User talk:Eickman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Book of Daniel[edit]

I have started a new discussion at Talk:Book of Daniel about the proposed changes. Please discuss them there. Elizium23 (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Book of Daniel revision[edit]

The Kingdoms[edit]

Pre-Roman interpretation[edit]

Referencing the canonization of Jewish scripture, most likely ending during the Hosmonean period, before or early on in the Roman occupation, [see Development of the Jewish canon] some contemporary Jews and Christians,[1] and most secular historians and higher critics advocate a scheme of interpreting the kingdoms in the Book of Daniel according to their periods of control over Judea, culminating in the events of the Maccabean Revolt, before the involvement of the Roman Empire in Jewish affairs.

The pre-Roman scheme includes:

(1) The Neo-Babylonian period of involvement from c. 587-539 BC,

(2) the Medo-Persian period of involvement from c. 539-332 BC,

(3) the Macedonian period of involvement, starting with Alexander the Great and continuing through the Diadochi from c. 332-305 BC to

(4) the Ptolemaic period of involvement from c. 305-219 BC, and

(5) the Seleucid period of involvment starting with Antiochus III Megas and culimating in the events of the Maccabean Revolt and the confrontation with Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

The Maccabean Revolt concluded with the Jews' victory over the Seleucids on the Day of Nicanor, 161 BC.[2]

The following chart lays out the typical pre-Roman interpretation of the Book of Daniel.

Chapter Pre-Roman interpretation of Daniel's kingdoms
Pre-Maccabean Revolt Maccabean Revolt Future Perspective

(if any)

Daniel 2 Gold Head is Babylon Silver Arms are Medo-Pesian Bronze Torso is Macedonia Legs of Iron are the Ptolemies and Seleucids Feet of Iron & Clay are kingdoms under Antiochus III Megas. "Little horn" is Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The "Stone" is Judas Maccabees. Separate issues
Daniel 7 Winged Lion is Medo-Persia Lopsided Bear is Macedonia Four-winged Leapoard is Diodachi, leads to Ptolemys and Seleucids Iron-toothed beast is combined Empires under Antiochus IV Epiphanes Separate issues
Daniel 8 2-horned Ram is Medo-Persia 4-horned Goat is Macedonia Ptolemys and Seleucids Combined Empires Seperate issues
Daniel 11-12 Kings of Medo-Persia Macedonia Ptolemies and Seleucids Combined Empires Separate issues

Separate issues:

-Some secular historians and certain critics would say that the book of Daniel has little to no significance beyond its historical setting.

-Certain Reconstructionists, Idealists, and the advocates of Realized/Sapiential Eschatology would say that the Book of Daniel is historical, but it is significant as godly instruction.

-In Revelation 17:10, John divided the kingdoms the same way as the Jews of his day would have, speaking of five kings that "were" (from Babylon to the Seleucids), one that "is" (the Roman Empire), with a seventh that was "yet to come" which would "become an eighth, but is of the seven." John's declaration established a triunism (or trinity[3], or typology) of three distinct and compartmentalized iterations of Daniel's prophecies--one pertaining to ancient Jewish history, one pertaining to the intermediate history of Christianity, and one pertaining to the End of the Age. This being the case, John's parsing of the first set of kingdoms into "five" (not four) that "were" supports the pre-Roman interpretation of Daniel's prophecies.

-Insofar as Judaism and Christianity is concerned, the Jews' cleansing of the Temple in Jerusalem near the midpoint of the Maccabean Revolt is commemorated annually at Hanukkah, which Jesus observed according to John 10:22.

Post-Roman interpretation[edit]

Jewish and Christian Historicists, Futurists, Dispensationalists, Partial Preterists, and other futuristic Jewish and Christian hybrids, as well as certain Messianic Jews typically believe that the kingdoms in Daniel (with variations) are:

(1) the Neo-Babylonian Empire

(2) the Medo-Persian Empire

(3) the Macedonian Empire of Alexander and his successors

(4) the Ptolomaic and Seleucid Empires together, and

(5) the Roman Empire, with other implications to come later.

The conclusion of this scheme is described by Jerome:[4]

"And yet to understand the final portions of Daniel a detailed investigation of Greek history is necessary, that is to say, such authorities as Sutorius, Callinicus, Diodorus, Hieronymus, Polybius, Posidonius, Claudius, Theon, and Andronycus surnamed Alipius, historians whom Porphyry claims to have followed, Josephus also and those whom he cites, and especially our own historian, Livy, and Pompeius Trogus, and Justinus. All these men narrate the history involved in Daniel's final vision, carrying it beyond the time of Alexander to the days of Caesar Augustus in their description of the Syrian and Egyptian wars, i.e., those of Seleucus, Antiochus, and the Ptolemies."

Full Preterists, Idealists, certain Reconstructionists and other non-futurists likewise typically believe in the same general sequence, but they teach that Daniel's prophecies ended with the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem, and have little to no implications beyond that.

All of these schools of prophetic thought typically start from the same basic premise (with variations), but differ in their conclusions (as described afterward):

Chapter Post-Roman Interpretation of the Book of Daniel
Jewish History Roman Occupation Future
Daniel 2 Head of God is Babylon Two Arms are Medo-Persia Torso is Macedonia Two legs are Ptolemys and Seleucids Feet are Romans Separate issues
Daniel 7 Winged Lion is Medo-Persia Lopsided Bear is Macedonia Leopard is Ptolemys & Seleucids Iron-toothed beast is Romans Separate issues
Daniel 8 Ram is Medo-Persia Goat is Macedonia Little Horn is Seleucids The "Son of Man" cleanses the Sanctuary during the Roman occupation Seperate issues
Daniel 11-12 Medo-Persia Macedonia Ptolemys and Seleucids Romans Separate issues

Separate issues:

The following statements are archetypical, and do not represent every variant of this mode of interpeting Daniel's kingdoms:

-Jewish and Christian Historicists (as generally taught in the Catholic, Orthodox[5], and Protestant Churches) believe that the prophecies of Daniel continue in a straight line through to the End of the Age.

