616 or 666 in Revelation?

[FSSL]

Source? Please place the FULL quote from Iraneaus and his actual position.

Iraneaus rejected the variant and knew that 666 was the right number.

Why didn't you bring this into the discussion?

Why did you not supply Iraneaus' statement as to why 616 was spurious? Here is how Iraneaus defends 666.

Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; section 1

Iraneaus says 616 is not a part of the approved copies. Those who spoke with John, who wrote Revelation, said that 666 was the correct reading.

Yes, the variant existed, and we have testimony that it was rejected.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Source? Please place the FULL quote from Iraneaus and his actual position.

Iraneaus rejected the variant and knew that 666 was the right number.

Why didn't you bring this into the discussion?

I never said he accepted it. He witnessed the fact the variant existed. There are many thing you don't' accept from Irenaus. Why accept his choice in 666?

We have very early manuscript evidence for 616. Earlier evidence than any extant manuscript witness for 666. In fact, Jerome choose 666 over 616 even though 616 were found in early Latin translations.

You're horribly inconsistent in your methods.

 

[FSSL]

Why did you not supply Iraneaus' statement as to why 616 was spurious? Here is how Iraneaus defends 666.

Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; section 1

Iraneaus says 616 is not a part of the approved copies. Those who spoke with John, who wrote Revelation, said that 666 was the correct reading.

Yes, the variant existed, and we have testimony that it was rejected.

You misused Iraneaus on the Rev 22.19 issue and you misused him in the OP

 

[praise_yeshua]

Why did you not supply Iraneaus' statement as to why 616 was spurious? Here is how Iraneaus defends 666.

Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; section 1

Iraneaus says 616 is not a part of the approved copies. Those who spoke with John, who wrote Revelation, said that 666 was the correct reading.

Yes, the variant existed, and we have testimony that it was rejected.

Good grief man....

Do you accept apostolic succession? Irenaeus was one of the first to use the doctrine to silence critics. Its one thing to accept the fact the variant existed and its an entirely different thing to accept his choice of texts.

Irenaeus used his postion in an attempt to silence critics. One of those choices was to promote the 666 reading over 616.

You've never had anything but poor methods. You don't even understand how to separate historical fact from historical choices.

The facts are. Irenaeus witnessed the variant reading of 616. That reading continued to surviving into extent texts today. His attempt to squash the reading wasn't successful. The earliest extant manuscripts witness to 616 being the proper reading. We have evidence that Jerome chose 666 even though Latin texts already had the 616 reading.

You're losing badly. Just like you have no explanation for the tribe of Dan being removed by the author..... you don't understand how to properly interpret evidence. I'll add a few more over time. You're batting zero at the moment.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You misused Iraneaus on the Rev 22.19 issue and you misused him in the OP

I never misused him. You're the one that doesn't understand how evidence works. You shouldn't read anything more into that I say..... than what I say...

 

[FSSL]

Ahhhh.... I love a good conspiracy. You hid the facts from the forum twice...

1) you said Iranaeus rejected Rev 22.19 as a corruption. When I pressed for a quote, you never delivered it. You just continued to use him to suggest that Revelation was corrupt.

2) you made the op appear as if Iraneaus supported the 616 position.

You are misusing Iraneaus and it is obvious

 

[praise_yeshua]

Ahhhh.... I love a good conspiracy. You hid the facts from the forum twice...

1) you said Iranaeus rejected Rev 22.19 as a corruption. When I pressed for a quote, you never delivered it. You just continued to use him to suggest that Revelation was corrupt.

2) you made the op appear as if Iraneaus supported the 616 position.

You are misusing Iraneaus and it is obvious

Show me where I said Iranaeus rejected Rev 22:19 as being corrupt?

I said Iraneaus witnessed that the text (Revelation) had already been corrupted in his time. Nothing more. Nothing less. I said.... that Rev 22:19 was probably added to combat those who sought to change the text. I can't help you didn't understand this.

I never said that Iraneaus supported 616. I said he witnessed its existence. You're the one being dishonest and trying to twist what I said.

I said what I said. Stop trying to make me say things I haven't said.

You're such a hard-head.

 

[FSSL]

Stop using Iraneaus name to support your conclusions that are not supported by Iraneaus.

THAT is why you are creating confusion.

It is your use of probability and assumptions that is making you unclear

 

[praise_yeshua]

Stop using Iraneaus name to support your conclusions that are not supported by Iraneaus.

THAT is why you are creating confusion.

It is your use of probability and assumptions that is making you unclear

No its not. I used the words of Ireneaus to provide context for the argument. This doesn't mean I accept everything Irenaeus said.

