It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jazztrance
I like his books, I may not agree with everything he thought and wrote about but I love original ideas. I look at those tablets all the time, theres some weird stuff going on in there. If you havent, google image them and look at the details. I think he was on to something. Original ideas are usually ridiculed before they are accepted ..lots of people write about their theories,but people love to hate on Sitchin. Why dont people hate on the religious theorists who write books about snake handling and faith orspeaking in tongues.edit on 22-11-2012 by jazztrance because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: greyer
a reply to: nOraKat
Wow thanks, they have been tediously translating, it is good to see some diligence because these translations are not easy to come by, not many people did what Sitchin did - which was combine the tablets into a poetic story form. We don't know which he embellished and which he didn't.
Translations of Sumerian on line since 2003
And where are the tablets for the Lost Book Of Enki? That is the interesting story similar to the ancient Indian texts in which they were being attacked by rocketships from the air.
He made them up or can you cite which accession numbers they were?
The Oxford site is still enough to provide that the mystery is still standing. I mean first whenever a verse gets interesting they just put a ? as if they couldn't translate it, I'd say 80 % of every verse has something undeciphered. At least Sitchin flowed way better. but the Oxford translations still point out to the 'Anuna gods' as being space visitors than whatever we think gods are in our present day culture.
Yes, Sitchin just made up stuff to fill in where academia had no data. Yep the translations point to Religious myth not history, most religious stories are a tad weak science wise and should not be considered history or factual.
originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: nOraKat
Really, with the honest appearance of those mysterious things called UFOs and our growing understanding about the possibilities of other life in the galaxy, we must rethink all forms of "official" history and documents and wonder what is a newer, better version of history while setting aside the old versions that give no quarter to any concept other than what already has been decided as the path of human history.
Sitchin is probably no more incorrect than the pillars of established history written to stoggy academics and historians. Our past history is largely a puzzle pieced together at this time by old theories, shreds of broken pottery and a few widely placed bones. We know noting!