The Revelation 12 Sign Compendium

[mark s]

Hi 1whowaits,

That's a place we would differ. I find in the text specific words which direct me to a sequential fulfillment. For instance, only after the seven seals are opened, then the angels are given their trumpets to sound. They don't even have the trumpets until after the seals are opened.

Much love,
Mark

[1whowaits]

Mark, in Rev, when John was caught up to heaven, was he in the future, or was he in his present being given a demonstration of future events? Were the future events John saw occurring right at the time John saw them? Considering that much of what John was shown was symbolic of what will come in the future (beast with 7 heads, etc), when the future events do occur will they be symbolic or literal?

John was in his present being given a display, much of it symbolic, of what was to come. When John saw the seals broken, that was occurring at the time John saw it, it was occurring during his present, angels were talking to him about it. Does Jesus need to break the seals again, do the trumpets need to be sounded again, do the bowls need to be poured out again, for the future events to occur?

Imo, the seals, trumpets and bowls were part of the demonstration for John in the past, the sequencing was how they were presented at that time, they are not necessarily an indicator of future timing. The seals, trumpets and bowls can occur for the most part in parallel, the seals occur first, the trumpets a little later, the bowls toward the end, and they all end at the same event, the thunder, lightning, etc, when Jesus returns at armageddon.

And in that parallel sequence Rev 12 fits quite well.

[Mark F]

Mark, in Rev, when John was caught up to heaven, was he in the future, or was he in his present being given a demonstration of future events? Were the future events John saw occurring right at the time John saw them? Considering that much of what John was shown was symbolic of what will come in the future (beast with 7 heads, etc), when the future events do occur will they be symbolic or literal?

John was in his present being given a display, much of it symbolic, of what was to come. When John saw the seals broken, that was occurring at the time John saw it, it was occurring during his present, angels were talking to him about it. Does Jesus need to break the seals again, do the trumpets need to be sounded again, do the bowls need to be poured out again, for the future events to occur?

Imo, the seals, trumpets and bowls were part of the demonstration for John in the past, the sequencing was how they were presented at that time, they are not necessarily an indicator of future timing. The seals, trumpets and bowls can occur for the most part in parallel, the seals occur first, the trumpets a little later, the bowls toward the end, and they all end at the same event, the thunder, lightning, etc, when Jesus returns at armageddon.

And in that parallel sequence Rev 12 fits quite well.

Then the text is without meaning.

It plainly states in 10 places, "μετά ταῦτα" after this, which means at a later date, not in his present time and it would relate to sequencing....there are parenthetical descriptions, such as the beast from the sea, and the beast from the earth, I would put the woman of Rev 12 in that category as well, even if there is a sequencing in itself. Jesus had already been born and caught up to heaven, Israel by this time was in dispersion, so how do those components fit, they are past at the time of John's writing? One other thing I would ask, the seven headed dragon is a representation of a future, or end time kingdom, you say a parallel view fits nicely, Revelation 12 itself has time sequencing in itself, I just can't see how the text can be read that way. It's basic linguistic construct is meaningless then. How do we know when to follow the rules of communication and when to change them?

We see this same mindset today, continually changing the meaning of language to fit an agenda, I always looked at the old English as very rigid, but narrow in it's meaning, I long for that.

I may be totally missing what you mean too....

[mark s]

I've just been looking around the internet . . . it seems like everyone but this article is saying the Feast of Trumpets will be Sep 21/22 rather than 22/23, in other words, not on the same day.

Am I missing something here?

Much love,
Mark

[Spreading Salt]

I've seen several stating the 21st as well. Regardless of the Feast of Trumpets, the great sign is actually lining up perfectly on the 23rd/24!th. What does it mean? No idea. Looking up and praying it means something out of this world If not, keep spreading the truth and watching always for our coming King of Kings!

[1whowaits]

Mark F, the text is not without meaning, the problem is how one interprets the text. I will try to restate my position, poorly i am sure.

In my view, John was caught up to heaven and shown future events, he did not travel to the future, he was still in AD 95. He was shown the future by direct visualization, he saw the actual event as it happened, like a documentary. An example would be the destruction of Babylon in Rev 18, that is how it will look when it happens, again like a documentary.

But the future as also shown as a presentation, an acting out of a literal event with symbolic characterizations, a depiction of a literal event in a figurative fashion, not a direct visualization of the literal event. The symbols and pictures are the narrative in a sense, they show what will really happen but they are not the literal event themselves, like theater as a poor example, i am using this as a descriptive term to differentiate from the 'documentary'.

The example of the 'theater' (again not to decrease the significance of the method of presentation) would be the beast with multiple heads rising from the sea. This is a depiction of a real event but it is not the literal event itself, it is a picture narrative of the real event.

The documentary is the showing of the literal event, that occurs in the future, it is the future. The 'theater' is a presentation of the future event but it does not take place in the future, it is presented to John in his present, AD95.

So when the first angel blows the trumpet, the blowing of the trumpet is part of the presentation, the theater, the acting out. The event that follows is the documentary, the impacts on the earth are a literal visualization of what will happen in the future.

So when the angels and other figures begin the presentation of the seals, trumpets and bowls, they present future events, each in sequence, but this 'theater' occurred in the past, the presentation occurred in the past, in John's present.

So when in Rev 8 the 7th seal is described and then the 7 angels who have the 7 trumpets are preparing to sound, it is a reference to the presentation in the past, not the events presented that will occur in the future. So while the seals, trumpets and bowls are presented in sequence, it is the sequence of their presentation in the past, not their occurrence in the future, they can occur in parallel. 'After this' is a reference to the presentation, not the documentary, an event or picture is presented, and after this another event is presented, in a sequence that occurred in the past.

[1whowaits]

According to the Jewish people and their calendar, the feast of Trumpets starts tomorrow night at sundown, and continues through sundown on Sept 21st. Their calendar follows calculations of dates and does not always take into account the sighting of the new moon, which God instructed should determine the first day of the month. It is estimated that the new moon should be seen in Israel on the 21st, not the 23rd.

What occurs on Sept 23rd is not the 'great sign' of Rev 12. The author mis-identifies the planet associated with Jesus, which is Venus and not Jupiter, and he cannot account for the 2nd sign which is part of the 'great sign'. And he picks the wrong date for the Feast of Trumpets.

What occurs on Sept 23 is not the Great Sign of Rev 12, but that does not mean that during the next 2 weeks, the Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement,and Feast of Tabernacles, some fulfillment of Prophecy could not occur.

[Looking4acity]

An easy way to figure the days is that Holy Days and Shabbat begin on sunset prior to the date on the calendar. So, Rosh Hashanah begins sunset on the 20th, about 6:38pm est.

Has anyone mentioned that the 23rd is also the Sabbath of Return?

Also that there was a "double star" conjunction of Regulus "the king" and Venus "the morning star" on Sept. 18, 19, and 20th. Wish I would have known earlier. I would have liked to look for it.

[mark s]

I've seen several stating the 21st as well. Regardless of the Feast of Trumpets, the great sign is actually lining up perfectly on the 23rd/24!th. What does it mean? No idea. Looking up and praying it means something out of this world If not, keep spreading the truth and watching always for our coming King of Kings!

Perfect point of view!

[mark s]

An easy way to figure the days is that Holy Days and Shabbat begin on sunset prior to the date on the calendar. So, Rosh Hashanah begins sunset on the 20th, about 6:38pm est.

Has anyone mentioned that the 23rd is also the Sabbath of Return?

I did not know that.

This is the reading for the day:

Hosea 14:1-9 NLT

1 Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God,
for your sins have brought you down.
2Bring your confessions, and return to the Lord.
Say to him,
“Forgive all our sins and graciously receive us,
so that we may offer you our praises.b
3Assyria cannot save us,
nor can our warhorses.
Never again will we say to the idols we have made,
‘You are our gods.’
No, in you alone
do the orphans find mercy.”
4The Lord says,
“Then I will heal you of your faithlessness;
my love will know no bounds,
for my anger will be gone forever.
5I will be to Israel
like a refreshing dew from heaven.
Israel will blossom like the lily;
it will send roots deep into the soil
like the cedars in Lebanon.
6Its branches will spread out like beautiful olive trees,
as fragrant as the cedars of Lebanon.
7My people will again live under my shade.
They will flourish like grain and blossom like grapevines.
They will be as fragrant as the wines of Lebanon.
8“O Israel,c stay away from idols!
I am the one who answers your prayers and cares for you.
I am like a tree that is always green;
all your fruit comes from me.”
9Let those who are wise understand these things.
Let those with discernment listen carefully.
The paths of the Lord are true and right,
and righteous people live by walking in them.
But in those paths sinners stumble and fall.

And . . .

