Thread: the david's star

can be the david's star the satana's symbol ?

because it has :

- 6 vertices

- 6 triangles

- 6 in the symbol there is an hexagon ( six sides )



666






( i'm italian )

No. The mythology of David's star and Satan don't coincide. The numerical coincidences are just that: coincidences. Moreover, the number "666" isn't relative since it was translated incorrectly from Revelations (which is just one person's wacked-out dream or drug-induced trip written down to begin with). Recent epigraphical discoveries actually show the number to be "616."

At any rate, its all rather useless since the only place such a number is mentioned is the book of revelations, the book that almost didn't make it in the bible anyway when early Christian cult leaders were voting on which myths to include and call "truth" and which would go on being myths.

Originally Posted by desann

can be the david's star the satana's symbol ?

because it has :

- 6 vertices

- 6 triangles

- 6 in the symbol there is an hexagon ( six sides )

666

people see what they are looking for it also has 12 sides and 7 gaps in it, it also consists of 2 triangles overlapping

just emphasizing a few other features...not really trying to make a point accept that u have only selected a few features of the star (the ones u want) and then said well its satanic

and in the process put an entire religion, in a negative light

Note: I am not religious, I am not anything

Recent epigraphical discoveries actually show the number to be "616."

credible source?

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Recent epigraphical discoveries actually show the number to be "616."

credible source?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=44169

Okay i have studied the fragment and whatthe source calls a 'sigma' does notlook like a 'sigma'.

it has been awhile since i have studied ancient greek so i did some checking to make sure my memory was correct. it was---

http://www.mythfolklore.net/bibgreek/alphabet/s.htm

this was not the only website i checked and though on another site in parenthesis is a style fairly close to what was on the fragment, it still was not the same. the 'sigma' is NOT written like a 'c' but like a romanized 's' and thatis enough of a difference to doubt the authenticity of that fragment.

thanks for the source though i have never heard of world news daily quoted or bandied about in academic circles. i would dismiss this number change for numerous reasons with the main one being 'consider the source'.
[/quote]

I don't know, it does look a bit like a sigma, kind of... if not sigma, then it doesn;t match any other Greek letter

right so one cannot be sure if it is authentic or a forgery done by someone who did not know all the greek letters. it could have been a chi for all we know.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

right so one cannot be sure if it is authentic or a forgery done by someone who did not know all the greek letters. it could have been a chi for all we know.

Or it could be where an elephant scratched its arse. What's your point?

may not even be greek, which says it is likely either a forgery or, at the very least, a very poor copy of some manuscript. It's ambiguous either way, and I agree completely with archies point on this.