616 > 666 ??????

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (xenowang)

Sun, 08 May 2005 00:07:32 GMT

Thank you for proving that the question was ridiculous to begin with.

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (Drummintoad)

Sat, 07 May 2005 23:57:11 GMT

ORIGINAL: xenowang

This thread took a sour turn real quick.

If I was looking for a debate, I'd challenge you people on your statements and ask to provide evidence that the Bible is fictional but I know you wouldn't be able to

lol Can you prove that you're not fictional?

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (xenowang)

Sat, 07 May 2005 23:37:31 GMT

This thread took a sour turn real quick.

If I was looking for a debate, I'd challenge you people on your statements and ask to provide evidence that the Bible is fictional but I know you wouldn't be able to

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (sonor_paiste2003)

Sat, 07 May 2005 23:03:33 GMT

ORIGINAL: jcharney

I'm waiting until they uncover the text that says the Bible was a joke!

hahaha no kiddin. same here. they find it that it was like an ancient movie script. thats why mel gibson made so much money with it.. he knew the truth. the bible is just an ancient movie.

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (Am_I_Evil)

Sat, 07 May 2005 21:18:00 GMT

ORIGINAL: jcharney

I'm waiting until they uncover the text that says the Bible was a joke!

*me writes.....crumples up numerous times to give it that old soft feel.....rips at it.....rolls it in watered down coffee for yellowing.....hangs on line to dry....crumples again.....puts in dump*

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (jcharney)

Sat, 07 May 2005 21:12:45 GMT

I'm waiting until they uncover the text that says the Bible was a joke!

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (Cassie5563)

Sat, 07 May 2005 21:05:02 GMT

The fragment was part of a hoard of previously illegible manuscripts discovered in an ancient garbage dump

Wow that's a lot to base a belief system upon

/wonders what it must have felt like to be among the generation who fucking learned that the fucking earth revolved around the fucking sun and not the other fucking way around

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (KERMITthePROG)

Sat, 07 May 2005 13:23:07 GMT

Dear Readers,

I'd like to remind everybody that my thread (this one) is suaved! please view SIX!ONE!SIX... thread. that is all. thank you.

P.S. -I guess this one does have some different info on it though...

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (Nasser)

Sat, 07 May 2005 13:14:38 GMT

ORIGINAL: romdrums

616-that was my old area code in Grand Rapids, MI. Explains a lot about the area then.

you're d00m'd.

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (mandrake)

Sat, 07 May 2005 12:32:46 GMT

ORIGINAL: mr.snruB

I'd Suave you, but I'm too lazy

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (romdrums)

Sat, 07 May 2005 12:14:22 GMT

616-that was my old area code in Grand Rapids, MI. Explains a lot about the area then.

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (mr.snruB)

Sat, 07 May 2005 11:35:27 GMT

Ha! Suavage!

http://www.mikeportnoy.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=853100

.....I think I got too much enjoyment out of that

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (Nasser)

Sat, 07 May 2005 11:30:13 GMT

pfft.. scholars.

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (mr.snruB)

Sat, 07 May 2005 11:23:38 GMT

no, I'm pretty sure there was another thread about this specifically dedicated to the subject. Anyways, this is an interesting topic and I wonder if anyone will change what number they'll use as the Number of the Beast. I'm sticking with the old one

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (henri_ds)

Sat, 07 May 2005 11:22:11 GMT

Maiden will have to modify the chorus of The Number of The Beast when they do it live....=)

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (xdrummer2000)

Sat, 07 May 2005 11:21:57 GMT

Next year is 06/01/06! That probably doesn't mean anything apocalyptic, though, as 1906 had that date, and so did every century before that. It's just a coincidence.

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (Am_I_Evil)

Sat, 07 May 2005 11:21:25 GMT

ORIGINAL: KERMITthePROG

ORIGINAL: Am_I_Evil

ORIGINAL: mr.snruB

I'd Suave you, but I'm too lazy

as am i....i started to search for it....since i posted the links....but

ahhh...fuck it....

Sorry, thought I did a thorough search....
sneaky thread!

yeah....it was in a thread that had nothing to do with it originally....i guess this would be the first thread actually dedicated to this topic though....

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (KERMITthePROG)

Sat, 07 May 2005 11:20:33 GMT

ORIGINAL: Am_I_Evil

ORIGINAL: mr.snruB

I'd Suave you, but I'm too lazy

as am i....i started to search for it....since i posted the links....but

ahhh...fuck it....

Sorry, thought I did a thorough search....
sneaky thread!

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (mr.snruB)

Sat, 07 May 2005 11:17:26 GMT

anyways, 666 is what people know. Its got symbolism. When people want to scare people they use whats widely known as the number of the Beast, they don't want to give some Greek history lesson just to explain why they are using 616. If I used 616 on Halloween decorations nobody would be freaked out, and I'd probably get kicked in the nuts or something. Therefore, I will keep using 666 as the number

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (Am_I_Evil)

Sat, 07 May 2005 11:16:57 GMT

ORIGINAL: Fenix

Iron Maiden just got pwned by history.

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (BalaamsDonkey)

Sat, 07 May 2005 11:15:50 GMT

They found a piece of paper burried in a garbage dump from AD 43 and instead of the 666th emperor of rome they think it was the 616th. I cannot remember the emperors name but he had a statue of himself placed in the inner temple and so they think it was a code used to show the end was near.

It was on discovery yesterday.

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (Am_I_Evil)

Sat, 07 May 2005 11:15:40 GMT

ORIGINAL: mr.snruB

I'd Suave you, but I'm too lazy

as am i....i started to search for it....since i posted the links....but

ahhh...fuck it....

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (SauciSquirrel)

Sat, 07 May 2005 11:14:53 GMT

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.

Agreed. Though I'll admit that this was very interesting to read. I LOVE demonology and theology; this touches both! *thumbs up*

EDIT:

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (Fenix)

Sat, 07 May 2005 11:13:12 GMT

Iron Maiden just got pwned by history.

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (mr.snruB)

Sat, 07 May 2005 11:13:00 GMT

I'd Suave you, but I'm too lazy

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (Chris_2112)

Sat, 07 May 2005 11:12:21 GMT

Whoa

So where'd they get 666 from, if it wasn't clear. I assumed there were multiple sources, not just the one Revelations reference. Weird.

RE: 616 > 666 ?????? (NetShark)

Sat, 07 May 2005 11:11:46 GMT

616 the number of the beeaaaaaaaaast!!

616 > 666 ?????? (KERMITthePROG)

Sat, 07 May 2005 11:10:05 GMT

So I found this article on the National Post website, basically saying that the number of the beast is actually 616!!!!

So are history, movies, music, and sermons going to be re-written?

Beast's real mark devalued to '616'
Revelation fragment

article link

Chris Wattie
National Post
Wednesday, May 04, 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."

Â© National Post 2005