Mystery Babylon

[Ephesians2-8]

How would John's readers have understood this passage? Any "interpretation" that isn't anchored to the understanding of the original audience is meaningless. I seriously doubt John knew or cared anything about New York City. He was more concerned about the immediate events of his own day, under Roman rule with its cult of emperor-worship. What would be the point of cryptically forecasting events thousands of years in his, John's, future?

John was writing down what he was told on the basis of what he saw. He was not writing it down necessarily for those of his day.

He was merely trying to remain faithful to writing down what he saw using the vocabulary of his own day, not knowing when such events might unfold.

Your question sounds like you take a preterist viewpoint.

Nevertheless, the question stands. Poisoning the wells doesn't make it go away. To reiterate, how would John's intended audience, the Christians he wrote the letter to, have understood this passage?

To reiterate - John wrote to the audience the Holy Spirit directed him to write to - which was all the saints, but especially to the saints who would be alive at the time of the fulfillments.

Revelation 1:1 - is often mistranslated as if it indicates that John expected these events he writes about to occur soon.

The actual Greek text and the grammar do not necessarily conform to such thinking.

The KJV states Rev 1:1 as follows:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

The actual, literal Greek text states --

αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου ην εδωκεν αυτω ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου

A revelation of Jesus Christ which gave to him God to show to the slaves of him

α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου

things which it behooves to occur with speed and he signified sending thru an angel

αυτου τω δουλω αυτου ιωαννη

of him to the slave of him John.

Now the key phrase here in terms of timing is the following:

δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει

it behooves to occur with speed

This phrase indicates not that the events described would occur - soon - but when they did happen would occur with speed.

In other words, once the events started - they would occur speedily.

According to rabbinical writings, there was a popular theory that the Messiah would come at the 6,000 year mark and establish a 1,000 year millenial reign. This was a very prominent view in the 1st Century A.D. within scholarly Jewish circles but not amongst the unlearned Jews. Early church fathers wrote that this view of 6,000 years influenced the Apostles' thinking.

With that being the case, John was writing to a broader audience than just those of his day, and he apparently realized it.

As an aside, I would suggest reading the commentary of Revelation written by R.H. Charles in 1920. Someone has posted the introduction to his commentary, which is quite fascinating - for those of a scholarly background. Charles makes some interesting observations about the authorship of the book and how it was written. He questions which John wrote the book and he also believes that John whoever John was, had a scribe who finished the book. His thesis is that John wrote down visions which occurred at different moments of time with apparent time gaps between visions. He bases it, in part on stylistics sentence structure and vocabulary among other things. He also asserts that Revelation is not written in a completely chronological order and that the visions were not given necessarily in a chronological order. No matter what one's views are of the book, Charles' comments are to say the least, fascinating.

Take a look if you'd like- but it's not quick nor easy reading

http://www.dabar.org/RHCharles/Revelation/contents.htm

[Ephesians2-8]

How would John's readers have understood this passage? Any "interpretation" that isn't anchored to the understanding of the original audience is meaningless. I seriously doubt John knew or cared anything about New York City. He was more concerned about the immediate events of his own day, under Roman rule with its cult of emperor-worship. What would be the point of cryptically forecasting events thousands of years in his, John's, future?

John was writing down what he was told on the basis of what he saw. He was not writing it down necessarily for those of his day.

He was merely trying to remain faithful to writing down what he saw using the vocabulary of his own day, not knowing when such events might unfold.

Your question sounds like you take a preterist viewpoint.

Nevertheless, the question stands. Poisoning the wells doesn't make it go away. To reiterate, how would John's intended audience, the Christians he wrote the letter to, have understood this passage?

To reiterate - John wrote to the audience the Holy Spirit directed him to write to - which was all the saints, but especially to the saints who would be alive at the time of the fulfillments.

Revelation 1:1 - is often mistranslated as if it indicates that John expected these events he writes about to occur soon.

The actual Greek text and the grammar do not necessarily conform to such thinking.

The KJV states Rev 1:1 as follows:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

The actual, literal Greek text states --

αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου ην εδωκεν αυτω ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου

A revelation of Jesus Christ which gave to him God to show to the slaves of him

α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου

things which it behooves to occur with speed and he signified sending thru an angel

αυτου τω δουλω αυτου ιωαννη

of him to the slave of him John.

Now the key phrase here in terms of timing is the following:

δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει

it behooves to occur with speed

This phrase indicates not that the events described would occur - soon - but when they did happen would occur with speed.

In other words, once the events started - they would occur speedily.

According to rabbinical writings, there was a popular theory that the Messiah would come at the 6,000 year mark and establish a 1,000 year millenial reign. This was a very prominent view in the 1st Century A.D. within scholarly Jewish circles but not amongst the unlearned Jews. Early church fathers wrote that this view of 6,000 years influenced the Apostles' thinking.

With that being the case, John was writing to a broader audience than just those of his day, and he apparently realized it.

