The number of the beast

[lao tzu]

Greetings, friends,

Not that there is an EAC™, mind you. But if there were an EAC™, today would be a day conspicuously marked for celebration. But since there is no EAC™, let's look at what they're missing. A chance to talk about the number of the beast. And just to mark the spirit of the occasion, I've carefully bumped my post count to make this OP match the thread topic.

6/6/6 ... what does it mean to you? Is it a meaningless cabalistic message? Is it the literal six hundred, three score and six of the KJV? Is it a code for some hidden description of a real human being prophesied to come? Who is this beast associated with the number and why should a number be used to describe him?

I'd love to hear your thoughts. Please share them with me.

As ever, Jesse

[Xavier]

Bah, everyone knows that the REAL number of the Beast is 616. Thus, everyone missed the big day (on which, of course, NOTHING happened). Sorry.

Yours,
Xavier
Member of the Proud Preterists against Crazy Calendarists

[lao tzu]

Bah, everyone knows that the REAL number of the Beast is 616. Thus, everyone missed the big day (on which, of course, NOTHING happened). Sorry.

Yours,
Xavier
Member of the Proud Preterists against Crazy Calendarists Hiya, Xavier,

The PPaCC? That's almost ... obscene. And where is this 616 coming from? Wait, I see it now.

Everyone knows ...
The taoist doesn't know ...

Therefore, there is no taoist.

But everyone knows that!

[klm3]

Nero Cesar. In Greek the Roman Numerials also spell his name. So I would wager the Beast was an acronym for the ruthlessness of Nero.

[Xavier]

616 is a textual variant found in certain earlier Greek manuscripts. Some scholars have suggested this is because there were two common spellings for Nero's name and title.

[xtreem5150ahm]

Nero Cesar. In Greek the Roman Numerials also spell his name. So I would wager the Beast was an acronym for the ruthlessness of Nero.


Shaka Brah,

I've seen the "Nero" explaination before, but does it fit with all the criteria of Revelation?

Did people need a mark on head or hand in order to buy and sell, during Nero's time?

there is more, but this'll do for now...

johnny

[lao tzu]

Thanks, Xavier,

Hmm, what does that look like?

DCXVI
DCLXVI

or

VI VI VI
VI I VI

I can't see a Nero in there anywhere. But I do remember discussing it once with Pastor Bob taoistbrudder. He was quite adamant that the significance was cabalistic. Six being associated with evil, the reference to six six six was a description of evil evil evil. It was quite the interesting discussion as he wandered around the uses of number in jewish traditions. The number 40 is so often used to signify a significant but indeterminate amount of time. 40 years in the desert, tempted for 40 days, raining for 40 days and nights ...

I also remember he was quite clear that a translation as the positional decimal six hundred three-score and six was completely unwarranted, but he didn't pull down a greek new testament for me that time to see.

As ever, Jesse

[NeilUnreal]

...the significance was cabalistic...

Another common cabalistic interpretation is that 6 is the number of man, and 3 is the number of God, so 666 is the number of a man proclaiming himself to be God. The conjunction with the idea that Nero's name is also equal to 666 is the kind of thing that really makes numerologists take notice. (To say nothing of the Roman numeral thing.)

-Neil

[lao tzu]

Thanks, Neil,

Now how do you get Nero out of it then? Oh, wait, I just broke down and checked the wiki, though it seems it's in dispute currently. A translation into Hebrew that phonetically resembles Nero? Well, that makes sense, not.

__________


... everyone missed the big day ... This missed me the first time. But now I see some lowly cur is trying to do some thunder stealing with a Left Behind thread. Was there a widespread belief that something special was going to happen today? The rapture maybe?

As ever, Jesse

[xtreem5150ahm]

Was there a widespread belief that something special was going to happen today? The rapture maybe?



My wife pointed out an article to me, in one of the local newspapers (online) of some women that were due for c-section that rescheduled the operation...

[NeilUnreal]

My wife pointed out an article to me, in one of the local newspapers (online) of some women that were due for c-section that rescheduled the operation...

