jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (137 posts)

666: Mark of the Beast -- foretold in the Garden of Eden

  1. profile image56
    jah1zposted 5 years ago

    God said, "I will put enmity between thy seed and her seed. Thy shall bruise his heel and she shall bruise thy head."

    Many believers thought this prophecy was talking about Cain and his offspring, against Eve' offspring but that's contradictory in nature. Cain is also of Eve's offspring and those nation of people perished in the Great Flood.

    Now, let's look at why Eve wanted to eat the forbidden fruit. Eve had a desire to be wise, all-knowing and the fruit was "pleasant to the eyes." With that revelation, would come forth a nation of people who are wise in ways of theological, judgements and creation (inventions etc.). And they will be a pleasure (beauty) to look at.

    Does not the Caucasians people fit all those descriptions? So, it can be reasoned, God exact Eve's wishes as a punishment; that through her seed would be a nation that are wise, all-knowing and a beauty to behold but that seed will be "marked" from her natural seed. Thus the mark of the Beast.

    It is a "beast" because it is not a natural seed like the Black race but a seed, by way of deformity/mutation genes, morphed into a beauty and wise ---- befitting of Satan' stature. And it wasn't until the birth of Japheth that nation would come forth. Satan's seedline then became recognized in----

    600 B.C.
    6 nations of his (Japheth) posterity.
    6th patriarch son of civilization.


    Let he who has understanding count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a Man (Japheth) and his number is 666 (as illustrated above).

    1. profile image56
      jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      If those that are offended by my posts (this post is one of two that I posted deciphering the Beast and 666), let me know and I would remove it. I can't substantiate my interpretations as fact therefore I won't.

      I only want refutations, rebuttals to tested it against my theory for any..... falsification, for a lack of a word. Please know that I do not believe all Caucasians are "marked", only the non- believers (as well as any ethnicity/race) with a racial pride, that goes out their way to hate, lie, spread "untruths" about things that pertains to God and the scriptures of the Bible.

      For example; saying and believing things like,  Jesus is White, the Virgin Mary is White or our biblical forefathers are Whites....God hating blacks and only preserving the White ethnicity, misleading the scriptures to fit a White-identity, changing words in the Bible to "hide its' meaning" and preventing God children from knowing their history in this age and forward....an example of that, claiming Satan (in Revelation) is going after the Woman's "remnant" when in reality, that word is meant to be her "offspring." Or referring to the 12 stars as the "churches" when a church can't bring forth a nation of people or seedline.

      So rest assure, if you are not of that thinking, there is nothing to fear for being Caucasian.

    2. pennyofheaven profile image80
      pennyofheavenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting interpretation. Not quite getting it but...Are you saying that Eve was naturally black and all her seeds or the seeds of her seeds would be born white?  That whiteness or un-naturalness of the seed therefore is the mark of the beast?

      1. profile image56
        jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        It is scientifically proven that Modern Man is of African descent, or what the anthropology circles calls, the Negroid race. So, to answer your question, Eve most likely, was a dark-skinned woman....black.

        If Eve produced White children first, then all these anthropology findings would be in question, that originated the African Male as the Modern Human. The Caucasian Male is traced back to a common ancestry: African.

        Look at it another way, the White male have 10% of the neantheral genome but African males do not. Albinism is the closest link that connect the White Male to the African Male.

        In early civilization, if the White ethnicity were the original children of the earth, albinism would be non-existence. Then, you'd have to explain how Whites produced a Black people. This would corrupt the Laws of nature for it cannot be done.

        However, Black parents can produce albino children. In turn, albino children can maintain that line of "absence pigmentation," and couple with climate conditions (ice age...glaciers..cold) can modify itself to what we have as the modern-day Caucasian people.

        Having said that....you can begin to see that when Eve received her punishment for eating the forbidden fruit, part of her punishment didn't come until Japheth was born and thousand of years later to 600 B.C. With that span of time (thousands of years), is what it took to produce enough albino children's to mate with other albino children to bring about a nation if Caucasian people.

        1. Paul Wingert profile image80
          Paul Wingertposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          The "......Modern Man is of African descent" is the only thing you got correct. The rest is BS.

          1. kirstenblog profile image75
            kirstenblogposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Thank you!

          2. profile image56
            jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            If it is false, show me. Prove what I am saying is wrong. First, with scriptures and then with any scientific findings. If you say, "I don't believe in the Bible." Then very well, proceed with the anthropology findings and make the argument to disprove what I am saying.

            Waiting......

            1. Paul Wingert profile image80
              Paul Wingertposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Go read any book on human evolution from a credible source. A credible source would include something along the line of National Geographic, not something written by some Bible thumper who claims to be a “scientist”.

              1. Paul Wingert profile image80
                Paul Wingertposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Oh, about albinos, not BS,  any animal can produce one.

                1. profile image56
                  jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  .....yeah, from Black to White. Not White to Black.

              2. profile image56
                jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Paul, your rhetoric is empty. You just exposed yourself as a believer in God.

                You told me to read "human evolution  from a credible source."

                You believe in human evolution because it was told by someone else. And you believe in this "someone else" because it was a credible source."

                You believe this source is credible NOT because you was with the "source" to see with your own eyes what they saw but because they "said it."

                Then how much different are you from the rest of us believer that "said it" about the Bible?

                Those that wrote the Bible was THERE. They saw with their own eyes what was going on. I wasn't there but I see enough proof through prophecies to believe them.

                The source you claim, likewise, you was not there but you "believe" them according to your understanding of what's a "credible source." Again, you are no different than all the Believers. What you doing is garnering attention for yourself just because you can.

                If a glass fall on the floor and one person (me) saw this happened while 3 other persons came to the scene to question what happened, you would be one of those 3, dis-believing my account of what happened.

                I can say, "the glass fell on the floor." And you say, "you lair....prove it."
                I then say, "I saw it fall to the floor."

                You would say, " yeah, yeah...and I saw Mickey Mouse slap a woman."

                So long as I can't re-create the event in reality so you can see that it fell, you would have the outing to claim otherwise, and profit yourself to look like some Intelligent Guru when you aren't.  That's what Atheist do. It's easy to do what you do. Just keep denying because you know they can't recreate the actual event to prove it happened --- and I suppose you get a helleva kick out of it......makes for good laughing at the believer but you are Believer, sir.

                That much is clear!

                1. Paul Wingert profile image80
                  Paul Wingertposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Nowhere did I say I believed in a god. So Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were actually there when Jesus was born, being challenged by Satan, questioned by Pilate, etc. Or were they just passing along a good story? To follow the Bible as historical fact is rediculous. You or anyone else have no idea what these ancient writers actually meant when they, or someone, else wrote that stuff.

                  1. profile image56
                    jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    I didn't say, you said you believe in God. I'm TELLING YOU you are a Believer, by the way you regard "credible sources" without being there to see it with your own eyes to officially believe it after being there to witness it.

                    And the Disciples was there, just like your "credible source" of people was there to produce that "credible source" that you came to believe, without ever being there with them to see it for your self.

                    So why are you persecuting the Believers, Paul? You, also, is a Believer.

                2. cheaptrick profile image74
                  cheaptrickposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I've been reading along this thread in amazement,to much to correct and I don't really care either way...but I DO know This!
                  Micky NEVER slapped ANYONE!so don't be dragging my role model into this!
                  Leave the Disney characters Alone!
                  You DON'T want to deal with a pissed off Goofy;He's worse than the beast when he gets like that.
                  You've been warned...
                  Signed-"Minny"of the Mouse Clan.[I'm just her mouth piece}

                  1. profile image56
                    jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Comedic relief in its finest! Do participate, sir. I delight to hear what must be corrected in my interpretation...even if you have to dirty me up with a bloody nose, Welcome.

                    (By the way, Mickey Mouse is to be respected, per your sake!)

        2. pennyofheaven profile image80
          pennyofheavenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I still don't see what race has to do with it in the grand scheme of things. Whether scientifically proven or not it has the least to do with anything.One can make the mark of the beast mean almost anything they want to believe within the parameters and frames of references one might have. However when one focuses on race alone it demonstrates one who only looks at the pure physicality of our existence and not the non physical states that we are also. Physically we would not exist without the non physical states and vice versa. Meaning we cannot have one without the other. Therefore it makes no sense to focus on either or.

          Gaining more understanding or if not that exploring both states might bring more insight into our existence. Negating one for the other isn't useful.

          1. getitrite profile image79
            getitriteposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks for the more positive view. smile

            1. pennyofheaven profile image80
              pennyofheavenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Thanks for viewing it positively.

        3. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I think it's time to stop attempting to obtain wisdom from the bible. Very simple science and evolution explains white skin. Certainly we came from Africa and from people with dark skin. However dark skinned people living farther away from the equator can't produce enough vitamin D from the lack of sun light. What would naturally happen over time is the lighter skinned people would be stronger in a more northern environment and over many many generations lighter skinned people would be the norm. You will notice traveling north through Europe lighter skinned people are farther north. Italy is a great example. People are fairly dark skinned in the south and blond and blue eyed in the north.

          Trying to link albino-ism with whites is ridicules. You seem to be bordering on racism.

          1. profile image56
            jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            This is the dilemma with Caucasian thinkers. The very attitude that you display, by calling someone a racist because you disagree with the results, is the very kind of bias-thinking that have whitewash many histories from many nations and tongues. So long as "their" truth" isn't told by anyone else outside of them.

            Of course you dont bother to check findings, studies by scientists and anthropologists that actually proven albinism is a closet link from the African parents to a Caucasian person.

            Because it may be offensive, does not make one a racist. Truths are Truths and if they can be backed up by the academic circles of credible sources, your accusations becomes quite premature, silly, idiotic, and lacking of being "informed."

            Besides that, I do agree Caucasians are more strong in their Northern regions of their countries and also response favorably to the cold. I believe I mentioned this in one of my comments.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              A white person is not an African albino. I think that is what you are saying an it is absurd. Albino-ism happens to whites as well as other mammals.

              Rasism is when you make an assumption about someone based of the colour of their skin or the shape of there eyes.

              Caucasians are better adapted to less sunlight. Cold weather has nothing to do with that. The Canadian and Russian people of the far north are much better adapted to cold the Europeans.

              Try not to make sense of the bible by attempting to connect it to science.

              1. profile image56
                jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Radman, you continue to make yourself look foolish. Look, dude....I do not hate you, okay? I love you as a fellow man. You are still God's creation, okay? Think not I have some sort of racial agenda, okay? Get past looking at racism and google: Albinism and Caucasian Origin, or any key-words together.

                You just define racism but falsely apply it to me when there is verifiable proof that albinism is the closest link between the Africa Male and the Caucasian Male. Think about this....it is a scientific fact, and proven that the African male are the Modern Humans and that all ethnicity descent from the African Male.

                There are white posters on this very post that believes as well. So, with that fact in mind, there's no way you can turn around and deny every link and association from the African male to the Caucasian male and leave it "blank" to give it the thought that, there's no link between the two. This type.of thinking and mindset is in fact a Racist, sir.

                You have no evidence to the contrary to refute the facts I am using. You gauging your own thoughts, desires and opinions ---- the same stuff that got Eve in trouble, you are guilty of now. So, repent, sir!

                Stop making stuff up. Read more. Research the truth and be informed.

                1. psycheskinner profile image79
                  psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  No, it isn't.  White people are not albino back people by any stretch of the imagination. The closest link would be with leucism but even that would be a surface similarity.

                  1. profile image56
                    jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Oh, Woman, how hast thou fallen! Come back to the Truth! O foolish generation, do not thy consider the foundation of the Earth and Mother Nature in all her splendid glory according to the Laws of Nature?

                    Bask in the light of Truth. Remember not, your former estate for you are in the Light and the Light is Truth. Consider this, Woman!

                2. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm not denying all humans came out of Africa. It is ludicrous to suggest that all white people are just albino Africans. I'm not offended by it at all, a little embarrassed that in this day an age a fellow human would state such ignorance is more what I feeling.

                  1. profile image56
                    jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    It's ignorance to you because you don't know the truth, nor your history. I can see you think of albinism in the earliest stage from the Black parents where the skin looks milk-white and brown freckles over the body or powder-white and reddish underneath.

                    That was the earliest stage. The gradual stages went to red hair, blonde hair to the disappearance of the freckles and the "beauty" of Caucasians more enhanced. I wish had all the links where it shows these stages. It quite mother-nature-ish how it happens to see the stages of albinism from Asia Manor to Europe....and how Black Chinese looked like modern day Chinese.

                    I was in awe like anything I've ever seen. It's truly a work of nature. And you seem.to be embarrassed by it. Smh....it's quite beautiful how Mother Nature show her splendor through the Laws of Nature. Nothing to be ashamed about.

                    I know there are many of you angry with my commentary. That's alright. If I know it is the truth, it does not matter. The more you keep propping this post up the forum, the more I'm gonna keep flooding you with the Truth. Lest you think your own powers as a board community can control Man in the light of Truth.

                    Understand this!

    3. AEvans profile image70
      AEvansposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No. The mark of the 'Beast' is not based on color. Cain, Abel, Jesus, Moses, etc. all came from the Middle East. I don't believe anyone was Caucasian thousands of years ago.

      The Mark of the 'Beast' could be technology. Fingerprinting through work, credit cards, people are numbered with the mark. (666) are numbers. Think of numbers that are given to everyone, SSN's how sublimal? Credit cards the World loves them. Bank accounts; but the worse is clocking in with the eye and prints. Now that is truly big brother watching. Our World knows how to sell it and people buy it.

      So whatever the mark could be, its not color.

      1. profile image61
        Robertr04posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Great thoughts.

      2. jacharless profile image78
        jacharlessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Mathematics the Beast? Not buying it.
        Those numbers represent symbols -glyphs, semiotics.
        Vav, Broken Vav, the Tent Peg.
        Three elements of a man -for it IS MANS numeric, 666.

        Gen 1.1 heaven-earth united: Vav (6).
        Vav is the uniting force of Creator, the hook so to speak.
        The symbol 6 is often noted in fishing and staying a tent.
        The direct center of Torah is an oversize Vav (6), uniting both the law and prophets.

        First was the vav unbroken (6), then came the vav broken (6) then came the vav restored (6) and after came zayin, the crowned vav, yashur: unhindered light between man & Creator. it is also known as the two edged sword.

        Please Think...

        1. profile image61
          Robertr04posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          OK James you got me. I thought she was referring to the mark, not the beast itself. I am not familiar with the terminolgy you are using, please break it down.  I have heard of all she mentions as possibilities and more.

          1. jacharless profile image78
            jacharlessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            In Hebrew the "numeric" six -actually, all the numbers- represent pictographs or glyphs. They are not written in typical numeric {1,2,3,4,5,6} but in glyph form, which is very important. In Gen 1.1 during the Vav Day {6th of Days} MAN was created, unifying heaven-earth. The Day Zayin {7th of Days} follows. Some refer Zayin as Zion also. Zayin is the crowned or perfected Vav.

            This is also seen a the spike or tent peg, as in the Peg of the Tabernacle, which united the air with the earth -often said heaven-earth. The Cross is also a symbolized by Vav. The Sword is also symbolized by the restored or perfected Vav, which is Zayin. The Hook symbolizes plucking man out from the ocean, as in "Follow, and I make you the fishers {The Hooks} of men".

            The "number" of said "beast" is MANS number.
            Man was perfect, man was broken, man was restored.
            Vav (6) Broken vav (6) Restored Vav (6) = 666

            "All sin was placed upon the broken Vav between heaven-earth. The peg driven into the earth, as the sword piercing the depth of the heart. The blood of the Spirit poured down and into the earth, cleansed it from iniquity. The Water of Life washed the memory of it away. The Vav restored, renewed with endless Life."

            Zayin (7) or crowned Vav, Sword {of Spirit} where the light from heaven pierces the earth to its core and that energy flows between them, without restriction.

            Just after this "chapter" we see vividly, the Crowned Zayin and the explanation of the renewed {all things made new} heaven-earth once more. Even the memory of the old is washed away...

            1. profile image61
              Robertr04posted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Kabalah, numerolgy, mysticism, and Talmud all teach the things you have mentioned. It's amazing men can look at the 'vav' (no such letter exists in the true language) and unlock the mysteries of the universe, but can't look at HWHY and see Yahuah. I find no other way to say it, pure witchcraft, unfortunately, many have gone astray after it.

              1. jacharless profile image78
                jacharlessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Odd, because the letter actually appears in the aleph-bet.
                Not as the Anglo "v" but with the sound of "w".
                But, I guess it is not apart of their language.
                Maybe all my Hebrew friends, their teachers and rabbis are liars.

                Perhaps you are familiar with chipor and hipuch?
                No? It's okay, you bible scholars correct us. Thanks.

                Besides that, what do you think Revelation is all about? War, death, destruction of Humanity in the most gruesome way? Beasts and fake demons/devils/satans, digital microchips {only added in the last 80 years to the story} ?

                The entire thing is written based on pictorials to explain, in very graphic language, the sum-substance of the Reversal of Adamic Inception and the consequence before and after. Are you making the chibur yet? If not, please read chapter one, verse one, line one of the letter.

                Not only do the Hebrews accept vav in their tradition and their mysticism -both, but so do Eastern Orthodox and Gnostic.

                James.

                1. profile image61
                  Robertr04posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  No James, not odd at all. As I stated above 'vav' is not a letter of the true Hebrew language. The true Hebrew language had no vowel points. The Masoretes added vowel points in the 9th cent. and man has polluted and corrupted the language, making up words and changing the meaningsof words. This is a prime example. The people you are calling your Hebrew friends and rabbis, teachers etc. I will not call them liars, but if it is permitted on Hp... The main theme of this thread is to show you who is who. The imposters in the land called Israel are Ashkenazi and they took over the land from other imposters, the Edomites (Sephardim's) and their faith was closer to ancient Israel of the bible than the Ashkenazi, many researchers believed them to be the true Israelites.  The Arabs in the Middle East have said countless times that the Ashkenazi are not the Hebrews of the bible- the Sephardim are. Many bible scholars are starting to echo this and reason is, the Edomites have laid claim on Israels substance (Obad.1:13), which is their (Israel) history and heritage which was foretold by Obadiah.  When the Ashkenazi came into the land in 1948 they were only doing to Edom what Edom had done to Israel. This is another story. What you speak of comes from the Talmud, a true book of corrupt and disgraceful....I will not bore the public with proof of this because of the space, but what the heck, why not let them view some of the wackiness some call truth. Talmud, est. range of dating: 188-217AD,CE. primary source of Jewish law, to cut it short. This book is held higher than scriptures in some forms of Judaism, this is stated in the Talmud.Erubin216(sonicins edition): "My son, be more careful in the obsevance of the words of the scribes than in the worda of the Torah (OT)." This book is a collection of rabbinic writings. Jes say these writings are the oral law of Israel, everything Moses didn't write down on Mt. Sinai is said to be in the Talmud. Ex.: How to slaughter animals etc. That's strange because no where in the scriptures do we see any mention of of Talmud or oral law. Oral law is anothet name the Jews use for Talmud. The laws Moses got from Yahuah were written down. Check this out; Moed Katian17a: If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do it there. Penalty  for disbelieving rabbis. Erubin216, Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell. Hitting a Jew can be serious. Sanhedrine 58b, if a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed. Funny, Jews are gentiles also. OK to cheat non Jews. Sanhedrine 57a, a Jew need not pay a gentile the wages owed him for work. Baba Kamma 37b, if an ox of a Jew gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability, but if an ox of a Canaanite gores the ox of a Jew...the payment is to be in full. The Talmud is where the so called racist curse of Ham started. The Talmud says black people are cursed with black skin because Nosh cursed his sn Ham on the ark. That is non scriptual. Tanakh like Talmud and Judaism is not mentioned in scriptures, the reason being they are all words created by unlearned Gentiles who call themselves Jews. There are several branches of Judaism, conservative , reformed, Orthodox and Hassic. All the sects use the Talmud in higher esteem than the scriptures. Kosher is a word the Jews created that many think is the proper Hebrew term for clean meat. Kosher refers to how the animal is slaughtered and how the majority of the blood is drained. They have kosher pigs, n fact the state of Israel has one of the largest pig farms in the world. And they claim to follow Turah!  These are just a few things that I bring to the fore front and you say you believe what they might say, about what? You have only repeated what you were told with no scriptural backing, from a people who know no scripture. What you have presented is not of the Hebrew scripture. But hey James, I can only do the same. I can give you what I believe to be one of many descriptions of what people say the mark and the beast is. I am not a bible scholar, just someone who continually seeks His word. Others may find my thoughts on this matter and where and from whom I get my info from  as ridiculous as I find where and who you get yours from. Shalum

                  1. jacharless profile image78
                    jacharlessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Actually, the definition of kosher is to be proper or what is proper. smile

            2. pennyofheaven profile image80
              pennyofheavenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              That makes sense.

  2. kirstenblog profile image75
    kirstenblogposted 5 years ago

    Are you aware that graves have been found for the first humans to have left africa with horrible cases of rickets, which deformed their bones? They were unable to absorb enough sunlight in the cooler climates of europe and asia and this lead to dangerous health problems. Some scientists believe the evidence strongly suggests that in fact one woman held the gene that would allow colour pigmentation in the skin to lighten the skin so as to absorb more sunlight and the vitamins needed to prevent rickets. They go so far as to say it was likely to be one single individual with this gene that would allow the colour of skin to lighten that they call 'eve' that is why humans actually successfully made it out of africa. I don't get how they can say it's down to one individual, why not a few? But that seems like semantics to me, the point is the ability for skin colour to lighten is the reason why we don't all still live in africa only.

    Even today many of the afro-caribean populations here in europe are having huge problems with rickets simply because they are unaware that their skin is not able to absorb the vitamins they need and when their children are born they are increasingly being born with rickets. A simple supplement could fix this problem.

    Mark of the beast? Give me a break! We would not be the species we are today if not for our diversity. We simply would not have survived and may well have gone extinct already.

    1. profile image56
      jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Wow, and you actually believe that? Please, let me add to that. It is Melanin that the true source to survive the sun rays. Do you ever wonder why Whites use sunscreen in the heat? It is to prevent fro. sunburn. Black people have no need of that for their skins naturally produce melanin. The blacker they are the more fit they are for nature climate in all region of the globe.

      Do you know why Caucasians brought African slaves to America and forced them to work the ground? It's not because Whites were lazy but they lack the Melanin to get out there in the fields to do work under extreme heat. Their body is inferior for labor in that regard.

      The Caucasian skin can get burnt to the point the skin peels itself off. This is not befitting of a Modern Human or for the Garden of Eden to work the field like God instructed. If Eve was White, she would have died from a lack of Melanin....especially after God kick then out of the Garden of Eden.

      You should read what some of the early Historians of Rome said about the rising of Caucasian people in that time, (63 B.C.). They explained the weakened state of albinos (Caucasians early parents), and the widespread of rickets among them.

      There is no vitamin, source or whatever to make one of a darker complexion to be "white" to take in the sun light. That is a lie told to you. Melanin is that source to ward against extreme sun rays UV radiation etc. This is why the Caucasian ethnicity got to tanning booths or tan themselves because they need the "Melanin" wish they aren't getting.

      Just know that black people need no source of sunscreen or tanning or tanning booth to produce Melanin. We are natural, Modern Human made for planet Earth. The indigenous of planet Earth before any other ethnicity. This is truth. Not fiction.

      1. kirstenblog profile image75
        kirstenblogposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Did you read what I posted????
        It would seem not, for I wasn't talking about man living in climiates like you find in Africa, I was talking about man living in climates like you find in Europe. You might want to try reading properly if you wish any credibility at all.

        1. profile image56
          jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Ma'am...the reason the "lighter pigmentation of people" migration to Asia Manor to Europe is to escape the harsh sunlight-lit region of Africa to Israel. They lacked Melanin.....your early Albino ancestors lack Melanin which forced them out of the biblical land and it's also rooted in prophecies that it happened that way. The 666: Mark of the beast was to originate from that region.

          As I stated, I'm only telling you the truth. Not to misunderstood you. I understand you just fine but your reasoning is what I question.....like rickets and the need to be light in pigmentation. Whoever told you that lied to you ma'am. That's all I'm saying.

          1. kirstenblog profile image75
            kirstenblogposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I could argue the science of genetics, give you the timelines for when mutations to genes started to occur, first making skin darker then lighter, but whats the point?

            At the end of the day you claim your man made book is truth, I see absolutely no proof that it should be treated as any more truthful then a harry potter book.
            So long as you will insist that this book is to be taken as truthful we will not be talking anywhere near on the same level.
            I think the book is a bunch of stories that if it is suggested they be taken literally as historical accounts, its a book of lies.
            No flood could completely cover the earth, everest and other mountain ranges make it physically impossible. To cover the earth Noah and his family would have had to be surviving at an altitude we call the death zone, because thats the altitude where you can easily die. Then you have the problem of inbreeding that the bible seems to be full of, both adam and eve and the story of noah cannot see mankind surviving without inbreeding, which causes all sorts of problems. The bible as well as every other religious text out there is full of the same inconsistencies and holes that show the writers had little understanding of the world they lived in and sure where not being inspired by something that did.

            1. profile image56
              jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              There is no scientific finding you will show me that a dark-skinned, black person, all of a sudden became a White-skinned person. The day that happens is the day I'd stop believing in the Laws of Nature and ready to join with the Atheists.

              And as I told another person, you're free to believe what you want to believe. That's the good thing about God. He gives of free-will. Cool, isn't it?

        2. Paul Wingert profile image80
          Paul Wingertposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          @ kirstenblog - Rickets is caused by malnutrition and too much sunlight, mostly found in children.

  3. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago

    Gasp!  Another uneducated anonymous bible thumping troll.  I'm astonished!  I wonder how long this one will survive?lol

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

    1. getitrite profile image79
      getitriteposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I think maybe this will shine some light on this nonsense:

      http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i … dy-for-war

      1. profile image56
        jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        The B.H.I. are hypocrites and I'm saying this as a Black man myself. I do not subscribe to their nonsense. Who gave them authority to speak abominable things not taught in the Bible? Some of them believe they have a divine right to rape a hateful white woman and cuss with foul-language at those that doesn't agree with their views.

        One of those brothers think he got a calling to spread the truth about the descendant of Ancient Hebrew Israelites as he travel from town to town impregnate his girlfriends and leave his children fatherless. When a reporter question him on it, he spew nonsense about keeping in contact with them via phone while he's with yet, another woman, doing the same thing he did to his children' mother. Such a brother need to be rebuke, brought down low in humility for his nonsense.

