The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. That CAN'T be true!
  4. Number of the beast not 666 but 616 scholars say
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Number of the beast not 666 but 616 scholars say

  • 4 Replies
  • 8232 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline chimera (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
  • Activity:
    0%
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)
Logged
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.
 



Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 351
  • Activity:
    0%
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
Logged
----------------------
MY NAME IS NOT REALLY SIMEONIE IT IS SIMON!!!
 

Offline chimera (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
  • Activity:
    0%
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)
Logged
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 351
  • Activity:
    0%
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
Logged
----------------------
MY NAME IS NOT REALLY SIMEONIE IT IS SIMON!!!
 

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
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.17 seconds with 36 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.