The Whore of Babylon

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, my Bible makes it clear the Whore is a City, not an institution. So the City is Rome, torn down by the Beast and Ten Kings.

If the prophecy refers to anything it surely refers to the sack of Rome, which has already come to pass.

I agree this idea works on quite a lot of the levels, but still in some it doesn't appear to add up. I gave examples of the various sackings in the OP, but in each case their relationship with Rome isn't the way John said it should be. Also, if the sacking on Rome was what John prophecied, we should have been living on the new heaven and new earth by now!

As for the woman being the city (Rev 17:18?), I suppose that is correct (sorry if I caused confusion by making the city and not just the seven hills appear to be the foundation that the woman rides on). Although it is synonymous with the Church of Rome, since the latter is the means by which the woman does all the things said of her (exercising authority over the multitudes etc).

What's ridiculous, my friend, is that anyone actually thinks there might be a beast of Revelation. Entertaining, but ridiculous.

Hmm... you are not a hardline atheist are you? Would you call all religious beliefs ridiculous? If not, I don't see why my interpretation of Revelation has to be so absurd. Nowadays if you know nothing about the Bible or theology and just say that everything is an allegory then people will say wow isn't he knowledgeable and reasonable. But all I'm trying to do is make an honest understanding of what it's saying. If you'll concede the guy in the sky is there, then I don't see how this is far-fetched.

In my opinion, that's the real truth of Christian charity - finding it in one's heart to abandon long-held "interpretations" of hatred and find the way to peace when all about you want the much easier road of war.

Yeah, there is this sense due to the 'peace and tolerance' morality I was talking about earlier than somehow doing cartwheels to come to the conclusion that everyone is right is somehow the honest thing to do, always the hard path when its easy to descend into dispute. But this just isn't the reality much of the time. It would be much easier for me to join hands with the ecumenical movement instead of holding unpopular views, and just dismiss everything John says as an allegory that could mean anything - when in fact what I see in front of me is a very specific set of criteria for which only Rome fits the bill.

Also, your post holds the assumption that any interpretations which lead to dispute must be backward and wrong, something we are raised to believe as soon as we enter Primary School. The majority of replies haven't been about actually studying Revelation, instead just people saying its nonsense and that it can't be Rome. Why? Well just because Rome is such a big part of western culture and is so important both spiritually and politically, that it seems crazy to say that it could be the whore of Babylon. You have too many underlying assumptions, so whatever you see in Revelation can't point to Rome. Much the same way that if you tried to suggest to any Protestant in the 16th century that Rome wasn't the whore, then they would just dismiss you. Why? Because it's something that underlies such a huge part not just of obscure theology, but of the very world around them. I try not to get these ideas in the way of making an honest interpretation of what Revelation is saying (as you can imagine, I have influences which would sway me either way, what with being a Scottish Protestant on the one hand and we all know what it's known for lol, but at the same time being part of a modern liberal society that respects Rome as a spiritual centre).