Talk:Christian eschatological views

message: This article makes almost no sense at all.  It reads like abbreviated lecture notes from a graduate level course in Eschatology.  
:Could we get some complete sentences, maybe even a vague overview of what's being discussed?
::Insertions of phrases such as 'biblically inerrant' about particular groups of Christians indicates a measure of bias by the original author.
::: Biblical Inerrancy refers to a stance on the trustworthiness of the scripture.  It is a precise definition within the theological community.
:Actually, the article does make sense, at least to me, as a 3rd year seminary student.  It seems generally accurate, and the use of the phrase "biblically inerrant" does not necessarilly suggest author bias, as it is how most of those denominations so described would describe themselves.
::Well, as a 3rd year seminary student you're probably not the target demographic for the article, as you're already probably quite familiar with the material. I, on the other hand, am not familiar with the material and I just agree that the article is poorly written. I don't have any problem with the content or POV, just the presentation. The first two comments are valid.
::I also agree that people holding to the stated theological positions within the article would certainly describe themselves as indicated by the article, and while I would see potential problems with the use of the phrase 'biblically inerrant,' I see no problem with the use of this phrase in this article. Meng.benjamin 17:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think this is a good article. It's meant to be a reference - the Christian eschatology article is very thorough as it is. I'm going to remove the "cleanup" and "merger" tags; it's pretty well laid-out as-is, and the main article is certainly too large already to merge.
Just my $0.02, David Schroder 16:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger, etc 

message: While prewrath is a comparatively minority viewpoint with respect to premillennial escatology, both prewrath and midtrib both bear mentioning as another perspective. Since there are books on the subject, they wouldn't constitute as original research. Neither fall under pretrib or posttrib, and so I feel it'd be better to add another one.Sugaki (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prewrath/Midtrib 

message: A lot of the content of all these eschatology pages was getting duplicated, because each of the views had to be heard on each of the pages. I've moved much of the interpretations to their respective view pages (for example, taken the Futurist view of the Book of Revelation and put it on the Futurism (Christianity) page), in the hopes of minimizing duplication, keeping source pages unimpeded by eschatological disputes, and making it more clear what comprises each of the eschatologies. I've moved some of the comparisons among these views to the Christian eschatology page, so that the core differences can be contrasted in one place. After all that, there really wasn't a need for a separation between Christian eschatology and Christian eschatological views; thus the redirect.
Skinrider (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Eschatology-oriented edits

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Christian eschatological views. 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/20061013045849/http://beginningwithmoses.org/library/gospelrevelation.htm to http://www.beginningwithmoses.org/library/gospelrevelation.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819202030/http://perspective.org.au/sermonseries/84/revelation---letters-from-heaven to http://perspective.org.au/sermonseries/84/revelation---letters-from-heaven
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) 10:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It's terrible. Dispensationalism is all wrong. Historic/Post Trib? That's going to confuse people and it ain't right. Supersessionism=covenant theology? No! 
Honest question: did a Dallas undergrad write this?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.133.136 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just delete this