Mark's Gospel Proves Q Scholars Wrong

An archive & consolidation of brainout's YouTube and Vimeo videos. The descriptions are preserved on the pages along with remastered and consolidated videos.

Brainout's Remastered Video Archive: https://archive.org/details/brainout-remastered

Archived descriptions for the above videos follow below:

AD69, Mark wrote his Gospel. Provably. To play these videos in order: channel . Sorting: click on 'Browse This Channel', then 'Videos'.

GIST: Mark's own Gospel text proves he's THIRD. This channel/playlist continues the Youtube Mark series videos after Episode 4e, and contains all Episodes excluding 5 and 6. Those latter two in Youtube, need revision. Youtube playlist is here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL358C20D575D1B580 .

Series progressively shows why a) the 'Q' aka 'Quelle' Gospel claim, is a lie; for b) Bible proves Mark is 3rd Gospel. Synoptics playlist (still unfinished) is in tandem; Mark's 'wrapping' style (here, Episode 3) is there covered in more detail.

To their credit, for centuries 'conventional' Christian scholarship didn't buy into 'Quelle' claims. Yet the vocal bad apples have been around since 1800s; for a few of the (ahem) 'Church Fathers' thought there was some original unknown 'gospel' from which the writers 'copied'! Yeah, the Holy Spirit just couldn't give them the info directly?! In short, they didn't believe in Verbal Plenary Inspiration, the Cornerstone of our claim that the Bible is.. the Word of GOD (Hebrews 4:12, 2Peter1:20, etc). Wow.

Too bad the Quelle people, so hot on cutting-and-pasting together an 'original' Gospel which no Gospel writer ever knew, didn't do their homework on how to read serial literature. Like, the Bible. Ooops.

So too, Scripture. Trick is to know WHEN each book was written. You know that in Bible, by two types of text identifiers: 1) a DATELINE in the meter of each book, usually at the beginning, but sometimes in significant chapters, too; and 2) KEYWORDS, quotes, and THEMES of the (usually-latest) books referenced.

Example: if I mentioned Hexenbeist, you wouldn't know what that was, until several episodes into Season One, of 'Grimm'. But after it was introduced, you'd both have a specific idea of the term, and know WHO in the series, was one. Same, for Bible; you'll not see the term 'the Christ' in any OT passage prior to Daniel 7. After Daniel 7, you see much more wordplay; but the phrase is never used again, until the NT. So too, for 'Day' being figurative. It's never figurative in Bible, EXCEPT in the phrase, 'Day of the Lord', which wasn't used until Isaiah (playing off Moses' Psalm 90).

Scholars do know about keywords and thematic ties, but they never think to use those techniques, on the NEW Testament writers quoting each other. Of course, the dippy 'scholars' think the writers borrowed existing material, instead of getting their information (AND how to write it) directly from the Holy Spirit. Yikes!

For scholars know that writers quote prior Bible in their books, yet suddenly are clueless when Mark does that. The shortness of Mark's Gospel is due to the fact a) it's the THIRD one, and b) it's a hurried reminder why God soon (within 18 months) destroys the Temple. It's written in the Year of the 4 Emperors. See Episode 5a and 5b of the 'Royal Family of God' videos for the background.

Scholars also don't know about the meter dateline, because they impose Western standards of poetry meter on Bible text, thereby find nothing; so they conclude Bible has no meter of its own. But everyone in the ancient world memorized Bible and other text by SYLLABLE COUNTS, so it should have been obvious that some kind of ACCOUNTING meter system was used. To demonstrate how that system works, I've compiled playlists; see the 'How God Orchestrates Time' section on my channel pages.

Thus you know there's no such thing as a 'Q' gospel which inept or dishonest 'scholars', promote. 2nd video in this list proves the 'Q' proponents themselves TELL you that Q is a HOAX! Some famous scholars in Christendom, both ancient and modern, endorse this hoax! See: degrees are no guarantee of integrity or competence. Pity the GOOD scholars (they always exist, too) who must contend with the bad! Pray for scholars. Pray on behalf of authority, Romans 13. WE NEED THEM TO BE COMPETENT.

NOTE: videos after 4e Mark in this series, are no longer posted in Youtube. Instead, go to http://vimeo.com/channels/marksgospel . Excepting the now-outdated Episodes 5 and 6, all Youtube videos here are in vimeo, so you can comment there without having to join Google Plus.

This series progressively shows why a) the 'Q' aka 'Quelle' Gospel claim, is a lie; for b) Bible proves Mark is THIRD Gospel. Synoptics playlist (still unfinished) is in tandem, and proves Matthew first, Luke second, Mark 3rd, John 4th. For Mark adds his own testimony in a distinct QUOTING style.

Really exciting stuff. Too bad the Quelle people, so hot on cutting-and-pasting together an 'original' Gospel which no Gospel writer ever knew, didn't do their homework on how to read serial literature. Like, the Bible. Ooops.

For even today, if you watch some TV series like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, or Grimm; or, if you read any of Dickens' books (which were all serially published per section); or today, 'The Green Mile' by Stephen King; you'd know how each successive 'episode' or 'book' ties BACKWARDS to what went before. So too, Scripture. Trick is to know WHEN each book was written. You know that in Bible, by two types of text identifiers: 1) a DATELINE in the meter of each book, usually at the beginning, but sometimes in significant chapters, too; and 2) KEYWORDS, quotes, and THEMES of the (usually-latest) books referenced.

Example: if I mentioned Hexenbeist, you wouldn't know what that was, until several episodes into Season One, of 'Grimm'. But after it was introduced, you'd both have a specific idea of the term, and know WHO in the series, was one. Same, for Bible; if terms, stories, ideas, characters are missing from certain Bible books, but frequent in others, you can tell which books are early, and which later. You'll not see the term 'the Christ' in any OT passage prior to Daniel 7. But you'll see a lot of wordplay on what that title means, prior. And after Daniel 7, you see much more wordplay; but the phrase is never used again, until the New Testament. So it's easy to know, what it means.

Luke and Mark's Meter, revised again! 1/3 in Mark's Gospel Proves Q Scholars Wrong

This is the first of three parts CORRECTING my prior videos on Luke and Mark's meters. Better still, the revised Luke doc (link below, and its p.1 is now much better than the videos) -- sports a handy chart of METER PATTERNS IN BIBLE BOOKS I've done videos on, so far.

So now, you can readily see how deliberate and deft the tagging concordance use of the meter, among them. If you don't know what tagging concordance is, see the psalm 90 channel, beginning here: Psalm 90 Meter of Time (Precedent for Bible Hebrew Meter). Basic idea is that some meter patterns are so famous, they are 'tagged' by repeating the number, similar to how we say '9/11'.

