What Was the Author's Intent Here?

[Tinker Grey]

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

Your post doesn't answer the OP's question. You might want to read it more slowly this time.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Aw-shucks.... Foiled again

I'll take that as as an agreement to my point.

 

[RDKirk]

Are you saying it should be taken literally? Figuratively?

I would say that one should attempt to understand the point that is being conveyed.

Jesus is being offered "king of kingship"--absolute rule of all the nations of the earth--in return for himself worshiping Satan. He refused because, as He said later, "My kingdom is not of this world."

It's expressed in a way that made sense for the Iron Age people of that day (and not all the gospels even express it the same way). But the point is clear enough for us today.

As has been mentioned, it's interesting that both atheists and fundamentalists try to use the bible as a shillelagh of literalism.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I would say that one should attempt to understand the point that is being conveyed.

Jesus is being offered "king of kingship"--absolute rule of all the nations of the earth--in return for himself worshiping Satan. He refused because, as He said later, "My kingdom is not of this world."

It's expressed in a way that made sense for the Iron Age people of that day (and not all the gospels even express it the same way). But the point is clear enough for us today.

As has been mentioned, it's interesting that both atheists and fundamentalists try to use the bible as a shillelagh of literalism.

Oh, I agree. I take Gen 1 to be poetry, for example; that is, I accept that the judgement of those schooled in ancient languages and texts.

But at bottom, I believe, @cvanwey's point is that the text is unclear and that if you hold that God directed the text, he has failed to communicate.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Your post doesn't answer the OP's question. You might want to read it more slowly this time.

The clear lack of an answer to the question would tell most people, I wasn't trying to answer. I instead chose to touch on what the question brings up, something people do sometimes.. Understand?

 

[Kenny'sID]

But at bottom, I believe, @cvanwey's point is that the text is unclear and that if you hold that God directed the text, he has failed to communicate.

How can a God you don't believe exists fail at anything?

 

[Tinker Grey]

How can a God you don't believe exists fail at anything?

YOU believe God exists. YOU believe, presumably, that the text is of God. The OP shows a failure to communicate. I agree that the text is not clear, regardless of the source. If God did it, he failed to communicate. If man did it, he failed to communicate. Simple.

It is YOURs to demonstrate either 1) that it is clear or 2) admit it is not clear and God has failed, or 3) invent some plausible reason why it should be unclear--I.e., it's the way your god wants it.

 

[FireDragon76]

The traditional Protestant doctrine of the perspecuity of the Scriptures isn't that the Bible is clear in all ways, but it is clear in the ways pertaining to salvation. If the Bible is unclear, then it's not important for salvation.

 

[Kenny'sID]

YOU believe God exists. YOU believe, presumably, that the text is of God. The OP shows a failure to communicate. I agree that the text is not clear, regardless of the source. If God did it, he failed to communicate. If man did it, he failed to communicate. Simple.

It is YOURs to demonstrate either 1) that it is clear or 2) admit it is not clear and God has failed, or 3) invent some plausible reason why it should be unclear--I.e., it's the way your god wants it.

Completely irrelevant to the question.

Also, what end point do you feel the question is trying to make? And why?

 

[drich0150]

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."

Neither.
Your question assumes the story was told in english. or that the english could accurately portray the exact meaning.

In truth this story in the Koine Greek has no english direct translation as the word for mountain is not mountain as it describes something that rises above the horizon. Mountains rise above the horizon, but again the word for mountain was not used but the idea to elevate one above the horizon like a mountain would do, is being described.

So how does Jesus and satan rise above the horizon high enough to see all of the nations of the world??? That bit is lost in the translation from koine to english, and transitive liberty is used.

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

'little nuggets like this' seperate the ill intentioned/those who want the biblical narrative to fail, from the open minded those who seek the truth..

 

[BNR32FAN]

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...

If we had solid undeniable proof then we wouldn’t need faith. Evidently that’s how God intended it to be.

 

[zippy2006]

But at bottom, I believe, @cvanwey's point is that the text is unclear and that if you hold that God directed the text, he has failed to communicate.

Let me attempt to simplify this and cut it down to the bones. Here is cvanwey's basic argument:

A: "The devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor" (Matthew 4:8).
B: The earth is flat.

1. (A -> B)
2. ~B
3. ∴ ~A {modus tollens}

Although intermediate and justifying reasoning was given by the OP, premise 1 remains radically strange. I would describe it as a basic inability to read or interpret a text. There are ambiguities and legitimate questions of interpretation that arise with any ancient text, but this simply isn't one of them. Sanoy described the methodological problem very well:

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.

