Mark of the Beast

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Timothy Litteral wrote:

> It is not the same to add the numbers up and then "see"
> what other names have the same total.  This IS the name.
> No hocus. No pocus.  John is saying "this is wisdom, here
> is the MANS name."

You are wrong to misquote John!  He does not write "this is wisdom he is
a mans name."  John says, "Here is wisdom......for it is the number of a
man".  The numeric calculation that represented the beast was the
numeric calculation of a man and NOT NOT NOT (your words) a mans name,
but the numeric value of his name!  Below you are correct to note the
numbers of 600, 60, and then 6.  
> 
> BTW, IF this were written as numbers it would be 600 60 and
> 6 and NOT, NOT, NOT, 666 like we write it TODAY.  Let me
> try to make this PLAIN.  If you transcribe the "number"
> from Revelation it is NOT, NOT, NOT, 666 but 600 A NEW
> NUMBER, 60 AND ANOTHER NEW NUMBER which is 6.
> 
> Timothy (wonder sometimes if you guys listen to me)
> Litteral

We are listening but when your wrong well..... we just can't help but
telling you so :-)  
You are right that John writes (I don't have the greek symbols on my
mail program) the letter chi = 600, xi = 60, zeta = 6, ie 600, 60, 6 and
not 666.  

Again the language of the ancients comes into play when determining the
number of the beast for it is the number of a man.  John wrote to his
contemporaries and they by the application of a little wisdom understood
the meaning.  We are too far removed from this practice to appreciate it
like they did.

A problem is encountered with 666 only when you have a futuristic
paradigm concerning the book of Revelation.  John begins and ends the
book with the time is at hand!