Talk:2512: Revelation

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 19:40, 20 September 2021 by (talk)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

What's the 6th seal mean?? --GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Context: Revelation 6 theusaf (talk) 04:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I would like to suggest to leave the explanation at its current 4 lines, since it is complete. -- 05:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

+1 Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure the current explanation, that the newscaster believed the biblical quote by mistake, is necessarily the correct one. The way I read this, as someday it should happen that the events described in Revelation REALLY DO START TO OCCUR, there will still be newsies who entirely miss the point, and keep producing random oblivious clickbait stories by 'interviewing' random twitter users. Alternately, if modern-day newscasters traveled back in time, to when the original Revelation was actually recieved and written, the same oblivious quoting without context could also occur. 07:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This assumes that the cartoonist would agree with your viewpoint of the book of Revelation. Randall Munroe, who is the cartoonist, is probably not going to ever produce a Cartoon which suggests that the events in that book will actually occur at some future date. The use of eisegesis instead of exegesis produces nonsense in the analysis of any document whether it be one written about 1900 years ago or a digital caroton made this month. For the record, I believe in the authenticity of the Bible and am a believer in the deity of the One who was called Jesus of Nazareth. 22:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't even necessarily have to be the 'real' events of revelation: even if there were just COINCIDENTALLY a series of major disasters that caused an earthquake, a blacked-out sun, and a blood-red moon, and people named John started tweeting that quote as a literary reference, news organizations asking if they could repost it would still be really, really tone-deaf. 00:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
“when the original Revelation was actually made up and written” FTFY. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
(unsigned comment, I think they are upset the information is missing) (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
I don't see why Randall wouldn't consider a huge Biblical-like event to happen. He's made comics about AI. I wouldn't expect him to assume other religious beliefs, but people sometimes think something could be coming. 14:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree.1337-PI (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it is pretty sure from xkcd comics that Randall is not a religious person and that he do not believe in the Bible or the Quran or any other holy scripture. --Kynde (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

My interpretation was suppose Twitter was available during biblical times, and the author of the Book of Revelation chose to release his writings in that media vs. as a book. 11:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Pat

I was going to write the same thing. "What if in biblical times there were twitter, broadcast news, etc.?" Rps (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Should we really assume the reporter is trying to assemble some sort of junk clickbait story? I've seen real, legitimate reporters ask this sort of thing on social media to flesh out their news stories with comments (or video) from Real People, kind of like what they used to do with people on the street. LtPowers (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

If the events being described by the poster John were actually happening, stepping outside and pointing a camera pretty much anywhere would be the much better story, rather than re-tweeting someone's description. Hence the clickbait assumption. 14:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that the alt-text might be a reference to the rotation of the heavens as perceived from the Earth as a result of the Earth's rotation - some of the heaves disappear below the horizon, but more appears to replace it.-- 21:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it's probably a reference to "infinite scrolling" webpages, (that, for example, some news sites have). -- 12:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Hmm surely the mouse-over (caption) should have ended: "... as if the scroll were infinite" ?
Re: [S]urely the mouse-over (caption) should have ended: "... as if the scroll were infinite" ?
Absolutely - This is an error, does it go in Trivia? Miamiclay (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
"scroll" is singular, why would you use the plural "were"? 16:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
"were" is also the past subjunctive, used for both singular and plural. -- Barmar (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
As in “If I were you,” or, in song, “If I were a rich man, …” Miamiclay (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
It is acceptable to say "If it was infinite" if referring to a past event that may have occurred. "If it were infinite" indicates that it was perceived to be infinite but known not to be. If there is a possibility that the scroll was actually infinite and "John" just doesn't know, I believe this use is correct as-is.

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

I liked the original four lines so much more. This is now just overexplaining the cartoon with absurd theories. John is a general placeholder name. The link to the biblical character is nice, but rather as a coincidence than an explanation. -- 06:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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