What Was the Author's Intent Here?

[cvanwey]

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.


'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..

A little late to the party - (already covered). But thank you for playing.

I am in search of truth. But thanks for the 'assumption'.

 

[cvanwey]

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

I will now ask this of you, as I have asked others:

1. Is faith reliable?
2. Can faith be used to conclude false things?
3. Can't you really apply faith to anything?

Yes, I know the first two questions may kind of overlap.

And Yes, I know when (you) state 'faith', you may be referring to trust, believe, other...

But as I've also stated to others:

People don't use faith, when they feel they have enough evidence. No one states they have faith "that 2 plus 2 equals 4."

So until we can determine what type of 'faith' we are speaking about here, I really do not see much in this response thus far

 

[public hermit]

You ignore most of what I state in my OP post, but then seem a lil' butt-hurt

Now you are just plain lying sir

Now see, if I had feelings that would have hurt them.

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'

Again, we're approaching this from different places. Unlike you, I am not assuming what I am reading in that text is a mirror representation of historical events in time and space. As I, and others, have stated: one possibility is Jesus is experiencing a vision. At any rate, it is some type of spiritual experience. We need not assume that experience is going to correlate perfectly with our day to day experience. Time and space may function differently. Jesus has fasted for forty days. What is being communicated to us is his spiritual experience of being tested. Moreover, it is the spiritual experience of the divine Son of God Incarnated. This is how I approach the text, with those assumptions in place. Unless you are willing to grant me that, I see not much common ground between us.

You want me to give to you a claim you are making concerning what the writer intended. You argue the writer believed in a flat world and therefore we should read it from a flat world perspective. Again, I am not approaching this text from the perspective of your flattened ontology. I am not worried about what the writer intended, I am concerned with whatever God intends for me to glean from it. I believe God has inspired these writings. And the inspiration is not about the physics of time and space, but about how God is working. More specifically, this particular text is communicating something about how the incarnated Son of God is working at that moment in the world. You're looking for the truths of physics, and I am seeking spiritual truths.

If you go back and read my post #28 you will see how I approach this text. The reality is we approach the scriptures very differently. I see the scriptures, not as history book or a science book or a philosophy book. They are scriptures. In them Jesus Christ is revealed. I come to the scriptures to know a Person. Everything within them serves that one goal.

 

[cvanwey]

Again, we're approaching this from different places.

Duh You're a Christian. I'm an unbeliever.

What is being communicated to us is his spiritual experience of being tested. Moreover, it is the spiritual experience of the divine Son of God Incarnated. This is how I approach the text, with those assumptions in place. Unless you are willing to grant me that, I see not much common ground between us.

I understand what the Chapter is attempting to convey. That's not my 'beef.' Now please hear me out below.

You want me to give to you a claim you are making concerning what the writer intended. You argue the writer believed in a flat world and therefore we should read it from a flat world perspective. Again, I am not approaching this text from the perspective of your flattened ontology. I am not worried about what the writer intended, I am concerned with whatever God intends for me to glean from it.

Now we are to the 'meat.'

As my previous response to you suggests... Either the writer volunteered an 'oops'. And verse 8 was meant to be literal, --- like verses 1 and 5.

OR

Maybe "World' means a 'local region'.

Why is this significant to (me)?

Because unlike many other unfalsifiable assertions from the Bible, where you simply read it and state.... "I don't believe it", or "I do"..... The author volunteers a piece of data we can actually maybe possible 'test.' And if that test should come up as a fail, then it's safe to assume we have an assertion from the Bible, which is merely the writings of man's own assertions. Because as you state below, you feel God inspired these texts. Would God 'inspire' the notion that you can see the entire world, by going higher? Again, if I'm taking it out of context, then I must concede. But how can you prove it? Sometimes, you must call a duck a duck, and sometimes, the waters are a little muddier. So which one is it?.?.?.?

I believe God has inspired these writings.

Can you furnish a reason for this conclusion, which does not involve circular reasoning of some flavor?

If you go back and read my post #28 you will see how I approach this text.

No need... If you read above, you will see why that is not necessary.

