Search results

@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...

No, John doesn't directly say someone received the mark and later repented. But indirectly, Rev 16:8-9 points that way — you said it yourself: repentance is still possible at this point, except John sees that they never repent. And they repented not to give him glory. Not "couldn't." Repented...

The grammar is clear even if we don't like what it says. All means all. That single word is one of the main keys to understanding what the mark actually is. If "all" lined up with what you already think the mark is, you'd have no problem making the argument that all means all. I get it, it's...

The key piece of evidence in this account is that everybody gets the mark - no exceptions, whether by deception or by choice. How a believer recovers from that is a separate issue.

I understand, Davy. I come from a dispensationalist background, but I left that many years ago, so this one we simply disagree.

The Bible says the beast causes all to take his mark doesn’t it?

Clouds are easy and not up to interpretation. It’s either literal clouds and we know it’s not because Revelation says it’s given in signs. There’s only one other type of clouds in the Bible. Heb 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay...

Sure bring it on :csm

William, I read those verses as being fulfilled at that time. Can you explain what in those verses makes you think it's not? What am I missing?