Talk:Whore of Babylon

message: 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.
Suggestion: Delete the paragraph referencing the Soviet Union as the "Whore of Babylon." Bonbga (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviet Union

message: (Note: cross-posting to Talk:Babalon, Talk:Whore of Babylon, Talk:Prostitution)
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)
thread_title:  Scarlet Woman 

message: Why doesn't this article mention the Sumerian goddess Ishtar?
She's a Babylonian goddess whose cult is associated with temple prostitution...
Hokie Tech (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ishtar 

message: 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)
thread_title: Page protection

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Roman Catholic Church section

message: Hey 61.6.163.30,
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question for 61.6.163.30 in regards to Earthly Jerusalem section 

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV NO AGREEMENT THAT THE KINGDOM IS ALLEGORICAL

message: 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 "[citation needed]". 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 .)
Would a rewrite to "The Roman Catholic Church has not accepted this claim" be so obviously true as to avoid the dreaded "[citation needed]"? GeorgeTSLC (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And as of today, it's back to the form I cited but w/o the "citation needed". I refuse to get into a revert war, but will anybody explain WHY there is one? GeorgeTSLC (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformational view

message: 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)
thread_title: Popular Culture section missing

message: 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.110.22.66.102 (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate (Islamic) View

message: 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." 
178.167.148.81 (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 178.167.148.81 Yes, it should be added when a RS is found. Thanks! CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 01:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic church

message: Where precisely is the the use of "hills" instead of "mountains" in 17:9 coming from in the King James version? After comparing various versions I can't seem to find any variations using that phrase. 
Adumbrodeus (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  King James version 17:9 "Hills" 

message: , it's time to let this one go. You keep re-adding this thing, according to which these biblical scholars see America as the new Whore of Babylon. The first thing one might ask is, so what? A second thing one might ask is what your sources are--and those turn out to be rather fringy writings including this crazy bit of prophetic science fiction and the self-published The Final Babylon: America and the Coming of Antichrist, by someone discussed and interviewed here. This is all apocalyptic stuff, which has no place in Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the sources are not high-quality academic works but devotional (no comments as to their value in that regard, either).  If it was something like Brill Publishers, then yeah.  Coombes and Woodward by themselves are WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE.  Secondary or tertiary analysis (academic!) of their school of thought would be fine.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Holy hell, I'm gone six hours and miss all the fun.  Maybe it'd be worthwhile to find good sources for this view, just so we can use attempts to specifically cite Coombes and Woodward as the litmus for finding more of Biblestudyprof's socks.  Real life is going to be keeping me from doing that for at least a week.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  America the Whore 

message: I wanted to ask a question, but first I want to state that I am a Christian (if it is important to the question). Is Mystery Babylon the same as the Whore of Babylon? I did temporarily redirect Mystery Babylon to Whore of Babylon, but I want to discuss this with other editors (Christian or not). From my perspective, Whore of Babylon refers to Revelation chapter 17 and Mystery Babylon refers to Revelation 18. Some believe that Mystery Babylon is a Apocalyptic sovereignty (country) in the End times, such as the United States. I wanted to know your opinion, and see if Mystery Babylon should still redirect here or create a new article for it only if it truly is recognized as a different eschatology concept. Cheers, CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 01:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bible says "And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT," which per WP:PRIMARY is enough to justify a redirect of "Mystery Babylon" to this page.  Beyond that, we would need secondary or tertiary sources for any sort of analysis.  A new article would require multiple such sources that discuss the concept as distinct from this article (see WP:42).  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, two names but same subject. Thanks, that answers me question! CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 01:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Whore the Mystery? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Whore of Babylon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231171045/http://www.catholic.com/library/hunting_the_whore_of_babylon.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/Hunting_the_Whore_of_Babylon.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is Family International's View significant enough to be listed alongside major denominations like Seventh Day Adventists and the Catholic Church?  The Family International articles lists them as a cult, and their practices seem like they are based on radical or potentially even heretical interpetations of the Bible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1281:8301:8C99:920:DC24:27E7 (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Now deleted. Wikipedia doesn't base content decisions on whether something is 'heretical', but we certainly take significance into account, and without secondary comment, the evidence for that is non-existent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  " Family International View" 

message: I tweaked... "Female figure from a place of evil mentioned in the Book of Revelation... The Whore of Babylon from Babylon the Great/Mystery Babylon refers to both a symbolic female figure and place of evil mentioned in the Book of RevelationThe Apocalypse - the last book of the Bible. Her full title is stated in Revelation 17 (verse 5) as Mystery Babylon the Great, the Mother of Prostitutes and Abominations of the Earth. 2601:589:4801:5660:6D2D:34FE:A5B:112D (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystery Babylon and the Whore of Babylon - Two Different Things Yet Closely Connected 

message: I have noticed that, strangely, "Eisheth Zenunim" redirects to this article. Also, there is a section here titled "Kabbalistic views" that talks about Eisheth Zenunim. But Eisheth Zenunim is a demon in Jewish folklore that has no relation whatsoever with the Whore of Babylon, except the fact that both are related to prostitution. Eisheth Zenunim should have its own article. Mentions of her in this article are completely irrelevant and should be removed. JohnMizuki (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that too.  The "Kabbalistic view" of something that's kind of, sort of, a little bit like something in the New Testament seems not to belong in this article.  I didn't want to boldly remove the whole section, but maybe somebody should. SnailsSpace (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is a fine point. Both the Whore of Babylon and Eisheth Zenunim are female personifications of evil. The Book of Revelation was written around the year 95 CE, early enough to have influenced Kabbalistic mythology, so it is not impossible that the story of Eisheth Zenunim is related to the story of the Whore of Babylon. But, no such connection is given in the text of the article, so I agree with the others here, and will go ahead and remove the content. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We could start an article "Female personifications of evil." SnailsSpace (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Check out She devil. :-) SnailsSpace (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eisheth Zenunim 

message: This section also seems to be of fairly minor importance or interest, and is sourced only to primary sources. SnailsSpace (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  View in Thelema