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.

 

Niribu or Aldebaran

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Vagabond,

If addressing me please toss my name in somewhere so I'll spot it if you don't mind.


Originally posted by The Vagabond

A few words on Sitchin:
We're not talking about "errors" in the organization of a billion year timeline. We're talking about a man who claims that everyone else who reads Sumerian reads it wrong, yet he has not been able to set the rest of the academic community straight.



And what is your contention then if not percieved errors?




A language is a system, it has relatively consistent organization and rules- that's why cryptography works. When somebody is wrong, it can be proven by demonstrating contradictions.


This does not apply when the writing is pictographic and the people who created and used it have been long gone for thousands of years. Nor can anyone claim to know the context of writings this old even if by some miracle they could read it with %100 accuracy.




I could invent my own characters and syntax, put a wholly new language together, and never tell anyone. If I left enough writing behind though, it could be decoded accurately and ambiguity would not be able to endure thorough examination.



It would be if you had numerous characters for the same word,interchangeable characters for different words,other people who drew your characters markedly different,were attempting to convert it into a different language,and you were describing things that the person attempting to decipher you weren't familiar with. Those things would almost certainly endure examination no matter how thorough.




You mentioned that Sitchin has described planets before they were known based on Sumerian accounts. Examples please? Give me the publication info and I'll find a copy of the book and verify that the info is in there, then i'll hit the books and find out when the info Sitchin points out was first discovered.


Based on his interpretations and contention that certain allegories were pertaining to planets,Sitchin said that Neptune would be blue and.or green of color and be watery as opposed to being purely gas as was thought at the time. He also cited further that the text say Uranus is Neptune's twin and that it would have similiar colors and composition if we should ever be able to probe it. This was in articles he'd written and was published again in the Twelfth Planet(1976). The first probe that reached Neptune and Uranus was not launched until 1977. And would not return images until years later.

www.geocities.com...

home.cwru.edu...

home.cwru.edu...



[edit on 24-11-2005 by Loungerist]




posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   
66.102.7.104...:jL2RmmpFYVkJ:jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/id6.html+Laurence+Gardner+drink+blood&hl=en&client=safari





great article on it...

[edit on 25-11-2005 by princeea]



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeea
66.102.7.104...:jL2RmmpFYVkJ:jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/id6.html+Laurence+Gardner+drink+blood&hl=en&client=safari

great article on it...

[edit on 25-11-2005 by princeea]


Okay, if webpages are to be used as reference material, instead of career-long associations with medicine and/or chemistry, then HERE is a fairly good article on David Hudson, the pseudoscientific fraud that came up with this idiotic bogus edible white powder gold scam.

Note that Hudson himself no longer actively pursues spreading the word on this miraculous restorative; his heart (which somehow is immune to the fantastic powers of white powder gold) is giving out.


On Sitchen, this man has never to my knowledge actually demonstrated that he knows how to translate Sumerian or Akkadian. He has never provided any C.V. and simply refuses to do so and ignores requests for such documentation.

In the interest of fairness, I wish to provide the following links regarding Sitchen, since this thread has been linked to several pro-Sitchen/anti_logic sites.

www.geocities.com...
This site provides links to both pro and anti Sitchen material, as well as a lot of info on ancient Sumeria. Particularly interesting at that site is the link to Rob Hafernik's critique of Sitchen's "12th Planet." (www.geocities.com...)

www.ianlawton.com...
Ian Lawton provides links to several articles refuting Sitchen's hogwash, as well as a wealth of information on ancient Mesopotamia.

www.ramtops.co.uk...
A refutation of Sitchen's take on Sumerian astronomy.

Inserting these links using the edit function turned out to be tricky, so copy and paste to your address bar, unless you don't want Sitchen to be wrong, in which case you may once more bury your . in the sand.

Lastly, in the future you would all do well to listen to Byrd.

Harte


[edit on 11/26/2005 by Harte]



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 02:02 AM
link   

[edit on 25-11-2005 by princeea]



Okay, if webpages are to be used as reference material,


I highly doubt that if star fire is real, this guy would ever have the formula. It is an interesting topic though and way off the original.

( I did not write this )
MANNA:

The Hebrew translation of this word literally means, "What is it?" Manna is referred to repeatedly in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Hermetic scrolls and the Bible. It is the mfkzt (Milk of Hathor/Ishtar), depicted on ancient stone carvings and pharonic cartouches, being offered to feed the Ka (spiritual body) of Pharaohs and was the essential key to transforming them and others into Light Beings.
It is the shem-an-na (highward fire-stone) believed to be the superconductive source of the blinding white light and terrifying destructive force of the Ark of the Covenant. It is the White Powder of Gold whose levitation properties, proven by modern science, was a closely guarded secret of ancient temple builders, master craftsmen and stonemasons, who would sooner die than reveal their privileged knowledge. It is an integral basis of the metaphysical philosophy of the earliest Freemasons.

It is the Philosophers Stone Instrumental in transmutation alchemy, whose goal was a heightened state of enlightenment and perception (from a lead state of being to a golden one), that was symbolized by the fiery rebirth of the Phoenix.

One initial discovery of its ancient manufacture and storage was found by the Petrie expedition in search of the biblical holy mountain of Moses, then called Mount Horeb and presently known as Serabit el Khadim (on the Sinai peninsula). They found, within the ruins of a temple dedicated to the Goddess Hathor, alchemical equipment including a metallurgist's crucible and a considerable amount of pure white powder, concealed beneath flagstones.

The stelae inscriptions described a substance called mfkzt (pronounced mufkuzt). Mfkzt was believed to be refined primarily from traditionally mined gold, but other sources were later brought to light. The excavation of Qumran, Judea revealed a complex system of conduits, channels and numerous water cisterns, some of which led directly from the Dead Sea. This salt-laden water was not suitable for drinking, but its high mineral content has been found to be a source of high quality m-state material for the processing of white gold powder.

Here are just a few of the intriguing properties of ORMUS materials:

A few of the intriguing properties of Ormus materials:

*They can interact in 2 dimensions..

*They can pass energy from one "same quantum state" particle to another with no net loss of energy.

*They have superconductive non-voltage potential insular against gravity and magnetic fields.

*They are superconductive by light frequency and their quantum waves know no boundaries of space and time.

We are just beginning to understand it's biochemical mechanism and affect on the nervous system and the brain. Research has shown it tends to localize in the nervous system tissue and is believed to stimulate nerve regeneration. As a "conductor", it is believed to increase neurotransmissions in both brain lobes, balancing creative and logical thoughts and to promote communication between the conscious and subconscious minds.

We know very little about gold’s bioavailability. But we do know that fingernail clippings from ring fingers show higher concentrations of gold than the other fingers do. It’s been found in the reproductive system; the uterine and placenta tissue and semen is noted as the richest biological source. Hair samples of newborn infants show levels of zinc, copper and gold, which gradually decrease after 3 months of age.

Current research has shown the physiological effects on cells do not require large doses. Because gold is non toxic (in low doses) it's currently being used as a molecular marker thats readily visible under a microscope. This way researchers can actually see it's reaction on different living cells. Gold pellets are being injected to help retard prostate cancer in men and ovarian cancer in women. There is also more research being done on gold's ability to stabilize body temperature to decrease hot flashes.

Gold and other ORMUS materials contained in liquid Manna, stimulate cell communication and aid in rejuvenating our biological systems. One of the first signs of this "cell boost" is an increase in energy levels. If our body possess the extra ability to heal and isn't in a constantly overworked healing mode, we can enjoy the benefits of extra stamina and clearer thinking.

*A lot of the current ORMUS research has been spear.ed by Barry Carter, who is considered a world renown expert on this subject. His web site has an amazing amount of ORMUS facts, research and up to date theory, which he has made available to everyone.


[edit on 27-11-2005 by princeea]

[edit on 27-11-2005 by princeea]



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Loungerist,
Allow me to provide you with a logical case that you can follow and confirm for yourself, which should demonstrate that Sumerian and Akkadian Cuneiform can be read and the translations can be verified, and therefore that Sitchin's failure to undeniably refute the established position probably indicates that he can't; he values his lucrative little fantasy far too highly to expose it to the scientific method.

Interpretation may be up for some debate, and of course on a Sunday of all days I can hardly deny that if somebody wants to interpret stoneage mythology in a literal sense there is no talking them out of it.

Interpretation and blind faith aside though, any case in which Sitchin argues not on context but on translation can be disposed of expeditiously based on the fact that Sitchin fails to apply the scientific method and prove something that, if it were true, could be proven. (In other words, he cannot refute the compelling evidence presented by his opponents, and so the claims of his opponents stand.)

There you have my contention as well. Sitchin has gone beyond honest errors. He has foresaken good science. He is more concerned with seeing that he is not debunked than with proving his claims true. He is not a scholar; he is a salesman, and his methods are dishonest.

Sitchin's education speaks volumes about his true motives. Sitchin didn't major in a language or in anthropology, achaeology, or any of the things you might suspect; he majored in Economic History. When that man was deciding what to do with his life, he was thinking money, not history.



