The Great Whore of the Revelation (chp 18)

[Kansasdad]

You seriously take everything in the Bible literal?

Not only are we to we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally

[Kansasdad]

Well, I disagree. I think it is reasonable that most of us could comprehend the concepts of God's measurements of time. We keep track of time and use calendars, and that is evidence of this.

Gen 1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

God Bless

You very well may be absolutely correct. ( I truly mean this)

This is why I don't think it is an actual measurement of time. If you take it to be literal then you have the whole measuring of the millenium age, the age of the earth and the Pre-trib theory. All of which set up conflict with other verses of scripture, Thus we have endless debates over this verse says this but that verse says something else. I don't want to get into all of the examples but I think an honest look at the debates will see "conflicting" verses if this is literal. If it is not literal than all those conflicts go away. It very well may be, that we have a lack of understanding and because of this lack of understanding the conflicts exist. However I am more incline to believe in the interpretation that doesn't create the conflict in the first place.

God Bless,

K.D. and thank you for this open and fruitful discussion no name calling is needed at all

[Kansasdad]

You seriously take everything in the Bible literal?

Not only are we to we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally

That's the golden rule of interpretation - "When the plain sense makes the best sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary literal meaning, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise."

I understand what you are saying, but that is not what Toni R is saying, And I would question whether he really holds this true. for example does Toni R believe that the Bread and Wine are in reality the Flesh and Blood of our Saviour? This is the literal interpretation.

God Bless,

K.D.

[HeatherEljohari]

Hi- Yes I married my husband before I accepted Jesus as my savior. But- my feelings havent changed a tad on my love and admiration of his religious dedication. As you said its a matter of beliefs, I believe in the Father, Son, Holy Spirit.. and as most Islamic folks dont, my husband says the Trinity is just another way to perceive God and his attributes. That is his belief and its fine by me... he has much peace. We share our religious beliefs and are very content within our relationship, Both physical and spiritual.

In his religious background they call God many names one being, Allah. But- that name is definitely not limited.... They praise God with many names. Such as Almighty, Creator, Powerful One, Forgiver, etc etc. Could go on for a long time.

In response to all the comparisons and different theorys on the "whore" of revelations. From what ive gathered I see this supposed "whore is wealthy, in good position, highly ranked, could this be a nation? such as USA? which has misused its power and wealth and the Lords name?

God bless~

Heatherxoxoxo

[MrsSealedEternal]

You very well may be absolutely correct. ( I truly mean this)

This is why I don't think it is an actual measurement of time. If you take it to be literal then you have the whole measuring of the millenium age, the age of the earth and the Pre-trib theory. All of which set up conflict with other verses of scripture, Thus we have endless debates over this verse says this but that verse says something else. I don't want to get into all of the examples but I think an honest look at the debates will see "conflicting" verses if this is literal. If it is not literal than all those conflicts go away. It very well may be, that we have a lack of understanding and because of this lack of understanding the conflicts exist. However I am more incline to believe in the interpretation that doesn't create the conflict in the first place.

God Bless,

K.D. and thank you for this open and fruitful discussion no name calling is needed at all

Ecc 3:1 There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven

Mar 13:23 "But take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance.

Mar 13:31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

Mar 13:32 "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

Mar 13:33 "Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not know when the appointed time will come.

Mar 13:37 "What I say to you I say to all, 'Be on the alert!'"

It will all be revealed in it's appointed time.

It has been a blessing and you've been a gentleman.

There, how's that for namecalling?

God Bless

[Fraught]

Jerusalem has never ruled the kings of the earth. Jerusalem at the time of Revelation was written was ruled by Rome. There is no way any thinking person can make a case for Jerusalem being the whore. History alone defies any attempt to make Jerusalem the whore.

When Jerusalem was destroyed, the "merchants of the earth" did not mourn. Judea in the first century, was an irrelevant backwater province in the Roman empire. Jerusalem was not a major player in world events. Jerusalem was not a center for commerce.

The "Jerusalem whore" crowd cannot produce even one set of parallel passages. They cannot produce ONE scrap of text that plainly states that Jerusalem is the whore, which is the most basic and necessary piece of evidence. They cannot produce ONE passage from OT end time prophecies that describe Jerusalem in the same manner as the whore is described in Revelation 17. That is because Jerusalem is not whore of Rev. 17

One of the major disconnects with all of this is Zechariah 14. Jerusalem according to Zechariah will be under siege from the nations of the world who seek her destruction and to gain a spoil. So the glaring question is why would those who seek to bring about the fall of Jerusaelm and to get rich off of Jerusalem's destruction MOURN her destruction?

Zechariah shows Jesus returning to rescue Jerusalem from the nations. Revelation 17 portrays a whore off of whose riches, "the merchants of the earth" were made rich and affluent and at whose destruction the merchants now mourn.

They are two completely opposite prophetic pictures and they cannot BOTH be talking about the same thing. They are too diametrically opposed.

Not only that but according to Revelation 18: 21, when Babylon is destroyed, it will be found no more. It will cease to exist. However God has promised that the nation of Israel will never cease to exist and that Jerusalem, during the Millennium will be the seat of Jesus' reign. Why would Jesus destroy the city from which He plans to reign?

These are the kinds of logical and Scriptural inconsistencies that are present in the entire "Jerusalem whore" theolocial trainwreck.

proper biblical exegesis: do not use your own definition of words - use God's definition. in reading the Word as an unbroken narrative from start to finish as one story of the Lord's relationship with, and plans for, mankind, what do you see as the Lord's definition of whore?

what i see as His definition: a person or nation who was/is unfaithful to Him and consorted with other nations and/or their gods or rules. from His own definition, jerusalem was at least at one time, a whore. they allied themselves with the roman rulers against the Lord and His Christ. this is not anti-semitism, it is a fact.

do you agree with the definition i have listed? if not, why?

[Guest shiloh357]

proper biblical exegesis: do not use your own definition of words - use God's definition. in reading the Word as an unbroken narrative from start to finish as one story of the Lord's relationship with, and plans for, mankind, what do you see as the Lord's definition of whore?

what i see as His definition: a person or nation who was/is unfaithful to Him and consorted with other nations and/or their gods or rules. from His own definition, jerusalem was at least at one time, a whore. they allied themselves with the roman rulers against the Lord and His Christ. this is not anti-semitism, it is a fact.

do you agree with the definition i have listed? if not, why?

Well first off let me say that proper biblcial exegesis cannot be boiled down to ONE rule. Exegesis is a process and it has several steps that work like a funnel. It goes from broad to narrow. Bascially, you operate from the larger context and begin narrowing your focus by examining a passage in the light of the general culture and place in history that the passage was penned, then examine the passage in the light of a more localized culture, down to the specific audience taking into account the author's relationship to that audience and the special/particular needs and challenges unique to them. Only until you have gone through THAT process are you ready to start defining words.

Context determines word usage. If you have ever looked in strong's concordance, you will notice that word in Hebrew will have many different meanings. That is because bibical Hebrew is a relatively small language, and so one word may be used 10 different ways. Same goes for Koine Greek. It is the context that tells you which of those ways is intended by the author.

So it is impossible to offer ONE definition of a word and use it in a uniform manner every time you come upon the word in the Bible. You have to perform the exegetical process to determine the meaning of the word that the author intended in that passage.

Now, as to the specific word "whore..." The whore of Revelation is a specific entity. She is not just any "whore." So we cannot just use the word whore on its own. Revelation is narrow in its use of the term. She is mentioned only one place in the Bible, and that is in Revelation. That is the ONLY place we can find any mention of this specific "whore." So, if we are going to define this whore, it has to be done internally in the text. We have to examine the text where she is mentioned and determine from the textual indicators available to us who she is. We cannot use any text outside of Revelation 17 and 18 to determine this. I will not learn about dogs by studying cats. We cannot learn what one text means by studying texts that have no material connection to the text under consideration. We have no parallel or corroborative texts from either the Old or New Testaments that mention a "whore of Babylon." So what do the textual indicators tell us about this whore? How is she described by John?

1. She is rules world.

2. She is a center for trade and commerce.

3. She has caused many kings to commit spiritual fornication.

Now I could show other things, but just look at those three things that Johnn uses for now. When have those EVER described Jerusalem in the first century? When John was writing His text of Revelation, would any of those three indicators make them think of Jerusalem? Jerusalem did not rule the world. She was ruled by ROME. Jerusalem was part of a backwater insignificant province of the Roman empire, not a center for trade or commerce. She had no influence on other kings as many other kings at that time were under Roman rule as well.

from His own definition, jerusalem was at least at one time, a whore.

Yes, she was. However, that is not sufficient cause to read "Jerusalem" into EVERY use the word "whore." We don't even do that in the English language. Unfortunately, we take linguistic and grammatical licenses with the Bible that we would not take with any other text/book.

[AnotherTraveler]

One fo the problems in understanding what city is what is the mysterious aspect of what God caused to be written. Take this example...

And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

Rev 11:8 (KJV)

Did John know that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem? Why not say Jerusalem? Probably because the meaning is larger than Jerusalem, dealing with a great city spiritually called Sodom and Egypt.

The great city that reigns over the kingdoms of the earth, called Babylon the great, is perhaps just that, a city set in the wilderness in the spirit.

So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

Rev 17:3 (KJV)

[Kansasdad]

I understand what you are saying, but that is not what Toni R is saying, And I would question whether he really holds this true. for example does Toni R believe that the Bread and Wine are in reality the Flesh and Blood of our Saviour? This is the literal interpretation.

God Bless,

K.D.

Hi K.D.

I said I take the Word of God literally and I meant it. However, just because you take the Bible literally does not mean that there are not figures of speech written in the Bible, such as your are referring to here. Some things are symbolic, so obviously you cannot take these things literally. If I say "I'm so hungry, I could eat a cow.", do you really think I will go out and buy a cow and eat it?! Or if I say "it's raining cats and dogs outside", do you really think cats and dogs are falling from the sky? These are figures of speech and the Bible has them also, and are not to be taken literally and most people can discern the meaning of the figures of speech through the Holy Spirit's guidance and the context of the entire text, before and after, when reading God's Word.

Then you might re-evaluate your statement that everything in the Bible MUST be taken literal. I think literal is not the word you are actually meaning, You say as much above, that some is literal and some is figurative. It can not be figurative and literal at the same time.

God Bless,

K.D.

[Kansasdad]

That's the golden rule of interpretation - "When the plain sense makes the best sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary literal meaning, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise."

I understand what you are saying, but that is not what Toni R is saying, And I would question whether he really holds this true. for example does Toni R believe that the Bread and Wine are in reality the Flesh and Blood of our Saviour? This is the literal interpretation.

God Bless,

K.D.

When one looks at the Last Supper passage in context, there is no question that Jesus is using a figure of speech rather than initiating a doctrine of transubstantiation. In this case, "the context clearly indicates otherwise." There is room for idiomatic language.

Actually when taken in context, it does not support a figurative interpretation, but that is a completely different topic.

God Bless,

K.D.