Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

The unseen realm claims to recover or restore the supernatural worldview the second temples Jews had regarding the heavenly council and realm of Yahweh that "organized Christianity" over the centuries obscured. The book is quite interesting and hard to put down (the first 1/3 of it). It opens your eyes or at least makes you see stories in the Bible from a spiritual perspective that you may have missed in the past. In the opening chapters, he claims that the Bible is a mosaic (which I agree with) that needs to be discovered piece by piece to understand the whole. And of course, he pretty much claims throughout that each piece he is now explaining (opening our eyes too) to us is the correct view. So you are getting a Michael Heiser mosaic that you may or may not agree with. I agree with some of "his views" on things I didn't realize before, however, there are MANY PIECES to his mosaic that can cause a different whole. A lot of assumptions and connections that aren't proven. I will address some of these disagreements I have below. His book is broken down into eight parts, so I will share the points he makes that I don't agree with. SPOILER ALERT. Part II - Households of God (Chapters 2-9) -This section explains how Yahweh has a divine council He uses, and he starts off the book with Psalm 82 as his backbone. He feels the psalm is only referring to his angelic council and not men, however, I tend to think both fallen angels and men (leaders) are being referred to for numerous reasons I won't get into. This section also covers how we are his imagers. His definition of exactly what an imager is is not clear to me. Seems that he thinks God-image is a way or state of being instead of the Physical body the Bible claims God has throughout the scriptures. Don't have any issues with this part of the book aside from the insecure sarcastic tone. Prat III - Divine Transgressions (Chapters 10 - 15) -This section covers all the way from the beginning of creation up to the tower of Babel and how Yahweh and his divine council fit into the stories written in Genesis. He has some unproven and assumed ideas regarding the explanation of some of these events. I will address some of his statements I disagree with. CLAIM: "We understand that, even though New Testament writers refer to the serpent back in Eden, they are really referring to a supernatural entity - not a mere member of the animal kingdom (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Thess 3:5; Rev. 12:9)" (Pg. 74) -Not completely true. They are referring to both. Yes, Satan is called an "old serpent" in Rev. 12:9, but he is also called "the Great Dragon". Does this mean he is literally a Dragon? No, both are symbolic. We do know, however, that the serpent was a real being that was cursed (Gen. 3:14), whose perpetual curse continues in the Millenial reign of Christ (Isa. 65:25) * He has a lot of weird and unproven ideas regarding Eden that other new-age teachers use for their own overly allegorized mutilation of scripture (see Carl Gallups's "GODS series" which I address in his 3 books). Michael claims that we who take the Bible literally where at all possible unless otherwise, it's symbolic, are "over literalizing" scripture. I tend to think we just believe what the Bible says and don't try to force it to mean something else. CLAIM: "Job 38:7 refers to the sons of God as "stars," (Pg. 80) -Not true. Although the Bible has referred to angels as stars symbolically before (Judges 5:20), the "morning stars" context of Job 38:7 is referring to Physical infinite suns or stars. Basically, the passage is saying all creation (celestial bodies and angels) celebrated the creation of the earth. And yes, Psalm 19, makes it quite clear that the physical creation sings and worships him before the curse. CLAIM: "Since we know that we are not dealing with a mere animal in Genesis 3, but rather a divine being that is cast as creaturely, the description that this figure in the garden was an "anointed guardian Cherub" makes sense." -We are dealing with both a serpent (which Lucifer used) and Lucifer himself in the garden scene. Lucifer was CLEARLY a fallen being and not a guarding cherub at the time of Adam. He was not co-ruling with Adam or his guardian. There is not the slightest hint of that in the Bible. He was, however, a guardian Cherub in his own Eden (Ezk. 28:11-19). Whatever he was a guardian cherub for was Pre-adamite. CLAIM: "But -ch-sh are also the consonants of a verb. If we changed the vowels to a verbal form (recall that Hebrew originally had no vowels), we would have Nochesh, which means "the diviner". Divination refers to COMMUNICATION WITH the supernatural world" (Pg. 87) (emphasis mine) - Here, he is claiming that Nachash (Hebrew for serpent) meaning is a divine communicator with the supernatural world. Ironically that's what Genesis claims happened. Satan had no access to Adam & Even and plotted with the Serpent to dethrone Adam. Otherwise, the curse that the serpent would eat dust from his belly would be an unjust punishment if not a willing participant. It makes no sense to be a communicator with the supernatural world if you're already a part of that world. So Michael is now contradicting (unknowingly) his own claim that Nachash or serpent is Satan. CLAIM: "The point being made by the curse is that the Nachash, who wanted to be "the most high", will be "most low" instead - cast away from God and the council to earth, and even under the earth. In the underworld, the Nachash is even lower than the beasts of the field. He is hidden from view and from life in God's world. His domain is death." (Pg. 91) -Here you have a really stupid analogy and proof of how not taking the plain literal language of the Bible by mutilating it with your own pre-conceived ideas will cause moronic theology. Last time I checked, the Bible claims he has access to Heaven and accuses us day and night before God (Rev. 12:10-12) and will be CAST DOWN (a second time) from Heaven to the Earth. PART IV - Yahweh and His Portion (Chapters 16 - 22) - This section deals with Yahweh's dealings with Abraham all the way to Mount Sinai. For the most part, this section is pretty Biblically sound and he makes a lot of great points I haven't thought about before. Just a couple of disagreements below. CLAIM: "Earlier we discovered that Eden was the dwelling place and headquarters of the divine council. We were reminded of the description of Eden in Genisis as a lush garden with four rivers (Gen 2:10-14). Eden was also a mountain (Ezk. 28:13-14), the administrate "seat of the gods" (Ezk. 28:2), situated in "the heart of the seas" (Ezk 28:2), a description that reiterated the well-watered imagery of the council headquarters.) (Pg. 160) -No, we didn't discover any headquarters. We know that Lucifer had his own Eden (either different time, location, or both from Adam) and wanted to ASCEND to Heaven above the clouds to dethrone God from His throne. (Isa. 14:12-15; Ezk. 28:11-19). Lucifers Eden may have had a mountain, but it wasn't where God's throne was. His was in Heaven which should be clear to even baby Christians. Eden was not "the administrative seat of the gods situated in the heart of the seas". That was a reference to Ithobalus II (King of Tyre) and humanity or Physical Tyre (at that time) and not a description of Lucifer ruling from Eden. Although this chapter will later have reference to Lucifer, Vrs 2 CLEARLY says "thou art a man". CLAIM: "Sin had to be "transported" to where evil belonged - territory outside Israel, under the control of gods set over the pagan nations. The high priest was not sacrificing to Azazel. Rather, Azazel was getting what belonged to him: sin" (Pg.178) -Here, Mr. Heiser claims that the "scapegoat" was being sent back to Azazel (which actually means "goat of departure") to where sin belongs. He gets this convoluted idea based on the LEB translation he uses for Lev. 16:7-10. Verse 10 states "but he must present alive before Yahweh the goat on which the lot for Azazel fell to make atonement for himself, to send it away into the desert TO AZAZEL". However, this passage is simply referring to the death of one goat (typifying death of Christ) and the Azazel(scapegoat) being led into the wilderness (typifying resurrection) or sin being removed. The goat was Azazel and not sin being sent away to the demonic realm. KJV makes it more clear "and let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness". Even though this is a small issue, this is the type of nonsense he teaches because of the translation he uses. You will notice a lot of weird ideas that he forces into scripture. PART V - Conquest and Failure (Chapters 23 - 25) -This section covers the failure in the desert to the conquest by Joshua. He does a good job of explaining the conquest but still has odd interpretations throughout. CLAIM: "The Bible's SILENCE on the nature of the supernatural intervention opens the door to the idea that