[Mabon]

Hello everyone.

I've read Sitchens' books and found them to be very interesting. Although all of his theories don't fit with current mainstream scientific understanding I do feel that he had a very fresh look at the role that the Gods/Goddesses played and an interesting interpretation of ancient myth/histories. While I don't feel that his entire body of work is always correct there is enough food for thought to look at the old myth/histories with a fresh eye.

We are taught to read/see/expect certain symbols from stories/paintings. If can somehow extract from our thoughts what we have been told to expect and actually examine what is presented without bias sometimes what we find can be very different from what we've been told to expect.

Warm regards, Mabon.

[jaylemurph]

Quote

Hello everyone.

I've read Sitchens' books and found them to be very interesting. Although all of his theories don't fit with current mainstream scientific understanding I do feel that he had a very fresh look at the role that the Gods/Goddesses played and an interesting interpretation of ancient myth/histories. While I don't feel that his entire body of work is always correct there is enough food for thought to look at the old myth/histories with a fresh eye.

We are taught to read/see/expect certain symbols from stories/paintings. If can somehow extract from our thoughts what we have been told to expect and actually examine what is presented without bias sometimes what we find can be very different from what we've been told to expect.

Warm regards, Mabon.

Yes, but if you're excited about his fresh, new look at his stories, doesn't it bother you he's been caught actively mistranslating languages to get those stories?

--Jaylemurph

[rezna]

Ok, I want some proof that he deliberately lied about translations. If that's true, then his books are totally wack. I have read his books/am still reading his books. I like reading them for the story they tell. It's just fun to think about. The thing that really bothers me about this board is something someone said on the first page:
"On the other hand science is becoming like the Church in the middle ages. Anything that is not in accordance with the scientists [or church as the case may be] is labeled wrong and blasphemic." (I fixed the grammar a little)
That is the most accurate statement I've heard on this board lately. Except the grammar, lol. It pisses me off that people are so skeptical to things that even we are postulating. Our ideas of the universe and what is in it comes from theories. Who's to say that one theory is more acurate than another? We have only explored our own little galaxy. Is it extremely presumptuous to say that we know about everything in the universe? I think it is!!! We have no idea! Were just this little ball of an example. How do we know that there arent bigger planets out there with life on them? Now don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that Sitchin is telling us the truth and his books should be the new science books on the shelves. No way. But what I am trying to say is that the human race thinks it knows everything. We are a mere blip on the radar as big as our entire universe, how is it that we can presume we know everything about everything already? And the reason I say that is because our astronomical "science" which is based on observations and theories is somehow able to dismiss the theories that Sitchin has. That's retarded if you ask me. A theory shouldnt be able to debunk another theory.

This post has been edited by rezna: 14 March 2007 - 06:03 PM

[jaylemurph]

Okay --

Here's a link that refutes the Babylonian/Sumerian names he calls planets in our solar system (what he calls them versus what everyone else does): http://www.ramtops.co.uk/siren.html;

Another one, here: http://www.ianlawton.com/mes6c.htm , challenges his translation of the word 'shem'. Everyone else translates it as 'name'. Sitchin translates it as something like 'rocketship'.

The good person at Sitchiniswrong.com offers many such examples... here's one about his use of the term nephilim: http://www.sitchinis...rs.htm#nephilim .


--Jaylemurph


PS: About theories -- We do have both direct and indirect evidence that supports our astronomical theories; nothing holds up what Sitchin proposes other than people's wanting it to be true.

This post has been edited by jaylemurph: 14 March 2007 - 06:39 PM

[Mabon]

Quote

Yes, but if you're excited about his fresh, new look at his stories, doesn't it bother you he's been caught actively mistranslating languages to get those stories?

--Jaylemurph

I guess I might if I couldn't think for myself and couldn't make up my own mind. If I doubt a passages translation I look at other sources, sometimes several sources and draw my own conclusions. I'm not obliged nor inclined to believe one person's opinion without checking their facts, work or theories. Even if he mistranslated through honest error or intent it still was a valid read for me because it was different and made me question the accepted translations.

Warm regards, Mabon.

[Harte]

Quote

Sitchen and the Sumerians actually state that is a dwarf planet I personally belive and support this theory as when you read a lot of what he has to saya nd what the ancients say it just adds up to me and I believe that there is enough facts to support it...

