Originally Posted by CX

This plainly isn't supported by the evidence. Firstly 1750 is nothing like old by the standards of biblical criticism. Secondly there are actually 3 variants with respect to the actual number, 666,665 & 616. The vast majority of MSS from antiquity support 666. Only the 5th century codex C has the 616 variant (additionally the church father Irenaeus acknowledges that this variant exists in MSS unknown to us). While 616 is an interesting and important variant the vast preponderance of the evidence suggests that 666 is the original reading.

Originally Posted by Mageth

No kidding? What do you mean by "symmetrical", BTW?

Originally Posted by Iacchus

09-90 .. 18-81 .. 27-72 .. 36-63 .. 45-54 .. 54-45 .. 63-36 .. 72-27 .. 81-18 .. 90-09

Oh, and notice that all these numbers are divisible by 9.

Originally Posted by Iacchus

09-90 .. 18-81 .. 27-72 .. 36-63 .. 45-54 .. 54-45 .. 63-36 .. 72-27 .. 81-18 .. 90-09

Oh, and notice that all these numbers are divisible by 9.

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Also, look at the 63-36 aspect of it where, you can add 630 + 036 to get 666 or, you can divide 63 by 9 and 36 by 9 and get 7 and 4 or, 74. Hence 74 x 9 = 666. Now isn't that strange?

Originally Posted by Mageth

No. What justified multiplying 63 by 10 to get 630 (why not multiply by, say, 9?), or combining 7 and 4 to get 74 (why not 4 and 7 to get 47? or add them to get 11? or multiply them to get 28?) Or how about 36-63? Take 360 and add 63 to get 423...amazing!

Simple, and selective, tricks with numbers. There's nothing strange or amazing about it, except to the gullible.

Originally Posted by Iacchus

I believe this is something which is called pattern recognition.

Originally Posted by Mageth

Indeed. Or selective pattern recognition.

Originally Posted by Iacchus

And why not go with that which is conspicous or obvious? Isn't that what Occam's Razor says?