Talk:Book of Revelation/Archive 1

Historicist Interpretation

Seems to be indicating that it is marginal and accepted only by Fundamentalist Christians--and that there are possible echoes of this in antiquity (but nothing concrete). This is clearly the longest held position throughout the history of the discussion--go back just three hundred years and it was virtually the only position held in New England.--eleuthero 03:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Apocalyptic Expectations

While the information may be accurate, is it really necessary to note, as this section does, that an apocalyptic end of the world has not yet occurred? The statement seems to serve no purpose other than to ridicule religious movements that have falsely predicted past dates as dates of Revelation.

There are people who make careers out of sitting in front of a television camera, and try to map specific statements in the bible - especially Revelations - to current world events, or have tried to make specific predictions of what will happen based on Revelations.

JesseG 01:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Teaching on Revelation

From BustedHalo.com

Revelation was the product of a wandering Christian prophet named John (he never claims to be the apostle John) trying to urge Christians of his time to remain faithful to their faith despite the Satanic machinations of the Roman Empire. Writing to seven Christian churches in Asia minor (1:4), he means to challenge and cajole, as prophets are wont to do. Scholars think him a Jewish-Christian from Palestine who escaped the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Revelation is composed mainly of visions John had in forced exile on the island of Patmos, odd and fantastic visions of Jesus exalted in heaven (often referred to as "the Lamb" because of his sacrificial death), of scrolls and angels, trumpets and dragons, the heavenly court, four living creatures, multitudes in white, a great and horrible beast (a whore astride it), the fall of Babylon, and a new heaven and earth with a new Jerusalem. Some Christians see in these wild visions a description and timeline for the end of the world (seen as happening soon), but the book itself seems to point rather to what seemed like the end of the world near the end of the first century. John looked around at the desperate struggles of Christians with hostile synagogue communities (Judaism and Christianity were painfully splitting up at the time), persecuting Roman authorities, and greed in a time of prosperity, and he felt called to make a statement.

His response begins with specific letters of challenge to the seven churches. Then comes his guided tour of contemporary violence and corruption, all presented in the apocalyptic style. The book ends with vindication, the birth of a new heavens and a new earth. It would be easy to read into the middle section the corruption and violence of our own age, and Christians have done that throughout history. The book certainly provides hope to those struggling in difficult times. Yet the specific images and symbols of Revelation point to the early Christian era— the same images are found in contemporary Jewish literature. The whore Babylon is Rome; the Beast or Antichrist is the emperor; the number 666 calculates out to "Nero Caesar" according to the directives of numerology. The visions contrast the sinister world of Roman authority to a coming age of blessing from God. Those who keep the faith through persecution, social pressure to worship the emperor, conflict with the synagogue, they will be rewarded by God in the new age and new world to come.

The article in its current state seems to inadequately report non-literal (symbolic) interpretations of Revelation. (Such as the modern interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church.)

In a nutshell, the interpretation of the Church is that Revelation was written with an aim toward Christians being persecuted during Nero's reign. The extravagant and unreal images and symbols in the Book are common tools used in the Apocalyptic writing style. As characteristic of this writing style, it can be applied to different time periods where the same problem is occurring, but it is by no means an accurate description of things to come (or things that have happened.) So what's the gist? Hold on during times of persecution; God will reward the just/faithful in the new world to come after the times of persecution.

Perhaps a "Symbolic Interpretation" or "Roman Catholic Church Interpretation" section should be added?

KwaziMF 20:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe just a line that the "Historical-Critical" approach falls in line with modern Roman Catholic teaching.

KwaziMF 20:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Appropriate Title

The spoiler warning really gave me a laugh, but it's not really appropriate for any text that claims to be prophetical or historical, whether one views it as such or not :-) Vintermann

Why would the spoiler warning be inappropriate? If the spoiler warning refers to books, what difference does it make that some people consider a book to be divinely inspired?207.157.121.50 03:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey ---

(Is it read from publically in the Roman Catholic Church, or otherwise included in any standard western lectionaries?)

Yes. In the Roman Catholic Church the Book of Revelation is read during the season of Advent - first coming, second coming typological order. By the way, it's quite clear that the reason the book of Rev. wasn't 'accepted' readily in the East and still isn't read had little to do with doubts about Johannine authorship - there aren't many significant doubters in the East about authorship - the problem is content. It's too eschatalogical for some. That was the main objection to it. I don't have any of this material at home, but the two best historains who write about this in English are Richard Landes and Bernard McGinn. Landes is probably better on the history because he's not himself a specialist in apocalyptic literature for the sake of later apocalyptic groups so much as on the devleopment of early Christian and high medieval apocalyptic, especially chronological schemes. --MichaelTinkler

I would tend to agree with you; the part I added didn't concern authorship, but I can see how it could be confused in the context of the full paragraph. My understanding was that Revelation could too easily be misinterpreted, which I don't think is too far different from what you're saying. Feel free to edit or correct to clarify the point. And I'll try to keep my questions out of the main text in the future. --Wesley

The Roman Catholic church does read it, however they read it fairly selectively, omitting the descriptions of the actual catastrophes and tribulations. They do read the parts about the letters to the churches, Heavenly liturgy, martyrs for the Word of God, and the New Jerusalem. But not the horsemen, trumpets, the beast and false prophet, the slaying of armies at Armageddon, and stuff like that. Watcher 10:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Could we please have some translations of the Greek and Latin? - Montréalais

---

RK - can you supply evidence that "The Historical Interpretation" is indeed "common among non-Christians, but is also accepted as the correct reading by many Catholics and liberal Protestants"? You may well be right, but I think that's a fairly sweeping statement to be making without any attribution. -Martin

OK, I can go look up some info. I am a little unsure of which part is considered sweeping. I assume that we agree that this historical interpretation is common among non-Christians and secular Bible scholars. It will be easy for me to get references to the Catholic part of this claim; this view is what their new publications have taught, for well over 20 years. References will be forthcoming. As for the viewpoint of liberal protestants, this will take a bit more work! RK

RK, I believe you are confusing interpretation with criticism. I remodeled the contentious paragraph, and included a link to an article on apocalyptic literature. If I understand what you mean by "historical", you are regarding the book as entirely concerned with events in the recent past as of the date of authorship, fused with vague predictions of Christ coming in fire and vengeance, etc.. If so, you are not discussing an interpretation of the book qua prophecy, but an understanding held by higher critics who treat the book as an example of apocalyptic literature. Please take it there, and feel free to go crazy! Don't forget the book of Enoch, and the many apocalyptic works of the Maccabean era. --Len.

