A world steeped in sin, violence, rebellion against God, perished in a world wide flood.
Eight people survived:
Noah and his wife, his three sons, Japheth, Shem and Ham and their wives.

How is it that sin, like noxious weeds sprang up so quickly again?
Do we put all the blame on Nimrod, the great grandson of Ham? The mighty hunter. Some translate Genesis 10:9 as Nimrod the mighty hunter AGAINST God. He became a mighty one. The spirit motivating the giants before the flood, who became mighty men, and men of renown,(Gen. 6:4), revived in him. He played a heavy hand in sending the earth back into a spiral of defiance against God.

I used to think all the wicked nations rose because of him, raised by him, while Shem and Japheth fathered peaceful, more in tune with God, type of nations.
After all Shem is the forefather of the Hebrews, the children of Israel -- God's chosen people in the OT.
And Japheth is the father of most of the European nations where Christianity took hold.
BUT....it's far more complex than that!
Well for those interested in history it isn't that simple.


Whose descendants were the Egyptians?
Whose descendants were the Assyrians?
The Babylonians? The Persians? The Greeks? The Romans? The inhabitants of the Mediterranean coastal Islands and lands?



Chapter 10 of Genesis, the Table of Nations, describes how earth was populated by the sons of Noah following the Flood, beginning with the descendants of Japheth. And other history fills in details.

An earlier conversation turned to Alexandar Hislop's book called "Two Babylons",

Read pages 21-25 -- does it sound reasonable, or is there a problem.

So what do these pages say (summerized here)

TITLE: The Child in Assyria

It was from Babylon, that the Mother and Child worship spread to the ends of the earth. It's found in China, India, Egypt, Greece, Japan etc.
It all started with Semiramis
"who lived only a few centuries after the flood, and who is known to have impressed upon them the image of her own depraved and polluted mind That beautiful but abandoned queen of Babylon was not only herself a paragon of unbridled lust and licentiousness, but in the Mysteries which she had a chief hand in forming, she was worshipped as Rhea, the great "MOTHER" of the gods. (p. 5)
She derived all her glory and claims to deification through her child who grew up to great statue and powers -- Tammuz (sometimes called Bacchus)

Oh - but this child was also the father, and the husband of Semiramis? His historical name was Ninus which means "son". So he's both Semiramis' husband and son??? The Egyptian's had "gods" Isis and Osiris with a confused relationship similar.

But now Hislop attempts to identify this story with actual people.
Nimus, he claims is Nimrod (the great grandson of Noah)
Nimus (Nimrod) was king of Assyria.
Semiramis was his wife.
Nimus the most ancient of Assyrian kings was a great warrior who brought all the people of Babylonia under his power before there was a Babylon. Since the first attempt by the people to build Babel had been stopped by God, and they were scattered, Babylon as a city didn't exist till Nimrod (Ninus) brought the people together under his control. The Bible says his (Nimrod's) kingdom was Babylon.

Hislop then turns his attention to Asshur.
Asshur according to Genesis 10 was the son of Shem.
He left the home territory and went out and built Ninevah as well as several other sites that would become great cities. Hislop assumes that Nimrod would have tried to hinder this. And doubts, saying Asshur setting up a mighty kingdom so near to Nimrod's kingdom would have been highly improbable. He then precedes to say the bible didn't say Asshur, the son of Shem built these cities, but rather that the text implies that Nimrod set out to strengthen cities that he, Nimrod had built. Thus he tries to dismiss Asshur as having anything to do with Ninevah, and that his name just means "to strengthen".

He then quotes an historian, Justin, to vindicate his assumptions.

OK -- what do we think of Hislop's reasoning which brings him to that assumption?


1. First, the bible does say Asshur went forth and built those cities.

2. Asshur was Shem's son.
Nimrod was Ham's grandson, considerably younger than Asshur.

3. The land in which those particular cities were built was called Asshur. In those days land was often named after the man that claimed it. It appears Asshur had already laid claims to that land (probably before Nimrod was even born) It's first capital city was called Asshur.

4. The Assyrians are Semites, not Hammites.
Puzur-Ashur I is generally regarded as the founder of Assyria as an independent city-state, c. 2025 BC.
Later generations called their chief "god" Ashur, which was common -- countries looking back at their founder as their "god".

5. Nimrod didn't solidify the nations AFTER the strike against Babel and the language confusion. He was instrumental in trying to make the people "one" by building the tower. It was his daring insult to God and ambitious plans to unite the world under his type of order that brought the language crises and disrupted his plans.

6. How many people were in the world by the third generation?
Starting with the eight originally. If each of the three couples had 15 kids (they also had girls not only the seven or so listed sons. That would make 53. Asshur would have been born in that first crop of kids. With 26 couples now it would raise population to 400 people. Nimrod would have been born in that crop of kids.
Of course, population would start to accelerate at this point, but Nimrod would have to wait till he was grandpa before the world population would reach 45,000 or more. And somewhere in that time he tried to bring the world under one control with his tower of Babel.

7. Was Asshur trying to rival Nimrod? Did he go out in defiance against God?
That is not even suggested in scripture, just because a nation later becomes "pagan" does not mean that's what the founder desired.
Josephus (Antiqu. l. 1. c. 6. sect) mentions, that Ashur, the son of Shem, built Nineveh, and gave the name of Assyrians to those that were subject to him.
The reason of his going out from Shinar, as given by Jarchi, is, when he saw his sons hearkening to Nimrod, and rebelling against the Lord, by joining in with the building a tower, Asshur went out from Shinar with his family; or it may be, he was driven out by Nimrod by force, or he could not bear his tyrannical government, or live where such a wicked man ruled: and as Nimrod built cities and attempted to set up his centralized government, Ashur went out and laid out and claimed his own area in his own defense and that of his posterity:

8.The story of Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz is not biblical. The Bible never refers to the three together. Nimrod is mentioned just 4 times, Tammuz once and Semiramis not even once. Nimrod is never referenced as having a wife or a child. The "queen of heaven" is mentioned five times in scriptures but never in connection with Semirarnis.

9. Ninus a king of the Assyrians
Hislop took much of this part of the narration from Diodorus work. If this king Ninus really lived, I highly doubt it was a mere four generations from Noah. It would have been much later when the populations were much larger well into millions. From Diodorus account it appears Semiramis built Babylon in a manner that I always thought described how Nebuchadnezzar built Babylon.

I don't like answering every point you raise point by point. For one thing I had a stroke a little more than a year ago and my left hand is very clumsy for typing as I have typo after typo to correct, Second, extremely long posts become very cumbersome to read and understand. Simple to the point posts make things more comprehensible.

You ignored what you seemingly don't want to see. Hislop quoted historian and historian to create his hierarchy of pagan legends; He didn't just pull them out of his hat. So what if the Bible doesn't talk about Semiramus? Does it mention all historical figures or pagan gods? Does it speak to Thor, Saturn, Jupiter, etc...? Those pagan Gods were around during Biblical times. Later on in the book Hislop traces Semiramis down to Diana, the goddess of immorality.

What follows is just one small sample of Hislop quoting other historians.



Notice the following tracing of Semiramis to Diana within the pages I said to read to answer your misunderstandings.

Here is another answer to one of your misunderstandings found in the pages of 21 to 25.

All those parallels do not proof that Nimrod and Semirumus were husband and wife, or that Nimrod was Ninus.

The fact that nations developed a whole pantheon of gods is sadly true.
The sentence "the
relationships of the divinities, in most countries, are peculiarly conflicting-" is true.
That legends carried over from one country to the next (though changed and adapted) is also true.

Things from reality were taken, twisted, added to, mystified, changed to met other circumstances, mixed, enlarged, parts of older gods are mixed with "newer gods". The confusing stories of the gods do not prove any factual reality as they usually reflect numerous celebrated historical facts some older, some newer all mixed together in confusing mixture.

Might be of interest for you to read the original of Hislop's sources. Like Diodorus depiction of Ninus and Semirumus, he doesn't call Ninus, Nimrod, and it's quite obvious Ninus and Semirumus lived quite a time after Nimrod. Semirumus didn't just pile a few bricks around Babylon. Her Babylon matches the great Babylon that Nebuchnezzar built.
Was Babylon that grand way back four hundred years after the flood?

From your quotes of his quotes, it just shows he's piecing together a lot of bits from legends (and I don't disagree various people believed those legends and worshipped a snowballing mixture of panatheon of "gods" throughout BC history, but it doesn't prove that Nimrod is Ninus or that Semirumus was ever Nimrod's wife.


Actually I'd like to explore Egypt's early start -- it wasn't Nimrod but another son of Ham who was involved there. Mizraim, brother of Cush, who is regarded as the "father" of Egypt.

Well, it's obvious you haven't read Hislop's book in a long time. He covers that subject. As to "proving" anything from antiquity that is next to impossible. All we can do is go from the preponderance of evidence. God always requires us to accept Him and His word by faith and I think the same thing applies here too.

As you stated in your last post on the other thread we need to understand these things
as Ellen White said these things are going to become more frequent at the close of time.

