Is not actually from Lyniezia
The Antichrist example needs reworking, as to be fair it's not a settled matter in doctrine as to what "the antichrist" is (it is true that "many antichrists have come", but I'm not sure it's definitively not a character associated with The Beast in Revelation).
Furthermore, identifying 666 with Nero is just one theory, which is associated with the historicist interpretation of Revelation.
Hide / Show Replies
Reading it again, it probably doesn't need reworking wholesale, just cleaning up to get rid of the natter. I edited the 666 example.
The whole "Antichrist isn't in The Bible" meme is pretentious nit picky semantics.
Even if one were to conceded the originally Author intended it to be some Ancient ruler, fact remains they simply felt that Ancient ruler was what we today mean by The Antichrist.
" In reality, Jews have a lot of different dietary laws, they have an entirely different tradition of exegesis from Christianity (based on the Talmud)"
There are Jews who reject the Talmud, like Karites who's attitude toward Scriptural interpretation is fairly analogous to the Protestant concept of Sola Scriptira.
Ivotian
Regarding the St. John the Divine Example, it's called the Revelation of St. John the Divine because it's St. John's revelation. As in the phrase, "I've had a revelation." Christ was revealing the future to St. John. Therefore it's John's Revelation.
Basically this whole page (the Myth and Religion page for Cowboy Bebop At His Computer) is missing the point.
This is what Cowboy Bebop At His Computer means:
"This trope is when the media reports blatantly incorrect facts about a creative work that any fan (or casual observer, or anyone with access to The Other Wiki, etc.) would know to be wrong."
Note it's when the media makes mistakes that a fan or even casual observer would recognise as such.
Almost this entire page is about what "some people" allegedly think, and many of the "corrections" are not based on what a fan (in this case, presumably adherent to the religion) or casual observer would necessarily know. Furthermore, much of it seems to be based on interpretations and pet theological positions that are hardly open and shut cases. We all know it's easy to "prove" something about a religion's position on a given subject by cherry-picking, and some of these "corrections" are as guilty of it as the people they're correcting.
Edited by Kombucha