Hi guys,
I noticed something about a decade ago, or perhaps a little longer, when I was still struggling with the original King james version of scripture. In that version, the number six hundred and sixty six was used in one other place in the scriptures, and specifically in reference to the amount of Gold King Solomon received (annually I think). Solomon, in his wealth, and under the influence of foreign wives, apostasized and went after the gods of the land. This somehow sounds familiar to me. Its also interesting to note the number of steps up to his throne, and the descriptions of his romantic interest in the Song of Solomon, ( a book which I read when reading through the bible, but have never decided to dwell heavily upon.) The first modern translation of the Bible that I'd ever read was used as a college text and included the apocrypha (?). I found the wisdom litterature interesting, and the only reason that I could see for the rejection of one book was the commentary on Solomon. The first time I read it, my hand jerked so violently that I tore the page. I'm curious whether any of our historians know who was primarily responsible for the exclusion of that text as this could be revealing. If Jesus could have "types" in scripture, you would think that we could find anti-types. I think this is already understood with regard to the book of Daniel. Again, types are just types. Joshua was a "type" of Jesus, so was Samson (whose victory over the philistines was greater in his dying than in his life). Solomon was the anointed king of Israel, a son of David, a man of peace, and blessed by God with great material possessions, who was he a type of? (remember that Jesus was entirely faithful, but none of His "types" were a perfect man, and with regard to prophecy, even the high priest who condemned Jesus prophesied with the anointing of God upon him.)
I noticed something about a decade ago, or perhaps a little longer, when I was still struggling with the original King james version of scripture. In that version, the number six hundred and sixty six was used in one other place in the scriptures, and specifically in reference to the amount of Gold King Solomon received (annually I think). Solomon, in his wealth, and under the influence of foreign wives, apostasized and went after the gods of the land. This somehow sounds familiar to me. Its also interesting to note the number of steps up to his throne, and the descriptions of his romantic interest in the Song of Solomon, ( a book which I read when reading through the bible, but have never decided to dwell heavily upon.) The first modern translation of the Bible that I'd ever read was used as a college text and included the apocrypha (?). I found the wisdom litterature interesting, and the only reason that I could see for the rejection of one book was the commentary on Solomon. The first time I read it, my hand jerked so violently that I tore the page. I'm curious whether any of our historians know who was primarily responsible for the exclusion of that text as this could be revealing. If Jesus could have "types" in scripture, you would think that we could find anti-types. I think this is already understood with regard to the book of Daniel. Again, types are just types. Joshua was a "type" of Jesus, so was Samson (whose victory over the philistines was greater in his dying than in his life). Solomon was the anointed king of Israel, a son of David, a man of peace, and blessed by God with great material possessions, who was he a type of? (remember that Jesus was entirely faithful, but none of His "types" were a perfect man, and with regard to prophecy, even the high priest who condemned Jesus prophesied with the anointing of God upon him.)