        These speak half truths and not understanding the very truths they are violating! One brother spoke against eating pork and he's telling the reporter why the Hebrew black brother shouldn't eat pork while he's slurping on noodles!! Wow! Smh.

    2. profile image56
      jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Randy, be great. Explain what you disagree with in my interpretation and I'll be great in clarifying what I mean. Calling me a troll and uneducated..... wow. Be great, my man.

  4. jacharless profile image78
    jacharlessposted 5 years ago

    Did I miss something, what does having four kids with rickets and no fresh milk have to do with Eve's curse/blessing of intelligent offspring? I know plenty of non-Caucus people who are extremely inventive, intellectual, crafty/wise and such.

    The region suggests deep tanned skin, yes -I mean it IS the Middle East, you know, half desert, half forest. As for "African" descent, nearly half of all "Africans" are not extremely dark skinned. The darkest complected people are predominantly on the equatorial fault, across the world, closest to rain forest areas, extending from Chile to Indonesia.

    Complexion Chart

    The "enmity" placed between is identical to the term ha-satan: to be in constant opposition to; to deter from; annoy; hinder. The heel-head show this. The heel of a person is very sensitive, and if speared by "fangs" and injected with venom, would disable the person from walking, even moving. And the heel is also very strong and can crush things under foot, suggesting the soft-head of a serpent could be destroyed by a strike from the heel. This is the battle of Reason v Spirit.

    And the whole numeric "6" thing is still being misinterpreted. COMBINED the three elements form the mark of said beast WHICH IS HUMANITY. So, it might be best if folks found out what those three "6" represent.

    James.

    1. profile image56
      jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      James, the enmity meant to have "mutual dislike" of one another or a mutual feeling to feel hatred from the other. And you're right that there are intelligent, inventive people of all tongues and nationality but who's at the very top, on a large scale? The Caucasians ( that includes the Asians too).

      1. jacharless profile image78
        jacharlessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        The mutual dislike is simply because knowledge tries to rule or dictate wisdom/spirit, which it cannot; nor was it designed to. This is ha-satan: the adversary; what some deem as an entity called Satan (which it is not). The sting of the serpent is death, but often its poison takes a long time to kill. I vaguely remember the story, but recall the voice in her head saying, "If you eat of this, you will not die; you will be like Creator, knowing the things of consciousness {right-wrong} -that is Reason.

        Reason was essentially beneath the human being. A being created beyond reason with power and ability to be and do without hindrance. Reason stopped that ability and rendered man an amnesiac. He immediately forget who he was and was bombarded by the trillions of thoughts/processes in him. Processes genetically programmed into him, so he would not have to be concerned with them.

        What was on top of the staff of Moshe but a serpent.
        "And as Moshe lifted up the serpent in the desert, so also the Son of MAN will be lifted up. The serpent is not evil, it is something much different...

        1. profile image56
          jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Interesting viewpoint. You're grounded in the physical realm in how you see it. And the Carnal Mind is what you see instead of a mythical creature called the Serpent/Satan.

          If "enmity" is to be Reason vs. Spirit, then how is it that the "reason" will be a seed and produce a nation of people as a "reason" beings?? It doesn't digest. For that seed comes from Eve, and are "humans" with 5 senses, just like Eve' modern, natural seed.

          Thus the "reason" part wouldn't be the proper analogy to use in my opinion. God put an enmity between two seedlines to be a contrast in nature, for the war in Heaven rested on that event (the enmity) when Michael and his Angels fought Satan and his Angels.

          It wasn't within "reasonings" they were fighting over. It was truths and the dislikes of each others.

          1. jacharless profile image78
            jacharlessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Truths and dislikes come from Reason and nowhere else. It was in fact Reason they were fighting over and have been for thousands of years. One sides reason being supreme to the other sides. That and who can build the best toys.

            PS, might want to reverse your statement of me "You're grounded in the physical realm in how you see it." That would be just the opposite. The "carnal" mind is reason -self imposed reason. And, sorry to say this, but we are apart of the physic world as much as the sub physic and supra physic. else, humans are nothing more than talking monkeys...

            James

            1. profile image56
              jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Im still having a hard time seeing it that way. To be in "reason" is more geared "to compromise" in a situation to be bad and good, positive and negative.... to find a balance or an "optimal" where there is disagreement.

              To take that and apply it to the "enmity" between one seedline and the other, does not digest. Michael and angels and Satan and angels was not trying to find a compromise, a balance.....or neutral position where both sides can agree on.

              They were in total dislike of the other because of the "truths." One, was lying. The other was showing evidence to the contrary. Thus was a fight over "truths" not reasons.

              1. jacharless profile image78
                jacharlessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Beyond reason is beyond the necessity to decide. It is called Free Will.
                Good-bad, right-wrong are all the same: elements of Reason known as choice.
                Enmity refers to balance yes, as neither side can destroy the other, without destroying themselves in the process. There is no complete understanding of truth in Reason. This is the Battlefield, the mind -the consciousness- brought on by the indulgence of knowledge instead of a complete stasis of understanding.

                Enmity: The state or feeling of being actively opposed { ha-satan } or hostile toward someone or something; adversity; acrimony; bitter language; verbal dispute; argument; accusation;

                "there will always be enmity between atheist and theist. As there is competition between sisters. But, they are still sisters, regardless."


                PS, As for the story of Michal, you misunderstand this story, as most do. It says they fought a dragon, not an entity named Satan or the Devil. What's more, to understand what John's Letter is a direct culmination of -front to back- is to read the opening line of that letter. To further assist, glance again @ Chapter 20.5-6 and ask yourself when did this event occur. it sheds much light on the entire thing.

                James.

                1. profile image56
                  jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  James, the definition you provided on Enmity closely relates to how I explained it. It's a battle of good and evil precieve from both sides. Now, you have to add the element of "seedlines" and it take it away from just "reasoning."

                  As I stated, "reason" is not a seedline that can come forth as a nation of people. This was a battle between two groups of beings; Michael and his angels fought Satan and his angels......over "truths." Not reasoning.

                  Reasoning is just a way of thinking as you eloquently explained. This was not the battle. It was Lies vs. Truths. You can't "reason" a lie to be "good," if that's what Satan was trying to accomplished. You can't "reason" truths to be good either. A lie is a lie, the truth is the truth. Anything beyond that is incomprehensible. Void....makes no sense.

                2. profile image56
                  jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Forgot to add....the fight Michael and his angels were involved in, was with Satan (the Dragon). Satan was telling God how God's people were at fault about something (violations of some kind). And Michael was showing evidence of all the innocent humans he killed by illustrating the blood of those slain. This is why when Satan was casted down to Earth, the Heavens rejoiced "over their brothers' accurser." You see, Satan was making lies to get them condemn to some sort of eternal, everlasting condemnation.

                  This battle was not centered around "reasonings" as you are trying to see. It's Truths vs. Lies, with one group accusing the other in truth and the other group accusing the other in lies.

                  And what's done in Heaven is done on earth. A parallel. As the Lord's prayer testimony, "Our Father, which art in Heaven. Hallows be thy name. Thy Kingdom come, ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN..."

                3. profile image61
                  Robertr04posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Hello James. The Book clearly states the dragon is satan, the devil Rev.20:2. It also represents the kingdom that tried to kill baby Yahusha (Jesus) Rev.12:3-5. Rev.19:15,16 shows us that the "Man Child" was the Mashyach (Messiah). Rev.20 5.6 happens at the second coming.

                  1. jacharless profile image78
                    jacharlessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Um, no. It happened when Mary fled to Egypt...
                    For it is written, "Out of Egypt I called to my loins {son}".
                    And it is Moshiach not Mashyach.
                    Rev 20.5-6

                    "and this is the first resurrection. Blessed are those who have a place at the first resurrection, the second death has no authority in them."

                    So, there is no possible way, on Gods green earth this has anything to do with a 2nd Coming, when the passage clearly states -twice in the same sentence- it was the first Resurrection. This means everything before this relates to the events leading up to the first Resurrection in human history. The following chapter relates directly to the Kingdom of Heaven within. "I will dwell in them and be their Abba." what's more is the first line of the book: This is the Revealing of Y`shua Moshiach." The revealing of the entire sum-substance of the Work.

                    Sorry to say, paganism has you. Same thing happened to the Kaftor, so don't be upset. Be open to the Spirit, yes?

                  2. profile image56
                    jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Jacharless is right. Egypt/Kemet.

                  3. profile image56
                    jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    It was the man child in a "second coming." It IS Jesus.

                    Jesus second coming will not be by birth again but in the clouds. Read the beginning of Revelation.

                    "Behold, He comes in the clouds."

                    I think Jesus's second coming will be in the Spirit.....force of nature: thundering, volcano eruptions powerful gush of winds, earth quakes etc.

        2. pennyofheaven profile image80
          pennyofheavenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Well said.

  5. MelissaBarrett profile image59
    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

    Oh good.

