NY Times Intervews Zecharia Sitchin

reply to post by Sky watcher


Michael Heiser is an opportunist standing on Sitchins coat-tails to

sell his bulldinkery and to make a name for himself as well as the bucks!



Let's see the Bible ....the Sumerians....the Bible.....the Sumerians....

Which stories of Poppcockery is more plauseable? Some invisible old

man in the sky or some ET's coming here and manipulating DNA?

The Bible......the Sumerians..........the Bible.........the Sumers.

If and I say "If" I were to buy bulldinkery I think I would go with Sitchin.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by KIZZZY]

Originally posted by AquariusDescending

Notice something else.

You just claimed that "those who came from Heaven to Earth" wasn't an accepted meaning, and then you proceed to explain how "An" does mean "heaven" (aka "anu") and "ki" does mean "Earth." "Anunnaki" literally means "Heaven and Earth" if you just translate it as a compound word. It obviously had an implied meaning beyond the literal "Heaven and Earth" because "annunaki" itself is defined as a group of beings:

Noun 1. Anunnaki - any of a group of powerful Babylonian earth spirits or genii; servitors of the gods

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Yes, "Those that came from heaven to Earth" is not an accepted meaning.

So it is accepted that the name "Anunnaki" is referring to a group of beings, and the literal translation for "Anunnaki" as a compound English word is, according to translators, "Heaven and Earth."

No, there is no "and." In between the "An (which, in Sumerian, is "sky,") and the Ki (which in Akkadian is "earth" there is a Sumerian word that means "offspring" (unna.) Not "and."

See, "and" and "offspring" are simply not the same word. You are not allowed to make up your own translations any more than Sitchin is allowed to, though (apparently) you both do anyway.

You think if it is really referring to ETs then someone would have translated it "ETs" or "aliens" even though those literal definitions don't match in the first place? Get real. They translated the words exactly like they would have even if they were referring to ETs.

You can't even find that bunch of flapdoodle in Sitchin's ravings.

Can I request a mature and intelligent response please?

Thank you.

It's a factuual statement.

You appear to be one that's read some of the extensions of what Sitchin claimed in his books that are to be found on the internet. Even Sitchin never said most of that stuff.

Including your claim that translators wouldn't translate it the way it was written if they didn't agree with it.

That is simply not the case. Reasonable people consider Sumerian mythology to be mythiocal, which it is. There's nothing wrong with translating a religious myth the way it is written. Again, read the Ramayana - it's loaded with UFOs. Nobody tried to stop that translation.

Can I request a mature and intelligent response please?

How about a reasonable and intelligent position on Sumer instead of a starry-eyed line of fluff designed to make money for an old economist turned fantasist like Sitchin?

Harte

Originally posted by Harte
Yes, "Those that came from heaven to Earth" is not an accepted meaning.

It's accepted by me and plenty of others, and "Anu" "na" "ki" literally translates as a compound word to "Heaven and Earth" but refers to a group of beings. These other definitions are taking liberties with the text, if you notice, as they must be "implied" meanings since they are not the literal translation of the compound word.

No, there is no "and." In between the "An (which, in Sumerian, is "sky,") and the Ki (which in Akkadian is "earth" there is a Sumerian word that means "offspring" (unna.) Not "and."

Did you know that Egyptian hieroglyphs take on different meanings depending on their context?

Did you know that Egyptian hieroglyphs are still very little understood, admittedly, by archeologists and linguists? And if you want to debate the term "little understood" as I know you probably will just to antagonize me, then they do not completely understand the language, and neither do they completely understand Sumerian.

You are arguing as if all of this is an exact proven science to begin with, which is WRONG.

I'm going to start asking you to post not only sources but the archaeological and linguistic evidence all of what you are posting is based on, so we can see how much difference there really is between our two views.

Can you please post the linguistic evidence that was used to make these determinations, considering no one speaks Sumerian today and it was only recently re-discovered in modern times?