As an aside, I would suggest reading the commentary of Revelation written by R.H. Charles in 1920. Someone has posted the introduction to his commentary, which is quite fascinating - for those of a scholarly background. Charles makes some interesting observations about the authorship of the book and how it was written. He questions which John wrote the book and he also believes that John whoever John was, had a scribe who finished the book. His thesis is that John wrote down visions which occurred at different moments of time with apparent time gaps between visions. He bases it, in part on stylistics sentence structure and vocabulary among other things. He also asserts that Revelation is not written in a completely chronological order and that the visions were not given necessarily in a chronological order. No matter what one's views are of the book, Charles' comments are to say the least, fascinating.

Take a look if you'd like- but it's not quick nor easy reading

http://www.dabar.org/RHCharles/Revelation/contents.htm

Fascinating reading. However, it doesn't answer the question of how John's original audience would have understood the passage in question. That is the only valid objective point of control for interpreting the book. Once that control point is established, then there is a basis for application if need be. To properly exegete the book, it must be read with first-century eyes and heard with first-century ears. Otherwise, the text is bent to the reader's own biases and the faulty interpretation builds on itself.

But I just answered your question. The book was not intended for merely a first century readership. It should NOT be interpreted through first century eyes, only. Period. To properly exegete the text - one must understand Koine-Greek, yes, but not with the idea that it was only written to first century readers nor that it described first century events.

The fact was - according to the early church fathers -- no one understood John's visions, PERIOD! - Everyone was scratching their heads, including John's disciples. Even John, himself didn't understand it. You see this in some of his own statements in the text. For example - Rev 17: 6 where he says "I wondered with great admiration." - That is a lousy translation and totally fails to communicate the meanings of two key Greek words -- "ethaumasa" and "thauma" - both are combined with the Greek word "mega" which John used every time he turned around. John "Megas" every thing 'to death' in Revelation and especially in Rev 17 and 18. Mega is a superlative adjective, meaning "super" in size, scope, power, as in awesome.

The words "Ethaumasa" and "thauma" are spelling variations of the same word which can carry different shades of meaning depending on use, context and relational adjectives. In the case of Revelation 17:6 when there is double repetition combined with the superlative "mega"- indicates acute astonishment. A former Greek professor of mine who turned down a chance to teach Greek grammar and New Testament Greek at Oxford and Cambridge Universities - commented on this verse in Greek class, one day - noting that the verse could and should be properly understood along our modern day vernacular as...

"I was amazed/astonished and flabbergasted, floored to the point of speechless" indicating he was unable to come to terms with what he was seeing. In other words - he didn't quite understand it, himself. We see that confirmed in the next verse when the angel asked him why he was reacting this way? And the angel again tries to explain it to him. So the angel then explains further, the 'mystery" of the woman and then proceeds to describe one the mystery doctrines of the woman, known as the Goddess Ishtar of Babylon - who was called by her worshippers and was known widely around the known world as "The MOTHER OF THE HARLOTS" because her temple priestesses were "holy harlots" pure and sinless and functioned to assiste worshippers in being purified by engaging in sexual intercourse in the temple with a worshipper so that in sexual union the goddess' spirit came down and possessed the body of the priestess so that the priestess (harlot) and the worshipper would become "one with the goddess" and purified from sin with the sexual secretions. Afterwards, the worshipper would give a thanksgiving offering in the temple collection box of a gold or silver coin(s) minted by the Temple because Ishtar's temple functioned as a bank also. Ishtar's religion invented the concept of money, banking and interest loans, not to forget the invention of fractional reserve banking. This is how the idea of Prostitution came into existence - not merely for sex for money, but rather as a means of spiritual salvation and purity. There was no such thing as street hookers or call-girls or brothels... no need - just go to the Temple.

So in Rev 17:9 -- the angel gives another 'mystery' doctrine of Ishtar - her influence extended to the 7 continents of the world. Her mystery doctrine of her crown of 7 spikes taught that her 7 spikes in her crown functioned to spread the occult enlightenment of her brother - the sun-god Utu (aka Shamash in the Akkadian dialect) upon each of the 7 "hora" or continents and the 7 seas of the world. This particular phrase of her mystery doctrine, was borrowed intact and quoted in Rev 17:9.

Unfortunately - idiots out there misunderstand the key word - "hora" in the original Greek text of verse 9. The NIV & other modernist translations - ascribe the word "hill" to it. The word NEVER was used for "hill" by the users of Koine Greek. There were a dozen or so other different words for hill. One specifically "bounos" was a latin word that was used for the 7 hills of Rome. In fact, the term 7 hills of Rome - was an unkown term in 1st Century AD or at least we have no record of it being written down. It never appeared until the 3rd or 4th century A.D. -- There were 6 or 7 instances of its usage in obscure writings before the time of Julius Caesar, but never again until 300 or so years had passed.

The KJV and NASV translate "hora" as mountain in verse 9. Mountain was a valid usage in the 1st century. Also it was used for deserts, BUT -- Liddell & Scott's 2-Volume Lexicon of the Greek-to-English indicates that the primary root word means "large land mass" and a reference to continents as well as deserts or any kind of large land mass.

But the fact that the phrase in Verse 9 matches the mystery doctrine of Ishtar combined with the reference of Verse 5 as the "Mother of the Harlots" only confirms that the woman being described is the goddess, Ishtar. Incidentally, she held many other interesting titles - like "Goddess of Liberty/Freedom" and Goddess of Immigrants, Goddess of War, Fertility, Justice, Civlization, and as the Queen of Heaven. The Romans originally borrowed her via the Greeks, as the Goddess Libertas and later adopted all of her mystery dogmas and called her Venus. The Greeks called her - originally - Astarte and later Aphrodite. The Egyptians called her "Ishi" or "Ishti" -- but the Greeks referred to the Egyptian name as Isis because Greek language has no "SH" sound and the final "s" is never pronounced in Greek.

LoL. I guess I kinda digressed, but back to my point about John not quite understanding what he was writing... Your argument that we should interpret Revelation as John intended for his 1st Century readers to understand it - is laughable on its face. John didn't undrestand it. His readers didn't understand it either. Everyone scratched their heads. Therefore your objection and arguments are meaningless and totally invalid. I rest my case.

I suggest you read some of the books I mentioned earlier like, "Red Moon Rising" or "America, The Babylon" and R.H. Charles' commentary on Revelation, if you can get copies.

[givennewname]

How would John's readers have understood this passage? Any "interpretation" that isn't anchored to the understanding of the original audience is meaningless. I seriously doubt John knew or cared anything about New York City. He was more concerned about the immediate events of his own day, under Roman rule with its cult of emperor-worship. What would be the point of cryptically forecasting events thousands of years in his, John's, future?

the letter was written by Jesus to the 7 churches represented by the church throughout the ages and it includes the church in this present age represented by the church of Laedociea.

it doesn't mater whether the christians in the time of John recognises the Woman represented by Babylon, the purpose of the book was to show things that must come to pass-ie at the end times.

[Ephesians2-8]

To Rufus

I already outlined my reasons in the prior responses. As noted previously, even John himself, from the texts indicates that he lacks full understanding of what he saw and I pointed this out from the text. If John, didn't understand it all, then neither would his audience. Indeed, succeeding generations failed to come to terms with all that is written, in part because as the text itself notes, it is a "mystery" and this is especially true of the Babylon issue.

The early church fathers also had a difficult time in understanding and interpreting John's Revelation. This is part of the reason why some questioned it's canonicity I would again encourage you to read the Charlesworth commentary. Enough said.

[givennewname]

To Rufus

I already outlined my reasons in the prior responses. As noted previously, even John himself, from the texts indicates that he lacks full understanding of what he saw and I pointed this out from the text. If John, didn't understand it all, then neither would his audience. Indeed, succeeding generations failed to come to terms with all that is written, in part because as the text itself notes, it is a "mystery" and this is especially true of the Babylon issue.

The early church fathers also had a difficult time in understanding and interpreting John's Revelation. This is part of the reason why some questioned it's canonicity I would again encourage you to read the Charlesworth commentary. Enough said.

Dear Brother,

I need to celar up a point about the nature of prophecy esp those that foretell the fture like the book of Daniel ect.. Isn't it the nature of such prophecy that the person would not be able to understand the prophecy until the prophecy is fullfilled?

For example Daniel foretold the kingdoms of Alexander well before the man came unto the scene of history, so theoretically the people at Daniel's time would have a lot of difficulty understanding what Daniel said..

[Ephesians2-8]

To Rufus

I already outlined my reasons in the prior responses. As noted previously, even John himself, from the texts indicates that he lacks full understanding of what he saw and I pointed this out from the text. If John, didn't understand it all, then neither would his audience. Indeed, succeeding generations failed to come to terms with all that is written, in part because as the text itself notes, it is a "mystery" and this is especially true of the Babylon issue.

The early church fathers also had a difficult time in understanding and interpreting John's Revelation. This is part of the reason why some questioned it's canonicity I would again encourage you to read the Charlesworth commentary. Enough said.

Dear Brother,

I need to celar up a point about the nature of prophecy esp those that foretell the fture like the book of Daniel ect.. Isn't it the nature of such prophecy that the person would not be able to understand the prophecy until the prophecy is fullfilled?

For example Daniel foretold the kingdoms of Alexander well before the man came unto the scene of history, so theoretically the people at Daniel's time would have a lot of difficulty understanding what Daniel said..

Yes, you make an excellent point. Aside perhaps from Jonah, I'm hard pressed to think of any of the OT prophets who really understood their long-range prophecies, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel or Ezekiel in regards to their prophecies concerning the Day of the Lord time frame.