Solid As A Rock

RenHoek · Jan 16, 2007

Lu 6:48 -
He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.

Mt 16:18 -
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Numerous examples throughout the Bible proclaim the wisdom of building on a firm foundation, or rock.

Why would a God that states these things build His Word on an allegory and not a rock solid truth? Would this not be hypocritical?

Assyrian · Jan 16, 2007

Building his church on a rock is a metaphor.

Deamiter · Jan 16, 2007

Assyrian said:
Building his church on a rock is a metaphor.

Oh the irony!

This whole premise assumes that metaphor is somehow less true than a factual/historical account. I'd suggest that the opposite is true -- we are much more likely to learn spiritual truths from stories, metaphors and parables than from a modern biography of Jesus and the background of the Hebrew people.

rmwilliamsll · Jan 16, 2007

Assyrian said:
Building his church on a rock is a metaphor.

and
you are Peter, and on this rock I

is a complex pun on the name Petros, probably a play off the story of the wise and foolish who build on sand or on rock, a metaphor about the stablity and hardness of rock and even more.

but we know that rock is most empty space, is not really very solid, and it composed of lots of different subunits, ie is not composed of "rock atoms", all things which differ greatly from the author of these words ideas.

even the idea of a rock, is very culturally dependent and what you are trying to communicate is dependent upon who you are talking to.

a RC and a Protestant will read these verses very different, because they have different metaphors and analogies in mind between Peter, rock, church, this.....

RenHoek · Jan 16, 2007

The presence of metaphor does not dilute the foundational issue of the OP. Metaphor is used in the Bible, I get it. These examples thrown around are specific to a phrase or previously identified parable, not an entire book (or whatever portion of Genesis considered allegory or fable). And before it starts, I do anticipate seeing a dragon in the end times (layered truth fulfilled on multiple levels as in Gen).

The point is that factual genealogies cannot be built on a metaphor. Is Luke right or wrong to include fictional characters in the proof of Christs lineage? Why would God use falsehoods to prove fact?

rmwilliamsll · Jan 16, 2007

The point is that factual genealogies cannot be built on a metaphor.

interestingly i just posted that to the other thread.
Matthew does shape his geneology, to prove that Jesus is the Jubliee, the Sabbath of Sabbaths, the 7th of 7. The geneologies are shaped and molded to perform not-literal, not-actual, not-historical purposes.

but is Adam really God's son?
in the same way that Seth is Adam's son?
or that Jesus is David's son?
or even that Jesus is Joseph's son?
look carefully at each pair:
Adam is to God
Seth is to Adam
Jesus is to David
Jesus is to Joseph.
each is a very different relationship, yet the single word "son" is used to describe the relationship. yet only one of those is an actual biological based relationship.

curious. even something apparently "solidly literal" as geneologies, really isn't.

btw:
The presence of metaphor does not dilute the foundational issue of the OP
but we know scientific that a rock is not solid matter, that it is mostly emptiness, that it is not composed of "rock particles".
exactly how scientifically solid is a rock?
or even historically? rocks get ground up all the time. they get moved.
how firm is this metaphor "as solid as a rock"?

Deamiter · Jan 16, 2007

RenHoek said:
The presence of metaphor does not dilute the foundational issue of the OP. Metaphor is used in the Bible, I get it. These examples thrown around are specific to a phrase or previously identified parable, not an entire book (or whatever portion of Genesis considered allegory or fable). And before it starts, I do anticipate seeing a dragon in the end times (layered truth fulfilled on multiple levels as in Gen).

The point is that factual genealogies cannot be built on a metaphor. Is Luke right or wrong to include fictional characters in the proof of Christs lineage? Why would God use falsehoods to prove fact?

So if you don't see a dragon (i.e. one never exists when Jesus returns-- not just that YOU don't see it) does that mean the Bible lied to you? Or would you then revise your interpretation of scriptures to be less factually oriented?

mswilliamsll and I (and many other TEs) believe that an Adam did exist. Through oral traditions that changed over time, God used the story of this person to convey many spiritual truths. In our culture, this would be considered lying -- in the ancient near east it would have been considered good storytelling! Not only do they retain a cultural base in the story, but they retain morals and teaching about God in the same stories!

