But the problem with this attempt to dismiss the historical account of the personage Achon from the text, is that you would have to dismiss the prophet Hosea’s account of the very scene in the valley Achor named after him, where Achon was stoned also, not to mention several indirect inferences the apostle Paul and even the Lord Himself made to this time of “Trouble”: the English translation of the name Achon/Achor.
Indeed, the very word Achor symoblizes for us today our personal deliverance out of sin to glory and happiness…through purging and immediate, but limited, judgement now, at this appointed time on earth, so that we won’t have to be judged alone with the world of sinners in God’s white throne jugement.

Thank you for your comments on the etymological discussions in my book. You note the close relationship between other ancient languages and those in the Bible, and then ask, “If all these other peoples had language that dealt with the very same elements as the Hebrew words did, that would suggest they were equally familiar with this type of communication wouldn’t it?”

Actually my purpose in including other languages wasn’t to compare
concepts, but only the meanings of the individual words themselves. I’ll
give you an example.

On page 61 I discuss other languages in relation to the ephod, a garment the High Priest wore. I say it contained “stones of communication” and was used as a sort of walkie talkie device. I then compare it to the Ugaritic word epd, which means “garment, robe,” and to the Egyptian word ifd, which
can mean “rectangular” and “cloth.” The relationship between the words—cloth, garment, and even shape—is there, but that doesn’t mean they were each used to describe walkie talkies. It does, however, make me pretty confident about the ephod’s constitution.

If you have any other questions, I will be glad to answer. Roger Isaacs

The people & events described in the so-called ‘old covenant/testament’ were intended to **FORESHADOW** or presage what was coming in Christ… This can be seen in the following ‘new covenant/testament’ passages—

Acts 4:11 Christ is described as the “…cornerstone”/’rock’
(a restatement of Ps. 118:22).
1 Cor 10:4 “…that rock was Christ.”
John 4:10 Christ (the “cornerstone’/'rock’) provides “living water.”
John 7:37 Jesus said, “…If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.

While the story of Moses & the rock obviously describes God’s providing *PHYSICAL* ‘water’ to provide for the people’s physical needs, the vastly more important point was that God was using those events as a foreshadowing of Christ (the “living water”), through whom reconciliation with God would become available, thus meeting mankind’s much more critical *SPIRITUAL* need.

Which brings us to the real crux of Moses’ mistake, which centers around the fact that Christ’s sacrifice embodied—

Heb. 10:12— “one sacrifice for sins forever”

Note the words ‘one sacrifice”.

By striking the rock (which ultimately would be recognized as Christ, who essentially was to be ‘struck’ with God’s wrath against sin) more than once, Moses
unwittingly introduced the potential for great confusion into God’s plan…

Whereas God’s plan (& ‘old covenant’ events) were intended to foreshadow a coming **ONE**-time sacrifice for all sin, by striking the rock more than once, Moses’ action (symbollically) left the door open for the ‘old covenant’ way of endlessly
repetitive (i.e. **MORE THAN ONCE**) sacrifices continuing. That was a *huge* mistake on Moses’ part & one which would have ongoing repercussions.

Personally, I believe there were also other considerations that would have applied to Moses’ ineligibilty to enter the ‘promised land’ of Canaan as well, but the subject of this comment is just directed at the ‘rock’ situation.

Anyhow….. just my .002!