Talk:Abaddon

Plato's Cratylus dialogue

One quick note: when the article cites Perseus in saying that Classical Greek texts don't use Apollyon as a name, it seems nobody noticed its use in Socrates' discussion of the names of the Gods in Plato's Cratylus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguide42 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

OtherUses template

Please change the article to use Template:OtherUses instead of Template:otheruses it currently uses. The OtherUses template has information about the contents of the article.

{{OtherUses|info=information about the contents of the article}}

For a sample use of this template refer to the articles Alabama or Algiers--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DuKot (talk • contribs) .

Note that that functionality is now at {{otheruses1}}. {{OtherUses}} redirects to {{otheruses}}, and is deprecated.--Srleffler 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:Abbadon

Should we really be going with the Catholic Encyclopedia for Judaism information? Hold on I'll edit--T. Anthony 12:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Should we really be going with the Catholic Encyclopedia for Judaism information? YUP! Why wouldn't I. It may be that some one does not understand the roots of Christianity.

Please note: as a rule, Jews are more likely to understand the orginal Hebrew text of the Old Testament than are Christians. Of course every rule has exceptions but, to be more specific, it is more likely that editors of a Jewish-themed work, given their speciality, would understand Hebrew than would their counterparts from a Christian-themed work. Therefore, when it comes to interpreting or translating Hebrew phrases, Jewish sources are more likely to be reliable than are Christian sources. Also note that the Old Testament is, in a sense, an "adopted" part of the Christian Bible, as it had been written many centuries previously by the time the New Testament was compiled and most early Christians were not originally Jewish. By contrast, Jewish tradition has continued unbroken since the time of the writing of the Old Testament and therefore traditional Jewish interpretations of the original meanings of phrases are more likely to be correct than traditional Christian interpretations where the two conflict. Robin S 13:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Blameless

I've added a link to James Morrow's book "Blameless in Abaddon."

Ben

confusion and overlap

Abaddon, Abaddon (demon), and Apollyon: there's much confusion and overlap that needs sorting out. —Charles P.  (Mirv) 17:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed a link to Apollyon because it currently redirects back to Abaddon. We can restore that when the confusion stated above is sorted out. Besdomny (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Destruction vs. Doom

Various IP users keep changing the English translation, "destruction", to "doom". Google 'abaddon destruction' vs. 'abaddon doom' and compare the results. The word abaddon comes from 'abad', to be lost, and in full, the word means 'destruction'. The word "doom", on the other hand, actually means "fate", "destiny", "inevitable result". If anyoen else sees this error inserted, kindly revert it. -- Jake 08:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Hebrew term Abaddon (Hebrew: אֲבַדּוֹן ’Ăḇaddōn, meaning "destruction", "doom")

^ That's a mistake. The Hebrew term is derived of the morpheme A'V/B'D (א.ב.ד), denoting Loss rather than Destruction - the proper word for which would be Hur'ban (חוּרְבָּן).

Abaddon is either the state of being gone forever or a conceptual place from which nothing ever returns.

In respect of mortals it means losing oneself, being lost (or cast) into the void, or lost to God (God exiling/excommunicating you). In respect of things (items, locations, constructs, concepts) it means lost beyond recovery or repair (exempli gratia: Atlantis has sunk to Abaddon).

The result is essentially destruction/extinction, but in terms of language and meaning it does not exactly translate to destruction.

Doom would indeed be more fitting given its subtleties.

The more I think of it, there is not another single word in the English language that I can conjour to accurately and precisely translate the Hebrew into, which would properly encapsulate its granular particularity. Given this, Doom is as close as it gets that I'm aware of. Had I to translate it down to the iota, it would be something akin to "The ultimate place of absolute loss onto perpetuity". 147.235.211.21 (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Jesus as Abaddon

I believe there should be mention in this article as ther is in apollyon of Abaddon the destroyer being Jesus, (as the belief goes)who is in the role of destroyer to execute judgement on the this unrighteous/wicked world. Kljenni 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok then there is no oposition, I will make this change.Kljenni 02:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This section has been removed. Here are credible references to refute the claim: Matthew Henry Commentary on Rev 9 and Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary on Rev 9. Halley's Bible Handbook, Zondervan Handbook to the Bible, and Believer's Bible Commentary also disagree with your interpretation. 66.177.5.252 06:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The symbolism used to describe the lucusts is a desrription of Gods people based on the book of Joel and some other clues.They resembled horses..(Joel 2:4)

“. . .“Its appearance is like the appearance of horses, and like steeds is the way they keep running. . .” They wore crowns like Kings crown..(Revelation 5:10)

“. . .and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.”” They have mens faces. They have long hair like a woman..

