Replication is the devil’s work... 24 Oct 2005
…And now I have incontrovertible proof, oh yes.
Yeah, I know, 666 may not actually be the mark of the devil, but what the hell… (sorry) indulge me; it amused me on a gut-wrenchingly tedious day!
…And now I have incontrovertible proof, oh yes.
Yeah, I know, 666 may not actually be the mark of the devil, but what the hell… (sorry) indulge me; it amused me on a gut-wrenchingly tedious day!
I’m a developer / general IT wrangler, specialising in web apps, the mobile web, enterprise Java and the odd Domino system.
Best described as a simpleton, but kindly. Read more…
:-) stwStephan H. Wissel#
OK, I shall stop the hell / damnation puns now ;-) Ben Poole#
"The latest findings"? The proposition that it could be 616 has been around since fairly early in Christendom.
Albert Barnes wrote in the 19th Century about Irenaeus and Tychonius talking about this in the 2nd Century:
"In Wetstein, Griesbach, Hahn, Tittmann, and the common Greek text, it is expressed by the characters χξς = 666. There can be no doubt that this is the correct number, though, in the time of Irenaeus, there was in some copies another reading - χις = 616. This reading was adopted by the expositor Tychonius; but against this Irenaeus inveighs (Liv. v. 100:30). There can be no doubt that the number 666 is the correct reading, though it would seem that this was sometimes expressed in letters, and sometimes written in full. Wetstein supposes that both methods were used by John; that in the first copy of his book he used the letters, and in a subsequent copy wrote it in full. This inquiry is not of material consequence."Chris Whisonant#