It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 3
0
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2003 @ 05:58 PM
FM, keep this up and you will have to chose a new name and IP code if you know what I mean. Winston is trying to help you by showing your errors and in turn you either diss him or put up the same thing that Winston has proven wrong.

D(on)'t (tu)rn (i)nto yo(u) kno(w) (w)h(o)(.)

(p)ea(ce)

posted on Feb, 16 2003 @ 06:10 PM
I wonder where Mr. Free Mason is?

It's very strange to experience this lengthy silence from someone as active as him.

posted on Feb, 16 2003 @ 08:48 PM
First off James the Lesser and E-nonymous you're both the same people stop playing duo's

Now, since you BOTH seem to be too stupid, let's look at Babylonian NUBMERS!

You have 1!!!, and 10!!! no OTHER NUMBERS!

You don't have 0!!!

We have a system based on 60s, not 10s.

So, to get 10 we use the numeral "10" to get 60 we use 6 numerals of "10" ... are you all following this?

There are not "59" numbers, there are only 2..."1" and "10".

Therefore, since you don't have a place holder, you can't derive anything that's to the next power if either of you twits know what that is, without first having the previous power filled, hence why you use 6 "10s" instead of a "1" in the "60^1" spot.

So to derive 600, you would not use "10" in the "60^1" spot, but rather you would use a "9" in the "60^1" spot, and a "6 tens" in the "60^0" spot.

However this rule won't apply to anything where the "60^0" power is covered.

So to obtain 666 you simply have to have "11" in the "60^1" spot. That's how you derive 11.

But because the number we are looking for is 666, then there must be a 6 in the "60^0" spot.

Thus the number derived from this is 11,6! Which is already in decimal form, because the number system that the coefficients works on is based on 10s...the only thing "sexigesimal" about Babylonian, is how many 10s you use before going to the next power.

Winston what you are saying, is you take 666 "a number in babylonian," and to get it into decimals, you for somereason have to make it 6(60^2)+6(60^1)+6(60^0)...now why can't this work?

Because to derive 600 in Babylonian, the coefficent must be less than 10, because it's a base 60 system (60*10 = 600) but they don't have 0s and therefore no place holders, so to get 600 you must remain in the (60^0) spot. However 601, being it has a place holder, can be derived by 10 in the (60^1) spot and 1 in the (60^0) spot.

I'm not wrong.

Winston, you're an idiot, who can't seem to understand anything about math. The link you provide is far too complex for your brain, because when I read it I clearly see that THAT is how they are deriving their answers...which is why 424000 or whatever, is such a vastly smaller number than the number in sexigesimals, what you don't see is they never give you the number in sexigesmials, they give you the coeficients that = the number in decimals, using a base 60. I feel sorry for you.

And James//e-nonymous you are too for following his way of thinking.

Sincerely,
no signature

[Edited on 17-2-2003 by FreeMason]

posted on Feb, 16 2003 @ 09:28 PM
Mr. Free Mason, I am truly in awe. It is amazing, astounding, fantastic, and inexplicable how someone can be so utterly wrong on a subject, be shown how wrong they are, and continue to ignore all logic and reason while they proclaim how correct their error really is.

Amazing sir. The level of audacity required to pull this off which you practice is extraordinary. You are to be commended.

However, this does not change the fact that your assumptions about base relational math are wrong.

In any base system, there are appropriate digits or numerals for proper representation. For example, we use 0 through 9 (10) for base ten. Or 0 through 1 (2) for base two (binary). Also, we use 0 through 7 for base eight (octal), and 0 through F (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E,F) for base sixteen (hexadecimal). Binary, octal, and hexadecimal all represent non-base-ten systems in popular use today by computer engineers (octal is fading away). So you see, these systems utilize unique digits from 0 to base-1.

Now, those pesky Babylonians didn't much care for zero. They had no representation for zero because if a quantity was zero, they simply didn't write it down (go check, this is a historical accuracy). Now, I've shown you links (and your link indicated this as well) that the Babylonians indeed had unique symbols for each digital that represents 1 through 59. Their unique system is similar to Roman Numerals in that these digits are a compilation of only a few unique symbols. You'll find this information on any source discussing the Babylonian number system.

