Talk:Apocalypse

Untitled

Actually, it is not known commonly as "Revelation" but as "Revelations". People who point out that the latter is not a correct rendering of what is written are missing the point, which is that the plural form both is in ordinary spoken use, and has come down from a separate oral/visual tradition (a bit like Adam and Eve eating an apple, simply because that was the fruit ordinarily shown in stained glass window versions). PML.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.5.75 (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2003 (UTC)

But it is 'The Revelation. As the very first sentence says, :The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John -- Zoe—Preceding undated comment added at 04:27, 27 March 2003 (UTC)

See? People miss the point. I am very carefully not saying anything about what it is - either way - I am pointing out what it is commonly known as. While it becomes a matter of approach, possibly of opinion, which is right, it is a matter of objective fact that it is not known commonly as "Revelation" but as "Revelations". Don't believe me? Do a straw poll of people you meet in the street (being careful not to predispose the answers). PML.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.5.75 (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2003 (UTC)

"Book of Revelations" on Google turns up 18,500 hits. "Book of Revelation" turns up 135,000. -- Zoe—Preceding undated comment added at 04:33, 27 March 2003 (UTC)

I didn't suggest you consult putatively accurate information, even from secondary sources - I suggested that if you were concerned you should check what people thought. I am leading up to correcting that article in the respect in which it is incorrect - the way it claims that the last book of the New Testament is commonly called "Revelation". As to whether it ought to be called that, that is another question entirely. PML.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.5.75 (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2003 (UTC)

How can we possibly write a meaningful article based on "what people think"? Are we mind readers? Calling the book "Revelation" is not "incorrect", it's just not what you want it to be called. -- Zoe—Preceding undated comment added at 01:53, 28 March 2003 (UTC)

Argh! People arguing at cross-purposes! Argh!

Zoe, PML's not saying that "Revelations" is correct, or that he/she wants people to call it "Revelations". PML's just saying that, as a matter of objective fact, many people do (incorrectly) call it "Revelations", and that consequently the article's statement that the Revelation is "known commonly as Revelation" is incomplete, if not actually wrong.

I agree with PML.

-- Paul A 02:19 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

On second thought, I think the whole question is irrevelant for this article anyway: any statement about how the Book's title is abbreviated belongs in Book of Revelation, not Apocalypse.

-- Paul A 02:25 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

But PML is arguing that the last book of the New Testament is not commonly called "Revelation". But it is commonly called "Revelation", just not universally. -- Zoe—Preceding undated comment added at 03:06, 28 March 2003 (UTC)

The common usage is, as it were, that commonly used - that commonly encountered - that used by the common people, if you choose to use a term with some pejorative overtones. Bearing that in mind, I have decided what change to try; have a look to see what you think, but comment here rather than reverting. PML.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.5.75 (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2003 (UTC)

Nope. That's even less the common usage than Revelation or Revelations. And yet you don't accept my Google count to show you which is the most common usage. -- Zoe—Preceding undated comment added at 03:17, 28 March 2003 (UTC)

Of course not. It just shows the most common form found within the internet, and by one search approach at that (biassed in favour of a sort of groupthink, on this matter) - not the most common form out there on the street. Are you aware that "Nope" is an approach that will lead to vandalism? PML.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.5.75 (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2003 (UTC)

Are you aware that "Nope" is an approach that will lead to vandalism - What the HELL are you talking about? -- Zoe—Preceding undated comment added at 03:22, 28 March 2003 (UTC)

"...have a look to see what you think, but comment here rather than reverting." ... "Nope." Or was that an unfortunate and unintended juxtaposition? PML.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.5.75 (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2003 (UTC)

I've had my say. And reverting, or modifying, is not vandalism, it's a difference of opinion. I won't mess with the article because it isn't worth an edit war, but you're severly illogical. -- Zoe—Preceding undated comment added at 03:31, 28 March 2003 (UTC)

It's not the reverting that would have been vandalism, it's the shoot first and don't ask questions attitude that suggested the possibility of that. But your actions are more reasonable than you intimated they might be. Oh, and I waited for other people's insights to give me a reality check before I acted - that seemed logical enough for me. PML.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.5.75 (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2003 (UTC)

