Originally posted by NoahTheSumerian
Let's face it - much of his work is based on hypotheticals, and on interpretations of ancient writings that EVERYONE is 'interpreting'. No-one can
ALWAYS know for certain what the exact meaning of a particular cuneiform is/ isn't.
There's a difference between "interpreting" a word to mean home or domicile and "interpreting" the word to mean (literally) rocketship.
After all, we know for a fact that the people of Sumer had homes.
Besides, most of what was written in cuneiform is not open to "interpretation" at all. It can be read directly, just like any other known
I've said it many times, but maybe you missed it. After the Akkadians conquered the handful of city-states we refer to as Sumer, they adopted the
Sumerian writing form for their own language, which was a semitic language that we can read quite well today.
The Akkadians left behind lexicons and dictionaries - yes, dictionaries - of the Sumerian language, in cuneiform, with the meanings of Sumerian words
written in Akkadian.
Please stop pretending then that scholars don't really know what they wrote.
After all, Sitchin has never translated a single word of any
language written in cuneiform. As far as I know, he has never even claimed to be
Consider the CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE - particularly in terms of the immense knowledge of astronomy/ mathematics possessed by the ancients (which apart
from basic seasonal progressions would have served no purpose).
From a 21st century point of view, that might be true. But when you're sittin' there in the 30th century BC, you couldn't possibly know that
astrology serves no purpose.
In fact, it served an extremely important (although vain) purpose to them - that of forcasting the future.
In fact, there are posters right here on this website that you would have a very hard time convincing that astrology "serves no purpose." And
that's in today's far more advanced society.
The astronomical knowledge could be explained away as a 'leisure pursuit' - IF there was an abundance of peace, stability of society etc to
allow for UNFATHOMABLY long periods of observation and knowledge-sharing.
That's fairly absurd. They had no such understanding of astrology that it would have taken "unfathomable" long periods of observation to obtain.
You here are relying (apparently) on the claims of fringers like Sitchin, who lie (yes, LIE) about what the Sumerians knew of astronomy (it was
The archaeological records show that converse to that supposition, human knowledge of mathematics, societal structure and astronomy appeared
essentially ready-formed in Sumer... (NOT Egypt, Babylon, Greece, MesoAmerica)
No, the archaeological records show no such thing. There was, for example, nothing in Sumerian astrology more complicated than the astronomy
necessary to set up the stones of Stonehenge. Sumerian knowledge of mathematics was feeble compared to that exhibited by the people of the Indus
The evidence for the slow evoloution of societal structures is there and elsewhere in the world. Check out the advent of agriculture in China. Do
you know when they started growing rice?
Yes, I believe Sitchin's theories about gold mining are naiive and in all probability incorrect. However, when you consider the cumulative
evidence (written records, inscriptions, bas reliefs, human genetic clues/ genomic 'missing link', shared mythology, 'impossible' architecture,
religious text etc ad nauseum), a trend develops indicating that SOMEONE was leading events on Earth - someone who didn't evolve here, or at least
had been 'away' for a VERY long time.
Complete and utter claptrap. There is no "impossible" architecture. There are no mysteries about any inscriptions or reliefs. As for the rest of
the above, I fear you've gone off on a tear. You're not making sense. Why, for example, would a shared mythology be evidence of extraterrestrial
influence? That's really some kind of wishful thinking, it appears to me.
Plenty of peoples have a shared mythology. Ever heard of Mesoamerica?
It may ultimately be proven beyond doubt that the Sitchin interpretation of the Enuma Elish has always been closer to the truth than people 'in the
know' would have wanted to become public knowledge. I believe there's been a determined effort to suppress and ridicule the interventionist
explanation, with much disinformation being propagated in the past 100 years or so.
Any idiot can come up with their own "interpretation" of the Enuma Elish, or any other work for that matter.
If I say that Macbeth is really the story of a Jewish Scotsman hamburger flipper, how is that any different than what Sitchin claims about the Enuma
Elish? He's just taking a few words out and putting in words he wants in there so he can sell books.
He's going off other people's translations, I'm going off Shakespeare's imagination.
Coming onto a forum with the express intention of trashing the hard-won interpretations of those with a commitment to finding the TRUTH is
No one that stands up for a lying fraudulent con-artist like Sitchin could possibly have any "commitment" to finding either the truth, or the