Sorry, Fram, but my "pet theory" encompasses mythology, religion, history, archaeology, astronomy and more, so why "stick to genesis?"

HOWEVER, are you calling me a liar?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

"mythological" as in "a godlike description of human events"?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Well, you posted (and I'm paraphrasing here), "I don't mean to insult you", and then you went out of your way to be insulting. It's something I couldn't ignore.

Fantastic investigative work, A.DIM! Of course anyone who bothered to look at the BABBling photos page would see a picture of me there...

I sing it every morning to the tune of "daisy, daisy". It has a "calming" effect.

And you have yet to answer the question...(in your opinion) where did Sitchin get it wrong??

I was only able to get through 3 pages of Sitchin's book because he uses un-provable, un-founded, and un-examinable assumptions AS IF THEY WERE FACTS. I think that it shows a great deal of intelligence to have stopped when I did.

The problem is that you've posted so many "crank" sites in an effort to support your claims, that after a while I DON'T LOOK...but to be fair, re-post the "citations" you are speaking of, and I'll examine them very closely.

OH, and I looked over this link...
Views on Agricultural Origins
...and I don't see how it in any way supports your ideas...

A "no model" is not "Sitchin's model".

Yes, I realize I should've remarked on the hybrids before conveying the procreation idea. I'm sure from time to time I've been unclear in explaining myself, which is why I suggest others read the works that form the basis of my "pet theory."
According to the Myths, the "gods" met in assembly to discuss the mutiny of the anunnaki. A "primitive worker" is suggested and Enki exclaims "the creature whose name you uttered exists!" "all we need do is bind upon it the image of the gods." The resulting creation was a "hybrid" - part earthling hominid, part anunnaki - and like many hybrids couldn't procreate. Now, I've not said homoerectus or any other hominid relataive couldn't preocreate, right? But what we see is an evolutionary "bottle neck" in SE Africa where homosapiens arose. This coincides with the sumerian ABZU, where Enki, accompanied by Ninhursag, created the "mixed one" as well as oversaw the mining operations.
Ever read about the ancient mines discovered in SE Africa?
Hmmm....
Anyway, I've managed another tangent which reinforces my opinion that more familiarity with Myth would serve you well.
Relying on only my words to debunk my "pet theory" will only result in the back & forth we have now.

OK, I think I've done both. I've acknowledged that an explanation was unclear and confusing (which I stated when making the post in question) as well as attempted to clarify what I meant. And although I outright admitted that my summary would likely be confusing, you post a blurb asking various questions and making suppositions that would likely be answered through more familiarity with the Myths, in a dismissive tone, no less.

See above.
But how did I imply that you "cannot restate them?"

This is exactly what I'm talking about, Fram. How can you actually expect to "learn" any of this if you can't even read the Myths in question? "Unconvincing and boring?" Well, I don't think they are to convince you of anything, and "boring" only shows that you're really not interested in the Myths themselves, right?
So you're interest here is not really to analyze what they may be saying literally, but to "debunk" my "pet theory" based on only what I may post.

Familiarity with the Enuma Elish, or Seven Tablets of Creation, would enlighten you and how you perceive the "creation of heaven and earth" story.
The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Atra Hasis texts would expand your understanding of the events that led up to the deluge.

There are more, but this is sufficient to show that you're not really interested, no?

I think I've shown "in what way."

[quote]What's so tough? If I misinterpret you, say in what way. If my questions show a misunderstanding of your posts, try to say it another way, explain yourself, enlighten me. But if you are planning to treat me and every questioning soul in this way, you may be assured: I'll ignore you from now on, and I'll stick to those persons around here who try to teach and be teached, learn and be learned.
...should'nt have happened when it did.
But, "what a difference," you say?
Read closely about the origins of seed domestication and agriculture in any of the links provided by Outcast or myself, or any other source for that matter, to better understand what is meant.

This one was pretty good. Recall the conclusion?

"Agricultural origins cannot at present be conclusively proven to have begun close to 10,000 years ago when additional evidence for agriculture extends further back in prehistory. What can be unequivocally stated is that agriculture had already emerged several times in numerous parts of the world in the last 12,000 to 20,000 years, and possibly as early as 50,000 years ago, with the last 6,000 years producing the most evidence for this cultural phenomenon.
New findings challenge the hypothesis that humans first began as hunter-gatherers and later evolved to agriculturists some 10,000 years ago—a hypothesis that at present has no solid basis in proof, yet is readily believed by many.
Genetic manipulation of plants, particularly cereal grains, occurred at some point in prehistory by people who already had the knowledge to do so. These same people created a vital and lasting human food source, no doubt for very specific reasons.
In each of the major areas of the world where plants and animals were domesticated, we find legends, both written and oral, describing the origin of agriculture as a gift of the gods, culture-bearers who taught indigenous peoples agriculture and the sciences of civilization. (I have written about this elsewhere, in an article soon to be posted on this site.) Could this possibly be coincidence, the accident of mere imagination?
Our ancestors left us more than bones, seeds, stone tools, priestly cults and ritualistic incantations to exotic gods—they left us examples of extraordinary feats of engineering, architecture and sustainable methods of agriculture. They left us legends, myths, epics, and sagas. Isn’t it about time we hear them out?"

My emphasis.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Yeah, well, IMHO, your remark about the OT, to which I responded, was totally off-base if one knows that the OT is mostly historically accurate, aside from scant, if any, evidence for the Exodus.
And I've never said that "because it is written" proof exists for ancient astronauts.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

So are you saying, then, that you're not aware that "The Seven Tablets of Creation," the "Chaldean Genesis," The Epic of Gilgamesh and Atra Hasis, among others, were the "original" from which the biblical redactors took?

Personally, I think you're playing semantics.

The Seven Tablets of Creation by LW King.
The Chaldean Account of the Deluge, by G. Smith.
The Bible:

"Modern scholars believe that the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh, was composed by four or five writers between 1000 to 400 BCE based on much older traditions."

Justified, no?

Perhaps I should've stated "sources" rather than origins, but in this instance, according to me.

"Babbling," Informant?
It is clear that you've either done no independent reading on the OT's origins, or you're mincing Outcast's words in order to make him appear as a "flip flopper."
THAT's what I'm babbling about.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

No, I said I don't mean to "belittle," BUT it is clear that his understanding, like yours, is superficial.

Heh, well, I saw your pic on a FWIS thread. You're standing next to the BA in your hat beard and glasses with hands in pockets and an expression like, "I'm a debunker, too!"

Ah yes, a calming charming effect.

"And (I) have yet to answer the question?" You say that as if I'm obliged to say "where Sitchin got it wrong." But then, I can't say exactly where, only that I don't subscribe 100% to his work.

OK, can you give me any examples, through page 3, of the "unprovable, unfounded and unexaminable assumptions?"
Or have you pulled such a phrase from your pseudoskeptic's shelf of stock retorts?

"Crank" sites such as?

No, it's not a "Sitchin model" but curiously, Sitchin's theories answer those questions as to why it came about when it did, where it did.
Then again, it's not really Sitchin's theory since Myth and Religion texts tell us where Ag and Civ came from - "the gods."

But the point is that the Origin of Agriculture is not nearly asunderstood or cut & dry as the naysayers have maintained.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

The fact that we can't exactly pinpoint evolutionary event from thousands of years ago still is no reason to me to assume the myths have the literal answer. IMO the discovery of agriculture -notwithstanding the fact that it was a very,very handy discovery- is not THAT spectacular that I find it more probable the gods came down to teach us instead of we (accidentally) discovering it. Plants grow where plants want, man seeks plant, man wants plant to grow where man is, man discovers agriculture. OF COURSE that is much more easy to say than to do, but again in my opinion this is much more likely than needing gods to show us.
But I can believe that when man finally discovered agriculture, they found it "a gift of god" because it helped them so much. And in fact it was god who told them agriculture: you can see that new trees start to grow underneath older ones, how plants spread their seeds and multiply over the seasons. My opinion is that interpreting the myths/bible gives more insight in history (amongst others) than taking them literally.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I'm usually not "aware" of unproven theories like that one.

Outcast uses the fact that the stories in a couple of books in the Old Testament are similar to Mesopotamian myths to claim that "the Bible", or "the Old Testament" is "without doubt, a rewrite of older [Mesopotamian] texts", and I'm the one who's playing semantics?!
Very funny, A.DIM. :roll:

No.
It doesn't say that those traditions were non-Jewish, now, does it?

I've seen you and Outcast make this fallacy over and over again, and it's an extremely poor argument that you really should get rid of. Being "based on an older tradition" does not necessarily mean "being based on a foreign tradition".

These two sources say that the Book of Genesis can be traced back to the Mesopotamian Enuma Elish. I already knew as much (and you knew that I knew), but the Book of Genesis is hardly most of the Bible, or even most of the Old Testament.

Sorry, but that's not enough.
What else have you got?

I don't need to make Outcast appear as a flip-flopper. He does the job much better than I ever could.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

But I'm not responding to their theories, I'm responding to what you post. You have started this sex / hybrids / thrown out thing, and I try to make sense of what you say. Don't hide behind what the myths say or what some people say that the myths say, defend or explain what you said yourself. Did you or did you not say that sex was teached to us(or that we were engineered so that we could have sex), that we were unable to have sex before the gods came here?
If yes: how did we exist and survive?
If no: why did we get thrown out because we discovered sex, if we had it already?

You post things that raise questions, I ask those questions, then you have to answer them. What's so difficult about this?

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

I would love to see what archaeological evidence you have for your theory, and I have seen what you reckon is 'astronomy'.
But what has the rest of the OT to do with it? That's the question. If the Encyclopedia Britannica has a rubbish article about whatever, say astrology, then the fact that all the rest of the EB is proven to be correct doesn't make that article correct. You are trying to prove that the OT is accurate in its description of prehistoric 'facts' because it is more or less accurate in its historic facts. I don't buy that.
And sorry if it appeared that I called you a liar, that was not my intention. The part about lying was a reference to the bible and to priesthood in general, where you use correct things (say, sunset, or the seasons), but you create causes for them (lies) so that you get more power and people start to rely on you. Start from controllable, verifiable, everyday things, and construct a web of lies around them. That is in my opinion how and why all these stories about the Gods / God were started and elaborated.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse