| Author | Message | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Hint: It's not 666, it's LXVI. But what does it mean? | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
HINT NO. 2: 666 is an alphanumeric English "word." Meaning the numerals are not Greek, nor are they Latin or "Roman." Meaning the Apostle John did not write 666. He wrote a Greek number transliterated "eksakosioi eksakonta." Nor did he write the Roman numerals DCLXVI (666). But it's a good bet that he intended to have his readers think of DCLXVI, since the context indicates the "beast" was -- sorry, not the U.S. in prophecy -- but Rome which at that time: 1. Ruled the "known world." 2. Was very tyrannical, especially over religiously uncooperative provinces such as Judea. 3. Was at this very time trying to get Christians of the Empire to "curse Christ" and throw incense at a fire burning on an altar beneath a statue ("idol") of the Emperor, who was trying to get everybody to regard him as a god. And so DCLXVI is probably what John was trying to convey to his readers (hearers) mainly to the "seven churches" which were in what is now Turkey. John was smarter than you think: Consider (first) that every numeral in the English 666 is the same. Consider (second) that every numeral in the Roman DCLXVI is different. Consider (third) that the digits are in descending order. Consider (fourth) the following: D = 500 C = 100 L = 50 X = 10 V = 5 I = 1 Adds up to 666 in English numerals and DCLXVI in Roman. Consider (fifth) that the next higher Roman numeral -- after I, V, X, L, C, D -- is M. And M = 1000. But if you add M to the "baseball lineup," you get MDCLXVI = 1666, not 6666. And there was no "eighth hitter" in the Roman lineup. So DCLXVI is the largest Roman number John the Numerator could make which would add up to three 6's in a row in English. So, keeping the same pattern of 1ís alternating with 5ís at the far left digit, letís make up a new Roman numeral to add -- say, R = 5000 ñ to the lineup of the Roman baseball team. Write them in descending order and you get: R = 5000 M = 1000 D = 500 C = 100 L = 50 X = 10 V = 5 I = 1 Adds up to 6666 in English. BUT, as weíve already noticed, there is no R = 5000 in Roman numerals. And so therefore that number ñ if John kept his same pattern going ñ was not available. But he DID use the highest Roman numeral he could which would have the consequence DCLXVI = 666 in English. Which would explain why he left out the M = 1000, the highest Roman numeral. But which still wouldnít explain why he used the smarter-than-you-thought ìcode number translated into English as 666.î So I havenít discovered (yet) what John intended by the ìcode number translated into English as 666.î All Iíve discovered is that John was ìsmarter than you thought.î He was smarter than I thought too. So the question is still open: The 666 of Revelation 13:18: 1. Is a manís number. 2. Is the number of ìthe beast.î 3. Is probably a Roman numeral coded in Greek. 4. CANNOT POSSIBLY REPRESENT ìSUNDAY WORSHIPî tattooed in coded form on everybodyís forehead or hand. 5. In its primary meaning probably represents some evil official of the 1st century Roman Empire, if not the Emperor himself. 6. In its secondary meaning represents ANY EVIL POWER OR SYSTEM that tramples on the rights of human conscience under God. It is even possible that one representation could be the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists or any other religious body that behaves their way. The offer remains open. But the gospel alone prevails, Jude | ||
| Question |
Jude: Find a large dictonary and look up the letter "w" and tell us what you find. Then take what you learn and apply that information to the name "Ellen Gould White". | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Question, Curiosity killed the cat (and I just dodged death), so I'll ask; have you ever posted as "Gary"? Maryann | ||
| Question |
I must increase and he (me)must decrease, or something like that. I used to post under my name. I gave out my address and even my phone number. Until one day I was atacked at my place of business by someone I trusted as a friend. Now I work from the shadows more. I figure if SDA,s can have the shadow of Christ, I can also have a few shadows. Christ is the only important name. I have come to distrust people posting as Christians and act like something else. | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Question, You said: "I figure if SDA,s can have the shadow of Christ, I can also have a few shadows." If you are as you seem and don't want to much to do with SDAs, why in the world would you want to "have a few shadows" just because they do? If you need to "have a few shadows", do it on your own! Don't use SDAs as an excuse! We all have the right to post under any name we choose without using an excuse for it. You seem to have very good reasons for posting as you do, by the way. Peace to you......Maryann | ||
| Steve |
Hi Jude, Well, for me, I've always been amazed at the "fear" of Christians towards the number 666. After all, aren't we humans the nuber 6? Isn't 6 the number of man? We were created on the 6th day. Even in Revelation, it says that the number 666 is the number of a man. When I became a Christian, I learned that in some manuscripts, the number was translated as 616. Recently, in a discussion with a FAFer, I was told that one possible count of the numbers of Laws in the OT was 616. Of course, in good SDA fashion this would make the Law equivalent to the Beast. Also, as a new Christian, a book was published with a picture of Henry Kissinger on the front. It's title said something about the AntiChrist. Of course, the book went on to "prove" how Kissinger was the AntiChrist. I have heard the idea before that he was someone from the first century, possibly Nero. I had always rejected that because it made Revelation look like a history book rather than a prophecy. Of course there's the possibility that your Primary and Secondary meanings are both right on target. As I've learned more about Antiochus Epiphanes, I can see that the prophecies of Daniel can have fulfillment both in the time of the Maccabees as well as in the future. And perhaps John received a dual prophecy. You're making me think about things I hadn't wanted to think about in quite a while. Thanks, Steve | ||
| Jude the obscure |
Very interesting, Steve, I have a response to this remark of yours: "I have heard the idea before that he was someone from the first century, possibly Nero. I had always rejected that because it made Revelation look like a history book rather than a prophecy." The NIV's Introduction to Revelation has this to say about ways to interpret the book: ^^^^^^^^^^^ Interpreters of of Revelation normally fall into four groups: 1. PRETERISTS [roughly defined, "PAST-ISTS"] understand the book exclusively in terms of its first-century setting, claiming that most of its events have already taken place. 2. HISTORICISTS take it as describing the long chain of events from Patmos to the end of history. 3. FUTURISTS place the book primarily in the end times. [This is somewhat confusing, since New Testament writers consistently and unanimously claimed that they WERE ALREADY writing in the end times! And so if one is a futurist, what does one make of that FACT? Any "futurists" out there please speak up.] 4. IDEALISTS view it as symbolic pictures of such timeless truths as the victory of good over evil. ^^^^^^^^^^^ The NIV Introduction to Revelation then goes on to "save itself from criticism" by adding this: "Fortunately, the fundamental truths of Revelation do not depend on adopting a particular point of view. They are available to anyone who will read the book for its overall messages and resist the temptation to become overly enamored with the details." Like you, I've wanted to ignore the book while I sorted out first the gospels and later Paul's letters. Revelation just "smelled too Adventisty" for me. But once I took the plunge and saw how the texts and contexts in Revelation consistently fail to support the SDA interpretations (particularly Revelation 14), the book started smelling better and better and better. Till now it smells like the Rose of Sharon. Peace to you, Steve, Jude |
