Talk:Seventh-day Adventist eschatology/Archive 1

Convoluted section
The "Time of trouble" section is convoluted. It is long, and mainly consists of block quotations. I suggest that it be shortened and simplified. Perhaps write a short summary of Ellen White's view, with no more than a few quotes. --Colin MacLaurin 15:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion, I'll have a think about how this section can be rewritten. The reason I did it this way at first was because it was hard to find much "official" teaching about the time of trouble, so I resorted to quoting relevant sections of The Great Controversy. BTW, by saying "Ellen White's view" are you implying that some in the church disagree with her end times teaching? Tonicthebrown 09:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for your consideration. The Søren Kierkegaard page might be a good example for us, because it is a featured article about an author. While there are a few block quotes in the article, much more frequently a brief summary with an appropriate reference is used. This way, all the references could be preserved this section of our article, whilst reducing the length to a third.


 * In response to your second question, I understand many notable mainstream scholars prefer to base their theology directly on the Bible, and not on Ellen White. This means that they might have less to say on some points. See (and/or contribute to) the stub I am working on, Prophetic gift of Ellen White. --Colin MacLaurin 05:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Allow me to suggest a good resource for this article: Jon Paulien is arguably the Adventist church's best authority on the book of Revelation. He teaches at Andrews University, the flagship Adventist place of learning. He is very "mainstream" in my judgment - both fresh, original thinking and also a traditional background are discernable. I own his book End Time which is very good. It does not attempt to cover every area, so one may need to consult other books of his as well. --Colin MacLaurin 05:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Net 98
Does anyone remember Net 98 (aka NeXt Millennium seminars)? Hard to believe that was 9 years ago! The full text of Dwight's addresses are available here at tagnet. He explains the fulfillment of Revelation 13 beasts in Catholicism and America very well, so I've added his lectures as references for the article. Tonicthebrown 14:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good Adventist popular cultural reference. I wasn't in the church then! However I have often met people who speak highly of the series. Colin MacLaurin 04:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Name change
I propose a name change to Seventh-day Adventist eschatology. As I commented on the talk page of WP:SDA, the disambiguation adder "(Adventist)" is ambiguous (I admit I have used it myself in the past, however!) Colin MacLaurin 07:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah that would be fine by me too. Tonicthebrown 08:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Colin MacLaurin 09:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Cottrell quote
Raymond Cottrell described that in producing the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, "in Daniel 8 and 9 we found it hopelessly impossible to comply with both of these requirements" of "meet[ing] the most exacting scholarly standards... [and] the meaning obviously intended by the Bible writers", with "what Adventists believe and teach."[15]


 * Umm, shouldn't this belong in the heavenly sanctuary article rather than here? Tonicthebrown 09:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

New page structure
Please note that I have restructured the page. The main outline of Adventist eschatology is now restricted to the mainstream or traditional understanding. There are new sections for "radical interpretations" and "modern/progressive interpretations" which we can hopefully expand further. I have some stuff to add to the radical section at some stage (from independent ministries), but the resources are at my parent's home so I won't have access for a while. The modern/progressive section should ideally be expanded to give a range of current scholarly views -- for instance, those of Jon Paulien. I have read somewhere that Des Ford claims Adventist scholars no longer support the traditional interpretation of Lisbon earthquake, dark day and 1833 meteor shower -- is that true? (But these are still included in 2005 edition of SDAs Believe, so he could be wrong). Also, we need some scholarly opinions about the 1260 day period and whether it starts and ends in 538/1798. Tonicthebrown 18:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all that work, Tonic! Those citations from Seventh-day Adventists Believe are helpful. I believe it represents the more conservative POV, which is a notable POV nonetheless. I am no expert in Adventist eschatology, but my understanding is that modern moderate/mainstream views tend to question numerous of the "little" details. A certain (moderate) lecturer of theology teaches that history does not consist of events at isolated points in time, but of broader ebbs and flows; hence but we can observe a general rise and fall around those times but should not be dogmatic about 538 and 1798 specifically. Regarding the dark day etc, Stefanovic and the Adventist Bible Commentary say that historicists "have" interpreted it this way, or that such and such is "a" fulfillment - perhaps I am reading into the text, but I do not see dogmatic statements that these are the only fulfillments. Colin MacLaurin 08:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was aware of this and therefore careful to say "a fulfillment" rather than "the fulfillment"! FYI, I remember being taught from my childhood about the dark day and falling stars... back then everyone seemed certain about these things. Perhaps it's different now. (BTW I hope you don't mind me dividing up your text with my responses) Tonicthebrown 12:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was very interested to find this comment by Raymond Cottrell, which I added to the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary article about which it applies. I believe it confirms my hunch as stated above:
 * "In instances where our collective judgment could not conscientiously support a particular traditionally held interpretation, we sought in an inoffensive way to present the evidence and give the reader an opportunity to make up his or her own mind. At times the expression 'Seventh-day Adventists have taught that...' or its equivalent was our ironic way of expressing collective editorial judgment that the interpretation so characterized is not exegetically valid. Accurate exegesis was our primary concern."
 * (This comment also inserted asynchronously!) Colin MacLaurin 07:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I recall the lecturer above doubted or was at least cautious about this interpretation. A different moderate lecturer/scholar shared his belief before a class of theology students that exegetically speaking, the mortal wound referred to Jesus' defeat of Satan on the cross, and linked back to the prophecy in early Genesis about the serpent's head being crushed; not the pope's capture in 1798! He chose to allude to this right at the end of class before promptly walking out of the room! :-)


 * Progressives vary amongst themselves, but many seem to throw out a lot of ideas, such as the year-day principle, IJ, historicist method (there are probably some historicist progressives I imagine), identification of the beasts, and indeed probably most traditional interpretations relating to the time before the Second Coming. I imagine they typically retain Adventist beliefs from the Second Coming onwards (millennium, annihilation of the wicked, Earth recreated etc.) Many seem to believe in some combination of preterism (popular in the Christian scholarly world, I understand) and idealism. Many support the majority Christian interpretation of Antiochus Epiphanes as the little horn. Alden Thompson, who is on the more progressive end of the spectrum, sees (idealist?) fulfillments in Antiochus, Rome, certain actions of the medieval church etc. This sounds similar to Ford's apotelesmatic principle of multiple fulfillments (quite a debate among Adventist scholars - should be mentioned). Do a search for Jon Paulien's articles - many are online. He is respected across the spectrum of Adventists, and is mainstream (dead center or not, I don't know). Colin MacLaurin 08:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be good to get some of these views into the article eventually, with appropriate citation. Tonicthebrown 12:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just trying to get some ideas together. I would appreciate further comments and feedback from informed people or experts regarding what is "mainstream" on this topic. Meanwhile in the real world, I desperately need to do some study for College, and shouldn't really spend much time on Wikipedia for a while... Colin MacLaurin 08:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My impression is that "mainstream" -- if by that you mean the majority of educated, lay, adult Adventists in North America (i.e. probably a sizeable minority of the world church numerically!) -- is pretty much what is taught in SDAs Believe. Of course, I'm sure that most scholars privately disagree with or question many of these traditional ideas, as you have alluded to above.


 * Speaking of study, I've done most of my recent Wikipedia editing while procrastinating from my own essays. However, I have now finished 2 out of 3 essays for the semester... hopefully that's an inspiration to you! Good luck, and happy easter :-) Tonicthebrown 12:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is an inspiration - thank-you, and happy Easter to you too! In regards to first paragraph, you might be surprised! For examples, two major books by Jon Paulien which I just checked are published by church publisher Review and Herald, and disagree with many traditional details. He has also published with JATS, which is more conservative. It is not just a private disagreement, but out there. I am saying this somewhat a priori ("before considering the evidence"), but I am confident it will bear out. I have already cited some examples in articles currently, of Rodriguez, Bacchiocchi and Paulien. Colin MacLaurin 13:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Herald news article (by Clare MacDonnell)
A Catholic Herald news article about A. Jan Marcussen's book was recently added to this article. I have found the original article here:. The article shouldn't be quoted in full, but it does provide some interesting and useful information about the issue. Tonicthebrown 10:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SundayLawTimes01.JPG
Image:SundayLawTimes01.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed restructure
I suggest another restructure:

Introduction: (1) overview of beliefs, (2) very brief overview of streams of thought, e.g. Revelation Seminar and its prominence, Scholarly views, traditional views [some no longer believed])

Also I propose dividing the article up by Bible section, not by POV. e.g. Have a heading "antichrist", then the POVs in due weight. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * some kind of restructure might certainly be a good idea. I think the "radical interpretations" and "modern/progressive interpretations" sections could be reworked, probably merged. However, I am strongly in favour of keeping the "Outline of Adventist eschatology" section intact because it represents the relatively uniform teaching of the mainstream church for most of its history, and is still what is currently presented in official literature.


 * How about a similar outline to the Remnant article: 1 section for traditional interpretation, then a section for alternative views (including radical and progressive). The alternative section can be laid out in topics as you have suggested Colin Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Prophecy seminars
See:
 * http://www.kennethcoxministries.org/
 * http://www.tagnet.org/net98/schedule.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonicthebrown (talk • contribs) 15:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Other sources; these need integrating into the article:
 * http://www.tagnet.org/adventist.fm/lesson/2002/june8.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin MacLaurin (talk • contribs) 16:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Shaking
What is "the shaking" concept about? I would like this article to mention it, so I can link from Geoffrey Paxton. Is it the same as "The time of trouble" (a section on the page)? Colin MacLaurin (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SundayLawTimes02.JPG
The image Image:SundayLawTimes02.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent Revisions
I am a Seventh-day Adventist, and have made some significant changes to this article, to include additions and deletions. What I have removed was what I consider to be insignificant negative remarks that were out of proportion in an article that should fairly represent the churches true teaching first and foremost. That's not to say there is no place for dissent here, but the biblical Adventist teaching should be represented adequately before alternate views are expressed. Biblelight (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Biblelight, I trust that your revisions were made in good faith; however, the mainstream conservative Adventist teaching is already very thoroughly outlined in the article, and the various "dissenting" views which you removed (and labelled "rubbish") are in fact notable, credible and properly sourced. I have restored that material. It is necessary to present a balanced perspective, as there is a considerable diversity of views within the SDA church, including its scholarship. Thank you. Tonicthebrown (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your wanting to present alternate views, so, rather than simply deleting things I know to be erroneous, I am forced to provide the proof. So the current SDA commentary on Rev. 13:18 is now cited, it does not reject the application of VFD to 666. And the public rebuttal that I provided to Dr. Bacchiocchi is added. I also moved the link for more details to the bottom of the section. Does anyone know how to suppress the box around the preformatted text? Biblelight (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edits, even here, Biblelight, are completely POV. Just give it up.  Your ridiculous ideas are WP:FRINGE, and as such, don't typically get ANY place in articles, let alone the prominent ones you are trying to apply by insinuating that it's the gospel truth and removing all counter arguments.  Count yourself lucky there's anything at all on Vicarius Filii Dei in articles.  We would be well within policy guidelines to remove ALL defense of your ideas.Farsight001 (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

See this for more on this dicussion 72.234.51.142 (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources to add
This article began with a moderate conservative/traditional perspective. I have added a lot of academic material, to the point where there is now a need for more "popular" material. I have suggested some prominent sources below which have mostly no presence in this article yet, together with their rough perspectives to the best of my knowledge. Other editors may wish to add specific beliefs from these sources, expressed concisely and properly referenced:

Popular evangelists/presenters: These are all white guys. A good source lists some popular African-American and Latino preachers as well.
 * Doug Batchelor – very popular, more conservative
 * Dwight Nelson – moderately conservative. His "Net '98" talks were very popular
 * John Carter – rumour has it he's more liberal (by evangelist standards)
 * Prophecy seminars – explain the main ones used

Classics (I have added a little content already):
 * Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy
 * Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation

(Less urgently, there are still important academic sources which are under-utilised, including
 * Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary – (1950s) moderate-ish
 * Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology – moderately conservative
 * Seeking a Sanctuary – a sociological study of the church
 * Ranko Stefanovic, Hans LaRondelle, Le Roy Froom, etc.)

Colin MacLaurin (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

DISPENSATIONAL VS HISTORICIST
The article makes the following (undocumented) claim:


 * “newspaper exegesis”—an obsession with current events, particularly in the sphere of global politics—in a manner similar to many Christian futurists and dispensationalists.

Suggested revision:


 * “newspaper exegesis”—an obsession with current events, particularly in the sphere of global politics—in a manner similar to the Historicist School of interpretation of Revelation.

Dispensational interpretation is characteristically futuristic. That approach does not use "newspaper exegesis." Dispensationalism does not search the latest news for sensational events occuring now, and then claim that this was predicted in Matthew 24 or Rev 6-18. Now to be sure specific persons who are dispensationalists may indeed go out on a limb and suggest such things. However, newspaper exegesis is not a characteristic of the dispensational system, which is essentially futurist. The newspaper exegesis system is an aspect of the Historicist School, only it focuses on contemporary history. Thus the suggestiion is made to change the article as indicated.(EnochBethany (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Thank you, Enoch. My suggestion is to remove the controversial term "newspaper exegesis" and just emphasise the focus on current political events. This is what historicists (like the SDAs) and futurists (like modern dispensationalists) have in common. Tonicthebrown (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Revisions
Dear Willfults, can I ask that you discuss wide ranging revisions here first before implementing them. Thank you. Tonicthebrown (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an open source encyclopedia and we do not have to obtain your approval (Tonic) to edit anything. You should discontinue 'reverting' everything back to your own personal edit. If you have a problem with something added then you are welcome to start a discussion and I will defend anything I have edited or added (links, cross ref, ect.). Thank you.Amish 20:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Added was the cross link to "antichrist" and the "little horn" to other wiki pages, so the reader unfamiliar can know what they are. Also corrected was the claim the Desmond Ford is an Adventist. He is a "defrocked" former Adventist. The rest of the comments about him were left only adding that he is a former Adventist.Amish 20:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, this is not an "open source" encyclopedia - not the way you seem to think the term is used. "Open source" doesn't mean you can use any old source you want or use anything you want or word articles any way you want.  There are several policies you have to follow around here.  Reliable sourcing is needed.  And we need to be using neutral wording.  It is not a matter of Tonic not giving approval for the edit or not liking the edit.  It is a matter of policy.  The wording is not neutral and it needs to be.Farsight001 (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, ideally, if Tonic has a problem with your edit, then we keep the edit out of the article while it is discussed. Adding it and forcing it to be discussed while it sits there is, frankly, backwards.Farsight001 (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The recent revisions of this article (and Historic Adventism) are strongly POV, and involve large scale deletion of accurate, well sourced material. Let me give some examples.

deleted: "According to a 1985 survey, 29% of North American Adventist lecturers nominated eschatology as the area of greatest contribution by Adventists to then-current theology. This ranked second only to wholism."

