Actually, 666 is Ronald Wilson Reagan.

by haroldf on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:31:12 AM EST

Trust Hagee to have this nutball (gotta love that name though - Shoebat) speak at the CUFI conference. Is Liberman still going to attend? And to top things off Hagee is going to make a "major announcement" concerning Zion Oil and Gas. As reported recently on this web site, that's the organization that God has personally chosen to find oil in Israel. Right. And, since you can get shares in this company for (Tuesday's AMEX close) about $6.00 we should just run out and buy some. Please note that originally shares were offered for $9 in their IPO. Also an SEC filing in late May (as well as a public announcement) offered shares at $10 per. I am assuming that if you buy at the higher price you are throwing in a "love offering" (sorta, kinda). There's more in other filings, but it's late in the evening and frankly reading that stuff is rather tedious. By the by, Mr. Bartholomew has pointed out that Hal Lindsey and Ralph DeVore (two more interesting characters from the Religious Right) are both listed on the board of Zion. But, I stray. What I really wanted to point out is that the squiggles that appear to be 666, or even 616 are actually a prediction of the odds against Zion O&G actually making a profitable find. Or the name of -------- (ask Hagee; he knows the name of the antichrist). Of course they could just be squiggles. Shoebat. Play with that name for awhile.

by SemiDiscerning on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:11:06 AM EST

When I posted this story on my blog, I received a comment from Joel Richardson disputing my claim (based on scholarly sources) that the Codex Vaticanus does not contain the Book of Revelation. He directed me to an 1868 facsimilie edition of the Codex, and told me that Shoebat had consulted this. This 1868 edition reproduces the Codex, and it also adds the missing material at the end of the book as a supplement. In other words, Shoebat drew his paleographic conclusion based on an 1868 Greek typeset which he thought was a fourth-century manuscript (and which bears no relation to his drawing anyway, by the way). More here.

by Richard Bartholomew on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:29:40 AM EST