What is the "plain reading" of this scripture?

[Jose Fly]

Matthew 4 describes the temptation of Christ, and Matthew 4:8 describes how Satan took Jesus to the top of an "exceedingly high mountain" and "showed him all the kingdoms of the world".

Under a "plain reading", this would seem to depict a flat earth. Otherwise, why point out that the mountain was "exceedingly high?

 

[jeffblue101]

J.P. Holding refuted this and many other flat earth accusations thrown against Scripture.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.php

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them...


This verse in Matthew by no means implies a flat earth, nor a monstrous mountain large enough to oversee the earth. Indeed, I have always thought that the trip to the mountain was a psychological ploy by Satan -- indeed, given what we know of the honor and shame dialectic of that social world, it fits as the premise of an "honor challenge" by placing Jesus in a pre-eminent position -- and that the showing of the kingdoms was accomplished by means of projecting images of some sort, as on a computer screen.

Indeed, this is suggested by the parallel verse in Luke 4:5 -

The devil led him up to a high place, and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.

However, as anyone who has climbed mountains knows - and the writer of Matthew surely knew, if he lived in the area around Judaea, as Matthew did - the higher up you go, the smaller things down below get, by your perspective. So it seems unlikely that (even if he did believe it a flat earth, personally) Matthew's offering is not compatible with a globe.

Note that even on a flat earth, a high mountain would be a very poor place to observe the kingdoms of the world "in their glory." Furthermore, if Matthew was implying that a mountain existed from which all the world was visible, then obviously, the mountain would be visible from all parts of the world. It is ludicrous to suggest that Matthew believed such a mountain existed.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jeffblue posted this...

http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.php

This verse in Matthew by no means implies a flat earth, nor a monstrous mountain large enough to oversee the earth.

Empty assertion.

Indeed, I have always thought that the trip to the mountain was a psychological ploy by Satan -- indeed, given what we know of the honor and shame dialectic of that social world, it fits as the premise of an "honor challenge" by placing Jesus in a pre-eminent position -- and that the showing of the kingdoms was accomplished by means of projecting images of some sort, as on a computer screen.

Wow....all that from "the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor"? That's some "plain reading"!! :chuckle:

Indeed, this is suggested by the parallel verse in Luke 4:5 -

The devil led him up to a high place, and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.

But again, why does this have to happen on top of not just any mountain, but one that is specifically described as being "exceedingly high"?

Note that even on a flat earth, a high mountain would be a very poor place to observe the kingdoms of the world "in their glory."

Not if you thought the world consisted of the region around you.

Furthermore, if Matthew was implying that a mountain existed from which all the world was visible, then obviously, the mountain would be visible from all parts of the world. It is ludicrous to suggest that Matthew believed such a mountain existed.

See above.

 

[jeffblue101]

Matthew 4 describes the temptation of Christ, and Matthew 4:8 describes how Satan took Jesus to the top of an "exceedingly high mountain" and "showed him all the kingdoms of the world".

Under a "plain reading", this would seem to depict a flat earth. Otherwise, why point out that the mountain was "exceedingly high?

under your version of a "plain reading" this would be just as impossible in an Earth that is flat or round.

 

[Jose Fly]

under your version of a "plain reading" this would be just as impossible in an Earth that is flat or round.

Not if one's idea of the world didn't include N. America, S. America, Australia, or anywhere else outside of the region.

 

[jeffblue101]

Not if one's idea of the world didn't include N. America, S. America, Australia, or anywhere else outside of the region.

again not possible even under a "regions approach", according to livescience the farthest someone could see out from atop of the tallest mountain Everest is about 230 miles, none of those mountains in the Judea region are even close that height but yet Egypt in that time was well over 200 miles in distance from any mountain in that region. Your "plain reading" depicts zero notion of a flat earth.

 

[jamie]

Not if one's idea of the world didn't include N. America, S. America, Australia, or anywhere else outside of the region.

Isaiah referred to the earth as being a circle... (Isaiah 40:22 NKJV)

 

[genuineoriginal]

Matthew 4 describes the temptation of Christ, and Matthew 4:8 describes how Satan took Jesus to the top of an "exceedingly high mountain" and "showed him all the kingdoms of the world".

You obviously have thoughts about the verse that are different than what you believe the plain reading states.

But, instead of asking about those thoughts, you just ask about the plain reading.

The plain reading is simple: Satan takes Jesus up to an exceedingly high mountain and shows him all the kingdoms of the world.

What you seem to be complaining about is your lack of ability to explain how Jesus could see all the kingdoms of the world from an exceedingly high mountain.

But, you are not asking for an explanation of how this is possible, you just keep asking what the plain reading of the verse is, even though the plain reading is plain if you read the verse.

Under a "plain reading", this would seem to depict a flat earth. Otherwise, why point out that the mountain was "exceedingly high?

A "plain reading" would depict a vision, which would explain the "exceedingly high" mountain.

For proof, see this other verse where something similar happens:

Revelation 21:10 10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,​

 

[Jose Fly]

again not possible even under a "regions approach", according to livescience the farthest someone could see out from atop of the tallest mountain Everest is about 230 miles, none of those mountains in the Judea region are even close that height but yet Egypt in that time was well over 200 miles in distance from any mountain in that region.

And the author of Matthew knew that? So what was the reason for specifically pointing out that the mountain was "exceedingly high"?

Your "plain reading" depicts zero notion of a flat earth.

Martin Luther seemed to think the Bible depicted a flat earth.

 

[Jose Fly]

Isaiah referred to the earth as being a circle... (Isaiah 40:22 NKJV)

Yes, circles are flat (think of a dinner plate or CD).

 

[Aimiel]

The 'circle' of the earth is actually time, which travels it's circuit from eternity back to eternity, as God has opened this tiny little 'temporal' realm for His Creation to exist in. God is above the circle of time. He is eternal, without temporal limits.

When considering that Jesus was described as being taken to an exceeding high mountain, one must also consider that it was a spiritual journey and Jesus used that description for the disciple's understanding.

 

[Jose Fly]

You obviously have thoughts about the verse that are different than what you believe the plain reading states.

It reads to me like Satan wanted to show Jesus the kingdoms of the world, so he took him up to a really, really tall mountain to do so. IOW, "If we're going to see it all, we need to get up really high".

The plain reading is simple: Satan takes Jesus up to an exceedingly high mountain and shows him all the kingdoms of the world.

Exactly.

But, you are not asking for an explanation of how this is possible, you just keep asking what the plain reading of the verse is, even though the plain reading is plain if you read the verse.

Fundamentalists keep insisting that we must read the Bible for what it says and not impose additional meanings or other things on to it. That's what I'm doing.

A "plain reading" would depict a vision, which would explain the "exceedingly high" mountain.

Sorry, but the word "vision" isn't in the text.

For proof, see this other verse where something similar happens:

Revelation 21:10 10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,​

Right. The Bible authors believed heaven was just on the other side of the clouds/sky. That's why Jesus ascended (went up) into heaven, Jesus described his return as descending from the sky, Elijah was "taken up to heaven in a whirlwind", "manna from heaven" is described as falling from the sky, and in your verse, in order to see something "descending out of heaven", you have to go up to a high mountain (the "descending" part is important).

 

[genuineoriginal]

It reads to me like Satan wanted to show Jesus the kingdoms of the world, so he took him up to a really, really tall mountain to do so. IOW, "If we're going to see it all, we need to get up really high".



Exactly.



Fundamentalists keep insisting that we must read the Bible for what it says and not impose additional meanings or other things on to it. That's what I'm doing.

You are imposing additional meanings and other things to the text.

Sorry, but the word "vision" isn't in the text.

A vision is implied by the words of the verse to anyone that actually reads the Bible.

