It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
Some of Sitchin's wilder theories were based on translated Sumerian texts.
Convince the reader if you can that there's nothing to see from Zecharia Sitchin
I can't dismiss the body of evidence presented by Sitchin.
If you like that then you might love Immanuel Velikovsky works en.wikipedia.org...
Of course, Sitchin's translations are only a small part of his work. What I found to be much more interesting and compelling about it was the comparative archaeology, history, and mythology that he presents in his Earth Chronicles series.
originally posted by: SargonThrall
a reply to: TheBadCabbie
Egyptologists study Mesopotamia now? Anyway, Sitchin could not even get basic translations correct. As a glaring example, he translates Anu.naki as "those who from heaven to earth came", despite the obvious fact that Anu is the name of a god. Offspring of Anu, it means, to those who aren't selling books.
originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
Zecharia Sitchin. Mr. Twelfth Planet. Mr. 'Gene splicing aliens created humanity to mine gold' guy. Mr. Bunkey Mc Bunk Cakes to some folks. Some of Sitchin's wilder theories were based on translated Sumerian texts. Translation of these documents was not possible until the mid twentieth century.
originally posted by: [post=21810597]Sitchin's translations, replete with fantastic tales of gene splicing aliens and space battles, were met with scorn and derision at the time of his publications, and have continued to be derided since.
Perhaps rightly so. He does seem to be the only linguist to produce this translation, and his conclusions certainly fly in the face of the well entrenched Egyptological school of thought.
originally posted by: [post=21810597]Of course, Sitchin's translations are only a small part of his work. What I found to be much more interesting and compelling about it was the comparative archaeology, history, and mythology that he presents in his Earth Chronicles series. I've read this series of books, and I can't dismiss the body of evidence presented by Sitchin. Most of it is pretty mainstream really, just presented comparatively.
originally posted by: [post=21810597]Hence this thread. I know Egyptologists come out of the woodworks and start frothing at the mouth to shout him down whenever Sitchin's name gets mentioned. Have at ye, then! Convince the reader if you can that there's nothing to see from Zecharia Sitchin! I don't think you can. Perhaps I can encourage a few readers to have another look at the man's work while we're at it.
originally posted by: [post=21810597]I'll start by leaving the most often linked Sitchin debunking website here in the OP for an easy reference:
www.sitchiniswrong.com...
I thought a broad general argument was the best way to start this one. We'll get more into the details a little farther down. Begin.
originally posted by: Jahari
originally posted by: SargonThrall
a reply to: TheBadCabbie
Egyptologists study Mesopotamia now? Anyway, Sitchin could not even get basic translations correct. As a glaring example, he translates Anu.naki as "those who from heaven to earth came", despite the obvious fact that Anu is the name of a god. Offspring of Anu, it means, to those who aren't selling books.
This is a subject im only vaguely familiar with but those two translations are basically the same. If im not mistaken Anu being a god and having offspring wouldn't they technically be from heaven?
originally posted by: Jahari
This is a subject im only vaguely familiar with but those two translations are basically the same. If im not mistaken Anu being a god and having offspring wouldn't they technically be from heaven?
originally posted by: Harte
originally posted by: Jahari
originally posted by: SargonThrall
a reply to: TheBadCabbie
Egyptologists study Mesopotamia now? Anyway, Sitchin could not even get basic translations correct. As a glaring example, he translates Anu.naki as "those who from heaven to earth came", despite the obvious fact that Anu is the name of a god. Offspring of Anu, it means, to those who aren't selling books.
This is a subject im only vaguely familiar with but those two translations are basically the same. If im not mistaken Anu being a god and having offspring wouldn't they technically be from heaven?
You mean despite the fact that the Sumerian texts themselves tell us that his offspring were born right here on Earth?
Harte
originally posted by: Marduk
originally posted by: Jahari
This is a subject im only vaguely familiar with but those two translations are basically the same. If im not mistaken Anu being a god and having offspring wouldn't they technically be from heaven?
When Sitchin first came up with the Anunaki as Spacemen, he wasn't aware that the Anuna, were actually Cthonic underworld deities as opposed to the IGIGI the gods of heaven, so he even got that wrong, its an error on the scale of thinking that Satan was YHWH
He also invented cylinder seals which don't exist, which is why most of his supporting artwork, was hand drawn and not photographed.
He also made other claims, like the Wooden horse of Troy was an armoured personnel carrier. Its also worth noting that in the 70s, he was claiming that the Gods landed in one way space capsules (NASA technology of the time) and then in the mid 80s. he discovered that the Annunaki were using a space shuttle (NASA technology of the time)
But then, he was a qualified economist and journalist, which means he was good at finding a market and then selling books to it, in this case the market was people too ignorant to fact check
originally posted by: Jahari
Is there any other interpretations i could read that are accepted in academia.
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: TheBadCabbie
I took a look at the sitchiniswrong site and found several problems. He never really addresses any of the problems. He just kind of states authoritatively that Sitchin is wrong without explaining HOW he is wrong and he fails to illustrate the actual reasons and ways in which he is wrong.
The one time I saw him actually give an illustration of how he is wrong is in the word morphology of nephilim and how it couldn't be from Nephal which means to fall. His explanation here is sorely lacking. The books which mention nephilim were passed down through oral tradition for generations before they were ever written down, so aramaic spelling would have ZERO basis on the word morphology. The word as an individual meaning would've been cemented for hundreds of years before it was spelled for the first time so written morphology would've had no basis for ascertaining initial origin. Sithcin's attempt using phonetic morphology is more likely to be accurate. That's not to say that Sitchin is right in this case, just that the argument postulated falls short of being compelling, let alone difinitive.
Jaden
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
The Truth About Nibiru
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Harte
And that's really the first and last nail in Sitchin's coffin. He used VA 243 as his proof for Nibiru and yet not a single thing he claimed about it is even remotely true.