View text source at Wikipedia

Talk:Posttribulation rapture


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Post-tribulation rapture. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It will be post tribulation also trump 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:782:300:81D0:5CF7:CE2B:4B7C:3FC3 (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The tribulation saints are part of the church and will receive glorified bodies

[edit]

In Revelation 20:4, it is clear that the believers who went through the great tribulation were beheaded for the witness of Jesus. They did not worship the beast, nor his image, nor his mark and became part of the first resurrection. In all of the New Testament the "saints" are believers:(1 Cor. 1:2; Acts 9:13; Acts 26:10; Ro. 8:27, etc.) In the pre-trib model, these saints are not part of the church and will not receive glorified bodies going into the millennial kingdom. They also maintain that these believers offspring come against Christ at the end of the 1000 years (see note 1, Prophecy explored). Royandy (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to new article and start over

[edit]

There are a significant number of problems with the article as it stands:

  1. Poorly sourced - vast sections of entirely unsourced original research.
  2. A significant amount of material that is cited by primary sources (specifically original research that is interpretive of scripture, citing the scripture as the reference). We don't do that here - anything interpretive must come from a reliable secondary source. There is very little of that in the existing article.
  3. The "voice" of the article reads as if this is an apologetic on posttrib, not in an encyclopedic tone.
  4. In reliable sources, there is no hyphen in the name (posttribulational).

To fix these issues, we ultimately end up with an entirely new article. I would have done those changes here had it not been for #4 above. Instead, I made those changes in a properly title article and redirected this one. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. There is absolutely no way this should have been done without consulting this talk page before attempting to do it. WP:TNT isn't policy or guideline. It's just an essay. Justifying this action as "we" is also out of line. Who is this "we"? Please undo this destruction and get consensus before doing it again. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Butlerblog: Please respond. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft: I disagree with your premise, otherwise I would not have made these changes to begin with. Clearly, your opinion differs with mine, but I saw this as WP:BOLDMOVE to a title that is supported by the secondary academic sources. The content changes address what is entirely WP:OR as interpretive of primary sources, having been tagged as such since for thirteen years. I don't see those two things as "destruction" (although I guess TNT does give that impression).
Before considering reverting, I'd ask you to objectively look at what was here before (and/or compare the change). (You haven't made an edit on this page in more than 10 years, so I don't know how much you're looking at it.) Here's where it stood before:[1] To be frank, it's probably the worst article I've seen and after reading several secondary sources, it's not even correct. Its tone is written as a homily or apologetic entirely interpretive of primary sources (scripture) on a single view of posttribulationism (of which there are at least four views per Walvoord). What I replaced it with (Posttribulational rapture) is sourced and cited using reliable secondary sources. The page title change is in line with what is in sources as well (most academic sources use posttrib, not post-trib).
If you still feel the need to revert it after objectively looking at the changes, then do so and I'll pursue other means of correcting these issues (the incorrect title and the original research), but I stand by the validity of both changes. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I've seen in sources does not concur with "posttribulation", but rather "post tribulation" or "post-tribulation". Even sources you have used in the new article note this. There should have been a discussion about this before it happened, not after. As for the state of the article; that's not a reason to blow it up and replace it at a new location. This just isn't done. If you had problems with it in the prior state, then fix it. I've no objections to fixing things. But, this means of attempting a fix pushing it to a location that doesn't make sense as a name...it's just wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had some Ngrams for posttrib vs post-trib. I've added "post trib" variations per your note above. All favor "posttrib". If you look in the sources noted at the new article, Walvoord, Ladd, and Moo all use "posttrib", as does Reiter. (I can see that you might see otherwise in the title of the Gundry book, but hyphenated appears nowhere in the text and the updated version uses the nonhyphenated version in the title as well.)
ButlerBlog (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert things back to where they were before this, and work on improving the existing article. This just isn't how we do things here. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great. <smdh> Unfreaking real. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]