Talk:Number of the beast

Under 'speculation and trivia', the writer mentions "In ancient Dacia, 666 was the number of those who returned to the right faith." What does he mean by 'right faith'? Christianity or the Dacians' native paganism? There is no mention of Christianity in the article. --PotatoSamurai 01:33:29, 2005-08-02 (UTC)

I am removing this sentence, as it is unclear and apparently biased. If anyone knows what it means, please rephrase it -- as of now, the sentence does more harm there than good. --PotatoSamurai 04:15:01, 2005-08-03 (UTC)

"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 absolutely love the current version of the phrase, I must say: "Like all numbers, 666 has many mathematical properties, some more interesting than others." True :-D --IByte 20:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Nice reversion

Good job, there, MarkSweep. Isn't it pretty much the same as vandalism, to edit out something that belongs in the article, and replace it with some personal political attack?

Cbdorsett 14:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Solana

I believe this site has had problems from someone convinced Javier solana is the beast. I have put a little NPOV bit about him thought to be so as people do believe it, but I am not endorsing this idea, and indeed am very supportive of trying to keep such obsessive speculation from dominating the Javier Solana page.

Solana vandal

I believe the person who vandalised this site on Feb 9th, User:68.159.142.187 is User:Cumbey, using one of her many probable sockpuppets. For more info see Talk:Javier Solana/Solana vandalism and POV. --SqueakBox 16:11, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

WAAAAY off!

You are all way off. As I learned it, from Prof. Friedman at UC San Diego (look him up, he's got some SERIOUS biblical scholar credentials!) 5 = man. 7 = perfect #. Evil, or the devil, standing between man & perfection (read: serpent in the 'garden of eden') would therefore be read as between 5 and 7... 6!

Three of any number (read: the 'holy trinity') does not ascribe the characteristics of the trinity, save one: divinity. So three sixes, being the numbers symbolizing divinity and evil, or the devil... gives you divine evil.

Nice try tho PS I stink like cheese and i want to marry my mother

Base twelve nonsense

Whoever is posting all of this stuff about dozenal, please cut it out. The number is most plainly not in gross and dozen. [2] [3]

P.S. What is the Antichrist watch link doing there? I see no references to it in the page, so I removed it. « alerante ✆ ✉ » 12:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Number of the beast , Greek Numbering System

First all. John's Apocalypse is written in Greek. So the number system to follow should be greek not ASCII no Latain only Greek. The Greek numerical system is

Α,α=1 Β,β=2 Γ,γ=3 Δ,δ=4 Ε,ε=5 ΣΤ,στ=6 Ζ,ζ=7 Η,η=8 Θ,θ=9 Ι,ι=10 Κ,κ=20 Λ,λ=30 Μ,μ=40 Ν,ν=50 Ξ,ξ=60 Ο,ο=70 Π,π=80 (symbol copa )= 90 Ρ,ρ=100 Σ,σ=200 Τ,τ=300 Υ,υ=400 Φ,φ=500 Χ,χ=600 Ψ,ψ=700 Ω,ω=800 (symbol sanpi)=900

Now it's very simple to calculate some Names AFTER we translate them to greek

The Name JESUS as an example is written in greek ΙΗΣΟΥΣ if we add the letters we come up with Ι+Η+Σ+Ο+Υ+Σ = 10+8+200+70+400+200 = 888

Another example christians (catholics, ortodox etc.) believe in a "trinity god" , father son and holly ghost the greek word for trinity god is ΤΡΙΑΔΙΚΟΣ ΘΕΟΣ Τ+Ρ+Ι+Α+Δ+Ι+Κ+Ο+Σ+Θ+Ε+Ο+Σ = 300+100+10+1+4+20+200+9+5+70+200 = 999

So who ever this individual is if we translate the name in greek and then make the addition the result will be 666.

Example: The Name BENEDICT in greek it is ΒΕΝΕΔΙΚΤΟΣ

        if we make the calculation we come up with 
        Β+Ε+Ν+Ε+Δ+Ι+Κ+Τ+Ο+Σ = 2+5+50+5+4+10+20+300+70+200 = 666

Is that the name of our new Pope ?

I do not thing that the new Pope is the Antichrist ( he could not be because it's to old) bud I thing that he might play he's role in the specific direction.

616

This BBC page says the humber of the beast is 616 instead of 666 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4523637.stm

More 616

I read in the 1963 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica that the number was really 616 so that is nothing new.

Not 616

The evidence for the originality of 616 is very weak (news reports are not always reliable). The critical apparatus of The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition, ISBN 3-438-05113-3 (UBS⁴) strongly supports the traditional reading, "666". (UBS⁴ is one of the two surrent standard critical editions of the Greek New Testament. Both read the same, but differ in punctuation and notes.) The reading "666" (ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ) is attested by the overwhelming majority of witnesses, including several ancient witnesses. Among the actual copies of Revelation that read "666" are the late third century papyrus manuscript P⁴⁷ and the important, usually very reliable uncial, Codex Alexandrinus (abbreviated as א) from the fourth century. This reading is also attested by many early versions (translations) and church fathers. The editors of UBS⁴ rate their certainty of particular readings on a four-point scale, with A meaning "very certain" to D meaning "doubtful." They assign the traditional reading an A rating.

