Mike Heiser, who is writing a PhD dissertation on divine beings in Jewish literature between the Old and New Testament periods, is an expert on angels, divine beings, and ancient Semitic texts, with a particular interest in the paranormal and UFOs. Art mentions Heiser’s upcoming book on the Bible Code, a topic of personal interest to him. He welcomes Heiser to the program and apologizes for missing their first scheduled interview due to the flu. They discuss Heiser’s book, “The Facade,” which explores the impact of a genuine unveiling of intelligent extraterrestrial life on mainstream Western religious communities like Christianity and Judaism. Heiser’s story character, with a background in religious studies, grapples with the concept of a singular God in Israelite religion and the Christian acceptance of the God of Israel while worshiping Christ as God, raising questions about monotheism versus polytheism. They discuss the early Christians’ willingness to be martyred while maintaining their belief in monotheism, despite worshiping both the God of Israel and Christ, a contradiction to some.
Art and Heiser delve into the concept of monotheism articulated on non-Semitic terms, involving a high God and a secondary being, which is evident in Old Testament angelic passages. Heiser shares an anecdote about teaching a group of Jewish people these concepts, which surprised them. He references the Brookings Report, agreeing that its conclusions about extraterrestrial impact on society are still relevant. Heiser suggests that extraterrestrials could be embraced if they are benign and not connected to negative ancient texts, like those describing the sons of God in Genesis 6 having relations with human women, who are depicted as watchers in the Book of Enoch.
Art continues the discussion by noting that Ian, a previous speaker, approaches the topic of extraterrestrials with tolerance, though he tends to believe they might be lower entities rather than beings from another place. Heiser suggests these entities might be interdimensional beings, capable of interacting with our world. Art questions why to exclude the possibility of actual extraterrestrials, given the vast number of stars and potential planets. Heiser agrees, acknowledging the high mathematical probability of extraterrestrial life and expressing interest in the idea of extraterrestrials making contact. He believes both good and bad entities can coexist, and some people of faith struggle with this concept due to poor theology. This motivated him to write “The Facade” to make such ideas more accessible and less frightening.
Heiser chose to present his research as a novel to avoid technical dryness and make it more engaging for the general public. He plans to use his website for more detailed, technical information. He notes the challenge of convincing fundamentalists, who might react negatively to the concept of extraterrestrial contact. Art summarizes Heiser’s view that there is a singular God with a hierarchy of other divine beings, suggesting that what we perceive as UFOs or aliens might be part of this hierarchy. Heiser’s translations support this idea, similar to the work of Zecharia Sitchin. Art finds the idea of a debate between Heiser and Sitchin intriguing. Heiser references a recent event by Steven Greer, who presented testimonies from credible witnesses about extraterrestrial craft, affirming the physicality of these sightings. Heiser respects Jacques Vallée’s work, suggesting that the phenomena we observe are not new and have been documented for centuries. This view challenges the notion held by some Christians and Jews that these entities are merely non-physical apparitions.
Art and Heiser delve deeper into the nature of extraterrestrial phenomena. Heiser clarifies that although he prefers the transdimensional or interdimensional view, he does not deny the physical reality of these phenomena. He acknowledges that the descriptions of beings and crafts could fit both the interdimensional and extraterrestrial hypotheses. Art agrees, noting that many listeners suspect both possibilities. Heiser explains that the key question is the nature of these beings rather than their origin. He critiques Zecharia Sitchin’s interpretation of ancient texts, particularly the notion of the Anunnaki and their association with deep space travel and gold mining, which he finds logically flawed.
Heiser challenges Sitchin’s translation of “Nephilim” as “fiery rockets” and offers to provide specific examples of errors in Sitchin’s work. He explains that Sitchin’s understanding of the languages seems inconsistent, citing Genesis 1:26-27 and the use of “Elohim” as examples. He points out that “Elohim” can be singular or plural depending on the context, and emphasizes the importance of grammar in understanding these texts. Heiser references his website, where he has posted examples and explanations, including a parsing guide for Hebrew grammar to demonstrate his points.
Heiser also discusses the use of plural terms for gods in Akkadian and Sumerian texts, highlighting that these terms can also be used in a singular sense, with examples from the Amarna letters. He suggests that Sitchin’s interpretation overlooks these grammatical nuances, leading to misleading conclusions.
Heiser continues by explaining the use of the Akkadian term “lonu,” which can refer to a single entity, such as a pharaoh, despite being a plural form. He questions why Zecharia Sitchin seems unaware of such grammatical details, which are not difficult to find. Moving on to the term “Nephilim,” Heiser clarifies that it is spelled in Hebrew with a middle “y,” which is crucial for its meaning. He critiques Sitchin’s translations of “Nephilim” as “those who came down from above,” “those who were cast down,” or “people of the fiery rockets,” arguing that these translations are incorrect and do not align with the Hebrew grammar.