Thus the genesis of innumerable small talk stories some thirty years hence that end with the line:

"And that's why my birthday is June seventh instead of June sixth." :lol:

-Neil

[Sparko]

Another common cabalistic interpretation is that 6 is the number of man, and 3 is the number of God, so 666 is the number of a man proclaiming himself to be God. The conjunction with the idea that Nero's name is also equal to 666 is the kind of thing that really makes numerologists take notice. (To say nothing of the Roman numeral thing.)

-Neil

Actually I believe 7 is the perfect number of God (7 days, 7 lampstands, 7 years of tribulation, 7 sevens, etc) and the number of man is 6 (less than perfection)

If 777 represents the trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,

then 666 represents the unholy trinity of Satan, the antichrist and the false prophet. Satan always wants to imitate God.

[Xavier]

Hmm, what does that look like?

Neither... Nero's name comes from the Hebrew Gematria.

Neron Caeser in Hebrew Gematria yields 666.
Nero Caeser in Hebrew Gematria yields 616.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast_(numerology))


I can't see a Nero in there anywhere.

You are not supposed to... It wasn't written for you.


I also remember he was quite clear that a translation as the positional decimal six hundred three-score and six was completely unwarranted, but he didn't pull down a greek new testament for me that time to see.

Well, based on the commentaries that I've read, he was wrong, but I don't know the Greek well-enough to explain that to you. You may want to ask Jaltus.

Yours,
Xavier

[Xavier]

This missed me the first time. But now I see some lowly cur is trying to do some thunder stealing with a Left Behind thread. Was there a widespread belief that something special was going to happen today? The rapture maybe?

The sarcasm should have been seeping through... :hehe:

And no, I don't think that people seriously entertained the notion that something "interesting" was going to happen on this day, but rather for superstitious reasons they view the day in poor light (similarly to Friday the 13).

Yours,
Xavier

[NeilUnreal]

If 6/6/06 fell on a Friday the 13th that would really be scary.

-Neil

[Xavier]

If 6/6/06 fell on a Friday the 13th that would really be scary.

-Neil
:shifty:

[lao tzu]

Is it just coincidence? As soon as my 666 thread tops the lowly cur's in the current thread list, I'm sabotaged with a blatant attempt (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=78368) to see my tongue sliced from my face with a razor-scaled trout.

Pirates. They have no shame.

[lao tzu]

Neither... Nero's name comes from the Hebrew Gematria.

Neron Caeser in Hebrew Gematria yields 666.
Nero Caeser in Hebrew Gematria yields 616. Numerology makes my eyes glaze over. And the chain of translations in both arithmetic notation and language necessary to make that connection, especially with divergent texts involved, puts that one pretty firmly into the realm of tea leaves.


From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast_%28numerology%29) Yeah, that's the wiki I found when I went looking, but the disclaimer on top was enough to keep me from leaving a link.
Some of the information in this article or section has not been verified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) and might not be reliable. It should be checked for inaccuracies and modified as needed, citing sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources).
But seeing as you brought it up, here's the relevant passage.
The Greek manuscripts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuscript) render the phrase as “χξϛ´”, which is 666 in Greek numerical form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_numerals), or, as in the Codex Alexandrinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alexandrinus), literally “six hundred and sixty-six”, “ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ”. Other early Greek copies including the Oxyrhynchus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyrhynchus) papyri show the number of the beast to be 616, “χιϛ´”, instead of 666. ι and ξ can be similar in appearance and one may be an erroneous copy of the other.
Now that had me squinting for a bit. Chi xi what? Chi iota what? But the greek numerical form link leads to an explanation. "ϛ" is an obsolete greek character called stigma. And it seems they did use a quasi-decimal representation, quite distinct from the roman numbering system. I hadn't known that. I think Bob might have flubbed that one, there's no way to see that as a mere repetition of sixes.

On the other hand, I doubt if his interpretation was original, though he's literate in all biblical languages he's also seminary trained. And conservative seminaries at that, Lutheran Missouri Synod, after the breakup with LCA. Yes, I know they've gone through some changes since then, but I don't keep up anymore.

