Talk:Number of the beast/Archive 1

Some people belive that the number of the beast refers to callum mccarthy born of english heritage and in 1990 as the anti-christ Under 'speculation and trivia', the writer mentions "In ancient Dacia, 666 was the number of those who returned to the right faith." What does he mean by 'right faith'? Christianity or the Dacians' native paganism? There is no mention of Christianity in the article. --PotatoSamurai 01:33:29, 2005-08-02 (UTC)

I am removing this sentence, as it is unclear and apparently biased. If anyone knows what it means, please rephrase it -- as of now, the sentence does more harm there than good. --PotatoSamurai 04:15:01, 2005-08-03 (UTC)

"666 also has certain properties of a mathematical nature"

Was this meant to be a joke? 666 is a number: noting that it has "has certain properties of a mathematical nature" is like noting that a cat has certain properties of a biological nature. Jacquerie27 14:16 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)


 * It is not a joke. The only reason for all the obsessision about 666 in a mathethical context is the fact that it occurs in the Book of Revelations, and that people have this thing about connecting all sorts of magic properties to it. That sort to play with number is fun for some, perhaps dead serious for some, but in an encyclopedic context that sort of activity can only be characterized as numerology. If there is a need for an article on the pure mathemathical issues of 666, which I really doubt there is, then it should most certainly not be called "Number of the Beast"-anything. Really - that would be infantile - at best. -- Egil 14:59 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether English is your mother tongue. Is it? My point was that you were stating the obvious: by definition, all numbers have mathematical properties. 666 is FAMOUS because it appears in Revelation, but that does not mean all facts about 666 are numerological. Here is a mathematical property of 666: it is a triangular number, like 36. That is not numerology, it is mathematics. 666 is a repdigit, so it would have attracted some attention from mathematicians anyway. Jacquerie27 17:11 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)


 * I absolutely love the current version of the phrase, I must say: "Like all numbers, 666 has many mathematical properties, some more interesting than others." True :-D --IByte 20:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

- I think this should be moved. It's not really about the mathematics of the number, by and large. How about:
 * Number of the Beast (theology)
 * Number of the Beast (Biblical)
 * Number of the Beast (Bible)
 * Number of the Beast (eschatology)

Tuf-Kat


 * One article should be enough, but the "(mathematics)" is really not appropriate. I think Number of the Beast (numerology) would be much more appropriate. Other interpretations should be put in the Number of the Beast disambiguation page. -- Egil 09:39 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree -- I should have thought more carefully about it. Number of the Beast (numerology) looks best. Jacquerie27


 * I partly agree. Without any feelings mathematics also deals with such numbers as 666, 333, 999, 42, &pi;, etc. no matter what other pseudo-sciences may find in these numbers. Why (let us say pure) number 666 should be treated specially within something called numerology. Mathematicians generally do not support numerology although they "secretly" deal with it. How about a pure name six hundred sixty six as numbers 0, 1, 2... are already treated? We should also remember about what Godfrey Harold Hardy think about the role of one mathematician. We could perhaps transfer his opinions to the world of numerology as well. Best regards. --XJamRastafire 12:34 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * If the number 666 is interesting enough from a mathemathical point of view, I see no trouble with a maths page. But numerology does not belong in a "(mathematics)" article. Also note that the articles one, two etc. contains all aspects of those numbers, not only mathematical. So one alternative might be to have a generic page for the number 666. Whatever, really, but please do not use the term "Number of the Beast" in a mathematical context. -- Egil 13:41 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * PS: There seems to be so much interest in this number that I think there is a market for a calculator that displays "Number of the Beast" whenever the result is 666. Anyone interested in licensing this idea may do so for $1, the same licensing fee that applied to the Arthur head screwdriver. -- Egil

Problem with Microchip Implants
''The fourth problem is that, if the mark could be considered a microchip implant, then it no longer functions as a "mark" since it is invisible. The Greek word charagma (mark) denotes a stamp or an impression upon the skin - ie something that is visible to the naked eye and whose function depends upon this visibility.''

Actually, on some websites that promote literal and conspiratorial views for Revelation do manage to use the word charmaga to support their claim that the mark is microchip implant. They say that charmaga has its word origins in the Greek word charax, which in turn can either be said to mean “stick into,” or, “sharpen to a point” or palisade (fence); they could also say that charasso on which charax is derived also means “sharpen to a point.” The significance of all of this is that conspiracy theorist or literalists can point to either charax or charasso as say that their meanings implicate a hypodermic needle from which a microchip implant can be embedded under the skin. I’m not sure how valid their claims and reasoning are, but this could affect the integrity of the above portion of this article.--YanA 22:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reply Thanks for your comment on this issue. I'll just quote from Ulrich Witkins from the Theological Dictonary of the Net Testament, vol. 9, pg 416: ''(it) is an engraved, etched, branded or inscribed "mark" or "sign". Closest to (its) original sense.. is the earliest example in Soph. Phil., 267, where (it) denotes the bite of a snake. Elsewhere the term means "inscription"... or anything written..., and especially the impressed or branded "stamp" eg a brand to mark camels.''

There is more but I don't know how to write Greek letters here in Wikipedia. Basically it asserts that Charagma is a visible mark. As for the integrity of Witkins and the TDNT, as far as I understand, it is the premier reference book on Biblical Greek words. One Salient Oversight 08:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Response


 * While I don't mean to question your knowledge on this issue (judging from the page on Wikipedia, it would seem that you are extremely knowledgable on the subject of religion) and nor do I support such beliefs I feel it is necessary to say that another point of contention that can be argued about the mark not being a microchip implant is the relationship between the number 6 and the Greek word stigma. In Greek when the numeral 6 is written it is typically written using a “stigma,” as in the King James Version of the Bible 666 is rendered as chi-xi-stigma in Greek. Literalists and conspiracy theorists can then say that “stigma” means “a mark” from the root word “prick”. Couple this with the number 666 and that Revelation (13:16-18) in the King James Version says the mark is "in" the forehead or right hand, then it becomes a short jump to thinking that the mark of the Beast is an implant embedded into a person through a hypodermic needle. Furthermore, because the Greek 6 is written with a character that looks kind of like an “S,” they can further connect the number six (using the idea that the letter s is used as a hissing sound) to a serpent and hence the Devil. An excerpt from a site (there are others) that makes such a claim follows to give you a better idea of the reasoning behind it.


 * The Greeks and Romans stood the "S" erectly, as we see it now. This erect serpent (standing next to a tree a la Gen. 3) pervaded the art of this period. Even the technical term in phonics for the 'hissing sound' is sybilation, coming from the occult Sybils who spoke then as New Age channelers do today. In the Greek alphabet, the second letter for the lower-case s, sigma, is used only as the terminal letter of a word. This peculiar form of 'S', identical to a serpent pictogram, is used for the Greek number 6. It is called stigma, and means 'a mark' from the root 'to prick'. (Does this not point to Rev. 13 and 14 and its mark of 666.) Stigma (prick) and charagma (sharpen to a point), both translated 'mark' in the KJV, point to the new hypodermically inserted identification microchip, inserted "in" the hand or forehead (not "on" as new versions say!). Incidentally, Xi, which represents 60, is identified as "the symbol of the serpent" in Greek, by one of this century's greatest scholars, E.W. Bullinger. His classic book Number in Scripture shares my "Watch out" view of the "S". [see pp. 49, 150, 156, 282, 283, et al.]


