Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 17
MichaelB

Was Jesus an Annunaki?

1,027 posts in this topic

http://www.scribd.co...hin-or-his-fans

Reply to Heiser's Asinine arguments in his open letter challenge to Sitchin (though not by sitchin)

I read portions of the beginning and can see it's not worth consideration. For example, the idea that Sitchin "taught" himself both Sumerian and Akkadian cuneiform is quite comical. While there are numerous avenues for learning Akkadian, the Sumerian version is properly taught in only a handful of universities and institutes around the world. Unless you are quite honestly a natural-born and genius linguist, you will not be able to teach yourself Sumerian.

The point still stands that never once did Sitchin demonstrate an ability actually to transcribe, transliterate, or translate any cuneiform script.

Also, the suggestion that the Hebrews were working from Sumerian tablets is an obvious error. When the Hebrews were first starting to use a developed script to record their own religion and culture, the Sumerians already had been extinct for thousands of years. It's rather obvious the best of Hebrew scribes could no more read Sumerian cuneiform than I could...or Sitchin, of course.

In other words, beware the misguided acolytes of Zecharia Sitchin: they're as poorly informed as he was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riddled with errors.

For example, Oannes was not Enki. Oannes was a Greek rendition of the name Uan, also know as Adapa, who was the first Apkallu, or "sage" - the first of seven.

Adapa began life as a mortal man, according to the myth.

A pic on the fourth or fifth page depicts Uan, not Enki. The pic is Assyrian, btw.

Harte

There are similarities between Oannes and Ea as well as Vishnu and Posiedon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I read portions of the beginning and can see it's not worth consideration. For example, the idea that Sitchin "taught" himself both Sumerian and Akkadian cuneiform is quite comical. While there are numerous avenues for learning Akkadian, the Sumerian version is properly taught in only a handful of universities and institutes around the world. Unless you are quite honestly a natural-born and genius linguist, you will not be able to teach yourself Sumerian.

The point still stands that never once did Sitchin demonstrate an ability actually to transcribe, transliterate, or translate any cuneiform script.

Also, the suggestion that the Hebrews were working from Sumerian tablets is an obvious error. When the Hebrews were first starting to use a developed script to record their own religion and culture, the Sumerians already had been extinct for thousands of years. It's rather obvious the best of Hebrew scribes could no more read Sumerian cuneiform than I could...or Sitchin, of course.

In other words, beware the misguided acolytes of Zecharia Sitchin: they're as poorly informed as he was.

Sitchin stated that he chose between mainstream translations.

I find Michaels arguments as straw men.

He himself cannot deny that the meanings of most of the words used by Sitchin for eg- Annunaki,Nibiru,Elohim etc .

Who is to say that a person can't be self taught? what would you label the pioneers of whole new sciences?What would you call Bill Gates a college drop-out Hippy with not much formal training but also the creator of Microsoft Windows....something that all of us use?

Nibiru could have had multiple meanings including a star,so Sitchin's interpretation of Nibiru as a rogue planet is not very far fetched.

Most of Heiser's issues are with small technicalities which in no way negate or impact Sitchin's version.

Again you can notice that the issue Heiser has is not in respect to Sitchin's version but more towards the fact that Sitchin insisted that all the events are facts.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of Heiser's issues are with small technicalities which in no way negate or impact Sitchin's version.

Again you can notice that the issue Heiser has is not in respect to Sitchin's version but more towards the fact that Sitchin insisted that all the events are facts.

