"The Book of Revelation, An Eschatological Study of the Endtimes", by Chad J. McCoy

There is no other numbering system in the world where you could mistake a 60 for a 1! The scholars; the translators who looked at this number, for some reason couldn't decide for sure whether it was a 666, or a 616. The only numbering system in the world that could have made them wonder which was correct was this Babylonian Arithmetic based on the number 60!
This is why I say the number 666 is not a decimal number, but a base 60 number. This is why the scholars could have been confused.
The mark is said to be the name of the beast. If the number of the mark is a Babylonian number, then the name of the beast… is BABYLON!
This fits with everything we have figured out so far, with the beast being Babylon, with the 7 heads representing Babylon, with the 7th King being from Babylon, with the AntiChrist himself being this 7th Babylonian King! This is further confirmation that this world system is from Babylon.
666 is the number of his name. Whose name? The World Government's name. Babylon.

Can we find one more confirmation in scripture that Babylon is this World Government, that it is the Beast?
Yes we can. John is told that this beast "once was, now is not, but will be again". Babylon fits this equation.
Babylon was. It did exist. At the time of John, it did not exist. It was evacuated sometime between the takeover of the Greeks and the coming to power of the Romans. By the time of Jesus and John, there was no city of Babylon.
Will it come again? That we have to take on faith. If we have discerned correctly, then the bible says it will.
Don't believe? Then take whatever you believe to be the World Government System and plug it into the equation of "once was, now isn't, but will be again". Remember, the "now isn't" part was spoken during the time of John, so in our time, it no longer exists.
Some people believe New York City is this World Government. Ok, plug it in.
Did New York exist before the time of John? No. That's the end of that. Some people believe that Egypt is the World Government. Did Egypt exist before John? Yes. Had it disappeared at the time of John? No. That proves it's not Egypt.
Try throwing in a man's name, for those who think 666 is a man's name. Did Gorbachev exist before John? No. Did anyone alive today exist before John? No. A man will not even fit in the equation, unless you believe in reincarnation.
Persia existed before John. It had disappeared from the world scene in the time of John. Perhaps it could come again? You can probably find several nations that fit this equation of existing before John, and collapsing during the times of Jesus and John. But they don't fit with the mark of the beast!
Only Babylon once was, did not exist at the time of John, but will be again; also matching the description of the mark of the Beast.
Only Babylon.
Babylon: The Mark of the Beast.

I wanted to see what the base 60 number of 666 would be if it was converted to a base 10 number. I had a mathematician do this for me, and he said that in our decimal system, the number 666 would be 111.
And if you just look at the symbols, what does 111 look like?
It looks just like:
symbol1
It is trying to tell us: LOOK AT BABYLON!
The number itself, "666", is not important. What is important about it is what it represents. The number was used to tell us the name of the beast; the name of the World Government. That is its function.
It has done so. It is Babylon.

