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.