Heiser explains that the causative form of “cast down” would require a different spelling in Hebrew. When asked about the literal interpretation of ancient texts, Heiser emphasizes the importance of grammar and spelling in understanding the texts accurately. He maintains that Sitchin’s interpretations are grammatically impossible with the given spellings. Heiser highlights two possibilities for the origin of “Nephilim,” contrasting them with Sitchin’s interpretation, which incorrectly connects the term to giants.
Art challenges Heiser by suggesting that rockets entering the atmosphere could appear as fiery, but Heiser points out that Sitchin’s use of “Nephilim” does not illustrate visible fire but derives from a different term. He explains that Sitchin misinterprets the Hebrew word “shem,” linking it to the Akkadian “shamu” and Sumerian “umu,” which Sitchin translates as a vehicle for the gods. Heiser clarifies that “shumu” in Sumerian does not have a relative pronoun, contradicting Sitchin’s translation.
Heiser continues by discussing the concept of the Trinity, explaining that certain biblical passages, such as Exodus 15:11, challenge the idea of the Trinity if interpreted as referring to multiple gods. He argues that comparing Yahweh to other gods undermines the doctrine of the Trinity, which posits that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same essence equally. This interpretation, Heiser asserts, could lead to a form of Arianism, which the Council of Nicaea rejected, thereby weakening the foundational Christian belief in the Trinity.
Heiser criticizes Zecharia Sitchin for making up words and providing inaccurate translations without proper references. He acknowledges Sitchin’s dedication and comparative work but argues that his incorrect translations and invented terms diminish the credibility of his research. Heiser reiterates the importance of accurate translations, particularly concerning the term “Nephilim.”
The discussion shifts to the Bible Code, with Art hinting at an upcoming segment where Heiser will address the topic. Heiser is introduced as the author of “The Facade” and a new book, “The Bible Code Myth,” where he argues that the Bible Code is essentially nonsensical. They open the phone lines for questions, starting with a caller from Louisiana discussing the thesis of the Bible Code, which claims it will save humanity from destruction. The caller seeks Heiser’s interpretation of this claim, suggesting that the Bible Code’s message might be to trust only in God and not fear man or Satan.
The discussion continues with a caller suggesting that the Bible Code reinforces the idea of fearing God and avoiding other gods, but Heiser questions the need for a Bible Code to convey this message. He argues that such messages are already clear in religious texts without the need for codes. He discusses mathematician Brendan McKay’s work, which replicated the Bible Code experiment in “Moby Dick” and found similar patterns, including phrases like “no Bible code.” This suggests that the statistical phenomena seen in the Bible Code can occur in any text of sufficient length, challenging the idea that such codes are divine signatures.
Heiser emphasizes that the Bible Code does not provide new insights beyond what is already available in the Bible. Another caller asks about the origins of Heiser’s skepticism towards the Bible Code. Heiser explains that his extensive background in textual criticism during graduate school led him to doubt the validity of the Bible Code, considering the many variations in manuscripts, changes in letter shapes, and occasional errors made by scribes. He notes that scribes often marked letters they believed should be erased, adding up to significant numbers that the Bible Code does not account for.
Heiser appreciates the dedication of the scribes, who had memorized the entire Hebrew Bible, but he points out that human errors were inevitable. These errors are noted with dots above letters, indicating uncertainty about their correctness. Heiser concludes that the Bible Code cannot account for these scribal issues, reinforcing his skepticism.
A caller poses questions about Genesis 1:1 and the gap theory, which suggests a time lapse between the initial creation and the earth becoming a formless wasteland. Heiser explains that while this translation is possible, he personally does not support the gap theory. He aligns more with the view that Genesis 1:1 does not describe the initial creation but a subsequent creative act by God, suggesting that the initial creation of matter is detailed elsewhere in the Bible. Heiser mentions that the Hebrew word “beresheet” lacks a definite article, which influences the translation and interpretation of the verse, allowing for the possibility of millions of years between creative acts.
Another caller, who appreciates Art’s handling of the discussion, asks Heiser about the foundational nature of the Trinity in Christianity, the multiple levels of interpretation in Hebrew, and connections between “grays” (extraterrestrials) and 666. Heiser confirms the Trinity as foundational to Christian belief and explains that Hebrew has various interpretative methods, with some traditions identifying four to ten levels of interpretation. He stresses the importance of interpretations linked to grammar and language to avoid subjectivity, which can arise from methods like allegorical interpretation.
Heiser briefly touches on the connection between grays and 666, mentioning that further details are available on his website and in his book “The Facade.” He encourages visiting the website for more in-depth information on these topics, particularly concerning the Antichrist and related eschatological discussions.
Heiser elaborates on the potential subjectivity of allegorical interpretations of biblical texts, suggesting that while allegory has a place, it needs to be anchored to something within the text itself to maintain credibility. He explains that the doctrine of the Trinity, solidified at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, was not invented there but was a result of textual debates concerning the nature of Jesus’ preexistence and his relationship to God, supported by passages like John 1.
Heiser references the difficulty early scholars faced in interpreting texts such as Daniel 7, which describes a divine council scene with the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man, linking this to the New Testament portrayal of Christ. This historical and textual context underpins the Trinitarian doctrine, making it foundational to Christianity despite being formally articulated later.
A caller from Miami asks about a potential hidden message in the genealogy from Adam to Noah. The caller suggests that the meanings of the names in sequence could form a message about God’s plan for redemption. Heiser responds that while intriguing, such patterns can be found in any text if analyzed in this manner, much like the patterns found in the Bible Code or even a Harry Potter book.
Art and Heiser discuss the difference between deriving messages from names versus letter sequences, agreeing to delve deeper into the topic after a break. They briefly mention Ronald Reagan’s name adding up to 666, highlighting the tendency to find meaningful patterns in arbitrary data. Heiser remains skeptical of such interpretations, emphasizing the need for caution and rigorous methodology.
Heiser discusses the genealogy from Adam to Noah, expressing skepticism about the idea that their names form a hidden prophetic message. While some translations of these names are stretched, he acknowledges the possibility of literary artistry but doubts the significance of such a message. He emphasizes that if God wanted to communicate the coming of the Messiah, clear prophecies like Isaiah 53 would be more effective than encoded messages.
An international caller from Melbourne, Australia, shares an experiment using the Bible Code on Maltese text, which yielded nonsensical results, reinforcing their disbelief in the Bible Code’s validity. Heiser and Art agree with this assessment, noting the questionable nature of the Bible Code.
A caller from Minneapolis appreciates Heiser’s respectful tone and inquires about his views on Timothy Freke’s “The Jesus Mysteries,” which argues that the story of Jesus is a mythological construct based on ancient myths like those of Orpheus and Dionysus. Heiser is not familiar with Freke’s work but expresses interest in investigating it further.
Another caller thanks Heiser for acknowledging the existence of multiple biblical texts and their differences, a topic often overlooked by scholars focused on a single version. The caller raises the issue of colloquialisms in the Bible, suggesting that certain phrases may have been generic expressions that made sense in their original context but might be misunderstood today. He gives the example of the character Frank Burns from “MAS*H” being called “ferret face,” which is a colloquialism, not a literal description.
Heiser agrees, noting that descriptions like “the watcher was fierce like a serpent” might indicate a fearsome appearance rather than a literal snake-like form. He reiterates his view that both interdimensional and interplanetary hypotheses are possible for explaining certain phenomena, suggesting they could be occurring simultaneously. He appreciates the caller’s support for his critique of the Bible Code, noting that his points reflect broader concerns about the code’s validity.
Heiser responds to a question about the interpretation of “Elohim” in the Hebrew Bible, noting that while it sometimes appears in plural form, it is often singular. He mentions that textual issues, such as those in Ezekiel 28 dealing with a Satan figure, do not affect the overall understanding of the divine council. Heiser draws an analogy to phone records in a legal defense to illustrate the importance of preserving textual integrity, noting that even minor changes can significantly impact interpretation.
A caller from Texas asks about authority within the Trinity. Heiser explains that the New Testament depicts the Father as having ultimate authority, with Jesus deferring to the Father during his time on earth. He discusses the theological concepts of the ontological and economic Trinity, where the former denotes equality in essence among the Trinity’s persons, and the latter refers to their distinct functional roles.
Another caller highlights that Hebrew is straightforward in forming plurals by adding “im,” making “Elohim” a plural noun often followed by a singular predicate, supporting the concept of one God in three persons. Heiser agrees, emphasizing that this construction was intentional to convey the idea of a singular God with a complex unity. The caller also praises Heiser’s insight on the connection between Daniel and Revelation, specifically the portrayal of God the Father and Jesus in judgment scenes.
Heiser acknowledges the brilliance of the observation, reinforcing the significance of such textual connections in understanding biblical prophecies and the nature of the divine.
Heiser discusses the use of “Elohim” in different contexts, pointing out that it often appears as a singular noun despite being grammatically plural. He gives the example of “Elohim” referring to a single god of the Moabites in 1 Kings 11:33, demonstrating that context determines whether “Elohim” is singular or plural. He highlights that in Deuteronomy 32:8-9, a textual issue exists where some versions mention the “sons of Israel” while others, including the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls, refer to the “sons of God.” This difference suggests that the nations were divided according to the number of divine beings, not Israelites, as Israel did not exist at that time.
Heiser explains that the division of nations in Genesis 10 and 11 aligns with the idea of God allocating small gods to each nation, while starting anew with Abraham in Genesis 12 to form His own people. He emphasizes the importance of context in interpreting “Elohim” and other terms, considering factors like verbs and surrounding text to determine whether they refer to the singular God of Israel or multiple deities.
Art suggests future debates for Heiser, possibly with Zecharia Sitchin or a Bible Code proponent, and Heiser expresses willingness to participate. The segment concludes with Art thanking Heiser for his insights and promoting Heiser’s books, “The Facade” and “The Bible Code Myth.” The show then transitions to open lines for any topic discussion.