Talk:Whore of Babylon/Archive 1

Theistic Bible section?
I'm fairly new to all this and far from an expert, but what is going on with the Theistic Bible section? I fail to see any explanation for the inclusion of these 'excerpts'? Dan Kerins 01:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The initial statement of this section claiming that both Rome and Babylon are demonized "in the Bible" is simply not accurate.

Rome is not mentioned at all in the OT. And all of the NT passages discussing "Rome" and/or "Romans" are completely neutral in tone. In fact Paul describes the Roman authorities as being ordained by God.

Jesus himself said that certain authority belonged to Caesar, and other authority to God.

The only possible support for the claim that the Bible demonizes Rome is based on the presumption that the whore "Babylon" is Rome.

And seeing that the very qestion at hand is the identity of Babylon, this would be a classical example of circular reasoning. The conclusion being used to support the conclusion.

While the idea that Rome is "Babylon" is a well known theory, popularized by Hislop in "The Two Babylons", it is simply false to say that "the Bible" even suggests the idea.

So I believe that an edit is called for to attribute this view to "some bible scholars" rather than to identify it as the official viewpoint of "the Bible Who is drunk on the blood of the saints? Who will drive the Jews out of Israel and into the wilderness for three and a half years? The Muslims. The old Babylon sits on the very soil wher

iraq is now. Many scholars are returning to the more literal reading of these biblical prophecies. John said that Babylon is the whore called Sodom and Egypt where also our Lord was crucified. Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem, the very city holy also to Muslims. The Muslims will regain control of the city and drive out the Jews and Christians. It will become the center of Islam and all of their apostate teachings. A powerful leader will guide them, also known as the Anti christ who will use his political and religious leadership to require all people to swear allegiance to him and his system in order to survive economically. Eventually he will go into the newly rebuilt temple and declare himself to be Gd, at which point even righteous Muslims will reject him and spiral the world into a military conflict which will only be ended by the return of the Messiah Jesus Christ. 86.197.80.92 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)EBW


 * The central principle seems to be that the term applies to the defacto superpower of the day, and is the typical perceptual characterization of the people whom the superpower typically oppresses and persecutes. 

A number of recent edits, esp. by Stevertigo, seem to point towards making this thesis. I like many of them, including the comparison to "Great Satan" (FWIW that currently redirects to Satan, and the Islamist rhetorical figure probably deserves separate and comprehensive treatment) and mentioning the USA as a candidate for the new Rome. OTOH, I do think the article as it currently stands seems to be POV in its eagerness to put forth this thesis. I would restructure it so that the relatively non-controversial portions come first (Biblical texts; identification with Rome) and that the candidates for the Whore of Babylon's identity come later. Smerdis of Tlön 17:11, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

JW section is retardedly long
Its almost as long as the whole rest of the article. also, i suspect its plagiarized. --PopeFauveXXIII 10:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is some overlap with earlier content and I would question the objectiveness of the account. Particularly the last sentence: "All the above factors are significant, and they must all be considered in arriving at a true picture of symbolic Babylon the Great and what it represents." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.115.135 (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction Required
Can someone tell me what idiot keeps correction the misinformation that according to Rastafarian belief the Queen Elizabeth II is regarded as the modern day whore of Babylon? There is obviously some confusion or deliberate misinformation here.

Fact:

One: The Queen Elizabeth II is Head of State in only a symbolic role in 16 of the 53 Commonwealth countries of which Jamaica is part.

Two: This is the first and only time I have ever seen this unsubstantiated claim about the Whore of Babylon & HM Queen, made and trust me it’s 100% wrong.

Three: The Rastafarian faith originated in Ethiopia not Jamaica as has been stated.

Four: Apart from England I am unaware of anybody having to swear loyalty to the Queen. In England the Queen Elizabeth II is also Head of the Protestant church (Church of England) and it is in this capacity that her subjects are required to swear allegiance to the crown.

Five: In recent opinion polls more people in Jamaica (90%) are in favour of continuing to have the Queen Elizabeth II as their figurative head of state more than in Australia. This included Rastafarians as well.

Six: Ethiopia, the true home of the Rastafarian faith, as well as Halie Selassie, has never been colonised by the United Kingdom, nor has it ever had any ambitions to colonise this country. Only the Italians have invaded Ethiopia and occupied in 1936-41 under Fascist dictator Mussolini. As the true home of the Rastafarian faith many Rastafarians from across the Caribbean, including Jamaica volunteered to go to Ethiopia and fight this fascist occupation alongside allied troops.

As Emperor Halie Salassie had to go into exile during this occupation it was with the assistance of HM King of England and the British Empire that Halie Salassie was given refuge and safe passage to England, via Palestine until he was later restored to power. Something that is still widely recognised and acknowledge by Rastafarians world wide as the only country that came to Halie Salassie’s aid at a time of need.

Now bearing all this in mind, why do you still make this claim that Rastafarians in Jamaicans claim to refer to the Queen of England as the Whore of Babylon?

Can you please back up your evidence with your so-called experts or reliable experts? Or remove this pathetic claim as it’s totally wrong, this is obviously a student prank by someone who is fuelled up on low grade ganja, too much sun and cheap beer who clearly does not know anything on this subject.

JRW BSc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.38.240 (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Its almost as long as the whole rest of the article. also, i suspect its plagiarized. --PopeFauveXXIII 10:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC

PopeFauve or whatever your name is as you have stated “All the above factors are significant”

Can you back up your claim that this nonsense in the use of “significant” with referring, myself and others to a single publication (IBN ref) that corroborates this claim or an institution that supports this? I would be very interested to find the name of this “so-called” intuition that is actually supporting this ridiculous claim.

As I expect you will be unable to do this and as to that fact that you accuse me of stooping down plagiarize this information tells me you obviously do not know anything whatsoever on the subject. Did you actually go to university or are you one of the people who brought your degree? When I attended university we taught to think and at least back up your arguments with information from more than one source.

Wikipeadia is the only place I have seen this pathetic claim on the Whore of Babylon and you clearly do not know anything about Rastafarians. So you have two options remove the claim or back it up with supporting information.

I suggest you wake and get back to the real world.

JW BSc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.38.240 (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if our fine commentator would actually provide better information from verifiable references. Or anyone else, either way or the other. Vandalizing the page is not helping anyone. Painting yourself as a mouthfrothing krank suggesting others wake up to the real world is not helping your case. 85.178.124.66 14:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

rastafarianism
From an anon IP:

There is obviously some confusion here

Fact:

One: The Queen Elizabeth II is Head of State in only a symbolic role in 16 of the 53 Commonwealth countries of which Jamaica is part.

Two: This is the first and only time I have ever seen this unsubstantiated claim about the Whore of Babylon, made and trust me it’s 100% wrong.

Three: The Rastafarian faith originated in Ethiopia not Jamaica as has been claimed.

Four: Apart from England I am unaware of anybody having to swear loyalty to the Queen. In England the Queen Elizabeth II is also Head of the Protestant church (Church of England) and it is in this capacity that her subjects are required to swear allegiance to the crown.

Five: In recent opinion polls more people in Jamaica (90%) are in favour of continuing to have the Queen Elizabeth II as their figurative head of state than in Australia. This included Rastafarians as well.

Six: Ethiopia, the true home of the Rastafarian faith, as well as Halie Selassie, has never been colonised by the United Kingdom, nor has it ever had any ambitions to colonise this country. Only the Italians have invaded Ethiopia and occupied in 1936-41 under Fascist dictator Mussolini. As the true home of the Rastafarian faith many Rastafarians from across the Caribbean, including Jamaica volunteered to go to Ethiopia and fight this fascist occupation alongside allied troops.

As Emperor Halie Salassie had to go into exile during this occupation it was with the assistance of HM King of England and the British Empire that Halie Salassie was given refuge and safe passage to England, via Palestine until he was later restored to power. Something that is still widely recognised and acknowledge by Rastafarians world wide as the only country that came to Halie Salassie’s aid at a time of need.

Now bearing all this in mind, why do you still make this claim that Rastafarians in Jamaicans claim to refer to the Queen of England as the Whore of Babylon?

Can you please back up your evidence with your so-called experts or reliable experts? Or remove this pathetic claim as it’s totally wrong, this is obviously a student prank by someone who is fuelled up on low grade ganja, who clearly does not know anything on this subject.

moved from main page Kuronue | Talk 01:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

HM The Queen
I have removed the ludicrous Rastafari section stating HM The Queen of the Commonwealth as the whore of bablylon as it is unsourced. Also the section about Mrs Clinton was deleted on the same grounds so I'm assuming there shouldn't be any problems. The is a wiki rule about rude speculations about lving people anyway, isnt there? --Camaeron 18:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Sorry for all the reverts. 81.79.246.22 made a lot of changes, and Myork and I kept reverting to the wrong page. I think it's all fixed now. Starbane 03:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Other uses
the whore of babylon is also mentioned and shown in several early scenes in damien omen II - t ali-23/01/06

Removed Hillory as Whore
Before you can make this kind of claim I think you need to provide some references:

Among right wing Christians, Current views that Hillary Clinton and the liberal secularists from Hollywood and halls of political power are representative of the apocalyptic Whore of Babylon. The prophetical clarity of is questionable however, there seems to be a growing concern among Millerite sub religions of the premillenial view of the 2nd coming and interpretative views from this group indicate cultural and moral decay will lead to the coming of Armageddon and the inevitability of the glorious appearing and second coming of Jesus on Earth.

myork 14:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Circles and churches (text removed to talk)

 * Some consider all churches to be the whore of babylon since in jewish time people considered christ's church to be within every believer and not in some building and in the bible the word church is tranlated from the word ecclesia even though it is assumed to come from the word kurios and ecclesia, in Greek ἐκκλησία, literally "the called out", means a gathering of people.The etymology of the church word is generally assumed to be from the Greek, kurios oikos (house of the Lord); but this is most improbable, as the word existed in all the Celtic dialects long before the introduction of the Greek. No doubt the word means ‘a circle.’ The places of worship among the German and Celtic nations were always circular [witness circular Stonehenge, the most ancient stone megaliths on earth]. Compare Anglo-Saxon ‘circe,’ a small church, with ‘circol,’ a circle.In Scotland it is called "Kirk" and in Gemany it is "Kirche," in England it is the word "Circe" (the "c" having a "k" sound)"Kirke/Circe" was also the name of a Goddess.Kirke or Circe was the daughter of the Sun god, who was famous for taming wild animals for her circus.Circe is pictured holding a golden cup in her hand mixed with wine and drugs, by which she controlled the kings of the world and some christians believe that revelation (17:4)"And the woman [woman always the symbol for a church/kirke] was arrayed in purple and scarlet color [these colors symbolize wealth and high position], and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication" is referring to the church.

I have removed this large swtach of unwikified text to talk. I'd like to know who believes this and have some evidence that these etymological fantasies are prevalent enough to be noteworthy. For what it's worth, the standard references derive "church" and its cognates, not from "circle," plainly borrowed from Latin circulum, but from Greek kyriakon, "belonging to the Lord." Smerdis of Tlön 19:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Citations Needed: Whore of Babylon as Earthly Jerusalem - Kabbalah and Freemasonry linked?
All right, all right. This is the Internet. If you want to spew Anti-semetic bullcrap at me, that's fine. I'm used to it by now. But if you're going to do that on Wikipedia, you're at the very least going to tell me what frigging genius actually believes that Freemasonry and Kabbalah are actually linked, and how. --Brasswatchman 18:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Earthly Jerusalem as the Whore of Babylon
Yawn ... Countersubject 22:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Lady Liberty
Lady Liberty. The Statue of Harlots.--168.13.191.66 20:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Funny that you should say that just as I was posting the very thing. I might have put up more, but the page is already rather long thanks to the Jehova's Witnesses segment.  --Zephyr axiom 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Symbolism Section
The symbolism section needs to be rewritten to bring it to encyclopedic standard. It is replete with sentences like "The central principle of this view seems to be that the term "Babylon" applies to the de facto superpower of the day, and is the typical perceptual characterization of the people whom the superpower typically oppresses and persecutes."—that is, bad writing. The section also expresses a view without any sources.Rintrah 13:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Current Page details
Methinks this is wrong somehow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.181.210 (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

POV and incomplete
Both POV and incomplete. Book of Revelation presents many theories as to what Babylon refers to, yet this article can boldly claim that almost all Bible scholars (weasel, weasel) think Babylon is Rome? No. Start over, cite sources, and ixnay on the original esearch-ray. This article is authoritative in the bad sense. Wikipedia is not a primary source. 82.92.119.11 16:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I cannot claim to have read all commentary; but every source I have read agrees that Babylon equals Rome in these passages; which Rome, and when, are the only controversy. Who says different? I see nothing in the Book of Revelation article that suggests anything else. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * After careful re-reading, I find that some vandal has managed to revert all the passages I saw without even leaving a trace in the edit history! I know this sounds unlikely, but the alternative is that I was talking out of my ass completely on a subject I know squat about by dramatically misreading the thing. I trust you'll agree that that is impossible, so it has to be a bug. I'll go post it at the bugzilla site immediately, reporting an 1D10T, or PEBKAC error. :-) 82.92.119.11 21:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, it was probably good to add some references to that material in any case. This is one point upon which there would appear to be a quite broad consensus, though.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 22:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It might help to actually provide a little context on Babylon itself. Cripes, the word Babylon isn't even linked once to the article on the city-state of Babylon, which figures in just a wee bit in Judaica... The whole section is really dubious for this and other reasons. npov, dubious, you name it. 65.173.51.13 21:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rastafari
Does anyone know how to change the Christianity template at the beginning so Rastafari can be put in. Babylon is a term of modern reference to modern day society thanks to the rastas, so the comment that almost no none biblical scholars have heard of it is untrue and has been removed. I think that given that the whore of Babylon does not refer only to Christianity, as the template implies, and so have removed it. If you don't like this please comment here. --SqueakBox 15:50, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

International trading empires comprise the whore of babylon
Revelation makes it clear that the whore consists of those financial empires (located in New York) that run world trade through the ships on the seas. The origin of this was the ancient city of Tyre whose trading extended to the Americas and the rest of the world (tin to make brass for solomon's temple was imported from cornwall in britain, gold from the south americas, peacocks from sumatra) in the time of Solomon via the construction of the ships of tarshish. The central focus at that time was Solomon's temple in jerusalem, the height of it's promotion. Today, the very same global trading network still controls the world's goods, a trading system that does not acknowledge Jesus Christ. In the time of Solomon, the phoenicians did acknowledge yahweh for a while but since then having chosen not to acknowledge yahweh the network is thus titled the 'whore', a most accurate epithet for it. It is responsible for financing world wars and is the very essence of that delusional spirit that glorifies the world, the lusts of the flesh and of the eyes. However, God has used this babylon to bless the nations of the world just as he turned the gain of tyre in ancient times to the benefit of clothing and feeding His servants. The future of this babylon ends in perversion and this is the reason for the judgements upon it as laid out in scripture.


 * I have moved this section to talk. At minimum, I think it needs referenced.  It is by no means clear that Revelation ever refers to New York; or for that matter what it would mean for a trading system to "acknowledge Jesus Christ."  Not saying that these ideas are not attested, but they should be referred to a semi-notable source if they are to escape being labelled original research, and the whole text needs to be stated in a more NPOV fashion.  Smerdis of Tlön 20:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't the dollar have "In God We Trust" written on the back of it?? Seems to me that the trading system acknowledges the existence of Jesus Christ?

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)