Notices
Results 1 to 43 of 43

Thread: 616 or 666?

  1. #1 616 or 666? 
    Forum Freshman FieryIce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    29
    My bible footnotes say, “Other ancient authorities read six hundred sixteen”. What does yours say? Why are there no books on shelves discussing this 616 of ancient authorities, where are the ancient authorities books? What I find very interesting is that 600 is DC and if you are not in the Good Old Boys Club of Democracy, Washington DC, supported by the UN, your nation is imposed with sanctions. Apparently the White House was 16 Pennsylvania Avenue but is now addressed 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    These ancient authorities such as Irenaeus knew this back in the first to second century AD.

    The Other Number of the Beast: 616
    P.Oxy. LVI 4499



    Tic Toc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore spidergoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    165
    616 what?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Where the morning finds me
    Posts
    26
    what about 999?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore spidergoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    165
    What are we supposed to do with these numbers?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Where the morning finds me
    Posts
    26
    i heard or read somewhere that many times numbers or symbols in visions will be inverted and flipped..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    The mark of the beast is your IP address, something every person on the planet will be touched by in time. No other numbering system impacts the entire world in exactly the same way. Phone numbers are a bit different, UPC codes are a bit different, etc. If you can think of one let us know.

    With IPv6 we could assign several IP's to every living thing on the planet.

    IPv6 based on Base 16 numbers (FEF0) Hex.

    So you have IPv6(16) or 616

    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore spidergoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    165
    Then there's the (US) national ID card legislation which passed recently. It will contain biometric information, most likely your fingerprint. It specifies a national database on everyone. It wouldn't be too hard to put this into a radio tag implanted under the skin. Strangely enough, it's the "left behind" apocolypse crowd represented by Bush that's responsible for this violation of constitutional privacy rights.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat
    Then there's the (US) national ID card legislation which passed recently. It will contain biometric information, most likely your fingerprint. It specifies a national database on everyone. It wouldn't be too hard to put this into a radio tag implanted under the skin. Strangely enough, it's the "left behind" apocolypse crowd represented by Bush that's responsible for this violation of constitutional privacy rights.
    So where does the 616 come in? My example is clear
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore spidergoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    165
    I can't relate the "real ID" legislation directly to the numbers 616 or 666, but it's an example of how a modern day "mark of the beast" might be manifest. Your example is good, too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Beast your mother? 
    Forum Freshman Tiassa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bothell, Washington, USA
    Posts
    72
    I didn't realize the mark of the beast people would bear would be identical to the name of the beast. I'll cut the longer post to this: neither IP's nor human barcodes nor "real ID" need equal 666. Furthermore, given that the reign of the beast is something like a thousand years long, I would speculate that, should the anti-Christ rise in the U.S., he would have adequate time to spread the dark hegemony through trade systems.

    I wish I paid more attention to tech issues; perhaps others can fill in the detail when I say, "trusted network". One of the fears for the future of the internet is, apparently, that it will become a trusted network, which applies an old but appropriate definition seldom-considered by the average American: You trust something that can hurt you.

    The idea being that, starting with commerce, you wouldn't be able to access websites if you were not part of the "trusted" network. That would then dilute into the rest of the web, affecting even service providers until you could not access the internet at all unless you were "trusted", meaning that your computer is configured to allow the government to survey you for any reason at any time without your knowledge.

    The Devil will ask for our trust.

    If any man have an ear, let him hear.

    He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

    And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

    And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

    And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

    And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

    And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

    And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

    And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.


    Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. (Revelation 13.9-18, KJV)
    So take the human barcode: it will be on the wrist, most likely; it will serve as your social security number, your bank account identifier, your student number, your medical identifier, and the key to your communication. You will not be allowed to participate in society without it. You will be told to trust the government.

    But imagine even the idyllic version: everybody just goes on with life, doing what they're best at, and trying to enjoy themselves. Worries of warfare and famine and crime disappear. What problem, thought police? After all, just like the barcode, if you object, you must have a nefarious reason. And, to borrow from George Lucas, liberty dies to thunderous applause. Without liberty, moral culpability is reduced, thus interfering with Christ's place in salvation. Additionally, such a "utopia" could be construed as a return to Eden, albeit born of human ambition; a mythical cycle back to a mythical womb, a return to the mother we so despise. And since, according to theology, only Christ can show us the way, we suddenly understand what about such a society redemptionists fear.

    Which is the flip-side: the Beast will simply squash the middleman.
    "A red rose absorbs all colours but red; red is therefore the one colour that it is not." (Perdurabo)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: 616 or 666? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by FieryIce
    My bible footnotes say, “Other ancient authorities read six hundred sixteen”. What does yours say? Why are there no books on shelves discussing this 616 of ancient authorities, where are the ancient authorities books? The Other Number of the Beast: 616
    P.Oxy. LVI 4499

    The number is really six hundred and sixty six. That 616 is some kind of a fraud.
    Go and buy the real bible, the King James version, translated from the real unaltered original texts, the massoretic text of the jews old testament, and the majority text (also called textus receptus or byzantine text) for the New Testament.
    Modern bible versions have at least 5% of the words changed, or added or deleted and they are not totally accurate. The modern versions have a corrupted text from Alexandria Egypt mixed in with them.
    King James version is 100% the real scriptures translated into old or middle english.
    Modern versions are 95% the real scriptures, and 5% errors, changes, additions, deletions, in modern english.
    The number is the number of the name of the future evil world ruler, called the antichrist or the beast, that is going to rule near the end of the world, before Jesus comes back to take over the world with an army of angels.
    [In Hebrew, the alphabet stands for numbers too, so the name will add up to that number.]
    Revelation 13:
    17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
    18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Lol, so it is Bill gates and Microsoft
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 King James Whatsit? 
    Forum Freshman Tiassa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bothell, Washington, USA
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost7584
    Go and buy the real bible, the King James version, translated from the real unaltered original texts, the massoretic text of the jews old testament, and the majority text (also called textus receptus or byzantine text) for the New Testament.
    Modern bible versions have at least 5% of the words changed, or added or deleted and they are not totally accurate. The modern versions have a corrupted text from Alexandria Egypt mixed in with them.
    King James version is 100% the real scriptures translated into old or middle english.
    Modern versions are 95% the real scriptures, and 5% errors, changes, additions, deletions, in modern english.
    I'm pulling from a Bible research website, see endnote. On general problems:

