John says the heads are both mountains and kings. As far as the alleged distinction between mountains and hills goes, there's not a specific designation to separate "mountain" and "hill" in Greek or Hebrew: The Greek word oros and the Hebrew word har can mean either.
But even if we ignore John's statement that this city rests on seven hills, the fact is that Jerusalem hasn't sat atop, in a dominant position, over the nations around her since a very brief time in the days of Solomon.
No one really knows what that means.
Just to take a guess, it means that the city in question must rule over the kings of the earth--which is to say, over an empire made up of subjugated kingdoms. You know, exactly what the text says.
This very obvious reading is verified by the city's initial domination over the Beast, symbolic of the Roman Empire, which had absorbed and superceded (per its description in ch 13) the Greeks, the Babylonians, and the Persians. It's also verified by its name: It is compared to Babylon, one-time capital of the known world, just as Rome was the capital of the known world in John's time.
By naming it Babylon, God is also setting it in opposition to Jerusalem: Just as Babylon was responsible for destroying the temple and the city and exiling the Jewish people. Therefore, Mystery Babylon would be the city on seven hills who ruled over the kings of the earth in John's time, and who was responsible for destroying the temple and the city of Jerusalem, and for sending the Jews again into exile.
And just as Babylon was eventually cast down in retaliation for the destruction of Jerusalem, so John tells us would Rome be.
Which brings us back to the obvious candidate which was universally understood to be Mystery Babylon until recently: Rome.
If you are willing to admit that you spiritualized a "seaport" out of the book that mentions no seaport, I will concede it is relevant.
So why are those who sail by sea so upset by the destruction of a landlocked city? How did Jerusalem enrich all who trade by sea? Heck, how could they see the smoke of her burning?
While you are at it, can explain how any creature could remain alive for any length of time after all green grass was burnt up (Rev 8:7.)
That's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, and I see no reason to go down that rabbit trail. If you want to debate futurism vs. preterism in general another time, I may be game.
And why, after a third of all ships were destroyed, and a third of all sea creatures were killed, their loss was not mentioned in any manner in regards to the destruction of Babylon?
Because those events actually take place before Mystery Babylon's destruction, Revelation not being in strict chronological order.
That is not true unless Ezekiel was a false prophet (Eze 16:55 KJV.)
Does your Bible's version of Ezekiel stop at chapter 16? Curious. Mine goes right up to chapter 48.
Would you care to elaborate on those items already mentioned, such as the blood of the prophets and the harlotry?
So you're saying that if you find two common points, you can ignore all of the contrary data? Interesting hermeneutic.
But sure, I'll answer your question if you'll answer this: How was Jerusalem responsible for the blood of the righteous Abel?
Sorta. In the New Testament the word "hills" is only used once (Luke 23:30,) and the word "mountains" is found in the same verse. The Greek word for hills is boo-nos; but the Greek word for mountains is or-os, which is the same Greek word used in all seven instances of "mountain(s)" in the Revelation.
But I don't believe that has anything to do with the matter at hand. The mountains appear to be a symbolic designation for a nation that supports the great city.
>>>But even if we ignore John's statement that this city rests on seven hills, the fact is that Jerusalem hasn't sat atop, in a dominant position, over the nations around her since a very brief time in the days of Solomon.<<<
That depends on who you read or talk to. That is, it depends on your translation of, say, "reigneth over the kings of the earth" (e.g., rulers of the land,) or your understanding of the influence the Jews had over all nations. They were Jews scattered in "all" nations of the time, and they had influence.
