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.

 

On Zecharia Sitchin's Bum Rap

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
What about the Tower of Babel myth?


The Tower of Babel myth is ripped off from "Enmerkar and the lord of Aratta" and is known separately as the "Namsub of Enki"




"On that day when there is no snake, when there is no scorpion, when there is no hyena, when there is no lion, when there is neither dog nor wolf, when there is thus neither fear nor trembling, man has no rival! At such a time, may the lands of Šubur and Ḫamazi, the many-tongued, and Sumer, the great mountain of the me of magnificence, and Akkad, the land possessing all that is befitting, and the Martu land, resting in security -- the whole universe, the well-guarded people -- may they all address Enlil together in a single language! For at that time, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, for the ambitious kings, Enki, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, for the ambitious kings, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, for the ambitious kings -- Enki, the lord of abundance and of steadfast decisions, the wise and knowing lord of the Land, the expert of the gods, chosen for wisdom, the lord of Eridug, shall change the speech in their mouths, as many as he had placed there, and so the speech of mankind is truly one.""


Which predates the Bible by 1100 years


originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
doesn't elohim translate as 'heavenly host'?

no. the term for heavenly host is sabaoth


Elohim (Hebrew: אֱלֹהִים) is a grammatically plural noun for "gods" or "deity" in Biblical Hebrew


edit on 9-2-2017 by Marduk because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk
Elohim (Hebrew: אֱלֹהִים) is a grammatically plural noun for "gods" or "deity" in Biblical Hebrew

It is a plural noun, though, at least according to your mysterious source...



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: Marduk
Elohim (Hebrew: אֱלֹהִים) is a grammatically plural noun for "gods" or "deity" in Biblical Hebrew

It is a plural noun, though, at least according to your mysterious source...



The only thing more mysterious than the aforementioned source is the absolute lack of due diligence on the part of people who are so eager and willing to absorb even the most ridiculous of hoaxes here on ATS. I shouldn't be surprised by it at this point but some silly part of me is an eternal optimist hoping that people will grasp these basic principles of research and dialogue.

Allāh (Arabic الله) is thought to be derived from al-ilāh, meaning "the god" and is related to El. It can be used interchangeably as a proper name or generic title. It is used by Arabic-speaking Muslims and Christians alike to address the creator god of Abraham.

El (Northwest Semitic) roughly translates to "god." It was used interchangeably as both a generic title and as the proper name of a god in ancient Semitic pantheons.

Elohim (Hebrew אֱלֹהִים) roughly translates to "god" or "gods." It is thought to be derived from Eloah or El. Although the -im ending implies a masculine plural, the word is often referred to in the singular. This ambiguity could be indicative of an evolving understanding of the Israelite god. It can be used interchangeably as a proper name or generic title.

Eloah (Hebrew אלוה) is thought to be the singular form of Elohim, although it is possible that both are independently derived from El.

Elah (Aramaic אלה) roughly translates to "god." Similar to the Hebrew Eloah, it is thought to be derived from El.

Yahweh (Hebrew יהוה) is a proper name for god and it is probably unique to the Israelites. It has been argued that it could be an abbreviation of el dū yahwī ṣaba’ôt, "El who creates the hosts,"1 or possibly derived from the root HWY meaning "he blows."2 3 The original pronunciation is lost, since it became customary to substitute 'Adonai' for each occurrence of the tetragrammaton. Jehovah (Latin) is a romanization the Hebrew Yahweh. It is thought to be a combination of the Latin consonants of Yahweh and the vowels points in Adonai, although some scholars dispute this.4 Over time, the English 'j' shifted in pronunciation to an affricate (compare to the 'j' sound in 'Hallelujah,' for example). It was popularized by several early English Bible translations including William Tyndale's, the Geneva Bible, and the King James Version.

For some token demystification-


Smith, Mark S. Miller, Patrick D. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (The Biblical Resource Series). Eerdmans. p. 2. 2002.

Dicou, Bert. Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story. A&C Black. p. 167-181, 177. 1994.

Anderson, James S. Monotheism and Yahweh's Appropriation of Baal. Bloomsbury. p. 101. 2015.

Roy Kotansky, Jeffrey Spier, The 'Horned Hunter' on a Lost Gnostic Gem, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 88, No. 3. p. 318. 1995.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

The only thing more mysterious than the aforementioned source is the absolute lack of due diligence on the part of people who are so eager and willing to absorb even the most ridiculous of hoaxes here on ATS. I shouldn't be surprised by it at this point but some silly part of me is an eternal optimist hoping that people will grasp these basic principles of research and dialogue.

It appears as though you are taking my thinly veiled request for a citation of source and interpreting it to mean that I 'lack due diligence' and am 'so eager and willing to absorb even the most ridiculous of hoaxes'. I think you're reading an awful lot into my words. It is customary to cite sources when quoting written material. Actually, I think it's required by the terms and conditions. If a source is not cited, it can't be independently evaluated, and I'm sure some of the readers would like to be able to check sources.

I have not stated at any time on this board that I accept all of Sitchin's work as the absolute truth. I do however think that it is interesting, informative, educational, and entertaining material. His 'alternate' translations are really only a small part of his work. I was much more intrigued by the comparative history, mythology, and archaeology presented in his work, and the numerous mysteries it highlighted.

I'm not sure why you would think that reading someone's controversial books and finding merit in them means that the reader must necessarily completely believe every word that the author wrote, or 'join his cult', or something like that. That's just silly.

For instance, the Tower of Babel myth in the Bible. An odd and mysterious tale, in my opinion. What about the flood myth, for that matter? There are some odd aspects of that tale as well.

Anyhow, thank you for the cited reply and second opinion on the meaning of the word Elohim. Sounds like you are saying it could be either singular or plural then.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

So in your op what you should be doing is posting evidence his position is right. If your unable to do that than its nothing more than his belief.

If you missed it then, perhaps you should re-read and focus in on this part of my OP:


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.

If you dismiss all of his translations, some of his alleged bad archaeology even, you're still left with an extensive body of comparative history and mythology. These are aspects of his work that are what they are. He's basically just quoting sources when he includes this work in his books. That right there establishes Sitchin's merit in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Personally I could care less about VA 243, I thought it was a weak connection in the first place. What I liked about Sitchin's work was the comparative history and mythology. As I replied to dragonridr: 'If you dismiss all of his translations, some of his alleged bad archaeology even, you're still left with an extensive body of comparative history and mythology. These are aspects of his work that are what they are. He's basically just quoting sources when he includes this work in his books. That right there establishes Sitchin's merit in my opinion. '



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Personally I could care less about VA 243, I thought it was a weak connection in the first place. What I liked about Sitchin's work was the comparative history and mythology. As I replied to dragonridr: 'If you dismiss all of his translations, some of his alleged bad archaeology even, you're still left with an extensive body of comparative history and mythology. These are aspects of his work that are what they are. He's basically just quoting sources when he includes this work in his books. That right there establishes Sitchin's merit in my opinion. '


if you are interested in Comparative mythology, then maybe you should be reading Kramer or Woolley instead.
Jeremy Black released a great book a few years ago, which is available on pdf here,

if someone doesn't know enough about the subject matter, then how are they supposed to know what Sitchin was making up and where he was drawing false parallels, because he did an awful lot of that as well, for instance, the Annunaki are nothing to do with the Elohim, the Igigi were the Gods of heaven, with the Anuna being chthonic deities but that wasn't known when Sitchin started writing in the 70s and of course, like all pseudohistorians, admitting a mistake later on in light of the general ignorance of his readers was unnecessary



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Thanks for the link
loved the comment section
gave you a star for the Flintstones comment ...I have no shame :>)



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Marduk

Thanks for the link
loved the comment section
gave you a star for the Flintstones comment ...I have no shame :>)


pebbles and bam bam are never wrong



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

I just noticed your stats ....0 flags ? how is that possible ? come on , give it up ...



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

57 million stars though, and look at my Karma score, I'm coming back as Emperor of the Universe, lol,
I think something went wrong with the stat generator a few years ago when they upgraded the software



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join