First Seekerof, this is a very old topic I wrote long ago that I've resurfaced mainly to get it going again, I had looked into it a lot at the
I can say that it made sense to me that the Babylonian number system was still widely known enough, that if someone wanted to conceal something that
only those in on the "joke" would get, it would be a perfect way to do it.
You can't flat out write in your most holy religious book, at a time that your followers were being killed left and right, that "Your bad Romans,
you're gonna get it!"
So you write a crazy "prophetic" thing that says, "You romans you're, getting it".
Only you don't write Romans, you write Babylonians, the whore of Babylon is often thought to be Rome.
And you don't write the Year you are planning to stick it to them, or hoping God will, or the year you are really writing the Book (95AD is only an
estimate), you write it in reverse.
You take the decimal year 116 AD. Figure out, "what number in the decimal system will resemble the units 116?"
666 does this.
It's loose in certain respects, and I'll admit that, but the logic is there JUST enough for a possibility.
That is...why didn't he say 116AD = what number in babylonian?
Because it would equal 1,56.
But if you make 116 the babylonian date to start with, putting it in decimals yields the number 666.
So going with that you have a number completely meaningless unless you are told "this is what it means".
Anyways, that's all a part of the things I want to re-discuss.
The first hurdles that I cleared a while ago were:
Can this be done? Did they know about the Babylonian Number system at the time? And the answer was yes, especially speakers of Greek. Greek
scholars and such.
The next hurdle was, does this make enough sense? I think it makes just enough, it's obviously not rock-solid evidence, but if it were then I'd
have discovered one of the great mysteries of this world, and that's not going to come so easily now is it?
So obviously all we can truly determine from this is that there was a good possibility this is what they were getting at.
And more discussion can either support that or ruin it with facts
That's what we should attempt to do.