It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

And his number is 616?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
There is something weird in the Revelation department. If you haven't heard, the Book of Revelation contains among its arsenal of epic curses and dreaded visions, a prophecy concerning a special number, and most know that number to be 666. However, there is controversy, and on a really deep level. For according to certain quite ancient traditions it is 616, and NOT 666. As early as in the 2nd century apologetic Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul (Lyon in France) AKA Saint Irenaeus, famed member of the Church Fathers club— had quite a lot to say about quite a lot of things, also the Number of the Beast, and concerning the 666/616 controversy, he writes the following:

—I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decads they will have it that there is but one.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies vol.5 ch.30

Now, what Irenaeus is telling us here is that certain copies of the Book of Revelation that circulated in his time (2nd c.) had 616 written where 666 is printed today. And for your information I am of the ones who think the number originally read 616, but that it was later changed into 666 to fulfil the prophecy about it. Anyway. Irenaeus had a different opinion, and since he was a student of Polycarp, a man who apparently were a disciple of John the Evangelist, scholars have traditionally used to quote Irenaeus in these matters, and wipe away any mention of 616 as simply a typo or copying mistake. Irenaeus wrote his 36 volume treatise called Against Heresies around 180 AD, and this is the earliest recorded unmistakable commentary on the 666/616 controversy as far as I can see.



616 shows up a few other places as well. Among these is an Alexandrian style fragment called Papyrus 115 from around the time of Saint Arius, medio third century. The text says 616 or uses the letters chi-iota-sigma (ΧΙϚ), rather than chi-xi-sigma (ΧΞϚ) which is most common (666). The red inking in the pic below is done by me to show where it says 616 or ΧΙϚ:



Most prominently among the texts that carry the 616 variant of the ever infamous number, is found in one of the four great uncial codices, in the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. This once magnificent and very expensive book, was recycled in the Middle Ages where the original text was washed away and a completely unrelated text was written instead on the high quality vellum parchment. It was originally put together no later than the fifth century with neat margins and showing fantastic skill and effort. Together with codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, the Codex Ephraemi is one of only four surviving copies of the complete Greek NT from this period, and together they are called The Great Uncial Codices. In the Ephraemi codex the text says Gr. ἑξακόσιοι δέκα ἕξ or «hexakosioi deka hex» that is 600 10 and 6. Below is an illustration showing a typical page from the restored Ephraemi Codex, I was unable to find pics of the particular verse in question:



Though compared to 666 it is inferior as to popping up everywhere, 616 isn't just another number. It holds a bit of merit and food for thought itself, perhaps even the very solution to the whole mystery surrounding it. Seeing all the different variations in the Greek documents of the Apocalypse, I suggest that it was originally written in another language than Greek, exactly which, I am not certain. But I believe it was written in another language than Greek and the Number of the Beast was originally 616— and it is impossible to translate a text without changing the whole syntax and thereby adding and taking away bits of text. Go figure.

More reading:

Irenaeus
==> en.wikipedia.org...
==> www.newadvent.org...
Papyrus 115
==> www.csad.ox.ac.uk...
==> en.wikipedia.org...
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus
==> en.wikipedia.org...
==> en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 11-8-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Mark of the beast or mark of the opposer? I have heard so many separate stories and theories I just want some clarification. Is lucifer or satan a light bringer or a demon with evil intentions? 1's and 6's dominate my life and I find it hard to believe it is tied with evil intentions.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Continued....

Since the Greek and Latin names of the good lord, Gr. Ἰησοῦς (Iesous) and Lat. IESVS would read Heb. ישוש (JSVS), this cannot have been his real name but a different one, and Heb. ישוש adds up to 616 if you apply Hebrew gematria and is probably why the number was included in the first place, to reveal how the Empire's own inquisicion-style agents, supplied by local religious zealots and the police— tracked down members of the early church and confiscated all manuscripts they'd find and destroyed every copy they could find of these books and writings, as well as the people who wrote them and read them. It seems quite clear to me that the author(s) of Revelation foresaw the forthcoming and very much violent process of standardisation and censoring that would go on until all the books that were left seemed to be identical to the Catholic canon. Peculiar.

Revelation was very much one such a book TPTB wanted their hands into. The one we have today is highly doctored and the result of tiresome standardisation after deep critical studies, and the book itself contains several warnings and even threatens with all the curses available forced upon anyone who might want to add or remove anything from the text, i.e. translate it into another language for instance, and if that's not enough, all the texts we have available are translated copies of copies with heavy word fluctuation, and no two ones are identical.

Maybe the number of the Beast was once intended to be a calculation or imply a geometric figure of some sort? The clock? It's animated and tells time— If you take 600/10/6 you get 10. 600/10 is 60 like the number of minutes in one hour on a regular rotary clock. Now the clock is a powerful geometrical device. If you put a mark every 6 minutes (360 seconds) you end up with a decagram or a polygon with ten sides of 36° each (numbers between 1 and 36 = 666). A star with ten horns. Sounds familiar?.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I disagree with you. Just look at the form of the two Greek letters iota and xi and ask yourselves this: was it more likely that iota was misread and re-written as xi or that xi was wrongly copied as iota? As iota is far simpler looking than xi, why would anyone have turned a simpler letter into one looking more complicated?! Limitations in optical resolution, which makes the human eye see just a straight line when the object has actually a more complicated shape, makes the latter much less likely. This means that it is far, far more probable that the TRUE middle letter in the number text for the Beast was, indeed, xi (giving the number 666) and that this was then mistaken for the simpler looking iota, giving the number 616. Suppose that there was genuine confusion about the correct letters EVEN at the time when copies of the text were being made, as Iraneus said, and passed around, so that some copies contained xi as the middle letter of the number text for the Beast, whilst others contained the letter iota?

This was precisely what Irenaeus argued. He says in Adv. haer. 5.30:
"Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; that is, the number of tens shall be equal to that of the hundreds, and the number of hundreds equal to that of the units (for that number which [expresses] the digit six being adhered to throughout, indicates the recapitulations of that apostasy, taken in its full extent, which occurred at the beginning, during the intermediate periods, and which shall take place at the end), — I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decads they will have it that there is but one. [I am inclined to think that this occurred through the fault of the copyists, as is wont to happen, since numbers also are expressed by letters; so that the Greek letter which expresses the number sixty was easily expanded into the letter Iota of the Greeks.]"

In this rather obscurely expressed passage, Irenaeus was proposing (even in the second century that old, Greek copies of Revelation contained an error of copying in which the Greek letter xi with gematria number value 60 was wrongly copied into the Greek letter iota with number value 10. So my theory that the number 666 is the correct number was advocated by Irenaeus himself.
edit on 11-8-2015 by micpsi because: Typo corrected.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

Bollocks. Seriously.

That's just about the lamest example of hogwash I have ever seen about the 666/616 controversy. How about Ephraemi that holds ἑξακόσιοι δέκα ἕξ, that's a deliberate action behind it, and is not a typo.
edit on 11-8-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
...but, it is the 'word of God' (?!)...all of this palaver about translations/interpretations etc. etc. etc. pretty much dodge the quoted 'certainty' above...

Revelation - written by an old man, wrongly imprisoned, and exhibiting the symptoms of onset dementia...

Å99



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

What about Solomon's 666 talents of gold. The book of Revelation is a summary of the OT prophecies so you need not look any further than the OT for the answers to these riddles.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: intunewithmyself
Is lucifer or satan a light bringer or a demon with evil intentions?



originally posted by: akushla99
...but, it is the 'word of God' (?!)...


No no, the Bible is not the Word of God, it is the Old Serpent, and his name was once Shemael which reads lit. «Name of God», but then he lost a war over some magic book God gave to Adam, and the Shin in his name was changed into a Samek giving the name Samael which changes the name into meaning lit. «Venom of God», and after that he ended up in supposed infamy. This here 666/616 thing is that same old story all over again. Change a single letter and turn the table around completely. The evil linguist version of chess or tennis...
edit on 11-8-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

What about Solomon's 666 talents of gold.


Yeah, what about them? By changing a single letter, even a single iota (sounds familiar?) in the name/number of the beast the prophecy was fulfilled. It went from merely being a code for Jesus to being a curse involving every living unborn or dead soul around. 666 is coded into your very anatomy, right there in your hands and smack in your forehead.
edit on 11-8-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: intunewithmyself
Is lucifer or satan a light bringer or a demon with evil intentions?



originally posted by: akushla99
...but, it is the 'word of God' (?!)...


No no, the Bible is not the Word of God, it is the Old Serpent, and his name was once Shemael which reads lit. «Name of God», but then he lost a war over some magic book God gave to Adam, and the Shin in his name was changed into a Samek giving the name Samael which changes the name into meaning lit. «Venom of God», and after that he ended up in supposed infamy. This here 666/616 thing is that same old story all over again. Change a single letter and turn the table around completely. The evil linguist version of chess or tennis...


...there is no 'old serpent'...that too, is a fabrication...

Å99



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I didnt know about Adonikam, but that does clarify things. The Beast is the one with the wounded head that was revived, and Adoni-kam means the Lord has risen. So what if the Beast calls himself Adonikam as he enters the future temple. Solomon's 666 talents of gold ties the number to corrupt economy, and anyone without the mark cannot buy or sell.

Maybe the number of his name (666) is the number of the house of Adonikam rather than gematria.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: intunewithmyself
Is lucifer or satan a light bringer or a demon with evil intentions?



originally posted by: akushla99
...but, it is the 'word of God' (?!)...


No no, the Bible is not the Word of God, it is the Old Serpent, and his name was once Shemael which reads lit. «Name of God», but then he lost a war over some magic book God gave to Adam, and the Shin in his name was changed into a Samek giving the name Samael which changes the name into meaning lit. «Venom of God», and after that he ended up in supposed infamy. This here 666/616 thing is that same old story all over again. Change a single letter and turn the table around completely. The evil linguist version of chess or tennis...


...there is no 'old serpent'...that too, is a fabrication...


A book is a serpent. An old book is an old serpent. THE book here, is the Bible, and it is indeed a mighty Dragon made up out of many old serpents. Had it not been for that Old Serpent we had probably never known anything about Satan or the Beast or reducing things down to a number and that this number is evil. Nah, put the iota back where it belongs.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I didnt know about Adonikam, but that does clarify things. The Beast is the one with the wounded head that was revived, and Adoni-kam means the Lord has risen. So what if the Beast calls himself Adonikam as he enters the future temple. Solomon's 666 talents of gold ties the number to corrupt economy, and anyone without the mark cannot buy or sell.

Maybe the number of his name (666) is the number of the house of Adonikam rather than gematria.


No, Adonikam was not a beast. Caesar means sever or slice or cut. Jesus was a Caesar, the Jesus of Rome is the Beast. The pope is the False Prophet and Babylon is the Church. It's the old school. Time for some changes. There are new books being written as we speak.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I have seen the suggestion that both numbers were meant to indicate "Nero"; that his name in the Greek language yields one of them through gematria, and his name in the Latin language yields the other (I forget which way round). That's one way to account for the discrepancy.
The symbolic meaning around the number "6" works better with the tripled "666".



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

That would be the typical Preterist claim. However it's unlikely I think. But NeRoN KaiSaR or נרונ קסר adds up to 666 in Hebrew while NeRo KaiSaR or נרו קסר with a nun less adds up to 616. The Latin would be Nro Qsr (Pronounced "Nerō Kaisar") according to Wikipedia.

Nero 666/616 ==> en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 11-8-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: intunewithmyself
Is lucifer or satan a light bringer or a demon with evil intentions?



originally posted by: akushla99
...but, it is the 'word of God' (?!)...


No no, the Bible is not the Word of God, it is the Old Serpent, and his name was once Shemael which reads lit. «Name of God», but then he lost a war over some magic book God gave to Adam, and the Shin in his name was changed into a Samek giving the name Samael which changes the name into meaning lit. «Venom of God», and after that he ended up in supposed infamy. This here 666/616 thing is that same old story all over again. Change a single letter and turn the table around completely. The evil linguist version of chess or tennis...


...there is no 'old serpent'...that too, is a fabrication...


A book is a serpent. An old book is an old serpent. THE book here, is the Bible, and it is indeed a mighty Dragon made up out of many old serpents. Had it not been for that Old Serpent we had probably never known anything about Satan or the Beast or reducing things down to a number and that this number is evil. Nah, put the iota back where it belongs.


...there was no 'old serpent', 'satan', 'beast'...this is a fabrication...fabrication upon fabrication...

If you are willing to diminish Almightiness, then it is the smallest of steps to invent an 'adversary' created, that could, in any way challenge Almightiness...this is a fatal flaw...

Å99



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: akushla99

I'm not religious. Play your domination games somewhere else and please refer to the Faith and Theology forum if you intend to keep preaching. As an instrument with unimaginable historical impact, the Bible is very real, and very vicious. An Old Grumpy Serpent.
edit on 11-8-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim
It doesn't have to be a Preterist viewpoint.
I operate a "double-meaning" theory, arguing that John was addressing two audiences at the same time, his contemporaries and the future church.
Since his own church was in the middle of a persecution crisis, he could hardly leave them without a message from God while he talked to the future alone. The application of the title to Nero would belong to that aspect of the message.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Can you imagine the sum of consequence would be if the number was originally 616 which during the next century would be changed to 666 by literally changing an iota (confer with Matthew 5:18)? By changing the number from 616 to 666 it went from being the number of a single man (Jesus) into being the number of «all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave,» or Man as a species.
edit on 11-8-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim
I think my theory is simpler.
It began as "666" with a double meaning, a number representing Nero and also a symbolic number "Man being made the focus of worship in place of God" (whose notional number would be "777").
Then in some localities a different version of Nero's name generated the number 616, and scribes used this version without thinking about the double meaning.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join