Micah 7 (NLT)

18Where is another God like you,
who pardons the guilt of the remnant,
overlooking the sins of his special people?
You will not stay angry with your people forever,
because you delight in showing unfailing love.
19Once again you will have compassion on us.
You will trample our sins under your feet
and throw them into the depths of the ocean!
20You will show us your faithfulness and unfailing love
as you promised to our ancestors Abraham and Jacob long ago.

(Complements of http://www.jewfaq.org/special.htm )

Also that there was a "double star" conjunction of Regulus "the king" and Venus "the morning star" on Sept. 18, 19, and 20th. Wish I would have known earlier. I would have liked to look for it.

That's an interesting one too!

Much love,
Mark

[shorttribber]

An easy way to figure the days is that Holy Days and Shabbat begin on sunset prior to the date on the calendar. So, Rosh Hashanah begins sunset on the 20th, about 6:38pm est.

Has anyone mentioned that the 23rd is also the Sabbath of Return?

I did not know that.

This is the reading for the day:

Hosea 14:1-9 NLT

1 Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God,
for your sins have brought you down.
2Bring your confessions, and return to the Lord.
Say to him,
“Forgive all our sins and graciously receive us,
so that we may offer you our praises.b
3Assyria cannot save us,
nor can our warhorses.
Never again will we say to the idols we have made,
‘You are our gods.’
No, in you alone
do the orphans find mercy.”
4The Lord says,
“Then I will heal you of your faithlessness;
my love will know no bounds,
for my anger will be gone forever.
5I will be to Israel
like a refreshing dew from heaven.
Israel will blossom like the lily;
it will send roots deep into the soil
like the cedars in Lebanon.
6Its branches will spread out like beautiful olive trees,
as fragrant as the cedars of Lebanon.
7My people will again live under my shade.
They will flourish like grain and blossom like grapevines.
They will be as fragrant as the wines of Lebanon.
8“O Israel,c stay away from idols!
I am the one who answers your prayers and cares for you.
I am like a tree that is always green;
all your fruit comes from me.”
9Let those who are wise understand these things.
Let those with discernment listen carefully.
The paths of the Lord are true and right,
and righteous people live by walking in them.
But in those paths sinners stumble and fall.

And . . .

Micah 7 (NLT)

18Where is another God like you,
who pardons the guilt of the remnant,
overlooking the sins of his special people?
You will not stay angry with your people forever,
because you delight in showing unfailing love.
19Once again you will have compassion on us.
You will trample our sins under your feet
and throw them into the depths of the ocean!
20You will show us your faithfulness and unfailing love
as you promised to our ancestors Abraham and Jacob long ago.

(Complements of http://www.jewfaq.org/special.htm )

Also that there was a "double star" conjunction of Regulus "the king" and Venus "the morning star" on Sept. 18, 19, and 20th. Wish I would have known earlier. I would have liked to look for it.

That's an interesting one too!

Much love,
Mark

[GodsStudent]

I, too, enjoyed the reading of today.
GREAT GREAT SCRIPTURES.....Thanks be to God!

[GodsStudent]

I've seen several stating the 21st as well. Regardless of the Feast of Trumpets, the great sign is actually lining up perfectly on the 23rd/24!th. What does it mean? No idea. Looking up and praying it means something out of this world If not, keep spreading the truth and watching always for our coming King of Kings!

Perfect point of view!

I agree totally!

[Jay Ross]

Hosea 6:1-3: -

6: 1 Come, and let us return to the Lord;
For He has torn, but He will heal us;
He has stricken, but He will bind us up.
2 After two days {of the Lord’s} He will revive us;
On the third day {of the Lord’s} He will raise us up,
That we may live in His sight.
3 Let us know,
Let us pursue the knowledge of the Lord.
His going forth is established as the morning;
He will come to us like the rain,
Like the latter and former rain to the earth.

Verse 2 above tells us when Israel will be redeemed and the two days of the visitation of the iniquity of the fathers on their children and their children’s children has not run it full course yet.

The Hosea 14 chapter, that mark s quoted above, confirms that it was Israel’s idolatrous worship during the first two day’s {of the Lord} of their existence. from the time of the birth of Isaac until the birth of Christ, that caused the Lord to walk contrary to them for the next two days of the Lord. The completion of the two days of the Lord where God is walking contrary to the nation of Israel is still some 25-30 years off yet and the sign that we have been given is the gathering of the nations of the earth at Armageddon to go up against Jerusalem as the gentles’ last act of attempting to trample the Sanctuary in Jerusalem at the end of the prophesied 2,300 years as recorded in Daniel 8.

