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?

[tam]

Peace to you,

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.

If you are listening to the reason I gave for why I cannot accept that view, then you understand. Otherwise you are just imposing some self-conceived motivation onto me, contrary to what I have personally told you about myself.

I cannot accept the view that these people present (I could not care less if they were scholars, individuals, religious, whatever).... because it is not true.

It also does not fit, and that has nothing to do with me. Your (second) last comment in your previous post suggests that you may realize this as well.

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?

There are writings that are true that are not included in the bible. I have not read the one you mentioned and so I cannot comment upon it.

But if you want to restrict to the facts, then one of those facts is that the author, John, would have been just as (if not more) influenced by his own history and the symbolism in the scriptures. Such as with Oholah and Oholibah.

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.

Can you cheat on someone you are not pledged/promised to be faithful to, such as a spouse? When was the Roman City/Empire promised to the God of Israel, to worship only the God of Israel?

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.

Except this symbolism would be very much a part of the author of Revelation, yes?

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. 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.

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.

That is not an accurate representation of what I said at all.

My point (in response to your point that a more plausible explanation must be offered in order to refute the article's explanation) can be summed in the following very simple example:

If I had a car accident, and someone said it happened because my brake lines were cut, but the evidence showed they were not cut... well that 'theory' has been proven false; even if the cause of my accident was unknown. No one had to offer an alternative explanation for that theory to be proven false.

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

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

Has nothing to do with what I want.

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'.

I never said scholars aren't any use (and I meant religion as well as religious leaders). But that doesn't mean scholars can't be wrong. It sure doesn't mean I should ignore the flaws in their theory, and just take their word for it.

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

No one claimed there was no plausible explanation.

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.

How does a hint ignore details? The hint is IN one of the details.

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.

I agree that it does not make sense for John to have drawn upon a symbol based upon something that never happened. Just sounds like someone is forcing the puzzle pieces together, in order to make a theory 'work'.

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?

So instead of acknowledging that it does not fit, we're suggesting that John could not count. I mean, he could write this incredible piece of work (whether you consider it poetry, fiction, revelation, inspired)... but he could not count?

Really?

In any case...


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

[tam]

Peace to you all,

[Replying to tam in post #51]


Just to add, here are some links to previous posts on this forum regarding the beast that comes out of the sea and its seven heads:


viewtopic.php?p=765754#p765754

viewtopic.php?p=746263#p746263

viewtopic.php?p=779639#p779639

viewtopic.php?p=902559#p902559

viewtopic.php?p=999174#p999174


And, if anyone is interested in a little tidbit, there are many cities which are (or are claimed to be) built on seven hills/mountains. (I just googled it). So this is not a phenomenon unique to Rome, and Rome would not even be the most relevant to John of Patmos (though the mountains/hills that BTG is sitting upon are not literal hills).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... even_hills



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

[nobspeople]

How does it pertain to modern christianity? Or does it?

[2timothy316]

How does it pertain to modern christianity? Or does it?

Well, it pertains to all religions that have aligned themselves as bedfellows governments of the world, have been the root of violence, and who teach one thing but do another will, "with a swift pitch will Babylon the great city be hurled down, and she will never be found again." Rev 18:21. What people call Christianity is one of those religions. Which is why many don't call it Christianity but Christendom.

“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!'" - Matt 7:21-23

That is why we are warned, “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues." - Rev 18:4

[historia]

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.

Can you cheat on someone you are not pledged/promised to be faithful to, such as a spouse? When was the Roman City/Empire promised to the God of Israel, to worship only the God of Israel?

I think the two of you are talking past a much more fundamental problem here.

Nowhere in Revelation does John say that Babylon the Great is an "adulteress" or has been "unfaithful" -- let alone "promising herself to Christ, claiming to be faithful to Christ, claiming even to be His Bride," as tam rather wildly claimed in an earlier post.

It's clear to me that tam is simply (and I think quite erroneously) reading this idea into the text, only to then turn around and say that Rome cannot be in view here because of this idea she has read into the text.

But the text itself doesn't say any of these things, so this whole argument holds no force.

[tam]

Peace to you,

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.

Okay.

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?

“Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits by many waters. With her the kings of the earth committed adultery, and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries.” Rev 17:1, 2


Granted, the word that is translated here as adultery (NIV), is also translated as fornication, sexual immorality; prostitution... but includes adultery:

πορνεία porneía, por-ni'-ah; from G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:—fornication.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/


We know that idolatry can be likened to adultery (depending); we know that Jerusalem and Samaria (Oholah and Oholibah) are described in the same ways as BTG, and these two 'women' were indeed being adulterous. We also know that a woman who has sexual relations (spiritual or otherwise) with a man/men other than her husband is an adulteress. BTG boasts in her heart that she sits enthroned as a queen, she will never be a widow, she will never mourn. She boasts these things (in her heart, so that she believes them)... because she believes herself to be married to a king, and a king that will never die. Yet she has relations with all these 'kings of the earth', who are not her husband. That is adultery.

(The King who will never die is Christ. If married to Him, that is how she could never be a widow... except that her boasting is false. She believes herself to be enthroned as a queen, but she is not.)

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.

I suppose if they are going to insist that BTG is Rome, they have to approach it that way, since Rome has proven not to have been an accurate prediction (literal or otherwise).

But I don't really care to discuss how someone chooses to approach Revelation. I have only ever been interested in what is true.

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.

Daniel has some visions about events of its day, and some visions of things for the time of the end... times he would not be alive to experience, himself.



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

[2ndpillar2]

Peace to you,

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.

Okay.

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?

“Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits by many waters. With her the kings of the earth committed adultery, and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries.” Rev 17:1, 2


Granted, the word that is translated here as adultery (NIV), is also translated as fornication, sexual immorality; prostitution... but includes adultery:

πορνεία porneía, por-ni'-ah; from G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:—fornication.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/


We know that idolatry can be likened to adultery (depending); we know that Jerusalem and Samaria (Oholah and Oholibah) are described in the same ways as BTG, and these two 'women' were indeed being adulterous. We also know that a woman who has sexual relations (spiritual or otherwise) with a man/men other than her husband is an adulteress. BTG boasts in her heart that she sits enthroned as a queen, she will never be a widow, she will never mourn. She boasts these things (in her heart, so that she believes them)... because she believes herself to be married to a king, and a king that will never die. Yet she has relations with all these 'kings of the earth', who are not her husband. That is adultery.

(The King who will never die is Christ. If married to Him, that is how she could never be a widow... except that her boasting is false. She believes herself to be enthroned as a queen, but she is not.)

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.

I suppose if they are going to insist that BTG is Rome, they have to approach it that way, since Rome has proven not to have been an accurate prediction (literal or otherwise).

But I don't really care to discuss how someone chooses to approach Revelation. I have only ever been interested in what is true.

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.

Daniel has some visions about events of its day, and some visions of things for the time of the end... times he would not be alive to experience, himself.



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

Daniel's culminating prophecy (Daniel 12) was with respect to the "end of the age"/"end times", when those with insight will understand, and the wicked will not. As for as the kings/kingdoms/mountains, they were listed starting with Nebuchadnezzar and ran through Rome, which was the beast with "large iron teeth"/Rome. who was crush the remainder (Daniel 6:7). As for Babylon the Great, the "woman", the religions of the dragon, she sat on the heads of the beasts (Revelation 17:3), whose authority came from the dragon. According to Revelation 17, we are in the 8th head of the beast, who was, is not, and is to come, with respect to the 6th head of the beast. (Revelation 17:10-11). These nations/kingdoms have not all been crushed at the same time by the "stone cut out from the mountain" all at the same time. At that time the mountain of Babylon will be rhetorically thrown into the sea (Revelation 18:21). That would include her daughters.

[historia]

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

"Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits by many waters. With her the kings of the earth committed adultery, and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries." Rev 17:1, 2

Granted, the word that is translated here as adultery (NIV), is also translated as fornication, sexual immorality; prostitution.

Right, this is why no one should base their arguments on the NIV, as it is a rather paraphrastic translation.

The NIV is unique among the major English versions in rendering the passage this way. The others render porneia here as 'fornication' or 'sexual immorality', and that seems more appropriate to the context.

we know that Jerusalem and Samaria (Oholah and Oholibah) are described in the same ways as BTG, and these two 'women' were indeed being adulterous.

This is where I think you are mistaken. Jerusalem and Samaria are not described in Ezekiel "in the same ways" as John describes Babylon.

Ezekiel says Jerusalem and Samaria 'belong' to Yahweh. John doesn't say that about Babylon.

Ezekiel says Jerusalem and Samaria have 'forgotten' and 'brushed aside' Yahweh. John doesn't say that about Babylon.

Ezekiel calls Jerusalem and Samaria 'adulteresses'. John doesn't say that about Babylon.

Both authors do use the metaphor of prostitution. But that does not, in itself, give us license to import all these other things Ezekiel says about Jerusalem and Samaria into John's depiction of Babylon.

In fact, there is a different prostitution metaphor in the Jewish Scriptures that seems more apropo here:

Isaiah (23:15-17) and Nahum (3:4) both describe Nineveh as a prostitute. And those texts say nothing about Nineveh being an adulteress or somehow being unfaithful to Yahweh, because, obviously, as a Gentile city, Nineveh is not under God's covenant with Israel.

Instead, the imagery of Nineveh as a prostitute seems to depict the fact that she had became wealthy through trade, which gave her power to seduce and control the other nations, much as John describes Babylon in Revelation 18. Indeed, the name 'Babylon' itself strongly suggests this is the more relevant metaphor, as the original Babylon, like Nineveh, was a Gentile city.

In fact, before I address your other points, I have to double-check: Do you agree that the old Babylon (in Mesopotamia) was not Yahweh's 'bride' or belonged to Yahweh in the way Jerusalem and Samaria did?

[tam]

Peace to you,

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

"Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits by many waters. With her the kings of the earth committed adultery, and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries." Rev 17:1, 2

Granted, the word that is translated here as adultery (NIV), is also translated as fornication, sexual immorality; prostitution.

Right, this is why no one should base their arguments on the NIV, as it is a rather paraphrastic translation.

The NIV is unique among the major English versions in rendering the passage this way. The others render porneia here as 'fornication' or 'sexual immorality', and that seems more appropriate to the context.

Sure, but as the meaning of the word shows, sexual immorality does cover adultery, though it is not the sole reason that she is an adulteress (as stated).

we know that Jerusalem and Samaria (Oholah and Oholibah) are described in the same ways as BTG, and these two 'women' were indeed being adulterous.

This is where I think you are mistaken. Jerusalem and Samaria are not described in Ezekiel "in the same ways" as John describes Babylon.

I meant in the same ways as being described as a prostitute, as taking many lovers, as having much blood on their hands (though BTG is described as much much worse in that regard), as being rightfully accused lewdness, whoring, and adultery, that her lovers will bring her to ruin, leave her naked, burn her with fire.

But BTG is never described as being the Bride (of Christ or of God). Because she is not the Bride; she does not get redeemed; she gets destroyed. We are told to 'come out of her my people!' so that we do not share in her sins or receive any of her plagues.

So that the people IN her can be redeemed. But the city herself is destroyed (or rather, she will be destroyed; she has not yet been destroyed and Christ is still calling, "Come out of her, my people!")

Ezekiel says Jerusalem and Samaria 'belong' to Yahweh. John doesn't say that about Babylon.

Ezekiel says Jerusalem and Samaria have 'forgotten' and 'brushed aside' Yahweh. John doesn't say that about Babylon.

Sorry, got ahead of myself above. Yes that is correct. Because BTG does not actually belong to God or to His Son. She just boasts of this in her heart, that she is enthroned as a queen, that she will never be a widow, that she will never mourn.

Ezekiel calls Jerusalem and Samaria 'adulteresses'. John doesn't say that about Babylon.

Sexual immorality does not have to mean adultery but it does covers adultery (as per the definition). Going by the word alone, John may or may not have heard and recorded BTG as an adulteress.

Both authors do use the metaphor of prostitution. But that does not, in itself, give us license to import all these other things Ezekiel says about Jerusalem and Samaria into John's depiction of Babylon.

Of course.

In fact, there is a different prostitution metaphor in the Jewish Scriptures that seems more apropo here:

Isaiah (23:15-17) and Nahum (3:4) both describe Nineveh as a prostitute. And those texts say nothing about Nineveh being an adulteress or somehow being unfaithful to Yahweh, because, obviously, as a Gentile city, Nineveh is not under God's covenant with Israel.

Instead, the imagery of Nineveh as a prostitute seems to depict the fact that she had became wealthy through trade, which gave her power to seduce and control the other nations, much as John describes Babylon in Revelation 18. Indeed, the name 'Babylon' itself strongly suggests this is the more relevant metaphor, as the original Babylon, like Nineveh, was a Gentile city.

That is a similar description to BTG, yes. I'm not sure if it is relevant or not, but Ninevah repented when the prophet Jonah was sent to them, so they must have known something of the God of Israel.

But BTG is not a literal physical city any more than New Jerusalem (the Holy City) is a literal physical city. Just as the Temple is not a literal physical building. Or do you disagree on those?

In fact, before I address your other points, I have to double-check: Do you agree that the old Babylon (in Mesopotamia) was not Yahweh's 'bride' or belonged to Yahweh in the way Jerusalem and Samaria did?

Yes, I agree with that.

The new Babylon (BTG) is also not the Bride, but only believes herself to be that one (I sit enthroned as a queen, I am not a widow, I will never mourn). Though some of Christ's people ARE (yet) in her... or how else could He call to His people, saying, "Come out of her, MY people"?




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

[JehovahsWitness]

WHO or WHAT IS THE WHORE OF BABYLON?

On of the most striking and enigmatic images in the book of Revelation is that of The Whore of Babylon. This figure depicted as a prostitute, regally dressed and decked in gold, drinking blood and sitting on a multi-headed wild beast.

Bible scholars have long speculated as to what this figure represents and come up with various interpretations including it being a metaphor for apostate Jerusalem, the Roman Empire or the Roman Catholic Church. The Jehovah's Witness view is that it BABYLON THE GREAT represents all false religion on earth at our present time (including those that are nominally "Christian").

RELATED POSTS

Which religions are part of Babylon the Great?
viewtopic.php?p=1038821#p1038821

Can we take the fact that John was taken to "the desert" (Douay-Rheims Bible) imply Babylon the Great is associated with dry arid regions of Arabia?
viewtopic.php?p=1018346#p1018346

Why can BTG not represent the Roman empire or the Roman Catholic church alone?
viewtopic.php?p=1065938#p1065938

Who or what are BTG's children?
viewtopic.php?p=1065555#p1065555

Who Is the Antichrist?
viewtopic.php?p=1039331#p1039331

Does an angel destroy Babylon The Great?
viewtopic.php?p=1066124#p1066124

What does the SCARLET beast of Revelation 13 & 17 represent?
viewtopic.php?p=1018325#p1018325

Can we place the destruction of Babylon in some kind of timeframe?
viewtopic.php?p=1066098#p1066098

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

BABYLON THE GREAT , THE GREAT APOSTACY and ...THE BOOK OF REVELATION