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.

 

I have a deadly accurate theory about what the biblical "BEAST" is...

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 10:00 PM
link   

1. why would the church edit revelation when it is seemed to go against the church?


are you saying that since revelations spoke against the church the church had all the right to edit revelations?




posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Well now Mr. Free Mason, there's no reason for that! I don't believe I've been cruel, just attempting to show you an error in your original calculation.

I've been trying to help you understand how your math is wrong, which originally led you to your 111 number.

You just wrote: "when what you SHOULD be doing is taking 666 in BABYLONIAN and converting it to decimals"

Well, that is exactly what I have been doing sir! 666 in the Babylonian sexagesimal system should really be represented as 6,6,6 to indicate the proper numeral positions. It can't be 66,6 nor can it be 6,66 since the highest numeral is 59. If you're representing (as you have been) that the Biblical indication of 666 is based on Babylonian numerals, then a sexagesimal 6,6,6 is the correct representation.

You've said I SHOULD be converting this to decimal, which is exactly what this is doing:
6 --------------- = 6
6 X 60^1 ----- = 360
6 X 60^2 ----- = 21600
----------------- + ---------
----------------- = 21,966

The link I supplied provides a great deal of information about the Babylonian system and how to convert it to decimal. If you take the time to read the material, you'll see that your original calculation has been in error.

I hope this helps you to modify your original "Deadly Accurate Theory" about the Biblical Beast.



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Who are you quoting Illimatic? First off, we can't be sure WHAT they were pointing to, just that they were pointing to the year 116, which is the thought of year of Ingnatius's death, and the whole 98-117AD was a very important time to the Church, that's all we TRULY know.

The Whore on the seven hills seems to be likening rome to babylon, and so it is a satire against rome.

This is why their 666 is a Babylonian number...meaning it is 116 in decimal notations.

So someone obviously said "116 is an important year to what our message is, how can we get this across without stepping on toes?" Simple, they made a story "revelations" built upon it to mean what they wanted it to, and they pointed to the year by expanding 116 to a sexigesimal form.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
Hell if you want proof you are being an idiot, look at your own damn source...it shows you that 1million in babylonian is less than 1million in a decimal system, therefore 666 can't be GREATER than 666 in a decimal system, as you are showing...sheesh

[Edited on 16-2-2003 by FreeMason]



No no no.... you seem to be misunderstanding the way the source material is representing a Babylonian number, using decimal numerals. I assume you're talking about this example from the link:

"Here is 1,57,46,40 in Babylonian numerals..." then a conversion to 424,000 as decimal.

The 1,57,46,60 number is actually only 4 numerals in Babylonian, in decimal, we represent the numeral separations with commas, it's not a "millions" number. Notice the two digits in each position, not three. So in this case, a 4 position babylonian number is a six-digit decimal number. You'll notice that above this example, they have used my same method to convert the number to decimal.

Please, calm down and review the data in a rational way.



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Winston are you reading NOTHING...You need to go to my link on how to use god damn babylonian numbers, because you obviously are WAY too confused, by all those $hit diagrams on the link you've gone to.

First things first:

six hundred and sixty six does not equal (60^0),(60^1),(60^2). I found where your error is, and why you can't figure out your mistake...

In babylon, the hundres place was STILL as a hundreds place (this is where our decimal system and their sexigesmial systems converged).

You don't take the figure points as powers...it is 660 + 6...just as it has been in EVERY CIVILIZATION. So maintaining that "660 + 6 = 666" you have to not use powers as WE use them.

To us 10^2, = 100, and thus the hundreds place.

To them however, 60^2 = the SIX HUNDREDTH PLACE So can you see now that you can't use a 60^2 for anything that can be mulitplied by 59 to achieve a number that is in the 60^1 place?

Ugh...like 1000... =16 and 40 in their respective positions...40 would be in the ones place.

To us 1000 in babylonian translates out to 1640 in decimals, because the "powers" are used at different intervals.

so what's 660 in decimal notation? 11*60^1
And what's 6 in decimal notation? 6*60^0

This equals in decimal notation 116, in hundreds and tens places.

I provided a link that explains how the decimal//sexigesimal system conversions work, but obviously you ran off to find your own thing, which is not even discussing anything relevant.

The site you presented is talking about using a 59 number system, which the babylonians had no concept of, they had a 2!!! number system, that was it, those 2 numbers were entirely centered around the (60^x) notation.

so 1(60^0) = 1 and 10(60^0)= 10 and those are the ONLY 2 numbers in the babylonian number system.

Everything else is devised from 60^x, so if you have 60, you would use 60^1, because 10(60^1 )=600, even babylonians knew this!

But obviously you can't seem to figure that out. So please get your brain together, and re-read your stuff, you not I, are wrong.

Sincerely,
no signature

[Edited on 16-2-2003 by FreeMason]

[Edited on 16-2-2003 by FreeMason]



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I'm quoting truth.



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 10:24 PM
link   
First things first:

six hundred and sixty six does not equal (60^0),(60^1),(60^2). I found where your error is, and why you can't figure out your mistake...

In babylon, the hundres place was STILL as a hundreds place (this is where our decimal system and their sexigesmial systems converged).

You don't take the figure points as powers...it is 660 + 6...just as it has been in EVERY CIVILIZATION. So maintaining that "660 + 6 = 666" you have to not use powers as WE use them.

To us 10^2, = 100, and thus the hundreds place.

To them however, 60^2 = the SIX HUNDREDTH PLACE So can you see now that you can't use a 60^2 for anything that can be mulitplied by 59 to achieve a number that is in the 60^1 place?

Ugh...like 1000... =16 and 40 in their respective positions...40 would be in the ones place.

To us 1000 in babylonian translates out to 1640 in decimals, because the "powers" are used at different intervals.

so what's 660 in decimal notation? 11*60^1
And what's 6 in decimal notation? 6*60^0

This equals in decimal notation 116, in hundreds and tens places.


Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Well Mr. Free Mason, I'm not sure what I was thinking afterall, you sir are simply irrefutable and I forget that. There has never been much hope of helping you understand error when it oft occurs in your posts.

However, I urge you to use Google and further research issues related to the Babylonian math system. You'll find you may have discovered the only link that supports your position, while all other search returns support the structured conversion method I tried to help explain to you.

Well... good luck. Sorry to have bothered you.



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I don't have an error in anything you fool.

666 is SIX HUNDRED ok?

Now how the hell do you get six hundred I wander?

Oh that's right! You go 10*(60^1) damn...so you are ADDING on an extra power falsely, and any idiot can see that.

The decimal number is the coefficient, not anything else.

so 600 in babylonian is 10 in decimals! that other number you were spouting out, your "3rd calculation".

I suggest you go to MY link, at least it is a CLASS ON BABYLONIAN MATH, rather than stupid hypothesis, presented in your crap info.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I'd like to emphasise actually, the fact that 10 in decimals is both 10 and 600 in babylonian, this is why the babylonian math system was so confusing, and why they devided their numbers.

we say 600, they'd say 10, but that 10 would be in their "60^1" spot, while our 600 is evident by the 6 being in the 100s spot.

Get it now Winston?

God damn bum, coming in here and derailing my excellent find, because you can't grasp how the BABYLONIAN POWERS SYSTEM WORKS!



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 10:46 PM
link   
your getting so banned.



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Why? Winston is the one that deserves it, he comes in here, derails my thread with a peice of $hit information, and wouldn't relent after I repeatedly told him WHY he was wrong.

All while I had originally posted a link in the VERY FIRST POST, that completely explaind why he was wrong RIGHT FROM THE START!

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 10:55 PM
link   
At this risk of further "poluting" Free Mason's thread, I'd like to point out the following data from his original link on Babylonian math:

"The Babylonians numbering system was a base sixty system, referred to as sexigesimal (verses our base ten which is decimal). Some of the first few place-values associated with this system are given below.


This would appear to support the correct conversion method I've been trying to help you understand... and this is from your original link. The table above shows how it's impossible for 6,6,6 in Babylonian to be 111 (or 116 for that matter) in decimal.



