The Mark of the Beast 666 / 616

[CWH]

Hi Rose,

A mark is a mark and a coin is a coin, the difference is very clear. If it is a coin why would the author of Revelation says it's a mark? I am sure he could differentiate that. The author of Revelation might as well said plainly that it is the Coin of the Beast rather than the Mark of the Beast. I wonder how people could etch a coin onto their forehead or their hand. If the mark is a coin or money, then all of us would have sinned as already we have used the mark and we would face untold punishments for having the mark. This was inclusive of the Apostles who would have used money with the head of Caesar inscribed in them (i.e. the 'mark") in their day to day living. Wonder how they would survive without using money?

The question here is whether the Mark of the Beast is literal or figurative. If it is a coin or money as you've said, then I am right, the Mark of the Beast is literal.

Regret Rose, it is difficult for me to accept your explanation... the mark is not coin or money; a mark is nothing but a mark = charagma.

Peace.
God Blessed.

[Rose]

Hi Cheow,

Revelation is a book of prophetic visions, expressed symbolically....if the references to the "Mark of the Beast" being either the "Image" or the "Name" inscribed on the hand or forehead is literal, then why not interpret the "locusts" of Rev. 9 as literal scorpion type creatures, or the Dragon of Rev.12 as a literal 7 headed red dragon, or the Harlot of Rev. 17 as a literal woman riding a 7 headed beast while drinking blood from a golden goblet.....and on and on it goes throughout the whole book of Revelation.

The symbolic wording of Revelation is practically a mirror image of the rest of the Bible, especially the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah.....so from that fact alone to be true to Scripture we must interpret Revelation in the same symbolic manner as the rest of Bible; those living in the 1st century when Revelation was written would have......

God Bless

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Rose,

A mark is a mark and a coin is a coin, the difference is very clear. If it is a coin why would the author of Revelation says it's a mark? I am sure he could differentiate that. The author of Revelation might as well said plainly that it is the Coin of the Beast rather than the Mark of the Beast.

Hi Cheow,

As it turns out, the word translated as "mark" (charagma) literally denotes money in certain contexts. Here is the definition from the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:

1. χάραγμα is an engraved, etched, branded, or inscribed 'mark' or 'sign.' Closest to the original sense of χαράσσω (→ line 17 f.; 418, 3ff.) is the earliest example in Soph. Phil., 267, where χάραγμα denotes the bite of a snake. Elsewhere the term means an 'inscription,' e.g., Anth. Graec., 7, 220, 2, or anything written διὰ χαραγμάτων εὔχο[μαι], P. Lond., V, 1658, 8 (4th cent. a.d.), also the individual character τὰ χαράγματα χειρός, Anth. Graec., 9, 401, 3, and esp. the impressed, or imprinted 'stamp,' e.g., a brand to mark camels, Pap. Grenfell, II, 50a, 5 (142 b.c.),1 or often an official stamp on writings, e.g., attested copies of documents, PreisigkeSammelbuch, I, 5231, 11; 5275, 11 (both 11 a.d.); 5247, 34 (47 a.d.),2 esp. the imperial stamp to attest the validity of decrees etc.3 χάραγμα (→ 418, 17 f.) can also mean the impress on coins, e.g., in Plut. Ages., 15 (I, 604c); De Lysandro, 16 (I, 442b); Apophth.Lac. Agesilaus, 40 (II, 211b) etc.; P. Oxy., I, 144, 6 (580 a.d.). Then it can mean 'money' in general: ἢν μὲν γὰρ τὸ χάραγμα φέρῃς, φίλος· οὔτε θυρωρὸς ἐν ποσὶν οὔτε κύων· ἐν προθύροις δέδεται, Anth. Graec., 5, 30, 3 f. Soph.Sophocles, of Athens (496–406 b.c.), the real poet of the Athens of Pericles, ed. A. C. Pearson, 1924. Phil. Philo, of Alexandria (c. 20 b.c.–50 a.d.), ed. L. Cohn and P. Wendland. P. Lond. Greek Papyri in the British Museum, ed. F. G. Kenyon and others, 1893 ff. esp. especially. Pap. Papyrus, shortened to P. when specific editions are quoted. 1 Ed. B. P. Grenfell-A. S.Hunt, New Classical Fr. and Other Gk. and Lat.Pap. (1897). Cf. χαρακτήρ (→ 418, 17 f.). BGU, I, 88, 6 (147 a.d.). Preisigke F. Preisigke, Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten, 1915 ff. 2 On χάραγμα and πτῶμα in Pap. documents cf. J. C. Naber, 'Observatiunculae ad papyros iuridicae,' APF, 1 (1901), 316–320. 3 These bear the year and the name of the reigning emperor, cf. Deissmann NB, 68–75; Deissmann LO, 289 f.Plut. Plutus. Ages. De Agesilao.