(Revelation 21:9)

“. . .and he spoke with me and said: “Come here, I will show you the bride, the Lamb’s wife. . .”

They have lions teeth..(Joel 1:6) “. . .For there is a nation that has come up into my land, mighty and without number. Its teeth are the teeth of a lion, and it has the jawbones of a lion.”

they have iron breast plates..

(Ephesians 6:14)

“Stand firm, therefore, with YOUR loins girded about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness,”

(1 Thessalonians 5:8)

“But as for us who belong to the day, let us keep our senses and have on the breastplate of faith and love and as a helmet the hope of salvation;” They create a sound like chariots.. (Joel 2:5) “. . .As with the sound of chariots on the tops of the mountains they keep skipping about, as with the sound of a flaming fire that is devouring stubble. It is like a mighty people, drawn up in battle order.”

The angel of the abyss is the one who holds the key and is locking the dragon away..(Revelation 9:1)

“And the fifth angel blew his trumpet. And I saw a star that had fallen from heaven to the earth, and the key of the pit of the abyss was given him.”

(Revelation 20:1-3)

“. . .And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven with the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 And he hurled him into the abyss and shut [it] and sealed [it] over him, that he might not mislead the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After these things he must be let loose for a little while.”

(Luke 8:31) “And they kept entreating him not to order them to go away into the abyss.”Kljenni 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(Side note - I tried to clean up your formatting but was unsuccessful. If you reply, please indent correctly so that the conversation can be clearly followed.) The original text of the section started with "It is a widely held belief among students of the Bible...." I have given 5 credible and "widely" respected references that counter this interpretation. The use of Joel to cast Jesus as the destroyer is a fallacy - the locusts he describes are "best understood as real, not as allegorical representations of the Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks and Romans, as held by some interpreters" (source: NIV Introduction to the Book of Joel). Regarding Rev 20:1-3, Jesus is not an angel but is God incarnate (see Hebrews 1, especially 1:13, for a complete description of Jesus's authority over and superiority to angels.) Therefore he cannot be the angel referred to in Rev 20:1-3. Thus, if we interpret "star" to mean "angel" in 9:11, Jesus also cannot be the "star" referred to in said verse. 66.177.5.252 20:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your 5 references do not change the fact that sincere many Bible students do in fact believe that the symbolism of the locusts represents Gods people and the King of them is Jesus. Jesus is a created being being the firstborn of all creation [1] [2]. Jesus is not the father,nor is he the God of his disciples. [3][4]Jesus is the one to carry out the orders from God to terminate this system/world [5] Jesus is the Chief angel (Archangel) [6] the Locusts picture Gods people, and their King is Jesus.[7] Kljenni 05:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I could continue a doctrinal debate of whether Christ is an angel or created being or whether he was there from the beginning, but other, wiser folks have deftly handled the matter. Ultimately this is probably not the forum for such a discussion.

I did further research to see if I could sustantiate the claim that Jesus as Abaddon is a "widely held belief". Apparently this is only a belief of Jehovah's Witnesses. Therefore, categorizing it as "widely held" would be disingenuous, since Jehovah's Witnesses account for about 0.8% of the US "Christian" population.

Based on this, I will modify the article accordingly, as I realized that is more proper than simply removing the entire section. 66.177.5.252 19:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a widely held belief among Bible students. not all people who read the Bible, not all people who co to school to be a minister. Bible students.Ice9Tea 02:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a good faith attempt to show both sides of the argument, along with credible citations, but it appears that you have simply reverted those edits. I am going to revert them back and ask that we work in a spirit of cooperation to come up with something that shows both sides. If that does not work, I will have to ask for mediation. 66.177.5.252 10:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

But Your good faith links the article to a page called "jehovahs witness doctrine of deception" that is very one sided against Jehovahs witnesses. very POV Ice9Tea 12:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked all English versions of rev 9:11 on biblegateway.com and none of them say "demon Abaddon" --Ice9Tea 01:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

in addition it is not NPOV to link a statement about what Jehovahs Witnesses believe with an anti witness website which even slanders Jehovahs Witnesses in the name of the site.--Ice9Tea 15:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

AJA are you going to continue to insert slander against Jehovahs witnesses in the form of reference to their beliefs? even without discussion?--Ice9Tea 11:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In order to have a discussion you'd have to be making sense. I don't know what you mean by "slander" except that my version refrain from calling Jesus Michael -- which nobody believes except JWs, and is totally un-Biblical. I went looking for a better source but a quick Google search didn't find one. A.J.A. 15:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok your references to the beliefs of Jehovahs Witnesses that you keep inserting into the article are a website called "Jehovahs Witness Doctrine of Deception". Sounds slanderous to me. Obviously not to you but is definately POV. There are over six million people who have studied the scriptures and know the true identity of Abaddon, it is not even a secret. Can you find more than 6 million other people as a group who even have heard of Abaddon? --Ice9Tea 18:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Other than the need for a better source (which I looked for), there's nothing in your comment that should impact the article. A.J.A. 19:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I will bring the source. thank you--Ice9Tea 22:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I realize you don't like the name of the "Jehovahs Witness Doctrine of Deception" reference, however, I previously mentioned it was the only reliable online reference I could find during my google searching to see if I could sustantiate your original POV that Jesus as Abaddon is a "widely held belief". WP:NPOV does not require references to be neutral. The goal of NPOV is for articles to give proportionate weight to facts (or disputed facts). Ergo, many (perhaps most?) references for controversial topics will be of one POV or another. Another pillar of Wikipidia is WP:Verifiability - by removing reference to facts cited in the article, you are essentially violating this pillar.

Mentioning that 6 million people believe as you do really does not help your cause, either, because organized Christianity makes up approximately 150 million people in the US alone. 66.177.5.252 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The source you ref is not credible. nor is it in line with the high standards of wikipedia to go to someones enemy to get a reference as to what they believe about a topic. I am sure you would agree. please remove the POV ref. called "Jehovahs Witness Doctrine of Deception" as it is inappropriate, misleading and untrue.--Ice9Tea 00:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nameless user at 66.177.5.252, your point of view edits should stop. Please listen to reason, I had reverted the article back to the state it was in when I first found it, though you have reverted it to again promote your opinion that Jehovahs witnesses are being deceptive. please revert to last edit by woloflover once more. there need not be mention of Jehovahs Witness beliefs in the article, so in this respect both of you have won the debate. I will continue to remove slander from the article for as long as you two (or one) continue to insert it.--Ice9Tea 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Both sides of story?

these links to anti JW sites are POV and express the opinion of that side. Why would you use anti JW websites to reference what JW's believe. why not use a reference to JW literature. I have reverted.Wonderpet 11:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Libel

user at IP address 66.177.5.252 as per Wikipedia policy on Libel, which is that it should not be done on Wikipedia pages, and per WP:3RR which states that in the case of reverting to remove Libel it does not apply, and because linking to websites that defame Jehovah's Witnesses has been done repetedly to this article, I will continue to revert to remove it as often as is necessary. please stop it. Wonderpet 00:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken. The exception is WP:BLP, which doesn't say no critical sources can be cited and in any case only applies to statements about specific living persons, not whole religions. A.J.A. 03:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you look again at the definition of libel which is defined as the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. The continued assertion that JW's have a doctrine of deception, and using a website thus named is libelous and therefore not encyclopedic. I have referenced the statement about JW beliefs on the identity of Abaddon with a reliable source published by their own publishing entity. I am asking nicely, before you go too far please stop inserting libel into this article. Wonderpet 21:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I see from the history that you removed information about former JW beliefs. A.J.A. 04:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

fair enough.Wonderpet 15:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

AJA you stated that it is better to state what the belief was rather than to state that it was different, so at your request I revise.Wonderpet 19:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors, I've come into this debate rather late it seems. Coming from articles commonly targetted by different flavours of Christianity, I have become quite adept at spotting really dodgy tabloid sensationalistic style pseudo-religious drivel. This article seems to have it present. Citations 6 through to 10 are the dodgiest things I've seen since someone linked 'freemasonrywatch.org' as a citation to the freemasonry article.

