Talk:Book of Revelation

Les Tres Riches Heures

Hallo, I do not want to war over such a trifle, but the picture does not show "John of Patmos" but merely Saint John, by which the painter understood John the Evangelist, on Patmos. This confirmed by the picture description at Commons: "Les Très Riches Heures du duc de Berry, Saint John on Patmos the Musée Condé, Chantilly." Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, we have John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, and John of Patmos. Most medieval and Renaissance Christian artists identified these three individuals as the same person (and most traditional or conservative Christians today probably still do). However, we have 3 different articles on wikipedia. While the artist may have thought that the Evangelist was the one on Patmos described in Revelation, I feel that John of Patmos is the most appropriate wikilink because the painting specifically references Patmos and imagery from the book of Revelation. However, a compromise would be to include a wikilink to both, saying "Visions of John the Evangelist or John of Patmos.."--Andrew c 12:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

tree of life vs. wood

I seriously doubt that anyones native language is Koine Greek. That said Strong gives "tree" as a definition of ξυλον, and all the bible version at BLB and other translate the phrase as "tree of life" which is an accepted English phrase. It is original research to claim that the majority of bible versions are wrong without citing a reliable source to back up the claim, and furthermore, it would just be a minority POV, not the one and only correct translation of the word. Please stop reverting the longstanding version that quotes the KJV.--Andrew c 22:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Details

Wouldn't it be better to have more than a few lines on the content of the book, before diving into the subtleties of its authorship and interpretation? I don't have that much experience with wikipedia, but it seems to me this article is far too specialized for an encyclopedic entry.

--152.2.71.27 01:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This needs to be addressed. --69.134.218.218 01:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not quite clear on the the problem. I think the couple paragraphs before the table of contents do a good job introducing the book. Authorship is the first section in the TOC but the intro is very well written as far as I can tell. If you believe differently what would you like to know? What material is missing? Rtrev 02:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem, I think, is that the article spends the vast majority of its time presenting different interpretations of the contents of the book, as opposed to presenting the actual contents of the book. Compare it to the article on the book of Acts, where the first half of the article is essentially a Cliff Notes version of the book. The Revelation article could really benefit from a similar treatment. It seems to me that if someone is looking up Revelation on WP, they will probably care less about the interpretations and more about the Antichrist, Battle of Armageddon, the Dragon, the Mark of the Beast, etc. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed link

I have been instructed to post my website: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/rjohn.html for review. Please, if any reader think it is worth to be posted, do so. Bernard Muller

Sorry if this sounds harsh. But who are you? Why should we link to your page? You don't cite sources. Your site is self-published. Please review /Links normally to be avoided, and I believe this site fails 2 and 3. It's nothing personal, but wikipedia is not a directory of web links, and we can't start linking to anyone who puts up a commentary on this book.--Andrew c 03:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Andrew c. I like the page but it simply is not within the guidelines (see link above). Rtrev 03:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not sound harsh. I cite all my sources, which are all primary, that is from authors from the antiquity. Sorry, I do not used tertiary sources (such as the opinions and interpretations of contemporary writers) and I will not apologize for that. Who am I? If you look at the parent site posted on top of the page, "Front page: Daniel & Revelation" http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/danrv.html , you will notice I provide my full name and a link to a short bio "about the author". Self-published? I can have somebody posting the link for me: as you can see from the parent site, I have some happy readers. The parent website I just mentioned shows ranked in 4th position on Google and 8th on Yahoo! for "Daniel and Revelation". Maybe I should propose the parent webpage, which is very short and proceed very quickly towards either Daniel or Revelation. Either that, or stating my name and posting the link to my bio on the 'Revelation' page. What do you think? (NEWS: ALL MY PAGES HAVE A LINK TO MY BIO AND EMAIL). BTW, thanks Andrew for saying you like my page. I want to tell you the links I proposed are well-researched, very thorough, contains no hate and would be an asset to Wikipedia. Try that short one: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html Note: that site has been posted as a link, for a long time (please don't remove it!) on Wikipedia pages about 'historical Jesus', 'historicity of Jesus' and 'Jesus myth'. Under 'historical Jesus', the site is in 13th position on Google and 6th on Yahoo! Maybe I am not a registered scholar, but I thought Wikipedia was not all about propagating the work of professionals. I consider myself more of a critical & investigative amateur historian, with burning (but not blinding) passion about the history of very early Christianity. And my approach (and background) should be commended in a field almost fully "owned" by scholars (most of them on a payroll) with very different opinions & theories (which would prove that scholarly works, in this specific field, may be the problem, not the solution). I must admit I am very annoyed when my pages are rejected, mainly because some existing links are of bad quality, very biased or totally irrelevant (Check the last link on the 'Ignatius of Antioch' page --'Ignatius of Nerdtreehouse')(NEWS: I DELETED THE LINK). (BTW, I would love to attract your attention on these bad links, after reviewing them, of course). I did participate about one year ago into editing the 'Jesus' page. But that was very discouraging, with my work being often chopped down by evangelical Christians, even after some very long discussions. Please also note my webpages are ad-free. Bernard Muller

Gah, I just lost all that I had typed up. Basically, I believe wikipedia should only be summarizing existing scholarship, not publishing original ideas. This is including in what cites we link to. You admit that you are only an amature who has a free website where you post your personal interpretations. This isn't the sort of thing that would pass WP:RS and WP:NOR scrutiny. Yes, this is totally biased towards "registered scholars" and I feel thats a good thing. We are not a soap box for anyone with a free webpage to publish their thoughts. Wikipedia is about anyone having the ability to edit, not the ability to publish original research. There is a BIG difference between the two. As for hit counts, I believe your reasoning is circular. The only reason your site is ranked high is because wikipedia links to the historical Jesus page. Anyway, these are just my thoughts. I would suggest posting a WP:RfC if you want more editors imput. -Andrew c 02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Andrew. I feel sorry that Wikipedia would sponsor the old guard of well-financed scholars. I am not even trying to change anything on the main text of these "religious" pages, certainly not attempting to publish my thoughts in front, just to propose, through a link, some well-evidenced thesis offering in the process some refreshingly clear-cut solutions. And I got feedback as such:

"Your web page is very informative! The reading of Revelation without the Christian additions is suddenly very clear. My dad and I are very excited by your research"

"Daniel and Revelation: Really enjoyed reading your material. ... Thank you again, for the clear scholarly presentation. So many times I truthfully have no idea what the authors are attempting to say. My humbly opinion being "they" use words that they themselves understand to be quoted as if.... From the tower or perhaps from God or at least a demigod.... The goal of educating not only clergy but all who may seek wisdom. ... You are accomplishing on your Internet pages."

"I think ALSO that you have the makings of a scholarly site"

"Your intellectual honesty is striking. A quality that is rare nowadays. Most of the time writers have a conclusion in mind and argue their way to lead the reader to see things the way they do."

"Just wanted to thank you for your work. I've been trying to make sense of Revelation for years and never did know where to start. You have single handedly cleared it up for me. Fascinating research."

Amateurs are the ones who do not try to make a living through their research, and therefore, for the honest ones, not biased and very open to all of the primary evidence, wherever it leads. Please note that my two main entry pages http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html and http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/danrv.html were very popular on Google and Yahoo! before one of them (the first one) was posted as a link on three Wikipedia pages. So there is no circular reasoning here. Now, almost 80% of the "clicks" for my page on 'Revelation' (my most popular page these days) come from Yahoo! If you search there for just 'Revelation', my page shows in 6th position (and I am not even posted on Wikipedia!). So I think the whole thing is very unfair. Mullerb 04:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I made the following addition in front of my page, just to show the ideas I exposed in it are not without scholarly backing:

From JewishEncyclopedia.com - REVELATION (BOOK OF), Article by Crawford Howell Toy (Christian scholar, D.D., LL.D.) and Kaufmann Kohler (Ph.D.):

"The last book in the New Testament canon, yet in fact one of the oldest; probably the only Judæo-Christian work which has survived the Paulinian transformation of the Church. The introductory verse betrays the complicated character of the whole work. It presents the book as a "Revelation which God gave . . . to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass," and at the same time as a revelation of Jesus Christ to "his servant John." According to recent investigations, the latter part was interpolated by the compiler, who worked the two sections of the book—the main apocalypse (ch. iv.-xxi. 6) and the letters to the "seven churches" (i.-iii. and close of xxii.)—into one so as to make the whole appear as emanating from John, the seer of the isle of Patmos in Asia Minor (see i. 9, xxii. 8), known otherwise as John the Presbyter. The anti-Paulinian character of the letters to the seven churches and the anti-Roman character of the apocalyptic section have been a source of great embarrassment, especially to Protestant theologians, ever since the days of Luther; but the apocalypse has become especially important to Jewish students since it has been discovered by Vischer (see bibliography) that the main apocalypse actually belongs to Jewish apocalyptic literature."

In general agreement with the above, next, I will provide a short synopsis, with some remarks (mostly about authorship), before proceeding to the ancient text, where, with inserted comments, points previously postulated will make a lot of sense (I hope you'll agree, as some of my previous readers: see here)." (Mullerb 22:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

This is probably way to late of a post but I have to say that this guy Mullerb should be in marketing. Thats not meant to be derogatory in any way but merely an observation. My understanding of the purpose of an encyclipedia is an apparatus to give as consise and factual overview of whatever topic is in view; there is a whole book i could wright about the book of revelation siteing many authors along the way, and i would love that oppertunity. However this is not the place or correct forum for doing so. 209.143.18.126 05:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)keith

Proposed link (continued)

I do not know how Yahoo! works, but right after I indicated here that two of my sites were showing high on the Yahoo!'s lists (when searching for 'Revelation' and 'Historical Jesus'), my webpages suddenly disappeared. Are we back to books burning? Mullerb 01:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for links

Can anyone tell me what are the official Wikipedia criteria for linked webpages (I know the ones for articles). Very confused, more so after I reviewed the links for the Revelation article. Some of the most contentious:

Under: Online translations of the Book of Revelation:

Martin Luther: Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil - March 1545 cf.Martin Luther the "Super-Pope" and de facto Infallibility by Dave Armstrong [2] ;Luther's Works CD-ROM Edition; Pope Gregory I ( c.540-604 ). NOT ABOUT REVELATION, NO ONLINE TRANSLATION

Contemporary Marian visionary explicates in "A Time of Fire~A Way of Fire" that the Book of Revelation contains, in symbolic language encoded in the text, some of Jesus' most important teachings on personal and global transformation which were revealed only to his closest disciples. NOT EVEN A LINK

Many links are shown under the wrong headings (Online translations ...) when they are mostly commentaries only. Many sites represent original opinions by one person, most of the time not published (that is on paper, in a book). Some sites emanate ultra-religious sectarian viewpoints (one of them claiming the days of the Vatican are numbered). One link directs you towards the home page, and not towards the specific sub-page dealing (mostly) with Revelation.