God has told us when the End of this present age/Day of the lord, will end and the signs in the stars linked with Revelation 12 linked to the Feasts does not answer the question of when Israel will be redeemed or when the Millennium Age will begin.

Shalom.

[mark s]

Hi Jay,

As you are adding to the translation, I'd like to ask your basis for doing so.

You've inserted "two days {of the Lord's}". This phrase, "of the Lord's", where would I find that in the text?

Thank you for your help with this!

Much love,
Mark

[Jay Ross]

From considering all of the Hebrew words which have embedded in them the Hebrew Root, H:3117 and coming to an understanding that the time when Israel will be revived will be after the passing of two ages from when they are disbursed to the four corners of the earth. As we are approaching 2,000 years since Israel was disbursed, and Israel has not, as yet, been revived, then using Peter's statement that a Day of the Lord is as a 1,000 years, then it is not unreasonable on my part to insert within Brackets "of the Lord" to emphasise the long period of time that is being spoken about in this verse.

Lamentation 5:19-22 also speaks of this same period of time as does Isaiah 61:4. In these example the finite period of time is hidden by an infinite expression. I would suggest that "lə·ḏōr wā·ḏō·wr", in Lamentation 5:19, should be understood to have the English translation of "for an age and an age" i.e. for two ages of time which for all intent and purposes is speaking of around 2,000 years of time. Also that “ dō·wr wā·ḏō·wr. “, in Isaiah 61:4 should be understood to have the English translation of "an age and an age", i.e. for two ages of time as well.

I note that you have used the NLT and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Living_Translation suggests that this translation uses the philosophy : - "Some phrases are translated into contemporary English; e.g. "they beat their breasts" (Luke 23:48) is translated as "They went home in deep sorrow", again with footnotes providing more literal interpretations."

Now mark s by suggesting that I have added to the text, are you suggesting that the Hosea 6:2 is only speaking of a short time period and not of a prolonged period of time?

If you are suggesting that this passage is speaking of a short period of time, is there evidence in the bible that would support this?

[mark s]

and coming to an understanding that the time when Israel will be revived will be after the passing of two ages from when they are disbursed to the four corners of the earth.

Hi Jay,

Thank you for your answer! This part above, this tells me something meaningful, in that at least a part of your basis for adding these words to the translation is due to your understanding from other passages you believe you know the interpretation of this one, and have modified the wording to match your interpretation. I cannot agree with this practice.

The text is what it is. The words are what they are.

Now. Take for example your example, "beating their breasts" being translated "in deep sorrow". That is a standard meaning of a common expression, and while words are changed, I would disagree that this changes the expression being make.

In the case of "days 'of the Lord'", I would argue that this changes the meaning of the expression stated. Now, It may be that this is the correct understanding of the passage, and it may not be, that's a separate question. But I don't see where it is that would support changing the standard translation, strictly from a linguistic basis.

Only if you are conforming it to an interpretation, and for me, well, let's just say I make it a point to not do that.

Now mark s by suggesting that I have added to the text, are you suggesting that the Hosea 6:2 is only speaking of a short time period and not of a prolonged period of time?

If you are suggesting that this passage is speaking of a short period of time, is there evidence in the bible that would support this?

No, this is, again, a separate question. Whatever it may or may not mean, I do not condone changing the text itself to support a viewpoint.

Much love,
Mark

[Jay Ross]

Mark s

It seems to me, that after rereading your posts a number of time with respect to what I had posted, that you hold a position where people simply should not add to the scriptures, period. It also seems to me that you are unwilling to discuss the merits of adding expanded commentary when a portion of scripture is quoted or to the presenting of our own paraphrasing of a portion of the original texts. It seems that is a different question and that you are unwilling to allow suggestions that the various “committees” charged with the various versions of the English translations have got it wrong in certain instances.

Now, I do learn from my mistakes, and am willing to change my understanding of scripture, when people are able to show evidence where I have drawn invalid conclusions as to how the original text should be interpreted.

If iron sharpens iron, then unless people are willing to nail their thesis to the door, then change will not occur and nor will our understanding improve of the intended meaning of the scriptures.

Now with respect to the scripture in question: -

Mark which translation is closest to the original Hebrew Text?

Hosea 6:1-3

6:1 "Come, let us return to the Lord.
He has torn us to pieces;
now he will heal us.
He has injured us;
now he will bandage our wounds.
2 In just a short time he will restore us,
so that we may live in his presence.
3 Oh, that we might know the Lord!
Let us press on to know him.
He will respond to us as surely as the arrival of dawn
or the coming of rains in early spring."