Zoe got it right by googling with quotes and noting the databse hit estimate - that's perhaps the most reliable way of finding out "what most people think" when it comes to names. Oliver Low (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

The situation is the following: The book is known as "The Book of Revelation of St. John the Divine" but I have always referred to it as "Revelations" although there are people who refer to it in the singular. It is similar to referring to "The Acts of the Apostles" as simply "Acts". It isn't necessary to quibble over which abbreviation is used, as they are both informal. The main thing is too keep it consistent throughout the entry, and (I feel) refer to the full title of the book at least once, the first time it is mentioned and then state "hereinafter "Revelations" or whatever.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.227.36 (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

ineffective people going to hell

For the following sentence an anonymous editor 69.160.210.206 added the phrase "ineffective people going to hell". "The eschatological end of the world was often accompanied by images of resurrection, judgement of the dead in apocalyptic literature, and ineffective people going to hell." To be honest, my knowledge of the Apocalypse and Revalations is rusty, and I'm just following the edits done by someone who has done some odd edits, but I doubt that the addition is accurate. Could someone please verify and correct this sentence if necessary. gK ¿? 04:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just checked the page and I couldn't find this phrase. This is the first time I have ever heard such a thing. It's subjective. Who's 'ineffective'? Only God could or would make that decision and in any book of prophecy (from a christian viewpoint) that I have read, there is no mention of this. A person is saved from the penalty of the Second Death and the Lake of Fire simply by the Grace of God, specifically Jesus Christ. The doctrine is called "Justification by Faith" - we put our trust in the one who paid the penalty of our sins - that He covered it all - and we receive salvation, righteousness and eternal life - all as gifts from the Almighty. We did nothing to 'earn' them because it's impossible to cover sin by good works. This doctrine is in the Bible, specifically the book of 'Romans' in the New Testament.--MurderWatcher1 20:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

God is Word. Literally Word. Ryanrobison (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Islamic section of this article is false at best

The part of the article concerning Islamic views on the apocalypse, seems either grossly confused or intended to confuse. For starters, Mirza Ahmed and his sect "the Ahmadis" or Qadiyanis are not considered muslims by either sunnis or shi`ites. Nor do Islamic beliefs admit anyone OTHER THAN Jesus Christ as the Messiah.

The more egregious error is in the author's claim that al-Azhar condones the Ahmadis' claims. It can't be further from the truth. As al-azhar and every other center of islamic scholarship and jurisprudence have been unanimous is rejecting the claims by Ghulam Mirza Ahmed from the start.

To repeat, islamic tenets are explicit that anyone claiming to be a prophet or a messenger after the prophet Muhammad, is a liar and a fraud; and that only Jesus Christ is awaited at the end times. There is difference on whether a Mahdi will appear.

The tendency to use the title, as a device to rally support and raise zeal in situations where a local leader is fighting a foreign occupier of a Muslim land (such as the sunni self-styled Mahdi in Sudan during Gordon's time in the XIXth century, and the shiite "Mahdi Army" in Iraq fighting the US occupation in 2003/2004.

Adding text (in the body of the article) and external links to pages subscribing to the Qadiyani/Ahmadi sect as part of Islam and Islamic beliefs and discourse is akin to passing Wicca or Paganism as part of Christianity.

Furthermore, concerning the notion that some of the more infamous or notorious militant figures associated with Islam, such as Osama bin laden, are milleniarists or apocalyptics is not sound. Neither Khomeini (a shi`ite) or bin-Laden (a sunni) have made any mention of the "end times" or of an apocalypse, nor do they seem to regard themselves as either mahdis or messiahs, as this would instantly discredit them in the eyes of Muslims (however discredited they already appear.)

My position on this matter can be amply verified from history as well as Islamic sources and texts.

