Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean
I know, I know Mike, 666=N E R O.....LOL(been there, done that)
Better watch it, pastor febus is watching us...LOL
|
The thing about Nero and the issue of the number is that there is a manuscript that has 616 instead of 666. It is the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Dated 3rd or early 4th century. It seems Latin versions intentionally used 616 because Nero's name in Latin has the numerical equivalent of 616 not 666. No other view can explain that.
You may have been there but you never done it since you never accepted it. lol Don't be so busy trying to promote a certain view at any cost rather than realize you may be offkey and God may be trying to correct you.
Anyway, John said the people in his day could count it, and that would not be the case if the name was not in existence in a person's life yet. So, please address the point that JOHN indicated someone IN HIS DAY could count the name proving it had to be someone at that time. You just blew it away as though I never said it. Don't gloss over this point in John's words.
Threaded Mode
