675.cc • Triumph 675 Forum

How long is a piece of string?

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by DaytonaSparky, Nov 18, 2009.

  1. DaytonaSparky

    DaytonaSparky

    Thread Starter

    615
    0
    0
    Location: reading, uk
    I don't know if anyone saw the program with Alan Davies....but my head is now fried.....

    You would think there was quite a simple explanation....but it turns out that the string might not even exist...or then again it might be of infinite length!

    Is anyone else confused?
     
  2. i turn't over after 5 mins....everyone knows the answer to that q anyway

    twice the length from the start to the middle :D
     
  3. I watched the second half of it, studied quite a bit of quantum mechanics when doing my degree :)

    Actually curtis no one knows the answer ;)
     
  4. D41

    D41

    13,990
    143
    63
    Location: Orange, CA
  5. henrymc

    henrymc

    794
    0
    0
    Location: lincoln
    666, The number of the Beast :!: :p
     
  6. No, thats the meaning of life, the universe and everything :)
     
  7. Edski675

    Edski675 Administrator Staff Member

    42 feet, 3 inches. That's 1 knot on a chip log :D
     
  8. D41

    D41

    13,990
    143
    63
    Location: Orange, CA
    Surely that should include one miserable little bit of string???
     
  9. its not, you know henry... :D thats a complete phallacy...i saw it on qi and steven fry is never wrong...i think its 611 or something
     
  10. Edski675

    Edski675 Administrator Staff Member

    as it's a cock up it must be a 'phallusy'
     
  11. From wikipedia
    616
    A few ancient manuscripts of the Revelation say the number is 616, fifty less than the more well known numeral. A possible method to this problem lies in early translation. In the assumption that the Revelation was meant to be distributed among the Early Christians, it could very well be assumed that occasionally someone may have used the Latin spelling of Nero's name (Nero Caesar), so the total value of the gematria would be 616.[16][17]
    The early Church father Irenaeus knew several occurrences of the 616-variant but regarded them as a scribal error and affirmed that the number 666 stood "in all the most approved and ancient copies" and is attested by "those men who saw John face to face".[18]


    In May 2005, it was reported that scholars at Oxford University using advanced imaging techniques[19] had been able to read previously illegible portions of the earliest known record of the Book of Revelation (a 1,700 year old papyrus), from the Oxyrhynchus site, Papyrus 115 or P115, dating one century after Irenaeus. The fragment gives the Number of the Beast as 616 (chi, iota, sigma), rather than the majority text 666 (chi, xi, sigma).[1] The other early witness Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) has it written in full: hexakosiai deka hex (lit. six hundred sixteen).[20]
    Significantly, P115 aligns with Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) which are generally regarded as providing the best testimony to Revelation. Thus, P115 has superior testimony to that of P47 which aligns with Codex Sinaiticus and together form the second-best witness to the Book of Revelation. This has led some scholars to conclude that 616 is the original number of the beast.[21][22]
    Dr. Paul Lewes in his book, A Key to Christian Origins (1932) wrote:
    "The figure 616 is given in one of the two best manuscripts, C (Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Paris), by the Latin version of Tyconius (DCXVI, ed. Souter in the Journal of Theology, SE, April 1913), and by an ancient Armenian version (ed. Conybaere, 1907). Irenaeus knew about it [the 616 reading], but did not adopt it (Haer. v.30,3), Jerome adopted it (De Monogramm., ed. Dom G Morin in the Rev. Benedictine, 1903). It is probably original. The number 666 has been substituted for 616 either by analogy with 888, the [Greek] number of Jesus (Deissmann), or because it is a triangular number, the sum of the first 36 numbers (1+2+3+4+5+6...+36 = 666)".[23]
    Professor David C. Parker, Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism and Paleography at the University of Birmingham, thinks that 616, although less memorable than 666, is the original.[24] Dr. Ellen Aitken said: “Scholars have argued for a long time over this, and it now seems that 616 was the original number of the beast. It's probably about 100 years before any other version."[25]
     
  12. D41

    D41

    13,990
    143
    63
    Location: Orange, CA
    ^^^^^^^^^

    Took the words right out of my mouth, professor! ;)
     
  13. henrymc

    henrymc

    794
    0
    0
    Location: lincoln
    Ok I surrender,
    :smileup: I was only quoting the Iron Maiden song title :salute:
     

Share This Page

Loading...
  1. By using this website you agree to our Cookies usage. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, ads and Newsletters:
    Dismiss Notice