Holy Bible, New Living Translation ®, copyright © 1996, 2004 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers. All rights reserved.

or

Hosea 6:1-3: -

6: Come, and let us return to the Lord;
For He has torn, but He will heal us;
He has stricken, but He will bind us up.
2 After two days He will revive us;
On the third day He will raise us up,
That we may live in His sight.
3 Let us know,
Let us pursue the knowledge of the Lord.
His going forth is established as the morning;
He will come to us like the rain,
Like the latter and former rain to the earth.
NKJV

From a consideration of the interlinear, it would appear that the NKJV is closer than the NLT, but has the NKJV caught the intended meaning of the 2,000 plus year duration that, with 20/20 hindsight vision, is clearly observable for us to understand that Hosea is speaking of “days of the Lord” and not just of a short period of time.

If the Hebrew text was suggesting that it was just a short period of time then the NLT would get the gong for being closest to the bulls eye.

Which translation has added, which is unacceptable to you, or deleted words, associated with the meaning of a Hebrew word, which is unacceptable to me, from the original text in their translation and, in doing so, changed the meaning of this particular scripture?

Shalom

[mark s]

Hi Jay,

I would prefer the reading from the NKJV in this instance. I think clearly the NLT translators have paraphrased what they feel the text to mean, rather than tell us what it is saying. I would hope there would be a footnote giving the actual Hebrew. I see that a lot in my NLT.

Having established what the text says, one can go on to discuss what it means.

Much love,
Mark

[Jay Ross]

Sadly, mark, that will always be a stumbling block. It is the left out/modified meanings of the originally written text in the translation processes, that hinders what we will agree on is the "English" gospel truth, in this forum environment for our discussions.

In a recent interchange, one member would not acknowledge that perhaps there was a time gap contained within the text simple because the scriptural passage being discussed did not specifically indicate that this was so, even though other accounts of the same event tell us that this is so.

Because of his unwillingness to acknowledge that the time span of the passage being discussed was greater than what he was suggesting, based on the other biblical accounts of the same event, the discussion folded.

This will always lead to an impasse and the resolution may become messy depending on the nature of the people involved and whether or not "polite nastiness" is more acceptable than calling a spade a spade using more colourful prose.

As always, the resolution will be resolve in time as the poetic prophetic nature of the scriptures are reveal in due course and our expectations are based on fluid foundations.

But I digress.

Shalom

[mark s]

Sadly, mark, that will always be a stumbling block. It is the left out/modified meanings of the originally written text in the translation processes, that hinders what we will agree on is the "English" gospel truth, in this forum environment for our discussions.

Hi Jay,

You generally seem to include a lot more "left out" meanings than I've seen anywhere else. But I find the straightforward message to be fairly plain.

In a recent interchange, one member would not acknowledge that perhaps there was a time gap contained within the text simple because the scriptural passage being discussed did not specifically indicate that this was so, even though other accounts of the same event tell us that this is so.

Because of his unwillingness to acknowledge that the time span of the passage being discussed was greater than what he was suggesting, based on the other biblical accounts of the same event, the discussion folded.

This seems poor form to me, a third party discussion about another person's behavior. For all the usual reasons.

This will always lead to an impasse and the resolution may become messy depending on the nature of the people involved and whether or not "polite nastiness" is more acceptable than calling a spade a spade using more colourful prose.

To this I would simply say, avoid messy outcomes.

As always, the resolution will be resolve in time as the poetic prophetic nature of the scriptures are reveal in due course and our expectations are based on fluid foundations.

Or . . . the plain meanings in Scripture are borne out as they come to pass. Time tells all things. But the Gospel is plainly stated. Histories are plainly stated. Feelings and contentions and demands are plainly stated. Why would so much have to be hidden? So only one in a million can see it?

Much love,
Mark

[Jay Ross]

Mark,

It seems to me that you are relying on the argument that if many agree on an understanding of scripture then that understanding must be right. The safety in numbers theory.

In the Genesis’s Covenants of God with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, did God promise the land or the earth as their final inheritance, for them and their descendants?

In the Scriptures, is there one Covenant from the beginning of time concerning the outcome for those who do well, or are there two or three covenants with only the “last” “newer” covenant now being applicable?

How we answer the above two questions, colours our understanding of the whole scriptures.

