IN DEFENSE OF HISLOP
Critic#1 argues that since 150 years ago, Hislop's traditional Greek and Jewish historical sources have been today claimed (or proven) to have been "false" or "innacurrate", Hislop's "work" or "thesis" is therefore "Debunked". But as discussed above, this claim is not true. And the reason it is not true is that if you applied that standard written to anything "scholarly" in the 1800s, no matter who "wrote it" or no matter how "accurate it was" by standards and available information to the 1800s, none of it would be "accurate today". Because "scholarship" is a progressive science and art, is always changing, revising it's positions, changing it's chronologies, re-identifying who was really who in ancient history, re-doing time-lines, etc. What is claimed today based on "scholarship" will be nothing more than "sentimental" reminiscing 150 years from now. Some of it is due to real discovery, and unfortunately some of it is due to new political propagandizing, as has been pointed out on this site concerning the issue of "Passover" and the New Testament. So it should be noted, that just because something is popular now, when before it was not, doesn't automatically mean the most popular propaganda today, is any truer than it's counter-part of propaganda 150 years ago.
And whether or not you "accept" the Biblical record as a reference point for your "interpetation" of history, is a major point in that discussion. If you begin with the minimalist presupposition nothing in it, is actually true in any way, (and much modern scholarship has built it's entire construct on precisely this premise) then naturally the "interpretation" of the same set of facts, can logically follow to 2 entirely different conclusions. Hislop's greatest "sin" was "presupposing" a Biblical paradigm of history.
HISLOP'S ERROR ON NINUS AS NIMROD
Citing modern sources on "Nimrod" is pretty irrelevant because real modern sources do not actually accept there ever was a "Nimrod". Of course you can cite modern historians and "disprove" Hislop. You can also cite them to "disprove" there ever was a "Gan Edin", an "Abraham", an "Exodus", or even for some a "Jesus". So what? And for this "Hislop" is "debunked"? Not hardly.
In the end, the exact identification of "Nimrod" is totally irrelevent to the theological discussion provided by Hislop. Hislop identified Ninus as Nimrod because that is precisely what the Masonic, Greek and Jewish historical sources all cited as well. Perhaps they were wrong. But then again, perhaps they weren't. Every argument on the earth has a counter-argument for anyone who has either the brains or the time to invest in creating it. There are actually, believe it or not, some fairly intelligent people who spend their time arguing the earth really is flat, and NASA never went to the moon. Perhaps this is the result of too much medicinal marijuana. The only "measure" of "whether it is [considered] true or not" is the quantity of people deceived. And a majority of people have been deceived a number of times throughout history over all kinds of things. Even that sacred priesthood referred to as "the consensus of modern Scholars".
Almost all of the "specific arguments" of "German Higher Criticism" have been demonstrated to be unfactual. But it is still the most "popular approach" among a "consensus of modern Scholars". They just replaced the old erroneous theories with some new ones, that will take another 100 years to die out (which will then get replaced with some more "new ones") so that "higher criticism as a school" NEVER goes away. That's how the "knowledge" game is played.
Was Ninus "Nimrod"? Well the Masons of Hislop's day thought so, as did the Catholics, who also cited the same historical sources Hislop used. Hislop even going so far as to cite Eusebius himself in is arguments. Coming however, to completely opposite conclusions. The real question is not whether Hislop's identification of Nimrod was historically accurate by today's theories. The real question is whether or not his thesis was correct, of which each of his singular points of historical reference did nothing more than serve as historical illustrations. Can some of those illustrations be "inaccurate" and yet his thesis still be "true"? The answer to that question is a definite yes. In fact it is show here, particularly in regard to the solar-mass to Apollyon as a "Christ" mass, that Hislop greatest error was that he actually was way to lenient in his "interpretations". He often excused and dismissed things (even tried to "christianize" some things, such as "mistle-toe") that did in fact come from very pagan sources and for which there is especially today, absolutely no justification in "assimilation" for, whatsoever. (Even more so today) His information was "relative" to his time. And if anything, he was way too tepid and compromising, in his own argumentation.
But, here is where things get very complicated. His Biblical theological thesis (which is static with a static Biblical text) does not change, no matter what "current scholarship" may have to say about Nimrod, who he was, who he wasn't, when he lived, when he didn't, etc. Because the Biblical argument (regardless of how you interpret it's literal historicity) is about a "Perspective" of veiwing the existence and definition of historical things, in terms of their ontological elements. Historically speaking, there were people who did believe there was a Nimrod when Genesis 11 was written, otherwise Genesis 11 would have never been written as a rebuttal to begin with. Whether their "beliefs" that such was the case were "historically accurate" or not, is completely beside the point in the larger scheme of things. Because the point of it was to re-establish a monotheistic cosmology in the face of what was commonly believed by the surrounding world.
