Bible Scholars of Many Kinds

TheLightWithin

TheLightWithin

...through a glass, darkly
Messages
2,141
Reaction score
1,177
Points
108
Location
Cherish religious freedom: yours, mine, everyone's
I want to discuss bible scholars.

Bible scholars know A LOT. They are not always liberal or atheist, though many are or came to be through what they have learned.

But many study deeply and remain deep believers.

I really appreciate the late Dr Michael Heiser. He was an evangelical bible scholar whose incredible knowledge did not lead him to be a non believer.
I am nowhere close to being on the same page with him theologically but I really appreciate the intensely intellectual, analytical approach combined with a profound belief in the supernatural.

He's a scholar for bible believers, creationists, literalists even to a great extent, I think, though he is very critical of flat earth theories.
He has a way of really looking closely at the text and understanding and highlighting the supernatural meanings and implications.
I think he really understands the material he is studying scholastically and religiously to a very great extent.

Interestingly I saw something of his recently where he noted being not all that intrigued by prophecy. I think he believes it is misunderstood.

I don't know if anybody else is familiar with him, likes him too, or has a whole different take on him. But I am starting this thread with him. I hope to talk about his ideas and hopefully about other bible scholars and the world of bible scholarship and the personalities and ideas in it more broadly.

@Thomas I know that you with your scholarly background will have your own take and may know the personalities or work of the scholars I might talk about very well, and in fact it's very likely you will know and see things in them I do not.

Here is Michael Heiser, for anybody interested:

Dr. Michael Heiser - Biblical Scholar | Author | Semitic Languages Expert

drmsh.com drmsh.com

Michael S. Heiser - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org


www.youtube.com

Dr. Michael S. Heiser

The official YouTube channel for biblical scholar, Dr. Michael Heiser. Mike's PhD is in Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages. His academic specializations are Israelite religion (especially the divine council and Jewish binitarian monotheism), ancient Semitic languages, and biblical theology...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com

He has so many good items but I will post one that is an example of him knowing both sides of an argument but coming to a surprisingly supportive position on women in the ministry (for someone so biblically oriented in his views)



Michael S. Heiser - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
TheLightWithin said:
He has so many good items but I will post one that is an example of him knowing both sides of an argument but coming to a surprisingly supportive position on women in the ministry (for someone so biblically oriented in his views)
Click to expand...
It seems to me ...in this century most denominations have women in leadership if not pastoral roles. My preacher used to say, I am the one who most often speaks to you from the pulpit but the women run the church.

The Presbyterians broke on this topic end of last century, the Episcopalians before that. The Methodists broke on recognizing and accepting gay and trans people a couple years ago. In all the churches struggle in their choices of keeping relevant in modern society.
TheLightWithin said:
Bible scholars know A LOT. They are not always liberal or atheist, though many are or came to be through what they have learned.
Click to expand...
I found that aspect quite interesting....got into great conversation with Jack and Bart years ago at a unity lyceum.
 
TheLightWithin said:
@Thomas I know that you with your scholarly background will have your own take and may know the personalities or work of the scholars I might talk about very well, and in fact it's very likely you will know and see things in them I do not.
Click to expand...
In the case of Michael Heiser, I know him not at all.
 
Ehrman I'm aware of.

Firsto-off – Biblical inerrancy as is is commonly today is a US phenomena, primarily through the Evangelical movement. It became something of a big-deal over there; never amounted to much over here. And Ehrman was a Evengelical fundamentalist.

Prior to that, there was no hard-and-fast rules on Biblical inerrancy – hard inerrancy, as promulgated by the US evangelical churches, is an error, as far as the broader Christian churches are concerned. European evangelicals don't buy into it so strongly.

+++

If one believes that the word of Christ is literally inerrant, then is not Jesus validating self-harm or even suicide as a valid response to having caused offence? I'm wondering how they interpret 'better to put a millstone round your neck and jump in the lake' (Matthew 18:6, mark 9:41, Luke 17:2 ) or 'better to cut off your hand or foot' (Matthew 5:30, 18:8, Mark 9:42-44)?

It appears once he lost faith in inerrancy, he lost faith in Scripture altogether. As some have pointed out, if he had accepted that Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired, but not word-by-word dictated by God, then he would be counted among the mainline Scripture scholars. It seems it was an all-or-nothing position for him (I might be wrong) and so he went from one extreme to the other – his critique of scripture is valid in terms of text transmission, all scholars labour over that, but his conclusions are not indisputable, and sadly most scholarship disputes him on it.

Being a populist author, many think he alone argues the case, a single voice against institutional Christianity (and here the American ideal raises its myth-making head) and this is simply not the case. Nearly all scholars do – I wouldn't bother with one who didn't – but they seem more nuanced and insightful to me, than he.

On the same point, none of his views are original, and to his credit, he doesn't claim they are. He's books are used as texts in universities, but there isn't an 'Ehrman thesis' as such, nor are they handbooks for the atheist, as many believers, Jews (OT) and Christians (NT) hold the same views, but not the same conviction.

If his atheism was based on this alone, I'd say he was clever, but not wise.

+++

Ehrman himself has declared his atheism is actually based not on Biblical criticism, but on his inability to reconcile the problem of evil – and on that point I am far more sympathetic, because there is no proof, no infallible argument, that is adequate to that problem.

The problem of evil is not new – the Book of Job is all about that.

+++

Ehrman and the Anglican theologian N.T. Wright have debated often. Here's a review of one such:

"Ehrman's concern for the pain of others, sounding very Jesus-like, completely resonated with me over the course of the first three postings. But then Wright's comments took a turn that was seemingly unexpected for Ehrman. Wright introduced resurrection as God's unprecedented response to suffering that, in a linear sense, infuses the pain of suffering with a promise that heretofore had not existed. Wright's insistence on the significance of resurrection is not landmark within the Christianity, but his understanding of resurrection is somewhat different from what has come to be viewed as traditional. From that point on, Wright's conversation took a trajectory that embraced the legitimacy of suffering but asserted that it was not the end of the story. Ehrman, however, continued to make his case against the church's traditional and, for Ehrman, insufficient or contradictory explanations of suffering. It seemed as if he could not hear Wright's disassociation from penal-substitution as the only way to tell the story of God at work in the world.

There is a quite subtle form of intellectual dishonesty that dismisses others concerns and insists on making parallel presentations that are not open to conversational refinement. I did not get the sense that this was what Ehrman was doing. Rather Ehrman seemed so used to hearing the language Wright uses (the basic claims of Christianity) aligned in such a way as to bracket out any possibilities except the party line, that he did not appear to recognize that it was not happening quite that way this time." (emphasis mine.)

+++

I think Ehrman has the admirable knack of explaining scholarly matters in an accessible manner, and that led to his 'fame'; that, and he falls into a populist furrow – one man against the institution, and the validation of popular disbelief.

I admire his scholarship, I just don't buy his conclusions.

There are scholars out there who have the same ability, who are believers, but they're swimming against the publishing tide, as it were.
 
Thomas said:
Biblical inerrancy – hard inerrancy, as promulgated by the US evangelical churches, is an error, as far as the broader Christian churches are concerned.
Click to expand...
I would say.
Hard inerrancy, along with the attitudes of the people who promote it, are/were my biggest obstacles to arriving at any agreeance with Christianity.
Ultimately I am, sort of instinctively, more in agreeance with Jewish theology.
 
I tried posting my opinions on some of his videos over the years. Some were deleted; others were not. I am not sure if he ever saw any of them. Some channels have handlers.

There are many things I disagree with him on. The biggest problem I have noticed with these 'scholars' is that their egos get in the way of common sense, and they end up teaching falsehoods.

For example, Michael Heiser would always talk about looking at Scripture through the 'Ancient Near Eastern mindset'. This can cause serious exegesis problems if one is not careful. I think this was his biggest flaw. Because of this, he ended up 'dumbing down' the Bible to the level of how ancient Simpletons thought and wrote. His Hebrew Cosmology comparisons with Genesis were awful.

He does have some good insight though.
 
Today marks the start of Christian Unity week, a profound challenge for all of us. The same God hears all our prayers, despite our differences. You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.

Whilst I listen with interest to Biblical scholars, they seem to approach it from an academic viewpoint. My take is, that faith and trust in God does not depend on a theology degree, but rather, you have to do something. You have to change yourself. I have spent the last thirty years trying to understand the greatest commandments. Jesus died for us, meaning Jesus must love us as he loves himself. We are commanded to do likewise, to love God and to love our neighbours as we love ourselves. Do we need a masters degree to live by the greatest commandments?
 
EricPH said:
I have spent the last thirty years trying to understand the greatest commandments. Jesus died for us, meaning Jesus must love us as he loves himself. We are commanded to do likewise, to love God and to love our neighbours as we love ourselves. Do we need a masters degree to live by the greatest commandments?
Click to expand...

Yet, Christians tell people the opposite. This is what I mean by egos getting in the way of common sense. Practically everyone that is not a Chrisitan knows that the current doctrines of Hell, Lake of Fire, Infinite Torments, Annihilation, etc. are absolutely contrary to the two Greatest Commandments.

How can a Christian teach all of that without being a complete hypocrite? It is impossible. People see right through it, and they have had enough.

After using the Kingdom of God Within method of interpretation, I discovered that Hell and the Lake of Fire is how Wikipedia defines it. They are part of the reincarnation process for the Unredeemed. In other words, they get as many chances as they need to seek God until everyone is saved.

Simple and logical.
 
RabbiO said:
Us, who? You forget, perhaps, that this is not a Christian forum nor even the Christian subforum.
Click to expand...
The thread is about Bible scholars, and differences between denominations has been mentioned on this thread. My apologies, on reflection, I should have said; the Week for Christian Unity is a profound challenge for Christians. Interfaith relations are an even greater challenge. The same God hears all our prayers despite our differences.
 
Base12 said:
Practically everyone that is not a Chrisitan knows that the current doctrines of Hell, Lake of Fire, Infinite Torments, Annihilation, etc. are absolutely contrary to the two Greatest Commandments.
Click to expand...
The fear of God is the start of wisdom. Like the law of the land, some people might fear committing murder, because they will be punished if they are caught.

A higher form of wisdom, is to love your neighbours as you love yourself, so you would not want to kill them because you have kindness and compassion. My 2c.
 
Base12 said:
For example, Michael Heiser would always talk about looking at Scripture through the 'Ancient Near Eastern mindset'. This can cause serious exegesis problems if one is not careful. I think this was his biggest flaw. Because of this, he ended up 'dumbing down' the Bible to the level of how ancient Simpletons thought and wrote. His Hebrew Cosmology comparisons with Genesis were awful.
Click to expand...
I don't quite understand.
Wouldn't it make sense to think of the bible in terms of the thoughts and understandings of the culture that produced it?
 
EricPH said:
Whilst I listen with interest to Biblical scholars, they seem to approach it from an academic viewpoint.
Click to expand...
By definition, yes.
EricPH said:
Do we need a masters degree to live by the greatest commandments?
Click to expand...
Do you?
The master's or Doctoral level degrees that scholars have are for analyzing and understanding the text.
It's a pursuit distinct from practicing the religion, though many individuals do both.
Dr Heiser was a believer
A number of scholars I follow on YouTube are, and some are ministers also.
 
TheLightWithin said:
The master's or Doctoral level degrees that scholars have are for analyzing and understanding the text.
Click to expand...
I guess this is a bit of a minefield, with hundreds of translations from many languages, and into many languages. I stick mostly to two translations, and have read the Bible a number of times. There are themes that run throughout the Bible. Apparently, there are about two thousand passages that refer to justice for the poor and oppressed.
gracetruth.blog

A review of ‘The Poverty and Justice Bible’

produced by The Bible Society/World Vision By Jon Kuhrt (this review was first published on Community Mission in 2009) The Bible Society have produced a version of the Bible which highlights in viv…
gracetruth.blog gracetruth.blog

Like all scriptures, the Bible is there to give us hope, and to inspire us to do something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top