Water From a Portable Rock?

[Josh]

If there's a way to get water from a portable rock (preferrably potable water), myself and a number of other people will be very interested. We would be content with speaking to or striking the rock (or both). Drilling wells isn't cheap and neither is maintaining a good water treatment system when you live above a natural gas pocket reeking of brimstone.

[JohnHurt]

If there's a way to get water from a portable rock (preferrably potable water), myself and a number of other people will be very interested. We would be content with speaking to or striking the rock (or both). Drilling wells isn't cheap and neither is maintaining a good water treatment system when you live above a natural gas pocket reeking of brimstone.

Here is what Paul said:

1 Cor 10:(4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The word "Christ" in this verse means "the anointed, and comes from Strongs 5547. A better translation would be "and that Rock was the Anointed".

Strongs 5547 is related from Strongs 5548 "to smear or rub with oil, i.e. (by implication) to consecrate to an office or religious service:--anoint."

So what Rock was "anointed" in the Bible? The answer is in Gen 28:18.

Jacob said this stone would be God's House, which is the name of "Bethel". It was a symbol of God's Promise to Jacob /Israel - that YHVH would always be with the children of Israel, and that they would one day return to their own land. Gen 28:13-15

So I suppose Jacob just left the stone on the ground, or do you think he took the stone with him? The stone would be the size of a pillow. Something about this stone was "different". Jacob thought the stone itself was "the house of God".

Did Jacob take this stone with him? Was this stone a national treasure of Israel? Did God protect Jacob's children through this stone, just like He promised Jacob?

Do these verses match up? What do you think?

A rock that followed the Israels with a rock that was probably carried with Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. Maybe

A rock that was anointed. Yes, but perhaps there were two rocks.

Here is another answer.

This is a rock that did not follow them. It was split in half, and apparently water flowed from it:





These images are from Ron Wyatt and his research in Saudi Arabia. You can say what you want about Ron, at least he was actually doing research - which is more than me.

So, this water gushing from a large "fixed" rock with a crack in it fits with:

Psalms 79:(15) He clave the rocks in the wilderness, and gave them drink as out of the great depths.

This rock, and Psalms 79:5 does not fit Paul's description of a rock in 1 Cor 10.

Perhaps these are two separate rocks.

Of course, if you really do not believe that "potable water" could issue from a rock that followed them, as Paul said in 1 Cor 10:4, then apparently you must believe that "Paul was wrong" on this one point.

Could "Paul be wrong"?

I think Paul is "politely ignored" by most Christians whenever his statements do not line up with our beliefs, like the church leaving a 58 year old widow to starve to death, "according to Paul in 1 Tim 5:9" - because no church would do something that crazy.

So, just like there is a "Cafeteria Christianity" that chooses what parts of Christ's doctrines will be accepted or rejected, (like following or not following Christ on non-violence, shunning materialism, etc.) there is also a "Cafeteria Pauline Churchianity" that picks and chooses what parts of Paul's doctrines they will or will not accept. A real hardline "Church of Paul" would believe in "potable water from a portable rock", and throw the 58 year old widow out in the street.

Or do you believe that Paul was not inspired when he wrote 1 Cor 10:4?

Then where else was Paul not inspired?

Was Paul not inspired when he wrote 1 Cor 8 - where he said we could eat meat offered to idols if no one saw us? Or should we follow the words of Christ in Rev 2:14 and the Apostles in Acts 15:29 when they tell us not to eat meat offered to Idols - with no exceptions given? Who is right, Paul or Christ and the Apostles?

Could Paul ever be "wrong"? And if Paul is wrong here, then where else is Paul incorrect in his statements?

I think if you are really riding on the "Paul Train", then you would not doubt for a minute when the 13th Apostle told you there was potable water coming out a of portable rock. It is either "all Paul" or "no Paul at all".

What say ye? Was Paul wrong? Was there really potable water from a portable rock, or not?

[Josh]

Well, this took an unexpected direction.

[silentreader]

Well, this took an unexpected direction.

But not an unexpected perspective...

[MaxPC]

When I first looked at the title of this thread I thought it said: "Water From a Potable Rock?