Talk:Number of the beast

"666 also has certain properties of a mathematical nature"

Was this meant to be a joke? 666 is a number: noting that it has "has certain properties of a mathematical nature" is like noting that a cat has certain properties of a biological nature. Jacquerie27 14:16 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

It is not a joke. The only reason for all the obsessision about 666 in a mathethical context is the fact that it occurs in the Book of Revelations, and that people have this thing about connecting all sorts of magic properties to it. That sort to play with number is fun for some, perhaps dead serious for some, but in an encyclopedic context that sort of activity can only be characterized as numerology. If there is a need for an article on the pure mathemathical issues of 666, which I really doubt there is, then it should most certainly not be called "Number of the Beast"-anything. Really - that would be infantile - at best. -- Egil 14:59 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether English is your mother tongue. Is it? My point was that you were stating the obvious: by definition, all numbers have mathematical properties. 666 is FAMOUS because it appears in Revelation, but that does not mean all facts about 666 are numerological. Here is a mathematical property of 666: it is a triangular number, like 36. That is not numerology, it is mathematics. 666 is a repdigit, so it would have attracted some attention from mathematicians anyway. Jacquerie27 17:11 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

I think this should be moved. It's not really about the mathematics of the number, by and large. How about:

Tuf-Kat

One article should be enough, but the "(mathematics)" is really not appropriate. I think Number of the Beast (numerology) would be much more appropriate. Other interpretations should be put in the Number of the Beast disambiguation page. -- Egil 09:39 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

I agree -- I should have thought more carefully about it. Number of the Beast (numerology) looks best. Jacquerie27

I partly agree. Without any feelings mathematics also deals with such numbers as 666, 333, 999, 42, π, etc. no matter what other pseudo-sciences may find in these numbers. Why (let us say pure) number 666 should be treated specially within something called numerology. Mathematicians generally do not support numerology although they "secretly" deal with it. How about a pure name six hundred sixty six as numbers 0, 1, 2... are already treated? We should also remember about what Godfrey Harold Hardy think about the role of one mathematician. We could perhaps transfer his opinions to the world of numerology as well. Best regards. --XJamRastafire 12:34 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

If the number 666 is interesting enough from a mathemathical point of view, I see no trouble with a maths page. But numerology does not belong in a "(mathematics)" article. Also note that the articles one, two etc. contains all aspects of those numbers, not only mathematical. So one alternative might be to have a generic page for the number 666. Whatever, really, but please do not use the term "Number of the Beast" in a mathematical context. -- Egil 13:41 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

PS: There seems to be so much interest in this number that I think there is a market for a calculator that displays "Number of the Beast" whenever the result is 666. Anyone interested in licensing this idea may do so for $1, the same licensing fee that applied to the Arthur head screwdriver. -- Egil

Problem with Microchip Implants

The fourth problem is that, if the mark could be considered a microchip implant, then it no longer functions as a "mark" since it is invisible. The Greek word charagma (mark) denotes a stamp or an impression upon the skin - ie something that is visible to the naked eye and whose function depends upon this visibility.

Actually, on some websites that promote literal and conspiratorial views for Revelation do manage to use the word charmaga to support their claim that the mark is microchip implant. They say that charmaga has its word origins in the Greek word charax, which in turn can either be said to mean “stick into,” or, “sharpen to a point” or palisade (fence); they could also say that charasso on which charax is derived also means “sharpen to a point.” The significance of all of this is that conspiracy theorist or literalists can point to either charax or charasso as say that their meanings implicate a hypodermic needle from which a microchip implant can be embedded under the skin. I’m not sure how valid their claims and reasoning are, but this could affect the integrity of the above portion of this article.--YanA 22:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reply Thanks for your comment on this issue. I'll just quote from Ulrich Witkins from the Theological Dictonary of the Net Testament, vol. 9, pg 416:

(it) is an engraved, etched, branded or inscribed "mark" or "sign". Closest to (its) original sense.. is the earliest example in Soph. Phil., 267, where (it) denotes the bite of a snake. Elsewhere the term means "inscription"... or anything written..., and especially the impressed or branded "stamp" eg a brand to mark camels.

There is more but I don't know how to write Greek letters here in Wikipedia. Basically it asserts that Charagma is a visible mark. As for the integrity of Witkins and the TDNT, as far as I understand, it is the premier reference book on Biblical Greek words. One Salient Oversight 08:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Response

While I don't mean to question your knowledge on this issue (judging from the page on Wikipedia, it would seem that you are extremely knowledgable on the subject of religion) and nor do I support such beliefs I feel it is necessary to say that another point of contention that can be argued about the mark not being a microchip implant is the relationship between the number 6 and the Greek word stigma. In Greek when the numeral 6 is written it is typically written using a “stigma,” as in the King James Version of the Bible 666 is rendered as chi-xi-stigma in Greek. Literalists and conspiracy theorists can then say that “stigma” means “a mark” from the root word “prick”. Couple this with the number 666 and that Revelation (13:16-18) in the King James Version says the mark is "in" the forehead or right hand, then it becomes a short jump to thinking that the mark of the Beast is an implant embedded into a person through a hypodermic needle. Furthermore, because the Greek 6 is written with a character that looks kind of like an “S,” they can further connect the number six (using the idea that the letter s is used as a hissing sound) to a serpent and hence the Devil. An excerpt from a site (there are others) that makes such a claim follows to give you a better idea of the reasoning behind it [1].

The Greeks and Romans stood the "S" erectly, as we see it now. This erect serpent (standing next to a tree a la Gen. 3) pervaded the art of this period. Even the technical term in phonics for the 'hissing sound' is sybilation, coming from the occult Sybils who spoke then as New Age channelers do today. In the Greek alphabet, the second letter for the lower-case s, sigma, is used only as the terminal letter of a word. This peculiar form of 'S', identical to a serpent pictogram, is used for the Greek number 6. It is called stigma, and means 'a mark' from the root 'to prick'. (Does this not point to Rev. 13 and 14 and its mark of 666.) Stigma (prick) and charagma (sharpen to a point), both translated 'mark' in the KJV, point to the new hypodermically inserted identification microchip, inserted "in" the hand or forehead (not "on" as new versions say!). Incidentally, Xi, which represents 60, is identified as "the symbol of the serpent" in Greek, by one of this century's greatest scholars, E.W. Bullinger. His classic book Number in Scripture shares my "Watch out" view of the "S". [see pp. 49, 150, 156, 282, 283, et al.]

"But 666 was the secret symbol of the ancient pagan mysteries connected with the worship of the Devil...The great secret symbol consisted of three letters SSS, because the letter S in the Greek alphabet was the symbol for the figure 6."

Is there anything to your knowledge that either refutes or confirms this? Does it have an significance? Again, if this turns out to be true, the it compromises the article to some degree as well as necessitate some changes. By the way, how many volumes does the TDNT consist of?--YanA 17:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802823246/202-0923091-7822219 The TDNT has ten volumes of around 900 pages each. It was written between 1930 and 1976 and has 145 contibutors. It examines each Greek word used in the New Testament in its wider context - including within the non-Christian Greek world at the time. The authors were almost exclusively German who came from a variety of theological backgrounds (including Evangelical, Liberal and Neo-Orthodox).

I think what charagma actually means is that it is a visible mark on the skin that is caused by a brand or a tattoo needle. In other words, for the mark to permanently exist, the flesh or skin had to be penetrated in some way. In that sense, the idea of charagma is both a visible mark and a penetration of the skin in order to cause that mark. It's a focus upon how the visible mark was made. If this were true then the idea that it could refer to a microchip implant is still highly illogical. First of all, it is the visible mark that is being referred to in Revelation 13, not the process that created the mark. Secondly, Revelation 13 does not even hint at anything else being placed into or under the skin. If it were, then the author of Revelation would have made it explicit - a bead placed under the skin or some such phrase. As it stands, there is no logical reason that I can find that would suggest that the mark is anything but visible.
One Salient Oversight 03:09, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, the stuff about stick into or sharpen to a point with regard to the definition and word origin of charagma refers to how the stamp or inscription is made and since charagma is used in Rev. 13 (instead of words that would implicate subdermal devices) which means stamps and inscriptions which are usually visible then is stands to reason that the mark itself is visible. Moreover, the stuff about the relation between 6 and stigma is not logical (May I also ask why is it illogical? I'm thinking that it may to to much of a stretch to link the number 666 with how the mark is made, but since I'm not a particularily religiou person, I have know idea of knowing if I'm right). Furthermore, you believe this stuff about the mark being subdermal is complete bunk because the author would have somehow explicitily said something to indicate a subdermal mark. Is this a correct assessment of your reasoning for why it's visible? --YanA 05:07, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I actually didn't address the whole 6/stigma question and the truth is I didn't really do any research into that area. There might be a link between the phrase "Six hundred and sixty-six" (which is what the Greek says, not "six-six-six") and the word for Stigma but the relationship may only be as similar as say, phone and bone in English. I could be wrong there though. I am, however, convinced that the other points of my argument are correct, namely that charagma is a visible mark on the skin caused by cutting/burning associated with branding or tattooing, and not with anything that goes under the skin. Actually, as I write this, I have thought it may be that the whole branding/tattooing business is reminiscent of permanently marking slaves. By the way, are you asking all this because you are having a discussion with someone who believes in the more conspiratorial interpretations of Revelation? If so then I would be happy to help. I am a (relatively) conservative Christian and know a bit about all the different arguments. One Salient Oversight 00:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer of assistance but I'm not having a discussion with someone with conspiratoral views. I'm only asking because I've run across numerous Christian end time websites and wanted see if their arguments about the mark had any for lack of better word, validity. If they did have any good valid arguments then we might need include their views because of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (you stated their opposing views quite well on the article). But should I ever need your help in the future with an argument about conspiratorial views about Revelation, I'll be sure to contact you on your talk page if that's okay with you.--YanA 04:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

attributes of the mark

In concert with the entry on the problems of literal interpretation, I agree that a more accurate understanding of the issue is metephorical. In the same way that we say, "what's on your mind" we don't expect the reponse, "bone, skin and hair", instead it means "what are you thinking about." The mark on the forehead,the mark of the beast, is the doctrine of Philipians which is works of the law. Buying and Selling is work. The doctrine of christ is grace so it stands to reason that the doctrine of the antichrist would be work. What people think directly influences their actions so avoiding the obvious mistakes of literalism marks on head and hand are beliefs and actions of those who knowinly or unknowingly have accepted the doctrine of the beast.

removed link

I removed the following paragraph from the links:

Ray Michael O'Keeffe's "Calculator of the Number of the Beast" With very interesting results showing an 888 sign as the Greek Name of Jesus in this code. Using the English alphabet multiplied by 6 and combining the ASCII code, all characters have a value with amazing results. (Note 777 is not possible in this code)

where I've replaced the numeral '4' above with '(four)', because the spam filter doesn't like the url. Looking at the site, it doesn't seem like something Wikipedia should be linking to, in my opinion.-gadfium (talk) 02:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

                            * * *

The secret of Revelation 13:18 is unlocked in "The Ouzo Prophecy," available at no charge from [email protected]. "The evil that lurks in the minds of men is manifested in the collective evil of the beast. Understand the man, and you cannot be deceived by his institutions." A simple bidding game of numbers provides an allegory.

Robert Merlin Evenson/Church of Ouzo

Thinks he's such a big shot

Javier Solana, I knew the Antichrist. I rented the Antichrist a room in college. I borrowed money from the Antichrist and never paid it back. Javier Solana, you sir are no Antichrist.