WHO IS THE ANTICHRIST and what is the Mark of the Beast?

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Mark H.:
Thanks 3A!

Not being a Hebrew scholar (I only know a smattering of words), I don't have an opinion on this translation question, myself.

Do you know of any Bible versions that give a "singular" (similar to yours) translation to that verse, rather than a "plural" (like the KJV)? Also, out of curiosity, is there any Bible version that's most popular among SDA's?

(Incidentally, I hope you don't mind the "3A" abbreviation ... )

Thanks,

Mark

3A is fine. I have been called much worse!

I don't know if there is a version that does or not, I will look into that!

As far as popular versions among SDA's, it is strange that you should ask because it was that very thing we were discussing at the table I sat at during our last potluck.

Everyone seemed to say the same thing. Literal ones for study, paraphrase for general reading.

Most of the people at the table had either a KJV, NKJV, or a NASB with them. The pastor reads from the NASB when he preaches, and one guy had a New Living bible.

I read and study from the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and from a PC version of the Transliterated Romanized Greek/ Hebrew Bible.

Why do you ask?

God Bless

 

[Chrissy]

Abiyah,

Im sorry about the long posts. I do web design for people and lately I have been showing signs of getting carpal tunnel syndrom, where my left wrist hurts from typing too much.

And so whenever I can, I try and post things that I or someone else has already typed out. That study on Michael the Archangel had those ---- lines in there already and I had no idea it would mess up anyone's screen, so I'm sorry.

I will try and type myself and make shorter posts. It's just that usually whenever I have discussed these topics before, people will ask all sorts of questions and so I used information that already had all those "usual" questions already answered.

But anyway I will try to do better

 

[BobRyan]

[/quote]Do you know of any Bible versions that give a "singular" (similar to yours) translation to that verse, rather than a "plural" (like the KJV)? Also, out of curiosity, is there any Bible version that's most popular among SDA's?[/quote]

SDAs read from a wide range of translations - however the one I found in the past to be "most accurate" was the NASB. Now however the NKJV seems to me to excell even the NASB for accuracy.

In Christ,

Bob

[ February 23, 2003, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[BobRyan]

Abyiah --
Well, I had not intended to get serious in this
thread, but when it comes to teachings that our
Lord was Michael, well, we all know where that
comes from.

#1. There IS a group (the JWs) that DOES teach that Christ was the created being - Michael prior to becoming the infant of Bethlehem.

#2. The SDA teaching is that Christ is NOT a created being NOR is He simply "an uncreated Angel Michael". He is God the Son. He appeared "in the form" of "The Angel of the Lord", of a man in Gen 18 and as the Angel of the Lord He was known as "Michael" - but in ALL cases He was infinite God in His role as "THE WORD" that EXPLAINS the Father to finite created beings.

He held this role as "the WORD" from "The Beginning".

Chrissy's posts show in exhaustive detail how the Bible gives evidence of "The WORD" explaining God in the days before Christ's incarnation.

One may choose to argue that "THE WORD" did not function in that way to refute the SDA position. But arguing "That Christ REALLY is God the Son - uncreated - fully God" - is not a counter argument since it is in fact what SDAs argue regarding the true ontological nature of Christ.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Abyiah

I have solid proof that Bill Clinton is the anti-
christ. It realy is quite easy to decipher for
yourself.

He was born William Jefferson Blythe.
William = 5+9+3+3+9+1+4 = 34 = 7
Jefferson = 1+5+6+6+5+9+1+6+5 = 44 = 8
Blythe = 2+3+7+2+8+5 = 27 = 9
7 + 8 + 9 = 24 = 6
The first 6 of 666.

First of all this trivializes the Word of God in Rev 13 where the "number of his name" is given as "666".

Secondly - Rev 13 does not assign 666 number "to the AntiChrist" since the term AntiChrist is not mentioned in Rev 13 - or in Revelation.

Third - to "properly" apply "the Number of His name" as directed in Rev 13 - you would need to use the CONTEXT of the NT author. The author is writing in the time of the Roman Empire. The Roman system explicitly assigned NUMERIC values to "some" of the letters of their alphabet.

So the person or office being identified would be expected to have a LATIN title - (a Roman title) that was official and that added up to 666.

And if all that held true it would still only be ONE of the indicators given in Rev 13 that would need to "line up" to identify the power/office being referenced in Rev 13.

"The Bible and the Bible alone".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Abiyah]

It was a joke, Bob! It was a joke! I hope, however,
that some of you did the calculator exercises. 8oD

I haven't been reading here, having forgotten all
about it, until now, when I saw your post.

Chrissy --

Don't worry about it. Most people will not read
such long posts on subjects they are not intensely
interested in. 8o)

[ February 22, 2003, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

[BobRyan]

Curtis comments Then that's what you should be addressing. I agree with the others, but frankly, the vicar thing makes even me laugh.

Indeed - in Rev 13 there are a number of identifiers for the Beast that comes up with 10 horns. It receives a deadly wound after the events that we see in Rev 12 - which deal with the 1260 years of Papal dominance in Europe.

The interesting thing however is that the term "antiChrist" is not used here.

In anycase the "Donation of Constantine" is in fact a document createdy BY the RCC and FOR the RCC and affirmed by no less than 10 successive Papal administrations not only as to the DOCUMENT but in direct appeals to its CONTENTs.

(The document was forged by the RCC to MAKE a case FOR the RCC in establishing a church-state entity). It was the RC author that was selecting terms most likely to be "accepted" by the RC administration, and the public regarding history and the church. It is the goal of every forgery "to be accepted". Its success provides irrefutable testimony to the accuracy of the forger in conveying accepted RC teaching and views that were "accepted" in his day. The title Vicarius Filii Dei being one of them.

In Rev 13 the "666" identifier is not simply "an odd number sitting in the chapter" - rather it is identified explicitly as "The Number of his NAME". It does not get any more direct than that.

And keeping with exegesis - the CONTEXT is a document written at the time of the Roman Empire. And ROME DID have "numbers assigned to SOME letters in names".

Although using Latin titles and counting the numbers would not give you a UNIQUE office or person - it would provide ONE OF the pointers to a given person/institution etc.

Notice that the first beast of Rev 13 - the one being identified is a composit of all that you see in Daniel 7 only in reverse order.

It receives a deadly wound AFTER the 1260 years of Papal dominance that you see in Rev 12. That wound is healed and another beast arises AFTER that period of time speaking like a dragon (the 4th beast of the Daniel 7 sequence) but having characteristics of a lamb.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Some facts to straighten out the tangle that results from the title of this thread.

The term AntiChrist is only mentioned by John - but not in the book of Revelation. He speaks of this in 1John and tells us that in fact AntiChrists had ALREADY come and more were on the way.

666 The "Number of his name" is only mentioned by John in the book of Revelation and is used to identify "THE Beast" of Rev 13 (the first one mentioned in Rev 13) and of Rev 14.

The term "the Man of sin" - "the son of perdition" is not mentioned by John at all - only by Paul and only in 2Thess2 and it primarily applies to events at the end of time.

There is a good case that can be made showing that these all address 3 different and distinct entities.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[dumbox1]

Hi 3A,

A belated answer to your question about why I asked about what Bible SDA's generally use:

Simple curiosity. I know some groups (certain Baptists, for example) are very insistent on using a particular translation. I didn't know if SDA's took that approach or not. (Apparently not!)

Thanks for your answer!

Mark

 

[Rakka Rage]

a = 6
b = 12
c = 18
d = 24
e = 30
f = 36
g = 42
h = 48
i = 54
j = 60
k = 66
l = 72
m = 78
n = 84
o = 90
p = 96
q = 102
r = 108
s = 114
t = 120
u = 126
v = 132
w = 136
x = 144
y = 150
z = 156

computer = 18+90+78+96+126+120+30+108 = 666

 

[Bro. Curtis]

 

[BobRyan]

Rev 13 "The number of his name" is 666.

Pretty funny?

Notice that our letters are NOT used as numbers - but in Rome SOME letters WERE.

Bob