>>>Just to take a guess, it means that the city in question must rule over the kings of the earth--which is to say, over an empire made up of subjugated kingdoms. You know, exactly what the text says.<<<
The text doesn't say that: the translations do. It is all subjective! One thing is certain, Jesus and the apostles barely mentioned Rome. Why should they? Rome was a pagan nation with no ties to the God's covenant. Jerusalem was the covenant nation that God divorced and passed judgement upon. There are these undeniable similarities:
1. Jerusalem was responsible for the blood of all the prophets, as was Babylon the Great.
2. Jerusalem was a mother of harlots, as was Babylon the Great.
3. Jerusalem was called the great city in the Revelation, as was Babylon the Great.
4. Jerusalem was made desolate, as was Babylon the Great.
>>>This very obvious reading is verified by the city's initial domination over the Beast, symbolic of the Roman Empire, which had absorbed and superceded (per its description in ch 13) the Greeks, the Babylonians, and the Persians. It's also verified by its name: It is compared to Babylon, one-time capital of the known world, just as Rome was the capital of the known world in John's time.<<<
I don't see that at all. Where does the city dominate the Beast? In fact, it was the beast who had power over the nations:
"And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months … And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev 13:5, 7-8 KJV)
That describes Nero, who ruled over "all the world" at the time, and who murdered and persecuted the early Christians for forty-two months.
>>>By naming it Babylon, God is also setting it in opposition to Jerusalem: Just as Babylon was responsible for destroying the temple and the city and exiling the Jewish people. Therefore, Mystery Babylon would be the city on seven hills who ruled over the kings of the earth in John's time, and who was responsible for destroying the temple and the city of Jerusalem, and for sending the Jews again into exile.<<<
Was Rome responsible for the blood of the prophets? The old testament prophesies, on a routine basis, compared Jerusalem to the "sin cities," such as Sodom and Gomorrah. By using OT imagery, John was comparing Jerusalem of his day with Babylon of old. It is really that simple. Rome was not even in the picture, except for carrying out God's vengeance on Jerusalem for the murder of his prophets and his beloved Son.
>>>And just as Babylon was eventually cast down in retaliation for the destruction of Jerusalem, so John tells us would Rome be.<<<
So, Jerusalem was collateral damage? LOL! I cannot understand why you cannot understand.
>>>Which brings us back to the obvious candidate which was universally understood to be Mystery Babylon until recently: Rome.<<<
Not a chance. Rome was not responsible for the death of a single prophet: not one. And we have been fresh out of prophets for about 2000 years.
>>>So why are those who sail by sea so upset by the destruction of a landlocked city? How did Jerusalem enrich all who trade by sea? Heck, how could they see the smoke of her burning?<<<
Read the text. You are the one pretending to be the literalist. Read Josephus if you are not satisfied with the text!
>>>That's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand<<<
No it is not. You are the one insisting on a literal interpretation of the text (e.g., "reigneth over the kings of the earth;") except with it is inconvenient. You cannot have it both ways.
>>>and I see no reason to go down that rabbit trail. If you want to debate futurism vs. preterism in general another time, I may be game.<<<
You mean like ignoring the blood of the prophets and saints; or like ignoring the harlotry of Jerusalem that is splattered all over the old testament prophecies?
But thanks for mentioning "rabbit hole." Futurism is nothing but a rabbit hole, because it can mean anything. How many so-called "Antichrists" have there been over the centuries? How many more futurist false prophets and teachers do we have to endure?
>>>Does your Bible's version of Ezekiel stop at chapter 16? Curious. Mine goes right up to chapter 48.<<<
I'll bite. What does it say about the land distributions in Ezekiel 48? How do you explain a future land distribution to the tribe of Dan?
>>>So you're saying that if you find two common points, you can ignore all of the contrary data? Interesting hermeneutic.<<<
Common points? The breaking of the covenant by Israel, and blood vengeance for the murder of the prophets, was the entire reason for the destruction. Talk about an interesting hermeneutic?
>>>But sure, I'll answer your question if you'll answer this: How was Jerusalem responsible for the blood of the righteous Abel?<<<
Jesus explained it. But why would you believe him on that prophecy, when you won't believe him on any of these prophecies?
"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Mat 16:27-28 KJV)
"[Jesus said,] But when they persecute you [my disciples] in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." (Mat 10:23 KJV)
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." (Luke 21:32 KJV)
"For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22 KJV)
Philip