Talk:616 (number)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Numbers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Is there no explanation about how the papyrus worded the number 616. Is there no exerpt or quote to pull from for this? And if the papyrus is not the oldest version of revalations (see bottom of discussion) then why are people even reading it? ~~CLH —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does it need to decuss the apparent many ways 616 is said, pointless.

The thing is the papyrus found ws sid to be dated at around 300AD which means John (who wrote revalation) couldn't have written what was on it like they say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification Was Added Due to Confusion Based on Modern Arabic Numbering[edit]

I added some information clarifying how numbers are written in Greek. There is no reason to revert it. (EnochBethany (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC))

Your information is wrong, or at least WP:FRINGE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
χξς is generally considered to represent 600+60+6, rather than 6+6+6, as you claim. I do not believe modern Greeks use that system of numerology, so the error is reasonable, although not in the video you point to as a source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
My information is correct & hardly fringe. I didn't make the claim you say I made. I said that a number 666 would be interpreted in ancient Greek thought as 6 + 6 + 6. Of course the text is not 666, it is χ + ξ + ς (600 + 60 + 6). And I added that to my paragraph to clarify. Any claim you made on my talk page implying that numerology or gematria or playing mystically with numbers is generally academically accepted is false; such fanciful playing with letters in texts is rightly debunked scientifically. Now the idea that ancient persons and modern can be found who practiced such numerology is of course true. There was nothing wrong about my citation, but I added another one just for good measure. The idea that ancient Greeks would have regarded 3 alphabet-numbers as having Arabic place value, is an error, as is shown by the texts that spell out the number of the beast in comparison with those that use mere letter-numbers. And it is an error that needs identification in articles on the number of the beast.(EnochBethany (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC))
666 means "six-hundred sixty-six" in English, and 616 means "six-hundred sixteen" in English. Thus it is patently wrong to say that 616 and 666 are not found Revelation. This is the English Wikipedia, so saying that 666 is not six-hundred and sixty-six is unacceptable. Please learn to count before editing the article again. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
However, if the "biblestudytools" source is reliable, it could be used as a source contradicting the "Nero" speculation which might be in the other sources. (I haven't read them yet.) The rest of the analysis in "biblestudytools" is WP:FRINGE, at best. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It isn't using the best sources I've seen (Number of the beast has better), but I've been under the impression that the 616=Nero bit is common in academia, though not necessarily in the church pews and Sunday schools. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It's gotten worse.... Nero=616 is common in academia, but the "number of the beast" in Revelation 13 is still almost always "666". (I've seen it attributed in interpretations as the number of "Man", not the number of a man, as well, through multiple transliterations and then applying numerology. As Chebychev has at least 6 acceptable transliterations into English, I, and I believe even Biblical scholars who believe the Bible to be "the word of God" without typos, would consider numerology based on transliteration to be absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

factual accuracy[edit]

You labeled The Number of the Beast section "This section's factual accuracy is disputed" but not in a way that indicates which facts you consider in dispute. tahc chat 22:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)