|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
There seem to be a lot of "without question" statements in here without justification. Might be appropriate to lose them if there are no references. 184.108.40.206 02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
This article starts out poorly like an academic essay filled with open questions and theological speculation, then gets worse. Later on it is not even written within Wiki style standards, as if the author didn't even bother editing his own work before posting it. It is very disappointing for a subject as important as this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marty55 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Weasel Words and Lack of Sources
"The non-fulfillment of prophecies served to popularize the methods of apocalyptic in comparison with the non-fulfillment of the advent of the Messianic kingdom" This wording is extremely unusual. I will admit to knowing little about religious texts, but it sounds as if prophecies that expressly did not occur were making people believe the prophecies more readily, rather than dismiss of them. This seems wrong in its structure, but I do not know how to fix it in the context.
"The only thing for certain that was predicted is the return of the Jews to their land, which occurred when Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon in c.539 BC. Thus, the fulfillment of the Messianic kingdom remained in the future for the Jews."
I do not like this wording; it suggests a prophecy came true. No sources are provided. Vague, date-less prophecies that can be interpreted a thousand different ways arent very reliable, but it's how this is categorized. No evidence provided that a non-generalized prophecy had come true has been offered in reference to the subject at hand, and I could find none in my own searches.
Ultimately, this entire article is worded in a way that is incredibly confusing. I cant even make out what the author was trying to get across. Suggest total scrapping and re-building, by peoples knowledgable in the subject at hand. It currently reads like it was translated poorly into english. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Edit: To make clear, I do not think these were done in malice, but either by accident by a non-native english speaker, or through multiple attrition events. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Martin Luther reference is poorly worded
"In the early 1520s, however, Martin Luther found much of the contents of, particularly, 2 Maccabees, to disagree with his doctrines and removed the book on the grounds that it was absent from the Masoretic text, along with the Epistle of James."
I think this wording would lead some to believe that Luther rejected the Epistle of James due to absence from the Masoretic text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)