Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons" is Not Reliable
Before you accuse me of being a secret Jesuit, I would like to inform you that my quest to discredit "The Two Babylons" is because of its faulty writing and argumentation. I personally have the book but the book itself is filled with logical errors, myths and fables. I would like to point out reasons why the book "The Two Babylons" is not reliable.
I. Reasons Why The Book is Not Reliable For Study
The book itself is full of guilt by association arguments instead of using the Bible as a parameter for rebuking Catholicism's unbiblical practices
More often than not, Hislop's arguments in the book are based on guilt by association. For a Presbyterian pastor, he sure fails to use the Bible as the parameter for right and wrong. It becomes really faulty when all you do is base on what pagans do. For example, Taoists and Buddhists both involve in the idolatry of the worship of the Queen of Heaven while they are involved in charity work. If we are to base everything wrong from what pagans do then the righteous act of charity work therefore is also as wrong as worshiping the Queen of Heaven. More often than not, Hislop does not really argue properly.
The problem of guilt by association arguments to rebuke Catholicism usually ends in circular arguments. In one debate between an Independent Fundamental Baptist (who was also a Brider) vs. a Catholic Faith Defender, both of them never got anywhere. The IFB argued that worshiping Mary was wrong because pagans worship the Queen of Heaven. On the other hand, the CFD said that well pagans also help others so is it wrong. Then one nonsense argument after the other made the debate a real laugh to watch.
The Nimrod/Semiramis/Tammuz accounts are highly unreliable
Another issue I have are the Nimrod/Semiramis/Tammuz myths. Sad to say, this is bad theology to which the more I search for their accounts, one account keeps contradicting another. I read "Babylon Religion" by David W. Daniels. Although it's much less laced with guilt by association arguments and also points out the truth that paganism also copies from the Bible (ex. Hercules is based on the truth about Samson's superhuman strength from God and that Adonis' story was copied from the truth about Moses) but the Nimrod/Semiramis/Tammuz accounts are just contradictory.
One account after the other is confusing or even faulty. One account says that Semiramis is the mother of Nimrod. Another account says that Semiramis is the sister of Nimrod. One says it was Nimrod who married his mother. Another account says that that Tammuz not Nimrod married his mother. Hislop's use of the unreliable accounts of Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz are pretty messy. He should have just simply focused on what's wrong with Catholic doctrine instead of bring up the shabby accounts that usually contradict each other.
II. Sound Anti-Catholic Literature as Alternatives To "The Two Babylons"
If you want reliable books on Catholicism, one should consider this. The parameter to determining right from wrong is the Bible. Sad to say but as I just mentioned earlier, Hislop's arguments are faulty and illogical. One may consider that Hislop may have written some sound literature but sad to say, "The Two Babylons" is not one of them. I would highly discourage that book and start to search for better materials instead. In being credible to apologetic ministries, one must make sure to be studying sound literature.
In my case I would recommend "Truth Encounter" by Pastor Anthony Pezzotta a former Catholic priest now a Baptist pastor. Other books you can read are "Understanding Roman Catholicism" by Rick Jones and "Answers to My Catholic Friends" by Thomas F. Heinze. These books take a non-compromised but gentle approach on Catholicism. They provide direct answers Roman Catholics need to know about their religion. While they don't compromise the truth but these books I just recommended are far more direct to the point.
Just remember, always use the Bible as the parameter to determine right from wrong.