 * "But 666 was the secret symbol of the ancient pagan mysteries connected with the worship of the Devil...The great secret symbol consisted of three letters SSS, because the letter S in the Greek alphabet was the symbol for the figure 6."


 * Is there anything to your knowledge that either refutes or confirms this? Does it have an significance? Again, if this turns out to be true, the it compromises the article to some degree as well as necessitate some changes. By the way, how many volumes does the TDNT consist of?--YanA 17:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802823246/202-0923091-7822219 The TDNT has ten volumes of around 900 pages each. It was written between 1930 and 1976 and has 145 contibutors. It examines each Greek word used in the New Testament in its wider context - including within the non-Christian Greek world at the time. The authors were almost exclusively German who came from a variety of theological backgrounds (including Evangelical, Liberal and Neo-Orthodox).


 * I think what charagma actually means is that it is a visible mark on the skin that is caused by a brand or a tattoo needle. In other words, for the mark to permanently exist, the flesh or skin had to be penetrated in some way. In that sense, the idea of charagma is both a visible mark and a penetration of the skin in order to cause that mark. It's a focus upon how the visible mark was made. If this were true then the idea that it could refer to a microchip implant is still highly illogical. First of all, it is the visible mark that is being referred to in Revelation 13, not the process that created the mark. Secondly, Revelation 13 does not even hint at anything else being placed into or under the skin. If it were, then the author of Revelation would have made it explicit - a bead placed under the skin or some such phrase. As it stands, there is no logical reason that I can find that would suggest that the mark is anything but visible. One Salient Oversight 03:09, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight, the stuff about stick into or sharpen to a point with regard to the definition and word origin of charagma refers to how the stamp or inscription is made and since charagma is used in Rev. 13 (instead of words that would implicate subdermal devices) which means stamps and inscriptions which are usually visible then is stands to reason that the mark itself is visible. Moreover, the stuff about the relation between 6 and stigma is not logical (May I also ask why is it illogical? I'm thinking that it may to to much of a stretch to link the number 666 with how the mark is made, but since I'm not a particularily religiou person, I have know idea of knowing if I'm right). Furthermore, you believe this stuff about the mark being subdermal is complete bunk because the author would have somehow explicitily said something to indicate a subdermal mark. Is this a correct assessment of your reasoning for why it's visible? --YanA 05:07, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I actually didn't address the whole 6/stigma question and the truth is I didn't really do any research into that area. There might be a link between the phrase "Six hundred and sixty-six" (which is what the Greek says, not "six-six-six") and the word for Stigma but the relationship may only be as similar as say, phone and bone in English. I could be wrong there though. I am, however, convinced that the other points of my argument are correct, namely that charagma is a visible mark on the skin caused by cutting/burning associated with branding or tattooing, and not with anything that goes under the skin. Actually, as I write this, I have thought it may be that the whole branding/tattooing business is reminiscent of permanently marking slaves. By the way, are you asking all this because you are having a discussion with someone who believes in the more conspiratorial interpretations of Revelation? If so then I would be happy to help. I am a (relatively) conservative Christian and know a bit about all the different arguments. One Salient Oversight 00:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your offer of assistance but I'm not having a discussion with someone with conspiratoral views. I'm only asking because I've run across numerous Christian end time websites and wanted see if their arguments about the mark had any for lack of better word, validity. If they did have any good valid arguments then we might need include their views because of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (you stated their opposing views quite well on the article). But should I ever need your help in the future with an argument about conspiratorial views about Revelation, I'll be sure to contact you on your talk page if that's okay with you.--YanA 04:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think John just didn't know how to comprehend a computer let alone a "subdermal microchip" so the vision he was given, well he wrote it down as best he could.

attributes of the mark
Hi, i'm Mark. I will soon see all of you claivoyantly at once. This is simply a safety measure against phychic attack, ethereal disruption, emotional disruption, etc, and for the benefit of my works with alchemy. Earth is my jurasdiction because I have taken it as such. Thank you very much for listening.

In concert with the entry on the problems of literal interpretation, I agree that a more accurate understanding of the issue is metephorical. In the same way that we say, "what's on your mind" we don't expect the reponse, "bone, skin and hair", instead it means "what are you thinking about." The mark on the forehead,the mark of the beast, is the doctrine of Philipians which is works of the law. Buying and Selling is work. The doctrine of christ is grace so it stands to reason that the doctrine of the antichrist would be work. What people think directly influences their actions so avoiding the obvious mistakes of literalism marks on head and hand are beliefs and actions of those who knowinly or unknowingly have accepted the doctrine of the beast.

charagma {khar'-ag-mah} or charax {khar'-ax} define: Charagma: a palisade or rampart

Define palisade: a fence of pales or stakes set firmly in the ground, as for enclosure

define rampart:Fortification. a. a broad elevation or mound of earth raised as a fortification around a place and usually capped with a stone or earth parapet. b. such an elevation together with the parapet

define parapet: A low protective wall or railing along the edge of a raised structure such as a roof or balcony

Rev 13:17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the "mark",

or the name of the beast,

"the name"--, greek for,onoma {on'-om-ah}to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of a) to understand b) to know ...or to receive profit or advantage, be helped [or have joy]

or the number of his name,

"the number"---,greek,airo {ah'-ee-ro}to bear away what has been raised, carry off a) to move from its place b) to take off or away what is attached to anything c) to remove d) to carry off, carry away with one e) to appropriate what is taken f) to take away from another what is his or what is committed to him, to take by force g) to take and apply to any use h) to take from among the living, either by a natural death, or by violence i) cause to cease

Thinks he's such a big shot
Javier Solana, I knew the Antichrist. I rented the Antichrist a room in college. I borrowed money from the Antichrist and never paid it back. Javier Solana, you sir are no Antichrist.

Nice reversion
Good job, there, MarkSweep. Isn't it pretty much the same as vandalism, to edit out something that belongs in the article, and replace it with some personal political attack?

Cbdorsett 14:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Solana
I believe this site has had problems from someone convinced Javier solana is the beast. I have put a little NPOV bit about him thought to be so as people do believe it, but I am not endorsing this idea, and indeed am very supportive of trying to keep such obsessive speculation from dominating the Javier Solana page.

Solana vandal
I believe the person who vandalised this site on Feb 9th, User:68.159.142.187 is User:Cumbey, using one of her many probable sockpuppets. For more info see Talk:Javier Solana/Solana vandalism and POV. --SqueakBox 16:11, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

WAAAAY off!
You are all way off. As I learned it, from Prof. Friedman at UC San Diego (look him up, he's got some SERIOUS biblical scholar credentials!) 5 = man. 7 = perfect #. Evil, or the devil, standing between man & perfection (read: serpent in the 'garden of eden') would therefore be read as between 5 and 7... 6!

Three of any number (read: the 'holy trinity') does not ascribe the characteristics of the trinity, save one: divinity. So three sixes, being the numbers symbolizing divinity and evil, or the devil... gives you divine evil.

Nice try tho PS I stink like cheese and i want to marry my mother

Base twelve nonsense
Whoever is posting all of this stuff about dozenal, please cut it out. The number is most plainly not in gross and dozen. 