    Someone else gets to be a racist/sexist/bigot because of biblical interpretation.

    The twist is different on this one though... two thumbs way up.

    I've seen two black parents produce children ranging from near-white complexion all the way to dark ebony.  I suppose the light children had the mark of the beast.

    Leaving my oldest son...(who is bi-racial so obviously the least evil) out of the mix...my own Caucasian children range between light brown and snow-lily white.  Is the whitest the most evil naturally?  The naturally darkest of my white children burns though and the lightest tans... is that a sign that she is savable and the darkest white child is doomed for hell regardless?

    I'm so confused...

    Where does sunblock come into this?  Is it an abomination?

    And I'm Italian... does that mean I'm only half beast?  I'm kinda light complected for an Italian but I do have an olive undertone to my skin.  So does being slightly green enhance my chances of getting into heaven?

    1. profile image56
      jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Melissa, bless your heart ma'am, but don't be ignorant. You're taking what I'm saying totally out of proportion. The Caucasian skin is the identifying mark only IF they are NON-BELIEVERS WITH A RACIAL PRIDE, BENT ON HATE, LIES (just like the Father of Lies -- Satan) AND BELIEVING SCRIPTURES TO MEAN THINGS THAT PROFITS THE CAUCASIAN ETHNICITY WHEN IT CLEARLY DOESN'T SUPPORT THEIR VIEWS.

      An example for that is when the entire scientific community have proven and substantiated the fact that Modern Human is the African male, or the Black male and yet, Caucasians still have the audacity to believe in a White Adam and Eve. A White Jesus, a White 12 tribes of Israel when all these people are proven to be Black or dark-skinned.

      So why do they persist in spreading lies and untruths? This is what it means to have the mark of the beast. It also can applies to Blacks as well as any other nationality/ethnicity that operates with the same "racist mentality" and spreading lies. So, all the people of planet Earth have to be careful here.

      Another thing to consider....Cain had a "mark" about him. How? The Bible didn't say except to say, "God put a mark about Cain lest anyone find him, shall kill him." It didn't say, "God put a mark "on" Cain..." Now, did it?

      Cain went on to erect a city in his sons name but the people knew of the "mark" set about Cain. They knew what he did. And what he did was based on hating, jealousy, lying. That was the mark. God asked Cain about his brother and he lied saying, how should I know. Am I my brother's keeper? That was, lying!

      Therefore, that was his mark for, before that, there was no "lying" between Abel, Adam or Eve. And when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and God asked them about it, they didn't lie. They spoke the truth what happened so, "lying" hasn't entered the world yet until Cain came.

      This is to clarify on the mark of the beast. It doesn't meant that because you are born Caucasian, you automatic the mark of the beast. No, it have to meet other conditions as I explained. However, the Caucasian ethnicity is the ethnicity of the mark of the beast. And to have this mark, is to do those things I explained in my posts.

      1. profile image61
        Robertr04posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Hello jah1z. Depending on which bible you read. I've got four in front of me that say the mark is on or upon him (Qyn/Cain) and the KJV is one of them, assuming you are using the KJV for your illustration. There are other views of the mark that you might want too consider before laying yourself out so thin.

        1. profile image56
          jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Deleted

          1. profile image56
            jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Deleted

            1. profile image61
              Robertr04posted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Slow down man. I never said Cain had anything to do with the mark.  The JP Green interlinear  bible gives you the word in Ancient Hebrew, Greek, and English. The KJV is translated from modern Hebrew?Yiddish at best. There is a BIG difference. Getting the word from the original language compared to a polluted and corrupt translation makes a world of difference. But enough of that. A beast in prophecy can mean a kingdom, a nation, a power. Dan.12:23 tells us that, so we are in agreement. A beast coming out of the "sea" represents a power rising in a highly populated area; amid peoples, and multitudes. and nations, and tongues, we agree there. Now using the beast in Rev. it is one that would have to conquer the existing government. This beast has 7 heads and 10 horns. A head represents the headquarters of the government. A horn represents a king, a ruler. The beast is a power with a man at the head of it. For the sake of time I'm skipping over some things I don't think are needed. A woman represents the church 2 Cor.11:2. A corrupt woman is used to represent an apostate or corrupt church Ezk.23:2-4, Rev.17:3-6,15,18. By parity of reasoning, a pure woman, as in this instance (Rev.12) would represent the true church. The sun here signifies the light and glory of the gospel era. The moon is the symbol of the Mosiac period. As the moon shines with a borrowed light derived from the sun, so the former era shone with a light borrowed from the present. There they had the type and shadow, here we have the antitype and the substance. A crown of 12 stars appropriately symbolizes the 12 apostles. A great red dragon represents pagan Rome. Heaven is the space which this representation was seen by the apostle. We are not to suppose that the scenes here presented to John took place in heaven where Yahuah resides, for they are events which occured upon earth. This vision which passed before the eye of the prophet, appeared as if in the region occupied by the sun, moon, and stars, which we speak of as heaven. Verses 1,2 cover a period of time beginning just previous to the opening of the Christian era,, when the church was earnestly longing for and expecting the reappearance of Machyach, and extending to the full establishment of the gospel church with its crown of 12 apostles." And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to earth."  After all of the above we see that that woman is not Mary. The next woman spoke about in the chap. is Mary. If the 12 stars which the woman is crowned with denote the 12 apostles, then the stars thrown down by the dragon before his attempt to destroy the man child, or before the ChristianEra, may denote a part of the rules of the Hebrew people or fallen angels. The dragon stood before the woman. The man child is easily identified as Yahusha. No other one has been caught up to Yahuah and His throne, but He who has been exalted Eph.1:20,21, Heb.8:1, Rev.3:21. No one else has received commission from Yahuah to rule all nations with a rod of iron, but He who has been appointed to this work Ps.2:7-9. The time to which the propehcy refers is evident, the time of His birth. The red dragon also represents a kingdom thru whom satan works to destroy the Machyach at His birth. Who made the attempt? Herod, who was employed and a representitive of Rome. Now I have brought you up to verse 6. Then the woman fled into the wilderness. Mary and Joseph took Yahusha to Egypt. Now this is a very important moment. You must ask yourself this question. How does a Caucasian family hide from a Roman governor (Herod) in a black nation ruled by the Romans. It would have been no big deal for Herod to ask if they had fled there. They would have stuck out like a sore thumb.  Moses and Joseph  lived in a black mans palace (pharoah), here again in black nation, for 40yrs and no one could tell them apart from the Egyptians. Paul and his entourage were mistaken for Egyptians. jah1z, you are about 1500 yrs to soon with the trans Atlantic slave movement to The United States with the Hebrews and if you wish I can prove it to you. The mark is not the Caucasians or any peoples for that matter. Yahuah doesn't ask that you have white, black, yellow, or red skin. He asks for obedience.

              1. profile image56
                jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Robert, you missing critical points here. First of all, the Torah bible or the 1769 KJV are NOT written by Yiddish. Do you know who the Yiddish people are?

                They are the Edomites....the modern-day Khazars, the current people living in Israel. Fake Jews...and the facts the descendants of the Hebrew Israelites are not to be called a "Jew." They are Hebrews. The word "Jews" derives from Judah, the tribe of Judah that were the Judeans before Rome conquered them. I just want to clear that up before I begin. And the Yiddish practice Judaism and follow the Talmud ----- something the Hebrew people do not follow or believe it. That is the Synagogue of Satan.

                Now the Woman clothed with the sun with a crown of 12 stars around about her head, you say this is the Church. Robert, how does the Church give birth to Jesus??

                Another question, how does the Church flee to Africa when they fled Rome's persecution? And if this Woman be the Church, why in the beginning of Revelation Jesus addressed the 7 Churchs and not 12 ?

                The 12 stars is not representative of the Church. Remember, Robert, that Sign of the Woman was also a Wonder...and a Constellation in the stars. Many believer keep interpreting this sign and wonder as the Church. You have to put the Woman in context of the story in Revelation, Chapter 12.

                She gave birth and then she fled to Kemet (Africa). This matches Rome's persecution of the black nation of Hebrew, in the land of Judea (Judah). And the descendants of the Hebrew nation are they that fled to the land of Kemet. Not anything to do with churches, man.

                Now, read where it says, after they fled, with wings of a great eagle, this translate how far they migrated from Israel to Africa, by foot. And it says after that, that the Woman went to a place prepare for her for A TIME, TIME AND HALF A TIME. This is your "1500 years" period. I don't know the exact number of years.

                Since Rome (476 A.D.) until 1700's of the Atlantic Slave Trade fits the TIME, TIME AND HALF A TIME period. Then you have the dragon casting the water and the earth swallowing up the waters:  the slave ships taking the slaves to the new land.

                And I'm not sure I understood you but if you are saying Mary was a white woman with a White Jesus, fleeing to Africa from Rome's persecution, how can that be so. Why would the Caucasians be attacked?? The Romans wasn't attacking the Caucasians in Judea except the Black nation of Judah (Judeans).

                Check out some Roman Historians, like Tacitus and Joseph Flavian (sp??) And they will tell you that the Judeans were "a black, Ethiopian people." This shows, those Hebrew people were black and being persecuted in their own land and chased out of their own land. A White Mary and Jesus running from Romans? Please, brother. Smh.

                1. profile image56
                  jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Forgot to add, the 12 stars doesn't represent the Apostles either. All but one (Judas Iscariot) were of Hebrew. That would then have to be 11 stars and not 12.

                  1. profile image61
                    Robertr04posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Don't want to leave too many stones unturned. Don't forget Shaul. Yahusha knew he was on the horizon. 12 again.

                2. profile image61
                  Robertr04posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Jah, you really don't read what someone says. I do believe I said the first woman with the sun, moon, and stars was the church. The second woman was Mary fleeing to Egypt. For a time and times and half a time (1260yrs). A day in prophecy is one year right? This chap. is now talking about another time period. I know what you are thinking but this is not about slavery. Just add the 1260 yrs to that time period and you will see they are talking about sometime in the "DarkAges". The Atlantic slave trade for the "African American" started in 1612, give or take a year or two.   The serpent cast out of his mouth water to carry away the church/people, nothing to do with slavery. They are talking about false doctrines, the papacy (beast) had so corrupted all nations as to have absolute control of the civil power for centuries. Thru it satan could hurl a mighty flood of persecution against the church/people in any direction, and this he was not slow to do Dan.7:25. Millions of true believers were carried away by the flood, but the church/people was not entirely swallowed up, for the days were shortened for the elect's sake (sound familiar?) "The earth helped the woman" by opening its mouth and swallowing up the flood. The protestant Reformation began its work Yahuah raised up Martin Luther and his colaboraters to expose the true character of the papacy. and break the power with which superstition had enslaved the minds of the people. You have to delve much deeper than you have jah to see what is going on in Revelations. Yashar'al and Egypt are neighbors, she didn't have to travel far. Wings in prophecy represent swiftness. Joseph had to get them out of Yashar'al quickly. Read what I said. The people in Yashar'al now are Askenazi, and yes they are imposters, they used to be called Khazar. Askenaz was the grandson of Japheth. To take it a little further. If you READ (smile) Gen.10:5 you will also see where the gentiles originated (the Isles of the Gentiles) Askenaz was a son of Gamar. Yes you are reading Yiddish otherwise you would not be using the names god and jesus to signify the set-apart Names of the Father and Son, Yahuah and Yahusha.  Get to the original language man and then gain a better understanding. Did you not read what I said about Paul, Moses, and Joseph and the Machyach above? I am in agreement. The instructions are called Turah in the original lang. Not Torah my friend. Torah, Torah, Torah, a Japanese movie about world war 2. Please go and research this further. They weren't even called Jews back in biblical days. There were no Jews. Yahusha was not a Jew. Jew is a nickname for those who follow Judaism. The were called Yahudy. There was no such place called Judah, that's an English word made up in the 17th cent.  It was called Yahudah. There was no "J" in the Hebrew or Greek language. Can you not see the Father's Name in that word? Wake up my friend, If you are going to talk about the Abar/Ebar nation (Hebrew is a modern word) do the research. If you had read what I wrote above you would see that I am in agreement and can offer proof to back up what I say. I feel you are just beginning to come into the knowledge, I was excited also, slow down and get your stuff together.  The Egyptians called it Khemet, land of the blacks (Egypt) Notice the spellings jah, you are reading Yiddish. Alahym/Mighty ones,  not elohim/god. You are deceiving yourself. When I began this walk, I had to seek and ask Him to guide me in the right direction. He led me to the people who had the knowledge I asked for. My questions were and are being answered. It is the same for you and anyone else who wants to bathe in His wonderous light. All He asks is obedience. His laws will never burden you. Shalum

                  1. profile image56
                    jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Robert, this will be a challenge to hold this debate with you. Though I am confident in the things I have told you, I do not speak Hebrew (though I should, indeed, learn it). I have to speak in my native language, English. And since you know the English Language as well, let's suffice it to be so for the sake of continuance in the debate.

                    Now, I am aware of the names Yarsha'el being Israel. Yahshuah being Jesus. YHWH being Yahweh/God. Khemet/Kemet being Africa. Jehuda being Judah and so forth. I am not ignorant to the Language of the Ancient Hebrew. I know the original manuscripts were all Hebrew texts in its original Hebrew language.

                    The Bible you are using is still in English-form with side notes showing Hebrew writing for verses/words, correct? The Torah (....and that movie you speak of was Tora, Tora Bora....not Torah), is not Talmudic. Talmudic has rabbinical teachings outside of what Jesus taught. It is the Synagogue of Satan.

                    And you are right they are Imposters, fake Jews and their modern-day term are Ashkenazi (don't know why it didn't come to my mind..smh). Anyway, those are they of the Yiddish that practice Judaism with Talmudic teaching by Rabbis --- I do not believe in that crap, man!

                    Now, you and I understand the story of Revelation to be the same and not what any rabbis are teaching, okay? You reading the same Woman clothed with the sun and 12 crown of stars about her head with the moon under her feet. If you agree with that description then we are on th he same page here, brother.

                    Now, where we disagree, is your assertion that the Woman clothed with the sun is translated to mean the churches and/or the church people. Robert, if you will, please point out what Caucasian people that left Rome as a persecuted nation by way of the sea, from Israel to Europe?

                    Now, I don't know the geographic of the middle east but I assume there is no ocean blocking off Israel to Europe. It's all land. So why would this mystery white nation, persecuted by Rome, would go to Europe when Revelation 12 said they fled to the wilderness, which is understood to be Khemet/Kemet/Africa?

                    You have to point that out in real history. You can't just say "they were church people and the flood meant (persecution)"..haha. That won't work. Point it out during Rome where this White nation of people were persecuted during 63 B.C. at the time of Judeans in the their land. Point it out how this Judean nation where White People. Don't say, "they mixed with the Ethiopians" haha...that won't work either because the Roman Historians made clear that the Judean people of Ethiopia, and those of Rome had strong differences between them and did not mixed on a sexual/relationship level.

                    Rome was a pagan nation and sexuality was heavy in their pagan beliefs. This was bizarre to the Black Hebrews of Judeans.  I think you have to look at history, Robert and match it with the Bible in Rev. Your account how it happened is not adding up.

                    Now, the 1260 years. You said out of your own mouth that "One day" equal 1260 years. Who told you a "Time" equal.one day? Who told you a"Time and Time and Half a Time" equal 1260 years. That not translate for day equal 1260 years. It said a "Time", not a "Day." Again, your account is not adding up. In fact, you misleading the scriptures, Robert. That, or you are not following word for word of that chapter and matching it with historical account.

                    To make this easier, just give me an account of "white church people" fleeing Rome's persecution to Europe and then brought to the New land as slaves? If you say there was not about slaves then you are clearly mistaken.

                    God Chosen Ones came to the New land to live under a curse. Read Leviticus to learn what the curses entails. Slavery is one, there's many more like, being diseases-infected, a by-word, made low (economically), they will not be a prosperous people. They will serve foreigners, in a land of foreigners because of their disobedience.

                    Despite this suffrage, the Chosen Ones will not forget their Father (God). They will forget their history and knowledge of who they are but not their Father ---- this is what it meant about the Woman clothed with the sun, a crown of 12 stars round about her head and the moon under her feet to be a Sign and a Wonder....forever.

                    You are interpreting it wrong, Robert. I know you wish it was about Whites being persecuted and God favoring the Caucasians....who wouldn't want that?? To be of royal blood. Of course you want that and I understand that but it is not the Caucasian ethnicity Revelation, Chapter 12 is talking about. It is not the churches or "White church people."

                    If you can't point it out in history accounts, then you have no proof, therefore you interpreting it the way "you" want it to be, not the way the scriptures is telling you.

        2. profile image56
          jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Robert, I apologize for misunderstanding your comments. I was in between reading your statement and listening to my son talking about something. I came back to check and realize you talking about the bible and if the word "on" was used when describing the mark of Cain.

          With that, I read the Torah Bible. I also read the 1769 Version of KJV.

          "And God set a mark about Cain lest anyone find him, shall kill him."

          If the word "on" is used. You have to put it in context of the story. Translation/interpretation by Man.....and the fact we are reading a Greek/Latin texts is the problem. The Greek/Latin texts, from the Constantine time of Rome --- in my opinion, does not translate close enough to the Hebrew word meanings.

          For example, the creation of Adam was explain that:

          God breathe into his nostril, the "breathe of life."

          A thorough analysis of the Hebrew word used (in close relation), tell it differently...

          "And God blew in his nostril, fire, and Adam became a living perfume."

          Another showing of Hebrew text (in close relation) to the Hebrew words was the description of how Adam was made.

          The Greek/Latin text use, "dust." The Hebrew word "oth" (if I remember correctly) means clay, mound, soil that is "black" in color, instead of just "dust."

          So, the word used of "on" is open to interpretation about the mark of Cain. It was a mark set about Cain.

          Lamech (descendant of Cain) told his wives ---

          "Listen you wives of Lemech for I have slain a man and hurt a boy to my wound. If Cain be avenged seven times, surely Lemech seventy-seven times."

          In this event, Lemech set about a mark on himself without physically "marking" himself. So, it can be reasoned, the people of that era just "knew" what Cain did to his brother. Not any "viewing" of a mark on Cain and they ask,

          "Cain, why is that mark on your head?"

          Do you think Cain would've of been at peace to sit down and explain what he did? He was afraid of anyone finding out for he said...

          "My punishment is greater than I can bear lest anyone find me shall kill me."

          So with that, I can see God going out His way to let it be known to the people that Cain killed his brother. And for Cain to not be harm, for vengeance is His.

          Some theories have it that Cain skin pigmentation became lighter and lighter to that of a Caucasian but this, I do not believe either. The region and open plains of Israel to Africa would not allowed him to have an ultra-light pigmentation. The brother had to had a healthy dose of Melanin to be out there in the fields, building a city for his son.

          1. profile image61
            Robertr04posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Alright jah, however the key word used or phrase is "set upon" or" set on". This means a visible mark where no mistake can be made. If you say about him what is that? An aura, a halo? How would anyone know hands off?

            1. profile image56
              jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              It the same if you see a young woman just walking about the street who looks very good, healthy, attractive and you say to yourself ...

              "Now, this girl don't look like she belong to the streets for she well-kept, innocent. She probably ran away from home or a missing person.

              That's an example of a mark where you just "know" this girl do not belong out here. She don't look the part. You see?

              Cain grew up, sheltered under Adam and Eve. A good family home, he was foreign to the world outside from where he and his family reside. Going out, away from his family and not knowing the world ahead of him, he will stand out easily ---- that's an example of a mark.

              1. needmoretime profile image60
                needmoretimeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Adam and eve. It's now a verifiable fact that we came from a group of six couples and they were said to travel south, populating small islands as their populations grew.

                1. pennyofheaven profile image80
                  pennyofheavenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Really?

                  1. profile image58
                    whocares4uposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Deleted

  6. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago

    The author of Revelations is not identified.  The writer is said to be named John, but there's no certainty which John he's supposed to be, nor if he really ever existed at all.  Besides, the KJV is merely one of many translations of only some of the ancient books with most translations differing from the others in some manner.  Who knows which one is accurate or indeed, if any of them are.

                                           http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6812619.jpg

    1. profile image56
      jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with the mystery of the author of Revelation. I do have to accept that John is the one at the island of Patmos whose vision it was about Revelation.

      My problem is, I don't entirely trust the translation in Greek/Latin. I think a Professor in the Hebrew language is best fit to interpret it (and non-Caucasians). The latter is of important because of biblical history talking about a specific people and coming judgement against a specific nation/people, talked about in Revelation.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Which John, though?  According to everything I've read, the identity of the author is not known.  He could have simply been making the whole thing up like other authors of the NT.

                                            http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6812619.jpg

        1. profile image56
          jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Yep, this is a point that crossed my mind too. The whole NT is just in "question" in a lot of ways. So,.which John? Good question, man.

  7. needmoretime profile image60
    needmoretimeposted 5 years ago

    The mark of the beast? If I had to give it a designation, it would be humanity. We're the biggest monsters on the planet.

  8. Disappearinghead profile image83
    Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago

    Why oh why do so many Christians persist with reading into the bible a load of pseudo-science that pops into their heads thus convincing them that they have uncovered some truth that no one else has seen? Why don't they just read a few scientific peer reviewed journals and trust that the scientific community has the integrity to objectively search for truth.

    It's a good stance to take that when scientific research reveals something contrary to an interpretation of the bible, the bible interpretation is in error.

    1. profile image56
      jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I do agree bible interpretations are in error. I don't pass my interpretation off as facts. I can only read closely, use common sense and free and clear of any bias. With that, I still can't say mine are facts until a number of credible sources are arriving to the sane conclusion. Then I'll know.

      1. Disappearinghead profile image83
        Disappearingheadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        So reading your posts, anyone born black or Asian for example doesn't have satan's mark irrespective of what they do, believe, or think. But a Caucasian does have the mark by default unless they are a Christian?

        1. profile image56
          jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          It's deeper than that. To have the mark, can go across all racial lines. The Caucasian ethnicity is representative of Satan's personality and/or racial mindset. He is the Father of lies.

          When you put it in perspective of God's Chosen Ones......for example, the tribe of Judah, whose modern-day descendants resides in America and their history has been whitewashed, made to believe other than what it is and who they really are. And lead other nation of tongues to treat them the same way and eventually break them down so hard that they start to hate themselves, lose their purity and become criminal heathens like we see them today but  Satan had a lot to do with that.

          So read between the line, because I don't want to outright offend them. And the fact they are the rulers of this world just closes the deal as Satan's representative.

          To be outside of the mark is to believe in God and acknowledge His only begotten Son, Yahsuah. To be outside of the mark is not to follow after this racial mindset and White Pride for their names was not written in the book of Life. So, its a very fine line they have to walk.

          On the other side of the coin, those that are of the Chosen Ones, are living in a curse and their goal is to break the habits of sinful desires inflicting them while also maintaining a positive mindset that doesn't follow after the Caucasians "way of thinking."

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Hey Jah, you must have missed my question so I'll give you another opportunity to try to rationalize your way around it.

            Genetic testing can confirm albinism and what variety it is. Why do not all white people test positive for albinism?

            In fairness I did do a little investigation on albinism and out of Africa and what I found was as I suspected.


            http://www.articlesbase.com/history-art … 55803.html
            "Today we now know that albinism is inherited to both dark and light skin races of the planet and its occurrence is about 1 in 20,000 people. We know from genetic and molecular biological research that people with albinism do carry the melanocytes needed to produce melanin. These research investigations have further showed us that the enzyme tyrosinase is needed to convert the melanocyte bodies into melanin. Yet people with albinism produce the inactive form of the tyrosinase enzyme. Albinism people also produce high concentrations of tyrosinase inhibitors which would prevent the conversion of melanocytes to melanin even if the enzyme was present. These biological findings explain why the skin of the white people of modern day Europe and Asia is not as dark as people from African and the equatorial regions of the earth. Whites produce a combination of the active and inactive form of tyrosinase and there is also present at low concentration levels tyrosinase inhibitors whose molecular structures have not been completely identified. Thus, white and fairer-skin people have lower levels of melanin in their bodies, and particularly in their outer skin tissue even though the level of melanocytes in whites is no different-than those levels found in darker skin people."

            Getting back to my question. Please respond.
            Genetic testing can confirm albinism and what variety it is. Why do not all white people test positive for albinism?

            1. profile image56
              jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Are you sure you understand what you just read in the article? This article isn't going against what I have said about African parents producing albino children and thus where the Caucasian ethnicity came into existence.

              The article is explaining the low-count of melanin in Caucasians. While it was wide spread during biblical history, that number has reduced as of now.... as the article stated, 1 in 20,000.

              So, can we agree it was the Hand of God to produce an ethnicity to a measured number in order they can then produce their own in full numbers to God's will?

              And if you think this albinism syndrome must be detected in all Caucasians as proof that they originate from Albinos, is akin to saying my genetics should have a clear match to Jacob since I am a descendant of the tribe of Judah.

              Even though the intermixing between ethnicities have occurred before I got here.

              Another way to look at it.... If a person with a sickle cell trait mate a person with sickle cell, then that child will have sickle cells as well. If a person with the SC traits mate a person with no sickle cell trait, then that child will have no sickle traits at all.

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I am sure I understood the article correctly and you misunderstood it.

                "We know from genetic and molecular biological research that people with albinism do carry the melanocytes needed to produce melanin. These research investigations have further showed us that the enzyme tyrosinase is needed to convert the melanocyte bodies into melanin. Yet people with albinism produce the inactive form of the tyrosinase enzyme. Albinism people also produce high concentrations of tyrosinase inhibitors which would prevent the conversion of melanocytes to melanin even if the enzyme was present."

                Simply put African albinos have the same amount of melanocytes need to produce melanin as non albino Africans. Albinism is problem with the enzyme tyrosinase and not the melanin itself. The same holds true for albinos born of lighter skinned people, they have the appropriate amount of melanocytes needed to produce melanin for their lighter skin.

                No it certainly does not say that. It says Africa was much cooler about 100 000 years ago and the people of Africa may have had lighter skin.

                The hand of God had nothing to do with evolution.

                No it's not. If all white are albinos as you say, all white should test positive for Albinism. The fact that we don't and only 1 in 20,000 people of both African and European decent test positive for albinism is absolute proof you are mistaken.

                But they would test positive for the sickle cell markers and white would have a higher number of Albinism than Africans, just like Africans have a higher number of sickle cell traits.

                If someone was making the argument that dark (African) skin was the mark of Satan it would be regarded as racism. This is no different. You are completely wrong and it's rather embarrassing.

