JSRG
Well-Known Member
- Apr 14, 2019
- 2,146
- 1,365
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
The Calculation of 666 (Revelation 13:18)
The widespread use of 99.9% hand sanitizer became a symbol of pandemic measures.
Some interpret the "99.9%" label as a representation of 666 when inverted,
fulfilling the prophecy of calculating the number of the beast in Revelation 13:18:
“This calls for wisdom:
let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast,
for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.”
This symbolic transformation is seen as a sign of compliance with the beast system,
as 99.9% sanitation measures became ubiquitous.
The idea that the Number of the Beast is in any way connected to "99.9%" is simply absurd. The Number of the Beast is not three 6's in a row; it is the numerical value of six hundred and sixty six. This is made more obvious in the Greek, where it is written χξς (with a line above it to show it's a numeral). In Greek numerals, χ means six hundred, ξ means sixty, and ς means six; they add up to six hundred and sixty six. It is the numerical value of six hundred and sixty six. It is not three 6's, so trying to find some pattern based on three 6's does not work (similarly, 66.6 or 6.66 miss the mark because they are not six hundred and sixty six).
But this claim goes even further than that absurdity. It doesn't merely take three 6's (which is already going against what Revelation actually says, because again it refers to the numerical value), it then "inverts" them into 999. But even that stretch isn't enough, because it then has to change 999 to 99.9. The stretches required to arrive at this should be obvious.
And just to top it all off, John explicitly says that six hundred and sixty six is the number of the name of the Beast. The 99.9% doesn't come from anyone's name.
John said the Number of the Beast was six hundred and sixty six. The idea that when he wrote six hundred and sixty six, what he really meant was ninety-nine and nine tenths is simply absurd. If John had meant ninety-nine and nine tenths, he would've written that. He didn't. He wrote six hundred and sixty six.
Upvote
0