Talk:Number of the beast/Archive 6

Need to use our sources
There are some quite decent sources in the bibiliography, but they don't seem to be used. Instead the article is full of crud from Jehovah Witnesses and worse. Can we rewrite it using the good stuff? PiCo (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you specify what parts are influenced by Jehovah's Witnesses? I beg to differ with your analysis. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  17:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * None now - I deleted it :). Of course, you can put it back if you want.
 * But the main point is that we can write a much better article using just the sources we already have. PiCo (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm also looking for more modern day sources. I haven't really objected to much of the content that you've omitted except for the minor views that occupy the Number of the Beast section. I really think that is at least required. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  23:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ronald(6 letters) Wilson(6) Reagan(6) = 666, not "six hundred sixty six"
I AM receiving alot of opposition here for some reason? "The belief systems we hold affect our behaviour" - History Channel Nostradomus Effect: Armageddon Battle Plan 13:51 ET. 6 letters in each of Ronald Wilson Reagan's names does NOT equal six hundred sixty-six! Whomever is promoting this lacks basic math skills. 6 letters in each name does equal 6,6,6 which throughout this article (and everywhere else that I've ever seen) = 666. - with love, Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's too much noise in this room. My ears are ringing. &mdash;  Jasonasosa  18:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Koine Greek numbers do not operate that way, Brad. There's a character for sixhundred, a character for sixty, and a character for six.  John of Patmos would have seen 6 and 6 and 6 as 18, not sixhundred-sixty-six. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a pity how many people can't seem to get that point. (EnochBethany (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC))
 * You know what... we shouldn't have to be bullied into finding a scholarly source for such nonsense, linking Reagan to 666. It doesn't benefit the audience and could be seen as wp:fringe &mdash;  Jasonasosa  19:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not fringe, it's certifiable.PiCo (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not certifiable that Reagan's name is 666. It is "A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship" (wp:fringe). What is certifiable is that a group of Evangelicals enumerated his name to 666. Just because a scholarly source (Robert C. Fuller, 1996, Oxford University Press) brings this up, doesn't mean it is widely accepted. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  06:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Certifiable: that which leads to certification as a lunatic, followed by consignment to a suitable institution.PiCo (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * lol, okay...  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  09:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought the simple answer was the correct one. The number six signifies man, falling short of God, the divine seven. Three sixes indicate a man, trying to be God. I also note that there are a few relevant articles on this subject on wikipedia - This one, New Testament, Greek Numerals, etc. If you look at all of them, you find wikipedia does not agree with itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.138.118 (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The point is that it is just silly to compare anyone to the Antichrist on the basis of a number. Ronald Reagan is not to be compared to Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin who are more obvious candidates in view of their evil.

I did see one calculation that has Hitler as the Antichrist. A=100 up to Z=125 in the Latin alphabet, and

H=107 I=108 T=119 L=111 E=104 R=117

...and it adds to 666. The source is a fundamentalist Christian tract discussing prophecy, and I do not have it. It is a stretch except that Hitler was about the purest evil that ever arose in politics. But that said, the German alphabet contains three umlauted vowels Ä, Ö, and Ü, and those really messed things up.Pbrower2a (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead
I took out the bit about two beasts because I couldn't really understand it - I think maybe there needs to be a little more detail on what these beasts are in the story (i.e., a summary of the story-line as it concerns the beasts and the dragon).

Also, Beale's book: I'm sure it's excellent, but it's not available thru google books. That's not a reason for not citing Beale, but it does make it hard for me to check what he says. I'll try to find other sources to replace him - presumably they all say the same thing. PiCo (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is what I've discovered about google books... I've had this same conflict with other editors. Google books limits its preview for a certain period. Where I was able to access the information for verification, after a certain period... neither you or I can access the same page to verify. However, limited access must have been swift, because I checked it out the other day. :/ It says what it says, I'm sorry can't see it. I hate that googlebooks limits its preview sessions on certain pages... after all its not free, so what do you expect? The reality is, view-ability on googlebooks is not the determining factor for whether content should be inserted into wikiarticles or not. You have a local library. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  02:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, if you vouch for having read it I won't dispute it. PiCo (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish I could screenshot this to you... because when I went on my laptop I had Beale's book open on my tab! I can quote what it actually says and insert it in the ref tag. It's the best I can do! Thanks for trusting me.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  03:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

New subsection - summary
I added a summary of Rev.13, since the reader will (I think) need it to understand what the "beast" is and the story of the dragon and two beasts. PiCo (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the intro is coming along nicely, capturing the wp:scope of the article rather well. &mdash;  Jasonasosa  13:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Mark of the beast
Seems this article is also about the "mark of the beast" - I did a search for that and got redirected here. So I added a little in the lead. PiCo (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that "the mark" and "the number" are two different topics and could serve as separate articles if their was enough information for a break away. (However, I don't see that happening in the near future). Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  08:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't me that put them both in the same article - I'm just going with what I found :). PiCo (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for Advice - "wisdom"
This is a really important topic. The major problem is the word "wisdom"("Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast").