-Other scholars argue that there was a split betwen the Medes and Persians, not the Ptolemies and Seleucids.[6]

-In the Protestant version of Historicism, the Reformers changed the order of kingdoms to claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the "whore of Babylon" and the papacy was the "antichrist." The Catholics reciprocated by claiming that the Reformers were the "seven heads of the beast," etc.

-Jewish and Christian Futurists, Dispensationalists, and, to some degree, Partial Preterists believe that the prophecies of Daniel resume at some point in the future after a gap in prophecy that accounts for the Church Age.

-Jewish Reconstructionists and Full Preterists believe that Daniel is completely fulfilled, and that the believers are now working to establish the Kingdom of God on earth.

Ike Eickman (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

two views of Daniel[edit]

In terms of the "Book of Daniel" article, the broad spectrum of opinions breaks down between two arguments. one primarily pertains to higher criticism and a strict historicist interpretation which is also being discussed by many Christian and Jewish scholars (i.e. F. F. Bruce, et al) that the original interpretation of Daniel was the one in Jewish history, i.e. that the book was about the period from the Babylonian Captivity to the end of the Maccabean Revolt--any other inferences are seperate issues. The other pertains to certain Jewish and Christian traditions which include the Romans in their analysis. This is NOT "original research." It's just research that certain individuals don't want known because it makes the traditionalists look bad.

"Son of Perdition" edit[edit]

According to orthodox Jewish and Christian eschatological beliefs, and secular historians and scholars, the concept of the Son of Perdition (also called "the beast that goes into perdition" in Revelation 17:8 and 17:11) is used in the Bible in one or more of three contexts, forming a triunism (or trinity,[7] or typology) of three potential interpretive references.

First frame of reference: Antiochus IV Epiphanes[edit]

Many historians, critics, and many Jewish and Christian scholars believe that the Book of Daniel is about the events in Israel from the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity to the end of the Maccabean Revolt [see Book of Daniel]. These scholars say that the Old Testament reference is to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the man who attacked the First Temple in Jerusalem and defiled it by sacrificing a pig on the altar, erecting a statue of Zeus as himself in the temple, raiding the Temple treasury and minting coins saying "Theos Epiphanes" (God manifest), etc. Even those who advocate an interpretation of Daniel that includes the Roman Empire in their interpretations of Daniel recognize Antiochus as a prototype of "antichrist."[8]

In Revelation 17:8 and 17:11, John borrowed the "Son of Perdition" concept from the prophecies of Daniel, relating them by language. He refers to "the star that fell from heaven" Revelation 9:1 by two names, one Greek, and the other Hebrew. (Revelation 9:11) The Greek name is "Apollyon" (Greek: Aπολλυων), from the Greek root word "apollumi" (Greek:απολλυμι) It refers to utter loss, eternal destruction, and disassociation." [Strong's 622] The Hebrew name is "Abaddon" (Greek: Aβαδδων), from the Aramaic root word "'abad" (Hebrew transliteration:שׁא), which means the same thing as the Greek root word. [Strong's 07] Daniel 7:11 says that the eventual destiny of the "great beast" is to be slain, and his body "destroyed" ('abad), and given to the eternal flames (generally accepted by religious scholars to be a reference to hell).

Second frame of reference: Judas Iscariot[edit]

In John 17:12, Jesus says that of all his disciples, none has been lost except the "son of perdition". The New International Version translates the phrase as "the one doomed to destruction." D. A. Carson suggests that this verse refers both to Judas' character and to his destiny.[9] The phrase is also used in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, where it is equated with the Man of Sin.

Third frame of reference: Antichrist[edit]

In 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Paul--writing well after both Jesus and Judas had come and gone to their respective destinies--referred to "the Son of Perdition" in some future sense from the point in time in which he wrote his epistle. He also equated this person with the Man of Sin.

Likewise, In Revelation 17:8 and 17:11, John, writing well after Jesus and Judas Iscariot had come and gone to their respective destinies, refers to "the beast that goeth into perdition." Assuming a futuristic mode of interpretation, this would also be a reference to a future figure.

In some variations of Christian eschatology, this future figure is commonly referred to as "antichrist," the "false messiah," or the "false christ."


The following statements are archetypal, and do not reflect every organizational or individual variation:

Various sects of Jews and Christians, as well as secular historians and higher critics would acknowledge the use of the phrase "the Son of Perdition" or "the beast that goes into perdition" in one or more of these three frames of reference:

Jewish Reconstructionists and some secular historians and critics would acknowledge the first frame of reference, as they hold that the book of Daniel is strictly Jewish apocalyptic literature.

Jewish Messianists and Historicist-type Jews [see Jewish Eschatology] would acknowledge the first and third frames of reference, but not the second, as they do not believe Jesus is the Messiah.

Christian Historicists, Dispensationalists and Partial Preterists, Messianic Jews, and some historians and higher critics would acknowledge the second and third frames of reference, as they acknowlege two advents of Jesus Christ. They may also acknowledge the first frame of reference as a typology.

Christian Preterists, Idealists, and the advocates of Realized Eschatology/Sapiential Eschatology would acknowledge the second frame of reference, and possibly the first frame of reference as a typology, but not the third, as they do not believe in a literal future fulfillment of prophecy per se.

