![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This distinction must be maintained, particularly in the Interpretation section of the article. Otherwise it loses all sense of a reference and instead becomes Christian propaganda. This is not to say that that was the intention of the author, only that editors of the page should be careful. 75.57.110.36 03:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Could the abomination of desolation be a reference to nuclear war? Google gets plenty of hits so I'm not the first to think of this. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22abomination+of+desolation%22+nuclear+&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&sourceid=Mozilla-search Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 06:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
His own sacrifice to cease?
InfinitelyWhipped (
talk)
20:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. Non-admin closure ••• Life of Riley ( T– C) 23:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
In order to maintain Wiki standards, per the second of the Five Pillars, this article must be neutral, in order to avoid presenting one point of view as "the truth" over all other points of view. The statement that the book of 2 Thessalonians in the Bible is "...now believed by all critical scholars to be a pseudepigrapha" (which also cited no reference) does not meet these standards of neutrality. Use of the words "all", "most", or "some", when used in this manner, indicate a false consensus, when no such consensus can be proven. How does the author know that "all" scholars are in agreement? This statement then becomes anti-Christian propaganda. -- MichaelAWilson ( talk) 15:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Saul of Tarsus, a perverted, murderous, Benjamite Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, may have faked a conversion experience on the road to Damascus to infiltrate the followers of the WAY to spy on their freedom in Christ, and to make them slaves.
It was Jesus who warned in both Matthew and Mark's Gospels to Beware the yeast (false teaching) of the Benjamtie Pharisee Wolves in Sheep's Clothing. Saul/Paul of Tarsus was both a Benjamite and a Pharisee who first acted as a Wolf to devour and divide the Sheep (Jesus' Sheep), persecuting them, then as a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing (Paul) coming into the FLOCK as one of the Sheep, pretending to be an Apostle.
Saul (aka Paul), the abominable THING, stood in the midst of the Holy (Consecrated) 12 Apostles of the Lamb (the ELEVEN + Matthias). Saul did not belong there. Erichansen1836 ( talk) 22:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The etymology section is unclear because it only uses the English translation of Hebrew words, so it is uncertain exactly what word is being discussed. It seems obvious that an etymology section for a word should mention the word in the original language. On a related note, after reading the section, I have no idea how Jupiter is related to this topic. Please clarify. OtterAM ( talk) 15:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Similar material to Skolfield from an Irish author Emmett O'Regan
http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.com/2011/09/abomination-of-desolation.html
The Book of Daniel gives the first clue that the Dome of the Rock is indeed the abomination of desolation by stating that the time period between when the daily sacrifices are taken away until the abomination of desolation would be set up would be 1,290 "days" (see Dan 12:11, cited above). If we calculate this time period as starting from the period of the Babylonian exile (when Babylon first invaded Judah and effectively interupted the daily sacrifices), then caculating 1,290 years on from the date of the first deportation of Jewish exiles to Babylon in 598BC, we arrive at the year 691AD - the year of the completion of the Dome of the Rock! (Remember to subtract 1, since there is no year "0" in the Anno Domini system). Also if we calculate 1,260 years on from when construction first began on the Dome of the Rock in 688 (when the Gentiles first began to trample the Temple underfoot?), we arrive at the year 1948 - the year of the creation of the modern state of Israel! So it seems that the period of the Gentiles was indeed finite in nature, as 1,260 years after construction first began on the Dome of the Rock, the "times of the Gentiles" were fulfilled at the time Israel was restored to the Jews. Therefore the grounds of the Temple complex in Jerusalem appears to symbolises by wider extension the nation of Israel itself. Here, the Book of Revelation seems to foretell that the nation of Israel would be restored 1,260 years after the gentiles would first begin to erect a religious structure on the site of the Holy of Holies.
