Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

sitchin is right


Recommended Posts

As far as I can make out, what Sitchin has said, is that HE believes what he has written to be true to the best of his research and studying.

Author's Note from Book I of the Earth Chronicles:

The prime source for the biblical verses quoted in The Twelfth Planet is the old Testament in its original Hebrew text. It must be borne in mind that all of the translations consulted-of which the principal ones are listed at the end of the book-are just that: translations or interpretations. In the final analysis, what counts is what the original Hebrew says. In the final version quoted in The Twelfth Planet I have compared the available translations against each other and against the Hebrew source and the parallel Sumerian and Akkadian texts/tales, to come up with what I believe is the most accurate rendering.The rendering of sumerian, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Hittite texts has engaged a legion of scholars for more than a century. Decipherment of script and language was followed by transcribing, transliterating, and finally, translating. In many instances, it was possible to choose between differing translations or interpretations only by verifying other instances, a late insight by a comtemporary scholar could throw new light on an early translation. The list of sources for Near Eastern texts, given at the end of this book, thus ranges from the oldest to the newest, and is followed by the scholarly publications in which valuable contributions to the understanding of the texts were found. Z. Sitchin

Doesn't sound to me like he's a crook. He spent years and years studying to come to his conclusions, which he has every right to do. It was a lot of work and he states right there in the Author's Note that he researched all the translations and interpretations. I don't get where people are saying he has claimed to be the only one who can interpret the writings. He has clearly stated he has studied ALL previous and some modern works.

I think therefore, that it is libellous to call him a crook and what's more, perhaps you should check out a person's work before you belittle him. Perhaps when you have invested as much time and energy into studying something and then writing about it, you will have earned the right to demean someone elses hard efforts.

I have done plenty of real research and work to with real science. So then can I demean his efforts because what he has done is make it up in my opinion. He doesn't even understand the language he is translating and know one agrees with him in the field because he is just wrong. He is no better than Von Daniken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • questionmark

    25

  • tomt

    22

  • kmt_sesh

    12

  • Grams

    11

Thirty years from now, tell us you have done plenty of research. As far as I know, he was schooled in ancient Hebrew and I'm sure there are other scholars who will disagree with interpretations by other scholars. He states in his Author's Note that he has studied interpretations and made comparisons. Therefore, there is more than one interpretation for a comparison to be made. So it's not JUST his interpretation. Whether he can read a language himself or not is irrelevant. It's the interpretations of others that he is comparing. There is always controversy over the ancient languages because they're no longer spoken so one cannot get a full grasp of the intent of meaning. In the end, it is up to the scholar to make the most suitable choice according to what he has been taught and what he has found to be the deductions of other learned scholars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thirty years from now, tell us you have done plenty of research. As far as I know, he was schooled in ancient Hebrew and I'm sure there are other scholars who will disagree with interpretations by other scholars. He states in his Author's Note that he has studied interpretations and made comparisons. Therefore, there is more than one interpretation for a comparison to be made. So it's not JUST his interpretation. Whether he can read a language himself or not is irrelevant. It's the interpretations of others that he is comparing. There is always controversy over the ancient languages because they're no longer spoken so one cannot get a full grasp of the intent of meaning. In the end, it is up to the scholar to make the most suitable choice according to what he has been taught and what he has found to be the deductions of other learned scholars.

He is not a scholar and the research I have done so far is far more worthwhile that Sitchen's nonsense. Why do you think he is considered a joke?

He is a journalist with a degree in Economic History.

He can state what he likes he is a joke because his claims are demonstrably false and while he knows a bit of Hebrew, he doesn't know cuneiform and his interpretations are born out of ignorance in a subject he knows nothing about.