Luke and Mark have to be corrected together, because Mark's meter is based on Luke's, and I had Luke's, wrong. So the three parts begin and end with Luke (new links below), and the correction to Mark is in the middle. TIME WRITTEN is the same. FORMULAS FOR PROVING THAT are different from shown before, and Divinely witty.

Well, this time I finally got my 'smoking gun': Mark proves he's writing circa Passover AD 69. Golly, when you see the genius of Mark's equidistant meter math and his tagging the Magnificat, Matthew and Luke every three seconds, you'll feel even more pity for those claiming Quelle or that Mark is first Gospel. Honestly, can't they even count syllables? What genius are they missing!!

But you could retort, 'but you can't count syllables either, brainout.' Good point, toucher. So notice: when you keep at it, when the count IS right... in this and the next two parts, notice what wit and beauty Scripture resplendently shows. Kill me now.

Newly revised doc (first page is good, rest of it is windy but maybe very helpful re equidistance, needs editing): MarkDatelineMeterR7.pdf or doc. Yes, 7th revision. Mas vale tarde que nunca, better late than never. Figures.

For Luke, LukeDatelineMeters.pdf or doc.
File Name: MarkR7IntroUSEME.avi, 3/2/15.

Mark1d Mark's Meter Revised AGAIN in Mark's Gospel Proves Q Scholars Wrong

Now I reverse much of what I said in Mark 1a-1c, with surprising results. I've revised this meter four times, and am still testing which version is 'final'. Yet the difference now is so surprising and germane to the 'jim' videos re Luke, I should post these again-revised Mark results, now.

Recap: due to the textual variants huiou theou and emprosthen sou, there are five putative dateline meters one can claim for Mark 1:1-2: 14, 28, 42, 49, 56. The 28 fails the syntactical rule, that a meter never divides by 7 in the wrong syntactical place (i.e., just before a quote but after naming the source of the quote). That's true only if it were the last sevened meter. But it's not, here. So now we have a whole new ballgame.

Elision has much to do with which meter is right, as well. How to tell if my elision assumption is right? Well, the elision assumed here was standard practice among Greek speakers for centuries. Idea that when the same vowel sound ends one word but begins the next, you speak that sound as one syllable. By century's end, folks began to prefer no elision. But here, it was still common and considered good Greek.

Kicker: what's odd about all these alternatives, is that in any event you still come up with 68AD, since each of the alternatives thematically date back to relevant events 'from' 68 AD. We'd know he wrote in 68 AD anyway, from the way Hebrews is crafted, but this added dateline helps us understand what Mark means to say in THAT year, with all the associated isagogics. Better still, we see even more how he's writing the THIRD Gospel, deliberately playing not only on Matthew and Luke's text, but also their meters.

So of course the next step, is to figure out Matthew's dateline meter: see Matthew is Metered! for that.

Download the Mark Revised doc, showing the 14, 28, 42, 56 meter changes: MarkDatelineMeterR4.pdf. I've NOT yet changed the notes. A German site presents an intriguing alternative idea of Mark's meter, which is more classical, stichometrie.de/text.html. By contrast, this channel focuses on Bible's OWN meter style, apart from human culture.

File Name: MarkMetered1d,avi, 2/14/14.

Mark1 Mark's Gospel proves Q Scholars Wrong

Some 'scholars' have long contended that the Gospels are all partial 'copies' from one common source they came to call 'Q'. Some think Mark is this source, so erroneously place his Gospel as the earliest. Some others think all of the Synoptics are essentially copied from some earlier source, thus calling the Divine Inspiration of the Gospels, into question.

The egregious liars called the 'Church Fathers' -- inventors of the Pope lie -- also believed some 'earlier' gospel was the original 'source'. They baldly lie about Peter and Mark, too. Of course, now their OLD lies are respected.

God, foreknowing all this in advance, made sure Mark's own Gospel proved them all wrong. For they neglect a primary principle of hermeneutics, Bible's long rule of incorporation by reference, TO ESTABLISH A BOOK IS PART OF CANON. Introductory audio on that: http://www.brainout.net/wma/QGospelFa... . Relevant chrono backup, audio explaining: http://www.brainout.net/wma/Chrono62-... .

Videos demonstrate what the audio covers, directly from the Bible itself, live before your eyes.

In short, there are internal rules God enjoins on a writer, to prove God inspired his new book. God Proves His Word, word by word, verse by verse, by THREADING in, previous Divine Writ. Forensically, you can thus tell what Bible books were written at the time of the new one. Thus you can better certify the date of each book. Doesn't matter what it's written on, or when copied. The words themselves, serve as your definitive guide.

So Mark, being the 3rd Gospel, QUOTES from both Matthew and Luke. Mark being an eyewitness, as he knew Christ also, adds details.

See also the Synoptics playlist. You'll see how, beginning in Mk1:3, Mark quotes one or the other Gospel writer, and then makes deft changes of such GREEK wit you can only conclude Divine Origin. He manages to preserve the same meaning yet the changes are (usually bitingly) relevant to the time he writes.

You'll also need to order Lesson 1541 et seq (200 lessons) of my pastor's 'Paul's Fall' series at rbthieme.org to get the revised chronology of Paul's death (corrected versus his 1975 analysis), which prompted the immediate issuance of Peter, Jude, Mark's Gospel, and Book of Hebrews. No one in the world has done this timing reconciliation, but him. His organization never asks for money.

Mark1f Mark's Meter Revised, cont.

Continued from Mark1e. If you're not already familiar with the material, read Mark 1d's video description, for this video continues the same explanation.

Since Mark's meter is precedented on Luke and Matthew's, you'll need to know their meters. Mark directly tags Luke's meter with Mark's '14', and directly tags Matthew's 427 meter with Mark's ending 56, which is also the same as Luke's first meter. However, since by tagging Matthew, Mark effectively directs the reader back to the Temple In Trouble period in the 400's BC, the Matthew tag is first. The double 56 that effectively results from tagging Luke's first meter with Mark's last, evokes the imminent Temple Down for the second Temple, which actually happened on a 56+56 schedule from Passover to 9th Av, in 70 AD. To the Day.

But it had not happened YET, when Mark wrote, so if enough folks VOTED well, it could have been delayed or even stopped. So Mark first tagged Luke's 56 with '14', to 'complete' the 'vote' (into a 70). Thus the reader could readily understand: 427+56 in Matthew, took the reader back to the VOTING PERIOD related to Nehemiah (as backdrop to that book); then could more easily identify with the parallel VOTING PERIOD at the time Mark wrote, while Jerusalem is surrounded by armies. Rehearsal for the actual Tribulation, to illustrate it. With real lives at stake.

Of course, in hindsight we could learn that lesson, too. For the real Tribulation, is yet future.

To see Matthew's meter, and how to know it's provably the first Gospel, even by the dateline meter alone: Matthew is Metered! . Associated pdf, used in those videos: MatthewMeterR.pdf ; or .doc.