And here, Hislop's work, despite the changes in "modern scholarship", remain as valid as ever, as does the Biblical text he was using historical illustration to explain and argue. The Bible simply advocates the same claim as Hislop, thus the term "Mystery Babylon" (Secret Babelism). Which is in fact AN HISTORICAL REALITY. Confessed openly by both the Masons, and the Vatican's own material.
WHAT'S AT THE "ROOT" OF THE ALLEGED "DEBUNKING" OF HISLOP?
Here's where this discussion gets amazingly contradictory and complicated because of political reasons. The world in which Hislop lived, interpreted anthropological history within the limited box of the perspective of Hebrews in the middle-east. Men like Aurthur Custance, and Alexnder Hislop attempted to the "connect the dots" between historical information available in their day with Biblical text. Their explanations were as vulnerable to error, as the transitory knowledge of history, in the era in which they lived. This is always the problem with "scholarship". Prior to 1965, explaining the universe using both science and a Bible, would not have involved the Big Bang theory, because it did not exist. In 1964, you could have written a great book explaining Genesis through the lens of "modern science" and the "Steady-State theory". In 1966, it would have been "pulled of the shelf".
There recurring embarrassments for theologians have pushed them into 2 opposite directions (1) Never reconcile anything with the Bible, just cite the Bible and "ignore" science, knowing it will eventually change it's mind anyway (2) Ignore the Bible, because science is always in conflict with it, and it was written a long time ago anyway. And this itself has led in part to the "great divide" among Protestants of "liberal" and "conservative" persuasions.
Today, in reaction to previous simplistic ideas of a singular homogeneous source for the emergence of civilization, largely taken or mistaken, from the Biblical text, academia is emphasizing the "independence" of emergent civilization, rather than it's "inter-dependence", for the simple fact it is true there were at least six centers of emergent civilization, not simply one. But in attempting to go the other farthest extreme possible, it is necessarily maintained that there were no connections between any of them, even when concrete evidence surfaces, that there actually was. This information is not aesthetically pleasing to the "current model", so it is condemned, denounced, minimized and scourged. As though the information itself had made some moral mistake in simply existing.
Genesis 11 in KJV English does not read the same as Genesis 11 in Hebrew, as many places in the Bible do. The term translated "world", is actually the term "land", and usually referred to the Levant region. Claiming the Levant shared a common language is much different than claiming the "world" shared a common language. Noah's flood is another example. The English KJV text reads, the whole "earth", but once again, the term is "land", as in the Levant region. If the author had intended to claim it had been the "whole world" as we think of that term today, the same would not have recorded the existence of entire tribes of people, who survived from before the flood, only chapters later.
Reconciling Biblical texts with "modern science" is a difficult task, but not because of the Biblical text, but rather because of our "modern science". Modern scientists can't even reconcile themselves to one another, and their own competing theories, in may cases. If Biblical text is "reconciled to science", which "school of theory" get's the stamp of "Biblical text" behind it? Which then "messes up science", endorsing one school or theory over another?
At some point, science must be left to science, and Biblical text to Biblical text, and the integrity of both maintained, one to it's empirical studies, and the other to it's ontological understanding of what it means in existence. Hislop was not a work for the former, but the latter, and here it is still relevant as an early pioneering thesis.
For those who prefer to "ignore science because it's going to eventually change it's mind anyway", there is no reason to consider Hislop "Debunked", because the basis of the "knowledge" which is debunking him is "evolutionary science" and it's "interpretation" of emergent civilization (which conservatives do not accept anyway). So why would you then find "young earth creationists" suddenly having a fetish for "debunking Hislop", because these same "conservative" young earth creationists, are now pushing a Republican New World Order (restoration of the Roman Reich) agenda politically, and Hislop is a major "embarrassment" and obstacle in that political agenda for them. So he must be "removed".
On the other hand, and in the other extreme, "Liberals" reject Hislop because it is a theological cosmology based on an actual acceptance of Biblical text, and Biblical concept. Some of which was admittedly formed in the vacuum of an 1800s world-view on Biblical history as the sum total of history, which did not observe other centers of emergent civilization outside the middle-east. But just because there was not a single homogeneous source for all of civilization, doesn't mean therefore there was absolutely no connection between any of them at all (in the other extreme). Neither Minimalism nor Maximalism, are realistic theories. One no more than the other.
Hislop is not defended here because of Maximalism. He is defended here because he was an early Protestant pioneer in the advancement of an accurate theological thesis despite occasional (and sometimes still debatable) inaccurate examples based on the transitory historical knowledge of the time. A "crime" no more guilty than anyone else also writing, during this era, and adding to this "error" his Biblical interpretation of current history (which was also simply a common trait of the day in which he wrote).
