Who is he?
Where did he come from?
Is he the God of the Bible?



Any wise enemy is better than an ignorant friend.


Visit Other Pages:

The story of Ishmael

The Bible and the future of the Arabs?

Meet Muhammed in the Hadith

Is Allah in the Bible?

Who is God?

Allah's original name

The journey of Allah from
Babylon to Mecca

What is the name of the God of the Bible in Arabic?

Al Injil-- The Good News

Appendix 3:
Alexander Hislop's Blasphemous
Mutilation of Daniel 11:38


While I found Alexander Hislop to be useful as a historic resource, I found he was a desperate man at times. He crossed bridges that did not exist in order to produce an unbroken line of logic. He started with a presupposition, and he then rushed in a straight line to an assumption. His information from India is a total mess, and some of his claims for ancient Rome are simply wrong.

Hislop's most blasphemous offense is in The Two Babylons, page 30-31, where he claims that the "God of forces," of Daniel 11:38, is in fact the pagan mother goddess of fortresses. This is astounding, and it falls right into the hands of modern feminist-goddess worshippers. Daniel 11 explains who the God of forces is in verse 38. The King James Bible translators capitalized God in verse 36, 37, and 38: Verse 36-- God of gods; Verse 37-- God of his fathers; Verse 38-- God of forces. All three times Daniel called Him, "the God," and the definite article indicates that all three times it is Elohim-- the Godhead.

This passage is speaking of the works of Antichrist, or the beast, and his coming seven years of rule on the earth as the false Messiah. The text shows that he, a Jew, will blaspheme all three members of the Godhead-- "the God of gods" or the Father, "the God of his fathers" or Messiah Christ whom he will reject just as the Jews did when Jesus came the first time, and "the God of forces" who is the Holy Spirit.

Because he ignored the translators' use of "God" in verse 38, and because he made the Holy Spirit the mother goddess of fortresses, I must conclude that Hislop was probably not even a born-again Christian. Those who claim to be King James Version Bible students ought to be more careful, since they are the ones most taken up with Hislop.



Back to Table of Contents