About Those Seven 'Hills'...
Many assert that the antiChrist is the Pope and that the reference to the 'seven hills' refers to the seven hills of Rome. Steve put to shame such false claims.
From Chapter 12 - The "Beast"
It is recklessness to render “ἑπτὰ ὄρη” as “seven hills” simply because the city of Rome sits on seven hills. John himself wondered with great wonder, mainly, on account of the name Babylon. But, as it sat then, regarding the real names of both the seventh Beast and the Great Harlot, so it sits now: only Time will tell, for John did not tattle, and that he someday will stands not within the prospect of belief. Yet, it seems some people cannot stand sitting.
Apparently, latitude in the noun's definition admitted the attitude of the translators to an alteration in altitude. I do not know whether the translators, when they trampled down the little big noun, acted out of nescience or acted out of knowledge: if the former be the case, I would offer them each a box of soft, sweet raisins as food for thought, but I do not think that they, as yet, believe in cannibalism; and, if the latter be the case, they have already long indulged in the vile practice; whilst, in either case, I remind them of the final warning in 22:18-19.
They moved “mountains” to Babylon the Great--aye, seven of them, simultaneously!-- notwithstanding that six existed in auld lang syne, noncontemporaneously: a feat of transition with such attrition as reduced them to “hills,” instantaneously. I think the little Beast himself, when he comes with many signs and wonders, shall not be able to perform the like.
I will speak bluntly: To opine regarding Scripture is to assert the words of one's own heart and substitute them for the words of the God. This act reveals such contumacy and contumely as should shock even a weak conscience; it is an act of blasphemy, a violation of the First Great Commandment, and the sin against the Holy Spirit. The Apocalypse is a gift from above, and every gift from above is good. Therefore, if one is having a bad time with the Apocalypse, it is not the Apocalypse that is giving one a bad time, but oneself that is giving a bad time to the Apocalypse. Originally and ultimately speaking, the Apocalypse and the parables in the gospels have the same Author; that Author gave them in the same symbolical manner, for the same reason. If the reader is interested in knowing that reason, I refer him or her to Matthew 13:
10 And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables? 11 Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given. 12 For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he hath. 13 Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. 15 For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
Then and now, but not just now and then, can it be said, “What we've got here, is--failure to communicate.” And, it is eternally certain that the failure comes not on the part of the Amen. If my words have stung, then I am a good gadfly.