 

[FSSL]

This doesn't mean I accept everything Irenaeus said.

Except you keep using him to prove assumptions that he is wholly against.

Why not just say in your OP that there are fragments that support the 616 reading? That way, you would not have to hand wave off Iraneaus (whom you interjected) later in the discussion.

It is the most absurd kind of posting I have ever witnessed! Well... since Avery

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

This doesn't mean I accept everything Irenaeus said.

Except you keep using him to prove assumptions that he is wholly against.

Why not just say in your OP that there are fragments that support the 616 reading? That way, you would not have to hand wave off Iraneaus (whom you interjected) later in the discussion.

It is the most absurd kind of posting I have ever witnessed!

Not at all.  Irenaeus is one of the earliest witnesses to mss closest to their origin.  So what he says about the mss is very important.  If he observed that there were problems with the text, then that's an important thing to know. 

 

[FSSL]

Not at all.  Irenaeus is one of the earliest witnesses to mss closest to their origin.  So what he says about the mss is very important.  If he observed that there were problems with the text, then that's an important thing to know.

Lol!!! Thanks Tomato! You proved my point. BOOM!

Even Tomato is confused by PY!

Now watch as Tomato defends PY and gets further confused ---->

 

[praise_yeshua]

This doesn't mean I accept everything Irenaeus said.

Except you keep using him to prove assumptions that he is wholly against.

It is the most absurd kind of posting I have ever witnessed! Well... since Avery

Whatever....

You're being so ridiculous. A sore loser. I explained myself. A honest, rational person, would acknowledge that I approached the subject honestly and with integrity. I explained myself. You just don't accept what I say. You're just grasping at straws to throw at me. '

Why not just say in your OP that there are fragments that support the 616 reading? That way, you would not have to hand wave off Iraneaus (whom you interjected) later in the discussion.

I don't know what planet you're from but this exactly what I said in the OP.

There are early accounts from Iraneus that witness to variant texts that reference the number of the beast as being 616. The oldest extant fragment referencing the number of beast has recently been found and it reads 616.

You're just a whiner... Get over it. You lose.

 

[FSSL]

Bummer! My signature line is filled to the max! I cannot add your adjectives/nouns!

 

[praise_yeshua]

This doesn't mean I accept everything Irenaeus said.

Except you keep using him to prove assumptions that he is wholly against.

Why not just say in your OP that there are fragments that support the 616 reading? That way, you would not have to hand wave off Iraneaus (whom you interjected) later in the discussion.

It is the most absurd kind of posting I have ever witnessed!

Not at all.  Irenaeus is one of the earliest witnesses to mss closest to their origin.  So what he says about the mss is very important.  If he observed that there were problems with the text, then that's an important thing to know.

Its useless to argue with him. Every theological scholar knows the recent discover of Papyrus 115 has changed the discussion on Revelation. Wallace took the time himself.... to examine the fragment.

An honest man would accept that Irenaeus witnessed the variant existed during his life and still not feel obligated to accept his decision to disregard it.

All the evidence, taken as a whole, surely gives weight to the 616 reading.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Bummer! My signature line is filled to the max! I cannot add your adjectives/nouns!

Says someone that can change the setting......

LOL.... if you really want to use it... then change the setting....

You're not being sincere.

 

[FSSL]

Its useless to argue with him.

Hey... If someone wants to interject without reading the discussions and undermines your point... I don't find that useless.

 

[FSSL]

Says someone that can change the setting......

LOL.... if you really want to use it... then change the setting....

You're not being sincere.

Well then... I will look for that setting!

 

[Edwards]

I heard on a podcast recently that Dan Wallace had said that he saw the actual papyri and that it was 616.

My understanding is that in 2005  one papyri from the 3rd century (discovered in Egypt) was  616 instead of 666.  It obviously wasn't the original and it's just something to give bored scholars something to hoot about.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I heard on a podcast recently that Dan Wallace had said that he saw the actual papyri and that it was 616.

My understanding is that in 2005  one papyri from the 3rd century (discovered in Egypt) was  616 instead of 666.  It obviously wasn't the original and it's just something to give bored scholars something to hoot about.

Yeah. Sure..... A KJVOist wouldn't accept anything out Egypt while ignoring the fact God preserved Abraham in Egypt as well as the children or Israel. Yeah. Nothing "good" ever come out of Egypt.

Irenaeus witnessed a Greek variant in the 2nd century. Early Latin texts contain 616. Its not something new. The "new" early witness in "115" revived the debate and added a early manuscript witness to the collection of evidence.