Home |FAQ |Message Boards |Site Map |Subject Index |Other Resources |We Believe...
Perilous Times |Unitarian Christology |Logically Speaking |Sacred Names |Faith-Doctrine
|
BNF Formulasby Phil Maxwell, January 2005
|
|
Beast Number Factor |
When John wrote about calculating the "number of his name," he undoubtedly expected his most direct audience to understood his meaning to involve adding up the values assigned to the letters of a name using some form of gematria2, an ancient system of numbering names by adding up values assigned to the letters, which doubled as numbers in everyday life then and in most cultures throughout history.
I should mention that gematria is commonly associated with various mysticisms, but is rooted in historic ways in which numbers were typically represented by alphabet characters rather than as distinct symbols, as modern cultures do with the 10 digits represented by numerals 0-9. A lot of the mystical connotations attached to gematria are found in particular connotations read into numbers that rival astrology, tarot card reading, etc. in effect. Such things are of no relevance to this project, but the concept of adding up the letter values of a name, whether called gematria or not, is virtually mandated by the text of Revelation 13:18.
The biggest problem with this is that modern names aren't written in ancient languages like Koine Greek, and modern alphabet characters don't double as numbers in modern cultures, so, as John wrote, figuring it out might take a little wisdom or applied logic. There are two ways to go: One can either fit modern names into ancient alphabet-number systems, an inherently subjective process, or adapt modern alphabet characters to numeric values, which also can introduce a lot of variables. This opens the door for an infinite array of possible solutions to the mystery, and a survey of internet offerings on the subject make it apparent that most of the theories floating around either flounder or sink badly under scrutiny.
Thus, the need for an objective comparative evaluation of names and formulas became obvious, and that's where the idea of a comprehensive computerized mathematical "Beast Number Factor" (BNF) tool was born. The result is a spreadsheet that logically evaluates various theories regarding possible beast names that total 666, returning a single score, the BNF, that somewhat measures the viability of supposed "hits" or numbers that match or indirectly relate to 666. How well this accomplishes the intended purpose is subject to each reader's judgment, but the results ought to be at least interesting and useful in some ways.
Variables taken into consideration in the BNF calculations include:
Standard capitalization and punctuation options,
which are automatically computed where case-distinctive codes are employed,
regardless of how entered. Listed as separate codes (columns), all entries
are calculated in proper capitalization, all upper case, and all lower case
variations, though the latter is not done separately in cases where it
replicates an existing 26 point scale.
Calculations of the BNF begin with base points
assigned first to any totaling 666 (100 points), and to a lesser degree,
numbers like 66, 333, 1332, etc., (5-10 points) that bear an unusual
mathematical relationship to the beast number. For the sake of brevity, I
call these direct and indirect "hits". (After further factoring, the sum of
these points will be added into a composite score that will somewhat reflect
the relative viability of the names entered based on how many direct and near
hits appear in the array of calculations applied.)
Before the above points are totaled, they are
first factored by a "code factor" that is applied to each of the dozens of
calculations that are applied to each name. The code factor is a percentage
based on criteria (explained below) that adjusts the points given for each hit
according to how objectively reasonable the code and mathematics employed
are. For example, a 100 point hit (666) on a bizarre code rated at 10% would
add only 10 points to the composite BNF (subtotal), the same as a near hit
(e.g. 333) rating 10 points on a 100% viable code set.
Lastly, the composite BNF subtotal derived by adding all the factored points described above are multiplied by a percentage "name factor" attached to each name. This is a necessary element because just like codes and mathematics, not all name renditions are created equal, either. For example, a grammatically correct, legally viable, or common rendition of a name adding up to 666 would obviously present a more plausible potential solution than one based on a strange transliteration of a strange spelling of a name into an ancient language. The name factor is 100% by default and only adjusted downward when warranted.
Further explanation of the elements follows, but, mathematically speaking, the Beast Number Factor formula is:
BNF (Beast Number Factor) = Sum of [(Base Points) x (Code Factor%)] x Name Factor%
The Scripture indicates the number of the beast's name is 666 (six-hundred sixty-six), not 6-66 (six sixty-six) or 6-6-6 (six, six, six). Thus, while often interesting and even noteworthy, the Scripture doesn't tell us to look for something we can multiply by six, add 600 to, or find a hundred ways to get three 6's out of someone's name and title combinations creatively rendered in fourteen languages. (I wish that were more of an exaggeration than it is.)
Yet, numbers are funny things, and I'd be remiss to dismiss things like the direct parallel between King Nebuchadnezzar's 60 x 6 cubit image and the image of the beast himself, or the uncanny numerical patterns surrounding the number 666 and its multiples and factors. I've already observed that name-number combinations totaling 666 using one method often total numbers like 66, 333, 1332, etc. by others. Given the very real possibility that the true solution involves a code not yet included on the spreadsheet, including these indirect hits at only 5-10% of the points given for direct hits on the number 666 prevents the BNF from being unduly skewed by numbers that don't directly relate to the matter at hand.
The following table represents a complete list of numbers and base points per hit used in the BNF:
| Number | Base Points/Hit |
| 666 | 100 |
| 66, 111, 222, 333, 999, 1332, 1666 1998, 2664, 3996 | 10 |
| 6, 11, 22, 33, 60, 132, 198, 360, 396, 444, 555, 600, 777, 888 | 5 |
Keep in mind that before these raw points are to be factored twice before going into the overall BNF, they are to be factored by two other variables based on the encoding and mathematics used in the calculation and the normalcy of the rendition of the name used in the calculation.
Figured as a percentage of the base points of any hits, this factor is intended to balance the value of weirdly contrived formulas against more plausible approaches. The code factor is 100% by default, with adjustments made according to the following considerations:
Objectively established standards, like ASCII codes or Roman numerals, are preferred. Variations should be reflected in the code factor to any extent they effect the outcome, which could be significant even in "minor" deviations.
A common, ordinary, and/or logical approach, like counting the positions of each letter of an ordered alphabet, should also be considered viable, but marginally less so than the above in general.
It should be a reasonable approach, not an obscure code pulled out of a pagan witchcraft manual or a little known computer code, for instance. The further from something an earnest seeker of the truth might use without the aid of a PhD in Calculus or a supercomputer, the less viable the formula.
Although the line between mathematics and numerology is impossible to draw in some cases, the method should be mathematical not mystical. The Scriptures make no point of any hidden meaning in the number 666 or any others in this context; all it says is that the solution involves counting, computing, or calculating, and the code factor, therefore, should account for variations accordingly.
The code should apply to the same language and alphabet as the name is normally rendered, not the arbitrary transference of values assigned to letters of one language to letters of another via transliteration. Trans-lingual approaches like this are generally so incredulous and subjectively applied that they don't merit much consideration, and the code factor should reflect the same.
The results should be sufficiently unique to serve the intended purposes of identifying one person out of a field of possibly thousands of potential candidates, though not necessarily to the extent of being the only name on the planet that would total 666 using the same method.
The context of Revelation 13:17-18 reads most naturally as though John expected his most immediate audience to understand what he meant by numbering the name of the beast, as they would have, since alphabet characters doubled as numeric symbols in the culture of his time. The text does not require the use of alphabet values used in John's day, as some favor, and such efforts generally lose credibility because they usually require a name to be subjectively transliterated, transcribed, or translated into an otherwise non-existent rendition, as covered below.
Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the further one must deviate from how a common person would endeavor to calculate the number of someone's name, the less credible the results. The mystery isn't in the math; its in the identity of the person indicated, and that only because he hasn't been fully revealed yet. According to Scripture, its just a matter of time until the "man of sin" is identified by those who are paying attention, and there is no reason to think we should have to contrive a strange or unfamiliar rendition of his name in order to verify that it calculates to 666.
It should also be noted that insofar as designating a particular name, the number 666 is an awfully small number in a world of 4 billion named individuals. While the text does not eliminate the possibility of this being a unique value peculiar to one name only, it implies otherwise. However, whatever calculations are used should be sufficiently versatile to uniquely identify a name in a more narrow field of potentially viable suspects. In other words, an encoding that computed every tenth name to 666 would be unacceptable, but one that yielded the beast number less than one in a thousand times might be suitable for these purposes.
The premise of this factor is that a name really isn't a name unless the person it presumably identifies and/or other recognize it as such. If no one actually calls the current U.S. president 'Pres. G. Walker Bush', for instance, then a 666 calculation based on that name wouldn't bear much currency, though one for 'President George W. Bush' would.
Much like the seemingly infinite array of encoding methods used for these purposes, every person's name can be rendered multiple different ways just through first, middle, and last name and initial combinations. Then there are common variants in first names, like 'Phil' for 'Philip', as well as endless name-title combinations that could be extrapolated from all those. For this reason, though it generates a lot of strange "names", I have endeavored to cover the field by expanding each individual's name into a little over 200 average combinations of titles and names.
This does several things towards validating the results of this project. First, it creates a huge database of names (the first 84 are represented by nearly 18,000 variations), which is necessary for statistical purposes like identifying anomalies and trends. It also forms a wide net regarding the actual solution to the beast number mystery, which is a much more rational approach than randomly spelling, encoding, and calculating name-numbers in hopes of finding the one. With over 90% of the names so entered generating at least one 666 hit, it also deflates the presumed value of some theories.
Of course, this also generates a lot of frivolous name renditions, too, but this is handled by downgrading the default 100% name factor accordingly. (Name factors are only set on names actually totaling 666 in some way.) While I've endeavored to be reasonable and consistent, I must acknowledge that grading how normal or strange a name is can be rather subjective. Generally speaking, they are ranked according to the following guidelines:
Normally rendered name-title combinations reflecting an antichrist-level position (e.g. President or King, not Vice-President or Senator):
90-100% = Currently held position.
75-90% = Seeking or commonly considered a candidate for the position (e.g. Secretary-General Bill Clinton or President Arnold Schwarzenegger).
50-75% = In a position to seek or attain the position, but not known as a candidate for it. (e.g. President Dan Quayle)
Normally rendered name-title combinations that are not commensurate with the antichrist's ultimate position:
50-75% = Currently held position that is naturally in-line to an antichrist-level position.
25-50% = Currently held position not directly in line for antichrist-level position.
10-25% = Possible in-line step towards antichrist-level position.
Other commonly regarded factors include:
Abnormally rendered names and name-title combinations are generally ranked 25% or below, depending on how unlikely the rendering.
People known to be deceased are ranked at 5%, while the minimum on others is 10%, including any so far into the twilight of their lives and careers that they are not realistic candidates.
Where applicable, variations in names entered are calculated as separate codes rather than entered in various forms. Factors prompting this are capitalization in case sensitive codes apply, and inclusion/exclusion of spaces in computer-related codes that assign values for such. While these would be more naturally represented as distinct names factored by the name factor, it is much more expedient to incorporate these variations as separate codes (columns) factored by the code factor instead; mathematically, the results are the same.
Thus, for example, any name entered is automatically calculated in several codes (e.g. ASCII, EBCDIC, 52 point Alphabet Position Codes) as though entered in Proper Capitalization, ALL CAPITALS, and all lower case across the columns of the spreadsheet rather than as separate entries. All lower case varieties are factored at 25% because of the oddity and impropriety of rendering proper names as such, but this only affects the computer-based codes because inverted alphabet placement codes for all upper case letters repeats the same results.
Computer codes that value blank spaces are also calculated with and without those values, as names might be entered in separate fields and so calculated in database formats.
Variations containing special characters like hyphens, apostrophes, etc., should be entered with alternate spellings that exclude those in order to account for such variations in the computer-based code sets.
The following examples illustrate how this formula ranks hits to the beast number 666 on various names by contrasting two extremes. The first incorporates multiple hits of dubious credibility against the second, which counts only one highly credible score.
