At http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/aug2014/bruceb831.htm , Bruce made some good arguments about why Istanbul (originally called "Nova Roma" or "New Rome") could be "Babylon" and noted that

• Istanbul is the 3rd largest city in the world.
• It was the capital of the Roman Empire (330–c.395), Byzantine Empire (c.395–1204 & 1261–1453), the Latin Empire (1204–1261), and the Ottoman Empire (1453–1922).

.  Turkey is an associate member of the EU, but not a full member. At http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/feb2013/jovial226-1.htm I took a whether Brussels could be the location of "Babylon".  The possibility that Rome could it has been well documented by many people.  But herein I thought I'd look at the possibility of Istanbul a bit closer.

(1) Istanbul sits on 7 hills.  I explained at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/apr2014/jovial46-1.htm why this is important.

As shown in the photo to the left, Istanbul definitely sits on 7 hills.  This photo is from an article at http://www.itistanbul.com/article/seven-hills.html

(2) It sits on "Many waters" (Rev 17:1)

It sits on the Agean Sea, and two rivers flow into it.  One of those two rivers connects the Black Sea with the Agean Sea.

(3) It is interpretatively possible to consider at least SOME PART of Ararat, Minni, Medes, and Ashkenaz to be considered North of Istanbul

See http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/mar2014/jovial324-2.htm on the previous discussion about this.  NOT MUCH of Turkey or ancient Media is north of it, but it is feasible it could be attacked from the North within Turkey.  This is from Jeremiah/Yermiyahu 50, which is not necessarily a direct reference to the Babylon of Revelation, but could be.

So when it comes to the geographical requirements of "Babylon", it passes all possible tests.  There are non-geographical descriptions of Babylon, but those could change between now and whenever Revelation strikes this planet.  But when it comes to what cannot change, yes, this city fits the requirements.

Shalom,

Joe