User talk:Raquel666

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Number of the Beast

Hi! I have reverted your (repeated) addition of the remark about the translation of χάραγμα. Not only was it formulated in a manner inconsistent with WP:NPOV, but I also could not find any support for the claim in that lexicon. The website you provided was unhelpful (well, blatantly wrong and non-notable, actually). Please read WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:EL for more information. —xyzzyn 09:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That you know, or believe to know, something does not justify inclusion here. Restating your theory does not constitute an improvement. As for the reference I gave, please read it yourself before (falsely) asserting I had not read it.
Rev. 16:2 reads thusly:
“ Καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ἐξέχεεν τὴν φιάλην αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν γῆν: καὶ ἐγένετο ἕλκος κακὸν καὶ πονηρὸν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς ἔχοντας τὸ χάραγμα τοῦ θηρίου+ καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας τῇ εἰκόνι αὐτοῦ. ”
In English, the translation looks like this:
“ And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image. ”
Liddell and Scott state:
“ A. any mark engraved, imprinted, or branded, […] ἔχειν τὸ χ. τοῦ θηρίου Apoc.16.2 , cf. 13.16; ”
Liddell and Scott then give another translation, as ‘money’, as follows:
“ 2. stamped money, coin, AP5.29 (Antip.Thess.), POxy.144.6 (vi A. D.). ”
Feel free to look for the manuscript to which they refer by yourself. That website only gives its title as ‘P.Oxy. 1.32. Latin letter to a tribunus militum’; how you conclude from this that this translation could be better applied to the verse in question than the one explicitly given in the same entry is obscure to me.
Regardless, unless you can find a reliable source that has published your theory, it has no place in an encyclopedia, including this one. By the way, please do read the policies which I pointed out above.
—xyzzyn 00:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't get it, look at the CONTEXT: "No one buys or sells (BUYS OR SELLS) without the MONEY of the beast on/in mind or hand." Liddell and Scott are telling the context of the words or the places they appear in documents under translations throughout the ages.

Antipater Thessalonicensis wrote at the same time as the Revelation was composed (66 AD) and POxy.144.6 was written in the Fourth Century AC, which means that the greek word χάραγμα meant MONEY at the time Revelations was written.

Liddel-Scott are only documenting how the word had meaning at the times specified. As you know, words change meanings over time. χάραγμα meant MONEY at the time the "Revelation" was written.

The bible "scholars" mistranslated the word χάραγμα like they do with the Aramaic word Mammon,which is only translated correctly in the New Oxford English Bible. (Or "Logos" is NOT translated as Logic in John 1:1.)

Jesus-Christ (if he existed) said, "You can't serve God & MONEY [mammon is an Aramaic word for money] ... but the Pharisees, who loved money (philarguron) heard all this and scoffed." Like you're scoffing too. (See Luke 16.)

Jesus also told his disciples, like the Buddha did, to not carry and gold, silver, script or brass in their purse.

Jesus also said, "Who's picture is on the $$$?" Caesar's!

Also, xyzzy_n, I am NOT skilled at formatting.

You allow the Jehovah's Witnesses and several others to voice their opinion you should NOT censor mine just because I am self-published.

PLEASE HELP ME FORMAT MY OPINION. God will bless you. I have donated $$$ to Wikipedia before too and will again. Please don't censor my opinion: look at the context. χάραγμα was known as money when Revelation was written. (2. stamped money, coin, AP5.29 (Antip.Thess.)

Peace, Love & Truth, Raquel

I don’t need to ‘get it’ or ‘look at the CONTEXT’; my earlier comment on your theory was a matter of courtesy, not related to the article (and I will not spend any more time on the theory than absolutely necessary). It is policy on Wikipedia to present topics on which there is no definitive point of view (i. e. just about everything outside of science) by presenting the points of view proportionally to their support. This means that the JWs’ position gets a mention, because they are a fairly large and reasonably well known group and some opinions of people who are not by themselves known are mentioned because they seem to be supported by reasonably notable organisations, while your view, which is your research, published on your homepage, fails the reliability check and stays out of the article.
For your information, I neither allow nor censor anything; however, I do try to ensure that articles which I edit comply with Wikipedia’s policies on content. Currently, I neither see any way to have your view in the article without it breaching policy nor any need to tolerate such a breach.
Please read WP:NOT and find a more worthwhile way to contribute to Wikipedia (or promote your theory elsewhere; apparently you have already discovered Usenet, which, I think, is far better suited for your purposes). —xyzzyn 22:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, xyzzy_n, you DO need to look at the context and the definition of chargma. I may not have a following like the Jehovah's Witnesses do but I'm right and you ARE a Pharissitical censor of the truth!

I'll bet you hide your theory in the page somewhere. Like, why do these people get their theory in and not me? Who the hell are they?!

  • Keith Krell interprets the mark as a requirement for all commerce to mean that the mark might actually be an object with the function of a credit card.[13]
  • Steven D. Miller proposes that the mark of the beast may refer to a social security number or card.[14]
  • Terry Watkins supposes the mark to be a microchip or barcode in or on the human body.[15]

What good are their references? My reference comes from the Unabridged Greek-English Lexicon by Lidell and Scott.

Peace & Love, Raquel

No, it doesn’t (and truth is not a standard for inclusion). —xyzzyn 06:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My reference to the context and definition of Charagma = MONEY comes from the Unabridged greek-English Lexicon by Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon you can see a JPEG image of it on my website: http://www.666ismoney.com/

You don't care about Truth, like a Pharisee you crucify the Logos-Logic of God!

[edit] Problematic edits

You need to change your signature. As WP:USERNAME points out, "Promotional usernames ... used to promote a group or company on Wikipedia." are inappropriate. Your signature is advertising for a webpage, and violates the spirit of our guidelines. I'd ask you kindly to alter your signature text to remove the reference to the webpage.

I also noticed your edit to Number of the beast which introduced what appears to be your own hypothesis into the article. This flies in the face of WP:NOR and WP:COI. Please do not use wikipedia to publish your own ideas, or to advertise for your webpage. I otherwise welcome you to make constructive edits that help to improve the encyclopedia!-Andrew c [talk] 22:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)