Talk:Number of the beast/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

idea

Generally in the Bible and Torah, the number 7 usually means complete; 7 days to make the world, 7 years for the Tribulation, ect. The number 6 is sometimes used to mean something incomplete, or not finished. Another common theme seen in the Bible and Torah is that anything important is said repeated twice ( said 3 times total ). So if the number 666 is the number of man, would it simply mean that it is saying that man is imcomlete (6), and that this is important enough to be said three times. This is just a simple idea I heard, and i am no expert on anything in this area. If it has any relevance, could someone with more expertise in this area look it up, or make a note of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.157.151 (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Same user: i was reading more on wikipedia, and it looks like things like new ideas or unresearched ideas arnt put on. Im new to wikipedia, so apologize if this isnt allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.157.151 (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the WP policies. So your ideas can't be added without references. But I've heard ideas like that before, so you're more than welcome to add it in once you've found refs for them. Please enjoy contributing, and do get a username :) Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Christ/Antichrist which one?

Can anyone answer these questions: Who will come first, the Antichrist or the true Christ? Could it be that the Antichrist person already came and in fact began deceiving the people by cleverly disguising himself as the Christ and letting them believe in a counterfeit Bible with a false teaching that twists the truth and that the coming Antichrist is in fact the True Prophesied Christ?

And if we knew for certain that an Antichrist will come (and in fact been warned) and be able to recognize him as such, then how could he still be able to deceive the whole world and mark the people with his 666 mark as prophesied in the Book of Revelation? There is really something fishy in the New Testament Books ... more to come.

The point I'm trying to make is: how could we be sure that Jesus is really the true Christ?

Is it just me or is this article some kind of forum now??? 92.23.42.130 (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Unseen Danger of Christianity

According to the Book of Isaiah, Lucifer was cast down from heaven and an iniquity was found in him, because he said in his heart: "... I will be like the most High..." in short Lucifer wants to be like God. Now how could he just be able to do that? Simple, change his name into a a man's name, disguise himself as a teacher of righteousness, perform miracle, show pity to the downtrodden and insinuates that he and God are One! Who do you think is this guy?

The following quote has been removed as unreliable by Carl.bunderson.

Alternatively, some who take a historical view of the Book of Revelation identify the Mark of the Beast with the stamped image of the emperor's head on every coin of the Roman empire: the stamp on the hand or in the mind of all, without which no-one could buy or sell. reference: Tony Robinson,The Doomsday Code, Channel 4, 16 September 2006

Do you agree that a channel4 historical documentary is an unreliable source?. Have also a look at the rest references, used in order to built article's speculations about 666 number. All kind of speculations are presented, but the obvious (that 666 is money) is restricted as unreliable. Are all these various speculations more reliable than a channel4 historical documentary created by Tony Robinson?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicsies (talk • contribs) 09:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the first, unsigned, off-topic paragraph of this section be removed and the subject headline changed?! (Will make for a better discussion.) Suggested title: "666 is Money". Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Roman legion size

I put a fact tag on the statement that 6666 wasn't the standard size for a Roman legion, because the legions varied over time, with roughly 5200 men at one point, and to the best of my recollection contained an additional 20% or so of people who were not formally numbered among the ranks (indeed, some camp followers were not men...) I see no obvious reason why it can't be a straight count. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Please could those who are edit-warring on the Reagan material discuss the merits of the edits here? --John (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

image

Image:666.svg is available for the article --88.238.182.126 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad's mention as the plausible Beast.

I will remover the paragraph that mentions Prophet Muhammad as, being interpreted by some scholars, the Beast. Not only is this paragraph an insult to Islam, it is not accurate, neither is it logical or convincing. This has nothing to do with religion, only sensibilty and consideration. I doubt Nero, Claudius or any of the other speculations posted have offended anyone, and therefore, as per Wikipedia's rules, I view this as an insult to all Muslims, even if it really was put up by some scholars. Not every guess can be put in an article...

Thank You,

--Walid Osama 00:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally, on wikipedia, we allow all relevant, sourced, and notable points of view on a topic. And we generally don't simply deleted sourced content because it may offend someone. I think we do need to be careful of NPOV in that we shouldn't take sides, give undue weight to minor views, or present opinions as facts. I believe this section could be soured better, but it does state a historical fact (what people believed in the middle ages) and it does state at least two individual's opinions. I think this section should be improved, not deleted outright. I'm not sure what Wikipedia rule you are referring to, especially when you admit that some scholars hold this view (and therefore NPOV says we should include it). I'd like to fix the issue that may exist in this section, so could you be more specific about the problems you have with it, or maybe even suggest some improvements? Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

666 = www = Internet?

What do you think about this? (it's written in Spanish): El 666 y su identificación con Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by El filoloco (talk • contribs) 09:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No. www translates to ווו which in turn is 6 6 6, but not six hundred three-score and six as mentioned by the Bible. ווו in Hebrew is 18, 666 would be םסו. Regardless, 666 is "the number of a man"[1], not of a global network of computers. --RucasHost (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

666 following biblical precedent

Both mentions on this number refer to the same thing, they both refer to the income of an empire. Solomon was both the King of Israel, and the Emperor of greater Israel which included nations that sent tribute. The narrative contained in Nehemiah shows foreign merchants that sell during the sabbath. Foreign merchants only sell with the authorization of the local ruler, in his case the governor of the province of Judea. Just as in Solomon's case. Revelations would then refer to a beast with seven heads, ten horns. This amounts to: six heads with one crown, one head with four, -an empire. the same empire would later be described as coming from the east. While the basis for the mark is established, the background for the mark on the forehead and hand both come from the law where it states in DT 6 that we are to fasten the word on our forehead and hand. The mark denotes authority over the individual believer, it will also apply in the future empire that will invade and exercise authority over Israel. The last detail is that; 1. consumers buy, and pay taxes. 2. merchants, sell and pay a percentage to the local ruler. 3. governments collect taxes, fees, and tribute. In other words, consumers don't buy and sell, merchants do. The same merchants would later lament the fall of Babylon with its multi-regional goods and the fall of international commerce based on trade with Babylon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radical man 7 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Biblical Meaning of 666

The Numbers in the Bible are very importent. The number 1 means the start or begining of something. 6 Means untruthfull, or unfinished. The number 4 is light, or truth. On the fourth day, God made the universe to spon it's own light. The number 7 means to be purfect, of finished. 666 Is three times the number six: Unfinished. In our time, the Anti-christ (Beast, Dragon, Bel-Yamon) in not yet here. Showing one six, is the fact that the anti-christ will appear to be an angel of light, drawing to him the people of the world.

666 is a misterious Number, and is known as the Hex. Nobody knows what it means, but the bible says: "This is wisdom: That a man with wisdom will interpret his number. His number, is 666..."

NatWill2—Preceding unsigned comment added by NatWill2 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 10 April 2008

Dont cut bible in pieces. The bible says:

"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 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(vote) the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his(its) number is ΧΞς." (Book of Revelation 13:16-13:18)."

The greek word "Psefisato" (its aorist active middle - third person singular of the verb psephizo) means "count" but also means "vote"!!! Unfortunatley no one is allowed to translate it like that, and this is an obvious conspiracy.

First of all the whole passage clearly states that the mark of the beast is a form of money ("no man might buy or sell").

Having in mind that "psefisato" also means vote, the "wisdom" becomes a recommendation.

The author of the bible recomends people to vote in order to define the nature of money, instead of leting a money maker authority (which is being established by force and violence) to decide about it.

Obviously again, the idea to vote for money is censored all these 2000 years, by all kind and forms of government.

A man with wisdom may someday awake people, so that people will vote and decide about the nature money, and be redeemed from the 2000 years-lasting economic dictatorship...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicsies (talk • contribs) 13:36, 12 April 2008

Papal Title

I removed an error in the article. Vicarus Filii Dei is not nor has ever been a title of the Pope. Apparently a Seventh Day Adventist is trying to insert POV into the article. The text cited is not scholarly. In fact it is propaganda. The editor who wants to prove that this was a papal title is going to have to do better then that.70.108.83.3 (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Raising issues concerning the reliability of a source is valid. Please consider using edit summaries to let other users know the intentions of your changes. Without further information, it appeared as if you were removing sourced information with unsourced information. The sentences you have added twice However, there is no evidence that this was ever used as a papal title. The actual title is Vicarius Christi or Vicar of Christ. are completely unsourced. On top of that, you added unsourced WP:OR regarding Ellen Gould White. You cannot add a name and some numbers. It appears as if you have something personal against Seventh Day Adventists, and that you are editing this article to push your personal point of view.

