Here is the full explanation by Hislop as to his interpretation of Genesis 10.



His reasoning makes sense to me as it agrees with historians and makes an unclear Bible passage clear.

The full explanation of ANYTHING for the first 600 or so years after the flood is all based on supposition and human "maybes".
The ONLY reliable thing we can know for sure is what the Bible gives during that time period., and even that is fairly sketchy.
Even "historians" writing still before Christ, but some 2000 years after the flood, were only "supposing".

Everything I read -- no matter if Hislop wrote it or some other person wrote it, is based on
implications, suppositions, what someone THINKS makes sense, -- there are no hard facts.

For example:
A couple days ago we read a report that they found some graves by the ancient pyramids.
Someone in that report suggested these were the graves of the workers or builders of pyramids. It was written as such in National Geographic's --
Soon someone else writes it as if it were fact. Then another historian puts it into his book. Oh-- so now it's proven, look there are several who have written it as such. No it's not proven at all. They found some graves near the pyramids and reasoned out their story. There is no proof at all that these were the workers building the pyramids. We don't know who was buried in those graves, it's mere supposition no matter how many now say it was the workers building those pyrimids.

In fact (yes this is fact) historians are baffled by a lot of things ( how the ancients built those pyramids in the first place, being just one of them)

But that's how all this this so called "proof" supposing that Hislop is correct concerning the beginning of things, is also based upon.
I'm sure you can find someone, somewhere that agrees with specific points Hislop makes (though that same writer that agrees on one point, may disagree with other historical implications Hislop makes as well).

THE PROBLEM is that historians DON'T KNOW what happened in those first centuries after the flood.

1. Almost ALL believe the ancients were primitive people with limited advanced skills.
So they build their implications and conclusions of what happened from that perspective.
2. Many don't even believe in a world wide flood, just a localized flood, if they believe in a flood at all.
That again renders a lot of different implications as to what happened.
3. Most don't believe Noah and his three sons brought a lot skill and knowledge with them from the old preflood culture with them.
4. Almost ALL history stretches that time period over millenniums,(thousands of years) not just six or seven centuries. Again deducing a lot of conclusions that raise more questions than answers.

So yes, many have their theories of what happened, and they may even agree somewhat, (at least on various points) with each other.
But the mystery remains -- a lot of mysteries suggesting world wide activity in which people did things modern scientists tell us mankind only found out could be done in recent years. After the flood -- there was a great resurgence of knowledge, that then got lost.




If you want to follow Hislop - that's your privilege, but don't imply it's the "full explanation" of what took place immediately after the flood, nor that others agree, having seen plenty of reasons to think differently. I suspect we have no real idea of what actually took place in those centuries, before God called Abraham.

And for some reason, God didn't see it as necessary to enlighten us any further in His Word, on what went on during those years. Just that there was an apostacy and that He called a family to preserve His truth for the world through them.

Why do you use terms I have never used and say things I have never even come close to implying? I have never said I have a full explanation for anything. What I said was here was Hislop's full explanation for Genesis 10. I see your usage of that term in the context I used it as dishonest. I have also never said anyone "has to agree with me" either.

I have consistently said that here is more support for Hislop.when I have posted evidence that supports him. Then you come along and put the word proof in quotes as if I had used the word. I haven't, and see your behavior as dishonest. If I remember correctly you asked me if I had evidence from reputable sources to support Hislop. Well, I've found that and it seems to me you're angry that I did by the way you're behaving.

Just showing there are other evidences of early history immediately after the flood.


February 1993 Robert Bauval and several others who had been studying and research the pyramids, returned for more extensive study of these awesome structures from antiquity. The reason for the trip was mainly to study the shafts in the Queen's Chamber of Cheops's Pyramid, as well as other shafts in the great pyramids.

It's too much to quote the whole experience as recorded in the book "The Orion Mystery" pages 172-178,
But what they confirmed and new things they discovered were these.

PICTURE
1. Three shafts locked in perfectly to the stars as they stood in the epoch of 2450 BC.
The south shaft of the King's Chamber was targeted to Al Nitak (Zeta Orionis) the first star on the belt of Orion. The north shaft of the King's Chamber was targeted at at Alpha Draconis
The south shaft of the Queen's Chamber was targeted at Sirius.
The last (fourth shaft) they now realized pointed to a star in the Ursu

2. The other thing they discovered were these shafts were closed by slabs with hinges or fittings made of COPPER. From mining to the finished product, there are many steps involved in producing copper.

Of course general historians are skeptical -- all this doesn't fit the popular historic story.

It however supports several principles in understanding early history after the flood.

1. Bible chronologies' tend to place the flood in the year 2348 BC
oops -- that places the building of the Giza pyramids about 100 years before the flood, BUT then, 2348 BC is not a fact, it is a reasonable calculation and could easily be out several hundred years.

If the 2450 date for building the pyramids is correct (calculated according to the stars), and the flood date is correct within a 200 margin of miscalculation , it means the Giza pyramids were built very, very soon after the flood, like, in the first 100-200 years after the flood.

2. Population being still limited to the first two or three generations after the flood, means they had technology we don't even know about today, to harness the energies of the earth to produce and mount those massive yet precisely cut stones.

3. They had knowledge in regards to the bodies of heaven.''
4. They had knowledge in how to produce copper and other refined metals.

The mystery continues -- how did a small group build these huge structures? Now some might say the flood happened several a few thousand years earlier, and the whole Nimrod, Babel as well as the evidence of ice age, and civilizations that rose and mysteriously disappeared due to the ice and other factors, like the tremendous wars depicted in various legends; It often seems it took more than the six hundred or so years between the Flood and Abraham.

So? What does that have to do with anything to do with Hislop? Noorbergen often states things happened 5000 years ago and places them post flood, and he as an SDA.

I see you have ignored my complaints of your dishonesty. ***shakes head in wonder*** Not even a hint of an apology.

Don't remember asking for that.
I did mention much of Hislop's weaving together of the story concerning the early years just after the flood, is based on legends. Other's have also tried to match legends to actually history, so I don't see that as anything more than that they are trying to figure out as well. So no, I don't believe they PROVE facts as to how it all developed. It's all supposition, people trying to figure out what happened.

Sure they take things from archeological finds and later history that they have records from to deduce their stories of early history, but we don't know what actually took place in those early years. Everyone looks to see what makes sense to them -- what makes sense depends on how they view history in general.

Here are phrases from the quotes presented showing it's based on his reasoning, not on actual presented facts.


And no, I'm not into proving or disproving Hislop.
Obviously that is your main concern, it's not mine.

The point is -- we don't really know, much of what happened those early years -- we only suppose from bits and pieces.

Here are some very interesting statements by Hislop.



The Crimean War was won by the allies:Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire. However British leadershio made some spectacular failures. The charge of the light brigade and the failure to follow up on a defeat of the Russian army in the battle for Sevastopol.which the Russians said was critical in saving their army were two of them.

No, you didn't use those exact words, but you communicated that idea,



I have shown from reputable historians, several of them Christians, all that you said didn't happen did happen.

So because Hislop is honest and says he makes deductions what he says is wrong? Implied logic is sound reasoning. The Bible teaches us to use it as Isaiah says precept upon precept, line upon line. Here a little and there a little..Hislop does just that.

Here is more in support of Hislop.



From Prescott's book History of the Conquest of Mexico.



Who was Prescott? He was an American historian and Hispanist. He was very influential as he was recognized as one of the best in his field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Prescott

All the things I've questioned have not been "proven".
Maybe shown that someone else somewhere made a similar statement, but not proven that it really happened that way.

His deductions are not proof that what he says happened in the early years right after the flood. (Whether you used the word proof or not, isn't the issue, the fact remains it hasn't been proven to have happened that way)
Surely you realize and agree that when historians write about ancient (beginnings) they are just assuming, figuring it out by human reasoning of things. The same applies when it comes to Hislop.

"here a little, there a little"
Ever you actually read that text?
"]Isaiah 8:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."

And, just a reminder -- just because I question some things in his book really doesn't give you a right to say or imply that I reject the book as a whole.

So what is it you are trying to say with your last post?

Bernardino de Sahag?n, OFM (c. 1499 ? 5 February 1590) was a Franciscan friar, missionary priest and pioneering ethnographer who participated in the Catholic evangelization of colonial New Spain, gives an account of Aztec infant baptism.
William Prescott, (1796-1859) who specialized in studying Renaissance Spanish History, translated Sahagun's account.
Hislop copies the account into his book.

What Sahagun saw happened in 4000 years after the flood.
He is trying to show how it both is like and differs from Catholic practice.
Of course the question arises -- where did the Aztec get the idea of baptizing babies?

Baby baptism in the church began around 200 years after Christ.
Origen, for instance, wrote in 244 AD that ?according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants?
The Council of Carthage, in 253 AD was debating against the idea of waiting until the eighth day to baptize babies.

So the question when and where did the Aztec get the idea of baptizing babies? Or was this even a regular event, or an attempt by some to save their children from the

Actually the Aztec had a lot of gods.