A Triunist would recognize all three frames of reference as valid, but in different modes of interpretation.


Persons who equated Antiocus IV Epiphanes with "antichrist" (in addition to Luther (Table Talk), Manton (Sermons) & Henry (Commentary)

John Wesley Commentary on [Daniel] Chapter XI

Pink, A W: Antichrist

Schaff, Philip: NPNF (V2-06)

Commentary Critical: Daniel ch. 11

Hippolytus: ANF05

Revelation by Bullinger, Ethelbert William. The People on the Earth: Chapters 2-3, Letter to Ephesus, v 13.

John Gill, Doctrinal Divinity, Chapter 2. Of the Holy Scriptures, point 7

Joseph Mede, A Key to the Apocalypse, Discovered and Demonstarated from the Internal and Inserted Characters of the Visions. The Mystery Of the Woman dwelling in the Wilderness, p 319.

Don't look now, but your "consensus" just evaporated.

Ike Eickman (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Er, who was denying that Antiochus has been considered a type of antiChrist? No one that I know of. What's your point?--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I was addressing your other partner in crime, Anselm, who keeps knocking down the "son of Perdition" edits. I clearly demonstrated that there are three frames of reference (one for each temple period) in regards to the "son of Perdition" in the Bible--1) Antiochus IV Epiphanes (see Luther, Milton, Henry, the Commentary Critical, et al), 2) Judas Iscariot (as declared by Jesus), and 3) some future figure (as declared by Paul and John). All the above parties made that connection. Calvin denied any connection to Antiochus Epiphanes (because it screws up the linear interpretations of certain false prognosticators); but Anselm keeps falsely referring to some phantom "consensus" that denies the connections because it screws up his sectarian views, when Calvin was clearly in the minority.

And I clearly established that some people would argue this in the edit, too--he also knocked that down lest folks find out that there are other opinions on the subject.

Ike Eickman (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing separate issues. If you want to say in the article "There are three terms of reference for the son of perdition in the Bible, one for each temple period" then you can't. That's WP:OR. If you want to say "The majority view of scholars is that there are three terms of reference for the son of perdition in the Bible, one for each temple period", then you certainly can. You just need to provide WP:RS for the claim. So figure out what you want to do, and then provide the relevant WP:RS. The main problem is that this "triunism" and "three dimensional interpretation of prophecy" thing seems to be your own idiosyncratic interpretation, which is why you can't find any WP:RS making the same claim. Remember that WP:FRINGE views aren't encouraged here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


That's precisely what I did.

1) I laid out the three primary frames of reference, with citations, and without any judgments as to their merits.

2) I described, in general, how different groups identify with the three frames of reference--1st, 2nd, 3rd, 1st and 2nd, 1st and 3rd, and 2nd and 3rd. No "original research." No judgments as to which is right and wrong. Every viewpoint covered.

3) I did NOT say "one for each temple period," because, yes, that WOULD be "original research."

4) "Triunism" and "three-dimensional interpretation of prophecy" are NOT "idiosyncratic." That discussion has been going on for well over a hundred years. It's defining the terms that is the problem, as per the citations I gave, and the citations I'll add when I revert it (and the "Book of Daniel" article). What IS "idiosyncratic," and what I haven't discussed in any of my edits, is the consistant way it should be applied. (And therein lies the problem with all of the traditional interpretations of prophecy--but that would be "off topic" for Wikipedia.)

I didn't do anything wrong in the "son of Perdition" edit--I simply detailed the three frames of reference, and the way different groups handle them. I covered all the bases, and everyones' point of view; then Anselm reverted the article back to his Calvinistic point of view, and called it "consensus."

What a load of crap.

Ike Eickman (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked at what you did there, and unsuprisingly I saw this edit of yours:

According to orthodox Jewish and Christian eschatological beliefs, and secular historians and scholars, the concept of the Son of Perdition (also called "the beast that goes into perdition" in Revelation 17:8 and 17:11) is used in the Bible in one or more of three contexts, forming a triunism (or trinity,[10] or typology)[11] of three potential interpretive references.[12]

1) First of all, none of the sources cited say anything about the three context "forming a triunism or trinity". None of them. Your claim that this is "According to orthodox Jewish eschatology and Christian eschatology, and secular historians and scholars" is completely unsubstantiated by the citations given.

2) Secondly, all three of the sources you cite are sources which you have been told repeatedly not to use because they are not WP:RS. One of them is predictably yet another link to the website on which your own work is advertised, with your idiosyncratic view. So you're not adhering to Wiki policy, and you're deliberately disobeying what you've been asked to do on many previous occasions. Your edit here is a typical example of your WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.

3) Thirdly, you haven't ever provided a single quotation from Bruce or Reed which shows they support your idiosyncratic "triunisms" idea. Your claim that they do is completely unsupported by the works of theirs which you cite, and is another example of your WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. You can't point to something they've written and claim that because you interpret it as supporting your view, that it supports your view. That's not how Wikipedia works. You need a third party citation from a WP:RS which interprets them as supporting your view.You have been told this repeatedly.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, do you ever bother to look at WHERE a citation falls a statement? Yes, I need to separate the first statement from the second, but that's CLEAN UP, not a source problem.

Second, despite the attempts of the ignorant asking for judgments from the ignorant, Lanier is a valid resource, especially among Idealists and Unitarians. Just because the ignorant have never heard of him won't render him invalid.

Third, I didn't put anything FROM Bruce or Reed there--they said (rightly so) that Daniel was only about the events leading up to the Maccabean Revolt. Bruce said the post-Roman interpretation was from the Essenes, which is about right.

