Talk:Number of the beast

COVID-19 section as

@Doug Weller: I understand your reversion of this edit: [1] and I almost reverted it myself for the very same reason (well sourced). However, upon really looking at the edit and taking a deeper look at what the section is saying, I actually agree with the removal. The section is about "hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia" which is specifically about the fear of 666, not just the "mark of the beast". This COVID-19 stuff, while true that it exists, is about masks and vaccination as being the "mark of the beast"; but it's not really about 666, as all the other items in this section are. So I actually agree with @Upwinxp: on this point. I hope I explained that clearly and would ask that you revert back (I felt it better to discuss as there was more room for clarifying exactly "why", rather than just reverting on my disagreeance). ButlerBlog (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Done, but it looks as though it might be ok elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 18:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Butlerblog I've added it where I think it belongs. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks Doug. I'm still of the mind that this particular piece doesn't fit this article at all on the basis of topic (i.e. "Number" vs "Mark") as well not fitting the section as not being a "fear of" but rather an "identification of". On the other hand, I'm sure there are plenty of editors who see it as related enough to include here. I'm fine on it for now. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Butlerblog surely as the article talk about "mark" a lot and has a section "Mark of the beast" it belongs in the article? I may still have put it in the wrong place. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

As "Mark of the beast" is, in fact, a redirect to said subjection on this page, I think it properly relevant for that section, yes. 2001:56A:F1FA:1900:9E6B:FF:FE00:6596 (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Identical numbers

Who is it? There in the book of a prophet time has been given for the last days. And for his time he was a very righteous man praying three times a day and the Persian who wanted to see how he was praying. He interpreted the dreams of the king and he was highly regarded by heavenly being because of his understanding. They told him about the book of truth and that someone will be born and inherits a kingdom which will last forever and there shall be no end from his kingdom. In the prophesy They chose for his arrival time of 62 seven and 70 seven. In the middle of 62 and 70 is found 66 which 11×6=66 66×2=132 and 66×3=198 and 62+70=132, and it is 12×11=132 and 11×18=198.

66÷11=6  132÷11=12  198÷11=18
I see a pattern that 6 is in the middle of 6 and 6 where 6+6=12, 6+6+6=18 and the result is 6 6 6. Why would someone chooses three indetical numbers. 

11+6=17 11×6=66 199.7.156.133 (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

"prophet time" What does that mean? Dimadick (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Biblical Interpretation is "misinformation"? NO. I don't think so.

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, some groups associated COVID-19 vaccines and mask wearing with the mark of the beast, or that it was a microchip in the vaccine. Some religious leaders spoke out against this misinformation,"

It's really none of Wikpedia's fucking business if people want to interpret their Bible to mean this or that, in order to explain current situations. The arrogance of an Communist online encyclopedia describing other people's religious beliefs as "misinformation" is off-the-rails, and yet even more further evidence of the Communist nature of Wikipedia, and a real-life manifestation of Prophet Orwell's predictions. Further, if believing this thing or that about Covid is "the mark of the beast" is "misinformation", then what is the (politically) CORRECT interpretation of someone else's religious beliefs? Exactly how does Wikipedia presume to tell people what is either correct, or incorrect, about their religious beliefs?

2603:8081:3A00:30DF:59DB:B7E1:FF38:DE4B (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not a source of original research, the opinion of it being "misinformation" is that of the cited source(s), not Wikipedia's. If you don't like it, complain to the cited source. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Grow up. Skyerise (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"A microchip in the vaccine" is misinformation, and that isn't an issue of Biblical interpretation. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Does the entry paint a full picture?

Hi, I saw a Numberphile video that said that the letters "Nero Caesar" add up to six hundred sixty-six in Hebrew numerology. While I think the passage could mean just about anyone, can we cite a scholarly consensus? Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The article already mentions the Nero Caesar theory and has seven citations for it. What change are you suggesting? CodeTalker (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, I found it. Even so, it especially looks like the most plausible explanation taken with the parchment saying six hundred sixteen. If we can find a source that points this out, we can make it the lynchpin of the Wikipedia entry. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Not really sure where you're headed with that, but 616 is also discussed (with sources) throughout the article (including in the Nero subsection). I'm concerned about your "most plausible explanation" statement. We're not here to decipher coded meanings of biblical texts here - just to summarize what reliable sources say. Anything else would be original research, which we do not do. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I highly doubt that most of the original research hasn't pointed this out, I really do. It seems cut-and-dry to me. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Facts related to Baháʼí Faith, and number theory in general

I have attempted to add information regarding the appearance of the number 616 and 166 in Baháʼí scripture, however users @DavidBrooks and @Skyerise have reverted the changes, advising that the edits are incorrect information, do not appear to be constructive, that it is original research, and to cite reliable sources. I am not sure how to make the sources more reliable and less incorrect, but the facts seem to be publicly accessible knowledge that anyone can independently cross-verify if they are capable of independently accessing the internet or calculating measurements.

• The Kitáb-i-Aqdas Note 172 describes the sixth Arabic letter “Váv” as having an abjad reckoning value of 6, 1, and 6 which is understood to symbolise the Dispensations of the past, present, and future.
• The Martyrdom of the Báb happened during the 6th "wiki-month" (Raḥmat) on the 16th day, during year 7 of the Baháʼí calendar, that is "6/16", 7 BE. See the wiki page.
• In nonadecimal (base-19) (which the Baháʼí calendar wiki-months are based on), it can be identified that 616₁₉ days is equivalent to precisely six solar years with one leap day (That is 6×19²+ 1×19¹ + 6×19⁰ = 2191). (A little shorter than the length of the Báb's Ministry)
• Gleanings from the Writings of Baháʼu'lláh is a compilation of 166 verses, the last of which could be linked to themes related to the number of the beast. 166 is also a permutation of both 661 and 616.

ZebrahamZA (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

References

You have to have sources which specifically make these observations about the calendar. You may not combine primary sources to draw any conclusions yourself, and we do not cite directly to religious texts, which are primary sources. You may not add your own observations to the article, you must supply a reliable secondary source which explicitly makes these observations about the calendar. The source should be academic, not fringe. Please read WP:SYNTH. Skyerise (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I will add - if you can identify an authoritative source that fully supports your claim, then as you are a new editor and creating footnotes does take some practice, we can help with appropriate formatting. David Brooks (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise side note. Kind of funny to require academic sources for an article topic that is kind of fringe. Hopefully someone can publish articles one day that more or less copy-paste some of these observations into the appropriate journal. ZebrahamZA (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Add section on ‘modern’ numerical and computational methods

Can a section of the article be created that compiles references to various (‘faith-neutral’) computational approaches to identifying instances of the ‘number’ - faith-neutral, as in, the computational results are what they are regardless of any person's religious views. It is possible to ‘mine’ through various types of information to find a ‘match’, similar to data mining approaches used in data science like how machine learning and AI search works, and also how blockchain technologies mine for solutions to puzzles.

For example 66666 days is 182 years and 192 days. This is a generic attribute - happens all the time between any two points in time, including the relationship between every new day and 182.525 years ago. There are many ways to ‘mine’ for instances of interesting alignments across time and space, using various types of computational and numerical methods.

The ‘interpretive’ aspect of 182.525 years is comparable to the “half a time” aspect of the “time, times and half a time” trope that Day-year principle advocates often associate with Eschatology related musings. ZebrahamZA (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)