What is the "plain reading" of this scripture?

[Jose Fly]

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".

Again, it's not ludicrous if the author was telling a story and thus didn't bother to think through the physics of it all. Then he just writes "Satan took Jesus to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world". Done. Neat story.

But if we're to read it as not a story, but a description of an actual event, that raises some obvious questions, the first being, why the need to point out that the mountain was "exceedingly high"? And if it was some sort of supernatural vision, why isn't that written and why go to a mountain to do it?

Given those two options, it seems the former is the most parsimonious.

 

[Lon]

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

I don't like your posts, however, I will take a moment to point out your uncritical thinking and ask you to wise-up.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Sad. Sadder? You are too opinionated to have asked, just give commentary 'as-if' it is my fault. It isn't. You are ignorant and worse, don't want an answer. The fault isn't in the answer, it is with you, being ignorant of what you instead choose to mock.

You haven't the foggiest idea, and will remain there

 

[WizardofOz]

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.

But unless they could see the entire kingdom then the movie The Lion King was never actually made :noid:

 

[serpentdove]

...[W]hy point out that the mountain was "exceedingly high?

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

:listen: He's exceedingly high.

 

[serpentdove]

...[T]he temptation of Christ...

Heb. 2:18

 

[jeffblue101]

Again, it's not ludicrous if the author was telling a story and thus didn't bother to think through the physics of it all. Then he just writes "Satan took Jesus to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world". Done. Neat story.

stop contradicting yourself in your atheistic view, If Matthew wasn't "thinking through the physics of it all" then he certainly wasn't thinking that the world is flat disc therefore we can see all the kingdoms from it. you can't have it both ways in your mindset.

 

[OliviaM]

So many problems come when we try to force a literal historical fact type reading of the bible. It can't be read that way as it makes it silly and not true. The bible is analogy, parable, metaphor and symbolism.

Stuff like Genesis didn't literally happen. They impart a moral. Hence the saying the moral of the story. That is the only sane way to read the bible.

 

[patrick jane]

So many problems come when we try to force a literal historical fact type reading of the bible. It can't be read that way as it makes it silly and not true. The bible is analogy, parable, metaphor and symbolism.

Stuff like Genesis didn't literally happen. They impart a moral. Hence the saying the moral of the story. That is the only sane way to read the bible.

EVERY word in the Bible is true. Literally

 

[serpentdove]

Stuff like Genesis didn't literally happen.

"If you don't believe Genesis 1:1, don't bother reading the rest of the bible." ~ Dennis Prager

 

[Lon]

So many problems come when we try to force a literal historical fact type reading of the bible. It can't be read that way as it makes it silly and not true. The bible is analogy, parable, metaphor and symbolism.

Stuff like Genesis didn't literally happen. They impart a moral. Hence the saying the moral of the story. That is the only sane way to read the bible.

:nono: This too, is thin two-dimensional thinking. Simpleton answers aren't 'rational' answers, they are 'settling without research' answers.

▼▼

EVERY word in the Bible is true. Literally

"If you don't believe Genesis 1:1, don't bother reading the rest of the bible." ~ Dennis Prager

This is 'why' liberal theology is shunned here. It is seen as 'creative-thinking' despite facts.

"har" is a mountain, "oros" is a high position and not necessarily physical.

And you too, probably won't get this, but it is one of several solid answers that one doesn't need to 'symbolize' the verse in order to accept. That is the lazy theologian 'creative' theologian answer and it is flat liberal and flat wrong, being the irresponsible conjecture that it is. IOW, it is a horrible, irresponsible, liberal guess passed off as something more substantial and arrogant than what it is: a bad guess (supposed common sense or intuition not-with-standing).

 

[OliviaM]

:nono: This too, is thin two-dimensional thinking. Simpleton answers aren't 'rational' answers, they are 'settling without research' answers.

This is 'why' liberal theology is shunned here. It is seen as 'creative-thinking' despite facts.

Understanding that snakes and donkies can't talk isn't simplton. It is rational.

Knowing that there was no world wide flood with a giant boat is rational.

Knowing that Jesus taught us how to behave and that is what is important is rational. We didn't get any special forgiveness because of his animal body blood.

We need rationality to understand the bible. Not blind bible literalism worship. Sensible interpretation is best.

When I hear to literalists debating the bible it is like kids arguing over the specifics of Harry Potter. Did dumbledor do this specifically or this. If he cast this then bla bla bla would happen.

You miss the whole point and beauty of the book with such literalism.

 

[Bright Raven]

Understanding that snakes and donkies can't talk isn't simplton. It is rational.

Knowing that there was no world wide flood with a giant boat is rational.

Knowing that Jesus taught us how to behave and that is what is important is rational. We didn't get any special forgiveness because of his animal body blood.

We need rationality to understand the bible. Not blind bible literalism worship. Sensible interpretation is best.

Do you believe that the donkey spoke with Baalem?
Do you believe in the great flood and Noah?

Seems as though you don't but I would rather hear it from you?

 

[OliviaM]

Do you believe that the donkey spoke with Baalem?
Do you believe in the great flood and Noah?

Seems as though you don't but I would rather hear it from you?

They are figurative stories to impart a moral. They are not literal history. That is the only rational reading of those stories.

 

[patrick jane]

Understanding that snakes and donkies can't talk isn't simplton. It is rational.

Knowing that there was no world wide flood with a giant boat is rational.

Knowing that Jesus taught us how to behave and that is what is important is rational. We didn't get any special forgiveness because of his animal body blood.

