Talk:Whore of Babylon
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
|2004 - 2005|
|2006 - 2009|
- 1 Soviet Union
- 2 Scarlet Woman
- 3 Ishtar
- 4 Page protection
- 5 Discussion
- 6 Roman Catholic Church section
- 7 Question for 220.127.116.11 in regards to Earthly Jerusalem section
- 8 Ian
- 9 NPOV NO AGREEMENT THAT THE KINGDOM IS ALLEGORICAL
- 10 Reformational view
- 11 Popular Culture section missing
- 12 Alternate (Islamic) View
- 13 Catholic church
The paragraph that identifies the former Soviet Union as the Whore of Babylon needs serious work (and/or deletion). Rather than referencing a source that supports the assertion that the USSR was viewed as the Whore of Babylon, it instead references sources that indicate that Dispensationalist view "Gog" as being identified as the Whore of Babylon.
Problem: Gog is a completely different topic.
Further, the paragraph concludes with a disparaging (and, I submit, not NPOV) comment that the fall of the Soviet Union has caused Dispensationalists to revise their commentaries. Again, this is unsourced. (and, not true, since Dispensationalists still tend to view Gog as Russia).
I think that most Dispensationalists have tended to lean towards the City of Rome as the location of the Whore of Babylon, due to the Seven Hills/Seven Mountains reference, but I do not have a source available at this moment.
At present the term "Scarlet woman" has three possible articles:
- Scarlet woman is a redirect to Prostitution
- Scarlet Woman is a redirect to Whore of Babylon
- Babylon opens with Babylon — also known as The Scarlet Woman...
I would propose that both Scarlet woman and Scarlet woman be directed to a page giving links to each of the above articles. If there is no objection I will create the disambiguation page and change the redirects accordingly - does 48 hours seem like a reasonable interval? ElijahOmega (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- The article explains that it is about the Christian concept. Ishtar would be out of this article's scope. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think not. The Christian concept is derived from somewhere, if explained/sourced properly to be a symbol borrowed from the post-Babylonian Judaism, transfered from its original Judaic despise of the Babylon imperial power to the Christian despise of the Roman imperial power, a derivation from Ishtar is quite a proper mention. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Due to a complaint over problematic editing and deletions, I've protected the page temporarily in order to bring the editors to the talk page here to discuss their edits. Please use this page to bridge differences and achieve a consensus. Will Beback talk 20:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the version preferred by 18.104.22.168 is better than that preferred by Willfults. The latter version, in the subsection "Roman Catholic Church", contains a poorly written, illustrated and sourced attack on the Roman Catholic Church. Scholarly views should appear first in the article, as they do in the version of 22.214.171.124.
In the version of 126.96.36.199, I think that WP:UNDUE requires trimming of the "Other views" section, especially the "Jehovah's Witnesses" subsection. It adds little of value to the "Historicism" subsection. If "Jehovah's Witnesses" is retained, it would be helpful to add some scholarly sources, preferably from the last couple of decades. Watchtower and Awake are a reliable source for what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, but seven citations of material published by Jehovah's Witnesses should not be necessary in this article and may be promotional or advocacy. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd respectfully disagree with 188.8.131.52's version being better, although I would like to see all viewpoints accurately represented and sourced. Consider the section "Earthly Jerusalem" in  Starting with the paragraph "In Jeremiah 13, Judah is warned that because of her whoredom, the cups of all of the people will be..." it's all original research. Moving up one paragraph to "For example, in Matthew 23:34-37 and Luke 11:47-51" that is also primarily original research with 1 reference which has no page, year and publisher. It's unverifiable. I tagged these sections before removing them. Likewise with the paragraph "The first to see Jerusalem in Revelation's Babylon were the French Jesuit Jean Hardouin " again no references, original research, unverifiable. Also the section says "Scholarly views", and lists only preterists viewpoints. That's POV. Like the other viewpoints are not scholarly? The whole article is rather slanted.
Regarding the comment in regards to my version stating.... the "subsection "Roman Catholic Church", contains a poorly written, illustrated and sourced attack on the Roman Catholic Church" Scholarly views should appear first in the article, as they do in the version of 184.108.40.206." ......
There are only 2 references in 91.209's version for that section, and it's debatable if those are scholarly. The other is a Roman Catholic defense, and the section is designed to discredit the historicist viewpoint and promote the above two viewpoints. In my version there are 14 references from various sources, from major organizations that actually represent that viewpoint like Amazing Facts, which is from a Protestant church (SDA) and the section properly explains the historicist viewpoint. Of course those who are slanted to the other viewpoints will disagree with the historicist perspective, but blanking the whole section as one user did is not in accordance with wikipedia policy.