Fourth, There isn't anything ON my page "endorsing my idiosyncratic ideas;" There is a clear statement on Triunism, and then a link elsewhere on the site. And page after page cited on Wikipedia has advertising links from the sponsors who put up the information. So I don't know what you're gripping, moaning, groaning, bitching, and complaining about.

Fifth, you're scared to death that people will find out that Christian Traditionalists have had it wrong all along. Prophecy isn't fulfilled in a line, nor is it parsed, nor is it done, nor is it all allegorical. And Jesus and the prophets said so. [hint, hint].

I have to laugh: Thomas Manton (Puritan) broke down his discussion of the "Son of Perdition" EXACTLY as I did in my new book. (Too bad he didn't make the greater connection.) Bruce, Reed, Kirkland, Manton, etc, etc are just declaring the obvious--there is something seriously wrong with ALL of the traditionalist interpretations of prophecy. (And I know why.) But I haven't discussed that in a single edit--I simply make it my business to point out the pros and cons of every postion, and let the chips fall where they may.

The new Manton citation will be EXTREMELY helpful since he summerized the sitation almost exactly as I have, speaking of the "son of Perdtion" in EXACLY the same manner I outlined.

Ike Eickman (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC),son of perdition#highlight Sermon III

Ike Eickman (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Divergence of Historicist thought[edit]

The first mode of prophetic interpretaton was not Historicism; it was immediacy.

And you can't erase the East-West Schism from history, and the two different versions of Historicism--Catholic and Orthodox--that arose out of it.

If you keep this up, I'm simply going to file a dispute, point out that you're presenting sectarian Adventist viewpoints as "historical facts," whereas I present the actual history of historicist beliefs in church history, and get your edits overturned.

On a postive note, your historicist chart more accurately portrays Historicism as taught by Jerome than mine did. Feel free to move that to the "Book of Daniel" page under "post-Roman interpretation," and straighten out the text at the top of that section. However, don't remove the statements below it, which present all of the different interpretations arising from that mode of interpretation, or I'll have to simply hit the undo button on that one, too, a file a dispute.

Ike Eickman (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done anything to "erase the East-West Schism from history", but you're wrong to say that two different versions of Historicism came out of it. The one Orthodox Historicist I've found is Apostolos Makrakis, and his exposition is significantly different from the standard Orthodox viewpoint, which is mystical and personal (not Historicist). As for "sectarian Adventist views", anyone can check the work I cited, published by Cambridge University Press, and see if it's pushing sectarian Adventist views. I'm not even an SDA. I just know a lot more about this topic than you do.--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Bub, you don't know the first thing about Bible prophecy.

OF COURSE three difference kinds of Historicism arose.

The Church before the East-West Schism was HISTORICIST. Catholicism and Orthodoxy BOTH claim to be the "right" thread back to the early church "fathers."

A DIVERGENCE of Historicist intepretation came out of the East-West Schism. The Catholic Encyclopedia even DISCUSSES the three periods of historical-critical interpretation, and the arguments between the Latins and Greeks.

Yes, Orthodox eschagology is more mystical, but it's STILL "historicist."

And then historicism diverged againt at the Reformation/Counter-Reformation.

But they're ALL still "historicist," oh, clueless one.

You know, you REALLY need to sit down and shut up now.

So far, you've demonstrated that...

1) You don't know how prophetic thought developed.

2) You don't know that Orthodox eschatology is historicist, too.

3) You didn't know that Futurism and Preterism came out of the Catholic Church.

4) You didn't know that Dispensataionlism is pretty much just the Protestant version of Catholic Futurism.

And so on, and so forth.

Ike Eickman (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


(Then) Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundations and Approaches of Exegesis Today.

The Catholic Encyclopedia: Biblical Exegesis. (ii) Second Period of Exegesis, A.D. 604-1546, (a) Greek versus (b) Latin writers. [East-West Schism] (iii) Third Period of Exegesis [Counter Reformation]

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH, Pontifical Biblical Commission, Presented on March 18, 1994. (Basically upholds the Historicist position while tolerating other viewpoints.)

Interpreting the Bible: Three Views, Paul M. Blowers, Jon D. Levenson, Robert L. Wilken. (Analysis of the previous presentation.) Published in "First Things," Aug/Sept 1994.

You people can try to erase history, but it's going to come roaring back.

Ike Eickman (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sermon usage as citations[edit]

Sermons are cited as theological references all the time in theological discussions, and are used as sources all the time--even on Wikipedia.

Luther sermons

Calvin sermons

Wesley sermons

Billy Graham sermons

In the Brandham/Graham sermon/discussion I cited, Brandham contained an alternate use of the term "trinities."

Ike Eickman (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Triunism Reference[edit]

Found precisely what I needed.

Kinship of God and man: An attempt to formulate a thorough-going Trinitarian theology, by J.J. Lanier [see "Trinitarian Idealism," pp 135-147, esp. Syllabus II, p 136]

The Cambridge History of English and American Literature in 18 Volumes (1907–21). VOLUME XVI. Early National Literature, Part II; Later National Literature, Part I.

IV. The New South: Lanier.

§ 36. Idealism.

His idealism is also revealed in his eager intellectual interests. Here too he triumphed over his untoward surroundings, as the brief sketch of his life has indicated. Pathetic witness to this inherent bent is found in a letter to Bayard Taylor...

Gotta' love those free-thinking Idealists.

Ike Eickman (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


I have blocked you for 1 week for further personal attacks on other editors. In particular this edit. There are also others calling people idiot, ignorant and the like. I have already advised you on the various processes available to get 3PO's. Don't abuse other opinion's when you do get them because you don't like them. Fainites barleyscribs 07:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Fainites barleyscribs 07:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

First, I didn't call anyone "idiot" after the first block. I said "this is idiocy.

