Message from @Seeker of Truth
Discord ID: 550483869812654081
and I will not shut my trap...
Maybe they’re both right
Possibility
well in gematria / numerology the 1 could become a 6 in a sense I think
perhaps
Not sure huh?
Talking of Darth Traya made me listen to the Kotor soundtrack on you tube. Man those were the star wars days
Considering the Codex Sianaticus is A) older, B) in the same language as the gospels and C) Not written by a Power Hungry Roman
I think that the Greek copy is right and the Receptus is wrong
sort of like multiplication maybe?
okay
Could be division as well
Also at the time of writing Codex Sianaticus was still written under the Eastern Roman Empire prior to Byzantium
yes, we always look for the earliest forms
of course there could have been deception going on back then too
for either
There is one other translation that is older, and that is the Peshitta, however it is in Aramaic, not the original written language of the Gospel
hmm... I thought that the original languages of the bible were "Hebrew" (Phoenician-Canaanite) - Old Testament and
Aramaic and Greek - New Testament
Here is the Aramaic Peshitta verse
looks very Persian / Arabic
Aramaic is the mother language of both Persian and Arabic yes
Similar to how Phoenecian is our mother tongue as well as to Latin
yes
I'm thinking both 666 and 616 could be right from gematria of Latin vs hebrew
yes, with Greek and Old Italic before Latin
However, there is a catch
Nron Qsr
What does that mean?
That's the Hebrew Peshitta
NOT the Aramaic one
Greek and Hebrew say 666, Latin says 616, that's 2:1, let's translate the Aramaic one maybe we can get a tie?
666 also relates to the Giza Pyramids:
The number 666 is the sum of numbers from 1 to 36 forming the so-called Magickal Seal of Sun, a grid of 6x6.
Yes there might also be clues to this in the book of the dead! The Israelites took great knowledge with them when they left Egypt
Latin drops the second נ . I'm thinking they both can spell out the Same term in their respective languages
hmm
It's also worth noting that different languages even between Hebrew and Aramaic have different interpretations
Also the Babylonian numerical system back then wasn't what we have now.
The Romans used MXLCVII
yes
So they would have said Six hundred and sixty and six