Ichthys Acronym Image

Home             Site Links

Antichrist:
 
the Mark, the Number, and the Identification of the Beast

Word RTF

Question #1:

Hello Dr. Luginbill,

I recently heard a theologian state that the number of the beast is not 666, but 616. He said that a portion of papyrus 115 read 616 instead of 666. He further stated that 616 is likely the correct number because papyrus 115 contains the earliest section of that passage in Revelation. If this is correct, why do all the modern versions of the Bible insert 666 instead of 616?

God Bless you and your ministry,

Response #1:

P 115 is a 3-4th century copy of the book of Revelation that was discovered at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt – the source of very many papyrus finds of all sorts, secular mainly, but occasionally, as in this case, biblical. P 115 consists of a number of fragments / scraps (several dozen), which, taken altogether, contain somewhat more than 1% of the book. As I say, these are fragments, and as such leave much to be deciphered in studying them. For this particular fragment mentioned by the individual you cite, it is true that we have the Greek short-hand for the number 616. But there are a number of factors to consider before jumping to the conclusion that such is the "proper" number of the beast:

1) This papyrus is later than the best copy we have of the book of Revelation, namely, codex Sinaiticus (aka "Aleph"); that complete copy of Revelation reads "six-hundred and sixty-six", and spells out the number fully rather than using Greek numerical short-hand (a method which is often problematic as all scholars are aware). Sinaiticus dates to the late second or early third century, so is about a century earlier than the papyrus, even should we wish to accept the early dating for the papyrus which Greenfell and Hunt give it.

2) Since the papyrus uses Greek numerical short-hand (i.e., the letters/symbols 'chi-iota-stigma' as opposed to 'chi-xi-stigma'), there is a much greater chance that it is the papyrus that is error rather than the manuscript. That is because the Greek numeral notation system was far more problematic than our Arabic numerals (for reasons that would be too time-consuming to go into here). Suffice it to say that numbers are always viewed with some suspicion in all of Greek textual criticism for precisely this reason, namely, the short-hand use of a system that was easily mistaken or altered in transcription. It is true that one ms., "C" (Ephraemi rescriptus), also has this reading, but this only shows that the papyrus, a cheaper sort of text, was probably derived from "C" or a related patrimony.

3) There are good theological reasons for preferring the traditional reading. In a nutshell, six-hundred and sixty-six falls just short of a perfect "seven" in a repeating cipher, and is therefore an apt identifier for the beast who will seem so close to being the Messiah that he will be able to fool all but the elect. On the other hand, 616 means nothing.

4) What has been missed by all commentators, as far as I know, is the fact that the Greek word for "six-hundred" in Aleph, the only one of the three words in the compound numeral which declines, is actually in the feminine gender (most texts incorrectly print the masculine). This is a striking development which would catch the eye of anyone reading the whole number for himself (since it begs the question of what the number then agrees with grammatically), and would make the chance that there had been an error very unlikely in any manuscript which preserves this reading (as Aleph does). On the other hand, this piece of information is entirely lost when the short-hand method is used. What that means is that any ms. tradition going to the short-hand from the fuller version necessarily changes the text by losing a key piece of information (even if the otherwise correct 666 is retained). For the meaning of this feminine ending and also for the theological significance of the numeral related thereto please see the link: "The Number of the Beast" in CT 4.

5) Finally, there are other problems with the text of the papyrus. In this fragment the letter which should precede the numeral (i.e., an upsilon from the word for "of him / his [name]") is not in fact what we find. Instead we find an eta, and this cannot even be easily explained by the other words in the context. What it could be, however, is the Greek word for "or", so that what we very well might have here is the papyrus retaining an alternative reading:

"[his number is 666] or 616 [depending]"

The fact that the 616 follows the "or" makes it clear that whoever copied the book felt this alternative to be the less likely reading.

Why are some so eager to misread this verse? In terms of secularists and those under satanic direction, it is very clear to see how confusion on this issue would provide a measure of cover to antichrist when he comes on the scene. Believers who are paying attention to the truth here and now will have no trouble recognizing the beast, but, after all, we live in the era of Laodicea, which means that most believers will be going into the Tribulation completely unprepared (the vast majority of those in evangelicalism think they'll be "raptured" out of it, after all). Also, the Bible prophecies that one third of the Church will fall away (the great "rebellion" mentioned by Paul in 2Thes.2:3; see the link: "The Great Apostasy"). The number of the beast is not a device that will allow anyone to figure out who he will be ahead of time, but is rather a "litmus test" to apply to his name if anyone suspects that he is not in fact the true Messiah (see the link). Obviously, changing the number will result in antichrist seeming to "pass the test".

Finally, I don't know to whom you are referring, but the "King James onlyist" movement is becoming so strident and irrational that it seems that proponents will jump at any chance to "prove" that the manuscripts discovered after KJV was translated are "wrong". If that is the case here, perversely, P 115 would prove the KJV and its TR exemplar wrong as well.

Please do feel free to write me back about any of the above.

Yours in Jesus Christ the one and only true Messiah whose return in glory will be unmistakable – for all who truly have faith.

Bob L.

Question #2:

Hi there, I like your website. I was looking for the info online that speaks about there now being drugs in tattoos. As the illuminati is planning to use the tattoos "mark of the beast" to drug the people so that they will allow to have a chip or perhaps do it whilst tattooing. I came to your site and thought I'd inform you of what's happening incase you get more questions of tattoos. Also the drug is to have pleasant control over the people. This will take a while to be implemented though. But they've already started putting drugs in normal tattoos. Not sure if it's all country's that's why I want to find the info. Definitely worth checking out.

Regards

Response #2:

Good to make your acquaintance. I have never heard this report and, to be honest, I have a difficult time putting much stock in it. Clearly, illicit drugs should be shunned by Christians; tattoos are, generally speaking more of a "disputable matter" (and you can find my comments about these cross-referenced in the "Subject Index" at Ichthys). I will agree, however, that the growing acceptance of tattooing in our culture has no doubt made the reception of the mark a less jarring concept than would have otherwise been the case.

I know that many people have a hard time believing it, but antichrist will bring over the majority of the world's population to his side, even to the point of worshiping him as God, through purely non-supernatural methods (although he will do many "miracles"). Indeed, it will be very important for all concerned that those who throw in their lot with the beast do so of their own free will. When a person rejects the truth, the lie will always move in to fill the void. That is the process of the hardening of the heart which scripture records, and no drug is capable of distorting human decision-making nearly as effectively as this age-old satanic process. Antichrist will present a horrible lie, that he is Christ, and most of the world, including all merely nominal Christians and even one third of those who were, previously, actually Christians, will embrace that lie. It won't be because of drugs. It will be because of personal decisions made by those who love this world more than they do the dear Lord who bought them. This is covered at the following links:

Antichrist and his kingdom (CT 3B)

The Mark of the Beast (in CT 4)

The Number of the Beast (in CT 4)

Israel and Antichrist in Eschatology

The 7 Trumpets, the 7 Kings, Nephilim, Antichrist and Revived Rome.

Antichrist: Alive and Well and Living on Planet Earth?

More on Antichrist and his Kingdom

Antichrist and Babylon

The Beast: Some Questions about Antichrist.

Aliens, antichrist, and eschatology.

Antichrist's 'desire of women' in Daniel 11:37 et al.

The reign of antichrist:  7 years or 3 and 1/2 years?

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob Luginbill

Question #3:

Hi Doc.

With the problem of Trib. Security at the disposal of many believer not been aware that the trib. has begun will they not take the mark willfully thinking they are submitting to authorities based on Rom.13:1-5 and 1Pet 2:13-17? As you stated in Hamartiology 'There are occasionally extreme circumstances, usually in particularly lawless societies, where law is essentially hijacked by a ruling elite, and where strict obedience might very well require believers to engage in sinful and evil practices'.

Yours in Christ.

Response #3:

We do know that there will something which I term "the Great Apostasy" (see the link; taking the name from 2Thes.2:3 – cf. NASB's translation), a massive, collective falling away from the faith on the part of an entire third of the actual Church (and so that number does not even contemplate the near total joining up with antichrist on the part of those who are only "apparent Christians", unquestionably a much larger number by far). No doubt the pressure to take the mark will be part of the impetus for this apostasy. After all, another third of the true Church will be martyred rather than submit (see the link: "the Great Persecution"), and those weak in faith will be likely candidates for accepting the mark in order to avoid being executed. But I don't think that anyone will be "tricked" into taking the mark in the sense of not knowing what they are doing, at least not to any degree that might mitigate their responsibility. Taking the beast's name or number will be tantamount to denying Christ, because it will amount to accepting antichrist's false claim that he, not Jesus, is "the true Messiah". For this reason, scripture is very direct about the matter:

A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, they, too, will drink the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name." This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.
Revelation 14:9-12 NIV

In Jesus who alone is our Lord and Savior, with whom and for whom we have died and shall live forever.

Bob L.

Question #4:

Hey Bob,

I was wanting to ask for some clarification and information about things to come: the events which take place during the beginning of, or leading up to, what will happen at the end of times. I got a fair amount of it down, but was wondering about the 'mark of the beast', and wondered what you thought about it? Are we close enough to the end of times to worry about such things? What is the mark of the beast, exactly, and how will we know when it is revealed? I know, or read, that it is a mark that can't be forced upon and must be accepted willingly, and that one cannot buy or trade without it, but what is it exactly? Could it be some sort of technology which hasn't been developed yet (or has...?), or is it really more of a literal 'brand' which is described in revelations?

Response #4:

Always good to hear from you. I hope you are doing well – I am keeping you in my prayers.

As to your question, as you probably know, my calculation, based upon what scripture has to say about the seven millennial days, is that the Tribulation will begin in 2026 (this is an interpretation based upon assumptions from scripture discussed at the following link: "How certain a date is 2026?"). So, yes, things are getting close. However, there is no unfulfilled prophecy that will occur prior to the Tribulation's commencement (see the link). What that means is that there will be no more information about the mark or the name of the beast than what we have in scripture before then (i.e., no way to "tell" who is the beast, what the mark will look like, what it may consist of, other than what we may glean from the Bible directly). I do agree absolutely that it will be a "voluntary" act to take the mark. There will be incredible pressure to agree to do so, but no one will be held down and "marked" completely against their will. That is largely the point. I have written all this up in detail, including considerations of much speculation on this topic; please see the links:

The Mark of the Beast (in CT 4)

The Number of the Beast (in CT 4)

Do not take the mark of the beast (in CT 7)

Numbers, Letters, and the Mark of the Beast.

Speculations about the number of the beast

The mark of the beast and "biometry"

The mark of the beast

Is the mark a tattoo?

Aspects of the Unseen Angelic Warfare and 666, the Mark of the Beast

The Trinity and the mark

The idea of the mark

The 144,000: God's Seal vs. the Mark of the Beast

Yours in Jesus Christ in whom we are sealed with the Holy Spirit, the mark of God.

Bob L.

Question #5:

Hi Bob,

Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb."

A literal reading of this verse says that those who worship the beast AND receive a mark will be damned. Why doesn't this mean that those who received the mark but refrain from praying to the beast (or his image) be saved?

Response #5:

My sense of the Greek is that this is simple addition here (Greek: kai) and can't be pressed to mean "either or", regardless of apparent logic. Also, this a typical, scriptural two-sided indication of loyalty. Compare: "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," (Rom.10:8 NIV). Just as the mark is a counterfeit of the Spirit's sealing, so the worship and the mark of the beast are meant to represent a similar, total commitment to antichrist, born out not only by doing but also by saying – an earthly counterfeit of the believing and professing of Romans 10:8 – Satan doesn't care what these people believe; he merely wants to "count coup" and present God with a world where everyone has chosen for him in an unmistakable and voluntary way (even if their volition is under duress).

Yours in Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #6:

Hi again,

This has absolutely nothing to do with the salvation question, but since I know that you believe in the post-tribulation rapture, I wanted to know if you believe that there will be people who will not take the mark who will not be Christians. In other words, people who refuse to worship the beast, but still die in their sins as people who reject Christ? Just like how there might be people committing suicide from not wanting to take the mark to deal with the disorder of the world in that time?

Response #6:

Since those who take the mark will be destroyed at Christ's second advent in a "baptism of fire" (see the link: "Fire upon Magog"), and since it seems necessary for some non-Jews to survive into the Millennium, it is safe to say that there will be unbelievers who do not take the mark of the beast and yet do survive until Christ's return. The number doesn't have to be large. The entire earth was repopulated in very rapid fashion after the flood from only four couples: Noah and his three sons and their wives. So if, say, as few as ten million unbelievers survived (out of seven plus billion) without taking the mark, while this would be an infinitesimally small portion of current world population, under the perfect conditions of Christ's millennial rule we can expect that the world would be filled to the brim with humanity again in very short order. Also, we know that many Jews who do not take the mark will survive from all over the globe, and will be repatriated by the Lord to the land of Israel after His return (see the link: "The Regathering and Purging of Israel"). Additionally, since children who are not "of age" will not be required or allowed to take the mark (as the beast will want this to be an informed, adult decision, the better to throw it in God's face that so many are genuinely rejecting His Son for the devil's son, the substitute anti-Christ), there will no doubt also be a significant number of the young and very young still alive when the dust clears.

Unbelievers are unbelievers, and anyone who dies in his/her sins, now or during the Tribulation, is lost. This is a matter of personal choice and free will – the reason why we are all here. As to how people will "handle it", I am sure that there will be many who handle it poorly indeed. After all, it will be a time of testing such as the world has never seen before.

But if we commit ourselves to the One for whom nothing is impossible, He will see to it that we are properly prepared: our Lord is able to deliver us from anything, and in that sense the Tribulation will be a unique opportunity – to demonstrate that our faith in Jesus Christ is unshakeable, no matter what may betide.

Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to God our Savior, who alone is wise, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever. Amen.
Jude 1:24-25

Yours in the One we love more than life itself, Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #7:

In English, the phrase "...the number of his name." in Revelation 13:17 seems to point back to "no man" rather than the Beast.

Rev 13:17. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Does the Greek specifically refer to the beast? Is there something in the Greek that would preclude understanding this as the number of or a number identifying the man name who would buy or sell? I know both you and the NIV translators see it as a reference to the beast rather than the man which makes me wonder why.

Thanks.

Yours in Jesus Christ

Response #7:

In English and Greek both, the juxtaposition of the phrase "the number of his name" right after the "or" equates the two phrases. That would be the natural way to take it, in either language, and so much so that in Greek (or English), a specific clue would need to be included to avoid that otherwise inevitable conclusion, e.g., one would has to say "the number of his own name". There is a way to say that in Greek as well (i.e., using the pronoun heautou instead of auto). As that does not occur here, it seems clear that the number is the number of the beast. I would add that this number is given a specific value (six hundred and sixty six); whereas, if this were meant to refer to each hypothetical person individually, everyone would need a different number: each person could not have the same number as all others and still have it be "his".

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #8:

Hi Bob,

Hope all is well!

If "Gog" is to be the man Antichrist please explain how Ezek. 39:11 states that Gog is to be buried in the valley of Hamongog but Dan. 7:11 and Rev. 19:20 reveals that the man Antichrist's body (Little Horn) will be given unto the flames and he will be cast alive into the lake of fire?

Response #8:

It's a good question. I take Ezekiel 39:11 to refer to the burial place of those of the beast's army who are slain by our Lord at the battle of Armageddon. In that sense, the valley will be "a burial place related to Gog", even though antichrist is not himself buried there. It is no doubt for that reason that the valley will be called, literally, "the valley of the hordes of Gog" rather than "the valley of Gog", i.e., because their bodies will be buried there but his will not. In any case, it is very common to refer to the nation/multitudes of the nation by the name of the leader, and that is also part of what is going on here in Ezekiel. "Gog" stands for "the hordes of Gog", as when in verse verses 2-4 of Ezekiel 39 we see Gog used as shorthand for all who follow him:

"I will turn you around and drag you along. I will bring you from the far north and send you against the mountains of Israel. Then I will strike your bow from your left hand and make your arrows drop from your right hand. On the mountains of Israel you will fall, you and all your troops and the nations with you". NIV

According to the standard conventions of biblical prophecy this is not, in my opinion, contradictory to the more detailed end we see prophesied in the case of antichrist himself in Daniel 7:11 and Revelation 19:20. Ezekiel is literally fulfilled by the destruction and burial of Gog and his armies – and he himself is literally destroyed too (even if does not receive burial as the others who follow him do). We see this same thing happening in Isaiah chapter fourteen in the famous passage that applies dually to both Satan and his son:

The realm of the dead below is all astir to meet you at your coming; it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you— all those who were leaders in the world; it makes them rise from their thrones— all those who were kings over the nations. They will all respond, they will say to you, "You also have become weak, as we are; you have become like us. All your pomp has been brought down to the grave, along with the noise of your harps; maggots are spread out beneath you and worms cover you."
Isaiah 14:9-11 NIV

Neither the devil nor antichrist will end up in Hades/torments but will both be consigned to the lake of fire directly, so the "burial" here is to be understood in a general sense of their total defeat and destruction. We are blessed now with the book of Revelation to have the specifics.

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #9:

Hi Bob,

Among all the chaos happening in Boston, the Senate, and with the 'after-birth abortion' (otherwise known as murder) performing doctor, I found this 'miracle' associated with the newly-elected pope to be very fascinating:

http://www.loamagazine.org/nr/the_main_topic/
eucharistic_miracle_in_buenos.html

I wonder if the Lord appreciates people worshiping a piece of bread as God, complete with a wondrous sign that, if possible, even the elect would believe.

More than that, the new pope is having a rather magnetic appeal among lapsed Catholics:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/10/17671252-it-was-a-sign-lapsed-catholics-lured-back-by-pope-francis?lite

And perhaps most scary of all, is this welcome from the pope emeritus' former astronomer:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8009299/Pope-Benedict-XVIs-astronomer-the-Catholic-Church-welcomes-aliens.html

Aliens? Surely there cannot be aliens out there! But alas, a so-called 'prophet' by the name of Claude Vorilhon claims that aliens visited him, gave him the `true meaning' of the Bible, and further claimed that they created all life on Earth!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism

Which got me thinking: if the major church of Christianity visible support aliens, evolutionary theory supports aliens, and pop-culture supports aliens, complete with signs and wonders in said church to keep its adherents focused on their unique teachings, could not the antichrist himself appear as an 'alien'?

Sincerely,

Response #9:

Thanks for all this. Scary stuff indeed – but not at all surprising. And, yes, I think it could conceivably be part of the appeal of the beast to be "all things to all people" in an insidious way during his rise to power, and that will include being "Christ" to anyone with traditional Christian ties, as well as "not of this earth" to all who are looking for a false savior from that direction. Here are a couple of things that touch on precisely that idea: "Antichrist and Aliens" and "Antichrist not an alien".

Keep holding fast to the truth, my friend! The sledding is likely to get pretty rough in the years ahead.

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #10:

Hi, I'd like to show you what The Lord has spoken through me.

God Bless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWcqR2XBP_o

Response #10:

With all due respect, Arnold Schwarzenegger is not the antichrist and Mel Gibson is not Moses.

Question #11:

Dr. Luginbill,

I am studying Daniel 12:7. Are the Holy people that Jesus says he must scatter the Jews that are in Israel? Also in Daniel 11:35 could this be a description of the new king of North Korea-the young leader-Kim Jung Un? Thank you for your website and for any help you can give me on these scriptures.

A believer in our Lord and King

Response #11:

Good to make your acquaintance. As to your questions, here is how I translate the first passage you ask about:

(6) Then [one of the two other angels] said to the man (i.e., the angel) clothed in linen who was [suspended] above the waters of the river, "How long [will it be] until the end of [these] astounding things?" (7) And I heard the man (i.e., the angel) clothed in linen who was [suspended] above the waters of the river. He raised his right hand and his left hand to heaven and he swore by Him who lives forever and ever that it would be a period [of time and] two periods [of time] and half [a period of time] (i.e., the three and one half years of the Great Tribulation), and that [just] when the power of the holy people was being completely crushed, [all] these things would come to their completion.
Daniel 12:6-7

This passage is discussing the end of the Jewish revolt against antichrist which will occur in the final year of the Great Tribulation. Just as Jerusalem is on the point of being completely captured, just as all the worldly power of the people there has failed, our Lord will return and slay the beast at the battle of Armageddon. You will find all this written up at the following link: in CT 5: "The Jewish Rebellion".

As to the other passage, did you mean Daniel 11:36: ". . . then the king will do as he pleases"? In any case, this entire section of Daniel eleven is concerned with antichrist's reign. In biblical terms, there are four quadrants of the earth, with Jerusalem at the center. In the end times, the north will be antichrist's coalition of revived Rome, the south will be the alliance which opposes him and which is defeated and conquered during the Tribulation's first half, the west is Babylon, and the east is not directly involved in the important events of these days (other than coming under the beast's sway as the entire world does) until the Armageddon campaign (cf. Rev.16:12).

It is always tempting to try to connect present day events, personalities and circumstances to the details in scripture in this regard, and especially so now that the end is at hand. However, there is no unfulfilled prophecy that will take place before the Tribulation actually begins, so that whatever the relationship of what will transpire then to what we see now can only be limned in very general terms. As I have often remarked, during the run-up to World War II some thought that Mussolini was the beast and Hitler his false prophet. And, consider, they had some justification. Mussolini was presiding over a revived Rome, Hitler was out to destroy the Jews, and the whole world looked as it were about to come apart at the seams. But as terrible as those days were, it was not yet the end.

I hope this is helpful. Do feel free to write me back about any of the above.

In our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob Luginbill

Question #12:

I found your site by accident and have been reading. It is very good, altho I have not finished yet. I have a question: Do you think Obama is the antichrist? I didn't think he was, but having 2nd thoughts now.

Response #12:

Good to make your acquaintance – I'm glad you're enjoying the site (it's quite extensive, so it would take you quite a long time to finish – equivalent to very many full size books, I would imagine).

As to your question, it's not the first time I have been asked this. I also got questions like this about the previous US president. During the run up to World War II, many thought Mussolini was the antichrist, then Hitler, some Stalin. All three were evil, but the beast is the actual spawn of Satan (Gen.3:15). And there are good scriptural indications that antichrist will be easy to spot – at least by believers who pay attention to scripture. After all, the beast is called "anti-Christ" not only because he will oppose Christ but specifically because he will claim to be Jesus Christ:

He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
2nd Thessalonians 2:4 NIV

Everything I have learned from scripture about the beast suggests to me that he will be a charismatic figure the likes of which the world has not seen before, so that his false claim to be the Messiah will be believable – to the unbelieving world at least. Also, the time of his unveiling and rise to power will not take place until the Holy Spirit's ministry of restraint ends with the onset of the Tribulation (and that is some years away at present):

And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.
2nd Thessalonians 2:6-8 NIV

There is much more on all this in the Coming Tribulation series, especially in part 3B: "Antichrist and his Kingdom" (see the links). The following links may also be of help to you on this subject:

Antichrist and his kingdom (CT 3B)

The Mark of the Beast (in CT 4)

The Number of the Beast (in CT 4)

Israel and Antichrist in Eschatology

The 7 Trumpets, the 7 Kings, Nephilim, Antichrist and Revived Rome.

Antichrist: Alive and Well and Living on Planet Earth?

More on Antichrist and his Kingdom

Antichrist and Babylon

The Beast: Some Questions about Antichrist.

Aliens, antichrist, and eschatology.

Antichrist's 'desire of women' in Daniel 11:37 et al.

The reign of antichrist:  7 years or 3 and 1/2 years?

Christians Beware

Thanks again for your interest in this ministry. Please do feel free to write back any time.

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob Luginbill

Question #13:

Dear friend. I read on your website the article : Three False Doctrines That Threatens Faith. May God bless you and keep you safe. In view of this article, I just like to share what God revealed to me through visions and numbers in April 2000. I did not understand these visions and numbers completely, until 2008. I know this is a warning from God to me and all nations. This revelation is NO criticism against any religion - just facts. All the things that happens in our country and in the world today, are Bible prophecies being fulfilled before our eyes. YOU CAN SIMPLY DELETE THIS MAIL IF IT DONT MAKE SENSE TO YOU. THANK you. I CHALLENCE anybody TO PROOF GOD WRONG!

Through these visions and numbers I now observe the 7th day Sabbath. Soon the world will experience global percecution like never before. (Matthew 24 : 21) IT WILL ALL BE ABOUT THE 4th COMMANDMENT OF GOD AND THE 4th kingdom of Antichrist. John 14 : 15. If you love Me, keep My commandments. On 28 June 2013 the USA president visited our country. God revealed to me that he is the false prophet as written in Revelation 13 : 11 to 16. In our alphabet the letter A = 1 , B = 2 ect. BARACK OBAMA = 68 + 45th president + 41(USA) + Hoseah 4 : 6 =164. His birthdate is 4. 8. 1961. 1961 = 66 and I calculate it as follow (MCMLX1 so...4 + 8 + 66 = 78 + 45th president + USA(41) = 164. 41 x 4 = 164. Barack Obama was 51 when he was elected as 45th president : BARACK OBAMA = 68 + 51yrs old + 45th president = 164. The SUNday law: Revelation 13 : 15,16 + 68 (BARACK OBAMA) + 52(his age) = 164. Millions of people are not aware of what's going on. Matthew 24 : 15 warning us all to be alert : 24 + 15 = 39 x 4 = 156 + 2 Thess 2 : 4 = 164. My home language is AFRIKAANS. The word ROOMS KATOLIEK =164. God always reveals His prophecy to people in their own language. MOST if not ALL presidents and prominent leaders in the world (muslim leaders include) are Catholics under control of the 'black pope'. They all belong to secret societies. Millions of people from all nations and religions,(ordinary members of the Roman church included) don't know that the ' INNER CIRCLE' of the Roman Church, are satanists, luciferians, sun/moon/nature worshipers. Many times we are like the people in Isaiah 29 : 11,12. We make excuses, and don't make time to read and study God's Word or llisten to His warnings: 29 + 11 + 12 = 52 + 52 (NWO) + John 8 : 44 + 2 Thess 2 : 4 =164. This 'Inner circle' of the RCC, have the same 'doctrine' as the OLD ROMAN EMPIRE who dictated,and killed people for centuries. ROMAN CATHOLIC =132 + Daniel 7 : 25 =164 x 4th kingdom = 656 + Hoseah 4 : 6 = 666. The only church with a military order is the RCC. Members are the JESUITS. On 19 January 2008 the Jesuits elected a new general, ADOLFO NICOLAS. He was the 30th general elected : the name ADOLFO NICOLAS = 126 + 30th general + 2 Thess 2 : 4 =164. They call him the 'black pope' and this black means ,hidden evil. A new black pope are only elected when the previous one died. Peter Hans Kolvenbach is the previous one and he resigned due to his age? No, God ordained it so that NICOLAS was elected, that we can understand God's warnings. read on www.http://meguiar.addr.com/black_pope.htm. The name, ADOLFO NICOLAS = 126 + Revelation 17 : 5 + Revelation 13 : 3 = 164. ADOLFO NICOLAS = 126 + Ezekiel 8 : 14,16 = 164. Also 126 + 2 Thess 2 : 4 + Revelation 2 : 24 = 160 + 4th kingdom = 164.NOTHING IS a mystery for God. The Bible have 66 books : 66 + Daniel 12 : 4 = 82 + Jeremiah 33 : 3 = 118. Daniel 2 : 22,28,30 + Jeremiah 33 : 3 = 118. Psalm 118 : 8 says: It is better to put your trust in the Lord than have confidence in man. ADOLFO NICOLAS was 71 when he was elected: 71 + 5 yrs ago = 76 + 88 = 164. 88 refers the face of death. Psalm 88 speaks of deepest affliction. On 9 April 2000 I saw in a dream my 1 cousin and she looked so alive just as I knew her. She died in a car accident with 2 other family members of ours(also female) on 22 . 8 . 1992. Now 1992 =58(MCMLV111) so, 22 + 8 + 58 = 88. Woman refers to a church: My cousin and the 2 family members was MORAVIANS. All churches and all other religions practise this sun/moon worship system of the RCC. The Roman church religious system are teachings of the NICOLATIANS. On 11 April 2000 I saw my aunt who stays in 4th avenue. Her initials is RK. 11 + 4 + 26 (MM) = 41 x 4 = 164. RK =29 + 4th avenue= 33 + 88 + John 14 :29 =164. RK refers to ROOMS KATOLIEK and 4th avenue to the 4th kingdom of antichrist in Daniel 7 : 23.25. My aunt's name is Rachel, her husband Klaas and their only son is NICOLAS: RACHEL = 47 + KLAAS(44) + NICOLAS (73) = 164 .This devoted MORAVIAN family are CATHOLIC without knowing. Satan is the master of deception: SATAN = 55 + NICOLAS(73) + BARACK(36) = 164. The NWO and its alliances: The UN is the 'leader' of these organisations to one world goverment : UN = 35 x 4 =140 + 2 Thess 2 :4 + Rev 13 : 3 = 164 . UN = 35 + EU(26) + AU(22) + NWO(52) = 135 x 4 = 540 + 126 (Adolfo Nicolas) = 666. All these antichrist worldpowers under leadership of the black pope against God's people. Hoseah 4 : 6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. On 3 . 3 . 2010 our president ,JACOB ZUMA received the ORDER OF THE BATH from queen Elizabeth in London. This is a military order that are awarded to military officers for 'EXCELLENT' duties. 3 + 3 + 50 (2010) = 56 . In ZULU language we have a 'word' TA TA MA that means TAKE MANY and TA TA MA = 56 + 92 (Jacob Zuma) + Revelation 13 :3 = 164. JACOB ZUMA (92) + BARACK OBAMA(68) = 160 + 4th kingdom = 164. The Reformation, after severe percecution, adopted a manmade commandment as ordered by the Pope. Google : Who changed the Sabbath day. Only God can changed times and laws as written in Daniel 2 : 21. ( 2 + 21 = 23). I attached a photo of our National LOTTO Jackpot numbers of 11 March 2000 until 29 April 2000. God even used this Lotto to warn me against the works of antichrist. Our Lotto have a slogan: TA TA MA ,meaning TAKE MANY..(Its a long story - my testimony) OTTO means 8 in Italian. OTTO = 70 + 8 = 78 and in Psalm 78 we are reminded of Lessons from history. In the year 962 there was a Pope OTTO. He was a cruel dictator..Our Lotto was always on a Saturday, the 7th day. God hates this evil doing on His sabbath day. I played the Lotto 6 times in 2000 and NEVER again. LOTTO = 82 + Isaiah 65 : 11 + 6 times played = 164. On the attachment you can see that the 4th time of the Lotto on 1 April 2000, the 7 numbers adds up to 164. The date 1 + 4th month + 26(MM) = 31 + 7th day + 13 years ago + Matthew 24 : 35 = 110 and this 110 refers to Revelation 2 :7,11,17,29 + Revelation 3 : 6,13,22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. 164 - 110 = 54 + 4th prophecy = 58 and this 58 refers to Matthew 24 : 14 + Revelation 14 : 6 the everlasting Gospel. On the attachment the date 23 April 2000 must be 22 April 2000. I believe God ordained it so. 23 + 13 years ago + 7th day = 43 + Rev. 1 : 10 + 4th prophecy = 58 that refers to Matthew 24:14 + Rev 14 : 6. 23 + Matthew 5 : 17,18,19 = 82 that refers to Daniel 2 : 22,28,30. The 23 + Daniel 2 : 21 + 13 years ago = 59 that refers to Matthew 5 : 17,18,19. ( 59 + Matthew 24 : 35 = 118 and Psalm 118 : 17 reads: I will not die but live and declares the works of the Lord. Psalm 118:17 + Isaiah 56 : 6 + 7th day = 204 - 164 = John 8: 32 You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.

Response #13:

Dear Friend,

Thank you for your email. For the biblical meaning of 666, please see the following link:

"The Mark and Number of the Beast"

Simply put, the number cannot be used to "figure things out" before the Tribulation begins. Rather, it is a confirmation for Christians during the Tribulation that antichrist is indeed the beast (for the wavering few who are on the brink of being persuaded that he is as says he is, Jesus Christ). All the more reason to focus on what the Bible has to say about these things. That is what the extensive, multi-part Coming Tribulation series is all about. Namely, not any sort of extrapolation from current events, but rather a focused effort to discern what scripture says about these matters (link: Coming Tribulation).

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob Luginbill

Question #14:

G'Day brother!

Hope your keeping well. When you get a chance, please watch at least the first 20min of this video. Let me know what you think.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JdlDdi6HnyE

Your Loving Brother In Christ

Response #14:

Good to hear from you as always. I hope you haven't dropped any money on this book! For starters, there aren't any unicorns in the Bible, so there is no connection between Revelation and the seals of the British royal family. Secondly, the lion is a lion in all these crests (have a look); in Revelation the beast looks mostly like a leopard (it only has a mouth like a lion). Thirdly, dragons are ubiquitous in medieval heraldry. I note that none of the dragons in the heraldry discussed here have seven heads as the one in Revelation does (so its not the same dragon, obviously). Fourthly, as to the name calculation, the number and the means for understanding it is Greek, not Hebrew (and has nothing to do with Kabbalah!). Fifthly, the only way that the gematria can work even in Hebrew (the wrong language) is if Wales is spelled in Hebrew with only one yodh – whereas it has two in all the references I could find (yielding 672, not 666). Finally, I'm not a royals watcher, but I think that it is fair to say that if prince Charles is the antichrist, we don't have much to worry about during the Tribulation. It goes to show that there are all manner of deceptions out there nowadays (whether well-intentioned and merely being used by the devil or deliberate) – and they very frequently are means of acquiring money from the gullible.

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #15:

Dr Luginbill,

Could it be that Revelation 17:11, if its interpretation referring to the papacy (?) be the correct one, signal the following scenario: an impasse occurs in the election of a new pope after Benedict's official resignation becomes effective on February 28. Then a world rocking event occurs, such as the manifestation en masse of "extraterrestrials" (inter dimensional demonic entities) that would create such worldwide chaos and crumbling of beliefs that he (Benedict), would be asked by humanity (and the dark powers that be) to reconsider his decision and become pope again. This time with regained strength and knowledge (demonically imbued), in response to a world wide clamor for a representative of humanity to negotiate with these aliens (demons) ?

God bless you and

Thank you!

Response #15:

The beast throughout Revelation is antichrist. He will be a political figure who claims to be Christ, and will seize power in Babylon during the early days of the Tribulation. I don't want to say that the Roman church is entirely irrelevant, but largely that is true. During the Reformation there were those who painted Rome as the "great whore", and this (false) interpretation has had its adherents ever since. In my view it's a good example of what happens when Christians allow politics to flavor their interpretation of scripture: even when they are coming from the "good side", inevitably the process leads to theological error (the abortion debate offers a good parallel).

Antichrist may come to lead the Roman church, but then his worldwide religion will consume all other humanly concocted religions and denominations during those dark days as well. So I wouldn't be making too much of Rome and the pope. Moreover, these events are still a number of years out. You can find out more about Revelation 17 and what is meant by the beast being both a seventh and one of the eight at the following link: "One of the seven and also an eighth" in CT 3B.

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #16:

G'Day Brother!

I've always believed the Beast to be the Roman Catholic Church. There reason I say this, is because; the description given in the book of Daniel and the book of Revelations fit her description. If you search wide and far; you will see they control all the banking in the world, they control the illuminati (secret society), they even own part of Israel along with the Rothchild family. England and America are both puppets in her hand. She has already deceived the world in being God on earth. She claims that she can forgive sins, there will be no greater abomination than this, in God's eye's. This is the one thing that gives her away. And many people have believed it. She is the vicar of God on earth. She has persecuted and killed the faithful saints of Jesus Christ as heretics. She has changed the holy times and laws of God as it's mark of authority. It's an apostate church that makes the nations drink her cup of apostate doctrine. Headquartered in the city of seven hills, Rome.

Am I on the wrong track?

God Bless

Response #16:

Good to hear from you as always. I am certainly aware of this interpretation. I was taught versions of it in seminary and elsewhere and have subsequently read books proclaiming it. Let me say that I am by no means an apologist for the R.C. church! However, that church cannot be Babylon (another very famous interpretation) nor can it be "the beast". Antichrist will be the actual son of the devil (Gen.3:15), that is, an individual and not a man-made organization:

(1) So we ask you, brothers, in regard to the coming our Lord Jesus Christ [discussed in chapter one, verses 3-12], and our assembling together to Him [in resurrection at His return (cf. 1Cor.15:51-54)], (2) that you not be so easily moved from your correct understanding [of these matters], nor disturbed [by doubts about what you should know to be true] – not even if [this "new information" purports to come] through a spirit, or an [inspired] word or a letter supposedly from me, declaring that the Day of the Lord is already upon us. (3) Do not let anyone deceive you in any way. For [the 2nd Advent cannot come] unless the Apostasy [the great falling away of the faithful in the first half of the Tribulation] has already occurred, and the man of lawlessness [antichrist] has been revealed [an event also occurring in the Tribulation], that "son of destruction" (i.e., characterized by, author of, and doomed to destruction), (4) the one who will oppose and exalt himself against every so-called god and object of worship to such a degree that he will take his seat in the temple of God and represent himself as being God. (5) Don't you remember that while I was still with you I was explaining these things to you? (6) Even now you know what it is that restrains [antichrist's arrival] so that he will be revealed [only] in his own time. (7) For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work – [and] it is only the Restrainer [who keeps things in check, and will] until He moves out of the way. (8) And then the lawless one (i.e., antichrist) will be revealed, [that same one] whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of His mouth and destroy when He appears at His [glorious] return – [that same lawless one] (9) whose appearance [will come about] through Satan's empowerment [and will be] accompanied by every [sort of] false miracle, both signs and portents, (10) and by every [sort of] unrighteous deception [designed] for those who are perishing, [namely those who will believe these lies] because they did not open themselves up to the love for the truth so as to be saved. (11) And for this [very] reason God is going to send upon them an empowerment of error so that they may believe the lie, (12) in order that they may be condemned, [even all those] who have not believed the truth but have [instead] approved of unrighteousness.
2nd Thessalonians 2:1-12

It is hard to see how the above could possibly refer to an institution – unless we allegorize scripture to the point where it means anything and therefore nothing. I think if you have a look at the link below where I deal with antichrist in as much detail as scripture allows you will see that he is a person, a despicable person who is a nephilim (the son of the devil: Gen.3:15), but an individual nonetheless:

CT 3B: Antichrist and his Kingdom

For the identification and discussion of the beast's tribulational religion, please see the links:

Characteristics of the New Religion of Antichrist

The False Piety of Antichrist's Tribulational Religion

The Anti-Christian Religion of Antichrist and its World-wide Expansion

The Persuasiveness of the Tribulational False Religion

The False Prophet's Administration of Antichrist's False Religion

Yours in Jesus the one and only true Christ,

Bob L.

Question #17:

Hi Bob,

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/why-ldquofreedom-of-worshiprdquo-is-not-enough

Already 'Freedom of Religion' has changed into 'Freedom of Worship.' Soon, very soon, that too shall change into 'Freedom of Worship... at your choice of cult dedicated to the antichrist.'

Sincerely,

Response #17:

Interesting. Of course I'm not much concerned with religion (or what politicians think about it). You are right that soon enough the one thing that will be illegal will be the actual teaching of the truth and the actual expression of the fact that Jesus is the Christ. The only positive spin I have to put on that is that seven years on the other side (at the most), our Lord will return and demonstrate how He thinks about the issue:

Since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.
2nd Thessalonians 1:6-10 NKJV

Yours in our dear Lord Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #18:

What is your understanding on the following verse:

Genesis 3:14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

Furthermore, why was hate put between them and their offspring and is this why Satan hates us? Is his seed singular (as in the antichrist) or plural and mean Satan has children and offspring just as Adam and Eve did?

Response #18:

Dear Friend,

Good to hear from you again. As to your question:

The serpent is cursed by association with the devil who possessed it on that occasion, and the prophecy of the serpent's seed is thus a reference to antichrist. That is the opposition mentioned in this verse: between "her offspring" = the Christ, versus "your offspring" = Satan's son, anti-Christ. Please see the link: "More on Antichrist and his kingdom".

Question #19:

Hi Bob,

How long does the "Little Horn" of Dan. 7:8 & 8:9 "officially" exist in the prophetic capacity in which he is identified?

Response #19:

The "little horn" is antichrist, and the prophecy describes his rise to power during the first half of the Tribulation with the end of it being descriptive of his position as ruler of the world during its second half.

Here's are some links:

Names for antichrist

The reign of antichrist

The beast

Antichrist and his kingdom (CT 3B)

The Mark of the Beast (in CT 4)

The Number of the Beast (in CT 4)

Israel and Antichrist in Eschatology

The 7 Trumpets, the 7 Kings, Nephilim, Antichrist and Revived Rome.

Antichrist: Alive and Well and Living on Planet Earth?

More on Antichrist and his Kingdom

Antichrist and Babylon

The Beast: Some Questions about Antichrist.

Aliens, antichrist, and eschatology.

Antichrist's 'desire of women' in Daniel 11:37 et al.

The reign of antichrist:  7 years or 3 and 1/2 years?

In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #20:

Hi Bob,

Here is something I find quiet interesting:

Daniel 9:26 (KJV)
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Posted below is a word for word translation of the actual highlighted text from the Masoretic Text...(please check the attached Interlinear Scriptural Analyzer for verification - they show both the HE and the HIM). http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/dan9.pdf

...and the city and the sanctuary he shall destroy people-of the one coming prince and end of him in flood...

Cited below is your translation of Dan. 9:26...

26"Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary And its end will come with a flood...

Please note that in the KJV translation, as well as yours, the "HE" of the Hebrew "ishchith" #7843 and the "HIM" of the Hebrew "uqutz" #7093 have both been omitted from the Passages.

Meanwhile, it must be equally noted that the English translated word "PEOPLE" (Hebrew "om" #5971) is used in this Passage as a noun-masculine-singular and the English translated word END (Hebrew "uqutz" #7093) is used as a noun-masculine. Hence, the parsed suffix "End of HIM". Likewise, the word "AND" has been removed and extracted from the parsed Hebrew word "ueoir" #5892, KJV translated as "the City" (but per the Masoretic Text – "AND the City") and has been placed in front of their suggested translation of "AND the people".

To this end, as can clearly be seen the KJV translators have taken a considerable grammatical liberty in there contextual and grammatical manipulation of the actual Masoretic Text in question to arrive at their "suggested" final translation of the "people of the prince" as the destroyers...

Therefore, just who is the "HE" and who is the "HIM" in this Passage and just WHAT/WHO is being destroyed?

Can you prove the translation of Dan. 9:26 above to be grammatically wrong?

...and the city and the sanctuary people of the coming Prince He shall destroy and the end of him in a flood...

Posted below as stated before, is a word for word translation of the actual text from the Masoretic Text...

...and the city and the sanctuary he shall destroy people-of the one coming prince and end of him in flood...

Response #20:

Here is the way I translate the whole verse:

And after the sixty two weeks, Messiah will be cut off and have nothing (cf. Is.53:8), and the people of the prince who is coming (i.e., antichrist) will destroy both the city and the holy place. And his end will come with a flood (i.e., the "flooding away" of his armies at Armageddon), and until that end there will be wars – [appalling] devastation has been decreed.
Daniel 9:26

The translation above is no different from most in terms of how it understands the grammar of the Hebrew text.

As to the translation you provide, let me say from the start that the "word for word translation" given second (upon which I am assuming the first translation is based) is not a translation. While it may be correct "word by word", it is entirely incorrect for combination of words occurring together here. Whenever words are considered individually and out of any context, translation suffers, especially if the translation does not take into account the fact that in English the positioning of words in any sentence affects how we understand it (e.g., "dog bites man" is different from "man bites dog") since ours is a word-order language. Hebrew, however, like Latin and Greek and many other ancient languages, reverse the position of subjects and objects all the time (e.g., they have other ways to tell "who is biting whom" apart from word order). I am happy to explain this further if you like, but suffice it to say here that the interlinear-like second translation has led to a number of things in the first translation which are absolutely not correct:

1) The city and the sanctuary are the grammatical objects in the sentence, not the subjects.

2) "People" is the subject, and cannot be joined grammatically with "sanctuary", one of its objects (as if "sanctuary" were a virtual adjective modifying "people" – which it cannot be).

3) "of the prince who is to come" is a part of a construct phrase (analogous to our use of the genitive case in Indo-European languages) and cannot be separated piece from piece; because it is linked together; moreover, the lead noun, people, governs the rest of the construction = "people of the prince who is coming".

4) The repetition of "He" which you capitalize here is ungrammatical because we already have a subject. Unlike English, Hebrew includes pronouns as a part of all finite verbs (as with Latin and Greek). This is a difficult enough concept for my beginning Greek and Latin students, but what is even tougher to comprehend in the early going is that when a subject is actually present in the sentence (as it is here), repeating the pronoun in translation leads to confusion and may even lead into error. To put that another way, the Hebrew here does say "he/it will destroy", but because we have already been given the subject we cannot (in translating into English) repeat the pronoun on the verb in addition to the added subject without giving the false impression that "he/it" is someone/something different from the subject. That is the impression your translation gives, especially with the capitalized "He". To put that as simply as possible, the "people of the prince who is to come" has to be what is meant by the "He / it" suffix on the verb here.

5) If by "the end of him in a flood" you mean the end of the prince who is to come will come like a flood, that is fine, although the English is a bit tortured.

This certainly illustrates the problem of using interlinear Bibles. They may give the impression that certain things which are in fact completely impossible in the language considered are reasonable alternatives. I think if you compare the translation I provide above with those of other major versions you will see what I mean. There is a reason why they all come out to about the same place – because that is what the Hebrew demands. So the KJV is actually quite good here. No one repeats in translation the pronoun on the verb when a subject is supplied because it would conflict with the grammatical subject. This is a problem with English (which has lost all such pronouns) for those who are English speakers only.

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #21:

Hi Bob,

Please look at Dan. 8:24 and you will see the KJV use of the "HE shall destroy"... the same identical Hebrew "ishchith" #7843 as Dan. 9:26.

Daniel 8:24 (KJV)
24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.

1.) The city and the sanctuary in the following are descriptions of the PEOPLE and no more than saying - the righteous and the holy PEOPLE...

2.) The PEOPLE are the object of the destruction the HE was to destroy...

3.) The Prince who is to come is not separated and describes His relationship to the PEOPLE - I have the coming Prince...

4.) The HE is the one who does the destroying...

5.) It is the PEOPLE who is destroyed and NOT the Prince who is to come...

Thus far you have not proven this to be grammatically WRONG...

...and the city and the sanctuary people of the coming Prince He shall destroy and the end of him in a flood...

However, I will place this before an English scholar...

Response #21:

Daniel 8:24 is not a valid parallel. In fact, it's precisely the opposite situation because in that passage there is no subject-noun present to replace the "he". That's the problem with the proposed alternative translation in Daniel 9:26: the latter passage has a subject which must be translated as the subject and which thus necessitates leaving out the "he/it"; whereas because Daniel 8:24 does not have a subject-noun English translation demands including the subject from the subject pronoun on the verb.

Apologies if this seems confusing to you. It takes some time in the language to "get" this concept, and most of my first year students have the same issue in Latin and Greek. But trust me on this: anyone who knows Hebrew well enough to read the OT without helps will tell you the same thing – although they may explain it better than I am apparently doing!

Yours in Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #22:

Hi Bob,

Thank you for responding.

The "HE" of Dan. 9:26 in the English translation I provide cannot be left out of the prophetic statement because short of naming who the actual individual is who will destroy the "City and the Sanctuary PEOPLE" "of the coming Prince" there is no other English alternative to express this - Hence "He shall destroy" these specifically described PEOPLE of the coming Prince, which is grammatically perfectly correct.

The "City and the Sanctuary PEOPLE" are of the family "of the coming Prince" that the "He" is going to destroy. There is noting wrong so far with the English grammar.

This is no more than grammatically saying... "and the black and the white PEOPLE" of the United States "God" (HE) will destroy and the end of HIM (the black and white PEOPLE - as a SINGULAR PEOPLE- of the United States) shall be with a flood.

The English to this sentence could not be any more simple.

...and the city and the sanctuary people of the coming Prince He shall destroy and the end of him in a flood...

...and the black and the white people of the United States (God) He shall destroy and the end of him (the black and white people of the United States) in a flood...

What you are suggesting is a grammatical rule that the HE pronoun of the verb can NEVER be expressed in ANY circumstance.

However, I know of know such grammatical rule.

Response #22:

With all due respect, Hebrew is not English and English is not Hebrew. Just because something works in one language does not mean it works in the other or vice versa. This is not a matter of interpretation. This is matter of linguistic possibilities. It can't mean what you want it to mean – because of what Hebrew can mean and what it can't. It has to mean what without exception all of the scholars in all of the versions who have translated this over the centuries the same way have taken it to mean – for the reasons explained previously.

I am happy to defend all theological conclusions put forward at this site. When, however, it comes down to a crystal clear case of an issue that is entirely one of language, there is not much profit to entertaining, for example, "down" as a possibility if the text say "up" or "up" if it says "down".

Do please feel free to consult with someone else who also knows Hebrew and I am sure you will get the same response (although, as I say, perhaps explained in a way that makes more sense to you).

Yours in Jesus our dear Lord,

Bob L.

Question #23:

Hi Bob,

I most certainly HOPE you will patiently, kindly and professionally respond to this concern. I did as you said and verified...and you are indeed CORRECT when you state that the pronouns of verbs in BH are not repeated when there is a clearly defined subject noun. However, it is equally true in BH when there is NO defined subject noun that can replace the pronoun, then the pronoun of the verb is expressed as the subject noun in conjunction with its verb - hence, "He shall destroy", where "He" is the pronoun subject noun of the verb "shall destroy". When you stated that Dan. 8:24 was not a valid parallel to my Passage of Dan. 9:26, that was and is only true in direct respect to the KJV translation of this said Passage wherein "PEOPLE" is the stated subject noun - and therefore as the KJV correctly translates without repeating the implied "He" pronoun of the verb "shall destroy". Going forwards, for a point of clarification in my translation of Dan. 9:26 (not the KJV nor yours) PEOPLE is NOT the subject noun of the verb "shall destroy" but rather the pronoun "HE" is the subject noun. In the meantime, my translation is parallel as I previously stated to Dan. 8:24 because it has no defined and present subject noun that can replace the "He". Therefore, in my translation of Dan. 9:26 the pronoun "He" is then the expressed subject noun of the verb "shall destroy" and "the city and the sanctuary people of the coming Prince" is the object of the verb and subject noun "He shall destroy" - and the city and the sanctuary, etc., are the descriptive adjectives of the said object.

...and the city and the sanctuary people of the coming Prince He shall destroy and the end of him in a flood...

Moreover, to bolster my translation claim of Dan. 9:26 I have direct supporting Scriptures that reveal just who the "HE" is in my translation and it is not the Messiah Prince - and just exactly then who this antecedent "HE" of Dan. 9:26 is in Dan. 9:27 as the one who "confirms the covenant" with the Jews.

Response #23:

In your translation of Daniel 9:26, you have made "people" the direct object of the sentence, linking it with "sanctuary" (one of two actual direct objects, namely the second one; the first direct object being "city"). "People" is not the direct object, but the subject. For that reason, the pronoun "he" cannot be included in a translation as if it were the stand-alone subject and something independent of "people". To put this another way, the "he/it" which you capitalize here refers to "people"; it does not refer to some previously mentioned noun. Placing them both in a sentence leads people to think that "he" is different from "people", which it is not, and/or that "people" is the direct object rather than the subject when in fact the opposite is the case.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #24:

Hi Bob,

I have some English professors awaiting your response to my previous question so if you can get back with me as soon as possible it will be most appreciated. Could you please state what you suggest the "OBJECT" of destruction and the "SUBJECT NOUN" of this following statement to be?

...and the Holy and the Righteous people he shall destroy...

According to your previously posted response you seem to be saying that it would be the Holy and the Righteous (OBJECTS) being destroyed by the People (SUBJECT NOUN) - totally ignoring the clearly stated "He".

Response #24:

I'll try one more time to make this as clear as I can:

The Hebrew of Daniel 9:26:

Subject: "the people" ("of the prince who is coming")

Verb: ([he/it: meaning the people]) "will destroy"

Direct Object #1: "the city" ("and")

Direct Object #2: "the sanctuary"

Result:

[S] "the people" ("of the prince who is coming") / [V] "will destroy" / [D.O.] "the city" AND [D.O.] "the sanctuary"

Your translation:

Subject: ["he/it"]

Verb: "will destroy"

Direct Object #1: "the city" ("and")

Direct Object #2: "the sanctuary-PEOPLE"

What you have done is to take the grammatical subject and make it part of the second direct object, giving the subject pronoun on the verb its full grammatical force as if it were itself the subject (which is not permissible when a subject noun is present); you have also used the first object noun as a virtual adjective to modify "the people". The former misunderstands the Hebrew grammar; the latter is impossible in Hebrew outside of construct phrases which we do not have in the case of "sanctuary" and "people". We do not have the first potential problem in English because our verbs do not have mandatory subject pronouns attached to them. We use a pronoun "in place of a noun", but in Hebrew (and Greek and Latin too), every finite verb form has a pronoun attached so that subject pronouns are optional. They are not optional in English, so I can see how you might find all of this rather confusing. Coming from an English-only background many of my first year students do as well, so I am well-acquainted with the phenomenon. In English we never have the problem of having to reconcile a "he/she/it" pronoun with another noun and suppress the former in our translation, because in English it is always one or the other. In Hebrew and in most ancient languages, however, the finite verb, since it contains a pronoun as part of its conjugated form, needs no additional pronoun to make the meaning clear. When an actual noun-subject is used, therefore, that attached pronoun has to be suppressed when translating.

I hope this makes the issue clear at last. Feel free to consult an entire English department, but as I said before, the "problem" is one of English not being Hebrew and Hebrew not being English. What works in one may not work in the other, and what is necessary in one may not be necessary in the other. That is the situation here. One thing which is common to both languages, however, is that a subject is a subject and an object is an object, so that when we translate from any language into another language it is impermissible to reverse the two.

Yours in Jesus our dear Lord,

Bob L.

Question #25:

Hi Bob,

Thank you for your kind and scholarly response. Let me humbly try this one more time. You state my translation to be the following:

Subject: ["he/it"]

Verb: "will destroy"

Direct Object #1: "the city" ("and")

Direct Object #2: "the sanctuary-PEOPLE"

However, you have once again taken your own personal view and not that of the grammar. I am NOT saying that the CITY and the SANCTUARY are the Direct Objects...they are not in my translation. PLEASE allow me to say this once more - the City and the Sanctuary are BOTH complimentary descriptive adjectives of the Direct Object PEOPLE. In summary, PLEASE answer the following question. Could you please state what you suggest the "OBJECT" of destruction and the "SUBJECT NOUN" of this following statement to be?

...and the Holy and the Righteous people he shall destroy...

