Posted on 05/06/2005 9:22:56 AM PDT by KidGlock
Beast's real mark devalued to '616'
Revelation fragment
Chris Wattie National Post
May 4, 2005
Satanists, apocalypse watchers and heavy metal guitarists may have to adjust their demonic numerology after a recently deciphered ancient biblical text revealed that 666 is not the fabled Number of the Beast after all.
A fragment from the oldest surviving copy of the New Testament, dating to the Third century, gives the more mundane 616 as the mark of the Antichrist.
Ellen Aitken, a professor of early Christian history at McGill University, said the discovery appears to spell the end of 666 as the devil's prime number.
"This is a very nice piece to find," Dr. Aitken said. "Scholars have argued for a long time over this, and it now seems that 616 was the original number of the beast."
The tiny fragment of 1,500-year-old papyrus is written in Greek, the original language of the New Testament, and contains a key passage from the Book of Revelation.
Where more conventional versions of the Bible give 666 as the "number of the beast," or the sign of the anti-Christ whose coming is predicted in the book's apocalyptic verses, the older version uses the Greek letters signifying 616.
"This is very early confirmation of that number, earlier than any other text we've found of that passage," Dr. Aitken said. "It's probably about 100 years before any other version."
The fragment was part of a hoard of previously illegible manuscripts discovered in an ancient garbage dump outside the Egyptian city of Oxyrhynchus. Although the papyrus was first excavated in 1895, it was badly discoloured and damaged. Classics scholars at Oxford University were only recently able to read it using new advanced imaging techniques.
Elijah Dann, a professor of philosophy and religion at the University of Toronto, said the new number is unlikely to make a dent in the popularity of 666.
"Otherwise, a lot of sermons would have to be changed and a lot of movies rewritten," he said with a laugh. "There's always someone with an active imagination who can put another interpretation on it.
"It just shows you that when you study something as cryptic and mystic as the Book of Revelation there's an almost unlimited number of interpretations."
The book is thought to have been written by the disciple John and according to the King James Bible, the traditional translation of the passage reads: "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."
But Dr. Aitken said that translation was drawn from much later versions of the New Testament than the fragment found in Oxyrhynchus. "When we're talking about the early biblical texts, we're always talking about copies and they are copies made, at best, 150 to 200 years after [the original] was written," she said.
"They can have mistakes in the copying, changes for political or theological reasons ... it's like a detective story piecing it all together."
Dr. Aitken said, however, that scholars now believe the number in question has very little to do the devil. It was actually a complicated numerical riddle in Greek, meant to represent someone's name, she said.
"It's a number puzzle -- the majority opinion seems to be that it refers to [the Roman emperor] Nero."
Revelation was actually a thinly disguised political tract, with the names of those being criticized changed to numbers to protect the authors and early Christians from reprisals. "It's a very political document," Dr. Aitken said. "It's a critique of the politics and society of the Roman empire, but it's written in coded language and riddles."
By their shootouts, thou shalt know them.
You are a freaking genius! Very clever - and scary........lol
What-ever...if a governmental system arises with an almost irresistably charismatic leader at the helm who says "if you love me take my symbol on your right hand or forehead" then be afraid...be very afraid!
My inlaws still do :~)..
Bloody hands.
as in:
"You're in Bloody Hands with Allah State"...
Well, the Mormons claim that a voice from heaven told the witnesses to the Book of Mormon that the translation was correct. So if it was correct, why have there been nearly 4000 changes made to it since then?
Joseph Smith tried to change the Book of Mormon to support his concept of a plurality of Gods. One of the most significant changes was made in 1 Nephi 13:40. In the 1830 edition it was stated that the very purpose of the Nephite records was to make known that Christ is the Eternal Father: "... These last records, ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world ..." (Book of Mormon, 1830 ed., p.32). In the current edition, three words have been interpolated: "... These last records, ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world...." That is but ONE example of Smith changing the BOM as his doctrine changed. Yet, "the voice" told him it was correct to begin with. Ohhhhhhhh, "the voice" must have meant "as far as correctly translated".
Now, wrong numbers, that's pretty interesting.
LOL. As interesting as not being able to make up one's mind who God/Christ is?
Beyond that, I can show you where the BOM teaches one thing and the LDS Church teaches another on many, many things.
Is there one God? BOM says YES, LDS says NO
Is God a Spirit? BOM says YES, LDS says NO
Does God dwell in one's heart? BOM says YES, LDS says NO
God Cannot Lie according to the BOM, yet God COMMANDS it in the Smith's "Pearl of Great Price".
Is God's Word unchangeable? BOM says NO, LDS says YES
Was there Pre-Existence of Man? BOM says NO, LDS says YES
Does death seal a man's fate? BOM says YES, LDS says NO
Are the heathen saved without baptism? BOM says YES, LDS says NO
Can murder be forgiven? BOM says YES, LDS says NO
Polygamy is condemned in the BOM, while the LDS Church later said that polygamy was COMMANDED!
The BOM is against paid ministry, while D&C is FOR it.
The heart and soul of LDS doctrine is that man can evolve into a god. Yet, there is not even a whiff of that in the BOM.
And on and on...
Now THAT'S interesting. :-)
Nonsense. God would not allow his Word to come down to his people with such an important detail corrupted.
The original was 666, not 616 if God is sovereign and worthy of worship.
If God would let his Word become corrupted, what else can't we trust?
The number is 666.
And I should note that I don't pay much attention to end times theology stuff...I reject Hal Lindsey and similar nutcases.
But, I believe God's word to be true and if this is wrong, I would not know what else to trust.
You must think that you are an expert on the BOM? Ever read it or just some silly anti-Mormon books and websites?
I have read it and certainly know enought about it (as demonstrated) that I don't need to hear someone arrogantly comment "see, we were right all along...as far as correctly translated" in regards to the Bible. This article offers no proof whatsoever that the Bible has been incorrectly translated, yet you are too happy to swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Why? Because you want it to be so?
Because it is so.
LOL Well, at least you aren't trying to pass yourself off as a Bible-loving Christian.
If you believe in the "oldest is best" theory that you are applying here to the Bible, then you must also apply it the Book of Mormon, and if you apply it the BOM, then you are left with the choice of believing in it OR the LDS Church, but certainly not both.
I'm guessing you're not ready to be as intellectually honest with the BOM as you think you are with the Bible.
You would guess wrong. Remember that little difference between "kill" and "murder" in the 10 commandments you folks are so fond of? That was a purposeful change in the KJV translation. How many more? Who knows? How many omissions? Who knows.
LOL I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see a Mormon draw battle lines instead of trying to "blend in" with the Christian world. The current LDS leadership must have been driving you crazy for the past 2 or 3 decades as they've tried to become more "PC" in a Christian way.
You would guess wrong.
Oh no, my friend, the more you run down the Bible only makes my point stronger. You aren't intellectually honest enough to apply the same strict standards to the BOM and the LDS Church that you want applied to the Bible.
I dare say I can find more changes, alterations, and omissions in the BOM in its brief history than you could hope to find in the Bible that has stood the test of time for thousands of years.
Some of the major revelations are intriguingly timed as well, such as the denouncing of polygamy when previously it had been commanded and the announcement that blacks were people too.
True, they fixed that last detail about a century before some people caught on.
True, they fixed that last detail about a century before some people caught on.
Oh? They didn't allow blacks to hold the priesthood until 1978, if that's what you are referring to. It's been a little easier for BYU to recruit some athletes since then. LOL
You know, I was thinking 1870's, but I went to check and all I can find is the 1970's one! That makes the timing even more convenient! ;-)
My oldest Bible with a concordance says the number is either 666 or 616. Must be a slow news day.
Yes, another example of them trying to be more "PC" and blend in. For over a hundred years the Mormon leaders had taught that blacks could not be given the priesthood until the millennium. I guess the pressures of mainstream Christianity, the civil rights movement, and the need for better athletes at BYU just word God down, and so He changed His mind. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.