Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:33, 17 November 2009

Christianity C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bible C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 01 Archive 02 Archive 03 Archive 4

Context & Definition of Xαραγμα / "'Mark' of Commerce" = MONEY

Under the subject heading "Mark of Commerce" the definition of Xαραγμα has other meanings besides "Mark." If U look at this reference from an Unabridged Greek-English Lexicon, U can see that is also means, MONEY or coin. Hence: "No one buys and sells without the MONEY of the beast." Nero's face was impressed on the coins. The "Revelation" was written around 66 A.D. at time Nero lived, the Jews revolted against the Romans and the Jews started coining their own money. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning to provide an opening paragraph to this section to give the full definition of Xαραγμα with all it's meanings (see link to unabridged Greek Lexicon, above). I'll include the context ("buy and sell") as well as references to Jesus. (1) Telling his disciples to not carry any money (MT 10:9) (So too did the Essenes, who were contemporaries of Jesus not carry any money.) (2) Jesus upsetting the tables of the moneychangers (JN 2:14), (3) Jesus outside the temple-treasury talking about how difficult it is for rich people to enter the Kingdom of God (MK 12:41), (4) Jesus saying, "You can't serve God and money" (NEV) . . . "but the Pharisees, who loved money heard all this and scoffed" (LK 16), (5) Jesus and the poll-tax/Tribute money, "Whose picture is on the money?" (Caesar's) (MT 22:19) (MT 17:24) Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that "charagma" or "the number of the beast" is a (past or present or future) form of money, seems obvious. What needs to be investigated, is what we have to do with it, in order to be saved. Bible encourages the wise to "psefisato" the number of the beast. This word, which is usally translated as "count" can also be translated as "vote". Xicsies (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, this used to be mentioned in the article (diff), until one Carl.bunderson (talk · contribs) removed it, presumably for being too sane, and taking away from the out-and-out nonsense on stilts the article is apparently required to peddle. Jheald (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the time has come. The consensus indicates that the above diff should be mentioned in the article. I am adding it again. Xicsies (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The comment of one user does not indicated consensus. A tv report is not a RS. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by two users and me makes three and I've seen videos used as RSs before. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but both you and Xicsies have a history of not understanding RS policy. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I just checked out the Channel 4 website and the source, which is a review of the investigative report of a TV show (it's not a video) on a legitimate British TV station. I also checked out this source by mistake in regards UBC codes . . . looks like a flimsy website to me. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that channel4 is reliable in terms of RS policy. I'm not sure that a fleeting, single sentence mention by Julia Bard at the end of a segment is notable though. And I am sure that the channel4 source does not support the majority of the text that Carl previously removed. Here are my suggestions, either the sentence needs to be reduced and worked in to an existing part of the article with the supplied channel4 source, or we need to find additional sourcing to verify the rest of the content and to establish notability. Saying "some people have interpreted the "mark of the beast" to be the emperor Nero's head on coins"... is basically all we can get from Channel4, right? And even then we don't know how prominent the view is and how much weight to give it (if to give it any at all) we really need more research (and therefore more sources). Hope this helps.-Andrew c  01:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In light of this, I think I will remove the sentence until it is properly sourced. If someone wants to reduce the sentence and show where it can be worked in, please do so. If channel4 is reliable, then what they said must be based on something that scholars have written, so there must be a better source out there somewhere. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That smacks of wikilawyering to suppress a POV you don't like. Better would be to leave the source intact (as there is also much other useful material in the cited report), but to tag it as needing better additional sourcing. If I recall the actual film correctly, as opposed to the article discussing it, it actually made the proposition quite firmly with talking heads to support it. In any case, it is certainly a known view amongst mainstream Biblical scholars. Here for example (p.99) , is how it was reviewed in a general audience 2002 book by Paul Spilsbury:

Many interpreters have spent a great deal of time speculating about the nature of this mark and putting forward innumerable suggestions for what it might be -- including bar codes on merchandise and credit cards, or computer chips inserted under people's skin. Biblical scholars, on the other hand, look to ancient practices for clues. Some have noted that charagma, the ancient Greek word used here for "mark", was a technical term for the imperial stamp on commercial documents and for the imprint of the emperor's head on coins. These might explain the mark on the hand and the inability to buy or sell without the mark, but seem less helpful for expaining the mark on the forehead (though it could indicate a mind obsessed with money)

Other sources could no doubt be found that would make the case for it more forcefully, and best of all would be a cite to one of the scholars who is actually firmly propounding this explanation, to see how they make their case unfiltered. But even pending that, the explanation should stay, in a form that allows the reader to see how it is suggested to work, because even the above quite careful review makes clear that this is a mainstream line of thought, which the article should present. Jheald (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

