"Babylon the Great", who is she? (page 2)

Mary

It's Camilla Parker Bowles..........doesn't it say she commits fornication with the king(s) of the earth?

truth_about_the_truth

I've actually been thinking about this recently.

Without doing any cross referencing of other scriptures, trying to find other context where the word "harlot" is used in the Bible....

Without trying too hard to interpret this using the original Hebrew, Greek terminology...

Just purely reading Rev. 18, keeping it simple...

All of the attributes and traits that she displays sure sounds like the U.S. to me. Especially with the fact that babylon and the U.S. were/are both world powers during their era and the social, cultural, financial influence they have/had over the rest of the world.

I strongly felt this the last time I read this scripture after doing away with the WT filters

Just my opinion though

jeanniebeanz

too funny, Mary...

zen nudist

And they will be proved wrong since the scriptures say it is a 'mystery' -

if I am not remembering wrong, the term mystery means in inside secret, known only to those in side....not something no one knows

Carmel

...all those that refuse to recognize the new revelation and appose it.

Destruction, however, is not literal, but the destruction of old ideas and "arrangements"

carmel

Narkissos

Leaving aside (1) Ianone's anti-Jewish agenda and (2) anachronistic interpretations implying that the author didn't know what he was speaking about (e.g. America; contrast Revelation 1:1 which implies imminent expectations with the [fictitious] scenario of long-range prophecy in Daniel 12), the identification of Rome in chapter 17--18 is obvious:

17:18: "The woman you saw is (present) THE great city that rules (present) over the kings of the earth."

The "city of the seven hills" (cf. 17:9) is a literary cliché designation of Rome (it was never the case of Jerusalem, and to find seven hills there one must go outside the city).

As has been said, Babylon often designates Rome in Jewish apocalyptic writings (e.g. 2 Baruch 67:7). One of the clearest instances is Sibylline Oracles 5:157ff:

then a great star shall come
From heaven into the dreadful sea and burn
The vasty deep, and Babylon itself,
And the land of Italy, because, of which
There perished many holy faithful men
Among the Hebrews and a people true.

The only possible hint to Jerusalem in Revelation is found in the different context of 11:8 (which doesn't mention "Babylon"): "And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that is prophetically called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified." The reason for this discrepancy in the use of "the great city" (as well as many others in Revelation) probably lies in the prehistory of the text, as there are many evidences that the final (and clearly anti-Roman) book has developed from (an) earlier document(s) which might have had a different perspective.

Ianone

LeoLIE is aiding the Jesuit shill story of Rome being the Whore of Babylon. Completely unbliblical, complete garbage, I posted a dozen or so scriptures earlier in this thread which are pretty obvious about who the whore is.

Enough with your Jesuit/Masonic lies

Leolaia

Narkissos....Thanks so much for posting Revelation 17:18 which makes the matter very clear (Babylon=Rome). I also gathered some additional info today that adds substantially to background behind ch. 17.

Ianone....I have already asked you politely to abide by the posting guidelines. Instead you persist in abusive behavior. I would like to be able to take part in this discussion without being repeatedly called a liar.

Robert K Stock

Revelation was written in code to first century Christians to protect them from first century Rome.

Revelation is not about prophecy at all, it is about what was happening at the time it was written.

cyberguy

Hey Leoloaia and Narkissos!

I?ve appreciated many of your posts over the years, but I?m afraid I don?t follow some of your conclusions here; however, I?m open to further expressions from you, to help me see more clearly, your conclusions (I'm all "ears").

My take is that the ?woman? is not Rome, but rather, the ?Christian? amalgamation of Church and State. She isn?t the ?seven mountains,? Rome, but she ?sits on top? of the "seven mountains" (Rev. 17:9?this seems like a different entity from the "woman"). I realize that early ?church fathers? may have believed her to be Rome, but take another look at the context! Another point to consider is that, when she falls, Rev. 18:2, the ?kings of the earth,? are still in existence (Rev. 18:3).

Anyway, I?m not trying to get into an argument here, but rather, to get a better understanding of the subject. So please, enlighten me, where I?m not seeing the complete picture! Thanks again, for your fine comments; I?ve enjoyed many of your posts over the years!

Mahalo,

Cyber

"Babylon the Great", who is she?

Share this