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?

[2timothy316]

[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."

From who's perspective? It would be foolish to think it's from your perspective or of John's. When Christ was on Earth John the Baptist said, "Repent, for the Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.” (Matthew 3:2) He said that because the Messiah had come. It's another step to the Kingdom of the Heavens drawing near. Just as if you were walking 10000 steps, and you took just one step you have drawn closer to your destination. Soon, in God's terms can mean just about any measure of time. Compare 2000 years compared to how long the universe as been here. 2000 years is nothing to billions of years and 2000 years is soon to one that has lived longer than the universe. There are also things that happened during that 2000 years too. Like the establishment of BTG which was happening even during John's time because he wrote about it in 1 John 2:18. “Young children, it is the last hour, and, just as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now there have come to be many antichrists; from which fact we gain the knowledge that it is the last hour.” He was not talking about Rome.

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

Assertions are not arguments,

Exactly! Yet the description doesn't fit Rome. That's just a fact.

[2timothy316]

I see no reason to take your reading over the scholarly consensus.

I Do.

"At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children." (Matt 11:25)

I don't expect much from a scholarly consensus. It's like looking for lesson about history from a math book. Sure it has a bunch of smart equations in it but it's not going to teach you world history. Jesus said of the Bible, “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) So if I want the truth I know where to look and I'm good with that.

[Diagoras]

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?

First of all, I do appreciate that you took the time to read the article. I hope you found something of value there, although your question about adultery suggests you're a bit 'hung up' on the use of symbolic language. As the author notes near the start of the article:

apocalyptic literature was almost always a kind of literature for "insiders," that is to say, it was written for people who already knew something of the situation and of the symbols that were used to portray it.

So suggesting that because a city or an empire can't commit adultery, the writings can't be referring to Rome ignores the fact that adultery in this context is purely symbolic.

A related page on the website makes a similar point:

So when the author of the Book of Revelation sat down to write, there was a very strong paradigm of what revelation literature should look like and sound like. The stock of characters, the list of images, the symbols one uses are pretty commonplace, if you're in that environment.

Finally, there's this quote (same PBS website but different page):

John was different from many other Jews and Christians who kind of overlooked the pagan worship of the emperor and developed their own version of imperial cult, which was basically obedience, trying to be a good citizen in the Roman empire and praying for the emperor. John, on the other hand, took the position that Roman power was illegitimate and that the worship of the emperor was idolatry. The image of the Harlot of Babylon--in effect what he is saying is that Roma is not a goddess, she's a whore. That, I think, encapsulates his attitude, his very belligerent and pejorative perspective, on Rome and its institutions.

There's another article about apocalyptic writings in general on that PBS website, here. As you mentioned Daniel, you might be interested to explore some of the other similar literature that the article lists.

[tam]

Peace to you, Diagoras (and Historia, as this will respond to your question as well) and to all reading,

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?

First of all, I do appreciate that you took the time to read the article. I hope you found something of value there, although your question about adultery suggests you're a bit 'hung up' on the use of symbolic language. As the author notes near the start of the article:

apocalyptic literature was almost always a kind of literature for "insiders," that is to say, it was written for people who already knew something of the situation and of the symbols that were used to portray it.

So suggesting that because a city or an empire can't commit adultery, the writings can't be referring to Rome ignores the fact that adultery in this context is purely symbolic.

I was not suggesting that a city or an empire cannot commit adultery. Not at all.

The authors attempting to put some kind of historical context to the symbolism, seem to have missed the symbolism from Israel, itself.

Oholah and Oholibah. Samaria and Jerusalem. Cities who committed adultery, fornication, whoring, prostitution, unfaithfulness. Cities who were promised to God (not just any generic god, or multitude of gods, but to the Most Holy One of Israel), hence it mattered that they were not faithful TO HIM.

They are described in exactly the same manner as Babylon the Great(er). Prostitutes; adulteresses; whores; lusting after many other lovers. UNFAITHFUL to the One who had been a husband to them (the following excerpts are from Ezekiel 23).

“Oholah played the whore while she was mine, and she lusted after her lovers the Assyrians, warriors 6 clothed in purple, governors and commanders, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding on horses. 7 She bestowed her whoring upon them, the choicest men of Assyria all of them, and she defiled herself with all the idols of everyone after whom she lusted. 8 She did not give up her whoring that she had begun in Egypt; for in her youth men had lain with her and handled her virgin bosom and poured out their whoring lust upon her. 9 Therefore I delivered her into the hands of her lovers, into the hands of the Assyrians, after whom she lusted. 10 These uncovered her nakedness; they seized her sons and her daughters; and as for her, they killed her with the sword; and she became a byword among women, when judgment had been executed on her.

“Her sister Oholibah saw this, and she became more corrupt than her sister in her lust and in her whoring, which was worse than that of her sister.

“Son of man, will you judge Oholah and Oholibah? Declare to them their abominations. 37 For they have committed adultery, and blood is on their hands. With their idols they have committed adultery, and they have even offered up[e] to them for food the children whom they had borne to me. 38 Moreover, this they have done to me: they have defiled my sanctuary on the same day and profaned my Sabbaths. 39 For when they had slaughtered their children in sacrifice to their idols, on the same day they came into my sanctuary to profane it. And behold, this is what they did in my house.

43 “Then I said of her who was worn out by adultery, ‘Now they will continue to use her for a whore, even her!’[g] 44 For they have gone in to her, as men go in to a prostitute. Thus they went in to Oholah and to Oholibah, lewd women! 45 But righteous men shall pass judgment on them with the sentence of adulteresses, and with the sentence of women who shed blood, because they are adulteresses, and blood is on their hands.”

Oholah and Oholabah were promised to one husband: God (the MOST Holy One of Israel). But they lusted after other lovers, kings of the earth. Same as BTG - promising herself to Christ, claiming to be faithful to Christ, claiming even to be His Bride, but not being faithful to HIM.

Rome does not fit that bill.


Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share that (though is it not me who knows anything, Christ is the One who knows. I did not even know about Oholah and Oholibah until a dear sister pointed them out, and shared as she had received from our Lord).




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

[Diagoras]

I was not suggesting that a city or an empire cannot commit adultery. Not at all.

The authors attempting to put some kind of historical context to the symbolism, seem to have missed the symbolism from Israel, itself.

Oholah and Oholibah. Samaria and Jerusalem. Cities who committed adultery, fornication, whoring, prostitution, unfaithfulness. Cities who were promised to God (not just any generic god, or multitude of gods, but to the Most Holy One of Israel), hence it mattered that they were not faithful TO HIM.

They are described in exactly the same manner as Babylon the Great(er). Prostitutes; adulteresses; whores; lusting after many other lovers. UNFAITHFUL to the One who had been a husband to them (the following excerpts are from Ezekiel 23).

The story in Ezekiel is another metaphor, with Samaria described as one sister, Ohalah and accused of adultery with Assyrian soldiers, and of worshipping their gods (verses 5–7). This metaphorically refers to an earlier alliance between the Northern Kingdom of Samaria and Assyria. God's punishment in the story is to let the Assyrians 'strip her naked, take her children, and kill her'. The historical events this story refers to are the conquest of Israel by Assyria and how some Israelis were deported. This was in the year 722.

Oholibah (Jerusalem) continues the same behaviour with the Assyrians, and then the Babylonians. Again, there's a strong historical link, with evidence for the Babylonian conquest.

Incidentally, the names Oholah and Oholibah contain a pun in Hebrew: Oholah means "her tent", and Oholibah means "my tent is in her". As 'tent' can possibly mean 'tabernacle', then there's a not so subtle inference that God 'had his tabernacle in Jerusalem', i.e that's his chosen city.

Describing the worshipping idols and false gods as 'adultery' is a very commonly used metaphor in much of the literature of the time. I suggest that Rome does in fact fit that bill very well.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to Diagoras in post #45]

Describing the worshipping idols and false gods as 'adultery' is a very commonly used metaphor in much of the literature of the time. I suggest that Rome does in fact fit that bill very well.

I think you are overlooking the pertinent parts that exclude Rome from being BTG. I'm not sure what else to say other than what has been said though. Anything can be made to fit if one ignores the details, but its not just about worshiping idols and false gods. Assyria worshiped false gods, as did many nations. Did God describe Assyria as the whore and the adulteress, or just Oholah (and later Oholibah)? Why?


Peace again to you.

[Diagoras]

I think you are overlooking the pertinent parts that exclude Rome from being BTG.

I could lay the same charge at your door for overlooking those that point to Rome as being 'Babylon'.

Anything can be made to fit if one ignores the details, but its not just about worshiping idols and false gods.

As I've pointed out (via linked sources), apocalyptic writing - and Revelation in particular - has been interpreted in multiple ways by different people over the centuries. A constructive approach to its study would surely include understanding the social and political scene around the time it was purportedly written - do you agree? Any interpretation that shows high correlation with known historical facts, and is consistent with what's known about people's attitudes and concerns at the time is going to be more likely close to the author's intended message. I'm not claiming that Revelation is solely warning against worshiping idols and false gods, but that is certainly one of the themes.

Assyria worshiped false gods, as did many nations. Did God describe Assyria as the whore and the adulteress, or just Oholah (and later Oholibah)? Why?

I'm unsure what point you're making, sorry.

'Babylon the Great' as depicted in Revelation is a clear metaphor for Rome, and once you know the history it 'fits' without having to ignore the details. If you wish to refute this claim, you'll have to provide a more plausible explanation of what Revelation 17:9-10 refers to by the 'seven mountains and seven kings'.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I think you are overlooking the pertinent parts that exclude Rome from being BTG.

I could lay the same charge at your door for overlooking those that point to Rome as being 'Babylon'.

But I'm not ignoring anything. It just doesn't fit.

Anything can be made to fit if one ignores the details, but its not just about worshiping idols and false gods.

As I've pointed out (via linked sources), apocalyptic writing - and Revelation in particular - has been interpreted in multiple ways by different people over the centuries. A constructive approach to its study would surely include understanding the social and political scene around the time it was purportedly written - do you agree? Any interpretation that shows high correlation with known historical facts, and is consistent with what's known about people's attitudes and concerns at the time is going to be more likely close to the author's intended message. I'm not claiming that Revelation is solely warning against worshiping idols and false gods, but that is certainly one of the themes.

Two points here:

1 - saying 'the author's intended message' seems to assume that John wrote according to his own observations, rather than that He wrote according to what He received (from Christ).

2 - Revelation is not just about BTG. But as for the part about BTG, she is described in the same manner as Oholah and Oholibah (adulteresses). What makes a person an adulteress? That seems to be at least one part that many are overlooking.

Assyria worshiped false gods, as did many nations. Did God describe Assyria as the whore and the adulteress, or just Oholah (and later Oholibah)? Why?

I'm unsure what point you're making, sorry.

I'm asking a question. The point is in the answer to that question. That is one big reason Rome just does not fit.

'Babylon the Great' as depicted in Revelation is a clear metaphor for Rome, and once you know the history it 'fits' without having to ignore the details. If you wish to refute this claim, you'll have to provide a more plausible explanation of what Revelation 17:9-10 refers to by the 'seven mountains and seven kings'.

I know what my Lord teaches on the matter, but what you have said it not entirely accurate. Something can be refuted and wrong even if a person does not have a more plausible explanation than the many that have been given.

It it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit.


**

I will share something about the beast that comes up from the earth though (and I was going to say it is about the details, but that was not accurate either; revelation must be revealed. Just as scripture needed to be opened. Christ is the key to that. If a person wants to know the truth of these things, then Christ is the One to turn to. Not religion - very much not religion - and not scholars who think they have it nailed because of a superficial similarity. Not oneself either.)

In any case, there is a hint in the description of that beast (that comes out of the earth). It is described as looking like a lamb, but speaking like a dragon. Well, Christ (the Truth) is the Lamb. So this beast has an appearance of truth/the Lamb, claiming even to BE the truth, but it speaks like a dragon. The dragon - that ancient serpent - is the devil, the one called Satan, and his native language is LIES.

Looks like a lamb (appearance only though)... but speaks like a dragon (speaking lies).



**

One more thing from their description in the article regarding the seven kings:

Then it says that the seven heads are also seven kings. And we can read from its cryptic terminology the references to the Emperors of Rome. The "five fallen" refer to the five emperors who have died: Augustus (29 BCE - 14 CE), Tiberius (14-37 CE), Gaius (37-41), Claudius (41-54) and Nero (54-68). "One has a wound" refers to the emperor Nero, who died in 68, but whom conftemporary legend had it would return from the dead to continue persecuting the Christians. Thus, the beast has a head that has recovered from a mortal wound. The head "who is" refers to Vespasian (69-79) and the one that is "not yet" refers to Titus(79-81). The head that "was but is not" refers to an eighth emperor, Domitian.

1 - Why would John refer to a 'legend' that suggested Nero would return from the dead, as if that is an actual head (king) that had a fatal wound that had been healed?

(and there actually is no head that 'once was, and now is not'; there is the beast who once was, and now is not, who belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction).

