666 or 616

[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.

 

[andreas]

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]

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]

"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]

Context.

 

[andreas]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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
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.

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]

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.

John is probably using a form of gematria called 'isopsephism' which demonstrates a connection between two words by showing that their numerical values are the same. Suetonius reports that this saying was common in Nero's day:

"A new calculation: Nero killed his own mother."

Nero has the numerical value of 1005, and so do the words that follow it. In the popular mind this would be proof that Nero was in fact a matricide.

In Revelation 13:18 John asks the one who has understanding to calculate the number of 'thērion' (beast), and tells us that the numerical value of this word is the same as that of a man. It so happens that when transliterated into Hebrew 'thērion' equals 666, as does one spelling of Nero's name. If the genitive 'thēriou' is used instead, it equals 616: the same as another spelling of Nero's name. Neither of these work if the numerical value is based on the Greek letters, but John has already told us that the numerical value of 'thērion' is 666.

 

[sastark]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[biblelighthouse]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by sastark

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.)

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]

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]

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]

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.

(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.)

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]

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]

***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]

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]

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.