ADDED: An upload of the film can be found at Google video, . The mention of this view of "the mark" can be found at 1:33:54. It's no more than a sentence, but it is presented as representing mainstream scholarly opinion. Jheald (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It is hardly a matter of being a POV I dislike. I don't have any particular views on Revelation as of yet. And there is plenty of nutty stuff on this page that I would do away with if it were matter of POVs I don't like. Any preterist interpration such as this one is in my mind automatically better than UPC theories. So since you've found a better source, why don't you build a sentence and replace the existing one, and source it from the google books link. That would be something we could all agree on. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the bellsouth site is rather shoddy. It is the personal website of someone notable, but it isn't immediately obvious, though he invented the UPC, that he has "previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I'll remove the little paragraph based upon it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I am asking a straight question , and I want a straight answer. How comes and something that "no man might buy or sell, save he that had it" is NOT a form of money? The mark of the beast, is obviously a form of money. This totally sane assertion should be mentioned in the article, together with the rest gematria witchcraft nonsenses and the 616 ridiculous scenario that many of us tolerate to be mentioned in the article, in the name of consensus. Xicsies (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Original research should not play into this. Why not help Jheald find more sources? I believe the notability of this view has been established. Now we just need a solid description backed by solid sources. -Andrew c  14:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Find a good, scholarly RS, and add it. That will shut me up, I promise. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said at the beginning, I plan to write an entire paragraph or section about the context and complete definition of the word charagma. Note also the word Mammon is mistranslated (or not translated) also means money in Aramaic ("Mammon" is an Aramaic word for money: Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Hastings, James, ed.; New York, Scribners, 1908-1921. 12 vols.) & Hebrew, 'ממון (mmôn = money) Webster's Online Dictionary, translated into english. It might be two weeks before I get to it 'cause I'm going on vacation. If any of U wanna do it, go for it! I know, it will be difficult to not make this look like original research unless we stick to referenced facts. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As it is, this bit is unacceptable. Andrew has noted that a mentioned at the end of a channel 4 report is of questionable notability. Better sourcing is needed for what's been in the article. I gave it a month, and nothing was done by those who want it maintained. Of the persons who support you, one has been indefinitely-blocked as a POV-pusher, and the other is an SPA with similar problems understanding RS policy. The status quo is not viable. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 08:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finally adding a real reference. IVP is a press that can actually be trusted for information. Now was that so hard? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mixed languages

I think there should be more mention of the languages involved in the guesses as to who the "beast" was.

For instance, Revelations was written in Greek, but Nero's name must be written in another language (Aramaic) and then have numerology rules applied from yet another language (Hebrew) before 666 is acquired. Later in the article, Caligula's name is written in Greek and Greek numerology is used to arrive at the Greek text of 616. However, there is no mention that Greek numerology is used.

I'm no Biblical scholar and this isn't the place to argue how plausible one guess is, but I would bet that any name could be twisted into any number if one was allowed to rewrite the name in a second language and then use numerology from a third. Which is why I think there should be more emphasis on the languages used to resolve names into numbers.

I agree - see "Hold on....." under 'Mistaken Math' in Archive 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.144.221 (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Most vs. Many

I was struck by the mention that: "most scholars believe the number referred to the Emperor Nero.", and it cites four references.

Four references is hardly "most". Not only that, but that belief reflects a Preterist view-- not one that the majority of Christians hold.

Anyone else agree? --Shark Fin 101 (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Shark Fin - I agree, but have not had the time or inclination to find sources. Just recently, that line read that "most scholars believe it refers to Nero, while other believe it refers to Domitian" or something like that. I was able to work a compromise with another poster to delete the latter part of that sentence. It is better now that it was, but I am not 100% happy.

I feel that, on the whole, the article has a preterist bias, but I lack the will to make major efforts to change it. Bonbga (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I have not read the references, it is quite possible that they provide a survey of the scholarly literature and come to the stated conclusion about what "most" scholars believe. In that case, the number of references provided is not intended to enumerate the number of supporting scholars directly, but provide references to support a conclusion about what most scholars believe. If so, then it is a perfectly valid statement. It might have been better if additional notes with excepts from the references were provided, so that it would be possible to determine whether these references are just enumerations of a particular interpretation or provide a more comprehensive survey. As it is, one would need to read each reference to determine whether or not it correctly supports the conclusion about what "most" scholars believe. Alternately, one would need to provide different scholarly references that come to a different conclusion about what "most" scholars believe. Trying to justify such a statement by providing one's own enumeration would constitute original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.229.193 (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The number of citations is now six. I very briefly looked at them, and all 6 mention views that it refers to Nero. However, it seems none mention a survey of scholars. While I think it does refer to Nero, and I might think that most scholars do think it refers to Nero, using "most" this way violates Misplaced Pages standards. If one were to have a hundred citations for that one statement, it would still violate the standards. Nor, would changing "most" to "many" fix the problem. Used this way, they are both weasel words. If it is stated that most scholars support this view, a survey showing this needs to be cited.

I get suspicious whenever I see a statement that has a long list of citations. A long list of citations makes it seem like someone is trying to bolster a weak or controversial view. Often, the citations are not the best -- they refer to articles that refer to other sources (explicitly or not). Best to go to the original sources, if they can be found. SlowJog (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that there is a reference to "Benedict" as one "title." Yet there is no reference to it. I suspect this is just a quick slash at the current Pope. If there is no evidence that Luther said that then it should be deleted. Likewise Luther's own name does add up to 666. That should be noted.97.114.183.149 (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

666--Gross imperfection

In Jehovah's Witnesses book "Revelation, It's Grand Climax At Hand!", it says "The number six falls short of seven, which stands for completeness from God's standpoint. Therefore, a triple six represents gross imperfection." That's important information.

And "The world's political wild beast rules supreme under the name-number 666, while big politics, big religion, and big business keep that wild beast functioning as an OPPRESSOR of mankind and a persecutor of God's people." That's important. It brings us to who/what the beasts are today, not just someone who lived long ago, like Nero, etc. Stars4change (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• C-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• C-Class Bible articles
• Low-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles