Re: Watershed

From: Vernon Jenkins (
Date: Sat Jun 30 2001 - 17:05:24 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: Watershed"


    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:
    > 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?
    > Paul

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 30 2001 - 17:04:12 EDT