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 (summerize)

TITLE: The Child in Assyria

It was from Babylon, 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 chielf 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) z
Nimus (Nimrod) was king of Assyria.
Semiramis was his wife.
Nimus the most ancient of Assyrian kings was a great warrior who all brought the people of Babylonia under his power before there was a Babylon. Since the 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 he built those cities 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.

5. Nimrod didn't gather the nations AFTER the strike against Babel and the language confussion. 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?
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 crop of kids. (26 couples now) would raise population to 400 people. Nimrod would have been born in that crop of kids.
Now there's 175 more couples so a lot more kids being born, but population (if no one died in the mean time) would be only about 3000. I don't think there were any huge nations or great cities around yet. Nimrod would have to wait till he was grandpa before the world population would reach 45,000. 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.
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 his narration from Diodorus [work. If this king really lived, I highly doubt it was a mere four generations from Noah. From his account it appears Semiramis built Babylon in a manner that I always thought described how Nebuchadnezzar built Babylon.

* See GREGORIUS TURONENSIS, De rerum Franc. Gregory attributes to Cush what was
said more generally to have befallen his son; but his statement shows the belief in his day,
which is amply confirmed from other sources, that Cush had a pre-eminent share in leading
mankind away from the true worship of God.
** The composition of Her-mes is, first, from "Her," which, in Chaldee, is synonymous with
Ham, or Khem, "the burnt one." As "her" also, like Ham, signified "The hot or burning one,"
this name formed a foundation for covertly identifying Ham with the "Sun," and so deifying the
great patriarch, after whose name the land of Egypt was called, in connection with the sun.
Khem, or Ham, in his own name was openly worshipped in later ages in the land of Ham
(BUNSEN); but this would have been too daring at first. By means of "Her," the synonym,
however, the way was paved for this. "Her" is the name of Horus, who is identified with the
sun (BUNSEN), which shows the real etymology of the name to be from the verb to which I
have traced it. Then, secondly, "Mes," is from Mesheh (or, without the last radical, which is
omissible), Mesh, "to draw forth." In Egyptian, we have Ms in the sense of "to bring forth"
(BUNSEN, Hieroglyphical Signs), which is evidently a different form of the same word. In the
passive sense, also, we find Ms used (BUNSEN, Vocabulary). The radical meaning of
Mesheh in Stockii Lexicon, is given in Latin "Extraxit," and our English word "extraction," as
applied to birth or descent, shows that there is a connection between the generic meaning of
this word and birth. This derivation will be found to explain the meaning of the names of the
Egyptian kings, Ramesses and Thothmes, the former evidently being "The son of Ra," or the
Sun; the latter in like manner, being "The son of Thoth." For the very same reason Her-mes is
the "Son of Her, or Ham," the burnt one--that is, Cush.

Who this god of fortifications could be, commentators have found themselves at a loss to
determine. In the records of antiquity the existence of any god of fortifications has been
commonly overlooked; and it must be confessed that no such god stands forth there with any
prominence to the ordinary reader. But of the existence of a goddess of fortifications, every
one knows that there is the amplest evidence. That goddess is Cybele, who is universally
represented with a mural or turreted crown, or with a fortification, on her head. Why was Rhea
or Cybele thus represented? Ovid asks the question and answers it himself; and the answer
is this: The reason he says, why the statue of Cybele wore a crown of towers was, "because
she first erected them in cities." The first city in the world after the flood (from whence the
commencement of the world itself was often dated) that had towers and encompassing walls,
was Babylon; and Ovid himself tells us that it was Semiramis, the first queen of that city, who
was believed to have "surrounded Babylon with a wall of brick." Semiramis, then, the first
deified queen of that city and tower whose top was intended to reach to heaven, must have
been the prototype of the goddess who "first made towers in cities." When we look at the
Ephesian Diana, we find evidence to the very same effect. In general, Diana was depicted as
a virgin, and the patroness of virginity; but the Ephesian Diana was quite different. She was
represented with all the attributes of the Mother of the gods, and, as the Mother of the gods,
she wore a turreted crown, such as no one can contemplate without being forcibly reminded
of the tower of Babel. Now this tower-bearing Diana is by an ancient scholiast expressly
identified with Semiramis. *

* In the Greek mythology, Kronos and Rhea are commonly brother and sister. Ninus and
Semiramis, according to history, are not represented as standing in any such relation to one
another; but this is no objection to the real identity of Ninus and Kronos; for, 1st, the
relationships of the divinities, in most countries, are peculiarly conflicting--Osiris, in Egypt, is
represented at different times, not only as the son and husband of Isis, but also as her father
and brother (BUNSEN); then, secondly, whatever the deified mortals might be before
deification, on being deified they came into new relationships. On the apotheosis of husband
and wife, it was necessary for the dignity of both that both alike should be represented as of
the same celestial origin--as both supernaturally the children of God.

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.

* HYGINUS, Fab. Phoroneus is represented as king at this time. Here there is a manifest
enigma. How could Mercury or Hermes have any need to interpret the speeches of mankind
when they "all spake one language"? To find out the meaning of this, we must go to the
language of the Mysteries. Peresh, in Chaldee, signifies "to interpret"; but was pronounced by
old Egyptians and by Greeks, and often by the Chaldees themselves, in the same way as
"Peres," to "divide." Mercury, then, or Hermes, or Cush, "the son of Ham," was the "DIVIDER
of the speeches of men." He, it would seem, had been the ringleader in the scheme for
building the great city and tower of Babel; and, as the well known title of Hermes,--"the
interpreter of the gods," would indicate, had encouraged them, in the name of God, to
proceed in their presumptuous enterprise, and so had caused the language of men to be
divided, and themselves to be scattered abroad on the face of the earth. Now look at the
name of Belus or Bel, given to the father of Ninus, or Nimrod, in connection with this. While
the Greek name Belus represented both the Baal and Bel of the Chaldees, these were
nevertheless two entirely distinct titles. These titles were both alike often given to the same
god, but they had totally different meanings. Baal, as we have already seen, signified "The
Lord"; but Bel signified "The Confounder." When, then, we read that Belus, the father of
Ninus, was he that built or founded Babylon, can there be a doubt, in what sense it was that
the title of Belus was given to him? It must have been in the sense of Bel the "Confounder."
And to this meaning of the name of the Babylonian Bel, there is a very distinct allusion in
Jeremiah 1:2, where it is said "Bel is confounded," that is, "The Confounder is brought to
confusion." That Cush was known to Pagan antiquity under the very character of Bel, "The
Confounder," a statement of Ovid very clearly proves. The statement to which I refer is that in
which Janus "the god of gods," * from whom all the other gods had their origin, is made to say
of himself: "The ancients...called me Chaos."

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.[b/ Asshur was Shem's son.
Nimrod was Ham's grandson, considerably younger than Asshur. [/b]

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 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

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, and not showing proper respect.
The reason for the curse -- it was because Ham was filling the minds of his sons with his resentment.