Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 11 votes

Was Jesus an Annunaki?


  • Please log in to reply
1026 replies to this topic

#916    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 21 March 2013 - 06:16 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 20 March 2013 - 11:37 PM, said:

Look at all of the preceding posts, and from ordinary and every-day people. Sitchin is embraced only by proponents of the fringe—not by ordinary people who have a facility for and understanding of these ancient civilizations, and certainly not by credible and vetted scholars.

I think you may not understand translation work on a professional level and how translations are regarded. There is no such thing in most cases of a single translation judged to be the most accurate. In translating Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Egyptian, or any of the other ancient languages into modern English (or another Western language), the translator has a fair amount of play because of the much-larger vocabulary of modern languages. In the end, regardless of the subtleties of modern vocabulary employed, the sense and meaning of the translation comes out the same. A translation that varies wildly from the greater body of professional literature means almost certainly that the translator is flawed and/or his translation is incorrect. No two ways about it.

Sitchin did not really translate any of this stuff himself. He drew from the greater body of professional literature and invented his own meanings to suit his personal agenda. He comments on a wide variety of traditions and cultures and the textual material they left behind, so anyone who honestly believes that Sitchin possessed a working command of the numerous different languages expressed in cuneiform as well as ancient Egyptian, as well as Aramaic, and as well as Hebrew, has some definite problems with naiveté and gullibility. I cannot even think of a past or present professional scholar who could have or does possess a working knowledge of that many ancient languages and scripts. It's not realistic in the first place.

Some of the stuff Sitchin uses comes from Babylon, some from Akkad, and some even from Sumer. There are only a scant handful of places in the world where a student can learn Sumerian today, so it would be quite comical to assume that Sitchin somehow knew the ancient language, himself.

Understand that Michael Heiser is not "piggybacking" off of Sitchin. Heiser's website is only a lark on his part, a side hobby. The man is a professional scholar and linguist with a published body of literature. If you actually did read through Heiser's website and especially the topic-specific papers you can download, and somehow think that he is merely criticizing Sitchin, you must not have read too carefully. Time and again Heiser picks a specific example which Sitchin misrepresented (e.g., the meaning of Anunnaki, the meaning of Nephilim, the actual meaning of Nibiru, the correct meaning and interpretation of Elohim, the proper analysis and interpretation of the VA243 cylinder seal) and explains in very clear terms exactly why Sitchin's take on such things was misleading and plainly incorrect. Heiser explains the orthodox position and, importantly, cites his work—something Sitchin never properly did in his own books.

Sitchin was at best disingenuous. At worst, outright dishonest for the sake of personal monetary profit and notoriety. In other words, Sitchin was simply typical of the fringe authors who churn out endless books of no historical or scientific merit.

I like the first half of your post but i would still not agree with a few points you made.
Sitchin is not famous or embraced only fringe proponents though he might have spawned quite a few.
I am happy that you acknowledge that there is a lot of scope for the translator to use his own interpretation when trying to translate ancient scripts. After doing the translation he has to form a consensus amongst the monopoly club and there are more ways to build consensus other then merit.
Sitchin doesn't seem like a person just after money as there are many other ways to do it,nor do i feel that Sitchin's game plan ever was to invent stories and sell books.I don't think Sitchin ever was confident that so many people would buy his books when he first wrote them.As a proof to my statement i would like to point out that there are thousands of fringe proponents writing books,but not all are that famous.
I never exclude the chance of the majority being wrong and the minority being right (i don't discard the underdog).So even if a professional body does disagree with a translation doesn't mean it is wrong.I would not put down any alternative when the primary theory is based mostly on consensus and not empirical fact.
Your comments on Heiser and his work only strengthen my argument that his work and fame only come by denying and trying to disprove word meanings or interpretations used by Sitchin.Also Heiser doesn't need funds as his work is sponcered.

And again i would like to point out that Sitchin's version is not so bad,but the major beef people have with him is due to the fact that he claims it to be actual events and not just myths.


#917    TheSearcher

TheSearcher

    Coffee expert extraordinair

  • Member
  • 3,845 posts
  • Joined:16 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 21 March 2013 - 10:16 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 21 March 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

I like the first half of your post but i would still not agree with a few points you made.
Sitchin is not famous or embraced only fringe proponents though he might have spawned quite a few.
I am happy that you acknowledge that there is a lot of scope for the translator to use his own interpretation when trying to translate ancient scripts. After doing the translation he has to form a consensus amongst the monopoly club and there are more ways to build consensus other then merit.
Sitchin doesn't seem like a person just after money as there are many other ways to do it,nor do i feel that Sitchin's game plan ever was to invent stories and sell books.I don't think Sitchin ever was confident that so many people would buy his books when he first wrote them.As a proof to my statement i would like to point out that there are thousands of fringe proponents writing books,but not all are that famous.
I never exclude the chance of the majority being wrong and the minority being right (i don't discard the underdog).So even if a professional body does disagree with a translation doesn't mean it is wrong.I would not put down any alternative when the primary theory is based mostly on consensus and not empirical fact.
Your comments on Heiser and his work only strengthen my argument that his work and fame only come by denying and trying to disprove word meanings or interpretations used by Sitchin.Also Heiser doesn't need funds as his work is sponcered.

And again i would like to point out that Sitchin's version is not so bad,but the major beef people have with him is due to the fact that he claims it to be actual events and not just myths.

After that nice post of Kmt, you're still totally missing the point.

You think Heiser piggybacks off sitchin, even if 90 % of his professional work has nothing to do with Sitchin at all. As Kmt said, the site you keep fixating on was just a hobby, more than anything else. But ok, you have your opinion, fair enough.

Let me repost the important part of what Kmt said :

View Postkmt_sesh, on 20 March 2013 - 11:37 PM, said:

........snip.....
Sitchin did not really translate any of this stuff himself. He drew from the greater body of professional literature and invented his own meanings to suit his personal agenda. He comments on a wide variety of traditions and cultures and the textual material they left behind, so anyone who honestly believes that Sitchin possessed a working command of the numerous different languages expressed in cuneiform as well as ancient Egyptian, as well as Aramaic, and as well as Hebrew, has some definite problems with naiveté and gullibility. I cannot even think of a past or present professional scholar who could have or does possess a working knowledge of that many ancient languages and scripts. It's not realistic in the first place.
Some of the stuff Sitchin uses comes from Babylon, some from Akkad, and some even from Sumer. There are only a scant handful of places in the world where a student can learn Sumerian today, so it would be quite comical to assume that Sitchin somehow knew the ancient language, himself.
........snip.....
Sitchin was at best disingenuous. At worst, outright dishonest for the sake of personal monetary profit and notoriety. In other words, Sitchin was simply typical of the fringe authors who churn out endless books of no historical or scientific merit.

The major beef I personally have with whatever Sitchin has churned out, it the fact that he twists translations of others, gives it the "sitchin workover" and then passes it as his and as the only possible interpretation. That's what I and I imagine, quite a few others, have a problem with.
When push comes to shove, the entire theory that Sitchin has build, rests on the interpretations (because I refuse to call them translations as he didn't do any of it himself) of the tablets and texts. it's the starting point of everything and it all relates back to, it in some way or another.
If you knock those away, what's left? Ah yes,......nothing, that's what.

It is only the ignorant who despise education.
Publilius Syrus.

So god made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?!

#918    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:09 AM

View PostTheSearcher, on 21 March 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

After that nice post of Kmt, you're still totally missing the point.

You think Heiser piggybacks off sitchin, even if 90 % of his professional work has nothing to do with Sitchin at all. As Kmt said, the site you keep fixating on was just a hobby, more than anything else. But ok, you have your opinion, fair enough.

Let me repost the important part of what Kmt said :



The major beef I personally have with whatever Sitchin has churned out, it the fact that he twists translations of others, gives it the "sitchin workover" and then passes it as his and as the only possible interpretation. That's what I and I imagine, quite a few others, have a problem with.
When push comes to shove, the entire theory that Sitchin has build, rests on the interpretations (because I refuse to call them translations as he didn't do any of it himself) of the tablets and texts. it's the starting point of everything and it all relates back to, it in some way or another.
If you knock those away, what's left? Ah yes,......nothing, that's what.
Sitchin believes what he writes that surely doesn't show him in bad light. Many of his interpretations aim at explaining a few odd occurrences like 250 odd genes that are only found in Humans (where did they come from?),old gold mines in Africa, Possibility of artificial manipulations of genetic code,cultural similarities between apparently unrelated ancient civilizations etc.

But your method of discrediting Sitchin's work is very interesting since if you would apply the same yard stick to Einstein then even his ground breaking formulae of e=mc2 was based on work done by other scientists.(Einstein used to work in a patent office as a clerk where he had access to papers published by other physicists).


#919    Lava_Lady

Lava_Lady

    Official UM Asylum Resident

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hawai'i

  • Wha? /:0\

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:24 AM

Lost...

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."  - F. Scott Fitzgerald


#920    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,920 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 21 March 2013 - 12:21 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 21 March 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

Your comments on Heiser and his work only strengthen my argument that his work and fame only come by denying and trying to disprove word meanings or interpretations used by Sitchin.Also Heiser doesn't need funds as his work is sponcered.
You don't read people's posts, do you?

Heiser has a job.  With a private company.  He works for a living translating ancient manuscripts for publication - primarily things such a the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient Hebrew writings, though his job is not limited to Hebrew translations.

Heiser has no fame.  But you're right about Sitchin, he is not famous - he's infamous.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 21 March 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

And again i would like to point out that Sitchin's version is not so bad,but the major beef people have with him is due to the fact that he claims it to be actual events and not just myths.
An absurd suggestion, once you recognize that much of what Sitchin has claimed is nowhere to be found in any ancient writings.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#921    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 22 March 2013 - 10:53 AM

The link below contains a good refutation of Heiser's charges by Sitchin's webmaster:

http://rense.com/general28/eneph.htm

The response by Heiser:

http://www.sitchinis...eErikParker.htm



After you go through both the links,it is very obvious that Heiser is a bag of hot air with precious little to add to anyone's knowledge. Heiser's motives seem very clear once you go through this debate and which is also correctly noted by Sitchin's webmaster. Heiser attempts the age old fallacy of Ad Hominem and relies on his academic record as his major defence and scores self goals during the course of his refutations.

For all of you who hail Heiser as the nemesis of Sitchin please go through his lame duck refutations of Sitchin's claim. I lost all respect for Heiser after reading his refutations.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 22 March 2013 - 10:59 AM.


#922    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 22 March 2013 - 11:07 AM

More dope on Heiser.........he is affiliated with the Church of the Jesuits and is a Catholic.........lol the mystery just gets deeper.....why he would not wan't anyone to claim that the world is older then 6000 years old.

View PostHarte, on 21 March 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

You don't read people's posts, do you?

Heiser has a job.  With a private company.  He works for a living translating ancient manuscripts for publication - primarily things such a the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient Hebrew writings, though his job is not limited to Hebrew translations.

Heiser has no fame.  But you're right about Sitchin, he is not famous - he's infamous.


An absurd suggestion, once you recognize that much of what Sitchin has claimed is nowhere to be found in any ancient writings.

Harte

There are countless literary referances to the Anunnaki from books dated at the end of the 19th and early 20th century, generally referred to as being 'Great Gods', also 'high priests' and 'Belonging to the Earth'.
Without direct quoting I have provided a list of some of the books.

Babylonian Magic and Sorcery. L W King, 1896
The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol 1; Egypt and Babylonia. 1928
Materials for a Sumerian Lexicon. J D Prince, 1908
Publications of the Babylonian Section, Vol 10, No 2;
The religion of Babylonia and Assyria. M Jastrow, 1898
Some Sumerian-Babylonian Hymns of the Berlin Collection. M I Hussey, 1907
Sumerian Liturgical Texts. S Langdon, 1917


#923    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 22 March 2013 - 11:13 AM

"The more I learned of the Neanderthal, the more in disbelief I felt. Neanderthals predate humans by at least 200,000 years, and further, coexisted with humans for at least 50,000 years. Neanderthals look so much like us; it bothered me greatly to learn that we were not supposed to be descended from them, but homo-erectus instead.

To grasp with all this was difficult, but then I was supposed to go completely against the grain of common sense and make a jump of faith. That's right, Anthropology (the science)was asking me to believe something without being able to prove it.

They were asking me to take homo-erectus which for all entensive purposes looks like big foot and say he miraculously turned into modern man.

And here we have inserted that little devil the missing link, but, had not created because the missing link actually was a problem in the archeological data.

One common tree branch, Homo-Erectus is the foundation from which Neanderthals and Homo-Sapiens are to have sprouted independently from one another. Ninety plus percent of scientists are of the opinion that Homo-Sapiens evolved from Homo-Erectus in the same manner that Neanderthals did, but the problem with all this; there is no gradual change from Homo-Erectus into Homo-Sapien, no gradual mutation from Homo-Erectus into Homo-Sapien.

Just one day, we have a very monkey looking up right walking handsome chimpanzee and the next day we have basically us, which is Cro-Magnum man. Then we have the successful proliferation of these Cro-Magnum men all over the earth, and in record speed, we outflank our predecessor and co-evolved sister race the Neanderthal, and co-exist with them in France and the Middle-East for at least 50,000 years, and then poof, no more Neanderthal.

Zecharia Sitchen's Sumerian creation myth instantly seemed more plausible, and it at least deserved a little looking into. As of now, there is no missing link and, until one is found, maybe the data is all wrong. The missing link may never be found, because there may have been a sudden jump. The Anunnaki would have used a Neanderthal for the hybrid project in which their own genes were introduced to form Cro-Magnum men, Homo Sapiens.

I know it is all a bit overwhelming, but, there you go."


The above is a comment i read in another blog  today and it very precisely demonstrates my own doubts of evolution and how Sitchin tried to explain the 250 odd genes that are specific to only humans even before the hunman genome project in which these 250 human specific genes were discovered.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 22 March 2013 - 11:18 AM.


#924    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,098 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 22 March 2013 - 11:32 AM

I think you are forgetting about these two:

http://en.wikipedia....i/Homo_ergaster

http://en.wikipedia....heidelbergensis


#925    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,436 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 22 March 2013 - 01:58 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 22 March 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:


Particularly the latter and he's not got a handle on the timeframe involved either.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#926    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,920 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 22 March 2013 - 02:20 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 22 March 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

More dope on Heiser.........he is affiliated with the Church of the Jesuits and is a Catholic.........lol the mystery just gets deeper.....why he would not wan't anyone to claim that the world is older then 6000 years old.
You are a bigot, then.

Heiser is not a young earth creationist.  He's not a creationist at all, in fact.

Funny how you deride people who don't read much of Sitchin before they realize he's lying, while making idiotic claims about an actual academic scholar without even trying making the least attempt to find out if there is even a kernel of truth in your slander.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 22 March 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

There are countless literary referances to the Anunnaki from books dated at the end of the 19th and early 20th century, generally referred to as being 'Great Gods', also 'high priests' and 'Belonging to the Earth'.
Without direct quoting I have provided a list of some of the books.

Babylonian Magic and Sorcery. L W King, 1896
The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol 1; Egypt and Babylonia. 1928
Materials for a Sumerian Lexicon. J D Prince, 1908
Publications of the Babylonian Section, Vol 10, No 2;
The religion of Babylonia and Assyria. M Jastrow, 1898
Some Sumerian-Babylonian Hymns of the Berlin Collection. M I Hussey, 1907
Sumerian Liturgical Texts. S Langdon, 1917

What's your point here?  Nobody has claimed that Sitchin invented the Anunnaki (a Babylonian term, btw, and not used in Sumer.)

What has been stated, and is certainly factual, is that Sitchin invented exploits of the Anunnaki, including ridiculous things like genetic engineering, multi-stage interplanetary rockets, etc.  In addition, the entire thing about gold was his invention and is not mentioned in any ancient text.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#927    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,459 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 22 March 2013 - 06:45 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 22 March 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

The link below contains a good refutation of Heiser's charges by Sitchin's webmaster:

http://rense.com/general28/eneph.htm

The response by Heiser:

http://www.sitchinis...eErikParker.htm



After you go through both the links,it is very obvious that Heiser is a bag of hot air with precious little to add to anyone's knowledge. Heiser's motives seem very clear once you go through this debate and which is also correctly noted by Sitchin's webmaster. Heiser attempts the age old fallacy of Ad Hominem and relies on his academic record as his major defence and scores self goals during the course of his refutations.

For all of you who hail Heiser as the nemesis of Sitchin please go through his lame duck refutations of Sitchin's claim. I lost all respect for Heiser after reading his refutations.

At best this is...decidedly odd. You're taking the side of a website guy who is only parroting the same mistakes Sitchin wrote years ago. Repeating the same mistakes does not make the mistakes correct. They remain as mistakes.

Neither Sitchin nor—definitely—his website guy possesses the training and acumen to understand the grammar and syntax of the ancient Hebrew. This is what's at play, and Heiser's summaries explain it perfectly well. Moreover, one must consider that the Hebrews diverged from their Canaanite kin and developed their culture from the original polytheistic Canaanite traditions, which would've had a direct effect on the language and culture of ancient Hebrew.

I suggest you return to Heiser's web page and more carefully read the sections on Elohim and Nephilim. You seem to have missed a lot in the process. Do not take the side of obvious mistakes when a trained and experienced linguist can show their faults with such concise ease.

Besides which, you must bear in mind that in taking Sitchin's side, you're advocating that ancient aliens did all of this. You don't really wish to choose this side, do you? It not only lacks common sense and critical thinking, it reflects a lack of mental health. I've always felt that if Sitchin truly did believe the stuff he wrote, he was not really playing with a full deck. That much is obvious.

Lastly, Heiser's religion is irrelevant to his body of professional work. I was raised Roman Catholic myself, and this has nothing to do with how I research and underatand the ancient Near East—especially when nearly all of the time periods I prefer to research took place long before Christianity existed, and most even before Judaism. Tossing out bigoted quips serves only to diminish your credibility, especially in light of the fact that you didn't mention Sitchin's religion (whatever it may have been).

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 22 March 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

"The more I learned of the Neanderthal, the more in disbelief I felt. Neanderthals predate humans by at least 200,000 years, and further, coexisted with humans for at least 50,000 years. Neanderthals look so much like us; it bothered me greatly to learn that we were not supposed to be descended from them, but homo-erectus instead.

To grasp with all this was difficult, but then I was supposed to go completely against the grain of common sense and make a jump of faith. That's right, Anthropology (the science)was asking me to believe something without being able to prove it.

They were asking me to take homo-erectus which for all entensive purposes looks like big foot and say he miraculously turned into modern man.

And here we have inserted that little devil the missing link, but, had not created because the missing link actually was a problem in the archeological data.

One common tree branch, Homo-Erectus is the foundation from which Neanderthals and Homo-Sapiens are to have sprouted independently from one another. Ninety plus percent of scientists are of the opinion that Homo-Sapiens evolved from Homo-Erectus in the same manner that Neanderthals did, but the problem with all this; there is no gradual change from Homo-Erectus into Homo-Sapien, no gradual mutation from Homo-Erectus into Homo-Sapien.

Just one day, we have a very monkey looking up right walking handsome chimpanzee and the next day we have basically us, which is Cro-Magnum man. Then we have the successful proliferation of these Cro-Magnum men all over the earth, and in record speed, we outflank our predecessor and co-evolved sister race the Neanderthal, and co-exist with them in France and the Middle-East for at least 50,000 years, and then poof, no more Neanderthal.

Zecharia Sitchen's Sumerian creation myth instantly seemed more plausible, and it at least deserved a little looking into. As of now, there is no missing link and, until one is found, maybe the data is all wrong. The missing link may never be found, because there may have been a sudden jump. The Anunnaki would have used a Neanderthal for the hybrid project in which their own genes were introduced to form Cro-Magnum men, Homo Sapiens.

I know it is all a bit overwhelming, but, there you go."


The above is a comment i read in another blog  today and it very precisely demonstrates my own doubts of evolution and how Sitchin tried to explain the 250 odd genes that are specific to only humans even before the hunman genome project in which these 250 human specific genes were discovered.

You cannot gain a working understanding of the evolution of the Homo genus from the comic-book mentality of creationists. Much of what you wrote above shows your lack of understanding of the scientific theory of the evolution of Homo sapiens. For example, the term Cro-Magnum is somewhat misleading. You correctly identified the fact that Cro-Magnums were anatomically modern humans, but that specific term arrives from a Euro-centric archaeological view. Homo sapiens proliferated all over the world.

Neanderthals hardly disappeared overnight. It was a protracted and gradual diminishing of their species. There is evidence to suggest pockets of Neanderthals remained in Iberia a long time after Neanderthals disappeared elsewhere. But why they disappeared is not a mystery, really. The Upper Paleolithic Transition made it more or less a certainty, once modern humans came on the scene. The most important factor is cognition: modern humans were better equipped cognitively to produce superior tools, hunting techniques, and societal frameworks. This is obvious in the archaeological record, from tool kits to graves. Neanderthals produced very little of any of this, aside from apparent attempts at copying aspects of the Aurignacian culture toward the end of the transitional period.

Sitchin's "myths" seems more plausible? Really? In what universe? Again, critical thinking and common sense.

Edited by kmt_sesh, 22 March 2013 - 06:49 PM.
Additional point.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#928    HollyDolly

HollyDolly

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
  • Joined:02 Aug 2006

Posted 22 March 2013 - 07:31 PM

View PostMesobaite, on 30 January 2007 - 09:54 PM, said:

I was doing a google search for a connection with Jesus Christ/Yahushua and the Annunaki and I stumbled on this thread.

Its amazing to me also MichaelB that I too have come to this conclusion without any prior provocation by any other means other than a devout quest for the truth. I see now from this thread that this is most likely the truth of the matter.

It has always amazed me how most of us accept the mythology of the Hebrews and denounce all others. And now to know - from this thread - that the original Hebrew - Abraham - came from Sumeria is mind boggling to me..... THE TRUTH IS COMIN OUT PIECE BY PIECE.

Also, Sumeria was in Iraq....I find it very suspicious that the US Government insists on retaining military power there. Remeber when Sadam Hussien said of the first gulf war with Bush senior that "...this is the mother of all wars..."? That statement gave me the chills when I heard him say that on CNN in the early 90s! What in the heck was he talking about? He may be gone now (though I suspect that was not him they hung the other day) but what did he mean by that? I'm inclined to believe two things: 1) he did have weapons of mass destruction (perhaps throught the stargates purported to be there) and 2) that that war was the mother of all wars to come.

Are the Annunaki coming back to reclaim there rightfull property - MANKIND?

I recall when the first Gulf War with Bush Senior was busy playing out on tv and my dad said they should have gotten rid of Saddam when they had the chance. Dummy me never asked why he said that.I'm sure he knew more than he was saying  having worked at NSA for the Airforce and being very knowledgeable about politics and history including that part of the world.Saddam may have had weapons of mass destruction which my dad was aware of or felt that he had them.
He also once mentioned Iran and nukes back before he died in 1996. As far as Saddam saying it was the Mother of all wars. All you have to do is look at what is going on in the Middle East to day. It's a powderkeg waiting to blow. That was another thing my dad said,that if World War Three starts,it will start in the Middle East.
They got rid of Quadfahi in Libiya and looked what happend with Ben Gazhi .Now they are trying to oust the head of Syria You have the Isreali -Palestinian thing going on. It's not getting better there but worse.
I assume the Annunki refer to the "Sons of God mentioned in the bible in Genisis.How they came down from heaven and mated with the daughters of men.
Is it possible,perhasp.They were the ones who taught mankind how to make tools,grow grain and vegetables for food, make clothing  etc.
There is so much we don't know about early man and how he came to build the pyramids,the Temple at Balbeckand other great mysteries of the earth.
I'm reading a book can't think of the title right now,which puts out the theory that pershap Christ studied in Alexandria in Eygpt,as the authors claim there are some simliarities between eygptian religion and christianity. maybe  since we really aren't sure what Jesus was doing before he burst onto the scene in the New Testament.
Main stream historians never seem to want to look in other directions. I myself haven't read any of Stichens books But I do believe Jesus was who he said he was.


#929    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    Lector Historiae

  • Member
  • 8,787 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 22 March 2013 - 11:39 PM

View PostHarte, on 22 March 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

What's your point here?

His point is that he's reduced to using cheap Victorian penny-dreadfuls as source of the information he wants because he can't find it in any source approaching legitimacy. I hope he at least gets a nice cup of Bovril for slogging through all that terrible literature.

--Jaylemurph

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#930    Everdred

Everdred

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 192 posts
  • Joined:10 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 March 2013 - 12:24 AM

View Postjaylemurph, on 22 March 2013 - 11:39 PM, said:

His point is that he's reduced to using cheap Victorian penny-dreadfuls as source of the information he wants because he can't find it in any source approaching legitimacy. I hope he at least gets a nice cup of Bovril for slogging through all that terrible literature.

--Jaylemurph

I eagerly await his next thread, "Varney the Vampire: blood-sucking demon or Alien scientist collecting blood samples for study?"





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users