Well, this most recent rambling post is certainly hard to follow. You seem angry and confused. So I must rewind and ask you to again consider your earlier statement as shown below:

"We all think yeah 666 ok...that's six hundred and sixty six. WRONG.
The mark of the beast, is in the Babylonian Number system. Which is not on a base 10, but base 60 system.
It is imperitive to read my sources or you aren't going to understand how the numbers work out.
Being that the Babylonian numbers are based on 60s, the true number of 666 turns out to be the number 111.
"

Now, I did read your sources, and they support actual math, not this fantasy math you seem to be inventing. And in the case of real math, the conversion method I've been trying to help you understand is correct.

Base relational math is not a mystery. There are no variables. A six in Babylonian still represents six of something in decimal, as it does in octal and hexadecimal. However, it is 110 in binary, not far from your 111. Perhaps this is what you were thinking after all.

Mr. Freemason, is the name calling appropriate? I'm not attacking you. I'm not calling you names. I'm only helping you understand some issues in your math... very simple issue granted, but issues that are at the core of your theory on the Biblical Beast... so, important issues indeed.

I doubt James and my friend e-nonymous are the same person... however, they seem to understand this basic math. Perhaps, in your mind, they are idiots as well.

My how I've rambled on here. To any followers of this thread, congratulations, your patience is to be celebrated!

posted on Feb, 16 2003 @ 11:27 PM
I don't doubt James the Lesser and e-nonymous are the same person (if I remember correctly James was temporarily banned)...because when I was temporarily banned, e-nonymous contacted me told me who he was, he is James the lesser, he also told me how to mask your IP address.

Either way, I don't think he needs the "other name anymore"
and his support of your equally flawed theory is annoying.

First things first let's get back on a civilized path and to do that we need to settle grievances.

My grievance with you is you are "discriminatory" against me, you keep saying EVERYONE thinks I'm block-headed and know nothing.

My other grievance is you believe a flawed theory, that you ALSO have not worked. out.

So I propose a final solution.

I've already broken down into steps why MY way is correct.

Now do yours in the same way...why is YOUR way correct?

There are also NOT 59 distinct units in Babylonian.

They compile them like the Romans did, and as you know the Romans only have I,V,X,L,C,D,M and such as their numbers...they don't have II,III,IIII (Romans only added IV is a medieval innovation).

Now I still can't figure WHAT you are exactly doing, other than adding an extra power (60^2) which is incorrect. That's ALL you have done incorrectly really.

So now draw out why you think 666 = 6(60^2) + 6(60^1) + 6(60^0) = X

My way seems to be what I'm seeking, which is a decimal representation of 666 (being that 666 is in babylonian).

Your way seems to be taking the 6,6,6 of 666 and attributing a power to them respective to their place in the decimal system...while still using the babylonian 60^x system.

That's why I feel you are wrong...now do explain how you AREN'T.

If you can't explain it, then your link is wrong too, because I'm going completely off of the acredited college page...which I feel you haven't looked at much as I've not given your page much look.

Because as you can see....to get 666 in babylonian, you'd have to write out a seires of numbers correct?

Now maybe my labeling THAT as "decimal" is wrong, but my process is not, and that's what matters.

What matters is in babylonian 666 is represented by 11,6.

Not written out 666, understand?

I'll reitterate, I have no clue what you are trying to do.

Because as I see it, to get 666 in our numbers, in babylonian, you'd have to go 11,6...hmmmm so maybe my definition is the only REAL problem (I still think you're wrong in whatever you're talking about, but it may still be an irrelevant tangent).

Ok...let me try this reworking of definitions...666 is the number of the beast in decimals, but the beast is more or less being associated with babylon.

So to convert 666 that is in decimals, to 666 as it would be written in babylonian figures. We get 11,6 Where 11 is in the (60^1) place, and 6 is in the (60^0) place.

that 116, is a very important year (98-117 AD) if you want to be accurate historically because they aren't precisely sure.

So that's why I say you can't overlook this correlation of 116AD and 11,6 Babylonian numbers...get it now?

That's all, the reason I get so frustrated with you, is you are going off on some tangent, that also seems VERY IRRELEVANT.

Because I know I'm not wrong...you may not be either, maybe definition is the only problem stop bashing the math though.

