Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mark9950 · 07-31-2003, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Since the Bible is a book of both history and prophecy

History maybe,but many prophecies never came true.They claim they have come true due to the fact they were written long after the so called prophect prophesied and it happened.

John should have never drank the devil water.

mark9950 · 07-31-2003, 10:18 PM

You should really read the book of enoch.

07-31-2003, 10:28 PM

Doctor X

Was I not clear?

Deciphering 13:18 is not an invitation to dive into "quasi-
mysticism" or outright mysticism. Gemetria is a step towards
numerology and an even closer one towards the Kabala. If anything, it's a mature curiosity.

Max

07-31-2003, 10:34 PM

I find it interesting that the Living Bible translates Rev 13:18b
with the idea that it's derived from gemetria:

"Let those who are able, interpret this code: the numerical
values of the letters in his name add to 666."
This approach, however, has turned into a can of worms. Is there any indication that would preclude (or lessen the likelihood of) gemetria as an option?

However, the NWT ftn reads:

Six hundred andsixty-six," [Aleph]A; P47 and Minuscule ms 046, [Khi, Xi, and Digamma], the Gr. letters representing the number 666. Here the number 6 is emphasized to a third degree, namely, 6 plus 60 plus 600

Those three letters are numerals (the Digamma=6). So perhaps the only calculation needed is to add the three numerals, with the
"wisdom" and "intelligence" being used to ascertain its meaning and application.

Regarding the variant of 616 that others havepointed out, I imagine it could be a gemetria-driven sum from a name that was short by 50. It would be interesting if anyone wrote an article on this!

Max

Doctor X · 07-31-2003, 10:37 PM

Causitive Imperfect of the Canaanite-Proto-Hebrew verb "HWY" "to be"Truth:

[Stop that!--Ed.]

Sorry . . . YHWHtruth:

No, I do not think you were very clear. I awaited for a "therefore, the number means such-and-such" or even a "no one can figure it out." For example, I disagree with Amos' gynmastics--the number clearly refers to the "beast" who is, in his translation, the "certain man."

I believe the reader was invited to make this calculation.

Thus far, I remain uncertain what your opinion is.

--J.D.

07-31-2003, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
[No, I do not think you were very clear. I awaited for a "therefore, the number means such-and-such" or even a "no one can figure it out." For example, I disagree with Amos' gynmastics--the number clearly refers to the "beast" who is, in his translation, the "certain man."

I believe the reader was invited to make this calculation.

Thus far, I remain uncertain what your opinion is.

--J.D.

Hi again, they may seem like gymnastics to you but they fit so well with the rest of my story.

Doctor X · 07-31-2003, 11:51 PM

YHWHtruth:

Ah . . . you posted as I posted, and your second post clears some things up. I think you would like the link provided by Toto.

Amos:

. . . and I once saw a very "pagan" criticism of the Bible that claimed "666" refered to YHWH.

I think that made the author of the book feel good and it "fit the rest of his story" but his argument for it was complete polemical fallacy.

Similarly, I do not believe your interpretation of the reading holds.

I have yet to figure out how to do the breathing marks. . . .

Quote:

Ωδε η σοφια εστιν. ο εχων νουν ψηφισατω τον αριθμον του θηριου, αριθμοs γαρ ανθρωπου εστιν

"Literally:"

Quote:

Thus the wisdom is: The sense/understanding reckon the number of the beast, number for man is

While I am sure the more proficient will contradict my rough translation, I do not find any justification for "certain man."

--J.D.

Devilnaut · 08-01-2003, 01:09 AM

Doc X:

". . . and I once saw a very "pagan" criticism of the Bible that claimed "666" refered to YHWH."

I know this was not addressed to me and I hate to jump in here (or do I? hehe) but... this isn't really different from what Amos is saying. The difference is in the level of complexity. When we're talking about God we're usually thinking about God, and the Devil. In this little world (or big world? Bigger but less complicated world perhaps

) there is no beast or anything like that. So if you bring 666 into this picture then yes, it is God's number (it's certainly not the Devil's number). The beast is kind of like God's champion.

Doctor X · 08-01-2003, 01:21 AM

Devilnaut:

Well, I think it depends what one wants to do with the texts. If someone wants to be "inspired" by them, they can claim they mean anything. Of course, someone could also claim that we should read "Romeo and Juliet" as "Romeo and Julian" the great homoerotic lovefest . . . that does not mean Shakespeare intended it.

I do not think there is any textual justification for claiming the beast to be YHWH--the author of that particular tome--almost wish I had picked it up--had an anti-religious axe to grind. Similarly, the text does not support Amos' reading.