Problem is, the "ancients" don't say anything that resembles in the least what Sitchen claims.

Quote

...unlike religion(no offence) that goes off what people who can heal say and then everyone take it as though they are people who have been put here by god(in most cases)...I just think there is good hard facts to support his theory but thanks for you guys opinions on this and why because it gives a different out look to it and gives both sides of views

I agree about these people that could supposedly heal. But, at least the Bible actually says what the Church claims it says, though it's true that they were the ones that put the Bible together in the first place!

Quote

I just thought I would also add that another reason why I agree with what he has said that the sumerians have said is because they talk of a giant alien race who were humanoid and today scientists and archaeologists are finding giant skeletons so how could these people have known otherwise and there is must more evidence today to suggest it is all factual

No giant skeletons have been found anywhere. There's just nothing at all to suggest that even the smallest portion of what Sitchen says is correct. "Annunaki" is not even a Sumerian word. IOW, the Sumerians never mention the Annunaki, nor do the Akkadians that came immediately after them.

Quote

Ok, I want some proof that he deliberately lied about translations. If that's true, then his books are totally wack. I have read his books/am still reading his books. I like reading them for the story they tell. It's just fun to think about. The thing that really bothers me about this board is something someone said on the first page:
"On the other hand science is becoming like the Church in the middle ages. Anything that is not in accordance with the scientists [or church as the case may be] is labeled wrong and blasphemic." (I fixed the grammar a little)
That is the most accurate statement I've heard on this board lately.

That's pretty funny, considering that the last time I was at Sitchen's website (I don't go there often!), he had an article posted there about an interview he'd done with some Catholic Archbishop, who congratulated Sitchen on the correctness of his theories.
When you read or hear someone saying something like what you quoted, about scientists hiding or ignoring the supposed "truth" merely because it doesn't fit in with their "worldview," you should shift your wallet to your front pocket and look like you know where you're going because you about to be robbed.

Quote

It pisses me off that people are so skeptical to things that even we are postulating.

Yeah? Well I'm still pissed off at VonDaniken for making me feel like such an idiot, and I certainly don't think or claim that I "know everything." I do, however, claim that I know VonDaniken, Sitchen and the rest are full of it.

How do we know that there arent bigger planets out there with life on them?

No scientist on Earth assumes that there is no life "out there," regardless of planet size.

../ And the reason I say that is because our astronomical "science" which is based on observations and theories is somehow able to dismiss the theories that Sitchin has. That's retarded if you ask me. A theory shouldnt be able to debunk another theory.

Sitchen's ideas about the orbit of Niburu aren't nearly exact enough for them to be completely dismissed by the laws of orbital mechanics. But he claims to base his ideas on ancient cuneiform writing. It's easy enough to verify this, try the Sacred-Texts.com website. Most of Sitchen's crap comes from the Enuma Elish. You can find it there and read it yourself.

Harte

[MareikuraOAroha]

Well after reading everyones opinions I still support this theory and there have actually been giant skeletons that have been dug up go search about it(which they could be the hominid aliens- Nephilim) Also, don't forget that the people who added their bits into the bible n things like that and all the things inside the bible which are meant to be "true"(and in other things such as the quran-if thats how its spelt) get taken soooo seriously today as if it all did happen and yet nobody believes what the Sumerians and other ancient civilisations said happened back then after writting(in their own ways) what they saw happen. So why believe one and not the other when we didnt see Jesus and other prophets who believe they spoke to these "angels" who came down to earth from heaven so why do we believe them and not the ancients who say how human life was created? I just think its a little stupid how people believe how the world was created n things like that from what the bible and other scriptures say and we just dismiss what the ancients had to say about the creation of life aswell why is this? Is it because one was more recent than the other? whose to say that for example in another 1000 years no one believes what is put in the bible? Just like how people on here totally dismiss what the Ancients say about the Anunnaki and how they mixed their DNA with ours to take us from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens. I hope those of you who think Sitchens theory is stupid can understand the points I am trying to make or maybe I am not wording it right or correctly saying what I am meaning to say. It is interesting though to see what all of you think about this and I agree with Rezna that another theory shouldnt be able to debunk another.

But to sum it all up basically what I am trying to say is that you have these ancients who have written in their heiragliphics about how they saw "gods"-which can be interpreted as angels as the sumerians depict them with wings even before the bible and other such things were written and even before people thought about "angels with wings" and they also have written about how they were told the creation of humans came to be yet no one believes them and then on the flipside you get these written scriptures today such as the bible which people follow yet they are just the same as the Sumerians Jesus believes he saw the angels and all the rest of the hoohaa and whoever wrote it writes all this stuff down and now people follow it I just don't understand it so can someone help me understand why this is. I am not trying to say that no one should believe in what the bible teaches n things like that but c'mon the Sumerians talked of a flood and all the rest of it and then all of a sudden this book called the bible comes out and talks of basically the same things that they say but twist it a little it seems like they kinda rip them off!

As for the planet Nibiru itself, I have read a lot about it and some sites say it is a dwarf planet and some say it is a giant planet so I am torn between that and also we cannot forget how scientists are actually saying that they believe that there is a planet out there with a huge gravitational pull as something is tugging on the likes of Uranis and things like that. There is so much more but I must go now

[MareikuraOAroha]

And if people want to say how Sitchen can not read or translate properly what the Sumerians say well what is in the bible may not be true completely either as it got changed from Hebrew to English and when you change languages the words and sentences change and it can be interpreted differently and not only that but the bible has been written so many times and people add in their bits so if someone wants to say that it is more legitimate than what sitchen says he translates you need to think about this first

[Razer]

Quote

And if people want to say how Sitchen can not read or translate properly what the Sumerians say well what is in the bible may not be true completely either as it got changed from Hebrew to English and when you change languages the words and sentences change and it can be interpreted differently and not only that but the bible has been written so many times and people add in their bits so if someone wants to say that it is more legitimate than what sitchen says he translates you need to think about this first

I don't really see the relation to Scholars translating the bible and Sitchen, but thats just me.

[itsnotoutthere]

It all sounds very similar to the garbage Von Daniken was coming out with in the 70s, & he's been totally discredited. so i don't see why anyone would fall for this fairytale, unless of course
we're more gullible now than we were then, which is possible considering the nose dive in educational standards in the last 30 years.

[REBEL]

I've searched high & low to try to locate anything @ all that discredits ALL of Von Daniken's theories/work and Stichin's for that matter.
Maybe i'm just looking in all the wrong places.
If anyone can provide links/evidence that proves Sitchin & Von Daniken were loonies, i'l like to see it.

caio.

[MareikuraOAroha]

Sitchen is not a loonie he just merely translates what the Sumerians said that's all so really those who believe this is stupid are really calling those ancient civilisations loonies lol and besides where ever there is a belief or something that people say someone else will always find something wrong with it

[Emma_Acid]

Quote

Well after reading everyones opinions I still support this theory and there have actually been giant skeletons that have been dug up go search about it(which they could be the hominid aliens- Nephilim).

As for the planet Nibiru itself, I have read a lot about it and some sites say it is a dwarf planet and some say it is a giant planet so I am torn between that and also we cannot forget how scientists are actually saying that they believe that there is a planet out there with a huge gravitational pull as something is tugging on the likes of Uranis and things like that. There is so much more but I must go now

Giant skeletons have never been dug up. Where are your references and proof?

And the Planet X theory is pure nonsense:

1. An orbit that is that eliptical would eventually even itself out and become more or less even
2. We would be able to detect a planet by its gravitation pull - we never have
3. The planet would be beyond Pluto, and utterly unable to support life

Never mind this ancient astronauts crap; these are FACTS.

[Emma_Acid]

Quote

Sitchen is not a loonie he just merely translates what the Sumerians said that's all so really those who believe this is stupid are really calling those ancient civilisations loonies lol and besides where ever there is a belief or something that people say someone else will always find something wrong with it

Haven't you taken in a single thing people have written here?

Read this: http://www.sitchinis...tchinerrors.htm

This guy is working on his phd in ancient hebrew. I think he knows what he's talking about. And unless someone on this board knows more about it than him, I think this argument is over.

[Dixiepixie]

I think it's pretty arogant to say the argument is over. There are many ancient civilizations that do support the theory of ancient astronuats..too many in fact to just completely dimiss it. Sitchen may be a bit on the fringe...but his thoeries have NOT been disproved.