Talk:Book of Revelation/Archive 2

Les Tres Riches Heures
Hallo, I do not want to war over such a trifle, but the picture does not show "John of Patmos" but merely Saint John, by which the painter understood John the Evangelist, on Patmos. This confirmed by the picture description at Commons: "Les Très Riches Heures du duc de Berry, Saint John on Patmos the Musée Condé, Chantilly." Str1977 (smile back) 06:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is, we have John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, and John of Patmos. Most medieval and Renaissance Christian artists identified these three individuals as the same person (and most traditional or conservative Christians today probably still do). However, we have 3 different articles on wikipedia. While the artist may have thought that the Evangelist was the one on Patmos described in Revelation, I feel that John of Patmos is the most appropriate wikilink because the painting specifically references Patmos and imagery from the book of Revelation. However, a compromise would be to include a wikilink to both, saying "Visions of John the Evangelist or John of Patmos.."--Andrew c 12:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

tree of life vs. wood
I seriously doubt that anyones native language is Koine Greek. That said Strong gives "tree" as a definition of ξυλον, and all the bible version at BLB and other translate the phrase as "tree of life" which is an accepted English phrase. It is original research to claim that the majority of bible versions are wrong without citing a reliable source to back up the claim, and furthermore, it would just be a minority POV, not the one and only correct translation of the word. Please stop reverting the longstanding version that quotes the KJV.--Andrew c 22:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Details
Wouldn't it be better to have more than a few lines on the content of the book, before diving into the subtleties of its authorship and interpretation? I don't have that much experience with wikipedia, but it seems to me this article is far too specialized for an encyclopedic entry.

--152.2.71.27 01:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This needs to be addressed. --69.134.218.218 01:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not quite clear on the the problem. I think the couple paragraphs before the table of contents do a good job introducing the book. Authorship is the first section in the TOC but the intro is very well written as far as I can tell. If you believe differently what would you like to know? What material is missing? Rtrev 02:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem, I think, is that the article spends the vast majority of its time presenting different interpretations of the contents of the book, as opposed to presenting the actual contents of the book. Compare it to the article on the book of Acts, where the first half of the article is essentially a Cliff Notes version of the book. The Revelation article could really benefit from a similar treatment. It seems to me that if someone is looking up Revelation on WP, they will probably care less about the interpretations and more about the Antichrist, Battle of Armageddon, the Dragon, the Mark of the Beast, etc. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is alot of information here, as far as encyclopedias are concerned. However, in my opinion the information is useful to someone studying Relevation because of the explanations of the different views. I was really just looking for the date of when the book was written and ran into several bits of good information, maybe just not things that should be located here. I do however think that a link should be established for this stuff to go so that people who are looking for it can find it. People research Revelation for several different reasons. You really need to know the different views before you begin to look at the Mark of the Beast, the Antichrist, the Harlot, or any of the other symbolisim that Revelation holds. If you took one view, say a Preterist view, then you would view the beast or the harlot as the Roman Army and Armageddon as God's wrath upon the Jews, or that the Antichrist was the Pope (as did Martin Luther King Jr,); whereas if you took a Futurist view you may think think the beast or harlot is something totally different that we do not know of yet, and the Antichrist has yet to be recognized. So, that being said the information here is essential when studying Revelation, but should be reserved for commentaries, not encyclopedias. After all, the different views and interpretations are what make Revelation the famous book that it is, right? 02:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.251.48 (talk)

Proposed link
I have been instructed to post my website: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/rjohn.html for review. Please, if any reader think it is worth to be posted, do so. Bernard Muller


 * Sorry if this sounds harsh. But who are you? Why should we link to your page? You don't cite sources. Your site is self-published. Please review /Links normally to be avoided, and I believe this site fails 2 and 3. It's nothing personal, but wikipedia is not a directory of web links, and we can't start linking to anyone who puts up a commentary on this book.--Andrew c 03:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with Andrew c. I like the page but it simply is not within the guidelines (see link above). Rtrev 03:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it does not sound harsh. I cite all my sources, which are all primary, that is from authors from the antiquity. Sorry, I do not used tertiary sources (such as the opinions and interpretations of contemporary writers) and I will not apologize for that. Who am I? If you look at the parent site posted on top of the page, "Front page: Daniel & Revelation" http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/danrv.html, you will notice I provide my full name and a link to a short bio "about the author". Self-published? I can have somebody posting the link for me: as you can see from the parent site, I have some happy readers. The parent website I just mentioned shows ranked in 4th position on Google and 8th on Yahoo! for "Daniel and Revelation". Maybe I should propose the parent webpage, which is very short and proceed very quickly towards either Daniel or Revelation. Either that, or stating my name and posting the link to my bio on the 'Revelation' page. What do you think? (NEWS: ALL MY PAGES HAVE A LINK TO MY BIO AND EMAIL). BTW, thanks Andrew for saying you like my page. I want to tell you the links I proposed are well-researched, very thorough, contains no hate and would be an asset to Wikipedia. Try that short one: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html Note: that site has been posted as a link, for a long time (please don't remove it!) on Wikipedia pages about 'historical Jesus', 'historicity of Jesus' and 'Jesus myth'. Under 'historical Jesus', the site is in 13th position on Google and 6th on Yahoo! Maybe I am not a registered scholar, but I thought Wikipedia was not all about propagating the work of professionals. I consider myself more of a critical & investigative amateur historian, with burning (but not blinding) passion about the history of very early Christianity. And my approach (and background) should be commended in a field almost fully "owned" by scholars (most of them on a payroll) with very different opinions & theories (which would prove that scholarly works, in this specific field, may be the problem, not the solution). I must admit I am very annoyed when my pages are rejected, mainly because some existing links are of bad quality, very biased or totally irrelevant (Check the last link on the 'Ignatius of Antioch' page --'Ignatius of Nerdtreehouse')(NEWS: I DELETED THE LINK). (BTW, I would love to attract your attention on these bad links, after reviewing them, of course). I did participate about one year ago into editing the 'Jesus' page. But that was very discouraging, with my work being often chopped down by evangelical Christians, even after some very long discussions. Please also note my webpages are ad-free. Bernard Muller


 * Gah, I just lost all that I had typed up. Basically, I believe wikipedia should only be summarizing existing scholarship, not publishing original ideas. This is including in what cites we link to. You admit that you are only an amature who has a free website where you post your personal interpretations. This isn't the sort of thing that would pass WP:RS and WP:NOR scrutiny. Yes, this is totally biased towards "registered scholars" and I feel thats a good thing. We are not a soap box for anyone with a free webpage to publish their thoughts. Wikipedia is about anyone having the ability to edit, not the ability to publish original research. There is a BIG difference between the two. As for hit counts, I believe your reasoning is circular. The only reason your site is ranked high is because wikipedia links to the historical Jesus page. Anyway, these are just my thoughts. I would suggest posting a WP:RfC if you want more editors imput. -Andrew c 02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, Andrew. I feel sorry that Wikipedia would sponsor the old guard of well-financed scholars. I am not even trying to change anything on the main text of these "religious" pages, certainly not attempting to publish my thoughts in front, just to propose, through a link, some well-evidenced thesis offering in the process some refreshingly clear-cut solutions. And I got feedback as such:
 * "Your web page is very informative! The reading of Revelation without the Christian additions is suddenly very clear. My dad and I are very excited by your research"
 * "Daniel and Revelation: Really enjoyed reading your material. ... Thank you again, for the clear scholarly presentation. So many times I truthfully have no idea what the authors are attempting to say. My humbly opinion being "they" use words that they themselves understand to be quoted as if.... From the tower or perhaps from God or at least a demigod.... The goal of educating not only clergy but all who may seek wisdom. ... You are accomplishing on your Internet pages."
 * "I think ALSO that you have the makings of a scholarly site"
 * "Your intellectual honesty is striking. A quality that is rare nowadays. Most of the time writers have a conclusion in mind and argue their way to lead the reader to see things the way they do."
 * "Just wanted to thank you for your work. I've been trying to make sense of Revelation for years and never did know where to start. You have single handedly cleared it up for me. Fascinating research."
 * Amateurs are the ones who do not try to make a living through their research, and therefore, for the honest ones, not biased and very open to all of the primary evidence, wherever it leads. Please note that my two main entry pages http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html and http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/danrv.html were very popular on Google and Yahoo! before one of them (the first one) was posted as a link on three Wikipedia pages. So there is no circular reasoning here. Now, almost 80% of the "clicks" for my page on 'Revelation' (my most popular page these days) come from Yahoo! If you search there for just 'Revelation', my page shows in 6th position (and I am not even posted on Wikipedia!). So I think the whole thing is very unfair. Mullerb 04:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I made the following addition in front of my page, just to show the ideas I exposed in it are not without scholarly backing:
 * From JewishEncyclopedia.com - REVELATION (BOOK OF), Article by Crawford Howell Toy (Christian scholar, D.D., LL.D.) and Kaufmann Kohler (Ph.D.):
 * "The last book in the New Testament canon, yet in fact one of the oldest; probably the only Judæo-Christian work which has survived the Paulinian transformation of the Church. The introductory verse betrays the complicated character of the whole work. It presents the book as a "Revelation which God gave . . . to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass," and at the same time as a revelation of Jesus Christ to "his servant John." According to recent investigations, the latter part was interpolated by the compiler, who worked the two sections of the book—the main apocalypse (ch. iv.-xxi. 6) and the letters to the "seven churches" (i.-iii. and close of xxii.)—into one so as to make the whole appear as emanating from John, the seer of the isle of Patmos in Asia Minor (see i. 9, xxii. 8), known otherwise as John the Presbyter. The anti-Paulinian character of the letters to the seven churches and the anti-Roman character of the apocalyptic section have been a source of great embarrassment, especially to Protestant theologians, ever since the days of Luther; but the apocalypse has become especially important to Jewish students since it has been discovered by Vischer (see bibliography) that the main apocalypse actually belongs to Jewish apocalyptic literature."
 * In general agreement with the above, next, I will provide a short synopsis, with some remarks (mostly about authorship), before proceeding to the ancient text, where, with inserted comments, points previously postulated will make a lot of sense (I hope you'll agree, as some of my previous readers: see here)." (Mullerb 22:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

This is probably way to late of a post but I have to say that this guy Mullerb should be in marketing. Thats not meant to be derogatory in any way but merely an observation. My understanding of the purpose of an encyclipedia is an apparatus to give as consise and factual overview of whatever topic is in view; there is a whole book i could wright about the book of revelation siteing many authors along the way, and i would love that oppertunity. However this is not the place or correct forum for doing so. 209.143.18.126 05:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)keith

Proposed link (continued)
I do not know how Yahoo! works, but right after I indicated here that two of my sites were showing high on the Yahoo!'s lists (when searching for 'Revelation' and 'Historical Jesus'), my webpages suddenly disappeared. Are we back to books burning? Mullerb 01:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for links
Can anyone tell me what are the official Wikipedia criteria for linked webpages (I know the ones for articles). Very confused, more so after I reviewed the links for the Revelation article. Some of the most contentious:

Under: Online translations of the Book of Revelation:

Martin Luther: Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil - March 1545 cf.Martin Luther the "Super-Pope" and de facto Infallibility by Dave Armstrong [2] ;Luther's Works CD-ROM Edition; Pope Gregory I ( c.540-604 ). NOT ABOUT REVELATION, NO ONLINE TRANSLATION Contemporary Marian visionary explicates in "A Time of Fire~A Way of Fire" that the Book of Revelation contains, in symbolic language encoded in the text, some of Jesus' most important teachings on personal and global transformation which were revealed only to his closest disciples. NOT EVEN A LINK

Many links are shown under the wrong headings (Online translations ...) when they are mostly commentaries only. Many sites represent original opinions by one person, most of the time not published (that is on paper, in a book). Some sites emanate ultra-religious sectarian viewpoints (one of them claiming the days of the Vatican are numbered). One link directs you towards the home page, and not towards the specific sub-page dealing (mostly) with Revelation.

