The Wild Beast has both a Name & Number. Do you know what the NAME is?

by Schizm 368 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Schizm

  One thing, though...in the example you point to as your rationale the ones with the name in their foreheads were SUBJECT TO the one they were named after. And the name wasn't written on the one they were subject to. In the account of Babylon the Great, the harlot, the Wild Beast is not her subject

  The point is that the "woman" changed from worshiping/serving her God to worshiping/serving the beast (a man-made entity, and hence has a "man's number," 666). That's how she becomes a harlot in the first place, and the reason why she has the name of the beast written upon her forehead. It's as if you can't, or didn't, read the scripture I supplied up above. Remember this?:

  If anyone worships the wild beast and its image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand ..... -- Revelation 14:9.

  I truly question your ability to read, Auldie. Do you need eye-glasses? Or perhaps a little eye-salve would help?

  In the account of Babylon the Great, the harlot....

  You haven't learned anything yet, Auldie. You either aren't listening or you can't read.

  Read what I said earlier again. As smart as you are I shouldn't have to cite the scripture that supports what I said here:

  The harlot herself is "Babylon the great city". But "Babylon the Great" is the name of the beast itself. -- (supporting scripture to be furnished by Auldie)

  .
• 

  stevenyc

  At times like these, I wish BrownBoy would come along and clear everything up for us.

  steve
• 

  AuldSoul

  The point is that the "woman" changed from worshiping/serving her God to worshiping/serving the beast (a man-made entity, and hence has a "man's number," 666). That's how she becomes a harlot in the first place, and the reason why she has the name of the beast written upon her forehead.

  Nothing in the Bible says she was ever anything other than a harlot. If you have read the Bible you know I am telling the truth. She is only described as a harlot and is never described as becoming one. Your assertion is conjectured. Oddly, it is the identical conjecture arrived at by the WTS.

  By your convoluted reasoning on Revelation 14:9 I could assert that the Father is the Wild Beast with equal strength of argument basis. Not everyone who has a name on their hand or forehead is a worshipper of the Beast.

  If you are going to argue symbolism, at least pretend the capacity to keep your parallels consistent. It is not possible for an inanimate concept to worship. If Babylon the Great is a city and the only time you would see a name on a forehead is to indicate who the entity worships, then the city's name is not the name of the Beast because a city cannot worship. The name of the Beast is not stated in the Bible. The name on the forehead of the harlot is stated. You have fallen into a fallacious trap the WTS plays in constantly, applying the interpretation in one passage to another passage with no causality.

  That is how they arrive at their arrogant interpretation of Daniel 4, and you have learned well from their methods.

  But, just to prove the point (because it is easy and fun), unless the gender of the WIld Beast is female you are wrong.

  Revelation 18:1-3 — After these things I saw another angel descending from heaven, with great authority; and the earth was lighted up from his glory. 2 And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: “She has fallen! Babylon the Great has fallen, and she has become a dwelling place of demons and a lurking place of every unclean exhalation and a lurking place of every unclean and hated bird! 3 For because of the wine of the anger of her fornication all the nations have fallen [victim], and the kings of the earth committed fornication with her, and the traveling merchants of the earth became rich due to the power of her shameless luxury.”

  Are you suggesting that verse 2 applies to the Wild Beast? If not, then the name on the harlot's forehead was the harlot's name. [ahem!] You were saying?

  AuldSoul
• 

  Schizm

  The point is that the "woman" changed from worshiping/serving her God to worshiping/serving the beast (a man-made entity, and hence has a "man's number," 666). That's how she becomes a harlot in the first place, and the reason why she has the name of the beast written upon her forehead.

  Nothing in the Bible says she was ever anything other than a harlot. If you have read the Bible you know I am telling the truth. She is only described as a harlot and is never described as becoming one. Your assertion is conjectured.

  The following is something that you claimed/said earlier:

  the woman is only riding on top because her kingdom is over the kings of the earth.

