[PW] Visa and the number of the beast

[Nichael Cramer]

Lisa Olsen wrote:
>Dear All,
>I have a customer who wants to know if VISA really does spell out 666 in
>a combination of Latin, Greek, and a third language.  I have found two
>websites that uphold the statement,
>http://novusordoseclorum.com/666.words.html and
>http://www.thenazareneway.com/666_the_number_of_the_beast.htm.  However,
>I have not been able to find anything from a non-religious source that
>would either verify or debunk that "A" in Chaldean/Sanskrit/Babylonian
>was also used to represent the number 6.  Can anyone help?

Hi Lisa

In a word, no.

To pick one obvious problem with the first website above, the standard Greek
symbol for the number six with the (obsolete) Greek letter digamma (not stigma
as the website claims).  The digamma is sometimes conflated/confused with the
(also obsolete) greek letter stigma; but, in any case, stigma was a 
ligature (combination)
of the letters sigma and tau, and was used to represent the sound "st".
(So, it _might_ make some sense if the name of the credit card 
company were "Vista"....)

But the more important point is this:   Working on the assumption that the
real point here is trying to tie this into the number of the Beast of 
Revelation,
it is important to remember that there are _no_ Greek manuscripts 
that represent
the number of the Beast as "six-six-six".    In the vast majority of 
manuscripts,
the number is --in standard Greek fashion-- spelled out in full; i.e. 
the Greek equivalent
of writing the number as "six-hundred-and-sixty-six"[*].    In those handful
of manuscripts that display the number "numerically" the number is always
written the in the standard Greek format.  That is, the symbol for 
"six hundred",
the symbol for "sixty" and the symbol for "six" are all 
different.   So the number would
be written by the three symbols "[six-hundred][sixty][six]".

In short, it would be nonsensical for a Greek manuscript to write the number as
"[six][six][six]".   So it can be taken as a good rule of thumb, that 
should any
attempted exposition  or discussion of the number "666" make so elementary
a mistake, it can safely be dismissed out of hand.

N

[* This sets aside the issue that about 1/4 of the Greek testaments 
of Revelation
give the number as "616", and a small number of other manuscripts give other
readings (e.g. "646" and "656".)]