Talk:The Beast (Revelation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:The beast (Revelation))
Jump to: navigation, search

Ellul statement[edit]

Statement regarding Jacques Ellul view of the Beast should have citation from an actual Ellul work rather than a work by Christoyannopoulos, Alexandret as currently is listed. Ijaz19 (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Stub category[edit]

I changed the stub category to Christianity. I am well-versed in Christian prophecy and all scholars I have read (and Wikipedia's own article Antichrist) identify the Beast as a person or institution as opposed to a creature. This article seriously needs to be expanded. Unverified claims need to be removed.

Have a nice day, Compaqdrew 02:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A few issues with NPOV[edit]

I take some issue with the beast being "most commonly" identified as Nero. I think this is inaccurate and violates NPOV. Please see [1] as well as Wikipedia's own Antichrist, which says the beast is "often interpreted as the Antichrist."

The use of Gematria (the numerology used to calculate Nero = 666) is subject to heavily scholarly debate [2] [3] and thus should *NOT* be mentioned without acknowledging the many scholars who see its use as somewhat limited.

Additionally, it seems that several names [4] seem to add up to 666 according to Gematria. All references to Gematria as being a justification specifically for Nero (as opposed to a general discussion) need to be removed.

Have a great day, Compaqdrew 06:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


I believe this article should be flagged as biased. The preface/premise is roughly correct.

The article then goes on with a category labeled "Identity of the Beast From the Sea" with supposed descriptions of this beast. It follows this category with a label "Alternative Views".

ALL of these views carry the same weight since they are all in conflict and are all based purely on inverted pyramids of doctrinal presumption and speculation. The reason they all come up short is because they are not arrived at in the light of the related scripture.

Consider just one element a little ways into the first category: "According to the majority of Scholars, Nero is the emperor at the time John was writing the book."

Rev 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Wasn't it Domitian that banished John to Patmos? [5] In frustration after failing to kill him by boiling him in oil?[6]

To expand the point, why didn't any of these doctrinal presumptions exercise the terms used in the verses? Hermeneutics is not rocket science. Anyone that is filled with the Holy Spirit can study God's Holy Word.[7] The beast of Revelation 13 is described thus:

Revelation 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as [the feet] of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

Daniel described what a beast is when used in the context of a dream: Daniel 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,...

And he did it in the context of a lion, bear, leopard and 4th "dreadful" beast. [8] Both Daniel and John saw these beasts in the same context of a dream or vision. There is BROAD concensus, both Christian and Jewish, that Daniel's lion, bear, leopard and 4th beast are the successive kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. [9]

So when we see a composite of these first three beasts in Revelation 13, if we can look past our doctrines, it may seem obvious that this end-time composite leopard-bear-lion beast/kingdom is the last in the succession of the kingdoms that rule the middle east and oppress God's people.

The seats of lion/Babylon, bear/Medo-Persia and leopard/Greece are today occupied by Iraq, Iran, and Syria/Lebanon. [10] The leopard-bear-lion/Islamic empire is that last kingdom in this succession of middle east kingdoms that oppresses God's people. Following are maps of these successive kingdoms/beasts.[11]

What do any of the traditional doctrinal presumptions on the home page have to do with a lion, bear or leopard?[12]RJEdit 23:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Vicarius Filii Dei[edit]

The title has never been an official title of the pope and was mentioned only once in the margin of one document. Perhaps the section about the SDA Church should reflect this. As it stands, the wording implies strongly that "Vicarius Filii Dei" really is one of the pope's titles and that it is widely accepted, when that is simply not true. (or at the very least, is largely speculative) I suggest a rewording of that section, but am abhorr to do it myself without an account and without discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and term Scholarly/Preterist[edit]

I submit that the section heading "Scholarly/preterist" is not NPOV, since it implies that all scholars agree with the preterist position (and, by extension, that no one advocating any alternative interpretation is scholarly). I would suggest that the section heading be changed to read simply "Preterist", which will put it on an even basis with the other other sections. If some comment is desired concerning the views of scholars, it could be something in the body of the preterist section like "Most secular scholars tend to endorse this interpretation" or words to that effect.


                          Bonbga (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I didn't change it before because I tended to agree with it (;p) but it did need to be changed. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This section still seems to be lacking the required NPOV, as originally mentioned above. The claim that "Preterist interpretations ... are generally advocated by scholars" would appear to overstate the case, as can be seen readily in the relevant Wikipedia article, with its sections on the scholarly positions of Futurism and Historicism; it seems that there are scholars who disagree with the preterist position, thus invalidating the first claim. The further claim in the same paragraph, that "preterists and scholars" claim "[that] ... the Beast from the Sea could only have referred to Nero" is also POV ( i.e. if you don't agree you're not a scholar) and also suggests, no doubt unintentionally, that preterists are not scholars. --TraceyR (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Scholarly positions and theological positions aren't the same. The people that have spent decades in universities studying the Bible as a literary work and a historical document generally do advocate preterism. People in churches who are more concerned what the Bible means for them rather than what the Bible means in itself* might advocate any of these views. "And" doesn't always mean a final separation. If someone said "Comic fans and X-Men fans thought this about that," that doesn't mean that X-Men isn't a comic book franchise, just that the overlap isn't %100. If you can find a scholarly source that says that Beast isn't Nero, introduce it. But right now, there are no scholarly sources saying otherwise. It isn't POV to say "scholars believe this" if that is all scholars advocate, or else we need to go change the articles on the earth and sun to reflect geocentrism.
  • On a personal note, I see nothing wrong with people making the Bible applicable for themselves, I'd rather have people misinterpret less important points in the Bible rather than reject the good parts because they don't agree on minor details. However, this should not be confused for what the authors of the various books in the Bible probably meant when they wrote it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ian - I tend to agree with Tracy R's position. As presently presented, the words "are generally advocated by scholars" tends to imply that those advocating other viewpoints are not as scholarly. I would suggest amending the sentence to read something like: "Preterism is not only a theological position, but also tends to be accepted by secular scholars" or something along that line. Perhaps the word "academic" would work better than the word "secular" in the foregoing sentence. What do you think?

