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.