Talk:Armageddon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Adventist / Witnesses (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (marked as Mid-importance).
 


CLARIFICATIONS AND LINKS[edit]

This article needs lots of explanation and links to words which needs to be described. What it the beast? The fasle prohpet? the loved city? etc... I understand that this article was mainly written by religious people, so please explain to the rest of us what this is means. Most of it is very hard to understand, and the writer seems to think that everybody should already know what these things mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.108.52.23 (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest if you really want to fully understand this article, it may help to read Revelations (it's the last book in what we religious folk call "The Bible". If you still don't understand, start from Genesis.Wordy94 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Supported. The article mentions all the various views, but the reader is not able to evaluate the views because the discussion of the text is insufficient. The views are discussed in a vacuum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andries8 (talkcontribs) 05:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to Criticism[edit]

I do not think Wikipedia is supposed to give an absolutely comprehensive expose into the topic at hand. Requiring the history of the belief in Armageddon to be included, along with the historic expectancy of the imminence of Armegeddon are not really required. And if that were to be done, would it be able to represent all views such as the various faiths? I do not think so. I think that because Armageddon is a religious topic, whoever writes it is likely to adopt a particular position (or at least lean towards it); so long as he/she touches on the fact that there are other views should make it adequate. You might however be able to assist if you can add some of the comments you are recommending. Akpantue (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

Why is there no section in this article about the history of the belief in Armageddon? Why nothing about the fact that for the last 2000 years, every generation has been certain that Armageddon is just around the corner, ready to decimate humankind? This article should be tagged as unreliable. Like many others in Wiki, it's written from a biased religious perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athana (talkcontribs) 17:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Athana, are you saying that the view is biased because it is religious, or are you saying that the article has been written from the perspective of one branch of Christianity, and therefore biased? --Andries8 (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Anti-Christ[edit]

The Anti-Christ is speaking in Aramaic in the book Celestine Prophecy is coming to TV in Mar. 2006.The beast will be released on TV by James&Sally Redfield by using synchronicity which is the 2nd law of thermodynamics of disorder,chaos,heat death Carl Jung said snychronicity is from the deamon Mercurius who in the west is the DEVIL w

I kept the information on Armageddon, the theological concept, and Megiddo, the ancient city and battle (and redirected Megiddo to here) because I felt they were intimately related, that to inform about Megiddo, you needed to describe Armageddon, and vice versa, so why not keep them together, instead of separate entries? Ortolan88Jun 02

Theoretically a good idea, however Megiddo (and Megiddo Junction, the bus terminus) are viable geographical locations which have no mythological associations e.g. if you wished to discuss the recent suicide bombing at Megiddo it is markedly unhelpful to do so in the context of Armageddon. Perhaps these two could be simply disentangled with a marker between them, i.e. in Armageddon mention its relationship to Megiddo and link it and, of course, vice versa. sjc


So that's why not. I agree.

I'll do it like this Armageddon will ref Battle of Megiddo and vice versa. Reserve Megiddo (currently redirected) for contemporary Meggido, about which I know nothing. (I don't think demons from hell will be showing up any time soon, but it is kind of neat, don't you think, first battle/last battle?) I started on this because the entry on Armageddon as I found it didn't even mention the Battle of Megiddo!Ortolan88

Sin vs. Filth[edit]

This is an article (from a mostly Christian perspective) about a future event. The Christian perspective is not that the Earth is filth or covered with filth. It is a world fallen from the perfection of it's creation and existing in rebellion to God, i.e. sin. The world as created was good (c.f. Genisis ch. 1 & 2 where God repeats "...and it was good." after each phase of creation. Treat as allegory if needed.) The Earth and the things in it are good, not filth. Yet it will all be destroyed because of sin. This is a Biblical perspective on a future Biblical event (or allegory). This is not Zoroastrian stuff and I am not the one who made the original edit that you corrected. And with the exception of this one word I agree with your edit. However if you still have problems with this, please respond here and lets reach a consensus.
Thanks! - DavidR 13:40, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You should have just changed that one word from my edit. I thought you were trying to reinsert the Zoroastrian baloney (which your edit had the effect of doing), since that was all I remember changing. That stuff was all I had a problem with; there's no problem with your latest edit. --168.215.149.103 06:45, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Zoroastrian baloney? It is because of POV "scholars" like you I've given up on Wikipedia. Either you're innocently ignorant of Zoroastrian doctrine and its influence upon eschatology, or you're protesting too much, unable to reconcile comparative religion with your own faith. It deserves to at least be listed in 'see also'. End times, coming of a world redeemer, battle between good and evil, final judgement, fulfillment of prophesy. No, certainly Zoroastrian "baloney" has not the slightest relavence to this article. The focus should remain on the Christian belief of course; but Zoroastrian references seem suspiciously lacking considering Bahá'í and Rastafarian ones are included. I'm sorry and ashamed if I've drawn the wrong conclusions and displayed bad faith in my opinions, thereby unduly judging user's motives. 68.32.211.183 05:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Armageddon Clock[edit]

