Talk:Seven seals

Untitled

The Revelation article seems to have more info than this article: Chronology of Revelation#The Lamb and the Seven Seals

This sentence: "This seal occurred during the rule of martyred Christians who were persecuted by Emperor Diocletian (284-303)." seems to be saying that the martyred Christians were ruling, instead of saying that the Emperor Diocletian was ruling. I didn't know how to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.217.31 (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense and original research

Resolved

A lot of uncited text has been added recently. I propose reverting to this revision from June 25th. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original ideas, and by the looks of how some of this content has been tagged, I am not alone in thinking this content is pretty poor. To the author of this content, please consider revising, consider our WP:MoS guidelines, take an encyclopedic tone, and most importantly, cite reliable sources so we can have a verifiable article. What do others think about the recent additions?-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from Seven seals' page history, I agree with you, Andrew, and followed the 'be bold' WP guideline. Carl.bunderson 23:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hardly nonsense or original research, nevertheless, reverted back to the old June version.

John

Thanks, John. It's very hard to make sense of what you wrote, to me at least. Perhaps if it was written more clearly and included extensive footnotes, we could come to a compromise? Carl.bunderson 04:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Still this post is still questionable without citing reliable sources. I suggest remaking this post, and also, we might want to consider to search for citations from other religeous books. dajhan 20:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Clarity

The article isn't very clear to someone who has no notion whatsoever of what the Seven Seals are. It serves more as an interpretation of what the seals may mean. Some explanation of what the seals actually are is required. --Dark Green (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

New layout

I've provided a new layout, removed original research and honed in on more or less words that are actually used in text. I had to remove a lot of rubbish and hopefully this will bring more clarity. I've also linked "seals" to another article that hopefully can explain what a seal was used for in ancient times. I didnt explain it in this article but you can follow the link if you dont know what a seal is. Jasonasosa (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Another new layout

I propose a new layout

. Well... I'll just do it and if you don't like it... you know what to do.

Calls in a demolition crew and a wrecking ball.* Oh yes! Time for some major damage! And out of the mess, will come something beautiful! Jasonasosa

Don't worry, this is a work in progess. Getting more material, more sources and references. This new layout will enable more editors to build upon and present multiple views. I love wiki! Jasonasosa (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

:Jason Asosa, you have taken it upon yourself to be 'master' of this article and its chief editor. You have erased some important contributions to it that I provided. Keep in mind that the main lesson of The Revelation is "Everyone will be judged according to their actions", which is also repeated over-and-over again in the Qur'an. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.121.70 (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see any Islamic views on this page... but if you have some sourced material on that subject... that would be real interesting to see. Thanks,

The Master and chief editor of my [edit] function, (until taken away) Jasonasosa (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Jason, you have turned this article into your playground to do with whatever you wish and at your whim. At what point will your childish games come to an end by the moderators of Wikipedia? Once again I will post popular views supported by references, i.e. the "symbolic definition of 'seal'", and ask that you do NOT delete them. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.121.70 (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Muhahaha... my playground! (Revs up wrecking ball tractor ready to bulldoze any unsourced, rubbish, vandalizing, non-coherant material)Jasonasosa (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

seven symbolic seals that secure(?) the "book" or "scroll"

Someone (Jason?) has changed the wording to the opening paragraph and has now used "secure". Is that 'correct'? Is it the best way to word this? I realize that the purpose of the article is to explain/define the "7 seals" and a definition should never use the word or form of the word in its explanation, i.e. using 'sealed' to explain 'seals'. And yet, every Bible version of The Revelation 5:1 states "sealed with 7 seals". The first definition of seal: 1. an emblem or figure used as evidence of authenticity. - p 789 The Random House Dictionary - Concise Edition (Random House, 1983). That first definition is highly important re: the "7 seals" since their being correctly presented on the cover of the "book/scroll" that "only the Christ can recieve from God" (paraprased) is "evidence of authenticity". The definition of 'secure' doesn't include "evidence of authenticity". - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

LMAO... and you say you are a "historian and scientist"? You don't even know what a "seal" is and you are even providing definitions? Why don't you read about seals here > seal (emblem); a link you keep removing. Also... "secure" doesn't always mean a lock and key... just so you know. (if thats what your thinking). What a waste of my time and keystrokes. Jasonasosa (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

On a side note... I think it's hilarious that there is one administrator for every 10,000 goofballs on the English wiki site alone...not to mention all the other unregistered users. See Wikipedia:About. Jasonasosa (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

::Jason, what a rant! I simply asked about the use of "secure". You seem to be 'hell bent' on deleting anything other than your posts. I don't believe I ever deleted the link to seal. I was the one to first provide the correct literal and figurative definitions of it along with a reference. Do you consider yourself an expert on the "7 seals" and the "2nd Coming of the Christ"? I do. Did you just call me a goofbol? Insults are not allowed on discussion pages. You don't possess the proper respect of others or the "7 seals". - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm included in the ratio... but you can interpret it however you want to. Jasonasosa (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

::::How coy of you, we both know your intention. If you want to consider yourself a goofbol, that's your choice - I AM not. I will repeat the question presented to you, do you consider yourself an expert on the "7 seals" and the "2nd Coming of the Christ"? I do. - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I as an imperfect flawed human, am unworthy of being an expert in anything.Jasonasosa (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::Jason, you continue to mock the sacredness of the "7 seals" and your lack of being an expert on the Bible, The Revelation, and the "7 seals" while you insist on having lone control over the material contained in the article. You owning one Bible (KJV) and being surprised that every modern Bible refers to a "scroll" in Rev 5:1-10:10 is a perfect example of how you are unqualified to edit this article at all! Your agenda is well documented here. - Brad Watson 71.196.11.183 (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Brad, I thought we were done fighting. I don't want to fight anymore. I just want to be friends and move this page along. I am not mocking the seven seals... I do respect the book of Revelation. I just wanted to clean up this page and make it right per wiki standards. I appreciate all of the views on Revelation because the Word of God is not linear, it works on multiple levels. I believe that the preterist, historicist, futurist and idealist views are all correct working on multiple levels. So it is a joy for me to work on this page because wiki allows editors to show all views even if it's right or wrong. I invite you Brad to contribute to this article, at least the view that you appreciate, which if I'm not mistaken is the futurist view. But I ask please that you follow wiki protocols when contributing your work, such as providing proper references, using the [Cite / template ] tool in the edit menu bar. I may not be a scholar on Revelation, and I don't have to be on wiki. I am however, an expert on editing... and that's all I need to prepare a good article. Also, I have a personality and I like to express it in my commentaries because you can't be a stiff all the time, you have to loosen up. Thanks for you time, Jasonasosa (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Spelling of 'judgment' vs 'judgement' - consistency of spelling

According to The Random House Dictionary - Concise Edition (Random House Publishing, 1993), 'judgment' is the most common spelling, although the British version of 'judgement' is also correct. Which should we use here? This is 'judgmental' and we can't help 'judging' which is best and why? But since this reference and my really BIG dictionary (Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary [Barnes & Noble, 2003) use 'judgment' and concise spellings are always better, I humbly propose that this article and all Wikipedia articles use the spelling of judgment. At least that's my judgment. (Note: Back in '03, I came across this 2,214+ page dictionary on sale in the bookstore. As I was taking it to the cashier, I noticed two lovely young women at the magazine rack. "Excuse me ladies, I was just wondering whether you were attracted to a guy with a BIG dictionary?" I immediately continued on to the cashier, but looked back to see them having a good laugh!) - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ENGVAR. Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Doug, you apparently aren't aware that there were two spellings of 'judgement' conflicting with many spellings of 'judgment' in the article. Pardon me if I didn't make it clear that you NEVER want to have two different spellings going on of a word in an article or essay of any kind! It just confuses the reader and violates a basic rule of not only English grammar, but every language's grammar. - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course you want it consistent, I didn't realise that was the issue, but then I should have guessed from the section heading. I was born and raised in Miami by the way. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm from Tampa, nice to meet you. Jasonasosa (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Doug & Jason, I see that the article now (9.18.11) consistently uses the spelling of 'judgment'. My judgment is that that is a good thing and I pray that the two of you will recognize my other contributions to this article as being very important, properly referenced, and stop deleting everything I contribute! - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that Doug is from Miami and Jason is from Tampa reminds me of a joke I first told as a teen... If you're from Miami, you're a Miamian. And if you're from Tampa, you're a Tampon. - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That was actually kinda funny Jasonasosa (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Exact wording of opening two paragraphs

The Seven Seals is a phrase in the Book of Revelation - the Bible's last book - that refers to seven symbolic seals that secure the "book" or "scroll" that John of Patmos saw in his Revelation of Jesus Christ. The opening of the seals, on the Apocalyptic document occurs in Revelation Chapters 5-8. In John's vision, the only one worthy to open the book/scroll is referred to as both the "Lion of Judah" and the "Lamb having seven horns and seven eyes".

Upon opening a seal from the book, a judgment is released or an apocalyptic event occurs. The opening of the first four seals release The Four Horsemen, each with their own specific mission. The opening of the fifth seal releases the cries of martyrs for the "word of God". The sixth seal prompts cataclysmic events. The seventh seal queues seven angelic trumpeters who in turn queue the seven bowl judgments.

Note: No Americans use "queue" and I AM not even sure that Jason is using it correctly here? - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiki is not limited to American word usage. Anyway, I used the incorrect word as you stated. Sorry. Jasonasosa (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Jason, I AM well aware that "Wikipedia is not limited to American word usage". I had deleted 'queue' long ago, but you incorrectly resurrected it. It appears that now we can agree 'queue' is dead. - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "queue" is dead. lol Jasonasosa (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Jason, "lol"? How inappropriate re: scholarly research. You've put yourself in the position of dictating what is and isn't in this all-important article. "Great power must come with great responsibility" - Spiderman - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, is Spiderman your first real legitimate secondary source reference? LMAO Jasonasosa (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"The book/scroll...sealed with seven seals" [7]

"The book/scroll...sealed with seven seals" ref. Rev 5:1. Every Bible uses the wording "sealed with seven seals". To not refer to this is quite negligent of the writer (Jason). And as stated before, the KJV uses the word "book", yet apparently every English version of the Bible since uses "scroll". - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

To address this issue, we need more editors involved in this discussion. It boils down to quoting from the authorized version (KVJ), or other versions (modern versions)... I will address it in a new section. Jasonasosa (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I had to think about the use of "sealed" for the "The book sealed with seven seals". I now support its usage to prevent any ambiguous thinking of the word seal. Thanks,Jasonasosa (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Jason, without accepting "book/scroll", you are contining "ambiguous thinking of the word seal". In antiquity, a wax seal with the imprint of a signet would be placed on an important scroll, not on a book which were very rare compared to the very common use of scrolls. - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Titles

Brad Watson, please read: Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format so that you can contribute something that won't get deleted. I admire your enthusiasm to edit, but you have to follow Wiki rules. I would post this on your User account... if you had one. Please consider getting a User account on wiki. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Jason, did you delete my reply? If so, that's clearly against the rules of Wikipedia Discussion Pages and you could get yourself banned from here. - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't delete replys but you can get an administrator to dig around see if something got lost. Jasonasosa (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Book vrs. Scroll

Hello all editors. For those interested in the page's development, what is the appropriate word to use throughout this article? “Book” from KJV, or “Scroll” from modern versions? For example, in the title:

The ______ with seven seals

I support “Book” from the authorized oldest source, but not all editors agree with this. Please provide feedback on what word ought to be used throughout this article, “book” or “scroll”. Further, I am avidly against the dual phrase: "book/scroll". I don't believe this is appropriate encyclopedic terminology. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

:Jason, the "oldest source" of the Bible is NOT the King James Version (KJV) - it isn't even the oldest English language version of the Bible! Please do some research before presenting your "facts". Do you consider yourself a Bible and "7 seals" expert? I do. Every scholar - including myself - appears to agree that John of Patmos historically wrote on a scroll, hence why the Hebrew Bible, Greek Septuagent, and Latin Vulgate have been translated for the last two hundred years as "scroll". I AM avidly for the all-inclusive phrase "book/scroll" - this is the best description of the actual "book/scroll" and is certainly "appropriate encyclopedic terminology". Furthermore, you constantly delete "sealed with "7 seals" although this exact wording is found in KJV and every Bible I've ever seen to the best of my recollection. What's your problem with the exact wording of every different Bible version? Please answer that. Why did you immediately delete the referenced quote from History Channel's "Secrets of the 7 Seals"? Please answer that. Do you agree that anyone editing this all-important Christian artice should be practicing The Golden Rule? You should read it. - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Perhaps I should rephrased my support for KJV. My official statement for the use of KVJ is: "I support “Book” from the authorized oldest common source in English, the King James Version."
2. Please show me one encyclopedia that would use "book / scroll" to describe this Revelation narrative, and I will comply.
3. I do not have a problem "with the exact wording of every different Bible version". The article can state all the different versions of the document that had seven scrolls... but we ought to stick to one agreed upon word throughout the article.
4. In regards to the quote from the History Channel, let all editors of this page decide:

"Today, believers are seeking connection between science and the 7 seals...they look to science for answers." - History Channel's 2009 Nostradomus Effect - Secrets of the 7 Seals.

To all editors, is this quote encyclopedic? I think not.

5. No. All editors editing "this all-important Christian artice" should NOT be practicing The Golden Rule. They should be practicing the Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. That is my official statement.

Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Jason, it's not (a) Golden Rule or (b) "practicing the 'Wikipedia:Editing Policy' and 'Wikipedia:Manuel of Style'", it's choice (c) both of the above. Your continual disrespect to the sacredness of this article and to me is allowed by the rules of Wikipedia, but... - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And that about wraps it up. Jasonasosa (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Book vrs. Scroll (Round 2)

The issue of Book vrs. Scroll has not yet reached an agreement. I encourage interested editors to poll your support for the word that should be used when refering to the document that had the seven seals. For example, the title:

The ______ sealed with seven seals

Current choices are:

1. "Book" (KJV)
2. "Scroll" (modern versions, eg. NIV)
3. "Book/Scroll" (Duality)

Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I for one, primarily favor "Book", but will settle with "Scroll", and will avidly protest "Book/Scroll". Jasonasosa (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Jason, it's not Capital letters - it's not capital letters in the KJV or in any version of the Bible! It's "book/scroll". Please read your different Bible versions more carefully. How many different translations/versions of the Bible do you own? As I stated before, I have about 25. And 'vs.' is the correct abbreviation for 'versus', I believe 'vrs.' is the abbreviation for 'verses' and both of those should be correct on 'either side of the pond'. - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

== The book sealed with seven seals== - deleted until quotations backing it are provided

I asked for quotations and none were supplied. This may not be original research but it certainly looks like it. Specifically I want quotations which talk about the Seven Seals and also that back "Sealing with such a signet was also applied to the tomb of Jesus". Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

There was "some good" content in there until it got all jacked up. The problem is there are 5 biblical definitions for "seal" and only one applies to the Revelation. So those paragraphs got convoluted with information that didn't apply... ex: "Sealing with such a signet was also applied to the tomb of Jesus"... which should not even be posted on this article.

I will attempt a second time to provide something... I just hope this time it doesn't get modified out of control again. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks. We shouldn't be adding everything the Bible says about seals to this article. Dougweller (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Doug, what are you talking about? You asked me for quotations and I DID supply them! I supplied them almost one year ago. Doug, please don't misquote me (or anyone else for that matter). I never said "it's in the Bible". I clearly gave the reference of the definition of 'seal, signet' as coming from p. 28 of the glossary of the Revised Standard Version entitled A Dictionary Of The Bible. This is the fourth time I've had to explain this to you besides it being properly referenced in the article that you and Jason unfortunately chose to delete for the wrong reasons. But, the Bible verse you requested is from Matthew 27:66, "So they went and made the sepulchre secure by sealing the stone and setting a guard" (KJV,RSV,etc.). The Literal and Figurative Definition of Seal needs to be returned to the article page and it should include this reference to the Christ breaking open the seal of his tomb. The symbolic connection between that event and his later producing the "book/scroll sealed with the 7 seals" is most important! Don't you agree? - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Jason, you continue to attempt to dominate the editing of this article, dismiss the Golden Rule, and not show me proper respect. I've asked you if you consider yourself qualified as a Bible scholar and expert on the "7 seals", yet you didn't answer that. I asked you how many different Bibles you have and you didn't answer. You make reference to the "authorized King James Version", authorized by who? You? The Roman Catholic Church certainly doesn't recognize the KJV as "authorized" by the Vatican - just the opposite! The Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't recognize the KJV as its "authorized English Bible". Many English-speaking Protestant churches today do NOT use the KJV as their primary Bible source. Wikipedia recognizes many other English Bible versions, but yet you don't! And your "official statements" sound as if, well... If I AM permitted to edit this article without unfair interference from you, then the important truths regarding the "7 seals" on the "book/scroll" will be stated in this article. It's Sunday morning and I AM now off to church. - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand the difference between writing an article here and writing an essay or an article elsewhere. Here your sources need to discuss the subject. If your source about a seal doesn't discuss the seal in the context of the Seven Seals, then you can't use it. Thus the seal on Jesus's tomb doesn't belong in the article unless you can find a reliable source relating it to the Seven Seals. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well good morning sunshine!! :D . Okay, well, firstly Brad... and correct me if I'm wrong Doug, but the scope of this article is essentially the seven seals of the Apocalypse. Brad, you really need to read Wikipedia:No original research. Although there may be in fact a connection between Matthew 27:66 and the book of the Apocalypse, the only way you can legitimately post the Matthew reference is if... there is a published secondary source that explains how that passage in the book of Matthew connects to the seven seals of the Apocalypse. You can't offer that connection on your own.

Secondly Brad, your "fourth time" that you "had to explain this" (being the definition of "seal") has been four different definitions when only one definition applys.

Now about me dominating the article... I am sorry if you feel that I've caused you disrespect. The reason why I have "dominated" the article is because it did not originally comply with Wiki standards and many other editors expressed their frustration over this if you even bothered to read what they've said farthur up this discussion page. There was way too much original research being done here. So... I came in with a new layout, for this very difficult article, that would make it easier to provide secondary sources in its appropriate spots. If Doug didn't like it... he would have reverted it. When I edit, I know I'm "okay" if User: Dougweller doesn't say anything... and I know he watches. :P .

Now to answer a few questions:

1. Am I a "qualified scholar" ? Official statement: No, I am not a qualified scholar, I'm a wikipedia editor. That means... if I'm wrong, I comply and I can admit when I'm wrong.
2. I'm not even going to answer you about how I think the KJV is authorized. It's just a matter of preference when editing on wiki because if there is ever a debate over modern versions, debates usually would slide back down to the KJV for resolution... but, I admit, that might be an "old school" way of thinking.

::One more thing... pay attention at church and stop brewing over this discussion in your mind while you are there. You are at church to listen to the Word of God... not thinking about wiki edit wars. :)

Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Jason, your last comment was totally against the rules of Wikipedia Discussion Pages. It was personal, completely inappropriate, and will be reported unless you delete it. You as one who here has laughed at the sacredness of the "7 seals", who has admitted to not being interested in the truth, and has admitted to not following the Golden Rule, is certainly in NO position to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do at Church! You may be "at war" here, I AM not. I do NOT promote war in anyway - it's ungodly! I AM a Wikipedia editor as well and I AM here to spread truthful knowledge which I believe is the purpose behind the founding of Wikipedia. - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I was out of line with my last comment. I'm sorry User: Dougweller. Doug, if you want me to delete it I will, or you can punish me... either way... Jasonasosa (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, if you are running to your computer to see what the next person says... more than likely, you are in a war. ;) Cheers, Jasonasosa (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Strike through it please, don't delete it. Brad, we aren't really interested in whether they are really sacred, just that the article is well written and uses sources properly. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, in my POV, I do view the contents of the Apocolypse as sacred, while I'm able to use secondary sources properly. I may not always write the article well, but I'm not opposed to experienced editors correcting me. Brad, I'm sorry for the comment I made earlier about church, it was inappropriate on this wiki page. Jasonasosa (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Influence - Television, History Channel's 2009 Nostradomus Effect - Secrets of the 7 Seals

Under the category of Influence and the subcategory of Television, I added... History Channel's 2009 Nostradomus Effect - Secrets of the 7 Seals.

Doug & Jason, I pray this meets with your approval. Earlier I had added a very important quote from the program that got unfairly deleted, "Today, believers are seeking connection between science and the '7 seals'...they look to science for answers". Another important quote from the program re: the "book" or "scroll" and the Christ producing it, "This appears to be a title deed to the universe and God's prophetic plan". Indeed, and this should also be added to the article! - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That statement is not encyclopedic, it's not even informative. Jasonasosa (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The mention of the program under Television is fine. Jasonasosa (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Jason, you are wrong about the quotes being encylopedic and you are wrong about them being informative. You are blind to many truths in your determination to be master of this article. The History Channel program on the Secrets of the 7 Seals has probably been seen by about 1,000,000 viewers of all beliefs, whereas, the incorrect views you promote have been read by a few hundred Christian fundamentalists. A large percentage of Christians are also very scientific (including me) and look for a scientific explanation of the "7 seals" and a scientific explanation of nature's physical reactions that are produced when the Christ opens the seals and reveals the secret information of them and what else is hidden within the "book/scroll". It is this correct scientific interpretation of the prophecy that you vehemently oppose and that I vehemently support. May the correct interpretation of the "7 seals" win! - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Brad, I would LOVE to see the scientific interpretation of the Seven Seals if you could only provide a secondary sourced reference! Jasonasosa (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Jason, again, the information that I presented was the following quote from History Channel's 2009 Secrets Of The 7 Seals, "Today, believers are seeking connection between science and the '7 seals'...they look to science for answers". There's your "secondary sourced reference", yet because you disagree with it and because you've made yourself the master-editor of this article, you deleted it from the article page. Your editing style is that of a tyrant. - Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Brad, it would be wonderful, quite exquisite in fact, if you could actually present the scientific analysis of the Seven Seals. As a potential audience, you have "wet my appetite" for this scientific approach of the "Seals". So, post the actual scientific data that was used to enlighten us on the "Seals". Please, I as an audience, am really interersted in what you are talking about. Jasonasosa (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph 9.18.11 7:47 PM EDT (edit form)

Jason has taken it upon himself to not let anything other than his posts stay on the article page as soon as he is notified that any change has taken place. The readers of this discussion page can judge my posts here. The following is the current version of the opening two paragraphs, but Jason won't let it remain there long. I've exposed the references...