If your argument put forwards is anti-JW, fair enough, I've no qualm with that. I do, however, have a qualm with a messy article citing rubbish follows by a he says she says bullshit argument here over whether it's libel, religious freedom, or anal sex with monkeys. Oh wait, that's the AIDS article, sorry. My suggestion is, however, that you place mention that it's controversially asserted by <$religion> that <$religion> have stated that <$deity> is actually <$deity>. No weasel words, no rubbish sources to religious fanatics home pages who delve into bible prophecy and the reading of chicken ovums to discern the future. Let's keep it encyclopedic, please.

Thus, cleanup. Please. Before I do. In which case there won't be much left to this article because there's not much to be said on the topic. If the controversial comments remain, they should be stated as a point of view of <$religion> or <$group> and not just random allegations sourced primarily with southern United States baptist websites that also host wonderful things like Chick tracts that claim Freemasons worship satan, Islam worships the moon god which is the arch enemy of Yaweh, and if you're homosexual your family die and go to hell with you. (And if you haven't read those wonderful little ditties, I suggest you talk to your local baptist minister immediately because as far as he's concerned you're going to hell for ignorance, brothers and sisters.) May <$deity> bless you and keep you all.  :) Jachin 11:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

So, Jachin, I'm guessing you're not Southern Baptist. You didn't think you could make comments like that and not bring some attention to yourself? FYI, my father's been in the square for over 30 years - 32°. He's Southern Baptist. Ole Grandpa is York Rite...I do, however agree with you above; there isn't much to be said on the subject of "Abaddon", and the JW/Protestant debate is old.Mikepope (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Planning a rewrite

All concerned, I am planning a rewrite of the second half of the Abaddon article which is presently dealing with the topic of Jehovahs Witnesses beliefs on the identity of Abaddon in a POV manner. What has happened here is some one at some point in the past has inserted external links to anti JW sites as proof of what JW's believe, and while this may be acceptable by some standards it is not in line with high encyclopedic standards. I will reference Watchtower publications as a means of stating what this group believes and remove the anti JW sources. Thank you. Wonderpet 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a reference for what Jehovah's Witnesses Believe regarding abaddon. I am not very good at adding references, so could someon please add this reference? Insight on the Scriptures, volume 1, page 12. That is a reference to JW beliefs regarding abaddon.--Kanata Kid (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

changes without discussion

Please do not make changes to this article without discussion first. Wonderpet 00:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted to remove (again) the anti Jehovah's Witness propoganda. Wonderpet 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the edit done 9 Oct 2008 added a manifesto of sorts to this page. I have no idea if this relates to the earlier disputes that apparently were heated with respect to this topic. Regardless, the "manifesto" isn't appropriate to the topic and should be deleted. I'll be happy to delete it, but am giving any interested parties a heads up before I do so. I'll take care of the deletion in 48 hours unless someone has already done so by then. Aramink (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Slant

Apparently this article is in the midst of some conflict, however I was struck while reading it that the phrase "Through continued study and using the Bible itself to aid in interpretation this group now believes Abaddon to be representative of Jesus in his role as Jehovah's executioner of divine judgement on an unrighteous world.[6]" seems to advocate the idea that Jehova's Witnesses believe what they believe simply because they have studied the bible more, and have used the bible to interpret itself. Something a bit more neutral like "Jehovah's Witnesses believe Abaddon to be representative of Jesus in his role as Jehovah's executioner of divine judgement on an unrighteous world.[6]" might be preferable.

--69.29.11.198 02:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree at first glance the statement does seem to lend more credence to the JW belief however it was not written this way, it was written to reflect their own changed belief on the ID of Abaddon which came as a result of continued study. This is similar to the statement at article Trinity which states "The doctrine of the Trinity is the result of continuous exploration by the church of the biblical data..." this too might be construed to represent trinitarian beliefs as the Biblical Truth except that it is in regard to the developement of the theory and not directly in comparison to alternate beliefs.Wonderpet 11:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong page

None of this JW stuff belongs on this page anyway. That's the subject of the Abaddon (demon) page, not this one. -- Jake 05:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but good luck getting two religious factions to stop obsessively fighting each other over their made-up beliefs in inappropriate fora. DarthSquidward 06:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

Opinion?

