What Was the Author's Intent Here?

cvanwey · Nov 13, 2019

Was this presented story meant to be taken literally, or figuratively?

If literal, which appears more highly likely, then this may almost certainly suggest that the author assumed the world was flat - as the passage is assuming the entire "world's" kingdoms/villages/cities/other could be seen, simply by moving up higher.

"8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor."

If one wishes to instead argue that such a statement has more of a figurative meaning, or maybe meant to suggest something other than the apparent straight forward assertion, then by all means... Please correct accordingly?

It's the simple passages above, which suggests that Bible author(s) did not have the foreknowledge to discern that the world was not flat. Nor, did Jesus offer correction of this now mundane piece of knowledge.

The point of this thread is to demonstrate, that aside from the Bible's proclaimed prophecies and miracles, where the Bible has a chance to demonstrate falsifiable data, such as the shape of the earth, the Bible sometimes gets it wrong.

And though many may want to 'knee-jerk', and reply that the Bible was never meant to be a 'science book', it looks as though the given passage above would a least present correct information. Or instead maybe omit Matthew 4:8 entirely?

The fact that the author elects to add such a passage, suggests that such a story is either completely false, made up, improvised, other; which begs a question.... What else is down right incorrect?

It's little nuggets like this, which makes skeptics, doubters, atheists, deists, etc. scratch their heads in wonder...

Sanoy · Nov 13, 2019

This is a "cosmic mountain". There is a motif regarding trees and mountains in the ANE that historians have come to refer to as cosmic geography. A ziggurat is meant to emulate a cosmic mountain and provide a home for the god up in the heavens with a ladder down to earth (think Jacobs ladder). Trees also serve this purpose, and you find a great many theophanies occurring near a tree. By taking Him to the mountain he is taking Him to the heavenly realm above the earth. For a modern reader we just see height, but for the ancient audience this is theological messaging regarding the heavenly realm.

zippy2006 · Nov 13, 2019

cvanwey said:
It's little nuggets like this, which makes skeptics, doubters, atheists, deists, etc. scratch their heads in wonder...

I would not presume to speak on behalf of others after writing a post such as this one. You've merely one-upped the fundamentalist by quite a few degrees.

zippy2006 said:
There's no doubt that many self-proclaimed atheists of our day read scripture the same way they solve a wordfind, trying to identify contradictions in the mass of text.

zippy2006 said:
What we find in reality are anti-apologists who are as happy to attack an accidental proposition as an essential one; as happy to hew a stray limb as a deep root. For many the differentiation is non-existent, they are just hacking away, ransacking the city instead of conquering it.

Chesterton · Nov 13, 2019

cvanwey said:
Was this presented story meant to be taken literally, or figuratively?

Figuratively. People had the same depth perspective we have. They knew that when something is far enough away, you can't see it, regardless of elevation. It's just saying "worship me, and I'll give you all kinds of valuable stuff".

Pavel Mosko · Nov 13, 2019

cvanwey said:
And though many may want to 'knee-jerk', and reply that the Bible was never meant to be a 'science book', it looks as though the given passage above would a least present correct information. Or instead maybe omit Matthew 4:8 entirely?

The fact that the author elects to add such a passage, suggests that such a story is either completely false, made up, improvised, other; which begs a question.... What else is down right incorrect?

It's little nuggets like this, which makes skeptics, doubters, atheists, deists, etc. scratch their heads in wonder...

Yes but these kind of threads also make it seem to me that skeptics and atheists etc. are not able to relate to ancient literary genres, ancient cultures, understand theological development etc. You guys are like a reverse image or shadow image of a Biblical fundamentalist....

Kenny'sID · Nov 13, 2019

cvanwey said:
It's little nuggets like this, which makes skeptics, doubters, atheists, deists, etc. scratch their heads in wonder...

Na, it's your skeptics, doubters, atheists, deists, etc. trying to pick pick pick God out of existence because they are frightened of the Hell he puts on the unbelievers. Guess what, it didn't work....still there, and always will be.

If that's not the case, why is this even a concern for you?

Tinker Grey · Nov 13, 2019

Kenny'sID said:
Na, it's your skeptics, doubters, atheists, deists, etc. trying to pick pick pick God out of existence because they are frightened of the Hell he puts on the unbelievers. Guess what, it didn't work....still there, and always will be.

If that's not the case, why is this even a concern for you?

Are you saying it should be taken literally? Figuratively?

cvanwey · Nov 13, 2019

Sanoy said:
This is a "cosmic mountain". There is a motif regarding trees and mountains in the ANE that historians have come to refer to as cosmic geography. A ziggurat is meant to emulate a cosmic mountain and provide a home for the god up in the heavens with a ladder down to earth (think Jacobs ladder). Trees also serve this purpose, and you find a great many theophanies occurring near a tree. By taking Him to the mountain he is taking Him to the heavenly realm above the earth. For a modern reader we just see height, but for the ancient audience this is theological messaging regarding the heavenly realm.

Pardon the questions... I know you seem to dislike when unbelievers answer with more questions. But fear not... The first three questions are self-explanatory. Thus, only the bottom ones warrants further addressing:

In Matthew 4:1, is the 'wilderness' considered 'cosmic'? (rhetorical)

In Matthew 4:5, is the 'holy city' considered 'cosmic'? (rhetorical)

Also in Matthew 4:5, is the 'highest point of the temple' considered 'cosmic'? (rhetorical)

******************

So why is Matthew 4:8 presumed as such; simply because it states 'very high mountain'?

I get the Bible's figurative verses about 'mountains'..., such as: 1 Corinthians 13:2, Micah 4:1, Zechariah 4:7, etc...

However, it looks as though the author, whomever that may have actually of been, instead made a 'cosmic' oops

Is this even a possibility?

Are you willing to concede the possibility, that the author revealed information suggestive that he thought the world was flat? Or is it NOT possible?

And if you are willing to concede the possibility, then follow up questions might be....

Who was the actual author?
Who gave the author their information?
Or was the author a direct witness?

cvanwey · Nov 13, 2019

zippy2006 said:
I would not presume to speak on behalf of others after writing a post such as this one. You've merely one-upped the fundamentalist by quite a few degrees.

Nothing in this response warrants a reply. I stand by my OP, and my further questions/inquiries of @Sanoy as follows.

cvanwey · Nov 13, 2019

Chesterton said:
Figuratively. People had the same depth perspective we have. They knew that when something is far enough away, you can't see it, regardless of elevation. It's just saying "worship me, and I'll give you all kinds of valuable stuff".

Okay, I actually agree with much of what you state, as it appears fairly logical. But I'm not asking for what the message is attempting to convey. But rather, that the author seems to possibly think the earth is not spherical....

I'm questioning the author's choice of words here.... Another poster is attempting to suggest that 'very high mountain' instead means some 'cosmic realm'. But as I stated to this poster already, in verses 1 and 5 of the very same Chapter, are not to be mistaken as 'cosmic', but somehow, verse 8 MUST be?.?.?.?.?

I ask the same question of you, as him now...

Is it even possible, that the author of this passage thought the earth was flat?

And if so, then the next logical questions might then be...

Who was giving this author this information? Or, was the author attempting to state they were speaking from either eyewitness attestation (or) revelation?

cvanwey · Nov 13, 2019

Pavel Mosko said:
Yes but these kind of threads also make it seem to me that skeptics and atheists etc. are not able to relate to ancient literary genres, ancient cultures, understand theological development etc. You guys are like a reverse image or shadow image of a Biblical fundamentalist....

Are you stating that Bible fundamentalists are incorrect in their interpretation(s)?

Furthermore, I carefully chose this passage, as you can see from my responses to other posters.

I'm not nit-picking here... I'm placing to the forefront, a very specific example, which can actually possibly be falsified. The author overtly volunteers information suggestive to the notion that the earth is flat.....? ----- ****Unless you want to jump on the band wagon, that ''very high mountain' is instead meant to relay some other 'cosmic realm', I would like to hear your take?****

Again, verses Matthew 4:1 and Matthew 4:5 are presumed straight-forward. Why not verse 8?

cvanwey · Nov 13, 2019

Kenny'sID said:
Na, it's your skeptics, doubters, atheists, deists, etc. trying to pick pick pick God out of existence because they are frightened of the Hell he puts on the unbelievers. Guess what, it didn't work....still there, and always will be.

Aw-shucks.... Foiled again

public hermit · Nov 13, 2019

cvanwey said:
Nothing in this response warrants a reply. I stand by my OP, and my further questions/inquiries of @Sanoy as follows.

You should reply to his response. I believe he is correct. Your argument is on level with a fundamentalist. If you want a fundamentalist response, then you're good to go. On the other hand, if you are as sophisticated and enlightened as you make yourself out to be, and would like a sophisticated and enlightened response, then you'll have to do better.

Pavel Mosko · Nov 13, 2019

cvanwey said:
Are you stating that Bible fundamentalists are incorrect in their interpretation(s)?

On many of them yes. This starts to get back to the naive realism thing, I mentioned in one of your previous threads a few weeks back.

Naïve realism (psychology) - Wikipedia

cvanwey said:
Furthermore, I carefully chose this passage, as you can see from my responses to other posters.

I'm not nit-picking here... I'm placing to the forefront, a very specific example, which can actually possibly be falsified. The author overtly volunteers information suggestive to the notion that the earth is flat.....? ----- ****Unless you want to jump on the band wagon, that ''very high mountain' is instead meant to relay some other 'cosmic realm', I would like to hear your take?****

OK but how does that work when you are dealing with an idiom or a literary trope?

hedrick · Nov 13, 2019

It was clearly a vision. Even if the world was flat, I don't think you could actually see the whole world from one point. Furthermore, I think all the kingdoms might not be literally true. Did he see the Incas? I don't think that's particularly relevant to the confrontation between Jesus and Satan.

cvanwey · Nov 13, 2019

public hermit said:
You should reply to his response. I believe he is correct. Your argument is on level with a fundamentalist. If you want a fundamentalist response, then you're good to go. On the other hand, if you are as sophisticated and enlightened as you make yourself out to be, and would like a sophisticated and enlightened response

Then I'll await one....

Because thus fair, 'very high mountain' must mean 'cosmic mountain'. Which quite frankly, as you know, is likely an unfalsifiable claim, and/or post hoc claim, and/or ad hock claim. I'll await the response from the one whom posted as such, unless you wish to actually engage appropriately yourself?

And since I'm sure there exists many viewers, whom might consider themselves 'Bible literalists', Evangelicals, or other...., I doubt your comments set well with them. You know, (your Christian brothers and sisters)

public hermit · Nov 13, 2019

cvanwey said:
unless you wish to actually engage appropriately yourself?

You still haven't engaged why a fundamentalist approach is the appropriate one. I think it's because that is easier for you to deconstruct. You like low hanging fruit, don't you? Or, maybe your reality is just as flat as that. It does take a robust metaphysic to get past the mere appearance of things.

cvanwey said:
I doubt your comments set well with them

I'm not trying to please anyone.

cvanwey · Nov 13, 2019

public hermit said:
You still haven't engaged why a fundamentalist approach is the appropriate one. I think it's because that is easier for you to deconstruct. You like low hanging fruit, don't you? Or, maybe your reality is just as flat as that. It does take a robust metaphysic to get past the mere appearance of things.

I'm not trying to please anyone.

I have to ask... Do you instead wish to insult the general Evangelical population, and also offer/present further ad hominems directly towards me? Or, would you instead like to 'deconstruct' my given evaluations in posts #8 and #10?

public hermit · Nov 13, 2019

cvanwey said:
I have to ask... Do you instead wish to insult the general Evangelical population, and also offer/present further ad hominems directly towards me? Or, would you instead like to 'deconstruct' my given evaluations in posts #8 and #10?

Your concern about my offending others is itself ad hominem by virtue of the fact it has to do with me and not the passage or your penchant for fundamentalism. Until you address the reason I initially posted, I see no reason to go further. Do you?

cvanwey · Nov 13, 2019

hedrick said:
It was clearly a vision. Even if the world was flat, I don't think you could actually see the whole world from one point. Furthermore, I think all the kingdoms might not be literally true. Did he see the Incas? I don't think that's particularly relevant to the confrontation between Jesus and Satan.

I get what you are saying, to a degree.

But this is my gripe....

DID the author write the passage the way he did, because he thought the world was flat, and volunteered information as such? And if so, as you state he received a 'vision', are you saying the vision gave him some false information? How are we to decipher the word 'all', 'very high mountain', or other?.?.?.?

At the end of it all, all Bible readers are reading the collective works of proclaimed 'truth'. If an exchange is relayed, which offers false data, and God knows future readers might find this out, shouldn't God at least guide the author's choice of words, to transcend future translation?

It's passages like these, and others, which may lead people astray - (regardless of how nit-picky they are / are not).....

What Was the Author's Intent Here?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dragonsworn

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

social troglodyte

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

social troglodyte

Well-Known Member

social troglodyte

Well-Known Member

Similar threads