For Luke: James 1-2 Meter and Exegesis , but start with 'Jim7' and then go sequentially. That series is about James' meter, but while doing it I realized he was keying off Luke. Turns out Luke's meter and even his entire gospel outline, is keyed to the meter in the Magnificat. So the 'jim' videos beginning at jim7, go through the Luke meter and outline connection.

Download the Mark Revised doc, showing the 14, 28, 42, 56 meter changes: MarkDatelineMeterR4.pdf . I've NOT yet changed the notes. It will be awhile, before the notes match video content, sorry! A German site presents an intriguing alternative idea of Mark's meter, which is more classical, stichometrie.de/text.html . By contrast, this channel focuses on Bible's OWN meter style, apart from human culture.

For Luke (still being edited, so only the meter shows, no notes): Luke1RevisedMeter.pdf .

File Name: MarkMetered1f.avi, 2/03/14.

Mark1g Mark's Meter Revised, cont.

Continued from Mark1f. Focus here is on how Mark plays on Mary's meter. If you're not already familiar with the material, read Mark 1d's video description, for this video continues the same explanation.

Of course, in hindsight we could learn that lesson, too. For the real Tribulation, is yet future.

To see Matthew's meter, and how to know it's provably the first Gospel, even by the dateline meter alone: Matthew is Metered! . Associated pdf, used in those videos: brainout.net/MatthewMeterR.pdf ; or .doc.

Download the Mark Revised doc, showing the 14, 28, 42, 56 meter changes: brainout.net/MarkDatelineMeterR4.pdf . I've NOT yet changed the notes. It will be awhile, before the notes match video content, sorry! A German site presents an intriguing alternative idea of Mark's meter, which is more classical, stichometrie.de/text.html . By contrast, this channel focuses on Bible's OWN meter style, apart from human culture.

For Luke (still being edited, so only the meter shows, no notes): brainout.net/Luke1RevisedMeter.pdf .

For the Daniel notes read beginning at 17:01, download brainout.net/Dan11Map.pdf, which are notes taken from listening to the 49th lesson of the Daniel series you can freely get from rbthieme.org .

File Name: MarkMetered1g.avi, 2/03/14.

Mark1h Mark's Meter Revised, cont.

Continued from Mark1g. Focus here is on how Mark plays on Mary's meter. If you're not already familiar with the material, read Mark 1d's video description, for this video continues the same explanation.

Of course, in hindsight we could learn that lesson, too. For the real Tribulation, is yet future.

For Luke (still being edited, so only the meter shows, no notes): brainout.net/Luke1DatelineMeters.pdf .

File Name: MarkMetered1h.avi, 2/03/14.

Mark1i Mark's Meter Revised, cont.

Continued from Mark1h. This video shows how Mark plays on Isaiah 53 and Matthew, all at once.

Of course, in hindsight we could learn that lesson, too. For the real Tribulation, is yet future.

For Luke (still being edited, so only the meter shows, no notes): brainout.net/Luke1DatelineMeters.pdf .

File Name: MarkMetered1i.avi,2/3/14.

Mark1j Mark's Meter Revised, cont.

Continued from Mark1i. Still on how Mark plays to Isaiah 53 and Matthew, all at once. I need to figure out how to explain and rewrite the Word doc about Mark's meter, in light of the other NT books' meter, like Jude and 2 Timothy, which Mark also plays on.

However, since by tagging Matthew, Mark effectively directs the reader back to the Temple In Trouble period in the 400's BC, the Matthew tag is first. The double 56 that effectively results from tagging Luke's first meter with Mark's last, evokes the imminent Temple Down for the second Temple, which actually happened on a 56+56 schedule from Passover to 9th Av, in 70 AD. To the Day.

Of course, in hindsight we could learn that lesson, too. For the real Tribulation, is yet future.

For Luke (still being edited, so only the meter shows, no notes): brainout.net/Luke1DatelineMeters.pdf .

File Name: MarkMetered1j.avi,2/3/14.

Mark2 'scholar' Quelle Gospel HOAX admitted!

Witness the HOAX origin of the Q Gospel, blatantly admitted yet presented as scholarly, in this tome promoting it! This video merely reads page 2 of the tome, proving in its own words what LIARS these people are! Respectable people, who should be laughed at!

Beware some scholars: they are not at all scholarly, but use their degrees to bash Bible, and trust in their respectability, to make their lies seem objective. Don't listen to them. Other scholars are good; so don't blame all scholars due to the LIARS among them.

A lot of the scholars are in the middle, timid: they are trained to always respect other scholars, no matter how bad, and every scholar is expected to take from other scholars and QUOTE from them. So, this mentality is superimposed on the Bible; so, the ASSumption is that the writers of the Gospels didn't get their material from the Holy Spirit, but were QUOTING from some PRIOR human writer -- just like a scholar is supposed to do. See how scholarship can be ABUSED? No original thinking, no consultation in the BIBLE itself, to learn the BIBLE's own rhetorical style of saying what was written when and how. Oh no -- IMPOSE A FALSE STANDARD on the Bible's text in order to DESTROY it. That's how Satan wins over the bad scholars. So, these bad scholars then betray their bad scholarship, as shown in this page 2 reading from an alleged scholarly book. Ooops.

Read the book yourself, here: Q, the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus

Here's a related blog entry by Mark Goodacre: https://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/mike-bird-on-lukes-use-of-matthew-and-q.html

Mark2b 'scholar' Quelle HOAX Gospel 2

Another example of scholar brain fart re Mark: they think three of the verses he's quoting, no other NT writer quotes, or don't exist in the OT ?!

Mark 9:48 they don't list as an LXX quote, but you'll see it live, in this video. Quote is associative, 'tagging' Matthew 3:12 and Luke 3:17, Matt 5:29-30, 18:8-9; Mark's CONTEXT begins in verse 43, didn't any of these 'scholars' notice that?

Mark 10:19 they call 'peculiar', but it's a listing of major commandments we all know. And by the way, Mark's POINTING AT Matt 19:17-19, Luke 18:20 when he makes this quote, and quoting LXX at the same time. Which you'd know, if you were looking at the CONTEXT (i.e., verse 18). But the 'scholars' aren't noticing that Mark uses the quotes to quote back to Matthew and Luke. Because, that would destroy their 'Q' hoax!

Next, Mark 12:32 -- same problem. CONTEXT tells you it's the First commandment, Mark 12:32-33, which (like Mark 7:10) 'tags' Matthew 15:4, 22:37-40 (which Christ changes versus the LXX), Luke 10:17, AND the LXX. So Mark YELLS that he's the third Gospel, duh.

