666 or 616

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by andreas
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.

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

 

[kevin.carroll]

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]

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.

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

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

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.

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

But he was writing from a Hebrew background.

 

[RamistThomist]

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]

BTW, RC Sproul Sr. endorses the above view.

 

[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.
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]

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]

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.
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.

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by Draught Horse
\Of course, John wasn't writing in Hebrew...or to Hebrews...

But he was writing from a Hebrew background.

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]

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

andreas.

 

[RamistThomist]

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]

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]

Thanks.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by Draught Horse
\Of course, John wasn't writing in Hebrew...or to Hebrews...

But he was writing from a Hebrew background.

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]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by Draught Horse
\Of course, John wasn't writing in Hebrew...or to Hebrews...

But he was writing from a Hebrew background.

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.

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]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

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)

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.

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]

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).

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-215) discusses Daniel's seventieth week as a past event: "The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place" (Miscellanies 1:21). The famed premillennialist Tertullian (A.D. 160-225) writes of the Roman conquest: "And thus, in the day of their storming, the Jews fulfilled the seventy hebdomads predicted in Daniel" (An Answer to the Jews, 8).

Even the Book of Revelation is applied to A.D. 70 by many in antiquity. In his Interpretation of the Revelation Andreas of Cappadocia (5th c.) noted that "there are not wanting those who apply this passage to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus" (Rev. 6:12). Later he commented: "These things are referred by some to those sufferings which were inflicted by the Romans upon the Jews" (Rev. 7:1). According to noted church historian Henry Wace, Andreas's commentary is "the earliest systematic exposition of the book in the Greek church." Andreas himself informs us that he wrote it in order "to unfold the meaning of the Apocalypse, and to make the suitable application of its predictions to the times that followed it."

Arethas of Cappadocia (6th c.) also provides us a commentary on Revelation which, according to Wace "professes to be a compilation" though "no mere reproduction of the work of his predecessor, although it incorporates a large portion of the contents of that work." Arethas specifically applies various passages in Revelation to A.D. 70 (Rev. 6-7).