What Our Ancient Ancestors Knew! THE TWO BABYLONS by Rev. Alexander Hislop - A Book Resource Page

ABOUT THE TWO BABYLONS:

About the book, The Two Babylons: The Two Babylon's was written by the late Reverend Alexander Hislop in pamphlet form in Edinburgh in 1853, greatly expanded 5 years later and has since appeared in many editions in both Great Britain and the United States. Doubtless, his proximity to Edinburgh, especially at that time in history opened many doors and avenues of learning for him. He was a very intelligent, well educated and respected man. He authored quite a few essays and books but he is best known as the author of THE TWO BABYLONS. A book considered by many Christians to be a/the classic in the study of Christian Apologetics.

RECOMMENDED READING!

CONCERNING THE BOOK: A Plea For Discernment

1. I Highly Recommend Reading The Two Babylons. The Two Babylons has made an impression on my life, but I do not consider it to be comparable to The Bible. One should always remember to use discernment. There is only one Bible; all other books are just books. Though a classic in the study of Christian Apologetics The Two Babylons is no different. It is still just a book.
   - Read More on this subject below:

   Read My Book Review:
   Combined review of Alexander Hislop's THE TWO BABYLONS, and Ralph Woodrow's THE BAYLON CONNECTION?

"To all my brothers and sisters in Christ who feel that finding Babylonian origins for present-day customs or practices is of great importance, my advice is to move cautiously in this area, lest we major in minors. If there are things in our lives or churches that are indeed pagan or displeasing to the Lord, they should be dealt with, of course. But in attempting to defuse the confusion of Babylon, we must guard against creating a new "Babylon" of our own making." (quoted from The Babylon Connection? - page 32.) READ MORE . . .

2. PAGAN SYMBOLISM IN CHRISTIANITY

Pagan Symbolism in Christianity? I have received numerous e-mails addressing the issue of Pagan Symbolism in Christianity. Feeling it best for those "seekers" who have come across my site to "search God's face" and make their own decisions; I hesitated at first to addressed these issues. After much reflection on some of the responses I received, putting my two cents in for what ever worth, seemed more and more appropriate. So that is what I finally did and wrote the following:

Addressing The Issue And How To Handle the Questionable Origins of Ancient Symbolism In Christianity Christmas-Easter: Danger! When Christian Apologetics Evolve Into A Religion

For Further Reading: I recommend this essay Where is Christ In Christmas? Rethinking a Pagan Holiday from a Judeo-Christian Perspective by Christian Author, Helena Lehman:

"Some may say that it is wrong to try to hide Christmas’ pagan roots with Christian trappings. They insist that for a Christian to celebrate Christmas in the traditional manner, they must forsake Christ for a lie. I am not, however, convinced of this. For I believe that the pagans once knew the true God and how to worship him. They, like Abraham, were also descendants of the righteous man Noah and his godly family. They all originally were of one religion, one race, and one language. That, however, changed forever at the tower of Babel, when God confounded the languages of men and made them incapable any longer of communicating freely and easily together. This caused men to separate into distinct linguistic groups, which ultimately led to the many languages, races and religions we have on the earth today. Though many world religions are drastically different than Judeo-Christianity today, some still retain a few symbols and beliefs which arestrikingly similar. It is possible, therefore, that many of the symbols associated with pagan religions had a Judeo-Christian meaning at the time of Noah, but these meanings were subsequently lost or obscured." (quoted from Where is Christ In Christmas? Rethinking a Pagan Holiday from a Judeo-Christian Perspective by Helena McNeilly)

3. OUT OF CONTEXT! While surfing the internet, I have came across sites that use Hislop's classic, The Two Babylons, as a foundation to support views advocating anti-Semitism, racism, debunking of the Biblical doctrine of the triune nature of God, etc. Such views are not supported by Hislop.

4. QUESTIONABLE ARGUMENTS? In writing THE TWO BABYLONS, Hislop in his passion and zeal for the subject and position he was advocating at times erred as all humans do by trying too hard to be convincing. Hislop writes as a man unquestionably convinced in every point he brings up and seems to expect his reader to do likewise. I hesitate way short of being unquestionably convinced of all of his conclusive arguments. Neither do I advocate a complete dismissal of The Two Babylons in entirety based on a number of however's.

However's:

• Hislop was well educated
• A formal education of any kind in that era emphasized a good working knowledge of classical literature
• His proximity to Edinburgh, especially at that time in history opened many doors and avenues of learning for him
• His knowledge of classic literature, philosophy ... like many of even the "average" well educated of his time in many ways far surpassed modern students of today.
• Hislop first handed out The Two Babylons in pamphlet form in Edinburgh in 1853, His subject would have been "well known" to his intended audience
• He studied his subject extensively.
• His notes are extensive.

Hislop obviously spent much more time than most modern writer's and researchers today would on his subject. He studied his subject extensively. His notes are extensive. Doubtless, his proximity to Edinburgh especially at that time in history when a formal education emphasized a good working knowledge of classical literature, opened many doors and avenues of learning for him. His knowledge of classic literature, philosophy, greek mythology ... like many of even the "average" well educated of his time in many ways far surpassed modern students of today. Lastly, Hislop first handed out The Two Babylons in pamphlet form in Edinburgh in 1853, His subject would have been "well known" to his intended audience.

Conclusions:

• I do not question his ability to write on his subject as some have.
• I do question some of the hard and fast conclusions he makes.

He writes quite a bit on certain doctrines and traditional practices of the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian and Pseudo-Christian Religions not being Biblical. Some points I agree on. But then the word religion by it's very definiton is not Biblical in that religion is man's attempt to reach God and save himself. Salvation comes only by God himself saving man. Salvation is by Grace not by deeds. God Himself provided The Way to Salvation and it is not by the workings of mankind. Remember the selfishness of Cain and his inability to understand. Remember you can do all the right things for all the wrong reasons; just as easily as you can do all the wrong things for all the right reasons.

I basically agree with Hislop on many things in the broadest scope of his arguments in regards to the Roman Catholic Church and various other Christian Religions and Pseudo-Christian Religions. But ...

Though I Am Impressed. Even so, the book has impressed me not so much by Hislop's declamations against the Roman Catholic Church, though this was the purpose of his writing THE TWO BABYLONS. What impressed me so much is that here was one of the first books that I had come across examining how the ancients had KNOWN of God’s promise of “the seed of a woman.” They had known of the earliest sections of the Bible and the implications. They had known!

God's Promise Of "The Seed Of a Woman." Just as the Bible indicates even in the beginning, but I did not fully realize it until the fact was pointed out to me and underscored via reading THE TWO BABLONS, our ancient ancestors had known of the promise of "the seed of a woman." They may have not fully understood, but they knew.

Our Most Ancient Ancestors Had Known!

Read More ...

---

In July 1999, an email was sent to me which brought up some points, many of which I feel deserve to be heard.

* NOTE: Publishing the following does not mean that I personally agree with all that was stated in this message. The fact is I don't feel that I have the expertise to comment on some of the following issues either way. Note; permission has been granted for me, via e-mail, to quote the following:

Anonymous writer: Hi. I have just been to your page at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6849/TwoBabylons.html Hislop did publish a few other things, of an ecclesiastical nature. If you wish, I could get the titles for you. As for TTB itself, I think Hislop uses some dangerous types of argument. The Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of it, apparently - and why not? His reasoning could be used to "show" that the doctrine of the Trinity is false. Even though that was not his intention. As for his main contention - that Catholicism is really Babylonian religion "revamped" - I think it does not stand up. Apart from anything else, he focuses on the deified Nimrod and deified Semiramis - but says nothing about all the other Mesopotamian deities. Perhaps he lived just too early to be able to take account of them - he died in 1863;the "Babylonian Flood" narrative was discovered in 1872. If Catholicism, thousands of miles and 2000 years distant from post-Flood Mesopotamia, is "Babylonian", because of all those similarities he finds, why not look at Israel, which was nearer by far, in both time and space, to Babylon? Israel and Babylon had covenants, flood-narratives, wisdom literature, and a whole environment in common, after all. And if you want an Egypt-Israel correlation, Psalm 104 has resemblances to the "hymn of Akhenaten". The list goes on. If Israel is not pagan - we're talking about the things that were not denounced by (say) the prophets - even with so many influences from her neighbours, why should Catholicism be judged pagan? Another weakness, beyond Hislop's ability to correct, is his using too small a base of knowledge. He was in no position to make use of what is now known of (say) the Hittites, the Canaanites, and a number of other ancient civilisations. He does not, I think, make use of any of what was known of the various languages. Everything is "Chaldee". My last complaint is that Nimrod is not known to any of the King-lists of the Mesopotamian Kingdoms. (I want to check up this "early Semiramis" idea of Hislop's). And one could go on. Perhaps I should apologise for being so destructive? Please do accept my good wishes. And please tell me - if you like - whether you would like some info. on Hislop's other publications.

Other Books and Manuscripts by Rev. Alexander Hislop :

The following by Alexander Hislop can be read online THE RED REPUBLIC; OR, SCARLET COLOURED BEAST OF THE APOCALYPSE

The following information was provided by an online friend, who gathered the info from an Opac Author Search for Hislop A [source - University of Edinburgh Library] :

MY NOTES FROM THE BOOK:

• Definitions [A-B] [C-H] [I-K] [L-Q] [R-T] [U-Z]
• Symbols [from "Bee" to "Zero"]

  
  
  (Source of Notes: Hislop, Rev. Alexander. The Two Babylons; or the Papal Worship: Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife. Loizeaux Brothers: Neptune, New Jersey. 1959.)

  ---