Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 47

Thread: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,239

    Default Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    I have seen on these threads quite a few times remarks that the Bible is no more than works stolen from other religions that are presumed to be of earlier works and conceptions than Christianity. This I hope to refute using evidence taken from the works of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons and of course the Bible itself.

    My target is that by understanding the languages and worship style of the ancients we can see that despite what looks to the contrary is in fact not. I am not here to raise Hislop or his theory regarding Rome as the Whore of Babylon as my understanding of that is different to him. That said Rome and other religions are going to come up no doubt during the discussion but for my own purposes will be quite incidental.

    I know that some will join in only to say that it is all rubbish and I hope that if they cannot disregard their prejudice, not to indulge at all, but as with all the threads on this part of the forum, that would be asking too much. Hislop himself has been portrayed as both liar and fabricator and that may well be your opinion but my assertion is that not all or even near all within his work can come under these titles.

    So it is to the linguistics, the links he makes to the original sources, that I wish to address and since I am no linguist, I am Scottish of the non academic variety, I hope that this Scot is not deluded as has been alleged, by another. If there are any with knowledge of the book, that is having read it from cover to cover, and/or ancient language knowledge their input would be greatly accepted.

    Hislop intended to put Rome where Babylon once stood as the continuum of that apostate religion and by doing so he had to prove that the one came out of the other and not as has been suggested by some on these forums. His stance is as mine that God made everything in six days therefore making that which is in the book of Genesis the fore-runner of all else religious. The latter is my quest.

    After having made the man and the woman, the latter was persuaded to eat of the fruit and being followed by her man they both fell from the grace of God into what is the curse of sin. Then God made a prophecy concerning a " seed " to come, that seed being the Lord Jesus Christ, yet out of the following religions that appeared they too talked of a seed whose purpose was the same as the " seed " promised by God. Whose seed is the first?

  2. #2

    Default Re: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    Hi,

    First of all, let me say that as a Christian who has experienced the gifts of the Holy Spirit and other stuff which is QUITE bizarre, that this is NOT meant to belittle those who trust in Christ Jesus who are Catholic.
    I don't care what your denomination is, God bless and conform you to the image of his son, Jesus.

    Now............. Part I:

    Alexander Hislop. True in his Ultimate assessment of the THEN Catholic Church of his day. I have read the book and own it too.
    Hislop said very bluntly, paraphrasingly of course, that "Catholicism is Paganism."

    I must concur in a number of regards: Statues, the title "Pontifex Maximus", Christmas, Easter, Mary "Mediatrix", the Hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church with its' cardinals, monks, nuns, priests, etc. These things were "lifted" from Paganism and incorporated into State Religion established by Constantine as "Christian."

    In regards to this "Seed" you mention, sir, the Apostle Paul said: "And not to seeds, as to many, but seed, as to/referring to one, the Lord Jesus Christ."

    In my comparative religious studies, I've found the following, weird but true!:
    A. Virtually all cultures have a "creation myth"
    B. Virtually all cultures have a "flood myth"
    C. Virtually all cultures have a "giant" or "gigantic type creatures"
    D. Virtually all cultures have a spiritual, ie. God/angels/demons, framework
    The caveat to these four BIG points is that they ring true, when we look at the beginnings of these cultures.

    Now, When a "story" is perpetuated over and over and over and over, USUALLY there is some truth there encrusted over with falsities and fantasies.
    One could not say "Well, it's a human phaenomenon due to the brain" as some cultural anthropologists/sociologists have tried to do, simply because all very ancient cultures had no way to communicate via writing and as such this lends credence to oral tradition which became written or printed. India, the Jewish people, Asia in general and the "Occident" both have always had a strong oral and mnemonic tradition.

    It must be said that when we reverse engineer language and thought, by proxy, that we come to an inevitable conclusion: Humans ARE related and have in fact experienced certain things communally UNTIL they migrated across the globe. THIS was the catalyst for understanding the plethora of "Seed" concepts found in ALL world's religious traditions, but some "Seed" concepts are fairly recent in some religious circles.

    Part I is done. Part II comin' up!

    I hope this helps Basics,
    hellas1 "It ain't easy bein' a believer, but somebody's gotta do it."
    Last edited by hellas1; February 03, 2008 at 11:58 PM.