Again, we can notice that you have decided not to read what Heiser has written on this.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The word EL means God and it is the first part of the word Elohim. 2. The word Eloah, also means God and it is the first part of the word Elohim. Eloah in Hebrew is a three letter root which most Hebrew words contain. Here we already have two singular forms of the word God inside the plural word Elohim. Yet, Mr. Heiser has never mentioned these singular forms inside the plural word. He still insists Elohim is singular knowing well that is already contains two singular words for God. The Universal Creator God of the Bible known as Yahweh speaks and is quoted within the Bible. When he spoke to the ancient Hebrews while giving them the 10 commandments, he indeed used the plural word of Elohim meaning gods. 3. And God said "You shall not recognize the gods of others in my presence" also translated as "You shall not have other gods in my presence," (Exodus 20:3). Here Yahweh uses the term Elohim to refer to all other gods (plural) that Israel shall not worship or acknowledge. This also means that there were other false gods and they were forbidden to be acknowledged in Yahweh's presence. Mr. Heiser is also incorrect when he refers to the translation of the Nephilim. The Nephilim mentioned in Chapter 6 of Genesis is spoken about right before the destruction of the flood and is implied they are the reason for the flood. It says that "the Nephilim were on the Earth in those days and also afterwards when the Children of the Gods saw the daughters of the Adam (humans) and took them as wives which ever they pleased." 4. The word children is used as plural not singular child, and the Elohim are mentioned again in plural as "The Gods" In Hebrew the "hey" letter put in front of the word Elohim means "The", if the letter was left out it would mean "Children of Elohim" meaning Elohim as a name. But with the letter there in front it clearly means "Children of the Gods". Nephilim has the root from the Hebrew word for falling down or to fall, which yields the translations the "fallen ones" and in the context of the Bible they are mentioned as bad characters that have something to do with the Flood disaster. 5. Nephilim used to be translated as Giants for many hundreds of years and it comes from a 12th Century commentary known as Rashi that said the Nephilim were giants. But what nobody realized until Sitchin was that the word in Hebrew meaning giants is Anak, or Anakim for plural which is the same root and sounding as Anunnaki in Sumerian. So the Hebrew word for Giant was picked up from a memory of the word used thousands of years before, by the lineage of Abraham to describe their gods which are usually depicted as larger humanoids than humans. And the translation of the word Annunaki means "those who from Heaven to Earth came," and Sitchin's use of the word Nephilim means "Those that have fallen down from above." So Anunnaki has the same sound as the word for Giant in Hebrew and the meaning is the same as the word Nephilim in Hebrew. 6. Before the burning bush Moses came to the mountain of the Gods. It says in Hebrew once again "He arrived at the Mountain of the Gods." The Hebrew letter "hey" in front of the word Elohim means "The" as opposed to saying "Elohim mountain" meaning the name of the mountain, it says "the Mountain of the Gods." (Exodus 3:1). These points clearly answer all of Heiser main contentions in his open challenge to Sitchin and i have verified and checked all the information to be true.Now if you can point out more contention that Heiser has against Sitchin i will try to brood on them. Please put them in point form if possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, we can notice that you have decided not to read what Heiser has written on this.

Harte

I read Heiser's contentions and was content to know that this man can talk a lot without any substantial material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see we have someone here capable of translating ancient Hebrew.

Care to demonstrate your capabilities in this area?

After all, Heiser literally does so for a living - and not in academia.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The word EL means God and it is the first part of the word Elohim. 2. The word Eloah, also means God and it is the first part of the word Elohim. Eloah in Hebrew is a three letter root which most Hebrew words contain. Here we already have two singular forms of the word God inside the plural word Elohim. Yet, Mr. Heiser has never mentioned these singular forms inside the plural word. He still insists Elohim is singular knowing well that is already contains two singular words for God.

3) As noted above, elohim is morphologically plural. Morphology refers to the "shape" or construction of a word - its form. As far as meaning, though, elohim can be either singular or plural depending on context. As anyone who has taken a language can testify, meaning is determined by context, not by a list of glosses in a dictionary (which are only OPTIONS – the translator must look to context for accuracy).

More specifically, the meaning of any occurrence of elohim must be discerned in three ways:

A. Grammatical indications elsewhere in the text that help to determine if a singular or plural meaning is meant.

B. Grammatical rules in Hebrew that are true in the language as a whole.

C. Historical / Logical context.

To illustrate, consider words in English such as:

"deer", "sheep", "fish" - the point is you need other words to help you tell if one or more than one of these animals is meant. Sometimes these other words are verbs that help you tell. Compare the two examples::

1) "The sheep is lost" - the word "is" is a singular verb (It goes with a singular subject; one wouldn't say, for example, "I are lost" - you would use a verb that goes with the singular subject ("I am lost").

