Skip to comments.Image currently posted at DrudgeReport with the title "AP: MOTIVATED BY RELIGION"
Posted on 04/22/2013 5:51:23 PM PDT by RoosterRedux
This is the image posted at Drudge (the name of Allah)...
And this was the what was actually recorded by John the Revelator as "666"...
Curious to say the least!
Wow...interesting...there are no coincedences! Just turn it and it looks almost exactly alike
Moved around there is an amazing similarity.
... we will not let you go!
Their book is a cheap copy of the Bible...;)
Though this image says “bismillah” (i.e. in the name of Allah), it is actually just “Allah” in Arabic.
What’s the crossed-swords thing? Is is always written with Allah, or are you just choosing symbols?
Cheap in quality, but dear in the blood of innocents.
It’s says &*(ck Head.
Sheesh! Learn some Arabic, Farsi, Urdu or whatever..
Help us out here...what are you saying? Or are you just showing off.
Typing that gives me the creeps so I am typing this:
In the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe, Lion of Judah, Son of the Most Holy God...I rebuke the favorite words of I****.
Actually, the Bismillah is a different statement in Arabic. The symbols on Drudge are the actual name of Allah. And the crossed swords are the symbol of the way Islam is to be spread (i.e. by the sword).
But if you are stating that the language is wrong...please edify us (seriously...we need to know).
Didn’t a discovery a decade or more ago reveal that it was really ‘616’, not ‘666’.
باسم الله الرحمن الرحين
In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful
Walid Shoebat prooves islam is the beast/antichrist. 666 code is as clear as day now
“/S” thought it obvious...
But there is little confusion that, in history, John the Revelator wrote "chi xi stigma" or
Oops sorry bout that. I should have known.
Looking at it closer doesn’t help...LOL What are you trying to reveal?
But there are ‘99’ names of allah. ;>
Anyone see it?
And as John the Revelator says..."This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number [symbol] of a man. That number is 666 [chi xi stigma]."
The fact that he emphasizes "number/symbol of a man" is confusing.
One might draw from that that John means the single leader (a man) of Islam. Or he might mean "human" as in not a deity but the human followers of such a deity.
I doubt the latter of those suggestions because the Apostle Paul has already told us that we are war with the Spiritual Realm...not the physical/human realm.
Bottom line...I think the AntiChrist is the ultimate leader of Islam...the Caliph.
Obama thinks he is the Caliph...but this chapter isn't over yet.
Obama is the leading figure at present...but time will tell.
Be wise...and clever.
Pls clarify...lost in your post.
I learned something new today.
During King Solomon's time:
1 Kings 10:14
By John the Revelator:
Revelation 13: 17-18
I’m following the reasoning given by Walid Shoeblat linked in earlier discussion here:
At 2:25, he explicitly references the Codex Sinaiticus bible and says these symbols are not the greek letters for 666 and the actual symbols can be found there.
So I linked the relevant page in the Codex Sinaiticus containing Revelations 3:18 and am asking if anyone can confirm what he is saying and see these symbols he is talking about?
Or is it instead in the second copy he talks about, the Codex Vaticanus?
And pray all the time. Get tight with the Big Guy.;-)
Stay thirsty my friend.;-) But be careful and vigilant.
Yep...that is pretty darned clear.
I see true type letter kerning which was not available on third century typewriters!
Are you saying you see the Symbols in the Codex Sinaiticus?
I do not see them. Perhaps I made a mistake?
The Walid Shoeblat video displayed the symbols clearly. I couldn’t find them in your Codex Sinaiticus link.
Thanks for the admonition(s). A very interesting paradox.
I just came across the 1 Kings 10:14 reference to 666 while reading the Bible yesterday. I was amazed at the coincidence. Curious indeed, to say the least.
Then isn’t Shoeblat wrong when he claims these symbols are in the Codex Sinaiticus?
In the final analysis, I don’t know. Shoebat might be wrong...but please show us how the Codex Sinaitucus proves him wrong.
Walid Shoeblat says he found Arabic symbols related to the Islamic Allah in Revelations 3:18 of the earliest texts of the bible.
He specifically references the Codex Sinaiticus.
So I look up Rev 3:18 in the Codex Sinaiticus and what he is talking about isn’t there at all. It’s just the greek words for 666.
He also mentions Codex Vaticanus, but the original version doesn’t include a translation of Revelations at all.
So far it doesn’t look like his claims are credible to me.
He claims they are in Codex Vaticanus
Thx. This will take some research on my part. Will copy you with what I learn.
The mark of the beast is already everywhere.
Take a look at this:
I knew that “It’s a Small World” song had to be the work of the devil.
At 2:26 in the video he explicitly says that the Codex Sinaiticus does not have “666” and instead has these symbols.
But he’s wrong as 3 minute search shows, the greek words for 666 are right there and the symbols are not. He should withdraw the claim about Codex Sinaiticus.
He also says he found these symbols in Codex Vaticanus, but Revelations was not in the original 4th century edition — it was added in an appendix in the 15th century.
There are many editions of revelations that predate this 15th century version, and none of them have the symbols he is talking about.
He should withdraw the claim that his theory comes from the earliest editions of the bible, since it isn’t in any of them, and admit it comes from the hand of a 15th century transcriber.
Looks to me as a sort of illiterate shorthand for someone who became “quite turned by the view of a large bosom”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.