Eugene Nida and Bad Translation

 

The Journal of Missiology has a fascinating series of articles by Adam Simnowitz, a minister with the Assemblies of God.  It is a four-part series called “The Desecration of Bible Translation.”  Such a title deserves a summary.  (I also used  a YouTube audio blog for a source, “The Great Bible Hoax.”) Here are the main points:

Tragically, some well-known and highly-respected and trusted Bible translation societies and organizations, borrowing from the Anthropological field of linguistics, teach and promote that language and meaning are relative to culture. This commitment to cultural relativism is a faulty foundation for Bible translation, leading to compromised translations of Scripture. This has resulted in such notions as “Religious Idiom Translation” (RIT), in which the text of the Bible is Islamized for Muslims, Buddhaized for Buddhists, and Hinduized for Hindus.  All done by no less than Wycliffe Bible Translators and their Summer Institutes of Linguistics (SIL), and by the American Bible Society, and the United Bible Societies.

This current free-for-all in Bible translation is in great measure due to the life and work of one of the earliest teachers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, who also served as the first Secretary for Translations at the American Bible Society, namely Dr. Eugene A. Nida.

The likelihood that beginning in 1936, a 22-year old graduate from UCLA with no formal theological training, who did not believe that truth transcends culture but is relative to it, whose view of language does not necessarily include belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible, and who never translated any part of the Bible for publication--would be able to so thoroughly remake Bible translation in his own image--does not seem possible.  He did it through a revolutionary means of translating, using his self-admittedly flawed theory of Dynamic Equivalence (DE). This was destined to become the accepted translation theory among a majority of missionary translators by the 1970s. His work also had significant ramifications for North American evangelicalism, since dynamic equivalence also formed the theoretical basis for most modern vernacular English translations, as we shall see.

 

To explain the dangers of Dynamic Equivalence, Dr. Phil Stringer, head of Dayspring Bible College and Seminary says: Nida’s system was telling translators, “You’ve got to stop translating literally (i.e., word for word). By doing that, you’re worshipping words more than God.” (A false statement).  David Daniels, author of ‘Why They Changed the Bible,’ felt that Nida was influenced by neo-orthodoxy.  Since he did not believe that God inspired the words, he felt that the best translation was when you could translate it so that  the Scriptures inspire the reader.  To quote Nida, ‘The Scriptures are inspired because they inspire me.’ If you could invoke the same feeling in a reader of a different culture, of what he alleges the original Bible reader felt, that’s a proper translation.  Of course, who knows what the inspired Bible author or original reader felt?

 

Dr. Stringer felt that you can’t drop the “word-for-word technique and take the “translate what the idea means” approach because you will, unknowingly, influence it with your interpretation of the idea’s meaning. Prior to Nida, your job was to take the words that God gave in Greek and Hebrew, and turn them into that language. God was the author, and He inspired the words.  Nida felt that God did not inspire words, He inspired ideas. Your job is to translate the idea to their language. 

. 

SIL Corporate Historian, Frederick “Boone” Aldridge identified the motivating factor behind Nida’s revolution: “By driving a wedge between the text and its message Nida was carrying out a direct assault on the idea that each word’s  literal meaning functioned to preserve truth.”

Nida’s first monumental step to make Bible translations less literal began when he attended the third Camp Wycliffe (which was later renamed, the SIL, in the summer of 1936.  This was a “Summer Training Camp for Prospective Bible Translators,” started by William Cameron Townsend (a.k.a. “Uncle Cam”), the founder of SIL and also founder of Wycliffe Bible Translators.

Though he began as a student, Nida became part of the faculty, a role in which he would serve until 1953. Nida worked with Townsend for many years achieving his first goal:  to radically change the methods of Bible translation, as we’ve seen above.  He was successful in applying his methods in SIL, and he and Townsend worked well together.  The organization has grown to where it is ubiquitous.  Anyone who wants to be a Bible translator, with any agency, were funneled into SIL. There, you get the principles for proper Bible translation. So all of them got those from Eugene Nida.

But “Cam” did not demand true accountability from SIL’s attendees (not surprising, considering their leader didn’t even believe the Bible).  One who went through SIL in the 1970s was author David Daniels, a graduate of Fuller Bible Seminary.  While at SIL, he relaxed by talking to one of his professors who had been a missionary Bible translator for many years.  He was shocked to hear the man did not believe in the Great Flood of Genesis 6.  He suggested that when you go to raise support with churches who want you to certify your statement of faith with a signature, you just “sign it, even if you don’t believe it.”  Then when you get on the mission field, you can do whatever you want. Daniels’ question was, how can you translate a Bible that you don’t believe?  How many non-believers does SIL “teach?” 

 

But Nida and Cam parted the ways in 1953 because Wycliffe wanted everyone to sign a faith statement that they believed the Bible was God’s Word, that it was inerrant in its original writing. Nida could not sign it. 

Prior to that, in 1943, through Townsend’s advocacy, he also joined the American Bible Society (ABS) as their “associate secretary for versions” (later, promoted to “Secretary for Translations”).  He was influenced by a landmark book, Language, by Leonard Bloomfield. Bloomfield wrote that linguistics did not improve “until the eighteenth century, when scholars ceased to view language as a direct gift of God.” Bloomfield’s view of language as a physical response unrelated to the author’s thoughts guts individual words of any fixed meaning. God is not the source of language, he believed.  Further statements by Bloomfield which Nida followed: 

§  cultural relativism (there are no absolutes)

§  language is merely cultural (and thus subject to relativism)

§  language is a flawed medium of communication 

Nida carefully introduced cultural relativism and Bloomfield’s mechanistic view of language to unsuspecting evangelicals. That these biblically incompatible beliefs with their attendant errors have come to dominate the world of Bible translation and greatly impact missions, with hardly any effective opposition from biblical conservatives, is in great measure a testament to Nida’s skill in knowing how to persuade a given audience. These gifts have proved invaluable in allowing Nida’s agenda of cultural relativism to go undetected by them, for they assume that “dynamic equivalence” is a valid translation theory compatible with the belief that the Bible is the divinely-inspired Word of God. But that is not one of Nida’s beliefs.

 

If “dynamic equivalence,” with its emphasis on receptor response, is opposed to translation in general, it is especially devastating when applied to Bible translation. Most importantly, it completely undermines its divine inspiration by bypassing the need to faithfully and accurately communicate authorial intent—especially important when the author is God. When your main desire is to communicate smoothly with the receptor, that introduces another of Nida’s goals:  Do not offend the receptor. That belief is important in his later role as a translation ecumenicist. In the Adam Simnowitz thesis, “Muslim Idiom Translation: Assessing So-Called Scripture Translation For Muslim Audiences With A Look Into Its Origins In Eugene A. Nida’s Theories Of Dynamic Equivalence And Cultural Anthropology,” he provides examples of Nida encouraging translators of Scripture to not use “Son [of God]” in reference to Jesus with regard to Muslim audiences. For proof, look no further than the translation of Mark 1:1.  It reads, in the New King James Version:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God

But in the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition:

The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ.

If Jesus is not the Son of God, you don’t have a gospel anymore. 

Nida made a reference to Jan Slomp’s article in The Bible Translator, “Are The Words ‘Son Of God’ In Mark 1.1 Original?,” as if Slomp agreed with Nida’s contention that “Son of God” should be omitted in Mark 1:1 because it is a “stumbling block…for an Islamic constituency.” But the fact is, Slomp wrote that the inclusion or exclusion of ‘Son of God’ in Mark 1:1 should not be based on ‘apologetic concern for the Muslim reader…[but] has to be decided…on the basis of textual criticism.’” So Slomp is falsely referenced by Nida as agreeing with him, when it was clear that they disagreed—strongly.  This constitutes dishonest scholarship by Nida.

So let’s take a closer look at Nida’s character.  Nida was first married on June 19, 1943, to Althea Sprague. They remained married until her passing on May 1, 1993. Nida remained a widower until his second marriage to María Elena Fernández-Miranda, on May 5, 1997.  Prior to their marriage, however, with both of them living in Brussels, Belgium, Maria wrote that they began living together on February 3, 1996. Living in sin is relative to the culture, I presume.

June Bratcher, the wife of Robert Bratcher (author of several books on Bible translators, who knew Nida well) told Simnowitz the following:

Nida was very careful with what he said…[he] didn’t “just talk.” Gene [i.e. Nida] was very enigmatic. I think he said what people would approve of. He could argue both sides of an argument when he needed to. In an intense conversation, he could go along with the person he wanted to press, to obtain control. He was slippery some times. Nida was not truthful in the way that I understand truthful. Nida told [my husband] Bob to never admit a mistake, never put anything in writing. If you change something, do not admit it. He was wily. 

June’s unflattering comments provide us with a first-hand account of someone who, along with her husband, interacted with Nida for many years.

Dr. Charles R. Taber, the co-author of The Theory and Practice of Translation, described Nida as follows:

alternating between sensitivity and manipulativeness

charming, blunt, devious, persistent as the occasion seems to warrant

 

Finally, we can’t fail to mention Nida’s connection with the Roman Catholic Church. 

After he left his SIL job in 1953 because he couldn’t agree that the Bible’s originals were inerrant, his energetic style took him elsewhere—namely, to work with the Roman Catholic Church, starting in 1954. He urged them to consider joint translation efforts, Protestant and Catholic, since ecumenism was the wave of the future. That way he could continue to reach translators with his approach.  After a series of meetings, he was finally successful; the pope and the cardinals endorsed the idea in Vatican II.  They even asked him to come to Rome and teach the Jesuits how to translate, no less.  Based on the Malachi Martin book on them, the Jesuits are not to be trusted.  The Catholic leaders figured it was all right to work with Protestants who are eager to work with them; they even called us “separated brethren,” not heretics, as in the past.  (Don’t forget the Council of Trent, where they hurled over a hundred anathemas our way—important, also, is that they never apologized for that. Nor did they eliminate ANY of a pile of traditions that had no basis in Scripture.  One thing is constant: They are not familiar with compromise).  How were we to work together since they have continued to produce their own Bibles (such as the New Revised Version—Catholic Edition, published in 1966).  When they make their own Bibles, even after working on a “joint” translation, what was the point?  I suspect it’s to compromise the Protestant Bibles. 

 

Nida’s influence has now gotten into Christian homes, through their Bible translation.  As we saw above.  His dynamic equivalency approach is used by many modern versions.  He got together with Rome, and in ecumenical sessions, put together the United Bible Society’s Bibles.  An example is the Oxford Annotated Bible, Revised Standard Version—1952.  One of their goals was, as I mentioned, , to make sure no one was offended by the translation.  Their Old Testament committee included an unbelieving Jewish scholar, Harry Olinsky.  He caused an uproar over Isaiah 7:14, in effect forcing them to change ‘virgin’ to ‘young woman’ regarding Mary’s conception of Jesus’  But this removed an important foundation of faith.  Mary had to be a virgin impregnated by the Holy Spirit to make sure Jesus did not get the sin nature that we all had—and it made it possible that Jesus was qualified to be a perfect substitute to redeem us believers from the penalty of sin.  That Bible version would have us believe that Mary had unmarried sex with Joseph.  They hate that God would perform a supernatural event so we could be saved. Perhaps they would like to share their views on what will redeem us, then—or, perhaps, man has evolved so as not to sin any more?  He just makes mistakes? God loves us anyhow, and we will all be saved?  Keep in mind, Ken Pike (leader of SIL after Nida) thought that this was wonderful ecumenicism—he said that liberal translators did a much better job than conservatives.  Despite saying that, he was not removed from his position at SIL. Other examples of “no offense” Bibles are the New Revised Standard Version, put together by an ecumenical committee of scholars for the National Council of Churches in 1989. This is also the source for the NRSV “Updated Version” of 2021.  And let us not forget those versions that Nida had a larger hand in translating, including Today’s English Version New Testament (TEV; a.k.a. Good News for Modern Man), and the Good News Bible (now, Good News Translation) in English.  None of these has Isaiah 7:14 right.  Actually, that’s a good litmus test for avoiding the “ecumenical” Bibles that are determined to sacrifice word-meanings for the receptor’s feelings.  (I should mention, my favorites are, besides of course the New King James, I like the Legacy Standard Bible and the Pure Word.) 

So it’s gotten to this:  As of 1979, we have a one-world Greek text, except for a handful of believer-translators that refused to sign in to the program.  We should not talk of a “one world” religion for the future, since we have them now, as far as translating Scriptures world-wide. As of 1979, the official Greek and Hebrew text of the Roman Catholic Church was the United Bible Society’s text, Likewise the American Bible Society, and almost every National Bible Society in the world. Well, one result is, any new translations are going to have great consistency.  Looks like Mary will always be a “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14 in almost every Bible around in any language in the world.  And we’re not sure where Jesus fits in, with Mark 1:1 (and there are others).  My recommendation:  Hang onto your old Bibles.  More importantly, Read them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus Taunts Satan

 After I listened to Dr. Heiser’s YouTube series “The Unseen Realm,” I bought the book.  There is another gem he shared with me there that I’d like to share with you.  It is found in the controversial text of Matthew 16:13-18:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” ¹⁴ And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” ¹⁵ He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” ¹⁶ Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” ¹⁷ And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. ¹⁸ And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 So who, or what, is the “rock” upon which Jesus will build His church?  Catholics say Jesus was saying Peter is the rock.  So, they say, he was the first pope.  But Protestants say, no, Jesus was doing a word-play.  Peter comes from the Greek “petros,” which means “stone.” But when Jesus uses the word “rock.” he means, in translating the Greek, per Vine’s Expository Dictionary, a “mass of rock,” a “sure foundation,” as opposed to a detached stone which could be “easily moved.” Therefore, they say, Jesus was saying He is the rock he was referring to; He is the foundation of the church (I Corinthians 3:11), immovable in His doctrines and foreknowledge.

 Dr. Heiser admits to the accuracy of this word-play, but adds that Jesus has another word play for “who/what is the rock,” which conveys a cosmic scope.

 To explain his idea, we must start with the fact that Jesus was leading His disciples into Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:13 above), which happens to be at the foothills of Mt. Hermon—a very significant mountain because of its moral darkness.  This mountain was the place where Satan and his fallen angels plotted to destroy the lineage of Jesus by sexual relations with earth women (Book of Enoch, Chapters 6 and 7).  (I’ve discussed the validity of this angels-with-women idea, in two blogs--see the ones with "DNA" in the title. Those blogs discuss the veracity of Enoch as well).  So the mountain has one dark feature right there. 

 Then there’s the fact that the Greek equivalent of Hermon, in Scripture, is Anathema, which means “devoted to destruction.”  Uttering Anathema on someone is the direst of curses one can pronounce.  Paul uses the the word in Galatians 1:8 for a terrible sin:

 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

 Changing the gospel brings down curses from God, and separation from Him forever.  (I quickly add, with meaningful repentance, God could forgive.) This is the second darkness around Mt. Hermon. 

 To get to my third point of darkness about Mt. Hermon, you need some additional background. To briefly review a previous blog: Genesis 6:1-4 really says that in Noah’s day, fallen angels came to earth, took on the form of men, and married and had sex with earth women.  The children of this sexual match of immortal angels and mortal women were aberrant.  They became renowned giants, and they were called Nephilim (that word is in the ESV or NIV translation).  The Nephilim were wicked.  And being a mix of mortal and immortal, they were not human, so it’s possible that they were unsavable. They were also linked to the rapid immorality that caused the Flood (Genesis 6:5), and to the evil technology that they taught earth men (see more in the book of Enoch).

To complete the background, we fast forward to the days of Moses and Joshua his general. God had picked the land of Canaan as the promised land 600 years earlier, in the days of His promise to Abraham (Genesis 11:31). To claim the land, they would have to conquer tribes and take it over. It would be a challenge for the new, small, Israelite nation to defeat anybody. When you look at Canaan in those days, it seemed the worst possible place for God to pick for their home. For one thing, Satan had trouble waiting for them. Since Satan knew back in the days of Abraham where they were headed, he had 600 years to make their entrance as miserable as possible.  If he could discourage them, they would lose faith in Moses and Joshua and abandon the promised land idea.  Then they might be assimilated into the tribes that were there and, boom--no more pure Israelis. No pure lineage for Jesus. God would be a liar to Abraham and the nation.

So, first, Satan brought out his lusting fallen angels to do their work again, and produce more Nephilim. Satan hoped that the giants would scare off the new Israelite nation.  He was right, for 40 years after they hit the border.  When the Israelites first saw them, they instantly abandoned God's plan. But God was patient, and they had a faithful leader in Joshua. They had another go at it after 40 years, and found a way to defeat the giants.

