The MARK of the Beast is literal

[Ovedya]

Goodfig,

It's because the AC will come as a god that people will be caused to receive the mark. This is most certainly a visible and identifiable mark, as those that do not receive the mark will be executed.

The word translated "mark" in the following verses - Rev. 13:17; 14:9; 14:11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4 - is Charagma, which means, "a stamp or imprinted mark." The word has a very strong impression of meaning "to engrave or carve." The only other place this word is found in the New Testament is in Acts 17:29, where is is specifically used to describe a graven image.

As far as electronic chips are concerned, I don't think that we're even remotely close to the widespread acceptance of this kind of technology as a means of identification and the purchasing of goods and services. In fact, I don't believe that we will be even in the next 20 years. However, western culture is practically wide open to "personal body modifications" such as tattoos, and especially piercings; and eastern cultures have been doing both for centuries.

I personally believe that the mark will be exactly what the Scripture says it will be. It will be a mark "scratched or etched, carved or graven, into the skin." In fact, the word "in" in the verses mentioned above cause me to believe that the mark is going to be a tattoo in form, because a tattoo is not a mark "upon" the skin but actually "in" the skin;" and they are not easily removed.

Now, here's something that most people have not considered at all, but which I see coming over the horizon very soon. In fact, the technology is already here, we just have not seen it on the market yet: Electronic tattoos. These are tattoos that have integrated technology actually within them.

Check this out: http://www.deadmedia.org/notes/26/262.html

So, where I believe that the mark of the beast is definately going to be a tattoo, why couldn't it just be both a tattoo, and the kind of techology that the subdermal chip is based upon? It's simply a perfect match in my mind.

[seraph]

Goodfig,

It's because the AC will come as a god that people will be caused to receive the mark.  This is most certainly a visible and identifiable mark, as those that do not receive the mark will be executed.

(snip)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just a thought, but... a reason I was thinking the mark would be visible (as opposed to microchips which aren't) was as a source of pride from the ac.

[fenwar]

We all love a bit of speculation, it seems. But do some of us prefer speculating to actually seeking out the truth?

Has anyone actually read my post on page 2 of this thread explaining why I think the mark, like so much in Revelation, is symbolic?

If you think I'm wrong, please feel free to explain your reasons. I'm happy to discuss it further. If you didn't understand, please say so and I'll try and come up with a better analogy. If you did understand and it made sense to you, then please can you tell me why you still think the passage should be read literally?

I'd be interested to hear from you all.

Fenwar

[Guest goodfig]

Goodfig,

It's because the AC will come as a god that people will be caused to receive the mark.

Edited September 13, 2005 by goodfig

[Ovedya]

Goodfig,

It's because the AC will come as a god that people will be caused to receive the mark.

[Guest goodfig]

Ovedya, the point i'm trying to make is that satan comes claiming to be God. satan doesn't need to pass out chips and tattoo's if people believe he(satan) is God. they will willingly bow down to him thinking the true messiah has come back.

the mark of the beast is a spiritual mark just like God's seal is a spiritual mark. Rev 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God IN their foreheads. the seal is IN the forehead. just like the mark of the beast is IN the forehead. it's a matter of being deceived or knowing the truth. anyway, that is the point i'm trying to make.

God Bless

[seraph]

Ovedya, the point i'm trying to make is that satan comes claiming to be God. satan doesn't need to pass out chips and tattoo's if people believe he(satan) is God. they will willingly bow down to him thinking the true messiah has come back.

the mark of the beast is a spiritual mark just like God's seal is a spiritual mark. Rev 9:4  And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God IN their foreheads.  the seal is IN the forehead. just like the mark of the beast is IN the forehead. it's a matter of being deceived or knowing the truth. anyway, that is the point i'm trying to make.

God Bless

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But if the mark wasn't detectable (i.e. visible or scannable, etc) then how could it be used to buy or sell? Are you saying it would be spiritually discerned by other nonbelievers?

Like Ovedya mentioned... it seems as if the Bible indicates it is visible... the word means "a stamp or imprinted mark."

Goodfig,

It's because the AC will come as a god that people will be caused to receive the mark.  This is most certainly a visible and identifiable mark, as those that do not receive the mark will be executed.

The word translated "mark" in the following verses - Rev. 13:17; 14:9; 14:11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4 - is Charagma, which means, "a stamp or imprinted mark."  The word has a very strong impression of meaning "to engrave or carve."  The only other place this word is found in the New Testament is in Acts 17:29, where is is specifically used to describe a graven image.

(snip)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 13, 2005 by seraph

[Ovedya]

Ovedya, the point i'm trying to make is that satan comes claiming to be God. satan doesn't need to pass out chips and tattoo's if people believe he(satan) is God. they will willingly bow down to him thinking the true messiah has come back.

the mark of the beast is a spiritual mark just like God's seal is a spiritual mark. Rev 9:4  And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God IN their foreheads.  the seal is IN the forehead. just like the mark of the beast is IN the forehead. it's a matter of being deceived or knowing the truth. anyway, that is the point i'm trying to make.

God Bless

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree. Although the book of Revelation is largely symbolic in many areas, there are some matters that are purely literal. Thus far I have not seen a symbolic interpretation of Revelation 13:17. This verse tells us that, "...no one may be able to buy or sell except him who has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of his name."

Now, "the number of his name" is definately symbolic, which is why John says that wisdom is required to interpret its meaning. The number is the number of a man, which is actually Caesar Nero.

So the mark is a literal mark, but the number given is symbolic of a name. Actually it's sort of a numerical code that requires wisdom to interpret. However, there is simply no reason whatsoever to believe that the mark of the beast will not be a literal mark.

In any case, I'm not looking for the appearance of the mark. As fenwar pointed out, it's interesting to speculate. But otherwise it's all just a distraction. Whether it is a literal mark or not, I'm going to play it safe and just gain Christ every day. I am going to endeavor to build up the church, which is the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, and be built into the church as a living stone, a holy place of God in Christ Jesus, until He returns to claim me inthe glorious and fearful day of His appearing.

I think that's the safest way to insure I won't take the mark.

[Trust & Obey]

Goodfig,

It's because the AC will come as a god that people will be caused to receive the mark.  This is most certainly a visible and identifiable mark, as those that do not receive the mark will be executed.

The word translated "mark" in the following verses - Rev. 13:17; 14:9; 14:11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4 - is Charagma, which means, "a stamp or imprinted mark."  The word has a very strong impression of meaning "to engrave or carve."  The only other place this word is found in the New Testament is in Acts 17:29, where is is specifically used to describe a graven image.

As far as electronic chips are concerned, I don't think that we're even remotely close to the widespread acceptance of this kind of technology as a means of identification and the purchasing of goods and services.  In fact, I don't believe that we will be even in the next 20 years.  However, western culture is practically wide open to "personal body modifications" such as tattoos, and especially piercings; and eastern cultures have been doing both for centuries.

I personally believe that the mark will be exactly what the Scripture says it will be.  It will be a mark "scratched or etched, carved or graven, into the skin."  In fact, the word "in" in the verses mentioned above cause me to believe that the mark is going to be a tattoo in form, because a tattoo is not a mark "upon" the skin but actually "in" the skin;" and they are not easily removed.

Now, here's something that most people have not considered at all, but which I see coming over the horizon very soon.  In fact, the technology is already here, we just have not seen it on the market yet:  Electronic tattoos. These are tattoos that have integrated technology actually within them. 

Check this out: http://www.deadmedia.org/notes/26/262.html

So, where I believe that the mark of the beast is definately going to be a tattoo, why couldn't it just be both a tattoo, and the kind of techology that the subdermal chip is based upon? It's simply a perfect match in my mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great post, Ovedya.

[other one]

An interesting note I heard on the radio yesterday says that Joe Biden ask questions in the confirmation hearings concerning mandatory chips and brain scans to see if people had a tendency for criminal activity..... Said that the judge would definitely see that in his tenure if allowed to be confirmed to the supreme court.......

So far I have not seen his answer.

Anyone hear or see this????