Talk:Number of the beast/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Mark of commerce, "supranational currency"

Blogs are rarely reliable sources, and are not in this case. If the material about supranational currency can't be supported by citation to reliable sources, it's got to go. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The entire futurist section is now a jumbled mess. I submit that the lion's share of futurists would accept the premise that the "Mark of the Beast" will be a physical tag or ID of some sort, and that the passage that one "may neither buy nor sell" without the Mark means exactly what it says. The supposition of a supranational currency really is independent of any scripture concerning the "Mark of the Beast" - one could have a physical ID without a world-wide currency, and vice-versa. Thus, I submit, that the poorly cited passage concerning a supranational currency should go, and that "Mark of Commerce" section revert to being one that primarily addresses the contention that the "Mark of the Beast" will be a physical identifying mark.

Bonbga (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have researched and reconsidered my position set forth in the 16 March posting (above). I submit that the two poorly labeled futurist sections need to be (a) grouped together under the heading "Futurist Views" or something similar; and (b) be subdivided and subheaded more clearly. The section labeled "mark of commerce" needs to be labeled something like "Supranational Currency". The section that immediately follows needs to be relabeled with "Physical Body Marks" or something similar.

All content that relates to currency revisions from the second paragraph would then be relocated to the first paragraph. We would be left with one paragraph solely devoted to currency views, and one paragraph related to the "physical mark" view. I submit that the "physical mark" view is the predominant view among futurists, but I (admittedly) have not taken a survey.

Thoughts? Opinions?

                                Bonbga (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

666 birthdate

Facts needing adding to main article: (Forenote- commonly 666 is thought to refer to the birthdate of the Antichrist, etc)

The Date of June 6, 1959 "reduces" to 666 - the first 2 sixes readily seen by 6th month (June) and 6 th day , followed by the more convoluted manner of repeated additions to reduce 1959 to 6.

Who then has that birthdate, further adding that the person with this birthdate is expected by prophecy to be (as the overpowering AC) the global world leader... etc

And in this regard of checking who was born on that birthdate, we should be reminded that surely, perhaps ? the birthdate, as a clear marker of the AC, would be camouflaged OR hidden... and this then, begins, to perhaps point to person with controversy over what their real birthdate is. /s/ bolon y k jr 69.121.221.97 (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Your doing some sums and finding the number 666 is original research, and of no interest to an encyclopaedia project. --McGeddon (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

decimal?

I feel this article mentions mostly abstruse conjecture, very much like many of Wikipedia's physics articles.

Is there a view anywhere that the 'figure' might represent the decimal for 2/3?
That might be apt: man often decides arguments by 2/3 majority rule. 2/3 represents the height of human argument.

Cannot 'on' also mean 'in'? For example, when someone asks another "what's on your mind?", they are not asking the person what is on top of their head or forehead or whatever. They are asking about the person's thoughts.

Why would it ever need to be some special currency? As it is, nobody can buy or sell unless they believe in their mind in the power of money and use their hand to grab or give the money. Why must only 'special' money be the beast? --Neptunerover (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Greek and Hebrew are not English. We use decimal points, they didn't. On can mean in in some languages, but I don't know that that is the case in Koine and Hebrew. However, if there is a reliable source for those views being notable, it can go in. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Did the person know what they were writing when they wrote what the number is? Was it something that was supposed to make sense to them at the time when they were inspired to write it? --Neptunerover (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That is interpretation. Wikipedia does not interpret, it merely presents summaries of different sources, which may interpret. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You answered my question. If there is anything anywhere about that interpretation, it hasn't made it into Wikipedia yet, making this the wrong place to ask about that interpretation. So, thank you for taking your time to answer me and my question. --Neptunerover (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Decimal numbers did not exist until long after the Biblical canon. 2/3 is reasonably represented by zero, a decimal point, and an infinite number of 6's. "666" is far from infinite. Concern about 2/3 as a signal of the Antichrist is thus an anachronism.Pbrower2a (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

666 the number of the Beast.....

The one part the both scholars & theologians seemed to miss from the new testament of the Christian Holy Bible is this paragraph.... 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. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. At what part did the Christians, Romans, Greeks or any other race of people only ever buy & sell goods using the number 666 or even 616? It seems strange that one slight but very important part of the paragraph they seem to just shrugg of & ignore. The same people that do not believe in Jesus & God I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.92.209.135 (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Christians aren't a race.

2) You may wish to read the article The Beast (preterism) and the section of this article Roman Emperors. Coins were minted with Nero's name.

3) What someone other than you believes is not your decision. Ian.thomson

4) Please sign your posts with four tidles (~~~~). (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

sin,cos,tan

vvvvv,knowledge or time is the mark of Satan,he has it on his mouth and on his forehead.Since Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of knowledge it is said they will be like God and still it is death.There was no woman before Adam,only angels and God."up and down"they call the dragon Verne(windows Vista,the piano,).Twentythreethousand (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Triangle

666 can be found in the triangle, which is common in esoteric religion and spirituality.

http://www.whatabeginning.com/ASPECTS/Triangle666.htm

I'm sure there are plenty of sources where people have mentioned this, and I can find them later. This may or may not need to be posted, but I'm putting it out there just in case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.201.15 (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting! But as far as I can see, that's a piece of valid maths, not the raging unfounded systemism of numerological "mysticism". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised no religious group has tried to persecute the freemasons or new agers for using triangles based on that. I heard it used in a theory about the catholic church being the Antichrist based on their concept of the trinity, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.136.190 (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the info out there

This content is being deleted by vandalistic censorship. I don't get it. Newsweek is not good enough a reference ? What's next ? The Bible ? What is PoV in that content ? I can understand correction but I can't understand deletion. Someone connect the dots for me. This is a documented lottery draw which has a wide coverage in the press and espouses a vast faith-inspired belief that Obama is indeed the Antichrist. If someone can tell me what's going on please do so because right now I'm in the dark. What spooks me is this wish to not talk about it. Robotic-like deletion. Hellooo ! Someone there ? I think that if no one wants to talk then indeed this will go straight to arbitration and fast. This information is good for Newsweek, it'll damn well be good enough for Wiki. What is Wiki to look down on Newsweek ? God All Mighty ? Wikipedia cannot look away from the facts. It can't invent reality as it goes along. Reality is not a lie, despite what is being told to us. There is truth in reality.

"On Internet videos - using the official State website as reference - have flourished widely on the topic of 666, which say that on Nov. 5. 2008.(24 hours after Barack Obama's win) the Illinois Lottery drew 666 and this was in the special victory-news edition in (all the dozens of Illinois newspapers and Newsweek) printed 30 hours after Barack Obama's victory." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geiremann (talk • contribs) 14:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Videos by the editor, lol. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek

A recent diff [1] by Geiremann which contains info from a Newsweek magazine. This has been reverted by several users due to irrelevancy according to the Notability guidelines. Stickee (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The content will be aligned with notability guidelines then.

The notability of Newsweek is beyond doubt.

I'll align with Newsweek's coverage of the Mark of the Beast (the newsweek title...go check it out yourself if you don't believe me.)

Geiremann (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The contribution implies a rather slanderous and non-factual claim that Barack Obama is related to the number 666. This has been stated by several other editors in their edit summaries (eg: [2]). Additionally, this article is not about modern day coincidences or trivia. Stickee (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Trivial at best, probably closer to slanderous. That has no business being in this article. Dayewalker (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't belong in the article. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The addition I made which is this....... * Newsweek's Lisa Miller writes about the Illinois Lottery's 666 as the Mark of the Beast. ....is a simple one, with no allusion whatsoever to Obama. It cannot be said to be irrelevant or inappropriate or non-notable. 1. Newsweek (The Washigton Post - owners) is not irrelevant... at least not the last time I looked. It's still a big mover in mainstream news. No - not IRRELEVANT. 2. Inappropriate ? No. The article states "666...is the sign of the Beast". The criticism that this "Number of the Beast" entry is about ancient forms of thought is false. The section I put it in is about modern-day interpretations - with the quote just before mine being from 1998 !!!

3. non-notable ? No. Newsweek and Washington Post are notable sources, so is the Illinois Lottery, and the news of the lottery was printed in hundreds of thousands,.... millions of copies. It's thus a notable fact. The newspiece by Newsweek is about Rapture Ready, and that's a NOTABLY large organisation. Please allow the the addition. We can't just repress the facts. Thanks to all; bye. Geiremann (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Newsweek, the Number of the Beast, and Rapture Ready all meet Wikipedia's notability criteria- and, indeed, there are articles about all of those subjects. The question, however, is whether Barack Obama is strongly associated with Number of the Beast in a way that would make this article incomplete without a mention of it. It seems clear that the only reason to add that name to this article is to disparage Mr. Obama, and not to add any useful information about Number of the Beast for readers. It further seems clear that there is no serious past or present scholarship associating Mr. Obama with this concept, so adding him to the article on the basis of a very insigificant mention would not give readers accurate information about the Number of the Beast. If we were adding a list of 'trivial mentions,' including everyone who has identified by '666' by some media outlet or commentator, then Mr. Obama would certainly belong on that list, along with an enormous list of other politicians. Are you suggesting that such a list should be added to this article? In general, Wikipedia discourages trivia sections. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

FisherQueen, you're entitled to your PoV. I maintain that this topic is the topic of this entry Number of the Beast, and that if a senior editor like Lisa Miller at Newsweek, former head editor of the WSJ, chooses to do a piece asking "Is Obama the Antichrist ?" and she quotes a big org like Rapture Ready about it, that's her right and I'm not to decide if I like Obama or not (I do like him.). I'm not here to discuss your opinions pro or against Obama, I'm here to seek consensus among others. So if people will all step up to this plate and give voice, thank you. Bascially I'm saying this is not trivia, but indeed a modern present-day "sighting" of 666 which this "Number of the Beast" entry must cover so as not to remain in the dark. If trivia were not on this page, why the heck is the RFID chip section there ? Now that's trivia. The Lottery is real while the RFID chip is not. That's crazy. I don't think treating Newsweek's Lisa Miller as trivia is the right approach. Also, who is to judge what the lottery showed ? Maybe it is a sign. 666 is about sings. Wake up. That's what it's all about. Geiremann (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Barack Obama as Anti-Christ" conspiracy theory is a fringe viewpoint, and is covered here [3]. Dayewalker (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The diff shown is not only nn, but is rather incoherent. It needn't be admitted into the article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Can all please comment please for consensus, I can't believe you're all Obama crazies. There must be at least one sane person here. That's tongue-in-cheek folks, don't get nervous, it's not the end of the world. (or is it ?) Geiremann (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Every single edit you've made on Wikipedia has been to push the conspiracy that Obama is the Anti-Christ. I really wouldn't be calling anyone else crazy at this point, just because other editors have problems with your edits due to policy. Dayewalker (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the lottery drawing was real and yes, the RFID chip is not. However, the RFID chip is not trivial: there is substantial coverage in independent reliable sources about the claimed RFID chip. The association with the lottery drawing of 666 and Obama, however, is mentioned in (not substantially covered in, mentioned in) one article in an independent reliable source. Contrary to your claim that it is "An important event because only Newsweek covered this fact in the press", it is trivial because only Newsweek covered it. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - by all means add it to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, where it has some relevance, but it's just trivia here. The article doesn't and shouldn't list every public figure in history who's been briefly connected to the number 666. --McGeddon (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw you're tracking my posting, is there any explanation for that ? Some one-track mind here ? Listen, I'm going to open a discussion for consensus at Lisa Miller's page. But I'll warn you (friendily don't worry) that my line will be to ask whether "you claim she did not write that article". I think you'll have to fight long and hard to make Lisa Miller no longer have written that article. As JFK said "you can lie to the (most of the etc...) people most of the time but not all the time."Geiremann (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You've tried to add this material to four different pages, and been reverted in all four. As I advised you earlier, anywhere you post this material will be contentious, so please start on the talk pages.

As for the Lisa Miller page, I'll comment there, but merely the fact that something exists doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. Miller's probably written thousands of columns, just because your favorite isn't specifically mentioned doesn't mean it needs to be. Dayewalker (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually don't add it to the religious conspiracy theories page, it's not a conspiracy theory. It's something else, but not a conspiracy theory. Canterbury Tail talk 19:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm against including this. Neither Newsweek nor Lisa Miller are notable sources, and they are not suitable for a scholarly article. The real question should be whether an Encyclopaedia, even an online one, needs to include this. In my view it doesn't and it mixes very poorly with the genuine scholarship that the article is based upon. Eluard (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Bismillah and 666

I have restored this many times. I do believe this is a relevant Other Interpretation.

Walid Shoebat first pointed this relation out. Those removing the topic either call him unreliable or are removing this cause they do not like how it relates to islam. Why is Walid Shoebat not a reliable source? He is the one that made the Interpretation, therefore is reliable source for this Other Interpretation. Does not matter what you think of the guy or if you like that guy, that is being subjective. Doesn't matter if the material is interpretation is realities new either. I have added an additional reference that show an great example in a video of this interpretation, though the guy missed 'vis' in the video, though if he had not the interpretation would have been even more clear. I do not think this topic should be removed because it is a valid interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ploxhoi (talk • contribs) 18:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You need reliable, scholarly sources to include this interpretation. On the basis of the website provided, it looks non-notable and fringe. Once scholarly sources are provided, it may be admitted to the article. WP policy pages explaining this in more detail can be found in the links I put on your talk page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ploxhoi, you also restored "i am satan and i wil say to you that mty favorite number 666 that,s becous my pentagram is from thos numbers ps.keep on rocking!!\m/" to the article. But in any case, Shoebat's view isn't significant. We don't just add anything that anyone says, even if they have an article on Wikipedia. Please see WP:NPOV. It looks non-notable to me also, when scholarly sources start to discuss it, then will be the time to discuss adding it to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 18:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not restore "i am satan and i wil say to you that mty favorite number 666 that,s becous my pentagram is from thos numbers ps.keep on rocking!!\m/" , I attempted to undo that vandalism. But I could not save it.

Also I read the policy and I did update the sources which you neglected to review. You just removed the material I added without reading. Please review what you removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ploxhoi (talk • contribs)

Here's the diff where you restored the vandalism -- I'm sure you didn't mean to do that. I read the material, why do you think I didn't? Nothing there makes his comments meet our criteria for inclusion in the article. Dougweller (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The video is of Shobat explaining his interpretation. How is he not a reliable source for his own interpretation? The video is not a copyright violation nor the other pages, see fair use. I am talking about the changes Carl.bunderson made, though I do not agree with your removal, your summary makes the removal appear to be due to a subjective opinion of Shobat. I had up dated the posting with a reference to a nearly 20 minute peer-review video showing the interpretation in detail. Carl.bunderson immediately removed my changes in a matter of seconds without reviewing the changed references, no way did he review the video reference. To me you both appeared as trolls messing with the website, as I have read wiki policy and find nothing wrong with the post. Could you explain exactly what is in violation? Ploxhoi (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I also have an image I was going to upload too, but never had the chance. Ploxhoi (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

How often has his interpretation been cited by scholars? Lots of people have opinions, but only the significant opinions belong in the article, and the best way to determine that is by the influence his opinions have had. Has he been discussed in any theological journals? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes actually this article and Walid Shoebat have been discussed by other religious scholars in journals and reviewed by peers. Ploxhoi (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't need to view the videos. You don't seem to be reading what we've said. And you are using the phrase 'peer-review' in a way that cuts no ice here. If you've read wiki policy, you might also want to read WP:NPA and WP:AGF before you call anyone a troll again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 05:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Mods can just delete material without review??? Explain to me what peer review means then. A 20 minute video of a independent source analyzing in detail Walid Shoebat's interpretation is not a peer review? Again I never made any personal attacks, I was explaining why I kept restoring the changes, the way you appeared to be acting in my eyes. I did not call you or anyone a troll. Ploxhoi (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::::There are no 'mods', there are administrators, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. You'd be more credible if you'd provide information about these journals. Peer review in the sense generally used applies to academic journals with a review system. What you are talking about is not peer review. Google Scholar has nothing on Shoebat and 666. Gbooks turns up 2 self-published books. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

---

The traditional mainstream Islamic interpretation of Arabic-alphabet numerology is that the Bismillah phrase (i.e. Basmala) adds up to 786 (which is how Combat 786 got its name, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Wording of lead paragraph a little confusing

The alternative reading 616 was known about long before "recent discoveries"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Untitled section

The problem with ninety percent of what is discussed here is that it adds to the Bible and its language instead of understanding the words in the Bible. The verses are part of a vision that a Greek speaking man sees. He did not say, I see letters that if you add up the values equal 666. He said I see the number 666. He did not say it was a symbol or had another meaning. This is made even clearer when you look at the purpose he describes for the number. He speaks Greek and the book of Revelation is written in Greek. In Greek, the number 666's appearance is synonymous with a current theology symbol. People it is time to understand the information instead of trying to strain logic and credulity in arriving at peculiar, nonsensical and misguided conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejore12 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't about identifying the "correct" interpretation of the number (that would be impossible, as the writers are all dead). It is an article about what the term 'Number of the Beast' means, and what various significant schools of thought have said about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Meaning in other cultures?

If I'm not mistaken, but Pre-Columbian Americans, Chinese, etc., it means nothing to them. Can there be a section to mention this? I amd not 100% sure, but I'm sure places see it just as a number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.98.44 (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhh... It's kinda a given that a concept from the Chritian Bible would mean little to nothing to most non-Christians... Are you sure you're not looking for the article 666 (number)? Mentioning that non-Christians don't really care about the Number of the Beast would be like mentioning that Christians don't believe in Vishnu in the Mahabarata article, or that atheists don't believe in Allah in the Quran article. It's needless. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

21 08 2010 Bismillah. This Arabic word exsists out of all three of the same symbols which represent 600 60 and 6 in Greek. therefor it is logical to consider this interpretation as valid. You can compare it with online bible ByBlos.com (Greek).

Therefor 666 can be called the Number of its name ( Revelation 13 verse 18 : Here is wisdom. Let him who is wise calculate the number of its ( The Beasts ) Name, for it is Man(Kinds) Number and its value is 666. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.159.161 (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't take original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Most scholars contend that the number 666 is a code for the Roman Emperor Nero

The introduction states that "Most scholars contend that the number 666 is a code for the Roman Emperor Nero." This statement is not supported in the text of the article. "Most" scholars would imply on the order of 90% of all scholars agree on this conclusion. The text of the article goes on the list numerous different ideas as to what 666 stands for of which the Nero conclusion is only one of many. The statement "most sholars contend that the number 666 is a code for the Roman Emperor Nero" is inconsistent with the text of the article. This violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. "Most" should be changed to "some." Better yet, this conclusion should be deleted from the opening as it is not supported in the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.52.144 (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "most" implies 51% or greater, not 90%. "Most", by it's definition, is merely more than half of a thing. And while the article does list numerous different ideas, it should be important to note that most of these ideas are not that of scholars, but of Joe-Shmoes with no education in the subject. So it really is consistent. That 666 represents emperor Nero is the consensus of scholars, though that idea is only one of many claimed by the public in general. Hence, there is no inconsistency.Farsight001 (talk) 05:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

By your definition of "most," I could say that "most Americans voted for Bush in 2004" (Bush won with 51% of the vote). The Joe Shmoes that are listed in the article include Irenaeus, Martin Luther, and the Pope. All of these Joe Schmoes suggested someone other than Nero as the beast. Other Joe Shmoes in the article include David C. Parker and Ethelbert Stauffer, both of whom have pages on Wikipedia and suggested someone other than Nero as the beast. If Parker and Stauffer are in fact Joe Shmoes, perhaps their Wikipedia articles should be recommended for deletion. Another Joe Shmoe is Andreas Helwig who wrote in 1612 but is still remembered today and has his own page on Wikipedia. Additional Joe Shmoes who disagree with Nero as the beast, yet are important enough to have their own Wikipedia pages, include Charles Walmesley, Charles Montagu, Gilbert Genebrard, Francois Feuardent, Rene Massuet, Andrew of Caesarea, Victorinus of Pettau, and Venerable Bede. On the "most" side of the column, a single name is listed as the proponent of Nero: Robert Graves. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think the article disagrees with itself. The introduction says that almost everyone agrees that Nero is the beast. The rest of the article says that there's a wide variety of opinion, with many apparently important scholars putting forward someone other than Nero as the beast. The intro should summarize the article, not disagree with the article. --Advantecon (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead sentence cites several sources which explicitly say that "most Biblical scholars" favour the Nero interpretation, and I've updated the Nero section to reflect this. If these sources have been cherry picked and there are other sources that say that most Biblical scholars believe something else, or that there is no majority consensus, though, I agree we should look at this. --McGeddon (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I came into this debate as a casual observer trying to find out some information about 666. The Wikipedia article presents many viewpoints from different people as to what 666 means. However, the introduction to the page does not reflect this diversity of opinion. Rather, the introduction cherry-picks a single opinion with the bald assertion that "Most scholars contend that the number 666 is a code for the Roman Emperor Nero." This assertion favors a single point of view over all other points of view, which would violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

I've done some additional research on this topic using the wonderful pages of Wikipedia. The preterist position holds that the events of Revelation are in the past, so the identification of Nero as the beast is logical. However, the article fails to mention that the identification of Nero represents a preterest position. In fact, the word "preterest" is not even mentioned in the article. To add further confusion, the Wikipedia article lists numerous preterist scholars with opinions favoring someone other than Nero as the beast. These preterest scholars have suggested that the beast is Caligula, Diocletian, Mohammed, or the Pope, among others. Advocates of these alternatives to Nero include the scholars listed in my previous post such as Irenaeus, Pope Innocent III, David C. Parker, Ethelbert Stauffer, Charles Walmesley, Charles Montagu, Gilbert Genebrard, Francois Feuardent, Rene Massuet, Andrew of Caesarea, Victorinus of Pettau, and Venerable Bede (all of whom are listed in the Wikipedia article).

A related position, the historicist view, holds that the historical Papacy is the antichrist. Proponents of this view, listed in other Wikipedia articles, include Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, John Knox, Cotton Mather, John Wycliff, Matthias Flacius, Andreas Helwig, and Isaac Newton. According to Wikipedia, this is still the official position of many of the Lutheran churches in the U.S. (principally, the Missouri Synod).

In contrast to the preterest and historicist positions, the futurist position holds that the events of Revelation are in the future, so the beast will be somebody in the future. The Wikipedia article on futurism lists the following as being proponents of futurism: Gleason Archer, Donald Barnhouse, Martin De Haan, Raymond Duck, Arno Clemens Gaebelein, Norman Geisler, Harry A. Ironside, Walter Kaiser, Jr., Hal Lindsey, Ernst Lohmeyer, John F. MacArthur, J. Vernon McGee, Henry M. Morris, William A. Newell, J. Dwight Pentecost, John Bertram Phillips, Francisco Ribera, Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Ray Stedman, Merrill Tenney, John Walvoord, and Warren W. Wiersbe. However, I did not see the opinions by any of these people listed in the article, which again makes me doubt the article's neutral point of view.

The assertion that "Most scholars contend that the number 666 is a code for the Roman Emperor Nero" therefore represents one of several viewpoints within the preterest position and ignores scholars from both the historicist position and the futurist position.

My training is as a scientist, not a theologian. My training as a scientist has taught me skeptical of bald-faced claims such as "Most scholars contend that the number 666 is a code for the Roman Emperor Nero." I would be very surprised to see "most" theologians agreeing about anything, unless the theologians were cherry-picked from within a single point of view. However, even if "most" scholars did agree, the article still contradicts itself. The article claims that Nero is the consensus opinion, but then lists a wide variety of differing opinions expressed by everybody from the Pope to Martin Luther. Advantecon (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you are mistaken about what, exactly, wikipedia's neutrality policy actually is. Neutrality around here does not mean that we give equal weight to all perspetives, but rather that we give the same weight to the article that relevant scholars do. Most scholars consider Nero the anti-Christ, and so the article says this. Much of the people with the other ideas are not relevant scholars, and so do not receive this weight. In the end, it all boils down to the necessity for sources. There are 5 sources supporting the "most" phrase, which is a whole lot, especially considering that the lede is ideally without any at all. So do you have reliable sources from relevant scholars, or is this conversation leading nowhere? Claiming a "most" and listing many possibilities is in no way contradictory. Over 90% of Catholics, for example, are from the Latin Rite, meaning that most Catholics are of the Latin Rite. Yet there are over 20 different rites to choose from. There is no contradiction in saying that most are Latin even though there are dozens of options. Likewise, pointing out that despite the many views, most hold to the view that Nero is it is in no way a contradiction. Frankly, that's ridiculous. Farsight001 (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding Debunkers

Over the last two centuries there has been quite a few nominees that have been selected to be the title holders of the infamous beast or the Antichrist. One would suspect many, if not most, or even all have been debunked in some form or another. For example www, world wide web, was considered by some to equate to 666 and it was simply debunked because the number is six hundred sixty six not 6, 6, 6. Even with this in mind the consideration still holds true for some to believe the internet is an asset of some kind or another of the beast and it's mark and it maybe gaining minimal popularity. However hexakosioi hexekonta hex is not hex hex hex so www is not 666 anymore than the single digits 3, 7, and 8 is 378; three hundred seventy eight. It is realized that www=666 was removed from the Number of the Beast article but it is a piece of history and could be treated as such, like the others, and without the fear that it would assist in its propagation. One way to do this is to add the information that purportedly debunks it, which is also a part of history. For example along those lines may in fact be that the "w" which is pronounced "double-u" means exactly what it says. It was written as such "vv" or "uu" hence as you can see where the shape comes from. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W. That could mean that www actually would be more like vv, vv, and vv (this is actually typed with two letters of "v" each, though it may appear as "w"; which this may help support the possibility) and come to 6&6, 6&6, and 6&6 and not 666, 6-6-6, or 66, 66, 66 and not even 666,666. Another possibility is that Nero would not be 666 or 616 since the letter "s" descended from the semitic shin not from the samech. In fact the name Jesus adds up to 616 more simply than the others in the article. J=yod=10, e=niqqud=n/a, s=shin=300, u=vav=6, and s=shin=300 which simply enough comes to 616. There must be many others who have come up with similar ideas so why not add the other side of the story and include the information that has been used to debunk the many nominees that the articles writers have selected to use? This may include debunkings that include the rest of the prophecies written about the beast or the antichrist that they may not fulfill. One would think there has been as many if not more debunkers as there has been nominees. Olea Europaea (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom, you may want you see our guidelines on identifying and citing reliable sources, and our rule against original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Omen

The Omen features a child having 666 on his head. And archive one includes, "There are any number of 'beasts' in the book of Revelation. At least four beasts are on the side of the angels. Although the book does mention Satan and the Devil, there is no direct link to any of the beasts. This was the invention of the highly successful film, 'The Omen'." I'll likely not edit here further, but I thought the regular editors might consider if The Omen should be discussed somewhere on this page. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think Jerome or even Iraneaus connected the beast with Satan, but even if it wasn't that early, they were identified well before the 20th century (Aleister Crowley's mother wasn't being complementary when she called him the Beast). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Islam & Muhammad

There is a great amount of Christian belief of late that Islam is the second beast in Revelations and that 666 is its mark

There are numerous sites and anyone who looks on sites such ase Youtube will see the may various videos.

The reasoning behind the theory is supported by numerous facts and claims

1. Many things in the Bible have hidden messages that are confirmed in later books or by God's final outcome. When God gave the promise to Abraham that the world will be blessed by his offspring (Jesus), Abraham conceived another child through doubt. Doubt according to the Bible is from Satan and not God meaning Ishmael was not from God.

2. In Genesis God confirms his covenant is through Isaac and not Ishmael. There is a promise that Ishmael will also make a significant nation / people (but not within God's covenant concerning Isaac). The Bible states that Ishmael's hand will be against the world and the world against him (Islam was spread through a series of wars and is still very unrelenting to the non-Islamic world). It states Ishmael lived in the wilderness. The wilderness is often a reference to a naivety to God's word.

3. Muhammad's name in the old Arabic adds up to 666. This is the original language of the Muslims (unlike Jews where it is obviously Hebrew). In the Bible it states is a number of a man. 666 to some Muslims is considered a Holy number. There are even Islamic sites on the net that state Christianity is evil for trying to slander the number 666 and that it is an evil trick from Satan.

4. The Greek letters that make the number 666 are symbols resembling symbols / letters in Islam to mean "Islam".

5. In Galatians 4:21-31 Paul refers to Genesis and how the story of Ishmael & Isaac refer to two covenants in Jerusalem. The sons that walk by law persecute the sons who walk by God's promise. Islam is a religion built on law. The beast in revelations persecutes the true church.

6. The beast in revelations "beheads". In the Quran it tells the reader to "strike the neck" of the unbeliever (Surah 47:4, 8:12). Armies of Islam and Islamic extremists throughout history are notorious for beheading those that turn from Islam. Beheading is something identified with Islamic soldiers and extremists.

7. Revelations says that the followers of the beast will kill in what they think is for God. Followers of Islam kill Christians and other infidels for what they think is for God. The Quran also has instructions to fight against non-believers and meet with them in war (Surah 2:193, 8:12, 8:39, 9:5, 9:12-14, 9:29, 9:73, 9:123, 47:4, 61:4)

8.Between Daniel & Revelations it speaks about a last 7 years at the end of time where there will be a false prophet / teacher and also a fake Christ / anti-Christ. The Bible says they will make peace with Israel for three and a half years, but will then turn for the last three and a half years. Muslims are awaiting for an end of time teacher (called a mardi) and also Jesus who will come to bring peace on the Earth in the last seven years.

Revelations say that the followers of Christ will also be beheaded for "the word of God". Muslims persecute the Bible.

Tsigano (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And? I don't want to sound rude, but this is not a discussion forum. If you don't have suggestions for article improvement, you're not supposed to be posting here.

You anonymous are right, except in two things: 1. its all right being a little rude here, considering the length of the forum style ramble that we won't suffer here, 2. please sign your own posts with four tildes ~~~~, so that we get your signature and posting time. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The AntiChrist Number

'According to some independent, anonymous research sources the Number of the Beast could be 161049. Divided by Jesus Christ's number, 888, it results in 181.36149 (3x61.364x9), that is 66616661666. That same number, translated into roman numerals, is IVIXIVIX (4949).'

As it is, as you say, an interpretation, I agree that it was the correct, if somewhat misguided, decision to be removed from the official page in accordance with the Wikipedia rules. However, I am 99% sure that it is the Antichrist number. The sources in question are and will remain anonymous for obvious reasons, that does not make them less reliable though. The same sources have said that the Antichrist has arrived. This information is intended to enter the public domain as it is of the utmost importance. Due to Wikipedia credentials and democratic, popular format, it was considered that it was the most suitable medium for the dissemination of the above data to both the public at large and for scholarly review.

I must remark that it is somewhat strange that a website dedicated to the spread and advancement of human knowledge is only open to cited references, leaving out of the equation the advancement part, that is, original and verifiable data. The information in regard to the Number of the Beast that is currently available on the page represents, at best, half-baked attempts to explain the riddle, mostly bordering on the risible. Compare that to the information that I supplied and the difference will become apparent... for those that want to make a difference.

Perhaps the current MO will change in time. All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncertainregard (talk • contribs) 14:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Cite sources, we don't take exegesis. We're not a blog, if you don't want to cite sources describing notable interpretations, then you're welcome to put your effort somewhere else. Wikipedia doesn't care in the slightest if you think you're "right," Wikipedia does not care about "the truth," only verifiability and notability. Your personal interpretation is not notable, will be removed, and disruptive attempts to reinsert it will not be tolerated. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've got the idea, thanks. As a curiosity only, here's some additional information (numerology 'wise') taken from 142857 (number) (source: wikipedia). According to the same source, it is the best known cyclic number in base 10. "22/7 as π: This ancient approximation to π, 22 ÷ 7 = 3.142857, has been associated with Jewish mysticism. In particular, it is known in certain circles of Kabbalists such as the "Mediogegnians", that the twenty two characters of the Hebrew language represent a complete circumference that when divided by seven (the sacred number of cycles) produces the Kabbalistic π, also known within this circle of practitioners as the "perfect π". \frac{22}{7}=3.142857 142857 142857..."

1610 equals 49 when written in roman numerals, that is, it can be interpreted as both. Dividing 1610 by 49 results in 32.857142 857142... 6 (the number of man) divided by 7 (the sacred number of cycles) is 0.857142 857142...

Taken from the same source: "Connection to the enneagram: 142857 is the number used to construct the Enneagram, a sacred symbol of the Gurdjieff Work, that is used to explain and visualize the dynamics of the interaction between the two great laws of the Universe (according to Gurdjieff), the Law of Three and the Law of Seven. The movement of the numbers of 142857 divided by 1/7,2/7. etc., and the subsequent movement of the Enneagram, are portrayed in Gurdjieffs Sacred Dances, known as the Movements."

My interpretation for the AntiChrist intent and purpose is the resetting of humanity's Time to the year prior to the creation of Jesus, recreating the human spirit as it used to be prior to the advent of Christianity. That of course results in the destruction of the immaterial basis of Christianity (its spirit/thought form created over the centuries by ardent belief), it has nothing to do whatsoever with the persecution of Christians. UnCertainRegard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncertainregard (talk • contribs) 13:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources because it is user generated and unstable. We also don't take extrapolation or original research, and Wikipedia is not a forum or a blog. If you don't have anything to improve the articles (which means sources), don't post. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Typo: Aramaic translation of Nerōn Kaisar

In the paragraph headed, "Nero", there is a reference to the literal translation of Nerōn Kaisar to Aramaic as נרון קסר

In the same paragraph the Aramaic characters are shown along with their corresponding isopsephy number.

Resh (ר)	Samech (ס)	Qof (ק)	Noon (נ)	Vav (ו)	Resh (ר)	Noon (נ)	Sum
200	60	100	50	6	200	50	666

The character Noon is shown twice in the number table, (Noon, Vav, Resh, Noon), but the characters used in the translation of Kaisar do not correspond as they are נרון Should the characters not be נרונ

Is this a mistype?

94.173.12.59 (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• The Hebrew alphabet consonant letter נ changes to ן at the ends of words, but is pronounced the same. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Papacy, Muhamed and other names

These theories are presented here equally as theory about Nero. They don't deserve that, the writer was not prophet, the beast is someone of his contemporaries. -- Bojan  Talk  17:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:DUE would have us present views with the weight given to them by sources, not our own interpretation. It's up to the reader to decide what to make of the different interpretations. The people that came up with those interpretations did believe that John of Patmos was a prophet. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The gospel of Mark

The gospel of Mark has 666 verses. Orphadeus (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. Do you have a source for that? And which version of the Gospel of Mark are we talking about? Some versions have a differing verse numbering, and some versions omit certain verses entirely (c.f. List of omitted Bible verses and Textual variants in the New Testament#Gospel of Mark). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Taking the gospel of Mark as ending at Mark 16:8, the gospel of Mark has 666 verses. There is clear contradiction between Mark and the resurrection account in John. I believe the resurrection of Jesus is written in John.

I would like to make a point about censorship. This is a talk page and my previous paragraph contains 3 factual sentences. My opinion may differ from yours - you might not believe that the resurrection of Jesus is written in John. However, this is a talk page and I have put forward fact. Orphadeus (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Your first post was not censored -- new stuff goes at the bottom of the page. Again, which version of Mark are you talking about? Also, Wikipedia doesn't accept original research, you'll need an outside reliable source to make this relevant to the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I was refering to any version of Mark. As it happens, I believe this is allegory. With regard to Wikipedia not accepting original research, it seems elitist. At which University did Jimi Hendrix learn to play guitar? Orphadeus (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Universities (like Jimi Hendrix) actually are creative, Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia only summarizes reliable sources. And as I have pointed out, there are versions of Mark which omit or combine verses. This would mean that those versions have fewer verses. Restricting original research actually prevents a lot more of elitism, since it would quickly descend into cliques of university students and professors trying to push articles here instead of peer-reviewed journals, fans of different aspects of pop culture fighting over which band is better, conspiracy theorists trying to get "the truth" out, and extremists (religious, political, or otherwise) pushing their views. We have enough of those problems without allowing original research. Furthermore, it allows us to remain generally reliable. An individual (even a highly educated and intelligent one) can make a mistake that goes unnoticed for a bit. But only sticking with peer-reviewed and tested material means that mistakes are more likely to be caught before it gets to here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So far as I am aware, there is no version of Mark that ends before 16:8. A few points I would make, the young man at the tomb is presumably Mark. The word mark and name Mark translate in many languages. The only emperor called Mark persecuted Christians. According to Irenaeus, Papias states that Mark was the 1st gospel written and was known in the 1st century. There is date concordance. The massacre Irenaeus avoided was alledgedly ordered by Mark. Orphadeus (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, we don't take original research, so unless you have a reliable source trying to make your point for you, we can't take that into the article. Mark 1:13, 2:26, 4:19, 4:24, and 10:2 are omitted in a number of ancient manuscripts, but included in others. Some versions include two additional verses in chapter 16 (I will grant that those verses are seen as slightly more recent, but it's still a little arbitrary to discount those). Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, and 15:28 are omitted in a number of modern translations, but included in others. It's not like there's only a couple of versions of the Bible around.

Marcus Aurelius is one of the few pre-Constantinian emperors that was kind to Christians, and one of the few individuals that the Church has declared a noble pagan, the article you linked to is for a completely different individual that isn't even named Marcus. He was also not the only Emperor named "Marcus," there were plenty, such as Marcus Aurelius's son. Trajan's first name was "Marcus", as it was for Nerva. I honestly have no idea what you're thinking here.

Papias Mark was written in the first century, which would place it in the years 0-100 AD (modern scholarship goes with ~70 AD), not in the range of 101-200 AD (which is the second century AD). Mark was written 50 years before the emperor Marcus was even born (121 AD). How is there any connection? If you're advocating a religious theory (you're not exactly being coherent about how these things are relevant), that's not what Wikipedia is for. If someone notable for religious ideas (e.g. Martin Luther, Maimonides, etc) advocated the idea, then we could describe their view as their view on the subject.

Also, The word "mark" comes from the Latin "margo," but the name "Mark" comes from "Mart-kos". Just because they are homonyms in English doesn't mean there's a connection. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest you read this link you gave more carefully. It is not research or theory to say that the gospel of Mark has 666 verses, it is a matter of fact. If you want it sourced, I can put links to each chapter. Some might think that its a fact which deserves air.

Regarding the link you say was "for a completely different individual" than Marcus Aurelius, you did not get the point? What that link did not quite point out was that it was actually on the battlefield that Marcus Aurelius fell ill. That link, along with some of the others, also contradicts your claim that Marcus Aurelius was kind to Christians.

Its possible that there were other Emperors called Mark, I guess on the list I looked at, whichever list that was, there was one. Nevertheless, he was the philosopher emperor and Mark 16:1-8 fits the bill.

You are aware that intelligent people can see contradiction. Orphadeus (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason I provided those links is to show that your claim that Mark has 666 verses requires ignoring a significant number of ancient manuscripts and modern translations. It would indeed be original research (and bad research at that) to go and count the verses of one or two translations and conclude that all versions of Mark to ever exist only had 666 verses and that there has never been any variation whatsoever. Wikipedia only summarizes reliable secondary sources, it does not engage in original research. I've explained this repeatedly. Read the reliable sourcing guidelines, and the guidelines about original research. If you don't want to bother with the sites's guidelines, you don't have to edit here and you're only going to waste everyone's time by trying to do so.

If the roman-empire.net link was the link you meant to point out, why did you not do it to begin with? Do you have no concept of citing sources? And why don't you actually clearly state what your position is?

It is not just more than possible that there were other emperors named Mark, there were, I pointed many of them out. Your statement that there was only one emperor named Mark was totally wrong, as was your claim that the name Mark and the word Mark are connected. This, and your confusion between the first century and the 100s AD, showed a rather problematic lack of scholarship. And yet you ignore these and continue on with whatever it is your trying to claim (without of course, stating what that is, because that would be helpful).

Mark 16:1-8 fits what bill? Are you trying to say that Marcus Aurelius was the resurrected Jesus or something? That Aurelius wrote the Gospel of Mark? What are you trying to imply? You're not coming off as having some brilliant but hard to understand idea, you're coming off as unable to properly communicate. It's getting to the point where I'm going to have a hard time assuming either good faith or competence on your part.

Your original theory (whatever it is since you can't seem to actually say what it is) has no place on Wikipedia, even if it wasn't poorly researched and sourced. We don't do original research. Do you have any reliable sources (books, not you doing research and counting the verses in one or two translations) that say that Mark has 666 verses, and/or whatever else it is you're trying to say? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The bible is the source. I suppose there may be some debate as to what is an original theory and what is a fact. I would suggest that the gospel of Mark having 666 verses comes under the category of verifiable fact, the source being the bible. If I were to say that the gospel of Mark is the mark of the beast, that would be entering the realm of original theory. Hence, I would suggest it is acceptable to for example mention, on the gospel of Mark page, that it has 666 verses, but not to go into any theory about it Orphadeus (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

... How many times have I do I have to say "no original research" and ask "What about the versions that don't have that many verses?" and "How is it relevant?"...? You obviously aren't illiterate, and WP:No Original Research and WP:Reliable sources have been linked to you and summarized for you in various ways, shapes, and forms; so how do you not get that? And why, after it has been brought up multiple times, do you still keep ignoring the different manuscripts out there? And why, after you have been repeatedly asked, do you continue to dodge the question of how it is relevant? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My pastor, who is a Ph.D. of Maranatha Baptist College taught me that the verses numbers were added by well intending scholars of their day. The original Bibles and the Jewish Old Testament had no such verse numbers! [they did however, have paragraph delimiters] Verse numbers were added for the new style of expository teaching that came when every man could read his own Bible, probably due to the printing press [but scholars are unsure of that], instead of just a Single Bible for the entire Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unixman83 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This is to dispute NPOV on the Number of the Beast entry. Under "Papacy" the article has several factually incorrect statements that seem to be designed to put forth a particualr viewpoint by putting forth false or misleading information. The article states "To this end, the letters of a title of the Pope, Vicarius Filii Dei (Vicar of The Son of God), are summed to total 666 in Roman numerals." And later it also states "Seventh Day Adventists have interpreted the number of the beast, 666, as corresponding to the title Vicarius Filii Dei of the Pope." The phrase "Vicarius Filii Dei" is not nor has ever been a title of the pope so in addition to having no attribution, these statements are factually incorrect and therefore misleading. Also, the statements of Uriah Smith and Samuele Bacchiocchi in this article, which restate other factually incorrect information, are put forward as if they are undisputed fact, rather than merely the opinions of those authors. HastingsBattle (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Some absurd and satanic religions and their pursuers as guardians in Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Piramitd%C3%BCnya&oldid=445387090#August_2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Number of the Beast, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is NOT a forum for you to spam nonsense on. Either make a coherent statement that works within the guidelines given above (with the intention of article improvement) or go somewhere else and start a blog there. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay your excellency. You can decide for all us, what about and how we have to inscribe in wikipedia. We accept that you have a high position in the wikipedia. :))) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ian.thomson&oldid=442206200#Userboxes

• Some absurd and satanic religions and their pursuers as guardians in Wikipedia

Some of persons believe in an absurd pagan religion and attempt us to stop. Because they want to save their religions. They want that the people don't see any satanic or absurd concepts in their religions. --Piramitdünya (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Having seen the post you had made that was removed, you got the warning because your post was nonsensical, and thus unconstructive. Judging from your further postings, I would have to guess that English is not your native language. This is probably the cause of the issue. When you translate it, it seems to make perfect sense, but to a fluent English speaker, it is not so clear. I suggest that, in the future, you edit the wikipedia that is in your native language.Farsight001 (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Layout reconstruction

Reconstructed the Number of the Beast#Interpretations section because a lot of the content was all over the place. Should flow better. Some new titles. Omitted airport pic because... come on... that is not relevant, not encyclopedic, and... looks retarted.Jasonasosa (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

KJV Only

There are many individuals (and Churches) that believe that the King James Bible, KJV Only (or the Latin Vulgate, from which it is derived) are the best available manuscripts. So by saying, Papyrus 115 and Ephraemi Rescriptus are best, you are taking sides on a huge dispute. By who's authority is the claim of 'best' to be made? By Some secular college? or by a College who is faith-based (and disagrees with you) standpoint?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unixman83 (talk • contribs)

Well, in any case, we need a reliable source that claims C is one of the best. This website quotes Lewes as saying C is one of the two best, but I don't have the original source. StAnselm (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A secular college would have no agenda on the issue, a faith-based one (regardless of their decision) stands to be finding whatever justifies their belief. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The mistranslation

This article might be improved if it gave more emphasis to how it is now believed by most Bible scholars that the actual number of the Greater Beast (I use that expression because there are actually two beast mentioned in Revelation 13) was 616, and that the well-known figure of 666 is believed to have been a mistranslation. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. When that becomes the most common interpretation (unfortunately, not just the most current common interpretation among the most up-to-date scholars), the article will reflect that, though it will still explain that 666 is the traditional reading. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I read about this recently but now can't find it again. Got any links to the information? Grumpy otter (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Organizing Interpretations

The opening statement classifying the three types of interpretations is not followed in the organization of the article.

I also wonder if the second category (duration of beast’s reign) is a significant enough category. I have not run across this in the commentaries I have read. Can anyone provide a reference for this.

Interpreting the identity and the number of the Beast falls into three categories:[1]

   Using gematria to calculate the number of a world leader’s name, in order to match it with the number of the Beast.
   Associating the number of the Beast as the duration of the beast’s reign, in order to compare the length of reign to an entity, such as: a heathen state, Islam, or the Papacy.
   Corresponding symbolism for the Antichrist and antichristian power.

I will look into this and perhaps reorganize this section of the article. Dadaw (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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" [4] 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 [5]. 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 [6] 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 [7], book of David Thom The Number And Names Of The Apocalyptic Beasts: With An Explanation And Application In Two Parts [8] 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)

I agree with Ian. A subsection on this is called for. I also believe that the whole Greek v. Arabic with ξϛ being basmala "in the name of Allah" has so many sites on the internet and so many pastors supporting this that it deserves a mention in a section. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said that we could (not should, but could) include a section if properly sourced. We don't care about many sites, or many pastors, just academic secondary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Those of you who agree with "Six-hundred sixty six" are mistaken on how numbers are written in English. The hypen goes between sixty and six ONLY! Six hundred sixty-six. If anyone is interested in accuracy, all references to 666 as a representation of the Biblical number, should be removed and replaced with either "six hundred sixty-six or χξϛ. What is there to not understand about χξϛ. After reading that χ = 600, ξ = 60, and ϛ = 6, and after reading how the numbers are added in Greek (with no place value), only a moron would not understand. It is hope that the "we" who read Wikipedia are not morons. (EnochBethany (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC))

That's a prescriptive rule, not a descriptive one. Prescriptive grammar does not reflect the organic nature of language. The hyphen for six-hundred makes as much sense, establishing it as 600 (six hundreds), while leaving 60 and 6 as separate parts of the sum. Grasping for straws for tiny little victories is petty, calling people morons violates WP:CIVIL, and both behaviors are a sign that an editor is here to win battles instead of help the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

(Gematria section) Arabic hisab-al jummal, and Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74)

I added: "Arabic hisab-al jummal, and Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74)". See http://7seals.yuku.com/topic/25/Simple-6-74-English-7-74-Gematria-8-74-GOD-3-7-4-7-4-July-4t - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Which was removed because the addition to the article was unsourced and we have no articles on either topic. Yuku.com is a blog, and not a reliable source. Various site policies and guidelines, including our reliable sourcing guidelines have been linked, summarized, and explained to you before. Please only use reliable sources for article additions, and cite your sources in article additions. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ian, I asked you nicely NOT to reply to me again, but you've ignored that. Note: As I was getting the more accurate link http://7seals.yuku.com/topic/25/Simple-6-74-English-7-74-Gematria-8-74-GOD-3-7-4-7-4-July-4t , I AM also watching History Channel's Antichrist Part II and they said at app. 11:05 ET, "Many associated Ronald Wilson Reagan with the Antichrist simply because each of his names has 6 letters". I wrote the 74-page booklet There Are No Coincidences - there is synchronism and I just proved that hypothesis again here and YOU ARE A WITNESS! That "book/scroll" satisfies the prophecy of The Revelation 5:1-10:10. Also, you were wrong re: http://7seals.yuku.com , it is a forum not "a blog" and is a very "reliable source". The link I've now provided is on that forum, but if you were to actually bother to read it, you'll see that the article has many legitimate books and links listed as its references. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You've been asked to follow site policies and guidelines. If you don't want to follow them, you don't have to be on Wikipedia. If you cause problems in articles I watch over, I'm going to have to reply.

This is not a coincidence, nor synchronism, I've been watching over this page for years. The forum that only you have been posting on does not meet WP:RS (which you still apparently have not read), because it is self-published user-generated content with no editorial oversight. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

First, Brad, anyone can reply to you here, you can ask but I can't think of any reason for anyone not to reply. Secondly, it's a forum, agreed. We don't accept forums as sources, that's basic policy. Doug from Miami. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Doug, you are not paying attention. Read what I wrote again and follow the link! And I was trying to help Ian's karma which is damaged by deleting very important information that I've posted here and elsewhere. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he did read it, and he did pay attention. You didn't read WP:RS. Again. And my karma's null and dharma's void, thanks. I passed it on to an executed Palestinian terrorist. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ian, History Channel mentioning "Ronald Wilson Reagan 666" while I was writing here was not a 'coincidence' because There Are No Coincidences! It was obviously a synchronism since they happened at exactly the same time. Try using a DICtionary! - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Co-: together

[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incidere incide-: to affect

-ence: state or condition

Coincidence means events occurring together. By affirming that some events happen at the same time, you affirm coincidences. Did you perhaps mean Synchronicity, the idea that two events share the same meaning? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"Ronald Wilson Reagan was associated with the Antichrist simply because each of his names had 6 letters" - History Channel

History Channel's Antichrist Part II just said, "Ronald Wilson Reagan was associated with the Antichrist simply because each of his names had 6 letters" - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added an entry in the "other names" section using a couple of reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ian, your 'secondary listing' of Reagan 666' (google that) is insufficient! Ronald(6 letters) Wilson(6) Reagan(6) or Ronald(6) W.(1) Reagan(6) acted in opposition to the Christ (antiGreater-Good) and was, in fact, the prophesied "1st Beast who ruled the world, lied to all nations, and was wounded yet lived." This prophesy is further fulfilled through George Walker Bush Jr. the "2nd Beast who imitated the 1st Beast and brought fire down from the heavens with the 'destruction of Babylon (War In Iraq)" and the United(6) States(6) Dollar(6) is the "mark of the Beast that everyone must have to buy and sell with" - Revelation Chapter 13. The front of the US $1 bill has 13 examples of the Capital letter A and the back of the US $1 bill has the #13 encoded 13x [ref]p. 76-77, p. 121-122 The Secret Symbols of the DOLLAR BILL, by David Ovason (Harper Collins, 2004)[/ref]. It's the combination of these three connected examples along with many other prominent examples of 'Step 1' of Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74) that are proof of this identification of 666, i.e. a(1), bi-(2), tri-(3), quad-(4), penta-(5), GOD(3): Holy(4) Trinity(7) of Father, Son, & Sophia (wisdom)/Holy Spirit, Jesus(5), David(5) & Cross(5), Liberty(7) Bell(4) & 7/4 (July 4th), E PLURIBUS UNUM(13) symbolic of original 13 states, etc. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Brad, you need to chill... or you might get blocked again like last time...   — Jasonasosa 16:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Jason, I AM in Miami and its 90 degrees out! How chilly are you? I tried to delete a copy of a section and instead a 3rd copy came up. Can you correct that? - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You totally didn't look at the sources I used. I linked to a couple of books that are stored on Google books. One of them is an academic history, one of them is a theological work. You should be happy that your suggestion was implemented instead of throwing a tantrum that I used a more accessible source instead of what you were watching on TV. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I had this same fight with Brad on Talk:Seven Seals. His only source is that damn History Channel.  — Jasonasosa 17:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Jason, that's a lie! I have all sorts of sources and I've listed them. I AM just 'coincidentally' watching the History Channel while I write on the internet today. Google: Reagan 666 and everyone will find 1000s of sources! The History Channel & H2 reach millions and is a "reliable source". The truth that's going on here is that Reagan 666 is a HUGE political bombshell that receives alot of opposition from Republicons. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Ian, you are WRONG again! You are nothing but consistent. I DID look at the sources you gave and I added one more. Have you read those books? How dare you say I "should be happy that you allowed my suggestion to be implemented" and refer to my actions as a "tantrum". To think that you possess some control over me is delusional and evil (thunder sounds). All our actions have consequences and you are building up some serious negative karma! - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It is hard for me to believe that anyone ever took the Reagan = 666 thing serious. It seems to me to what been whimsy, even if he was into astrology. (EnochBethany (talk) 18:36, 19 August 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 head 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 open; hand is of arm, palm, and fingers, arm has two sections, palm has one section, and fingers have three sections, so fingertips are number six, on both sides. Dieyu2012 (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please find a source that meets our criteria at WP:RS. Thanks (and thanks for removing the link). Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment - "Three Sixes on Head and Hand"

Hi there! ... First I'd like to say Number of the Beast is a really important topic, as the Beast is _the_ enemy of Son of God. I read Bible very frequently and know it's a very serious thing. I want to add the following content to this article ... Before adding, I'd like to hear your opinions ... So, all editors here, please speak out!

EDIT CONTENT:

Three Sixes on Head and Hand

Head has two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, and a mouth, which add up to seven, when mouth is closed, there are only 6 open; hand is of arm, palm, and fingers, arm has two sections, palm has one section, and fingers have three sections, so fingertips are number six, on both sides.

Right off the bat, I can tell you that it won't work because it is WP:OR and does not have a WP:RS. Principles of Human Anatomy is an RS, but in regards to the anatomy, not to biblical symbolism, which it does not touch on.Farsight001 (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

To elaborate on what Farsight001 (talk · contribs) was saying, by taking a source that is wp:reliable (WP:RS) in biology and applying it to biblical symbolism is wp:synth. Further, this content is taken directly from the website [9] which is also not a wp:reliable WP:WEBPAGE. Therefore, the insertion of this content violates wikipedia's policies: wp:reliable, wp:synth, wp:original and wp:verifiability. This is why it is constantly being removed by up to at least 3 other editors. Also Dieyu2012 (talk · contribs), you are also subjecting yourself to being temporarily blocked because you have made +3 reverts already for this same content. Please do not keep putting this same content on the main page. Thank you for your cooperation,   — Jasonasosa 05:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)