What we have here is a failure on the part of the one receiving the communication, not the one giving the communication. If the OP applied these principles of interpretation consistently, there's no telling what he would decipher from the morning paper!

The recursive problem is this: how is one expected to argue with someone who is prone to such fundamental errors of interpretation? Any argument with such a person must needs be more clear than the negation of premise 1, and it is doubtful that an argument of such clarity exists. That is, if someone can't see the possibility of (A ^ ~B), how is one to expect them to accurately interpret the propositions which are the medium of arguments?

(This is the closest thing to a proof as to why I don't argue with certain posters )

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, I agree. I take Gen 1 to be poetry, for example; that is, I accept that the judgement of those schooled in ancient languages and texts.

But at bottom, I believe, @cvanwey's point is that the text is unclear and that if you hold that God directed the text, he has failed to communicate.

It can also be that, as per the account of the temptations of Christ presented in the Gospels, Satan failed to succeed in confusing the issues with Jesus, even those involving proper hermeneutical discipline. Of course, since this is the case, we wouldn't want to ignore the overall lessons of contexts to be seen in the ways in which Jesus upended Satan's misappropriations.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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.

Thank you

No other comment lol...sorry, the lol just slipped out.

 

[RDKirk]

Oh, I agree. I take Gen 1 to be poetry, for example; that is, I accept that the judgement of those schooled in ancient languages and texts.

But at bottom, I believe, @cvanwey's point is that the text is unclear and that if you hold that God directed the text, he has failed to communicate.

Except that He didn't. The point of the narrative is clear. The problem is people trying stuff other meaning into it that the author did not intend.

 

[RDKirk]

The traditional Protestant doctrine of the perspecuity of the Scriptures isn't that the Bible is clear in all ways, but it is clear in the ways pertaining to salvation. If the Bible is unclear, then it's not important for salvation.

To put that more precisely, what additional issues people conceive that the Bible is not clear about are not important to salvation.

 

[cvanwey]

I have. I have ignored most of what you put on here since my first engagement with you.

Let's go ahead and get this straight... You ignore most of what I state in my OP post, but then seem a lil' butt-hurt because I don't remark, to your liking, to the 'fundamentalism' comment? Um, okay?

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.

Please see above...

And just so that (you) are clear, if you would have actually engaged upon my OP, you would see that I am somewhat open to correction, other ideas, etc.

And again, if you read posts #8 and #10 as well, might see where I'm coming from.... Which lends a response to the 'literalist' comment...

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.

Now you are just plain lying sir...

Posts 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 20, and most importantly --> *23*.

And speaking of observed agendas of others, it seems your more concerned with attempting to smear my character, rather than engaging fruitfully.

As post number 21 suggests, if I see a sound argument before me, then I must consider it. And yes, @hedrick is along the same lines as post 21...

Hence, going back to my OP, we may have the following conclusions to consider:

1. The author 'spilled the beans' and thought the world was flat; which kind of negates 'revelation'?
2. 'World' instead means a confined region
3. 'Space mountain'

Did I miss any other suggestive conclusions to the OP?

Seems as though 1 and 2 are the front runners thus far

 

[cvanwey]

though I suspect they are from not understanding cosmic geography.

Yeah. I'm not buying the 'space mountain' assertion @Sanoy . You are going to need to demonstrate quite a heap of 'evidence' to support this conclusion.

Or instead, I could just simply exercise common sense, and consider that 'world' was, as intended, meant to be 'one region' alone --- like @keith99 suggested in post #21.

Yes, I will now place that possibility on the 'consideration table'.

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)

Okay, but as I told you in post #8, how are you able to distinguish when the author is actually applying the 'cosmic' functionality? Because again, verses 1 and 5 mention other physical locations. Thus, in (your) case, the question might be, MUST verse 8 be referring to the mountain as cosmic, otherwise we could have a problem?

Or how about instead, let's not add even more magic into the equation, and just assume the possibility that maybe when the author stated 'world', he meant a designated region?

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.

Did you not read the OP? Well, if you didn't, maybe you can read the bottom of post #57

 

[cvanwey]

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.

For me, I'm focusing on verse 8. The author's intent was either to state the 'entire world' could be seen, simply by going higher... (Or), 'world' means a local region alone - (which lends credence to your responses). If it IS the later, then case closed. If it is the former, then the author's 'revelation' may not be genuine. And may be nothing more than assertions from a human, which never actually happened? Just as you might conclude from competing claimed holy assertions of other god(s).

I picked this verse because it has a possible falsifiable piece of writing within it....

 

[Chesterton]

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?

If it was not a physical event, then the author's idea of the shape of the earth is unknowable, because it's irrelevant and not mentioned or implied in the story.