Maybe I am upset that my webpage has been rejected, but I think Wikipedia is not helping itself in accepting links to dubious pages (most of them very well presented, I must admit). Soon this winter, I am going to work on this, but I am afraid, estimated at first look, and for obvious reasons which I will explained, about half or more of those links will be removed. But first, I want to know where to find the criteria of acceptability for specifically links. And I do not want to hear this one: this is not a link farm! Which means, through my past experience with Wikipedia: we have already too many links (mind you, the webpages already linked can be irrelevant, sectarian, with hate and stretched personal opinions/interpretations), so this proposed link, even if it is good, cannot be admitted.

Mullerb 03:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your criticisms of the existing links are great. Please, be bold and remove and reorganize the links as you wish. Speaking for myself, it's easy to monitor recent changes to a page if it is on my watchlist. However, it's hard to be held accountable for content that existed prior to me adding the page to my watch list. If you know of ways to improve the link section, then please, go right ahead!--Andrew c 23:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right about some of the links. The criteria for external links can be found at WP:EL. From there you should be able to link to all the information you would need for editing external links here and elsewhere.  Good luck.  Rtrev 13:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mormon view
I know that Mormons are very enthusiastic about their creed and like to proselytise whenever possible, but rather doubt that this is the best forum.. Hence I removed the line;


 * The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi foresaw that John would see "many things which thou hast seen...which...thou shalt not write; for the Lord God hath ordained the apostle of the Lamb of God that he should write them." (1 Nephi 14:27)

The main reason for removal is that the point of this part of the article is to tell us what various faiths think about the BOR, not to explain why they think it. No other paragraph quotes supporting evidence from the texts of its faith so there is no reason for a special treatment for the LDS.

Slightly more cynically, I might point out that since the Book of Mormon was written in 1830, it is hardly astonishing that it "predicts" the existence of the BOR :-) --Oscar Bravo 14:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe this is just some of LDS' justification for why the Book or Mormon wasn't part of the Bible in the first place. Just another true believer sharing his convictions with the world, I reckon. Eaglizard 06:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There probably does need to be a chapter in the article referencing LDS views and beliefs in the Book of Revelation. According to Mormon beleif certain parts of the Book of Revelation are explained in revelation to Joseph Smith as well as a lost revelation to John (John the Revelator) restored - all contained in the Doctine and Covenants (LDS scripture).

Christianity/Eschatology
Free: See Christianity/Eschatology and Christianity for some ongoing Original research in a different context. • Q^#o • 20:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Help required in formatting
The article Book of Revelation has some formatting issues... main paragrahs are being shown in the footnote area. If anyone is good at formatting then pls. have a look at it. Thank you --IndianCow Talk  20:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
Given the length of the preceding explanation, I've expanded the key sentence "However, he later changed his mind." to "However, he later changed his mind, believing the book to be devinely inspired."

I've also added 3 requests for citations Deipnosopher 20:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's View
I feel that these sections:

8.4 Seventh Day Adventist view 8.5 The spiritual or idealist view 8.6 The Eastern Orthodox view 8.7 The Jehovah's Witness view 8.8 The Anglican view 8.9 The Latter-day Saint view 8.10 The Paschal Liturgical view 8.11 The Esoteric view 8.12 The New Church view

may be over the top. Can any church add "their view"? How about an unaffiliated church? We might have "1st Presbyterian Church of Detroit's View"?

I think we should have the major interpretations, and maybe link to others, or create a seperate page "Diverse Interpretations of Revelation" perhaps.

Does anyone agree?

Deipnosopher 21:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally agree! Mh84 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree also. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a forum.  Therefore, keep the major interpretations and nix the diverse interpretations altogether. Silvie rob 03:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely and have even broader concerns with this fuddled and rather unscholarly article which tells us far too much about dogmatic christian interpretations of Revelation and far too little about the work itself and the historical situation it addresses. Scholarly debate about this fascinating and disturbing book takes historical critical and literary critical approaches (both represented in rather distorted fashion here) for granted. See, for example, the Review of Biblical Literature (by SBL - arguably the most respected biblical research publisher in the world) book review section on Revelation to get a feel for critical research areas which are completely unrelated to conservative and fundamentalist myopia about "the end times" and which current historical events are "predicted" in Revelation (http://www.bookreviews.org/search_now.asp).

In reality there are only two fundamental interpretative approaches to Revelation, or any other religious work for that matter: a confessional, conservative one which starts out with the assumption that the work is the "inspired" and infallible word of God and must "be true" or "come true" regardless of the evidence, and a more independent, scientific (ie historical and literary) approach which attempts the difficult task of recovering the historical context and meaning of the work to it's original readers, perhaps thereby uncovering its relevance to later times and situations. It is relevant to observe that this second approach is adopted by many committed christian scholars and is not, by any means, the exclusive domain of "religious sceptics". Unfortunately the first approach to Revelation usually results in either nostradamic type extrapolations designed to construct a timetable of last day events or the equally indefensible position that the thousand year reign of the saints was fulfilled in the historical ascendancy of the church. Neither of these conservative variations takes the book's address to seven historical christian communities in first century Asia Minor literally (please note: fundamentalists do NOT consistently understand the bible literally - rather they adopt a "harmonising" approach which glosses over or explains away inconsistencies and contradictions in often tortuous fashion). Similarly neither offers any reasonable explanation for the fact that Revelation states at least eight times that "the time is near", "I [Jesus] am coming soon" and that the events described in the book "must soon take place" - which obviously they didn't. To consign the historical critical method - which represents the most independent, honest and scholarly approach to the book - to one interpretive alternative among many, as this article does, is to miss this fundamental distinction.

Stepping back a little I feel that the rift between academic biblical scholarship and conservative christian doctrinal interpretation represents a major problem for Wikipedia, if this and other biblical articles are anything to go by. I do not argue that the broad history of christian interpretation is irrelevant, but feel that much of the detail is better consigned to articles on specific denominations and the history of christianity. Certainly this particular article represents only a moderately conservative viewpoint but my major issue with it is that tells us very little about the work itself and that it treats the historical critical approach with barely disguised contempt ('Historical-criticism does not sit well within this plurality', 'the literary critical method [revels] in uncertainty'). On a more positive note I feel that WikiProject Bible represents a step in the right direction and wish them all the best as they wrestle with this rather difficult issue.

--210.11.37.250 04:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Section moved to talk
===Seventh Day Adventist view===

The Seventh Day Adventist have a historicist view. They don't try to interpret the Book of Revelation, but feel that it interprets itself. They believe that the 7 churches that are being written to are the spiritual history of the world, the seven seals as the political history of the world, and the seven plagues as the history of the military power, all from Jesus' time to the time of Jesus' second coming. They also believe the 12th chapter is referring to the history of Jesus being born to the time of 1260 years from 538 to 1798 when the Catholic Church persecuted people for reading and following the Bible.

They see the 13th chapter representing the Catholic Church being the beast that comes out of the water or also from a place with a large amount of people, just as the Catholic Church was born out of the ruins of the Roman Empire. The second beast that is born is seen as representing the United States because it comes out of the desert or a place with little or no people.

They believe that the seal of God and the mark of the beast has a lot to do with keeping the seventh day sabbath. The people that receive the mark of the beast push for laws that make people work on Saturday and keeping Sunday instead of Saturday, in accordance with their reading of the fourth commandment. People receive the seal of God when they deny the seventh day sabbath.

They also believe in the millennium of the 1000 years of revelation 20. For the earth has had biblically 6000 years and they believe the earth will have its 7th millennium sabbath. Just as the Bible says to keep the seventh day sabbath. After this 1000 year sabbath, the saved people who were in heaven come back to earth to make the "New Jerusalem" on the mount of olives. They say that Jesus left from the mount of olives, and that he promised that the way he comes back is the way he left to heaven.


 * I moved this section here for discussion, citation, and cleanup. As it is it does not meet the standards for WP articles. --Rtrev 06:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As a suggestion - instead of giving the interpretation of various groups such as Seventh Day Adventist (or Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses) there could be a reference and brief discussion of William Miller and the Millerites interpretation of Revelation and Book of Daniel. This was a historist view where specific time and place predictions could be derived from these text (primarily). The movement was very influential in United States in the early 19th Century and along with similar movements in Europe lead to a specific time for the second coming of Christ. When the date passed without the expected result - there was the Great Disappointment. The reason I would make reference here is it applies some of the points discussed above within a specific historical context and provides further background for the various post Disappointment movements including Adventist, Johovah's Witnesses, and Mormons. It also leads to further perspective of the current evangelical futuristic interpretations currently popular today. Then links could be provided to other articles if they exist that give the specific interpretations of these groups today. --Timkraf 21:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

===The Jehovah's Witness view===

Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Book of Revelation to be the inspired word of God. As a vision of the apostle John, Revelation employs symbolism and has great meaning for modern times, as well as the future. Witnesses believe some events in this book have already been fulfilled and others are still to be fulfilled. Revelation is viewed as providing an all-embracing vision of what God purposes for the mankind, and brings the grand theme of the Bible to a climax. The last book of the Bible closes out the record begun in the first. As Gen 1:1 described God's creation of the material heavens and earth, so Rev 21:1-4 describes a new heaven and a new earth and the blessings that will be brought to mankind, as prophesied also at Isaiah 65:17,18; 66:22; and 2 Pet 3:13. To Jehovah's Witnesses, the Book of Revelation is not a book of fear, but of wonderful future events.


 * Here is another unreferenced section.-Andrew c 00:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations Needed
I've looked all over the internet and I can't find anything on the interpretation sections without quotes. Some one needs to add the citations or remove the content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.147.230 (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

The Revelations
From the article:
 * Many people call The Book of Revelation "the revelations" or "revelations", which are incorrect; there was only one known revelation recorded in the author's manuscript.

I don't understand the point being made here. The word "revelation" is cognate with "to reveal". It seems entirely reasonable to collectively refer to each event revealed as the revelations. 151.197.28.239 05:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Many, when referring to the canonical book "the Book of Revelation" or "Revelation," call the book "Revelations," which incorrect. The name of the book is Revelation or The Book of Revelation or The Apocalypse or The Apocalypse of John. It would be similar to refer to the Gospel of John as Johns. While one may claim that it is appropriate regard the signs as constituting the revelations, the book is Revelation, not Revelations. I'm not aware of any book in the NT called Revelations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.150.131 (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Futurist
I have made several changes to the futurist description. My reasons are as follows: 1) saying "Israeli Jews as collaborators with the Antichrist" misrepresents the views of futurists - most view Isreal as "unwittingly" agreeing to a treaty - collaborators implies they know he is the Antichrist and are intentionally working with him. This inaccurately makes futurists look anti-semitic; 2) the statement that Pat Robertson was sharply criticized for saying that "the Antichrist is probably a Jew alive in Israel today" is taking a minority view (and one man's statement) and trying to apply it to a group. The dominant futurist position is that the Antichrist is a Gentile Roman, not a Jew. Even some who originally believed he is a Jew (ie, John MacArthur) have reversed themselves, so be careful you get their latest position. Basically, to quote Pat Robertson misleads readers into thinking this is the dominant view; it's not and it's trending down. (I say that as someone who is not a Pat Robertson fan); 3) Futurists do not agree that the rapture will occur before the Tribulation, so I changed the wording on this; 4) Most Futurists do not believe the believers will be the only ones raptured (or caught up in the air) - they also believe children who are not yet adults will be taken (as Tim LaHaye points out in his fictional series, where all the infants disappeared); 5) Mid-tribbers are not in agreement on the point of the rapture - some say the middle, but pre-warth rapture persons in particular say "not exactly"; 6) the 20th Century "pillar" of a revived western Roman Empire is under attack now as a flawed, western-centric perspective. A revised Islamic Ottoman Empire centered on the eastern Roman Empire is gaining traction, albeit slowly; and 7) there is no mention of the theory that Christ can return at any time (imminency), and the theory that there may always an candidate for anti-christ in the wing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baxterguy (talk • contribs).

Redirect
I'm adding a redirect from "Apocalypse of John", as right now when you search for that term the top results are for a comic book character. Universaladdress 19:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, seems to be working fine on a double-check - it was a problem of capitalization; I'll redirect from "apocalypse of john" instead. Universaladdress 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Luther's Conclusion
The article states "Protestant founder Martin Luther at first considered Revelation to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and stated that "Christ is neither taught nor known in it",[3] and placed it in his Antilegomena. However, he later changed his mind, believing the book to be divinely inspired.[4]". How strong is the evidence about "believing the book to be divinely inspired"? I was under the impression that he included it somewhat reluctantly, rather than stating that it was "divinely inspired". Is there a definitive Luther quote on this? Specifically, can anyone post the listed reference of pages 24-25 of Tuveson, Ernest Lee, Millennium and Utopia please? It is also on JSTOR. Myth America 16:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Still have not been able to find the quoted reference. There is this quote from Luther's revised (1530) Preface to the Revelation of John (from Luther's Works 35:400) of “Because its interpretation is uncertain and its meaning hidden, we have also let it alone until now, especially because some of the ancient fathers held that it was not the work of St. John, the Apostle—as is stated in The Ecclesiastical History, Book III, chapter 25. ﻿ For our part, we still share this doubt. By that, however, no one should be prevented from regarding this as the work of St. John the Apostle, or of whomever else he chooses.”  And Luther never removed the Revelation of John from his Antilegomena section. Myth America 18:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked the edit history of this article and discovered something interesting. It appears to me that this article was edited on 25 October 2006 by user Amlevine who inserted "However, he later changed his mind. [See Ernest Lee Tuveson, Millennium and Utopia, pp. 24-25".  That was the only recorded edit by that user, on any Wikipedia article, ever.  So, I renew my request for anyone with access to that reference to post the applicable portion on this talk page.  What justifies the statement "However, he later changed his mind."?  Myth America 08:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For an analysis that contradicts the one currently posted in this WP article, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod wrote of Luther and the Book of Revelation "Lutherans generally do not agree with Luther's devaluation of this epistle. An excerpt from Luther's earlier preface to Revelation: "About this book of the Revelation of St. John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.  "First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel.... I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it...."  In 1530, Luther revised the Preface, but had not really changed his view regarding Revelation:  "...Some of the ancient fathers held that it was not the work of St. John, the Apostle.... For our part, we still share this doubt. By that, however, no one should be prevented from reading this as the work of St. John the apostle, or of whomever else he chooses...."  (end of quotes from Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod)
 * Therefore, I intend to delete the current phrase "However, he later changed his mind, believing the book to be divinely inspired." unless and until sufficient justification is provided for the phrase. Myth America 19:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize that no one has been responding. You bring up good arguments and have sources. I also support your deletion. If someone can clear up the sourcing issues, they can always restore the content, but while there are concerns and valid counter arguments, what you have proposed is prudent. Thanks for your patient, well thought out research, and your use of talk pages. Hopefully this experience of silence doesn't discourage you. I guess not many people are watching this article. Thanks for your work.-Andrew c [talk] 21:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Goldsmith?
I read this through twice but didn't see any mention of late film composer Jerry Goldsmith anywhere. Maybe I'm going blind, did I miss it somewhere? Please confirm and I'll write a few paragraphs if necessary. Thanks--JRK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.234.82 (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest deleting the Chronology section or moving it to talk.
The assertion that Revelation presents "a series of events... which detail the chronology of god's judgement on the world" (emphasis mine) represents a specific strain of christian interpretation that surely has no place in a general introduction to the work. The idea that Revelation is a series of cryptic prognostications designed to provide information about either the history of europe/the middle east (historicist) or a tick box sequence of "last days" events (futurist) is crude to say the least and has no place in scholarly discussion.

This section seems to serve no purpose to me - the reference to a seven fold structure is not elaborated and the whole idea of a chronology or historical "laundry list" is undercut by the allowance that many interpreters disagree with this viewpoint. The conservative christian understanding of a chronology of last day events is dealt with adequately in other parts of the article.

I suggest that this section should be deleted or moved to talk.

--210.11.37.250 07:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of this section needs to be deleted or at least massively edited. I can't see how the current content can be viewed as of a neutral point of view. From the 3rd paragraph onward it is a continuous list of personal opinion with references to the first person and describes the subject matter as literal truth.

For example (all emphasis mine) - "Have you noticed the abundance of apocalyptic movies and programs? (I covered global warming two weeks ago)What about the global cooling of the lukewarm church"

"I have listed in my Bible 125 prophecies of the 1st coming of Christ. How were they fulfilled? Exactly and precisely. My Bible lists another 329 prophecies of the 2nd coming of Christ. How do you think they will they be fulfilled? Exactly and precisely."

"It isn't an end that will come as a result of nuclear war, environmental irresponsibility, or alien invasion; it is the one that comes by the purpose and plan of God, foretold in Scripture. Make no mistake--Christ will return!"

ABitConfused (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Alleged use of psilocybin mushrooms
I heard sceptic James Randi talking about the Isle of Patmos being covered by entheogenic mushrooms and this being a possible explanation for the "trippy" nature of the book. Can anyone confirm or deny this rumor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRDarby (talk • contribs) 23:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It does say that John claims to have been given something by the angel to eat, and it felt sick in his stomach, which can sometimes happen with mushrooms Eugene-elgato (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The island was a prison. John was starving. Starving people have hallucinations. No mushrooms needed.

Proposal: deleting the "Dismissal" section
I propose deleting the "Dismissal" section. How relevant is it to learn that Thomas Jefferson dismissed it? He's not exactly a scholar of apocalyptic literature, and the reason he gives doesn't shed much light on the subject. I'm not against Jefferson or people dismissing any particular book; this just seems irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.89.173 (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Sineaste (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not so fast! Thomas Jefferson omitted the Book of Revelation from the Bible that he compiled, and wrote that it was the "ravings of a maniac".  Since he is the primary author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and many people conclude that the founding fathers all believed the entire bible without question, the brief mention of Jefferson's written conclusions about the Book of Revelation are noteworthy, and should not be suppressed.  Comments?  Myth America (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it was right to delete the dismissal section. It was irrelevant. Perhaps in the article on Jefferson it would be appropriate to mention. Also, I thought it was fairly widely known that the founding fathers were by and large deists. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply. No one has disputed the facts that Thomas Jefferson deliberately omitted the Book of Revelation from the Bible that he edited, or that he wrote that the Book of Revelation was the "ravings of a maniac", or that he was a philosopher and the author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.  He had additional scholarly credentials, including graduating with highest honors from The College of William & Mary, and being the principal author of the Declaration of Independence.  In contrast, the current WP article on the Book of Revelation contains many contradictory interpretations and views of the Book of Revelation, most of them without citations.  Together, these unsourced views, apparently by persons with far fewer credentials than Thomas Jefferson, tend to give credibility to the Book of Revelation, even though they conflict with each other.  Jefferson took a different approach, and had the courage to put his name to it.  His views have never been considered "irrelevant" as you claim, although they are perhaps inconvenient to some.  There should be some room in the article for an alternative interpretation of this book, by noted religious author, philosopher, and scholar.  Or should we start deleting the unsourced interpretations of those with less credentials than Thomas Jefferson? Myth America (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * When in doubt, start deleting the unsourced interpretations. But please note that there was not a verifiable source in the version of the Jefferson comment either. Also, I still think that since he was not a biblical scholar, his views don't belong on this page. Do we need to know what every well-educated world leader thinks about the Book of Revelation? No, that opens up a slippery slope. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there are many unsourced and contradictory interpretations in the WP article, but that correctly summarizes the situation. People cannot agree on what it all means.  Some, such as T.J. just could not accept it as Gospel.  He took the time to edit the Bible and remove the portions that he felt had been added or embellished.  We may not agree with his conclusions, but the B.o.R. is possibly the most controversial book in the Bible.  It was too much for T.J. to accept.  I am not aware that any other world leader has ever expressed a conclusion about the B.o.R.  I do not intend to delete any of the other interpretations.  They are valid.  So is the one expressed by T.J.  I belive that the "ravings of a maniac" written comment is verifiable, and I will make the effort to document it.  Myth America (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Myth America (talk) 07:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The citation for Thomas Jefferson’s written conclusion on the Apocalypse is The Writings Of Thomas Jefferson: Being His Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, And Other Writings, Official And Private. Published By The Order Of The Joint Committee Of Congress On The Library, From The Original Manuscripts, Deposited In The Department Of State. With Explanatory Notes, Tables Of Contents, And A Copious Index To Each Volume, As Well As A General Index To The Whole, Bv The Editor H. A. Washington. Vol. Viii. Published By Taylor & Maury, Washington, D. G. 1854 which has been digitized by Google, and is available at http://books.google.com

The applicable portion is: TO GENERAL ALEXANDER SMYTH. MONTICELLO, January 17, 1825. DEAR SIR, -- I have duly received four proof sheets of your explanation of the Apocalypse, with your letters of December 29th and January 8th; in the last of which you request that, so soon as I shall be of opinion that the explanation you have given is correct, I would express it in a letter to you. From this you must be so good as to excuse me, because I make it an invariable rule to decline ever giving opinions on new publications in any case whatever. No man on earth has less taste or talent for criticism than myself, and least and last of all should I undertake to criticise works on the Apocalypse. It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it, and I then considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams. I was, therefore, well pleased to see, in your first proof sheet, that it was said to be not the production of St. John, but of Cerinthus, a century after the death of that apostle. Yet the change of the author's name does not lessen the extravagances of the composition; and come they from whomsoever they may, I cannot so far respect them as to consider them as an allegorical narrative of events, past or subsequent. There is not coherence enough in them to countenance any suite of rational ideas. You will judge, therefore, from this how impossible I think it that either your explanation, or that of any man in "the heavens above, or on the earth beneath," can be a correct one. What has no meaning admits no explanation; and pardon me if I say, with the candor of friendship, that I think your time too valuable, and your understanding of too high an order, to be wasted on these paralogisms. You will perceive, I hope, also, that I do not consider them as revelations of the Supreme Being, whom I would not so far blaspheme as to impute to Him a pretension of revelation, couched at the same time in terms which, He would know, were never to be understood by those to whom they were addressed. In the candor of these observations, I hope you will see proofs of the confidence, esteem and respect which I truly entertain for you.

There is also an electronic copy available at: http://www.constitution.org/tj/jeff16.htm

As to Thomas Jefferson's qualifications to comment on the Book of Revelation, he edited his own version of the Bible (including Greek, Latin, and French sources), wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence. The Wikipedia article on him summarizes that he "wrote at length on religion". He was also the only U.S. president known to comment in writing on the Book of Revelation.

In contrast, the current Wikipedia article contains many unsourced and contradictory "views" and "interpretations" of the Book of Revelation. The Thomas Jefferson quote is accurate, noteworthy, and provocative, and deserves a brief mention in this article, to represent the views of those who do not accept this book as Gospel.

I will restore the deleted information, and will provide the citation. Myth America (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still not convinced that Jefferson's views are particularly relevant. Yes, he edited his own version of the Bible, but how many persons have edited copies of the Bible? I'm sure it's far too many to include here. And I certainly don't buy the statute for religious freedom and the declaration of the independence as being relevant...the Declaration of Independence, at least, has more to do with deist views than with Christian ones. And plenty of non-notable nutjobs have written at length on religion; not that he was one, but just to show that writing at length on religion does not necessarily make your views notable in an article such as this. I won't push the issue right now, because as you point out, the article is in rather poor condition. I agree that the quote is accurate and provocative, but I contest its noteworthines. I still believe it would fit better in Thomas Jefferson than here. Why do you disagree with this small point? Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been a Christian for my entire life, believe in the immaculate conception, resurrection, and many other things. But I cannot accept what is in Revelations. The quotes attributed to Jesus in it are not consistent with those in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The phrase "Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book." is found in no other book of the Bible. For years I thought that I was the only one who concluded this. Thank God that Jefferson put it in writing! Sister7 (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You and Jefferson will be spending eternity together. ManySons (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Thomas Jefferson quote has been documented, and provides a useful contrast to the other interpretations in the article. The one-sentence addition is reasonable.  T.J. will suffer any consequences associated with writing it.  I think that it was wrong to have deleted it after an anonymous user suggested it.  The brief mention looks more appropriate here than in the T.J article.  Myth America (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone get an admin to warn User:Sineaste after his POV ramage? ʄ! •¿talk?  18:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

With due respect this dog's breakfast of an article deserves a POV rampage and a much more exhaustive one than the minor changes made on December 11. Please look over some of the undocumented, irrelevant, and in some cases just plain weird interpretations of Revelation that were removed or edited and suggest which edits should be undone. The article as a whole is unnecessarily repetitive and only a small fraction of it represents the views of modern scholarship (see my comments above under Talk section 11: Everyone's view).

On Thomas Jefferson: Myth America I sympathise with your concern to '[provide] a useful contrast to the other interpretations in the article' which generally reflect conservative christian in-fighting about the meaning of the book but tell us very little about Revelation itself. I'm not convinced, however, that to dismiss the work as the incoherent ravings of an early christian "heretic" (Cerinthus) is the best way to do this. A number of scholars have demonstrated that the book follows a clearly marked concentric structure which evidences balanced literary construction, while it has long been acknowledged that Revelation parodies and inverts the imagery of first century roman imperialism and the emperor cult in particular to make it's point (see eg Steven J Friesen's recent work in this area: Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John). This hardly supports Jefferson's view that the work is a meaningless rant but nor does it support the highly subjective perspectives of historicism and futurism which have obviously irritated you. A balanced, well documented historical-critical introduction to the work should, in my opinion, make up the bulk of this article with other conservative christian approaches acknowledged separately in brief, concise fashion. I am quite happy for the Jefferson reference to remain for its whimsical value and tentatively suggest that it could be accompanied by some of the numerous historical warnings by prominent christian leaders and commentators about the danger of misusing the book.

I also note that the reference to Mithraic parallels has been re-inserted in the Authorship section. What this has to do with the question of authorship I have no idea. The parallel itself is completely unconvincing and the book from which it is taken is a typical example of an author falling in love with his subject and unnecessarily exaggerating its importance. While I don't deny that the work, by Payam Nabarz, represents a good layman's guide to Mithraism the suggested parallel between this quote and Revelation 1:4-20 on page 51 (see Google books for the text) hardly warrants the preface that the two are 'almost identical' or the overly enthusiastic observation that 'the [similarity of] spirit is abundant... to the extent that the names of Jesus and Mithras could be interchangeable'. These are not the remarks of a careful exegete. It is quite likely that there are echoes of Mithraism, the religion of the roman army, in Revelation, which freely reuses both Jewish and greco-roman mythology in polemical fashion, but this is not one of them. Would anyone object to a re-removal of this paragraph? --Sineaste (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"this... article deserves a POV rampage"— All I can say to that is read this WP:NPOV. Why not be inclusionist instead of deleting chunks of information you don't personally agree with? An encylopedia is supposed to present all legitimate views, not stick with just one/the most popular. Whatsmore Thomas Jefferson's opinion isn't just "whimsical", it's representative of many historical figures views. ʄ! •¿talk?  18:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Some interpreters surmise that the Vision of Heaven in Chapter 4 resembles a calendar and clock representation to set up the rest of the Chronology of Revelation. This timeless model includes distinct correlations to cyclic events such as the 24 hours of a day, (24 elders) the seven days of the week (seven lamps of fire) and the four seasons of the year (the four living creatures). This somewhat literal interpretation asserts that John is referring back to the Book of Genesis beginning at the rainbow (halo), "the sign of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth" as an affirmation that the covenant still stands. In this covenant God promises to Noah that the Earth will remain and that the seasons would continue as periodic periods of warm and cool..."

The above quote, simply headed "Alternative", is one of the sections I deleted in December. From what I can make out it represents a speculative personal view which certainly doesn't align with any  "significant" mainstream positions published by "reliable sources"(NPOV guidelines). NPOV guidelines state, "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all". Unless someone can demonstrate otherwise this section, in my mind, represented a "tiny majority view". It also almost certainly conflicted with the other two major Wikipedia content policies: no original research and verifiability. I'm all for inclusiveness and balance but I don't take that to mean that we should let minority viewpoints hijack articles just for the sake of liberality.

When we consider the section on Mithraism that was deleted by me and then reinserted I have yet to read any commentary on Revelation that discusses this extremely dubious and unconvincing parallel at all - let alone in the context of authorship! The quoted author is not an expert on Revelation and according to NPOV guidelines we must assume that this is a "tiny-majority" viewpoint. I could go on to list other examples of edited material but I believe that the underlying principles should be clear by now and that these are not in conflict with NPOV guidelines. Incidentally, I find the accusation that I was simply deleting material that I personally disagree with rather curious. I think it's clear by now that I fall into the historical-critical hermeneutical basket which suggests that I disagree with the "biblical prophecy" (preterist, futurist, historicist) and esoteric viewpoints which constitute the bulk of the article (and, I might add, are perfectly entitled to be there).

My main concern, though, is that articles like this should contain a solid core of expert opinion. This means that the primary thrust of articles on historic religious writings should reflect current scholarly consensus and debate rather than individual denominational or sectarian viewpoints. By all means include significant, well documented views from mainstream schools of thought but please - can we allocate some space to the work of modern scholars, many of whom have devoted their lives to the study of ancient history, literature and religion and who are much better qualified to comment on works like Revelation than backyard "experts" whose main concern is to prop up and publicise up their individual belief systems. --Sineaste (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Repetitive intro
Hello,

I'm new to Wikipedia edits, so I didn't realize before that it might have been better etiquette to discuss the edits here before making them. So, this article has flags on it that state that the Intro and the Naming Section are repetitive. I agree, and I tried to fix the situation, but maybe I was too hasty, because somebody restored it. Does anybody have any ideas about how to make that part of the article less repetitive? Punkymule (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That tag is more about the article as a whole, not just the introduction. It seems like the best thing to do would be to combine the sections on eschatology, schools of thought, schools of interpretation, and interpretations into just one section: Interpretations.  They all pretty much discuss the same things over and over again.  If no one else wants to do it, I will be willing to do it sometime next week or so.  But I won't be able to provide the missing references, so if it were me I'd probably just throw them out.  Maybe that's some of what we need anyway.Slim (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Common Sense
I'd say it's unnecessary for us to say that Revelation is "considered by some" to be one of the most controversial and difficult books of the Bible; it certainly is, and I doubt you could find any Biblical scholar who would disagree with that assessment. I'm sure we could find a source to cite for this characterization of the book, but I'd say it's so obvious as not to need citation.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It may not be obvious to people who are not Christian, or who have never studied the bible. Wikipedia's audience is international. If this is such an obvious and common sense characteristic of the book, then by all means we need to mention it. It may go without saying that this book is the last book of the New Testament, or that it is attributed to John, but because this is an encyclopedia, that sort of information is important here (even if it is obvious to some familiar with the topic).-Andrew c [talk] 20:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand me. I'm not saying we shouldn't describe it as one of the most controversial and difficult books in the Bible; I'm saying we can describe it that way without the hedging, weasel-wordy "considered by some" phrasing. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Dismissal
I added a line here with a reference but I am not sure how to get the reference at the bottom of the page. Could someone help please? Thanks  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  23:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Since writing the above I have noticed that the 'Dismissal' section is quite controversial. Still I have provided a reference from quite a well-known book. Please discus first if you want to delete my contribution. Thanks again.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK•  23:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've formatted your reference. I'd suggest looking at the code (or page history difference) to see what I did. Basically, I placed ref tags around the citations (i.e. ). Hope this helps. -Andrew c [talk] 01:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Star Wormwood Revelation 8, 9
208.60.60.34 (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Star Wormwood can be viewed on www.cyberspace.com "Wormy" and is ten times the size of our planet Jupiter and definitly in our MIlky Way Galaxy. Jesus wrote the book of Revelation. Star Wormwood will crater the abyss on Earth and the angels will hold the keys to the bottomless pit. It marks the first day of the 42 month Tribulation. This is the destruction that Jesus will save his saints from in a rapture from Earth. Pre-Tibulation Rapture. The second comming of Christ is at the end of the 42 month tribulation period. This marks the resurrection of the dead and the three and a half year War of Armegeddon. There will be a NEW HEAVEN AND EARTH CALLED NEW JERUSALEM. Could it be the newly formed galaxy below our Milky Way set up just like it with another larger Earth?

