You said “The concept of collective salvation is not Biblical. Nor is it possible for a person with God’s mark to transfer its benefits to someone with out it.” With regard to Abraham and his family, why would God extend this mark as a covenant to some (such as infants) who may not have ever formally recognized the implication of God and His covenant, while in Ezekiel, we read that the mark was given to those who mourned and lamented over the state of their country. It appears that in the first instance, the mark was “decreed,” while in the latter instance, the mark was given on a case by case basis to those whose hearts were right before God.
The Abrahamic covenant set Abraham and his descendants apart and gave them a land of their own (Genesis 15:18-21). It was later confirmed by the physical mark of circumcision (Genesis 17:10-14). It did not protect them from judgment due to disobedience, but was meant to identify them as beneficiaries of the unconditional land grant. Many years later, at Mt. Sinai, God had Moses tell the people (in effect) that while the land was their forever they had to obey the laws He was giving them to live there and enjoy its benefits. At the time of the Babylonian conquest all of them were already circumcised, but most had repeatedly violated His laws. The mark that spared those who lamented over Jerusalem was on their foreheads and was a spiritual one (Ezekiel 9:4). The two marks were not the same.