Sincerely,
no signature

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 03:44 AM
How you converting 666 to 116? Your going 66,6 = 11,6 or are you going 66,0 = 11,6? I'm so friggan lost in your math it's not even funny. It's BASE 60, as Winston pointed out you cannot have 66,(whatever).

There are only 59 numeral's used, two symbol's ARE only needed to be learned, and this is where your getting screwed up. Point is, those two symbol's create the 59 numeral's in babylonian mathmatic's, this is what made it easier for them to learn and remember. You simply can't have 66,(whatever) in a base 60 system, so Winston IS right when he goes with 6,6,6! Read into it more damnit and find out WHY we are saying this rather than being so friggan stubborn on the issue!

Your right when you say there are two symbol's, BUT and let me point this out again for you, those two symbol's make up the 59 numeral's used!

Google, the enthsiasm to learn, and common sense ARE your friend's FM.

[EDIT]

Just took the time to look at your link, now I know how your getting all screwed up. Do a search on google use Babylonian mathmatics and take a looksee at the first few site's listed ...

[EDIT]

[Edited on 17-2-2003 by e-nonymous]

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 07:07 AM

Originally posted by FreeMason
My grievance with you is you are "discriminatory" against me, you keep saying EVERYONE thinks I'm block-headed and know nothing.

I think if you review my comment, you'll realize that is not what I said. Perhaps this is amongst a few of the things that cause confusion with you... you read one thing, but comprehend another.

My other grievance is you believe a flawed theory, that you ALSO have not worked. out.

The "theory" as you call it, is standard mathematics.

Now do yours in the same way...why is YOUR way correct?

I already have, with patience, and without insults.

Because I know I'm not wrong...

This is obvious... and it's painful to watch.

Take care.

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 07:16 AM
Does this mean that John the Beloved of Jesus, who wrote the Book of Revelation whilst imprisoned on the Greek island of Patmos in AD 95, knew and was using the ancient Babylonian mathematical system?

It is my understanding that John was given the Revelations by Jesus Christ Himself, (Alpha & Omega), and told to write what would be shown to him. Does that mean that Jesus Christ was using the ancient Babylonian mathematical system?

If so, where is the evidence to support that theory?

FM: the tone of comments in this thread demonstrates that you appear ready, willing and able to use derogatory terms when referring to other members, who either disagree with you, or provide opposing information. This thread may have originally offered stimulus for an intellectual debate, but has descended into bickering and name calling.

Winston Smith, has remained polite and logical ń you appear to be more emotional and given to outbursts of anger, and labelling.

Please consider being open to the possibility that others may disagree with you, which is their right, and that you may be wrong occasionally (and, correct also).

I would suggest that providing information and links is only a part of what ATS is about. Having respect, tolerance for otherís possible disagreement, being willing to listen and learn and observing appropriate ATS etiquette should also be expected.

All the Best,
Deep

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 09:45 AM

Originally posted by FreeMason
What matters is in babylonian 666 is represented by 11,6.

Hmm... you seem to be back-tracking and reversing your original position. I'm not sure how this relates to 666 = 111 unless you've discovered your original error and are looking for alternate ways for your theory to work.

So yes, 11,6 in Babylonian math is indeed 666 in base 10 math. I'm not sure how this relates to your original concept that placed importance on the year 111 AD and it equaling 666 (which you stated several times in your original post).

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 12:07 PM
All of which raises the very simple question:

At the time of the writing of the book of Revelation, Babylonian cuneiform had not been in use for about 700 of years. Revelatin was written in Koine Greek by a man whose native language was Aramaic. How could an Amamaic/Greek writer (who was not an archaeologist or expert in More Ancient Languages and Mathematics) reconstruct and use a system that had been extinct for 700 years?

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 12:32 PM
It wouldn't be that hard for anyone who know's simple mathmatic's to figure out other base's of math, like decimal, binary, hexadecimal, or base 60 mathmatic's. All that's really needed is a basic understanding in math, and some patience to sit there and figure it out.

FreeMason just took the first example he saw, which already assumed you had a basic understanding of babylonian math, which he didn't for obvious reason's ....

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 12:48 PM
Yes, we know how FM did it.

The question I'm asking is "how did the writer of Revelation do it, when that language and writing system had been extinct for more than 600 years and there was no scholarly system to preserve it (it had been replaced by the much easier decimal system.)

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 12:56 PM
I'm sure it would have been done in a similar manner that any modern linguist of today would do to translate ancient languages ...

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 01:29 PM
So....who might have done that translation? Jesus Christ or the Apostle John?

And, where's the evidence to support that?

Greek and Aramic were the common languages of that time, why resort to other mathematical systems that were no longer in use?

Let's leave assumptions out of this equation and provide facts.

More food for thought,
Deep

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 01:39 PM
FM, I am not E, I am James the Lesser. First I was JamesG, now I am the E dude. What's next, I am William? Or maybe i am Winston, or maybe I am Thomas Crowne.

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 02:42 PM
Deep,

English and decimal are the most common thing's on earth now, so why should we bother with anyother language or math?

See the problem with your statement?

How many people do you know speak ancient summerian and use base 60 math? None, right? So why do we know about them? My best guess ... People like to actually learn? I dunno, I might be crazy ... Then again that would make historians, archeologist's, mathmatitians, and scientist's crazy too ...

While I don't know WHO did the first tranlation and figured out the math, it's very obvious someone did and also saw the need to do so.

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 03:02 PM
I appreciate your comment enonymous, but this discussion began with the meaning and interpretation of 666 in relation to John's Revelation.

If as FM proposes, the numerics were based on the Babylonian mathematical system, then how did that happen and what evidence supports the theory?

Who of us were on Patmos with John? Who can prove his education or choice of mathematics?

I understand these Revelations to have been presented in the form of a mystery by Jesus Himself. I do not claim to have the answers to those mysteries. I'm certainly not here to argue, but to learn. So, please teach me.

All the Best,
Deep

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 03:13 PM
Me, teach? Heh ... I'm not one to teach religion, I was only pointing out to FreeMason that he was wrong with his math.

But, you did bring up another thing I haven't even thought... How does FM even know it was babylonian math used for 666. Really, it's prolly nothing more than his own opinion, which of course would disprove the WHOLE scientific revelation of his, as there was nothing scientific, or revealing about it. Thank you!

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 07:57 PM
FREE MASON I DID THE MATH CUZ I FOUND IT FUNNY THAT YOU AND WINSTON WOULD B FIGHTING OVER NUMBERS AND I AGREE WITH WINSTON I GOT THAT 666 IN BABYLONIAN NUMBERS DOES EQUAL TO 21966
BECAUSE
6*1=6
+ 6*60=360
6*3600= 21600

21966

IF IT IS IN BASE 60
YOU DO THE SAME MATH AS IF IT WAS WITH BASE 10
6*1=6
6*10=60
6*100=600
WHEN U ADD IT IS 666
IT IS THE SAME METHOD JUST CHANGING THE TEN WITH 60

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 08:22 PM
No see Winston is wrong but only because I was wrong in definition. First things first if you read further Winston, you'd obviously see I corrected the statement of 111AD to the proper and correct 116AD.

Now bluegrl here is how you and Winston are wrong.

First you say decimals to get 666 = the following:

6*1=6
6*10=60
6*100=600
=666

Yes that is true.

But we want the numbers which are in decimals, to be as they would be if they were babylonian.

Babylonians do not write 666 because they do not opperate on base 10, but on base 60.

So how do we get the value (notice value, not characters or numerals, but the value), of 666 in Babylonian?

6*1=6
11*60=660
=666

Do you see the error FINALLY where you and WINSTON are coming from?

We aren't converting 666 from a sexigesimal to a decimal, we are converting it from a decimal to sexigesimal.

Sorry my misdefinition caused so much confusion.

I hope you now see how you both errored...and we can get back on to two more important points raised now.

1) Would the people at the time of 100AD know how the babylonian math system worked?

2) And where is the proof, the key, that says to make such a change from decimal to sexigesimal?

Sincerely,
no signature

(EDIT)PS: I would like to point out that:
6*1=6
6*60=360
6*3600=21600
=21966

Is not converting from anything, that simply is taking the way the babylonians would write the VALUE 21966. Understand that? 666 in babylonian means the value 21966, so if in the bible the mark of the beast were 21966, then the number we would derive as it would be written in babylonian, would be 666. I hope this finalizes the facts, and helps you to all see your error.

[Edited on 18-2-2003 by FreeMason]

top topics

0