Talk:Number of the Beast/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

INTRODUCTION NOT NPOV?

The introductory paragraph contains the following statement:

Scholars contend that the number is a code for the Roman Emperor Nero, a view that is supported by the Roman Catholic Church

This implies, I submit, that all scholars endorse a preterist view of Revelation, and anyone who does not accept a preterist interpretation is not a scholar.

My suggestion would be to modify the text as follows:

Some scholars contend that the number is a code for the Roman Emperor Nero, a view that is supported by the Roman Catholic Church. Others believe that Revelation is primarily a parable, and view the Mark as purely an element of this parable. Finally, others believe that it refers to future events which have not yet transpired.

I submit that this, or something like it, would be more NPOV, and would address each of the three main schools of thought about Revelation in the opening sentence.

Thoughts??

Bonbga 18:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It actually looks OK. It says that Roman Catholic Church believes this, but it doesn't outright say it is a code for the Roman Emperor Nero. Savie Kumara 05:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The current statement doesn't look OK to me, either. I think Bonbga should change it exactly as he or she suggested. That statement about the scholars is, as it stands, grammatically incorrect and misleading. 71.142.1.5 14:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the word "some" back in the first paragraph. It now reads that "some scholars" believe that the Mark of the Beast was a code for Nero. Deleting the word "some", in my opinion, is not NPOV, because it implies that the belief that the Mark of the Beast is Nero is a universally held scholarly opinion. Bonbga —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:22, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

"Mark" Χάράγμά of the Beast is MONEY

Someone keeps erasing the correct, in context definition of the "Mark" of the beast as being money.

The Greek word mistranslated as "Mark" (Χάράγμά) actually means MONEY.

When you put it all into context (Nero's picture on all the coins, Jesus saying, "You can't serve God & Money for you will either love the one or hate the other," upsetting the moneychangers, sending his disciples out without money in their purses; you see the correct translation is:

"No one buys or sells without the money of the beast in mind/hand."

SOURCE: [1] 150.135.161.145 18:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC) RAQUEL BARANOW

You'll need a more reliable source than that. Also, you calling it "my theory" suggests original research, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If you can find a reliable source, however, please do include it, with the proper citations. —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talk • contribs) 23:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This page is for discussing the subject of 666 which is what he is doing. The meaning of the original Greek word for Mark is very important. If it actually means money then that is very important. You can verify the definition of the original Greek word in Revelation rendered Mark by looking it up in a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the King James Bible.

EnduranceRace 06:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The source I used is from the Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon. I made a jpeg of the page and also provided an online link to Liddell Scott all at my website here: http://666isMONEY.com.

It's not my theory it's just common sence of the definition in context. Χάράγμά means MONEY, hence, "No one buys or sells without the MONEY of the beast." Moreover, at the time the Revelation was written, the Jews revolted against Rome and coined their own money. Nero was the emperor at the time. "The numbers of his name" = 666 (see the original article -- at least the Wiki article gets that right.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.146.169.11 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 June 2007.

That web site you've cited as a reference is a cheesy, kooky, conspiracy theory site; it is hate filled, anti-government, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and a sorry excuse for anything decent, useful, or legitimate. WikiMasterCreator 07:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is 666isMONEY, not any of the other well researched stuff on my sight. I'm NOT stupid and won't argue here about off-topic stuff. -- Raquel Baranow

Although I hate money, what disturbed me about the site is the idea of getting rid of the money. To achieve a cashless society the only way to do that without the possibility of identity theft would be a ID computer chip in the RIGHT HAND. "ID CHIP MARKS" = 666 in multiples of 6. www.666myth.com. Verify in the calculator on this site. And what is really scary is uncooperatives forced to be implanted with a mind control computer chip in the forehead. EnduranceRace 10:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Money is an unnecessary stumblingblock to spiritual evolution. If we eliminated money, there would be an abundance of necessary items. Modern machineary was supposed to make life easier but now two people have to work at bogus jobs to support a family. More than half the people in the US work at unnecessary, unhealthy jobs (wars, ("all wars are caused by money"), bankers, book keepers, accountants, tax collectors, fast food, cigaretts, meat (and all the grain/"pearls" tossed to swine & cows), prostitution, bad drugs, etc. There are quotations from many famous people on my website who also believed in eliminating money. Karl Marx. Pol Pot, Fidel Castro and Muammar Gaddafi believed in eliminating money. They too beieved modern machienery would make money (barter too) superfluous. Anyone who believes in eliminating money is slandered/crucified(like WikiMasterCreator did above); the devil is a slanderer (etymology of the word "devil" is slander). -- Raquel Baranow.