2) "The sheep are lost" - the word "are" is a plural verb (again, another word next to our noun "sheep" tells us in this case that plural sheep are meant.

Source

Right there you have Heiser plainly stating that the term is both singular and plural. He goes on to explain fully.

So, like I said, we can tell you haven't read what Heiser has said, and therefore you are simply talking out of your butt.

Harte

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font]

Source

Right there you have Heiser plainly stating that the term is both singular and plural. He goes on to explain fully.

So, like I said, we can tell you haven't read what Heiser has said, and therefore you are simply talking out of your butt.

Harte

I said exactly the same thing and so did the person who posted the above reply. That Heiser and Sitchin agree on most of the word meanings,still Heiser calls Sitchin a fraud due to small technical differences which can only be resolved by a person from that era who knew the exact context of these cuneiform symbols. In either case Heiser's malicious attacks on Sitchin are based more on the fact that Sitchin insists that these events were facts.

There have been ancient Egyptian texts which when translated by our scholars tell fantastical and miraculous tales of flying Gods in heaven imbued with great supernatural powers and great men and kings performing unbelievable feats, and we have no issues with those translations as they are dismissed as myths and not reality. If the Bambridge scholars would have insisted that these translations represent actual events,then they also would have been attacked ruthlessly. Sitchin's version is no more fantastical then these translations but his version is marked by using more recent technologies being incorporated in the translation.

I have read what Heiser has to say,but i am not dazzled by his degrees so most of his contentions with these translations can swing both ways,and like i said Heiser has not time travelled to the Sumerian Era and learn't his translation directly from them,he is also subscribing to some other mainstreamer persons suggestions for his own version.

He is relying on his interpretation of grammatic indications in other parts of the texts to arrive at the conclusion whether it was plural or singular....but he cannot deny that it has been used as plural in numerous occasions.......so what is his major beef with Sitchin? If he would be denying that Elohim is always used only as a Singular then it would be a contention to Sitchin's version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see we have someone here capable of translating ancient Hebrew.

Care to demonstrate your capabilities in this area?

After all, Heiser literally does so for a living - and not in academia.

Harte

Harte do you seriously believe that because Heiser does this for a living,he has to be right. Even Sitchin dedicated his whole life to his version...can that be used as proof that he was right. I use my own critical thinking capabilities to evaluate both the versions....i don't think Heiser is smarter then Sitchin or more creative...he has no imagination and is only piggy backing on Sitchin.

My capabilities of evaluating evidence posted by both these authors maybe far better then both of them,as they are both prejudiced to their own theories. I don't need to know Summerian just to evaluate evidence put forward by both,as most of the evidence consists of their translated versions of the text and why they feel so.

I might not have capabilities of deciphering those texts myself,but i sure can read the translations and decide which makes more sense to me.Also if these scholars are having a debate,i can modestly claim that i can very well follow their logical premises and use my own brains to interpret the evidence.

I thought we were discussing our opinion on these issues based on this data, if i was to swallow everything said by someone with a degree especially when it is not an empirical phenomenon which can be reproduced or demonstrated, i wouldn't be discussing these things over here as everything is available on line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76011056/Reply-to-the-Open-Letter-from-Michael-S-Heiser-to-Zecharia-Sitchin-or-his-fans

Sitchin never insisted that Elohim was always used as Plural.

The above link answer most of the contentions Heiser has with Sitchin which he has listed in his open letter answered by someone taking Sitchin's work as a refference. Please go through it, as it proves that Heiser is propping up Straw Men or is being Dishonest by attributing things to Sitchin which he never claimed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see we have someone here capable of translating ancient Hebrew.

Care to demonstrate your capabilities in this area?

After all, Heiser literally does so for a living - and not in academia.

Harte

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own commonsense.

--Buddha (563BC-483BC)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own commonsense.

--Buddha (563BC-483BC)

So even a wise man can be foolish. Or, as is more to the point here, you just don't bother to take the time to know what you're quoting/talking about:

http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/believe-nothing-no-matter-where-you-read-it/

--Jaylemurph.