2 - If we are going to count emperors, well, this wiki link counts ten by the time we reach Domitian. Not 7. (and of course there are many many more to follow these ones)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors


**


Sorry for jumping around a bit; hope you followed that okay.


Peace again to you!

And may anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear so as to hear the truth of this (or any matter) from THE Truth: Christ Jaheshua, and also to hear as He (the Spirit) and the Bride say to you, "Come!" May anyone who thirsts and anyone who wishes, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of LIFE!"


your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Diagoras]

But I'm not ignoring anything. It just doesn't fit.

I understand why you'd push back hard against the scholarly view. It's beyond my power (or desire) to force you to change.

saying 'the author's intended message' seems to assume that John wrote according to his own observations, rather than that He wrote according to what He received (from Christ).

Let's restrict ourselves to the facts in evidence, rather than assuming the existence of things like spirits and telepathy. There's a piece of writing in a particular style, and its distinguishing feature is that it was (eventually, after much debate) included in a collection of writings that are known as the Bible. Other apocalyptic writings exist that weren't included in the Bible, such as II Baruch, which is basically:

...a long dialogue between God and Baruch about the meaning of the destruction of Jerusalem. Embedded in the dialogue are a number of subgenres: laments, public declarations, symbolic dream visions, and an epistle to the exiles...

If this is a true account of God speaking to Baruch, why isn't God's Word here included in the Bible? And if it is, indeed, just a man-made story, how can we be confident that Revelation is special?

Revelation is not just about BTG.

I thought we'd agreed on that.

But as for the part about BTG, she is described in the same manner as Oholah and Oholibah (adulteresses). What makes a person an adulteress? That seems to be at least one part that many are overlooking.

I'm still not sure why you are focused on this point. The symbolism used in Revelation (and elsewhere in the Bible) that speaks of adultery is clearly describing the worship of other gods. At it's most basic, it's equating infidelity in human to human relationships with infidelity in human to god relationships. "Don't go and cheat on me!" is basically what God's saying.

Assyria worshiped false gods, as did many nations. Did God describe Assyria as the whore and the adulteress, or just Oholah (and later Oholibah)? Why?

The problem here (I think) is in trying to link the symbolism in two separate writings. No reason why the same description needs to be used in every case.

I know what my Lord teaches on the matter, but what you have said it not entirely accurate. Something can be refuted and wrong even if a person does not have a more plausible explanation than the many that have been given.

While it's put more politely than "I'm still right and you're wrong, even though I can't back it up", the effect is the same. If you're being 'taught' without being given at least some facts to reinforce and support your position, then I'd suggest a deficiency in the teacher.

It it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit.

See my first point above. If you don't want it to fit...

revelation must be revealed. Just as scripture needed to be opened. Christ is the key to that. If a person wants to know the truth of these things, then Christ is the One to turn to. Not religion - very much not religion - and not scholars who think they have it nailed because of a superficial similarity. Not oneself either.)

What does Christ say about II Baruch? Or II Enoch? The Book of Jubilees? How about the Apocalypse of either Peter or Abraham? Or of Moses (also called 'The Life of Adam and Eve')?

For someone in a position to talk directly to Christ, then there are plenty of works that can be 'revealed'. Indeed, if religion (assuming you mean religious leaders?) and scholars aren't any use, and you can't turn to yourself, then Christ appears to have a very special monopoly on 'the truth of these things'.

And given his record as a teacher (see 'lack of plausible explanation' above), that doesn't bode well for any of us.

In any case, there is a hint in the description of that beast (that comes out of the earth).

A 'hint'? Anything can be made to fit if one ignores the details... isn't that how it goes? You can't pick and choose.

Why would John refer to a 'legend' that suggested Nero would return from the dead, as if that is an actual head (king) that had a fatal wound that had been healed?

Symbolism? Assumptions? Hints? Who knows? It's not like the Bible's free from contradictions, in any case.

If we are going to count emperors, well, this wiki link counts ten by the time we reach Domitian. Not 7. (and of course there are many many more to follow these ones)

You're assuming John could count, then?

Sorry for jumping around a bit; hope you followed that okay.

Yup.

[historia]

BTG, she is described in the same manner as Oholah and Oholibah (adulteresses). What makes a person an adulteress?

Hold up a second, though. Where in Revelation is Babylon the Great called an "adulteress"?

Same as BTG - promising herself to Christ, claiming to be faithful to Christ, claiming even to be His Bride, but not being faithful to HIM.

It would be helpful if you could cite the passages in Revelation that you think support these assertions.