Talk:Number of the beast

message: I understand your reversion of this edit:  and I almost reverted it myself for the very same reason (well sourced).  However, upon really looking at the edit and taking a deeper look at what the section is saying, I actually agree with the removal.  The section is about "hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia" which is specifically about the fear of 666, not just the "mark of the beast".  This COVID-19 stuff, while true that it exists, is about masks and vaccination as being the "mark of the beast"; but it's not really about 666, as all the other items in this section are.  So I actually agree with  on this point.  I hope I explained that clearly and would ask that you revert back (I felt it better to discuss as there was more room for clarifying exactly "why", rather than just reverting on my disagreeance).  ButlerBlog (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but it looks as though it might be ok elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 18:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Butlerblog I've added it where I think it belongs. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Doug.  I'm still of the mind that this particular piece doesn't fit this article at all on the basis of topic (i.e. "Number" vs "Mark") as well not fitting the section as not being a "fear of" but rather an "identification of".  On the other hand, I'm sure there are plenty of editors who see it as related enough to include here.  I'm fine on it for now. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Butlerblog surely as the article talk about "mark" a lot and has a section "Mark of the beast" it belongs in the article? I may still have put it in the wrong place. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As "Mark of the beast" is, in fact, a redirect to said subjection on this page, I think it properly relevant for that section, yes. 2001:56A:F1FA:1900:9E6B:FF:FE00:6596 (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  COVID-19 section as  

message: Who is it? There in the book of a prophet time has been given for the last days. And for his time he was a very righteous man praying three times a day and the Persian who wanted to see how he was praying. He interpreted the dreams of the king and he was highly regarded by heavenly being because of his understanding. They told him about the book of truth and that someone will be born and inherits a kingdom which will last forever and there shall be no end from his kingdom. In the prophesy They chose for his arrival time of 62 seven and 70 seven. In the middle of 62 and 70 is found 66 which 11×6=66  66×2=132 and 66×3=198 and 62+70=132, and it is 12×11=132 and 11×18=198.
 66÷11=6  132÷11=12  198÷11=18
 I see a pattern that 6 is in the middle of 6 and 6 where 6+6=12, 6+6+6=18 and the result is 6 6 6. Why would someone chooses three indetical numbers. 
11+6=17  11×6=66 199.7.156.133 (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "prophet time" What does that mean? Dimadick (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identical numbers 

message: "During the COVID-19 pandemic, some groups associated COVID-19 vaccines and mask wearing with the mark of the beast, or that it was a microchip in the vaccine. Some religious leaders spoke out against this misinformation,"
It's really none of Wikpedia's fucking business if people want to interpret their Bible to mean this or that, in order to explain current situations.  The arrogance of an Communist online encyclopedia describing other people's religious beliefs as "misinformation" is off-the-rails, and yet even more further evidence of the Communist nature of Wikipedia, and a real-life manifestation of Prophet Orwell's predictions.  Further, if believing this thing or that about Covid is "the mark of the beast" is "misinformation", then what is the (politically) CORRECT interpretation of someone else's religious beliefs?  Exactly how does Wikipedia presume to tell people what is either correct, or incorrect, about their religious beliefs?
2603:8081:3A00:30DF:59DB:B7E1:FF38:DE4B (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Wikipedia is not a source of original research, the opinion of it being "misinformation" is that of the cited source(s), not Wikipedia's.  If you don't like it, complain to the cited source. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Grow up. Skyerise (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

text: "A microchip in the vaccine" is misinformation, and that isn't an issue of Biblical interpretation. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical Interpretation is "misinformation"?  NO.  I don't think so.