You think if it is really referring to ETs then someone would have translated it "ETs" or "aliens" even though those literal definitions don't match in the first place? Get real. They translated the words exactly like they would have even if they were referring to ETs.

You can't even find that bunch of flapdoodle in Sitchin's ravings.

Can I request a mature and intelligent response please?

Thank you.

It's a factuual statement.

Sorry but nowhere have I ever seen the word "flapdoodle" or "ravings" used in a scientific context.

Being immature, sarcastic, facetious, not only looks bad on you, but then to say that these kinds of statements are "factuual" (sic) is ridiculous and makes me feel like I am wasting my time talking to you, which I probably am anyway.


I asked for a reasonable and mature response and you just lobbed more sarcastic insults and rhetorical questions. I take that as a back-handed way of you admitting I'm right.


No one would ever translate ancient experiences of aliens or ETs as literally the words "aliens" or "extraterrestrials." If you think a scholar would EVER translate an ancient text with those words, and not expect to lose his job and be replaced with someone who wouldn't use those words, then you do not have an accurate perspective on academic reality in the first place.


Let's be hypothetical "Harte." Say the Sumerians DID see aliens and ETs and they wrote them down in cuneiform. What do YOU think English translators would translate those words as? Especially if the Sumerians didn't see them as "outsiders" and so their word had no such connotations? And considering the fact that the modern academic world currently questions or even more often DENIES their existence out of hand?


Let me guess, your answer will be another facetious comment and insult.

If you're going to respond to me at all please, PLEASE, PLEASE, act like you know what maturity is.

Originally posted by AquariusDescending

Originally posted by Harte
Yes, "Those that came from heaven to Earth" is not an accepted meaning.

It's accepted by me and plenty of others, and "Anu" "na" "ki" literally translates as a compound word to "Heaven and Earth"

It is accepted by you and others?

It is accepted by idiots that NASA never went to the Moon. Yet, were you to post "it is accepted that the Moon landings were hoaxed" you'd be so wrong it wouldn't even be worth pointing out.

When one refers to an "accepted" translation of the oldest written language ever discovered, it is implied in the statement that "accepted" means "accepted by people that know something about this language,' Not "accepted by me and a bunch of other Sitchinistas."

Can you please post the linguistic evidence that was used to make these determinations, considering no one speaks Sumerian today and it was only recently re-discovered in modern times?

Have you been to the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature?

Not really an etymology site for the language, but an excellent resource for reading what was actually written.
Click the "Sumerian" button on that first page for some info on the language and how we read it today.

Sumerian was first translated in the 1800's. It was translated through the use of Akkadian, which is a Semitic language similar to many that are still spoken today.

The Akkadians adopted the Sumerian written language and left dictionaries and lexicons of their spoken words vs. the Sumerian written ones.

Of course, that wasn't entirely known in the 1800's so it did take a while, and a bit of Archaeology to get it right.

However, because of the Akkadians, Sumerian is somewhat more understood than many other ancient dead tongues. Not that this matters, since the great majority of cuneiform finds were written by the Akkadians and the Babylonians, not the Sumerians.

Sorry but nowhere have I ever seen the word "flapdoodle" or "ravings" used in a scientific context.

While the word "ravings" in reference to Sitchin's wild claims may be a little to strong for you, "flapdoodle" has a long history with science:

I like that name "quantum flapdoodle". Supposedly, it was coined by Murray Gell-Mann to describe "..stringing together a series of terms and phrases from quantum physics and asserting that they explain something in our daily experience.." In this article, Michael Shermer continues to rebutt Deepak Chopra and his quantum flapdoodle.

Source: God of Quantum Flapdoodle
More? Okay

Ramtha’s School of Quantum Flapdoodle
a film review by John Olmsted

What do you get when you combine bits of quantum physics, brain science and the channeled prophecies of a 35,000 year old god/warrior named Ramtha? The film, What the #$*! Do We Know?, is a fantasy docudrama cult hit that has found national distribution and is playing to full houses across the country.