PS: There's this bridge near my house -- quite large, very famous -- that I'm acting as agent to sell. Given your predilection for not-very-thorough-looking-into-things, I'd like to offer you that bridge at a /very/ reasonable sum. PM me if you're interested. --JlM

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is a topic that is pretty difficult to approach since it deals with religion and opinion, which are two things most people aren't willing to compromise their belief system on either way. That being said, I have a two theories on the Jesus topic;

1}The most logical theory is that Jesus Christ was simply an ambassador of God sent to Earth to do exactly what the bible says he did. He was a human form for God who was sent to save the world. There are numerous forms of corroborating evidence that yes, Jesus was a physical person that did exist 2,000 years ago. You have religious relics like the Shroud of Turin, the spear of destiny, and other objects that have been excavated from various archeological digs and have been verified as coming from the time the bible describes for Jesus of Nazareth. There are also many historical texts and records which all seem to independently verify that an actual Jesus existed. There are scholars all over the world who have devoted years of their lives to this topic and to dismiss their findings would be quite contrary to examining the evidence without bias. Some of these scholars spend their entire personal lives and professional careers to proving different elements of the Jesus story and have come up with great theories. Nothing from history can be 100% proven, but there does seem to be an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence for Jesus Christ and him being a devine being.

2}As with all beliefs, there are always alternative theories that do seem to explain otherwise unexplained parts of history and myth. For example, Zacharia Sitchin's theory about Planet X and the "Annunaki". The book of Genesis in the bible does use the term "let US create man in OUR own image". If you use that in the accepted historical context, it makes no sense. The bible is strict about there only being one supreme God and no others. However, if you have read Sitchin's theory or seen any of the documentaries about that, a lot of unexplained elements of the human story seem to get explanations. First and foremost would be that Jesus was a devine being because he is an Annunaki that came down to Earth and was the link between the "creators" and creation[mankind]. Sumerian texts refer to the Annunaki as the creators of mankind and their writings give detailed accounts of not only the beings, but of complicated maps of the solar system and other detailed knowledge that primitive man would have no way of knowing. This would seem to indicate to me that a far more advanced race and civilization existed pre-mankind and that these beings in some way either created humans or had help from the supreme being/deity[God or whatever you choose to believe in] and that this race aided human kind in evolution and development. This also goes a long way in describing the mythical powers and knowledge that Jesus possessed. Maybe he knew more than your typical person because he was himself an Annunaki or descended from that lineage. There's also another interesting element to the Jesus/Annunaki theory; Jesus' return. Sitchin and his followers have made educated guesses about the orbit of "Planet X" to be about 3,600 years compared to a normal Earth year of 365 days. Meaning one year on Planet X equals 3,600 years on Earth. There are different descriptions given in the bible to relate to Jesus' return to Earth to establish his new kingdom. Although a specific date is never mentioned, it is promised that one day he will return. Why would there be such a huge time gap in Jesus' time on Earth and his imminent return? Well, the Sitchin theory about Planet X would explain the time anomaly and why it has taken so long for Jesus to return. I will be the first to admit that this is a farfetched theory, one cannot argue that Zacharia Sitchin's ideas do make a lot of sense especially since accepted history cannot account for much of our past or the origins of humanity.

As with any controversial topic, the belief is up to interpretation of each individual. I, personally, think that we had help in becoming who we are as a race today. Was Jesus an Annunaki? We'll probably never know for sure. One thing is pretty clear; more and more our preconceived ideas about our past and reality are being challenged. If one objectively looks at the corroborating evidence on the historical Jesus and concedes he did exist, you have to ask; how did he do what he did? Was he a mere mortal with extraordinary power? Or was his powers from another source?

Edited by conspiracy buff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So even a wise man can be foolish. Or, as is more to the point here, you just don't bother to take the time to know what you're quoting/talking about:

http://www.fakebuddh...re-you-read-it/

--Jaylemurph.

