Babylon is not the Symbolic CIty of False Religion.

by proplog2 73 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  proplog2

  Narkissos:

  This is a real problem. I have struggled with the ambiguous use of kings, heads, kingdoms. The image in Daniel Chapter 2 refers to a succession of kingdoms. Head, breasts-arms, belly-thighs, leg,feet. Each part represented a different kingdom/nation. But Daniel interprets the dream saying to Nebuchadnezzar "You are the head of gold. After you there will rise another kingdom inferior to you." Should you conclude that Nebuchadnezzar’s son or grand-son is the next kingdom? You may. But fortunately there is enough information that you can conclude that Nebuchadnezzar as RULER , represented the Head of Gold.

  The same thing happens with the four beasts in Daniel Chapter 7. vs 3 "And four huge beasts were coming up out of the sea each one being different from the others. Again, are these a succession of kings in a dynasty or are these separate nations? Vs 17 says "As for these huge beasts, because they are four, there are four kings that will stand up from the earth." Taken together these scriptures sound like they could be interpreted either way. So it appears Kings and Kingdoms, at least in Daniel, are used interchangeably.

  Although we can’t be absolutely sure that Revelation uses a similar method it shouldn’t be surprising since Revelation parallels Daniel in many ways. The Hebrew Scriptures often refer to kingdoms or empires as mountains. When you look at the fact that the seven heads mean seven mountains doesn’t it make sense that this is not referring to a succession in a dynasty but rather to seven distinct world powers that have had an adverse effect on God’s people. Add to this the problems with trying to get the right sequence of Caesars to fit the pattern. As you know there are numerous schemes for figuring this.

  The biggest problem is when you have Rome as Beast attacking Rome as Babylon the Great. The preterists would have Rome attacking itself.

  I think my preferred interpretation eliminates these problems. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece had fallen. Rome was. And the successor to Rome the - third Rome - Moscow, that emerged from the last vestige of Roman Rule- Constantinople. The Russian Empire is North of Everything. It is fragile and exercises Roman Iron tactics to try to hold together. (Think Grozny - Main city in Chechnya leveled). This seventh head died in 1991 with the elimination of the Soviet Union. It is now an eighth power and is poised to put an end to American domination . The ten horns are those nations that were formed out of the Soviet Union. They never were significant by themselves but will most likely fall once again into Russia’s orbit.

  Babylon the Great appears in the wilderness.(Rev 17:3) The New World (United States) existed apart from the World Island (Europe,Asia, Africa) with a gigantic moat (Atlantic and Pacific) . The United States has preferred a policy that allows no rival to dominate the World Island and organize men and materials to become a serious threat.
• 

  Mr. Kim

  After reading everything, I can see that SOME know and others do not understand very much at all................
• 

  heathen

  I don't think the wilderness is about the north american continent . I really don't agree with leolaias portrayal of roman mythology and rome being the whore of babylon . We've gone around on this topic before and according to that we would have been in the kingdom of heaven because that is the only thing that removes the 666 beast. I think it is more aptly the catholic church myself because it literally rides the beast by being a member (vatican city) . I think the reference to babylon itself is in fact to do with pagan beliefs that originated in babylon or before at the time of the tower of babel .The church colors of the catholic church (purple and scarlet) as mentioned in Revelation also they are widely known for spiritism and kneeling before idols of wood and stone . Just too much there that matches the church itself . Stated briefly that is my opinion.
• 

  proplog2

  A Christian:

  each one of them exercised political control over ALL of God's covenant people.

  You are using the word "ALL" when the correct word would be "many" or even "most".

  Each time the Jews were subjugated to a different nation the number of expatriots increased. By the Roman times there were significant Jewish populations along all the trade routes from Spain to India, and Northern Africa - even Ethiopia.

  Acts 15:21 "For from ancient times Moses has had in city after city those who preach him, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath"

  Paul preached in synagogues along his entire journey.

  When Jesus said "then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains" this was not a general instruction for ALL Christians. It was a warning for those in a specific Geographical location. Christians in Greece, Rome, Carthage etc. would not flee.

  Likewise with Babylon the Great. If BTG is the USA it would be - God's People in the USA that would have to flee.

  NARKISSOS:

  You brought up the point about Christians fleeing the USA. Perhaps that is the deliverance of the few that the Bible speaks about. All those claiming to be Christian are not neccessarily the ones that pay attention. "Keep on the watch" "You, then, watch out; I have told you all things before hand" "When he arrives suddenly, he does not find you sleeping" "Keep awake then all the time making supplication that you may succeed in ESCAPING all these things that are destined to occur"

  It is clear that Jesus was warning of a signal event that only a few would grasp. Will Jehvoah's Witnesses be the ones? I don't know. Will this really happen? I don't know. But it makes sense to be watchful. JW's, even though wacked in their predictions and doctrines, do indeed have brothers in other lands that would take them in. That's all that is required to survive. The Jews in Nazi Germany who had relatives in other lands escaped the holocaust. Perhaps the Mormons will figure this out. Or the Quakers. Or the Bahai's. All of these weird goups have enough cohesion to accommodate their fellows. But it remains to be seen if they will discern the signal of the "disgusting thing standing where it ought not".

  There are some who would say that it is very unlikely that Russia would succeed in an attack on the USA. But those who do future world scenarios for various think tanks understand the importance of "wild cards". Sometimes the crazy thing happens. Crazy people, with crazy plans can change the world overnight.
• 

  heathen

  You could argue that the jews were not in the covenant until after they left egypt . Egypt , babylon , medo persia and rome , but I think the WTBTS has greece in there and greece never had possesion of Israel . I saw some documentary where they stated Alexander the great did not bother with Israel . They also made hime the hairy he goat , really makes no sense to make greece out to be one of the beasts and the hairy he goat . Can't find the Daniel prophesy book right now so going only on memory .
• 

  Narkissos

  proplog,

  Good points about "kings" standing for "kingdoms" in Daniel, but (1) this usage is clear from the context and (2) as you admitted this does not ipso facto apply to Revelation in the absence of a similar clarifying context.

