Talk:Number of the beast

RFID Chips

Many argue and believe that the 'Mark of the Beast' is in fact realized with the implantation of an RFID chip , a microchip implanted in humans' either right hand or forehead that without would not allow a person to buy or sell goods as stated in the Book of Revelations. Yet there seems to be no mention of this in this article. I feel that there should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.148.77 (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reference? Someguy1221 (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad is also written in Greek as Μοχάμεντ

Needs to be included in this article that the Greek language often (if not most commonly) spells Muhammad Μοχάμεντ (Mocament, pronounced Mochament), not even the "Maometis" term in question. If one counts the Greek gematria in this case "Isopsephy" [1] of the Greek spelling Μοχάμεντ for Muhammad they get 1106 not 616 or 666 at all. An important point that should be mentioned in that section, i.e. difference in the way the Arabic name Muhammad is even spelled in Greek (again Μοχάμεντ) for example [2]. The name Μοχάμεντ.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Historylover4 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 20 March 2012‎

But the article isn't claiming that Maometis is the common, modern translation of Muhammad, it's saying that an 18th century Catholic bishop "observed that the name Muhammad was spelled Maometis or Moametis by Euthymius Zygabenus and the Greek historians Zonaras and Cedrenus". We don't need a whole extra paragraph explaining that it's not a modern translation, and that if Walmesley had chosen a different word he'd have gotten a different number. Some sourced criticism of Walmesley's methods would be welcome, though. A quick Google Books search turns up the 1848 The number and names of the Apocalyptic beasts criticising Walmesley for his "disingenuity" in using a dubiously obscure Latinsation of a Greek translation of an Arabic word. --McGeddon (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

A simple point that "Maometis" isn't the modern Greek spelling of the name Muhammad should at least be quickly mentioned. Simply mentioning the Greek spelling Μοχάμεντ would accomplish this (and since this page deals with Greek isopsephy stating the fact that the Greek Μοχάμεντ adds up to 1106 in said isosephy, thus different then either variant of 666 or 616, is not out of line).Historylover4 (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding on to what user McGeddon said I posted info from the scholarly source "The Number And Names Of The Apocalyptic Beasts: With An Explanation And Application In Two Parts" by David Thom that is a pretty conclusive response to Charles Walmesley (Walmesley appears to be the main target in this writing by Thom, he also mentions Massuet by name and others). Specifically quoted are pages 198-199 [3] Historylover4 (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

David Thom gives a completely thorough academic dissection of the word "maometis" and concludes that those advancing it such as Walmesely and Massuet (and all the others including in that maometis claim). Again scholarly 1923 work of David Thom [4], book of David Thom The Number And Names Of The Apocalyptic Beasts: With An Explanation And Application In Two Parts [5] Historylover4 (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Let the person with insight caculate the 666

How to caculate the 666 is by reading Rev 19:20. Everyone has their own learning curve but if you listen the wild beast is the false prophets God and that false prophet is the dragon in sheeps covering that performed signs so as to mislead those who are marked by the wild beast and who rendered worship to its image. So by caculation those who are marked by the wild beast are those who believe in the false prophet and his God.-Rev.17:13,14 If you are called, chosen, or faithful alond with Jesus Christ you all will conquer the wild beast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.78.220 (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"Insight" is not listed at the guidelines for reliable sources. We don't take original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As Ian said you can keep your supposed "insight" to yourself. Also a Christian website itself states the following regarding the Book of Revelation that the vast bulk of academics say is an intricate socio-political commentary on the pre-Christian Roman Empire (that incorporates many symbols such as the 616 or 666 referring to Nero Caesar whether taken into Hebrew from the Latin "Nero Caesar" aka 616 or the Greek "Neron Caesar" aka 666) "Many scholars see worship of the emperor as the background for the worship of the Beast in Revelation 13:4, 15-16; 14:9-11, 15:2, 16:2, 19:20, 20:4" Historylover4 (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The Gentleman's Magazine and David Thom

I don't see either of these as reliable sources by our criteria at WP:RS. And why would we even mention David Thom? What makes him significant enough (see WP:NPOV to be mentioned here? And why is his 1849 work dated long after his death to 1923? I've raised these at WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

David Thom is significant because he responds to the assertions of the very questionable Charles Walmesley. Every other section analyzes the claims raised, such as giving the Catholic churches response to people who associate the "number" with them. The section on Muhammad should analyze the claim, and all the evidence shows that the English Catholic Walmesley and those he took the "Maometis" claim from (among slightly earlier French Catholics, using what is noted as a dubiously obscure Latinsation of a Greek translation of an Arabic word) were not being honest as none of the actual Byzantine historians that Walmesley claims write the name "Maometis" actuall write it that way! We know the exact seven ways the name Muhammad was written in Greek by each specific Greek historian and what value they value in Greek gematria. This is crucial info that should be included for a non-biased article http://books.google.com/books?ei=t8ZoT5nJDqrd0QHt5LimCQ&id=Mh0_AAAAYAAJ&dq=The+number+and+names+of+the+Apocalyptic+beasts&q=maometis#v=snippet&q=maometis&f=false Mωάμετ = 1186. Euthymius. Mωάμεδ = 890. Nicetas, Cedrenus, Euthymius. Mωάμεϑ = 895. Cananus, Zonaras, and Euthymius. Mουάμεδ = 560. Theophanes. Mουάμεϑ = 565. Cons. Porphyrogenitus. Mουχουμετ = 1925. Cons. Porphyrogenitus, Euthymius, Cedrenus, Nicetas. Mαχουμετ = 1456. Cantacuzenus."

Every other section gives analysis and discussion be it on Nero, the Catholic church, etc etc. but for some reason some people don't want the full argument detailed on the section titled Muhammad (seems like a bias against Islam, if every other group or entity "charged" responds back with the full analysis and counter-argument but the counter-argument to Walmesely's claim is not at least noted and linked). Walmesely, and those from the slightly earlier 1500s among Catholics in France that he took the claim from, is critiqued very harshly as being a fabricator this should at least be mentioned (i.e. the seven spellings of Muhammad's name translated into Greek with which Byzantine historian wrote which and none of them is the alleged "Maometis"). Again not mentioning this is extremely biased! Historylover4 (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Significant views in reliable sources - significant doesn't mean something you think is significant, it means something that is discussed in other reliable sources. What makes Thom a reliable source according to WP:RS and what reliable sources discuss his views? Obscure 19th century sources simply are not enough. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dougweller here. The relevant guidelines and policies seem to me to be WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Basically, we would need to see evidence that Thom is considered a reliable source by other academic (or, potentially, religious) sources to verify that he meets WP:RS requirements. If that is demonstrated, then we would determine where to put the material, and specifically how much material from his work should be included in this article as per WP:WEIGHT. Knowing nothing about Thom myself one way or another at this point, I only know that there have been, and continue to be, a number of sources written by a variety of people, including academics, ministers, and laypeople, about topics related to the Bible, and that we do not have sufficient space in these main articles on topics to accommodate all of them. On that basis, we are understandably required to pay particular attention to the matter of determining which if any get included in this, the main article on the subject, and which get included in other articles, like articles on the individual authors or works involved. At this point, maybe starting an article on

David Thom, which doesn't seem to exist yet, indicating the influence his opinions have had on other sources, might be a good first step in determining where to put other material about him, and how much such material to include. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

NRSV

The section "616" included the sentence:

The NRSV translation for Rev 13:18 includes this translation note: "Other ancient authorities read six hundred and sixteen".

There's no reason to privilege the NRSV here over other translations that carry notes to the same effect, particularly since the paragraph is describing exactly those "other ancient authorities" referenced in the note. Mention of it is therefore redundant; it adds no new information.

This sentence is also a word-for-word rehash of a reference in the lede about the 616 variant; I am cutting that as well since more specific secondary sources are already cited. 192.91.173.36 (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

χξϛ, not 666

666 is a misrepresentation of the number of the beast, since in Greek six hundred sixty-six may not be represented by the repetition of the Greek number 6 three times. The Greek number 6 is represented in by Greek by digamma (F) or stigma ( ϛ or c). However FFF is not six hundred sixty-six in Greek, neither is ϛ ϛ ϛ (nor ccc) six hundred sixty-six. Greek numbers do not have place value like Arabic numbers do. I am not sure how to revise this article to bring it closer to the truth, since Wikipedia does not claim to present truth, only the claims of "reliable" secondary sources. But any secondary source which advocates 666 as an accurate representation of the number of the beast, is not a reliable source. Also, I know that Wikipedia does not accept primary sources or original research by editors.

I discovered this fact when I was teaching students about a movie that used binary numbers for that of the beast 0110 is six in binary. The movie had 0110 0110 0110 as the number of the beast, albeit with each 0110 above the others, laid out vertically, not horizontally. 0110 0110 0110 is not 666 in binary. And I realized that as I prepared to explain the movie's binary code to the students. The correct numerical designation of six hundred sixty-six is χξϛ . While indeed six hundred sixty-six is correctly represented in Arabic numbers as 666, this representation seems to imply that the number given in revelation is expressible by repeating a 6 three times. (EnochBethany (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC))

Interesting... but not going to fly without consensus. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, those interested can look at the history at my proposed edit & see what they think. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC))

Six-hundred sixty six get the point across as best as possible, however. That readers used to Arabic numbers may read 666 as three 6s is not really solved by switching to letters that most of our readers do not understand. 666 can also be read as "six-hundred sixty six," and the article sticks rather consistantly to six-hundred sixty six based interpretations. We could stand to include a section stating that it is not three sixes, if we had a source saying so. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ian. Rather than changing up the whole style of the article, I would also like to see a subsection on this matter. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

666 and Human Body - "number of a man"

666("number of a man" Rev.13:18) is of mouth shut and fingertips on both hands, as forehead has two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, and a mouth, which add up to seven, since keyboard is used in communication, people don't open mouth to talk, as mouth is closed, so there are only 6 left; hand is of arm and palm, arm has two sections, palm is made of one section connecting fingers, and three sections of fingers, so fingertips are number six, on both sides.