P.S. What is the Antichrist watch link doing there? I see no references to it in the page, so I removed it. &laquo; alerante &#x2706; &#x2709; &raquo; 12:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Number of the beast, Greek Numbering System
First all. John's Apocalypse is written in Greek. So the number system to follow should be greek not ASCII no Latain only Greek. The Greek numerical system is

&#913;,&#945;=1 &#914;,&#946;=2 &#915;,&#947;=3 &#916;,&#948;=4 &#917;,&#949;=5 &#931;&#932;,&#963;&#964;=6 &#918;,&#950;=7 &#919;,&#951;=8 &#920;,&#952;=9 &#921;,&#953;=10 &#922;,&#954;=20 &#923;,&#955;=30 &#924;,&#956;=40 &#925;,&#957;=50 &#926;,&#958;=60 &#927;,&#959;=70 &#928;,&#960;=80 (symbol copa )= 90 &#929;,&#961;=100 &#931;,&#963;=200 &#932;,&#964;=300 &#933;,&#965;=400 &#934;,&#966;=500 &#935;,&#967;=600 &#936;,&#968;=700 &#937;,&#969;=800 (symbol sanpi)=900

Now it's very simple to calculate some Names AFTER we translate them to greek

The Name JESUS as an example is written in greek &#921;&#919;&#931;&#927;&#933;&#931; if we add the letters we come up with &#921;+&#919;+&#931;+&#927;+&#933;+&#931; = 10+8+200+70+400+200 = 888

Another example christians (catholics, ortodox etc.) believe in a "trinity god", father son and holly ghost the greek word for trinity god is &#932;&#929;&#921;&#913;&#916;&#921;&#922;&#927;&#931; &#920;&#917;&#927;&#931; &#932;+&#929;+&#921;+&#913;+&#916;+&#921;+&#922;+&#927;+&#931;+&#920;+&#917;+&#927;+&#931; = 300+100+10+1+4+20+200+9+5+70+200 = 999

So who ever this individual is if we translate the name in greek and then make the addition the result will be 666.

Example: The Name BENEDICT in greek it is &#914;&#917;&#925;&#917;&#916;&#921;&#922;&#932;&#927;&#931;

if we make the calculation we come up with &#914;+&#917;+&#925;+&#917;+&#916;+&#921;+&#922;+&#932;+&#927;+&#931; = 2+5+50+5+4+10+20+300+70+200 = 666

Is that the name of our new Pope ?

I do not thing that the new Pope is the Antichrist ( he could not be because it's to old) bud I thing that he might play he's role in the specific direction.

616
This BBC page says the humber of the beast is 616 instead of 666 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4523637.stm

More 616
I read in the 1963 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica that the number was really 616 so that is nothing new.

Not 616
The evidence for the originality of 616 is very weak (news reports are not always reliable). The critical apparatus of The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition, ISBN 3-438-05113-3 (UBS4) strongly supports the traditional reading, "666". (UBS4 is one of the two surrent standard critical editions of the Greek New Testament. Both read the same, but differ in punctuation and notes.) The reading "666" (ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ) is attested by the overwhelming majority of witnesses, including several ancient witnesses. Among the actual copies of Revelation that read "666" are the late third century papyrus manuscript P47 and the important, usually very reliable uncial, Codex Alexandrinus (abbreviated as א) from the fourth century. This reading is also attested by many early versions (translations) and church fathers. The editors of UBS4 rate their certainty of particular readings on a four-point scale, with A meaning "very certain" to D meaning "doubtful." They assign the traditional reading an A rating.

About the reading 616, here's what A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (ISBN 3-438-06010-8), which is the companion to UBS3, says about this variant on pages 751-752: "Instead of ἑξήκοντα, which is strongly supported by P47 א A P 046 051 all extant minuscules itgig vg syrph, h copsa, bo arm al, δέκα [making the reading '616'] is read by C [and] some manuscripts known to Irenaeus [early second century] (who, however, says that 666 is found 'in all good and ancient copies,' and is 'attested by those who had themselves seen John face to face'). . . . According to Tischendorf's 8th ed., the numeral 616 was also read by two minuscule manuscripts which unfortunately are no longer extant. . . . When Greek letters are used as numerals the difference between 666 and 616 is merely a change from ξ to ι (666=χξς and 616=χις). Perhaps this change was intentional, seeing that the Greek form Neron Caesar written in Hebrew characters (נרון קסר) is equivalent to 666, whereas the Latin form Nero Caesar (נרו קסר) is equivalent to 616. [Some people thought that 666 referred to Nero.]"

Because of this strong evidence, one additional early papyrus manuscript is not nearly enough to tip the scales in favor of "616." By the principles of textual criticism, "666" should be regarded as original.

Because of this, I'm removing the discussion of 616 from the introduction to this article. I'm leaving the rest in tact for now, although when I have time I'll probably add something to the article that's along the lines of this post (but a little more neutral in POV).--mssever (Blog) 06:08, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * 616 could also be a deception on behalf of the devil to lure us into not fearing the real 666, but that's just speculation

Satanist 666 = sex?
I removed the following (refering to 666 in Greek numerals: χξς): "It has been noted (on stanist websites) that this looks suspiciously like the word SEX (in English!) written upside down." I believe that it's irrelevant. When Revelation was originally written, Greek was written entirely in capital letters. Therefore, the numeral for 666 would have been more like ΧΞC. Greek capital sigma (Σ) used to look like Latin capital C. Furthermore, the English language didn't exist during the first century. This means that any similarity to the word sex is coincidental.--mssever (Talk | Blog) June 29, 2005 05:59 (UTC)

Sex is a perfectly natural working of the multidimensional body there is no corruption of sex that is not a social disorder. So therefore sex is not the problem but peoples phycological, emotional, habitual, social, and physical diseases (which are curable on a mass level long as the other bodies of interaction are considered) tend get in the way and people without knowing it will interact with their own phycological superimpreshions on the surounding world. This stops one from seeing another even though the sensations that agnowledge others (both animate and inanimate) persist they will be misconstrude by the disordered mind. Which is in proper working order in its given form, I.e. broken televisions work exactly as they work even if they dont do what they would do if their where in a diffrent order more suitable for lets say... turning on and conveing a singnal through a laser. Thank you very much.

Interesting Anecdote
This doesn't really belong in the main article, so I'll chuck it on the Talk page - I knew a guy name Damien for a while. He was 18 when I knew him (6+6+6). We went into a petrol station garage and he bought a bunch of snacks and drinks, and they came to £6.66. Now ain't that some freaky deaky shit!! I know it sounds like an urban legend or something, but this genuinely happened. I don't think he had it in him to be the Antichrist mind, he was a pretty nice guy.

Hebrew spelling of Neron Caesar
When Greek words are transliterated into Hebrew, the Kappa generally becomes a Qof, e.g. Kategor and Apikoros. (I have no idea how to get Hebrew and Greek fonts onto my computer, if enayone can help me with that, I would greatly appreciate it. It would allow me to translate many article into Yiddish. Email me woth advice atheistrabbi@hotmail.com, but I digress...) The Q/K issue only becomes an issue when attempting to transliterate Hebrew letters into the Latin alphabet.

On the basis of those facts, I am removing the note. However, since this is semi-original research by me, if anyone feels that the note should not have been removed, feel free to put it back and leave a comment on my talk page. Atheistrabbi 9 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)

The external links section is very messy.
You're not supposed to rewrite an essay next to an external link. Therefore, I've changed the external links section so that it only links to the essays themselves and has a short phrase about the point of view for which the essays argue. --Idont Havaname 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

666 and RFID?
Someone added a link to RFID in the See also section. I added a link to a Google search that finds stories linking the two, but someone should probably create a story for the Speculation and trivia section out of it and move the link there. --IByte 20:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Bible
I removed this line.

"The Arabic form of the Beast has KFR on its forehead. "

The context of the quote was "References from the Bible". As far as I know, the Arabic form of the Beast is extrabiblical and should be in another sections. Further it has no reference to the number.

Why not "Number of the Beast (disambiguation)" for the disambig links?
Considering that the vast majority of people who search for or link to Number of the Beast will be looking for the discussion of the actual number and its Biblical and other significance, probably a thousand times more often than anyone searching for "the number of the beast" will be looking for the album, the book, or the Digimon episode, why not move Number of the Beast (numerology) to Number of the Beast and move the current disambiguation page at Number of the Beast to Number of the Beast (disambiguation), with the disambiguation link at the top of Number of the Beast? The disambiguation page should only be the main page in cases where there's no way of picking a "main" article that is the most likely search target. In cases, like this, where not only is one possibility much more likely to be the intended target, but also where the most likely candidate is the direct inspiration for the names of the other possible targets, the article should be at Number of the Beast; (numerology) is only necessary when the article's name has more (or equally) famous significance, as in 23 (numerology). -Silence 22:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This might be elementary.
I was watching Jack Van Impe ministries and he calculated the number useing our alphabet A-Z numbering them with the multiplies of 6. a=6 b=12 and so on. This is weird but he spelled out COMPUTER and the number total 666. Then he spelled out MARK OF THE BEAST and it also came out to 666 [Note: This is wrong, it actually totals 864]. To me this seems plausable due to the massive growth of computers and technology. Everybody seems to have a different interpretation on this number so could this theory be ruled out?

June 6, 2006
This number has scared me many times when I was going through a nervous breakdown. Another thing to note is that next year on June 6, 2006, it will be 6/6/06. I feared this date when I was in the midst of my bipolar mania. Let's hope nothing happens, or that Tom Cruise's baby will not be born on this date (a possible candidate for L. Ron Hubbard's antichristlike second coming).

Other
The number 666 has nothing to do with the devil/satan or hitler or anyone else that was mentioned. The number 666 has a true meaning much less dramatic. 666 was the number of christian(probally spelled wrong) people a roman emperor had slaughtered.

This page was severely vandalised on January 15, when the number 666 was changed to 616 throughout. The alternative reading 616 has long been known, but is not generally regarded as the original reading. Some patent nonsenses have resulted: virtually all post-Biblical references are to 666, not 616, and should be stated as such, whatever your views on the original Biblical number. In one place where this editor has changed the number, the result is a statement that 616 is an alternative reading to 616.

I have reverted the page to the version immediately before this change. I apologize to any legitimate editors whose subsequent contributions have been lost. Some of these will need to be re-entered. However, I suggest that whoever recently added an edit along the lines of, "or a person (or being, or whatever) led by the antichrist." not reinsert it in the introductory paragraph the article, but put in a fuller exposition further down.

I have also inserted a clean-up call at the top of the page. This is one of a number of religious topics which is the subject of controversy and any number of pet theories, many the product of non-mainstream groups or individuals. These have a place in the article, as reflecting later Christian thought, but should not be represented as the one true position, even though proponents of these views consider them as such.

&mdash;Neil Copeland, January 18

Anyone care to explain to me why the external links to the images of "Sword figure" and "Image of the Beast which had the wound by a sword, and did live" point to the obscure website of marine subcontracter ARCHIRODON GROUP NV (i.e. http://212.122.250.98/h/beast.htm on http://212.122.250.98) ?

What's that directory doing there? Talk about a conspiracy theory! ;-) --VanPeel 04:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This so-called first interpretation needs to be shifted, and probably removed, perhaps with a redirect to the user's webpage. Is it the view of a group or an individual? It seems anti-Muslim in tone, though the editor appears to have some sort of connection with Islam. I am considering removing it from the main page to the talk page. It's not without interest, but I doubt that it represents any historically significant strand of interpretation of the passage.

&mdash;Neil Copeland (January 18 2006)

Good Idea Since the mark and the number are same thing

---

You have GOT to be kidding me...

"   For example, scholars who believe the Book of Revelation refers to real people and events argue that the number represents the value of Nero or Neron Caesar (נרון קסר, Nrwn Qsr*) in Hebrew letters, which also have numerical values (note that Hebrew is written from right to left):

r   S    q     n   w    r    n         666 = 200 + 60 + 100 + 50 + 6 + 200 + 50 "

Okay, so the process is: 1) take a name 2) misspell/use "alternate" spelling of that name 3) write that name in a language the Book of Revelations was NOT written, for instance Hebrew 4) (optional, seen on other web pages) translate that gibberish into another language that the Book of Revelations was NOT written in, for instance Aramaic 5) take that gibberish and use YET ANOTHER language's (greek in this case) rules of numerology.

Is there any name on Earth, or even any word, that following that process could NOT be turned into any number you want, be it 666, 616, 665, 1234, 3.14, etc.?

I just turned my name into 616 with little effort using that process, I must be satan.

''The mere fact that you dispute the findings of our learned Wiki-theologians, proves beyond any doubt that you ARE the Antichrist, doesn't it? Religious fools are so well-schooled in dealing with nonsensical dogma that go against observations and common sense that you blasphemous heretic haven't got a chance! You clearly will burn in all eternity...'' KristianMikk 15:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

-

NO KIDDING! "No one buys or sells without the MONEY of the Beast!"

New Testament ‘scholars’ erroneously translate the Greek word charagma as ‘mark” rather than money. (Look the word up in the unabridged Greek lexicon by H.B. Liddell and see the correct, in context translation is money.

Since Hebrew and Greek letters have numerical equivalents (i.e., A=1, 6=2, J=10), the number of the beast (666) is the sum of the separate letters of his name. Of countless explanations, the most probable is Neron Caesar (in Hebrew Letters), which, if spelled without the final n, also accounts for a variant reading, 616.

Nero was the Roman Emperor from 54-68 AD. The book of “Revelations,” originally a Hebrew/Jewish book written about 66 AD, was plagiarized by Christians, who added stuff about Jesus at the beginning and end.

In 66 AD, the Jews revolted against the Romans and coined their own money. Therefore, the “Revelation” is: “Nero the Beast’s money is evil and our Jewish money is good.”

“Mammon” is an Aramaic word for money (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics [1951], sv, “Mammon.”). The word philarguron, mistranslated as “covetousness” in some New Testament bibles, at Luke 16:14 and as “money” In 1 Timothy 6:10, means fond of silver. Silver was the money of Christ’s day hence, Luke 16, in context reads, “You cannot serve God and money (mammon): you’ll either love the one and hate the other ... the Pharisees (Jews) who loved money (philarguron), heard all this and scoffed.”

More info at: http://www.666isMONEY.com

some of this looks dumb
...Since "beasts" such as oxen, horses and donkeys were used as machines in ancient times, one can infer “beast” in modern times meaning "machine" or "computer". Since computers were developed by English speaking people it is plausible that the numerical decoding should be via English, such that one interprets “leading the development” as “riding the head of the beast”.

this just looks stupid, and so do a lot of the other stuff on the page. yeah, just wanted to point that out.
 * You're not a bible scholar, and will never be one. Don't make judements about what you have know idea about. 68.3.18.67 23:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the exact same paragraph I came in here to complain about. Priester 03:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Numerology
I looked up 666 and 616 in Crowley's 777. Yeah, the way it works in Hebrew Gematria is to take the letters and add up their numerical values to get a sum and depending on the spelling of the word, you get a specific number value. According to Crowley's 777, the Hebrew word Neshishimiron (I might be misspelling that) adds up to 666 and 616, depending on how you spell it (in Hebrew). Crowley says it's the name of a Qlippoth.

The show The Boondocks pointed out that...
The name Ronald Wilson Reagan has six letters per name i.e. 666.

Eh. Could be. I still say fudge it to make it Bush. United States is 66 but we need another. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.47.15.38 (talk • contribs).


 * ‘George’ and ‘Walker’ have six letters each and ‘Bush’ has four, plus the two spaces. Thus, Bush is the Beast. (The words even start with the same letter!) —xyzzyn 17:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Swathes of deletions
One interpretation makes 666 equal the summation of the Greek Numbering of the Arabic pronounced word of "ELLAH", which means "GOD" in the English language, where Ε=ε=5, L=λ=30 , Α=α=1 , Η=χ=600.

Thus the total of the word = 5 + 1=6  = ϛ +                                                         30+30=60  = ξ +                                   600 = χ = χξϛ = (600)(60)(6)=666.

For Muslims although the name of "God" is considered to be "Allah" but it is pronounced as of "Ellah" specially within some sentences as in "Besm Ellah" which means "in the name of GOD", also when it is used within composite names as in "Abd Ellah". So in the Arabic language and Islamic culture, it is common for individuals to use the pronounced name of "Ellah" (as in "Seif Ellah" which means in English "Sword of the God"); taken in context, this could mean that the prophecied Beast could be an Arabic Moslem; his mark in such case could be the pronounced name of "Ellah" written in Arabic letters "اللة" and shaped within : Sword figure. Such interpretation gives one understanding of the Beast's potential name, its number, and its mark; in addition, it reads well into the next chapter of the Book of Revelation: ''10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.'' (Revelation 13:10, KJV)

This interpretation also translates well with the Islamic belief in the appearance of Mahdi, the one prophecied who will join all Moslems under his leadership to conquer and defeat all non-Moslem people and countries in order to establish Islam as the global religion.

Image of the Beast which had the wound by a sword, and did live. The link shows Imaginary portrait of Husayn ibn Ali the grandson of prophet Muhammed whereas the expected Mahdi is one of his descendents according to Islamic Shia faith. The Destiny of Jews and Christians during Beast time To be reviewed and compared with Revelation book chapter 13:6 till its end.
 * Needs proper citations, not some random website. --Mgreenbe 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please? Just reverting won't help anyone.  Let's discuss this. --Mgreenbe 13:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

One interpretation is that 666 represents humankind in general because of the special significance that the number has in the Bible. Six is known as an "imperfect number" because it is one short of seven, the "perfect number" (seven days in the week, seven tongues of flame, seven spiritual gifts...). So three (the number of the Trinity) sixes is seen as extremely imperfect. Therefore, 666 represents imperfect man, while 777 represents God.
 * Cite, please. --Mgreenbe 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've left the Orthodox church entry in, as an impartial gesture. It seems more backed up by fact. Citations are still requested. --Mgreenbe 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This sparks great public interest since it seems to provide some way to identify the Antichrist. Numerologists like to devise clever ways of assigning numbers to letters so that the letters of a name will add up to this symbolic number. Probably the best-known scheme has A=100, B=101, and so on. With this code, the name "HITLER" adds up to 666. Another commonly cited example is President Ronald Wilson Reagan, where counting the letters of his first, middle, and last name lead to 666. While these ideas are intriguing, they usually require many specific preconditions, like having to start with 100, numbering the surname only, etc. (even though in the former case, you can also number a=1, b=2, and so on and decode his initials 'A' and 'H' as 18, which of course equals 6+6+6.)
 * Who cares? Linear diophantine equations are easy to solve.  --Mgreenbe 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Others say that DCLXVI represents trade, a metaphor of the whore in Revelation, that sits on many waters and deceives the whole world (with dreams of wordly things). Supporters of this idea claim that the meaning was not so cryptic and it would have been easily understood in roman times, since the roman numerals were the primary trading symbols.
 * Cite? --Mgreenbe 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Versions of Christian eschatology see the Book of Revelations as prophecy; it is typically thought that the Mark of the Beast is one way in which the antichrist will exercise power over the earth, during the period known as the Tribulation in the book of Revelation. Opinions as to what form it will take are varied. The literal interpretation is that it will be the number 666 imprinted on the skin, but conspiracy theorists imagine all sorts of devious possibilities tied in with recent technological developments. The notion that the mark is required for all commerce implies that the mark might actually be a special credit card or that we might have to have our fingerprints scanned into a worldwide database in order to be recognized in business. Or the mark might be some kind of smart chip implanted into the body, such as the Verichip, manufactured by the company Digital Angel (AMEX:DOC). One common theory is that people will be tatooed with a Universal Product Code barcode, which already has 3 sets of "guard bars" which appear to be in the pattern of a 6, meaning that every current UPC barcode contains the number 666. Thomas Heeter, for instance, holds US Patent #5878155 for invisibly tatooing a UPC barcode on human beings for e-commerce purposes.

In the verse that immediately follows, 14:1, there is a description of the 144,000 who had the name of Jesus and the name of the Father written on their foreheads. Most mainstream Christian interpreters see the 144,000 as a non-literal number of people who represent all of God's people - the church. Yet to many interpreters it seems strange to view the mark of the beast as a literal mark, since it logically means that the 144,000 in 14:1 would have a literal mark of Jesus and the Father upon their foreheads also. Many interpreters view both marks as being symbolic of a person's commitment to either God or the Devil.

"Mark of the Beast" is mark in a person's righthand or forehead. The reader must decide to read a section in a literal sense. If the "beasts" are symbols of what was or what is to come, then it is also logical that the mark of the beast is literal mark in a person's righthand or forehead.

The third problem is that, if the verse is to be understood in a literalistic sense, then the mark can only be effectual if it is placed upon the right hand or the forehead. If the mark is placed, for example, upon the left hand or the shoulder, then it is no longer considered the mark of the beast.

The fourth problem is that, if the mark could be considered a microchip implant, then it no longer functions as a "mark" since it is invisible. The Greek word charagma (mark) denotes a stamp or an impression upon the skin - ie something that is visible to the naked eye and whose function depends upon this visibility. Within the Christian community there are many who argue that the word charagma is based on the word charax, which is said to mean stick into, or, sharpen to a point or palisade (fence); they could also say that charasso on which charax is derived also means sharpen to a point. This would support their notion that a microchip is "stuck into" a person's skin. Such an argument, however, does not appear to be backed up by New Testament scholars. Ulrich Witkins, a contributor to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol 9, page 416), writes the following about charagma:
 * (it) is an engraved, etched, branded or inscribed "mark" or "sign". Closest to (its) original sense.. is the earliest example in Soph. Phil., 267, where (it) denotes the bite of a snake. Elsewhere the term means "inscription"... or anything written..., and especially the impressed or branded "stamp" eg a brand to mark camels. However, the unabridged Greek-English Lexicon by Liddel & Scott also defines Charagma as MONEY.
 * All of this is ranty. If something specific wants to be said, reputable sources should be cited.  --Mgreenbe 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In base 10, 666 is 333 times 2. It is also 111 times 6. If you divide 666 by 9 you get 74. There are 665 integers between 0 and 666. 666 divided by 4 is 166.5. It would probably take a while to count up to 666 if you started at 0 and counted every integer. 666 times 2 is 1332. 666 times 3 is 1998. 666 squared is 443,556. 666 is a triangular number.
 * You don't say! --Mgreenbe 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

All of the pop culture references have been snipped and put in /Pop culture. They will be sorted later; the value they add to the page is dubious at best. All of the speculation and trivia section has been split to /Trivia. Wikipedia WP:ISNOT a collection of trivia. --Mgreenbe 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

On 06/06/06 (June 6, 2006) the sun will be between the horns of Zodiac sign Taurus.
 * Good to know. --Mgreenbe 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The octal number 666 is used in setting up authorizations in the Unix Operating System. It offers read and write access to all users, and is only limited by the permissions of directories above or different permission schemes, e.g. ACLs. This matches the Revelation ('13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the Mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. ') in that this could be a way to allow or disallow people to buy anything (the Mark of the Beast as a personal body mark easily readable by automated cashiers in a cashless society).

