we have been influenced by MANS ideas about dreams etc. But we see the connection from dreams to reality, like in Daniel etc. I do believe in the six days creation teaching (with the understanding of this anyway)because there is no time with God, and He wanted to say it in a way we can relate to, not this billions of years nonsense.This is the way Christ gave wittness to.I mean, I GET what Mike says about Job, and that he used the “earth on pillars, hard sky”, etc. So then Christ comes along and reveals actually that “There is no time with God” in statements like “Before Abraham was, I am” but He also reveals that “Whatever He says, is the truth” So we must understand that reality comes from the inside,out, i.e., being in the Spirit of God, and so what you speak, or dream(IS) . Another way to say this is We have to think of Adam, the son of God, JUST like Christ, with the consciousness of BEING the beginning, not subject to it, and that time only began when Adam got the knowledge of good and evil. And so we can believe in the fact that it is just WHATEVER Christ says,(that is in line with this all encompassing declaration of, and (Spirit) of God, that, “Love does no harm”, so love is the total fulfillment of everything. It is a MORAL predicament that man is in, not an intellectual one. So, and therefore , can we think it is wise to give any credence at all to ideas from men these days who are un-MORALY making up ideas, and who because, “The fear of the LORD is only the BEGINNING of knowledge”—are just fools? But WHATEVER He speaks, is the truth, simply because He spoke it, whether He says “pillars, and hard sky”, Job stuff, or, six days creation, because He (IS) the beginning, not subject to it, so He could say anything He wants, just to gracefully condescend to our languages.But should we think it wise to put things in an intellectual context, and not a moral one? We could I reckon,to a point, but I dont believe in the bilions of years . There simply is no time with God, and God simply creates things as in dreams.(NOW we mean, He is the LIVING GOD) So we can stick to what Christ says about creation, because He is speaking, like as from dreams to reality.Lets ask ourselves”What consciousness did the ancients have about dreams?” They didnt have thoughts like”Oh, dreams are not reality” so this is going along with what this book is about. To keep us on track, lets remember that ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in HIM, looking back, and looking forward in the eternal circle. As He said, “Before Abraham was, I AM”. That will give us the consciousness we need.So we dont have to say “I only believe from Abraham on up” —-So Adam ,who didnt have a consciousness of time , suddenly found himself with that consciousness, but Christ reveals that He is the beginning, and the second Adam, and that Christ(in Adam) was there AS the beginning. Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil, though, to make him completely like Christ, but Christ reveals,as He says, “Before Abraham, (or Adam) was, I AM” Sin(separating yourself from God) brought the consciousness of time.And also the mis-understanding that things are created from the outside in(in other words , mans nonsense out side Christ)instead of the simple light, that Christ reveals.With God, ALL things are possible!
Regarding dreams; sometimes a human experiences something that is not a dream in the most common sense of the word. I’m referring to what is called in the Greek NT as Ekstasis ἔκστασις (Acts 10:10, Acts 11:5, Acts 22:17). The first day or two after the trance experience is when the person knows that it was not a dream but rather something very real that they actually experienced. As more time elapses (and for various protective psychological phenomena) the person begins to think that maybe it was just a very realistic dream, while in fact it was no dream at all. A trance is not a dream…a trance is a very ultra real experience that excludes the physical flesh and blood part of the human and only involves the soul/spirit of the human. Angels are often the ones that induce the Trance state and in the Bible it was sometimes messengers that God sent to induce the Trance state for the purpose of facilitating the communication by way of an experience rather than words (words are severely limiting). John the revelation was in a trance state when he experienced what he wrote in Revelation. Jesus was in a trance state when he was being tempted by Satan (God allowed this trance state which is why Satan could show all the kingdoms of the world to Jesus in a very short moment in time)…how else would Satan have shown Jesus all of the kingdoms of the world in such a short moment. Did Satan take Jesus on a ride on his fast UFO? Jesus did indeed have a real flesh and blood body right? The problem we humans face now is that not only do good angels have the ability to induce a trance but the fallen angels also retained their ability to induce a trance state. It is this trance state that enables the fallen angels to cause a human to have an alien abduction experience (as well as many other non-alien related experiences). The word Ekstasis actually occurs four other times in the Greek NT but the same forces that caused the true meaning of “Benay Ha-elohim” to be lost to the American church (especially in Deut 32:8) also caused the true meaning of Ekstasis to be lost. It does not mean to be in amazement or in awe in the same sense that we think of the word “amazement” in America. But you can rest assured that after a human experiences a trance that they will surely be in amazement and in awe.
Praises for the comment about dreams Eddie– Thank you. As God gives revelations on these things, I am sure it is going to be edifying as we share in regards to this book.One of the things that is of interest is the whole truth that Adam was the first son of God, like Christ. Dreams, trances, prophetic words, etc. seem to be a view into the way things were, and are meant to be. And what God is restoring. Back when Adam was immortal and didn’t sleep,and what ever he delightfully thought of, like in our dreams now, was given like in answer to prayer, to be reality!! So we can see into what life is meant to be in God-given trances, prophetic words, dreams etc. when Adam was without sin , and the things he spoke into existence, as a “partaker of the divine nature” and who “called things that are not, as though they were” given by God, as he council-ed with Him. But it can be pretty well discerned that these things come from the inside out, by Gods Spirit,without this naturalistic stuff that men have made up, and show life as it was meant to be before the fall.Loved what you say about “amazment and awe”!
Mike,
You asked ‘which’ comment: It was my reply to your comment where you ended it with “Does that help”? I wrote:
Yes, it does help.
I guess to answer your question very simply (what I believe?), I would say I believe in everything from Abraham onwards. That to me, is where the actual story begins in time and space. That is what actuallyis, if you get my drift.
BTW, I am also not against supernatural possibilities, but as you have said before, Israel was not just the chosen people, they were also the product of their time and place. Meaning, along with their real life obligations and beliefs, crept in other beliefs (flood, Noah) that were native to their surrounding area. Yes, they utilized these ideas for their own theology (Babel) , but in the end, they do not reflect actual history. They reflect what they thought happened. I believe that is what Denis Lamoureux suggested in the last post you mentioned him.
Mike
I am caught up now 😉 I think these titles are great… of course those of us who have been reading the Myth Book drafts will always remember it that way. But I predict this sells really well for you! I have been discussing the Deu 32 Worldview for a few years ago in my work and citing you, so it’s about time for you get some popular recognition! Thanks for your scholarship. Congratulations on both releases.
I’m new here but have been enjoying your writing for a few years and wanted to drop you a line. IMO Biblical literature appears to present the divine council as an important feature of the biblical world view. Your scholarly work has been very beneficial to me and I want to thank you for your forthright, honest and accurate work. I enjoyed your exchanges with Greg Boyd and look forward to both your new books. I will also be reading Boyd’s spiritual warefare works. I am from an “occult” background and work within what some would consider esoteric Christianity, a sea-change for me given where I was a decade ago. I thought you might be interested to know that your work has had a positive impact on a person who knows Christ in a setting that is likely very unlike your own. Of course I don’t know that for sure. In any case you are in my prayers. I also like the greek and hebrew materials you and your colleagues at Logos have developed. I use them regularly. Cool stuff. Be well.
Thanks – appreciated this. I’d like to hear what you do (“work within what some would consider esoteric Christianity”) in an email.