If you insist on applying a literal interpretation to figurative imagery, then you must be ready to admit that neither is Rome known as a city that sits on seven mountains (the Revelation states seven mountains, not seven hills.) Ancient Jerusalem, however, did actually sit on seven mountains.
>>>… has never ruled over the kingdoms of the earth<<<
No one really knows what that means. But, to be exact, it doesn't say Babylon reigned over the "kingdoms" of the earth. This is what it says:
"And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth." (Rev 17:18 KJV)
The original Greek could also be translated, "sovereigns of the land;" or as Peter used in Acts 4:26, the "rulers" of the land. Jerusalem most definitely "ruled" over all "rulers" of Israel. The early Christians who were the target audience of the book (the seven churches in Asia) would have understood.
>>>… isn’t economically important<<<
Jerusalem was most economically important for its day. The city was rich and decked in splendour: the showcase of the middle east. Further, it was at one time, the richest of all kingdoms:
"So king Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth for riches and for wisdom." (1 Kin 10:23 KJV)
Much of the imagery in the Revelation came from Old Testament imagery.
>>>… isn’t accessible from the sea<<<
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.
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.) 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?
BTW, those were not the worst "woes" to come (Rev 8:134.) LOL!
>>>and is destined to be rebuilt and glorified rather than destroyed forever so<<<
That is not true unless Ezekiel was a false prophet (Eze 16:55 KJV.)
Would you care to elaborate on those items already mentioned, such as the blood of the prophets and the harlotry?
Philip
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?