other rival gods produced offspring to oppose Yahweh's children" (Pg. 188) (emphasis mine) -So basically here, Michael is saying that the fallen angels of Genesis 6:4 used some sort of "virgin birth" to produce hybrids (half angelic / half-human) beings. He's now borderline heretical. No, Michael, the Bible is not silent regarding this at all. Does "whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women"(NLT) (Gen 6:4), "For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them deep into hell" (2 Pet. 2:5), or "And the angels who did not stay within their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling — these He has kept in eternal chains under darkness, bound for judgment on that great day. IN THE LIKE MANNER, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, who indulged in sexual immorality and pursued strange flesh" (Jude 6-7a), Sound like the Bible is silent? In fairness, he doesn't claim he agrees with this view, because he knows it's better to be neutral on stupid ideas like that. CLAIM: "There are good textual reasons FOR NOT TAKING THIS STATEMENT AS A LITERALLY TRUE ASSESSMENT (referring to Giants in Numbers 13:32) in terms of its comprehensive nature. We've already noted that the biblical writers at times use sweeping generalizations that are not intended to be precise" & "Consequently, it is much more coherent to read the statement as indicating that the Israelite spies saw UNUSUALLY TALL PEOPLE GROUPS everywhere they went in the land" (Pg. 204) (emphasis mine) -Another example of trying to water down what the Bible says because he either has a hard time believing it or he thinks the bible writers can't be honest and have to dramatize the truth. The Bible is clear about the Nephilim....“There were giants in the earth in those days" (Gen. 6:4), "There we saw the Nephilim [or giants], the sons of Anak, who come from the giants; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." (Num. 13:33), "Israel, the Amorites were there when you entered Canaan. They were tall as cedars and strong as oaks. But I wiped them out" (Amos 2:9), "And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span." (1 sam. 17:4) (cubits can be from 18 - 25inches and span 10 inches making goliath anywhere from 10-13+ feet), "Wipe out everything that belongs to them. Do not spare any of them, kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys" (1 sam 15:3). So we can either believe Michael, that Jehovah had issues with "unusually Tall people groups" and their pets, or we can believe that Jehovah wanted to wipe out everything that was genetically altered or modified by Nephilim (which is what scientists are messing around with today), causing hybrid humans. PART VI - Thus Says The Lord (Chapters 26 - 30) - Hard to follow the point of this section. He's all over the place from the temple pattern being similar to Eden, Clear Messianic passages in the OT not actually referring to the Messiah (Clearly) because the passages don't contain the word "Mashiach" (Messiah), his weird obsession with the serpent, how the plan for Messiah was hidden in the OT scriptures (everyone already knows this), and OT Prophecies during captivity. CLAIM: "There is no single verse in the Old Testament that contains the word Mashiach that one could point to and discern the scope of what Jesus did in the New Testament" (footnote 4.) (Pg. 242) -You don't need the word "Mashiach" to know it was referring to Jehovah's Messiah. Nonmessianic Jews to this day are still waiting for the 1st coming of their Messiah based on old testament passages. It is obvious to everybody that the Devil had no idea of God's plan or he wouldn't have crucified the Messiah, pretty much common sense. However, this claim leads to his next claim below: CLAIM: "These Old Testament passages and others have been made by modern commentators to speak about the Messiah and his work in ways the New Testament authors don't claim. We shouldn't create connections where the biblical test doesn't. Instead, we need to think more carefully about what we do find in the text." (Pg. 243) -He should follow his own advice. CLAIM: "Old Testament writers were quite familiar with Baal. Baal was the main source of consternation about Israel's propensity toward idolatry. in an effort to make the point that Yahweh, the God of Israel, deserves worship instead of Baal, the Biblical writers OCCASIONALLY PILFERED this stock description of Baal as "cloud rider" and assigned it to Yahweh." (Pg. 251) (emphasis mine) -For all we know, Urgaitic text could have been hijacked from Israel via word of mouth. We don't officially know who wrote first because we are only dealing with copies of Biblical writings and not the original like with Babylon writings. Also, I highly doubt any OT saints were reading Babylonian scriptures LOL. They were forbidden from even associating with them. (Josh 23:7) PART VII - The Kingdom Already (Chapters 31 - 38) This section covers the incarnation of Jesus, Prediction of the Kingdom, transfiguration (he claims is on Mt. Hermon), Crucifixion, Resurrection, Pentecost, Paul's mission, and the rest of the New Testament. Too many weird theories to cover. He is a Bible teacher that tries to make his man-made theories fit because location and events have similar wording or imagery. He goes way beyond the Bible interpreting itself. CLAIM: "The supernatural context of Jesus' actions and statements also frequently goes unnoticed. We have space to share only a few examples. The cosmic backdrop of the divine council worldview of the Old Testament to which you're now acclimated will make them quite discernible. Even though they are too often taught that way, the Gospels are far more than a boring point-to-point travelogue. consider this chapter a cure." (Pg. 276) -Apparently, other Bible scholars just don't get it, except for this guy. CLAIM: "The basis for Catholicism's contention that the church is built on Peter's leadership is that his name means "stone". For sure there is a wordplay going on in Peter's confession, but I would suggest there is also an important double entendre: THE "ROCK" REFERS TO THE MOUNTAIN LOCATION WHERE JESUS MAKES THE STATEMENT. When viewed from this perspective, Peter confesses Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, at "this rock" (this mountain - Mount Hermon). Why? This place was considered the "gates of hell", the gateway to the realm of the dead, in Old Testament times." (Pg. 284) (emphasis mine) -No, Michael, the rock is not a physical location and if it was, it started in Jerusalem (Act 2). Also mount of olives is where Jesus ascended (Acts 1:9-12) and where he will return (Zech. 14:1-7). The rock which Jesus was referring to was himself as Gr: petra "immovable stone" (Ps. 118:22; Isa. 28:16 & 1 Cor. 3:11). Jesus said "the gates" will not prevail, meaning more than one location or multiple gates. If Mt. Hermon was a portal to the unseen dimension, I highly doubt it was the only one. Also, Satan, or serpent as Michael always likes to call him, has his Headquarters throne in Pergamos Turkey ( Pergamum was a leading religious center of Asia Minor. It was a home of pagan worship and cults including Zeus, Athena, and many other false gods.), and not Mt. Hermon (Rev. 2:12-17). CLAIM: "The Seraphim of Isa 6:2, 6 that attend Yahweh's throne may also have been fiery beings if the noun derives from the verb Saraph ("to burn"). It is more likely that Seraphim derives from the Hebrew noun Saraph ("serpent"), which in turn IS DRAWN FROM EGYPTIAN THRONE GUARDIAN TERMINOLOGY AND CONCEPTIONS. (Footnote 4) (Pg. 297) -All throughout his book, Michael is having the reader believe that the Holy prophets are constantly stealing wording from Babylonian writers to express what they saw or experienced. He has gone WAY PAST them stealing their metaphors to apply them to the real God of the Holy Bible. He is clearly another new-age teacher with man-made theology he created from his convoluted mind to seem like he discovered hidden meaning in the Bible no one else could figure out. I question his belief in the inerrancy of the Bible at this stage. * I won't finish evaluating the remainder of Part 7 or 8 for room's sake. Overall I give this book 2 stars. I started off very excited to read it, but less than halfway through I was finding myself daydreaming a lot and not really engaged. This book has a lot of man-made theology (he gets these from the ESV translation he uses) that forces his own concepts into his exegesis, but of course, he claims to be only allowing the scriptures to speak for themselves, blah blah blah. His sarcastic undertone must stem from his insecurity. I'm only assuming, but I wouldn't be shocked if he received a lot of backlash from authentic sound Biblical scholars causing his sarcasm. If you're a young Christian, you will find this book to be great but if you're more seasoned, I would imagine you will be pulling your hair out of your head at some parts and being enlighted by others...Quite an enigma lol.