So there you have it ... the word that the Holy Scripture uses for "mark" can literally denote MONEY.

I wonder how people could etch a coin onto their forehead or their hand.

That seems like a deliberate misinterpretation. Nobody who holds that the mark is money would suggest that images of coins would be engraved in the hands and foreheads of people. That suggestion completely misses the meaning of the symbols. We know from Scripture that God uses the hand and forehead as symbols of the things that guide the actions (hand) and minds (forehead):

Deuteronomy 6:6-8 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: 7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes [forehead].

The Bible was designed by God to be its own symbolic dictionary. The Lord who inspired Deuteronomy is the same Lord who inspired Revelation, and He knows that His People would know to interpret His Word as He Himself has taught us within its own pages.

If the mark is a coin or money, then all of us would have sinned as already we have used the mark and we would face untold punishments for having the mark. This was inclusive of the Apostles who would have used money with the head of Caesar inscribed in them (i.e. the 'mark") in their day to day living. Wonder how they would survive without using money?

That is the exact point!!! The first century Christians could not buy or sell without using money. This is exactly what Revelation says about the mark. As for the punishment, that was only for those who were "sold out" to money - for you can not serve God and mammon. Neither the Apostles nor the other Christians were in that category.

Many blessings Cheow,

Richard

[CWH]

Hi,

I have made a fascinating idea between the mark of the Beast and the Bindi which is the red dot on the forehead of many Hindus and Buddhist. This is just a concept and I hope not to offend our Hindu and Buddhist friends in this forum. I certainly and absolutely do not mean that the mark of the beast is the Bindi but just to share the fascinating reasons of why the mark of the beast is placed on the forehead (and also on the hands) of people who follow and worship the beast using the analogy.

I found an artical in the internet:
http://www.helium.com/items/556432-t...ance-of-bindis

The excerpt of the artical states the reasons why the Bindi is used:
There is a lot of significance behind those red dots applied to the foreheads. Asides from Hinduism, these dots also play a big role in Buddhism.

The red dots are known as "bindis" which means a small droplet. As explained it's a red colored applied to the center of the forehead close to your eyes. Instead of a dot, a symbol or a piece of jewelry could be applied to the forehead. In the past, it was worn by Hindu women that would get married. The material to make the bindi is red sindoor powder or a black ointment. Bindis are common to Buddhists and Hindus. I had seen pictures my grandmother had taken during a trip to India several years ago. There were monks and nuns who had those dots on their foreheads regardless of being either Buddhist or Hindu.
The area where you apply the dot is your sixth chakra where you gather your wisdom and your power. This is where all your energy is retained and concentration. It can also serve as a charm to protect against evil demons and misfortune. One example of this application is the anime series "Naruto" where Tsunade the Fifth Hokage has a bindis on her forehead.
That bindi was what stored all of Tsunade's energy and allowed her to unleash that energy at will.
But today, its decoration is worn by both married and non-married women. Overall, it's supposed to be a charm to store wisdom and energy to strengthen your concentration which is important in Hinduism. The origins are unknown but it has been and will be important to the part of the Hindu history.

I am not sure if the Beast or the 666 believe in Hinduism or Buddhism or if he adopted some of the ideas of the Bindi but based on the artical (highlighted in bold), perhaps these are the reasons why the mark of the beast is placed on the forehead:
1. It signifies loyalty to the beast i.e. married to the beast
2. It serves as a mark of religious worship to the beast like a religion.
3. It provide the wearer with the mark of the beast on the forehead with the "wisdom" from the Beast. It serves as a 3rd eye for "wisdom" and a 2 way communication channel.
4. The Beast will authorise the wearer of the mark of the beast on the forehead with some power and rights (one of which is the right to buy and sell).
5. The mark on the forehead serves as a charm or mantra that makes one focus all their energy and concentration on the beast.
5. The mark on the forehead serves to protect oneself against "evil", harm and misfortune from the Beast. The Beast will not kill them.
6. It allows the wearer of the mark of the beast on the forehead to unleash their rights and power from the Beast (one of which is to persecute those who refused to have the mark of the beast and perhaps, allow some to perform miracles to deceive more people).

All these leads me to a query....Is the Beast (666) an Asian?

Many Blessings.

[CWH]

Hi,

I would like to present an idea of why the mark of the Beast is also placed on the hands, this time using the analogy of the Mehendi. The Mehendi is an artform on the hands and arms also known as henna tattooing. I hope not to offend anyone and I certainly and absolutely do not mean that the mark of the beast on the hands is the Mehendi but just to share the fascinating reasons why the mark of the beast is placed on the hands of people who follow and worship the beast using the analogy. This is also to prove that the mark of the Beast on the forehead and hands may not be symbolic and that the Beast may be an Asian with his supposed orientation to Asian culture and religions.

PS http://www.mehendiworld.com/mehendi-...traditions.htm

An excerpt from this website states:
Proof has been found that henna (MEHENDI) was used to stain the fingers and toes of Pharoahs prior to mummification over 5000 years ago when it was also used as a cosmetic and for it's healing power. The mummification process took 70 days and as the Egyptians were diligent in planning for their deaths and their rebirth in the afterlife, they became quite obsessed with the preservation process. The Egyptians believed that body art ensured their acceptance into the afterlife and therefore used tattooing and mendhi to please the gods and guarantee a pleasant trip.....The red colour of mehendi is a symbol of love. The darker the colour, deeper is the love of the maiden for her lover. Applying mehendi is an important ritual on Karva Chauth when married women in North India fast for the long life of their husbands.*

Based on the article (highlighted in bold red in the excerpt) the Beast may have these reasons as to why the mark is also placed on the hands of his followers:
1. A symbol of religious worship of the Beast
2. The mark has healing power to heal of one's "sin" or perhaps as a sign of the Beast's forgiveness of one's past "wrong doings".
3. The mark is a proof of one's acceptance of the Beast as the leader. The Beast will accept them as his followers.
4. The mark will please the Beast and guarantees one's pleasant life under the Beast.
5. The mark is a proof of one's deep love and loyalty for the Beast and wishing the Beast longevity.

No wonder God will be very angry and will punish severely those who have the mark of the beast on their forehead and hands as the mark is an agreement that they will serve the Beast will all their hearts and minds.

Many Blessings.

[TheForgiven]

Based on the article (highlighted in bold red in the excerpt) the Beast may have these reasons as to why the mark is also placed on the hands of his followers:
1. A symbol of religious worship of the Beast
2. The mark has healing power to heal of one's "sin" or perhaps as a sign of the Beast's forgiveness of one's past "wrong doings".
3. The mark is a proof of one's acceptance of the Beast as the leader. The Beast will accept them as his followers.
4. The mark will please the Beast and guarantees one's pleasant life under the Beast.
5. The mark is a proof of one's deep love and loyalty for the Beast and wishing the Beast longevity.

No wonder God will be very angry and will punish severely those who have the mark of the beast on their forehead and hands as the mark is an agreement that they will serve the Beast will all their hearts and minds.

Many Blessings.

Then should the righteous expect to be marked on the forehead, with God's name?

Joseph

[CWH]

Hi Joseph,

I have said in my previous post in this thread:
"I believe the mark of the Beast (666) is literal, whereas the mark of the lamb with His Name on the foreheads is figurative (God doesn't need a literal mark to identify his people)".. This is with reference to Revelation 9 : 4 in which the locusts were told to harm only those people who did not have the mark of God's seal on their foreheads. Note also that God need not requires one to have the mark of God on their hands. This is because he could see the invisible mark on the righteous forehead (literally or figuratively) and that is suffice. Whereas, for the Beast, he requires people to have the mark of the Beast on people's hands because being human he needs visual input to see the mark of the Beast on the hands.

The mark of God on the righteous foreheads is an agreement to serve God with all their hearts, minds and souls. The mark of the Beast on people's foreheads and hands is an agreement that they have rejected God outright.

[CWH]

Hi,

Talking about visual input, how is the Beast going to police the policy of "no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark of the Beast"? One who has the mark of the Beast can still sell or buy from one who do not have the mark of the Beast illegally, privately or in the black market. Even if the transactions require registrations, millions of dollars would have changed hands by the time the illegally transactions are discovered. Without an efficient monitoring system, the policy of "no one can or sell unless he has the mark of the Beast" would utterly fail.......unless the mark of the beast functions also as a miniature wireless surveilliance camera.

Sorry for my futuristic imagination. I have recently saw on TV, a miniature wireless camera the size of a dime or a button battery that can be fitted to an artificial eye and connected to the brain so that the blind eye can see. Furthermore, whatever that the eye with the miniature wireless camera saw, can be recorded and stored in a database.

Many Blessings.

[Rose]

Hi Rose,

A mark is a mark and a coin is a coin, the difference is very clear. If it is a coin why would the author of Revelation says it's a mark? I am sure he could differentiate that. The author of Revelation might as well said plainly that it is the Coin of the Beast rather than the Mark of the Beast. I wonder how people could etch a coin onto their forehead or their hand. If the mark is a coin or money, then all of us would have sinned as already we have used the mark and we would face untold punishments for having the mark. This was inclusive of the Apostles who would have used money with the head of Caesar inscribed in them (i.e. the 'mark") in their day to day living. Wonder how they would survive without using money?

The question here is whether the Mark of the Beast is literal or figurative. If it is a coin or money as you've said, then I am right, the Mark of the Beast is literal.

Regret Rose, it is difficult for me to accept your explanation... the mark is not coin or money; a mark is nothing but a mark = charagma.

Peace.
God Blessed.

Hi Cheow,

You never did respond to Richards post confirming my thoughts on the "Mark" being a "Coin".

Hi Cheow,

As it turns out, the word translated as "mark" (charagma) literally denotes money in certain contexts. Here is the definition from the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:

1. χάραγμα is an engraved, etched, branded, or inscribed “mark” or “sign.” Closest to the original sense of χαράσσω (→ line 17 f.; 418, 3ff.) is the earliest example in Soph. Phil., 267, where χάραγμα denotes the bite of a snake. Elsewhere the term means an “inscription,” e.g., Anth. Graec., 7, 220, 2, or anything written διὰ χαραγμάτων εὔχο[μαι], P. Lond., V, 1658, 8 (4th cent. a.d.), also the individual character τὰ χαράγματα χειρός, Anth. Graec., 9, 401, 3, and esp. the impressed, or imprinted “stamp,” e.g., a brand to mark camels, Pap. Grenfell, II, 50a, 5 (142 b.c.),1 or often an official stamp on writings, e.g., attested copies of documents, PreisigkeSammelbuch, I, 5231, 11; 5275, 11 (both 11 a.d.); 5247, 34 (47 a.d.),2 esp. the imperial stamp to attest the validity of decrees etc.3 χάραγμα (→ 418, 17 f.) can also mean the impress on coins, e.g., in Plut. Ages., 15 (I, 604c); De Lysandro, 16 (I, 442b); Apophth.Lac. Agesilaus, 40 (II, 211b) etc.; P. Oxy., I, 144, 6 (580 a.d.). Then it can mean “money” in general: ἢν μὲν γὰρ τὸ χάραγμα φέρῃς, φίλος· οὔτε θυρωρὸς ἐν ποσὶν οὔτε κύων· ἐν προθύροις δέδεται, Anth. Graec., 5, 30, 3 f. Soph.Sophocles, of Athens (496–406 b.c.), the real poet of the Athens of Pericles, ed. A. C. Pearson, 1924. Phil. Philo, of Alexandria (c. 20 b.c.–50 a.d.), ed. L. Cohn and P. Wendland. P. Lond. Greek Papyri in the British Museum, ed. F. G. Kenyon and others, 1893 ff. esp. especially. Pap. Papyrus, shortened to P. when specific editions are quoted. 1 Ed. B. P. Grenfell-A. S.Hunt, New Classical Fr. and Other Gk. and Lat.Pap. (1897). Cf. χαρακτήρ (→ 418, 17 f.). BGU, I, 88, 6 (147 a.d.). Preisigke F. Preisigke, Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten, 1915 ff. 2 On χάραγμα and πτῶμα in Pap. documents cf. J. C. Naber, “Observatiunculae ad papyros iuridicae,” APF, 1 (1901), 316–320. 3 These bear the year and the name of the reigning emperor, cf. Deissmann NB, 68–75; Deissmann LO, 289 f.Plut. Plutus. Ages. De Agesilao.

So there you have it ... the word that the Holy Scripture uses for "mark" can literally denote MONEY.

What do you think?

God Bless

Rose

[CWH]

Hi Rose ,

It is not necessary to answer to every question in this forum; silence does not mean consent.

Richard may have a point that the mark is money and money is related to the policy of "no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark of the Beast". Of course, I agree we cannot be serving both God and mammon.

But I believe the mark is more than just money. In all my posts in this thread, I was digging into the working mind of the Beast. What if I am the one to put a mark on everyone's forehead or right hand.....what is the rationale of the mark on the forehead and the right hand? What economic gains does he want from this "investment"? (It is not cheap to put a barcode or chip on everyone's forehead or right hand). What sentimental, religious, psychological or emotional values does the mark have on the Beast? What other functions does he want from the mark in order to get the most out of this "investment"? How does he ensure that the policy of "no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark" is strictly enforced? Why is the mark placed on the forehead and right hand and not other places on the body?

Let's think out of the box to understand more about the mark and the Beast by looking at other perspectives rather than just stick to the fixed idea that the mark is money or the mark is just a mark.

Peace.