Talk:Events of Revelation

Old posts

I apologize in advance, as I am not acquainted with Wikipedia's syntax. However, could we add a link/citation from the plagues in Revelation Chapter 16 to the Plagues listed in Exodus?Plagues of Egypt

wow, all this crap over some fairy stories. what a bunch of douches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.77.5 (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article try to explain the Book of Revelations? I think the point is to merely present a synopsis of the "events" depicted. All this sounds kind of POV. -- DarkBard 14:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, its meant to be a chronology, not let's present the historist view(and occasionally the other). Thats not the purpose of the article. 74.137.230.39 01:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article is ridiculously POV and interpretive. There are numerous interpretations of the Book of Revelation, and this article presents only one of them as if it were indisputable. VoidTalker 16:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should simply just present what happens in Revelation without any interpretation. Does everyone agree with that? I don't think blanking the article is useful. I think the original article can be cleaned up to remove interpretation and just present what happens in the text. Akubhai 18:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, removing such a large portion of it was too extreme. It should indeed just present the symbolism of Revelation without any form of interpretation. The article as it was would require extensive cleanup however. If you think it can be cleaned up, please try, but it might be easier just to start from scratch... VoidTalker 16:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me to you that said the book of revelations is just a piece of "crap" I don't think you can make heaven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaughnalex (talk • contribs) 13:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I reverted to the last edit. I went through and tried to remove opinions and interpretations through The Lamb and the Seven Seals section. I figure taking this one section at a time would be the easiest approach.

It seems the tense keeps changing as well. I think we should come to an agreement on what tense the events should be written in. Any opinions? Akubhai 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Past or Present tense would probably be best. Past because it was written long in the past, or present because the events described are currently described in Revelation. If that makes any sense. I'm not exactly thinking most clearly right now. Definitely avoid future, because there are interpretations of Revelation that say the events therein are not meant as prophecy but merely to describe events at the time of it's writing. VoidTalker 17:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article only cites Revelation itself. It needs to cite sources for the interpretations it does present, otherwise they should be considered Original Research. VoidTalker 17:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I've returned here a few months later to find yet more unsourced interpretation, this time in the wikilinking no less. Under "The Woman and the Dragon," the Woman redirects to the Virgin Mary. Now, I agree that most interpretations say that the Woman described is Mary. But some don't (I know of at least a couple.). The interpretations persented here need to be sourced. Wikilinks need to be modified.

I have removed some of the POV wikilinks. Specifically, I removed the linking of Abyss to hell (changed it to Abyss (religion)), and removed altogether the "Woman and the Dragon" redirects of Woman -> Virgin Mary, Dragon -> Satan, Child -> Jesus, and Snatched up by God -> Ascension. I am still unsure about the link to War in Heaven - while the Revelation text is taken by many as a reference to Lucifer's rebellion this is by no means explicit or universal and at present is given without any reference.

There is also the question of whether or not we provide analysis in this article. My instinct is to say no, given that there is already a section covering interpretation in the main Book of Revelation article and this IMO isn't the place to detail every major school of interpretation's view on every section of the book (that would form a pretty hefty book in itself.)

I feel this article still has a significant POV bias and will go through it later, but this seemed like a good start. --Black Butterfly 09:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed the external link. IMO we should either present a series of commentaries reflecting a number of schools of interpretation on the book, or none at all - giving a link to only one interpretation gives that view undue weight. This is not to say I am against having links to interpretations per se; however I would prefer to leave them out until we have a notable collection of links/references. --Black Butterfly 09:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for so many edits in one go - have removed some other commentary/interpretation but an concerned I may have gone too far. Any input would be much appreciated. --Black Butterfly 09:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

As stated above, I feel it is a mistake to have a link to the Babylon Falls website unless there are corresponding links to sites offering different points of view, ideally giving the "standard" for each of the main perspectives. I am somewhat reluctant to put even this in to be honest given that the main Book of Revelation article gives a series of interpretetive schools' views. Could the user responsible for reinserting this link please explain why this one site is notable enough for mention? --Black Butterfly 21:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism?

