Talk:2512: Revelation - Revision history

172.70.110.45 at 19:40, 20 September 2021

2021-09-20T19:40:36Z

162.158.94.109 at 10:52, 13 September 2021

2021-09-13T10:52:39Z

Miamiclay at 18:21, 12 September 2021

2021-09-12T18:21:14Z

Kynde: Fixed missing signatures (also on the comment mentionign a missing signature) and fixed indentations and a reply that was a wrong place compared to what it replied to.

2021-09-10T08:44:39Z

Fixed missing signatures (also on the comment mentionign a missing signature) and fixed indentations and a reply that was a wrong place compared to what it replied to.

Miamiclay at 21:43, 9 September 2021

2021-09-09T21:43:38Z

172.69.63.56 at 11:18, 9 September 2021

2021-09-09T11:18:40Z

162.158.94.91 at 06:21, 9 September 2021

2021-09-09T06:21:57Z

108.162.238.20: Got the date wrong

2021-09-08T23:15:31Z

Got the date wrong

172.70.34.191 at 21:48, 8 September 2021

2021-09-08T21:48:18Z

Barmar at 19:02, 8 September 2021

2021-09-08T19:02:05Z

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 ::::"were" is also the past subjunctive, used for both singular and plural. {{unsigned|Barmar}}
 :::::As in “If I were you,” or, in song, “If I were a rich man, …” [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 18:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 I think the current explanation generally gets it, but it has a lot of implicit assumption about the interpretation of Revelation by referring to it as a prophesy of literal apocalyptic events. Not only is it unlikely that the language was meant to be literal (it was probably purposefully allegorical so contemporary Christians could read it without incensing the Roman authorities), there is a prominent school of thought within Christianity that Revelation refers to events that happened in shortly after its writing in the first century (the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, for example). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism [[Special:Contributions/172.70.34.191|172.70.34.191]] 21:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:52, 13 September 2021
Line 39:		Line 39:

	: While I agree that the middle of the article overexplains a bit, the name John here is almost certainly a reference to John of Patmos, author of Revelation. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.56\|172.69.63.56]] 11:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)		: While I agree that the middle of the article overexplains a bit, the name John here is almost certainly a reference to John of Patmos, author of Revelation. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.56\|172.69.63.56]] 11:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	:: The statement that John of Patmos is the author of Revelation is disputed. All we know is that the author(s) of the book of revelations refer to themselves as John. But I now agree that it is relevant to the explanation. However, I will modify the explanation to make it less assumptions. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.109\|162.158.94.109]] 10:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 :::"scroll" is singular, why would you use the plural "were"? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.149|172.70.178.149]] 16:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 ::::"were" is also the past subjunctive, used for both singular and plural. {{unsigned|Barmar}}
 I think the current explanation generally gets it, but it has a lot of implicit assumption about the interpretation of Revelation by referring to it as a prophesy of literal apocalyptic events. Not only is it unlikely that the language was meant to be literal (it was probably purposefully allegorical so contemporary Christians could read it without incensing the Roman authorities), there is a prominent school of thought within Christianity that Revelation refers to events that happened in shortly after its writing in the first century (the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, for example). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism [[Special:Contributions/172.70.34.191|172.70.34.191]] 21:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 I'm not sure the current explanation, that the newscaster believed the biblical quote by mistake,  is necessarily the correct one.     The way I read this, as someday it should happen that the events described in Revelation REALLY DO START TO OCCUR,  there will still be newsies who entirely miss the point,  and keep producing random oblivious clickbait stories by 'interviewing' random twitter users.   Alternately, if modern-day newscasters traveled back in time, to when the original Revelation was actually recieved and written,  the same oblivious quoting without context could also occur.  [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.97|172.70.178.97]] 07:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 : This assumes that the cartoonist would agree with your viewpoint of the book of Revelation. Randall Munroe, who is the cartoonist, is probably not going to ever produce a Cartoon which suggests that the events in that book will actually occur at some future date. The use of eisegesis instead of exegesis produces nonsense in the analysis of any document whether it be one written about 1900 years ago or a digital caroton made this month. For the record, I believe in the authenticity of the Bible and am a believer in the deity of the One who was called Jesus of Nazareth. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.21|108.162.237.21]] 22:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 :: Doesn't even necessarily have to be the 'real' events of revelation:  even if there were just COINCIDENTALLY a series of major disasters that caused an earthquake, a blacked-out sun, and a blood-red moon,  and people named John started tweeting that quote as a literary reference,  news organizations asking if they could repost it would still be really, really tone-deaf. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.211|172.70.130.211]] 00:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
+::: “when the original Revelation was actually made up and written” FTFY. {{unsigned ip|172.70.98.159}}
-: “when the original Revelation was actually made up and written” FTFY. (unsigned comment, I think they are upset the information is missing)
+::::(unsigned comment, I think they are upset the information is missing) {{unsigned ip|172.70.110.227}}
+:::::I don't see why Randall wouldn't consider a huge Biblical-like event to happen.  He's made comics about AI.  I wouldn't expect him to assume other religious beliefs, but people sometimes think something could be coming.  [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.171|172.70.110.171]] 14:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
-: I don't see why Randall wouldn't consider a huge Biblical-like event to happen.  He's made comics about AI.  I wouldn't expect him to assume other religious beliefs, but people sometimes think something could be coming.  [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.171|172.70.110.171]] 14:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
+::::::I agree.[[User:1337-PI|1337-PI]] ([[User talk:1337-PI|talk]]) 09:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
+:::::::I think it is pretty sure from xkcd comics that Randall is not a religious person and that he do not believe in the Bible or the Quran or any other holy scripture. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 My interpretation was suppose Twitter was available during biblical times, and the author of the Book of Revelation chose to release his writings in that media vs. as a book. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.149|172.70.178.149]] 11:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Pat
@@ Line 31: / Line 28: @@
 :Hmm surely the mouse-over (caption) should have ended: "... as if the scroll were infinite" ?
+::Re: [S]urely the mouse-over (caption) should have ended: "... as if the scroll were infinite" ?
-::"scroll" is singular, why would you use the plural "were"? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.149|172.70.178.149]] 16:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
+::Absolutely - This is an error, does it go in Trivia? [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 21:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
-:::"were" is also the past subjunctive, used for both singular and plural.
+:::"scroll" is singular, why would you use the plural "were"? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.149|172.70.178.149]] 16:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 I think the current explanation generally gets it, but it has a lot of implicit assumption about the interpretation of Revelation by referring to it as a prophesy of literal apocalyptic events. Not only is it unlikely that the language was meant to be literal (it was probably purposefully allegorical so contemporary Christians could read it without incensing the Roman authorities), there is a prominent school of thought within Christianity that Revelation refers to events that happened in shortly after its writing in the first century (the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, for example). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism [[Special:Contributions/172.70.34.191|172.70.34.191]] 21:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@@ Line 40: / Line 38: @@
 : While I agree that the middle of the article overexplains a bit, the name John here is almost certainly a reference to John of Patmos, author of Revelation. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.56|172.69.63.56]] 11:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:43, 9 September 2021
Line 40:		Line 40:

	: While I agree that the middle of the article overexplains a bit, the name John here is almost certainly a reference to John of Patmos, author of Revelation. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.56\|172.69.63.56]] 11:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)		: While I agree that the middle of the article overexplains a bit, the name John here is almost certainly a reference to John of Patmos, author of Revelation. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.56\|172.69.63.56]] 11:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	Re: [S]urely the mouse-over (caption) should have ended: "... as if the scroll were infinite" ?
		+	Absolutely - This is an error, does it go in Trivia? [[User:Miamiclay\|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay\|talk]]) 21:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:18, 9 September 2021
Line 38:		Line 38:

	I liked the original four lines so much more. This is now just overexplaining the cartoon with absurd theories. John is a general placeholder name. The link to the biblical character is nice, but rather as a coincidence than an explanation. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.91\|162.158.94.91]] 06:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)		I liked the original four lines so much more. This is now just overexplaining the cartoon with absurd theories. John is a general placeholder name. The link to the biblical character is nice, but rather as a coincidence than an explanation. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.91\|162.158.94.91]] 06:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	: While I agree that the middle of the article overexplains a bit, the name John here is almost certainly a reference to John of Patmos, author of Revelation. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.63.56\|172.69.63.56]] 11:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:21, 9 September 2021
Line 36:		Line 36:

	I think the current explanation generally gets it, but it has a lot of implicit assumption about the interpretation of Revelation by referring to it as a prophesy of literal apocalyptic events. Not only is it unlikely that the language was meant to be literal (it was probably purposefully allegorical so contemporary Christians could read it without incensing the Roman authorities), there is a prominent school of thought within Christianity that Revelation refers to events that happened in shortly after its writing in the first century (the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, for example). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism [[Special:Contributions/172.70.34.191\|172.70.34.191]] 21:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)		I think the current explanation generally gets it, but it has a lot of implicit assumption about the interpretation of Revelation by referring to it as a prophesy of literal apocalyptic events. Not only is it unlikely that the language was meant to be literal (it was probably purposefully allegorical so contemporary Christians could read it without incensing the Roman authorities), there is a prominent school of thought within Christianity that Revelation refers to events that happened in shortly after its writing in the first century (the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, for example). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism [[Special:Contributions/172.70.34.191\|172.70.34.191]] 21:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	I liked the original four lines so much more. This is now just overexplaining the cartoon with absurd theories. John is a general placeholder name. The link to the biblical character is nice, but rather as a coincidence than an explanation. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.91\|162.158.94.91]] 06:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:15, 8 September 2021
Line 35:		Line 35:
	:::"were" is also the past subjunctive, used for both singular and plural.		:::"were" is also the past subjunctive, used for both singular and plural.

−	I think the current explanation generally gets it, but it has a lot of implicit assumption about the interpretation of Revelation by referring to it as a prophesy of literal apocalyptic events. Not only is it unlikely that the language was meant to be literal (it was probably purposefully allegorical so contemporary Christians could read it without incensing the Roman authorities), there is a prominent school of thought within Christianity that Revelation refers to events that happened in shortly after its writing in the first century (the fall of Jerusalem in 79 AD, for example). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism [[Special:Contributions/172.70.34.191\|172.70.34.191]] 21:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)	+	I think the current explanation generally gets it, but it has a lot of implicit assumption about the interpretation of Revelation by referring to it as a prophesy of literal apocalyptic events. Not only is it unlikely that the language was meant to be literal (it was probably purposefully allegorical so contemporary Christians could read it without incensing the Roman authorities), there is a prominent school of thought within Christianity that Revelation refers to events that happened in shortly after its writing in the first century (the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, for example). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism [[Special:Contributions/172.70.34.191\|172.70.34.191]] 21:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:48, 8 September 2021
Line 34:		Line 34:
	::"scroll" is singular, why would you use the plural "were"? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.149\|172.70.178.149]] 16:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)		::"scroll" is singular, why would you use the plural "were"? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.149\|172.70.178.149]] 16:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
	:::"were" is also the past subjunctive, used for both singular and plural.		:::"were" is also the past subjunctive, used for both singular and plural.
		+
		+	I think the current explanation generally gets it, but it has a lot of implicit assumption about the interpretation of Revelation by referring to it as a prophesy of literal apocalyptic events. Not only is it unlikely that the language was meant to be literal (it was probably purposefully allegorical so contemporary Christians could read it without incensing the Roman authorities), there is a prominent school of thought within Christianity that Revelation refers to events that happened in shortly after its writing in the first century (the fall of Jerusalem in 79 AD, for example). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism [[Special:Contributions/172.70.34.191\|172.70.34.191]] 21:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:02, 8 September 2021
Line 33:		Line 33:

	::"scroll" is singular, why would you use the plural "were"? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.149\|172.70.178.149]] 16:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)		::"scroll" is singular, why would you use the plural "were"? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.149\|172.70.178.149]] 16:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
		+	:::"were" is also the past subjunctive, used for both singular and plural.