4 ms·
Fingerprinting could not in any way be interpreted as the "mark of the beast" because there is no mark put on the person during fingerprinting. So that wouldn't
by sigzero 5y ago
Fingerprinting could not in any way be interpreted as the "mark of the beast" because there is no mark put on the person during fingerprinting. So that wouldn't stand any scrutiny. Religious or otherwise.
- amateurICEguy 5y agoYou have to be careful when you interpret a religious passage. For starters you don't (do you?) speak the original language, so you're at the mercy of the translator for the term "mark" But, going more meta, most religious traditions don't have a strict textual interpretation of their texts. Certainly the author could not have known fingerprinting techniques 2000 years ago. It is not unreasonable to interpret "mark" to be an identifier. Of course then the "fingerprint" mark would have to be compatible with the rest of Revelations.
- Dylan16807 5y ago> Certainly the author could not have known fingerprinting techniques 2000 years ago. Citation needed. > It is not unreasonable to interpret "mark" to be an identifier. Adding an identifier, perhaps. But to interpret that passage to refer to taking pictures or imprints? That is unreasonable.