I am therefore tempted to remove the problematic parts, but I have decided to wait a while, to see responses on this discussion page. If no one else removes the errors concerning this matter, eventually I hope to remove them myself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.114.4.93 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2005 (UTC)

I think you are correct on some points and not on others. Osama bin-Laden is clearly apocalyptic in the generic sense of the world, but avoids references to the end times as is appropriate for his religious background in Wahhabism. There are several views of the end times in Muslim theology. Why not fix what you can?--Cberlet 01:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apocalypticism

This page concentrates on apocalyptism in Christianity, with some small amount of (disputed) material on Islam, and almost nothing on Judaism. I propose creating a seperate page on Apocalypticism and break the redirect. The page would look at the various scholarly theories on apocalyptic belief in the larger sense, including secular apocalypticism. This is a growing area of history and sociology, as well as religious studies. Brenda Brasher is an example.--Cberlet 01:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the plural form of the word "Apocalypse" is? -- Unless—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.241.248 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2005 (UTC)

That would be Apocalypsa I believe. CaveatLector^Talk 22:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. It is simply "apocalypses". (Bear in mind that the capitalised "A" is only necessary when referring to the "The Apocalypse" as referred to by Christian or other religious writings. One can talk about "an apocalypse.) The word "apocalypse" has a Greek root. Plural forms ending in "-a" are generally reserved for words with a latin root that end in "-m" when singular, denoting a neuter noun. Examples are "rostrum / rostra" and "bacterium / bacteria".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.227.36 (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest retitling this entire article as Apocalypse in Christianity, or creating a seperate page for Apocalyptic themes and visions outside of Christian myth. There's no way this article will ever achieve balance or NPOV unless Christian views of Apocalypse are fully segregated from all other "apocalypses". 156.98.129.16 (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Apocalypse_(Christian) would be more accurate, as the common usage of "apocalypse" in English is not specific to any given religion, even if the etymology was exclusively connected to Christianity (which it does not appear to be). 66.41.65.237 (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am 100% on board with this. A call for votes to rename is in order. 156.98.129.16 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A read through Apocalypticism will tell you about the various apocalypses. This article is about what an Apocalypse is: The revelation. I am rewriting for structure on my sandbox page in hopes to consolidate this article into this point and have links out to other articles that are related. This article needs focus, everything else is better covered in Apocalypticism and Eschatology, and Apocalypse (Unambiguous). Revjeff530 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense

This article begins "The term "apocalypse" was introduced by F. Lücke (1832) as a description of the New Testament book of Revelation." I wondered what the writer of that could have been thinking. I was going to suggest some editing, but now that I've seen the Talk page... --Wetman 00:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a cite to this F. Lücke character? Fluke? Is this a joke?--Cberlet 13:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be Gottfried CF Lucke? He hardly invented the usage to describe Rveelation did he?--Cberlet 13:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The old opening line was indeed misleading, but it was neither "nonsense" nor a joke. The author was referring to Gottfried Lücke, as Cberlet suggests above, and to the 1832 book Toward an Introduction to the Revelation of John (this is my rough translation of the German). No, Lücke did not "introduce" the term "apocalypse." However, biblical scholars recognize him as the first scholar to group together the Book of Revelation/Apocalypse of John with earlier Jewish texts, such as Enoch, and classify them all as "apocalyptic" literature. In other words, he pioneered the concept of apocalypse as a literary genre that included Jewish and early Christian texts. Of course, this is not how the popular mind thinks of apocalypse today. But it is how biblical scholars think of the concept. I think the real question here is whether this wiki article should mainly reflect the scholarly or the popular view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.65.67 (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hindu Apocalypse

As far as I understand, because of the Hindu cyclical view of time, the apocalypse is not an end of existence as claimed in the introduction, but rather the end of the Kali Yuga, which causes a return to the first age of the time cycle. I don't have time now to research and correct this section, perhaps someone else does...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.150.62 (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Move Pralay/Hindu material to separate article?

Judeo-Christian "revelations" have historically been called apocalyptic because many of those texts are in Greek. There are no Greek Hindu writings. It doesn't make sense to me to include terms like Pralay in this article which have no linguistic or historical relationship with Judeo-Christian apocalyptic literature. --Zeeshanhasan 04:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I vote 'Yes' - either move it to a separate articles (maybe with links to this one), or else move it down-the-ladder to the bottom as per a somewhat related sub-section. Otherwise we'll get nonsense like the Hopi Indian prophecies that were mentioned in the movie "Koyannisquatsi" which, while it was a good movie, is talking about things not biblically prophetic. 'Apocalypse' is, to my understanding, generally associated with christianity in origin. Okay with Judaism.--MurderWatcher1 20:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Seven Seals Inclusion

I am adding some to the Branch Davidians article and there is no mention of the Seven Seals there yet they represent the cornerstone of Davidian beliefs. Does anyone have any plans to add the Seven Seals to this article? Mr Christopher 16:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Future Apocalypse of Darwinian means?

There is suggestions throughout the theory of evolution and time that organisms get smaller during evolution to adapt to there environment. Earth was relatively bigger, and oxygen escapes naturally making the environment smaller. Now if we put this theory into practice, in accordance with the myths of Atlantean giants or similar species of larger ape as men, and reptiles evolving into birds, mammals devolving into rats, and oceanic species? its no suprise. Atlantis created the deluge, Venus was created from Jupiter and spured insects. Wat say Venus was not inhabited by insects? Larva? The heat of the sun? They out number us, and can destroy wat we become on this earth. Still oceans a satisfactory breeding ground? Motion stills and power cools. Even if the ocean became covered in water do to environmental catastrophes even it needs to cool. In a few trillion years maybe at the time of the red sun phase insects will populate the earth like it did venus.--69.255.16.162 20:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to make a quick point, the last book of the Bible is actually named "The Revelation of St. John the Divine" in the original KJV. 65.40.41.31 (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

List of doomsday scenarios

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

thank the lord it was already deleted.200.83.56.253 08:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed link

I have been instructed to post my website: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/danrv.html for review. Please, if any reader thinks it is worth to be posted, do so. Bernard Muller—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mullerb (talk • contribs) 03:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with this sentence on your webpage:

Let's also note that neither 'Daniel' nor 'Revelation' have "antichrist(s)" in them. This word appears only five times in the whole Bible and exclusively in 1John & 2John. Here, the antichrist(s) are the non-Christian/heretical preachers or individuals who lived when the two aforementioned epistles were written.

Okay, the 'word' antichrist doesn't appear but the CONCEPT is definitely in both books! The 'king' mentioned in Daniel places the abomination which causes desolation; in Revelation we have the mention of the 'Beast'. This king in Daniel, and the Beast in Revelation are certainly the Antichrist. We've also had types of antichrists in the past. There were articles and books about 'Nero'; 'Antiochus Epiphanes' and others. You can check the list of books that I have on my user page if you'd like. While some of those books are dated, we've had a number of people 'weigh-in' on that title. Prophetically speaking, it's only a matter of time until the real one comes along.--MurderWatcher1 20:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

'2012' and Date Setting Discussions

It has been said that the year 2012 may be the possible apocalypse. More specifically on the winter solstice, December 21 of 2012 is said to be said apocalypse. The Ancient Mayan Calander, which was able to predict lunar eclipses thousands of years preceeding the said lunar eclipses, suddenly ends on said date. Many other oracles who were well credited as well said the same thing. Scientists now say that on that date the earth will come to align with the sun and the black hole at the center of the solar system. Once this happens the polar axises will dissalign, causing chaos. Tides will change and highten, the mantle will rotate and cause many earthquakes. All of theses things will happen if we dont create our own apocolypse throught global warming first. A.C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.219.41.148 (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Will happen? Everything that you stated has been proven has not. All except for the Mayans and the rest of the skeptics through the years. Ill be sure to take something special that day, maybe I'll see something cool, but I doubt it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dested (talk • contribs) 11:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to use this post to suggest a table with all those possible apocalypse years and dates predicted so far like 1999, 2006, 2012 and so on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.99.196.166 (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea to me! We've had too many people and other groups setting dates. The first person I elect is this author with this book: "1994?" by Harold Camping; ©1992; Published by Vantage Press, Inc., 516 West 34th Street, NY, NY 10001. ISBN 0-533-10368-1; Library of Congress Cat. No. is unknown.--MurderWatcher1 20:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Any true Christian knows that only God knows when the apocalypse will happen. The Book of Revelation in the New Testament of the Bible was not written for the end of the world, it was written because Christians were being persecuted! It was written to show the power of the One, True, and Almighty God so the persecuters would be scared and stop killing God's people! It is believed that on Judgement Day Jesus will come again, or His Second Coming (His first was when he was born). He will send the ones who rejected God completely to Hell, and the others will go to Purgatory, where they will reconcile for their sins. He will not only judge the living, but also the dead. As the Apostle's Creed says, "He will come again to judge the living and the dead." So for all we know, the Apocalypse could happen an hour, a day, or a year from now. Or even a thousand years from now! But anyway, Christiananity is a very rewarding religion. I've been a member of my Church for thirteen years now (I'm thirteen) and have learned very much. My faith has helped me through the rough times and there has nevr been a time when I have not been able to talk to God.Wikimichael22 (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Wikimichael22

there will never be a apocalyose in the future.that is false. 71.168.207.160 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are saying there will never be an apocalypse, that is false. Eventually, one day there will be some sort of event that will bring the end of everything. Now, the dispute should be if that will be 2012 or not. I guess we shall see. ♥ Southern Class♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.119.98 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood says 2012 will be the apocalypse. They are no more reliable than crank religious sects have been over the conturies- actually much less so, since they are motivated by money not religious ferver, and don't even pretend to be telling the truth. "Apocalpyse 2012" is fiction, my dears. Get a grip on reality.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There is scientific proof written in stone dating techniques that show our host planet Earth alternates its polar charges every so often through time, and then She goes through another growth spurt adding volume from converting solar plasma into matter. This correlates to our Galaxy's, The Milky Way's, Black Hole/Singularity alignment that is theorised to increase solar flarings. We are infact entering into another period of solar maximus. If you solve for M, in E=MC2 using the quadratic equasion, it shows how matter is converted from light to enregy to matter and visa-versa. This may or may not have anything to do with the Apocalypse that leads to Armageddon, but it has nothing to do with the word's root origins.Frederick Rhodes (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What I wrote above is perspicacity, not prophecyFrederick Rhodes (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

My change, (convenience link for IPA) not substantive, needn't be restored; recommend making current protection permanent. Lycurgus (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

List of predicted (past, current, and future) apocalypses?

I noticed that there wasn't one. Maybe one should be added? ZtObOr 22:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

See Also

A reminder: "See also" is not an excuse to list your favorite heavy metal concept album/novel/movie dealing with the apocalypse, or using it as a metaphor. There are a number of those there now – even including Coppola's Apocalypse now. Better replace all that with a section on the apocalypse in modern (not necessarily Christian) thinking. Things like 1960s fear of nuclear war, as a major theme in science fiction (The Terminator, Douglas Coupland), Terence McKenna's theories, its attraction in heavy metal ... JöG (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources

None of the source links work, not sure how to re-add them but it appears that they did exist at one point. If this was an intentional removal -- how come? This seems to be a basic feature of wiki.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.19.50 (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the sources mentioned above have been cleaned up. I checked all the active links today of the verses and they are good. The first two resources of the "Oxford English Dictionary" and the book "How Jesus Became God" are not available for free online to check. Revjeff530 (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not thrilled at the sourcing for this article. We have a bunch of bible references- which leads me to conclude that the information posted in this article with those as sole sources are original research statements. Maybe look into some research texts on the biblical apocalypse / revelations and prophetic writings from John and Daniel. As a teacher of the Bible, I too am tempted to post my original research, aka biblical exegesis into this article, but that is not be the better wiki way.Revjeff530 (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Reorginazation and NPOV concerns

The term 'apocalypse' seems to be Christian in origin, but it has taken on greater meaning in our language. Perhaps we should have an 'The Apocalypse in Christanity' section, together with other sections representing other aspects of the term? I also have concerns about the objective nature of the article. It espouses a particular interpretation on the book of Revelations (post-millenialism). A rewrite might be in order.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle Pena (talk • contribs) 11:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes! I agree completely. There's no way NPOV or a balance of content can be achieved in this article without segregating the Apocalypse in Christianity stuff... It will be a start-class article until Apocalypse if the Christian view is allowed to take over the article so completely. 156.98.129.16 (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The origen of the word Apocalypse in this article is incompleat. The root word, Calypse, is the masculine tense of Calyx, the feminine tense is Calyptra. While Calypse is no longer a stand alone word, it's other 2 forms are, and reveal that the original meaning was equal to the masculine prepuce, which is a protective veil for the reproductive organs. There are many entrees that use Apocalypse in place of Armageddon. According to the book of The Apocalypse, now known as Revelations, when people become aware of the true meaning of the word Apocalypse, now hidden from modern conception, it leads to Armageddon. Armegeddon is the final conflict between the people of the covenant with the Heavenly Godfather who turn against eachother and those who believe the covenant is a human rights violation that causes more harm to society than any personal benefit from lack of education, leaving 2/3'rds of life on Earth dead. 2/3rds is also an approximate number of all 3 religions of the covenantFrederick Rhodes (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Frederick Rhodes (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a draft rewrite of the lead on my sandbox page where I neutralize the viewpoints, but still give the nod to the Christian Bible Book known as "Revelation" which is the English translation of the greek word "Apocalypse." I have also added or reorganized the sources in the lead and link out to other wiki articles.Revjeff530 (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Merge Apocalypticism here?

Isn't Apocalypticism and this article about the same thing? Or am I missing some subtly? -- Kendrick7^talk 06:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This page seems to be specifically about the apocalypse in Christian tradition. Were there to be a merge I would therefore say this page should be merged into Apocalypticism, which is more general. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am open-minded but a bit nervous about this proposal. I agree with Carl.b that merging into the "Apocalypticism" article would be appropriate. While the existence of an upcoming apocalype is debateable, the existence of apocalypticism throughout history is not. I don't think we should be indirectly supporting the idea that there will be an apocalypse by having an article of that title if we don't have to. The other concern I have is content. I would prefer not so see this as an opportunity to delete content from apocalypticism.Greg Bard (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No to merge for a simple reason.

I am growing very tired of humankind. I am convinced that we are perhaps the most ignorant things to be and will be. Apocalypse and 2012 are two completely different things. 2012 is a myth concerning the B'ak'tun 13. Which is not even remotely translated. The ancient mayan language is obscure because the language on the most part is lost. Also. Apocalypse means revelation presumably by most priest judgement day not for mankind but for the person who is being damned. Apocalypse which in many bibles is called the book of revelation is extremely obscure and makes no references to the end of Earth or mankind. Also, the 21st of December 2012 is the incorrect transition date for the mayan calender. Some idiot decided it was more symbolic to place it on the winter solstice(I find it sad that many people did not realize this) the correct date is the 23rd December 2012. For more information go: here, for any more information use your common sense if you have a working brain. Steahl 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steahl (talk • contribs)

"Environmental Apocalypse" section

I deleted this section. It was poorly written, and poorly sourced. Furthermore, it doesn't even belong on this page unless this page is going to list every proposed doomsday scenario. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmanguno (talk • contribs) 12:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Worldwide view

Many cultures in many places have had a concept of an apocalypse, and the word "apocalypse" in contemporary English refers to any horrible end of the world scenario in any religious, material-world, or fictional setting. Right now the article focuses on the Christian concept of apocalypse. I would like to see this article give an overview of all of the prominent apocalyptic scenarios in all cultures, and then links to more detailed information about each individual vision of the apocalypse. I think a good place to start doing this would be to find an academic overview categorizing the types of apocalypses which have been described, then setting up those categories as sections in this article, then making the article. When someone else comes along who wants to do this with me, would you please write to me? I sure would be embarrassed if the apocalypse came along and I did not have this article finished. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism and Esotericism

Parts of this article are lifted from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia (see http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1642-apocalypse) without adequate citation. The fact that the text dates to 1906 is one of the reasons it reads so esoterically. Another is that the excerpts are taken out of context and aren't suitable for newcomers to the subject. The whole article needs to be re-written for the sake of clarity and providing sufficient context for understanding.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.239.90 (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs a rewrite. It is short enough that the project should be doable. Somehow pull out the main Christianity POV and turn it into a mention along with other major religions. Maybe like the link on the side that talks about the article in a series of eschatology. Check some of the sources for the plagiarism you mention, dump the "original" sourcing about the angels bit. I feel the article goes everywhere and yet nowhere at the same time. It needs some punch and then put the links in for other areas that it may lead to - maybe that is what the "see also" section is already doing for it? Revjeff530 (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Some sources I am looking into: Possible Source to reference earthquakes being included in Apocalyptic events Possible source to reference extra biblical cultures whose believed in an Apocalypse. Possible Source to reference how an Apocalypse was not a new concept. Revjeff530 (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Dubious

Subsection Angels claim:

In the Bible at least four types or ranks of angels are mentioned: the Archangels, Angels, Cherubim[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] and the Seraphim.[11]

Now the sources [4] to [11] happen to be Bible citations. None of the citations mention more than 2 "ranks" of angels, if ranks they are. There is no proof whatsoever that Cherubim and Seraphim aren't Angels, so that the real number of "ranks" are 3, and these Archangels, do they distribute between belonging to the Cherubim and the Seraphim species? The statement "at least four types or ranks" is the most stupid concoct I've read for long time here. How can one even draw such moronic conclusions from such an ambiguous material? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Details of the Apocalypse

What I have noticed about the Wikipedia article Apocalypse is that the information is short and doesn't tell much detail. Which gives me the idea that I should add more to this article. What I plan to add to it is the details what the apocalypse will bring and other religions say about an apocalypse. When looking at the heading Biblical Ideas I noticed that it needs more detail added to that section with what the Bible says about Apocalypse, which is the called the Book of Revelation within the pages. https://www.gotquestions.org/end-times.html http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/idolchatter/2008/06/top-10-religious-beliefs-about.html https://globalnews.ca/news/3031188/the-science-behind-zombies-could-it-really-happen/—Preceding unsigned comment added by Femillee (talk • contribs) 23:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

"Apcolypse" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Apcolypse. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 9#Apcolypse until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Not a very active user (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The Revelation/Apocalypse of John, the Returned Christ, 666 Antichrist, 'Plagues, Economic Collapse, Locusts, Storms, Fires, Earthquakes, Volcanos, Etc.'

I added... The Bible's last book The Revelation/Apocalypse of John prophesizes the return of the Christ, his producing the "book/scroll sealed with 7 seals" (Rev 5:1) and that triggers "the [[[666 Antichrist]], plagues, economic collapse, locusts, storms, fires, earthquakes, volcanos, etc." - 2601:589:4800:9090:E4F5:6E28:7316:D307 (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alalancette. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Revjeff530. Peer reviewers: Adam0115. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 4 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved per WP:NOCON and the discussion would not benifit from more participation. (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 07:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

---

• Apocalypse → Apocalypse (Biblical genre)
• Apocalypse (disambiguation) → Apocalypse

– There seems to be WP:NOPRIMARY for this topic between eschatology, Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, or Global catastrophe scenarios, similar to the disambiguation at End of the world. There could be a case to be made for merging it into apocalyptic literature or vice-versa (even the name "apocalyptic literature" is in need of disambiguation), but right now I think it should just be taken out of the primary topic as it very clearly is not a WP:BROADCONCEPT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – MaterialWorks 20:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed title is wrong. Most apocalypses are not in anyone's bible. Srnec (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Srnec: I am referring to the current subject of the article in question. I am not ruling out the idea of a broad concept article about "most apocalypses" being created. This is clearly not it. I am open to alternative suggestions for names, I just don't think this is the primary topic. If you support a move to a different name please say it. An alternate possibility is Apocalypse (Judeo-Christian genre) or Apocalypse (Judeo-Christian literature). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think this article is about the genre of apocalypse. This is the original meaning from which all other senses derive. The most famous example of the genre, of course, is the Book of Revelation. When I say most apocalypses aren't in the bible, I mean that the only apocalypse in the NT is Revelation and the only true example of the type in the OT is the latter half of Daniel. By apocalyptic literature I understand a broader assortment of writings relating to apocalypses. The Late Great Planet Earth is apocalyptic literature, but not an apocalypse. I think that, as written, apocalyptic literature does not distinguish itself from apocalypse, so there is a case for merging or at least overhauling.

