- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Wakeup,
Worship is from the heart and the body is the temple.
If you really want to know what “the beast” of Revelations is then look no further than what is right in front of your nose.
Here is my recent findings:
In the Holy Bible, God gave ten commandments, and the second commandment is this:
“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.” (Exodus 20:4)
The TV started with image, then went on to be the Internet.
This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of man. That number is 666.
(Revelation 13:11-17)The number “6” in Hebrew seems to be “W”…
From Hebrew for Christians:
“The sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet is called “Vav” and has the sound of “v” as in “vine.”
Note: In ancient Hebrew, “Vav” may have been pronounced “w” and is sometimes translitereated as “w”And from Wikipedia:
“Waw (wāw, also vau or vav) is the sixth letter of the Northwest Semitic family of scripts, including Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic (“sixth” in abjadi order; it is 27th in modern Arabic order).
In Arabic and thus in most Semitic languages it represents the sound [w], though in some, such as Modern Hebrew, and the Indo-European Persian language, it represents [v] instead.”Please click the above links to read more.
“W” = 6
“WWW” = “666” – ?
World Wide Web = 666, the number of the beast?Vav literally means hook/peg/spear….. (Net?)
Google Chrome's new Logo.
Check this out from Before its News:
But there is more.
In the beginning of the Scriptures:
“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:16-17)
“Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.
He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” (Genesis 3:1-3)Quote: “Who would have thought that the idea of an apple symbol for Apple Computer came from the Bible. The story of Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge, the apple being its fruit with a pun on byte/bite.”
From Wikipedia on the Apple Computer:
“The Apple I went on sale in July 1976 and was market-priced at $666.66“
$666.66
Wow.W, you might be waiting a long time for some “future man
Also, in Revelation 16, the indefinite article “a” is not in the Greek.
It is not “a man”, but “man”.
It is not “he will”, but “it will”.Nicholas Carr:
“Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going—so far as I can tell—but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do.”
“I think I know what’s going on. For more than a decade now, I’ve been spending a lot of time online, searching and surfing and sometimes adding to the great databases of the Internet. The Web has been a godsend to me as a writer. Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes. A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I’ve got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after. Even when I’m not working, I’m as likely as not to be foraging in the Web’s info-thickets’reading and writing e-mails, scanning headlines and blog posts, watching videos and listening to podcasts, or just tripping from link to link to link.”
“For me, as for others, the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind.”
“As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles.”
“Bruce Friedman, who blogs regularly about the use of computers in medicine, also has described how the Internet has altered his mental habits. “I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” he wrote earlier this year. A pathologist who has long been on the faculty of the University of Michigan Medical School, Friedman elaborated on his comment in a telephone conversation with me. His thinking, he said, has taken on a “staccato” quality, reflecting the way he quickly scans short passages of text from many sources online. “I can’t read War and Peace anymore,” he admitted. “I’ve lost the ability to do that. Even a blog post of more than three or four paragraphs is too much to absorb. I skim it.”
“The human brain is almost infinitely malleable. People used to think that our mental meshwork, the dense connections formed among the 100 billion or so neurons inside our skulls, was largely fixed by the time we reached adulthood. But brain researchers have discovered that that’s not the case. James Olds, a professor of neuroscience who directs the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study at George Mason University, says that even the adult mind “is very plastic.” Nerve cells routinely break old connections and form new ones. “The brain,” according to Olds, “has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.”
“As we use what the sociologist Daniel Bell has called our “intellectual technologies”—the tools that extend our mental rather than our physical capacities—we inevitably begin to take on the qualities of those technologies. The mechanical clock, which came into common use in the 14th century, provides a compelling example. In Technics and Civilization, the historian and cultural critic Lewis Mumford described how the clock “disassociated time from human events and helped create the belief in an independent world of mathematically measurable sequences.” The “abstract framework of divided time” became “the point of reference for both action and thought.”
“The clock’s methodical ticking helped bring into being the scientific mind and the scientific man. But it also took something away. As the late MIT computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum observed in his 1976 book, Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation, the conception of the world that emerged from the widespread use of timekeeping instruments “remains an impoverished version of the older one, for it rests on a rejection of those direct experiences that formed the basis for, and indeed constituted, the old reality.” In deciding when to eat, to work, to sleep, to rise, we stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock.”
“The process of adapting to new intellectual technologies is reflected in the changing metaphors we use to explain ourselves to ourselves. When the mechanical clock arrived, people began thinking of their brains as operating “like clockwork.” Today, in the age of software, we have come to think of them as operating “like computers.” But the changes, neuroscience tells us, go much deeper than metaphor. Thanks to our brain’s plasticity, the adaptation occurs also at a biological level.”
“The Internet, an immeasurably powerful computing system, is subsuming most of our other intellectual technologies. It’s becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV.”
“When the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is re-created in the Net’s image. It injects the medium’s content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed. A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we’re glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper’s site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.”
“Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the gifted young men who founded Google while pursuing doctoral degrees in computer science at Stanford, speak frequently of their desire to turn their search engine into an artificial intelligence, a HAL-like machine that might be connected directly to our brains. “The ultimate search engine is something as smart as people—or smarter,” Page said in a speech a few years back. “For us, working on search is a way to work on artificial intelligence.” In a 2004 interview with Newsweek, Brin said, “Certainly if you had all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off.” Last year, Page told a convention of scientists that Google is “really trying to build artificial intelligence and to do it on a large scale.”
“Still, their easy assumption that we’d all “be better off” if our brains were supplemented, or even replaced, by an artificial intelligence is unsettling. It suggests a belief that intelligence is the output of a mechanical process, a series of discrete steps that can be isolated, measured, and optimized. In Google’s world, the world we enter when we go online, there’s little place for the fuzziness of contemplation. Ambiguity is not an opening for insight but a bug to be fixed. The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive.”
“The idea that our minds should operate as high-speed data-processing machines is not only built into the workings of the Internet, it is the network’s reigning business model as well. The faster we surf across the Web—the more links we click and pages we view—the more opportunities Google and other companies gain to collect information about us and to feed us advertisements. Most of the proprietors of the commercial Internet have a financial stake in collecting the crumbs of data we leave behind as we flit from link to link—the more crumbs, the better. The l
ast thing these companies want is to encourage leisurely reading or slow, concentrated thought. It’s in their economic interest to drive us to distraction.” Unquote.“The kind of deep reading that a sequence of printed pages promotes is valuable not just for the knowledge we acquire from the author’s words but for the intellectual vibrations those words set off within our own minds. In the quiet spaces opened up by the sustained, undistracted reading of a book, or by any other act of contemplation, for that matter, we make our own associations, draw our own inferences and analogies, foster our own ideas. Deep reading, as Maryanne Wolf argues, is indistinguishable from deep thinking.”
“If we lose those quiet spaces, or fill them up with “content,” we will sacrifice something important not only in our selves but in our culture. In a recent essay, the playwright Richard Foreman eloquently described what’s at stake:
I come from a tradition of Western culture, in which the ideal (my ideal) was the complex, dense and “cathedral-like” structure of the highly educated and articulate personality—a man or woman who carried inside themselves a personally constructed and unique version of the entire heritage of the West. [But now] I see within us all (myself included) the replacement of complex inner density with a new kind of self—evolving under the pressure of information overload and the technology of the “instantly available.”“As we are drained of our “inner repertory of dense cultural inheritance,” Foreman concluded, we risk turning into “‘pancake people’—spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.”
I’m haunted by that scene in 2001. What makes it so poignant, and so weird, is the computer’s emotional response to the disassembly of its mind: its despair as one circuit after another goes dark, its childlike pleading with the astronaut—“I can feel it. I can feel it. I’m afraid”—and its final reversion to what can only be called a state of innocence. HAL’s outpouring of feeling contrasts with the emotionlessness that characterizes the human figures in the film, who go about their business with an almost robotic efficiency. Their thoughts and actions feel scripted, as if they’re following the steps of an algorithm. In the world of 2001, people have become so machinelike that the most human character turns out to be a machine. That’s the essence of Kubrick’s dark prophecy: as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.”
So Wakeup, you could be part of the beast and not know it – you could be 'deceived'. The deceived don't know they are being deceived.
Think about this: almost everyone these days seems to have a phone attached to their right hand and their mind (forehead… the mind).
Quote (2besee @ Jan. 26 2014,17:32) So Wakeup, you could be part of the beast and not know it – you could be 'deceived'. The deceived don't know they are being deceived. Think about this: almost everyone these days seems to have a phone attached to their right hand and their mind (forehead… the mind).
2Besee.It is wise to stay with the scriprures.
And stay away from all those anti Christ rabies
They are paid big money to deceive only.Many have already been chipped voluntarily.
Worshipping on a sunday is not the mark of the beast.
The mark is about buying and selling,(trade);for all people.
Of all religions. not only christians.
Krishnas.
Hindus.
Bhudists.
Atheists.
Shamens.
Muslems.
Christians.All men are to take the chip,in obeisance to the false prophet,
or killed.This is the time for christians to test ones faith in Christ.wakeup.
Wakeup, did you read my post? I did not mention “Sabbath”.
Microchip? Hmm.
What if your mind is already taken over by the net, already changing?
They know all that you do (NSA), so why bother with a chip?@ 2besee
In the 90s when I first started using the Web and learning HTML, I was confronted with the fact that www = 666. I even checked this out with a Jewish mate of mine, and he said that it was vav and it would be 666. But the Google Chrome symbol is new to me.
