Talk:Book of Revelation/Archive 1

message: Seems to be indicating that it is marginal and accepted only by Fundamentalist Christians--and that there are possible echoes of this in antiquity (but nothing concrete). This is clearly the longest held position throughout the history of the discussion--go back just three hundred years and it was virtually the only position held in New England.--eleuthero 03:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historicist Interpretation

message: While the information may be accurate, is it really necessary to note, as this section does, that an apocalyptic end of the world has not yet occurred?  The statement seems to serve no purpose other than to ridicule religious movements that have falsely predicted past dates as dates of Revelation.
:There are people who make careers out of sitting in front of a television camera, and try to map specific statements in the bible - especially Revelations - to current world events, or have tried to make specific predictions of what will happen based on Revelations.
:JesseG 01:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apocalyptic Expectations

message: From BustedHalo.com
: Revelation was the product of a wandering Christian prophet named John (he never claims to be the apostle John) trying to urge Christians of his time to remain faithful to their faith despite the Satanic machinations of the Roman Empire. Writing to seven Christian churches in Asia minor (1:4), he means to challenge and cajole, as prophets are wont to do. Scholars think him a Jewish-Christian from Palestine who escaped the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
:Revelation is composed mainly of visions John had in forced exile on the island of Patmos, odd and fantastic visions of Jesus exalted in heaven (often referred to as "the Lamb" because of his sacrificial death), of scrolls and angels, trumpets and dragons, the heavenly court, four living creatures, multitudes in white, a great and horrible beast (a whore astride it), the fall of Babylon, and a new heaven and earth with a new Jerusalem. Some Christians see in these wild visions a description and timeline for the end of the world (seen as happening soon), but the book itself seems to point rather to what seemed like the end of the world near the end of the first century. John looked around at the desperate struggles of Christians with hostile synagogue communities (Judaism and Christianity were painfully splitting up at the time), persecuting Roman authorities, and greed in a time of prosperity, and he felt called to make a statement.
:His response begins with specific letters of challenge to the seven churches. Then comes his guided tour of contemporary violence and corruption, all presented in the apocalyptic style. The book ends with vindication, the birth of a new heavens and a new earth. It would be easy to read into the middle section the corruption and violence of our own age, and Christians have done that throughout history. The book certainly provides hope to those struggling in difficult times. Yet the specific images and symbols of Revelation point to the early Christian era— the same images are found in contemporary Jewish literature. The whore Babylon is Rome; the Beast or Antichrist is the emperor; the number 666 calculates out to "Nero Caesar" according to the directives of numerology. The visions contrast the sinister world of Roman authority to a coming age of blessing from God. Those who keep the faith through persecution, social pressure to worship the emperor, conflict with the synagogue, they will be rewarded by God in the new age and new world to come.
The article in its current state seems to inadequately report non-literal (symbolic) interpretations of Revelation. (Such as the modern interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church.) 
In a nutshell, the interpretation of the Church is that Revelation was written with an aim toward Christians being persecuted during Nero's reign. The extravagant and unreal images and symbols in the Book are common tools used in the Apocalyptic writing style. As characteristic of this writing style, it can be applied to different time periods where the same problem is occurring, but it is by no means an accurate description of things to come (or things that have happened.) So what's the gist? Hold on during times of persecution; God will reward the just/faithful in the new world to come after the times of persecution.
Perhaps a "Symbolic Interpretation" or "Roman Catholic Church Interpretation" section should be added?
KwaziMF 20:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman Catholic Teaching on Revelation

message: "taking to heart the Scriptural warning against those who proclaim "He is here!" prematurely."
can someone point out where this is for me? - Omegatron 19:02, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
:It may be in reference to Matthew 24:23-27: "[23] Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. [24] For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. [25] Behold, I have told you before. [26] Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. [27] For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." I'm not quite sure, though. Hey, the Bible is pretty big and all. :-) —JRM 14:11, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
::well, my mum (catholic catechist (is that tautology?) and a lovely lady, but no bible scholar) always used to quote to me "you shall not know the day, nor the hour"! i guess you would have found it by now, but i really must quote my mum quoting the bible in wikipedia.
:: "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh" (Mat. 25:13) aussietiger 13:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Warning 

message: :I just reverted highly NPOV comments by Woodensword.  This is not an article that is designed to reflect just the views of reformed theology or Cornelius Van Til. Please have a discussion here so you can learn more about editing and NPOV.
Your article is not unbiased, can you deny that the symbolism in the Revelation is taken from the old testament. Can you deny that the early church fathers such as tertullian and lactantius and numerous others never viewed it in the way that you portray it. show me an example of your interpretation from a period before the end of the  3rd century. all your views expressed the ridiculous opinions of godless theologians of the last couple of centuries who have no idea of the thought processes of people at that time. Tell me why these theologians should know the mind of the writer better than, men who lived in the same type of world, with the same mind set. It is you that is biased, I feel sorry for you that you have spent so long a period, writing such rubbish. I also spent about six years studying the trash you quote. The bultmans of this world who make unbelief a career, who wouldn't know the truth if it hit them in the face. Men dedicated to disproving everything that points to the supernatural power of the godhead. The men you studied, have denied the authership of every book of the bible, they have denied the death and resurection of Christ, and even his existence. While you have a right to quote the things they say, I would like to know what right you have to exclude the views of others. A person desiring to know about christian subjects, surely would want to know a christian view of the subject. You should also not make judgements about a persons beliefs. I belong to no religious group, I don't even go to a church. What I have written comes from a great many years studying theology. If you studied theology, you did it with blinkers on. (woodensword)
:I did not write this article. It was written in a collective process in which I played no part. I did, however, write articles on apocalypticism and millennialism in several print encyclopedias, including the  Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism, Brenda Brasher, ed., (Berkshire Reference Works; Routledge encyclopedias of religion and society), New York: Routledge, 2001; and the Encyclopedia of Millennialism and Millennial Movements, Richard A. Landes, ed., (Berkshire Reference Works; Routledge encyclopedias of religion and society), New York: Routledge, 2000. This does not mean that I can plonk my own idiosyncratic views into this article. It does, hoever, give me some distance from which I can see that you have plonked into this article a narrow, biased, and idiosyncratic personal statement of  theology that suggest a view other than yours amounts to heresy.  This has no place in an encyclopedia. As a serious encyclopedist and practicing Christian, I am offended by your comments.--Cberlet 19:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No personal theological comments please

message: I published some comments on the number of the beast, the paragraph contained good reasons for rejecting the present interpretation. The sources were quoted. And some reasonable grounds for rejectimg the other interpretation published. An accedemic who has contributed to an encyclopedia. instead of contesting the facts deleted the comments because he did not approve of them. No grounds were given or notification of his intention to do so. If there was an error in the information given it would have been understandable. It seems he deleted it because it did not happen to suit his view of things. 
   Breifly the augument was such, 
(1) that Nero was not thought by the early church to be the anti christ. In fact a couple of the early (and highly respected) church fathers (Tertullian and Lactantius) had positively stated that the anti christ would not appear while the roman empire existed.
(I have read all of the early church fathers prior to Constantine, and have not read a single word suggesting that Nero was the Antichrist, though it is possible I suppose that some christians somewhere might have called him an antichrist in the sense of many antichrists}
(2) The Book of Revelation was written in the greek language for greeks and it is difficult to imagine that John the author would have inserted hebrew numerology into a greek document written for greeks, when they had their own system of numerology.
(3) The imagery of the Apocalypse was drawn almost exclusively from the old testament, therfore it is reasonable to look to that book for the meaning of the symbolism.
(4) The only reference in the OT to the number 666, is found in 1 Kings 10v14 and refers to Solomon and his aquisition of wealth. and as it turns out the numerology of the greek word for wealth Euporia (the closest word in the writers time for capitalism) also adds up to 666.
If any others can give good grounds (some error, not just because you don't like it) for not accepting this as an alternative view, not a replacement please let me know otherwise I will insert it.
:Woodensword, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) so we can keep track of who said what more easily. Furthermore, if you disagree with the contents of an article, do not put such comments in the article itself. We have the talk page for that. If you dispute the factual accuracy of an article, put  at the top. If you think the article does not conform to the neutral point of view, use . Should you believe both apply, the proper template is . Under no circumstances should the article text be used for remarks on its contents.Also, it helps if you make arguments on the talk page as coherent as possible, not just by referring to the edits made, as these are hard to look up while an article is in flux. In particular, please cite your sources on the talk page as well. The only way to show that your remarks represent notable POVs that are not accurately represented in the article is to cite; mere personal assertions are not enough. Note also that the sections you dispute are in a section titled "Historical-Critical interpretation"; the viewpoints in the article are those of that movement, not the viewpoints we assert to be "true", and we should not work to making the article state what is "true", merely to what notable viewpoints are held on the subject.I agree that the current article is much too confident on the historical-critical interpretation, and worse, it cites no sources to base itself on, instead referencing "many critics". Cberlet, you mentioned some references. Why not look these up and use these to bolster the article? Again: we are not set out to prove why one side is definitely right and the other definitely wrong. We are set out to represent what others think of the Book of Revelation, and do so as unbiasedly as possible. This is what the neutral point of view is about. JRM 00:06, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
Many thanks JRM for your advice - woodensword
::I agree with the criticism that the "Historical-Critical interpretation" section is too long, and it needs references.  I was objecting to Woodensword writing marginal comments and declaring certain views to be heretical. My area of research is how various social movements--both religious and secular--use apocalyptic and millennial aspects of the prophecies in the Book of Revelation as a way to justify political action.  --Cberlet 00:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not use the term heretical, I used the word Godless to describe some theologians who have confessed themselves to be such. You go on to state your feild of research, and imply that I wish to justify some political point of view. I am affilliated to no political party, I have no interest in politics, I don't even bother to vote. As previously stated I belong to no religeous organzations what so ever, I am completely interested in the facts alone. And instead of bringing your mental baggage with you I would like you to address, the questions raised, which do not revolve around the length of the article but the accuracy of the assumptions made. If you are not aquainted with early christianity, please say so, that the matter might rest.  Woodensword 08:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic Ignorance and Bias 

message: I've never known that Amman was once called Philadelphia. However, the fact is that the church mentioned in Revelation 3 is actually located in modern-day Turkey - Alasehir. --One Salient Oversight 12:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Philadelphia located in Amman, Jordan, or in Alasehir, Turkey?

message: This title issue should be discussed. The King James Version of the Bible is pretty language but arguably one of the worst translations. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" is not the most common name for the book discussed here. Most KJV bibles list it as "The Revelation of St. John the Divine," which is arguably not historically accurate--there is a big debate over John's identity. While "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" is the beginning of the first verse--the first verse is considered a preface to the actual text. I am changing it back until there is a discussion here with some sourcing. --Cberlet 13:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title Issue, re: Revelation of John

message: Could someone please fix this sentence (I'd do it myself, but I don't have a clue what it's supposed to mean) "Since this is a very attractive view to those selling on the urgency of Christianization, it found support for the book's canonization in the otherwise hope-inspiring and uplifting outlook introduced by the central figure of the New Testament, Jesus." --Lee Hunter 01:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Selling on the urgency?

message: The lead paragraph gives the IPA transcription of the pronunciation of apocalypse. However, it gives the General US American pronunciation. We should either add further transcriptions of the pronunciation in other standard dialects (e.g. ) or scrap it altogether. --Gareth Hughes 15:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation of apocalypse

message: I think that this section is weak, although my interest in the interpretation of prophecy is also weak, and I don't have books on this subject to explain my perspective.  However, I have described my own view as "idealist", and I do not recognize any relationship in the description.  I'll try to do some research; but here are the problems I see:
* The Spiritual view (also called Idealist by some writers) does not see the book of Revelation as predicting specific events in history. —  There are views like this, I'm sure, which see this and all other prophecy as some kind of poetry.  I would rather speak of this as a Metaphorical view of prophecy, not Idealist.
* Rather it sees the visions as expressing eternal spiritual truths that find expression throughout history. — I think that this statement takes away considerably from the first sentence, if it isn't bluntly contradictory.  Which is true: 1) "not ... predicting specific events in history" or, 2) "expressing spiritual truths that find expression throughout history" ?  That these statements aren't easy to reconcile is made more evident by the third sentence:
* Only in the last few chapters are specifically predictive eschatological issues taken up.  — So the "last few chapters" predict "specific events in history" ? Is the view purely spiritualized and metaphorical, or is it predictive after all?  The description is self-contradictory.
As I had understood it, and as I explained my own views, idealism can be preterite, historical or futurist in its original reference; but the reference establishes a pattern by which the times in which we live are to be understood.  Idealist interpretations conceive of prophecy not as having been given for a single generation's benefit, but for each generations to learn something about God's purposes until the end of the world.   So, for example, 1 John says,
"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour."
In other words, there will always be antichrists until the end of the world; and at the end of the world there will be a consummate antichrist.  The Antichrist page has an example of an idealist interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12, for example: 
a "man of sin", "the son of perdition" is expected to set himself up in the temple of God, on the false pretense that he is God himself. This portrait of the Antichrist is reminiscent of the acts of Antiochus Epiphanes, who around 170 BC commanded Jews to sacrifice pigs on the altar, four times a year on the Shabbat, in tribute to him as the supreme god of the Seleucids.
Here is a definitive past fulfillment, which establishes the pattern by which ultimate evil can be recognized. The view attributed to the Eastern Orthodox is closer to the idealist interpretation, than the paragraph under that head.  The key idea of idealist prophetic interpretation is that God's word is true, now and always.  The Book of Revelation doesn't belong to the past or the future alone, and neither is it an occult description of historical events; it is a revelation of the word of God by which all things, both calamity and deliverance, are upheld (as I've understood the idealist interpretation to maintain). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Idealist interpretation

message: I have changed the initial sentence saying that the Apocalypse is a work in the apocalyptic, not in the prophetic tradition. The style is much more like Daniel or even Ezekiel, not at all like Amos or Hosea. Pilatus 14:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apocalyptic or prophetic literature? 

message: Which of the two is it:
*"was seen a long time ago", or
*"was seen no long time ago" ?
Most sources point to the latter. Any experts here can resolve this, and fix the article if needed? Owen× ☎ 18:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irenaeus' testimony 

message: I find this text very confusing:
:"The identity of the author is also not clear. The traditional view is that the author of this book was John the Apostle, the same as the author of the Gospel of John and 1, 2 and 3 John, but other scholars doubt that. However, given the book's futurist eschatology (e.g. chs. 21-22), this view is very difficult to maintain when compared to the realised eschatology of the Johannine corpus, especially the Gospel of John itself."
Why don't we just say that some say X and others say Y? And who is being cited in the claims about the "Johannine corpus"?--Cberlet 02:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Identity of John

message: I have removed the following comments on the grounds that it is inappropriate to quote from a non-expert:
:Revelation is considered one of the most controversial (see Jonadabs) and difficult books of the Bible, with many diverse interpretations of the meanings of the various names and events in the account. B.A. Robinson of the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance says that Revelation portrays "a very different picture of God than we see described in the synoptic gospels. There is no love for one's enemies. There is only bitterness, hatred, and a desire for revenge."  However, when considering the apocalyptic setting of the book and comparing it to the apocalyptic passages in the gospels, this difference decreases enormously.
Bruce Robinson himself is quite open about him not having an academic standing in this area. His own website states :
:"....Bruce A. Robinson... is a graduate of the University of Toronto, class of 1959, with a BaSc (Bachelor of Applied Science) degree in Engineering Physics. He worked for a large multi-national chemical company for 38 years before taking a "golden handshake" and early retirement during a company downsizing. During his employment, he functioned as a specialist in the development of electronic instrumentation, as a computer programmer working in process computing, and as a group leader. Technical writing formed a major part of his work assignment. "
jguk 14:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He is, however, the primary author of one of the Internet's most respected and longest running religious websites, which makes his opinions notable. Furthermore, the notion that Revelation is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible is hardly unique to Robinson; both Martin Luther and John Calvin expressed serious reservations about the book. Firebug 06:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You say it is "hardly the most respected" - well, then, what is? This site has been praised by Encyclopedia Britannica and numerous academic organizations. You have not provided ANY reason to discount this source other than the lack of a specific academic credential. The fact is that Robinson is one of the Internet's foremost experts on issues related to religious tolerance, whether you like or agree with him or not. Your deliberate mass removal of cites, which is perfectly reasonable to analogize to a crusade or jihad, is disruptive of Wikipedia and reminiscient of the behavior you were ordered to stop by Arbcom with regards to dates. You clearly have no respect for Wikipedia consensus or a desire to do anything but edit war. Firebug 13:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This discussion is a bit polarized, and I'll ask you to re-read above how you're mis-quoting each other to polarize even more.  I'm not sure how respected Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance is on the whole, but it has become an online hub for many.  (Disclaimer:  I haven't been extremely impressed, but the site is still respected in certain circles.)  So the truth is somewhere in-between "one of the most well-respected" and just "any other person who has a blog".  That said, it seems to me that to justify quoting Robinson's statement, it should be confirmed by another source that says essentially the same thing, referenced in a note.--Gandalf2000 20:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There are many editors who are seriously questioning the OCRT, pointing out that they are not a reliable source (in essence they are a one-man band, with that one man freely admitting his is not an academic). See Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance for details. In summary, Robinson is not quotable, jguk 06:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for posting the link to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org, which should have been mentioned sooner.  My suggestion is to add this reference to that page at the bottom, and let that process play out.  --Gandalf2000 19:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even absent that process, which has already shown considerable disquiet at using that website for a reference, there'd be the question as to whether Robinson is so notable a source that a quotation from him should appear in the introduction of a page about a book of the Bible. I think that's a clear no, jguk 20:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd say you're right.  Move the quote onto this page.  If someone finds another, reputable source for the same opinion, then that can be put in.  Thanks.--Gandalf2000 20:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not crazy about it being in the third paragraph..right there with MARTIN LUTHER. He's an Engineer with a Web Site. Putting it in the external links would be a compromise. But quoting someone that isn't that well known and isn't a recognized expert in the Book of Revelation shouldn't be quoted in the third paragraph on an article about the Book of Revelation. If there's consensus (and it looks like there is) I'll (or someone else) move it into the external links section. Rx StrangeLove 22:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of opinion of non-expert 

message: Someone please explain:
#why ancient Hebrew letters are used (largely extinct by this time and even the Greek OT LXX was then favored by Jews everywhere) and 
#why the O is kept and counted, but the E is not.  With selective use of letters, one can make a name add up to almost anything.
Castanea dentata 03:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gemattria

message: I have attempted to present some information on this page about the Zodiacal references and it was removed. When anyone familiar with the language of astrology, looks with an objective eye, it is relatively obvious that there are astrological references in the Book of Revelations. There SHOULD be some mention of that on this page. Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's "The Hidden Manna" is the best reference for this. I agree that this information should be put forward in a Neutral Point of View.
But to many, it is not a small interpretative key of the Book of Revelations. Any tips on where to put this information on the page or how to include it without getting deleted. There is No reason to block this VIEW of the Book of Revelations from this page just because it is not in line with religious schools of interpretation and will make some people upset. Let people just look for themselves. Maybe we could add a section Controversial Interpretive Views. I will try that.User:Saberlotus
:The issue is one of representing tiny minority viewpoints as such, and in context; I think the current solution is appropriate.  JEREMY 02:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zodiacal References & Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet

message: What is going on with this sentence in the authorship section:
:The opinion of the more moderate critics of the present day is that the voice of antiquity favors the genuineness of the book. 
I have no idea what that even means. Can someone rewrite this for clarity (perhaps with less prepositional phrases?)--Andrew c 18:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence problems