Debunking Sitchin Debunkers

undo
reply to post by Harte

 

There was a time, Undo, when I thought I could at the least rely on you to not fabricate an untruth merely to support your idea of the past. Apparently, that time is also in the past.

sorry for late response. i didn't see your post on previous page.

IF I was attempting to lie, i would not have admitted that he didn't say that directly, but indirectly in support of Chris White's statements in the same video. Also, I didn't want to go dig up our other conversation (in the dumb old lady vs. ancient aliens debunked thread) where you brought Heiser's name into the discussion of the meaning of Anunna, because you thought his scholarship was sufficient to lay the case to rest. At that point I was wondering if his scholarship was sufficient for you on that subject, what about his position that the bible is not a myth?

Now you're doing it again, aren't you Undo.

Quote and link, please.

You are attacking me for believing many of the same things Mr. Heiser does, such as the validity of the bible and other ancient texts. I bet if you asked him about the book of enoch, he'd say that it was a good text with plenty of corroborating evidence, although not canon because of some oddities. For example, the nephilim created from the union of the Watchers and human women, were called giants that were an outrageous size. We're talking, so big, it's unlikely their hearts would've been able to pump blood to all their limbs. Either someone mistranslated it or someone deliberately messed it up cause their height was absolutely ginormous.

Again, unless you can quote Heiser on the Book of Enoch, telling us what you would "bet he'd say" is not only meaningless, it's (once again) purposeful mischaracterization.

But I do give you credit for admitting that you had overstated yourself concerning his statements on the meaning of Anunna - that the Anunna were mere mortals.
At least you did do that.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


well i have interviewed him on a similar subject. he doesn't believe the offspring, the nephilim, were giants, but he doesn't believe they were human beings either. let's preface this by saying he thinks the nephilim were the result of spirit beings, called angels, who mated with human women, rather than extra-terrestrials, although some argument could be made that if they aren't from earth, they are extra-terrestrial regardless if they come from another planet or another dimension. if i remember correctly, he also mentions his view on the canon-status of the book of enoch (although it's quoted from by jesus it wasn't considered canon by the ecumenical councils who compiled the books of the bible).

let me see if i can find the interview
here it is. it's 2 hours long and is a .wma file
thelivingmoon.com...

undo
reply to post by Harte

 

well i have interviewed him on a similar subject. he doesn't believe the offspring, the nephilim, were giants, but he doesn't believe they were human beings either. let's preface this by saying he thinks the nephilim were the result of spirit beings, called angels, who mated with human women, rather than extra-terrestrials, although some argument could be made that if they aren't from earth, they are extra-terrestrial regardless if they come from another planet or another dimension.

Heiser is interpreting what ancient texts say, at which he is a recognized expert, and not what he believes, in the interview. Regarding the particulars of your example above concerning the nephilim, Heiser is clearly interpreting what the Hebrew Bible says about them and not what he personally thinks concerning their actual existence.

In short, in your interview, he is asked about the text, and answers concerning the text.

On the other hand, I would be the last person to assert that, in order to refute the claims of Sitchin, one must necessarily be first an athiest. This is the easy out that the fringe takes with regard to Chris White - that he has a Christian agenda.
IMO, this is done because what he stated in his video was otherwise irrefutable.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


it was absolutely not irrefutable. there were parts of it, that were indeed mischaracterizations, such as using newer texts to proclaim that references to flying vehicles in hindu texts were illegitimate due to the newness of the text in question (the channeled vimana text). to do this, they had to ignore the mahabharata references i gave you in the "dumb old lady vs. ancient aliens debunked" thread, where not only were there flying vehicles, they were involved in a shoot out, including the ability to cloak the flying vehicle, a weapon that could seek out the cloaked vehicle and pierce it, among other references. then there was the over simplication of Ezekiel 1, which i also discussed in that thread. and the anunna = princely blood issue. not to mention the lack of specificity regarding the pounding stone quarry from puma punku, which turned out not to be the puma punku quarry at all.

Undo, I just wanted you to know how much I appreciate the thought and work you do on your threads. You're one of my ATS heros!

undo

Stormdancer777
reply to post by undo

 

She was fascinating, she was real not a myth and when she died it is said kings came from all over the known world to morn her passing.

Thats kinda where i left off, but then started trying to connect the dots with similar stories and the similarities between the gods and goddesses, now I am just tired, lol

correct me if i'm wrong but are you saying the "she" in question was INANA?

Adda-guppi

reply to post by Stormdancer777


i'm confused. i thought you mentioned this female was inana/ishtar?

reply to post by 1questioner


oh thanks. what part of this thread gave you the most to think about?

Undo - I think this pretty much sums it up:

"well i don't mind telling you, this has not been an easy study. if you think all this research is the equivalent of mind numbing dumbing down, i'd sure like to see what you think is enlightening. to study this topic alone, takes knowledge of several different historical events, archaeological finds, etymologies, and various languages. and to weed out sitchin's mistakes, takes even more intellectual labor."

Where's Nibiu can you tell me exactly where to look so we can all see it. If this cant be proven then the rest is merely toilet paper

undo
reply to post by undo

 

sorry, i pressed enter before i had finished the op. so here's the rest of it.

For example, in his Earth Chronicles series, he suggests a planet named Nibiru is incoming and that it will eventually pass by our location on Earth, and cause various cataclysms. His last date for the arrival of Nibiru thru this neck of the woods was 300 years from now. Yet you see various people proclaiming that planet x (another name for nibiru) is likely already here or closer than we think. 300 years away vs. nearby is probably not the same thing.

Now it could be that Nibiru is closer than we thought, if for example, the writings of Sitchin were meant to circumvent any discoveries on the subject by researchers along the way. It's easy to disenfranchinse a good theory by simply offering up a fake but similar version beforehand. And, that's my contention on some of his other material.

Personally, I believe he is wrong about Nibiru being the name of the planet, for starters. Nibru or Nibiru, was the name of Enlil's temple city on the Euphrates. The etymology is Nibru, Nibbur, Nippur. His temple was at the crossing place on the Euphrates. What that means is, it was one of the only places for miles, where you could cross the Euphrates. Sitchin took this a step further and pointed to Babylonian star charts such as the Omens of the Moon, and suggested the references to Nibiru as 2 different planets, proved that it was a planet moving past other celestial bodies. In fact, it meant place of the crossing, and when a planet crossed over the zenith of the temple city on the Euphrates, it was said to be "nibiru" -- et.al, crossing.

However, people who throw out all the rest of his material on the premise that parts of it are wrong, are missing the bigger picture and that's what I'm going to discuss in this thread.

For example, the debunk that claims there were no sumerian texts. This is technically incorrect. There were sumerian texts but they were mostly about every day events like how many bushels of food or other resources were accumulated. The real stories don't start until Akkad, the civilization that came after the flood event known as the Black Sea Flood. You wouldn't expect to see much in the way of flood event descriptions before the flood. So the idea his information is bogus because it quotes from post flood texts and then calls them sumerian is a bit of a misnomer. Afterall, the texts were describing flood events after they occured to the sumerian civilization.

More ...

edit on 17-1-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)

reply to post by ATSZOMBIE

Where's Nibiu can you tell me exactly where to look so we can all see it. If this cant be proven then the rest is merely toilet paper

here it is
oi.uchicago.edu...

also

Enki's Journey to Nibru
link

and

Nippur
en.wikipedia.org...

babylonian omens of the moon, proof that nibiru was a reference to planetary location not to any planet in particular. notice how in the quote, MARDUK (another name for jupiter the planet), is described as umumpauddu, sagmigar and nibiru, each referring to its celestial movement. similar to saying, when it's rising, when it's at zenith and when it's setting). later this same terminology is used to describe mercury as well, and that is because these are all references to location in the sky of any planet that passes over the meridian above enlil's temple city of nibru.

