A Critique of Heiser's Interpretation of the Nephilim
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 01. 2022
- Our website: www.justandsinner.org
Patreon: / justandsinner
The church I'm serving: redeemerlutheranchurch.square...
This is the second part of my engagement with Michael Heiser's Divine Council Theology. In this video I discuss his approach to the Nephilim and argue that there are other viable interpretations.
Before everyone points it out, yes somehow I mixed up Deut. 32 and Ps. 82 at one point.
Your objections to Mr. Heiser ARE rather incoherent.
We're NOT interested in what you, Augustine or others think.
Let the Bible speak for itself. Put those verses on the screen.
Don't tell us. Show us. And then you can explain them away. :))
Biblical theology seeks to apply the Bible through the history of redemption, and systematic theology seeks to use the Bible as a whole for today. Biblical theology is simply theology that is biblical and is based on the teachings of the Scriptures. Systematic theology will be contemporary biblical theology.
This channel has one of the best intro songs.
It makes it so that song is always in my head and then I think “this song is great, but some of the lyrics are weird!” 😂
@@breannawilliamson9787 Do you know what the name of the song is? I have no clue where its from, I just heard it from this channel lol.
@@dwong9289 A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, by Martin Luther.
As a point of interest, this hymn became popular because of the line, "take they goods, fame, child and wife". Apparently some of the Roman Catholic states of the HRE banished parents of Lutheran congregations within their boarders while keeping the children
So true. Seems appropriate bcuz it reminds me of arrangements of Bach for Classical Guitar & wasn't Bach a Lutheran?
For anyone to say that Dr Michael Heiser gives the impression that he has some secret knowledge that no one else has discovered shows a profound lack of knowledge regarding his teachings.
He has stated literally dozens of times that “he has never had an original thought” he simply assembles knowledge that has been well know throughout Christianity.
He points out that these interpretations are well known amongst academics however they have been concealed in favor of more “non spiritual” interpretations and doctrines especially in America and other western nations.
Again, anyone stating that he is claiming special novel understanding either hasn’t reviewed his work or is reading their criticism into his work based on their opposition.
I fully agree, just started reading his Unseen Realm and the first thing he states is that "[He] cheated" and took from other scholars. Of course it doesn't diminish his work but Dr. Heiser has been humble throughout his presentation.
I want to say "big thank you" for taking on the subject. I was raised Wels and I'm currently the secretary at an LCMS, and I've been sad that no pastor wants to explore any of these things. Thank you for being willing to explore the tough things even if we don't have the answers. The world offers all sorts of theories. I'm completely comfortable saying "I don't know." But I do want to attempt to weed out the garbage as I study, and from what I hear from the world.
Again, thank you.
Both videos on this have been great! Thank you!
I appreciate the way you examine this without ad hominem attacks, as I’ve seen on both sides of this topic over the years.
I do not believe he was ever saying he had secret knowledge that the church did not have, I think he’s saying broadly that the church does not talk about it, or teach the subject, not that they don’t know, or that he had some sort of revelation, it’s just a subject that the churches generally try to avoid because of various reasons😊
Agreed. You get it right. It is better known as 'lost' knowledge. And I have my PhD in such things... (Piled higher and deeper - PhD)
thank you so much for this. It's very helpful. Clarity is so very important. Thoughtful and thorough. I am grateful.
Please do more of this!
You've gained credibility with me for saying you believe in Mosaic authorship
My question is, when this viewpoint seems to clarify all of these “difficult texts” can there be a point to agree this may be the intended interpretation? If the change in the supernatural view occurs later in church history and it created more difficult interpretations, then wouldn’t the early church fathers view and the fact that it clarifies these difficult questions seem to be one we hold of higher view? My follow up, what text is made unclear by interpreting with Heiser’s view?
Thank you for this series of teaching. God's peace be with you.
Thank you SO MUCH for this clear teaching
Thank you for just pointing out the obvious truth and consistency of the narrative!
Jordan, you mentioned Psalm 82. I would love to hear your thoughts on that passage which is a stronghold of Heiser’s Divine Council theory. Thanks! BTW, I love your academic approach void of ad homonym attacks. It’s refreshing to watch you approach the arguments without sounding like you have an ax to grind. Bravo!
I agree with you. Thank you for your patience and humility.
I'm trying to learn more about Lutheranism. Is Lutheran Church Missouri Synod part of one of the two big Lutheran denominations? Or is it it's own denomination? Thanks!
It is its own denomination
28:30 Pretty sad that it’s controversial among so-called “Christian intellectuals” to simply affirm what Jesus and all the early church believed: that the Five books of Moses were written by…wait for it…Moses.
If the Nephelim were of the Godly line of Seth, why would they be called "the fallen ones"?
Exactly. Furthermore, why would the godly line of Seth produce abnormally large children with the daughters of men?
@@Lemola8 I heard this from SDA cultist he said it is like crossing a lion and a tiger and getting a liger, which is mutated and larger. So it is not unreasonable. It is just highly unlikely.
Lutherans are just too weak and afraid they have tried to erase anything supernatural from Christianity. It's pathetic really. I had to quit being Lutheran because of it
Yes, precisely @@Lemola8
@@Lemola8Obviously, by the timeline of Genesis Chapter 6 there has been a population explosion. Many people were living to ages above 300 yrs old and having multiple children. Cain's lineage vs the lineage of Seth (the replacement of Abel, who Cain murdered) .
Thanks this was really helpful. I've been trying to catagorise Dr. Heiser's teachings as well, because I think there are some helpful elements there as well, as you've pointed out. The simultineity between heavenly and earthly realities is another way in which I've tried to consolidate the uses of the term Son of God; which is ultimately realised in Christ, the Godman and Ladder of Heaven Himself. Also: Prolegomena is an awesome book!
I am enjoying your videos on this subject, but given the point you made in your first video about letting the New Testament interpret our Old Testament understanding, could you maybe follow-up regarding Jude and Peter's use of Gen. 6? I was taught in Bible College that due to the NT use of the passage, the "Sons of God" in Gen. 6 are most assuredly fallen angels.
I wrote this right before you acknowledged Jude and Peter in your sign off. 😂 Please continue with this and talk about those texts and perhaps include Augustine's handling of them. Thank you for your ministry!
Please continue on this subject
I am fairly new to your channel. I found it because I was struggling with Dr. Michael Heiser's books for a while now.
