No. The discovery of ET would in no way confirm Sitchin's ideas. Sitchin's ideas have been shown to be incompatible with what is known about Sumerian history and the history of many other cultures of that period. The existence of Nibiru has been ruled out by the historical records of many cultures. This is so well established that if we did encounter ET and ET told us that there was a planet Nibiru that orbited like Sitchen described, then we would know ET was lying!

Heiser's "refutation" of Sitchin's work hinges more or less on translation of a "few certain words."
See above regarding those words.

No, we're not discussing The Facade, but dissenters of Sitchin often point to Heiser as "scholar" and his "debunking" of "a few certain words." Personally, I find it amusing that Heiser believes in "the Divine Council" and is offered as a "scholar" and "debunker" of Sitchin. Doesn't this raise issue with his credibility?

http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/bible.htm

"The Old Testament is based on older texts, which have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. These texts have forbears in Sumerian, Akkadian and Pharaonic sources and materials."

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/babylonian.html

"Although the story differs in specifics to that told in Genesis, the similarities in the general tone has convinced archaeologists that the Genesis account had been fundamentally derived from the Babylonian one."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/index.htm

"The Enuma Elish has long been considered by scholars to be primary source material for the book of Genesis. It has also been hypothesized that this is a legend about the overthrow of the matriarchy or records of some cosmic catastrophe"

maybe you are. but are you well acquainted with mr. Heisers other ideas? to understand the reason of Heisers critiques of mr. Sitchin you'll have to understand that. and if you dont know what i'm talking about, then im sorry but you're not that well acquainted with whats up with mr. Heiser.

im not discussing "the facade" either. just thought i'd mention the building blocks of mr. Heiser's "philosophy".

maybe later when i've the time for getting those much appreciated "quotes" from "scholar" resources.

humm?
who said those two things were related? Heiser's explanation for the VA/243 seal, IMO, is invalidated because... honestly, its idiotic.
in the Sitchin's thread i posted my critique of Heisers critique with graphics included!

oh really. you dont think mr. Heiser has a vested interested in pushing his book?? so what the hell is he doing around UFO conferences?? i thought that was Sitchin's terrain. geez...

thank you A.DIM for posting the links.

like i said, its common knowlledge that the Bible is a rewrite of older texts.
i find it strange that you didnt know that, informant. since you seem to be interested in this subject.

So does Sitchin's case for Nibiru and the Annunaki. Looks like Heiser is right on the money.

Well, here are Heiser’s credentials:

“PhD candidate, Department of Hebrew and Semitic Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison”.

Compare and contrast with Sitchin’s:

“degree in economic history. […] worked for years as a journalist and editor in Israel before settling in New York.”

http://www.world-mysteries.com/pex_2.htm

The reason why Heiser is presented as a valid source is the fact that he actually learned ancient languages. He knows more about Semitic languages than Sitchin.

It doesn’t raise any issues for Sitchin, why should it raise them for Heiser?

__________________
"The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it." -George Bernard Shaw

I still don't see how you can claim that the ancients had advanced knowledge of the outer planets and NOT known about Saturn's Rings?

Oh, I know what you'll say...that it's not the planets that are important but their orbits (or destinies) but thats just an excuse with NO SCIENTIFIC BASE.

If the claim is that the ancients had advanced knowledge of the outer planets, then the claim is WRONG!!
If the advanced knowledge does not describe reality then how can it be advanced knowledge?


Only if you'll assume that he's wrong for the other 23hours and 59 minutes of the day.


Is that what I said? I don't think so. What I STATED was what if Sitchin's translations were correct...would it make any difference...is the validity of a thing determined by writing it down. The answer is NO.

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

Funny...Sitchin's followers would have us accept the word of someone with NO science background...and at the same time ignore the opinion of someone who has actually studied the subject.

Sounds objective to me.

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

god, how you people distort things... #-o
you use the word science so easily...
you know, everyone can use that little trick. here:
mr. Heiser also has NO science background. there, so what?
curious how no one commented on mr. Heiser seeing the Pleiades in the little and dubious sketch on seal VA/243. talk about bad science.

and what has translating ancient and dead languages have to do with science??
i'll answer that for you, it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with interpretation. interpretation is the key element here.

here, digest this:
http://www.mythome.org/explaintrans.html

really?? he knows more about Sitchin's mother language than Sitchin himself? now that is amazing. and also interesting is how you never having read Sitchin's books, can make such affirmative statements of fact.
do you really know that for a fact or are you just trying to impress us with Heisers own credentials.

it doesnt?? i thought that was one of the main points of Sitchins critics around here.

why is it so important Saturn's Rings? have you ever thought that an alien race millenia more advanced than us would consider other things more important in terms of knowlledge, to teach humans, than Saturn's rings.
Neptune also has rings. are those important too? maybe rings around a planet are common things in the Universe, maybe the Anunnaki know many solar systems with many planets with rings.

if the sumerians had described Saturn rings, the skeptics now would be arguing that they should also have refered to Neptune's rings for it to be true.

according to Sitchin they did describe Neptune and Uranus as the blue-greenish tweens. isnt that interesting?

Perhaps then, you should've worded your topic as such because this is ridiculous.

I guess if you'd read Sitchin, you'd understand the real implications of "What if Sitchin's translations are correct."

Neil Freer says this:

"What are the astounding ramifications? We are the product of that Nefilim technology, a mutant species with bicameral genetics, bicameral mind,. The word from station DNA is these "gods" wear designer genes. Institutional "religion" is a sublimation of the ancient godspell, the subservient master-slave relationship; transcendental experience participation at the leading edge of that metamorphic self-exploration/expansion. The "occult" is time-release packages of advanced technological information entrusted to us in "crash courses" in civilization until we could break its code. Ooparts, high-tech tools, toys, artifacts, “out of place” in time are remnants of lost technology and knowledge. The new synthesis subsumes partial glimpses of a new politic, new world order, enlightened eco-economics, re-hashed Eastern or Western mysticism, a third culture, spiritualized psychology, or cerebral turning points. The totems and taboos of our racial adolescence dispelled, Prometheus can get off his rock and reach genetic satori; Job can get off his dung heap and complete his EST training; Buddha can open his eyes and reach genetic enlightenment."

And this:

"The major ramification (Neil Freer: Breaking the Godspell) of the Sitchin explication is that “religion”, as we have known it, is the transmutation, sublimation of the Anunnaki-human relationship of master-subject servitude, of slavery and then limited, subservient partnership. Since then, we have been going through phases of a traumatic transition to species maturity and independence. The major characteristic of this process has been the transmutation in all cultures of them, in particular Enlil/Jehovah in Western culture, into a cosmic deity, commonly called “God” in the Judeo-Christian tradition. (Is this atheism? No, not as such. It simply is a long overdue correction of some local, intra-solar system politics, relatively rather pedestrian in cosmic perspective. Garden variety atheism can now be understood as an early sign of precocious species adolescent rebellion and questioning of the authority of the obviously all too humanoid characteristics of the particular local Nefilim "god" of the Hebrew tribe and Christianity, Yahweh/Jehovah. The new paradigm, once the ancient, subservient godspell is dispelled, simply frees us to go one on one with the universe as our own evolutionary artists and to seek directly whatever unthinkable or thinkable ultimate principle is behind it.) In a later phase we have mythologized them into unreal beings and then, more “sophisticatedly” into psychological archetypes. Only with cumulative evidence, our own evolved technology and restored history through modern scholarship have we now been enabled to grasp the true nature of our genetic creation, our godspell conditioning, traumatic transition, and the opportunity to emerge from species adolescence and amnesia into species maturity. E.O. Wilson, the father of Sociobiology, while rejecting religion as mythology, also sees it as hardwired in the brain as a result of millennia of genetic evolutionary programming. His opinion takes on a whole new meaning in the context of the new paradigm: his description of this predisposition of the human neurological system is an excellent definition of the genetically engineered human displaying the godspell mentality."

I can't speak for everyone else here, but as far as I'm concerned Sitchin' personal beliefs are not important... Just as Heiser's beliefs about other subjects don't change the fact that he knows his way around Semitic languages.

My problem with Sitchin is not that his theories are unusual - although they are. It's that the arguments he presents in support of his theories are flawed.

__________________
"The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it." -George Bernard Shaw

Informant, have you read any of Sitchin's work? If not, how can you make this statement?
If you have, please point out one of these flawed arguments.

The website gives no sources to support this claim.

These comments refer only to the Genesis creation story. They do not say that the whole Bible is a rewrite of Babylonian texts, contrary to what Outcast implied.



You did:



Can you give us a link to that?



There’s some confusion here. Sitchin studied economic history, so he does have a scientific background (I expect). Only it’s in the wrong field! He has no scientific background in ancient languages.



:roll: Let’s drop the straw man, shall we? No one’s questioning Sitchin’s knowledge of modern Hebrew; what’s questionable is his knowledge of ancient Middle Eastern languages in general.


And what do you know about it to you make such wide sweeping claims?

__________________
"The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it." -George Bernard Shaw

No.

Although I do not know Sitchin's full, original work, that doesn't mean I don't know anything about it.
There have been many discussions in this forum about Sitchin's theories, and there are websites that discuss them.


Since you apparently have read his work, why don't you point us to an argument which isn't flawed?

__________________
"The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it." -George Bernard Shaw

You're misquoting me. You don't happen to be a sportswriter, are you?
If Sitchin is right, then the Sumerians knew of the existence of the outer planets. That doesn't mean they had advanced knowledge about them. In fact, it would be obvious that they didn't have advanced knowledge about them. That's the point that I keep bringing up. In debunking this theory, people tend to put Anunnaki words (knowledge) in the mouths of Sumerians, and vice-versa, and thereby confuse the issue. The Anunnaki had advanced knowledge of the outer planets, according to Sitchin's translations, not the Sumerians. The Sumerians merely knew that they existed and little more. Sitchin does not say that the Sumerians were some sort of highly advanced civilization, with advanced technology and knowledge, who were capable of travelling to these planets and/or viewing them with telescopes. The Sumerians were merely the first civilization, who were advanced for their time, but ancient in our terms. They repeated what knowledge they had acquired, with the original source being the Anunnaki, in terms that they could understand. So the argument that the Sumerians could not have known about the outer planets because they apparently didn't know about Saturn's rings makes no sense to me. In baseball terms, that's like saying that I couldn't possibly tell you the lineup on the Mets, because I don't know details of what the 6th hitter looks like. That's actually a pretty good analogy of how I view that argument.

I'm trying to answer the question posed at the title of the thread:
"If Sitchin's RIGHT...What would it prove?"
So we're starting with the assumption that Sitchin's translation is the correct one. It's not an "excuse". Sitchin's translations are of Sumerian texts. He states that the Sumerians knew about the existence of the outer planets and the asteroid belt.

The claim is that the ancients had knowledge of the existence of the outer planets. Any claim beyond that has been made by "debunkers". Please check and you'll see.

=D> =D> =D>

That was a good one! A point for you.

Sorry, but what you "stated" was exactly this:
"If Sitchin's RIGHT...What would it prove?"

The answer is: If Sitchin is right, though nothing is proven by default, the question that must be asked is: How could the Sumerians have gotten this knowledge?

If we attribute the alleged knowledge of the Sumerians to blind luck, I fear that we are doing them, and ourselves, an injustice. If Sitchin's translation is right, there is only one real conclusion: The Sumerians were given knowledge by a technologically advanced being(s). Being that the Sumerians said that everything they knew came from the Anunnaki, then the question becomes: Who were these technologically advanced "Anunnaki"? Indiginous humans? ET's? Supernatural gods?

I think we can cross off supernatural gods. So that leaves an advanced Earth species (a theory, like Atlantis, which some people give validity to), or ET's. Take your pick. I pick ET's, because a technologically advanced species needs a substantial population, so much so that there should be some evidence of their existence. Perhaps there is and I don't know about it. But an ET explanation is much more rational, in my opinion.

That's the conclusion, based on your question:
If Sitchin's RIGHT...What would it prove?

Either explanation would have a profound impact on our current knowledge of the history of humankind.

I agree with you Outcast. People seem to forget that Sitchin currently has about 60 years experience in the study of Semitic and other ancient languages. He had 30 years experience at the time he wrote The 12th Planet in the 70's. That's worth a heckuva lot more than a diploma in my book. Because he was a writer as his day job doesn't take away from his knowledge of ancient languages. I have to give Sitchin the benefit of the doubt based on the sheer volume of his experience, and say that his translations are at least as valid as anyone else's.

Because they are so OBVIOUS.

So this claimed advanced knowledge is selective.


While Neptune does have some very sparce rings...to compare them to the majesty of Saturn's rings is like comparing a drop of water to a swimming pool full of water.

Around gas giants they may be.

Now you are just making excuses with no evidence to support your claim.


Careful, Outcast, hand waving like this makes you sound like a hard case NUTTER.

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

First, first ... first.
Is that really the truth about the Sumerians?
Such sweeping and definitive statements pinned to such a tenuous position in history.
Modern day finds — far removed from 1976 for those keeping score — suggest that the inhabitants of the ancient Sahara (lush at a point in the past) had writting and other "advancements" like society long before the Sumerians came into play.
Don't ask for references, I read it in Discover and also saw a Discovery Channel show mentioning these finds.
Look for them yourselves.
However, most of the Sahara is vastly unexplored.
Who is to say that under the sands there lie vast ruins of an advanced city of sorts?
Who is to say that Sumer "began" there...

No one ... since there's no evidence either way.

Yet, we have people making sweeping statements about things we think we know.
Point is... we don't know a lot of things.
However, in that, there's also a bunch of stuff we do know.
We know there is no Nibiru.
Without a Nibiru there's no Anunnanki as Sitchin describes them.

Would you believe the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago as an authority?

"Among the manuscripts found in the scroll caves to the north and west of Khirbet Qumran were fragments of over thirty phylactery texts - brief passages from the Five Books of Moses that already in intertestamental times were put into capsules and worn by observant Jews in literal fulfillment of Moses's call in Deuteronomy..."

Explore this site further and you'll find corroboration for most of the websites, and subsequent quotes, I may post.

True, it is primarily the Pentateuch or the first Five Books of Moses, that are the "rewrite"s of Babylonian texts, but there are occurrences of parallels and other seeming "rewrites" in the New Testament. I certainly believe that much of the NT was written by Paul, John and Mark at considerably later dates than the much earlier Babylonian texts.

Anyone who has a question as to whether the Bible is frought with rewrites of earlier tales (from Sumer and Egypt, to name two sources) only need look to the Book of Esther.

It is no coincidence that "Esther" and "Ishtar" and "Mordicai" and "Marduk" — two of the major characters of that Book — sound so similar.
They are the same people.

I see. Well, at least you're not alone.

Perhaps then, you're better put to state that "Sitchin's supporters' arguments are flawed"?

Yes, I've read and reread most of his work, checking it's validity against other sources as well. And as you know, I've spent considerable time here trying to relate Sitchin's theory, but ultimately one must read it his or herself in order to support or refute it.

Thanks Val.
It's amazing how many people are so unaware of this truth.
And I thought it was common knowledge...

Any sources for this? All I've read so far was that he knew Hebrew. Because he lived in Israel. That's one (count it: one) Semitic language.
And Sumerian isn't even Semitic. But I digress...

__________________
"The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it." -George Bernard Shaw

Outcast and Hanksolo...

Are you actually READING this thread? Or are you just looking at the title and running with it?
You both know EXACTLY what I meant in my postings, yet you try to twist it to suit your purposes. Is this how you'll prove Ancient Astronauts are real? Because you sure haven't done it using any EVIDENCE!! But that is to be expected because there is NO EVIDENCE!!

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

Where?

By the way, your quote above is of course pointless. The Dead Sea Scrolls are Jewish. They were not written by a different civilization.

I assume that if there were better arguments the people who have read Sitchin’s work – like you – would have mentioned them already, to shut the debunkers up.

Not that they would. Even a single flawed argument is enough to cast doubt on Sitchin’s work. And there are several.

The bottom line: You’re evading my request.

__________________
"The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it." -George Bernard Shaw

It's the old if you only read it the truth would be apparent ploy. Interestingly enough, this is the same reasoning used for the Bible, and Scientology.

Now if the folks reading TTP were acknowledged researchers in ancient languages and if they found some validity to it...which they DON'T, that might prove something.

To have a layman read it...and believe it... proves nothin

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

R.A.F., these are your own words:
"Lets say that Sitchins translations are 100 percent right. That he has accurately reported what is written on the ancient tablets...what exactly would it prove?

The only thing it would prove...let me repeat that again...the only thing it would prove is that men, long ago, wrote down what Sitchin translated.

That's it! Nothing else!"

My answer is that if Sitchin's translations are right, then it proves that the Sumerians had knowledge of things that they shouldn't have, according to our current mainstream theories. Then we must ask where and how they acquired this knowledge. This is what we've been talking about all along. Any twisting is being done by you, though I'm not sure why. Perhaps you would like to rephrase your question?

R.A.F.'s question seems clear to me. I understand that the title of the thread gives a different impression, but a post isn't just a title.

Notice the quote to which I responded; It said that the OT is based on earlier texts, which the Dead Sea Scrolls ARE. It then says that the Scrolls have "forebearers" in the Sumerian / Akkadian / Babylonian texts.
Pointless?

All I can say is reread this thread, or better yet, read TTP yourself.

Rubbish. I'm not evading anything.

Here, read Chapter 7 "The Epic of Creation" from Sitchin's The Twelfth Planet in it's entirety, and then we can debate whether or not his arguments are flawed.

http://tedwards.topcities.com/articles/EC1/tec1_7a.htm

Wrong. It's the ol' if you only read the work, you would understand the implications of "If Sitchin is correct....".

Which is precisely why you should read the work yourself. Perhaps we'd get a more intelligent discussion out of all this. :roll: