Why does everyone think that 666 is the number of the beast? Most bibles should have a footnote that states that older manuscripts said 616. Any that don't are obviouly lacking. How did such confusion come to exist, and which one is actually correct? I personally think that older manuscripts are to be more trusted than the comparably newer ones.
Note of interest. In the series Left Behind, which by the way has heresy slipped neatly in the cracks, they use the number 216, being the cube of 6 to correspond to the beast's number. A door in my father's garage randomly has that number imprinted on it. Also my sister thought it was super bad that her three names each have 6 letters.
Honestly, all of you just proved my point and allowed yourselves to show your own ignorance, i think im gone arguing with children about a big bearded guy in the sky. later kid-o.
The number 666 is a very interesting number cause: is an abundant number. It is the sum of the first 36 natural numbers (i.e. 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + 34 + 35 + 36 = 666), and thus a triangular number. Since 36 is both square and triangular, 666 is the sixth number of the form n2(n2 + 1) / 2 (sequence A037270 in OEIS) and the eighth number of the form n(n + 1)(n2 + n + 2) / 8 (doubly triangular numbers, A002817).
The number of prime numbers up to 666 is 121, the square of the number of prime numbers up to 36.
666 is the 60th 12-factored number; 60 is the first 12-factored number.
666 is the sum of the squares of the first seven prime numbers (i.e. 22 + 32 + 52 + 72 + 112 + 132 + 172 = 666).
The harmonic mean of the decimal digits of 666 is (trivially -- all repdigit natural numbers have this property) an integer: 3/(1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6) = 6, making 666 the 54th number with this property.
In base 10, 666 is a palindromic number, a repdigit and a Smith number. A prime reciprocal magic square based on 1/149 in base 10 has a magic total of 666.
The Roman numeral representation of the number 666 (DCLXVI) uses once each the Roman numeral symbols with values under 1,000, occurring in descending order of their respective values (D = 500, C = 100, L = 50, X = 10, V = 5, I = 1).
666 is a member of the Indices of prime Padovan sequence, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 19, 30, 37, 84, 128, 469, 666, 1262, 1573, 2003, 2210, ...
The number 666 is a very interesting number cause: is an abundant number. It is the sum of the first 36 natural numbers (i.e. 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + 34 + 35 + 36 = 666), and thus a triangular number. Since 36 is both square and triangular, 666 is the sixth number of the form n2(n2 + 1) / 2 (sequence A037270 in OEIS) and the eighth number of the form n(n + 1)(n2 + n + 2) / 8 (doubly triangular numbers, A002817). The number of prime numbers up to 666 is 121, the square of the number of prime numbers up to 36. 666 is the 60th 12-factored number; 60 is the first 12-factored number. 666=(36) â�' (26) + 1; 6=(32) â�' (22) + 1; 66=(34) â�' (24) + 1. 666 is the sum of the squares of the first seven prime numbers (i.e. 22 + 32 + 52 + 72 + 112 + 132 + 172 = 666). The harmonic mean of the decimal digits of 666 is (trivially -- all repdigit natural numbers have this property) an integer: 3/(1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6) = 6, making 666 the 54th number with this property. In base 10, 666 is a palindromic number, a repdigit and a Smith number. A prime reciprocal magic square based on 1/149 in base 10 has a magic total of 666. The Roman numeral representation of the number 666 (DCLXVI) uses once each the Roman numeral symbols with values under 1,000, occurring in descending order of their respective values (D = 500, C = 100, L = 50, X = 10, V = 5, I = 1). 666 is a member of the Indices of prime Padovan sequence, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 19, 30, 37, 84, 128, 469, 666, 1262, 1573, 2003, 2210, ...
This may be so, but there is still no reason to be paranoid about 666 because even after all you said, it's just a number with a variety of methods to get it.
1) There is no reason to be paranoid about anything. 2) The metaphysical things cannot be debated, cause debate uses logic and Metaphysic is based on beliefs and often ideas which are transmitted by the members of the society.
The only way to escape from the Metaphysical stage is learn to recognize what's fake,what seems and could be real.
Anyway even if the gospels were written during Jesus's lifetime I still wouldn't accept them as reliable evidence without a second reliable source backing them up given there contradictory and bias nature.
Did you even look at the site you posted? It says nothing about events that took place in 70 AD so much as being hinted at besides the prophecy of the destruction of the temple.
There is no reference to the slaughtering of over 1 million people, and I find it hard to believe that that would be left out if it were published at a later date.
There is one other thing mentioned on Wikipedia that is said to be used to help date the Gospels however I haven't had a chance to double check. I will admit there isn't much to go on for dating the Gospels however as I said before it really doesn't matter given the Bible's clear bias and contradictory nature.
Any this is way off topic. I'll go create one for the discussion of Jesus being real or not.
