Is "www" in Hebrew equal to 666?

[TheGloryisHere]

Christians sometimes get to a point of blocking out verses like this because we've seen so much misinterpretation or conjecture. But we need to remember that "Six hundred sixty and six" wasn't written by sensationalists and conspiracy theorists. It was part of a visionary experience the apostle John had, which we accept as the Word of God.

Re 13:17 and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.

Re 14:11 ...whoever receives the mark of his name.

Re 15:2 ...those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and the number of his name.

(From Strong's definitions -- number can also mean multitudes, and name can mean whatever is represented under a name.)



Other times 666 was used in the Bible--
Ezra 2, within a listing of the Israelites who came out of Babylonian captivity, to show the number of the sons of Adonikam.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva] Adonikam = "my lord arose" [/FONT]

1. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]
   [*] the head of an Israelite clan who returned from exile[/FONT]

2Ch 9:13 and1Ki 10:14
Now the weight of gold which came to Solomon in one year was 666 talents of gold.(To complete the building of the temple.)

I'm not implying anything by posting this.. just throwing out information for others to reflect on.

Very interesting information, heron.

 

[Trish1947]

That's interesting.... do you know where to find the manuscript? These are the links to the Greek, but from the familiar translation.

his number is six hundred and sixty-six

There are several sites on the net about it. I guess scholars have known about it for years. But they don't think it changes anything. If we're not sure what it is yet, I'm not sure that would be true.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44169

 

[NacDan]

they said Kissinger was the anti-christ too, and I was stupid enough to read the book and believe them. LOL

Kissinger may have been the false prophet.

Danny

 

[probinson]

To add to the list of theories;

I've heard it said that because 6 is the number of man, the number 666 is represenative of;

Man's way of finance
Man's way of government
Man's way of religion

Being as I have not studied this myself, I really can't go any deeper than that, but I do remember thinking to myself, gee, that makes a lot of sense when I first heard it with the supporting evidence and scripture that was given.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Or possibly just incomplete triunely? Incomplete in body, incomplete in soul, and incomplete in spirit? 666.

To add to the list of theories;

I've heard it said that because 6 is the number of man, the number 666 is represenative of;

Man's way of finance
Man's way of government
Man's way of religion

Being as I have not studied this myself, I really can't go any deeper than that, but I do remember thinking to myself, gee, that makes a lot of sense when I first heard it with the supporting evidence and scripture that was given.

In a way that makes sence b/c it could also represent Isreal (religion) Rome (government) except put in Greece (culture) and you have all the prevailing forces that were in effect when Christ died. All three of those languages were written above the cross.

 

[JoelParks]

Very interesting information, heron.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c364/JP888/Outlines-Timelines/Adonikam.jpg





http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c364/JP888/Outlines-Timelines/888Yshua.jpg





http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c364/JP888/Outlines-Timelines/RomanNumerals.jpg

 

[TreeOfLife]

Need some Hebrew scholarship here:

If the number had been written in Hebrew like this: six six six, would the person reading it understood something other than our number 666? Meaning, would grammatical rules have rendered it as six plus six plus six, or 18?

What I'm getting at is; is it possible that it was rendered as six hundred and sixty six merely to get the three number 6's lined up?

On another note, one of the reasons that the number of man is 6 is because it denotes incompleteness, with the number of God being 7, which means complete or perfect. If the word "sin" means to fall short of perfection, which it does, (missing the mark), sin would also be the number 6, that is if it had a number.

There are three areas in which we were sinners before we were saved; the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. 666.

(just throwing around ideas here folks, don't beat me too bad! )

 

[Alpine]

I think that John wrote that in code to whoever the letter was intended for and was most likely referring to the Roman Empire.

 

[heron]

Thanks, Trish!

JoelPark's big jpegs contain charts showing that...

600 = age of the church
60= number of Israel
6= number of man


An important point that seems to come up in many of these articles, is the custom of using numbers to describe a person. We criticize people who do that now.

From Trish's WorldNetDailylink:
[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"This is an example of gematria, where numbers are based on the numerical values of letters in people's names," Parker told the UK's Independent. "Early Christians would use numbers to hide the identity of people who they were attacking: 616 refers to the Emperor Caligula."

[/FONT]
(Just spelling it out in case people don't bother with the linked articles)[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]
[/FONT]

 

[Tamara224]

There are several sites on the net about it. I guess scholars have known about it for years. But they don't think it changes anything. If we're not sure what it is yet, I'm not sure that would be true.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44169

From that article:

Regarding this new text, Parker told Britain's Church Times, "This adds weight to those who believe that it is a reference to Caligula's attempt to desecrate the Temple in Jerusalem, by having his statue erected there as part of the cult of emperor worship. "There may be a reference to it in Mark [13:14], where he refers to the 'the abomination of desolation.' But this was overlaid by the Neronian persecutions. People believed that you could get from '666' to Nero because in Greek he is the emperor Neron Caesar. And 666 is one number less than the perfect 777. The text [showing 616] is quite legible to the naked eye. It was published in 1999, but it has taken people time to catch up."​

That doesn't really make sense to me. First of all, because John didn't have the Revelation until about 96 A.D. (after the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.). So, why would John warn about Caligula (who reigned from 37-41 A.D. and died in 41 A.D.) as if he were going to desecrate the temple in the future, when the temple was already destroyed by Titus in 70? When John was having and writing down Revelation, he couldn't have been thinking of Caligula...Caligula was long gone, he couldn't have desescrated the temple because he was dead and the temple was no more.