A side note:  If you don't believe the giants existed for a second go-around, consider the archeological digs that no engineer can figure out how they were built.  Plus, Scripture speaks of these giants at least nine times in Numbers through I Chronicles, when the Jews were defeating tribes and taking the promised land.  For instance, under Joshua's leadership, they defeated the giants of Bashan. Their king, Og, had a bed that was between 14 and 16 feet long. Deuteronomy 3:11 and Joshua 13:12 records these facts:

 …Og the king of Bashan was left…Behold, his bed was a bed of iron. Is it not in Rabbah of the Ammonites? Nine cubits was its length……all the kingdom of Og in Bashan, who reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei… these Moses had struck and driven out. 

Now you still may ask,  Couldn't God have selected an easier plot of land to build their kingdom on earth?  Well, God's principle is, You go the the heart of evil, the source, the head of the snake.  You cut off the head. You show up Satan.  

The point of mentioning “Og the king of Bashan” is this: Mt. Hermon is smack in the middle of the Bashan area.  Thus, Mt. Hermon and Bashan, in addition to being a community for Satan’s minions, despite having a name that is accursed, and having had demonic giants, also had a lot of wicked people. As Joshua 13:12 above notes, Ashtaroth was the capital city of Bashan.  Ashtaroth, named after a goddess, had a bad reputation in Scripture. The people worshipped the goddess Ashtoreth (in other nations, she was called Aphrodite, or Ishtar—both fertility goddesses—we get Easter from Ishtar).  These goddesses were also known as the “queen of heaven” (Catholics take note), and the people of Bashan and Mt. Hermon persuaded the Israelites into worshipping this goddess as well. There were religious sexual rituals that took place.  The worship involved the “high places,” which were also constructed in Israel.  They were mentioned many times in the Old Testament.  God wanted them destroyed—they practiced sacred prostitution. This was heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual perversion. I mean, how bad is this?  See if you can imagine prostitution being part of your religion. All this is to say: This was the third evil of this Canaanite area. 

In summary, for all three of the reasons listed above, Mt. Hermon was Ground Zero of the gates of hell and demonism on earth--and yet this is where God led the Israelites--as it turned out, they partially failed.  They fell into the attractive idolatry of sexual prostitution. 

Now Jesus was leading His disciples here too. With His help, he wants to take a second shot at the world's evil, and smash it in the lives of His disciples. 

Now, to finish the backdrop to the cosmic scope of what Jesus was doing on Mt. Hermon, I need to explain the “gates of Hell” quote. Hopefully you remember Matthew 16:18 above:

…on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

We’re ready for the final two gems I got from Dr. Heiser. First, the idea that people have today, whether Catholic or Protestant, about interpreting this is, Satan would be attacking the church, but “the gates of hell shall not prevail against (it) the church.  But this made no sense to Dr. Heiser, who couldn’t visualize gates attacking the Christian church. Gates are defensive, not offensive. Their purpose is to hold the attackers back. There is a simple explanation for this conundrum, and that is:  a proper translation.  From the Pure Word, the most accurate translation of koine Greek around, Matthew 16:18b: 

…upon this huge Rock I will build My Assembly (ed. note: the church), and the gateways of hell shall definitely not triumph against Me.  

This translation definitely implies that Jesus, in this quote, while He is standing on Ground Zero of hell on earth, is prophetically saying He (through us) will be attacking the gateways of hell, even at its worst, and the gateways will not be able to hold Him--or us--back (praise God!).  Christ, with the help of His church, will blow through those gateways in complete and utter triumph! Hell will not triumph against His attack!

How does this happen? Because, though Satan would assume he triumphed by killing Jesus, in reality, Jesus won the battle.  First, by dying, He accomplishes great things:  He thus pays for our sins.  Not only that, He was resurrected from the dead; thus He defeated death. We believers will, with the help of the Holy Spirit, attack Satan ourselves by living godly lives, sacrificing the world's pleasures for Him, and by bold witness.  By following God’s will, our lives will be a triumph of good against evil.  We will someday also be resurrected and join Him in heaven, and there will be no more death.    

There is a second gem I got from Dr. Heiser, that further explains his “cosmic meaning” of the “who is the rock” conundrum.  Dr. Heiser has climbed Mt. Hermon himself and discovered a huge rock jutting up from the earth at the peak, so that is the best vantage point that Jesus likely made His speech.  That jutting-up rock was the rock Jesus was pointing out.  Jesus was saying, “from where you are standing, even at this rock and the gates of hell, we shall attack Satan and shall have victory.” That was the double entendre of the word-play. “You are Peter (stone).  I will build my church even on the gates of hell, represented by this rock.”

So the big picture is this:  Jesus, at the time, is near the final week of His life. He has reasoned with the evil Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes; He has admonished and warned them that their lack of belief will send them to hell (John 8).  But they still plan to kill Him. He knows that when He enters Jerusalem for Passover, they will make their move to kill.  (What’s ironic is, they were playing into God’s hands—He wanted them to do it on Passover, to prove who the real Lamb of Sacrifice is). Jesus wants to taunt Satan into making his final move to kill Him. Jesus is deliberately standing on Mt. Hermon, ground zero for hell, and giving Satan the middle finger, as it were.  He is telling Satan—"come on!  Bring it on!  Go ahead!  Prove you are powerful enough to kill me!"  (Ironic, as I say, since that’s what God wanted to happen to save His faithful people by Jesus paying the price for our sin.  Satan did not know about God’s plan of redemption and resurrection).  Jesus knew how to pick a spot for throwing down the gauntlet.

Jesus is the winning side in the battle of good vs. evil, God vs. Satan.  By dissing Him, you are on the wrong side.  Read Scripture--I recommend the Gospels--to find out how to get on His side.  Your destination may change after your death as well; from hell to heaven.  May God go with you.

