Talk:Number of the beast

idea

Generally in the Bible and Torah, the number 7 usually means complete; 7 days to make the world, 7 years for the Tribulation, ect. The number 6 is sometimes used to mean something incomplete, or not finished. Another common theme seen in the Bible and Torah is that anything important is said repeated twice ( said 3 times total ). So if the number 666 is the number of man, would it simply mean that it is saying that man is imcomlete (6), and that this is important enough to be said three times. This is just a simple idea I heard, and i am no expert on anything in this area. If it has any relevance, could someone with more expertise in this area look it up, or make a note of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.157.151 (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Same user: i was reading more on wikipedia, and it looks like things like new ideas or unresearched ideas arnt put on. Im new to wikipedia, so apologize if this isnt allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.157.151 (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the WP policies. So your ideas can't be added without references. But I've heard ideas like that before, so you're more than welcome to add it in once you've found refs for them. Please enjoy contributing, and do get a username :) Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Christ/Antichrist which one?

Can anyone answer these questions: Who will come first, the Antichrist or the true Christ? Could it be that the Antichrist person already came and in fact began deceiving the people by cleverly disguising himself as the Christ and letting them believe in a counterfeit Bible with a false teaching that twists the truth and that the coming Antichrist is in fact the True Prophesied Christ?

And if we knew for certain that an Antichrist will come (and in fact been warned) and be able to recognize him as such, then how could he still be able to deceive the whole world and mark the people with his 666 mark as prophesied in the Book of Revelation? There is really something fishy in the New Testament Books ... more to come.

The point I'm trying to make is: how could we be sure that Jesus is really the true Christ?

Is it just me or is this article some kind of forum now??? 92.23.42.130 (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Unseen Danger of Christianity

According to the Book of Isaiah, Lucifer was cast down from heaven and an iniquity was found in him, because he said in his heart: "... I will be like the most High..." in short Lucifer wants to be like God. Now how could he just be able to do that? Simple, change his name into a a man's name, disguise himself as a teacher of righteousness, perform miracle, show pity to the downtrodden and insinuates that he and God are One! Who do you think is this guy?

The following quote has been removed as unreliable by Carl.bunderson.

Alternatively, some who take a historical view of the Book of Revelation identify the Mark of the Beast with the stamped image of the emperor's head on every coin of the Roman empire: the stamp on the hand or in the mind of all, without which no-one could buy or sell. reference: Tony Robinson,The Doomsday Code, Channel 4, 16 September 2006

Do you agree that a channel4 historical documentary is an unreliable source?. Have also a look at the rest references, used in order to built article's speculations about 666 number. All kind of speculations are presented, but the obvious (that 666 is money) is restricted as unreliable. Are all these various speculations more reliable than a channel4 historical documentary created by Tony Robinson?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicsies (talk • contribs) 09:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Roman legion size

I put a fact tag on the statement that 6666 wasn't the standard size for a Roman legion, because the legions varied over time, with roughly 5200 men at one point, and to the best of my recollection contained an additional 20% or so of people who were not formally numbered among the ranks (indeed, some camp followers were not men...) I see no obvious reason why it can't be a straight count. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Please could those who are edit-warring on the Reagan material discuss the merits of the edits here? --John (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

image

Image:666.svg is available for the article --88.238.182.126 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad's mention as the plausible Beast.

I will remover the paragraph that mentions Prophet Muhammad as, being interpreted by some scholars, the Beast. Not only is this paragraph an insult to Islam, it is not accurate, neither is it logical or convincing. This has nothing to do with religion, only sensibilty and consideration. I doubt Nero, Claudius or any of the other speculations posted have offended anyone, and therefore, as per Wikipedia's rules, I view this as an insult to all Muslims, even if it really was put up by some scholars. Not every guess can be put in an article...

