Tuesday, June 06, 2006

666

Oh yeah, all the buzz is about the 6th day of the 6th month of the 6th year of the 21st century.

But is there anything to really be buzzing about?

The number shows up in the Christian Bible in the Apocalypsis of John the apostle (known as the book of Revelation). Rev 13:18. It is equated with the number of the beast. The beast is against anything and everything of Christ.

But what is the reference? I've heard everything from Napoleon to Hitler to Kaiser Wilhem to Nero. All based on the number being 666. My favorite is the vav-vav-vav sequence in which the Hebrew becomes www. So, the internet is the devil. Haha.

Recently, earlier and better manuscripts indicate that the number of the beast is NOT 666 but in fact 616. And as of yet, I have not heard any new gematria games being played with the real mark of the beast (616).

Therefore, no knows who or what the mark of the beast refers, except that it refers to the one who comes in place of Christ, or simply the beast. That's all we know.

So, no need to fear 666 anymore. However, I have a feeling the world will be reeling from anything associated with 666 for many years to come. It's tradition.

5 comments:

Kc said...

Dude, I think you're ruining it for hollywood. (hehe)

pecheur said...

And I am afraid this has disrupted several pastor's sermons and lessons also.

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Why presume those manuscripts were better simply becuase they were earlier? They were not the orignals.

The manuscripts which have been copied (suggesting they are those which God preserved) say 666.

If an early muscript was found that supported some heresy, would you believe it?

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

pecheur said...

DxF,

Good points.

I would agree with you that just because the manuscript is earlier, that this makes it better. But I am not ready to concede the point.

But just because something is in the Majority of texts also does not mean it is legit either. I will explain that later.

And since the originals do not exist, we have to reconstruct the original text with what we have, taking into account the various families of text. More on that later also.

Copying manuscripts...I am a little confused. All the manuscripts have been copied, therefore just because any manuscript has been copied does not make it lefit or not.

Would I support a heresy based on a manuscript found? We have two issues here. 1) How to define a heresy? and 2) Are we willing to know what the truth is even if it contradicts what we already know. As for the second question. We do not have to worry. With the 800,000 varient readings not a single one contradicts any major orthodox doctrine.

And there are gnostics manuscripts. They are just as heretical now as they were when they were written. The recent gnostic gospels in Egypt may make for a resurgence in an old heresy, but orthodox christianity has always been against it.

Lastly, I want to really discuss this issue with you. Not to change your mind, I can't do that, I am not wanting to do that. But just to show that one can have a solid textual critique of the text and remain conservative in their interpretation of Scripture.

I would like to add that I have often been accusued of being harsh when I write. I just can not seem to convey a "lovely" tone for some reason. Therefore, if ever I cross the line in this discussion and in any way come across as mean-spirited or anything not befitting the behavior of a follower of Christ, you are asked to correct me, and i will try to fix it as soon as possible. I do not mean you or anyone else harm, but sometimes it does indeed come across that way.

Blessings to you

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Having been accused of following a different religion and having been accused of being a false teacher for my radical Free Grace views, I hardly think thy tone is harsh.

God Bless

Matthew