Talk:Great Tribulation

The Reference New Testament Revelations 7:14 is inaccurate, "the great tribulation" should read "great tribulation" only. Nowhere in ancient Hebrew or Greek does this verse reference a certain period of time, rather tribulation all those in Christ go through. Jesus stated one will go through much tribulation entering into the Kingdom of God, this is the meaning of Revelation 7:14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:20E0:2B4B:B698:57DE:1FE0:C96 (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Untitled

I made the mistake of leaping before I got a good look at the whole article. I removed a reference to WWIII, which deviated from any scholarly description of the events explicitly foretold in Revelations. Had I read the rest of the article, I would have seen that it is rife with such predictions. These eschatological interpretations of scripture would be better suited to an article of their own; one expressly for that purpose. Such surmising is not appropriate in an objective description of Revelations. I'm not prepared to go and remove everything, as I'm something of an interloper, but I strongly encourage someone with more clout to do so. -- Volfied

---

There could probably also be something said about pre- and post-millenialism, and about the "pantribulationist" position: never mind the details, it will all pan out in the end. I've actually heard that last one quite a bit, in several different circles.  ;-) --Wesley

what about Preterism?

---

According to Pretribulationism, all Christians then alive will be taken bodily up to heaven (called the rapture or Parousia) before the Tribulation begins, although many who become Christians before the rapture will live through (or perish during) the Tribulation.

Who exactly will have to live through the Tribulation? --AxelBoldt

As I understand it, pretribulationists believe that Jesus will come and take away all the Christian believers at the time of the Rapture. All non-Christians (including Christians who aren't 'real' Christians) will remain on earth, and will have to live through or more likely die during the Tribulation. However, during the time of the Tribulation, many of the non-Christians left behind by the Rapture will become Christians. These new Christians will have to live through the Tribulation, or die or be martyred during it. At the end, Jesus will return for those who became Christians during the Tribulation, and to deal with (consign to hell?) the rest. -- SJK

So the passage in question should be reworded to 'although many who will become Christians after the rapture...'? EddEdmondson 13:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Fixed the article. -- DavidCary 02:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Just making sure: "Paraousia" and "Parousia" as used in this article are distinct terms, and both are correct? DSatz 19:09, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

---

I will attempt to fix this line: "Here is a timeline of the events to come during the Tribulation period according to the book of Revelation," to reflect other interpretations regarding the time(s) these events occur. Traditionally, the seven trumpets are thought to occur during the Tribulation, with the seals of the book covering the span of humankind's history, and the vials/bowls happening during the Wrath of God (after the Millennial reign of Christ). Of course, some events seem to overlap, so the explanation needs to allow for that. --Kibbitzer 3 July 2005 11:13 (UTC)

Some interpret the white horse and rider of Rev.6:2 to represent Jesus (and the Church)--going forth to conquer evil--and use Rev.19:11-14 as a cross reference. May be worthwhile to mention this in the appropriate spot.--Kibbitzer 04:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Delusion

you just have to have faith and believe in God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.88.137 (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I am absolutely consternated. Do people really believe this stuff? LOL! They might as well believe in the tooth-fairy and Santa Clause -- you know, the evidence doesn't matter; what matters if FAITH in the tooth-fairy. After all, faith is a virtue, isn't it! LOL. Truly amazing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.70.117 (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So, you're basically saying, "Since no one's ever seen God, God doesn't exist!" That's stupid. LOL 71.213.134.121 (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What a shitty article. Needs more Bible quotes. Let the book speak for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.100.20 (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Historical View

“The Tribulation would have ended, according to this understanding, at the restoration of the nation of Israel in 1948 or at the return of Jerusalem to Jewish control in 1967.”

I am puzzled by this conclusion for this is not the historicist viewpoint as I know it. The historicist viewpoint believes the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation represent the entire history of the church up to Christ's Second Coming and the establishment of the new kingdom under Christ – not a fulfillment of the restoration of physical Israel. The historicist viewpoint recognizes that all references to Israel after Christ’s first coming now represent spiritual Israel – not physical Israel.

Agree, that section needs a complete rewrite. Based on the original text of Matt 24, Great Tribulation is said to have began sometime after AD 70 Roman invasion. But we are talking about tribulation on God's people, Christians. It is the same period of "persecution of the saints" Historicist view as during the dark ages of 1260 years from 538 to 1798.

Mat 24 goes with other text about the "falling away" which happened after the "restrainer was removed". This is seen as the fall of the Roman empire (restrainer) and rise of the papacy (little horn) who "changed times and laws" (falling away from truth). The "Great Trib" then began as "persecution of the saints" (Dn.7, Rv.13) and continued until the end of the 1260 years, as we read "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:" (Mat.24:29, Mk.13:24, Rv.6:12,13). Historicist of the SDA view the stars falling and the great earthquake began in late 18th century, as a meteor shower that happened at that time, and the Lisbon earthquake, thus Great Tribulation ended in late 18th century and these signs began after tribulation. There are many SDA bible study guides based on pioneer Uriah Smith's Daniel and Revelation, pp.437-448 and Ellen White's Great Controversy. None of this has anything to do with Jews or the physical state of Israel after 70 A.D. FYI, there are some historicist who view the earthquake and stars falling of the 6th seal as symbolic happenings within the Roman Empire, not literal events.75.120.184.233 (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Sufic View

Is it allowed to actually state what all the things in the Revelation actually are in relation to the tribulation.Or is actual information not allowed? Let me know; I AM WRITING A BOOK ABOUT IT. If information is allowed let me know; rather than speculation. ````

Unicorn 144
         

As stated, the historicist sees the papacy as the fulfillment of the "Little Horn Power" referenced in Daniel 7:24. It also sees the papacy as the harlot woman in Revelation 17 with the vision of the terrible seven headed/ten horned beast in Daniel as the same - just different characteristics.

  Daniel 7:24
  The ten horns are ten kings
   Who shall arise from this kingdom.
   And another shall rise after them;
   He shall be different from the first ones,
   And shall subdue three kings.

The historicist viewpoint believes the statue vision in Daniel Chapter 2 is the entire history of the church up until Christ's Second Coming with the rock that crushes as Christ's Second Coming. This is a different viewpoint than the Preterist and Futurists. Here is a comparison of the different viewpoints:

  Statue                  Historicist     Preterist    Futurist
  Head of Gold            Babylon         Babylon      Babylon
  Chest/arms of Silver    Media-Persia    Media        Media-Persia
  Thighs of Bronze        Greece          Persia       Greece
  Legs of Iron            Pagan Rome      Greece       Pagan Rome
  Feet of Iron & Clay     Papal Rome      Pagan Rome   Pagan Rome

The historicist viewpoint considers the different prophecies given in Daniel as the same prophecies; just different characteristics which help identify the kingdoms and events in history. That the idea that God gives prophecy in multiple forms was established in Genesis 41 where God gave the pharaoh of Egypt the vision of the seven cows (fat and thin) and the seven heads of grain (plump and blighted). Daniel chapter 8 provides the vision of the goat and the ram which allows us to identify Media-Persia and Greece as the next two kingdoms. The ten horns of the “terrible beast” allow us to identify the ten gothic tribes that destroyed pagan Rome with the three uprooted as the destroyed empires of the Vandals, Heruli and Ostrogoth’s. So and so forth…

The historicist also considers the idea of “seven years of tribulation” as a gross error and misinterpretation of scripture. The idea of the “seven years of tribulation” is the foundation of the “secret rapture” and “dispensationalism”. The error being that the seven years of Daniel’s prophecy where fulfilled in Christ’s first advent and has nothing to do with Christ’s Second Coming. That the scripture of Daniel 9:26 states:

    Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;

That this reference parallels Isaiah’s reference in chapter 53:8

    For He was cut off from the land of the living;

Both making reference to the crucifixion of Christ.

Thus it is the Messiah/Jesus Christ that is "cut off" - not the week. That the "seventieth week of Daniel" has already been fulfilled. That the Futurist interpretations which includes all the variations of the "tribulation" are Biblically incorrect with saying the "week was cut off".

Joe Cipriani

--CipriaJ9999 12:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

External links

I posted links to articles I have written on several subjects in Wikipedia. Most of them were removed shortly after, including this article. Two days later, I am still getting hits coming from these articles and the links are not there. How is that possible? User:goodseed

The links on this article are not described as per WP:EL. Also some of them seem to point to, for want of a better word, idiosyncratic views. Can someone who knows more about the subject than I do at least add descriptions to assist in assessing what the links are about please? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

"It is believed and accepted..."? Not by me. Can we get some NPOV? User:The_dogandpony

• This certainly is not the view of the roman catholic church. I am not an expert on the different other christian views, but I am quite certain that some more tend to disagree. This article is certainly POV. --84.178.104.14 18:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Adequate

This article does not show a lack of neutrality. It is in fact quite a neutral view point and academic in tone. That the topic is likely not fully explored is only appropriate for such a broad scope as a prophetic intrepetive of the 'end of days'. There are volumes and tomes on this topic, none of which is alone complete, authoritative or comprehensive. This article can not hope to contain more than an overview and to serve as an index to the thought, a lenghty definition of the 'term' -- in this case it is a dictionary entry for the lexicon symbol whose replete representation is not available until history writes the story at some future time -- if there can be imagined such a time; and it is THIS potentiality which raises NON_NEUTRALITY, for the opposition to tribulation is that the concept is simple legend, an exaggeration of human events. Today we see similarities to the prophecies. Yet there have before been crises of time that could as well be interpreted. No doubt the future holds ample opportunity for similtude. Nevertheless, it is just as likely that the future lies far more distant in time than we would like. It is also likely that the conflicts of time will be resolved, not unlike they have been in the past. Though there are threats that seem ultimate, even completely destructive, there is also reason to expect resolution to arrive just as it is required. In otherwords, we can 'foresee' tribulation; yet we cannot foretell the future 72.244.112.35 15:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)because we cannot forecast solutions before they arrive. History is the record of conflict and resolution. It is easier to forecast difficulty, it is far more challenging to forecast resolution.

As much as the tribulation is a mark of the end of time, the constitution of the United States is a revelation that is good into the future, a structure of mankind's highest good, forecasting solutions into the millenium ahead, proven in centuries past. Though yet to be seen, solutions will arrive as needed, just in time. History will record the fact of mankind's dealing succesfully with holocaust, flood, pestilence, war, even collision with meteors and comets. Disease, war and widespread destruction of any form can not only be met, but resolved even before it is engaged. Mankind may have a tribulation period in the future, and it may also have solutions that resolve the crises that give rise to tribulations. The choices are our own. To think otherwise, denies neutrality of view. This requires an attack on the prophets but is unnecesary. Their voices stand, if they have been accurately recorded. And therein lies our responsibility to the service of neutrality >> how much assurance to we have of our prophet's original prophecy? Many of these writings have been adulterated sufficiently that forensic examination is the offseting viewpoint to the clergy interpetives given in this article.

Since neither the antithesis of tribulation nor the authencity of the prophecy are presented, I see no issue with the content of the article with regards to its neutrality -- it is simply omited, which in the case of the prophetic view of the end of days, is appropriate.

72.244.112.35 15:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Ancient Wisdom

NPOV

The article is scarcely neutral. Consider

A burning mountain plummets into the sea (This could refer to an asteroid striking the earth, ...

Well, yes - I suppose it could. Or it could refer to a burning mountain as in "who ever commandeth this mountain, be thou removed into the sea". Or it might refer to an ordinary volcano (isn't Vesuvius due?). Or it might be a drug-induced hallucination and not "refer" to anything.

A star called Wormwood falls onto the Earth ... (This is believed to be a comet ...

Belived by whom? John? Certainly not - comets were signs in the heavens, not physical objects that might actually hit the earth

These are most likely demonic locusts

Most likely! Most likely! Personally, I think it is "most likely" that demons do not exist at all. Perhaps the article might say that it is most likelty that John meant that the locustys are demonic - but then you get into the question of how the heck the writer of this article knw what John meant.

Painful sores (possibly boils or carbuncles

Possibly ... or possibly not. Many people think that these sores are a result of the godless heathen getting AIDS as a result of their vile sexual practises.

Sun burns with intense heat and scorches people (This is an intense heat plague,

A "heat plague"? Eh? What's that?

Just what it says: intense sunburn, and serves you all right! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 10:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

In general, the article could do without the modern-day interpretations and trying to make John's vision fit what we now know to bhe true of the material world. It could also benefit without the unstated assumption that the Apocalypse of the book of revelation is actually a real revelation from a god of anything.

Paul Murray 03:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the article has scarcely improved in the last year...--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is anything but objective and not at all scholarly. I was looking for objective information on the tribulation, but instead what I found was something that's written like a tract warning of end times, complete with a book advertisement ("In late August of 2008, the book Tribulation: 2008 was released"). This book is a self-published book on LuLu.com and is hardly a book that is widely read; this paragraph was clearly added to promote an author's self-published book. Jeffcogs (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sequence of events

This section is full of weasel words. We hear that "some believe" this or "it is held by some" that without any citations of who holds it or why. If the person entering that simply made it up themselves, then it is original research, although "research" is putting it politely. "Sheer speculation" would be fairer.

The whole section, IMO, should be cut down to

Revelation's Sequence of Events

Here is a list of events mentioned in the book of Revelation, some of which (usually attributed to the seven trumpets) occur during the Great Tribulation period:

Seven Seals

• The White Horse of the Apocalypse. When he comes, he is given a crown and he goes out as a conquerer bent on conquest
• When the Red Horse comes the rider is given a large sword and he takes peace from the world, causing men to kill each other.
• When the Black Horse comes he causes famine.
• The Pale Horse causes death (by plague).

These four are given "power over one fourth of the earth" to "kill by sword, famine, plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth".

• Martyrs begin dying during the Tribulation.
• Worldwide earthquake followed by the darkening of the sun and moon, and the stars in the sky fall to earth.
• Silence in Heaven, followed by fire being hurled to the Earth.

(Note: The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, are symbols for the events of the first four seals. They represent events as seen in a vision by the John of Patmos. As they are allegorical, no horsemen are expected to be seen galloping during the tribulation. Those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible, however, expect these things to be real.)

Inaccurate Sixth Seal Summary

The descriptions of the solar and lunar images are inaccurate. Both do not darken. Only the Sun ceases to emit visible light. The Moon assumes the appearance of blood. In the absence of visible light, the red color could be attributed to a form of luminescence. Additional global phenomena were presented in Revelation 6:12-17 that were omitted from the summary. No statement was made to justify the omisions. Tcisco 19:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Seven Trumpets

• Hail, fire, and blood fall upon the earth, burning one-third of the earth, trees, and grass.
• A burning mountain plummets into the sea, turning a third of the sea to blood and destroying a third of all ships on the sea and creatures in it.
• A star called Wormwood falls onto the Earth poisoning the freshwater sources such as streams and rivers.
• Sun, stars and moon are darkened by one-third.
• Plague of indestructible locusts ravage the wicked forces of the Antichrist, inflicting endless pain. Many will try to kill themselves from the pain, but "death will flee from them". There is mention that believers will be sealed by God first, and the locusts will not attack them upon seeing God's seal on them.
• Over 200 million horsemen kill one-third of wicked left on Earth with massive strikes, fire, and smoke.
• Lightning, hailstorm, and earthquakes.

Seven trumpets! And here's me thinking it was seven strumpets!PiCo 03:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Seven Thunders

• Revelation Chapter 10:3-4. 3 and he gave a loud shout like the roar of a lion. When he shouted, the voices of the seven thunders spoke. 4 And when the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write; but I heard a voice from heaven say, "Seal up what the seven thunders have said and do not write it down."
• Revelation Chapter 10:7. 7 But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets."
• Some view this as a portion of the "Battle Plan" of God which can not be revealed lest His enemies make preparations. Another verse which supports this theory is Revelation Chapter 10:10 which says, "10 I took the little scroll from the angel's hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour."

Seven Vial (Bowl) Judgments (God's Wrath)

• Painful sores. (These sores only affect those bearing the mark of the beast, who worship his image.)
• Sea turns to blood
• Rivers turn to blood
• Sun burns with intense heat and scorches people.
• Antichrist's kingdom is plunged into darkness.
• Euphrates River dries up and is prepared for battle from the armies from the east.
• Worldwide earthquake leveling every mountain into the sea followed by huge hailstones and lightning.

Sourcing needed

This entire section is original research. It needs to be removed unless the interpretation is sourced, and differences between sects are explained, again with verification Superm401 - Talk 09:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also totally gay! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.58.254 (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

=The Sufic View

Some facts might be helpful; for instance the identity of the two beasts of Revelation as the 3-in-one as the Axis and the false prophet as the beast of Marxism. ````Unicorn144````Feb. 20, 2007 (UTC)

Even with this pruning, it is still petty unencyclopaedic. And it fails to provide a precis of the sequence of events (the 144000, the woman and the dragon, the witnesses, the fall of babylon, the judgment).

Really, this whole section ether needs redoing, or should be removed. But at the very least, all the speculation about what the apostle "might" have meant or what "some belive" the words actually mean should definitely go ASAP.

Paul Murray 19:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Unicorn144, prophecy is by nature speculative, and Revelation is surreal, so any claims of presenting "facts" or "actual information" will be met with resistance. The article is intended to reflect the various opinions of notable scholars. Hence, whatever you add needs to be referenced to whomever you are deriving the information from. - JethroElfman 05:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Having to try once again to add some clarity to this entire area of hypothetical inquiry

I hope that now my book is close to being published I will not have to worry about quoting what OTHERS have said about these things: like christian theologicians and savants in our present day!Unicorn144 18:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, using your own book in such a way is generally frowned upon. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper). Surely you can find some reputable theologician who has written or said on TV something that you can use as a reference. - JethroElfman 17:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Basis for " * 5. The Rise of the false one-world religion." ?

"5. The Rise of the false one-world religion." Where in the Bible says this, what is the origin of this idea?

File:Tribulation views.svg

Comparison of premillennial tribulation views

This file should be modified to to meet POV standards.

The chart should include represtitive views of the Postmillennialism and Amillennialism positions-- that there is no tribulation, I would think. If there are other important views, please note them as well. The chart should should also indicate (in the caption I suppose) that these are represtitive views-- and may not agree even with every view of that school of eschatological thought.

If anyone knows of other non-Futurism views/other tribulation views please note them now as well! ^{Carlaude:Talk} 15:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at it again, and it is hard as the dickens to figure out what's going on. I guess the Blue Arrows are meant to be the bowls of wrath coming down from God? Or something? Does this great big image add value?--Nemonoman (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it again I see that key items are not labled. I didn't notice that before as I already knew how they should be labled. (I believe the green arrow is the raptured church, and the blue arrow is Christ coming to meet the raptured church in the air, and red is Christ's full return.) Of course by tring to comunicate too much the creator as comunicated too little. It is fine with me if we just take the chart down for this reason until it is improved.^{Carlaude:Talk} 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Article structure suggestions

(Introductory aside - I am a member of the Wikipedia Christianity project group, with some theology qualifications including London external Bachelor of Divinity degree, as well as decades service as a lay preacher starting in Methodism. I have some church history interests, centred in Methodist origins. So I declare a possible bias, but trust that I have enough experience in my theological and engineering training to present material in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's objective of encyclopaedic NPOV.)

Before doing edits on the main article, I present some ideas here for debate.

I would like to rewrite the introductory (or Header) section to include something like this -

Tribulation, from the Greek Thlipsis (refs in Young's Analytical Concordance, Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised (Harold Moulton, 1978, Zondervan), The Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament (George Wigram, Zondervan), etc.) meaning Pressure, Affliction, is the general word for trouble. Thlipsis is used 20 times in the New Testament (ref - Young). It has also the specific eschatological meaning of a more particular period of persecution of Christians and Jews. In some theological traditions the Great Tribulation is interpreted as a specific time of exceptional tribulation usually said to be the seven years before the return of Jesus Christ.

This article introduces, compares and contrasts the various streams of eschatological interpretation of both The Tribulation and The Great Tribulation

(My understanding of Wiki is that Headers are supposed to be short, and to state the aim of what the article covers in this kind of a topic. My engineering training (London, Imperial College) which includes the method of "first principles", that is, going back to primary data, leads me to start with thlipsis rather than the minority concept The Great Tribulation.)

In the main body of the article (following the List Of Contents) we can have an introduction which gives the main strands as Historicist, Futurist, and Preterist. A sub-section of this can indicate the pre-, mid-, and post- Tribulation Rapture theories. Another sub-section may also deal with aspects of replacementism, as well as a-millennial, pre- and post-millennial thinking. While these last points are an aside to Tribulation, the issue of calvinism as both replacementist, and as a-millennial or post-millennial needs to be included briefly as background to understanding The Tribulation and its place in projected timetables. On this point, it must be understood that many who regard themselves as calvinists are not replacementist and hold a pre-millennial return of Christ. (Just as many who claim to be calvinists hold to believer's baptism instead of the paedo-baptist teaching of Calvin.) I see one function of this Introduction as being to give shape to the rest of the article such that the various lines of reasoning may be put into a structured pattern rather than appearing at random. We probably also need to include a section on the Biblical background, for which the book of Daniel will be a part.

I place the Historicist interpretation first because it is widely claimed that this was the view of the Reformers, and widely held by Protestants until the 19th century Probably the most scholarly reference source for the role of John Nelson Darby is the PhD thesis of Dr. Paul Wilkinson, now published in the book For Zion's Sake (ISBN 978-1-84227-569-6; my copy autographed by the author). One convenient reference for Historicism is His Waiting Bride, Edgar Parkyns, ISBN 0-9526800-0-9, which is a posthumous edition of Parkyns' lectures describing Church history in the pattern of the book of Revelation. An additional line of understanding comes from the studies in midrash of Jacov Prasch; mainly available on CD, books such as The Last Words of Jesus, and magazine articles on www.moriel.org. Jacov would like a pre-tribulation rapture, but sees from an understanding of the New Testament as first-century Jewish midrashic writings that the Church must enter at least the threshold of the Tribulation and know the identity of the Antichrist (ref - several talks during the last 5 years which I have heard). Another interesting source of material is the novels of Sidney Watson, set in London in the early 20th century, and long predating Late Great Planet Earth and the Left Behind series. (These sources give a spread of additional references for different strands of thinking.) (Midrash - pattern and recapitulation - provides a way of giving validity to both the historicist and the futurist positions taken together as not mutually exclusive.)

The other aspect of restructuring is that we may need to split the article or we will end up with 5,000 to 10,000 words plus references.

That will do for now. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I could save us all a lot of work, by copying out pp. 814 to 868 of Donald Guthrie's book New Testament Theology (IVP, 1981, ISBN 0-85111-742-2) along with the hundreds of footnote references he gives.

Another reference is a book which I think is by (or associated with H Gratton Guiness - the front cover is missing from my copy) which was typical of those published in the 19th century in having detailed calculatons of dates and predicting 1919 as the year of Christ's return. It includes some interesting charts giving 1844 as a significant year. Evan Roberts and Jesse Penn-Lewis (of the 1904 Welsh Revival) writing in The Overcomer magazine in 1914 also expected Christ's return at about that time.

One preterist source is Peter Bruher on www.biblemaths.com. He is typical of those who claim the return of Christ happened in 70 AD. Walid Shoebat (former PLO bomber) has a different perspective on the identity of the Antichrist, drawing from his knowledge of Arabic, and identifying the 3 legions led by Titus in 70 AD as Arabic, modern Syria and Jordan.

"Eschatology - the last thing you want to know." -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Your commets are a little detailed to follow very easily, but from what I see, the odds of your improving the article with your plan exceed 99%. As you are apt to know already, even if we thought your plan was the ideal plan-- we couldn't known in advance that someone wouldn't come along with ways to impove on it. It will be easier to see your plan if you just start on it anyway.

But since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I wouldn't plan on making the lead only a definition of the word's greek origin, Thlipsis. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 15:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it is not allowed in Wikipedia to copy vast chunks of any book, however good; and the way Guthrie structures things would not actually work. I need a little time to work on a revision, and then copy it to Wiki in as complete a form as possible. In any case, it would be more as a framework for others to fill in the sections. AS to the Lead including the meaning of the gk. thlipsis, this is only a peg on which to hang the 3-fold distinction of 1. tribulation in general; 2. The Tribulation (as one period of more intense suffering); and The Great Tribulation (as the peak of the eschatological study). (I think some of the complexity of my draft Header comes from including references, in a non-wiki format since this is a discussion item.)

One section which may be useful is why many published sources (popularised by the Left Behind series) come up with 7 years. This may include the 7 day feast in the Jewish wedding customs (as in the water-to-wine miracle in John ch. 2). The "Last Supper Discourse" (John 13-16) is in many aspects the betrothed bridegroom departing to the father's house from which he will return on a day appointed by the father, but kept secret from all others, to bring the bride back home for the marriage ceremony. So I think what I have in mind may end up with something like this -

• Lead section
• The concept of the Tribulation in Christian eschatology
• Various eschatological views of The Tribulation
• Origins of the 7 year time period
• Historicist viewpoint
• Futurist viewpoint
• Preterist viewpoint
• Concluding comparison of the above

Within that scheme, the existing summary of a postulated timetable of the Tribulation may be included as a sub-section of whichever section it relates to, or ideally linked to any convenient external website which covers this. We must stick to the discipline of both brevity in the main text, and linking to references and external sources, both for verification and for filling in the outline summary in this article. I expect edits, which is the way Wiki works. But by posting a proposal here in the Discussion page, I hope to have the outline agreement of any interested contributors so that we can help each other. And if anyone has a different plan, possibly better than mine, we can consider that before embarking on major edits. Mine is only an attempt to separate the topic into component areas of study to bring it within my limited capabilities.

I propose a target of 20 to 30 different published sources in the References and External Links sections. Guiness had 84 in the Prophecy section alone amongst his hundreds of references, including Sir Isaac Newton's Observations upon the prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St John, 1733. If anyone has access to this work by Isaac Newton, it would be interesting to include a specific quote from it. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Article deletion

Why is this page even needed? There is a page on the Book of Revelation, pages on each of the four Christian eschatological views, and a page on the Chronology of Revelation. This page duplicates content from all those pages and doesn't add anything of value regarding it's supposed subject - the Tribulation - which could in itself simply be a sub-section of one of the other pages. Since this page itself is poorly written, it seems like it's a good candidate for deletion. Skinrider (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is duplicate content. I'm going to move the Book of Revelation part to the chronology page and try to fix that page as well... since its in real bad shape. This outline is very good though and belongs over there. This "Tribulation" page should stay though, because it is an important piece but got lost in a clutter of other topics. Jasonasosa (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Great Tribulation and Book of Revelation

Three eschatological viewpoints of the Book of Revelation are not a sufficient replacement for the different viewpoints of the Great Tribulation. As it reads in the lead paragraph, the Tribulation spans over more parts of the Bible than simply just Revelation, including the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 and elsewhere. Therefore, this article should not simply be replaced with a link to various interpretations of Revelation alone. Cognate247 (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was bad Skinrider (talk). Editing is not just about gutting out articles. We have to find ways of improving existing material by adding more referenced content or moving content to pages that need help.Jasonasosa (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The eschatology pages needed help, Jasonasosa. So the changes were about moving content to pages that need help. If there's really more that needs to be said about The Great Tribulation, then, well, say it! Skinrider (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The common problem among all these eschatology pages is that the interpreters feel the need to put their interpretations on every page. For the ]]Book of Revelation]], the Great Tribulation, the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks, the Whore of Babylon, etc, every page has to have a subsection for each of the interpretation pages. And then you'll find the interpreters arguing over biased descriptions, terminology, etc. All of these eschatology pages would be stronger if (1) the source material were uncluttered by interpretations, allowing somebody trying to use Wikipedia as an encyclopedia to find npov information and (2) the interpretations were compiled on each of their respective pages (Futurism, Historicism, etc). The latter will also allow somebody trying to understand Christian eschatology to see all relevant information on an eschatological view in one place.

The fact that, after removing the interpretations of the Great Tribulation there isn't much left of this page does not mean we should bring back the interpretation information (which is very well suited for the interpretation pages). What it means is that more non-interpretive information about the Great Tribulation should be added. Or the page should be refactored out and deleted. Skinrider (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Skinrider, your points are valid and well-founded. My point in reverting your edit was simply to point out that your solution to the problem was not sufficient. The Great Tribulation is not only limited to the book of Revelation. These various interpretations of the Tribulation that you speak of come from many parts of the Bible, including Revelation but not limited to it. That's why simply linking readers of this article to the various interpretations of Revelation isn't sufficient. As it stands, this article is necessary because there simply is no sufficient alternative in order to fully describe what Christians believe about the Great Tribulation. Where this article lacks, however, (and I believe that this is your point) is the most important imformation, namely, what the Great Tribulation actually is. What are the events that are believed to take place during this period of time? How long will it last? etc. This sort of information should be supplemented by the information that is already here, namely, the various nuanced interpretations among different groups. However, what is currently offered in this article should not remain the main meat and potatoes of the article. Cognate247 (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Cognate247, the problem is that the interpretations disagree about this information and its categorization, not just its interpretation. Matthew 24 talks about "Great Tribulation" and the Second Coming of Christ at the end of it. The main problem with the Pre-Tribulation Rapture view is that it has nothing in the Bible that they can refer to that states the "rapture" will occur before the Tribulation. I have a YouTube channel where for the past two months I have been challenging them to give me anything at all. Then I look at it in the Greek for translational accuracy and then the English in context and there is nothing about it in the text. Every time without fail they are guilty of Eisegesis. And while prior to two months ago I had no view on the timing of the so-called "rapture" I have found by these last two months that the Bible explicitly forbids that view only. But it is impossible to deal with tangibles with them. They revert to saying it is a feeling they have that it is true and they don't need the Bible to say it and if you don't believe it too then you don't believe in Jesus and you won't be saved and you will go through the Tribulation and be beheaded for your obstinate belief against the Pre-Trib Rapture view and you will have to pay for your sins with your own blood because the age of grace ends with the Pre-Trib Rapture. This is exactly what I have been told many times by these cultists. They are not Christians. They are Darbyists and a cult. There is no reasoning with them to see what is written. They don't care what is written. And that is why this articles suffers. So many of them are so active to piss on anything Christian to make it as foul smelling as the yelling and swear words that come out of their mouths daily on my channel. I give up on this article until a solution can be had to keep those cultists' fingers off the article. Historian09041965 (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Bizarre Article Concept

As one who has read these passages and understands them, the whole concept of this article is wrong.

First off, is it "Great Tribulation" or "The Great Tribulation"? I strongly suggest that this be decided first. The article is named one and then starts out with the other.

Second, the beginning paragraph contains "The Great Tribulation is also referenced in the Book of Revelation.[2]". This is totally unfounded and non-Scritural. Neither of the texts given as proof refer to such a thing.

If people are going to make things up as they go, then there is no need for the Bible. Either it is God's word and stands alone, or anyone coming along can interpret it as they wish. This is just another example of that later problem.

As it is, this article's concept has no validity nor basis in the Bible - KitchM (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Greek?

What's with all the Greek stuff? Translation? Why not every other language then ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.247.71.84 (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Because the New Testament was written in Greek and the translations into English are very often flat out wrong, even on purpose. I am a Biblical Scholar working on a current translation of the Bible. Historian09041965 (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Great Tribulation/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is beyond repair. It needs to be scrapped and redone. Tony Nania

Substituted at 01:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

That was exactly my conclusion as well, but how to keep out the crazy cultist Pre-Trib Rapture Darbyists from getting their filthy fingers all over it and tainting everything in it. They appear not to be able to be objective or scholarly about these topics. They are guilty of Eisegesis on everything about their beliefs. It is as if they do not understand Exegesis at all. Historian09041965 (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I Give Up Here!

This article is the straw that broke the camel's back. If we can't keep out the insane people then what's the point? We will edit the article to get rid of the cultist's views of Pre-Trib Rapture trying to taint everything they touch and all those American crazy cultists will come back and piss all over it again. I am a Biblical Scholar working on a current translation of the Bible. I have these people who have drank so much Kool-Aid I am surprised they are still alive, come to my YouTube channel screaming and swearing at me and threatening me that I will be beheaded, and that I will have to pay for my sins with my own blood, since the "Age of Grace" will have ended at the time of the Rapture, and other insane Anti-Christian ideas, etc... And they claim to hold the "true" Christian view of a Pre-Trib Rapture. There is no Spirit of Christ and of God in them. And their fingerprints are ALL OVER this article. It is so rife with problems I would just scratch the whole thing and start over. But how to keep their filthy fingers off of it? Historian09041965 (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Historian09041965: The basics of Wikipedia: if you have no WP:RS, you have nothing. Your own word won't do. And I agree, there is nothing about a rapture in the Bible, before, during, or after the Tribulation. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Historian09041965: I think there's a few things about Wikipedia that need clearing up here. First and most importantly, you need to stop making hateful remarks about groups of people and editors ("keep their filthy fingers off of it" and other things you wrote elsewhere). It absolutely will not be tolerated. Second, and maybe I'm off base with this since I haven't actually checked out the sourcing in the article, but you should know that we aren't and shouldn't make any claims about what beliefs are or are not supported by the Bible. This group can believe whatever they want, so long their beliefs are documented by reliable sources and we summarize what's in those sources in a balanced way. Now maybe the article was stating things that weren't supported by sources at all, and it would be totally right for you to want that removed. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, it's a reasoning made through conflating several Bible verses in a purportedly Sola Scriptura way. But like any explicit mention of the Trinity, you won't find any explicit mention of the Rapture in the Bible. The orthodox view is that the Trinity is the only way of making sense of the Bible, yet, as said before, the Trinity as a concept is never mentioned in the Bible. So, there is a difference between based upon the Bible and mentioned inside the Bible. E.g. the seven words of the dying Jesus are based upon the Bible, yet you won't find these words in any (i.e. one) book of the Bible. Those seven words are a reconstruction of what might have happened according to the Bible. So, mentioned in the Bible means a verbatim mention in the letter of the Bible, while based upon the Bible is always some inferences away from the plain letter of the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't mean this snarkily at all, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say about what we should include in this article. Like I stated above, as editors we aren't deciding or reporting on what's based on the Bible or mentioned in the Bible. That's irrelevant. We just report what this group believes according to reliable sources. -- Fyrael (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Evidently you missed the problem. And your chastisement of me is doing exactly what you are supposedly criticizing me for. "filthy fingers" is appropriate for what they are doing that violates Wikipedia rules of editing. But perhaps you missed that. It is not demeaning a group of people. It is criticizing a practice of a group to violate Wikipedia and make this an intolerable effort to bring objective knowledge.

1. 1 I am fed up with these cultists coming in and spreading their views in parts of the articles NOT about their views, but the views of others. They skew these views, pepper in all kinds of slants that are not at all objective, slander the other views, misrepresent, etc... How will you control the poison of one group against another.
2. 2 The Bible IS a source, when you are discussing what the Bible says about a certain topic. In fact, the New Testament in the Greek is considered a primary source in Biblical Studies. I am a Biblical Scholar and professional Bible translator. So, then how do I cite myself?
3. 3 I find the articles on Christianity horribly destroyed by these people. It is not objective at all. The misrepresentation of Catholics by these anti-Catholics who think it is the church of the Devil makes articles useless. This is one example. The misrepresentation of post-Tribulation Rapture belief, written by Pre-Tribulation Rapture believers is horrendous! They are just using Wikipedia for propaganda and you take the time out to criticize me for pointing out a very real and repeatedly criticized problem by others as well.
4. 4 Sources can be selectively culled to unfairly criticize another group. That is very common in the Christianity pages. That has to stop.

Historian09041965 (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a bit dated, so the response is intended more for people reading this later (as they often do) so that there is an answer to some of the problematic elements laid out above, starting with the following: The Bible IS a source, when you are discussing what the Bible says about a certain topic. In fact, the New Testament in the Greek is considered a primary source in Biblical Studies. I am a Biblical Scholar and professional Bible translator. So, then how do I cite myself? I'm not picking on @Historian09041965: because a lot of editors, especially new ones, make this mistake. You do not cite yourself here. That would be original research, which we do not do. Read that linked guideline and make sure you understand it. Yes, the Bible is (and can be) a source; but it's a primary source. If you're referencing the Bible for a quote, or something very specific where you're simply stating what is stated in the primary source, then that's fine. But the minute you cross over and apply something interpretive to it, then you MUST have a secondary source that says that - and says it specifically. See point #2 about primary sources: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. With that understanding, refer to the note here: WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. (And for anyone suggesting that you cannot use the primary source and/or the Bible at all, then you are misreading/misunderstanding the policy as well - just in a different way.) Our objective here is provide encyclopedic content, and that means "we" as editors are not writing original research. We are presenting information from reliable sources. The rest of the complaints above can be summed up by the following: If you find things on Wikipedia that are not objective, or not WP:NPOV, then your job as an editor is to work on fixing and improving that. But unless you're replacing biased or uncited information with your own personal original research, then you're not solving the problem - you're just replacing one problem with another. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)