Just looking at your handling of the "seven hills" it is clear that you stretch the original text (do you really think that the original readers would have interpreted it as you do rather than as a reference to the seven hills of Rome ?), There is nothing that says that the seven hills have to be global. The horns are certainly not the whole of the beast, let alone the waters.
But then you even have to stretch your own reading. Vatican City does not own any territory outside Italy, other than the usual provisions for Embassies. Nor does Vatican City rule over many people. The Vatican is controlled by the Roman Catholic Church, not vice versa.
As I've pointed out even your distorted reading is not a good fit for Vatican City. The city itself does not rule over various peoples nor doea it hold any significant amount of territory on any continent other than Europe (and very little even there).
Ancient Rome on the other hand was famous for being built on seven hills - a reference that would be understood by readers from the time it was written until now. It did indeed rule over vast areas of land and over many people - and at the time of Nero (which fits with the comment on the seven Kings) it had persecuted Christians and did demand worship of the Imperial cult (that is worshipping dead Emperors as Gods).
Quite frankly I think that the main reason is that you hate Catholics (and Muslims).
I would also point out that complaining about UN intervention in the Balkans amounts to an endorsement of "ethnic cleansing". If that is not what you beleive I suggest that a retraction and clarification is in order.
I note that you are not only reviving a thread that is nearly 5 years old, you still haven't dealt with most of my points.
quote: 1. There was a time in history subsequent to the time of the prophecy to the tune of several centuries when the popes of Rome essentially ruled the rulers of the world, i.e. ".....kings of the earth have commited fornication with her." (Revelation 18:3). The world body to this day has given (imo) undue respect to Vatican City, allowing it a place in the world body with ambassadors etc.
Vatican City as such dates back only to 1929, so your facts hardly apply to it. Even so far as they are facts. The relationship between the Popes and the European monarchs were not so simple even before the Reformation. The Pope claimed authority, the Kings did not always grant it. And sometimes the boot was on the other foot - a king with troops in the right place could tell the Pope what to do.
quote: 2. My understanding of the typography of Rome is that it does not sit on seven hills but that there are seven hills in the region of the city. I see the seven hills as the seven continents of the world so far as the prophecy goes.
Rome was built on seven hills - as has already been shown. A simple Google search would have quickly found the answer. Do your homework Buz.
As for the rest, Vatican City is hardly a major trading centre. so it does not fit Revelation 18 in that respect.
The seven hills are given as an explanation, so they are likely literal hills - not continents.
As I - and others - have already pointed out the Seven Hills of Rome were well-known at the time of writing. The seven continents - not at all.
quote: 3. There you go again.....spinning factual information relative to someone or something into hate simply because the facts implicate a negative connotation.
I'm not sure what you mean. The fact is that the UN intervened in Bosnia because of a campaign of murder, rape and torture being carried out against civilians. Even given that the perpretrators came from "Christian" ethnic groups and the victims from a "Muslim" group does not make it evidence of a bias in favour of Muslims or against Christians.
If you want to insist that the murder, rape and torture of Muslims is a Christian duty then go ahead. If you didn't mean that - and I'm, still giving you the benefit of thr doubt in assumign that you didn't - then I repeat my suggestion that you retract your statement.
quote: Paul, I believe most of what you are calling for has been either addressed elsewhere in the thread or in my last few responses.
OK, then they all stand since I haven't seen a solid refutation of any of them.
Oh, and we can add that the prophecy is NOT written so that Greenland could be counted as one of the seven continents because it doesn't talk about seven continents. Just seven hills which you like to think are continents (and not on the basis of anything in the text.
Ancient Rome still fits the text better than Vatican City.
quote: 1. What I should have said was that Vatican City does not sit on the seven hills of Rome, but it does sit on seven masses of land (i.e. owns real estate) globally which could be considered topographically high masses of land relative to the ocean floor such as continents and large islands are.
Even if Vatican City DID own small patches of land on seven ill-defined "land-masses" that would be an incredibly strained reading of the prophecy. And you've presented no evidence that Vatican City as such does own such land.
quote: 2. Since the harlot woman sits both on the waters which are the nations as per the following texts, the hills (high land masses) cannot be Rome's hills because the nations are not in Rome. They are global. Thus the hills MUST BE global for the prophecy to make sense.
That is an over-literal and confused reading. The woman is said to sit on the waters (17:1) and is then seen in a vision sitting on the beast - with no mention of the waters - (17:3) and the seven hills are one of the two meanings given to the seven heads of the beast (17:9). Nothing implies that the hills need to be global.
quote: It gets a bit complicated and to understand and interpret the prophecy correctly one must do some homework and carefully corroborate the statements in chapters 17 and 18 of the prophecy in Revelation.
My antagonists fail to do that. They would rather choose to smear the integrity of the messenger than to study the facts out and apply what is written.
As usual you make false accusations to cover up the fact that it is you who has not read nor understood the Bible.
As I have previously pointed out, the city in question is a major commercial centre. (18:11-18)
Also, the city is described as a Great City. Vatican City is - even by ancient standards - a piddling little city occupying a mere 0.17 square miles and with fewer than a thousand inhabitants. The LOW estimate for 1st Century Rome is half a million inhabitants.
Vatican City doesn't fit the prophecy nearly as well as Ancient Rome, the Great City, the city that completely controlled the Mediterranean Sea (how's that for "sits upon the waters" ?) and dominated the known world.
quote: 1. is just one miniscule example of the vast real estate and property that the Vatican essentially owns globally. It's worth a read. I've cited a small segment of the link so as for you to get an idea of what it's about.
Looks pretty dubious. The ownership summary for the Bank of America doesn't seem to indicate that it is owned by anyone. Even the top 50 institutional investors have less than 50% of shares between them.
The references to the British monarchy look pretty suspect, too (looks like Lyndon LaRouche's stuff to me).. You need a better source than this.
And even so, you don't link the ownership to Vatican City as such.
quote: 2. My understanding is that the reason the Vatican "married" the clergy, instituting celibacy including the millions of priests, etc globally to the church (i.e. Vatican City) was to render all property of the clergy as property/entities of the RCC/Vatican City. Thus at the death of members of the church, Vatican City becomes the heirs of the clergy. The church needed money, etc to run the churches etc. The pre-celibacy priests & nuns who had families usually left their possessions, assets, etc to the relatives.
quote: Thanks Paul, for making my point. This is a classic example of how you people operate. You segmentize/mine out tids and bits of text so as to obfuscate the prophecies of scripture. Anyone with an objective attitude about truth relative to scripture knows that the woman of the waters is the same woman of the hills. This is undeniable. So much for your knowledge or more likely, for your interest in the facts relative to Biblical eschatology.
Yes, it is an example of how I operate. By reading the Bible and honestly reporting what it says. The way you operate is to twist the BIble to try to make it say what you want and then resort to slander when your falsehoods are exposed.
If you bothered to read my points you will note that I never said that there were two different women. Rather I reported that your assertions relied on jumbling up the statement of Revelation 178:1 with the explanation of the vision of 17:3-6 given in 17:7-13. There is absolutely no reason to force these statements together other than your wish to reject Rome as the intended meaning.
Let us note that you do not even try to address my points that the Vatican cannot be the city, because it is neither a "Great City" nor a major commercial centre.
quote: This is why you needn't always expect responses from me on some of the nonsense which you persistently and incessantly whine about relative to lack of response from me.
Yes, because I bother to read the Bible and expose your misrepresentations. You can't honestly answer my points so you run away.
quote: Thanks again for making my point. This is classic PaulKish MO. :rolleyes:
Yes, telling the truth again. That is why you run away.