It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Revelations, nothing more than veiled satire against Rome?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 17 2004 @ 01:51 AM
Revelations is full of "Babylon" this and "Babylon" that.

I got the idea of applying the Babylonian number system to 666 long ago (infact it's the thread that resulted in a long period of struggle within ATS oddly enough...because of a dispute over the math. So this time I urge people to just check the math, everyone...check it).

Anyways, I'll cut to the chase.

666 is in decimal system. What would it be in Babylonian system?

Babylonian numbers work on a base of 60. So you have 1-60 then you have a second digit. That second digit goes from 1-60 then you have a third digit and so on.

So 61 in Babylonian would be 1,1.

I'll seperate the digits with a comma for ease.

So what is 666 in babylonian system? Well if my math is correct it should be 11,6.


11*60 = 660.
6 = 6.

Add the two sets together and you get 666.

Any disagreements?

Now why do I think this is so important?

Because the year 116 AD was very important in Rome.

Actually we can't be sure of that, the range of years from about 105 AD to 120 AD or such was very important, around this time the Book of Revelations was being completed.

Rome was at the height of her power.

Rome was persecuting Christians everywhere, and I can't remember one of the martyred's name but he was killed in the year 116 AD, a Bishop if I remember right.

So I believe that what we have viewed for so long as either a crack-pot story or a prediction, is really just a metaphorical assault against the current times back then.

Christians were being slaughtered, Rome was extremely decadent and so forth.

Also, the Babylonian number system was still taught amongs scholars then so it would make sense that they could leave such a clue as a slap in the face of the Romans.

Anyways, any thoughts about this?

posted on May, 17 2004 @ 02:03 AM
I believe that you are on the historical correct path FM.
I once pointed out that Nero Ceasar (followed by Domitian--whom it has been said, was the reincarnation of Nero or 'Nero reborn'), the first Roman to supposedly begin the heated persecution of Christians, whose name using Aramaic letters, add up to 666.

Your postulation in using the Babylonian number system is odd, because the books pertaining to or mentioning the mark and sign of the 'beast' were written under Greek/Hellenistic/Roman influence and not Babylonian. The Book of Revelations, written by John, at Patmos, was written approxly. 95+/- CE. I'm failing to see why John would use the Babylonian number system.

*edited to add 'Roman' in combination with Greek/Hellenistic influence


[Edited on 17-5-2004 by Seekerof]

posted on May, 17 2004 @ 02:11 AM
I think a lot of the bible was that way actually, a good example would be sex in the bible, the Romans were over run with all sorts of VDs, so the idea of sex only for procreation could of very well been to protect the jews from catching roman diseases, just a thought on my behalf.

posted on May, 17 2004 @ 02:13 AM
Rhetoric and imagination allow a smart enough person construct ANY scenario they want to add to the pot of innumerable ideas, paradigms as already out there. That one may take the pieces and remove all subjectives to reduce their position to obvious, well thought logic, is the tricky part.
How many ideas from others must one bare before they can form their own opinion of and by self, with no falling back on defense the minute someone challenges them with a good point of debate.....oh well, its time to decide what my new words for every form of matter i will create so to re-evalute my reality with a fresh approach. just kidding, I would rather sit and talk on ATS while still trying to forget all the lies, oh the lies, lol! Peace.

posted on May, 17 2004 @ 02:15 AM
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 time.

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.

posted on May, 17 2004 @ 02:27 AM
Here's an interesting use of the Babylonian number system and the many variables that equate to '666':

Interesting, to say the least.


posted on May, 17 2004 @ 02:32 AM
FM, since this is an old topic of yours, perhaps bring it back for reference would help?
I have a deadly accurate theory about what the biblical "BEAST" is...


posted on May, 17 2004 @ 02:39 AM
Awesome, I didn't think it still existed so I never bothered looking.