You realize, of course, you just cited four of the most evil men in history as proponents of your plan? Applejuicefool (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

no one seems to get around to the fact that in order to advance in economics (have equity, start a business) you need a good credit rating. all the credit agencies will tell that if you're at least rating in the mid-600s, you'll probably get your loan. in modern times, if you have no credit, you're working at a crummy job, you owe $$ everywhere, and you're living hand-to-mouth. seems you need that good mark for the money lenders to see, huh? the current CEO of FICO is named "Mark" aint that ironic... but of course i'm not finding any websites to agree with me because everyone thinks we're getting hand tattoos. would anyone really stand for anything so blatant? especially when we're already in the system, almost without our knowledge or consent? i'm always recalling the latest visa commercials where someone with legal tender money is frowned upon by everyone else in line with credit cards. 76.202.219.193 (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed something. It is not only that "Charagma" means money, it is also that "psefizo" means vote. Everyone scholar agrees that "vote" is one of the alternative definitions of the word "psefizo". But among millions of different English translations of the bible, there is no one saying that "vote" may be the alternative translation. I honestly find this very strange, and I can only give one explanation on this. If the mark of the beast is considered as "money" then "vote for money" makes absolute sense. At the same time, the idea to vote for money instead of having one money maker authority deciding what money is, remains very dangerous for all governments. So governments decided to censor this alternative translation. So Bible's author do not recommends a cashless society, but a society where the nature of money is decided by a voting procedure. So here is the wisdom, hidden and censored by all kind of governments, for 2000 years.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicsies (talk • contribs) 10:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Missed something? How about how VI is 6 in Roman Numerals, S was 6 in ancient Egypt and A was 6 in Sanskrit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.84.29 (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

666? isn't it 616? and 665? isn't it 667?

Acording to Qi's book 'The Book Of General Ignorance' recent historians have found an older bible that states that 616 is the number of the beast.

No. They found a tiny fragment of paper that may or may not be a fragment of Revelation. I do not believe that this tiny fragment of paper is really from Revelation. EnduranceRace 06:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually there are manuscripts stating that 616, and 667, and 665, and 666, is the number. Historians have found all of these numbers, as well as a couple of others, in older texts. Hey it's lunch time again, Jack in the Box? John

Is it just a coincidence that EnduranceRace posted at 6:16? Maxwell's Daemon 15:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is 616 Londo06 18:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Men of Galilei set G = 666.616... x 10^-10 tail³/tail-tail² John

First of all, scholars can't, in many cases, be certain that such ancient manuscripts are older or younger than likewise ancient manuscripts. Second, just because something is older doesn't necessarily mean it is more accurate than something that is younger - perhaps the "616" fragment comes from an older sloppily copied manuscript. Third, the reasoning for assuming the number of the beast "should" be 666 is that there is a clear contrast with the number 7, which in the Bible is generally identified with God and holiness; and there are two occurrences in the Old Testament of the number 666, one of which has to do with taxation upon the people by a king, and the other occurring in the context of a "hidden" message (found in the meanings of the names found in that context) regarding the Great Tribulation and Jesus' rescuing of Israel at the time of the End (look for "the last sons of Adonikam" in the Old Testament, and look up the meaning of "Adonikam" and the names of his three "last sons"). Lastly, the main article itself points out that the Early Church Father, Irenaeus, was aware of the fact that some were translating the number of the beast as 616, but that he rejected this translation as being in error. Irenaeus was born around 115-125 A.D., and was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, who was, of course, a disciple of Jesus and was the one who WROTE the Book of Revelation. I should think such an authoritative rejection of 616 as the number of the beast by someone as close to the author of the Book in which it is first mentioned would be sufficient to end all debate. Douglas J. Bender (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Douglas J. Bender (Elkhart, IN)

Shouldn't this factoid be on the main page? Nuwaubian Hotep 17:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Creator's universal wisdom

Set the gravitational constant to 616 instead of 666? Make this elusive universal constant 667 instead of 665? It is no problem with the correct Rev. 12 dragon and Rev. 13 beast interpretation. Why does the Controversy over Newton's Gravitational Constant persist to this day? Come on, isn't it the 21st century? Surely the physicists who worship 10-digit accuracy and precision can nail this beast down. But they unrelentlessly dragon. It was Galileo Galilei who first gravitated the Bible's wisdom mark, name, image, and number (Rev. 13:17, 14:11, 15:2) to Jesus himself, whom The Revelation of Jesus Christ is about.

Rev. 12 dragon

Gravitation's "G", the Letter of God, the mark.
Gravitation's "JESUS", the Word of God, the name.
Gravitation's "G'S US", the Sentence of God, the image.
Gravitation's ".666 x 10^-7 length^3/mass-time^2", the Wisdom of God, the number.

