Re: [asa] A case of non-biological ID

Vernon

I go through your original post and show why your arguments for 666 are inconclusive and not certain.

As far as I am concerned I am not worried whether the number is 666 or 616

Michael
   ,
      There are several good reasons why those of us who take Book of Revelation seriously will want to bring to a swift end the current debate concerning the proper reading of 13:18: viz. are we to understand the number of the beast to be 666 (as our Bibles inform us), or 616 (as some currently active investigators would have us believe)? With this in mind I've put together a brief historical reconstruction which, I trust, will confirm your own views. Observe that it also authenticates my claimed _666-Genesis 1:1_ link.(see www.whatabeginning.com/ObDec.htm).

      To place things in perspective, the papyrus fragment to which you have drawn our attention (and which purports to assign the number 616 to the beast) dates from the early third to fourth centuries AD. It was found at Oxyrhynchus, an Egyptian town that lies some 300 km south of Alexandria. Even at this comparatively late date it is rated to be one of the earliest surviving fragments of the Book of Revelation. (see http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/beast616.htm).

      Now, let's rehearse some relevant events that occurred _some centuries earlier_:

      Circa 95 AD (the generally accepted date for the writing of Revelation),

      As I said before this is not universally held.

       John (not necessarily 'the disciple whom Jesus loved') writes the details of his heavenly-inspired vision. In obedience (1:11), he posts a _first generation_ copy (prepared by himself, or by one under his supervision) to each of the churches in Asia Minor

      Where is your evidence for this? Or is it surmise from the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation.

      - including one to the church in _Smyrna_ (2:8-11) where Polycarp (69 - 156 AD) was deacon

      We know that Polycarp was Bishop here after 100 but there seems to be no evidence when he arrived

      (and, later, elder and bishop). He (Polycarp) would therefore, at the earliest possible date, have been brought into direct contact with a _pristine copy_ of this Book.

      This is surmise and not proof or even probablilty

      As a well-informed Christian (enjoying contact with many who had walked with the Lord during his earthly ministry) - later martyred for his faith - Polycarp would

      WOULD is not good enough. It is really a word of personal credulity rather than historical research

       have appreciated the significance of the 'number of the beast' in respect of, [1] it being the key to wisdom (13:18), [2] it being something to gain victory over (15:2) and, [3] it being a number that Christians should refuse to carry as a mark (13:16,17). The author of the Book being still alive,

      Because we cannot be sure that John wrote in 95 and that Polycarp was in Smyrna in 95 we cannot conlcude that

      we reasonably infer that any doubts that might then have arisen concerning the number would have been properly resolved.

      Let us therefore, with confidence, claim that Polycarp _must have known what the true number was_.

      No we cannot. Everyone of your arguments is inconclusive so your conclusions have to inconclusive. You have not either proved your point or shown it to be probable.

       Irenaeus (early 2nd century AD), Bishop of Lyon, had been a disciple of Polycarp; _he, therefore, cannot fail to have known what the true number was_.

      Why not?

      Here is an excerpt from Book V, Chapter 28, of his 'Against Heresies':

      "And he will cause a mark [to be put] in the forehead and in the right hand, that no one may be able to buy or sell, unless he who has the mark of the name of the beast or the number of his name; and the number is six hundred and sixty-six,"... that is, six times a hundred, six times ten, and six units. (see http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103528.htm).

      For good measure, as you have already quoted, 'The early Church father Irenaeus knew several occurrences of the 616-variant but regarded them as a scribal error and affirmed that the number 666 stood "in all the most approved and ancient copies" and is attested by "those men who saw John face to face".

      Would you not agree with me, therefore, that the foregoing observations settle this most vexing matter which must now be counted immune to all current and future speculation? The correct number can be none other than 666!

      Each of your arguments separately are inconclusive and that means you cannot show that 666 is the correct number.

      It remains an undecided question.

      Vernon
      www.otherbiblecode.com
      www.whatabeginning.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jan 16 15:23:34 2008