-- Relevant and sourced (Bull and Lockhart)

deleted: "Cottrell believes all prophecies are possibly conditional."

-- ditto

added: "666 and the Mark (Video)"

-- a link to a highly extreme POV, self-published, unreputable video

deleted: "Samuele Bacchiocchi believes a more significant humiliation was in 1870 when king Victor Emmanuel II of Italy captured Rome"

-- relevent, sourced material from a well known Adventist scholar.

deleted: "More liberal Adventists do not share these convictions about the Roman Catholic Church, or are more cautious."

-- accurate and sourced, deleted simply because it conflicts with your anti-progressive POV

deleted: entire "Alternative Interpretations" section

-- because you obviously don't like these alternative interpretations

deleted: all the material about Ford and Cottrell

-- because they are progressive and you don't like them

And so it goes on. Basically you are unable to tolerate anything that conflicts with your ultra-conservative views so you simply delete it. This is not acceptable. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Amish 01 and Willfults, you are continuing your disruptive activity despite intervention by myself and Farsight. You insist on reverting the page to the versions which you have created in the last week, which destroy the original NPOV, referenced, encyclopedic nature of this article and replace it with unbalanced and unreferenced opinions with links to self-published sites. You have not responded to what I have said above, and seem intent on edit warring. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Article page credibility
Whoever has added all the "alternative interpretations" is not presenting credible view of SDA eschatology. The page has been restored to what looks to be the original content found as restored by AnomieBOT. toolong 21:01, 01 September 2010 (UTC)

The original version, before these guys came in with their POV revisionism, was this one by User: Colin MacLaurin  Tonicthebrown (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Second Coming edits - discussion
Hi Tonic, I did try to add info for "The Second Coming" a while back. Checking the history you undid this for the reason "inappropriate- self published references, prose is preferable to point form, spurious/redundant details" At the time I left it pretty much as you had it.

I re-added this later (yesterday) and you undid. Here is my rationale and perhaps we can discuss, IMHO some of those references would not be considered self-published, (at least I don't think so) for example, Amazing Facts is an organization that likely has an editorial process before they publish anything. Also adventist.org is an official site from the denomination of this article. Therefore I added these refs in. Looking at the refs here are some which are self-published and I will remove
 * http://www.rapturetruth.org - not able to discern
 * http://www.audioverse.org/ - not able to discern

Regarding it being as "spurious" perhaps you can show me where anything added was spurious, as all the points seem to line up with the fundamental belief statement of the adventist church? And that is what this article is about. If there is anything spurious feel free to remove and point it out here. Looking at the version you reverted to, as it stands there was 0 references and such a section needs citations or may be removed as WP:OR. Thanks for your help, comments & questions! 2Peter14 (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to make edits to this and let me know here if necessary. Thanks. 2Peter14 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am extremely sure that amazingfacts is not a WP:RS for anything but their own beliefs. Do they have an editorial process?  Yes.  But then so does WorldNetDaily, and it sure ain't an RS.Farsight001 (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

2Peter14, thank you for raising your concerns. My response is that this is an article about Seventh-day Adventist eschatology, and while Amazing Facts may by and large represent the teachings of the Church, they are nevertheless a para-church ministry and their materials are not in my opinion satisfactory as reliable sources. The sort of sources that are suitable for Wikipedia are official denomination publications, materials from scholarly journals, and the like.

As to the elaboration on the 2nd coming, it is unnecessary. As I have explained, prose is preferable to point form in Wikipedia. Furthermore, your points are heavily loaded by Bible texts, which are primary sources. This goes against Wikipedia policies regarding original research and neutrality. The summary which was there previously was entirely adequate. To address your concerns about lack of references I have added a citation for the official SDA belief book. Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Admin's noticeboard by suggestion
Here is the unsupported false claim,


 * Historically, some Adventists have interpreted the number of the beast, 666, as corresponding to the title Vicarius Filii Dei of the Pope. The chief proponent of this view was Uriah Smith, and he was followed by J. N. Andrews. (They thought that the Latin letters when added equal the number 666.) However, the interpretation is rejected by most modern scholars as well as by the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, and is still held only by a minority.

According to Burden of evidence "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed", and "'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Am I not allowed to follow that rule on an article that purports to represent the church I belong to? Biblelight (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That statement, though, is in fact sourced. See the very next line in the article.  Also - removing what you thought was unsourced material is far and away not the only thing you were doing.  You were adding far more to the articles than you were removing.  That you ARE an SDA is irrelevant to your ability or right to edit the article as you see fit.Farsight001 (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary is a 12 volume set, the Commentary on Revelation, authored by Ranko Stefanovich, Ph. D. which is mentioned in the ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No 139 totally different, not part of the SDA Commentary! But then since he is NOT Adventist, Farsight001 would not necessarily know that. I want him to right this error by reverting to my last post and allow me to continue editing there. Biblelight (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was about to move the discussion here anyways, so here it goes. You are misunderstanding what the article says.  Read it again.  It accurately attributes the statement to a seventh day adventist scholar as an EXAMPLE of the concept's current rejection in the general scholarly community.  This is a perfectly acceptable way of doing things.


 * Furthermore, I have looked at that whole section more closely and see some things that actually do need removing. For example, a canon lawyer's personal use of it is implied as application of it as an official title.  This is unintentionally deceptive.Farsight001 (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not misunderstood anything. It states "the interpretation is rejected by most modern scholars as well as by the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, and is still held only by a minority." That fact is the SDA commentary says no such thing, and no proof is offered that the assertion about the minority is true. Biblelight (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI: The erroneous assertion regarding the SDA Commentary has been in place since 14 May 2007, 2 years. The editor was Tonicthebrown. Biblelight (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm following a thread here from the 3RR noticeboard, since I would like to understand the issue. Here is Tonicthebrown's change from 14 May, 2007. I confess that I have trouble figuring out what either the pre-Tonic or post-Tonic summaries are saying. Is the claim being made that Uriah Smith DID believe that the Beast from the Book of Revelation is a reference to the Pope, and that this is no longer a mainstream SDA belief? What was the reappraisal of the mid-20th century, exactly? Are these scholars saying that the SDA church *never* actually believed this? So did Uriah Smith actually believe this or not? EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ed, it is not disputed that Uriah Smith believed those things, nor that it was the traditional/classic view of the church. What is disputed is it's more recent prominence. (I have not been involved in the current dispute, yet have been a major editor of this and related articles). [I was talking about the claim of 666 as Vicarious Filii Dei; not the interpretation of pope as antichrist which is much more common] Colin MacLaurin (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The remark regarding the mid 20th century is apparently related to the current error in the Vicarius Filii Dei page, the Seventh-day Adventist Claims section. This statement there is wrong:

"To promote the claim in the mid 20th century, one Adventist book included a doctored photograph of a papal tiara with the words "Vicarius Filii Dei" added by an artist."

The book in question was in fact a 1907 printing of Smith's book. I tried to correct the error, but it was reverted. See my edit at 17:59, 17 May 2009 This book was discussed in an Adventist magazine, The Ministry, Nov. 1948, pg. 35 which is footnote 6 in the current article. So this "doctored" illustration incident was dealt with in 1907, but only became general knowledge in 1948 through the magazine article, thus the reference to the mid 20th century. Biblelight (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the wikilink to The Ministry is not correct, I meant to make it italics, not a link. Biblelight (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1907 IS part of the 20th century. Where's the error?Farsight001 (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The illustration in question was in a 1907 printing, and apparently only the 1907 printing. That is NOT the mid 20th century. Biblelight (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding 666 and Vicarius Fili Dei. I will double check what the SDA Bible Commentary says, but I'm almost certain that it does say that Uriah Smith held this interpretation, and that it is not held by modern Adventist exegetes. As far as I am aware it is an opinion held by the conservative SDA fringe, not taught by the mainstream, and I am someone who has spent about 20 years in the SDA church. Biblelight is giving undue prominence to this issue. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI: In the Vicarius Filii Dei article, the erroneous statement about the mid 20th century book was added in the Revision as of 22:40, 20 March 2006. The editor was Jtdirl. Biblelight (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The documented authentic quote of the SDA Commentary regarding Vicarius Filii Dei which has been censored from this article is now available elsewhere on the web. Biblelight (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the Vicarius Filii Dei 666 is widely taught within Adventism at this point still does not negate the fact that the Papacy continues to use the title in their documents in both the Latin[1][2] and English translation.[1]Amish 14:02 23 August 2010 (CST)

I thought it should be brought up that Amazing Facts published a book on Daniel and Revelation ("The Prophecies of Daniel and Revelation," by Jim Pinkoski) in 1986 that espouses the viewpoint that Vicarus Filii Dei = 666; that this book was printed for mass distribution; and that the book is still readily available today. (http://www.amazingfacts.org/store/product/tabid/268/productid/524/sename/prophecies-of-daniel-and-revelation-the/default.aspx) I do believe Amazing Facts is considered mainstream Adventism, but I could be wrong. Curiously, I can't find the book at home at the moment, so I can't give a page number to cite this. If necessary, I can pop down to the local ABC for citation information. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC))
 * As a Seventh-day Adventist, I can attest to the fact the the SDA church has always taught and still teaches worldwide that the sum of the Roman letters in Vicarius Filii Dei adds up to 666. This, not by itself, but as one of several identifying points, is what identifies the Catholic church as the Antichrist power of the last days in the Bible.  SDA literature and sermons printed and recorded can be found on-line and by mail that explicitly make this claim.  There is nothing secret or hidden about it.  8een4Tfor (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Amish, those primary documents from the Vatican website are interesting, and possibly a valuable contribution. Wikipedia articles should be mainly based on secondary sources (which interpret primary sources), so I would be interested in a reliable secondary source about this. But either way, these details are more relevant in the article "Vicarius Filii Dei".
 * NorthernFalcon, it is true some recent Adventist books still promote the claim, I have seen one myself. I do believe a very brief reference to them is justified. Amazing Facts is prominent in Adventism, yet it is also on the conservative side. Most or all Adventist scholars don't make the claim anymore. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

666, Vicarius Filii Dei not traditional Adventist view
In the section: the Time of Trouble, modern and progressive views; I found the misleading implication that the interpretation of 666 as Vicarius Filie Dei is a traditional adventist interpretation; which in-fact, it is not. THis is actually an innovation found in the mid 20th century which most adventists agree is not founded on solid exegesis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.197.240.149 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC) (Copied from article rating comments page by Colin MacLaurin 05:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Colin, in my opinion the paragraph about 666 and Vicarius Filie Dei is rather esoteric, since it deals with what is probably an extreme, minority view. It also interrupts the flow of the section. I don't think we really need to include it in this article. What do you think? Tonicthebrown 10:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It does appear to be largely defunct in mainstream Adventist scholarship (although I think this was news to both of us)! I could find no reference to Vicarius Filii Dei in Revelation of Jesus Christ by Ranko Stefanovic, which is regarded by some (e.g. Bradford, Bacchiocchi, and probably Jon Paulien whose work it is largely based on) as the best Adventist commentary on Revelation. I think that it deserves a mention in the article (to say in the very least, "Common perception that Adventists teach this, but not true...") as I think people will expect this topic to be covered. It would be worth checking the Prophecy Seminar, as I suspect it may teach it. Perhaps this will be phased out, as new ones are being developed, including one by Paulien and Bradford. I have come across several other Wikipedia pages, like Number of the Beast, Vicarius Filii Dei and papal tiara which have some useful information and some which will need to be updated once we reach consensus. Colin MacLaurin 10:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * G'day Colin. I was under the impression that this 666 idea was only espoused by certain "historic" independent groups, and never by the mainstream theologians of the church. Also, my guess would be that it is not an exclusively Adventist idea -- there may be other fundamentalist Christian groups who think it too (in fact, I seriously wonder if the Adventists "stole" the idea from one of said groups). But I agree it is worth making mention of it to address the common perception, as you suggested. Tonicthebrown 07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I just had a chat to a librarian friend of mine, who is very knowledgeable about these things! It appears Uriah Smith was the chief supporter. He said that W. W. Prescott opposed the view at the time. Le Roy Froom rejected it (see Vicarius Filii Dei). So it appears that you are right about the mainstream rejecting it. However I had not been aware of this - and I suspect that many other lay people or at least non-scholars probably don't know this. As you importantly pointed out, ordinary church members are not always in tune with where the scholars are at. Found this comment on Papal Tiara: "Even some Seventh-day Adventist scholars no longer support the view that the "666" of Revelation relates to any inscription on a papal tiara." (Bacchiocchi is referenced). Wow - if even the Adventists don't believe it anymore, then the evidence must be particularly strong! :P He said he would send me some references by email. I will add them to articles when I receive them. Vicarius Filii Dei is quite clear that the Adventist church has abandoned the claim. Colin MacLaurin 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This official title is still in use today by the Vatican on documents in both Latin [1][2] and English translated.[1]Amish 07:35 23, August 2010 (CST)


 * This position is the traditional SDA interpretation of 666 and is being taught everywhere around the world. The idea that the SDA church has abandoned this is the most preposterous nonsense I've ever heard.  Whether it is or is not on this or that tiara is besides the point.  It is still the claim of the Holy See, not only for the Pope but for all bishops.  And it is still used in evangelism seminars world wide.  That some scholars may not agree with it, does not mean that the church does not hold to it.  8een4Tfor (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is true it is the traditional Adventist interpretation. However it is not held by the majority (or perhaps all) of the Adventist scholars today. Sources like the Adult Bible Study Quarterly have concurred. (See references in the articles... if they are still present). I do believe a brief comment like "...Some Adventist groups maintain the older view." and cite the couple of books or whatever it is, could be justified. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV, Sources and Ellen White
I placed the POV tag because the page does not reflect current Adventist scholarship. It is my observation that if leading scholars mention Ellen White at all, they will mention her only occasionally or in an appendix, whereas the article in its current state is based almost solely on her quotations.

I would prefer to see a spectrum of modern Adventist scholars cited. It is my impression that Jon Paulien is the leading Adventist scholar on Revelation, and hence end times (eschatology). He is the chair of the New Testament Department at Andrews University. I would like to see him referenced more, perhaps some articles from the Biblical Research Institute (which is a little more conservative), from JATS (the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society - note that they do not represent any "official" view more than anyone else), and from some more progressive sources as well. Then, of course, Ellen White's view is highly formative as well and deserves citing. This is not a personal criticism, as I assume good faith, and note as above that contributors may have been unsure of good references to use. Colin MacLaurin 11:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to request that the NPOV tag be removed. I do not think it is necessary anymore. Here are my reasons -


 * 1) I think the NPOV dispute only ever related to the "Time of Trouble" section. The rest of the article is clearly in line with mainstream teaching.
 * 2) EGW is now only quoted twice in the "Time of Trouble" section (the rest has been moved to the appendix). The EGW quotations are balanced by the quotes from QOD and the official church statement on Catholicism.
 * 3) I feel that the "Time of Trouble" section is more-or-less reflective of what the SDA church has taught for most of its history, and continues to teach today (albeit in a more muted way).
 * 4) The "Progressive Adventists and eschatology" section helps balance things.