posted on May, 17 2004 @ 05:11 AM
Incredibly the sum of the value of the letters of the name Roman is 666 in both Biblical languages. We say "Roman" has the number 666. This is true if we understand that the name "Roman" in Greek has a different configuration than it does in English, or German, Latin, Spanish, or any other language. This explains why Hippolytus would have said accurately that "Latinus" has the number while it literally does not have the number in the Latin language or Latin configuration of the name. Hippolytus took for granted that his readers knew that the Greek form of the name, Lateinos, the language in which the New Testament is written, has the number, and thus, just as we in English knowing, these facts, would say "Roman" has the number 666, so Hippolytus said the same of "Latinus."
On the following pages are the numerical equivalents of the letters in both the Greek and Hebrew alphabets. The Greek is from Robertson's Greek Grammar, listed in the Bibliography. The Hebrew numerical equivalents appear in Harrison, R.K., D.D.; Biblical Hebrew; also listed in the Bibliography, and show the incredible coincidence that the name "Roman" in its Hebrew feminine form also contains letters whose sum is 666. The chart illustrating this fact is from Bishop Newton; On the Prophecies; published first in 1758. Therefore this is no new idea among Bible students. It is merely a forgotten interpretation due to the current popularity of doctrines which have little antiquity. This information is thoroughly explained and enlarged on in chapter two.

The small chart at the right in the page below which gives the Greek and Hebrew forms of the word Roman is taken from Bishop Newton's commentary on Revelation first published in 1750. This information has been a part of general protestant knowledge for centuries. It is a fact greatly to be regretted that an historical amnesia has befallen the current generation of protestant interpreters of Revelation.

Hebrew alphabet. photocopy from a Text Book.

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 02:32 AM
i do belive and correct me if im wrong but the number 666 was a representation of the anti christ not a year or even an age its is the number of a man so wouldnt i be just as easy to say that anyone elected with each of thier names =6 would equal 666 and that would be the answer or how about the thery of bill gates and the ascii code if u take the name william gates III and us ascII code his name =666 is bill gates the anti christ????

posted on May, 19 2004 @ 05:11 PM

how about the thery of bill gates and the ascii code if u take the name william gates III and us ascII code his name =666 is bill gates the anti christ????

See, the thing is, no matter what, there are going to be people that sit there and analyze the names of every rich, famous, successful person and apply it to tons of different codes to see if they get anything useful. I'm sure that if you just took names and applied them to different codes you'd get tons of people who were the anti-christ.

Juan, a mexican illegal alien could be "the Anti-Christ".

So could some single woman trying to raise her kids.

It's all a matter of perspective.

posted on May, 21 2004 @ 08:54 PM
FM, I'm trying to see where you are going with this. It is obvious in the Bible that the Number of the beast is 666. I know there has been debate as to the calculation of it, But where are you going with this and what are you lookin for.

posted on May, 21 2004 @ 09:16 PM
There are alot of Scholars that think this is more about the persecution on the Christians and all this talk of the end was really about the times they were in, Much like most of Nostradamus is talking about the going on of France in the day not really the future, at least so they say

posted on May, 21 2004 @ 09:23 PM

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
There are alot of Scholars that think this is more about the persecution on the Christians and all this talk of the end was really about the times they were in, Much like most of Nostradamus is talking about the going on of France in the day not really the future, at least so they say

John , wrote the Book of Revelation on the Greek island of Patmos in AD 95 He was in prison at the time and wrote the the vision he had seen from Jesus.

I think we also should clear up what "Version" of the Bible we are talking about.
In my opinion, the Bible the Roman Catolic Church uses, was heavily edited. I think revelation describes The Pope Being the Anti-Christ. Iraq today is Babylon in biblical times. Please correct me if I am wrong though.

posted on May, 21 2004 @ 09:33 PM
Why is it that most people who have never read the Bible call it the Book of Revelations or Revelations? This is just WRONG! It is the Book of Revelation. Get it - singular! How can you expect to understand it if you don't even know what it's called?

posted on May, 21 2004 @ 11:36 PM
just out of curiosity why does one resort to personal attack when one has nothing to add to a subject????we are all here to discuss this topic and not worry about semantics or even a typo as the case may be....and i have read the bible at least 10 time from cover to cover and i still refer to it as the book of revalations...and there are many thing in the bible that we all are not meant to understand until the time is right for us to understand them

top topics


log in