One point I would like to clarify before moving on to Chapter 14, are the 7 heads of the beast.
The 7 heads of the beast represents the 7 hills of Babylon, as I have already stated.
However, since there are so many theories going around that say the city is not Babylon, but something else, I would like to explain why the other theories cannot be correct, and why Babylon is.
First of all, the number of different theories that purport to explain the prophecy of the bible are "as the numbers of the sands of the oceans".
Deciphering the truth out of the morass is a daunting task, and that doesn't pertain only to prophecy.
If you are a sinner needing to find out how to be saved, woe to the poor soul who tries to find the needed information by using the internet!
You want to know how to be saved? Which plan do you want? You can take your pick. Which is best for you? Who do you talk to? Who do you believe?
The sinner is going to see so many conflicting statements that he is going to throw up his hands (not in praise, but in despair) and say "Forget it! No one can agree on how to be saved, so maybe no one really knows, or maybe it's all made up and there is no God!"
And he goes back to his sin. If you need to know how to be saved, DON'T ASK THE INTERNET!
Bible prophecy is dealt with the same way. Good luck finding two people who believe exactly the same.
And when people try to figure out what this city is that is the Great Harlot, you get more of the same. (I've heard New York, Egypt, Jerusalem, Las Vegas, and an idea that there really is no city-it's just the attitude of man's rebellion against God, etc)
Everyone has a theory, and I've heard about all of them.
It makes me seriously question everything else in society that we believe to be so. Are the dinosaur skeletons even remotely accurate? When you consider the fact that lots of them were created from ONE SINGLE BONE, and when you consider the average supply of the human creature's common sense, you have to wonder.
Is the Ozone Layer really in danger? Do we have enough smarts to really know? (I think some of us do, but are we hearing from the ones who do, or just the ones with the biggest mouths?)
How well can we really predict the weather? Hey, we were supposed to have 90 degree, dry weather today, and it's 78 and rainy!
When our experts tell us how the universe was formed, do they really know? Were they there? Are they capable of even figuring it out with their scientific method?
Are the experts correct in telling us that man evolved from an ape; which in turn evolved from a slug, which in turn evolved from an amoeba in the sea? (I sure hope there's not another Big Bang, or we could all turn into office furniture!)
Man's wisdom is such a joke. And now humans are going to try to interpret the word of God? Oh, please! Yes, they are going to explain to us the word of God.
Don't monkey around with the word of God. If the bible says apples grow on trees, don't go around trying to "understand" what God is trying to tell you.
"I stubbed my toe on the way to the bathroom last night. What was God trying to tell me?" He's trying to tell you to TURN THE LIGHT ON, BRAINIAC!
But Revelation. And Daniel. And the Great Harlot. And the City with ten heads… I'd trust my salvation to the people "explaining" these things like I'd trust a dog to watch my food while I go to the bathroom.
That's why I've been studying these things for myself, and letting the bible explain itself. The bible indicates that the city of Revelation 17 is Babylon. While I can't prove it, I can show that the bible is where the idea originated (not in last month's Newsweek), and that there is a lot of evidence (biblical evidence, not the word of Marvin Rosenthal, or Jack Van Impe, or Irwin Baxter, Jr, or Tim Lahaye, or Chuck Missler, or Salem Kirban, or anyone else) to back it up.
(If you couldn't tell, that really gets me going. "Rosenthal says this, Missler says that…" Excuse me, excuse me please! The bible says…)
Ok. If you ask 100 people what city the Great Harlot represents, 98 people will tell you "Rome".
Why? There are two main reasons. I'll start with the lesser of the two.
The statue of King Nebbie represented the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans.
A lot of people do not understand (as we have already learned) that this vision was for the past. It was a pattern, a shadow of the real thing to come. It was a vision that explained to us when the Messiah would be born. That is all that vision was. Those nations are no longer dealt with. We can forget all about them. Forget about Babylon. Forget about Persia. Forget about Greece. And forget about Rome.
Forget about Rome! It's ancient history (J). The next vision, given to Daniel in chapter 7 of the four beasts, is the vision that concerns us today, because this is the real thing; not the foreshadow, not the pattern.
Jesus came and was born, and set up his spiritual kingdom. The rock came from out of the mountain and smashed the nations - God's Kingdom was set up - in heaven.
