Evidence for God from Science

Can Babylon refer to say, a country or a continent instead of a city?

i don't think anyone knows an answer to this, dan.

Dan wrote:Can Babylon refer to say, a country or a continent instead of a city?

It very well Could... However The City is probably the most used interpretation

No. It is the "great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Rev. 11:8). That would be Jerusalem, which was destroyed by the Beast (Rome) in 70 AD.

puritan lad wrote:No. It is the "great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Rev. 11:8). That would be Jerusalem, which was destroyed by the Beast (Rome) in 70 AD.

The Babylon of Revelation indeed has to be a great city. And I agree that Jerusalem is that Babylon. For it is the city of seven hills. It is the city from which the first beast shall reign over all the nations.


Shalom
Mark

Jerusalem on seven hills. That's a good one.

Fortigurn wrote:Jerusalem on seven hills. That's a good one.

Here is a link to a website on the topography of Jerusalem. It may surprise you
[http://www.bible-history.com/jerusalem/ ... alem.htmll][/url]

Let me try that link again.http://www.bible-history.com/jerusalem/ ... salem.html

j316 wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:Jerusalem on seven hills. That's a good one.

Here is a link to a website on the topography of Jerusalem. It may surprise you
[http://www.bible-history.com/jerusalem/ ... alem.htmll][/url]

No it doesn't surprise me:

Jerusalem rests upon four hills or mountains, but only two of them have biblical names, Mount Zion and Mount Moriah.

Does that surprise you?

Let's see what Josephus has to say. He's a 1st century Jew, he ought to know:

The city of Jerusalem was fortified with three walls, on such parts as were not encompassed with unpassable valleys; for in such places it had but one wall.

The city was built upon two hills, which are opposite to one another, and have a valley to divide them asunder; at which valley the corresponding rows of houses on both hills end.

Josephus, 'Wars Of The Jews', Book V, chapter 4, section 1

Note - two hills, not 'seven hills', still less 'seven mountains'.

In addition, we actually find that the Jewish writings around the time of Christ use the phrase 'city on seven hills' to describe none other than Rome.

In Book II of the Jewish Sibylline Oracles, we find:

15 Among most men, and robbery of temples.
And then shall, after these, appear of men
The tenth race, when the earth-shaking Lightener
Shall break the zeal for idols and shall shake
The people of seven-hilled Rome, and riches great

20 Shall perish, burned by Vulcan's fiery flame.

Jewish Sibylline Oracles, Book II, lines 15-20, 150 BC - 300 AD

Nowhere do we find any reference to Jerusalem as 'the city on seven hills'.

From extra-Biblical sources, we know that the description of 'the city on seven hills' was one commonly given to Rome.

In fact, the phrase 'city on seven hills' was an idiom in common use in the Roman empire, from at least 76 BC through to 104 AD.

The following quotes from Roman poets and historians make this plain:

'Rome... the city of the seven hills.'

Cicero, c. 76 BC, 'Letters to Atticus', VI. 5

'Rome became of all things the fairest, and within a single city's wall enclosed her seven hills.

...glorious Rome shall bound her empire with earth, her pride by heaven, and with a single city's wall shall enclose her seven hills.'

Virgil, c. 40 BC, 'Georgics', II; Aenead IV

'...sing the hymn in honour of the gods who love the Seven Hills. ...ne're mayest thou be able to view aught greater than the city of Rome!'

Horace, c. 35 BC, A Secular Hymn, 'The Odes and Epodes', p. 351

'The city high-throned on the seven hills, the queen of all the world... Rome take thy triumph...'

Propertius, c. 20 BC, The Elegies, III. xi

'...Rome, that gazes about from her seven hills upon the whole world - Rome, the place of empire and the gods.'

Ovid, c. 12 BC, Tristia, I. 70

'...may you see the seven sovereign hills and take the measure of all Rome...'

Martial, 40-104 AD, Epigrams, IV. Lxiv

To which may be added Plutarch (AD 46), Tibullus, Pliny, Silius Italicus, Statius, Claudian, Prudentius, the Emperor Vespasian (AD 69), and Dionysius Halicarnassus (late first century AD).

It is a simple fact that Rome was understood to be referred to by this idiom — prior to the first century, not during the first century, and not after the first century.

The evidence therefore indicates that Revelation is using a phrase already in the common speech of the day, which would be readily familiar to the reader of the book.

It actually doesn't surprise me that you would quote the so called "corporate line". The fact remains that Jerusalem, especially in modern times, encompasses seven hills. The judgement that fell on first century Jerusalem did not come from a conventional interpretation of scripture, they thought they had that covered. What makes you so positive you are not falling into the same trap?
"Two hills" is not even geographically correct, there were four. If there were four why were the seven that actually existed not mentioned? Remember He is coming "as a thief in the night", does a thief owe you a candid exposition of his itinerary? What a marvelous piece of misdirection would the common interpretation of Rome be. You are so wonderfully erudite with all your quotes and apparent knowledge, yet if we are both christians your end will be no different than mine.

It may be that I am getting more impatient as I get older, but I get frustrated by many of you on this site. You all have good minds but you are just using them to pick each other to death. This website looks like a spiderweb, you are sitting here waiting for a gnat to blunder in so you can strain at it. I would be worried that a camel is coming to kick it and you down.

A ministry of nitpicking is of little use, try to find a constructive use for your knowledge. I bet that most casual believers or non-believers who check out this site keep on going.

j316 wrote:It actually doesn't surprise me that you would quote the so called "corporate line".

I'm not aware that this is the 'corporate line'. In my denomination, there is considerable difference among people as to the identity of the city on sevenn hills.

The fact remains that Jerusalem, especially in modern times, encompasses seven hills.

It might now, but it certainly didn't then, and John was told about the city which existed in his day on seven hills.

The judgement that fell on first century Jerusalem did not come from a conventional interpretation of scripture, they thought they had that covered. What makes you so positive you are not falling into the same trap?

I don't know what you mean by this. I have simply provided historical evidence which demonstrates what the average 1st century reader would have made of the reference to the city on seven hills.

"Two hills" is not even geographically correct, there were four. If there were four why were the seven that actually existed not mentioned?

If you read the article to which you referred me, you will find that it says that Jerusalem encompasses four hills today. It doesn't say that 1st century Jerusalem sat on seven hills, and I have provided the 1st century evidence which proves that it did not sit on seven hills or four hills, but two.

Remember He is coming "as a thief in the night", does a thief owe you a candid exposition of his itinerary?

No, but for the faithful Christ is not coming as a thief. He is coming as one who is expected.

What a marvelous piece of misdirection would the common interpretation of Rome be.

Why?

You are so wonderfully erudite with all your quotes and apparent knowledge, yet if we are both christians your end will be no different than mine.

This has nothing to do with me personally. I have simply shown you a list of facts.

There are three ancient cities which have been described as always on seven hills they are Rome, Corinth, and Jerusalem.

The seven hills of Jeursalem are

Moriah
Scophus
Olivet
Golgotha
Meggido
Zion
Offense

Shalom
Mark

Thank you Prewrath rap. No where in Revelation does it ever mention Rome, in fact Rome is only mentioned by name in Acts and Paul's epistles. Therefore the possibility is open that the city mentioned is not Rome, and if, as many believe, the prophecy is in the future then it could easily be Jerusalem, not just Rome. I don't know that it is one or the other, since I lean to preterism I would conclude that it could easily have been Jerusalem because it was destroyed, twice.

When Fortigorn says what he said in the authoritative manner he said it, it leads me to believe he is claiming knowledge that I don't think he possesses. Most of prophecy was concerned with the Jews and Jerusalem, everything else was secondary to that.

I did not post that link just so you could jump in and correct me, I posted it because I thouht it was interesting that Jerusalem also sits on seven hills. I made no theological statements that needed correcting and until you show me your DD degree don't bother to correct me again.

prewrath rap wrote:There are three ancient cities which have been described as always on seven hills they are Rome, Corinth, and Jerusalem.

The seven hills of Jeursalem are

Moriah
Scophus
Olivet
Golgotha
Meggido
Zion
Offense

Shalom
Mark

Could you please provide evidence that Jerusalem was built and known as a city on seven hills in the 1st century?

I have provided evidence that it wasn't.