My reactions to Hislop's book isn't really based on anything you said or wrote, it's based on what I have experienced in the church by people who have taken Hislop as the last word on a lot of things. who are so focused on pointing out and avoiding "paganism" that yes -- they destroy truth.

First -- Ellen White does not take things to the same extreme that Hislop does. She differs from him in quite a number of things. She was inspired by God, so I reject your comparison of Hislop's one train of thought with Ellen White's commentary on the theme of the conflict between Christ and Satan.

You realize that Ellen White NEVER even mentions Nimrod or Semiranis in any of her writings.
Don't you find that as strange if Hislop's theory that paganism is all developed from these two individuals were true?

Historians have yet to find the name Nimrod in any ancient king records -- Nimrod has not been attested in any ancient historic, non-biblical registers, records or king lists, including those of Mesopotamia itself which are both considerably older and more diverse than the later biblical texts. Historians have failed to match Nimrod with any historically attested figure, though a great many legends and conflicting tales have sprung up claiming to be based on the Biblical mention of the name Nimrod. Many assumptions have been made linking the name with various strong rulers.

The word "nimrod" basically means tyrannical rebellion.
Hislop is probably correct that Cush was the father of rebellion -- Cush begat rebellion -- his line broke free from Noah's commitment to the true God, and started the rebuilding of the preflood defiance against God. But Hislop really doesn't have any historical bases that the word Nimrod was a one man tyrant.
When the Bible says "cities of nimrod" it could just as readily mean cities of tyrannical rebellion.

To repeople the desolate earth, which the Flood had so lately swept from its moral corruption, God had preserved but one family, the household of Noah, to whom He had declared, "Thee have I seen righteous before Me in this generation." Genesis 7:1. Yet in the three sons of Noah was speedily developed the same great distinction seen in the world before the Flood. In Shem, Ham, and Japheth, who were to be the founders of the human race, was foreshadowed the character of their posterity. {PP 117.1}
Noah, speaking by divine inspiration, foretold the history of the three great races to spring from these fathers of mankind. Tracing the descendants of Ham, through the son rather than the father, he declared, "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." ....
The prophecy of Noah was no arbitrary denunciation of wrath or declaration of favor. It did not fix the character and destiny of his sons. But it showed what would be the result of the course of life they had severally chosen and the character they had developed. As a rule, children inherit the dispositions and tendencies of their parents, and imitate their example; so that the sins of the parents are practiced by the children from generation to generation. Thus the vileness and irreverence of Ham were reproduced in his posterity, bringing a curse upon them for many generations.

Those who desired to forget their Creator and to cast off the restraint of His law felt a constant annoyance from the teaching and example of their God-fearing associates, and after a time they decided to separate from the worshipers of God. Accordingly they journeyed to the plain of Shinar, on the banks of the river Euphrates. They were attracted by the beauty of the situation and the fertility of the soil, and upon this plain they determined to make their home. {PP 118.4}
Here they decided to build a city, and in it a tower of such stupendous height as should render it the wonder of the world....

these Babel builders determined to keep their community united in one body, and to found a monarchy that should eventually embrace the whole earth. Thus their city would become the metropolis of a universal empire; its glory would command the admiration and homage of the world and render the founders illustrious...

Many of them denied the existence of God and attributed the Flood to the operation of natural causes. Others believed in a Supreme Being, and that it was He who had destroyed the antediluvian world; and their hearts, like that of Cain, rose up in rebellion against Him. One object before them in the erection of the tower was to secure their own safety in case of another deluge....

The people rejoiced in their success, and praised the gods of silver and gold, and set themselves against the Ruler of heaven and earth. Suddenly the work that had been advancing so prosperously was checked....PP 117-120

If Ellen White never even mentioned Nimrod (or Semiraus0 . So if she didn't point out the one man and woman who supposedly originated all paganism -- maybe we are falling in "rabbit holes" when we look to legends as the authority.




Why would she not at least tell us in Patriarchs and Prophets that Nimrod was the KEY figure that altered all history? She had no trouble telling us about Cain, the true human originator of active rebellion against God.

THE SDA BIBLE COMMENTARY

It's not a matter of rejecting - I just don't think they are the "last word" on the subject. it's a matter of weighing ideas to try to understand.

The SDA commentary was written by men. While it has a lot of good and helpful information, they:
--were not present 2500 years before Christ.
--they were not writing under inspiration,
--All they had to go by were the writings of men like Hislop and others that tried to make sense from legends and the often contradictory studies of others.
-- They just gathered material that made sense to them.

So read their comments and see what is based on historical provable data, what is surmised. The commentary is a reference, not a "this is the way it is, believe it because we said it" sort of work.

The FACT is nobody knows for sure what all happened in the those years between the flood and Abraham. There is constant debate over just about everything that is written concerning that period.
All we really know for sure is that Noah's three sons began multiply and became heads of nations, a major portion of the people rebelled, built a tower in defiance against God, and were scattered. Cities of rebellion were established. So God, through Abraham set in motion a plan to have one nation that were to be guardians of truth.



The Bible doesn't directly say that Nimrod was the son of Cush. That is something that has puzzled scholars for centuries.

Genesis 10: 7 says the
"sons of Cush; were Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtechah:"

Interestingly Nimrod is missing in the sons of Cush, line up. Why wasn't he listed there?
The verse goes on to name the next generation
"and the sons of Raamah; were Sheba, and Dedan".

So it's easy to read a verse that comes AFTER Cush's sons and grandsons are mentioned that-- Cush brought forth rebellion (nimrod), by bringing forth sons and grandsons that fathered nations of rebels. From that point onward rebellion against God became the mighty force upon the earth.

Babylon and the tower of Babel were built in direct defiance against God, by a whole lot of people who wanted to be free from God's requirements.
This also explains why just four hundred years after the flood when Abraham was born almost all nations were no longer worshipping the true God. The nations had turned to idol gods willingly.

No, I rarely think of Hislop, only when people start using him to point out paganism in everything. It's they (and like I've mentioned it's not just about you, but what I've experienced with other Hislop followers) that manage to paint everything with pagan ideas, and destroy the beauty of focusing on Christ.
I've come to grips with those, realizing that yes, Satan has produced a counterfeit for every truth, but we don't have to focus on the counterfeits and allow them to tarnish truth.

I won't even have a problem with you if you would simply used Hislop as a reference, and take the parts that are historical sound findings, while also having a healthy questioning approach to his assumed conclusions.

I'm glad you realize we (nor the people who compiled their ideas of what happened) don't know very much of what happened back there.
If it were that important, God would have revealed a lot more concerning it.
If God only revealed through inspired writings that rebellion broke out again soon after the flood, why isn't that enough? Curiosity, yes. But not dogmatic belief in things that aren't revealed.

I have no intentions of discussing this much further with you.

History, and how things unfolded is an interesting study, but when the person who writes the most on this thread seems to want only Hislop's view of it, it becomes rather strained. I'd like to see more than just Hislop's view.
There is a lot of history besides what Hislop thinks. I've shared several other historical ideas, but you only see those as "attacking and rejecting Hislop".
Why? To me it sounds like you are pretty dogmatic about vindicating Hislop.

Accusations??????? Why do you say it's accusations? Why do you say it's outrageous accusations when I share what I have personally experienced ?

I'm not accusing, I'm sharing my experience that I have experienced with people who have entered my life and church community who were highly influenced by his book.
My experiences are my experiences and you don't seem to take any of that into consideration.

Yes, there are Hislop followers. I didn't say you were one. In fact I'm hoping you won't become one.

Hislop followers are not the same as followers of Christ? There's no comparison there.
In fact most of these I've encountered don't have that much to say about Christ at all. They are people who built their view of things on Hislop's writings, and teach way more about paganism and very little about Christ.

You probably have not experienced people who have taken their views from his book and made things rather miserable for people in the church they attend. You may think it's outrageous to share that people have come into our church and taken innocent things (like flowery designs, steeples, and crosses, and even the spiritual side of Christmas and celebrating Christ's birth and incarnation) and told everyone they represent some pagan sexual or idolatrous practices, polluting the minds of people with their pagan "knowledge". Shake you head all you want.

That wave hit our churches back in the 1980's. Thankfully, it has died down since then, but it was pretty forceful, and it took time to refind the joy of worship in purity and truth, rather than seeing paganism in everything. Once again we can actually sing the songs of Jesus birth (Oh little town of Bethlehem, and Hark the Herald Angels Sing, etc) and rejoice and share with our neighbors that Christ came and took on human form to save us, without someone saying it somehow represents some pagan god.


You still have never shown me that Hislop talks about Christ and the story of salvation. If I remember correctly you said that wasn't his purpose in writing the book. Sadly I think you were right on that point. It's also why we find on the internet that people who openly practice and promote paganism, like his book. He goes quite deep into pagan practices throughout history.

That's the biggest difference between his writings and EGW's writings. Yes, she also points out the advance of evil, but just enough to warn of it's evil results, and always in the context of God's mission in offering salvation, and dealing with sin in His plan of working out the ultimate plan for salvation for mankind. The purpose is always to turn people to Christ our only Savior.