Well it's pretty turgid stuff don't you reckon? Have you seen it?
Book: Two Babylons - anyone read it ?
by *lost* 24 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
*lost*
Slim - no, that is why I am asking. so can you tell me your views ?
-
transhuman68
It's here in PDF: http://archive.org/details/thetwobabylonsor00hisluoft
if anyone could care...
-
*lost*
Trans - thanks.
Is it that bad then ?
-
Phizzy
It really is the most awful nonsense in the conclusions he draws, the Rev. Hislop was a rabid anti-Catholic, had little or no knowledge of ancient languages and etymology and makes some really massive assumptions based on nothing.
What I found interesting when I read the book as a callow JW youth was the parallels in Pagan myths to Christian stories, quite worrying it was to me, that right from the Book of Genesis through to the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus and its features, the Pagans had got there first !!
Towards the end of the book Hislop gets quite Russell like in his interpretation of scripture and prophecy.
An interesting read if you like stuff such as this, the "Finished Mystery" by "Russell" (posthumosly LOL) is just as bad, "Babylon the Greast has Fallen...." an early '60's bok by the WT makes similar mistakes.
-
*lost*
phizzy
but, isn't the church all based on roman and greek paganism ? there are parrallels
-
processor
I've read it once, even in English. (Where's my medal?) .... Well ... it's interesting, fascinating ... and grossly wrong.
It contains lots of speculation, and then logical and correct reasoning. But correct and logical reasoning from wrong assumptions is still wrong.
-
Terry
Years ago I wrote about the rotten core of counterfeit "scholarship" contained in THE TWO BABYLONS and how it influenced the doctrines
and public vitriol of Jehovah's Witnesses.
here is the Topic:
Alexander Hislop was rabidly anti-Catholic. He made Martin Luther pale in comparison. Taking his cue from Luther's own references to the Catholic Church as "Babylon the Great", Hislop set about writing a scathing pamphlet comparing ancient Babylon, pagan worship and devilish influences with the practices and core beliefs of the Church.
Hislop used four combined processes to accomplish his screed and make it compelling "proof" which might convince those predisposed toward his theories.
1.Hislop cherry picked minutia. He strained seeming connections where there weren't any and drew conclusions through false analogies. He drew on similarities and ignored differences.
2.Hislop partially quoted historical sources, misquoted and often misrepresented his connections by simply distorting the facts.He drew parallels of practices into a false conclusion of cause and effect influences.
3.Hislop invented out of whole cloth significances which weren't called for and used them to build even greater strained arguments. He used partial information and not entire contexts.
4.Hislop painted with a broad brush while amassing a mountain of irrelevancies. He employed a scholarly tone of academic neutrality while employing ad hominems to poison the reader's conclusions. He failed to emphasize when his speculations were passed off as fact based.
Hislop was compulsively obsessive in his finding "clues" everywhere which supported his thesis that the Catholic Church was infested with pagan encroachments. Yet, Jehovah's Witnesses made his excess seem like forebearance by comparison.
Jehovah's Witnesses find the stench of Satan, paganism, demonism and evil influence in almost every human activity under the general heading of WORLDLINESS.
By painting the world black and discrediting those who oppose them they've painted themselves into a tight little corner kingdom in a matchstick castle above the clouds.
Crack open a Governing Body member and you'll find a tapeworm of conspiracy theory chomping away at sanity.
Proof isn't proof at the Watchtower. It is a reconstruction like Frankenstein's monster kept alive by flashes of "new light" made up as needed to revitalize their quivering monstrosity.
At first glimpse it looks like science. But, when the smoke clears it is madness and obsession riven with fierce contrarian nincompoopery.
-
itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat
Yes front front to back. Tough read, and I love History. As already mentioned shakey research, and foundations for this book.
-
Sapphy
If you liked the 'Da Vinci Code' and hate Catholics, then you'll love "The Two Babylons".