Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

[genuineoriginal]

As far as interpreting the Bible, what is the plain reading of Matthew 4:8, where Satan takes Jesus up to an "exceedingly high" mountain and shows him "all the kingdoms of the world"?

I highlighted it.

 

[Jose Fly]

I highlighted it.

Do you not understand the point of the question, i.e., how if the earth is a sphere, you can't go to the top of a mountain and see Israel and S. America, and China?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Do you not understand the point of the question, i.e., how if the earth is a sphere, you can't go to the top of a mountain and see Israel and S. America, and China?

In other words, when you asked for the plain reading of Matthew 4:8, you really didn't want the plain reading.

Why don't you ask for what you do want instead of what you don't want?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

William Tyndale is thought to have been the main contributor to the KJV, and he, like William Shakespeare, enriched the English language with the style of their time.
I would imagine that earlier translations of the Bible would have also benefited greatly from the writer's own style and interpretations that can't easily be compared to the idioms of today.
I suggest that nobody can reasonably or rationally conclude that they somehow can know of any detailed literal truth from any version of the Bible.

Stay on the "Isle" it looks as if, "eternal life" is not for you.

 

[Jose Fly]

In other words, when you asked for the plain reading of Matthew 4:8, you really didn't want the plain reading.

Why don't you ask for what you do want instead of what you don't want?

??????????? What is the "plain reading"? Just read it, and don't think about it or ask questions? :idunno:

 

[alwight]

Then you must be a complete moron.
:chuckle:

One of us probably is. lain:

 

[6days]

.... the Bible can indeed be figurative,...

Yes... that is what us 'fundamentalists' believe! The Bible has books of poetry, history and, prophecy. Authors often use figurative language even when describing real historical events. It's funny how intelligent people can understand phrases such as " corners of the earth"; yet they feign confusion reading it in the Bible.

 

[Stripe]

Yes... that is what us 'fundamentalists' believe! The Bible has books of poetry, history and, prophecy. Authors often use figurative language even when describing real historical events. It's funny how intelligent people can understand phrases such as " corners of the earth"; yet they feign confusion reading it in the Bible.

Evolutionists hate reading.

 

[alwight]

Stay on the "Isle" it looks as if, "eternal life" is not for you.

Eternal life itself does seems a bit scary perhaps, but then again real life and how it came to be as it is today can also be scary if you are desperately keen to have eternal life based literally on what a much translated ancient scripture says. lain:

 

[alwight]

Yes... that is what us 'fundamentalists' believe! The Bible has books of poetry, history and, prophecy. Authors often use figurative language even when describing real historical events. It's funny how intelligent people can understand phrases such as " corners of the earth"; yet they feign confusion reading it in the Bible.

I tend to think that when a phrase like "corners of the earth" was originally used, that's actually what it meant.
I have no real idea when it became accepted as figurative but I rather suspect that it was originally to be found in the Bible.

 

[Stripe]

I tend to think that when a phrase like "corners of the earth" was originally used, that's actually what it meant.

Because people believed the Earth was a square. lain:

Evolutionists are morons. They demand that the Bible teaches a flat Earth because translations say "circle," then they demand it has corners.

It is all part of their furious devotion to rejecting everything that points to their savior.

 

[Jose Fly]

Stripe,

Do you believe that populations diverge to the point of reproductive isolation, and that the process is part of the "Biblical model of creation"?

 

[jeffblue101]

??????????? What is the "plain reading"? Just read it, and don't think about it or ask questions? :idunno:

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]

Jeff,

Just started a new thread on the question, so if you could post that over there, this thread can stay more on topic.

Thanks.

 

[6days]

I tend to think that when a phrase like "corners of the earth" was originally used, that's actually what it meant.

Of course you think that because you think humans evolved and and early humans we're stupid. But, the evidence says otherwise. The oldest book in the Bible describes earth as a sphere hanging in empty space.

 

[genuineoriginal]

??????????? What is the "plain reading"? Just read it, and don't think about it or ask questions? :idunno:

answer moved to other thread

 

[genuineoriginal]

One of us probably is. lain:

So, are there two of you, or are there more?

 

[alwight]

Of course you think that because you think humans evolved and and early humans we're stupid. But, the evidence says otherwise. The oldest book in the Bible describes earth as a sphere hanging in empty space.

Firstly I rather doubt that many figurative expressions now used were ever originally meant to be that way.

As I recall the word "sphere" doesn't appear in the Bible, while I also seem to remember that despite there being a good Hebrew word for ball-like, that doesn't feature either in any ancient texts. A disc or circle is about the best you can do. The sort of view a middle eastern goat herder might have seen from atop a donkey on a high crest.

I have never suggested that early humans were "stupid" but then they were around long before you think the world began. They had to be clever enough to compete with all the ancient creatures of that time, long before the world for you was supposedly created, a world that I probably couldn't have coped with at all well.:nono:

 

[jeffblue101]

Well if you think that one is literal then I'll give you a different comparison: what makes Genesis creation in six days literal but "four corners" of Earth figurative?

So there are no literal corners and the Bible can indeed be figurative, unless fundamentalists say otherwise.

in an agreement to response qouted above

And this has been shown to be true over and over. Passages of the Bible can have multiple interpretations (and ancient people were fine with that) Interpretations can shift over time, sun standing still was once literal, now it's considered figurative or perspective based.

As I recall the word "sphere" doesn't appear in the Bible, while I also seem to remember that despite there being a good Hebrew word for ball-like, that doesn't feature either in any ancient texts. A disc or circle is about the best you can do. The sort of view a middle eastern goat herder might have seen from atop a donkey on a high crest.

from another thread

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

The atheists on this forum can't even get their facts when they are attacking Scripture. they use arguments like the "four corners" to depict the author as believing in world that is a flat square disc and when its convenient to do so they switch it up assert it was a flat circular disc that they believed in.

 

[alwight]

The atheists on this forum can't even get their facts [right?] when they are attacking Scripture. they use arguments like the "four corners" to depict the author as believing in world that is a flat square disc and when its convenient to do so they switch it up assert it was a flat round disc that they believed in.

Firstly I didn't attack any scripture here I was pointing out how it can be considered as figurative not literal, if that is an attack on fundamentalism then so be it.

You seem to miss the point entirely that the authors or translators are being credited here as very able to use figurative language and probably never intended their words to be regarded as a verbatim literal truth. It's fundamentalists who choose to adhere to a literal inerrancy quite regardless of what all the natural fields of science seem to suggest with facts and hard evidence.