Len, that is exactly what I meant. I take it that by the term "interpretation", you are referring to traditional Chrisitan beliefs about what this book meant, and by "criticism", you are referring to non-Chrisitan academic analysis using higher biblical criticism to extract the original intent of the author. In the bigger picture, it seemd to me that both worldviews have the same aim: They ask "What is this book about? What is it trying to tell us?" and then go on to use different ways to answer these questions. That is why I added what I called "the historical school" as a fourth school of thought. Now I see that you have catagorized these in different ways! I guess the issue becomes more complicated, because liberal Christians have decided that it is appropriate, even within a religious context, to accept the historical school as their own. (A point of view that in the past would have been unthinkable.) The same melding has occured in Judaism, as liberal Jewish branches have incorporated purely historical studies into their own religious teachings. (something Orthodox Jews usually view as anathema and heretical.) RK

Yes, I think we've achieved understanding! I think the distinction I make is useful for purposes of clarity, since the "liberal Christians" who agree with what you called the "historical school" are, in doing so, taking a controversial (to Christians) stance on the inspiration of scripture. They are rejecting the book's own claim to be foretelling the future, and agreeing with the criticism which classifies it as a pseudo-prophecy. It would be hard to include that as a "school of interpretation" without violating NPOV as to questions of authority, inspiration, etc.

It's the detail that I consider sweeping. Example: I'm a non-christian. I believe that the book of revelation is no more a book of prophecy than Nostradamus. But I don't believe that 666 is necessarilly meant to refer to Nero, for example. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't - I don't know or care. Now, if you were to say that "most non-christian biblical scholars" believe in the specific versions of events that you describe, then that would be more reasonable. Is that clearer? -Martin

Oh, this is much clearer. And that is what I actually meant. RK

"..since the 'liberal' Christians" who agree with what you called the 'historical school' are, in doing so, taking a controversial (to Christians) stance on the inspiration of scripture. They are rejecting the book's own claim to be foretelling the future, and agreeing with the criticism which classifies it as a pseudo-prophecy. It would be hard to include that as a 'school of interpretation' without violating NPOV as to questions of authority, inspiration, etc."

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think that this violates NPOV. Rather, it puts both points of view on an even level. Traditional Christians believe W, X or even Y. Modern liberal Christians believe Z. This is much the way that the concept of Revelation is discussed in its own entry. In the Revelation entry modern day views of revelation (which would have been considered wrong, at best, or heretical, at worst) are discussed alongside the the more traditional views. But I agree with everything you say about the differences between these groups, and that we need to be careful to state what the differences are. And as you point out, we also need to say that the modern liberal POV is not held by traditional Christians to be acceptable. RK

On a separate but related topic, Judaism holds that the major job of a prophet was not to foretell the future. The fact that some prophetic books in the Bible appear to tell us something about future events is actually just an incidental point. The Jewish view of a prophet was someone who transmits a message from God, period. Claims about the future or past are not releveant to the concept of prophecy. Thus, over the last milennia some rabbis held that certain seemingly prophetic views of the future were not about the future at all, and were actually written after the fact! And with the advent of modern day biblical criticism, even some within Modern Orthodox Judaism agree that many of these Biblical prophetic books were not actually foretelling the future at all. (And this is the mainstream view within Conservative and Reform Judaism.) In this liberal religious view, the authors of the book were actually prophets (i.e. men who are giving a message from God) but parts of these books were written long after the events stated therein, and thus no foretelling of the future occured. RK

Actually what RK has said above is not quite true. Or not true at all. It is certainly the case that the job of a prophet is to trasnmit the word of God. However, as Deuteronomy makes quite clear, the way you tell a real prophet from a fake one is by listening to him make predictions about the future. Otherwise, there will be plenty of prophets with messages from whoever to go about. The prophetic revelation concerning things to come thus serves several purposes. For starters, it identifies him as a true prophet (and it fails, then the false prophet ought to be stoned, according to the Law of Moses). It also serves as "a word to the wise", a warning that will help only the believers in the Word of God. The ones who will actually get up and leave the city before fire and brimstone wipes it out, or perhaps who will build an ark on time before the flood. So yes, historical prophecy is important, especially in the case of Revelation whose catastrophes are not hard to recognize at our modern level of science and technology. Watcher 10:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Carlson, why are you pushing the Protestant Christian Fundamentalist point of view, and denying that all other points of view are not interpretations? What is the problem with explaining interpretations of this book from points of view other than Fundamentalist Protestants? They have no monopoly here. Further, no one in a Wikipedia article has a right to say that only these three fundamentalist Protestant interpretations count as "interpretations", and that all other views are not interpretations. No one group has a priviliged position here. And why did you charge that every single change I made is false or badly written? That's uncalled for, and I note that you didn't even try to justify any of these claims! The only problem I can see was the pro-Protestant fundamentalist bias, and the article's attempt to deligitimize interpretations that differ from it. I must revert your totally unjustified changes. If you have any specific to say, instead of just claiming that every one of two dozen changes was "badly written", I am more than willing to listen with you and work with you. But your vague allegations and unjustified deletion of over a dozen edits, and the apparent pro-fundamentalist bias, doesn't sit right with me. RK

There were so many things wrong in the edits, I didn't know where to begin. Some positions were labelled "fundamentalists" when non-fundamentalists hold them, and then one position was labelled "non-fundamentalist" as if all non-fundamentalists held it.

Ah, now I see the problem. The positions that I labeled as fundamentalist were all fundamentalist positions, by definition, and no non-fundamentalists hold them. The problem we have here is that you you misunderstand what this word means; it is a technical scholarly term with a very precise meaning. Please follow the link to read our article on fundamentalism. Perhaps we can clarify the issue in this article by briefly explaining what we mean by the use of this term. By the way, I did not mean to claim that all non-fundamentalists held the last view explicated, the historical interpretation, but it seems to be the majority view. If you are aware of any other non-fundamentalist interpretations of this book, then I would truly be interested in hearing about them, and adding them to this article. I currently know of none. RK

I really don't understand why you seem to be fixated on labeling positions as fundamentalist, especially when Christianity, even within Protestantism, is far too diverse to be using such broad-brush labels. Yes, there is a technical meaning to fundamentalism, and you're not using it correctly. SCCarlson

Furthermore, it is not clear what you mean by "fundamentalist" except as a kind of derogatory label, which is patently POV; in comparative religion, "fundamentalism" is best understood as an anti-modernist phenomenonon, rendering your labeling of various theological positions as "fundamentalist" anachronistic at best. Also, your distinction between "interpretation" and "explanation" makes absolutely no sense to me; it is incomprehensible. Finally, your claim that I am "pushing the Protestant Christian Fundamentalist point of view" is laughable for many reasons, and I really don't understand this kind of personalization always seems to happen with you. SCCarlson

Again, the term "Fundamentalism" is not slander. It is a technical religious term. We use this term in dozens of Wikipedia articles. The real problem here is that you are using non-standard definitions of the words "interpretation" an "explanation"; your useage violates the usual meanings they carry. On a deeper level, the problem is that you are still rewriting the article according to fundamentalist Protestant Fundamentalist Christian dogma! At the same time, you claim not to be doing so! This may be because in many parts of the country, parts of this dogma have become a part of the mainstream way of thinking, even for people who are not a member of such faiths. Nonetheless, the words you use implicitly attack all other Christians as not having authentic "interpretations" of the Book of Revelations. But we must take care that here, no one faith has a priviliged position. The various interpretations that Catholics, Protestants, and secular Bible scholars give this book are all on equal ground. We do not have the right so say that only Protestant interpretations are valid, and that Catholics and secular Bible scholars only have "explanations", and not valid "interpretations". That is POV bias. RK

Your are misinterpreting my reverting of your very problemmatic edits as a 100% endorsement of the previous version of the article. That is not the case, and I did remove the nonsensical distinction between "interpretation" and "explanation" in the article in a later edit, so I have absolutely no idea where you get the strange idea that I am "still rewriting the article according to fundamentalist Protestant Fundamentalist Christian dogma" except from a failure to calm down and carefully read the article. You are jumping to all kinds of conclusions, especially about me, that are simply not true. SCCarlson

This has caused to make a small number of factual errors. You are conflating fundamentalist readings of the Book of Revelation with the belief that the Book of Revelation is prophehy. Apparently, like many people, you believe that one must accept a non-religious historical view, or a religious fundamentalist view. I guess I can understand why; it does seem to be logical. Yet it is totally wrong - and in fact misleading - because it leaves out an in-between position that is of the greatest importance! What is missing is this: there are many religious Chrisitans who do believe that the Book of Revelation is an authentic prophecy and yet also believe that it must be read in its proper historical context. There is no contradiction. Being a religious believer is not the same as being as a religious fundamentalist. There are many liberal religious Protestants, as well as Catholics, who have this latter view. That is why your rewrites are misleading; They are factually wrong. By the way, the same phenomenon exists in non-Orthodox forms of Judaism. Many religious Jews do believe that their Bible is indeed an authentic prophecy, yet they reject fundamentalist ways of reading the text, and believe that the books must be read in their historical context. RK

Again, you have no concept what I believe, and your comments bear little resemblance to my edits. SCCarlson

I don't know what you believe on the inside, but I certainly know what you have written. I have looked at your latest revision, and again you have written something that, in one important way, still contains the bias I described above. Where in your rewrite is the view of non-fundamentalist religious Christians? You still are creating a schism between fundamentalist believers and non-believing historians, leaving out those Christians in between; this removes an entire category of Christian believers, and its a fairly large one. Also, how do you define fundamentalism, in regards to interpreting a book of the Bible? Because I can't figure out what your definition is; it doesn't match the one we already have defined here in Wikipedia. All of the three schools you delineate are, given their description, fundamentalist by definition. None attempt to read the text in its original historical context. I will try and explain one last: There exist many religious Christians who do believe that the Book of Revelation is inspired by God, yet also reject fundamentalist readings of that book. Why do you object to this fact being noted in the article? RK

RK, Here are my thoughts in reply: SCCarlson 02:57 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

First, there is no such thing as "the view of non-fundamentalist religious Christians" (emphasis added to highlight the singular). Christianity, especially within Protestantism, is far too diverse for such a categorization to be in anything other than an over-simplification. Many Protestant denominations have a concept of a "priesthood of all believers" which means that on many issues (but not all) these churches encourage each individual believer, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, to develop their own interpretations (e.g. the Southern Baptist Convention: "Laypersons have the same right as ordained ministers to communicate with God, interpret Scripture, and minister in Christ's name." Emphasis added.). Thus, except for a few eschatologically-minded churches founded specifically on a particular doctrine of the end times (which tend to be fundamentalist), most denominations do not delineate a specific position on Revelation that they require all their members to give assent to. As a result, there is a large spectrum of belief, not a single view, of "non-fundamentalist religious Christians", and I have not even gotten into the position of Catholic and Orthodox churches. If I had to the delineate the views (plural) of non-fundamentalist Protestants, I would say that most of them, to the extent they even address Revelation (and many frankly do not), use a combination of the three basic approaches (biblical prophecy, historical-critical, and aesthetic) in a manner they personally find most meaningful.

I don't disagree, but I must point out that practically all of these positions are fundamentalist. Only a tiny percent of Protestant fundamentalist denominations teach historical-critical readings of the Bible. And when people do "their own" readings, they usually agree with some sort of Protestant teaching, which usually amounts to a variation of the preterite, futurist, or historicist view. Many thousands of personal inconclastic views exist as well, and I agree with you that this should be noted. Is there any major disagreement here?RK

Second, there is no "schism between fundamentalist believers and non-believing historians" in the article text. For one, the "non-believing historians" are not even mentioned in the article. Yes, the historical-critical view is mentioned, but anyone sufficiently familiar with New Testament scholarship should know that "critical scholars of religion since the end of the 18th century" include liberal German theologians, Anglicans, and other Protestants, and increasingly in the latter half of the 20th century, many Catholic, evangelical, and atheist scholars. Although it certainly is an approach that tries to prescind from a priori dogmatic assumptions, it is a misreading of the text to assume that this approach is only for "non-believing historians" (although it is compatible with secular readings of history).

I think the schism exists because you believe that anyone sufficiently familiar with New Testament scholarship should know that "critical scholars of religion since the end of the 18th century" include liberal German theologians, Anglicans, and other Protestants, and increasingly in the latter half of the 20th century, many Catholic...' Yet nowhere is this stated in the article; the problem is that most readers will not be familiar this idea. Many Christians (and many Jews) I have met assume that historical-critical studies are incompatible with religious acceptance of the Bible, let alone God; this is a common perception. Since none of your previous statements ever mentioned this, it appeared as if you had accepted a this particular Protestant fundamentalist bias (i.e. historical-critical studies are incompatible with belief in God and the Bible.) That is precisely why I think the article needs to say something on this point. Given your detailed and kind elaborations, it now appears to me that we are much closer to being on the same page. Can we find someplace to put this point in the article? RK

Third, I don't see how my definition of "fundamentalism" is key to the taxonomy of schools of thought, because the text of the article merely states that the biblical prophecy approach is popular among many Protestant fundamentalists. There is no doubt about that. One working definition of fundamentalism can be found in the Fundamentalism article, which emphasizes the anti-modernist aspect, and a description of fundamentalist approaches to the interpretation of scripture is found in the New Testament article. I don't see any tension between those articles and the present article.

Fourth, given your alleged "schism between fundamentalist believers and non-believing historians", I am at a complete loss in comprehending your next statements: "All of the three schools you delineate are, given their description, fundamentalist by definition. None attempt to read the text in its original historical context." How are the historical-critical and aesthetic approaches "fundamentalist by definition"? In fact, the historical-critical approach is premised on reading all texts in their original historical contexts! Finally, it is hard to categorize the aesthetic/literary approaches, e.g. reader-response and other post-modernist approaches, as either fundamentalist (whatever you mean by it) or reading texts in their original historical context.

Obviously, the historical-critical school is not fundamentalist. The three schools of interprtation I was referring to were the preterite view, the futurist view, the historicist view, which regards the book as spanning history from the first century through the second coming. Sorry for the confusion. RK

Finally, as to the issue of "There exist many religious Christians who do believe that the Book of Revelation is inspired by God, yet also reject fundamentalist readings of that book. Why do you object to this fact being noted in the article?". This issue is already treated in great detail and care in the New Testament article, and there is nothing special about Revelation that a separate mention here would be illuminating. The comment is simply out-of-place and better treated elsewhere. Furthermore, given the diversity within Christianity, why single out the rejection of fundamentalist readings? That singling-out in itself is POV.

See above, as to why this point is so important to note here, even if briefly. In retrospect, our own disagreement hinged on that point, as I had no idea you accepted this fact; in fact, it first appeared to me that you were arguing against this. RK

The Warning

"taking to heart the Scriptural warning against those who proclaim "He is here!" prematurely."

can someone point out where this is for me? - Omegatron 19:02, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

It may be in reference to Matthew 24:23-27: "[23] Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. [24] For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. [25] Behold, I have told you before. [26] Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. [27] For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." I'm not quite sure, though. Hey, the Bible is pretty big and all. :-) —JRM 14:11, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

well, my mum (catholic catechist (is that tautology?) and a lovely lady, but no bible scholar) always used to quote to me "you shall not know the day, nor the hour"! i guess you would have found it by now, but i really must quote my mum quoting the bible in wikipedia.

"Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh" (Mat. 25:13) aussietiger 13:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No personal theological comments please

I just reverted highly NPOV comments by Woodensword. This is not an article that is designed to reflect just the views of reformed theology or Cornelius Van Til. Please have a discussion here so you can learn more about editing and NPOV.

Your article is not unbiased, can you deny that the symbolism in the Revelation is taken from the old testament. Can you deny that the early church fathers such as tertullian and lactantius and numerous others never viewed it in the way that you portray it. show me an example of your interpretation from a period before the end of the 3rd century. all your views expressed the ridiculous opinions of godless theologians of the last couple of centuries who have no idea of the thought processes of people at that time. Tell me why these theologians should know the mind of the writer better than, men who lived in the same type of world, with the same mind set. It is you that is biased, I feel sorry for you that you have spent so long a period, writing such rubbish. I also spent about six years studying the trash you quote. The bultmans of this world who make unbelief a career, who wouldn't know the truth if it hit them in the face. Men dedicated to disproving everything that points to the supernatural power of the godhead. The men you studied, have denied the authership of every book of the bible, they have denied the death and resurection of Christ, and even his existence. While you have a right to quote the things they say, I would like to know what right you have to exclude the views of others. A person desiring to know about christian subjects, surely would want to know a christian view of the subject. You should also not make judgements about a persons beliefs. I belong to no religious group, I don't even go to a church. What I have written comes from a great many years studying theology. If you studied theology, you did it with blinkers on. (woodensword)

I did not write this article. It was written in a collective process in which I played no part. I did, however, write articles on apocalypticism and millennialism in several print encyclopedias, including the Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism, Brenda Brasher, ed., (Berkshire Reference Works; Routledge encyclopedias of religion and society), New York: Routledge, 2001; and the Encyclopedia of Millennialism and Millennial Movements, Richard A. Landes, ed., (Berkshire Reference Works; Routledge encyclopedias of religion and society), New York: Routledge, 2000. This does not mean that I can plonk my own idiosyncratic views into this article. It does, hoever, give me some distance from which I can see that you have plonked into this article a narrow, biased, and idiosyncratic personal statement of theology that suggest a view other than yours amounts to heresy. This has no place in an encyclopedia. As a serious encyclopedist and practicing Christian, I am offended by your comments.--Cberlet 19:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do I take it then that because you have contributed to the encylopedia of fundamentalism, you have the right to remove comment which can be proved to be true. And do I take it that because you are offended, you consider this a valid reason for not addressing the questions raised. Which of the the church fathers before Constantine agree with the interpretation given in the article where are the sources for the supposed interpretation. I have never read anywhere in the anti nicene literature a reference to the belief that Nero was the antichrist of revelation. I have read that The antichrist would not come until the Roman empire had been removed. Did the symbolism of the apocalypse come from the old testament or not. Whether you like my comments or not answer me this, have the theologians of the last two centuries contested the authorship of every book of the bible. Have they denied the death and resurection of Christ, have they even denied his existence. If these denials aren't heresy I don;t know what is. Surely if your credentials are so good, it should not be difficult to answer these questions. My view of theologians was formed as I said over many years, I have the right to form a view. But Let me say that it is not my view that tertullian and others said the antichrist would not come until the roman empire had vanished. It was something he said. It is not my view that nero (being the antichrist) was not written by the church fathers, I just never found it written there. It is not my view that the book was highly influenced by the symbolism of the OT, every other author on the subject has said the same. It is not my view that theologians have denied the traditional authorship of every book of the bible it it their view. it is not my view that they have denied the ressurecyion of Christ it is theirs. It is not my view that He never existed it is some of the theologians views. Woodensword. p.s. Shew Me evidence or prove that my sources are wrong. Unless you can give some proof, my comments will return and return and return.

Academic Ignorance and Bias

I published some comments on the number of the beast, the paragraph contained good reasons for rejecting the present interpretation. The sources were quoted. And some reasonable grounds for rejectimg the other interpretation published. An accedemic who has contributed to an encyclopedia. instead of contesting the facts deleted the comments because he did not approve of them. No grounds were given or notification of his intention to do so. If there was an error in the information given it would have been understandable. It seems he deleted it because it did not happen to suit his view of things.

  Breifly the augument was such, 

(1) that Nero was not thought by the early church to be the anti christ. In fact a couple of the early (and highly respected) church fathers (Tertullian and Lactantius) had positively stated that the anti christ would not appear while the roman empire existed.

(I have read all of the early church fathers prior to Constantine, and have not read a single word suggesting that Nero was the Antichrist, though it is possible I suppose that some christians somewhere might have called him an antichrist in the sense of many antichrists}

(2) The Book of Revelation was written in the greek language for greeks and it is difficult to imagine that John the author would have inserted hebrew numerology into a greek document written for greeks, when they had their own system of numerology.

(3) The imagery of the Apocalypse was drawn almost exclusively from the old testament, therfore it is reasonable to look to that book for the meaning of the symbolism.

(4) The only reference in the OT to the number 666, is found in 1 Kings 10v14 and refers to Solomon and his aquisition of wealth. and as it turns out the numerology of the greek word for wealth Euporia (the closest word in the writers time for capitalism) also adds up to 666.

If any others can give good grounds (some error, not just because you don't like it) for not accepting this as an alternative view, not a replacement please let me know otherwise I will insert it.

Woodensword, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) so we can keep track of who said what more easily. Furthermore, if you disagree with the contents of an article, do not put such comments in the article itself. We have the talk page for that. If you dispute the factual accuracy of an article, put {{disputed}} at the top. If you think the article does not conform to the neutral point of view, use {{npov}}. Should you believe both apply, the proper template is {{totallydisputed}}. Under no circumstances should the article text be used for remarks on its contents.
Also, it helps if you make arguments on the talk page as coherent as possible, not just by referring to the edits made, as these are hard to look up while an article is in flux. In particular, please cite your sources on the talk page as well. The only way to show that your remarks represent notable POVs that are not accurately represented in the article is to cite; mere personal assertions are not enough. Note also that the sections you dispute are in a section titled "Historical-Critical interpretation"; the viewpoints in the article are those of that movement, not the viewpoints we assert to be "true", and we should not work to making the article state what is "true", merely to what notable viewpoints are held on the subject.
I agree that the current article is much too confident on the historical-critical interpretation, and worse, it cites no sources to base itself on, instead referencing "many critics". Cberlet, you mentioned some references. Why not look these up and use these to bolster the article? Again: we are not set out to prove why one side is definitely right and the other definitely wrong. We are set out to represent what others think of the Book of Revelation, and do so as unbiasedly as possible. This is what the neutral point of view is about. JRM 00:06, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

Many thanks JRM for your advice - woodensword

I agree with the criticism that the "Historical-Critical interpretation" section is too long, and it needs references. I was objecting to Woodensword writing marginal comments and declaring certain views to be heretical. My area of research is how various social movements--both religious and secular--use apocalyptic and millennial aspects of the prophecies in the Book of Revelation as a way to justify political action. --Cberlet 00:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did not use the term heretical, I used the word Godless to describe some theologians who have confessed themselves to be such. You go on to state your feild of research, and imply that I wish to justify some political point of view. I am affilliated to no political party, I have no interest in politics, I don't even bother to vote. As previously stated I belong to no religeous organzations what so ever, I am completely interested in the facts alone. And instead of bringing your mental baggage with you I would like you to address, the questions raised, which do not revolve around the length of the article but the accuracy of the assumptions made. If you are not aquainted with early christianity, please say so, that the matter might rest. Woodensword 08:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Secret of 666 & God's Unified Message to Mankind

My name is Robert Merlin Evenson, and I know more about the book of Revelation than anyone who has walked the face of the earth, including the author. The secret of Revelation 13:18 (the beast with the name/number 666) is unlocked in "The Ouzo Prophecy".

The letters to the seven churches (continents) are God's unified message to mankind. If the main thought of each letter is connected to the next, the message is revealed:

"It is not enough to merely recognize and hate evil: fear not the tribulation of Satan; fight evil wherever you find it, and do not allow it to flourish; contain evil and overcome it with perseverance and commitment to good."

Robert Merlin Evenson/Church of Ouzo

bobevenson@yahoo.com

The New Paradise

There's a lot written about the great tribulation, the beast, and little about the second coming of Christ, but as I was looking for information about Satan's defeat, Christ's reign, and the new paradise, I found none. Paradigmbuff 00:11, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Oops. The "Reign of Christ" mentioned. I am not a historian (and not a theologian) but can only vouch by personal experience. I use to think the passages in the Bible were written in such a way so as to expand the mind. But last Summer as I was preparing for my volunteer missionary work, I realize after 15 years (yep, an epiphany) that these Bible passages were not meant to confuse anyone. I am convince that as I read these passages, I should not look for ambiguous explanations or interpretations. Paradigmbuff 19:49, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

2 Beasts of Revelations Chap. 13

The Seventh Day Adventist Church has an alternate interpretations of these 2 Beasts.

