What Was the Author's Intent Here?

[keith99]

My understanding is that until relatively recently the term 'world' referred to the known world in whatever area it was used. Thus in context it would mean what we call the Middle East today. This tendency was not limited to any one culture and can be illustrated in the West by the terms Old World and New World.

 

[cvanwey]

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?

I see no reason to go further with you, unless you admit that the 'cosmic mountain' assertion may not apply to Matthew 4:8.

Thus far, unlike you, I'm open to other interpretations, as even my OP indicates. But for you to also back the 'comic' hypothesis, I need more than a blank assertion, followed up with discord/insults

 

[cvanwey]

My understanding is that until relatively recently the term 'world' referred to the known world in whatever area it was used. Thus in context it would mean what we call the Middle East today. This tendency was not limited to any one culture and can be illustrated in the West by the terms Old World and New World.

I like this answer. Assuming this is correct, I then ask...

Is God the direct author of confusion?

Or, does He set idly by and watch, as Bible readers fight and squabble over 'interpretation' to changing and dying text?

 

[cvanwey]

My understanding is that until relatively recently the term 'world' referred to the known world in whatever area it was used. Thus in context it would mean what we call the Middle East today. This tendency was not limited to any one culture and can be illustrated in the West by the terms Old World and New World.

.

 

[cvanwey]

My understanding is that until relatively recently the term 'world' referred to the known world in whatever area it was used. Thus in context it would mean what we call the Middle East today. This tendency was not limited to any one culture and can be illustrated in the West by the terms Old World and New World.

duplicate

 

[cvanwey]

My understanding is that until relatively recently the term 'world' referred to the known world in whatever area it was used. Thus in context it would mean what we call the Middle East today. This tendency was not limited to any one culture and can be illustrated in the West by the terms Old World and New World.

.

 

[keith99]

.

Since I do not believe any god exists I have no idea. I only commented on the meaning of the words. It is all to common for people to take texts from a source they dislike and force them into the worst light and usually a light that in untenable.

Same for another common 'the bible teaches a flat Earth' claim because it at one point says to the 4 corners of the Earth, a phrase still in common use today.

 

[public hermit]

I see no reason to go further with you, unless you admit that the 'cosmic mountain' assertion may not apply to Matthew 4:8.

Hahaha, no sir, I cannot speak to the 'cosmic mountain' hypothesis. This is the first I have heard of it.

Hedrick's vision would be more in line with my understanding. Pavel Mosco mentioned idioms and tropes. That might be helpful. The text is clearly playing to material found in the Hebrew Scriptures, such as 40 days being reminiscent of the Hebrews wandering 40 years in the wilderness. Like them, it was a time of testing for Jesus. Presumably he passes where they failed. Why is that important?

What is curious to me is why you don't latch on to some of the more interesting questions. Such as: Why would Jesus not turn stones into bread? He could eliminate world hunger by exhibiting such a power. There's no shortage of rocks he could turn into bread and feed people. Why not take over the kingdoms of the world? He could end all of the oppression and injustice in one fell swoop. Why not show people he had access to divine power by flinging himself off the temple so God's angels could save him? If he was starting a religion that is one sure way to convince people he had divine access. Three times he is tempted to prove he is the Son of God in these specific ways, but he refuses each one. Why? Those are good questions and plenty of material for the skeptic to monopolize upon. But not you. You're worried about a literalist interpretation of a spiritual event. Go forty days without food and then we can talk about visions.

You have focused on one limb on one tree, and there is a whole forest you can't see. Even if you learn all you can about that one limb, it won't give you the forest.

 

[hedrick]

I like this answer. Assuming this is correct, I then ask...

Is God the direct author of confusion?

Or, does He set idly by and watch, as Bible readers fight and squabble over 'interpretation' to changing and dying text?

No, God isn't the author of confusion. People are trying to use the Bible for purposes it wasn't intended. Does anyone seriously maintain that this story was intended to tell us the shape of the earth?

Luke's version omits the mountain and for "world" uses a Greek word that may well refer to the Roman empire. Differences in translation from Aramaic? A traditional elaboration on a more basic story (e.g. Mark 1:12-13)? The Bible simply ism't well suited to be what a lot of people want it to be.

 

[cvanwey]

Hahaha, no sir, I cannot speak to the 'cosmic mountain' hypothesis. This is the first I have heard of it.

Kool That was the first I've heard of it too.

Hedrick's vision would be more in line with my understanding. Pavel Mosco mentioned idioms and tropes. That might be helpful. The text is clearly playing to material found in the Hebrew Scriptures, such as 40 days being reminiscent of the Hebrews wandering 40 years in the wilderness.

Yeah, but I think @keith99 might be onto som'n? And if so, I will need to concede my current position, that the author thought the world was flat. But again, there might be no real way to know?

But still begs a follow up question... Why is God allowing such discord in text? Such discord which may cause many to eventually fall away from Him, versus assuring that confusion is NOT the reason people disbelieve (i.e.) Genesis, this passage, and many others....

What is curious to me is why you don't latch on to some of the more interesting questions. Such as: Why would Jesus not turn stones into bread? He could eliminate world hunger by exhibiting such a power. There's no shortage of rocks he could turn into bread and feed people. Why not take over the kingdoms of the world? He could end all of the oppression and injustice in one fell swoop. Why not show people he had access to divine power by flinging himself off the temple so God's angels could save him? If he was starting a religion that is one sure way to convince people he had divine access. Three times he is tempted to prove he is the Son of God in these specific ways, but he refuses each one. Why? Those are good questions and plenty of material for the skeptic to monopolize upon.

Maybe you haven't seen all my threads/exchanged/responses over the past couple of years???? In this thread, I'm addressing one with more possible potential falsifiability. 'Divine hiddessness' and others, though important, I've addressed my fair share - and may continue to do as well in the future....

If my thread is so arbitrary, why engage? Why waste your time? Just ignore; like the thousands of other threads here, of little interest, for which I choose not to engage.

 

[public hermit]

If my thread is so arbitrary, why engage? Why waste your time? Just ignore; like the thousands of other threads here, of little interest, for which I choose not to engage.

I have. I have ignored most of what you put on here since my first engagement with you. My initial reason for posting on this thread is so that you would respond to the suggestion that your critique is on the level with fundamentalism. I don't think we have heard a substantial response to that. I have seen you cast aside one good response after another. Not just on this thread, but as a habit. It is as if you don't want to engage, you just want to hear your own arguments. So, I thought I might jump in to see if you would answer. I'll let y'all have at it, but Hedrick's response at post #29 is worth consideration.

 

[cvanwey]

No, God isn't the author of confusion. People are trying to use the Bible for purposes it wasn't intended. Does anyone seriously maintain that this story was intended to tell us the shape of the earth?

Beg to differ.

How many sects of Christianity do we currently have again? (Pardon that it's 'Wiki', but I doubt you will contest the number of claimed denoms)

List of Christian denominations by number of members - Wikipedia

What IS the purpose of the Bible now?

Luke's version omits the mountain and for "world" uses a Greek word that may well refer to the Roman empire. Differences in translation from Aramaic? A traditional elaboration on a more basic story (e.g. Mark 1:12-13)? The Bible simply ism't well suited to be what a lot of people want it to be.

I might concede one point... As with @keith99 , 'world' may be used 'differently'...

And if this IS the case, then case closed for me - (only in regards to the author's intent to the claim of the shape of the earth, that is)

***********

I would dare to say the 'main premise' of the Bible is to demonstrate that Jesus rose from the dead. And as you may or may not be aware, I've contested that claim plenty already.

 

[ChetSinger]

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

Hello cvanwey.

Literally, I think, but not physically. In Luke this is presented as a supernatural event, not a natural one:

And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time...

The phrase "moment of time" tells me that this was not a physically possible experience. This was done in the spiritual realm, so the shape of the earth was irrelevant.

My thoughts, anyway.

 

[zippy2006]

It is all too common for people to take texts from a source they dislike and force them into the worst light and usually a light that is untenable.

Great post. Glad to see this from an atheist.

 

[Jonaitis]

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...

It was a vision.

This topic has been heavily discussed before in the past.

 

[FireDragon76]

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...

I'm a religious liberal, so I understand the story symbolically, not as an actual historical account. It shows that Jesus did not succumb to the lust for power or the lusts of the flesh.

Such stories were common in second temple Judaism as a way to convey spiritual truths that were significant to the religious community.

 

[Sanoy]

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?

To correct your simmering reply. I don't dislike questions, I dislike it when people ask questions rather than give evidence/reasons for their claims especially when they are asked to do so. In any case these are not questions, per your own words they are rhetoric, meaning they are exactly what I just described. I don't even get what point your rhetorical questions are trying to make here, though I suspect they are from not understanding cosmic geography.

I believe it is a cosmic reference because mountains and trees are known cosmic motifs and places in scripture and the ANE and it is where the authority over the non Israelite kingdoms of the earth resides - in the lower heaven. (Ephesians 2:2)

I see nothing from this verse that suggests a belief in the flat earth. It's possible it's about aliens, or the flat earth, or x-ray vision, or a host of other things but there needs to be a reason to believe it is those things. If you would like to say that a belief in the flat earth is the best explanation for this then you will need to make a case for that.

 

[hedrick]

I might concede one point... As with @keith99 , 'world' may be used 'differently'...

And if this IS the case, then case closed for me - (only in regards to the author's intent to the claim of the shape of the earth, that is)

Matthew uses kosmos. NT usage tends to be the world vs spirit or the whole created realm. In the LXX it sometimes means the heavens and the earth, i.e. the universe. In the NT it can mean the universe, the abode of men (i.e. the earth) or even humanity, fallen creation. In Christian writing it tended to be the realm of salvation history, i.e. that which needed to be redeemed.

In Matthew the literal meaning of the whole earth is there, but there's a theological undertone of Satan claiming to be responsible for the fate of humanity and Jesus asserting God's commitment to them. "Kingdoms of the world" may well be "kingdoms of this world," i.e. the kings that are part of the fallen world.

In Luke the term is οἰκουμένη, oikumene (from which ecumenical comes). It is again the inhabited world, i.e. the focus is on society, not the planet. It was often used by Romans to assert their rulership over the world. E.g. in Luke 2:1, the Romans tax the whole world (same word). In the NT a lot of Christian claims are directed against Roman propaganda. You have to understand the language of used by Romans to recognize a lot of Christian redeemer language as opposing or mocking it. Despite the literal meaning of world, I think the background here is the Roman claim to rule the whole world.

 

[hedrick]

One other point. In Jewish terms there was Israel and then there was "the nations." The nations are often assumed to be opposed to Israel in the OT, but there was also a hope that they would be converted. Since "the nations" tend to be viewed as a single collection, Satan was showing Jesus the nations. He wouldn't have to show every last one for his claim to be clear. Satan claimed to be in control of the nations, and to offer it to Jesus.

As a liberal Christian, I have to say that I'm not clear just how literally to take all of this. Did a supernatural Satan actually come to Jesus claiming to own the nations? I'm more inclined to see this episode as Jesus seeing the various visions of what the Messiah could be. One option, represented by this temptation, was to be the new David, the national leader who would (with God's help) defeat the nations and become the ruler of a bigger and better Israel, having taken them over. A few decades later someone actually took this option, as you know.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Are you saying it should be taken literally? Figuratively?

About all I can suggest is you read my post again, but more slowly this time.