Remember that Heiser, received an MA in Ancient History from the University of Pennsylvania, and an MA and PhD in the Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (with a minor in Classical studies). That DOES NOT make him a theologian and that is his downfall. He's trying to be. I think that we have to remember that 1st Enoch was never part of the Jewish Canon and neither were any of the deuterocanonical/ apocryphal books. And there is a very good reason for that.
I think that when Dr Michael Heiser fills in his, or what he thinks are the missing keys to understanding Old Testament writings by using non-canonical literature in association with the intertestamental cultural writings, that he's setting himself as well as the readers of his book up for an unclear, skewed view of the topic filled with disappointment. Imagine if Christianity Carries On for another 2,000 years because of the delay of the return of Christ, another 2,000 years, and people 2,000 years hence try to understand our current Christian Culture by using books and literature that were part of this secular culture as a means to fill in their blanks. Mainstream media, popular literature etc etc that would be horrible. You can't trust non-canonical sources for anything theological and it appears that what was written and said in a lot of those non-canonical and period-based writings that he cites from and gets his information from are the very things that the Lord has been telling us to be careful of, to come out of, and not trust neither imitate.
I think that you are correct Jordan and everything you've said (and I've watched several of your videos now). I have subscribed to your Channel, and I think you're hitting the bullseye 100% of the time on this matter. Thank you for making these videos, I think this was the confirmation that I needed in order to decide what to do with Michael Heiser's books.
Sola scripture brother, Deus Vult!
I don't know how much of Heiser you have listened to or read but I would suggest you doing more. He lays out that most of his reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls are to be used in a more forensic nature grammatically. He uses references to denote context not draw conclusions at least that is how I have found his explanations. I don't agree with all Heiser says but I admit I am not Lutheran nor do I stand with predestination. Heiser gives great context to many many different ideas that I was taught growing up. Even if you don't agree with all he has to say I think you will .... as he used to say "Never read the Bible the same way again". God Bless.
I know its a chunk of time but Sentinel Apologetics youtube channel put out a 6 hour piece by Heiser and it's a good start.
Whenever I hear major big time scholars hashing back and forth on how Genesis 6 is supposed to go I can't help but remember the very first time I seriously read it as a teen. Having read very little of the Bible at all I remember understanding it to be real angels came from heaven and mated with real human women creating real giant children in the process of their mixing.
I was reading a King James Bible which said ' giants ', if it had been another that said Nephilim I probably wouldn't know what that was supposed to be.
It also said they were the ' mighty men of old, men of reknown ' which I instantly understood as to where all the ' Greek God ' folklore came from.
I never saw it any differently after 50 years no matter what super Bible Hebrew and Greek speaking scholars try to tell me.
The fact that Jesus, and the Apostles quoted from those sources (even though non canon) shows that they are not necessarily to be ignored either.
@@sammcrae8892 Sorry that is one of the rare things I disagree with. Heiser and others keep claiming they were quoting 1 Enoch.
That is an assumption. I will try to illustrate my point. They say that because Peter used the word "chain of gloomy darkness" proves he read 1 Enoch because 1 Enoch uses the similar phrase.
That is just speculation. There are other ways that this could have occurred. For example there could be a sign on the wall that reads "chains of gloomy darkness" and the author of 1 Enoch could walk by, read the sign, and think that sounds cool I will use it in my next fan fiction novel!
Then Peter could be walking past, see the same sign on the wall and then use the phrase too. What is something popular? "may the force be with you"
If someone says "may the force be with you" they are quoting Star Wars and they absolutely 100 percent watched Star Wars and are familiar with it.
Except it is my mom and she has never watched Star Wars and only vaguely hear about Darth Vader and Chewie and Yoda, and heard "may the force be with you" from some kids at the playground.
So Peter and Jude can write "may the force be with you" and "may the force be with you" can be in 1 Enoch. and Peter did not read 1 Enoch but they all watched Star Wars
It’s important to remember that in those days also women didn’t really have a say in whom they married. So the emphasis on sons of God marrying daughters of men, emphasizes more the fact that men chose the women, the women didn’t choose.
The believers were turned away from God by their flesh which lusted after heathen women, a common problem in the church all the way through. Look at Samson for example. It’s also important to note that the intermarrying with these women destroyed almost completely the race of believers until only Noah and his family are left up to the flood. God then cleanses the earth so to preserve the remnant of believers who are few. After the flood the Lord remembers his covenant (Genesis 3:15) and continues on with his plan of the redemption of man which Abel clung to. Then God continues his saving work through the line of Shem.
It is worth noting, that there were likely a variety of approaches to individual consent to marriage in different times and places. We see some deference to the woman’s choice reflected in the betrothal of Rebecca to Isaac. But your point still likely stands at least as to the question of initiation of the proposal. Though if it was being arranged by the family, I’m not familiar with a tradition that says the one side should make the first move, but my familiarity with this ancient custom is limited.
Obviously, you don't know women very well. And you didn't live in those times, so you really don't know how much say they had in who they married.
Rebecca chose. Plenty of women chose. Parents and the daughter usually had to agree, though, and it was a compatibility match in front of a love match.
I agree with Heiser here, however, I’m grateful for the Lutheran engagement with the divine. It’s refreshing to experience every Sunday morning, and in general to see it in Lutheran writings and teachings, etc.
Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. I ultimately don't agree with the Sethite understanding, but I'm grateful that people are engaging with the DC worldview from other perspectives. Healthy discussion is a must for real growth.
Same. But it's still nice to hear the other side. Well layed out arguments and think about some topics from a different angle.
I think that was great. I do have a question though. So does this mean that a Christian should not marry a non-Christian? Would it be a sin to?
I've never seen a Christian marry a non-christian and preserve their faith intact. I've never seen a devout Christian marry a liberal Christian and preserve their faith intact. Why on earth would you become one flesh with someone whose first priority is not your first exclusive priority? That's what it means to have a God.
Agree or disagree, you add value by offering a fairly comprehensive and well spoken rebuttal. I plan to explore your channel in order to better understand Lutheran doctrines. Thanks.
I do find Heiser's position on these things to be quite strongly founded, but I also appreciate that he, as well as you, seem to be open to the idea that we have to realize that the text in question is a difficult one. Thank you for sharing an opposing view without deriding him. I find a lot of value in fellowship in Christ overriding debates on text.
I'm an RC that has recently found your channel a few weeks ago, and enjoying it thoroughly. Your old yoyoing video is great too, as a fellow thrower.
Great thoughts on Heiser. One thing that's particularly bothered me about Heiser is that I recently saw online that he tries to justify the Incarnation as proof that angels (or other gods as he would refer to them) could procreate with humans (never mind that YHWH is specifically considered Creator in Judaism, not created angels). Despite his ANE knowledge, I am uncomfortable with some of his theological conclusions.
Thanks for great content and I look forward to more!
Lol? You are uncomfortable with Heisers accurate and sound conclusions. Yet you are fine with the Roman Catholic idolatry, worshiping Mary, saints, fake relics, rosary... You are OK with being in the demonic cult warned of in 1 Timothy 4 but you are weirded out by Heiser talking truth.
@@br.m begging the question there?
@@ContemplativeSoul Sorry I don't understand. Why did you answer my question with another question? I asked you "lol?"
You were serious? Heisers words make you queasy but you feel fine to worship idols and be in a backslidden pagan cult etc etc. OK, thanks thats all I was wondering. Bye
@br.m "begging the question" is a literal phrase- Google it. You are "begging the question".
@@ContemplativeSoul You seem desperate. Why are you fantasizing about me begging you?
Do you dream about the pope making you a saint some day so cultists can bow down and worship you and beg you to intercede for them?
Jordan, thanks so much for this. What an excellent case for the non-supernatural interpretation. I disagreed with the interpretation when I read it in the LCMS Lutheran study bible, but after this video, I have to seriously reconsider
I've been a Confessional Lutheran since my infant baptism. While I technically disagree with many points in Luther's Genesis Lectures, they remain the most edifying commentary on Genesis I've ever read. I think Heiser is right about the history, but Luther and Cooper are right about the spiritual teaching.
I think even Luther would justify me here. In his Genesis Lectures, he (with much irritation) admits that the moon does not make its own light but reflects light from the sun. Yet the point he wanted to make requires the absolute literal interpretation so he just GOES AHEAD and makes his point and doesn't care about the science of the day, EVEN THOUGH he admits that it's true. If only the LCMS could take this approach!
@@Mygoalwogel No. By the way, nobody really understands what light is and how it functions. For all we know the moon is generating light but uses the sun to do it. What is light? How does it function?
Hi Dr Cooper, I have a question about who the text considers to be Sons of God. It is clear that in the New Testament the gospel of Luke refers to Adam as Son of God. After Cain kills Abel he marries a woman who is not his sister. Who are Cain's Parents-in-Law? Where did these other people come from? When Genesis 6 talks about the Sons of God, could it also refer to the other humans that were made by God but not specifically described in the Bible? And not refer to fallen gods or descendants of Seth?
Dr. Cooper I really appreciated your exegesis regarding Moses explaining to the Israelites on who God is, how the world got the way is and where they come from. Fits perfectly with the wider context of scripture. Is this your original hermeneutic? Or could you point me in the direction of where you got it from?
Thank you brother. Good job
Lastly, what do you do with the giant language throughout the scriptures. What are they and why is it important that they are always killed?
I have so appreciated your videos on Michael Heiser, especially the explanation of what contexts we are to use to interpret OT Scripture, with the perspective of Jesus being the priority.
Dr. Heiser was credentialed but not infallible. He tended to create more problems than he solved. His Nephilology and demonology weren’t biblical.
Here are a couple of examples:
"Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s 'All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal'"
"Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus' genealogy"
THANK YOU FOR THIS!
I am thankful that you are critiquing Mike Heiser! I have been listening to him for a year or so. I’m looking for balance!
TY Dr. Cooper. I have always held to the "Sons Of God" being supernatural angelic beings. One reason amongst others is a clear distinction in scripture between "Sons of God" (supernatural beings-angels) and "Sons of Adam" which refers to mankind. that being said, you helped me greatly understand the "Sethite" interpretation (view) more clearly. I must admit, one of the mysteries with the supernatural/angelic interpretation is, how were angels able to impregnate the women of men? Gospel First for all of us. May Our Good Lord richly bless you.
Man please listen to the giants episode of the Lord of Spirits podcast. They answer exactly this question with great depth. They are Orthodox Priests and connect this knowledge with the Church Fathers.
We were created in their image. They have the same bodies as us (males w penises). It's really just that simple. They just happen to live on the other side of the supernatural / natural veil. Hard to except because of centuries of art / architecture / cultural influence subconsciously brainwashing all of us to think that angels are ghostly cherubs with wings. They ALWAYS show up in Scripture as human males. There is no deception in God, so rest assured when he sends angels He's not deceitfully cloaking them as human males. I'm convinced that's how they always appear, both in our dimension and in theirs. This is also why Paul says we may entertain angels unawares... because they literally look just like us.
@@jeremyfrost3127 No, angels are spiritual beings that can manifest themselves as physical people when they enter our realm. There’s also nothing in the Bible that says being made in the Image has to do with appearance. It has everything to do with representing God and behaving like him, we are to image (imitate) him so that we can become like him.
Well, "the 'Sons Of God' being supernatural angelic beings" is all-encompassing so inaccurate but as per Job 38:7, it can refer to non-human beings. The "Sethite" interpretation (view) is very much a late comer of a view and creates more problems than it solves. As for "how were angels able to impregnate the women of men" well, Gen 6 tells you: they got married and did it the ol' fashioned way.
Angels can take on human form. They can eat, drink and even kill people. Sex? Easy. 😇
"Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares."
"But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate."
"That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning-there were all the dead bodies!"
Excellent study
Your understanding of who the Nephilim were is also found in Calvin. I held tightly to this view until relatively recently. I have tried listening to Heiser's account but found his approach distasteful and his conclusions impossible to follow. As you pointed out, it seems like shoehorning a lot of stuff that isn't clearly in Scripture. I'm still on the fence with my understanding of the Nephilim. I believe Lord of Spirits podcast offers a *better* take on Nephilim and their account of the "Divine Council" than Heiser. LoS is more compelling because they connect more dots, comporting Scripture, deuterocanonicals, ANE literature, and some archeology. Again, I'm not saying they are right but I am saying LoS does a better job. I still think it requires a certain amount of shoehorning. LoS is great fun to listen to and lets me nerd out a bit trying on very foreign-sounding interpretations to my formerly uber-Reformed understandings. Here's a relevant episode: www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/angels_demons_ii_the_divine_council
Heiser is kind of a red pill for many, LOS really amp it up to a whole other level and frame all of it much better theologically. Heiser is pretty sus theologically, especially his views towards tradition and his eschatology falls far short.