  Nothing in the Bible directly says that the reason the woman is seen sitting atop the beast is '''because her kingdom is over the kings of the earth". Your assertion is conjectured. (Not that I necessarily disagree with you.)

  I have no more time for you today, Auldie. Maybe next session I will find the time to rub your nose in the mess you've made of your mind.

  .
• 

  Schizm

  Are you suggesting that verse 2 applies to the Wild Beast? If not, then the name on the harlot's forehead was the harlot's name. [ahem!] You were saying?
  

  AuldSoul

  
  

  One last word from me for you today, Auldie. If you were merely half as smart as what you let on as being you wouldn't have any problem at all in understanding that verse. Hint: No I'm not suggesting that the verse applies to the beast. And, no, the name on the harlot's forehead is NOT her own.

  .
• 

  stevenyc

  For anyone seriously interested in this question I would recommend going here: http://www.answers.com/topic/number-of-the-beast

  This will show how there is NO absolute answer to this question. For example, it show that : " In May 2005 it was reported that scholars at Oxford University using advanced imaging techniques had been able to read previously illegible portions of an early (third century) version of the Book of Revelation, part of its Oxyrhynchus collection of papyri. The fragment gives the Number of the Beast as 616. Scholars now believe the number in question has very little to do with the devil. It was actually a complicated numerical riddle in Greek, meant to represent someone's name. "It's a number puzzle — the majority opinion seems to be that it refers to [the Roman emperor] Nero." Alternative spellings of his name, Neron and Nero, can explain the presence of both 666 and 616 in the records, since dropping the last 'n' changes its numerical value from 666 to 616 ('n' representing 50). "

  Interesting Eh? This document was written around a hundred years after the original.

  steve
• 

  Schizm

  For anyone seriously interested in this question I would recommend going here: http://www.answers.com/topic/number-of-the-beast

  This will show how there is NO absolute answer to this question.

  You're as dimwitted as they are, Stevie. I've demonstrated the way to know the name of the beast right here in this thread. But you're too thick-skulled to understand it--plus, you're not "seriously interested in this question" as posed in the title of my thread.

  For example, it show that : " In May 2005 it was reported that scholars at Oxford University ...

  "Scholors" according to whose estimation? You, as well as they, make me LMAO!

  Scholars now believe the number in question has very little to do with the devil.

  Which means that these so-called "scholars" at one time believed that the number DID have something to do with the devil. The fact is that the number never has had anything to do with the devil. It's the number of the beast (a political entity), not the number of the dragon (the devil). And so you actually would bestow the title of "scholar" upon such dimwits at this? You gotta be kidding!

  Interesting Eh? This document was written around a hundred years after the original.

  If you read it as a comic book, yeah, it's really funny. But if you're foolish enough to swallow what they say then I suppose you deserve the slop you willingly put into your own mouth.

  .
• 

  stevenyc

  Schizm, we've never had the pleasure to introduce ourselves. As of which, I am curious of you're vulgar reply to me. When I added some more background information for any non-biased researcher to see and evaluate for themselves, it was not an attack on anybody. However, you appear to have taken this personally.

  What gives?

  steve
• 

  LittleToe

  Schizm:Ironically, even if you were right you'd still not benefit, for you show no love...

  Schizm by name, schizm by nature.
• 

  siegswife

  The following is my favorite theory. It was posted by a wicca chica on a message board a few years ago. If anyone would know it would be a witch, yes?

  Barney the Dinosaur is a
  
  "CUTE PURPLE DINOSAUR"
  In ancient Rome, there were no "u"'s, they were "v"'s
  
  CVTE PVRPLE DINSAVR
  Extract the Roman numerals and you get:
  
  C V V L D I V
  100 5 5 50 500 1 5
  
  If you add all these up you get:
  500
  100
  50
  5
  5
  5
  1
  ----
  666

  So there you have it:
  The name of the wild beast is - BARNEY!!!

  Lea