 

[hedrick]

I think we should be careful to understand what the authors did and didn’t intend. The term world was often used to refer to less than the whole globe. But I doubt that they specifically considered this, and thus explicitly limited it to the local region. Nor did they explicitly intend to include what we’d call the whole earth. They weren’t thinking about the issue in the OP. Thus I think the whole discussion is misguided.

 

[Sanoy]

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'.



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?



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

Calling historical terms "space mountain"? Complete dismissal of everything that goes against your opinion no matter what the source? Yeah, everything being said toward you is right, you really are a fundamentalist Atheist. Before I read the rest of your post I'll make a prediction. You haven't supported your assertion that it does refer to the flat earth.

Common sense should tell you NOT to use common understanding for an ancient, high context culture text, that would be anachronistic.

You didn't ask me questions remember? you said they were rhetoric. Cosmic geography doesn't preclude physical objects but work in conjunction with them. And yes, the world vs the region is a valid response. I thought about mentioning it before but what I have already mentioned is sufficient.

As I said in what you quoted, you need to show that a belief in the flat earth best explains this verse. Prediction fulfilled.

 

[drich0150]

A little late to the party - (already covered). But thank you for playing.

I am in search of truth. But thanks for the 'assumption'.

ready for your boo-yah moment?

Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

I don't suppose you know what a lexicon and or concordance is otherwise your cockieness should be at a level 1 or 2, because this book can indeed support everything I have said and put you into check.

Eitherway it is a book that break the bible down word for word and gives you the english translation next to the greek word like Oros which again does not translate but the idea is defined as being risen above the horizon like a mountain would. And just like in any (if you took a foreign language in high school you would know this) words that do not translate are contextually added like again mountain when the idea was to be brought up beyond the horizon. It does not necessarily represent a geological formation.

When people who speak english say mountain they think geological rock formation over 2000 ft high.. when people said Oros in the koine they only spoke of the elevation or being in a place of being elevated above flat ground. oros could mean hill or also a mount (mountain less than 2000ft.)

If you are looking for the truth then know you have found it. the truth is the word mountain is a simple place holder for what Satan did.

 

[cvanwey]

Calling historical terms "space mountain"? Complete dismissal of everything that goes against your opinion no matter what the source?

For such a response, I can only ask... Did you not get response #8? Or did I not convey my response clearly enough?

Yeah, everything being said toward you is right, you really are a fundamentalist Atheist.

If this were true, then my OP would not have stated:

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

I would not almost immediately follow up by stating in the OP:

"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?"

I would not have acknowledged and considers @hedrick and @keith99 responses either.

But yea, go ahead and conclude whatever you wish

Before I read the rest of your post I'll make a prediction. You haven't supported your assertion that it does refer to the flat earth.

Um, okay.

Common sense

should tell you NOT to use common understanding for an ancient, high context culture text, that would be anachronistic.

Accept when it does, right? That pretty much lends to my OP When I basically ask... Do I take this verse literal or not?

You didn't ask me questions remember? you said they were rhetoric.

Now who's demonstrating being literal? I was hoping you would get the gist from post#8? Obviously, that looks to have fell through the cracks. Either because you missed my intent, or other...

Thus, I again, go back...

Matthew 4:1 is likely literal, when describing such physical attributes. Matthew 4:5 is likely literal, when describing such physical attributes. Why is Matthew 4:8 not?

More importantly, HOW do you know (this) author's intent was instead invoking the 'mountain' as a cosmic realm? Is it because you can prove this? Or instead that you can raise some type of argument that the ancients sometimes referred to 'mountains' as cosmic realms. And therefore, that MUST be what is going on here?

Remember very carefully. I asked you in post #8... Is it even possible that the author's intent was literal?

And yes, the world vs the region is a valid response. I thought about mentioning it before but what I have already mentioned is sufficient.

Um, okay?

As I said in what you quoted, you need to show that a belief in the flat earth best explains this verse. Prediction fulfilled.

Kool.

As I stated in my OP.... Again, was THIS author's intent to suggest that going up higher could see all of the globe? If the verse is to be read like Matthew 4:1 and Matthew 4:5, then likely maybe yes...

Interesting published works cited below:

The Flat-Earth Bible.
Does Matthew 4:8 teach a flat earth?
Matthew 4:8 - Wikipedia

 

[cvanwey]

ready for your boo-yah moment?

Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

I don't suppose you know what a lexicon and or concordance is otherwise your cockieness should be at a level 1 or 2, because this book can indeed support everything I have said and put you into check.

Funny.

Lexicon -
the vocabulary of a person, language, or branch of knowledge.
"the size of the English lexicon"
a dictionary, especially of Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, or Arabic.

Concordance -
an alphabetical list of the words (especially the important ones) present in a text, usually with citations of the passages concerned.

And I find it curious as to why I'm so 'cocky', when I have already conceded another possible position?

Eitherway it is a book that break the bible down word for word and gives you the english translation next to the greek word like Oros which again does not translate but the idea is defined as being risen above the horizon like a mountain would.

Yup. I'm aware that the oldest manuscripts were in Greek. I'm also aware Luke's version mentions taking Jesus to a 'high place'. And this may also present a set of problems; unless you can argue being higher means being in some 'alter area' where they can see the globe entirely.

A legitimate question one could ask... Why do they need to go higher? Again, a plausible answer is that the authors thought the world was flat. Otherwise, the author might instead use some verbiage, such as... Jesus and the devil went to another realm, or other...?

Again, is it possible, that the authors of Matthew and Luke mentions going higher, simply to see the rest of the kingdoms?

If you cannot concede the possibility, then I need to know why?

See below...

And just like in any (if you took a foreign language in high school you would know this) words that do not translate are contextually added like again mountain when the idea was to be brought up beyond the horizon. It does not necessarily represent a geological formation.

I've taken a foreign language. I've also received assembly instructions - listed in multiple languages. I've also listened to pre-flight instructions in other languages.

This is the Bible. Was the Bible written for the Greeks, Hebrews, or all? As I told @hedrick ,if God was aware that language barriers would cause such discord, and the Bible is the main source of evidence for this God, seems as though God is either the direct author of confusion; or at least sets back and watches many fall away ultimately, due to 'translation' failure.

When people who speak english say mountain they think geological rock formation over 2000 ft high.. when people said Oros in the koine they only spoke of the elevation or being in a place of being elevated above flat ground. oros could mean hill or also a mount (mountain less than 2000ft.)

If you are looking for the truth then know you have found it. the truth is the word mountain is a simple place holder for what Satan did.

Disagree. Please see above.

 

[Sanoy]

For such a response, I can only ask... Did you not get response #8? Or did I not convey my response clearly enough?



If this were true, then my OP would not have stated:

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

I would not almost immediately follow up by stating in the OP:

"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?"

I would not have acknowledged and considers @hedrick and @keith99 responses either.

But yea, go ahead and conclude whatever you wish



Um, okay.



Accept when it does, right? That pretty much lends to my OP When I basically ask... Do I take this verse literal or not?



Now who's demonstrating being literal? I was hoping you would get the gist from post#8? Obviously, that looks to have fell through the cracks. Either because you missed my intent, or other...

Thus, I again, go back...

Matthew 4:1 is likely literal, when describing such physical attributes. Matthew 4:5 is likely literal, when describing such physical attributes. Why is Matthew 4:8 not?

More importantly, HOW do you know (this) author's intent was instead invoking the 'mountain' as a cosmic realm? Is it because you can prove this? Or instead that you can raise some type of argument that the ancients sometimes referred to 'mountains' as cosmic realms. And therefore, that MUST be what is going on here?

Remember very carefully. I asked you in post #8... Is it even possible that the author's intent was literal?



Um, okay?



Kool.

As I stated in my OP.... Again, was THIS author's intent to suggest that going up higher could see all of the globe? If the verse is to be read like Matthew 4:1 and Matthew 4:5, then likely maybe yes...

Interesting published works cited below:

The Flat-Earth Bible.
Does Matthew 4:8 teach a flat earth?
Matthew 4:8 - Wikipedia

Response 8 was rhetoric, as you yourself labeled it. So yeah I 'got it', what of it? I don't want "gists" from you. I don't what rhetoric from you. I want evidence/reason for your claims which you never seem capable of providing.

The claim that you are a fundamentalist is evidenced in your actions and is not overcome by appealing to phrases from some of your posts.