All very interesting but still no proof that Cush was Bell, and Nimrod was Ninus.
I don't want just Hislops version of ancient Egypt, I would like to explore broader sources.
He has a very narrow agenda routing everything to match his premise.

And true, I did NOT read all of Hislop's book. Too much darkness to be immersed in for too long. I'm interested in history, not in all strange gods, that satan manufactured. Though I had read what you posted.
However, There is only ONE God, God the Father and Jesus the TRUE Son of God. Everything else is a counterfeit.
Mother of God worship is paganism no matter where it comes from.

Also the "masters" that are manifesting themselves in our time, claim to have incarnated in a several historical people, not just one or two.

Basically one can go back to Ham himself as the beginnings into the spiral of evil -- for all his sons had a huge rebel streak.
Ham missed the old preflood way of life, and resented God for destroying it.
Ham showed his contempt when his father was "drunk" -- why was his father drunk, probably because he too was suffering discouragement. But Ham thought that excused him for resenting his father and the flood and especially God.
The reason for the curse -- it was because Ham was filling the minds of his sons with his resentment.




When were languages confused

""Peres," to "divide.""

Actually Genesis 10 says
Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name [was] Joktan.
Who was Peleg,
His father was Eber,
His Grandfather was Arphaxad
His Great Granfather was Shem

That would place him a generation after Nimrod.
In other words, the language confusion came when Nimrod's kids were already grown men.
Now yes, Cush was probably still alive . His generation averaged more than 400 year life spans! They outlived most of their great grand kids. It was after the generation of Eber (and Nimrod) that life expectancy dropped dramatically .





The ancient historian Josephus states of Nimrod, ?He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers? (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 4)

I asked you to notice that Scripture says Asshur went out and built Nineveh before it lists the sons of Shem. In fact it does so 10 or 11 verses before it lists the sons of Shem. Why would it do that? It is speaking to the life of Nimrod in that passage.

Also, Hislop traces out the connections between the gods of different cultures. He shows parallels between the Druids.
Chinese, Greek, Roman, South Pacific, American Indian, India's, and Babylonian gods; And I'm probably forgetting a few different cultures.

I really don't understand why a SDA would have the obvious antipathy that you have towards his book. It makes no sense to me.

Yes, it does do that. But Asshur was born a generation before Nimrod. And when Nimrod was making life difficult in Shinar and pulling all his contempories into the rebellion , Asshur took his family and left. It's all part of Nimrod's story -- showing not everyone agreed and joined him. Asshur took his family and left to start up his own country



It's not that I have antipathy towards his book itself, it has its place, a lot of pagan things have crept into Christianity-- I'll take ideas from it and evaluate them against other sources. It's probably more when people turn it into absolute gospel truth that I have a problem, it is NOT an inspired authority on history or a guide for salvation or ultimate truth. It's just a book with one view. One can agree with some of it and disagree with some of it.

But when all other ideas and evidences on history are condemned and only his upheld as ultimate truth, it becomes a problem.

It was Ham who showed disrespect, why did Noah curse Canaan? Why not Ham' himself or his other sons -- Cush, Mizraim, Phut?


The only one cursed was Ham's son Canaan -- the father of the Canaanites.

Nimrod seems to have brooded the most over the "unjustice of God" for destroying the pre flood world and set out to "kill" God.

The ancient historian Josephus states of Nimrod,
"Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah?a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it were through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny ?seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence upon his own power. He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers! (Ant. I: iv: 2)(Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 4)

This leads us to another interpretation from many scholars:

Because of the parallels between Gilgamesh and Nimrod, many scholars agree that Gilgamesh is Nimrod. Continuing with Gilgamesh's fable, he did win, he did vanquish Huwawa and took his head. Therefore he could come back to Uruk and other cities and tell the people not to worry about YHWH anymore, he is dead. ''I killed him over in the Lebanon mountains. So just live however you like, I will be your king and take care of you.

There are quite a few parallels between Nimrod and Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh was a depraved, hater of God. But considered a hero.


"There are still other parallels between the Bible and the Gilgamesh epic: 'YaHWeH' has a somewhat similar sound to 'Huwawa.'
The Bible calls Nimrod a tyrant, and Gilgamesh was a tyrant. There was a flood in the Bible, there is a flood in the Epic. Cush is mentioned in the Bible, Kish in the Epic. Erech is mentioned in Scripture, Uruk was Gilgamesh's city. Gilgamesh made a trip to see the survivor of the Flood. This was more likely Ham than Noah, since 'Nimrod' was Ham's grandson! Historically. Gilgamesh was of the first dynasty of Uruk. As Jacobsen points out (1939: 157), kings before Gilgamesh may be fictional, but not likely. The fact that the Gilgamesh epic also contains the Deluge story would indicate a close link with events immediately following the Flood, S.N. Kramer says:
A few years ago one would have strongly doubted his (historical) existence...we now have the certitude that the time of Gilgamesh corresponds to the earliest period of Mesopotamian history. (Kramer 1959: 117)"

When have I ever said Hislop is inspired? I have asked you if Doug Batchelor is inspired and you didn't answer me. Your reasoning was that the devil uses non inspired sources to harm God's cause yet I've seen people mocking Doug for his Biblical views in the comments on line in the comments on his evangelistic series. I also see people mocking those who uphold Biblical truths on line. In fact I was just banned from a forum for upholding the love of God. The devil mocks everything he can to hurt God's cause, including using the hypcrites inside the church. So I really don't understand your attitude towards Hislop. He uses very strong reasoning in his conclusions and God has used people like him throughout history. Luther, Calvin, Knox, Melancthon and Zwingli were all used very powerfully by God, yet they were not inspired, to counteract the very things Hislop exposes. Ellen White quotes a non inspired source very liberally in The Great Controversy.

Here is an article written in a Christian, but not SDA, magazine as a review of Hislop's book.

https://www.tomorrowsworld.org/magazines/2004/may-june/the-two-babylons

By "not inspired" I mean not infallible, not a prophet --

I enjoy delving into history, but seems this isn't delving into history but trying to promote a book and all it's reasonings.

I really don't want to argue over Hislop. It's just a book, its on the right trend, but there are also some questions. You think it's the best! You seem to think that by questioning some of his conclusions, I'm mocking him, and promoting paganism, and so it seems this conversation is spiraling down into bad feelings.

Here is a link that agrees with your position.

https://www.equip.org/articles/the-two-babylons/

Notice what he uses for references to discount Hislop's book.



Aren't encyclopedias great resources for researching spiritual subjects?

Not even. Differences in opinion are what makes the world go round. I just want to keep on addressing your misunderstandings as I find Hislop to be convincing.

I found an interesting text on Nimrod and Assyria.



The implication of this is clearly that Nimrod is very closely tied to Assyria. I have also run across the statement that Hamites founded Assyria.

Let's look at that quote in its context


MICAH contemporary prophet with Isaiah, prophecying during the reign of Hezekiah in Judah.

The kingdom of David (the shepherd from Bethlehem, who became king of all Israel), had been divided. The crown would soon depart from both kingdoms. But a king (the Messiah) would arise from Bethlehem filled with the majesty of the name of the LORD. He, like David would come from Bethlehem and when HE takes the throne and crown it will be forever!

The Assyrians (Asshur) would conquer the northern kingdom. And enter the land of Judah (they actually conquered all the cities in Judah EXCEPT Jerusalem. For God gave them peace -- Judah would raise up seven shepherds (seven more kings would reign) and eight more prophets would arise, before they too would lose their crown.

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)
Remember Assyria, when the prophecy is given, is the world power. What nation will conquer Assyria by the sword? Is it not the nation from the land of Nimrod who will stand at the gates of Assyria with the sword, and then tread into the boarders of Judea. (2Kings 20:17)
The remnant of Israel would be scattered amongst many people.

For "now vs 3, when the prophecy was spoken" God would give them up (due to their rebellious spirit) but the Messiah would come, they were not left without hope.

So -- seems this prophecy isn't talking about ONLY about the Assyrians.

AND land of Nimrod --

Here is more on Nimrod as the empire builder of Assyria.

https://creation.com/nimrod-post-flood-empire-builder

You will find other websites that will say that as well -- doesn't mean it is true Both sides are presented on the internet.

The problem is most people START from the wrong premise --
They don't realize PREFLOOD religion was being brought back.
So they have to attribute everything to post flood things and add that to the Bible story.

People can translate ASSHUR right out of the Bible and make it read as they see fit.

But at least that website does mention that the land belonged to Asshur, but was taken over by Nimrod's aggressive greed to dominate the world, which might of happened, for the area was repeatedly invaded over the years. And yes Nimrod's empire was short lived. And it's still the land of Asshur according to the Biblical records .

You must think I am very scripturally ignorant to think I don't know Micah's prophecy is a prophecy of Christ and that I don't know what is happening with the kingdom of Judah. That's actually insulting.

Micah actually ties Nimrod to Assyria.



Who will waste the land of Assyria and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof? Not another nation. This is a spiritual prophecy.of Jesus. This is spiritual warfare and these type prophecies may last until the end of time for their fulfillment for it is at the end of time that Nimrod, in the person of the devil, will be overthrown.

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.

Humans ascending into godhood --
That's what the "ascending masters" we have today, claim to be, and they are manifesting themselves!!

They claim that once they were humans with human bodies, they achieved a certain level (often they lived several human lives before they achieved that level)but now they are ageless spirit beings, with supposed great and wonderful wisdom, which they share with chosen humans to help shape a better world.

It's rank spiritualism really!

But the gods and goddesses thing is all built on this concept.

Satan's first lie
You shall not surely die, you will become as gods!!!!
He didn't just tell that lie in Eden -- he hammered it home in the minds of men and women who were disgruntled with God.

Semiranis, Nimrod, Diana, Osiris, Horus etc etc etc. once all probably represented real people. But they are all DEAD. No, satan says, they are alive, in the sun, in the moon, in the stars, they are alive. They have ascended to greater levels -- ascending into godhood.


People believed it!
Go to Egypt. The very first Egyptians (the ones that built the pyramids) made lavish provision for their "after life" journey. The gods were the evidence that a powerful leader, though dead, was still alive and had joined the gods. People could ascend to godhood, some were already partaking of "god quality" while on earth. (Pharaoh's were considered "gods")

It's not the fact that there were many counterfeits of the real Mary and baby Jesus in past history. That's not the problem or the reason we see the Catholic church now revering Mary, and yes, most Catholics will not see any connection with Mary and the pagan goddesses. (Yes, I know some Catholics personally and they flat out say Mary has no connections with those goddesses -- those goddesses were bad, she is good and holy) just as Tamus was bad, but Jesus is good and holy.

So why do we reject the adoration of Mary, yet accept that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?

It's because the adoration of Mary is built on the "ascended to godhood, never die" lie of Satan!
Mary was a human being, yes favored of God, BUT STILL a human being, and in their theology she ASCENDED (ascension of Mary) and is now in the inner circle of God!


Christ, from infinite time was with God, and was God (see John 1:1) His birth was an act of descension from His rightful place on the right hand of the Father on the eternal throne.
He didn't "ascend" to godhood from a human beginning. He was God, one with the Father, from eternity, the one Who created all things and without Him nothing was created that was created. (John 1:2)

Why? Because you say so? Your next post, which I've already read, shows how bad all arguments are against a "true believer". So I still don't understand your problem with Hislop.

The problem in adoring Mary isn't because of some legends in the past.
The problem in adoring Mary is because the real Mary is in the grave awaiting the resurrection and demons are taking her name and her history and pretending to be Mary in order to mislead the people.

Semiramis, no matter when or where she existed, IS DEAD. BUT demons have taken her stories (real or legendary, embellished them and probably the stories of a few others like her) and have been representing themselves as these women.

Mary, the human being, is DEAD, she did not ascend to heaven into the inner circle of God as is claimed by Catholics and even some other religions. That's why we reject the whole Marian movement in the world today. Not because people have confused her with Semiramis (who is also dead) but because these so called "ascended" human beings into godhood, are all fake masks of demons out to deceive. It's not Mary AT ALL.



Because you used the exact same logic in your hypothetical argument as I see people who base their argument on Hislop use.
And which can obviously lead to wrong conclusions.

The logic that mother/child beliefs all over the world are evil, (and yes they are) therefore the Catholic belief and adoration of Mary is evil. --
Is that what we base our rejection of Mary adoration upon? If it is, and we follow that logic to it's logical conclusion, we would reject Christ as well.
That logic won't convince a Catholic, the argument I shared, though abbreviated, is not hypothetical, it's one a Catholic believer gave to show she was not at all impressed by being told Mary adoration comes from pagan goddesses.
She didn't believe Christ was linked to Tammus OR that Mary was in any way linked to Semiramis.
The pagan stuff was evil she believed that, and found it offensive that people even thought that represented Mary, for Mary and Christ are holy and good.

We need something MORE, something based on clear biblical reasons, to convince them Marian adoration is WRONG.


So yes, any reasoning that claims because the Mormon prophet, and several other prophets that emerged in the last 170 years are false, won't that also make EGW a false prophet, is faulty reasoning.

There has to be a greater discerning measuring rod, than just similarities. It needs to be tested by the Bible, do they speak according to the law and the testimony?


DO YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING HISLOP WROTE IS TRUTH or just some of it?

Do you actually think I base my ideas ideas of paganism on Hislop? I wouldn't give his ideas the time of day if they weren't backed up solidly by Biblical truth God has led me to in decades of Bible study. And the same goes for Ellen White's writings. Sorry, but that's ridiculous assertion. I posted here using Ellen White's writings more than a decade before I ever heard of Hislop. Your assertions are insulting.

You didn't answer my question?
Do you believe everything Hislop wrote is truth or just some of it?

I didn't ask where you got you ideas of paganism from.
I didn't ask if you believed in EGW White's writings.

I simply asked you if you believe everything Hislop wrote is truth or if you believe just someof it is truth.

Do you really believe everything Hislop wrote is backed up solidly by the Bible?

Or does he just take concepts FROM the bible and apply them to his studies?

I obviously don't believe everything has ever written i true as I told you he's not inspired and you've basicly made the same accusation before and I denied it. That you ask the question again is insulting. I have not run across anything so far that I don't think is true. I really don't understand your attitude as I've never seen you be insulting to anyone before and there have been some posters here who had some really strange beliefs.

Years ago you refused to answer me when I pointed out something Ellen White said about the pilgrims you didn't agree with so it seems to me you have a personal issue with me. Why you would hold onto that anger for so many years as it's been over a decade since I posted here baffles me.

No, I don't have a personal issue with you at all, and I have no idea why you think, my sharing what I believe is an important view, that doesn't really come out in what Hislop gives, somehow insults you???


I've written several times that I think Hislop is on a right trend, he was just a man writing out his studies. I've mentioned that I do have some issues with some of his conclusions and groupings of things. Yet, his book asks a lot of important questions, but are all his answers true -- is his explanations of Revelation all true (some is but ...)?

You have repeatedly said I'm condemning the book, and insinuating that I'm supporting the Catholic belief, etc etc.
Why have you done that?

No, the questions I asked you was to hopefully show you the situation where I'm at, and hopefully help you see that questioning aspects of Hislop's book, is not condemning his whole book, or supporting Catholic belief.

1. I believe SOME of Hislop's writings are true, but not EVERYTHING.
2. I believe he takes concepts FROM the Bible and tries to show what he believes is their background, but I do not see that his conclusions are all solidly based on the Bible.

Therefore -- like a lot of other books, I value them for the trend in them which I see as them relating to Biblical truth, but don't feel at all obliged to accept everything they say.

The same for another book you suggested:
Secrets of the Lost Races.
A great book -- I have three copies and have shared the ideas.
But is it all truth? Probably not, it's a man looking at archeological findings and asking a lot of very important questions.
I believe the ancients were a super intelligent, strong, creative people, and yes Noorbergen's concepts show this to be true. That much is true! I like the book! Whether every conclusion he reaches is true -- I don't know about that, but the concept is definitely in the right direction.

What I have said is insulting is not that you disagree with me, but that you have asked me, twice, if I thought Hislop was inspired. I answered in the negative both times and even answering your question in the negative the first time you asked me again. It's as if you don't read or believe me when I answer you. I find that insulting especially when your arguments are so weak that it is very simple to demonstrate how common place it is for people to use your reasoning and reject it. Yeah people reject Hislop too, but it's because the devil can use any excuse he can think of to reject truth in favor of his lies.

I tried sharing Noorbergen's book on another Christian forum and was called an idiot for posting some of his findings People don't like the idea of other human beings being a lot smarter than we are today. It hurts their egos too much..

It doesn't matter what a person presents someone is going to find fault with it if it crosses their inclinations.

Edit: I just went there because I wanted to see if I'd been banned again and I have been simply for posting more in support of Noorbergens findings.

Basically I am totally baffled by your responses. If those rather negative responses aren't because I disagree with your focus on urging certain claims of Hislop as being special truths, then I have no idea what those responses were about.

The very way you phrase things -- "people reject Hislop, because the devil can use any excuse to reject truth in favor of his lies." Tells me you place Hislop pretty close to the level of inspired.
I don't think that's an insult, that's just an observation that you place that book very high and see disagreements as rejection of truth

Actually I don't think I've ever asked you if you think Hislop's book is inspired?
You simply ASSUMED, when I said it wasn't inspired that somehow I was asking you???.
I realize you never actually said it was inspired.
I said it wasn't inspired, because I don't think it was inspired.
And you got upset.
Later the question I asked you was:
Do you believe EVERYTHING Hislop wrote is true, or just SOME of it?

I asked because you kept saying I'm condemning the book, when I disagreed with some of his conclusions and groupings.

What is my disagreement:
I don't believe Semiramus was all the things the book says she was.
I don't think Semiramus was Nimrod's wife.
I believe when the Bible says Asshur, it means Asshur not Nimrod.
You even got "insulted" when I showed you how I understood Micah's prophecy in it's broader context. That really surprised me!
I think we need to be careful in building an argument based only on chosen parallels to show something is pagan. Hislop doesn't even follow his own rule. Yet builds quite a few heavy conclusions built almost entirely on (the pagans did x,y,z =therefore=. everything that even looks a bit like xyz is pagan.
People have thrown out the truth along with the false in more cases than you seem to realize, because of the pagan counterfeits. Every major event and characteristic of Christ had been assigned to one or more pagan gods. Everything was counterfeited.


