Ron,
You said. "The Bible defines the prophetic symbol of a woman as meaning a church, or the Old Testament equivalent, the community of worshippers. This is the only thing the prophetic symbol of a woman can mean, therefore. To imagine it means anything else is rebellion against Divine Authority."

Please explain why it is that the only explanation of the prophetic symbol of a woman is the church? Who established that as a doctrine in exegesis? I still don't get it. Is there empirical proof for your position other than the statement itself?

When and where in the O.T. did the "community of worshipers" come in to being? When and where did this happen in the N.T.? I am sincere in asking these questions because I truly want to know what you think? I have my own thoughts on this as you are well aware, but I am always open to learning something.

Just like Michael I want to thank you for taking the time to interact with me in this forum. I really enjoy my experience and I have already learned quite a bit.

Not sure if anyone wants to read this, but since we are talking about Mary being the mother of Jesus, take a look at this:

46. While I was yet looking upon the tree, I saw a virgin coming from afar and two hundred angels before her saying hymns, and I asked and said: Sir, who is she who comes in so great glory? And he said to me: This is Mary the Virgin, the Mother of the Lord. And coming near she saluted me and said: Hail, Paul! well-beloved of God and angels and men. For all the saints prayed my Son Jesus who is my Lord that thou mightest come hither in the body that they might see thee before thou goest out of the world. And the Lord said to them: Bear and be patient: yet a little and ye shall see him and he shall be with you for ever: and again they all said to him together: Do not vex us, for we desire to see him in the flesh, for by him Thy name was greatly glorified in the world, and we have seen that he endured all the labours whether of the greater or of the less. This we learn from those who come hither. For when we say: Who is he who directed you in the world? they reply to us: There is one in the world whose name is Paul, he preaches and announces Christ, and we believe that many have entered into the kingdom through the virtue and sweetness of his speeches. Behold all the just men are behind me coming to meet thee, Paul, and I first come for this cause to meet them who did the will of my Son and my Lord Jesus Christ, I first advance to meet them and do not send them away to be as wanderers until they meet in peace.

This was verse 46 found in the 'vision of Paul' or "Revelation of Paul". Just thought someone might find this interesting. I am not saying that Paul wrote this, but find it interesting anyway. If you read the whole thing you will see many doctrines the Catholics have may have come from this. You can read the whole thing, just google "Paul's vision". Enjoy.

Notice this in the Introduction--




Interesting reading, but obviously nothing to see as having an influence on the letters of Paul that we have in the Bible. Just like there are false Gospels, so there were many false writings in the first 3 or so centuries of the Christian Church.

True! But then--WHO is it that decided what went into the accepted cannon and why? Consider Paul's use of Isaiah 59:20 in Romans 11, where he winds up an argument by announcing, "And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: 'The deliverer will come from Zion.' " But Isaiah says something quite different: "The Redeemer will come to Zion," he tells us. Did Paul change the words of Scripture to suit his own purposes? Paul wouldn't get past the first week of New Testament 123 (Hermeneutics) like that. He is breaking every rule of thoughtful evangelical scholarship, which holds that the proper way to approach inerrant Scripture is with careful grammatical-historical exegesis: painstaking analysis of each word of the Scripture and its relationship to other words, the setting of the sentence in the verse, the verse in the chapter, the chapter in the book, and the book in the historical times of its composition.

Dr. Rich, the Redeemer who comes out of Zion first must come to Zion. You are presenting yourself as a more rigorous Hebrew scholar than was Paul. But perhaps a scholar with true mastery of Old Testament Hebrew would recognize that the concept of the Redeemer coming to Zion and out of Zion are not mutually exclusive, and in fact one may be reasonably inferred from the other.

From the viewpoint of Jews, the Redeemer comes to Zion. From the viewpoint of Gentiles, the Redeemer comes from Zion.

You talk about "grammatical-historical exegesis," but it would not be the first time that someone indulging in higher criticism and trying to cast doubt on the authority of Scripture tried to hide behind this scholarly-sounding terminology.

Ok, forget about grammer. How many accounts are there in Acts on what happened to Saul on the way to Damascas? Which one is the truth?

I see only one Dr. Rich, and I have no reason not to believe it! And I believe that EGW confirms this.

pk

Dr. Rich, are you referring to the minor discrepancy about kicking against the goads? In Acts 9:3-7 (NKJV) we read Luke’s narrative of what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus, which he obviously got from Paul: “As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’ And he said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ Then the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads. [KJV says “pricks”] So he, trembling and astonished, said, ‘Lord, what do You want me to do?’ Then the Lord said to him, ‘Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.’ And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.”

The NASB, NRSV, NIV, and The Living Bible and some others leave out the mention of goads or pricks. Young’s Literal Translation does include the line about pricks.

The ones that include the line are based on the group of ancient manuscripts used for the Textus Receptus Greek version. The ones that leave it out are based on the group of ancient manuscripts used for the Nestle-Alland Greek version. There are occasional discrepancies between these groups of manuscripts, and translators have to decide which group to go by, but usually, as is the case here, the differences are minor and inconsequential.

There is another place where the same account is related. In Acts 22:6-8 (NKJV) we read Paul’s first person recollection, as quoted by Luke: "Now it happened, as I journeyed and came near Damascus at about noon, suddenly a great light from heaven shone around me. And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’ So I answered, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’ And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. So I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do.’”

This also leaves out any mention of goads or pricks. But it adds the detail that it was “about noon” when this happened. Apparently Paul did not mention this detail when he related his experience to Luke earlier. But it is no contradiction, merely an added refinement.

How much does it matter whether the line about kicking against the goads was really there in the Acts 9 statement or not? In all candor, not much. It sounds like the kind of thing that a later Christian scribe might have added as a comment (especially since it is not mentioned in the Acts 22 statement even in the Textus Receptus version), which is why most of the more modern translations go with the Nestle-Alland text on this.

Oh yes, in addition, the account in Acts 9 says the men with Saul heard a voice but saw no one. The account in Acts 22 says the men with Saul saw a great light "but did not hear the voice of Him who spoke" (v. 9)

This is not so contradictory as it might seem. The account in Acts 9 does not say whether the men with Saul saw a light; only that they saw no one. And the account in Acts 22 which says the men with Saul did not hear the voice of the One who spoke with Saul could have meant they did not understand any of the words that were spoken. Both accounts, we must remember, came from Paul, as written down by Luke. Paul might have chosen to relate the story in slightly different words in the two accounts, especially if some time elapsed between one telling and the other.

At least, none of these apparently minor discrepancies represent any problem for Seventh-day Adventists, who do NOT believe in verbal inspiration of the Bible. As Ellen G. White put it, God has not submitted Himself to be put on trial in human utterances; and the Bible writers were His penmen, not His pen. The supreme authority of Scripture does not depend upon it being perfectly infallible word-for-word. But by putting together every passage in Scripture where related topics are discussed, and allowing the Bible to define its own terms and especially its own prophetic symbols (which were picked by God Himself, not the human prophet), we can arrive at a firm and reliable foundation for our faith.