I read somewhere that Sitchen may have misinterpreted some of the content of the Sumerian tablets.
Some scholars have pointed out that Nibiru actually means "ferry boat."

Originally posted by masonicon
Anunnaki is the alien race who almost all of its members are Carnivorous and Cannibalistic Evil Geniuses, Murderers, and Mad scientists

[edit on 3-3-2010 by masonicon]

And that statement is based on what knowledge? The Annunnaki, a higher order, created, from humanistic creatures found here that were native to Earth, the Black Headed People. I believe the creature they used for a model was the Yeti. I could be wrong on this.
Other races were also created, by other groups, such as the Nordics, and the Pleiadians.

I too think it is time for them to come back, after all, they said they would, but I fear they are in for a very big surprise when they get here....now we are like they were when they left, only maybe even more advanced. And I don't think humanity will be too keen on falling down and worshipping them, but of course I cannot speak for the Muslims or Christians.

I am aware of a long time war going on between the Orion Group and a Confederation that i do not know the name of. Which side the Anunnaki ware on is anyone's guess. I have heard Enki and Enil, and even Marduk are all dead now. Who might be in charge now?

Originally posted by Lacenaire
I read somewhere that Sitchen may have misinterpreted some of the content of the Sumerian tablets.
Some scholars have pointed out that Nibiru actually means "ferry boat."

"Misinterpreted" is not the word.

The man cannot translate cuneiform, so he didn't "interpret" anything.

What he did was lie about what they wrote.

IOW, he purposefully "misinterpreted" the content.

Niburu designates several things, chiefly a place of crossing - such as a bridge, a threshold, a river ford, or even (as you say) a ferry.

Harte

[edit on 3/10/2010 by Harte]

I have heared that once Annunaki made us as a slaves but they have grown spiritually since then and are more "good"

What fascinates me is the the whole Sitchen fallacy has not become a modern living mythos. So many people seem to buy into it and propagate it. I actually do not believe in the reptilian agenda.

...just glancing over a few passages of my bible here and find that Jesus says himself to be "the way", "the truth", calling Himself "bread", "the true vine", etc.

...and going a bit further, that those wishing to truly be His followers must "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood"; and at one point telling a Samaritan woman seeking to draw water from a well that the water He could offer her would be water where she would never thirst again.

I take these things to mean symbolism and not literally. As such it would appear that the use of symbolism is/or was accepted practice in those days.

Is Stichen then a barbaric heathen for finding a symbolic meaning (or perhaps an additiona meaning) in the cunieform texts or symbols?

And what of his own lifelong study of these texts and the various pursuits across different continents to read them, are his effort less noble and less accurate than that of Samuel Kramer, who purports to have spent just as much time and done the same thing?

I guess what I am saying is why do you suppose Kramer was given some special magic decoder ring, and Sitchen not?

And for that matter, quoting Kramer, in his book Sumerian Mythology, he says:

"(in Sumerian the word meaning "mountain" is the word used regularly for "nether world")." Id. pg. 32

If its good enough for Kramer to draw meaning from texts and symbols and transliterate them, then its good enough for Sitchen; which would be the only tolerable outcome of fair-minded thinking people.

I know that I have to live by that maxim because I certainly cannot prove Sitchen correct or Kramer wrong. My personal understanding of Sumerian text is equal to that of a butterfly as to physics.

Its my guess that you too must trust given interpretations, which by your posts suggests a bit of leaning towards Kramer. By way of intelligent and conscious choice. An election to belive by means of decision. Faith, in other words, pure faith alone.

Not a bad thing I must say.

"And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch." Mark 13:37

That about wraps-up this round.

Originally posted by WarriorKing
First off, that I am clear, in the ancient days science was the religion. We have it backwards (to their way of thinking) today. Its like apples and oranges in discussion.

To effectively communicate you have to be on the same page.

That said, we must think like the writers of of the ancient texts at their writing. You know, "when in Rome do as the Romans do". That sort of thing. We must think like the Sumarians while in Sumeria. Reasonable enough.

It would be sheer falacy to think that all the effort spent by hand-carving all those tablets in stone and the time-consuming talent and effort required to make the clay cunniforms themselves would be spent on...mythology. Then go to all the trouble of storing and keeping and cataloging them all. Why not see them for what there are...science of the then-current time period. The cunniforms themselves being the functional equivilent to the modern day printing press with their own built-in ability to readily repeat the then-current "news of the day", akin to a daily newspaper. The Sumarian daily "newspapers" would not want to memorialize their mythology. Think about that a moment. All the Sumerians of the time would already know their own mythology. Not need it re-cunniformed on a regular basis.

First off, you present a very valid argument. An argument that can answer, in part, many of the "why's" we encounter (why were the pyramids built, why the Nazca lines, why this, why that?). We face difficulties to explain reasons behind what ancient peoples did simply because they were of a different mindset compared to us, today.

Yet, on the last paragraph you practically throw that away and try to "enforce" your logic and way of thinking on ancient Sumerians. So, you KNOW what they considered worthy of immortalizing in their tablets? How do you know that? You know how they thought? Are you absolutely, 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt SURE that all Sumerians knew their mythology, so it wasn't necessary for them to preserve it in their tablets (if that is what they did), so what is on the tablets has to be "real"? And how do you know what they considered "real" to begin with?

I'd suggest to follow your own advice and declare, if you know, that you do know the mindset of a people "lost" for a good 3 millennia, if not more! And, once you do this, present some form of "how" you know this information.

And one other thing, WarriorKing, if you are handed down first hand knowledge then that knowledge is second hand for you. Or, as they say in courts of law, "hear-say". Either the Sumerians had first hand knowledge themselves or they were handed down some info in which case they had second hand knowledge, thus more unreliable.

RUSSO, if books sold bestow credibility then the most credible source in human history is the Bible - it is after all the best seller in the history of the written word. If we go by this, then what the Beatles sung about is far more credible as they sold much more copies, no? Not to mention Tolkien (although archaeologists still have found no clue of Minas Tirith or Hobbiton ).

Originally posted by WarriorKing

Is Stichen then a barbaric heathen for finding a symbolic meaning (or perhaps an additiona meaning) in the cunieform texts or symbols?

No, he's just a fraud because he can't actually read cuneiform.

And what of his own lifelong study of these texts and the various pursuits across different continents to read them,

He has done no such "lifelong study." He can't even read it.

He uses Kramer's translations.

are his effort less noble and less accurate than that of Samuel Kramer, who purports to have spent just as much time and done the same thing?

Yes, quite a bit less noble. In fact, his "effort" contains no "nobility" at all!! This is because he is simply lying. A somewhat unnoble practice, most would agree.

And for that matter, quoting Kramer, in his book Sumerian Mythology, he says:

"(in Sumerian the word meaning "mountain" is the word used regularly for "nether world")." Id. pg. 32

If its good enough for Kramer to draw meaning from texts and symbols and transliterate them, then its good enough for Sitchen; which would be the only tolerable outcome of fair-minded thinking people.

There is a Sumerian alphabet involved here. Kramer can read it. How is that "drawing meaning" other than the fact that he is simply reading what was written?

Perhaps many here are unaware that the Akkadians, after conquering the handful of city-states that comprised Sumer, adapted their alphabet and applied it to their own language, which was Semitic.

The Akkadians left dictionaries and lexicons of the Sumerian language. We were able to translate the Akkadian because of it's ties to other, known, Semitic languages. Thus we are able to translate Sumerian through the info left by the Akkadians.

Knowing both languages allows for such things as you mention Kramer doing.

So, is the next argument going to be that the Akkadians didn't know the Sumerian language?

I know that I have to live by that maxim because I certainly cannot prove Sitchen correct or Kramer wrong. My personal understanding of Sumerian text is equal to that of a butterfly as to physics.

Your knowledge of Sumerian then is the equal of Sitchin's.

Harte

Good Lord!

Why do I even bother?

H.

When it come to Technology Level, The Anunnaki are type 3 Civlization