Is such a section suitable for this article or a new article with this subject should be created?

Any way we can link this to the George W. Bush article? ;)

No.

That clock is a load of bull. As it says in the Bible, no one can predict the exact time. So that whole clock is a. educated guesses based on current conflict and possible outcomes, or b. made by people who are joking around. --66.218.22.85 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

~~ True. Nowhere in the Bible is there a reference to an "Armageddon Clock". It mentions signs of end times, but no clocks. Also, look at the parables that Christ gave about the end sneaking up on man like a thief in the night. I can't remember the exact quote, but when asked by his apostles what will the end be like, Christ explained people will still be giving into marriage til the very end - which implies that people will still be living their normal lives til the end. You have to be careful how you analyse things, because we have so many "heretics" sprung up out of people analysing the same text. There are prophecies by Fathers of the chruch who predicted things as well which do not contradict the Revelation, but rather enlightens the analysis giving into account current political state of affairs. ApplesnPeaches ~~

Mountains of Megiddo[edit]

"There are no mountains of Megiddo, only the Plains of Megiddo. This is a deliberate destruction of the vision of any literal reference to the place." Well perhaps Armageddon is not going to happen in our time. Maybe in the next million years when those plains turn into mountains. Also does it say anywhere that humans will still be around? It's possible Jesus Christ will come back down and defeat the Antichrist with no one here. Makes sense if it takes millions of years for mountains to form. Sparx10 (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2010

there are no mountains of megiddo, but there are mountains in makedo or macedonia. four armies are gathered there allready. this place is simply missplaced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Megiddo#Etymology.89.205.2.29 (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Judgement day?[edit]

This is a realted subject but may need its' own article. Aynone care to comment? George 23:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

~~ I think you're right. It should have it's own topic. Judgement Day and the War of Armageddon are not the same topics. Maybe a link to both topics could be added at the bottom of both pages? ApplesnPeaches ~~

"the" antichrist is not a person[edit]

How many times have the conspiracy theorists tried to make the ridiculous claim that a certain politician is the antichrist? This was common when Reagan was president based on the childish belief that each of his names -- Ronald Wilson Reagan -- contained 6 letters, hence the 666 (mistakenly referred to as the sign of the devil, which it is not -- it's the sign of man, taken in relation to the perfect 777, which is God).

The antichrist -- or "the Beast" which is the more appropriate term, is or will be, in my opinion, a nation. If we consider that possibility that the beast is on the planet today, it would likely be the nation of Islam, based on their unquenchable thirst for innocent blood.

Trying to connect George W. Bush with "the antichrist" is not even good enough to be considered sophistry.

Well, he technically is. the antichrist is supposed to be a leader who gains trust by everyone. That rules out George Bush.

What people believe can be amusing. Jesus plainly stated that there were many antichrists and that there would be many antichrists. Anyone who tries to take the place of Jesus as the means of salvation by God is an antichrist. Reading the Bible would make that plain. George 18:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we please try to keep this scholarly?
If we stick to the text, by which I mean Revelations, the designation har megiddo, meaning mountain of Megiddo, might simply be poetic usage, much as the word mount is used in English Bible translations to mean any place of raised earth.
Nuttyskin 01:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don;t know what you mean by your comments, could you elaborate? BTW I thought I was being scholarly by pointing out what the text of the Bible says about the antichrist. I think this is the source of the term. George 04:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You are being scholary? I understand from your "...it would likely be the nation of Islam..." that you consider yourself a representative of Christianity. very well. all this discussion is under the the heading of the antichrist. unquenchable thirst for innocent blood? just like cannot and do not present george bush as a model Christian, we do not forward some radical groups as ideal Muslim. secondly, plz tell me, what do you know about the Islamic concept of armageddon? and Antichrist? ANTIchrist? you seem quite a scholar. pick a copy of Koran and find me one verse about Jesus in Koran that you disagree to. and as to the definition you give of term anti-christ, tell me WHY do you expect Jesus to be the last Prophet? arnt u following the Jews on the same path considering what they think of Jesus?

~~ What I think George may be trying to convey is: Well according to the Christian Bible, Christ is not a prophet, He is the Son of God. As Christ said: Only through Me can someone get to the Father. Therefore, it seems that George is a Christian. So, as a Christian the term Anti-Christ refers to anyone that tries to take Christ's place in religion. Christ said you can only have one master, which also implies, you're either with God - the right path, or against God - on the wrong path. So, Anti-Christ is anyone or anything (ideology like communism) that tries to take over God and Jesus Christ's role in your religious life. I think that's where George is coming from. Am I right? A historical example of this theory, perhaps is: During the Turkish Ottoman Occupation, for the Christians of the occupied territories, the Turkish faith of Islam (muhamedans) was likened to the Anti-Christ because it was enforced as a superior faith. To those people, it was the end times. It was the end of their world. See the Byzantines and the fall of Constantinople. ApplesnPeaches ~~

Who are you talking to? BTW your ID shows up in the changes. George 12:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The number 666 (or 616) refer to Roman Emperor Nero. John of Patmos could not possibly have known about Reagan, Bush, or Islam Kauffner 13:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

~~ But the Book of Revelations, the Apocalypse, states that he is a person. And that his name is not printed in the Bible not to give him the honour of being mentioned. Also, I have read in the Bible that there will be many "antichrists" but one most terrible and he will appear to serve satans final battle against christianity. This is not heresay, it's in the Bible of which this whole theory is discussed. So, to say he is not a person is incorrect. Hence: "Wise is he that deciphers his name". Also interesting to note that no one will be able to buy or sell without his name marked on each person - the barcoding system uses the code 666 in it - although I have read that, when questioned, officials don't have an answer as to why this code is used - they reply it's an international code. Can someone ellaborate on this? Sounds like people will eventually be forced to take on their body a type of bar coding system or insert a chip that reads a code of some sort. Applesnpeaches~~

Difference?[edit]

What the difference between this and apocalypse?

Apocalypse is the English rendering of the Catholic name for the Bible book commonly referred to as Revelation. It means 'uncovering'. So to answer your question, no. The word apocalypse has had its' meaning corrupted over the years so the misunderstanding is understandable. :D George 18:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

~~ About George's comment: Sorry, that's terribly wrong. Apocalypse is a Greek word that means TO REVEAL. Hence the term used in English is Book of Revelations and in the Greek version of the bible it's still called: Apocalypse (Pronounced: Apokalipsi). As for the topic question, what do you mean? The difference between Armageddon and Apocalypse? Armageddon is the final battle and Apocalypse is the name of the chapter in the bible dealing with the Revelations or Predictions of future occurrences. ApplesnPeaches~~

AnP, what the hell are you talking about? "uncover" and "reveal" are synonyms.KrytenKoro 10:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

~~ You sound angered. What I was referring to was: (quote from George's comment: "Apocalypse is the English rendering of the Catholic name for the Bible book commonly referred to as Revelation..."). What I was saying is that apocalypse is not an English rendering of the Catholic title, but it's the Greek term for Revelation/Reveal. As far as I was aware, the English version of the bible also uses: Book of Revelation. Nowhere am I arguing that reveal and uncover are different. I put Greek in caps so that it was obvious that I was referring to origin of the term. Also, note that the Book of Revelations was written on the isle of Patmos in Greece. Hope this clarifies. ApplesnPeaches~~

List of doomsday scenarios[edit]

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Armageddon does not seem to be part of the Catholic Church catechism.[edit]

Alan Liefting

Jehovah Witnesses[edit]

The amount of material about the Jehovah Witnesses seems way out of proportion to me. There should be something about Dispensationalism, since this probably the interpretation that has had the greatest impact on in recent times, with the Hal Lindsey books and so forth. Also, I think the article needs popular culture section. Kauffner 13:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

