excuse me for interrupting here, I really don't mean to be rude it's just that...
quote:1. Neither the city of Rome, ancient or modern owns real estate among the nations nor does it literally 'sit' on all the 7 hills in the area. Nor are the hills of the area global as the text shows to be the case.
PRIOR to this, you said:
quote:5. verse 3......Sits upon a discriptive metaphoric "beast" whose 7 heads are seven hills/mountains/geological locations and whose 10 horns are ten kings/kingdoms.
If your beast is metaphoric then it doesn't seem logical to fault someone's answer for not LITERALLY fulfilling the metaphor.
If you say I am predicting the next person to walk in a room is as a turtle... guess who it is." And someone says "it's Frank, he gets really withdrawn if you get too excited around him." and you say "it cannot be frank as his head does not retract into his shell... in fact he doesn't have a shell!" then that doesn't really make sense now does it?
I mean you argue that it can't be ancient rome because it does not own real estate among many nations... what if owning real estate for many nations is just a metaphor for, say, having land in many areas of the world... an empire of sorts?