Is ASCII Code relevant for Apocalypse 13:18? I think so

[hansgeorg]

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one". That's "zero" righteous. That's purdy durn significant!

The writing doesn't state one can count the non-extant righteous to the number of zero.

The question being on whether "not one" or "none" counts as number, not whether that phrase is sometimes used appropriately, which we agree it does.

Here is the thread for that one:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ro-Zero/page15

Meanwhile, back to topic.

Ilyitch Ulyanov spells Iljitj Uljanov in the Swedish transcription.

Know the ASCII value for IULJANOV? 616

[Cow Poke]

The writing doesn't state one can count the non-extant righteous to the number of zero.

No, the writer trusts that the reader has a brain.

[Sparko]

The writing doesn't state one can count the non-extant righteous to the number of zero.

The question being on whether "not one" or "none" counts as number, not whether that phrase is sometimes used appropriately, which we agree it does.

Here is the thread for that one:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ro-Zero/page15

Meanwhile, back to topic.

Ilyitch Ulyanov spells Iljitj Uljanov in the Swedish transcription.

Know the ASCII value for IULJANOV? 616

So. You sure have a lot of anti-christs with your method. must get confusing.

[hansgeorg]

So. You sure have a lot of anti-christs with your method. must get confusing.

While there is one upcoming (or already here) Antichrist in the singular, there is also a lot of runners up.

I would say Vladimir Iljitj Uljanov was a runner up to the final one.

Precisely as most would agree that Nero (666 in Greek gematria, in Greek vocative), or Domitian (666 in ASCII, in Latin vocative) were such runners up.

[hansgeorg]

No, the writer trusts that the reader has a brain.

Lots of people with brains have previously noted that nothing is not a countable amount of things.

See that other thread.

Here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ro-Zero/page15

[Sparko]

While there is one upcoming (or already here) Antichrist in the singular, there is also a lot of runners up.

I would say Vladimir Iljitj Uljanov was a runner up to the final one.

Precisely as most would agree that Nero (666 in Greek gematria, in Greek vocative), or Domitian (666 in ASCII, in Latin vocative) were such runners up.

So how do you use your numerology to distinguish between "runners up" and "the real thing?"

[hansgeorg]

So how do you use your numerology to distinguish between "runners up" and "the real thing?"

[Sparko]

so if you can't tell if someone is actually the antichrist with your method, then what good is it?

[Cow Poke]

Lots of people with brains have previously noted that nothing is not a countable amount of things.

See that other thread.

Here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ro-Zero/page15

That's just goofy. If I'm counting inventory in a hardware store, I can see I normally have 10 hammers, and today I count 0. I need to order 10.

How many hammers do I have in stock? 0. That's a number.

[hansgeorg]

so if you can't tell if someone is actually the antichrist with your method, then what good is it?

Well, obeying the injunction of "He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast."

And watching out for the clear suspects.

[hansgeorg]

That's just goofy. If I'm counting inventory in a hardware store, I can see I normally have 10 hammers, and today I count 0. I need to order 10.

How many hammers do I have in stock? 0. That's a number.

That is not properly speaking counting.

[Cow Poke]

That is not properly speaking counting.

Yes it is. "How many hammers do we have in inventory?" answer - "zero". You're just being extremely dense because you need it to fit your goofy theory, or you've made a claim from which you can't back down.

We've already given you the example that in the computer/electronic world, devices are even named starting with 0, 1, 2, etc...

[Cow Poke]

Well, obeying the injunction of "He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast."

And watching out for the clear suspects.

Well, that first part rules you out.

[hansgeorg]

Yes it is. "How many hammers do we have in inventory?" answer - "zero". You're just being extremely dense because you need it to fit your goofy theory, or you've made a claim from which you can't back down.

We've already given you the example that in the computer/electronic world, devices are even named starting with 0, 1, 2, etc...

When the numbers of hammers are very low, one doesn't even do counting to know how many there are. If there are three, I see there are three, I don't count that.

So, how would seeing the relevant inventory empty involve any COUNTING of the non-extant hammers?

As to computer world, they have NAMED things according to their number theory, which if it is the wrong one doesn't matter much for the actual devices' functioning.

[hansgeorg]

Well, that first part rules you out.

If that were true, I didn't understand that. :see: