Talk:A Thief in the Night (film)

Disagreement with plot description

I hesitate to make changes unless others agree, but my interpretation of the protagonist waking up again at the end of the film, only to re-experience the day of Rapture again from the beginning, is that she is in her own particular Hell where she has to live this awful day over and over again, unable to change it. Leishalynn (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Misquoted Scripture and NPOV Problems

The statement 'In those passages, Jesus said he would return as a "thief in the night"' needs to be corrected. This is not what the referred to scriptures say. They say the "Day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night." This is not nitpicking, but a significant distinction. In I Thessalonians 4:16, it says that Jesus will return with a shout, the voice of the archangel, and a trumpet. No thief would come that way. Paul goes on to ask, when will the Lord return (when is the Day of the Lord)? The answer is, we don't know - when you least expect it - like a thief in the night. The thief in the night part is referring, clearly, to timing. The only way to be ready for a thief coming is to be ready all the time. In other words, we don't know the timing, so be ready all the time. Whether or not you agree with my interpretation, the scripture should at least not be misquoted. I'd change it myself, but I am tired of Wikipedia accusing me of vandalism. Now, in Rev. 16:15, it says, "Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame." By itself, this passage is consistent either with my interpretation or the (rapture supporting) POV of the author of the misquotation above. However, this is not the passage they cited. I think it will be difficult to provide a neutral POV correction to the misquotation of scripture above because it is not a simple mistake. Rather, it is part of a core belief in the eschatological view that underlies the whole film. The Rapture hypothesis requires a silent, surprising, instantaneous vanishing of all Christians, followed by 7 pretty rough years, and THEN the Day of the Lord. "Jesus said he would return as a thief in the night" is consistent with the Rapture (pre-trib) doctrine, but not with the passage misquoted. Since the POV that this was penned with is obviously sympathetic to the POV of the film, there are no surprises. But, this article, as it stands, is wholly unacceptable to Wikipedia NPOV standards, as I understand them. The simplest thing to do would be to point the reader to the Rapture page in Wikipedia for background, and then just discuss the film itself. MKB 166.87.255.134 (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Since this thread was just revived below, I'll remark that I believe the concerns expressed above no longer apply to the article's current version. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd add that this statement either needs references or to be removed: "The film's premillennial dispensationalist interpretation of the Bible's end times prophecies is popular among U.S. evangelicals, but is a minority view among Christians globally" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.224.129.1 (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Premillenialism in general is completely unknown among Catholics and Orthodox, who by themselves make up well over half of all Christians.[1] Even if all Protestants were dispensationalists (which they certainly are not), the statement currently in the article would still be true. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If Catholics and Orthodox don't subscribe to the doctrine of the Millennium at all, then the basis of comparison for whether it is a minority or majority view should be confined to those segments of Christianity that do subscribe to the doctrine. One could just as easily say that belief in the Virgin Mary as a co-mediatrix with Christ is a majority view amongst Christians, even though no Protestants subscribe to that view. Philiptheaccountingprof (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Philiptheaccountingprof talk 21:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Like it or not, Catholics and Orthodox do count as Christians. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether I think Catholics and Orthodox count as Christians. I am saying that if they don't even have a concept of the millennium, then they should not be part of the comparison ratio. Determining whether something is a majority or minority view should be based on the population of those who at least have a view on the topic, not those for whom the topic is completely alien to them. Philiptheaccountingprof (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I would also add that the statement that the view is only popular amongst US evangelicals is false. I have interacted with evangelicals in many other countries--Australia, New Zealand, UK, India--and you can easily find evangelicals in those countries who also hold this view. Philiptheaccountingprof (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

They do have a concept of the Book of Revelation and they tend to think that amillennialism is the best way to interpret it. There is nothing invalid or un-Christian about that.

The word "only" is your own addition. The text says that the view is popular among U.S. evangelicals, which is true. It says nothing about non-U.S. evangelicals. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not say it was an invalid or un-Christian view. I am simply saying that if amillennialism is indeed the commonly held view amongst Catholics and Orthodox, you need to substantiate that assertion. Right now, it is an unsourced assertion. This is not some bit of self-evident information, like "there are 7 days in a week," that needs no substantiation. Philiptheaccountingprof (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not what you were saying before. But if it is your argument now, it's easy enough to satisfy. I'll work on it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Look, it really is pretty self-evident if you know anything about historical theology. The premillenialism article gives a detailed and well-sourced discussion, showing that (setting aside alleged early-church antecedents, which in any case have no direct modern descendents) modern premillenialism arose among certain strains of Protestants as early as the 18th century, and remains practically unheard-of among other strains of Christianity. A nice summary of the Catholic perspective is this source, which is online-only but carries an imprimatur from a Catholic bishop.

