Re: Rev.13:18 (was Numerics (was Re: Comments on Snoke's approach)

From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Date: Thu Aug 18 2005 - 15:00:41 EDT

Don,

Concerning 616, I enclose a copy of the appendix to my page "On testing the uniqueness of Genesis 1:1" (http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/protodd.htm).
Appendix: On the correct reading of Rev.13:18

Doubts continue to be expressed in some quarters concerning our proper understanding of the 'number of the beast'. Is it 666 or 616? Apparently both appear as possible candidates in the early Greek manuscripts. However, I suggest there are a number of good reasons why we should accept 666 as the God-ordained number, viz

(a) generations of scholars involved in the study and translation of the Greek originals have clearly understood the true value to be 666 - otherwise why would this number unfailingly appear in the text proper and 616, if at all, in a footnote?

(b) the evaluation of 'Jesus', the Christ, from the Greek (nominative case) is 888; hence, that of the Antichrist is more likely to be the counterfeit lookalike, 666, than 616;

(c) 666 is the epitome of numerical geometry; as 'triangle of triangles' it features in the geometrical representation of Genesis 1:1; on the other hand, 616 is devoid of any such associations

(d) 666 as triangle is linked to two other dimensionless NT numbers, 153 and 276 - both of which are also triangular - by the theme "out of the sea'; details are provided on the page "666 - and All That!" (http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/sixes.htm)

I hope you will agree that these considerations settle the matter in favour of 666.

Vernon

----- Original Message -----

From: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Cc: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@adelphia.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:07 AM
Subject: Rev.13:18 (was Numerics (was Re: Comments on Snoke's approach)

> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> .....
>
>> Randy, you concluded your email with the paragraph, "Rev. 13:18 is an
>> intriguing verse and I certainly do not know what the proper
>> interpretation is. But I believe I can bound the range of
>> possibilities. At most, it implies that a person with wisdom would
>> know that the "beast" has the characteristics conveyed by the
>> symbolism represented by "666". No more."
>>
>> I am not happy with certain modern translations which begin this verse
>> with "This requires wisdom." - or words to that effect. What the
>> original Greek actually says is "Here wisdom is." or, as the AV and
>> NASB correctly have it, "Here is wisdom". In other words, wisdom is
>> _being offered_ rather than _required_. I'm sure you will agree that
>> that is an important distinction which fundamentally influences one's
>> proper understanding of the verse. And regarding your "No more", the
>> fact that 666 is uniquely triangular, has triangular NT companions in
>> 153 and 276, and appears in triplicate in the numerical reading of
>> Genesis 1:1, offer clear leads to its proper interpretation - and to
>> the acquisition of wisdom.
>>
>
> In intepreting Rev. 13:18 we should also take into consideration of the
> fact that some ancient manuscripts read "six hundred and sixteen"
> instead of "six hundred and sixty-six". This upsets Vernon's scheme.
> The variant reading is accounted for if the verse is a reference to
> Nero(n) Caesar. Dropping the final "n" reduces the count by fifty.
> Don
>
Received on Thu Aug 18 15:02:20 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 18 2005 - 15:02:22 EDT