Linguistics and interpretation of Rev 13:18

[lalala]

Hi!

Probably familiar to everyone here - Rev 13:18:
"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding reckon the number of the beast: for it is a human number; it is Six hundred threescore and six.

In many English translations of the Bible, Rev 13:18 has, linguistically speaking, two possible interpretations:
1. (the common interpretation) the number refers to a human, acting as some sort of code word for that person.
2. (alternate interpretation) it actually refers to several persons, who number 666 in total - some sort of sect, council, secret society, cabal, or such...

One thing that speaks in favor of the latter is that several early English translations of the bible apparently (from what I heard) used the word "count" instead of "number", which emphasizes even more strongly that it is not a code word for one man, but a figure referring to the number of persons who together constitute the beast. This is analogous to how "The Whore of Babylon" is sometimes claimed to refer to the Babylonian Talmud and/or the practicioners of its ideas. Now the main purpose of this thread was not to discuss whether #2 is a reasonable interpretation or not from a biblical context - it is only my belief that it may be the right interpretation and I do not necessarily want to convert anyone else to believing in that idea.

Rather, the question I wanted to discuss in the thread is this: is it in the same way linguistically possible to make interpretation #2 also in the original language - Greek or Aramaic. Can anyone with wisdom in either of these languages give the answer (obviously with using as old and close to original Greek and Aramaic versions as is possible)?

[John146]

Hi!

Probably familiar to everyone here - Rev 13:18:
"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding reckon the number of the beast: for it is a human number; it is Six hundred threescore and six.

In many English translations of the Bible, Rev 13:18 has, linguistically speaking, two possible interpretations:
1. (the common interpretation) the number refers to a human, acting as some sort of code word for that person.
2. (alternate interpretation) it actually refers to several persons, who number 666 in total - some sort of sect, council, secret society, cabal, or such...

One thing that speaks in favor of the latter is that several early English translations of the bible apparently (from what I heard) used the word "count" instead of "number", which emphasizes even more strongly that it is not a code word for one man, but a figure referring to the number of persons who together constitute the beast. This is analogous to how "The Whore of Babylon" is sometimes claimed to refer to the Babylonian Talmud and/or the practicioners of its ideas. Now the main purpose of this thread was not to discuss whether #2 is a reasonable interpretation or not from a biblical context - it is only my belief that it may be the right interpretation and I do not necessarily want to convert anyone else to believing in that idea.

Rather, the question I wanted to discuss in the thread is this: is it in the same way linguistically possible to make interpretation #2 also in the original language - Greek or Aramaic. Can anyone with wisdom in either of these languages give the answer?

There is another option that you didn't include. I believe it says the number of the beast is the number of mankind in general. So, it's not a number of an individual man or the number of several people, but the number of mankind (of human beings) in general. The Greek word translated as "human" in the translation you quoted or "a man" or "man" in other translations is anthrōpos and that word can refer to an individual man, a group of people or to mankind or human beings in general. In scripture it is usually used to refer to mankind or human beings in general.

[Walls]

Hi!

Probably familiar to everyone here - Rev 13:18:
"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding reckon the number of the beast: for it is a human number; it is Six hundred threescore and six.

In many English translations of the Bible, Rev 13:18 has, linguistically speaking, two possible interpretations:
1. (the common interpretation) the number refers to a human, acting as some sort of code word for that person.
2. (alternate interpretation) it actually refers to several persons, who number 666 in total - some sort of sect, council, secret society, cabal, or such...

One thing that speaks in favor of the latter is that several early English translations of the bible apparently (from what I heard) used the word "count" instead of "number", which emphasizes even more strongly that it is not a code word for one man, but a figure referring to the number of persons who together constitute the beast. This is analogous to how "The Whore of Babylon" is sometimes claimed to refer to the Babylonian Talmud and/or the practicioners of its ideas. Now the main purpose of this thread was not to discuss whether #2 is a reasonable interpretation or not from a biblical context - it is only my belief that it may be the right interpretation and I do not necessarily want to convert anyone else to believing in that idea.

Rather, the question I wanted to discuss in the thread is this: is it in the same way linguistically possible to make interpretation #2 also in the original language - Greek or Aramaic. Can anyone with wisdom in either of these languages give the answer (obviously with using as old and close to original Greek and Aramaic versions as is possible)?

