|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.|
- 1 Reorginazation and NPOV concerns
- 2 Origin of the word
- 3 Plural form of the word "Apocalypse"
- 4 ineffective people going to hell
- 5 The Islamic section of this article is false at best
- 6 Apocalypticism
- 7 Nonsense
- 8 Hindu Apocalypse
- 9 Move Pralay/Hindu material to separate article?
- 10 Seven Seals Inclusion
- 11 List of doomsday scenarios
- 12 Proposed link
- 13 '2012' and Date Setting Discussions
- 14 Recent Vandalism
- 15 List of predicted (past, current, and future) apocalypses?
- 16 See Also
- 17 Sources
- 18 Merge Apocalypticism here?
- 19 "Environmental Apocalypse" section
- 20 Worldwide view
- 21 Plagiarism and Esotericism
- 22 Dubious
Reorginazation and NPOV concerns
The term 'apocalypse' seems to be Christian in origin, but it has taken on greater meaning in our language. Perhaps we should have an 'The Apocalypse in Christanity' section, together with other sections representing other aspects of the term?
I also have concerns about the objective nature of the article. It espouses a particular interpretation on the book of Revelations (post-millenialism). A rewrite might be in order.
- Yes! I agree completely. There's no way NPOV or a balance of content can be achieved in this article without segregating the Apocalypse in Christianity stuff... It will be a start-class article until Apocalypse if the Christian view is allowed to take over the article so completely. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Origin of the word
The origin of the word Apocalypse in this article is incomplete. The root word, Calypse, is the masculine tense of Calyx, the feminine tense is Calyptra. While Calypse is no longer a stand alone word, it's other 2 forms are, and reveal that the original meaning was equal to the masculine prepuce, which is a protective veil for the reproductive organs. There are many entrees that use Apocalypse in place of Armageddon. According to the book of The Apocalypse, now known as Revelations, when people become aware of the true meaning of the word Apocalypse, now hidden from modern conception, it leads to Armageddon. Armageddon is the final conflict between the people of the covenant with the Heavenly Godfather who turn against each other and those who believe the covenant is a human rights violation that causes more harm to society than any personal benefit from lack of education, leaving 2/3'rds of life on Earth dead. 2/3rd s is also an approximate number of all 3 religions of the covenantFrederick Rhodes (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Frederick Rhodes (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Plural form of the word "Apocalypse"
Does anyone know what the plural form of the word "Apocalypse" is? --
- Nope. It is simply "apocalypses". (Bear in mind that the capitalised "A" is only necessary when referring to the "The Apocalypse" as referred to by Christian or other religious writings. One can talk about "an apocalypse.) The word "apocalypse" has a Greek root. Plural forms ending in "-a" are generally reserved for words with a latin root that end in "-m" when singular, denoting a neuter noun. Examples are "rostrum / rostra" and "bacterium / bacteria".
Actually, it is not known commonly as "Revelation" but as "Revelations". People who point out that the latter is not a correct rendering of what is written are missing the point, which is that the plural form both is in ordinary spoken use, and has come down from a separate oral/visual tradition (a bit like Adam and Eve eating an apple, simply because that was the fruit ordinarily shown in stained glass window versions). PML.
But it is 'The Revelation. As the very first sentence says, :The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John -- Zoe
See? People miss the point. I am very carefully not saying anything about what it is - either way - I am pointing out what it is commonly known as. While it becomes a matter of approach, possibly of opinion, which is right, it is a matter of objective fact that it is not known commonly as "Revelation" but as "Revelations". Don't believe me? Do a straw poll of people you meet in the street (being careful not to predispose the answers). PML.
"Book of Revelations" on Google turns up 18,500 hits. "Book of Revelation" turns up 135,000. -- Zoe
I didn't suggest you consult putatively accurate information, even from secondary sources - I suggested that if you were concerned you should check what people thought. I am leading up to correcting that article in the respect in which it is incorrect - the way it claims that the last book of the New Testament is commonly called "Revelation". As to whether it ought to be called that, that is another question entirely. PML.
- How can we possibly write a meaningful article based on "what people think"? Are we mind readers? Calling the book "Revelation" is not "incorrect", it's just not what you want it to be called. -- Zoe
- Argh! People arguing at cross-purposes! Argh!
