I'm surpirsed that I've not picked up more references to this discovery about an early papyrus of the book of REvelation in which the number of the beast is given as 616, not 666. It's an interesting issue because it shows up the care that we need to exercise in thinking about textual studies "Further, the number 616 was known in antiquity and was discarded in the second century. Irenaeus, the patristic commentator, wrote a chapter on the number of the beast, arguing that in the better manuscripts of Revelation that he had seen the number was 666 instead of 616."
There's more to it than that even, read the article:
Bible :: Daniel B. Wallace responds to article on 'the number of the Beast':
Nevertheless we should be ready as Christians to be able to talk informedly because I'm pretty certain that this will become and apologetics issues, even if only at the level of manuscript histories and the reliablility of the Bible...
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg -
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
1 comment:
That's if they believe it! I suspect the KJV fundamentalists will not be bothered by it in the slightest except as further evidence of the wrongheadedness of taking in new manuscript evidence! THough, to be fair we should notice that Irenaeus was skeptical of this particular manuscript's bona fides at this point, so 666 might be right after all. Nevertheless wouldn't it be fun to see how they readjusted if they took it seriously?
Post a Comment