Search results

I don't believe any of it is independent or floating. Revelation 13:16 says the second beast "causeth all... to receive a mark," so he's the one enforcing it. But the number, 666, belongs to the first beast: "the number of the beast... his number is Six hundred threescore and six" (13:17-18)...

Are you saying that 66 tens plus 6 ones isn’t 666?

Hi Epi. I have to disagree. The feast was the wedding feast of the lamb.The main course was the words of Jesus aka the New Testament. People without the proper garment can’t eat at that table.

I think my view is completely logical, of course, just as you do yours. The last thing in the sequence of events in Revelation is Heavenly Jerusalem coming down from heaven. I am assume you're waiting for that to happen int the future but I see it as already accomplished at the cross, since...

The passage only says you can't buy or sell, it doesn't say what it is you can't buy or sell. It's vague, which gives room for whatever presupposition a reader brings to it and mine included. I lean toward "all times" because nothing in the text restricts it to one future window (I know you...

Sorry for the delay, Peter. Here are a couple of reasons: Rev 16:9-11 — the marked/beast-worshippers are struck with plagues and "blasphemed the name of God... and repented not to give him glory" / "repented not of their deeds." John frames it as a refusal, not an impossibility. You don't...

I say that because the bible said to count the number. There is only one way to count a number as far as I know.

Hold tight on that oneAmigo. I need to get beat up some more on the number and repenting from the mark first.

@CrowCross My post to you about the view you hold didn’t send when I thought it did so it sent with another post to amigo. Post 126.

Did the Bible tell you to count subatomic particles or the number 666?

No more negatively than most common views. I’m asking because my response will be based on which narrative you follow. It’s the number of a man right? So the beast is a collection or group of men. Rev 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it...

Oh boy. Here it is in simplest terms. 666 isn't just 6-6-6 Everyone reads 666 as "six hundred sixty-six" — 6 hundreds, 6 tens, 6 ones. Fine. But that's not the only way to count it. Count it as 66 tens + 6 ones. 66 = books of the Bible. 6 = number of man. 666 = man added to the Word of God...

Exactly, and when one understands what the number of the beast means, then it all becomes clear, and the mark becomes clear too. The problem is I have yet to run across another person (on forums) who will accept counting the number as the Bible says — even though the result of counting the...

Before I answer. Are you a dispensationalist?

You won't find the exact phrase "you can repent from the mark of the beast" anywhere in scripture, but I think it can be inferred from other verses. More importantly, though — a lot of what people believe about the MOB is made up, not biblical at all, and in my opinion it's part of an end-times...

Marty, I respectfully disagree that the mark is the same scenario as being sealed with the Holy Spirit. "Sealed" and "marked" aren't the same thing. The mark is a distinguishing mark, which some may say is physical and others would say it's a belief system or personality trait.

I will Peter. I was busy yesterday and couldn’t keep up with this thread so I’m behind on replies… im also busy today so I will be slow.

David, I think we're actually in the same boat here, just facing opposite directions. You think "all" doesn't mean all — it has to be narrowed down to those who end up worshiping the beast. I think "receive" doesn't mean receive — that it can describe something later reversed through...

There's all kinds of debate around what the mark is, and that's why I keep saying we have to use all these verses together to figure it out. Whatever the mark is, it has to fit two things: all receive it, and it's something that can be repented from. Any definition that can't do both isn't the...

None of it can make sense until we understand what the mark is, and that can't be understood unless we accept that all means all. In other words, under different circumstances "he causeth all" would be accepted as written. But instead of using that as one of the keys to understanding the whole...