That's not necessary. I don't have the money to buy books unless they are used, and then inflation is eating way my income so badly I doubt very much that I'll be buying any books.

I want you two to know that this thread is fascinating!!!

I have had a lot on my mind , and then I came here and starting reading--it helps alot--it is so meaty that it draws you in.

I was reading before bed and just realized I just got off of Page 1,so there is much more.

Thank you, seriously!

Thank you. It makes all the time and effort put forth studying worth it.

I have more evidence in support of Hislop.



Here is my source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augur

I have found a lot of support for Hislop in a place you'll never guess. The 1980 version of the SDA Bible Commentaries. I will post a bunch of this later but was really astounded to find this as it was the last thing I expected to find.

The first thing I will post here is evidence as to why Noah cursed Caanan.

This is commentary of Genesis 9:25

25. Cursed be Canaan. The curse being pronounced on Canaan, Ham?s fourth son,
rather than on the perpetrator of the crime himself, has been taken by many
commentators as evidence that Canaan had really been the culprit and not Ham, and that he is meant in v. 24 as the youngest member of the Noachic family. The church Father Origen mentions the tradition that Canaan first saw the shame of his grandfather, and told it to his father. It is not impossible that Canaan had shared in his father?s evil deed.

Noah?s curse does not seem to have been pronounced resentment, but rather as a
prophecy. The prophecy does not fix Canaan in particular or Ham?s sons in general in the bonds of an iron destiny. It is merely a prediction of what God foresaw and announced through Noah. Presumably Canaan already walked in the sins of his father, and those sins became such a strong feature in the national character of Canaan?s descendants that God later ordered their destruction.

Now on to support for Hislop.

From comments on verses in chapter 10.

8. Cush begat Nimrod. Although Nimrod?s name is yet to be found in Babylonian
records, Arabs still connect some ancient sites with his name. Birs-Nimrud, for instance, is their name for the ruins of Borsippa; and Nimrud, of Calah. These names must rest on very old traditions, and cannot be attributed to the influence of the Koran alone. So far as currently available historical evidence goes, the earliest inhabitants of Mesopotamia were not Semitic but Sumerian. Little is known as to the origin of the Sumerians. The fact that Nimrod, a Hamite, founded the first city states of Mesopotamia suggests that the Sumerians were possibly Hamitic.

A mighty one. This expression denotes a person renowned for bold and daring deeds.

It may also include the connotation of ?tyrant.?

9. Before the Lord. The LXX renders this phrase ?against the Lord.? Although the
hunter Nimrod acted in defiance of God, his mighty deeds made him famous among his contemporaries, and in future generations as well. Babylonian legends about Gilgamesh, who appears frequently on Babylonian reliefs and cylinder seals and in literary documents, may possibly refer to Nimrod. Gilgamesh is usually shown killing lions or other wild beasts with his bare hands. The fact that Nimrod was a Hamite may be the reason why the Babylonians, descendants of Shem, credited his famous deeds to one of their own hunters and purposely forgot his name.

More support for Hislop. This is more commentary on Genesis 10.

10. The beginning of his kingdom. This may mean either his first kingdom or the
beginning of his sovereignty. Nimrod appears in the register of nations as the author of imperialism. Under him society passed from the patriarchal form to the monarchical. He is the first man mentioned in the Bible as the head of a kingdom.
Babel. Nimrod?s first kingdom was Babylon. Having the idea that their city was the
earthly reflection of the heavenly dwelling place of their god, the Babylonians gave it the name Bab?ilu, ?the gate of god? (see on ch. 11:9). Babylonian legends equate the founding of the city with the creation of the world. No doubt with this in mind Sargon, an early Semitic king of Mesopotamia, took sacred soil from Babylon for the founding of another city modeled after it. Even in the later period of Assyrian supremacy Babylon did not lose its significance as the center of Mesopotamian culture. Its greatest fame and glory, however, came in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, who made of it the world?s first metropolis. After its destruction by the Persian king Xerxes, Babylon lay partly in ruins (see on Isa. 13:19).

Erech. The Babylonian Uruk, modern Warka. Recent excavations prove this to be
one of the oldest cities in existence. The earliest written documents ever to be discovered were found there. Uruk was known to the Babylonians as the vicinity where the mighty deeds of Gilgamesh were performed, a fact which seems to support the suggestion that the Gilgamesh legends were reminiscences of Nimrod?s early accomplishments.

Accad. The seat of the early kings Sargon and Naram-Sin (p. 135). The ruins of this
city have not been located, but must be in the neighborhood of Babylon. The ancient Semitic population of Lower Mesopotamia came to be called Accadian, and the Babylonian and Assyrian languages are now referred to, collectively, by the same term.

Calneh. Though Calneh has not yet been identified with certainty, it was probably the same as Nippur, the present Niffer. A large percentage of the known Sumerian texts have been found at this site. It was called by the Sumerians Enlil?ki, ?the city of [the god] Enlil.? The Babylonians reversed the sequence of the two elements of this name and referred to the city, in their oldest inscriptions, as Ki?Enlil, later Ki?Illina. This may have given rise to the Hebrew ?Calneh.? Next to Babylon, Nippur was the most sacred city of Lower Mesopotamia and boasted important temples. From earliest times to the late Persian period, the city was a center of culture and extensive trade.

Shinar. The afore-mentioned cities lay in the land of Shinar, the term generally used
in the OT for Babylonia, comprising Sumer in the south as well as Accad in the north (see Gen. 11:2; 14:1, 9; Joshua 7:21, Heb., ?a garment of Shinar?; Isa. 11:11; Zech. 5:11; Dan. 1:2). The name is still somewhat obscure. It was formerly thought to have been derived from the word Sumer, the ancient Sumeria, which lay in the southernmost part of Mesopotamia. More likely, however, it is from Shanhara of certain cuneiform texts, a land whose exact location has not been determined. Some texts seem to indicate that Shanhara was in northern Mesopotamia rather than in the south. Although it is certain that Shinar is Babylonia, the origin of the term is not yet clear.

11. Out of that land went forth Asshur. Even though this translation is possible, the
sentence construction in Hebrew favors that given by the RSV, which retains Nimrod as the subject and reads, ?From that land he went into Assyria.? In Micah 5:6 Assyria is called ?the land of Nimrod.? Nimrod?s move into Assyria and his renewed building activity there constituted an extension of his empire in a northerly direction. What Assyria lacked in geographical size it made up in political power later in its history.

Nineveh. For centuries Nineveh was famous as the capital of Assyria. The Assyrians themselves called it Ninua, apparently dedicating it to the Babylonian goddess Nina. This points to Babylon as Nimrod?s previous home and agrees with the Biblical report that he, the first king of Babylon, was also founder of Nineveh. Excavations have shown that Nineveh was one of the oldest cities of Upper Mesopotamia. Lying at the intersection of busy international trade routes, Nineveh early became an important commercial center. It changed hands repeatedly during the second millennium B.C., belonging in turn to the Babylonians, Hittites, and Mitannians before being brought under Assyrian control in the 14th century B.C. Later, as capital of the Assyrian Empire, it was embellished with magnificent palaces and temples and strongly fortified. In 612 B.C . the city was destroyed
by the Medes and Babylonians, and has since then remained a heap of ruins. In its famous library, established by Ashurbanipal, have been found thousands of baked clay tablets containing invaluable historical, religious, and business documents and letters. Above all others, this discovery has enriched our knowledge of ancient Assyria and Babylonia.

The book "Two Babylons" has had an impact in various religious, as well as Adventist circles, however its historical accuracy remains a subject of debate.
It really isn't surprising to see his ideas expressed in many 19th century protestant commentaries, even persisting into the 20th century, dealing with Genesis 10 and linking that to Revelation's depiction of an end time Babylon.

If one takes his book as one man's study, that's one thing. He has some interesting historical information. There are lots of facts. Yet, as even Gary agreed, Hislop was not inspired, which means, what Hislop wrote was what Hislop thought was correct. He followed a narrow trail in presenting history, fitting everything in to his hypotheses. But there is a lot more to history. There is other evidence that Hislop's road may have some problems. So don't be closed to other information that shows there was more.

The biggest thing for me, is that God's truth was also revealed, It's true that Satan produced counterfeits of every truth. Paganism is full of these counterfeits.
But just because there was a counterfeit, it does not make truth, pagan.

In your last paragraph are you suggesting Hislop said truth is pagan?

I don't understand your comment in your next to last paragraph either. Don't be closed to other information? Where have I ever given evidence that I'm closed to learning? What "problems" do you see in Hislop's ideas?

Hislop had one train of thought to express, to show how paganism has been incorporated into Christianity. Why would he incorporate other ideas into that? It would simply be a distraction from his overall theme. Just like Ellen White going down rabbit trails of specific pagan history when her big theme was the history of the conflict between Christ and Satan.