Page 1 of 1

Rev. 13:18 "six six six" or "six hundred and sixty six"

Posted: November 11th, 2015, 10:29 am
by Stephen Hughes
Revelations 13:18 wrote:χξϚ' / ἑξακόσια ἑξήκοντα ἕξ
Reading the book of Revelations now for the 2nd or third time in Greek, I think that the number χξϚ' is quite different from the numbers ϚϚϚ'. If the Apocalyptist had meant us to be reading "six-six-six", would there have been another way he could have written that to say that, or is that way of reading possible in χξϚ' too?

Re: Rev. 13:18 "six six six" or "six hundred and sixty six"

Posted: November 11th, 2015, 4:53 pm
by Stephen Carlson
6-6-6 is our representation of the number in the positional numeral system invented by the Indians but unknown to Greeks. It would anachronistic to impute that back to the seer of Revelation.

Re: Rev. 13:18 "six six six" or "six hundred and sixty six"

Posted: November 12th, 2015, 1:27 pm
by Barry Hofstetter
Stephen Carlson wrote:6-6-6 is our representation of the number in the positional numeral system invented by the Indians but unknown to Greeks. It would anachronistic to impute that back to the seer of Revelation.
That's a really good point that never even occurred to me. However, I will point out that the majority of the manuscripts have the words, not the numerals, so it's really kind of irrelevant.

Re: Rev. 13:18 "six six six" or "six hundred and sixty six"

Posted: November 17th, 2015, 1:19 am
by Stephen Hughes
Here are a few of my speculations. Does anyone have knowledge to confirm them or suggest an alternative; Is it Greek idiom to say something like τρὶς ἕξ? Would that mean 6-6-6 or 18?

Following from what Stephen said, if someone were to say a number made up of three parts - ὁ τριπλοῦς ἀριθμὸς χξϚ' - I think that would be of 600, 60 and 6. If it were written in the Latin system as DCLXVI, would it be said to be composed of 6 parts or 3?

I would like to know the idiomatic way to say "six", "six", "six", not for particular interest, but to be able to have not only the negative (non-Indian system) way of understanding, but also the positive (this is how it would be said) way of expressing it too, for completeness.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:I will point out that the majority of the manuscripts have the words, not the numerals, so it's really kind of irrelevant.
Even though TR does write it in numerals, I think that the interpretation of the Greek numerals to arrive at 666 is flawed. The Greek numerals are the numeral "600", the numeral "60" and the numeral "6". Besides, our English way is almost the same six hundred and six-ty (=ten) six. It seems to be only a graphical problem of meaninglessly separating digits.

Additionally, In Chinese culture, the digits read separately 六六六 liu-liu-liu (cf. 流流流) is a lucky sequence of numbers - but the Greek is not the sequence, but the value, so 666 六百六十六 as truly represented in the Bible (as opposed to some popular misrepresentations in western culture) is not an affront to Chinese people, or their culture and values.