Also, as to Nero the same things apply. Nero reigned from 54-68 and died in 68. By the time John was having the Revelation, Nero was dead and the temple was destroyed.

Both Caligula and Nero would have been far from the minds of the Christians at the time Revelation was written... the emperor at the time was probably Domitian. Although Domitian was generally not friendly to Christians, he's not known (like Nero was) for any exceptionally harsh treatment of Christians. In any event, Domitian doesn't equal 666 or 616 (I don't think)...so it's obviously not a reference to him.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

666 could be the completeness of the time of man. The end of Daniels man of iron and clay.

 

[Trish1947]

From that article:

Regarding this new text, Parker told Britain's Church Times, "This adds weight to those who believe that it is a reference to Caligula's attempt to desecrate the Temple in Jerusalem, by having his statue erected there as part of the cult of emperor worship. "There may be a reference to it in Mark [13:14], where he refers to the 'the abomination of desolation.' But this was overlaid by the Neronian persecutions. People believed that you could get from '666' to Nero because in Greek he is the emperor Neron Caesar. And 666 is one number less than the perfect 777. The text [showing 616] is quite legible to the naked eye. It was published in 1999, but it has taken people time to catch up."​

That doesn't really make sense to me. First of all, because John didn't have the Revelation until about 96 A.D. (after the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.). So, why would John warn about Caligula (who reigned from 37-41 A.D. and died in 41 A.D.) as if he were going to desecrate the temple in the future, when the temple was already destroyed by Titus in 70? When John was having and writing down Revelation, he couldn't have been thinking of Caligula...Caligula was long gone, he couldn't have desescrated the temple because he was dead and the temple was no more.

Also, as to Nero the same things apply. Nero reigned from 54-68 and died in 68. By the time John was having the Revelation, Nero was dead and the temple was destroyed.

Both Caligula and Nero would have been far from the minds of the Christians at the time Revelation was written... the emperor at the time was probably Domitian. Although Domitian was generally not friendly to Christians, he's not known (like Nero was) for any exceptionally harsh treatment of Christians. In any event, Domitian doesn't equal 666 or 616 (I don't think)...so it's obviously not a reference to him.

If the Revelation was given much earlier, but pinned much later it might make some since.

 

[heron]

John didn't have the Revelation until about 96 A.D. (after the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.). So, why would John warn about Caligula (who reigned from 37-41 A.D. and died in 41 A.D.

Good point.

 

[Trish1947]

Good point.

Do you think that Revelation tells of things that "have been, "that are" and things that are to come. And if John understood things that "have been", it still might have included past events of the church.

 

[TreeOfLife]

If the Revelation was given much earlier, but pinned much later it might make some since.

It pretty much indicates that it wasn't the case though.

Rev 1:9-12
9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."
NKJV

 

[Trish1947]

It pretty much indicates that it wasn't the case though.

Rev 1:9-12
9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."
NKJV

Yeah, that's what I meant. There's not much doubt about the timing of the Revelation. And the only way it would work, is if it was given much earlier. But it wasn't. I'm still thinking that many parts are still futuristic. I sort of lean towards that their might be parts of Revelation, that just hasn't been revealed yet, and wont be revealed or understood fully, until it's time.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

These are 7th day teachings that say that the things of the past are referred to. Daniel 7, to take it to the extreme, proves, by following laws of interpretation, that it all points forward.

 

[heron]

I don't think God gives information for no reason. There might be parts from the past that believers then could recognize, which might have given credibility or a baseline for understanding-- but there are also future tense phrases like "no one will be able to buy or to sell," and "if anyone worships the beast and his image" (instruction for future).

.. Unless the translation was biased toward the future.

 

[Tamara224]

I don't think God gives information for no reason. There might be parts from the past that believers then could recognize, which might have given credibility or a baseline for understanding-- but there are also future tense phrases like "no one will be able to buy or to sell," and "if anyone worships the beast and his image" (instruction for future).

.. Unless the translation was biased toward the future.

I agree. Also, the opening of the book makes it clear, imo, that it is talking of future events...

1The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.​

Also, the beginning of Chapter 4, when John switches from talking to the particular churches, he says ...

1After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this."​

Everything beginning with chapter 4 is detailing future events. John saw them happening, so often he wrote in the past or present tense to describe what he saw. But he saw things that are going to happen in the future. So even though he saw them (past tense) they had not yet happened when he wrote of them, they were (are) future events.

 

[heron]

Also, the opening of the book makes it clear

So true.

Back to 616, has anyone seen how that might play out? I haven't gone beyond that one article on it today.