  The Hebrew Scriptures often refer to kingdoms or empires as mountains.

  Not that often I would say (Jeremiah 51:25, what else?), and, again, this is clear from the context. It is not a commonfigurative use of the term as the WT suggests, and usually it can be traced back to other more widespread topoi such as the mythical "mountains of the gods" (Tsaphôn, Olympus etc.), e.g. Ezekiel 28. Iow the equivalence "mountain" = "kingdom" is what a text occasionally may build, it is not frequent enough for the term itself to carry this meaning if the text doesn't explicitly make it.

  When you look at the fact that the seven heads mean seven mountains doesn’t it make sense that this is not referring to a succession in a dynasty but rather to seven distinct world powers that have had an adverse effect on God’s people.

  The problem here is that you have one symbol (heads) interpreted by another symbol which needs another interpretation, which is not in the text (mountains, as meaning something else than mountains, i.e. world powers). The usual exegesis has the symbols interpreted by a word in its plain meaning ("seven mountains" = the famous seven hills of Rome), which better suits the apocalyptic pattern of (a) cryptic image and (b) clear interpretation. Of course, from that perspective the text here offers two divergent interpretations (the "heads" are both mountains = hills and kings = emperors) -- most likely due to the conflating of several sources in Revelation. Because of this double interpretation I understand it is tempting to have "mountains" and "kings" both mean "kingdoms," but then why doesn't the writer make it clear as an interpretation requires?

  Add to this the problems with trying to get the right sequence of Caesars to fit the pattern. As you know there are numerous schemes for figuring this.

  Sure, but what is unclear to us with a Roman history of Rome might well have been clear to the author and the original writers in the narrower perspective of a Jewish-Christian community in Asia Minor.

  The biggest problem is when you have Rome as Beast attacking Rome as Babylon the Great. The preterists would have Rome attacking itself.

  Not at all. The Roman empire was not monolithic and there were enough anti-Roman forces inside and outside the empire for an anti-Roman prophet to hope for an ad hoc coalition to turn against the Urbs under the leadership of a crazy, suicidal and destructive emperor figure as Nero was popularly perceived. As you know the fear of a Nero redivivus' comeback is very well attested.

  It is quite clear to me that the author of the extant text of Revelation was expecting the imminent fall of Rome. Even if his text was divinely managed to mean something else millenia later, the prophecy as he could mean it and his first readers could understand it simply failed. They couldn't think of Washington D.C. or Grozny or Moscow (or Christendom or whatever): such interpretations, even if true, were irrelevant to them.

  But, ironically, trying and failing to connect Revelation to current events is certainly truer to the spirit of apocalypticism than scholarly exegesis.
• 

  proplog2

  Narkissos:

  You have a very objective approach that prevents the disappointments of the seduction of prophecy.

  I stated at the outset of this thread that I have my personal intuitions about the fullfilment of this prophecy in our day. My main goal has been to show that there is no basis for the Watchtower insistence that BTG has to be a religious entity. Many hold to the religious entity of BTG because their first acquaintance with that prophecy has been the protestant anti-catholic interpretation. They are entitled to that but they have no basis for insisting that it is the only sensible interpretation. However, I believe that the lack of mention of significant religious elements makes their claim weak.

  I have to tie a knot in this line of reasoning UNTIL something happens that could be seriously interpreted as a modern day "disgusting thing". A nuclear device exploding in a city such as New York would really get MY attention. But if there isn't some organization that resonates with the idea of fleeing I figure I will just have to suffer whatever consequences result.

  In the meantime I will keep looking at the scores.
• 

  proplog2

  Narkissos:

  Re: mountains as governments

  Da 2:35, 44, 45; compare Isa 41:15;

  Ps 76:4

  Ps 30:7; compare 2Sa 5:12

  Revelation 8:8

  Da 2:34, 35, 44, 45

  Ps 72:3

  Isa 25:6,7

  Isa 11:9

  Isa 65:25

  Ps 68:15-16

  Isa 2:2

  Hab 3:6,10

  Zech 4:7
• 

  a Christian

  Heathen, You wrote: Greece never had possession of Israel. As I wrote earlier: One of the kings of Greece, Antiochus (IV) Epiphanes, for three years [168 -165 BC] completely outlawed the Jewish religion under penalty of death. Antiochus (IV) Epiphanes reigned over the Syrian division of the Greek Empire, from 175 to 164 B.C. http://www.lewrockwell.com/case/case11.html Mike
• 

  Narkissos

  proplog,

  Sorry I have little time today (and in the next few days) to discuss it in detail, but I quickly went through the texts you listed and at first reading I don't see a political symbolism in any of them, except for the eschatological "kingdom" of Daniel 2 which however is no ordinary world power. Wherever they may seem to exceed the proper geographical meaning of "mountain," I think they are better explained against the Near Eastern mythological background in which the high mountain, as the place where heaven and earth meet, has a number of functions, especially as the seat of the assembly of gods, the place of revelation, etc. -- which also applies theologically to the Sinai or the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (although Yhwh's "holy mountain" is the place of both the temple and the "messianic" king). In theophanies, the mountains shaking or melting simply express the cosmic dimension of the "event" (as a creation story in reverse).

  Cf. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/67843/1.ashx