# 666 or 616



## openairboy (May 7, 2005)

Just saw this...what ya'll think?

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=634679


----------



## RamistThomist (May 7, 2005)

I thought everybody with a study bible with footnotes knew that.


----------



## openairboy (May 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I thought everybody with a study bible with footnotes knew that.



Is it still Nero?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Yes.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 7, 2005)

616 was just a transliteration in the later Latin Vulgate to key into Latin Gematria who the book writers thought the Anti-Christ was... aka Nero. 666 is still viable as the Vulgate is not the oldest, most original Bible translation. I think there are many Anti-Christs past and present... look at the little epistles of John! There is an Anti-Christ spirit which dwells in them all.

[Edited on 5-7-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Wthompson (May 7, 2005)

I'd not heard of the 616 thing. If Nero was the Anti-Christ though...that would necessitate the rest of Revelations coming true shortly thereafter. I don't remember New Jerusalem coming anywhere in my history books.

I Agree with the WCF. The Pope of Rome is the Anti-Christ. 

However, I heard some nutcase babble on a while ago about some complicated number system that would predict which Pope would be the final one or something to that extent.

I think all such endeavours in number calculation etc. are lunacy. We have all the information at hand that he may be revealed in his time. Certainly, as the prophecy comes to pass and after it has come to pass it will be quite clear to us.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 7, 2005)

I have known os 616 as alternate reading for about fifteen years now. They changed it as they transcribed/translated it so that it would fit Nero. This ethicity of that aside, it is still Nero, in my humble, partialpreaterist opinion.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Wthompson_
> I Agree with the WCF. The Pope of Rome is the Anti-Christ.





Postscript: According to Ken Salazar, Demoncratic [sic] Congressman from Colorado, Focus on the Family is Antichrist. Of course, he did apologize for that remark...


----------



## cornelius vantil (May 7, 2005)

ken grentry in his book "before jerusalem fell" has an good section dealing with the number of the beast and presenting a convincing case it was nero and non else


----------



## andreas (May 7, 2005)

Quote:***ken grentry in his book "before jerusalem fell" has an good section dealing with the number of the beast and presenting a convincing case it was nero and non else***

Never mind what mr Gentry says.What saith the scriptures?

"And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.
And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God".Zechariah 13:8-9

The number of the beast corresponds to the two thirds that shall be cut off and die.

andreas.


----------



## Wthompson (May 8, 2005)

Interesting for you to have the Name of Van Til as I'm pretty sure Van Til sided with me on this one

If you want to get down to it. J.A. Wylie in his book (Later added to and ammended by Dr. Ian Paisley) "The Papacy is the AntiChrist" makes a quite convincing case that it is the Pope and none else. Luther and Calvin both agree with me on that point as well as Knox and all of the other reformers...lets not forget the Puritans too since this is the Puritan board!

[Edited on 5-8-2005 by Wthompson]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 8, 2005)

context context context


----------



## openairboy (May 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Wthompson_
> I'd not heard of the 616 thing. If Nero was the Anti-Christ though...that would necessitate the rest of Revelations coming true shortly thereafter. I don't remember New Jerusalem coming anywhere in my history books.
> 
> I Agree with the WCF. The Pope of Rome is the Anti-Christ.
> ...



Which "pope"? Now, if you place the 'pope' to be in the time of the WCF, then doesn't it follow that the "new jerusalem" would be there shortly after? I don't remember any "new jerusalem" coming in my history books 'shortly after'! Now, the "new jerusalem" is after the millennium, so even if you place the majority of Revelation into a first century conext, preterism, you aren't left in a vacuum with no 'new jerusalem'. Rather you see it occuring in it's proper place, after the millennium.

Anyway, I don't use study Bibles, so I was unaware of the 616 reference. The fact that it was a latin issue changes the discussion. Now, if it is really a greek issue, then it would have to change Mr Gentry's analysis, assuming he doesn't discuss the 616 take.

openairboy


----------



## RamistThomist (May 8, 2005)

> Quote:***ken grentry in his book "before jerusalem fell" has an good section dealing with the number of the beast and presenting a convincing case it was nero and non else***
> 
> Never mind what mr Gentry says.What saith the scriptures?
> 
> ...



That's assuming that everybody is sharing the same presuppositions as you, a point I am not willing to grant.
You and Paul went back and forth on this before, I am not resurrecting that debate. 
Further,
partpret does not demand that ALL the events happpen in AD70, hence the name PARTIAL. I can still affirm that new Jerusalem is to come (which, I see to be the renewal of the world).


----------



## cornelius vantil (May 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> Quote:***ken grentry in his book "before jerusalem fell" has an good section dealing with the number of the beast and presenting a convincing case it was nero and non else***
> 
> Never mind what mr Gentry says.What saith the scriptures?
> ...



where do you get that? who does zech 13:8-9 correspond at all with passage in rev. where the mark of the beast? that is a huge leap brother.


----------



## andreas (May 9, 2005)

"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." Revelation 13:18


Herminio,

First ,notice that it says the number of man and not the number of a man.
Secondly, how do you count the number?You can only count it as a fraction of the total number,in this case the total number of humanity.We are told that 2/3 will be lost,and 1/3 will be saved.The ones that are lost, correspond to the 2/3 fraction of the total humanity,and 2/3 ,as a fraction is 666.

andreas.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 9, 2005)

Are you interpreting the clear by the unclear?


----------



## Fernando (May 10, 2005)

*man or a man?*

Andreas, the very translation you cite uses "a man" not "man." If John had wanted to say "man" in a universal sense he would probably have used the plural 'anthropoi' or at least the singular 'anthropos' preceded by the article. As it is, he used the anarthrous 'anthropos' which very naturally translates as "a man."


----------



## andreas (May 10, 2005)

The translation may say the number of a man, but in the original it says the number of man.
andreas.

[Edited on 5-10-2005 by andreas]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 10, 2005)

The original?


----------



## andreas (May 10, 2005)

Quote:***Are you interpreting the clear by the unclear?***

May be unclear to you ,but the mark of the beast is the number whose master is the beast.We are clearly told that only 1/3 will be saved, and these are the elect.The rest (2/3), are not saved ,and they belong to the beast. The fraction 2/3, equals 666.
andreas.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 10, 2005)

Apparently every single translation available has erred in saying it is the number of "a man" or "a person", then.