Thank You,

--Walid Osama 00:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally, on wikipedia, we allow all relevant, sourced, and notable points of view on a topic. And we generally don't simply deleted sourced content because it may offend someone. I think we do need to be careful of NPOV in that we shouldn't take sides, give undue weight to minor views, or present opinions as facts. I believe this section could be soured better, but it does state a historical fact (what people believed in the middle ages) and it does state at least two individual's opinions. I think this section should be improved, not deleted outright. I'm not sure what Wikipedia rule you are referring to, especially when you admit that some scholars hold this view (and therefore NPOV says we should include it). I'd like to fix the issue that may exist in this section, so could you be more specific about the problems you have with it, or maybe even suggest some improvements? Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

666 = www = Internet?

What do you think about this? (it's written in Spanish): El 666 y su identificación con Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by El filoloco (talk • contribs) 09:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No. www translates to ווו which in turn is 6 6 6, but not six hundred three-score and six as mentioned by the Bible. ווו in Hebrew is 18, 666 would be םסו. Regardless, 666 is "the number of a man"[1], not of a global network of computers. --RucasHost (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

666 following biblical precedent

Both mentions on this number refer to the same thing, they both refer to the income of an empire. Solomon was both the King of Israel, and the Emperor of greater Israel which included nations that sent tribute. The narrative contained in Nehemiah shows foreign merchants that sell during the sabbath. Foreign merchants only sell with the authorization of the local ruler, in his case the governor of the province of Judea. Just as in Solomon's case. Revelations would then refer to a beast with seven heads, ten horns. This amounts to: six heads with one crown, one head with four, -an empire. the same empire would later be described as coming from the east. While the basis for the mark is established, the background for the mark on the forehead and hand both come from the law where it states in DT 6 that we are to fasten the word on our forehead and hand. The mark denotes authority over the individual believer, it will also apply in the future empire that will invade and exercise authority over Israel. The last detail is that; 1. consumers buy, and pay taxes. 2. merchants, sell and pay a percentage to the local ruler. 3. governments collect taxes, fees, and tribute. In other words, consumers don't buy and sell, merchants do. The same merchants would later lament the fall of Babylon with its multi-regional goods and the fall of international commerce based on trade with Babylon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radical man 7 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Biblical Meaning of 666

The Numbers in the Bible are very importent. The number 1 means the start or begining of something. 6 Means untruthfull, or unfinished. The number 4 is light, or truth. On the fourth day, God made the universe to spon it's own light. The number 7 means to be purfect, of finished. 666 Is three times the number six: Unfinished. In our time, the Anti-christ (Beast, Dragon, Bel-Yamon) in not yet here. Showing one six, is the fact that the anti-christ will appear to be an angel of light, drawing to him the people of the world.

666 is a misterious Number, and is known as the Hex. Nobody knows what it means, but the bible says: "This is wisdom: That a man with wisdom will interpret his number. His number, is 666..."

NatWill2—Preceding unsigned comment added by NatWill2 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 10 April 2008

Dont cut bible in pieces. The bible says:

"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: 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. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count(vote) the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his(its) number is ΧΞς." (Book of Revelation 13:16-13:18)."

The greek word "Psefisato" (its aorist active middle - third person singular of the verb psephizo) means "count" but also means "vote"!!! Unfortunatley no one is allowed to translate it like that, and this is an obvious conspiracy.

First of all the whole passage clearly states that the mark of the beast is a form of money ("no man might buy or sell").

Having in mind that "psefisato" also means vote, the "wisdom" becomes a recommendation.

The author of the bible recomends people to vote in order to define the nature of money, instead of leting a money maker authority (which is being established by force and violence) to decide about it.

Obviously again, the idea to vote for money is censored all these 2000 years, by all kind and forms of government.

A man with wisdom may someday awake people, so that people will vote and decide about the nature money, and be redeemed from the 2000 years-lasting economic dictatorship...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicsies (talk • contribs) 13:36, 12 April 2008

Papal Title

I removed an error in the article. Vicarus Filii Dei is not nor has ever been a title of the Pope. Apparently a Seventh Day Adventist is trying to insert POV into the article. The text cited is not scholarly. In fact it is propaganda. The editor who wants to prove that this was a papal title is going to have to do better then that.70.108.83.3 (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Raising issues concerning the reliability of a source is valid. Please consider using edit summaries to let other users know the intentions of your changes. Without further information, it appeared as if you were removing sourced information with unsourced information. The sentences you have added twice However, there is no evidence that this was ever used as a papal title. The actual title is Vicarius Christi or Vicar of Christ. are completely unsourced. On top of that, you added unsourced WP:OR regarding Ellen Gould White. You cannot add a name and some numbers. It appears as if you have something personal against Seventh Day Adventists, and that you are editing this article to push your personal point of view.

On closer examination, the source you keep removing is a 19th century catholic publication by Henry Edward Manning which presumably uses the title. The sourcing could be better, and one publication does not support the phrasing we use in the article. Perhaps some revisions are necessary, but please do not add unsourced content to the article. Let's look for additional sourcing to see what they say, and work out a compromise here on talk that we can all agree with.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked the book in question. It is a BOOK. It is NOT an official document that uses this title in an official way. If I call the pope Vicar of the Son of God that means nothing. I don't speak officially for the Church. To be a title it must have an official source and the forged Donation of Constantine does not count. Notice that the title of the book uses "Vicar of Jesus Christ." The burden is on the other editor to show that this is an official title not on me to prove it isn't. As for White, if you can't just put a name and numbers in the article then much of it must be deleted. That is a major part of the article and is the Seventh Day Adventist reasoning behind their argument. So are you willing to delete all the other names and numbers in the article? Also I must ask you a personal question: are you a Seventh Day Adventist? They are the ones who have something personal against Catholicism and insert their POV whenever they can. I will be satisfied if the offending sentence is deleted since the source is a private book and opinion and is not official.136.242.180.220 (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My religious affiliation has no bearing on this article, nor basic wikipedia policy. I would agree to remove any unsourced content if it is first fact tagged and then deleted, after a reasonable amount of time and considering no sourced were forthcoming. I hope you understand that wikipedia works on content that is verifiable, notable, and sourced to reliable sources, as opposed to just letting anyone publish anything. For example, I could do some math and claim that Paris Hilton is 666, but would it be appropriate for me to add it here? Of course not. Similarly, without notable, reliable sources stating some consider White to be 666, then it has no place in the article. Next, your point that the book isn't an official church publication is well taken. I've made a minor change to the phrasing in the article. I'd still like a few more sources to make the use of the word "occasionally" verifiably accurate. For all we know, the Manning book could be the only publication of its kind to use the phrase since the 16th century.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It does have a bearing and most SDA's don't admit their affiliation. You are correct you could make Paris Hilton add up to 666. This is exactly what is done with the Pope. You would like a "notable, reliable" source for White. I want the same for the VFD quote. Instead we have an obscure reference where someone uses this to describe, not even as a title, the Pope. It is not an official document where the Pope claims this title. Therefore, how can the Vatican repudiate a title it never claimed? The article leaves the false impression that it was once a papal title that has been discontinued. That is simply false and the source does NOT say that in the first place. So we have a misused source that doesn't say what the article says it says. If a book says I am King of England am I? I could say that I no longer use the title, but I never had it in the first place. I do not understand why a blatant error is acceptable. The fact is that the Pope has never used that title or claimed it. Even if he had it would not prove he is the beast any more then adding up White's name proves that she is the beast. The whole last sentence should simply be deleted. That will avoid giving the false impression that this was once a papal title.

I think it is fair to add White's name. Here is the way it adds up to 666: Ellen = L+L=100, Gould=U+L+D=555, White=a double 'U' = 2 'V's +1 =11. Total these three numbers, and we have, 100 + 555 + 11 = 666. So Ellen Gould White, the prophetess of Seventh Day Adventism, has a name that adds up to 666, and it is the number of a name and not of a title.