[seven heads (.0000000), three sixes (.666), ten horns (x 10), seven crowns (^-7), and tail third (length^3/mass-time^2) part]

Rev. 13 beast

Gravitation's "G", the Letter of God, the mark.
Gravitation's "JESUS", the Word of God, the name.
Gravitation's "G'S US", the Sentence of God, the image.
Gravitation's "666. x 10^-10 length^3/mass-time^2", the Wisdom of God, the number.

[seven heads (.0000000), three sixes (666.), ten horns (x 10), ten crowns (^-10), and tail third (length^3/mass-time^2) part]

Here's the facts: dragon = beast

Weights and measures changes affect buying and selling.
All students forced to learn and write the mark.
Image "G'S US" both speak "JESUS".
Universally "G" everywhere.
Book's about Jesus.
"G" worshipped.

New mass SI base unit prototype again? No, the debated SI definition: "The kilogram is the unit of mass; it is equal to the mass of 1/15 000 000 000 Newtonian constant of gravitation." The one used by Rev. John Michell and the other by Henry Cavendish weren't very scientific. Even the current one of the seven is still just a prototype, the only one. Go figure? Six six six (666), six one six (616), six six seven (667), six six five (665), take your pick, they're all right at high mass and low mass. But remember to power the beast's system with a dragon's notation. John

Logic

The number of a man .A man's number constitutes of two arms and two legs divided into three and a head, the abdomen and the thorax divided by the neck. These parts of the body are marked into the palm of the hand for it is the image of a man. Another place where we find such mark is on the lungs. The right side of the lungs contains two fissures and the left side one.

2/3=0.66666666..., 3/2=1.5, 1/15=0.06666..., 1/666=0.0015015015..., 2*3=6, 1/6=0.16665..., 1/5=0.2, 1/3=0.33333..., 5*3=15, 5+3=8

In the dream of king Nebuchadnezzar, the image of a man in the form of an idol in a set of five elements and a rock(which is three)a kingdom was given to him and looks like the same kingdom is given to the beast as well.(pride and idolatry).

18:22, 25 May 2007 [twentythreethousand]

"600+600+600+6= 1806 August 6, 1806- End of The Holy Roman Empire. Sometimes things aren't as big as they seem. 66.138.8.148 20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Lisa C."

How about Greeks ? Right now we're using the knowledge of Romans and Greeks.It's still their kingdom and it hasn't died.

00:30, 27 June 2007 twentythreethousand

The left hand is wealth and the right hand is life. According to the book of the Revelation the Devil puts wealth on the right hand.
The requirements of money for making a vow. Leviticus chapter 27.
The dragon is king over the children of pride(king over all that are proud).Book of Job chapter 41.

- Isnt it odd that everything in the bible from pillars of fire to floods to the star showing Jesus's birth is BLATENT, yet the whole 666 thing needs a huge amount of working out and research to notice. Sounds like reaching to me. ** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.63.167 (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The composition of a circle and the difference of the area of the circle and its' circumference from circle to circle by gradual

increment if pi equals 3 according to the bible.(digits of the radius being a whole number from one to infinity). Twentythreethousand 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The triangular number and the circle.2/3+2/3+2/3+2/3+2/3+2/3=4

Twentythreethousand (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1/7=14,28,57,14,28,57....

number of the hand:2+3+3+3+3=14 14*3=42 14/5=2.8 14*5=70 2/3*42=28 The moon is white in darkness,the sky is blue in the yellow sun and the trees are green in the purplish pink of the air and they are all inverted colors in the eyes of the computer and the shadow is the answer of the spirits. The anti-Christ is a shadow.666 is a shadow or a magnetic field or the finger prints. Twentythreethousand (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove the markup under the section "666 as a name"?

Can anyone explain that strange markup in the section "666 as a name" under the words "Adding the corresponding values yields 666, as shown:"? Is it TeX? If no one objects I will remove it. The information can be shown in a table instead. Davidimai 11:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Quoted text and reverts

I reverted an edit by an anonymous user that changed what was in quoted text. I think it is obvious why we shouldn't change quoted text. If we change quoted text, we are putting words in our sources mouth that simply are not there. Also, according to the manual of style, "This guideline does not apply to quoted text, which should be quoted exactly." So I'm curious why my revert was reverted?-Andrew c 13:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

666 in old testament removed from article. Why?

From 1 Kings:

14. Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was 666 talents of gold, 15 besides that which came from the explorers and from the business of the merchants, and from all the kings of the west and from the governors of the land.

