Debunking Sitchin Debunkers

undo
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.

edit on 23-1-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)

The videos are in response to the AA program. If the vids didn't cover the Mahabharata as much as you would like, you can chalk that up to the original AA program not covering the Mahabharata as much as you'd like. This is made quite clear in the transcript where they clearly state that they will address mostly the V.S. because, as they said, "90% of what AA says" on the matter "comes from the Vimanika Shastra."

Harte

Harte

undo
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.

edit on 23-1-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)

The videos are in response to the AA program. If the vids didn't cover the Mahabharata as much as you would like, you can chalk that up to the original AA program not covering the Mahabharata as much as you'd like. This is made quite clear in the transcript where they clearly state that they will address mostly the V.S. because, as they said, "90% of what AA says" on the matter "comes from the Vimanika Shastra."

Harte

logical! however, we don't know how much of what they state is based merely on the channeled texts, since there's older examples. AA Debunked tried to make the case that things, like ship size, were exaggerated LATER in the channeled texts. The channeled texts make a more visual case for the matter, how true or false they are, is surely up for debate, but saying the size of the craft was exaggerated from older versions is clearly not true and that's what i'm trying to say!

Why should one bother debunking a "channeled text"?

draknoir2
Why should one bother debunking a "channeled text"?

that's a good question that boils down to perspectives on topics regarding spirituality, the spirit world, and who is tapping into what entity. however, i don't think that was their topic in AA Debunked. it wasn't that they were channeling, so much as all the ancient hindu texts were illegitimatized because the later vimana texts were exaggerations of older texts. i mean, that's the impression I get when watching it, and that as a result, the AA tv series was supporting illegitimate texts because of this difference.

I feel as if I have offered evidence that it was the other way around -- that the later channeled texts had smaller flying craft than the older ones, and as a result, the older texts were supporting the newer texts. Whether or not the AA writers were basing their decision to support channeled texts vs. older texts, is completely up in the air and frankly a different topic. But my disagreement is just with the statements that the flying craft were not large and evident in older texts. AA Debunked downplays them by calling them flying palaces. I dunno about you but a flying palace that can cloak itself and is the size of a mountain or a city, sounds like more than a flying palace.

Didn't Heiser challenge Sitchin to show him anywhere in the Sumerian Tablets where the word Nibiru was mentioned and Sitchin refused or could not?
Sitchin was also asked to take part in an on line debate with Heiser but again refused.
I have weighed up the pro's and con's of Sitchin and his translations and believe, that whereas he had some points, Heiser caught him with his fingers in the Cookie Jar! This throws much doubt on his translations.

draknoir2
Why should one bother debunking a "channeled text"?

Obviously, one shouldn't have to.

However, if you take a look around the internet, and if you watch the AA crockumentaries, you'll easily note the complete absence of any indication whatsoever that the Vimanika Shastra is channelled.

In fact, if it's source is mentioned at all, the usual claim made is that it (the V.S.) was "found in Tibet."

What the debunk vid is concerned with in that particular instance, then, is disseminating the information that this is not an ancient text. I consider this to at least be worth doing, inasmuch as it provides an actual fact to be applied to the otherwise absurdly fantastic tales.

Harte

OzTiger
Didn't Heiser challenge Sitchin to show him anywhere in the Sumerian Tablets where the word Nibiru was mentioned and Sitchin refused or could not?

The challenge was for Sitchin to translate a sample of cuneiform that has not been published. Sitchin completely ignored him for decades, then died.

OzTigerSitchin was also asked to take part in an on line debate with Heiser but again refused.
I have weighed up the pro's and con's of Sitchin and his translations and believe, that whereas he had some points, Heiser caught him with his fingers in the Cookie Jar! This throws much doubt on his translations.

To my knowledge, Sitchin never himself claimed he could read Akkadian cuneiform.

If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate it if anyone with knowledge of him making this claim could link me to it.

Harte

blurb from his website

One of the few scholars able to read and interpret ancient Sumerian and Akkadian clay tablets, Zecharia Sitchin (1920-2010) based his bestselling The 12th Planet on texts from the ancient civilizations of the Near East. Drawing both widespread interest and criticism, his controversial theories on the Anunnaki origins of humanity have been translated into more than 20 languages and featured on radio and television programs around the world.

www.sitchin.com...

OzTiger
Didn't Heiser challenge Sitchin to show him anywhere in the Sumerian Tablets where the word Nibiru was mentioned and Sitchin refused or could not?
Sitchin was also asked to take part in an on line debate with Heiser but again refused.
I have weighed up the pro's and con's of Sitchin and his translations and believe, that whereas he had some points, Heiser caught him with his fingers in the Cookie Jar! This throws much doubt on his translations.

his nibiru stuff is wrong, i do believe, but that doesn't mean everything he wrote was wrong. he was using real sumerian-akkadian tablets, not to mention babylonian and assyrian, even egyptian ancient texts, hebrew pseudopigraphical texts, and texts of the americas, in his research.

undo
blurb from his website

One of the few scholars able to read and interpret ancient Sumerian and Akkadian clay tablets, Zecharia Sitchin (1920-2010) based his bestselling The 12th Planet on texts from the ancient civilizations of the Near East. Drawing both widespread interest and criticism, his controversial theories on the Anunnaki origins of humanity have been translated into more than 20 languages and featured on radio and television programs around the world.

Where did Sitchin himself make this claim?

Harte

Harte

undo
blurb from his website

One of the few scholars able to read and interpret ancient Sumerian and Akkadian clay tablets, Zecharia Sitchin (1920-2010) based his bestselling The 12th Planet on texts from the ancient civilizations of the Near East. Drawing both widespread interest and criticism, his controversial theories on the Anunnaki origins of humanity have been translated into more than 20 languages and featured on radio and television programs around the world.

Where did Sitchin himself make this claim?

Harte

i dunno, maybe one of his books. i'd have to research it more to find out but that is his official website.

undo

OzTiger
Didn't Heiser challenge Sitchin to show him anywhere in the Sumerian Tablets where the word Nibiru was mentioned and Sitchin refused or could not?
Sitchin was also asked to take part in an on line debate with Heiser but again refused.
I have weighed up the pro's and con's of Sitchin and his translations and believe, that whereas he had some points, Heiser caught him with his fingers in the Cookie Jar! This throws much doubt on his translations.

his nibiru stuff is wrong, i do believe, but that doesn't mean everything he wrote was wrong. he was using real sumerian-akkadian tablets, not to mention babylonian and assyrian, even egyptian ancient texts, hebrew pseudopigraphical texts, and texts of the americas, in his research.

Like I said, he has some points and, as you say, not 'everything he wrote was wrong' but Sitchin (imo) has set back the research on this subject by attempting to gain financially through his books with some outlandish claims. This has given the 'debunkers' more than enough material to put all his research in grave doubt.
Us lesser mortals have to 'cherry-pick' the information given to us in an effort to try and find the truth as to our 'creation' and we look to posters such as yourself and the venerable 'harte' to enlighten us with your expert knowledge.
I am given to understand that the Sumerian/Akkadian tablets are very difficult to translate owing to the fact that they appear to read from right to left in one continuous sentence without full stops. comma's, capital letters, exclamation marks and paragraphs. Also, a word can have it's meaning completely changed by the presence of another word either prefixing or suffixing it. Yet many claim that they are, in effect, the original stories of the Bible as we know it today.
I look forward with interest to this thread continuing for some time.
Thank you both (and other contributors).

reply to post by Harte

Sitchin completely ignored him for decades, then died.

Ultimate cop out.
I guess.

Sitchin had a story to tell but it wasn't history.

Phage
reply to post by Harte

 

Sitchin completely ignored him for decades, then died.

Ultimate cop out.
I guess.

Sitchin had a story to tell but it wasn't history.

edit on 1/25/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

so what do you propose the sumerian, akkadian, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, ugaritic, phoenician, south and central american texts were? is there a different history of the world out there vs. the ones written down in these ancient texts?

undo

Phage
reply to post by Harte

 

Sitchin completely ignored him for decades, then died.

Ultimate cop out.
I guess.

Sitchin had a story to tell but it wasn't history.

edit on 1/25/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

so what do you propose the sumerian, akkadian, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, ugaritic, phoenician, south and central american texts were? is there a different history of the world out there vs. the ones written down in these ancient texts?

edit on 26-1-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)

Undo, you know very well that Sitchin did not relate the same stories as those that are in the text.

You yourself have stated several times in this thread alone that he was wrong on Nibiru, for example.

We also know that "shem" (shamu) doesn't mean "spaceship."

An lastly, the idea that mythology is history is a non-starter.

Harte

and the thread is about the things sitchin points out that are actually in the texts, other than his nibiru stuff. although i had forgotten about the shem thing. yeah that, from what i can tell, was also a mistake but i haven' t as yet given it my full attention.

the issue here is, that even in the face of some of his mistranslations or misunderstandings, most of what he talks about are actually in the texts themselves and are not made up by him. sitchin, as we discussed before, did not write the sumerian-akkadian texts. those are real. the idea they aren't real because sitchin promoted a theory about nibiru that turned out to be wrong, doesn't mean he wrote the sumerian-akkadian texts.

there's one more thing i disagree with him, or actually 2. one of those is the premise that the enuma elish references describe celestial events that shaped our solar system, thus allowing the apsu/abzu references to be references to the sun as a body in our solar system, intimately involved as well, in said events. i think that's wrong on several premises.

i also get really bent out of shape when i read mainstream data declaring enuma elish as the first history ever written. first of all, abzu as a word predated enuma elish and was totally different. enuma elish is where everything gets moved around and restated. abzu becomes a married god man, instead of an inanimate deep water gate way, who is then murdered by enki. in short, enuma elish musses up a few isolated things in a very big way. it also allowed assyrilogists to suggest that the universe was created by tiamat, a female sea monster. what a mess.

the only things that sitchin claimed were mistranslated in enuma elish is that it hides the planetary data about planets bumping into each other as a result of nibiru coming thru the area, and the translation of abzu as the sun. i think he was wrong on that. oh, he also stated this is where enki, enlil and anu, were smushed into one god called marduk in babylon. this, i believe, he was right about.

undo
and the thread is about the things sitchin points out that are actually in the texts, other than his nibiru stuff. although i had forgotten about the shem thing. yeah that, from what i can tell, was also a mistake but i haven' t as yet given it my full attention.

the issue here is, that even in the face of some of his mistranslations or misunderstandings, most of what he talks about are actually in the texts themselves and are not made up by him. sitchin, as we discussed before, did not write the sumerian-akkadian texts. those are real. the idea they aren't real because sitchin promoted a theory about nibiru that turned out to be wrong, doesn't mean he wrote the sumerian-akkadian texts.

there's one more thing i disagree with him, or actually 2. one of those is the premise that the enuma elish references describe celestial events that shaped our solar system, thus allowing the apsu/abzu references to be references to the sun as a body in our solar system, intimately involved as well, in said events. i think that's wrong on several premises.

i also get really bent out of shape when i read mainstream data declaring enuma elish as the first history ever written. first of all, abzu as a word predated enuma elish and was totally different. enuma elish is where everything gets moved around and restated. abzu becomes a married god man, instead of an inanimate deep water gate way, who is then murdered by enki. in short, enuma elish musses up a few isolated things in a very big way. it also allowed assyrilogists to suggest that the universe was created by tiamat, a female sea monster. what a mess.

the only things that sitchin claimed were mistranslated in enuma elish is that it hides the planetary data about planets bumping into each other as a result of nibiru coming thru the area, and the translation of abzu as the sun. i think he was wrong on that. oh, he also stated this is where enki, enlil and anu, were smushed into one god called marduk in babylon. this, i believe, he was right about.

These things you say Sitchin was right about - these are not his ideas.

The ideas your talking about come from Assyriologists. Sitchin merely repeats them, and credits the authors, in most cases.

I note you don't mention the Anunna's "need" for gold. This is a Sitchinism that appears nowhere in the texts - IOW, something he made up.

All you have to do now is to agree that what I stated in that last sentence is true, and you will yourself be a "Sitchin Debunker." Then you can spend the rest of the thread debunking yourself!

Harte

harte

please link for me where an assyriologist claims that the enuma elish is a reference to planets bashing into each other. i didn't realize he took that from elsewhere.

undo
harte

please link for me where an assyriologist claims that the enuma elish is a reference to planets bashing into each other. i didn't realize he took that from elsewhere.

You stated that you disagree with Sitchin on that.

What I said is that the things you think Sitchin got right aren't his ideas.

Harte

Harte

undo
harte

please link for me where an assyriologist claims that the enuma elish is a reference to planets bashing into each other. i didn't realize he took that from elsewhere.

You stated that you disagree with Sitchin on that.

What I said is that the things you think Sitchin got right aren't his ideas.

Harte

oh anu, enki and enlil being smooshed into marduk? yeah the text is pretty obvious on that anyway. all you have to do is read earlier texts than enuma elish to figure that out. but this is my point, sitchin is not wrong on everything and the sumerian-akkadian texts are not his creations. lol