    After all the words of high praise spoken for this version, it may seem strange to pass to an extended discussion of its defects. And yet it must be confessed that this highly esteemed version is excellent, but defective. The Chairman of the American Company of New Testament Revisers, President Woolsey, D. D., LL.D., thus summarizes these defects: "Our translators of the seventeenth century, in a great many instances, misunderstood the sense. To make this as evident as it may be made we should need to write a volume .... The main deficiency in our translation proceeds from want of exact knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek languages. Not only is the sense wholly misapprehended in a number of instances—as could scarcely fail of being the case—but a perception of the finer rules of grammar and interpretation was wanting ....

    .... Volumes, instead of a few pages, might easily be written to illustrate the existing defects of the Authorized Version .... (Defects of the King James Version)
    Examples are supplied in the article; the discussion is too dense for reproduction here.

    Regarding Changes in the KJV, there are several classifications:

    <blockquote>• Italicized words/phrases
    Minor alterations of the text (over 100 listed)
    • Modernized spelling, capitalization, and punctuation
    • Marginal changes in the Oxford edition of 1769 (including "Marginal references to the Apocrypha deleted")
    • Original errors of the press corrected</blockquote>

    Lastly, to cite from an article included at that website; full citation available at link, "The Authorized Version (1611)":

    The version which was destined to put the crown on nearly a century of labor, and, after extinguishing by its excellence all rivals, to print an indelible mark on English religion and English literature, came into being almost by accident. It arose out of the Hampton Court Conference, held by James I in 1604, with the object of arriving at a settlement between the Puritan and Anglican elements in the Church; but it was not one of the prime or original subjects of the conference.
    So it's worth pointing out, as well, that the KJV is a protestant Bible. Looking through the index of my hypertext KJV, I see no mention of Maccabees, Tobias, Esdras, &c. And, of course, we can look up above and note that the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV removed references to the Apocrypha.

    I don't deny that the KJV is a breathtaking work of art representing painstaking labor. But this KJV as "the real bible" bit is, frankly, a sad joke.

    As long as I'm exploiting Mr. Marlowe's site, I might as well hop over to a discussion of modern versions of the Bible. Regarding the Revised Standard Version:

    The RSV Old Testament was not well received outside of liberal circles, chiefly because the translators often deliberately rendered Old Testament passages in such a way that they were contrary to the interpretations given in the New Testament. This was done on the principle that the Old Testament ought to be interpreted only in reference to its own historical (Jewish) context ....

    .... The objections of conservatives were not merely captious criticisms concerning the meaning of a word here and there; the controversy was about whether or not a version of the Old Testament which ignores and contradicts the New Testament in so many places has any right to be received as the standard Bible of American churches. At any rate, the rejection of the RSV by evangelicals had serious consequences for the future of the version. At the time that it was replaced by the New Revised Standard Version in 1990, the RSV was one of the least popular versions in America, having only about 5 percent of the market share in Bibles.
    Perhaps a contemptuous condemnation, but I am not surprised these issues trouble conservative and evangelical Christians. The issue arises because the Christian Bible tends to treat the Hebrew experience as a prelude to Christianity, something integrally tied to the new covenant. Historically, this is a usurpation.

    The reality is most likely that the authors of the Old Testament did not consider themselves part of what we know as Christianity in such a way. After all, Jesus was rejected by the Jews in part because he was not the form of Messiah they expected.

    Thus, it is historically appropriate to consider the Old Testament according to its own context. Whether or not the RSV does so correctly is open to argument at this time.

    It should also be noted that Metzger et al. wrote of the 1990 New Revised Standard Version,

    The deliberately non-Christian interpretation of the Old Testament which made the RSV unacceptable to conservatives is continued in this revision. In fact the most notorious verse of the RSV, Isaiah 7:14, in the NRSV is moved even further away from its connection with the New Testament. The RSV had rendered it "a young woman shall conceive" (future); but the NRSV has "the young woman is with child" (present), which effectively prevents the Christological interpretation (and there is no footnote to inform the reader that the RSV's "shall conceive" is a possibility) ....

    .... Obviously, there is little chance of this version becoming popular outside of the shrinking "mainline" churches for whom it was executed. Indeed, it may be wondered whether any considerable attention will given to it even within these churches, in which the exposition and study of the Bible has practically ceased.
    This complaint of conservative Christians, that the Hebrew experience is not presumed to be a natural and necessary precursor to the Christian covenant, will be a difficult one to overcome largely because the presumptuous tradition is so long-standing. It is an arrogance of Christians to demand such a regard, and that arrogance most assuredly infected the translation of the KJV.

    Thus, to consider from two planks:

    <blockquote>• The King James Version is not 100% anything, as indicated by the discussion of its defects of and alterations.

    • The King James Version, while popular, depends in part on the invalidation of the Hebrew experience in history.</blockquote>

    If we invalidate part of the Bible's own history, what becomes of its historicity? And yes, we can throw the Apocrypha into that consideration, too. "Protestant" Bibles are nothing more than abridged Bibles.

    I think the reality is that people like the KJV because its language sounds authoritative and elevated. Its archaic language is a comfort-food for the starving Christian soul, drawing them back in time so that they can imagine themselves that much closer to Truth.

