Just saw this...what ya'll think?

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...p?story=634679

I thought everybody with a study bible with footnotes knew that.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

Is it still Nero?

Yes.

616 was just a transliteration in the later Latin Vulgate to key into Latin Gematria who the book writers thought the Anti-Christ was... aka Nero. 666 is still viable as the Vulgate is not the oldest, most original Bible translation. I think there are many Anti-Christs past and present... look at the little epistles of John! There is an Anti-Christ spirit which dwells in them all.

[Edited on 5-7-2005 by Puritanhead]

__________________
Ryan
1689 London Baptist Confession

I'd not heard of the 616 thing. If Nero was the Anti-Christ though...that would necessitate the rest of Revelations coming true shortly thereafter. I don't remember New Jerusalem coming anywhere in my history books.

I Agree with the WCF. The Pope of Rome is the Anti-Christ.

However, I heard some nutcase babble on a while ago about some complicated number system that would predict which Pope would be the final one or something to that extent.

I think all such endeavours in number calculation etc. are lunacy. We have all the information at hand that he may be revealed in his time. Certainly, as the prophecy comes to pass and after it has come to pass it will be quite clear to us.

__________________
Will Thompson
Attending Granada PCA/Coral Ridge PCA
BM student in Vocal Performance (Classical) at Univeristy of Miami (Fl.)

"When the Church Stands for Nothing, it can no longer stand of Jesus Christ."

-Rev. Dr. Ian R.K. Paisley M.P.

I have known os 616 as alternate reading for about fifteen years now. They changed it as they transcribed/translated it so that it would fit Nero. This ethicity of that aside, it is still Nero, in my humble, partialpreaterist opinion.

Postscript: According to Ken Salazar, Demoncratic [sic] Congressman from Colorado, Focus on the Family is Antichrist. Of course, he did apologize for that remark...

__________________
Andrew Myers
Husband of Jessica, Father of Jackson, Katie and Samuel
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church of Northern Virginia
Warrenton, VA USA
Editor, The Matthew Poole Project

"Let your Morning Thoughts, and your last Evening Thoughts, be what shall become of you to all Eternity." -- Matthew Poole

ken grentry in his book "before jerusalem fell" has an good section dealing with the number of the beast and presenting a convincing case it was nero and non else

__________________
Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
member of Holy Trinity Presbeterian Church (PCA)
Tampa, FL

Quote:***ken grentry in his book "before jerusalem fell" has an good section dealing with the number of the beast and presenting a convincing case it was nero and non else***

Never mind what mr Gentry says.What saith the scriptures?

"And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.
And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God".Zechariah 13:8-9

The number of the beast corresponds to the two thirds that shall be cut off and die.

andreas.

__________________
andreas; By the grace of God,a Christian .

[font=symbol]
ean gar kai poreuqw en mesw skias qanatou ou fobhqhsomai kaka oti su met¢ emou ei h rabdos sou kai h bakthria sou autai me parekalesan [/font]
Psalm 23:4

Interesting for you to have the Name of Van Til as I'm pretty sure Van Til sided with me on this one

If you want to get down to it. J.A. Wylie in his book (Later added to and ammended by Dr. Ian Paisley) "The Papacy is the AntiChrist" makes a quite convincing case that it is the Pope and none else. Luther and Calvin both agree with me on that point as well as Knox and all of the other reformers...lets not forget the Puritans too since this is the Puritan board!

[Edited on 5-8-2005 by Wthompson]

context context context

Which "pope"? Now, if you place the 'pope' to be in the time of the WCF, then doesn't it follow that the "new jerusalem" would be there shortly after? I don't remember any "new jerusalem" coming in my history books 'shortly after'! Now, the "new jerusalem" is after the millennium, so even if you place the majority of Revelation into a first century conext, preterism, you aren't left in a vacuum with no 'new jerusalem'. Rather you see it occuring in it's proper place, after the millennium.

Anyway, I don't use study Bibles, so I was unaware of the 616 reference. The fact that it was a latin issue changes the discussion. Now, if it is really a greek issue, then it would have to change Mr Gentry's analysis, assuming he doesn't discuss the 616 take.

openairboy

That's assuming that everybody is sharing the same presuppositions as you, a point I am not willing to grant.
You and Paul went back and forth on this before, I am not resurrecting that debate.
Further,
partpret does not demand that ALL the events happpen in AD70, hence the name PARTIAL. I can still affirm that new Jerusalem is to come (which, I see to be the renewal of the world).

where do you get that? who does zech 13:8-9 correspond at all with passage in rev. where the mark of the beast? that is a huge leap brother.

"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." Revelation 13:18


Herminio,

First ,notice that it says the number of man and not the number of a man.
Secondly, how do you count the number?You can only count it as a fraction of the total number,in this case the total number of humanity.We are told that 2/3 will be lost,and 1/3 will be saved.The ones that are lost, correspond to the 2/3 fraction of the total humanity,and 2/3 ,as a fraction is 666.

andreas.

Are you interpreting the clear by the unclear?

Andreas, the very translation you cite uses "a man" not "man." If John had wanted to say "man" in a universal sense he would probably have used the plural 'anthropoi' or at least the singular 'anthropos' preceded by the article. As it is, he used the anarthrous 'anthropos' which very naturally translates as "a man."

__________________
M. Walker
Elder, Emmanuel Community Church
Arvada, Colorado

The translation may say the number of a man, but in the original it says the number of man.
andreas.

[Edited on 5-10-2005 by andreas]

The original?

Quote:***Are you interpreting the clear by the unclear?***

May be unclear to you ,but the mark of the beast is the number whose master is the beast.We are clearly told that only 1/3 will be saved, and these are the elect.The rest (2/3), are not saved ,and they belong to the beast. The fraction 2/3, equals 666.
andreas.

Apparently every single translation available has erred in saying it is the number of "a man" or "a person", then.

1991 Byzantine Greek Text

1881 Westcott-Hort Greek Text

1550/1894 Textus Receptus


All the above tell us THE NUMBER OF MAN.Look up the rest for yourself if you have any doubts.

andreas.

Quote:***Are you interpreting the clear by the unclear?***

I am still waiting for you to tell us how you count the number of man, if you are only given a single number(666).

andreas.

Yes, the number of man. And HIS number is 666 ... Sounds like a person to me.

The number of MAN is not the same as the number of A MAN.
Do not add words or letters that are not present in the word of God.
andreas.

wde h sofia estin o ecwn ton noun yhfisatw ton ariqmon tou qhriou ariqmoV gar anqrwpou estin kai o ariqmoV autou cxV Rev 13:18

andreas.

Quote:***It sounds like a person to me.***


"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."2 Peter 1:20-21

andreas.

This may come as a disappointment to you, but the fraction 2/3 does NOT equal 666, even if you round it off to 3 decimal places. And that's not your only problem:

First, you are in error by moving the decimal place 6 spots to the right. The number six-hundred-sixty-six is 6 orders of magnitude larger than .666 --- which is six-hundred-sixty-six-thousandths. You have no Biblical support for substituting a fractional number (less than one) for 666, which is a LOT bigger than one.

Second, to my knowledge, the decimal system wasn't even *invented* yet when John wrote Revelation. So he had no conception of a "decimal point" with 3 sixes after it. (Or are you suggesting there was a hidden "Bible Code" here? . . . pick up the phone, Mike Drosnin and Grant Jeffrey . . .)

Finally, as I mentioned to begin with, the fraction "2/3" does NOT equal .666 when converted to decimals. It actually equals an infinite number of sixes after the decimal point. And even if you *do* round it off to three decimal places, it comes to .667, NOT .666 --- Your eschatological math just doesn't add up.

The beast was Nero, IMHO.




[Edited on 5-10-2005 by biblelighthouse]

Andreas,
Greek doesn't have the indefinite article, so a noun without the "definite" article is normally translated using the English indefinite article 'a'. There is more to it than that, but you need to study some Greek before you make authoritative statements about the translation of Rev 13:18.

Thank you. Sheesh.