Originally posted by RJHindsMecca is not built on seven hills.
Although old Rome was built on seven hills, today it also includes a couple more
hills and it incompasses Vatican city which is on Vatican Hill. So if it refers to
Rome it is not a very accurate prophocy and also Rome is not known for its oil.
Some translations say "mountains" instead of "hills" which fits Mecca since the 7
hills of Mecca are each called "Jabal" which I am told means "mountain".
Originally posted by FMFits brilliant! poor RJ Heidelberg, his post is an old Zepplin about to spontaneously self
1.the Seven hills of Istanbul
2.the Seven hills of Rome
3.the Seven hills of Moscow
4.the Seven hills of San Francisco
5.the Seven hills of Seattle
6.the Seven hills of Iaşi
7.the seven hills of Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
8.the seven hills of Tirumala - Tirupati, India
9.the seven hills of Western Sydney, Australia
10.the seven ...[text shortened]... mman, Jordan
17.the seven hills of Bergen, Norway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_hills
combust and end up on the forum floor smoking, its skeletal raimains glowing and
charred
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe city of Rome is a mecca for tourists from around the world. Tourists are treated like royalty - like kings - who worship the city's fine cuisine and famous sites.
its brilliant! poor RJ Heidelberg, his post is an old Zepplin about to spontaneously self
combust and end up on the forum floor smoking, its skeletal raimains glowing and
charred
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by finneganexcellent post finnegan.
I despair that a thread of this title is considered acceptable in a forum for decent people. Even Jaywill, dancing carefully around the terms and seeking something bordering on a decent attitude, is unwilling to challenge the persistent identification of a religion shared by not millions, but billions, of our brothers and sisters on this tiny, violent plan ...[text shortened]... e approved - but would he have started a thread with a title like this one? Hopefully not.
Originally posted by FMFHere is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. (Revelation 17:9 NASB) The translation could have
The city of Rome is a mecca for tourists from around the world. Tourists are treated like royalty - like kings - who worship the city's fine cuisine and famous sites.
replaced "on" with "in" or "within". Is there any city other than Mecca that
sits within 7 hills that are called "mountains" and has Kings bowing down before
it because they are ruled by the teachings of Islam coming out of it? No. You
can not name another city that meets all the requirements for the city in the
book of Revelation.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou said "on". And anyway, what about Sheffield?
Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. (Revelation 17:9 NASB) The translation could have
replaced "on" with "in" or "within". Is there any city other than Mecca that
sits within 7 hills that are called "mountains" and has Kings bowing down before
it because they are ruled by the teachings of Isla ...[text shortened]... me another city that meets all the requirements for the city in the
book of Revelation.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by jaywilli found your explanation of what an anti-christ is very interesting. im bit disturbed by your response to how christians should interact with muslims. you always seem like one of the more tolerant and level headed christians on here, i wasnt expecting such a cold answer and maybe im reading too much into your choice of words but it felt like you were suggesting you would only interact with muslims to avoid wars not because they are on the whole very nice people.I think your analysis of the background is interesting and generally accurate (from a Christian viewpoint); however how would you recommend Christians interact with committed Muslims today, especially in the frame of the extremist fundamentalist violence demonstrated by the few?
When the Lord Jesus told His disciples to be innocent as d ...[text shortened]... Moslem countries with the Gospel. And we could learn something from him in this regard.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsSheffield is "on".. "with".. "in" .. "within".. "near" .. "upon".. seven hills, use the preposition of your choice; there's a neighbouring Yorkshire soccer team knows as 'The Kings'; And, if I am not mistaken, Sheffield has got a nightclub called "Babylon".
And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of
the earth.” (Revelation 17:18) What city other than Mecca do the kings of the
earth face and then bow down before each day?
edit: there's one called "The Mecca" too.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsStill no mention of Sheffield. Or robbie's punt on Norway, for that matter. Jeddah doesn't have a nightclub called "Babylon". And then there's jaywill's long thoughtful offering that you're still trying to avoid too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeddah
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillThe public dissemination of fundamentalist Christian insults against Islam is inherently political and very much a concern of others. It promotes and incites to hatred. As such it is to be deplored.
I don't know what "dancing" around you are refering to. I was ASKED why I refered to Muhammed as an antichrist. Did you find my lengthy reply political ? Did you find it flattering to Islam ? I didn't.
Do I really need to talk about jihad in every reference concerning Islam ? My burden here is to explain why Islam is not a good candidate for interpreting Babylon the Great in Revelation.
I'm focused on this issue.
Dressing it up in biblical terms is not a persuasive disguise. Ulster Protestants today describe the Pope as The Whore of Babylon and that is rarely in the context of an interesting Biblical exegesis. The phrase rings through the religious wars within Western Christianity since the Reformation.
By "dancing around" I referred to your perfectly consistent and long standing practice in supplying a very detailed interpretation of the Bible as you understand it. I personally find that utterly bizarre but still informative, no more odd than the time I have lost interpeting Finnegans Wake or, more recently, the Semi-Slav Defence, and you have more success in your project than I have had with mine. On the other hand, I don't rely on the Semi Slav Defence to live (fortunately).
I credited you with "seeking something bordering on a decent attitude" but complained that even you are unwilling to challenge the repeated labeling of Islam as inherently violent. I do not require your rehearsal of the concept of jihad, since I do not challenge the violence present in Islam.
I pointed out instead that violence is no less a feature of the other monotheist religions and advocated something similar to what Jesus said when he did not in fact reject in principle the stoning to death of a woman caught in adultery, but suggested that the first stone be thrown by one who is without sin. To be consistent, maybe he should have demanded the right to throw that stone, since he did not come to set aside the laws.
If it is not your intention to endorse the incitement to hatred which is more evident in other posts, then it would be appropriate sometimes to say so. Otherwise, while your own exegesis may be accurate within its terms, it is hardly complete. As you have said yourself, one cannot selectively pick and choose - the Bible must be taken as a whole and there are important refinements in the New Testament which are lost on too many Christians in practice. Revelations is hardly a useful grounding for a good life.