                1. kirstenblog profile image75
                  kirstenblogposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I find it rather disturbing how easily people twist the bible to support things like racism. I find it makes the bible very suspect, not to be trusted. Not that other religious texts are not equally flawed that they can be used to support and justify what can easily be called evil (racism is something I would call evil).

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    The bible was used to justify some of the most terrible atrocities know to man and done by man. The bible was used to keep slaves as the bible clearly states when one can keep a slave and how badly one can beat the slave. The bible was also used by Hitler to justify his hatred of Jews as Hitler clearly stated in his own book.

                    This amazes me because what science knows about Albinism is the opposite of the racism this guy is spewing out. I would hate for some gullible person to read it and think it is truth.

                2. profile image56
                  jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Now let's breakdown the article ----

                  The beginning of the statement you quote is saying that Albinos do carry the genes (melanocytes) to produce melanin but yet, they have an inactive form of the tyrosinase enzymes that produces melanin, right?

                  This same "inactive tyrosinase enzymes" can also to be the origin of that Caucasians ethnicity, right? So, Albinos from African parents to the Caucasian Male is an established fact...right or wrong?

                  Having established that, it does not go against the link that Caucasians have an ancient ancestor that link them back to the African parent by way of Albinism from the African parent. Agree?

                  Now, this is where you confuse yourself----

                  "Simply put African Albinos have the same amount of melanocytes needed to produce melanin as non-African Albinos."

                  Your thinking here, is that Whites and Albinos are the same, with the genes to produce melanin. And you are right. Whites originate from that same Albinos (from the African Parent). African Albinos and the Caucasian Male is the "link" from the Black Parent to that of the Caucasian Male.

                  Now, your 2nd argument seems to say that Blacks during biblical era were a light-skinned people. Do you mean light-skinned as a Black brother or light-skinned as a White male? I don't know what you mean by "light-skinned."

                  What I do know, they were a Black People....with enough melanin to look Black, not White. King Solomon .... "My skin is black unto me."

                  I can quote historical facts that shows early civilization were a Black people during the Summerian, Hammurabi period to ancient Egypt. All a Black peopling. In fact, there are artifacts/drawings of Black civilization all through Ancient Egypt. Some may have been light-skinned, Black people but for the most part, a Black Nation of Black People.

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Completely wrong. Read the article and educate yourself. All albinos lack the proper tyrosinase enzymes, but that have the proper amount of melanin for there appropriate skin color. There is no connection between whites and albinism. I have explained this about 4 times.

          2. profile image61
            Robertr04posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            jah no one forced the Hebrews into their situation. They did it to themselves. They had the freedom of choice and obviously made the wrong ones again and again and again, starting in Eden. According to the Scriptures, the Gentiles did not even come to exist until after the flood (Gen.10:5) they are decendants of Japheth, are they not? They (Hebrews) were being influenced by satan long before the Caucasian people existed. If they had been obedient, Yahuah would have made them the greatest nation the world would see. But no, we chose to go another route. What did the Caucasians have to do with that? The things the Hebrews do now, they have always done, just read the Book man. The people who were swept away in the flood, enslaved by the Babylonians, Assyrians, Romans, Muslims, Africans, Portuguese, Jews, Spain, France, Christians (protestant and catholic), U.S., Dutch, Britain, Italians, Danes, Swedes, Prussians and even all 5 of the so called "civilized American Indian tribes.' All that and more is because we were not obedient to Yahuah. We even murdered our Savior. Where were the Caucasians then? And you want to blame someone else? All that needs to be done is repent. That's saying a lot but that is all He ever asked. We are still His people, but we have been deceived by satan. All those folks mentioned above were just tools that satan used. Just like he used Hebrews in biblical times and he is using Hebrews still. We won't get into name calling but look at our so called black leaders, getting big houses, driving big cars, big bank accounts, big media at the expense of the "African American" and they don't care how you live. Open your eyes man. Don't kill the messengers (granted some enjoyed it). That's all those people were doing, delivering satans message. It's a very fine line we all have to walk. satan works thru subtleness. Hanging it out in the open like that is not his ways. The mark will be something so subtle most of us will accept it and not even know.

            1. profile image61
              Robertr04posted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I have a couple of thoughts on the mark and here is one of them. You may find this interesting. Punch in Kingdom of Yahuah and click on the mark of the beast. Would like to hear your opinions people.

            2. profile image56
              jah1zposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I don't blame the Caucasians. We living under a curse because of our disobedience to God. I made that clear in my recent comments to you, Robert. When you put this in the context of Revelation, and the beast with the mark, this is aside from the Hebrew nation and their curse.

              However that beast is persecuting the Hebrew nation, not the other way around. Your accusations to cast blames is moot at this point.

              1. profile image61
                Robertr04posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Now we might be able to get somewhere. Lets start with the beast that came out of the sea. I believe it to be the papacy, the apostate church. The two horned beast I believe to be the U.S. I believe the image of the beast to be the protestant church. Before we go on, what are your views. BTW, you did not respond when I gave you my answers to time and times and half a time or that one day in prophecy being equal to one year, explaining the 1260 yrs.  The beast is persecuting the whole world. Of course I'm going to go into depth about each of the above and then go over to your new thread and give you two different views on the mark. You made statements about what you where saying as being the truth in some of your earlier posts. Can we agree that truth is fact? You then came back and said that you agree that bible interpretations are in error. All of them? Wow. Then you said that you don't pass your interpretations off as facts at least not until you get a number of credible sources to agree with you. A lot of folks would agree with that last statement. But if you don't pass off your interpretations as fact, how can you say you are telling the truth (if fact is indeed truth) in your earlier posts above? Are you trying to say it is the truth as YOU BELIEVE it to be or everything you have said thus far is  your opinion. I can't wait to hear your views on the beast, his image, and the two-horned beast. I hope you feel the same way (smile). Whether you mean to or not, what you have been saying can be easily perceived as placing blame on a certain people. Try reading (I'm guilty James) everything you and others have said and not what you think they said. This is not a challenge jah, I am always open to another view. You , I, or anyone else may say something that might bring about a better understanding. Other than that it is a waste of time.Shalum

    2. profile image61
      Robertr04posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      So DH, you said, "It's a good stance to take that when scientific research reveals something contrary to an interpretatation of the bible, the bible interpretation is in error." Are we to assume you are talking about fact or theory. From what I have read over the last few months in the debates on religion neither side has shown facts, just beliefs and theory. So tell me DH in case I have missed something, what scientific proof has been revealed that PROVED the Book to be in error, and to be fair, science for that matter. They just spent two weeks in debate, neither side being able to prove anything. It's a stalemate. People in many instances finally being able to have a debate with civility. Now you have just made a declaration and I'm sure everyone, including yourself, would be interested in the proof you have uncovered.

  9. getitrite profile image79
    getitriteposted 5 years ago

    Utterly shocking!  For real?!

    1. profile image61
      Robertr04posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Not really, just trying to liven things up a bit. But out of curiosity, give me three.

  10. profile image59
    RudyRedposted 5 years ago

    Does any modern man still believe in the stories of Greek or Egyptian mythology? Most likely, no. The bible was written, edited, published and distributed by man in the "name of god" and for what; social control. The bible is merely a means to fear based control. Man fears what he doesn't understand and no man has studied death first hand. So what have we done to alleviate this fear? We have created omnipotent beings that control all aspects of this existence. People attribute occurrences of coincidence to a being they have no concept of. Nothing in the bible should be taken as truth, instead, as a guide to living your life as a decent human being.

  11. jacharless profile image78
    jacharlessposted 5 years ago

    . Apparently you missed the memo: many "black" people {what a racist term that is} do tan and get sunburn. Tons of Caribbean, Moroccan, Egyptian and S.A friends who will concur. Plus my better half, who is actual from nearly pure Caucus Nation where it snows for ten months, tans better than most people I know...

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You have to lay down a gradual base...then tanning is a snap!smile

  12. jadesmg profile image86
    jadesmgposted 5 years ago

    just to add this in, but interestingly I am under the impression that the origninal number for the beast was actually 616 and it was a mistranslation or something.

    1. kirstenblog profile image75
      kirstenblogposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I have heard this too. On wikipedia (I know, the most reliable source of accurate information in all of history! LOL) it says

      "The Number of the Beast

      Main article: Number of the Beast
      616 is believed by some to have been the original Number of the Beast in the Book of Revelation in the Christian Bible.[1] Different early versions of the Book of Revelation gave different numbers, and 666 had been widely accepted as the original number. In 2005, however, a fragment of papyrus 115 was revealed, containing the earliest known version of that part of the Book of Revelation discussing the Number of the Beast. It gave the number as 616, suggesting that this may have been the original.[2] Apparently the two different numbers reflect two different spellings of the Emperor Nero/Neron's name, for which this number is believed to be a code. [3]"

      Seems hard to me to take any of this stuff seriously when not even the mark of the beast can clearly be identified roll lol

 
working