~~ I agree. There seems to be quite a bit of information on the outlook on the Jehova's Witness group. Also, wouldn't it not be wise to add information given by fathers of the Church on the topic of Armageddon? Pre church split and Post church split? by ApplesnPeaches~~

I put in an important section and "weighed-in" on this page in a major way so I hope that both of you appreciate my work.---- MurderWatcher1 (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

wow, whoever wrote this entry wasn't a witness. They got it way wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.119.53 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC) ^^^^^^^ I was thinking the same thing. I'm not a Jehovah Witnesses however, my mother is and I respect their views and this is not 100% true on what they believe. If you what to know look in the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.233.218.130 (talk) 15:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Armageddon vs. Battle of Megiddo[edit]

There is no doubt that the "Armageddon" of Rev 16:16 is nothing but an approximate Greek transliteration of Har-Megiddo. There is no need to provide any citation proving that “Megiddo was the location of many decisive battles in ancient times”: they are already amply provided at the various Battle of Megiddo sub-entris. Consequently I am going to remove the relative “citation needed”.

Miguel de Servet 19:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Going literal will allow for a new scenario that complies with Ezekiel, Zechariah and Revelations; the armies assemble at Armageddon, they ascend to Jerusalem and take it only to die on the mountains of Israel.Radical man 7 05:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Radical man 7. I left a comment on your discussion page. Whichever message you receive first: this one or the other, a response when you get a chance would be appreciated, thank you.---- MurderWatcher1 (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Myth[edit]

This article seems to take a light leaning towards stating that "Catholic Belief" will eventually happen. For this reason, I have replaced the opening with "Catholic Mythology", which accuratly reflects it. I am sure you won't object, as the term "Greek Mythology" and "Hindu Mythology" are used elsewhere on Wikipedia. 129.3.173.156 (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Please see our neutrality policy - it's not neutral to call Catholic beliefs mythology, while it's more neutral to call them beliefs. Nobody will ever disagree that they're beliefs, but people will disagree if you call them mythology. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 16:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
And would people get their shorts in a twist if I called a dead Greek belief "Mythology"? Every belief system is based on the same thing, myths spawned by people claiming they were influenced by some sort of god. It is just as much a myth as, say, the Norse belief in a final battle, or, say, the Buddhist belief that Buddah actually fasted for 40 days. 129.3.173.156 (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, see our neutrality policy. It isn't neutral. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 16:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, "belief" does not imply that it's correct, only that people believe it. People do believe in Catholicism, therefore "belief" is correct. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 16:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
What I am also going for, which you did not adress, was the fact that "beliefs" are universally myths elsewhere on the site. See Zeus, which adresses him as the God of Greek Mythology. Shall we replace every instance of "myth" with "belief" to enforce your sporadic "NPOV" policy? 129.3.173.156 (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to change that, but do not continue replacing "belief" with "mythology" - it is not neutral. reliable sources typically call Greek religious beliefs mythology, though, and reliable sources typically don't call Catholic beliefs mythology. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 16:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Really? And what is the difference between the Catholic "Myths" and the Greek "Myths"? The simple difference is that the Catholic ones are actually believed by people. All religious beliefs are just as mythological as the next one, hence, Armageddon is a myth. 129.3.173.156 (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Add on to above, reading over your neutrality policy, I couldn't even find the word "Myth", so I suggest you read it a bit more closely. 129.3.173.156 (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The neutrality policy doesn't specifically refer to this article. Instead, it refers to all articles. Regardless of what you think, people do actually believe Catholic beliefs, thus it is legitimate to refer to them as such. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 16:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Are you sure you don't suffer from your own point of view, laboring under the delusion that just because you are an established user, you are right and I am wrong? Every religion in history has had the same thing in common, a series of myths to tell to the children. Catholocism, Hinduism, Buddism, Shintoism, everyting is the same in their complete reliance on myths to get their points across. 129.3.173.156 (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has a point of view. It is not inaccurate to call Catholic beliefs beliefs. The word "belief" refers to something believed by someone. Since people believe in Catholic beliefs, that term is legitimate. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 16:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I find it fascinating how you express a lurid conclusion that just because people believe it today means it deserves any more credence than it had a thousand years ago. 129.3.173.156 (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Catholicism had a lot of credence a thousand years ago. Since people believe in Catholicism, it's legitimate to call Catholic beliefs "beliefs". Your opinion doesn't really matter in this case, since it's your opinion against official Wikipedia policy. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 16:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh really? Lets see, around the year 1000 what were Catholics doing? If you go to 1076, they were off on the crusades, and were starting their mass prosecution of people who did not bow to their myths. On the side, have you ever considered that it is YOUR beliefs that are against Wikipedia policy by lending a non-neutral term (Belief expresses a positiv involvement or aceptance of something, while Myth epxresses that it is word used to describe a non-existant event, hence, myth fits the "NPOV" policy a lot more closely). 129.3.173.156 (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Belief expresses only the provable fact that Catholics believe in Catholicism, which I would frankly consider to be extremely obvious. As such, it is a legitimate term. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 16:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
So should I add to Catholocism that they expressed the belief that their religion is the sole and single belief that will be absolutly correct in every single way, and that the words expressed in the book are always right just because they believe it will happen? No? Good, because the bible is their collection of myths. 129.3.173.156 (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
*Watches the tumbleweeds roll around, waits for a response* 129.3.173.156 (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

{{editprotected}} An IP user left this page saying "In Christian mythology". As that violated NPOV, I request it to be changed to the original, "In Christian belief", since that is neutral. After all, nobody disagrees that Christians believe that. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 17:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah boy, I love the irony here. You just got sick of the argument, so you move to lock the page, and try to get the Parthian shot into the argument. Timeless and classic dispute resolution. What you have failed to adress and constantly skipped over is that every religion has relied upon myths, and Wikipedia is not shy about stating (as in Zeus and Mayan mythology) that there are MYTHS, and that just as much so, the Bible is composed of myths, every religion has myths, and just because people believe in the myths does not mean they deserve the credence of "beliefs". What I am trying to argue for is consistancy, not a point of view. 129.3.173.156 (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Nope, nope, the page was locked because of a content dispute and this seems to be related. Talk it out. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 05:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
"Armageddon" is a commonly used word, not specific to Christians. The article has sections about Islam, Bahá'í, and Rastafari so the word isn't Christian jargon. "Myths" are the beliefs of a dead religion, so I don't think it is appropriate here. I say just drop the introductory clause. Kauffner (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Something like the "In Christian tradition" in Star of Bethlehem might be better than that, since the article sounds a bit too pro-Christian without some sort of context. This isn't Conservapedia, so it makes sense to have a qualifier of some type. "Mythology" typically does refer to dead religions, though, so saying "in Christian mythology" is inappropriate (and, based on at least my interpretation, grossly violates NPOV). This page implies that "mythology" should, in general, not be used with the common meaning, and that the sentence should be worded so as to avoid implying that something is untrue. Considering the wording of the lead sentence and the IP's comments above, it's rather obvious both that the common meaning was intended and that the sentence implies untruth (and is intended to do so). Since "beliefs" seems far more neutral (nobody can argue that people don't believe it), that would seem to work. The fact that it is also used in Islam, Rastafari and Bahá'í might merit dropping the qualifier, though. Would it be possible to phrase it so as not to imply either truth or falsehood without such a qualifier? Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Let me be as frank as possible. If "mythology" violates NPOV for existing beliefs, then why does Wikipedia has an entire article on Islamic mythology? While there is a comment noted about the Qur'an being a myth, it only discusses certain aspects, such as Genies and Marids. To take another jab, according to the mythology template, "In its broadest academic sense, the word "myth" simply means a traditional story, whether true or false. Unless otherwise noted, the words "mythology" and "myth" are here used for sacred and traditional narratives, with no implication that any belief so embodied is itself either true or false." By this knowledge, stating that the Armageddon is a myth takes no POV. 129.3.173.156 (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Note:Here is a link to the mythology box.
If everything is a myth, then the word is meaningless. Surely that's not what you really believe. Kauffner (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The myth box is not on this article. Based on your (IP, not Kauffner) comments above, it doesn't seem that you actually want it, either. The myth box would work, but calling everything a myth does make the word myth almost meaningless. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 23:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Book list[edit]

Most of the books in the book section would be more appropriate at Christian eschatology--Editor2020 (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section wholesale. We already have refs, there is no need to provide advertisement for published works on this site. It looked like a linkfarm. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Christian Viewpoint[edit]

