Talk:The Two Babylons

Neutrality Disputed

I tagged the submission on the grounds of neutrality. The "anti-Catholic" venacular assumes that any literature contrary to the Catholic Church is to be considered hostile. Clearly, the submission lacks a considerable defense for such a claim. Two Babylon’s is a religious literary piece which attempts to provide an anthropological and sociological account of the origin of a particular religion, and as with any controversial subject Two Babylon’s should be given the appropriate latitude. Furthermore, there is no clear way to assume the authors of the cited sources which purport an antagonistic claim share a particular agenda. Additionally, in its current state,the submission lacks an opposing counterview in defense of Hisop's thesis Hop goblin (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC). Hop goblin (talk)

Hislop used several sources. He used Layard [1]. (more to come).

I've tried to clean up some language

Remember we are trying to make this look unbiased. Present his opinions (slanderous though they be) clearly and allow the people to make the decision. I also would request more on his theories of the origins of Polytheism out of early monotheism. They are they only reason i enjoyed this book. His comparisons to Babylonian, Greek, and Egyptian religions to one another, and their source from the first part of Genesis, have far more basis then his claims against Catholicism's rituals. I realize he offends you but lets be dignified here. Just cause his writing is biased is no reason to be biased about the his article. 69.29.89.165 00:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've attempted to remove a lot of bias. Wiki is supposed to be objective, and this article clearly wasn't. Also, why is the section on Criticism filled with a long dissertation on Woodrow's theories and methodology. None of that belongs in this article, but in Woodrow's article. It should merely state that after publishing a book on the subject, he later came to reject Hislop's theories, and published a new book about it.71.183.62.71 (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Actually the recent edits have been factually false and POV. The book has zero scholarly credibility. The book is comparable to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That book also continues to have readership but like The Two Babylons it has been totally debunked. The edit that "his book continues to be used as a source among ... scholars of ancient history" is blatantly false and is, of course, unsourced because it is false. The edit saying it is used by "various Christian groups" is also misleading. No mainline demomination uses it, including Hislop's own Presbyterian Church. To say that the book is discredited, which was done with reliable sources, is not POV; it is plain fact. It is to say otherwise which is POV. Mamalujo (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Impact

This looks like a very standard crackpot religious pamphlet. Can anyone comment if it ever had any impact in its time? Pilatus 17:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It had a huge impact, though ironically the media of the day found it to be just as stupid as most of us find it today. This tract still has a lot of supporters: do a search for it on the web and you'll see numerous Christian apologetic sites source the entire document. It's even been quoted in Wikipedia by User:CheeseDreams, who decided that she would use it to support her POV pushing. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

Moved the section on criticism on the theses outlined in the work here. It's better to have it all in context. Pilatus 18:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ninus/Nimrod, and other issues

This article seems to present Hislop's dubious reading of the classical sources as though they are correct. Its presentation of the Semiramis legend does not seem similar to any such presentation that I have ever read, and it seems to accept Hislop's identification of Ninus with Nimrod, which seems problematic to me. Furthermore, Ninus is mostly the husband of Semiramis. This son is "Ninyas", or something similar, thus leading to the confusion and identification of the two. I also think that the whole Christmas/evergreen tree business is just made up. I think that this needs to be looked at by someone with greater familiarity with the actual Semiramis legend in order to isolate out which parts are actually based on the legend, and which parts are Hislop's inventions or near-inventions. john k 03:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Critisism has chat in it

It would appear that someone has mistaken the criticism section for a discussion board, and has added inline comments into it. Can someone who knows how the article should read please try to dissect out what is article and what is talk, and kindly move the talk stuff to here, for discussion. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

Two cleanup tags exist here. One is a general one --- and I think there may be some support on the talk page to justify it; though I think that the history suggests that many of the problems have been addressed. But I'll be damned if I can figure out why the limited geographic scope tag has been added to this page. If no one steps forward to clarify the problem, I will remove it. Smerdis of Tlön 23:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Weasel wording

The article says it is generally understood that the book's historical claims are inaccurate, but does not provide a source. The only specific criticisms cited are those of Woodrow's. Can we have some sources, please? They're especially important for controversial issues like this. Johnleemk | Talk 16:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Babylonian mystery religions"?

Were there any mystery religions (in the Greek sense) in ancient Babylon?? AnonMoos 11:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Similar ones. His book compares most polytheistic religions to each other. Essentially you have a precursor God (cush, marduk, bel, Chronos) whose child is the main God who is rarely pictured (Ninus, Rah, Zues) who has a child with a woman (Asherah, semaremis, Aphordite, Isis, Venus) who is the successor God/reincarnation of the father (Apollo,tammuz,Osiris,Cupid,Orion)

It is his theory that most polytheistic religions are derivative of each other. The origanel one being the Mesopotamian/early babylonian one, which he claims to be a rebellion against pre-judaism monotheism.

69.29.89.165 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Trinity in Unity

"What Hislop totally ignores are the documents he was unaware of since they were found after his writings."

This sentence makes no sense. One can not "ignore" what one has no possible knowledge of. One can be ignorant of a fact, but they can not ignore an unknown fact. Hopefully, someone who has expertise on this topic can correct this for proper meaning?

Eire1130 (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I noticed this too, that's why I came on the here to see if someone else had picked that up. It should be changed. Fritleyfrisp (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's also a biased statement that should be removed. There's no "documents," no Scriptural or secular evidence that the 1st Century Christians accepted a trinitarian Godhead. Three centuries later, it was a controversy, which became dogma at the Council of Nicene in 325. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.190.80 (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The new encyclopoedia Britannica says: "Neither the word Trinty, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4) The doctrine developed gradually over several centruies and through many controversies...By the end of the 4th centruy...the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." (1976) Micropaeda Vol.X p. 126

Also, The New Catholic Encyclopedia States: "The formulaton'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th centruy. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." (1967, Vol XIV, p. 299 submitted by cheryljm94

In the new testiment the word Trinity is not mentioned.  Even though, as Trinitarians acknowledge, neither the work "Trinity" nor a statement of the Trinitarian dogma is found in the Bible, some believe the concepts are embodied in that dogma.  Is this so?  Holy Spirit is a force, a helper,  not a person (Luke 1:41;Matt. 3:11;Acts 10:38) with no personal name. Jesus and God are not co-equal, co-eternal, co-powerful (Matt. 26:39;John 8:17-18;Col.1:15,16; Rev. 1:1,3:14;Mark 13:32;Matt. 20:20-23; Matt. 12:31-32:John 14:28;1Cor.11:3,1Cor.15:27,28; 1Cor. 8:5,6;1 Peter 1:3) submitted by cheryljm94

---

There are many english words that aren't found in the Bible, you can't use that argument to discount a concept/belief that's clearly taught. In the Shema, the word GOD (אלהים ) is ĕlôhîym, a plural noun. In Genesis, at the Tower of Babel, God says "Let US go down...." In the Psalms, God says "You are my Son...." When Jesus was baptized, the Spirit was present as was God who said "This is my Son, the Beloved...." This is an old quibble, long discounted.

RDSchaefer

---

Fair use rationale for Image:Two-babylons.jpg

Image:Two-babylons.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Poor Grammar/Spelling/POV

This article currently contains poor grammar and some spelling errors. Some of the phrases used are peculiar and seem like rambling. The POV is suspicious and may not be entirely neutral. (In general, the credibility of this article seems weaker to me than other Wikipedia articles.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.193.152 (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC) I agree. Though I figure you're being too kind in saying "may not be" instead of "is not".

)

Nonsense!!

Wow, the editor of this page seems very "confident" that Roman Catholicism is not Babylonish in origin. But is that really the case? May I ask what the "Religious Orientation" of the editor is? It wouldn't be Roman Catholic, would it? I will not bother to refute your allegations against Hislop, because I do not have knowledge to defend him or his work. However, there is plenty of evidence in the Bible itself to point to Rome as the Whore of Babylon, and I do not need anyone or any other book to support that "allegation", since the evidence is so abundant. This page is so full of anti-biblical and frankly anti-Christian statements that it discredits itself.

