davidH

I too agree with reactor. When you look at the verse in the context the meaning becomes clear.

I went to one of the links there. And I'll explain this verse.

"The devil took him (Jesus) to a very high mountain and displayed before him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence...." The only plausible reason for the "very high mountain" was that the altitude would make it possible to see to the ends of the earth. Only on a flat earth would this be remotely possible, so the New Testament writers were as ignorant as the Old.

Now does the height of the mountain necessarily have anything to do with the devil showing the kingdoms of the world to Jesus?
Well, the obvious conclusion is no. Because since the world wasn't flat and even if it was he wouldn't have been able to see the kingdoms.

So lets go back and examine the previous verses.

Matthew 4 v 1 "Then Jesus was lead by the Spirit into the desert.."

v2 "After fasting for 40 days and 40 nights,he was hungry. v3 The tempter came to him..

Ok so Jesus was in the desert in Israel, it was most likely the desert region of the lower Jordan valley.

v5 "Then the devil took him to the holy city (Jerusalem) and had him stand on the highest point of the temple."

Ok, so do you think that Jesus having fasted 40 days and 40 nights walked with the devil all the way to Jerusalem and then proceeded to climb up the temple until he reached the highest point?
That would have been impossible for a man having fasted all that time! Even climbing up the temple!

No, that didn't happen - it couldn't have. So what did happen?
The devil brought him there instantaneously. The devil has powers too you know, and this is one example of where he used them.
If you look at the verse closely you'll see

"..to the holy city and had him stand on the highest.."

Note the "had him stand".

So Jesus was put there by the devil so that the devil could again tempt him.

Then the next verse;

v8 "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor."

Note the "Again". How could Jesus after fasting that long have climbed a mountain?
He was again instantaneously put there again.

What the devil then showed Jesus was a vision of all the kingdoms and their splendor.
If the person who wrote the thing about this verse was right, how could Jesus have seen the splendor of the kingdoms? Let alone see them!

Look at the account of Luke.
Luke 4 v 5 "...and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world."

Note the "in an instant".

So the person who wrote the above passage in the link has completely misinterpretted the passage.
But they have taken a verse without examining it properly and those around it properly.

So you see, that there is nothing in that verse to even suggest the world is flat!

davidH

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

Saw this and had to reply again.

As far as I know isn't the earth immovable in it's orbit? Like it's not going to fly off into outer space is it?

So the earth is immovable from its orbit around the sun because of gravity.

Those verses don't even imply that the earth is flat. It just says that its immovable and as far as I know the earth stays immovable in its orbit around the sun.

davidH

... the stars in the sky fell to the earth, like figs shaken down by a gale; the sky vanished, as a scroll is rolled up ... they called out to the mountains and the crags, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One who sits on the throne..."


Yeah, but you have to remember that when seeing this vision how could John have known the difference between a star and a meteorite?
When it enters the earth's atmosphere it burns up and shines like a star.

If you were John back then how would you describe the vision so that people would understand what you saw?

If you think about it that's the only way that he could have described it.

Vorkosigan

This won't work. The early Church fathers wrote long after the writers of the OT.

Vorkosigan

Nice try, David. It doesn't say that Jesus had a vision, it says he was shown all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain.

The ancient Hebrews saw their world as flat, underlain by pillars and water, with the sky as a dome or vault above it. That is obvious from the many verses that describe this set-up.

Michael

Toto

I don't want to get into this discussion, but the earth is MOVING in orbit around the sun.

Muad'Dib

Hello Reactor, and welcome to the boards.

There are enough styles of exegesis that I am unsure what you mean when you use the term without defining it. In what way do you take it further than most?

Out of curiosity, do you consider the parts of the OT that are cited in the NT as messianic prophecies to be consistent with their original context? The several Jews I've talked to don't.

Again, welcome, and enjoy your stay!

Muad'Dib

If all we had were the Biblical references to this, I would be inclined to regard this idea as at least somewhat tentative, but in point of fact we have ample corroboration in the OT pseudepigrapha for this particular cosmological framework. It's not as though the OT is our only source on this matter.

Muad'Dib

Toto is correct: this is not the forum for this argument, but it's worth pointing out that the pattern of the Earth's orbit around the sun is influenced by every other body in the solar system--often not by a significant amount, but it's erroneous to say that its orbit is entirely fixed.

Asha'man

You've never actually looked at astronomy, have you? Give it a try, it is a fascinating science.

However, the short answer is that an orbit is defined by motion. There is no possible way that a sane person could look at an orbiting body and apply the word "immovable." Come on, do you look at the moon in the sky and think "immovable?"

Is this a common apologetic tactic? Redefining a word to have exactly the opposite meaning? Or has all logical ability absolutely escaped you? Give me a break…