Talk:End time

---

This article is representative of sweeping totalistic claims unsupported by fact or evidence typical of many of Wikipedia articles. There is no survey cited here that reviewed various demonimations' views toward end times. The article lacks even an informed understanding of the diverse governing structures of various denominations. At least one major denomination accepts most of the end-times belief systems suggested in the article.

But the article states: No major denomination apart from the Jehovah's Witnesses accepts these beliefs as a standard of Biblical interpretation.

Some major denominations do not impose central authority on local churches. Southern Baptists, for example, are the dominant religion in most of the American South. But once a Southern Baptist minister is ordained, the denomination makes no other dictates about his doctrinal teachings. There is hardly a mechahnism for central authority over the theology of local Baptist churches. The denomination is organized as a "convention" of independent local churches. Local churches hire ministers who they believe teach doctrines appropriate to the beliefs of their congregation. The independent Southern Baptist churches have developed doctrines so diverse, the diversity has created deep divisions in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Southern Baptist theologens debate diverse views of the end times, including premillennialism, postmillennialism and forms of preterism. Preterism, then, is not "unlike all the other Christian theological systems;" it is a doctrine accepted or suggested in many local churches as amillenialism.

Here is a link to a page detailing a debate among Southern Baptist theological professors regarding diverse views of the end times which this article says are rejected by major denominations such as the Southern Baptists:

http://www.sbts.edu/news/NewsRead.php?term=Fall2002&article=NR032

The Southern Baptist panel discussion asked "do Christians know what they believe? Can Christians make a clear biblical argument in defense of their position? And can they make that argument while acting in a gracious and gentle manner to those who may disagree?"

In brief:

Three Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professors did just that recently, presenting different positions on what theologians call eschatological doctrine (or end-times theology).

Daniel Akin presented a progressive dispensational (pretribulation, premillennial) position. Chad Brand defended a posttribulation, premillennial position, and Hal Ostrander presented an amillennial position.

Bird 06:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Nonsense edits by 69.167.97.221 reverted to most recent sensible collaborative version. --Quadalpha 22:20, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Merge with Last Judgment?

I have removed a label proposing that this article should be merged with Last Judgment. The Last Judgment is a specific event in Christian eschatology proposed in the Book of Revelations, and in some form or another is accepted by most Christians.

The end times are a genre of prophecies for the most part proposed by the specific belief system of "premillenial dispensationalists", and as such involve a specific set of Biblical interpretations that not all Christians accept, but which involve attempts to relate apocalyptic prophecies from Revelations, Ezekiel, and Daniel to current events. These prophecies include non-Scriptural specifics such as the attempt to identify the Antichrist, the role of the European community and the state of Israel in Biblical prophecy, and other things that do not relate to the Last Judgment. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:22, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses don't think that end times or "time of end" ("last days", NW) and "Last Judgement"(Har-Maggedon or Jehovah's day) are the same. This article should NOT be merged with Last Judgement. But they think that end times or "time of end" ("last days") and "end of the world" ("the conclusion of the system of things", NW) are the same. Rantaro

NPOV

This article reads as if it is written from a selected set of Christian views, rather than the whole range. CheeseDreams 20:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It would help if you pointed out what those views were. I've tried to make it clear that this article is chiefly about End Times beliefs and prophecies that circulate among U.S. fundamentalists, and attempts to describe those beliefs. Christian eschatology is about the doctrine of the last things generally in Christianity. Smerdis of Tlön 20:48, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The end times are, in one version of Christian eschatology, a time of tribulation that will precede the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