Second, I didn't say "you are ignorant," but "you are ignorant of other people's positions."

Third, what I wrote in the edit was correct and encompasses everyone's viewpoints.

When I got to this article there was one little blurb about the "son of Perdition," and the rest of the entry was about the Mormon's position.

I greatly expanded the article to encompass every major position, in three frames of reference, all recognized by major and minor theological groups, and included references to statements of fact by Lutherans, Evangelicals, Unitarians, Jews, higher critics, etc according to the three mainstream opinions on who and what the "Son of Perdition" is.

The fundaliteralist police keep playing technical games to suppress the opinions of other groups outside of their sectarian positions. They do not have, nor have they ever had, any interest in a broadbased review of pertinent information coming from various theological corners, major or minor.

The article sat stagnant for years thanks to these fundaliteralist thought-police on Wikipedia. And if people don't think it's going on, all they need to do is go back and look where they all but declare that that is what they're doing, calling any position other than their own "fringe."

As to synthesis, I'm not synthesizing anything--all these things I describe have been discussed by theologians over the last century, starting with people like Lenier, whom the fundaliteralist thought police tried to shoot down as "self-published," being totally ignorant of who he was, and why he self-published after the Civil War. This is precisely what I said, and it is precisely true.

Now, one won't find many "encyclopedic" references to theological positions other than the mainstream's because theological encyclopedias are WRITTEN by the mainstream, which means one has to go to documents like theological treatises, position papers, books, etc, for documentation. And that's where the fundaliteralist thought police start playing their games, violating every principle of full content coverage on Wikipedia.

So I'm not the one "attacking" or "harrassing" anyone--it's the Christian Traditionalists who are on the attack and harrassing me for work that should have been done years ago. And if you don't believe it, go back and look at the discussions on the "Son of Perdition" page, folks.

This block, based on lies, is just one more example of what I'm talking about.

Ike Eickman (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have sent the following letter to the Wikipedia functionaries in regards to the "son of Perdition," "Historicism (Christianity)," and "book of Daniel" pages.


I have been editing several articles on Wikipedia, including "the son of perdition," "book of Daniel," and "Historicism (Christian)."

When I got to them, each of the articles were severely lacking in details, and skewed towards sectarian positions.

The "son of Perdition" article had one small blurb about only two usages of the term in the Bible, and the vast majority of it was about the Mormon position.

The "book of Daniel" article lacked any reference to modern scholarship in terms of pre-Roman versus post-Roman interpretation.

The "Historicism (Christianity)" article had nothing about the early development of Historicist thought, the arguments between the millennialists and ammillennialists, the split in thought at the East-West Schism, or the split of thought at the Reformation.

I edited these articles to encompass a broad range of opinions, including those of various Jewish, Christian, and Sectarian positions. I included references from historians, traditional Jewish and Christian scholars, higher critics, Unitarians, Idealists, etc.

My edits are under constant attack from traditionalist, fundaliteralist thought police who keep trying to skew the edits back to their sectarian positions, hypocritically using technicalities like "original research" and "self-published" arguments to try and remove diverse opinions.

For instance, one citation I have been regularly using is to Lanier. Lanier was a Reconstruction era Unitarian historian and theologian, who expressed an early notion of three-dimensional interpretation of prophecy. He was self-published because after the Civil War there were few publishing houses available, and he was going against the fundamentalist Christian establishment in the Bible belt. This is clearly not what Wikipedia was referring to in its "no self-publishing" rule, but one of the critics asked for an outside ruling from others who didn't know who Lanier was, and got it because of ignorance across the board.

The whole affair is absolutely Orwellian.

I would appeal to funtionaries to take a look at this situation and defend diversity of viewpoints on Wikipedia from certain sectarians who refer to other viewpoints as "fringe" religion.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.

You just have to follow Wiki policy. No one is objecting to you including whatever you like, as long as you are able to substantiate it using WP:RS. Instead numerous people have found you inserting WP:OR, misrepresenting sources, using your own work as a reference, and citing works which are not WP:RS. No one is trying to skew the article to sectarian positions. The editors with whom you're arguing are a mixed group of secular and religious people with a range of viewpoints, yet they aren't trying to insert their own views into the article, and they follow Wiki policy. The fact that you abuse people regularly doesn't help your situation, but even without the abuse the real problem is that you just aren't following Wiki policy like everyone else is. It's that simple. I believe you're well aware of this, because two of your sources were already rejected by the WP:RS noticeboard, and every time you threaten to seek peer review or 3PO, you never actually do.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I had two sources "rejected" because the persons asking for the opinions skewed and misrepresented the facts, and didn't bother to notify me that they were seeking an opinion so I could properly represent the facts. It's liking taking a case to court and not notifying the defendant that there is a trial.

Hence, I have no intention of abiding by those decisions.

I've fully detailed the whole triunism/trinities/typology problem, and will continue to do so, just as in the new citations I'm about to add.

And I fully explained the whole thing with Lanier, and it does NOT fit into the whole "self-published" definition. Lanier was a prominent US Reconstructionist historian and theologian who couldn't publish his books commercially for some of the same reasons as Samuel Clement (a.k.a. "Mark Twain")--there WASN'T anywhere to publish them in the South after the Civil War. (That and Lanier was fighting the Bible Belt establishment.) His works have been digitized by Union Theological Seminary to make them available to the public, as they are important in Unitarian thought. (And to me they are of historical importance, as I totally agree with his three-dimensional suppositions, but totally disagree with Idealistic conclusions).

