What ever happened to Eric Von Danekin

[Outcast]

Disinfo Agent wrote:
That's because there's no evidence that they were. At least, not most of them. We've been through this before, too, but as usual you tend to forget inconvenient facts, Outcast.

i remember that this discussion has came before in the Sitchin threads i also remember that I and also A.dim and Hank have presented quite a number of references that show EVIDENCE for the early basis of the Biblical texts, especially those pertaining to the Genesis book. besides, this fact is quite obvious to anyone who has studied the Sumerian and Akkadian texts, which you had not do in the previous discussion and apparently still have no idea of what we were talking about.

anyway, your little remark: "at least not most of them" just shows that you didnt feel too confident with your ad hominen. it seems you forgot to show where exactly i said that MOST of the Biblical texts are derived from Mesopotamian texts. it seems that what is USUAL are your mildly irritating disinformation antics.

[Disinfo Agent]

i remember that this discussion has came before in the Sitchin threads i also remember that I and also A.dim and Hank have presented quite a number of references that show EVIDENCE for the early basis of the Biblical texts, especially those pertaining to the Genesis book.
Some Biblical texts, not all of them, or even most of them.

anyway, your little remark: "at least not most of them" just shows that you didnt feel too confident with your ad hominen.
My remark means what it means. I have never seen any convincing evidence that most of the Bible is based on Mesopotamian sources. Certainly, not coming from you or A.DIM.

it seems you forgot to show where exactly i said that MOST of the Biblical texts are derived from Mesopotamian texts.
When you say that (and I quote) "the bible is without doubt a rewrite of much older texts" (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=124870#124870), you are implyig that all of it is a rewrite of older texts from a non-Jewish culture. That's the natural interpretation of "the Bible".

Outcast, I think you and A.DIM are probably well aware that there's no evidence of an earlier Mesopotamian source for most of the Bible, but I decided to challenge what you'd said for the benefit of those reading the forum, who might be mislead by your words.

By the way: see how interpretation is not always a clearcut thing?

[Fram]

If the Bible is original or a (partial) rewrite of older texts doesn't prove or disprove anything: but I think, Outcast, that you would have a stronger case if the Bible gave those stories independently, as then you would have two sources for some assumptions, instead of one source and one derived source.

[Fram]

I'm trying to see your logic, A.DIM, but I fail. The Anunnaki come here, take some chimps, and genetically alter them, but only for 2%. The result is that we are capable of being teached agriculture and writing and so on, but not of discovering it for ourselves. Then why not make us a bit smarter, so that we are capable of finding it ourselves, sparing them the trouble of teaching it to us? Or did they want little pet humans, for some reason? And why teach us everything in little bits? The risk of us forgetting it again should have been too great, no? Why not give us agriculture and writing simultaneously? And why did they alter all humanity, but teach only one country (or tribe or whatever you want to call it)? The whole story doesn't make any sense, and 'the ways of the Anunnaki are mysterious' isn't good enough.

Indeed, it wouldn't make sense with such an understanding based solely on, apparently, 2 persons ideas in this thread. Like others, more familiarity with the Myths would serve you well.

Rapidly throwing in an 'apparently' to make it a bit less ad hominem? I respond to points you and Outcast made, and all you can say is: "but we have the Myths behind us"? A.DIM, evry time you have pointed to a concrete myth, to lines, books, authors, I have read them (or parts of their work), responded, tried to give my own links in reply: why not try that any longer?
And why not answering my questions instead of avoiding them? Show us, ignorants, in what way 'the Myths' make sense of this. Enlighten us.




Do you believe all techniques, domestications, ... come from the Anunnaki, or do you think only the principles were explained and we discovered the rest for ourselves? If the first, then that contradicts almost everything we know about the history of agriculture and domestication. If the second, then what makes the principle of agriculture that hard to find out?

What we know about the history of agriculture is that scholars still cannot definitively say how exactly and why it came about.

And they never will. This is the same argument used by the creationists against evolution. We will never be able to say anything definitely about the prehistory. But we are able to say things much more conclusively and certain than you seem to believe or are trying to imply here. You will have much more problems saying how and why it not came about in the way most historians describe it. All you seem to say is: 'Your theory isn't true because I have another one', and that's not good enough by far.

[Outcast]

Disinfo Agent wrote:
When you say that (and I quote) "the bible is without doubt a rewrite of much older texts", you are implyig that all of it is a rewrite of older texts from a non-Jewish culture. That's the natural interpretation of "the Bible".

i dont see anything wrong with my statement, even if it is in fact a generalization. there are plenty of research on this matter, so defining exactly which texts of the Bible, or what segments, are definetly based on older texts would be too strenuous for this discussion. nevertheless i would like to clarify my position, so that there remains no doubt as to what im "implying", and state that when i speak of the "Bible" im thinking of the Old Testament books.

Outcast, I think you and A.DIM are probably well aware that there's no evidence of an earlier Mesopotamian source for most of the Bible, but I decided to challenge what you'd said for the benefit of those reading the forum, who might be mislead by your words.

ok, now that i've clarified my position as to what i meant, i think you can drop the act. there is plenty of evidence pointing to the early origins of biblical texts. and as i've said before this is a mute point.

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

By the way: see how interpretation is not always a clearcut thing?

there was nothing untruthfull in my generalization, and it wasnt presented in order to disinform, so i dont see this issue as a question of "interpretation".

[Disinfo Agent]

i dont see anything wrong with my statement, even if it is in fact a generalization. there are plenty of research on this matter, so defining exactly which texts of the Bible, or what segments, are definetly based on older texts would be too strenuous for this discussion. nevertheless i would like to clarify my position, so that there remains no doubt as to what im "implying", and state that when i speak of the "Bible" im thinking of the Old Testament books.
Makes no difference. Even most of the Old Testament is not provably based on earlier, non-Jewish texts.

ok, now that i've clarified my position as to what i meant, i think you can drop the act.
"Act"? Who's acting? :roll:

there was nothing untruthfull in my generalization, and it wasnt presented in order to disinform, so i dont see this issue as a question of "interpretation".
Since you yourself are admiting to the generalisation, I'd say that, yes, it was an untruthful one. See above.

As for interpretations, the fact that you now say you were talking about the whole of the Old Testament, when you had said earlier (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=126523#126523) that you were only speaking of the Book of Genesis shows that your words were ambiguous.

Or that you're a flip-flopper - pick one.

[A.DIM]

i dont see anything wrong with my statement, even if it is in fact a generalization. there are plenty of research on this matter, so defining exactly which texts of the Bible, or what segments, are definetly based on older texts would be too strenuous for this discussion. nevertheless i would like to clarify my position, so that there remains no doubt as to what im "implying", and state that when i speak of the "Bible" im thinking of the Old Testament books.
Makes no difference. Even most of the Old Testament is not provably based on earlier, non-Jewish texts.

ok, now that i've clarified my position as to what i meant, i think you can drop the act.
"Act"? Who's acting? :roll:

there was nothing untruthfull in my generalization, and it wasnt presented in order to disinform, so i dont see this issue as a question of "interpretation".
Since you yourself are admiting to the generalisation, I'd say that, yes, it was an untruthful one. See above.

As for interpretations, the fact that you now say you were talking about the whole of the Old Testament, when you had said earlier (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=126523#126523) that you were only speaking of the Book of Genesis shows that your words were ambiguous. Or that you're a flip-flopper - pick one.

Allow me to interject here, eh?

Informant: you've been around here, and involved in these discussions, long enough to know what is meant by "the bible is a rewrite" as stated by those you consider "sitchinites."
No?
Throughout the OT there are parallels, references, words, turns of phrase et al that are certainly mesopotamian(Sumer/Akkad) in origin; from Genesis to Ezekiel to Psalms. However, what is incontrovertible, is that the primary stories - eg. Creation of Heaven and Earth, Creation of Man, Expulsion from Eden, The Flood, the plurality of gods, angels, emissaries, giants... whatever - are condensed edited versions of much earlier tales. Abraham's father, Terah, was an astronomer-priest in Ur, a Sumerian city.
While the NT is a largely a Paulinian compilation, there are scattered references which would also indicate mesopotamian origin. Even some Revelations bespeak such origins.

As such, I disagree with your attempted "disinfo" while calling into question someone else's "untruthful... ambiguous" behavior.

[Outcast]

If the Bible is original or a (partial) rewrite of older texts doesn't prove or disprove anything: but I think, Outcast, that you would have a stronger case if the Bible gave those stories independently, as then you would have two sources for some assumptions, instead of one source and one derived source.

Fram, if you have the time you could read through the Sitchin thread. i believe, despite all the bickering, there were presented some valid and good points regarding this issue.

[Outcast]

A.Dim wrote:
Informant: you've been around here, and involved in these discussions, long enough to know what is meant by "the bible is a rewrite" as stated by those you consider "sitchinites."
No?

:-?
so Disinfo Agent is Informant? that sheds a different light on his interventions in this thread, allthough the desinformation atitudes and ad hominems remain the same.

[A.DIM]

I'm trying to see your logic, A.DIM, but I fail. The Anunnaki come here, take some chimps, and genetically alter them, but only for 2%. The result is that we are capable of being teached agriculture and writing and so on, but not of discovering it for ourselves. Then why not make us a bit smarter, so that we are capable of finding it ourselves, sparing them the trouble of teaching it to us? Or did they want little pet humans, for some reason? And why teach us everything in little bits? The risk of us forgetting it again should have been too great, no? Why not give us agriculture and writing simultaneously? And why did they alter all humanity, but teach only one country (or tribe or whatever you want to call it)? The whole story doesn't make any sense, and 'the ways of the Anunnaki are mysterious' isn't good enough.

Indeed, it wouldn't make sense with such an understanding based solely on, apparently, 2 persons ideas in this thread. Like others, more familiarity with the Myths would serve you well.

Rapidly throwing in an 'apparently' to make it a bit less ad hominem? I respond to points you and Outcast made, and all you can say is: "but we have the Myths behind us"? A.DIM, evry time you have pointed to a concrete myth, to lines, books, authors, I have read them (or parts of their work), responded, tried to give my own links in reply: why not try that any longer?
And why not answering my questions instead of avoiding them? Show us, ignorants, in what way 'the Myths' make sense of this. Enlighten us.

I assure you Fram, that "apparently" was premeditated.
I'm not avoiding anything and don't mean to attack you, but your above post was merely a blurb made from various words or phrases from my previous, and likely more in depth, posts.
But let me ask you, do you even know why, according to the Sumerian Myths, Man was created? It didn't appear so from the above post.
Do you understand why Man was expelled from the Sumerian E.DIN (the Biblical Eden)? It didn't appear so.

But if you'd like, restate your questions and I'll answer them.


Do you believe all techniques, domestications, ... come from the Anunnaki, or do you think only the principles were explained and we discovered the rest for ourselves? If the first, then that contradicts almost everything we know about the history of agriculture and domestication. If the second, then what makes the principle of agriculture that hard to find out?
What we know about the history of agriculture is that scholars still cannot definitively say how exactly and why it came about.
And they never will. This is the same argument used by the creationists against evolution. We will never be able to say anything definitely about the prehistory. But we are able to say things much more conclusively and certain than you seem to believe or are trying to imply here. You will have much more problems saying how and why it not came about in the way most historians describe it. All you seem to say is: 'Your theory isn't true because I have another one', and that's not good enough by far.[/quote]

Well, as I've said before, Evolutionists are half right while Creationists are half wrong.
Seriously though, the points on Evolution and Agriculuture were meant to show that, if one allows the ETH, and considers world Myths more literally, an answer to these controversial puzzles emerges.
"Those from heaven to earth came" began arriving some 450K yrs ago, colonizing and mining. A revolt took place among them which led to the creation of a "mixed one" (sumerian lulu), aka "primitive worker." According to the Myths, "the creature whose name you uttered exists!" and all they had to do was "bind upon it the image of the gods." Later, some 200K yrs ago, the adammu, or "he of the earth" was given the ability to procreate. Hybrids, of course, don't procreate. As colonization continued, "the sons of the gods" mated with "the daughters of man" which led to the "gods" concealing the impending deluge event from Mankind in order "erase" if you will, the rapidly multiplying earthlings. The event was more horrific that the "gods" thought and afterwards, agreed to assist Man from that point on. Soon, Agriculture was taught, cities grew again, and eventually "kingship was lowered from heaven" to bring about Civilization as we know it.

So you see, or not(as there are many details I've left out), that a more literal reading of the Myths CAN address the two puzzles in question, IMHO, of course.

[Fram]

Thanks, I guess, but the more you try to explain it (I'm referring to the last part of your post, I'll ignore the first part), the less it makes sense. You are making wild claims, throwing in hybrids for some reason that can't procreate, but letting the sons of the gods mate with the daughters of man the next line. Wouldn't that create hybrids as well? Then where do the rapidly multiplying earthlings come from? And I don''t see at all how all this addresses any puzzles or better explains the rise of agriculture than mainstream history does.

I'll make it easier and start with one question: why are we smart enough to be teached agriculture and not to discover it ourselves, while we are able to discover loads of other stuff? In other words: why would it be impossible that we discovered and developed agriculture ourselves?

[Outcast]

You are making wild claims, throwing in hybrids for some reason that can't procreate, but letting the sons of the gods mate with the daughters of man the next line. Wouldn't that create hybrids as well? Then where do the rapidly multiplying earthlings come from? And I don''t see at all how all this addresses any puzzles or better explains the rise of agriculture than mainstream history does.

A.dim made, what appears to me, a short resume based on Sumerian mythology but it also touches a bit on the roots of the Biblical creation myth. according to some authors, the knowlledge of good and evil that the adamu found in the eden was the abbility to procreate. in fact, as was mentioned earlier, this "knowlledge" was given to the first human(s) by the serpent, which is a known symbol for the Sumerian god EN.KI, the god of creation.

the Biblical scholar Spieser, in his translation and study of the book of Genesis, tells us that the Hebrew stem YD that is widely used in the Genesis text means not only "to know" but more specificaly "to experience". when applied to connubial relations, the stem YD means to know sexually, or to have sexual intercourse.

[Kesh]

So, now we're down to analyzing the source & validity religious beliefs?

Wrong bulletin board for that. #-o

[V-GER]

Just because ancient myths tell us about gods in the heavens doesn't mean that actual
aliens visited this planet. Old myths are no more proof
than modern day UFO-logy or urban myths.

[Outcast]

So, now we're down to analyzing the source & validity religious beliefs?

Wrong bulletin board for that. #-o

i see nobody else complaining. but did Phil made you the judge of what should or should not be discussed in a thread about ancient myths as possible source for the ETH?

if you didnt know, Erik Von Daniken based much of his works on this principle.

[Outcast]

Just because ancient myths tell us about gods in the heavens doesn't mean that actual
aliens visited this planet. Old myths are no more proof
than modern day UFO-logy or urban myths.

actually, old myths and modern day UFOlogy are, IMHO, 99% of the evidence available. its debateable and open to interpretation, of course, but its nevertheless a pretty good start.

based on the writings of the Bible, which as you surely know, is a very old text, probably more than 3/5 of the worlds population believes in the existence of a metaphysical god. i prefer a more "down to earth" interpretation and see in those tales of gods flying in clouds of smoke, metallic objects and fiery chariots as some sort of ET intervention in our past. so, infact one has three choises:

1. it didnt happen
2. it was a metaphysical god
3. it was ET (or something else, yet to be understood)

mind you, that noone is forcing you to accept any of these hypothesis nor participating in this discussion.

[Kesh]

So, now we're down to analyzing the source & validity religious beliefs?

Wrong bulletin board for that. #-o

i see nobody else complaining. but did Phil made you the judge of what should or should not be discussed in a thread about ancient myths as possible source for the ETH?

if you didnt know, Erik Von Daniken based much of his works on this principle.

Apparently you missed the fact that I posted very early in this thread. Yes, I know what Daniken proposed. We've shown how that doesn't jive with known fact a long time ago.

You're now analyzing the legitimacy of Christian belief and Sumerian influence on such. If you don't see how that has crossed into a bit of a grey zone WRT the forum rules, I don't know what to say to you.

[R.A.F.]

i see nobody else complaining.

Well, I would, but I've noticed that when I disagree with you, it makes you go all crazy and I thought I'd give you a "break". :)

...but since you mentioned it...

...using ancient myths in an attempt to validate your "pet theory" has always struck me as funny. :)...and totally worthless as a "tool" in determining the truth.

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote;
mind you, that noone is forcing you to accept any of these hypothesis nor participating in this discussion.

How right you are, and I don't accept any of your ancient alien theories.
But thank you for pointing out which discussions I'm not obligated to participate in...

Still, throughout the ages, people have tried to explain the unknown(such as thunder)with gods and other superstition. I see nothing special in ancient myths. Of course if you choose to believe that all that is written in the old testament actually happened in some form or another, then you can make the ET conclusion, but only then.

old myths and modern day UFOlogy are, IMHO, 99% of the evidence available

Just curious, what evidence is the 1%?

[Outcast]

R.A.F. wrote:
Well, I would, but I've noticed that when I disagree with you, it makes you go all crazy and I thought I'd give you a "break".

that wasnt the least bit funny and surely not very polite... despite the little smillie at the end. in fact, its a form of belittling you've done before and not only with me. its either that or you have a terrible sense of humour and noone has told you before.

...using ancient myths in an attempt to validate your "pet theory" has always struck me as funny. ...and totally worthless as a "tool" in determining the truth.

yeah, i know what YOU think about "my pet theory". but whether it makes you laugh or not doesnt mean nothing to the worthiness of the methods employed in the research of ET in an ancient myths. but im glad i make you laugh, at least it seems that i do have a sense of humour.

[Outcast]

Kesh wrote:
We've shown how that doesn't jive with known fact a long time ago.

we did? i must have missed that. here's a sample of the scientific and research based arguments against Von Daniken's basic premise "ancient myths represent misunderstood alien contact":

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=16565&postdays=0&postorder=asc&sta rt=0

You're now analyzing the legitimacy of Christian belief and Sumerian influence on such. If you don't see how that has crossed into a bit of a grey zone WRT the forum rules, I don't know what to say to you.

no i do not see it since its on topic and its pertinent. but maybe you could enlighten me as to why is that so.

[Fram]

You are making wild claims, throwing in hybrids for some reason that can't procreate, but letting the sons of the gods mate with the daughters of man the next line. Wouldn't that create hybrids as well? Then where do the rapidly multiplying earthlings come from? And I don''t see at all how all this addresses any puzzles or better explains the rise of agriculture than mainstream history does.

A.dim made, what appears to me, a short resume based on Sumerian mythology but it also touches a bit on the roots of the Biblical creation myth. according to some authors, the knowlledge of good and evil that the adamu found in the eden was the abbility to procreate. in fact, as was mentioned earlier, this "knowlledge" was given to the first human(s) by the serpent, which is a known symbol for the Sumerian god EN.KI, the god of creation.

the Biblical scholar Spieser, in his translation and study of the book of Genesis, tells us that the Hebrew stem YD that is widely used in the Genesis text means not only "to know" but more specificaly "to experience". when applied to connubial relations, the stem YD means to know sexually, or to have sexual intercourse.

Thanks. Now would you or A.DIM please answer my questions instead of posting belittling (A.DIM) or irrelevant (Outcast) answers? That's the normal way of discussing things, answering questions, not just throwing ideas around. Read my post, then read your answer, and try to find the link. They are both about sex, but that's not enough. A.DIM wrote about sex between aliens and men, creating (or not, sometimes) infertile hybrids. You write about sex between men as a gift from the gods. Which begs the question: how did we procreate before that? But never mind that.
My question was about agriculture, and what made your theory any better than mainstream theory, and how you both explain the anomalies in your theory. But apparently I can't get an answer to that...

[A.DIM]

Thanks, I guess, but the more you try to explain it (I'm referring to the last part of your post, I'll ignore the first part), the less it makes sense. You are making wild claims, throwing in hybrids for some reason that can't procreate, but letting the sons of the gods mate with the daughters of man the next line. Wouldn't that create hybrids as well? Then where do the rapidly multiplying earthlings come from? And I don''t see at all how all this addresses any puzzles or better explains the rise of agriculture than mainstream history does.

First, I explicitly stated that there are many details left out in my brief summation, but AGAIN, you exhibit little familiarity with even the major premises behind the Creation of Man(addressing the appearance of homosapiens) and the cooperation with mankind after the Deluge that led to the bestowal of Agriculture from the "gods" tales.
Second, I asked two essentially basic questions which you did not answer, and yet you'll chastise another for this? I don't mean to "belittle" you or your opinions in any way, Fram, but it is clear that either there is a vast difference in our respective understandings of Religious and Mythic texts, or you are intentionally ignoring points made and questions asked.

I'll say that Sitchin's detailed and lengthy Earth Chronicles is the fundamental basis for my ideas, though the breadth of knowledge and acumen stems from years of study and research across numerous disciplines. I'm no expert, mind you, and certainly don't think Sitchin is 100% correct. However, should you be inclined, I'd suggest the first book as well as the two companion volumes for more insight.
But I'm not interested in fielding questions about alleged "wild claims" from someone who appears to know little and misinterpret what is posted in the first place.

Consider...
I'll make it easier and start with one question: why are we smart enough to be teached agriculture and not to discover it ourselves, while we are able to discover loads of other stuff? In other words: why would it be impossible that we discovered and developed agriculture ourselves?
I never said we couldn't discover it ourselves, only that it shouldn't have happened when it did, and that it appears counter to Evolution itself, as many scholars admit.
Again, I've never said it was "impossible?"

Perhaps it is a language barrier; if so, I apologize.

[A.DIM]

You are making wild claims, throwing in hybrids for some reason that can't procreate, but letting the sons of the gods mate with the daughters of man the next line. Wouldn't that create hybrids as well? Then where do the rapidly multiplying earthlings come from? And I don''t see at all how all this addresses any puzzles or better explains the rise of agriculture than mainstream history does.

A.dim made, what appears to me, a short resume based on Sumerian mythology but it also touches a bit on the roots of the Biblical creation myth. according to some authors, the knowlledge of good and evil that the adamu found in the eden was the abbility to procreate. in fact, as was mentioned earlier, this "knowlledge" was given to the first human(s) by the serpent, which is a known symbol for the Sumerian god EN.KI, the god of creation.

the Biblical scholar Spieser, in his translation and study of the book of Genesis, tells us that the Hebrew stem YD that is widely used in the Genesis text means not only "to know" but more specificaly "to experience". when applied to connubial relations, the stem YD means to know sexually, or to have sexual intercourse.

Indeed.
I was trying to summarize the presence of the "gods" and their involvement in both the Evolutionary context as well as the Agricultural. I figured I wasn't clear and knew only someone well versed in the OT and the earlier Myths would make sense of it. :)

[A.DIM]

So, now we're down to analyzing the source & validity religious beliefs?

Wrong bulletin board for that. #-o

When put like that, I'd have to agree.
But what most people either overlook or simply aren't aware of is how intermingled astronomy and religious/mythic texts are.
Discerning which are those dealing with the "celestial gods" -the sun, moon, planets, stars, et al - and which are dealing with "those from heaven to earth came" - ETs - is difficult, but pertinent on both fronts.

[A.DIM]

i see nobody else complaining.

Well, I would, but I've noticed that when I disagree with you, it makes you go all crazy and I thought I'd give you a "break". :)

...but since you mentioned it...

...using ancient myths in an attempt to validate your "pet theory" has always struck me as funny. :)...and totally worthless as a "tool" in determining the truth.

I think I understand why he goes "all crazy:"

You will accept mainstream fossil evidences, which are as fragmented as you'd like to think the Myths are, as "evidence" to support your perspective on human origins.
History, too, has been reconstructed the same way, through texts whether in stone, clay or papyrus. There are many more texts that tell the tales of the "gods" than there are of Alexander The Great.
He was real, no?
But you still seem to ignore the FACT that little more that 150yrs ago, much of the OT was considered "myth" and what do we know now? That it is largely an accurate historical record listing people, places, events that are now considered real, excluding "the gods," of course. :wink:

"Funny", I thought you knew these things. :-?

[A.DIM]

...
Still, throughout the ages, people have tried to explain the unknown(such as thunder)with gods and other superstition. I see nothing special in ancient myths. Of course if you choose to believe that all that is written in the old testament actually happened in some form or another, then you can make the ET conclusion, but only then. ...

I'd suggest actually reading the OT, along with current ancient Near Eastern studies, to understand how historically accurate the OT is in the peoples and lands described throughout.

So.... Now?

[captain swoop]

I never said we couldn't discover it ourselves, only that it shouldn't have happened when it did, and that it appears counter to Evolution itself, as many scholars admit.


Do you include any Evolutionary Biologists in this?

edit to fix quote

[Nicolas]

You will accept mainstream fossil evidences, which are as fragmented as you'd like to think the Myths are, as "evidence" to support your perspective on human origins.
History, too, has been reconstructed the same way, through texts whether in stone, clay or papyrus. There are many more texts that tell the tales of the "gods" than there are of Alexander The Great.

*I have found fossils myself. They clearly are animals like we don't know existing on our planet today. Phosils are physical evidence,descending gods are only found in stories. I am more eager to believe something contained in physical evidence than only in texts. Physical evidence are objects, texts are interpretations, no matter how objective the writer wanted to be.
*There are more texts about Michael Jackson than there are about me. Does that make him more real or more interesting to write about?

[papageno]

*There are more texts about Michael Jackson than there are about me. Does that make him more real or more interesting to write about?
More real: no.
More interesting: maybe.
:wink:

[A.DIM]

You are making wild claims, throwing in hybrids for some reason that can't procreate, but letting the sons of the gods mate with the daughters of man the next line. Wouldn't that create hybrids as well? Then where do the rapidly multiplying earthlings come from? And I don''t see at all how all this addresses any puzzles or better explains the rise of agriculture than mainstream history does.

A.dim made, what appears to me, a short resume based on Sumerian mythology but it also touches a bit on the roots of the Biblical creation myth. according to some authors, the knowlledge of good and evil that the adamu found in the eden was the abbility to procreate. in fact, as was mentioned earlier, this "knowlledge" was given to the first human(s) by the serpent, which is a known symbol for the Sumerian god EN.KI, the god of creation.

the Biblical scholar Spieser, in his translation and study of the book of Genesis, tells us that the Hebrew stem YD that is widely used in the Genesis text means not only "to know" but more specificaly "to experience". when applied to connubial relations, the stem YD means to know sexually, or to have sexual intercourse.

Thanks. Now would you or A.DIM please answer my questions instead of posting belittling (A.DIM) or irrelevant (Outcast) answers? That's the normal way of discussing things, answering questions, not just throwing ideas around. Read my post, then read your answer, and try to find the link. They are both about sex, but that's not enough. A.DIM wrote about sex between aliens and men, creating (or not, sometimes) infertile hybrids. You write about sex between men as a gift from the gods. Which begs the question: how did we procreate before that? But never mind that.
My question was about agriculture, and what made your theory any better than mainstream theory, and how you both explain the anomalies in your theory. But apparently I can't get an answer to that...

All I've ever said regarding this, is that in my mind, when religious and mythic texts are read more literally, answers to some very fundamental problems associated with the appearance of homosapiens and Agriculture/Civ can be answered.
It is only my opinion that it may be "better," and such a notion rests largely on the fact that modern science and scholars remain puzzled.
IMHO, it is the most accepted mainstream theories that need to be most scrutinized to gain better understanding.

After all, we are in the ATM forum. :)

[Nicolas]

*There are more texts about Michael Jackson than there are about me. Does that make him more real or more interesting to write about?
More real: no.
More interesting: maybe.
:wink:

When thinking about it, that example maybe did not make very clear that I meant that people write most about what they find the most interesting things. :) Better example:

There are more texts about Neil Armstrong than there are about me. Does that make him more real or more interesting to write about?

(now please nobody argue that HE TOO came from the stars... :D)

[R.A.F.]

I don't mean to "belittle" you or your opinions in any way, Fram...

Of course you do, A.DIM...it's all part of your charm. :lol:

...but it is clear that either there is a vast difference in our respective understandings of Religious and Mythic texts, or you are intentionally ignoring points made and questions asked.

Or perhaps Fram doesn't take these ancient myths as literally as you do.

I'm no expert, mind you, and certainly don't think Sitchin is 100% correct.

OK, I'll "bite"...in your opinion, where did Sitchin get it wrong??

...I'd suggest the first book as well as the two companion volumes for more insight.

Ha ha...insight...

Just so you know, Fram, if you don't read Sitchin's book, A.DIM will just say "how can I discuss this with you, when you haven't read the book?" That's the kind of faulty reasoning employed by the "Sitchin true believers".

I never said we couldn't discover it ourselves, only that it shouldn't have happened when it did, and that it appears counter to Evolution itself, as many scholars admit.

Many scholars?? What scholars? Perhaps the same ones that take all these myths literally??

[R.A.F.]

There are many more texts that tell the tales of the "gods" than there are of Alexander The Great.
He was real, no?

WOW! That is really lame reasoning. Am I suppose to take that seriously??

[Wolverine]

You will accept mainstream fossil evidences, which are as fragmented as you'd like to think the Myths are, as "evidence" to support your perspective on human origins.

The following might be of assistance: start here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html), then examine this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) and this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/).

[Outcast]

Fram wrote:
Thanks. Now would you or A.DIM please answer my questions instead of posting belittling (A.DIM) or irrelevant (Outcast) answers?

excuse me? i do not understand the reason for this comment of yours. reading back some posts, i do not see where you were belittled and what exactly i posted that was irrelevant.

[Fram]

I'm trying to see your logic, A.DIM, but I fail. The Anunnaki come here, take some chimps, and genetically alter them, but only for 2%. The result is that we are capable of being teached agriculture and writing and so on, but not of discovering it for ourselves. Then why not make us a bit smarter, so that we are capable of finding it ourselves, sparing them the trouble of teaching it to us? Or did they want little pet humans, for some reason? And why teach us everything in little bits? The risk of us forgetting it again should have been too great, no? Why not give us agriculture and writing simultaneously? And why did they alter all humanity, but teach only one country (or tribe or whatever you want to call it)? The whole story doesn't make any sense, and 'the ways of the Anunnaki are mysterious' isn't good enough.

Indeed, it wouldn't make sense with such an understanding based solely on, apparently, 2 persons ideas in this thread. Like others, more familiarity with the Myths would serve you well.


Outcast, this is what I mean by 'belittlement' by A.DIM. This is subjective, so you and / or A.DIM may of course disagree, but that's how I feel it.
I'll edit this post or make a new one to show what I mean by irrelevance. I have trouble quoting from different pages in one post...

[Fram]

You are making wild claims, throwing in hybrids for some reason that can't procreate, but letting the sons of the gods mate with the daughters of man the next line. Wouldn't that create hybrids as well? Then where do the rapidly multiplying earthlings come from? And I don''t see at all how all this addresses any puzzles or better explains the rise of agriculture than mainstream history does.

A.dim made, what appears to me, a short resume based on Sumerian mythology but it also touches a bit on the roots of the Biblical creation myth. according to some authors, the knowlledge of good and evil that the adamu found in the eden was the abbility to procreate. in fact, as was mentioned earlier, this "knowlledge" was given to the first human(s) by the serpent, which is a known symbol for the Sumerian god EN.KI, the god of creation.

the Biblical scholar Spieser, in his translation and study of the book of Genesis, tells us that the Hebrew stem YD that is widely used in the Genesis text means not only "to know" but more specificaly "to experience". when applied to connubial relations, the stem YD means to know sexually, or to have sexual intercourse.

This struck me as highly irrelevant, Outcast, but I guess you'll disagree. We were talking about why agriculture was a gift from the gods instead of a human invention, then A.DIM started about the hybrids and the sons of the gods mating the daughters of the earth, and then you come and tell me that some Hebrew word (with relations to the tree of good and evil and so on) can mean 'having sex' as well. So what?

The gods gave us agriculture, then we discovered sex, and they throw us out. Or: we discover sex, the gods throw us out, and then they gve us agriculture. That's the gist of it, right? Sorry, but I can follow you guys when you say that we weren't able to discover agriculture on our own (I don't agree, but it can be discussed): but are you seriously trying to say that we didn't discover sex on our own, and that that as well is teached us by the gods? Curiouser and curiouser...

I guess you are both trying to say other things, but would it be to much to ask to for once try to explain your ideas in a coherent manner, and not by throwing out some tidbids of information without link our context, and without complaining that not everyone knows your pet theories by heart (this is for A.DIM, not Outcast, but it is sometimes hard to not put you two together in one lot)?

[Fram]

...
Still, throughout the ages, people have tried to explain the unknown(such as thunder)with gods and other superstition. I see nothing special in ancient myths. Of course if you choose to believe that all that is written in the old testament actually happened in some form or another, then you can make the ET conclusion, but only then. ...

I'd suggest actually reading the OT, along with current ancient Near Eastern studies, to understand how historically accurate the OT is in the peoples and lands described throughout.

So.... Now?

A.DIM, your theory is mainly (exclusively) based on Genesis (with regards to the Bible, it is based on other books as well): so the historical accuracy of Kings or Job (yeah right) or whatever other book of the OT doesn't say a thing about the truth or untruth of your theory. Everyone knows that the way to lie the most convincingly is to stay with the truth wherever possible, and only to lie on those things that are the hardest to check. Like creation and everything before and up to Noah, of which there aren't many witnesses left.
So please, stick to Genesis, and argue from that base on, not from the whole of the OT.

[Fram]

Thanks, I guess, but the more you try to explain it (I'm referring to the last part of your post, I'll ignore the first part), the less it makes sense. You are making wild claims, throwing in hybrids for some reason that can't procreate, but letting the sons of the gods mate with the daughters of man the next line. Wouldn't that create hybrids as well? Then where do the rapidly multiplying earthlings come from? And I don''t see at all how all this addresses any puzzles or better explains the rise of agriculture than mainstream history does.

First, I explicitly stated that there are many details left out in my brief summation, but AGAIN, you exhibit little familiarity with even the major premises behind the Creation of Man(addressing the appearance of homosapiens) and the cooperation with mankind after the Deluge that led to the bestowal of Agriculture from the "gods" tales.

It's not about showing familiarity with the myths, I'm showing the discrepancies in your points. Either you tell things that don't make sense, or you explain them badly, but the way you wrote it, it created a paradox with the hybrid = no procreation thing.
If I explain General Relativity the wrong way, it won't work if I then say: well look it up, the books are correct, and if you don't understand my point, you're ignorant. If you make a bad or confusing explanation and I point it out, you either admit you were wrong, or you show what you intended with your explanation and where my interpretation went downhill.

Second, I asked two essentially basic questions which you did not answer, and yet you'll chastise another for this? I don't mean to "belittle" you or your opinions in any way, Fram, but it is clear that either there is a vast difference in our respective understandings of Religious and Mythic texts, or you are intentionally ignoring points made and questions asked.

You said, after your two questions, "But if you'd like, restate your questions and I'll answer them." I don't know why I had to restate them, you have not told me what was unclear about them the first time, and now you are saying me that I cannot restate them, but that I have to answer your later questions first?
Well, to show my good side: I have no idea what the Sumerians say about the creation of mankind and the expulsion of Paradise. I have read large parts of the bible and some other myths, and I have read parts of the Sumerian myths, and those were so unconvincing and boring that I couldn't bother reading the rest. The parts I did read where some of the truly astronomical texts (you know the ones, you pointed them to me, with the weeping planets with feet and so on), and the list of kings (hey, those kings lived even longer than the Genesis protagonists!). That was more than enough for me. I have read some other parts as well, most of the Gilgamesh and so on, but that's it.
Now you could please answer my questions?


I'll say that Sitchin's detailed and lengthy Earth Chronicles is the fundamental basis for my ideas, though the breadth of knowledge and acumen stems from years of study and research across numerous disciplines. I'm no expert, mind you, and certainly don't think Sitchin is 100% correct. However, should you be inclined, I'd suggest the first book as well as the two companion volumes for more insight.
But I'm not interested in fielding questions about alleged "wild claims" from someone who appears to know little and misinterpret what is posted in the first place.

I guess it is clear by now that you are not interested in fielding questions. What have I misinterpreted? In what way do I appear to know little (oh Outcast, if you still look for belittlement: perhaps this will count?)? Because I haven't read every book you have read? If you don't want to discuss things because you might need to explain somethings sometimes, then you are better of on your own, because I'm not going to indulge myself in a wild goose chase if even the basic principles of your theory look as flawed as they do in your explanations.
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.

Consider...
I'll make it easier and start with one question: why are we smart enough to be teached agriculture and not to discover it ourselves, while we are able to discover loads of other stuff? In other words: why would it be impossible that we discovered and developed agriculture ourselves?
I never said we couldn't discover it ourselves, only that it shouldn't have happened when it did, and that it appears counter to Evolution itself, as many scholars admit.
Again, I've never said it was "impossible?"

Perhaps it is a language barrier; if so, I apologize.

I don't think it is a language barrier. You say it is not impossible, only that it shouldn't have happened. Big deal, what a difference...

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:
I'd suggest actually reading the OT, along with current ancient Near Eastern studies, to understand how historically accurate the OT is in the peoples and lands described throughout.

As in Egyptians actually existed?you don't say...
I mean what of its partial historical accuracy? As Fram pointed out, that still doesn't
mean there were ancient astronauts in the Middle East. Asking me to "actually read the OT" is
very arrogant behaviour as if you alone possessed the required knowledge to interpret ancient scripture
like the most read book in the world, bible...

[Disinfo Agent]

Allow me to interject here, eh?

Informant: you've been around here, and involved in these discussions, long enough to know what is meant by "the bible is a rewrite" as stated by those you consider "sitchinites."
No?
I don't know what you mean by that, but I most certainly do not know what Outcast means when he says that "the Bible is, without doubt, a rewrite of much older [Mesopotamian] texts".
How could I, if he said he meant one thing two years ago, and now he says he meant something else?

Throughout the OT there are parallels, references, words, turns of phrase et al that are certainly mesopotamian(Sumer/Akkad) in origin; from Genesis to Ezekiel to Psalms. However, what is incontrovertible, is that the primary stories - eg. Creation of Heaven and Earth, Creation of Man, Expulsion from Eden, The Flood, the plurality of gods, angels, emissaries, giants... whatever - are condensed edited versions of much earlier tales. Abraham's father, Terah, was an astronomer-priest in Ur, a Sumerian city.
I object to the use of the words "condensed" and "edited", unless you can show me some reputable sources that justify them.

While the NT is a largely a Paulinian compilation, there are scattered references which would also indicate mesopotamian origin.
According to who?

As such, I disagree with your attempted "disinfo" while calling into question someone else's "untruthful... ambiguous" behavior.
'My attempted "disinfo"'? What on Earth are you babbling about? :-?

[Disinfo Agent]

so Disinfo Agent is Informant? that sheds a different light on his interventions in this thread, allthough the desinformation atitudes and ad hominems remain the same.
Let me know when you finally decide to answer my questions.

[Kesh]

You know, I've stopped visiting GLP. Work has become so hectic, I'm too tired to spend time butting heads with people who are so married to their pet theories that they cannot objectively analyze the world they live in.

For that same reason, I'm done with this thread. I have no longer have the desire nor energy to debate with folks whose entire argument boils down to, "Someone wrote it so it must be literally true."

[A.DIM]

I never said we couldn't discover it ourselves, only that it shouldn't have happened when it did, and that it appears counter to Evolution itself, as many scholars admit.


Do you include any Evolutionary Biologists in this?

Specifically? No.

But when I read papers from peer reviewed journals such this one (http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history/lecture03/r_3-2.html) published in Nature only a couple of years ago, and after perusing the references, I suspect the issue is across multiple disciplines.

[A.DIM]

*There are more texts about Michael Jackson than there are about me. Does that make him more real or more interesting to write about?
More real: no.
More interesting: maybe.
:wink:

When thinking about it, that example maybe did not make very clear that I meant that people write most about what they find the most interesting things. :) Better example:

There are more texts about Neil Armstrong than there are about me. Does that make him more real or more interesting to write about?

(now please nobody argue that HE TOO came from the stars... :D)

What is neat about this is that sometime in the future when the "first man" on the moon is recalled, we'll hear about "the eagle has landed!" and "tranquility base" or the "falcon" in the tales.
Sounds "mythological" to me. :wink:

[A.DIM]

I don't mean to "belittle" you or your opinions in any way, Fram...

Of course you do, A.DIM...it's all part of your charm. :lol:

RAF, I'm not sure why you felt compelled to take snippets of my posted reply to Fram and make remarks like this. :-?

Ah, no matter, you've created this image in my head of a middle-aged man with hat, beard and glasses waving hands and saying, "woowoo woowoo .... THAT's not how science works! woowoo woowoo ... THAT's not how science works.... "

Rather charming now that I think of it. :D

...but it is clear that either there is a vast difference in our respective understandings of Religious and Mythic texts, or you are intentionally ignoring points made and questions asked.

Or perhaps Fram doesn't take these ancient myths as literally as you do.

Of course he doesn't, but that does not negate the fact that he, like you, is either less informed or ...

But with this, you're stating the obvious, so... your point?

I'm no expert, mind you, and certainly don't think Sitchin is 100% correct.
OK, I'll "bite"...in your opinion, where did Sitchin get it wrong??

Well, I wasn't "fishing."
I only wanted to make clear that my ideas ARE NOT reliant on one person's research.

...I'd suggest the first book as well as the two companion volumes for more insight.

Ha ha...insight...

And remarks like this convey "insight" into anything being discussed? :-?

Just so you know, Fram, if you don't read Sitchin's book, A.DIM will just say "how can I discuss this with you, when you haven't read the book?" That's the kind of faulty reasoning employed by the "Sitchin true believers".

Sitchin's "book," RAF? Aren't there 8 volumes of detailed lengthy anaylses of Myth and Religion? Oh yeah, that's right, you were only able to get through 3 pages of the first before I showed you were totally off base in alleging "no sources cited" or some other such tripe.

I never said we couldn't discover it ourselves, only that it shouldn't have happened when it did, and that it appears counter to Evolution itself, as many scholars admit.

Many scholars?? What scholars? Perhaps the same ones that take all these myths literally??

If I'm not mistaken, I believe several pages back I provided up to 3 separate citations dealing with this. Did you read them? Ignore them? Research their claims? Read their sources?

I didn't think so.
But I can't say whether or not any of them take Myths literally.

Views on Agricultural Origins (http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history/lecture03/r_3-1.html).

[A.DIM]

You will accept mainstream fossil evidences, which are as fragmented as you'd like to think the Myths are, as "evidence" to support your perspective on human origins.

The following might be of assistance: start here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html), then examine this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) and this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/).

Thanks, Wolverine, I've read from TO.

But let me ask you: Is it Replacement or Continuity in your mind?

Consider Modern Human Origins in a Historical Perspective (http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/anth588.html).

[A.DIM]

I'm trying to see your logic, A.DIM, but I fail. The Anunnaki come here, take some chimps, and genetically alter them, but only for 2%. The result is that we are capable of being teached agriculture and writing and so on, but not of discovering it for ourselves. Then why not make us a bit smarter, so that we are capable of finding it ourselves, sparing them the trouble of teaching it to us? Or did they want little pet humans, for some reason? And why teach us everything in little bits? The risk of us forgetting it again should have been too great, no? Why not give us agriculture and writing simultaneously? And why did they alter all humanity, but teach only one country (or tribe or whatever you want to call it)? The whole story doesn't make any sense, and 'the ways of the Anunnaki are mysterious' isn't good enough.

Indeed, it wouldn't make sense with such an understanding based solely on, apparently, 2 persons ideas in this thread. Like others, more familiarity with the Myths would serve you well.


Outcast, this is what I mean by 'belittlement' by A.DIM. This is subjective, so you and / or A.DIM may of course disagree, but that's how I feel it.
I'll edit this post or make a new one to show what I mean by irrelevance. I have trouble quoting from different pages in one post...

Again, I never meant to "belittle" you, Fram, but the question "or did they want little pet humans for some reason" is what I mean by your lack of knowledge. The Sumerian Myths tell us that the Anunnaki created the "primitive worker" aka "mixed one" out of a need for slaves.
You also appear unaware that the idea that Wisdom & Knowledge were hidden from Man, only to be taught through "initiates" such as Adapa, Enoch etc.
Additionally, and I've said this before, you seem unaware that the Hebrew word avod, translated as "worship," literally means "work for." Ancient man didn't "worship" his gods, he "worked for" them, first as slaves, then as limited partners. Which is interesting because this conveys the idea of Heaven & Hell, heaven-where the eternal gods reside; hell-the fiery underground where we once toiled for them.
Anyway... I realize this too will likely be misunderstood... so chalk it up to my inability to explain things clearly.

[A.DIM]

....
The gods gave us agriculture, then we discovered sex, and they throw us out. Or: we discover sex, the gods throw us out, and then they gve us agriculture. That's the gist of it, right? Sorry, but I can follow you guys when you say that we weren't able to discover agriculture on our own (I don't agree, but it can be discussed): but are you seriously trying to say that we didn't discover sex on our own, and that that as well is teached us by the gods? Curiouser and curiouser...

My emphasis and NO.

There's much more to it but I'm not convinced you want to learn or listen because of your use of "pet theories" and other pejoratives.

Again, you exhibit little knowledge of the basic concepts behind the Creation of Man, Expulsion from Eden, the bestowal of Agriculture and Civ, etc tales in Mythology.
So, instead of Sitchin, I suggest scholars like Campbell, Wooley, Smith, and LW King for a better grasp of the Mythologies in question.

[A.DIM]

...
Still, throughout the ages, people have tried to explain the unknown(such as thunder)with gods and other superstition. I see nothing special in ancient myths. Of course if you choose to believe that all that is written in the old testament actually happened in some form or another, then you can make the ET conclusion, but only then. ...

I'd suggest actually reading the OT, along with current ancient Near Eastern studies, to understand how historically accurate the OT is in the peoples and lands described throughout.

So.... Now?

A.DIM, your theory is mainly (exclusively) based on Genesis (with regards to the Bible, it is based on other books as well): so the historical accuracy of Kings or Job (yeah right) or whatever other book of the OT doesn't say a thing about the truth or untruth of your theory. Everyone knows that the way to lie the most convincingly is to stay with the truth wherever possible, and only to lie on those things that are the hardest to check. Like creation and everything before and up to Noah, of which there aren't many witnesses left.
So please, stick to Genesis, and argue from that base on, not from the whole of the OT.

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?

[Nicolas]

What is neat about this is that sometime in the future when the "first man" on the moon is recalled, we'll hear about "the eagle has landed!" and "tranquility base" or the "falcon" in the tales.
Sounds "mythological" to me. :wink:

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

[R.A.F.]

I don't mean to "belittle" you or your opinions in any way, Fram...

Of course you do, A.DIM...it's all part of your charm. :lol:

RAF, I'm not sure why you felt compelled to take snippets of my posted reply to Fram and make remarks like this. :-?

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.

you've created this image in my head of a middle-aged man with hat, beard and glasses...

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

...waving hands and saying, "woowoo woowoo .... THAT's not how science works! woowoo woowoo ... THAT's not how science works.... "

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

I only wanted to make clear that my ideas ARE NOT reliant on one person's research.

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

you were only able to get through 3 pages of the first before I showed you were totally off base in alleging "no sources cited" or some other such tripe.

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.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe several pages back I provided up to 3 separate citations dealing with this. Did you read them? Ignore them? Research their claims? Read their sources?

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 (http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history/lecture03/r_3-1.html)
...and I don't see how it in any way supports your ideas...

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

[A.DIM]

Thanks, I guess, but the more you try to explain it (I'm referring to the last part of your post, I'll ignore the first part), the less it makes sense. You are making wild claims, throwing in hybrids for some reason that can't procreate, but letting the sons of the gods mate with the daughters of man the next line. Wouldn't that create hybrids as well? Then where do the rapidly multiplying earthlings come from? And I don''t see at all how all this addresses any puzzles or better explains the rise of agriculture than mainstream history does.

First, I explicitly stated that there are many details left out in my brief summation, but AGAIN, you exhibit little familiarity with even the major premises behind the Creation of Man(addressing the appearance of homosapiens) and the cooperation with mankind after the Deluge that led to the bestowal of Agriculture from the "gods" tales.

It's not about showing familiarity with the myths, I'm showing the discrepancies in your points. Either you tell things that don't make sense, or you explain them badly, but the way you wrote it, it created a paradox with the hybrid = no procreation thing.

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.

If I explain General Relativity the wrong way, it won't work if I then say: well look it up, the books are correct, and if you don't understand my point, you're ignorant. If you make a bad or confusing explanation and I point it out, you either admit you were wrong, or you show what you intended with your explanation and where my interpretation went downhill.

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.

Second, I asked two essentially basic questions which you did not answer, and yet you'll chastise another for this? I don't mean to "belittle" you or your opinions in any way, Fram, but it is clear that either there is a vast difference in our respective understandings of Religious and Mythic texts, or you are intentionally ignoring points made and questions asked.

You said, after your two questions, "But if you'd like, restate your questions and I'll answer them." I don't know why I had to restate them, you have not told me what was unclear about them the first time, and now you are saying me that I cannot restate them, but that I have to answer your later questions first?

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

Well, to show my good side: I have no idea what the Sumerians say about the creation of mankind and the expulsion of Paradise. I have read large parts of the bible and some other myths, and I have read parts of the Sumerian myths, and those were so unconvincing and boring that I couldn't bother reading the rest. The parts I did read where some of the truly astronomical texts (you know the ones, you pointed them to me, with the weeping planets with feet and so on), and the list of kings (hey, those kings lived even longer than the Genesis protagonists!). That was more than enough for me. I have read some other parts as well, most of the Gilgamesh and so on, but that's it.
Now you could please answer my questions?

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'll say that Sitchin's detailed and lengthy Earth Chronicles is the fundamental basis for my ideas, though the breadth of knowledge and acumen stems from years of study and research across numerous disciplines. I'm no expert, mind you, and certainly don't think Sitchin is 100% correct. However, should you be inclined, I'd suggest the first book as well as the two companion volumes for more insight.
But I'm not interested in fielding questions about alleged "wild claims" from someone who appears to know little and misinterpret what is posted in the first place.
I guess it is clear by now that you are not interested in fielding questions. What have I misinterpreted? In what way do I appear to know little (oh Outcast, if you still look for belittlement: perhaps this will count?)? Because I haven't read every book you have read? If you don't want to discuss things because you might need to explain somethings sometimes, then you are better of on your own, because I'm not going to indulge myself in a wild goose chase if even the basic principles of your theory look as flawed as they do in your explanations.

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

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.


Are you really interested in learning anything here? You admit you can't delve into the work because it is "unconvincing and boring" yet you're interested in maintaining this argument with me?

Well, at least your posts aren't as nonsensical as RAF's.

[quote]I'll make it easier and start with one question: why are we smart enough to be teached agriculture and not to discover it ourselves, while we are able to discover loads of other stuff? In other words: why would it be impossible that we discovered and developed agriculture ourselves?
I never said we couldn't discover it ourselves, only that it shouldn't have happened when it did, and that it appears counter to Evolution itself, as many scholars admit.
Again, I've never said it was "impossible?"

Perhaps it is a language barrier; if so, I apologize.

I don't think it is a language barrier. You say it is not impossible, only that it shouldn't have happened. Big deal, what a difference...

...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 (http://www.dailygrail.com/node/view/441) 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.

[A.DIM]

A.DIM wrote:
I'd suggest actually reading the OT, along with current ancient Near Eastern studies, to understand how historically accurate the OT is in the peoples and lands described throughout.

As in Egyptians actually existed?you don't say...
I mean what of its partial historical accuracy? As Fram pointed out, that still doesn't
mean there were ancient astronauts in the Middle East. Asking me to "actually read the OT" is
very arrogant behaviour as if you alone possessed the required knowledge to interpret ancient scripture
like the most read book in the world, bible...

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.

[A.DIM]

Allow me to interject here, eh?

Informant: you've been around here, and involved in these discussions, long enough to know what is meant by "the bible is a rewrite" as stated by those you consider "sitchinites."
No?
I don't know what you mean by that, but I most certainly do not know what Outcast means when he says that "the Bible is, without doubt, a rewrite of much older [Mesopotamian] texts".
How could I, if he said he meant one thing two years ago, and now he says he meant something else?

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.

Throughout the OT there are parallels, references, words, turns of phrase et al that are certainly mesopotamian(Sumer/Akkad) in origin; from Genesis to Ezekiel to Psalms. However, what is incontrovertible, is that the primary stories - eg. Creation of Heaven and Earth, Creation of Man, Expulsion from Eden, The Flood, the plurality of gods, angels, emissaries, giants... whatever - are condensed edited versions of much earlier tales. Abraham's father, Terah, was an astronomer-priest in Ur, a Sumerian city.
I object to the use of the words "condensed" and "edited", unless you can show me some reputable sources that justify them.

The Seven Tablets of Creation (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/index.htm) by LW King.
The Chaldean Account of the Deluge (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/chad/index.htm), by G. Smith.
The Bible (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm):

"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?

While the NT is a largely a Paulinian compilation, there are scattered references which would also indicate mesopotamian origin.
According to who?

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

As such, I disagree with your attempted "disinfo" while calling into question someone else's "untruthful... ambiguous" behavior.
'My attempted "disinfo"'? What on Earth are you babbling about? :-?
"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.

[A.DIM]

I don't mean to "belittle" you or your opinions in any way, Fram...

Of course you do, A.DIM...it's all part of your charm. :lol:

RAF, I'm not sure why you felt compelled to take snippets of my posted reply to Fram and make remarks like this. :-?

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.

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

you've created this image in my head of a middle-aged man with hat, beard and glasses...

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

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!"

...waving hands and saying, "woowoo woowoo .... THAT's not how science works! woowoo woowoo ... THAT's not how science works.... "
I sing it every morning to the tune of "daisy, daisy". It has a "calming" effect.

Ah yes, a calming charming effect.

I only wanted to make clear that my ideas ARE NOT reliant on one person's research.

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

"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.

you were only able to get through 3 pages of the first before I showed you were totally off base in alleging "no sources cited" or some other such tripe.
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.

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?

If I'm not mistaken, I believe several pages back I provided up to 3 separate citations dealing with this. Did you read them? Ignore them? Research their claims? Read their sources?

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.

"Crank" sites such as?

OH, and I looked over this link...
Views on Agricultural Origins (http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history/lecture03/r_3-1.html)
...and I don't see how it in any way supports your ideas...

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

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.

[Nicolas]

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

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.

[Disinfo Agent]

I don't know what you mean by that, but I most certainly do not know what Outcast means when he says that "the Bible is, without doubt, a rewrite of much older [Mesopotamian] texts".
How could I, if he said he meant one thing two years ago, and now he says he meant something else?
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?
I'm usually not "aware" of unproven theories like that one.

Personally, I think you're playing semantics.
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:

Throughout the OT there are parallels, references, words, turns of phrase et al that are certainly mesopotamian(Sumer/Akkad) in origin; from Genesis to Ezekiel to Psalms. However, what is incontrovertible, is that the primary stories - eg. Creation of Heaven and Earth, Creation of Man, Expulsion from Eden, The Flood, the plurality of gods, angels, emissaries, giants... whatever - are condensed edited versions of much earlier tales. Abraham's father, Terah, was an astronomer-priest in Ur, a Sumerian city.
I object to the use of the words "condensed" and "edited", unless you can show me some reputable sources that justify them.
The Bible (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm):

"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?
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".

The Seven Tablets of Creation (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/index.htm) by LW King.
The Chaldean Account of the Deluge (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/chad/index.htm), by G. Smith.
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.

While the NT is a largely a Paulinian compilation, there are scattered references which would also indicate mesopotamian origin.
According to who?
Perhaps I should've stated "sources" rather than origins, but in this instance, according to me.
Sorry, but that's not enough.
What else have you got?

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

[Fram]

....
The gods gave us agriculture, then we discovered sex, and they throw us out. Or: we discover sex, the gods throw us out, and then they gve us agriculture. That's the gist of it, right? Sorry, but I can follow you guys when you say that we weren't able to discover agriculture on our own (I don't agree, but it can be discussed): but are you seriously trying to say that we didn't discover sex on our own, and that that as well is teached us by the gods? Curiouser and curiouser...

My emphasis and NO.

There's much more to it but I'm not convinced you want to learn or listen because of your use of "pet theories" and other pejoratives.

Again, you exhibit little knowledge of the basic concepts behind the Creation of Man, Expulsion from Eden, the bestowal of Agriculture and Civ, etc tales in Mythology.
So, instead of Sitchin, I suggest scholars like Campbell, Wooley, Smith, and LW King for a better grasp of the Mythologies in question.

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?

[Fram]

...
Still, throughout the ages, people have tried to explain the unknown(such as thunder)with gods and other superstition. I see nothing special in ancient myths. Of course if you choose to believe that all that is written in the old testament actually happened in some form or another, then you can make the ET conclusion, but only then. ...

I'd suggest actually reading the OT, along with current ancient Near Eastern studies, to understand how historically accurate the OT is in the peoples and lands described throughout.

So.... Now?

A.DIM, your theory is mainly (exclusively) based on Genesis (with regards to the Bible, it is based on other books as well): so the historical accuracy of Kings or Job (yeah right) or whatever other book of the OT doesn't say a thing about the truth or untruth of your theory. Everyone knows that the way to lie the most convincingly is to stay with the truth wherever possible, and only to lie on those things that are the hardest to check. Like creation and everything before and up to Noah, of which there aren't many witnesses left.
So please, stick to Genesis, and argue from that base on, not from the whole of the OT.

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?

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.

[Fram]

Thanks, I guess, but the more you try to explain it (I'm referring to the last part of your post, I'll ignore the first part), the less it makes sense. You are making wild claims, throwing in hybrids for some reason that can't procreate, but letting the sons of the gods mate with the daughters of man the next line. Wouldn't that create hybrids as well? Then where do the rapidly multiplying earthlings come from? And I don''t see at all how all this addresses any puzzles or better explains the rise of agriculture than mainstream history does.

First, I explicitly stated that there are many details left out in my brief summation, but AGAIN, you exhibit little familiarity with even the major premises behind the Creation of Man(addressing the appearance of homosapiens) and the cooperation with mankind after the Deluge that led to the bestowal of Agriculture from the "gods" tales.

It's not about showing familiarity with the myths, I'm showing the discrepancies in your points. Either you tell things that don't make sense, or you explain them badly, but the way you wrote it, it created a paradox with the hybrid = no procreation thing.

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.

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?

Well, to show my good side: I have no idea what the Sumerians say about the creation of mankind and the expulsion of Paradise. I have read large parts of the bible and some other myths, and I have read parts of the Sumerian myths, and those were so unconvincing and boring that I couldn't bother reading the rest. The parts I did read where some of the truly astronomical texts (you know the ones, you pointed them to me, with the weeping planets with feet and so on), and the list of kings (hey, those kings lived even longer than the Genesis protagonists!). That was more than enough for me. I have read some other parts as well, most of the Gilgamesh and so on, but that's it.
Now you could please answer my questions?

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?

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?

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.


Are you really interested in learning anything here? You admit you can't delve into the work because it is "unconvincing and boring" yet you're interested in maintaining this argument with me?

Well, at least your posts aren't as nonsensical as RAF's.

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.

I'll make it easier and start with one question: why are we smart enough to be teached agriculture and not to discover it ourselves, while we are able to discover loads of other stuff? In other words: why would it be impossible that we discovered and developed agriculture ourselves?
I never said we couldn't discover it ourselves, only that it shouldn't have happened when it did, and that it appears counter to Evolution itself, as many scholars admit.
Again, I've never said it was "impossible?"

Perhaps it is a language barrier; if so, I apologize.

I don't think it is a language barrier. You say it is not impossible, only that it shouldn't have happened. Big deal, what a difference...

...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 (http://www.dailygrail.com/node/view/441) 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.

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.

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:
What is neat about this is that sometime in the future when the "first man" on the moon is recalled, we'll hear about "the eagle has landed!" and "tranquility base" or the "falcon" in the tales.
Sounds "mythological" to me.

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...

Sorry, Fram, but my "pet theory" encompasses mythology, religion, history, archaeology, astronomy and more

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

And I've never said that "because it is written" proof exists for ancient astronauts

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?:

I'd suggest actually reading the OT, along with current ancient Near Eastern studies, to understand how historically accurate the OT is in the peoples and lands described throughout.

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.

[A.DIM]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

[A.DIM]

I don't know what you mean by that, but I most certainly do not know what Outcast means when he says that "the Bible is, without doubt, a rewrite of much older [Mesopotamian] texts".
How could I, if he said he meant one thing two years ago, and now he says he meant something else?
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?
I'm usually not "aware" of unproven theories like that one.

Hmmm....

Personally, I think you're playing semantics.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:

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

Throughout the OT there are parallels, references, words, turns of phrase et al that are certainly mesopotamian(Sumer/Akkad) in origin; from Genesis to Ezekiel to Psalms. However, what is incontrovertible, is that the primary stories - eg. Creation of Heaven and Earth, Creation of Man, Expulsion from Eden, The Flood, the plurality of gods, angels, emissaries, giants... whatever - are condensed edited versions of much earlier tales. Abraham's father, Terah, was an astronomer-priest in Ur, a Sumerian city.
I object to the use of the words "condensed" and "edited", unless you can show me some reputable sources that justify them.
The Bible (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm):
"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?
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".

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 (http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/case_studies/hebrews/patriarchs.html) and then tell me again about "foreign traditions," ok?

The Seven Tablets of Creation (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/index.htm) by LW King.
The Chaldean Account of the Deluge (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/chad/index.htm), by G. Smith.
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.

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:

While the NT is a largely a Paulinian compilation, there are scattered references which would also indicate mesopotamian origin.
According to who?
Perhaps I should've stated "sources" rather than origins, but in this instance, according to me.
Sorry, but that's not enough.
What else have you got?

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

I came acrossThe Origins of Biblical Monotheism (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/BiblicalStudies/OldTestamentHebrewBible/?ci=0195167686&view=usa) 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

[A.DIM]

....
The gods gave us agriculture, then we discovered sex, and they throw us out. Or: we discover sex, the gods throw us out, and then they gve us agriculture. That's the gist of it, right? Sorry, but I can follow you guys when you say that we weren't able to discover agriculture on our own (I don't agree, but it can be discussed): but are you seriously trying to say that we didn't discover sex on our own, and that that as well is teached us by the gods? Curiouser and curiouser...

My emphasis and NO.

There's much more to it but I'm not convinced you want to learn or listen because of your use of "pet theories" and other pejoratives.

Again, you exhibit little knowledge of the basic concepts behind the Creation of Man, Expulsion from Eden, the bestowal of Agriculture and Civ, etc tales in Mythology.
So, instead of Sitchin, I suggest scholars like Campbell, Wooley, Smith, and LW King for a better grasp of the Mythologies in question.

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?

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.

[A.DIM]

...
Still, throughout the ages, people have tried to explain the unknown(such as thunder)with gods and other superstition. I see nothing special in ancient myths. Of course if you choose to believe that all that is written in the old testament actually happened in some form or another, then you can make the ET conclusion, but only then. ...

I'd suggest actually reading the OT, along with current ancient Near Eastern studies, to understand how historically accurate the OT is in the peoples and lands described throughout.

So.... Now?

A.DIM, your theory is mainly (exclusively) based on Genesis (with regards to the Bible, it is based on other books as well): so the historical accuracy of Kings or Job (yeah right) or whatever other book of the OT doesn't say a thing about the truth or untruth of your theory. Everyone knows that the way to lie the most convincingly is to stay with the truth wherever possible, and only to lie on those things that are the hardest to check. Like creation and everything before and up to Noah, of which there aren't many witnesses left.
So please, stick to Genesis, and argue from that base on, not from the whole of the OT.

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?

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.

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?

[A.DIM]

Thanks, I guess, but the more you try to explain it (I'm referring to the last part of your post, I'll ignore the first part), the less it makes sense. You are making wild claims, throwing in hybrids for some reason that can't procreate, but letting the sons of the gods mate with the daughters of man the next line. Wouldn't that create hybrids as well? Then where do the rapidly multiplying earthlings come from? And I don''t see at all how all this addresses any puzzles or better explains the rise of agriculture than mainstream history does.

First, I explicitly stated that there are many details left out in my brief summation, but AGAIN, you exhibit little familiarity with even the major premises behind the Creation of Man(addressing the appearance of homosapiens) and the cooperation with mankind after the Deluge that led to the bestowal of Agriculture from the "gods" tales.

It's not about showing familiarity with the myths, I'm showing the discrepancies in your points. Either you tell things that don't make sense, or you explain them badly, but the way you wrote it, it created a paradox with the hybrid = no procreation thing.

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.

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?

Well, to show my good side: I have no idea what the Sumerians say about the creation of mankind and the expulsion of Paradise. I have read large parts of the bible and some other myths, and I have read parts of the Sumerian myths, and those were so unconvincing and boring that I couldn't bother reading the rest. The parts I did read where some of the truly astronomical texts (you know the ones, you pointed them to me, with the weeping planets with feet and so on), and the list of kings (hey, those kings lived even longer than the Genesis protagonists!). That was more than enough for me. I have read some other parts as well, most of the Gilgamesh and so on, but that's it.
Now you could please answer my questions?

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?

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.

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

And I haven't seen one convincing argument for a deluge, so why would I care about the events that lead up to it?

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?

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?

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.

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.

Are you really interested in learning anything here? You admit you can't delve into the work because it is "unconvincing and boring" yet you're interested in maintaining this argument with me?
Well, at least your posts aren't as nonsensical as RAF's.

I like RAF's posts.

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

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.

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.

I'll make it easier and start with one question: why are we smart enough to be teached agriculture and not to discover it ourselves, while we are able to discover loads of other stuff? In other words: why would it be impossible that we discovered and developed agriculture ourselves?
I never said we couldn't discover it ourselves, only that it shouldn't have happened when it did, and that it appears counter to Evolution itself, as many scholars admit.
Again, I've never said it was "impossible?"

Perhaps it is a language barrier; if so, I apologize.

I don't think it is a language barrier. You say it is not impossible, only that it shouldn't have happened. Big deal, what a difference...

...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 (http://www.dailygrail.com/node/view/441) 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.

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),...

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.

... 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.

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.

If something shouldn't have happened when it did, then you consider it impossible that it happened when it did. No?
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.

Because if you think it was possible, then there is no reason why it shouldn't have happened.

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.

[Nicolas]

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.

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)

[Outcast]

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

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.

[Disinfo Agent]

If I were to reinterpret The Lord of the Rings in such a way that the Hobbits were prehistorical hominids (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=17281&highlight=leprechauns), 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! :-?

[Fram]

A.DIM wrote:
I'd suggest actually reading the OT, along with current ancient Near Eastern studies, to understand how historically accurate the OT is in the peoples and lands described throughout.

As in Egyptians actually existed?you don't say...
I mean what of its partial historical accuracy? As Fram pointed out, that still doesn't
mean there were ancient astronauts in the Middle East. Asking me to "actually read the OT" is
very arrogant behaviour as if you alone possessed the required knowledge to interpret ancient scripture
like the most read book in the world, bible...

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.

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.

[Fram]

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?
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.

[Fram]

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.

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
Other articles review the numerous ancient depictions, as this one from Greece’s classical period, that also attest to ancient familiarity with aspects of the Trojan War and the Trojan Horse episode.
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 (http://www.sitchin.com/discoveries.htm) page:
This entailed recognition by the authors of the ancient text that there are other solar systems in the universe with their own planets – a notion held impossible by astronomers until a few years ago.
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 (http://www.sitchin.com/evilwind.htm) page:
Those and similar climate-change studies, relating the climate conditions to the rise and fall of civilizations in the Old as well as the New Worlds, were summed up in a major study published in the prestigious journal Science in its 27 April 2001 issue. Authored by Peter B. deMenocal of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, the study paid particular attention to sedimentary remains of Tephra; the telltale rock fragments confirmed the date 4025 Years Before Present.

And 4025 years, before the present year A.D. 2001 -- is exactly 2024 B.C., as Zecharia Sitchin had determined in his 1985 book!
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.

[Fram]

OK, explain to me how you read the Enuma Elish "literally," as an astronomical text? What was it describing?
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?
When Tiamat heard these words,
She raged and cried aloud...
She... grievously...,
She uttered a curse, and unto Apsu she spake:

Marduk is a planet, right?
But Marduk hath set out, the director of the gods, your son;
To set out against Tiamat his heart hath prompted him.
He opened his mouth and spake unto me, saying:
'If I, your avenger,
Conquer Tiamat and give you life,
Appoint an assembly, make my fate preeminent and proclaim it
The quotes are from sacred texts (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm), 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.

[Fram]

My last post for the moment about this:

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.

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 :D

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.

[V-GER]

Fram wrote:
A.DIM wrote:
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.


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

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

[Disinfo Agent]

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".
Who said anything about a "foreign tradition?"
If the source of the Bible is Jewish, then why do you and Outcast even bring it up in these conversations about Sumerian mythology?

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?
'This', what?

Besides, the semites can be traced all the way to the Akkadians, no?
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.

Are you aware of how closely related Sumer/Akkad was?
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.

The Seven Tablets of Creation (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/index.htm) by LW King.
The Chaldean Account of the Deluge (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/chad/index.htm), by G. Smith.
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.
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.

OK, you already knew as much and yet you "object" to my use of "condensed edited versions" of the primary stories?
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.

While the NT is a largely a Paulinian compilation, there are scattered references which would also indicate mesopotamian origin.
According to who?
I didn't think it would be enough, even though I stated "according to me."

I came acrossThe Origins of Biblical Monotheism (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/BiblicalStudies/OldTestamentHebrewBible/?ci=0195167686&view=usa) 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."
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. :evil:

I find it most satisfying that Sitchin's work continues to be corroborated by works such as this, some 30yrs later. :)
Oh! The book talks about the planet Nibiru and its alien Annunaki inhabitants, does it? :roll:

[V-GER]

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

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.

[Disinfo Agent]

Don't mix up your implausible aliens. The Zetans from Zeta Reticuli are a creation of Nancy Leider.

[Outcast]

A.dim,

dont know if you've allready read this but anyway. its interesting to realize that the scientific experiences EN.KI went trough in the past might have its reflection in humanities state of the art genetic research.
history repeats itself.


Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy

Maryann Mott
National Geographic News
January 25, 2005

Scientists have begun blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimeras—a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal.

Chinese scientists at the Shanghai Second Medical University in 2003 successfully fused human cells with rabbit eggs. The embryos were reportedly the first human-animal chimeras successfully created. They were allowed to develop for several days in a laboratory dish before the scientists destroyed the embryos to harvest their stem cells.


In Minnesota last year researchers at the Mayo Clinic created pigs with human blood flowing through their bodies.

And at Stanford University in California an experiment might be done later this year to create mice with human brains.

Scientists feel that, the more humanlike the animal, the better research model it makes for testing drugs or possibly growing "spare parts," such as livers, to transplant into humans.

Watching how human cells mature and interact in a living creature may also lead to the discoveries of new medical treatments.

But creating human-animal chimeras—named after a monster in Greek mythology that had a lion's head, goat's body, and serpent's tail—has raised troubling questions: What new subhuman combination should be produced and for what purpose? At what point would it be considered human? And what rights, if any, should it have?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html

[Fram]

Outcast, that's what I mean by irrelevant posting. The fact that we are capable or incapable of doing something has nothing to do with the claims about ET's, the description of those in ancient myths, and the origin of man, agriculture, civilization, and sex. I'ld rather have posts about the trustworthiness of Sitchin's writings, the mistakes made in mainstream archaeology and paleonthology, the reasons why H erectus could not have evolved into H Sapiens as it is normally accepted, or the evidence (even circumstantial) of the visits of aliens outside of myths. I think there are topics enough in this thread already...

[Outcast]

Fram wrote:
The fact that we are capable or incapable of doing something has nothing to do with the claims about ET's, the description of those in ancient myths, and the origin of man, agriculture, civilization, and sex.

in your opinion.

Outcast, that's what I mean by irrelevant posting.

well, its what you mean. so what? in MY opinion its relevant and A.dim surely will understand why.

[Outcast]

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.

this is not a discussion, this is witch hunting.

want dead end replies? how about this:

Don't mix up your implausible aliens. The Zetans from Zeta Reticuli are a creation of Nancy Leider.

. 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.

There's no evidence of any outright plagiarism or direct copy, that I know of.

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

and this comes from only this page.

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.

yeah, i wonder why you cant understand (and you do not need to read Sitchin for this) that the scholarly interpretation of Enuma Elish's characters is that they represent astronomical figures. in fact most of the Sumerian pantheon gods have an astronomical symbol. ex: SHAMASH = the Sun; SIN = the Moon; TIAMAT = the Earth

[Disinfo Agent]

Outcast, let me know when you're ready to answer those questions you still haven't answered, K?

[Fram]

Outcast, could you please include the names of the original posters in your quotes? It makes it easier to answer and follow, and it is more obvious then that you are mixing quotes of different people.
What's is your problem with e.g. the next to last quote (about the ice ages)? That was to the point and relevant as an answer to a claim A.DIM (I think) made.

It's not because you can read the Enuma Elish as an allegorical astronomical text (and this can be discussed as well) that you can read it as a literal astronomical text. The Lord of the Rings can be read as an allegorical antiwar text (although Tolkien despised this), but you would be hard pressed to read it as a literal description of either WW1 or WW2.
And A.DIM claimed that it should be read as a literal astronomical text.

[Fram]

Fram wrote:
The fact that we are capable or incapable of doing something has nothing to do with the claims about ET's, the description of those in ancient myths, and the origin of man, agriculture, civilization, and sex.

in your opinion.


Of course in my opinion, I wrote it. But I presume that you mean that you disagree? Then what does it have to do with those claims, apart from showing once again that humanity on its own is capable of discovering / inventing amazing things?

[V-GER]

Disinfo Agent wrote:
Don't mix up your implausible aliens. The Zetans from Zeta Reticuli are a creation of Nancy Leider

Whoops, silly me. I thought Nancy was all about Nibiru.
I really need to check my mythology...

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:
...and this comes from only this page.

Not much point getting into a quoting competition about who made more irrelevant posts. Yours alone would fill many a pages.

Outcast wrote:
in MY opinion its relevant and A.dim surely will understand why.

I've no doubt.

Now this isn't a witch hunt, you made very outlandish claims and can't come up with any real proof. Old myths are no more evidence than any fictional book these days.

[Outcast]

It's not because you can read the Enuma Elish as an allegorical astronomical text (and this can be discussed as well) that you can read it as a literal astronomical text. The Lord of the Rings can be read as an allegorical antiwar text (although Tolkien despised this), but you would be hard pressed to read it as a literal description of either WW1 or WW2.
And A.DIM claimed that it should be read as a literal astronomical text.

ok, taking the risk of repeating myself let me state this again: despite what Rich said in ealier pages and the current insistance that old "myths" are fictional stories the fact is noone truly knows. what matters, in my opinion, is that they were never considered, by those who meticulously wrote and copied down those texts, to be fiction.

thousands of tablets were safe guarded in ancient librarys, as the Sumerian and later the Akkadian scribes were trained in the scholarly work of copying and maintaning them. according to the scribes own written records, those texts represent human history from the time when the "gods" roamed the Earth.

no scholar who has studied these texts in detail can claim or prove that they represent fictional events. in fact from the 19th century and earlier to this day they are still used as reference for archeological discoveries. the tomb of Gilgamesh was discovered after a literal interpretaion of the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example.

the problem of failling to understand the importance of these texts comes more from misinformation and misunderstanding than from a close and detailed examination of their origins. so, comparing the "Lord of the Rings" with the Enuma Elish which was the story of creation venerated for thousands of years, and the inspiration of the Biblical genesis, is at best a naive attempt at downgradding the level of the conversation.

if this whole thread served no purpose i hope at least it inspired some lurker out there to go search and read about about the amazing Sumerian civilization. to understand and witness how they wrote with such amazing detail about their gods. to find the similarities between those gods and the gods of other ancient civilizations and to ultimately recognize the same archetypical struggle between the two brothers EN.KI and EN.LIL propagated through civilizations and history to our own days.

its a monumental work, no doubt. but i think it goes beyond the cinicism of the nay sayers and the reward is a deep understanding of human nature and history.

[Outcast]

Outcast, let me know when you're ready to answer those questions you still haven't answered, K?

you're not interested in answers, every post of yours is a testament to this fact. you hand wave away everything and every reference provided by those you do not agree with. so, to me you're nothing but an armchair debunker with too much time on your hands and a taste for offending and attacking strangers in the anonymous world of the internet.

[Disinfo Agent]

Outcast, let me know when you're ready to answer those questions you still haven't answered, K?
you're not interested in answers [...]
I wouldn't keep asking for them, if I weren't. Let's hear 'em.

[Outcast]

Not much point getting into a quoting competition about who made more irrelevant posts. Yours alone would fill many a pages.

V-Ger,
as the author of the following comment you should really think twice before accusing others of making irrelevant posts. besides, if you keep this rate of irrelevancy and this taste for disinformation you'll soon also fill many pages of irrelevant babbling.

Whoops, silly me. I thought Nancy was all about Nibiru.
I really need to check my mythology...

[Taibak]

It's not because you can read the Enuma Elish as an allegorical astronomical text (and this can be discussed as well) that you can read it as a literal astronomical text. The Lord of the Rings can be read as an allegorical antiwar text (although Tolkien despised this), but you would be hard pressed to read it as a literal description of either WW1 or WW2.
And A.DIM claimed that it should be read as a literal astronomical text.

ok, taking the risk of repeating myself let me state this again: despite what Rich said in ealier pages and the current insistance that old "myths" are fictional stories the fact is noone truly knows. what matters, in my opinion, is that they were never considered, by those who meticulously wrote and copied down those texts, to be fiction.

thousands of tablets were safe guarded in ancient librarys, as the Sumerian and later the Akkadian scribes were trained in the scholarly work of copying and maintaning them.

That doesn't mean what you think it means though. Did the Sumerians believe their religion was true? Absolutely. Does that mean the events described in their religious texts were actually true? Not necessarily.

By way of comparison, one of my favorite historical sources, the Vita Sancti Anselmi by Edmer of Canterbury, talks about various miracles worked by Anselm of Bec. For instance, he supposedly once frightened off some ghost wolves by spitting fire at them. Edmer probably believed that actually happened - but that's not good enough for an historian. To prove that Edmer was talking about something real you would have to prove that ghost wolves exist and that humans can spontaneously breathe fire. Or, put another way, Nancy Leider is probably sincere in her beliefs that she's in telepathic communication with aliens and she has written extensively about the subject. That doesn't mean she actually is.

So taking this back to the Sumerians, you can't simply say that something was true just because they wrote it down - espescially if they were writing about something that violates known science or is contradicted by other texts. Taken a step further, whether you believe the texts should be taken literally or not you need corroborating evidence.

according to the scribes own written records, those texts represent human history from the time when the "gods" roamed the Earth.

Then where is the evidence for these beings? Show me something - anything - that corrborates this.

no scholar who has studied these texts in detail can claim or prove that they represent fictional events.

It doesn't work that way. You're claiming that the texts should be taken literally, therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove your case. You can't shift the burden to someone else just because he or she asks how you know the texts aren't fictional.

in fact from the 19th century and earlier to this day they are still used as reference for archeological discoveries. the tomb of Gilgamesh was discovered after a literal interpretaion of the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example.

That's fallacious reasoning. Just because one story is true doesn't mean that all of them are true. Moreover, all that find proves is that Gilgamesh existed. It does not necessarily prove that he did the things described in the epic, that Enkidu existed, etc.

Either way, you can't rely on ancient texts as infallable sources. To use a different example, Heinrich Schliemann relied on The Iliad to locate the city of Troy. On one level, this suggests that we shouldn't automatically disregard texts. However, the reality is a bit more complex. Homer was very specific about what the city looked like - specifically that its walls were angled. Schliemann, blinded by his desire to treat Homer as Gospel, kept digging until he found walls that matched that description destroying several layers of ruins in the process. Eventually he found a layer with the right walls, but that city was far, far too small to have been involved in a war on the scale Homer described. The archaeological evidence showed - conclusively - that the textual evidence was contradictory, at best.

Where Schliemann went wrong was to trust his texts more than the physical evidence. You're running into the same problems here. If the Sumerian gods actually existed, where's the evidence that corrborates their religious texts? If they lived in the sky, like the texts say they did, how do you account for things that seem to violate the known laws of science? These aren't trivial objections - these are calls for evidence that directly corrborates your theory and for proof that your theory is physically possible.

the problem of failling to understand the importance of these texts comes more from misinformation and misunderstanding than from a close and detailed examination of their origins. so, comparing the "Lord of the Rings" with the Enuma Elish which was the story of creation venerated for thousands of years, and the inspiration of the Biblical genesis, is at best a naive attempt at downgradding the level of the conversation.

Not really. It's a fair summary of the argument at hand since all we have is a mythological corpus that we're supposed to take at face value - the texts are true because they were written down and believed to be true. The first counterargument you need to overcome is how you decided that these texts aren't fictional - and whether you compare that to Lord of the Rings, Atlantis, The Amazing Spider-Man #365, or Dick and Jane to make that argument is irrelevant. The only way to get past these comparisons is to produce some corroborating evidence.

if this whole thread served no purpose i hope at least it inspired some lurker out there to go search and read about about the amazing Sumerian civilization. to understand and witness how they wrote with such amazing detail about their gods.

Detail is not necessarily a sign that something is true - and, like it or not, Lord of the Rings is an excellent comparison. Tolkien put an amazing amount of work into detailing the geography and languages of Middle Earth. That does not mean that you once had a bunch of Sindarin speakers living in a city called Imladris.

to find the similarities between those gods and the gods of other ancient civilizations and to ultimately recognize the same archetypical struggle between the two brothers EN.KI and EN.LIL propagated through civilizations and history to our own days.

This also doesn't prove that the texts are literally true since fictional texts can influence cultures as well. There's evidence that Boccaccio's Decarmeron influenced Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. That doesn't mean that either of those were true stories.

its a monumental work, no doubt. but i think it goes beyond the cinicism of the nay sayers and the reward is a deep understanding of human nature and history.

Then show me the corroborating evidence.

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:
if you keep this rate of irrelevancy and this taste for disinformation you'll soon also fill many pages of irrelevant babbling.

Emphasis on also eh?

thousands of tablets were safe guarded in ancient librarys, as the Sumerian and later the Akkadian scribes were trained in the scholarly work of copying and maintaning them. according to the scribes own written records, those texts represent human history from the time when the "gods" roamed the Earth.

If you then consider these texts to be a depiction of real events, persons and godlike beings, how do you then explain the inconsistancies in the texts from different era's?For example Sumerian Gilgamesh poems say that Enkidu is Gilgamesh's servant and the later, Akkadian Gilgamesh epic tells that they are intimate companions? This is just one grude example but it shows that there are different versions made over time. Which texts are the real ones then? This is very relevant since we're supposed to consider the myths as real history.

[Outcast]

Taibak wrote:
That's fallacious reasoning. Just because one story is true doesn't mean that all of them are true. Moreover, all that find proves is that Gilgamesh existed. It does not necessarily prove that he did the things described in the epic, that Enkidu existed, etc.

Taibak, i do not entirely disagree with the points raised in your post, that is why, contrary to what others have done before in this and other threads on the subject, i do not insist that the AAT or ETH has got to be true. it doesnt really, its an hypothesis that in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, explains many things. the problem is, its a monumental work that crosses many sciences from ancient history to astronomy and it deals with current human knowlledge of events that happened thousands of years ago. its a different interpretation of the facts and is of course debatable to the smallest detail.

now, its curious that you accuse me of fallacious reasoning when you use the exact reasoning (though oposite) to state your case. that is, you apriori assume that the ancient texts are fictional therefore the hypothisis that the incredible feats of the Sumerian and Vedan gods cannot be possibly true. that is most disingenuous.

Biblical archeology has been for years unearthing physical evidence based on the Biblical texts. so, a literal interpretation of the texts is and should be taken as a possibility.

Outcast wrote:
no scholar who has studied these texts in detail can claim or prove that they represent fictional events.

It doesn't work that way. You're claiming that the texts should be taken literally, therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove your case. You can't shift the burden to someone else just because he or she asks how you know the texts aren't fictional.

i disagree. i do not base my assumption in apriori judgements. those who kept the records from the beginning of time never considered their gods to be metaphysical. why should we?

Robert Graves (Graves 1968) writes, "Mythology is the study of whatever religious or heroic legends are so foreign to a student’s experience that he cannot believe them to be true; hence the English adjective ‘mythical’ meaning ‘incredible’; hence the omission from standard European mythologies of all Biblical narrative even when closely paralleled by myths from Persia, Babylonia, Egypt and Greece."

incredible does not mean untruthfull or fictional. those are Western's men preconceptions in action.

Fram said earlier: "It's not because you can read the Enuma Elish as an allegorical astronomical text (and this can be discussed as well) that you can read it as a literal astronomical text."

just because it seems allegorical or even worst, nonsensical to some, it doesnt mean there isnt a hidden truth. it doesnt mean that the allegorical expression doesnt have an underlying interpretation which conveys a more profound truth. in an earlier post i've shown how specific allegorical texts can be misinterpreted and misunderstood, as they have been, if one analyses them with preconceived notions or missing the context.

If the Sumerian gods actually existed, where's the evidence that corrborates their religious texts?

interesting, the way you inserted the "religious" word in that sentence as a way to reinforce the negative. is it not possible that the "religious" twist, that is the metaphysical interpretation, was added by modern men to real events they had no way to explain? either way, there's no doubt that physical evidence of some sort is necessay.

If they lived in the sky, like the texts say they did, how do you account for things that seem to violate the known laws of science?

what do you mean? since when living in the sky violates the known laws of science? if that is so then human astronauts have been doing that for years. besides, from accounts such as the Book of Enoch, the Mahabaratta, the Myth of Etanna, etc, we can understand that the gods lived in an orbital space city. the description of it by Indra is amazing, going to the detail of describing how the aerial chariots that were lunched from Earth docked in the space facilities. simply imagination? maybe, but to me the doubt still stands even if i cant provide physical evidence for the presence of an Earth orbital space ship in ancient times. i dont think anyone can. the only evidence is the description of a similar apparatus across cultures and history. its means what it means and its worth what its worth.

Outcast wrote:
to find the similarities between those gods and the gods of other ancient civilizations and to ultimately recognize the same archetypical struggle between the two brothers EN.KI and EN.LIL propagated through civilizations and history to our own days.

This also doesn't prove that the texts are literally true since fictional texts can influence cultures as well. There's evidence that Boccaccio's Decarmeron influenced Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. That doesn't mean that either of those were true stories.


even cultures which suposedly never met each other? i find it incredible that reminiscences of the winged disk or the second sun of the Sumerians, from whence the Anunnaki came, appears in so many cultures. coincidence?

Then show me the corroborating evidence.

maybe someday physical evidence will be unearthed but, in my opinion, there are good reasons why such evidence, even if it has allready appeared, will probably remain hidden.

Let's recapitulate: since 1991, more and more mostly spiral-shaped objects have been found, on the banks of the rivers Narada, Kozim, and Balbanyu in the eastern Ural mountains. They are composed principally of tungsten, molybdenum, and copper [1, 2]. It was extremely fortunate that these discoveries were made in the course of official exploration. The expeditions were mounted with a view to exploiting precious and non-ferrous metals in this regions, and geological and mineralogical analyses were carried out. The work was under the auspices of the Central Scientific Research Institute for Geology and Prospecting for Precious and Non-Ferrous Metals (ZNIGRI) in Moscow, which comes under the Committee of the Russian Federation for Geology and Exploitation of Mineral Resources.

As I was told by Dr. Valerii Ouvarov (St. Petersburg), further analyses of the mysterious spiralswere carried out by the out-stations of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg and in Syktyvar (former capital of the Komi ASSR), and also at an independent institute in Helsinki.

I have before me the Expertise No. 18/485 of 29th November 1996, by the aforementioned Institute (ZNIGRI) [3], the original Russian text of which I reproduced in my book WENN GOETTER GOTT SPIELEN. Due to the short time before the book went to press, a correct and complete translation was not possible. This was only possible after a sworn translator had been brought in [4].


http://www.mystae.com/streams/science/russcrew2.html

[Outcast]

Outcast wrote:
if you keep this rate of irrelevancy and this taste for disinformation you'll soon also fill many pages of irrelevant babbling.

Emphasis on also eh?


yes, its called irony.

[Outcast]

If you then consider these texts to be a depiction of real events, persons and godlike beings, how do you then explain the inconsistancies in the texts from different era's?For example Sumerian Gilgamesh poems say that Enkidu is Gilgamesh's servant and the later, Akkadian Gilgamesh epic tells that they are intimate companions? This is just one grude example but it shows that there are different versions made over time. Which texts are the real ones then? This is very relevant since we're supposed to consider the myths as real history.

there is no question there are fragmentary "myths". allthough i wouldnt consider that example as a major inconsistency. Enkidu, better yet, EN.KI.DU means the creature of EN.KI, the creator god. Enkidu is described as a human to which was taught civilization by the gods. after that he was certainly put at the command of Gilgamesh, two thirds god and King among early humans. not happy with his mortal destiny on Earth, and conscient to the fact that he was part god, he went on a journey with Enkidu to meet Utnapishtin, the Sumerian Noah, in order to ask the gods for immortality.

[Fram]

Taibak responded earlier and said it better than I can, so I'll leave the most unanswered.

Fram said earlier: "It's not because you can read the Enuma Elish as an allegorical astronomical text (and this can be discussed as well) that you can read it as a literal astronomical text."

just because it seems allegorical or even worst, nonsensical to some, it doesnt mean there isnt a hidden truth. it doesnt mean that the allegorical expression doesnt have an underlying interpretation which conveys a more profound truth. in an earlier post i've shown how specific allegorical texts can be misinterpreted and misunderstood, as they have been, if one analyses them with preconceived notions or missing the context.
Emphasis mine. So you agree that to find that meaning, you don't read the text literally, but you interpret it?
I would have loved to emphasize the next line, but that would have been too harsh...

[Fram]

maybe someday physical evidence will be unearthed but, in my opinion, there are good reasons why such evidence, even if it has allready appeared, will probably remain hidden.

Quote:
Let's recapitulate: since 1991, more and more mostly spiral-shaped objects have been found, on the banks of the rivers Narada, Kozim, and Balbanyu in the eastern Ural mountains. They are composed principally of tungsten, molybdenum, and copper [1, 2]. It was extremely fortunate that these discoveries were made in the course of official exploration. The expeditions were mounted with a view to exploiting precious and non-ferrous metals in this regions, and geological and mineralogical analyses were carried out. The work was under the auspices of the Central Scientific Research Institute for Geology and Prospecting for Precious and Non-Ferrous Metals (ZNIGRI) in Moscow, which comes under the Committee of the Russian Federation for Geology and Exploitation of Mineral Resources.

As I was told by Dr. Valerii Ouvarov (St. Petersburg), further analyses of the mysterious spiralswere carried out by the out-stations of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg and in Syktyvar (former capital of the Komi ASSR), and also at an independent institute in Helsinki.

I have before me the Expertise No. 18/485 of 29th November 1996, by the aforementioned Institute (ZNIGRI) [3], the original Russian text of which I reproduced in my book WENN GOETTER GOTT SPIELEN. Due to the short time before the book went to press, a correct and complete translation was not possible. This was only possible after a sworn translator had been brought in [4].


http://www.mystae.com/streams/science/russcrew2.html


Ah, a new tangent. I don't see how this shows that any evidence would remain hidden? This "evidence" is published and available on the internet, so what is there hidden about it?

I have searched a bit more about this doscovery, and apparently one of the discoverers is Valery Mikhailovich Uvarov (referenced in your link a well), as can be read on this site (http://www.deepspace4.com/pages/questions/installation.htm).
He has some amazing things to say on other subjects as well, like Planet X.

I cannot speak for astronomers in the West, but astronomers within our Academy tell us we have nothing to fear. I have heard people talk about a rotation figure of 3,600 years for this planet, which is in a similar orbit to that of the Earth but behind the Sun. We know that this planet and the installation in Siberia are closely connected. Let me say that we believe that this installation is keeping that planet in a stable orbit. If that planet were to move, to shift orbit, the entire solar system would become unstable. Those of us in the Academy are sure that this planet is inhabited, and that this installation is designed to protect them and us. We are sure that nothing dangerous will happen. Everything is under control.

Our investigations have shown that the Earth has a pulse-a finely tuned frequency that affects everything, every living thing. Some 12,500 years ago, this pulse corresponded to 360 days of the year-study the old Egyptian calendar-but then an asteroid struck the Earth. We believe the orbit of the Earth was altered, artificially, to compensate for this. Our planet moved further away from the Sun, to a frequency pulse of 365.

This has taught us to believe that we have friends-friends who watch over us, silently. They did not allow then, nor will they allow now, any planet, comet or asteroid to strike and destroy the Earth. This, for us, is now absolutely clear.



Do you mind if I don't take any of this serious (it was a good laugh though), and by consequence regard the claims about prehistoric nanotechnology with some skepsis as well?

This page (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=35) as well deals with these finds. Again the institute in Helsinki remains unnamed (what a pity), but the artifacts have been dated!
All test carried out so far have dated the objects at between 20,000 and 318,000 years old, depending on the depth and location of the find.

What tests? Ah, that remains a mystery... How you can find something with a size of 1/10000 of an inch is intriguing as well, but as I'm not a geology expert, I'll leave that to others. And it's of course too bad that there seems to have not been any further articles about the finds since 1998. I can find no other references to scientific assistant Matveyeva, and it's even hard to find out i the ZNIGRI really exists. So all we have are two articles, 6 and 7 years old, from a German scientist (?), citing an unnamed Helsinki institute, an unknown Russian scientist, another Russian who is clearly woowoo, a dating method which remains unknown, and some insinuations by you that if any evidence is or was found, it would remain hidden somehow. :roll:

[Taibak]

Taibak wrote:
That's fallacious reasoning. Just because one story is true doesn't mean that all of them are true. Moreover, all that find proves is that Gilgamesh existed. It does not necessarily prove that he did the things described in the epic, that Enkidu existed, etc.

Taibak, i do not entirely disagree with the points raised in your post, that is why, contrary to what others have done before in this and other threads on the subject, i do not insist that the AAT or ETH has got to be true. it doesnt really, its an hypothesis that in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, explains many things.

Fair enough, but without anything to corrborate this hypothesis it can never be anything more.

the problem is, its a monumental work that crosses many sciences from ancient history to astronomy and it deals with current human knowlledge of events that happened thousands of years ago

That's hardly insurmountable. There are plenty of historians with broad training. In fact, most historians (at least most good ones) have at least rudimentary training in anthropology, archaeology, literature, and linguistics. A good amount of them have science training as well.

its a different interpretation of the facts and is of course debatable to the smallest detail.

Ah... the joys of history.

now, its curious that you accuse me of fallacious reasoning when you use the exact reasoning (though oposite) to state your case. that is, you apriori assume that the ancient texts are fictional therefore the hypothisis that the incredible feats of the Sumerian and Vedan gods cannot be possibly true. that is most disingenuous.

Except it's an assumption that I'm more than willing to change. I'm perfectly willing to accept that these people may have existed but only if I see some evidence that confirms it. I also do not think that the mythology in question is strictly fictional - elements of it were most likely based in fact.

However, that does not mean I can't (rightly) take a skeptical approach to my sources. From that point of view, supernatural beings are (rightly) generally dismissed as fictional. Granted, you've claimed that the gods probably weren't supernatural but that only gets us past the initial skepticism check. It plants the burden of proof firmly on your shoulders to show that these people existed.

Biblical archeology has been for years unearthing physical evidence based on the Biblical texts. so, a literal interpretation of the texts is and should be taken as a possibility.

Yes, but be careful - otherwise you're back to the fallacy I mentioned above. The Book of Joshua mentions the Battle of Jericho and yes, there is evidence that there was one. However, there's no reason to take Joshua literally when it says that the city's walls fell thanks to some coordinated trumpet playing and shouting.

Outcast wrote:
no scholar who has studied these texts in detail can claim or prove that they represent fictional events.

It doesn't work that way. You're claiming that the texts should be taken literally, therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove your case. You can't shift the burden to someone else just because he or she asks how you know the texts aren't fictional.

i disagree. i do not base my assumption in apriori judgements. those who kept the records from the beginning of time never considered their gods to be metaphysical. why should we?

Because what you're arguing is, essentially, that we should believe everything that they're telling us without question. The Sumerians believed that their religion was true. Big deal. Everyone believes their religion was true; that's sort of the point. The question I'm asking is how you, as an historian, distinguish between belief and fact within your sources. How do you know that these things actually happened, regardless of whether or not the Mesopotamians believed they did?

That's why I keep asking for evidence. Simply put, not all mythologies can be literally true. For instance, the Mesopotamian, Shinto, Judeo-Christian, Egyptian, Hindu, Norse, and Greco-Roman texts all contain different accounts of creation. Even though each culture believed that their respective religions were true, it's not possible for all of them to have been 100% accurate accounts. As an historian, what have you done to decide that the Mesopotamian account is true? What makes their version special? What evidence corrborates that position?

Robert Graves (Graves 1968) writes, "Mythology is the study of whatever religious or heroic legends are so foreign to a student’s experience that he cannot believe them to be true; hence the English adjective ‘mythical’ meaning ‘incredible’; hence the omission from standard European mythologies of all Biblical narrative even when closely paralleled by myths from Persia, Babylonia, Egypt and Greece."

incredible does not mean untruthfull or fictional. those are Western's men preconceptions in action.

This is true, BUT, keep in mind that nowhere in that quote does Graves imply that those mythologies are true. He's saying that the Bible should be treated like any other mythology. Leaving one's beliefs aside for the moment, that's a perfectly good bit of historiography.

Fram said earlier: "It's not because you can read the Enuma Elish as an allegorical astronomical text (and this can be discussed as well) that you can read it as a literal astronomical text."

just because it seems allegorical or even worst, nonsensical to some, it doesnt mean there isnt a hidden truth. it doesnt mean that the allegorical expression doesnt have an underlying interpretation which conveys a more profound truth. in an earlier post i've shown how specific allegorical texts can be misinterpreted and misunderstood, as they have been, if one analyses them with preconceived notions or missing the context.

But if you go hunting for a 'hidden truth' or 'allegorical expression' you're no longer taking a text literally which you've claimed we should do. How do you determine when you use each approach?

If the Sumerian gods actually existed, where's the evidence that corrborates their religious texts?

interesting, the way you inserted the "religious" word in that sentence as a way to reinforce the negative. is it not possible that the "religious" twist, that is the metaphysical interpretation, was added by modern men to real events they had no way to explain? either way, there's no doubt that physical evidence of some sort is necessay.

No, I'm just picking out the religious texts from other texts that might mention the gods (the Epic of Gilgamesh, for instance). If you prefer, I can rephrase the question as 'Where's the evidence that corrborates their mythology?'

If they lived in the sky, like the texts say they did, how do you account for things that seem to violate the known laws of science?

what do you mean? since when living in the sky violates the known laws of science? if that is so then human astronauts have been doing that for years.

Okay, fair point. But keep in mind that this thread has seen claims that the Mesopotamian gods did quite a few things that violate known science.

besides, from accounts such as the Book of Enoch, the Mahabaratta, the Myth of Etanna, etc, we can understand that the gods lived in an orbital space city. the description of it by Indra is amazing, going to the detail of describing how the aerial chariots that were lunched from Earth docked in the space facilities. simply imagination? maybe, but to me the doubt still stands even if i cant provide physical evidence for the presence of an Earth orbital space ship in ancient times. i dont think anyone can. the only evidence is the description of a similar apparatus across cultures and history. its means what it means and its worth what its worth.

Ah, but what you've just described would be an EXCELLENT source of corrborating evidence. Space stations are fast-moving, naked-eye objects that are visible along their entire orbits. In other words, they stick out like a sore thumb particularly in a sky with no other artificial satellites. Does this facility show up in any astronomical texts, particularly those from other cultures?

Outcast wrote:
to find the similarities between those gods and the gods of other ancient civilizations and to ultimately recognize the same archetypical struggle between the two brothers EN.KI and EN.LIL propagated through civilizations and history to our own days.

I don't follow you here.

This also doesn't prove that the texts are literally true since fictional texts can influence cultures as well. There's evidence that Boccaccio's Decarmeron influenced Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. That doesn't mean that either of those were true stories.


even cultures which suposedly never met each other? i find it incredible that reminiscences of the winged disk or the second sun of the Sumerians, from whence the Anunnaki came, appears in so many cultures. coincidence?

Actually, yes, it is possible. Thor Heyerdahl based his theories, in part, on similar artistic styles between various cultures BUT there's still no solid evidence that those cultures were in contact. The aforementioned St. Anselm's theories sound a lot like Plato, but there's no evidence that Plato's writings were available in western Europe at the time. Synchronicity can, and does, happen. Again, you need corroborating evidence to prove contact.

Then show me the corroborating evidence.

maybe someday physical evidence will be unearthed but, in my opinion, there are good reasons why such evidence, even if it has allready appeared, will probably remain hidden.

Then what good is a theory without any evidence?

Let's recapitulate: since 1991, more and more mostly spiral-shaped objects have been found, on the banks of the rivers Narada, Kozim, and Balbanyu in the eastern Ural mountains. They are composed principally of tungsten, molybdenum, and copper [1, 2]. It was extremely fortunate that these discoveries were made in the course of official exploration. The expeditions were mounted with a view to exploiting precious and non-ferrous metals in this regions, and geological and mineralogical analyses were carried out. The work was under the auspices of the Central Scientific Research Institute for Geology and Prospecting for Precious and Non-Ferrous Metals (ZNIGRI) in Moscow, which comes under the Committee of the Russian Federation for Geology and Exploitation of Mineral Resources.

As I was told by Dr. Valerii Ouvarov (St. Petersburg), further analyses of the mysterious spiralswere carried out by the out-stations of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg and in Syktyvar (former capital of the Komi ASSR), and also at an independent institute in Helsinki.

I have before me the Expertise No. 18/485 of 29th November 1996, by the aforementioned Institute (ZNIGRI) [3], the original Russian text of which I reproduced in my book WENN GOETTER GOTT SPIELEN. Due to the short time before the book went to press, a correct and complete translation was not possible. This was only possible after a sworn translator had been brought in [4].


I have to agree with Fram on this one. Your source is not credible.


Edited to insert the word 'can't.'

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:
yes, its called irony.

Didn't realize you knew the word...

there is no question there are fragmentary "myths". allthough i wouldnt consider that example as a major inconsistency. Enkidu, better yet, EN.KI.DU means the creature of EN.KI, the creator god. Enkidu is described as a human to which was taught civilization by the gods. after that he was certainly put at the command of Gilgamesh, two thirds god and King among early humans. not happy with his mortal destiny on Earth, and conscient to the fact that he was part god, he went on a journey with Enkidu to meet Utnapishtin, the Sumerian Noah, in order to ask the gods for immortality.


Put certainly at the command of Gilgamesh?Why certainly?According to which version? Inconsistancies are hardly minor; Sumerian poems and the Akkadian epic are separated by a millenia. Why EN.KI.DU instead of Enkidu? I've only seen the "normal" spelling.

[V-GER]

As I was told by Dr. Valerii Ouvarov (St. Petersburg), further analyses of the mysterious spiralswere carried out by the out-stations of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg and in Syktyvar (former capital of the Komi ASSR), and also at an independent institute in Helsinki.

I remember the "spiral" being brought up by finnish woo-woo's in a television debate (typically about one minute before the ending so no one could reply). Living right next to Helsinki I would be interested to know which was this "independent institute" and what they concluded. The local woo-woo's not so surprisingly didn't mention it again even though they were quite vocal in the mid 90's.

[Taibak]

However, that does not mean I can't (rightly) take a skeptical approach to my sources. From that point of view, supernatural beings are (rightly) generally dismissed as fictional. Granted, you've claimed that the gods probably weren't supernatural but that only gets us past the initial skepticism check. It plants the burden of proof firmly on your shoulders to show that these people existed.

Let me clarify this a bit. In hindsight, I don't think it's as clear as I intended.

Whenever one sits down with an historical source, the first thing to ask is whether or not the text is talking about something plausible. The standard here is pretty low; the only things I would rule out are things that either violate scientific laws or things that contradict a number of other sources. To go back to the Vita Sancti Anselmi, Edmer's claim that Anselm spit fire can be safely dismissed as impossible. By the same token, if Edmer claimed that Anselm spent Christmas in 1096 in Paris when a dozen other independent, contemporary sources say he was in London at the time, then it's safe to conclude that Edmer would, again, be wrong. Whether Edmer believed that his version of events was the correct one is essentially irrelevant.

After that, one should (generally) give the source the benefit of the doubt. After all, whoever wrote it was probably much better placed to know what was going on than any of us are. However, you still need corroborating evidence, whenever possible. More importantly, as the claims get bigger, the persons involved become more prominant, and the events in question become more important the more evidence you need. The monk Anselm saved from the ghost wolves I mentioned earlier isn't all that important and doesn't seem to have been involved in anything besides this one miracle story. In that case, it doesn't really matter whether he actually existed or not - it wouldn't change the big picture.

Getting back to Mesopotamia and the argument at hand, we're talking about beings that were revered as gods in multiple cultures and who lived in a space station. To say that's a big claim would be an understatement. For starters, it raises more questions than it answers. What happened to the space station? Did it crash? If so, where's the wreckage? Did it leave orbit? If so, where did it go and how? Why didn't anybody notice it in the skies? What happened to Enki and Enlil?

On top of that, leaving aside the question of whether or not they were gods and whether or not the Mesopotamians had religion, we're talking about people who were extremely important within their societies. Why don't we find any evidence of them having been real people? Where are their tombs? If they had the kind of control over the societies that Outcast has argued, where are the monuments to their rule? How long were they alive? In addition, Enki and Enlil were supposedly active outside of Mesopotamia. If that was so, the questions I just asked need to be asked for every culture involved. Indeed, the more active these people were the harder it becomes to believe that they did so much without leaving behind any evidence.

[Outcast]

Fram wrote:
Ah, a new tangent. I don't see how this shows that any evidence would remain hidden? This "evidence" is published and available on the internet, so what is there hidden about it?

reading what i wrote before, followed by my quote from mystae i can understand the reason for these questions. but my intention when providing that link was not as evidence for the previous comment. i just wanted a skeptic opinion on this subject.

Do you mind if I don't take any of this serious (it was a good laugh though), and by consequence regard the claims about prehistoric nanotechnology with some skepsis as well?

not at all. i sure would like to see some evidence for those alien technologies in russia. :-?
anyway, it appears that Dr. Valerii Ouvarov did further analysis of the evidence and is not responsible for the discovery, so i dont think that Ouvarov's personal out of the box ideas should be responsible for casting doubt on other peoples work. case in point:

I have before me the Expertise No. 18/485 of 29th November 1996, by the aforementioned Institute (ZNIGRI) [3], the original Russian text of which I reproduced in my book WENN GOETTER GOTT SPIELEN. Due to the short time before the book went to press, a correct and complete translation was not possible. This was only possible after a sworn translator had been brought in [4].

The author of the Expertise is Scientific Assistant Mme. Dr. E. W. Matveyeva, of the Section for Geology, Prospecting Techniques, and Economics of Precious Metal Alluvial Deposits. She reports first on the development of the discovery site, then the testing procedures used for the analysis of the thread-shaped tungsten spirals in the alluvial deposits of the Balbanyu river. The exact location of the site is given by ZNIGRI as follows: it is a development in the alluvial deposits of the third flood-terrace on the (looking downstream) left bank of the river Balbanyu, oriented along borehole line no. 106. Loose sediments are found in this development, which are represented as follows, working upwards from the oldest to the youngest deposits:

1 A structured weathering-crust (alternating chalk and carbon-containing slate with grey-blue and brown-yellow banding: visible thickness 0.5 - 1.0 metres.)
2. Included lenticles (Einschlusslinsen) of 0 to 0.2 metres of weakly-sorted sand, gravel, clay, and fine detrital material, which can be designated as erosion products of stratum 1. described above.
3. Deposits of grey gravel and detrital material of various grain sizes with well washed-out sands and a visible thickness of 1 to 1.7 metres, which could be investigated for possible gold content.
4 Gravel-containing sand and clay deposits, grey-coloured, with a visible thickness of 2.0 metres. In the upper region of this sediment can be seen evidence of disturbance by grading work.

As regards the age of the strata which contain the tungsten and molybdenum artefacts, Dr Matveyeva states as follows: The layer which contains the spiral-shaped objects is characterised as gravel and detritus deposits of No. 3 stratum, which in our view, show inner-sedimentary erosion of polygenetic accumulative layers (i.e. layers composed of material of various origins). From their orientation these layers can be dated to 100,000 years and correspond to the lying parts (i.e. the lower regions) of the Mikulinsk horizon of the upper Pleistocene.[3]

In the geological time-scale, the Pleistocene is that part of the Quaternary, the latest geological epoch, which began about 2 million years ago and ended around 10,000 years ago. After that followed the Holocene, in which we are at the moment.

The report continues by describing the tests carried out, which include the use of an electrom microscope type JSM T-330 made by the Japanese firm Jeol. This also yielded data of various spectroscopic analyses [5].

Particular attention should be paid to the final conclusion reached by the Moscow institute. Report No. 18/485 states that the age of the deposits and the results of the tests give a very low probability to the assumption that the origin of these unusual, thread-shaped tungsten crystals is of a technogenic cosmic nature, due to the rocket take-off route from the Plesetsk space-station over the polar part of the Ural region.

In plain language: these objects cannot have originated from earlier test rockets or similar fired from Plesetsk. The key word of the report comes finally to the point: The data obtained allow the possibility of an extra-terrestrial technogenic origin.[3]


at the bottom of the page, Hausdorf makes the following comment:

I would be glad to send interested readers a copy of the complete ZNIGRI report for the cost and postage, also representative micro-photographs

so i dont think the information was presented in bad faith even if it deserves a skeptical view. and i mean a skeptical view, not a swift debunking based on things other than the work in question.

At present they are being investigated by the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow and St Petersburg and at a scientific institute in Helsinki, Finland.

i'll search the net for more information about this.

[Outcast]

Why EN.KI.DU instead of Enkidu? I've only seen the "normal" spelling.

sumerian is an agglutinative language and a word is sometimes formed by other compound words to derive a meaning. it could also be spelled EN-KI-DU, either way it would be correct. some scholars use the dot character when rendering sumerian words.

[Fram]

at the bottom of the page, Hausdorf makes the following comment:

I would be glad to send interested readers a copy of the complete ZNIGRI report for the cost and postage, also representative micro-photographs

so i dont think the information was presented in bad faith even if it deserves a skeptical view. and i mean a skeptical view, not a swift debunking based on things other than the work in question.

At present they are being investigated by the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow and St Petersburg and at a scientific institute in Helsinki, Finland.

i'll search the net for more information about this.

I didn't claim Hausdorf was in bad faith, but the fact that the only source I was able to trace on the Net is clearly a very unscientific professor, doesn't give a good impression of the critical skills of Hausdorf. Your last quote comes from the same source, so that might explain why there is nothing to be found about it (in my search). There is very little to be found about the ZNIGRI and nothing about the assistant featured in the article, and there has been no follow-up on these two articles as far as I can find. Every other page about these finds is clearly only based on Hausdorfs articles. So I see no reason to approach this any other way than very sceptical until more information comes around.

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:
Quote:
At present they are being investigated by the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow and St Petersburg and at a scientific institute in Helsinki, Finland.

i'll search the net for more information about this.

By all means do so, but I can pretty safely assure you that if a scientific institute in this country dated a microscopical artificial object to be prehistoric or anything that constitutes as ancient it would have made the headlines at least here and I would have heard about it. The only time I've ever heard about the "spirals" was as I said earlier, on TV years ago.

[Outcast]

i found two geological institutes in Moscow:

VNIIZarubezhGeologiia (All-Russian Research Institute for Overseas Geology) Moscow

and

VNIIGeosistem (All-Russian Research Institute for Geological Systems)

[Disinfo Agent]

Why EN.KI.DU instead of Enkidu? I've only seen the "normal" spelling.
sumerian is an agglutinative language and a word is sometimes formed by other compound words to derive a meaning. it could also be spelled EN-KI-DU, either way it would be correct. some scholars use the dot character when rendering sumerian words.
The use of capitals in the transliteration of Sumerian has to do with how the word was written. According to AncientScripts.com (http://www.ancientscripts.com/sumerian.html), for instance, capitals are used for transcribing logograms, whereas regular letters are used for syllabograms.

Note: When transcribing Sumerian syllabic signs into English, archaeologists use subscripts to mark different signs that have the same phonetic value. So in the previous example, gu is "flax", gu2 is "neck", gu3 is "voice", and so forth. And as you will see later, when transcribing logograms, capital letters are used, such as MUSHEN for "bird".
It's got little to do with the fact that Sumerian was agglutinative.

[Fram]

i found two geological institutes in Moscow:

VNIIZarubezhGeologiia (All-Russian Research Institute for Overseas Geology) Moscow

and

VNIIGeosistem (All-Russian Research Institute for Geological Systems)

And?
I'm certain you can find at least one scientific institute in Helsinki as well...

[A.DIM]

Sorry all; I'm quite busy as of late and haven't been able to keep up, but in an effort to maintain some semblance with astronomy...

OK, explain to me how you read the Enuma Elish "literally," as an astronomical text? What was it describing?
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?
When Tiamat heard these words,
She raged and cried aloud...
She... grievously...,
She uttered a curse, and unto Apsu she spake:

Marduk is a planet, right?
But Marduk hath set out, the director of the gods, your son;
To set out against Tiamat his heart hath prompted him.
He opened his mouth and spake unto me, saying:
'If I, your avenger,
Conquer Tiamat and give you life,
Appoint an assembly, make my fate preeminent and proclaim it
The quotes are from sacred texts (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm), 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.

I apologize, Fram, but I think our respective understanding of "literally" in regards to the Enuma Elish differ.

Consider:

Sun = Apsu "one who exists from the beginning, primordial"
Mercury = Mummu, counselor and emissary of Apsu
Venus = Lahamu "lady of battles"
Mars = Lahmu "deity of war"
?? = Tiamat "maiden who gave life" (split to become "heaven and earth")
Asteroid Belt = "hammered bracelet" after the celestial battle, renamed "heaven" in the OT
Jupiter = Kishar "foremost of firm lands"
Saturn = Anshar "foremost of the heavens"
Pluto = Gaga, counselor and emissary of Anshar (given his own "destiny" or "orbit" by Marduk / Nibiru
Uranus = Anu, he of the heavens
Neptune = Nudimmud (EA) "artful creator"

BUT, before rereading the Enuma Elish with these in mind, be sure to gain some insight into The Astronomy of Babylon (http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/index.html?page=/iraqinfo/mythology/astronomy-babylon.html).

A couple of helpful snippets:

"A perusal of nearly any ancient pantheon reveals the obvious: At leastsome of the gods, often the most important ones, are objects in the sky.The metaphoric reasons are not difficult to understand. The regular motionsof celestial objects made them agents of order that helped give meaningto the world below; endless repetition of their appearances and disappearances suggested immortality; their light commanded attention and connoted power.And being in the sky, with such a perspective on earth below, it was onlynatural to assume that the gods must know all because they could see all:To see the world, one's eyes must be in heaven.
Although particular gods may differ in terms of the resources they arebelieved to control, control is the attribute they share. What they control,and how they do it, determines exactly what sorts of gods they are. Celestialgods control the passage of time by marking it and measuring it. They controldirection and space through the locations of their comings and goings.As masters of time and space, they move the world. They make it change.Day changes into night. Winter melts into spring. Rivers flood and fall.Grain sprouts, grows, and ripens. In these cycles of the world and in ourdaily lives we see patterened change, and it is driven by the sky."

"In very earliest time the Greeks and the Romans do not seem to have differentiatedthe planets. Writing in the fourth century BC, the Greek philosopher Platodescribed the five "wanderers" as gods and mentioned that the practiceof associating them with specific Olympian gods was introduced by foreigners.The foreigners probably came from either Egypt or Mesopotamia. The latteris the more likely source since the attributes and characteristics of Babylonianplanetary gods parallel those of the Greek gods, while the early Egyptianrepresentations of planets do not."

"Jupiter's course through the sky, Marduk decides, will guide the starsand planets. This may seem like an odd choice to make. The constant sun,perhaps, would define things better. But Jupiter's path through the skyfollows the ecliptic, the annual path of the sun, more closely than theother planets known to the ancients. Also, Jupiter's configurations inthe stars repeat themselves almost exactly every 12 years. For example,Jupiter will come into opposition (that is, be opposite the sun in thesky) 12 times in a span of time just five days longer than 12 years, andthe last opposition will occur among the same stars as the first.

These aspects of Jupiter's movement, combined with its brilliance amongthe stars of the nighttime sky, probably influenced early astronomers touse the planet as a reference, a function reflected, it seems, in the myth.There are uncertainties, however. The actual name for the planet used in the text is Nebiru."

I must add here that I think the identification of Marduk / Nebiru with Jupiter is in err. It should be clear that Marduk was not one of the "primordial" gods in the creation epic. He was a later "god" on earth, an Anunnaki. His usurpation of all the attributes of the "gods of heaven and earth" is what, in my mind, started monotheism, and began to blur the lines between astronomical texts dealing with the "celestial gods" and those dealing with the physically present "gods" on earth.
Anyway...
What the Enuma Elish describes then is that a chaotic early solar system consisting of a sun, its "emissary" and a "monstrous" body further out were the beginning. Then in 3 pairs, other "primordial gods" were born of them. Their "ways were troublesome" fittingly describes an early system having bodies with erratic orbits in my mind. An "avenger" from "the deep" - outside our solar system, is lured in, "begotten" by Nudimmud (Neptune) and set on course for a "celestial battle" which results in the creation of Heaven and Earth. This perturber then goes on to establish the "destinies" and "ways of heaven" - orbits - of all the other gods and is proclaimed as "Lord of Hosts"(to use an outdated biblical phrase derived from mesopotamia) among them. So, is the planet called Nebiru (not Jupiter), a pertuber body that actually established the order we see in our solar system?
Various astronomical observations suggest to me that this might well be the case.

As an aside: Understanding how intermingled the astronomy and religion/mythology of the ancients is, illuminates what the notion of the return of "the Lord" really means. :wink:

[soupdragon2]

What the Enuma Elish describes then is that a chaotic early solar system consisting of a sun, its "emissary" and a "monstrous" body further out were the beginning. Then in 3 pairs, other "primordial gods" were born of them. Their "ways were troublesome" fittingly describes an early system having bodies with erratic orbits in my mind.
Standard cosmology, of course, assumes that the orbits of the planets in our Solar System have been stable for millions of years. The Nebula hypothesis and all that.

Many ancient testimonies, however, seem to indicate otherwise. The trouble is that while ancient cultures record things very literally, they also superimpose their interpretation of events. They saw the planets as Gods, and saw the movement of planets as the Battles of Gods during periods of planetary upheaval.

Unfortunately, mainstream science misunderstands ancient testimony, dismissing it as ignorant superstition, when in reality it is simply a literal translation of what was seen.

As an aside: Understanding how intermingled the astronomy and religion/mythology of the ancients is, illuminates what the notion of the return of "the Lord" really means. :wink:
Indeed, most religion/mythology probably has astronomical origins. The 25th of the 12th month, for example, occurs in many religions as an important birthday. We are all aware of its astronomical significance.

I'm not sure about Nibiru being the planetary perturber, however.

[Fram]

Sorry all; I'm quite busy as of late and haven't been able to keep up, but in an effort to maintain some semblance with astronomy...

OK, explain to me how you read the Enuma Elish "literally," as an astronomical text? What was it describing?
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?
When Tiamat heard these words,
She raged and cried aloud...
She... grievously...,
She uttered a curse, and unto Apsu she spake:

Marduk is a planet, right?
But Marduk hath set out, the director of the gods, your son;
To set out against Tiamat his heart hath prompted him.
He opened his mouth and spake unto me, saying:
'If I, your avenger,
Conquer Tiamat and give you life,
Appoint an assembly, make my fate preeminent and proclaim it
The quotes are from sacred texts (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm), 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.

I apologize, Fram, but I think our respective understanding of "literally" in regards to the Enuma Elish differ.

Consider:

Sun = Apsu "one who exists from the beginning, primordial"
Mercury = Mummu, counselor and emissary of Apsu
Venus = Lahamu "lady of battles"
Mars = Lahmu "deity of war"
?? = Tiamat "maiden who gave life" (split to become "heaven and earth")
Asteroid Belt = "hammered bracelet" after the celestial battle, renamed "heaven" in the OT
Jupiter = Kishar "foremost of firm lands"
Saturn = Anshar "foremost of the heavens"
Pluto = Gaga, counselor and emissary of Anshar (given his own "destiny" or "orbit" by Marduk / Nibiru
Uranus = Anu, he of the heavens
Neptune = Nudimmud (EA) "artful creator"

BUT, before rereading the Enuma Elish with these in mind, be sure to gain some insight into The Astronomy of Babylon (http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/index.html?page=/iraqinfo/mythology/astronomy-babylon.html).

A couple of helpful snippets:

"A perusal of nearly any ancient pantheon reveals the obvious: At leastsome of the gods, often the most important ones, are objects in the sky.The metaphoric reasons are not difficult to understand. The regular motionsof celestial objects made them agents of order that helped give meaningto the world below; endless repetition of their appearances and disappearances suggested immortality; their light commanded attention and connoted power.And being in the sky, with such a perspective on earth below, it was onlynatural to assume that the gods must know all because they could see all:To see the world, one's eyes must be in heaven.
Although particular gods may differ in terms of the resources they arebelieved to control, control is the attribute they share. What they control,and how they do it, determines exactly what sorts of gods they are. Celestialgods control the passage of time by marking it and measuring it. They controldirection and space through the locations of their comings and goings.As masters of time and space, they move the world. They make it change.Day changes into night. Winter melts into spring. Rivers flood and fall.Grain sprouts, grows, and ripens. In these cycles of the world and in ourdaily lives we see patterened change, and it is driven by the sky."

"In very earliest time the Greeks and the Romans do not seem to have differentiatedthe planets. Writing in the fourth century BC, the Greek philosopher Platodescribed the five "wanderers" as gods and mentioned that the practiceof associating them with specific Olympian gods was introduced by foreigners.The foreigners probably came from either Egypt or Mesopotamia. The latteris the more likely source since the attributes and characteristics of Babylonianplanetary gods parallel those of the Greek gods, while the early Egyptianrepresentations of planets do not."

"Jupiter's course through the sky, Marduk decides, will guide the starsand planets. This may seem like an odd choice to make. The constant sun,perhaps, would define things better. But Jupiter's path through the skyfollows the ecliptic, the annual path of the sun, more closely than theother planets known to the ancients. Also, Jupiter's configurations inthe stars repeat themselves almost exactly every 12 years. For example,Jupiter will come into opposition (that is, be opposite the sun in thesky) 12 times in a span of time just five days longer than 12 years, andthe last opposition will occur among the same stars as the first.

These aspects of Jupiter's movement, combined with its brilliance amongthe stars of the nighttime sky, probably influenced early astronomers touse the planet as a reference, a function reflected, it seems, in the myth.There are uncertainties, however. The actual name for the planet used in the text is Nebiru."

I must add here that I think the identification of Marduk / Nebiru with Jupiter is in err. It should be clear that Marduk was not one of the "primordial" gods in the creation epic. He was a later "god" on earth, an Anunnaki. His usurpation of all the attributes of the "gods of heaven and earth" is what, in my mind, started monotheism, and began to blur the lines between astronomical texts dealing with the "celestial gods" and those dealing with the physically present "gods" on earth.
Anyway...
What the Enuma Elish describes then is that a chaotic early solar system consisting of a sun, its "emissary" and a "monstrous" body further out were the beginning. Then in 3 pairs, other "primordial gods" were born of them. Their "ways were troublesome" fittingly describes an early system having bodies with erratic orbits in my mind. An "avenger" from "the deep" - outside our solar system, is lured in, "begotten" by Nudimmud (Neptune) and set on course for a "celestial battle" which results in the creation of Heaven and Earth. This perturber then goes on to establish the "destinies" and "ways of heaven" - orbits - of all the other gods and is proclaimed as "Lord of Hosts"(to use an outdated biblical phrase derived from mesopotamia) among them. So, is the planet called Nebiru (not Jupiter), a pertuber body that actually established the order we see in our solar system?
Various astronomical observations suggest to me that this might well be the case.

As an aside: Understanding how intermingled the astronomy and religion/mythology of the ancients is, illuminates what the notion of the return of "the Lord" really means. :wink:

No problem that you can not always answer immediately, there is no urgency involved.
But A.DIM, no matter what you say, you don't read the Enuma Elish literally, you make an interpretation, leaving out all the humanlike / godlike behaviour described in the text, unless it fits your idea of how the Solar Sytem has developed.
Your planets are speaking, and you have no explanation for that as a literal astronomical text.
And remember: all planets are gods doesn't mean that all gods are planets.

[Fram]

What the Enuma Elish describes then is that a chaotic early solar system consisting of a sun, its "emissary" and a "monstrous" body further out were the beginning. Then in 3 pairs, other "primordial gods" were born of them. Their "ways were troublesome" fittingly describes an early system having bodies with erratic orbits in my mind.
Standard cosmology, of course, assumes that the orbits of the planets in our Solar System have been stable for millions of years. The Nebula hypothesis and all that.

Many ancient testimonies, however, seem to indicate otherwise. The trouble is that while ancient cultures record things very literally, they also superimpose their interpretation of events. They saw the planets as Gods, and saw the movement of planets as the Battles of Gods during periods of planetary upheaval.

Unfortunately, mainstream science misunderstands ancient testimony, dismissing it as ignorant superstition, when in reality it is simply a literal translation of what was seen.

As an aside: Understanding how intermingled the astronomy and religion/mythology of the ancients is, illuminates what the notion of the return of "the Lord" really means. :wink:
Indeed, most religion/mythology probably has astronomical origins. The 25th of the 12th month, for example, occurs in many religions as an important birthday. We are all aware of its astronomical significance.

I'm not sure about Nibiru being the planetary perturber, however.

Umm, a literal translation of what was seen? Who has seen the battle of Tiamat? There were no humans yet, then, so they are retelling what was told them. But for some reason, they could not just retell it or write it down correctly, but they made a fanciful story of it.
Or are you referring to other periods of planetary upheaval when there were already humans around to watch and record it? Interesting...

And what is the astronomical significance of 25/12? Be careful, don't only use 25/12 in our reckoning (although I would love an explanation for that as well), but also in Russia, China, India, whatever. Oops, that's not the same day... #-o

[captain swoop]

And what is the astronomical significance of 25/12? Be careful, don't only use 25/12 in our reckoning (although I would love an explanation for that as well), but also in Russia, China, India, whatever. Oops, that's not the same day... #-o

Isn't 21/12 the important one :wink:

[Outcast]

It's got little to do with the fact that Sumerian was agglutinative.

DA, you never loose an opportunity to belittle someone you dont agree with. isnt that right?

V-GER asked the following: "Why EN.KI.DU instead of Enkidu?"

i answered the following: "sumerian is an agglutinative language and a word is sometimes formed by other compound words to derive a meaning. it could also be spelled EN-KI-DU, either way it would be correct."

my impression from V-GER question was that he did not understood why i separated the word in its compound elements and NOT why i've written it in capitals. either way its scholarly correct to write Enkidu as en-ki-du, the "du" represented by du10 or dùg. which is its corresponding symbol.

en-ki is the god Enki, dùg means creation. therefore en-ki-du means something like the creature made by EN.KI.

here's a small portion from "Gilgamesh and Aga":

"Only Enkidu went out through the city gate. Gilgamec leaned out over the rampart. Looking up, Aga saw him: Slave, is that man your king?
That man is indeed my king."

and its sumerian text:

en-ki-du10 abul-la dili ba-ra-ed2
dgilgamec2 bad3-da gu2-na im-ma-an-la2

so, what i've stated before is correct, and the "Gilgamesh and Aga" text also answers the other doubt V-GER had about the fact that EN.KI.DU was at the command of Gilgamesh.

mr. DA you should really temper your mood when addressing my person because such belittling attitudes are neither deserved by me nor very flattering for you.

[Outcast]

i found two geological institutes in Moscow:

VNIIZarubezhGeologiia (All-Russian Research Institute for Overseas Geology) Moscow

and

VNIIGeosistem (All-Russian Research Institute for Geological Systems)

And?
I'm certain you can find at least one scientific institute in Helsinki as well...


yes, sorry. i was in transit of searching this subject when work showed up, so i only had the time to post this. not very informative i know.

[Outcast]

Many ancient testimonies, however, seem to indicate otherwise. The trouble is that while ancient cultures record things very literally, they also superimpose their interpretation of events. They saw the planets as Gods, and saw the movement of planets as the Battles of Gods during periods of planetary upheaval.

that is an interesting statement, it has a Velikovskian ring to it. which periods of planetary upheaval do you have in mind, soupdragon?

[Fram]

i found two geological institutes in Moscow:

VNIIZarubezhGeologiia (All-Russian Research Institute for Overseas Geology) Moscow

and

VNIIGeosistem (All-Russian Research Institute for Geological Systems)

And?
I'm certain you can find at least one scientific institute in Helsinki as well...


yes, sorry. i was in transit of searching this subject when work showed up, so i only had the time to post this. not very informative i know.

No problem, happens to all of us. Please let us know if you find something more!

[Outcast]

If they lived in the sky, like the texts say they did, how do you account for things that seem to violate the known laws of science?

what do you mean? since when living in the sky violates the known laws of science? if that is so then human astronauts have been doing that for years.

Okay, fair point. But keep in mind that this thread has seen claims that the Mesopotamian gods did quite a few things that violate known science.


can you be a little more specific? i dont remember anything being said that attributed to the "gods" violated known science.


besides, from accounts such as the Book of Enoch, the Mahabaratta, the Myth of Etanna, etc, we can understand that the gods lived in an orbital space city.

Ah, but what you've just described would be an EXCELLENT source of corrborating evidence. Space stations are fast-moving, naked-eye objects that are visible along their entire orbits. In other words, they stick out like a sore thumb particularly in a sky with no other artificial satellites. Does this facility show up in any astronomical texts, particularly those from other cultures?

wouldnt an orbital space station look just like an ordinary star in the sky, albeit probably bigger?


Outcast wrote:
to find the similarities between those gods and the gods of other ancient civilizations and to ultimately recognize the same archetypical struggle between the two brothers EN.KI and EN.LIL propagated through civilizations and history to our own days.

I don't follow you here.

theoretically, one could trace the archetype struggle between good and evil on most ancient religions to the Sumerian myths of the fight between EN.KI and EN.LIL for the primacy of Earth. for example, the dual personality of the Biblical god: JEHOVA and YAHEW


even cultures which suposedly never met each other? i find it incredible that reminiscences of the winged disk or the second sun of the Sumerians, from whence the Anunnaki came, appears in so many cultures.

Actually, yes, it is possible. Thor Heyerdahl based his theories, in part, on similar artistic styles between various cultures BUT there's still no solid evidence that those cultures were in contact. The aforementioned St. Anselm's theories sound a lot like Plato, but there's no evidence that Plato's writings were available in western Europe at the time. Synchronicity can, and does, happen. Again, you need corroborating evidence to prove contact.

maybe such evidence exists but is either mistakingly stored in museums, in private collections or simply misplaced. case in point: Fuente Magna (http://www.geocities.com/webatlantis/fuentemagna.htm)

[soupdragon2]

Many ancient testimonies, however, seem to indicate otherwise. The trouble is that while ancient cultures record things very literally, they also superimpose their interpretation of events. They saw the planets as Gods, and saw the movement of planets as the Battles of Gods during periods of planetary upheaval.

that is an interesting statement, it has a Velikovskian ring to it. which periods of planetary upheaval do you have in mind, soupdragon?
Yes, I think Velikovsky was hitting on something, although catastrophism has moved on a long was since then. It also ties in nicely with the emerging Plasma Universe paradigm. I am well aware that these ideas are still considered eccentric at best, and I really can't be bothered to discuss them in detail right now.

My point is that ancient testimony shouldn't be dismissed too lightly. There are some remarkable parallels from across the globe when one cares to look.

I would also point out that we will very likely be laughing at clumsy kludges like Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the future....

[Fram]

Many ancient testimonies, however, seem to indicate otherwise. The trouble is that while ancient cultures record things very literally, they also superimpose their interpretation of events. They saw the planets as Gods, and saw the movement of planets as the Battles of Gods during periods of planetary upheaval.

that is an interesting statement, it has a Velikovskian ring to it. which periods of planetary upheaval do you have in mind, soupdragon?
Yes, I think Velikovsky was hitting on something, although catastrophism has moved on a long was since then. It also ties in nicely with the emerging Plasma Universe paradigm. I am well aware that these ideas are still considered eccentric at best, and I really can't be bothered to discuss them in detail right now.

My point is that ancient testimony shouldn't be dismissed too lightly. There are some remarkable parallels from across the globe when one cares to look.

I would also point out that we will very likely be laughing at clumsy kludges like Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the future....

Paraphrasing: I say whatever I want, but I won't answer any questions about it.
I presume you're not surprised when you get ignored with that attitude?

[soupdragon2]

And what is the astronomical significance of 25/12? Be careful, don't only use 25/12 in our reckoning (although I would love an explanation for that as well), but also in Russia, China, India, whatever. Oops, that's not the same day... #-o

Isn't 21/12 the important one :wink:
Maybe you're thinking of an excellent Rush album? :wink:

The ancients recognized that, from an earthcentric perspective, The Sun makes an annual descent southward until December 21/22, the winter solstice, when it stops moving southerly for three days, and then starts to move northward again. During this time, the ancients declared that 'God's Sun' had 'died' for three days and was 'born again' on December 25th ... The ancients obviously recognising the importance of the Sun.

Sun worship is often touted as the origin of many religions. For example:

Horus of Egypt
Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men, blah, blah

Mithra, Sungod of Persia
Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th.

Jesus, Christianity, etc, etc.

[soupdragon2]

Paraphrasing: I say whatever I want, but I won't answer any questions about it.
I presume you're not surprised when you get ignored with that attitude?
I have discussed these things in some depth within other threads on this BB, on many occasions...

Please excuse me if I don't want to get drawn in again right now.

[V-GER]

Outcast wrote:
my impression from V-GER question was that he did not understood why i separated the word in its compound elements and NOT why i've written it in capitals. either way its scholarly correct to write Enkidu as en-ki-du, the "du" represented by du10 or dùg. which is its corresponding symbol.

Your impression was correct and the answer very thorough thank you.

Btw, I assume everyone's read the BA's take on Sumerian astronomy(ok more PX centered but relevant) http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/nutshell.html#sumerians

[A.DIM]

.... Btw, I assume everyone's read the BA's take on Sumerian astronomy(ok more PX centered but relevant) http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/nutshell.html#sumerians

THAT's funny, V-GER.

A Sumerian scholar used to refute Sitchin while at the same time promoting his own ideas about interdimensional beings being the "gods" of the ancients. Moreover, and in Heiser's own words, only "a few certain terms" are all that differentiates Heiser from Sitchin in their interpretations of mesopotamian / hebrew texts.

For this reason, I've suggested before that the BA ought to reconsider using Heiser, but...

[Fram]

And what is the astronomical significance of 25/12? Be careful, don't only use 25/12 in our reckoning (although I would love an explanation for that as well), but also in Russia, China, India, whatever. Oops, that's not the same day... #-o

Isn't 21/12 the important one :wink:
Maybe you're thinking of an excellent Rush album? :wink:

The ancients recognized that, from an earthcentric perspective, The Sun makes an annual descent southward until December 21/22, the winter solstice, when it stops moving southerly for three days, and then starts to move northward again. During this time, the ancients declared that 'God's Sun' had 'died' for three days and was 'born again' on December 25th ... The ancients obviously recognising the importance of the Sun.

Sun worship is often touted as the origin of many religions. For example:

Horus of Egypt
Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men, blah, blah

Mithra, Sungod of Persia
Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th.

Jesus, Christianity, etc, etc.

Ah, so you mean 25th december in our reckoning, not the 25th of the 12th month in their reckoning. Huge difference!
And your examples are all interrelated, as Christianity is well-known for taking over aspects of other religions, like dates, rituals, and sacred places.
Whatever, the conclusion remains: were the gods cosmonauts? No, they weren't. They were celestial bodies at first (with the Sun first and foremost), and when they ran out of those, they just made them up.

[Fram]

Paraphrasing: I say whatever I want, but I won't answer any questions about it.
I presume you're not surprised when you get ignored with that attitude?
I have discussed these things in some depth within other threads on this BB, on many occasions...

Please excuse me if I don't want to get drawn in again right now.

Then don't start it, and keep those things to those other threads. There are enough topics in here as it is already.

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:
THAT's funny, V-GER.

A Sumerian scholar used to refute Sitchin while at the same time promoting his own ideas about interdimensional beings being the "gods" of the ancients. Moreover, and in Heiser's own words, only "a few certain terms" are all that differentiates Heiser from Sitchin in their interpretations of mesopotamian / hebrew texts.

I won't go into this Sitchin-Heiser feud and my comment about the BA's article wasn't meant as smart-ar*ed. I was rather referring to this point:" But ignoring that, there are still two biggies. Sitchin claims that the picture shows Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. But the Sumerians didn't have telescopes, and therefore could only have known of them if aliens told them about their existence. But if aliens told them about those planets, why not about the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, or Saturn's rings?" This is why I'm sceptical of this interpretation:


Pluto = Gaga, counselor and emissary of Anshar (given his own "destiny" or "orbit" by Marduk / Nibiru
Uranus = Anu, he of the heavens
Neptune = Nudimmud (EA) "artful creator"

[Disinfo Agent]

A Sumerian scholar used to refute Sitchin while at the same time promoting his own ideas about interdimensional beings being the "gods" of the ancients. Moreover, and in Heiser's own words, only "a few certain terms" are all that differentiates Heiser from Sitchin in their interpretations of mesopotamian / hebrew texts.

For this reason, I've suggested before that the BA ought to reconsider using Heiser, but...
I have a feeling of déjà vu (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=125111#125111)... :wink:

Your attack on Heiser is ad hominem, and you severely understate the differences between his interpretations and Sitchin's.

[A.DIM]

What the Enuma Elish describes then is that a chaotic early solar system consisting of a sun, its "emissary" and a "monstrous" body further out were the beginning. Then in 3 pairs, other "primordial gods" were born of them. Their "ways were troublesome" fittingly describes an early system having bodies with erratic orbits in my mind.
Standard cosmology, of course, assumes that the orbits of the planets in our Solar System have been stable for millions of years. The Nebula hypothesis and all that.

Yes, and catastrophism is by no means dead (pun intended).

Many ancient testimonies, however, seem to indicate otherwise. The trouble is that while ancient cultures record things very literally, they also superimpose their interpretation of events. They saw the planets as Gods, and saw the movement of planets as the Battles of Gods during periods of planetary upheaval.

Unfortunately, mainstream science misunderstands ancient testimony, dismissing it as ignorant superstition, when in reality it is simply a literal translation of what was seen.

I very much agree, and as I've pointed out many times before, figuring out which texts are dealing with the celestial "gods" - the sun, moon, planets et al - and which are dealing with "those from heaven to earth came" - the physically present "gods" - is most challenging, but doable.
:D

As an aside: Understanding how intermingled the astronomy and religion/mythology of the ancients is, illuminates what the notion of the return of "the Lord" really means. :wink:
Indeed, most religion/mythology probably has astronomical origins. The 25th of the 12th month, for example, occurs in many religions as an important birthday. We are all aware of its astronomical significance.

I'm not sure about Nibiru being the planetary perturber, however.

Nor am I sure about it, but IMHO, current astronomy appears to support such a description of the formation of our solar system.

[A.DIM]

Sorry all; I'm quite busy as of late and haven't been able to keep up, but in an effort to maintain some semblance with astronomy...

OK, explain to me how you read the Enuma Elish "literally," as an astronomical text? What was it describing?
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?
When Tiamat heard these words,
She raged and cried aloud...
She... grievously...,
She uttered a curse, and unto Apsu she spake:

Marduk is a planet, right?
But Marduk hath set out, the director of the gods, your son;
To set out against Tiamat his heart hath prompted him.
He opened his mouth and spake unto me, saying:
'If I, your avenger,
Conquer Tiamat and give you life,
Appoint an assembly, make my fate preeminent and proclaim it
The quotes are from sacred texts (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm), 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.

I apologize, Fram, but I think our respective understanding of "literally" in regards to the Enuma Elish differ.

Consider:

Sun = Apsu "one who exists from the beginning, primordial"
Mercury = Mummu, counselor and emissary of Apsu
Venus = Lahamu "lady of battles"
Mars = Lahmu "deity of war"
?? = Tiamat "maiden who gave life" (split to become "heaven and earth")
Asteroid Belt = "hammered bracelet" after the celestial battle, renamed "heaven" in the OT
Jupiter = Kishar "foremost of firm lands"
Saturn = Anshar "foremost of the heavens"
Pluto = Gaga, counselor and emissary of Anshar (given his own "destiny" or "orbit" by Marduk / Nibiru
Uranus = Anu, he of the heavens
Neptune = Nudimmud (EA) "artful creator"

BUT, before rereading the Enuma Elish with these in mind, be sure to gain some insight into The Astronomy of Babylon (http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/index.html?page=/iraqinfo/mythology/astronomy-babylon.html).

A couple of helpful snippets:

"A perusal of nearly any ancient pantheon reveals the obvious: At leastsome of the gods, often the most important ones, are objects in the sky.The metaphoric reasons are not difficult to understand. The regular motionsof celestial objects made them agents of order that helped give meaningto the world below; endless repetition of their appearances and disappearances suggested immortality; their light commanded attention and connoted power.And being in the sky, with such a perspective on earth below, it was onlynatural to assume that the gods must know all because they could see all:To see the world, one's eyes must be in heaven.
Although particular gods may differ in terms of the resources they arebelieved to control, control is the attribute they share. What they control,and how they do it, determines exactly what sorts of gods they are. Celestialgods control the passage of time by marking it and measuring it. They controldirection and space through the locations of their comings and goings.As masters of time and space, they move the world. They make it change.Day changes into night. Winter melts into spring. Rivers flood and fall.Grain sprouts, grows, and ripens. In these cycles of the world and in ourdaily lives we see patterened change, and it is driven by the sky."

"In very earliest time the Greeks and the Romans do not seem to have differentiatedthe planets. Writing in the fourth century BC, the Greek philosopher Platodescribed the five "wanderers" as gods and mentioned that the practiceof associating them with specific Olympian gods was introduced by foreigners.The foreigners probably came from either Egypt or Mesopotamia. The latteris the more likely source since the attributes and characteristics of Babylonianplanetary gods parallel those of the Greek gods, while the early Egyptianrepresentations of planets do not."

"Jupiter's course through the sky, Marduk decides, will guide the starsand planets. This may seem like an odd choice to make. The constant sun,perhaps, would define things better. But Jupiter's path through the skyfollows the ecliptic, the annual path of the sun, more closely than theother planets known to the ancients. Also, Jupiter's configurations inthe stars repeat themselves almost exactly every 12 years. For example,Jupiter will come into opposition (that is, be opposite the sun in thesky) 12 times in a span of time just five days longer than 12 years, andthe last opposition will occur among the same stars as the first.

These aspects of Jupiter's movement, combined with its brilliance amongthe stars of the nighttime sky, probably influenced early astronomers touse the planet as a reference, a function reflected, it seems, in the myth.There are uncertainties, however. The actual name for the planet used in the text is Nebiru."

I must add here that I think the identification of Marduk / Nebiru with Jupiter is in err. It should be clear that Marduk was not one of the "primordial" gods in the creation epic. He was a later "god" on earth, an Anunnaki. His usurpation of all the attributes of the "gods of heaven and earth" is what, in my mind, started monotheism, and began to blur the lines between astronomical texts dealing with the "celestial gods" and those dealing with the physically present "gods" on earth.
Anyway...
What the Enuma Elish describes then is that a chaotic early solar system consisting of a sun, its "emissary" and a "monstrous" body further out were the beginning. Then in 3 pairs, other "primordial gods" were born of them. Their "ways were troublesome" fittingly describes an early system having bodies with erratic orbits in my mind. An "avenger" from "the deep" - outside our solar system, is lured in, "begotten" by Nudimmud (Neptune) and set on course for a "celestial battle" which results in the creation of Heaven and Earth. This perturber then goes on to establish the "destinies" and "ways of heaven" - orbits - of all the other gods and is proclaimed as "Lord of Hosts"(to use an outdated biblical phrase derived from mesopotamia) among them. So, is the planet called Nebiru (not Jupiter), a pertuber body that actually established the order we see in our solar system?
Various astronomical observations suggest to me that this might well be the case.

As an aside: Understanding how intermingled the astronomy and religion/mythology of the ancients is, illuminates what the notion of the return of "the Lord" really means. :wink:

No problem that you can not always answer immediately, there is no urgency involved.

Well thanks, Fram.

But A.DIM, no matter what you say, you don't read the Enuma Elish literally, you make an interpretation, leaving out all the humanlike / godlike behaviour described in the text, unless it fits your idea of how the Solar Sytem has developed.

You not only seem to have totally ignored my "helpful snippets" above, but the rest of the babylonian astronomy page as a whole.
I'll try again: As I've said, some texts are astronomical texts and to read them "literally" as such is to remove the human attributes. Some texts are those describing the activities of the physically present beings on earth and to read them "literally"... well, that part should be clear.

Your planets are speaking, and you have no explanation for that as a literal astronomical text.

I think you know what I mean now?

And remember: all planets are gods doesn't mean that all gods are planets.

No kidding? :-?

I'll repeat: While doable, understanding the intricacies of myth/religion and astronomy, separating the "earthly gods" from the "celestial gods," is most challenging, but certainly takes more than superficial understanding of the materials.

[A.DIM]

A.DIM wrote:
THAT's funny, V-GER.

A Sumerian scholar used to refute Sitchin while at the same time promoting his own ideas about interdimensional beings being the "gods" of the ancients. Moreover, and in Heiser's own words, only "a few certain terms" are all that differentiates Heiser from Sitchin in their interpretations of mesopotamian / hebrew texts.

I won't go into this Sitchin-Heiser feud and my comment about the BA's article wasn't meant as smart-ar*ed. I was rather referring to this point:" But ignoring that, there are still two biggies. Sitchin claims that the picture shows Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. But the Sumerians didn't have telescopes, and therefore could only have known of them if aliens told them about their existence. But if aliens told them about those planets, why not about the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, or Saturn's rings?" This is why I'm sceptical of this interpretation:


Pluto = Gaga, counselor and emissary of Anshar (given his own "destiny" or "orbit" by Marduk / Nibiru
Uranus = Anu, he of the heavens
Neptune = Nudimmud (EA) "artful creator"

I understand now, sorry. You made no mention to which post(s) "btw," you were "sceptical."

But I wouldn't presuppose a remark like "why not other moons and rings?" is enough of an examination of the material to dismiss the "aliens." The Enuma Elish describes the primordial celestial "gods" present for the "celestial battle" between Nibiru & Tiamat that brought about "heaven and earth," the main "players" so to speak.

[A.DIM]

A Sumerian scholar used to refute Sitchin while at the same time promoting his own ideas about interdimensional beings being the "gods" of the ancients. Moreover, and in Heiser's own words, only "a few certain terms" are all that differentiates Heiser from Sitchin in their interpretations of mesopotamian / hebrew texts.

For this reason, I've suggested before that the BA ought to reconsider using Heiser, but...
I have a feeling of déjà vu (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=125111#125111)... :wink:

Your attack on Heiser is ad hominem, and you severely understate the differences between his interpretations and Sitchin's.

I didn't attack Heiser, DisInfo. Are saying that it is ok for "skeptics" around here to make similar remarks about the various "woowoos" out there, and yet I can't make a most pertinent point likewise? :-?

Having "deja vu" myself, I realized that the "rewrite" issue was made very clear to you before, using several references. And yet only a few pages ago, your playing semantics helped derail the discussion.
And here again.
I laid out very clearly, more than once, how little Sitchin's and Heiser's interpretations of those "few certain words" are. So how do I "severely understate the differences?"

Now, it appears that either you'll continue to ignore any points made and seemingly spread "disinfo," or ..... ?

[Disinfo Agent]

Your attack on Heiser is ad hominem, and you severely understate the differences between his interpretations and Sitchin's.
I didn't attack Heiser, DisInfo.
You are trying to suggest that Heiser's opinion on Sitchin's translations is worth nothing, because Heiser has some weird ideas about other issues, aren't you?
That's an ad hominem. He may be completely wrong about other issues, and still be right about this one.
Now, I won't deny that I would prefer a... erm... more orthodox source. But since these two are the only ones we have, I'll pick Heiser over Sitchin, since he at least actually has some expertise on ancient Mesopotamian languages.

Having "deja vu" myself, I realized that the "rewrite" issue was made very clear to you before, using several references.
I was not convinced by the arguments that you and Outcast put forth. I made that quite clear in that other thread.

I laid out very clearly, more than once, how little Sitchin's and Heiser's interpretations of those "few certain words" are.
"How little the interpretations are"? What does that mean?...

Now, it appears that either you'll continue to ignore any points made and seemingly spread "disinfo," or ..... ?
Can we drop that silly little pun with my username? :-?
I mean, it isn't even funny, and I think you're a bit old for that kind of retort.

[A.DIM]

Your attack on Heiser is ad hominem, and you severely understate the differences between his interpretations and Sitchin's.
I didn't attack Heiser, DisInfo.
You are trying to suggest that Heiser's opinion on Sitchin's translations is worth nothing, because Heiser has some weird ideas about other issues, aren't you?

I'm not "trying to suggest" anything. I'm only making sure the less informed (or "disnformed") understand who Heiser is, and that his ideas aren't really that removed from Sitchin's.

That's an ad hominem. He may be completely wrong about other issues, and still be right about this one.

THAT's laughable, Disinfo! =D>
Were I to make such a statement, I'd be pounced on in the spirit of debunkery.

Now, I won't deny that I would prefer a... erm... more orthodox source. But since these two are the only ones we have, I'll pick Heiser over Sitchin, since he at least actually has some expertise on ancient Mesopotamian languages.

What's interesting is that the study of Economics takes one all the way back to Sumer, and the many thousands of texts dealing with Trade and such. Some university level Economics studies certainly entail examining, reading, cuneiform. Combine this with actually speaking Hebrew, rather than being taught in american univerisities, and understanding other semitic tongues.... well, I understand why you "pick" Heiser.
:wink:

Having "deja vu" myself, I realized that the "rewrite" issue was made very clear to you before, using several references.
I was not convinced by the arguments that you and Outcast put forth. I made that quite clear in that other thread.

Yes, and I think I've shown how you're not really interested in being "convinced." Try this: Contact Univerisity of Chicago's Oriental Institute, an authority on the matter, and find out for yourself.
Otherwise, I'm convinced that you too are only here to "debunk" something.

I laid out very clearly, more than once, how little Sitchin's and Heiser's interpretations of those "few certain words" are.
"How little the interpretations are"? What does that mean?...

Oh sorry, rapid typing...
with tangent:
Brings to mind Bukowski's "Play the piano like a percussion instrument until the fingers begin to bleed a bit."

OT: How little their interpretations actually differ, is what I meant.

Now, it appears that either you'll continue to ignore any points made and seemingly spread "disinfo," or ..... ?
Can we drop that silly little pun with my username? :-?
I mean, it isn't even funny, and I think you're a bit old for that kind of retort.

Again, sorry, but all I have to go on is what I read here.

[Fram]

But A.DIM, no matter what you say, you don't read the Enuma Elish literally, you make an interpretation, leaving out all the humanlike / godlike behaviour described in the text, unless it fits your idea of how the Solar Sytem has developed.

You not only seem to have totally ignored my "helpful snippets" above, but the rest of the babylonian astronomy page as a whole.
I'll try again: As I've said, some texts are astronomical texts and to read them "literally" as such is to remove the human attributes. Some texts are those describing the activities of the physically present beings on earth and to read them "literally"... well, that part should be clear.

Your planets are speaking, and you have no explanation for that as a literal astronomical text.

I think you know what I mean now?

And remember: all planets are gods doesn't mean that all gods are planets.

No kidding? :-?

I'll repeat: While doable, understanding the intricacies of myth/religion and astronomy, separating the "earthly gods" from the "celestial gods," is most challenging, but certainly takes more than superficial understanding of the materials.

I had read your post and the link you provided, but we stay with the fact that your definition of literal is hugely different from mine. We perhaps better let that rest for now...
What about my remarks about Sitchin's website? Why would I read (let alone believe) the books from someone who makes that many scientific mistakes in a few pages?

[Disinfo Agent]

I'm not "trying to suggest" anything. I'm only making sure the less informed (or "disnformed") understand who Heiser is, and that his ideas aren't really that removed from Sitchin's.
Fine, then. And I'm just trying to make sure the disinformed understand who Heiser and Sitchin are, and why Heiser is more credible than Sitchin. :)

That's an ad hominem. He may be completely wrong about other issues, and still be right about this one.
THAT's laughable, Disinfo! =D>
If you say so...

Were I to make such a statement, I'd be pounced on in the spirit of debunkery.
What makes you say that?

Now, I won't deny that I would prefer a... erm... more orthodox source. But since these two are the only ones we have, I'll pick Heiser over Sitchin, since he at least actually has some expertise on ancient Mesopotamian languages.
What's interesting is that the study of Economics takes one all the way back to Sumer, and the many thousands of texts dealing with Trade and such. Some university level Economics studies certainly entail examining, reading, cuneiform. Combine this with actually speaking Hebrew, rather than being taught in american univerisities, and understanding other semitic tongues....
Can you say "slippery slope"?

I was not convinced by the arguments that you and Outcast put forth. I made that quite clear in that other thread.
Yes, and I think I've shown how you're not really interested in being "convinced."
No, you haven't.

Try this: Contact Univerisity of Chicago's Oriental Institute, an authority on the matter, and find out for yourself.
Sorry, A.DIM, but the burden of proof, in what regards this Sitchin business, rests on you and Outcast.

Otherwise, I'm convinced that you too are only here to "debunk" something.
You say that like it's a bad thing! :lol:

I laid out very clearly [...] How little their interpretations actually differ [...]
I must have missed it, then. Where was it that you did that?

Now, it appears that either you'll continue to ignore any points made and seemingly spread "disinfo," or ..... ?
Can we drop that silly little pun with my username? :-?
I mean, it isn't even funny, and I think you're a bit old for that kind of retort.
Again, sorry, but all I have to go on is what I read here.
An ad hominem is an ad hominem is an ad hominem.

How can you complain about people saying that Sitchin is a woo-woo, and then turn around and make childish attacks on my username?

[Fram]

What's interesting is that the study of Economics takes one all the way back to Sumer, and the many thousands of texts dealing with Trade and such. Some university level Economics studies certainly entail examining, reading, cuneiform. Combine this with actually speaking Hebrew, rather than being taught in american univerisities, and understanding other semitic tongues.... well, I understand why you "pick" Heiser.
:wink:

Can you give an example of an University which actually requires reading cuneiform for their Economics studies? I've never heard of such a thing...

[soupdragon2]

And your examples are all interrelated
Yes.
...Christianity is well-known for taking over aspects of other religions, like dates, rituals, and sacred places...
Yes.
Whatever, the conclusion remains: were the gods cosmonauts?
Sorry. You've lost me now.
They were celestial bodies at first (with the Sun first and foremost)...
Again, agreed.

The tone of your posts suggests that you disagree with me, and yet the content concurs with what I have said!

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:
But I wouldn't presuppose a remark like "why not other moons and rings?" is enough of an examination of the material to dismiss the "aliens." The Enuma Elish describes the primordial celestial "gods" present for the "celestial battle" between Nibiru & Tiamat that brought about "heaven and earth," the main "players" so to speak.

But once again the question is not what the material says but rather how
literally it should be taken. For me there's just not enough evidence to assume gods were aliens. Also, would only the Sumerian gods have been aliens or others as well like Greek or Norse gods?

What I also wonder is that we've managed to get this far without any mention of Stargate.

[Kesh]

What I also wonder is that we've managed to get this far without any mention of Stargate.

Look back at my post on page one. ;)

[Fram]

And your examples are all interrelated
Yes.
...Christianity is well-known for taking over aspects of other religions, like dates, rituals, and sacred places...
Yes.
Whatever, the conclusion remains: were the gods cosmonauts?
Sorry. You've lost me now.
They were celestial bodies at first (with the Sun first and foremost)...
Again, agreed.

The tone of your posts suggests that you disagree with me, and yet the content concurs with what I have said!

You have changed the premisse, like I said in the first line of my response (which you leave out in your response, coincidentally, like the last line about making up gods). A few religions, which have borrowed it from one another (Christianity certainly has), use the same date, the 25th of december in our reckoning, as a special date. It has some primitive astronomical significance, but nothing that any astronomer nowadays finds amazing. It adds nothing to the discussion at hand, although you present it as a significant fact and make it a lot bigger than it is.
And I'm sorry if I lost you, but that line was a direct reference to Von Däniken and his theories. I thought that was what this was all about :lol:

[Outcast]

Your attack on Heiser is ad hominem, and you severely understate the differences between his interpretations and Sitchin's.
I didn't attack Heiser, DisInfo.
You are trying to suggest that Heiser's opinion on Sitchin's translations is worth nothing, because Heiser has some weird ideas about other issues, aren't you?
That's an ad hominem. He may be completely wrong about other issues, and still be right about this one.
Now, I won't deny that I would prefer a... erm... more orthodox source. But since these two are the only ones we have, I'll pick Heiser over Sitchin, since he at least actually has some expertise on ancient Mesopotamian languages.

yes he may be right or then again he might be wrong. and the only fact clear to me is that you cannot know for sure. the only reason you defend Heiser's position is because you disagree, for emotional reasons, with Sitchin. even though Heiser and Sitchin propose very similar scenarios.

He states with regards to "Elohim," there are hundreds of uses in singular and hundreds of uses in plural and many sentences that mix it up in the same sentence. I want to thank Mr. Heiser here for showing these inconsistencies. This gives weight to my argument and Sitchin's thesis that the word "Elohim" is a loan word from a previous culture, which is why they had so much trouble incorporating it into their language with proper rules of grammar. We don't dispute that "Elohim" is used both as a plural and a singular. What we see is that the word Elohim is a clue to the antiquity of the Bible, showing a much older influence.

1. He has a fallacy of incorrect analogy. He compares the word Elohim to Sheep, Fish and Deer showing how the grammar can change the meaning to either singular or plural. The reason this is a fallacy of incorrect analogy is that we use the same word in English for the singular and the plural. Sheep, Fish and Deer do not have singular roots in them. Heiser does agree with me that the word "Elohim" contains the root singular form of god that is pronounced "Eloah." If you wanted to say god says (singular), you could say it as "Eloah" says and it would be correct. The reason the Hebrews use the word "Elohim" is that it is a holy word to them and they must not change that word that to a believer in one god must and can only mean "God." But was the word "Elohim" meant to be singular to represent a single deity by the original culture that created the usage, or was it borrowed and used later on by scribes with monotheistic philosophies? Wasn't the purpose of using so many different god names in the Bible to show differences in those characters?

2. Mr. Heiser's, use of translations from the Dead Sea Scrolls is irrelevant, because they are younger than the canonized Bible and therefore can't be used for this debate. Many Dead Sea Scroll translations are in dispute anyway, and the group that controlled the scrolls for so many years has gotten into trouble, they have even mistranslated Nephilim as watchers. It was the Igigi who could be called watchers.

Mr. Heiser's use of translations from the Book of Enoch for any translation is irrelevant because, first it is not part of the canonized Bible, and second it is younger than the canonized Bible. I still have not seen one original Hebrew version of this document that can be dated back to BCE era. The book is supposed to be very old, but there is no verification as to the modern version that is currently available. There is no chain of evidence to make the case that the version we have is actually older than the canonized Bible.

I must tell the public that Heiser's use of translations from text that are younger than the Bible show that he does not understand what this debate is about. It is not about contemporary mistranslations that have been made by modern translators. This debate is about what older influences were placed into the original Bible. By the way we just saw debunker trick #4, which is to reverse the process so that you can use proof of translations from younger documents to prove translating mistakes in older documents. This can't be done because of the arrow of time moving forward. Only older documents than the Bible are relevant to be an influence, and younger mistranslations that continue the mistakes are not evidence.


http://erikparker.com/articles/august02.htm

its laughable that you take estance with the puns at your nickname when every little incursion you have made into this thread has been to derail the normal flow of the discussion with off-topic invectives and veiled ad-hominens.

[Outcast]

What's interesting is that the study of Economics takes one all the way back to Sumer, and the many thousands of texts dealing with Trade and such. Some university level Economics studies certainly entail examining, reading, cuneiform. Combine this with actually speaking Hebrew, rather than being taught in american univerisities, and understanding other semitic tongues.... well, I understand why you "pick" Heiser.
:wink:

Can you give an example of an University which actually requires reading cuneiform for their Economics studies? I've never heard of such a thing...

me neither, but maybe Sitchin took interest in ancient Sumeria through the historical study of commerce and economics. one thing should be clear, when Sitchin begun studying ancient Semitic languages (ex: Akkadian) and Sumerian itself, 30+ years ago, the study of these languages was at its very begginings.

Samuel Noah Kramer (Sumerian Mythology, 1944, 1961) gives us an idea of this monumentous work:

In the history of American archaeology, the Nippur expedition, organized by the University of Pennsylvania more than 50 yean ago, will always be remembered with special interest and regard. For it was the Nippur excavations, supported over a number of years by a relatively small group of Philadelphians of unusual vision and understanding, which were responsible to no small extent for making America "archaeology-conscious." Moreover, it was largely the interest and enthusiasm aroused by the Nippur discoveries that led to the founding and organizing of the University Museum, an institution which for almost half a century has proved to be a leading pioneer in all branches of archaeological activity.

The ruins of Nippur, among the largest in southern Mesopotamia, cover approximately 180 acres. They are divided into two well-nigh equal parts by the now dry bed of the Shatt-en-Nil, a canal which at one time branched off from the Euphrates and watered and fructified the otherwise barren territory through which it flowed. The eastern half contains the temple structures, including the ziggurat and the group of buildings which must have formed the scribal school and library; it is in this part of the mound that the "tablet house" was excavated. The western half seems to mark the remains of the city proper. 7

Iraq under the auspices of the University of Pennsylvania. Nippur, one of the largest and most important mounds in Iraq, was chosen, and four long and extremely difficult excavating campaigns were conducted during the years 188990, 1890-91, 1893-96, and 1896-1900.

The hardships and handicaps were severe and discouraging. One young archaeologist died in the field, and there was hardly a year in which one or the other of the members of the expedition did not suffer from serious illness. Difficulties with the Arab tribes were not infrequent and at times assumed a most threatening character. In spite of the obstacles, however, the excavating continued, and in the course of the four campaigns which lasted more than a decade, the expedition achieved magnificent and in some respects unparalleled results, at least in the inscriptional field. The Nippur expedition succeeded in excavating approximately thirty thousand tablets and fragments in the course of its four campaigns, the larger part of which are inscribed in the Sumerian language and date from the second half of the third millennium to the first half of the second millennium B. C.

The contents of these tablets are rich and varied. The greater part is economic in character; it consists of contracts and bills of sale, promissory notes and receipts, lists and accounts, wills, adoptions, court decisions, and other legal and administrative documents. Many of the tablets are letters; some are historical inscriptions; still others are lexical in character, that is, they contain Sumerian dictionary and grammatical material of priceless value for our study of the language, since they were actually compiled by the ancient scribes themselves. But especially noteworthy is the large group of tablets dated about 1750 B. C. a which are inscribed with the Sumerian literary compositions consisting of epics and myths, hymns and laments, proverbs and "wisdom."


The contents of these tablets are rich and varied. The greater part is economic in character; it consists of contracts and bills of sale, promissory notes and receipts, lists and accounts, wills, adoptions, court decisions, and other legal and administrative documents.

i wonder if this wasnt the reason that lead Sitchin to engage in the study of the Sumerian culture. either way, and as Kramer says, historically, the decipherment of Sumerian resulted from that of Akkadian. being Akkadian a semitic language, Sitchin did have a natural advantage.

[Outcast]

besides, there are indeed University courses with indepth studies of the History of Economics.

http://www.wiu.edu/grad/0203catalog/econ.shtml

[Outcast]

Sun worship is often touted as the origin of many religions. For example:

Horus of Egypt
Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men, blah, blah

Mithra, Sungod of Persia
Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th.

Jesus, Christianity, etc, etc.

also:

By the beginning of December, writes Columella, the farmer should have finished his autumn planting. Now, at the time of the winter solstice (December 25 in the Julian calendar), Saturnus, the god of seed and sowing, was honored with a festival. The Saturnalia officially was celebrated on December 17 (a.d. XVI Kal. Ian.) and, in Cicero's time, lasted seven days, from December 17-23.

At the end of the first century AD, Statius still could proclaim: "For how many years shall this festival abide! Never shall age destroy so holy a day! While the hills of Latium remain and father Tiber, while thy Rome stands and the Capitol thou hast restored to the world, it shall continue." And the Saturnalia did continue to be celebrated as Brumalia (from bruma, winter solstice) down to the Christian era, when, by the middle of the fourth century AD, its rituals had become absorbed in the celebration of Christmas.

ps: from a reference website which has gone offline

[Fram]

besides, there are indeed University courses with indepth studies of the History of Economics.

http://www.wiu.edu/grad/0203catalog/econ.shtml

I don't doubt that, every self respecting science has courses on its history, but that is still a far cry from A.DIM's claim.

[Fram]

From a website on seasonal celebrations (http://www.netdeva.com/lisalindberg/seasonal-celebrations/winter-solstice.htm):

However, out of habit, the Julian Calendar's inaccurate assignment of Dec. 25th as the Mid-Winter Solstice continued to be the date kept for Christmas. It was a case of the structure of an old habit prevailing over the content of an actual natural event. That numeric system shifted the natural event of the Solstice and its assigned date off of their earlier correspondence in time.


So 25th december was an important astronomical miscalculation, propagated through history by Christian tradition. Apparently it was not a 'birthdate' in Rome, and whatever, there still is no example of the 25th of the 12th month being important in any other culture's reckoning. That was the original claim. And I still don't see what it has to do with Von Däniken or Nibiru.

[Disinfo Agent]

the only reason you defend Heiser's position is because you disagree, for emotional reasons, with Sitchin.
Not true.
You underestimate me, Outcast, and that's a shame, because I get the impression that you tend to do that with people in general.

even though Heiser and Sitchin propose very similar scenarios.
Are you talking about Heiser's The Façade, here? I confess that I've never bothered to read about it...
It doesn't seem to be revelant to Sitchin's theories, in any case.

[...] you take estance with the puns at your nickname when every little incursion you have made into this thread has been to derail the normal flow of the discussion with off-topic invectives [...]
It's possible that my contributions to this thread have on occasion driven it off-topic. I do have a tendency to go off on tangents. It's not something I do malliciously, though, it's just the way I look at these things.

Whenever you feel that I'm diverting the conversation from something more important, feel free to tell me so.

[...] and veiled ad-hominens.
This is not true.

[Rich]

Hey all,

Just wanted to drop a note that I haven't forgotten about our debate here. I haven't been able to get in and read, let alone take the time to post, for a number of reasons, and probably won't for a while.

Anyway, I look forward to getting the chance to sit and read through everything posted since I was last here... whenever I get a chance. Keep it interesting!

Rich

[A.DIM]

But A.DIM, no matter what you say, you don't read the Enuma Elish literally, you make an interpretation, leaving out all the humanlike / godlike behaviour described in the text, unless it fits your idea of how the Solar Sytem has developed.

You not only seem to have totally ignored my "helpful snippets" above, but the rest of the babylonian astronomy page as a whole.
I'll try again: As I've said, some texts are astronomical texts and to read them "literally" as such is to remove the human attributes. Some texts are those describing the activities of the physically present beings on earth and to read them "literally"... well, that part should be clear.

Your planets are speaking, and you have no explanation for that as a literal astronomical text.

I think you know what I mean now?

And remember: all planets are gods doesn't mean that all gods are planets.

No kidding? :-?

I'll repeat: While doable, understanding the intricacies of myth/religion and astronomy, separating the "earthly gods" from the "celestial gods," is most challenging, but certainly takes more than superficial understanding of the materials.

I had read your post and the link you provided, but we stay with the fact that your definition of literal is hugely different from mine. We perhaps better let that rest for now...

My emphasis should suffice for now...

What about my remarks about Sitchin's website? Why would I read (let alone believe) the books from someone who makes that many scientific mistakes in a few pages?

Uh... I recall a couple of out of context snippets, not "that many scientific mistakes" pointed out. What exactly?
Besides, I'm not here to defend Sitchin's website; I've drawn on mostly mainstream sources to make my points.

[A.DIM]

I'm not "trying to suggest" anything. I'm only making sure the less informed (or "disnformed") understand who Heiser is, and that his ideas aren't really that removed from Sitchin's.
Fine, then. And I'm just trying to make sure the disinformed understand who Heiser and Sitchin are, and why Heiser is more credible than Sitchin. :)

That's an ad hominem. He may be completely wrong about other issues, and still be right about this one.
THAT's laughable, Disinfo! =D>
If you say so...

Were I to make such a statement, I'd be pounced on in the spirit of debunkery.
What makes you say that?

I do.... and because I've witnessed such behavior in these very forums.

Now, I won't deny that I would prefer a... erm... more orthodox source. But since these two are the only ones we have, I'll pick Heiser over Sitchin, since he at least actually has some expertise on ancient Mesopotamian languages.
What's interesting is that the study of Economics takes one all the way back to Sumer, and the many thousands of texts dealing with Trade and such. Some university level Economics studies certainly entail examining, reading, cuneiform. Combine this with actually speaking Hebrew, rather than being taught in american univerisities, and understanding other semitic tongues....
Can you say "slippery slope"?

Sure, "slippery slope."
Albeit, all I said is that it was "interesting;" not that such a background makes him any more credible than a "Hebrew scholar." The point, though, was to show that studying economics and speaking semitic languages isn't so far removed from understanding cuneiform as some would like to think, and that I understand why you "pick" Heiser. :)

I was not convinced by the arguments that you and Outcast put forth. I made that quite clear in that other thread.
Yes, and I think I've shown how you're not really interested in being "convinced."
No, you haven't.

OK, but I'll let our readers decide for themselves.

Try this: Contact Univerisity of Chicago's Oriental Institute, an authority on the matter, and find out for yourself.
Sorry, A.DIM, but the burden of proof, in what regards this Sitchin business, rests on you and Outcast.

"Burden of proof" for what, though, Disinfo? I never set out to prove anything here, other than that the idea of "those from heaven to earth came," or, if you will, ancient astronauts, was not "invented" by VonDaniken as put forth at the beginning of this thread. And again, I believe I've done as much.

Otherwise, I'm convinced that you too are only here to "debunk" something.
You say that like it's a bad thing! :lol:

Heh, considering how dangerous pseudoscience can be, pseudoskepticism in the spirit of debunkery appears as treacherous. :wink:

I laid out very clearly [...] How little their interpretations actually differ [...]
I must have missed it, then. Where was it that you did that?

I'm rather sure it was either the "Sitchin Continued..." thread or the "If Sitchin's right..." thread, but I've no time to sift through and specifically locate it. However, upon investigation you'll find that I took each of those "few certain terms," as stated by Heiser, and showed how Sitchin's translations don't really differ at all.

Now, it appears that either you'll continue to ignore any points made and seemingly spread "disinfo," or ..... ?
Can we drop that silly little pun with my username? :-?
I mean, it isn't even funny, and I think you're a bit old for that kind of retort.
Again, sorry, but all I have to go on is what I read here.
An ad hominem is an ad hominem is an ad hominem.

How can you complain about people saying that Sitchin is a woo-woo, and then turn around and make childish attacks on my username?

First: In no way did I demean Heiser's credentials or person.
I did NOT attack him, and so no ad hominem.

As for you: Not only have I shown how you've derailed discussions with semantics, but Outcast has as well. In my mind, this is equivalent with "disinformation," and so your "name," and whatever puns may arise, seems appropriate.
Besides, I've not really complained about Sitchin being called a "woowoo." Be my guest.
All I've done is object to the countless inaccurate statements made about his work; knowing otherwise, of course. :)

[A.DIM]

What's interesting is that the study of Economics takes one all the way back to Sumer, and the many thousands of texts dealing with Trade and such. Some university level Economics studies certainly entail examining, reading, cuneiform. Combine this with actually speaking Hebrew, rather than being taught in american univerisities, and understanding other semitic tongues.... well, I understand why you "pick" Heiser.
:wink:

Can you give an example of an University which actually requires reading cuneiform for their Economics studies? I've never heard of such a thing...

If you read closely, you'll note that I never said it was "required," only that "some... entail examining, reading, cuneiform."

This is another good example of how you've either misinterpreted what I've posted, or simply ignored it.

[A.DIM]

A.DIM wrote:
But I wouldn't presuppose a remark like "why not other moons and rings?" is enough of an examination of the material to dismiss the "aliens." The Enuma Elish describes the primordial celestial "gods" present for the "celestial battle" between Nibiru & Tiamat that brought about "heaven and earth," the main "players" so to speak.

But once again the question is not what the material says but rather how
literally it should be taken. For me there's just not enough evidence to assume gods were aliens. Also, would only the Sumerian gods have been aliens or others as well like Greek or Norse gods?

This was covered earlier in this thread.
I suggest Campbell's The Masks of God.
Even Karen Armstong's A History of God will help.

What I also wonder is that we've managed to get this far without any mention of Stargate.

Personally, I don't watch much tv.

But could it be "life reflecting art" or is it "art reflecting life?" :D

[A.DIM]

besides, there are indeed University courses with indepth studies of the History of Economics.

http://www.wiu.edu/grad/0203catalog/econ.shtml

I don't doubt that, every self respecting science has courses on its history, but that is still a far cry from A.DIM's claim.

Re read "A.DIM's claim" and tell us again?

[A.DIM]

... Are you talking about Heiser's The Façade, here? I confess that I've never bothered to read about it...
It doesn't seem to be revelant to Sitchin's theories, in any case.

"It doesn't seem..." because you don't know.
I'd suggest arming yourself with such info then.

[...] you take estance with the puns at your nickname when every little incursion you have made into this thread has been to derail the normal flow of the discussion with off-topic invectives [...]
It's possible that my contributions to this thread have on occasion driven it off-topic. I do have a tendency to go off on tangents. It's not something I do malliciously, though, it's just the way I look at these things.

Whenever you feel that I'm diverting the conversation from something more important, feel free to tell me so.

Even if it entails a few "childish" puns here & there? :wink:

[A.DIM]

Hey all,

Just wanted to drop a note that I haven't forgotten about our debate here. I haven't been able to get in and read, let alone take the time to post, for a number of reasons, and probably won't for a while.

Anyway, I look forward to getting the chance to sit and read through everything posted since I was last here... whenever I get a chance. Keep it interesting!

Rich

Hey Rich!
Hope all is well!

[Fram]

What about my remarks about Sitchin's website? Why would I read (let alone believe) the books from someone who makes that many scientific mistakes in a few pages?

Uh... I recall a couple of out of context snippets, not "that many scientific mistakes" pointed out. What exactly?
Besides, I'm not here to defend Sitchin's website; I've drawn on mostly mainstream sources to make my points.

What exactly? Reread the post (you can search on 'Sitchin' with author 'Fram', there are luckily not too many of those).
This is what you said earlier in this thread:

I'll say that Sitchin's detailed and lengthy Earth Chronicles is the fundamental basis for my ideas, though the breadth of knowledge and acumen stems from years of study and research across numerous disciplines. I'm no expert, mind you, and certainly don't think Sitchin is 100% correct. However, should you be inclined, I'd suggest the first book as well as the two companion volumes for more insight.
But I'm not interested in fielding questions about alleged "wild claims" from someone who appears to know little and misinterpret what is posted in the first place.
You have repeatedly blamed me for not knowing enough, not looking up your sources, not being interested, ...
You have given Sitchin as the fundamental basis for your ideas, but when I do look him up on his website, you brush it away (like everything you don't want to or can't answer). For all my quotes was the context given (you know, those links I include are there for a reason), and I explained what was the problem. The number of errors compared to the number of pages justified the use of the word 'many'.
If you use the books of a man who clearly misrepresents things, doesn't know enough of the sciences involved, and grasps at straws to 'prove' his theories, as the basis for your own theories, then you shouldn't be surprised if I and other people have no inclination whatsoever to read his books or even take your theories serious.
Bye, A.DIM.

[Fram]

What's interesting is that the study of Economics takes one all the way back to Sumer, and the many thousands of texts dealing with Trade and such. Some university level Economics studies certainly entail examining, reading, cuneiform. Combine this with actually speaking Hebrew, rather than being taught in american univerisities, and understanding other semitic tongues.... well, I understand why you "pick" Heiser.
:wink:

Can you give an example of an University which actually requires reading cuneiform for their Economics studies? I've never heard of such a thing...

If you read closely, you'll note that I never said it was "required," only that "some... entail examining, reading, cuneiform."

This is another good example of how you've either misinterpreted what I've posted, or simply ignored it.

The explanation dictionary.com gives for 'entail': (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=entail)
To have, impose, or require as a necessary accompaniment or consequence
Again, A.DIM, why should I take you serious any longer? The only thing you're good at is insulting me. The rest you spout is self righteous rubbish.

Bye, A.DIM.

[Disinfo Agent]

Were I to make such a statement, I'd be pounced on in the spirit of debunkery. [...] because I've witnessed such behavior in these very forums.
Where and when, A.DIM?

What's interesting is that the study of Economics takes one all the way back to Sumer, and the many thousands of texts dealing with Trade and such. Some university level Economics studies certainly entail examining, reading, cuneiform. Combine this with actually speaking Hebrew, rather than being taught in american univerisities, and understanding other semitic tongues....
Can you say "slippery slope"?
[...] all I said is that it was "interesting;" not that such a background makes him any more credible than a "Hebrew scholar."
You haven't even shown that he has the kind of background that you talk about above!

The point, though, was to show that studying economics and speaking semitic languages isn't so far removed from understanding cuneiform as some would like to think [...]
I see no similarities between the two.
BTW, Sitchin studied economic history, not economics. They're different things, too.

[...] I think I've shown how you're not really interested in being "convinced."
No, you haven't.
OK, but I'll let our readers decide for themselves.
Be my guest. That's what I usually do when you and Outcast run away from my questions. :)

Try this: Contact Univerisity of Chicago's Oriental Institute, an authority on the matter, and find out for yourself.
Sorry, A.DIM, but the burden of proof, in what regards this Sitchin business, rests on you and Outcast.
"Burden of proof" for what, though, Disinfo? I never set out to prove anything here, other than that the idea of "those from heaven to earth came," or, if you will, ancient astronauts, was not "invented" by VonDaniken as put forth at the beginning of this thread.And again, I believe I've done as much.
Then why did you tell me to contact the Univerisity of Chicago's Oriental Institute?

I laid out very clearly [...] How little their interpretations actually differ [...]
I must have missed it, then. Where was it that you did that?
I'm rather sure it was either the "Sitchin Continued..." thread or the "If Sitchin's right..." thread, but I've no time to sift through and specifically locate it.
A.DIM, either you have the time to find the evidence that backs up that claim, or you shouldn't have made it in the first place.

Not only have I shown how you've derailed discussions with semantics, but Outcast has as well.
When and where, A.DIM? :roll:

In my mind, this is equivalent with "disinformation," and so your "name," [...]
Only in your mind, I think:

dis·in·for·ma·tion    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (ds-nfr-mshn)
n.

1. Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation: “He would be the unconscious channel for a piece of disinformation aimed at another country's intelligence service” (Ken Follett).

2. Dissemination of such misleading information.

disinformation

n : misinformation that is deliberately disseminated in order to influence or confuse rivals (foreign enemies or business competitors etc.)

misinformation

n : information that is incorrect

dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=disinformation)
Assuming that I did derail the conversation -- which is arguable -- , I do not believe I did so with incorrect or misleading information, so it was not "disinformation".
(As a matter of fact, that would be a better description of what you and Outcast do when you go on about how "the Bible is, without doubt, a rewrite of older texts". And, in fact, plenty of other things you two write.)

In no way did I demean Heiser's credentials or person. I did NOT attack him, and so no ad hominem.
You need to read up on the meaning of ad hominem. It doesn't have to be an insult. Rejecting someone's reply to a question because of flaws of that person that are not related to the said question, as you did, is also an ad hominem.

Besides, I've not really complained about Sitchin being called a "woowoo." Be my guest.
All I've done is object to the countless inaccurate statements made about his work; knowing otherwise, of course. :)
But you have complained about the ad hominem use of the phrase "woowoo" in these forums:

Hmmm... so instead of actually addressing the article I pointed to regarding Klass' bias and flaws in "debunking" the woowoos, you're instead trying to establish that the site containing the article is "woowoo" and how linking to it affects my "credibility?"

Why not instead address the article and admit Klass' own shortcomings as a "skeptic?" Why not acknowledge that a scientist effectively refuted and negated a journalist's "debunking?" I mean, you're obviously all about "how science works," right? So why not wave that flag now?

Are saying that it is ok for "skeptics" around here to make similar remarks about the various "woowoos" out there, and yet I can't make a most pertinent point likewise?

... Are you talking about Heiser's The Façade, here? I confess that I've never bothered to read about it...
It doesn't seem to be revelant to Sitchin's theories, in any case.
"It doesn't seem..." because you don't know.
I'd suggest arming yourself with such info then.
But, according to you and Outcast, Heiser is a nut, and no credence should be given to his writings, right? :P

Whenever you feel that I'm diverting the conversation from something more important, feel free to tell me so.
Even if it entails a few "childish" puns here & there? :wink:
I would rather that you were more direct, because it isn't easy to interpret the intent of your puns. :D

[V-GER]

A.DIM wrote:
Personally, I don't watch much tv.

But could it be "life reflecting art" or is it "art reflecting life?"

No it's art reflecting deranged delusions of our past.

[Outcast]

[...] and veiled ad-hominens.
This is not true.


[...] I think I've shown how you're not really interested in being "convinced."
No, you haven't.
OK, but I'll let our readers decide for themselves.
Be my guest. That's what I usually do when you and Outcast run away from my questions. :)

Posted: 11 Feb 2005 21:47

if that isnt a veiled ad-hominen...

but using your own words: Where and when, D.A.?

bringing to case the last pseudoskeptical attack you've done at my person, where you've done to me what you yourself accuse me of doing to you, case in point:

You underestimate me, Outcast, and that's a shame, because I get the impression that you tend to do that with people in general.

using V-GERs question and my following answer, without knowlledge from your part of the issue involved just to derail the conversation into another flame war is evidenced in these pages.

so again, you've succeded in starting a chain of ad-hominens. i think it wont be long untill this thread gets locked. congratulations.

[Outcast]

But, according to you and Outcast, Heiser is a nut, and no credence should be given to his writings, right?

i dont know about A.DIM, but according to me, all i ever said is that Heiser has an agenda. that he is (or isnt) a "nut" is YOUR own assumption. also, according to me, both Sitchins and Heisers theories involve the intervention of advanced beings in humanitys past. since Heiser is a confessed christian, these beings (the Watchers or the I.GI.GI of the Sumerian) take a different interpretation. nevertheless its the same premise. but, of course you have no idea of what im talking about because, per your own words:

I confess that I've never bothered to read about it

so again, you've been caught red handed making wild claims. why should anyone trust anything you have to say, D.A.?

[Disinfo Agent]

Ah, I'd missed this:


It's got little to do with the fact that Sumerian was agglutinative.
V-GER asked the following: "Why EN.KI.DU instead of Enkidu?"

i answered the following: "sumerian is an agglutinative language and a word is sometimes formed by other compound words to derive a meaning. it could also be spelled EN-KI-DU, either way it would be correct."
The issue was not with you saying that "either way would be correct", but your mention of the fact that Sumerian is agglutinative, which is totally irrelevant to the answer to V-GER's question.

DA, you never loose an opportunity to belittle someone you dont agree with. isnt that right?

[...] you should really temper your mood when addressing my person because such belittling attitudes are neither deserved by me nor very flattering for you.
You see "belittling atittudes" where there are none.
Unless by "belittling atittudes" you mean those of any and every person who happens to criticise what you write.

if that isnt a veiled ad-hominen...
It isn't.

but using your own words: Where and when, D.A.?
You mean, where are when have you and A.DIM run away from my questions?
Let's see... here are two questions I asked to A.DIM in this very thread, but he never replied: "Can we see a source for this?" (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=388462#388462) and "But if you interpret the "gods" as ETs, then you're not making a literal interpretation, are you?" (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=397583#397583). There are others.
As for you, there are examples in other threads. I am tired right now, but I can search for them later, if you wish.

bringing to case the last pseudoskeptical attack you've done at my person, where you've done to me what you yourself accuse me of doing to you, case in point:
You underestimate me, Outcast, and that's a shame, because I get the impression that you tend to do that with people in general.
using V-GERs question and my following answer, without knowlledge from your part of the issue involved just to derail the conversation into another flame war is evidenced in these pages.
See above.

[Disinfo Agent]

I confess that I've never bothered to read about it
so again, you've been caught red handed making wild claims. why should anyone trust anything you have to say, D.A.?
About The Façade? :lol:
What "wild claims" did I ever make about The Façade?!

[V-GER]

Er, what is The Facade? does it require a blue or a red pill?

[Humots]

Mind you I have heard people claim that the first chapter of the book of Ezekiel in the Old Testament is an eye witness testimony of a flying saucer

The book is "The Spaceships Of Ezekiel" by Joseph Blumrich.

[A.DIM]

I'd like to think this will be the last of my posting to this thread.

If someone cares to actually discuss Sitchin, start a thread, I'll post when I can.

As for now:

What about my remarks about Sitchin's website? Why would I read (let alone believe) the books from someone who makes that many scientific mistakes in a few pages?

Uh... I recall a couple of out of context snippets, not "that many scientific mistakes" pointed out. What exactly?
Besides, I'm not here to defend Sitchin's website; I've drawn on mostly mainstream sources to make my points.

What exactly? Reread the post (you can search on 'Sitchin' with author 'Fram', there are luckily not too many of those).

OK,
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
Quote:
Other articles review the numerous ancient depictions, as this one from Greece’s classical period, that also attest to ancient familiarity with aspects of the Trojan War and the Trojan Horse episode.

Amazing: in Greece's classical period, that is centuries after Homer, they know the stories told by Homer? Then it can only be true!

Personally, I consider Troy being factual as common knowledge so there's no real need for such "rigidity." Sitchin only seems to ask what if it is read more literally regarding the "gods" involved; It was, after all, their war.
As far as the Face on Mars: I see it only likely that a space-faring species coming into our system would reasonably colonize Mars along the way. And considering the awesome discoveries there over the last year - namely that water was abundant for an extended period sometime in its past - I'd consider it plausible.

Then, quoting the website, you said:

This entailed recognition by the authors of the ancient text that there are other solar systems in the universe with their own planets – a notion held impossible by astronomers until a few years ago.

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.

I'll agree "impossible" is over the top, but why did you not copy the rest of that text?
The next sentence: "It entailed the notion that stars and their planetary systems could explode, ejecting a planet to journey in space – another revolutionary astronomical aspect only recently accepted; and it entailed the even more challenging idea, that life exists elsewhere in the universe and could have and did evolve earlier than on Earth."

Then again, only in the last 10yrs or so has evidence actually existed for extrasolar planets, ejected "rogue" planets, planets where Tiamat was in our system, etc. I think these, and the articles cited are the more pertinent points.

And then quoting the "Evil Wind" page, you said
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 instead of addressing the cited studies from Science and Geology regarding the sudden climate changes that seem support Sitchin's theory, you're quibbling over some 50yrs? Why should that matter? The books detailing the events predated '01 anyway. :-? That statement appears to be merely sensationalistic timing of the webmaster.

So Fram, again, "what exactly" about your dismissal of Sitchin via his website? Close review reveals more important, and relevant, info.
And yet you asked me to address your "points"? Yours were, as I said, out of context snippets.

Sorry, I'd like to be finished here.

This is what you said earlier in this thread:

[quote="A.DIM"]I'll say that Sitchin's detailed and lengthy Earth Chronicles is the fundamental basis for my ideas, though the breadth of knowledge and acumen stems from years of study and research across numerous disciplines. I'm no expert, mind you, and certainly don't think Sitchin is 100% correct. However, should you be inclined, I'd suggest the first book as well as the two companion volumes for more insight.
But I'm not interested in fielding questions about alleged "wild claims" from someone who appears to know little and misinterpret what is posted in the first place.

Yes, and I stand firm.
And as I said, if you'd like, start a thread, I'll post when I can.

You have repeatedly blamed me for not knowing enough, not looking up your sources, not being interested, ...
You have given Sitchin as the fundamental basis for your ideas, but when I do look him up on his website, you brush it away (like everything you don't want to or can't answer). For all my quotes was the context given (you know, those links I include are there for a reason), and I explained what was the problem. The number of errors compared to the number of pages justified the use of the word 'many'.

Sorry, I'm not clear on what errors you found, other than that "impossible" shouldn't have been used.
And I don't blame you for anything; other than attacking ideas that entail much more than the scant understanding you appear to possess.

If you use the books of a man who clearly misrepresents things, doesn't know enough of the sciences involved, and grasps at straws to 'prove' his theories, as the basis for your own theories, then you shouldn't be surprised if I and other people have no inclination whatsoever to read his books or even take your theories serious.
Bye, A.DIM.

You're fundamental mistake is assuming I've tried to "prove" anything.
You'll either discover it yourself or you won't.

But I'll likely be around here to correct you when you err. :)

Bye Fram.

[A.DIM]

Were I to make such a statement, I'd be pounced on in the spirit of debunkery. [...] because I've witnessed such behavior in these very forums.
Where and when, A.DIM?

So now I have to defend my observations of pseudoskepticsim around here?

Harrumph...

What's interesting is that the study of Economics takes one all the way back to Sumer, and the many thousands of texts dealing with Trade and such. Some university level Economics studies certainly entail examining, reading, cuneiform. Combine this with actually speaking Hebrew, rather than being taught in american univerisities, and understanding other semitic tongues....
Can you say "slippery slope"?
[...] all I said is that it was "interesting;" not that such a background makes him any more credible than a "Hebrew scholar."
You haven't even shown that he has the kind of background that you talk about above!

The point, though, was to show that studying economics and speaking semitic languages isn't so far removed from understanding cuneiform as some would like to think [...]
I see no similarities between the two.
BTW, Sitchin studied economic history, not economics. They're different things, too.

Oh sorry, now I have to prove Sitchin has a degree in Economics vs. Economic History?
And that has a bearing on what?

[...] I think I've shown how you're not really interested in being "convinced."
No, you haven't.
OK, but I'll let our readers decide for themselves.
Be my guest. That's what I usually do when you and Outcast run away from my questions. :)

Is that so?
Well, momentarily I'll show how you seem to ask the same questions repeatedly, ignoring answers by "I'm not convinced," and then feigning ignorance on related subjects in later discussions.
It's no wonder... :-?

Try this: Contact Univerisity of Chicago's Oriental Institute, an authority on the matter, and find out for yourself.
Sorry, A.DIM, but the burden of proof, in what regards this Sitchin business, rests on you and Outcast.
"Burden of proof" for what, though, Disinfo? I never set out to prove anything here, other than that the idea of "those from heaven to earth came," or, if you will, ancient astronauts, was not "invented" by VonDaniken as put forth at the beginning of this thread.And again, I believe I've done as much.
Then why did you tell me to contact the Univerisity of Chicago's Oriental Institute?
Because after it was shown how I've provided up to 6 different sources that assert the "rewrite" aspects of the OT in this thread and linked-to threads, you still weren't "convinced."
I'm convinced I won't "convince" you, and so you must learn it yourself.
The Oriental Institute is a good place to start.

I laid out very clearly [...] How little their interpretations actually differ [...]
I must have missed it, then. Where was it that you did that?
I'm rather sure it was either the "Sitchin Continued..." thread or the "If Sitchin's right..." thread, but I've no time to sift through and specifically locate it.
A.DIM, either you have the time to find the evidence that backs up that claim, or you shouldn't have made it in the first place.

OK, and here it is:

This thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=5103&start=25&postdays=0&postorder =asc&highlight=).
And this (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=125078&highlight=heiser+scholar#12 5078).

Now, notice how you, as "Informant," were the first to respond in both instances re: my critiques of Heiser's critiques, and here you are feigning ignorance on the matter.

This, as I said, in my mind, constitutes "disinformation."
Either that or....

Not only have I shown how you've derailed discussions with semantics, but Outcast has as well.
When and where, A.DIM? :roll:

In my mind, this is equivalent with "disinformation," and so your "name," [...]
Only in your mind, I think:

dis·in·for·ma·tion    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (ds-nfr-mshn)
n.

1.Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation: “He would be the unconscious channel for a piece of disinformation aimed at another country's intelligence service” (Ken Follett).

2.Dissemination of such misleading information.

disinformation

n : misinformation that is deliberately disseminated in order to influence or confuse rivals (foreign enemies or business competitors etc.)

misinformation

n : information that is incorrect

dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=disinformation)
Assuming that I did derail the conversation -- which is arguable -- , I do not believe I did so with incorrect or misleading information, so it was not "disinformation".

... it was misinformation in the guise of "Disinfo," then? :)

(As a matter of fact, that would be a better description of what you and Outcast do when you go on about how "the Bible is, without doubt, a rewrite of older texts". And, in fact, plenty of other things you two write.)

Anyone who takes the time to actually research the "rewrite" issue will discover exactly what Outcast and I have said.

In no way did I demean Heiser's credentials or person. I did NOT attack him, and so no ad hominem.
You need to read up on the meaning of ad hominem. It doesn't have to be an insult. Rejecting someone's reply to a question because of flaws of that person that are not related to the said question, as you did, is also an ad hominem.

OK, but there was no "reply to a question;" it was a disparate "btw."
And I found it funny, that is all.

Besides, I've not really complained about Sitchin being called a "woowoo." Be my guest.
All I've done is object to the countless inaccurate statements made about his work; knowing otherwise, of course. :)
But you have complained about the ad hominem use of the phrase "woowoo" in these forums:

Hmmm... so instead of actually addressing the article I pointed to regarding Klass' bias and flaws in "debunking" the woowoos, you're instead trying to establish that the site containing the article is "woowoo" and how linking to it affects my "credibility?"

Why not instead address the article and admit Klass' own shortcomings as a "skeptic?" Why not acknowledge that a scientist effectively refuted and negated a journalist's "debunking?" I mean, you're obviously all about "how science works," right? So why not wave that flag now?

Are saying that it is ok for "skeptics" around here to make similar remarks about the various "woowoos" out there, and yet I can't make a most pertinent point likewise?

No, Disinfo, not really complaining about him being called a woowoo, or me, only the methods that were being used to "debunk" his theories and my ideas. Hell, I've even taken some pride in being considered a resident "woowoo." :D


... Are you talking about Heiser's The Façade, here? I confess that I've never bothered to read about it...
It doesn't seem to be revelant to Sitchin's theories, in any case.
"It doesn't seem..." because you don't know.
I'd suggest arming yourself with such info then.
But, according to you and Outcast, Heiser is a nut, and no credence should be given to his writings, right? :P

No, a year ago I told you I thought his ideas were actually pretty cool, "interdimensional beings being the divine council" and all.
Oh, that's right, you must've forgotten that exchange.

Whenever you feel that I'm diverting the conversation from something more important, feel free to tell me so.
Even if it entails a few "childish" puns here & there? :wink:
I would rather that you were more direct, because it isn't easy to interpret the intent of your puns. :D

I hope I've been direct enough.

I'd like to finished with this thread.

[Outcast]

posted by Disinfo Agent:
The issue was not with you saying that "either way would be correct", but your mention of the fact that Sumerian is agglutinative, which is totally irrelevant to the answer to V-GER's question.

my answer was in no way irrelevent because it ANSWERED V-GERs question. in fact, it was very much to the point since i understood V-Ger question and you did not. can you understand that SIMPLE logic? the only reason you went into that little diatribe of yours was do discredit my person. period.

V-Ger's initial question:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=408402#408402

My thourough answer:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=412690#412690

V-Ger's aknowlledgement:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=412929#412929

thats all im gonna say about this issue.

Unless by "belittling atittudes" you mean those of any and every person who happens to criticise what you write.

no, just those critiques without references, lack of understanding of the issues involved, and with underlying demeaning tones. much like yours.

i've strived to present references for my claims, i think i've did it more or less reasonably. whether one agrees or not with my conclusions i expect counter arguments to be presented with the same level of dedication, respect and humility i've presented when discussing my personal ideas.

i've been planning to put the ETH into a coherent, scholarly work for years. at least to see if its possible to do such thing. therefore i've been looking for pertinent skeptic comments before engaging in such work. thats the only thing i expect from a place devoted to science like the BABBS not personal offenses and bad mouthing.

About The Façade?
What "wild claims" did I ever make about The Façade?!

here's what i've said before:

i dont know about A.DIM, but according to me, all i ever said is that Heiser has an agenda. that he is (or isnt) a "nut" is YOUR own assumption. also, according to me, both Sitchins and Heisers theories involve the intervention of advanced beings in humanitys past. since Heiser is a confessed christian, these beings (the Watchers or the I.GI.GI of the Sumerian) take a different interpretation. nevertheless its the same premise. but, of course you have no idea of what im talking about because, per your own words

the fact that you missed the point regarding this issue just shows that you didnt even read what i've written. you accused me and A.dim of calling Heiser a nut, which is not true.


regarding "Let's see... here are two questions I asked to A.DIM in this very thread, but he never replied: "Can we see a source for this?":

Sticks wrote:
[...] the Egyptians believed their "gods" came from the Planet of Millions of Years, or the Abode of the Gods [...]

Can we see a source for this?

a reference and its subsequent answer to this question has been provided in this thread. the fact that you missed it, again, shows that you do not study the references provided. see my comment above.

regarding "But if you interpret the "gods" as ETs, then you're not making a literal interpretation, are you? ", unfortunetly is a rhetorical question.

[Outcast]

Er, what is The Facade? does it require a blue or a red pill?

it would require taking the red pill. 8-[

[Disinfo Agent]

The issue was not with you saying that "either way would be correct", but your mention of the fact that Sumerian is agglutinative, which is totally irrelevant to the answer to V-GER's question.
my answer was in no way irrelevent because it ANSWERED V-GERs question.
I never said your answer was "irrelevant".
What I said was that the fact that Sumerian is an aggutinative language (which you give in your answer to V-GER) has very little to do with how names like Enkidu/EN-KI-DU are spelled. It is irrelevant.

I'd like to think this will be the last of my posting to this thread.

If someone cares to actually discuss Sitchin, start a thread, I'll post when I can.
Well, this thread was not about Sitchin to begin with...

[Outcast]

The issue was not with you saying that "either way would be correct", but your mention of the fact that Sumerian is agglutinative, which is totally irrelevant to the answer to V-GER's question.
my answer was in no way irrelevent because it ANSWERED V-GERs question.
I never said your answer was "irrelevant".
What I said was that the fact that Sumerian is an aggutinative language (which you give in your answer to V-GER) has very little to do with how names like Enkidu/EN-KI-DU are spelled. It is irrelevant.


then please explain why it is spelled EN-KI-DU instead of Enkidu.

[Disinfo Agent]

Didn't you say it could be written either way?

Anyway, according to AncientScripts.com and other sites I consulted, specialists transliterate Sumerian word in capitals when they are written with logograms. So, if some specialists write EN-KI-DU, that's because the name was written with three cuneiform logograms, 'EN', 'KI', and 'DU'.

In other words, it has to do with how that word was written, not with the grammar of the language.

[Disinfo Agent]

Now, I won't deny that I would prefer a... erm... more orthodox source. But since these two are the only ones we have, I'll pick Heiser over Sitchin, since he at least actually has some expertise on ancient Mesopotamian languages.
yes he may be right or then again he might be wrong. and the only fact clear to me is that you cannot know for sure. the only reason you defend Heiser's position is because you disagree, for emotional reasons, with Sitchin. even though Heiser and Sitchin propose very similar scenarios.
even though Heiser and Sitchin propose very similar scenarios.
Are you talking about Heiser's The Façade, here? I confess that I've never bothered to read about it...
It doesn't seem to be revelant to Sitchin's theories, in any case.
I confess that I've never bothered to read about it
so again, you've been caught red handed making wild claims. why should anyone trust anything you have to say, D.A.?
About The Façade? :lol:
What "wild claims" did I ever make about The Façade?!
About The Façade?
What "wild claims" did I ever make about The Façade?!
here's what i've said before:
i dont know about A.DIM, but according to me, all i ever said is that Heiser has an agenda. that he is (or isnt) a "nut" is YOUR own assumption. also, according to me, both Sitchins and Heisers theories involve the intervention of advanced beings in humanitys past. since Heiser is a confessed christian, these beings (the Watchers or the I.GI.GI of the Sumerian) take a different interpretation. nevertheless its the same premise. but, of course you have no idea of what im talking about because, per your own words
the fact that you missed the point regarding this issue just shows that you didnt even read what i've written. you accused me and A.dim of calling Heiser a nut, which is not true.
I'm sorry, but I still don’t get it.
Were you or were you not talking about The Façade, when you said I had been “caught redhanded making wild claims”?

Unless by "belittling atittudes" you mean those of any and every person who happens to criticise what you write.
no, just those critiques without references, lack of understanding of the issues involved, and with underlying demeaning tones. much like yours.
I disagree that my criticisms made in this thread are of that sort, but perhaps this is one of those matters where we should let the readers decide for themselves.

you accused me and A.dim of calling Heiser a nut, which is not true.
Not literally, no. However, I made that remark partly in jest (hence the smilie), which would excuse a little exaggeration, I hope.

a reference and its subsequent answer to this question has been provided in this thread.
By A.DIM? Where is it?

regarding "But if you interpret the "gods" as ETs, then you're not making a literal interpretation, are you? ", unfortunetly is a rhetorical question.
No, it isn't. A.DIM could have disagreed, and explained why he disagreed. He didn't.

[Outcast]

Didn't you say it could be written either way?

Anyway, according to AncientScripts.com and other sites I consulted, specialists transliterate Sumerian word in capitals when they are written with logograms. So, if some specialists write EN-KI-DU, that's because the name was written with three cuneiform logograms, 'EN', 'KI', and 'DU'.

In other words, it has to do with how that word was written, not with the grammar of the language.

yes, and because sumerian words can be composed from logograms which in term each one represent a word its said that the language is agglutinative:

agglutinative

adj 1: forming derivative or compound words by putting together constituents each of which expresses a single definite meaning [syn: polysynthetic] 2: united as if by glue [syn: agglutinate]

so i still do not understand whats your beef with this issue, but whatever.

[Disinfo Agent]

yes, and because sumerian words can be composed from logograms which in term each one represent a word its said that the language is agglutinative:
That's not what "agglutinative language" means for linguists. You should have looked up a specialists' definition. Here are a few:

agglutinative languages (http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~pjh/sem1a5/pt2/pt2_intro_morphology.html)
agglutinative languages, at the msdn library (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/indexsrv/html/wbrscenario_06k3.asp)
example of an agglutinative language: Turkish (http://www.turizm.net/turkey/info/language.html) (look at the bottom of the page)

Let me emphasize again that this has nothing to do with writing. Even a language that has no writing system can be agglutinative.

[Outcast]

Didn't you say it could be written either way?

no, i said i've seen it written as EN.KI.DU and EN-KI-DU, though i suspect that both should be written in lower case, and that would be correct, not Enkidu.

from the links you provided:

Agglutinative languages form words through the combination of smaller morphemes to express compound ideas. Each of these morphemes generally has one meaning or function and retains its original form and meaning during the combination process. For languages that have agglutinative morphology, such as Turkish, Finnish, Hungarian, or Korean, it is possible to produce thousands of forms for a given root word.


you really think the msdn library represents a "specialist" in linguists or did this just popup in your google search?

Agglutinative languages
My dictionary gives the definition of agglutinate as "unite as with glue; (of language) combine simple words without change of form to express compound ideas". Textbook examples are usually based on Turkish or Swahili, of which we'll use the former...

... The important thing about this example is to notice how the morphemes all represent a "unit of meaning" and how they remain absolutely identifiable within the structure of the words. This is in contrast to what happens in the last class: the inflecting languages

the last link says this: Turkish is an agglutinative language, meaning a fairly large number of affixes in Turkish may be added to the root; each affix has one meaning or grammatical function and retains its form more or less unaffected by the morphemes surrounding it.

then you said:

Let me emphasize again that this has nothing to do with writing.

well from my understanding of the subject i think it also has to do with writting.

i realized that the -du in en-ki-du might be a possessive modifier (an affix) for "your" and not the "dug" word like i stated before. that could imply that en-ki-du means "something which belongs to EN-KI", but im not sure.

[Outcast]

I'm sorry, but I still don’t get it.
Were you or were you not talking about The Façade, when you said I had been “caught redhanded making wild claims”?.

no i was talking about you saying that I and A.dim called Heiser a nut, which is not true.


I disagree that my criticisms made in this thread are of that sort, but perhaps this is one of those matters where we should let the readers decide for themselves..

i agree.


Not literally, no. However, I made that remark partly in jest (hence the smilie), which would excuse a little exaggeration, I hope.

jest is excusable when everyone else is doing it also. thus i believe the intent of your post had a second nature.


regarding "But if you interpret the "gods" as ETs, then you're not making a literal interpretation, are you? ", unfortunetly is a rhetorical question.
No, it isn't. A.DIM could have disagreed, and explained why he disagreed. He didn't.

since i've read A.dim's posts in this BBS he has allways made certain to explain his motivations. since you've been engaging this issue around here as long as i've had, and if you didnt skip over his posts and actually read them, you certainly know why he makes that interpretation. thats why i consider your question rhetorical.

[Disinfo Agent]

you really think the msdn library represents a "specialist" in linguists or did this just popup in your google search?
I had a hard time finding a decent explanation.
Still, the msdn library had an example (from Finnish) that I thought was enlightening. Also, it mentioned languages that are agglutinative -- Turkish, Finnish, Hungarian, and Korean -- and languages that are not agglutinative -- English, French, and Latin. Since most of these languages are written with the same script, that should make it clear that being agglutinative has little to do with writing.

well from my understanding of the subject i think it also has to do with writting.
See above.

i realized that the -du in en-ki-du might be a possessive modifier (an affix) for "your" and not the "dug" word like i stated before. that could imply that en-ki-du means "something which belongs to EN-KI", but im not sure.
Maybe, I don't know, but that has nothing to do with the use of capital letters in transliteration, which was what V-GER had asked about...

Not literally, no. However, I made that remark partly in jest (hence the smilie), which would excuse a little exaggeration, I hope.
jest is excusable when everyone else is doing it also. thus i believe the intent of your post had a second nature.
I was replying to A.DIM’s last comment in this post (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=414888#414888), which seemed a bit tongue-in-cheek to me, at the time.

regarding "But if you interpret the "gods" as ETs, then you're not making a literal interpretation, are you? ", unfortunetly is a rhetorical question.
No, it isn't. A.DIM could have disagreed, and explained why he disagreed. He didn't.
since i've read A.dim's posts in this BBS he has allways made certain to explain his motivations. since you've been engaging this issue around here as long as i've had, and if you didnt skip over his posts and actually read them, you certainly know why he makes that interpretation. thats why i consider your question rhetorical.
Let's agree to disagree on this, all right?
As I said before, there were other instances in this thread where A.DIM did not answer questions I had asked, but he seems to have left the conversation, so I'm not going to beat this dead horse.

[Outcast]

Maybe, I don't know, but that has nothing to do with the use of capital letters in transliteration, which was what V-GER had asked about...

i have the distinct impression you're fooling with me. that seems utterly trollish specially when V-ger has allready explained what he was asking about. here: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=412929#412929

Outcast wrote:
my impression from V-GER question was that he did not understood why i separated the word in its compound elements and NOT why i've written it in capitals. either way its scholarly correct to write Enkidu as en-ki-du, the "du" represented by du10 or dùg. which is its corresponding symbol.

Your impression was correct and the answer very thorough thank you.


this is the last time i'll reply to this subject.

[Disinfo Agent]

You're quite right! I had missed V-GER's reply to you entirely, and I also failed to notice it when you pointed it out to me yourself. :oops:
My apologies.