This does not apply when the writing is pictographic and the people who created and used it have been long gone for thousands of years.


That is incorrect in several respects.

1. Pictographs can be fairly straight forward when considered in the context of their location, origin, and date. For example:


2. Sumerian Cuneiform isn't purely pictographic. Over time it developed syllabary, logograms, and syntax. (Source 1, Pargraph 4) This is an aid for decryption. When you've got a syntax at work it is possible to spot variations of words and begin identifying the indicators of tense, gender, conjugation etc. This can help to identify the nouns and verbs. All you need then is help breaking a few words- this will usually come from something like a Rosetta Stone- which we have, as you'll see below.

3. The combination of logograms and syllables, as well as numerous homophones have created difficulties, but these can be overcome in several ways.

a. Many of the texts in question also exist in Akkadian (Source 2, Paragraph 3), and Sumerian loan-words exist in other languages as well, such as Hittite. One of the major discoveries to this effect was the library of Ashurbanipal at Niniveh; among other things there were both Sumerian and Akkadian versions of Enuma Elish. That gives you context and shows you the meanings of many words.

b. Akkadian, unlike Sumerian, is from the Semetic family of languages; some of its relatives are still spoken. There's yet more insight into the "rules" of the language.

c. The context of surrounding words, the source of the text, and the dating of the material provide important clues to context.


Above and beyond the debate over whether or not the language can be cracked, let's talk about whether or not it HAS been cracked.

In 1857 four men who had been working with several Cuneiform languages met in London and were presented with transcriptions of a recently discovered Cuneiform text. Each man translated the same text individually. The two most experienced men produced virtually identical translations. The third was extremely close, but suffered because English was not that man's first language. The least experienced of the translators was still close, but had made mistakes.

And there you have it- consistent results in a controlled environment. The language can be deciphered, it has been, and the results can be confirmed. Let's see Sitchin do the same. Let's see several people sit down with texts they haven't seen before, apply consistent rules to the language to decipher it, and all come up with similar stories along the lines of Sitchin's.
That isn't going to happen because Sitchin is reading things that aren't there and doctoring his results to fit his theories.

You cite variations as a hinderance, but this is far from the truth. When you have variations of Sumerian Cuneiform in other languages which are more recent, more widespread, and have living relatives, those become important stepping stones to the original.

You're correct that there are homophones which have created difficulty, but in some cases syntax sheds light on the meaning.

You also suggest that we have no familiarity with the subjects of the writing, but this is false as well. We have archaelogical evidence of the world in which they lived and of which they wrote. We live on the same planet in the same star system and can observe the same things in the sky that they observed, less a few minor changes which have had time to occur in the astronomically insignificant span of just a few thousand years.

For that matter, the religion of the people who wrote these texts is the distant ancestor to the two dominant religions in Western culture today. Sitchin himself has made quite a bit of money on the fact that Genesis parallels Sumerian mythology rather nicely.

Response on Neptune and Uranus still coming. When dating is in question i like to visit the library. There's something about a worn out old book with a copyright date stamped in the cover that demands a lot more credibility than a website.


Source 1: en.wikipedia.org...

Source 2: en.wikipedia.org...

Source 3: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by princeea
Byrd, yes pick all you want, but sometimes you just dont get what people are saying, just read over some of your posts. You dont deduct logic well. If I did not know any better I'd say you were a woman....


Excuse me -- WHAT IS WRONG WITH BEING A WOMEN?

What kind of an argument rebuttal is THAT?

You can't fault the argument, so you start by attacking members in general who happen to be women, implying that any female is just too stupid to understand and tends to argue in such a way that you can't answer.

Being a woman AND a grandmother doesn't make me stupid or inept. Nor does it make me or other women incapable of looking up good arguments and entering a good discussion.

If you can't refute an argument, then leave it. And let's keep the name-calling and let's keep the "IT'S SO GIRLY-GIRL OF YOU TO SAY THAT, YOU STUPID PERSON" rebuttals out of discourse, okay?

Let's see what kinds of arguments you DO have other than "OOO! You argue just like a girrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlllllll."


---- one VERY angry ex-girl

[edit on 28-11-2005 by Indellkoffer]



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Okay, if webpages are to be used as reference material, instead of career-long associations with medicine and/or chemistry, then HERE is a fairly good article on David Hudson, the pseudoscientific fraud that came up with this idiotic bogus edible white powder gold scam.


Thank you. I was just about to go post the links to several sites on medical fraud that made the same point. I like your link better. These people are simply out to sell a bogus remedy that does NOT work... and their care and concern for the people who use this and then die is clearly missing.


Note that Hudson himself no longer actively pursues spreading the word on this miraculous restorative; his heart (which somehow is immune to the fantastic powers of white powder gold) is giving out.

I noticed that. Of course, you can't be "immune" to gold since it's inert and never actually did anything in your body.


On Sitchen, this man has never to my knowledge actually demonstrated that he knows how to translate Sumerian or Akkadian. He has never provided any C.V. and simply refuses to do so and ignores requests for such documentation.

He's at best an armchair archaeologist. I've never seen where he went on any digs and he avoids questions about translations. In fact, he works off translations by REAL scholars... and twists the meanings to say what he wants them to.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
On the one hand we have people trying to discredit Sitchin by attacking him as a person. On the other hand we have his books where he does things people claim he doesn't.

We'd be foolish to accept everything he says, and similary we'd be foolish to accept orthodoxy as being so replete with evidence and so inherently correct that anything contrary to it could be incorrect.

For his work, Sitchin cites why he translates what he does in the way he does, or where he found the majority of things from. Attack his work by all means, but at least attack correctly what he says. I have seen too many fallacious rebuttals from certain people that makes me certain that they have never read Sitchin's work and don't KNOW what they are attacking. You cannot deny ignorance if you do not know what you are attacking, nor can you say he is wrong based on what YOU say about his personality.

Were he a drug addict, spending most of his life in rehab, feebly attempting to foster a broken family, spending his spare moments regretting choices he made in his life... it would not make his work incorrect. Nothing except his work being incorrect would do that and there is no concise and constructive attack on his work that lives up to the same level of scrutiny as his work itself does.

The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

Originally posted by Harte

Okay, if webpages are to be used as reference material, instead of career-long associations with medicine and/or chemistry, then HERE is a fairly good article on David Hudson, the pseudoscientific fraud that came up with this idiotic bogus edible white powder gold scam.


Thank you. I was just about to go post the links to several sites on medical fraud that made the same point. I like your link better. These people are simply out to sell a bogus remedy that does NOT work... and their care and concern for the people who use this and then die is clearly missing.


No, please, thank you; age before beauty, you know.



Originally posted by Indellkoffer

On Sitchen, this man has never to my knowledge actually demonstrated that he knows how to translate Sumerian or Akkadian. He has never provided any C.V. and simply refuses to do so and ignores requests for such documentation.


He's at best an armchair archaeologist. I've never seen where he went on any digs and he avoids questions about translations. In fact, he works off translations by REAL scholars... and twists the meanings to say what he wants them to.


I wonder if that would be considered as one of the "personal attacks" the Sitchenites here claim to be enduring.



On the one hand we have people trying to discredit Sitchin by attacking him as a person. On the other hand we have his books where he does things people claim he doesn't.


One thing Sitchen certainly doesn't do. He never tells us how he knows what these cuneiform texts actually say. That is because (IMO) he actually cannot translate these texts. Now, if you want to call this a personal attack, go a.. If someone said that I couldn't translate cuneiform, I wouldn't be insulted, since I can't. Oh, but wait a minute. I'm not trying to make a living off fantastic "true" aliens stories from our ancient past, am I?

Harte



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
A necessary component one must have in discussing Sitchin is missing here. Namely an actual knowledge of Sitchin's work. So I'll just wrap up my part since not much progress can be made without that.



Originally posted by The Vagabond
Interpretation and blind faith aside though, any case in which Sitchin argues not on context but on translation can be disposed of expeditiously based on the fact that Sitchin fails to apply the scientific method and prove something that, if it were true, could be proven. (In other words, he cannot refute the compelling evidence presented by his opponents, and so the claims of his opponents stand.)



You can't apply the scientific method without a control. And since no one is alive to confirm the accuracy of modern translation there is no control. It's misguided to claim that Sitchin must be wrong because you read someone else say he was. It is also misguided to treat modern interpretations of these languages as agreed upon and uniform to begin with. One thing Sumerian scholars all agree on is that no one knows for sure how to translate it. Like most things in the distant past we're only providing what we feel is the best guess.





There you have my contention as well. Sitchin has gone beyond honest errors. He has foresaken good science. He is more concerned with seeing that he is not debunked than with proving his claims true. He is not a scholar; he is a salesman, and his methods are dishonest.


My contention is that you've not read enough if any of his work to make such an assessment. That is the epitome of bad science. Unsurprisingly some of the websites used so far are from people who haven't read much of Sitchin's work either. To use a website that's been tossed out not once but twice(apparently some aren't even reading the thread,much less Sitchin) they even admit as much.



"I've really only read Genesis Revisited and I haven't read the 12th Planet, where most of this is laid out..."

www.ramtops.co.uk...



A common theme. Whatever the personal charges critics accuse Sitchin of he's shown to be accurate on numerous occasions. The general response by his detractors is to simply ignore this. Much like I'm sure that astronomical cylinder seal posted earlier will be as well. But speaking of dishonesty and who can debunk whom between Sitchin and his detractors,Sitchin has put forth his conclusions and scientific and archeological findings have supported much of it. One can blankly attack Sitchin all they wish,but they'll find it much harder to attack how his theories fit better with archeo- and anthropological record then many of those of who seek to denounce him out-of-hand.




Sitchin's education speaks volumes about his true motives. Sitchin didn't major in a language or in anthropology, achaeology, or any of the things you might suspect; he majored in Economic History. When that man was deciding what to do with his life, he was thinking money, not history.


Perhaps he wanted to actually be able to find a job. It's not uncommon for people who are already learned in a subject to devote their major to something else they don't have. Particularly if they need a major that looks a tad better on a resume' than dead languages that are no longer spoken anywhere. And Zecharia Sitchin is over 80 years old. What he majored in college over 50 years ago does not dictate the extent of his knowledge nor his psychological profile. Sitchin has been studying ancient cultures and languages since before most if not all of us were born. He could have majored in cosmetic dentistry for all that matters.





That is incorrect in several respects.

1. Pictographs can be fairly straight forward when considered in the context of their location, origin, and date. For example:




It's not incorrect. You are again glossing over the important fact that when dealing with objects people are unfamiliar with pictographs become subjective and/or undecipherable. You could likely discern the pictograph of a man but you would not understand a pictograph symbol for something you've never seen or your belief system says couldn't have existed.




2. Sumerian Cuneiform isn't purely pictographic. Over time it developed syllabary, logograms, and syntax. (Source 1, Pargraph 4) This is an aid for decryption. When you've got a syntax at work it is possible to spot variations of words and begin identifying the indicators of tense, gender, conjugation etc. This can help to identify the nouns and verbs. All you need then is help breaking a few words- this will usually come from something like a Rosetta Stone- which we have, as you'll see below.


You're overstating. The Sumerian "Rosetta Stone" was a giant relief carved into a mountainside and not a complete guide to Sumerian. It helped form a basic belief of how to translate it but it was by no means definitive or whole.

"It should not be left unsaid, however, that knowledge of Sumerian is still in a rudimentary, experimental stage where scholars differ on essential points, so that translations, even by highly competent scholars, may diverge so much that one would never guess that they rendered the same text. The reasons for this uncertainty are numerous. The writing is in many respects vague and leaves a broad margin for variant interpretation; meanings of words have not yet been exhaustively defined; and - worst of all, perhaps - scholars have not yet been able to agree on basic grammar and its restraints."

The above quote is from Sumerian scholar Thorkild Jacobsen. You are under a sharp misconception if you believe we can securely translate vague languages that were ancient before Christianity was founded . There is no such thing as a Sumerian-to-English dictionary. All scholars can do is take what they have and stitch together the best understanding they can.





3. The combination of logograms and syllables, as well as numerous homophones have created difficulties, but these can be overcome in several ways.


Yes. By making up your own theory of what they mean. But it will only be a theory and different people will have different ones. There is no way as of yet to confirm it unless you have a 6,000 year old relative who was there and can cooberate your translations.




a. Many of the texts in question also exist in Akkadian (Source 2, Paragraph 3), and Sumerian loan-words exist in other languages as well, such as Hittite. One of the major discoveries to this effect was the library of Ashurbanipal at Niniveh; among other things there were both Sumerian and Akkadian versions of Enuma Elish. That gives you context and shows you the meanings of many words.


These do not give you the context. See any number of discussions on Atlantis in this very forum to see how difficult it can be to discern context from languages we actually know. Much less languages we're unsure of to start with.







c. The context of surrounding words, the source of the text, and the dating of the material provide important clues to context.


Clues that can mean different things to different people. If one is a Bible devotee or an orthodox scientist then words and context will be subject to their perceptions. If the Sumerians wrote down a word or symbol that meant "alien in a rocket ship" and you don't believe they existed at the time then your only options to reconsile this little problem are to either:

A)Write the text off as religion or myth so you can ignore it and continue viewing history as you prefer it to have been. A technique archeologists are infamous for.

or

B)Translate that word as something you're more comfortable with whether it's correct or not.

Sitchin contends this is what was often done. And history says he has a case.





Above and beyond the debate over whether or not the language can be cracked, let's talk about whether or not it HAS been cracked.

In 1857 four men who had been working with several Cuneiform languages met in London and were presented with transcriptions of a recently discovered Cuneiform text. Each man translated the same text individually. The two most experienced men produced virtually identical translations. The third was extremely close, but suffered because English was not that man's first language. The least experienced of the translators was still close, but had made mistakes.

And there you have it- consistent results in a controlled environment. The language can be deciphered, it has been, and the results can be confirmed.


None of these ancient langauges are as solidly translated as you believe. They aren't confirmed by any means and by their nature they likely never will be. Scholars themselves(Sitchin included) will willingly admit this.

"The technical vocabulary is extensive,but,unfortunately,many of the words cannot be translated. We also have archaeological evidence confirming both advanced knowledge and technology in many fields. However,often technological equipment is not recognized by archaeologists because they do not know exactly what they are looking for."

Quoted from Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia(Karen Nemet-Nejat)

If you're under the impression that Sumerian is a done deal and anyone who disagrees is wrong then you are mistaken. It is far from fully understood and well beyond confirmation.





You also suggest that we have no familiarity with the subjects of the writing, but this is false as well. We have archaelogical evidence of the world in which they lived and of which they wrote.




Archeology that's shown to be wrong seemingly every other day as we learn more. As far as archelogy is concerned Sumer didn't even exist until fairly recently. The main thing archeological evidence tells us is that we have a long way to go toward understand our past. If you are under an incorrect impression of what the ancients had then you will by extension get an incorrect impression of what they're trying to depict.





Response on Neptune and Uranus still coming. When dating is in question i like to visit the library. There's something about a worn out old book with a copyright date stamped in the cover that demands a lot more credibility than a website.



The fact that you're even contesting the dates shows you're unfamiliar with the books. There's more than a decade between when Sitchin wrote this and when Voyager returned the confirmation. I'm not sure what else you're expecting to find.



[edit on 28-11-2005 by Loungerist]



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
You can't apply the scientific method without a control. And since no one is alive to confirm the accuracy of modern translation there is no control.


I take it that you're unfamiliar with the long history of translation.

Sumer did not exist in a vacuum. When the ruler of Babylon corresponded with a Pharoah, he sent along a letter in both languages. There are Sumerian documents that also exist in Hebrew of that time... and we know how to read Hebrew. In fact, we know the first untranslatable pun:
www.translationdirectory.com...

We never STOPPED translating. Classics were copied and translated into emerging languages like Greek and Latin and later English, etc, etc. as scholars throughout the centuries found ways to read the classics. Royal monuments were inscribed with the languages of the major groups of people who lived in the area at that time.
encarta.msn.com...

Sumerian died away milennia ago, but artifacts existed where the same text was translated into several different languages. One of these artifacts was unearthed in 1835 (so we've had this for scholars to work on for 200 years): en.wikipedia.org...

Scholars had been working on the language for years, so Rawlinson didn't actually start in a vacuum:
www.zyworld.com...

His discovery enabled scholars to check their work and correct mistakes.


It's misguided to claim that Sitchin must be wrong because you read someone else say he was.

Oh no. I read the original of his butchering of the Enamma Elish. And I actually looked up some of the texts and the original idiograms and spent a little time looking at varioius Sumerian dictionaries and checking a few words.

That deliberate recontextizing and mistranslating is the foundation ofhis later work.


It is also misguided to treat modern interpretations of these languages as agreed upon and uniform to begin with. One thing Sumerian scholars all agree on is that no one knows for sure how to translate it.

Could you point to a Sumerian scholar who says that?



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Loungerist
You can't apply the scientific method without a control. And since no one is alive to confirm the accuracy of modern translation there is no control.


I take it that you're unfamiliar with the long history of translation.



You'd take it incorrect. My being familiar is exactly how I know the langauge has no confirmed translation.


www.baghdadmuseum.org...

www.acronet.net...






Sumer did not exist in a vacuum. When the ruler of Babylon corresponded with a Pharoah, he sent along a letter in both languages. There are Sumerian documents that also exist in Hebrew of that time... and we know how to read Hebrew. In fact, we know the first untranslatable pun:
www.translationdirectory.com...



I don't understand. You're using a page that's illustrating how the language cannot be translated with certainty to make your case that the language can be translated with certainty. That page speaks specifically to how Sumerian gets lost in translation to Hebrew.



"As for instance the perils of translating from Sumerian into Hebrew..."


"In Genesis, Eve springs from Adam's "rib." But this is a pun in the original Sumerian version, where the word ti means both "rib" and "life-giving."

When the Sumerian Adam was ill, he was given a goddess meaning both "Rib-Lady" and "Life-Giving Lady." Only the meaning "rib" was translatable into Hebrew."


How does this support your case?


By the way,Samuel Kramer(the person who's work the page is citing) also said that Sumerian was a language not fully understood.


"The destruction of the Sumerian language took on such proportions that the first translations proved useless and had to be laid aside. (Samuel Noah Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, New York 1961 p.22.) Samuel Kramer, an American Sumerologist made this remark, and he himself took extensive liberties in translating the Sumerian texts into English and frequently reads something completely different from what is written. Even with this in mind, he faces problems that are seemingly insurmountable. (Sumerian Mythology pg. 65, 68, 69, 73, 75-77), because very often he only feels the meaning of the words based on the text surrounding it. (S.N.Kramer: Twenty-Five Firsts in Man's Recorded History; From the Tablets of Sumer, Indian Hills, 1956) He does not have a key either and his results are so individualistic, that based on his findings he believes the Sumerian language without a family also, a language without a beginning and without a continuation.

www.acronet.net...



I would also cite how many mistranslations there've been merely translating Hebrew to English in certain religious texts,but I think these Sumerologists more than make the point.





It is also misguided to treat modern interpretations of these languages as agreed upon and uniform to begin with. One thing Sumerian scholars all agree on is that no one knows for sure how to translate it.

Could you point to a Sumerian scholar who says that?



I just pointed to two in the very post you're responding to. Samuel Kramer is another and Zecharia Sitchin is four. You can take your pick really. That's why you have to identify your translator.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
You'd take it incorrect. My being familiar is exactly how I know the langauge has no confirmed translation.

...but the pages you cite talk about translations and how they were corrected and verified (confirmed) over the years. There's nothing there that says "we have no clue about this language so we're making it all up."






I don't understand. You're using a page that's illustrating how the language cannot be translated with certainty to make your case that the language can be translated with certainty. How does this support your case?


Actually, it says that there are some words and phrases that we are not sure about... but it doesn't say 'this language can't be translated with certainty."

I think we are taking the same information and understanding different things about it. Not being able to translate a title in a king's name does not mean that we don't know it's a title. Not being able to translate a magical reference does not mean that we can't understand a sentence. You are focused on the problems of early translators when we had few tablets and little materials. Why are you dismissing the work of the translators and scholars of this century?

The material you cite is from 1956... that's half a century ago. In terms of linguistics research, that's back in the age of the dinosaurs.


I just pointed to two in the very post you're responding to. Samuel Kramer is another and Zecharia Sitchin is four.

Again, that's 1956 material... not 2000 or 2004.

Plus, you cited scholars who have published in peer reviewed journals about the language. What evidence do you have that Sitchin has actually worked on the material for a number of years or knows the Sumerian language?



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
how they were corrected and verified (confirmed) over the years. There's nothing there that says "we have no clue about this language so we're making it all up."


Theories of the language change over time but none of those claim we have verified Sumerian. We can only present our best framework as is the case with most things concerning the distant past.






Actually, it says that there are some words and phrases that we are not sure about... but it doesn't say 'this language can't be translated with certainty."

I think we are taking the same information and understanding different things about it. Not being able to translate a title in a king's name does not mean that we don't know it's a title. Not being able to translate a magical reference does not mean that we can't understand a sentence.


Not being able to decipher drastically different meanings that alter the entire sentence and context sounds like not understanding to me. I don't know how else one would define it.




You are focused on the problems of early translators when we had few tablets and little materials. Why are you dismissing the work of the translators and scholars of this century?

The material you cite is from 1956... that's half a century ago. In terms of linguistics research, that's back in the age of the dinosaurs.



The material I cited in one of those links dates from 1997 to 2003. You can find the same thing from any date you want since it hasn't changed.



Plus, you cited scholars who have published in peer reviewed journals about the language. What evidence do you have that Sitchin has actually worked on the material for a number of years or knows the Sumerian language?


A reading of his translations and biographical data. The same evidence I have for anyone else.



[edit on 29-11-2005 by Loungerist]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   



Excuse me -- WHAT IS WRONG WITH BEING A WOMEN?


---- one VERY angry ex-girl

[edit on 28-11-2005 by Indellkoffer]


It is nothing wrong.
It doesn't matter Sitchin is right or wrong, it is just a few gay-priests in this forum can't take Sitchin works. Sithcin's works is threatening churches, christians and bible contents.


[edit on 29-11-2005 by CinLung]

[edit on 29-11-2005 by CinLung]

[edit on 29-11-2005 by CinLung]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
Theories of the language change over time but none of those claim we have verified Sumerian. We can only present our best framework as is the case with most things concerning the distant past.

....

Not being able to decipher drastically different meanings that alter the entire sentence and context sounds like not understanding to me. I don't know how else one would define it.
/quote]

Then, according to your statements, we can't actually know that the Enamma Elish is actually a creation myth or is actually about Marduk. Your statements also imply that we aren't really able to translate the "Hymn to Inanna" and for all we know it might be a recipe for baked bread.

If you accept that, then your own standards, Sitchin doesn't know, either and is making things up with no basis.

If you say that scholars ARE able to translate the Enamma Elish (and it's English translations that Sitchin is working from) then you would have to acknowledge that the scholars do indeed know how to read and translate the language.

I should also like to point out this page (on a site called "Sitchin is Wrong" by someone who's a UFO enthusiast AND a Sumerian scholar (PhD).)
www.sitchiniswrong.com...
The author points out something I didn't know: the ancient Sumerians themselves had dictionaries and they've been known for many years. In fact, they've been published and are available for anyone to read.

Sitchin's interpretations don't match the ancient Sumerian definitions in their own ancient dictionaries.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Then, according to your statements, we can't actually know that the Enamma Elish is actually a creation myth or is actually about Marduk. Your statements also imply that we aren't really able to translate the "Hymn to Inanna" and for all we know it might be a recipe for baked bread.



Funny you should say that. Two Sumerologists once read the same text. One got a praise to a thunder god. The other got instructions for making beer.




If you accept that, then your own standards, Sitchin doesn't know, either and is making things up with no basis.


That's a large exaggeration of what I said,but no,I don't think Sitchin has managed a totally accurate translation either. The odds of anyone doing so are astronomical at best. Sitchin himself almost always prefaced his attempt with "as we've translated","I feel that other translations were","If my translation is correct",etc. Like everyone else who's studied Sumerian Sitchin knows alot of it's guesswork and personal interpretation.




If you say that scholars ARE able to translate the Enamma Elish (and it's English translations that Sitchin is working from) then you would have to acknowledge that the scholars do indeed know how to read and translate the language.



I would assume they can translate it about as accurately or inaccurately as any other text from that age and region. Though I'm not sure why it matters. The Enumah Elish is not even Sumerian.




I should also like to point out this page (on a site called "Sitchin is Wrong" by someone who's a UFO enthusiast AND a Sumerian scholar (PhD).)
www.sitchiniswrong.com...
The author points out something I didn't know: the ancient Sumerians themselves had dictionaries and they've been known for many years. In fact, they've been published and are available for anyone to read.

Sitchin's interpretations don't match the ancient Sumerian definitions in their own ancient dictionaries.



The problem being it's a dictionary written in the very same languages in question which rather defeats the point. Though it would explain why the same scholars who used this dictionary are the same scholars who say themselves that Sumerian has not been pinned down and different people can translate it in completely different ways. Even after having read this dictionary.


[edit on 29-11-2005 by Loungerist]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
Funny you should say that. Two Sumerologists once read the same text. One got a praise to a thunder god. The other got instructions for making beer.


Nice try, but actually JD Prince made that mistake in 1919. His mistakes were corrected later. It's not as if two properly educated people would sit down at the same time right now and make the same mistake- for that matter there was nobody sitting along side Prince who got the right answer in 1919. That's called progress. We didn't just find Ashurbanipal, pick up a few tablets and immediately start jotting down and English translation- it's taken a lot of time and a lot of mistakes to learn the language- it's taken me 22 years to get where I am in my use of the English language, and every once in a while somebody more fluent than myself still confuses the heck out of me, but that's how learning is. If a stumble here and there in learning Sumerian means that its untranslatable, the same goes for English- afterall, mistakes have been made with our language too(just ask Dan Quayle).


Like everyone else who's studied Sumerian Sitchin knows alot of it's guesswork and personal interpretation.


Yet he doesn't feel compelled to cast off illogical results as likely the products of errors? The man is getting stories about alien colonization and extremely unlikely if not impossible astronomical events which at the very least are the result of a period bias in interpretation (literal versus figurative or mythical) and more than likely are just plain bad translation according to many, yet he has enough confidence in the "astronomical odds" that his translation is correct to promote the even more astronomical possibility that his story about Nibiru and the Annunaki being real live aliens is correct?


There's really no getting around the fact that even if we are completely bass ackwards in our translation of Sumerian Cuneiform, Sitchin's conclusions defy probability and in some cases even possibility.

Where does all of this go from here? Shall I whip out my bible and start making making really obtuse inferences to claim that the ancient Hebrews were exploring space? I suspect that I could- although everything I said would be complete BS and I'd know it.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Very interesting thread. Thanks




top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join