This seems like critical information. The phrase "Let he who has wisdom" suggests that some text related with wisdom (like the Bible) is being used as the cipher for a code. Why was it removed? --Ryan Wise 14:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That is meaningless information. There is no trustworthy scholar who would accept that argument at all.--User:Anonymous

The fact that the same number appears in the Old Testament is demonstratably factual, and not subject to dispute. Do you think that it's a coincidence? You're welcome to add evidence to support that angle. The existance of the citation that I gave is fact. Try googling "Solomon 666" and you'll see that this issue has been noted and addressed numerous times, enough to be included as a popular reference, if nothing else. If you think that the reference is somehow unrelated to the usage in Revelations, you're more than welcome to cite your own scholars to explain why. --Ryan Wise 23:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also Solomon was said to have prayed to YEHOVAH for Wisdom and the 666 talents of gold comes from the merchants and in Revelation it says that people would not be able to buy or sell without getting the number 666 on their right hands or forheads.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.6.162.222 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 2 June 2007.

Also the Holy Scriptures says that YEHOVAH told Solomon that since he prayed for Wisdom and not Riches He was going to give him both. In Revelation it calls God the ALPHA and the OMEGA and it also says let he who has Wisdom calculate the number of the wild beast because it is a number for humans. 124.6.165.163 01:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark of the Beast and Mark of Commerce

This is my first post, so please be patient if I screw up. . .

I read the article on the Mark of the Beast, and was struck by the passage concerning the use of the number 666 as a mark of commerce

It appears to me that the reference to commerce would be incomprehensible to any reader who was not, already, familiar with Revelation because it fails to cite, quote or even mention the relevant passage from Revelation 13: (the following quote is from the New International Version):

"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name."

Rev. 13, verses 16-17.

Indeed, verses 16-17 are not mentioned at any point in the entire article about Mark of the Beast, but these two verses comprise about two-thirds of the Biblical material concerning the Mark of the Beast.Bonbga 16:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the section on Commerce be amended to insert this quotation (or, at least a summary of same) and that an introductory sentence be added to the section explaining that the attempted interpretation of this quotation has led to various theories about its meaning . . . then follow up with the material already presented.

Thoughts?

I agree that this Biblical quote should be added to the article itself. EnduranceRace 07:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

An alternative approach to understanding 666

In Rev 13:9, the author implores to the reader “he who has an ear, let him hear”. So consider the following clues to an understanding of the beasts of Revelation.

In Rev 10, John describes an angel holding a little scroll, with one foot planted in the sea and the other foot planted on the land.

Then in Rev 13, he describes not one, but two beasts, one from the sea and another from the earth. Two Old Testament prophets went to call the people of Nineveh to repent, Jonah from the sea via the belly of a whale as is well known, and then Nahum on the same mission 600 years later from the land. John may have been alluding to the OT prophets when describing the two beasts, but Christ was clearly equated with Jonah (Christ himself suggested he would be in the belly of the earth for three days just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale).

One of the simplest ways to disguise what you are saying is to say exactly the opposite. So consider the decoding of Chapter 13 presented below, remembering of course that as far as the Jewish authorities were concerned, Jesus was a blasphemer (the father and I are one), and contradicted (made war on) the OT ‘saints’ (no longer hate your enemies as they said, but rather love your enemies etc.).

If 333 represents a trinity of trilogies and established in Christ, 666 merely represents twice 333, the second advent of Christ. Any thinking man can see the trick of using the substitution of antonyms, so as to then simply calculate the number of the beast.

As John comments later when explaining the beast in Rev 17:8, the inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come again.

Revelation 13

1 And God stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw God’s anointed coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.

2 God’s anointed resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. To His anointed God gave his power and his throne and great authority.

3 One of the heads of God’s anointed seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed God’s anointed.

4 Men worshipped God because he had given authority to His anointed, and they also worshipped His anointed and asked, Who is like His anointed? Who can make war against him?

5 His anointed was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for three and a half years.

6 He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling-place and those who live in heaven.

7 He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.

8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship Jesus — all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

9 He who has an ear, let him hear.

10 If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.

11 Then I saw another of God’s anointed, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon.

12 He exercised all the authority of the first of God’s anointed on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first of God’s anointed, whose fatal wound had been healed.

13 And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men.

14 Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honour of God’s anointed who was wounded by the sword and yet lived.

15 He was given power to give breath to the image of the first of God’s anointed, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.

16 He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead,

17 so that no-one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the God’s anointed or the number of his name.

18 This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the God’s anointed, for it is man's number. His number is 666.

Sorry, but it was too hard to read. Reformat, so not running off page. Thanks. John

Interpretations

Name

Just want to point out a mess up. Nero Caesar and Neron Caesar aren't the same thing. The first is his real name and the second is his name with an extra nun. "In Hebrew, "Nero Caesar" is spelled “נרון קסר”, pronounced "Neron Qe[i]sar"." would be the statement I am referring to. Timjohn911 22:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A different perspective on "666" in the New Age

I added this link, and now I am undoing its removal, because it was not a "SPAM" insertion, it explains a viewpoint sustained by thousand of people which consider that the divine can speak to humankind even in our days, through our hearts and minds, not only trough old texts and prophecies. Kryon is perhaps the most known and recognized channelled messenger from angelic beings, in the same way as many "orthodox" religious people consider "normal" to receive messages from angels or God through prophets in a byblical context. I think that no one who respect free expression can consider improper or intrusive this kind of fresh news in a so stuck and manipulative subject. Thank you for respecting this other viewpoint. Gco 06:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

While NPOV is a very important part of Wikipedia, we also have to consider no original research, and the importance of verifiability (i.e. citing reliable sources). This goes for EL links as well. Linking to an external site that doesn't cite sources, that isn't reliable, and that puts forward original research is just as bad as inserting similar content into wikipedia. You may want to consider reading WP:EL. I believe that the link that you added does not meet our standards for inclusion on multiple levels. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Occurrence article.

The Number of the Beast (occurrence) articleis in pretty bad shape. Considering recent deletion trends on Wikipedia, it might be wise to re-merge that article, or else move it to a Talk subpage as a kind of "holding cell" for material of unclear relevance that lacks cites as to their importance. Any thoughts? SnowFire 21:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nero isn't 666.

Neron Cæsar, or nrwn qsr, wouldn't be 666, because according to gematria, when the letter Nun appears a second time in a word, it is known as a "Final", and takes the value of 700. Thus nrwn qsr would be 1316, not 666. If the number is accepted to be anything but 616, which would be nrw qsr, then the number can't refer to Nero. Timjohn911 22:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Where are you getting this information? Could you cite your source? We cannot publish original ideas here on wikipedia, so stuff like this needs to be verifiable. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this trustworthy encyclopedia. Both entries seem to agree with my conclusion. [[2]]or [[3]] Or perhaps this page [[4]] which also has the rule in the second paragraph. Timjohn911 22:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, we cannot use wikipedia as a reliable source, per WP:RS. Next, I saw nothing in that last link that mentioned Nero. Unfortunately, it is original research to publish your own conclusions from your own Gematria here on wikipedia. We need to cite sources making these claims, otherwise it is original research. Also, do you have a citation for the 1998 claim? That is a rather interesting proposal, and I think it would be a good bit of information to include because obviously the world hasn't ended yet. However, we can't simply add random theories. They need to be cited. This article has been a magnet for people trying to put any random theory or post original thoughts, so please excuse me if I have become a bit jaded. Seriously though, we need sources behind all of these claims in order to include them. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright I'll try to find something published along those lines. The 1998 edit I did was just fixing a typo, I assumed that there was already a citation for it. The 3rd source I posted has the rule that I refer to but I haven't found anything published that points out the flaw in the "Neron Caesar" arguement. Timjohn911 02:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Found a site, unfortunately it is extremely biased, but with such controversial subjects you rarely find an unbiased source. It does make an interesting point about the author though, right after supporting my conclusion. John wrote in Greek. When he wanted something to be in Hebrew he wrote it in Hebrew specifically. Although that may not be enough evidence to throw out the possibility of Gematria based codes, it should be noted. [[5]] Timjohn911 02:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

no mention of Babylonian God - 666

The article doesnot mention anything about ancient Babylonian(todays Iraq) God and its relation with 666. Someone should add something regarding it. --Itsalif 23:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Other Interpretations

Certainly this is a very valid "Other Interpretation" which stands completely on it's own in just one paragraph. If there is a section entitled "Other Interpretations" then this entry is valid complete with references to a book which has a circulation of over 6 million called "Jehovah's Witnesses- Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" as well as implied references to the bible scriptures themselves. Everything written here is true. How can it therefore be an attack?

An additional name called "God's Spirit Directed Organization" is a part of the baptismal vows made by Jehovah's Witnesses. The other names being 1/ the name of the father and 2/ the name of the son. If "God's Spirit Directed Organization" is the name of the wild beast then the number of it's name can therefore be calculated by determining how "God's Spirit Directed Organization" is organized! The number of it's name would therefore be a man's number. On page 109 of the book "Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" the organization is described as requiring 6 commitees globally, a similar requirement in regional branches (the next 6) and a total of 6 overseers in each local congregation...... 666^[1]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.135.64.116 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 27 September 2007

I'd ask you to read WP:OR and WP:RS. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original ideas, or ideas that haven't been presented in notable, "reliable" sources. Blogs are not considered reliable, because they are self-published. While this may be "True", wikipedia does not operate on "The Truth", but instead only what is verifiable, per out policy WP:V. Presenting personal interpretations like this that are not attributed to reliable sources is not following wikipedia policies. I hope you understand. Here is what you can do, you can try to find a better source for this content to site that isn't a blog. If the view isn't sourced in anything better, then it doesn't belong on wikipedia (and if the view isn't notable, we get into WP:NPOV concerns, by giving undue weight to a fringe view). Anyway, hope this helps explain why I reverted you. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd ask you to read the paragraph again. It's source is a book named "Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom". It has a distribution of aproximately 6 million. Is that not reliable enough? It also indirectly quotes scripture eg; " number of it's name" Revelation Ch13:17 and;"a man's number" Revelation Ch13:18. The bible has a distribution of over 1 billion! Is that not reliable? All of the other views are less notable than this one which directly answers the question posed in the scripture! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.239.60 (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative visions

What about to add such item with link http://my666.boom.ru/666_en.html FYI, This article is much more reliable than even bible!

That speaks AntiChrist, who was born to be free! Who was born under sign 666!!!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickols k (talk • contribs) 08:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

wrong translations of the bible. "ψηφισάτω", does it mean "count" or "vote" ?

ωδε η σοφια εστιν ο εχων νουν ψηφισατω τον αριθμον του θηριου αριθμος γαρ ανθρωπου εστιν και ο αριθμος αυτου χξς. Try to learn Greek and translate the word ψηφισατω. Is it count, or is it vote ? There is no one who refuses that the word "ψηφισάτω" also means "vote". At the same time everyone who translates the Bible in English translates it as "count" or "calculate". I mean everybody, and this is very strange, really. If the writer really wanted to say "count" he could use a lot of other synonyms, like "μετρησάτω", "υπολογισάτω" e.t.c. But if he wanted to say "vote", there is only one way to say it, it is "ψηφισάτω". How do you explain the fact that , although everyone knows that "ψηφισάτω" also means vote, none dares to translate it like that? Before translating the bible, let me remind you how serious the translation is. Let me remind you the curse of the writer of the apocalypse: "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the wood of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicsies (talk • contribs) 07:42, 16 November 2007

If you're so concerned about this why don't you show some sourced info from say the Anchor Bible or the JBL? Carl.bunderson 07:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

there is only ONE source, the Greek prototype. If you are able to read it, read it and then you will understand what I am talking about. If you are ignorant of the one and only language of the Apocalypse, please stop talking about it and mislead others.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicsies (talk • contribs) 08:11, 16 November 2007

Yeah, I can' read Koine Greek. But I honestly have no way of knowing that you do either. If you could show me that someone who is peer-reviewed in a scholarly journal agrees with what you're saying, it can be included. But until that time, what you've written in this talk page can't go on the main page because it's original research in the eyes of WP. But what you have put on the main page is fine. I see nothing wrong with including the original Greek for those who can read it. Carl.bunderson 08:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Do this experiment: Go find ANY scholar and ask him what the Koine Greek word "ψηφίζω" means, without telling him that it refers to the bible. Almost everyone will immediately say to you that it means "vote". Then kindly ask him to tell you the imperative moods of the verb "ψηφίζω", you will get "ψηφισάτω". Then point to the bible, ask him to translate it while watching his eyes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicsies (talk • contribs) 08:22, 16 November 2007

The burden of proof is on you, not me. Find a source. Carl.bunderson 08:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a source. [6]. Watch the possible definitions (and translations) of the word (psefizo) "ψηφίζω".

Definitions

1. to count with pebbles, to compute, calculate, reckon

2. to give one's vote by casting a pebble into the urn

3. to decide by voting

Translations

1. count

2. calculate

Everyone agrees that "vote" is one of the alternative definitions of the word "psefizo". But among millions of different English translations of the bible, there is no one saying that "vote" may be the alternative translation. I honestly find this very strange, and I would like someone to give an explanation, if has any.

I can only give one explanation on this. If the mark of the beast is considered as "money" (some people claim that), then "vote for money" makes absolute sense. At the same time, the idea to vote for money instead of having one money maker authority deciding what money is, remains very dangerous for all governments. So governments decided to censor this alternative translation. What do you think?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicsies (talk • contribs) 08:44, 16 November 2007

First of all, it is very important to sign your comments. This was other users can keep track of who is saying what. In fact, this is a requirement for using talk pages, and is written on the top of every talk page edit window (This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).)

Next, when you say But among millions of different English translations of the bible, there is no one saying that "vote" may be the alternative translation. this is the exact reason why we cannot make your changes. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original thought, because we have policies against original research. We also must give all notable views due weight, according to our neutral point of view policy. Therefore, if, in your own words, "millions of different English translations of the bible" say something, and "no one" is saying what you want to put in the article, then we clearly are giving undue weight to a fringe view. We can only try to accurately represent the majority, which we both agree is clearly not "vote". On top of that, all content needs to be verifiable. We must have a reliable source which states that this particular passage can be translated X. We currently cite the KJV, which is one of the most common translations of the bible in English. Trying to cite a Greek dictionary cannot work here, because it is original research, especially in light of the fact that the vast majority of scholars and bible translations use a different definition. Please take all of this under consideration, and try to understand what wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own theories, nor is it the place to try to correct some sort of translation error that you, and you alone have caught. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that many people caught the translation error, but all of them have been censored, the way you are censoring me now.

I am removing the wrong translation for the last time. If you insist reverting it, then its your crime.

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the wood of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book"'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicsies (talk • contribs) 17:32, 16 November 2007

Did you read my first paragraph about signing your posts? Did something I write confuse you? Do you have any questions about how we "sign" our posts on wikipedia? Next, please do not edit war or insert content that there is no consensus to add. Wikipedia is a community of volunteers who work together. Controversial or disputed content cannot be added against consensus. Also, did you bother to read any of the links I cited above. You seem to not understand what wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is NOT the place for you to publish your own personal beliefs. Period. It simply isn't. If that is censorship, then yes, wikipedia censors original thought, and it is clearly stated in our policies what is and isn't allowed. Please stop using wikipedia as a soapbox. There are multiple other online forums where you can do this. Consider getting a blog perhaps? Thanks for understanding, and if you have any questions about policy, or how wikipedia works, please feel free to ask.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Look. We are taking about ACCURATE TRANSLATION here! Not about personal beliefs! For goodness' sake, translating a text is an objective thing! I really wonder why you keep the wrong translation. Is there someone who can seriously claim that "psefizo" does not also mean "vote"? The truth is as simple as that: You are doing a wrong (or at least half wrong) translation in order to support your personal beliefs. As you said: Wikipedia is NOT the place for you to publish your (or your government's or your religious leader's) beliefs.Wikipedia is a place where translations should be accurate. Xicsies (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the WP policies to which Andrew has guided you. When all, or practically all English Bibles use the same word in translation, chances are it is not wrong. Please find a scholarly source, per Andrew: "Trying to cite a Greek dictionary cannot work here, because it is original research, especially in light of the fact that the vast majority of scholars and bible translations use a different definition." If you want to post unverified information on the net, please go to Blogspot. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

He who has an ear, let him hear. Do you have an ear?

Please, start using WP for what it's meant to be, or leave for a blog. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

χξϛʹ and not χξς

The correct form in greek numerals is χξϛʹ: χʹ (chi)=600, ξʹ (xi) =60 and ϛʹ (stigma) =6. The sign following the last numeral [ʹ] is keraia, a prime, which indicates that the preceding letters function as numerals. Although the prime might not be necessary in english context, as it's quite clear that χξϛ is a number, not some greek word, it is crucial that we use the correct character for the number 6: ϛ, called στίγμα (stigma, capital in Unicode: Ϛ) is the greek numeral for 6, whereas ς is the final sigma (Σ σ ς) which is only used at the end of words instead of lowercase sigma. The similarity of the two glyphs can be quite confusing, but the former is drawn with a longer top stroke, whereas the latter has a shorter stroke with a serif. When capitalised ς becomes Σ. Σ has a numeral value of 200 not 6. Check Greek numerals for more... Propago (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Additionally, there are some semicolons in between... Of course the semicolon in Greek is ' instead of ; but I added ; on purpose for the English-speaking to be able to read.

Diocletian

Should there be a reference to Diocletian? According to this BBC article he has been linked to the number. It doesn't give any ref for its info though. Malick78 (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would include just a sentence, citing that, in the "other suggested names" section. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

existing content?

The 666 number calculated by English Gematria based on the English alphabet x6 has some other key values which have the same values. But to get more insight into this the bigger picture needs to be considered. For example Jesus in Greek, the language the New Testament was written in, has the value of 888 in Greek Gematria, which is translated from Greek to English letter by letter as IESOUS.

So the key value of 888 means something significant and should be considered if it comes up. In the English Gematria x 6 key values of 888 come up.

English Gematria = 888

Scriptures = 888

Old Testament = 888

Gods Anointing = 888

Language Miracles = 888

Antichrist Code = 888 (code to calculate the antichrist/beast)

Another value of significance are same values, such as the value for Jesus = 444 in the English Gematria.

