I see what you mean. So if Stephen King we're building a house but writing about it in a book, then are we to expect that there would be a complete description of the house in that particular book?
Stephen King, huh? Talk about
fixations . . . .
I would say that he would pretty much tell you all that you would need to know so that the foundation you pour would sufficiently support the house. I think that as a rule when blue prints are given to builders, the plans are gone over orally before he studies them on his own--just to make sure he understands exactly what the desired outcome is to be.
But, doesn't it all begin with someone going to an architect and
telling him what kind of house they want. He then goes on to
draw the plans?
He would probably start out describing the house he was going to build (Jesus' ministry/4 Gospels), then he would go on to tell how the foundation would have to be built in order to support the house--(the follow-up epistles.)
Or would the description of the house be more like instructions for the pouring of the foundation?
"I" think he would tell you the function of the foundation, what it was supposed to do for the house, then from that information, the foundation would be planned out and then poured in order to operate as necessary.
Assuming, of course, that the pouring of the foundation took place before the writing of the book.
What difference does that make? Especially during biblical times, King would have told people about the house he wanted to build or maybe just imagined in his head the house he wanted to build and went from there. Every idea or story is a thought or a verbal expression before it is written down.
Where I don't follow you is if Stephen King were writing only one book about the house, but the house in fact was built more completely--I don't want to say "added onto" because that opens up a whole new can of worms---but if in fact the house had more bedrooms or, say, a three car garage instead of the original two car garage does that in fact force Stephen King to write another book?
How does architecture work? Remember Jesus was a carpenter . . . . How could a house be built "more completely" than instructed in the plans? Perhaps that's not the exact terminology you intended?
However, addressing the hypothetical for hypothetical reasons, most likely, he would have edited the original plans. He could not have went on and built the "new" house by following the old plans. Of course, that's supposing changes/additions or more in depth information were given besides the orginal plan. But, we know that God being all knowing didn't make alterations to His plan.
There are a few problems with it, depending on how far you extend the analogy, but I definitely see your point.
No, analogy is perfect.
But, I'm sure most agree with you in that my point is pretty clear.