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.
Originally posted by paradox
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
So now we are taking the bible as something literal? I do not see any translations of Sumerian texts there like I asked.
Do you believe in talking snakes as well?
Do you also think it is possible that Sitchin used this as part of his biased mistranslations?edit on 3-11-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)
That was sarcasm, in case you didn't know. The truth is, the Ancient Sumerian People wrote down their HISTORY, what they saw with their eyes, heard with their ears, and felt in their bones.
Originally posted by cowDrinker
According to the new series of Ancient Aliens [...]
Originally posted by phantomjack
I would think that if there is going to be a return, that they would be friendly, not hostile.
Originally posted by phantomjack
Not at all. But I still look at the bible as a work of history, and it depicts events regardless. You can't discount it as easily as you do Sitchin.
I dont look at the bible from a religious point of view. I look at it objectively and scientifically. No more, no less.
Originally posted by paradox
Originally posted by phantomjack
Not at all. But I still look at the bible as a work of history, and it depicts events regardless. You can't discount it as easily as you do Sitchin.
sure I can. It's a book that is thousands of years old, which has been translated, mistranslated, re-translated, and translated some more by many different people throughout history and across different languages. It depicts fictitious stories and fairy tales which teach lessons and morals not unlike modern children's story books.
I dont look at the bible from a religious point of view. I look at it objectively and scientifically. No more, no less.
Well, that would be a good thing if there was anything scientific about it. There's a reason religion and science are separate.edit on 3-11-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by paradox
reply to post by EarthChilde
I will take their credentials and course work over Sitchin whos only degree is not in ancient history, not in linguistics, but in economics.
Sorry.edit on 3-11-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by phantomjack
Originally posted by paradox
reply to post by EarthChilde
I will take their credentials and course work over Sitchin whos only degree is not in ancient history, not in linguistics, but in economics.
Sorry.edit on 3-11-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)
Yeah? So what? Michelangelo was a sculptor, not a painter.
Originally posted by paradox
December 21st will be a normal day like any other.
Originally posted by paradox
It is indeed BS, because there is no such thing as the Anunnaki, "Nibiru/Planet X", or alien overlords.
Originally posted by LordDrakula
Originally posted by paradox
It is indeed BS, because there is no such thing as the Anunnaki, "Nibiru/Planet X", or alien overlords.
And you know that from where ?? Your uncle told you ?? Even the Pope believes in aliens... Just saying...