PS: There's this bridge near my house -- quite large, very famous -- that I'm acting as agent to sell. Given your predilection for not-very-thorough-looking-into-things, I'd like to offer you that bridge at a /very/ reasonable sum. PM me if you're interested. --JlM

Are you ultimately gullible,please read the link you posted. He concludes this saying is false because it was transmitted by oral tradition.The author seems like a retard of some sort and also a academic.

Not only Buddha but various other prominent religious figures have highlighted the same saying though in different words....where they implore everyone to use their own intellect and reasoning before accepting information.

The link you posted is a Fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

http://www.sitchinis...humu/shumu.html

Harsh, just because you dont subscribe to Heiser, dont be prejudiced.

Watch the video first.

Have watched the video. But Spartan know this that Sitchin's version is not wrong persay. Heiser is giving his point of view,when these ancient cuneiform texts are being translated it is very difficult to narrow down on the context, and it becomes a matter of personal opinion in most cases especially when the culture has not survived till today in any way or form.

Am not prejudiced against Heiser, but he sure is prejudiced against Sitchin and so taking his opinion about Sitchin will not be fair.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you ultimately gullible,please read the link you posted. He concludes this saying is false because it was transmitted by oral tradition.The author seems like a retard of some sort and also a academic.

No, it is you that seems a retard. The author says no such thing.

In fact, he clearly states that everything from the Buddha is an oral trandition, and the Buddha could not have possibly stated, regarding spiritual admonishments, that you shouldn't believe anything "you read," because, at the time, all spiritual teachings were transmitted orally:

Incidentally, the “no matter where you read it” is an anachronism, since spiritual teachings were orally transmitted at the time of the Buddha.

(From your own link.)

Do you know what "anachronism" means?

However, your post is a perfect example why the Buddha quote, albeit a fake one, is good advice at any rate.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have watched the video. But Spartan know this that Sitchin's version is not wrong persay.

Sitchin's version is not only wrong, it is fabricated.

Or, if you think otherwise, please quote and link to any ancient Sumerian, Babylonian, Akkadian or Assyrian text that tells us that the Anunna gods tired of digging their own gold. Or were digging for gold at all, or even wanted any gold, or that humans were made (or forced) to dig in gold mines.

And that's just one example of a complete fabrication.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1}The most logical theory is that Jesus Christ was simply an ambassador of God sent to Earth to do exactly what the bible says he did.

In what way is this "the most logical theory"? I grant you it's /a/ theory, but in what way is the most logicial one? (Especially confronted with the theory that Jesus was just a particularly thoughtful, normal human being around whom many supernatural legends accreted?)

Are you ultimately gullible,please read the link you posted. He concludes this saying is false because it was transmitted by oral tradition.The author seems like a retard of some sort and also a academic.

Not only Buddha but various other prominent religious figures have highlighted the same saying though in different words....where they implore everyone to use their own intellect and reasoning before accepting information.

The link you posted is a Fake.

You seem to conveniently ignore the part where the Buddha never said what you said he did, which was my point. The fact you get as crabby as a thwarted three-year-old when this is pointed out does not negate that. Perhaps you should follow a three-year-old's example and take a nap when you get so cranky. :)

That bridge offer is still totally on the table, you know. Cheap at $25,000.

--Jaylemurph

Edited by jaylemurph
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That bridge offer is still totally on the table, you know. Cheap at $25,000.

--Jaylemurph

Can I get that with a hunk of ham?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I get that with a hunk of ham?

Harte

That offer is juuust for Harsh.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woah Jaylemurph, maybe it's just me but it's been a while since I have seen you post! Glad to see you are still around heh always a good read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Woah Jaylemurph, maybe it's just me but it's been a while since I have seen you post! Glad to see you are still around heh always a good read.

Even me. I was shocked to see him back!!

edit to add : i have a deep suspicion that he made a pact with ol' satan for a pass to over here.

Edited by The_Spartan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even me. I was shocked to see him back!!

edit to add : i have a deep suspicion that he made a pact with ol' satan for a pass to over here.

Naaaah not Satan, but rather his basset overlords......or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 17

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.