Chrono Compendium

Enhasa Halls - Chrono Series Analysis => Reality, Real-World Connections, and the Supernatural => Topic started by: Daniel Krispin on March 30, 2005, 02:47:30 am

Title: Minor comment...
Post by: Daniel Krispin on March 30, 2005, 02:47:30 am
I don't know if this has been brought up before, and likely most people have noticed it, but I just thought I'd say it anyway. I just noticed today that, when you defeat Lynx in Fort Dragonia, you get 666g. Like I said, a minor little allusion that's probably been brought up before, but thought I'd mention regardless as a real world influence.
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: Zatopek on March 30, 2005, 12:52:28 pm
Likewise I think Magus' HP when you fight him in his castle is 6666 (I know, one 6 too many...).
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: swift on March 30, 2005, 12:52:42 pm
In the Ocean Palace, the lackeys Trasher and Lasher have 666 of HP (just a curiousity).
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: ZeaLitY on March 30, 2005, 04:37:21 pm
I've added this to the RWI article.
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on March 30, 2005, 10:34:45 pm
Quote from: Zatopek
Likewise I think Magus' HP when you fight him in his castle is 6666 (I know, one 6 too many...).


A nice bit of symbolic slight of hand, given that we later learn that Magus has more hatred for the Beast than any other character in the game.
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: Salvadeiro on June 21, 2005, 11:58:45 pm
Malus = Evil
Magus = Evil

Malus means all bad in Latin, Magus is a bad person?  Coincidence?

Yeah well anyway, i personally think EVERY bad event had ties to those terrible numbers.  My first point, the Fall of Zeal, could have happened at 6:06:0X (which would have actually been 18:06:0X, X replacing the 6). When Lavos came from beneath the earth, June 6th 199X-- 6:06:0X...yeah basically
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: Daniel Krispin on June 22, 2005, 12:51:37 am
Actually, Magus is also Latin: it means 'wise man', and itself is derived from Persian. In some later ways it came to mean a sorcerer, however.
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on June 22, 2005, 01:35:00 am
I'd like to take this time to point out that the number of the Beast has recently been discovered to be 616.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast_(numerology)

Looks like there was a mistranlation along the way.
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: Hadriel on June 22, 2005, 01:47:23 am
Did anybody add the crosses in the PSX ending to the RWI article?  Last time I checked it, it still says there aren't any crosses in the series, which isn't true.
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: Daniel Krispin on June 22, 2005, 02:58:01 am
Quote from: Radical_Dreamer
I'd like to take this time to point out that the number of the Beast has recently been discovered to be 616.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast_(numerology)

Looks like there was a mistranlation along the way.


Well, considering the figurative nature of that book anyway, it changes little either way, I should think. I still refers to the events of Peter's lifetime, for the most part.
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: Salvadeiro on June 22, 2005, 06:57:39 pm
Quote from: Daniel Krispin
Actually, Magus is also Latin: it means 'wise man', and itself is derived from Persian. In some later ways it came to mean a sorcerer, however.


Very true, and from Magus, Magii became the plural form, and is where we get 'magic' from :).  Latin is so odd, god bless our ancestors
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: Daniel Krispin on June 22, 2005, 07:40:25 pm
And, if you really want to get down to it, Magus is essentially 'Mage'. It is only that the former is the Latin version, wheras the second is the Anglisized one. Thus Magus could just as easily, and in an English speaking culture in a colloquial setting, be called 'Mage'.
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: Salvadeiro on June 22, 2005, 10:34:11 pm
Verdadissimo (Extremely True)

Sorry for this useless post.
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: saridon on June 23, 2005, 02:30:58 am
Quote from: Radical_Dreamer
I'd like to take this time to point out that the number of the Beast has recently been discovered to be 616.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast_(numerology)

Looks like there was a mistranlation along the way.


Quote
Now with the speculation that the number 616 is the real number of the beast, it has come to light that 616 is the country number and area code of Canberra, the Capital of Australia, and home to the nation's Government.


lol my goverment is evil :lol:
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: Daniel Krispin on June 23, 2005, 09:14:47 pm
Quote from: Radical_Dreamer
I'd like to take this time to point out that the number of the Beast has recently been discovered to be 616.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast_(numerology)

Looks like there was a mistranlation along the way.


Come to think of it, this is likely the mistake. Remember that Wikipedia is open source, meaning that anyone can post. I am near fully certain that either who ever posted it was mistaken, or it was the document that was in error.

The thing is, one must look beyond the stigma that is attached to the number 666, and to the reason why it is considered bad - if one does so, it proves that the likelihood of it actually being 616 is very small indeed. If it were simply a number given in Revelations, then fine, it is plausable there could have been a mistranslation. However, 666 has always had meaning in that region, for thousands of years. You see, 7 is the number of perfection or compeletion. 6 is one short of perfection, and thus flawed and evil. What does Jesus say? Forgive someone seven times seven. In other words, forgive them fully; figurative language. Thus also when it says in Revelations, that let they with wisdom interperet the number of the beast, which is 666, it is also figurative. It is three times short of perfection; in other words, absolutely flawed. In the figurative form and style of Revelations, a number such as 616 would be meaningless and useless, and not fit in with the rest of the numbers. I'll have to check my Bible to see all the other such numbers precisely, but are there not seven seals? The number seven again. I think the new Jerusalem has seven gates as well. Such language figures again and again.

Essentially, one must look at the reason and rationale behind this, understand why such a thing was written. It is no simple number, nor even a code. If it were, this theory would work. But seeing as that was not the form of Revelations, I highly doubt that this 616 thing is anything more than a fringe theory. I'll still stay with 666 as the orginal intent. So be careful: not many people know the original style and forms and reason, so it's very easy for them just to say something like this, and make it seem all good and fine. But there are indeed other things to consider, beyond simple copyists errors.

As an afterthought, it is indeed true that there have been copyists errors in the past in the Bible. This is almost certainly not one of them - as it makes no plausable sense to be otherwise - but take the name Jehova, which never actually appears in the Bible, and only exists through mistranslation. Take the name Yahweh, and write it in the old form, without vowels. This yields YHWH. Now, place it beside the adjective 'most high', Adonai, and take the vowels from Adonai, for parallellism substituting them into YHWH. This yields Yahowah, more or less, Anglisized with a v for a w, and a J for a Y, as Jehova. This is what the Mazoritic scholars did some thousand years ago, inadvertantly causing a confusion that lasted until recent times, when someone noticed the parallellism, and that Jehova - which had caused quite the confusion, as it was no known Hebrew word - was no real word at all, but a forgotten quirk of ancient scholars.
Oh, and if there are any Jews here that are offended by my using the name of God, tell me and I will promptly remove it.
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: Hadriel on June 24, 2005, 01:38:26 pm
Meh.  The Name of God, if it has any meaning at all, has all the meaning in the universe.  A few pixels on a computer screen doesn't carry or attempt to carry that.

I'd always thought that Revelation, anyway, was one thing to be taken fairly literally.  Of course, I was raised in the Bible Belt where they take nearly everything in the Bible literally, but I see several prophetic resemblances to technologies that either currently exist or are known to be in development.  The bit about the burning mountain being thrown into the sea sounds like an asteroid strike, which leaves me wondering about the chances of that happening.  Wormwood is much like a biological weapon in its reported functionality, and some of the armies that the author described look almost like armored exoskeletons of a military sort, most likely used by special forces teams.  The author, presumed to be known as John, also quotes a description of heaven that bears certain geometric similarities to both the old Temple and to a Borg cube, though with the cube's relatively midgety length of 3036 meters, compared to the cited length of over one thousand kilometers for what was quoted as being heaven, it's certain that the structural complexity of heaven is quite intricate, provided such a thing exists.  If it were to be engineered by mortals, it would be perhaps the crowning achievement of a civilization possessing a level of technology equal even to the fabled Culture.  It even appears to have a core of sorts -- God's glory is described as the power source for heaven.  Such a construct bears similarities to the Dyson sphere, also of Star Trek and probably one of the most ridiculously advanced feats of engineering ever pulled off by a sci-fi civilization -- comparable to Andromeda's Magog worldship, a Culture vessel, or the Death Star II, which justifies its inclusion here by being able to fire its world-shattering superlaser every ten minutes, as opposed to once a day for the original.  Herein lies the problem with a literal interpretation of Revelation.  Heaven is supposed to be something so incredible we can't even begin to imagine it.  But, quite frankly, gadgets like the DS2 and other planetlike craft that we've thought of diminish the likelihood of creating such an elysian environment.  With the kind of technology necessary to build such a ship, a civilization could gallivant around the universe making changes almost as they see fit, in a rather godlike manner.
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: Daniel Krispin on June 24, 2005, 03:46:49 pm
Quote from: Hadriel
Meh.  The Name of God, if it has any meaning at all, has all the meaning in the universe.  A few pixels on a computer screen doesn't carry or attempt to carry that.

I'd always thought that Revelation, anyway, was one thing to be taken fairly literally.  Of course, I was raised in the Bible Belt where they take nearly everything in the Bible literally, but I see several prophetic resemblances to technologies that either currently exist or are known to be in development.  



Well, many do, I think. Actually, it is of the New Testament the most figurative, and as much so as many of the Old Testament prophetic books. My father has never put all that much worth in it as a Biblical book, and most certainly does not consider it a prophetic book. If one looks hard enough, they can see whatever they wish to in that sort of writing: such is the downfall of that style, and likely the very reason soothsayers spoke in ambiguous terms.

Anyway, just look at the style of the language. It is quite certainly figurative and of imagery, with very little concrete in any of it. This, last of all books, should one take literally.


Quote from: Hadriel

The bit about the burning mountain being thrown into the sea sounds like an asteroid strike, which leaves me wondering about the chances of that happening.  Wormwood is much like a biological weapon in its reported functionality, and some of the armies that the author described look almost like armored exoskeletons of a military sort, most likely used by special forces teams.  



Well, I think that the locusts were merely figurative for the intended meaning. I am not sure if it can ever be conclusively interpreted, but interestingly, there are explantions of many of the things using events of John's time, so I don't see the need to put modern events into them. Like the mark of the beast. Now, this I am sceptical of, but using the numerical values for the names given Domitian (the Emperor at the time) on his coinage, one yields that number. Moreover, the idea that no-one would be able to buy anything without bearing his mark is quite representative of not being able to buy things without money, bearing his mark. This, actually, is far more reasonable an explanation than any modern thing. Domitian was the first Emperor who persecuted Christianity on an empire-wide scale, and he wished to be called 'Dominus et Deus', 'Lord and God', a thing that would certainly be against what Christians believed. Again, this ties into the descriptions of the beast, and his blasphemy.

A lot of things sound like modern events, it is true, but it is likely just our minds trying to find connections. The fact of the matter is that Revelations was written for the people of the time, and the people of the time likely saw it far differently than we do now. This is one of the downfalls of the Bible being read by the masses: everyone has their own interpretation and, if they are not scholars, may have no idea of the original form and style, and that it was figurative. And translations don't help either: the word 'obey', as in Jesus telling people to obey his commands, is apparently a misleading word; 'keep' is quite a bit nearer it in meaning. Now, think about that difference: 'keep my commandments' to 'obey my commandments'; the latter is a command and a law, whereas the first is an admonishion to hold fast to faith.

But back to Revelations, it lies at the end of the Bible, making it shaky at best (along with books like James, which is rife with theological problems. 'Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness. So you see that it is through works that we are saved...', or something near that. It contradicts itself, see?) Those are questionable books, actually, for which Luther put them at the end - with the intent of removing them, as was done with the Apocrypha, for they either repeated what had been said, or were simply contrary to the main theme of the gospel. Yet they remained, and have caused no end of confusion.

About Revelations, though, I would have to ask my father about what is the likely interpretation and meaning in the old styles of Wormwood and such things.

Quote from: Hadriel

The author, presumed to be known as John, also quotes a description of heaven that bears certain geometric similarities to both the old Temple and to a Borg cube, though with the cube's relatively midgety length of 3036 meters, compared to the cited length of over one thousand kilometers for what was quoted as being heaven, it's certain that the structural complexity of heaven is quite intricate, provided such a thing exists.  


Well, I think all those dimensions are purely figurative of grandeur and splendour. There are a myriad of connections to the 12 tribes, and so on and so forth. I'll have to look at it, just a second....
Alrighty, here, for example. The 144,000 with God. Well..., what's 144,000? It is one thousand time twelve times twelve. Twice the tribes of Israel, coupled with a great multitude. That is the style of that writing.
And the city... 12 foundations, length of 12 thousand furlongs, a wall of 144 cubits... see a pattern? These aren't concrete numbers. This is imagry and example, where the meaning and purpose behind, and not in, is important. And this is just a guess, but I think it might be that the jems of the twelve foundations are the same as the 12 gems on the ephod of the priests, one gem for each tribe. And my favourite example: Armageddon. I wonder how many people know that this is not a day, nor a battle, but rather a place, and a real place at that? The plains of Megiddo, in the north of Israel. Armageddon, or Har Megiddo, means 'mount Megiddo'. Well, Megiddo is a place where many battles have been fought throughout world history - even in recently in WWI, when the British under Allenby attacked the Central powers in that area, in the valley of Jezreel, I think. It means no great monumental thing, it is no Ragnarok. It merely ties in a commonly known battlefield as a place where the armies of the world collide.

Anyway, end thing: it is tempting, but likely misguided, to see modern events in Revelations.
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: Zatopek on June 24, 2005, 10:52:09 pm
Good commentary on Revelation and Emperor Domitian.  I'm not a big fan of the "Left Behind" style literal interpretations of Revelation.  It's clearly figurative language.

Quote from: Daniel Krispin

(along with books like James, which is rife with theological problems. 'Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness. So you see that it is through works that we are saved...', or something near that. It contradicts itself, see?)


This is often considered a theolgical problem, but I disagree.  People say that Paul was teaching salvation by faith and James was teaching salvation by works.  It was really different emphasis based on their audiences.  Paul was writing to churches carried away with legalism, and James was writing to people doing just the opposite.  Both this passage (James 2:15-26) and Paul's writings (in Romans 4:3-5, 22-25, and 5:1) reference the same passage: Genesis 15:6, where it is written that Abraham believed the Lord and it was credited to him as righteousness.  Paul emphasizes Abraham's faith, and James emphasizes Abraham's good works as an outworking/result of his faith (especially in his willingness to sacrifice Isaac - the ultimate test of faith).  They're teaching the same thing, only with different emphasis.
As John Calvin said: "It is therefore faith alone which justifies and yet the faith which justifies is not alone."

Sorry about hijacking the thread temporarily.
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: Daniel Krispin on June 25, 2005, 12:04:44 am
Well, far be it from me to be a Calvinist (I'm Lutheran, and Luther wasn't too fond of them), but that IS a good quote.

Oh, and likewise to your commentary.

I should really ask my father what he thinks of all of this. He's a ThD, Doctor of Theology, and a full-time professor of Religious Studies, and also a pastor at times, which is why I am often so keen to discuss these matters (and whence the knowledge and view of many of these things come to me.)
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: Radical_Dreamer on June 25, 2005, 02:03:29 am
Isn't Hell also a real place? Hebron Valley, if I recall correctly, where the followers of the god Moloch would burn infants alive in sacrifice. It'd be easy to dub such a place a lake of fire, not to mention a place worth avoiding if at all possible.
Title: Minor comment...
Post by: Daniel Krispin on June 25, 2005, 02:11:43 am
Quote from: Radical_Dreamer
Isn't Hell also a real place? Hebron Valley, if I recall correctly, where the followers of the god Moloch would burn infants alive in sacrifice. It'd be easy to dub such a place a lake of fire, not to mention a place worth avoiding if at all possible.


Gehenna is another place often connected to that sort of thing - I think the word Gehenna is synonymous with hell, I think, just like sheol is the grave. But yes, you are correct, it is likely from things such as that that the ideas come. Personally, though, I think the ideas of fire in connection with hell come partially from the Greek ideas of Tartaros, a place of fire below Hades were evildoers are eternally tormented (ie. Sysiphos, Tantalos.) The New Testament was written in Greek, so it is likely that those writing had knowledge of the Greek myths and, writing partially to a Greek audience, borrowed such ideas as were well known, mingling them with their own Hebrew background and history.