Babylon the Great

[nobspeople]

Babylon the Great, commonly known as the Whore of Babylon.

For discussion
What is it? What does it mean? Is it a place, person, action? How does it pertain to modern christianity? Or does it?

[Diagoras]

That doesn't give a person license to make up whatever they want the text to mean.
When the Bible said Edom and Babylon would be destroyed and never come back that is exactly what happened. I have no reason to think that if the Bible says BTG will be destroyed and never return it doesn't mean exactly that.

<bolding mine>

An argument stating that you have no reason to think something sounds rather as if it's committing a logical fallacy. Doesn't the Bible employ both precise, literal language, as well as vague, symbolic language?

Rome was not wiped off the map in the first century. The fall of Rome wasn't until 476 and even then it wasn't a complete burning of fire like Revelation says, literally or symbolically. So your argument holds no water.

I'm rather confused by the logic being used here.

You've previously said, "Time doesn't matter. Revelation of John was a prophecy and there is no time table given in Revelation." You have also acknowledged that Revelation employs highly symbolic language. So to then conclude that Rome's demise didn't fit a specific timeline or method of destruction and therefore couldn't be what 'Babylon the Great' referred to is somewhat odd.

At the risk of becoming repetitive on the forum, I'll repost this scholarly article on how to read Revelation. The strong likelihood that it is warning of the growing Flavian imperial cult in Ephesus.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontlin ... white.html

[2timothy316]

You've previously said, "Time doesn't matter. Revelation of John was a prophecy and there is no time table given in Revelation."

That was because what said in post 27.

John also wrote Revelation in the 1st Century, not the 4th, so obviously has in mind the Roman Empire of his day.

This poster made about the 1st century not me. I am keeping historia's feet to the fire on the 1st century interpretation.

[2timothy316]

That doesn't give a person license to make up whatever they want the text to mean.
When the Bible said Edom and Babylon would be destroyed and never come back that is exactly what happened. I have no reason to think that if the Bible says BTG will be destroyed and never return it doesn't mean exactly that.

<bolding mine>

An argument stating that you have no reason to think something sounds rather as if it's committing a logical fallacy. Doesn't the Bible employ both precise, literal language, as well as vague, symbolic language?

It not about thinking something sounds like another. Is about Biblical prophecy. If there are past prophecy about the complete destruction of another nation and that is what happened, then why did Rome get a pass? Babylon wasn't symbolically destroyed. This is why I believe BTG isn't a nation. None of the prophecies about BTG fit a nation/s.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #33]

Did you have a look at the linked article at the PBS website? It certainly challenges the idea that Revelation should be taken as any kind of reliable prophecy.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to Diagoras in post #6]

To start:

It seems the article is claiming that the Roman Empire or the city of Rome (it is not really clear) is BTG. Maybe I need to read it again or maybe I misunderstood, but I don't see anything in that article that explains how the Roman Empire OR the city of Rome is an adulteress.

You can't commit adultery unless you are married (or at least promised to be married) to someone.


Did I miss that part in the article?


Second:

From the article,

For this reason, most scholars now think that the issue revolved around the inauguration of the Flavian imperial cult in Ephesus. The imperial cult was a way of showing loyalty and honor to the Emperor, and was viewed as a public duty of all citizens in a city like Ephesus. Our clearest indication of how this is reflected in Revelation is seen in the description of the two "beasts" from Rev. 13. The first is called "the beast from the sea" who is given his power by Satan himself. He is described as having "seven heads and ten horns," and people worshipped him (Rev. 13.1-4).

This (bold and underlined) isn't quite accurate though, is it?

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

Maybe many of the citizens of the Roman empire did, but not all inhabitants of the earth.



It is not so hard to plop placeholders into symbolic things if you ignore the details.


(Also, just as an fyi, Daniel had a very similar vision much much earlier. His description is a bit different - he saw four beasts with all the same elements as the one beast that John saw in his vision. Coming out of the sea, Daniel saw a beast that looked like a lion, one that looked like a bear, one like a leopard, and another he cannot describe, except that it was different from the earlier ones. John sees one beast that has all the same elements as Daniel's vision: Bear, Lion, Leopard... and seven heads. Add up Daniel's vision and there are also seven heads.)


Just a couple of things that popped out when reading.



Peace again to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #33]

Did you have a look at the linked article at the PBS website? It certainly challenges the idea that Revelation should be taken as any kind of reliable prophecy.

No. I have already found a satisfactory guide for the interpretation of Revelation. By using the Bible to interpret the Bible.

[historia]

Right, this is an unmistakable reference to the cult of emperor worship.

Reference please.

This is the scholarly consensus, as noted in the article Diagoras linked above.

Lands were conquered into submission, not enticed join by worshiping Rome using 'spiritstic practices'.

Right, John is talking about people that were already part of the Roman Empire participating in the cult of emperor worship.

The perils of taking this highly symbolic and metaphorical text too literally, I'm afraid.

That doesn't give a person license to make up whatever they want the text to mean.

Agreed. But claiming that "time doesn't matter" -- so that you can re-interpret the text to be about people or events hundreds or even thousands of years after John wrote -- is precisely a license to make up whatever you want.

It's become a popular way to approach the text among some Protestants and sectarians in the past 200 years, but that is a road littered with failed predictions and constantly shuffling explanations. Travel at your own peril!

Rome was not wiped off the map in the first century. The fall of Rome wasn't until 476 and even then it wasn't a complete burning of fire like Revelation says, literally or symbolically. So your argument holds no water.

My argument doesn't depend on John accurately predicting the future. Instead, it's an argument about what the symbols refer to in the present -- that is, when he wrote the text.

[historia]

It seems the article is claiming that the Roman Empire or the city of Rome (it is not really clear) is BTG.

Both, I believe. Since Rome was the capitol of the Roman Empire, it represents the Empire as a whole.

Maybe I need to read it again or maybe I misunderstood, but I don't see anything in that article that explains how the Roman Empire OR the city of Rome is an adulteress.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Perhaps you can explain further?

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

Maybe many of the citizens of the Roman empire did, but not all inhabitants of the earth.

It's important to realize that these scholars are not approaching Revelation as a literal prediction of the future that must be accurate. Instead, they see it as a literary work that employs the kind of symbolism, imagery -- and hyperbole -- that is common in Jewish apocalyptic literature.

Also, just as an fyi, Daniel had a very similar vision much much earlier.

Yes, scholars view Daniel in a similar way to Revelation: it is a work written in the 2nd Century BC describing events of its day.

[2timothy316]

Right, John is talking about people that were already part of the Roman Empire participating in the cult of emperor worship.

There is nothing to suggest that in the text. It doesn't say that BTG only affected the nations in Rome.

The perils of taking this highly symbolic and metaphorical text too literally, I'm afraid.

That doesn't give a person license to make up whatever they want the text to mean.

Agreed. But claiming that "time doesn't matter" -- so that you can re-interpret the text to be about people or events hundreds or even thousands of years after John wrote -- is precisely a license to make up whatever you want.

It's become a popular way to approach the text among some Protestants and sectarians in the past 200 years, but that is a road littered with failed predictions and constantly shuffling explanations. Travel at your own peril!

Time doesn't matter because there was no time indicated in the book of Revelation. There was nothing to say everything was going to take place in the 1st century. Dates are not what we should be looking for but conditions we should be looking for. What BTG would act like is in the text and Rome doesn't fit that description.

Rome was not wiped off the map in the first century. The fall of Rome wasn't until 476 and even then it wasn't a complete burning of fire like Revelation says, literally or symbolically. So your argument holds no water.

My argument doesn't depend on John accurately predicting the future. Instead, it's an argument about what the symbols refer to in the present -- that is, when he wrote the text.

Yet that assumption is that he was speaking about the 1st century only which doesn't fit the events of the time. If you're not depending on accuracy then you're truly traveling at your own peril!

[historia]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #39]

You really must learn how to properly use the quote functionality, my friend, as your replies are mangled to the point of being unreadable.

Time doesn't matter because there was no time indicated in the book of Revelation.

No, there clearly is, as I already pointed out above: The author says at the outset of the text that he's describing "the things that must soon take place" for "the time is near" (Rev. 1:1-3).

It would be foolish to claim he means events 400 or 2,000 years in the future, as no one -- let alone the Christians he was writing this letter to -- would have understood that as "soon" or "near."

What BTG would act like is in the text and Rome doesn't fit that description.

Assertions are not arguments, and the arguments you've given so far against this interpretation have been largely predicated on erroneous assumptions you're reading into the text. I see no reason to take your reading over the scholarly consensus.

My argument doesn't depend on John accurately predicting the future. Instead, it's an argument about what the symbols refer to in the present -- that is, when he wrote the text.

Yet that assumption is that he was speaking about the 1st century only which doesn't fit the events of the time. If you're
not depending on accuracy then you're truly traveling at your own peril!

It poses no perils for an historical reading of the text.

I appreciate that it doesn't jive with your theological assumptions, but that's not my problem.