Changes

Historians who have carefully researched the historical claims made in this book, and the source materials that author Hislop relied on, have determined that he is unreliable as an historian. Almost all of his "facts" are shown to be false, and his reasoning from superficial similarities of appearances and ritual actions is demonstrated to be completely unsound and without merit as "proofs" of pagan origins. This has demolished his credibility. 16th–19th century anthropologists who were contemporaries of the authors of his source materials have also shown that even among historians in the 16th–19th centuries most of his sources had no reliable historical credibility as researchers.

Historians who have carefully researched the historical claims made in this book, and the source materials that author Hislop relied on, have determined that he is unreliable as an historian. Almost all of his "facts" are shown to be false, and his reasoning from superficial similarities of appearances and ritual actions is demonstrated to be completely unsound and without merit as "proofs" of pagan origins. This has demolished his credibility. 16th–19th century anthropologists who were contemporaries of the authors of his source materials have also shown that even among historians in the 16th–19th centuries most of his sources had no reliable historical credibility as researchers.

Impartial and objective evaluations by non-Catholic reviewers of this book have also determined that it is simply a [[Slander|calumny]] against the Catholic religion. This has refuted his Christian integrity as a writer. This does not prove that Alexander Hislop was a [[Lie|liar]], but only that his book is full of [[falsehood]]s. There is a difference. He may indeed have been sincere in his belief. His [[Research|methology]] was entirely wrong. His conclusions are [[error]]s.

Impartial and objective evaluations by non-Catholic reviewers of this book have also determined that it is simply a [[calumny]] against the Catholic religion. This has refuted his Christian integrity as a writer. This does not prove that Alexander Hislop was a [[Lie|liar]], but only that his book is full of [[falsehood]]s. There is a difference. He may indeed have been sincere in his belief. His [[Research|methology]] was entirely wrong. His conclusions are [[error]]s.

Individual Christians who have enthusiastically read ''The Two Babylons'', and dismissed all criticism against it as negative [[propaganda]], and made the effort to diligently research its claims in order to defend it, have been profoundly disappointed in the book and its author, whom they assumed was telling the truth. Many of them have been astonished that a book so fully discredited should still be sold in Christian bookstores and recommended by online internet Christian sites. It is still being promoted as factual truth.

Individual Christians who have enthusiastically read ''The Two Babylons'', and dismissed all criticism against it as negative [[propaganda]], and made the effort to diligently research its claims in order to defend it, have been profoundly disappointed in the book and its author, whom they assumed was telling the truth. Many of them have been astonished that a book so fully discredited should still be sold in Christian bookstores and recommended by online internet Christian sites. It is still being promoted as factual truth.