The film is the latest effort by religious, mystical, and New Age gurus such as Deepak Chopra to cloak their views in the mantel of science. Physicist Victor Stenger coined the term “Quantum metaphysics” where “today’s cosmic mind has been repackaged by an appeal to twentieth century science for its authority.” The cosmic mind in this case is that of J. Z. Knight, who claims to channel a 35,000-year old god/warrior named Ramtha. Because Ramtha instructed her to demand a packet of gold from all who seek his wisdom, she has reaped millions over the past quarter century. The films’ producers, writers, directors, and a number of the stars are members of her Ramtha School of Enlightenment in Washington.

Source: Ramtha's School of Quantum Flapdoodle

Coined by Murray Gell-Mann in regards to the stupid idea that we control things at the quantum level by thinking at them, I doubt he would have any objection to my use of the term "flapdoodle" in reference to your paranoid "Science is out to trick us" stance on the issue, and I certainly won't mind being associated with Dr. Gell-Mann in even this tiny, insignificant way.

Let's be hypothetical "Harte." Say the Sumerians DID see aliens and ETs and they wrote them down in cuneiform. What do YOU think English translators would translate those words as? Especially if the Sumerians didn't see them as "outsiders" and so their word had no such connotations? And considering the fact that the modern academic world currently questions or even more often DENIES their existence out of hand?

You think "Science" is one giant megalithic bloc of frightened professionals trying to save their fat cat jobs, apparently.

Of course, translators would translate the hypothetical text the way it was written, referring to the Semitic Akkadian dictionaries and lexicons, as I said before.

Obviously, the Sumerians wouldn't have called them "UFOs" or "Extraterrestrials." Those aren't Sumerian words.

Will you now claim the Greeks were subject to the same ET overlords? The Greek myth of creation has the sky and the Earth having sex and then children - just like the Sumerian one - as I'm sure many other cultures once had.

In those days, there wasn't much else but the sky and the Earth that was awe-inspiring enough to be worthy of a lead role in the drama of a creation myth.

How about this hypothetical. What if no ETs have ever come here? What sort of creation myth would you expect to see from the earliest civilizations in that case?

Let me guess, your answer will be another facetious comment and insult.

If you're going to respond to me at all please, PLEASE, PLEASE, act like you know what maturity is.

They may be insulting, but my comments are neither facetious nor immature.

Your attempt to so characterize them is really your attempt to minimize them. You fight to remain in your own delusion.

Originally posted by Harte
It is accepted by you and others?

It is accepted by idiots that NASA never went to the Moon.

But the thing is, making insulting comparisons like this doesn't prove that you're the one on the side of the fence you think you're on. You could very well be talking about yourself, so watch out.

I asked for the history and reasoning of the translations you cite, to see what they are based on exactly. If you want to compare translations this is only fair. Claiming you're just right and can't be called in to question or argued with is groveling to authority. Look up "appeal to authority" and you might learn something about logical fallacies too.

When one refers to an "accepted" translation of the oldest written language ever discovered, it is implied in the statement that "accepted" means "accepted by people that know something about this language,' Not "accepted by me and a bunch of other Sitchinistas."

Sorry, I was trying to make a clear distinction based on actual evidence instead of citing anonymous authorities using unspeakable reasoning while making up the translations you cite. You say the same about Sitchin, but at least I've seen his arguments for his translations.

Can you please post the linguistic evidence that was used to make these determinations, considering no one speaks Sumerian today and it was only recently re-discovered in modern times?

Have you been to the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature?

Not really an etymology site for the language, but an excellent resource for reading what was actually written.

Why can't you provide what I ask for?

You've never looked that deep either, I guess.

Sumerian was first translated in the 1800's. It was translated through the use of Akkadian, which is a Semitic language similar to many that are still spoken today.