LoS is much cooler than Heiser, I agree.
Yeah, and the issue with Heiser not drawing from Tradition (sacramental theology, etc) heavily enough is not an issue with LOS.
Did you not mention jude 6-7 or 2nd Peter 2:4, which both support Angelic beings?
Spot on
Is your general view of miracle and supernatural things cessationist?
Also, I don’t love heiser but I think there are some really strong arguments for his interpretation due to how it more thoroughly explains other major religious or at least mythological views. For instance chinese mythology and mountains and celestial places are extremely connected. And I’ve never heard it from this perspective before - but when I hear it I also hear Chinese and even Japanese mythology explained. It gives a common context to all world religions while still holding that Christ is the center and be all of everything.
Aside from his methodological approach, is there anything that you would affirm from his view (I’ve heard several, but it gets lost over all) - and - how do you deal with the ancient near east explanations of heavenly and physical creatures? Is it all farce, ancient and grossly misunderstood? Where would you place all of those beliefs? Legit? Ill-legit? Too legit?
Anyone who does not believe in supernatural entities might as well throw their Bible in the garbage can.
I did not know that there was a Sethite view to this verse of Genesis. It was enlightening to hear your critique.
... and if you're in the Southeast Michigan area and looking for LCMS Church, come to Hooe Warren! We'd love to welcome you!
Dr. Cooper:
You recognize how the Enochic literature interprets Gen. 6 and ultimately disagree, but don't you think Jude is riffing of Enochic literature when he talks about angels committing sexual immorality? It wouldn't be surprising that Jude would do that, considering he also references the Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch in his book. Furthermore, the similarity between the part where he talks about both angels and the men of Sodom going after "other flesh", and the Testament of Naphtali is stunning:
But ye shall not be so, my children, recognizing in the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, and in all created things, the Lord who made all things, that ye become not as Sodom, which changed the order of nature.
In like manner the Watchers also changed the order of their nature, whom the Lord cursed at the flood, on whose account He made the earth without inhabitants and fruitless.
This is talking about the sons of God in gen 6, and Jude seems to clearly be riffing off of it when he says:
And angels who did not keep their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling place, He has kept in eternal restraints under darkness for the judgment of the great day,just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in sexual perversion and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
I take this to be a knockdown argument for the conclusion that the "sons of God" are angels.
They receive the title "sons of God" because they are directly created by God, vs being fathered by a man (based on the will and or desire of man). Calling Adam a 'son of God' makes sense. It also makes sense that 'sons of God' could refer to spiritual creatures created by God.
The issue is those who say it was *just* mortal rulers changing all of mankind are also those who *don't care* that we currently have mortal rulers changing all of mankind!
a video about Margaret barker would be great
I recently discovered Heiser and his material. I don't necessarily believe everything he says, but I do appreciate his emphasis on the supernatural, because I feel that in these postmodern days we have a bad tendency to dismiss the supernatural world view. It seems like we accept (some of us anyway), the existence of God, and maybe a few angels, but don't want anything to do with actually accepting that there's quite a lot of things that go on in the spiritual realm, but since we don't perceive them, and our modern world view wants to deny their existence -- we thus overlook many things that can help our understanding of God and His creation, and also how these things can effect us in our material world. I think Heiser's indication that the gods of the ancient pagan worship can have a real existence, even in these days. The fact that so many people are starting to follow these beings in one way or another, but unaware that they are following demons and evil spirits is just one reason why we need to be more educated and aware of the spiritual realm and the wickedness which God opposes, and that we must resist.
I heard a quote once, that the best trick that the devil ever came up with, was to trick people into thinking he did not exist! I believe in Jesus Christ and His salvation for us that believe, but the devil is real, and he's a bad dude.
🙏✝️🙏
Chuck Missler is the one who over 25 years ago was teaching on The Nephilim Genesis 6. Chuck, who is a Christian, was a real trail blazer on the topic of UFOs, fallen angels, Nephilim from a Christian perspective. Now these topics are pretty much mainstream in Evangelical circles and not in Roman Catholic or Lutheran churches. My Lutheran Pastor, who is about your age Dr. Cooper, would have no idea what I was talking about if I brought up half human half fallen angel hybrid beings. Nor would anyone in the congregation. I should say I came out of a Evangelical background before becoming a Lutheran and I've been familiar with this topic for at least 25 years.
Chuck was one of my first mentors...and I too became a Lutheran later. And I like Mike too.. I find his insights very helpful. I don't find any of his teachings contradicting sound doctrine.
Yeah he had some good stuff, but he was also a silly dispensationalist.
Are you sure? There’s a lot of Baptist and Evangelical churches that take the sethite view
Alright but exactly how did you come to the conclusion that Enoch went to Heaven? I thought you were all strictly what the text says. Does the text say "Enoch went to Heaven"?
Chuck Missler had covered all this argument. I will recommend you get it
Please help me out? How did spiritual beings mate with natural beings? If disembodied beings are not the same as bodied beings?
In the scriptural story where the angels came to Lot before Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, the angels appeared as "men". I bet if you lifted up their robes they would have had " man" parts that were functional.
Also, after Jesus received his resurrected body, It can appear and dissapear but was completely physical. He had his disciples feel His wounds, then He sat and ate with them.
"...and yeah, I've lost credibility in half your eyes, probably."
Hey, you're self-aware, that tells me you're probably an okay guy.
It’s not just Heiser saying these things. There are 2 Orthodox priests that do a podcast called Lord of the Spirits. One of the priests is Father Stephen Damick. On their podcast they are saying almost the same thing through an Orthodox worldview that Heiser is saying. Just another point of reference. I am personally confused by it all.
Definitely go into it more. I am grateful of the way you do not simply dismiss opposing arguments but acknowledge their actual strength.
I lean towards the supernatural interpretation myself because of the Jude and 2 Peter bits. But I also think if it were really important, it would have been spelled out clearly by Moses, or Paul, and it just hasn't been.