Regarding the inflated ages, the Assyrian kings list and many Egyptian sources similarly inflate the ages of their leaders -- so much so that the Assyrian kings list portrays well over 30,000 years (passing by far the Biblical list). Were they lying? No, they were using a culturally acceptable way of honoring their leaders. That we're obsessed with exact dates and times these days -- more so than the feelings and personalities associated with an event -- is a measure of OUR culture, not an indictment of the ancient Hebrew people!

shernren · Jan 16, 2007

This Luke 6 quote still strikes me as strange. In my country, traditional houses are often built on stilts in mud, and they don't seem to experience any problem. Hmmm. Might Jesus actually have been telling a story that could not have been factually true?

Anyways. That was just a tangent. But you set up an interesting dichotomy here:

RenHoek said:
Why would a God that states these things build His Word on an allegory and not a rock solid truth? Would this not be hypocritical?

"an allegory and not a rock solid truth" is an interesting way to state things. Allegories can often be rock solid: The Pilgrim's Progress has stood the test of time despite being an allegory, and many stories we remember for life are also allegories, including Biblical parables (which may not be strictly allegorical, but more generally figurative). Allegories can often bring across rock solid truths, can they not?

Interestingly, "allegory" originally meant simply "description of one thing under the image of another", from allos (other) + agoreuein (speak openly), in Greek. What a wonderful way to describe theology and the Bible - and yet modern culture has made it such a dangerous and difficult word to use in this context. Such a shame.

RenHoek · Jan 16, 2007

I think most of our disconnect is the view of who the author of scripture is. I see many citations of ancient people changing facts based on this and that or embellishing a story. God needs no embellishment to His works.

To me, God authored every word of scripture, through men of course, but they had no hand other than transcription.

each is a very different relationship, yet the single word "son" is used to describe the relationship. yet only one of those is an actual biological based relationship.

So we need to expand our view of the word son, no? You are telling me that there is truth in the literal as well as the figurative, right?

The presence of metaphor does not dilute the foundational issue of the OP
but we know scientific that a rock is not solid matter, that it is mostly emptiness, that it is not composed of "rock particles".
exactly how scientifically solid is a rock?
or even historically? rocks get ground up all the time. they get moved.
how firm is this metaphor "as solid as a rock"?

Click to expand...

Knock this off. Rock is the most stable thing to build a house or structure off of, even in todays building terms. I refuse to debate why God did not say diamond instead.

So if you don't see a dragon (i.e. one never exists when Jesus returns-- not just that YOU don't see it) does that mean the Bible lied to you? Or would you then revise your interpretation of scriptures to be less factually oriented?

That would mean I was wrong, and from where I will be sitting at the time this is fine by me. If wrong comes with faith in what God told me, I shall stand in idiocy.

rmwilliamsll · Jan 16, 2007

Knock this off

this is actually an important point.
the metaphor of "on this rock" is not the same then as it is now. the entire scientific context for the word rock is very different now. and even more so if you look at how a physicist, an architect, a person whose house is on stilts, etc read this passage.

people bring lots of baggage to their reading of Scripture, by neccessity, it is our responsibility to understand this baggage, not to deny it exists.

To me, God authored every word of scripture, through men of course, but they had no hand other than transcription
that's nice.
but this owes more to Islam's ideas about the Quran then it does to the Hebrews ideas about the Torah.

shernren · Jan 16, 2007

RenHoek said:
To me, God authored every word of scripture, through men of course, but they had no hand other than transcription.

But where did God tell you so? Why does 1 Peter specifically say that the prophets had to search and inquire carefully in their prophesying concerning Jesus - why do "human typewriters" have to search and inquire? Why does Paul mention the "baptism for the dead" in 1 Corinthians? Every modern believer treats this as Paul writing to the Corinthians and not God speaking to us - are they wrong? Why bother with writers at all? Why not just rain down the Bible from heaven? God could well have littered the streets of ancient Jerusalem with little papyrus scrolls bearing His Complete Bible like so much manna.