According to the rules of the interpretation of prophecy first outlaid by Tyconius in the 4th century AD, a day could also be interpreted as a year in prophetic thought.....In the book, I argue that as the only permanent structure standing for a sufficient time period on the site of the Temple of Jerusalem, the Dome of the Rock (the third holiest shrine in Islam) would be a perfect candidate for the "abomination of desolation". 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 19:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thsi site which does not state that the Dome on the Rock is the Abomination of desolation, states that a BUILDING can be the fulfillment of the prophecy
https://escapeallthesethings.com/abomination-desolation/
This clue could fit the abomination being a person, a statue or perhaps even a building
and that
The abomination of desolation is not some isolated event but is preceded and followed by key events. Luke's Gospel and a parallel prophecy we will connect in Revelation make this plain. Luke has a slightly different take on the abomination from the other Gospels. While it tells us that the desolation is followed by people having to flee (like Matthew and Mark did above), it also tells us what precedes the abomination:
Luke 21:20-21, 24 (HCSB) — 20 "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that its desolation has come near. 21 Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains!...
Not surprisingly armies surround and take control of Jerusalem right before her desolation . Also not surprisingly, they do not move on but continue their desolation by "trampling" Jerusalem for a certain period of time called the "times of the Gentiles:" 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 20:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Most of the material I added on this section comes from Scolfield's book Daniel out of Order, and I also added references to some Bible passages, both Old and New Testament, which seemed relevant.
There is no way to determine when the daily ceremonies "were taken away" but 606-605 BC would be the earliest and 583 BC the latest. Daniel, along with royalty, priests and other influential men went into captivity in 605-606 along with loot from the Temple. Taking away the priests and the implements of ceremony will surely disrupt "daily" services, never mind having a bunch of armed men guarding and looting the Temple. 583 BC would be the latest as there were no Jews left to do any ceremonies as they all fled to Egypt that year.
On the Dome on the Rock, the various prophecies refer to the Abomination of Desolation as an "IT", so it is a something "set up" on "holy ground" in Jerusalem. The most likely spot would be the Temple Mount, and "set up" is a synonym for "erect" or "build". If someone has knowledge of Hebrew and can check whether that passage can also be translated as "erected" or "build" it would be helpful.
The prophesy by Daniel is "sealed" until it is appropriate for it to be revealed, so the most recent interpretation is the most likely to be correct, as all prior interpretations would be wrong due to the "sealed" status. 71.174.129.238 ( talk) 22:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
that's when you repeatedly ask to have a discussion, nobody is willing, and then you get banned as disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 21:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Still waiting for the discuss part of the cycle
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 21:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Yup! Just as expected. Blocked for being disruptive while the guy who started it and refused to engage in discussion never even got a warning.
So two faced.
Anyway! The reason for most of the reversals are listed as original research. Seeing the material posted on this talk page originating with Irish author Emmett O'Regan (more then likely a Catholic) posted in current section 9, who continues to believe that this material is "original research".
Additional verification can be made http://www.ellisskolfield.net/books by downloading and reviewing the Books "Daniel out of Order" and/or "Islam in the End Times". The author is dead and per the web site he wanted his books to be free to the public after his death, so there are no copyright issues. 71.174.127.2 ( talk) 16:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Daniels prediction on the death of an "Anointed One" being 69 weeks after the restoration of the Temple is also accurate and starts before the second century BC and ends after the second century BC. A decree allowing the rebuilding of the Temple was issue in 445 BC (or so - almost all BC dates are off by a year or two) while Christ died in 33 AC (again or so - there is some question as to the exact year of death by those that don't believe Christ was a fictional character). That gives a span of 478 years (give or take two to four). 69 weeks in "a year is a day" becomes 69 weeks of years or 483 years. Pretty darn close. These years are considered to be 360 day years "prophetic years" and not 365.25 day solar years. Converting the measuring stick from "prophetic years" to "solar years" gives 476 years. Spot on when you consider the impreciseness of the start and end date.
You can now try to convince me that a FICTIONAL character made this FRIGHTENINGLY accurate prediction.
The fact that much of Daniel is a mystery, is no surprise. The Book itself states that the prophecies are SEALED till the end times when "KNOWLEDGE INCREASES". The "end times" is the short form of the the time AFTER the end of "The TIME OF THE GENTILES", which ended when the Jews went home to Israel, restored their nation and took back Jerusalem. 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 01:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Some secular historians consider Daniel to be a fictional character, and the timing of the cutting off of the "daily ceremonies" to a more recent BC period when a foreign king (I think Greek) decided to use the Temple to sacrifice a pig, sparking off a Jewish revolt.
My opinion of secular historians in general is that they are stupid gits. They have thousands of years of recorded history in the Old Testament, meticulously kept by Jews as a religious duty, and decide to ignore it all as fiction. Instead they go around digging all over the place and from what they find try to recreate a timeline of history. The fact that what they come up with is different from what the recorded history of the Old Testament states is not a little bit surprising.
Some secular historians also consider Nebuchadnezer a fictional character, the Jews going into 70 years of captivity a fictional event, and even Jesus as a fictional character.
This is a rant but the article DOES need to reference that some of the interpretations are based on this FICTIONAL DANIEL that historians have come up with and not the PROPHET DANIEL 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 20:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I am willing to debate this issue as long as allowed to. 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 22:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
to repeat - Are you also going to delete every other section of the article that references Daniel because you believe he was fictional? or is this another question you refuse to answer? 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 23:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Just for shits and giggles, pretend that there are people out there that believe the PROPHET DANIEL was a real live person, like those BILLIONS of Christians and 10's of millions of Jews, and likely a bunch of Muslims, atheist, agnostics and whatnot.
Again pretend that if this person existed, would he have used an event DURING his lifetime and right in front of his face, an event hundreds of years before he was born or an event hundreds of years after, as a starting point for a timeline. Please do not avoid the question as previously. Be a man and choose what is the most likely starting point he would have used if he existed. 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 22:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I would like to chime in here that the reason we know the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC is because the prophecies in it are only accurate up until a certain date: 164 BC exactly. After that date, all of the prophecies are catastrophically wrong. The only way that you can arrive with a work containing accurate prophecies up to one, specific date and inaccurate prophecies thereafter is if the book was actually written at that date, making all the "predictions" prior to that point actually be history framed as predictions to make the actual predictions found later seem reliable. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 15:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing really 'in fact' about it, as there's no evidence that Daniel actually existed (and Ezekiel's reference to Danel actually refers to someone else). But within the narrative, yes Daniel had a 'job' as a 'government official', which he purportedly got from interpreting dreams. The book of Daniel is included among the Writings and he isn't generally regarded as a prophet by Jews. Later claims about Daniel being a 'prophet' for anything beyond the setting of the stories depicted in the book of Daniel are a Christian invention (especially expanded upon by Adventist denominations).-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 23:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Not so! If you accept that the Dome of the Rock is the Abomination of Desolation, then the prediction is FRIGHTENINGLY accurate. Either spot on or at most off by a few dozen years over a 1,300 timeline. Daniel also has a prophecy on the death of Christ (the Anointed One) that is also supposed to be similarly accurate. I need to go research the timing before posting the methodology. His prediction an the conquests of Alexander are indisputably accurate. 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 00:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@ 71.174.133.249: I thought I would chime in here that I am a Christian and I do not believe that the Book of Daniel is a historical narrative. My belief is that, just because something is fictional does not mean it cannot be divinely inspired. Fiction can have just as much meaning as history and something does not need to have actually happened in order for us to find meaning in it. Jesus (who was definitely a real person, by the way, as every respectable historian agrees; the only people claiming that he did not exist are crazy conspiracy theorists) taught using parables, which are fictional stories that convey timeless meaning. I see no reason why other parts of the Bible cannot contain parables of a similar nature. You can say that I am "not a Christian" if you like and that I "just call [myself] that", but you would be committing a fallacy in doing so. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 03:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
What do you think of the Islam part? First, it has a notability problem, it has not been shown to be a notable theological claim ( WP:SPS sources?). Second, Muslims hate idol worshipers, so being described as such would appall them. The reason for reverts wasn't "Daniel never existed", it was rather "given sources are crappy". If the claim is notable, there should be better sources for it. Otherwise, as it has been said about the Bible: if you torture it enough, it will confess to anything. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Abomination of desolation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering if there's a reason why the RSV-CE was chosen over other translations. I did a bit of perusal, and I couldn't find any guidance in the Manual of Style. I feel there might be a better choice of translation for the purpose of this article. Also, I'd question the external linking to Bible Gateway. Ehler ( talk) 15:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
One thing missing from this article is the events in 40 AD, when Caligula threatened to put a statue (of Zeus? I forget) in the temple. He was assassinated before he got around to it, but it caused great concern in Judea at the time and may have produced an early version of the gospel pericope. It's mentioned in several sources and might be worth adding. Achar Sva ( talk) 22:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I have tried a number of times to update the article and display another point of view to the comment, "It is almost certain that none of the authors were eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus" [1], referring to Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Regarding Matthew, the historical account in the Bible says Jesus spoke to Matthew and said, "Follow me" in Matthew 9:9, Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27, and Matthew followed Jesus. Additionally, Matthew is listed as one of the twelve apostles in Matthew 10:2–4, Mark 3:14–19 and Luke 6:13–16. The twelve apostles followed and learned from Jesus while Jesus was on earth.
Given that Jesus spoke personally to Matthew and that Matthew was one of the twelve apostles who followed Jesus around while Jesus was on earth, it seems likely that Matthew actually was an eyewitness to the life of Jesus.
How can I display this additional viewpoint on the "Abomination of desolation" page without it being reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40D:4381:1580:AD76:8F97:E7B0:5A0 ( talk • contribs)
References
Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:
• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;
• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;
— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)
Wikipedia kowtows to MBS and you won't be able to overturn that. It is you who have a choice, Wikipedia doesn't. Its fate has been sealed since it chose to endorse mainstream academic learning, you know, Ivy League, WP:CHOPSY.
To cut through the craps, if it has not been recently written by MBS, a source discussing Matthew is not a WP:RS, and therefore cannot be WP:CITED in our article.
let go of ego
is insulting, I am not prepared to let go of my ego in order that your push
WP:FRINGE POVs in a
WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. and work towards a solution, without trying to break another’s ideas and beliefs.
—you may have your own ideas and beliefs, but Wikipedia is not the place to ventilate those, see
WP:NOTFORUM. Besides, only utterly puerile people have no ego—you're effectively asking me to become infantilized enough to buy into your story. Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew
is infantile historiography, which does not abide by the
historical method. Letting go of Ivy League learning in order to believe puerile stories about the Bible is insulting for our intelligence.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
04:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthewis not a mainstream academic idea, it is not mainstream history. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the reference to eyewitness sources as that seems to be the general feeling here. Full disclosure: I was the one who put it there in the first place. Achar Sva ( talk) 22:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
JWSorensen22, the line you objected to was removed because it was deemed irrelevant ,not because it was incorrect. Matthew as author is rejected by the majority of scholars today: or what it's worth, here are the arguments:
I'll answer that last point, since it's a bit obscure: Matthew means Gift of Yahweh in Hebrew, but in Greek (the gospel was written in Greek) "Mathetes" means a student (as does Talib, the root of Taliban - interesting how history rhymes), so that the name Matthias means a "learned disciple" bringing God's gift. Achar Sva ( talk) 05:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Pay closer attention to the text your elaborating on. 172.58.107.51 ( talk) 03:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Achar Sva: you just reverted my two edits with the summary "edit separated statements from sources, created inferior internal links, and other minor problems".
My copyedits however, added and improved wikilinks, including avoiding unnecessary pipe-links per WP:NOPIPE. Your revert didn't avoid any sources being cited at the end of different sentences, as I didn't move any. Could you please explain your intent? UpdateNerd ( talk) 19:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This distinction must be maintained, particularly in the Interpretation section of the article. Otherwise it loses all sense of a reference and instead becomes Christian propaganda. This is not to say that that was the intention of the author, only that editors of the page should be careful. 75.57.110.36 03:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Could the abomination of desolation be a reference to nuclear war? Google gets plenty of hits so I'm not the first to think of this. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22abomination+of+desolation%22+nuclear+&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&sourceid=Mozilla-search Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 06:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
His own sacrifice to cease?
InfinitelyWhipped (
talk)
20:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. Non-admin closure ••• Life of Riley ( T– C) 23:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
In order to maintain Wiki standards, per the second of the Five Pillars, this article must be neutral, in order to avoid presenting one point of view as "the truth" over all other points of view. The statement that the book of 2 Thessalonians in the Bible is "...now believed by all critical scholars to be a pseudepigrapha" (which also cited no reference) does not meet these standards of neutrality. Use of the words "all", "most", or "some", when used in this manner, indicate a false consensus, when no such consensus can be proven. How does the author know that "all" scholars are in agreement? This statement then becomes anti-Christian propaganda. -- MichaelAWilson ( talk) 15:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Saul of Tarsus, a perverted, murderous, Benjamite Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, may have faked a conversion experience on the road to Damascus to infiltrate the followers of the WAY to spy on their freedom in Christ, and to make them slaves.
It was Jesus who warned in both Matthew and Mark's Gospels to Beware the yeast (false teaching) of the Benjamtie Pharisee Wolves in Sheep's Clothing. Saul/Paul of Tarsus was both a Benjamite and a Pharisee who first acted as a Wolf to devour and divide the Sheep (Jesus' Sheep), persecuting them, then as a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing (Paul) coming into the FLOCK as one of the Sheep, pretending to be an Apostle.
Saul (aka Paul), the abominable THING, stood in the midst of the Holy (Consecrated) 12 Apostles of the Lamb (the ELEVEN + Matthias). Saul did not belong there. Erichansen1836 ( talk) 22:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The etymology section is unclear because it only uses the English translation of Hebrew words, so it is uncertain exactly what word is being discussed. It seems obvious that an etymology section for a word should mention the word in the original language. On a related note, after reading the section, I have no idea how Jupiter is related to this topic. Please clarify. OtterAM ( talk) 15:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Similar material to Skolfield from an Irish author Emmett O'Regan
http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.com/2011/09/abomination-of-desolation.html
The Book of Daniel gives the first clue that the Dome of the Rock is indeed the abomination of desolation by stating that the time period between when the daily sacrifices are taken away until the abomination of desolation would be set up would be 1,290 "days" (see Dan 12:11, cited above). If we calculate this time period as starting from the period of the Babylonian exile (when Babylon first invaded Judah and effectively interupted the daily sacrifices), then caculating 1,290 years on from the date of the first deportation of Jewish exiles to Babylon in 598BC, we arrive at the year 691AD - the year of the completion of the Dome of the Rock! (Remember to subtract 1, since there is no year "0" in the Anno Domini system). Also if we calculate 1,260 years on from when construction first began on the Dome of the Rock in 688 (when the Gentiles first began to trample the Temple underfoot?), we arrive at the year 1948 - the year of the creation of the modern state of Israel! So it seems that the period of the Gentiles was indeed finite in nature, as 1,260 years after construction first began on the Dome of the Rock, the "times of the Gentiles" were fulfilled at the time Israel was restored to the Jews. Therefore the grounds of the Temple complex in Jerusalem appears to symbolises by wider extension the nation of Israel itself. Here, the Book of Revelation seems to foretell that the nation of Israel would be restored 1,260 years after the gentiles would first begin to erect a religious structure on the site of the Holy of Holies.
According to the rules of the interpretation of prophecy first outlaid by Tyconius in the 4th century AD, a day could also be interpreted as a year in prophetic thought.....In the book, I argue that as the only permanent structure standing for a sufficient time period on the site of the Temple of Jerusalem, the Dome of the Rock (the third holiest shrine in Islam) would be a perfect candidate for the "abomination of desolation". 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 19:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thsi site which does not state that the Dome on the Rock is the Abomination of desolation, states that a BUILDING can be the fulfillment of the prophecy
https://escapeallthesethings.com/abomination-desolation/
This clue could fit the abomination being a person, a statue or perhaps even a building
and that
The abomination of desolation is not some isolated event but is preceded and followed by key events. Luke's Gospel and a parallel prophecy we will connect in Revelation make this plain. Luke has a slightly different take on the abomination from the other Gospels. While it tells us that the desolation is followed by people having to flee (like Matthew and Mark did above), it also tells us what precedes the abomination:
Luke 21:20-21, 24 (HCSB) — 20 "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that its desolation has come near. 21 Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains!...
Not surprisingly armies surround and take control of Jerusalem right before her desolation . Also not surprisingly, they do not move on but continue their desolation by "trampling" Jerusalem for a certain period of time called the "times of the Gentiles:" 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 20:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Most of the material I added on this section comes from Scolfield's book Daniel out of Order, and I also added references to some Bible passages, both Old and New Testament, which seemed relevant.
There is no way to determine when the daily ceremonies "were taken away" but 606-605 BC would be the earliest and 583 BC the latest. Daniel, along with royalty, priests and other influential men went into captivity in 605-606 along with loot from the Temple. Taking away the priests and the implements of ceremony will surely disrupt "daily" services, never mind having a bunch of armed men guarding and looting the Temple. 583 BC would be the latest as there were no Jews left to do any ceremonies as they all fled to Egypt that year.
On the Dome on the Rock, the various prophecies refer to the Abomination of Desolation as an "IT", so it is a something "set up" on "holy ground" in Jerusalem. The most likely spot would be the Temple Mount, and "set up" is a synonym for "erect" or "build". If someone has knowledge of Hebrew and can check whether that passage can also be translated as "erected" or "build" it would be helpful.
The prophesy by Daniel is "sealed" until it is appropriate for it to be revealed, so the most recent interpretation is the most likely to be correct, as all prior interpretations would be wrong due to the "sealed" status. 71.174.129.238 ( talk) 22:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
that's when you repeatedly ask to have a discussion, nobody is willing, and then you get banned as disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 21:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Still waiting for the discuss part of the cycle
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 21:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Yup! Just as expected. Blocked for being disruptive while the guy who started it and refused to engage in discussion never even got a warning.
So two faced.
Anyway! The reason for most of the reversals are listed as original research. Seeing the material posted on this talk page originating with Irish author Emmett O'Regan (more then likely a Catholic) posted in current section 9, who continues to believe that this material is "original research".
Additional verification can be made http://www.ellisskolfield.net/books by downloading and reviewing the Books "Daniel out of Order" and/or "Islam in the End Times". The author is dead and per the web site he wanted his books to be free to the public after his death, so there are no copyright issues. 71.174.127.2 ( talk) 16:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Daniels prediction on the death of an "Anointed One" being 69 weeks after the restoration of the Temple is also accurate and starts before the second century BC and ends after the second century BC. A decree allowing the rebuilding of the Temple was issue in 445 BC (or so - almost all BC dates are off by a year or two) while Christ died in 33 AC (again or so - there is some question as to the exact year of death by those that don't believe Christ was a fictional character). That gives a span of 478 years (give or take two to four). 69 weeks in "a year is a day" becomes 69 weeks of years or 483 years. Pretty darn close. These years are considered to be 360 day years "prophetic years" and not 365.25 day solar years. Converting the measuring stick from "prophetic years" to "solar years" gives 476 years. Spot on when you consider the impreciseness of the start and end date.
You can now try to convince me that a FICTIONAL character made this FRIGHTENINGLY accurate prediction.
The fact that much of Daniel is a mystery, is no surprise. The Book itself states that the prophecies are SEALED till the end times when "KNOWLEDGE INCREASES". The "end times" is the short form of the the time AFTER the end of "The TIME OF THE GENTILES", which ended when the Jews went home to Israel, restored their nation and took back Jerusalem. 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 01:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Some secular historians consider Daniel to be a fictional character, and the timing of the cutting off of the "daily ceremonies" to a more recent BC period when a foreign king (I think Greek) decided to use the Temple to sacrifice a pig, sparking off a Jewish revolt.
My opinion of secular historians in general is that they are stupid gits. They have thousands of years of recorded history in the Old Testament, meticulously kept by Jews as a religious duty, and decide to ignore it all as fiction. Instead they go around digging all over the place and from what they find try to recreate a timeline of history. The fact that what they come up with is different from what the recorded history of the Old Testament states is not a little bit surprising.
Some secular historians also consider Nebuchadnezer a fictional character, the Jews going into 70 years of captivity a fictional event, and even Jesus as a fictional character.
This is a rant but the article DOES need to reference that some of the interpretations are based on this FICTIONAL DANIEL that historians have come up with and not the PROPHET DANIEL 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 20:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I am willing to debate this issue as long as allowed to. 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 22:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
to repeat - Are you also going to delete every other section of the article that references Daniel because you believe he was fictional? or is this another question you refuse to answer? 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 23:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Just for shits and giggles, pretend that there are people out there that believe the PROPHET DANIEL was a real live person, like those BILLIONS of Christians and 10's of millions of Jews, and likely a bunch of Muslims, atheist, agnostics and whatnot.
Again pretend that if this person existed, would he have used an event DURING his lifetime and right in front of his face, an event hundreds of years before he was born or an event hundreds of years after, as a starting point for a timeline. Please do not avoid the question as previously. Be a man and choose what is the most likely starting point he would have used if he existed. 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 22:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I would like to chime in here that the reason we know the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC is because the prophecies in it are only accurate up until a certain date: 164 BC exactly. After that date, all of the prophecies are catastrophically wrong. The only way that you can arrive with a work containing accurate prophecies up to one, specific date and inaccurate prophecies thereafter is if the book was actually written at that date, making all the "predictions" prior to that point actually be history framed as predictions to make the actual predictions found later seem reliable. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 15:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing really 'in fact' about it, as there's no evidence that Daniel actually existed (and Ezekiel's reference to Danel actually refers to someone else). But within the narrative, yes Daniel had a 'job' as a 'government official', which he purportedly got from interpreting dreams. The book of Daniel is included among the Writings and he isn't generally regarded as a prophet by Jews. Later claims about Daniel being a 'prophet' for anything beyond the setting of the stories depicted in the book of Daniel are a Christian invention (especially expanded upon by Adventist denominations).-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 23:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Not so! If you accept that the Dome of the Rock is the Abomination of Desolation, then the prediction is FRIGHTENINGLY accurate. Either spot on or at most off by a few dozen years over a 1,300 timeline. Daniel also has a prophecy on the death of Christ (the Anointed One) that is also supposed to be similarly accurate. I need to go research the timing before posting the methodology. His prediction an the conquests of Alexander are indisputably accurate. 71.174.133.249 ( talk) 00:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@ 71.174.133.249: I thought I would chime in here that I am a Christian and I do not believe that the Book of Daniel is a historical narrative. My belief is that, just because something is fictional does not mean it cannot be divinely inspired. Fiction can have just as much meaning as history and something does not need to have actually happened in order for us to find meaning in it. Jesus (who was definitely a real person, by the way, as every respectable historian agrees; the only people claiming that he did not exist are crazy conspiracy theorists) taught using parables, which are fictional stories that convey timeless meaning. I see no reason why other parts of the Bible cannot contain parables of a similar nature. You can say that I am "not a Christian" if you like and that I "just call [myself] that", but you would be committing a fallacy in doing so. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 03:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
What do you think of the Islam part? First, it has a notability problem, it has not been shown to be a notable theological claim ( WP:SPS sources?). Second, Muslims hate idol worshipers, so being described as such would appall them. The reason for reverts wasn't "Daniel never existed", it was rather "given sources are crappy". If the claim is notable, there should be better sources for it. Otherwise, as it has been said about the Bible: if you torture it enough, it will confess to anything. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Abomination of desolation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering if there's a reason why the RSV-CE was chosen over other translations. I did a bit of perusal, and I couldn't find any guidance in the Manual of Style. I feel there might be a better choice of translation for the purpose of this article. Also, I'd question the external linking to Bible Gateway. Ehler ( talk) 15:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
One thing missing from this article is the events in 40 AD, when Caligula threatened to put a statue (of Zeus? I forget) in the temple. He was assassinated before he got around to it, but it caused great concern in Judea at the time and may have produced an early version of the gospel pericope. It's mentioned in several sources and might be worth adding. Achar Sva ( talk) 22:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I have tried a number of times to update the article and display another point of view to the comment, "It is almost certain that none of the authors were eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus" [1], referring to Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Regarding Matthew, the historical account in the Bible says Jesus spoke to Matthew and said, "Follow me" in Matthew 9:9, Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27, and Matthew followed Jesus. Additionally, Matthew is listed as one of the twelve apostles in Matthew 10:2–4, Mark 3:14–19 and Luke 6:13–16. The twelve apostles followed and learned from Jesus while Jesus was on earth.
Given that Jesus spoke personally to Matthew and that Matthew was one of the twelve apostles who followed Jesus around while Jesus was on earth, it seems likely that Matthew actually was an eyewitness to the life of Jesus.
How can I display this additional viewpoint on the "Abomination of desolation" page without it being reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40D:4381:1580:AD76:8F97:E7B0:5A0 ( talk • contribs)
References
Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:
• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;
• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;
— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)
Wikipedia kowtows to MBS and you won't be able to overturn that. It is you who have a choice, Wikipedia doesn't. Its fate has been sealed since it chose to endorse mainstream academic learning, you know, Ivy League, WP:CHOPSY.
To cut through the craps, if it has not been recently written by MBS, a source discussing Matthew is not a WP:RS, and therefore cannot be WP:CITED in our article.
let go of ego
is insulting, I am not prepared to let go of my ego in order that your push
WP:FRINGE POVs in a
WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. and work towards a solution, without trying to break another’s ideas and beliefs.
—you may have your own ideas and beliefs, but Wikipedia is not the place to ventilate those, see
WP:NOTFORUM. Besides, only utterly puerile people have no ego—you're effectively asking me to become infantilized enough to buy into your story. Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew
is infantile historiography, which does not abide by the
historical method. Letting go of Ivy League learning in order to believe puerile stories about the Bible is insulting for our intelligence.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
04:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthewis not a mainstream academic idea, it is not mainstream history. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the reference to eyewitness sources as that seems to be the general feeling here. Full disclosure: I was the one who put it there in the first place. Achar Sva ( talk) 22:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
JWSorensen22, the line you objected to was removed because it was deemed irrelevant ,not because it was incorrect. Matthew as author is rejected by the majority of scholars today: or what it's worth, here are the arguments:
I'll answer that last point, since it's a bit obscure: Matthew means Gift of Yahweh in Hebrew, but in Greek (the gospel was written in Greek) "Mathetes" means a student (as does Talib, the root of Taliban - interesting how history rhymes), so that the name Matthias means a "learned disciple" bringing God's gift. Achar Sva ( talk) 05:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Pay closer attention to the text your elaborating on. 172.58.107.51 ( talk) 03:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Achar Sva: you just reverted my two edits with the summary "edit separated statements from sources, created inferior internal links, and other minor problems".
My copyedits however, added and improved wikilinks, including avoiding unnecessary pipe-links per WP:NOPIPE. Your revert didn't avoid any sources being cited at the end of different sentences, as I didn't move any. Could you please explain your intent? UpdateNerd ( talk) 19:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)