Sure, so lay out all the specifics for these words in particular.

While the word "ravings" in reference to Sitchin's wild claims may be a little to strong for you, "flapdoodle" has a long history with science

What you're calling science here, is what I'm calling over-inflated egos with too much time on their hands, and only pseudo-intellectuals at that.

When you resort to any form of name-calling in a supposedly scientific paper or article, including calling some target idea "ravings" and "flapdoodle," that shows you have no connection at all to professional academic environments, or even universities or colleges, which don't allow those kind of low-brow insults in anything they present that can be called scientific.

Even in grade school, if you tried to write a report that said "So-and-so is an idiot," if you had a respectable teacher they would say something about it then and there. Don't tell me you never had that privilege either?

You think "Science" is one giant megalithic bloc of frightened professionals trying to save their fat cat jobs, apparently.

The ones that you refer to, mostly certainly they are. They happen to also be the ones who do their work for the money/sucking up to their boss before trying to make big waves in their fields. Alternative energy research is one small example of this demonstrated in the real world. Making "big waves" in that field, for example, would mean "big money" to fossil fuel companies, so they have a strong interest in squelching any of this research out. Okay now I said that is one example. Any field that has any money tied up into it, or anything else that is worth something to a lot of people, is going to resist any major paradigm shift just because of big money interests. If you don't believe in this stuff happening then that's your problem but it's common sense to everyone else that this stuff happens all the time, because they can do it and get away with it easy. And they aren't your best friends like they tell you on TV, either, you know.

Then like I said, 99% of "intellectuals" you would cite to justify your insults are no smarter than anyone else, they just have super-inflated egos and have more time on their hands to bark at each other, and you can smell it from a mile away. I say this because I've noticed that the historical scientists who really were brilliant didn't have to resort to hurling insults around as if their mental territory had just been threatened by every new idea.

Of course, translators would translate the hypothetical text the way it was written

.... Did you even think about what you posted here?

"Of course," they "would translate [it]...the way it was written."

What do I even need to say here? Hello?

That's really going to help me out next time I discover my own ancient language. Since I just discovered it, I'll whip out my handy pocket guide and just "translate it the way it's written." Wow, I never realized it was so easy.

How about this hypothetical. What if no ETs have ever come here? What sort of creation myth would you expect to see from the earliest civilizations in that case?

I don't know, that's a bit like asking, "What if the Sun didn't exist?" isn't it? It's hard to say, but it would surely be a lot different, wouldn't it?

They may be insulting, but my comments are neither facetious nor immature.

When I said insulting, I didn't mean you had actually offended me. I meant you were resorting to insulting/immature language. Already in this response you have resorted to calling people idiots. That's mature where you're from?

Your attempt to so characterize them is really your attempt to minimize them.

Your reluctance to explain them is....?

You fight to remain in your own delusion

I know you are.

These are the immature comments we can avoid, Harte, that grade school teachers try to correct at an early age.

[edit on 5-9-2010 by AquariusDescending]

Originally posted by AquariusDescending

Originally posted by Harte
It is accepted by you and others?

It is accepted by idiots that NASA never went to the Moon.

But the thing is, making insulting comparisons like this doesn't prove that you're the one on the side of the fence you think you're on. You could very well be talking about yourself, so watch out.

I asked for the history and reasoning of the translations you cite, to see what they are based on exactly. If you want to compare translations this is only fair. Claiming you're just right and can't be called in to question or argued with is groveling to authority. Look up "appeal to authority" and you might learn something about logical fallacies too.

An or Anu is the sky god - literally the sky:
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3:

Labar and Ashnan, according to our myth, were created in the creation chamber of the gods in order that the Annunnaki, the children and followers of the heaven-god An, might have food to eat and clothes to wear.

Link

That last is Samuel Noah Kramer The term "Anunnaki" is the Babylonian name for the Anunna.
You may find Kramer's translations familiar. These are the same translations Sitchin used to come up with his scam. Though obviously he decided to change a few words to help make a profit.