The first sentance the article explains this is not a cover-all-Christian viewpoint. That said, might help if it explained a bit cleary which version we are talking about (US?Baptist?Fundamentalist?). It doesn't need the NPOV tag though.--ZayZayEM 12:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just because the article makes clear what its purpose is, doesn't mean that the article is NPOV. "End times" is clearly an end-of-the-world concept, but I see nothing here about non-Christian ends of the world, like the Norse Ragnarok. Are there similar concepts in Chinese, Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Japanese, Maori, or other cultures? One would not know from this article. The phrase "end times" may be, in English, most associated with Christianity (maybe even just U.S. fundamentalism), but can anyone say this authoritatively enough to justify the complete absence of any other scenarios? I think that's the issue here. Certainly the current article is robust enough to deserve to be a separate article, but perhaps it should be titled "End times in Christian fundamentalism" and be referenced in a more general overall article. — Jeff Q 20:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because, while Ragnarok deals with an "End Times" scenario, it is not THE "End Times". In terms of cultural sensitivity, the correct term (Ragnarok) should be used rather than lumping into some anglo-cover-all-term — especially when the more appropriate terminology is eschatology. Perhaps a tag at the front of the article, explaining the term is more appropriately used for anglo-christi-judeo version of evvents, but many more cultural versions can be found in eschatology (where they belong).--ZayZayEM 01:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps what you're looking for is our article on the end of the world, which is perhaps the broadest term in English, and quite properly covers Ragnarök, the Hindu ends of the eras, the Mayan epoch that's due sometime in the next ten years, the sun going nova, and all the various other scenarios including the big crush, or the heat-death of the universe. That article already exists, though it could stand improvement. All of these beliefs should quite properly be added to that page. "End times" as far as I know always refers to the Christian belief that current events mean that the Rapture and Second Coming are imminent. Smerdis of Tlön 02:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If this article is about Fundamentalist views then it should clearly state so in the title. It should be End times (Fundamentalist U.S. Christian views).CheeseDreams 19:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right, its been moved. DO NOT move it back until it contains views

• Fundamentalist Christians not in the U.S.
• Christians who are not Fundamentalist

Many of the above consider "End Times" to refer to something specific.

CheeseDreams 20:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Title

Should this be more appropriately End Times (currently a REDIRECT). Both words should capitalised, no?--ZayZayEM 02:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The canonical way is to use lower case. More appears to link to End times than to End Times in any case. It isn't really a proper noun. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved without discussion

Why? -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have undone the move. Everything linked to End times or End Times in any case, so the move really achieved nothing. It was not done right even if there's an argument for moving the page; the new page title contained punctuation and was virtually unsearchable. These beliefs, though most prominent in the USA, did not originate there and are not exclusively American, so the new page title was misleading. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Efforts to bring about end times

Should this be mentioned here or elsewhere? c.f here --ZayZayEM 01:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a bit about that in the article itself: "The implications of the prophecies that turmoil in the Middle East is inescapable, that nuclear war is predestined by Scripture, and that it will supernaturally lead to a divine utopia, give rise to some misgivings among unbelievers in the prophecies." I'm not sure how much farther we can go with this without straying into seriously POV territory. -- Smerdis of Tlön 02:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The statement: "The fact that in the early 1970s, there were seven nations in the European Economic Community was held to be significant; this aligned the Community with a seven headed dragon in Revelations." is incorrect. The original EEC had six members (Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany). This was increased to nine by the additions of Denmark, Great Britain and Ireland in 1973. There never exixted a seven member EEC, and so, cannot be associated with the 'seven headed dragon'. EFTA has seven members, but that doesn't exist anymore.

 In the new Fox series Point Plesent, the main character who is the devil's daughter has the sign in her eye.  It is all three sixes combined into one symbol.

Watt quote

Added James Watt's quote "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back." to the end of the prophecies section. 666 is the mark of the beast.

Neon genesis? End Times or just End-of-the-World

Yes, Neon genesis Evangelion has a lot of pseudo-Chrsitian motifs, but it takes it's philosophy stuff from just about every source conceivable as well.

I just don't think this peculiar branch of eschatology is the place to mention it. In particular NGE does not deal with the return of Jesus, an anti-Christ or end-times plagues--ZayZayEM 04:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)