“Linguistics is the scientific study of human language. Linguistics can be broadly broken into three categories or subfields of study: language form, language meaning, and language in context.”

If one takes into account all three categories in Linguistics when addressing your question, the problem is diminished. Throughout the text of Revelation 13, mention of the Beast is almost exclusively singular. “If it had been, “and on their horns ten crowns”, instead of “and on his horns ten crowns”, and so on throughout the Chapter, we would be constrained to give it a plural meaning. Added to this, other portions of scripture seem to indicate the singular, like Revelation 17:8-12. Then again if the Beast is anything else than a man then Revelation 19:19-20 might start to produce and absurdity.

“19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. 20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.”

Similar to Revelation Chapter 13, Revelation 19:19-20 linguistically shows that

• The Beast is numbered with other kings (making him a king)
• He is in opposition to “armies”
• He is captured, not killed like the rest
• He is different to the second Beast, but they both have the same fate
• He has an image. This is singular. I have not yet seen an image of a multiple
• He is alive. An entity cannot be alive
• Armies are made up of men, especially in the bible. The word “rest” implies that the “two” beasts were of the rest thus making them the same.

I think the majority of evidence linguistically is on the side of a single man, a single king.

[Adstars]

Hi!

Probably familiar to everyone here - Rev 13:18:
"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding reckon the number of the beast: for it is a human number; it is Six hundred threescore and six.

In many English translations of the Bible, Rev 13:18 has, linguistically speaking, two possible interpretations:
1. (the common interpretation) the number refers to a human, acting as some sort of code word for that person.
2. (alternate interpretation) it actually refers to several persons, who number 666 in total - some sort of sect, council, secret society, cabal, or such...

One thing that speaks in favor of the latter is that several early English translations of the bible apparently (from what I heard) used the word "count" instead of "number", which emphasizes even more strongly that it is not a code word for one man, but a figure referring to the number of persons who together constitute the beast. This is analogous to how "The Whore of Babylon" is sometimes claimed to refer to the Babylonian Talmud and/or the practicioners of its ideas. Now the main purpose of this thread was not to discuss whether #2 is a reasonable interpretation or not from a biblical context - it is only my belief that it may be the right interpretation and I do not necessarily want to convert anyone else to believing in that idea.

Rather, the question I wanted to discuss in the thread is this: is it in the same way linguistically possible to make interpretation #2 also in the original language - Greek or Aramaic. Can anyone with wisdom in either of these languages give the answer (obviously with using as old and close to original Greek and Aramaic versions as is possible)?

Revelation 13 KJV
18 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.

See how a few changes in words can dramatically change the way one interprets scripture.

What version of the Bible are you using?

The beast is a man.

Later in Revelation 19 we read:

Revelation 19 KJV
¹⁹ And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
²⁰ And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.


Again it is referring to the Beast as a him and The beast and the false prophet as These both



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[lalala]

Hi! Thanks for the replies!

My belief is that Mark13:37 and Matt 7:15 are very significant to how we deal with any matter, in fact to the point that we must be critical even of any translation of the Bible itself - as well as "modernizations" of the Bible as carried out by the various crypto-satanists, crypto-Jews, crypt-communists and other anti-Christian forces that have been identified as having infiltrated the church to a great degree lately. When bearing in mind that in the 17th century, the Vatican tore down the original holy church built by the Apostle Peter himself to build the current St Peter's Basilica - with all its sun worship symbols that simply don't make sense in a Christian basilica - it makes sense to be similarly critical also to bible translations from that time. The KJB might be colored by Protestant influences, which although Luther's points of critique towards the Vatican were in many fields reasonable - still put the text under risk of deliberate mis-translations. The first Bible translations to "vulgar languages" were rushed out due to political pressure, since Luther's struggle to wrestle nations free of the control of the Vatican depended greatly upon the speedy distribution of the Bible to the hands of every man in Europe.

Translations even in general lend themselves to errors by mistakes - because humans are not perfect, but not only that but also to alterations due to deliberate calculated evil, and many people whom I hold in high regard claim there has indeed been deliberate efforts to gradually change the meaning of the Bible over time to suit the NWO agenda. An example of just how powerful this technique of slight alterations can be, is given by the following chain of equivocation fallacies:
"satan was a fallen angel, satan was an angel, a saint is an angel, a saint is one who acts good, God acts good, therefore Satan is God"
This is also exactly the message that the forgers always want to achieve - to make their own satanic agenda appear to be the words of God. This is precisely what the so called Jews who are probably Khazars (Rev2:9, Rev 3:9) who own the massmedia and the banks - with all their dubious connections to the "Bohemian groove" and various other occult satanic ritual organizations - have almost succeeded in doing through their control of massmedia and the thoughts of the less vigilant among the people.

