The OP is a troll most certainly. As for the city being Rome or Jerusalem scrpture says the city sits on seven mountains. Old Rome sat on seven hills none of which were higher than 120 feet above sea level. These seven hills were all to the east of the Tiber River. Vatican Hill [where the Vatican is located] is to the west of the river and was outside the walls of ancient Rome. Modern Rome now sits on 22 hills. None of which would be confused with a mountain.
There’s a flaw in your reasoning. All the scriptures we have are translated from the Greek. In the Greek the same word is used for hill and mountain. It is
only the adjective used with the word hill which distinguishes the two.
A high hill is a mountain; a low hill is a bump. Hill by itself could be anything…
To call these hills mountains would be akin to calling a two story walkup a skyscraper.
There are places in scripture translated “mountain” in places where no mountain has ever been. To some, this is proof that scripture is in error – to me it’s proof that some translators don’t know their geography worth a hill of beans.
Jerusalem does sit on seven mountains about 2500 feet above sea level but only five are named as mountains. In addition Constantinople and Babylon [the original] itself are said to be built on seven hills. Apparently it was quite common in ancient times to describe any city of importance as being ‘built on seven hills’.
Hmmm… interesting.
But the passage in revelation doesn’t need to refer to Jerusalem’s geography – it only needs to allude to her alliance and dalliance. King Herod and also Pontius Pilate are the ones who could qualifiy as “fornication” the actions of these nations.
Isaiah had already spoken of Israel being the one supposed to be a virgin – and then talks sexually about the dark chaldean being laid on the ground… and having someone sit on her belly (womb). Sexual position, you see?
The second strongest clue is the name “Babylon”. That is where southern Israel was sent for her “fornication” and “harlotry.”.
Jesus’ church does not consist entirely of Jewish churches; St. John is speaking of seven churches in the first chapters… and hence – Jesus’ churches never went into Babylonian captivity.
St. John also speaks about the woman sitting where the waters come together – and this is also echoed by the historical place of Babylon which is at the joining of rivers.
Rome has the tiber – but I am unaware of any other such river.
The third clue is that Revelation indicates the woman was destroyed by her fornicators; she was ‘burned’ to the ground and razed. Cf. Revel 16:16
However Israel, and it’s temple,-- were razed to the ground by her supposed ally – Rome.
The Catholic church, even when it took over Rome, never suffered this fate –
And even though Rome itself under Nero burned; that doesn’t quite fit either – for it was an accident from within.
St. John warns us that what follows requires a “discerning” eye; and that isn’t surprising. It’s difficult reading … with lots of history included. To understand it, regardless of who Babylon “really” is a figurine of – requires examining the historical setting of the literal Babylon when it did exist.
Whatever is happening in Revelation is parallel to what did happen in Babylon.