Ike Eickman (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


Eickman - read the block notice. It provides for an appeal to another admin. I have not blocked you for anything to do with content but because after a short period of improved behaviour you descended again into abuse. The content issues need to be dealt with in accordance with policies to which you have been referred. Content issues can become behavioural issues if there are provable breaches of policies such as WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:TEND and the like. However, if you keep getting blocked for things like accusing other editors of bullying and Nazi crap, the content issue is not going to get resolved with any input from you, is it. When you come back, I would advise you to set out the issues and sources clearly and seek 3PO, RfC and/or peer review. You can also use the fringe notice board and the RS notice board. All the links are at WP:DR. Fainites barleyscribs 16:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Ike Eickman (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


Coming soon to an article near you:


Patrick Fairbairn (Idealist): Hermeneutical manual. Typologies pp x, 64, 155, 335, 379 (also used the term "triunisms")

Vern Sheridan Poythress (Presbyterian/Reformed): God-Centered Biblical Interpretation, chapter 5, The TRIUNAL Character of Truth.

Milton S. Terry (Methodist Episcopal Church): Biblical hermenutics: a treatise on the interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, Typology pp 10, 337-346.


Bob Smith (Congregational), Basics of Bible Interpretation, Phase 2, Allegories and Types.

Typology of Scripture by William G. Moorehead, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Chicago: Howard-Severance Co., 1930), vol. 5, pp. 3029-3030.

Typology: A Summary Of The Present Evangelical Discussion. Edward Glenny, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:4 (March 1997): 627-638.

The Typical Significance of the Scriptures Declare Their Divine Authorship. By Arthur W. Pink (Reformed).

An Attempt to Establish an Historically Accurate Definition of Typology, Scott David Foutz, Quodlibet online journal, May 1996.

A Study of Biblical Typology, Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier, November 3, 1999.

Old Testament Types. Rev K D Macleod, in The Free Presbyterian Magazine, September 1999.

Shadows of Good Things, Or the Gospel in Type. By Russell R. Byrum (1922).

All of these authors (including the ones I previously cited, which will be retored when I hit the "undo" button) used the terms "triunisms," "trinities," or "typologies" interchangeably.

No "original research" involved. The problem is lack of definition and clarity, NOT references and citations.

Dr. Scott Hahn,

When you say "As these gentlemen point out--and as I've pointed out--the problem is that there isn't a CLEAR definition of triunisms/trinities (uncoventional uses)/typology. So I have to refer (and cite references) to all three, and provide a definition because, as I said, one man's "typology" is another mans "trinity" or "triunism."", what you're doing is acknowledging WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It's clear that there aren't any sources which use the term "triunisms' as you do. As I've told you before, no one is denying Historicism developed, and the article already included an entire paragraph (written by me), describing some of the earliest developers. Likewise, no one is denying that various Historicists developed different views, and that's made clear as well. But when you talk about Historicism splitting into Catholic and Orthodox variants at the Great Schism, well there you run into the problem that no WP:RS actually says this. It's your own idea. The Catholic Encyclopedia reference you cite does not actually say this. It talks about different eras of interpretation, but it says nothing about Historicism specifically being split into different denominational interpretations. This is yet another example of you making things up, and then claiming a source supports you when it doesn't. You have to stop making things up, find WP:RS, and let them speak for themselves instead of misrepresenting them.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I can't see where Fairbairn's Hermeneutical manual uses the word "triunisms". StAnselm (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


Fairbairn used "triunisms" in a similar manner to what I do, and Lanier later defined it even better, describing all manner of triunisms along three dimensions (just as I have done in my books). Where we differ is conclusions, but I haven't stated my conclusions in ONE SINGLE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE!

(edit conflict) Ike, there is the possibility of an article like Triad (theology) or similar. But it would take an awful lot of work to demonstrate that people are talking about the same things. It's interesting that you're using "typology", but in the authors you cite it seems to be the regular definition of typology - i.e. what's in Typology (theology) - without having anything to do with the number 3 necessarily. In Poythress, however, there is a clear theme of using three perspectives to interpret a text. See also Multiperspectivalism. StAnselm (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, bullshit. As I've cited over-and-over again, theologians from EVERY corner of Christianity and the academic world have used the same three terms--triunisms, trinities, and/or typology.

Talk about "original research:" Now you people are throwing out common academic terms and making up your own.

Ike Eickman (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's have some direct quotations from these sources please. If these sources all supported your case, why didn't you quote them previously? What I suspect is that these sources don't actually support your case. Previously we've seen you cite sources (without direct quotations), and when those sources were actually read it was clear they didn't say anything like what you claimed. The problem here is you. The problem here is your idiosyncratic POV. The problem here is you failing to adhere to Wiki policy, and abusing other editors. That is the problem, and has always been the problem.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Traids? Seriously?

I (and every other scholar) have heard these terms used for years, even centuries. I take them as commonplace. It never even occurred to me that I would have to justify their use until I ran into you characters. So now I have to go back and document what most other academics take for granted. Just because YOU haven't heard of them in your little sectarian world doesn't mean they don't exist.

But note the titles of two of the references which point out the very thing I've been saying:

Typology: A Summary Of The Present Evangelical Discussion. Edward Glenny, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:4 (March 1997): 627-638.

An Attempt to Establish an Historically Accurate Definition of Typology, Scott David Foutz, Quodlibet online journal, May 1996.

As these gentlemen point out--and as I've pointed out--the problem is that there isn't a CLEAR definition of triunisms/trinities (uncoventional uses)/typology. So I have to refer (and cite references) to all three, and provide a definition because, as I said, one man's "typology" is another mans "trinity" or "triunism."

And frankly, I don't give a damn about "your suspicions;" It's not my agenda that's "suspect" here; it's yours.

