Should We Abandon our 666 traditional Interpretation?

[Robert]

It's false slander, based on a foundation of lies. If we care at all about the Ten Commandments we *must* reject it. 

What, 666 and the Pope?

 If that is slander against the Pope then a belief in evolution is slandering God's law, which states that Christ created a perfect & sinless world and then rested from that perfection.  

Edited July 3, 2015 by Robert

[Gregory Matthews]

We should not use arguments that have some evidence to suggest that they are false, even if we believe them to be true.

The VFD of the 666 has reason to be rejected as false.  We should do better and only use arguments that have better support and evidence than this one. 

We should never base our beliefs on just one argument.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[JimTN]

Here's another fun interpretation of 666:

Take the word C-O-M-P-U-T-E-R .....

Assign number values in increments of 6 to the alphabet .... (A=6, B=12, C=18, etc.).....

C-O-M-P-U-T-E-R = 666 !!!

And then, if you recall, back in 1982 TIME Magazine awarded its "Man of the Year" Award to.... the COMPUTER!

Cue the Twilight Zone theme music.... 

[BigMark]

I highly recommend reading "Who Rewrote the Bible?" by Dr. Lorraine Day. 900 pages, but well worth the read. She sheds new light on this subject. Anti (against) Christ. This would be a group that hates Christ and has control of the money, media, music, medicine, movies, politics and books. This group would also hate Christ. The church of Rome doesn't have control of the money, etc., nor does it hate Christ. Jews are the only ones that fit in this category. Not all Jews, of course, but the ones in power.  Who swayed the SCOTUS to create a law for homosexual marriage? The 4 Jews on the bench. The Jewish religion is based on the Talmud, which states that Jesus is in hell burning in excrement.

[Geoarrge]

One interesting consideration is that it might be meant as an allusion to King Solomon, a wise ruler ("here is wisdom") who nevertheless turned bad, and started raising taxes, collecting 666 talents of gold per year by a certain point. (1 Kings 10:14, 2 Chronicles 9:13).   So, one possible interpretation is that it will be a world leader who will be compared to Solomon.

[D_Bishop]

I believe the interpretation of 666 I have read and been taught.  If it is wrong, and I don't think it is, so be it.  

[Bruce Davey]

Too much focus on confusing numbers .The focus is on Jesus not the bumps along the way .Sustaining words  from the pagan King Darius to Daniel in the lions den "The God whom you serve continually He will deliver you' Daniel 6:16.

 Plus  after all the trauma revealed God tells Daniel ' Go your way..you will arise to your inheritance at the end of days'  Daniel 12 :13.

In Revelation we are assured God is the end and the beginning  and I am coming quickly.

Surely the God whom we serve will deliver us whatever or whoever 666 is.

[Bravus]

There is no evidence, at all, from *any* credible source, that any Pope anywhere has ever had the official title Vicarius Filii Dei and/or worn such an inscription on his hat.

It really is as simple as that, and not a matter of interpretation. The traditional SDA view is a simple falsehood. There's a commandment about that...

[Robert]

.... The traditional SDA view is a simple falsehood. There's a commandment about that...

Yes, but your views on evolution contradict God's law too....So, isn't that the kettle calling the pot, black?

There is no evidence, at all, from *any* credible source, that any Pope anywhere has ever had the official title Vicarius Filii Dei....

And so the argument goes back and forth....Who is telling the truth?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarius_Filii_Dei

Edited July 4, 2015 by Robert

[LifeHiscost]

Yes, but your views on evolution contradict God's law too....So, isn't that the kettle calling the pot, black?

And so the argument goes back and forth....Who is telling the truth?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarius_Filii_Dei

Thanks for that URL. Robert. It opened my eyes just a little bit further.

34"Be on guard, so that your hearts will not be weighted down with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of life, and that day will not come on you suddenly like a trap; 35for it will come upon all those who dwell on the face of all the earth.…

Luke 21

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[Textus Receptus]

The number 6 played an integral part of the Babylonian numerical system.  In fact this is where we get the use of 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour an 360 degrees in a circle.  666 would imply a Babylonian philosophical mindset as far as it can relate to the Father,  Son, and Holy Spirit.  

[B/W Photodude]

There is no evidence, at all, from *any* credible source, that any Pope anywhere has ever had the official title Vicarius Filii Dei and/or worn such an inscription on his hat.

It really is as simple as that, and not a matter of interpretation. The traditional SDA view is a simple falsehood. There's a commandment about that...

From a recent thread, "What's the pope up to today" this can be read:

Note that the quotation to follow is from an RCC publication:
“What are the letters supposed to be in the Pope’s crown, and what do they signify, if anything?  The letters inscribed in the pope’s mitre are these:  VICARIUS FILII DEI, which is the Latin for Vicar of the Son of God…”[Our Sunday Visitor, Bureau of Information section, page 3, April 18, 1915 Issue]

http://torch-of-salvation.blogspot.com/2011/06/ang-may-numerong-666-na-binabanggit-sa.html

It is, to clarify things, not something that originated with SDAs, although EGW seems to get a lion's share of the Internet blame for it.

[BobRyan]

There is no evidence, at all, from *any* credible source, that any Pope anywhere has ever had the official title Vicarius Filii Dei and/or worn such an inscription on his hat.

It really is as simple as that, and not a matter of interpretation. The traditional SDA view is a simple falsehood. There's a commandment about that...

Until you look at actual Catholic Canon law.

We should not use arguments that have some evidence to suggest that they are false, even if we believe them to be true.

The FVD of the 666 has reason to be rejected as false.  We should do better and only use arguments that have better support and evidence than this one. 

We should never base our beliefs on just one argument.

Every evangelistic study on the subject - presents a set of identifiers - and the Rev 13 statement about the number  666 is just one of about 10 identifiers. We will not be removing Rev 13 any time soon.

[Kevin H]

If I recall correctly it was among the Franciscans that the teaching of Vicarius Filii Dei and that it added up to 666 and that the pope was the antichrist started. They came to this conclusion after accepting Joachim of Fiore as a true prophet and began studying his writings and applying his principles.

 Anti (against) Christ. This would be a group that hates Christ and has control of the money, media, music, medicine, movies, politics and books. This group would also hate Christ.

I'm sorry BigMark but that is the English word "Anti" but we are dealing with the Greek word "Anti" which does NOT mean "Against" but "In Place of" It is anything that we have replace Christ in our life. It does not need to be openly against Christ, but presents him in a way that gets them to nudge the real Jesus out while we think we are worshiping him.  There is more that I want to write but it's too late at night

One interesting consideration is that it might be meant as an allusion to King Solomon, a wise ruler ("here is wisdom") who nevertheless turned bad, and started raising taxes, collecting 666 talents of gold per year by a certain point. (1 Kings 10:14, 2 Chronicles 9:13).   So, one possible interpretation is that it will be a world leader who will be compared to Solomon.

Oh, that's right I forgot about that when I wrote my post a few days ago! Thank you for including this piece of evidence that I forgot to mention!

[hch]

I believe the interpretation of 666 I have read and been taught.  If it is wrong, and I don't think it is, so be it.  

It may appear that some folks mock the light that God gives by their speculations. But when honest questions or proposals are given, it requires an honest investigation.

IMHO it is not a matter of the old being right or wrong.

Present Truth changes. For example: circumcision was Present Truth from Abraham until Christ.

When Christ fulfilled the law regarding circumcision, the Present Truth was that it is not required now.

The papacy fits the 666 scenario. That was Present Truth when it was discovered. But does light stop there?

" Others were careless and did not cherish the light and it moved off from them... And I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after he rose up, and they were left in perfect darkness." {DS, March 14, 1846 par. 1}

"That God did abundantly bless the students in the school and the church, I have not one doubt; but a period of great light and the outpouring of the Spirit is quite generally followed by a time of great darkness. Why? Because the enemy works with all his deceiving energies to make of none effect the deep movings of the Spirit of God on the human subject."  {1SM 130.2}

"Satan will present his temptations until the light will appear as darkness, and many will reject the very truth that would have proved the saving of their souls. Those who walk in its rays will find it growing brighter and brighter unto the perfect day."  {RH, September 3, 1889 par. 16}

"'The path of the just is as a shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.' The Christian's life is one of progression. He goes forward from strength to strength, from grace to grace, from glory to glory, receiving from Heaven the light which Christ, at infinite cost to himself, made it possible for man to obtain. But the Christian cannot let his light shine properly unless he receives, day by day, an increase of the divine illumination, corresponding with his growth in the knowledge of Bible truth. It would be as inconsistent to expect to be sustained on the morrow by food eaten today, as to depend on present light and present blessings for future strength."  {ST, February 10, 1887 par. 14}

The light on the papal 666 was Present Truth for yesterday, yesterday's meal. It is true and it had its purpose, but if we stop there, how will we understand what we need to know as the coming of our Lord draws near? Surely if we take the attitude that that is all there is, we will stunt our growth.

"Accountable beings must walk in the light that shines upon them. If they fail to do this, their light becomes darkness, and their darkness is great according to the degree that their light was abundant. Accumulated light has shone upon God's people. Many have neglected to follow the light, and for this reason are in a state of great spiritual weakness."  {RH, August 31, 1886 par. 3}

 

 

[Bravus]

Until you look at actual Catholic Canon law.

Every evangelistic study on the subject - presents a set of identifiers - and the Rev 13 statement about the number  666 is just one of about 10 identifiers. We will not be removing Rev 13 any time soon.

Citation needed.

I agree that it's not something that originated with EGW. I've made the point before that anti-Catholicism was a very widespread prejudice in 19th century America... including being one of the primary planks of the KKK.

[Gregory Matthews]

The 666 belief is problematic.  To "get rid of it" does not get rid of any other belief about the Pope, Rome and last day events.  We should move on to other issues.

Folks, it is problematic to base our position on one,  article that is 100 years old.  It is less than honest to do so knowing that the author of that article admitted that it was based upon a factual error.

[D_Bishop]

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. Rev 13:18.

That verse is in the bible. It didn't come from the writings of Ellen White.  It was not thought up in some SDA committee.  It is from the bible.  And it means something. The all knowing, all power God and creator of the universe put it there for a reason.  Taken in context with the other biblical evidence in Revelation 13, and also in the book of Daniel this verse leads me to believe that 666 indicates the pope as the anticrhist, along with the other biblical evidence indicating the same. 

Edited July 4, 2015 by D_Bishop

[Robert]

...the pope as the anticrhist....

Not any one Pope, but rather His position is anti-Christ.

 I see his position not so much as against Christ (although one could argue the this point), but rather in the place of Christ.

The Bible is clear: Christ is our Great High Priest. In Him we stand perfect before God and His holy law (see Col 1:15-23) There is no other intercessor between God and His law and mankind. To claim to be Vicar of Christ is not only a heresy, of the highest order, but blasphemy. 

Edited July 4, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

The Bible is clear: Christ is our Great High Priest. In Him we stand perfect before God and His holy law (see Col 1:15-23) There is no other intercessor between God and His law and mankind. To claim to be Vicar of Christ is not only a heresy, of the highest order, but blasphemy. 

I still maintain, I though not dogmatically, that 666 is symbolic of an imperfect priesthood with the Pope at its head. My two cents....

Edited July 4, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Citation needed.

I agree that it's not something that originated with EGW. I've made the point before that anti-Catholicism was a very widespread prejudice in 19th century America... including being one of the primary planks of the KKK.

So to be against the Papacy is to be prejudice? 

[BobRyan]

Until you look at actual Catholic Canon law.

Every evangelistic study on the subject - presents a set of identifiers - and the Rev 13 statement about the number  666 is just one of about 10 identifiers. We will not be removing Rev 13 any time soon.

The 666 belief is problematic.  To "get rid of it" does not get rid of any other belief about the Pope, Rome and last day events.  We should move on to other issues.

Folks, it is problematic to base our position on one,  article that is 100 years old.  It is less than honest to do so knowing that the author of that article admitted that it was based upon a factual error.

As noted above - this is not a case of "basing our position on one" text.

Nor do we reject the Rev 13 text stating that the number can be calculated to 6 hundred 66.

Nor can we ignore the fact that even RCC Canon Law uses that title for the Pope for centuries.

[Gregory Matthews]

Bob. you mentioned "actual Catholic Canon law:"  please give a citation.  Note, I have in my library a book of Roman Catholic Canon law.  I would like to know your source so I can check it out.

The way that you have stated your position suggests to me that you have never seen a Roman Catholic Book of Canon Law and do not understand what such a book is.  But, maybe I am wrong and I would be delighted to be wrong and willing to say so in this forum.

So, please give me a citation that I can check and from actual canon law.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[Bravus]

So to be against the Papacy is to be prejudice? 

That wasn't the point I was making: someone said "EGW didn't originate it", and I was acknowledging that that is correct. It was a common idea around at the time.

While we're on the subject, though: what would it be called when someone calls a particular person, role or institution the worst name they can think of (for a Christian, 'anti-Christ' has to be the negation of all that's good), and chooses to stick with that namecalling when it is clearly revealed that the basis for it is false? A word starting with 'p' does seem kind of apt.

Some seem to be saying 'we will never do away with Revelation 13'. Of course not! No-one is asking you to. The text saying "let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number. Its number is six hundred and sixty-six" is part of the Bible. It's the *application* of that to the fraudulent 'vicarius filii dei' that is at fault.

And without that application, the identification of the papacy as antichrist falls over.

Clinging to that interpretation is doing violence to the biblical text, not upholding it.

[Gregory Matthews]

Regardless of what one might think about VFD and 666, one should not use an argument that is generally regarded as factually in error.  We should not base our doctrinal understanding on one thing that is clearly problematic.