Maybe I am upset that my webpage has been rejected, but I think Wikipedia is not helping itself in accepting links to dubious pages (most of them very well presented, I must admit). Soon this winter, I am going to work on this, but I am afraid, estimated at first look, and for obvious reasons which I will explained, about half or more of those links will be removed. But first, I want to know where to find the criteria of acceptability for specifically links. And I do not want to hear this one: this is not a link farm! Which means, through my past experience with Wikipedia: we have already too many links (mind you, the webpages already linked can be irrelevant, sectarian, with hate and stretched personal opinions/interpretations), so this proposed link, even if it is good, cannot be admitted.

Mullerb 03:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think your criticisms of the existing links are great. Please, be bold and remove and reorganize the links as you wish. Speaking for myself, it's easy to monitor recent changes to a page if it is on my watchlist. However, it's hard to be held accountable for content that existed prior to me adding the page to my watch list. If you know of ways to improve the link section, then please, go right ahead!--Andrew c 23:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• You are right about some of the links. The criteria for external links can be found at WP:EL. From there you should be able to link to all the information you would need for editing external links here and elsewhere. Good luck. Rtrev 13:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mormon view

I know that Mormons are very enthusiastic about their creed and like to proselytise whenever possible, but rather doubt that this is the best forum.. Hence I removed the line;

The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi foresaw that John would see "many things which thou hast seen...which...thou shalt not write; for the Lord God hath ordained the apostle of the Lamb of God that he should write them." (1 Nephi 14:27)

The main reason for removal is that the point of this part of the article is to tell us what various faiths think about the BOR, not to explain why they think it. No other paragraph quotes supporting evidence from the texts of its faith so there is no reason for a special treatment for the LDS.

Slightly more cynically, I might point out that since the Book of Mormon was written in 1830, it is hardly astonishing that it "predicts" the existence of the BOR :-) --Oscar Bravo 14:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is just some of LDS' justification for why the Book or Mormon wasn't part of the Bible in the first place. Just another true believer sharing his convictions with the world, I reckon. Eaglizard 06:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Christianity/Eschatology

Free: See b:Christianity/Eschatology and v:Christianity for some ongoing Wikipedia:Original research in a different context. • Q^#o • 20:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Help required in formatting

The article Book of Revelation has some formatting issues... main paragrahs are being shown in the footnote area. If anyone is good at formatting then pls. have a look at it. Thank you --IndianCow ^Talk 20:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Given the length of the preceding explanation, I've expanded the key sentence "However, he later changed his mind." to "However, he later changed his mind, believing the book to be devinely inspired."

I've also added 3 requests for citations Deipnosopher 20:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's View

I feel that these sections:

8.4 Seventh Day Adventist view 8.5 The spiritual or idealist view 8.6 The Eastern Orthodox view 8.7 The Jehovah's Witness view 8.8 The Anglican view 8.9 The Latter-day Saint view 8.10 The Paschal Liturgical view 8.11 The Esoteric view 8.12 The New Church view

may be over the top. Can any church add "their view"? How about an unaffiliated church? We might have "1st Presbyterian Church of Detroit's View"?

I think we should have the major interpretations, and maybe link to others, or create a seperate page "Diverse Interpretations of Revelation" perhaps.

Does anyone agree?

Deipnosopher 21:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree! Mh84 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree also. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a forum. Therefore, keep the major interpretations and nix the diverse interpretations altogether. Silvie rob 03:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely and have even broader concerns with this fuddled and rather unscholarly article which tells us far too much about dogmatic christian interpretations of Revelation and far too little about the work itself and the historical situation it addresses. Scholarly debate about this fascinating and disturbing book takes historical critical and literary critical approaches (both represented in rather distorted fashion here) for granted. See, for example, the Review of Biblical Literature (by SBL - arguably the most respected biblical research publisher in the world) book review section on Revelation to get a feel for critical research areas which are completely unrelated to conservative and fundamentalist myopia about "the end times" and which current historical events are "predicted" in Revelation (http://www.bookreviews.org/search_now.asp).

In reality there are only two fundamental interpretative approaches to Revelation, or any other religious work for that matter: a confessional, conservative one which starts out with the assumption that the work is the "inspired" and infallible word of God and must "be true" or "come true" regardless of the evidence, and a more independent, scientific (ie historical and literary) approach which attempts the difficult task of recovering the historical context and meaning of the work to it's original readers, perhaps thereby uncovering its relevance to later times and situations. It is relevant to observe that this second approach is adopted by many committed christian scholars and is not, by any means, the exclusive domain of "religious sceptics". Unfortunately the first approach to Revelation usually results in either nostradamic type extrapolations designed to construct a timetable of last day events or the equally indefensible position that the thousand year reign of the saints was fulfilled in the historical ascendancy of the church. Neither of these conservative variations takes the book's address to seven historical christian communities in first century Asia Minor literally (please note: fundamentalists do NOT consistently understand the bible literally - rather they adopt a "harmonising" approach which glosses over or explains away inconsistencies and contradictions in often tortuous fashion). Similarly neither offers any reasonable explanation for the fact that Revelation states at least eight times that "the time is near", "I [Jesus] am coming soon" and that the events described in the book "must soon take place" - which obviously they didn't. To consign the historical critical method - which represents the most independent, honest and scholarly approach to the book - to one interpretive alternative among many, as this article does, is to miss this fundamental distinction.