See: BLAME THE BIBLE is the recourse the inept scholar uses, when he can't explain something, like Mark's wrap-around-Matthew-and-Luke style. Even when the scholars KNOW Mark wrote in the Year of the Four Emperors, they still have to claim it must be earlier, since they have to INVENT A SOURCE (other than the Holy Spirit ! ) for Matthew and Luke's material.

Oh well.

Mark3 Intro to Mark's Wraparound Gospel

Here we interlace with the Synoptic video series, introducing Mark's style. So this series 'wraps around' that one. That one, is still focused on how Luke 1 and 2 wrap to Matthew 1 and 2. I've started a 'wraparound' doc charting the style (no Greek fonts): Wraparound.pdf. I'll update it again after Synoptics episode 22, which is some months off. Wanna see an original manuscript of Mark 1? Here: Gregory-Aland 011 (G) (Codex Seidelianus I / Codex Wolfii A / Codex Harleianus, Harley MS 5684) – British Library – 9th century – Soden ε87 [lacunae: Mk 1:1-13 ; 14:19-25 ; supplement Mk 1:1-8] [e].

Here's a blogpost cautioning that 'Son of God' does appear in some amulets, too: https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2012/05/amulet-of-mark-11-2_10.html.

Scholarly article on the use of euthus in Mark: https://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/euthus.htm. It's highly regarded by the scholars in B-Greek.

The only thing I'd add is that Mark, like every other author, makes double-entendre use of keywords. So while on the one hand he often means 'next-in-sequence', he also stresses imminency: for his Gospel comes out to warn of imminent Temple Downfall. It had been expected to occur in 70AD, ever since Christ died.

Proof: proper Greek wouldn't repeat the term that much, so while the comments are scholarly, they neglect the rhetorical style. Mark thus means Proving this, will take some time.

I don't know Dr. Decker's position on that idea, or on the Rapture, nor does he endorse what I say. I NEVER CITE SOURCES to allege agreement with anything I say in my videos, at any time. Rather, they are furnished only as required, and only so that you have something independent, to compare.

Mark3b Mark's Wraparound Gospel Style Intro, cont.

Here we see Mark slow down and track Matthew VERBATIM in order to ADD material. So anyone claiming Mark's gospel is first, can't read Bible. Anyone claiming the avowed HOAX of a 'Quelle' Gospel, is a fraud. Sadly, that fraudulent claim has many 'respectable' scholars in its lure. Because, they don't really believe Bible is inspired. So they might be useful in other ways (i.e., on grammar points or other basic linguistics) -- but they can't interpret what they read; because they don't BELIEVE. So their scholarship goes in the tank, as they were TAUGHT THE RHETORICAL STYLES you'll see in this video. Styles that any good literature OR LAWYER uses in any language and in any century. So they are no longer 'scholars', when it comes to making claims about Bible validity. Instead, they are dumber than a kindergartener.

Don't infer from this that you should reject scholars. They are human, so are you, so they have problems with integrity just as you do. Just ask God when you hear or read anything, whether it's true, and whether you should pay attention. HE WILL LET YOU KNOW, if you use 1John1:9 and WANT to know. The scholars don't ask, don't want to know, so they don't know. So be a scholar, and ASK TO KNOW.

Mark3c Mark's Wraparound Gospel Style Intro, cont.

Here we see Mark slow down and track LUKE verbatim in order to add material. Sample of how he does it. So now you know how to find other instances of Mark quote or track Matthew; and when Mark quotes or tracks, Luke. Proof positive, even in translations (but more pointed in the original Greek), that Mark advertises his Gospel is THIRD, not first.

So anyone claiming Mark's gospel is first, can't read Bible. Anyone claiming the avowed hoax of a 'Quelle' Gospel, is a fraud. Or at very least, beguiled. Scholar credentials are no guarantee of integrity or competence, but don't let that obvious truth beguile you into rejecting scholars or scholarship. Just ASK GOD about anything you read or hear. And pray for the scholars. We need them to be competent. So ask God to keep helping them to wake up to any mistakes, and to bless them. Wouldn't you want someone praying the same, for YOU?

Mark3c1 Hebrews 5:11-6:12 wraps to Mark 4:24-29

Surprising update on • Mark3c Mark's Wraparound Gospel Style.... Hebrews wraps around Matthew, as subsequent videos will show. Here, that story begins, with three specific passages.

As you'll see in later episodes, there is a lot of proof that Mark is 3rd Gospel written in 68 AD, not the first one. In 4 Mark, we'll see how the OUTLINE of Hebrews, 'tracks' to Mark's Gospel. In short, the outline of Mark, becomes the outline for the Book of Hebrews. Very startling. So think: if Mark was the first Gospel, wouldn't earlier NT books track to it as well? Yet we've seen in the Synoptics playlist, the reverse: Mark wraps surgically around Matthew and Luke. So it makes sense, that if Hebrews is written just AFTER Mark, that would be the latest of the Gospels and Hebrews would have to focus on it, to prove the Divine Authenticity of Hebrews.

So again, the Quelle 'scholars' are shown to be inept, for one of the first things you seek in hermeneutics, is what PRIOR SCRIPTURE the current book (here, Hebrews) addresses.

Now, someone will say, 'oh brainout, you're not a scholar, what right do you have to make this contention?' My reply is simple: THE BIBLE has the right. THE BIBLE shows how it tracks. IT is live onscreen for you to see yourself. So I don't need to be a scholar myself. All I need to do, is show the BIBLE, itself.

It's about time we stopped justifying our laziness and avoidance of PLAIN BIBLE TEXT by invoking 'scholar', as if you were only allowed to read Bible if a scholar. For they are human, too; they have political agendas, too; for you can hire any scholar to support any position you want to take. And they obviously didn't do their homework, here, since that wouldn't support the Quelle hoax agenda, which is designed to SPIT ON the Real Word of God we have.

Sorry, not putting up with the liars, anymore. Not when they are out to destroy provably Divine Word!

Mark3c2 Mark wraps Luke on widow-with-two-coppers

Continued from • Mark3c1 Hebrews 5:11-6:12 wraps to Ma..., still proving Mark's Gospel came out in Year of Four Emperors.

Parable of the widow with the two coppers. Yet more proof that all those 'Quelle scholar' folks should be fired. Golly, if even a brainout can find this obvious proof of Mark's Gospel being THIRD, then those people are way overpaid!

For what is the key lame contention of these dolts?! (Yes, dolts, they're trying to DESTORY BIBLE) Oh, that the SHORTER is the ORIGINAL. Okay, well Luke's passage is SHORTER, huh.

Yeah, that was Luke's LACONIC WRITING STYLE, and his theme wasn't like Mark's caustic REMINDER, huh.

Of course by their illogic, a LATER and SHORTER production of Hamlet, would have to be THE original, and Shakespeare's First Folio, would have to be a fake!

Mark3c3 Revisiting 'euthus'

Continued from • Mark3c2 Mark wraps Luke on widow-with.... Searching still for what makes Mark's Gospel unique. Here, we revisit Euthus, to explain what it means and how it sets the tone for his Gospel. Oddly, Hebrews never uses the term.

So the next increment (4 Mark) will start a Mark with Hebrews comparison; we'll find out how Hebrews' OUTLINE 'wraps' to Mark's Gospel. Which tells you, that Mark's Gospel was the LATEST Bible book published, before Hebrews. For the new Bible book must 'thread' to prior known Bible, in order to establish its own Divine Authenticity. Pity, the poor Quelle 'scholars' didn't do their homework on the literary styles.

Mark3d Mark's Rapture Keyword TAXU

Greek Geek Study: because Mark's Gospel came out just after Paul was executed, and just before or when Nero was assassinated, everyone expected the Temple to soon be razed (it was already besieged); and they thought the Rapture would occur by 70AD. Paul had already charted potential Rapture dates (updating Mary's what-if Magnificat schedule), in Ephesians 1:3-14. The dates were 66AD, 73, 77, 84, 91, 98. The last two were the expected dates had Israel accepted Messiah. All of them take into account the 54-year time credit owed due to Abraham's too-early maturity. That issue is a running accounting theme in my Psalm 90 playlist, and is not covered here.

Bear in mind Paul's scenarios were calibrated in terms of Temple Down dates (mid-Trib), meaning the Rapture was expected three years prior. But since Church had to mature first, the dates were all potential. So if the Rapture didn't happen -- and Paul didn't expect it -- he laid out how Church history would go in each year=syllable then and thereafter. All the way, to the rise of Odovacer.

So when Mark writes his Gospel, he makes use of common OT keywords evocative of the Day of the Lord, just as Matthew and Luke had done. All of which, key off Matthew 24. So here begins a survey of these keywords, pan-Bible.

We start with TAXU, a word Mark does not use in a Rapture context, but the Lord and the NT writers all use it. The video ends with Matthew 24, so you can see how the other two Rapture keywords - euthus, a Markian favorite -- and engus, are there used. Similarly used synonyms are declinable TAXOS and verb EGGIZW.

Subsequent Episode 3d videos will cover the OT use of TAXU as a translation for Hebrew maher; then, pan-Bible use of engus and euthus; for as you'll see, Mark makes the latter a rhetorical style to stress Rapture when he STOPS using it. Greek engus means near as in 'beside', a nextness of order; euthus, means 'next' as in 'next-in-line-of-sight'. In the OT, the Tribulation was next after the advent of Messiah. When Church however intervenes, 'next' and 'near' mean the destruction of the fig tree, Israel. And of course, her Temple.

Extensive vetting of the Rapture doctrine starts here: LordvSatan1.htm. Will take you a year to read; took me six+ years to write.

1981-1985 Revelation exegesis can be ordered (telephone only) at rbthieme.org. Goes verse by verse, with backup pan-Bible, 1200 lessons or more (each 70-90 minutes, live recorded classes).

Dr. Decker's survey dissertation on euthus (extract): https://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/euthus.htm. It's highly regarded by the scholars in B-Greek. Listing this link does NOT imply that Dr. Decker knows about, or would in any way support, what I say. (I avoid listing sources so that no one can be misread as supporting 'my' stuff, but sometimes links must be provided. My sole support, comes from the Scripture.)

Mark3d2 Mark's Rapture Keyword TAXU (OT usage), cont.

For Greek Geeks. See Mark 3d for description. This finishes out the TAXU usage documentation, pan-Bible. TAXU translates Hebrew adverb and verb maher. A related verb of especial importance is hush, famously used in Isaiah 60:22. Has a connotation of PREGNANCY, Paul's favorite rhetorical 'hub'. Idea of hastening labor pains closer and closer together. But I'm doggoned if I can find the lexicon where I learned that! Will keep on looking. In Greek, verb engizw is also related, meaning something coming nearer and nearer. So now you know where engus comes from. That term will be in 3d3, next video.

Mark3d3 Mark's Rapture Keyword EGGUS

For Greek Geeks. See Mark 3d for description. Not all eggus verses are shown. Here's the full list: Gen. 19:20; 45:10; Exod. 13:17; 32:27; Lev. 21:2; 25:25; Num. 27:11; Deut. 2:19; 4:46; 30:14; 32:35; 34:6; Jdg. 3:20; Ruth 3:12; 1 Ki. 8:46; 2 Chr. 6:36; Est. 1:14; 9:20; Ps. 14:3; 21:12; 33:19; 37:12; 84:10; 118:151; 144:18; Prov. 27:10; Eccl. 4:17; Job 6:15; 13:18; 17:12; 19:14; Joel 1:15; 2:1; 4:14; Obad. 1:15; Zeph. 1:7, 14; Isa. 13:6; 57:19; Jer. 12:2; 31:16, 24; 32:26; 42:4; Ezek. 6:12; 23:12; 30:3; Dan. 9:7; Matt. 24:32f; 26:18; Mk. 13:28f; Lk. 19:11; 21:30f; Jn. 2:13; 3:23; 6:4, 19, 23; 7:2; 11:18, 54f; 19:20, 42; Acts 1:12; 9:38; 27:8; Rom. 10:8; 13:11; Eph. 2:13, 17; Phil. 4:5; Heb. 6:8; 8:13; Rev. 1:3; 22:10

Here we see the pan-Bible usage of Greek eggus, pronounced 'engus'; verb is eggizw, 'to draw near'. This is another pregnant Bible term, also with both common and special usage: to become closer to God, or God closer to you. It's the goal of the spiritual life. BESIDEDNESS. That was the best OT people could hope for, pre-Church: God with us, rather than the upgraded, intimate 'Christ in you', for Church. So this word becomes key in NT discourse, showing the upgrade.

Time-wise, eggus signifies NEXT IN SEQUENCE, so ends up being Rapture, when the next-in-sequence 'Time of the Gentiles' did NOT begin, due to Christ being accepted by Israel. Rejection resulted in Him dying SEVEN YEARS EARLY -- a fact 'scholars' miss, since they errantly ignore Exodus 12, and count Daniel 9 in lunar years (490 lunar years = 483 solar, so they miss the extra seven years). So the Time of the Gentiles was converted by Christ, into 'Church', Matt 16:18, ratified as a matter of FATHER'S DISCRETION, in John 17:20ff. That's why the Rapture can't be predicted. It's based on corporate maturation, Ephesians 4:12-13, not on length of time. So the time, is 'groundhog day', perpetual 62nd week playing over and over until Rapture.

Mark only uses eggus, twice; he quotes Matthew, when he uses it. More proof Mark tells you he's the third Gospel, not the first. More about why Mark uses it that way, will be in later 3d episodes. Here, focus is on why you know that eggus should be TRACKED in Bible, and is not merely a common term for 'near'.

Episodes 3d4 through 3d7 will complete Keyword tracking with the biggest Rapture keyword, euthus. That is a Markian favorite, excessively used (42 times). Scholars have debated WHY Mark uses it so much, for decades. 3d7 will demonstrate how Mark surgically extracts and synthesizes both Matthew and Luke in both the Tribulation discourse, and Last Supper -- again, showing Mark is the THIRD Gospel, by his own writing style.

Mark3d4 Mark's Rapture Keyword EUTHUS

Use of EUTHUS pan-Bible, through Episode 3d7. Full list of verses: Gen. 15:4; 24:45; 33:12; 38:29; Num. 23:3; Jos. 8:14; Jdg. 14:3; 1 Sam. 12:23; 1 Ki. 21:23, 25; 2 Ki. 10:15; Ezr. 8:21; Neh. 9:13; Ps. 7:11; 10:2; 18:9; 24:21; 26:11; 31:11; 32:1; 35:11; 36:14; 48:15; 57:2; 63:11; 72:1; 77:37; 93:15; 96:11; 106:7, 42; 110:1; 111:2, 4; 124:4; 139:14; 142:10; Prov. 2:13, 16, 19, 21; 20:11; 28:10; 29:10; Job 3:11; Hos. 14:10; Isa. 26:7; 33:15; 40:3-4; 42:16; 45:13; 59:14; Jer. 3:2; Ezek. 23:40; 33:17, 20; 46:9; Dan. 3:27; Matt. 3:3, 16; 13:20-21; 14:27; 21:3; Mk. 1:3, 10, 12, 18, 20f, 23, 28-30, 42-43; 2:8, 12; 3:6; 4:5, 15-17, 29; 5:2, 29-30, 42; 6:25, 27, 45, 50, 54; 7:25; 8:10; 9:15, 20, 24; 10:52; 11:2-3; 14:43, 45, 72; 15:1; Lk. 3:4f; 6:49; Jn. 13:30, 32; 19:34; Acts 8:21; 9:11; 10:16; 13:10; 2 Pet. 2:15

For Greek Geeks. Mark uses this term pregnantly and pointedly, 42 times. It is NOT merely an idiom for 'next', as you'll see. Video's first 10 minutes explain the pregnant meaning of EUTHUS in both Hebrew and in Greek culture. Hebrew terms vary, but the Jewish LXX translators pick EUTHUS; so the cross-pollination of the cultural meaning, is explained. How the Old Sin Nature is referenced, by the term. After that, we go from Genesis through Matthew, seeing how the term is used.

In 3d5 we'll see how Mark and the post-Matthew writers, use the term. In 3d6 and 7, we'll see WHY Mark pointedly LEAVES OUT euthus, in his chapters 11-14; how he surgically quotes both Matthew and Luke re Trib and Last Supper discourses, again proving Mark's is the third Gospel. Pretty exciting stuff, really, when you consider how scholars have debated Mark's placement and meaning, for so long.

Mark3d5 Mark's Rapture Keyword EUTHUS, cont.

For Greek Geeks. Here in 3d5 we see how Mark and the post-Matthew writers, use the term. Mark uses this term pregnantly and pointedly, 42 times. So euthus is NOT merely an idiom for 'next', as you'll see. Old Sin Nature is referenced, by the term.

In 3d6 and 7, we'll see why Mark pointedly LEAVES OUT euthus, in his chapters 11-14; how he surgically quotes both Matthew and Luke re Trib and Last Supper discourses, again proving Mark's is the third Gospel. Pretty exciting stuff, really, when you consider how scholars have debated Mark's placement and meaning, for so long.

Use of EUTHUS pan-Bible, Episodes 3d4-3d7. Full list of verses (not all are covered in the videos): Gen. 15:4; 24:45; 33:12; 38:29; Num. 23:3; Jos. 8:14; Jdg. 14:3; 1 Sam. 12:23; 1 Ki. 21:23, 25; 2 Ki. 10:15; Ezr. 8:21; Neh. 9:13; Ps. 7:11; 10:2; 18:9; 24:21; 26:11; 31:11; 32:1; 35:11; 36:14; 48:15; 57:2; 63:11; 72:1; 77:37; 93:15; 96:11; 106:7, 42; 110:1; 111:2, 4; 124:4; 139:14; 142:10; Prov. 2:13, 16, 19, 21; 20:11; 28:10; 29:10; Job 3:11; Hos. 14:10; Isa. 26:7; 33:15; 40:3-4; 42:16; 45:13; 59:14; Jer. 3:2; Ezek. 23:40; 33:17, 20; 46:9; Dan. 3:27; Matt. 3:3, 16; 13:20-21; 14:27; 21:3; Mk.1:3, 10, 12, 18, 20f, 23, 28-30, 42-43; 2:8, 12; 3:6; 4:5, 15-17, 29; 5:2, 29-30, 42; 6:25, 27, 45, 50, 54; 7:25; 8:10; 9:15, 20, 24; 10:52; 11:2-3; 14:43, 45, 72; 15:1; Lk. 3:4f; 6:49; Jn. 13:30, 32; 19:34; Acts 8:21; 9:11; 10:16; 13:10; 2 Pet. 2:15

Mark3d6 Why Mark OMITs euthus from Chaps 11-14

Here we begin to see why Mark suddenly OMITS euthus, between 11:3 and 14:43. This video focuses on Chapters 11-13. 3d7 will focus on Chapter 14, offer conclusions about Rapture, as expected by believers during Year of the Four Emperors -- when Mark wrote.

Mark3d7 Why Mark OMITS euthus in Chaps 13-14

Climactic video on Mark's euthus Rapture style, here by omission. Using BibleWorks 'Synoptic Tool', here we see not only Mark's pregnant omission of euthus, but also his SURGICAL style of concatenating parallel quotations from both Matthew and Luke, again showing Mark as the THIRD Gospel, never the first.

Thus we begin to understand better, what really happened at the Last Supper, and realize that claims of contradiction, are flat wrong.

This will be the last Mark video, for awhile. Will catch up to Mark later on, in the Synoptics series: probably about its Episode 30 or so. In 5a-c RFG of this playlist, are videos illustrating that the Bible Book rollout of 68-69 AD in the wake of Paul's death, were Hebrews, then Peter, then Jude, then Mark. I'm still auditing that hypothesis, but so far it's the most probable, given the Bible's own rhetorical styles and rules for incorporating prior Divine Writ, by reference. Will do update videos on that order, later in 2013 or 2014.

Year of the Four Emperors was either 69AD itself, or began maybe six months earlier, so lasted 18 months. Am still examining which of the two datelines, is the more correct. But whichever it is, that's when Mark's Gospel came out, and his Gospel is the last of the four books (Heb, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, Mark), with Hebrews likely being the first of the four.

Mark4a Hebrews 'wraps' to Mark!

Continued from • RFG5c Hebrews, Peter, Jude, Mark Book..., correcting that video's contentions on Bible Book order. As you'll see from Episode 4's many vids, it now looks like the proper order of the books issued in Year of the Four Emperors, is Peter, then Jude, then Mark's Gospel, then Hebrews -- all of them written due to Paul's execution; that Peter died soon after, occasioning Jude's letter. Then came Mark's Gospel, and finally (not first), Hebrews.

This video starts Episode 4, shows how Hebrews 1 and 2, 'wrap' to Mark 1, thematically. Essentially, Hebrews uses a technique called 'incorporation by reference' to track its own order to the SAME order of points, in Mark's Gospel. Which means, Mark's Gospel is the LATEST of the Bible books, when Hebrews was written.

As this Episode 4 will demonstrate, Book of Hebrews continues to THEMATICALLY wrap to Mark's Gospel. So Hebrews' outline is based on the order of points in Mark.

Big surprise, to me. Disputations with SUBSTANCE are welcome, of course. But if you call me names or say the video is wrong absent SUBSTANCE why, then I cannot benefit from your criticism, and won't reply.

Mark4b Hebrews 'wraps' to Mark, cont.

Continued from • Mark4a Hebrews 'wraps' to Mark! . Here we start to see that what seemed like a coincidence in Episode 3's tie with Hebrews, is actually part of an ongoing pattern: In 4a, we saw how deftly Hebrews 1 tracked to Mark 1; and now we begin to see that tracking isn't a coincidence, after all. For in this video, we find that Hebrews 2-4, keep on tracking to Mark, through Mark 2.

For even today, if you watch some TV series like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, or Grimm; or, if you read 'The Green Mile' by Stephen King; you'd know how each successive 'episode' or 'book' ties BACKWARDS to what went before. So too, Scripture. Trick is to know WHEN each book was written. You know that in BIBLE, by two types of text identifiers: 1) a DATELINE in the meter of each book, usually at the beginning, but sometimes in significant chapters, too; and 2) KEYWORDS and THEMES of the (usually-latest) books referenced.

Scholars don't know about the meter dateline, because they impose Western standards of poetry meter on Bible text, thereby finding nothing, so concluding Bible has no pervasive meter of its own. But everyone in the ancient world MEMORIZED the text by SYLLABLE COUNTS, so it should have been obvious that some kind of ACCOUNTING meter system WAS used. Double-ooops.

Scholars DO know about keywords and thematic ties, but they never think to use those techniques, on the New Testament writers QUOTING EACH OTHER. Triple-ooops!

If you want to know who the famous Quelle contenders are, just look at the tags, after 'Otho'. Or, Google on 'Quelle' and 'Gospel'.

Mark4c Hebrews 'wraps' to Mark, cont.

Continued from • Mark4b Hebrews 'wraps' to Mark, cont. . Now we see how Hebrews 3 continues to trace Mark 2, through Hebrews 6 on Mark 3, coming full circle to Mark 3c1 (which covered Hebrews 5:11-6:6 play on Mark 4).

Mark4d Hebrews 'wraps' to Mark, cont.

Continued from • Mark4c Hebrews 'wraps' to Mark, cont. . Hebrews 5 continues to trace Mark 3, and then goes forward, still tracing to Mark's thematic ORDER. So this rhetorical style is but one of many evidences that Mark is the Third Gospel. For to validate ITSELF as Divine Writ, a new Bible book must tie to the latest Divine book just before it. And then, flawlessly elaborate, on that book.

Thus Hebrews 'wraps' to Mark. So Mark, just preceded Hebrews. But so too, did Hebrews and Jude. So Hebrews threads in the priesthood and imminency-of-Rapture theme in Peter, plus his false-teacher theme, which of course Jude nearly quoted verbatim. Thus we know that just after Paul died, Peter wrote; then, he was killed in Babylon (for in 68 AD, Parthia was a new fan of Nero); so then, Jude wrote, and apparently was soon after killed. Then came Mark, and now, Book of Hebrews.

We know Hebrews came out in the Year of the Four Emperors, just after Paul died, from Hebrews 13:23. We also know the other books came out then, by their text and meter (Jude and Peter show metered datelines at the beginning of their Epistles; I've not yet tested Mark for meter).

For Timothy visited Paul, per Paul's last request, end 2 Tim. Mark came along. Then Nero must have imprisoned Timothy (and maybe Mark), who just got released. He'd not be released, except under a new Emperor (take your pick among the next 3, it was custom for the new Emperor to pardon prisoners whose crimes were deemed political).

Mark4e Hebrews 'wraps' to Mark, cont.

So Episodes after 4e Mark are only in that vimeo link. No more Mark vids will be posted in Youtube.

Continued from • Mark4d Hebrews 'wraps' to Mark, cont. . CLIMACTIC and enjoyable episode, validating the prior ones. IF you have any doubts Bible is from God: those doubts will die, after learning the Scripture depicted here!

For Hebrews 6 now POINTEDLY traces Mark 4, still following Mark's thematic ORDER. Thus you better know what both books MEAN to say! This is the exegete's wet dream come true, to actually see the writers' own THINKING at the time. It's the goal of hermeneutics; and baby, you get it LIVE, here! As if you were there sitting beside them, listening to their heads, back in 69AD when they wrote! Kill me now!

As often happens, I didn't know where this episode was going to go, when recording; so when I suddenly realized how aptly Hebrews traced Mark, I started to cry at the end. Sorry.

Read Hebrews 5:11-6:12 on its own carefully, and ask yourself, 'why does the writer, make THESE points in THIS order?' For he could have said the same thing, in many different ways! Aha. Now you know why. He's tracking to MARK!

How ironic: here we have bald evidence of a writer using Mark to make his own epistle (also directly from God, so God wants the reader to know Mark is being tracked). Isn't that the kind of proof the Q nitwits are looking for? Well, here it is! But oh, Mark does the same tracking, to Matthew and Luke! So Mark PROVES to be the third Gospel AND latest Bible book at the time Hebrews is written! LOL!

For at this point, the writer of Hebrews starts to thread in again more from Peter and Jude, at the same time (which he began to do from Chapter 1, with varying emphasis).

This same rhetorical style is used by John in John 8, tracking thematically to Psalm 18. So all those who claim the pericope adulterae isn't part of Bible or doesn't belong in John 8:1-10, can't read it; or, didn't do their homework, take your pick. See my videos on that, starting here: • LXX3r Christ says He's God 50+ times ... .