    Lastly, given that the 616 determination comes from a third-century manuscript, everything from the "Good News Bible" (TEV) on up ought to suffice for determining that the accepted number is 666.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    All citations from:

    <blockquote>Marlowe, Michael D. "Bible Research: Internet Resources for Students of Scripture". See http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html </blockquote>

    (With many thanks to Mr. Marlowe, who wouldn't know me from Adam, and whose fine site I raid from time to time for such purposes; his labor contributes much to biblical and religious studies.)
    "A red rose absorbs all colours but red; red is therefore the one colour that it is not." (Perdurabo)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman FieryIce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    29
    Does no one do their own research? Just quote someone else's verbage!
    Especially when that verbage is not on topic!
    How interesting....not
    Tic Toc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 The KJV Debate 
    Forum Freshman Medicine*Woman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Right here in your face!
    Posts
    66
    ghost7584: "The number is really six hundred and sixty six. That 616 is some kind of a fraud."
    *************
    M*W: What difference does the number make if both numbers denote some kind of archfiend? Alphabets in different languages have different numeric values in those languages. Therefore, neither is incorrect. Traditionally, Nero is thought to be the 666 "mark of the beast." But, depending if his name is written in Latin or Greek, that would change the value to 616 by deleting one "n" off his title. History has shown what an evil man Nero was, so the point is really moot. Check this out:

    http://www.torahofmessiah.com/markofbeast.html
    *************
    ghost7584: Go and buy the real bible, the King James version, translated from the real unaltered original texts, the massoretic text of the jews old testament, and the majority text (also called textus receptus or byzantine text) for the New Testament. Modern bible versions have at least 5% of the words changed, or added or deleted and they are not totally accurate. The modern versions have a corrupted text from Alexandria Egypt mixed in with them. King James version is 100% the real scriptures translated into old or middle english.
    *************
    M*W: ROFLMAO! Man, are you naive! How old are you anyway? I can accept the fact that you're a christian, but such a gullible christian at that! Puh-leeze!
    *************
    ghost7584: Modern versions are 95% the real scriptures, and 5% errors, changes, additions, deletions, in modern english.
    *************
    M*W: You've got the numbers backwards. Modern versions of the KJV are 5% accurate TRANSLATIONS from the original texts and 95% in error! Modern English has nothing to do with accuracy! Check this out:

    http://www.new-testament-study-bible.com/errors.htm
    *************
    ghost7584: The number is the number of the name of the future evil world ruler, called the antichrist or the beast, that is going to rule near the end of the world, before Jesus comes back to take over the world with an army of angels.
    *************
    M*W: So you think whomever wrote Revelations anticipated this "evil world ruler" to come some two thousand years in the "future?" Even the most accurate of prophets couldn't predict an event like this that far into the future! Surely, the understanding of a "future" time couldn't have exceeded their own generation since they expected to see this "evil world ruler" in their on lifetimes. Nero was around when Revelations was being written, but I tend to think the beast is the RCC. As much as I would like to believe Mary Magdalen wrote the Gospel of John and Revelations, I'm still undecided if Jesus and MM even existed at all! Check this out:

    http://www.torahofmessiah.com/antichrist.html
    *************
    ghost7584: [In Hebrew, the alphabet stands for numbers too, so the name will add up to that number.]
    Revelation 13:

    17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

    18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
    *************
    M*W: Well, of course this number would end up in the KJV modern English version! It is 616 in Latin. Check this out:

    http://www.theology.edu/tr.htm

    Believing doesn't make it so![/img]
    "Baby, you don't have to live like a refugee."

    ~ Tom Petty
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: King James Whatsit? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiassa
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost7584
    Go and buy the real bible, the King James version, translated from the real unaltered original texts, the massoretic text of the jews old testament, and the majority text (also called textus receptus or byzantine text) for the New Testament.
    Modern bible versions have at least 5% of the words changed, or added or deleted and they are not totally accurate. The modern versions have a corrupted text from Alexandria Egypt mixed in with them.
    King James version is 100% the real scriptures translated into old or middle english.
    Modern versions are 95% the real scriptures, and 5% errors, changes, additions, deletions, in modern english.
    The roman catholic church chose the corrupted alexandrian text for their bible, the latin vulgate. 5 corrupted manuscripts, that had words changed in the 4th century, come form alexandria. They lasted long because of the desert climate. They disagree with the Jewish text of the Old Testament 5% of important places. Gnostic heretics or Egyptian philosophers, were changing the words around.
    All of the catholic bibles have the corrupted Alexandrian text mixed in with them.
    The modern bible versions come about as a result of the ONGOING war between catholicism and protestantism. The roman catholic church is trying to push the protestant bible, the KJV, out of the way and replace it with their corrupted Alexandrian text bible. Those commentaries you are reading against the KJv bible, probably come from catholic sources. They are not to be trusted because the catholic church has a policy of telling lies if it will further the cause of their church.
    Jerome, the translater of the Latin vulgate, and one of the founders of the catholic church, taught the catholic church to tell lies.

    (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2). His friend Jerome (St Jerome) had this to say about lying for god -"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived." Chap 32, of his 12th book of Ecclesiastic
    a.Her teaching that "the end justifies the means" allows her the freedom to
    lie, just as long as it propagates her cause. by H.G. Wells, noted
    historian, in his book, "Crux Ansata,"
    You can read about what I am telling you about the catholic church behind the corrupted modern bible versions at this website:
    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp
    The protestants rely on the New Testament for the teachings of Christianity. The catholic church thinks they can invent their own teachings anytime they want, even if they contradict the bible. So the catholic church is behing the printing of well over 100 modern bible versions, which say different things. This is to destroy the faith of the people in the bible. If people will stop following the bible, then it is easier for the catholic hiearchy to persuade them to obey Rome. So, with over a hundred different bibles all saying different things, people are loosing faith in the Word of God, the bible.
    But, we still have the real original scriptures, unaltered, translated into middle or old english in the King James version bible, the real inspired Word of God.
    [Can't have 100 different bibles saying 100 different things and they are all supposed to be written by the same authors. Someone is lying.]
    The King James version is the real one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: 616 or 666? 
    Forum Freshman FieryIce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by FieryIce
    My bible footnotes say, “Other ancient authorities read six hundred sixteen”. What does yours say? Why are there no books on shelves discussing this 616 of ancient authorities, where are the ancient authorities books? What I find very interesting is that 600 is DC and if you are not in the Good Old Boys Club of Democracy, Washington DC, supported by the UN, your nation is imposed with sanctions. Apparently the White House was 16 Pennsylvania Avenue but is now addressed 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    These ancient authorities such as Irenaeus knew this back in the first to second century AD.

    The Other Number of the Beast: 616
    P.Oxy. LVI 4499

    Tic Toc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman craterchains's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, usa
    Posts
    58
    Yes, the world wide control of demonocracy, ooppssss, democracy I meant to say, and aint
    NO country big or small dealing on the world market with out it's approval.

    I would have to say that amongst all this "babel" of religious bull shit the mark of democracy
    from
    600 = DC
    16 for the addy of the white house
    Yes ! ! DEMONOCRACY RULES.

    I do have to admit that the;
    IPv6 based on Base 16 numbers (FEF0) Hex.

    So you have IPv6(16) or 616
    by InSanity is thoughtful, interesting, may fit in with some translations using the term of a
    "broadway" where the two witnesses are killed. Like as in broad band maybe?
    just a thought.
    It's not what you know or don't know, but what you know that isn't so that will hurt you. Will Rodgers 1938
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by craterchains
    Yes, the world wide control of demonocracy, ooppssss, democracy I meant to say, and aint
    NO country big or small dealing on the world market with out it's approval.

    I would have to say that amongst all this "babel" of religious bull shit the mark of democracy
    from
    600 = DC
    16 for the addy of the white house
    Yes ! ! DEMONOCRACY RULES.

    I do have to admit that the;
    IPv6 based on Base 16 numbers (FEF0) Hex.

    So you have IPv6(16) or 616
    by InSanity is thoughtful, interesting, may fit in with some translations using the term of a
    "broadway" where the two witnesses are killed. Like as in broad band maybe?
    just a thought.
    The funny part about the IPv6 theory is that IPv4 doesn't use hex, it uses numbers 0-255 and if not notated in Hex hardly at all (Of course it could be). Also IPv4 doesn't have enough numbers to cover every living thing on the planet, IPv6 does and it's notated using Hex.

    An IP address is something everyone who does any kind of trade will need more and more in the future, and unlike other number systems it's world wide. Social Security numbers and such are limited to a single country, the IP is world wide. It's also interesting the US will be the last ones to adopt IPv6.

    The end is near...the end is near....

    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Seriously?! 
    Forum Freshman Tiassa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bothell, Washington, USA
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost7584
    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp
    Oh, Jesus' tits! Did you just try to ... ah ... educate me with a Chick tract?

    Man, the KJV crowd is just freaky these days.
    "A red rose absorbs all colours but red; red is therefore the one colour that it is not." (Perdurabo)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: King James Whatsit? 
    Forum Freshman Medicine*Woman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Right here in your face!
    Posts
    66
    ghost7584: Go and buy the real bible, the King James version, translated from the real unaltered original texts, the massoretic text of the jews old testament, and the majority text (also called textus receptus or byzantine text) for the New Testament.
    *************
    M*W: Don't you realize that people in and around the time and place of Jesus DID NOT speak in Olde English? In fact, the KJV has the most errors of all. Do a simple search on the Internet to get a listing of all the KVJ errors. And another thing, there were no originals to be found -- now or then. The KJV was swayed by King James, a mere human who would be king, and a corrupt one at that! Read a history book or two.
    The entire work of the bible, both OT and NT, are based on ancient Egyptian astrology -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam evolved from that.
    *************
    ghost7584: Modern bible versions have at least 5% of the words changed, or added or deleted and they are not totally accurate. The modern versions have a corrupted text from Alexandria Egypt mixed in with them.
    *************
    M*W: Please provide references for your statements!
    *************
    ghost7584: King James version is 100% the real scriptures translated into old or middle english. Modern versions are 95% the real scriptures, and 5% errors, changes, additions, deletions, in modern english.
    *************
    M*W: KJV is absolutely NOT 100% real scripture! You have obviously been duped!
    *************
    ghost7584: The roman catholic church chose the corrupted alexandrian text for their bible, the latin vulgate. 5 corrupted manuscripts, that had words changed in the 4th century, come form alexandria. They lasted long because of the desert climate. They disagree with the Jewish text of the Old Testament 5% of important places. Gnostic heretics or Egyptian philosophers, were changing the words around.
    All of the catholic bibles have the corrupted Alexandrian text mixed in with them.
    *************
    M*W: Before the RCC came into being around 400 AD, the early church fathers were the ones to blame for the corruptions that were based on Pauline doctrine. Not that I'm defending the RCC. I was their puppet once. But to say that "Gnostic heretics or Egyptian philosophers were changing the words around," you need to understand that they had no originals to work from. They did the best they could within the boundaries of human error. Even Paul's Epistles have known forgeries in them as do the Gospels. That is why there is nothing inspired about the Bible. The only inspiration the KJV has is King James ego.
    *************
    ghost7584: The modern bible versions come about as a result of the ONGOING war between catholicism and protestantism. The roman catholic church is trying to push the protestant bible, the KJV, out of the way and replace it with their corrupted Alexandrian text bible. Those commentaries you are reading against the KJv bible, probably come from catholic sources. They are not to be trusted because the catholic church has a policy of telling lies if it will further the cause of their church.
    *************
    M*W: Excuse me, but wasn't that war some 500 years ago? Since you want to live in the past, I suggest you buy a museum. Your statement sounds religiously paranoid. Don't you realize that no one had a bible nor a copy thereof until the printing press was invented in the 1500s? The RCC wasn't pushing any bible because there were none! Why do you fear the RCC so much? If anything, it's dying but so is Protestantism. Christianity is dying worldwide. Get over it!
    *************
    ghost7584: Jerome, the translater of the Latin vulgate, and one of the founders of the catholic church, taught the catholic church to tell lies.
    *************
    M*W: Provide some references. I'm not a Catholic any longer nor a Christian, but you're making statements even the most staunch Atheist would not make.
    *************
    ghost7584: (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2). His friend Jerome (St Jerome) had this to say about lying for god -"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived." Chap 32, of his 12th book of Ecclesiastic a.Her teaching that "the end justifies the means" allows her the freedom to lie, just as long as it propagates her cause. by H.G. Wells, noted historian, in his book, "Crux Ansata," You can read about what I am telling you about the catholic church behind the corrupted modern bible versions at this website:
    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp
    *************
    M*W: Again, I won't defend the RCC, but come on, this was published back in 1944 during WWII and full of conspiracy theories! Wells was a prolific SCIENCE-FICTION NOVELIST! Altogether now, "S-C-I-E-N-C-E
    F-I-C-T-I-O-N ? Mr. Wells gave us some profound works like:

    War of the Worlds
    The Time Machine
    The Invisible Man
    The Island of Dr. Moreau
    First Men on the Moon
    When the Sleeper Awakes
    The Conquest of Time
    The Master Puppeteer
    The Strange Orchid
    Food of the Gods

    to name a few other of his works of S-C-I-E-N-C-E
    F-I-C-T-I-O-N !
    *************
    ghost7584: The protestants rely on the New Testament for the teachings of Christianity. The catholic church thinks they can invent their own teachings anytime they want, even if they contradict the bible. So the catholic church is behing the printing of well over 100 modern bible versions, which say different things.
    *************
    M*W: Name the 100+ modern bible versions the RCC has given the nil obstat and imprimatur!
    *************
    ghost7584: This is to destroy the faith of the people in the bible. If people will stop following the bible, then it is easier for the catholic hiearchy to persuade them to obey Rome. So, with over a hundred different bibles all saying different things, people are loosing faith in the Word of God, the bible.
    *************
    M*W: Your paranoia is showing again! I would hope that no one on Earth in this day and time obeys Rome, except maybe for the Roman citizens. Rome and the RCC are not one and the same. In fact, the RCC is not even IN ROME! It's in Vatican City in the independent country of The Vatican. Do your homework before you post anymore illiterate crap like you do. Again, list those 100+ bibles you speak of.
    *************
    ghost7584: But, we still have the real original scriptures, unaltered, translated into middle or old english in the King James version bible, the real inspired Word of God. [Can't have 100 different bibles saying 100 different things and they are all supposed to be written by the same authors. Someone is lying.]
    *************
    M*W: Where are these real original, unaltered, translated scriptures in the KJV to be found? But wait. How can a translation be an original?
    *************
    ghost7584: The King James version is the real one.
    *************
    M*W: A "version" cannot be an "original." You don't know what you're talking about, and if you did, you would be a liar.
    "Baby, you don't have to live like a refugee."

    ~ Tom Petty
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: Seriously?! 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiassa
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost7584
    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp
    Oh, Jesus' tits! Did you just try to ... ah ... educate me with a Chick tract?
    I'll educate you with this, one of the 10 commandments:

    Exodus 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 Re: The KJV Debate 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman
    M*W: So you think whomever wrote Revelations anticipated this "evil world ruler" to come some two thousand years in the "future?" Even the most accurate of prophets couldn't predict an event like this that far into the future!
    ok, you caught them. They can predict the future, but only a little bit ahead of time, because... why?

    I'm not attacking you, I'm just goofing around. I just thought that was funny.

    Unless, of course, you have some reason why you hold this position on the whole statute of future limitations of prophecy...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Your long post was excellent, Tiassa.

    Tiassa and MW, ghost7584 evidently didn't take in any of my irrefutable arguments on this subject back on sciforums. His KJV supremacy is nothing more or less than dogma. In fact I saw it appropriately termed "bibliolatry". http://www.kjvonly.org is not what it sounds like, it in fact is a site contra the KJV worshippers.
    This website is dedicated to the defense of the Bible as originally written,
    against the flood of falsehood propagated by King James Onlyism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman
    M*W: ROFLMAO! Man, are you naive! How old are you anyway? I can accept the fact that you're a christian, but such a gullible christian at that! Puh-leeze!
    I asked this, the 7584 is not his birthdate as I assumed, ghost is actually about 50 iirc.

    One slight quibble, Tiassa:
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiassa
    So it's worth pointing out, as well, that the KJV is a protestant Bible. Looking through the index of my hypertext KJV, I see no mention of Maccabees, Tobias, Esdras, &c. And, of course, we can look up above and note that the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV removed references to the Apocrypha.
    Weeeell, don't forget that the original KJV is the actual translation done by the King's scholars from 1604 - 1610, and they can be "blamed" for whatever mistranslations they perpertrated, but they can't be blamed for whatever happened in editions over 150 years later. The original translation includes the Apocrypha. It is extraordinarily hard to find modern KJV's that include it, but the OUP does an edition which does (this of course is a study bible, of sorts, rather than a devotional one). Any devotional bible you find is invariably lacking in Apocrypha, but there is a KJV translation of it, made at the same time as the rest. It includes Tobit, Judith, two books of Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus (aka Ben Sira), Wisdom and the additions to Esther and Daniel. It does not, I believe, include the other three versions of the Maccabees books, or 1 and 2 Esdras.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiassa
    This complaint of conservative Christians, that the Hebrew experience is not presumed to be a natural and necessary precursor to the Christian covenant, will be a difficult one to overcome largely because the presumptuous tradition is so long-standing. It is an arrogance of Christians to demand such a regard, and that arrogance most assuredly infected the translation of the KJV.

    Thus, to consider from two planks:


    • The King James Version is not 100% anything, as indicated by the discussion of its defects of and alterations.

    • The King James Version, while popular, depends in part on the invalidation of the Hebrew experience in history.


    If we invalidate part of the Bible's own history, what becomes of its historicity? And yes, we can throw the Apocrypha into that consideration, too. "Protestant" Bibles are nothing more than abridged Bibles.
    It struck me that the Catholic idea was actually a sound one. It seems to be a great idea to "go back to the grand original" when making a modern era translation, but for a Christian bible to do so seems to make a mockery of one rather important factor, and that is that the scripture known by Christ, his disciples and the first Christians was not Hebrew! The Bible that Jesus knew was the Greek Septuagint. So by taking the words of the Hebrew bible for your translation is doubly not going to match up with your Christological expectations. To take the notorious Isaiah 7:14, the Septuagint word in place of the Hebrew almah (young woman) is parthenos, which quite specifically means virgin. Since Matthew evidently felt that Isaiah was talking about a virgin, and was backed up by the scripture that he knew, where is the value of translating it, or any other part of Scripture, from the Hebrew version, the details of which Matthew, Mark, Luke and Jesus himself would have been unversed in?

    Of course, the fact is that the "fulfillments of scripture" are never more than out of context readings of short passages which certainly do not appear in the original as any kind of "prophecy", and are thus in my view, theologically worthless. You might as well take phrases from Moby Dick and say that "For hate's sake I stab at thee, thou damned whale" was "fulfilled by" 9/11.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25 Re: The KJV Debate 
    Forum Freshman Medicine*Woman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Right here in your face!
    Posts
    66
    M*W: "So you think whomever wrote Revelations anticipated this "evil world ruler" to come some two thousand years in the "future?" Even the most accurate of prophets couldn't predict an event like this that far into the future!"
    *************
    cole: ok, you caught them. They can predict the future, but only a little bit ahead of time, because... why?

    I'm not attacking you, I'm just goofing around. I just thought that was funny.

    Unless, of course, you have some reason why you hold this position on the whole statute of future limitations of prophecy...
    *************
    M*W: Any predictions the prophets of today would make about the future, say 2000 years down the road, would be nothing more than imaginative science fiction. Even scientists today cannot predict more than a few hundred years at most, and even today, those conservative predictions still seem like improbability. For example, scientific predictions about the use of stem cells can be easily predicted because some successful results have already occurred. Therefore, the future of stem cells looks promising. However, in the USA today this valuable science of healing the sick and even potentially raising the dead is still a big no-no. So, in this effort, the USA now lags behind North Korea, Germany, Sweden and Brasil! OTOH, the prophets 2000 years ago were presuming a spiritual resurrection, yet, we still have not found any proof for this.

    What I'm saying is that the most learned scientists of today cannot predict the future with any accuracy, yet the ancients said they could! That was my point, so why should we believe them any more than we believe our best scientists? Today's scientists can only predict a minimum of centuries maybe even decades into the future.

    Glad you asked!
    "Baby, you don't have to live like a refugee."

    ~ Tom Petty
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman Medicine*Woman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Right here in your face!
    Posts
    66
    Silas: Tiassa and MW, ghost7584 evidently didn't take in any of my irrefutable arguments on this subject back on sciforums. His KJV supremacy is nothing more or less than dogma. In fact I saw it appropriately termed "bibliolatry". http://www.kjvonly.org is not what it sounds like, it in fact is a site contra the KJV worshippers. This website is dedicated to the defense of the Bible as originally written,
    against the flood of falsehood propagated by King James Onlyism.
    *************
    M*W: "ROFLMAO! Man, are you naive! How old are you anyway? I can accept the fact that you're a christian, but such a gullible christian at that! Puh-leeze!"
    *************
    Silas: "I asked this, the 7584 is not his birthdate as I assumed, ghost is actually about 50 iirc."
    *************
    M*W: All the more disturbing, Silas. I assumed he was an impressionable young man since his posts were 'immature'. Knowing that he is a grown man and still believing in fairy tales is grossly pathetic!
    "Baby, you don't have to live like a refugee."

    ~ Tom Petty
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: The KJV Debate 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman
    Even the most accurate of prophets couldn't predict an event like this that far into the future!"
    *************


    What I'm saying is that the most learned scientists of today cannot predict the future with any accuracy, yet the ancients said they could! That was my point, so why should we believe them any more than we believe our best scientists? Today's scientists can only predict a minimum of centuries maybe even decades into the future.
    Ok, but the prophets didn't use the same mechanism for prediction, did they? My point was that you may as well say that the prophet can't predict what will happen in ten years, or two thousand years, there is no reason to make a distinction regarding supernatural prophetic revelations. I just thought the distinction was unwarranted, not really a big deal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28 On missing the broad side of the barn 
    Forum Freshman Tiassa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bothell, Washington, USA
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    One slight quibble, Tiassa:
    I have no excuse for that omission. Thank you for making the point.

    Catholic Apologetics has an interesting page on the issue.

    Of course, now I find it interesting that the site I exploited only mentions the marginal changes. Both the Chick Publications website (cited by Ghost7584) and The King James Bible Page quote Sam Gipp's The Answer Book. A couple of Gipp's points are covered by the Catholic Apologetics page.

    Scion of Zion (an interesting page in itself) carries a list compiled by Dr. James Matto, "Lineage of the King James Bible", which notes that a KJV was issued in 1613 without the Apocrypha. Yet Catholic Apolgetics notes that Anglican Archbishop George Abbott, one of the original KJV translators and member of the High Commission Court ordered that anyone issuing a Bible without the Apocrypha faced a year in prison; King James himself, in 1616, affirmed his faith in the Apocrypha; the 1625 edition, the last of King James' life, contained the Apocrypha.

    It seems rather a large change to omit from a list of alterations to the KJV, but of course if you're posting on the subject like I am ... whoops.

    However, to attempt to turn the KJV discussion back to the number of the beast, it also seems excessive to raise the KJV-only argument when the state of a third-century text attests well-enough to itself. Among the myriad discussions of biblical veracity, of course, we can find an argument concerning the dates of various texts not held in the standard biblical canon. Consistency suggests any Christian holding to four Gospels should acknowledge at least the date of this apparent discrepancy. This would suggest 616 is erroneous.
    "A red rose absorbs all colours but red; red is therefore the one colour that it is not." (Perdurabo)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman craterchains's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, usa
    Posts
    58
    Thank you Tiassa, often ones hijack a thread accidentally for their own "soap box"
    spiel, and some even do it on purpose. All told it now stands that the oldest
    available part of Revelation about the number / mark of the beast is 616.

    And thats a fact Jack!

    I and FieryIce both have replicas of the 1611 KJV bible, anyone else?
    It's not what you know or don't know, but what you know that isn't so that will hurt you. Will Rodgers 1938
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Wow, no, I'd love one of those. Where can you get one? They don't cost hundreds, do they?

    However, I think the consensus, not only here but in general biblical scholarship, is that the most common and therefore the most correct figure is 666, not 616.

    I'm still not certain as to what real difference it makes! 666 has the benefit of harmony and memorableness, while if it had always been 616 it might be more obvious that it signified something specific. I read years ago that it referred to the Emperor Nero, though that does not seem likely (I've just realised) given the composition date for the Revelation. Perhaps it was actually Domitian? I for one am definitely more in favour of theories that propose that "prophecies" in the bible are designed to be meaningful to those for whom they were first written, not for us millennia later.

    Eschatological (concerning the End of Times) writing seems to me to be most common when things are fairly stable and prosperous, rather than when things are actually falling apart. For example Revelation itself was composed at the height of the Roman Empire. It should be noted that we are living in fairly Eschatological times ourselves, not only because we have recently passed the Millennium, but just generally there is a great upsurge in belief that "the prophecies are on the point of being fulfilled" with either George Bush or Osama Bin Laden portrayed as the Antichrist, depending on your viewpoint. I've had Jehovah's Witnesses on my doorstep pointing out how "close" today's situation is to those prophecies of end times, and my point is, Uh, the world was ruled by the Roman Empire in those days, as it is by the American Empire today. Well, the Roman Empire fell millennia ago. You see bad times? How about the Dark Ages? You see apocalyptic War fought against an anti-Christ? How is it nobody sees the Second World War like that? WWII, along with the Holocaust, was more than enough combined human suffering to match any drug-induced vision of Hell, and out of it came a reborn nation of Israel. But nobody really mentioned Revelation or other eschatologies in those days. Everybody has an idea of what the end of days will be like, but fail to see how we could already have been through it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman FieryIce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    29
    Silas, before you can start theorizing about the end days or using someone else’s ideas of the end of days, you need to back up and research some terms. For example, antichrist, “antichristos" is a combined form of "christos" - Christ - and the prefix anti. Christos is plural not singular, checking this word it means Anointed Ones. Anti means against so the word antichrist is actually against Anointed Ones, not singular and not one person.

    So you know where you can put all those theories about Bush and Osama Bin Laden, that is not to say these two are not part of the crowd of those “against Anointed Ones”.

    If you check the prophecies there are things that are to happen that have not happened yet so we are not “through it” yet. Such things as Jesus comes in the clouds, there has been no visit yet with some kewl cloud formations, a grand event with His entourage of angel ET’s, the 24 Elders, the 12 Apostles but there are the two witnesses and the Elijah like one that happens before Jesus comes. The two witnesses mark the end of the second woe.

    Working out the meaning of the 616 in our human language of numbers is very intriguing; check my first post in this thread.
    Tic Toc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    So you know where you can put all those theories about Bush and Osama Bin Laden, that is not to say these two are not part of the crowd of those “against Anointed Ones”.
    So if I get this right anyone against those who were baptized? Wouldn't this be a large collection of religions? Certainly not Bush. Not that I like Bush.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman FieryIce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    29
    At conception a Sentient Intelligent Life Form (SILF) is already a member of the Kingdom of the Heavens; baptism is the individual’s recognition and loyalties to the Kingship, Monarchy Government. The King appoints individuals, the Anointed, it is not a democracy.
    Tic Toc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by FieryIce
    Christos is plural not singular, checking this word it means Anointed Ones.
    I really don't think Christos is plural. I believe the Greek plural would be christoi. I'm fully aware of what both Christos and messiah mean, thank you. They mean "The Anointed One"
    Quote Originally Posted by FieryIce
    Anti means against so the word antichrist is actually against Anointed Ones, not singular and not one person.
    But really, FI, what do most people really think of when they say "Anti-Christ"? This is what I was referring to. I said,
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    It should be noted that we are living in fairly Eschatological times ourselves, not only because we have recently passed the Millennium, but just generally there is a great upsurge in belief that "the prophecies are on the point of being fulfilled" with either George Bush or Osama Bin Laden portrayed as the Antichrist, depending on your viewpoint.
    This did not mean that we are actually in the End of Days, it meant that people are seeing these as the end times, and therefore the Antichrist is going to be one or the other to those people who believe in all that nonsense. Those people are undoubtedly unaware of the meaning of Christos and think of "Anti-Christ" as meaning "the anti- Jesus Christ". However, since Revelation was written by a Christian, it's not unlikely that that's what he meant as well. He did not believe in "Anointed Ones", he believed in Jesus, the Christ, the son of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by FieryIce
    So you know where you can put all those theories about Bush and Osama Bin Laden, that is not to say these two are not part of the crowd of those “against Anointed Ones”.
    They're not my theories, as I perhaps did not make sufficiently clear. They are the theories of people who knock on my door trying to prepare me for the End of Days. Some believe Osama Bin Laden is the Antichrist. Some believe Dubya is. Some believe it's David Icke, or David Koresh, or George Galloway.

    I've checked the bible and you are definitely incorrect in your "Anointed Ones" theory, FI.
    Quote Originally Posted by 1 John II:xviii
    Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
    Here's the passage in Greek:
    παιδια εσχατη ωρα εστιν και καθως ηκουσατε οτι ο αντιχριστος ερχεται και νυν αντιχριστοι πολλοι γεγονασιν οθεν γινωσκομεν οτι εσχατη ωρα εστιν
    The second highlighted word is "antichristoi" - the plural form as I said, but that is a plural of a singular noun "antichristos".

    Further more to make it absolutely certain that John (who is probably the same John that wrote Revelation, although "antichrist" does not appear in the latter work) is referring not to some purported "Anointed Ones" but only to one Christ, four verses down we have
    Quote Originally Posted by 1 John II:xxii
    Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
    And
    Quote Originally Posted by 1 John IV:iii
    And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
    And
    Quote Originally Posted by 2 John I:vii
    For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
    These four passages are the only use of the term "antichrist" in the entire Bible.

    To pacify any objections from ghost7584, those quotations are from the KJV and the Greek Textus Receptus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman FieryIce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    29
    Sila

    1 John 2:22
    ἀντίχριστος

    1 John 4:3
    ἀντιχρίστου

    2 John 1:7
    ἀντίχριστος

    1 John 2:18
    αντιχριστος
    αντιχριστοι


    In using the Greek New Testiment and the Diaglott ς is plural and οι is plural nominative masculine, so in 1 John 1:7 and 1 John 2:18 αντιχριστος and αντιχριστοι are both plural. The ου in ἀντιχρίστου is the joining of two vowels still not effecting the plurality.
    Tic Toc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    You're basically claiming that every single bible translation (into English at any rate) is incorrect?

    ς is evidently a lower case sigma used at word-ends. I refer you to The Greek Alphabet This is not a plural, -os is singular. I refer you to Learning New Testament Greek which includes the following words: Theos (God), Iesous (Jesus), ho kyrios (the LORD), ho Christos (the Christ) and ho huios (the son). Only one of those does not end in -os, all of them end in -s, not one of them is a plural. Please stop talking out of your arsos.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman FieryIce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    29
    Sila
    My statement stands; I used the research books that has been used for many decades by scholars. Not chasing on the Internet for reference material that can be tweaked ever so easily to add to deception and confusion.

    Deception breeds Confusion, Confusion breeds Insanity

    Not to be confused with InSanity :wink:
    Tic Toc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    What research books? Which scholars?

    Quote Originally Posted by FieryIce
    Not chasing on the Internet for reference material that can be tweaked ever so easily to add to deception and confusion.
    I see. So since I showed that you were incorrect in your assertions, the only explanation is that all internet references have been "tweaked" in order to promulgate a lie that christos is a singular noun? The entire Greek Bible has been written incorrectly on a religious bible e-text in order to discredit FieryIce's impeccable theory? In point of fact, apparently the Greek Language itself has changed from what everybody believes is the case - it seems that -os is a plural ending after all, and everyone (including the Greeks) have been speaking it incorrectly all this time!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman FieryIce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    29
    Sila
    I stated the information very plain and simple.

    Your attitude is betraying you.

    BTW : Thank you for your exhibition of attitude for demonstration purposes
    Tic Toc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman Brian Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    37
    616 is the Greek Apocalyptic number and 666 is the Hebrew Apocalyptic number both numbers in their respective alphabets spell Ceasar Nero as the identity .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    100
    You're giving my simple-learn-english a hard time...
    (hope these things isn't already mentioned)

    As some one already noticed, heprew letter has also
    number value...

    Brian Foley:
    616 is the Greek Apocalyptic number and 666 is the Hebrew Apocalyptic number both numbers in their respective alphabets spell Ceasar Nero as the identity .
    If you observe the The Book of Revalation, and historical
    facts we have from those days, we can easely make a conclusion
    that St. John was descriping the years of persecution as a symbolical
    way, and Foley noticed, "the number of the beast" is infact a symbol
    for the slaughter - Name of emporor who caused it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    19
    I dont know if anyone already has said this but 666 or 616 is also the measures in the golden section aprox. 616/1000.
    One homepage wrote this
    This later became a symbol of evil by an early Christian sect. The Gnostics saw the Golden Section as a fingerprint of an evil creator who made the universe as a trap for the human soul, and since the pentacle is constructed completely of the Golden Section, it became a symbol of the evil side. The Gnostics calculated the Golden Section to be roughly 616/1000. In early versions of the Bible in the Book of Revelation, this is referred to as the 'Number of the Beast'. This number later became the commonly known 666. The fascination with this ratio is not confined to history. Today, people still conduct great amounts of research into the Golden Section, with there even being a Museum dedicated to it Russia, named the Museum of Harmony
    http://people.bath.ac.uk/ma1mcs/goldenratio.html
    As Time and Space come bending back to shape this star-specked scene,
    The tranquil tears of tragic joy still spread their silver sheen;
    Along the Grand Canal still soar the fragile Towers of Truth;
    Their fairy grace defends this place of Beauty, calm and couth.

    Bone-tired the race that raised the Towers, forgotten are their lores;
    Long gone the gods who shed the tears that lap these crystal shores.
    Slow beats the time-worn heart of Mars beneath this icy sky;
    The thin air whispers voicelessly that all who live must die - Robert A. Heinlein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    309
    666 means triple imperfect. this is because in the bible 7 was the perfect number. you also see 40 and 3. 40 means long and 3 means short. so in the bible you would say "this is gonna take 40 million years!" or "i will be there in 3 minutes! on the 7th day the lord rose again. on the perfect day the lord rose again. the devil is 666. the devil is triple inperfect. he did alot of bad things.666
    I don't suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it

    the road to succes is never paved or clearly marked
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •