Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
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.
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.
duplicateMy 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.
.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 see no reason to go further with you, unless you admit that the 'cosmic mountain' assertion may not apply to Matthew 4:8.
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?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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hello cvanwey.Was this presented story meant to be taken literally, or figuratively?...
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.And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time...
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.
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...
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...
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.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?
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.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)
Are you saying it should be taken literally? Figuratively?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?