[Edited on 16-2-2003 by Winston Smith]



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Ugh once again I see where winston went wrong.

Ok winston you are taking this website that you posted, you don't understand it though.

You see "1*60^3 + 57*60^2 + 27*60 + 40" but you don't realize, that THAT, is 424000, in DECIMALS...that isn't a babilonian number, that is 1 57 27 40 and nothing else.

You want a babylonian number, (six hundred and sixty six 666) you need to do it the way I've been telling you.

But you keep calling me wrong, and that's why I'm so pissed at you, because I'm not wrong...view the link I gave.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 11:03 PM
link   
-sigh-

Here we go again...



Originally posted by FreeMason
but you don't realize, that THAT, is 424000, in DECIMALS...that isn't a babilonian number, that is 1 57 27 40 and nothing else.


I'm sorry, but you seem to be seriously confused by base conversion.

Yes, I am very aware that 424,000 is the decimal conversion.

Perhaps you should search out more fundamental information on numeric base conversions. It will help you a great deal.



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Winston do you even make sense to yourself!

You talk of base conversions and then say that 666 the 6 in the 100s spot = 60^2 base, when it still is only 60^1!!!!!!!!

Base numbers go up as much as the numbers in their systems allow, and even your website shows that you can go up to a coefficient of 59!

Therefore, you would go to 59*60^1 before you would go to 60^2, understand NOW!?

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Feb, 15 2003 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason

You talk of base conversions and then say that 666 the 6 in the 100s spot = 60^2 base, when it still is only 60^1!!!!!!!!


I'm not sure how this continued back-and-forth will aid this forum, other than, perhaps, to show how your original method, whereby you derrived 111 from 666, is very much incorrect. And as a result, show how your contrived "Deadly accurate theory about what the Biblical beast is" is in fact based on an incorrect assumption. I suppose this may aid forum readers who encounter this thread.

moving on...

When I relate 666 to (6 x 60^2) + (6 X 60^1) + 6, it is indeed the correct method -- you're telling us 666 is a Babylonian number.

You're trying to point out a Babylonian nomenclature of 6,66 in this most recent post of yours above. Well, this is impossible, the highest decimal representation of a Babylonian digit is 59, so therefore, if the number is indeed Babylonian, each six in 666 is a separate digit... hundreds, tens, ones if that makes it easier for you to visualize.

I'm very confused as to why you cannot see this. Your methodology for converting 666 is incorrect, and thus, we can gather your original post is in error. Please understand this is not an attack on you, but on your theory. Many of us devise theories that, under closer examination, are proven incorrect. This has happened here in this thread, and will continue to happen on this forum.

Base conversion is very simple arithmetic. But its simplicity can be elusive if you're not practiced in it. And please, your base number argument is very wrong, as decimal digits only go up to 9, but it is still base 10.







[Edited on 16-2-2003 by Winston Smith]



posted on Feb, 16 2003 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illmatic67
ultra, i'll snatch that award off your avatar if i had a chance because you dont deserve it.


Any sens of humour, right ?

I'm NOT sorry if I don't smash my head on the ground 5 times per day.
But I'm sorry for you that you didn't understand that I was just kidding.


Do an effort ISllamatic67.



posted on Feb, 16 2003 @ 02:34 PM
link   
FM you didn;t answer my question
since u think that the beast is already out do u think the 7 bowls of wrath have begun to pour??



posted on Feb, 16 2003 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I can't even be bothered to read the rest of this nonsense on babylonian mathmatic's.

FreeMason,



The site you presented is talking about using a 59 number system, which the babylonians had no concept of, they had a 2!!! number system, that was it, those 2 numbers were entirely centered around the (60^x) notation.


Binary = 0 through 1
Decimal = 0 through 9
Hexasegimal (base 60) = 0 through 59

You try and point out here that Winston is wrong when he trie's to show you that babylonian math has 59 numeral's. I searched google, and to my amazment, babylonian mathmatic's DOES use 59 numeral's, not 2.

Go To School. So far, your theorie's have been wrong in some way or the other, and your getting overly pissy toward's those trying to show where you went wrong.







 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join