The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Number of the beast not 666 but 616 scholars say  (Read 4375 times)

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • View Profile
Number of the beast not 666 but 616 scholars say
« on: 07/05/2005 22:12:00 »
Even Ronald Reagan had his housenumber changed from 666 into something else for this reason. :D

Millions of numerologist must feel pretty foolish now - good. Serves them right... ROFLMAO

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/80256FA1003E05C1/httpPublicPages/C4299C07F696595980256FF8003F7B3A?opendocument

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)


 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: Number of the beast not 666 but 616 scholars say
« Reply #1 on: 08/05/2005 18:49:46 »
Hmmm that is weird..... Are they saying that the original translation from greek or aramaic or whatever it was, was done wrong? Or are they saying that the Bible was written wrong?
Because it says in revalation 13:18 that the mark of the beast is '666'

----------------------
-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz
 

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • View Profile
Re: Number of the beast not 666 but 616 scholars say
« Reply #2 on: 08/05/2005 19:03:37 »
Well, the King James and all was written way later, and this is what you could consider the 'source'. Thing is, 666 was a numerical 'hint' to indicate Emperor Nero (they were heavily into numerology back then, and it was also safer than criticising him in person - those guys played very, very rough) but 616 would indicate they actually meant Caligula, another not-so-nice emperor, also not exactly a friend of the Jews...

So, this would mean that they got their translation mucked up at some point, and all later translations just copied it without thinking about it.

Just think of all those 666 tattoos! Yikes. Tattooshoops will be busy in the near future, I guess...

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: Number of the beast not 666 but 616 scholars say
« Reply #3 on: 10/05/2005 21:56:30 »
So are you saying that the Bible was translated incorrectly? Because I know what was written in Revalation was correct whether or not is was translated correctly... The Original was right

----------------------
-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz
 

sharkeyandgeorge

  • Guest
Re: Number of the beast not 666 but 616 scholars say
« Reply #4 on: 11/05/2005 11:06:30 »
the bibles a load of crap cobbled together by bigots and roman emporers to appease the masses, dont belive me? then how about this there were many more gosples that wernt included because the were not in the right style some were discoverd recently. thats not to say that christianty an bad thing its based after all on the ten commandments which even if the are not divine mandate are a pretty good set of rules for a society to live by. all im saying is theres no point being hung up on details because its been edited and retranslated so many times that mistakes are bound to happen just go with the general flow of peace and love, and before anyone complains i am a church going catholic

Giggidy Giggidy Goo
The philosopher Q man
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Number of the beast not 666 but 616 scholars say
« Reply #4 on: 11/05/2005 11:06:30 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length