If you really think that this article needs sourcing on this point, can you take care of picking out a few from the premillenialism article and adding them here? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the statement in the current article that we are discussing is focused on "[t]he film's premillennial dispensationalist interpretation of the Bible's end times prophecies," which is even younger and less widespread than premillenialism in general. See the discussion in the premillenialism article concerning Darby and Scofield, who pioneered dispensationalism in the late 19th century. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"Look, it really is pretty self-evident if you know anything about historical theology." Therein lies the problem. As currently written, this Wikipedia article is assuming a certain level of expertise on the part of the reader on a subject on which not many people have expertise or even general familiarity. Wikipedia's standards are such that one should not have to possess specialized knowledge to be able to rely on the information presented. Any information presented on a specialized topic should be properly sourced. Since I am not Catholic, I am not qualified to provide citations to sources representing the Catholic theological position. Philiptheaccountingprof (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Video

A Thief in the Night is available to watch for free on Google Video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7912012146233733264&q=A+Thief+in+the+night

You have to change that now to was. I am pretty sure I also saw it on YouTube, but could not find it today, except for discussions of it or tidbits. Does Google Video still exist? (PeacePeace (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Thief.jpg

Image:Thief.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Release date

The article says the film was released in 1972, but what month was it released in? Gerard Burke (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I see sources, such as IMDB, that give the year but not the month. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Error in the Introduction on Dispensational View of Mat 24:36-44

Article starts with "According to Christianity Today, "the film brings to life the dispensational view of Matthew 24:36-44,"[1] part of the Olivet discourse in which Jesus describes people being taken suddenly out of the world while others watch and remain behind. The film's premillennial dispensationalist[1] interpretation of the Bible's end times prophecies is popular among U.S. evangelicals, but is a minority view among Christians globally.[note 1]." Now I don't doubt that CT said that, but it is a misleading statement about Dispensationalism, since one thing this series does is violate the educated Dispensational view of Matthew 24. The movie quadrlogy does follow a somewhat popular misreading of Mat 24 by some popularizing pre-tribbers who have an unstudied position. As a matter of fact Matthew 24 never mentions the Church nor the Rapture. The Dispensational guru, Dwight Pentecost of Dallas Theological Seminary (most famous for dispensationalism) rejects any rapture at all in Matthew 24. Neither is the Rapture ever a coming as a thief in the night in the Bible. Matt 24 has a post-trib coming of the Lord Jesus most clearly. But dispensationalists have famously distinguished that 2nd coming of Christ from the Rapture, which precedes the Tribulation. So the very passage that A Thief in the Night harps on would destroy their pre-trib rapture theory. Neither does Matthew 24 have the Lord Jesus describing persons being taken out of the world and leaving the lost behind. For example, Pentecost reads it as people being taken in judgment, not out of the world. ("Out of the world" is not mentioned.) The good guys are gathered together in Matt 24 to be with the Lord on earth in his kingdom on earth, as Pentecost reads it. I cite Pentecost as the man whom I think is the great guru of Dispensational eschatology, having written the text Things to Come. So while no doubt it is true that someone in CT said it was the disp view, it is not the disp view & that sentence creates a misconception at the start. And I don't believe you can quote any professor in a Dispensational college, seminary, or university, who interprets the gathering of Matthew 24 as the Rapture. CT is not reliable here as describing dispensationalism. Before I modify it, perhaps we can arrive at a consensus; but I think we need other sources to support it. I think it might read something as follows:

The film follows an interpretation of Matthew 24 in which the gathering of the saints in Matthew 24 is made equivalent to the Rapture. For pre-tribulationists, the Rapture is considered to be the catching up of the saints, leaving the rest of the world behind to face the Tribulation. Globally speaking, pre-tribulationism is a minority view among those who call themselves Christians. And pre-tribulationism also has educated advocates who do not find the Rapture in Matthew 24, but in 1 Thessalonians 4:17.

But a better revision would not focus on the film's interpetation of Matthew 24, but its reading of 1 Thessalonians 4:17. The interpretation of Matthew 24 is really incidental to the POV. Let's try this revision, for which we can find secondary sources:

This film brings to life the doctrine of the pre-tribulational rapture, which emphasizes harpagēsometha (of 1 Thessalonians 4:17) rendered in Latin as rapiemur, meaning, "we shall be raptured," or "we shall be caught up." Dispensational theory maintains that the Day of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 5 follows the Rapture of 1 Thes 4, and that the Day of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 5 particularly refers to the Great Tribulation described in Matthew 24.

Dispensationalism is not wedded to finding the Rapture in Matthew 24 at all. The purpose of this article should not to try to take pot-shots at Dispensationalism or Pre-Tribulationism, but to present the film. Probably the statement about how popular the interpretation is, is unnecessary.

I went ahead and revised the sentence, removing the reference to the review in CT, which is unreliable. I substituted citations of three Dispensational gurus. (PeacePeace (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC))

Do Not Confuse Rapture with the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Theory

Probably the large majority of those who call themselves Christians in the world do not have an opinion on the Rapture, pre-Tribulational or otherwise. They are "cultural Christians," like those who go to church only a few times in their life: like when they are christened as baby, married, and buried. So I doubt it is correct to claim what their opinion is on the rapture. I doubt that anyone has polled them. I doubt that you can site a reliable source for such a poll. It is true that the ecclesiastical leaders of these groups reject the pre-Tribulation Rapture theory. But I think that the vast majority of the leaders (or at least the majority of those who are not liberal humanists who reject the Bible in general or reduce it to myth) in all those denominations accept the doctrine of the Rapture as mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. However, they do not accept Pre-tribulationalism. So there seems to be a confusion about a belief in the Rapture with a belief in a Pre-trib rapture. Is it not the case that the majority of such leaders believe that this rapture happens with the resurrection with judgment and eternity following, no tribulation and millennium following? I must say that I really don't know if the majority ecclesiastical leaders actually believe nowadays. What I mean is, I don't know if the majority believe in the Bible anymore -- what percent take Bible doctrine seriously, and what percent are like Patty's pastor in the movie. Do the majority believe that Jesus is God or the Trinity nowadays? How many of them really believe their official church doctrine? But I suggest that the article would be improved by changing the statement about what the majority of Christians believe to what the majority of the theologians believe. If a secondary source claims what the majority of Christians globally believe, the reliability of that source needs to be verified -- does that source site global polls of Christians? (PeacePeace (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC))

The issue is not whether people actually believe 1 Thessalonians 4:17. What is unique about dispensationalism (of which pre-tribulationism is a prominent strand) is teaching that 1 Thessalonians 4:17 describes an event that is separate from the Second Coming of Christ. If it's not a distinct event, then there is no reason to give it a distinct name such as "the Rapture," which is why it's fair to say that the Rapture is a distinctly dispensationalist teaching. As the article already explains in a note, Dispensationalists comprise a distinct minority among global Christians. I don't think we need to delve into subjective determinations as to how many people who call themselves Christians meet anyone's definition of being real Christians, or how many Christians pay enough attention to their leaders' teachings to have a distinct opinion, in order to make that simple statement. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The Authors Are Needed

The writers of the four screenplays should be added if possible, as well as those who wrote books as antecedents to the screenplays. (PeacePeace (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC))

I encourage you to look up that information and add it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Film vs. film series

I think a separate article for A Thief in the Night (film series) should exist for the whole series, since this article seems to be confused on whether it's about the first film or the entire series. Michipedian (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I have created an article for the series, A Thief in the Night (film series). Michipedian (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Article problems and POV drift

As noted elsewhere on this talk page, this article has had some POV problems. Prior to June (2020), the article had 9 sources. All of those were used to reference one single paragraph which is a theological discussion of Rapture theology and not relevant to the film. This is undue weight that really belongs elsewhere. We need to be cautious about what is and is not necessary to the article from the standpoint of the film itself, its contribution to film-making in general as well as to Christian films. Some of the more trivial information is OR (WP:NOR), unsourced, and/or editorial (WP:EDITORIAL) in nature. It would be better to simply reference and wikilink to appropriate pages, such as Futurism and/or Rapture. It is sufficient to simply point out that the authors believe in a pre-trib, pre-millennial, dispensational futurist view of the Rapture, and leave it at that. A reader can determine the answers to other questions on (linked) articles specific to those topics. Otherwise, this article is in danger of drifting where it doesn't belong. Butlerblog (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