Ezekiel 40:2 2 In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south.​

 

[jeffblue101]

And the author of Matthew knew that? So what was the reason for specifically pointing out that the mountain was "exceedingly high"?
.

Unless Matthew had superman vision it would be obvious to anyone as a matter of fact that Egypt can't be seen from any mountain in the Judea region. You seem to be ignoring this part from Holding, which also applies to your "known regions approach" that you are advocating. "Furthermore, if Matthew was implying that a mountain existed from which all the world was visible, then obviously, the mountain would be visible from all parts of the world. It is ludicrous to suggest that Matthew believed such a mountain existed."

 

[Jose Fly]

You are imposing additional meanings and other things to the text.

I don't think so. Seems pretty clear to me that it depicts a situation where, in order to see all the kingdoms of the world, they had to go to an exceedingly high mountain.

A vision is implied by the words of the verse to anyone that actually reads the Bible.

Ezekiel 40:2 2 In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south.​

Sure, but even the vision depicts a scenario where heaven is just above the clouds/sky.

 

[Jose Fly]

Unless Matthew had superman vision it would be obvious to anyone as a matter of fact that Egypt can't be seen from any mountain in the Judea region.

IOW, the height of the mountain is irrelevant. So why point out that it was "exceedingly high"?

"Furthermore, if Matthew was implying that a mountain existed from which all the world was visible, then obviously, the mountain would be visible from all parts of the world. It is ludicrous to suggest that Matthew believed such a mountain existed."

I tend to doubt that the author thought through the physics that much. Could it be that it's just a story?

 

[Spitfire]

It's kind of like the scene in the Lion King where Mufasa tells Simba that he will one day inherit the kingdom.

They can only see so far, but a lot more is implied.

The plain reading is that Satan tempted Jesus and Jesus rejected Satan's offer.

 

[Lon]

Matthew 4 describes the temptation of Christ, and Matthew 4:8 describes how Satan took Jesus to the top of an "exceedingly high mountain" and "showed him all the kingdoms of the world".

Under a "plain reading", this would seem to depict a flat earth. Otherwise, why point out that the mountain was "exceedingly high?

What did your wife tell you? Your thinking is two-dimensional, so your complaints are of the same material. "har" is a mountain, "oros" is a high position and not necessarily physical. IOW, the 'translator' thought "mountain." Jose, I know you think you are intelligent, but you do not search a thing out and don't care to, which is why I'm often opposed to your agenda on TOL, thus your presence. It is a thin, mindless, veneer of mockery with little actual thought. Why? Hate speech. There is no other reason for this kind of poor-thinking attack. Any attack on another part of the human race like this, is simple-minded low-brow and back-woods (simple-minded prejudice).

It's kind of like the scene in the Lion King where Mufasa tells Simba that he will one day inherit the kingdom.

They can only see so far, but a lot more is implied.

The plain reading is that Satan tempted Jesus and Jesus rejected Satan's offer.

Yep, but I don't think he was looking for a 'reasoned/reasonable' answer.

 

[jeffblue101]

I tend to doubt that the author thought through the physics that much. Could it be that it's just a story?

Holding addressed your atheistic view of Scripture in that comment, even if it were a "story" it would still be "ludicrous to suggest that Matthew believed such a mountain existed", that can be seen from all the world or "known world".

 

[Jose Fly]

"har" is a mountain, "oros" is a high position and not necessarily physical. IOW, the 'translator' thought "mountain."

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Jose, I know you think you are intelligent, but you do not search a thing out and don't care to, which is why I'm often opposed to your agenda on TOL, thus your presence. It is a thin, mindless, veneer of mockery with little actual thought. Why? Hate speech. There is no other reason for this kind of poor-thinking attack. Any attack on another part of the human race like this, is simple-minded low-brow and back-woods (simple-minded prejudice).

Oh brother.... If you don't like my posts, don't read them.