0

enter image description here

This is where we get the 666 from in the Book of Revelation.

Revelation 13:18 (NASB)

Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is [a]six hundred and sixty-six.

[a]One early ms reads 616

Is there anything to support this interpretation? If so, what would the implications be?

Jesse
  • 2,014
  • 1
  • 11
  • 28
ThatwemaybethepraiseofHisglory
  • 209
  • 1
  • 12
  • This question is factually incorrect - "In the name of Allah" is actually بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم – Dottard Jan 10 '24 at 19:46
  • Do you mean the name Allah being used for what Revelations 13:16-17 says? Not sure I follow.

    16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

    17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

     – Jason_ Jan 10 '24 at 23:40
  • I voted to close this question as off topic. I also consider it polemical - a troll. – Dan Fefferman Jan 11 '24 at 00:33
  • As currently written, this must be closed because there isn't a question. And, the "alternative translation" needs some kind of justification or support, at least that the OP did the translation themselves or to cite who else did the translation. Until those two issues are addressed, this must remain closed. – Jesse Jan 12 '24 at 12:38
  • ...That being said, the text on the lower half of the graphic is from the earliest manuscript of Revelation we have available. I had to look into this when I did my own translation of Revelation. John was not writing Greek numerals; he was indeed drawing a graphic he saw in his vision, which was later viewed by scribes as "poorly copied Greek numerals", which resulted in the mistranslation of it being a number. As presented, the graphic poses a historically accurate question about the likeness of what John saw. However, this post has no such question about anything, the graphic or otherwise. – Jesse Jan 12 '24 at 12:40
  • @Dottard It is good that you are checking facts. However, the translation is not from English to Arabic. Arabic is the source. A more accurate critique would be something like, "The Arabic writing in the upper graphic is better translated to English as..." We're not addressing what the Arabic of "In the name of Allah" is, but the translation of the graphic in the ancient manuscript if it were understood as being Arabic. Since it isn't Greek, if it could be Arabic, then it would be a question about the Arabic language. – Jesse Jan 12 '24 at 12:45
  • We need to keep focused on the text. And, if there were any likeness drawn to a modern religion, then we need to be extremely clear about what it would not mean so that we don't stir hatred. On this site, we focus on ascertaining the meaning of the original text, not who we should label as the bad guys today. As written, this question does the latter. – Jesse Jan 12 '24 at 12:48
  • Most of all, this is a duplicate. The graphics and question have already been addressed in this answer. I'm editing this to address the uncited translation issue and the lack of any explanation for the graphic and any actual question. If the author edits this so that it 1. has a question, 2. cites any translation source, and 3. is not a duplicate, then I will consider re-opening it. – Jesse Jan 12 '24 at 13:03
  • @Jesse 1) Earliest manuscript does not = best—especially in Rev. 2) Likewise, Jesse, do you have any evidence that John was "drawing a graphic he saw in his vision"? In the best witnesses to these verses we do actually have numbers, not pictures/graphics. – Epimanes Jan 12 '24 at 13:46
  • @Epimanes It's all in the answer to the duplicate that I linked to and already explained as to the progression from older copies to newer. The one cited looks more like Arabic easily misunderstood as Greek; the slightly younger manuscripts seem to treat it as "wrongly written" and write it as similar looking Greek. It's all explained in the comments and the dup. Cheers! – Jesse Jan 12 '24 at 23:11
  • @Jesse Your data is incorrect. This post is a good place to start: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/15629/52771 – Epimanes Jan 13 '24 at 01:20

0 Answers0