What does this mean: [8]?

69.54.28.201 23:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Word Used as Insult

Anybody ever heard the term "abaddon" used as an insult in some cultures? I was listening to a conversation between two Scotsmen and they were using the term to describe someone they didn't care for.Mikepope (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly misheard "a bad 'un"? :) Hairy Dude (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

About using CARM as a source

I posted this on someone else's talk page after they kept putting a link to CARM in the article.

Using CARM to point out the JW's point of view is like quoting a militant Islamist website as a reference on Buddhist doctrine. No fundamentalist protestant doctrine is provided by that CARM link except for "the JWs are wrong." As for the links supposedly being one sided, fundamentalist protestant view have been provided, (see the links in the line "Some bible scholars believe him to be the antichrist or Satan."). These links are the source material for the fundamentalist protestant view, just like watchtower articles and Charles Taze Russell's writings are the source of the JW beliefs. The link to CARM ultimately does not contribute anything to the article anymore than a link to JW site quoting Matthew Henry and saying "that's wrong." I know darn well I don't own the article but I am not going to allow anyone to allow JWs and fundies to use the article for petty arguing over tertiary adiaphora. If we allow the links with fundies saying "the JWs are wrong," we have to allow JW links saying "the protestants are wrong" to keep the articles from being one sided. It is easier to just all views as advocated by the original sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding a couple of recent edits that have been undone

The only mention of locusts in Joel is 1:4, which is about normal (but still scary) locusts. The only thing comparable in Joel to Abaddon's locusts are the great and strong people in Joel 2:2. The author of Revelation ("St. John") did indeed use the name Abaddon to refer to an angel (just read the book, ninth chapter) and that was the first recorded instance of Abaddon refering to an angel instead of a place. Also, Revelation clearly states that Abaddon is the angel of the bottomless pit ("the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in Greek his name is Apollyon." - Rev 9:11). If there is clear documentation that some notable theologian or denomination (the JWs are already covered) that believes Abaddon is not described as the angel of the bottomless pit in the Bible, or that Joel did indeed somehow write about Abaddon's locusts while managing to keep the subject (locusts) completely separate from the appropriate description (of the mighty folks in the following chapter), then by all means provide who they are and what they wrote. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please explain this quote better.

On the page, you use a quote from some random guy named Gustav Davidson who uses the term "noncanonical". Can you please explain how the concept of "canon" enters into a bunch of mythical names for vague entities that don't actually exist? Thanks! Just want to avoid Random Quote Dropping, after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.143.183 (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about

"Some theologians believe Abaddon to be just an angel. Concerning the angel holding the key to the bottomless pit from Revelation 9 and 20, Gustav Davidson, in A Dictionary of Angels, Including the Fallen Angels, writes:"

Right? Considering Davidson quotes the Bible, I would guess it is safe to assume that canon refers to Biblical canon. The beginning of the article explains that Abaddon is also known as Apollyon/Apollion, and that he is named in Revelation chapter 9. The sentence gives a short explanation of who Davidson is, and he is quoted because he concisely sums up the argument that Abaddon is just an angel. The quote by itself may be meaningless to someone who hasn't read the rest of the article, but it does work within the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I came for Masonry info...

Where is the secret info?

-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.138.114 (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

stop fighting

JW should have a separate section. JW beliefs are more different from other American Protestants than Roman Catholic vs Southern Baptists! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.138.114 (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Apollyon redirecting to Abbadon