His thesis however, remains as valid today, as when he first wrote, and there is even more evidence today for the claim Rome (and the Masons of the Church of England) did in fact "adopt" Babelism as it's "ecclesiology" and ultimately because of this, it's "politic", "economics","sociology", "spirituality" and ultimately "spirit".(i.e., consciousness) A consciousness that is contrary to the best of humanity, Christ, and the God of all life, in the universe.
NIMROD, PSYCHO-BABEL, AND THE VATICAN
Beyond who "Nimrod" really was in history, (which modern scholars do not even accept as historical in any form), The Bible is the "source" of Hislop's supposed "error" (if in fact there really is one beyond those discussed above). The Bible itself claims there is an unbroken chain in human history to it's "original origins". It doesn't necessarily claim that to have been "universal" as was interpreted from bad translations into English, but it does claim there is some, with particular focus on the Levant. That's not something Hislop "invented". That's the whole point of the book of Genesis. Genesis!
The Bible asserts the (steeple) of Babel. The Bible asserts it spread across the earth. The Bible asserts it all came from the same place and repeated the same patterns of apostacy and error in spiritual judgement. These things are asserted not in Hislop, but in the Scriptures itself. And that is not the only relevent point to all this. This is the whole point of the discussion to begin with, right here anyway...
Both the Masons and the Vatican believed it to be the case as well, but did entirely different things with that "belief", and that is precisely the point of both the Scriptures and Hislop on this subject. While Protestants sought to reconstruct genuine New Testament "Christianity" and purge these things from their religious practices, Masons and Romanists intentionally sought to integrate and duplicate them! The Masonic conception of "Solomon's Temple" being a virtual REPLICA of the BODHI TREE TEMPLE in Asia. (The Bodhi Tree is allegedly the oldest "Tree" in the world, supposedly grown from "sprouts" of the original "Buddhist" serpent tree of enlightenment) [Although "Modern Scholars" now also question if the historical Buddha ever had anything to do with it]
And despite the fact our quote "modern scholars" do not accept the idea humanity (and it's religions) had some common origins in Mesopotamia, it is not "without evidence" despite the fact it is without quote, "support". And this is a major distinction the average Christian should learn to make. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that is simply willfully "ignored" because the fastest way to dead end your academic career (especially when the University you work at, is dominated or sponsored by, finances and "chairs" from the "Church-state"), is to accidently say something that supports the Biblical account of anything. Anything at all. And now it is getting to be almost an issue of antisemitism in our universities, as it was in 1930s Germany.
And what is being willfully ignored is not only valid, it is extremely "scientific". In fact, it is as "state of the art" as it can get, down to the level of even modern "Genetics". There are a number of "anomalies" that are just simply ignored that a common origin, BEST accounts for. But do you think any academic (Christian or otherwise for that matter), in America, or anywhere else, is going to loose his entire career over pointing it out to anyone? If arrogant people wish to "believe", people just randomly popped up out of the ground all at the same time, all over the earth, and suddenly got bizarre psychological urges to waste decades of time, energy and wealth, building useless megalithic ziggerauts all over the world the same exact way, at the same exact time, which generated then spontaneous anomolous DNA matches, to go with their completely disconnected ziggerauts, why loose your career telling them what they would never "accept" anyway? Would you? Peer review is always cited as an important step in the "Scientific process", but if you know your "peers" will never accept the truth of something, no matter how true it is, because it is charged with biases, it will never become "Science", no matter how "factually Scientific", the truth of it actually is. This development is a necessary evil in the academic and scientific process, but that is in the end what it is. An evil. Because it relegates "truth" and thus even reality itself, to a collective "social" process, rather than an empirical one, attainable through individualism and real accomplishment.
One "empirical" fact, of which now on the "outside" of these "social processes", is the very odd realtiy that in tissue typing for organ donors and marrow matching, indigenous population groups on both continents, who have had no known "inter-marriage", find genetic "matches" in "far away" bizzare places, such as a "Native American" with a Greek, in Greece. Or even more embarrassing than this, cross "racial" genetics among "Whites and Blacks" on completely different continents. The National Morrow Donor program is well aware of these "embarrassing matches" which they have to literally "manage" as a "social problem", in order to do their job of tissue matching. (Because it is a "scientific truth" no one wants to acknowledge) These genealogical markers do not match just anybody, and the odds are beyond those found in lottery figures. Yet it is there, and these undeniable scientific facts, are simply patently ignored for theories in favor of Jungian psychology (because of the "social collective", rather than the empirical data).
