Originally posted by BeMoreCynical
During Roman occupation it was illegal for citizens to criticise the Roman leadership. If the Jews wanted to criticize, they would have to invent a
code language. Babylon for instance was the code for the Roman Empire. The Whore of Babylon would be the name for the Caesar. The heads of the
beast would be representative of the power structure of the Roman Empire.
17:1- 17:5 (to keep in theme with the subject of the thread)
Could clearly refer to Rome yet Rome as an active agent instead of Ceasar as
the whore. Not limited to Rome the city but rather also Rome the
civilization.
Rome doesn't fit the “”the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: “”
I remember as a kid listening to an old preacher's explanation. I grew up in New Mexico (USA) so this preacher was a rather local person. He,
having spent many a year with the Native Americans in the 'four-corners' region, knew a great deal about Indian legends and mythologies (as there
were three distinct tribes).
As he told the story:
“Seven cities sat one each upon a hill, these cities were individual parts of a larger civilization.. . . “
This preacher went on to explain that he thought this meant something like suburbs of a larger and extended city. The city(ies) were located
surrounded by lakes, rivers or other water using ships for trade and conquest (real important point to landlocked and dry American southwest). He
went on to explain that all the inhabitants wore markings that set them apart from others.
Google page for Seven Cities of Cibola
There is more to the story but I imagine you catch my drift.
Things like this keep me from believing that just because someone has made a seemingly logical set of statements point toward some end point that
their end point is absolute.
Originally posted by Amadeus
If Nero was in fact the original object of the name of the "BEAST", then we can date the book safely during the 1st Jewish War of AD 66-AD72. This
would be known as a PRETERIST understanding.
IF. . .
I don't have a problem dating the book to that general time period, I do have problems relegating the message of the book as such.
Originally posted by Byrd
A failed prophecy is just wishful thinking or a dream. It surely isn't prophecy.
I don't believe it is correct to take part of a statement and ascribe it to something akin to imagery and then the other part of the statement to
somewhat of a physical/historical fact. The passages in
Revelations referring to
the mark clearly refer to some type of mark that is
readily identifiable.
Whether bar-codes or SS numbers I can't make that leap. Imaging someone with their driver's license on their forehead just doesn't seem plausible
to me.
I don't agree that Rome, per se, must be taken as the seat of
the beast. It seems unbalanced to believe that something as clearly portrayed
as
the mark is to be relegated to the dustbin for reasons stretched as those that are discarded. To dismiss
the mark because Rome
physically fits the “seven hills” reference yet doesn't match up to an imagined destruction scenario seems akin to not bothering to take an auto-jack
on a trip because one has not had a flat tire.
The Seven Cities of Cibola fits in the plagues and wars- and if one were to consider Mound
Cities that have been proven to exist that collapsed even more of the relationship fits. I don't buy this myself.
The mark is but one aspect of the book. How can one discard one part of
Revelations because of inconvenience yet claim revelation in
interpretation in the work itself by example that some of the surrounding events were present or near present at the time?
Prophetic statements in the
Bible were made and have clearly occurred. This in and of itself does not mean other statements were wrong because
of the simple expediency of time.
I believe that Chap. 3 could be taken as allegorical- Jesus used reproof regarding identifiable churches as example of what was needed and to help
these churches (and future churches) focus on the important.
*side note-
I've always found it fascinating that we:
can convict someone of a crime based upon circumstantial evidence,
believe in love and hate,
yet need God to magically stand next to us and have a nice chat.