There is no good reason why Apollyon should redirect to Abbadon. From the point of view of the greeks, the originator of the term Apollyon, this was the greek name for the god Apollo, therefore it should direct the reader primarily to the article on the greek god Apollo, not a judeo-christian topic on something entirely different. It is both disrespectful and baffling. The connection between Apollyon, Apollo, and Abbadon are more suited for a 'see also' link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.182.149 (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No modern academic sources consider ApollYon to be part of the same root as ApollO. Apollyon means "destroyer," as does Abbadon, and the book of Revelation gives both forms as different names for the same being. Apollo could be derived from a variety of Greek words, or more likely from the older and quite similarly named deities from surrounding regions, such as Aplu. So, we have sources actually listing Apollyon as a being in Christian mythology, and no sources for him being Apollo (your false cognate conclusion does not count). How is it disrespectful? I'm honestly offended at the accusation. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Apollon is apparently a possible origin of the name Apollo, and "Parnopius" (Locust) is attached to his name. This bears discussion and consideration I think. LeapUK (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You need reliable sources to connect Apollon to Apollyon. There are numerous sources that only discuss Apollyon as the Greek form of Abaddon, without connection to Apollo. The few sources I'm finding connecting Apollo to Apollyon only discuss how some later interpretations connect them in a false cognate, with only one exegetical work suggesting that a pun was intended. The most that could be done is discuss this in this article, but it's not enough to separate Apollyon from Abaddon. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Rabbinical Literature

'In some legends, Abaddon is identified as a realm where the damned lie in fire and snow, one of the places in Hell that Moses visited.[3]'

This section seems a tad vague, citing a source that goes only by the name of 'The Sacred Texts.'

I, for one, have never heard any mention of Moses having visited Hell (or Heaven), and I was wondering from what sect of the Judeo-Christian religions this actually comes from.

Hotel-c (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If you actually check the link that's in the citation, you'll find the source for that statement is Chapter IV of Louis Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews (an almost standard collection of Haggadah and Midrash from the Talmudic era and later) hosted at the Internet Sacred Text Archive (sacred-texts.com). Judaism has a number of commentaries and legends that elaborate, expand, and build on Biblical concepts that are not found in Christianity since they became separate religions two millennia ago. It may help if you stop thinking "Judeo-Christian," and acknowledge that while Judaism and Christianity (and Islam) are all Abrahamic religions, they are still distinct and separate religions. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I did actually go to the link and read the account, but saw no mention of the title of the collection. As for the Judeo-Christian part, I honestly didn't know what else to refer to them as [edit: Believe me, I fully recognise Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as distinct religions, I was merely noting that there are shared aspects between them] (Semitic, maybe?). Anyway, I was just surprised to read that version of the story which I had never encountered before. [more edit: After having briefly reading the story of Ginzberg, I can understand how his work has passed me by- most of my exposure to Judaism has been either through a reconstructionist lens (i.e. Less than religious) or from an orthodox perspective.] Anyway, thanks for the info.

Hotel-c (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hebrew Pronounciation

In the opening sentence, the Hebrew pronounciation is given as "'Ǎḇaddōn", but since there is no Dagesh in the Bet shouldn't it be "'Ǎvaddōn"? Later in the article it is written "avadon". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.159.79 (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead sentence doesn't make sense

Here's the lead sentence to this article: "The Hebrew term Abaddon (Hebrew: אֲבַדּוֹן‎‎, 'Ǎḇaddōn), and its Greek equivalent Apollyon (Greek: Ἀπολλύων, Apollyon), appears in the Bible as both a place of destruction and by two different angel names (Hades and Lucifer.)" The terms "Hades" and "Lucifer" don't appear in the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible, and in the New Testament Abaddon and Apollyon appear in a single verse, and neither one is equated with Hades or Lucifer in that verse. So it is not clear exactly what the first sentence is saying. I think I'll remove the bit about Hades and Lucifer in the opening, although if someone wants to rewrite the lead sentence in a clearer form, go right ahead. Alephb (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - "Christianity," "New Teastament," last paragraph

Apparently there has been quite a lot of arguing over this page already, so not trying to throw fuel on the fire. The last paragraph in the section referenced above however needs to be set off as being the view of a particular religious group and citations included:

Full Preterism In scripture, the Greek name for Abaddon is Apollian, which happens to be the very name of the 15th Legion of the Roman army that laid siege to Jerusalem for five months and destroyed it in 70 AD. Interestingly, the prophets including Daniel, Jesus and John the Revelator, foretold of this destruction that would occur before that 1st century generation passed away. It was predicted that there would come to be 4 kingdoms: Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome on the earth. The 4th kingdom Rome was represented by Iron and it was a composite beast made up of the previous kingdoms which had been conquered. The Empire of Rome ruled the world in the lifetime of Jesus which is exactly when the prophecy foretold that the kingdom of heaven would destroy the power of that earthly Roman kingdom and it did, but not with physical weapons, but with spiritual ones through the spread of the good news of God's kingdom under Christ in the 1st century. The old Jewish age passed away and the new heavenly kingdom age under Jesus began. Other views often overlook audience relevance and time statements which is crucial in understanding Daniel, The Olivet prophecy and Revelation which are all written about the same last days events in the 1st century.

If these steps are taken, no reason the paragraph can't remain in the article. Otherwise it needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonblaylock (talk • contribs) 12:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed, removing tag. SITH (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Edinburgh Encyclopedia -- Questionable Source

The article currently has this sentence: "The Edinburgh Encyclopedia of 1832 includes another view: "There can be no doubt that the Pythian Apollo is the same as the Ob and Abaddon of the Hebrews, which the Greeks translated literally Apollyon."[5]" It's sourced to an 1832 (!) encyclopedia, it contains a statement that the encyclopedia itself does not endorse, and the idea that the Hebrew Ob = Apollo is the sort of thing you'll never find a living scholar say. Should it really be in the article? Alephb (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ambiguous interpretation?

In the section 'New Testament', a verse from the Bible is reference: Revelation 9:11:

"A king, the angel of the bottomless pit; whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek Apollyon; in Latin Exterminans."

It is suggested that this is the first known reference to Abaddon as a being rather than a place. But the verse above is ambiguous, as the subject could be either "a king" or "the angel", or it could be referring to "the bottomless pit". --82.21.97.70 (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not ambiguous. The king (over the scorpion-like creatures) is the angel. The name cannot be referring to the Abyss, because Abyss is feminine and it says "the name OF HIM" (αὐτῷ). 172.75.77.7 (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Proverbs 6:32

A previous editor of the Christianity section seems to be confused about Proverbs 6:32, claiming that the Brenton Septuagint Translation (an English Translation of the Septuagint) "added" the word "to" into the verse which he says literally reads "destruction his soul obtains". Since this is in the section attempting to show anthropomorphic ways in which Abaddon is used, I can only conclude that he has no understanding of the original languages and thinks "destruction" is the subject (nominative case). It's not. Adulterer is the subject, destruction is the direct object (accusative case), and soul is the indirect object (dative case), thus the Brenton translation, "But the adulterer through want of sense procures destruction to his soul." Destruction is the thing procured, not the one procuring. The soul is not the thing being procured but the recipient of the thing procured. I would be happy with removing the verse from that section entirely, but I erred on the side of preservation. At any rate, if it remains included, it should be noted, as I did in the article, that the Hebrew verse does not contain Abaddon anyway. And if it remains included, maybe the original editor would like to say why he thinks "destruction" in Proverbs 6:32 is used anthropomorphically. 172.75.77.7 (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

KJV vs an actual Jewish translation in referencing the Hebrew Bible

It seems to me if we are talking about an understanding of the meaning of a Hebrew word in a Jewish context we should at the very least use a Jewish translation. A standard Jewish text in English is the JPS 1985. It is notable when consulting JPS that Abaddon, like Sheol, is not translated at all, but rendered as Abaddon and Sheol.

Example: עָר֣וֹם שְׁא֣וֹל נֶגְדּ֑וֹ וְאֵ֥ין כְּ֝ס֗וּת לָאֲבַדּֽוֹן׃ Sheol is naked before Him; Abaddon has no cover. https://www.sefaria.org/Job.26.6?lang=bi

I would like to suggest that Wikipedia follow this template in the Hebrew Bible section (only).

I also would like to note that no standard Jewish translation in English uses the term Hell in Prov 15:11 and 27:20 as in those verses that understanding is explicitly Christian.

I will let this sit a while and then make the edit if there are no objections. Mweisenfeld (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Changes made per above Mweisenfeld (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Apollion in the play Lucifer

Apollion is the name of one of the rebel angels in the 17th century play, Lucifer, by Joorst den Van Vondel, but I wouldn't know how or where to add it to the article. Violetyimlat (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)