Talk:Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

A Ripoff of Virgil's Aeneid

"White-faced Pestilences live there, as well as Hunger and Death and War." Aeneid, Book 6, written 150 years before Revelation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:601:4CA0:288E:4C2B:E913:230F (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The status quo (for the front page [article] and this Talk

The talk page (wiki vets can skip this [maybe])

Firstly, I'd like to remind everyone of these guideline, per Wikipedia's official decrees:

• Start new topics at the bottom of the page: If you put a post at the top of the page, it is confusing and can also get easily overlooked. The latest topic should be the one at the bottom of the page. (To do this, click the + or “new section” button at the top of the page.)
• Making a new heading for a new topic: It will then be clearly separated into its own section and will also appear in the TOC (table of contents) at the top of the page. A heading is easy to create with == on either side of the words, as in == Heading ==. The "Post a comment" feature can be used to do this automatically. (If you are using the default Wikipedia:Skin, you can use the "+" tab next to the "Edit this page" tab instead.) Enter a subject/heading in the resulting edit page, and it will automatically become the section heading.
  • Keep headings on topics related to the article. It should be clear from the heading which aspect of the article you wish to discuss. Do not write simply "This article is wrong". Address the specific issue you want to discuss.
  • Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user. Also never use headings to attack other users. While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:36, 30 September 2010

The article (or "front page", as I call it)

The main issues with this baby are the same as when I was watching it regularly, I think. It needs a more dedicated, research-prone editor to make it shine (and keep it that way). The primary concern for me is ensuring that the "lineup" of Horsemen stays Biblically accurate. Pestilence is not a Horsemen. The closest equivalent to that name is Plague, and it was given to a the last rider (Death), not the first (Conquest). Perhaps the introdice can be fixed to reference this, without implying (as past intros did) that Conquest is a mutable name/element.

Really, I'm not some zealot. I just want things to be accurate. Like, movies. Only viewing the thing will confirm plot elements summarized in articles. Making sure such data is clear, correct and neutral can thus be hard (especially on opening day). Here, though, we do have a reliable source text. Is any Horseman but Death explicitly named? No, but all the other names follow the text. The conquerer is Conquest, the warmonger is War, and the guy starving people is Famine. Simple, right? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:36, 30 September 2010

However, as with most leitmotifs, the "Four Horsemen" is more culturally complex than this topic's treatment within its purported original source within the Christian Bible. The notion of a definitive literalist interpretation of an English translation of an originally non-English source text is untenable as there is no straightforward one-to-one definitive translation of verbal/conceptual vocabulary between the two languages involved. Furthermore, many layers of cultural meaning have accumulated over the millennia, and many (re)interpretations of this subject have had profound cultural impact. The article is meritorious in its discussion of the well-documented fact that there are different interpretations, some theological and some popular, of these symbols of cultural ubiquity. To elide mention of them because they do not conform to one particular translation in conjunction with a literalist theological perspective would be an untenable form of censorship. Even if some of the various interpretations that have arisen and attained cultural presence and support are incorrect from a particular perspective, they nonetheless exist, and information about the alternative uses/interpretations/perspectives should be offered in any good encyclopedic presentation. As long as the material presented herein has legitimate source documentation, then those manifestations have real existence and can be of strong cultural import, and thus are worthy of mention here. In fact, this article will benefit greatly by expanding as far as possible beyond one particular Biblical interpretation so as to document the vastness of this leitmotif's impact upon our collective cultural imagination. MrWhysir (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll be honest. My primary concern with this article is ensuring that the popular readings of the subject are represented (and sourced). By that, I mean presenting the information as it was read in the Bible. I've read these particular book (Revelations) in 4 major translations. There aren't many substantive differences between each. The Greek word translated as "Conquer" could also be rendered as "Victory". Nevertheless, "Conquer" is used in three out of four versions. I don't think this is a big difference. So, I'm not concerned with the minutiae of "this word actually means something similar, but different." Sorry.

And ultimately, I think this article represents views that are in line with all of them. You might say there should be more in the way of alternate views. Maybe so, but since neither you nor I wants to bother sourcing such things, I don't see the point in debating it. The article is what it is. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason to mention and link to one small group that has a specific view of the relevance to contemporary events? Better simply to say that other groups support this. Otherwise, sounds too much like a commerical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynxx2 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The individual is notable, so it's not promotion but simply stating what a notable individual has to say on the subject. The source only indicates that he believes that, not "some groups." Ian.thomson (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not "damaging" the oil and the wine

The interpretations for the concept of "damage" given in the article are good and thought-provoking. One is missing, however. The intended meaning may be much simpler than those previously suggested. That is, “damage” in the sense of "to touch so as to diminish." Meaning, quite simply, that no one shall be permitted to have any oil or wine with their bread. In the Mediterranean region during Biblical times, oil and wine were common household foodstuffs, not luxury items reserved for the wealthy. Oil and wine were two commonly used sops for bread. The passage may simply be meant to suggest that people shall be left to eat “unbuttered” bread -- a rather hard swallow.

NB: the term “unbuttered” is used here in the historical sense of the word. That is, to be accompanied by condiments from a buttery, a buttery being barrel stores of durable goods, usually fermented liquids and oils.

I do not have the time to go out and gather supporting citations for this interpretation of the Biblical phrase in question. I would appreciate other scholars doing so such that this interpretation may be rightly included within the main article. Thank you. MrWhysir (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this splitting hairs, though? >.> Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

How is this splitting hairs? This point adds a different perspective and a different interpretation. Rajakiit (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Pale horse

I Think that the saying they were given the power of over fourth of the earth means that they were given the power of the water

-Ty S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.160.177 (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the 2-year delay in noticing this entry--This is not a discussion page. And whether you are correct or not, Wikipedia requires no original research when editing articles. David Spector (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The pale horse, greenish in color, should be noted that this is the color of Islam. My source is John Hagee Ministries. signed by Gloria Lewis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.179.58 (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The color of Islam is also red as in The Red Crescent. It is also the color of blood and therefore good symbolism for a people that love war. Muslims do love their jihads!71.174.128.28 (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Role of the First Horseman in Stuttgarter Erklärungsbibel vs. role of the Second Horseman

In the text for the First Horseman it says

The German Stuttgarter Erklärungsbibel casts him as civil war and internal strife.

and in the text for the Second Horseman it says

The second horseman may represent the war of conquest as opposed to civil war that the first horseman brings.

Doesn't that seem backward? The First Horseman is called Conquest and the Second Horseman is called War. Rajakiit (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I have the exact same question. Or perhaps it's the translation of the horsemen into English that is incorrect (ie. the first white horse is War (civil strife), and the second red horse is Conquest (foreign invasion))? Another possibility is that the order of the white and red horses was switched by accident in the translations from the original text (ie. the red horse (War) was first, the white horse (Conquest) second) Acefox (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems a previous editor has mixed things up. Several sources identify the white horse with wars of conquest, and the red horse with civil strife. -- 202.124.73.21 (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Correcting Color of Death's Horse

I've changed the Greek text from "χλωμóς" to "χλωρóς", and changed the transliteration accordingly. "χλωρóς", meaning "pale green" or "green" (from which we get "chlorine") is the correct reading, which can be easily verified by looking at any number of Greek texts of the New Testament, such as the Textus Receptus (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=6&v=8&t=MGNT#8), The Morphological Greek New Testament (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=6&v=8&t=TR#8), and the Online Greek Interlinear Bible (http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rev6.pdf) among others. Akasanof (talk) 05:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You are right, of course. Is χλωμóς even a word? -- 202.124.73.21 (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Some mention of actual horse colors, such as dun, palomino, or roan, should be added; the others are natural horse colors, allowing for 'white' as commonly used, 'red' for a chestnut, etc. Chloros can mean yellow, a range that includes several possibilities.Cyranorox (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This analysis offers another insight:

It is more generally rendered pale, but this is still less adequate to its real spirit; it means that green-sick, wan, and exanimate hue which is pathognomically descriptive of the disease termed chlorosis.

Think palish- but something to remind us it was once green, perhaps?--Lmstearn (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Bible versions?

What Bible version(s) is/are being used here? The article says "NIV", but the wording differs from the NIV in some cases. -- 202.124.73.21 (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It's probably supposed to be all NIV, I'll get around to straightening it out in a bit (although you're welcome to), but sometimes people change translations to different ones without changing the name of the translation. It's an unfortunate problem with any article that deals with any translation issues, especially Bible related articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's fine, it's just the older edition of the NIV. -- 202.124.73.21 (talk) 07:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The NIV, in all its versions is not the most published version of the Holy Bible, as the article claims. It is the Authorised Version, also referred to as the King James or KJV. Most scholars consider the NIV unsuitable for serious study due to inconsistencies in methods of translation used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.101.28 (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The name of the second rider

Slaughter is more appropriate than War I think, because:

• It's taken directly from the text ("slay"), and therefore avoids contentious interpretation.
• It's more widely used in scholarly circles.
• It's more general ("Slaughter" includes "War", but also includes other forms of violence).
• It avoids picking an interpretation of the first rider, and hence is more NPOV (the second rider tends to be called "War" by those people who don't see the first rider in terms of military conquest). -- 202.124.73.58 (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The book by Mounce cited in the article also gives arguments (based on the Greek text) for this horseman referring to civil conflict rather than war per se. -- 202.124.88.183 (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, no, it's not. "Slay" is not the same as–or even vaguely related to–"slaughter". (They don't even have a common etymology.)

Second, I see no basis for that. Mostly, it seems like you've cited a couple books which use different verbs. What we need is sources which use specific names. The vast majority of those have opted for "War", period. Besides, I'd hardly call a few books a scholarly consensus.

Third, I'll give you generality, but I'm not sure that's a positive. Death is violent–especially where the Horsemen are concerned–and Conquest carries a weapon. If anything, renaming War makes him seem more generic and redundant to the others. Put simply, changing the names does not change the text. Those who see Conquest and War as overlapping will almost always have that perception. We could call them "Victory" and "Defeat". People would still insist they're too similar. Whatever. It's not something we should be worrying about. The text is what it is.

Fourth, honestly, the main issue for me is the name used in the intro and majority of the article. While all this stuff about an alternative name/interpretation might be okay for the "second rider" section, it looks out of place elsewhere. I mean, like I was trying to say in an earlier edit summary, it's hard enough to keep people from changing the name "Conquest" every other week. The last thing we need is another fight over titles. If you want to mean that War could also be referred to as "Slaughter," that's fine. Just not in the intro. It clashes with the rest of the article and citations, most of which still refer to the second rider as War.

All that said, I've parsed the article, added some refs and tried to strike a compromise (even in the intro). "Conquest, War, etc." is still what we should lead with, (and still something people would try to contradict,) but I won't say we can't mention alternate names/takes. First example, Death as "Plague" and Conquest as "Victory". It just shouldn't be treated as the common interpretation.

Basically, what the only principle(s) guiding how this article looks should be:

• What the Bible says, verbatim.
• Common interpretations which follow the text, such as those that name the Riders and discuss their natures.

Beyond that, everything becomes a bit iffy. Neither of us may be "wrong," per se, but I'd rather stick with an approach that keeps the intro static.

Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Third Opinion

There seems to be an edit war over the citations to www.apocalypsis.org. Seems to me clearly not a WP:RS, but also seems to be a clasic case for dispute resolution.

If it is a WP:RS, the tag should be removed, if it is not the citation should be removed. I note that there are plenty of reliable book references already. 202.126.111.22 (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No discussion was found, 3O has been declined. May I suggest that you refer the actions of the editor in question who is claimed to be conducting an Edit War to the appropriate noticeboard. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the site is actually www.apocalipsis.org. And it's clearly a WP:FRINGE site, with bizarre 9/11 stuff. The citation needs to go 139.130.39.54 (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh. I wasn't concerned with the entirety of the site. Whatever, though. Link's gone. Really, I think this was less a war edits than laziness. The simple answer was to add/find new citations and move around some old ones. I've admitted to be lazy and/or busy these days, so... yeah. No clue why the GIPU could do all this bureaucratic stuff but not just fix the problem. Oh well. Done. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 16:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"book"/"scroll"

In the King James Version, The Revelation 5:1 refers to a "book sealed with seven seals". In later and recent Bible versions, it is a "scroll". Therefore, to cover both, it is referred to as the "book"/"scroll". - Brad Watson, Miami 65.3.238.158 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Other interpretations

Emmet Fox interpets the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to be among the most important of the great Bible symbols because they give the key to the nature of man as we know him.

The Pale Horse represents the physcal body. "And his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed after him."One who values only the physical body and material things can only be met with Death at the end of his ride as the body shall perish. Where there is no belief in spiritual existence the body's death can only result Hell( note that Hell may also be a symbol of the lack of spiritual existence).

The Red Horse symbolizes man's emotional nature. " And there went out another horse that was red; and power was given to him that sat upon thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword." If a human allows his emotional nature to control him then he willl undoubtedly face a difficult time in his life journey. The person who has an inability to control an emotion, such as anger for example will sow resentment and create obstacles throughout their life until they learn to control that anger emotion. The human that allows the Red Horse to control his life will have an unhappy existence. The large sword is a symbol for immense destruction that the rider of the Red Horse can create if they are not in control of their emotion.

The Black Horse symbolizes man's intellect."And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand. And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny.", The balance, being a scale to measure, is a sybol of lack or famine. There is not enough to go around so things have to be measured and rationed. Riding the Black Horse symbolizes the human allowing the intellect to dominate the life experience while not allowing room for the spiritual being to grow and develop. The rider that allows the Black Horse of intellect to dominate their life and doea not cultivate their spiritual being will be met with a spiritual famine at the end of the ride.

The White Horse symbolizes man's spiritual nature. " And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer." The rider of the White Horse has acheived the awareness of God in their life. The bow and arrow is an acient symbol of the spoken word. The bow represents prayer and the rider conquers by use of the spoken word and prayer.The rider of the White Horse wears a crown the symbol of victory. The rider that rides the White Horse and develops an awareness and relationship with God will gain the crown of a fufilled life as that rider attains everlasting life within the relationship with God. 173.14.181.101 (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Source Alter Your Life by Emmet Fox

I have altered your post only to keep it from breaking the page. I'll look at adding it at some point. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a good explanation, which gave me thinking.. 188.230.174.229 (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Another kind of interpretation

White Horse: America (white house), won the first and second world war

Red Horse: Soviet Union (red square), take peace from earth

Black Horse: trading with scales in his hand represent global trading, black represent mixing of all color all nation, do not damage the oil and the wine represent environment protection, these two topics dominate the world trend after fall down of Soviet Union

Pale Horse: represent death, Pandemic happened, accelerate the process of deglobalization, Tariff barriers rebuilded, food price rise up, famine happens, more wars happen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 謝立人 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

the most evident explanation viewd in its context.

When viewed in the historical situation in which the writers were situated , it is easy to see the most evident explanation: - A king (or usurper of the throne) is on a conquest spree: spreading his point of view as the righteous bringer of good news. (A new age under a new reign) - This conquest brings the inevitable terrors of war: slaughter, havoc and mayhem. - The lands or regions suffering these wars are plagued by the typical result of foraging armies: famine. Whine and oil are excellent items to give to your (mercenary) troops together with other loot (and food) - Famine combined with the terrors of war lead to a massive death toll, compared to every day hardship and occasional natural disaster)

For people living in those times, there was nothing worse than this: no amount of praying , no sheltering in religious buildings could spare you the evil of war. Especially if those conquesting hordes follow another religion.

The story of the mythical figure Jesus breaks those four seals and unleashing these four riders could be interpreted as the ultimate evil set forth on man with disregard of his/her religious beliefs. Only in death will the devout follower be rewarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naughtynimitz (talk • contribs) 08:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:CITE and WP:NOR. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Origin of "Pestilence"

I notice one pretty big gap in the article: why and when did people start referring to Pestilence as a horseman? It doesn't seem to be a recent misconception (unless you consider Dürer recent), so how did this idea begin to take root, and how did this idea with apparently little to no textual basis become so dominant in popular reckonings? --BDD (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've edited the lede to have "Conquest" as the white horse, which is what the cited source says. I'm not sure where "Pestilence" comes from. The MMA caption for the Dürer woodcut names "Pestilence" as the rider with a bow, but this seems to me to be an error, as pestilence/plague doesn't seem to relate to a bow at all. Reliable sources name Dürer's 4th horse as "Conquest," and pestilence/plague is in fact one of the attributes of the pale horse. -- 202.124.75.225 (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The oldest example I can find of this (mis)interpretation of the white horse as "Pestilence" is a 1916 novel by Vicente Blasco Ibáñez. Given the two films of the novel, this may have started the idea. -- 202.124.73.112 (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Apollo is associated with the bow, which he used to spread pestilence: http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Greek/Iliad1.htm#_Toc328052743

I added text and sources for the Apollo precedent as well as the Rig-vedic deity Rudra. The ancient association between arrows and disease supports an early source of the white horseman as pestilence interpretation. -Wormcast (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that the pestilence interpretation should be given under the White Horse section, next to the other two interpretations given. It seems odd to pull this out and leave the others there, particularly since there is at least a prima facie case for there being an ancient basis to this interpretation. What say you? Wormcast (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

did this. Wormcast (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Biblically supported or not the Pestilence interpretation is the most culturally relevant and herefore the most important — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.6.113 (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Another Possibility for the Role of the White Horseman

I'm surprised not to see the general Evangelical Protestant interpretation mentioned here at all. In that interpretation, the rider on the white horse is seen as the Antichrist; hence, his attributes look somewhat like Christ's. His role is to conquer, and hence he is seen as a great victor. He conquers the world, but without an excessive amount of bloodshed. The red horse is warfare, and it comes second because it represents rebellion against the Antichrist's rule, when his kingdom begins to unravel into civil war, leading to unimaginable bloodshed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GnatsFriend (talk • contribs) 02:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. If you can find a reliable source (as described here) to summarize and cite, we could add that. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A modern interpretation

One of the articles subarticles lacks any sources or verification. Its entitled "a modern interpretation"

It almost seems as if this is merely an editors personal interpretation. I recommend it be taken down.

Its written informally and gets quite dramatic. Not wikipedia material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintobalys (talk • contribs) 08:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That was added a few days ago, and I just removed it. Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"Conquest" horse????

Shouldnt that be pestilence/disease? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.72.103 (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a very modern interpretation, relatively speaking. It's noted in the article. Rklawton (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"One should mention"

I've removed the uncited "One should mention" paragraph again. It would be fine to provide a contrasting viewpoint from one or more other scholars, but an uncited criticism like this is just original research. It also doesn't really make sense. What does "out of any religious-scientific relations" mean? Mattflaschen - Talk 16:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

One should mention - that's a good call. Rklawton (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

In-line notes

The in-line notes that say "DO NOT add Pestilence, that is a later misinterpretation not based on the source text!" and the like seem a tad inappropriate to me, and a little OR. Interpretation of ancient texts is secondary research, and it seems that whoever is adding those notes is privileging his or her own interpretation of the text over a very common interpretation. In the context of mythological figures, it's a little 19th century to suggest that a popular interpretation is wrong just because it's different from the original source text. "In most accounts..." doesn't seem like an accurate way to summarise the different viewpoints. I would suggest, "academic interpretations based on Biblical text" say Conquest, whereas "another popular interpretation" says Pestilence. --62.189.73.197 (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Most interpretations or most *official* interpretations

The article says that "most interpretations" identify the horsemen as "Conquest, war, famine, and death". This may be misleading. While that is likely the opinion of most legitimate theologians and denominational dogmas I had always gotten the impression that the typical person was more likely to be familiar with the first as pestilence, however upopular the idea may be with church authorities and theologians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.6.113 (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

There might want to be a new section on interpretations per culture. For example, this, of Nordic origin:

And they were empowered to exterminate a fourth part of the earth with sword, and with famine, and with pestilence, and with the wild beasts of the earth.

It may not necessarily be construed as a depiction of the cardinal #horse order, however…--Lmstearn (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

conquest is not one of the four horseman.

Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death are the four horseman of the apocalypse.

Seconded — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.6.113 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I also have know the "popular" knowledge to be Pestilence or Plague as the first Horseman. I believe that is the most common understanding to those who have not done extensive research. Would love to see the article reference that. Apriestofgix (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

To the IP editors: There's some collections of books all called "The Bible." In the versions of the Bible used by Christians, there's a book called "Revelation" or "Apocalypse." In the the sixth chapter, the Four Horsemen are described for the first time. The first horseman is described with "behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer." Nothing about pestilence there. The rest (war, famine, and death) are close enough, though. The "Pestilence" version is a later mistake. Maybe you could try learning about the Bible by actually reading it instead of getting your information from video games and movies.

@Apriestofgix:: it would be nice for the article to explain how the later misinterpretation (combined with a reordering) came up, as long as it's reliably sourced. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Oddly enough I can't seem to find anything that cites the change. It seems there are some references as it being interpreted as Pestilence due to the bow representing Plague, but nothing thereafter. Most theologians seem to agree that Conquest is the name, but differ on what that actually means, while the majority of the media (TV, movies etc.) reference Pestilence. I assume this is simply due to it thematically fitting better to have 3 "negatives" followed by death, but can't find any documentation to back that up. However it might be worth mentioning that due to the prevalent use of Pestilence in pop culture, that is where the "common knowledge" incorrectly comes from. I know the article addresses this to an extent, but due to the continued requests here to fix this "error" improvements could be made to help explain this a bit more I believe.Apriestofgix (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This would be my proposed edit:

(Current): Although some interpretations differ, in most accounts, the four riders are seen as symbolizing Conquest (Sometimes also identified as Pestilence, the Christ or the Antichrist),War, Famine, and Death, respectively.

(Proposal): Though Theologians and Popular Culture differ on the first horseman, the four riders are often seen as symbolizing Conquest or Pestilence (and less frequently, the Christ or the Antichrist), War, Famine, and Death, respectively.

I then think that leaving the section below as written would be correct. It gives a good point of view from both sides. However I feel that the opening should be more inclusive to what readers will assume, and thus help setup the facts that are laid out below.Apriestofgix (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It is appropriate to call the first White horse "Conquest" - Rev. 6:2 - "And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer." It mentions "conquest" - It says nothing of pestilence... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:C001:5B08:7CB8:90B7:AE46:DE5E (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Google translate

besides incorrectly identifying ζυγὸν (look it up in a greek dictionary...) or "yoke" as "scales" which is a popular error in contemporary translations if one is open to the original one might consider allowing this part of the text it's own words... wikipedia already has the weakness of allowing for pathological disinformationists and kith to manipulate facts to suit popular versions of truth... frankly this article is so wrong as to be unusable and I might request its removal... this is my bible as well and frankly some of the opinions people have of it are reinforced by a rather well intentioned version of expertise which falls humorously short of meaningful. Besides murky and muddling these errors are frustrating the bibles efforts to allow understanding. unless -of course- you want to cause harm why don't you check your translation using a third "uninvolved" party? good luck.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.61.131 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia does not use original research. What you found on Google translate does not beat out what professionally published mainstream academic works have assessed is the correct translation for KOINE Greek. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

rather arbitrary analysis allows that conclusion yet in every other part of the bible the word is correctly tranlslated as zygon/yoke not zygos/scales... the error on the part of the translator is in conflict with the actual greek wording ... clearly a yoke is different from a scale... to ask a sacred religious text as this to be doctored into compliance with popular opinion is to violate it. for the by the way

Thayer's Greek Lexicon:STRONGS NT 2218: ζυγός ζυγός, ζυγοῦ, ὁ, for which in Greek writings before Polybius τό ζυγόν was more common (from ζεύγνυμι);

1. a yoke; a. properly, such as is put on draught-cattle. b. metaphorically, used of any burden or bondage: as that Of slavery,

so even strongs, thayers etc. agree with me on this, is this wiki to be factual or ? does what I have found on Thayer's Greek Lexicon or Strongs biblical concordance matter to this editor?

 Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears THE words of the prophecy of this scroll: IF anyone adds anything TO them, God will add to that person THE plagues described IN this scroll. 19 AND IF anyone takes words away from this scroll OF prophecy, God will take away from that person any share IN the tree OF life and in the Holy City, which ARE described in this scroll.

In short let the words alone. meaning even popular translators are not authorized by this book to manipulate it... thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.61.131 (talk • contribs)

No. Wikipedia does not use original research, we rely on mainstream academic sources written by real historians instead of your analysis based on outdated sources and an honestly ridiculous confusion of how translation works. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that wikipedia remove the article for the reason that it is poorly rooted within inaccurate opinions held by outdated expert historians. As it stands anyone reading it will discover it's worthless. remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.61.131 (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC) the four horseman article is in need of removal. It is offensive to read this mistranslated "mainstream" crap. besides contradictions such as the lion is the lamb and etc. a general dislike for the venerable book and a pointed agenda of dating or worse yet modernizing it makes it inaccurate and weak. Its own desires to remain unadulterated seems ignored. My bible tolerates less of this shabby garbage than Wikipedia's version for some reason. It would be better to remove this crap. rather than risk defacing the good book. Please respect the bible. thankyou.

   Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia is not censored. If you have a legitimate concern over the content that would be actionable under policy. Take it to the article talk page. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

so in asking wikipedia to maintain standards of accuracy the vow comes forth "Wikipedia is not censored" ha-ha-ha... seriously this makes me smile. This article is incorrect and offensively. remove it for the sake of your crediblity. It's expertise is laughable. commentary lazy. points pointless. You are damaging a sacred text with liberties it specifically requested omission of. If I may say so the "censorship" I am suggesting is simply not. Correctly represent the bible...with THE bible... using its actual words not a version suited to an expert (debatable) translator. Besides being insulting to intelligent people, quietly affirming false facts with colluding sources then describing truth as censorship. Any serious bible scholar can easily find in any reputable place the word for zygon meaning "yoke" as in: Matthew 11:29 "Take My yoke(zygon) upon you and learn"... evident wisdom for "experts" this is truly a laughable version of encyclopedic article. the bible cannot use it's own words to represent its meaning? Please remove, correct, or at least admit the obvious error in presuming to insert words into a document of this gravity. ho-ho-ho. such trolling! good heavens! oh no we need to be accurate?! censorship! stop clowning around ha ha . what a joke!

should Mathew 11:29 read " take my scales(zygos) upon you and learn? seems silly. to me. though. snakey. like scaley. scaley snakes scaling ladders scaling stacks of expert crap.

What this buffoon would like to add is that he appreciates the appearance of genuine interest in this most challenging of texts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.61.131 (talk • contribs)

Your suggestion that this page be deleted because it doesn't agree with your unprofessional and unaccredited opinions is in direct contradiction to WP:NOTCENSORED. See also WP:No personal attacks -- if you aren't willing to communicate with others in a civilized manner, you don't belong here. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Lion of Judah

Editor User:69.178.61.131 removed mention of the Lion of Judah from the lead. I agree that the text is confusing, since it appears to equate the Lion of Judah with the Lamb of god, but since the lion is in the text (Rev 5:5), I consider this removal to be unjustified.

Also, User:69.178.61.131, please follow WP:TALK guidelines. Not signing your additions and inserting your additions into unexpected places in previous conversations makes following the discussion here much more difficult.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

While the lion is mentioned; “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.” ...the scrolls are opened by someone who is of the tribe of Judah... the lion of the tribe of Judah is (Elohim) one of the four animals of the earth from which humanity was made. in Genesis "God said, “Let the land produce living creatures ... then (to the living creatures) God said, “Let us make mankind in our image". the lamb in the throne room is standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures (from Genesis) and the elders. The first living creature was like a lion and is the ancestor of the lamb. He is a seraphim, the lion of the tribe of Judah. So while this means the lion of the tribe of Judah has triumphed, it is through his heir, the lamb. this substantiates a few things the first is that this messiah is of the Jewish family of David thus he is a true Jewish messiah according to Jewish prophecy... the Jewish messiah is to be of Judah as King David was... secondly it allows for the lion of Judah who is a fallen seraphim to restore his place in heaven with God ... thus fulfilling Quranic prophecies concerning Iblis and the end times return to God... then it gives us insight into the nature of the messiah himself who is to be initiated into the mysteries of death by his symbolic slaughter at the claws of this lion. "Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain," the (symbolic) slaughter of the lamb is through the return of the lion who is the lamb's ancestor. The Lamb is "dead" and in an afterlife world where he is to be anointed by A multitude...Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. 12 In a loud voice they were saying:“Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!” And so the Messiah discovers his secret role... up until that point no one not even the lamb knew who he was... “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." Mathew 24:36 So with much fear and trepidation everyone fell down to worship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.61.131 (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, none of that justifies removing the Lion of Judah from the lead of this article.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I've already got the block window open with WP:NOTHERE as the reason. Just waiting for one more example. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

makes no difference to me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.61.131 (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC) 

in some context one can include the lion. I might suggest you block me. save me some trouble. My best efforts are of no avail. reasonable conversation seems unlikely... the article is in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.61.131 (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

If that's what you think, you should just leave then and not be a bother to the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)1

"I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals." that is what it says. no one but the lamb. whoever keeps adding the lion is not quoting from the book. I'm not just trying to be stubborn.Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves...What the Bible says, verbatim.

@AaronottoJennings: please follow WP:TALK guidelines, in particular the part about signing your additions.

I understood your stance here to be that you were willing to go along with the consensus view, at which point I undid your removal. Apparently that was a misunderstanding; I was surprised to see that you immediately undid it. I suggest that the discussion here continue before we get into rule-breaking territory.

This is a text widely acknowledged to be difficult. The apparent identification between the Lion and the Lamb is worth mentioning in the lead.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

the lion did not open the seal. yes he has a relationship with the lamb but the lion did not unseal anything. Yes the text is difficult. if you want to incude the lion we should do so by quoting the proper verse which is revelation 5:5... then elucidate what the relationship between the two might be. 69.178.61.131 (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

horae apocalypticae

how does a text written by a discredited biblical scholar qualify for entry here? this entry is irrelevant except to illustrate the folly of this obscure independent. should be removed.?Wikipedia does not care about you or me (or Edward Bishop Elliott) being qualified scholars. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronottoJennings (talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

the name of the rider of the white horse

 The bible neglects naming the first rider so should we.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronottoJennings (talk • contribs) 04:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)  further more when is it stated in the text that the lamb (who unseals the seal, is also the rider on the white horse?

There are two different white horses in Revelations and two riders. One conquers using the bow, while the other used the sword in his mouth. This can be taking as he uses "cutting remarks" or criticism instead of an actual weapon. The return of Christ can also mean the return of Christianity through conversion, instead of the return of a physical Christ. As to where Christianity will return, that is obviously back to the only place it has been practically wiped out, aka Muslim lands which were previously Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.128.28 (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

death or thanatos?

Because i'm wanting to keep an open mind here i would like to ask why we are linking the rider on the pale horse to "death" when he is better known as "Thanatos" remember that the bible gives his name as thanatos... thanatos ( the name) is an actual greek mythological figure whereas death (state of being dead) 'is' not a person but more of a state of being. I'm inclined to believe that we should not second guess the bible's naming of the pale horse rider. The name should remain Thanatos... 69.178.61.13169.178.61.131 (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC) (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC) So better stop me cause im gonna do it...69.178.61.131 (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/6-8.htm69.178.61.131 AaronottoJennings (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)(talk) 05:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This is getting pretty confusing. Are you, AaronottoJennings, claiming the edits by User:69.178.61.131? It would simplify things if you consistently made your edits while logged in.

Part of having an open mind is being open to the idea that this WP article attempts to represent a broad collection of (previously published) interpretations without representing that one or the other is the "correct" one. In a collection that includes Pestilence, War, Famine, it makes sense to use the English word Death.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

AaronottoJennings is 69.178, per [1] and Jennings's other behavior.

Between "So better stop me cause im gonna do it..." and "I might suggest you block me. save me some trouble", his continued insistence that his Bible (and his alone) is the Word of God and the constant refusal to acknowledge WP:NOR or WP:RS all lead me to believe that the user is either incapable of or uninterested in working collaboratively. The screed he has posted on his user page is the final nail in the coffin. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Behavior was not uniformly disruptive – I had reached out in response to the user page screed in an attempt to rein in some of that disruptiveness. I'm afraid that it will take some time to comb through the remaining attempted changes to revert the ones that don't belong. "Lion", "scales", and "Death" are ones to look at in this article. Elsewhere I see some stuff about hypertension.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Edward Bishop Elliott – undue emphasis?

Does anyone else agree that the Edward Bishop Elliott sections amount to undue emphasis on a particular, perhaps fringe, interpretation? They take up a fair amount of volume in the article and might be better moved or merged to a separate page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Elliott's interpretation should be given at most a short paragraph that spells out its theological, not historical, nature. It is based on events that occurred decades and centuries after the Book of Revelation was written. This mode of reading the Bible as referring to future events (relative to when it was written) is theological. This line – seeing biblical events as having occurred after the author wrote but before our current day – is sometimes called the "historical" theological reading, as opposed to the "preterist" reading, in which the author, of Revelation in this case, was writing about events that had already happened in his day. (The "futurist" mode of reading used by some Evangelicals today is different because it sees Revelation as about events that still haven't happened. That mode of reading fed into the Waco seige, for example.) The preterist mode of reading should dominate in a non-theological text like Wikipedia, and other modes of reading should be flagged as such. — sjengler^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjengler (talk • contribs)

The main weapon of the Roman legions was the gladius, a type of short sword, not the bow, so connecting the rise and fall of the Roman Empire to the prophecy is at best weak. Not 100% sure of the timing but I think Rome was at its height when the prophecy was made, so there is no room for Conquest to show up, never mind Conquest armed with a bow. Plenty of wars, famines and plagues though. The amount of space for this position does seems excessive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.133.89 (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140121031638/http://www.reformedfellowship.net/articles/vos_brian_looking_above_apr06_v56_n04.htm to http://www.reformedfellowship.net/articles/vos_brian_looking_above_apr06_v56_n04.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102173818/http://revelation4today.com/revelation-6-apocalypse-horses.html to http://revelation4today.com/revelation-6-apocalypse-horses.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Was wondering if 'Prophecy Interpretation' under Interpretations should be changed to 'Futurist Interpretation'

There seems to be a person who I think is edit warring and following my every edit and reverting everything I change.

Futurism is a Christian Eschatological position and I think futurism should replace the word 'prophecy' in that heading because Historicists also promote future prophecy. Nashhinton (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be a person who I think is edit warring and following my every edit and reverting everything I change. Really? Here? You think it's okay to bring this up here? Well, it's not. This is not the forum for that. Edit warring is to be reported here; other misconduct is reported here. Please stick to the content at hand on article talk pages. El_C 07:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please leave me alone. I do not want to talk to you. Nashhinton (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I am the admin you get. El_C 07:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

All you had to do was tell me you can spy on me without leaving me to think you are gangstalking Nashhinton (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Somebody can't see what is in front of him

Who asks for a citation on this

According to the main modern interpretation, this prophecy describes a period of time when a quarter of the population of the earth would be killed by a combination of wars, famine and disease.[according to whom?]

when the language itself states

"They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by the sword (war), famine, and plague and by the wild beasts of the earth."

I think wikipedia needs to limit someones role in the organization!71.174.128.28 (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I think someone needs to learn how Wikipedia works.

The article on Sky has citations for the fact that it's blue.

That's just your opinion that that's the plainest reading of the text, which is not what we use. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

have you ever heard of the phrase "The plain meaning of the law is the law"? I'm pretty sure that the plain meaning of 'The Sky is Blue" can be confirmed any sunny day in the non cloudy 90% of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.128.28 (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Have you heard the phrase WP:No original research? It's one of the cornerstones of this site, and why our article on sky has citations for the fact that it's blue. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Here! It took me a whole minute to find it

https://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/apocalypse-0012794

The most straightforward and widely agreed interpretation of this chapter is the description of a period in history when a large part of earth’s population would perish through a combination of wars, diseases, and hunger.

Learn to use a search engine!

I spent another minute and look what I found

https://www.vision.org/the-four-horsemen-of-the-apocalypse-part-2-food-shortages-and-pandemic-disease-4346

“And power was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, with hunger, with death, and by the beasts of the earth” (Revelation 6:8b). In combination the riders of the four horses bring death to 25 percent of the world’s population.

Again learn to use a search engine!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.128.28 (talk • contribs)

I know how to use a search engine. It's your job to present sources for your claims, not mine. Learn what a reliable source is before trying again. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Usually sane people do not ask for references on such things as war involves killing, the sky is blue and that normal people have 10 fingers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.127.186 (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This is STUPID

Preterist interpretation

Article: Some modern scholars interpret Revelation from a preterist point of view, arguing that its prophecy and imagery apply only to the events of the first century of Christian history.[24]

Me: The Book of Revelations was written well after Christs death, around 100 AD by most sources, and can not be a "prophecy" of the first century after the birth of Christ as it was written either at the END of that first century or AFTER that first century.

Some people seem to have had brain farts!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.128.28 (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone make sense of these rambling, insulting text walls? Is there anything useful in this and other sections where Biblical blogs are cited as sources, "Muslims do love their jihads!" statements, etc? Zaathras (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Zaathras: No, please remove any off-topic comments (including mine) which are not helpful for improvement of the article. I semi-protected this talk page and will take further action if needed later. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd've just blocked the IP instead of locking the page. It's dynamic but it seems stable enough at the moment. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Still STUPID!!!!

A prophecy is supposed to be a vision of the future. This prophecy was revealed around 100 AD, making the first century AD BEFORE the time of the prophecy. According to the article it is about a time BEFORE the time of the "revelation". Thus STUPID as written. A modern day equivalent would be to see a vision of Germany ruled by a power hungry dictator conquering all of Europe. Sounds suspiciously like WW2 and thus NOT A PROPHECY!!! I hope my point in conveyed!71.174.129.20 (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Historians have long recognized that many so called prophecies in the bible were written after the event. That so called prophecies written before the event are passeges that vaguely describe an event that are reinterpreted after another event to claim the second event was prophsied. Some events, or actions, are written in the bible as having been taken to be "in fulfilment of prophesy". That is the meaning of Preterist interpretation. Historians recognize that persecuted early jewish/christian writers wrote in vague terms, as in modern terms "dog whistle" is used, to document their dissatisfaction with, opposition to, and rebellious plans for, the persecution. Writing in vague, "dog whistle" terms so the writings could be distributed, and when they fall into the hands of hostile, persecuting outsiders they wouldn't understand what the writers were writing about. A form of code for military, and documentational purpose. These writings have subsequently been included in the canonical bible as actual prophesies. 98.164.73.58 (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Middle Ages

There have been a number of authors comparing events in the Middle Ages to The prophecy. They mistakenly tend to concentrate on events in Europe when the prophecy refers to "the earth", so events outside of Europe would have a bearing. These events are as follows

1) The Mongol Conquests - the largest empire that has ever existed was the Mongol Empire and was created in short time by horse nomads whose main weapon was the bow - an excellent fit for the Conqueror

2) Turkish destruction of the Byzantine Empire by the Turks in wars that spanned hundreds of years. They are Muslims and wage jihad wars as a matter of religious duty. Muslims and their endless jihads are a perfect fit for the people that would take peace from the earth.

3) Famine from crop failures due to the cooling weather of the Little Ice Age

4) The Black Plague - a disease spread by rats which live underground and are literally beasts "of the earth".

In conjunction these 4 events caused a worldwide population drop on the order of 25% as required by the prophecy. This has been the ONLY worldwide population drop of that magnitude KNOWN to have occurred since the time of Christ. There may also have been a worldwide population drop around the time of the fall of the Roman Empire as another Little Ice Age hit at that point as well, but not enough evidence exists to prove it.

The Bible statement in Revelations 6:8 "And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill by sword, by famine, and by plague and by the beasts of the earth" is an 100% accurate description of what happened WORLDWIDE during the Middle Ages.

The article should reflect this fact to the extent allowed by wiki policies! You show some dufus interpretation about how the prophecy was about events in the first century Roman Empire which is PLAINLY STUPID as the prophecy happened AFTER those events. Prophecies are about the FUTURE and not about the PAST! it's kinda the definition!71.174.129.20 (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Dicdef in the lede

Have taken the liberty to excising this passage. It was the first thing the IP was edit-warring over, and seems to have been perhaps overlooked when they moved on to the other nonsense? Not seeing the utility of a wordy citation to discionary.com that blows the intro up 2x its size. If we do really need this it could be shortened considerably. Zaathras (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

.When gardening you get rid of the weeds instead of the tomatoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.127.186 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Consensus on the lead

Original

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are described in the last book of the New Testament of the Bible, the Book of Revelation by John of Patmos, at 6:1–8, according to the main exegetical stream since the Reformation. The chapter tells of a book or scroll in God's right hand that is sealed with seven seals. The Lamb of God opens the first four of the seven seals, which summons four beings that ride out on white, red, black, and pale horses. Before the Reformation it was generally thought that there was only one Horseman, riding successively these four horses.

Though theologians and popular culture differ on the first Horseman, the four riders are often seen as symbolizing Conquest[1] or Pestilence (and less frequently, the Christ or the Antichrist), War,[2] Famine,[3] and Death.[4] The Christian apocalyptic vision is that the Four Horsemen are to set a divine apocalypse upon the world as harbingers of the Last Judgment.[1][5] That the number of horsemen are four is important: four is the number associated with creation or the earth in the Book of Revelation. On the significance of fours in Revelation, see Biblical numerology.[6]

Proposed revision

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are described in the last book of the New Testament of the Bible, the Book of Revelation by John of Patmos, at 6:1–8, which is thought to have been written around 96 AD with a small minority proposing that it was written around 68 AD[1].

According to the main modern interpretation, this prophecy describes a period of time when a quarter of the population of the earth would be killed by a combination of wars, famine and disease.[2] The prophecy describes the causes as a conquering people whose weapon was the bow ("I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest"), a people engaged in constant war ("Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make men slay each other. To him was given a large sword"), as high food prices leading to famine ("before me was a black horse! Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, 'A quart of wheat for a day's wages, and three quarts of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!'") and disease[2] ("I looked and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him."). These four are then summed up as follows: "They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by the sword (war), famine, and plague and by the wild beasts of the earth."

Compare and tell which is a better version for someone willing to spend 1 minute for information and only willing to read the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.127.186 (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The existing version is preferable...straightforward, concise, well-written. Yours is a bland wall of text, bloated with quotations and excessive detail. Zaathras (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You need to look up well-written. the original looks like it was made by a gang into hack and paste. That's below cut and paste.I can say more about the other words you used but I will refrain.71.174.127.186 (talk)

I would like that someone would give a reference for "Before the Reformation it was generally thought that there was only one Horseman, riding successively these four horses." I don't know where this surprising assertion came from. There's a very famous 1498 woodcut from Dürer (check up the year and the Reformation chronology) where you can see four horsemen, simultaneously as a dramatic representation because he was a great artist. Before that you would usually find them to be represented separately, but that doesn't mean they weren't considered different horsemen. I mean, this is completely wrong and kind of nuts but it's presented as a fact nevertheless. I'd add a "citation needed", as apparently all this relies on just a 2019 self-published book I don't have access to, but the article is locked.83.34.72.98 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

some advise

an intro is supposed to be be for the uninformed therefore words like exegetical don't belong there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.127.186 (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the Simple English Wikipedia would be more to your liking? Zaathras (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

one in 10,000 MIGHT know what that word means, but i would not bet that way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.127.186 (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, if only people viewing this website had access to some vast computer network containing the majority of the world's information, including dictionaries and encyclopedias...