Babylonian Omens of the Moon, VI. Omens From Halos read below

Last night a halo surrounded the Moon, and Jupiter and Scorpio stood within it. When a halo surrounds the Moon and Jupiter stands within it, the King of Akkad will be besieged. When a halo surrounds the Moon and Jupiter stands within it, there will be a slaughter of cattle and beasts of the field. (Marduk is Umunpauddu at its appearance; when it has risen for two (or four?) hours it becomes Sagmigar; when it stands in the meridian it becomes Nibiru.)

www.fordham.edu...

anyway, regardless of whether sitchin made mistakes in some of his material, there's still quite a bit that's actually accurate.

here's a whole page of translated (by oxford university), sumerian-akkadian texts
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...

undo
it was absolutely not irrefutable. there were parts of it, that were indeed mischaracterizations, such as using newer texts to proclaim that references to flying vehicles in hindu texts were illegitimate due to the newness of the text in question (the channeled vimana text).

Sorry, but that's selective hearing.

Note from the transcript:

But before we look into the real descriptions of Vimanas in the Vedic texts we must first examine a fake text, because almost everything that Ancient Aliens says about Vimanas comes from a totally bogus text called the Vimanika Shastra

undo
to do this, they had to ignore the mahabharata references i gave you in the "dumb old lady vs. ancient aliens debunked" thread,

Sorry, selective hearing again.
From the transcript:

The very first of these is the flying chariot of the earthly king Ravana called Pushpaka. By the time of the Mahabharata (c. 400 BCE), these flying chariots had grown in size–one was now described as 12 cubits in circumference–but they never lost the large wheels that marked them as derived from earthly horse-drawn chariots.”

Source for both quotes: AA Debunked

This sort of thing makes me wonder if you are willing to post anything that is factually true concerning these people you claim to be "debunking."

Harte

harte

not selective at all. one of the flying vehicles in mahabharata was as big as a city, and nearly impenetrable, it said. it was shot out of the sky and crashed into the ocean. in order to establish that the later channeled texts were fabrications, because everything was exaggerated in the later "fake" texts (such as the size of the ship), the ancient aliens debunked video had to ignore the references in mahabharata to a ship the size of a city. now it could be that they just didn't read all of it, or were taking the word of someone else who claimed they had, but i actually took the time to look this stuff up for myself.

one of my pet peeves is that people take sides on issues like this, based on something someone else told them about it, rather than going to the source documents and reading it for themselves.

here it is

Putting forth his prowess, Madhava hurled unto the sea the Daitya city called Saubha, (moving) in the skies, protected by Salwa, and regarded as impregnable

www.sacred-texts.com...

quoting my other quote from the dumb old lady vs. ancient aliens debunked thread on this subject.

It seems the text also references something called a "car" and this car, can fly. In fact, one guy escapes into the sky in a flying car.

And perhaps the most interesting one is:

The Mahabharata: Drona Parva
SECTION CLXXIX
www.sacred-texts.com...

"Naikartana, was now hurled at the Rakshasa. Beholding that excellent and blazing weapon capable of piercing the body of every foe, in the hands of the Suta's son, the Rakshasa began to fly away in fear assuming a body gigantic as the foot of the Vindhya mountains. Indeed, seeing that dart in Karna's hand, all creatures in the sky, O king, uttered loud cries. Fierce winds began to blow, and thunders with loud report began to fall on the earth. Destroying that blazing illusion of Ghatotkacha and piercing right through his breast that resplendent dart soared aloft in the night and entered a starry constellation in the firmament. "

Naikartana was apparently a blazing missile (it's interchangeably called a dart and a missile in previous passages in this section). But look what happens when it's launched at Rakshasha (Ghatotkacha's ship). Creatures in the sky make loud sounds, fierce wind begins to blow, thunders fall on the earth. (sounds like a rocket launch to me). And the strangest part, it destroys the "illusion" of Ghatotkacha.

What kind of illusion? Early in the same passages, he suddenly vanishes while in flight in his car and beats his enemies in a "deceiful" way. Thus, he's flying around in a vehicle that disappears. The illusion itself was like a cloaking technology of some kind that made his flying vehicle, Rakshasha, invisible. Followed up by the special weapon, Naikartana, that finds and pierces him and his invisible flying car, causing the illusion to drop and the car to crash to the ground. In spite of the fact this type of information is often imbedded in what sounds like mundane old world ground battles with horses and arrows and maces, it will suddenly launch into advanced aerial
battles in horseless cars, with heat seeking missiles and cloaking technology for cars the size of mountains and cities. For all its fanciful parts, there are sections interspersed through out, that just scream high technology.

this video is what i linked as an example as it reminds me of the description of the battle in the text. the klingon bird of prey ship has a new cloaking technology by which it is deceitfully beating enemies of the klingon commander. the crew of enterprise figure out how to beat it by loading a device that can track special emissions from the klingon bird of prey, and the scene opens with doc and spock loading the tracking device into a torpedo.

undo
harte

not selective at all. one of the flying vehicles in mahabharata was as big as a city, and nearly impenetrable, it said. it was shot out of the sky and crashed into the ocean. in order to establish that the later channeled texts were fabrications, because everything was exaggerated in the later "fake" texts (such as the size of the ship), the ancient aliens debunked video had to ignore the references in mahabharata to a ship the size of a city. now it could be that they just didn't read all of it, or were taking the word of someone else who claimed they had, but i actually took the time to look this stuff up for myself.

You need to re-read the excerpt I quoted from the transcript of the show in my last post:

The very first of these is the flying chariot of the earthly king Ravana called Pushpaka. By the time of the Mahabharata (c. 400 BCE), these flying chariots had grown in size–one was now described as 12 cubits in circumference–but they never lost the large wheels that marked them as derived from earthly horse-drawn chariots.”

They ignore the Mahabharata?
A few lines down, they quote a translation of the Ramayana, comparing it to AA's D. H. Childress' claimed quote:

It’s also interesting to see that Ancient Astronaut theorists have to distort the actual description of Vimanas in the Vedic texts in order to make them sound like UFO’s For example, the following is a quote from David Childress’ book where he is supposed to be quoting a description of a Vimana from an ancient text. We’ll read what he tells his readers what it says, and then we will read the actual ancient text and note the differences. First lets here is Childress’ version:

“When morning dawned, Rama, taking the Celestial Car Puspaka had sent to him by Vivpishand, stood ready to depart. Self-propelled was that car. It was large and finely painted. It had two stories and many chambers with windows, and was draped with flags and banners. It gave forth a melodious sound as it coursed along its airy way.”

And now here is what the actual Ramayana says:

“And the mighty monkey ascended the splendid car Pushpaka, containing figures of wolves,—made of Kart taswara and Hir anya; graced with ranges of goodly pillars; as if blazing in splendor; throughout garnished with narrow secret rooms and saloons, piercing the heavens, and resembling Meru or Mandara, and like unto the flaming Sun; skillfully reared by Vic wak arma; with golden staircases and graceful and grand raised seats, rows of golden and crystal windows, and daises composed of sapphires, emeralds and other superb gems; embellished with noble vid-rumas, costly stones, and round pearls, as also with plastered terraces; pasted with red sandal, like unto gold, and furnished with a sacred aroma; and resembling the sun new risen[12]. (Sundarakandam 9)”

Colavito says of this: “Elsewhere it is described as being filled with fruit trees, and sometimes it is drawn by geese. Do you know many UFOs with “plastered terraces” and red paint?” - See more at: ancientaliensdebunked.com...

Now, that's a very odd method of ignoring actual Vedic texts, I'd have to say. That is, one could barely discern that they were ignoring Vedas at all, given they actually quote from them. Were you not here to tell us they were ignoring them, why, I'd wager that we would never have noticed such a sly strategy.

undoone of my pet peeves is that people take sides on issues like this, based on something someone else told them about it, rather than going to the source documents and reading it for themselves.

I know exactly what you mean. So now go and read the source document transcript I linked you to.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


IN THE VIDEO, they ignore the references in the MAHABHARATA that would bolster the account of LARGE flying craft. You keep moving the goal post around. I simply provided evidence that they ignored the references in the MAHABHARATA to large flying craft, when they made the VIDEO. If you want to argue the website, and every known ancient hindu text, we would still be here next year having this same debate.