End of story. Case closed. Stick a fork in it. The vision of King Nebbie's statue is done.
Some people can't see this, and therefore believe that since the last nation in that statue is Rome, then that is the nation that will be on this earth when Christ comes back.
They think that since the feet and toes of the statue are iron mixed with clay, that it represents a sort of 5th kingdom that will be here on the earth when Christ returns. (The bible specifically says that there are only four nations.) Since it has some iron in it, and since Rome was represented by the iron legs, then they believe that the feet and toes are some kind of mixture of Roman empire, mixed with something else, like maybe the Catholic Church. Then off they go on a big Revived Holy Roman Empire spree.
The Holy Roman Empire was in the past. Yes, an ancient nation will come to power once again, but it is not Rome. It is Babylon.
In Daniel 2:40-43, we are given the entire meaning of the iron mixed with the clay: Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron-for iron breaks and smashes everything-and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. 41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.
There are only 4 kingdoms. The iron nation is the fourth. This is the Roman nation, as anyone will agree with. There are no more nations after the Roman nation before Christ sets up his Kingdom (in heaven).
So what are we to make of the iron mixed with clay? The bible tells us that the iron mixed with clay shows that it will be a divided kingdom. The Roman kingdom will be divided. It will be partly strong and partly brittle. Not only will the Roman government become divided and weak, but so will its peoples no longer remain united.
This happened. Rome became so big it could no longer govern itself properly. It outgrew its reach. In essence, the Roman empire crumbled due to insufficient economic power, which came about for a variety of reasons. It lacked the resources necessary to keep such a vast empire intact. The empire reached such a point that it could no longer support itself, becoming top heavy, and crashed down like a tower that had grown too high for its own foundation.
It became weak, brittle, and divided.
When one thinks of the Roman empire, the first thing which may come to mind is the strength and stability provided by its army. It is widely held that the fortunes of Rome were directly tied to the prowess of her military. Many scholars have maintained that in the later period of the Empire, Rome's military might steadily declined for a variety of reasons. In the end it was this lack of security which allowed the barbarian hordes to topple what had once been the mightiest empire in the world.
This theory has been stated succinctly by historian Arthur Ferrill. "The destruction of Roman military power in the fifth century A.D. was the obvious cause of the collapse of Roman government in the West". He contends that as massive as the Roman army was, with perhaps 200,000 men, it eventually disintegrated into an unorganized rabble. The most obvious factor in the falling apart of the army is the attrition sustained in the numerous conflicts with the Barbarians. Added factors such as the reliance on mercenaries, the fragmentation of the soldiers' loyalty to numerous power centers, and lack of incentive for Roman Citizens to enlist, combined to destroy the Army as a viable unit.
Just before the end of the Roman Empire, the praetorian guard even auctioned off the position of emperor to the highest bidder.
Their economy had become weak, their military might brittle, and their people divided. They were conquered, not even by another nation, but by a few tribes of Germans.
That is the end of the meaning of the empire of iron mixed with clay.
The fourth beast was a mixture of all the nations of the world. Remember that John saw a beast that looked like Britain, Russia, Germany, and… something else. This mixture is not the crumbling Romans. It is a new, One World Government. Yes, it is the same pattern, the same shadow, the same example, but it is not the same thing.
We know that a nation will arise in these last days, that used to exist, but doesn't anymore. That is Babylon. Babylon doesn't exist today. Rome does.
The other reason people like to think of Rome as the Great Harlot, is because of the seven hills that the Harlot sits on. "Everyone" knows that Rome is the City of Seven Hills. So this is very clear that the city is Rome.
Then what do they have to say when I point out that there are 6 cities that are known to be built on seven hills?
There is Rio De Janeiro, Babylon, Jerusalem, Rome, Rome (Georgia, USA), and New Rome (Byzantium)?
You can't just say that Rome is the city that is known as the City of Seven Hills, because there are more cities than just Rome that fit that description. So which is it?
Do you know why Rome happens to be called the City of Seven Hills by the way?
It has to do with Greek Mythology. The Romans knew of seven bright objects in the sky, the Sun, the Moon and five planets. They named them after their most important gods:

The Sun is the brightest object in the sky. Apollo - God of Enlightenment.
Moon The Moon is the next brightest object. Diana - the sister of Apollo.
Mercury fastest planet - Messenger of the Gods
Venus brightest planet - Goddess of Love
Mars the red planet - God of War
Jupiter the largest planet - King of the Gods
Saturn the slowest planet - God of Time

When the twins of Romulus and Remus were looking for a site to build a city, they wanted it to be in the area they had been found as babies (they had been put into a basket and set upon the river to drown, but were rescued), and they wanted it to be in an area that would be well-defended from enemies. They also wanted it to be upon seven hills; seven being the perfect number of the Gods. They reasoned that anyone coming to attack them would see the seven hills and think twice about attacking a "city of

the Gods".
(Notice that we had to go out of reality to find the meaning of the seven hills. This is a story of fiction, a myth. So the origin of the name "City of Seven Hills" comes out of a fairy tale.)
There are about 30 different stories that explain how Rome was founded, all rooted in mythology. So if you have heard of something different, I'm not surprised. Several stories even have the city being named after a woman.
As I have stated previously, I am no historian, but I have discovered through various histories that Rome was founded on actually just one hill, the Palatine.
Grolier's 1997 Encyclopedia: According to legend, Rome was founded by descendants of Aeneas, a Trojan who fled to Italy after the fall of Troy. Two of those descendants were Romulus and Remus, twin brothers who were abandoned at birth and suckled by a bitch wolf. The brothers founded a town on the Palatine, one of the seven hills of Rome, and ruled it jointly for a while. They eventually quarreled, and Romulus killed his brother, becoming the sole ruler.
I have also seen it written that Rome was originally founded on three hills, and also five hills.
In any event, it soon grew to encompass the "perfect seven" hills.
But it continued to grow, and encompassed nine hills, and then even more hills.
"It was common custom in the centuries before Christ for people in the Roman world to refer to the City of Rome itself as the "City of Seven Hills." The references are numerous and consistent. And indeed, when Romulus and Remus wanted to build a city in the area of the Tibur River (just inland from the coast to afford a greater protection for the city from sea pirates or from the naval warfare of hostile powers), it was divinely selected, in Roman parlance, that the city had to be on "seven hills." The number "seven" was a universal symbol that signified "completion" or "perfection," and the ancients who founded Rome wanted people to know that this particular city was destined to have a world influence and fame, and that it was no ordinary city that was being constructed in the eighth century B.C. The very fact, that Rome was designated "The Seven Hilled City" was significant enough to render it as a sacred and holy city that was designed to have world power and authority. This is one of the reasons the ancient people of the world always respected the City of Rome, whether they were its arch defenders and supporters or its enemies and were alien to its political and religious concepts. Even when the city in the time of the Empire finally grew beyond the strict limits of the "Seven Hills" (and reached out to embrace other hills in the vicinity and even hills on the other side of the Tibur River, such as Vatican Hill), the people for nostalgic reasons still retained the name of the city by its original designation: "the City of Seven Hills.""
"The imperial city of the Roman Empire, and one of the best-known cities of the world, was founded on the Tiber River in 753BC. It soon spread out until it covered seven hills: Capitoline, Palatine, Aventine, Caelian, Esquiline, Viminal, and Quirinal. The Roman Forum lay between the Palatine and Capitoline hills, and was the center of Roman cultural, civic and commercial interest. All Roman life centered here, and all roads radiated from the golden milestone located in the Forum."
So you see that Rome was originally founded on less than seven hills, and is now on more than seven!
You cannot hold to the idea that Rome is built on seven hills. It is on more than seven. It is "The City of Seven Hills" in name only.
So those who would believe Rome to be the city talked about in Revelation 13, have had their argument whittled down from being the only city in the world built on seven hills (there are at least 6 that I know of), to only being able to hold to the nostalgic name of that "perfection of the Gods." In clearer language, they can call it "The City of Seven Hills" in name only - it does not describe the city of Rome any longer. "Seven Hills" is simply what it's always been called - a nostalgic title with its origins in Mythology (not reality).
But Rome was not the only city well known for that title. Babylon was well-known as being "The City of Seven Hills", as well. So was Jerusalem.
And so is Rome, Georgia, USA, and New Rome (Byzantium, or Constantinople).
As proofs, I have found texts that simply say "We are all familiar with Babylon on the Euphrates (which became the capital of the world in the time of Nebuchadnezzar in the sixth century B.C.) as being the "Seven Hilled City.""
I will agree with you that this statement is not a proof. But for historians to make this statement and not even attempt to explain why Babylon was known as the "Seven Hilled City", indicates that such understanding was well known and required no defense.
Jerusalem is dealt with much the same way: "…But strange as it may seem, the City of Jerusalem as it existed in the time of Christ Jesus was also reckoned to be the "City of Seven Hills." This fact was well recognized in Jewish circles. In the Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, an eighth century midrashic narrative (section 10), the writer mentioned without commentary (showing that the understanding was well known and required no defense) that "Jerusalem is situated on seven hills" (recorded in The Book of Legends, edited by Bialik and Ravnitzky, p. 371, paragraph 111). And, so it was. Those "seven hills" are easy to identify. If one starts with the Mount of Olives just to the east of the main City of Jerusalem (but still reckoned to be located within the environs of Jerusalem), there are three summits to that Mount of Olives. The northern summit (hill) is called Scopus [Hill One], the middle summit (hill) was called Nob [Hill Two], the highest point of Olivet itself, and the southern summit (hill) was called in the Holy Scriptures the "Mount of Corruption" or "Mount of Offence" [Hill Three] (II Kings 23:13). On the middle ridge between the Kedron and the Tyropoeon Valleys there was (formerly) in the south "Mount Zion" [Hill Four] (the original "Mount Zion" and not the later southwest hill that was later called by that name), then the "Ophel Mount" [Hill Five] and then to the north of that the "Rock" around which "Fort Antonia" was built [Hill Six]. And finally, there was the southwest hill itself [Hill Seven] that finally became known in the time of Simon the Hasmonean as the new "Mount Zion." This makes "Seven Hills" in all."
Then we have Rome, Georgia: "The founders of Rome drew names for the town out of a hat. These are the different names each man chose:
1. Colonel Zachariah B. Hargrove - Pittsburg
2. Colonel Daniel R. Mitchell - Rome
3. Major Philip Walker Hemphill - Hamburg
4. Colonel William Smith - Hillsboro
5. John H. Lumpkin - Warsaw

Col. Mitchell's name was drawn. He thought of this name, shortened from the Seven Hills of Rome, because Rome sits on seven hills that all had a different landmark or meaning.
These hills are:
1. Tower Hill, supporting Rome's Majestic Clocktower and the Neely Grammar School, that is no longer there.
2. Old Shorter Hill, with its castle like spires, once supporting Shorter College and the flag of the Rome Boys High School, on top of Third Avenue.
3. Lumpkin Hill, which looks down on the old Seventh Avenue Cemetery (Oak Hill) and Rome from close range. (Eighth Avenue)
4. Blossom Hill, a north Rome suburb. (City Water Works)
5. Jackson Hill, (Fort Norton Jackson) with its historic battle trenches. (Adjacent to Blossom Hill. Location of the Civic Center and Visitors Center)
6. Mt. Aventine, has the name of one of the hills in Ancient Rome. (South Rome. Lookout Circle)
7. Myrtle Hill, the historic cemetery, "Where Romans Rest...." (South Broad Street).

Then there is New Rome: And, it may be surprising for some to learn this, but when Constantine the emperor wanted to build a "new Rome" in the eastern part of the Roman Empire (because most of the economic life of the Roman Empire in the fourth century was centered in the eastern half of the Empire and he felt he needed a capital city much nearer the economic center of the Empire), he finally selected a spot on the Bosporus called Byzantium. The reason he selected this spot to be the "New Rome" was because it was a small village also located on "Seven Hills." This made "New Rome" as a City of Seven Hills.
What we observe is the fact that the ancients symbolically looked on the various capitals of the world as having "Seven Hills."
Rio de Janeiro was not ever known as a "City of Seven Hills", to my knowledge. It is simply built on seven hills.
So now what do the pundits say about Rome? They said that Rome was known as the "City of Seven Hills".
I have shown you four other cities that were also known as the "City of Seven Hills", or the "Seven Hilled City".
Now their argument is reduced to saying that of all of these cities, Rome was the best known as "The City of Seven Hills".
Could we just stop the debating? Could we stop arguing over why Rome should be recognized as the Great Harlot? Could we get back to the bible, instead? Could we do that? Could we instead look at these cities that all match the description of being on seven hills, and see which one lines up with scripture?
We know three things about this city:
1) It is on 7 hills
2) It used to exist, did not exist in the time of John
3) Its name is 666

