FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-15-2001, 03:51 PM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

Hey thanks!

A biblical scholar I am not. But after actually "reading" the bible (as opposed to reciting) I am fascinated by how many different experts all put their on spin on it. Revelations and this 666 bit is just another example.

This little bit Tercel posted is also interesting...

<<<It then goes on to point out that Iesous (Jesus) totals 888 - each digit being one more than perfect (7).>>>

-T
 
Old 06-15-2001, 04:31 PM   #12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Kosh;"Offa? You be changin' yer login name?"

hahahah, nope! For the past two weeks I have been
working out in the hot sun from 1/2 hour before
sunrise till 6p. No time for computers!

Here is an excerpt from Dr. Thiering;

5. Four years of education followed, taking of him
to Qof, graduation, at the age of 27. Then three
more years brought the most privileged to the highest
grade. Of these three years, the first year was again
spent outside, and only on reaching Resh did the
graduate enter the sanctuary. He then progressed within it
for two further years, through Shin until at 30 he
finally reached Taw, being given the sign X.
6. Thus the steps that brought a marked change in his
condition were Samekh, full initiation, Resh,
when he entered the sanctuary; and Taw, when he
reached the top. The numerical values of these letters in
Hebrew were 60 (Samekh), 200 (Resh) and 400
(Taw), totalling 660. When the letters were put
together a Waw added, as the usual letter attached
to a Hebrew letter to make it a word, then, since Waw
was 6, the combination gave 666. The number of the Beast,
of Rev 13:18, refers to the original Jewish monastic system
in a way that could be understood only by those who had
been through it. Revelation 13, written by John of
Zebedee, is attacking the whole system and its current
head, Simon Magus, the second Beast.


thanks, offa

and, good-night


 
Old 06-15-2001, 10:43 PM   #13
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Thomas:
Forgive me if this has been covered...

Was watching that Biblical Prophecy show on the History Channel last night. They're covering the book of revelations.

Anyhow, regarding the numbers 666...they introduced one theory that I have never heard of. Something to the effect that in Hebrew (or was it Greek?) the letters also correspond to numbers. Anyhow, when added up, 666 spells out Nero Caeser.

Have any of you hardcore types heard this theory before? If so, can you explain it in english to a simpleton?

What I find interesting (which is what they noted) is that if that's the case, the book was basically written about Nero which has already happened. They also said no one is sure who wrote Revelations.

-T
</font>
The numbers 666 is the number of the man and the mark of the beast is therefore not 666 but has at least one 5 in it. For example 665 or 655 or something like that.

The 666 is called the nuber of "that man" because only "man" is reborn at midnight midwinter midlife (hence the three sixes). Man here is the first beast of Chapter 13.

The second beasts number is not given but we are told that a little ingenuity is needed to calculate its number.

Amos
 
Old 06-16-2001, 01:36 AM   #14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I am not quite sure how this goes, but, If you transfer the Greek letters for 666 into Hebrew and then to Sanskrit you come up with the letters WWW like in www.com and this was supposed to have been the beast that was going to lock up all the computers in the year 2000 and shut the world down. (I got that tidbit in a beer-joint so consider the source)

thanks, offa
 
Old 06-16-2001, 03:27 AM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Thomas:
A biblical scholar I am not. But after actually "reading" the bible (as opposed to reciting) I am fascinated by how many different experts all put their on spin on it.</font>
Don't forget, these people have to do something to justify their pay. And something controversial if they want to make a name for themselves (either that or actually be a real expert - and that's just too hard for some).

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Revelations and this 666 bit is just another example.</font>
Well 666 is probably the most unclear passage in the most unclear book in the entire Bible, so it isn't exactly a good example of the norm.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">This little bit Tercel posted is also interesting...

&lt;&lt;&lt;It then goes on to point out that Iesous (Jesus) totals 888 - each digit being one more than perfect (7).&gt;&gt;&gt;</font>
I could think of a number of things to read into it and am all the while wondering whether it is correct to read anything into it. What exactly do you find interesting about it?
 
Old 06-16-2001, 02:54 PM   #16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Terce,

What about the common claim I've seen that it could also be 696 depending on how it was translated? Is that true?

Michael
 
Old 06-16-2001, 08:53 PM   #17
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Michael,
I have never heard the claim that it can be 696 and none of my four commentaries mention it. Where have you seen this claim?
 
Old 06-19-2001, 03:51 PM   #18
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I've heard that some manuscripts read 616 instead; 666 in Roman numerals is DCLXVI, and if one scribe missed a L, all subsequent copies made from that manuscript would also omit the L. (This assumes a manuscript in Latin, of course.)

But never 696. That's a new one on me.

--Muad'dib

[This message has been edited by Muad'dib (edited June 19, 2001).]
 
Old 06-19-2001, 04:00 PM   #19
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Muad'dib:
I've heard that some manuscripts read 616 instead; 666 in Roman numerals is DCLXVI, and if one scribe missed a L, all subsequent copies made from that manuscript would also omit the L. (This assumes a manuscript in Latin, of course.)

But never 696. That's a new one on me.

--Muad'dib

[This message has been edited by Muad'dib (edited June 19, 2001).]
</font>
Must be what Maud'dib wrote. I was writing from memory, and just got the fax wrong. Sorry,

Michael
 
Old 06-19-2001, 04:08 PM   #20
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

My mistake! The 616 manuscripts are not in Latin--at least, some of them aren't. According to Bart Ehrman's "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to Early Christian Writings," there are early Greek manuscripts that read 616.

Also from Ehrman, Kaiser Neron adds up to 666, but interestingly, Kaiser Nero (an alternate spelling) adds to 616, as the value of the final "n" is 50.

My History of Christianity prof thought Revelation was more likely written during the rule of Domitian in the 90's, and that 666 is just the ultimately imperfect number (as it falls short of 7, the perfect number, not once but three times)--but as Ehrman points out, there are probably more than 666 interpretations of 666.

--Muad'dib


[This message has been edited by Muad'dib (edited June 19, 2001).]
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:50 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.