Talk:Abaddon

message: One quick note: when the article cites Perseus in saying that Classical Greek texts don't use Apollyon as a name, it seems nobody noticed its use in Socrates' discussion of the names of the Gods in Plato's Cratylus.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguide42 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Plato's Cratylus dialogue

message: Please change the article to use Template:OtherUses instead of Template:otheruses it currently uses. The OtherUses template has information about the contents of the article.
 
For a sample use of this template refer to the articles Alabama or Algiers--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DuKot (talk • contribs) .
:Note that that functionality is now at .  redirects to , and is deprecated.--Srleffler 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OtherUses template 

message: Should we really be going with the Catholic Encyclopedia for Judaism information? Hold on I'll edit--T. Anthony 12:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note: as a rule, Jews are more likely to understand the orginal Hebrew text of the Old Testament than are Christians. Of course every rule has exceptions but, to be more specific, it is more likely that editors of a Jewish-themed work, given their speciality, would understand Hebrew than would their counterparts from a Christian-themed work. Therefore, when it comes to interpreting or translating Hebrew phrases, Jewish sources are more likely to be reliable than are Christian sources. Also note that the Old Testament is, in a sense, an "adopted" part of the Christian Bible, as it had been written many centuries previously by the time the New Testament was compiled and most early Christians were not originally Jewish. By contrast, Jewish tradition has continued unbroken since the time of the writing of the Old Testament and therefore traditional Jewish interpretations of the original meanings of phrases are more likely to be correct than traditional Christian interpretations where the two conflict. Robin S 13:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Talk:Abbadon 

message: Abaddon, Abaddon (demon), and Apollyon: there's much confusion and overlap that needs sorting out. —Charles P.  (Mirv) 17:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed a link to Apollyon because it currently redirects back to Abaddon. We can restore that when the confusion stated above is sorted out. Besdomny (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusion and overlap 

message: these links to anti JW sites are POV and express the opinion of that side. Why would you use anti JW websites to reference what JW's believe. why not use a reference to JW literature. I have reverted.Wonderpet 11:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Both sides of story?

message: All concerned, I am planning a rewrite of the second half of the Abaddon article which is presently dealing with the topic of Jehovahs Witnesses beliefs on the identity of Abaddon in a POV manner. What has happened here is some one at some point in the past has inserted external links to anti JW sites as proof of what JW's believe, and while this may be acceptable by some standards it is not in line with high encyclopedic standards. I will reference Watchtower publications as a means of stating what this group believes and remove the anti JW sources. Thank you. Wonderpet 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planning a rewrite 

message: Please do not make changes to this article without discussion first. Wonderpet 00:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted to remove (again) the anti Jehovah's Witness propoganda. Wonderpet 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  changes without discussion 

message: Apparently this article is in the midst of some conflict, however I was struck while reading it that the phrase "Through continued study and using the Bible itself to aid in interpretation this group now believes Abaddon to be representative of Jesus in his role as Jehovah's executioner of divine judgement on an unrighteous world.[6]" seems to advocate the idea that Jehova's Witnesses believe what they believe simply because they have studied the bible more, and have used the bible to interpret itself.  Something a bit more neutral like "Jehovah's Witnesses believe Abaddon to be representative of Jesus in his role as Jehovah's executioner of divine judgement on an unrighteous world.[6]" might be preferable.
--69.29.11.198 02:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slant 

message: None of this JW stuff belongs on this page anyway. That's the subject of the Abaddon (demon) page, not this one. -- Jake 05:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong page 

message: What does this mean: ?
69.54.28.201 23:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion? 

message: Anybody ever heard the term "abaddon" used as an insult in some cultures?  I was listening to a conversation between two Scotsmen and they were using the term to describe someone they didn't care for.Mikepope (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly misheard "a bad 'un"? :) Hairy Dude (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word Used as Insult 

message: I posted this on someone else's talk page after they kept putting a link to CARM in the article.
Using CARM to point out the JW's point of view is like quoting a militant Islamist website as a reference on Buddhist doctrine. No fundamentalist protestant doctrine is provided by that CARM link except for "the JWs are wrong."  As for the links supposedly being one sided, fundamentalist protestant view have been provided, (see the links in the line "Some bible scholars believe him to be the antichrist or Satan.").  These links are the source material for the fundamentalist protestant view, just like watchtower articles and Charles Taze Russell's writings are the source of the JW beliefs.  The link to CARM ultimately does not contribute anything to the article anymore than a link to JW site quoting Matthew Henry and saying "that's wrong."  I know darn well I don't own the article but I am not going to allow anyone to allow JWs and fundies to use the article for petty arguing over tertiary adiaphora. If we allow the links with fundies saying "the JWs are wrong," we have to allow JW links saying "the protestants are wrong" to keep the articles from being one sided.  It is easier to just all views as advocated by the original sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: About using CARM as a source

message: The only mention of locusts in Joel is 1:4, which is about normal (but still scary) locusts. The only thing comparable in Joel to Abaddon's locusts are the great and strong people in Joel 2:2.  The author of Revelation ("St. John") did indeed use the name Abaddon to refer to an angel (just read the book, ninth chapter) and that was the first recorded instance of Abaddon refering to an angel instead of a place.  Also, Revelation clearly states that Abaddon is the angel of the bottomless pit ("the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in Greek his name is Apollyon." - Rev 9:11).  If there is clear documentation that some notable theologian or denomination (the JWs are already covered) that believes Abaddon is not described as the angel of the bottomless pit in the Bible, or that Joel did indeed somehow write about Abaddon's locusts while managing to keep the subject (locusts) completely separate from the appropriate description (of the mighty folks in the following chapter), then by all means provide who they are and what they wrote.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding a couple of recent edits that have been undone

message: Where is the secret info?
;-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.138.114 (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I came for Masonry info... 

message: JW should have a separate section. JW beliefs are more different from other American Protestants than Roman Catholic vs Southern Baptists!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.138.114 (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  stop fighting 

message: There is no good reason why Apollyon should redirect to Abbadon. From the point of view of the greeks, the originator of the term Apollyon, this was the greek name for the god Apollo, therefore it should direct the reader primarily to the article on the greek god Apollo, not a judeo-christian topic on something entirely different. It is both disrespectful and baffling. The connection between Apollyon, Apollo, and Abbadon are more suited for a 'see also' link.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.182.149 (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No modern academic sources consider ApollYon to be part of the same root as ApollO. Apollyon means "destroyer," as does Abbadon, and the book of Revelation gives both forms as different names for the same being. Apollo could be derived from a variety of Greek words, or more likely from the older and quite similarly named deities from surrounding regions, such as Aplu. So, we have sources actually listing Apollyon as a being in Christian mythology, and no sources for him being Apollo (your false cognate conclusion does not count). How is it disrespectful? I'm honestly offended at the accusation. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

text: You need reliable sources to connect Apollon to Apollyon.  There are numerous sources that only discuss Apollyon as the Greek form of Abaddon, without connection to Apollo.  The few sources I'm finding connecting Apollo to Apollyon only discuss how some later interpretations connect them in a false cognate, with only one exegetical work suggesting that a pun was intended.  The most that could be done is discuss this in this article, but it's not enough to separate Apollyon from Abaddon.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Apollyon redirecting to Abbadon

message: 'In some legends, Abaddon is identified as a realm where the damned lie in fire and snow, one of the places in Hell that Moses visited.[3]'
This section seems a tad vague, citing a source that goes only by the name of 'The Sacred Texts.'  
I, for one, have never heard any mention of Moses having visited Hell (or Heaven), and I was wondering from what sect of the Judeo-Christian religions this actually comes from. 
 
Hotel-c (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you actually check the link that's in the citation, you'll find the source for that statement is Chapter IV of Louis Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews (an almost standard collection of Haggadah and Midrash from the Talmudic era and later) hosted at the Internet Sacred Text Archive (sacred-texts.com).  Judaism has a number of commentaries and legends that elaborate, expand, and build on Biblical concepts that are not found in Christianity since they became separate religions two millennia ago.  It may help if you stop thinking "Judeo-Christian," and acknowledge that while Judaism and Christianity (and Islam) are all Abrahamic religions, they are still distinct and separate religions.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rabbinical Literature 

message: In the opening sentence, the Hebrew pronounciation is given as "'Ǎḇaddōn", but since there is no Dagesh in the Bet shouldn't it be "'Ǎvaddōn"? Later in the article it is written "avadon".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.159.79 (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew Pronounciation  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Abaddon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150607035557/http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=4&contentID=1868&commInfo=5&topic=Revelation to http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=4&contentID=1868&commInfo=5&topic=Revelation
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150102101859/http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Rev/Rev_009.cfm=Revelation to http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Rev/Rev_009.cfm=Revelation
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Abaddon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=4&contentID=1868&commInfo=5&topic=Revelation
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Rev/Rev_009.cfm=Revelation
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Here's the lead sentence to this article: "The Hebrew term Abaddon (Hebrew: אֲבַדּוֹן‎‎, 'Ǎḇaddōn), and its Greek equivalent Apollyon (Greek: Ἀπολλύων, Apollyon), appears in the Bible as both a place of destruction and by two different angel names (Hades and Lucifer.)"  The terms "Hades" and "Lucifer" don't appear in the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible, and in the New Testament Abaddon and Apollyon appear in a single verse, and neither one is equated with Hades or Lucifer in that verse. So it is not clear exactly what the first sentence is saying. I think I'll remove the bit about Hades and Lucifer in the opening, although if someone wants to rewrite the lead sentence in a clearer form, go right ahead. Alephb (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead sentence doesn't make sense 

message: Apparently there has been quite a lot of arguing over this page already, so not trying to throw fuel on the fire. The last paragraph in the section referenced above however needs to be set off as being the view of a particular religious group and citations included:
Full Preterism In scripture, the Greek name for Abaddon is Apollian, which happens to be the very name of the 15th Legion of the Roman army that laid siege to Jerusalem for five months and destroyed it in 70 AD. Interestingly, the prophets including Daniel, Jesus and John the Revelator, foretold of this destruction that would occur before that 1st century generation passed away. It was predicted that there would come to be 4 kingdoms: Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome on the earth. The 4th kingdom Rome was represented by Iron and it was a composite beast made up of the previous kingdoms which had been conquered. The Empire of Rome ruled the world in the lifetime of Jesus which is exactly when the prophecy foretold that the kingdom of heaven would destroy the power of that earthly Roman kingdom and it did, but not with physical weapons, but with spiritual ones through the spread of the good news of God's kingdom under Christ in the 1st century. The old Jewish age passed away and the new heavenly kingdom age under Jesus began. Other views often overlook audience relevance and time statements which is crucial in understanding Daniel, The Olivet prophecy and Revelation which are all written about the same last days events in the 1st century.
If these steps are taken, no reason the paragraph can't remain in the article. Otherwise it needs to go.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonblaylock (talk • contribs) 12:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , removing tag.  SITH (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute - "Christianity," "New Teastament," last paragraph 

message: The article currently has this sentence: "The Edinburgh Encyclopedia of 1832 includes another view: "There can be no doubt that the Pythian Apollo is the same as the Ob and Abaddon of the Hebrews, which the Greeks translated literally Apollyon."[5]" It's sourced to an 1832 (!) encyclopedia, it contains a statement that the encyclopedia itself does not endorse, and the idea that the Hebrew Ob = Apollo is the sort of thing you'll never find a living scholar say. Should it really be in the article? Alephb (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edinburgh Encyclopedia -- Questionable Source 

message: In the section 'New Testament', a verse from the Bible is reference: Revelation 9:11:
"A king, the angel of the bottomless pit; whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek Apollyon; in Latin Exterminans."
It is suggested that this is the first known reference to Abaddon as a being rather than a place. But the verse above is ambiguous, as the subject could be either "a king" or "the angel", or it could be referring to "the bottomless pit". --82.21.97.70 (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not ambiguous.  The king (over the scorpion-like creatures) is the angel.  The name cannot be referring to the Abyss, because Abyss is feminine and it says "the name OF HIM" (). 172.75.77.7 (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous interpretation? 

message: A previous editor of the Christianity section seems to be confused about Proverbs 6:32, claiming that the Brenton Septuagint Translation (an English Translation of the Septuagint) "added" the word "to" into the verse which he says literally reads "destruction his soul obtains".  Since this is in the section attempting to show anthropomorphic ways in which Abaddon is used, I can only conclude that he has no understanding of the original languages and thinks "destruction" is the subject (nominative case).  It's not.  Adulterer is the subject, destruction is the direct object (accusative case), and soul is the indirect object (dative case), thus the Brenton translation, "But the adulterer through want of sense procures destruction to his soul."  Destruction is the thing procured, not the one procuring.  The soul is not the thing being procured but the recipient of the thing procured.  I would be happy with removing the verse from that section entirely, but I erred on the side of preservation.  At any rate, if it remains included, it should be noted, as I did in the article, that the Hebrew verse does not contain Abaddon anyway.  And if it remains included, maybe the original editor would like to say why he thinks "destruction" in Proverbs 6:32 is used anthropomorphically. 172.75.77.7 (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proverbs 6:32 

message: It seems to me if we are talking about an understanding of the meaning of a Hebrew word in a Jewish context we should at the very least use a Jewish translation.  A standard Jewish text in English is the JPS 1985.  It is notable when consulting JPS that Abaddon, like Sheol, is not translated at all, but rendered as Abaddon and Sheol.  
Example: 
עָר֣וֹם שְׁא֣וֹל נֶגְדּ֑וֹ וְאֵ֥ין כְּ֝ס֗וּת לָאֲבַדּֽוֹן׃
Sheol is naked before Him;
Abaddon has no cover.
https://www.sefaria.org/Job.26.6?lang=bi
I would like to suggest that Wikipedia follow this template in the Hebrew Bible section (only).
I also would like to note that no standard Jewish translation in English uses the term Hell in Prov 15:11 and 27:20 as in those verses that understanding is explicitly Christian. 
I will let this sit a while and then make the edit if there are no objections. Mweisenfeld (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  KJV vs an actual Jewish translation in referencing the Hebrew Bible 

message: Apollion is the name of one of the rebel angels in the 17th century play, Lucifer, by Joorst den Van Vondel, but I wouldn't know how or where to add it to the article. Violetyimlat (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apollion in the play Lucifer