In my study, I have only found, not just evidence, but proof that the Catholic church canNOT be the aforementioned whore. A simple topographical map will show that the Vatican sits on only one hill, whereas the bible says that the whore sits upon seven. Either way - do you have a suggestion to improve the article? A specific sentence that needs revising? Or perhaps a reliable source to use? That is what these talk pages are for.Farsight001 (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain why the TRUE BIBLE KJV says that the Vatican's symblols are specified: symbols of authority, scarlet ect. Or why the Society of Jesus funded Hitler, and the pope said prayers with Hitler. Or why Dr. Alberto Rivera (ex-Jesuit Preist) found dead babies in Spain with hidden tunnels and chambers between a manastary and canvent. Or why he also found dead babies with the "PX" symbol all over them. And why several other witnesses were MURDERED several days later. Or why the Vatican stiill operates "THE HOLY OFFICE". No other religon calls itself "mother". The "virgin Mary" isn't a virgin read the bible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.218.70 (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Lesse...the KJV is one of the worst translations of the bible according to scholars. It never mentions the Vatican. The society of Jesus never funded hitler. The pope said prayers with Hitler because the Vatican would have been invaded and everyone killed if he did not appear to support Hitler. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, he was personally responsible for saving the lives of half a million Jewish peoples. Alberto Rivera is a long since exposed fraud - exposed by people who were fans of his until they exposed him. In conclusion - you are either a paranoid schizophrenic, or the most gullible person on the planet for falling for that stuff. Get help and go rant somewhere else. This talk page is ONLY for improving the article quality. Farsight001 (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you believed Satan's lies. And I told you that because there's a reason that the author said that. May God richly bless you. http://www.geocities.com/paulindab —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinoguy4 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Now you're not even making sense. You told me what because what author said what? I'm not a mind reader, you know. And like I said - this page is for improving the article ONLY. If you don't have a specific suggestion for improvment of the article, then you shouldn't be posting here.Farsight001 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Religious Bias

Methinks this article is a prime example of how Wiki articles should not be. There is a claim that the article was peer-reviewed, but it seems to have been reviewed by religious (roman-catholic?) peers and therefor trite with bias. The criticism mostly cited is of roman-catholic origin -- the very establishment Hislop is assailing. Although there are inaccuracies in Hislop's research (as is to be expected) his work is more of a historic nature as opposed to a religious. I suggest a more unbiased peer review by historians (preferably atheistic ones ;-) and leave God out of this. Whether a fulfillment of biblical prophecies or not, we're talking about an establishment that has had more influence over world history and humanity as a whole than an other before or after. If there is such a thing as Religious Evolution, this is it.--The Singularity (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, if anyone is biased, I would say you are simply because you are so quick to assume that the reviewer must be Catholic. Also - I have investigated Hislops claims fairly extensively IMO, and I must say that much of what he says is just plain false. However biased you may think the Catholic source you refer to is, it is still an accurate one. And of course, this talk page is for the improvement of the article. Please cite specifics that you wish to change. A general claim of bias regarding the article as a whole doesn't help much.Farsight001 (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, look up the word "trite" as you just used it incorrectly. I'm assuming you meant "rife", but I digress. You're making a mistake that's sadly common among smug teenage self-styled "atheists" in that you are conflating the Roman Catholic Church with the "Christian" "establishment", AKA "Organized Religion", that you abhor so, and therefore applauding the efforts of libelous conspiracy-minded Protestant fundamentalists. I assure you that Reverend Hislop, were he alive today, would be no fan of Planned Parenthood or the ACLU. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

His New Book Sucks As Bad as His First One

Ralph Woodrow appears to be like clay that holds the impression of the last argument he heard. His new book sucks just as bad as his first one. Neither of them is scholarly.69.19.14.21 (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, reputable historians seem to agree with Woodrow's criticism of The Two Babylons, and we here at wikipedia, as well as anyone with common sense, will side with those of reputation over those without it. In other words - the book doesn't suck and you are mistaken.Farsight001 (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Bold text

What's with the bold text in the quotations - this emphasis seems unneccesary, and possibly condescending - is there a reason for it, and if not, can it be removed?77.86.67.245 (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

---

This link does not work:

The Two Babylons:A Case Study in Poor Methodology

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

---

I have changed it to this: The Two Babylons:A Case Study in Poor Methodology. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)