I've linked "exegetical" to the article on Exegesis.

Maybe instead of telling us to remove something because you don't know what it is, you could ask us to link to an article on it. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I can assure you that the 9,999 that don't know that word, don't WANT to know that word. Have fun wasting your time.

and yes I LIKE "SIMPLE" because it is more understandable.71.174.127.186 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

on the pale horse and simple english

This section is simply PATHETIC. There is only one reference to disease in the section and it is way inside when it should be the very first thing.

The first and second horseman represent 2 types of wars, 1:conquest and 2:war for the simple love of war. The third represents famine, and the fourth disease spread by beasts of the earth. Again PATHETIC that something this obvious is not included in the description.

The way it is written the fourth horseman is a combo of "pestilence and the beasts of the earth" - aka a disease spread by beasts with a strong connection to the earth. say burrowing animals. Think of the combo of bubonic plague and rats. Another well known example of a disease spread by an "animal" is malaria and mosquitoes.

Authority was given to them (the four horseman) over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword ( war) and with famine (famine) >>>and<<< with pestilence >>>and<<< by the wild beasts of the earth.

Notice the first "and" is followed by a second. In English if the item following an "and" is a combo. you get "and this AND that", with THIS AND THAT being a combo. This is the way English is USED. 71.174.127.186 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced cryptozoology-theology claim

Under the Pale Horse section, there is this unsourced claim:

"Some christians believed that the “wild beasts” refers to the Nephilim hybrids (reptilians, bigfoots, insectoids, dogmen, etc) destined to be loosed from their underground habitat to kill a third of humanity."

This seems to be a fringe belief from an earlier editor. Should this sentence be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.204.46.59 (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Christian Mythology or Christian Religion

Vonteous has changed the link to Christian Mythology to point at Christian Religion (which redirects to Christianity) several times after being reverted. I invite them to set out there reasoning here. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 15:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with keeping it to "mythology". Calling the historic interpretative developments of the "Four Horsemen" is clearly "mythological" and not in any way demeaning of the Christian Religion, because clearly anything other than the specific reference to the exact lines of of the Revelations scripture is mythological. Such bullies as Vonteous have discouraged me from making any edits to any articles. Tumacama (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I also think it should link to Christian Mythology, but "Christian Scriptures" seems good enough as well. BlueBanana (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"Such bullies as Vonteous have discouraged me" Have you had personal interactions with this editor? Dimadick (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Removing "Comparative Religion Interpretations

I just deleted this: "Other interpretations relying on comparative religious research ascribe the first Horseman as guiding for "the right path".In Mahabharata Lord Krishna was a charioteer to Arjuna by riding on white horses, while Arjuna himself was an archer." Firstly, ramarajyam.org is no longer online and cannot serve as reference. But more importantly for consideration of future misappropriations: the Four Horsemen is clearly a Christian legend/myth, it's not appropriate to be citing the Mahabharata here, certainly not including it under the "Christological interpretation" sub-heading. I suspect some cult tried to inappropriately combine apocalyptic ideas from both Hindu and Christian traditions. Don't do that! Tumacama (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

There is an archived version of that website (archived in 2018) here. It doesn't look even remotely like an RS to me, I would strongly support the removal of any content supported only by that site. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

θανάτῳ and Θάνατος, death and plague

The word θανάτῳ is not a “variation” of the word Θάνατος; it’s the dative singular of Θάνατος. The dative is required here because θανάτῳ follows ἐν; its meaning is still Θάνατος. θανάτῳ in Rev 6:8 is translated in many ways: in the Vulgate as “morte” (ablative of mors, death, the name of the rider); in the KJV as “pestilence”; in the NABRE as “plague”; in the Vatican working draft Chinese as 瘟疫, wēnyì, plague (can’t give you the link to that one, sorry). In other places in the Bible, the word θανάτῳ is translated as “death” (in the KJV in Mt 15:4, Jn 12:33 inter alia). One who apparently didn’t study Greek can’t really justify preferring to read θανάτῳ as “plague” by casual reference to a single interlinear source, am I right? I didn’t edit the article, because whoever wrote that sentence should have an opportunity to explain why they thought that sentence should stand on its own.

2600:6C44:7C80:431C:F981:F818:7AF7:73DE (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Could someone give the Hebrew word Ezekiel used for "wild beasts" and explain it precisely?

Could someone give the Hebrew word Ezekiel used for "wild beasts" and explain it precisely? Does "wild beasts" include insects (locusts, mosquitoes, killer bees, killer hornets) or does the word mean something more restricted? WordwizardW (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Infobox: Christianity or Christian Eschatology?

The main infobox on the article was recently changed to Christianity, what are your opinions on this? Personally I think Christian Eschatology was better as it is more specific and more accurately fits the subject, whereas Christianity seems a bit too broad. However, on the other hand there is a separate infobox for Eschatology in the Interpretations section of the article. BlueBanana (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Corn

What should we do about the parts where corn is mentioned? I think the concerns of 45.48.101.140 regarding that corn was only introduced to Europe in the 15th century are valid. It seems stupid that we should keep obvious misinformation in the article just because of WP:NOR. BlueBanana (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Corn does not mean maize.In British English, "corn" can mean any cereal grain, such as barley, oats, or wheat. Dimadick (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Too Christian

Can Christian editors take a step back on this. People have co-opted Zechariah and Ezekiel to reinforce revelation. It probably is the case that John had in mind these texts but it is wrong to try to align them all to support Christian eschatology. Deal with them separately 203.171.51.94 (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I have simply clipped Zechariah and Ezekiel from the lead. There are no "four horsemen" in either. Srnec (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Can the four horsemen apocalypse represent the 4 major super powers?

4 Horsemen symbol for 4 major super powers? 122.59.22.161 (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Everything is possible, but we don't state in our articles just because it is merely possible. See also WP:FORUM. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

yeah but what are they, upfront?

It makes no sense to not have the 4 horsemen (the entry) actually be defined in the first or second sentence of this article. Even on search engines, this information doesn't pop up on wikipedia immediately. 87.89.215.78 (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

ok, done that. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)