On closer examination, the source you keep removing is a 19th century catholic publication by Henry Edward Manning which presumably uses the title. The sourcing could be better, and one publication does not support the phrasing we use in the article. Perhaps some revisions are necessary, but please do not add unsourced content to the article. Let's look for additional sourcing to see what they say, and work out a compromise here on talk that we can all agree with.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked the book in question. It is a BOOK. It is NOT an official document that uses this title in an official way. If I call the pope Vicar of the Son of God that means nothing. I don't speak officially for the Church. To be a title it must have an official source and the forged Donation of Constantine does not count. Notice that the title of the book uses "Vicar of Jesus Christ." The burden is on the other editor to show that this is an official title not on me to prove it isn't. As for White, if you can't just put a name and numbers in the article then much of it must be deleted. That is a major part of the article and is the Seventh Day Adventist reasoning behind their argument. So are you willing to delete all the other names and numbers in the article? Also I must ask you a personal question: are you a Seventh Day Adventist? They are the ones who have something personal against Catholicism and insert their POV whenever they can. I will be satisfied if the offending sentence is deleted since the source is a private book and opinion and is not official.136.242.180.220 (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My religious affiliation has no bearing on this article, nor basic wikipedia policy. I would agree to remove any unsourced content if it is first fact tagged and then deleted, after a reasonable amount of time and considering no sourced were forthcoming. I hope you understand that wikipedia works on content that is verifiable, notable, and sourced to reliable sources, as opposed to just letting anyone publish anything. For example, I could do some math and claim that Paris Hilton is 666, but would it be appropriate for me to add it here? Of course not. Similarly, without notable, reliable sources stating some consider White to be 666, then it has no place in the article. Next, your point that the book isn't an official church publication is well taken. I've made a minor change to the phrasing in the article. I'd still like a few more sources to make the use of the word "occasionally" verifiably accurate. For all we know, the Manning book could be the only publication of its kind to use the phrase since the 16th century.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It does have a bearing and most SDA's don't admit their affiliation. You are correct you could make Paris Hilton add up to 666. This is exactly what is done with the Pope. You would like a "notable, reliable" source for White. I want the same for the VFD quote. Instead we have an obscure reference where someone uses this to describe, not even as a title, the Pope. It is not an official document where the Pope claims this title. Therefore, how can the Vatican repudiate a title it never claimed? The article leaves the false impression that it was once a papal title that has been discontinued. That is simply false and the source does NOT say that in the first place. So we have a misused source that doesn't say what the article says it says. If a book says I am King of England am I? I could say that I no longer use the title, but I never had it in the first place. I do not understand why a blatant error is acceptable. The fact is that the Pope has never used that title or claimed it. Even if he had it would not prove he is the beast any more then adding up White's name proves that she is the beast. The whole last sentence should simply be deleted. That will avoid giving the false impression that this was once a papal title.

I think it is fair to add White's name. Here is the way it adds up to 666: Ellen = L+L=100, Gould=U+L+D=555, White=a double 'U' = 2 'V's +1 =11. Total these three numbers, and we have, 100 + 555 + 11 = 666. So Ellen Gould White, the prophetess of Seventh Day Adventism, has a name that adds up to 666, and it is the number of a name and not of a title.

This is from Bob Stanley at http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/bobsegw6.html. As good a source as the book used for VFD. Somebody somewhere said it so it must be true, right? It is also found in the book Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid. I can use that as a reference and put it in the article. In addition some argue that Ronald Wilson Reagan has 6 letters in each name ergo 666, so he could be mentioned too. We want to be fair, don't we? You can see where this is leading. If the erroneous sentence is deleted I will drop the insistance on White's name being added. We will have reached an acceptable compromise.136.242.180.193 (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As there has been no response I will delete the sentence and that will end the issue as far as I am concerned.136.242.180.162 (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Testament

I don't feel comfortable with the following sentence, in the Old Testament section:

"According to the Bible, Solomon fell into apostasy and built altars to Chemosh, Moloch, and Ashtoreth, pagan gods to whom human sacrifices were made. (See 1 Kings 11:4-8.)"

It feels to me like a cross between a non sequitur and original research. In other words, without connective material, it doesn't feel relevant, even though I can see what the significance is meant to be. And, the connective material would need to be sourced to someone who'd thought that the 666 talents was actually significant.

So, my fingers are itching to just take that sentence out, but I thought I'd check what other people might think, first. FlorenceSanford (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the implication needs to be sourced or removed. It is original research to imply that the number 666 relates to human sacrifice to pagan gods.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I went ahead and took it out, since I didn't have a feeling that it'd be easy to source, and the whole topic is a minefield of original research. FlorenceSanford (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I might add that the reference from Martin Luther to Benedict is not sourced.136.242.180.162 (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that, again, someone slipped in the idea that VFD was an accepted papal title. This is false. I changed it back. Please stick with the facts.136.242.228.175 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken Math

There has to be some discrepancy between the sources cited for this article and the information in the article on Gematria. The "Code" section of the Gematria article shows pretty clearly that "600, threescore (60) and 6", which is the exact wording of the verse, all represent individual Hebrew characters. It is nonsensical that 666 would be used to symbolize a name or series of letters whose values have all been added up to achieve that number. What would be the point? There are too many possible combinations, as seen by the variety of explanations given in this article. It would make much more sense if it was read as: (600) Mem - (60) Samekh - (6) Waw. Surely there must be some theories taking that approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.0.139 (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you misundestood something. The greek word "Psefisato" does not only means "count" but also means "vote"!. So stop doing calculations, and try to understand what the author really said. He recommends us to vote in order to decide what money is, instead of letting a government (supported of course by violent forces) to decide about it. Xicsies (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Have a look here. In this site some people are trying to create another kind of money. A new form of money, decided and voted democraticaly by the people and not decided by a violent minority-authority-government. This is what the author of the Bible recommends 2000 years now (and nobody hears). But he who has an ear, let him hear....Xicsies (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Bold text== Silly/Stupid Math ==

The Mathematics section here, at least the parts about triangular number and the golden rule relationship, is classical nonsense math and should really be removed.

A) It's true that it is a triangular number, but as written it has no point at all, 6*6 has nothing to do with 666 other than looks, and not even that if you think about it.

B)The golden rule part is just plain stupid. It requires that you take it out of context, arbitrarily multiplying by -1/2 and comparing it to other numbers after that. Also it looks at 666 in one case and 6*6*6 in the other. This is the sort of nonsense that looks impressive only to the ignorant and those WANTING to find something.Obbas (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and will remove it shortly. And if it belongs on WP at all, it should be at 666 (number), not here. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold on! Pure mathematic nonsense it may be, but can we also apply some lateral (and linguistic/literary) thinking please? Thinking mathematically, alphabetically and phonetically, 666 might = FEE (BEE) or FI (BI) or VEE (VI) or WEE (WI) (curiously, in the English alphabet 666 = FFF and (reversed) 999 = III and 'F','B','V' and 'W' are all interchangeable consonant SOUNDS in different language families). Many languages are littered with such letter/SOUND combinations that may constitute a part of words that relate in meaning/use to money (finance) or to an end (finish) or to aggression (fight) or to danger (fire) or to gaining something for nothing (find) etc. or a part of words that relate to pain (bite) or duality (bipartisan) or excess (binge) etc. or even to a part of words that relate to harm (vicious) or distaste (vile) or behaviour (violence) or a part of words that relate to enjoyment (wine) or to evil (wicked) or to nature (wild). In my opinion, this numerical "code" could conceivably represent an unconscious linguistic indicator of potential evil intent or unintended negative consequences (dependent on context / circumstances of course), recognisable to only to those aware of its signifcance. [OK - now you might think 'but what about fig, big and vine?' for example - fine (ouch!) - but when you add 'leaf, brother and grape', do you want to think again?!].

Sigma or Digamma?

While the '6' is said in the article to be a sigma, the Sigma's value is 200 to my knowledge - the 6 is the Digamma ('wau', Ϝ/ϝ, which has been written in later times as a ϛ, supposedly, appearing as an end-sigma, or stigma... hope you understand what I'm saying). Ending it with a sigma would mean its value is 600+60+200... or is this simply a matter of linguistic-numeric differences? --217.122.225.60 (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone deleted the following. I will put it back

616

In May 2005, it was reported that scholars at Oxford University using advanced imaging techniques had been able to read previously illegible portions of the earliest known record of the Book of Revelation, from the Oxyrhynchus site, Papyrus 115 or P¹¹⁵, dating to the mid to late third century. The fragment gives the Number of the Beast as 616 (chi, iota, sigma), rather than the majority text 666 (chi, xi, sigma). In Eastern Greek 616 is chi-iota-sigma or XIC. Eastern forms of Greek used the Lunate Sigma (which resembles an upper case C) as seen on many ancient Christian religious artifacts. The other early witness Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) has it written in full: hexakosiai deka hex (lit. six hundred sixteen).

Significantly, P¹¹⁵ aligns with Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) which are generally regarded as providing the best testimony to Revelation. Thus, P¹¹⁵ has superior testimony to that of P⁴⁷ which aligns with Codex Sinaiticus and together form the second-best witness to the Book of Revelation. This has led some scholars to conclude that 616 is the original number of the beast.

Red arrow points to χιϛʹ (616) in P¹¹⁵ deciphered in May 2005.

Dr. Paul Lewes in his book, A Key to Christian Origins (1932) wrote:

"The figure 616 is given in one of the two best manuscripts, C (Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Paris), by the Latin version of Tyconius (DCXVI, ed. Souter in the Journal of Theology, SE, April 1913), and by an ancient Armenian version (ed. Conybaere, 1907). Irenaeus knew about it [the 616 reading], but did not adopt it (Haer. v.30,3), Jerome adopted it (De Monogramm., ed. Dom G Morin in the Rev. Benedictine, 1903). It is probably original. The number 666 has been substituted for 616 either by analogy with 888, the [Greek] number of Jesus (Deissmann), or because it is a triangular number, the sum of the first 36 numbers (1+2+3+4+5+6...+36 = 666)".

Professor David Parker, Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism and Paleography at the University of Birmingham, thinks that 616, although less memorable than 666, is the original. Dr. Ellen Aitken said, “Scholars have argued for a long time over this, and it now seems that 616 was the original number of the beast. It's probably about 100 years before any other version." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.158.191 (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting the correct font for a stigma is impossible, so many settle with grabbing a final sigma. That totally confuses the issue. The two are similar but they are supposed to be identifiably different. See the discussion http://www.parthia.com/fonts/stigma.htm Theoofmopsuestia (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC) To view the official difference between the final sigma (s) and the lower case stigma (number 6) see Greek unicode 03DB on page 39 http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0370.pdf Unfortunately Modern Greek calls the final sigma stigma and this totally confuses the outsider. The Greeks are supposed to know that the final s form (stigma) is not to be confused with the genuine Stigma which represents 6 (See 032C page 38 in above pdf file). The problem in English is akin to the word "saw". It can be a tool as in "a hammer and a saw." It can be the the past tense of see - "Yesterday I saw." Context let's the English reader differentiate. Unfortunately people who make the fonts, find the final s form in Greek called stigma and think that they have the lower case stigma (for 6) - not realizing there are 2 lower case stigmas they should create!! People trying to communicate, can't find a font with the lower case stigma (numeral 6) and in desperation grab the final s form. Causing more confusion. Officially the difference between the two is only at the top right of the letter where there the stigma (6) has a slight up stroke.Theoofmopsuestia (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The word 'Psefisato' (ψηφισάτω) also means 'vote' !

Search ANY Greek dictionary about the alternative meanings of the word 'Psefisato'. This word also means vote, and no scholar can deny that! Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament ISBN: 1565632095 [2]. Why nobody discuss this, and everyone keeps doing endless calculations? Maybe we have to VOTE the number of the beast, not calculate it. And what is this number , that no one can buy or sell without it, that we have to vote for it? Money obviously is a number. Also it is known that king Solomon earned 666 talents each year from taxation. So 666 maybe was money's and taxer's nickname. Maybe Jews were using it in order to talk about money and taxes without Romans to understand them. The author of the Bible maybe simply recommends people to vote in order to define the nature of money and the nature of taxes, instead of letting Caesar or any other powerful military king or minority to decide about it. While all these various calculations really do not make sense, this alternative translation and explanation makes sense, doesn't it? Xicsies (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed most of your recent additions under the grounds of non-notability/irrelevance or unsourced/OR-tone, Xicsies. Andrew expressed in an edit summary that the other paragraph, about the translation of psefisato, shouldn't be included either: "remove lexicon info. it doesn't matter what a dictioanry says if we don't have any actual translations using that word". Personally, I think it at least has potential. It's interesting, and while I'm not sure about everything Xicsies seems to want to do with it, it is referenced. I'd say we keep it in provisionally. If Xicsies can provide any reliable sources that discuss the translation of the word and its implications, that would be better. If not, I'd be fine removing it, as Andrew wishes to do (I believe). I would change it though. It currently reads: "The author of the Bible uses the word 'psefisato' (ψηφισάτω) in order to figure out the symbolism of this number. This Greek word can be translated either as 'calculate-count' or as 'vote'." I would change it to: "The author of the Revelation uses psephizo (ψηφισάτω) for calculating the number of the beast in Rev 13:18. This Greek word can be translated either as 'calculate-count' or as 'vote'." What's everyone think? Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There is also another think you have to take into account. It is the translation of the passage "καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτοῦ χξϛʹ.". It is usually translated as "and his number is 666" but it can also be translated as "and its number is 666". "αὐτοῦ" may be translated either as "his" or as "its". Ask any scholar about it. Xicsies (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

We went over this topic over a year ago. Please see here. Policy has not changed here on wikipedia. We still do not allow original research, and that applies to unique biblical interpretations. So one user thinks that a specific translation of a word is The Truth. However, not a single bible can be sourced that uses that word in that context. Ergo, saying that the word in the bible can be translated that was is misleading (if not outright false). Please, read the old discussion and ask questions if you have any. We cannot publish a novel biblical interpretation here, as it was inappropriate to do so a year ago. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

But this passage is a call for interpretation. The author of the passage is clearly asking us to interpret his words, by saying "Let him that hath understanding...." or "Here is the wisdom". We do not publish novel biblical interpretations in general, we are only publishing interpretations for a single biblical passage that is asking for it. And after all, we didn't post any interpretation in the main article, only here in the talk page. It cannot be considered original research, just to mention the possible translations of a word. Xicsies (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a published bible translation that meets basic reliable sourcing that uses that translation, then I'll drop my complaint immediately. Otherwise, we can only assume that the bible translators know more about Greek than either one of us, or that there is some reason why no one has translated that phrase in the way you suggest. Really, wikipedia cannot be the first place to publish a new English translation of the bible. It's simply original research. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

We do not publish a new English translation of the bible. We just mention the possible translations of the word. Xicsies (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of mentioning the alternative translation is not to imply that every single version of the bible is wrong? Seriously, why mention it at all then? What is the point?? Again, please find a source, and do not remove article warnings that have been placed in good faith while there are current talk page discussions. Thank you.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The point is, the author is asking for interpretation. A good article should BOTH present widely accepted possible interpretations (all being original research after all) AND give some clues to the readers for novel interpretations to flourish in their minds. Just mentioning the alternative translation of a word is not an interpretation and surely does not imply that every single version of the bible is wrong, unless you want to see it like that. Xicsies (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to side with Andrew on this. Xicsies, your repetition of "the author is asking for interpretation" "But this passage is a call for interpretation. The author of the passage is clearly asking us to interpret his words", is extremely souring. Work on WP should not be based on what John wanted believers to glean from his book. While I would suggest that strictly speaking, merely mentioning the possible translations is not OR, it does increasingly seem that you are pushing a POV that is unsourced, and giving it undue weight. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I surely have a POV which is also OR as far as I know, but I am pushing it here in the talk page and not in the main article. Xicsies (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

But the talk page is meant to discuss improvements to the article. If you merely want to discuss it, you should not do it here; if it is an OR POV, it does not belong in the article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, well after a few days of no improvement, I move we remove the sentences in question. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. Accurate translation is not original research. Original research is actually what you are doing right now, when you translate a word without mentioning the alternative meanings of it. The fact that this wrong (or incomplete) translation has been inherited from the Latin translation into many English version of the Bible, this is not an excuse for wikipedia to keep this wrong for ever! Xicsies (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, find a source. I'll withdraw my concern if you can find a single bible translation from a publisher that meets our RS/V guidelines that uses that word. Also, please don't remove good faith article warning tags that direct users to this ongoing discussion.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

