User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2004 September

Previous · Index · Next

Edit attribution

Hi Rich. Edits from 213.48.182.7 have now been reattributed to you. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 02:14, 4 September 2004 (UTC)

Welchman

Hi! I was thinking about an entry for Gordon Welchman, and stumbled across your conversation with User talk:Pcb21; I've just finished going through The Hut Six Story — perhaps we could knock up a page on him? If you're interested in cryptography topics (even from a generalist perspective!), you might find the Cryptography WikiProject of interest, and I'd welcome any review of Enigma machine, which I've been working on a little recently. — Matt 17:57, 6 September 2004 (UTC)

Arda vs Middle-earth.

Rich, I'm putting this here, so that you don't change more articles about Arda/Middle-earth as the name for Tolkien's universe... When we're talking about J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth universe, we're referring to the *fictional* universe he created, where "Middle-earth" is one of the most popular signifiers for it because most of the stories take place in there. If we were to use "Arda" by your argument, that would still be inaccurate since the entirety of the universe created by Iluvatar is "Ea" -- and infact even *that* would be inaccurate since Ea doesn't include the Timeless Halls where Iluvatar dwells.

In short -- yeah the universe described in J.R.R. Tolkien's books is called Ea, and the planet Arda, and only a continent is called "Middle-earth". But the phrase "Universe of Middle-earth" is just a signifier like "Universe of Battlestar Galactica" or "Universe of Babylon 5" We don't mean that the whole fictional universe is physically contained in those locations bearing that name. Aris Katsaris 23:56, 18 September 2004 (UTC)

Image:StoneFigureonTrinityBridgeCrowland1.JPG

Hi! Did you take this photo yourself? Image:StoneFigureonTrinityBridgeCrowland1.JPG. If so, could you please indicate the license and copyright details on the image description page. If it is GFDL, make a note of that by placing {{GFDL}} in the description. — David Remahl 11:58, 20 September 2004 (UTC)

Thnaks for your comment. The picture was by me (as I noted within seconds of uploading). Funnily enough, alhtough I inteded to put a version of that pic up anyway, I was doing it now to confirm the process, in order to help with "tagging" of pix. (Which I had not fully understood, so it was a worthwhile exercise!) Can you point me to the list of tags for licenseing pix? Rgds Rich Farmbrough 12:20, 20 September 2004 (UTC)

Cool. Here is a list of the available image licensing tags: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. — David Remahl 12:25, 20 September 2004 (UTC)

Maps

Eek! Could you slow down, or mark as minor, the image tagging? Recent Changes is getting swamped. —No-One Jones ^(m) 20:31, 20 September 2004 (UTC)

Changed my preferences to minor Rich Farmbrough some time 20 September 2004 (UTC).

Thanks...

...for all the great maps! BCorr|Брайен 15:20, 20 September 2004 (UTC)

Not my maps: "I wish!". Simply tagged all 3094+ as GFDL. Rich Farmbrough 15:44, 23 September 2004 (UTC)

Graph

... also, you really do need to check your links. You wrote [[graph]], and that turns out to be a disambiguation page. What you needed was [[graph (mathematics)|graph]]. Similarly, some mathematicians writing on Wikipedia about the mathematician Niels Henrik Abel have linked to Abel, but that page is (of course!) about the son of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis who was killed by his brother Cain. So always check your links. Michael Hardy 00:54, 31 August 2004 (UTC)

Mmmm so there was an earlier Abel, I might have made the same mistake. So now which one did invent the commutative law for groups? Billlion 14:42, 24 September 2004 (UTC)

Prophecy and stuff

Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy

(text copied from Talk:Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy)

I have looked briefly at some of these items. Most of those cases the "prophet" would be considered (at the time) a heretic, rather than a member of a mainstream church. I think a little more disclaimer is needed at the top, or a lot of deleteing. :) Also refs to the actual words of the "prophets", where possible. Rich Farmbrough 20:01, 27 September 2004 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that these people were heretics at the time and did not necessarily represent the enitre church. If we delete the "heretical" ones we might end up with only four (Armstrong, Miller, Russell and Jo Smith). I'm happy if you want to write a short disclaimer. One Salient Oversight 22:26, 27 September 2004 (UTC)

William M. Branham

(copied from Talk:William M. Branham)

I found

"that by 1977 all denominations would be consumed by the World Council of Churches under the control   
of the Roman Catholics, that the rapture would take place, and that the world would be destroyed."  
(Burgess and McGee, Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, 96)

However this is quite a jump from what the article pages says! It's also the only _source_ I could find. The transcripts of (at least some of) his sermons are on-line, the one I found (http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=1074) mentions WCC in a negative biblical context but that's about it (although I didn't read the whole thing).

I think we need a more authoritative reference to say that he made the statement, and that he claimed it was divinely inspired prophecy.

I have removed this text until we have an authority.

At least one of his prophecies - that all Christian denominations would be controlled by the 
World Council of Churches by 1977 - 
has not come  to fruition.[1]

Rich Farmbrough 19:15, 27 September 2004 (UTC)

Hi Rick. Just a query about your changing the William M. Branham article with regards to the prophecy that was not fulfilled. If you go to Google and type in "Branham" + "1977" +"False" you will find a large amount of pages. Considering this large amount of evidence I think it is important to include the phrase in the article. Moreover I am a little concerned that you chose to remove that part of the article when the rest of the article is so very biased and POV towards Branham.

So pretend you're me. You stumble upon the William M. Branham article and discover that the person who wrote it was obviously a big fan of Branham. However there is a cleanup notice on the page and you decide to put it on your long-term "to do" list in your mind. Then in the process of researching other articles, you discover some websites that state that Branham made a prediction that did not come true. Since you have already read a fiercely pro-Branham website that made it clear that Branham believed he was the prophet Elijah, you put two and two together and decide that he must have made a "false prophecy". You include this in one short sentence in the Branham article

Then someone comes along and removes that small sentence with the claim that it can't be verified objectively, while leaving the incredibly POV article untouched. Then you begin to wonder whether that person is a supporter of Branham who does not wish to have anything negative about him written in the article.

Of course I am not making any judgement either way. That's why I'm talking to you. But can you understand my unease at this point? One Salient Oversight 23:07, 27 September 2004 (UTC)

http://www.biblebelievers.org/thus1977.htm Should be of enormous help to our discussion here.

Also, how about this:

Branham proclaimed himself the angel of Revelation 3:14 and 10:7 and prophesied that by 1977 all denominations would be consumed by the World Council of Churches under the control of the Roman Catholics, that the Rapture would take place, and that the world would be destroyed. He died in 1965, but many of his followers expected him to be resurrected, some believing him to be God, others believing him to be virgin-born.

Branham's influence has continued in many churches where his prophecies are considered to be divinely inspired. His teaching on the power of the spoken word has been a characteristic of later revivalists. Kenneth Hagin identifies Branham as a prophet.

Burgess and McGee, editors, Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan. p.96

This is from http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b05.html

Until either the above quote is proven to not exist, or until Burgess and McGee can be proven wrong, the quote should stand in the Branham article methinks. One Salient Oversight 23:29, 27 September 2004 (UTC)

And more:

• http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=690
• http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=688
• http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=703
• http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=696

There is a reference in each of these sermon transcripts to the year 1977 where he predicts something. In the last transcript he states And at 1906 the Laodicean church age set in, and I don't know when it'll end, but I predict it'll be done by 1977. I predict, not the Lord told me, but I predict it according to a vision that was showed me some years ago, that five of those things has (out of the seven)--has already taken place about.... That bit where he says "not the Lord told me" can't really be made to say anything. In the other three transcripts he makes it pretty clear that he was predicting something. One Salient Oversight 23:46, 27 September 2004 (UTC)

Branham etc.

Yes, I understand how it seemed. It looks like I have stumbled into a controversy (outside Wikipedia) here. I certainly don't think Branham was anything special, I arrived there from the Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy page. The quote from Burgess and McGee (which both you and I found) seemed rather to overshadow the WCC thing. The sermon I looked at (and referenced), if anything contradicted it. "Gather the tares into bundles - Lutheran, Baptist are in the WCC" to paraphrase. Which would imply that that was one bundle of several. Cursory (I admit) research seemed to indicate that the "1977" element of his predictions was personal, not prophetic. To err is human (even if Branham did it (in terms of facts) rather more than most). The references you gave seem to support this.

I have made some more edits to the Branham page, perhaps you could glance at them (some may underestimate his import).

Then I suggest re-inserting the "1977" under the "anomalies" section, as a prediction rather than a prophecy.

I see you are knowledgeable about the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements, can you confirm whether he was a major influence on the three movements mentioned in the article?

Is it possible to identify his seven prophecies and put them in the article? I find the "egg shaped car" rather amusing, but I couldn't (easily) find a definitive list of the prophecies. Rgds Rich Farmbrough 08:58, 28 September 2004 (UTC)

Branham was instrumental in getting the Latter Rain Movement going in the 50s and 60s. It was so strange that the Assemblies of God declared it a heresy. Branham's teachings have been modified somewhat but are still being felt in the Charismatic and Pentecostal churches through things like Manifest Sons of God and Kingdom Now theology - the latter I believe has some major impact on how Christians in the US will vote at the next presidential election.

Thanks for dispelling any concerns I have. I'm fairly happy with the changes you are suggesting.

As far as his seven prophecies - I admit that I don't know a huge amount about the guy except some of the major stuff (including his denial of the Trinity). I suggest you search that South African website with a Google advanced search, looking for "seven prophecies" on that site.

Egg shaped car? I have no idea what this has to do with Branham but if it was received during one of his visions then I am not surprised. It might even make a good entry on the Timeline page if it is a prophecy. One Salient Oversight 10:06, 28 September 2004 (UTC)

GNU/GFDL

Hi,

You asked if my pics released under GNU are {{GFDL]], and the answer is yes they are, so if you would like to retag them, I'd be much endebted. Thanks

Peregrine981 03:36, 28 September 2004 (UTC)