The Seven Seals is a phrase in the Book of Revelation that refers to seven symbolic seals that secure the book (ref: Revelation 5:1-10:10, King James Version of the Bible [KJV], 1607) or scroll, (ref: Good News Translation (GNT), American Bible Society, 1992, note: Possibly all recent Bible versions use "scroll", i.e. New International Version, Revised Standard Version, International Chlidren's Bible, New American Bible") that John of Patmos saw in his Revelation of Jesus Christ. The opening of the seals, on the Apocalyptic document occurs in Revelation Chapters 5-8. In John's vision, the only one worthy to open the book is referred to as both the "Lion of Judah" and the "Lamb having seven horns and seven eyes". (ref: Revelation 5:5–6) This symbolically refers to the Christ. (ref: What The Bible Is All About - Bible Handbook, by Dr. Henrietta C. Mears, Regal p. 663)

Upon Christ opening a seal from the book, a judgment is released or an apocalyptic event occurs. The opening of the first four seals release The Four Horsemen, each with their own specific mission. (ref: Revelation 6:1–8) The opening of the fifth seal releases the cries of martyrs for the "word of God". (ref:Revelation 6:9–11) The sixth seal prompts cataclysmic events. (ref:Revelation 6:12–17) The seventh seal cues seven angelic trumpeters who in turn cues the seven bowl judgments. (ref:Revelation 8:1–13)

- Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

When I went in to clean up your mess, I messed up a < ref > tag that made it look like the paragraph was deleted. I fixed it now. Also, you need to site good references and not pull them out of nowhere! I'm checking your references. Jasonasosa (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Brad, you need to read: Wikipedia:No original research before you do any edits, that is why I keep having to delete all of your posts.. none of it is supported, bad references, you put 666 with the Antichrist when the Antichrist is not even a word used in Revelation... so how do you make the association without a secondary source? Come on man, read up on how to edit on wiki... cause I'm sick of this. Jasonasosa (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH

I am dominating this article from editors who do not comply with wiki's policy on Wikipedia:No original research. Nothing will last on this page if it isn't sourced. I will not have this page overrun with unsourced material, bad references, and only limited to the futurist view, like it was before. Please read this: Wikipedia:Editing policy before you do ANY edits on this page. Jasonasosa (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've given him a formal warning, we've discussed this often enough here with no obvious effect. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Preterist views

The preterist view of the Seven Seals are typically seen as highly figurative illustrations of early historical events that have already taken place. The preterist usually views that John was given an accurate vision, of a course of events that would occur over the next several centuries, to fulfill the prophetic seals. Robert Witham, an 18th century Catholic commentator, offers a preterist view for the period that spans the length of the opening of the seals; it being the period from Christ to the establishment of the Church under Constantine in 325.

Johann Jakob Wettstein (18th Century), places the date of the Apocalypse as written before A. D. 70. He assumed that the first part of the Book was in respect to Judea and the Jews; and that the second part, about the Roman Empire. The “Sealed Book” is the book of divorcement sent to the Jewish nation from God.

Isaac Williams (19th Century), associated the first six Seals with the discourse on the Mount of Olives and stated that, “The seventh Seal contains the Seven Trumpets within it… the judgments and sufferings of the Church.”

--- Preterist view
[[Johann Jakob Wettstein]] (18th Century), identified the first Horseman as Artabanus, king of the Parthians who slaughtered the Jews in Babylon. However, Ernest Renan, a 19th century modern rationalist preterist interpreted the First Horseman to be symbolic of the Roman Empire, with Nero as the Antichrist. This rider who "went forth conquering" was Rome's march toward Jerusalem in the year 67, to suppress The Great Jewish Revolt.

- Brad Watson, Miami 66.229.56.118 (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You simply cannot delete stuff just because it may be wrong. From some viewpoints, all of this is just superstition, shall we delete it all because some people think that. Preterist views are discussed in clearly reliable sources such as Newport's book, and are part of the history of interpretation of the seals. Dougweller (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

References

|}

Please give full detail for books

I ask this because it makes it easier to find a book and it also gives us a clue as to whether it can be used. Thus All Power to the Lamb is, I found, self-published by Xulon Press which published books for a fee. Not only is this self-published, I don't see it discussed in clearly reliable sources, so we shouldn't be using it. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That was my bad... I will comb through it. Thanks for the update. Jasonasosa (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jasonasosa (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you use the citation template right above this edit window? Hit the dropdown button, choose Book, the choose show extra fields as for books you need to give the page number. Make sure you have author, publisher, ISBN, publication date, full title and of course page number. Dougweller (talk)13:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll work on that when I get a chance and update all of the references. I'm at work now, so it won't be until later. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Great. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Done.Jasonasosa (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Doug Weller, does Wikipedia consistenly use the standard of not accepting a book as a source if the author has paid a fee to a publishing company for its publication? Or have you taken it upon yourself to imploy this here because it fits your criteria? - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That's more or less right: "if the author has paid a fee to a publishing company for its publication", that is a very strong signal that it is not a reliable source; Xulon in particular has an incredibly bad reputation. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Missed Brad's reply, but he's now blocked for disruptive editing. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Mistake in lettering due accumulation of linquistical changes.

It has never been ´the word of god´, allways, ´the worth of god´.

Changed in the first paragraph, added /worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.204.18.169 (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you able to provide evidence to support your pov? Rev107 (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Watchmen View?

No citations. No other articles about this view and the appearance of being the ever changing cultish views of non-notable people or groups. Without any sources to notability of persons that hold these views, I deleted all those views. --DHeyward (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@DoyleBond:, I traced these to your only contributions. DoyleBond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) . Please feel free to comment here. It's bee a while since the edit, so I will leave a manual revert message on User talk:DoyleBond. --DHeyward (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Absence of a paragraph relating the 7 Seals to current events & there is nowhere to be found an interpretation that considers the 7 seals as a CONTINUOUS event