Starting with Revelations 13,

"...a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns..."

Adventists connect this Beast to the Dragon of Daniel 7,

"behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible ... diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns"

This connection is reinforced by Revelation 13's description of this beast,

"the beast ... was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion"

which corresponds exactly to the 1st 3 beasts in Daniel 7.

"The first was like a lion ... a second, like to a bear, ... another, like a leopard..."

Thus, Revelation's Beast has apparently similar, if not identical, roots as Daniel's forth, but it's at the same time something more. This beast,

"[5] ...was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. [6] And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God... [7] And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them"

A very similar description occurs in Daniel 7:20-25,

"[the] horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things ... made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; ... And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints ... until a time and times and the dividing of time [note: adventists interpret "time, times, dividing of time" be the equivalent of 1 year + 2 years + ,5 years = 3.5 years / 42 months / 1260 days]."

So here we have a real unification of the two books/prophecies, and can thus draw on both simlutaneously in interpreting this.

Revelation 17 go on to describe the 10 horns as being,

"...the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast."

With Daniel 7 talking about,

"another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots ... shall be diverse from the first [horns], and he shall subdue three kings."

It's interesting to note, that the Horns are, yes, relatively powerful nations but don't have the Hegemonic status of any of the Beasts.

In Rev. 13 appears,

"another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. ... [and] exerciseth all the power of the first beast ..., and causeth the earth ... to worship the first beast"

There are, i'm sure, a detail or two that I missed, but this sums up the SDA interpretation:

• 4 Hegemonic Nations: Babylon -> Persia -> Greece -> Rome.

[note: these all rise out of the waters which, according to Rev. 17:15, represents "peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues". These powers are thus Nations that arose out civilised world]

• From Rome arises 10 smaller nations, and eventually an 11th, different from the others, arises wiping out 3 of these nations in the process.
  • SDAs identify this power as the Church of Rome. The Catholic Church's rise coincided with the Fall of the W. Roman Empire, and her power was cemented with destruction of the 3 Germanic tribes that directly or indirectly opposed her, the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths. The Church reigned (more or less) for approx. 1260 years, after which, in 1798, Pope Pius VI was imprisoned by the French. SDAs associate this with the "power [that] was given unto him to continue forty and two months" [1 day = year] followed by the recieving of this "mortal wound". His "miraculous restoration" would then be in 1929 when the Papacy was restored to the Vatican. Also, the Catholic Church also claims, by its own Divine Authority, to be able to craft and rewrite Devine Law, including the 10 Commandments. SDAs see this as the "speaking great things and blasphemies" and "thinking to change times and laws" references (Dan. 7; Rev. 13).

• The 5th Empire: The Nation/Power that arises out of the Wilderness after or around when the 1st Beast is wounded and restored is, according to SDAs, the United States.
  • "[The second Beast] had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth ... to worship the first beast. And he ... maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men"
    • The USA went from Isolationism -> "Talk softly, carry big stick" -> To global crusader & defender of Western Values. This reflects the dual lamb/dragon nature of this beast. Also, that description could fit a Buffalo-- a uniquely American beast.
    • The USA the first and only to use Nukes. Furthermore, we are the modern world's #1 aggressor and quite literally "maketh fire come down from heaven ... in the sight of men".
    • Our sharp religious bend has led us in recent times to force, not only Christianity into our secular lives, but also "western values" onto the rest of the world. This is also taken (by SDAs) as some future, more direct alliance with the 1st beast.

Is Philadelphia located in Amman, Jordan, or in Alasehir, Turkey?

I've never known that Amman was once called Philadelphia. However, the fact is that the church mentioned in Revelation 3 is actually located in modern-day Turkey - Alasehir. --One Salient Oversight 12:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Title Issue, re: Revelation of John

This title issue should be discussed. The King James Version of the Bible is pretty language but arguably one of the worst translations. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" is not the most common name for the book discussed here. Most KJV bibles list it as "The Revelation of St. John the Divine," which is arguably not historically accurate--there is a big debate over John's identity. While "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" is the beginning of the first verse--the first verse is considered a preface to the actual text. I am changing it back until there is a discussion here with some sourcing. --Cberlet 13:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I really have to agree with parent comment. The article seems to indicate that the title "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" is an Evangelical Protestant peculiarity. However, the article incorrectly states that "the actual title of the book is Revelation, or the Revelation to John, as it is rendered at the beginning of the book." This is totally incorrect. I've checked at least 5 different major English translations of Revelations 1:1 and they all - almost word-for-word - start with the words The Revelation of Jesus Christ. In fact, nowhere in this book are the words "the Revelation of John" written. John may have written down the revelation from Jesus, but according to the first verse of this book - the revelation was from God to Jesus. So I'm being bold, and correcting this error. Stephenw77 04:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet and Stephen,

the book is commonly called "Revelation of John" or "Apokalypse of John". There was more than one Apocalypse around and they are distinguished by adding the one to whom it was addressed, hence the name. However, the title the book gives itself in the first line:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John"

The identity of the author is no problem at all in this regard. The seer is clearly called John. Who this John was is another question but not relevant to the name. Str1977 17:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Selling on the urgency?

Could someone please fix this sentence (I'd do it myself, but I don't have a clue what it's supposed to mean) "Since this is a very attractive view to those selling on the urgency of Christianization, it found support for the book's canonization in the otherwise hope-inspiring and uplifting outlook introduced by the central figure of the New Testament, Jesus." --Lee Hunter 01:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Identification of the Wild Beast who comes out of the Earth

The scripture at Revelation 13:13 provides the ultimate clue for identifying this Wild Beast. Serious Bible Students should consider any man made effort supporting an attempt to make "fire come down from heaven in full view of men". Certainly John was inspired to include this for a good purpose.

Reveleation 13:11-13

Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men.

With this in mind July 4th 2005 may prove to be a most significant date.

The main purpose of the effort described in the following link seems to be in support of performing a great sign which should make fire come down from heaven on this very special date.

Fire from Heaven on July 4th 2005

Please keep this entry until July 5th, 2005 when it could become encyclopedic.

The Seven Seals, Trumpets, and Bowls

Might someone talk deeply into the seven seals, trumpets, and bowls mentioned in the book. Let different interperations of these 21 judgements be open to dicussion

Pronunciation of apocalypse

The lead paragraph gives the IPA transcription of the pronunciation of apocalypse. However, it gives the General US American pronunciation. We should either add further transcriptions of the pronunciation in other standard dialects (e.g. IPA: [əˈpɑkəlɪps/ or /əˈpɔkəˌlɪps]) or scrap it altogether. --Gareth Hughes 15:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Idealist interpretation

I think that this section is weak, although my interest in the interpretation of prophecy is also weak, and I don't have books on this subject to explain my perspective. However, I have described my own view as "idealist", and I do not recognize any relationship in the description. I'll try to do some research; but here are the problems I see:

• The Spiritual view (also called Idealist by some writers) does not see the book of Revelation as predicting specific events in history.
  — There are views like this, I'm sure, which see this and all other prophecy as some kind of poetry. I would rather speak of this as a Metaphorical view of prophecy, not Idealist.
• Rather it sees the visions as expressing eternal spiritual truths that find expression throughout history.
  — I think that this statement takes away considerably from the first sentence, if it isn't bluntly contradictory. Which is true: 1) "not ... predicting specific events in history" or, 2) "expressing spiritual truths that find expression throughout history" ? That these statements aren't easy to reconcile is made more evident by the third sentence:
• Only in the last few chapters are specifically predictive eschatological issues taken up.
  — So the "last few chapters" predict "specific events in history" ? Is the view purely spiritualized and metaphorical, or is it predictive after all? The description is self-contradictory.

As I had understood it, and as I explained my own views, idealism can be preterite, historical or futurist in its original reference; but the reference establishes a pattern by which the times in which we live are to be understood. Idealist interpretations conceive of prophecy not as having been given for a single generation's benefit, but for each generations to learn something about God's purposes until the end of the world. So, for example, 1 John says,

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour."

In other words, there will always be antichrists until the end of the world; and at the end of the world there will be a consummate antichrist. The Antichrist page has an example of an idealist interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12, for example:

a "man of sin", "the son of perdition" is expected to set himself up in the temple of God, on the false pretense that he is God himself. This portrait of the Antichrist is reminiscent of the acts of Antiochus Epiphanes, who around 170 BC commanded Jews to sacrifice pigs on the altar, four times a year on the Shabbat, in tribute to him as the supreme god of the Seleucids.

Here is a definitive past fulfillment, which establishes the pattern by which ultimate evil can be recognized. The view attributed to the Eastern Orthodox is closer to the idealist interpretation, than the paragraph under that head. The key idea of idealist prophetic interpretation is that God's word is true, now and always. The Book of Revelation doesn't belong to the past or the future alone, and neither is it an occult description of historical events; it is a revelation of the word of God by which all things, both calamity and deliverance, are upheld (as I've understood the idealist interpretation to maintain). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Apocalyptic or prophetic literature?

I have changed the initial sentence saying that the Apocalypse is a work in the apocalyptic, not in the prophetic tradition. The style is much more like Daniel or even Ezekiel, not at all like Amos or Hosea. Pilatus 14:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Irenaeus' testimony

Which of the two is it:

• "was seen a long time ago", or
• "was seen no long time ago" ?

Most sources point to the latter. Any experts here can resolve this, and fix the article if needed? Owen× ☎ 18:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Identity of John

I find this text very confusing:

"The identity of the author is also not clear. The traditional view is that the author of this book was John the Apostle, the same as the author of the Gospel of John and 1, 2 and 3 John, but other scholars doubt that. However, given the book's futurist eschatology (e.g. chs. 21-22), this view is very difficult to maintain when compared to the realised eschatology of the Johannine corpus, especially the Gospel of John itself."

Why don't we just say that some say X and others say Y? And who is being cited in the claims about the "Johannine corpus"?--Cberlet 02:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal of opinion of non-expert

I have removed the following comments on the grounds that it is inappropriate to quote from a non-expert:

Revelation is considered one of the most controversial (see Jonadabs) and difficult books of the Bible, with many diverse interpretations of the meanings of the various names and events in the account. B.A. Robinson of the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance says that Revelation portrays "a very different picture of God than we see described in the synoptic gospels. There is no love for one's enemies. There is only bitterness, hatred, and a desire for revenge." [1] However, when considering the apocalyptic setting of the book and comparing it to the apocalyptic passages in the gospels, this difference decreases enormously.

Bruce Robinson himself is quite open about him not having an academic standing in this area. His own website states [2]:

"....Bruce A. Robinson... is a graduate of the University of Toronto, class of 1959, with a BaSc (Bachelor of Applied Science) degree in Engineering Physics. He worked for a large multi-national chemical company for 38 years before taking a "golden handshake" and early retirement during a company downsizing. During his employment, he functioned as a specialist in the development of electronic instrumentation, as a computer programmer working in process computing, and as a group leader. Technical writing formed a major part of his work assignment. "

jguk 14:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

He is, however, the primary author of one of the Internet's most respected and longest running religious websites, which makes his opinions notable. Furthermore, the notion that Revelation is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible is hardly unique to Robinson; both Martin Luther and John Calvin expressed serious reservations about the book. Firebug 06:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It's hardly the most respected, certainly from an academic viewpoint. I reall consider it entirely inappropriate to quote the views on the Book of Revelation of someone whose sole claim to fame is running a website. If it were the views of the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or indeed Martin Luther or John Calvin, they might be worth including - a retired engineering physicist's views are not.