I've given you a few links. Now, show me your references that indicate that "Those that came from heaven to Earth" is the accepted translation for the Sumerian Anunna.

When you resort to any form of name-calling in a supposedly scientific paper or article, including calling some target idea "ravings" and "flapdoodle," that shows you have no connection at all to professional academic environments,

Pardon me. I thought we were talking about a deluded con man's ridiculous view of Sumer.

or even universities or colleges, which don't allow those kind of low-brow insults in anything they present that can be called scientific.

Neither you, Sitchin, nor myself is engaged in the process of presenting anything scientific.

As it turns out, I am affiliated with academia. I am still allowed to call a spade a spade.

Even in grade school, if you tried to write a report that said "So-and-so is an idiot," if you had a respectable teacher they would say something about it then and there. Don't tell me you never had that privilege either?

Wouldn't be a problem at all if "so and so" actually is an idiot, which is the situation in this partuicular case.

You think "Science" is one giant megalithic bloc of frightened professionals trying to save their fat cat jobs, apparently.

The ones that you refer to, mostly certainly they are. They happen to also be the ones who do their work for the money/sucking up to their boss before trying to make big waves in their fields. Alternative energy research is one small example of this demonstrated in the real world. Making "big waves" in that field, for example, would mean "big money" to fossil fuel companies, so they have a strong interest in squelching any of this research out. Okay now I said that is one example. Any field that has any money tied up into it, or anything else that is worth something to a lot of people, is going to resist any major paradigm shift just because of big money interests. If you don't believe in this stuff happening then that's your problem but it's common sense to everyone else that this stuff happens all the time, because they can do it and get away with it easy. And they aren't your best friends like they tell you on TV, either, you know.

"Big money?"

You are completely innocent of knowledge concerning the pay rates of professors, researchers etc. in the field of Assyriology.

Of course, translators would translate the hypothetical text the way it was written

.... Did you even think about what you posted here?

"Of course," they "would translate [it]...the way it was written."

What do I even need to say here? Hello?

That's really going to help me out next time I discover my own ancient language. Since I just discovered it, I'll whip out my handy pocket guide and just "translate it the way it's written." Wow, I never realized it was so easy.

You should work on trying not to so blatantly exsose the level of your own ignorance.

The translations of Sumerian we have are an ongoing process which has been researched and improved since the 1800s.

Nobody "discovered" their own ancient language and got to "make up" their own translations. I told you how it was done. The fact that you have decided to ignore the well-known path taken to translation of this language indicates, once again, your compulsive desire to believe in a total line of crapola.

You claimed that, if scholars found ancient astronaut evidence in ancient scripts, they would alter their translations to make the texts fit their idea of history.

I know for a fact this wouldn't happen because of the way the Ramayana was translated.

I said they would translate it as it was written, not alter it to further some secret agenda as per your particular psychosis.

The fact that you didn't understand this and went straight to your own, warped, interpretation of my post indicates quite a lot about your character, as well as your capabilities.

How about this hypothetical. What if no ETs have ever come here? What sort of creation myth would you expect to see from the earliest civilizations in that case?

I don't know, that's a bit like asking, "What if the Sun didn't exist?" isn't it? It's hard to say, but it would surely be a lot different, wouldn't it?

So, I answered your hypothetical, yet you find yourself incapable of even considering mine? Somehow I am not surprised.

They may be insulting, but my comments are neither facetious nor immature.

When I said insulting, I didn't mean you had actually offended me. I meant you were resorting to insulting/immature language. Already in this response you have resorted to calling people idiots. That's mature where you're from?

What is your obsession with "maturity" about? I'm certainly more mature than you, a person that believes whatever an economics grad writes, but scoffs and spews "appeal to authority" when confronted with the works of actual experts in the field.

Are you ready to show me some prvenance for your claims in this thread?

Somehow I doubt it.

Harte