This is in short why I believe we must if possible also check versions older than KJB to find clues about the correct interpretation. That is why I hoped someone who knew Greek or Aramaic would be able to answer the question.

In response to above comments:
- I agree that the persistent use of singular form may imply the case for this alternative interpretation is somewhat weakened.
- As for which bible version I used, I used "King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)" from the homepage: http://bible.cc/revelation/13-18.htm
"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."
I however also looked at other translations, unfortunately more recent, but these new translations may also have taken into account the old original text rather than simply updating the language compared to KJB, and in many of these translations (see link) the translation linguistically allows for the alternative interpretation. Is this also the case in the original version?

[Raybob]

Revelation 13 KJV
18 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.

See how a few changes in words can dramatically change the way one interprets scripture.

What version of the Bible are you using?

The beast is a man.

Later in Revelation 19 we read:

Revelation 19 KJV
¹⁹ And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
²⁰ And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.


Again it is referring to the Beast as a him and The beast and the false prophet as These both



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

In Revelation 13:18, the three words "of a man" originally was one word "anthropos", which can also refer to "mankind".

In Revelation 19:20, the word "him" was from a Greek word that can refer to singular people or also multiple people.

[dancedwithdolphin]

I believe this part of the text is letting us know he is a man. In other prophetic scriptures a beast is symbolic of a nation. But this beast wont represtent a single nation, this beast is different, he will represent many tribes, nations, and languages. So his number is that of a man for that reason.

So perhaps then those that are numbered with him are those who pledge allegence to him. He is their king.

And this man does have quite a few things that make him different than kings before him, which set him apart from what the world has known in a leader.

Just some of my thoughts.

[dancedwithdolphin]

From what I see in the greek, there are three beasts. The first, who is wounded and lives, the second, and the third which is made in the image of the beast who comes alive and he is made in the image of the first beast.

It appears to me the only one who isnt a man is the dragon.

hexakosioi (600), hexekonta (60), hex (6). It appears to me that we make assumptions; that we are to add these numbers together to make 666. Just asking here, but could each number be for each one of the beasts?

Also in the text I find it interesting that this third beast is made much like in the story of Genesis where Elohim created Adam.

I am still learning the hebrew and greek, so excuse my limited understanding.

[Walls]

Hi! Thanks for the replies!

My belief is that Mark13:37 and Matt 7:15 are very significant to how we deal with any matter, in fact to the point that we must be critical even of any translation of the Bible itself - as well as "modernizations" of the Bible as carried out by the various crypto-satanists, crypto-Jews, crypt-communists and other anti-Christian forces that have been identified as having infiltrated the church to a great degree lately. When bearing in mind that in the 17th century, the Vatican tore down the original holy church built by the Apostle Peter himself to build the current St Peter's Basilica - with all its sun worship symbols that simply don't make sense in a Christian basilica - it makes sense to be similarly critical also to bible translations from that time. The KJB might be colored by Protestant influences, which although Luther's points of critique towards the Vatican were in many fields reasonable - still put the text under risk of deliberate mis-translations. The first Bible translations to "vulgar languages" were rushed out due to political pressure, since Luther's struggle to wrestle nations free of the control of the Vatican depended greatly upon the speedy distribution of the Bible to the hands of every man in Europe.

Translations even in general lend themselves to errors by mistakes - because humans are not perfect, but not only that but also to alterations due to deliberate calculated evil, and many people whom I hold in high regard claim there has indeed been deliberate efforts to gradually change the meaning of the Bible over time to suit the NWO agenda. An example of just how powerful this technique of slight alterations can be, is given by the following chain of equivocation fallacies:
"satan was a fallen angel, satan was an angel, a saint is an angel, a saint is one who acts good, God acts good, therefore Satan is God"
This is also exactly the message that the forgers always want to achieve - to make their own satanic agenda appear to be the words of God. This is precisely what the so called Jews who are probably Khazars (Rev2:9, Rev 3:9) who own the massmedia and the banks - with all their dubious connections to the "Bohemian groove" and various other occult satanic ritual organizations - have almost succeeded in doing through their control of massmedia and the thoughts of the less vigilant among the people.