Agreed, it's an interesting in house debate, but I disagree with those who think it's a big deal, as in effecting the Gospel, I don't think it fundamentally matters, but Heiser's teachings do help make sense of a lot of murky parts of the Bible. 🙏✝️🙏
I think Heiser was pretty careful to say that nothing he said was new with him, and that he was a collator, not a brilliant theologian discovering new "secret" things. But it is certainly true that he had no use for tradition or doctrinal pedanticism.
In regards to Heiser saying it is the antithesis of exegesis, I have listened to your explanation and still think his statement is correct---though that could be because I am missing something. As I understand, we don't have a text that says that part of Genesis was written so that Jews knew not to intermarry. If your assumption for the purpose of that part of Genesis is wrong, then your entire argument falls apart. It is the main point of your argument and I don't understand how that comes from the text. From where is this view coming?
I like this. Heiser has a lot of good insights but I find he is too committed to the Babylonian captivity as being behind the Pentateuch. I don't think we need to lean so heavily on Babylonian ideas and myths to interpret the Bible, nor does Jesus seem to. He seems to say the Psalm 82 elohim, for instance, are human rulers. I believe, with you, that Genesis is written in the context of the Egyptian Exodus, Egypt's gods, and the land to which the people are going.
Exactly, Jesus seemed to say that such a view indicates non belief, not only in the words of Moses, but also of Him.
PLEASE do Jude and Peter!!! One respondent likened Lutheranism to a “dry well.” I found that disconcerting. I’ve always viewed Lutheranism as a place for wooden headed apple cheeked dumpling people.😂 That probably explains better why I feel so at home with Lutheranism. It most certainly explains why my best contribution at this point is to make more popcorn. Being serious though, I pray for Dr. Heiser as he undergoes chemo for pancreatic cancer. God willing, it would fulfill my dream to one day see the two of you hashing it out. Lord, have mercy.
I've tried watching a couple of Michael Heiser's videos-- trying to wrap my head around what he's getting at. But very hard to follow. His style of communicating seems disjointed.
Another thing, where is the term "Free Will" used in Scripture?
I see "will" but I don't see "free" attached to will anywhere. Can you point it out for me?
And just one more thing:
Michael Heiser says that calvinist interpret scripture in a self-serving way. Couldn't it be said that he is doing the same thing?
Lutherans accept neither Calvinism nor free will with regard to Salvation.
*Ezekiel 18:23; 33:11* God wants all wicked to repent and live.
*Luke 7:30* God's βουλή (plan/purpose/resolve/counsel) for the Pharisees was to accept them. But they rejected this βουλή of God for themselves, by refusing John's baptism.
*1 Timothy 4:10; 1 John 2:2* He is especially the Savior of believers. He remains the Savior of all people. This makes the labor of evangelism and the reproach of scoffers bearable. He is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the church AND the world.
*John 1:29; 3:16* The lamb of God takes away the sins of the world. God loved the world.
*Luke 8:13* Jesus asserts that some really do *joyfully believe* the gospel for a while, and actually *fall away* through trials and temptations.
*Luke 11:13* Jesus is emphatic that the Father gives the Holy Spirit to anyone who asks.
*Romans 11:32* Who does God have mercy for? Everyone whom he consigned to disobedience!
*Eph **4:30* The Ephesians were sealed for the day of redemption, yet Paul warned them that the possibility of grieving the Holy Spirit was a reality.
*2 Peter 2:1* Christ bought even the heretics who deny Him and destroy themselves.
*1 Tim 2:1-6* Christ died for all people and wants all people to be saved. Therefore, Paul commands us to *interceed* even for godless kings and rulers.
*Hebrews 3:1-12* Even "holy brothers and sisters" can "turn away from the living God" with an "evil, unbelieving heart."
*Hebrews 2:1, 12:25* The author and the audience could reject God's warning and not escape.
*Ephesians 3:3-6; Isaiah 45:19* As God has revealed his secret will in scripture, it is always to extend greater mercy.
*1 John 2:2* Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, not only for the church.
Dr. Cooper, I appreciate your defense of Augustine’s Sethite view for the interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4. While the Sethite view has fallen out of favor today, many other interpretations seem to go to the opposite extreme by using an overly literal hermeneutic. However, even though the Sethite view is important for understanding the text (because it takes into consideration the immediate context, and Genesis’ overall message up to that point), I believe it still needs to be modified by the research of modern scholars like Kline and Heiser. A good example to me is Fr. Stephen De Young. In “The Lord of Spirits” podcast, and some of his writings, he provides an intermediate solution that takes seriously the supernatural component of the passage, but he does so it in a way that makes more sense of the biblical and extra-biblical data than Heiser does.
@ChristianRebel Yes, that’s the name of the podcast, co-hosted by Fr. Andrew Damick and Fr. Stephen De Young for Ancient Faith Ministries. The episode I’m referring to is “A Land of Giants,” 11/26/20, but there’s also material on this topic in “Five(ish) Falls of Angels,” 10/9/20 (mostly in their discussion of the “2nd fall”). Damick and De Young are priests in the Eastern Orthodox Church, so that’s the special focus of their podcast. However, De Young also has a PhD in Biblical Studies and presents a lot of material that can be of interest to other sects of Christianity.
@@TharMan9 thanks! I found the giants episode. Did 2 hours so far. 3.20 hours is pretty long but so interesting! Thanks mate!
@@mattwilliamson2867 Great!
@ChristianRebel You’re welcome! I disagree with their conclusions at times because I’m not EO, but much of De Young’s scholarly material syncs with Heiser, who I’ve followed for years.
@ChristianRebel I’d love to see Heiser and De Young having a discussion and comparing notes in one of these formats sometime. But from what I’ve observed of the two ministries, the thing that might keep it from happening is Heiser’s aversion to Tradition (any tradition), and the EO’s aversion (represented by De Young) to anything sounding like “sola scriptura.”
Where does the Angels being "confirmed in righteousness" even come from? I hear this but can never figure out why this belief even exists.
Yes, Moses was probably literate. He was raised in the Pharaoh’s household after all. He certainly had the time (40 years) to write the Pentateuch. And, most importantly of all, Jesus (God) said that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, as you said. I agree with you on this point. I trust Jesus completely.
It doesn’t even say that the Nephelim are the offspring.
It says that they were ALREADY there and that they were there afterwards too . If they’re the offspring how were they there in those days before there was any wives taken. And then they were there afterward too.
READ the text.. SLOWLY haha
EXACTLY!!