Stepping back a little I feel that the rift between academic biblical scholarship and conservative christian doctrinal interpretation represents a major problem for Wikipedia, if this and other biblical articles are anything to go by. I do not argue that the broad history of christian interpretation is irrelevant, but feel that much of the detail is better consigned to articles on specific denominations and the history of christianity. Certainly this particular article represents only a moderately conservative viewpoint but my major issue with it is that tells us very little about the work itself and that it treats the historical critical approach with barely disguised contempt ('Historical-criticism does not sit well within this plurality', 'the literary critical method [revels] in uncertainty'). On a more positive note I feel that WikiProject Bible represents a step in the right direction and wish them all the best as they wrestle with this rather difficult issue.

--210.11.37.250 04:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Section moved to talk

===Seventh Day Adventist view=== {{cleanup-section|February 2007}} {{Unreferenced|date=February 2007}} The [[Seventh Day Adventist]] have a historicist view. They don't try to interpret the Book of Revelation, but feel that it interprets itself. They believe that the 7 churches that are being written to are the spiritual history of the world, the seven seals as the political history of the world, and the seven plagues as the history of the military power, all from Jesus' time to the time of Jesus' second coming. They also believe the 12th chapter is referring to the history of Jesus being born to the time of 1260 years from 538 to 1798 when the Catholic Church persecuted people for reading and following the Bible. They see the 13th chapter representing the Catholic Church being the beast that comes out of the water or also from a place with a large amount of people, just as the Catholic Church was born out of the ruins of the Roman Empire. The second beast that is born is seen as representing the United States because it comes out of the desert or a place with little or no people. They believe that the seal of God and the mark of the beast has a lot to do with keeping the seventh day sabbath. The people that receive the mark of the beast push for laws that make people work on Saturday and keeping Sunday instead of Saturday, in accordance with their reading of the fourth commandment. People receive the seal of God when they deny the seventh day sabbath. They also believe in the millennium of the 1000 years of revelation 20. For the earth has had biblically 6000 years and they believe the earth will have its 7th millennium sabbath. Just as the Bible says to keep the seventh day sabbath. After this 1000 year sabbath, the saved people who were in heaven come back to earth to make the "New Jerusalem" on the mount of olives. They say that Jesus left from the mount of olives, and that he promised that the way he comes back is the way he left to heaven.

I moved this section here for discussion, citation, and cleanup. As it is it does not meet the standards for WP articles. --Rtrev 06:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As a suggestion - instead of giving the interpretation of various groups such as Seventh Day Adventist (or Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses) there could be a reference and brief discussion of William Miller and the Millerites interpretation of Revelation and Book of Daniel. This was a historist view where specific time and place predictions could be derived from these text (primarily). The movement was very influential in United States in the early 19th Century and along with similar movements in Europe lead to a specific time for the second coming of Christ. When the date passed without the expected result - there was the Great Disappointment. The reason I would make reference here is it applies some of the points discussed above within a specific historical context and provides further background for the various post Disappointment movements including Adventist, Johovah's Witnesses, and Mormons. It also leads to further perspective of the current evangelical futuristic interpretations currently popular today. Then links could be provided to other articles if they exist that give the specific interpretations of these groups today. --Timkraf 21:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

===The Jehovah's Witness view=== {{Unreferenced|date=January 2007}} Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Book of Revelation to be the inspired word of God. As a vision of the apostle John, Revelation employs symbolism and has great meaning for modern times, as well as the future. Witnesses believe some events in this book have already been fulfilled and others are still to be fulfilled. Revelation is viewed as providing an all-embracing vision of what God purposes for the mankind, and brings the grand theme of the Bible to a climax. The last book of the Bible closes out the record begun in the first. As Gen 1:1 described God's creation of the material heavens and earth, so Rev 21:1-4 describes a new heaven and a new earth and the blessings that will be brought to mankind, as prophesied also at Isaiah 65:17,18; 66:22; and 2 Pet 3:13. To Jehovah's Witnesses, the Book of Revelation is not a book of fear, but of wonderful future events.

Here is another unreferenced section.-Andrew c 00:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations Needed

I've looked all over the internet and I can't find anything on the interpretation sections without quotes. Some one needs to add the citations or remove the content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.147.230 (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

The Revelations

From the article:

Many people call The Book of Revelation "the revelations" or "revelations", which are incorrect; there was only one known revelation recorded in the author's manuscript.

I don't understand the point being made here. The word "revelation" is cognate with "to reveal". It seems entirely reasonable to collectively refer to each event revealed as the revelations. 151.197.28.239 05:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Many, when referring to the canonical book "the Book of Revelation" or "Revelation," call the book "Revelations," which incorrect. The name of the book is Revelation or The Book of Revelation or The Apocalypse or The Apocalypse of John. It would be similar to refer to the Gospel of John as Johns. While one may claim that it is appropriate regard the signs as constituting the revelations, the book is Revelation, not Revelations. I'm not aware of any book in the NT called Revelations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.150.131 (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Futurist

I have made several changes to the futurist description. My reasons are as follows: 1) saying "Israeli Jews as collaborators with the Antichrist" misrepresents the views of futurists - most view Isreal as "unwittingly" agreeing to a treaty - collaborators implies they know he is the Antichrist and are intentionally working with him. This inaccurately makes futurists look anti-semitic; 2) the statement that Pat Robertson was sharply criticized for saying that "the Antichrist is probably a Jew alive in Israel today" is taking a minority view (and one man's statement) and trying to apply it to a group. The dominant futurist position is that the Antichrist is a Gentile Roman, not a Jew. Even some who originally believed he is a Jew (ie, John MacArthur) have reversed themselves, so be careful you get their latest position. Basically, to quote Pat Robertson misleads readers into thinking this is the dominant view; it's not and it's trending down. (I say that as someone who is not a Pat Robertson fan); 3) Futurists do not agree that the rapture will occur before the Tribulation, so I changed the wording on this; 4) Most Futurists do not believe the believers will be the only ones raptured (or caught up in the air) - they also believe children who are not yet adults will be taken (as Tim LaHaye points out in his fictional series, where all the infants disappeared); 5) Mid-tribbers are not in agreement on the point of the rapture - some say the middle, but pre-warth rapture persons in particular say "not exactly"; 6) the 20th Century "pillar" of a revived western Roman Empire is under attack now as a flawed, western-centric perspective. A revised Islamic Ottoman Empire centered on the eastern Roman Empire is gaining traction, albeit slowly; and 7) there is no mention of the theory that Christ can return at any time (imminency), and the theory that there may always an candidate for anti-christ in the wing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baxterguy (talk • contribs) 14:32, 29 June 2007.

Redirect

I'm adding a redirect from "Apocalypse of John", as right now when you search for that term the top results are for a comic book character. Universaladdress 19:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm, seems to be working fine on a double-check - it was a problem of capitalization; I'll redirect from "apocalypse of john" instead. Universaladdress 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Luther's Conclusion

The article states "Protestant founder Martin Luther at first considered Revelation to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and stated that "Christ is neither taught nor known in it",[3] and placed it in his Antilegomena. However, he later changed his mind, believing the book to be divinely inspired.[4]". How strong is the evidence about "believing the book to be divinely inspired"? I was under the impression that he included it somewhat reluctantly, rather than stating that it was "divinely inspired". Is there a definitive Luther quote on this? Specifically, can anyone post the listed reference of pages 24-25 of Tuveson, Ernest Lee, Millennium and Utopia please? It is also on JSTOR. Myth America 16:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Still have not been able to find the quoted reference. There is this quote from Luther's revised (1530) Preface to the Revelation of John (from Luther's Works 35:400) of “Because its interpretation is uncertain and its meaning hidden, we have also let it alone until now, especially because some of the ancient fathers held that it was not the work of St. John, the Apostle—as is stated in The Ecclesiastical History, Book III, chapter 25.  For our part, we still share this doubt. By that, however, no one should be prevented from regarding this as the work of St. John the Apostle, or of whomever else he chooses.” And Luther never removed the Revelation of John from his Antilegomena section. Myth America 18:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked the edit history of this article and discovered something interesting. It appears to me that this article was edited on 25 October 2006 by user Amlevine who inserted "However, he later changed his mind. [See Ernest Lee Tuveson, Millennium and Utopia, pp. 24-25". That was the only recorded edit by that user, on any Wikipedia article, ever. So, I renew my request for anyone with access to that reference to post the applicable portion on this talk page. What justifies the statement "However, he later changed his mind."? Myth America 08:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For an analysis that contradicts the one currently posted in this WP article, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod wrote of Luther and the Book of Revelation "Lutherans generally do not agree with Luther's devaluation of this epistle. An excerpt from Luther's earlier preface to Revelation: "About this book of the Revelation of St. John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. "First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel.... I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it...." In 1530, Luther revised the Preface, but had not really changed his view regarding Revelation: "...Some of the ancient fathers held that it was not the work of St. John, the Apostle.... For our part, we still share this doubt. By that, however, no one should be prevented from reading this as the work of St. John the apostle, or of whomever else he chooses...." (end of quotes from Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod)

Therefore, I intend to delete the current phrase "However, he later changed his mind, believing the book to be divinely inspired." unless and until sufficient justification is provided for the phrase. Myth America 19:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize that no one has been responding. You bring up good arguments and have sources. I also support your deletion. If someone can clear up the sourcing issues, they can always restore the content, but while there are concerns and valid counter arguments, what you have proposed is prudent. Thanks for your patient, well thought out research, and your use of talk pages. Hopefully this experience of silence doesn't discourage you. I guess not many people are watching this article. Thanks for your work.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Goldsmith?

I read this through twice but didn't see any mention of late film composer Jerry Goldsmith anywhere. Maybe I'm going blind, did I miss it somewhere? Please confirm and I'll write a few paragraphs if necessary. Thanks--JRK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.234.82 (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest deleting the Chronology section or moving it to talk.

The assertion that Revelation presents "a series of events... which detail the chronology of god's judgement on the world" (emphasis mine) represents a specific strain of christian interpretation that surely has no place in a general introduction to the work. The idea that Revelation is a series of cryptic prognostications designed to provide information about either the history of europe/the middle east (historicist) or a tick box sequence of "last days" events (futurist) is crude to say the least and has no place in scholarly discussion.

This section seems to serve no purpose to me - the reference to a seven fold structure is not elaborated and the whole idea of a chronology or historical "laundry list" is undercut by the allowance that many interpreters disagree with this viewpoint. The conservative christian understanding of a chronology of last day events is dealt with adequately in other parts of the article.

I suggest that this section should be deleted or moved to talk.

--210.11.37.250 07:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of this section needs to be deleted or at least massively edited. I can't see how the current content can be viewed as of a neutral point of view. From the 3rd paragraph onward it is a continuous list of personal opinion with references to the first person and describes the subject matter as literal truth.

For example (all emphasis mine) - "Have you noticed the abundance of apocalyptic movies and programs? (''I covered global warming two weeks ago'')What about the global cooling of the lukewarm church"

"I have listed in my Bible 125 prophecies of the 1st coming of Christ. How were they fulfilled? Exactly and precisely. My Bible lists another 329 prophecies of the 2nd coming of Christ. How do you think they will they be fulfilled? Exactly and precisely."

"It isn't an end that will come as a result of nuclear war, environmental irresponsibility, or alien invasion; it is the one that comes by the purpose and plan of God, foretold in Scripture. Make no mistake--Christ will return!"

ABitConfused (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Alleged use of psilocybin mushrooms

I heard sceptic James Randi talking about the Isle of Patmos being covered by entheogenic mushrooms and this being a possible explanation for the "trippy" nature of the book. Can anyone confirm or deny this rumor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRDarby (talk • contribs) 23:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: deleting the "Dismissal" section

I propose deleting the "Dismissal" section. How relevant is it to learn that Thomas Jefferson dismissed it? He's not exactly a scholar of apocalyptic literature, and the reason he gives doesn't shed much light on the subject. I'm not against Jefferson or people dismissing any particular book; this just seems irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.89.173 (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Sineaste (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast! Thomas Jefferson omitted the Book of Revelation from the Bible that he compiled, and wrote that it was the "ravings of a maniac". Since he is the primary author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and many people conclude that the founding fathers all believed the entire bible without question, the brief mention of Jefferson's written conclusions about the Book of Revelation are noteworthy, and should not be suppressed. Comments? Myth America (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it was right to delete the dismissal section. It was irrelevant. Perhaps in the article on Jefferson it would be appropriate to mention. Also, I thought it was fairly widely known that the founding fathers were by and large deists. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. No one has disputed the facts that Thomas Jefferson deliberately omitted the Book of Revelation from the Bible that he edited, or that he wrote that the Book of Revelation was the "ravings of a maniac", or that he was a philosopher and the author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. He had additional scholarly credentials, including graduating with highest honors from The College of William & Mary, and being the principal author of the Declaration of Independence. In contrast, the current WP article on the Book of Revelation contains many contradictory interpretations and views of the Book of Revelation, most of them without citations. Together, these unsourced views, apparently by persons with far fewer credentials than Thomas Jefferson, tend to give credibility to the Book of Revelation, even though they conflict with each other. Jefferson took a different approach, and had the courage to put his name to it. His views have never been considered "irrelevant" as you claim, although they are perhaps inconvenient to some. There should be some room in the article for an alternative interpretation of this book, by noted religious author, philosopher, and scholar. Or should we start deleting the unsourced interpretations of those with less credentials than Thomas Jefferson? Myth America (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

When in doubt, start deleting the unsourced interpretations. But please note that there was not a verifiable source in the version of the Jefferson comment either. Also, I still think that since he was not a biblical scholar, his views don't belong on this page. Do we need to know what every well-educated world leader thinks about the Book of Revelation? No, that opens up a slippery slope. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are many unsourced and contradictory interpretations in the WP article, but that correctly summarizes the situation. People cannot agree on what it all means. Some, such as T.J. just could not accept it as Gospel. He took the time to edit the Bible and remove the portions that he felt had been added or embellished. We may not agree with his conclusions, but the B.o.R. is possibly the most controversial book in the Bible. It was too much for T.J. to accept. I am not aware that any other world leader has ever expressed a conclusion about the B.o.R. I do not intend to delete any of the other interpretations. They are valid. So is the one expressed by T.J. I belive that the "ravings of a maniac" written comment is verifiable, and I will make the effort to document it. Myth America (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Myth America (talk) 07:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The citation for Thomas Jefferson’s written conclusion on the Apocalypse is

The Writings Of Thomas Jefferson: Being His Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, And Other Writings, Official And Private. Published By The Order Of The Joint Committee Of Congress On The Library, From The Original Manuscripts, Deposited In The Department Of State. With Explanatory Notes, Tables Of Contents, And A Copious Index To Each Volume, As Well As A General Index To The Whole, Bv The Editor H. A. Washington. Vol. Viii. Published By Taylor & Maury, Washington, D. G. 1854

which has been digitized by Google, and is available at http://books.google.com

The applicable portion is:

TO GENERAL ALEXANDER SMYTH. MONTICELLO, January 17, 1825. DEAR SIR, -- I have duly received four proof sheets of your explanation of the Apocalypse, with your letters of December 29th and January 8th; in the last of which you request that, so soon as I shall be of opinion that the explanation you have given is correct, I would express it in a letter to you. From this you must be so good as to excuse me, because I make it an invariable rule to decline ever giving opinions on new publications in any case whatever. No man on earth has less taste or talent for criticism than myself, and least and last of all should I undertake to criticise works on the Apocalypse. It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it, and I then considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams. I was, therefore, well pleased to see, in your first proof sheet, that it was said to be not the production of St. John, but of Cerinthus, a century after the death of that apostle. Yet the change of the author's name does not lessen the extravagances of the composition; and come they from whomsoever they may, I cannot so far respect them as to consider them as an allegorical narrative of events, past or subsequent. There is not coherence enough in them to countenance any suite of rational ideas. You will judge, therefore, from this how impossible I think it that either your explanation, or that of any man in "the heavens above, or on the earth beneath," can be a correct one. What has no meaning admits no explanation; and pardon me if I say, with the candor of friendship, that I think your time too valuable, and your understanding of too high an order, to be wasted on these paralogisms. You will perceive, I hope, also, that I do not consider them as revelations of the Supreme Being, whom I would not so far blaspheme as to impute to Him a pretension of revelation, couched at the same time in terms which, He would know, were never to be understood by those to whom they were addressed. In the candor of these observations, I hope you will see proofs of the confidence, esteem and respect which I truly entertain for you.

There is also an electronic copy available at: http://www.constitution.org/tj/jeff16.htm

As to Thomas Jefferson's qualifications to comment on the Book of Revelation, he edited his own version of the Bible (including Greek, Latin, and French sources), wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence. The Wikipedia article on him summarizes that he "wrote at length on religion". He was also the only U.S. president known to comment in writing on the Book of Revelation.

In contrast, the current Wikipedia article contains many unsourced and contradictory "views" and "interpretations" of the Book of Revelation. The Thomas Jefferson quote is accurate, noteworthy, and provocative, and deserves a brief mention in this article, to represent the views of those who do not accept this book as Gospel.

I will restore the deleted information, and will provide the citation. Myth America (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that Jefferson's views are particularly relevant. Yes, he edited his own version of the Bible, but how many persons have edited copies of the Bible? I'm sure it's far too many to include here. And I certainly don't buy the statute for religious freedom and the declaration of the independence as being relevant...the Declaration of Independence, at least, has more to do with deist views than with Christian ones. And plenty of non-notable nutjobs have written at length on religion; not that he was one, but just to show that writing at length on religion does not necessarily make your views notable in an article such as this. I won't push the issue right now, because as you point out, the article is in rather poor condition. I agree that the quote is accurate and provocative, but I contest its noteworthines. I still believe it would fit better in Thomas Jefferson than here. Why do you disagree with this small point? Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been a Christian for my entire life, believe in the immaculate conception, resurrection, and many other things. But I cannot accept what is in Revelations. The quotes attributed to Jesus in it are not consistent with those in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The phrase "Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book." is found in no other book of the Bible. For years I thought that I was the only one who concluded this. Thank God that Jefferson put it in writing! Sister7 (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You and Jefferson will be spending eternity together. ManySons (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The Thomas Jefferson quote has been documented, and provides a useful contrast to the other interpretations in the article. The one-sentence addition is reasonable. T.J. will suffer any consequences associated with writing it. I think that it was wrong to have deleted it after an anonymous user suggested it. The brief mention looks more appropriate here than in the T.J article. Myth America (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone get an admin to warn User:Sineaste after his POV ramage? ʄ!•¿talk? 18:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

With due respect this dog's breakfast of an article deserves a POV rampage and a much more exhaustive one than the minor changes made on December 11. Please look over some of the undocumented, irrelevant, and in some cases just plain weird interpretations of Revelation that were removed or edited and suggest which edits should be undone. The article as a whole is unnecessarily repetitive and only a small fraction of it represents the views of modern scholarship (see my comments above under Talk section 11: Everyone's view).

On Thomas Jefferson: Myth America I sympathise with your concern to '[provide] a useful contrast to the other interpretations in the article' which generally reflect conservative christian in-fighting about the meaning of the book but tell us very little about Revelation itself. I'm not convinced, however, that to dismiss the work as the incoherent ravings of an early christian "heretic" (Cerinthus) is the best way to do this. A number of scholars have demonstrated that the book follows a clearly marked concentric structure which evidences balanced literary construction, while it has long been acknowledged that Revelation parodies and inverts the imagery of first century roman imperialism and the emperor cult in particular to make it's point (see eg Steven J Friesen's recent work in this area: Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John). This hardly supports Jefferson's view that the work is a meaningless rant but nor does it support the highly subjective perspectives of historicism and futurism which have obviously irritated you. A balanced, well documented historical-critical introduction to the work should, in my opinion, make up the bulk of this article with other conservative christian approaches acknowledged separately in brief, concise fashion. I am quite happy for the Jefferson reference to remain for its whimsical value and tentatively suggest that it could be accompanied by some of the numerous historical warnings by prominent christian leaders and commentators about the danger of misusing the book.

