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?
Babylon the Great
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
- 1213
- Savant
- Posts: 11446
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 326 times
- Been thanked: 370 times
Re: Babylon the Great
Post #21Obviously, God's prophet speaks what God has given to him. I believe God knows the future and that is the idea of prophesy, to know the future. But, I agree, without God, I don't think people would know the future.
- historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2609
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 221 times
- Been thanked: 320 times
Re: Babylon the Great
Post #22The word John uses in Revelation 14:8 is ethnos, which generally meant what today we call 'ethnic groups', but often specifically meant the Gentiles.2timothy316 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:30 am
It can't be a particular nation because it mentions the nations as something BTG is involved with, thus is separate from the nations.
In that way, "the nations" is not an inappropriate translation into English, so long as we understand that doesn't mean nation-states, which is a modern concept.
The Roman Empire.nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:38 pm
Babylon the Great, commonly known as the Whore of Babylon. For discussion: What is it?
-
- Under Probation
- Posts: 4175
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
- Has thanked: 176 times
- Been thanked: 459 times
Re: Babylon the Great
Post #23Gentiles means one thing. Someone who is not Jewish.historia wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 2:48 pmThe word John uses in Revelation 14:8 is ethnos, which generally meant what today we call 'ethnic groups', but often specifically meant the Gentiles.2timothy316 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:30 am
It can't be a particular nation because it mentions the nations as something BTG is involved with, thus is separate from the nations.
In that way, "the nations" is not an inappropriate translation into English, so long as we understand that doesn't mean nation-states, which is a modern concept.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gentile
Ethnos can represent a nation too not just ethnic groups.
https://biblehub.com/greek/1484.htm
Nations or gentile is an acceptable translation or are you a Greek to English translation expert and wish to challenge what MANY Bibles translate as 'nations' or 'gentile'. I can't find a single Bible translates it as 'ethic groups'.
https://biblehub.com/greek/ethne__1484.htm
Also Rev 17:1,2 is specific about kings that have made bedfellows with BTG. Nations have kings, not ethnic groups.
- historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2609
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 221 times
- Been thanked: 320 times
Re: Babylon the Great
Post #24Yes, that's what I said.2timothy316 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:25 pm. . .historia wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 2:48 pmThe word John uses in Revelation 14:8 is ethnos, which generally meant what today we call 'ethnic groups', but often specifically meant the Gentiles.2timothy316 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:30 am
It can't be a particular nation because it mentions the nations as something BTG is involved with, thus is separate from the nations.
In that way, "the nations" is not an inappropriate translation into English, so long as we understand that doesn't mean nation-states, which is a modern concept.
Nations or gentile is an acceptable translation
We just need to keep in mind that 'nation' here does not refer to a modern nation-state, as if it were just a synonym for 'government'.
Sure -- in the ancient world, an ethnic group was usually organized into a kingdom, which had as its leader a king. In that way, the word 'nation' can refer to both an ethnic group and its kingdom.2timothy316 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:25 pm
Also Rev 17:1,2 is specific about kings that have made bedfellows with BTG.
The Roman Empire, for example, had many kings and nations that were subservient to it.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8130
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 953 times
- Been thanked: 3539 times
Re: Babylon the Great
Post #25I agree. 'Saints' in the Gospels are seen through a Christian optic -glass as Believers in Jesus and the early Church and proto Christians. But 'I soon came to understand that the 'Saints' that Paul collected for (during the famine of 45) were the Jesus -followers in Jerusalem and Paul was trying to buy his way in. The various terms I've seen used - the 'Saints', the 'Elect' the 'poor' and indeed the Meek' were all epithets used to denote the Jesus party in Jerusalem. Now I don't know whether, by the time the Gospels as we have them were written, the authors (or editors, more like) knew this or saw them as we now do - a group of disciples and apostles, suffused with the Holy Spirit, preaching the words of Jesus and starting to spread the church, and that 'the poor' meant them rather than pavement people asking for spare change at the pool of Siloam. But giving all you had to the poor meant pooling your dosh into the common purse and joining their community, and turning your back on your family if they didn't join, too, and that ain't so unlike the early church.Difflugia wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 6:03 pmA common scholarly opinion is that Revelation was originally a Jewish apocalypse, but later modified by a Christian redactor into the form we now have it. In this view, the original source used "saints" in 17:6 to mean those slaughtered during the Jewish revolt of A.D. 66-70, repurposed by a Christian redactor to mean those killed during the persecutions under Nero.TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:28 pmBut it certainly was when Rome occupied and ruled Judea as well as Galilee which had been Herodian (at least) longer than Judea. Rome was Babylon and no mistake. I certainly would suggest that Revelation has its' roots in anti - Roman prophetic literature, rather as resembling some of the more militant of the Qumran scrolls. given that in AD 60 was it? The Jewish revolt actually happened, Nero has to be seen as the symbolic hate -figure of Roman oppression (Babylon). So whether Revelation is actually anti -Roman polemic from before the Jewish war or anti -Roman polemic afterwards, but passed onto early Christianity (no wonder they weren't popular in Rome) I would only be speculating, if indeed I haven't been up to now.
The author of the 1975 Anchor Bible volume on Revelation, Josephine Massyngberde Ford, thought that the author might actually have been the historical John the Baptist.
But the nub of the matter is, were these Jesus -followers, these 'Saints' the community of Christian evangelists as depicted in Acts, or were they observant Jews, within the Pharisee ambit and with inclinations towards zealotry, just as Jesus had been?
It's just my view, but it makes sense of a lot of things. Jesus' dual character as Christian Jesus on one hand and zealot Barrabbas on the other, not to mention Simon the basis of the Church or Simon the zealot. In fact I think Judas was his son and Judas 'Not Iscariot' also the son of Simon (not the zealot) which splits the character of the disciples; zealot followers of Jesus Barrabbas or Christian followers of Jesus the proto -Christian?
;
If the Jesus -party in Jerusalem were a bunch of zealots waiting for Jesus the Messiah to return and make the revolt succeed that had failed with Jesus being nabbed and banged up in a very literal way, and the Sadduccee -run High Priestship, who were effectively part of the Roman administration were their opponents, that would make sense of Paul working for the Sanhedrin in rooting out these enemies of the Rome to which he belonged as a Roman Citizen.
I only say, it would fit better as these 'saints', these 'Elect', being more in the line of Daniel's martyrs being promised places as stars in the sky if they died fighting for Maccabbes than as a bunch of Christian evangelists being hounded by wicked non -Christians.
Well, in the end, Babylon won. The Temple was burned, Jerusalem sacked and Judea continued to be run run by Rome which the zealots regarded as Babylon even when it converted to Christianity.
-
- Under Probation
- Posts: 4175
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
- Has thanked: 176 times
- Been thanked: 459 times
Re: Babylon the Great
Post #26Yet in 313 AD what religion did Rome tie itself to?historia wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:10 pmSure -- in the ancient world, an ethnic group was usually organized into a kingdom, which had as its leader a king. In that way, the word 'nation' can refer to both an ethnic group and its kingdom.2timothy316 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 4:25 pm
Also Rev 17:1,2 is specific about kings that have made bedfellows with BTG.
The Roman Empire, for example, had many kings and nations that were subservient to it.
- historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2609
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 221 times
- Been thanked: 320 times
Re: Babylon the Great
Post #27None. The Edict of Milan simply granted freedom of religion:
John also wrote Revelation in the 1st Century, not the 4th, so obviously has in mind the Roman Empire of his day.Wikipedia wrote:
When we, Constantine Augustus and Licinius Augustus, met so happily at Milan, and considered together all that concerned the interest and security of the State, we decided . . . to grant to Christians and to everybody the free power to follow the religion of their choice, in order that all that is divine in the heavens may be favorable and propitious towards all who are placed under our authority.
-
- Under Probation
- Posts: 4175
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
- Has thanked: 176 times
- Been thanked: 459 times
Re: Babylon the Great
Post #28Time doesn't matter. Revelation of John was a prophecy and there is no time table given in Revelation. 1 year or 4 hundred years, it doesn't matter. John said there would be a harlot that would tie herself to the nations. Not through conquest and war like Rome did but through 'sexual immorality'. In the Bible when uses sexual immorality, such as prostitution, in a symbolic sense this relates directly to the worship of other gods. See 1 Chronicles 5:25 for an example.historia wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:58 amNone. The Edict of Milan simply granted freedom of religion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constanti ... ristianityWikipedia wrote:
When we, Constantine Augustus and Licinius Augustus, met so happily at Milan, and considered together all that concerned the interest and security of the State, we decided . . . to grant to Christians and to everybody the free power to follow the religion of their choice, in order that all that is divine in the heavens may be favorable and propitious towards all who are placed under our authority.
Never did I say there wasn't freedom to choose a religion but it is clear that "During the reign of the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (AD 306–337), Christianity began to transition to the dominant religion of the Roman Empire'"
Harlot meet your Wild Beast to ride.John also wrote Revelation in the 1st Century, not the 4th, so obviously has in mind the Roman Empire of his day.
Rome didn't bring people under its control by 'prostituting' itself to other nations. "For because of the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality, all the nations have fallen victim, and the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality with her."..."by your spiritistic practices all the nations were misled"
Also, the judgement of BTG is this, "Thus with a swift pitch will Babylon the great city be hurled down, and she will never be found again." Rev 18:21
Rome as a nation doesn't fit the description. Nations didn't have a passion for and were drawn in by the spiritistic practices of Rome, they were squashed by Rome and I can point on a map were Rome still exists today. Also, ALL of the nations didn't fall victim to Rome.
- historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2609
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 221 times
- Been thanked: 320 times
Re: Babylon the Great
Post #29In that case, for the future, I would recommend citing the year 380 (see Edict of Thessalonica) rather than 313.2timothy316 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:35 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constanti ... ristianity
Never did I say there wasn't freedom to choose a religion but it is clear that "During the reign of the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (AD 306–337), Christianity began to transition to the dominant religion of the Roman Empire'"
Except John begins by saying this revelation concerns "the things that must soon take place" (Rev. 1:1-3), which clearly indicates it is about events in his own time.2timothy316 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:35 pm
Revelation of John was a prophecy and there is no time table given in Revelation.
Right, this is an unmistakable reference to the cult of emperor worship.2timothy316 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:35 pm
John said there would be a harlot that would tie herself to the nations. Not through conquest and war like Rome did but through 'sexual immorality'. In the Bible when uses sexual immorality, such as prostitution, in a symbolic sense this relates directly to the worship of other gods. See 1 Chronicles 5:25 for an example.
Rome didn't bring people under its control by 'prostituting' itself to other nations. "For because of the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality, all the nations have fallen victim, and the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality with her."..."by your spiritistic practices all the nations were misled"
Sure they did. The cult of emperor worship was becoming quite popular at the time John wrote his text.2timothy316 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:35 pm
Nations didn't have a passion for and were drawn in by the spiritistic practices of Rome
I'm afraid you just committed the mistake I advised you to avoid above.
The Roman Empire was not an ethnos, a 'nation', but rather an empire, which contained many 'nations'.
Biblical authors (and other near eastern writers) often just have the Mediterranean region in mind when they write.
The perils of taking this highly symbolic and metaphorical text too literally, I'm afraid.
-
- Under Probation
- Posts: 4175
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
- Has thanked: 176 times
- Been thanked: 459 times
Re: Babylon the Great
Post #30Reference please. The Jews certainly were not cult members. There were many nations that were not cult members. Lands were conquered into submission, not enticed join by worshiping Rome using 'spiritstic practices'.historia wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 10:49 amRight, this is an unmistakable reference to the cult of emperor worship.2timothy316 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:35 pm
John said there would be a harlot that would tie herself to the nations. Not through conquest and war like Rome did but through 'sexual immorality'. In the Bible when uses sexual immorality, such as prostitution, in a symbolic sense this relates directly to the worship of other gods. See 1 Chronicles 5:25 for an example.
Rome didn't bring people under its control by 'prostituting' itself to other nations. "For because of the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality, all the nations have fallen victim, and the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality with her."..."by your spiritistic practices all the nations were misled"
That doesn't give a person license to make up whatever they want the text to mean.The perils of taking this highly symbolic and metaphorical text too literally, I'm afraid.
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. 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.