- Zoe, PML's not saying that "Revelations" is correct, or that he/she wants people to call it "Revelations". PML's just saying that, as a matter of objective fact, many people do (incorrectly) call it "Revelations", and that consequently the article's statement that the Revelation is "known commonly as Revelation" is incomplete, if not actually wrong.
- I agree with PML.
- -- Paul A 02:19 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)
- But PML is arguing that the last book of the New Testament is not commonly called "Revelation". But it is commonly called "Revelation", just not universally. -- Zoe
- The situation is the following: The book is known as "The Book of Revelation of St. John the Divine" but I have always referred to it as "Revelations" although there are people who refer to it in the singular. It is similar to referring to "The Acts of the Apostles" as simply "Acts". It isn't necessary to quibble over which abbreviation is used, as they are both informal. The main thing is too keep it consistent throughout the entry, and (I feel) refer to the full title of the book at least once, the first time it is mentioned and then state "hereinafter "Revelations" or whatever.
- But PML is arguing that the last book of the New Testament is not commonly called "Revelation". But it is commonly called "Revelation", just not universally. -- Zoe
- The common usage is, as it were, that commonly used - that commonly encountered - that used by the common people, if you choose to use a term with some pejorative overtones. Bearing that in mind, I have decided what change to try; have a look to see what you think, but comment here rather than reverting. PML.
Nope. That's even less the common usage than Revelation or Revelations. And yet you don't accept my Google count to show you which is the most common usage. -- Zoe
Of course not. It just shows the most common form found within the internet, and by one search approach at that (biassed in favour of a sort of groupthink, on this matter) - not the most common form out there on the street. Are you aware that "Nope" is an approach that will lead to vandalism? PML.
- Are you aware that "Nope" is an approach that will lead to vandalism - What the HELL are you talking about? -- Zoe
- "...have a look to see what you think, but comment here rather than reverting." ... "Nope." Or was that an unfortunate and unintended juxtaposition? PML.
- I've had my say. And reverting, or modifying, is not vandalism, it's a difference of opinion. I won't mess with the article because it isn't worth an edit war, but you're severly illogical. -- Zoe
- It's not the reverting that would have been vandalism, it's the shoot first and don't ask questions attitude that suggested the possibility of that. But your actions are more reasonable than you intimated they might be. Oh, and I waited for other people's insights to give me a reality check before I acted - that seemed logical enough for me. PML.
- Zoe got it right by googling with quotes and noting the databse hit estimate - that's perhaps the most reliable way of finding out "what most people think" when it comes to names. Oliver Low (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC).
ineffective people going to hell
For the following sentence an anonymous editor 126.96.36.199 added the phrase "ineffective people going to hell". "The eschatological end of the world was often accompanied by images of resurrection, judgement of the dead in apocalyptic literature, and ineffective people going to hell." To be honest, my knowledge of the Apocalypse and Revalations is rusty, and I'm just following the edits done by someone who has done some odd edits, but I doubt that the addition is accurate. Could someone please verify and correct this sentence if necessary. gK ¿? 04:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I just checked the page and I couldn't find this phrase. This is the first time I have ever heard such a thing. It's subjective. Who's 'ineffective'? Only God could or would make that decision and in any book of prophecy (from a christian viewpoint) that I have read, there is no mention of this. A person is saved from the penalty of the Second Death and the Lake of Fire simply by the Grace of God, specifically Jesus Christ. The doctrine is called "Justification by Faith" - we put our trust in the one who paid the penalty of our sins - that He covered it all - and we receive salvation, righteousness and eternal life - all as gifts from the Almighty. We did nothing to 'earn' them because it's impossible to cover sin by good works. This doctrine is in the Bible, specifically the book of 'Romans' in the New Testament.--MurderWatcher1 20:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The Islamic section of this article is false at best
The part of the article concerning Islamic views on the apocalypse, seems either grossly confused or intended to confuse. For starters, Mirza Ahmed and his sect "the Ahmadis" or Qadiyanis are not considered muslims by either sunnis or shi`ites. Nor do Islamic beliefs admit anyone OTHER THAN Jesus Christ as the Messiah.
The more egregious error is in the author's claim that al-Azhar condones the Ahmadis' claims. It can't be further from the truth. As al-azhar and every other center of islamic scholarship and jurisprudence have been unanimous is rejecting the claims by Ghulam Mirza Ahmed from the start.