Response #25:

English is an SVO language (subject-verb-object). We have no case endings any longer (with the exception of a few pronouns), so we rely on word order to make the meaning clear: "dog bites man" is different from "man bites dog", but that is only clear to us from the word order inasmuch as the forms of the words are otherwise the same. In your latest example you make use of an archaic word order which I do understand (as a KJV user et al.), but which might very well confuse most English speakers today:

...and the Holy and the Righteous people he shall destroy...

should be according to modern use

...and he shall destroy the Holy and the Righteous people ...

In the case of your translation of Daniel 9:26, the situation is more complicated because there we have an expressed subject as well as a subject pronoun and a compound direct object. Your archaic example cited above can be disentangled by those familiar with 17th century and earlier diction, but when translating into English from another language it is not permissible to mix the word order incorrectly in English between subject and object, add another subject, then connect one of the objects with the actual subject (regardless of diction). The result is turning "dog bites man" into "man bites dog". That is what your translation does (among other problems noted): it completely reverses the actual meaning with the result that "he/it" (unspecified) destroys "the people"; whereas in the Hebrew "the people" are the "he/it", and they are the ones who do the destroying.

This is a question of what the Hebrew means – not of how someone would wish to parse an incorrect English translation. Daniel 9:26 does not mean and cannot mean what your translation suggests it means. In the Hebrew, the "people" does the destroying (subject); it is incorrect to suggest by a faulty translation that they are the ones being destroyed instead. That would be "man bites dog" instead of the true "dog bites man".

Check any translation you like, and you will see that "people" is the subject, not the object (in contrast to what your translation would give the reader to understand).

In Jesus Christ our Lord,

Bob L.

Question #26:

Hi Bob,

HOPE all is WELL!!!

Myself and some other concerned Biblical students are intensely searching for the correct translation for Dan. 9:26 - which may or may not resolve to that which is the traditional translation. As such, we are sending the following questions to what we consider to be Biblical Hebrew scholars in the hopes of acquiring a database of grammatical knowledge and scholarly opinions relevant to this particular Passage. Thus, we would hope to enjoy your proven scholarly input on this matter as well. As you well know we subscribe to the notion that this Passage is revealing God and the Messiah while you hold to the view of the futuristic man, antichrist. Be that as it may - what we are looking here is therefore neither of our prophetic interpretative opinions but rather the actual and literal grammatical translation possibilities and limitations of this said Hebrew Passage.

If you would be so kind as to share with us a bit of your proven intelligence and Biblical Hebrew language skills it will be "most sincerely" appreciated. Respective of Dan. 9:26 – from a purely Hebraic grammatical perspective (not prophetic) could you please tell us the "specific" instrument and methodology which grammatically "dictates/mandates" what the translator must adhere to in correctly determining the appropriate SUBJECT noun for this said Passage? From my layman’s Hebraic grammatical perspective there are potentially three possible candidates for a subject noun in this aforementioned Passage – 1:) PEOPLE2:) PRINCE/Governor 3:) HE...the masculine pronoun from the Hebrew verb shachath – he shall destroy – where PEOPLE in this Passage is understood to be a masculine-singular-noun. To this end, I also equally see three potentially possible DIRECT OBJECTS in this suggested Passage depending on one’s grammatical choice of subject noun – hence, that which could possibly be destroyed by the applicable grammatical subject 1:) PEOPLE2:) CITY 3:) SANCTUARY. Meanwhile, as you well know many translators have invariably decreed and determined that the subject noun in this said Passage MUST be "PEOPLE" and CANNOT be anything else. Therefore, is it indeed true then from a purely Hebracially grammatical perspective (not prophetic) that the noun PEOPLE is the ONLY allowable and correct SUBJECT noun that can be correctly applied to this Dan. 9:26 Massoretic Text Passage translation? Once again, your attention and proven Biblical wisdom to this concern will be warmly and enthusiastically appreciated.

Response #26:

It's not a difficult passage to translate. Taking it the "traditional way" matches standard Hebrew diction; taking it the alternative way, well, no one who knows Hebrew would ever think to do so, quite honestly.

In addition to all the info I have previously shared with you (please have another look at all that if interested in the detailed grammatical answer to this question over all), taking it the way you wish to take it is impossible also on account of the word-order. Hebrew word-order is more flexible than English in some ways, but there are still rules. The subject can come first or the direct object can come first (as it does here); but one cannot have part of the direct object before the verb and part of it afterwards with the rest of the elements left hanging. That does not even happen in Hebrew poetry where the order is more flexible; it is thus doubly impossible for this "solution" to be viable in prose (and this does not even get to the impossible combination of "people" and "sanctuary" as mentioned before).

Language is language. It is meant to mean what it means. If you read the Hebrew out loud, it will be obvious. I am always telling my Greek and Latin students to do this. So much of language is "not on the page" and is only accessible to the ear. This verse is well-balanced and melodious - - understood in the correct way. But in addition to the grammatical problems outlined voluminously in previous emails and the word-order point above, no one who speaks or ever spoke Hebrew would say it like the alternative translation requires it to have been said – not, at any rate, and have any hope of ever being understood.

I hope this finally puts the issue to rest for you. I do understand that you have a different theological "take" on the issues in question. I would advise you to let the Bible speak for itself on this point in this verse. Even if you are not going to agree with my interpretation of what it means (that is certainly your business), there is no doubt whatsoever about what the verse actually says.

In Jesus our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #27:

Hi Bob,

HOPE all is WELL!!!

With respect to Dan. 9:26 the common theme that is being received as a response to our solicited questions is that from a Hebraic grammatical perspective, the Hebrew language scholars are revealing that the "CONTEXT" of this said Passage is not conclusive enough to adequately reveal with any degree of ABSOLUTE certainty the SUBJECT of this said Passage. Likewise, due to the fact that equally there is an absence of "DIRECT OBJECT MARKERS" (et) in this Passage as well, there is then no conclusive way to ABSOLUTELY determine the actual direct object(s) intended. It would seem that the ONLY element that is actually and absolutely grammatically known in this Passage of Dan. 9:26 is its verb - [He] shall destroy...

To this end, the resulting methodology of subject/direct object(s) selection in this particular Passage and its thereby subsequent translation is not one of specified grammatical requirements and mandates, that are clearly revealed in the context/grammar of the Passage itself, but rather one of TRADITION - or individual arbitrary CHOICE.

Therefore, for our database record - do you AGREE or DISAGREE with the other Hebrew language scholars that it is indeed NOT grammatically POSSIBLE to ABSOLUTELY determine with any degree of absolute certainty, what the actual SUBJECT/DIRECT OBJECT(s) of this specific Passage of Dan. 9:26 really are?

Response #27:

No.

Question #28:

Hi Bob,

Sorry that you are peeved.

While your answer is short and sweet we must wonder whether this is actually an answer based on credible and sound Hebrew language principles or one that is FORCED by the overwhelming ink you have already voluminously spilled in your personal publications on this particular Passage.

To this end, you have founded an enormity of personal theological opinions and doctrine on this said Passage being in the ABSOLUTE as you hope it to be.

However, we do find it quite disheartening that from the other Hebrew scholars (those with accredited and acclaimed Ph. D. degrees and their life's work in the knowledge pursuit of the Hebrew language itself and not the mere Classics) - that even though they hold to and publish a different opinion accepting "PEOPLE" as the subject of Dan. 9:26, they are nonetheless professional and objective enough to state the grammatical TRUTH - unlike your insecure and peevish "NO".

They are professionally skilled and wise enough to honestly declare that without sufficient context and direct object markers it is ABSOLUTELY NOT possible to mandate a specific subject - hence, your mandated PEOPLE.

We will now depart from your acquaintance for good having exposed what type of Hebrew/Biblical scholar you really are - ONE WHO IS SELFSERVING and OVERTLY PROTECTIVE of HIS PERSONAL PUBLISHED DOMAIN BE IT RIGHT or WRONG - at the EXPENSE of TRUTH.

Once again - thank you for your IMO's and you are indeed an "island" thinker.

Response #28:

[no response given]

 

Ichthys Home
 

Bible Options
Bible Study Software