The Wild Beast has both a Name & Number. Do you know what the NAME is?

by Schizm 368 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Schizm

  Steve,

  As far as, "Babylon the Great, [a] does the beast's name also include;'the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth'", [b] every biblical translation I've read, includes this as part of the title.

  a) No.

  b) Yes, I can also vouch for that being the case. However, it appears that when it comes to sentence structure (word order), the manner in which a verse is rendered is no doubt influenced by the translator's personal assumption of what the verse means. One glaring example of this can be seen when comparing the KJV with the NLT. In considering these two translations you'll note how that one translator opted to include the word "mystery" as being part of the name, whereas the other translator did just the opposite.

  Revelation 17:5, according to the KJV states:

  And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF THE HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."

  Here's the verse according to the NLT:

  A mysterious name was written on her forehead: "Babylon the Great, Mother of All Prostitutes and Obscenities in the World."

  So it's evident from this example alone that translator's do indeed take the liberty to re-structure a sentence in order to render it in accordance to the way they think the verse should be understood.

  *******************************************

  Now, here's the verse as it appears in the Greek language:

  And this is the word-for-word translation of the verse:

  and upon the forehead of her name having been written mystery babylon the great the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth

  As anyone can readily see, the sentence requires re-structioning in order to render it understandable in the English language. This is quite obvious even when considering the first few words: "and upon the forehead of her name." Of course we know for certain that her forehead is NOT upon the name, don't we. So, properly worded, it should say: "and upon her forehead a name".

  So what this all demonstrates is that there exists a certain degree of latitude that translators must have in structuring a sentence, which, of course, is also affected by what the verse really means. Now, since there are examples in the Bible which clearly show that such names are NOT the names of the persons upon whose forehead the names are written, we therefore have a way of knowing how to properly structure the verse in question, namely Revelation 17:5.

  Because it harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, I personally would structure the verse to read like this:

  5 And upon her forehead (the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth), was written a name, a mystery: “Babylon the Great.”

  As you can see, I haven't left out any of the words of the original. They're simply placed in an order which renders the verse understandable, and in harmony with the rest of the Bible.

  More later.

  Schizm

  .
• 

  AuldSoul

  I can do the same and make a perfectly understandable sentence:

  and upon the forehead of her name having been written mystery babylon the great the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth

  Becomes...

  And upon the forehead of Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth, her name was written: "Mystery"

  or...

  And upon the forehead of the mystery, Babylon the Great, her name was written: "Mother of the Harlots and of the Disgusting Things of the Earth."

  or...

  And her name upon the forehead was a written mystery "Babylon the Great the Mother of the Harlots and of the Disgusting Things of the Earth."

  Since any of these work in English as a sentence, it would take a translator of Greek to know which is more accurate and why. You are not a Greek translator so any opinion you give is a conjectured guess. Like most fledgling cult-leaders, you guess in such a way that your conclusion is supported.

  The missing element in the Greek that should be present to support your conclusion is an interjection of "etis esti" or "etis estin" between "Babylon the Great" and "the Mother of the harlots..."

  I invite you to look for a similar construction in the Greek to establish your point, or concede that you have no support beyond conjecture and flight of fancy. If that phrase were present you could move the properly claused language element around. Since it is not present it is not a clause. It is part of the title. The difficulty in translating specifically whether "mystery" should or should not be part of the name arises from being unsure whether the clause of the name begins with "mystery" or with "Babylon the Great." However, from the start of the clause until the end there is no question that it is one complete clause.

  No translator of Greek would arrive atthe conclusion you arrived at.

  I have no idea why pointing people to a partially completed Web site has any bearing on this discussion, but thanks for the extra traffic to the site. I don't put it on my profile or advertise it because it isn't completed. I am certainly not ashamed or embarrassed by it, there is no reason to be. I haven't tried to hide it, either. The imbedded pages and some pictures I have hosted here are hosted on that site. I can only assume you thought that was some sort of dig at me, if so the jab went unnoticed. It wasn't even a glancing blow.

  AuldSoul
• 

  truth about the last days

  Seeing that the "seven heads and ten horns" and when the scripture mentions that "its itself (the wild beast itself) is an eighth king", the "name" of the "wild beast" could be on the lines of "king" or "kingdoms". It could be "kings of kingdoms". Babylon the Great was the name of the "women sitting" on the "wild beast"- and I less doubt that the beast would want to carry on with her name if it is set out to destroy her. It would have to have a different name, a name that all nations do or did look up to. So it could be that "Babylon the Great" has been sitting on Kings of Kingdoms- which she has done throughout the years.
• 

  Schizm

  I have no idea why pointing people to a partially completed Web site has any bearing on this discussion, but thanks for the extra traffic to the site. -- AuldSoul.

  The idea was so that unwary people who will eventually visit your site will--by viewing your postings here at JWD--be able to know the true persona of the owner of that site. Like I said once before, you've established quite a reputation here at JWD, and those who visit your site in days to come would likely be interested to know the TRUE you.

  Insofar as the balance of your post, it's just some more of the same ole bullshit on a different day.

  Schizm

  .
• 

  AuldSoul

  The missing element in the Greek that should be present to support your conclusion is an interjection of "etis esti" or "etis estin" between "Babylon the Great" and "the Mother of the harlots..."
  I invite you to look for a similar construction in the Greek to establish your point, or concede that you have no support beyond conjecture and flight of fancy. If that phrase were present you could move the properly claused language element around. Since it is not present it is not a clause. It is part of the title. The difficulty in translating specifically whether "mystery" should or should not be part of the name arises from being unsure whether the clause of the name begins with "mystery" or with "Babylon the Great." However, from the start of the clause until the end there is no question that it is one complete clause.
  No translator of Greek would arrive atthe conclusion you arrived at.

  You claimed to have supported your "more correct" view of the verse. You can't support a different translation of the Greek without showing why you translated the Greek differently. Translators are not free to move around text any way they want to, as you suggested earlier. There has to be demonstration of WHY they felt it was okay to do so.

  That goes for you, too. Wanting to because it supports your dogma isn't a good enough reason to do so. I have shown you the missing speech part you would need in order to call it a separate clause that can be reordered in the sentence, show me where I'm wrong.

  I still don't get how a visitor to an unadvertised site would know to find out more about me on JWD. You would have to post this link on my site, somehow, for that to happen. As it stands, people on JWD will get to know very little more about me from going to the link you pointed them to, and anyone who stumbles onto my site by accident won't see any connection to JWD at all. You seem to have a wierd way of thinking on almost everything.

  AuldSoul
• 

  stevenyc

  Schizm, thanks again for the reply. I know my questions are slow going, but, I am trying to iliminate confusion in my understanding of your proposal.
  

  So, My asumption is: the reorganising of the sentence to;

  'And upon her forehead (the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth), was written a name, a mystery: “Babylon the Great.”',

  is not based on the Greek formatting of the text, but rather, more to do with comparing other Hebrew and Greek texts that include symbolic references of the forehead. Each time, the name / mark / title is a specification of whom of what that person is in subjuction to.

  steve
• 

  Schizm

  Steve,

  So, My asumption is: the reorganising of the sentence....is not based on the Greek formatting of the text, but rather, more to do with comparing other Hebrew and Greek texts that include symbolic references of the forehead.

  I'll get around to answering your question, but let's first take another look at the word-for-word tranlation of the Greek text into the English language. (If it were possible to do so here at JWD I would copy & paste the Greek text itself along with the English equivalent underneath each Greek word. But because JWD doesn't support the Greek font, I'm not able to do that.) Here again, though, is what the sentence literally looks like, after having been taken straight out of the Greek language and put into the English language:

  and upon the forehead of her name having been written mystery babylon the great the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth

  Let me ask you, Steve, in view of the way the words that I've highlighted in yellow line up, do you see any need for reorganizing the words? Can you imagine opening up your Bible, turning to Revelation 17:5, and then seeing it worded like this -----> "And upon the forehead of her name having been written mystery...." Other than an interlinear translation, do you know of a single Bible translation in existence that is worded this way? The point that I'm driving at, is that every translator is faced with the challenge of how best to arrange these words so as to render them accurate and understandable. It's a fact that translators have no choice but to "rearrange the furniture," as it were. It's something they MUST do if the verse is to be readable.

  Now if that's true with the words I've highlighted in yellow, then what about the remaining words? Are any of those also in need of being relocated? Indeed, are those "remaining words" any more "untouchable" than those which we've already "touched"? Why of course not! The fact is that there exists a good reason for "touching" those words as well. And what "good reason" would that be? Since the Bible itself definitely shows that a name written upon a person's forehead does NOT represent the individual's own name, but instead represents the name of that person's owner (that which the person serves or worships), then the only choice we have in the matter is to rearrange the words in such a way that they harmonize with that known fact.

  And so the answer to your question, is that "the reorganising of the sentence" is based on the fact that we really have no choice other than to do just that. Is it really possible for us to know the Bible's meaning in certain cases even better than the translators we depend on? I think I've proven that to be the case here in this particular instance. What do you think?

  Here's something else that might interest you. Did you know that Satan's name is written upon each head of the 7-headed beast of Revelation 13? What "name" could possibly be more impious than the name that represents the person known as "Satan"! (See Re 13:1) And O how appropriate it is that it is his name that's written upon the beast's heads, since we are told that the beast owes its existance to Satan. (See Re 13:2)

  More later.

  Schizm

  .
• 

  Jeffro

  Let me ask you, Steve, in view of the way the words that I've highlighted in yellow line up, do you see any need for reorganizing the words? Can you imagine opening up your Bible, turning to Revelation 17:5, and then seeing it worded like this -----> "And upon the forehead of her name having been written mystery...." Other than an interlinear translation, do you know of a single Bible translation in existence that is worded this way? The point that I'm driving at, is that every translator is faced with the challenge of how best to arrange these words so as to render them accurate and understandable. It's a fact that translators have no choice but to "rearrange the furniture," as it were. It's something they MUST do if the verse is to be readable.

  Literally, the sense of the phrase is "And upon the forehead of her [i.e. upon her forehead] - name having been written [i.e. was written a name] - mystery...". Any other rendering is nonsensical and ignores the grammatic structure of the original text. Though the literal grammar may not immediately be clear to some English speakers, it is not difficult to make sense of it. Futhermore, the grammar up to that point makes it difficult to not apply the rest of the verse wholly as the quoted name on the forehead.
• 

  funkyderek

  I've just read this thread. I'd seen it before, but I don't usually rate Schizm's threads highly. However, I found this one hilarious.

  Someone with no significant knowledge of Greek is essentially claiming that most translations and all bilbical scholars are wrong. And for what? So he can claim that the woman is not called "Babylon the Great" but is in fact, called "Babylon the great city". The name on her forehead is "Babylon the Great" but this isn't her name, it's the name of the beast. And the phrase "the mother of prostitutes and of the detestable things of the earth" is not part of the name or referring to the name's owner, but should be bracketed and moved to a different part of the sentence.

  He also seems to believe that everywhere else the name or phrase "Babylon the Great" appears it refers to the harlot, not the beast. At least he believes it is the harlot in Revelation 18:2, and there are only two other occurrences in Revelation, (14:8 and 16:19) neither of which could easily refer to the beast. It's obvious that Schizm's argument is not based on any sort of reading of the verses involved. I have to wonder, then, what his motive is. Is it a Brownboy-like textual perversion designed to shore up his prophecy-of-the-day? Or is he just looking for attention by posting something so absurd that it results in a flurry of responses? I don't know, but there's something fun in watching him try to defend the indefensible.
• 

  Schizm

  Futhermore, the grammar up to that point makes it difficult to not apply the rest of the verse wholly as the quoted name on the forehead. -- Jeffro.

  Here's the "rest of the verse" that you refer to:

  babylon the great the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth

  So you actually believe that this entire string of words is a "name"?

  Wow ... a "name" that's comprised of no less than sixteen words!!!

  Do you not realize how unreasonable it is of you to make such an assertion?

  For your information, those are descriptive words ... words that describe something about the woman. And, so, no they're NOT the "name".

  On the privious page I said the following, Jeffro:

  Well what do you think, Steve? Does "the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth" look like a "name" to you?

  For comparison sake, consider this: If you were to be introduced to the late Johnny Cash's only son, what would you think if you were told that the following was his name in full?

  "John Carter Cash, the son of a Country Music legend and internatonally known star."

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/105318/1846860/post.ashx#1846860

  What do you have to say about the comparison I made there, Jeffro?

  Schizm

  .