Im pretty sure heiser gets his views of the nephilim from enoch
The book of Genesis is not the only place where these particular beings are mentioned. There are at least three other spots in the New Testament, and then there’s also the book of Job in the Old Testament.
Respectful disagreement , glad there is no strife
Luther's position makes the most sense. The "giants" were men with big egos. They were grandsons of Adam. Hence, Great Grandpa was God.
In Daniel 3:24-26 the 4th man in the fire, who is the angel of the Lord/Jesus Christ is referred to as looking like a son of God. So once again the term is reserved for a supernatural entity. So in Job and Daniel the term is not just for humans.
Clement of Alexandria:
The mind is led astray by pleasure, and the virgin center of the mind, if not disciplined by the Word, degenerates into licentiousness and reaps disintegration as reward for its transgressions. An example of this for you is the angels who forsook the beauty of God for perishable beauty and fell as far as heaven is from the earth.
Nemesius of Alexandria:
Of the incorporeal beings, only angels fell away, and not all of them, but some only, that inclined to things below and set their desire on things of earth, withdrawing themselves from their relations with things above, even from God.
I've seen others, too.
And the sethite line becomes the Cain line in Ezekiel 9 where in Babylon (Cains and hams descendent city/nation) necessitating a messiah, the one born of God and a human woman considered the “son of God” whom is not the man or renown in the same sense and does not come as a giant, and is not the result of a see and take theme from genesis 6, but a response of willingness of Mary. And gen 3 and 6 and 10 is a cosmic and earthly rebellion combined, played out in micro form that will become the macro story of the rest of Scripture.
If the women in Gen. 6:2 were specifically descendants of Cain - i.e., a _subset_ of humanity - then why wouldn't the writer just say "daughters of Cain" rather than "daughters of MAN [הָאָדָם, singular]"???
Dr. Peter Gentry from Southern Seminary provides a great, brief summary of how Gen 6 relates to other texts within the bible. He does so in a very irenic way, briefly explaining the major views. He takes the supernatural view of "sons of God", but does not consider the Nephilim to be the offspring of fallen Angels. It was particularly interesting to me because he took a more nuanced view of this than I've heard before. I've only really heard people take a fully supernatural view (i.e. Heiser), or a fully natural view (Cooper), but he makes a good case that while Sons of God is supernatural, Nephilim are natural.
czcams.com/video/qKtHwc3mMY8/video.html
What if your local church teaches false things? Should we still be there?
You don't pay attention to the context of his statment (the Hebrew context) and apply your context (a modern context). That is what Heiser is saying. You can't apply modern ideas and context to scripture. Our ideas are not their (the writers of the scriptures) ideas.
So I question your comment as to spirits not being able to take physical form...To start how do you explain Genesis 18? There are several comments on the 2 angels appearing as men even so that those in Sodom thought they were actually men calling for them to exit Lot's house in Gen 18:5. Then in verse 10 it says that the "men" (angels?) pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door and then blinded the men outside of the house. It sounds like physical interactions to me.
I do not subscribe to all about what Dr. Michael S. Heiser expressed while he was alive but obviously it sounds like Dr. Jordan B Cooper's portion falls short. I would describe that Heiser used a forensic breakdown utilizing grammar and context from the Bible as well as several other documents of the day to understand the writings. I know of some who deny the use of the Dead Sea Scrolls for biblical use but to ignore them to frame linguistic context would be ignorant in my opinion. In my opinion this would appear to make the most sense to help alleviate the ambiguity of those questions raised.
I have listened to well over 20 hours of Heiser speak as well as many of the books. I would say that Cooper thinks he understands Heiser's context but unfortunately I do not. Over simplifying the theory and evidence behind it is where you lose me Cooper.
Moreover I find that Cooper tends to assign Heiser's evidence as an explanation but in fact I find the order of evidence is explained much different at least in Heiser's own words. There are many times that Heiser will use a forensic breakdown of the Hebrew and Greek writing in order to show "evidence". Later that "evidence" is used to give context to another question. It sounded to me that Cooper thinks that Heiser originates the "evidence" to prescribe an explanation to a question and gives that idea equally contextual credence as another hypothosis because Cooper finds in his opinion that the writing appears ambiguous.
Alas I enjoy the discussion but when in your own comments most of what you review is heavily Lutheran and we need to see the Bible for what it is..not a denominational writing but the Inspired Word of God.
Don't forget about Isaiah 37:36-38 (NASB95)
Assyrians Destroyed
36 Then the angel of the LORD went out and struck 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians; and when men arose early in the morning, behold, all of these were dead.
37 So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and returned home and lived at Nineveh.
38 It came about as he was worshiping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons killed him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son became king in his place.
There are many instances that Spiritual beings in the Bible are in physical interaction with mankind.
Just because it states that Angels do not marry you would have to take a leap to surmise that they are restricted in physical contact. I have always understood that Angels were in a relationship to Yahweh thus had no perceived relationship between them and other spiritual beings aside from the God Head.
Another great church in Auburn NY is the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church. Pastor Mark and Pastor BJ are very godly men.
If you are interested in the Eastern view, look into the work of Fr. Stephen De Young.
The lord of spirits podcast does an amazing job at this. Highly recommend 👏🏻🤩
A lot of the views you're critiquing are often solving certain problems that are imposed on the text, however don't offer any solutions for those problems (ex Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Ps81:1 and Israelite polytheism). I think I'll stick with Heiser and his theology.
It surprises me the mud people sling at Heiser when he's just trying to get people who'd normally never get the chance to read this kind of material familiar with it. Nothing he says is original, it's all been said before by other scholars, and if he does speculate he lets the reader know. A lot of the comments on this video and the video itself show remarkably little understanding of the original cultural context in which the Bible was produced. There's a reason the sethite interpretation didn't show up in the beliefs of the church Fathers until the late 4th century, it's not in the Bible, rather it was imposed upon it.
@@rataroto3065The issue is he's flat out wrong on many levels. Says the Pentateuch is Babylonian captivity in origin. Says Psalm 82 is about the divine council, but it's clearly not.
The stuff he's teaching is absolutely not starting from a place of the fear of the Lord.
@@joeypchajek I agree that the Pentateuch is a product of the pre-exilic era, Heiser was wrong on this (though he did argue that parts of it were pre-exilic and the final composition was assembled in captivity). Ps 82 is a different story, it is obviously about the divine council.
While your position is plausible with only the context of the Old Testament, neglecting the relevant text of Jude's epistle and his inspired opinion of those angels who fell was that they were "Like Sodom and Gomorrha... going after strange flesh," makes it much easier to come to the more naturalistic conclusion. Clearly, this isn't the most important issue in the scripture as two or three cryptic texts that do not deeply impact our practice of faith should not take up much of our theologizing time; but it is relevant as it appears that Jude would share the Nephilim interpretation.
Edit: Here I spoke before I got to the end of the video. I would love a video of you dealing with the New Testament references and your take on why the supernatural interpretation is not the best one.
I’m a fairly new Christian, so I don’t have a lot to stand on. I’ve read Heiser’s 3 main books and listened to his podcast a lot. He really does make it seem, in many (not all) cases, that you are an idiot or misinformed if you believe differently from him. I think new Christians should be very careful/skeptical with Heiser’s views and not to limit your education to only him. Diversify your sources as you study. It’s just something I have to remind myself of.
Agreed! I have so many issues with Heiser's teachings. I think he was influenced by comic books.
Thank you for this analysis. I've tried to read the Unseen Realm, but only made it several chapters in before putting it down as it just didn't sit right/witness with my spirit.
I would recommend evaluating his approach with scripture and diving as much as you can into the footnotes and the scholarship he cites. New paradigms which challenge our default presuppositions will cause us to feel discomfort. Feeling discomfort could be feeling the Holy Spirit, or it could be fear of things we don't understand. The way to determine which is to bring it to scripture and evaluate the argument as a whole against the context it stands upon. And if you aren't ready to jump into Heiser's work yet, take some time to ask why you think the way you currently do about Angels, Demons, and other spiritual things. Where in scripture do those ideas come from? Much of what we take for granted in our current culture about Spiritual Beings is the buildup of 1500+ years of tradition. Maybe it is scriptural, maybe it isn't. Both the traditional view on Spiritual Beings, and the one described by Heiser relies on extrabiblical material; however, Heiser's approach at least takes into consideration the material that is contemporary to the human authors of Scripture. Also, Heiser's work is ripe for people to step into just a little, and not fully understand it, then go on to challenge him on arguments he never actually made or accuse him of heresy, polytheism, henotheism, or other things like that. This is not because he is some sort of Savant, but because it depends on so much other scholarship. Unseen Realm took me over a year to really read and digest, because it is one of the more Scholarly books I have read. It is not an easy read. But his approach is consistent with the Jewish and Ancient Near Eastern worldview at the time of Jesus, and once that worldview is understood many difficult passages in the Bible seem to click into place, and become challenging in a whole new way.
Good luck on your studies, and I hope you give Unseen Realm another shot some day.
Yes, Dr Heiser goes astray due to his methodology. To me, he does seem to revel in the 'novel.' That is, in seeming to have found a "new and as yet undiscovered information in Scripture. He takes obscure passages in Scripture and creates a different interpretation. He also uses ANE to either validate or reject what Scripture says. For example: NT doesn't adhere to Greco/Roman bioi but uses a different form.
Heiser doesn’t reject scripture. Disagreeing with your interpretation of scripture isn’t the same thing as rejecting scripture.
I never says he discovered something new. He says he rediscovered the actual context of the Bible. You cannot say well, the Hebrews wrote this and meant this, but that is not accurate because we, 2000+ years later Believe something different and think of a different concepts.
@@cmm1190oh PLZZ, I've listened to him blab on about how he had epiphanies while reading Psalm 82 and looking at the grammar of the word elohim, as if he has discovered something new.
He does indeed claim that, but the thing is he starts to base everything off that and off the Babylonian captivity origins of the Pentateuch creation myths. Which Jesus himself says I'd flat out wrong and indicates unbelief.
Heiser is completely out to lunch, but he's influencing many people with woo, that's the issue.
Thank you Dr. Cooper for taking on these topics and making time to address them, but I dont think you made justice to the teachings of Dr. Heiser. I'm a Lutheran brethren member and feel well represented by you when you go on shows representing Lutheranism, I believe you do a great job talking on issues like, justification, election and philosophy. I suggest with all respect that you should stick to those issues and perhaps leave the supernatural topics to people like Heiser. In my own synod I find my pastor n alike not touching these subjects with a 9 foot pole and therefore driving people to find answers in other theologians and teachers. I realize that our focus is Jesus and his work on the cross for us, but the Bible is full of weird supernatural accounts and issues that need to be explained in its own ancient context and i dont believe the church with its medieval creeds and traditions has done a good job talking about any of this. You seemed hesitant in your exposition of this issue and I dont believe you covered it well, you left out Jude and Peter's supernatural view on Gene 6 which I rather embrace rather than Augustine's.
Commenting part way through, so I don't forget. If the author of Genesis had the Book of Job, their society might already know about that interpretation of Sons of God
Augustine might be saying there’s the city of God in the city of men, but there is nothing in the Bible to support that
I think it's significant that Augustine knew no Hebrew.
Yep. It would be extremely strange for “beney elohim” to refer to humans in one verse in scripture and never ever again.
From listening to a lot of Heiser (totally on the fence with him) my understanding has been that the fallen ones (Fallen Angels not to be confused with demons) slept with women, not the demons. During the flood the nephilim that resulted from women and fallen angels (offspring Giants/aka Titans in other religions) died and demons are the disembodied spirits of the Dead nephilim. Right or wrong this is my very clear understanding. Fallen Angels and demons should not be confused with one another. All part of the unseen spiritual realm but different categories. As you pointed out scripture doesn't make this completely clear. But when we understand that Angels were able to take human form and if one is willing to accept that Fallen Angels would also be able to take human form it's not such a stretch. And I do not mean this in a blaspheming way... But if the Holy Spirit were able to cause conception in the Virgin Mary (I'll be at I understand that this was the miraculous work of our Holy God) there are many things we don't understand. Should I teach this and sell books about it? Absolutely not. These are the things that concern me. I'm extremely skeptical of anybody who creates a platform with their own ideology and sells millions of books and then starts at school called "Awaken" in this day and age. Just sayin'.
It is a bit difficult to keep it straight, because I just automatically default to the traditional understanding of demons as fallen angels. And I may be wrong about the ability of fallen angels to procreate. There is just a lot that is unknown, and I can't help but coming to the conclusion that Heiser's proposals are presented as straightforward readings when they are really quite speculative.
@@DrJordanBCooper gonna echo the above point--Heiser is explicit about this in TUS. It's also the view of 1 Enoch. However, the word demon is flexible, so not really disagreeing there.
I think what you're calling traditional views on angels are actually medieval views that are dominant in western understanding. I'm not sure on this, though, it's my hunch.
Do you recommend any books on this traditional understanding?
@@pamarks thank you for bringing up 1 Enoch. That's another problem that I have is the pseudo- apocryphal and apocryphal writings, and the immense emphasis on them to the point of worshiping these books lately. That's another thing I put on my shelf even though I did listen through the book of 1 Enoch. We have to remember that we need to be wise as serpents (and gentle as doves). I've seen a lot of push toward 1 Enoch being a gnostic text, I'll be it it is much calmer and the obviously gnostic second and third Enoch. I sampled these writings, while I was testing the spirits and testing everything against current Canon. I was thrown off a bit as to why KJV 1611 includes the Apocrypha, but I'm still forging ahead for truth. Sticking with Antioch texts instead of Alexandrian.
Previously, my main objection to the Sethite view basically boils down to its name as contrasted with the phrase "and other sons and daughters." As previously presented to me, the Sethite view only took into account the lines of two of the sons of Adam. If, however, I can say that Moses is using the line of Seth as a concrete example of all the sons of God from whichever line (possibly even Cain's) and daughters of men represent all who are like Cain (possibly even Sethites), then my objection disappears. I had never heard Kline's view before, and I like it. I wouldn't put it past a man of Moses' education to be making both points simultaneously (syncretism through marriage and the sexual greed of men in power).
I missed where you addressed the LXX's translation of Gen 6. Some of the choices there are quite interesting and pertinent. Also how can you call this a fair critique when you failed to address what you admit are the strongest arguments for Heiser's view, Peter and Jude? It is worth noting that the writer of 1 Enoch and the translators of the Sepuagint came to different conclusions than you without these 2 strong witnesses.
1 Enoch was evaluated and rejected
@joeypchajek so was the Bible, but not by Jesus's Apostles. Peter and Jude directly reference 1 Enoch. They gave no evidence they thought it equal in authority to the Torah, but they knew it and expected their audiences to be familiar with it as well.
i like your videos but i agree with Heiser's interpretation
And just because there has been a long period of time where the satellite view has been, the predominant interpretation really means nothing, the Catholics still think the pope is the vicar of Christ, and that is the absolutely most, and biblical tradition ever, additionally, the book of Enoch is part of the Ethiopian Bible, and has been part of the Bible or broccoli for the first 1000 years
I’ve always thought the sons of god presenting themselves before God in Job are simply ‘believers’ who die and are presenting themselves in heaven.
Hebrews 1:5 states that God doesn’t call angels his sons, and John 1:12 states that those who believe in Christ are given power to become the sons of God.
I think sons of God is consistently believers.
Great point with Moses writing that story in Genesis with the intent of warning against intermarriage, as it did play a huge part in the fall of Israel. Christians should also take heed in matters of intermarriage, avoiding it all together.
I think Hebrews 1:5 is talking about Christ as the Son of God. Not about sons of God.
And the sons of God in Job, include Satan, who is a fallen angel. So that's weird. Also Jude 1:6-7 says something very interesting about the nature of the fallen angels. I don't know what to tell you
@@SantiagoAaronGarciathere's all kinds of scripture and reasons to believe in priests and men/women as adopted sons of God. It's a pretty clear theme throughout the entire Bible.
Why would somebody even resist that thought? Even Jesus himself is like used the term, and Asaph in Psalm 82... But then guys like Micheal Heiser distort it to mean something it doesn't. He should know better though with his cloud of witnesses talks. How do you join the cloud of witnesses? Through sonship?
Through being adopted as a child of God into the righteousness of God through Christ Jesus. That first happens on Earth.
For the life of me, I don't get why people muck this stuff up so much.
p.s. Jena nails it.
@@joeypchajek interesting! Thank you.
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward...Gen.6:4 Reads like they were already there. So how could they come from the union of sons of God and daughters of men?
Hebrews 13:2, “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” How then did these angels become corporeal? Was it not by the same way that the members of the divine counsel became corporeal? Where does the text say that intermarriage of the good people with evil people caused the flood? Are you extracting this from Gen 6:1-4 eisegetically because it just seems to fit? As if you are borrowing from the law given later in the Pentateuch. Also, your argument that all of the Sethites are apparently good people as they call on the name of the Lord and all of the Cainites are evil fails since in Gen 6:5 does not differentiate these lineages. In fact Gen 6:11-12 further supports that “ all flesh had corrupted their way on earth.” (ESV) so you dismiss the text as well or are you saying because of this intermarriage all flesh became corrupt? You appear to have a bad habit of interpreting text prior based on text future, e.g. interpret OT via NT, thus Genesis via Exodus through Deuteronomy. Interesting, I reached these conclusions, except for last sentence before re-reading Heiser's argument. You argument about “sons of God” is assertive without scriptural reference. daughters? You sound like Katie Burke imposing your own thought process of today on the text of old. While I agree more with Heiser, it is good to hear the Sethite view from someone who believes it to be true. THANKS
Heiser would agree that Moses is the author of the pentateuch.
I don't agree with the Sethite view, but I also see why people can believe it. It disagree with Heiser's statements that it comes from nothing. That said, there are contextual clues in the bible that suggest something supernatural. How do you respond to Number 13:33 where the Nephilim are connected to people of great height? In Deuteronomy 9:2 this is echoed as it discusses the sons of Anak being basically giants. In other places, the bible mentions giants with six fingers and six toes, even discussing the size of their armor and weaponry. These have been discovered by archaeologists, a good channel is Expedition Bible.
So that the bible describes giants is definitely true. Other cultures have the same stories of giant beings with six fingers and six toes, and skeletons have also been found. So all of this together really points to something supernatural in our history. In Genesis 6, the Nephilim are giant beings based on the previously cited context. So if these were just human unions this is unlikely.
I see the arguments for the Sethite view, I just don't think it ultimately holds fast against the overwhelming archaeological and biblical evidence that there were giants and those giants were referred to as the Nephilim. The question I've always had is how can angels reproduce.