How large was the land of Eden...?

[the rookie]

the rookie, exactly! I've heard it suggested, when Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms and offered them from an exceeding high mountain, it was or symbolized where he once ruled and Jesus will. Possibly where Adam would have. Just speculation.

INTERESTING....

[the rookie]

I think restoration may point to the lose of physical communion with God. It seems man went about this the wrong way at babel. In the ANE mind Eden was the temple of God where God met with man...it is now lost (in a sense) but will be restored.

"All things" seems like a bigger subject than physical communion with God. There is a global renovation in view there (cf. Rom. 8:19-22); Matthew 19:28 also speaks of the restoration - or the "regeneration" - meaning "creation"; Matthew 17:11 speaks of the "restoration of all things" through the ministry of Elijah - connected with the glorification of Jesus; Rom. 11:15 speaks of "life from the dead" in regards to this restoration.

The big question is, why a city (Babylon) and a tower / temple (Babel) - what were they trying to recapture (by human means)? Only physical communion?

[teddyv]

I'm thinking of Moses' point that the region was "well-watered everywhere until Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed". What did the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah do to the region to dramatically shift its water supply?

Does the "(This was before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.)" pertain to the geography, or is it a setting of chronology? I'm not sure, but I tend to read the latter.

[John 8:32]

Great thread the rookie! I agree with you thus far. I know a bible translator that thinks the same. Here's another question; is this where Lucifer was and how much of the restoration applies to then?

I think that it is where he still rules...

2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Mat 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;
Mat 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Christ never disputed that they were Satan's to give.

Then we can read and infer some from the opening chapters of Job.

This thread should prove to be right interesting.

[the rookie]

Does the "(This was before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.)" pertain to the geography, or is it a setting of chronology? I'm not sure, but I tend to read the latter.

Good question. My guess is that it's "both" - meaning, was Moses explaining something to his audience as it related to the "(not) well-watered plain of Jordan"? Meaning, the plain of Jordan is not "well-watered" presently; was it well-watered during the time of Moses? When did it go from "well-watered" to "not well-watered"...and how?

[the rookie]

Christ never disputed that they were Satan's to give.

I've always found that to be one of the most interesting aspects of that account. If Satan did not have some manner of dominion (as Paul ascribes to him in Ephesians 6:12) it would be beyond bold to offer "all the kingdoms of the world" to Jesus. That's the amazing thing about the book of Revelation - Jesus comes to take by force from His enemies what is rightfully His (yet not in His possession) - cf. Re. 11:15-17

[teddyv]

I've always found that to be one of the most interesting aspects of that account. If Satan did not have some manner of dominion (as Paul ascribes to him in Ephesians 6:12) it would be beyond bold to offer "all the kingdoms of the world" to Jesus. That's the amazing thing about the book of Revelation - Jesus comes to take by force from His enemies what is rightfully His (yet not in His possession) - cf. Re. 11:15-17

Thinking out loud here. Was not the Jewish expectation of the Messiah to be a military leader that would essetially usher in the Kingdom of God (and be de facto the principle nation of the world? By Satan's offer, is it not appealing to that view?

[Old man]

I've always found that to be one of the most interesting aspects of that account. If Satan did not have some manner of dominion (as Paul ascribes to him in Ephesians 6:12) it would be beyond bold to offer "all the kingdoms of the world" to Jesus. That's the amazing thing about the book of Revelation - Jesus comes to take by force from His enemies what is rightfully His (yet not in His possession) - cf. Re. 11:15-17

Or Jesus didn't dispute the claim because it wasn't the real issue which was who is to be worshiped. We know that satan is a liar (although there must be some ligitimacy to his claim I just don't know how much) and there are plenty of scriptures that say that the earth and all that is in it belongs to God .... the cattle on a thousand hills etc. I read one last night referring to God owning all the gold (although I don't remember where it was). So just how much does satan really have?

[the rookie]

Thinking out loud here. Was not the Jewish expectation of the Messiah to be a military leader that would essetially usher in the Kingdom of God (and be de facto the principle nation of the world? By Satan's offer, is it not appealing to that view?

Hard to prove or read that Satan was appealing to that view....but one could say that Satan was offering Jesus the nations without having to go to the cross....

....but Jesus as military leader ("Captain of the Hosts") starts with His appearance to Joshua; we see the heavenly host as an army when Elisha prays for his servant to see what he sees; we see an astonishing military victory over the Assyrian army encamped outside of Jerusalem; we read the prophet Joel using military langage to describe the "day of the Lord" and the reckoning of the nations in Joel 3; we see the military leader striding in power in Isaiah 63; all of that imagery is utilized by John in Revelation 14, 16, and 19 and the ultimate victory of Jesus over the nations that rage against Him (Ps. 2). So I wouldn't necessarily see that as a "Satanic view"

[teddyv]

Good question. My guess is that it's "both" - meaning, was Moses explaining something to his audience as it related to the "(not) well-watered plain of Jordan"? Meaning, the plain of Jordan is not "well-watered" presently; was it well-watered during the time of Moses? When did it go from "well-watered" to "not well-watered"...and how?

But if you recall, the tribes of Reuban and Gad and Manassah wanted to settle in the Jordan plain since they had great herds, so I presume it was still quite well watered.

Numbers 32:1-5
1 The Reubenites and Gadites, who had very large herds and flocks, saw that the lands of Jazer and Gilead were suitable for livestock. 2 So they came to Moses and Eleazar the priest and to the leaders of the community, and said, 3 “Ataroth, Dibon, Jazer, Nimrah, Heshbon, Elealeh, Sebam, Nebo and Beon — 4 the land the Lord subdued before the people of Israel—are suitable for livestock, and your servants have livestock. 5 If we have found favor in your eyes,” they said, “let this land be given to your servants as our possession. Do not make us cross the Jordan. ”

[the rookie]

Or Jesus didn't dispute the claim because it wasn't the real issue which was who is to be worshiped. We know that satan is a liar (although there must be some ligitimacy to his claim I just don't know how much) and there are plenty of scriptures that say that the earth and all that is in it belongs to God .... the cattle on a thousand hills etc. I read one last night referring to God owning all the gold (although I don't remember where it was). So just how much does satan really have?

There seem to be multiple issues in that passage. Here's some questions - was Satan lying to Jesus about His ability to command the stone to become bread, or about the angelic protection of Jesus' life?

[the rookie]

But if you recall, the tribes of Reuban and Gad and Manassah wanted to settle in the Jordan plain since they had great herds, so I presume it was still quite well watered.

Possibly. Hard to say from that passage...the Genesis 13 passage compared the plain of Jordan at one time to, "the garden of the Lord"...or the garden of Eden itself. If that was the case during the crossing of the Jordan, why would anyone of Israel wanted to cross over?

[Old man]

The big question is, why a city (Babylon) and a tower / temple (Babel) - what were they trying to recapture (by human means)? Only physical communion?

Just my opinion but it regards what man is. By that I mean he (man) is a creation and as a creation or created thing there must be something or someone who rules over him. In the beginning God ruled over His creation, after the fall; man ruled over himself doing what was right in his own eyes on an individual basis. The tower though is where man as an civilization or mankind as a whole told God thanks but no thanks we will rule ourselves.

The restoration is where God once again rules over the creation, i.e man (even more specifically, those who during this life voluntarily and by their choice choose Him to rule over them) Just thinking out load and speculating!

[teddyv]

Possibly. Hard to say from that passage...the Genesis 13 passage compared the plain of Jordan at one time to, "the garden of the Lord"...or the garden of Eden itself. If that was the case during the crossing of the Jordan, why would anyone of Israel wanted to cross over?

Because it was not the land that had been promised to Abraham? Moses and Joshau pronounced all sorts of warnings and curses if these tribes failed to live up to assisting their countrymen in taking the land west of the Jordan.

Anyway, I still feel the comparison of the Jordan plain to the river flowing through Eden or the Nile is just noting a similarity in geography and how things grow richly next to these rivers.

[Old man]

Here's some questions - was Satan lying to Jesus about His ability to command the stone to become bread, or about the angelic protection of Jesus' life?

I'm not sure the lie would be effective. He would be lying to Jesus who knew who He was and what He could do. Did satan even know for sure that Jesus was the Son of God? He believed his own lie that he could rebel against God and rule as God just how deceived is the deceiver? Liers often after lying long enough believe their own lies. In this testing of Jesus could it be that Jesus was tested but also that satan cleared up his own doubts about who Jesus was? Pure speculation mind you.