Study Only With God


 * Does the above text deserve to stay for the purposes of keeping a clear record of discussion or should it just be deleted due to it being nothing but soapboxing? Lord Seth (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say delete as soapboxing. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be marked with spoiler warnings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.34.38 (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Original Synthesis
We have a citation (and a not really on topic or reliable citation at that) saying that there is a tradition that John used a scribe. We then have some arguments presented by scholars that the author of the Gospel of John and Revelation is not the same person. By pointing to this tradition in an attempt to rebut these scholars, we are publishing something new, that none of our sources say. Our reader cannot verify this information. To fix this problem, we need a source that is discussing Johannine authorship which mentions the scribe theory in direct contrast to claims that the language is different (and if we do so, we must do so in a NPOV manner. the current phrasing isn't neutral and clearly takes sides in the matter). I think it is possible to fix the article, however the supplied citation is problematic, and as it stands, the new text is simply original research and therefore needs to be removed until fixed.-Andrew c [talk] 02:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The reference does not support the sentence to which it is affixed. All we can say based on the reference is that John dictated the book to his scribe. Anything more is a novel synthesis. I support deleting the sentence and its ref. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Even with the emendation, there is still the afore-mentioned problem. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm searching for a citation now. I think a sentence that says something along the lines of "Scholar X contends that the use of a scribe would explain that language differences between the gospel and the apocalypse, since some Christian traditions state that John used a scribe," would probably work (and most likely could be supported with a citation, assuming we can find "scholar X"). However, I haven't found scholar X yet. I did find a very interesting book that discusses authorship and mentions Prochoros, Writing and Holiness: The Practice of Authorship in the Early Christian East. But that book doesn't support the claims that anon is trying to introduce. It mentions how in the east, Revelation was generally not considered canonical, and Icons of John and Prochoros didn't begin showing up until the 10th century (prior to which, John is depicted working alone). It also discusses The Acts of John by Prochoros (also called History of the Apostle John) which mentions that Prochoros helped John with the gospel, and makes no mention of Revelation. Anyway, the book seems quite interesting personally, and could help this article generally, but unfortunately won't help settle this current issue. -Andrew c [talk] 22:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'll look around too. I don't have a lot of books at the house, but I will search around on JSTOR and Google Scholar. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest we remove the sentence in question. No one seems to have found a source to support it. I did look on Gscholar and JSTOR and couldn't find anything. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Beast and the Harlot
I added this song to the Directly Related subject of this page because many of the lyrics come directly from this book. Tell me if this ok please. Kylee20051 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the song. all the other directly related were religious works, not "sweet ass songs" by your favorite band. That band is by no means the first or last to speak of revelations, why they alone deserve a spot as directly related is beyond me. Simply getting into a band and finding out they sing about this makes it neither noteworthy or original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.211.173 (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please Improve
this articleis severly biased, please improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.26.83 (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * or maybe not. this is one of the few articles where text and vandalism blend seamlessly. think of it as a pioneer of a new romanticism. Coxparra (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO the conclusions drawn in article seem to go beyond the evidence given in citations, I corrected where citation only says "some scholars", but article says "scholars", ie claiming a higher level of agreement. I suspect similar is true of much of article which gives bias that a theory is completely dominant with "modern scholors".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.200.17 (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is extremely bias of the liberal modern "scholars" and is extremely inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkorichard (talk • contribs) 09:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The entire second half of the "introduction" section is a poorly-written diatribe and present a specific interpretation of the text as fact rather than as an alternate view, viz:

[The book of Revelation was written for the Christian Church of the first century. It was written to Jews who had converted to Jesus of Nazareth. All the Church in Asia to which John wrote were Jewish congregations. However this fact did not prevent him from acknowledging the fact of Gentile redemption in chapter 7. The primary reason that Luther and Calvin, and protestants after them, did not and cannot understand Revelation is because it is written for the Christian Church. A church who believes in the Ten Commandments and the absolute divinity of Jesus of Nazareth][13] [In the days of Luther and Luther and those that followed interpreted Revelation with a jaundice eye toward the Catholic Church, when in fact John did not have a Gentile congregation in his thoughts. The prophecy in John is in the prophetic tradition of the ancient prophets. Daniel was overwrought because he was told that his visionary experience pertained to Israel. That focus has not changed in the apocalypse. Mystery Babylon, the beast and the false prophet are the reemergence of the the Old Testament antagonist, in the last day even at the end of time.Of course Gentile scholars, preachers, and the clergy proper are absolutely blind to the meaning and interpretation of Revelation due this plain fact.][14] [The protagonist in Revelation are the same they were in John's Gospel. Thus John is overwrought, but he has the added advantaged over Daniel, in that he sees, literally, the end of all things, and especially, the salvation of 144,000 of his ethnic brothers; and the city of the new heaven branded the names of his Jewish compatriots. This is a consolation prize.] [15] All this so called scholarly work is just chatter. It's a front to disguise either fear of the truth or ignorance; or both. In theses last days may God deliver to the Christian Church scholars who will use their research skills to further the advance of truth, and not deception][16] [You cannot take seriously the research work or the ministry of i.e the Church of Gregory of Nazianzus, who were then as they are now, embroiled in such gross immorality, that even Plato would have to blush][17]

This entire portion should either be reworked as an objective presentation of an alternative view and moved to an appropriate section of the article or deleted as biased content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.52.98 (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Preterist View
This sentence is incomplete:

It also holds that the Emperor Nero was possibly the number of the beast mentioned in the book as his name equals 666 in Hebrew[20] if using the Greek spelling of Nero's name (Neron Caesar), but using the Hebrew symbols with their assigned numeric values (an ancient method known as gematria). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.35.186 (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Esoteric Views
This section seems overwhelmed by the Anna Johnson language. Given the wide range of strange interpretations of the work, why does this one merit a second paragraph? --Dwcsite (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried out your theory and you are right in every way. The first paragraph actually reads better when the second paragraph is removed, so I've removed it. I've added a short note to point out that Ms Johnson sticks to a more literal reading of Revelation than is in favour amongst present-day Biblical cosmologists and have named a modern comparison. What is needed is a page for Anna P. Johnson herself. Her theories are difficult to summarise as they are so variant from the norm. She really had her own unique theory of knowledge. She should not simply be forgotten although that is the present state of things. Coxparra (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?
in the subsection Dating the last sentence says: Kasmira believes is a sex goddess and doesn't believe whatever wikipedia says. - I guess this is Vandalism. -- Hartmann Schedel (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

More stangeness: "Revelation often repeats the same events and Herod had a priest there to take the Child as soon as it was born. But the people helped the Virgin and she escaped that night into the wilderness. And the priest departed and made war on the temple in Jerusalem and the father of the babies." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.74.239.201 (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Inspired Chronological view
I would like to discuss adding another view to the list of views in the article. The basic tenet of this view is that God is the only one that can interpret Revelation. This view is an inspired adaptation of the Traditional and Futurist Views and is described in the book “Jesus Reveals Revelation”. This view is based on the angel’s warning to heed, and not alter, the words of the text (Rev 1:3 & 22:18) while reordering sections of the text based on Jesus’ words in the Gospels to disclose the end-time chronology and message. Once Revelation has been reordered its message becomes understandable.

Revelation appears to be written in chronological order, this view asserts that it is not. This is what has confused scholars for centuries. Why would John write Revelation out of order? Rev 1: 11 describes what John was directed to do by God. It reads, “ Write in a book what you see,”. God has given us an end-time chronology, but has sealed it up by showing John the chronology out of order and telling him to write what he sees. The chronology of John’s text describes what he saw next not necessarily what will happen next like a play with certain scenes out of order. But how could we know how to reorder it? Jesus told his disciples what would happen in the true chronological order in the first three Gospels. Jesus shows us how to properly order and thereby interpret Revelation.

Who is this revealed message addressed to? While Revelation has a lot to say to every generation, this view also asserts that the details of the message have been sealed up and directed to the end-time generation. Revelation verse 1:1 says that the revelation tells us “…things which must shortly take place,”. Why shortly? This is interpreted in Matt 24:29-34, Mark 13: 24-30, and Luke 21:25-32. They tell us that all the signs Jesus is describing in these verses will be completed within one generation. What Jesus described has not yet happened in the history of the world. These signs will happen “shortly” to the end-time generation. It seems that God did not want the true chronology to be known until the end-times perhaps so that each generation would believe and look to the day of Christ’s return even if it was actually to be hundreds of years away. Perhaps as we enter the end times He wants us to know the straight story. Inspired Contributor (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP is not a soapbox for your personal views. Once this view is noted by scholars in peer-reviewed works, not self-published ones by authors that can't even be readily identified by googling their name, then it can be included. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should Google the book and take a look at what it has to say. Or look on Amazon.com to see what readers think of it. If you are studying evangelism, you might find it inspiring. After a career as a senior aviation executive, I am studying at the Virginia Theological Seminary. This book is under review by scholars there, and the Dean of Bethany Theological Seminary contributed and helped to edit the book as described in the acknowledgements. It can take some time for scholars to accept new ideas especially if they have entrenched views of their own. Including this view in a list of 12 others does not take away from them and adds to the breadth of views that people are looking for when they come to this article. I agree that personal views should not supplant factual information in wikipedia. The view presented here contains factual information based on a published book and Holy scripture. This entire section of the article contains VIEWS. Agree that it be included so that people have it among the choices they may want to consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspired Contributor (talk • contribs) 21:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I realize that it can take some time for scholars to accept new ideas, and we take that into account here. It helps weed out baseless or off-the-wall ideas. I'm sorry, but your book is self-published, and your BS and MPA do not qualify you as an authority on the Book of Revelation. Any views included in WP must be backed up by RS and their inclusion may not constitute undue weight or conflict of interest. Your contribution fails on all three counts. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We've heard what Carl thinks. What do others think?Inspired Contributor (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:RS and WP:NOR, and possibly WP:COI. Wikipedia is not the place to publish unsourced, or poorly sourced ideas. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your own book. While Wikipedia strives to show all sides on an issue (giving due weight to the more widespread views, and ignoring the fringe views), we don't, by any means, give equal weight to all views. If a view is only sourced to a self-published, or vanity press, then it has no place here. These are basic policy points. -Andrew c [talk] 22:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would echo what Carl and Andrew C said, and so will every other Wikipedia editor -- this is a bIg "No-No". You may not use your own self-published book and promote it here.  Just think if everyone wanted to do that?  I'm sure you'll understand in a few days. Cheers, SAE (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Many of us wikipedians are authors or translatiors of books (not only you). There is agreement, we can not write about our work in wikipedia. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Book of Revelation article here at Wikipedia is the last in a series of reference articles written to a set of encyclopedic standards. It's always tempting to inject original thought, especially into a topic as compelling as the Revelation, but I agree with Carl, Andrew and the Swift. However, don't be discouraged. It's good to be inspired. Wikipedia sister-project, Wikiversity may be a place to have your scholarly materials peer-reviewed, if that's what you're seeking. But not here. &bull; Q^#o &bull; 14:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comment. The view I am proposing to add is already under review and I will follow your suggestion about Wikiversit. I appreciate learning about Wikiversit. And, I agree with the others that this is not a place to promote a book. However, the issue here comes down to the value of Wikipedia. Perhaps I am wrong, but what makes Wikipedia different from a standard encyclopedia is its ability to provide a wide range of factual information in a timely way. In all cases, the reader is challenged to see what is presented and to look into the contribution’s reference to judge its validity. If there is no reference, then the information should not be included. If there is a reference, then the reader can judge for him / herself. I can see that the existing article and set of views was submitted as a reference article and believe that it is a well written and factual summary. The view that I am presenting for inclusion is a revelation about Revelation and is a significantly different concept of interpretation from any other concept. Unfortunately, when a new concept comes to light there are not many references to it. My hope is that the community contributing to this section would see it as significantly different from the other views described in the article and indorse its inclusion. Let the readers be aware that the concept exists and judge the reference for themselves. I am happy to delete the name of the book if that is the problem. I only added it to be parallel to the existing "view" text and as a reference. My interest in including this view in this article is to let people know that there is at least one other way to interpret Revelation, using Jesus words in the Gospels as the key to reorder and understand Revelation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspired Contributor (talk • contribs) 15:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What part of these links: WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:COI, WP:UNDUE do you not understand? Policy does not allow your POV to be included in the article, as no less than four editors have already explained to you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Poets Corner
I'd like to add a few paragraphs to the Aesthetic and Literary section which has been somewhat bald until now. I've added a paragraph about Christina Rossetti and would like to follow that with a paragraph on each of D. H. Lawrence, Charles Cutler Torrey, J. M. Pryse, and E. S. Fiorenza, all of whom wrote about Revelation, and this would cover a wide spectrum of approaches. If anyone feels it would be done better if done differently, I hope they will add their comments. Coxparra (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope I've written fairly about Elisabeth Schuessler Fiorenza. I've discovered how difficult it is to write about a book one thinks is wrong, wrong, wrong! Perhaps I've misunderstood her, in which case, maybe someone here can explain things so that I and others can understand. My big gripe is that she writes, without explanation, as if John is the author of Revelation in the same way that, say, Dickens is author of "Oliver Twist". But John says that he is merely writing down a vision he has been vouchsafed in his role as a prophet. If Professor Fiorenza is right, then surely the biggest rhetorical stategy to discuss about Revelation is why John says one thing and means something quite different. Otherwise, John is reduced to the role of a hoaxer, in which case, one might ask why so many people still read his book nearly two thousand years on. Christopher Rowland, in his Epworth commentary on Revelation says, "We should pay John the compliment of accepting his claim unless there are strong reasons for denying it." This seems to me the only honest way. My other beef is where she refers to the "interlocking structures of racism, classism, colonialism and sexism" as if these are self-evident. I don't see where the problems of a family trying desperately to feed itself in equatorial Africa and the problems of a professor of divinity at Harvard who happens to be a woman "interlock". Maybe one day her jet will fly, at great altitude, over their village, but that's about as close as they'll ever get. My final rant is that rhetoricians never seem to turn the light of their knowledge upon themselves. The reason their books get published is because western universities, over the past thirty years, have been under great pressure to attract new customers from new marketplaces and to do this requires courses and textbooks designed for a new politics of identity. It's college cashflow which dictates all these interlocking insights. Lastly, I do hope to add an author from a Jewish background to the aesthetic and literary section but, for obvious reasons, I'm finding it difficult to find one interested in a Christian text. Coxparra (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Revelations
I can't justify including "Book of Revelations" in the lead. That is not the name of the book, and when people use it they sound ignorant. Even though we note it is in incorrect, I don't think this merits mention in the article. Moreover, there is explicit precedent for not including it, as can be seen in archive 2 of this page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Euro-Centric problems and the view of the Restored Calphate as the Empire of the Antichrist
Firstly I would like to address the issues involving the Euro-centric view of Revelation. Because of who wrote it and when, it was written with an Israeli-centric view of the world. The Euro-centric view is simply a perversion due to the history of Europe being the 'Christian Continent' up until the second quarter of the 20th century. Further American centered perversions have also sprung up. All of the authors of scripture, given their location had the point of view as in how things would affect their homeland, i.e., Israel. In all seriousness, they had no knowledge or wish of knowledge of Gaul, Hispania, Britannia, Germania, Dacia or other territories so far away from their homeland.

Another complaint has to do with Revelation 17: 9-11:

And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

The Roman Empire cannot be the Empire of the Antichrist because it is the sixth empire, the one 'which is.' The Euro-Centric view is missing the seventh, and thus the eighth. Some claim that Byzantium was the seventh, however there are numerous problems with that. In the case of all the other empires, you had one destroy the next and take Isreal as well as other territories. The fall of the Western Roman Empire did not lead to any violent changing of hands of Isreal, nor did it lead to one middle-eastern Empire annexing the territories of the other. As you can see, the First Empire, Fagballs, Egypt, was destroyed by Assyria, which was destroyed by Babylonia, which was destroyed by Persia, which was destroyed by Alexander the Great, whose possessions were ultimately destroyed by Rome (Macedonia in 146 BC, Syria in 64 BC and Egypt in 30 BC).

There are other more outlandish claims that the Holy Roman Empire or Nazi Germany were the seventh, however neither ruled Israel, indeed the Nazis never set foot there, while the Crusader States were separate political entities of their own and were under Frankish/French rule as opposed to Germanic.

Now which empire conquered the Holy Land from Rome? It is not Byzantium because that is the portion of the Roman Empire which did not collapse--it was simply an extension of Rome. If not Byzantium then who? The answer is the Islamic Caliphate under in the early 640s. The Caliphate certainly qualifies as an empire, given that little more than a century of the foundation of Islam, the Caliphate stretched from southern France to western China, from the southernmost tip of Arabia to parts of southern Kazakhstan. The references to Babylon and the drying of the Euphrates to allow invasion from the East also make sense, as Babylon, along with Islamic possessions in modern Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan all lay 'to the east' of Israel. Now there is the statement that the seventh must rule for a 'short time,' and the time of the Unified Caliphate was indeed short when compared to other empires. The practice of lopping off heads in the Islamic world also seems to make sense with regard to the prophecies.

There are some mention of the works of Joel Richardson and Walid Shoebat, however no mention that both believe that the revived Caliphate will be the Empire of the Antichrist (through Turkey via Constantinople, another 'city of seven hills'), nor is there anything written about who they think it is--the prophesied al-Mahdi. Then again these beliefs aren't new, especially given the location of Babylon, it's just that they are only now re-emerging.

I would like to see more on this subject posted. I can understand that some people wouldn't bring this up due to political correctness, however if anyone lets political correctness interfere with the spread of information, they bring about censorship. 24.209.171.151 (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Polish Prussian Historian24.209.171.151 (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. Unfortunately Wikipedia policy forbids us from including information unless it is already widely accepted and discussed in other Reliable Sources so your discoveries may not be included in the Revelation page until after they have been widely accepted elsewhere. Yours filceolaire (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is the author of Revelation?
Yesterday I replaced the first sentence of the "introduction" section to reflect standard views of biblical authorship. My edit read: The book is addressed by 'John, to the seven churches in the province of Asia' (1:4).

Today it was changed back to the previous version that describes the "one like a son of man" (1:13) John sees in vision as the 'author' of the book. This is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, it makes nonsense of the following section on authorship. This latter section assumes that John, whoever John is, is the book's author. Secondly, it contradicts the literal meaning of the text. In chapter one John is told to write what he "sees". In other words very little of the book is actually dictated word for word by visionary figures. Most of the contents of Revelation are John's description of what he sees and hears in vision. The heavenly figure in chapter one does indeed go on to dictate messages to the seven churches (e.g. 'to the angel of the church of Ephesus write:') But after that John describes his visionary experiences almost entirely in his own words. Thirdly, John is addressed by a number of heavenly identities in his vision including one of the four elders, one of the four living creatures, voices from heaven, and angels. In fact one of the angels he interacts with also dictates to him in chapter 19:9 - Then the angel said to me, "Write: 'Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!'" Based on the evidence of the book itself it is, consequently, illogical to argue that the heavenly figure of chapter one is the book's author. Finally, the suggestion that Jesus is the real "author" of Revelation seems to reflect a fundamentalist understanding of biblical revelation that is inappropriate to a balanced encyclopedic article. In other words there is a POV issue. While it may be appropriate to discuss this viewpoint in articles on the theology of revelation (the doctrine, not the book), it is surely not proper to assume it in the introduction to a specific book of the bible.

