It certainly could be. But this explanation seems a little troublesome for me (and yet at the same time it makes perfect sense to Mee-- pun definitely intended
. Why? Well, the imagery in the book of Daniel is very consistent with that of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, so I can't help but think that "Babylon the Great" and Nebuchadnezzer's Babylonian empire are related. The Babylonian empire seems to have been political in its nature, rather than religious; an actual physical empire, or country, rather than an ideological one. It's only after Nebuchadnezzer has begun to rule that he attempts to establish a false religion over his subjects-- specifically, the worship of the golden image. And actually, I believe that the Revelation refers to Babylon the Great as a city-- perhaps the capital city of a country or empire. And really, when you stop and think about it, our modern system of dividing the world into countries is kind of like having a collection of empires, with every country being an empire.
When John is shown the vision of the harlot (which is Babylon the Great), he is "amazed" at what he sees. Maybe it's just me but I can't help but think that he saw something that he knew, or that already existed at his time. Otherwise, he would have been more confused than amazed at what he saw, or maybe he wouldn't have understood the significance of what he saw. So if John saw a city that already existed at his time, and that he knew, then why couldn't that city be Jerusalem? I mean, it would be pretty amazing to see that it's your very own spiritual capital city that becomes the great harlot. I mean, Rome seems to be a pretty obvious choice, but it seems to me that prophecy is more mysterious than obvious. And really, can you think of a more significant city in the world than Jerusalem? Also, why would there be any need for a New Jerusalem if the old one could be rennovated? (I'm only half kidding here).
If I may also point something else out with regards to the issue of the beast that was, then was not, but will come up out of the abyss to its destruction: At the time that John received his vision, Israel as a sovereign state was not. In the days of David Israel was a sovereign state. Today, Israel is a sovereign state. Therefore, Israel was, then was not, and has come again; perhaps the beast is Israel itself-- political Israel, I mean; the government, not the people. This would also explain God's warning, "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her punishment (paraphrased)."
Also, referring to the imagery of Daniel again, Israel as a decendant of Babylon makes sense to some degree. If you look at the empires that are referred to in the imagery of the statue, the common theme that all of them have is that they rule over Jerusalem: first Babylon, then Persia, then Greece, and finally Rome. Since then who has taken rule over Jerusalem? The Ottomans took it from Rome, the British took it from the Ottomans, and the Israelis have taken it from the British-- at least partially. Some of it still belongs to Jordan, no? Seven heads: Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Brits, and Israelis? Take it back one step further and you get Israelis at the beginning and the end of the list. According to the Revelation there is an eighth king that is one of the seven; Israel fits this description, kind of like in the same way that a political leader can fall from power and then return to power after a term.
Of course, these are just thoughts that I've had. I've done a great deal of struggling with these two books, but still am not confident in the conclusions I've drawn.
Also, I'd like to ask for forgiveness in advance for suggesting that Jerusalem could be portrayed as a harlot, and that Israel could be symbolized as a beast; nobody wants their city or country to be described in negative terms, I'm sure, so if anyone on this forum is from Jerusalem, or attaches particular importance to Jerusalem, or if there are any Israelis reading this, please accept my apologies and know that I'm only making this suggestion in the interest of scholarly discussion.