I have removed the WikiProject:Judaism tag as Revelation is a Christian, not Jewish, text. --Black Butterfly 10:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Chronology"

"Chronology of Revelation" might not be the best way to term this section. Perhaps something like "Order of Revelation" or "Organization of Revelation" or something like that. The actual chronology is influenced by not only by it's repetetive nature (bifidic) which many recognize, but also by it's chiasmic nature (repeated in reverse order). The book of Daniel, for example, is out of known historical order, if one ignores the chiasmic nature of that book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJEdit (talk • contribs) 13:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. To be honest I'm not quite sure what the remit of this article is, i.e. what its remit is. "Key figures and events in the Book of Revelation" would seem to fit what's there currently. --Black Butterfly 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good way to put it. Additionally the description of the beast is a bit incomplete. Quoting: "Revelation 13 introduces a beast, rising out of the sea. It is described as having "ten horns and seven heads"..."

Might be better put: "Revelation 13 introduces a beast, rising out of the sea. It is described as being like a leopard, having the feet of a bear, and the mouth of a lion and having "ten horns and seven heads"..."

Additionally the "millennium" is not part of the book of Revelation so this section is inconsistent with the article. This is a doctrinal presumption penned by a guy named Jean de Labadie. It found it's way into the 20th century church via the Scofield bible, because it was a fit with Darby's 19th century futurist doctrine. [1] The Dutch Reform Church didn't buy de Labidie's doctrine and excommunicated him as a heretic. [2] This section should be removed.

Also I had added an interpretation under the two witnesses, but realized it was inappropriate and removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJEdit (talk • contribs) 18:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest 'Timeline of Revelation' as a better title for this article? This is suggestive of the order of events as they arer presented, without specifying the chronological order.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

star/abyss/smoke/locusts

Its conceivable that the star fell to earth at the third trumpet and opened the abyss (hades) at the fourth trumpet and the smoke is what darkened one third of the sun moon and stars. John then went back to them at the fifth trumpet simply to explain where the locusts came from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemmiwinks2 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fifth trumpet/locusts/death flees

when the fifth trumpets sounds and the locusts appear 'death flees from men'. this could be a reference to the fourth horseman. If so then that would be very significant. Perhaps that possibility could be worked into the article somehow. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dragon/false prophet/beast/image/fourth horseman

It is possible that the false prophet is the dragon himself. It is also possible that the 'beast' and the 'image of the beast' are in fact one and the same. Finally, its conceivable that the false propet riding the reptilian 'beast' is actually the fourth 'horseman'. Hence the green 'horse'. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revelation/Daniel

Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Layout

I'm attempting to save this page with a new layout by chapters. I'm also trying to word things more in line with the actual text rather than assuming whose who. For example... I am not assuming the name "God" for places in the text that use "Him", unless the text actually says the name "God". Another example is assuming "the Lamb"... so if thats what the text says, than thats how I'm putting it. Anyway, thats what links or the "See also" section is for if its appropriate to link them to topics that may vere from the chronology. Hope this works for everyone. Jasonasosa (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The heavens and the earth" - Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 65:17, Revelation 21:1

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

"Then I saw a new heavens and a new earth" (Revelation 21:1). This is a reference to Genesis 1:1 and Isaiah 65:17. This verse was used by Europeans to name the 'New World'. Many theologians interpret it allegorically as explaining the drastic difference in this world and 'heaven' when the Christ has been acknowledged as having returned. Astronomers have discovered thousands of exoplanets with the possibility of an earth-like planet being discovered any day. Astrophysicists have given us new understanding of the heavens. - Brad Watson, Miami 65.10.167.133 (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation - history redaction

Three history versions have been redacted after review of a request for redaction by @LuK3: on 8 February 2020. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Book/Scroll Sealed With 7 Seals"

Different Bible versions are split on the wording in Revelation 5:1 referring to either a "book" or "scroll"; see https://biblehub.com/revelation/5-1.htm . Hence, the term "book/scroll" is best to refer to it and gives it a unique designation since it is thee most special writing in human history! 73.85.202.200 (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]