To repeat, islamic tenets are explicit that anyone claiming to be a prophet or a messenger after the prophet Muhammad, is a liar and a fraud; and that only Jesus Christ is awaited at the end times. There is difference on whether a Mahdi will appear.
The tendency to use the title, as a device to rally support and raise zeal in situations where a local leader is fighting a foreign occupier of a Muslim land (such as the sunni self-styled Mahdi in Sudan during Gordon's time in the XIXth century, and the shiite "Mahdi Army" in Iraq fighting the US occupation in 2003/2004.
Adding text (in the body of the article) and external links to pages subscribing to the Qadiyani/Ahmadi sect as part of Islam and Islamic beliefs and discourse is akin to passing Wicca or Paganism as part of Christianity.
Furthermore, concerning the notion that some of the more infamous or notorious militant figures associated with Islam, such as Osama bin laden, are milleniarists or apocalyptics is not sound. Neither Khomeini (a shi`ite) or bin-Laden (a sunni) have made any mention of the "end times" or of an apocalypse, nor do they seem to regard themselves as either mahdis or messiahs, as this would instantly discredit them in the eyes of Muslims (however discredited they already appear.)
My position on this matter can be amply verified from history as well as Islamic sources and texts.
I am therefore tempted to remove the problematic parts, but I have decided to wait a while, to see responses on this discussion page. If no one else removes the errors concerning this matter, eventually I hope to remove them myself.
- I think you are correct on some points and not on others. Osama bin-Laden is clearly apocalyptic in the generic sense of the world, but avoids references to the end times as is appropriate for his religious background in Wahhabism. There are several views of the end times in Muslim theology. Why not fix what you can?--Cberlet 01:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page concentrates on apocalyptism in Christianity, with some small amount of (disputed) material on Islam, and almost nothing on Judaism. I propose creating a seperate page on Apocalypticism and break the redirect. The page would look at the various scholarly theories on apocalyptic belief in the larger sense, including secular apocalypticism. This is a growing area of history and sociology, as well as religious studies. Brenda Brasher is an example.--Cberlet 01:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I suggest retitling this entire article as Apocalypse in Christianity, or creating a seperate page for Apocalyptic themes and visions outside of Christian myth. There's no way this article will ever achieve balance or NPOV unless Christian views of Apocalypse are fully segregated from all other "apocalypses". 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Apocalypse_(Christian) would be more accurate, as the common usage of "apocalypse" in English is not specific to any given religion, even if the etymology was exclusively connected to Christianity (which it does not appear to be). 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This article begins "The term "apocalypse" was introduced by F. Lücke (1832) as a description of the New Testament book of Revelation." I wondered what the writer of that could have been thinking. I was going to suggest some editing, but now that I've seen the Talk page... --Wetman 00:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- Can anyone provide a cite to this F. Lücke character? Fluke? Is this a joke?--Cberlet 13:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Is this supposed to be Gottfried CF Lucke? He hardly invented the usage to describe Rveelation did he?--Cberlet 13:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- The old opening line was indeed misleading, but it was neither "nonsense" nor a joke. The author was referring to Gottfried Lücke, as Cberlet suggests above, and to the 1832 book Toward an Introduction to the Revelation of John (this is my rough translation of the German). No, Lücke did not "introduce" the term "apocalypse." However, biblical scholars recognize him as the first scholar to group together the Book of Revelation/Apocalypse of John with earlier Jewish texts, such as Enoch, and classify them all as "apocalyptic" literature. In other words, he pioneered the concept of apocalypse as a literary genre that included Jewish and early Christian texts. Of course, this is not how the popular mind thinks of apocalypse today. But it is how biblical scholars think of the concept. I think the real question here is whether this wiki article should mainly reflect the scholarly or the popular view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
As far as I understand, because of the Hindu cyclical view of time, the apocalypse is not an end of existence as claimed in the introduction, but rather the end of the Kali Yuga, which causes a return to the first age of the time cycle. I don't have time now to research and correct this section, perhaps someone else does...—Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user
Move Pralay/Hindu material to separate article?
Judeo-Christian "revelations" have historically been called apocalyptic because many of those texts are in Greek. There are no Greek Hindu writings. It doesn't make sense to me to include terms like Pralay in this article which have no linguistic or historical relationship with Judeo-Christian apocalyptic literature. --Zeeshanhasan 04:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I vote 'Yes' - either move it to a separate articles (maybe with links to this one), or else move it down-the-ladder to the bottom as per a somewhat related sub-section. Otherwise we'll get nonsense like the Hopi Indian prophecies that were mentioned in the movie "Koyannisquatsi" which, while it was a good movie, is talking about things not biblically prophetic. 'Apocalypse' is, to my understanding, generally associated with christianity in origin. Okay with Judaism.--MurderWatcher1 20:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Seven Seals Inclusion
I am adding some to the Branch Davidians article and there is no mention of the Seven Seals there yet they represent the cornerstone of Davidian beliefs. Does anyone have any plans to add the Seven Seals to this article? Mr Christopher 16:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- thank the lord it was already deleted.18.104.22.168 08:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I have been instructed to post my website: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/danrv.html for review. Please, if any reader thinks it is worth to be posted, do so. Bernard Muller
- I have a problem with this sentence on your webpage:
Let's also note that neither 'Daniel' nor 'Revelation' have "antichrist(s)" in them. This word appears only five times in the whole Bible and exclusively in 1John & 2John. Here, the antichrist(s) are the non-Christian/heretical preachers or individuals who lived when the two aforementioned epistles were written.
Okay, the 'word' antichrist doesn't appear but the CONCEPT is definitely in both books! The 'king' mentioned in Daniel places the abomination which causes desolation; in Revelation we have the mention of the 'Beast'. This king in Daniel, and the Beast in Revelation are certainly the Antichrist. We've also had types of antichrists in the past. There were articles and books about 'Nero'; 'Antiochus Epiphanes' and others. You can check the list of books that I have on my user page if you'd like. While some of those books are dated, we've had a number of people 'weigh-in' on that title. Prophetically speaking, it's only a matter of time until the real one comes along.--MurderWatcher1 20:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
'2012' and Date Setting Discussions
It has been said that the year 2012 may be the possible apocalypse. More specifically on the winter solstice, December 21 of 2012 is said to be said apocalypse. The Ancient Mayan Calander, which was able to predict lunar eclipses thousands of years preceeding the said lunar eclipses, suddenly ends on said date. Many other oracles who were well credited as well said the same thing. Scientists now say that on that date the earth will come to align with the sun and the black hole at the center of the solar system. Once this happens the polar axises will dissalign, causing chaos. Tides will change and highten, the mantle will rotate and cause many earthquakes. All of theses things will happen if we dont create our own apocolypse throught global warming first.
Hollywood says 2012 will be the apocalypse. They are no more reliable than crank religious sects have been over the conturies- actually much less so, since they are motivated by money not religious ferver, and don't even pretend to be telling the truth. "Apocalpyse 2012" is fiction, my dears. Get a grip on reality.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Will happen? Everything that you stated has been proven has not. All except for the Mayans and the rest of the skeptics through the years. Ill be sure to take something special that day, maybe I'll see something cool, but I doubt it.
- I would like to use this post to suggest a table with all those possible apocalypse years and dates predicted so far like 1999, 2006, 2012 and so on.
Any true Christian knows that only God knows when the apocalypse will happen. The Book of Revelation in the New Testament of the Bible was not written for the end of the world, it was written because Christians were being persecuted! It was written to show the power of the One, True, and Almighty God so the persecuters would be scared and stop killing God's people! It is believed that on Judgement Day Jesus will come again, or His Second Coming (His first was when he was born). He will send the ones who rejected God completely to Hell, and the others will go to Purgatory, where they will reconcile for their sins. He will not only judge the living, but also the dead. As the Apostle's Creed says, "He will come again to judge the living and the dead." So for all we know, the Apocalypse could happen an hour, a day, or a year from now. Or even a thousand years from now! But anyway, Christiananity is a very rewarding religion. I've been a member of my Church for thirteen years now (I'm thirteen) and have learned very much. My faith has helped me through the rough times and there has nevr been a time when I have not been able to talk to God.Wikimichael22 (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Wikimichael22
- Good idea to me! We've had too many people and other groups setting dates. The first person I elect is this author with this book: "1994?" by Harold Camping; ©1992; Published by Vantage Press, Inc., 516 West 34th Street, NY, NY 10001. ISBN 0-533-10368-1; Library of Congress Cat. No. is unknown.--MurderWatcher1 20:20, 28
If you are saying there will never be an apocalypse, that is false. Eventually, one day there will be some sort of event that will bring the end of everything. Now, the dispute should be if that will be 2012 or not. I guess we shall see. ♥ Southern Class♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
There is scientific proof written in stone dating techniques that show our host planet Earth alternates its polar charges every so often through time, and then She goes through another growth spurt adding volume from converting solar plasma into matter. This correlates to our Galaxy's, The Milky Way's, Black Hole/Singularity alignment that is theorised to increase solar flarings. We are infact entering into another period of solar maximus. If you solve for M, in E=MC2 using the quadratic equasion, it shows how matter is converted from light to enregy to matter and visa-versa. This may or may not have anything to do with the Apocalypse that leads to Armageddon, but it has nothing to do with the word's root origins.Frederick Rhodes (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
List of predicted (past, current, and future) apocalypses?
I noticed that there wasn't one. Maybe one should be added? 00:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)00:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
A reminder: "See also" is not an excuse to list your favorite heavy metal concept album/novel/movie dealing with the apocalypse, or using it as a metaphor. There are a number of those there now – even including Coppola's Apocalypse now. Better replace all that with a section on the apocalypse in modern (not necessarily Christian) thinking. Things like 1960s fear of nuclear war, as a major theme in science fiction (The Terminator, Douglas Coupland), Terence McKenna's theories, its attraction in heavy metal ... JöG (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
None of the source links work, not sure how to re-add them but it appears that they did exist at one point. If this was an intentional removal -- how come? This seems to be a basic feature of wiki.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Merge Apocalypticism here?
- This page seems to be specifically about the apocalypse in Christian tradition. Were there to be a merge I would therefore say this page should be merged into Apocalypticism, which is more general. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am open-minded but a bit nervous about this proposal. I agree with Carl.b that merging into the "Apocalypticism" article would be appropriate. While the existence of an upcoming apocalype is debateable, the existence of apocalypticism throughout history is not. I don't think we should be indirectly supporting the idea that there will be an apocalypse by having an article of that title if we don't have to. The other concern I have is content. I would prefer not so see this as an opportunity to delete content from apocalypticism.Greg Bard (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
"Environmental Apocalypse" section
I deleted this section. It was poorly written, and poorly sourced. Furthermore, it doesn't even belong on this page unless this page is going to list every proposed doomsday scenario. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmanguno (talk • contribs) 12:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Many cultures in many places have had a concept of an apocalypse, and the word "apocalypse" in contemporary English refers to any horrible end of the world scenario in any religious, material-world, or fictional setting. Right now the article focuses on the Christian concept of apocalypse. I would like to see this article give an overview of all of the prominent apocalyptic scenarios in all cultures, and then links to more detailed information about each individual vision of the apocalypse. I think a good place to start doing this would be to find an academic overview categorizing the types of apocalypses which have been described, then setting up those categories as sections in this article, then making the article. When someone else comes along who wants to do this with me, would you please write to me? I sure would be embarrassed if the apocalypse came along and I did not have this article finished. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Plagiarism and Esotericism
Parts of this article are lifted from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia (see http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1642-apocalypse) without adequate citation. The fact that the text dates to 1906 is one of the reasons it reads so esoterically. Another is that the excerpts are taken out of context and aren't suitable for newcomers to the subject. The whole article needs to be re-written for the sake of clarity and providing sufficient context for understanding.Also several games have been based on this most of then are really not cool at all.... like Aliens vs Apocalypse... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Subsection Angels claim:
- In the Bible at least four types or ranks of angels are mentioned: the Archangels, Angels, Cherubim and the Seraphim.
Now the sources  to  happen to be Bible citations. None of the citations mention more than 2 "ranks" of angels, if ranks they are. There is no proof whatsoever that Cherubim and Seraphim aren't Angels, so that the real number of "ranks" are 3, and these Archangels, do they distribute between belonging to the Cherubim and the Seraphim species? The statement "at least four types or ranks" is the most stupid concoct I've read for long time here. How can one even draw such moronic conclusions from such an ambiguous material? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)