God never backs out of His covenants and, He WILL give them the Kingdom just as He promised otherwise we call God a liar.
Buying and selling in the last days
- Thread starter shnarkle
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
God never backs out of His covenants and, He WILL give them the Kingdom just as He promised otherwise we call God a liar.
Bobby Jo
Well-Known Member
... and am just as lost and confused as all the others who have no WISDOM or UNDERSTANDING ...
There is none so blind as those who will not see,
Bobby Jo
What if the characters in the original manuscript were for the numerals "616" and not "666"? We can't prove that or not, unless you've examined the original manuscript from which this is all sourced from.
Your whole argument rests on the numeral written as characters for "666", but what if the translation is wrong, and it was actually the characters for "616"?
Last edited:
Bobby Jo
Well-Known Member
... the entire Bible were full of errors, mistakes, and fabrications?
What if you were a Christian?!? And what if GOD held you accountable for your heresy?!?
If Scripture isn't TRUE then GOD certainly got lucky with all of HIS Prophecies which exceed the shadows of history, exceed the lying commentators, and exceed the English translations. Maybe it's NOT PROPHETIC, -- just a fortuitous guess.
Whew,
Bobby Jo
Sabertooth
Well-Known Member
- Sep 17, 2019
- 1,204
- 1,133
- 113
- 63
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
In its present format, that will only yield 100,000 distinct ID nos. (not enough to fulfill Revelations 13).
Are you serious? I'm not a Christian because there's a train of thought out there, that I'm entertaining, that the original manuscript was "616" and not "666"? C'mon, that's ridiculous.
From what I've read about the 666 and 616, there are original manuscripts that have 666 and some have 61...this is way deep waters for me!
Here, let me take us into the ocean:
1)Novum Testamentum Graece - Wikipedia (this uses "666", which transliterates to "616" in Arabic numerals, which isn't really here nor there)
2)Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus - Wikipedia (this uses "616"), also supported by Papyrous 115
3)Papyrus 115 - Wikipedia
Ugh, my brain says "help me Father"...
Sabertooth
Well-Known Member
- Sep 17, 2019
- 1,204
- 1,133
- 113
- 63
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
No one will be able to put it to the test, until it is actually offered. If non-numeric forms are distributed first, that will be a little too late.
Bobby Jo
Well-Known Member
Bobby Jo
Well-Known Member
If you can't figure it out, -- ask. It's a simple concept which is redundant (solves more than one aspect, using the same methodology), and has ancillary support.
Choose to be ignorant or informed, -- your choice,
Bobby Jo
I didn't state that it was definitively; just that it could be, and there's information out there that suggests it could be. I wasn't stating it was a fact. It very well could be "666". But unless you've examined the manuscripts, and can prove which of the two/three manuscripts are the "right" one, it's possibilities at this point...
Oh NOOO, the ocean! Hey there's sharks in there!! But then, we have "land sharks too", they are wicked people who try to sneak in false doctrine and lead believers astray . Boy we sure have to be on our toes. "If even the very elect"! I don't know what to think of the differing numbers but...I don't worry about it, it is interesting and deep though.
I need a life jacket
Oh NOOO, the ocean! Hey there's sharks in there!! But then, we have "land sharks too", they are wicked people who try to sneak in false doctrine and lead believers astray . Boy we sure have to be on our toes. "If even the very elect"! I don't know what to think of the differing numbers but...I don't worry about it, it is interesting and deep though.
I need a life jacket
Yeah those land sharks are called wolves ;)I agree, I need a life jacket too. Do you have a spare one? ;)
I agree, I need a life jacket too. Do you have a spare one? ;)
Yes, wolves is the better word!
Sorry, you will have to use an inner tube, I'm clean out of life jackets...Good thing God is our life line :)
Bobby Jo
Well-Known Member
Well, let me think. "Computer" sums to 666. The world's most senior Jewish political statesman's name sums to 666. And UPC barcodes have an embedded 6/6/6. Yeah I'll bet Scripture actually intended to cited 616.
But now that you point it out, -- it makes sense that where GOD has his Father/Son/Holy-Spirit, (i.e., 7/7/7), that satan would have his Father/A-C/Computer (6/1/6). Wait, shouldn't that be 6/6/6?
We'll get there,
Bobby Jo
Last edited:
Why are you talking about "his name" when Revelation doesn't mention the word "name"? Careful. . . .
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Last edited:
Bobby Jo
Well-Known Member
Rev. 13:18 This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number, its number is six hundred and sixty-six.
You convert his NAME into a NUMBER which sums to 666. -- Or a person can try to deceive even the elect ...
Bobby Jo
Go ahead and add "name" to the text if you like. That's your affair. I also would not talk about the "antichrist" since John doesn't use the word in Revelation. Why can't people use the word he used? Why add something that may or may be right?
Similar threads
