Evolution (need alot of input please)

[no_leaf_clover]

What crackhead antichrist would actually use that number now that everyone knows what it is?

That particular passage suggests the number wouldn't be obvious except to the learned, or those who have knowledge, etc. No idea how the number would be significant though.

[Souljah333]

Not trying to be picky here, but if you read the article more carefully, they never say that they were mistaken, or that even 616 is the right number.

They simply found an early text that had 616 instead of 666 for a change apparently, raising ideas that 616 may be the 'real' one, despite being outnumbered and out-aged. Articles can be manipulative like that.

i have to admit i didn't read it carefully. i can't remember the last time i read anything carefully...it's more an intuition thing with me. and i don't mean to pick either (really i don't), but this kind of information about who said what/what it really meant/back and forth and back and forth stuff...is what make MY head hurt. i know...then what am i doing here?!? bcuz every now and then there is a spark of light... like the fireflies that are dancing outside my window right now and then it's nice!!!

good point about the time thing. (smarta*ss).

i didn't really want to split hairs over the number thing, but i'm glad you understand it as you did. i on the other hand...just see it as men regurgitating yesterdays lunch...nothing particularly attractive in it. and an earlier version...wouldn't that imply the "original"!?! Damn...see know you're gonna make me go and read it again!

"This is a very nice piece to find," Dr. Aitken said. "Scholars have argued for a long time over this, and it now seems that 616 was the original number of the beast."

The fragment was part of a hoard of previously illegible manuscripts discovered in an ancient garbage dump outside the Egyptian city of Oxyrhynchus. Although the papyrus was first excavated in 1895, it was badly discoloured and damaged. Classics scholars at Oxford University were only recently able to read it using new advanced imaging techniques.

man...i might as well post the rest...

The book is thought to have been written by the disciple John and according to the King James Bible, the traditional translation of the passage reads: "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."

But Dr. Aitken said that translation was drawn from much later versions of the New Testament than the fragment found in Oxyrhynchus. "When we're talking about the early biblical texts, we're always talking about copies and they are copies made, at best, 150 to 200 years after [the original] was written," she said.

"They can have mistakes in the copying, changes for political or theological reasons ... it's like a detective story piecing it all together."

Dr. Aitken said, however, that scholars now believe the number in question has very little to do the devil. It was actually a complicated numerical riddle in Greek, meant to represent someone's name, she said.

"It's a number puzzle -- the majority opinion seems to be that it refers to [the Roman emperor] Nero."

Revelation was actually a thinly disguised political tract, with the names of those being criticized changed to numbers to protect the authors and early Christians from reprisals. "It's a very political document," Dr. Aitken said. "It's a critique of the politics and society of the Roman empire, but it's written in coded language and riddles."

does that mean that the bible is a 200 yr old copy of some political journal???

[no_leaf_clover]

does that mean that the bible is a 200 yr old copy of some political journal???

Come to think of it, I just saw a documentary recently on Revelations, and how it was written especially for persecuted Christians during some hard times and made use of a lot of symbolism that is only in context back then.

[Ben K]

I think i saw that too. Was it on the history channel?

I love how they go through all the natural disasters and then at the end the one scientist who actually knows what hes talking about goes "Well, theres actually no increase in the number of earthquakes" or whatever.

TV for the masses. Mmmmmmmmmmm.

[no_leaf_clover]

Yeah I think that was exactly the one lol. I was about to say Discovery Channel but I forgot what channel it was exactly so I left that detail out. But yeah same program I'm pretty sure.