Divine Origin | History of the Bible | Dr. Michael Heiser
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 01. 2023
- Here, Dr. Heiser talks about the divine origin of the Bible. This clip is from our course, History of the Bible.
#michaelheiser #asot #historyofthebible
Follow us on social media:
Facebook / asotjax
Instagram / awkng_school
Learn more about AWKNG School of Theology and get exclusive content and promotions by subscribing to our email list.
celebration65386.activehosted... - Zábava
So, what you're saying is, He patiently walks with us and forms us throughout our lives to accomplish the tasks He has laid out for us?
A long-term, loving relationship with our heavenly Father seems WAY better than a one-off mystical experience.
Dear Michael, thank you for what you are doing. I have several masters degrees, one of which is a seminary degree plus several doctoral classes and nowhere in my education have I ever heard what you've shared. I'm very grateful. "Reversing Hermon" arrived today and I will be reading some of that tonight. You remain in my prayers for health and recovery! I just wanted to share my gratitude for you and let you know that you are an active subject of my prayers.
❤
Was this recently filmed? If so, I praise God for Michael's progress... Please let it be so.
I hope so, too!
So do I 🙏🏾
3 months ago
👊✌️
This snippet does well enough to identify the origin of scripture but doesn't speak to what is 'scripture'. For example, I have two large volumes, 'The Apocrypha and Pseudepigripha of the Old Testament', are those all 'scripture'? The Dead Sea Scrolls? The Book of Jubilees? The Book of Enoch (In all its forms)?
We know that these things, in their entireties, muddy the doctrinal waters. And, if Luke was "prepared" to write Acts as 'scripture', how do we reconcile the differences in Acts 7 to what we have elsewhere as 'scripture'?
I am curious as to what the specific differences you are referring to in "Acts 7 and elsewhere as "scripture"" Can you elaborate?
@@michaelglass9604 Sure... Here goes...
First, In verse 4 (All verses are from Acts 7) we're told that Abraham left Haran/Charran after the death of his father, Terah. The fact that Abraham did not leave his family until after the death of his father is not recorded in our Old Testament scriptures, so where did Stephen get it?
Second, in verse 14 we learn the Joseph called 75 persons to him in Egypt. However, our Old Testament says that Jacob left Canaan with just 66 and the total of the house of Jacob including Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim already in Egypt is just 70. There is a difference of 5 persons. People say that Stephen got the 75 from the Septuagint/LXX but that "scripture" has the children of Joseph being both fathers and grandfathers.
Thirdly, in verse 16, we are told that Abraham bought a burial plot from Emmor in Sychem. However, we are told in our Old Testament that Jacob bought that plot and Abraham bought a different plot (The cave at Machpelah) in Mamre.
Fourth, in verses 22 and 23 we learn of the high esteem of Moses in Egypt as well as his age (full forty) when he slew the Egyptian. Neither is in our Old Testament so from where did Stephen get this?
Fifth, in verse 25 we learn that Moses misjudged the Hebrew's mindset which in not in our Old Testament. From where did Stephen get this?
Sixth, in verse 30 we learn that Moses was in Midian until 40 years expired and then he saw the angel in the burning bush. This specific length of time is not in our Old Testament so from where did Stephen get it?
Seventh, I actually do not number this among the differences, but I think it is worthy of noting. When Stephen "quotes" Amos 5:26-27 there in verse 43 of Acts 7, he changes things up a bit and freely changes 'Damascus' to 'Babylon'. I believe this was done with intent because Amos prophesied to the Northern kingdom and Stephen was speaking to Judeans. I believe this was done to bring to their mind their own carrying away by Nebuchadnezzar.
Clearly, Stephen was not sticking to what we know as the Masoretic text, and we have several apparent contradictions. What I've seen over the years is that most commentators gloss over or ignore these differences. Or, they accept the Septuagint/LXX but still can't get the 75 to work out because they miss completely the issue with Leah's listed offspring.
Thoughts?
@@mcgeorgerl I don’t have a clue and not a scholar. But Luke didn’t write it. He was transcribing what was said. If that's how it was said, then Luke was just being accurate to what the disciple said.
The text does not say but maybe Stephen’s lack of knowledge of the scripture kept him from being a minister and instead he was asked to be a waiter to widows. Apparently note the brightest bulb on the tree so he got some things wrong.
Maybe his memory was affected from the anticipation of being stoned to death and he remembered a few things incorrectly or just made them up under pressure. Humans do things like that all the time. This was a snapshot of one event of a fallible human being.
Stephen’s memory does not alter the gospel message; it just shows he is human or just has a bad memory under the pressure of death. When I am stressed out, I sometimes forget where I parked my car. Like I said, "I don’t have a clue and not a scholar" Human gets things wrong all the time.
@@michaelglass9604 We know from the scriptural text that Stephen was a powerful speaker. We get this from Acts 6:10: "And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake". So here we see that the Jewish priests were, apparently, unable to contend with Stephen because of his wisdom and resorted to "false witnesses" to permanently shut him up. What we have in Acts 7 is just Stephen's defense of the charges brought against him.
Scripture tells us that as he made his defense, they "saw his face as it had been the face of an angel" (Acts 6:15) and was "... full of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 7:55). We have nothing in scripture to suggest that he was wrong, making things up on-the-fly, fearful or unlearned. We're given quite the opposite picture of the scene.
So, if the writer of Acts was "prepared" as Heiser says, and scripture has all of the values of 2nd Timothy 3:16 as shown in the opening presentation, one would think that we should be able to reconcile scripture-with-scripture.
@@mcgeorgerl Yes, we know form scripture, but scripture is also the thing you are questioning.
Can a “powerful speaker” get things wrong?
"And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake". Well, then these guys would have not been the first Jews to have been lacking the knowledge of scripture, would they? Did you notice guys did not speak up and challenge the discrepancies in Stephen’s defense but instead go right to the killing. Why didn’t they notice his errors. Better to have discredited and let him live than make him a martyr. Maybe Stephen was accurate in his defense because he used the traditions of the elders and quotes form the Tanakh. Jesus would use the traditions of the elders to correct and assault the Pharisees often. Maybe Stephen did the same thing.
“We have nothing in scripture to suggest that he was wrong” Wouldn’t the fact he was wrong strongly suggest he was wrong?
Why does the metaphor “saw his face as it had been the face of an angel" (Acts 6:15) and was . . . " have anything to do with the accuracy of his presentation? Did others think he was an angel speaking on behave of God? His job was that of a waiter not a prophet or apostle.
Can a human be full of the Holy Spirit and the human still get details wrong?
Steven is an accused disciple making a defense in front of a Jewish tribunal, and he knows he does not have a chance and will be stoned to death. That is a great deal of pressure on the limbic system to recall facts (no scripture does not speak of a limbic system). But faulty memory happens to rape victims and POWs. Luke never makes the claim Stephen is accurate in his facts. How would Luke even know it if Stephen was inaccurate.
Stephen was not an Apostle. Nothing he said takes away from the gospel message or weakens scripture’s claims about Christ. And honestly, I am not claiming Im right about this, but it seems plausible and beats the alternative of concluding the discrepancies are irreconcilable. I am sure B Ehrman would not be happy with my unscholarly defense, but oh well! And you very well may be right and want to reconcile the points you make. Good luck!