This is in short why I believe we must if possible also check versions older than KJB to find clues about the correct interpretation. That is why I hoped someone who knew Greek or Aramaic would be able to answer the question.

In response to above comments:
- I agree that the persistent use of singular form may imply the case for this alternative interpretation is somewhat weakened.
- As for which bible version I used, I used "King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)" from the homepage: http://bible.cc/revelation/13-18.htm
"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."
I however also looked at other translations, unfortunately more recent, but these new translations may also have taken into account the old original text rather than simply updating the language compared to KJB, and in many of these translations (see link) the translation linguistically allows for the alternative interpretation. Is this also the case in the original version?

While much of your post represents the truth there is enough divergence to question your motives. Unfortunately, not knowing you face to face, nor your ecclesiastical history, we readers can only go by your short postings. So please disregard my comments if they are not fitting.

First, there is no biblical or reliable secular history that Peter was ever in Rome. He was a Jew sent to the Jews (Gal.2:7-8). His only connection with the Gentiles was the event at Cornelius’ house, and the reason for this is given in Chapter 11 of Acts. Even Peter’s first letter is pointed at the dispersion (1^st Pet.1:1). Much more, it was Paul that was sent to the uncircumcision and was in Rome, though not as vicar of the Church of Rome, but as prisoner of the Pontifex Maximus Nero, a title carried on by subsequent Emporers of Rome especially after Constantine declared Christianity the official state religion in about 313 AD. And this title is continued till today.

This seems to point out to the reader that you embrace the Roman religion and might even be a Roman Catholic. This of course does not preclude you from posting as the Forum is for matters biblical and Romans are most welcome, but it does cast a different light on your motives.

But to your textual appreciation (which actually is the theme of your posting). To those who have taken the time to inform themselves on the various texts that have been used for our “vulgar” translations, the big questions that arise are;
· Are the originals available?
· If so, have they been changed?
· If so, how can we discover what was changed?

1. If the originals are not available, we can close the conversation now, as there is no basis for comparing anything. Also if the originals are not available, then it is clear that the God, Who makes such vast claims as “Almighty” did not have the power to supply us with the originals, or, if He is Almighty as claimed, did not want us to have them.
2. If the originals are with us, no doubt the enemy would attempt to corrupt these. One blatant such attempt was the changing of Isaiah by Jewish scholars to absolve blame for Christ’s murder and the evidence of so many fulfilled prophesies by Him. But this was discovered by a dual testimony of the Septuagint (written in the 3^rd century BC) and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. So the evidence points to the originals being available with the God of the bible backing them up, AND laying naked attempts to corrupt it.

If we are to discuss the originals, we must assume that the most scrutinized Book in human history has;
· General consensus amongst eminent scholars
· The protection of the Almighty

The main disagreement today is whether the originals are the Received Text or the Alexandrian Texts. But while there are about 1200 differences, neither of these proponents call into question the text under discussion here.

Finally, the last remaining question is, whether we should accept a dynamic translation for study instead of a literal one. Well, the very basis of a dynamic translation must preclude it from serious study, as it is a translation of “what the translator thought the text was getting at” instead of “what the text actually was.”

While it is much better for new Christian to have a dynamic translation and read it, as opposed to a 1611 King James Version and not read it, the Christian who would aspire to the maturity of Ephesians 4:11-15 needs literal translations of both sets of texts AND authoritative reference works like Strong’s and Vine’s. “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ."

I personally approach the texts under discussion in this thread as;
1. Already authenticated (the hundreds of scholars who have done this are appreciably eminent)
2. Literal (this would make the Beast a single man)
3. Having no real internal textual opposition (the rest of scripture deals with Jesus Christ, a single man, and an Anti-Christ as a single man).

God bless

[dancedwithdolphin]

Hi!

Probably familiar to everyone here - Rev 13:18:
"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding reckon the number of the beast: for it is a human number; it is Six hundred threescore and six.

In many English translations of the Bible, Rev 13:18 has, linguistically speaking, two possible interpretations:
1. (the common interpretation) the number refers to a human, acting as some sort of code word for that person.
2. (alternate interpretation) it actually refers to several persons, who number 666 in total - some sort of sect, council, secret society, cabal, or such...