I have neither the skill nor the knowledge to help improve the page, but on reading it, i noticed that the Christian section is dominated almost entirely by the Dispensational viewpoint. I'm no theologian, but my understanding is that many Christian traditions do not uphold this viewpoint. Also, the section is dominated by quotes from one book. Like I said, I'm not in a position to improve the article, but I noticed the issue wasn't mentioned on the talk page, so i felt it may be useful to bring it up. 60.240.104.183 (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be clear from the context that only the Dispenstionalists try to interpret Revelations is such a literalistic fashion. But it's true that undue weight is given to one person's particular wild (and now rather dated) speculations. 84.92.241.186 (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I have added the unbalanced-tag to the article. Considering that the section in question is also based on only one source, I consider it highly problematic. Note also that (in my limited understanding) this skips over the catholic view points that are likely more important both for historical reasons and based on the number of followers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.241.226 (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner's recent edits.[edit]

I don't wish to get in an edit war, so I'll throw it open to discussion. Anyone else have an opinion or any input on this?

Har Meggido street sign or Bosch's painting? As a belief of some Abrahamic religions, or not?--Editor2020 (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I never noticed road sign pictures on other Wikipedia pages. Even travel articles don't have road sign pictures. Only articles about road signs have road sign pictures. As the saying goes, seen one, seen them all.
The first religion people associated with Abraham in Judaism, which has no doctrine related to Armageddon. So I think "Abrahamic" just confuses readers for no good reason. Kauffner (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No one else seems to care, so your edits stay.--Editor2020 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

zach lewis[edit]

zach lewis is a musician that lives in the city of sioux falls in south dakota. he is currently 17 years old and is a junior in high school, but he is actually supposed to be a senior. his music is an odd colaboration of soft indie melodies and sometimes roaring grunge sounding guitars. such sounds can be found in some "silver sun pickups" albums or some "smashing pumkins" albums. also there is a mixture of folk rock and shoegazer and even punk overtones, made famous by "nirvana". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.81.2 (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

eoto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.55.64 (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"Belief" vs "Myth"[edit]

I hope this might help people understand the rules on "belief" vs "myth" in these sensitive articles discusing religion: The article for mythology and Wikipedia rules in general characterize the use of the words "mythology" and "myth" as both accurate and NPOV in the context of discussing something like Armageddon. For example, from the mythology page:

In a scholarly context, the word "myth" may mean "sacred story", "traditional story", or "story about gods". Therefore, scholars may speak of "religious mythology" without meaning to insult religion. For instance, a scholar may call Abrahamic scriptures "myths" without meaning to insult Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

Clearly, "Armageddon" falls under the context of these definitions, and therefore the terms "myth" and "mythology" are being used in a scholarly way. Regarding the true Wikipedia stance on the word "myth" in this context:

When using "myth" in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use the utmost care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology or mythology. Furthermore, be consistent; referring to "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths" in a similar context may give the impression that the word myth is being used informally.

Therefore, if one is describing religious mythology in this article, the term "mythology" is being used in a formal way, aligned with the scholarly definition of the word according to Wikipedia. To hit this home, the basic position seems to be that if someone is using the terms "mythology" or "myth" to disparage a religion, it is not scholarly usage. But if someone is using the terms merely to describe something as a "sacred/traditional story [about gods]", he or she is simply using the term accurately and scholarly. Mjatucla (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues[edit]

I don't particularly see how devoting a large section to the views of one particular dispensationalist is in any way in accord with WP:ENC, NPOV, or WEIGHT. I would like to see nearly all of that material moved somewhere more approriate. Thanks, -Stevertigo 06:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

User Aeldanila wishes to state that her own edit was based only upon the desire to make the entry reconcilable to scripture, noticing especially the "order of events" problems in other edits, and not to promulgate any denominationality, although I notice only part of the non-prejudiced edit survived 2 days time frame. Remember, your edits are an attempt to maintain an encyclopedia and not an opinion or speculation clearinghouse. That should be relegated to the "TALK" pages, as I understand it. Responses??? Aeldanila (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Denominationally-based viewpoints are quite expressable enough under separate headings. I find them quite interesting but thought that the main article should constitute a "bare-bones" scriptural non-version based account of basic facts, ONE OF WHICH IS: that the battle where the Antichrist-beast (as opposed to the 7-headed beast) and false prophet are thrown alive into Gehenna at the hands of Jesus as the Faithful and True One and the heavenly armies is a separate battle, only slightly paralleling Armageddon. The battle at which the Devil happens to be thrown to the same Gehenna (which IS ARMAGEDDON) occurs 1000 years later. The Bible passage involved is very short; reading Revelation Chapters 19 & 20 is all it takes to lay any doubts to rest. Those two chapters describe and differentiate the TWO battles unequivocally. Variations from literal scripture order indicate DENOMINATIONALITY. For the sake of the encyclopedia, RELEGATE denominationality to a specific heading explaining differing viewpoint, sources, etc. While includable as elucidation of varying viewpoints, beware, for example, the fate of Scientologists who tried apparently to "springboard" and proselytise and ended up banished from editing as a movement. No threat, but honest statement about the differences in trying to maintain an encyclopedia and proselytization. Aeldanila (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The article should be based on mainstream academic sources. Scripture should be referred to only when it is contextualized by a secondary source. Of course, denominational interpretations need to be labelled as such. Kauffner (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Kauffner, you're right, and I spoke imprecisely. I meant that within the confines of Christian eschatological source material about Armageddon that the Bible would constitute the reference literature, and obviously not for other religious traditions. I enjoyed your talk page. Be Well, Aeldanila (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

I've suggested merging Armageddon theology into this article, since theology is already treated here more extensively. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Support merge. The term "armageddon theology" is certainly in current use, but there's very little that can be said about it that's not already contained in the dispensational interpretation of Armageddon, except perhaps the quote about Reagan. StAnselm (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
No objections... I'll do it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Arabic? Persian?[edit]

Armageddon is a biblical word, so what's the point in adding non-biblical languages? What concerns islam, the article states, some paragraphs further, that this war is given the name "Al-Malhama Al-Kubra". So this can be deleted: Arabic هرمجدون, Persian آرماگدن Mendelo (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Not such a relief in Islam[edit]

There is not such a relief Armageddon in Islam. "According to the Islamic faith, this valley Majdoo by the mount will be the battlefield of the final battle .." This is a wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.9.51.174 (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Edited by a muslim: that is not true. in our religious beliefs we believe that the world ends but when god wants and of course no one will no when will it happen. In addition, all of us believe that before ending world our rescuer, IMAM MAHDI will come and will get all of good people to the best points and to their rights.(see more at آخرالزمان or امام مهدی) be careful about what you say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.158.100.75 (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Kings From The East[edit]

I made the following edit to the article and one editor thought it is not constructive and called it vandalism. These are the exact words of J.Dwight Pentecost who is a world famous biblical scholar. So how come someone thinks what he wrote in his book 'Things to Come' as vandalism? Following are his exact words from Page 356 of 'Things to Come':

. . . a report that causes alarm is brought to the Beast"[1]. It may be the report of the approach of the Kings of the East (Rev. 16:12), who have assembled because of the destruction of the northern confederacy to challenge the authority of the beast.

Please comment as I think this edit is justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.144.204 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed tag[edit]

This article carries a neutrality disputed tag, placed in September, 2011. Would the tagger justify its placement please? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Any problem with removing the tag? --carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It was added by an IP user[1] who seems not to have raised any specific POV objection that warrants the tag. BlackCab (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I dropped it.--carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem.[edit]

Lot of people make confusion when they reffer to Jerusalem, considering is about the goegraphical Jerusalem. In every New and Old Testament, Jerusalem represents the holly people chosen by God Almighty, whose Emperor/Leader, is Jesus Christ. There are in fact all people according their life with God Almighty's commandments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.29.29 (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


Influence[edit]

The link cited in the reference to Ronald Reagan's belief in "Armageddon Theology" is dead. Since this whole para is in any event a highly tendentious report of what the referenced author thought Reagan believed, it should be deleted. Hakko Ichiu (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Although this award winning undergraduate essay definitely cannot be used as a source, it gives an overview and sources that we can use. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hinduism and Armageddon[edit]

Hindus believe Sri Kalki will be an avatar of Krishna and will then undertake the mission to complete the end of Kaliyuga (the devil) and rid the world of all wicked kings and false prophets, evil people and to usher in the age of Armageddon. ( Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki_Purana) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.29.12.189 (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)