I was NOT insulting you -- why would you think because I gave the fuller story of Micah's prophecy, that I was insulting you???
Yes, this conversation is spiraling into personal attacks -- why does it have to do that????

No, I was giving the whole prophecy so hoping that you would see WHY I see that verse describing TWO powers, not just Assyria.


when the Assyrian (Asshur) shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.
The Assyrians (Asshur) would conquer the northern kingdom. And they would enter the land of Judah (they actually conquered all the cities in Judah EXCEPT Jerusalem. But God gave Judah peace -- the promise given Judah was that they would raise up seven shepherds (seven more kings would reign) and seven more kings DID reign after Hezekiah.
And eight more prophets would arise, before they too would lose their crown.


5:6 And they shall waste the land of Assyria (Asshur) with the sword,
Who would waste the land of Assyria.
First, Asshur will be driven back to his borders (God miraculously delivered Jerusalem when it was surrounded by Assyrian armies) and fed to the sword in his own territory. (see 2Kings 19)
Then Assyria would be destroyed in their own territory.
Remember Assyria, when the prophecy is given, was still the world power.

What nation will conquer Assyria by the sword and waste them?
and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver [us] from the Assyrian,
Is it not the nation from the land of Nimrod who will stand at the gates of Assyria with the sword.
Babylon destroyed Ninevah and the Assyrian nation. They would molest the nations no more.


and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver [us] from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

After wasting the land of Assyrian, Babylon (the land of Nimrod) would tread into the boarders of Judea. (2Kings 20:17)


The remnant of Israel would be scattered amongst many people.

When Babylon came into Judea that part of the prophecy took place -- the remnant (those spared when the Northern kingdom was scattered) would also be scattered amongst many people. For God would give them up (due to their rebellious spirit) but the they were to remember -- the Messiah would come, they were not left without hope.

Though the throne of David was removed, the crown taken away.
Another would come -- the Messiah -- out of Bethlehem.

So -- seems this prophecy isn't talking ONLY about the Assyrians, two different nations scattered the children of Israel.

Assyria AND the land of Nimrod

I don't think so. You are the one with the problem with Hislop and I demonstrated how thorough some of those who have turned against him have done their research.

You have never rebutted the statement from Genesis 10 where scripture is speaking of Nimrod's life.



Notice there are five straight verses dealing with Nimod's life before before it moves on with the lineage of Cush. That is not insignificant. It's very significant. For some reason you want to ignore that.

You just want to argue your position not explore -- so I will leave you for now.

I did explain the texts you now present again, I think I explained it twice already-- but of course not to your satisfaction as it didn't agree with your position.

I don't even have a chance to explain myself without your constant insistences to answer all your challenges and accept your position, while you just shrug off my answers anyway. I see the whole embellishment of Nimrod as ADDING TO SCRIPTURE things that aren't there, so why do I have to spend time showing you that scripture does not say all those things Hislop and you are insisting are the truth? It's all based on human reasoning and assumptions. Which may or may not be true.

Yes, I have many more reasons why I don't accept this. Because I see things in history that if added actually give a much bigger picture. But they can't be shared, for you don't even consider them, just show a constant barging that I accept your views on Nimrod.
Why?
So -- I'm going to leave the subject.
No, I'm not angry, just realizing this is pointless.

BUT maybe you will realize THERE ARE OTHER view points and no, they do not promote or excuse paganism.

You can do as you please. I just think it odd that a SDA who quotes Ellen White and scripture finds Hislop to excuse paganism. ***shakes head in wonder***

When people OVER do something by moving from the clearly seen falseness of the matter into assembling a lot of questionable sources and assumptions, to over emphases that position, it can do a lot of damage.

Atheisms thrives on the concepts presented in the book
!
See, they will say -- even the title of the book says it proves Christian practices and beliefs came from pagan Babylonian religion not from Christ or the Bible. Do they differentiate and think this is only talking about certain practices and beliefs in Roman Catholicism? (The title does say Roman Catholicism) No, they are quite eager to throw out ALL stories of a Divine Being being born of woman. Stories of the cross -- that's all paganism, thus the cross is foolishness to them.

Satan counterfeited the true. The counterfeits, yes they are false, deceptive and wrong. But the truth is life and light. The baby gets thrown out with the washwater and hope is gone.

I think eternity will only tell!
How many were brought to truth by that book? (Yes there will be some)
How many were made to feel the cross is foolishness and the incarnation just another myth from paganism as a result and be lost? (I'm afraid there will multitudes)

Yeah, they say the same about the Catholic church. In fact Catholics are the only ones I've seen display your attitude toward Hislop's book as they know it attacks the very foundations of their religion. Like I have said, I find your attitude towards Hislop very odd, Catholic anti Hislop comments are all over the internet and I've run across them on Christian Forums and among Sunday keepers too as they know it attacks the foundation of their religion also.

I do agree with you on one thing though, eternity will tell.

I have another couple of very interesting link and a quote from Hislop.



https://www.britannica.com/topic/Diana-Roman-religion



https://theredseeds.wordpress.com/2016/11/09/cybeles-heart-h-in-the-tower-%E2%9D%A4%EF%B8%8F/

Firstly I see agreement on these basic foundational facts
Paganism, idol worship, heathen practices and especially dealing with the so called ?departed spirits of the dead? are all an abomination to the Lord. Paganism, to a large extent is dealing with ?departed spirits of the dead? which are really demons pretending to be these departed dead.
A worship of idols, like those of Diana, (and a whole host of others that were revered) is obviously an abomination to the Lord.
There is no question that these things are evil. Scripture ambly confirms this.
It's also true that Pagan ideas and practices have been accepted into Christian churches to the point Revelation 18 declares the fallen church is full of evil spirits.
Thus, I have never said Hislop?s book is all wrong.

There is a big difference in saying Hislop is all wrong (which I've never said) and saying that there are problems with some of his historical conclusions and his attempt to link everything with cherry picked parallels that seem to make everything the same.


Consider a conversion a protestant teacher has with a Catholic lady, who is very attached to her concepts of "mary".



That's why simply drawing parallels is wrong. Of course, we believe Christ is our Lord and Savior,
not Tammuz. But if one follows the parallel style of logic, they end up seeing Christ as just another "Tammuz".
Also, there were many different "goddess"(and gods) created from memories of some renowned ancestor. While they may have parallels (people admired certain attributes in their gods and goddesses) yet they differ one from the other, there's no need to make them all the same.
The only real parallel between them all, was that people believed in "spirits of the departed dead" as being gods. The parallel isn't that they were all Semiramis.

The way to show the evil of paganism is to define it as Satan's COUNTERFEITS.
In order to hide the true birth and mission of Christ, {Who is the Word, Who from the beginning time everlasting, was with God and was God, and was with God. and became flesh and dwelt among us. (John 1)} Satan kept all manner of pagan counterfeits going, so when the true came, people just placed it in the realms of paganism and didn't recognize it.

Satan uses all manner of deceptive strategies. His biggest lie is that people can become "gods". All his "gods" emerged from people who supposedly ascended into godhood. Thus he made Mary into a "god" using that same lie. But with the same brush made Christ less than "God".

So because of a hypothetical argument you will condemn someone's writings? What about the hypothetical argument of a Mormon against Ellen White? Well, they're both prophets so what's the difference? You believe Ellen White is a true prophet and and I believe Joseph Smith is. So what's the big deal?

Your examples are pretty weak as an argument.

You just proved my point. That's why simply drawing parallels is wrong.
There has to be a greater discerning measuring rod, parallelism is the weak argument.