"Historians" gravitate to "psycho-babel" theories, that all these people in all these different places, all had the same Jungian "urge" to just out of no where start building massive Megalithic ziggerauts (and we will just conveniently ignore the genetics, or interpret them in such a far out way, they make no connection). On every continent, among every people. They all just simultaneously got "jumpy" one day, and all accidently had precisely and exactly the very same identical "idea" down to minute architectural detail. And anyone that points to genetics, recreation of ocean crossing by early reed vessels done by exploratory scientists, the documented archaeological presence of both African and Caucasian remains in both North and South America, and matching petroglyphs on cave walls and stones, is just an unenlightened hillbilly. Seriously, that is precisely what is done here. Jungian psychology over hard science. (And the truth is, Jungian psychology is even questioned as "psuedo-science" by some behavioralists)
And once again, what is lacking in SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH, they make up for with smug attitudes and citation of all the other members that have "joined" their little snob "club" against you. Of course, they can never really explain why all the Scientists in Germany also supported cooked science for Nazism, or in the Soviet Union, for communist disinformation? But they are quite sure that if there are 40 of them and 1 of you, you're just a snot-nosed hillbilly from the Ozarks (no matter how stupid the theory is, they have all agreed to and been paid to, spread). And it is absolutely amazing how our "modern scholars" can skip over facts of archaeology, genetics, and anthropology, and in order to make appeals to Jungian psychology, and actually be taken seriously, and it's "critics" dismissed as "not scientific". But that is precisely what they are doing in this treatment of "history". (Remember now, this is what they are "using" to "discredit Hislop" with "modern scholarship") The same that is citing Jungian psycho-theory to explain all the simultaneous existence of all the megalithic Ziggurauts on earth. Really? Seriously? Jungian psychology?
SEE YOU ONE ARCHETYPE AND RAISE YOU ANOTHER:
(PLAYING POKER WITH JUNGIAN PSYCHOLOGY)
And even here, does Jungian psychology really even get Vatican and Masonic Babelists off the hook? Even if you "accept" the soft-science of Jungian psychology, why is there a collective archetype of such a thing to begin with? And if so, would it also not be a valid point of discussion that Genesis 11 therefore addresses that "collective archetype"? With another "collective archetype" that is critical, and argues the need for an evolutionary change in consciousness? Certainly, it would. Because the Antithesis of that archetype, is archetypal as well, therefore just as valid as an argument. One "archetype" certainly deserves another, does it not? Anyone can "play head games" with psycho-babel.
Hislop simply "illustrated" the Biblical paradigm with historical citations of his day. The New Testament, did prophesy a future emergent Roman religion (in Christ's name) [which it did do] which it did identify having it's origin in Babylon. Hislop by citing "historical sources" that were accepted for hundreds (actually even thousands of years) in western civilization, some of which even by the Catholic church itself, attempted to "illustrate" the Biblical theory. And because now these sources are questionable? Becuase it seems more "probable" to "modern scholars" they were all having issues with Jungian archetypes at the same time, producing the same architecture, all over the world, and creating strange genetic matchings to go with their disconnected psychological ziggerauts?
Hislop is "debunked"? And how exactly would this "Debunk" Hislop, and not the Masons? Who also used these sources, or the Vatican itself, some of which were even written by the Vatican? Would it not be much more logical to say, that the bulk of the "history of the world according to the Vatican" has been "debunked"? How is it that HISLOP, is singled out as the only one who gets "the honors" here when the Masons were standing on the left side quoting the same sources, and the Vatican was standing on the right side, doing the same thing itself? Oh, but of course, it's on Hislop, who is somehow is magically and uniquely "debunked" by these changes? How interesting. It's much like "selective memory" with these "critics", who when you track them down and demand confessions, will be found out to always have ulterior motives and political/religious agendas, often even openly admitted.
And the fact is, that much of what "modern scholars" replace the Biblical paradigm (that these things did have common origins) with is really on the verge of ludicrous, if you give it any serious thought, research or investigation. And it is often theory asserted in the face of contradictory evidence they simply choose to ignore, because no one wants to go down as the "dummy" who said the Bible was "true". That's pretty much ananthema to a career as an Academic these days. And not for any particular reason other than prejudice, and a distaste for "creation fundamentalists". (Which has nothing to do with this discussion, as it is an entirely different subject not even directly related)
WHAT HE SUPPOSEDLY "FAILED TO DO"
There are entire sections on this website that document with current scholarship exactly and precisely all four of these things, not just once, but several times over, and over and over. See any.
1. Prove that the RCC has knowingly adopted pagan beliefs and practices.
This is done by the Vatican itself. The testimony of Irenaeus, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Nag Hammadi library along with numerous other historical sources the Vatican itself has published including it's own Encyclopedia.
2. Give dates for the changes that would have taken place.
A. Council of Ephesus
B. Edit of Milan
C. Theodosius Codex.
3. Specify which cultures have provided the RCC with her inspiration.
4. Show how this was achieved.
SEE THIS ENTIRE SITE
So this "Critic" has admitted that these things actually demonstrate Hislop's thesis "correct" not "incorrect" as is claimed. Particularly in reference to the issue of the assimilation of Rome's Solar-mass to Apollyon as a "Christ" mass.