Barcode thought

[Le Chat]

"No-one could buy or sell unless he had this mark, that is the beast's name or the number that stands for his name".

I read this in the post by naomi24 and was quite shocked, as in work only the other day, we were talking about how cheques were no longer valid as a method of payment in some shops. I then piped up that maybe one day we'd all have a barcode tatoo on our wrist and just swipe our hand over a unit, which would then remove the money from our account, thereby dispensing with cash/credit cards altogether!
Isn't that spooky? Don't you also think that it may one day become a reality ?

[WaldoMcFroog]

The notion that barcodes contain the numbers 666 as 'guard bars' - the longer double lines that occur at each end and in the middle of a bar code - is erroneous, arrising from a misunderstanding of how barcodes actually work.

Plus the number of the beast isn't 666, it's 616. Plus, the Bible's not actually true.

More: http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/barcode.as p

[Theland]

616 Waldo?

[squarebear]

Yes it's 616. 666 is a common misconception.

[WaldoMcFroog]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast#6 16

[edit] 616
In May 2005, it was reported that scholars at Oxford University using advanced imaging techniques[9] had been able to read previously illegible portions of the earliest known record of the Book of Revelation, from the Oxyrhynchus site, Papyrus 115 or P115, dating to the mid to late third century. The fragment gives the Number of the Beast as 616 (chi, iota, stigma), rather than the majority text 666 (chi, xi, stigma).[1] The other early witness Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) has it written in full: hexakosiai deka hex(lit. six hundred sixteen).[10]

Significantly, P115 aligns with Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) which are generally regarded as providing the best testimony to Revelation. Thus, P115 has superior testimony to that of P47 which aligns with Codex Sinaiticus and together form the second-best witness to the Book of Revelation. This has led some scholars to conclude that 616 is the original number of the beast[11][12].

[Theland]

Brilliant detail as usual Waldo, but you say 'some' scholars? So is there a division of opinion still?

[Quinlad]

Yes, some scholars.

I daresay a professor of zoology for example doesn't have much of an opinion.

[naomi24]

Le Chat I would just like to point out to all present that other people mentioned bar codes on the thread attached to a question I posted. I've never said anything about bar codes.

The idea of having a bar code tattooed on our wrists is pretty scary, and I hope it never happens - but who knows?

[naomi24]

Theland Just a thought. What effect would it have on your beliefs if ALL scholars eventually agreed that 666 was incorrect?

[Le Chat]

Naomi - Aplogies. I could have worded the question "I read this in an earlier post....." However, as much as this did cross my mind, I did not assume that all people reading my post would have previously read yours - so for their ease of reference I decided to put it as " I read this in a post by naomi24...." purely so that they could then find you post in order to know what I was on about!
Can you tell I am not at work today and have got plenty of time to attend to 'splitting hairs?'

[WaldoMcFroog]

Theland, the info I provided is entirely from the link on Wikipedia, and caveats apply to the veracity of practically anything on Wikipedia, but since I wasn't up on the detail, merely knew that it was supposedly 616, it was easier to post someone else's work and credit it to them rather than pretend I was an expert.

Which is a long winded way of saying I can't answer your specific question, and in any case, as R&S regulars will know, my view is that it's all horsesh1t anyway.

[naomi24]

Le Chat No, that's fine. I realised you were referring to answers to my initial question, but felt others might not, so thought I'd make it clear to them. Don't want someone coming back in three months time accusing me of saying something I haven't. It has been known. :o)

[Le Chat]

I hold the same view as you Waldo and this comes from a failed Born again Christian. It just didn't work for me. I didn't feel it and more importantly I just couldn't bring myself, as an intelligent, educated woman, to believe it!
That's not to say that I would belittle anyone else's belief but He just didn't obviously want me in the fold.

[naomi24]

Me too. It seems that those who want to believe such things will find 'signs' in almost anything and everything.

[China Doll]

Ever read Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco? Absolutely excellent backing for the point that people will look for signs and patterns any wherere and indeed the consequences.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Good call China! Top book, though the first chapter is virtually impeneterable, as I recall. Once you get through that, it's great.

[China Doll]

I think I got confused on more than the first chapter but I am easily confused! But definitely worth the persistence.

[Theland]

616 or 666? Maybe the scholars are wrong, and if they all believed it, then maybe they are all wrong, but, 616 may turn out to have a great significance somewhere. Who knows?

[mattymatt123]

"666" "616" who really cares I have no feelings for the beast except sorrow, be gone from me in the name of jesus.

[Theland]

Radio frequency identification tags, (R.F.I.D.) can be made as small as a grain of rice and inserted under the skin, to carry loads of information about you. One company calls it the "Verichip," and uses it for employees to swan through otherwise locked doors and book out sensitive documantation etc.
This technology is here, now, and could easily replace your credit card, or the proposed national I.D. cards.

[naomi24]

China No, I haven't read that, but I will.

Theland Do you mean if ALL scholars agreed that 666 was incorrect, you'd say they were wrong - or have I misunderstood you?