 

Divine Rebellions

 This is another great sermon by Dr. Michael Heiser, on the Unseen Realms.  Read with enjoyment.

If you ask the average Christian, ‘Why is the world so depraved?’  They’ll say, ‘It was the Fall in Genesis 3.’ But if you asked the first century Jews the same question, you would get ‘There are three reasons.  The first was the Fall, because the sin of Adam and Eve was the entrance of rebellion into God’s good Creation, which broke mankind from close fellowship with God; and death for all of us arose because of it (Romans 5:12 is a great verse on that, but first-century Jews would have to come up with a different verse).  The second was the rebellion in Genesis 6:1-4 with the sons of God; and the third reason was what happened at Babel.’  Our question for study is, How did these other two sources of depravity factor in, and why did their consideration disappear in current theology? 

The first source of depravity was the Fall. I agree that Adam and Eve's sin had a world-shaking effect, but I cannot comment on Dr. Heiser’s sermon portion on that.  By excluding his treatment, I am definitely not saying it is a lesser cause for depravity.  The reason for my exclusion is, he talks about the serpent, about the Garden of Eden, and many others, as metaphors.  he's doing bit of Origen, for the astute.  He’s saying that it might not have been a snake, it might not have been Eden.  Those terms have mystical, broader meanings instead.  My problem with this is, you’re moving away from an interpretation of Scripture as history, which I don’t want to see happen.  Keep in mind, we don’t know the appearance of the serpent before it was cursed, and for all we know, or maybe Adam knew, maybe it looked like a snake and maybe he thought a snake could talk.  Maybe Adam did not know language was only for humans; but, after all, elsewhere in Scripture a donkey talked (the joke was, that Balaam argued back),  so anything’s possible, especially in a brand-new world as Eden was. I am certainly not suggesting Dr. Heiser is spreading lies; he is extremely knowledgeable on Scripture and he opened up a secondary way to look at verses that presented a different look to their meanings; and what he says elsewhere makes sense.  My previous blog on him proves that. 

So let’s move on to his second reason for the causes of depravity in the world. This too is all explained in another blog, so I will be brief here. Genesis 6:1-5, we proved, was the sexual union between fallen angels and earth women. Since all creatures produced after their own kind, that meant that humans, with particular DNA structures, were supposed to procreate only with other humans.  But the fallen angels defied that.  Being immortal, they had a different DNA than humans, who are mortal. So their sexual union with human women produced an aberrant offspring--giants, called Nephilim.  Other Scripture supports that. This led to violence, and a gigantic corruption of genes. 

Also, the ancient book of Enoch has more details about the wicked Nephilim. No, the book of Enoch is not part of God's Word, but it has great credibility.  Enoch, as Genesis 5:24 proves, was perhaps the godliest man living at the time.  His writing was valid, because he is quoted three times in Scripture (Jude, II Peter, and John).  His writing showed that the Nephilim helped to proliferate sin in man by teaching men (1) skills and technologies for warfare—how to make swords and knives and spears; (2) about plants and herbs that have healing properties, as well as mind-altering properties--which led to people  becoming psychologically addicted; (3) about astrology (not astronomy), which in effect made them turn into idolatry—worshipping the sun, moon, and stars, trying to control their future; and (4) cosmetic arts of seduction which led to sexual immorality. The results of all this "wonderful technology" they taught were broken homes, bloodshed, and worship of demons, some of that through altered consciousness.  These were all horrors, all accelerating men’s skill in perverting themselves as individuals and as society. All this helped the proliferation of sin that left God frustrated enough to declare an end to mankind in Genesis 6:5. 

The third major reason for man’s depravity was the tower of Babel. That is where I have more to say. Genesis 11:1-9:

Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. ² And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. ³ And they said to one another…“Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.” ⁵ And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. ⁶ And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. ⁷ Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech.” ⁸ So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. ⁹ Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth

The purpose of the tower "with its top to the heavens" was to worship another god.  Our God judges sin; they wanted a god who would let them express their ego and pride, "to make a name for ourselves."  As a result, they stayed in one place, so they could build the tower, possible only with a large group.  They defied God's instruction to fill the earth (God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." Genesis 1:28). 

To understand further why God did this dispersion, other Scripture will help. Let's look at Deuteronomy 32:1b, 4b-6, 8-9, ESV:

 …hear, O earth, the words of my mouth…4…A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he;
They have dealt corruptly with Him;
    they are no longer his children because they are blemished;
    they are a crooked and twisted generation. ⁶ Do you thus repay the Lord,
    you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you…
    ⁸ When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
    when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples, according to the number of the sons of God ⁹ But the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.

Note:  In case your version translates "sons of God" with a different word in v.8, keep this in mind:  the Dead Sea Scrolls proves that the correct phrase in v. 8 is “sons of God;” it even uses the word Elohim (see my last blog, "God and gods").  It’s not sons of Israel (which wasn’t even a nation yet!), nor sons of Adam, as other translations say.

We can assume that God might have thought, “This is the opposite of what I commanded.  I want a human family, I want the Edenic mandate (to fill the earth) to be fulfilled. I love you, I want the best for your lives, so please obey my commands, and you’ll get your best life. And your response?  ‘No, we’d like to build a tower, worship another god.’ 

The tower was a ziggurat, built to offer sacrifice and barter with whatever god they believed in. It was tall so they could more likely make their god hear their pleas and desires, and see them offering things to him in exchange.  This was unacceptable again, since our God did not work that way.  So God probably thought, ‘You refuse to be loyal to me, so you want another god; so I will give you what you really want:  a 'divorce’ from my love for you (see Deuteronomy 32:5 above, "no longer His children").  I will disinherit you. I’m still going to disperse you, divide you up (Deut. 32:8), and assign one spirit to command each of your nations--namely, each of you gets one of the sons of God to worship (Deut. 32:8 above). These fallen angels, these demons who wish to be worshipped as gods, can be your new rulers.  You can be under their corrupt command, since you want to worship other gods. Let’s put you under their thumb.’ This is the Old Testament equivalent of Romans 1:18-25, wherein God “gave (humankind) over” to their persistent rebellion.  God thought, ‘Hopefully you will grow tired of this god, this demon, and his rule over you.  Hopefully you will change your mind and let Me lead you; you will find that I love you. Perhaps you will turn back to Me.'

God still wanted a loyal, witness nation, a society who loves Him, to show  how what His leadership could do to bless a loyal nation.  He had His eyes on one man of great faith and godliness, Abram, and his wife Sarai (their grandson was Jacob, referred to in Deut.32:9 above.  They became renamed Abraham and Sarah, but they couldn’t have kids, they were too old--so they were perfect to start a godly nation with.  You say, how is that?  Because God wanted them to see His power and love when He performs a miracle and they have a child together. Then they will teach their children of His power and love. God then hoped they would continue a loyal family descending from that.  And every nation around them will hear of this power of God, too.  Besides the Biblical proof I’ve bolded and alluded to in Deuteronomy, why do I think this was the order of God’s thinking?  Because right after God’s language curse, the people began dispersing (as God wanted in the first place), grouping with people who spoke the same language in Genesis 11, and immediately God covenants with Abram in Genesis 12:1-3 to form and rule His nation!  Here it is:

Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country (Note: Ur) and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. ² And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. ³ I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

“All the families” meant God was thinking of the lineage of Abram eventually going through David, then eventually to Jesus, Christ the Redeemer, who would truly bless all the families on earth. (Galatians 3:16).  God also wanted to show the world, who worshipped other gods, how His love would bless the Hebrew people.  This testimony would draw more people to Him, and be blessed as well.

The chosen nation Israel was supposed to finally be Yahweh’s family, starting from the godly Abraham.  They’re even called a “kingdom of priests” (Exodus 19:6).  Since a priest is a mediator between God and men, Israel was, through its godliness and witness, supposed to be a mediator between Yahweh and all the nations.  A witness of a great God, with the people having a great testimony.

The sons of God that were to rule over the other nations, of course, failed God’s command to be just, as He knew they would—they were corrupt (Psalm 82:2-7—from my previous blog).  As a result, the lack of testimony meant people were blind about our real God; so now they were lost in the ugly power of sin in their lives.

There was a solution for this blindness and powerless, beautifully hinted in Psalm 82:8, where God gives hope through all our failures—through His Son, Jesus:

Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!

 The word for ‘arise’ is the same as the word for ‘resurrection.’  Sin’s death cannot defeat us, if we turn in faith to Jesus, who showed us that resurrection will defeat sin and have a new life in heaven when we die. 

I hope you’ve appreciated these nuggets from Scripture from Dr. Heiser, as much as I have.

God and gods

 Dr. Michael Heiser’s You tube on this subject is just too good to pass up.  Here’s the Cliff Notes version of one session.  Let’s begin with Psalm 82:1-7, using the English Standard version:

God has taken his place in the divine council;
    in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
² “How long will you judge unjustly
    and show partiality to the wicked? 
³ Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
    maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
⁴ Rescue the weak and the needy;
    deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

⁵ They have neither knowledge nor understanding,
    they walk about in darkness;
    all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

⁶ I said, “You are gods,
    sons of the Most High, all of you
⁷ nevertheless, like men you shall die,
    

The first word of the Psalm, God, is Elohim in Hebrew; this is the standard word for God.  But Elohim is also used for “midst of the gods” in verse 1, and “you are gods” in verse 6.  Interestingly, whoever these mystery beings are, are also called “sons of the Most High” in verse 6 as well.  The thing that disturbs us is, in these second and third use of Elohim, the surrounding Hebrew words definitely say it is plural.  So now it looks like a pantheon, Greek and Roman mythology stuff, doesn’t it? Our God, and the mystery gods.

In this Psalm, who is God talking to?  Who are these ‘gods?’  They seem to be in a ‘divine council’ with our God—and they are His sons!  (Before you get carried away, the word “sons” here simply means “direct creation by God.”  Adam was a son of God.  Angels were too–including Satan.)  To reconcile the use of Elohim in all these verses, some have suggested, ‘It’s the Trinity.’ But God is not talking to the other members of the Trinity, because He is chastising them for corruption; nor are any of the Trinity sentenced to death! So God is rebuking them and predicts His judgment upon them, yet they are also called ‘sons of the Most High.’  Hmmm.  Could these be angels–since we know that some angels are corrupt–namely, those led by Satan, who was once an angel.  Isaiah 14:12ff gives the event that they fell. 

Modern commentaries suggest that God is talking to people, either Jewish elders or members of the Sanhedrin. But that can’t be; He calls them ‘gods,’ but God's Word is not suggesting that man becomes godlike.  Also, Jesus never says or implies that men are actually ‘gods,’ somehow the same as Jesus (as some apostate religions teach today).  So, the verses are not men either.

Look at Psalm 89:5-6, to learn more:

Let the heavens praise your wonders, O Lord,
    your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones!
⁶ For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord?
    Who among the heavenly beings is like the Lord,
⁷ a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones,

The “assembly of the holy ones” or “heavenly beings,” or the “council of the holy ones,” or our “divine council” in Psalm 82 earlier—they are all “sons of God,” or “sons of the Most High.”   And they’re also “gods;” and “gods” are all translations of Elohim in Hebrew, which we usually associate to our good God.  And they are counseling with God Most High, in the heavenlies, “in the skies.” So, we’re thinking, who are these guys? How do they get a position in council with Him?

