Is June 6, 2006 666?

No, according to this post by Michael Covington. (LvSA)

In any event, I don't get how June 6, 2006 ends up as 6/6/6, or 6/66 in any event.

June 6, 1966, however...
6.6.2006 12:22am
Positive Dennis:
This is one the of the best short describtions of 666 that I have ever read,

The only thing I would add is that 6 (The symbolic number of humans of one short of perfection-which is 7) when it is squared (6 times 6) yields 36. And 36 when "pyramided" (36+35+34 ... +1) is 666. Both squaring and pyramiding a number where ways among ancient mathematicians to intensify a number's symbolic meaning. There was also a "magic square" in the ancient world where the numbers of that square add up to 666.

Positive Dennis
6.6.2006 9:06am
Freder Frederson (mail):
And of course since our current numbering system was adopted from the arabic system several hundred years after Revelations was written (not to mention the calendar--which was changed again even later), the whole idea that this date or any other number or date that depends on the use of an arabic number system is just ludicrous.
6.6.2006 11:44am
Goober (mail):
That is a terrifically interesting link; thanks!
6.6.2006 12:08pm
David Matthews (mail):

Well, then I guess that my college English Prof who insisted

Ronald (6 letters)
Wilson (6 letters)
Reagan (6 letters)

was the prophesied evil one, was wrong, also.

A few years back, I made the observation that Mikhail Gorbachev was the seventh head of the Soviet Communist Party (see link) and had "what appeared to be a head wound," which made him a prime candidate for the Beast:

(Revelation 13:1 - 3):

1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

Now I suppose some expert will show me where I go that one wrong....
6.6.2006 12:26pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
But what does Michael Crichton think?
6.6.2006 12:30pm
Jimmy (mail):
I thought the history channel told us that the Book of Revelations was written cryptically due to its intense anti-Roman sentiment (as it was directed against them politically. I don't know who to believe...
6.6.2006 1:33pm
Jam (mail):
This is what I posted at my Xanga site.

Today is 6/6/2006.

The Bible talks about someone's name, whose name, when using the sum of the letter's number equivalent is 666. There is even a debate whether it is 616.

Depending on your eschatological view, "the number" could have been Nero.

$6.66 is 666 pennies. So what? There is nothing evil about 666.

Today's date adds to nothing but the oportunity for uninformed people and fear mongerers to "mutilate" Biblical studies.

Today's date does not add up to 666 nor is derived from a man's name!

Plus, the date 6/6/2006 (or is it 2006/6/6?) is Gregorian. And today is 10 Sivan 5766, Sivan being the 4th month.

More on dates:

It seems that current dates are off by 4 years:

According to Dr Richard Leonard (Jesuit priest and director of the Catholic Film Office), when Christianity took over the Roman calendar, in the 4th Century, the monk who compiled the dates got it wrong. According to Dr. Leonard historians have discovered that "the dating was four years out" and that "the mistake had not been corrected and that going by the original dates, 6/6/06 had been four years ago."

So, the "dreaded" 6/6/06 really occurred on 6/6/02. Hmmm. Anybody recalls anything happening on that day? I do not.

Calendopaedia - The Gregorian Calendar
Calendopaedia - The Julian Calendar
Calendopaedia - Counting Years
6.6.2006 2:21pm
Damn. And I completely missed out on the Millennium because of that "year 1" thing.
6.6.2006 2:50pm
SFresident (mail):
BTW, it is the Book of Revelation, singular. It's source is one revelation to John, not a series of them. At least, that's what the book says.
6.6.2006 2:57pm
Jam (mail):
What I have been taught is that the title "Book of Revelation" is a shorthand for "The Revelation of Jesus Christ to John."

It is definitely in the singular.

The title is taken from the first couple of verses:

1The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.
6.6.2006 3:19pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
Anyway, the number is "616," according to The Latest Findings.
A newly discovered fragment of the Book of Revelation challenges the conventional belief that the Antichrist's mark is 666, indicating instead that it is 616. Expert classicists used multi-spectral imaging to get a better view of the text, which is written in archaic Greek and dates to the late third century.
And we got through June 1 just fine, IIRC.
6.6.2006 4:58pm
Jam (mail):
It is not as settled as you make it to be. In time we will discover whcih one is the best and accurate manuscript. Either way, it is reference to a man's name and not a date.
6.6.2006 5:09pm
GregHH (mail):
You fools! Of course today, 6/6/6, is the Day of the Beast.
The movie, The Omen, was released upon the world today, do you really believe that was a coincidence?
6.6.2006 5:33pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
It's reliably reported that a Dallas theater re-released the VeggieTales "Jonah" movie on the same date as The Omen, thus countering Satan with a bushel of righteous produce.

As for whether 616 or 666 is "settled," I didn't mean to imply that either was, merely to jape at the hoopla. (Note ironic caps on "The Latest Findings.") As I wrote:
Obviously, if two potential Antichrists arise, with competing numerals, this issue would then become a matter of the utmost urgency. Until then, not.
6.6.2006 6:46pm
David Matthews (mail):
"Obviously, if two potential Antichrists arise, with competing numerals, this issue would then become a matter of the utmost urgency. Until then, not."

For example, had Harry S Truman's real first name been "Harold," then he and Mr. Reagan would have had to battle it out.
6.6.2006 9:09pm
Wolfblade (mail):
Oh, you people. Everybody knows that the antichrist is David Hasselhoff
6.6.2006 11:59pm
Wolfblade (mail):
Dude, I totally know how to capitalize words. And how to add a period to the end of a sentence. Yeah.
6.7.2006 12:02am
Jam (mail):
Anderson. LOL
6.7.2006 12:24pm