Please also quit with the offence that you added into your edit summary, jguk 09:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You say it is "hardly the most respected" - well, then, what is? This site has been praised by Encyclopedia Britannica and numerous academic organizations. You have not provided ANY reason to discount this source other than the lack of a specific academic credential. The fact is that Robinson is one of the Internet's foremost experts on issues related to religious tolerance, whether you like or agree with him or not. Your deliberate mass removal of cites, which is perfectly reasonable to analogize to a crusade or jihad, is disruptive of Wikipedia and reminiscient of the behavior you were ordered to stop by Arbcom with regards to dates. You clearly have no respect for Wikipedia consensus or a desire to do anything but edit war. Firebug 13:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

(1) I shall again ask you to conduct this discussion in a civil and courteous manner. I note from the RfAr case you're bringing against RJII that you believe you have been on the wrong end of this yourself - it's not nice and it doesn't get us anywhere.

(2) I have no intention of altering the paragraph current in discussion at least until the end of this discussion, by which time hopefully we will have more than just our two views.

(3) I have nothing against Bruce Robinson, who's just a retired guy with a hobby and a website. Good luck to him. This does not make him quotable though.

(4) The point here is that Robinson's view on the Book of Revelation is just not notable. He has no academic or theological standing. This is a key book of the Bible, the main Christian text. The stated opinion of someone with very good standing in this field - a major religious leader such as the Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury, even a leading ayatollah or the Chief Rabbi may be appropriate; perhaps a leading theological commentator whose texts have been subject to extensive peer review and who has been active for many years (20, 30+). However, a retired engineering physicist with no academic training in the area, who has not been party to many discussions with many eminent scholars on the issue over the years, who has a hobby of publishing his own essays on the web that are full of his own views and are not peer reviwed - he is not a quotable source. He has a hobby that he enjoys - that's great, but he's just not quotable on this subject.

(5) Indeed, Bruce Robinson is no different from any other person who has a blog on the net who likes to publish essays on a given topic. A fun hobby for him, maybe many other people enjoy reading his views and opinions, but not a serious academic source.

jguk 19:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is a bit polarized, and I'll ask you to re-read above how you're mis-quoting each other to polarize even more. I'm not sure how respected Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance is on the whole, but it has become an online hub for many. (Disclaimer: I haven't been extremely impressed, but the site is still respected in certain circles.) So the truth is somewhere in-between "one of the most well-respected" and just "any other person who has a blog". That said, it seems to me that to justify quoting Robinson's statement, it should be confirmed by another source that says essentially the same thing, referenced in a note.--Gandalf2000 20:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There are many editors who are seriously questioning the OCRT, pointing out that they are not a reliable source (in essence they are a one-man band, with that one man freely admitting his is not an academic). See Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance for details. In summary, Robinson is not quotable, jguk 06:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Since this discussion has died down, may I ask whether there are remaining objections to removing the Robinson quotation? jguk 20:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the link to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org, which should have been mentioned sooner. My suggestion is to add this reference to that page at the bottom, and let that process play out. --Gandalf2000 19:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Even absent that process, which has already shown considerable disquiet at using that website for a reference, there'd be the question as to whether Robinson is so notable a source that a quotation from him should appear in the introduction of a page about a book of the Bible. I think that's a clear no, jguk 20:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say you're right. Move the quote onto this page. If someone finds another, reputable source for the same opinion, then that can be put in. Thanks.--Gandalf2000 20:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems Firebug is intransigent and unwilling either to have the quotation removed or to discuss the matter any further. I have left the following statement on Firebug's page:

First, please refrain from personal attacks - comments such as "I've already said all I have to say about your anti-consensus jihad against this particular website" are comments Wikipedia could well do without. It's also a shame that you are entirely unwilling to discuss matters. If you'd care to look on Talk:Book of Revelation you will find that I am not alone in saying that it is totally inappropriate that in the introduction of an article on a book of the New Testament to quote a non-academic who just happens to have a website. You are also aware, I believe, of the considerable disquiet about the website Robinson posts to from Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. If we are to quote anyone on the Book of Revelation article, they have to be quotable on that subject - have to have some renown in that field. It could be that they are leading biblical scholars, or have founded a major branch of Christianity such as Lutheranism or Calvinism. Or be the leader of a signifcant denomination, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope. We certainly cannot quote a guy who has no academic training and no reputation in the field just because that guy has a hobby and a website, jguk 22:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about it being in the third paragraph..right there with MARTIN LUTHER. He's an Engineer with a Web Site. Putting it in the external links would be a compromise. But quoting someone that isn't that well known and isn't a recognized expert in the Book of Revelation shouldn't be quoted in the third paragraph on an article about the Book of Revelation. If there's consensus (and it looks like there is) I'll (or someone else) move it into the external links section. Rx StrangeLove 22:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Gemattria

Someone please explain:

1. why ancient Hebrew letters are used (largely extinct by this time and even the Greek OT LXX was then favored by Jews everywhere) and
2. why the O is kept and counted, but the E is not. With selective use of letters, one can make a name add up to almost anything.

Castanea dentata 03:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Zodiacal References & Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet

I have attempted to present some information on this page about the Zodiacal references and it was removed. When anyone familiar with the language of astrology, looks with an objective eye, it is relatively obvious that there are astrological references in the Book of Revelations. There SHOULD be some mention of that on this page. Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's "The Hidden Manna" is the best reference for this. I agree that this information should be put forward in a Neutral Point of View. But to many, it is not a small interpretative key of the Book of Revelations. Any tips on where to put this information on the page or how to include it without getting deleted. There is No reason to block this VIEW of the Book of Revelations from this page just because it is not in line with religious schools of interpretation and will make some people upset. Let people just look for themselves. Maybe we could add a section Controversial Interpretive Views. I will try that.User:Saberlotus

The issue is one of representing tiny minority viewpoints as such, and in context; I think the current solution is appropriate. — JEREMY 02:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sentence problems

What is going on with this sentence in the authorship section:

The opinion of the more moderate critics of the present day is that the voice of antiquity favors the genuineness of the book.

I have no idea what that even means. Can someone rewrite this for clarity (perhaps with less prepositional phrases?)--Andrew c 18:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer To Gematria

In Hebrew/Aramaic languages the vowels were not written. The Greek spelling of Nero was Neron Kaiser. "Nrwn Qsr" adds up to 666 in Hebrew gematria (if you miscalculate the numerical value of the final "n"). Nrw Qsr adds up to the 616 mentioned in some footnotes to chapter 13. Lower case omega looks like "w".

PCB