Istanbul;Babylon the great

[SAB]

Rev 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

are we are supposed to say "Well verse 18.24 really means except for the old covenant prophets because if they're included it doesn't fit what I've created for myself to believe."?
"And, well, for that matter I guess it can't include the new covenant prophets either."

Should we make a list of all of the prophets that were killed in Istanbul?

Deu 33:2     And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand [went] a fiery law for them.

"Well it can't mean those saints."

And exactly which Old Testament prophets were killed by Rome? or by any empire that we now see on earth? And does that mean by implication that there have been no prophets in the New Covenant era - that's pretty unfortunate for us all isn't it. But then we might as well completely ignore that it says in seven places that the woman is a city. That's not very Berean is it. So it isn't the continuous historic interpretation that is promoted here but the Spiritual/idealist one.

[Peter]

Rev 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

are we are supposed to say "Well verse 18.24 really means except for the old covenant prophets because if they're included it doesn't fit what I've created for myself to believe."?
"And, well, for that matter I guess it can't include the new covenant prophets either."

Should we make a list of all of the prophets that were killed in Istanbul?

Deu 33:2     And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand [went] a fiery law for them.

"Well it can't mean those saints."

And exactly which Old Testament prophets were killed by Rome? or by any empire that we now see on earth?

Maybe you are beginning to see the point. It can't be a single city, or a single empire - historical or present day - can it? The subject would seem much broader than that - because it is described as being much broader than that.

Rev 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

That is why I explained babylon the great as follows, but you seem to have missed it.

"We are saying babylon the great is a group - as a city - composed of men that have shared characteristics and were responsible for [and are attracted to] such as is described. As a shared spiritual condition of part of mankind. In context perhaps men that have been lured into the world, and into the things of this world, and away from the kingdom of God."

That understanding is inclusive of when Cain slew Able, isn't it? It also includes ALL of the slain. ALL of the slain prophets, and ALL of the slain saints, doesn't it?
It describes a "generation" of men, in the Koine Greek metaphorical sense (group of men with shared attributes).

Maybe this will help
city
New Testament Greek Definition:
4172 polis {pol'-is}
probably from the same as 4171, or perhaps from 4183;
TDNT - 6:516,906; n f
AV - city 164; 164
1) a city
1a) one's native city, the city in which one lives
1b) the heavenly Jerusalem
1b1) the abode of the blessed in heaven
1b2) of the visible capital in the heavenly kingdom, to come
down to earth after the renovation of the world by fire
1c) the inhabitants of a city

Does it help to see babylon the great, as the city that is the opposite of that city in heaven? The total of the kingdoms and people that are of this world, as opposed to those in the kingdom of God? Particularly since the kingdoms of this world have been Satan's legal property ever since Adam's fall.

And you've yet to explain how Istanbul fits Rev 18.24. Why not give it a try? How do you understand Istanbul fitting that verse?

And does that mean by implication that there have been no prophets in the New Covenant era - that's pretty unfortunate for us all isn't it.

Not at all, by my understanding. The above explanation includes ALL of the new covenant prophets and saints that were slain as well!

 But then we might as well completely ignore that it says in seven places that the woman is a city.

We can't ignore it but rather have to understand it in context. But you seem to want to continue to ignore entire verses of that context.
We are stuck trying to understand what is meant, through the way it is described.
Look at what you wrote yourself. When, in a literal world, is a woman a city?

The volume of incidences of a term is irrelevant.
The term "temple of God" is mentioned a number of times in the New Testament too.
Does the sheer volume of incidents then, require that we understand it as a literal temple, for all of those references?

That's not very Berean is it.

Trying to force scripture into one's personal, preconceived notion, is what is not very Berean.
Neither is treating verses as if they don't exist, because they don't fit what we wish to believe.

So it isn't the continuous historic interpretation that is promoted here .......

It isn't a "promotion". There are categories for futurism and preterism available for folks that wish to defend those views. I used to be a futurist. So did resisting. I still have a box full of Jack Van Impe tapes. There isn't a category for Idealist, I guess because I personally never ran into one in all of my internet travels. Though some preterists did pretty good imitations (like their explanation of the false prophet).

.... but the Spiritual/idealist one.

Applying the continuous historic context to the book of Revelation suggests understanding that John's prophecy would be fulfilled steadily, from the time John penned the book, until the return of Christ.
Just like the "beasts" of Daniel's prophetic dream unfolded steadily, in succession, spanning hundreds of years in Daniel's future.
I hold the continuous historic context uniformly, for both Old and New Testament prophecy. Through that context I understand that Mohammed is the false prophet mentioned, and his Islamic empire the "beast" of Revelation 13, for example. This began to be fulfilled 1400 years ago. Though other aspects of that beast began to be fulfilled far longer ago than that.

And Daniel's beasts were not literal beasts just as John's beasts are not to be understood literally. They are described through the figurative language of a prophetic vision.
In the middle ages there was a movement in the church to understood the book of Revelation literally too. They came to believe that John's beasts were literal and would roam the earth.

I showed you how your view didn't fit on one level, and then when you insisted, on how it doesn't fit through two more points, with all 3 points conveniently contained in a single verse. I only used that verse because that alone, would seem to make Istanbul, a non-starter.

But now you seem to be wanting to claim a "literal hermeneutic" in your effort to justify nullifying a verse you don't like. Futurists sometimes profess a literal hermeneutic too. The problem is that just about as soon as they make the rule, for the book of Revelation, they are compelled to break it. It goes something like this.

"Well the book of Revelation is to be taken literally. Except, of course, for the parts that don't fit John Nelson Darby's doctrine, then those parts are to be understood figuratively, with free license to assign any meaning I want to them that supports my doctrine, regardless of how the figures are otherwise defined through scripture."

Try this.
Please explain what literal woman is it that is described in Revelation 9.6

[SAB]

Try this.
Please explain what literal woman is it that is described in Revelation 9.6

Rev 9:6     In those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will desire to die, and death will flee from them.

[Peter]

Try this.
Please explain what literal woman is it that is described in Revelation 9.6

Rev 9:6     In those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will desire to die, and death will flee from them.

Indeed! I guess that was hard to figure out with my incorrect verse reference.

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days.

Is that a literal woman or do you hold, as you might suggest, a "Spiritual/idealist" view?

[shiverleaf15]

The woman/wife is always compared as the "spirit" of the people of God. No that doesn't mean "Israel" either ethnically or geographically. It means the "spirit" of the people, in other words, the church, its gospel, what it's meant to do. Ephesians 5:21-25, as well as the rest of the chapter for additional reading, compares the relationship between a man and his wife, and Christ and the church.

Now in the Old Testament, this entity of "God's people/church" is simultaneously called a harlot. The harlot is the corrupted aspect, the actions, behaviors, thoughts, of the people of God, or his church. In the Old Testament era, the church WAS Israel. All its members were Jews mostly living within it. But with the New Testament, the true doctrine was Christianity, and thus the wife became the Christian church and its members, while the corrupted part of that was the doppelganger, the harlot.

Now isn't it fitting that the harlot is a church sitting on seven-hills? Because the church of Rome has always sat on Rome, which is indeed on seven hills.

It's strange however, that JERUSALEM also sits on seven hills. The only issues are that the Christians and even Jews never "controlled the Earth" from Jerusalem and did not own it for too long either. Then there is 1 Peter 5:13. In it, Peter and Marcus send greetings to the people from the church of BABYLON. What could that mean? Well we know that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. It's understandable that Rome would thus be nicknamed "Babylon" by early Christians like Peter and John. And it fits in with the "corrupted church" thing. The Catholic church was still physically the "church of God" (always kept the structure and inheritance) and always will be. But no longer was it spiritually. I believe that it is this that is represented by the woman which was brought up into the wilderness for 1260 years. That the spirit of the church of God, it's true doctrines and full gospel was no longer on Earth for 1260 years.

Now someone said that the 12 stars on the woman's crown represent the twelve tribes which must mean that she is automatically Israel. It could be, but can't it also be the twelve apostles? Read this before accusing me of being wrong:

Revelation 5:6 — And i beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

These "spirits" are the bishops of the seven churches mentioned earlier in the book which are located in Anatolia AKA Asia Minor AKA Turkey. Now how important where these bishops to Christianity, enough to be symbolized as facial features of the Lamb himself? I don't know, but to me it seems that, since the book is actually more of an epistle sent to the churches in Asia Minor as the primary audience, then perhaps some of the symbolism would also be appropriate to the era. 12 stars meaning twelve apostles isn't impossible. Even if it meant "the church", twelve tribes wouldn't disprove that to mean "Israel" either. Furthermore, if the harlot is the Catholic church, then wouldn't the woman also be a church, based on the above understanding?