                                Bonbga (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph[edit]

"This Beast is later called “The False Prophet” (Rev. 16:13; Rev. 19:20; Rev. 20:10) and together with the Dragon (Satan) and the First Beast (the Antichrist) forms the unholy trinity."

The opening implies this description is the view, when it is only one interpretation. You could add "commonly interpreted as" with a reliable source, or move the interpretation down to a specific section on common interpretations and where the interpretations originally came from, if specific historical scholars can be identified.

  • "Unholy trinity" is in contrast to "holy trinity," so it applies to Trinitarian thought but not Nontrinitarians who may argue the bible has no textual support for the trinity, or the trinity is a human made concept introduced later. How late was the unholy trinity concept introduced, and what branches subscribed to it first?
  • The dragon is called "that old serpent, the devil" which is associated with the talking serpent in Genesis, causing Christian scholars to identify the talking serpent as Satan because of this verse. Genesis doesn't say the talking serpent is Satan, and Revelation doesn't say the devil was the same talking serpent in Genesis, but it's easy to make the link based on the phrase "that old serpent", so the Genesis serpent is assumed to be Satan after Revelation is written. Is it possible to trace pre-Revelation beliefs about the Genesis serpent to see if the talking serpent was only thought of as a talking serpent, followed by beliefs that the serpent is Satan after Revelation is written?
  • Identifying the First Beast as "Anti-Christ" is an interpretation; Revelation never uses the word Anti-christ, but it's easy to make an association based on a description in 2 Thessalonians. Anti-Christ can mean those who are literally opposed to Christ, as in those who are anti-Christian, or the Anti-Christian idea itself, so calling the beast "The Anti-Christ" only works if you subscribe to idea of the 2 Thessalonians description being the same as the beast in Revelation, which neither book specifically states.

Compare the article on Lilith where the evolution of the Lilith idea is discussed from early to later interpretations. See if there are any interpretations before the common interpretation became popular- did earlier scholars have a different view based on reading the text, or is there a chronology of different interpretations? Studying differences in classic antiquity, late antiquity, early medieval, late medieval and renaissance writings should provide answers.

Anti-Masonic interpretation[edit]

I have read some rather unusual interpretations of this biblical passage that suggest that the Beast is actually the modern organization of Freemasonry. Masonry is often described by its critics as an anti-Church led by the anti-Christ who is engaged in a constant struggle against the true Church, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church (cf Catholicism and Freemasonry). This interpretation should certainly be included if adequate sources can be found. ADM (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bit late, but... Don't use the Nov 15 1914 issue of Our Sunday Visitor as a source[edit]

Farsight001 has already reverted the edit, but I contacted Our Sunday Visitor about the issue used by, and OSV has released another issue back in 11/7/04 pointing out that the staff for the Nov 15 1914 issue made "a flat-out blunder" regarding Vicarius Filii Dei being (or rather, not being) a title for the Pope. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved —innotata 14:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Beast (Bible)Beast (Bible) — Relisted. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No particular reason for the "the". While certainly the Beast of the bible is referred to with a "the", so are many things, and it is atypical to include determiners in article names unless they are part of a creative work's title. The fact that a full sentence discussing the Beast is not properly capitalized a full sentence discussing The Beast seems clinching evidence that "the" should be removed form the title. Confer also the comparable Serpent (Bible), not The Serpent (Bible), not to mention Bible itself, not The Bible. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose always hear refered to as THE beast --Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

  • But you also always hear THE end times, and yet the page is End Time(s), etc. Since the "the" is not capitalized mid-sentence, it is not part of the name. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Oh dear. No offense intended, but I think this is kind of silly. The question isn't whether the word "The" is always capitalized. The real issue is that this isn't any old beast -- this is a very particular Beast. The point is we never see this beast referred to as "Beast" or "a Beast" -- only as "the Beast". To take another example that I am very familiar with, this is basically analagous to the Holocaust, which always requires the use of the definite article "the" (regardless of lack of capitalization). There is very clear concensus on that -- and I don't see any real difference between these two cases. Cgingold (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

PS - While we're at it, I don't see any reason to keep (Bible) in the name of the article, either, since there is only ONE The Beast. Cgingold (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

oppose - The change seems redundant to me. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Beast from the Bottomless Pit[edit]

Sometimes overlooked since it is new detail not found in the Book of Daniel, the Beast from the Bottomless Pit ascends after the prophetic 1260 days (Day-year principle, ie, 1260 years, eg, 538-1798) at the time of the French Revolution. France is the political actor who inflicts the papacy with the "deadly wound" and seizes the Papal States. Biblical commentors look to France for the Pit Beast, and find the atheist revolution that banned the Bible, the two witnesses. Uriah Smith in, Daniel and Revelation, p.535: "1798. About this time, then, did such a kingdom as described appear, and make war on them, etc.? Mark! this beast, or kingdom, is out of the bottomless pit--no foundation--an atheistical power--'spiritually Egypt.'"[1] Ellen White shared the same view in the Great Controversy, pp.239,240. More recent works on the French Revolution and Bible prophecy further posit the atheistic power (ie., Jacobins) was the Freemason or Illuminati or Marxist World revolution that has went on to found the United Nations.[1][2][3][4] The more recent pastors are most accurate with their history of the events, but this is no new idea as suggested. There are reliable sources identifying both the Pit Beast and the two witnesses. Several other ministries have websites but no published books on the topic i'm aware of. (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Smith and White, their works alone do not support what you've attempted to add. Their works (or at least what you have cited) do not say anything about Deists, Freemasons, the French Revolution, Marxists, or the Illuminati; and the parts you've cited do not outright mention stuff like the French Revolution. If you interpret them as being about those things, that's your POV.
Regarding Sutton and Sessler/Sussler, their books appear to be a self-published sources (that is, pay-to-print publishers) or at least not mainstream, I'm having trouble finding any credentials for them, and it would be undue weight to present their views as anything like mainstream theological interpretation. If their views were notable (according to Wikipedia's guidelines, presented here), they could be presented as their views.
You are just engaging in synthesis original research. Citations are supposed to be pretty much point for point. Additional citations are not to modify points (as you have done), but provide additional support for the same statement. Actually read WP:SYN and you'll understand why your addition wasn't accepted.
As for the "Pit beast" issue, the Beast from the Sea mentioned in Rev 11 and 17, and some translations go with "bottomless pit" for "abyssus." However, academic sources tend to favor the translation "Beast from the Sea."
As for sources, academic books are prefered, personal and self-published websites are generally not accepted (anyone can make a church website, no matter how crazy or ). Try Google Books, and check for books which come from mainstream publishing companies instead of fringe companies. If you want to incorporate contemporary Seventh Day Adventist views in the article, you're welcome to cite scholarly and academic source that detail the views in additions that clearly states whose view it is (instead of just putting the info out there like "Most Christian scholars" agree with it). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, both White and Smith write about the French revolution in Revelation 11, the beast from the bottomless pit (not sea beast ch.13). They say specifically the pit beast ch.11 is different than the sea beast ch.13, that the pit beast was the "atheist revolution". Their books are self published (Adventist publishing) as most religious books are so that is a non issue. We're talking about biblical exposition and anyone can publish a book. The point is they wrote about the events of ch.11, the beast from the pit, and that is the historicist view re the two witnesses. The pit beast needs to be on here so it can be added to the two witnesses wiki article, under the historicist view, not currently presented on the biased page.

The Two Witnesses.--During this time of 1260 years the witnesses are in a state of sackcloth, or obscurity, and God gives them power to endure and maintain their testimony through that dark and dismal period. But who or what are these witnesses? Evident allusion is here made to Zechariah 4: 11-14, where it is implied that the two olive trees are taken to represent the word of God. Says George Croly: "The 'Two Witnesses' are the Old and New Testaments." These declarations and considerations are sufficient to sustain the conclusion that the Old and New Testaments are Christ's two witnesses.(....) Verse 7 "And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. 8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." "When they shall have finished their testimony," that is, "in sackcloth." the sackcloth state ended, or as elsewhere expressed the days of persecution were shortened (Matthew 24: 22), before the period itself expired. "A 'beast' in prophecy, denotes a kingdom, or power. (See Daniel 7: 17, 23.) The question now arises, When did the sackcloth state of the witnesses close? And did such a kingdom as described make war on them at the time spoken of? If we are correct in fixing upon A.D. 583 as the time of the commencement of the sackcloth state, forty-two months being the 1260 prophetic days, or years, would bring us down to A.D. 1798. About this time, then, did such a kingdom as described appear, and make war on them, this beast, or kingdom, is out of the bottomless pit--no foundation--an atheistical power--'spiritually Egypt.' (See Exodus 5: 2:'Pharaoh said, Who is the Lord, that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go.') Here is atheism. Did any kingdom, about 1798 manifest the same spirit?--Yes, France; she denied the being of God in her national capacity, and made war on the 'Monarchy of heaven.' "In the year 1793, . . . the gospel was, by a solemn act of the Legislature and the people abolished in France. (Continues for two pages about the Bible and France.) Uriah Smith, Daniel and Revelation, pp.533-537.

Smith and Ellen White are Historicist founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Her views are the same found in several of her writings:

Revelation 11:2-11. The periods here mentioned--"forty and two months," and "a thousand two hundred and threescore days"--are the same, alike representing the time in which the church of Christ was to suffer oppression from Rome. The 1260 years of papal supremacy began in A.D. 538, and would therefore terminate in 1798. At that time a French army entered Rome and made the pope a prisoner, and he died in exile. Though a new pope was soon afterward elected, the papal hierarchy has never since been able to wield the power which it before possessed. The persecution of the church did not continue throughout the entire period of the 1260 years. God in mercy to His people cut short the time of their fiery trial. In foretelling the "great tribulation" to befall the church, the Saviour said: "Except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." Matthew 24:22. Through the influence of the Reformation the persecution was brought to an end prior to 1798. Concerning the two witnesses the prophet declares further: "These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth." "Thy word," said the psalmist, "is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." Revelation 11:4; Psalm 119:105. The two witnesses represent the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament. Both are important testimonies to the origin and perpetuity of the law of God. Both are witnesses also to the plan of salvation. The types, sacrifices, and prophecies of the Old Testament point forward to a Saviour to come. The Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament tell of a Saviour who has come in the exact manner foretold by type and prophecy. "They shall prophecy a thousand two hundred and three-score days, clothed in sackcloth." During the greater part of this period, God's witnesses remained in a state of obscurity. The papal power sought to hide from the people the word of truth, and set before them false witnesses to contradict its testimony. (See Appendix.) When the Bible was proscribed by religious and secular authority; when its testimony was perverted, and every effort made that men and demons could invent to turn the minds of the people from it; when those who dared proclaim its sacred truths were hunted, betrayed, tortured, buried in dungeon cells, martyred for their faith, or compelled to flee to mountain fastnesses, and to dens and caves of the earth--then the faithful witnesses prophesied in sackcloth. Yet they continued their testimony throughout the entire period of 1260 years. In the darkest times there were faithful men who loved God's word and were jealous for His honor. To these loyal servants were given wisdom, power, and authority to declare His truth during the whole of this time. (....) "When they shall have finished their testimony." The period when the two witnesses were to prophesy clothed in sackcloth, ended in 1798. As they were approaching the termination of their work in obscurity, war was to be made upon them by the power represented as "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit." In many of the nations of Europe the powers that ruled in church and state had for centuries been controlled by Satan through the medium of the papacy. But here is brought to view a new manifestation of satanic power. It had been Rome's policy, under a profession of reverence for the Bible, to keep it locked up in an unknown tongue and hidden away from the people. Under her rule the witnesses prophesied "clothed in sackcloth." But another power --the beast from the bottomless pit--was to arise to make open, avowed war upon the word of God. "The great city" in whose streets the witnesses are slain, and where their dead bodies lie, is "spiritually" Egypt. Of all nations presented in Bible history, Egypt most boldly denied the existence of the living God and resisted His commands. (....) According to the words of the prophet, then, a little before the year 1798 some power of satanic origin and character would rise to make war upon the Bible. And in the land where the testimony of God's two witnesses should thus be silenced, there would be manifest the atheism of the Pharaoh and the licentiousness of Sodom. This prophecy has received a most exact and striking fulfillment in the history of France. (Continues about the French Revolution for the rest of the chapter.) During the Revolution, in 1793. Ellen White, Great Controversy, pp.266-269.