Every sane theologian in the world KNOWS that Historicism didn't come out of a can--it developed. Likewise, every sane theologian in the world KNOWS that the Historicism has divereged at key points, most notably at the East-West Schism, and the Reformation/Counter Reformation. The Catholic Encyclopedia refence I cite about even SAYS that, dividing the subject into the first (ancient Christian), second (pre East-West Schism), and third (Reformation/Counter Reformation) periods of interpetation. It even DESCRIBES the contentions between the Latin (later Catholic) and Greek (later Orthodox) authors.

Even the guy with the funny-looking pointy hat said that before they gave him the funny-looking pointy hat!

WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO KID with your bullshit?

Ike Eickman (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess if I could summarize, we just want Eickmann to: a) stop trying to insert his idiosyncratic views in the article, b) stop making things up, c) adhere to Wiki policy. I don't think that's too much to ask. We're all trying to improve the article, and this is most likely to happen when we cooperate.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Here come the lies again.

1) There is nothing "idiosyncratic" about any of my Wikipedia edits, and citation-after-citation proves it. It's in the historical and theological records. Just because YOU don't know about it doesn't mean others haven't.

2) I haven't made anything up. In fact, I haven't discussed my findings in a single Wikipedia edit. I've simply pointed to the writings of OTHER scholars--like Bruce (Baptist theologian and higher critic), Reed (professor emeritus of Jewish studies at Harvard Divinity School), Lanier, Fairbairn (whose works have been digitized and republished as a benefit to the academic community), all of whose works are on the same track as mine. (And the irony is I don't even AGREE with the conclusions of these folks--just their observations and approaches.)

3) I'm adhering to "Wikipedia policy." You people are abusing it to defend your sectarian positions, like lying about the merits of citations, or attacking significant figures as the "fringe," or deleting modern scholarship at the turn of a hat. All I have to do is keep overloading articles with citations, which is something Wikipedia DOESN'T want, but I have no choice, since the sectarians insist on suppressing other positions.

4) There is no "cooperating" with sectarians and cultists: They have a vested interest in suppressing any position of any scholar or theologian who damages their sectarian positions. I can argue until I'm blue in the fact, but their agenda is to keep other factual opinions OFF of Wikipedia, and--as you and your fellows have so aptly demonstrated--they have no regard for historical, biblical, or academic facts if it puts a dent in their false suppositions.

In fact, YOU TWO characters in PARTICULAR have DECLARED that that's what you're doing. "Anselm" keeps referring to "consensus" when what he is really saying is "traditional sectarian Christian views." "Taiwan boi" confessed the truth in the splits in Historicist thought, but kept using CITATIONS to suppress the truth.

You're a fine pair of babies playing with your dollies.

My objective now is to keep restoring the historical and theological facts and constantly add more citations demonstrating those facts, and get the theological and academic communities involved so they can see what's happening here.

Ike Eickman (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ike, you have been blocked on account personal attack such as this. And yet you have made it clear that you intend to continue in this vein. It may be time to rethink whether you should be here. StAnselm (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no, Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of knowledge--it is NOT the place for your dogmatic assertions and sectarian agenda. leave that to the TV evangelists, would-be prognosticators, and other clowns.

Ike Eickman (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your recent edits. The thread is User:Eickman. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeatedly inserting material from and linking to your own website - which is definitely not a reliable source for this encyclopaedia. You have been repeatedly warned to stop doing this, and have been using misleading edit summaries to cover your tracks.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Eickman (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

Your reason here Eickman (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're blocked for repeatedly linking to your own website. Your statement below makes it clear you intend to continue doing so. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Ah, no, that's not what I wrote.

I said "Now, I can take the direct links out to my page, but that STILL won't change the growing references...and I fully intend to keep discussing what I'm about on my user page and discussion page, which is my right, since that's what I'm directly involved in on Wikipedia--making sure every perspective is covered."

Did you bother to read what I wrote?

Ike Eickman (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This block is based on a tissue of lies.

Yes, I have been linking to my website, where there is a formal definition of triunism, clear and concise, ads removed. I did this because even the higher critics and theologians are struggling to come up with a definition of terms, as demonstrated by...

Patrick Fairbairn (Idealist): Hermeneutical manual. Typologies pp x, 64, 155, 335, 379 (also used the term "triunisms")

Typology: A Summary of the Present Evangelical Discussion. Edward Glenny, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:4 (March 1997): 627-638.

An Attempt to Establish an Historically Accurate Definition of Typology, Scott David Foutz, Quodlibet online journal, May 1996.

So I am not "promoting" myself or a thing--I'm promoting an important idea emerging in scholarly theological debate.

As far as my user page is concerned, I can take off the links, but I'll still discuss my books because that's what I do--write about biblical interpretation and exegesis.

The second lie is that I've been using "deceptive editing" to cover my tracks. I did no such thing--I was on the "son of Perdition" page cleaning things up and the top was changed, so I reverted it. I didn't go there to revert the article--I went there to work on the article.

The third lie is that I am in any way inserting my "POV" into the articles. I'm inserting everyone's "POV" into the articles, which certain sectarians don't like, because examining all issues from every perspective makes my case, which is that every perspective has a point, but they arrive at the wrong conclusions--but I haven't written any "conclusions" into any Wikipedia article. That's for the reader to ferret out.

The fourth lie is that I've in any way "damaged" Wikipedia.

When I started, I turned pathetically weak articles into strong articles.

The "Son of Perdition" article had a couple of minor blurbs and then jumped into Mormon theology.

The "Historicism (Christianity)" article had a short, distorted, sectarian discussion of the development of Historicism without taking into account the three stages of its development--the arguments between the Millennialists and Amillennialists (c. 70-600 AD), the arguments between the Latin and Greek writers leading to the East-West Schism (c. 600-1200 AD), and the arguments between the Catholics and Reformers. (c. 1200-present)

I've have even been complimented for bringing in much needed perspective to the articles, but certain persons--who have already been cited for editing wars and "vandalizing" articles--keep putting up a front against any perspective other than my one. (And mine is just one of them.)

Now, I can take the direct links out to my page, but that STILL won't change the growing references...and I fully intend to keep discussing what I'm about on my user page and discussion page, which is my right, since that's what I'm directly involved in on Wikipedia--making sure every perspective is covered.

Respectfully (for now) submitted,


Eickman (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

1. No one accused you of "deceptive editing" to cover your tracks. You were cited for misleading edit summaries to cover your tracks. 2. You have repeatedly failed to address the fact that numerous sources you cited were not WP:RS. 3. You have repeatedly failed to address the fact that numerous sources you cited did not say a single word of anything you attributed to them (here is Fairburn's book; please quote everything he says about "triunisms"). 4. Your link to your own website is a link to WP:OR, your own definition of a term you have invented yourself. Not only that, but you fail to mention that the link contains another link to your own book, which is advertising. 5. Your claims of sectarian editing have consistently been proved false. Other editors have supplied relevant citations from WP:RS to substantiate their edits. When I added fifteen citations from WP:RS, you removed them all in clear breach of Wiki policy.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Read it again: "...and have been using misleading edit summaries to cover your tracks."

And I'm not jumping through hoops for your entertainment--do your own homework.

Ike Eickman (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I wrote. I wrote "misleading edit summaries to cover your tracks", you wrote "deceptive editing". You were wrong. I note you haven't bothered to address any of the other points I raised. It is the responsibility of an editor who appeals to a source, to demonstrate that the source says exactly what is claimed. Both I and another editor have checked Fairburn's book and found no reference to "triunities". You need to explain this.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


If you continue to soapbox and promote your books and theories on your talk page, I shall block your access to it.

I recommend other editors do not continue to argue with Eickman on his talkpage while this user is blocked. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


You're such an ass. EVERYBODY is talking about "their theories" on their talk pages--if they subscribe to a particular "group," i.e. Catholic, Orthodox, Reformationist, Jew, Atheist, etc. THEY'RE PROMOTING A "THEORY."

Taiwan Boi is "promoting a theory," and he DECLARED it.

I wrote:

"Majority" and "minority" are fairly irrelevant in an encyclopedic reference.

I agree that the reference is to Rome; but that's a matter of interpretation, and not everyone agrees with that interpretation. Like I said, I've argued with plenty of characters (usually Supremacists) who say its Jerusalem, not Rome. Come to think of it, I've had Catholics who have argued that the reference is to Jerusalem, not Rome (usually while trying to deflect Protestant Historicist criticisms). I've also had characters who argued that it refers to a literal restored "Babylon" in Iraq. Then again, I've had characters who argued that it refers to the United States, believing that the US picked up where the Greeks and Romans left off, and the US is the "beast."

Sorry, one can say "probably," or one can say "others," but one can't say "clearly" if John didn't specifically say "Rome."

John refers to "Babylon," too--does that mean John was literally referring to Babylon? In fact, was John ever prophesying literally at all anywhere in Revelation? Was he ever talking about the past? or the present? or the future? All these things are interpretive, and once you cross that line, things quickly get complicated: Once you say "the majority thinks," then you have to start accounting for what the minority thinks, which opens up a whole new can of worms.

Best to leave it generic.

Taiwan Boi wrote:

You are wrong. Majority opinion is what this encyclopedia insists on. See WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The majority of scholarly commentators understand John to be referring to Rome, and that is what the article should say; "The majority of scholarly commentaries understand John to be referring to Rome". The same goes for "Babylon". The rest of your questions are completely irrelevant.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If Jesuits, or Reconstructionists, or Unitarians, etc, etc are the "fringe," why are there Wikipedia articles on these subjects? Who appointed Taiwan Boi to decide what is and what is not "fringe?" Who made you masters of the universe to decide whose opinions gets included and whose doesn't?

In fact, this is the problem with Christian traditionalists accross the board--every other opinion is "fringe." They even call each OTHER "fringe," and then disrespect their ideas (when they have their points), which is precisely what Taiwan boi and others are all about.

The funny thing is, Jesus was "fringe" in His day, too. If Taiwan Boi and his ilk were alive back then, they would line up right behind the Pharisees or the Romans against Jesus because they were the "mainstream" that Jesus had to deal with His "original research."

Is this "soapboxing?" Damn straight it is--and it's Jesus' soapbox I'm borrowing.

No matter.

That's what DHCP and multiple email addresses are for, and I'm under no more compunction to follow your rules when you use them like the Pharisees than Jesus was in His day.

And what are you going to do about it? Take away my birthday?

Be back in a moment under another name...and another...and another.

Ike Eickman (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Puppeter template.svg

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eickman for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. WuhWuzDat 15:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact ArbCom at Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^
  2. ^ [ Nicanor
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^ Gheorghe Petraru, Phd,
  6. ^ A short introduction to the Hebrew Bible, John J. Collins, p. 282
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^ D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester: Apollos, 1991), 563.
  10. ^ see paragraph 40
  11. ^ Kinship of God and man: An attempt to formulate a thorough-going Trinitarian theology, by J.J. Lanier, see "Trinitarian Idealism," pp 135-147, esp. Syllabus II, p 136
  12. ^ Kinship of God and man: An attempt to formulate a thorough-going Trinitarian theology, by J.J. Lanier see "Trinitarian Idealism," pp 135-147, esp. Syllabus II, p 136