I'm glad you agree that all doubts vis-a-vis the true reading of
Rev.13:18 are now logically resolved in favour of 666.
On the other matter: I consider your question extremely hypothetical,
for it would appear that our views concerning God's sovereignty differ
considerably. However, I am interested in the motive which prompted you
to pose the question. Can you please clarify?
> Vernon wrote,
> << Concerning the true reading of Revelation 13:18, I suggest there are a
> number of good reasons for believing the 'number of the beast' to be 666
> rather than 616, viz
> I agree that "666" is probably the orginal text; but you seem to miss my
> point. Let me put it as question.
> Suppose God inspired a writer to write "666", but later a scribe changed the
> text to "616"; and, in addition all copies of the text with "666" were lost,
> so that all that was available were the copies with "616." If a clever
> person by various mathematical processes found a name which matched "616" and
> that name was a stunningly impressive suggestion, would the name show that
> this Bible verse was of divine origin----even though the clever name was not
> based on a word inspired by God?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 30 2001 - 17:04:12 EDT