This is from Bob Stanley at http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/bobsegw6.html. As good a source as the book used for VFD. Somebody somewhere said it so it must be true, right? It is also found in the book Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid. I can use that as a reference and put it in the article. In addition some argue that Ronald Wilson Reagan has 6 letters in each name ergo 666, so he could be mentioned too. We want to be fair, don't we? You can see where this is leading. If the erroneous sentence is deleted I will drop the insistance on White's name being added. We will have reached an acceptable compromise.136.242.180.193 (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As there has been no response I will delete the sentence and that will end the issue as far as I am concerned.136.242.180.162 (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Testament

I don't feel comfortable with the following sentence, in the Old Testament section:

"According to the Bible, Solomon fell into apostasy and built altars to Chemosh, Moloch, and Ashtoreth, pagan gods to whom human sacrifices were made. (See 1 Kings 11:4-8.)"

It feels to me like a cross between a non sequitur and original research. In other words, without connective material, it doesn't feel relevant, even though I can see what the significance is meant to be. And, the connective material would need to be sourced to someone who'd thought that the 666 talents was actually significant.

So, my fingers are itching to just take that sentence out, but I thought I'd check what other people might think, first. FlorenceSanford (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the implication needs to be sourced or removed. It is original research to imply that the number 666 relates to human sacrifice to pagan gods.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I went ahead and took it out, since I didn't have a feeling that it'd be easy to source, and the whole topic is a minefield of original research. FlorenceSanford (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I might add that the reference from Martin Luther to Benedict is not sourced.136.242.180.162 (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that, again, someone slipped in the idea that VFD was an accepted papal title. This is false. I changed it back. Please stick with the facts.136.242.228.175 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken Math

There has to be some discrepancy between the sources cited for this article and the information in the article on Gematria. The "Code" section of the Gematria article shows pretty clearly that "600, threescore (60) and 6", which is the exact wording of the verse, all represent individual Hebrew characters. It is nonsensical that 666 would be used to symbolize a name or series of letters whose values have all been added up to achieve that number. What would be the point? There are too many possible combinations, as seen by the variety of explanations given in this article. It would make much more sense if it was read as: (600) Mem - (60) Samekh - (6) Waw. Surely there must be some theories taking that approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.0.139 (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you misundestood something. The greek word "Psefisato" does not only means "count" but also means "vote"!. So stop doing calculations, and try to understand what the author really said. He recommends us to vote in order to decide what money is, instead of letting a government (supported of course by violent forces) to decide about it. Xicsies (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Have a look here. In this site some people are trying to create another kind of money. A new form of money, decided and voted democraticaly by the people and not decided by a violent minority-authority-government. This is what the author of the Bible recommends 2000 years now (and nobody hears). But he who has an ear, let him hear....Xicsies (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Silly/Stupid Math

The Mathematics section here, at least the parts about triangular number and the golden rule relationship, is classical nonsense math and should really be removed.

A) It's true that it is a triangular number, but as written it has no point at all, 6*6 has nothing to do with 666 other than looks, and not even that if you think about it.

B)The golden rule part is just plain stupid. It requires that you take it out of context, arbitrarily multiplying by -1/2 and comparing it to other numbers after that. Also it looks at 666 in one case and 6*6*6 in the other. This is the sort of nonsense that looks impressive only to the ignorant and those WANTING to find something.Obbas (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and will remove it shortly. And if it belongs on WP at all, it should be at 666 (number), not here. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigma or Digamma?

While the '6' is said in the article to be a sigma, the Sigma's value is 200 to my knowledge - the 6 is the Digamma ('wau', Ϝ/ϝ, which has been written in later times as a ϛ, supposedly, appearing as an end-sigma, or stigma... hope you understand what I'm saying). Ending it with a sigma would mean its value is 600+60+200... or is this simply a matter of linguistic-numeric differences? --217.122.225.60 (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)