616 not 666

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2006-06-24 03:50pm

Apparently 666 isn't really the mark of the beast. Read Here

I remember seeing something about this on a Documentary a few years back.
Even MTV weighs in on it's significance on Heavy Metal:
Here.

Why has 666 persisted for so long?
Does this hold any significance??

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2006-06-24 03:53pm

They must be a bunch of crazied DC Comics fans who are pissed at Marvel.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-06-24 04:02pm

Eh, yeah, this is really old news. As to why the 666 has held on. . .maybe it's just not as catchy as 616?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-06-24 04:07pm

General Zod wrote:Eh, yeah, this is really old news. As to why the 666 has held on. . .maybe it's just not as catchy as 616?

You mean 616 isn't as catchy. Still, I believe there are a few theories over the numbers, basically just code for whatever figure was the biggest threat to the Xians at the time.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-06-24 04:14pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
General Zod wrote:Eh, yeah, this is really old news. As to why the 666 has held on. . .maybe it's just not as catchy as 616?
You mean 616 isn't as catchy. Still, I believe there are a few theories over the numbers, basically just code for whatever figure was the biggest threat to the Xians at the time.

Geh. Right. Blame it on multi-tasking in seven windows at once.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2006-06-24 04:50pm

Or:

"Eh, yeah, this is really old news. As to why the 666 has held on. . .maybe [the number of the beast is] just not as catchy [when it is] 616?"

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-06-24 06:08pm

[Freddie the fundie]

Because 666 is the one in the Bible and the Bible is always right!!!

[/FTF]

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2006-06-24 06:20pm

Uh, wasn't 616 also from an old Bible? Unless it was a mistake in a book that has no mistakes.

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2006-06-24 06:25pm

How can there be that big a typo in the Bible? Seriously, how could they have missed this?!

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-06-24 06:30pm

Admiral Johnason wrote:How can there be that big a typo in the Bible? Seriously, how could they have missed this?!

See all of Darth Wong's postings about the Bible having lousy editors.

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » 2006-06-24 09:17pm

The various "correct Bibles" have so many inaccuracies I long since gave up on coherency. The King James Bible is the worst offender. "Suffer not a witch to live," was actually "Suffer not a poisoner to live," in the orignal text. There are numerous other mistakes that would take too long to point out.

God Fearing Atheist · Post by **God Fearing Atheist** » 2006-06-24 09:17pm

Lets not get carried away folks. 666 is still the probable reading, being supported by almost all manuscripts.

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2006-06-24 09:35pm

Wanderer wrote:The various "correct Bibles" have so many inaccuracies I long since gave up on coherency. The King James Bible is the worst offender. "Suffer not a witch to live," was actually "Suffer not a poisoner to live," in the orignal text. There are numerous other mistakes that would take too long to point out.

Well, I knew that and that the Bible is extremely flawed and could due for an update, but this seems so trival and so far from effecting anything that the Church could need that it should not have been changed.

l33telboi · Post by **l33telboi** » 2006-06-25 01:27am

616, I seem to remember this from somewhere. As to why it's 616, in the bible it says something about one having to be smart to understand the number. In the language the people used when then first wrote the bible people used to assign sounds to numbers, like we do with letters. And if you translate the sound of the number it comes quite close to "ceasar nero" (though it sounded quite different it their language). So some have basically deduced that the number of the beast is really the name of the beast, ceasar nero who was a big fan of suppressing those people at that time.

Oh and the 666 instead of 616 was because of a translation error if i remember correctly, makes you wonder how much else has been translated wrong.

l33telboi · Post by **l33telboi** » 2006-06-25 01:32am

Should have checked this before posting, but oh well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-06-27 11:35pm

God Fearing Atheist wrote:Lets not get carried away folks. 666 is still the probable reading, being supported by almost all manuscripts.

Yes, all of the manuscripts dated after the one mentioned in the article. The whole point was that it originally read "616".

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-06-30 11:09am

Admiral Johnason wrote:How can there be that big a typo in the Bible? Seriously, how could they have missed this?!

The Bible is littered with numerical errors, namely contradictions from different parts about the number of <insert objects>. So being out by 50 isn't a big a deal by their crappy standards.

God Fearing Atheist · Post by **God Fearing Atheist** » 2006-06-30 03:09pm

wolveraptor wrote:
God Fearing Atheist wrote:Lets not get carried away folks. 666 is still the probable reading, being supported by almost all manuscripts.
Yes, all of the manuscripts dated after the one mentioned in the article. The whole point was that it originally read "616".

Except that textual criticism is a wee bit more complicated than "older = original," and P 115 is not older (or at least, not much older) than several Alexandrian witnesses that read 666. Its certainly not older than Irenaeus.

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2006-07-01 02:01pm

God Fearing Atheist wrote:Lets not get carried away folks. 666 is still the probable reading, being supported by almost all manuscripts.

From what I have heard, there are Bibles out there that do in fact have foot/endnotes that mention that the number of the Beast is "possibly" 616.

God Fearing Atheist · Post by **God Fearing Atheist** » 2006-07-01 02:51pm

THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:
God Fearing Atheist wrote:Lets not get carried away folks. 666 is still the probable reading, being supported by almost all manuscripts.
From what I have heard, there are Bibles out there that do in fact have foot/endnotes that mention that the number of the Beast is "possibly" 616.

There are bibles that list textual variants. My Nestle-Aland cites "C; Ir mss" for 616 at Revelation 13.18; i.e. the fifth century Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus and manuscripts known to Irenaeus.

The 11th century miniscule ms. 2344 has Rev 13.18 read "665." Like 616, it is not impossible that this was the reading in the original copy of Revelations. But history, like all human science, deals not it possibility but in probability.

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-07-03 01:40pm

Wanderer wrote:The various "correct Bibles" have so many inaccuracies I long since gave up on coherency. The King James Bible is the worst offender. "Suffer not a witch to live," was actually "Suffer not a poisoner to live," in the orignal text. There are numerous other mistakes that would take too long to point out.

Need help here. Can you give some documentation as to this?

I'm trying to decide WHY "witch" or "witchcraft" would be in the Bible in the first place. Deuteronomy 18:10-12 says, "there should be none found among that that uses divination, an observer of times, or an enchanter, a charmer, a wizard, a consulter with familiar spirits, or a necromancer..."

I'm wondering if, at the time Deuteronomy was written, how well known the Hebrew people would be of such beliefs.

It makes me wonder if such ideas were placed into the Bible later (such as during the Dark Ages), when these things were on people's minds, . . and "witch hunts" were killing thousands of innocent young women?.