I also note that the reference to Mithraic parallels has been re-inserted in the Authorship section. What this has to do with the question of authorship I have no idea. The parallel itself is completely unconvincing and the book from which it is taken is a typical example of an author falling in love with his subject and unnecessarily exaggerating its importance. While I don't deny that the work, by Payam Nabarz, represents a good layman's guide to Mithraism the suggested parallel between this quote and Revelation 1:4-20 on page 51 (see Google books for the text) hardly warrants the preface that the two are 'almost identical' or the overly enthusiastic observation that 'the [similarity of] spirit is abundant... to the extent that the names of Jesus and Mithras could be interchangeable'. These are not the remarks of a careful exegete. It is quite likely that there are echoes of Mithraism, the religion of the roman army, in Revelation, which freely reuses both Jewish and greco-roman mythology in polemical fashion, but this is not one of them. Would anyone object to a re-removal of this paragraph? --Sineaste (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"this... article deserves a POV rampage"— All I can say to that is read this WP:NPOV.
Why not be inclusionist instead of deleting chunks of information you don't personally agree with? An encylopedia is supposed to present all legitimate views, not stick with just one/the most popular. Whatsmore Thomas Jefferson's opinion isn't just "whimsical", it's representative of many historical figures views. ʄ!•¿talk? 18:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Some interpreters surmise that the Vision of Heaven in Chapter 4 resembles a calendar and clock representation to set up the rest of the Chronology of Revelation. This timeless model includes distinct correlations to cyclic events such as the 24 hours of a day, (24 elders) the seven days of the week (seven lamps of fire) and the four seasons of the year (the four living creatures). This somewhat literal interpretation asserts that John is referring back to the Book of Genesis beginning at the rainbow (halo), "the sign of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth" as an affirmation that the covenant still stands. In this covenant God promises to Noah that the Earth will remain and that the seasons would continue as periodic periods of warm and cool..."

The above quote, simply headed "Alternative", is one of the sections I deleted in December. From what I can make out it represents a speculative personal view which certainly doesn't align with any "significant" mainstream positions published by "reliable sources"(NPOV guidelines). NPOV guidelines state, "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all". Unless someone can demonstrate otherwise this section, in my mind, represented a "tiny majority view". It also almost certainly conflicted with the other two major Wikipedia content policies: no original research and verifiability. I'm all for inclusiveness and balance but I don't take that to mean that we should let minority viewpoints hijack articles just for the sake of liberality.

When we consider the section on Mithraism that was deleted by me and then reinserted I have yet to read any commentary on Revelation that discusses this extremely dubious and unconvincing parallel at all - let alone in the context of authorship! The quoted author is not an expert on Revelation and according to NPOV guidelines we must assume that this is a "tiny-majority" viewpoint. I could go on to list other examples of edited material but I believe that the underlying principles should be clear by now and that these are not in conflict with NPOV guidelines. Incidentally, I find the accusation that I was simply deleting material that I personally disagree with rather curious. I think it's clear by now that I fall into the historical-critical hermeneutical basket which suggests that I disagree with the "biblical prophecy" (preterist, futurist, historicist) and esoteric viewpoints which constitute the bulk of the article (and, I might add, are perfectly entitled to be there).

My main concern, though, is that articles like this should contain a solid core of expert opinion. This means that the primary thrust of articles on historic religious writings should reflect current scholarly consensus and debate rather than individual denominational or sectarian viewpoints. By all means include significant, well documented views from mainstream schools of thought but please - can we allocate some space to the work of modern scholars, many of whom have devoted their lives to the study of ancient history, literature and religion and who are much better qualified to comment on works like Revelation than backyard "experts" whose main concern is to prop up and publicise up their individual belief systems. --Sineaste (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Repetitive intro

Hello,

I'm new to Wikipedia edits, so I didn't realize before that it might have been better etiquette to discuss the edits here before making them. So, this article has flags on it that state that the Intro and the Naming Section are repetitive. I agree, and I tried to fix the situation, but maybe I was too hasty, because somebody restored it. Does anybody have any ideas about how to make that part of the article less repetitive? Punkymule (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Common Sense

I'd say it's unnecessary for us to say that Revelation is "considered by some" to be one of the most controversial and difficult books of the Bible; it certainly is, and I doubt you could find any Biblical scholar who would disagree with that assessment. I'm sure we could find a source to cite for this characterization of the book, but I'd say it's so obvious as not to need citation.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It may not be obvious to people who are not Christian, or who have never studied the bible. Wikipedia's audience is international. If this is such an obvious and common sense characteristic of the book, then by all means we need to mention it. It may go without saying that this book is the last book of the New Testament, or that it is attributed to John, but because this is an encyclopedia, that sort of information is important here (even if it is obvious to some familiar with the topic).-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Dismissal

I added a line here with a reference but I am not sure how to get the reference at the bottom of the page. Could someone help please? Thanks  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 23:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Since writing the above I have noticed that the 'Dismissal' section is quite controversial. Still I have provided a reference from quite a well-known book. Please discus first if you want to delete my contribution. Thanks again.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 23:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've formatted your reference. I'd suggest looking at the code (or page history difference) to see what I did. Basically, I placed ref tags around the citations (i.e. <ref>Foonote text...</ref>). Hope this helps. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Star Wormwood Revelation 8, 9

208.60.60.34 (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Star Wormwood can be viewed on www.cyberspace.com "Wormy" and is ten times the size of our planet Jupiter and definitly in our MIlky Way Galaxy. Jesus wrote the book of Revelation. Star Wormwood will crater the abyss on Earth and the angels will hold the keys to the bottomless pit. It marks the first day of the 42 month Tribulation. This is the destruction that Jesus will save his saints from in a rapture from Earth. Pre-Tibulation Rapture. The second comming of Christ is at the end of the 42 month tribulation period. This marks the resurrection of the dead and the three and a half year War of Armegeddon. There will be a NEW HEAVEN AND EARTH CALLED NEW JERUSALEM. Could it be the newly formed galaxy below our Milky Way set up just like it with another larger Earth?

Study Only With God

Does the above text deserve to stay for the purposes of keeping a clear record of discussion or should it just be deleted due to it being nothing but soapboxing? Lord Seth (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say delete as soapboxing. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be marked with spoiler warnings?