This also leads to speculations that software manufacturer Microsoft, and its founder, Bill Gates, are evil, as Bill Gates, evaluated in ASCII, sums up to 663, which, when added with 3 (his complete name is William Henry Gates III,) becomes 666. Counting the space as one, Windows 95 also sums to 666.

The sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet is "waw" (or "vav"). This is the closest approximation of the English letter "w". Also in the Hollerith Card (sometimes called an IBM Punch-Card) a zero zone punch and a six numeric punch in a column signified the letter W. Thus the ubiquitous acronym "www" could be the Number of the Beast. Also, the number 6 in Roman numerals is represented as VI. 666 = VIVIVI, and it has been suggested that visions from the past mistook WWW for it (In the time revelations was written, U, represented as V, had the sounds U and W, which lends this support).

A known one-liner refers to the editor vi: VIVIVI, the Editor of the Beast.

The internet access provider firm Demon Internet http://www.demon.net/ has many telephone numbers (voice, and computer dialup) that contain 666, and sometimes sequences of three copies of other digits.

Another speculation is that computer=666. If we encode the English alphabet where every letter is a multiple of 6: a=6, b=12, c=18, ..., z=156 then we have "computer" = 666 = (3*6)+(15*6)+(13*6)+(16*6)+(21*6)+(20*6)+(5*6)+(18*6). Since "beasts" such as oxen, horses and donkeys were used as machines in ancient times, one can infer “beast” in modern times meaning "machine" or "computer". Since computers were developed by English speaking people it is plausible that the numerical decoding should be via English, such that one interprets “leading the development” as “riding the head of the beast”.

TCP/IP port 666 is officially registered to ID Software, the publishers of the Doom series of games, for multiplayer game communication across a network; this is obviously a gimmick. Port 616 is officially registered to SCO System Administration Server, much to the amusement of SCO's critics.
 * Some of this belongs on the page. I think it's better to move stuff on selectively than to slowly move things out. --Mgreenbe 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. So what I've done is a very, very major edit. And it was all deletion. And I'm sorry if you felt that your additions to the page are being disrespected: I mean no disrespect. What I do mean, however, is to cleanup the page. And we can add back notable, interesting facts; nothing is really lost. I feel that discussion will be smoother if we discuss what is interesting about a fact, than if we discuss what is not. Please address general responses below this comment; for specific comments, please address it to the appropriate section. --Mgreenbe 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that someone reverted my deletions. Care to comment? --Mgreenbe 20:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you just revert and don't leave comments, what are we supposed to think about what you're doing? Asking us to contact you by e-mail is unreasonable.  Please respond here. --Mgreenbe 13:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"7 And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram’s cattle and the herdmen of Lot’s cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land. 8  And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren. 9  Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left." (Ge 13:7) Thanks all for your support,

Edited Comment
Original Text (found at end of 666 as the Mark of Commerce):

EDIT: In the Revelations 13:16 of the KJV Bible, the direct quote is as such: "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark IN their right hand, or in their foreheads:" Although this doesn't argue the third aforementioned problem, the fourth problem is debunked. The KJV of the Bible has been studied to be the most word-for-word accurate.

Notes: The KJV is not the most accurate translation, whether talking word for word or not, because that is a matter of opinion. Your statement is at best a opinionated statement with some factual backing (but still an opinion none the less).

A true word-for-word translation simply means no words were not translated into an equivalent in English, but the question of the meaning behind every word still remains. The meaning can be taken literately or based on meaning (which can invlove intrepritation), with plently of grey area between the two. But, by saying word-for-word, I'm assuming you essentially meant a literal translation, because that would make more sense. The KJV is one of the best literal translations of the Bible IMO, if referring to the revised KJV (the original KJV of old was full of translation errors, but has since been cleaned up I believe, unless people still insist on printing the original with many errors).

I'm not trying to discredit the KJV, I am just questioning mentioning that it is the most word-for-word accurate. It provided no value to the article to do so, especially when it is at best a opinionated statement with some factual backing (but still an opinion none the less).

The KJV is not the most accurate. It's not even close. In fact it was translated and then rewritten to be more poetic. See: KJV

REVISIONS URGENTLY NEEDED
This article is very poorly written. Pieces of it have hope but it doesn't look like anyone has taken very good care of it's growth and development. As a result, solidly founded and long-held beliefs are intermingled and given equal weight with the most obscure speculative fantasy. And some stuff just doesn't belong. (E.g. Can someone please explain to me what a Jewish non-"number of the beast" interpretation of the number 666 as used in the Old Testament has to do with the "number of the beast" in the New Testament book of Revelation?) It's really just dreadful. I'd suggest a new section for "Novel Crackpot Theories" that we could just dump all the junk into. As it stands, it looks like something that belongs in the uncylcopedia. --Economy1 17:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Date
Shouldn't the article contain something on the approaching date - 6/6/06 (6th June, 2006). Just a thought. User:SMI

It does now, even though it shouldn't. Nobody would ever abbreviate a date using only the last digit of the year (ever seen July 4, 1776 written as 7/4/6?) ... unless they had a horror film or metal album to promote. User: PWBooker

Proofread...
I took the liberty of proofreading the article, and rewording some parts. I left the spellings with extra u's alone(i.e. Neighbour). I hope the alterations meet with approval.--Vercalos 09:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of the the number 666 in the book of Revelation can now be revealed. It is a reference to the United Nations Resolution 666. This concerned the first Iraq war. It places restrictions on the goods that can be traded with Iraq. This is exactly what the prophecy is about. "Nothing can be bought or sold without the mark of the beast". The book of Revelation is a curious account of the beginning and end of Christianity.The language is extreme but the meaning is all too clear.It has later been confirmed by the prophets Nostradamus and Malachi. We can only hope that Armageddon is still some distance in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.254.173.35 (talk • contribs).


 * Actually, that was back in 1998, but that’s no reason not to have fun.
 * The United Nations emblem clearly displays two horns (Rev. 13:11).
 * It’s huge, thus it speaks like a dragon (ibid.).
 * It does great wonders and nearly made fire come down from heaven (Rev. 13:13) once.
 * The entire UN is actually just one person who wears different masks and costumes every now and then. Really.
 * However, the Beast is really the island of Vaygach!
 * (Just kidding.) —xyzzyn 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There are any number of "beasts" in the book of Revelation. At least four beasts are on the side of the angels. Although the book does mention Satan and the Devil, there is no direct link to any of the beasts. This was the invention of the highly successful film, "The Omen". The "666 beast" is unique in that it states that it is the (code) name of a man. Who can this man possibly be.

You should have found the answer by now. It is a burning issue.

Church of Ouzo
The true meaning of 666 can be found in "The Ouzo Prophecy"

Robert Merlin Evenson/Church of Ouzo

bobevenson@yahoo.com

Question
Do people really, honestly believe any of this nonsense about a number? It's just a number. Really. I mean, come on, have 6 letters in each of my names (first, middle, last); does that make me satan or the antichrist? This article is amusing, however a lot of it is clearly fantasy, especially those comments about computers and such. Computers are not evil, though they can be used in evil ways by evil people. This whole article is rife with bias and PoV, IMHO.


 * 1. You don't sign your comments, do you? 2. It's about religion, something which you came here already with a bias AGAINST, so don't don't make any crap about "Ohh, it's got too much PoV.. oh what a bunch of ****tards...." 68.3.18.67 23:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Reagan (again)
Under "avoiding" the number, do we want to mention Nancy changing her street address to from 666 St. Cloud Road to 668? Rklawton 06:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Also some people at the time thought Ronald Wilson Reagan's name of all being six letters as "666", believing him to be the Anti-christ. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.31.45.49 (talk • contribs).


 * The Reagans are already mentioned in Number of the Beast (occurrence), which looks like the right place. —xyzzyn 22:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Movie theatrical counts
According to Box Office Mojo TC page, there were movies, like A Chorus Line, Failure to Launch, and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, either receiving, losing, or holding exactly 666 theaters in a week, more or less.

Examples:, , , ,

There's more in Yahoo, Google, and other search engines.

Can this subject be in "Speculation and Trivia" section or any other? Why or why not? —69.227.165.221 07:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Cruft
There are so many claims in this article that need verification outside wikipedia, I can't begin to start. Dominick (TALK) 14:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't help much but the article does have the tag.  [[Image:Monkeyman.png]]Monkeyman(talk) 00:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

True. I was looking for more about this 216 claim, but all I found was a dead Independent link. And the real link is only for paid subscribers now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.14.56 (talk • contribs)

The article states under Jewish view: "Six is considered God's number (see Names of God in Judaism) since it is the numeric value of Waw (letter)." As a Jewish person I am completely appaled that such a thing would be written. What is written is completely factless and garbage. By saying this apparantely Jews worship the devil which is untrue, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.214.164 (talk • contribs)

Who keeps re-adding the crap about 06/06/06 being the day that the Antichrist will be born?

Man's Number The number 666 is said in Revelations to be "man's number" and indeed it is. We are 'carbon-based life forms' as a Trekkie might say. Carbon12, more precisely. Carbon 12 has 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons. The Jewish star attributed to either David or Solomon is six sided and looks very much like a stick drawing of a carbon atom. This implies people of old either knew more science than they are usually given credit for, or God himself showed David and Solomon things they would not have had any other way of knowing. 209.214.19.230 00:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)David Nix

Mentions outside the book of Revelation.
I deleted a few lines about a reference in Ian Brown (ex-Stone Roses) lyrics. I believe that section of the topic refers only to mentions within the bible, and besides, it was poorly written. Katr67 01:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotations
Here are two quotations which I removed:

I think they are better suited for a page on Wikiquote. —xyzzyn 01:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Some more notes (all imho): This concludes this test of the Emergency Broadcast System. —xyzzyn 09:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * On Hillers: We mention his name and unambiguously cite one of his papers. His title and affiliation aren’t really relevant to 666.
 * On RFID: The connection to 666 is sufficiently discussed in RFID.
 * On things people are going to do on June 6 2006: a complete list of every single non-notable ‘event’ is not really necessary. The existing examples illustrate the point sufficiently.


 * On Hillers: The reason why I included a longer reference to Hillers' credits was because someone removed "Dr." from Hillers' title. I asked about this and the reference to a Ph.D rather than a Prof. is more important and correct. Anyway I see someone has also included that Hillers is a "Dr."(Simonapro 10:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC))


 * I removed the ‘Dr.’, because I didn’t see why it (or any other title) was important there and WP:1SP recommends not to use titles. Hillers is not the subject of the article and the credibility of his paper is better assessed by the quality of the journal in which it was published than by the author’s title. It’s not something about which I feel strongly in any way, though. —xyzzyn 10:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I replaced it to quell a one sided discussion on #wikipedia. I have no vested interest. &mdash;WAvegetarian&bull;(talk) 10:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

777
I’d like to see citations for the significance of 6 and 7 as the numbers of humans and gods respectively as well as for the conclusions currently drawn in the article. None of the Bible verses seem to say anything explicit enough. Basically, the entire hypothesis looks like original research or folklore. —xyzzyn 18:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article states that people believe this, not that the Bible says it. What the Bible says is only tangentially relevant, in that these people's beliefs are based in part on what they've read there; that doesn't mean we're only allowed to discuss those parts of their beliefs that can easily be supported with Biblical quotations!
 * Also, what do you mean by "the conclusions currently drawn in the article"? The article doesn't draw any conclusions at all, and nor is it supposed to; it merely describes the conclusions that various people have drawn. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 11:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The conclusions are that people believe the various alleged things. I described them as drawn because the section is written in an assertive and sequential style. I’d quite like to see those beliefs referenced to a reasonable work of theology or some other relevant ‘science’, or at least some moderately reputable newspaper articles. (Unfortunately, Engels seems to have had nothing to say on this subject.) Regarding the Bible verses, I addressed them because the editor who contributed the section seems to treat them as citations. I agree that they, or at least the ones given in the article, are mostly irrelevant. —xyzzyn 14:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how citing bible verses that talk about this subject when talking about biblical issues is irrelevent —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.3.18.67 (talk • contribs).


 * The verses are irrelevant because they do nothing to substantiate or otherwise affect what the section says. —xyzzyn 11:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Pet Peeves About People
Don't talk about something IN WHICH YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE! (yes, I am shouting). If you haven't studied this issue, stay away from making judgements about it, I beg of you! First of all, people who come to criticize it because "It's a load of crap", don't. If you don't like it, stay away from it. Two, if you must criticize it, at least stop criticizing the part about the names and all (Nero -> 666) because virtually nobody in the modern church believes that that is what it meant. All this about the barcode stuff is baloney, of course, as well as SSNs and the rest. Without getting in to too much detail, I'll say that most bible-believeing people don't think that the "mark of the beast" has been invented yet

I am considering adding a section that talks about how anything regarding the mark of the beast is generally considered wild speculation in the christian community. Anybody with crack pot ideas like "Oh, the antichrist will be born on 06/06/06!" are met with snickers and a few raised eyebrows.

Many educated people, included Christians of all denominations, believe the number of the beast, whether 616 or 666, is a code for someone, often Nero.

The Internet
I once read that there is some belief that the internet itself is the "mark of the beast" because '666' (somehow) translates to 'www' (ie. the acronym for world wide web), supported by the idea that no one will be able to buy sell, etc without the mark of the beast. As I cannot remember where on earth I read this I didn't want to add anything to the main article. Instead I thought I'd suggest it here to see if anyone recalls hearing of anything like this or knows of any sources. ~


 * Obviously can't be, since the internet way predates www. And why would "w" be 6?  Still, it's as likely as the rest of this nonsense. Dicklyon 23:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of my edit
Since I’ve removed a lot of stuff, I’d like to give some reasons: This is not meant as a statement of personal opinion on any of the material. I do feel strongly about not having modern-day occurrences of the number in this article (because they are almost certainly redundant with respect to the other article); as for the unsourced things, adding them back with proper references might be a good idea. —xyzzyn 16:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * All the modern-day examples of 666 should be in the main article, Number of the Beast (occurrence).
 * The list of Rev. 13:18 quotes was unnecessary. Those are available elsewhere.
 * The Jewish section was just another intrpretation, therefore tightened and moved.
 * Several things have been unsourced for a long time. Removed per WP:V. Tag about lack of sources removed from the top.

OLDEST Source says 616
Whether it is right or wrong can be decided by the reader, but we should at least include that the oldest written version of Revelations says 616 "xiς"


 * It was included, but the age of that version wasn’t mentioned; thanks for pointing out that it was missing. I have, however, moved the discussion of that issue a bit further down, to the other versioning talk. —xyzzyn 20:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of Hebrew instead of Greek for coded Nero
I remember learning in (Catholic) Theology class that John encoded Nero's name using Hebrew numberology to further hide the meaning. Could someone explain why Nero would be encoded using Hebrew letters not Greek, and provide a source... besides of course my theology notes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.184.151.157 (talk • contribs).


 * Frankly, it wouldn’t matter how it’s encoded. I’m pretty sure that, after enough manipulation, you could even encode ‘Nero’ to ‘γραμμωτός κώδικας’ (Greek for ‘barcode’, according to Babelfish). Anyway, the explanation by Engels (see the notes section for a link), as I understand it, is that John was not Greek, but a Jew who lived in a Greek community (cf. Book of Revelation and John of Patmos for more on this, and other theories); although he knew enough of the language to write the book, he used the numerology with which he was familiar, instead of the one used in Greece. —xyzzyn 21:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Mark" of the Beast is MONEY i.e., MONEY of the Beast
Someone named --xyzzyn has been censoring my theory about 666isMONEY from the article Number of the Beast at Wickipedia. I'm not sure what his agenda is but I'll bet he is a fundamentalist Christian bigot, who has his own theory published in the article. Here's the truth about the "mark" of the beast:

&quot;No one buys or sells (BUYS OR SELLS) without the MONEY of the beast on/in mind or hand.&quot; Nero was the emperor at the time the book was written 70AD (see, Parables of the War at: www.book-of-revelation.com/abstract/marshal.html); the Jews revolted against Rome and coined their own money. Liddell & Scott, the editors of the Unabridged Greek-English Lexicon are wrong in assuming it is a &quot;Mark&quot; (not a tattoo = stigmata in Greek).

Jesus-Christ (if he existed) said, &quot;You can't serve God &amp; MONEY [mammon is an Aramaic word for money] ... but the Pharisees, who loved money (philarguron) heard all this and scoffed.&quot; Like you're scoffing too. (See Luke 16.)Jesus also told his disciples, like the Buddha did, to not carry and gold, silver, script or brass in their purse.Jesus also said, &quot;Who's picture is on the $$$?&quot; Caesar's!

I'll bet xyzzyn hides his theory in the page somewhere. Like, why do these people get their theory in and not me? Who the hell are they?!
 * Keith Krell interprets the mark as a requirement for all commerce to mean that the mark might actually be an object with the function of a credit card.[13]
 * Steven D. Miller proposes that the mark of the beast may refer to a social security number or card.[14]
 * Terry Watkins supposes the mark to be a microchip or barcode in or on the human body.[15]What good are their references? My reference comes from the Unabridged Greek-English Lexicon by Lidell and Scott.

ADD:


 * Raquel Baranow says the context of buying & selling and Nero, whose picture is on the $$$ = 666 and the definition in the UNABRIDGED Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell & Scott shows that the word Χαραγμα mistranslated as "mark" should be MONEY. For more information see http://www.666ismoney.com/

You might have a point, but I don't think insulting other users by calling them Christian bigots with secret agendas is the right way to have your point heard. If it means that much to you to have it heard try publishing it elsewhere on the web. Freewebs.com will give you 50 Megs free and dot.tk will give you a free www.yourname.tk URL which will forward to whatever URL you provide.--Silverclodhopper 15:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

English Translation
Is it "and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." or "and its number is Six hundred threescore and six." ? If you know how to read greek, answer please. IMHO it is likely the first, but the second cannot be excluded. Faaaa 23:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * According to, it can be either one. Why is this important? —xyzzyn 00:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because, between fun and serious, according revelation epilog, "if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Wood of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.". Faaaa 00:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So what? I meant, why is this important for this article? —xyzzyn 00:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Bible Version
I Just changed the bible version from KJV to NIV because I have always found the KJV hard to understand. xyzzyn changed it back and told me it was because the NIV, unlike the KJV, is copyrighted. Perhaps the bible version should be an uncopyrighted one that uses more current English, assuming such a bible exists. Maybe I'm just being selfish, but hopefully someone agrees with me that the language used in the KJV is less than current and sometimes a little difficult to follow.--Silverclodhopper 06:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

PS According to Bible Gateway The King James Version simply has no copyright information available. Whereas the New International Version gives certain parameters under which it may be quoted if a certain copyright notice provided by bile gateway is included. Perhaps this is unacceptable for Wikipedia, maybe I should have read more of the help pages before trying to bring this up. If this is the case then perhaps my original suggestion from 13 Aug 06 requires more attention (possibly from me).--Silverclodhopper 04:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The KJV was published in 1611. Copyright law began in earnest in 1710 with the Statute of Anne and a maximum copyright term of 21 years. The KJV is not now and was never protected by copyright (apart from some kind of restriction applicable only somewhere in the UK). —xyzzyn 05:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Bible Gateway, the DARBY is public domain and it's English is a lot more current. My only problem with the KJV is that I find the English used somewhat hard to follow. Sorry if I seem to be just another whiny pest trying to have everything my way and make you like it.--Silverclodhopper 15:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, for comparison… KJV:
 * Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
 * Darby:
 * Here is wisdom. He that has understanding let him count the number of the beast: for it is a man’s number; and its number [is] six hundred [and] sixty-six.
 * The pronouns vary a bit, the number is written in a more modern way and ‘hath’ has been replaced by ‘has’. However, the square brackets are confusing.
 * The main reason for quoting the KJV, imho, is its recognition factor, but if Darby’s translation of the verse is significantly easier to read, we can quote it instead. —xyzzyn 15:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it up to you, xyzzyn, unless anyone else would care to share an opinion?--Silverclodhopper 20:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are quoting only a few verses in the context of a wider discussion, the copyright of the NIV is irrelevant -- see Fair use. This kind of limited attributed quoting is explicitly allowed by copyright law. Jheald 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC).

Atom theory
There is a theory rotating that the "666" represents 6 electrons, 6 neutrons, and 6 protons there composition of which carbon is. Suggesting this it can be supposed that it refers to organic material i.e. organic molecules which must contain carbon. Thinking this then it can be proposed that 666 represents any and all of the living which could be though of the "devil" or "evil" while things of "energy" or the "sprit" could be considered the only good.

I've just been thought Chemistry 30S in Canada and put this idea together...

Could someone clean it up for me please and add it to the main page...i'm a new member and can't add..

Thanks,

Stanley Nickarz (16 year old)

4:05:29 AM - August - 23 - 2006


 * No. Please see WP:OR. —xyzzyn 12:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You know what xyzzy_n there are things called "niceties". For example, "Oh, sorry can't do that check this out..." or "No, I can't do that bud please see"... You saw I was a new memeber don't be an ass.