 * Thanks for your consideration. Tonicthebrown 04:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Tonic, firstly I would like to say thank-you for the improvements you made to the page in line with my earlier suggestions. The sources are highly notable, including an official statement, but I still believe that certain progressive positions are underemphasized relative to their notability within Adventist scholarship. I am particularly thinking of "Sunday law", but other points also. I will make some changes within the next few days, before I leave in one week's time (for two months). I will then remove the POV tag if it still remains. Please read and reply to my proposed guideline or policy "Sourcing Adventist theology" which I will add to the WP:SDA talk page shortly. Thanks for your editing work on Wikipedia, Colin MacLaurin 12:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments Colin. I agree it would be good to include a progressive position on the time of trouble. I hope that we can eventually represent both the historic position and progressive positions equally and fairly. Tonicthebrown 10:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now split the "time of trouble" section into 2 sections, reflecting the traditional view and modern/progressive views. Hopefully this helps resolve the NPOV situation. I look forward to further material from the progressive POV, particularly from scholarly sources. Tonicthebrown 16:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, please replace at least some of the Ellen White quotations in the appendix with a footnote reference to the book and page number instead. I suggest the creation of a section "Ellen White's view/comments", and condense the quotations to a short summary, referenced with the sources so that they are not wasted. Colin MacLaurin 12:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether YOU consider Jon Paulien to be THE leading Adventist scholar or not when you write an entire Adventist eschatology based on him and a couple other WP:FRINGE liberals you get an article that does not reflect credibility. At least one sourced "Adventist scholar" was "defrocked", yet was cited numerous times. Desmond Ford is a former church member but this was not made clear.Amish14:23 23 August 2010 (CST)
 * That is not [just] my personal opinion, it is the general consensus of reliable sources that Paulien is the leading Adventist scholar. (My personal view is I respect Paulien's teachings, but I do not personally view him as the most correct of all Adventist theologians. But our personal views should not affect our Wikipedia writing). As for Ford, he was still an Adventist when the cited articles were written, although he was defrocked as a minister. He is an important part of the debate within the Adventist community (e.g. both his support and later criticism for the day-year principle are cited by Adventist scholars today as amongst the best arguments). Furthermore he and others are not "fringe" by Wikipedia's definition. You could say Ford is on the "fringes" of the Adventist church, but his scholarship is a prominent source, not a "fringe theory". Wikipedia articles must merely reflect the major points of view of the experts, and leave it at that: see Neutral point of view. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Prophecy of Seventy Weeks
LMAO...That is hillarious that you guys didn't even want the main content from Prophecy of Seventy Weeks! Now that entire Seventh-day Adventist eschatology calculation is gone. Oh well, guess no one wanted it. Jasonasosa (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It was a whole lot of babble IMO. It would have been sufficient to replace it with 3 or 4 sentences. Tonicthebrown (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's just funny because that entire noise was on like three wiki pages for years and finally got flushed down the toilet. I just can't believe it had waisted up space for as long as it had.Jasonasosa (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Daniel prophecies
I think that the recently added material about Daniel's prophecies has good potential. However I think the material should be arranged differently - it should not be lumped in with the end-time (eschatololgical) events since much of it is ancient history. I'm also concerned that some or much of it is WP:OR and I'll check this. I'll have a think about how to reorganise things and get to it in a few days... Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * None of it is original research. It all comes from reliable sources, properly noted, dealing with SDAs understanding of the prophecies of Daniel.  I just created a new page from this material called Seventh-day Adventist historicist interpretations of Bible prophecy  and removed most of the information from this page.  --MindyWaters (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

neutral and primary sources
Undue weight: “Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.” And, “Theories and viewpoints held by a minority should not receive as much attention as the majority view, and views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.... Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them… But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.”

Eschatology presents a discussion of several views about eschatology according to their due weight. But, this article is about a single minor viewpoint, so the concern of due or undue weight is a mute point. However, there is a hatnote that links to Eschatology where that is of concern. The article is a part in a series on the Seventh-day Adventist church and its beliefs.

Reliable Sources: “Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves”… “ “Questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field.”

Following this policy, this article uses SDA sources to provide information about SDA beliefs. This article does not discuss other viewpoints. Those can be found at Eschatology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MindyWaters (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What you're essentially arguing for is a WP:POVFORK. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 20:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A review of the revision histories of SDA Eschatology (started 14 Sept 2006) and Eschatology (started 27 July 2001) shows that SDA eschatology did not fork off from Eschatology. There was no mention of SDA eschatology in the article nor in the talk page of Eschatology in 2006 (or before).  SDA Eschatology was started independently as a part of a series of articles on SDA beliefs.  The about hatnote merely explains that SDA eschatology is an article about a minor viewpoint as allowed by WP as mentioned above.  --MindyWaters (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the article back to Tonicthebrown's last revision till this issue is resolved on the talk page. I strongly agree that SDA Eschatology did not fork off from Eschatology. It is distinctive eschatology holding together the picture of truth as perceived by Seventh-day Adventists is their understanding of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. In these apocalyptic prophecies Adventists have found their mission, their identity, and the issues the remnant church which they hold to be the SDA church, will face in the last days. The Millerites, the immediate spiritual forebears of Seventh-day Adventists from which the church emerged, interpreted Daniel and Revelation in harmony with the principles of the 'historical school' of prophetic interpretation. Adventist hold that they have moved forward the understanding with the belief of the Investigative Judgment or preadvent judgment phase at the end of the age? Seventh-day Adventists uniquely believe that Daniel's second vision (Dan. 8 and 9) shows the Investigative Judgment/preadvent judgment which is described as a 'cleansing' of the heavenly sanctuary or temple. A time element of 2300 prophetic 'days' is given, or a period of 2300 years according to the year-day principle. Beginning with the 70-week prophecy (an integral part of the vision and interpretation of Dan. 8 and 9) in 457 B.C. at the time of Artaxerxes' decree that restored Jewish autonomy, these 2300 years span the centuries, extending to the fall of A.D. 1844. At that time, in heaven 'the judgment was set, and the books were opened' (Dan. 7:10), and the process of cleansing the heavenly sanctuary, or restoring it to its rightful state, was begun (Dan. 8:14). This is distinct and unique view of which was not part of the 'historical school' of prophetic interpretation, which SDAs hold as a fundamental belief.Simbagraphix (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not a POVFork, any more than premillennialism or postmillennialism or dispensationalism are POVforks from other Christian theology/eschatology articles. Tonicthebrown (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Seventh-day Adventist eschatology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?228

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Daniel 11 section
I have scrapped this. It's just a large mess -- a lot of it looks like WP:OR, it is esoteric detail, off-topic for this article, simply not useful to the reader. From all the years I've spent in the SDA church attending prophecy seminars etc., they never talk about Daniel 11. All their focus is the 4 kingdoms followed by the little horn (chapters 2, 7 and 8).

In any case, see this article: Daniel's final vision. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The arrangement of textual phrase compared immediately with SDA understanding may be unique, but the content is hardly uncommon to SDA thought. This arrangement clearly shows how every phrase in Chapter 11 finds historical fulfillment. Any other interpretation of Chapter 11 skips its way through the text leaving huge gaps unexplained. Chapter 11 is different from the other three prophecies in that it gives details that find very unique fulfillment in history. Nearly every SDA writer on Daniel and Revelation has chapters on Daniel 11, including Uriah Smith, Desmond Ford, Maxwell, Shea, Douchan, Goldstein and many others. While Daniel 11 may not be brought up in the basic and introductory prophecy seminars for the general public, it is talked about extensively in nearly every SDA publication, including various magazines, on Daniel. And it has also been studied in from time to time in the SDA Sabbath school Quarterly. SDA's do not ignore chapter 11. The SDA understanding of chapter 11 is just as important as every other chapter. And don't pay much attention to any article on Daniel found elsewhere in Wikipedia. Those articles are all based on ideas totally foreign to SDA historistical interpretation. So, I'd like to ask that to inform the public fully on SDA eschatology that this information be reinserted. Thanks. --DebbieEdwards (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * perhaps it might be more clear if it were presented this way:

Comparison of Biblical text with history:

Verse 2: Persia

2. "And now, truth to be told. Look, Three more kings to be appointed in Persia,'


 * History: The prophecy begins during the reign of Cyrus the Great (reigned 558-530). Following him were:
 * 1. Cambyses II, (530-522 BC)
 * 2. False Smerdis the Userper, (522 BC)
 * 3. Darius the Great, (September 522 to October 486 BC)

And then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others.
 * History:
 * 4. Xerxes I (486-465 BC) was richer than his predecessors.

When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.


 * History: Xerxes gathered a great army from his vast domains and waged war with Greece in 480 BC. He won at Thermopylae and then sacked Athens, but suffered a disastrous defeat during the naval campaign at Salamis.  The next year, 479 BC, the Greeks drove the Persians out of Greece forever at the battle of Plataea.


 * It might not be entirely out of place to have a greatly summarised section on Daniel 11, in line with WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:TOOMUCH. Even so, I still think that it is off-topic (what does the history of ancient Persia/Greece have to do with eschatology, i.e. end time events?). I would also be point out that relying on one author (Swearingen) does not necessarily reflect broad SDA belief. If this is to be done, it should cite something like the SDA Bible commentary. Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I've struck through a post above as it was by one of Allenroyboy's many socks - he's not entitled to edit. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)