Wisdom is a big word, in fact many types of thoughts and ideas can be called "wisdom". Since "wisdom" is such a big word, almost anything can be used to interpret.

That's the problem. However, I found "wisdom" explained in Book of Revelation, and that's what I'm trying to add to this Wikipedia article:

"Wisdom" in Book of Revelation

Please note what I'm trying to add is an important element of this topic, and its source is Bible. I'd like to hear your advice on this ...

PS Some content of this article is from dieyu.org ... It's "original research" on this topic which I'm not adding to Wikipedia.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieyu2012 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi - I reverted you before I saw this. Thanks for asking your advice. Basically, we shouldn't simply be taking quotes from the Bible and using them in this way, but should be finding sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS and using what they say about the biblical source. Note that if it's disputed, then we show the significant views in proportion to their significance - see WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * REPLY: Thanks for the advice. Understood.
 * Wikipedia is not a primary source. We do not simply reprint primary sources without explanation.  We're not a secondary source either (but a tertiary one), so that explanation must come from another secondary or tertiary source.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * REPLY: Thanks. Understood.

Sigh, what I'm trying to do, is to alert people about 666. I take this so seriously, because I'm Dieyu(check dieyu.org to see what it means). In fact, I have "wisdom". I'm going to add some really serious content to this "talk" page - it's "original research", meanwhile, it's the truth. I hope it won't be deleted. It's the truth of this topic. (I respect Wikipedia and won't add "original research" to the main article. I only add this to "talk" page, which is allowed here as far as I observed ...)

First, in the context of Book of Revelation, "wisdom" is never about number of a name ... Since "wisdom" is a super big word, almost anything can be used to interpret - God wouldn't allow any misunderstanding, so "wisdom" is in fact explained in Book of Revelation:

Bible said, "where the whore sat, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues".

Bible said, "a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns".

Bible said, "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sat."

Bible said, "And the ten horns which thou saw are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast."

Summary:

"woman sit" - "peoples" / "beast" - "seven mountains" and "ten horns" - "wisdom"

The only possible answer is that human has "seven mountains" and "ten horns". And the only reasonable interpretation is that "seven mountains" are two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, and a mouth; "ten horns" are human hands - this is where to count in the context of "wisdom" in Book of Revelation. This is it.

Now, isn't it weird? Why call eye as "mountain"? And, why call hand as "king"?

This is "wisdom":

"mountain" is what is close to sky - high;

"king" is the ruler.

Yes, for those who have "wisdom", hand is the "king". It is higher than eyes and ears. I know it sounds unbelievable. That's because you really don't understand hand - "I was once blind and now I see" ... "seven seals" are right on your hand, I have opened it, and truly, you can open it too. Then, you shall see, hand is higher - it's "horn". It's the ultimate pattern of what's happening between sky and earth. You'll be "X".

Great Whore

Screen is her face, keyboard is her vagina, and human fingers are penis.

Bible said, "And he said unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sat, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues."

Bible said, "a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy".

Name is how something is called. Name of blasphemy is when something is inappropriately called. With keyboard, everything is called by pattern of hitting.

666

666 is of mouth shut and fingertips on both hands. Here is the way to count: head has two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, and a mouth, which add up to seven, since Hit Language is used in communication, people don't open mouth to talk, as mouth is closed, so there are only 6 open; hand is of arm, palm, and fingers, arm has two sections, palm has one section, and fingers have three sections, so fingertips are number six, on both sides.