That last sentence about erroneous transcription is listed as unsourced, and I find it extremely dubious regardless. Xi and iota are not similar, and sourcing someone who says they are doesn't add credibility to the claim. "What are you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?" doesn't strike me as a solid rhetorical device.


You are not supposed to... It wasn't written for you. Or just maybe there is no Nero in there. The root problem with numerological readings is you can make anything say anything just by choosing the right code. In this instance, they're both discarding and adding letters as well. We call that "cheating" around here. The act of numerological compression discards specificity, and once gone, it's gone forever.


Well, based on the commentaries that I've read, he was wrong, but I don't know the Greek well-enough to explain that to you. You may want to ask Jaltus.

Yours,
Xavier Calling Jaltus, paging Jaltus, would Jaltus please come to the phone?

As ever, Jesse

[Johnny MacManky]

. . .6/6/6 ... what does it mean to you?

I quite like the Nero theory.

I first read of it in 'The Early Days of Christianity' by Frederic W. Farrar, London. 1885.

According to Farrar, the Greek text reads Χξς. The first letter chi being the "initial letter of the name of Christ. The last letter was the first double letter of the Cross (stauros). Between the two the serpent stood. . .." The middle letter is xi. What I do find astounding that, when transliterated into English, you get Chxist.

The only difficulty I see with this statement is that, at the time of writing, the type of letters used were uncial, which equate to our block capitals. The 'serpent' doesn't look like a serpent in block. This makes no difference to the isopsephia (gematria).

Farrar asserts that the Jewish readership would see "the Beast as a symbol for Nero." Later he states that "No Jew ever thought of Nero except as Neron Kesar" which, when written in Hebrew letters, gives "50 + 200 + 6 + 50 + 100 + 60 + 200 = 666."

Farrar commits almost 5 pages of his book to elaborating on the topic and presenting the case.

Cheers

John
.

[lao tzu]

I quite like the Nero theory. Hi Johnny,

I'm thinking it's got a lot going for it. The time period and sociological focus in Israel at the time had to be directed toward Rome. And the deification of caesars was certainly a large cause of the unrest in the region, not sure if it's proper to speak of it as a functioning country.


I first read of it in 'The Early Days of Christianity' by Frederic W. Farrar, London. 1885. Whoa! Now that's dusty. But it certainly seems to me that ANE scholarship was missing some big pieces at the time, and was still struggling with all those victorian preconceptions.


According to Farrar, the Greek text reads Χξς. The first letter chi being the "initial letter of the name of Christ. The last letter was the first double letter of the Cross (stauros). Between the two the serpent stood. . .." The middle letter is xi. What I do find astounding that, when transliterated into English, you get Chxist. Yes, that's the reading given by wiki, though the second letter may have been iota rather than xi. I'd be much more impressed if rho were substituted for purposes of transliteration. Lastly, it says here (http://ptolemy.tlg.uci.edu/%7Eopoudjis/unicode/numerals.html) that last letter is actually stigma, or digamma.

Now Farrar's reading of serpent symbols in the shapes of greek letters looks suspect to me. Oh, *looking down*, I see you've hit that note already.


The only difficulty I see with this statement is that, at the time of writing, the type of letters used were uncial, which equate to our block capitals. The 'serpent' doesn't look like a serpent in block. This makes no difference to the isopsephia (gematria).

Farrar asserts that the Jewish readership would see "the Beast as a symbol for Nero." Later he states that "No Jew ever thought of Nero except as Neron Kesar" which, when written in Hebrew letters, gives "50 + 200 + 6 + 50 + 100 + 60 + 200 = 666."

Farrar commits almost 5 pages of his book to elaborating on the topic and presenting the case.

Cheers

John
. Thanks much for your contribution John.

As ever, Jesse

[Johnny MacManky]

Hey Xesse,


. . .though the second letter may have been iota rather than xi. I'd be much more impressed if rho were substituted for purposes of transliteration. Lastly, it says here (http://ptolemy.tlg.uci.edu/%7Eopoudjis/unicode/numerals.html) that last letter is actually stigma, or digamma. . .

The MT reading (Thomas Nelson, Second Edition, 1985) is Χξς'. I forgot the ' last time, which is also in Farrar. I dunno if the ' indicates to read sigma as stigma, but it certainly looks like a final sigma.

According to Comfort & Barrett, The Text of the Earliest NT Greek Mss.
chi = 600, xi = 60, and the "obsolete letter . . . stigma = 6" with "lines . . . drawn above the letters to show they were . . . numerals". (p35)

P47, dated "second half of third century" (p335) has chi xi stigma (p346) and P115, dated "middle to late third century" (p665) has chi iota stigma (p675). They consider that P115 is a superior witness to the autograph than P47. Iota being 10.

I think it's already been explained about the reasons for 616 previously. Farrar also addresses that point in a similar manner, i.e. "Nero Caesar, not Neron." (p473)

Farrar also tells us that "All the earliest Christian writers on the Apocalypse, from Iranaeus down to Victorinus of Pettau and Commodian in the forth, and Andreas in the fifth . . . century, connect Nero, or some Roman Emperor, with the Apocalyptic Beast." Some other "guessed solutions [were] Lateinos or Teitan." (p472)

I think the Xi in transliteration really gets the point across... similar to the modern 'heathen' attempts to take Christ out of Xmas or Xian.

Cheers

Xohnny

[lao tzu]

Hey Xesse,

The MT reading (Thomas Nelson, Second Edition, 1985) is Χξς'. I forgot the ' last time, which is also in Farrar. I dunno if the ' indicates to read sigma as stigma, but it certainly looks like a final sigma. Right on that one, it's a final sigma, I keep forgetting they use a distinguishable final form. Still, it derives from the digamma, apparently. But the "apostrophe" just means it's to be read as a numeral to differentiate from text.


According to Comfort & Barrett, The Text of the Earliest NT Greek Mss.
chi = 600, xi = 60, and the "obsolete letter . . . stigma = 6" with "lines . . . drawn above the letters to show they were . . . numerals". (p35)

P47, dated "second half of third century" (p335) has chi xi stigma (p346) and P115, dated "middle to late third century" (p665) has chi iota stigma (p675). They consider that P115 is a superior witness to the autograph than P47. Iota being 10.

I think it's already been explained about the reasons for 616 previously. Farrar also addresses that point in a similar manner, i.e. "Nero Caesar, not Neron." (p473)

Farrar also tells us that "All the earliest Christian writers on the Apocalypse, from Iranaeus down to Victorinus of Pettau and Commodian in the forth, and Andreas in the fifth . . . century, connect Nero, or some Roman Emperor, with the Apocalyptic Beast." Some other "guessed solutions [were] Lateinos or Teitan." (p472) As far as I can tell, guessing identities for the beast has been a popular sport for the last couple millenia. I like the Kissinger theories best, myself. Now I wonder what niXon evaluates to?


I think the Xi in transliteration really gets the point across... similar to the modern 'heathen' attempts to take Christ out of Xmas or Xian.

Cheers

Xohnny That's a good one, heathens taking christ out of christmas that is. But I've got a better one. Christians rescuing him from association with that heathen holiday. Most societies look down on despoiling the dead. He's not meant to be crucified on a yule log.

As ever, Jesse

[Johnny MacManky]

. . .

As far as I can tell, guessing identities for the beast has been a popular sport for the last couple millenia. I like the Kissinger theories best, myself. Now I wonder what niXon evaluates to?

. . .


The last board I used to post to had a really fanatical ultra mega fundy on it who was convinced that Tony Blair was the Beast. Mind ya, the press here in the UK say he's going to convert to Catholicism when he finishes at PM...

"NiXon" .... I don't have an appropriate smilie for that!

[lao tzu]

The last board I used to post to had a really fanatical ultra mega fundy on it who was convinced that Tony Blair was the Beast. Mind ya, the press here in the UK say he's going to convert to Catholicism when he finishes at PM...

"NiXon" .... I don't have an appropriate smilie for that! :broccoli:

... it works for me.

[Jezz]

Another common cabalistic interpretation is that 6 is the number of man, and 3 is the number of God, so 666 is the number of a man proclaiming himself to be God. The conjunction with the idea that Nero's name is also equal to 666 is the kind of thing that really makes numerologists take notice. (To say nothing of the Roman numeral thing.)

Actually I believe 7 is the perfect number of God (7 days, 7 lampstands, 7 years of tribulation, 7 sevens, etc) and the number of man is 6 (less than perfection)

If 777 represents the trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,

then 666 represents the unholy trinity of Satan, the antichrist and the false prophet. Satan always wants to imitate God.
I find explanations of this kind to be unlikely, for one very simple reason: they rely on a base-10 positional numbering system for them to be truly significant (which neither Greeks nor Jews of the day used). To draw significance from this is anachronistic. The Jews would be more likely to construct the number of the "unholy Trinity" as 6*6*6 = 216 (cf, the sabbath of sabbaths = 49 years in the OT).

There is just as much to be drawn from this as there would be to find meaning in the representations 110011010 or 19A (which are the base-2 and base-16 representations of the number "666" respectively). Remember that "666" is not what appears in the manuscripts.

[NeilUnreal]

19A

29A :teeth:

-Neil

[Sparko]

I find explanations of this kind to be unlikely, for one very simple reason: they rely on a base-10 positional numbering system for them to be truly significant (which neither Greeks nor Jews of the day used). To draw significance from this is anachronistic. The Jews would be more likely to construct the number of the "unholy Trinity" as 6*6*6 = 216 (cf, the sabbath of sabbaths = 49 years in the OT).

There is just as much to be drawn from this as there would be to find meaning in the representations 110011010 or 19A (which are the base-2 and base-16 representations of the number "666" respectively). Remember that "666" is not what appears in the manuscripts.

how is 7 being the number of God based on a base-10 system? You seem to be stretching what I said way beyond what I said. You can't deny that 7 is a very significant number in the bible in regards to God. And the only point I was making was that 6 was less than 7 not any decimal arithmetic.
6 is less than perfection. 7 is perfection/completion. nothing to do with numerology.

[Jezz]

29A :teeth:
:doh:

And make that 1010011010 as well.

[Jezz]

how is 7 being the number of God based on a base-10 system?
It isn't.


You seem to be stretching what I said way beyond what I said. You can't deny that 7 is a very significant number in the bible in regards to God. And the only point I was making was that 6 was less than 7 not any decimal arithmetic.
6 is less than perfection. 7 is perfection/completion. nothing to do with numerology.
Of course. 7 is indeed the number of perfection, as 6 means lack of perfection. I didn't deny any of that. But that is only part of what you wrote. Let us read what you wrote again:


Actually I believe 7 is the perfect number of God (7 days, 7 lampstands, 7 years of tribulation, 7 sevens, etc) and the number of man is 6 (less than perfection)

If 777 represents the trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,

then 666 represents the unholy trinity of Satan, the antichrist and the false prophet. Satan always wants to imitate God.

I agree with the first line, which is what you were defending above. But what about lines two and three, where we are talking about a "trinity" of numbers? These only work in a base-10 decimal system. Suppose that St John was actually trying to represent an unholy Trinity, using three sixes. He didn't know about positional numbering systems. For example, a "sabbath of sabbaths" is not 77, it is 49 (= 7 * 7). So most probably, if he wanted to compose a number from three sixes, he would have done it as 6 + 6 + 6 = 18 or 6 * 6 * 6 = 216.

To arrive at the number 666, St John would have had to have composed them as 6 * 100 + 6 * 10 + 6 - why would he have composed the number in this strange way? Which aspect of the "unholy trinity" do the 10 and the 100 represent? Why would he not have used 16 instead, and come up with 6 * 256 + 6 * 16 + 6 = 1638. Or perhaps 7 - (the perfect base?) - yielding 6 * 49 + 6 * 7 + 6 = 342? If St John wanted to construct an unholy trinity, then why is the number of the beast "666" instead of "342" or "1638"? Because St John not only had a vision about the beast, but also had a vision which allowed him to forsee that we 2000 years later would be reading his number in a base-10 system (ignoring the fact that his immediate audience would have been using the system)?

Remember that the number "666" only looks like "three sixes" to us because we have a base 10 numbering system. Technically speaking, "666" is the numeral, not the number. It is unlikely that St John or his audience would have seen this pattern.

It is not impossible, mind you - because the words (as opposed to the numerals) that they used for numbers in Hebrew/Aramaic is along the lines of "six hundreds and six and sixty" (I'm not sure about Greek, but I assume it would be similar.) However, I think it would be pretty unnatural for them to think that way. We are conditioned to think that way because we use decimal numerals.

[Johnny MacManky]

. . . the words (as opposed to the numerals) that they used for numbers in Hebrew/Aramaic is along the lines of "six hundreds and six and sixty" (I'm not sure about Greek, but I assume it would be similar.) However, I think it would be pretty unnatural for them to think that way. We are conditioned to think that way because we use decimal numerals.

As far as I understand it, the Greek reads "Six hundred [and] sixty [and] six". The word "and" [kai] is not in the text but is surely implied.

I don't know anything about the base systems, but perhaps the words of Jesus about forgiving your enemy "seventy times (multipilied) seven" broadly supports the numerical principles Jezz is arguing.

Cheers,

Johnny (just back from a long church Sunday & exhausted)

[lao tzu]

Greetings all,

The representational system is certainly well worth considering, but in this case, it's a red herring. The greeks of the time used a pseudo-decimal system, and the text we have supports this.

The two alternatives given for the number of the beast in the divergent texts are:

Chi xi stimga (apostrophe) = 600 60 6
Chi iota stigma (apostrophe) = 600 10 6

The final apostrophe signals a numerical interpretation. The greeks write sigma differently when it occurs at the end of the word to this day. Stigma is also used as a final sigma. Otherwise, it was a contemporaneously obsolete greek character resurrected to serve as a numerical symbol.

As ever, Jesse

[Jezz]

Greetings all,

The representational system is certainly well worth considering, but in this case, it's a red herring. The greeks of the time used a pseudo-decimal system, and the text we have supports this.

The two alternatives given for the number of the beast in the divergent texts are:

Chi xi stimga (apostrophe) = 600 60 6
Chi iota stigma (apostrophe) = 600 10 6

The final apostrophe signals a numerical interpretation. The greeks write sigma differently when it occurs at the end of the word to this day. Stigma is also used as a final sigma. Otherwise, it was a contemporaneously obsolete greek character resurrected to serve as a numerical symbol.
Hi Jesse,

Ok, I grant that the numerical system is pseudo-decimal (as was the Hebrew system, for that matter), but it is not a positional number system. The numerical value of each numeral is independent of the position of the numeral in the overal numeral. To put it another way, "xi chi stigma (apostrophe)" and "stigma xi chi (apostrophe)" and "stigma chi xi (apostrophe)" (etc) are all the same number, even though the numerals are in different positions.

This is important in relation to the point I was trying to make to Sparko, because Sparko's "unholy Trinity" interpretation came from the idea of combining three lots of six. But the number that we handed down to us doesn't combine three lots of six - it combines one six, one sixty, and one six hundred. We can only get the number "six hundred and sixty six" from combining three individual sixes, if we combine them using a base-10, positional system - which the Greeks and Hebrews were both unfamiliar with.

Sparko justified his interpretation by noting (correctly) that six is the number of imperfection - but does this same observation apply to the number 60? To the number 600? This is not immediately obvious, and when you consider that there are easier ways to combine three sixes (addition or multiplication) with which they were familiar back then, it seems more likely that if they were trying to numerologically represent an "unholy trinity", they would have done so in this way.