I am more interested in trying to figure out what "John" thought. This does not mean I agree with him or have any intention of believing him.

--J.D.

Devilnaut · 08-01-2003, 01:44 AM

Doc X:

"I do not think there is any textual justification for claiming the beast to be YHWH--the author of that particular tome--almost wish I had picked it up--had an anti-religious axe to grind. Similarly, the text does not support Amos' reading."

It's definately not common knowledge. The more it gets out the more of the second beast you'll see wandering around. The second beast knew God in his head but not in his heart. And he thought that you could make people worship God, and that people could be convinced of this and that.

Really... if you're looking for a scholar or someone to trust don't listen to me. I've never read the bible. I read that part with the two beasts for the first time just now on the internet.

07-31-2003, 10:18 PM	#12
mark9950 Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: midwest usa Posts: 1,203	mark9950 You should really read the book of enoch.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-31-2003, 10:28 PM	#13
YHWHtruth Guest Posts: n/a	Doctor X Was I not clear? Deciphering 13:18 is not an invitation to dive into "quasi- mysticism" or outright mysticism. Gemetria is a step towards numerology and an even closer one towards the Kabala. If anything, it's a mature curiosity. Max

07-31-2003, 10:34 PM	#14
YHWHtruth Guest Posts: n/a	I find it interesting that the Living Bible translates Rev 13:18b with the idea that it's derived from gemetria: "Let those who are able, interpret this code: the numerical values of the letters in his name add to 666." This approach, however, has turned into a can of worms. Is there any indication that would preclude (or lessen the likelihood of) gemetria as an option? However, the NWT ftn reads: Six hundred andsixty-six," [Aleph]A; P47 and Minuscule ms 046, [Khi, Xi, and Digamma], the Gr. letters representing the number 666. Here the number 6 is emphasized to a third degree, namely, 6 plus 60 plus 600 Those three letters are numerals (the Digamma=6). So perhaps the only calculation needed is to add the three numerals, with the "wisdom" and "intelligence" being used to ascertain its meaning and application. Regarding the variant of 616 that others havepointed out, I imagine it could be a gemetria-driven sum from a name that was short by 50. It would be interesting if anyone wrote an article on this! Max

07-31-2003, 10:37 PM	#15
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Causitive Imperfect of the Canaanite-Proto-Hebrew verb "HWY" "to be"Truth: [Stop that!--Ed.] Sorry . . . YHWHtruth: No, I do not think you were very clear. I awaited for a "therefore, the number means such-and-such" or even a "no one can figure it out." For example, I disagree with Amos' gynmastics--the number clearly refers to the "beast" who is, in his translation, the "certain man." I believe the reader was invited to make this calculation. Thus far, I remain uncertain what your opinion is. --J.D.

08-01-2003, 01:09 AM	#18
Devilnaut Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Posts: 374	Doc X: ". . . and I once saw a very "pagan" criticism of the Bible that claimed "666" refered to YHWH." I know this was not addressed to me and I hate to jump in here (or do I? hehe) but... this isn't really different from what Amos is saying. The difference is in the level of complexity. When we're talking about God we're usually thinking about God, and the Devil. In this little world (or big world? Bigger but less complicated world perhaps ) there is no beast or anything like that. So if you bring 666 into this picture then yes, it is God's number (it's certainly not the Devil's number). The beast is kind of like God's champion.

08-01-2003, 01:21 AM	#19
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Devilnaut: Well, I think it depends what one wants to do with the texts. If someone wants to be "inspired" by them, they can claim they mean anything. Of course, someone could also claim that we should read "Romeo and Juliet" as "Romeo and Julian" the great homoerotic lovefest . . . that does not mean Shakespeare intended it. I do not think there is any textual justification for claiming the beast to be YHWH--the author of that particular tome--almost wish I had picked it up--had an anti-religious axe to grind. Similarly, the text does not support Amos' reading. I am more interested in trying to figure out what "John" thought. This does not mean I agree with him or have any intention of believing him. --J.D.

08-01-2003, 01:44 AM	#20
Devilnaut Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Posts: 374	Doc X: "I do not think there is any textual justification for claiming the beast to be YHWH--the author of that particular tome--almost wish I had picked it up--had an anti-religious axe to grind. Similarly, the text does not support Amos' reading." It's definately not common knowledge. The more it gets out the more of the second beast you'll see wandering around. The second beast knew God in his head but not in his heart. And he thought that you could make people worship God, and that people could be convinced of this and that. Really... if you're looking for a scholar or someone to trust don't listen to me. I've never read the bible. I read that part with the two beasts for the first time just now on the internet.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.