I don't see what's so special about an assortment of cities to warrant the attention that the Whore of Babylon gets. No city in the world has more relevance to scripture than Jerusalem. And, by speaking of the Jerusalem above as the bride of Christ, we have a dichotomy of the unfaithful whore Jerusalem, where Jesus was killed, vs. the faithful Jerusalem that is above. Rome was never God's bride so Rome's faithless or whoring wouldn't be as much of an issue.
The whore also sits on 7 hills. Relatively few cities have a reputation of being on 7 hills. Jerusalem's hills are named in scripture, such as the hill where Jesus was killed. Nowhere in scripture are any of Rome's hills acknowledge.
I see nothing in your quote about a "revived Roman empire." The cities identified in your quote wouldn't be the first places to be named if the subject is the Roman empire.
My dear brother. I gave you those cities to show you that not only Jerusalem was listed as a whore in the Scriptures. You once again did not grasp what you said in comparison to the response to that.
I agree that Jerusalem is the most relevant city in Scripture. However that distinction does not by itself make it the whore of Revelation.
Jerusalem is NOT THE BRIDE of Christ. Once again you have not grasped what was said my friend and instead have interjected what you think. The Church is the Bride of Christ and New Jerusalem will be its home for all of eternity according to Rev. 21. Therefor to say that Rome was never God's bride is totally in error as it simply is not Biblical in any way at all.
The fact that the hills of Rome are not named in Scripture does not remove the archeological fact that they in fact do exist.
I do not mean to be mean spirited, and I hope you do not take my response as such. It seems we are going to disagree on this.