  At the moment, having taken a glance at the dab page, I can say that there is no way that should be the first place people land. So I think the status quo is better than the proposal. Srnec (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Srnec: Why should they not land at the disambiguation? Can you seriously say someone typing in "apocalypse" may not mean "global catastrophe", as in "climate apocalypse" and others? That the religious genre of Apocalypse is the obvious and clear primary topic for everyone's searches? I really don't think that is the case. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see a link to that article (or any othe ones you mentioned in the nom) on the dab page. The dab page as it stands starts with amusement park rides. Srnec (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support renaming to Apocalypse (genre). It is a literary genre, but it is not limited to biblical books. Dimadick (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support the character has more views (17,079) than the genre (16,333)[[1]] but has much less long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the primary topic. The others are derivative of it. Walrasiad (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Walrasiad: The word has become a common term for any end of the world scenario, not just religious ones. If this were the middle ages perhaps you would be accurate that it is what people primarily think of when they hear "apocalypse" but in the modern day, not so much. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Grab anybody on the street and ask if they worry about "the apocalypse" (no qualifiers), they'll assume you mean the religious one. The term may be borrowed by writers to jazz up other end-of-world scenarios ("zombie apocalypse", "climate apocalypse", "nuclear apocalypse"), but they are always qualified with a descriptor and rarely (if ever) the main name by which those scenarios are known. Walrasiad (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm... this is not an article about end-of-world scenarios. The article covers several ancient books which depict divine revelations concerning "cosmic mysteries". Dimadick (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note change to Support: there's already a disambiguation page Apocalypse (disambiguation), and I'd support making that the main page with this article one of the entries. I wouldn't object to changing the title of this article to include "biblical genre', since that's what it talks about. (The article Apocalyptic literature seems to be a double of this article, but this article is a more encyclopediac treatement - they could be merged, but this should be the core article). Achar Sva (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose "Biblical genre" per Srnec. The article itself lists tons of non-canonical apocalypses that are not "biblical," so this is simply inaccurate. Oppose a move in general to any disambiguator, per Walrasiad. This is the original meaning of "Apocalypse" and thus it has primacy over the later meanings, especially because the later meanings are derived from it. Wikipedia elsewhere has kept articles with substantially fewer views than "child" articles in such cases of clear primacy, and it's not like the topic of apocalypses in religion is obscure or minor. SnowFire (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the very clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to get a clearer consensus. – MaterialWorks 20:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Religion has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 20:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Judaism has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 21:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose moving to the Biblical genre for point 1, since "utter destruction" can happen for real, such as with hurricanes, as described by some people, e.g. [2]. Though I think a more sensible title can be Apocalypse (literary genre) as seen on the lead of the article or just "genre", which might mean excessive dab. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nomination; Dimadick; Crouch, Swale and Achar Sva. There are 54 entries listed upon the Apocalypse (disambiguation) page, with no convincing indication that the genre of revelatory literature or a large-scale catastrophic event hold such overwhelming historical significance as to dwarf the combined prominence of the remaining 53 entries. Would alternatively support Apocalypse (Judeo-Christian genre) or Apocalypse (Judeo-Christian literature) per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, Apocalypse (genre) per Dimadick, or Apocalypse (literary genre) per Iggy. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Support renaming to Apocalypse (literary genre), since there are genres in various mediums. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Expand on popular use as a synonym for catastrophe?

Since this article has not been renamed to apocalypse (literary genre) (see discussion from May above), could we please expand a bit more on this statement which is the first sentence of the main text of the article: "Apocalypse" has come to be used popularly as a synonym for catastrophe, but the Greek word apokálypsis, from which it is derived, means a revelation.. I came to this article during some debates on the real meaning of the term climate apocalypse which I argued on the talk page means pretty much the same as climate catastrophe. EMsmile (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)