i need help with this math problem

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#1
"six(chi),,five were ,one is=6,,60(xi,6x10)ten horns have received no kingdom as yet,6(stigma,of obsolete usage),beast that was and was not yet is,,,back to the math problem,"here is wisdom,let he that hath understanding count the number of the beast",,,now the "answer is not the problem,the solution is",so divide,add or subtract?,,,chi,xi,stigma,,,,,6(chi)=five were,one is,,60(xi)=ten horns,multiple of ten horns,,6(a letter/number that was used then went out of use),the beast that was and was not yet is,,,what did the angel say do?,,use Greek puzzles?,,count how many beast there were?,,,beast one,beast two,beast three,beast four,,,,,,
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#2
"six(chi),,five were ,one is=6,,60(xi,6x10)ten horns have received no kingdom as yet,6(stigma,of obsolete usage),beast that was and was not yet is,,,back to the math problem,"here is wisdom,let he that hath understanding count the number of the beast",,,now the "answer is not the problem,the solution is",so divide,add or subtract?,,,chi,xi,stigma,,,,,6(chi)=five were,one is,,60(xi)=ten horns,multiple of ten horns,,6(a letter/number that was used then went out of use),the beast that was and was not yet is,,,what did the angel say do?,,use Greek puzzles?,,count how many beast there were?,,,beast one,beast two,beast three,beast four,,,,,,
stigma,,,,is missing,,not in what i wrote,,,"in the math problem",,,
 
K

kenisyes

Guest
#3
The only thing we did not address in the other thread is chi, xi, stigma. These are the names of the Greek letters that stand for 600, 60 and 6. Is that what you are asking?
 

loveme1

Senior Member
Oct 30, 2011
8,137
216
63
#4
The solution is make your Foundation Yahvah God and Yahshua the Messiah and you will have no problem.
 
Sep 7, 2012
532
0
0
#5
Let us not forget there are two different characters involved "the Anti-Christ (or substitute Christ/deliverer)" AND the false prophet. One a civil / governmental figure and the second a religious figure. So much of what I read about only in this subject discusses the first and ignores the second. It is that false prophet who fools the very elect and leads society to worship the anti Christ. It will be that false prophet who offers "miracles" and prophecies that come true.

The anti- Christ comes into the picture as a man of peace a bow and no arrow. Only shows his true character when challenged by God's word.
 
P

psychomom

Guest
#6
I read that chi xi stigma spell the Arabic phrase, "bismillah".
Which I would be reluctant to mention elsewhere because
people are already anxious enough regarding Muslims, but
I think you all know I am not placing certain faith in this interpretation,
but sharing something I read. :)

ps-- other folks chalk it up to the Pope (just FYI)

 
Nov 7, 2012
210
1
0
#7
it needs a sign or a mark so call it tau....in greek........
 

loveme1

Senior Member
Oct 30, 2011
8,137
216
63
#8
Always remember the good guy bad guy routine...........

it will be the one playing the good guy that you should refuse..... the bad guy is always easiest to spot...
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#9
in the "math problem",the thing we are told to count is the beast. the "answer then we found",,is the (number/answer) the answer is then given to us (but it is written in,"Greek nomina sacra),there are many different text in different museums that render the "nomina sacra",,differently some say that it states the number as 666,some manuscripts state 615 or 616,(this is because it is assumed that we are being given a number) i.e.x=600,stigma-6,ect. in "papyrus 115" (you will need to find it on the www to see) you will notice there are three words with a line above it. which is only used in "nomina sacra",so the three words you see in papyrus 115 are not (numbers),,they are the abbreviations of words. it would help if one of you posted it on the form for me (i am computer illiterate) as most of you have noticed "punctuations" and am trying my best to not use to many "commas". you will notice there are at least three words abbreviated in the manuscript. which is why i called the post "i need help with this math problem". the angel tells us to count the number of the beast (how many beast their are). not to take the Greek letters and use the number equivalent's. if you search their is another set of manuscripts that denotes these verses the same "nomina sacra".It was an error in translation to ever translate these verses to numbers i.e. 666,615 ect.
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#10
we live in a world(www),where most of the prophets "copy and paste",,you do not know who actually knows Greek.i ask a basic question that any Greek scholar would have noticed,and none have answered me back in Greek. and you base your salvation,and the salvation of your families on "copy and paste",,
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#11
we live in a world(www),where most of the prophets "copy and paste",,you do not know who actually knows Greek.i ask a basic question that any Greek scholar would have noticed,and none have answered me back in Greek. and you base your salvation,and the salvation of your families on "copy and paste",,
...now who will copy and past a bunch Greek and post it and who will answer the question in English for all of us the hear?follow the rules given to each of us,not to many commas,capitalize each sentence.put a peroid at the end,but answer the question that i ask you,,,?
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#12
kenisyes,you are honest,i have watched you say,and i have watched you not say when you do not,i do not have an "almost equal key",,you will see the sum of it,,,,,,,,
 
S

simplyme_bekah

Guest
#13
Me I wish you luck. I once got one of those math for idiots book and ended up hurling it across the room. :D I passionately hate math lol
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#14
Me I wish you luck. I once got one of those math for idiots book and ended up hurling it across the room. :D I passionately hate math lol
"it's because it is not math",,,i am in the midst of loving you,,,
 
K

kenisyes

Guest
#17
Here is the link: The Other Number of the Beast

Let me try to give some comments. It is not easy to come up with an accurate manuscript of either Testament. Most of NT originals are from 300 AD or later, and they agree on like 99% of the text. As a rule of thumb, the earlier ones are assumed more accurate, since in those days everything was written by hand. They assume that mistakes happen with time. Since this fragment comes from 240 AD or so, the rule of thumb suggests it is correct.

But let's look at other instances, and see how good the rule of thumb is.

The OT Hebrew comes 100% from the "Masoretic text" given us by what was left of the Jewish rabbis in 800AD. They were very careful, and history bears them out. We have found parts of Isaiah so old that it could be in Isaiah's own hand. It matches perfectly. But, then there is the little piece of Genesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls I read many years ago that is an exact copy of the Masoretic text, except here and there, one single Hebrew letter is changed. The effects to the true story of Abraham were devastating, and gave us a whole other theology. Now, if you saw this, would you believe the oldest copy (800 years older than the Hebrew Bible we have), or would you believe the story in the Bible as given to us by the Jewish teachers of the Bible, and agreed to by all the Jews? Of course, especially if you have read the deviant theology in many of the Dead Sea Scrolls, you would reject the oldest copy as deliberate theological fabrication. That's what everyone has done, and I agree. this proves there is more to this than just the rule of thumb. Especially when all the copies are hundreds of years older than the lost originals, as they are in the case of Genesis.

First question is thus: Is there any reason for the Oxyrhyncus Papyrus to have altered theology for some ulterior motive? Unlike the Dead Sea Scrolls, we don't really have all that much to see if they systematically changed other things. But I think the answer is no, because I have a better reason for the change to 616.

Second problem: Many people read Scriptures, but many more people can be added to readers of old texts if you count archeologists, philosophers, historians, etc., interested in non-Christian sources. These folks have gotten together enough to develop some rules for figuring out who made the mistake. If two people copy by hand from one text, almost certainly, a full added line with a new idea is a comment. We would put it in a footnote, but they had not invented that yet. An example of this is "these kind can be cast out only by prayer and fasting". The oldest manuscripts do not have "and fasting". Most people think it's a footnote added by some monk who liked to fast. And I think everyone knows about the two endings to Mark's Gospel; they have never figured out for sure which one is the added one. But this does not apply here, we are dealing with one character change, not a whole line.

Third (and most likely reason): Simple laziness. People who analyze mistakes have found repeatedly that if you don't understand something (like 666), you don't give it full attention when you have to copy it. There are thousands of such errors. Look at what has changed here: the chi and the stigma are the same, but xi is changed to iota. Could this have been laziness? Do we have any evidence? Well, first, the "nomina sacra" are abbreviated throughout the papyrus (see Papyrus 115 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)- so someone was taking shortcuts anyway. But how could xi, which is three horizontal lines, get changed to iota, which is one vertical line? Simple, if you write xi as a small letter, or if you hurry and write it as one stroke, it's a quick backwards s, and some people put no curve in it at all. the next person down the line, never having heard of 666, thinks it's an iota, and copies if that way. People who study this kind of thing call it a mistake due to simplification. The key to recognize it is that it is always an error in a very small thing, like one letter, or one sound, and the new version is always simpler to write or say, than the old. It is also almost always made on some matter that is not well understood at the time.

Here's what I think happened. John's original copy from Patmos, said 666, because that's what God told him to write. Copies were made, and then copies of those, and copies of those, all by hand. Somewhere, probably 3 generations down (170?) one person took a shortcut, and wrote the quick xi. (Even John didn't live that long! So he was not around to ask.) By 200, somebody else thought it was an iota, and made it even more straight, and so on down. By 240 (let's see, this would be someone the age of John's great-great-great-grandson) copied that, and that's what we have here.

Just like I see no reason to follow the Dead Sea scrolls' Abraham story, I see not reason to think it's 616.

PS. When my wife was alive, she allowed me to tell any jokes about her inability to handle the checking account book that I liked to in my math classes. Haven't you ever changed a 4 to a 9 or a 2 to a 3 because you wrote too fast? That's what this amounts to.
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#18
Here is the link: The Other Number of the Beast

Let me try to give some comments. It is not easy to come up with an accurate manuscript of either Testament. Most of NT originals are from 300 AD or later, and they agree on like 99% of the text. As a rule of thumb, the earlier ones are assumed more accurate, since in those days everything was written by hand. They assume that mistakes happen with time. Since this fragment comes from 240 AD or so, the rule of thumb suggests it is correct.

But let's look at other instances, and see how good the rule of thumb is.

The OT Hebrew comes 100% from the "Masoretic text" given us by what was left of the Jewish rabbis in 800AD. They were very careful, and history bears them out. We have found parts of Isaiah so old that it could be in Isaiah's own hand. It matches perfectly. But, then there is the little piece of Genesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls I read many years ago that is an exact copy of the Masoretic text, except here and there, one single Hebrew letter is changed. The effects to the true story of Abraham were devastating, and gave us a whole other theology. Now, if you saw this, would you believe the oldest copy (800 years older than the Hebrew Bible we have), or would you believe the story in the Bible as given to us by the Jewish teachers of the Bible, and agreed to by all the Jews? Of course, especially if you have read the deviant theology in many of the Dead Sea Scrolls, you would reject the oldest copy as deliberate theological fabrication. That's what everyone has done, and I agree. this proves there is more to this than just the rule of thumb. Especially when all the copies are hundreds of years older than the lost originals, as they are in the case of Genesis.

First question is thus: Is there any reason for the Oxyrhyncus Papyrus to have altered theology for some ulterior motive? Unlike the Dead Sea Scrolls, we don't really have all that much to see if they systematically changed other things. But I think the answer is no, because I have a better reason for the change to 616.

Second problem: Many people read Scriptures, but many more people can be added to readers of old texts if you count archeologists, philosophers, historians, etc., interested in non-Christian sources. These folks have gotten together enough to develop some rules for figuring out who made the mistake. If two people copy by hand from one text, almost certainly, a full added line with a new idea is a comment. We would put it in a footnote, but they had not invented that yet. An example of this is "these kind can be cast out only by prayer and fasting". The oldest manuscripts do not have "and fasting". Most people think it's a footnote added by some monk who liked to fast. And I think everyone knows about the two endings to Mark's Gospel; they have never figured out for sure which one is the added one. But this does not apply here, we are dealing with one character change, not a whole line.

Third (and most likely reason): Simple laziness. People who analyze mistakes have found repeatedly that if you don't understand something (like 666), you don't give it full attention when you have to copy it. There are thousands of such errors. Look at what has changed here: the chi and the stigma are the same, but xi is changed to iota. Could this have been laziness? Do we have any evidence? Well, first, the "nomina sacra" are abbreviated throughout the papyrus (see Papyrus 115 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)- so someone was taking shortcuts anyway. But how could xi, which is three horizontal lines, get changed to iota, which is one vertical line? Simple, if you write xi as a small letter, or if you hurry and write it as one stroke, it's a quick backwards s, and some people put no curve in it at all. the next person down the line, never having heard of 666, thinks it's an iota, and copies if that way. People who study this kind of thing call it a mistake due to simplification. The key to recognize it is that it is always an error in a very small thing, like one letter, or one sound, and the new version is always simpler to write or say, than the old. It is also almost always made on some matter that is not well understood at the time.

Here's what I think happened. John's original copy from Patmos, said 666, because that's what God told him to write. Copies were made, and then copies of those, and copies of those, all by hand. Somewhere, probably 3 generations down (170?) one person took a shortcut, and wrote the quick xi. (Even John didn't live that long! So he was not around to ask.) By 200, somebody else thought it was an iota, and made it even more straight, and so on down. By 240 (let's see, this would be someone the age of John's great-great-great-grandson) copied that, and that's what we have here.

Just like I see no reason to follow the Dead Sea scrolls' Abraham story, I see not reason to think it's 616.

PS. When my wife was alive, she allowed me to tell any jokes about her inability to handle the checking account book that I liked to in my math classes. Haven't you ever changed a 4 to a 9 or a 2 to a 3 because you wrote too fast? That's what this amounts to.
,,,,,,,,,,"you see you are a mathematician,1.4142135,,.333,,,.9999999%,,,almost equal to,,,,no offense,,,,look close at the line drawn above these Greek characters,it denotes they are not to be seen as numbers,,,,they are abbreviations of "a word",,,and the line above them cancels out the frame of thought as to see them as numbers,,see "nomina sacra",,,,,,,,
 
K

kenisyes

Guest
#19
,,,,,,,,,,"you see you are a mathematician,1.4142135,,.333,,,.9999999%,,,almost equal to,,,,no offense,,,,look close at the line drawn above these Greek characters,it denotes they are not to be seen as numbers,,,,they are abbreviations of "a word",,,and the line above them cancels out the frame of thought as to see them as numbers,,see "nomina sacra",,,,,,,,
Not necessarily. In some languages, a line above can indicate that they are to be numbers. We have no evidence that this copyist was not following that tradition. Remember, he was copying, it did not have to be his tradition, so the use of the line need not be consistent with nomina sacra use elsewhere. If this is the case that it is a word, then one copy or the other is a deliberate alteration for theological reasons. Either, 666 is a theological variant, or this "word" is. It now becomes a question of which to accept. My Abraham story argues for the 666, the date argues for the word. How does the word "arithmos" in the passage apply if this is not a number?
 
Jul 12, 2012
933
2
0
#20
6 = flesh/man
me in the place of god
me in the place of flesh
me in the place of spirit

"Me, Me, Me!"