Talk:The Two Babylons
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page
|
||
 |
The Two Babylons has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Hislop used several sources. He used Layard [1]. (more to come).
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] "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)
[edit] 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 on 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
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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".
- )