Back in the early days of this forum, I pondered the idea that the Web and the Net could turn out to be significant tools used against us in the last days. My argument was not only that www=666 but that the word 'web' and 'net' both described something that catches prey.
But everyone else in this forum at the time thought I was barking up the wrong tree because their view of the end times was already sealed in their minds and gave no room for new things. Although I think one person came round to the idea to some degree.
I further made the point that the Internet was running out of Internet addresses and the new address system that could number everything from websites, manufactured products, to people for thousands of years to come was and is called IPV6. Was this all a coincidence, I didn't think so.
The main thrust of what I proposed was that it might be the image of the Beast because it was breathed into by man and given life and now we know that the Web has a similar amount of connections to a human brain, and thus the idea was that the Web could become AI and sort of think for itself without actually being alive become a possibility. There is even a translation of the Bible that says that “men would breathe life into a machine” when it was quoting the verse about the Image of the Beast. I further proposed just as God has the book of life and other books that record humanities actions, the Web would be humanities version of the book. All their ideas, inventions, sins, and wisdom would be written in the pages of the Web. A type of image of man.
The way this could play out was that in order to partake of the network, and to combat fraud, spam, and attacks, people would be legislatively given an IPV6 number and only then would they be allowed to connect to the modern world, because in that world, the Net becomes the network by which modern machines and services connect and without having a static IP number it was to easy to wreak havoc with the modern world. Thus no number, then no modern world. Doors would not open for you, cars will not start, and you cannot buy, sell, or save anything. You basically are on the grid or off it.
Still just a theory, but to my mind, the fact that the biggest network on the planet, and perhaps the greatest invention for the advancement of knowledge is nicknamed 'www' which clearly works out to be 666, had to be significant.
Just put my post into a blog here and made some additions.
https://heavennet.net/image-beast/Quote (Wakeup @ Jan. 22 2014,17:00) Boditharta. When Jesus was on earth,God is still speaking through Him.
What ever I hear God speak;that I say.
God always speaks through His word.
In heaven or on earth.
He is the Word of God.
God also speaks through his Word to Moses.wakeup.
This is what I am asking:When Jesus was on earth could God speak when Jesus was not speaking?
Quote (Wakeup @ Jan. 22 2014,17:00) Boditharta. When Jesus was on earth,God is still speaking through Him.
What ever I hear God speak;that I say.
God always speaks through His word.
In heaven or on earth.
He is the Word of God.
God also speaks through his Word to Moses.wakeup.
To be even more clear how is it that God did in-fact speak from heaven not through Jesus when he said:Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.or this:
John 12:28
Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.There you have two witnesses that show Jesus is a Word of God made flesh and not The Word as you seem to suggest. Jesus was made flesh from the Word of God.
Who or what is the Word of God in these two examples if I am not correct?
and finally Jesus admits he is not THE WORD:
John 17:8
For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.He declares that these words are not his.
I really love Jesus and you will love him more and more when you start seeing him as a unique and beautiful creation from God.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 27 2014,16:59) This is what I am asking: When Jesus was on earth could God speak when Jesus was not speaking?
God speaks through many, but not all. Some are of their father the Devil.God sent a line of prophets, then finally he sent his son. Because he was the greatest of those he sent, what people do with him is how they are judged.
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 27 2014,14:07) Just put my post into a blog here and made some additions.
https://heavennet.net/image-beast/
This whole theory of you guys calling the web the beast makes no sense when taken in context of the scriptures:Revelation 13:14-18
King James Version (KJV)
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
Therefore it cannot apply to the internet because there is the beast and then they are asked to make an image to the beast not to mention this beast had been wounded so what you have is “the beast” and “the image of the beast” simply nothing there that can associate itself with the internet.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 27 2014,17:59) This is what I am asking: When Jesus was on earth could God speak when Jesus was not speaking?
Yes, and He did.God spoke from Heaven, “This is my Son, who I love, in whom I am well pleased” 😉
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 27 2014,18:24) Therefore it cannot apply to the internet because there is the beast and then they are asked to make an image to the beast not to mention this beast had been wounded so what you have is “the beast” and “the image of the beast” simply nothing there that can associate itself with the internet.
Beast is a kingdom and the image of the beast would be an image of that kingdom, possibly. So why couldn't it be the Internet?Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 27 2014,16:07) Quote (Wakeup @ Jan. 22 2014,17:00) Boditharta. When Jesus was on earth,God is still speaking through Him.
What ever I hear God speak;that I say.
God always speaks through His word.
In heaven or on earth.
He is the Word of God.
God also speaks through his Word to Moses.wakeup.
To be even more clear how is it that God did in-fact speak from heaven not through Jesus when he said:Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.or this:
John 12:28
Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.There you have two witnesses that show Jesus is a Word of God made flesh and not The Word as you seem to suggest. Jesus was made flesh from the Word of God.
Who or what is the Word of God in these two examples if I am not correct?
and finally Jesus admits he is not THE WORD:
John 17:8
For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.He declares that these words are not his.
I really love Jesus and you will love him more and more when you start seeing him as a unique and beautiful creation from God.
Boditharta.God speaks to his Word by Mind to mind.
You think in your mind what to say; then you say it.
From your mind to your mouth.God thinks and Jesus says it.
God also can send his angels to speak.
You dont have to speak through your mouth,but through your writings.(hand).In the case of Jesus baptism; God send His angel to speak to
Jesus,so John can hear what is said.
To confirm to John that Jesus is the anointed one.
Jesus can not say that to himself,for that would be no proof.What words God gave to Jesus in His mind;he gave it to the apostles verbally.
All Word comes of Gods mind; not Jesus own mind.
Jesus simpply spoke it out in audio.AND *THE WORD* WAS MADE FLESH
wakeup.
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 27 2014,15:36) @ 2besee In the 90s when I first started using the Web and learning HTML, I was confronted with the fact that www = 666. I even checked this out with a Jewish mate of mine, and he said that it was vav and it would be 666. But the Google Chrome symbol is new to me.
Back in the early days of this forum, I pondered the idea that the Web and the Net could turn out to be significant tools used against us in the last days. My argument was not only that www=666 but that the word 'web' and 'net' both described something that catches prey.
But everyone else in this forum at the time thought I was barking up the wrong tree because their view of the end times was already sealed in their minds and gave no room for new things. Although I think one person came round to the idea to some degree.
I further made the point that the Internet was running out of Internet addresses and the new address system that could number everything from websites, manufactured products, to people for thousands of years to come was and is called IPV6. Was this all a coincidence, I didn't think so.
The main thrust of what I proposed was that it might be the image of the Beast because it was breathed into by man and given life and now we know that the Web has a similar amount of connections to a human brain, and thus the idea was that the Web could become AI and sort of think for itself without actually being alive become a possibility. There is even a translation of the Bible that says that “men would breathe life into a machine” when it was quoting the verse about the Image of the Beast. I further proposed just as God has the book of life and other books that record humanities actions, the Web would be humanities version of the book. All their ideas, inventions, sins, and wisdom would be written in the pages of the Web. A type of image of man.
The way this could play out was that in order to partake of the network, and to combat fraud, spam, and attacks, people would be legislatively given an IPV6 number and only then would they be allowed to connect to the modern world, because in that world, the Net becomes the network by which modern machines and services connect and without having a static IP number it was to easy to wreak havoc with the modern world. Thus no number, then no modern world. Doors would not open for you, cars will not start, and you cannot buy, sell, or save anything. You basically are on the grid or off it.
Still just a theory, but to my mind, the fact that the biggest network on the planet, and perhaps the greatest invention for the advancement of knowledge is nicknamed 'www' which clearly works out to be 666, had to be significant.
t8, I totally agree.I'm also doing a blog, learning as I go.
At the moment I'm looking at that scripture.I also knew someone quite advanced with computers who believed this.
It is a scary thought knowing that it could be, but not knowing how to get out. Much like being trapped in a – Net!
The mark (sign) on the right hand or forehead is connected to the OT sign where the commandments of God are to be a sign worn on the right hand or between the front-lets of the eyes (forehead).
It was not a literal sign. It was action (right hand) and thoughts; mind (forehead).Good blog. (on the other page)
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 27 2014,16:24) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 27 2014,14:07) Just put my post into a blog here and made some additions.
https://heavennet.net/image-beast/
This whole theory of you guys calling the web the beast makes no sense when taken in context of the scriptures:Revelation 13:14-18
King James Version (KJV)
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
Therefore it cannot apply to the internet because there is the beast and then they are asked to make an image to the beast not to mention this beast had been wounded so what you have is “the beast” and “the image of the beast” simply nothing there that can associate itself with the internet.
Boditharta.Must know all the symbols in the prophesies.
1.Beasts out of the sea=kingdoms/empires.
2.Beast out of the *earth*=a king/man born.
In this case he is the little horn in Dan 7.
and rev13.the false prophet.
3.Mountains=kingdoms.
4.Hills=small kingdoms.
5.Horns=kings.
6.Mark of the beast=His personal mark.
7.Having his mark means we can buy or sell.
8.Refusing his mark means can not buy or sell.
9.Refusing his mark means refusing to worship him.
10.What is this mark? This we must wait till he comes and
show himself.He will *enforce* the mark on all people.
11.But all is ready prepared for his coming,the road is
paved. Meaning: all the technology is ready for him to
use,for his lying wonders,to deceive; but not the saints.
The saints ;he will kill.wakeup.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
