Dummy Thread

You are kidding...right? This really gave you the willies?

 

Ancient numbering systems used an alpha-numeric method. This is true of the Latin (Roman) system that is still common today: I=1, V=5, X=10, L=50, C=100, D=500, M=1000. Greek and Hebrew follow a similar method where each letter of their alphabets represents a number. The first nine letters represent 1–9.3 The tenth letter represents 10, with the nineteenth letter representing 100 and so on. Since the Book of Revelation is written in a Hebrew context by a Jew with numerous allusions to the Old Testament, we should expect the solution to deciphering the meaning of six hundred and sixty-six to be Hebraic. "The reason clearly is that, while [John] writes in Greek, he thinks in Hebrew, and the thought has naturally affected the vehicle of expression."


When Nero Caesar's name is transliterated into Hebrew, which a first-century Jew would probably have done, he would have gotten Neron Kesar or simply nrwn qsr, since Hebrew has no letters to represent vowels. “It has been documented by archaeological finds that a first century Hebrew spelling of Nero's name provides us with precisely the value of 666. Jastrow's lexicon of the Talmud contains this very spelling.

When we take the letters of Nero's name and spell them in Hebrew, we get the following numeric values: n=50, r=200, w=6, n=50, q=100, s=60, r=200 = 666. “Every Jewish reader, of course, saw that the Beast was a symbol of Nero. And both Jews and Christians regarded Nero as also having close affinities with the serpent or dragon. . . . The Apostle writing as a Hebrew, was evidently thinking as a Hebrew. . . . Accordingly, the Jewish Christian would have tried the name as he thought of the name—that is in Hebrew letters. And the moment that he did this the secret stood revealed. No Jew ever thought of Nero except as ‘Neron Kesar.

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/05-10-05.asp

 

Now, we're at 667, the neighbor of the beast...

But, as to the number 666: There is much debate as to whether the number is 666, 616, or 606. The oldest manuscripts, which I think tend to be better examples, generally have 616 or 606. In this instance, I think 666 is correct. Why? Well, when the manusripts were being copied during the 1st century, many people were expecting these events to take place immediately, so they tried to make the number fit particular horrendous people of the time. (Add the letters to the name up and it's 616: "Well, that's obviously what the number is supposed to be")

But, with the emphasis put upon Babylon, and the importance of the number 666 to them (that was the total of the numbers of their gods from whom they needed protection), I think this is the correct number.

Just as an interesting aside, there are 666 cities in China.

 

999 upside down is 666.

 

The fragment supports the reading of some Greek New Testament manuscripts that read 616 instead of 666. Why would someone making a copy of the Revelation scroll make such a number change? “Perhaps the change was intentional, seeing that the Greek form Neron Caesar written in Hebrew characters (nrwn qsr) is equivalent to 666, whereas the Latin form Nero Caesar (nrw qsr) is equivalent to 616.” A Latin copyist might have thought that 666 was an error because Nero Caesar did not add up to 666 when transliterated into Latin. He then changed 666 to 616 to conform to the Latin rendering since it was generally accepted that Nero was the Beast. In either case, a Hebrew transliteration nets 666, while a Latin spelling nets 616. Nero was the “man” and either 666 or 616 was his number.


http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/05-10-05.asp

 

If you add 1000 to 666 (1000 year millenial reign while Satan is bound), subtract 100 prophets that Obidiah hid in 1 Kings 18:14, then subtract the two mites that the widow gave in Luke 21:2, and you get 1564, the year John Calvin died. This is absolute proof that John Calvin was the antichrist. (and was so ordained before the foundation of the world).

 

666 is the number of the Babylonian gods, and there's quite a bit of emphasis on Babylonianism...

 

You go saturneptune .. you go!!!

 

Saturnneptune, you forgot that the antichrist recovered from a mortal wound. Anybody seen John Calvin lately? Oh, there he goes. I've got to catch up to him. I'll check in later after we've talked and tell you he said.

 

I have it on good authority that Calvin and Arminius now both have thier theology straightened out and have formed a gospel trio with Elvis.

 

Yes. He is alive and well on this board.

In fact there is a thread here that states that Jesus Himself is a Calvinist.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3652.html

If that isn't anti-Christ I don't know what is.

Anyway, here is Calvin's first trip to Bible School. (Notice his mean demeanor)

Calvin

Calvin hates Scripture study

Calvin learns eisegesis from a pro

Calvin learns logic and Scripture from his dad

Yep...that's the anti-Christ in the making all right.

[ April 14, 2006, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: JackRUS ]

 

Many years ago, just before Sunday School, several of us guys were standing in a hallway, laughing and cutting up a bit. One of the members approached and said, "Fellas, when we're in the church, we don't need to have all this levity. This is a serious time."

I'm like this fella. There's entirely too much levity in this thread, and I'm very concerned. How can we have lively discussions if we're all just cum-ba-ya. This is a slippery slope. I can see it coming. No more sharp attacks on each other's position. No more lashing out in anger. Gee, if we're just going to "discuss" instead of debate, we've got problems. And look how easily we got sidetracked by Saturnneptune's so-called "levity." Things just deteriorated from there. Even I, the most solemn and serious of all of you, got caught up in it, for which I repent. There's a forum category for humor. Let's keep it there. Arguing over Calvinism and Arminiasm is serious business. Let's don't dilute our discussion by being nice, or funny.

 

Oh my, see how bad it's getting. I forgot that this is not debating Calvinism, it's about the anti-christ. Well, I guess the anti-christ is a serious subject, too, so my comment about too much levity still stands.

 

Rumor has it that Bigfoot has him in captivity along with Elvis and JFK.

 

These guys agree...I think???