Whether something is literal or figurative in an ancient text is born out in it's ancient context not modern context.

I told you why my explanation fits best in post 37. You have only given me, by your own words, rhetoric, against my explanation and NOTHING to support your explanation as the best explanation.

 

[cvanwey]

Response 8 was rhetoric, as you yourself labeled it. So yeah I 'got it', what of it? I don't want "gists" from you. I don't what rhetoric from you. I want evidence/reason for your claims which you never seem capable of providing.

I actually did. You just refuse to acknowledge it. I'm not going to explain the same things again and again and again with you. So please continue to ignore, and/or respond how ever you wish.

You also have refused to acknowledge an important question asked of you....

Is it even possible the author meant it literally? Suspicious as to why you have yet to acknowledge it

The claim that you are a fundamentalist is evidenced in your actions and is not overcome by appealing to phrases from some of your posts.

Um, okay. Whatever you say buddy With you, I feel tempted/compelled to reiterate the points made to you prior; but I now know you will 'spin' them, or ignore them, yet again.

I told you why my explanation fits best in post 37. You have only given me, by your own words, rhetoric, against my explanation and NOTHING to support your explanation as the best explanation.

Please see above.

 

[Sanoy]

I actually did. You just refuse to acknowledge it. I'm not going to explain the same things again and again and again with you. So please continue to ignore, and/or respond how ever you wish.

You also have refused to acknowledge an important question asked of you....

Is it even possible the author meant it literally? Suspicious as to why you have yet to acknowledge it



Um, okay. Whatever you say buddy With you, I feel tempted/compelled to reiterate the points made to you prior; but I now know you will 'spin' them, or ignore them, yet again.



Please see above.

All I saw was rhetoric which you were helpful to label as such. If you have reason to claim this is about the flat earth present it. Until you do, you achieve nothing except furthering your reputation as a poster who will never give reasons for his claims.

I answered your question on if it's possible the author meant it literally but you ignored it like every point that has been made. - "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."

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? Or rather, how many replies will it take for you to ever bare your burden as the SOP requests in any thread you enter or begin.

 

[drich0150]

Funny.

Lexicon -
a dictionary, especially of Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, or Arabic.

Ah no.. maybe if you looked a little deeper on any subject you would not be subject to a superficial understanding of topics you profess to be knoweledgeable on. for example:
lexicon
noun [ C ] LANGUAGE specialized
UK /ˈlek.sɪ.kən/ US /ˈlek.sɪ.kən/
(a list of) all the words used in a particular language or subject, or a dictionary

Not just a dictionary. but a list of every single word used in this case the bible. put in the order of a concordance:

Concordance -
an alphabetical list of the words (especially the important ones) present in a text, usually with citations of the passages concerned.

A Bible concordance is a concordance, or verbal index, to the Bible. A simple form lists Biblical words alphabetically, with indications to enable the inquirer to find the passages of the Bible where the words occur.

And I find it curious as to why I'm so 'cocky', when I have already conceded another possible position?

you did not concede anything you dismissed my as being untrue. when in fact what I said was linked to a direct translation that undermine your very question. as your question assumed the word mountain was being used as you understood the word to mean.

Yup. I'm aware that the oldest manuscripts were in Greek. I'm also aware Luke's version mentions taking Jesus to a 'high place'. And this may also present a set of problems; unless you can argue being higher means being in some 'alter area' where they can see the globe entirely.

It does not say anywhere in the text he saw the globe sport. read it again he was taken high enough to see all of the kingdoms of man.

Does it say all men? does it say all tribes? does it say all towns? does it say all cities? or all city states even? no it says all kingdoms all empires all the places man rules which is narrowed down considerably from a global picture to one of what the roman empire and MAYBE parts of china.

A legitimate question one could ask... Why do they need to go higher?

So that a person who does not understand how one could see tens of thousands of square miles all at once could have some idea of what was going on. Remember the bible was not written just for us it had to make sense for everyone for the last 2000 years. The world satellite map would not have made sense but Taking Jesus above the horizon or in a very high place to where he could see the kingdoms of man simply put christ in the position of what we would see or identify as a sat pic of parts of europe africa and the near to far east.

Again, a plausible answer is that the authors thought the world was flat.

More plausible... the kingdoms of man were not a globally known.

Otherwise, the author might instead use some verbiage, such as... Jesus and the devil went to another realm, or other...?

Why? what was going on in americas? The indigenous were still actively in the stone age when columbus arrived 1500 years later. What stone age kingdoms are you aware of?

Again, is it possible, that the authors of Matthew and Luke mentions going higher, simply to see the rest of the kingdoms?

no smart guy they go higher for the same reason we would go higher to encapture a picture of the roman empire and it's foes at the time because these where the only "KINGDOMS of MAN" look up Roman empire now and what do you most of ten get? a map from a very high perspective that depicts the world (OUR WORD) dominating empire..
A atheist question should be how can rme be considered to be a world dominating empire when it was limited to europe asia and africa? The answer is because that was the extent of the civilized world that was the boundaries of organized empires or kingdoms and men who live outside these areas had more incommon with monkeys than civilized man. look up the term barbarian see what it describes.

I you cannot concede the possibility, then I need to know why?

for all of the common sense and valid/fact back reason above.

See below...

I've taken a foreign language. I've also received assembly instructions - listed in multiple languages. I've also listened to pre-flight instructions in other languages.

yeah I bought and assembled stuff from ikea as well, and I have play online games when some foreign kid is the one incontrol of the flight tower as well.

However... I also studied koine greek, grew up speaking korean while living in english speaking america and I also hove spanish speaking employees. If you are familiar with language as you pretend to be noob, then you would not even take a translated text and demand a word for word account of what was said without first visiting the source material! and then there is the fact you picked the wrong definitions of the lexicon and concordance... well that just means your exposure to different languages is... "limited at best.' or you simply have not learn the most basic lesson when approaching a second 3rd 4th or 5th langage... Your native tongue is not a standard in which to judge all other forms of communication. Only stupid people who wind up giving up on learning a second language think this way.

This is the Bible. Was the Bible written for the Greeks, Hebrews, or all?

It was written for first the Jew then the gentile. "all" was never a consideration.

As I told @hedrick ,if God was aware that language barriers would cause such discord, and the Bible is the main source of evidence for this God, seems as though God is either the direct author of confusion; or at least sets back and watches many fall away ultimately, due to 'translation' failure.

and what in your litter thinker makes you think this is a bad thing? What do you think this life is all about? According to Christ... It is about separating the good from the bad the redeemed from the unsaved the desirable wheat from the unwanted weeds the kernels of grain from the stalks and chaff the desired sheep fro the unwanted goats.. If the bible can be used to further catch and turn away the unwanted, then it is indeed apart of the process God is describes using to ensure Heaven is filled with people who want to be there and hell is filled with people who do not want to serve or worship God.

In truth the bible is a tool one can use to build up a relationship with the God of the bible or it can be a tool to build a wall between you and god. the tool has no say in the structure your heart tells it to build. however that tool will comply in helping you build out what is in your heart.

So again if you want to use the bible to separate you from God then it will help you do that. how ever it can also help you build an indestructible relationship between you and God in this life as well,

When people who speak english say mountain they think geological rock formation over 2000 ft high.. when people said Oros in the koine they only spoke of the elevation or being in a place of being elevated above flat ground. oros could mean hill or also a mount (mountain less than 2000ft.)

If you are looking for the truth then know you have found it. the truth is the word mountain is a simple place holder for what Satan did.

Disagree. Please see above.

Kinda doesn't matter how you feel about this. my statement is based on facts. when people say mountain in english it is based on the geological formation that exceeds 2000ft. when in the koine greek people say Oros it does not mean a geological formation that exceeds 2000 ft. they neither had the way to measure nor the inclination to do so. So when people said this word it means to elevate above the horizon. a single word does not accurately convey this message outside of how a mountain would do this. The bible is a contextual not a literal translation as it conveys ideas. the idea here is to be sat up high enough to see the world's major kingdoms. like:

again here is a high enough place where you can clearly see the dominion of all of the kingdoms of the world and the world is not flat here is it sport?

 

[ChetSinger]

Hello cvanwey. The encounter in Luke describes the temptation as occurring "in a moment of time":

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

I see no attempt to portray this as a natural event. If it occurred on top of a mountain at all, it was accomplished via a vision or some other kind of supernatural ability. The shape of the earth is irrelevant.

 

[cvanwey]

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."

Since I'm not going to repeat myself, yet again..... Let's try a different approach entirely. And yes, I predict you completely ignore/dismiss this method too. I hope I'm wrong here

- Humans exist
- We are unsure if any god(s) exist.
- Humans write stuff.
- A human wrote 'Matthew'.
- We are unsure if such a God inspired Matthew.
- During this time period, human 'common knowledge' was to think the earth was flat.
- Humans also wrote other stories about (other religions), in which many other humans conclude as 'fiction'; where others believe them as 'fact'.
- Many of such claimed assertions/writings are completely unfalsifiable. Hence, we can merely just state, 'I don't believe it.'
- However, once in a great while, the author may suggest 'falsifiable' information, within such asserted text, which may lend the possibility to 'spilling the beans'.
- A human wrote a verse which states, and I quote:

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

Now, do we take this verse at 'face value'? Did the author think that if you go high enough, you can see the entire world? Because again, common consensus was that the earth was flat. So maybe going really really really high could achieve as such. It's likely the author had limited knowledge. Which begs the question, why would God inspire such a misleading 'vision'? It would instead stand to reason that the human was merely asserting a story from his own assertions; or maybe regurgitating stories rolling around in oral tradition?

OR...

Other.........?

 

[cvanwey]

Ah no.. maybe if you looked a little deeper on any subject you would not be subject to a superficial understanding of topics you profess to be knoweledgeable on. for example:
lexicon
noun [ C ] LANGUAGE specialized
UK /ˈlek.sɪ.kən/ US /ˈlek.sɪ.kən/
(a list of) all the words used in a particular language or subject, or a dictionary

Not just a dictionary. but a list of every single word used in this case the bible. put in the order of a concordance:

A Bible concordance is a concordance, or verbal index, to the Bible. A simple form lists Biblical words alphabetically, with indications to enable the inquirer to find the passages of the Bible where the words occur.

I'm sorry I did not cut/paste enough data to your liking. Next time I'll try to do better

you did not concede anything

False. I added into the mix post #21, where I responded in post #23, #30, etc.... Please see below.

It does not say anywhere in the text he saw the globe sport. read it again he was taken high enough to see all of the kingdoms of man.

Again, post 21 and 23.

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

The world satellite map would not have made sense but Taking Jesus above the horizon or in a very high place to where he could see the kingdoms of man simply put christ in the position of what we would see or identify as a sat pic of parts of europe africa and the near to far east.
More plausible... the kingdoms of man were not a globally known.

As I told you already, addressed in post #21.

Why? what was going on in americas? The indigenous were still actively in the stone age when columbus arrived 1500 years later. What stone age kingdoms are you aware of?

Again, already acknowledged in post #21.

no smart guy they go higher for the same reason we would go higher to encapture a picture of the roman empire and it's foes at the time because these where the only "KINGDOMS of MAN" look up Roman empire now and what do you most of ten get? a map from a very high perspective that depicts the world (OUR WORD) dominating empire..

Post #21

However... I also studied koine greek, grew up speaking korean while living in english speaking america and I also hove spanish speaking employees. If you are familiar with language as you pretend to be noob, then you would not even take a translated text and demand a word for word account of what was said without first visiting the source material! and then there is the fact you picked the wrong definitions of the lexicon and concordance... well that just means your exposure to different languages is... "limited at best.' or you simply have not learn the most basic lesson when approaching a second 3rd 4th or 5th langage... Your native tongue is not a standard in which to judge all other forms of communication. Only stupid people who wind up giving up on learning a second language think this way.

Well, I guess not all of us can be as well versed as yourself. I must be dumb and lazy

and what in your litter thinker makes you think this is a bad thing?

Example: A seeker could read the Bible, see stuff they think are false, and then reject it because such claims don't appear to jive with their reality. All-the-while, be a genuine seeker of truth.

Kinda doesn't matter how you feel about this. my statement is based on facts. when people say mountain in english it is based on the geological formation that exceeds 2000ft. when in the koine greek people say Oros it does not mean a geological formation that exceeds 2000 ft. they neither had the way to measure nor the inclination to do so. So when people said this word it means to elevate above the horizon. a single word does not accurately convey this message outside of how a mountain would do this. The bible is a contextual not a literal translation as it conveys ideas. the idea here is to be sat up high enough to see the world's major kingdoms. like:

again here is a high enough place where you can clearly see the dominion of all of the kingdoms of the world and the world is not flat here is it sport?

When are you going to finally realize that what I stated in post #61 stands? i.e posts 21 and 23 for starters.

 

[Sanoy]

Since I'm not going to repeat myself, yet again..... Let's try a different approach entirely. And yes, I predict you completely ignore/dismiss this method too. I hope I'm wrong here

- Humans exist
- We are unsure if any god(s) exist.
- Humans write stuff.
- A human wrote 'Matthew'.
- We are unsure if such a God inspired Matthew.
- During this time period, human 'common knowledge' was to think the earth was flat.
- Humans also wrote other stories about (other religions), in which many other humans conclude as 'fiction'; where others believe them as 'fact'.
- Many of such claimed assertions/writings are completely unfalsifiable. Hence, we can merely just state, 'I don't believe it.'
- However, once in a great while, the author may suggest 'falsifiable' information, within such asserted text, which may lend the possibility to 'spilling the beans'.
- A human wrote a verse which states, and I quote:

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

Now, do we take this verse at 'face value'? Did the author think that if you go high enough, you can see the entire world? Because again, common consensus was that the earth was flat. So maybe going really really really high could achieve as such. It's likely the author had limited knowledge. Which begs the question, why would God inspire such a misleading 'vision'? It would instead stand to reason that the human was merely asserting a story from his own assertions; or maybe regurgitating stories rolling around in oral tradition?

OR...

Other.........?

There is documentation about spherical earth as far back as the 5th century BC and is considered to be established by the 3rd century BC. So your assertion of consensus is mistaken. Do you have any intentions toward giving evidence and reason for why your position is best or are questions and unevidenced assertions the only thing I should anticipate from you?

 

[cvanwey]

There is documentation about spherical earth as far back as the 5th century BC and is considered to be established by the 3rd century BC. So your assertion of consensus is mistaken. Do you have any intentions toward giving evidence and reason for why your position is best or are questions and unevidenced assertions the only thing I should anticipate from you?

As suspected.... You have ignored/dismissed many obvious observations, as predicted in post #75. And the one you attempted to counter, was done addressing a different assertion, verses the one I produced - (see below in bold).

Case/point:

- Humans exist - Unless you or I are in a simulation/other.
- God - Unestablished, unfalsifiable, contested, up for debate, other... (Hence the challenge)
- Humans write stuff down - Using only their human faculties
- Human(s) wrote 'Matthew' - The question becomes, (was it 'god' inspired?)
- 'Common knowledge' - known by most people / the consensus was that of a flat earth.
- Humans have been writing tales of many asserted gods for millennia. - You probably don't believe in some/most of those (other) unfalsifiable assertions? Or maybe you believe in all of them, which would be interesting?
- Once in a while, falsifiable information is volunteered into text - Hence, if the writer's intent was to suggest as such, I'm now testing it.
- A human wrote verse Matthew 4:8 - which is the question....

Now, to get to the small part you decided to contest... The consensus of the era, was a flat earth. Ending a short time before Columbus that is....

Flat Earthers: Belief, Skepticism, and Denialism

"a more historically accurate account tells us that civilization had abandoned flat Earth theories at least a century before that. Educated people have therefore accepted that the world is round for more than half a millennium,"

Your assertion does not address my assessment.

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

I ask you, yet again......

Was the author's intent based upon the notion of a flat earth, as common consensus was based?

Or, was the author referring to 'all' instead as a local region?

Or?

And as I must concede, over and over, if the author's intent was the later, then the topic is settled. However, since it is still a topic of debate, I'm introducing the challenge, as expressed in:

The Flat-Earth Bible.

Though you may want to assert I'm a complete 'fundi', my OP lends example that I am merely questioning this specific verse alone; and am also open to other explanations for this specific verse.

But in conclusion, at the end of the day, after further exploration, the entire topic looking more and more unfalsifiable after all?.?.?. Because, we cannot ASK the author of their intent. However, we may be able to speculate the odds?.?.?

Thus, was the author making an assertion based upon a literary reference meant to suggest that the entire world can be seen by going higher? Or, was his intent to suggest they both traveled upwards to see a local region?

I have discarded your additional explanation because, as explained in post #8, the Chapter also lays reference to many other physical attributes, in verses 1 and 5, in which I doubt were in reference to your plight. Hence, there exists virtually no way to just assume the 'mountain' was, all of a sudden, anything other than a 'known' high mountain or high physical place.

 

[Sanoy]

As suspected.... You have ignored/dismissed many obvious observations, as predicted in post #75. And the one you attempted to counter, was done addressing a different assertion, verses the one I produced - (see below in bold).

Case/point:

- Humans exist - Unless you or I are in a simulation/other.
- God - Unestablished, unfalsifiable, contested, up for debate, other... (Hence the challenge)
- Humans write stuff down - Using only their human faculties
- Human(s) wrote 'Matthew' - The question becomes, (was it 'god' inspired?)
- 'Common knowledge' - known by most people / the consensus was that of a flat earth.
- Humans have been writing tales of many asserted gods for millennia. - You probably don't believe in some/most of those (other) unfalsifiable assertions? Or maybe you believe in all of them, which would be interesting?
- Once in a while, falsifiable information is volunteered into text - Hence, if the writer's intent was to suggest as such, I'm now testing it.
- A human wrote verse Matthew 4:8 - which is the question....

Now, to get to the small part you decided to contest... The consensus of the era, was a flat earth. Ending a short time before Columbus that is....

Flat Earthers: Belief, Skepticism, and Denialism

"a more historically accurate account tells us that civilization had abandoned flat Earth theories at least a century before that. Educated people have therefore accepted that the world is round for more than half a millennium,"

Your assertion does not address my assessment.

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

I ask you, yet again......

Was the author's intent based upon the notion of a flat earth, as common consensus was based?

Or, was the author referring to 'all' instead as a local region?

Or?

And as I must concede, over and over, if the author's intent was the later, then the topic is settled. However, since it is still a topic of debate, I'm introducing the challenge, as expressed in:

The Flat-Earth Bible.

Though you may want to assert I'm a complete 'fundi', my OP lends example that I am merely questioning this specific verse alone; and am also open to other explanations for this specific verse.

But in conclusion, at the end of the day, after further exploration, the entire topic looking more and more unfalsifiable after all?.?.?. Because, we cannot ASK the author of their intent. However, we may be able to speculate the odds?.?.?

Thus, was the author making an assertion based upon a literary reference meant to suggest that the entire world can be seen by going higher? Or, was his intent to suggest they both traveled upwards to see a local region?

I have discarded your additional explanation because, as explained in post #8, the Chapter also lays reference to many other physical attributes, in verses 1 and 5, in which I doubt were in reference to your plight. Hence, there exists virtually no way to just assume the 'mountain' was, all of a sudden, anything other than a 'known' high mountain or high physical place.

Of course I ignored it, it was just a bunch of questions except for the one assertion which I showed was wrong. If you want to claim it was common knowledge that the earth was flat when and where it was written then give evidence for it. Your quote from "Psychology Today" is from the Middle Ages of EUROPE, Not Greece/Rome. I told you that we have documentation that there was a discussion of spherical earth as far back as the 5th Century BC (*1) in Greece and established by the 3rd century BC when the circumference of the earth was calculated. This was during the Hellenistic period for which the Jews were a part of and were influenced by.

I will not answer any questions. That should be clear to you by now. I have given evidence for my claim. You have not. Your quote from "Psychology Today" doesn't even cover the region in question. All you did was google search a quote and didn't even bother to know or care what you are quoting. If you have evidence for you claim then make it, otherwise you are wasting both of our time.

1 Dicks, D.R. (1970). Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. pp. 72–198. ISBN 978-0-8014-0561-7.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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

Neither.

It is as all Scripture, to be revealed by the Father to His little children who love Him, seek Him, and are called according to His Purpose.

It is true, of course. This goes without saying usually.