He is a crook, if he isn't then he is an idiot. Either way there is nothing to back up his claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thirty years from now, tell us you have done plenty of research. As far as I know, he was schooled in ancient Hebrew and I'm sure there are other scholars who will disagree with interpretations by other scholars. He states in his Author's Note that he has studied interpretations and made comparisons. Therefore, there is more than one interpretation for a comparison to be made. So it's not JUST his interpretation. Whether he can read a language himself or not is irrelevant. It's the interpretations of others that he is comparing. There is always controversy over the ancient languages because they're no longer spoken so one cannot get a full grasp of the intent of meaning. In the end, it is up to the scholar to make the most suitable choice according to what he has been taught and what he has found to be the deductions of other learned scholars.

There are not many disagreements about written language, if it seez: All who believe in Niburu are idiots, that is what it seez.... no interpreting.

Now to the interpretation, well as it does not say, you can qualify the idiocy as congenital, pathological or acquired.... if you have the corresponding pieces of evidence.

If a tablet has known words, such as: "The Magi read the fortune to the king from the stars" (including a picture of wise guys pointing to seven stars), then that is what it seez, and not "Wise men told the king the legend of the people from another star".

How do we know these words? from all other translations, starting with the Epic of Gilgamesh to the Codice Hammurabi. Not to mention thousands of other tablets...where according to Sitchin it should not say: "Received from Attii'kusu 20 sheep on the second day of spring to be paid in the winter" but, "The Nibblers came in the spring and will return in winter".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my point. OTHER Translators. When I first started looking into the location of Atlantis, I did not know there was more than one translation. When I found out, I had a peek at all of them oh boy did it confuse everything. They said the same thing more or less in "general" but in the details, big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my point. OTHER Translators. When I first started looking into the location of Atlantis, I did not know there was more than one translation. When I found out, I had a peek at all of them oh boy did it confuse everything. They said the same thing more or less in "general" but in the details, big difference.

A horoscope (better: Horroscope) does still not miraculously convert in the tale of Niburu....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my point. OTHER Translators. When I first started looking into the location of Atlantis, I did not know there was more than one translation. When I found out, I had a peek at all of them oh boy did it confuse everything. They said the same thing more or less in "general" but in the details, big difference.

It's a good point, but it doesn't support Sitchin--who has no real background or training in what he is doing. I've studied ancient Egyptian for over ten years now, and while I'm certainly not an expert, I do pretty well in most cases. To check my work I refer to translations performed by the professionals. No two translations are exactly the same because they're subject to the training, preferences, and styles of the individual translator. Still, in the end, if the translation is performed correctly, it expresses the same basic thing.

Linguists might argue over, say, the verb class the original scribe meant to use, or some other fussy point of grammar, but that will not change the overall meaning of the translation. I as an amateur historian know I'm on the right track when what I translate says basically the same thing as something prepared by a professional. As a fringe theorist Sitchin, on the other hand, achieves wildly different results. These results suit his own, personal hypotheses but do not mesh with the vast majority of scholarship, which by itself reveals in no uncertain terms that Sitchin is wrong.

Perhaps I'm misreading the above quote provided by you, Qoais, wherein Stichin writes of "Sumerian, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Hittite texts," but he seems to be hinting at the notion that he can work with all of these ancient languages. That's preposterous, of course. I'm hoping that's not what he's trying to claim because I do not believe it to be possible. I know some of the staff at the Oriental Institute, which number some truly gifted and brilliant scholars, and I know they would laugh at the idea, too. Sumerian itself is a hurdle that's exceedingly difficult to overcome. You simply cannot sidestep the necessity of many years of professional schooling and guidance to master these scripts of Mesopotamia and Anatolia.

Sitchin has undergone no such training. I don't know that I'd outright say that he's lying, but it seems certain he looks at the cuneiform and sees what he wants to see. What's almost certainly true, in fact, is that he studies the translations of professional scholars, and twists them to suit his agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sitchin -

In many instances, it was possible to choose between differing translations or interpretations only by verifying other instances,

in The Twelfth Planet I have compared the available translations against each other and against the Hebrew source

He states right there that he's choosing between translations. Just like I had to choose between translations for Plato.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sitchin -

He states right there that he's choosing between translations. Just like I had to choose between translations for Plato.

Except his claims bare are vastly different to any source. But you'll just skip that point because that would require effort.

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right Mattshark I'll just skip that point because it's too much effort. Feel better now? Just like it takes too much effort for you to try to figure out what other people are saying. I personally, understand Sitchin to be saying that he is studying the interpretations, has done some research on his own, and has written some books on what he believes to be the right prognosis from all his work. He didn't say you had to believe as he does. It's his theory and he can write it down in book form and sell it if he wants.

Edited by Qoais
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sitchin has undergone no such training. I don't know that I'd outright say that he's lying, but it seems certain he looks at the cuneiform and sees what he wants to see. What's almost certainly true, in fact, is that he studies the translations of professional scholars, and twists them to suit his agenda.

I would doubt that anybody could come to Zecheria's conclusions by study or accident.... he either makes it up as he goes, knowing the fact that most readers would not be able to tell him otherwise, or he is capable of reading any of the above languages and purposely transmits what it does not say.

I remember how happy I was to find the part on the Elam stela in the Louvre that had the matrimony laws... after years of studying the script (never mind attempting to translate it). Or how happy I was (mostly) understanding the first tablet of the Gilgamesh epic in the standard edition. And without wanting to brag, I have a talent for languages (as proven by the fact that I can converse in almost a dozen modern and two "defunct" languages---where the almost refers to the four in which I really perform poorly).

I am by no means an expert, but if even I notice that the "so called interpretation" of Mr. Sitchin has absolutely nothing to do with the actual content of a tablet then it is a little more than far-fetched.

My conclusion is, he either knows what he is talking about and lies or he believes what he is saying and should be taking his medicine against delusions. In any case, nothing to be taken seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember how happy I was to find the part on the Elam stela in the Louvre that had the matrimony laws... after years of studying the script (never mind attempting to translate it). Or how happy I was (mostly) understanding the first tablet of the Gilgamesh epic in the standard edition. And without wanting to brag, I have a talent for languages (as proven by the fact that I can converse in almost a dozen modern and two "defunct" languages---where the almost refers to the four in which I really perform poorly).

If what you say about your abilities and intelligence is correct.

Why the "hell" do you hang around and post in this forum, are you sick? what is your problem? can you not put your talents to a better use.

Dan Dare

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If what you say about your abilities and intelligence is correct.

Why the "hell" do you hang around and post in this forum, are you sick? what is your problem? can you not put your talents to a better use.

Dan Dare

Like what?

I am a bee keeper on a remote island...got nothing better to do....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like what?

I am a bee keeper on a remote island...got nothing better to do....

lol man how did you end up with that job, just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol man how did you end up with that job, just curious.

The bees were a hobby(had a hive since I was 13--- picked it up because I loooove honey), last year I quit my real "job" at a publishing company and since then I just keep bees. I live on a rock in the Aegean because it is one of the few places in the world I can actually relax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I am by no means an expert, but if even I notice that the "so called interpretation" of Mr. Sitchin has absolutely nothing to do with the actual content of a tablet then it is a little more than far-fetched.

My conclusion is, he either knows what he is talking about and lies or he believes what he is saying and should be taking his medicine against delusions. In any case, nothing to be taken seriously.

That is exactly what I'm talking about. If 100 talented amateur linguists or professional historians can study an inscription, transliterate it, translate it, and all arrive at roughly the same interpretation, then you know the precepts of the discipline are reliable and can be used from text to text. That is the essence of the scientific method--arriving at results that can be reproduced independently by other researchers.

It's no wonder Sitchin isn't taken seriously. He might write popular literature that's gobbled up by people who simply don't know better, but he's not a legitimate historian in any manner. When you twist results to suit your purpose, you're not conducting historical research, you're creating science fiction. Good for the pocket book of the person who writes the stuff, but useless to our overall understanding of ancient history.

I am a bee keeper on a remote island...got nothing better to do....

Ah, now that sounds tranquil. I can understand how it might get boring from time to time, however. The thing you must beware of, questionmark, is when the bees start talking to you...and you talk back. Then it might be time to move. :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, now that sounds tranquil. I can understand how it might get boring from time to time, however. The thing you must beware of, questionmark, is when the bees start talking to you...and you talk back. Then it might be time to move. :w00t:

Hmmm...so far I have failed to tell 'em anything...but I know their "dance language" well enough to roughly know what they are telling each other... does that mean I have a problem? :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm...so far I have failed to tell 'em anything...but I know their "dance language" well enough to roughly know what they are telling each other... does that mean I have a problem? :wacko:

No, I think you're still safe. You've just been able to interpret their dancing. It's only when you think you hear them talking to you that you have to be worried.

You know, stuff like "Hey, buddy, keep your hands off our honey" or "Have you bought the latest Sitchin book yet?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm...so far I have failed to tell 'em anything...but I know their "dance language" well enough to roughly know what they are telling each other... does that mean I have a problem? :wacko:

Can you dance back and they understand?

No = you're still ok

Yes = ALL HAIL OUR BEE OVERLORDS AND THEIR FAVORED MINION QUESTIONMARK!!!

HN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Have you bought the latest Sitchin book yet?"

If I ever hear my bees saying that I will

1) Buy a big container of DDT

2) commit myself to the next sanatorium (I believe it is on Leros island) after having sprayed every hive with the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it has to do with it is: in Sitchin's Chronicles, the planet Nibiru was losing their atmosphere. That is why they came to earth, to mine the gold, and save their planet.

i am a bit late in joining this but how is gold related to atmosphere. And if there is gold in their atmosphere does that mean it rains coins "money". Cause my dad would always say when it rains money ill give you cash for that car or game or whatever. Ok so is my dad like remembering ancient memory of a time in a past life when he lived on nibriu. So when it rained it was pay day and they gave their kids money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am a bit late in joining this but how is gold related to atmosphere. And if there is gold in their atmosphere does that mean it rains coins "money". Cause my dad would always say when it rains money ill give you cash for that car or game or whatever. Ok so is my dad like remembering ancient memory of a time in a past life when he lived on nibriu. So when it rained it was pay day and they gave their kids money.

According to Mr. Sitchin they needed the gold to protect their atmosphere...wherein he is little explicit what the problem was exactly....

Gold is inert, therefore hardly capable of combining with other materials, and if it does combine... i.e. oxides, the result is pretty unstable. the only thing I could think of that would work is radiation shielding.... but that would at the same time keep out sunlight... which would defeat the whole thing because it would be taking away the foundation of life.

While we are at it, a much better radiation shield on a planetary size, and way more plentiful than gold, would be ozone... oxygen is easy to get, easy to transport and easy to transform into O3. And what is best, it would not rain down on the planet but stay up there to protect it. If it is ever unnecessary to keep it, or should it become harmful, it can easily be combined with something else into a stable oxide.

Now, the last argument of the Sitchinites, he talked about atmospheric damage way before anybody else: They should read the minutes of the parliamentary debate about the building of the first railroad, and therein the opinion of some "expert witnesses"..... that was in the 1820s.

Since the 1950s the scientific community has been warning about the CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere, but as they kept saying that the problems would be 50-75 years in the future nobody cared. Somebody who did care was Isaac Asimov and he made it a theme in his novels... where he was kind of optimistic and so his scenario was man builds a supercomputer that solved the ecological problem and shut itself off to never work again. That was in the 1950s...or at a time when Mr. Sitchin still was trying to do some honest work to make a living.

I really wish that some of these pseudo historians would read some actual history instead of spouting out wild ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have done plenty of real research and work to with real science.

perhaps you could point us to your 'body of work'.

So then can I demean his efforts because what he has done is make it up in my opinion.

how is 'your opinon' any more real than his?

or anyones?

He doesn't even understand the language he is translating and know one agrees with him in the field because he is just wrong. He is no better than Von Daniken.

and you know this because -

Edited by tomt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except his claims bare are vastly different to any source.

so different is / can't be correct?

But you'll just skip that point because that would require effort.

you lash out as a child.

how old are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.