|
|
| |
 - Endorsed - Indifferent - Contested
|
| |
| The Nashville Statement
|
| |
|
|
| |
Name:Daniel
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
About Me: I used to believe that evolution was reasonable, that homosexuality was genetic, and that people became Christians because they couldn't deal with the 'reality' that this life was all there was. I used to believe, that if there was a heaven - I could get there by being good - and I used to think I was more or less a good person. I was wrong on all counts. One day I finally had my eyes opened and I saw that I was not going to go to heaven, but that I was certainly going to suffer the wrath of God for all my sin. I saw myself as a treasonous rebel at heart - I hated God for creating me just to send me to Hell - and I was wretched beyond my own comprehension. Into this spiritual vacuum Jesus Christ came and he opened my understanding - delivering me from God's wrath into God's grace. I was "saved" as an adult, and now my life is hid in Christ. I am by no means sinless, but by God's grace I am a repenting believer - a born again Christian.
My complete profile...
|
| |
Daniel's posts are almost always pastoral and God centered. I appreciate and am challenged by them frequently. He has a great sense of humor as well.
- Marc Heinrich
His posts are either funny or challenging. He is very friendly and nice.
- Rose Cole
[He has] good posts, both the serious like this one, and the humorous like yesterday. [He is] the reason that I have restrained myself from making Canadian jokes in my posts.
- C-Train
This post contains nothing that is of any use to me. What were you thinking? Anyway, it's probably the best I've read all day.
- David Kjos
Daniel, nicely done and much more original than Frank the Turk.
- Jonathan Moorhead
There are some people who are smart, deep, or funny. There are not very many people that are all 3. Daniel is one of those people. His opinion, insight and humor have kept me coming back to his blog since I first visited earlier this year.
- Carla Rolfe
|
| |
|
email
|
|
| 666 |
 The number of the beast, as recorded in Revelation is sixhundred and sixty six. It isn't "three sixes" - but a numeric value - twice three hundred and thirty three, or six times one hundred and eleven.
The Greek language, in which the book of revelation was penned, didn't have these nice Arabic numerals 0-9 that we use today. So they used letters to represent numbers.
If you read a person's name, and translated the letters into numbers, you could "calculate" the number of his or her name. We don't do that anymore, since we have long since adopted the Arabic decimal number system, so instead, when people want to calculate the number of the beast - they often dream up some number formula that will generate a value of six hundred and sixty six.
For example. If we wanted to calculate the number of "Doulogos" so that it added up to 666, we would add the positional values of each of the letters together:
D = 4th letter in the alphabet
O = 15th letter in the alphabet
U = 21st letter, etc.
L = 12
O = 15
G = 7
O = 15
S = 19
Adding these we get a value of 108. Now we simply divide 666/108 and viola~~! We have a constant that we can use (37/6 or 6.1666666).
So if we say that:
A = 6 1/6
B = 12 1/3
C = 18 1/2
D = 24 2/3
E = 30 5/6
F = 37
etc.
We can add up the new values for "Doulogos":
D = 24 4/6
O = 92 3/6
U = 129 3/6
L = 74
O = 92 3/6
G = 43 1/6
O = 92 3/6
S = 117 1/6
Adding it all up? Why 666 of course.
Faith Classics adds up to 129 - so the constant there would be 5.162791
>Doxoblogy adds up to 119 - so the constant would be 5.596638655
>Frank Turk adds up to 120 - so the constant there would b 5.55 even.
Jesus adds up to 74, so the constant there is a clean 9
Jesus Christ adds up to 157, so you would have to use 4.242038217
The Pope adds up to 86, which requires 7.835294118
Anyway you get the idea - anyone with a calculator, and five minutes of spare time, who isn't completely out of their element working with grade seven algebra - can come up with a formula to turn any name into a bonifide calculation that produces the answer six hundred and sixty six (or any other number we should want).
The thing is when John said "calculate" he wasn't talking about plugging numbers into a formula - he was almost certainly talking about the use of letters as numbers - and very likely the Greek letters, since that is the language he was writing in.
I am not going to speculate about whom John was referring to, but I will say that I suspect the warning was not for our day, but for a day when letters were commonly used as numbers - such that calculating a persons name would not have involved a history lesson first. |
posted by Daniel @
5:00 PM
 
|
|
| 22 Comments: |
-
Let me know what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad turns out to be.
-
Daniel, what do you think about the passages that refer to taking the mark of the beast, and without it not being able to buy or sell?
Is that literal, metaphorical, allegorical, etc.
Does anything in Revelation apply today or still in the future?
-
Richard Bauckham's book on Revelation is very good Jim, well worth a look. Very helpful I thought.
-
I think Tim LaHaye has written something on this...
-
Jim asked: Daniel, what do you think about the passages that refer to taking the mark of the beast, ...
A phylactery was a small box containing slips of parchment on which there were written portions of the law (Exodus 13:9,16; Deuteronomy 6:4-9;11:18). Phylacteries were worn ostentatiously by the Jews upon the head and left arm (Matthew 23:5).
If you read the passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy, you will see that the phylactery was intended to be a memorial - a sign that these words were laid up in your heart and in your soul - bound only as a sign of that internal, heart devotion to the Lord. Anyone who wore a phylactery publically identified themselves as a lover of God's word ~ they were "marked" thus.
I am persuaded that the way John's imagery (about the mark being on the "hands and head") exactly pictures Jewish phylacteries is no small coincidence.
In fact, I think it is more significant because while it is unlikely that a first century Roman soldier could make the connection from reading a copy of the book of Revelation, yet I expect that the symbolism would be familiar to most first century Christians.
If John desired to speak of the mark in metaphor, rather than in the literal sense - he could not have done so more perfectly. If the word "mark" is taken metaphorically it is an Old Testament allusion to a public display of one's willing obedience.
Jim said: ...and [anyone] without [the mark] not being able to buy or sell?
Anyone under Roman authority in the first century who wanted to buy or sell anything in a roman marketplace - had to have with them a "libellus" - a formal, legal document which stood as a witness that the individual had capitulated to the law which said that each individual must publicly proclaim their allegiance to Caesar by burning a pinch of incense and declaring, "Caesar is Lord". This fits scripture like a glove. To call Ceasar "Lord" was to deny the Lordship of Christ and proclaim Ceasar to be God. Anyone who rejected Christ as Lord in this way would receive the libellus - a public declaration that they accepted the Lordship (godhood) of ceasar - and as such they were permitted to buy and sell in the marketplace. Anyone who failed to publically identify thus with ceasar, was unable to engage in commerce of any sort.
In all of history, you will find nothing that lines up so perfectly with scripture as this particular libellus.
Jim said: Does anything in Revelation apply today or still in the future?
Rather than speculate, let's go straight to the text and see what Christ told John to write about:
"Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this." - Revelation 1:19 [ESV]
I don't think there is much room for speculation given that Christ himself tells John to write about what has happened already, what was happening just then, and what was going to happen later.
If scripture says that some of the book of Revelation is speaking of things that were already in the past during John's day, and some of the things were contemporary to John's day - I wouldn't be a very good student of scripture if I ignored that.
That being the case, I think some of the book of revelation has already happened, yet I expect that some of what is recorded there is certainly yet to come.
-
Jonathan, the number for is Mahmoud Ahmadinejar is 4.593103448:
M 13th letter,
A 1st letter, etc.
H 8
M 13
O 15
U 21
D 4
A 1
H 8
M 13
A 1
D 4
I 9
N 14
E 5
J 10
A 1
D 4
Total = 145.
666/145 = 4.593103448
Thus:
M (13)x4.593103448= 59.71034483
A (01)x4.593103448= 4.593103448
H (08)x4.593103448= 36.74482759
M (13)x4.593103448= 59.71034483
O (15)x4.593103448= 68.89655172
U (21)x4.593103448= 96.45517241
D (04)x4.593103448= 18.37241379
A (01)x4.593103448= 4.593103448
H (08)x4.593103448= 36.74482759
M (13)x4.593103448= 59.71034483
A (01)x4.593103448= 4.593103448
D (04)x4.593103448= 18.37241379
I (09)x4.593103448= 41.33793103
N (14)x4.593103448= 64.30344828
E (05)x4.593103448= 22.96551724
J (10)x4.593103448= 45.93103448
A (01)x4.593103448= 4.593103448
D (04)x4.593103448= 18.37241379
Adding these values together we get:
59.71034483
4.593103448
36.74482759
59.71034483
68.89655172
96.45517241
18.37241379
4.593103448
36.74482759
59.71034483
4.593103448
18.37241379
41.33793103
64.30344828
22.96551724
45.93103448
4.593103448
18.37241379
===========
666
-
Thank you Daniel, I think the matter of being "marked" is truly a Biblical concept.
If God has sealed His own, perhaps the devil is attempting to seal his own as well.
In a spiritual sense, we are to keep ourselves from any mark of this world, any stain of sin, and any control by the prince of this world.
However, do you think there are possibly any parellels between John's day and a future warning of Satan's tactics?
-
Jim asked: ...do you think there are possibly any parellels between John's day and a future warning of Satan's tactics?
Possible? Sure, why not? But I for one, do not feel myself to be informed enough to speculate with any gravity upon various end time events.
I don't mean that to be a smug way of suggesting that people who do speculate on end times events are necessarily arrogant and misled, and that I am somehow morally superior for my abstinence. I only mean that I honestly feel I do not have enough light to identify (with any meaningful level of certainty or clarity) what John was talking about specifically. I believe there is much room for error - even imaginative error, so I, as I have said elsewhere I am sure, tend not to draw too many hard lines in my eschatology - at least for now.
-
Daniel, perhaps you are thinking I somehow espouse an end times view like Tim LaHaye.
While it is no doubt sensational and intriguing, I think there are a fair number of errors in his interpretation.
Having said that, scripture is rather clear on some issues of Christ's return and then there are some that seem vague.
While it is safe (and relatively controversially free) to stay in Romans and the Beatitudes, I think we need to explore the limits of scripture and its relevance to us today.
I for one wish to understand all the counsel of God and its application to my life today as well as the coming days.
Daniel was a man who understood the times, and I believe as God's people we must also be wise to know the seasons.
This doesn't mean date setting or naming of people, but rather an understanding of world events in light of scriptural prophecies.
Do you hold to a certain eschatological view, such as postmil or amil?
-
Jim said: ...perhaps you are thinking I somehow espouse an end times view like Tim LaHaye.
Nope. Can't say I was.
Jim said: ...While it is safe (and relatively controversially free) to stay in Romans and the Beatitudes, I think we need to explore the limits of scripture and its relevance to us today.
While I wouldn't use the word "explore" I think I would agree with you here. Anyone who studies one portion of scripture to the neglect or even exclusion of the remainder of scripture is going to produce a less than balanced understanding of scripture, and will have a faith that reflects that imbalance. It behooves us to study all of scripture.
Jim said: I for one wish to understand all the counsel of God and its application to my life today as well as the coming days.
I wouldn't want a balanced and careful study of the whole counsel of God to be mistaken for an indifference or slackness because of a failure to focus or exalt any one area of study - meaning in this context of course, eschatology.
It is not a desire to ignore or neglect eschatology that you are reading from me - but a desire not to exalt them above anything else. If I lack an opinion on these things, it is not because I haven't studied them with the same diligence I give to any other part of scripture - it is because that same careful study hasn't yielded enough light to make me feel comfortable in all but the most shallow speculation.
Jim asked: Do you hold to a certain eschatological view, such as postmil or amil?
Nope. Not yet.
-
Ok, Daniel I can respect that. You are a bit difficult to nail down. :)
If you are sincerely seeking truth at the fountain of living waters, I believe you will be abundantly blessed.
-
It's all about the microchips under the skin! OHHHHHNNNOOOOOOO!!!!
-
Daniel,
You and I have nearly the same eschatology. Study has not yet yielded a conclusion that satisfies me completely in this area. So, concerning how things will happen, I have adopted an open-but-cautious attitude. Well, at least in the particulars. I believe firmly that:
1. Jesus is returning.
2. We are to look for His return as imminent.
3. We will all be caught up in the air together.
4. We will be glorified.
5. We will be rewarded.
6. This hope purifies us.
7. There will be a new heaven and earth.
Actually, as I keep going I realize there is quite a bit that I firmly believe about the future. I'm just not certain of timing and some details. I'm happy with that for now.
-
Apparently you weren't happy with your nerd score, and are seeking to juice it.
I suspect as well that John was thinking of a specific person in his day.
However, Isaiah 7 is addressed to King Ahaziah when it says that a maiden will conceive a child as a sign to King Ahaziah that he will be delivered from the Assyrians. Yet we know that the fuller fulfilment of this sign was realized in the virgin birth of Jesus hundreds of years later.
It is possible that number was meant for John's day, and unbeknownst to him, for a future day as well.
-
I think Buggy is on to something. Regarding prophecy, temporal fulfillment and ultimate fulfillment are vaild items in scripture.
Think of Peter in Acts 2; when he says "this is that" it certainly doesn't include all that, and some dispensationalists see the ultimate fulfillment of Joel's prophecy as happening either in the tribulation period or millenial reign.
Not saying I agree with either, but John might have been using code for Nerocaeser or whomever and also telling us of the man of sin to come...Many other examples could follow...
-
It is quite a step from saying, that sometimes in scripture there are former/latter or partial/full (if you prefer) fulfillments of various prophesies - it is quite a step between admitting the possibilities, and mapping out a detailed "this is how it is all going to pan out" sort of eschatological framework.
I don't imply that anyone is suggesting we do that - I mention it only to explain my own caution in the matter.
Certainly prophesy can have a latter meaning once it has been fulfilled, but until it is actually fulfilled the second time in a bigger way our efforts in speculating on what it could be are going to be subjective, I would even say, very subjective.
I don't know about anyone else, but I can say with confidence that the Lord hasn't led me to examine too many "what if" scenarios, eschatologically speaking.
-
Hey, what happened to Daniel? I think he got hijacked by some rock star.
-
That was me this morning just before my ride. It thought it was time to change my avatar (It had been a couple of weeks with the old one already! ;-)
-
I believe in the resurrection of the dead...not reincarnation...but it would seem the deceased Michael Hutchence of INXS has taken over Daniel's body...
-
-
This is a good postiche. Do you do the beard with a Sharpie (TM)?
-
The beard was a trimming accident - once you mess up a side, you try and match the other side to it, mess that up, then do the other side... pretty soon the mustache looks too bushy for the beard, so you trim that - but now it looks to french - so you take it off. When the smoke clears - you have this thing that looks like it could have been drawn on with a sharpie.
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
|
Let me know what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad turns out to be.