I agree that the plain reading of the original text, when it was written, is now different to our present-day understanding expressed in the translations that we use. The plain reading has, in certain instances, been lost in the translation process and it is very difficult to overcome the engrained traditions of the translations that we have.

Mark, a small error in a single verse of scripture in our understanding will create a larger error which is overlaid over many verses in the scriptures.

Now, to be able to discover the original intended meaning of verses in scripture, requires much time and effort on our part to meditate and seek the Lord’s leading and input.

Do I get it right every time? NO. That is why we need iron to sharpen iron, so that we all can be shown where the error is in our understanding of those particular scriptures, and why it is in error.

Shalom

[mark s]

Hi Jay,

To anyone who knows me, they know that I'm not about numbers of who believes what. Plenty of times I've been the only person I've known to think certain things about Scripture, even somewhat fundamental things. Sometimes I've changed my mind. Other times I've discovered that it's not an uncommon view. Other times I remain alone. But I stand on what Scripture says.

Translators get it wrong, I get it wrong, yet in the midst of it all we want to understand. The one thing I have that is an objective reality is the Bible - the book itself. Its words remain the same through all generations, and they remain the same for me, every time I return to the Book.

I rely on God to teach me the meaning of His Book.

I trust Him that He gave it to me because He wants me to know its contents.

Its contents are knowable, it's why He gave it to me. All Scripture is useful.

I look to the words of the text, and begin there.

And this is where we part ways.

In looking at the words, you have found a number of reasons of why there belong in the timeline of human "pre-history" various multiples of 1000 year stretches of time. You cite translation deficiencies as why it remains hidden to the rest of us.

And you have a systematic eschatology built around this thought process, much like many of us have done of our own. You refer to this systematic eschatology as you interpret various Scriptures, again, much like many of us do.

And it's in this point here, using a systematic eschatology when interpreting Scriptures, this is why I'm so very concerned with the actual words of the text, and the specific meaning of those words within that particular context, without any initial consideration towards other texts. Certainly, we consult those too, to look at usage and meaning and so forth.

But my point is, I tie myself to the very words of the passage in view, and what I build from that passage must be built from those words alone. Once I've done that, I compare to other passages, and any conflict requires either a full resolution of that conflict, again, resting upon the specific words of the text, or the voiding of the conflicting view.

No other way to it, in my opinion.

Now, to be able to discover the original intended meaning of verses in scripture, requires much time and effort on our part to meditate and seek the Lord’s leading and input.

While that may be one of the methods He uses, what we really need is the Holy Spirit to teach us. I think He does that in a great many ways.

Anyway . . . it sounds like you want to get into an discussion on covenant theology versus dispensational theology. Maybe on it's own thread. Or you can used the advanced search to find one of the threads where I've discussed my views on dispensationalism.

Much love,
Mark

[Jay Ross]

<snip>

Anyway . . . it sounds like you want to get into an discussion on covenant theology versus dispensational theology. Maybe on it's own thread. Or you can used the advanced search to find one of the threads where I've discussed my views on dispensationalism.

Mark

Mark, it seems to me that you did not understand the questions that I posed at the beginning of my last post. They were hypothetical questions to demonstrate that if the conclusion we draw from the scriptures contain errors, then the error(s) will grow as we extrapolate from a wrong conclusion into other sections of scriptures. If as you seem to be suggesting we assume that the English translation that we prefer is the bases from which we should build our understanding from, then it seems to me that we are blindly accepting that our preferred translation is "free" from error. We both know that that is not the case.

Now if I wanted to begin a discussion on dispensationalism versus covenantal theology, I can assure you, I would have started a thread on that topic, but that was not my intent with my post.

Now concerning you opinion as to how we should come to understand a particular portion of scripture you wrote the following: -

But my point is, I tie myself to the very words of the passage in view, and what I build from that passage must be built from those words alone. Once I've done that, I compare to other passages, and any conflict requires either a full resolution of that conflict, again, resting upon the specific words of the text, or the voiding of the conflicting view.

It seems to me, from your words of voiding the other conflicting views, that there is no acceptance that the developed understanding of the portion of scripture in question could be where the error resides.

Which methodology is best is really up to personal choice on an individual's part. But to discredit another's methodology because the approach differs from your own, particularly when evidence is provided that supports their view is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

But this divergence from the OP is just a distraction.

Shalom

[mark s]

Not wishing to detract from the OP any further . . . and able to succinctly clarify . . . I hold to the "historical grammatical hermeneutic". The less ambiguous clarifies the more ambiguous.

Much love!

Mark