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".

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

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.

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

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

What evolutionary bottleneck? Are you trying to say that HS could not have evolved naturally, but that it has been 'manufactured', and apparently in a wrong way at first?
So they take some hominid (let's say Erectus), and first create a hybrid, oops, can't have children, let's try it again, hooray, we have Sapiens. Well, not too sapiens, they can't discover agriculture by themselves. So many orbits of their planet later, they decide to make their slaves a bit more useful, and they teach them agriculture. And law, and a load of other things, civilization for short. Correct?
You pointed me to the Enuma Elish as a truly astronomical text that we should read literal. It didn't convince me. What's so tough to understand about that? I have showed you repeatedly why to me it is a myth, a poetic translation of what was a mystery to them, not a description of truth. If that is the crux of your theory, why should I read more? And I have read more, and it was more of the same. I find it always funny how you and the sites you refer to can take a text literally, and then go on to discuss the variations on that text. I have tried to take them literally, and they turned to be rubbish in that aspect. But I'm still interested if someone comes up with an argument to convince me of the opposite. An argument, not a pointer to yet another text.
And I haven't seen one convincing argument for a deluge, so why would I care about the events that lead up to it?
And I don't see how me finding them boring can learn you anything about my interest in them. I have read a lot of myths from around the world, and some are fascinating, and some are boring, and most are a mixture of both. Genesis is facinating in many parts, Deuteronomium is utterly boring for the most. So what?
I like RAF's posts.
And I'm interested in learning anything, and it's fascinating how the theoriy about when and where agriculture developed isn't fixed and how we are still learning new things through archaelogy. But I'm not prepared to start reading texts again and again when you or anyone point to them, when the ones you did in the past were unconvincing and at odds with the claims you tried to make. I have tried to see your points by looking up your links, and that didn't work. Now I just take your claims at face value, and I try to discuss what you are saying, not what someone else says, or what you think they say. You make a claim, I consider it, and most of the ties, the claim an sich is illogical or even nonsensical, and your post exists in a string of unrelated statements which should make up a reasoning.

Yes, a true example of how you take some facts (we don't know yet exactly when agriculture evolved), ignore the facts that counter your theory (apparently it evolved multiple times, which is logical if you consider it possible for humans to develop it), and then throw in your own explanation as the only explanation. The part that you emphasize (about the previous knowledge of genetic manipulation) comes completely out of the blue in that text, and has no basis in what he explains before.

If something shouldn't have happened when it did, then you consider it impossible that it happened when it did. No? Because if you think it was possible, then there is no reason why it shouldn't have happened.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

A.DIM wrote:
How could a world famous, televised land mark of human history and exploration suddenly turn into a myth to be found right next to Jason and The Argonauts in your local library? Only way that to happen would be a 1500 year new dark age. If that were to happen then Mars Attacks! could become ancient mythology and would be debated on future internet message boards...

Make sure that more includes popular culture and you can't go wrong.

OH? You do use ancient myths as evidence of your theory and even said that along with ufology they provide 99% of the evidence, or why would you have told me this then?:

If this isn't meant as proof for your cause, and your not saying that "gods" were ET's, then what? That the OT depicts
actual ancient countries and peoples? That it has similarities with mesopotamian myths? yes it does.

And please, no matter how tempted, don't ask me to read anything again,
you've used that in just about every post.

And you're certainly entitled to your opinion, Nicolas.
But, IMHO, which I've shown is supported by science, Agriculture led to lesser nutrition and physical stature, as well as increased disease.
In my mind, this opposes Evolution.

I respectfully disagree.
For example, "God" in the Bible often conveys contradictory personalities.
How can one reconcile such hypocritical behavior as seen in "God" without acknowledging that it is the brothers Enki & Enlil of the mesopotamian pantheons who make up most of his character?
The mere fact that "elohim" is morphologically plural and should be read as "gods," literally, supports this.
Then again, as I've said many times before, it is only if one allows the ETH that reading such texts more literally can make sense.

__________________
"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

That depends which evolution you mean. Biological evolution? It ain't. It's behavioural, so it's cultural evolution. If you like scientifically backed theories, consider Maslow. Safety/certainty follows on the primary physiological needs. Following his theory, in any situation where man manages to succeed in his primary needs, he starts working on the following level.

As for the god/gods game:
-First one can see anything as multiple entities or one entity with multiple aspects.
-Second, how it is described does not matter for the reasoning I gave. One god or multiple (I'll take the singular form here, but multiple can be interchanged if you like), god is described as an entity which gives and takes, is feared and loved. Following that mechanism, the certainty accompanying agriculture is seen as a gift from god.

__________________
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.

Hmmm....

Yes, I think so, whether it's funny or not.

Who said anything about a "foreign tradition?"
Read closely what I said above about the "incontrovertible... primary stories... being condensed edited versions..." and your "objection" over those terms.
Are you really arguing with me over this?
Besides, the semites can be traced all the way to the Akkadians, no?
Are you aware of how closely related Sumer/Akkad was?
Here, try Sagas of the Hebrew Patriarchs and then tell me again about "foreign traditions," ok?

OK, you already knew as much and yet you "object" to my use of "condensed edited versions" of the primary stories?
Yeah, I still think it comes down to semantics. :roll:

I didn't think it would be enough, even though I stated "according to me."

I came acrossThe Origins of Biblical Monotheism and look forward to my copy.
Now, I know this doesn't address the NT remark, but it strengthens my (or Outcast's) assertions that the "bible is a rewrite."
I find it most satisfying that Sitchin's work continues to be corroborated by works such as this, some 30yrs later.

**snip**

edited to fix link

__________________
"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 difficulty lies in the apparent fact that you're not interested in scholarly review of the Myths in question, or even the Myths themselves.
The scholars listed were not to offer "theories," only insight, and as I've said, you responding only to what I post shows your interest is in "debunking" my "pet theory" based on only what I post.
I consider this pseudoskepticism.

The "yes" and "no" questions above were answered previously, I think.

__________________
"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

Oh, I see... the dope doling controlling astronomer-priests who came up with it all and then blamed it on the "gods." I believe we dealt with this at length sometime back in this thread, check it out; As many questions are raised as there are answers to this exaplanation.

But as far as the OT thing: What was once considered "myth" has been found factual. All I'm doing is asking, "If this is so, what emerges if we take it all as factual?" I've never said it "proves" anything.
Keep that in mind, eh?

__________________
"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

OK, explain to me how you read the Enuma Elish "literally," as an astronomical text? What was it describing?

Myths the world over relay such a tale. The end of the last ice age resulted in worldwide flooding. Megalithic sites around the world are being discovered that bespeak advanced civ before the event, and are often accompanied by "myths" of the "angry gods" destroying them.

But I know, you're not interested in enlightenment as far as understanding world mythologies, so... why would you care?

Indeed.
But from what you've posted, yours appears to be a superficial insight, accompanied by dismissive language. That is all, and conveys to me mostly noninterest.

Yeah, sometimes they make me laugh too. But rarely are they ever pertinent to the materials being discussed.

Sorry, but this is all very oxymoronic.
You have shown very little real insight into the Myths, the Origins of Agriculture, and even the Origins of Homosapiens. You say you read the Myths but then ask questions based solely on my posts, showing no familiarity with the materials. Then, you'll dismiss what I proffer in support as "unconvincing or rubbish" and desist from reading anything else.
Curiously, when scienctists are confronted with pseudoscience they demand that such researchers read up on the material more thoroughly in order to understand the "real science" that supports their dismissive tones. And this is acceptable, mind you.
AND YET, when it appears your knowledge is lacking and I ask you to read up on some material, you say there's no reason to or dismiss it as "unconvincing and boring."
Huh? Seems like a double standard to me.

What exactly has countered my theory?
The multiple times in multiple places, as shown in several of my citations, raises questions about "why and when," and I don't see how it is "counter" to my theory.

Closer reading in the middle of that paper deals with the genetics issues in detail. Did you actually read it?
And I've never claimed mine is "the only" explanation, get it right.
You're assuming this.

No, I've never said "impossible."
You see, numerous times in our exchanges you've used incorrect terminology when "summing up" my posts. So I'm left thinking that either there is a language barrier of some sort, or you're making assumptions and misinterpreting my words intentionally.
Couple this with your apparent superficial knowledge of Myth, and I'm convinced you're only here to "debunk" something.

My questions regarding the Origins of Agriculture stem from the fact that scholars are perplexed too, over "why, when and how." And in my opinion, when Myth is taken more literally, the answers become clear.
But again, only if one allows the ETH.

__________________
"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

You keep saying this: one needs to allow ETH for your theory, scholars are perplexed over the origins of agriculture, literal interpretation of myths makes the answer become clear (in your opinion).
IMO, one can state the exact same reasoning for the conventional explanation:
Scholars (and I'll add the words "a number of" in front of scholars, just not to generalise things) have human-related theories on the origins of agriculture, which adress the "why, when and how" questions. When you don't take the myths too literally, that theory is reflected in them. And it does not need an exotic ETH explanation.

(in case my reply to your last comments went unnoticed because you were writing a post yourself at that time, it is some posts up)

__________________
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.

R.A.F. wrote:
yeah, YOU dont see. in fact anything that anyone says that doesnt conform to your own idea of the truth, you end up not "seeing". allthough i've witnessed plenty of your opinionated posts i've yet to see one where you dont show outwardly either a condescending attitude or a belittling one.

your little pun earlier on about me getting all "crazy" when you post has more to do with how you say things rather than what you say. in that sense i admire A.dim's patience. despite all your bickering he has allways been polite with you. even when you show your fundamental ignorance of the subjects he posts. not only that but an willingness to concede others opinions and their knowlledge.

apparently this attitude has not been put in question by others and it was even supported by the usual two line sentence dripping with sarcasm. so possibly incurring in some penalty i will now consider this kind of posts from R.A.F. and Disinfo Agent has not worthy of reply behaviour.

thank you.

If I were to reinterpret The Lord of the Rings in such a way that the Hobbits were prehistorical hominids, Gollum was a genetic mutant, the wizards were scientists, and the elves were aliens from another planet, that wouldn't be described as a literal interpretation of Tolkien's work, would it?

How can an interpretation of Mesopotamian myths which regards the Sumerian gods as flesh and blood aliens be considered a literal interpretation? The way I see it, that interpretation is anything but literal! :-?

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

You never said that, you only implied in almost everything you post. And it still is a huge jump from describing peoples and lands accurately to being historically accurate. There is still something like individual people, individual acts and utterances. And I don't see how you can claim that Genesis is proven historically accurate by recent Near Eastern studies, and Genesis is the one book of the OT that is crucial in the theories you defend.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Easily. For example: the biblical God is a fabrication, a justification of priesthood and royalty. Or: the Bible is written by different writers, and thus you get an inconsistent behaviour.

And this is all irrelevant. As I have said before: it is of no importance to me if the Bible is or isn't a rewrite of Sumerian myths, and I don't understand how the fact that it is a rewrite would help your theory in any way. If the bible is a rewrite, then you lose one original, independent source. And the less sources you have, the more chance that it is an invention and not the truth.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

You post, I think it is wrong, I point it out, and your only defense is: someone else said so.
As stated numerous times yet: I have in the past checked out your references, I have read myths, scholars, even Sitchins website, and they either were in contradiction with your claims, or they contained nonsense.
The latter is primarily to be found in Sitchin's website, and if his website is like that, why would I start reading his books?
What's wrong with his website? Numerous things, starting with the Face on Mars, but also in smaller things. Let's take one of the proofs he gives that Troy really existed (which I don't doubt, I just want to point out the rigidity with which he uses the scientific method). A proof that Troy was real and not just a myth from Homer was that
Amazing: in Greece's classical period, that is centuries after Homer, they know the stories told by Homer? Then it can only be true!
Or from his Discoveries page:
What astronomer thought that their were no other solar planets in the universe with planets? Apart from perhaps some fundamental Christian scientists (I use the term loosely), I don't think you will find anyone who held such a notion.
From the Evil Wind page:
As you are so well versed in Archaelogy, I hope you at least that in archaeology, Before Present means before 1950 AD, and not 2001 AD...

So, that's why I don't take Sitchin seriously, and that's why I'm not planning to read his books anytime soon.
As for the scholars: you have misused Campbell before in another thread, and that was pointed out to you by me and others. Once is more than enough.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

You said I should take it literally as an astronomical text. I tried to do, and it doesn't work. Things that you interpret as planets are described as living beings.

Tiamat is a planet, right?
Marduk is a planet, right?
The quotes are from sacred texts, which I hope you can live with?

Do you still wonder why I cannot read the Enuma Elish as a literal astronomical text? I'm not interested in interpreting it, as it is supposedly a text we should take literally. And literally, it is nonsense. Either you say that we should read it metaphorically, or their is no way that you will ever convince me of your theories, and the chance that I will try out other sources you point me at is very, very small.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

My last post for the moment about this:

The event you refer to is the end of the last ice age. Which megalithic sites are found that come from before that event, and which are accompanied by myths? This could be very interesting

I'll not respond to the rest of your usual complaints. If you can't even accept that I rephrase what you said (re. the 'impossible' versus the 'shouldn't have happened' thing), without being able to show what might be the difference between what you said and what I said, and if you keep on equating the way how I treat you, your posts and your references with my interest in myths, then there is not much more I have to say to you.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Fram wrote:
Especially since the last ice age was at its height 20000 years ago. Heck,
that would make the civilizations even older than Atlantis!

If the source of the Bible is Jewish, then why do you and Outcast even bring it up in these conversations about Sumerian mythology?

'This', what?

What do you mean by "Semites", and "traced all the way"?
As far as I know, "Semites" is a (rather outdated) term for a certain ethnic group, or a group of ethnicities. Ethnic groups are not "traced all the way" to anything - that doesn't make any sense.

What does that have to do with anything? What does it prove? Quit making innuendo and make your point, if you have a point to make.

First of all, before you attempt to change the subject once again, let me just point out that, once again, for the upteenth time, the sources you offer do not support what you had been trying to claim earlier.

That phrase implies that the Bible, or portions of it, were nothing but some sort of cut-and-paste digest of some older book. This does not seem right to me. The Jews may have reused stories that other civilizations had written before, but they also reworked those myths, i.e., they changed them. There's no evidence of any outright plagiarism or direct copy, that I know of.

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but, please, no more dead-end references to sources that do not support what you're saying.

And, in any case, the connection between books of the Bible and Mesopotamian texts exists only with respect to some books, like the Genesis. I admit that these are very important books for Judaism and Christianity, theologically, so the connections found are relevant to anyone who wishes to learn about the origins of those two religions. However, there's much more in the Bible (and in the Old Testament) that does not match with older texts, at least to my knowledge.

In other words, in your defense, you present a book that you haven't even read yet! Be serious, A.DIM!

This may be only a message board, but people who don't really believe what you believe are taking time off their lives to discuss a subject that interests you more than them, and you give them dead-end replies with sources that lead nowhere useful.

Oh! The book talks about the planet Nibiru and its alien Annunaki inhabitants, does it? :roll:

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

Disinfo Agent wrote:
And I thought it was the Zetan's that inhabited Niburu!?!?
Perhaps I should familiarize myself better with ancienct myths and their
factual similarities with near eastern geography.