  3. #3
    Roman Knight's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,815

    Default Re: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    Quote Originally Posted by hellas1 View Post
    In my comparative religious studies, I've found the following, weird but true!:
    A. Virtually all cultures have a "creation myth"
    B. Virtually all cultures have a "flood myth"
    C. Virtually all cultures have a "giant" or "gigantic type creatures"
    D. Virtually all cultures have a spiritual, ie. God/angels/demons, framework
    A is somewhat agreeable
    B is debatable
    C and D I would like some more information on

  4. #4
    Ummon's Avatar Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    19,146

    Default Re: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    Quote Originally Posted by RomanKnight990 View Post
    B is debatable
    Actually, B is fully correct.

  5. #5
    mocker's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Oslo
    Posts
    2,050

    Default Re: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ummon View Post
    Actually, B is fully correct.
    Give me a Norse flood myth. Go on, hit me.


  6. #6
    Blau&Gruen's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Wagadougou, Bourkina Faso
    Posts
    5,545

    Default Re: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    He meant it in quality. Things come to an end everywhere and people remember with sadness.
    Patronized by Ozymandias
    Je bâtis ma demeure
    Le livre des questions
    Un étranger avec sous le bras un livre de petit format

    golemzombiroboticvacuumcleanerstrawberrycream

  7. #7
    Ummon's Avatar Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    19,146

    Default Re: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    Quote Originally Posted by mocker View Post
    Give me a Norse flood myth. Go on, hit me.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)

    In Norse mythology, there are two separate deluges. According to the Prose Edda by Snorri Sturluson, the first occurred at the dawn of time before the world was formed. Ymir, the first giant, was killed by the god Odin and his brothers Vili and Ve, and when he fell, so much blood flowed from his wounds that it drowned almost the entire race of giants with the exception of the frost giant Bergelmir and his wife. They escaped in a ship and survived, becoming the progenitors of a new race of giants. Ymir's body was then used to form the earth while his blood became the sea.

    The second, in the Norse mythological time cycle, is destined to occur in the future during the final battle between the gods and giants, known as Ragnarök. During this apocalyptic event, Jormungandr, the great World Serpent that lies beneath the sea surrounding Midgard, the realm of mortals, will rise up from the watery depths to join the conflict, resulting in a catastrophic flood that will drown the land. However, following Ragnarök the earth will be reborn and a new age of humanity will begin.
    Served.

  8. #8
    Roman Knight's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,815

    Default Re: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ummon View Post
    Actually, B is fully correct.
    Give me a version of an Australian Aboriginal flood myth. Those in Europe and the middle east don't really count as they could easily have been transfered from culture to culture.

  9. #9
    Ummon's Avatar Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    19,146

    Default Re: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    Quote Originally Posted by RomanKnight990 View Post
    Give me a version of an Australian Aboriginal flood myth. Those in Europe and the middle east don't really count as they could easily have been transfered from culture to culture.
    http://www.neopage.com/know/australian_flood_myth.htm

    Grumuduk, a medicine man who lived in the hills, had the power to bring rain and to make plants and animals plentiful. A plains tribe kidnapped him, wanting his power, but Grumuduk escaped and decreed that whereever he walked in the country of his enemies, salt water would rise in his footsteps. [Flood] During the Dreamtime flood, woramba, the Ark Gumana carrying Noah, Aborigines, and animals, drifted south and came to rest in the flood plain of Djilinbadu (about 70 km south of Noonkanbah Station, just south of the Barbwire Range and east of the Worral Range), where it can still be seen today. The white man's claim that it landed in the Middle East was a lie to keep Aborigines in subservience. [Kolig, in Dundes]
    http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

    There is a legend of a flood called the Dreamtime flood. Riding on this flood was the woramba, or the Ark Gumana. In this ark was Noah, Aborigines, and various animals. This ark eventually came to rest in the plain of Djilinbadu where it can still be found. They claim that the white mans story about the ark landing in the middle east is a lie that was started to keep the aborigines in subservience. This legend is undoubtedly the product of aboriginal legends merging with those of visiting missionaries, and there does not appear to be any native flood stories from Australia.
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/aus/mla/mla09.htm

    In the dream-time, a terrible drought swept across the land. The leaves of the trees turned brown and fell from the branches, the flowers drooped their heads and died, and the green grass withered as though the spirit from the barren mountain had breathed upon it with a breath of fire. When the hot wind blew, the dead reeds rattled in the river bed, and the burning sands shimmered like a silver lagoon.

    All the water had left the rippling creeks, and deep, still water holes. In the clear blue sky the sun was a mass of molten gold; the clouds no longer drifted across the hills, and the only darkness that fell across the land was the shadow of night and death.

    After many had died of thirst, all the animals in the land met together in a great council to discover the cause of the drought. They travelled many miles. Some came from the bush, and others from the distant mountains.

    The sea-birds left their homes in the cliffs where the white surf thundered, and flew without resting many days and nights. When they all arrived at the chosen meeting place in Central Australia, they discovered that a frog of enormous size had swallowed all the water in the land, and thus caused the drought. After much serious discussion, it was decided that the only way to obtain the water again was to make the frog laugh. The question now arose as to which animal should begin the performance, and, after a heated argument, the pride of place was given to the Kookaburra.

    The animals then formed themselves into a huge circle with the frog in the centre. Red kangaroos, grey wallaroos, rock and swamp wallabies, kangaroo rats, bandicoots, native bears and ring-tailed possums all sat together. The emu and the native companion forgot their quarrel and the bell bird his chimes. Even a butcher bird looked pleasantly at a brown snake, and the porcupine forgot to bristle. A truce had been called in the war of the bush.

    Now, the Kookaburra, seated himself on the limb of a tree, and, with a wicked twinkle in his eye, looked straight at the big, bloated frog, ruffled his brown feathers, and began to laugh. At first, he made a low gurgling sound deep in his throat, as though he was smiling to himself, but gradually he raised his voice and laughed louder and louder until the bush re-echoed with the sound of his merriment. The other animals looked on with very serious faces, but the frog gave no sign. He just blinked his eyes and looked as stupid as only a frog can look.

    The Kookaburra continued to laugh until he nearly choked and fell off the tree, but all without success. The next competitor was a frill-lizard. It extended the frill around its throat, and, puffing out its jaws, capered up and down. But there was no humor in the frog; he did not even look at the lizard, and laughter was out of the question. It was then suggested that the dancing of the native companion might tickle the fancy of the frog. So the native companion danced until she was tired, but all her graceful and grotesque figures failed to arouse the interest of the frog.

    The position was very serious, and the council of animals was at its wits' end for a reasonable suggestion. In their anxiety to solve the difficulty, they all spoke at once, and the din was indescribable. Above the noise could be heard a frantic cry of distress. A carpet snake was endeavoring to swallow a porcupine. The bristles had stuck in his throat, and a kookaburra, who had a firm grip of his tail, was making an effort to fly away with him.

    Close by, two bandicoots were fighting over the possession of a sweet root, but, while they were busily engaged in scratching each other, a possum stole it. They then forgot their quarrel and chased the possum, who escaped danger by climbing a tree and swinging from a branch by his tail. In this peculiar position he ate the root at his leisure, much to the disgust of the bandicoots below.

    After peace and quiet had been restored, the question of the drought was again considered. A big eel, who lived in a deep water hole in the river, suggested that he should be given an opportunity of making the frog laugh. Many of the animals laughed at the idea, but, in despair, they agreed to give him a trial. The eel then began to wriggle in front of the frog. At first he wriggled slowly, then faster and faster until his head and tail met. Then he slowed down and wriggled like a snake with the shivers. After a few minutes, he changed his position, and flopped about like a well-bitten grub on an ant bed.

    The frog opened his sleepy eyes, his big body quivered, his face relaxed, and, at last, he burst into a laugh that sounded like rolling thunder. The water poured from his mouth in a flood. It filled the deepest rivers and covered the land. Only the highest mountain peaks were visible, like islands in the sea. Many men and animals were drowned.

    The pelican-who was a blackfellow at this time -sailed from island to island in a great canoe and rescued any blackfellow he saw. At last he came to an island on which there were many people. In their midst he saw a beautiful woman, and f ell in love with her. He rescued all the men on this island until the woman alone remained. Every time he made a journey she would ask him to take her with the men, but he would reply: "There are many in the canoe. I will carry you next time." He did this several times, and at last the woman guessed that he was going to take her to his camp. She then determined to escape from the pelican. While he was away, she wrapped a log in her possum rug, and placed it near the gunyah; then, as the flood was subsiding, she escaped to the bush. When he returned, he called to her, but, receiving no answer, he walked over to the possum rug and touched it with his foot. It, however, did not move. He then tore the rug away from what he supposed was a woman, but, when he found a log, he was very angry, and resolved to be revenged. He painted himself with white clay, and set out to look for the other blackfellows, with the intention of killing them. But the first pelican he met was so frightened by his strange appearance, that it struck him with a club and killed him. Since that time pelicans have been black and white in remembrance of the Great Flood.

    The flood gradually subsided, and the land was again clothed in the green garments of spring. Through the tall green reeds the voice of the night wind whispered soft music to the river. And, when the dawn came from the eastern sky, the birds sang a song of welcome to the new flood-a flood of golden sunlight.

  10. #10
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,239

    Default Re: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    hellas1,

    Am I then to understand that you find the book compelling in evidence or as some would have it rubbish done with lying intent? In other words do you think that Hislop set out to deceive, to cheat and lie in order to make Rome look foolish?

  11. #11

    Default Re: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    The Bible is a variety show. Or, which translation/interpretation do you speak of?
    Genesis completely screwed the Adam and Eve tale, the older stories are much better in both plot and metaphor.

    Whats your opinion of Lilith?

  12. #12
    Blau&Gruen's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Wagadougou, Bourkina Faso
    Posts
    5,545

    Default Re: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    It is fine as it is.
    Patronized by Ozymandias
    Je bâtis ma demeure
    Le livre des questions
    Un étranger avec sous le bras un livre de petit format

    golemzombiroboticvacuumcleanerstrawberrycream

  13. #13
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,239

    Default Re: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    Ms Theodora,

    I can see that you like to play on words so explain there being anything older than " In the beginning..."? Since He is God, it must be said that of course He is pre-existent. The Bible is about Him from beginning to end.

    But of course if your mind begins to work only when the angel announced His name that kind of answers to the silly remarks you make. Jesus Himself makes it quite clear, and He should know, that He was before Abraham, and, according to John among others, including the doubter Thomas, that He is God, the God who made all things.

    Apart from the obvious, Hislop has shown that the Gospel is the earliest and upon which all other religion stems, even if that wasn't his prime intention. To bring up the old 2nd/3rd century arguments regfarding the New Testament writings is itself a flaw in your argument since from Pentecost on letters were being sent between the disparate churches.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    I would say the seed of the guy who impregnated Mary comes before Jesus. Is this for real?

  15. #15
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,239

    Default Re: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    Ms. Theodora,

    If you intend that Jesus was the product of, a person, impregnating Mary, you are quite wrong since Jesus was pre-existent therefore making Him unlikely to be conceived by anyone. Having been and still being the second person of the Trinity, He was therefore not able to be conceived as we know it but enabled to take up union with the egg prepared within Mary.

  16. #16
    Tankbuster's Avatar Analogy Nazi
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    5,228

    Default Re: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Ms. Theodora,

    If you intend that Jesus was the product of, a person, impregnating Mary, you are quite wrong since Jesus was pre-existent therefore making Him unlikely to be conceived by anyone. Having been and still being the second person of the Trinity, He was therefore not able to be conceived as we know it but enabled to take up union with the egg prepared within Mary.

    I never got the whole idea of Trinity. So there are three "things" that are all the same person, yet inherently different. And while they have all existed forever (because they are all the same), one gave birth to the other and is his own father...
    Who thought that up?

    Seriously, why can't we leave that part away, just like we did with the 7-day-creation? :hmmm:
    The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
    --- Mark 2:27

    Atheism is simply a way of clearing the space for better conservations.
    --- Sam Harris

  17. #17
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,239

    Default Re: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    Tankbuster,

    Nowhere in Scripture does it say that within the Godhead anyone fathered anyone else in the sense that you are inferring. But since there is only one God with three distinct personalities, one of whom in whose image we are made that itself infers that we are not made as spirit alone, but have a human outer, the image of which is as within the Godhead. This is vividly shown in the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ where the Lord as He is, is seen before the throne.

    Now I know that perhaps this is a poor example but do schizsophrenics not have a split mind although retain one body. Can they not appear as two different persons dependent on the circumstances in which they find themselves at any given situation? Not that I infer God to be one, rather that as God nothing is impossible for Him and if humans can reveal that kind of nature why not God in His way?

  18. #18
    Tankbuster's Avatar Analogy Nazi
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    5,228

    Default Re: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Tankbuster,

    Nowhere in Scripture does it say that within the Godhead anyone fathered anyone else in the sense that you are inferring. But since there is only one God with three distinct personalities, one of whom in whose image we are made that itself infers that we are not made as spirit alone, but have a human outer, the image of which is as within the Godhead. This is vividly shown in the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ where the Lord as He is, is seen before the throne.

    Now I know that perhaps this is a poor example but do schizsophrenics not have a split mind although retain one body. Can they not appear as two different persons dependent on the circumstances in which they find themselves at any given situation? Not that I infer God to be one, rather that as God nothing is impossible for Him and if humans can reveal that kind of nature why not God in His way?
    Yeah schizophrenia is quite a poor example for a God

    But since God exists out of the Trinity, and God impregnated Mary (in a strict non-sexual way, probably artificial insemination...), and then Mary gave birth to Jesus, then God is technically the father of Jesus, OR Jesus is a clone.
    Is that how I should see it? A kind of clone? Although they should still retain a kind of mental, telepathic link.
    Also, are all three present from the start of time (I mean the creation of the Universe)?

    I don't think I'll ever understand the logic of three persons being one...

    P.S. Do you really think Jesus was born without sexual intercourse?
    The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
    --- Mark 2:27

    Atheism is simply a way of clearing the space for better conservations.
    --- Sam Harris

  19. #19

    Default Re: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    I have seen on these threads quite a few times remarks that the Bible is no more than works stolen from other religions that are presumed to be of earlier works and conceptions than Christianity. This I hope to refute using evidence taken from the works of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons and of course the Bible itself.

    My target is that by understanding the languages and worship style of the ancients we can see that despite what looks to the contrary is in fact not. I am not here to raise Hislop or his theory regarding Rome as the Whore of Babylon as my understanding of that is different to him. That said Rome and other religions are going to come up no doubt during the discussion but for my own purposes will be quite incidental.

    I know that some will join in only to say that it is all rubbish and I hope that if they cannot disregard their prejudice, not to indulge at all, but as with all the threads on this part of the forum, that would be asking too much. Hislop himself has been portrayed as both liar and fabricator and that may well be your opinion but my assertion is that not all or even near all within his work can come under these titles.

    So it is to the linguistics, the links he makes to the original sources, that I wish to address and since I am no linguist, I am Scottish of the non academic variety, I hope that this Scot is not deluded as has been alleged, by another. If there are any with knowledge of the book, that is having read it from cover to cover, and/or ancient language knowledge their input would be greatly accepted.

    Hislop intended to put Rome where Babylon once stood as the continuum of that apostate religion and by doing so he had to prove that the one came out of the other and not as has been suggested by some on these forums. His stance is as mine that God made everything in six days therefore making that which is in the book of Genesis the fore-runner of all else religious. The latter is my quest.

    After having made the man and the woman, the latter was persuaded to eat of the fruit and being followed by her man they both fell from the grace of God into what is the curse of sin. Then God made a prophecy concerning a " seed " to come, that seed being the Lord Jesus Christ, yet out of the following religions that appeared they too talked of a seed whose purpose was the same as the " seed " promised by God. Whose seed is the first?
    Thing is Basics if you sincerely want to argue your point on the basis of linguistics, history and archaelogy you need to utterly abandon creationism as an argument because only your faith backs it up, and if you do not anything you do subsequently will be intellectually bankrupt.

  20. #20
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,239

    Default Re: Hislop's Two Babylons - Error or Lie?

    Ferrets54,

    Sorry for the delay in replying. Of course my belief being what it is will be biased but I hope not biased enough that I cannot consider what others might say on this thread.

    My hope is that far from proving, if that is possible because the man is in no position to quantify his claims, or respond to his detractors, that Hislop had evil intention to vilify Rome by lying or fabricating anything, he did so because of what the Scriptures he believed were telling him in his day.

    If one has a gripe with Rome one only has to read no further than Scripture itself. No, he tried to tie down Rome to being the figurative Whore of Babylon by using similarity of worship style.

    But then all the religions from those ancient days had similarity and my intention is to find out or prove that our Bible, as Genesis tells, is the original from which all else emanated. Now on those regards I think that the proof is in the eating.

    For out of all religiosity it is the experience enjoyed by those that have been born again through Jesus Christ that proves just what must be the original, because rather than believing in dead gods, the Christian regenerate believes in a living God.

    The proof of which is all around you by their witness even in our modern times. In other words I hope that it will be seen that the righteousness that saved then is the same righteousness that saves now and has never changed.

    But unless it is the original then not only am I all wrong but those religions that have similarity too and then the question must be asked where then is the original and what proof does it have that it's god is any more potent than mine?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •