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)
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.




