09-16-2008, 05:41 PM
Shlama akh Andrew,
Thanks for the explanation. Is there more evidence which suggests that Babylon was a code name for Rome in the 1st century? Are there any other writings (i.e. apocalyptic/psuedographia) dating to this period which makes this implication?
I just don't think that interpreting the great harlot of Rev 17 as Rome is sufficient enough to set this idea in stone. Honestly I really don't think that the great harlot is Rome, this is even more unlikely when taking chapter 18 into consideration, but anyway we know the deal with Revelation.
I do accept the possibility of Rev being written earlier, and I think that what you suggest (that John wrote some of it earlier and revised it later) makes a lot of sense, I'll certainly consider it.
Thanks for the explanation. Is there more evidence which suggests that Babylon was a code name for Rome in the 1st century? Are there any other writings (i.e. apocalyptic/psuedographia) dating to this period which makes this implication?
I just don't think that interpreting the great harlot of Rev 17 as Rome is sufficient enough to set this idea in stone. Honestly I really don't think that the great harlot is Rome, this is even more unlikely when taking chapter 18 into consideration, but anyway we know the deal with Revelation.
I do accept the possibility of Rev being written earlier, and I think that what you suggest (that John wrote some of it earlier and revised it later) makes a lot of sense, I'll certainly consider it.