• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

  • The rule regarding AI content has been updated. The rule now rules as follows:

    Be sure to credit AI when copying and pasting AI sources. Link to the site of the AI search, just like linking to an article.

Holy Moses!

Status
Not open for further replies.

RenHoek

What eeeeeez it man?!
Dec 22, 2005
719
39
52
MI
✟23,565.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
that's nice, but the rock is an allegory. and it is not marked as such, nor is the allegory available to anyone until the NT points it out.
you could pay as much attention to detail as you want to these passages in Deu and Num and never understand that the rock was Christ.
It is not inattention to detail that got Moses into trouble. it was striking Christ.
and the fact is that he probably never understood it as anything more than disobedience, but we, with the NT in hand understand the issue better than anyone with just the OT ever could.
This is the layering of meaning to me. It had application at the time, inattention to detail given by God, and was latter used in an allegorical sense. Truth in both applications.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
I see it as he did not follow the exact words of God, striking the rock rather than speaking to it. Point being, every word (jots/tittles) of God was crucial, holy and true.

Where else in scripture is allegory used where it is not identified as such?
]

10 He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, “Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?” 11 Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank.
12 But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them.”

Apart from the NT identification of the rock as an allegory of Christ, I am struck by the implication of these verses.

The OP, and some of the following posts, assume that Moses' fault was in striking the rock instead of speaking to it. But in vs. 12, the LORD doesn't mention striking the rock, but not trusting in God enough to honour him.

Moses was not silent when he and Aaron went to the rock. He did speak. But he spoke to the Israelites, not to the rock and in speaking to the Israelites he asked (v. 10) "must we (presumably he and Aaron) bring you water out of this rock?

This is surely not honouring God, but rather arrogating to himself and Aaron what belongs to God. Perhaps this is the source of God's anger rather than striking the rock. Would striking the rock have been a no-no if he had also spoken to the rock and given God the glory for releasing the water?
 
Upvote 0

w00dy

just a person
Feb 13, 2006
1,032
14
manchester
✟31,247.00
Faith
Christian
they exist where people wish them to exist. not where people want them to exist but where ever people believe them to. we do live in a religion where the lord can turn the meekist of children into the strongist of ideals much s he can with his own people. tbh i have often seen his children pay the price for thier whorship not only on the news but also on the internet, man im getting abit mad about it tbh, lord please sort your [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] out we beg you
 
Upvote 0

RenHoek

What eeeeeez it man?!
Dec 22, 2005
719
39
52
MI
✟23,565.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This is surely not honouring God, but rather arrogating to himself and Aaron what belongs to God. Perhaps this is the source of God's anger rather than striking the rock. Would striking the rock have been a no-no if he had also spoken to the rock and given God the glory for releasing the water?
I see this as well, but I see no other examples in scripture where close enough was the standard. Honoring God as Holy, to me, means that the instructions/Word He gave were set apart/perfect and no deviation was permissible. This does not diminish the fact that they “took credit” for what God provided, but I have to believe that the striking was part of the issue based on the totality of scripture.
 
Upvote 0

busterdog

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2006
3,359
183
Visit site
✟34,429.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I see this as well, but I see no other examples in scripture where close enough was the standard. Honoring God as Holy, to me, means that the instructions/Word He gave were set apart/perfect and no deviation was permissible. This does not diminish the fact that they “took credit” for what God provided, but I have to believe that the striking was part of the issue based on the totality of scripture.

Indeed. Not following instruction was clearly a central point. Could Moses have addressed the problem by pleading in humility for some other answer beside speaking to the rock? Probably so. As Glaudys suggests, an approach without arrogance might have allowed for some kind of work-around. The Bible records people who avoid a death sentance from God by seeking Him in prayer.

That is a far cry from simply re-writing a factual history that God has already recorded in Gen 1.

I don't know why the provokes no concern for the possibility that replacing the methods of God (ie, striking rather than speaking) is like replacing the history given by God. How about just a small qualm about the surface text? Even if you are not sold on the reasoning of the OP, its still a good point, isn't it?
 
Upvote 0

J4Jesus

MY HEART BELONGS TO JESUS
Oct 22, 2005
28,668
2,207
✟61,760.00
Faith
Word of Faith
I know many, if not all, of the TE’s view the book of Genesis as allegorical. With this in mind, I have a few questions:

Why was Moses denied entry to the Promised Land?

I see it as he did not follow the exact words of God, striking the rock rather than speaking to it. Point being, every word (jots/tittles) of God was crucial, holy and true.
.

Obedience was what the Lord wanted. He would be honored in their sight if he have just spoken to it. That would show the mighty power of God to those who grumbled and His supernatural provision for them. . But they might say the water came out because of hitting it and was a natural thing, not something from God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: busterdog
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
That is a far cry from simply re-writing a factual history that God has already recorded in Gen 1.

Of course one must ask if in the first place Genesis 1 is "factual history". I say it sounds like a song. It even has repeated refrains, like Twelve Days of Christmas. :)
 
Upvote 0

RenHoek

What eeeeeez it man?!
Dec 22, 2005
719
39
52
MI
✟23,565.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Of course one must ask if in the first place Genesis 1 is "factual history". I say it sounds like a song. It even has repeated refrains, like Twelve Days of Christmas.
Was this not a common method of information preservation when writing was not possible, oral tradition? It is my (limited) understanding that poetry/song was used to make memorization of details easier.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Was this not a common method of information preservation when writing was not possible, oral tradition? It is my (limited) understanding that poetry/song was used to make memorization of details easier.
Sure, but what sort of details? Factual, historical details ... or theological details? And how would you determine what sort?
 
Upvote 0

busterdog

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2006
3,359
183
Visit site
✟34,429.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is, however, an example of observation.
On the flip side, it is observation of God’s power. Creation was meant to demonstrate the majesty of an all-powerful, intricate God, not the beauty of happenstance or mutation in my opinion.

Yes. It is a bit of touchy point. And there is alot of scripture I just don't know that well.

But, I just can't think of an example of an observed physical condition that defines what God cannot do.

There is the example of Jesus who could not heal in his hometown, but that was explicitly made to be an issue of faith, not realism about the particular medical problems themselves.

In military issues, Israel never faced an enemy that they could not defeat. They were however judged for their lack of faith. They were told to go to Babylon and not resist, which was for their own good, presumably because they were just too far gone from the faith. But, never are the military odds the issue.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
12 days seemed like a slight on the historical value. I buy history, others do not. I just could not let that one go unrebutted.
It's a good example that always attracts attention. And if God had somehow stuck the Twelve Days of Christmas into Scripture, AiG's "a sequence of days with ordinal numbers are always literal days!" criterion would have us believe that the song describes a historical lover who actually received gifts like partridges in pear trees and all, and God help the compromising heretic who argues that the whole thing is an allegory.
 
Upvote 0

RenHoek

What eeeeeez it man?!
Dec 22, 2005
719
39
52
MI
✟23,565.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It's a good example that always attracts attention. And if God had somehow stuck the Twelve Days of Christmas into Scripture, AiG's "a sequence of days with ordinal numbers are always literal days!" criterion would have us believe that the song describes a historical lover who actually received gifts like partridges in pear trees and all, and God help the compromising heretic who argues that the whole thing is an allegory.
I don’t know about you, but I thoroughly enjoy my twelve maids a milking. :groupray:
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.