Revelation! 666 is not the number of the beast (it's a devilish 616)
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...p?story=634679
Revelation! 666 is not the number of the beast (it's a devilish 616)
By Tom Anderson
01 May 2005
A newly discovered fragment of the oldest surviving copy of the New Testament indicates that, as far as the Antichrist goes, theologians, scholars, heavy metal groups, and television evangelists have got the wrong number. Instead of 666, it's actually the far less ominous 616.
The new fragment from the Book of Revelation, written in ancient Greek and dating from the late third century, is part of a hoard of previously unintelligible manuscripts discovered in historic dumps outside Oxyrhynchus in Egypt. Now a team of expert classicists, using new photographic techniques, are finally deciphering the original writing.
Professor David Parker, Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism and Paleography at the University of Birmingham, thinks that 616, although less memorable than 666, is the original. He said: "This is an example of gematria, where numbers are based on the numerical values of letters in people's names. Early Christians would use numbers to hide the identity of people who they were attacking: 616 refers to the Emperor Caligula."
The Book of Revelation is traditionally considered to be written by John, a disciple of Jesus; it identifies 666 as the mark of the Antichrist. In America, the fundamentalist Christian right often use the number in sermons about the coming Apocalypse.
They and satanists responded coolly to the new "Revelation". Peter Gilmore, High Priest of the Church of Satan, based in New York, said: "By using 666 we're using something that the Christians fear. Mind you, if they do switch to 616 being the number of the beast then we'll start using that."
Re: Revelation! 666 is not the number of the beast (it's a devilish 616)
Thank goodness! Now I know I'm not the Antichrist (Born 6-6-63) :eek:
Re: Revelation! 666 is not the number of the beast (it's a devilish 616)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip R
Thank goodness! Now I know I'm not the Antichrist (Born 6-6-63) :eek:
Woah, me either... regardless of what my parents say! (born 2-16-66) :thumbup:
Re: Revelation! 666 is not the number of the beast (it's a devilish 616)
Quote:
Peter Gilmore, High Priest of the Church of Satan, based in New York, said: "By using 666 we're using something that the Christians fear. Mind you, if they do switch to 616 being the number of the beast then we'll start using that."
That's funny. What if Christians start using the number 4?
Or perhaps 238.716?
Re: Revelation! 666 is not the number of the beast (it's a devilish 616)
Revelation!
What I thought was a cold sore was actually just a pimple.
Whew.
Re: Revelation! 666 is not the number of the beast (it's a devilish 616)
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie-a-go-go
Revelation!
What I thought was a cold sore was actually just a pimple.
Whew.
Suuuuuuure!
Re: Revelation! 666 is not the number of the beast (it's a devilish 616)
616, eh?
Well then the Antichrist's phone number could be in a few places in Michigan, like Kalamazoo, or Grand Rapids.
Obviously Armageddon will take place in Battle Creek.
Re: Revelation! 666 is not the number of the beast (it's a devilish 616)
Now there's some hard evidence for ya. Not exactly legitimate textual criticism contained in this blurb.
hen we'll start using that."[/QUOTE]
Re: Revelation! 666 is not the number of the beast (it's a devilish 616)
i thought the Anti-Christ's number was 867-5309
... no, that was Jenny's number.
nevermind.
Re: Revelation! 666 is not the number of the beast (it's a devilish 616)
Well, apparently some kids in our neighborhood believe that my address is "666 ..." and not "6666 ...". No point in putting another 6 up there, the turds will just rip it down. I hate that when I am giving someone my address there is this pause with an air of "Oh my God, do you know that you are eternally doomed? This line is closed, please jump over to that one." :thumbdown
Re: Revelation! 666 is not the number of the beast (it's a devilish 616)
Take this with a grain of salt. There are always manuscripts being found in the later centuries that have proven to be fabrications or duplications, and after further examination they are discredited. There were alot of sects in the first several centuries (Gnostics for example). This one supposedly comes from the 3rd century. Notice this professor thinks that 616, although less memorable than 666, is the original. It's not conclusive.
Re: Revelation! 666 is not the number of the beast (it's a devilish 616)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAC
Notice this professor thinks that 616, although less memorable than 666, is the original. It's not conclusive.
I know for a fact that they were reading the manuscripts upside down. Its really 999. ;)
GL
Re: Revelation! 666 is not the number of the beast (it's a devilish 616)
Just heard a rumor...
80's hair-band and followers of God, Stryper, are making a comeback. Their new stage backdrop will no longer be a 777, but rather a 717.
727, 737 and 747 seemed to be taken already and "fly-by-night" sort of numbers.
Re: Revelation! 666 is not the number of the beast (it's a devilish 616)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonelong
I know for a fact that they were reading the manuscripts upside down. Its really 999. ;)
GL
Yeah, then he says "Looks Greek to me!" :mooner:
Re: Revelation! 666 is not the number of the beast (it's a devilish 616)
Quote:
80's hair-band and followers of God, Stryper, are making a comeback. Their new stage backdrop will no longer be a 777, but rather a 717.
If "616" causes Stryper to make a comeback, then it truly is the number of the beast.