One thing that speaks in favor of the latter is that several early English translations of the bible apparently (from what I heard) used the word "count" instead of "number", which emphasizes even more strongly that it is not a code word for one man, but a figure referring to the number of persons who together constitute the beast. This is analogous to how "The Whore of Babylon" is sometimes claimed to refer to the Babylonian Talmud and/or the practicioners of its ideas. Now the main purpose of this thread was not to discuss whether #2 is a reasonable interpretation or not from a biblical context - it is only my belief that it may be the right interpretation and I do not necessarily want to convert anyone else to believing in that idea.

Rather, the question I wanted to discuss in the thread is this: is it in the same way linguistically possible to make interpretation #2 also in the original language - Greek or Aramaic. Can anyone with wisdom in either of these languages give the answer (obviously with using as old and close to original Greek and Aramaic versions as is possible)?

All right I did some more research and found something quite interesting, make of it what you will. Just some information.

Kabbalah/Gematria. I was most taken by the Gematria, it sounds just like what John the Revelator is speaking of. (The legistics of this study is way over my head, it deals with mathmatics that is beyond anything I have studied; yet it is very compelling since this is something a jewish person would have known and understood during Jesus time).

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...7_0_07165.html

[lalala]

All right I did some more research and found something quite interesting, make of it what you will. Just some information.

Kabbalah/Gematria. I was most taken by the Gematria, it sounds just like what John the Revelator is speaking of. (The legistics of this study is way over my head, it deals with mathmatics that is beyond anything I have studied; yet it is very compelling since this is something a jewish person would have known and understood during Jesus time).

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...7_0_07165.html

Thanks, I'm quite adept at mathematics myself. However I strongly object to connecting the kabbalah in any way whatsoever with Christianity, as the Kabbalah is utterly racist and was also created long after Christ by the Jews that didn't embrace Christ when he came to them as their Messiah. Kabbalah is also sometimes claimed to come from the Khazar Jews, not Hebrew Jews expelled from Rome. Even the Roman expulsion story is under debate - did really all Jews get expelled, or only the pharisee high priests that killed Jesus (with the others converting to Christ)?

Moreover, the Kabbalah is presented as something alone the lines of "now a new era begins, everything that was forbidden is now allowed", meaning it goes against even early Jewish doctrine. It circulates around black magic and ideas that the soul of Jews is worth more than that of non-Jews. Furthermore, a lot of the people who today seem to be deep into the whole NWO thing, and are doing all sorts of weird anti-Christian stuff, seem involved in Kabbalah, e.g. Madonna and many of free masons (which we all know, most of the elite in America are members of).

[dancedwithdolphin]

I understand that the Kebbalah is mysticism. I didnt so much focus on that. I found Gematria, which was around before the time of Christ, and by many other nationalities. And to me, that sounded a lot like what John the Revelator was speaking of, since hebrew letters also are numbers. It was just a thought.

If you like I can try and find the site I was reading dealing with just this aspect.



Ok found it. Strange I only got it from wikipedia anyway here is the link letting you some of its origins:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gematria

[lalala]

Gematria, which was around before the time of Christ

Ah, that is certainly worth checking out then, I always thought that stuff was invented fairly recently. I think I'll see if it is confirmed by another source first.

Youtube is full of such counting the letters videos that show many different people being the beast. Maybe some additional rules for the complexity of the equation are needed to restrict it from being able to tell almost anyone as the beast. Which is one of the reasons I wondered about whether the key was a different one - namely referring to a number of people. Anyway, I haven't yet found anything that seems like the obvious answer to the riddle. Actually there are some alternative translation giving the number as 616 too, from what I heard.

[Walls]

Ah, that is certainly worth checking out then, I always thought that stuff was invented fairly recently. I think I'll see if it is confirmed by another source first.

Youtube is full of such counting the letters videos that show many different people being the beast. Maybe some additional rules for the complexity of the equation are needed to restrict it from being able to tell almost anyone as the beast. Which is one of the reasons I wondered about whether the key was a different one - namely referring to a number of people. Anyway, I haven't yet found anything that seems like the obvious answer to the riddle. Actually there are some alternative translation giving the number as 616 too, from what I heard.

I think you have pointed in the right direction. The number is not the only evidence of who the Beast is. There are quite a few passages concerning him which, on the one hand preclude a lot of people, and on the other hand narrow things down a lot. Just look at Revelation 17:7-13. "And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. 8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. 9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. 10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. 11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. 12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. 13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast."

In verse 7, if the woman represents Mystery Babylon then this Beast will be a religious leader, or at least the head of the great Babylonian religion.
In verse 8, he will be a man who has died and been resurrected. He goes live to the Lake of Fire later confirming that he will not die twice.
In verse 9, the locality fits very few places on earth. Rome is the only official city on 7 hills. The Greek word translated "mountains" comes fro the root word "to rise." It means a "piece of ground raised above the plain." "Mountain" might be misleading.
In verse 10, he is a king. Once again, few kings have also been representatives of the Babylonian religion.
Verse 11, confirms his death, resurrection and that he will not die twice. If you take John's date of writing then it must be one of the emperors of Rome, as this was the only world power at the time that supported the Babylonian religion.
Verse 12, shows support of other influential kings, but who are not monarchs. Could this be leaders of democracies? They are leaders who don't actually own kingdoms.

If, after considering such things, we then look into the number 666, very few possibilities remain.

[ohlurdy]

Thank you... plan to read more of your biblical knowledge.

While much of your post represents the truth there is enough divergence to question your motives. Unfortunately, not knowing you face to face, nor your ecclesiastical history, we readers can only go by your short postings. So please disregard my comments if they are not fitting.

First, there is no biblical or reliable secular history that Peter was ever in Rome. He was a Jew sent to the Jews (Gal.2:7-8). His only connection with the Gentiles was the event at Cornelius’ house, and the reason for this is given in Chapter 11 of Acts. Even Peter’s first letter is pointed at the dispersion (1^st Pet.1:1). Much more, it was Paul that was sent to the uncircumcision and was in Rome, though not as vicar of the Church of Rome, but as prisoner of the Pontifex Maximus Nero, a title carried on by subsequent Emporers of Rome especially after Constantine declared Christianity the official state religion in about 313 AD. And this title is continued till today.

This seems to point out to the reader that you embrace the Roman religion and might even be a Roman Catholic. This of course does not preclude you from posting as the Forum is for matters biblical and Romans are most welcome, but it does cast a different light on your motives.

But to your textual appreciation (which actually is the theme of your posting). To those who have taken the time to inform themselves on the various texts that have been used for our “vulgar” translations, the big questions that arise are;
· Are the originals available?
· If so, have they been changed?
· If so, how can we discover what was changed?

1. If the originals are not available, we can close the conversation now, as there is no basis for comparing anything. Also if the originals are not available, then it is clear that the God, Who makes such vast claims as “Almighty” did not have the power to supply us with the originals, or, if He is Almighty as claimed, did not want us to have them.
2. If the originals are with us, no doubt the enemy would attempt to corrupt these. One blatant such attempt was the changing of Isaiah by Jewish scholars to absolve blame for Christ’s murder and the evidence of so many fulfilled prophesies by Him. But this was discovered by a dual testimony of the Septuagint (written in the 3^rd century BC) and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. So the evidence points to the originals being available with the God of the bible backing them up, AND laying naked attempts to corrupt it.

If we are to discuss the originals, we must assume that the most scrutinized Book in human history has;
· General consensus amongst eminent scholars
· The protection of the Almighty

The main disagreement today is whether the originals are the Received Text or the Alexandrian Texts. But while there are about 1200 differences, neither of these proponents call into question the text under discussion here.

Finally, the last remaining question is, whether we should accept a dynamic translation for study instead of a literal one. Well, the very basis of a dynamic translation must preclude it from serious study, as it is a translation of “what the translator thought the text was getting at” instead of “what the text actually was.”

While it is much better for new Christian to have a dynamic translation and read it, as opposed to a 1611 King James Version and not read it, the Christian who would aspire to the maturity of Ephesians 4:11-15 needs literal translations of both sets of texts AND authoritative reference works like Strong’s and Vine’s. “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ."

I personally approach the texts under discussion in this thread as;
1. Already authenticated (the hundreds of scholars who have done this are appreciably eminent)
2. Literal (this would make the Beast a single man)
3. Having no real internal textual opposition (the rest of scripture deals with Jesus Christ, a single man, and an Anti-Christ as a single man).

God bless