Talk:Revelation

message: I'm confused as to the purpose of the second paragraph on sacred writings.  If someone could just write a neat little link about people revealing the purpose/meaning/whatever else of the scripture... or does it really have to do with scripture?  is it possible a person could have a revelation that does not reflect current canon literature? Sideburnstate 16:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the purpose of the 2nd paragraph?

message: The traditional Christian view of verbal inspiration, as applied to Scripture in general, is not the same thing as dictation.  Only some parts are described as dictated, or directly spoken by God, or by God mediated by angels.  The rest is seen as the word of God in a sense that is almost precisely parallel to the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation: fully human and fully divine. The dictation view is analogous to the Christian heresy called monothelitism, and Christians normatively reject it.  The misconception is upheld in numerous Wiki articles, though.  Can someone offer proof that some Christians have believed that Scripture was given by dictation?  Mkmcconn 21:53, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trad. Christian view is not verbal dictation 

message: The article begins "In monotheistic religions, revelation" etc. Revelation plays a central role in Mormonism, but few including Mormons would vigorously defend Mormonism as monotheistic... B 15:13, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
:Good points. In fact, the ancient Greeks and Romans believed that their gods sometimes talked to people. That certainly counts as revelation. Didn't most polytheistic peoples have similar beliefs as well? JeMa
:Thanks. Clear evidence for the core role of revelation in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the "Mormons") is here: http://broadcast.lds.org/genconf/2004/oct/1/genconf2004oct1elderholland.mp3   Within Mormon theology, a strict fit within the definitions of classical monotheism is probably less important for members of the LDS Church than is an understanding of the nature of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ which, in the Mormon Church, came through revelation (also in the link above, near the end). Hope this adds more light than heat. --DanB 07:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Revelation not exclusive domain of monotheism

message: The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here.  Uriah923 06:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value of ON content and quality of reference 

message: I'm a Spanish speaker and I've been translating some articles from your wiki to Spanish.  This time I found the following errors, both in the Subtitle "Through historical development of Faith": Psalms 90 has 17 verses in the Old Testament, and Talmud Babli has 10 chapters in Bava Batra (the reference cites "12A"). Sorry, my English is not as good as I wanted.--Elianita 03:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reporting two errors in references 

message: There was a comment in the main text in the Christianity section suggesting adding perspectives from other religions. Thought might better be addressed in the Talk page. Given that different religions are presented serially, a section on e.g. "Comparative Religion Perspectives" giving the perspectives of comparative religion scholars might be useful. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparative religion perspectives =

message: Sorry. I'm knew in Wikipedia. I'm dealing with learning how to become a wikipedian, and with English, too.--201.239.209.62 04:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oops, it was me!

message: I added a link to Revelation (The Urantia Book). Richiar 18:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urantia Book 

message: Why is revelation religion (AND ITS DISCUSSION PAGE !) editted ? And even linked to revelation. As if every religion should be based on the authority of a person who claims to bring the word of God and not on filosofy or experiences. Can anyone tell me who is or were the "prophets" of the acient Greek religion ? . Limboot 04:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is [[revelation religion]] edited ?

message: I had a quick look at the Sikhism article, and they definitely have a concept of revelation---I imagine other religions that are currently not mentioned on this page do too. Can anyone contribute appropriate sections? (I'm Jewish so not qualified....). 78.151.127.125 ([Liskeardziz]]) 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  widening the scope of this article 

message: The section, when dealing with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, should talk about natural and supranatural revelation, about the Holy Tradition and the Bible, about the authority in the Church in matters of dogma - the synods. Instead it's more an indirect Protestant apology against RC. And the 'sola Scriptura' thesis ("for RC is Pope authority, but Protestants look to the Bible") is not a belief for the majority of Christians. Untidy. adriatikus | talk 09:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Still in that bad shape. WP:OR, WP:SYNTH using primary sources, a.s.o.. I think this is the problem: a mayhap editor looks at a section and gets a nervous shock: too-many-issues! I'm bailing out! then clicks on [random article] and find him/her-self reading a neutral unrelated stub such as Tuol Pongro, then sighing in relief and immediatelly forgetting the previously read encyclopedic atrocity. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity: unbalanced 

message: I just made a major reorganization of this article.  The entire article had become disjointed, jumping back and forth between two different topics:
:* the view of a particular religion on how God revealed His will to mankind
:* different views of just what revelation is.
There are now two main sections: (A) Different types of revelation (verbal, non-verbak, existentialism, etc.) and (B) Views of major world religions.
Also, in the section on major world religions, it made no sense to describe the views of the most modern faiths most, and then backtrack to what they implicitly were based on.  As such, I have reorganized the faiths by (roughly) chronological order of development. RK (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization, and historical order 

message: I believe the term neo-Aristotelian wasn't coined until the 1960's in America, (Chicago to be exact). My memory is a little fuzzy, however it would be helpful to have one or two examples of who might fall into the category of a "neo-Aristotelian philosopher of the medieval era."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcdem49 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A too-many-issues-bailing-out case obviously! I'll boldly replace it with the obviously refd-to scholastics. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The neo-Aristotelian philosophers of the medieval era? 

message: What's the purpose behind the existence of this article? It is so full of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and college school level simplicist logic that one easily imagines the main editors intended that "revelations" have some kind of "divine authority", "look here how phantastically true my own religion is." The fact is that every personal "revelation" experience is just personal, and that when written down the experience is only partially reflected in the written text. Therefore a reader of a "revelation" reinterprets it into his/her own mind, unless words are better than total experiences. It is often claimed that the text in itself is written by the hand of God through perfectly controlled human scribes that somehow became completely freed from their "free" will (if such exists). Then that is another kind of "revelation" distinct from the experienced personal "revelation". God kind of magically sockpuppets forth the "holy scripture". I'm not going to apologize for this ironical and blasphemic description, rather the claimants of "infallible" and "unobjectible" have some explanation guilt to pay off, foremost by adhering to wikipedia standards of writing. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose?

message: Some of this material seems to be putting particular arguments, e.g. "that the Bible cannot both refer to itself as being divinely inspired and also be errant or fallible." This is a possible argument, and it may even be a logically correct one. However there are in fact plenty of Christians who believe that the Bible is inspired and also believe that not everything in it is "inerrant". All sorts of arguments are possible about what inerrant means. I am suggesting that this section should describe what are the common views actually held by the relevant believers. Perhaps this material could be in a sub-section, something like "Fundamentalist theories of inerrancy"??? I mean no disrespect to anyone holding these views but I think they should be distinguished from descriptive content.
Aardwolf (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose revision of material under "Christianity" about Protestant theories

message: I was linked here from "Revealed religion"; the article does not make it clear whether there is any other sort.190.42.151.105 (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revealed religion 

message: Revelation can be both supernatural (special revelation), and General (revealed through the use of reason). These are distinct concepts. General revelation concerns the physical universe, human conscience and providence. Ergo, this article should be split again from revelation in general. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  General vs Special 

message: The section on "mass revelation" as a type of revelation has no sources and smacks of original research.  The way it is written it is hard to tell if it is even correct or not - certainly the full 5 books of Moses were not revealed to the masses, but to Moses.  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also add that technically there would have been mass revelations from everyone in the List of people who have been considered deities as long as they spoke to a crowd of their followers. Another potential issue with the section is the nature of the mass revelation account in the Torah, because the Torah says that the people were afraid to hear God speak and had Moses be the intermediary, in which case would that be considered mass revelation? Althepal (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "mass revelation" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Revelation. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508175506/http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2516 to http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2516
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Direct revelation seems to include multiple religious traditions, both intended for the public and intended for individual persons, both through another person and not. In fact, it seems to include all forms of revelation except scripture. Daask (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given the lack of support and what appears to be an objection which has been uncontested. Klbrain (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of Direct revelation into Revelation