Tell Pat Robertson that 666 is NOT the number of the beast--it's 616

[Nikki Stone 1]

I found this highly amusing. :)

Revelation! 666 is not the number of the beast (it's a devilish 616)
By Tom Anderson
news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=634679

A newly discovered fragment of the oldest surviving copy of the New
Testament indicates that, as far as the Antichrist goes, theologians,
scholars, heavy metal groups, and television evangelists have got the
wrong number. Instead of 666, it's actually the far less ominous 616.
The new fragment from the Book of Revelation, written in ancient Greek
and dating from the late third century, is part of a hoard of previously unintelligible manuscripts discovered in historic dumps outside Oxyrhynchus in Egypt. Now a team of expert classicists, using new photographic techniques, are finally deciphering the original writing. Professor David Parker, Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism and Paleography at the University of Birmingham, thinks that 616, although less memorable than 666, is the original. He said: "This is an example of gematria, where numbers are based on the numerical values of letters in people's names. Early Christians would use numbers to hide the identity of people who they were attacking: 616 refers to the Emperor Caligula."

The Book of Revelation is traditionally considered to be written by
John, a disciple of Jesus; it identifies 666 as the mark of the Antichrist. In America, the fundamentalist Christian right often use the number in sermons about the coming Apocalypse. They and satanists responded coolly to the new "Revelation". Peter Gilmore,
High Priest of the Church of Satan, based in New York, said: "By using
666 we're using something that the Christians fear. Mind you, if they do switch to 616 being the number of the beast then we'll start using that."

[chalky]

1. Wait! What's Crawford's area code? n/m

[kansasblue]

4. wait...wait.... It's 1600

[aeolian]

2. *sigh* not a revalation...old news...

this is the result of an ambiguity in one of the many, many translations through which the bible has gone. This is not new.

[Nikki Stone 1]

3. Ah, you're just way ahead of the curve.

:)

[aeolian]

7. LOL

Not what I meant, but I'll take it. :)

:toast:

[Tempest]

5. Are they sure it's not 661?

Oh, wait.

That's my area code.

[imax2268]

6. man...

that blows a hole in the death metal scene doesn't it...?

[Clark2008]

8. LOL!

:rofl:

[lala_rawraw]

9. Greek is not the native language of the book...

I actually learned Aramaic for historic study of various texts and thank god, promptly forgot it. The number is derived not by the language (example: the number is six six six), but by the letters themselves (example, in english tough, but will try: D O G = 123), much like Ancient Hebrew. They are similar languages, but scholars of that time used Aramaic mostly and scholars would be the ones doing the writing. I assume the translation simply accounts for the use of the numerical structure of the Hebrew/Aramaic languages. It is 666. Also, it fits precisely with the concept in Jewish mysticism of 777... long story, but it would be the antithesis.

[lala_rawraw]

10. Gematria is far more complex...

Is this article leaving out the process because I don't understand how a Greek version could be used in Gematria, although the Greek numerical structure does exist, it is not as widely used in the culture as with the Hebrew culture. Someone should mention to Mel Gibson, however, that the people in his movie running around speaking Aramaic were all either scholars or his movie was simply idiotic in its attempt toward credibility.