Your post doesn't answer the OP's question. You might want to read it more slowly this time.
Upvote
0
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 post doesn't answer the OP's question. You might want to read it more slowly this time.About all I can suggest is you read my post again, but more slowly this time.
Are you saying it should be taken literally? Figuratively?
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.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.
Your post doesn't answer the OP's question. You might want to read it more slowly this time.
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.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.
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."
'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..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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.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?
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?