Riaan Posted February 5, 2014 #1 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Hi all, Many, if not the majority of Sitchin's theories have been rejected by scholars, often citing incorrect translation of the original Sumerian texts. I have no doubt that this is indeed the case, but where can one find more accurate translations? Perhaps all in one book, and not brief sections published in obscure academic papers? Riaan Edited February 5, 2014 by Riaan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted February 5, 2014 #2 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Given that the guy croaked, and that he never managed to actually translate any of the originals: I doubt it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros of Skaro Posted February 5, 2014 #3 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Zecharia Sitchin's Fiblations. Amazon Book search, or Google "Cuneiform translation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Cursed Posted February 5, 2014 #4 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Here are the tablets with lateral translations from the Oxford University Database http://etcsl.orinst....i?charenc=gcirc under search type a-nun-na and instead of form in the next box click the arrow and use Lemma. It will bring up all of the tablets with the word Anunnaki in it. It wasn't that the scholars thought his translation were wrong, they actually consider him a leading authority on the tablets. It was his liberal use of imagination and other cultures writings to fill in the blanks, for the missing pieces of cuneiform, to create a cohesive story about Bings from the planet Nibiru. Edited February 5, 2014 by Forever Cursed 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaan Posted February 5, 2014 Author #5 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Here are the tablets with lateral translations from the Oxford University Database http://etcsl.orinst....i?charenc=gcirc under search type a-nun-na and instead of form in the next box click the arrow and use Lemma. It will bring up all of the tablets with the word Anunnaki in it. It wasn't that the scholars thought his translation were wrong, they actually consider him a leading authority on the tablets. It was his liberal use of imagination and other cultures writings to fill in the blanks, for the missing pieces of cuneiform, to create a cohesive story about Bings from the planet Nibiru. Thanks for the information. The link appears to be of little use to anyone who does not understand Sumerian! I did search for a-nun-na, but only found references to this word - no full text translations. Am I missing something here? PS: Just found a full text translation on the same website: http://etcsl.orinst....i?text=t.1.1.2# Will see what else I can find, thanks! Index of all translations here: http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=all# Edited February 5, 2014 by Riaan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Cursed Posted February 5, 2014 #6 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Go to the left and click on the blue lettering, this will bring up a sub menu, then go to the left and click on each number and it will bring up the appropriate tablet it's a lot of reading so enjoy !. Some will be just words, others will take you to entire tablets, all have been literally translated. I recommend scrolling all the way to the top when you find a tablet and read the whole story, as opposed to just the text containing Anunnaki. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaan Posted February 5, 2014 Author #7 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Go to the left and click on the blue lettering, this will bring up a sub menu, then go to the left and click on each number and it will bring up the appropriate tablet it's a lot of reading so enjoy !. Some will be just words, others will take you to entire tablets, all have been literally translated. I recommend scrolling all the way to the top when you find a tablet and read the whole story, as opposed to just the text containing Anunnaki. Again, thanks so much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted February 5, 2014 #8 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I don't believe Sitchin was able to translate anything. Sitchin made everything up. Try reading this site which is written by a scholar that can translate the ancient texts. http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/ I can tell you--and show you--that what Zecharia Sitchin has written about Nibiru, the Anunnaki, the book of Genesis, the Nephilim, and a host of other things has absolutely no basis in the real data of the ancient world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaan Posted February 5, 2014 Author #9 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I don't believe Sitchin was able to translate anything. Sitchin made everything up. Try reading this site which is written by a scholar that can translate the ancient texts. http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/ Thanks, I noticed the site, but did not actually visit - will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Cursed Posted February 5, 2014 #10 Share Posted February 5, 2014 From his opening letter in Sitchin is wrong. The reader must realize that the substance of my disagreement is not due to "translation philosophy," as though Mr. Sitchin and I merely disagree over possible translations of certain words. When it comes to the Mesopotamian sources, what is at stake is the integrity of the cuneiform tablets themselves, along with the legacy of Sumer and Mesopotamian scribes. Very simply, the ancient Mesopotamians compiled their own dictionaries - we have them and they have been published since the mid-20th century. The words Mr. Sitchin tells us refer to rocket ships have no such meanings according to the ancient Mesopotamians themselves. Likewise when Mr. Sitchin tells readers things like the Sumerians believed there were twelve planets, the Anunnaki were space travelers, Nibiru was the supposed 12th planet, etc., he is simply fabricating data. It isn't a question of how he translates texts; the issue is that these ideas don't exist in any cuneiform text at all. To persist in embracing Mr. Sitchin's views on this matter (and a host of others) amounts to rejecting the legacy of the ancient Sumerian and Akkadian scribes whose labors have come down to us from the ages. Put bluntly, is it more coherent to believe a Mesopotamian scribe's definition of a word, or Mr. Sitchin's? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted February 6, 2014 #11 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Besides the translations there are many problems with Sitchin's claims. Take astronomy. There are not many tablets from Sumer about astronomy. The reason it is believed they were interested in astronomy is that the Babylonians used Sumerian names for celestial objects. There are no records of any planets other than the ones visible tothe unaided eye. There are no Neptune or Uranus observations. There is also physics. It runs out that it is not possible to have a planet with a highly eccentric orbit. The issue is transfer of momentum. It happens between the Earth and Sun and the Sun and Moon. The Earth's rotation slows down and the Moon recedes from the Earth. The Earth recedes from the Sun around 15m a year and the Moon recedes over 1cm a year. A planet in a highly eccentric orbit would have moved into a low eccentric orbit billions of years ago or been ejected from the solar system. Lots of reasons exist to reject the tales of Sitchin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Cursed Posted February 6, 2014 #12 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Sitchin's theories are controversial, no doubt about that. But then again, any time the belief of a social norm is challenged you are going to find resistance from specialists and scholars. I mean at one time science believed the world was flat, and they were wrong. At one time the earth was the center of the universe, and we are not. And at one time tomatoes were thought to be poisonous. Science has declared species extinct that have suddenly re-appeared. We can sit here all day and show how experts and scientists have been wrong through out history and how beliefs were far from the truth. In the 12th planet Sitchin admits to taking liberties and shows you the paths used based on his using languages from other local tribes. But what amazes me the most is how 5 or 6 words out of the hundred of thousands deciphered has caused this up roar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted February 6, 2014 #13 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Sitchin's theories are controversial, no doubt about that. But then again, any time the belief of a social norm is challenged you are going to find resistance from specialists and scholars. I mean at one time science believed the world was flat, and they were wrong. At one time the earth was the center of the universe, and we are not. And at one time tomatoes were thought to be poisonous. Science has declared species extinct that have suddenly re-appeared. We can sit here all day and show how experts and scientists have been wrong through out history and how beliefs were far from the truth. In the 12th planet Sitchin admits to taking liberties and shows you the paths used based on his using languages from other local tribes. But what amazes me the most is how 5 or 6 words out of the hundred of thousands deciphered has caused this up roar. Where you are wrong,as long as geography was a science (and not an oral tradition) it was known that the world was not flat. The nearest to that would be a hemisphere (before 300 BC). The flat a geocentric model was pushed by some who certainly were not scientists: astrologists. The world rather believes quacks than science, as demonstrated by Mr Sitchin amply. And we are not talking about science here, we are talking about the translation of Sumerian seals, where demonstrably none said what Sitchin claimed. The best he ever did is interpreting the pictures on it. And even that he got wrong. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted February 6, 2014 #14 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Sitchin's theories are controversial, no doubt about that. But then again, any time the belief of a social norm is challenged you are going to find resistance from specialists and scholars. I mean at one time science believed the world was flat, and they were wrong. At one time the earth was the center of the universe, and we are not. And at one time tomatoes were thought to be poisonous. Science has declared species extinct that have suddenly re-appeared. We can sit here all day and show how experts and scientists have been wrong through out history and how beliefs were far from the truth. In the 12th planet Sitchin admits to taking liberties and shows you the paths used based on his using languages from other local tribes. But what amazes me the most is how 5 or 6 words out of the hundred of thousands deciphered has caused this up roar. Sitchin is completely wrong. He is not controversial. He is completely wrong. As Questionmark pointed out the idea that the world was flat was shown to be wrong probably before there was writing. As soon as people began to travel any distance they noticed that the stars changed position. That told them that the world was not flat. What shape was it? That was a harder question, but it certainly was not flat. That does not mean that a flat Earth model is not useful. It works for laying out a building or a town. Is a geocentric model useful? Sure. We employ it when we say that the sun rises and the sun sets. Tomatoes may not be poisonous, but it is in the nightshade family and the stems are poisonous. The discovery of species once thought to be extinct is hardly a failure. Science is full of corrections because that is what science does. You skipped over phlogiston and spontaneous generation. These are better examples that many you chose. They are closer to discussions of science and scientific theories. None of that has anything at all to do with Sitchin. Sitchin did not do any translations. Sitchin could not read cuneiform. Sitchin lied about things like Sumerian tablets about astronomy. They are in general not known to exist. Thus he could not have translated them. But Sitchin claims translations of these. It just shows how he made things up. It's all fiction. What we do know is that his translations are malarkey. We know that the things he made up can't happen. Why do you think anything by Sitchin has to do with the real world? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Cursed Posted February 6, 2014 #15 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Wow ~ If we toss Von Daniken into this pool of love we might have a round robin on our hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted February 7, 2014 #16 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Here are the tablets with lateral translations from the Oxford University Database http://etcsl.orinst....i?charenc=gcirc under search type a-nun-na and instead of form in the next box click the arrow and use Lemma. It will bring up all of the tablets with the word Anunnaki in it. It wasn't that the scholars thought his translation were wrong, they actually consider him a leading authority on the tablets. Sitchin was never considered "leading authority" on anything by any scholars. In fact, the actual case is the contrary. It was his liberal use of imagination and other cultures writings to fill in the blanks, for the missing pieces of cuneiform, to create a cohesive story about Bings from the planet Nibiru. Another falsehood. Sitchin took known, translated, words and substituted ridiculous meanings for them - meanings to suit his lies. Turning, for example, the words "shem" and "shamu" - which mean "name" (including the use of the word "name" as "reputation" or "fame") into "rocketship" (for God's sake!) He invented from whole cloth a story about gold mining which appears nowhere in any ancient text. He found one cylinder seal with a date marker (one of literally thousands of seals with such markers) that he could "interpret" as the solar system, reworking the entire (and already well-established) iconography used by Sumerians to make the claim that the date marker - representative of Venus rising with the Pleiades - displayed the solar system (the stars shown don't even include the Sun icon.) It is a complete and utter waste of time and brain cells to even consider thinking about anything at all that the man ever thought, much less said or wrote. That said, there's a nice collection of Mesopotamian literature at Sacred-Texts.com. You won't find the Atrahasis there (it's here, BTW,) which is where Sitchin got his "gods rebelled against having to mine gold so they created humans" bullflop from (they were actually creating the landscape of the Earth - digging rivers out and such.) Harte 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmt_sesh Posted February 7, 2014 #17 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Here are the tablets with lateral translations from the Oxford University Database http://etcsl.orinst....i?charenc=gcirc under search type a-nun-na and instead of form in the next box click the arrow and use Lemma. It will bring up all of the tablets with the word Anunnaki in it. It wasn't that the scholars thought his translation were wrong, they actually consider him a leading authority on the tablets. It was his liberal use of imagination and other cultures writings to fill in the blanks, for the missing pieces of cuneiform, to create a cohesive story about Bings from the planet Nibiru. Let's be technical about this. I am not aware of translations Sitchin himself is said to have performed, because he quite simply had no training or expertise in Sumerian or other cuneiform scripts. I believe the only language in which he possessed a passing familiarity is ancient Hebrew, although a real command of it does not come out in his books. As you said in subsequent posts, he fabricated more than translated. What he actually did was freely misinterpret and reinterpret primarily the iconography and cultures of Mesopotamia, to the point that he would on occasion mash them together incoherently as though the Sumerians and Akkadians were the same people. And from my own research experience, I can say with confidence Sitchin misinterpreted and reinterpreted ancient Egyptian inscriptions and culture to perhaps an even more comical extent. On a separate note, I am familiar with cuneiform experts at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. The O.I. is one of the only institutes in the world where Sumerian can be properly and legitimately studied, after first only obtaining a command of Akkadian cuneiform. And I've spent years researching the ancient Near East. To cut to the chase, I am not aware of any vetted and respected Near Eastern scholar who would regard Sitchin's "work" as at all useful. I don't enjoy speaking ill of the dead, but Zecharia Sitchin was quite obviously a very successful fraud. Edited February 7, 2014 by kmt_sesh Clarification 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted February 7, 2014 #18 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Wow ~ If we toss Von Daniken into this pool of love we might have a round robin on our hands. Well, I guess we should mention the honorary Prezz of the guild of quacks now that we are talking of the deceases honorary vice prezz.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Cursed Posted February 7, 2014 #19 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) I have popped onto this site over like the past 8 years, under 3 different names, and each time tossed Sitchin and Von Daniken under the buss and every time rattled the same cages. And y'all never disappoint ! Edited February 7, 2014 by Forever Cursed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted February 7, 2014 #20 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I have popped onto this site over like the past 8 years, under 3 different names, and each time tossed Sitchin and Von Daniken under the buss and every time rattled the same cages. And y'all never disappoint ! Fact remains fact and quack remains quack, no matter how many times you try it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaan Posted February 7, 2014 Author #21 Share Posted February 7, 2014 That said, there's a nice collection of Mesopotamian literature at Sacred-Texts.com. You won't find the Atrahasis there (it's here, BTW,) which is where Sitchin got his "gods rebelled against having to mine gold so they created humans" bullflop from (they were actually creating the landscape of the Earth - digging rivers out and such.) Harte Very useful, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANNUIT COEPTIS Posted February 7, 2014 #22 Share Posted February 7, 2014 StereoIogist.... Wow those are some pretty bold statements...would love to see some facts to back it up... personally I think that the "scholars" in general are first and for most, sheep,and pompous sheep at that... meaning they like to create their own theory and disregard any evidence that doesn't conclude with their theory... whether it be for their own selfish motives, or they just feel that they are to smart to learn anything... like the whole idea that if any of what Sitchin says is true... Then Christians look pretty stupid... I personally know people who don't have any explanation for why they believe in Jesus, but they do... And their arrogance alone prevents them from looking at any type of evidence or different points of view... These aren't even "scholars" and they have an incredibly horrible time being wrong Zechariah is the Man...and he's even more of a genius if he made up all these names, characters, and stories.. My question would be why would he go out of his way to do all of this lying, and bullsnit you claim?? I mean if he was just into writing stories... you would think he would have done some screen plays and been the next Spielberg.. but instead he's some lonely old man nobody believes in, and really few people know anything about... I don't think so...Sitchin is the Man! Plus do you know how much money the churches would lose if everyone started getting privy to Sitchin??? That in itself is enough to raise the conspiracy alarm for me Lets just put it this way... Enki vs. Jesus..I'll take Enki in the first round Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted February 7, 2014 #23 Share Posted February 7, 2014 StereoIogist.... Wow those are some pretty bold statements...would love to see some facts to back it up... personally I think that the "scholars" in general are first and for most, sheep,and pompous sheep at that... meaning they like to create their own theory and disregard any evidence that doesn't conclude with their theory... whether it be for their own selfish motives, or they just feel that they are to smart to learn anything... like the whole idea that if any of what Sitchin says is true... Then Christians look pretty stupid... I personally know people who don't have any explanation for why they believe in Jesus, but they do... And their arrogance alone prevents them from looking at any type of evidence or different points of view... These aren't even "scholars" and they have an incredibly horrible time being wrong Zechariah is the Man...and he's even more of a genius if he made up all these names, characters, and stories.. My question would be why would he go out of his way to do all of this lying, and bullsnit you claim?? I mean if he was just into writing stories... you would think he would have done some screen plays and been the next Spielberg.. but instead he's some lonely old man nobody believes in, and really few people know anything about... I don't think so...Sitchin is the Man! Plus do you know how much money the churches would lose if everyone started getting privy to Sitchin??? That in itself is enough to raise the conspiracy alarm for me Lets just put it this way... Enki vs. Jesus..I'll take Enki in the first round And nobody will hinder you, or the Jesus fans, to talk to to any imaginary friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANNUIT COEPTIS Posted February 7, 2014 #24 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Damn right they won't hinder me... unless they want an all out fight! Jesus is my homeboy, my favorite imaginary friend But thanks for reminding me that I can think what I want.... If it wasn't for you I may have forgot!!! You're the greatest!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Cursed Posted February 7, 2014 #25 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Anytime personal beliefs are challenged there is bound to be resistance by those who believe otherwise. And if we were to load 600 people into this room, you could not probably get 6 of them to agree upon any one thing. The facts are that science fiction has become science fact. And you are correct, no matter how many toss books and facts at me, my beliefs will always remain the same. For me and my spirituality the concept of being a created race by an advanced race works, more than does religion, or Darwin. But one thing is sure, at the end, we will all know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now