Again, this THREADING rhetorical style is but one of many evidences that Mark is the Third Gospel. See also my NT 'threaded' and Synoptics playlists, for other examples. For to validate ITSELF as Divine Writ, a new Bible book must tie to the latest Divine book just before it. And then, flawlessly elaborate, on that book.

Thus Hebrews 'wraps' to Mark. So Mark, just preceded Hebrews. But so too, did Hebrews and Jude 'wrap' (to Mark Jude and Peter, by Hebrews; to Peter, by Jude). So Hebrews threads in the priesthood and imminency-of-Rapture theme in Peter, plus his false-teacher theme, which of course Jude nearly quoted verbatim. Thus we know that just after Paul died, Peter wrote; then, he was killed in Babylon (for in 68 AD, Parthia was a new fan of Nero); so then, Jude wrote, and apparently was soon after killed. Then came Mark, and now, Book of Hebrews.

Mark4h Heb6 wraps Mark4, cont.

Balance of Mark 4g's content on how Mark surgically cuts Luke's 'come to the light', since the light is going OUT (Temple going Down, under siege when Mark writes), then how Hebrews tracks Mark's own omnious repackaging of that passage, to warn those sluggish, how dark with works they are.

Then, analysis continues on how the balance of Hebrews 6, Promise to Abraham, ties to Mark 4's seed multiplying. Heh. But here's the killer: Mark suddenly switches from seeds, to boats. Hebrews suddenly switches from multiplying Abraham's seed, to oaths and THEN to anchors? With the oath causing the anchoring? Oy vey. So end Mark 4 is on what? How Christ was ANCHORED so well, He was sleeping during the storm, and the little-faiths (having no elpis, Heb6:19), were all stormed up with anger that He sleeping: 'Don't you care that we are perishing????' (Mark 4:38).

LOLOL! This is SO like Aristophanes' play, 'The Frogs' (named after a small boat scene in the play, since frogs in Greek lit often represented demonic cleverness). Doesn't get more deft than this! Shakespeare loved this kind of innuendo writing!

I pity all those 'scholars' who are VERY conversant in Greek lit and drama, but suddenly when it comes to Bible's wit and drama in the Gospels, their brains go out! See: you can't interpret Bible without 1John1:9. Be a scholar, yes; but be in the Spirit, or you waste your time, and everyone else's!

File Name: 4hMarkHebOnMark.avi, posted 11/22/13 but made from HebOnMark17b-18avis of 9/29/13, on 10/25/13.

Bible's Anno Domini Meters 5/7

Long before we invented 'Anno Domini', Bible used it. This series examines NT Anno Domini Dateline Meter formulas, and how they are all precedented on the OT dating system from both Adam's Fall (not initial creation) and, as a countdown TO a planned Millennial start of 4200 after Adam's Fall. See Preface for orientation, brainout.net/LukeDatelineMeters.htm#Preface .

This video continues the survey with Mark, which like Jude, proves that significant textual variants are the proper text. PROVING MORE THAN EVER THAT HE'S THE THIRD GOSPEL, NOT A QUELLE OR FIRST. All you have to do is READ to know that, even in translation. But here the meter, still showing how all the NT dateline meters, have the following in common, proves it even more:

* The Lord's Age is stated BLUNTLY, or as a formula based on His originally planned Death or Birth pre- or post-David. Often, the meters will interrelate all these dates: three death dates and two birthdates, so to track and reconcile them. Bible's Anno Domini reconciliation with the OT, its BC/AD converter, is the ORIGINAL planned Birthdate of 4106. Due to the delay in David's crowning -- he was crowned on time, 1050 years after Abraham supermatured at age 100, but wasn't crowned over ALL Israel until 7 years later -- Christ had to be born a net 3.5 years earlier (reflecting Temple's late start as well). So He dies in 4136, not 4143 (the Davidic deadline) or 4146 (the original 2100+2046 deadline from Abe's supermaturation). That TIMELINE SHIFT is not known in Christendom, but is tracked in Bible, as you'll see here.

* The ADAMIC YEAR of writing is somewhere stated as two ending numbers, much as we use '15' to mean '2015'.

* At least one of the meters 'tags' a past event in secular history, to parallel current time to the 'story' of that past event.

* At least one of the meters is dated in terms of years-to the Trib, Millennium, or a closely-related, forward countdown tracked since the OT.

In short, the meter formulas are predictable. So they are testable. Since often a chapter will have its own dateline meter (esp. in the OT or any other serial book, like Acts, Isaiah and Daniel), then you can more quickly figure out what formula to 'test'. The dateline meter will often finish within the first 1-3 verses of a chapter. If the last sevening is later, it's a plan-of-time passage, not merely a dateline (like Psalm 90, Daniel 9, Eph 1:3-14, 1Peter1:1-12, etc).

Video's Doc used (first two pages): brainout.net/LukeDatelineMeters.pdf or doc or htm. The columns in the htm won't align, so the numbers for the meters look 'wavy'. I'll fix that in the future. The smaller the font size used in your browser, the more the numbers 'straighten'.

It will also be helpful to download the worksheet which plots all the numbers, so when you see me refer to Adamic years, you can tell that the BIBLE's use of those specific years, are actually from BIBLE's own dates; for the worksheet was created solely from, the Bible's dates: brainout.net/GeneYrs.xls .

Verses used to create that worksheet are in brainout.net/brainoutFAQ.htm#6a .

It's a lot of material, but given the importance of the accounting, it should be worth anyone's time to actually vet the material. Whether God wants you to do that, is a matter between you and Him. For once you see how bald these meters are, you know several important things:

1. YES we really do have the inerrant and infallible Word of God, because clearly these meters are deliberate so we know we have the real Words God Preserved (take THAT, you scurrilous KJVO people),

2. YES we can know EXACTLY when Bible books were written (take THAT, you scurrilious Bible debunkers),

3. YES we know EXACTLY WHAT BOOKS ARE SCRIPTURE (take THAT, you who claim we needed some dippy Council of Nicaea or other popish nonsense),

4. YES we know EXACTLY how long it was since Adam FELL, and YES the Bible does NOT say how old the earth is, as the issue isn't even relevant (take THAT, you young earthers and others who would divert the topic of Bible study to banalities),

5. YES we know BETTER how to actually INTERPRET the Bible books, since the DATE OF WRITING is turned into a complex relation-back and relation-forward CONCORDANCE with history and other Bible events, so we know the CONTEXT the WRITER INTENDS.

In short, a whole lot of wasted money on debates over the above five topics, can stop being wasted. Of course, since a lowly brainout simply counted syllables to find this, the finding will be disregarded, disputed, as if the credentials of the person FINDING something was relevant to what was FOUND. But what was FOUND, is in Scripture, so ANYONE, degreed or not, can FIND it.

File Name: MeterSurvey10Mark.avi 3/18/15.