About the reading 616, here's what A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (ISBN 3-438-06010-8), which is the companion to UBS³, says about this variant on pages 751-752:

Instead of ἑξήκοντα, which is strongly supported by P⁴⁷ א A P 046 051 all extant minuscules it^gig vg syr^ph, h cop^sa, bo arm al, δέκα [making the reading "616"] is read by C [and] some manuscripts known to Irenaeus [early second century] (who, however, says that 666 is found "in all good and ancient copies," and is "attested by those who had themselves seen John face to face"). . . . According to Tischendorf's 8th ed., the numeral 616 was also read by two minuscule manuscripts which unfortunately are no longer extant. . . . When Greek letters are used as numerals the difference between 666 and 616 is merely a change from ξ to ι (666=χξς and 616=χις). Perhaps this change was intentional, seeing that the Greek form Neron Caesar written in Hebrew characters (נרון קסר) is equivalent to 666, whereas the Latin form Nero Caesar (נרו קסר) is equivalent to 616. [Some people thought that 666 referred to Nero.]

Because of this strong evidence, one additional early papyrus manuscript is not nearly enough to tip the scales in favor of "616." By the principles of textual criticism, "666" should be regarded as original.

Because of this, I'm removing the discussion of 616 from the introduction to this article. I'm leaving the rest in tact for now, although when I have time I'll probably add something to the article that's along the lines of this post (but a little more neutral in POV).--mssever (Blog) 06:08, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Satanist 666 = sex?

I removed the following (refering to 666 in Greek numerals: χξς):

It has been noted (on stanist websites) that this looks suspiciously like the word SEX (in English!) written upside down.

I believe that it's irrelevant. When Revelation was originally written, Greek was written entirely in capital letters. Therefore, the numeral for 666 would have been more like ΧΞC. Greek capital sigma (Σ) used to look like Latin capital C. Furthermore, the English language didn't exist during the first century. This means that any similarity to the word sex is coincidental.--mssever (Talk | Blog) June 29, 2005 05:59 (UTC)

Interesting Anecdote

This doesn't really belong in the main article, so I'll chuck it on the Talk page - I knew a guy name Damien for a while. He was 18 when I knew him (6+6+6). We went into a petrol station garage and he bought a bunch of snacks and drinks, and they came to £6.66. Now ain't that some freaky deaky shit!! I know it sounds like an urban legend or something, but this genuinely happened. I don't think he had it in him to be the Antichrist mind, he was a pretty nice guy.

Hebrew spelling of Neron Caesar

When Greek words are transliterated into Hebrew, the Kappa generally becomes a Qof, e.g. Kategor and Apikoros. (I have no idea how to get Hebrew and Greek fonts onto my computer, if enayone can help me with that, I would greatly appreciate it. It would allow me to translate many article into Yiddish. Email me woth advice [email protected], but I digress...) The Q/K issue only becomes an issue when attempting to transliterate Hebrew letters into the Latin alphabet.

On the basis of those facts, I am removing the note. However, since this is semi-original research by me, if anyone feels that the note should not have been removed, feel free to put it back and leave a comment on my talk page. Atheistrabbi 9 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)

The external links section is very messy.

You're not supposed to rewrite an essay next to an external link. Therefore, I've changed the external links section so that it only links to the essays themselves and has a short phrase about the point of view for which the essays argue. --Idont Havaname 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

666 and RFID?

Someone added a link to RFID in the See also section. I added a link to a Google search that finds stories linking the two, but someone should probably create a story for the Speculation and trivia section out of it and move the link there. --IByte 20:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bible

I removed this line.

"The Arabic form of the Beast has KFR on its forehead. [4] "

The context of the quote was "References from the Bible". As far as I know, the Arabic form of the Beast is extrabiblical and should be in another sections. Further it has no reference to the number.

Why not "Number of the Beast (disambiguation)" for the disambig links?

Considering that the vast majority of people who search for or link to Number of the Beast will be looking for the discussion of the actual number and its Biblical and other significance, probably a thousand times more often than anyone searching for "the number of the beast" will be looking for the album, the book, or the Digimon episode, why not move Number of the Beast (numerology) to Number of the Beast and move the current disambiguation page at Number of the Beast to Number of the Beast (disambiguation), with the disambiguation link at the top of Number of the Beast? The disambiguation page should only be the main page in cases where there's no way of picking a "main" article that is the most likely search target. In cases, like this, where not only is one possibility much more likely to be the intended target, but also where the most likely candidate is the direct inspiration for the names of the other possible targets, the article should be at Number of the Beast; (numerology) is only necessary when the article's name has more (or equally) famous significance, as in 23 (numerology). -Silence 22:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This might be elementary.

I was watching Jack Van Impe ministries and he calculated the number useing our alphabet A-Z numbering them with the multiplies of 6. a=6 b=12 and so on. This is weird but he spelled out COMPUTER and the number total 666. Then he spelled out MARK OF THE BEAST and it also came out to 666 [Note: This is wrong, it actually totals 864]. To me this seems plausable due to the massive growth of computers and technology. Everybody seems to have a different interpretation on this number so could this theory be ruled out?

June 6, 2006

This number has scared me many times when I was going through a nervous breakdown. Another thing to note is that next year on June 6, 2006, it will be 6/6/06. I feared this date when I was in the midst of my bipolar mania. Let's hope nothing happens, or that Tom Cruise's baby will not be born on this date (a possible candidate for L. Ron Hubbard's antichristlike second coming).

666 is one of the Pope of Rome's 2 lucky numbers.

Did you know that the number 666 is one of the Pope of Rome's 2 lucky numbers? The other one is 13. - (Aidan Work 05:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]