Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;paddyman98, post: 2127401, member: 44615&quot;]<img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie92" alt=":stop:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> This is and old thread, interesting and silly at the same time.. I studied Theology and the truth is that 666 is incorrect, It was actually 616. You are looking for the wrong number! <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie15" alt=":arghh:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> ... I want to share this with you.</p><p>Quote<i> &quot;The recent 616 discovery, which was found in a collection of documents recovered in Egypt, isn’t exactly a whole new revelation. While it dates back the furthest, other ancient manuscripts of the Book of Revelation have the number as 616 instead of 666, provoking some debate in the past as to which were the original digits. Both Greek and Hebrew letters have numeric values that can be added up to arrive at a total. One common explanation of 666 is that it comes from the numerical value of “Nero” transliterated into Hebrew letters. A small change in the transliteration can result in 616.</i></p><p><i>Many scholars believe that 666 won out because it is derived from a more complex formula and also because it’s simply more catchy. “Six hundred sixty-six looks like a more memorable number than 616,” said David Parker, a New Testament professor at the University of Birmingham in England. “Six hundred sixty-six steadily took over, and the alternative was forgotten until modern scholars in the past 200 years started to look at more manuscripts and to find ones that had been lost.”</i> - unquote[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in