In this article we have the Preterist views , the Historicist views , the Futurist views and the Idealist views . All of them altered copies of each other that offer no explanation to the average reader , and in fact most probably confuse them even more . What amazes me is that all these views consider the 7 seals as a NON-continuous event at best , or fictional at worst .... Yet i fail to see somewhere in the article , a paragraph which describes the 7 seals as a continuous , non broken chain of events that takes place in a relative short time span . Said otherwise and more simply : Why not also include a paragraph that describes the 7 seals for what they are ? In fact they cannot be more clear than this ( each number is a seal ) : 1) Conquer 2) As a result of the first event :War & rumors of war 3) As a result of the wars : the food production will halt , thus famine 4) As a result of the famine and war 1/4th of the total population will die 5) Then Persecution of Christianity and Christians 6) After this a great earthquake will happen and as a result non believers realizing that we are in the end times will hide themselves in tunnels . That is exactly what the revelation is saying and i challenge anyone in doubt to check for themselves . I would have added this paragraph myself ( ofc with the required sources ) , but i am first posting it here , hoping that a kind , born-again soul might want to help/add something more . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Are there any reputable theologians that hold this view and have published their position on it? Taxee (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Reputable is a highly subjective term , however your request is legitimate . I can positively say that there are many reputable Christian communities & websites sharing the same views regarding this issue source , source 2 . At a later time , i will also present some links of scholar bibliography proving the same view . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that present this an alternative interpretation of the seven seals, then it should be included. Taxee (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Reputable" is actually not that subjective when it comes to reliable sourcing. You need professionally published, mainstream academic sources - preferably something from a university press or an academic publisher such as Wiley-Blackwell or Brill Publishers. Not devotional sites, not demagoguery from preachers with no academic credentials, not primary source based original research, but academic works.

Also, per WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTSOAPBOX, we will only present the view as one view among the others, not as WP:THETRUTH. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Reputable was not the best choice of wordgins but will note that I linked to Wikipedia:No original research#Reliable sources. Taxee (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Look Ian , since the genesis of wikipedia , content has been created based on wp:con , and not individual criteria assembled in that way that ' it will present only one view among the others ' which will be chosen by Ian ... In fact your comment is so limited , that you offer 2 publishers as a criterion of academia reputability . Reputable is a subjective term , but not 'reputable sources' as per wiki definition of reputable sources , so you are correct there . As long as there is consensus and reputable sources and NOT a wp:or , i fail to see your motive that leads you to a such offensive and exclusive behavior. Last but not least , this is a religious matter , and intended for religious audiences ,you seem to underestimate that fact .... Gjirokastra15 (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been on the site about 8 years longer than you, so please don't talk to me like I'm a newbie. The site wide consensus, especially when it comes to religious articles, is that academic sources are the reputable sources. Your statement "That is exactly what the revelation is saying and i challenge anyone in doubt to check for themselves" -- that is WP:OR. That you've thrown the link at me makes it hard for me to believe you've actually read it.

The other sources you cited -- they do not meet WP:RS, because they fall under WP:QS (questionable sources) and WP:SPS (self-published sources).

My motive is to make sure that the articles stick to academic sources, and I recommend you read WP:AGF if you think otherwise.

I understand that this is a religious matter, and that is why we typically stick to academic sources for religious articles -- to avoid presenting one sect's claims as gospel and another's as heresy. Instead, we neutrally present each view according to the weight they are given in academic sources. Our articles on religious topics are not here to tell users WP:THETRUTH (whatever it may be), but only to describe what beliefs exist. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems that we are going round & round in an ad infinitum cycle of vanity . It would have been a wp:or if that would have been my own conclusion , yet as per the sources presented that is not the case . Please before memorizing the rules in a verbatim manner , try to understand them too - if possible -, otherwise it seems paradoxical to me that being 10 years here you seem not to understand this simple fact . Before continuing with your accusation indifanda try to understand as well that those sources are neither wp:qs nor wp:sps ... and an alexa rank check would have confirmed that to you . Last but not least , they are not the only ones , and certainly the fact that each view already present in this article is backed by a mere 1 source , does not help your thesis . To conclude , be patient because more sources - be that of academic nature , or of religious nature - will be presented . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"We" are going in circles because you're not paying attention and not modifying your position to handle new information.

Alexa rankings are not listed anywhere at WP:Identifying reliable sources. That's because Alexa rankings only indicate traffic, not quality. Wikipedia is regularly around the top ten when it comes to Alexa rankings, and we do not accept Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia. Alexa rankings have nothing to do with WP:SPS. The websites you listed lack both editorial oversight and academic credentials -- defining features of reliable sources. Whether other sources exist or not does not matter, the burden is on you to present the sources for claims you make.

I do understand the "rules," and I have explained them for you. Before telling me I need to understand the "rules," you should try knowing them. Academic sources or bust -- it's that simple. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Tell me Ian  : Do you use academic sources in the occult articles that you so much are interested ? It is not that it matters that much, but i find very much paradoxical that you define yourself as christian yet you are so much interested in the occult & globalism . You are right until an extend , and that is because i have not provided enough sources . Yet your attempt to narrow so much my options as to what is a source , just because you have administrator rights , is an abuse in my humble opinion . Anyways , enough said , soon enough i will present more sources , and it would be great and very much needed , if other editors & administrators would present their opinions in the process . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: -- Read WP:No personal attacks. I'm attempting to "narrow" your sources to reliable ones, which is a responsibility of any editor, not an abuse of administrative tools. If you are worried about me being an administrator, maybe you should consider that I'm in that position because I know what I'm talking about. And yes, I do stick to academic sources in those articles, either written by known academics or from academic houses. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

As per request , these EXTRA sources & books are showing the same exact thesis and interpretation of the 7 seals , unquestionably establishing the fact that this is one of the most - if not the most- widely accepted interpretation of the 7 seals : 1)Nelson, Thomas. King James Study Bible: Second Edition. p. 1980. 2) Wilson, Mark. Charts on the Book of Revelation: Literary, Historical, and Theological. p. 77. 3) Nissen, Kenneth. Revelation: God’s Last Love Letter. p. 160. 4)Hitchcock, Mark. The End of Money: Bible Prophecy and the Coming Economic Collapse. p. 31-32. . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources 1 and 2: You really must not have read WP:OR. WP:OR doesn't just mean "any statement with a source thrown at it is OK," it means that the source must completely support a claim. What the first source does is outline Revelation without any claims about its meaning. The second source draws parallels between the seven seals and some eschatological statements by Jesus. Neither source says anything about current events.

Source 3: WestBow Publishing says on their front page that they "help authors self-publish books" -- In other words, they're a pay-to-print publishing company, which fails WP:RS. If you don't believe me, you need to show me where in WP:V or WP:RS it says we allow pay-to-print sources. You can't just keep ignoring this information. Even then, this source only says that the seals chronologically overlap, nothing about them being continuous or current.

Source 4: The citation you give says nothing about current events. Even if it did, the most we could say is "according to Mark Hitchcock..."

What you need: You need an academic source that explicitly claims that the Seven Seals are both continuous and currently happening. You can't just use a source that says one and another source that says the other -- see WP:SYNTH. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You seem to lose sight of the forest for the trees . All these 4 ACADEMIC sources ( + 2 non academic already presented ) show the exact same thing , in a verbatim manner , leaving no room for wp:or . To be more precise , they name the 7 seals as conquer , war , famine etc. , they interpret them in a literal manner and as a continuous event . Little do i care if they say that they are current or not , as that was not the point of this discussion . What do i care ( and you should too) , is that this article does not portray the mainstream , and most accepted view regarding this issue . Since you keep accusing me for something i have not even edited , please let me point out 1 'rule' that you intentionally keep missing : wp:idontlikeit . Let me also remind you that the current wp:con , is in favor of adding a paragraph under the title of ' Alternative view ' . You yourself have said in your initial post that you would prefer adding only '1 view among others ' and not 'the truth' as cynically stated in your first post. Guess what , this is not about the perceived truth and not about what ' Ian likes & chooses ' , it is about factually portraying the most accepted interpretations . Do we have a consensus or should i file for a WP:RFM & WP:DRN , seeing that this discussion leads to nowhere , after proceeding with the edit as per WP:BOLD ? Gjirokastra15 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to waste the time of people at DRN, I can't stop you. You've found 2 sources that outline Revelation, 1 devotional source, and 3 non-WP:RSs. You are pushing your interpretation of things into those sources.

It has nothing to do with whether I "like" the idea or not. What I don't like here is your refusal to assume good faith, your desire to treat this as a fight, and your refusal to pay attention to site wide consensus on what qualifies as a reliable source. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I am just saying that it merits a small paragraph as well under the title of Alternative view , since the article is already presenting views . I am assuming good faith , and some of your points are correct . Yet , given the fact that some of the sources i have presented are more than reputable as per the wiki definition of reputable , plus taking into consideration the quantity of them , i think that by this point it should had produced a consensus . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And I have explained why those sources do not support your claims, and why many of them fail WP:RS. You have done nothing to address those points, just repeated yourself. I have explained what sort of sources you needed, you have not brought them.

If you had academic sources that explicitly described the seals as continuous and current events (per your earlier words), then they should be given due weight. You have not brought such sources, and your insistence that you have is disruptive. The sources you have brought do not explicitly describe the seals as continuous and current events, you have to interpret them that way which makes it WP:OR. Your refusal to address this is also disruptive.

Again, it is very simple: you need to present academic sources (from academic publishers) that explicitly state that the seven seals are interpreted as both continuous and related to current events. Not just one or the other, not just with interpretation, but explicitly. Those are not my standards, they are site wide consensus. If you do not want to bother with any of that, get a blog. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me repeat you are loosing sight of the forest for the trees : I will use neither the term 'continuous' , nor 'related to current events ' . I will instead use the term 'chronologically overlapping ' and the 7 seals as explained by all these 6 sources in a verbatim manner , explicitly stated in those sources . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: What talk page were you reading? Because it surely wasn't this one. Again, the first two sources you cited say nothing about interpretation. You are engaging in original research by insisting that they do and you are being tendentious and disruptive by ignoring this. The third source, again, fails WP:RS. It is not a reliable source. It is self-published, so it falls under WP:SPS. This has been explained to you before, and it is tendentious and disruptive for you to keep ignoring this. Do not cite that source again. The fourth source is only Mark Hitchcock's views, and he is a clear futurist.

Furthermore, the material you're adding just happens to be a specific variation on futurist interpretations. You have provided nothing to distinguish it from other futurist views.

Consensus is not based on you refusing to listen to other people and repeating the same dismissed arguments over and over. It is based on sources and policies. You have no acceptable sources for the material you added, and the policies dismissing those sources (or your personal interpretation of them) have been explained repeatedly. Do not add that material again without showing some better sources here and explaining how the interpretation is not just a specific kind of historicist or futurist interpretation. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I was reading this talk page . The current wp:con is in favor of adding that view , with 2 editors being in favor and Ian against it , no matter the sources presented and no matter the fact that my edit reflected all of your concerns & objections . I can and i will present many more sources , but no matter what source will i bring , we will continue in this ad infinitum nonsensical cycle of denial . It seems that this article is allowed to present only one view of the many as chosen by you ( as stated in one of your first replies ) . I am sorry but my understanding is that this is a clear case of wp:idontlikeit . I could as well add this paragraph under the futuristic views , but you will revert that edit as well and then you will accuse me of WP:TEND when in fact that describes you . Let me emphasize for the n-th time that there in no wp:or whatsoever , i have stated in a verbatim manner what all those sources say , using the phrases that you pointed in your previous comments . I am sorry but this vendetta has reached to a dead end , and i will proceed to the relevant incident board by using the available mechanisms for such behaviors . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Taxee said if there are reliable sources. You have provided no reliable sources, as has been explained repeatedly. You might want to look at WP:BOOMERANG before you go filing reports. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You yourself have implied that 3 of those sources meet that criteria .... But just to be on the safe side let me please give you the description of one of those sources : ' The best selling study Bible in the King James Version—now updated, with added features. Trusted for 25 years, The King James Study Bible has dependable notes and annotations from scholars you can rely on, led by General Editor Edward Hindson. A clear presentation of conservative Bible doctrine, with the resources you need for knowing God’s Word. ' . @Ian.thomson: do we have a consensus/compromise , or should i proceed to the relevant incident board(s) ? Gjirokastra15 (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: I have a copy of the KJV Study Bible and I don't see it saying the things that you say that it is saying. Could you please post the specific text here that proves your point? Thanks. Taxee (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Taxee: Here it is  : Pages 1980-1981 , it names you ( verbatim ) the seven seals as conquest , war , inflation and famine , death , martyrdom , and natural disasters . My edit was this one . All these 6 sources describe the seals as chronologically overlapping ( 4 books , and 2 websites of which 1 is a gov. website ) . I have given a plethora of sources , and evidence . Minimally it merits a paragraph under the futurist view . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15:I'm not sure that you understand the concept on Wikipedia of what constitutes original research. While the KJV Study Bible mentions conquest , war , inflation and famine , death , martyrdom , and natural disasters as descriptors, it does not put forth your alternative view. You see it as agreeing with your view by putting it together with the other sources you mention but your "alternative view" has to be clearly delineated in a reliable source . That's what's missing. Taxee (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Taxee: Have you seen my edit ? Do not compare it with what i have said in this talk page but with the edit i have made in the article . My 10 word edit , clearly is not a wp:or as it is saying what you said in the first 2 lines of your reply . Here let me write it 1 more time : ' The 7 seals are interpreted literally , as a chronologically overlapping sequence of events which takes place in a relatively short period of time. The 7 seals represent : conquest , war , inflation and famine , death , martyrdom and persecution , a great earthquake , and heavenly silence ' . How is that a WP:OR ? Please do look in the pages 1979-1980 as well , it says to you that they chronologically overlap ! I mean it is so ad verbatim that there is even a risk for a WP:COPY . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: It is OR because you did not cite a source that explicitly says "the seven seals are sometimes interpreted as overlapping with other seals." The source cannot even just "imply" it, it must present the exact same idea as what what you're trying to add to the article.

Page 1979 describes a view where each seal is parallel to each trumpet and each bowl -- it does not explicitly say that the seals overlap. Even then, it also describes the consecutive and telescopic views, and favors the telescopic view as being closest to the text.

I did not say that the KJV Study Bible was inappropriate for other stuff, I said that it does not say what you are trying to say. It does not matter what a source's credentials are if it does not support your claims at all.

And you need to quit saying you've presented 4 books and 2 websites when it's been explained why those sources do not support your statement. It is a lie for you to keep counting those sources because you know why they don't work. It is also a lie to say that you presented a .gov website as a source. None of your sources are government websites. And given how you bring up "best selling" to support a source, I'm starting to suspect you're lying whenever you say you've read WP:RS, because it's either that or you you totally failed to comprehend any part of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The Opening of the "7 Seals" marks the return of the Christ

Block evasion

I tweaked the beginning of this article and provided a new reference... The Seven Seals is a phrase in the Book of Revelation that refers to seven symbolic seals that secure the book or scroll, that John of Patmos saw in his Revelation of Jesus Christ. The opening of the seals of the Apocalyptic document occurs in Revelation Chapters 5-8 and marks the return of the Christ. In John's vision, the only one worthy to open the book is referred to as both the "Lion of Judah" and the "Lamb having seven horns and seven eyes".5:5–6 Important scrolls being secured with seals is mentioned in earlier Bible examples including Book of Daniel 12:4... "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." (The prophecy was to be sealed up - not understood - to the end of the age.<ref<Unger, Merrill F, The New Unger's Bible Handbook revised by Gary N. Larson (Moody Press, 1998), p. 301</ref<) Upon the understood Second Coming of the Christ opening a seal from the book or scroll, a judgment is released or an apocalyptic event occurs. The opening of the first four of the Seven Seals release The Four Horsemen, each with their own specific mission. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:48C0:908A:50EE:D86 (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That is one view (preterist) and, as such, should not be in the introduction to the article. Taxee (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Taxee: That is one view and as such, SHOULD be in the introduction to the article. Most importantly, it's correct. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:2D1A:6829:65DE:A333 (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Bad link for 'The Seven Seals of Revelation and the Seven Classical Planets'

Block evasion
The link provided for Graham (2010) The Seven Seals of Revelation and the Seven Classical Planets. Esoteric Quarterly 6 (2), 45-58 doesn't work. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:48C0:908A:50EE:D86 (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Fixed. LloydGraham (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC) OP is User:Brad Watson, Miami. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links

I deleted several external links that did not meet the test in WP:EL that external links should be to sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding. The links in question were all to non-secondary source material that was highly speculative in nature and therefore not appropriate to be linked to. Taxee (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If the address has "7seals" in it, it's User:Brad Watson, Miami. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Taxee: What makes you thee authority re: the 7 Seals? 2601:589:4705:C7C0:641E:2B95:42BE:CDA6 ([[User talk:2601:589:4705:C7C0:641E:2B95:42BE:CDA6|talk]]) 23:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

He doesn't need authority to point out that you have no authority and do not belong here. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ian: So, if a link has is titled "7seals" it shouldn't be referenced on the article on the "7 Seals"? That's nuts. Can you imagine if every Wikipedia article had this 'rule'?! I added...

• http://7seals.blogspot.com
• http://7seals.yuku.com
• http://RevelationRevealed.proboards.com 2601:589:4705:C7C0:641E:2B95:42BE:CDA6 (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not the issue, Brad. The issue is that you do not belong here, you are not welcome here, we reject you and your ideas, we reject your website -- you are anathema here. Damn us all you want you, "Jesus", we will not worship you, much less accept your ideas. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Noting that this talk page has been plagued for years by a sock

See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Brad Watson, Miami. I've struck through a lot, deleted some. Talk page now semi-protected. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)