----------



## andreas (May 10, 2005)

1991 Byzantine Greek Text

1881 Westcott-Hort Greek Text 

1550/1894 Textus Receptus


All the above tell us THE NUMBER OF MAN.Look up the rest for yourself if you have any doubts.

andreas.


----------



## andreas (May 10, 2005)

Quote:***Are you interpreting the clear by the unclear?***

I am still waiting for you to tell us how you count the number of man, if you are only given a single number(666).

andreas.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 10, 2005)

Yes, the number of man. And HIS number is 666 ... Sounds like a person to me.


----------



## andreas (May 10, 2005)

The number of MAN is not the same as the number of A MAN.
Do not add words or letters that are not present in the word of God.
andreas.


----------



## andreas (May 10, 2005)

wde h sofia estin o ecwn ton noun yhfisatw ton ariqmon tou qhriou ariqmoV gar anqrwpou estin kai o ariqmoV autou cxV  Rev 13:18

andreas.


----------



## andreas (May 10, 2005)

Quote:***It sounds like a person to me.***


"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."2 Peter 1:20-21

andreas.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> "And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.
> And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God".Zechariah 13:8-9
> 
> ...




This may come as a disappointment to you, but the fraction 2/3 does NOT equal 666, even if you round it off to 3 decimal places. And that's not your only problem:

First, you are in error by moving the decimal place 6 spots to the right. The number six-hundred-sixty-six is 6 orders of magnitude larger than *.*666 --- which is six-hundred-sixty-six-thousandths. You have no Biblical support for substituting a fractional number (less than one) for 666, which is a LOT bigger than one.

Second, to my knowledge, the decimal system wasn't even *invented* yet when John wrote Revelation. So he had no conception of a "decimal point" with 3 sixes after it. (Or are you suggesting there was a hidden "Bible Code" here? . . . pick up the phone, Mike Drosnin and Grant Jeffrey . . .)

Finally, as I mentioned to begin with, the fraction "2/3" does NOT equal .666 when converted to decimals. It actually equals an _infinite_ number of sixes after the decimal point. And even if you *do* round it off to three decimal places, it comes to .667, NOT .666 --- Your eschatological math just doesn't add up.

The beast was Nero, In my humble opinion.




[Edited on 5-10-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Fernando (May 10, 2005)

*man or a man*

Andreas,
Greek doesn't have the indefinite article, so a noun without the "definite" article is normally translated using the English indefinite article 'a'. There is more to it than that, but you need to study some Greek before you make authoritative statements about the translation of Rev 13:18.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 10, 2005)

Thank you. Sheesh.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 10, 2005)

American Vision.org




> *The Mark of the Beast"”666 or 616?*
> By Gary DeMar
> 
> A fragment from the oldest surviving copy of the New Testament shows that the number of the Beast of Revelation 13 is 616. Ellen Aitken, a professor of early Christian history at McGill University, states that "œthe majority opinion seems to be that it refers to [the Roman emperor] Nero."1 The early fragment supports the view that Revelation was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and whether the number is 666 or 616, the number is a reference to Nero and not some end-time antichrist figure. Only time will tell how this discovery will affect dispensationalism.
> ...



[Edited on 5-10-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## cornelius vantil (May 10, 2005)

666= 2/3 = those killed? sounds like i am back in Dispensational land 

[Edited on 5-10-2005 by cornelius vantil]


----------



## andreas (May 10, 2005)

Quote:***There is more to it than that, but you need to study some Greek before you make authoritative statements about the translation of Rev 13:18.***

I am Greek. 

andreas.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> Quote:***There is more to it than that, but you need to study some Greek before you make authoritative statements about the translation of Rev 13:18.***
> 
> I am Greek.
> ...



Okay, maybe you need to study some English then?


----------



## andreas (May 11, 2005)

"Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of Man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;" Romans 2:9

"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart Of Man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.1 Corr.2:9

IN ROMANS AND CORINTHIANS WE HAVE THE SAME EXACT WORD AS IN REVELATION 13.

andreas.


----------



## andreas (May 11, 2005)

Quote:***Finally, as I mentioned to begin with, the fraction "2/3" does NOT equal .666 when converted to decimals. It actually equals an infinite number of sixes after the decimal point. And even if you *do* round it off to three decimal places, it comes to .667, NOT .666 --- Your eschatological math just doesn't add up.***


Throughout history the number of the unsaved is 2/3, and the number of the saved is1/3.These are fractions of the total number.We have to count them as fractions, because there is no way you can count a number by itself,but you can count it as a fraction of the total.Please forget about the decimals,for we are not dealing with literal numbers but symbolic numbers.

andreas.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 11, 2005)

But the symbolic number of 2/3rds would be 667.


----------



## andreas (May 11, 2005)

Two divided by three = 0.66666666...............

We can continue ad naseum.It is the facts you consider,and you either accept or reject them.

andreas.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> Two divided by three = 0.66666666...............
> 
> We can continue ad naseum.It is the facts you consider,and you either accept or reject them.
> ...



Someone obviously never paid attention in math class.

1) If you go on "ad naseum" as you said, then you end up with a lot more than 3 sixes. In fact, you end up with an infinite number of them. So if you go on "ad naseum", then it won't match the "666" of Revelation, will it?

2) However, if you round off to 3 digits, you get ".667", NOT ".666". Ask ANY math professor in college, high school, or ANYWHERE.

You are arbitrarily choosing to round off incorrectly, so that you can force a square peg into a round hole. But sorry, 2/3 rounded off to 3 digits is .667, not .666. That's the way it has always been and always will be.

Your math is incorrect. If you don't believe me, then ask a math professor. Or simply go online to an elementary mathematics website and lookup "rounding off numbers". It's not rocket science. My dad teaches his 4th graders and 5th graders how to do it in the classroom.

I can't believe I'm actually having to tell someone how to round off a number in this forum.

Andreas, I'm the one giving you the mathematical facts. You can either accept them or reject them.


----------



## andreas (May 12, 2005)

We are not dealing with literal numbers but symbolic numbers and what applies to the literal does not apply to symbolism.
andreas.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 12, 2005)




----------



## andreas (May 12, 2005)

You have obviously paid a lot of attention in your maths classes as you tell us,but i have not seen you explain HOW YOU COUNT THE NUMBER, as we are asked to do.In other words,please tell us how you calculate,and evaluate the number. Could it be that the maths expert has no answer or could it be that we are not dealing with a mathematical problem,since we are given ONLY ONE NUMBER. How do you count one number?PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US.

andreas.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 12, 2005)

It isn't "one number" in Greek, actually. It is not "666" but 600, 60, 6. Check my lenghty quotation of Gary Demar above, for how you calculate the number, friend.


----------



## andreas (May 13, 2005)

To be specific,it is not actually numbers as you say,but letters,chi, xi ,sigma, of the Greek alphabet, representing numbers respectively 600, 60 and 6. In other words, six hundred and sixty and six as a numeral. I keep telling you, that i am not interested in what man says,but what the word of God says.Learned christians can give us direction but that is all.
andreas.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (May 13, 2005)

*off topic*

Anyone seen David Reed's new website ?

http://www.leftbehindanswered.com


----------



## BobVigneault (May 13, 2005)

Thanks for the link Kerry. On David Reed's website he quotes Martin Luther as saying that the 'abomination of desolation' is the image of Caligula set up in the temple. Though Caligula intended that to happen, it never came about because Caligula was mudered.

So what do you eschatologists believe is the 'abomination that causes desolation' and why did Luther think Caligula succeeded?


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> We are not dealing with literal numbers but symbolic numbers and what applies to the literal does not apply to symbolism.
> andreas.



That's precisely why your 2/3 comment makes no sense. You only get from "two thirds" to "666" by fudging the math in literal numbers. 

BTW, where does it say to multiply by 1000?

[Edited on 5-13-2005 by tcalbrecht]


----------



## RamistThomist (May 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> I keep telling you, that i am not interested in what man says,but what the word of God says.Learned christians can give us direction but that is all.
> andreas.



Are you trying to give us direction?


----------



## andreas (May 13, 2005)

I am not trying to give you anything.I can not give you the truth.That comes solely from the spirit of God,through the word of God.

andreas.


----------



## andreas (May 14, 2005)

I will try once more to  what i mean by the 2/3,and 666.


The number originally had its beginning in Zechariah 13, where it says in verse 8: "Two-thirds I will cut off and destroy, but one-third" And it goes on to speak about the redemption of the one-third. 

We also read about David, when he defeated the Moabites, that he caused them to lie down in three lines. Two of the lines he put to death. One line he spared, and they served him. David there was a type of Christ as Messiah, the two-thirds a figure of those who are under the judgment of God, the one-third a figure of those who are saved.

In II Kings 1 we read of Elijah, that he was sent for by the wicked king of Israel. And a company of men came to take him, and he called down fire from heaven, and they were destroyed. A second company of men came to take him, and he called down fire from heaven, and they were destroyed. A third company of men came to take him, and plead for mercy, and they were spared. Again we have two-thirds being destroyed, one-third being spared.

Now the number 0.666 is approximately 2/3 of ONE whole,one short of all three thirds.The only way we can count the number of the beast, is as a fraction of a whole,or total number,SINCE WE ARE ONLY GIVEN ONE NUMBER..In this case, a fraction of the total ,irrespective of what number the total is.I consider the total as the total mass of humanity,2/3 of which are lost and 1/3 of which are saved.Forget about multiplying by one thousand ,THE FACT REMAINS THAT, TWO THIRDS,(OR 0.666)OF A WHOLE(1.00), IS TWO THIRDS.The number of the beast is 666, for it represents the total number of the lost ,Satans followers.
Either this helps or i opened up a big 

andreas.


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> Either this helps or i opened up a big
> 
> andreas.



The can of worms is that you are mixing apples and oranges. 

First of all, "two thirds" as a decimal representation is modern, not ancient. To believe that "666" somehow is related to the decimal approximation of "two thirds" is to deny the opening words of Revelation, "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, *and keep those things which are written in it*; for the time is near." 

Secondly, "666" is said to be the number of "man" or "a man", depending on your translation. It does not say it is the number of "all unsaved men" as you wish to intrepret it.

Thirdly, in Revelation it is the "one third" not "two thirds" that falls under the wrath of God, e.g., 



> The first angel sounded: And hail and fire followed, mingled with blood, and they were thrown to the earth. And a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up. Then the second angel sounded: And something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood. And a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed. (Rev. 8:7,8,9)



So, there are a number of issues that you need to reconcile before an ironclad identification can be made.


----------



## andreas (May 14, 2005)

Quote;***The can of worms is that you are mixing apples and oranges.***

I know my apples and oranges.Do you? 

Quote:***First of all, "two thirds" as a decimal representation is modern, not ancient. To believe that "666" somehow is related to the decimal approximation of "two thirds" is to deny the opening words of Revelation, "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near." ***

You have totally ignored or have not read the scripture i provided where God,not i,tells us that 2/3,will be CUT OFF AND DIE.
God is asking us to calculate the number of the beast.Scripture interprets scripture.What is wrong with the decimal number?Are you saying that God was not aware of it?Is the bible out of date?what exactly is modern scripture?The word of God is the same yesterday,today and tomorrow.."For i am the Lord ,I change not".Mal 3:6

Quote:***Secondly, "666" is said to be the number of "man" or "a man", depending on your translation. It does not say it is the number of "all unsaved men" as you wish to intrepret it***

The word says,"Count the number of the beast,for it is the number of man".Rev.13:18.Now answer me this.Is the beast snow-white?To deny that 666, it is the number of the unsaved man, is disregarding scripture.
andreas.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> THE FACT REMAINS THAT, TWO THIRDS,(OR 0.666)OF A WHOLE(1.00), IS TWO THIRDS.The number of the beast is 666, for it represents the total number of the lost ,Satans followers.



Your math is still incorrect. 2/3 of 1000 is 667, not 666. Ask any math professor.

Do you really think God is that bad at math?


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> Quote;***The can of worms is that you are mixing apples and oranges.***
> 
> I know my apples and oranges.Do you?



I'm not sure you do. The jury is still out.



> _Originally posted by andreas_
> 
> Quote:***First of all, "two thirds" as a decimal representation is modern, not ancient. To believe that "666" somehow is related to the decimal approximation of "two thirds" is to deny the opening words of Revelation, "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near." ***
> 
> ...



God was aware of calculus and nuclear physics. That does not mean we find explicit evidence of them in the Bible.

The fact remains that we have no biblical reason to relate the "two thirds" (literally something like "two parts") of Zech 13 to the "six hundred and sixty six" of Revelation.