666 is Hit Language(keyboard, typing, etc).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieyu2012 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia really does not care about "truth". We only summarize what reliable academic secondary and tertiary sources say, with as little deviation from the sources as possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

the mark of the beast
is it possible there is only one person with the mark of the beast? or are there others? don139.173.54.11 (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

what if someone did? would you suppose that person was an evil being spreading havoc over the earth? what if it was satan itself? i asked someone what would it mean to have that number on your forehead? and they replied it would mean you're the devil. why is that number considered so evil? look at the various ways the devil has been portrayed? honest to say he's usually a pathetic angry creature suffering from one problem to another! what kind of advice could you give to a person with the mark of the beast? don139.173.54.11 (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding your first post, The Book of Revelation describes multiple people getting the mark of the beast, though the number of the beast belongs only to one individual, the Beast.
 * Regarding your second post, Wikipedia does not pretend to know what the future holds, and we're not a forum for discussing it, or for advice. The Book of Revelation rather plainly and clearly describes the Beast as an evil individual, and all Christian interpretations of that book hold that the Beast is at least connected to Satan, if not Satan himself.
 * If you are interested in learning about the Number of the Beast and the Mark of the Beast, I recommend actually reading the Book of Revelation, straight through, like a story. It will be confusing, trained theologians can't agree on what it means, but that is the source of the story about the Mark of the Beast, and you can at least get the general story straigt.  Your friend's interpretation of the Mark of the Beast does not line up with a straight forward reading of the story, at no point in Revelation does it say that the Mark of the Beast is the same as the Number of the Beast.
 * Also, as you can find in our article, "666" as the number of the beast is considered by most theologians to be some sort of code, with mainly dispensationalists believing that it's literally that number. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved with no opposition. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Number of the Beast → Number of the beast – There's no reason to capitalize beast here; I fixed a few instances that were capitalized in the body, where most were already lowercase, in agreement with most sources; now the title needs to be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The Beast (Revelation) capitalizes the "B" -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. It was 90% lowercase, in agreement with its sources.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Futurist Prospective
I currently lack the time to personally undertake this, but I would point out that the futurist prospective is omitted here. There used to be a a futurist viewpoint, but it was gradually eroded, with several contributors putting up information that is best described as "personal viewpoint" plus undocumented material. On 5 September 2012, member PICO deleted the entire futurist section (admittedly, a flawed section) with the derisive remark that it is a "fringe view". I submit that a futurist prospective on Revelation is shared by millions, especially in the US and especially in evangelical religious groups.

The core of belief, shared by most futurists, is that (a) the events of Revelation will be fulfilled at some point in the future; (b) The Beast and his Mark reference some as-yet-unknown person in the future, and not a historical personage; (c) The Biblical reference that one cannot buy or sell without having the "Mark of the Beast" (Rev. 13:17) refers to some sort of physical mark/implant which a person will have to have in order to engage in any commerce. Theories about the nature of such a mark have evolved with new scientific developments, from a tattoo to a microchip implant, but the central idea that the "Mark of the Beast" represents a future requirement that a person have a physical mark on the head/hand in order to buy or sell has not changed.

As currently structured, the article leans very heavily towards the Preterist/Historicist viewpoint. I submit that balance would be attained by adding a paragraph on the futurist viewpoint.

Dave-c-anderson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, my main aim will be to point out the "self-evidence" revealed here by using a language to describe algorithms of complexity theory I am researching. It's really quite simple, revelation is about the mechanisms of power and control and the mechanisms by which they renew themselves. What makes it especially interesting is how many ideas and historical events fit into this framework or algorithm. Simply put, the brain has knowledge and understanding that transcends words - and hence manages to express these quite interestingly visually... (perhaps seeing as that the vision centers of the brain far predate those to do with language). So while the beast might have been Nero Caesar an the mark the mode of exchange bearing his image, today its incarnation may be telecommunications and Google. Links to any primary or secondary sources or forums furthering this study will be appreciated! Dagelf (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not accept original research, see WP:NOR. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Catherine Cory identified??
Catherine Cory identified 666 with Emperor Nero in a 2006 book? How come then that I heard it 20 years ago? I think the discovery actually predates the 20-th century, and that Catherine Cory either refers to that discovery or enhances it. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 15:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * James Austin Bastow wrote about this in the 19th century. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Modern identifications of 666
One omission in this article is any reference to the phenomena of identifying contemporaries as the Beast. As the late Fr. Raymond Brown notes that "preachers have identified the Beast from the Earth whose number is 666 as Hitler, Stalin, the Pope, and Saddam Hussein" (An Introduction to the New Testament [New York, 1997], p. 773). An example of this would be the graffito that was commonly seen back in the 1980s about "Ronald Wilson Reagan = 666". I mention this not because I believe it (I doubt the identification in graffito was ever entirely serious, although it expressed a common sentiment), but because this identification is common enough to merit mention in a sentence or two. -- llywrch (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Belphagor's Prime
Is there a place here for Belphagor's Prime 1,000,000,000,000,066,600,000,000,000,001? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC).

New quote on Mark of the Beast being money
Found this quote recently: "The juxtaposition of buying and selling with the mark of the beast refers to the fact that Roman coins normally bore the image and name of the current emperor. "The inability to buy or sell would then be the result of the refusal to use Roman coins." Quote is by Professor Adela Yarbro Collins, she joined the Yale Divinity School in 2000 after teaching at the University of Chicago Divinity School for nine years. Prior to that, she was a professor in the Department of Theology at the University of Notre Dame. Source: Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse, Westminster John Knox Press, (1984) Page 126. Raquel_Baranow (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

United(6 letters) States(6) Dollar(6): the "666 mark of the Beast that everyone must have to buy or sell with" - The Revelation Chapter 13. On the back of the US $1 Dollar Bill, the #13 is encoded 13 times, i.e. ANNUIT COEPTIS(13), E PLURIBUS UNUM(13). Simply counting the number of letters in a word/name/phrase and giving that number symbolic meaning is Step #1 in any language's gematria as in Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74) - google that... Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6) was the "666 1st Beast" or Ronald(6) W.(1) Reagan(6) was the "616 1st Beast" whose actions were the opposite of the Christ. "I saw a beast rise up out of the sea" (Rev 13:1) prophecies the only movie that Ronnie & Nancy Davis Reagan appeared in together: Hellcats of the Navy (1957) which was based on the book Hellcats of the Sea about a submarine commander during WWII and his love interest Helen. As the 40th US president, Reagan was "ruler of the world, lied to all nations and was wounded yet lived". When they bought their California ranch, its address was 666 St. Cloud Road: they immediately had it changed to 668. Reagan was born on 2/6, Matthew 2:6 (KJV), "Out of you will come a governor to rule my people Israel." Reagan was Governor of California - "his feet were as the feet of a bear" (Rev 13:2) - before becoming US president... George Walker Bush Jr. was the "2nd Beast" whose actions were the opposite of the Christ. "He exercised all the power/authority of the 1st Beast...he made fire come down from the heavens" with the "destruction of Babylon" Iraq War. Bush Jr. was president on 6/6/06 and 6:66 am = 7:06. George Walker Bush Jr. & Nancy Reagan were both born on 7/6, Matthew 7:6, "Don't give what is holy to dogs, don't throw your pears to swine, they'll trample them and turn on you." - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Gematria / Isopsephy (Abjad numerals/hisab al-jummal) is NOT numerology, although a numerologist can use it
The alphanumeric code/cipher of gematria (Hebrew & English), isopsephy (Greek), or Abjad numerals/hisab al-jummal (Arabic) is often mistakenly called numerology. A numerologist can use gematria, but a numerologist can also use one's height & weight and that doesn't make one's height & weight numerology. A numerologist can also use one's area code & zip code, but that doesn't make one's area code & zip code numerology. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ronald(6 letters) Wilson(6) Reagan(6) / Ronald(6) W.(1) Reagan(6): the "666 1st Beast", George Walker Bush Jr.: "2nd Beast", United(6) States(6) Dollar(6): the "666 mark of the Beast"
Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6) was the "666 1st Beast" or Ronald(6) W.(1) Reagan(6) was the "616 1st Beast" whose actions were the opposite of the Christ. "I saw a beast rise up out of the sea" (Rev 13:1) prophecies the only movie that Ronnie & Nancy Davis Reagan appeared in together: Hellcats of the Navy (1957) which was based on the book Hellcats of the Sea about a submarine commander during WWII and his love interest Helen. As the 40th US president, Reagan was "ruler of the world, lied to all nations and was wounded yet lived". When they bought their California ranch, its address was 666 St. Cloud Road: they immediately had it changed to 668. Reagan was born on 2/6, Matthew 2:6 (KJV), "Out of you will come a governor to rule my people Israel." Reagan was Governor of California - "his feet were as the feet of a bear" (Rev 13:2) - before becoming US president... George Walker Bush Jr. was the "2nd Beast" whose actions were the opposite of the Christ. "He exercised all the power/authority of the 1st Beast...he made fire come down from the heavens" with the "destruction of Babylon" Iraq War. Bush Jr. was president on 6/6/06 and 6:66 am = 7:06. George Walker Bush Jr. & Nancy Reagan were both born on 7/6, Matthew 7:6, "Don't give what is holy to dogs, don't throw your pears to swine, they'll trample them and turn on you."... United(6 letters) States(6) Dollar(6): the "666 mark of the Beast that everyone must have to buy or sell with" - The Revelation Chapter 13. On the back of the US $1 Dollar Bill, the #13 is encoded 13 times, i.e. ANNUIT COEPTIS(13), E PLURIBUS UNUM(13). Simply counting the number of letters in a word/name/phrase and giving that number symbolic meaning is Step #1 in any language's gematria as in Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74) - google that. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No Original Research, pleaseFarsight001 (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup needed
The article is currently confusing to read and appears to be a summary of miscellaneous groups' religious interpretations of some Biblical passage. Do we really need a section on how RFID chips are a sign of the end times? This needs a rewrite from a non-fiction perspective. Augurar (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I 2nd this. It is a wonder and not a worth in wiki as is needed. A serious editor needs to come in and clean this up. It has gotten out of hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.44.181 (talk • contribs)


 * Re removal of anything: From what I've read on the topic, it's doing a fair job of presenting the diversity of notable views, with a primary focus on the (still diverse) views of Christians. It does not, for example, go into Aleister Crowley's Thelemic interpretations (although it's notable, it doesn't quite come to due weight).  At the moment, removing anything would be removing minimally WP:DUE weight.  If anything, certain sections need to be expanded, and we need to add a historicist section.
 * Re rewriting: I'm open to that possibility. It's not confusing to me (and I don't see how it is confusing), but I've actually studied the topic before from a comparative standpoint.  It could possibly be made clearer that, with the exception of the bit from Bahai and Kabbalah, everything in the article concerns a broad spectrum of Christian belief.
 * Re rearranging: The article currently follows the structure of the originating verse in question, its most common form followed by a less common but academically accepted form; then the most common preterist and historicist attempts to identify the historically relevant practice of gematria; then the most common Christian views of the Mark, followed by three small bits on ideas from outside mainstream Christianity.
 * Re RFID chips: It is not fiction that some people believe that RFID chips are going to be the mark of the Beast. If y'all had bothered to check the sources, you'd know that.  I don't believe it (I'm more of an idealist and partial preterist, personally), but it's attested in WP:RSs for a reason.
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I realize I wasn't very specific. After having given it more thought, let me clarify.
 * What I primarily found confusing about the article is it presumes background knowledge about Christian mythology which the reader may not possess. For instance, in the "Revelation 13:18" section, the article states "The Number of the beast is described in the passage of Revelation 13:15–18.", then without further explanation, immediately launches into a discussion of minor details of text and translation.  For the uninitiated reader, this is insufficient to explain what the number is or why these details matter.  Similarly, the "Interpretations" section states that "Interpreting the identity and the number of the Beast usually falls into three categories", leaving the reader still wondering what the significance of the number is and why one would want to interpret it.  The article needs more "glue" sentences to provide context.  For example: "Over the centuries, Christian thinkers have attempted to link the Number of the Beast and other aspects of Revelations to real-world people and events."
 * Another concern I have is the weight afforded to the different perspectives (see WP:DUE). For example, I suspect that many or even most Christians do not interpret Revelations in terms of an impending apocalypse, but either take the idealist view or just de-emphasize it entirely.  However, this is not made clear by the article.  This is what I meant by my comment about RFID chips - some people may believe this, but we can't and shouldn't include every fringe theory just because a few crackpots believe in it.
 * Lastly, what I meant by a "non-fiction perspective" is an approach to the material as a historical and cultural phenomenon. It might be helpful to look at articles about religions with no current adherents, e.g. Ancient Egyptian concept of the soul, for comparison.
 * Here are some concrete improvements I would suggest
 * Add a "Background" section with some historical context about Revelations in general and the Beast in particular, and their significance in Christian theology. Information about how views and interpretations have changed over time would also be helpful.  For instance: "In the Middle Ages, yadda yadda yadda.  In recent times, interest in Revelations has increased within some branches of Christianity, especially ...", etc.
 * Include a blockquote of the relevant passage of Revelations, in English
 * Add more transitional sentences to the beginnings of sections to place them in context
 * Rewrite or restructure the interpretations section to give appropriate weight to the various beliefs, and to make it clear who holds such beliefs. Are there particular groups or sects that tend to adhere to one or another view?  Are some views more or less mainstream or orthodox?  And so on.
 * Augurar (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia
I propose that Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia should be merged into this article. It makes sense to discuss the fear of this number in the article about the number. The "phobia" article also fails to adequately distinguish between the specific phobia (irrational fear) and people who avoid the number out of superstition. These topics are best treated together in this article, rather than in an article on a "phobia" (which may not actually be a recognized psychological condition).--Srleffler (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There being no objections...--Srleffler (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)