@Daи-Hi Dan, I noticed you deleted my answer to the "little horn" question. I know it was written when I was more of a 'newbie', and I agree, it could be cleaned up a bit, but I still stand by it as an answer. When dealing w/"figurative' references to Revelations, there are sources all over the map-I don't see where you're coming from concerning "contemporary/modern"-that is the antithesis of what I represent. (Sorry-I typed

@Daи-I'm in a place where internet is slooooooow...I'll follow up when I get back.

@Daи-I am proposing writing another answer giving basically the same exegesis-albeit more "BH". What I won't do is quote some obscure theologian who happens to agree with a portion of my position. If we are going to textually examine these passages, then credence must be given to approaches which go outside of "Classic Covenant Theology" which is the methodology of the most upvoted answer.

@Daи-It's certainly not 'cricket' to say "Covenant Theology is an Acceptable Hermeneutic" but others are not....

@PaulVargas I think it is ;)

It might be worth remembering that avoiding stuff on the site is easy, it's just a matter of not reading...

@JackDouglas So now we know how to drive up question views:

Compare this:

with this:

First asked a week ago, has 65 views, the second asked two days ago (!) has 1,593 views! So: (a) get on "supercollider" ;), and (b) use some suitably gendered language.

@Davïd ha ha yes. For your pleasure: meta.stackoverflow.com/a/66838/166851

gendered language is not strictly necessary, any hot potato will do.

@Sarah @JackDouglas The knowledge of our holy God is greater than any other kind of human wisdom. I say this from a Christian perspective.

@JackDouglas hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/8554/2873 Is this from 2 Peter? Thanks.

@JohnMartin do you mean the question?

it's tagged 2-peter

@JackDouglas Yes. I just didn't see it marked with 2 Peter.

Ahh, you are right, I should mention that in the body

No problem.

Is that better, or should I try and make it clearer?

@JackDouglas FYI...I have to confess I'm just reading on the Q about the "Early Catholic Church" hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/7940/2873 . Apparently I have some history to learn.

It'd be great to have an answer to that one once you've finished your reading, are you planning to have a go?

I am but can't really commit to a date yet. I just began pulling several sites, youtube presnetations and such together.

that's great :)

better to take your time...

I will as I must. One of these of 54 minutes on youtube. Time consuming

See you later, jack.

@JohnMartin early Catholicism is an attempt to understand how in less than 60 years, the Christian Church went from being non-hierarchical, loosely associated, etc. to being highly structured, hierarchical, etc. Of course it assumes that there was a transition of this sort, and that it wasn't structured and hierarchical to begin with. But they have some interesting points in the scholarly debates, specifically the shift from being more or less ...

... an apocalyptic movement / doomsday cult (if you will) to being more of an organized movement.

@Daи, Thanks for the edit, it is nice.

Hello @Sarah thanks, the last edit was me just being nitpicky, but I figured you wouldn't mind since all I did was move the links earlier in the sentence and use bullet formatting

@Sarah Interpretations of a text that happen to be held by movements that define themselves by doctrine are still on topic, since the question is focused on understanding the text

you didn't impose a specific doctrine on the question/answers, you just pointed out how others have interpreted it

in some cases it would be too much information and more desirable to include it in an answer rather than in the question, but not in this case in my opinion, because it actually illustrates the problem (there a variety of interpretations and you want to know which, if any, is correct - and why)

so even though they may be held by religious groups, they represent interpretive positions, which are always on topic

@Sarah so in sum, the question now has my upvote ;)

@Sarah Re: your comment -

@Sarah My little "p.s." - got too long for the comment box:

@Sarah Hope it helps!