The image of God employing so many human typewriters scattered throughout time and space sounds too much like Islam for my comfort, where the Prophet Muhammad enters a cave and receives the Quran word for word from Allah, never claiming at any point to have contributed anything to it other than being a messenger pure enough to bear it. Much of the Bible claims to be written by people expressing their love for God: was God just using them to type a holy text for us, and wouldn't that have been lying to them? The premise that the authors actually contributed something to the Bible makes so much literary sense, and yields so much hermeneutical riches, that any rejection of it must be carefully considered.

jds1977 · Jan 16, 2007

but is Adam really God's son?

"the son" in Luke 3:38 was added by the KJV translators. Adam is a creation of God, Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of Mary.
How could 1 Cor. 15:45 call Adam "the first man" if he wasn't? Was Eve really "the mother of all living"?

The geneologies are shaped and molded to perform not-literal, not-actual, not-historical purposes.

So, all geneologies in the bible aren't factual? Even the geneologies of Gen., 1 Chronicles, Mat., Luke, etc...? Who decides which are factual and wchich are mythical?
Christ is our solid rock 1Cor. 10:4 and the rock that the church is built upon, Mat.16:16-18. Peter is the stone, Christ is the rock...Just meaning that Jesus is unmoveable and he is a foundation worthy to be built upon. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know this is a metaphor, so, why can't we look at Genesis the same way...simply. Let it speak as it is written with no outside influences.

rmwilliamsll · Jan 16, 2007

So, all geneologies in the bible aren't factual?

where did i say that?
i am talking specifically about Matthew 1.
it is certainly shaped by all kinds of "other than historical modern geneological" principles.

why this rush from the text to everything else?
to understand the geneologies, you have to look at them, each one, not just throw everything into a box, label it geneologies and move on.

i say
The geneologies are shaped and molded to perform not-literal, not-actual, not-historical purposes.
and you say:
So, all geneologies in the bible aren't factual? Even the geneologies of Gen., 1 Chronicles, Mat., Luke, etc...? Who decides which are factual and wchich are mythical?

i never used the word "mythical" i believe it a heavily loaded term in modern hermeneutics that has become all but useless because of it.

"who decides?"
the reader, the interpreter, the interpreter's community, the church, history. lots of people.
but it begins with engaging with the text. What does Matthew 1 say? is Adam the same kind of son to God as Seth is to Adam? Is Jesus the same kind of son to Joseph as he is to David?
you have to go through all these low level textual issues and understand, as best you can what the text is saying. what hermeneutical principles you need to apply, what is the cultural context of 1stC Greco-Israelite culture, how has your particular interpretive community seen these verses, etc.

there is a long ways to go to make big ideas like:
how do we approach geneologies as a class of literature?
or something like that.

RenHoek · Jan 16, 2007

But where did God tell you so?

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Why does 1 Peter specifically say that the prophets had to search and inquire carefully in their prophesying concerning Jesus - why do "human typewriters" have to search and inquire?

Wisdom and history dictate that bad things happen to those who wittingly or unwittingly err when it comes to what God wants them to communicate to His people, best to be certain.

are they wrong? Why bother with writers at all? Why not just rain down the Bible from heaven? God could well have littered the streets of ancient Jerusalem with little papyrus scrolls bearing His Complete Bible like so much manna.

All better questions for God than for me. I could ask a million whys and what ifs. I fail to see where this is going. The short answer is God chose to do it that way for reasons He chose not to disclose overtly.

The image of God employing so many human typewriters scattered throughout time and space sounds too much like Islam for my comfort,

Sounds to me that it is proof of His autonomy. He can, through various peoples and times, weave an intricate tapestry pointing to Christ that is unprecedented in accuracy and cohesiveness.