Let's take a look at the six cities of Rio de Janeiro, Babylon, Jerusalem, Rome Italy, Rome Georgia, and New Rome.
They have all been selected because of their link to seven hills, so we can say that each of these cities meet requirement one.
Did Rio de Janeiro exist before the time of John? No. According to MSN Encarta, the city was founded in 1502.
What about Babylon? Yes, Babylon existed before John. It did not exist at the time of John. MSN Encarta: After 312 BC, Babylon was for a while used as a capital by the Seleucid dynasty set up by Alexander's successors. When the new capital of Seleucia on the Tigris was founded in the early 3rd century BC, however, most of Babylon's population was moved there.
Britannica Encyclopedia: After a power struggle among Alexander's generals, Babylon passed to the Seleucid dynasty in 312. The city's importance was much reduced by the building of a new capital, Seleucia, on the Tigris, to which part of Babylon's population was transferred in 275.
From then on, the city became insignificant and fell into ruin. It did not exist at the time of John, nor does it exist today.
Jerusalem existed before John, and exists today.
Rome existed before John, and exists today.
Rome Georgia did not exist before John.
New Rome was established in the 8th Century BC, and exists today as Istanbul; therefore it pre-dated John, but did not disappear.

So we have only 1 city that matches the description of having existed before John, and not existing at the time of John. That city is Babylon.
The bible says that it will come again.
Babylon fulfills the first two of the prophecies (the seven hills; and it did exist, doesn't exist, but will exist again).
Babylon also fits with the number of 666, as we learned previously.
All the pieces fit into place. Only Babylon can be the Great Harlot.
I could not find any proof of Babylon being built on seven hills. The region where Babylon once stood is in a desert, not a mountain range. So why was it once known as the "Seven Hilled City"?
I think I may know the answer to that. Since the reason has been lost in time, we'll never know for sure, but I have an answer that may be correct. I can't prove it, but it does make sense. I can explain why Babylon can have been spoken of as being on seven hills.
As I looked up the word "hills" in the Greek, I saw that it was the word "oros", meaning "to rise, or rear; a mountain, as lifting itself above the plain"
The part about the mountain lifting itself above the plain caught my attention.
If the mountain is lifting itself up, then that conveys an attitude; one of arrogance. The mountain doesn't need anything or anyone. It doesn't need God. It can do anything it needs to, or wants to by itself.
Seeing this, I was reminded of the people who built the Tower of Babel. They said in Genesis 11:4: "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
They said "let us build ourselves a city".
They said "so that we may make a name for ourselves".
That is the same attitude of arrogance that the mountain had. I see here the same type of language being used. The seven hills that the Great harlot sat on were seven arrogant mountains that said they didn't need God or anyone else. They would lift themselves above the plain.
And in the plain of Shinar, the people built a Tower of Babel, in arrogance and defiance of God, who had told them to spread out and populate the earth.
I see the hills of the Great Harlot linked here to the Tower of Babel, because I see the same kind of language being used.
Furthermore, I looked up the Hebrew word for "Tower" that was used for the Tower of Babel.
The word was "migdalah" and meant simply "tower". But it came from the root word "gadal", which meant "boast, bring up, exceed, excellent, promote, increase, lift-up, magnify, be much set by, proudly spoken, tower"
See there at the end, that it can also mean a tower? But look at all the flavor of the language that is used to describe this tower!
Instead of saying "The Tower of Babel", we could replace "tower" with "gadal" and we would have: "The Boast of Babel", "The Bringing Up of Babel", "The Exceedingly Excellent Babel", "The Lifting Up of Babel", "The Magnified Babel", "The Proudly Spoken of Babel".
This is the same attitude of arrogance that the seven hills that the Great Harlot sits on are spoken of having!
So where do the seven hills come in?
Most people have heard of pyramids, and know what they look like. But not so many have heard of a similar structure, called a ziggurat.
Back
Home
Next