Also 220.127.116.11, going around and blanking my other changes in articles without giving any reason is against wikipedia policy. I understand that you lean heavily toward the preterist viewpoint, yet censoring other opinions because you disagree with little or no wikipedia policy foundation is not good faith editing. 18.104.22.168's version of the historicist section is a poorly written and sourced attack on the historicism viewpoint. All viewpoints should be represented, not just preterists. I'm fine with the other viewpoints like Earthly Jerusalem being in the article, if it meets wikipedia standards, which at the moment in 91.209's version does not.
"If "Jehovah's Witnesses" is retained..." The "Jehovah's Witnesses" position should be retained, as some points laid out in the section have direct references to Watchtower material. Although if there are any sections without references then they may be OR and removed (or cited properly). Willfults (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I propose a compromise solution of working off the current version but expanding the Earthly Jerusalem section (with cited material). Also using inline tagging for any part of the Jehovah's section that may need sourcing or removing. Willfults (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you. The Catholic section is obviously an attack not a NEUTRAL PRESENTATION. And why was the Catholic Answers counter argument removed by the POV user?
- The Roman Catholic Church denies the claim that it is being referred to by the Book of Revelation as the Whore of Babylon. Catholic Answers argue that in Rev 17:10, it states that the seven heads of the Beast are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a little while (Rev. 17:9–10) "If five of these kings had fallen in John’s day and one of them was still in existence, then the Whore must have existed in John’s day. Yet the Vatican City did not even exist at that time. Since the Whore persecuted apostles and prophets, the Whore must have existed in the first century. This totally demolishes the claim that Christian Rome or Vatican City is the Whore. Rome was not a Christian city at that time, and Vatican City did not even exist, so neither of them could be the Whore. Furthermore, Fundamentalists continually (though wrongly) claim that Catholicism itself did not exist in the first century, meaning that based on their very own argument Catholicism could not be the Whore! "Catholic Answers: Whore of Babylon Why did the POV editor blanked this reliably cited scholarly section without VALID EXPLANATION?
Most Bible scholars (sources: Babylon in the New Testament, International Standard Bible EncyclopediaWomen in scripture: a dictionary of named and unnamed women in the Hebrew,Encylopedia Britannica) agree that "Babylon" is an allegory of Rome; perhaps specifically at the time to some aspect of Rome's rule (brutality, greed, paganism), or even a servant people that does the bidding of Rome. That interpretation goes back at least to the time of Tertullian (Adv. Marc., iii. 13). This interpretation was adopted by Jerome and Augustine and has been commonly accepted by the Roman Catholic church. The Roman Catholic New American Bible commentary,New American Bible, Revelation 17:5 footnote the evangelical Protestant commentary of the New International Version Study Bible, the Rastafarians and the Protestant commentary of the Oxford Annotated Study Bible all concur that "Babylon is the symbolic name for Rome" and that [1st century] Rome was the "type of place where evil is supreme" (Jerusalem Bible, commentary to Rev. 17). In 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch and the Sibylline oracles, "Babylon" is a cryptic name for RomeBabylon in the New Testament. Elsewhere in the New Testament, in 1 Peter 5:13; some[http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/B/BABYLON+IN+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT/ Babylon in the New Testament speculate that "Babylon" is used to refer to Rome. This is bolstered by the remark in Rev. 17:9 that she sits on "seven mountains" (the King James Version Bible-the New International Version Bible uses the words "seven hills"), which could be the seven hills of Rome. A roman coin minted under the Emperor Vespasian(ca. 71 CE) depicts Rome as a woman sitting on seven hills. There are a number of smaller symbolic clues that some see as suggesting a link between Rome and Babylon — the Roman Empire in its military occupation of Israel, its repression of the Jewish nation and religion, its destruction of Jerusalem following Jewish revolts in 70 CE and 135 CE, and its persecution of Christians, would lend meaning to the imagery of the 'whore, drunk with the blood of martyrs,' as a wantonly violent and bloodthirsty entity.[http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/B/BABYLON+IN+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT/ Babylon in the New Testament - 22.214.171.124
Well for one your source is just a copy paste from a website that doesn't directly represent most of the texts cited. For example, look at http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/B/BABYLON+IN+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT/ and I don't see anything in that reference that refers to the last sentence quotation of 'whore, drunk with the blood of martyrs,' or the dates 70 and 135. It's like someone desperately just referenced a random site because there were no citations in the paragraph. Also the reference http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/B/BABYLON+IN+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT/ is not enough to consistent "Most Bible scholars" as mentioned in the first sentence. I gave a reason for why http://books.google.ca/books?id=NIMam563-fsC&pg=PA528&lpg=PA528 was removed a while back. It's used to state "most Bible scholars" but the source also just states "most Bible scholars" without mentioning who. I believe I may have tagged that with a [who?] tag, before removing it. If you'd like the http://www.catholic.com/library/Whore_of_Babylon.asp reference in the historicist viewpoint then I'd gladly add some "neutral representation" in the Earthly Jerusalem section as well. But wikipedia is not about debunking positions, it is about stating each position clearly. If we had counter points to every section the article would be massive and lack flow. At least separate the sections into different viewpoints for clarity. Again as stated earlier I'm ok with a section stating that people believe that Babylon refers to Rome, if it is properly cited and doesn't fail validation.
Also it seems like I may be arguing against just one person? 126.96.36.199 using words such as "scholarly section"? With 0 contributions besides this talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.8.131.52 184.108.40.206 can you identify yourself so perhaps we can follow the discussion better? Thanks. Willfults (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- 220.127.116.11; Bible History Online appears to be a WP:SPS. "Self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable." Absent evidence to the contrary, we assume that the creator holds the copyright. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Short quotations that are identified as such may be considered fair use. "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes." Please follow this guidance.
- Willfults; Google Scholar finds nearly 4000 uses of the "whore of babylon". I think a good article could be written. But, many of the article sources do not satisfy my reading of WP:RS, in my opinion. If the view of Jehovah's Witnesses is notable, it should be easy to find scholarly sources for that content. Google Scholar finds 60 citations for "whore of babylon" "jehovah's witnesses". But, crudely speaking, 60/4000 or 1.5% of the article should be devoted to that topic to be consistent with the guidance of WP:UNDUE or WP:SOAP. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- The protection has been in a version containing a non-neutral section on the Catholic Church. Simply put, the final paragraph of that section is acceptable and historical, while the rest appears to me to be advocacy of a POV. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
@Walter, considering your points I'm in agreement in regards to the Jehovah's Witness section. Perhaps I would allow more than 1.5% though but it depends on what the content is. The section does need some work, yet I am not qualified to state their position. Hoping someone else can help out in regards to that. Willfults (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Roman Catholic Church section
The pictures in this section are very POV, as is most of the text. Cardinals wear scarlet - who is it who connects that with Revelation 17:4? The same section appears in Whore of Babylon (historicism), which I'm tagging now. StAnselm (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- The scarlet in itself doesn't derive from the Revelations, but as a symbol of Roman elite (such as for example the Imperial power) a while before Christianity emerged. The Tyrian purple is on the borderland between scarlet and indigo. I cannot find the section you refer to, but I believe might have been the common street-preacher-sermon scribble from some unregistered-IP-moron, that use to annoy us serious editors. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Some of the citations are from some very POV Bible study. I'm going to take the step of removing the extreme POV statements that don't have a relatively neutral source. I also agree on the images and am going to remove them. They should not appear with the captions relating the Catholic Church to the WoB unless the opposing view is also mentioned in the caption, which would make the captions too clunky. --Ginkgo100talk 00:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have tagged the section (), although by now it has been renamed and even the plan of the article is, er, "strange"... For example, the section "Rome and the Roman Empire" describes the view that it refers to, well, Rome and the Roman Empire... So, what should a section called "Protestant Reformation" or "Jehovah's Witnesses" describe by analogy..? Looking at the version several edit wars ago (), the plan of the article was more sensible at that time... Maybe it is worth to return to that plan? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Question for 18.104.22.168 in regards to Earthly Jerusalem section
Hey 22.214.171.124, I have a question since you know more about Catholic beliefs than me. I saw that you made a recent change stating that the Catholic Church rejects this interpretation. I know a lot less about Catholicism than you, but that is what I found also when reading the Catholic Encyclopedia(http://books.google.com/books?id=vJ78Vd4O9d4C&pg=PA861&dq=book+of+Revelation+95+catholic&hl=en&ei=W4u3TPrzNMWDcKv_mLoG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 861 - states "This is a clear reference to Rome").
My point is this interpretation is also rejected by the majority of Protestants (who largely hold to a futurist perspective). The Seventh day Adventist Church also rejects this. Along with Jehovah's witnesses (see their section) and Mormons (I'm pretty sure) . So my question is what major denomination holds this viewpoint? If it is just a few theologians then it is WP:FRINGE. Also it is taking up more space than every other section (except maybe JW) and needs to be trimmed or removed per WP:UNDUE. Your thoughts are appreciated. Willfults (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I'm of the opinion that at very least religious articles should be eternally locked from anon-IP editing, editors who believe they can use Wikipedia to promote their own minority opinion. I suspect that Mr IP won't answer, since self-styled preachers usually conjecture their own theories (WP:OR) on one source, and when meating resistance from experienced editors they bail out. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ian, The only change I'm making in regards to this edit is changing the word "many" to "some", in two sentences, and also changing the grammar and wording from "Ellen White" having to "some" having. As that is true as well. Lastly, I moved one section down in order, based on how many people believe in such. (forgot to mention). I don't see this change as significant and threats are not kind. You seem to be undoing all my changes on every page, because you have a grudge, why not let it go friend? "And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient," 2 Tim 2:24. Willfults (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- If the change isn't significant, why is it important enough for you to revert it? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Ask Ian that question :) The statement "Ellen G. White have been led to believe that Imperial Rome could not meet such a specification", doesn't seem grammatically correct to me. Willfults (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- (Ack, tried to post just as I had to run an errand, came back to find that it edit conflicted and didn't go through)
- "Many" is generally considered more than "some," so that's bumping the number down. The source for the Ellen G. White view is just Ellen G. White. "Some" is plural, so saying "some" in her case is giving her more credit than she actually has. I keep undoing your changes because you keep pushing an SDA POV, through original research, original research based on a misunderstanding of Latin (by the way, how is one document "various?" You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between singular and plural), and misrepresenting sources. I'm not the first user to call you out on this and you left conveniently after I prepared a report for RFC/U (which I happen to have saved to a text file).
- Listen to advice and accept instruction, and in the end you will be wise (Proverbs 19:20), ...lean not on your own understanding (Prov. 3:5) You have had WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE pointed out to you over and over by multiple editors, you have shown that you understand them when it comes to other POVs, but not when it comes to your own actions. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Matthew 1:3)
- Additional: It is possible to correct that sentence's grammar without giving White's views undue weight. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ian, Regarding the "some" vs "ellen white", I thought it quite obvious that some people disagree with the first interpretation listed in this article. Can't we agree that is obvious? There are three other opinions listed, held by many individuals, which all disagree. If you would like more sources to prove the "some" I can, but that is completely unnecessary. Likewise there are "various" documents from the vatican that state the wording in the article, but I only cited one, true. Again if necessary I can provide more documents, but that takes time, I'm reducing that wording to "An" for now so we can simply agree. Willfults (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
NPOV NO AGREEMENT THAT THE KINGDOM IS ALLEGORICAL
It is an definite violation of NPOV to call the kingdom allegorical. There is no scholarly consensus on the point of allegorical. There is no point of making citations to this point, as the variation in interpretation of Revelation is common knowledge. Interpreters vary on how allegorical they make the book, though there is general consensus that Revelation contains much figurative language. But what specifics are allegorical or figurative and what is literal, has no consensus. (EnochBethany (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC))
Two things for this section.
First, why does "Reformational" appear in the title? I thought the most neutral term was "Reformation" and "Protestant Reformation" only slightly less so. A Net search finds 2 orders of magnitude fewer occurrences of "Reformational" than of "Reformation". (Disclosure: I'm a Catholic, which is undoubtedly relevant to what I've seen and heard.)
Second, "The Roman Catholic Church denies the claim that it is being referred to by the Book of Revelation as the Whore of Babylon" is marked "". Altho there are plenty of SEMI-official denials--such as the one from Catholic Answers on this Talk page--I'd be astonished if there were any official denial available! (It would, it seems to me, border on what TVTropes calls a "Suspiciously Specific Denial"; http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuspiciouslySpecificDenial .)
- I think "Reformational" is used because it is a historical designation. "Protestant" would be inappropriate since not many Protestants accept this interpretation today. Reformational is the correct adjectival form. But I like your suggestion of changing the sentence, and I have gone ahead and done so. StAnselm (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Popular Culture section missing
I noticed that there was no popular culture section despite the fact that the Whore of Babylon appears in the TV show Supernatural in Season 5 episode 17. References are also made in the form of a power up in the game The Binding of Isaac as well as season 6 of Dexter in the form of a doomsday tableau. Another reference is made by the tetrological remake of Neon Genesis Evangelion know as Rebuild of Evangelion where the purple and green trim on the Evangelion unit change to purple and red in the context of the end of the world. For now it just seems to be an agreed upon reference by the overall Evangelion community but I will not add it until there is an absolute source. I recognize this as something that may be a major edit. The Unholy Trinity (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Alternate (Islamic) View
Can we expand this article to include other alternate theories, such as a summation of the Eastern perspective, as per http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=3343:mystery-babylon-and-the-scarlet-whore Even if we don't agree with the interpretation, I would like to see a more balanced acknowledgement of such views, no matter how controversial. Thanks.126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I found an interesting argument that should be included in this article, when a RS is found.
"Many protestant and non-catholic churches interpret the Whore of Babylon to be the Catholic Church which is in union with the pope. Some of their views are questionable as the Catholic Church was the guardian of the faith and Holy Scriptures throughout the history of the New Testament. Why a church that saved texts, which would then condemn itself, is ludicrous."
- Cite error: The named reference
isbewas invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- 4 Ezra 3:1-2, 28-31
- 2 Baruch 10:1-3, 11:1, 67:7
- Sibylline oracles 5.143, 159-60
- The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways By Marius Heemstra, p. 108