In addition to starting with the words of the title of this post, Revelation 13:18 goes on to say, "If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666." Man's number; not a man's number! That Biblical language really does mean something, doesn't it? Okay, so now we can all stop trying to identify a man. Amen?
Since early in Christian history "scholars" have presented their ideas of what this means and have come up with a variety of names. The most favored solution, at least during the last century, is to turn letters into numbers and then add them up. Supposedly when you do that with "Nero Caesar" you come up with 666. Well, to explain the process a getting there a bit, lets use a big word to describe the method: transliteration! In simple application, if your name is Paul and you transliterate "Paul" into Spanish the name would be "Pablo." Non-proper nouns work the same way. For example, the four letter word "hope" in English transliterates into the nine lettered Spanish word "esperanza." We can see that such transliterating gives different letters and a different count of letters, too, and each letter would have its own number. I have to rely on authors who know Greek and Hebrew, but I understand that transliteration in those languages gives similar results. We know Revelation was written in Greek, so Latin names and words were given their Greek equivalence. Now, from what I read, to get "666" we must next transliterate the Greek name for Nero into Hebrew (No, not Latin--that would be too logical) before we begin giving the letters numerical values. That would, I feel certain, give us a different set of letters and well as different amounts of letters. So by all this transliterating from Latin to Greek to Hebrew we now begin to add up the numbers. Ready? Whoops, it's not 666! Ah ha, we can simply omit the final Hebrew letter to make it add up to 666.
Why would John writing in Greek transliterate into Hebrew? Hey, maybe omitting some other letter would give us a number that could be reduced to letters of Akbar Mosaumididit! Akbar is, of course, to be named the leader of the Islamic nation in the year 2086.
I now ask with all sincerity: Can anyone really be happy about this "favorite" identification? Can you accept the subjective and irrational process to get us a name that will add up to 666? I don't hear anyone shouting "Eureka! I've found the answer; I am full of wisdom and insight!"
Okay, but does Timeless/Symbolic have a better solution? Well, I'm not shouting "Eureka," yet the following has much in its favor: 7 is the number of completeness. In the Hebrew number language, 6 symbolized incompleteness, sham, deceit, depravity, evil and unrest; the absence of all that is good and decent. I am informed that in the Hebrew number language the "triple use of any number was a completion of it," sort of a completion of incompeteness. This then refers to the ultimate evil. Continuing the parodies we have already seen, we seem to have in the 666 the "Unholy Trinity."
After the many words now written we can be totally certain that 666 is a real beast of a number.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This is a great post. Really.
The transliteration of the Latin name of Nero into Hebrew is thoroughly ridiculous. Nobody does this sort of thing with proper names in real life.
Meaning, if you're Hispanic and you've been named Juan, I have no right to call you John, just because that's the English equivalent. You're not John; you're Juan. I think it's ludicrous to believe that first century Jews, living under Roman/Latin rule, would've had any reason or desire to transliterate Nero into some Hebrew equivalent. His name was Nero, plain and simple.
The only question I've got is in your original assertion that the correct translation is "man's number" and not "a man's number."
Like you, I have to rely on experts to get this right for me, but I see that the NIV translates it as you have it, but the translations that seek to be more word-for-word in their renderings (ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV) all have it as "it is a man's number." And none of them italicize the "a" as they normally would if they were inserting a word that is not in the manuscripts.
I can't say for sure either way, but I know the NIV is more thought-for-thought in its renderings, generally, and so is not quite as careful with that sort of detail. It's just something that would be good to check.
(It doesn't materially effect the conclusions you've drawn, one way or the other: Nero is still a dopey guess.)
Thank you indeed for your comments. I cherish such things!
I find your comments on "a man" versus "man" (Oh, you know) very interesting. As you say, we rely alot upon the work of scholars whom we hope are careful to do it right. I will try to check that out. I must, I must. You name some good sources, by the way. Do you have Dr. Sproul's Study Bible, ESV, I think? Just curious what he says. R.C. is probably my favorite Theologian these days.
I have the Reformation Study Bible in the ESV, and know that Sproul had a lot to do with that. They think 666 is Nero, though, which bugs the snot out of me: that's not the REFORMATION interpretation!
No one seriously started suggesting Nero until after the Jesuit Alcazar in 1617 or so. None of the Reformers thought like that. But the "Reformation Study Bible" is pretty heavily preterist in its Revelation notes. Go figure.
Off topic rant here: Hey, are you going to get to watch the NFL draft this weekend? The NFL Network's covering it in its entirety.
Sounds like Jerry Jones is serious about moving UP in the first round. We've got ten picks this year, so we can almost certainly do it without damaging ourselves. From all the quotes I've seen, I think he's targeting RB Adrian Peterson, and may be willing to go up to as high as the 10th pick to get him if he falls to there. Add that to the fact that the Cowboys have invited ex-Rams RB Trung Canidate (who's running in the 4.4 range after sitting out for a while with a foot injury)in for a workout and look-see, and I think there may be something real to the idea of trading Julius Jones this year.Personally, I think we should trade down into the early second plus get an extra pick later. There will still be good WR and CB prospects then, and CB is what I'd like to see us get first, unless a miracle happens and that DT Akoye falls to us. (Which is my pie-in-the-sky dream.)
I have watched rather constantly, at least the first day, when it was ESPN. I will probably be glued to the tv for the first day. I think some trades are likely, but to trade Julius Jones...well, they sure better make certain they are trading UP!
I keep thinking offensive line and cornerbacks could be an area for improvement. Maybe our O-line was such a problem I just can't feel confident. Hopefull Adams (whoops, is it Allen?) is not too far over the hill. I also think our run game could be lots better with an near A+ O-line. I'm wondering if we are more of a B+ O-line.
I doubt there is any way the Cowboys could get Peterson, but stranger trades have happened. We certainly have more lower round picks than any team needs.
One thing that has wiggled around in my spine (uh, that's where I worry) is that I always read of owner Jones making all the statements. I guess I'm ready to hear and know that the new defensive minded coach has plenty of input, like 'lets try for that super speedy linebacker.'
Can our new defensive minded coach and new offensive coordinator that all of football seems to respect, get us to the promise land?! I do believe we might be better than last year overall. I may be even optimistic that the coaching changes are for the best...and Parcells certainly was a man of the hour for the Cowboys. Now we're in a new hour and Parcells left us with a good team for the new guy to fine tune a bit.
Therefore, and whereas, too, it is looking to be exciting hereinafter for Cowboy fans for the new season.
Hey, two pretty promising O Line guys, a couple of super-fast cornerbacks with lots of potential, and a pass-rush specialist to book-end with D. Ware.
PLUS, maybe the best thing out of the draft: a 1st round pick next year that'll most likely be in the top five or so.
I hear it was Phillips who lobbied hard for drafting a kickoff specialist (a thing Parcells would never have even considered, and which frankly baffled me.) And that Stanback from Washington looks like he could be a pretty dangerous slash-type guy, if we can figure out how to get the ball in his hands.
I have to admit, after trading out of the second round entirely, I got a little worried, and then some picks confused me, but as I sit back, I like it more and more. I really suspect that a lot of what we saw as draft needs on defense was really a need to put our players in a position to succeed, scheme-wise, which wasn't happening at the end of the last season. I'm excited.
Post a Comment