Right. I hope it was clear that I was talking about the text as it currently stands, as it pertains to the final redaction of sources by John of Patmos and not what those symbols may have meant in their putative original context. I have discussed the eclectic nature of the sources of Revelation in my thread on the 144,000 and Great Crowd linked on the first page of this thread. One pretty good indicator that the author was blending together sources is the dual symbolism of the seven heads of the Beast: they represent BOTH seven mountains AND seven kings. It is quite rare in the apocalyptic tradition to find a symbol doing double-duty like this, and is usually thought to be a sign of reinterpretation by a later redactor. The interpretation of "seven hills" clearly contributes to the static ekphrasis of 17:3-6, while the reinterpretation of the heads as "seven kings" in v. 9-11, as Aune puts it, "suggests that the author has revised an earlier source, whether by himself or another" (p. 945).
Is the 144,000 persons mentioned in Rev 7:4-8 literal or symbolic
by trem 59 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
heathen
Anybody that knows anything about the apostle John writings knows that when he spoke of harlots he was talking about unfaithful christians . It was like when ancient Israel was unfaithful God called them harlots . The whole scenario of yours may sound interesting with it's bits of history but way off the mark .IMHO Rome was the 4 headed leopard beast of Daniel, I don't see how it changes to a seven headed sacarlet beast . Daniel 7:6
I guess I'm going to have to give you more demerits ..... LOL
-
Narkissos
Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the judgment of the great whore who is seated on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and with the wine of whose fornication the inhabitants of the earth have become drunk." So he carried me away in the spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication; and on her forehead was written a name, a mystery: "Babylon the great, mother of whores and of earth's abominations." And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus.
Heathen,
Do you seriously think the above description could possibly apply to "unfaithful Christians" in the author's mind? How could those be possibly linked to "the kings of the earth" or to the murder of "faithful Christians" in his mind?
Of course you think that because you assume the text was aiming at a far future and the apostle didn't understand one word of what he wrote (then why, btw, bother with whatever the word "harlot" might mean to him?). Which is contrary to the concluding statement:
Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book (the exact opposite of Daniel 12:4 which -- fictitiously imo -- suggests a long-range prophecy), for the time is near.
Oh, and...
Rome was the 4 headed leopard beast of Daniel
remains to be proved. -
heathen
It makes sense to me that Rome is the 4 headed beast . It ruled the then known 4 continents and If we look at the world scene as to who ruled the world in their day Rome fits nicely right where it is mentioned .
Yes I do think the harlot is unfaithful christians just as jesus himself warned that many would come in his name but prove to be ravenous wolves .Yes I do think the text was written for future events .
-
Narkissos
It makes sense to me that Rome is the 4 headed beast . It ruled the then known 4 continents
Which seven continents does the Revelation "unfaithful Christian" beast rule?
and If we look at the world scene as to who ruled the world in their day Rome fits nicely right where it is mentioned .
In Daniel's day?
Yes I do think the text was written for future events .
Far future then. About 2 centuries at least before "unfaithful Christians" were in a position to interest the "kings of the earth" and persecute anybody. How do you understand Revelation 22:10 which I just quoted?
One last thing (and I give up): have you noticed how the Revelation references to "Babylon" reflect the OT prophecies on ancient Babylon (Isaiah 46--47; Jeremiah 50--51) and other "pagan" cities (especially Tyre, Ezekiel 27, in Revelation 18), personified as women? Those prophecies were not aimed at "unfaithful Jews," were they?
-
heathen
Narkissos-- I think Daniel is pretty self explanatory . The angel flat out tells Daniel that the beasts are kingoms that are to be or have been . I'm doing the best I can without reading it all again .
I think the number seven stands for complete control of the world scene .If I remember correctly there are 7 continents . Europe , Asia , Africa , Australia , North America , South America, Ant arctica .
Revelation 22:10 --- Clearly the appointed time was not as near as us mortals would think . If you read the first couple of chapters of Revelation they are reprimands on the congregations that existed during the time , so makes sense that this should get out as soon as possible also so that people could make copies and preserve it . IMO
Maybe I'll get into your last question later .
-
Leolaia
If you read the first couple of chapters of Revelation they are reprimands on the congregations that existed during the time , so makes sense that this should get out as soon as possible also so that people could make copies and preserve it . IMO
But they also have promises concerning the imminent coming of Christ and the punishment he would bring to the unfaithful people in those churches which they themselves will experience (cf. 2:4-5, 16, 20-23, 3:10-11).
Again, the revelation to John concerns things that "must soon take place" (1:1, 22:6), not what would happen in the distant future (i.e. two thousand years later), and four times Jesus says "I am coming soon!" (3:11, 22:7, 12, 20). Revelation 17:10-11 also suggests that only a "little while" separates the present situation from the Beast who will rule as the last king of Rome.
-
Cygnus
heathen, I believe the same eventuality occurs to christians and nonchristians alike -- they die and then rot. I believe the best way to conduct biblical exegesis is to understand who the intended audience was, and what the author used as influences. I don't ascribe any authorship to any god and believe that all the 'prophecies' in the Bible were either written after the fact, or failed.
Hope that helps.
-
heathen
Yah that is pretty confusing . It's apparent that the kingdom of the heavens was not going to arrive in their day . The account in Revelation clearly depicts the period of time just prior to the conclusion of the system of things . The harlot is devoured by the scarlet beast which then goes off into destruction and then the lamb beast appears which winds up being destroyed by the in coming messianic kingdom . More things that lead me to my conclusions are such as Babylon wasstill a city in the first century so why would Romethus be called Bbylon ? Makes no sense .In fact that's where the WTBTS thinks the apostle Peter died . excuse the bad grammar as I can't seem to edit this thing without makin it worse .
-
Leolaia
The account in Revelation clearly depicts the period of time just prior to the conclusion of the system of things .
Right. Except it viewed such a "conclusion" as "soon". John is told it is "soon", the people in the churches in Asia Minor are told it is "soon". It boggles the imagination to say that "soon" is really "2,000 years +". Thus John is told NOT to seal up the words as Daniel had done; his revelation was something the people of his time needed to read right then and there because Jesus was coming soon.
Babylon wasstill a city in the first century so why would Romethus be called Bbylon ? Makes no sense .
Makes perfect sense. Babylon destroyed Jerusalem. Rome destroyed Jerusalem. Babylon was a city that sat beside a river (Jeremiah 51:13), Rome was a city that sat by a river (cf. 17:2, 18:17). Babylon was the seat of a world empire, Rome was the seat of a world empire at the time Revelation was written. The text says point blank: "The woman you saw is the great city which has authority over all the rulers on earth" (17:18). Moreover, it is a fact that Rome was called Babylon at the time. The Jewish Sibylline Oracles say just as much, along with many other sources, but I suspect these won't interest you.
BTW, Egypt was still a country in the first century, so odd isn't it that Jerusalem is given a symbolic name "Egypt" isn't it (Revelation 11:8)? I mean, how can a real city or country still exist while its name is being applied to another city? It should be impossible, right, just like it is nonsensical that Rome is called Babylon when the city of Babylon still existed. Nuts!