In light of the above, I made some edits to the Biblical references section to address some of these issues. This comment is specific to the second paragraph about Mat. 24 vs 1 Thess. 4. This is kind of what I'm talking about above - it's not necessary to a discussion of the film and opens the door to more edits that go into minutiae of theological concepts rather than about the film itself. Additionally, while there are interviews with Doughten and Thompson in reliable sources, I don't recall any of them discussing specific theological positions other than their desire to present the Gospel, so speculation on their position is just that - speculation, and thus, OR. In this edit, I did try to leave in the Mat 24/1 Thess 4 comparison since the Pentecost reference has been used before, but this still needs some specific page numbers. An entire book cannot be used to source a single sentence. If the source doesn't specifically point this out somewhere that can be referenced, then really that entire sentence needs to come out and the article can just point to the Views of Eschatological Timing (which would be more appropriate IMO anyway, but I'm trying to give a good compromise here).Butlerblog (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Even with edits and applying additional sources for the article, 4 out of the article's 10 sources (so 40%) are used to reference this single paragraph. None of them are sources about the film, but rather about specific eschatological positions, and they are not used anywhere else in the article. That would call into question how much this really adds to the article in terms of discussing the film itself.Butlerblog (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing refimprove tag

I think we've reached a point with this article that we can safely remove the refimprove tag (which I have done). Over the past few months, several relevant sources specifically about the film have been added and several sources that were about the film's theological positions but did not actually fit the film itself have been removed. The article should try to stay on target to discuss points relevant to the film. Anything drifting into theological minutiae should be wikilinked to the appropriate article(s). Wikipedia has plenty of information on eschatological views, the rapture, the mark, dispensationalism, etc, so if possible, let's try to keep the article about the film (see above regarding POV drift). Butlerblog (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Scare tactics

I expected to find a section dealing with criticism of the film for traumatizing children and fearmongering to produce conversions. But I couldn't find good references about this online. Lots and lots of individual anecdotes, but not really RS. Anybody have good sources on this? Staecker (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Two of the sources used in the current article do get into that somewhat. First, Heather Hendershot's book 'Shaking the World for Jesus' does address it, as does Jonathan Edwards' 'Superchurch'. Both are good academic sources and as such, they do not have the bias that a "pro-Evangelical" author might have (such as Randall Balmer - although his book "Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory" is a really good source as well). Butlerblog (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks- I figured it might be in some of those books (which I don't have). Maybe somebody could add a few sentences? Staecker (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I added some from Hendershot's book (some of the "Thief" parts of her book are viewable via google books, as are Edwards'). Actually, what's in Edwards' book regarding scare tactics is just a rehash of Hendershot's (which he references and quotes from), so I'll look for some additional sources so it's not just from a single source. Butlerblog (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Staecker (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Mischaracterization of Dispensationalism was made

The article identified the interpretation of Matthew 24 as having reference to the rapture of the Church as dispensational interpretation. Actually, if the rapture interpretation of Matthew 24 be sustained, then the pre-tribulational dispensational interpretation of eschatology is impossible, as the coming of Christ in Mat 24 is obviously post-tribulational. Check it out to find that dispensational scholars typically reject any reference to the rapture or church in Matthew 24. So I edited out the mischaracterization and I cited a standard dispensational eschatology, Things To Come, by Pentecost, who rejects finding the rapture in Matthew 24. While the Thief in the Night series does find the Rapture in Matthew 24, this is not a standard interpretation of Dispensational scholarship. Is it proper to make a list of those groups who agree & disagree with the thesis of this movie? I don't think that the movie should be identified as "dispensationalism," as it makes no reference to believing that the Church is Israel, and I don't believe "dispensationalism" is ever mentioned in the movies. And I don't think it a proper purpose of this article to debunk or advance pre-tribulationism by counting denominational noses. I think that the movies' genre is simplistic evangelism, promoting the need to trust Christ as Savior in view his imminent return and following doom on those left behind. So if one wants to list denominations in basic agreement or disagreement, one would list those who regard Christ's coming as imminent with doom following vs those who deny it. The Camping Cult, for example, was run by an amillennialist (Harold Camping) who believed the Rapture was coming in 2011 with doom following. (FairNPOV (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC))

First, what you changed was a directly attributed quote from a cite source. It's fine to rephrase things that are paraphrases, but you can't simply change a directly quote from someone. Please be careful to check and validate existing sources before making such changes. Secondly, what you've provided isn't adequately sourced. You can't simply drop an entire book without a specifically verifiable section to make a qualified statement of "most scholars." The source has to actually say something to the effect of "many dispensationalist scholars do not..." Regardless, it's an unnecessary addition. It's knit picking over things that don't really have anything to do with the movie. The existing quote that you're trying to oppose is specifically stating something about the movie itself. This article has gone back and forth on this before and that exact thing has been removed before for the exact same reason. The place for that discussion is elsewhere. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems that there already is some synthesis in the Biblical references section with sources that are not directly about the film. Sometimes this is acceptable to some level for context but it is discouraged per WP:SYNTH. —PaleoNeonate – 07:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet (of User:PeacePeace) comment striked per WP:BE, —PaleoNeonate – 22:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)