--Sineaste (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I read your argument and you won me over. I am going to restore what you wrote and see what happens. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletions to the Introduction
On 31st January 2010, user 124.190.244.232 deleted three sentences from the end of the second paragraph of the Introduction without leaving reasons. Whilst a reason had previously been posted querying the third sentence, there seems no obviously good reason for deleting the other two sentences; one about events of the first century and one about Revelation's use of symbolism. Would it be best to reinstate these two sentences? Any opinions welcomed. Coxparra (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree at all, at least with us saying that prophecies were fulfilled. NPOV cannot say that prophecies actually happened. Instead, we can only present individual's POV that they did or did not occur. But as it stands, the statement is entirely unsourced, which for such a controversial matter, is a big no-no. I don't feel the 2nd sentence you re-instated says a whole lot, but I'm not opposed to it per se. It is the first sentence that is my concern. Perhaps we should get our sourced together first to back up the statement, and see how we can rephrase it for NPOV sake. -Andrew c [talk] 22:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is one of ambiguity. I hadn't taken the first sentence as trying to say "prophecies were fulfilled" but rather that some people find it possible to see in the events of the first century a partial fulfilling of the prophecies. I think what we are trying to say is that some people expect the prophecies to be fulfilled and reckon that historical events can be seen to do that. But, others don't expect them to be fulfilled in that way at all, either because it is all meant to be taken symbolically or because they are doubtful about the validity of the whole prophetic enterprise. I do agree with you that we should not be appearing to say "prophecies were fulfilled" - either intentionally or unintentionally. I also agree with you that the second sentence is probably redundant anyway because the point has been made already. Is what we want to say, that some people expect Revelation's prophecies to be fulfilled in history and some people don't? We could give sources for both points of view but since the opening summary is intended to reflect matters gone into in detail later, maybe that isn't really necessary at this point. Coxparra (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Having spent an hour experimenting with various forms of words, I've come round to your point of view! The paragraph does work best simply without the original three sentences. So I'll remove again what I had reinstated. Perhaps we ought to say that some people find no value in the book anyway? This might be the majority view amongst the public at large. And the article does conclude with a section called "criticism". Perhaps I'll experiment with a sentence to that effect and you can see what you think of it. Coxparra (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Coxparra: the deletion was fine, but the sentence, "There are critics who deny any spiritual value to Revelation, some accusing its message of being morally repugnant," seems to me to be out of context. I suggest finding a place for it in the body of the article, where you can provide some explanation to go along with it. My personal feeling is that it belongs under the "Interpretations" heading. --gdm (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of moving the sentence quoted above to the section immediately under the "Interpretations" heading, where I think it not only fits better, but gives more force to the passage introducing the various interpretations. See what you think. By all means move it back if you don't agree. I also substituted a different sentence for the ones that were deleted, which hopefully conveys the intended meaning in a more agreeable way. The point was that it doesn't make any sense to place artificial limitations on ourselves by getting locked into only one way of looking at the text. --gdm (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems fine. What you're doing is a huge improvement. The original footnote seems to have become mangled a bit. I'll either reinstate it so it appears in the reflist or, if it would no longer make sense in its new context, delete it altogether. Coxparra (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that! --gdm (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Merge of Futurism
I'm not sure whether the proposer is suggesting moving this stuff to the Futurism article, or that stuff to this one, but I think this should remain in place, because no article on Revelation would be complete without it. --gdm (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that. No discussion seems to have arisen anyway, unless I'm looking in the wrong place. I would have thought the two pages need to refer to each other, that's all. Coxparra (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ayes 2, Noes 0. The ayes have it. Merge suggestion deleted. --gdm (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why the other WIkipedias from other languages are not visible here on the sidepanel?
You have to go to the Wikipedia home page. --gdm (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

but the world kept on a-turnin'
I have a theory (which ought not to go on the main page) that the Book of Revelation was written much like a wikipedia article. One bored Sabbath on Patmos, John gave vent to his feelings onto a clay tablet. Liking the result, he sent it to his friend in Ephesus who was then being repossessed by the Nicolaitian Bank - nicknamed The Beast. In a way we can all relate to, John's friend deleted a bit, altered a bit and added a bit to his taste, then sent it on to another friend, Jezebel's estranged husband, in Thyatira. So on, until a much scribbled over and dishevelled text arrived at the Court of King James with an instruction saying, "Authorize that, bud!" And an under-paid flunky with a rubber stamp did just that, paying little heed to any order the pages were in.

But there's a serious point to my silliness. Academics often complain that when Christians talk about theology it's obvious they haven't read an academic text on the subject written in the last hundred years. (Leslie Houlden, Jesus the complete guide, for example). But if you pick up a modern academic monograph, there's a complete avoidance of the theories Christians are actually interested in. I can only think of one such book on Revelation that will even deign to deploy words like preterist, futurist and historicist (Fiorenza Schuessler). Christians and academics appear like two pussy cats sharing a back garden on a sunny day: each studiously pretending the other does not exist.

So wikipedia performs a uniquely valuable role in putting side by side, ideas which would otherwise probably never share the page. Coxparra (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to put that last sentence on a banner and hang it at the top of every theological discussion page on Wiki. --gdm (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop deleting conservative views
If you are going to put the liberal and more modern theories on this page, do not delete the conservative views. You do not own wikipedia and furthermore, people deserve to know that conservative bible scholars believe John wrote the book of Revelations. So your whole little dumb liberal idea that you don't know who wrote it can stay, but so will mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkorichard (talk • contribs) 09:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What astounds me is that conservative readers feel they have to defend apostolic authorship. What do you really loose if the author is not the apostle John but another person? The book nowhere states that it is written by the apostle so all you are defending is a tradition that grew up long after the book was authored. And this is not a modern theory. A number of early church fathers doubted that the book was written by John the brother of James. So why is it suddently a "little dumb liberal idea"? --Sineaste (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Its ok to edit your opinion, as long as its not a Christian view. Portillo (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's room for all views to be represented. They should be identified as to their sources if possible, but politically-charged terminology such as "conservative" and "liberal" should be avoided. It is enough to say: "Some scholars believe that... while other scholars teach that...". There is a wide spectrum of Biblical scholarship, all of which is valid. The whole spectrum should be represented in an objective way, whether we agree with all of it or not. I personally want to hear all of the views and then draw my own conclusions. --gdm (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Critical
The Book of Revelation wikipedia article is incredibly critical towards the Book of Revelation, itself. The entire article is portrayed as questioning the Book of Revelation, rather than detailing and expounding upon it, which should be the primary purpose of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.249.129 (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Up until now, this article has taken a theological approach (what do people say about the text?) as opposed to a Biblical Studies approach (what does the text say?). Neither approach is better or worse, nor are they mutually exclusive; it's just a different focus. Ideally, they should complement each other. Perhaps we can work toward a better balance between the two. --gdm (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

All too often it is assumed that people writing from a faith viewpoint are narrow-minded fundamentalists whereas those who couch themselves in current academic language are more pleasantly balanced. This may not be a justified assumption. For example, I'd like to give the two opening sentences of "The New Jerusalem in the Revelation of John" written by Professor Bruce J. Malina in 2000. "The author of the book of Revelation was a Jesus-group prophet named John. As is well known from the literary study of the book of Revelation, the first three verses of the work trace back to a compiler or editor who took John's letter to the seven Asian churches and inserted four of John's major visions into that letter." Whilst a case could be made out for any of these rather bald statements, to cite them as starting points on which further study can be based seems as blinkered as it is possible to get. Each of these sentences is slippery and the precise sense which can be given to "author" or "literary study" and more is moot. Theological statements cannot be justified simply because a group of career-orientated academics decide they are too "well known" to need justification. Coxparra (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A lot of people don't realize that the academic world, like the world of fashion, has trends, and the recent trend in some quarters has been to throw out all traditional views, rather than just the questionable ones, without stopping to consider that many traditional positions continue to have strong external and/or internal support. Also, many people think that if something is published it must be reliable, but unfortunately much of the stuff that gets published takes a single position and presents it like it's the only position. --gdm (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is NPOV maintained?
Is NPOV maintained when research links such as #17 are listed? (Lack of NPOV regarding issues such as homosexuality) Also questioning relevance. 24.16.141.40 (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1/10/10
 * It is NPOV if they are in a section about interpretation of the book of revelations. I do not think it is NPOV in the authorship section. For authorship I think it is more appropriate to use a academic historian rather than a Pentacostal minister. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the terms "academic historian" and "Pentecostal minister" are not mutually exclusive. Most ministers have graduate degrees in theology, and they study and teach the Bible on a regular and professional basis. Many ministers teach university classes, and many theology professors are part-time or lay ministers.--gdm (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a tip: you should provide fuller information in your RfC question. Rather than saying "links such as #17", you should outline exactly what the issue is and what the problem with the source might be. You are likely to get fewer responses if you make other editors work in order to understand the question. Plus, WP articles can be edited at any time, so what is now ref #17 may not have been at the time you posted the question.

The sentence at the end of "Traditional view of authorship" appears to be clearly in breach of NPOV, since it presents what can only be considered to be an opinion as if it were a fact. It should be reworded and attributed to the source (eg "According to..."). If the source is not strong enough or notable enough for the POV expressed in it to be appropriate to the article, then the sentence should be deleted. I am not offering any view as to whether it is notable enough or not. --FormerIP (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Objectivity and neutrality are lofty goals which are not easy to achieve -- for any of us. I'm beginning to see that the lack of them is the biggest obstacle to attaining quality theological sites on Wiki. --gdm (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Epiphanius does not date the writing of Revelation to the time of Claudius
I have removed the comment "According to Epiphanius of Salamis, the Revelation of John was written in the time of Claudius.[34]" because Epiphanius says no such thing. He never says John wrote the Revelation in the time of Claudius, he never says when John wrote the book at all. He merely mentioned that John was on Patmos prophecying during the reign of Claudius. However, Epiphanius does say that John wrote his gospel many years AFTER he got back from patmos in the time of Claudius and had already been living in Asia for some time, when John was around 90 years old. Stands to reason, since most scholars agree that John wrote all his books at around the same time, that this time described by Epiphanius is also when he believes John wrote the Revelation & epistles, keeping in line with the church tradition. The obvious implication from Epiphanius is that John was on Patmos during the reign of Claudius, but actually wrote of his experience many years later. The actual quotes from Epiphanius can be found here- http://books.google.com/books?id=DAP-uJTfc84C&pg=PR10&dq, and they read as follows: "the holy spirit compelled John to issue the gospel in his old age when he was past ninety, AFTER his return from Patmos under Claudius Caesar, and several years of his residence in Asia." p.36 "I mean that he is speaking of Priscilla, Maximilla, and Quintilla, whose imposture the holy spirit did not overlook. He foretold it prophetically in the mouth of St. John, who prophesied before his falling asleep, during the time of Claudius Caesar and earlier, when he was on the isle of Patmos." pg.65-66 The conjecture that Epiphanius says the Revelation was written in the time of Claudius is just a fudge factor by preterists to try and push the date of the book as early as possible to make it fit within their exegetical premise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.165.152 (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Aesthetic and literary view
The "Aesthetic and literary view" seems very long and detailed, and not detailed in a good way. Can it be made shorter and/or better. And intro may help also. Does anyone understand what is written? User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 12:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to rewrite it since I was the person who wrote most of it in the first place. The problem of style and content is largely due to a wish to pack in as much as possible in minimal space. I agree this does not make for easy reading. What I hoped this section contributes to the article as a whole is a sense of the enormous range of inspiration people (sometimes the most unlikely people) have got from Revelation and which made the book relevant to them after all these centuries. So the selection of people talked about was made with a wish to be as wide as possible. Hence, one writer is a Jewish scholar, one is a liberal catholic academic etc etc. There is no way one can make this section of interest to, say, a Seventh Day Adventist, because their interest in Revelation is from an entirely different place - one for which I have considerable respect. So, do say what sort of thing you'd like to see instead - or have a go yourself! Coxparra (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is so long and so dense with details that I would want to read every other part of the page first before reading more than a few sentences of "Aesthetic and literary view" (i.e. I have not read much of this section). And with no intro what-so-ever, you would have to read the whole section (or a very large part of it), I gather, to know what it is even about. In fact, if I didn't know the section was mostly written by one person (you, as I learn), I would have serious doubts that I would even know after reading the whole section. Even sections written by many people will often have an intro.
 * From what you said above, that it would seem to be a basis for a bit of a section lead, but there is still one thing I fail to understand. How is this section something other than just a collection of unreated views-- with no people having any pattern of agreement... and there by just a collection non-notble fringe theories. At the very least it should be called "Aesthetic and literary views"? User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 23:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I think I do see what you're driving at. I did consider the point you make about styling it "views" in the heading rather than "view" but thought that would no longer be uniform with the other section headings so people might object to the change on that ground. Perhaps I can shorten the section by deleting S Tamar Kamionkowski altogether. That seems the most obviously fringe element. I wanted to include her in order to show that Revelation really does have a Jewish heritage, too. But that might be better done another way; by starting a section called "Old Testament origins of Revelation". That needs doing anyway and there are enough sources on which to base it. Rossetti and Lawrence are too heavyweight as literary and aesthetic characters to be fringe. Torrey could be moved to the section about how Revelation was written because his views on that subject (although in a minority of one!) are really important because no one else has explained as well as he did how the Greek of Revelation comes to be so weird. I tried to link this to his point about poetry because that is one of his ideas which did catch on, although he is not given the credit for it. I will set about changing things in the way you suggest and am glad you suggested them Coxparra (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