> _Originally posted by andreas_
> 
> Quote:***Secondly, "666" is said to be the number of "man" or "a man", depending on your translation. It does not say it is the number of "all unsaved men" as you wish to intrepret it***
> 
> ...



Thanks for making the point that the phrase is best interpreted as "the number of *a man*" since it is the number of "the beast".

What about my third point, which you ignored, that in Revelation it is the "one part" (not two parts) that receives the wrath of God?

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by tcalbrecht]


----------



## Peter (May 14, 2005)

L : lambda : 30
A : alpha : 1
T : tau : 300
E : epsilon : 5
I : iota : 10
N : nu : 50
O : omicron : 70
S : sigma : 200
------------------------
Total = 666

Lateinos, Latin man, in the ancient greek spelling totals 666.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 14, 2005)

When we take the letters of Nero's name and spell them in Hebrew, we get the following numeric values: 

n=50
r=200
w=6
n=50
q=100
s=60
r=200
_______
666

"œEvery Jewish reader, of course, saw that the Beast was a symbol of Nero. And both Jews and Christians regarded Nero as also having close affinities with the serpent or dragon. . . . The Apostle writing as a Hebrew, was evidently thinking as a Hebrew. . . . Accordingly, the Jewish Christian would have tried the name as he thought of the name"”that is in Hebrew letters. And the moment that he did this the secret stood revealed. No Jew ever thought of Nero except as "˜Neron Kesar.


----------



## andreas (May 14, 2005)

I said:"Now the number 0.666 is approximately 2/3 of ONE whole,one short of all three thirds.The only way we can count the number of the beast, is as a fraction of a whole,or total number,SINCE WE ARE ONLY GIVEN ONE NUMBER..In this case, a fraction of the total ,irrespective of what number the total is.I consider the total as the total mass of humanity,2/3 of which are lost and 1/3 of which are saved.Forget about multiplying by one thousand ,THE FACT REMAINS THAT, TWO THIRDS,(OR 0.666)OF A WHOLE(1.00), IS TWO THIRDS.The number of the beast is 666, for it represents the total number of the lost ,Satans followers."

Notice the underlined words.Revelation is full of symbolism.The symbolism of 2/3,is the unsaved.You have ignored three examples from scripture, where we are told that 2/3 are the lost.We are not dealing with a mathematics textbook.

andreas.


----------



## andreas (May 14, 2005)

Quote:***The fact remains that we have no biblical reason to relate the "two thirds" (literally something like "two parts") of Zech 13 to the "six hundred and sixty six" of Revelation.***

1.Two parts shall be cut off and die.Eternal death,eternal separation from God.That is clear is it not?
2.Who are Satans followers?Who make up his kingdom?Who are his servants?The lost,the unsaved,the reprobates,which make up 2/3 of the total or the whole.We are told the number of the beast is the number of man.Which man?The unsaved.The saved do not belong to Satan.They belong to Jesus, who bought them with his own blood..

Yea, there is biblical reason to connect the two.Zech 13 is clear enough.Let scripture interpret scripture.

andreas.


----------



## andreas (May 15, 2005)

Quote:***thanks for making the point that the phrase is best interpreted as the number of man since it is the number of the beast.***

I made no such point.Man applies to any sinfull man,whether it applies to a one legged ,deaf,blind ,short,tall,ugly,beautifull,thin or fat man.A sinner is a sinner and all sinners behave like beasts.

"But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;" 2 Peter 2:12

andreas.


----------



## andreas (May 15, 2005)

Quote:***What about my third point, which you ignored, that in Revelation it is the "one part" (not two parts) that receives the wrath of God?***

I have not ignored your third point.I do not see the 1/3 as you do,but that is another point.
andreas.


----------



## andreas (May 15, 2005)

Peter and Gabriel,

You forgot, 

Ronald Wilson Reagan.Notice there are six letters in his first ,middle and last name.Does that make him the beast?

The first apple computer  was sold for 666 dollars.Does that make it the beast?

One more,Stanley Kubrick  died 666 days before January first 2001.May be he is the antichrist.

Can you not see how ridiculus this is?

andreas.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 15, 2005)

But Ronald Reagan, Apple Computers, and Stanley Kubrick were not forcing all Roman citizens to worship them as THE ONLY GOD, bow down to him, worship and revere his image, and taking those - Christians - who didn't and using them as torches, burning on stakes, to light their dinner parties.


----------



## andreas (May 15, 2005)

"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" Ex. 20:3 is the first Commandment. "Thou shalt have no other gods" , thou shalt own, possess, seek, desire, love or worship none other,before me. No "other gods;" because they are so. The corrupt hearts of men make and esteem them such.Untold misery has been brought on by the use of computers,so do not tell me they are all innocent.There is nothing wrong with the machine,it is man's heart that is desperately wicked.PEOPLE CAN WORSHIP THEIR COMPUTERS,and you know what i mean. 
Tell me why do we have to restrict everything to the Romans?

andreas.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 15, 2005)

Context.


----------



## andreas (May 16, 2005)

The beast is active throughout history and is not confined to Roman times.Christians have been and are still persecuted today. 

1--- History of Christian Martyrs to the First General Persecutions Under Nero 
2--- The Ten Primitive Persecutions 
3--- Persecutions of the Christians in Persia 
4--- Papal Persecutions 
5--- An Account of the Inquisition 
6--- An Account of the Persecutions in Italy, Under the Papacy 
7--- An Account of the Life and Persecutions of John Wickliffe 
8--- An Account of the Persecutions in Bohemia Under the Papacy 
9--- An Account of the Life and Persecutions of Martin Luther 
10- General Persecutions in Germany 
11- An Account of the Persecutions in the Netherlands 
12- The Life and Story of the True Servant and Martyr of God, William Tyndale 
13- An Account of the Life of John Calvin 
14- Prior to the Reign of Queen Mary I 
15- An Account of the Persecutions in Scotland During the Reign of King Henry VIII 
16- Persecutions in England During the Reign of Queen Mary 
17- Rise and Progress of the Protestant Religion in Ireland; with an Account of the Barbarous 
Massacre of 1641 
18- The Rise, Progress, Persecutions, and Sufferings of the Quakers 
19- An Account of the Life and Persecutions of John Bunyan 
20- An Account of the Life of John Wesley 
21- Persecutions of the French Protestants in the South of France, During the Years 1814 and 1820. (FOXES BOOK OF MARTYRS.)

"Be sober be vigilant because your adversary the devil as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour"..1 Peter 5:8

Do not tell me that poor Nero is still roaming about.The name of the beast does not refer to a particular man with a particular name,but rather to the whole family of the unsaved and their relation to their master.
andreas.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> I said:"Now the number 0.666 is approximately 2/3 of ONE whole . . . THE FACT REMAINS THAT, TWO THIRDS,(OR 0.666)OF A WHOLE(1.00), IS TWO THIRDS.The number of the beast is 666, for it represents the total number of the lost ,Satans followers."
> 
> Notice the underlined words.Revelation is full of symbolism.The symbolism of 2/3,is the unsaved.You have ignored three examples from scripture, where we are told that 2/3 are the lost.We are not dealing with a mathematics textbook.



Interesting. You know, .6 is also "approximately" 2/3. In fact .7 is even closer to 2/3 than .6 --- so every time you see the number "7" in the Bible, that must be the mark of the beast too! After all, we don't need to be mathematically precise, do we? Like you said, "we are not dealing with a mathematics textbook."

Andreas, if God (or anyone else with at least 2 cents worth of knowledge about math) wanted to pick a one-digit-number that would approximate 2/3, then it would make the most sense for it to be the number 7, because 7 is closest to 2/3 of 10. If we wanted to be a little more accurate, and go to 2 digits, then it would be 67, because 67 is closest to 2/3 of 100. If we went to 3 digits, then it would be 667. The number "666" has nothing to do with the number 2/3. And the Bible never says that it does.

Would you be happy if I picked every "7" out of the Bible and said that it is the "2/3" of Zechariah? If not, why not? So what if it's not as precise as it could be? After all, you said, "we are not dealing with a mathematics textbook." --- Why do you get to make the rules regarding how accurate God is allowed to be??? Is it ok for you to fudge the numbers a little bit to force them to fit your theory? I don't think so.

At least I am just relying on simple elementary math, and do not have to do anything to fudge the data to make the number 666 fit. It fits Nero *perfectly* with no fudging necessary.

YOU are the one who says that "666" is some code for "2/3", not the Scriptures. NOWHERE does the Bible ever say that the "2 parts" in Zechariah are to be equated with the "666" of Revelation. You are using modern math (poorly) to invent some artificial tie between the two. But the math doesn't even work out, and the tie does not exist! 

Here's a challenge: Can you find even ONE person in the first thousand years of the Church who interpreted "666" the way you do? If not, then are you suggesting that you have discovered something that God hid from the early church fathers, Augustine, etc.???

The Bible is NOT some secret code that waited around for Andreas to reveal.


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> Quote:***What about my third point, which you ignored, that in Revelation it is the "one part" (not two parts) that receives the wrath of God?***
> 
> I have not ignored your third point.I do not see the 1/3 as you do,but that is another point.
> andreas.



Well, you can't ignore it, and until you deal with it you have certainly not proved your case. All the objection are stacked against your theory.


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> Here's a challenge: Can you find even ONE person in the first thousand years of the Church who interpreted "666" the way you do? If not, then are you suggesting that you have discovered something that God hid from the early church fathers, Augustine, etc.???
> 
> The Bible is NOT some secret code that waited around for Andreas to reveal.



The only place I've ever heard it preached was by Harold Camping on his Open Forum program.



> Now this number originally had its beginning in Zechariah 13, or at least it's referred to there, where it says in verse 8: "Two-thirds I will cut off and destroy, but one-third" And it goes on to speak about the redemption of the one-third. The number two-thirds, if written as a decimal, is .666666. And if we just use the first 3 numbers, we get 666.
> 
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~lkolberg/transcripts/C234B.html


----------



## Puritanhead (May 16, 2005)

Didn't anyway ever tell you Presbyterian dimwits that Nicholas Carpathia from Romania is the Anti-Christ? I learned that from the _Tim LaHaye School of Prophecy_.
:bigsmile:


----------



## Puritanhead (May 16, 2005)

As an aside, the other day I got a solicitation in the snail mail for a Visa Platinum Card offer from a Luciferian Bank and Trust (yeah it's in California) with a low fixed 6.66% interest rate credit card... tempting huh? Plus they're offering to consolidate all my existing bills with a 6.16% APR soul equity loan...


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> As an aside, the other day I got a solicitation in the snail mail for a Visa Platinum Card offer from a Luciferian Bank and Trust (yeah it's in California) with a low fixed 6.66% interest rate credit card... tempting huh? Plus they're offering to consolidate all my existing bills with a 6.16% APR soul equity loan...



Yeah, I got an offer for that card too. Believe it or not, they said they can reduce my debt by *2/3*!!!


----------



## sastark (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> When we take the letters of Nero's name and spell them in Hebrew, we get the following numeric values:
> 
> n=50
> ...



I am oh-so-hesitant to add any thing else to this string, but I've got to point out that Revelation was neither written in Hebrew nor to Hebrews. It was written in Greek to mixed Jewish/Gentile congregations. The fact that Nero can work out to 666 is nice, but it simply doesn't fit the text.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> 
> I am oh-so-hesitant to add any thing else to this string, but I've got to point out that Revelation was neither written in Hebrew nor to Hebrews. It was written in Greek to mixed Jewish/Gentile congregations. The fact that Nero can work out to 666 is nice, but it simply doesn't fit the text.



Fernando already answered this objection the last time you made it:



> _Originally posted by Fernando_
> 'Revelation was written in Greek, not Hebrew, and in Greek it does not spell out "Nero".'
> 
> Yes, but there are examples from around John's time of Greek speaking Jews using transliterations of Greek words into Hebrew letters to calculate the number of names. See 3 Baruch, which does this several places in chapter 4.
> ...


----------



## sastark (May 16, 2005)

> Neither of these work if the numerical value is based on the Greek letters



Correct - if we use the Greek letters you can't get "Nero". so, maybe this passage is not referring to Nero?

"Oh! But it has to be talking aboutr Nero, otherwise the preteristic interpretation doesn't work!"

Yeah, that's the point.....


----------



## Fernando (May 16, 2005)

Seth,

I suggest reading Richard Bauckham's chapter on 'Nero and the Beast' in his book "The Climax of Prophecy". Bauckham is not a preterist, as near as I can figure.

The point isn't to make everything fit preterism; at least it's not MY point. The point is to interpret the passage in its grammatical and historical context. Taking the passage on its own contextual terms, the best interpretation seems to be that Nero is the beast that John refers to.


----------



## sastark (May 16, 2005)

Fernando - thank you for the book recommendation. I will look into it.

I disagree that Nero fits best (I think I've made that abundantly obvious  ), and I believe the best grammatical and historical context of the passage shows that inserting Hebrew numbers into a Greek epistle is ludacris (and I honestly mean no offense when I say that).


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Fernando_
> Seth,
> 
> I suggest reading Richard Bauckham's chapter on 'Nero and the Beast' in his book "The Climax of Prophecy". Bauckham is not a preterist, as near as I can figure.
> ...


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> Fernando - thank you for the book recommendation. I will look into it.
> 
> I disagree that Nero fits best (I think I've made that abundantly obvious  ), and I believe the best grammatical and historical context of the passage shows that inserting Hebrew numbers into a Greek epistle is ludacris (and I honestly mean no offense when I say that).



Aren't you forgetting that it was already common practice to do that type of thing in various other early church letters, just like Fernando pointed out regarding 3 Baruch?


----------



## sastark (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Aren't you forgetting that it was already common practice to do that type of thing in various other early church letters, just like Fernando pointed out regarding 3 Baruch?



Do we interpret Scripture by early church letters? Or do we interpret Scripture by historical setting? Or do we interpret Scripture with Scripture?


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> 
> Do we interpret Scripture by early church letters? Or do we interpret Scripture by historical setting? Or do we interpret Scripture with Scripture?




All of the above.

Obviously, interpreting Scripture with Scripture comes first. (I suppose by doing this you can tell me exactly what "666" stands for?)

But the historical setting, early church letters, etc. are all important as well, especially in a book like Revelation. For example, have you read David Chilton's commentary on Revelation? I believe he offers the best explanation for the meaning of the "hot" and "cold" water of Laodicea in Revelation 3. He also makes important notes regarding the "eyesalve" Christ says that they need. (Historically, it turns out that the city of Laodicea produced an eyesalve that was famous in the area. . . . So Jesus turns the tables on them and informs them that *they* are the ones who need help with their spiritual eyes.) All of these statments make perfect sense, IF you consider Laodicea's historical and geographical setting. But if you *only* look within Scripture for all the answers, you would never find all of them.

The "eyesalve" in Rev. 3 doesn't fully make sense without taking extrabiblical info into account. The same goes for the mark of the beast. 

Remember, the Scriptures were written to historical people, and were intended to be understood by them. So if we are going to understand what they understood, then we need to put ourselves into *their* historical/cultural shoes.


----------



## sastark (May 16, 2005)

> All of the above.



But this isn't what the WCF of says. (See Chapter 1:9 - _9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. _)

Or, if you prefer, that's not what the London Baptist Confession says. (See Chapter 1:9, again - _IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly._)


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> 
> 
> > All of the above.
> ...




What's your point?


If you and I differ over how to best interpret Scripture, to what should we turn to settle our dispute: Scripture, or the Confessions?

According to *your* view, you need to turn to Scripture alone, and not to the Confessions, since they are extra-biblical. In other words, you just defeated your own argument.

Using Scripture *alone*, how would you _fully_ figure out the meaning of the "eyesalve" in Revelation 3? How can you figure out what "666" means?

I hold to the WCF *because* it is almost always very Scriptural. It is a very good summarization of what the Bible teaches. But it is not the 67th book of the Bible. So when I am arguing a point, I quote the Bible, not the confession.


This time, please use Scripture to back up your views, and not just quotes from the confessions.


----------



## sastark (May 16, 2005)

The confessions are summaries of the Scriptures, as you well know. They are NOT extra-biblical since they only summarize what is in the Bible. When I argue a point, I am able to quote the confessions because they are summaries of Scripture and therefore authoritative.


Therefore, if you disagree with how the WCF says we ought to interpret Scripture, you need to address the confession and the Scripture proofs given by the Confession. The burden of proof lies with the one who disagrees with the Confession.

[Edited on 5-16-2005 by sastark]


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> The confessions are summaries of the Scriptures, as you well know. They are NOT extra-biblical since they only summarize what is in the Bible. When I argue a point, I am able to quote the confessions because they are summaries of Scripture and therefore authoritative.
> 
> Therefore, if you disagree with how the WCF says we ought to interpret Scripture, you need to address the confession and the Scripture proofs given by the Confession. The burden of proof lies with the one who disagrees with the Confession.



Great, then lets see you put your money where your mouth is. 

Explain to me, using Scripture ALONE, what "666" means and what it is referring to. You are only allowed to use Scripture to interpret Scripture. You are not allowed to incorporate any historical arguments, cultural arguments, or writings from the early church fathers. 

(Interestingly, this disallows you from using the confession either, since the WCF says that the Catholic pope is the antichrist . . . and yet Scripture itself says nothing specifically about either Catholicism or the pope.)


----------



## sastark (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Great, then lets see you put your money where your mouth is.
> 
> Explain to me, using Scripture ALONE, what "666" means and what it is referring to. You are only allowed to use Scripture to interpret Scripture. You are not allowed to incorporate any historical arguments, cultural arguments, or writings from the early church fathers.
> ...



Joseph, once again, the burden of proof lies with the one who contradicts the confession. I have shown, using Scripture via the confession that Nero cannot possibly be the man who's number is "666". I am not required to show any further evidence, since I agree with the WCF and therefore with Scripture.

I'm not going to post in this thread anymore.

[Edited on 5-17-2005 by sastark]


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> 
> Joseph, once again, the burden of proof lies with the one who contradicts the confession. I have shown, using Scripture via the confession that Nero cannot possibly be the man who's number is "666". I am not required to show any further evidence, since I agree with the WCF and therefore with Scripture.



You are incorrect. No man-made confession is the 67th book of the Bible. You are on dangerous ground to exalt *any* confession to "authoritative" status. That is just what the pharisees did with their traditions.

So, *which* confession is the *perfect* summary of Scripture? The WCF? If so, then the "burden of proof" is on all baptists to prove credobaptism, since the WCF teaches otherwise. Or is it the 1689 Baptist Confession? If so, then the "burden of proof" is on all paedobaptists to prove paedobaptism. --- Thus, your reliance on confessions is self-defeating.

You are sorely mistaken . . . if you want to prove anything, then the burden of proof is on *you*, regardless of what ANY confession says. --- And that even goes for central doctrines of the faith. If I want to argue that Jesus is God, then I need to prove my case on *Scriptural* grounds. Confessions and other writings of men are only secondary.



> _Originally posted by sastark_
> 
> I'm not going to post in this thread anymore.



Then I suppose I get the last word in this discussion.


You made some very interesting contradictions:

First, you argued that *Scripture* alone should interpret Scripture.
But then, to support your case, you quoted two confessions, neither of which are Scripture (and both of which contradict each other in various ways).

I was simply arguing that there are *some* cases in which Scripture cannot interpret Scripture, because there simply isn't enough information given in Scripture alone. I think the number "666", the "mark of the beast", is one of these cases. If I *could* go elsewhere in Scripture to clarify the meaning of 666, I would. But since I cannot, I *have* to go elsewhere.

You succeeded in proving MY point in two ways:
1) You never showed me any way to "interpret Scripture with Scripture" regarding the mark of the beast (666).
2) The only support you *did* offer was extra-Biblical. Neither the WCF nor any baptist confession are a 67th book of the Bible. (And even if you thought they were, then how do you explain the fact that the two confessions contradict each other regarding certain issues?)

So I guess that settles it, as far as our discussion goes. It is certainly *preferable* to interpret Scripture with Scripture whenever at all possible. But there are some cases in which it is not possible. In those particular cases, it can be helpful to look elsewhere for additional info (i.e. history, mathematics, etc.).


----------



## andreas (May 18, 2005)

***Well, you can't ignore it, and until you deal with it you have certainly not proved your case. All the objection are stacked against your theory. ***

Tom,
in Zechariah 13 verse 9, we are told I will say it is my people.Which people are these?Those that have been brought through the fire,the people of God,the saved,those that are clean before God,those that are wearing Jesus' rope of righteousness.
If you consider Revelation 11,verse 7 we are told, that the beast kills the two witnesses(The church of Christ).You can understand what is happening to the 1/3, if you can understand what is happening to the two witnesses.
Also consider Revelation 13:7,It was given unto him to make war with the saints,and to overcome them.Again the saints are being overcomed.
The elect are not actually harmed,but it is their testimony that is silenced,or killed.The 2/3 that are not affected, will in effect be hurt, cause they no longer have the truth of God ,as the testimony of the saved is finished,and without that, they are eternally lost.
You may say but it is the one third,the unsaved that are affected.Look at revelation 9:20.Yet repented not of the works of their hands.If 2/3 are the elect,they have nothing to repent from.,,so the one third applies to the elect having their testimony silenced so there is no more salvation possible.
andreas.


----------



## bigheavyq (May 19, 2005)

seth, your arrogance is starting to show. Are you saying that you know and understand who the two witnesses are? I may have my opinion on who they are, but this is one of the mysteries of revelation and no one I have heard knows for sure. You may know some ancient greek, however it is my opinion that revelation was not originally written in greek but either hebrew or aramaic. the beast is a man whose number is 666. that can only be nero. Gentry clearly makes the case for it. 
you are making many other mistakes, if you think the pope is THE antichrist what about all those time references in the first and last chapters of revelation about this being at hand, near, come quickly. 

why don't you pray and ask the holy spirit to illuminate this passage for you?


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> ***Well, you can't ignore it, and until you deal with it you have certainly not proved your case. All the objection are stacked against your theory. ***
> 
> You may say but it is the one third,the unsaved that are affected.Look at revelation 9:20.Yet repented not of the works of their hands.If 2/3 are the elect,they have nothing to repent from.,,so the one third applies to the elect having their testimony silenced so there is no more salvation possible.
> andreas.



Again, you've ignored the verses I cited from Revelation. 

"The first angel sounded: And hail and fire followed, mingled with blood, and they were thrown to the earth. And *a third* of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up. Then the second angel sounded: And something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and *a third* of the sea became blood. And *a third* of the living creatures in the sea died, and *a third* of the ships were destroyed. Then the third angel sounded: And a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on *a third* of the rivers and on the springs of water. The name of the star is Wormwood. *A third* of the waters became wormwood, and many men died from the water, because it was made bitter. Then the fourth angel sounded: And *a third* of the sun was struck, *a third* of the moon, and *a third* of the stars, so that *a third* of them were darkened. *A third* of the day did not shine, and likewise the night." (Rev. 13:7-12)

"So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released to kill *a third* of mankind. ... By these three plagues *a third of mankind was killed*--by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which came out of their mouths." (Rev. 9:15,18)

There is no mention of "two thirds" in Revelation.

Please explain specifically Rev. 9:18 in the context of your theory.


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> 1991 Byzantine Greek Text
> 
> 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek Text
> ...



Well there's your problem, Andreas! You're not using the holy, inspired, UBS4!


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> wde h sofia estin o ecwn ton noun yhfisatw ton ariqmon tou qhriou ariqmoV gar anqrwpou estin kai o ariqmoV autou cxV  Rev 13:18
> 
> andreas.



You know, the JW's make the same type of argument regarding John 1! An anarthrous Greek noun (using your example, for instance) could be translated "man" or "a man." Context is everything.


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> When we take the letters of Nero's name and spell them in Hebrew, we get the following numeric values:
> 
> n=50
> ...



Of course, John wasn't writing in Hebrew...or to Hebrews...


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



But he was writing from a Hebrew background.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2005)

My thoughts on "number magic":

It is not wise or safe to clinch arguments using extra-scriptural premises. In other words, partial-preterism will stand or fall regardless of the truth/falsity of this argument. However, it would not be strange to first-century readers, I don't think.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2005)

BTW, RC Sproul Sr. endorses the above view.


----------



## andreas (May 19, 2005)

Quote:***There is no mention of 2/3 in revelation.***

18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.
19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.
20 And the rest of the men  which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:Revelation 9.

If 1/3 were killed,then in verse 20, the rest of the men which were not killed,must be the 2/3.IT IS COMMON SENSE.

andreas.


----------



## andreas (May 20, 2005)

Tom,

Revelation 8:7.."and the third part of the trees was burned up".
Do not look at literal trees. Why should the Lord burn the trees?
Trees are symbolic of men."and he looked up and said,i see men as trees walking." Mark 8:24.
"The third part of the sun,the third part of the moon,third part of the stars".Again you should not view these literally.
The sun represents Jesus and the moon the covenant.Psalm 89:36-37.Stars represent the believers,Daniel 12:13.They bring the light of the gospel.
So the 1/3 represent the elect of God.They are basically "silenced," so their testimony no longer goes forth .Remember it is only their testimony that is silenced.Nothing can hurt the elect of God.

andreas.


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> Quote:***There is no mention of 2/3 in revelation.***
> 
> 18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.
> ...



Who are the "one third" that are killed in Rev. 9:18? In your system is this the wrath of God being poured out on the "one third", or something else?

I think you're still missing something very important, and none of it seems to help your understanding of 666.

I'd like to see you exegete Rev. 9:18 and the surrounding context.


----------



## andreas (May 20, 2005)

Tom,
I have explained in my last response to you,that the 1/3 are the elect of God,and nothing can hurt them.What is silenced, is their testimony to the world,and without that testimony no one can be saved. The people that are ultimately hurt ,are the 2/3 ,the unsaved,for they no longer receive the truth of God. All these events are taking place during the final tribulation.
andreas.


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> \Of course, John wasn't writing in Hebrew...or to Hebrews...



But he was writing from a Hebrew background. [/quote]

True...but not to Hebrews. And if you are going to argue for how the original audience would receive the text, you would have to have a good reason for suggesting the audience was anything other than Hellenized gentiles.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



True...but not to Hebrews. And if you are going to argue for how the original audience would receive the text, you would have to have a good reason for suggesting the audience was anything other than Hellenized gentiles. [/quote]

Again, I am ambivalent as to how these magic numbers go, but it is not an absurd idea.


----------



## andreas (May 20, 2005)

Kevin,
I am a bit slow,so can you explain what UBS4! is?

andreas.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 21, 2005)

It is the fourth edition of the United Bible Societies's Greek New Testament. Give or take a few things, it is the foundation of many modern translations.


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> Kevin,
> I am a bit slow,so can you explain what UBS4! is?
> 
> andreas.



Essentially the Nestle-Alland critical text. Definitely not the TR/Maroity texts that you mentioned. But I was being playful.


----------



## andreas (May 21, 2005)

Thanks.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



True...but not to Hebrews. And if you are going to argue for how the original audience would receive the text, you would have to have a good reason for suggesting the audience was anything other than Hellenized gentiles. [/quote]

Are you sure it wasn't intended in any way for "anything other" than Hellenized gentiles? In other words, are you sure that Hellenized gentiles were the *only* intended readers?

"The members of the Jerusalem church by means of an oracle, given by revelation to acceptable persons there, were ordered to leave the city before the war began and settle in a town in Peraea called Pella." (Eusebius: Book III, 5:4)


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



Are you sure it wasn't intended in any way for "anything other" than Hellenized gentiles? In other words, are you sure that Hellenized gentiles were the *only* intended readers?

"The members of the Jerusalem church by means of an oracle, given by revelation to acceptable persons there, were ordered to leave the city before the war began and settle in a town in Peraea called Pella." (Eusebius: Book III, 5:4) [/quote]

I'm not sure I get the relevance of the Eusebius quote but I'm a big believer is authorial intent and original audience as a guide to hermeneutics.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



I agree with you that "authorial intent and original audience" is a very key part of proper hermeneutics. --- And that is precisely why the Eusebius quote is appropos. If you have read much partial-preterist literature, then you should be familiar with Eusebius, including this quote in particular.

Matthew 24 and Revelation are talking about the same period of time. (This is one point on which even futurists agree with preterists.) And both were intended to be _understood_ by the readers (Revelation explicitly so).

Part of the intent of Matthew 24 and Revelation was to warn Christians of what was to take place soon in Jerusalem, and to flee from it. And this is just what Eusebius said happened.

My statements above only very, very briefly touch on the subject. There are many Scriptures and many quotes from Eusebius (and others) suggesting very strongly that Revelation was written before 70 A.D., and that part of the intent in writing it was to warn Christians in Jerusalem. Of course I do not expect you to agree with me after reading only a single quote from Eusebius. But if you are interested at all in understanding why many thinking Christians accept partial preterism, please take some time reading Kenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar, and David Chilton. I do not expect you to agree with me at all just yet. But before you decide to make any sweeping statements about the impossibility of partial-preterism, please at least take the time to read 2 or 3 of these books:

*The Beast of Revelation* by Kenneth Gentry - A convincing identification of the beast 
*He Shall Have Dominion* by Kenneth Gentry - The single best defense available for postmillenialism 
*Before Jerusalem Fell* by Kenneth Gentry - Dating the book of Revelation pre-70 A.D.
*Days of Vengeance* by David Chilton - A commentary on the book of Revelation 

You can read all 4 of these books for FREE online. There are links to them at the bottom of this webpage: http://www.biblelighthouse.com/eschatology/esc-preterist.htm


Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 28, 2005)

I also suggest reading this short article by Kenneth Gentry, which notes an encouraging amount of partial-preterism among the early church fathers:

https://host186.ipowerweb.com/~kenneth1/backtothefuture.htm


Here are some of the more interesting paragraphs from that article:



> One of the best known and most accessible of the ancient preterists is Eusebius (A.D. 260-340), the "father of church history." In his classic Ecclesiastical History he details Jerusalem's woes in A.D. 70. After a lengthy citation from Josephus's Wars of the Jews, Eusebius writes that "it is fitting to add to his accounts the true prediction of our Saviour in which he foretold these very events" (3:7:1-2.) He then refers to the Olivet Discourse, citing Matthew 24:19-21 as his lead-in reference and later Luke 21:20, 23, 24. He concludes: "If any one compares the words of our Saviour with the other accounts of the historian concerning the whole war, how can one fail to wonder, and to admit that the foreknowledge and the prophecy of our Saviour were truly divine and marvelously strange" (3:7:7).
> 
> Another ancient document applying Matthew 24 to A.D. 70 is the Clementine Homilies (2d c.): "Prophesying concerning the temple, He said: 'See ye these buildings? Verily I say to you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall not be taken away Matt. 24:3; and this generation shall not pass until the destruction begin Matt. 24:34....' And in like manner He spoke in plain words the things that were straightway to happen, which we can now see with our eyes, in order that the accomplishment might be among those to whom the word was spoken" (CH 3:15).
> 
> ...


----------

