Oceanic ;6765062 said:
DoUwant2go2Heaven?;6765058 said:
The dots connect throughout all 66 books of the Bible.
Thus, Babylon has been interpreted to be ancient Rome. Unfortunately, that is not the only option. You see how this works?
Well the Rome theory based on Revelation 17:9 has been thoroughly refuted by many leadin scholars. Here goes an excerpt from an excellent piece written by R.A. coombes which goes deep sea diving into the original language of the text and it's meaning. If interested read.
Misconception #2. That Revelation 17:9 is a reference to Rome as being the city called Babylon. The basis for that claim is made primarily on the basis that some translations use the English word "hill" in verse 9. However, the KJV does not use the term "hill". Neither does the New American Standard Bible. Both of those versions use the term "mountain". Most other modern translations use the term "hill." Why is this important to the notion that Rome is Babylon? Look at the Verse: 9
"And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth."
The Rome = Babylon theorists will point to the verse and claim this verse is referring to the 7 'hills' of Rome. They overlook the 2 more reliable of all English versions which say "mountains". The typical R=B theorist will not be dissuaded by such a minor technicality…by claiming that whether it is "mountains" or "hills" its still the same thing. Still, others will look at the Greek text to see what the actual Greek word is and what it means.
The Greek word used here is the word "hora". (not "ora" as some have alluded). There is a rough breathing mark before the letters o-r-a. That rough breathing mark means that an 'h' sound must be pronounced first, thus the word is pronounced "hora". Now, for those who are familiar with Strong's concordance numbering system the number is = #3735. Dr. Strong himself ascribed the meaning as being 'mountain' in primary usage. He does cite a minority opinion that sometimes it might be used in referring to a hill. That is a debatable issue.
Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon does not even mention hill as a possible definition. Perhaps that is because of Luke 3:5 where we find the word "hora" is translated as "mountain". The word in that verse for "hill" is the word "bounos". Now that is significant because we see that "hill" is connected to a word other than "hora" for which the non-Greek researcher would not realize the difference. Regarding the meaning of "hora"… to fully comprehend this word we should turn to the esteemed work of Moulton & Milligan's Vocabulary of the Greek Testament.
Moulton & Milligan's work is unlike most lexicons because it is providing definitions based upon a rendering of all koine writings that have been found by archaelogists in odd places like "trash dumps" among other places. Using all sorts of written documents even if partially or mostly destroyed, many times a linguist and translator can get a feel for the true meaning of how a word was used and not simply what the dictionary definitions state. Thus, it is interesting that Moulton & Milligan cite that the word 'hora' was often used for the desert. Yes, that's right … a desert. Now deserts tend to be flat, not hilly nor mountainous. They go on to indicate that the typical normal usage of the word was "mountain" but not hill. Hmmm. Why would that be? There is a different word for "hill" in the Greek. It is the word we mentioned earlier that is also found in Luke 3:5 as it sits almost side by side with the word "hora". Now this word for hill that we see in Luke 3:5 is the word "bounos".
"Bounos" is the key to Revelation 17:9 because "bounos" is NOT…. I repeat bounos IS NOT USED nor found in Revelation 17:9. It is the word for hill. BUT…BUT…BUT…BUT…. (Do I have your attention, now?) Please note this next statement. The word "bounos" was actually a word the Greeks borrowed from the Romans who used the word exclusively to refer to the 7 hills of Rome. That's right. The word "bounos" is the grammatically correct word to use if you were to refer to the 7 hills of Rome.
Now, Revelation 17:9 does not have the word "bounos" in the text. It is the word "hora". So that, IF the Holy Spirit, who guided John's hand and mind in writing the Revelation, were referring in verse 9 (and really all of chapters 17 and 18)… then why did the Holy Spirit make an ERROR in the Greek Language???? I DID NOT REALIZE THAT GOD COULD SIN !!!!!! I DID NOT REALIZE THAT GOD COULD MAKE AN ERROR…even if it was in language? Why did God, the Holy Spirit make the Greek Grammatical error of using "hora" to describe the 7 Hills of Rome when HE should have used the word "bounos"??????? The answer is, of course, that He didn’t make an error because He was not referring to nor speaking of Rome. He was speaking of a nation and its chief city and IF it were Rome, the Lord would have used the correct word for the 7 hills of Rome…the word "Bounos"… which is actually a Roman word the Greek's borrowed from the Romans. See Moulton & Milligan's research on this word in "Vocabulary of the Greek Testament".
Now, all languages borrow words from other languages. We borrow a lot of words from the French and Spanish languages. We have even borrowed from the Japanese (like sayonara). If we were at a bullfight in Mexico would we use the term 'ole or "hurray" when cheering? Yes. IF, I were to say to you that I visited the Italian city of Pisa and saw the leaning skyscraper, would I be accurate? No, because the Leaning Tower of Pisa is actually the bell tower for a cathedral not a skyscraper. If I were to have referred to it as an office building would I have been correct? No. So too, with the usage of the word "hora" to describe the 7 hills of Rome. I would only be correct if I used the term "bounos."
Herein lies the death knell for any "Rome = Babylon" theorist that wants to use Revelation 17:9 as a proof text for his theory. He must explain this incorrect usage by the Lord in order to use this verse properly as a proof for his theory of Rome. It cannot be adequately explained. This author knows because this author started out to use that verse to prove that Rome was Babylon. I couldn't do it honestly or fairly. I had to abandon it as a proof as painful as that was. It was only one of the many, painful, abandonments that I endured as I spent several years of research trying to prove the "Rome = Babylon" theory was indeed correct.
It took me 3 years to begin to surrender from that position, by virtue of the overwhelming evidence that piled up against that view. So too with all the other theories except for the America = Babylon theory.
The America = Babylon theory is the only one I can't shoot down. In fact, I couldn't shoot down one single character trait of all the dozens that are found in the scriptures that help us to identify "Mystery Babylon". It took me 4 years to accept that I'd been wrong about Rome or the Catholic Church or Iraq or anyone else as Mystery Babylon. The last thing I wanted to do was to believe that America was the Babylon of future Prophecy. When I realized that I couldn't use the Revelation 17:9 passage as proof the whole theory just seemed to crumble. Then the discovery that Hislop's assumptions and data conclusions were in complete error only underscored the problem. But those were only 2 of the three key linchpins that held the Rome as Babylon theory together.