The Great Whore of the Revelation (chp 18)

[Guest shiloh357]

No, you misunderstand. The whore is a metaphor for the pagan Roman government that was sytematically persecuting the church, much the same way we would speak of Washington in our own day. Revelation 17:18 - "The woman you saw is that great city that rules over the kings of the earth."

No, I understand perfectly. I understand that you cannot show where the merchants of the earth ever mourned for the fall of Rome. I understand that you cannot name the Kingdoms that were willingly committing fornication with ancient Rome, and I understand that you cannot reconcile the the one hour destruction of the "whore" with the gradual fall of the Roman empire. Therefore, it stands to reason that while the whore does bear some of the same characteristics of ancient Rome, and Rome would have definately entered the minds of the initial first and second century readers, "Rome" is NOT the final fulfillment of that passage, as it does not fit the complete description of the "whore." I do not believe the book of Revelation has been completely fulfilled and future fulfillment such as a coming Millennium the bodily return of Jesus and the literal New Heavens and New Earth.

To answer your second question, back up to the beginning of Chapter 18 -

You did not answer my question. I asked for "internal textual indicators" not a litany of passages from parts of the Bible that have nothing material to contribute to the passages at hand.

[Guest shiloh357]

I did give you internal evidence but try this on for size.

No you didn't. I asked for internal textual indicators within the text of Revelation 17 and 18. You gave me stuff out of Jeremiah which is not material to the text of Revelation.

Ever sing a song with three verses that all end with the same line? The passage from 18:9-19 is a lament, a musical form used by the prophets, first sounded by the kings of the earth, then by the merchants, then by the seamen.

Yes, over the one-hour destruction of the the "whore." If the whore is to be understood ONLY as the city of ancient Rome, what historical evidence do we have that any nations of the earth mourned her destruction? Which kingdoms were committing "fornication" with Rome?

[nebula]

But Rome's fall was not "quickly." That is the one point that every historian agrees on.

[Guest shiloh357]

I did give you internal evidence but try this on for size.

No you didn't. I asked for internal textual indicators within the text of Revelation 17 and 18. You gave me stuff out of Jeremiah which is not material to the text of Revelation.

Ever sing a song with three verses that all end with the same line? The passage from 18:9-19 is a lament, a musical form used by the prophets, first sounded by the kings of the earth, then by the merchants, then by the seamen.

Yes, over the one-hour destruction of the the "whore." If the whore is to be understood ONLY as the city of ancient Rome, what historical evidence do we have that any nations of the earth mourned her destruction? Which kingdoms were committing "fornication" with Rome?

You are still misinterpreting poetry literally. The 'one hour' line in the lament sung by the three groups in the passage does not mean a literal sixty minutes, it means 'very soon' or 'quickly'.

No, I understand that it was not a literal sixty minute hour. That should go without saying. The point is that the whore is subjected to God's wrath and is destroyed suddenly and quickly to the shock and amazement of the world. No such description can be applied to the fall of Rome as Rome's fall was so gradual that the final stage of Rome's fall would not have been a surprise.

The fact is that you cannot make the description of the whore completely fit with Rome.

[eric]

Rufus old friend, below in quotes, is part of your last post,

Nor do I need to. The point of the passage is that Rome would be destroyed, as indeed it was. In less than a hundred years, the Roman empire was a shadow of its former self. John's overall concern in writing the book was to provide a word of encouragement during the dark days of Roman persecution; that, even though things were bad and would get worse still, there would come a point when the persecutor (Rome) would fall under temporal judgment and be destroyed.

Firstly,nothing in Reveation, is the overall concern of John. He only wrote that which was a comcern of God, if you like to read verse1 of chapter 1. John is only the vessel who was used by the Lord for the Lord to convey the events of the future end times, which the Lord never intended to be with the fall of the Roman Empire. It was meant to be read by all until the end of the age which is still to come.

If the whore is Rome, as you claim, there would be no need for the angel of the Lord to mention her in the last book to John, because she is already slain in the fall of the Roman Empire and thereby be no need of today's readers beimg interestd.

The Lord is not a poet, so why not just stick to the facts. Rome is kaput....finito

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

No, I understand that it was not a literal sixty minute hour. That should go without saying.

Then why say it? You've completely reversed yourself.

I have not reversed anything. I am completely aware that there are such remarks which occur as approximations. Whether it is a literal 60 minutes or not, that really isn't the point. The point is that the whore is judged quickly and her fall is rapid. Even if it took longer, it will so quick and so absolute that the world will be shocked and will mourn over it.

QUOTE

The fact is that you cannot make the description of the whore completely fit with Rome.

Nor do I need to.

Yes, you do. That is part of proper hermeneutics. You cannot simply discard what you don't like or think you need simply to preserve your own assumptions. If you cannot make the entire text fit your assumption, it proves that your assumption is not entirely accurate.

The point of the passage is that Rome would be destroyed, as indeed it was. In less than a hundred years, the Roman empire was a shadow of its former self.

Yes, but that is not how the destruction of the whore is described. Rome's fall was from within. It was in a very weakened position when it finally fell. The whore is described as being strong and having the praise of the nations and kingdoms that committed fornication with her. Her destruction is an astonsment to the world. The fall of Rome did fill the world with shock or astonishment (another point that you cannot fit into your position).

The key to reading apocalyptic is to take the visions as a whole and not try to make every last little detail "mean" something.

That is just a "cop out" license you take when you can't make your position come into alignment with the Word of God. That is not the use of proper hermeneutics.

Is there any significance to the number of times it is pronounced? Why not seven times or nine (3x3) or twenty-seven (3 cubed)?

God repeats Himself when He is trying to get a point across. It is means of showing emphasis. Repitition is a typical textual indicator that the fact being reemphasized is important and that we should take notice of it. As for any kind of mystical meaning, probably not. Even so, your example is dissimilar to my point that direct statements of the text cannnot simply be ignored or discarded as a convenient means of preserving your position. The fact that you would resort to that kind of approach only highlights the weakness of your position.

We could sit here until judgment day debating the issue; but, for every minute we spend trying to wring the meaning out of every last little detail, that's one less minute we have to spend taking the gospel of Jesus to someone who needs to hear it.

Oh, please... Our debate is no way impeding the gospel.

[nebula]

John's overall concern in writing the book was to provide a word of encouragement during the dark days of Roman persecution; that, even though things were bad and would get worse still, there would come a point when the persecutor (Rome) would fall under temporal judgment and be destroyed.

I strongly, strongly disagree with you on this. Revelation was not John's idea - it was the Lord's idea.

Or are saying that John really did not receive a vision? That John made all this stuff up?

What of Daniel's visions? Were they not genuine visions? Or do you say that Daniel made it all up?

What of Isaiah's visions and prophecies?

The key to reading apocalyptic is to take the visions as a whole and not try to make every last little detail "mean" something.

Even by trying to tag Babylon as Rome, you are making it mean something.

But as for every last little detail - do you not know that the prophecies Jesus fulfilled, every last little detail did mean something!

Why would the Lord suddenly change tactics?

[nebula]

Well then, Rufus -

Please clarify yourself, because this is what I am hearing from your words.

[eric]

Well then, Rufus -

Please clarify yourself, because this is what I am hearing from your words.

Me too. Are you saying that the woman, spoken of in Revelation has already been revealed for the first centuy christians, who you claim that John wrote if for, so the christians of today are reading about a non-coming prophecy, because revelation is a book of prophecy. You are sounding like a preterist.

[Guest shiloh357]

Proper hermeneutics is based on proper exegesis.

Which you have yet to employ.

You don't read a passage, draw a conclusion, then go back and change your understanding of the text based on that conclusion - that's circular reasoning.

I haven't changed my understanding of text at all. My argument has been consistent all along. The whore will bear some resemblance to the ancient Roman empire, but the text cannot be limited to ancient Rome only because the description of the whore defies it.

The reading, the exegesis, has to be anchored to its literary and historical context.

The problem is that you are ignoring the historical aspect in all of this. You want to sweep the dissimilarities between the whore and anceint Rome under the rug.

Again, inconsistent exegesis. You don't get to pick and choose by reading some parts as allegory and some parts as literal.

I am not employing allegory at all. I am simply allowing the text to demonstrate through its use of symbolic and figurative devices the literal understanding of the text.

The key to reading apocalyptic is to take the visions as a whole and not try to make every last little detail "mean" something.

That is just a "cop out" license you take when you can't make your position come into alignment with the Word of God. That is not the use of proper hermeneutics.

No, that's using a known characteristic of apocalyptic literature to effect a proper exegesis of the text.

No, it is a false assumption that there are words spoken in the Bible that don't mean anything. When the God fulfills prophecy it is down to the last detail. Many of the writings of the prophets are poetic but they were fulfilled to the last detail nonetheless.

What is really obvious, is that your "poetic" argument simply provides you with the ability to selectively avoid the parts of the prophecy that don't match your conclusion.

QUOTE

QUOTE

Is there any significance to the number of times it is pronounced? Why not seven times or nine (3x3) or twenty-seven (3 cubed)?

God repeats Himself when He is trying to get a point across. It is means of showing emphasis. Repitition is a typical textual indicator that the fact being reemphasized is important and that we should take notice of it. As for any kind of mystical meaning, probably not. Even so, your example is dissimilar to my point that direct statements of the text cannnot simply be ignored or discarded as a convenient means of preserving your position. The fact that you would resort to that kind of approach only highlights the weakness of your position.

...and John communicates that point, namely, that Rome will fall and the persecution will come to an end.

You are just trying to avoid the parts of what was written about the whore that don't fit your position.