All English translations of the Bible inherit from the Latin translation. This is the reason you cannot find any English translation that translates the word as 'vote;. But it is obvious, and you can find it in any Greek dictionary, that this word also means 'vote'. We do not mention possible OR scenarios that may occur due to of this alternative translation, we only mention the alternative translation. An accurate-complete translation of a word cannot be considered OR Xicsies (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It is all about context. If this was an article about the Greek word, then surely we should discuss all definitions. However, this is not an article about a Greek word. It is either completely irrelevant that the word has multiple meanings, or it is relevant that it has multiple meanings in the context of Rev. 13:18. If it is irrelevant, then it has no place here. If it is relevant, then we must cite a source showing that it is relevant in this context, for the purposes of WP:V. (Also, the vast majority of English bible translations use a Greek critical text, such as NA27 or the textus receptus, as the base, no?)-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the story begins when Erasmus, in NA27, translated the word 'Psefisato' as 'let-pebble'.[3] Xicsies (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe, the story begins in Vulgate, where the translation is Hic sapientia est. Qui habet intellectum, computet numerum bestiæ. Numerus enim hominis est : et numerus ejus sexcenti sexaginta sex. 89.210.129.235 (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Vulgate is an older translation. So it is more possible Vulgate to be the beginning of this story, rather than NA27. Xicsies (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed sentence for now, due to a near consensus here. If we can find a translation that uses that word, or scholarly discussion about it in the context of Rev. 13:18, then we can easily restore the content. But for now, with no source connecting the two, it's OR and has no place on Wikipedia. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I finally managed to discover a reliable source. Here it is , from Andreas of Caesarea. "Περί του μιαρού ονόματος του αντιχρίστου. "Και την μεν ακρίβεια της ψήφου, ως και τα λοιπά τα περί αυτού γεγραμμένα, ο χρόνος αποκαλύψει και η πείρα τοις νηφουσιν... ...αλλ'ουκ ευδόκησεν η θεια χάρις εν θεια βίβλω του λυμεώνος όνομα γραφήναι. ως εν γυμνασιας δε λόγω πολλά εστιν ευρειν....". Saint Andrew, the Archbishop of Cappadocia’s Caesarea, Interpretation on the Apocalypse pages 341-42, chapter ΛΗ. Xicsies (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

We are still talking about English translations, right? Modern English didn't exist in the time of Andreas of Caesarea.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In this text it says: "ακρίβεια[4] της(of the) ψήφου". How do you translate it? Xicsies (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In the Book Commentary on the Revelation of Saint John By Nerses, Robert W. Thomson the word "ψήφου" is translated as "number" (!?!?)[5]. Once again the very word "psephos" is not translated correctly. The book Patrologiae cursus completus also translates the word "psephos" as number [6] Xicsies (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The insinuation of Andreas of Caesarea that "psephos" may mean "vote" rather than "calculation" or "number" is strengthen by the fact that he states, a few lines below, that "too many names match the number". And of course, when he says 'match the "number"' Andreas uses the correct word "αριθμόν" and NOT the word ψήφου. Despite what the translations are claiming, the writer himself clarifies it. Obviously "number" is not the correct translation of the word 'psephos'. Xicsies (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think in this case 'psephos' can be translated as stone or pebble. Also it is notable what wikipedia's relevant article about akribeia says:In the Eastern Orthodox Church, akribeia (Greek: ακριβεια), also sometimes akribia, akrivia is strict adherence to the letter of the law of the church, as distinguished from economy. Akribeia, a term usually used to describe the economy term of costliness, it is used by early church fathers in order to describe the strict adherence to the letter of the law of the church. Xicsies (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

For my part, I would not include this patristic Greek work as a relevant RS for our discussion, unless/until it appears in a scholarly translation. If this work discusses the vote translation of psephizo, and we can see it in English, then it would be appropriate to discuss it in the article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this work discusses the vote translation directly. But as long as the very word 'psephos' (and not psephizw) along with the word 'akribeia' are used, this is at least an insinuation. Xicsies (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

yeah, but we need more than an insinuation for this. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is full of insinuations. Why all insinuations are allowed, except of the 'vote' insinuation? We could add to the article a similar to the below quote:

"Andreas of Caesarea insinuates that 'psefisato' refers to 'voting' rather than 'calculating'".

What do you think? Xicsies (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you pointed out these problematic insinuation you suggest riddle this article. I'd happily remove any content that isn't fully supported by our citations. As for adding your suggested sentence, I wouldn't mind adding it if we have a source that verifies that. What you have done (again) is interpret a primary source that is written in another language hundreds and hundreds of years ago. I mirror Carl's request to find a scholarly translation in English, or some sort of contemporary commentary. Without it, again stating as much here would be publishing something for the first time, which breaks our no original research rule here on Wikipedia. I've searched for an adequate source, but haven't even found an English translation of the text in question. Maybe you know of an adequate source?-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A reference from http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com

"The reactionary linguistic movement known as "Atticism," is a reversion to classical Attic grammatical and lexical standards, that set in toward the end of the first century CE and which was to heavily influence many Church Fathers. However, there was resistance, as reflected in Andrew of Caesarea's seventh-century commentary on Revelation (which often accompanies Revelation in the MSS).

The second-century writer Phrynicus of Alexandria had banned 424 non-Attic terms in his Ekloge. Nineteen terms on his list appear in Revelation. However, according to Hernández, only four are changed from a non-Attic to Attic terms in some MSS.

Significantly, however, apart from atticism/non-atticism Andrew seems to reflect an attitude similar to Origen on textual matters, in that he accepts more than one reading when he knows more. In the time for questions, Hernández was asked whether there are explicit references to manuscript variation by Andrew, and the answer was positive. He had found one or more references."

According to this expert, the problem resides not in Vulgate but in atticism/non-atticism.

Xicsies (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That does not address the issue directly. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

CH Turner is not discussing "ψηφισάτω", but instead "νοῦν". I have altered the most recent edit to more accurately reflect this source. Hope that isn't problematic. I'd be glad to discuss further.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand Greek. 'Noun' alone doesn't mean anything it is a noun and it just means 'mind'. The meaning resides to the verb. It is the whole phrase 'O ehon noun psefisato' which means "read between the lines", not just the noun 'noun'. That is what the reference suggests, and that is what everyone who knows just a little bit Greek understands. 'Psefisato' lays the emphasis on 'noun', it gives the "understand below the surface" meaning.

In some other places of Revelation it is mentioned the noun "ο νοών" (or "ο έχων νουν") (which is translated as "the one who has mind or understanding") along with the verb "νοείτω" or "νοείν". What CH Turner suggests is that the verb "νοείν" has similar meaning to the verb "ψηφισάτω". The same can be said for the verb "νοείτω" too, which is also in the same imperative conjugation as 'psefisato'. So the verb "νοείv" (and "νοείτω") takes the place of the verb "ψηφισάτω" and vice versa, and gives to the phrase 'ὁ ἔχων νοῦν ψηφισάτω' (or to the equivalent phrase o "ο νοών νοείτω" ) the "understand below the surface" meaning.

The Koine language used in new testament is the main ancestor of modern Greek, and can be easily understοοd by a Greek-speaking. In modern Greek there is a similar to the Revelation expression. It is the expression 'αψήφιστα' (try babelfish) which means "without much thought" or "without understanding below the surface". 'A-psefista', having the same root as 'psfefisato', has a negative sense and meaning due to the privative "α-".

I agree with CH Turner's phrase a means to indirectly reference Roman power. If the number of the beast (an object used in order to buy or sell according the author) is the roman coins, then the translation of the phrase "psefisato the number of beast" as "vote the coins" instead of "count the coins", is also "a means to indirectly reference (against) the Roman power", isn't it? Xicsies (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Facts verses new or unresearched ideas

We would like to work with this article but would like to get better acquainted with the protocol and discuss possible relevant material and/or material of interest. Here is a very simplistic example. We realize that the numbers 616 and 666 are valued at ones, tens, and hundreds. There are those, however, that have used the numbers as single digits. Case in point would be 6-6-6 considered W-W-W (the web) as having something to do with the beast, as currently stated in this talk page, and used in a myriad of other ideas. Using this methodology six, plus one, plus six, equals 13, and six, plus six, plus six, equals 18. These two numbers are the chapter and verse in Revelation, chapter 13 verse 18, that mention the number(s) of the beast. This is just an interesting point that may possibly comprise some form of relevance or amusement. However, would it be possible that such information if factually developed and based on applied and accepted information, that has been itself derived from researched, currently received, or antiquated ideas, could be incorporated as fact? Could it also be done so with or without further references, or someones else's research? That is for example if the W-W-W idea was previously included in the article and referenced and the verse 13 chapter 18 information was then integrated in. The Riley Family (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the links I've just posted on your talk page. It sounds as though what you want to do might run afoul of the novel synthesis and/or no-original research policies. Please refer to the linked pages and familiarize yourselves with them before making substantial changes. In short, if you want to add text to an article, it must be explicitly found in a reliable source. Anything else is inadmissible. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Because it is given such prominence in the body, it is necessary to include 616 in the lead. From WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." Mentioning 666 but not 616 is undue weight for the lead. It would not be a "concise overview of the article". It would also not summarize "any notable controversies"; whether it is 666 or 616 is something of a controversy. Just because you believe 616 is an error, does not mean it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. Please, stop with your POV-pushing, Xicsies. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you please stop advertise this 616 sponsored nonsense? The so called 616 version of the number of the beast is based on a fragment of a papyrus that dates 100 years AFTER Irenaeus reported the 616 scribal errors. Xicsies (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And we all know who Irenaeus was. He was a disciple of Saint Polycarp, who was a disciple of Saint John the Evangelist himself! Xicsies (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

We base our contributions on RS here at WP, not on our faith! Learn this, Xicsies, or, as I have invited you before, I'm sure, go get a blog. RS discuss 616 as the Number of the Beast. We know what Irenaeus said about 616. Both of these are mentioned in the article. They are verifiable. We use what is verifiable. Remember: WP is about verifiability, not truth. If you want to focus your editing time on truth, go elsewhere. Carl.bunderson (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It is not about faith, it is but about RS. Irenaeus, a person who knew personally the discipline of the author of the apocalypse is a much much more RS than a 2000 years after Dr or scholar who wants to impress us with novelties in order to gain sponsorship or attention. Xicsies (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Read the pages on reliable sources, and the preferences regarding primary and secondary sources. Irenaeus is a primary source, and we prefer what scholars have to say about primary sources in their own secondary sources. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your recent changes for the following reasons: (In the lead) You're merely trying to push your POV here, about the truth value of 616. Because your motivation is suspect, this is POV-pushing. Moreover, you do not have a professional grasp of English; this edit did not improve the tone of the lead. (In the 616 section) This is novel synthesis/unsourced. Again, you're pushing your POV and I will not stand for it. (In the mark of commerce section) This would be fine, if you had a real reference instead of the google book results for "666" and "solomon". That is not a reference. Find a RS that says, "Many researchers associate the number of Solomons golden talents to the number of the beast of the Apocalypse", reference it, and it will be allowed to stay. Carl.bunderson (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I pointed to 1200 books references. Isn't that enough for you to consider that the 666 talents of Solomon are relevant? By no means you want people to understand or even think that 666 may symbolize the roman coins rather than a name. So 'psefisato' has been wrongly translated to 'calculate', instead of the correct (vote). And now, because 666 match the coin scenario due to the talents of Solomon, you decided to change this very number! I think your goal is to change the number in order to confuse people, and make them believe to calculations and all the rest gematria witchcraft nonsenses that the article is full of. Xicsies (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. We need a quotation from a book that explicitly supports what you want to put in the text. My goal is to keep POV pushers such as yourself from f*cking up WP articles. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I disagree with you in this article, I appreciate your effort to protect WP articles in general. When I say "your goal is" I am talking about "you all" not "you Carl". It is my POV thet 'psefisato' means vote and that 'the number of the beast' means coins, but honestly my goal is not to f*ck up this article but to make it better. I also do appreciate your disagreement which is sometimes positive. Please don't get me wrong. Xicsies (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I had taken that as directed to me, rather than whomever. Also, I don't believe your will/intention/goal is to screw up the article. However, I do believe that your edits do this, by and large. I honestly think, idk, either you don't understand the policies of NPOV and reliability, or you obstinately refuse to observe them. Idk, I get the impression that you want your personal beliefs reflected on WP, regardless of whether they have reliable sources backing them up or not. This whole thing with 616, you seemed more concerned with truth than verifiability, and I think that is the source of much of our contention. Again, to close, I do not think your intention is to harm the encyclopedia. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that a lot of this conflict seems to relate back to an understanding (or lack thereof) of basic wikipedia policies. The 616 issue seems simple. This is NPOV. If we have multiple prominent views, even minority views that are notable, not fringe, we must present those views, and give them due weight. Even if I personally think a theory is wrong, or if I think I can prove that theory wrong myself, we need to present all notable views. That's the beauty of wikipedia. We don't take sides. And in the case where we think we can personally discredit theories, we must refrain from trying to do so in the article (unless we have notable sources which comment on the theories). For example, we can't try to say that one source is ignoring Irenaeus or calling him a liar unless that is what the source actually says. The other issues relate to our policies on verifiability and sourcing. For example, a google search result cannot be used as a source (books found through a google search result, if cited themselves, surely can be used). Just keep in mind that on contentious topics, we can't let one side of the debate win if there are multiple notable views. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, how long do you want to maintain "Many researchers associate the number of Solomons golden talents to the number of the beast of the Apocalypse" in the article without any citation? Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like this is going to be fixed. If anyone finds a ref for it, by all means add it. For now, I'm deleting it. There's no sense in completely un-grounded claims being made in the article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Context & Definition of Xαραγμα / "'Mark' of Commerce" = MONEY

Under the subject heading "Mark of Commerce" the definition of Xαραγμα has other meanings besides "Mark." If U look at this reference from an Unabridged Greek-English Lexicon, U can see that is also means, MONEY or coin. Hence: "No one buys and sells without the MONEY of the beast." Nero's face was impressed on the coins. The "Revelation" was written around 66 A.D. at time Nero lived, the Jews revolted against the Romans and the Jews started coining their own money. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning to provide an opening paragraph to this section to give the full definition of Xαραγμα with all it's meanings (see link to unabridged Greek Lexicon, above). I'll include the context ("buy and sell") as well as references to Jesus. (1) Telling his disciples to not carry any money (MT 10:9) (So too did the Essenes, who were contemporaries of Jesus not carry any money.) (2) Jesus upsetting the tables of the moneychangers (JN 2:14), (3) Jesus outside the temple-treasury talking about how difficult it is for rich people to enter the Kingdom of God (MK 12:41), (4) Jesus saying, "You can't serve God and money" (NEV) . . . "but the Pharisees, who loved money heard all this and scoffed" (LK 16), (5) Jesus and the poll-tax/Tribute money, "Whose picture is on the money?" (Caesar's) (MT 22:19) (MT 17:24) Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that "charagma" or "the number of the beast" is a (past or present or future) form of money, seems obvious. What needs to be investigated, is what we have to do with it, in order to be saved. Bible encourages the wise to "psefisato" the number of the beast. This word, which is usally translated as "count" can also be translated as "vote". Xicsies (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, this used to be mentioned in the article (diff), until one Carl.bunderson (talk · contribs) removed it, presumably for being too sane, and taking away from the out-and-out nonsense on stilts the article is apparently required to peddle. Jheald (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the time has come. The consensus indicates that the above diff should be mentioned in the article. I am adding it again. Xicsies (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The comment of one user does not indicated consensus. A tv report is not a RS. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by two users and me makes three and I've seen videos used as RSs before. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but both you and Xicsies have a history of not understanding RS policy. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I just checked out the Channel 4 website and the source, which is a review of the investigative report of a TV show (it's not a video) on a legitimate British TV station. I also checked out this source by mistake in regards UBC codes . . . looks like a flimsy website to me. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that channel4 is reliable in terms of RS policy. I'm not sure that a fleeting, single sentence mention by Julia Bard at the end of a segment is notable though. And I am sure that the channel4 source does not support the majority of the text that Carl previously removed. Here are my suggestions, either the sentence needs to be reduced and worked in to an existing part of the article with the supplied channel4 source, or we need to find additional sourcing to verify the rest of the content and to establish notability. Saying "some people have interpreted the "mark of the beast" to be the emperor Nero's head on coins"... is basically all we can get from Channel4, right? And even then we don't know how prominent the view is and how much weight to give it (if to give it any at all) we really need more research (and therefore more sources). Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In light of this, I think I will remove the sentence until it is properly sourced. If someone wants to reduce the sentence and show where it can be worked in, please do so. If channel4 is reliable, then what they said must be based on something that scholars have written, so there must be a better source out there somewhere. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That smacks of wikilawyering to suppress a POV you don't like. Better would be to leave the source intact (as there is also much other useful material in the cited report), but to tag it as needing better additional sourcing. If I recall the actual film correctly, as opposed to the article discussing it, it actually made the proposition quite firmly with talking heads to support it. In any case, it is certainly a known view amongst mainstream Biblical scholars. Here for example (p.99) [7], is how it was reviewed in a general audience 2002 book by Paul Spilsbury:

Many interpreters have spent a great deal of time speculating about the nature of this mark and putting forward innumerable suggestions for what it might be -- including bar codes on merchandise and credit cards, or computer chips inserted under people's skin. Biblical scholars, on the other hand, look to ancient practices for clues. Some have noted that charagma, the ancient Greek word used here for "mark", was a technical term for the imperial stamp on commercial documents and for the imprint of the emperor's head on coins. These might explain the mark on the hand and the inability to buy or sell without the mark, but seem less helpful for expaining the mark on the forehead (though it could indicate a mind obsessed with money)

Other sources could no doubt be found that would make the case for it more forcefully, and best of all would be a cite to one of the scholars who is actually firmly propounding this explanation, to see how they make their case unfiltered. But even pending that, the explanation should stay, in a form that allows the reader to see how it is suggested to work, because even the above quite careful review makes clear that this is a mainstream line of thought, which the article should present. Jheald (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

ADDED: An upload of the film can be found at Google video, [8]. The mention of this view of "the mark" can be found at 1:33:54. It's no more than a sentence, but it is presented as representing mainstream scholarly opinion. Jheald (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It is hardly a matter of being a POV I dislike. I don't have any particular views on Revelation as of yet. And there is plenty of nutty stuff on this page that I would do away with if it were matter of POVs I don't like. Any preterist interpration such as this one is in my mind automatically better than UPC theories. So since you've found a better source, why don't you build a sentence and replace the existing one, and source it from the google books link. That would be something we could all agree on. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the bellsouth site is rather shoddy. It is the personal website of someone notable, but it isn't immediately obvious, though he invented the UPC, that he has "previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I'll remove the little paragraph based upon it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I am asking a straight question , and I want a straight answer. How comes and something that "no man might buy or sell, save he that had it" is NOT a form of money? The mark of the beast, is obviously a form of money. This totally sane assertion should be mentioned in the article, together with the rest gematria witchcraft nonsenses and the 616 ridiculous scenario that many of us tolerate to be mentioned in the article, in the name of consensus. Xicsies (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Original research should not play into this. Why not help Jheald find more sources? I believe the notability of this view has been established. Now we just need a solid description backed by solid sources. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Find a good, scholarly RS, and add it. That will shut me up, I promise. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said at the beginning, I plan to write an entire paragraph or section about the context and complete definition of the word charagma. Note also the word Mammon is mistranslated (or not translated) also means money in Aramaic ("Mammon" is an Aramaic word for money: Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Hastings, James, ed.; New York, Scribners, 1908-1921. 12 vols.) & Hebrew, 'ממון (mmôn = money) Webster's Online Dictionary, translated into english. It might be two weeks before I get to it 'cause I'm going on vacation. If any of U wanna do it, go for it! I know, it will be difficult to not make this look like original research unless we stick to referenced facts. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As it is, this bit is unacceptable. Andrew has noted that a mentioned at the end of a channel 4 report is of questionable notability. Better sourcing is needed for what's been in the article. I gave it a month, and nothing was done by those who want it maintained. Of the persons who support you, one has been indefinitely-blocked as a POV-pusher, and the other is an SPA with similar problems understanding RS policy. The status quo is not viable. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 08:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finally adding a real reference. IVP is a press that can actually be trusted for information. Now was that so hard? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mixed languages

I think there should be more mention of the languages involved in the guesses as to who the "beast" was.

For instance, Revelations was written in Greek, but Nero's name must be written in another language (Aramaic) and then have numerology rules applied from yet another language (Hebrew) before 666 is acquired. Later in the article, Caligula's name is written in Greek and Greek numerology is used to arrive at the Greek text of 616. However, there is no mention that Greek numerology is used.

I'm no Biblical scholar and this isn't the place to argue how plausible one guess is, but I would bet that any name could be twisted into any number if one was allowed to rewrite the name in a second language and then use numerology from a third. Which is why I think there should be more emphasis on the languages used to resolve names into numbers.

I agree - see "Hold on....." under 'Mistaken Math' in Archive 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.144.221 (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OR. Editor's own research has no place on Wikipedia, including talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Most vs. Many

I was struck by the mention that: "most scholars believe the number referred to the Emperor Nero.", and it cites four references.

Four references is hardly "most". Not only that, but that belief reflects a Preterist view-- not one that the majority of Christians hold.

Anyone else agree? --Shark Fin 101 (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Shark Fin - I agree, but have not had the time or inclination to find sources. Just recently, that line read that "most scholars believe it refers to Nero, while other believe it refers to Domitian" or something like that. I was able to work a compromise with another poster to delete the latter part of that sentence. It is better now that it was, but I am not 100% happy.

I feel that, on the whole, the article has a preterist bias, but I lack the will to make major efforts to change it. Bonbga (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I have not read the references, it is quite possible that they provide a survey of the scholarly literature and come to the stated conclusion about what "most" scholars believe. In that case, the number of references provided is not intended to enumerate the number of supporting scholars directly, but provide references to support a conclusion about what most scholars believe. If so, then it is a perfectly valid statement. It might have been better if additional notes with excepts from the references were provided, so that it would be possible to determine whether these references are just enumerations of a particular interpretation or provide a more comprehensive survey. As it is, one would need to read each reference to determine whether or not it correctly supports the conclusion about what "most" scholars believe. Alternately, one would need to provide different scholarly references that come to a different conclusion about what "most" scholars believe. Trying to justify such a statement by providing one's own enumeration would constitute original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.229.193 (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The number of citations is now six. I very briefly looked at them, and all 6 mention views that it refers to Nero. However, it seems none mention a survey of scholars. While I think it does refer to Nero, and I might think that most scholars do think it refers to Nero, using "most" this way violates Wikipedia standards. If one were to have a hundred citations for that one statement, it would still violate the standards. Nor, would changing "most" to "many" fix the problem. Used this way, they are both weasel words. If it is stated that most scholars support this view, a survey showing this needs to be cited.

I get suspicious whenever I see a statement that has a long list of citations. A long list of citations makes it seem like someone is trying to bolster a weak or controversial view. Often, the citations are not the best -- they refer to articles that refer to other sources (explicitly or not). Best to go to the original sources, if they can be found. SlowJog (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that there is a reference to "Benedict" as one "title." Yet there is no reference to it. I suspect this is just a quick slash at the current Pope. If there is no evidence that Luther said that then it should be deleted. Likewise Luther's own name does add up to 666. That should be noted.97.114.183.149 (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

666 = WWW

Hi there. There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what "notability" is referring to in the graf that was removed about the theory that the Number of the Beast referred to the World Wide Web. Under WP guidelines, the theory itself is notable, having received coverage in a mainstream, reliable news source. However, the theory did not gain any following that is notable (in the Wikipedia sense, anyway). Because the theory is notable, it is appropriate to include it, but under WP guidelines for dealing with fringe theories, it's important to explain that this is not a commonly held view.

Of course, if we want to make this a WP:IAR case, you could probably convince me.

