Talk:The Day of the Lord

Bible High‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Theology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity High‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

There are some 450,000 Google hits for "The Day of the Lord"[1], but only 924 for The Day of the Lord plus Gundry[2]. Why then is whole this article about Gundry's interpretation of this term? This is clearly a POV issue and giving undue weight to one source and interpretation. Fram 06:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be completly rewritten from a more general viewpoint. Lumos3 17:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above now obsolete

The comment above, by user Lomos3, refers to an older revision of this page, the contents of which have been completely deleted. The comment was entirely appropriate when it was made: That earlier version of the article was all about Gundry's take on The Day of the Lord. The article was later deleted and "The Day of the Lord" redirected to Rapture. But now, a user MRawlinson has written a page about "The Day of the Lord" as a concept in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). This is completely distinct from ideas of "Rapture," and the page should now be allowed to remain, rather than being redirected to "Rapture."Prinplup (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, a good warrant for having deleted the redirect is number eight at WP:R#DELETE: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful.." Prinplup (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Standards

This page should be re-named "Day of the Lord" (without "The"). The existing page, "Day of the Lord," still redirects to "End Times" (not, notice, "Rapture"). I am about to change "Day of the Lord" so that it redirects here. Ultimately, this page should be "Day of the Lord," with "The Day of the Lord" redirecting here. My account does not autoconfirm, so I can't make this change. Prinplup (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament, direct reference is given to the 1,335th day in Daniel 12:12 as being "The Day of the Lord" via the included words of hope, "Blessed is he who waits and comes unto 1,335 days." (Exodus2320 (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

VERY Dogmatic Page

I read a section of this page and it was very dogmatic in explaining the verses and completely violated NPOV --174.45.184.184 (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be best to, instead of declaring the entire document as VERY Dogmatic, to instead request citations for certain ideas proposed on this page.

OR paragraph

The Hebrew יֹום and Greek ἡμέρα both mean a 24-hour day or an age or epoch. So there are many events prophesied for the Day of the Lord which need to take into account that the Jewish day begins with the sunset so it expects a dark phase (Amos 5:18) at the beginning of this Age and then the sunrise with The Morning Star followed by the plenty light (Malachi 4:2) of the eternal day.

The penultimate paragraph (above) of the Hebrew Bible usage section appears to be pure original research. It has been wanting a citation for four years, and I propose to delete it in the next several days if no reference is forthcoming. Any other viewpoints? --Ekaterina Colclough (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passage from Daniel does not reference the day of the lord

Instead it references the end of the Muslim claim to Jerusalem.

First of all, many Bible passages mis-translate years as days.

The Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 638 AD. Add in 1,335 years (not days) and you arrive at 1,973 AD, which as anyone with a bit of knowledge should know, is the year of the last of the Jewish/Muslim wars and the year that Jerusalem fully came back under the UNDISPUTED control of the Jews.

A truly blessed day for Christians and Jews, but a cursed day for Muslims. 108.26.243.70 (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you arguing that the Book of Daniel is referencing the Yom Kippur War of 1973??

And as for the personal additions you keep edit-warring over ([3], [4]), they cite no reliable sources and include what appears to be your own original research, which you're trying to back up by citing the Bible directly, as if that proves your opinion. This is directly incompatible with Wikipedia policy. If some more experienced editors can find something usable in all of this, they're free to comment here and reach a consensus (which is how Wikipedia works).

You've been explicitly told about all these policies before, so you have no excuse to ignore them. If you continue to edit-war, a report to administrators is the next option. R Prazeres (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the time does match with the Yom Kippur War.

Now what exactly is your problem with the references I provided? 6 of 11 of the references already cite sections of the Bible. What is your problem with adding a few more?108.26.243.70 (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first answer clearly illustrates how you are pushing ridiculous WP:OR. Wow. And that seems to match some nonsense you've said on other talk pages (like this).

As for the second part of your reply: indeed, any existing statements in this article that cite the Bible for any kind of interpretation (as opposed to merely quoting or paraphrasing its text), should be revised or removed. Adding more of this would only make the article worse. R Prazeres (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply pointing out that this prophecy by Daniel does not match the "meaning" of the Day of the Lord, which by all accounts is a nasty nasty day. How does that compare to being lucky to live on that date? Last I checked haram does indeed mean unclean. Am I wrong?

On the second part, I am simply quoting the Bible, if you disapprove then feel free to gut those parts of the article which do the same. 108.26.243.70 (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]