Jesus = 444

English = 444

Gematria = 444

The Key = 444

Jewish = 444

Messiah = 444

Cross = 444

Gospel = 444

Ruler = 444

Beast Code = 444

DCLXVI = 444 (666 in Roman numerals)

Cross reference to ASCII code has lower case "holy" = 444.

With putting this computer code into a program, the programmer easily will use the ASCII code. The letter "A" in ascii code has the value of 65. As the English Gematria x 6 starts with A=1 then x6 which is 6, and continues to Z=26 then x 6 which is 156. God = 156 in this, and has the quote as being the Alpha and the Omega, which are the first and last Greek alphabet letters, to signify "I am the Beginning and the End".

So in order to use ASCII code the letter "A" needs to be made to equal 1, then multiplied by 6. The value of "A" is 65 and so simply subtracting 64 gives the value of 1. Since all the letters are in order, they will automatically fit this simple formula. But to go further, all characters from ASCII can be inherited to this same formula. The only catch is that those values below 65 will now have a negative or zero value as for the "@" character.

All the numbers such as 1, 2, 3, etc have these values in ASCII 1 = 49 2 = 50 3 = 51

When subtracting 64 from these they become negatives, with 49 - 64 = -15 and 50 - 64 = -14. These will in fact subtract from the tally instead of add to it, so a function called absolute value will add them up together.

However do note that the equals sign "=" has the value of 61 in ascii, and subtracting 64 gives it the value of 3. Multiplied by 6 it is 18.

From here note that 888 + 18 = 906. In this same English Gematria x 6, we get some interesting key words of the value of 906.

Holy Spirit = 906

Jesus Christ = 906

Jesus is Lord = 906

Code Programmer = 906

Also note that 18 is 6+6+6 and is showing equals as pointing to 666 from another angle. And also that the letter "C" = 18, and the modern shortened text message short hand uses the letter "C" to mean "SEE" as in the use your eyes to see something, or to conceptually SEE something with the understanding of your mind.

Another point to note, with the inherited ascii code characters, the quotes character (") also gets a value and is often used to show the containment of key words such as... "IESOUS" = 888 including the two quotes!

So these signs within the English Language show a design for this to be so embedded into the English language at the creation of the English Alphabet. However, do note, that English is a newer language, and in fact is using the LATIN ALPHABET, with very slight evolution of the letter U inserted beside V.

So this design means that something intelligent has wanted these things to be revealed in the time of the computers, with foreknowledge that English will be a common language.

So who or what could do such a thing? Is it beyong ancient man to do this maths for the Gematria? Does it prove that there is God just because it exists? Does it prove that Jesus is not a myth and is very real?

Another thing now all characters will ahve a value in this Beast Code, (used to calculate the number of the beast) with the 888 value showing some divine seal values.

By subtraction we get some interesting values with the key verse to Calculate the number of the beast in Revelation 13:18 with it also mentioning the value of 666 as being the number of a man. "Revelation 13:18" minus "666" = 888!!!

These would tend to suggest that this coded gematria has a divine seal to be the code to reveal the antichrist/beast with the number 666.

However other factors show that ASCII code which is case sensitive, having both lower case and upper case (captital letters), and in this development of ASCII, first capital letters were used on the early computers such as the Commodore 64 and the TRS-80 Radio Shack computers.

In this HOLY BIBLE = 666, which suggests that even though the bible itself warns of the 666, that the bible itself is actually used by the antichrist to do the opposite of Christ's original message, which was to love one another. To love our enemies. To forgive others. In fact Jesus said by their fruits you shall know my disciples, by their love one for another. In the bigger picture, this is the true spiritual battle of hearts and minds, by being an example of this love. Indeed loving our neighbour as ourself is the key cornerstone of good will to others without any double standards nor hypocrisy, but all as equals.

Jesus finished by saying love one another as I have loved you.

By which, if the words of Jesus were put into practice by all who are supposed to follow his ways, they would not be taking up weapons and waging war for bloodshed, but instead being living examples of peace by kindness and good will to all mankind. Thus put into practice would be Jesus words seeds bearing fruit as they become ripe for the harvest, with the harvest being that all would then have the mind of Christ. And would reject the ideas of bloodshed and war as by the antichrist. With the verse from Isaiah coming to pass whereby it says,

"they shall beat their swords into pruning hooks and they shall war no more."

Which might well be achieved if all the money spent on war budgets and military equipment went towards feeding the world in good will, then none would have any reason to wage war.

As for some idea of how the English Language and the English bible came to be you can see these in a 2 part YouTube video exerps from a documentary of "A Journey in English". click on the following link to see this 2 part video which is less than 20 minutes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WagGv_Qdmfc

Categories: Talk archives