request for information: can you help?
Revelation carries with it some moral disquiet, even for those who wholly accept its message. For example, Rev Henry Gauntlett, writing in his wonderful exposition of Revelation based upon sermons he gave in 1819 to his congregation in Olney, central England, and expounding upon Rev 20:15 (the General Judgment and Second Death) says, "The whole human race will now be separated into two classes only. But what a separation will this be! What connexions will then be eternally broken! How many who were united by the ties of blood, of affinity and of friendship, will then be parted for ever! Relatives, friends, neighbours, acquaintances will be separated to meet no more. In many cases, the husband will be separated from the wife ... " And, of course, the fate of those who fail this test will be unpleasant. Rev Gauntlett's congregation must have been left to ponder how those in paradise could remain filled with bliss knowing their loved ones were suffering eternally.

What is a modern answer to this anxiety? Coxparra (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A simple answer is that precision is the antidote to anxiety or worry; humans are exactly already of two natures, spiritual and physical with the intervening mentality their process phase. "Good" may be assigned where it need be assigned, either to real or false paradises: likewise may "Evil" be assigned or reassigned at will, and so it is. It is/seems to be the dithering that gets one into binding hells, illusory or not. After reading Revelation some seven times, for instance, you may attain a better state -- or not -- after reading various versions a hundred or so times and in the Greek, one may feel better as I do, because I now read it as a happy comedy with a delightful ending. 69.69.21.99 (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dating
I am slightly bemused by the actions of an unidentified editor who decided to delete recent additions to the dating section for what are described as "obvious reasons", namely that these additions violated NPOV and lacked citations.

Firstly, the assertion that the new additions lacked citations is just plain false. This mysterious editor deleted a citation from Mounce supporting the fact that a number of ancient historians started their emperor lists with Augustus instead of Julius Caesar. This directly contradicts the erroneous conclusion to the former discussion, i.e. that the theory of an early date based on the ruling emperor in chapter seventeen "remains unsubstantiated" because ancient emperor lists started with Julius. I am surprised that someone who is so appalled at violation of NPOV should feel free to delete substantiated facts because these facts happen to disagree with their own viewpoint.

Secondly, the common and perfectly correct argument by supporters of an early date that the book lacks any specific reference to the destruction of Jerusalem (even though I personally believe that this is implied by the use of the title "Babylon" for Rome, and the ultimate appearance of a "New Jerusalem") was also deleted for reasons unknown. This argument was not supported by a citation - they are not difficult to find - but the usual practice, if I'm not mistaken, is to flag such a comment with "citation needed" rather than simply deleting it.

Finally, the suggestion that interpreting chapter seventeen to refer to Rome and to an emperor who is currently ruling when Revelation was written, is not a "literal" interpretation is somewhat ridiculous. To call it "Preterist" is misleading because preterism as a method of interpretation is usually associated with christians who believe that the predictions of the book actually apply to and were fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. From a scholarly, rather than a doctrinal, perspective however, many historical critical commentators concede the possibility of an early date - either before or after the reign of Nero and the destruction of Jerusalem - regardless of whether the books predictions "came true". The key point however is that the literal meaning of the text cannot be easily explained away. John is clearly told that the woman who sits on the beast is "the great city that rules over the kings of the earth" and sits on "seven hills". This great city that rules over the known world in the late first century AD can only be Rome. Furthermore it is impossible to escape the conclusion that the literal meaning of the phrase "Five [kings] have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come" is that one of these "kings" or emperors is ruling at the time of writing. While it is almost certainly a mistake to insist on an exact sequence of emperors - the number seven is probably used figuratively - the suggestion that John and his readers are living near the end of this sequence is the "literal" meaning of the text. This agrees perfectly with the "literal" meaning of numerous references in the book to the imminence of Jesus' return, and the fact that it was addressed to seven churches in the province of Asia in the late first century of this era to "show his servants what must soon take place" (1:1). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sineaste (talk • contribs) 05:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sineaste that Rome is a literal interpretation. Concerning the seven heads, Revelation itself tells us that there is a dual symbolism. Firstly, we are told that “the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits” (17:9). With regard to the seven mountains on which the woman sits, the angel gives us another clue: “The woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth” (17:18). Babylon, then, is associated with a city. That city was the head of a great empire in John’s time, for it “reigns over the kings of the earth.” Furthermore, it is located on seven mountains. This, of course, can be none other than Rome, which was the capital of the empire in John’s time, and it is a well-known fact that it is built on seven hills.


 * The second symbolism of the seven heads is that they are seven kings. I don't agree, however, that they are seven Roman emperors. We have to jump through too many hoops to make that fit (see the section entitled "Dating"). The angel says, “There are seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. And the beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven” (17:10-11). Many scholars believe that Israel is a key to understanding Biblical prophecy. Applying that principle here, we can interpret the kings as representing the seven nations which have ruled over Israel (not the land, but the people) during its history. The empire about which the angel says, “One is,” is Rome, which ruled Israel in John’s time. The angel says, “Five have fallen.” These are the empires which had formerly ruled Israel: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia and Greece. Together with Rome, these account for six of the seven. At the time of writing, the seventh had “not yet come.” Since then, the Ottoman Empire has ruled over Palestine, but not the people of Israel, who were dispersed among the nations during Ottoman rule. They began to trickle back in the late 19th century, but the trickle turned to a flood after Britain conquered Palestine in WWI. The British ruled Israel from 1917 until Israel's independence in 1948 (see British Mandate of Palestine). True to the prophecy, British rule lasted only “a short time.” For believers, however, it is deeply significant, because it means that all seven of the empires have now come and gone. The time is ripe for the “beast that was, and is not,” who is “also the eighth, and is of the seven.” --gdm (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

hi gdm, I respect your viewpoint on the identification of the seven kings but would maintain that this interpretation does not stem naturally from the text itself. Repeated references to the imminence of the end in Revelation preclude such historicist schemes, at least as far as the literal meaning of the book is concerned. As a secondary application and in the larger scheme of things your approach stands in the tradition of christians throughout the centuries who have applied the predictions of Revelation to their own times. John is doing the same thing, of course, by reinterpreting older jewish prophetic and apocalyptic traditions (especially Daniel 7 in chapter 17), and perhaps even earlier christian expectations about the destruction of Jerusalem. One of the ways that he does this is to use the principle of analogy. Rome is like Bablyon because she persecutes the people of god and will, like Babylon, be punished and overthrown. But in another sense Rome is the embodiment of an even more ancient evil that ascends from the Abyss and harks back to the creation of the world (17:8).

Ultimately, I believe that we are in a much better position to make modern use of the broader archetypes and symbols of Revelation when we acknowledge and explore the original intent of the book and its message to first century readers. Coming back to dating, I suspect that unreasonable reactions to the possibility of an early date stem from a fear this might lend support to the "preterist" side of the historicist-preterist debate. The offending editor that I referred to above seems to wish to totally discredit any evidence for an early date, which in my mind is a clear violation of NPOV. --218.185.76.146 (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC) --Sineaste (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sineaste: Revelation is clearly full of symbolism, and deciding what is literal and what is not is itself a task for interpretation, as is deciding how the work would have been understood by its original recipients, so I think we need to be careful when using those arguments. Also, when we talk about the events happening "soon", do we mean from the perspective of the audience (anything from minutes to years), in historical terms (hundreds or thousands of years), or from the point of view of an eternal Deity (for whom 10,000 years would be nothing)? I think that the truth, when it comes to interpreting Revelation, lies in a combination of the various standard interpretations (preterist, historicist, futurist, and symbolic), rather than exclusively in any one of them. The main thing here is that different viewpoints are fairly represented. --gdm (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Rewording of a reference
Under the heading "Early Views", it says Eusebius of Caesarea "was inclined to class the Apocalypse with the spurious books." That is wishy-washy language, and doesn't really say what Eusebius believed. Here's what Eusebius himself said:

'''"Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings. Among the disputed writings..." (Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter XXV)'''

In my book, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Edition, Volume 1", it says concerning Eusebius' the different opinions at the proper time: "See Bk. VII. chap. 25, where Eusebius quotes a lengthy discussion of the Apocalypse by Dionysus of Alexandria. He also cites opinions favorable to the authenticity of the Apocalypse from Justin (in IV. 18, below), Theophilus (IV. 24), Irenaeus (V. 8), and Origen (VI. 25), but such scattered testimonies can hardly be regarded as the fulfillment of the definite promise which he makes in this passage."

So, with this in mind, I will be making the language concerning Eusebius' views stronger, to match the evidence. Thank you.Glorthac (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Another bad reference in Early Views
I can't believe all the mistakes! There is an uncited reference which says: "Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 200-265) rejected it upon doctrinal rather than critical grounds". Yet Eusebius of Caesarea quotes Dionysus of Alexandria: "But I could not venture to reject the book, as many brethren hold it in high esteem." (Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Book VII, Chapter XXV)Glorthac (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of "The Introduction" section
While most of the introduction is simply factual, various portions of it appear to require citations for reliability. Given the number of viewpoints that exist about the Book of Revelation, the last section identifying the major portions of the book, especially the part describing the "yet to come" events, seems POV. Several sections of this article relate the viewpoint that Revelation doesn't necessarily represent "things to come" at all. What do you guys think? HorridRedThings (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The section merely represents what the introduction says. (It's important that the article identifies what Revelation actually says, as well as what others are saying about it.) Nevertheless, I substituted a quote from a recognized commentary for the last section. Perhaps that'll make it more palatable. --gdm (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)