The prophecy of Mystery Babylon covered in chapters 17 and 18 states no less than five times that this is about a specific city which would emerge to exist upon the earth. There is a city, only one on the planet which fits the description given in the text. No, I say, no other city on the entire planet fits the ticket for ALL the data given in these two chapters. Yes some cities have some of the characteristics, but only one has them all. Name that city.
Lets have a look at the data given beginning with chapter 17: 1. Sits on "many waters" (verse 1) which are interpreted in verse 15 as peoples, nations and tongues. So this city owns property all over the planet. 2. Verse 2.....has had illicit dealings with the kings of the earth, indicative of being known for involvement around the earth with a lot of political activity. 3. Verse 4....Some prominent colors visible around the city and her foreign properties are red, purple and gold as well as lavish and expensive things like precious stones, etc. In other words, known for a lot of fancy stuff and glitter. 4. verse 6....Involved with some nasty stuff like causing the death of Christians to the extent of being "drunken" with their blood. 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. Note here that she sits among the nations so imo, one must assume that these "hills" are also global. The only global "hill"/high places I know of that are global are the continents of the planet. There is only one city on the face of the earth which actually owns vast real estate on the earth's continents. 6. verse 16....The ten beast kings shall come to hate the city and shall persecute her and eventually cause her destruction. 7. verse 18.....The city has at some time or other been known to actually have exercised ruling power over the kings of the earth. 8. Chapter 18, verses 11-13: She is involved in all kinds of commercial things, fine things and even in the souls of men, indicative of a religious element.
It is prophesied that the time will come when this city will burn up and be gone in ONE HOUR'S TIME. It will of needs, in order to be fulfilled, come to happen at a time when it is possible for a city to be burned up in such a short time. It will of needs also have to happen at a time in history when it is possible for kings, shipmasters and others to view the burning from afar. These, imo indicative of both nuclear destructive devices and television.
Anybody care to name that city? Remember, to be correct, it must have all these attributes.
Ancient Rome. You can't get more obvious. Rome is famous for sitting on seven hills; its colors were red (blood), gold (money), and purple (the imperial color); it ruled over most of the world, sat on many waters, was involved in the death of large numbers of Christians, etc. Many argue that the 10 horns were the 10 tribes that defeated the Roman empire, although there are many things that "10" can be - think of all of the things in your city that there are "10" of.
quote:Ancient Rome. You can't get more obvious. Rome is famous for sitting on seven hills; its colors were red (blood), gold (money), and purple (the imperial color); it ruled over most of the world, sat on many waters, was involved in the death of large numbers of Christians, etc. Many argue that the 10 horns were the 10 tribes that defeated the Roman empire, although there are many things that "10" can be - think of all of the things in your city that there are "10" of.
GONG!! Nice try, Rei. Some similarities here, but not it. Thanks for trying. To understand the 10 horns (kings) you need to couple this description of it with other references to it like Revelation 13 and Daniel 7. This horned beast emerges in the latter days to destroy the city in one hour. Impossible with ancient Rome.
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. 2. It would have been impossible for ancient Rome to have been consumed by fire in one hour as would be possible today or for the shipmasters and kings of earth to view it from afar. 3. The colors and description of the city of Rome are no especially significant in the city of Rome as in another city which fits ALL the criteria including, significantly, the colors. 4. The city of Rome proper is no more of a religious nature than most other cities, dealing in and with the souls of men as has the other city. 5. There is no specific reason for the kings of the world to 'hate' and seek to destroy the city of Rome. There is another city which they have every reason to hate and want to destroy, especially considering the UN is highly influenced and biased in favor of Islamic nations. 6. The city of Rome does not own vast real estate, commercial enterprises and have their fingers in all kinds of expensive stuff around the globe as does this other city.
........So the challenge remains........NAME THAT CITY.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-29-2003]
quote:Buzsaw Is there some reason to believe that this is not the same babylon that is in the old testament?
GONG II. 1. It is a prophecy of a future city. (This would be another objection to it being ancient Rome) 2. The seven hills would have no bearing or significance. 3. It is prophesied that old Babylon will never again flourish, but be inhabited by birds and animals like jackals and owls. That remains to be true, even after Saddam has done some building there. 4. The kings of the earth and the shipmasters would neither be able to see old Babylon or ancient Rome burn from afar.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-29-2003]
Why would they use the same name on the city? And I think that if Saddam hasn't done work on it yet then he sure a hell won't get a chance in the future. If the seven hills would have no significance why mention them? You sound as though you are trying to fit the prophecy to your conception.
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?