Announcement

Collapse

Study Room Guidelines

Ok it isn't so quiet in here but our resident librarian will ensure that there is good discussion on literature, prose, poetry, etc. You may also post sermons, notes, and the like as long as it is not copyrighted material and within reason of the post length regulation.

We encourage you to take a lose look at the threads and offer honest and useful input. This forum is a place where we discuss literature of any media, as well as personal creations by some of our own wordsmiths. Debate is encouraged, but we often find ourselves relaxing here.

Forum Rules: here
See more
See less

Is ASCII Code relevant for Apocalypse 13:18? I think so

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
    When the numbers of hammers are very low, one doesn't even do counting to know how many there are. If there are three, I see there are three, I don't count that.
    So, when there are NONE, what does one write down in the field for 'quantity'? You have obviously never done inventory.

    So, how would seeing the relevant inventory empty involve any COUNTING of the non-extant hammers?
    Because, as part of the inventory, you would enter an "amount" in the "quantity" field. That "amount" would be 0 if there were no hammers.

    As to computer world, they have NAMED things according to their number theory, which if it is the wrong one doesn't matter much for the actual devices' functioning.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
      Well, obeying the injunction of "He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast."

      And watching out for the clear suspects.
      Well apparently if your method doesn't actually work to identify the actual beast, then you don't have understanding, nor can you count the number of the beast.

      It would be about as useful if the bible said, The name of the beast shall be, ...Bob.

      Then you came up with a system that identified everyone named Rob, Bob, or Robert in the world (and in fiction apparently.) What good would it do? You would not know who the beast is. Your system is useless.

      Comment


      • (number theory posted to appropriate thread)

        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        Well apparently if your method doesn't actually work to identify the actual beast, then you don't have understanding, nor can you count the number of the beast.
        Do you have that from back in JW? They say that 666 doesn't refer to a particular man but to human culture in general, basically (you know the details better than I do)?

        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        It would be about as useful if the bible said, The name of the beast shall be, ...Bob.

        Then you came up with a system that identified everyone named Rob, Bob, or Robert in the world (and in fiction apparently.) What good would it do? You would not know who the beast is. Your system is useless.
        If there were exactly one world leader named Bob and he started doing bad things, it would make him a clearcut suspect.

        And having someone as a suspect at least preserves me from idolising him (and some are more or less starting to do that with both of the guys I mention) and keep a watchout if ever in the future I should be required to have a tattoo saying "Bob" on my forehead. Now, Putin and Bergoglio haven't gone that far - yet.

        As to Robert, here is acquittal of that being by itself a relevant name:

        R 82 080 2
        O 79 150 11
        B 66 210 17
        E 69 270 26
        R 82 350 28
        T 84 430 32 462

        A six letter name can be relevant, if upper case adds up to 456 (add 160 for five lower case and you get 616) or to 474 (add 192 for six lower case, and you land on 666). With six letters adding up to 442, you need to have two words, like "the cog" where you add 7 32's both for lower case and for space, 442+224= ...
        Last edited by hansgeorg; 12-22-2016, 10:31 AM.
        http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

        Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
          And having someone as a suspect at least preserves me from idolising him (and some are more or less starting to do that with both of the guys I mention) and keep a watchout if ever in the future I should be required to have a tattoo saying "Bob" on my forehead. Now, Putin and Bergoglio haven't gone that far - yet.
          You COULD just focus on following Jesus! There are a LOT more scriptures that tell us that than there are to have us chasing down the antichrist with goofy theories.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            You COULD just focus on following Jesus! There are a LOT more scriptures that tell us that than there are to have us chasing down the antichrist with goofy theories.
            Now, following Jesus usually involves doing what one does well, in everyday life. And that is different for different people.

            When I say the two guys are my favourite suspects, I mean I am not "chasing" to find more suspects. Not as if I expected to find someone else very soon.

            I am however regularly checking so that the method doesn't damn too many diverse people. It does only if having 666 in your name were a guarantee of being Antichrist, but it is not. And even so, not that many.

            But if one of the Hovinds were the false prophet and Queen Silvia the beast, that would also figure. I think that less realistic, though.
            http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

            Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
              Now, following Jesus usually involves doing what one does well, in everyday life.
              Yeah, that's why he told the fishermen, "you guys just keep doing what you're doing, cause you are good as fishing in everyday life - don't worry about that 'follow me' thing".
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                (number theory posted to appropriate thread)



                Do you have that from back in JW? They say that 666 doesn't refer to a particular man but to human culture in general, basically (you know the details better than I do)?



                If there were exactly one world leader named Bob and he started doing bad things, it would make him a clearcut suspect.
                and if there were only one person who's name added up to 666 in ascii then it would make him a clearcut suspect (maybe) - yet apparently even fictional characters end up with 666 in your theory (if you change their names) so you have multiple suspects. Might as well just say anyone could be the beast. And where is the man of perdition who will be revealed BEFORE the beast?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  and if there were only one person who's name added up to 666 in ascii then it would make him a clearcut suspect (maybe) - yet apparently even fictional characters end up with 666 in your theory (if you change their names) so you have multiple suspects. Might as well just say anyone could be the beast. And where is the man of perdition who will be revealed BEFORE the beast?
                  Fictional and past characters are test pilots.

                  Man of perdition not equal to beast?

                  Well, could be Paul VI/Antipope Montini ...?

                  Could be Bergoglio in role of false prophet?
                  http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                  Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Yeah, that's why he told the fishermen, "you guys just keep doing what you're doing, cause you are good as fishing in everyday life - don't worry about that 'follow me' thing".
                    For one thing, they were called to a task beyond the common one.

                    For another, it sometimes did involve either fishing or mending nets.

                    You wondered how ASCII works out for either Satan or Santa? I read that in the feed.

                    Neither gets 666. I wonder whether Apollyon or Abaddon does - it would be cool if Apollyon did so in Greek gematria and Abaddon in Hebrew, but that would be known, so is not very probable.

                    It's a "human number" not a "demonic number" (one probable reason why demon Sauron and not-very-human Voldemort won't fit very well).

                    I haven't tested these two for ASCII, but they are more probable candidates than Satan, since probably that is the demon of Antichrist.
                    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      and if there were only one person who's name added up to 666 in ascii then it would make him a clearcut suspect .... so you have multiple suspects.
                      There wasn't back than and isn't now. Vocatives KAICAP NERON and M NEPOYA added up, and Nerva was clearly not THE beast in character (though possibly in office, back before Constantine cleaned the Imperial dignity up).

                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Might as well just say anyone could be the beast.
                      No, this is a negative test - if you really can't get a name to fit this number, he's not the guy. That's why I am sure (relatively, depending on ASCII being relevant system of gematria and depending on names' meanings in translations not counting as name) that while Obama might mean or imply Antichrist, he is not Antichrist.

                      It is also a fairly restrictive one.

                      I have been testing name after name whenever I was bored or waiting for a library to open, nearly, for years, and it is easier to end up a little to the side of it.

                      I have among fictional ones gotten two "apocalyptic crooks" (with spelling changes, as seen), and two secret agents, one being James Bond if 007 doesn't count by 48+48+55 but by 7, and one being Scrameustache, from space, with name adding up to 1332.

                      All four rather confirming what I also on other grounds can consider as character of Antichrist in real life. In reality on a cosmic and occult level, a bad magician, openly a heroic and popular agent and space travel fanatic. With loads of humanism - but no ascetic or monkish mood.

                      Among real life suspects, I have named most - so far BENRHODES is not an international statesman, and VON TRAPP are just performing artists, and as long as the latter stay out of doctrinal teaching or politics, I think they are very safe, as if they were nobodies.

                      Noteworthy that BENRHODES, just like BERGOGLIO, is an immigrationist.

                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      And where is the man of perdition who will be revealed BEFORE the beast?
                      You might want to check the passage, I think it was the apostasy which was happening before the man of perdition (=beast or false prophet) could be revealed. And in 1986, with ASSISI prayer meeting, Putin and Bergoglio were both nobodies. Especially on the international plane.
                      http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                      Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                        For one thing, they were called to a task beyond the common one.
                        As are all Christians.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          As are all Christians.
                          No, they were the first priests.

                          We are (at least I am) laymen (a layman).
                          http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                          Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                            No, they were the first priests.

                            We are (at least I am) laymen (a layman).
                            The fishermen were the first priests?
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                              Fictional and past characters are test pilots.

                              Man of perdition not equal to beast?

                              Well, could be Paul VI/Antipope Montini ...?

                              Could be Bergoglio in role of false prophet?
                              2 thes 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;


                              basically until he is revealed you are doing nothing but deceiving us.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                                No, they were the first priests.

                                We are (at least I am) laymen (a layman).
                                To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood--and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father--to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. (Revelation 1:5-6, NASB)
                                When I Survey....

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X