In the new world, while the influence of Noah prevailed, the opposite practice must
have been strongly inculcated; for a "son of God" to marry any one but a daughter of God, or
his own "sister" in the faith, must have been a misalliance and a disgrace. Hence, from a
perversion of a spiritual idea, came, doubtless, the notion of the dignity and purity of the royal
line being preserved the more intact through the marriage of royal brothers and sisters. This
was the case in Peru (PRESCOTT), in India (HARDY), and in Egypt (WILKINSON). Hence
the relation of Jupiter to Juno, who gloried that she was "soror et conjux"--"sister and wife"--of
her husband. Hence the same relation between Isis and her husband Osiris, the former of
whom is represented as "lamenting her brother Osiris." (BUNSEN) For the same reason, no
doubt, was Rhea, made the sister of her husband Kronos, to show her divine dignity and
equality.

Besides the Sun, the Incas acknowledged various objects of worship in some way or other connected with this principal deity. Such was the Moon, his sister-wife; the Stars, revered as part of her heavenly train,- though the fairest of them, Venus, known to the Peruvians by the name of Chasca, or the "youth with the long and curling locks," was adored as the page of the Sun, whom he attends so closely in his rising and in his setting.

Even in the very heavens the God of Providence has constrained His enemies to
inscribe a testimony to the great Scriptural truth proclaimed by the Hebrew prophet, that a
"virgin should bring forth a son, whose name should be called Immanuel." The constellation
Virgo, as admitted by the most learned astronomers, was dedicated to Ceres (Dr. JOHN
HILL, in his Urania, and Mr. A. JAMIESON, in his Celestial Atlas), who is the same as the
great goddess of Babylon, for Ceres was worshipped with the babe at her breast
(SOPHOCLES, Antigone), even as the Babylonian goddess was. Virgo was originally the
Assyrian Venus, the mother of Bacchus or Tammuz. Virgo then, was the Virgin Mother.
Isaiah's prophecy was carried by the Jewish captives to Babylon, and hence the new title
bestowed upon the Babylonian goddess.

9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside....
9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
9:25 And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
9:26 And he said, Blessed [be] the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant

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.

Diodorus Siculus

Diodorus attempts to convert the stories of myth into factual histories. To this end he concocts a variety of stories to rationalise and explain away the fantastical elements of myth. Many of these are as far-fetched as the original stories themselves. Nevertheless, in spite of these reworkings, his work does preserve many stories of myth not found elsewhere.

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.

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.

??????
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 him 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 sentence) a section where he gives honor and glory to Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.