Quoting all the Bible texts about Diana doesn't proof she's a reincarnation of Semiramis. I already know Diana worship was all over the Roman world as well as in Ephesus. (Should I too be insulted because you think I don't know that? No! -- and neither should you be insulted if I quote the texts surrounding the Micah quote.)

Quoting texts about the evils of idol worship etc. etc. doesn't proof those points of disagreement, either. Idol worship is an abomination, the Bible is clear on that.

You seem to think all my real life experiences I've met due to that book are just simple, weak arguments.
Yet you haven't disproved any of those "weak and simple" reasons that are problems with Hislop's logic -- and yes they are common reasons, because they are obvious to people.

Now I do believe Nimrod played a big role in the whole Babel scene.
There are things there that I do agree with.
But do you know Ellen White never even mentioned Nimrod in her writings. I was actually surprised that his name doesn't even appear in her writings. Don't you think it's a bit odd?
When she talks about the Babel scene she refers to the "dwellers in the plain of Shinar" or "the tower builders" or just plain "they".
Semiramis is never mentioned in the Bible or in Spirit of Prophecy.
And no, I don't expect the Bible nor EGW to mention all the "gods" and "goddesses" in history, BUT according to Hislop, Nimrod and Semiramis where not just some "gods" they were the originators and prime motivators of the whole pagan culture that would envelop the whole world. Surely someone with such a central role in the battle of light and darkness, would receive some recognition in the Great Controversy revealed to Ellen White.

Also, if you like "Secrets of the Lost Races" there are things in that book which show a different picture of the Babel scene than what Hislop shows. I tend to lean more to Noorbergen's ideas.

So maybe we should move away from Hislop and see what Noorbergen thinks of Babel generation.

Where do I get the idea you have asked me if I think Hislop is inspired?



The meaning of "everything Hislop wrote is true" is the same thing as saying inspired for the only way anyone can ever have everything they write be true is to write under the influence of inspiration. That is very obvious. You just haven't realized the import of your own words.

I have more evidence from Hislop's book on the ties between Nimrod and the names of Greek gods.

Hislop uses a lot of semantic comparisons and assumptions.

But what does it really prove?
We already know that --

1. Cush is generally credited as being the father of the people in Ethiopia, Sudan. Ethiopia and Nubian empires flourished. It is also said they had occupied the east side of the Red Sea, Arabia, as well.
2. Cush had at least six sons, all which contributed to the population and the building of nations.

Hislop makes Cush the bad guy.
But that raises the question as to why did Noah curse Ham's fourth son, Caanan, not Cush, who was Ham's firstborn.
Why single out Caanan? (Ham was the the one who showed disrespect that called forth the curse) Why, if all this paganism originated with Cush and Nimrod, didn't Noah place the curse on Cush if we are to believe he is the father of idolatry?

3. Nimrod is described in the Bible as "he began to be a mighty one in the earth".
So obviously he was a rebellious tyrant. Over-riding the patriarchal system of organization and trying to unite the various family tribes under one rule. He is a real person in the Biblical narrative. That's not being question.
He was a descendant of Cush (though some, due to the fact he wasn't listed in the first list of Cush's sons, think that he may of been a grandson or even great grandson of Cush)

He, Nimrod, was hugely instrumental in the Babel building ambitions.

4. "Mighty men" are often elevated to "godhood" after their death, along with a lot of legends and myths embellishing their supposed heroic actions. So why be surprised if his name appears amongst the many "gods"?

Yet, that doesn't prove the legends are the truth.


.

How do we know that all this "paganism" doesn't have it's roots in the culture before the flood?

This comes from Egyptian mythology.

The Egyptians had what is called "The Great Ennead of gods" which supposedly was recognized in quite a few civilizations.
They had "Atum, or Atum-Ra" the supreme creator "god". (he evolved into a sun god, but seems to have first held a truer position)

Then they had the "earth god" Geb, and the "sky god" Nut.
Adam being formed from the earth was reinvented into Geb, Eve was wrested out of Adam and somehow became the sky goddess. Both of them are often depicted in connection with snakes.

Four "gods" came from Geb and Nut
Osiris and Seth (both male) and Isis and Nephthys. (both female)
Osiris and Isis became a couple who were considered the gods that ruled Egypt

The "god" Seth, a brother of Osiris is his enemy. Seth fights against snakes, marries Nephthys, and kills Osiris, but Osiris resurrects.

Isis give birth to Horus from the seed of Osiris. Osiris experienced a tragic death and miraculous resurrection which provided the basis of the ancient Egyptian mysteries.

Now Hislop takes Isis and Osiris and puts them as prove it began with Nimrod and the fictitious Semiramus story. But there is plenty of proof this all began before the flood and was both a mixture of the creation story, and an evil twisting of the Bible story.

I would think Osiris represents Cain, who was also a "mighty man" building cities, and establishing a central kingdom.. (Or just a general grouping of the descendants of Cain) Isis probably representing Cain's wife (or the beautiful, enticing, daughters of Cain in general)

Seth representing Cain's brother Seth, is portrayed as the enemy in the legends. Because he struggles against evil, his character is twisted as the "killer", Yet the Bible shows that when he first comes to manhood and has descendants of his own, we read that people started to serve the Lord, "then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. " so it shows he makes progress in repelling evil, but Cain's way rises again --

So all these "gods" are mythical, based on some historic events or people.
We see them not just after the flood, but being revived from before the flood.

The whole "god, goddesses" thing, are counterfeits, twisted counterfeits, of truth. Stories that take God's truth and twists them to make evil good, and good evil.

Of course there was paganism before the flood, Think Cain worshiped God? Why do you think it flourished so soon
after the flood? It was just another form of it established by different people.

Here is Ellen Whites comments on Genesis 6:11 in the SDA Bible Commentaries



Cush was an evil man or he would not have done what he did to Noah. He most likely had a drinking problem himself or he would not have mocked his own Godly father for passing out drunk. Human beings mock and ridicule in others the same faults they themselves have because putting down others makes them feel better about themselves and their own problems. Been there and done that.

Why would an Egyptian god have represented someone who lived before the flood who wasn't a current hero for leading the world in rebelling against God? That makes zero sense to me.

Why does God inspire men to do as they do? I can't always figure that out. In fact only rarely can I figure that out.



One last thing. Hislop gives evidence for his assertions about pagan gods. I see none coming from you.

Wow! We actually agree on this point!! Yes, of course! Of course there was paganism before the flood,!!!!
Cain was the first to start the open rebellion! Yet, I'm sure you realize that according to the Bible, Cain did sort of worship God in the beginning, just not the way God had asked for the worship to be done, he wanted to do it his way, and when Abel was honored by God and he wasn't, he was mad! Cain was well informed about the true God. But from that point on it appears he threw all his efforts into defying God. And yes, by the time of Noah evil was well nigh universal.

Not sure that after the flood it was revived "in a different form" rather think it was revived in it's old forum and of course evolved over the centuries into different forms..


Not sure if this was just an oversight, or what, but it was actually HAM, the father of Cush and Caanan who was very disrespectful of Noah in the moment of Noah's weakness. (Gen. 9:20-25)
There is nothing in the Bible that says Cush was an evil man (though he may have been).

But that's why I wonder why Noah---
1. Didn't place the curse on Ham
2. Didn't place the curse on Ham's first son, Cush if he really was that evil
3. But placed the curse on Caanan, Ham's fourth son.
The name Caanan is rather close to Cain. Was Ham dreaming of the "olden days" before the flood when he named his fourth son? The Caananites were so wicked God rained fire on them in Sodom and Gomorrah.

If you are referring to the Egyptian Ennead of gods, -- you can find that information in many places. I took it from a book "The Orion Mystery" written by R. Bauval and A. Gilbert, two men who spent a lot of time in Egypt studying the Pyramids and researching the meaning of it all.
Of course, I don't believe everything in that book either -- they think Egypt had a long primitive history before the fourth dynasty when it suddenly sprung into amazing power and accomplishments.
I agree with the springing into amazing power and accomplishments, but not in a long primitive history before that. It sprang into amazing power pretty soon after the flood.



Possibly because they accepted a preflood belief that these "gods' had ascended to the stars and now hoped or thought these gods could give them the knowledge the preflood civilization had. And that like them, they too would ascend to the stars when they died.

The Egyptian pyramids are a mystery to many to this day. When we believe the Bible timelines, we realize those pyramids were built within the first century or two after the flood. (The fourth dynasty is the time when the great pyramids were built) They were built by people with tremendous knowledge of geometry, knowledge as to how to harness the energy of the earth to lift enormous weights, and knowledge of the stars. In other words, they were probably built in the days of Noah's grandsons. Cush, Mizraim, and Phut, and their immediate descendants, probably with Ham's instruction and knowledge which he brought with him from before the flood.

Though some deny it, the four main pyramids are aligned with the belt of Orion.
They have interesting shafts in the pyramids that point to particular stars, supposedly for the dead to ascend and launch out to their star, to join the realms of the gods.
Sirus, the dog star, had the shaft from the queen's chamber directed at it.

Orion = Osiris' star
Sirus = Isis' star

Osiris and Isis together produce a son -- Horus, but it seems he had to be continuously born, or conceived, as the Egyptian kings were thought to be worldly incarnations of Horus, obtaining total deification in death.

Cush, Mizraim, and Phut, and others of that long lived generation (500 years), don't seem to be the actual kings, they were probably off mapping the world and overseeing the building of more pyramids in various places like South America etc. planting settlements, and organizing a vast communication system that would hold the world in touch with each other.
Meanwhile Nimrod and company is building the grand control tower -- which when it was damaged and languages were confused, the whole communication system collapsed and all those outlying communities were left on their own.

(That last part was mixing Noorbergen's ideas into the possibilities)

Of course there are things we agree on. I've never said there isn't.

Where did you get the idea that I said the paganism after the flood was of a different form? I said it was the same only started by different people. Thus the people would worship their fallen leaders as they knew them personally and the leaders who succeeded them had a vested interest in promoting them to help enforce their own authority.

So you'll accept statements by what I assume are non Christians on paganism but not a Christian's statements supported by ancient historians? Why?

Why are entire peoples named after Cush, Mizraaim and Phut if they weren't actually around and leading their people? It would be the descendants of those leaders whom the people would claim their as their progenitors as they would have been the ones the people followed.

I just don't follow a lot of your reasoning.

I have more from Hislop,



Who is Hesychius? A Greek grammarian. Hislop is quoting a major authority on the Greek language as the source for his assertions.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hesychius-of-Alexandria

Another one of Hislop's sources for information was Aristophanes. Who was he? One of ancient Greece's most famous comedy writers.

http://www.apgrd.ox.ac.uk/learning/an-introduction-to/an-introduction-to-aristophanes

Another one of his sources was Pausanius, Who was he? A well known Greek geographer who wrote what was the first known Greek travel guide.

https://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias1A.html

Another one of Hislop's sources was a guy named Bunsen. Who was he? A German scholar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Charles_Josias_von_Bunsen

Another one of Hislop's sources was Dionysios. Unfortunately he gives us no other clues to as to his identity as there were several Dionysius' in ancient Greece. Almost all of them were highly educated like the rest of Hislop's sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius

This is by no means all of Hislop's sources but it tells us as lot about the type of sources he used to make his assertions. He used highly educated sources upon which to base his assertions. His is therefore a reliable source of ancient historical pagan information.

Have you actually checked out his sources, as in reading the context from which his quotes were taken?
Even in the quote you gave above I see big jumps in logic.
It's rather obvious to me that Hislop came up with an hypothesis and then scoured everything to pick snippets and phrases that he could use to support his hypothese.

As to where did I get the idea that you said the paganism after the flood was of a different form?
Well, when you said,
"Why would an Egyptian god have represented someone who lived before the flood who wasn't a current hero for leading the world in rebelling against God? That makes zero sense to me.

Obviously, you don't believe they revived the old beliefs, but set out to develop their own from scratch.


As to Cush, Mizraaim and Phut having nations named after is because they FOUNDED those nations. They set them up --
However, the kings actually on the throne, were pharoah's. The fourth dynasty only lasted about 130 years according to historians and had about six different pharaohs.
History and Bible(as in a lot of history that long ago) just don't match here. I tend to think the long lived grandsons of Noah were the founders and they had people rule under them during that period. Of course that all changed in later centuries.

So even that I told you previously that the paganism before and after the flood were the same but started by different people you take your own ideas and ignore my positive statement denying that and assert them denying what I said. The following quote comes from a post of mine earlier on this page of the thread.



You've gotten very insulting in this thread. I just don't understand it as I've never seen you behave like this before toward anyone.
.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, I have had absolutely NO INTENTION OF INSULTING YOU. And I've told you that before but guess what??? you don't believe me.

Your accusations surprise me!
Actually I've been quite perplexed about your reactions. Why would you be insulted?
O.K. I wrote "Not sure that after the flood it was revived "in a different form" rather think it was revived in it's old form and of course evolved over the centuries into different forms." Yes, that was my own thought.

There was nothing in that statement to insult you. It was simply stating my understanding that they were carrying on the same preflood forms, not something new.

Well maybe I got the following wrong as well, for I'm under the impression that in the last three or four pages of posts you've held out with Hislop's idea that paganism started with Nimrod/Semiramis and Cush. Isn't that correct?

I've disagreed all along, and now more fully shared a different view -- that paganism is actually a counterfeit of the Bible story and it started before the flood.

(I'm assuming from your posts) that you continue to promote the Nimrod/Semiramis and Cush, theme of Hislop as the correct history of early forms of paganism, --
In my mind that is a different form of paganism, even if you said it was the same form.
Maybe I need to ask, what do you mean by "the same form"?

What you are saying is confusing to me. It would be nice if you'd explain yourself in relation to the subject, instead of being insulted.

For in my mind Hislop is promoting A DIFFERENT form of paganism.
The preflood/Egyptian form perverted the Biblical story. It's a counterfeit religion. Hislop's elevates Nimrod and Semiramis as the originators of paganism, based totally on evil.

Counterfeits, on the other hand, are deceptive, based on false and deceptive theology.

In the end of course, the result is the same -- the True God is rejected. Is that what you meant?


If my "own ideas" conflict with yours, that doesn't mean I'm insulting you.
Please don't downgrade "my ideas" as insulting.
If I ask questions it's because I have questions which would help me understand where you are coming from. Just saying something is the same, when it doesn't seem to match what else I'm hearing, just means there is confusion in processing what you mean.
I can't read your mind -- so don't always know why you are posting what you are as it doesn't always match the flow of conversation. Remember, I can't read your mind, and typed words also lack tone of voice and facial expression and are often read wrong.

I'm really sorry you continually see so many things as insulting you.
Maybe you need to find your value in God, then every little perceived misunderstanding won't insult you, because you know you are valuable to God, and also that the other person is valuable to God. And I'm not saying that to insult you, but because I know it works!

All paganism is a counterfeit of the true worship of God. They are all based upon the devil's lie to Eve that thou shalt not die. I think this is very obvious.

Most of the reason I see your behavior as insulting is that until now you have ignored my comments that I felt insulted. That is something I would never ignore even if I thought I had done nothing wrong. I would apologize at the first inkling someone gave me that I had somehow insulted them as I find that part and parcel of being a Christian.

That you finally apologized has completely soothed my ruffled feelings.

I told you I have a real problem typing. I used to type at 40+ wpm on a laptop. Now I type at less than 10. A fair amount under 10. I normally have at least a half dozen typos per line. Some times it's considerably more than that, It's why I find what I think is the main point of your post and just address it,

Here is more from Hislop and his sources.



The following quote is from William Prescott's book History on the Conquest of Peru on the ancient history and rites of the Incas.



I was unable to identify a Hardy who was a historian and would have been a contemporary, or lived earlier than, Hislop.

Unfortunately I couldn't find any free books by Wilkinson but he is known as the father of British Egyptology.and wrote several books on the ancient Egyptians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gardner_Wilkinson

Here is more in support of Hislop's writings.

https://therealsamizdat.com/2014/12/25/osiris-tammuz-adonis-attis/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_Urania

Here is still more in support of Hislop. This is an on line book by Diodorus Siculus who was a Greek historian about the time of Christ.

https://www.theoi.com/Text/DiodorusSiculus4A.html

Why is vindicating Hislop so important to you?
Alexander Hislop (1807 ? 13 March 1865) was a Free Church of Scotland minister. He was the son of Stephen Hislop (died 1837), a mason by occupation and an elder of the Relief Church.

On a different line of thought-- but still concerning Hislop's book.

I finally realized why Hislop's book is so offensive to a lot of people, and it's not because they hate truth.
It's because the history he presents supports the horrible slave trade that was part of America's history.

How does Hislop support this?, you might ask?
He spends pages vilifying Cush, collecting every fragment, and allusions, semantic, historic and legendary supposed evidence that Cush was the great evil one, who along with his son, Nimrod is the source of all the evil classified as paganism.

Whither he meant to or not, he presented the reasoning for people to accept the lie that over the centuries have plunged thousands people who were believed to be the descendants of Cush, into being regarded as slaves to the whites by the decree of God.

The Biblical story used:

The curse was placed on Canaan, the fourth son of Ham. Canaan's descendants were Canaanites, and yes, they were wicked, as the Bible documents.

Truly one of the most unfortunate instances of the misinterpretation of Scripture comes from this passage of the curse of Canaan. For some reason people have assumed the curse was on all of Ham's descendants. BUT the very reason it was NOT placed on Ham (who was the actual culprit in the disrespect that brought forth the curse) is because not all of Ham's descendants were to receive the curse. The curse was limited to one line of descendants of Ham, Canaan, it was not upon all of them.

The curse was NOT put on Ham's other sons, Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut.
This is a fact the people whose heritage is from Africa, find to be extremely helpful and important.
Yet, for centuries people excused enslaving the descendants of Cush, (and Mizraim and Phut) thinking that was God's will.

So Hislop takes 100's of snippets from a lot of "sources" and weaves his story --
sounds impressive, but what is the actual context from which those snippets are taken?
That is the problem when taking bits and pieces from many sources -- one can weave a story.

This is what that link tells us.

Diodorus is not what I call a reliable source on factual history.
If Hislop uses him as a reference it just proves he's obviously building his suppositions of myths and legends on the suppositions of another who is just guessing and making things up to fit the legends.

I don't see how Diodorus telling the ancient myths is held against him. It is impossible to tell a factual story about pagan gods as they do not exist. He's just far more acquainted with them because he lived much closer to the time the legends were created than we do.

I'm well aware of who Hislop was. I used to have your prejudice against those of other faiths too. I have come to understand it is unmerited though. Ellen White tells us there are more of God's people outside the church than there is in it. She says in one place that not one in twenty are ready for Jesus to come. In anther she says not one in one hundred are doing the missionary work necessary to prepare them to meet Jesus. If things were that bad in her day what are they like in our church today with all the winds of doctrine and political wokeness blowing through it? She also says that the members will be scattered like leaves in the wind and that multitudes from outside the church will take their place.

Here is a link to the testimony of an Episcopalian minister. This man was used by God in very powerful ways. The number of miracles in his life is testimony to the power of God working through him. Oh, I know most Adventists will say it was the devil working through him but I don't believe that. He had a genuine love for God and it shines through him. There is a you tube user named bibleguy who has hundreds of videos from his church services in which he leads out in congregational singing and his choice of hymns and comments to his congregation during those videos demonstrates a love for God rarely seen in SDA churches. I have been watching those videos now for months and I love them. The love for God shines out through in his congregation too. They are a Spirit filled group. When they sing they sing sometimes with an attitude of prayer and sometimes with an enthusiasm I've never seen in an SDA church.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbDA41auS2E

??????
OK, I read through the above twice.
1. My objections are NOT based on some kind of prejudice against people of other denominations.

2. Seems like (I could be wrong) you are avoiding the issues and trying to switch the focus on other matters -- like Adventists aren't perfect therefore that somehow vindicates Hislop.

2. Hislop lived in the early 1800's, died in 1865

3. In the 1800's they didn't have video's, so I know those 100's of video's did NOT show Hislop.

4. Just because a pastor McConnel and his group love the Lord, doesn't mean Hislop is did, or that Hislop's book is truth.

5. And most important -- show me from Hislop's own writings where he gives honor and glory to Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior.
I see a lot of indoctrination into paganism in his book, till one can't even see branches and flowers without having them associated with pagan ideas if one reads his book. (Yes it's sadly true pagan practices were adopted into Christianity BUT Christianity still has it's bases in truth)
But I haven't seen Hislop give honor or glory to Christ Jesus as our Lord and Savior. I haven't read all his book -- so it's up to you to show me, just one chapter (not just a passing sentence) but a section where he gives honor and glory to Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

Where did you get the idea those videos have anything to do with Hislop? I said what they are about. Did you not believe me?

Also. where did you get the idea that Hislop has anything to do with James Mcconnell? I see no connection other than they were both non Adventists.

I also have to wonder at your statement about indoctrination so pervasive that you can't see branches or flowers without seeing paganism in them. I find that really strange as he only mentions branches and ivy a few times and never mentions flowers that I know of. He does so speaking about parallels between a pagan god of different nations.

It's true he doesn't mention Christ but once or twice but He and Christianity aren't the subject of Hislop's book. Considering the subject of the book I'm not surprised. To tell that truth I don't see Noorbergen mention Jesus in his book either.

And Mcconnell and his congregation don't mean Hislop's book is false either. I see a lot of emotion but not a lot of solid reasoning

Then why did you, copy my message as if answering it, and bring that subject in, if it had nothing to do with Hislop? Yes, I believe it had something to do with Hislop.

So what didn't I believe? I knew the videos weren't BY Hislop, that was obvious.
But it also seemed obvious they were shared as a some kind of reason that I should accept Hislop. were they not?

OK, I guess my quoting the birth/death date bio information triggered your response.
But do you know where I found that? On a site called "Dark Books" where a person who calls herself a witch, is putting links to "her favorite books" explaining the occult. It is a bit scary when searching for his book to land in that kind of webpage.
Not a site I recommend.

From that bio, it seems you ASSUMED I was prejudice against other religions?
You assumed, just because Hislop was not an Adventist is why I shared the problems I have with his writings?
None of that is true.

If you would have just ONE video of Hislop praising Christ, maybe I wouldn't have a problem. Hundreds from someone else don't mean anything as far as the topic of this thread.
Christianity is very much part of Hislop's book.
Does he think EVERYTHING in Catholicism is pagan?
The title on the edition I own, reads that it is "proof Roman Catholicism's practices and beliefs came from pagan babylonian religion not from Christ or the Bible."




So yes, I do expect him to define truth, especially in relation with Jesus Christ as the most important thing, not endless details of paganism and goddesses and child concepts.
The reason, in my mind why there are so many counterfeits, is because the truth is of utmost importance.

That is a big issue for me. Are you saying he doesn't ?

Because I see it as polite behavior. Posts don't show up on this forum as being a reply to a specific person/post unless you quote their post. This is antique software.

How could I have any video of Hislop doing anything?

Yes, I assumed you, as many Adventists do, had at least some problem with Hislop because he wasn't an Adventist.

How would I know everything in Hislop's mind concerning Catholics?

My copy of Hislop's book is an ebook. Both copies I have had of it are/were.

Why, when Hislop does an excellent job of exposing the occult practices that have made their way into Christianity, would you be surprised to see a witch saying Hislop's book is one of her favorite books? Of course she would like it just as much as Catholics hate it.

It looks to me like you specifically chose the dark books site so you could complain about it as there are a bunch of sites that give his birth and death dates. Dark books isn't even the first link to that info.

I just used Hislop's book to answer a caviler's question on the OT law of not shaving the sides of the head.

Here is more evidence in support of Hislop.

]

The following link is to a book written by Layard back in the 1800s.

https://www.hcbooksonline.com/product/discoveries-ruins-nineveh-babylon-layard-folio-society-2011/

Here is a quote from the description of Layard and his book.

]quote] Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon With Travels in Armenia, Kurdistan and the Desert: Being the result of a second expedition undertaken for the Trustees of the British Museum. In 1842, the urbane, cosmopolitan scholar Austen Henry Layard was on his way to become a barrister in Ceylon when he changed his mind and turned back. He was determined to investigate a site in present-day Iraq which he correctly believed to be the Assyrian citadel of Nineveh. It was among the greatest archaeological discoveries of the 19th century. In an age when new evolutionary theories had cast doubt on the literal truth of the Bible, Layard had found a city of the Old Testament which had previously seemed as fabulous as Atlantis or Eden. There he discovered a series of gigantic winged bulls that guarded the gateway to the Palace of Sennacherib. ?It would be difficult to describe the effect produced when, after winding through the dark, underground passages, you suddenly came into their presence. Between them Sennacherib and his hosts had gone forth in all their might and glory to the conquest of distant lands ?

This is Layard?s account of his second visit to the area (1849?51). He also carried out a dig at the site of Babylon, where he found ?magic bowls? to protect against the devil, and bricks stamped with the name of Nebuchadnezzar ? though most had been taken away: ?There is scarcely a house in Hillah [a nearby town] which is not entirely built with them.? Layard?s account evokes the hardships and wonders of the great age of archaeology. He describes treating his pleurisy with horse medicine, attacks by Bedouin raiders and encounters with the courteous and hospitable Marsh Arabs. Layard was an extraordinarily accomplished artist, and this edition displays his celebrated pictures of Nineveh, which were drawn in situ. [/quote]

Here is a qoute from Layard's book which is available from Project Gutenberg.

]quote] The four sides of the hall, part of which has already been described,[32] had now been explored.[33] In the centre of each side was a grand entrance, guarded by colossal human-headed bulls.[34] This magnificent hall was no less than 124 feet in length by 90 feet in breadth, the longest sides being those to the north and south. It appears to have formed a centre, around which the principal chambers in this part of the palace were grouped. Its walls had been completely covered with the most elaborate and highly-finished sculptures. [/quote]

Here are the centaurs of which Hislop speaks.

Here is more support for Hislop.





John Henry Wilson was a missionary from Scotland who wrote the book Parsi Religion from which the above quote was taken.

https://electricscotland.com/history/johnwilson/chapter07.htm

Here is more support for Hislop.





The above quote comes from Edward Moor's book The Hindu Pantheon.

Edward Moor was a British soldier in India and Indologist
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Moor

Egypt, Nineveh and Babylon culture is documented in many historical records. One can find many pictures of their "human-headed bulls," eagle or falcon headed gods, lion headed gods..
Winged bulls, winged lions--

Though it makes me wonder -- why this particular mixing of gods with these animals?

Sometimes I wonder if the veil that keeps us from seeing spirit beings (angels of either side) was a whole lot thinner before the flood.
The Bible tells us
Genesis 3:24 "After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life."

So people could go to the Garden of Eden and actually see the cherubim guarding the way.

But notice in Ezekiel:
1:6 four living creatures. In appearance their form was human, but each of them had four faces and four wings. 7 Their legs were straight; their feet were like those of a calf. They had four faces -- eagle, ox (bull), lion, and man.

Curiosity --
I wonder if that had anything to do with the early ancients having this urge to have gods with eagle (falcon) bulls (ox) or lion characteristics?
Of course the biblical living creatures were cherubs or an order of angels, not gods. Colossians warns against angel worship???
Anyway just curiosity-- why this fascination for eagles, lions and bulls that which started BEFORE they even had a bunch of "heros" to worship.
Seems it dates back to something before the flood.

I have some more support for Hislop.





The above quote comes from the writings of Justin, also known as Justinus, a Greek historian.

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/justinus_03_books01to10.htm



The above quote comes from Hislop.

About the mixing of scriptural and pagan animal symbols, the devil always has a counterfeit for everything God does. I see it as par for the course.

I don't think there was much difference between the separation between the spiritual world and the physical world now and then. I see the stationing of angels with flaming swords art the entrances of Eden something God used to discourage men from attempting to enter Eden. Which brings up an interesting question. What kept people from entering Eden through the rest of it's perimeter?

Here is the full explanation by Hislop as to his interpretation of Genesis 10.



His reasoning makes sense to me as it agrees with historians and makes an unclear Bible passage clear.

The full explanation of ANYTHING for the first 600 or so years after the flood is all based on supposition and human "maybes".
The ONLY reliable thing we can know for sure is what the Bible gives during that time period., and even that is fairly sketchy.
Even "historians" writing still before Christ, but some 2000 years after the flood, were only "supposing".

Everything I read -- no matter if Hislop wrote it or some other person wrote it, is based on
implications, suppositions, what someone THINKS makes sense, -- there are no hard facts.

For example:
A couple days ago we read a report that they found some graves by the ancient pyramids.
Someone in that report suggested these were the graves of the workers or builders of pyramids. It was written as such in National Geographic's --
Soon someone else writes it as if it were fact. Then another historian puts it into his book. Oh-- so now it's proven, look there are several who have written it as such. No it's not proven at all. They found some graves near the pyramids and reasoned out their story. There is no proof at all that these were the workers building the pyramids. We don't know who was buried in those graves, it's mere supposition no matter how many now say it was the workers building those pyrimids.

In fact (yes this is fact) historians are baffled by a lot of things ( how the ancients built those pyramids in the first place, being just one of them)

But that's how all this this so called "proof" supposing that Hislop is correct concerning the beginning of things, is also based upon.
I'm sure you can find someone, somewhere that agrees with specific points Hislop makes (though that same writer that agrees on one point, may disagree with other historical implications Hislop makes as well).

THE PROBLEM is that historians DON'T KNOW what happened in those first centuries after the flood.

1. Almost ALL believe the ancients were primitive people with limited advanced skills.
So they build their implications and conclusions of what happened from that perspective.
2. Many don't even believe in a world wide flood, just a localized flood, if they believe in a flood at all.
That again renders a lot of different implications as to what happened.
3. Most don't believe Noah and his three sons brought a lot skill and knowledge with them from the old preflood culture with them.
4. Almost ALL history stretches that time period over millenniums,(thousands of years) not just six or seven centuries. Again deducing a lot of conclusions that raise more questions than answers.

So yes, many have their theories of what happened, and they may even agree somewhat, (at least on various points) with each other.
But the mystery remains -- a lot of mysteries suggesting world wide activity in which people did things modern scientists tell us mankind only found out could be done in recent years. After the flood -- there was a great resurgence of knowledge, that then got lost.




If you want to follow Hislop - that's your privilege, but don't imply it's the "full explanation" of what took place immediately after the flood, nor that others agree, having seen plenty of reasons to think differently. I suspect we have no real idea of what actually took place in those centuries, before God called Abraham.

And for some reason, God didn't see it as necessary to enlighten us any further in His Word, on what went on during those years. Just that there was an apostacy and that He called a family to preserve His truth for the world through them.

Why do you use terms I have never used and say things I have never even come close to implying? I have never said I have a full explanation for anything. What I said was here was Hislop's full explanation for Genesis 10. I see your usage of that term in the context I used it as dishonest. I have also never said anyone "has to agree with me" either.

I have consistently said that here is more support for Hislop.when I have posted evidence that supports him. Then you come along and put the word proof in quotes as if I had used the word. I haven't, and see your behavior as dishonest. If I remember correctly you asked me if I had evidence from reputable sources to support Hislop. Well, I've found that and it seems to me you're angry that I did by the way you're behaving.

Just showing there are other evidences of early history immediately after the flood.


February 1993 Robert Bauval and several others who had been studying and research the pyramids, returned for more extensive study of these awesome structures from antiquity. The reason for the trip was mainly to study the shafts in the Queen's Chamber of Cheops's Pyramid, as well as other shafts in the great pyramids.

It's too much to quote the whole experience as recorded in the book "The Orion Mystery" pages 172-178,
But what they confirmed and new things they discovered were these.

PICTURE
1. Three shafts locked in perfectly to the stars as they stood in the epoch of 2450 BC.
The south shaft of the King's Chamber was targeted to Al Nitak (Zeta Orionis) the first star on the belt of Orion. The north shaft of the King's Chamber was targeted at at Alpha Draconis
The south shaft of the Queen's Chamber was targeted at Sirius.
The last (fourth shaft) they now realized pointed to a star in the Ursu

2. The other thing they discovered were these shafts were closed by slabs with hinges or fittings made of COPPER. From mining to the finished product, there are many steps involved in producing copper.

Of course general historians are skeptical -- all this doesn't fit the popular historic story.

It however supports several principles in understanding early history after the flood.

1. Bible chronologies' tend to place the flood in the year 2348 BC
oops -- that places the building of the Giza pyramids about 100 years before the flood, BUT then, 2348 BC is not a fact, it is a reasonable calculation and could easily be out several hundred years.

If the 2450 date for building the pyramids is correct (calculated according to the stars), and the flood date is correct within a 200 margin of miscalculation , it means the Giza pyramids were built very, very soon after the flood, like, in the first 100-200 years after the flood.

2. Population being still limited to the first two or three generations after the flood, means they had technology we don't even know about today, to harness the energies of the earth to produce and mount those massive yet precisely cut stones.

3. They had knowledge in regards to the bodies of heaven.''
4. They had knowledge in how to produce copper and other refined metals.

The mystery continues -- how did a small group build these huge structures? Now some might say the flood happened several a few thousand years earlier, and the whole Nimrod, Babel as well as the evidence of ice age, and civilizations that rose and mysteriously disappeared due to the ice and other factors, like the tremendous wars depicted in various legends; It often seems it took more than the six hundred or so years between the Flood and Abraham.

So? What does that have to do with anything to do with Hislop? Noorbergen often states things happened 5000 years ago and places them post flood, and he as an SDA.

I see you have ignored my complaints of your dishonesty. ***shakes head in wonder*** Not even a hint of an apology.

Don't remember asking for that.
I did mention much of Hislop's weaving together of the story concerning the early years just after the flood, is based on legends. Other's have also tried to match legends to actually history, so I don't see that as anything more than that they are trying to figure out as well. So no, I don't believe they PROVE facts as to how it all developed. It's all supposition, people trying to figure out what happened.

Sure they take things from archeological finds and later history that they have records from to deduce their stories of early history, but we don't know what actually took place in those early years. Everyone looks to see what makes sense to them -- what makes sense depends on how they view history in general.

Here are phrases from the quotes presented showing it's based on his reasoning, not on actual presented facts.


And no, I'm not into proving or disproving Hislop.
Obviously that is your main concern, it's not mine.

The point is -- we don't really know, much of what happened those early years -- we only suppose from bits and pieces.

Here are some very interesting statements by Hislop.



The Crimean War was won by the allies:Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire. However British leadershio made some spectacular failures. The charge of the light brigade and the failure to follow up on a defeat of the Russian army in the battle for Sevastopol.which the Russians said was critical in saving their army were two of them.

No, you didn't use those exact words, but you communicated that idea,



I have shown from reputable historians, several of them Christians, all that you said didn't happen did happen.

So because Hislop is honest and says he makes deductions what he says is wrong? Implied logic is sound reasoning. The Bible teaches us to use it as Isaiah says precept upon precept, line upon line. Here a little and there a little..Hislop does just that.

Here is more in support of Hislop.



From Prescott's book History of the Conquest of Mexico.



Who was Prescott? He was an American historian and Hispanist. He was very influential as he was recognized as one of the best in his field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Prescott

All the things I've questioned have not been "proven".
Maybe shown that someone else somewhere made a similar statement, but not proven that it really happened that way.

His deductions are not proof that what he says happened in the early years right after the flood. (Whether you used the word proof or not, isn't the issue, the fact remains it hasn't been proven to have happened that way)
Surely you realize and agree that when historians write about ancient (beginnings) they are just assuming, figuring it out by human reasoning of things. The same applies when it comes to Hislop.

"here a little, there a little"
Ever you actually read that text?
"]Isaiah 8:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."

And, just a reminder -- just because I question some things in his book really doesn't give you a right to say or imply that I reject the book as a whole.

So what is it you are trying to say with your last post?

Bernardino de Sahag?n, OFM (c. 1499 ? 5 February 1590) was a Franciscan friar, missionary priest and pioneering ethnographer who participated in the Catholic evangelization of colonial New Spain, gives an account of Aztec infant baptism.
William Prescott, (1796-1859) who specialized in studying Renaissance Spanish History, translated Sahagun's account.
Hislop copies the account into his book.

What Sahagun saw happened in 4000 years after the flood.
He is trying to show how it both is like and differs from Catholic practice.
Of course the question arises -- where did the Aztec get the idea of baptizing babies?

Baby baptism in the church began around 200 years after Christ.
Origen, for instance, wrote in 244 AD that ?according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants?
The Council of Carthage, in 253 AD was debating against the idea of waiting until the eighth day to baptize babies.

So the question when and where did the Aztec get the idea of baptizing babies? Or was this even a regular event, or an attempt by some to save their children from the

Actually the Aztec had a lot of gods.

Once again, where have I ever said I have proof of what Hislop says? I'm surprised that someone who has read Noorbergen's book would ask how the Aztecs came to have the same practices the Catholic church has. Shocked is probably a better word.

Even if you didn't use the word, you implied it when you said that what you "showed" somehow means it did happen.



And yes, I've read Noorbergen's book -- it doesn't tell us that Nimrod and Semiranus started infant baptism and transported it to Mexico. So no, I don't know where the Aztecs got it from, I can only surmise from various details how they MIGHT have learned to do it.

Noorbergen's book does give considerable evidence that right after the flood there was a serious exploration of the earth, with maps showing accuracy that was completely lost in following centuries.

They built some kind of system which he suggests ran along the magnetic fields of the earth, and were used for communication and travel (even flight travel) The pyramid idea and small lined up towers, and pictures one can see only from the air, seemed to be very much part of this global organization of the world as these things are found in various parts of the world.
But that communication system which was meant to hold the whole world together (one world government) was disrupted when the tower of Babel was smitten.

ALSO Aztecs apparently had a legend that the "gods" sailed away in ships, and would reappear. When the Europeans arrived in the 1600's and men sailed into their harbors they at first thought the "gods" had returned. That initially made it easy for the "white men" to take advantage of them.

But explain how a pagan ritual that has Biblical language and thought laced all through it, but of course was paganized, managed to last through 4000 years. According to Aztec legends the Aztec suffered at least four or five serious collapses of their culture, followed by "rebirth" of culture during those years. How do you know if it wasn't Japheth or Shem's descendants, that were the initial explorers? Japheth and his descendants seemed to be the ones that travelled the farthest and had the farthest communities away from the ark area. Or maybe it was a combined effort by all the brothers?


ALSO
There's lots of evidence that the Vikings were in America centuries before Columbus "discovered" America. (They seem to have first come around 930 AD)
The Vikings were part of Catholic Christianity. Their legendary stories of voyages in America were also just legends for many years, till the ruins of one of their settlements was found in Canada, and the natives "remembered" stories.

Also the Vikings were avid seamen.
It's very possible they sailed along the coasts, and were the "white men" (gods) in the ships of Aztec legends. They could have brought Catholic religion to the natives, before sailing on.

We don't know where or how the Aztec got the idea to baptize their baby using rather Biblical language, though calling on pagan gods.

There is a lot we don't know, for me to just believe that which it appears (whatever it is you seem to think is obvious) and you are so shocked that I don't just accept that theory as matter of fact?

So? What difference would it make who taught the Aztecs as most of the earth was in rebellion against God and scattered over the earth because of Babel and the paganism practiced there? And the Vikings gods closely paralleled the Babylonian gods. I don't see you've said anything that discredits Hislop.

Yes, that is the big problem!
What difference does it make -- Hislop makes no difference, he lumps everything into one basket, which he calls paganism that supposedly originated in Nimrod and Semarimus.

Now departure from truth definitely began soon after the flood.

Sadly the apostolic Christian church, as it grew in membership was bombarded with all manner of superstitions, heathen rituals, as well as sophisticated Greek philosophy and learning. Truths were explained not only in heathen terms, but also in philosophical reasoning, and gradually counterfeits attached themselves to the truths.

There is a difference in the example of the Aztec baptism, even though done in the name of pagan gods.

The concepts of "rebirth" "regeneration" in that account were not the same as the ancient Egyptian concepts of rebirth and regeneration. The Aztec baptism (other than mentioning other gods) was very much the same as CATHOLIC concepts of rebirth and regeneration.
The Egyptian's focus was on life after death, rebirth after death and ascending to live with the gods in the stars after their earthly life ceased.
The Aztec baptism was dealing with rebirth from the inherited original sin. Clearly a Catholic doctrine.

Yes, Hislop tries to take the responsibility away from the Catholic church and put the blame on ancient paganism, so he refers to some ancient initiation rituals that involved water, but those did not sound like baptism, but rather they sounded like endurance tests, in which some didn't even survive. Then he points to Virgil's epic legendary poem where the great warrior escaped from Troy and enters the "underworld" where the dead live as "shades" and he heard deceased babies crying who couldn't go to the peaceful fields of the underworld because they hadn't participated in pagan mystic rites. No indication this was baptism, though of course the idea of needing some sort of ritual to advance in the regeneration of life was implied. He then gives the Aztec account to imply infant baptism was a practice derived from paganism.

Yet, the evidence for the origin of the Aztec baptism seems to point to the Catholic understanding of infant baptism having been given to these Aztec people sometime before the Spanish arrived.
And yes, the Vikings, while never fully giving up their paganism had converted to Catholicism. Erik the Red (Thorvaldsson around 1000 AD) explored Greenland and founded the first Norse settlement there. One of his sons, Leif Eriksson, led some of the first European explorations of the east coast of North America. The Saga of Erik indicates Leif brought Christianity to Greenland, Erik was against it, but his wife and Leif built a Catholic church and promoted Christianity. (Of course this was Catholic Christianity).
As mentioned in the previous post, Leif and his company of explorers could very well have been the ones bringing the whole concept of infant baptism to the Aztecs several hundred years before the Spanish arrived.

I agree that the Catholic belief of Infant baptism is unbiblical, and that their version of being "born again" which supposedly happens to the infant at baptism is totally missing what "born again" means. Those beliefs are totally unbiblical. There's no question that Catholicsm absorbed a lot of pagan concepts into their beliefs. Compromising, manipulating, philosophizing, not to match the ancients, but shape their own counterfeit religion.

The point is -- yes, sin swept the world, sadly very soon after the flood, counterfeits of all sorts were developed and practiced and passed on for thousands of years.

But the Catholic Church started with apostolic beginnings. Paul and his associates started the Gentile churches, including the one in Rome. They had the Bible and the truth.
Sadly, even while Paul was still preaching, "the mystery of iniquity was already at work"
a lot of the old Gentile customs and rituals and thought patterns crept in to pollute the truths. Generally due to compromising. The Gentile church didn't start out polluted, it started out with truth and became polluted.

But remember another side of the story, the Jewish church also was given the true gospel message, yet it seems they became a real pain to Paul and his ministry as they too clung to their old rituals and practices.

That's some thing Hislop seems to miss, there were several things that came into the Catholic system which was an attempt to reinstate the Jewish sanctuary practices. The priesthood (coming to the priests for forgiveness and perform the sacrifice). The high Priest (The pope, Bishop of all Bishops -- at first all bishops were equal but even before Constantine the Roman bishop was trying to be the bishop of bishops). The sacrificial lamb (reinstated as the bloodless mass). Even infant baptism, in the early years, just two centuries after Christ, they were debating whether babies should be baptized on the eighth day (the day scripture commands circumcision) in order to be part of the faith community.
On the other hand, Sunday as the day of worship came in not because they desired to worship the sun, it started as a celebration of Christ's resurrection, and also a desire to be distinguished from the Jews. It was wrong, because God sanctified the seventh day and asked His people to keep it holy, not the first day. Constantine didn't enforce sunday worship on Christians, it was because Christians (especially in Rome) were already celebrating on Sunday that Constantine saw it as a good merging point in his sun worshipping empire.
As one pioneer Adventist wrote: "they (the papal church) reinstated that which was abolished, and abolished that which was to remain."

There was a mix of things that pulled the church off track into its "antichrist" position..
But while we need to peel back the false, underneath there is still truth.

While pagans were steeped in superstitions and false religions, not everything a pagan did was sin.
Just because pagans did something, does not always or automatically mean it's sin. It's only sin if it is against God's commandments and/or taking us away from our Savior and setting our affections on something else (a false god).

How does the fact that the RCC teaches the same thing as the Aztecs did discredit Hislop? All I see in your argument is a reinforcement of Hislop's beliefs and writings.





So we see that the roots of water as a regenerative agent go clear back to Nimrod's and Semiramis' times