Much of the Bible claims to be written by people expressing their love for God: was God just using them to type a holy text for us, and wouldn't that have been lying to them? The premise that the authors actually contributed something to the Bible makes so much literary sense, and yields so much hermeneutical riches, that any rejection of it must be carefully considered.

My take would be that God knew what they would say and preordained those writings/feelings/poems/events for His purpose.

jds1977 · Jan 16, 2007

sorry about the loaded statement...Matthew was writing to Jews, and presented Jesus as King of the Jews...so, his geneology was extremely important as to be recognized as the literal, rightful, future king. Luke presented Jesus as the "Son of man" so it was necessary to trace back to the beginning of man...it goes back to the laws of the kinsman redeemer (goel). He had to be the perfect man to redeem mankind.

Assyrian · Jan 16, 2007

jds1977 said:
"the son" in Luke 3:38 was added by the KJV translators. Adam is a creation of God,

But if the genealogy isn't saying it is a biological father son relationship, then why does 'Seth of Adam' have to mean Seth was Adam's son? Why does Adam even have to mean an individual in the genealogy rather than the early human race?

Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of Mary.
How could 1 Cor. 15:45 call Adam "the first man" if he wasn't?

Maybe the way he calls Jesus "the last man" and "second Adam".

Was Eve really "the mother of all living"?

My parrot says No, not literally, wrawk, not literally.

shernren · Jan 16, 2007

RenHoek said:
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Here we go again. What does God claim for the Bible here? Merely that it is "God-breathed". If Paul wanted to say "All Scripture was typed out letter for letter by God" he certainly could have, couldn't he?

RenHoek said:
Wisdom and history dictate that bad things happen to those who wittingly or unwittingly err when it comes to what God wants them to communicate to His people, best to be certain.

But where would they have searched? After all, if writing the Bible is just a matter of receiving so many words from God like a human typewriter, where would the prophets have searched for the right words, and why would they have had to put so much thought in?

Mallon · Jan 16, 2007

RenHoek said:
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

How does subscribing to young earth creationism make one righteous? I thought faith in Christ made us righteous.
Oops!

jds1977 · Jan 16, 2007

But if the genealogy isn't saying it is a biological father son relationship, then why does 'Seth of Adam' have to mean Seth was Adam's son? Why does Adam even have to mean an individual in the genealogy rather than the early human race?

Well, the geneology in Luke literally reads..."Enos, which was of Seth, which was of Adam..." Matthew, however records the geneology as "Abraham begat Isaac; Isaac begat Jacob;" so..it's pretty clear that it is a biological relationship and some of the characters are repeated in the geneologies. One line traces through Joseph as the supposed father and the other goes through Joseph's father in law, Mary's lineage. So...why would the writers mention actual fathers and sons but then throw in some allegorical characters?

Maybe the way he calls Jesus "the last man" and "second Adam".

I believe He's actually called "the last Adam"...the verse in context is referring to Christ being raised a life-giving spirit.

My parrot says No, not literally, wrawk, not literally

I think he was speaking in tongues...he actually said he wanted a cracker lol.

shernren · Jan 17, 2007

jds1977 said:
Well, the geneology in Luke literally reads..."Enos, which was of Seth, which was of Adam..." Matthew, however records the geneology as "Abraham begat Isaac; Isaac begat Jacob;" so..it's pretty clear that it is a biological relationship and some of the characters are repeated in the geneologies. One line traces through Joseph as the supposed father and the other goes through Joseph's father in law, Mary's lineage. So...why would the writers mention actual fathers and sons but then throw in some allegorical characters?

I don't know. But note that Matthew doesn't mention Adam. Why, it's almost as if Adam didn't - hey!

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Solid As A Rock

What eeeeeez it man?!

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

I just follow Christ.

avid reader

What eeeeeez it man?!

avid reader

I just follow Christ.

you are not reading this.

What eeeeeez it man?!

avid reader

you are not reading this.

Regular Member

avid reader

What eeeeeez it man?!

Regular Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

you are not reading this.

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

you are not reading this.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency