Talk:Bible prophecy

message: ===2 Kings prophecy re Jehoiakim===
The article currently states "Jeremiah prophesies that Jehoiakim will have no successor to the throne. His son Jehoiachin succeeded him at the age of eighteen reigned three months before being taken captive along with his mother, wives, servants, princes, and officers.
However, the supporting reference to 2 Kings 24:6 contains no prophecy that Jehoiakim will have no successor, and I can't find any such prophecy on a concordance search.
I'm going to remove this whole bullet point; if someone finds supporting evidence please put it back with a supporting reference.
Nathan Cole
I can only assume it is an error. The curse is for descendants of Jehoiachin (hence the kingship passes to his uncle) (Philosophystephen (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Queries re specific points

message: The article currently states "Jeremiah prophesies that Jehoiakim will have no successor to the throne. His son Jehoiachin succeeded him at the age of eighteen reigned three months before being taken captive along with his mother, wives, servants, princes, and officers.
However, the supporting reference to 2 Kings 24:6 contains no prophecy that Jehoiakim will have no successor, and I can't find any such prophecy on a concordance search.
I'm going to remove this whole bullet point; if someone finds supporting evidence please put it back with a supporting reference.
Nathan Cole
I can only assume it is an error. The curse is for descendants of Jehoiachin (hence the kingship passes to his uncle) (Philosophystephen (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 Kings prophecy re Jehoiakim

message: would be nice to see the following information added:
hermeneutics and prophecy as well as a link to biblical hermeneutics
examples of biblical prophecy with different opinions on each examples interpretations
more information regarding dating specific books of the bible (for example, as well as for daniel, it is important for christians that the gospels be dated before the destruction of the second temple)
information on the critics claim that the bible has been falsified
addition of more diverse theological and rationalist views of prophecy
which branches of christianity today believe that prophecy still occurs within the church and which branches believe that prophecy ended at the destruction of the temple?  how do the churches practicing prophecy, organize and deal with their prophets and prophecy?
though I dont totally agree with the npov nomination, I think that adding information on the differences between judaic and christian interpretations of key verses would help...an example is, I believe, Psalms 22.  Christians often say these verses are about the messiah, Judaism however does not believe this.  Also when discussing specific verses, please discuss translation issues.
dantedanti
A new section has been included to help settle the matter on biblical dating.Radical man 7 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: to be added please

message: I think if one complains about NPOV they should state why in the talksection.  It is just common courtesy and shows you are serious.
::After having just read this article for the first time I agreed with the tag placed in one section that it seemed to be presenting a certain perspective persuasively using non-NPOV language. It wasn't that it was poorly written, it's just in the wrong place for a appologetic article on 7th day adventism. It also lacked citations and sources and thus appeared to be original research on the part of the author. I removed the section but not to worry, it's still in the history if anyone would like to rework it to NPOV stance, using citations and appropriate neutrality. Thanks! --DjSamwise 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added a few small sections that give practical insight into the actual mechanics behind prophecy, I hope that it helps.
Radical man 7 23:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: npov

message: I could have added a lot more resources on the pro-Bible side.
For example:
BIBLE PROPHETS VERSUS NON-BIBLE MEDIUMS/PSYCHICS
Brookside Church in Ohio states the following regarding the Bible's laws regarding prophets and the accuracy of modern day psychics as reported by a recent study:
"A true prophet is correct 100% of the time. A test of a prophet was whether they prophesied an event that did not come to pass. Prophets whose predictions failed to come to pass were stoned [It should be said that some prophecies were conditional. For example, if a certain people did not repent then they would suffer judgement.] Some prophecies w. People would think twice before revealing any kind of prophecy. Yet the Bible contains more prophecy about Jesus than any other book on any other founder of ancient religion.
Today there are people who claim to have psychic power. In 1975, The People's Almanac did a study of 25 of the best psychics. Out of 72 predictions, 66 (92%) were totally wrong. The remaining 8% could be explained away."
Taken from the following website: http://www.brooksidechurch.com/etw/jc7.htm
Also:
GENERAL ARTICLE: PROPHECY AS A DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE
http://www.equip.org/free/DA151.htm
SOME PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE
http://www.100prophecies.org/default.htm]
MESSIANIC PROPHECY FULFILLED IN JESUS
http://www.messianic-prophecy.net/
ken 23:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: more resources

message: If nobody gives a reason why the POV tag was placed and nobody complains about its removal I think it should be removed
16:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: QUICK NOTE

message: I covered the foretelling verses not foretelling already.  
I wrote:
"Those who hold to the doctrine of Biblical inspiration hold that the God of the Bible spoke through the Biblical prophets in order to provide moral teaching, guidance, comfort, warning, or to foretell important events. 
ken 02:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TO: dante

message: I believe that the bible code section should get its own subsection.  Also how about someone making subsections for some of the books of the bible, discussing different views of the propechy in each individual book.
The new sections added should help settle this matter.Radical man 7 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: organization

message: a link to the Wikipedia Book of Daniel article will reveal that not only Porphyry but many modern scholars believe that chapters 7-11 were all written after the desecration of the Temple in 168.BCE by Antiochus. - Indeed, a lot of scholars believe the whole book was written at this time, possibly incorporating earlier stories in chapters 1-6. 
And a link to the article on Apocalyptic literature tells us that The Book of Daniel is "a fully matured and classic example of this genre of literature." 82.38.88.156 23:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point (and this really should have been edited by now).  The late authorship of Daniel is now the mainstream scholarly view: Britannica, for instance, states this as fact.  It is disingenuous to imply that this was just Porphyry's view.  I have edited accordingly: "(a view now shared by many modern scholars)".  I was tempted to say "most", but I expect someone might challenge me on the actual numbers. --Robert Stevens 11:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Daniel 

message: 1) I am unsure of how I feel about the opening sentence to this article, but I want to think about that more, maybe some of you can think about it too.  There is just something wrong with it and I cant put my finger on it.
2) I'm going to clean up some not so good word usage that is unnecessary or vague. and also do some grammatical checks.
3) In my opinion, the sentence on biblical heremeneutics is not accurate.  I'm going to posts something on the biblical hermeneutics page also.  I might reword that sentence later.
Thanks Dantedanti 15:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  to be added or corrected 

message: I get annoyed by people who say the Bible points to the European Union as the new Roman Empire but two points have just struck me and I was wondering if anyone can shed light on them:
*1) The Roman Empire was alive and well when the New Testament was written, so how can the Bible foresee the re-creation of an empire which had not yet fallen apart? Did the Bible foresee the collapse of the Roman Empire in the first place? Is there a specific section of the Bible which specifically mentions the collapse of the Empire, then the re-creation of the Empire, or is it just the way a particular verse is interpreted? I've just googled the specific passages of Daniel mentioned in the article and they don't seem to have anything to do with this prediction. Also, wasn't Daniel written before the Roman Empire? How can it predict the re-formation of an empire which hadn't even been established for the first time, never mind a second time?
*2) Why do people say that the European Union is the reformed Roman Empire? Why do they not point to Napoleon's Empire, or the Third Reich, or the Byzantine Empire, or the Empire of Charlemagne, or the Holy Roman Empire or any of the other large supra-national political entities which have been created in Europe between the end of the Roman Empire and the present day? Why is the finger pointed at the EU and none of these previous entities? It seems a strange choice, considering that the EU is mostly made up of countries which weren't in the Roman Empire in the first place. Rusty2005 16:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Empire 

message: Are you kidding me? Roughly one quarter of Bible verses are regarded to have some form of prophecy? This is unsourced and probably nonsense--I'm replacing it with "many" or "several" or some other unspecific word until a source appears, okay? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roughly one quarter?

message: The suggested article merge seems like a bad idea to me. It would tend to make this article pov since the other article is clearly pov and is even stated as such. Mystylplx 16:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that the merger is a bad idea.  Messianic propheyc is a subdivision of Bible prophecy which is a larger article.  ken 21:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment its [the messianic prophecy article] just a list of quotes, rather than a proper article. I think it should be merged before it gets removed to Wikisource or Wikiquote completely. I can see how (Alleged) Messianic Prophecy is significant among notable literalist groups in Christianity (american conservative Protestants etc.), and that there could probably be an article written about it, but all we have now is a big list of quotes; there is very little actual article. Clinkophonist 13:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article merge

message: Shouldn't the name be "Biblical prophecy", since "biblical" is an adj, whereas "bible" is a noun?  It sounds wrong to me.  Lostcaesar 21:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of article 

message: The link list seems to have passed the spam event horizon. Please decide which ones provide significant additional context over and above what would be included in a great article. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: I have added the templates to suggest merging information from the Biblical Last Days article to this one.  I believe that the information does overlap, and that the Biblical Last Days writing does not have enough information or context to be a seperate article.  Hopefully it can be merged here and improved by someone with more knowledge in the subject.  *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 19:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Biblical Last Days]] 

message: Before deciding on whether to criticize or ask for the removal of these new sections, try to make use of this new methodology, give it a try over any topic, let me know if it works for you...
Oh, being that the conceptual background of the last days mirrors that of the last days , the small section on the last days should be removedRadical man 7 18:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sections 

message: As in other disciplines, technicians are created with the help of texts by established authorities, acquiring a basic knowledge of how to use the Bible. This is supposed to mean that a good thematic knowledge of the bible and a good methodology should be enough to explore and use any topic. However, the current age that we are a part of requires not only the stating of facts and opinions, today the methodology itself is now subject to public scrutiny.
The use of commentary and methods are part of all professions, these texts and commentaries are the foundation of this discipline and should be treated as such. However, I find that the over-reliance on commentary which is only designed for the training of those that deal with theology, creates a situation where an individual's insight or methodology is dismissed out of hand and not by the merits of a given idea or methodology. 
This also means that the authoritive use of scripture is nullified because the opinion of a doctor of theology is used instead of what comes from experience, insight and conviction of the person that has to deal with life in the trenches. The use of concepts and being able to follow the development of a given concept throughout the Bible can only result in a methodology that not only provides insight into a given theme or situation, it also means that the functional aspect is put to the test, and in virtue of its functionality, is likely to be accepted as a new standard.Radical man 7 19:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new standard 

message: Check out this website. http://www.tkic.piczo.com With the permission of Wiki I will post the information given. CWHJr 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the type of reliable source required by Wikipedia. ✤ JonHarder talk 22:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a new interpritation of Bible prophecy coming down the pipe 

message: Hasn't anybody of the type that is allowed to be quoted in Wikipedia (e.g. academics) done a study showing that biblical prophecy is nonsense?  The reason I ask is that I have been involved in a very long web forum debate, in which I demonstrated that in those parts of the bible in which there are lots of prophecies, for every prophecy which could, with generous refereeing, possibly be said to have come true, there are several prophecies which very clearly have not. It was not particularly difficult for me to make this case - so if it has not been done formally, then I am surprised. New Thought 13:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: basic point missing

message: This article presents a confusing perspective and multiple sections that seem to either violate NPOV by using an in-group perspective, or an assumption of culture (for example references to "Ancient Hebrew law and our current legal system"... which legal system? Israels?).  Entire sections, or major premises of sections lack citations, and the phrasing is often confusing. The "Scientific Process" section makes no sense, though it appears as an attempt to discuss Biblical prophecy from a scientific standpoint.
Since 'prophecy' is by its nature often self-fulfilling, or at least horribly subjective in interpretation, i suggest that this article merely present an overview of what Biblical Prophecy is (or how it is used), and perhaps some specific examples of prophetic claims (not the veracity, just the claims). for example, examples in this article should be limited to "In 7XX CE, Bob McProphet claimed that Person X was the AntiChrist". Or perhaps it would be better to merge this into the appropriate Apologetics articles, since that is the essential application of "biblical prophecy".
Another idea would be to simply remove this page, or merge it with a larger article exploring the scientific understanding of prophetic claims and any neutral, scientific process for verifying such claims, since many claims of prophecy are so subjectively interpreted.
If i knew how to do it, i would tag this article with a merger suggestion , a POV tag, and most importantly the lack of sources tag, as information without support is useless, misleading, or malicious.
69.108.166.204 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing, Lack of Citations, violates NPOV 

message: This section looks like a place people can promote their books. If the books are really that useful, then they can add information from them and include them in the reference format. As such, is there any reason this section should not be deleted? Carl.bunderson (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, in absense of opposition. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Books on Christian Eschatology

message: Much of the article at present expresses a purely Christian viewpoint. A particular example of this is the Literalism v. Skepticisms section. Orthodox Jews believe in an explanatory oral tradition which often involves highly nonliteral interpretations of Moses' writings. They also believe as an article of Jewish faith that only Moses spoke directly to God and hence the other prophets aren't as clear as Moses, hence there's no problem not taking what they said literally. This is held as a matter of belief, not a matter of skepticism. The whole dichotomy between literalism and skepticism is simply irrelevant. --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literalism v. Skepticism 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "messiah2" :
** 
* He will  gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel.<ref>Isaiah 11:12, Isaiah 27:12-13
** Messiah Truth: A Jewish Response to Missionary Groups
DumZiBoT (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: These all seem to be unscholarly and or unsourced original research.
A cleanup is in order.
--Ali M Saad (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These statements are not original research...Islamic scholars and imams will argue the Bible foreshadows Muhammad...I will admit the sources are not very good, but if you were to challenge the statements rather than the sourcing, most of these statements would likely be found in scholarly analysis.--Jorfer (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad Prophecies 

message: I removed this material completely for the time being - I think it is much too "far out" to assert that, eg, the mark of the beast is a computer-chip, wholly without reference and argument. ALL of this article is extremely poorly presented, but this is just unacceptable. Redheylin (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispensationalism

message: A page detailing specific predictions in the Bible is valuable and interesting. But one or two friends here appear to believe this page is intended to uphold a particular class of beliefs ABOUT this, and are inserting apologies without proper references, without balance and without edit notes. Clearly this is a misuse of wiki. Please desist from attempting to make wiki a platform for your own research and beliefs, and understand that this amounts to disruptive editing. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to editors 

message: I am splitting the Davidic line section into a new article to limit the size of the section on this page as Back2back has expressed valid concern over the size of the section.--Jorfer (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: I put the Davidic Kingdom article up for "Do You Know" and this was the response:
Bible verses are not appropriate for DYK. Also, I'm concerned about reliability of some of the sources used in the article. In no way is this an exhaustive analysis: Self-published by a group of like-minded Christians and their minister (not clear he has any professional training), Published by lulu.com, which allows anyone to publish their material, "Attorney puts Jesus on trial" is the beginning of the Google description and the book is not written by a credentialed theologian or religious studies academic, self-published thoughts of a web developer, self-published thoughts of an IT exec, etc. Awadewit (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: Details in the following link:
http://www.archive.org/details/The_Absolute_Truth_About_Muhammad_in_the_Bible_With_Arabic_Subtitles  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.34.104 (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad is the prophet of Islam has mentioned by name in the holy Bible in Hebrew 

message: Don't you need to identify where it is said that some scholars dont find prophecies in the bible  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.20.35.102 (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source needed 

message: In Levituss Tyre is being admonished and is being said to have once been a garden.  Was14:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyre  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bible prophecy. 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/20070612065140/http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/prophets/biblemuh.htm to http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/prophets/biblemuh.htm
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 05:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bible prophecy. 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/20100920230722/http://dsc.discovery.com:80/news/2007/05/21/sandbar_arc.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/05/21/sandbar_arc.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557408_10/Egypt.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761562217/ptolemaic_dynasty.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212032237/http://www.messiahtruth.com:80/response.html to http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922165019/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19910313en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19910313en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929152621/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a7.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a7.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Bible prophecy. 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/20051210184039/http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0699/ju99monu.htm to http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0699/ju99monu.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/05/21/sandbar_arc.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557408_10/Egypt.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761562217/ptolemaic_dynasty.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100617204108/http://www.cresourcei.org/eschat.html to http://www.cresourcei.org/eschat.html
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) 17:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Bible prophecy. 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/20110705072257/http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/westciv/alexander/07.shtml to http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/westciv/alexander/07.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725090028/http://www.boccf.org/main/default.aspx?tabID=46&itemID=113&mid=365 to http://www.boccf.org/main/default.aspx?tabID=46&itemID=113&mid=365
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725113534/http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20040118.htm to http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20040118.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216001115/http://www.moshiach.com/topics/basics/the-least-you-need-to-know.php to http://www.moshiach.com/topics/basics/the-least-you-need-to-know.php
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) 16:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have reverted WP:OR which violates WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research