Thoughts? — Bdb484 (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Some "amateur bible sleuth", or as you put it "An unemployed San Francisco man", comes up with a hypothesis, and one newspaper debunked it 10 years ago. I don't believe an encyclopedia article on the topic should include such trivial coverage. Furthermore, the last sentence is complete OR, and should not be in the article, whether the mention of Barber stays or not. While I understand that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we have the various advantages of new media, I still think such a mention fails to be encyclopedic. As to weight, we are placing this hypothesis on par with the beliefs of two religious sects, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Bahá'í Faith (and Crowley). I do believe in describing fringe theories and their lack of acceptance in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, don't get me wrong. I just do not believe that trivia such as this is encyclopedic at all. Seriously, some guy was thinking about writing a book, and sent his theory to 7 local newspapers, and 1 happened to write on him (on perhaps a slow news day?) to tell him he's wrong. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with keeping it, that one dude was just an example of that theory (it actually has come up elsewhere, as seeh here, the problem is that the people that would believe it wouldn't exactly put up websites...). As for the OR, which looking at the guidelines there doesn't appear to have been any OR. Everything was just what the sources said except for the line "so the result of WWW would actually be 18," which is just application of what was present on those sources. Routine calculations are not original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Andrew that this is so trivial as not to merit inclusion. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions on the last sentence, and I question whether its source should be considered a reliable source. The remainder, however, meets the standards for inclusion, which is why I thought it should be included while we debate it. If people here think it should go, I'm all for it. I think it might be good to wait a few days and see if anyone else has feelings one way or another. — Bdb484 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out again that the line "However, the position of digits did not matter in Greek numeral systems as much as the sum, so the result of WWW would actually be 18" is properly sourced and does not qualify as original research. It is just "adding numbers, converting units" and "its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived." It is not derived from my personal experiance, it is not my original thought, it isn't my "belief" about Greek numerology (it isn't even numerology but how the ancient Greeks did addition), it isn't synthesis to advanace a position. Before removing that line again, actually point out how it is OR. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Greek numerology is not simple mathematics, so your quotations are comparing apples with oranges (or perhaps pears). Greek does not have the letter W, which is a character found in the Latin alphabet. Neither of the so-called "cited" sources mention that W=6. I have no idea where you get that idea. Therefore, I have no idea what those links have to do with your calucation of 18 (assuming WWW=666=6+6+6=18). When you apply ancient numerology of another alphabet in another culture into contemporary English, this is not simply applying mathematics. Furthermore, not sure how you get the position of digits did not matter in Greek numeral systems as much as the sum from "It was not positional, meaning that the place of the letter did not denote its value like we have it in our number system."-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, this isn't numerology, this is just how the Greeks did math, they used numbers instead of letters. Numerology would be taking that math and looking for some sort of supernatural truth in it that goes beyond those letters/numbers. Numerology is based on math, but what I contributed was math and the previous part of that section was based on numerology. The W=6 bit is carried over from the previous source: that is the entire point of that section! The links I provided explained that the position of Greek numerals did not matter. But if it will make you happy, I will replace W with digamma. And again, please point out what part of the OR guidelines I am violating. As for how I got the position...as the sum from "It was not positional,...in our number system," many languages, especially English, let people state the same idea in many different ways. Both sentences point out that the position of the letter/number had nothing to do with its value. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived. and we clearly are not in agreement ;) I'd be glad to discuss the OR bit more, but there seems to be no consensus to keep this information at this point. You say the view is notable, and that this is just one example of the view, perhaps if you provided more sources to support the WWW=666 view, then we could reconsider its notability. But as it stands, there lacks consensus to keep the current content based on the single source. Providing additional sources would address my concerns.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm OK with keeping the WWW=666 section, I can ultimately live without it. My deal isn't so much to keep the whole section as keeping a relevant bit that explains how the theory deviated from actual Greek number systems. If we had a page that mentioned a fringe theory about eye color being related to intelligence on the basis that the amount of protein consumed during pregnancy affects both, it would quite appropriate to cite a unrelated page about Mendelian genetics to point out that eye color is determined by means other than protein consumed during pregnancy. Also, how is what I put different from the sources cited? What differences are there in what is said? How it is said is not important, but what is said. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like we've got consensus to leave the bit out altogether. I'll take care of it now. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler

In a Cipher that starts at the number 100 (A=100 B=101 through Y=124 Z=125) then the sum of the letters in the last name of the World War II leader of Germany Adolf Hitler equals 666 when the sum of the value of the letters are added up but the sum of the letters in the name of the Hebrew and Christian God YEHOVAH - when properly spelled with a Y and not a J - that this man hated so much adds up to 777 in the same Cipher. It was Hitler's hatred of the Hebrew God YEHOVAH that led him to kill the Jews and even put the religious group known as "Jehovah's Witnesses" in concentration camps.

H	I	T	L	E	R	TOTAL
107	108	119	111	104	117	666

Y	E	H	O	V	A	H	TOTAL
124	104	107	114	121	100	107	777

New sections go at the bottom and use two equals signs on each side (three or four makes it a subsection). Do you have any sources saying that Satanists actually worship Hitler or that the Hebrews made a once-only exception to the pronunciation of the letter W in YHWH? The typical person that calls himself or herself a Satanist is generally an atheist that sees Satan as a fictional role model, and the rest just worship Satan, perhaps Azazel and Lilith. Also, Yehovah still falls for the same Latin mistakes as Jehovah. Just as J is not Y, V is not W, so Yehovah is not YHWH just like Jehovah isn't YHWH. It isn't references that Hitler hated God that we need (that is interpretation), but that the cypher of A=100, B=101, and so on is traditional or notable (i.e. received a fair amount of publication). Notable does not simply mean "interesting" for Wikipedia's purposes, but means that it is documented as something regularly used or documented, not just used because a misspelling of Yahweh comes out to a number that isn't Biblically important. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you squabbling over what is "traditional"? This is starting to sound like some sectarian orthodoxy feud war. The Holy Scriptures says there are "many antichrists" not just one. Also YAHWEH was a lie of the Jews to hide and discourage Christians from using the real name of YEHOVAH. The root word of YEHOVAH is the Hebrew word "HOVAH" found in the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the King James Bible. The letter that is sometimes a W and sometimes a V depends on how it is pronounced. YEHOVAH was pronounced with a V sound in Israel but down into Ethiopia it was pronounced with a W sound. The spelling of YAHWEH was an pure fiction created by Jews to hide and discourage Christians from saying and using the real name of YEHOVAH that they themselves would not utter except perhaps in occational silent prayer. Instead of sectarian squabbling over whether a cipher is old enough why not face the fact that God created all mathematics and language so therefore all ciphers are legitimate. And yes I do have a source that says that Satanists worship Hitler because of this cipher. It comes from a Watchtower Magazine printed by the Jehovah's Witnesses. The number 777 although not mentioned in the cannonized Bible is a number by Hebrew tradition to be YEHOVAH God's number as opposed to 666 which is man's number. And by the way the Jewish YAHWEH spelling hoax you can clearly see that YAHWEH has 6 letters in it but YEHOVAH has 7 letters in it. Most Christians reconize the number 7 to be God's number. 99.160.222.24 (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My deal for tradition isn't tradition for tradition's sake, I don't believe that tradition is automatically correct, it's just that Wikipedia isn't for any ol' thing that a few people make up among themselves, but things that have been well-documented. Wikipedia does not go into whether or not this or that interpretation of the Bible is true or false, just how much it is written about, how much it has affected history, and how it compares with other sources. We are not a sectarian force but encyclopedists. As for the bit about Yahweh being a Jewish lie, that's sectarianism, pot. You also have to consider that modern Israel has been influenced by the West (especially because many of the Jews living there are descended from Jews that moved there from Europe). Western culture is derived from Roman culture, which used the letter V for the letter U just as they used I for the letter Y. The Romans transcribed Yahweh as IHVH, medieval scribes then copied that as JHVH, which became Jehovah. Strong's Concordance is antiquated scholarship that was never intended to be used as a translation tool nor to substitute for formally studying ancient Hebrew. However, if you can provide the issue of the Watchtower you refer to, we should be able to put something about "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Hitler was an Antichrist and that Satanists worship him (despite a lack of admission by any self-proclaimed Satanists) on the basis of a cipher that cannot be shown to appear in any previous writings which relies on the Hebrew letters Yod Heh Waw Heh being pronounced Yehovah even though no evidence can be found to indicate that Waw was used to pronounce V before interaction with Latin-influenced Western Europe. (ref)Watchtower, issue ##, year 19##, page ##.(/ref)" Instead of parenthesis, greater-than and less-than signs will be used to turn the reference part into code.

On a personal note, not as a Wikipedia editor but as a Christian, I find it ridiculous to assert that God would make all ciphers valid: one might as well say that God makes all speech valid, which means there are no lies. Consider gematria, which takes the numerical values of Hebrew and attempts to find new meanings in them. Aleister Crowley found with gematria that Holy of Holies (QDSh QDShM) and Woman of Whoredom (AShT ZNUMIN), in their original Hebrew, have the same value: 864. Was the Ark of the Covanent stored in a prostitute? No. Shem Yehoshua (The Name Jesus) comes out to 666 in gematria. Think all ciphers are valid now?

Back again as a Wikipedia editor: You have shown you know nothing about Hebrew and Greek number systems. Six and six and six in ancient Hebrew math would not be six hundred and sixty and six, it would be eighteen. The number of the beast is six hundred and sixty and six, not three sixes. Six is associated with humanity because Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day. Seven is associated with God, three is associated with God, but seven hundred and seventy and six is not associated with God in any ancient text, including the Bible. Three sevens does not means seven hundred and seventy and seven in ancient Hebrew math. There is no evidence to indicate that 777 was of any importance to the ancient Israelites, nor any evidence that they called God YehoVah. There is evidence that the W in YHWH became the V in Jehovah thanks to Romans transcribing it as IHWH. Also, that you declare YHWH to have 6 letters shows once again you do not know anything about ancient Hebrew culture: YHWH was written with four letters, Yod, Heh, Waw, and Heh. Early Christians connected those four letters with the four classical elements, the four creatures that make up the Cherub, and the four Gospels. They also got a kick out of how you can form a picture of a man by stacking the letters. And for crying out loud, write what you are going to write in Notepad first and then post the whole thing at once instead of hogging the editor. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a total misunderstanding of the number 666 by most people. Please see "777 (number)" discussion page for things I suggested for inclusion. Since you know so much about Crowley perhaps you can expound upon his use of a cipher he called "Cypher 777". It was in acient Israel that Vaw or Waw was pronounced both as a V sound and a W sound according to usage. YEHOVAH in acient Israel was pronounced with a V sound but down into Ethiopia it was pronounced with a W sound. This is information I obtained from a former Jewish Rabbi that became a Christian. 666 is not the totally evil number most people percieve it to be. 666 is in fact a number representing man and Yeshuwa was once a man while he was on the Earth. Actually Jehovah's Witnesses just teach that Hitler is one of many Antichrists. Well perhaps Woman of Whoredom equals that perhaps only because the Whore of Babylon in Revelation sits her self up as if she is the Holy of Holies and YEHOVAH is sending a message of what is actually in this figurative woman's heart. Besides that I do not follow this Gematria thing anyway although I do use the Gematria code to calculate 666 and 777. Sentances that equal 666 in my observations are only relative lies to the pure truth of YEHOVAH God that equals 777 99.160.222.24 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That reference that Satanists worship Hitler because his name equals 666 in that Starter 100 cipher is found not in the Watchtower Magazine but rather the Awake Magazine in an article entitled "Crusade of Violence - Why?" dated October 22 1989. 99.160.222.24 (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way regarding speach and it's validity. YEHOVAH God created all languages not just Hebrew when he divided the people with different languages at the Tower of Babel. 99.160.222.24 (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is starting to sound like a forum for eschatological debate rather than improving the article itself. Maybe we could let this IP editor's confusion between the Bible and Wikipedia slide unaddressed, just this once.

In the meantime, dear IP editor, if you want to include that material in the article, you need to include a citation to a reliable source. Otherwise, this is shaping up like an edit war that is apt to end in your exclusion from editing privileges. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

How I know YEHOVAH is the correct spelling and not YAHWEH is because of his own son's name. The real name for Jesus is the same as Joshua and the real Hebrew spelling of Joshua is YESHUWA. Nobody argues that the vowels in YESHUWA have been lost to some Jewish superstition. The full form of YESHUWA is YEHOSHUWA. Notice the only difference in the full form of the Son's name and that of the Father YEHOVAH is the inset "SHU". What becomes very clear from this is that the Son, Christ or Messiah has the same vowels in his name as his Father YEHOVAH God; E O and A. I will leave it at this. But I do have a reference that Satanists worship Hitler because his name equals 666 in that cipher. I have already posted it. That's all. 99.160.222.24 (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You have NOT told us which issue of what year for Watchtower, so you have not really given us a reference. It is your job to tell us what issue of Watchtower magazine the Hitler = 666 bit is in, it is not our job to hunt through 1553 issues of the Watchtower magazine.

Yeshuwa doesn't have a V in it, it has a W. Hebrew doesn't have proper vowels letters, hence YHWH and in insertion of the letter Shin (Sh) creating YHShWH, Yehoshuwa. The vowels aren't the issue but the V. The V is a result of Latin influence. In fact, the current arrangement of the alphabet (ABCD...XYZ) is Latin based, the Hebrews went 'BGDH...RST and had fewer letters.

666 is the number of a man who is the Beast. 6 is representative of humanity, since Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day. The mark of the Beast is not six six six but six hundred and sixty and six. Three sixes are not six hundred and sixty and six. Six and six and six is eighteen in the number system used by the

Wikipedia is not a pulpit, spiritual truths are left to the individual reader. Wikipedia is for documenting what has been written about a good bit. Wikipedia will document what various people said was spiritual truth, but these beliefs must have been written about a good bit and any instance where that belief contradicts observable reality will be documented as well.

And on a personal note: If you take a cipher where letters alternate between being positive one and negative one (A = 1, B = -1, C = 1, and so on), God and Satan both equal 1. Are all ciphers equal? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have two magazines the Watchtower and the Awake. That reference that Satanists worship Hitler because his name equals 666 in that Starter 100 cipher is found not in the Watchtower Magazine but rather the Awake Magazine in an article entitled "Crusade of Violence - Why?" in the October 22 1989 issue of the magazine. There are no issue numbers on Watchtower and Awake magazines. It is by date and there is no issue number like there is on comic books. Sorry. See what I put in the discussion page on "777 (number)" before you decide who Satan really is. 99.160.222.24 (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The Watchtower source can be found here. Reading it reveals that the Witnesses are not presenting this theory as their own, but rather as their interpretation of the motivation of Satanists and Neo-Nazis. Because the Watchtower cannot be considered a reliable source on the topic of Satanists, the citation is useless.

If we can find a reliable source asserting that this interpretation has a meaningful number of followers, we can plug the information in. Until then, the spelling debate is not relevant. — Bdb484 (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary Jehovah's Witnesses are experts on the subject of Satanism as an unintended consequence of their door to door preaching activity. Satanist often speak freely to Jehovah's Witnesses when they come to their door on the subject knowing that the Witness is there to convert them to Christianity and the Witness will cause no trouble for the person personally because they talked about the subject. 99.160.222.24 (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I have doubts about whether individual Witnesses' experiences canvassing the occasional satanist is enough to make the entire church experts on the topic, the bottom line is that whatever their depth of knowledge is, neither The Watchtower nor Awake can be considered a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense, as they do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, at least not among those who are not counted among Jehovah's Witnesses.

Even if they did, the article only asserts that "certain Satan worshipers" have embraced this cypher. That assertion does not warrant inclusion in this article. — Bdb484 (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bdb484. The source is dubious, and seems to ring of the Satanic scare myths of the 80s. No leading, organized Satanic group openly worships or associates with Hitler. I'm sure there are some individual devil worshipers who are also Nazis, and perhaps even a Satanist or two, but an article in a JW magazine in the 80s doesn't really demonstrate this to a degree or reliability or notability. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. To take the stand that all Jehovah's Witness materials printed by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society can not be used on Wikipedia as a reference source is a very prejudicial stand to take. Hitler hated Jehovah's Witnesses and put them in the concentration camps even killing many of them. I appeal to the Wikipedia editors not to show the same hatred toward this group that Hitler did. 99.160.222.24 (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to write that Satanists "worship Hitler", we'd need a better source than one line in one magazine written twenty years ago by a publication opposed to Satanism, and which only claims that "certain Satan worshippers" revere Hitler. If it's significant and widespread, there should be plenty of other sources out there.

And please don't compare fellow editors to Hitler and accuse them of hating Jehovah's Witnesses, that's not a helpful line of argument. --McGeddon (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I never took the stand that all JW materials cannot be used. You have mischaracterized (or misread) what I wrote. I said this specific citation in this specific context seems dubious/unreliable. That's it. Otherwise, I agree with McGeddon's reply. Furthermore, if you want to explorer the larger relationship between Hitler and JW, or Satanism and Hilter, this article seems a bit off topic.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)