 Well, here’s some thoughts an expanded brain might see. For those who ask, why does God need a council anyway? He’s omniscient.  In our response, we might first ask, why did God create Man?  He didn’t need us either; He’s not deficient for knowledge or lonely.  The best guess is:  He must like our company; maybe He liked the angels’ company–even after they became corrupt. If that seems hard to believe, consider: He has love for us–and we’re corrupted in sin.  

I Kings 22:19-25 adds to this subject, but first a little background:  The Jewish kingdom at this time was divided—Israel in the north, under Ahab, and Judah in the south, under Jehoshaphat.  Ahab is trying to persuade Jehoshaphat to join him in conquering Ramoth-Gilead.  Ahab asks his own prophets about the battle, but these are an ungodly Baal-worshiping bunch that, of course, predict his victory (whatever he wants to hear–just like many of our pastors today).  But Jehoshaphat persuades Ahab to bring forth a godly prophet, Micaiah. So let’s pick it up at verse 19:

And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; ²⁰ and the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-Gilead?’… ²¹ Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ ²² And the Lord said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And He said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ ²³ Now therefore behold, (Micaiah said), the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; (but) the Lord has declared disaster for you.”

God is again partnering with likely a council of fallen angels in the heavens, this time called “the host of heaven.”   But this group is not to be confused with the ones that serenaded the shepherds in Bethlehem.  In this case, they are deciding how Ahab is going to die, to be judged for his life of evil.  The fallen angels are evil spirits in His presence. They are ready to deceive Ahab.

Dr. Heiser concludes, after all this, that God has a heavenly council of spirits, made up of His first creation of “sons,” (remember, the Hebrew is defined as "direct creations") which were called ‘angels.’  But since some of them turned evil, these verses must be after some angels fell.  Yet they are allowed to participate with Him, and they are correctly translated“ gods” (from Elohim) and “sons of God,” since they are a direct creation by our God. All under the term Elohim. But clearly, we can determine by things that are said, who the real God (also Elohim in singular) is; He is Higher than they are, and judges them as well. So clearly everyone in council knows that there is not an equality in the council.  There are several verses that confirm that Yahweh, our God, is “God of all gods” (Psa 86:8, 95:3 for instance). 

So evil gods—angels, after they fell— are all called Elohim, like our good God. We, as Westerners, like to associate unique, and good, attributes with the term Elohim—like omniscience and omnipresence, terms of a God who loves us–and we like to ignore any other possibilities. We also want to make Elohim in a singular context only–our God. We’re “used” to having only one God; and we get creeped out when the word is plural.  And we wonder why God would allow His enemies to be present in heaven, even participate, in divine counsel. But, as we can see with Scripture (if we use an open mind), they plainly did. The Biblical writers were evidently unfazed by these gods, this expansion of the definition of the Hebrew Elohim—we have to believe they simply knew their Scriptures better than we do. Don’t forget, God is the ultimate writer of all Scripture, so we cannot doubt its truthfulness. 

Elohim, as it turns out, is used for three different things that are not our God of the Bible:  (1) The mysterious “council” in heaven, as we have already seen; (2) gods of the nations, called Elohim in I Kings 11:33–they are named, such as Asherah, Ashtaroth, Chemosh, and Milcom—each of which really was a powerful demon (the "best" demons ruled nations) worshipped and ruled, each as god of a nation close to Israel. While we’re on that, it seems to me, given the terrorism gripped in a nation like Iran, that the fallen angels still have a role as powerful demons over nations. 

The third use for "Elohim" is demons.  For proof: A relative word, "shedim," in Deuteronomy 32:17 is translated correctly as “demon” in the ESV (the bold word below).  The thing I want you to note, is that it is the same creatures translated “gods,” Elohim.  

They (Ed. note: Israel) sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded.

This Hebrew word shedim, gives us another bit of knowledge about demons. Shedim literally means ‘territorial entity.’ Compare that to “the gods of the nations” (Elohim), in #2 above, and we conclude that demons are ruling in different sizes of playing fields. This suggests a hierarchy of demons.

The above #3 example for Heiser’s sermon is in I Samuel 28:13, which is the story of Saul needing a medium (or witch) to prophesy the winner of his upcoming battle with the Philistines. When he approached her, she says, “Whom shall I bring up for you?” (speaking of a physical appearance of the dead. But she doesn’t really believe it will happen. She probably plans on producing a hazy mist of smoke and then convince him it’s Samuel).  He said, “Bring up Samuel for me.” (Samuel had died, don’t forget). She was totally surprised when Samuel actually appeared and spoke. (His appearance could have been an artifice of a body, too). She was afraid.  Saul said, “Do not be afraid.  What did you see?” She said, “I saw a spirit…”  The Hebrew word for spirit is Elohim. Another proof that Elohim is also used to describe disembodied human dead, as well. 

Thus we conclude that Elohim is not simply used only for our God, with all His good attributes.  There are lots of Elohim, in these cases demons, because there are lots of spirit beings. All are called Elohim.  But no other Elohim is like Yahweh—simply by reading the text, you can deduce that. He is the Creator, He is sovereign over all. There is a judgment day coming for the other Elohim.   

Let’s give another Scripture.  In Daniel 4:13-24 we read of a vision of Nebuchadnezzar.  Daniel interprets it. The king learns that his vision was predicting God’s decree of temporary insanity upon him (because of his pride), such that he would be wandering in fields eating grass for food.  These verses start with Nebuchadnezzar’s words:

“I saw in the visions of my head while on my bed, and there was a watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven. ¹⁴ He cried aloud and said…”And let him graze with the beasts on the grass of the earth.
¹⁶ Let his heart be changed from that of a man,
Let him be given the heart of a beast, And let seven (years) pass over him.

¹⁷ ‘This decision is by the decree of the watchers,
And the sentence by the word of the holy ones,
In order that the living may know
That the Most High rules in the kingdom of men…

²⁴ (Ed. Now Daniel speaks): This is the interpretation,  O king, and this is the decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king…

The Bible is consistent, as always.  This decree was pronounced by the ‘holy ones,’ the fallen angels, but this time they are called the ‘watchers.’  Yet the decision was made by the Most High (our God).  But there is still council participation … again allowed by God.  He evidently likes to do that.  We surmise that when He created spirits, He wanted children who were part of the family. The angels rebelled. But so have we. He feels that way toward us Christians, only stronger, because those of mankind who are saved will stay with Him; the demons will all end in the lake of fire.  (I might surmise that God, for the angels who were left on His side after the angel rebellion, took away the good angels' free will so that no new dark angels will arise. Unfortunately, the evil angels are immortal like the good angels).  God gives us the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) to have us participate in giving Him more children. 

This has given me another thought: this might explain another strange Bible verse that had left me puzzled.  I’m talking about God creating Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:26-27:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea… and over the livestock over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”  27 So God created man in his own image,  in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

How does your Study Bible explain the plural “our”?  Mine says it’s like a single king sovereignly using the plural to explain his individual action.  So that "explanation" says, “God was taking counsel, and talking with Himself.” Sounds fishy. Or, it could be that God was speaking with the other members of the Trinity.  But why couldn't it be, He was speaking to His heavenly council?  If you take that view, note that when he is done speaking with the council, He creates us in His singular “image.” So it’s our God doing it, nobody else–we’re created in His image. The same wording is also in Genesis 11:7 at the tower of Babel, by the way.

And we can’t avoid Job 1:6 and 2:1, which start out with “the sons of God:”  One of them is Satan.   It seems shocking that He gave him permission to speak his accusations of God’s favorite child, Job:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them…. 

So, it’s clear that Satan had access to the heavenlies. This further adds to our proof about these beings are fallen angels in the Elohim council. Thank God, someday He will no longer have to listen to these accusations. Scripture says He will banish him from His presence, and later throw them down to hell.

Yet my brain thought another question about “sons of God.”  You may have asked this: How is Jesus the ‘only begotten’ son of God (John 3:16, King James) now that we know that other sons of God exist?  

A different issue is raised, too: Some religions also say Jesus can’t be eternal if He is ‘begotten,’ which suggests His life began when He was born.

The answer to both questions is this: The problem phrase is the mistaken ‘only begotten,’ which was based on a study of ancient Greek manuscripts that had been dug up and were available in the 1600s.  The Greek word the Apostle John wrote was ‘monogenes,’ but the word fell out of use and, 1500+ years later, men were uncertain as to its meaning. It was guessed that it was made up of two words, monos, or ‘only,’ and ‘gennao,’ or ‘beget, bear.’  But according to more accurate koine Greek (from earlier parchment found by recent archaeological digs), it should be ‘monos,’ or ‘only,’ and ‘genos,’ which means ‘class or kind.’  Thus, the ‘only begotten’ translation was wrong–it should be ‘one of a kind,’ or ‘unique.’  Jesus was/is eternal, a definitely unique characteristic. Jesus was the Immanuel, God with us.  His uniqueness separates Him from the angels and demons. He WAS God, as other Scriptures prove. 

There is still another interesting verse that raises yet another question: Hebrews 11:17:

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son (ed. note: “only begotten” is a KJV translation, which is when they were still guessing its meaning.  In the more recent ESV,  it is translated as “only son”)   

But neither ‘only begotten son’ nor ‘only son’ can be an accurate translation, since Isaac was preceded in birth by Ishmael.  But it is correct
if we substitute the correct words, “his unique son” (ESV should have translated it that way).  And Isaac was unique, unlike Ismael; born from a freewoman, Sarah, born when his parents were 100 and 90 years old, an impossibility. He was a child of promise, instead of a child of a slave woman (Hagar). In the same way, Jesus is ‘unique’ in John 3:16: Yes, because Jesus is God!  Philippians 2:6 (NIV) says:

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage…

"Equality with God" is accurate, since Jesus was God.

Back to Dr. Heiser.  He finishes his session by clearing up another difficult phrase, in John 10:33-36, when the Jews were ready to stone Jesus because He claimed to be God:

 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

³⁴ Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? (Ed. Note: He is quoting Psalm 82:6, our head-scratching verse at the beginning of this paper) ³⁵ If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— ³⁶ what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?  ³⁷ If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; ³⁸ but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.”

Jesus, to defend His claim of deity, is saying, “Look, doesn’t Scripture have God speaking to other gods?  So, Psa 82:6 asserted there are other gods, and sons of god, who are real. So, since our own Scripture says that category exists; therefore when I say that I’m more than a man, it’s possible. You can’t just assume I’m blaspheming if I make such a claim. So you only have to decide if I’m a fallen angel ‘god’ or God’s unique Son. If you want to condemn me, you can’t have as your ‘proof’ that I’m a mere man, and committing blasphemy. Your real proof of what I am can only be by my works. Do I do works of God?  Or do I do works that demons do?  

 Was Jesus a great debater? Of course. 

Let nobody say that Jesus did not claim to be God.  He did! 

I hope you enjoyed this paper and Dr. Heiser. I’ve got more from this knowledgeable man later.