There are several beasts in Daniel and Revelation. Daniel 7 identifies the symbol as "the fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon the earth." In Revelation 11 & 17 there is a "beast from the bottomless pit", and two beasts in chapter 13. Uriah Smith and Ellen White wrote about all of these. The Historicist school says the Beast from the Bottomless Pit happened after the 1260 years at the time of the French Revolution and is identified by Smith and White as the "atheistic French revolution". (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


The lead in lacks neutrality since it presents the Futurist view. All the Futurist malarkey should be down under it's own section. The "beast" is a symbol whether the Futurist believe it's an individual or the Historicist believe it's a kingdom. There are beasts in the books of Daniel and Revelation. All the rest of the lead in presents the Futurist view and is not neutral. The Futurist view continues throughout the article right down to the off topic Four Horesemen section that I correctly removed. There was no good cause to revert my edit that removed this section and created the Futurist section. (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

... What article are you reading? If anything, the article presents very little on the different Futurist views of the beast. For the beast from the sea, the Historicist section is the largest, followed by alternative views. For the beast from the land, Historicism again dominates. Since Futurism involve imagining the future, there is less of a consistant interpretation than with Historicist views (which is pretty varied), and many of them involve taking Historicist views and projecting them onto the future. If anything we need to incorporate more notable futurist views.
And again neutrality does not mean giving every view equal coverage, but with the weight given by reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't there a futurist section regarding this figure in Revelation?[edit]

Just a quick thought: I don't really appreciate the lack of information about the futurist interpretation regarding this Beast of Revelation. There is a substantial lack of mentioning of the diverse theories within the field of Premillennial eschatology concerning this end times character. I think this article lacks some neutrality. We might need a sub-section concerning the futurist interpretation within the section, "Identity of the Beast from the sea". Just my opinion. Nashhinton (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There is WAAAY too much weight on the Historicist view. I motion for a Historicist page move like The Beast (preterism) page. Jasonasosa (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It's there, but minor. It is this way because the futurist view is also minor in scholarly circles and we must, according to policy, reflect the weight of scholarship. Please also note that when I speak of scholars, I speak of genuinely educated men and women, often who speak Greek and Hebrew, and have many many years of study and experience on the subject. I clarify this because too often I do not and someone then begins to claim I am wrong and begins to cite many names they look to for information, but who in no way qualify as a reputable scholar on the subject.Farsight001 (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources; and, all majority and significant minority views that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles " - Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.. hmmm... I don't see anything on this page that says.. "[Wikipedia] must, [according to policy], reflect the weight of scholarship" :/ Jasonasosa (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh and Betty, you must have forgotten about this ...
"Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." - Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Some types of sources
-Jasonasosa (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
And at any rate, The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology, this book by Craig Blomberg, this Bible commentary, and this study of Revelation all point out that most academics favor the preterist view. There is more written about the historicist view, because there is more to write about from the historicist perspective. Preterism is less popular in evangelical circles (probably because all the bad stuff is over with), but it is not minor in scholarly circles. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
You didn't see anything in that regard because you were looking at the wrong page. You want WP:WEIGHT, if I recall. Also, my name is not Betty.Farsight001 (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
And as the sources I have presented demonstrate, preterism is far from minor in scholarly circles. One sentence is undue weight against preterism. Even if it wasn't, one sentence for preterism is throwing the baby, the tub, and several feet of pipe out with the bathwater. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
this is true. It's a constant battle on this and similar articles regarding the preterist view because some are adamant that it is untrue and feel the need to remove or greatly reduce the information on it without discussion. I think they just don't like it because it's the primary Catholic view and they tend to be people who think the Catholic Church is what revelation is talking about, but that's just my perspective.Farsight001 (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Reversion based on OR[edit]

In what way is this OR, references can be given on request? Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The best thing to do now is to propose a revised version of your change, with reliable references, here. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That depends entirely on what needs to be cited. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If references can be given on request, why did you not start with them? You should know that original research and synthesis are not allowed here, and so you really ought to have started out with references in the first place. I agree with Daniel - propose your change here, complete with references. If you don't know what needs references then, not to sound mean, but you really shouldn't be editing.Farsight001 (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Insert citation needed templates here then. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

According to prophetic metaphorism[citation needed][clarification needed], a "beast" refers to a kingdom(Daniel 7:17), (Daniel 7:23), (Daniel 8:20), (Daniel 8:21)[original research?], which is synonymous for any governing body, or the position of the respective governing head. "Sea" is widely used throughout the Bible to refer to the Mediteranean sea.(Numbers 11:31), (Numbers 13:29), (Numbers 34:5)[original research?] To say like an animal or parts of it, is to compare attributes associated with it.[citation needed][original research?] Thus, "like a leopard", is to say a swift, disguised hunter,[citation needed][original research?] and "the feat of a bear" is to say command might, with which to destroy,[citation needed][original research?] and "like the mouth of a lion" is to say commands great respect.[citation needed][original research?]

Beast from the Mediteranean[edit]

When a prophetic legend[clarification needed] is constructed, the relavent verses can be decrypted as:

13 And I saw a [sovereign body][citation needed][original research?] rising up out of the [mediteranean],[citation needed][original research?] having seven [kings][citation needed][original research?] and ten [kingdoms],[citation needed][original research?] and on (its) [kingdoms][citation needed][original research?] ten [authorities],[citation needed][original research?] and on its [kings][citation needed][original research?] a blasphemous name.
2 Now the [sovereign body][citation needed][original research?] which I saw was [a well disguised, and watchful],[citation needed][original research?] (its) [ability][citation needed][original research?] were [mighty, and destructive],[citation needed][original research?] and (its) [legislator][citation needed][original research?] [loud and respected].[citation needed][original research?] The [devil][citation needed][original research?] gave (it) his power, his throne, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of (its) [kings][citation needed][original research?] as if it had been motally wounded, and (its) deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the [sovereign body].[citation needed][original research?]
4 So they worshiped the [devil][citation needed][original research?] who gave authority to the [sovereign body]; and they worshiped the [sovereign body],[citation needed][original research?] saying, "Who is like the [sovereign body]?[citation needed][original research?] Who is able to make war with (it)?"
5 And it was given a [representative][citation needed][original research?] speaking great things and blasphemies, and it was given authority to make war for [1260 years].[citation needed][original research?]

Are you actually trying to say that you don't think any of it needs a citation? There's no point in me adding tags to it because for one, it all needs tags, and for another, it's your job to properly cite it in the first place. It's not my responsibility to do it for you.Farsight001 (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Common sense indicates that not every statement needs citing. You are the one who has a problem with the text, not me. Therefore, it is your responsiblity to explain your problem, and my job to respond. Handing your problem to me is not the right thing to do. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As I already said, my problem with the text is that it is not cited, but rather is original research. By wikipedia policy, therefore, it cannot be included. So I already explained my problem (the main one at least). You ask me to tell you where citations are needed, but the fact that there is none at all shows that you haven't even tried to cite it, and until you do, it can't be included in the article. I don't want it in the article because it is OR, and frankly, of poor quality and scholarship. You do want it included. So this sounds quite clearly like your problem, not mine. You are just trying to weasel your way out of doing what you're supposed to. Don't play this game with me. Find a WP:RS and then we'll talk.Farsight001 (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Plasmic Physics, what you're going for is exegesis (the theological equivilent of an experiment), and while I personally am glad to see someone studying the Bible and not going all Left-Behind, I have to point out that, like the science articles, you have to site outside sources. You can't cite a personal experiment in the science articles, but are limited to summarizing peer-reviewed sources or notable views. The same goes for religious articles.
Your personal interpretation is not notable. Where does this "prophetic metaphorism" come from? Do Bible scholars or notable theologians hold to any of those interpretations? Do any of them advocate those meanings assigned to the different symbols? Also please keep in mind that source synthesis is considered original research, so if you find sources for some statements but not others, and then sources for the other statements, you probably cannot combine them to say "this is how it's read." At best (if they all happened to be from the same author or school of thought) you could say "Prof. Soandso of Madeup University has this interpretation" or "The Seventh Day African Methodist Episcatholutheran Church of Latter Day Saints believe this interpretation." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

They are not my personal interpretations, nor is it OR. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You are cross-referencing one source (the Book of Revelation) with other sources (the Book of Daniel, the Book of Numbers). You are arriving at conclusions that the text does not state at face value, nor are you not simply summarizing or repeating the text. Both of those are forms of interpretation, and if it's not your interpretation or original research, whose interpretation or research is it? Where are the sources that go connect Point A (the unaltered Bible verses in Revelation, Daniel, and Numbers) to Point Z (the contested article text)?
For the record, I'm an English major. My degree is mostly identifying and using different schools of interpretation. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Give an example, so that we can sort this out one at a time.

2 Peter 1:19:21

19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Plasmic Physics, do you know what wikipedia defines as OR and synthesis? Your proposed edits are the very definition of them. Wikipedia could literally use your proposed edit as an example of OR and synthesis on the policy pages. It is really quite simple - find proper citations for your proposed edits (which is, no matter how much you don't want it to be, YOUR job), or it can't be added to the article. We can state exactly what scripture says, but making declarations about what things in revelations symbolize without a scholarly reference to back it up is unacceptable, plain and simple.Farsight001 (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Despite what you're thinking, I actually want to give references. Now then, I was talking with Ian... Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
"Prophecy" is not listed at WP:RS. (Also, the verse you cited is saying that the prophets weren't interpretting stuff, it doesn't say that you're not interpretting their prophecies.) One thing that Wikipedia and the Bible agree upon is that you should "lean not on your own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5). The books of Bible are treated as semi-related literary text on Wikipedia. If it's not the face value of the text without cross reference to any other work, any statement about any Bible verse requires a source to back it up. Piety doesn't excuse that.
What's the source for "prophetic metaphorism?" Who coined the term?
The term refers to associated convensions of metaphorical prophetic visions as opposed to literal visions. What do you suggest I substitute it with?
Who decided that the four beasts in Daniel being kingdoms means that the two Beasts in Revelation are governing bodies as well?
Beasts are used in more than one vision, in every case, that statement holds true. I can give a reference, if you still need it.
Who decided that the descriptions of the beasts in Daniel as different animals describes the kingdom's attributes?
Here is a link[13]
Who decided on giving those attributes to those animals?
Where does this "prophetic legend" come from?
By "lengend", I mean like the legend on a map.
Who decrypted the verses? If it was you, then it is your original research.
I'm going to go through and tag what needs citations, what's original research, and what needs clarification. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try and answer more questions in the next day or so. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't break up other people's posts. It makes things hard to read and understand and is considered bad etiquette.Farsight001 (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The verses that were attempted to be added as references were:

  • Rev 12:9 as a reference to change dragon to devil. This would be keeping up with the text, but to alter a quotation or purpose a new translation on it is original research.
  • Exo 4:16 as a reference to change mouth to spokesperson. This is actually going outside the source text (Revelation) and is therefor original research.
  • Ezk 4:6 as a reference to change 42 months to 1260 years. This is again going outside the source text, and there's still no source to indicate that the 40 days given there in rememberance of 40 years means that any other references to months should be changed to 30 years.

In response to "associated convensions of metaphorical prophetic visions" - what is the academic source for these conversion? Re "Beasts are used in more than one vision" - this means nothing, provide an academic source! Re the link to Dabhand, the site does not the reliable source guidelines because it is just a self-published essy on a site with no peer review, editorial oversight, or fact checking; nor is it by a recognized or notable Bible scholar or a professor at a university. Re "legend on a map" you need to be clearer. Again, prophecy is not considered a reliable source.

I'll try explaining it again: for any change from the face value of the text (without any cross references), or any statement about the text, or any attempt to cross reference the text, or interpret or explain its symbols or meanings, you need a reliable source. Period. Common sense exceptions to needing reliable sources would be summarizing the face value of the text (i.e. "The Book of Revelation features a character known as the Whore of Babylon.") We don't just put anything in articles about the Bible just because someone says its true (even if they are Christian), just like we don't put anything about chemistry articles just because someone says its true (even if they really like chemistry). We need outside sources that have been reviewed by others that show that the statement is at least plausible. In this case, reliable sources would mean university published works, peer-reviewed journals, academic journals, theological texts by notable individuals (i.e. people who have articles about them), or works describing notable denominations (i.e. churches who have articles about them).

On a further note, one thing I suggest you do on on this site is try to treat the books of Bible as independent works of literature in the same genre instead of a comprehensive and coherent spiritual work. While I also believe the Bible is spiritually important (and hold to a highly symbolic interpretation of Revelation), spiritual statements are not objectively verifiable. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Treating the books as independent would be difficult, as they make reference to each other. It would be like treating the preface of a novel as independent of the bokk itself. (First reference) How can it be original research, it is just a natural consequence, as in let y(x) = 1 + x; let x = 2, then y(2) = 3. I'm simply stating the obvious. I clearly say in the title of that translation, "When a prophetic legend is constructed, the relavent verses can be translated as", which is to say that let x be known, then y(x) = ... I'll continue with my answer later today. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that Exodus, Numbers, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation all have different authors (even if they were inspired by the same source). Several dozen texts written between 1000 BC and 100 AD by different authors who variously lived under Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman cultural dominance do not form a single text written to be referenced within itself as one would compare the beginning and end of a novel. Your comparison to a preface and an index is too small a scale: it is more like not allowing cross referencing Homer's Iliad, Hesiod Cosmogony, and Philostrates's Life of Apollonius of Tyana when discussing the Sibylline Oracles. Also, the basis for the translation/legend (as has been pointed out before) is unsourced or improperly sourced. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In many verses, the many books are treated as a collective, information is carried over between them, the are written in a coherent sense. The reference for "dragon" translation is even found in the same text, how is that improperly sourced? If you think it means something else, could you give a reference? Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeating a question does not invalidate previous answers for the question. If you cannot just present a single secondary reliable source that advocates the interpretation you are presenting, you are engaging in unsourced original research. It's that simple. Either present a secondary source or quit wasting everyone's time and bandwidth. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The script for "bismallah" (in the name of islam) is shockingly similar to the original greek text for "666"[edit]

Look up "the mark of the beast" in YouTube I couldn't believe this theory has not been published on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The most we can do with that is report that a notable individual believed they appeared similar. Any brain-damaged monkey on a computer can upload youtube videos, so they do not count as reliable sources.
Also, our brains are wired to see patterns that aren't necessarily there, see apophenia and pareidolia. It is coincidence, and nothing more, or else God is bloody racist ("Bismallah" or "Basmala" is also used by Arabic speaking Christians). Furthermore, the translation "in the name of Islam" is completely incorrect, Bismallah (emphasis added) means "in the name of God." Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is also used by Arabic speaking Jews and Christians. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely the source for this information would be early Greek works showing the mark? Surely <1% of use of this mark within a Christian context are essentially irrelevant, since >99% of the use of this mark is within an Islamic context? Surely bringing in concepts of political correctness, such as supposed racism, are irrelevant to the matter in hand? Your attempt at nullifying this theory is anti-intellectual. Surely modification and correction rather than attempting to reject it outright on utterly spurious grounds would be more in the spirit of wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to accuse other people of being anti-intellectual you better have proper academic sources to support your view. If all you have is YouTube videos then there is nothing more to say here. We are not here to prove or "nullify" theories, only to document the genuinely notable ones, which is just as well as it saves me from uploading a long and tedious lecture to YouTube on my own theory that one set of squiggles looks a lot like another set of squiggles particularly when compared by people who don't understand the squiggles and who have an axe to grind. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Almost all theories on this matter could be considered to originate from people with axes to grind. Theories concerning the vatican - or the freemasons - are just as vulnerable to such criticism, yet there they are on wiki, fully outlined. Regarding the theory that "666" is Bismallah, this theory originates from Walid Shoebat, who is a well known figure. His theory is now part of the mainstream dialogue regarding this issue, yet it has not surfaced (yet) on Wiki. I am not a wiki member, and I assumed raising the matter to the attention of the wiki community would result in its inclusion. I would be grateful for anyone with knowledge of how wiki works to address this gap. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(Wiki is a software, Wikipedia is a site that uses that software.)
Those theories are documented because they have reliable sources which we summarized in a neutral fashion. Shoebat is notable, but he has has lied about having been a terrorist, and he has lied about where his "charity" is registered. The Jerusalem Post, a Jewish conservative newspaper from the nation he's trying to support, revealed he was lying about having been a terrorist. He is hardly a scholar, and sounds more like "former non-Christian" charlatin evangelists like William Schnoebelen. Still, if you can cite a book saying that that is his view, we can at least include that bit of information on his article at least. If you can find any books stating that a scholar or academic advocates that view, or that a notable group has advocated that view, we can include it.
In response to your previous post:
The source of the information would not be early Greek writings because they're not commenting on the Arabic script. You need a third academic source connecting the two.
This has nothing to do with political correctness, the God Paul wrote about isn't a racist - "There is no Greek or Scythian, no Jew or Gentile." The dismissal of your Arabic brothers and sisters is insulting: there were Arab Christians before Muhammed was born, and even if the current majority of Arabic speakers are Muslim, there are still Arabic Christians and they are no less Christian because of their culture. In fact, Christian services in Arabic would be closer to the original Jewish Christian services: the words Allah and El are etymologically related.
This has nothing to do with anti-intellectualism. I've worked a good bit on the preterist sections of the different Christian eschatology related articles, and pretty much rewrote the article Idealism (Christian eschatology), and those views happen to be the ones that academics favor (not just in this age, but in early church as well). If anything, you're the one pushing anti-intellectual views in favor of today's popular anti-Arabic sentiment. Why is it that noone thought Bismallah meant anything except "in the name of God" before 2001? Bismallah existed well before then, and Islam was way more powerful in earlier ages (the Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Almoravids, Seljuks, Ayyubids, Timurids, Moghuls, and Ottomans would be scared Islam had been defeated if they could see the current political climate). And why is it that Revelation has to be about you and your myopic world, instead of the future of the world the text was written in, or a universal existential statement?
The theory that Bismallah is the mark of the beast is "solidly grounded in the popular culture and thinking of our day," but not history: As you know, Greek and Hebrew didn't have numerical characters, but had numerical values assigned to different letters. Because of this, a common cypher was to take the numerical value of the letters in someone's name, add them up, and give the number instead of the name: "Nero Caesar" comes out to 666 in Greek, and 616 in Hebrew (and the oldest Hebrew manuscripts give 616 instead of 666). The Caesars put their names and faces all over money, and deified themselves. Most scholars accept that Babylon is a coded reference to Rome. There's also the seven palatine hills in Rome, which the seven heads of the beast refer to. "Drunk on the blood of saints" pretty much describes your typical crowd watching Christians being thrown to lions.
Also, the verse regarding the mark of the beast says that 666 is the number of a man. Islam is not a man. Not all the manuscripts display those three Greek figures for 666, only some later ones (the video you give only shows a manuscript from 350 AD, much much later). Bismallah doesn't automatically come with two crossed swords, in fact the article we have on bismallah doesn't include any swords in any of the common renderings of bismallah. While the video you show has swords in it, the swords are in most cases completely separate from the word bismallah. And why is it that most Muslim countries are honestly pretty poor, when the Beast is supposed to have a lot of buying power (say like the West)?
The video is pretty ignorant of Islamic and Arabic culture:
  • "Why are those who wear the badge of Allah so filled with rage?" That hardly describes Western Muslims (who actually outnumber the terrorists), or those in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Bangladesh (who each outnumber all other Muslim populations in the world).
  • "Why is this rage directed at... The Christian west?" I'm sorry, but that's a lie: In the Scandinavian countries, only a third to a half of people could bring themselves to say they believe in God in private surveys (it's actually accepted when an atheist baptises an atheist in Christian churches there!). In France, England, and most of Europe (but not the Vatican of course), regular church attendance is about 5% to %10. Europe's religion can best be described as Cultural Christianity. For the most part, America is more focused on materialist consumerism, lust, petty political bickering, and keeping out brown people, than feeding the poor, clothing the orphan, or sheltering the widow. America's religion can better be described as moralistic therapeutic deism, not Christianity. The west is not Christian.
Of course, the video is too short-sighted to bother looking for any real reasons why some people in Muslim nations are angry at Israel (like Israel displacing Palestinians instead of incorporating them into society as the original Israelites did the Jebusites) or at the West (who funded Afghani terrorists to fight Soviet Russia during the Cold War but broke promises to support them when the fight was over). Like televangelists, pseudo-Islamic terrorist leaders are simply giving religious reasons for what is really economic enterprise.
  • "...the multitude of a man" and "His multitude is 'in the name of Allah'" do not make a lick of sense grammatically.
  • "What are the chances? Slim to none," bollocks and superstition! Next thing we know the second coming of Christ is a grilled cheese sandwich! Honestly, the video and the theory it presents is lacking in any academic merit.
If that isn't enough:
  • Rotate Chi Xi Stigma a bit, and you have the word "Sex." Is a lack of virginity the mark of the beast? There's two beastly backs, perhaps a reference to the beast with two backs? You have to mess with the letter Xi like that either way.
  • The earliest Hanzi figure for "wizard" happens to be a cross. By the same reasoning you're presenting to argue that "Bismallah" is the mark of the beast, this mean that Jesus was a wizard.
  • The word "God" was originally a title for Odin. In Norse mythology, Odin goes through a pseudo-crucifixion (setting him up as a pseudo-Christ, or false Christ, or Anti-Christ), and he rides a horse into the final battle (setting him up as a horseman of the apocalypse). Odin's older name is Wodenaz, which was etymologically related to the Latin Vates (the priests of Roman mystery religions, most scholars accept that Babylon is a code for Rome in the Book of Revelation). Odins worshippers included the Vikings, who liked to get drunk and sack Christian monasteries and churches (pretty well describes "drunk on the blood of saints.")
If we're going to say that Bismallah is the mark of the beast, then we have to say that the English word "God" is the Antichrist, his plan to take over the world is for people to lose their virginity, and Jesus was a wizard. I guess only non-English-speaking D&D players go to heaven. :P
BUT if you can present a reliable source stating that some notable individual or group says that Bismallah is the mark of the beast, we can add "(Name of the individual) believes Bismallah is the mark of the beast because (explain reasoning)." Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources in a neutral fashion instead of saying whether individual beliefs are true or false. Here are the reliable source guidelines, you can generally tell if a person or group is notable by seeing if we already have an article about them. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is damned cheating me!![edit]

Section Beast from the earth claims:

This second beast is also called the false prophet.

But the bible citation is:

And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image.

Making the article statement not a confused statement, but a blatant lie!! Regarding religious articles, WP suffers from very bad quality. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 25 July 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The beast (Revelation)The Beast (Revelation) – This article was originally created at uppercase "Beast" back in 2007, where it remained for the next 6 years, until it was moved in 2013 without any discussion to the lowercase form "beast" in this edit with only the vague edit summary "case norm". This page started out in uppercase form, it has been in uppercase form much longer than lowercase form, and it should be moved back to its original uppercase form. Lowercase "beast" suggests any generic beast rather than the specific one of Revelation discussed by this article. Lowercase "beast" is inconsistent with the uppercase form used by the title of the articles "Beast of the Earth", "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse", and "Man of Sin"; that those articles use uppercase suggest this article should as well. Uppercase "Beast" is widely used in biblical commentary; see, for example, [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. —Lowellian (reply) 08:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: there is a related requested move, but by another nominator and toward the opposite direction (uppercase to lowercase rather than lowercase to uppercase), at Talk:Number of the Beast/Talk:number of the beast. —Lowellian (reply) 16:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per my nomination above. —Lowellian (reply) 16:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Biblically correct capitalization (Edit 1:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC): The King James version linked on the page mentions the two beasts in lower case, so I'll give it a soft support for the following:) More of a proper name than just tossing around the name "beast", which wouldn't have been as scary and hells-a-poppin' for the Bible's target audience. Randy Kryn 10:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - this instance of the word is a proper noun, and so should be capitalized. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – obviously a proper noun in the vast majority of uses in the literature. --IJBall (contribstalk) 06:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lower casing is ahead by a small, but unambiguous, margin, according to this ngram. Gulangyu (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    It's not an ngram race, and if it were the race ended in 2008, when ngrams were discontinued. Using ngrams, to me, seems like less of an argument every month that goes by. Ngrams ended seven years after Wikipedia came into existence, half its "lifetime" ago. Basing an oppose on a slight difference in a 2008 ngram may be taking things a bit out of context. Randy Kryn 11:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    I don't want to oversell the ngram, since the difference here is modest. But the claim that it's out-of-date not a serious argument. In the publishing industry, the policy is to get capitalization and spelling from a major dictionary. The latest edition of Merriam-Webster Collegiate, the benchmark in this field, was published in 2003. Ngram got a major update in 2012, according to the documentation. Finally, it's not just KJV that lower cases. For the state of the art in Bible usage, see ESV and NIV. Gulangyu (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    Casing within biblical translations often does not match modern common usage among biblical commentary or the wider public. Biblical translations do tend to lowercase "beast", thus skewing the Ngram results. However, the vast majority of biblical translations also lowercase "the apostles" and "the devil", even when specifically referring to the Twelve Apostles and to Satan rather than any generic apostles or any generic devil. Yet "the Apostles" and "the Devil" are usually capitalized in common usage when referring specifically to the Twelve Apostles or to Satan, because they are used as proper nouns to refer to specific individuals or entities rather than generic members of a group. Similarly, "the Beast", like "the Apostles" and "the Devil", has become a proper noun in common usage in order to distinguish the specific term from the generic. Wikipedia policy is to favor common usage, which in this case is the uppercase form. —Lowellian (reply) 19:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    The relevant guideline is WP:NCCAPS, which states, "Do not capitalize...unless the title is a proper name." There are two beasts in Revelation, so this is not a proper noun. Commentary generally corresponds to whatever Bible version the commenter is using. See The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Gulangyu (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    The Beast is a proper noun. Quantity greater than one does not by itself make something not a proper noun, as long as it is still referring to a specific rather than generic subject. For example, the number of Apostles is usually given as 12, but each is still a proper-noun Apostle. Furthermore, depending on the interpreter/commenter, and to most of the general public, one Beast is often taken as primary, or they are treated as two aspects of the same creature. —Lowellian (reply) 17:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Beast (Revelation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

  • Corrected formatting/usage for //

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)