From an iconographical angle, this coin displays someone who is dressed in clothing that is far removed from any examples in the Ancient Near East. Examples from the royal courts of 18th century France and Germany, Spain or England will be more promising. For that purpose one can use classical art works of the artists for comparison. The symbols shows the sun clear. The other symbols are non-Ancient Near Eastern. There is no example of anyone in the Ancient Near East. Above the sun is the Latin word SOL. It is a king since he has a crown on his head. At the bottom of the two pillars appear the word SERA which in Latin means doorbolt.

This particular coin had a Latin date attached to it. At the bottom one can read the date: XIX AUG MDCCV.

This means the coin dates to the 19th of August 1705.

The iconography displays a sun and a moon with a face in the sun. Behind the sun is an animal jumping, judging by the tail, probably a lion.

On the edge is written in a circle: SOLIS HF LUNE CONGRESSUS CUM BASILISCO.

"Sun HF moon encounter/meeting/fight with the ruler". The spelling of BASILISCO is wrong since it is suppose to be BASILICA/BASILICUM/BASILICE.

There is nothing Babylonian in this iconography. The closest one can come is the shape of the tail of the Lion. Latin was not used in Babylonian times and Babylonian was already history close to the times of Alexander the Great in 331 BCE. Attempts to copy aspects of it may have existed a bit later but by the time of Christ it was history.

Within the circle of the coin, is a lined diagram with six corners. Inside is a square with six registers horizontally and six columns vertically. Inside the blocks are written numbers. Again one can say with the greatest security: the numbers are European and not Greek, Latin, Babylonian at all. Judging from the fact that we saw 1705 on the previous coin, the date for this construction of 666 must be found in that year. Anyone who say this is a Babylonian priest amulet is definitely not informed enough. There is zero connection to the Babylonian empire and neither to the Roman empire. This is a fake product of 1705. This is an attempt by someone in that year to play around with a possible explanation of 666. It is neither biblical, neither properly eclessiastical, neither properly historical and it would be better to dump it in the trash can than to bring it to Revelation 13.

The vicarius filii dei = 666 is still the most convincing argument for the identification of Revelation 13. It is immaterial whether vicarius filii dei is written on a tiara or not, it is embedded in the theology of the Eucharist of the Catholic church and anyone who has a slight knowledge of theology will know that vicarius filii dei = vicarius Christi. Christ is the son of God and the son of God is Christ. There is no difference. John and his church could not have understood the meaning of 666 since the image was only set up after the United States started as empire chronologically and it happened only after the first beast got its deadly wound and that was in 1798. The understanding was sealed to John and his church and through the ages in the same way as the 70 weeks prophecy of Jeremiah was sealed to Daniel and at last he understood it, as he said. God does not give prophecies to be fulfilled repeatedly but only to occur once in history, except if he says there will be many earthquakes in the endtime. Otherwise, if the noun is singular one can take it that it is a singular event. Seventh-day Adventists do not believe in recurring events nor in the apestelmatic principle which is the same recurring events theory for prophecy, namely that in every generation 666 meant something else.

Source:

1. Herb Kersten, "Unknown Facts about 666". Available online.

2. The explanation in the video at http://vimeo.com/15027758 is similarly not Babylonian at all. That amulet on the left of the table of calculation, is definitely not related to the table and neither to anything that is known from Babylonian society. The letters may rather be Aramaic but one has to investigate it closely since orthography is not the only factor that one has to take into consideration and furthermore, the possibility of fakes are also to be kept in mind. Lastly, one has to known stratigraphically where it was found in order to properly date it.