Revelation Differently: The Whore of Babylon

[TomSlick]

2. I'm not convinced that the Whore of Babylon is not Rome.

It may come down to verb tenses. In the translations I have, John was writing in the present tense. (I don't read Greek.) The murders of Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. were in the future. Of course, the predictive bits of Revelation concern the future, with no clue about how far into the future, but are also written in the present tense.

Whoever John was, he was intentionally cryptic. The only explanation I have for such cryptic writing was to hide the fact that the document was a broadside attacking the Roman Empire and thus dangerous to possess.

In any event, my eyes tend to glaze over when people discuss Revelation. I question whether Revelation should be considered canonical. If nothing else, it is too obtuse to be of value to the Church. It is not "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16) and therefore fails the test for being scripture.

If God inspired John's Revelation, it was certainly a cruel trick.