We need rationality to understand the bible. Not blind bible literalism worship. Sensible interpretation is best.

When I hear to literalists debating the bible it is like kids arguing over the specifics of Harry Potter. Did dumbledor do this specifically or this. If he cast this then bla bla bla would happen.

You miss the whole point and beauty of the book with such literalism.

The book ?

Blasphemy about Jesus' Blood

 

[Bright Raven]

They are figurative stories to impart a moral. They are not literal history. That is the only rational reading of those stories.

Hmmm. So you don't believe the words of Jesus?

Matthew 24:38 New King James Version (NKJV)

38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,

 

[OliviaM]

Hmmm. So you don't believe the words of Jesus?

Matthew 24:38 New King James Version (NKJV)

38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,

He was imparting a message to simple people using a figurative story.

There is no other sane or rational interpretation of the bible than figurative. None. Literalism is the promotion of delusion. There are no talking snakes. There never were. The earth is not 6,000 years old. The whole population of the earth didn't die out 3,500 years ago in a flood. We know that because people were living then in China and Africa and Europe and they are still here.

 

[Lon]

Understanding that snakes and donkies can't talk isn't simplton. It is rational.

Then you aren't a Christian, but in some desired name only (for whatever odd reason). If your God is not supernatural, then you don't believe there is a God. You are 'finite.' Hate to tell you that, but it also means you 'brain' is finite and limited thus "rationalization" is finite and limited. It cannot possibly be the whole picture. You and I aren't the actualizers of truth, we are the viewers of it.

Knowing that there was no world wide flood with a giant boat is rational.

You DON'T know that...

Knowing that Jesus taught us how to behave and that is what is important is rational. We didn't get any special forgiveness because of his animal body blood.

You DON'T know this either, you are finite and limited (as am I) thus incapable of actualization. We observe 2+2=4, we do not actualize it.

We need rationality to understand the bible. Not blind bible literalism worship. Sensible interpretation is best.

Your 'sensible' interpretation is finite as is mine. If there is no standard, given by God (and there is) then we'd be lost in random and differing finite opinion.

When I hear to literalists debating the bible it is like kids arguing over the specifics of Harry Potter. Did dumbledor do this specifically or this. If he cast this then bla bla bla would happen.

At least they are 'critically' thinking instead of coming up with 'creative' and simpleton answers of the imagination.

You miss the whole point and beauty of the book with such literalism.

:nono: Just the opposite, in point of fact.

 

[OliviaM]

Then you aren't a Christian, but in some desired name only (for whatever odd reason). If your God is not supernatural, then you don't believe there is a God. You are 'finite.' Hate to tell you that, but it also means you 'brain' is finite and limited thus "rationalization" is finite and limited. It cannot possibly be the whole picture. You and I aren't the actualizers of truth, we are the viewers of it.


You DON'T know that...

You DON'T know this either, you are finite and limited (as am I) thus incapable of actualization. We observe 2+2=4, we do not actualize it.

Your 'sensible' interpretation is finite as is mine. If there is no standard, given by God (and there is) then we'd be lost in random and differing finite opinion.

At least they are 'critically' thinking instead of coming up with 'creative answers' of imagination.
:nono: Just the opposite, in point of fact.

I am sorry, but anything other than a figurative reading of the bible is delusion. It is fantasy. There never has been or will be a talking snake. The earth did not have a world wide flood 3,500 years ago that destroyed 99.9% of all life. It just didn't happen. There were actual cultures of people back then in China for example and they are still here.

We all didn't speak one language and we weren't' all the same race until the tower of bable. That is kids stuff and not rational in any sense.

We need sane and rational Christianity. Not magic and superstition.

 

[Danoh]

Understanding that snakes and donkies can't talk isn't simplton. It is rational.

Knowing that there was no world wide flood with a giant boat is rational.

Knowing that Jesus taught us how to behave and that is what is important is rational. We didn't get any special forgiveness because of his animal body blood.

We need rationality to understand the bible. Not blind bible literalism worship. Sensible interpretation is best.

When I hear to literalists debating the bible it is like kids arguing over the specifics of Harry Potter. Did dumbledor do this specifically or this. If he cast this then bla bla bla would happen.

You miss the whole point and beauty of the book with such literalism.

Your post says much that is sound.

I say that while holding to an Acts 9 Dispensational (aka Mid-Acts, or MAD) Literalism, in its actual sense.

The Literal via the Literal, the Literal via the Figurative.

In short, to allow yourself to "one size fits all" all "Literalists," is to have allowed yourself to have fallen into the same error you are lamenting, even as you lament it.

 

[Bright Raven]

He was imparting a message to simple people using a figurative story.

There is no other sane or rational interpretation of the bible than figurative. None. Literalism is the promotion of delusion. There are no talking snakes. There never were. The earth is not 6,000 years old. The whole population of the earth didn't die out 3,500 years ago in a flood. We know that because people were living then in China and Africa and Europe and they are still here.

OK, then all these scriptures allude to a fictious story. If it isn't true, why is it there? I'd ask your pastor to see if he thinks its true or not.

Matthew 24:37-38 New King James Version (NKJV)

37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,

Luke 17:26-27New King James Version (NKJV)

26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

Hebrews 11:7 New King James Version (NKJV)

7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

1 Peter 3:20 New King James Version (NKJV)

20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited[a] in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.


2 Peter 2:5 New King James Version (NKJV)

5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;