BI161 Problems in Bible Interpretation: Difficult Passages I (Videos)
Digital Logos Edition
Overview
Believe it or not, not everything in the Bible can be understood by children; many passages are not even easy to understand for adults. Delve into a number of difficult passages with Dr. Heiser as he introduces key interpretive issues and the problems that are lurking in the background of these verses. He guides you through what needs the most attention and introduces you to several options for interpretation for each passage. Dr. Heiser focuses on the importance of being able to wrap our minds around and navigate through the difficult passages of Scripture, because although they may be challenging, they are still significant for theology. How you understand these verses will have an important ripple effect on the interpretation of other passages you will encounter in the course of your own personal Bible study.
- Title: BI161 Problems in Bible Interpretation: Difficult Passages I (Videos)
- Author: Michael S. Heiser
- Series: Logos Mobile Education
- Publisher: Lexham Press
- Print Publication Date: 2016
- Logos Release Date: 2016
- Era: era:contemporary
- Language: English
- Resources: 1
- Format: Digital › Video
- Subjects: Bible › Hermeneutics; Bible › Study and teaching; Education › Bible--Hermeneutics; Education › Bible--Study and teaching
- Resource ID: LLS:BI161HEISERVIDEOS
- Resource Type: Courseware Media
- Metadata Last Updated: 2019-06-20T22:39:17Z
Dr. Michael S. Heiser was a former Scholar-in-Residence for Faithlife Corporation, the makers of Logos Bible Software. He then served as the Executive Director of the Awakening School of Theology and Ministry. His varied academic background enabled him to operate in the realm of critical scholarship and the wider Christian community. His experience in teaching at the undergraduate level and writing for the layperson both directly contributed to Logos’ goal of adapting scholarly tools for nonspecialists.
Dr. Heiser earned his PhD in Hebrew Bible and Semitic languages and holds an MA in ancient history and Hebrew studies. He was the coeditor of Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha with Morphology and Semitic Inscriptions: Analyzed Texts and English Translations, and he was able to do translation work in roughly a dozen ancient languages, including Biblical Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and Ugaritic cuneiform. He specialized in Israelite religion (especially Israel’s divine council), contextualizing biblical theology with Israelite and ancient Near Eastern religion, Jewish binitarianism, biblical languages, ancient Semitic languages, textual criticism, comparative philology, and Second Temple period Jewish literature. In 2007 he was named the Pacific Northwest Regional Scholar by the Society of Biblical Literature.
Reviews
2 ratings
Kelly Mann
3/27/2020
The Good: Very easy to listen to. (So easy that I can use 2x speed within Logos) Great explanations of ideas that could be new for some. Nice point that the “Hebrew Grammar View” doesn’t contradict the modern view that says the earth is millions of years old. (Genesis 1.1-3) He stresses the needed reminder to not filter the Bible through modern day lenses. (Acts 2 discussion) It is also great that he highlights various views on a given text and doesn’t just present his own as the final authority. The Bad: (well... questionable) 2 Samuel 13.1: Heiser says that 30 was inserted in the LXX from the parallel account. However, it is possible that the LXX drew on a different Hebrew text. Quaram has verified that differences exist. The whole LXX issue is debatable but he doesn’t present an alternative view. Gen 9:20-27: While Heiser view is possible it also raises serious questions. Why is the account sandwiched with Noah’s intoxication if it is really about Noah’s wife? If his nakedness is actually his wife’s what about the other masculine pronouns in the context? What does it mean when it says Noah woke up from his wine and learned what his son did “to him”? Everything in the context seems to center on Noah and not his wife. (of course doing something to his wife could be considered as doing it to Noah) In addition, If Canaan was the incestuous offspring from this act how is is possible that when he woke up Noah cursed a zygote? (It is possible that the account could look back and insert the name which the zygote was given later.) Deuteronomy 32.8: Heiser is strong on translating it “sons of God.” He has done much research on this and that has no doubt contributed to his stand. (Bib Sacra 158 52-74) However, there are other factors in addition to the Masoretic text saying “sons of Israel” not “sons of God.” (Peshitta agrees with MT) Gen 42:1-4 speaks of “Jacob” (though in Chapter 32 he is named Israel) and his sons. However, in verse 5 the expression “Sons of Israel” is used. This is in connection with going to Egypt where Israel on coming out of Egypt become a mighty nation. See also Gen 35.10-12; 36:31 where it mentions “nations” and kings ruling over the “Sons of Israel.” Thus Deuteronomy could very well be a prophetic indication of this future “nation.” The Ugly: Heiser unfortunately gives information that amounts to a straw man while discussing the position of Jehovah’s Witnesses on John 1.1. (Especially the 5 minute section “The Definite Article” under “The Word Was God”) While, to a degree, this is understandable since he no doubt relied on Wallace and Wallace stated in GGBB that he relied on Robert Countess. It should be made clear that the JW’s have not and do not teach that the “a” is added solely because theos lacks the article. What they have written is easy to find and can be used to verify that what Heiser says is not a position and argument that the JW’s have taken. They have stated context and syntax comes into play with John 1.1. One can read it here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060096 This particular article is more than 30 years old. Also Heiser comes very close to sabellianism when he says Jesus was “the God”. Usually “the God” is “the trinity” (or Father by default) and surely Heiser doesn’t mean to say that Jesus is the trinity (or is the Father) but it sounds that way many times. PS I think it is actually about a 3.75 not 4 but hey either 3 or 4 so rounded up.