Layman

Nothing more than conclusory assertions on your part. Please respond to the four point post above.

Toodles.

Layman

My mistake. The five-point post above. Please forgive the numbering error.

Bernard Muller

LAYMAN wrote:
Is the "spiritual" man in 1 Cor. 2:14-15 a nonmaterial one? So once a man accepts the things of the Spirit of God he becomes invisible? Is this really your point?

The problem, Layman, is the Greek does not have "spiritual man" in 1 Cor 2:15. I checked the Greek, and the Darby translation is the most faithful to the Greek:
1 Cor 2:14-15
"14 But [the] natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him; and he cannot know [them] because they are spiritually discerned;
15 but the spiritual discerns all things, and *he* is discerned of no one."

In verse 15, "man" is not in the Greek.
The "he" can be translated as well by "it" or "itself" or "the same". That's why it is shown as "*he*". "Itself" or "it" or "the same", not "he", fits with "spiritual".
Also "discern" can be translated by "judge" or "examine" or "investigate".

So Paul may very well have been saying:
1 Cor 2:15
"but the spiritual investigates all things, and itself of [by] no one is investigated."

I gather, the last part would mean the spiritual (or Spirit) is beyond human criticism, which fits Paul's thoughts perfectly.

We can argue on this mumbling by Paul (very typical), but for sure, Paul avoided to use "spiritual man".

LAYMAN wrote:
And you are obviously wrong about the "spiritual" mannah, drink, and rock referred to in 1 Cor. 10:1-5.
and in another thread,
LAYMAN wrote:
As I showed in the other thread Bernard (mine on the bodily resurrection in Paul), the "rock" at issue was a material one. It was the rock of Exodus that provided the Jews with water while in the wilderness.

Did it occur to you that Paul is using a metaphor based on Ex17:6, Nu20:11, Ps78:15&105:41?
And in each case, the rock is not accompanying the Israelites, as in 1 Cor 10:4.
In Exodus, the rock is located at Horeb and provides real water (and no mention of "spiritual").
In Numbers, the (real) rock is at one particular place and does not move either.
And Psalm does not contradict that at all. And still no "spiritual" moving rock dispensing "spiritual" water.

And, in the following verse, do you think Paul was referring to a real drink?
1 Cor 12:13 "For also in [the power of] one Spirit *we* have all been baptised into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bondmen or free, and have all been given to drink of one Spirit."

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

One more for LAYMAN

1 Corinthians 15: 45
"So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[Gen2:7]; the last Adam [Jesus], a lifegiving spirit."

It does not look Paul was seeing Jesus in heaven as bodily.

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

Actually, that Paul is comparing the spiritual man with the natural man is beyond dispute. The terms for "spiritual" and for "natural" are both modifying "man." The attestation for this is overwhelming among modern translations:

(ASV) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, and he himself is judged of no man.

(Darby) but the spiritual discerns all things, and he is discerned of no one.

(DRB) But the spiritual man judgeth all things: and he himself is judged of no man.

(GW) Spiritual people evaluate everything but are subject to no one's evaluation.

(ISV) The spiritual person evaluates everything but is subject to no one else's evaluation.

(KJV) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

(LITV) But the spiritual one discerns all things, but he is discerned by no one.

(MKJV) But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged by no one.

(NASB) But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. e 15, "man" is not in the Greek.

(NIV) The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment

Spiritual is being used to describe flesh and blood humans. Natural men cannot understand the things of God. The spiritual man can do so. As Craig Blomberg notes, verse 15a "simply refers to the person with the Spirit." 1 Corinthians, at 65.

C.K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, at 77.

This understanding is reinforced by 1 Cor. 3:1, where Paul once again uses the term "spiritual" to refer to men (materially speaking of course): And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. (NASB)

Nor is this translation fanciful. It's widely attested:

(ASV) And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ.

(CEV) My friends, you are acting like the people of this world. That's why I could not speak to you as spiritual people. You are like babies as far as your faith in Christ is concerned.

(Darby) And *I*, brethren, have not been able to speak to you as to spiritual, but as to fleshly; as to babes in Christ.

(DRB) And I, brethren, could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. As unto little ones in Christ.

(GW) Brothers and sisters, I couldn't talk to you as spiritual people but as people still influenced by your corrupt nature. You were infants in your faith in Christ.

(ISV) Brothers, I couldn't talk to you as spiritual people but as worldly people, as mere infants in Christ.

(KJV) And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

(LITV) And, brothers, I was not able to speak to you as to spiritual ones, but as to fleshly ones, as to babes in Christ.

(MKJV) And I, brothers, could not speak to you as to spiritual ones, but as to fleshly, as to babes in Christ.

Clearly, therefore, the term "spiritual" is used by Paul to refer to spiritual objects to indicate that they are infused or touched by God. He does so without implying that they are noncorporeal. They obviously are.

Moreover, there is yet another other scripture that should be added to the list:

Gal. 6:1: Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. (NASB)

That Paul is referring to spiritual people is overwhelming supported by other translations.

Gal 6:1

(ASV) Brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, ye who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

(CEV) My friends, you are spiritual. So if someone is trapped in sin, you should gently lead that person back to the right path. But watch out, and don't be tempted yourself.

(Darby) Brethren, if even a man be taken in some fault, ye who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of meekness, considering thyself lest *thou* also be tempted.

(DRB) Brethren, and if a man be overtaken in any fault, you, who are spiritual, instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

(GNB) My friends, if someone is caught in any kind of wrongdoing, those of you who are spiritual should set him right; but you must do it in a gentle way. And keep an eye on yourselves, so that you will not be tempted, too.

(GW) Brothers and sisters, if a person gets trapped by wrongdoing, those of you who are spiritual should help that person turn away from doing wrong. Do it in a gentle way. At the same time watch yourself so that you also are not tempted.

(ISV) Brothers, if a person is caught doing something wrong, those of you who are spiritual should restore that person in a spirit of gentleness. Watch out for yourself so that you are not tempted as well.

(KJV) Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

(LITV) Brothers, if a man is overtaken in some deviation, you, the spiritual ones, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering yourself, that you not also be tempted.

(MKJV) Brothers, if a man is overtaken in a fault, you the spiritual ones restore such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering yourself, lest you also be tempted.


Yet Paul is clear that these people who are spiritual remain flesh and blood human beings. Once again, your argument that the "adjective" prevails on the "noun" is refuted by Paul's own writings.

Sure, but then I realized there was no rationale for such a conclusion.

Had it occurred to you that Paul means exactly what he said? And exactly what any Jew would have meant? And exactly how anyone familiar with the Exodus story would have read it?

I guess not.

Do you even read my posts? Obviously not.

The issue is not how you would choose to interpret the Exodus story Bernard. The only issue is how Paul and other Jews would have understood it. And they understood it to mean that the rock-well followed the Israelites through the wilderness.

Since you do not read what I write, I will repost it in the hope that perhaps you will mend your ways:

So you are left with absolutely no reason to contrive a metaphorical intrepretation of these references to what Paul believed were historical events.

Please don't waste anymore of my time Bernard. "Spirit" is a pronoun here, it does not modify a noun.

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
Actually, that Paul is comparing the spiritual man with the natural man is beyond dispute. The terms for "spiritual" and for "natural" are both modifying "man." The attestation for this is overwhelming among modern translations:

Well your modern translations do interpret what Paul wrote because "man" does not appear in the Greek. So when "man" is associated with "spiritual", we are talking about interpretations, not attestations. Once again, modern so-called translations, excuses from apologists and musings from Christian scholars are not primary evidence. The translation of 1Cor2:15
"but the spiritual investigates all things, and the same of [by] no one is investigated." is as correct as it can be and reflect the Greek.

But saying that, and considering 1Cor3:1 and Gal6:1, let's say Paul was thinking about "spiritual man" in 1Cor2:15 (even if he obviously did not stress it).
Here, according to also 1Cor3:1 & Gal6:1, "spiritual" would mean "in the Spirit", that is inspired by the Spirit, or receptive of the Spirit.
But then again, "spiritual" for food, drink and body cannot have this meaning.

Had it occurred to you that Paul means exactly what he said? And exactly what any Jew would have meant? And exactly how anyone familiar with the Exodus story would have read it?

Really, where in the Exodus story do we have a moving spiritual rock which is Christ, providing spiritual water (or water from the Spirit of God) on demand wherever the Israelites are going?
It simply is not here.
And where else the Spirit of God is providing material goodies to whatever? A Spirit is not likely to give away physical things.
Show me OT references for that.

Look at these quotes:

Didache Ch.10 "You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment ...; but to us You [God] did freely give spiritual food and drink ..."

According to you, "the spiritual food and drink" would be real material food and drink provided by God. Am I correct here?

1Peter2:5 "you [Christians] also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God ..."

Is this house made of real stones and the sacrifices made by killing real animals?

The issue is not how you would choose to interpret the Exodus story Bernard. The only issue is how Paul and other Jews would have understood it. And they understood it to mean that the rock-well followed the Israelites through the wilderness.

Who is interpreting "spiritual water", "spiritual rock", 'rock is Christ' from the Exodus story of the OT. Not me.
The rock-well following the Israelites is beyond what is shown in the OT. There is never anything like that.

see for example Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities x.7: 'A well of water following them brought he forth for them.' See fuller reference in Lietzman.

Even so, we are talking about a well here, not a rock. The Pseudo-Philo was making pseudo-history on the go. There is nothing like that in the OT, that is a moving well. And Pseudo-Philo was likely written after Paul's days. The chance of Paul knowing about it are almost null. And then why Paul would follows some dubious recent writings rather than the Pentateuch is beyond me. I thought that guy was only inspired by the Holy Spirit and the LXX!

There was also a rabbinic tradition, probably from as early as Paul's day, about Miriam's well, shaped like a rock, which followed the Israelites in the desert and provided water whenever they needed it (cf. Num. 21:16-18). FN-"The clearest but latest form of this tradition is in the Babylonian Talmud, Sukka 3a-b, cf. 11d-b."

Now we are going way off-center. Num 21:16-18? Let's look at it:
16 From there they continued on to Beer, the well where the LORD said to Moses, "Gather the people together and I will give them water."
17 Then Israel sang this song:
"Spring up, O well!
Sing about it,
18 about the well that the princes dug,
that the nobles of the people sank-
the nobles with scepters and staffs."
Then they went from the desert to Mattanah,

The well looks very stationary here and located at Beer.
Can you show us the quote from the Talmud (written 200 at the earliest)?

Then of couse, this tradition going back to Paul's day is wishful thinking and unsubstantiated evidence.

The spirit-carrying drink came from the rock that followed them--Paul refers to a Jewish haggadic tradition in which the rock Moses struck in the wilderness (Exod 17:1-7) detaches itself and follows them through the wilderness, as Num. 20:2-13 suggests.

Jewish haggadic tradition? Can you explain that. And when did that start?
Exodus17:1-7 never states the rock detaches itself and followed the Isrealites.
I quote:
1 The whole Israelite community set out from the Desert of Sin, traveling from place to place as the LORD commanded. They camped at Rephidim, but there was no water for the people to drink. 2 So they quarreled with Moses and said, "Give us water to drink."
Moses replied, "Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you put the LORD to the test?"
3 But the people were thirsty for water there, and they grumbled against Moses. They said, "Why did you bring us up out of Egypt to make us and our children and livestock die of thirst?"
4 Then Moses cried out to the LORD , "What am I to do with these people? They are almost ready to stone me."
5 The LORD answered Moses, "Walk on ahead of the people. Take with you some of the elders of Israel and take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. 6 I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink." So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel. 7 And he called the place Massah and Meribah because the Israelites quarreled and because they tested the LORD saying, "Is the LORD among us or not?"

Where is the rock detached and moving thereafter?

Now, let's look at Num. 20:2-13:

2 Now there was no water for the community, and the people gathered in opposition to Moses and Aaron. 3 They quarreled with Moses and said, "If only we had died when our brothers fell dead before the LORD ! 4 Why did you bring the LORD's community into this desert, that we and our livestock should die here? 5 Why did you bring us up out of Egypt to this terrible place? It has no grain or figs, grapevines or pomegranates. And there is no water to drink!"
6 Moses and Aaron went from the assembly to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and fell facedown, and the glory of the LORD appeared to them. 7 The LORD said to Moses, 8 "Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink."
9 So Moses took the staff from the LORD's presence, just as he commanded him. 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."
13 These were the waters of Meribah, where the Israelites quarreled with the LORD and where he showed himself holy among them.

Actually, this passage is a rewrite of the one from Exodus (see the bolded words), quoted just before. Same story, same place.
And still NO rock detached and moving thereafter.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, in the following verse, do you think Paul was referring to a real drink?
1 Cor 12:13 "For also in [the power of] one Spirit *we* have all been baptised into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bondmen or free, and have all been given to drink of one Spirit."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please don't waste anymore of my time Bernard. "Spirit" is a pronoun here, it does not modify a noun.

You are the one wasting my time with your unevidenced apologetic speculations.
'Spirit' a pronoun? I thought it was a noun. Anyway, Layman, why didn't you answer my question here?
What does "have all been given to drink of one Spirit?" refer to?
Is it a physical/material drink or not?

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

I will get to the "substance" of your comments BM, but all you have done here is convince me you are not serious about an unbiased discussion of these issues.

There is no rationale basis for interpreting "spiritual rock," "spiritual drink" or "spiritual food" as metaphorical. Ignoring established Jewish tradition because something was not mentioned in the "OT" may make sense for a Protestant fundamentalist, but it just reveals how badly you want to reach the conclusion you predisposed. Face it, your cute little "followed is not in the OT" argument was based on ignorance.

And you continue to completely ignore the several pages of arguments I have made on this subject.

So yes, please stop wasting my time.

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
established Jewish tradition

Sorry Layman, but you failed to show me a spiritual rock/Christ moving around dispensing spiritual water to the Israelites from any tradition existing during Paul's public life. And why would Paul specify "spiritual" if he was thinking about a physical rock/Christ and real water? Because that were from the Spirit of God? But there is nothing in the OT about that water coming from the Spirit. And Paul wrote the spiritual drink is from Christ, not the Spirit. And frankly, Christ as a real rock (and moving!) during the Exodus is quite stupid.

Layman wrote:
Face it, your cute little "followed is not in the OT" argument was based on ignorance.

So show me where "[the rock] followed" is in the OT.

Layman wrote:
And you continue to completely ignore the several pages of arguments I have made on this subject.

I read your apologetic arguments. Just because I do not agree with them does not mean I ignored them. But all your biblical references do not support what Paul wrote.
But then, I could say the same about you. You do not address my best arguments at all as if you ignore them.

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

Sigh.

To Paul, the food, drink, and rock find their origin from heaven. Why you try and differentiate which member of the Trinity did this or that is a mystery. I doubt the author of Exodus had much of a concept at all of the Trinity. But he was certainly clear that the food and drink from heaven were natural occurences now are they? As such, they are properly classified as "spiritual."

What would be stupid was to make them a metaphor when Paul believed he had actual historical types to draw upon.

As I have demonstrated, such is irrelevant. What matters is what the Jews thought the OT indicated and believed about the Exodus story. And the Jews believed it followed them around.

Hardly. I've taken you point by point. You've ignored dozens of pages of my posts, including the opening post.

You've lost this one. You look ridiculous. Over and over again Paul uses the term "spiritual" to modify a noun while clearly retaining the idea of a physical object. I'll pile on more tonight when I have time to go through all of your contortions and distortions.

Layman

They are not my translations, they are the best our linguists have been able to give us. Nor are can translations such as the Revised Standard Version, the NRSV, and New American Standard Version be classified as "excuses from apologists" or "musings from Christian scholars." The "primary evidence" here is the Greek text. As Greek it means nothing to you or me. Only by translation do we understand it's meaning. And the reason modern translations translate it "spiritual man" is because that is what the Greek text reflects.

That Paul did not use more words than he needed to make the point is completely irrelevant.
Heaven forbid that for the sake of form and conciseness someone should not write the noun twice in the same sentence when it is obviously meant for comparison and contrast. Even today we often say something like "the first game was a closely-fought contest, but
the second was a blowout." Or, "there are two kinds of people, natural and spiritual."

This is hardly uncommon or designed to "deemphasive" something. Moreover, the Greek text actually indicates that this is exactly what Paul is doing. As a Greek-reading friend of mine informed me, the most important evidence is that verse 15 is introduced by the "ho de" construction which indicates a related shift of focus, such as point of contrast. This is known as a "disjunctive conjuction." Here, Paul is obviously contrasting natural and spiritual people. Both of whom are material beings.

What else would he be saying? Don't dodge the issue. Face it. Admit it. On three separate occasions Paul uses the term "spiritual" to describe a physical person without converting them into phantoms. In other words, every time Paul uses the term to refer to a person he means a physical person. The adjective does not "prevail" on the noun.

So long as you admit that the use of the adjective "spiritual" to describe a physical object is not used to change the person into a phantom I'm not sure what point you think is being made? In any event, you are wrong. All of these things are described as spiritual because of their ultimate source of being--they are from heaven. They are of supernatural origin. What they are made of is completely irrelevant to Paul's usage.

But let's talk about yet another example that damages your "argument."

1Co 14:37: "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment."

(ASV) If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.

(CEV) If you think of yourself as a prophet or a spiritual person, you will know that I am writing only what the Lord has commanded.

(Darby) If any one thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognise the things that I write to you, that it is the Lord's commandment.

(DRB) If any seem to be a prophet or spiritual, let him know the things that I write to you, that they are the commandments of the Lord.

(ISV) If anyone thinks he is a prophet or a spiritual person, he must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.

(KJV) If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

(LITV) If anyone thinks to be a prophet, or a spiritual one, let him recognize the things I write to you, that they are a command of the Lord.

(MKJV) If anyone thinks to be a prophet, or a spiritual one, let him recognize the things I write to you, that they are a commandment of the Lord.

Also, according to my handy-dandy New Greek English Interlinear New Testament, the "most basic, word-for-word, literal translation" of this verse is as follows: "If anyone thinks to be a prophet or a spiritual man, let him fully know the things I write to you that of the Lord they are a commandment."

Since there is no reason to think that Paul would have ignored Jewish traditions, Midrash, and teachings about the Old Testament, there is no reason to limit ourselves to it.

You do realize that Paul did not write the Didache do you not? Nor does this have anything to do with the Exodus story. So the answer, that this is probably not a reference to real food and drink--thought it could be a reference to the Eucharist--is irrelevant to the question before us. That you have to search outside the Pauline corpus to find any usage that favors your understanding--when mine is supported by usage after usage in Paul--further undermines your "argument."

Where are your Pauline examples?

More time wasting. No one has ever claimed that Paul wrote 1 Peter. That you have to search outside the Pauline corpus to find any usage that favors your understanding--when mine is supported by usage after usage in Paul--further undermines your "argument."

Where are your Pauline examples?

Like I said, it is irrelevant what you think is in the text. All that matters is what the Jews thought of the story. And the evidence is overwhelming that they believed the rock followed the Jews around. In any event, as I discuss fully below, you are do not seem to know what the OT actually says here.

Please Bernard, according to the Exodus story the rock was the well. So let us dispense with that red herring. And the issue is not whether the LXX or Paul was inspired, the issue is whether there existed an understanding among Jews that talked of the rock-well following the Israelites through the wilderness. The answer is that yes there was, and that such an understanding existed in the first century in written as well as oral form.

Having established the existence of such a tradition, the only reason you have offered to interpret this metaphorically evaporates. The evidence shows us quite clearly Paul was referring to the Jewish understanding of the Exodus story--the rock-well followed the Israelites through the wilderness.

As I hope you know, the Babylonian Talmud contains plenty of oral traditions from the Pharisees and others dating to the Second Temple period.

The highly influential Talmud scholar Rishi noted that the rock described by the Talmud at Taanit 9 "rolled and went along with Israel, and it was the rock Moses struck." The bShabbat 35 describes it as "a moveable well." According to Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 45B.i, which--as I understand it is dated to the first century apart from the Talmud, earlier than the Talmud, "[e]very place our forefathers went, the well went in front of them."

Indeed, these traditions still play a part of Jewish thought today:

http://www.meaningfullife.com/html/w...r/W61-40ch.htm

Why? The evidence, including a first century written source and oral traditions, shows us that this is precisely how the first century Jews understood

Sure. They are Jewish traditions. It's been going on a long time. Well before Paul.

Irrelevant. I never said that it did.

Biblical Antiquities 10:7; b.Taanit 9; bShabbat 35; Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 45B.i.

You are wrong. These are two different stories in two different places about two different events. The rock becomes a well at the very beginning of their journey and ceases flowing at the very end of their journey. Once we rid ourselves of the ignorance of claiming these are the same story in the same place, we see quite obviously why the Jews would develop the tradition that the rock traveled with the Israelites.

In Exod. 17:1-7, the Jews are at the beginning of their travels through the wilderness. This is the rock-well's first appearance. Note that in Exodus the people cry for water and are given the well-rock at the beginning: Exo 17:1: "Then all the congregation of the sons of Israel journeyed by stages from the wilderness of Sin, according to the command of the LORD, and camped at Rephidim, and there was no water for the people to drink. Therefore the people quarreled with Moses and said, "Give us water that we may drink."

And please do not waste my time about the location of this event at the beginning of the wilderness journeys. Note Ex. 19:2: "When they set out from Rephidim, they came to the wilderness of Sinai and camped in the wilderness; and there Israel camped in front of the mountain."

In Num. 20:2-13, we are near the end of the Israelites travels in the wilderness. This is where the rock-well ceases flowing. It is probably because it was present at the beginning and end of the wilderness period that the Jews began to explore the moving rock-well idea in their midrash.

Num 20:1-2: "Then the sons of Israel, the whole congregation, came to the wilderness of Zin in the first month; and the people stayed at Kadesh. Now Miriam died there and was buried there. There was no water for the congregation, and they assembled themselves against Moses and Aaron."

These maps show the reported wanderings of Israel. Note the vast distance between the Raphridim near Sin and Kadesh in Zin:

http://www.picturesofsilver.com/appendix/mapExodus.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/4975/awaymap.html

Different story. Different place.

F.F. Bruce, First and Second Corinthians, at 91.

It's a reference to God. In any event, it's quite irrelevant. It is not an adjective. Like I said, spare the obviously lame graspings. Of course, that is all you really have offered so far. Perhaps you have nothing else.

And "unevidenced"? In support of your claim that Paul referred to a rock "following" the Israelites in the wilderness having some metaphorical meaning, you offer nothing but your own assertions that such must be the case. I have offered you several primary citations to first century and later Jewish texts as well as secondary citations to leading Pauline scholars.

Because this is a different word being used as a noun and not as an adjective to modify a noun that is a material object, the answer is irrelevant. Try and fine some other straws.