616 or 666 in Revelation?

[The Rogue Tomato]

999 is the mark of the ?s??q. 

 

[sword]

I have also decided not to get any form of bar code tattooed on me just to be safe.

I understand the english equivalent letter for the Jewish 6 is "W".
If that's the case then 666 is WWW or world wide web.

Those of us who spend a lot of time on the FFF will surely be in trouble.

 

[FSSL]

He certainly argued for apostolic succession. Which is pretty much the reason we do have 666 today. That.... and Jerome's choice.

... but the Tomato disagrees... and his silence is very loud.

 

[Bob H]

If one adds up the numbers on a ruolette wheel it equals 666. Since Don Trump owns a few casinos I guess that makes him.................................




nevermind.....

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

He certainly argued for apostolic succession. Which is pretty much the reason we do have 666 today. That.... and Jerome's choice.

... but the Tomato disagrees... and his silence is very loud.

What do I disagree with?  Are you putting words into my mouth again?  I wish you'd stop that. 

 

[FSSL]

You said that we need to consider Irenaeus very seriously. PY says that Irenaeus is overly religiously prejudiced.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

You said that we need to consider Irenaeus very seriously. PY says that Irenaeus is overly religiously prejudiced.

I fail to see the contradiction.  PY obviously took Irenaeus seriously enough to come to his conclusion that Irenaeus is prejudiced. 

I think you need a refresher on the English language.  Irenaeus is one of the earliest witnesses to mss we have on record.  To fail to take him seriously would be a grievous mistake of any student of the Bible.  What conclusions you draw from Irenaeus are up to you. 

 

[rsc2a]

I have decided to keep the "FFF" I have tattooed on my right arm since it does not represent 666 or 616.

Debatable.

F is the sixth letter of the alphabet. 

 

[FSSL]

I think you need a refresher on the English language.  Irenaeus is one of the earliest witnesses to mss we have on record.  To fail to take him seriously would be a grievous mistake of any student of the Bible.  What conclusions you draw from Irenaeus are up to you.

There is nothing new in this thread. We have known that there was little witness to 616 (even 656).

What I don't understand is why this makes any diff. PY says this has great implications. You said the same thing. The implications are benign.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I think you need a refresher on the English language.  Irenaeus is one of the earliest witnesses to mss we have on record.  To fail to take him seriously would be a grievous mistake of any student of the Bible.  What conclusions you draw from Irenaeus are up to you.

There is nothing new in this thread. We have known that there was little witness to 616 (even 656).

What I don't understand is why this makes any diff. PY says this has great implications. You said the same thing. The implications are benign.

Whatever.... people can make up their own mind.

Yes. 616 has many implications. The least of which is evidence that early mss choices were made my early church "fathers" that have lasting impact on theology.

 

[FSSL]

You keep saying that... What real impact on theology does 616 make over 666? It messes with the conspiracy nuts, but makes no difference otherwise. Unless you are into Gematria. Are you?

 

[praise_yeshua]

You keep saying that... What real impact on theology does 616 make over 666? It messes with the conspiracy nuts, but makes no difference otherwise.

So you don't care what the number might be? You can't honestly tell me that either number is acceptable. Honesty clearly doesn't matter to you anymore.

 

[FSSL]

You can demagogue the 616 all you want. No one has suggested that 616 is, for certain, the original reading. You have already made up your mind ahead of those who have actually studied the mss.

616, 656, 666 only has real impact on theologies based on Gematria.

Otherwise, the study has implications for showing us that mss copies are not always linear.

 

[FSSL]

The GREATER implication from your position on Revelation is why matters like these cause you to distrust the book of Revelation and lead to you viewing it as full of corruptions.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You can demagogue the 616 all you want. No one has suggested that 616 is, for certain, the original reading. You have already made up your mind ahead of those who have actually studied the mss.

616, 656, 666 only has real impact on theologies based on Gematria.

Otherwise, the study has implications for showing us that mss copies are not always linear.

You posted an article in which Wallace, himself, said 616 was probably the original reading. Don't tell me "I've already made up my mind"!! Stop tell me what I believe and when I believe it.

You're downplaying the impact. Many theologians have incorrectly addressed the number for over a thousand years. You're being entirely dishonest about the impact.

Which is pretty much typical rhetoric from a 66 book onlyist like yourself. Any error found really doesn't mean ANYTHING!!!

 

[Ransom]

Whatever.... people can make up their own mind.

". . . those lying stupid liars, who may be stupid or liars but are probably stupid, lying stupid liars."

 

[FSSL]

You have taken Wallace's statement of probability and overplayed it.

Wallace's guarded probability (inclination) has become your certainty.

Wallace says, "Actually, the verdict is not in on this one yet. I am inclined to the view that the original wording here was 616, but a lot of work is needed to determine this."

You say, " This has great theological implications and those who do not agree with me are just like KJVOs and have lost all rationality to make a case for 666."

 

[praise_yeshua]

You have taken Wallace's statement of probability and overplayed it.

Wallace's guarded probability (inclination) has become your certainty.

Wallace says, "Actually, the verdict is not in on this one yet. I am inclined to the view that the original wording here was 616, but a lot of work is needed to determine this."

You say, " This has great theological implications and those who do not agree with me are just like KJVOs and have lost all rationality to make a case for 666."

Well.... you know that isn't true and I'm finished giving you a platform to questioning my ethics.

Added.....  Its funny how you don't understand Wallace....

This textual variant does not change any cardinal belief of Christians ? but, if original, it would send about seven tons of dispensational literature to the flames. 

Which covers some serious "poundage" in your library....

 

[FSSL]

Imagine just how WRONG all those who have been preaching about the number of the beast have been if its really 616!

How does one rationally make the case for 666?

 

[FSSL]

This textual variant does not change any cardinal belief of Christians ? but, if original, it would send about seven tons of dispensational literature to the flames.

When it comes to 666, it doesn't matter whether you are Covenant or Dispensationalist. Those given to numerology.

I don't know of any serious dispensational work that ties 666 to Nero.

Do you?