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.
When Sitchin wrote his books only specialists could read the Sumerian language, but sources such as the 2006 book Sumerian Lexicon[19] have made the language more accessible to non-experts. Ancient language scholar Michael S. Heiser[20] states that he has found many inaccuracies in Sitchin's translations and challenges interested parties to use this book to check their validity.[15][21] Prof. Ronald H. Fritze,[22] author of the book Invented Knowledge: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-religions,[22] mentions the example of Sitchin's claim that the Sumerian sign Din-Gir means "pure ones of the blazing rockets", adding that "Sitchin's assignment of meanings to ancient words is tendentious and frequently strained."[23] Fritze also commented on Sitchin's methodology, writing that "When critics have checked Sitchin's references, they have found that he frequently quotes out of context or truncates his quotes in a way that distorts evidence in order to prove his contentions. Evidence is presented selectively and contradictory evidence is ignored."[23]
Sitchin bases his arguments on his personal interpretations of pre-Nubian and Sumerian texts, and the seal VA 243. Sitchin wrote that these ancient civilizations knew of a twelfth planet, when in fact they only knew five.[24] Hundreds of Sumerian astronomical seals and calendars have been decoded and recorded, and the total count of planets on each seal has been five. Seal VA 243 has 12 dots that Sitchin identifies as planets. When translated, seal VA 243 reads "You're his Servant" which is now thought to be a message from a nobleman to a servant. According to semitologist Michael S. Heiser, the so-called sun on Seal VA 243 is not the Sumerian symbol for the sun but is a star, and the dots are also stars.[24][25] The symbol on seal VA 243 has no resemblance to the hundreds of documented Sumerian sun symbols.
In a 1979 review of The Twelfth Planet, Roger W. Wescott,[26] Prof. of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University, Madison, New Jersey, noted Sitchin's amateurishness with respect to the primacy of the Sumerian language:
Sitchin's linguistics seems at least as amateurish as his anthropology, biology, and astronomy. On p. 370, for example, he maintains that "all the ancient languages . . . including early Chinese . . . stemmed from one primeval source -- Sumerian". Sumerian, of course, is the virtual archetype of what linguistic taxonomists call a language-isolate, meaning a language that does not fall into any of the well-known language-families or exhibit clear cognation with any known language. Even if Sitchin is referring to written rather than to spoken language, it is unlikely that his contention can be persuasively defended, since Sumerian ideograms were preceded by the Azilian and Tartarian signaries of Europe as well as by a variety of script-like notational systems between the Nile and Indus rivers.[27]
reply to post by paradox
It is indeed BS, because there is no such thing as the Anunnaki,
Originally posted by phantomjack
There are many other translations of the Sumerian texts other than Sitchin's that are completely relevant.
So to discredit the entire concept of the Anunnaki on one man's depiction, is simply ridiculous.
Originally posted by paradox
Originally posted by phantomjack
There are many other translations of the Sumerian texts other than Sitchin's that are completely relevant.
Can you show me these?
So to discredit the entire concept of the Anunnaki on one man's depiction, is simply ridiculous.
The whole concept is simply ridiculous.
Originally posted by phantomjack
Originally posted by paradox
Originally posted by phantomjack
There are many other translations of the Sumerian texts other than Sitchin's that are completely relevant.
Can you show me these?
So to discredit the entire concept of the Anunnaki on one man's depiction, is simply ridiculous.
The whole concept is simply ridiculous.
Yeah. No problem. About 2000 years before Sitchin:
en.wikipedia.org...
Nephilim = Anunnaki
Originally posted by paradox
It is indeed BS, because there is no such thing as the Anunnaki, "Nibiru/Planet X", or alien overlords. December 21st will be a normal day like any other.
Originally posted by phantomjack
reply to post by paradox
To categorically define the knowledge and writings about the Anunnaki to just one man, Sitchin, is very disingenuous.
There are many other translations of the Sumerian texts other than Sitchin's that are completely relevant.
So to discredit the entire concept of the Anunnaki on one man's depiction, is simply ridiculous.