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 -

Who here supports Sitchens theory


MareikuraOAroha

Recommended Posts

You can add a frantic running Searcher to that, I did the Pamplona run as well. It's amazing how fast a 6ft3, 108kg heavy man can run, when given the right insentive. :devil:

I always say that with 90 I will return to do it again...but a little further away from the corral... after that I should feel like 50 again for the time the adrenaline rush lasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

<!--quoteo(post=1580724:date=Mar 13 2007, 05:20 PM:name=louie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(louie @ Mar 13 2007, 05:20 PM) 1580724[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->thats a waste of a post. well empty barrels an all that.

so where is your evidence that stitchens theory is nil. he quoted a few scriptures and agencys NASA stc, so you show me your evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You want me to provide evidence that Sitchen doesn't have any evidence? <img src="http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":rolleyes:" border="0" alt="rolleyes.gif" />

How about you (or anyone else) find one single piece of independent evidence which collaborates the theory that a planet 4 times the size of the earth orbits the sun on a 3,600 year eliptical orbit, is inhabited, that those inhabitants came down to earth, built the pyramids as navigational beacons, genetically altered archaic humans, used them to mine gold, had a big nuclear war, and then left a few thousand years ago .....

3600 - 2000 = 1600. Go back in your mind to 1600 BC. There is a Jewish timeline that says that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed around 1713 BC. In 1765 BC, the Tower of Babel was built. Of all the cuneiform tablets found, you would think that something would have been written and actually there was plenty of scrolls written about a 'Destroyer.' There is even biblical references to it. But not of an inhabited planet. I believe you would have to go back millions of years to find any answer to that, but your idea of nuclear war is interesting. And one question I have to somehow prove that was the case is, 'Why does uranium and plutonium exist?' Certainly they are not rocks that came from Uranus and Pluto.

7200 - 2000 = 5200. Let's try to find records written in 5200 BC. The Sumerian civilization started in Southern Iraq around 5400 BC. That may be the key to unlocking the puzzle. And this is where Sitchin gets his info from. It is in the southernmost Sumerian city called Eridu. And Sitchin's tale is based on Sumerian mythology. There is a written report from there ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_king_list ) that says that 2 kings ruled Eridu for 64,800 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Sitchin. But as far as an inhabited planet, it may have run into something on its course. And it is no more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Sitchin. But as far as an inhabited planet, it may have run into something on its course. And it is no more.

It run into people with brains, and then it just disappeared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It run into people with brains, and then it just disappeared.

:yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a site that shows a definitive Time Line of the peoples in that area the beginnings of Babylonians, Sumerians, Egyptians?

There was a show on the tube last night concerning the pyramids, the typical "space" under the sphinx story, alingment of the pyramids and how come the tiny one isn't in line, Orion's Belt and the connection to Osiris, and the "Killer Planet" Egyptian scrolls that spell out the end, blah, blah..

I thought, "hold on, this sounds a bit familiar" As the show progressed the "Destroyer" a Killer Planet, was said to have a 3,600 year orbit and finally they got around to calling it Planet X. "Christ on a crutch, they let Sitchin's crap on the television..."

Sure enough, there the buggar was in the credits.

They spoke of a "bible" that I had not heard of before, the Kolbrin Bible I believe it is. Seems to be a mishmash of Egyptian and Celtic, which to be honest truly opens up a can of worms for me. I was unaware that the Egyptians and the Celts were trading doomsday secrets back then. “The Kolbrin” and “The Gospel of the Kailedy.”

http://kolbrin.com/catalog/kolbrin/kb/

Fancy that. These kind souls want money for this information. What a surprise. Reminds me of Billy the one armed farmer, his pimp Michael Horn & FIGU.

Then there is this:

http://www.ufodigest.com/kolbrin.html

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/hercolobus/kolbrin_03.htm

Interesting. Searches show a chap by the name of Glenn Kimball possibly being the author of this new fangled bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Kolbrin bible is just an attempt to seperate people from their money.

Ah man~! And I bought that stuff too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Kolbrin bible is just an attempt to seperate people from their money.

Well you have a point there, because anybody who cites Nostradamus as a precise source has his head wired on backwards.

Michel de Nostredame (Nostradamus)

Les Propheties, C2:Q43

Original French text :

Durant l'estoille cheuelue apparente,

Les trois grands princes seront faits ennemis:

Frappez du ciel paix terre tremulente,

Pau, Timbre vndans, serpent sur le bort mis.

Translation into English

During the appearance of the bearded star.

The three great princes will be made enemies:

Struck from the sky, peace earth quaking,

Po, Tiber overflowing, serpent placed upon the shore.

One inherent problem with these, is that the translation is just an interpretation of what it actually means, because in old french, certain words could either mean just that or could mean a word sounding alike but written differently. Nostradamus is already hardly making any sense in French, is extremly cryptic as it is, so unless this has been translated by anybody else then a French / english major in literature, it's worthless drivel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a site that shows a definitive Time Line of the peoples in that area the beginnings of Babylonians, Sumerians, Egyptians?

There was a show on the tube last night concerning the pyramids, the typical "space" under the sphinx story, alingment of the pyramids and how come the tiny one isn't in line, Orion's Belt and the connection to Osiris, and the "Killer Planet" Egyptian scrolls that spell out the end, blah, blah..

I thought, "hold on, this sounds a bit familiar" As the show progressed the "Destroyer" a Killer Planet, was said to have a 3,600 year orbit and finally they got around to calling it Planet X. "Christ on a crutch, they let Sitchin's crap on the television..."

Sure enough, there the buggar was in the credits...

There are fairly decent timelines on the internet for all of the Near Eastern cultures. You just have to select the ones you like most. I would compare them to timelines in books written by recognized scholars to make sure they're accurate.

Sitchin rarely interprets evidence correctly. His conclusions are fundamentally flawed. Having most carefully studied his material as it pertains to ancient Egypt, I know for a fact his conclusions are deceiving and incorrect. Though there was in fact a world-end scenario in ancient Egypt, it was very nebulous and clearly not something on which they spent considerable time dwelling. There was no hint of a fixed time or date--just the certainty that at some unknown time in the future, the cosmos would cease to exist.

Fringe writers love to invent nonsense about the pyramids. They'll twist all known data to arrive at their own ends. It's quite unlikely the Giza pyramids were ever deliberately planned and built to align perfectly with heavenly bodies. Rather, careful surveys have established that the way they sit on the Plateau, their southeast corners form a line that almost perfectly aligned northeast to the ancient solar-cult center at Heliopolis. This makes sense from the ancient Egyptian perspective, not some bizarre "facts" invented by fringe writers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kmt sesh,

North East towards ancient solar-cult center at Heliopolis. Do you have any drawings, doagrams / Links for this?

Sorry if it's the 200,000,000.001th request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kmt sesh,

North East towards ancient solar-cult center at Heliopolis. Do you have any drawings, doagrams / Links for this?

Sorry if it's the 200,000,000.001th request.

Actually you're the first to ask that, believe it or not. I've read of the alignment in many of my books but have rarely seen a diagram, and I didn't manage to find a decent one on the internet. However, if you have the delightful and ever-useful application known as GoogleEarth, it's easy enough to do yourself:

GizaHeliopolis.jpg

The Giza pyramids are those teeny bumps at the lower-left corner, and I've thumbtacked as well as provided the latitude and longitude for the ancient site of Heliopolis, at upper-right (northeast in this image). The red line shows the alignment, as best as I could manage it myself.

People who study the Giza necropolis will note how far back to the southwest the smaller pyramid of Menkaure was situated when it was built. This was the only way the southeast corners of all three pyramids would affect the alignment to Heliopolis. People still like to invent all sorts of fantastical things about the alignment of monuments, but their speculation means nothing when they don't understand what was important to the Egyptians. They did indeed build to accomplish a balance with the landscape and with other important monuments, but whimsical notions about alignments with the belt of Orion (as one example) don't seem to hold much water when one understands the precepts and traditions of the ancients themselves.

Other pyramids clearly held to alignments with Heliopolis, too. While trying to find images for Giza I came across this graphic, which is a little simplistic for my tastes but serves the purpose. It not only shows the alignment with the Giza pyramids but with several others at Saqqara and Abusir. The cult at Heliopolis was of paramount importance in the Old Kingdom, and the pyramids kings built at that time formed a direct link with them. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hello

I just joined this message board because I am interested in "the unexplained."

First, because I know how these message boards go, I would like to establish some common ground. Do we agree that Sumer is the earliest known civilization? And, by "known" I mean-what is accepted by main stream scholars. I am not a "supporter" of Mr. Sitchen's theories, although I do find them interesting and worth further investigation. As for his theories being all "bunk", I am more than prepared to reach that conclusion, as some have. But so far-in my study-I do not find his theories much more unbelievable than any thing else about this world.

I would like to first find the point where Mr. Sitchen starts his "fiction" by understanding what is felt to be established truth. I would also like to establish exactly what the clay tablets do say, how close to-or far from the mainstream translations his interpretations are. But, again-first I would like to know if we are in agreement in our defining Sumer as man's first known civilzation? Is he making that up, or can we begin there?

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello

I just joined this message board because I am interested in "the unexplained."

First, because I know how these message boards go, I would like to establish some common ground. Do we agree that Sumer is the earliest known civilization? And, by "known" I mean-what is accepted by main stream scholars. I am not a "supporter" of Mr. Sitchen's theories, although I do find them interesting and worth further investigation. As for his theories being all "bunk", I am more than prepared to reach that conclusion, as some have. But so far-in my study-I do not find his theories much more unbelievable than any thing else about this world.

I would like to first find the point where Mr. Sitchen starts his "fiction" by understanding what is felt to be established truth. I would also like to establish exactly what the clay tablets do say, how close to-or far from the mainstream translations his interpretations are. But, again-first I would like to know if we are in agreement in our defining Sumer as man's first known civilzation? Is he making that up, or can we begin there?

Thank you.

By conventional history, yes, Sumer is still recognized as the first civilization, arising in southern Iraq as a series of highly sophisticated city-states prior to 3,300 BCE. I cannot attest so much to the translations from the original Sumerian and Akkadian scripts, but an authority who is capable of doing so and who amply demonstrates why Sitchin is so unreliable is a professional historian and linguist named Michael Heiser. You've probably seen some of us link to his website in this lengthy, ongoing discussion, and the website is worth a careful perusal so you can see for yourself why Sitchin is wrong. Here's the link again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello

I just joined this message board because I am interested in "the unexplained."

First, because I know how these message boards go, I would like to establish some common ground. Do we agree that Sumer is the earliest known civilization? And, by "known" I mean-what is accepted by main stream scholars. I am not a "supporter" of Mr. Sitchen's theories, although I do find them interesting and worth further investigation. As for his theories being all "bunk", I am more than prepared to reach that conclusion, as some have. But so far-in my study-I do not find his theories much more unbelievable than any thing else about this world.

I would like to first find the point where Mr. Sitchen starts his "fiction" by understanding what is felt to be established truth. I would also like to establish exactly what the clay tablets do say, how close to-or far from the mainstream translations his interpretations are. But, again-first I would like to know if we are in agreement in our defining Sumer as man's first known civilzation? Is he making that up, or can we begin there?

Thank you.

Sumer is the oldest civilization that left writings, yes.

But there are older ones than Sumer that didn't.

Gubekli Tepe comes to mind, and although many here will say that it is not a civilization, I would say that such a large temple did not just spring up from the ground as a spring flower. It is the result of some cult or religion, but we just haven't seen any writings by the ones who created it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality is myth, math, and metaphor - with a sprinkle of magic. Sitchen's theories - as with all others - is filled with metaphoric content - from 3600 years to Sumerian Gods creating a Biogenetic Program. It's all part of the alchemy of time and consciousness through which we experience and evolve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality is myth, math, and metaphor - with a sprinkle of magic. Sitchen's theories - as with all others - is filled with metaphoric content - from 3600 years to Sumerian Gods creating a Biogenetic Program. It's all part of the alchemy of time and consciousness through which we experience and evolve.

Sitchin's theory are bull, consisting of made up myths, his very own magic (= lying and distorting facts) and some math (1+1=3).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By conventional history, yes, Sumer is still recognized as the first civilization, arising in southern Iraq as a series of highly sophisticated city-states prior to 3,300 BCE. I cannot attest so much to the translations from the original Sumerian and Akkadian scripts, but an authority who is capable of doing so and who amply demonstrates why Sitchin is so unreliable is a professional historian and linguist named Michael Heiser. You've probably seen some of us link to his website in this lengthy, ongoing discussion, and the website is worth a careful perusal so you can see for yourself why Sitchin is wrong. Here's the link again.

Hello kmt sesh and thank you very much for that link. I appreciate that the author has been formally educated in these matters.

Obviously it will take me some time to read all of the material. I do have a question from what I have read so far re: the nephilim. In the original hebrew language, as if I were reading an ancient text myself, would I actually see the word: nephilim? The author of this site states:

Sitchin assumes "Nephilim" comes from the Hebrew word "naphal" (as opposed to ARAMAIC - see below) which usually means "to fall."

The above file also discusses Sitchin's confusion of the sons of God and the nephilim - and evidence from his own book, Stairway to Heaven, that he cannot distinguish between Hebrew and Aramaic!

What I am trying to establish here is where does the actual word: Nephilim, come from? When I read my english version bible in Genesis 6:4 the actual word: Nephilim is used(as long as it has not been translated to "giants", as it has been in several versions of the English Bible.)

Also, by this authors statements, can it be said that (whether or not Sitchen is correct)that Nephilim does not mean "giants." Why was the word ever translated to the word "giants?"

"Nephilim" - in the form we find it in the Hebrew Bible - COULD come from Hebrew "naphal," but it could ONLY be translated one way in light of the spelling - "those who are fallen"

So, is this author saying that: yes, the word Nephilim is in the Hebrew bible and yes, it means "those who are fallen" but only if the Hebrew is used instead of Aramaic? Is the "original" Hebrew Bible written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Is this author saying that Sitchen should have used the Aramaic translation/meaning for the word: Nephilim, yet he chose to use/assume the word came from Hebrew? And, if Aramaic should be used for the translation: what does Nephilim mean when translated using Aramaic?

(i.e., either "fallen in battle" - which is out of the question given the context of Genesis 6 - or "spiritually fallen" / evil - which fits the context IF the sons of God are evil). To see that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were evil divine beings and this cohabitation was evil, one needs only to turn to either Jude 6-7 and II Peter 2:4-6, or the Book of Enoch.

In light of this, is it correct to understand that Genesis 6:4 is speaking of "The Nephilim" as "those who have fallen"-as "sons of god" who had sex with "daughters of men." In other words, is what is being debunked here is Mr. Sitchen's translation of the word "nephilim" and not the idea that in the Hebrew bible there is a story about "those who fell" who are "sons of god" who had "sex with the daughters of man?"

If that is correct, then why would the Hebrew Bible have a passage re: "God" having "sons"? Regardless of what their name is, or what that name means translated? And, why would they be having sex with anyone? The bible also goes on to say that "children were born to them." So, is the Hebrew bible saying that there were "people" who were born of "sons of god" and "daughters of men?" Is it correct to say this is not what is disputed?

What I am getting here: and I may be wrong-is that the dispute is not in the idea that ancient text describe "God" having "sons" and those "sons" having sex with "daughters of men" and the result being offspring but that Sitchen is incorrect in saying the meaning of the name for these "sons" is "those who came down FROM ABOVE?" That there were Nephilim, and that they "fell" is all that should be stated?

4) Mr. Sitchin contends that the word "Nephilim" means "those who came down from above" or "those who descended to earth" or "people of the fiery rockets" (see The Twelfth Planet, pp. vii, 128ff.).

I apologize for my confusion.

Thank you

Edited by Deep13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality is myth, math, and metaphor - with a sprinkle of magic. Sitchen's theories - as with all others - is filled with metaphoric content - from 3600 years to Sumerian Gods creating a Biogenetic Program. It's all part of the alchemy of time and consciousness through which we experience and evolve.

Hello Lion of Judah

"It's all part of the alchemy of time and consciousness through which we experience and evolve." I dig what you are saying. Why I feel that to be "true" is because there are so many "unexplained" mysteries. Why can't we know the "truth?" Why are there so many people who say so many different things, and they all have "proof" as to why they are the ones who are correct? I have also studied "consciousness" and believe(hope) there is a higher way of being-because I have not be able to get to the "truth" of anything by studying(earthly subjects) and having an open mind in close to twenty-five years.

When you ask for the "truth" you get sent to the philosophers-where there is more mystery surrounding what "truth" even means. And, of course you always run into the idea that everyone's truth is their own. So far humanity has not been able to even establish what the definition of truth is-let alone what IS the truth. I thought the answers would be in science, but again-there is still no agreement there. Finding out that not everyone(even in science)agrees with evolution of ape to man-or even that Stephen Hawking knows what he is talking about-was an eye opener.

I am interested in what you have to say. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello

So, we have established that our critique of Sitchen as far as the Nephilim goes, is Mr. Sitchen's "error" is turning the Hebrew Bible's "sons of god" into "those who fell to earth" or "the people of the fiery rockets." Which the word itself: Nephilim, is not the only argument Sitchen makes on this subject. Maybe we can talk about that later if anyone is interested in coming along with me on this mystery.

Now, to my understanding the reason Mr. Sitchen does this, makes this connection is because Abraham came from Ur. Understanding that in the Hebrew Bible there is a belief in "the sons of god" and their ability to procreate with human women, I personally see how Mr. Sitchen sees a connection. I will explain.

The Sumarians wrote about their gods that came from the heavens, the Hebrews believed that God was in heaven(as does every single religion that believes in God)-and for God's sons-we would think they are from heaven also. It would seem that the sons of god would have to come down(to earth that is) to actually have sex with human women. If Abraham, the patriarch of the Hebrew religion came from Ur-which I believe is regarded as fact-why is it not feasible to make the connection between the religion of Sumer and that of the Hebrews?

Wikipedia:

Ur was a city in ancient Sumer, located at the site of modern Tell el-Mukayyar in Iraq's Dhi Qar Governorate.[3] Once a coastal city near the mouth of the then Euphrates river on the Persian Gulf, Ur is now well inland, south of the Euphrates on its right bank, 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) from Nasiriyah, Iraq. It is close to the site of ancient Eridu. Ur was a Sumerian city-state.

Now, I did find this: Ur Kaśdim or Ur of the Chaldees is the town in the Hebrew Bible and related literature where Abraham (origin. Abram Gen. 17.5) may have been born. The traditional site of Abraham's birth is in the vicinity of Edessa although Ur Kaśdim has been popularly identified since 1927 by Sir Charles Woolley with the Sumerian city of Ur, in southern Mesopotamia, which was under the rule of the Chaldeans — although Josephus, Islamic tradition, and Jewish authorities like Maimonides all concur that Ur Kaśdim was in Northern Mesopotamia — now southeastern Turkey (identified with Urkesh, Urartu, Urfa, and Kutha respectively).

So, we could make the argument that what Sitchen was incorrect about was the "Ur" that Abraham came from. Although this Ur Kasdim still being in Mesopotamia, just north and not south. I do find the impact of a direct connection between Abraham and Sumer to be less stunning knowing this information. But, as with EVERYTHING it must be noted that this information is up for speculation. Some scholars hold the idea that Abraham was from Ur, the city-state of Sumer.

Here is information about Harran-where Abraham was told to leave Ur and go to:

Harran, also known as Carrhae, is a district of Şanlıurfa Province in the southeast of Turkey.

A very ancient city which was a major Mesopotamian commercial, cultural, and religious center, Harran is a valuable archaeological site. It is often identified as Haran, the place in which Abraham lived before he reached Canaan.

Among Harran's trading partners was Tyre (Ezekiel 27:23). One of Harran's specialties was the odoriferous gum derived from the stobrum tree.[1][2]

The city was the chief home of the Mesopotamian moon god Sin, under the Babylonians and even into Roman times.

Here, I feel is the connection Mr. Sitchen makes once again: Abraham would have known and been around and aware of the Babylonian religion and it's belief in the moon god Sin.

It is difficult for me not to see the connection between the Sumerians "Gods" who came from heaven to teach humanity the "art of civilization" and the Hebrew idea of "God in heaven" and his sons "who came down."

And to note and establish for further conversation, I do allow for the idea that most, if not all of the ancient peoples of Mesopotamia's religions/beliefs were just the continuation of Sumer and it's religion.

Sumerian religion refers to the mythology, pantheon, rites and cosmology of the Sumerian civilization. Sumerian religion influenced Mesopotamian mythology as a whole, surviving in the mythologies and religions of the Hurrians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and other culture groups.

Adding to the idea that we can connect the Hebrew Bible and the religion of Sumer we have connections between the two religions that is not disputed:

Some stories in Sumerian religion appear similar to stories in other Middle-Eastern religions. For example, the Biblical account of Noah's flood resembles some aspects of the Sumerian deluge myth. The Judaic underworld Sheol is very similar in description with the Sumerian and Babylonian Kigal. A number of stories and deities have Greek parallels as well.[citation needed] Sumerian scholar Samuel Noah Kramer noted similarities between many Sumerian and Akkadian "proverbs" and the later Hebrew proverbs, many of which are featured in the Book of Proverbs.[8]

So, we see there is still the connection between Abraham(i.e. the Hebrew religion)and that of Sumer by way of Babylonia. And with connections such as the deluge myth being "borrowed" from Sumer by the Hebrew Bible-I do not see that Mr. Sitchen is "just making up" whatever he wants to fit his theory. At least not here.

The Sumerians practiced a polytheistic religion, with anthropomorphic deities representing cosmic and terrestrial forces in their world. According to said mythology, the gods originally created humans as servants for themselves but freed them when they became too much to handle.

Part two of my post: things get turned around and funky...

This next part is interesting and gives one the idea that it was the Semites that had the idea that "God" or the "gods" were like human beings and not just etherial.

In historical Babylonia the gods were conceived of in the form of man. Man was created in the image of God because the gods themselves were men. But the conception cannot be traced back further than the age when the Sumerians and Semites came into contact with one another. In pre-Semitic Sumer there are no anthropomorphic gods. We hear, instead, of the zi or 'spirit', a word properly signifying 'life' which manifested itself in the power of motion. All things that moved were possessed of life, and there was accordingly a 'life' or 'spirit' of the water as well as of man or beast. .... Sumerian theology, in fact, was still on the level of animism... Vestiges of the old animism can still be detected even in the later cult: by the side of the human gods an Assyrian prayer invokes the mountains, the rivers and the winds, and from time to time we come across a worship of deified towns. It was the town itself that was divine, not the deity to whom its chief temple was dedicated. So, again, the god or goddess continued to be symbolized by some sacred animal or object whose figure appears upon seals and boundary-stones...

With the advent of the Semite all is changed. The gods have become men and women with intensified powers and the gift of immortality, but in all other respects they live and act like the men and women of this nether world. ... The Semitic god of Babylon was 'lord of gods' and men, of heaven and earth; Assur of Assyria was 'king of the gods' and lord of 'the heavenly hosts'.

So, this information is stating that it was during the influence of the Semites that "the gods themselves were men." It is the Semitic language that was used to describe these "gods" that were men, the ancient language of the Hebrews. Does anyone else find it interesting that the forerunners of the Hebrew religion and people are the ones who considered their gods to be men?

I realize that I used Wikipedia for all of my sources. I will look for further information on these subjects to see what they have to say. Of course, and the reason I am here on this board, I would like to have others who are interested give any sources that would agree or disagree with the information I have posted here.

In light of the revelation that it was the Semitic influence that gave the gods their "not just spiritual" qualities a part of the bible comes to mind. When the "angels of the lord" came to Abraham(living outside of Sodom) and they required: rest, and food. They also were seen by the people of Sodom, when these angels came to Lot(Abraham's relative living in Sodom), and the people wanted to have sex with the messengers and the "angels", "lords" had to smote the people with blindness. I can't help but see Sitchens idea that these "gods" were more than a mythic idea, that they were "people" that could be seen and touched. Maybe Mr. Sitchen's mistake was in starting with Sumer-it seems the wealth of information concerning the idea that "God" and his sons and his messengers were the same as humans or like humans and made trips "from heaven to earth", comes from the Hebrews.

I am personally less interested in whether or not Mr. Sitchen's theories are one hundred percent correct, than in the idea that our ancient ancestors claim to have had such close physical connections with the sons of God. Even unto having children with them.

Thank you and PLEASE correct me where I am mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello deep13 and welcome to the forum :)

Actually, I'm very happy to see someone like yourself, who seems to have some knowledge of information pertinent to the subject of Sitchin's translations and can use that knowledge to give a good discussion on Sitchin's works. Personally, I think the skeptics aren't taking their own advice, and reading the books themselves. Maybe bits and pieces here and there which doesn't give the full and complete story. Much like people arguing about Atlantis when they haven't even read Plato.

I'm afraid I can't give you an educated conversation, but I agree with you using logic, and I've said this somewhere before, whether here or in another forum, that for the sons of god to be able to breed with humans, they had to BE human.

I have often wondered where the IDEA of "gods" came from. The idea of "worshiping". I think this was "taught" behavior and not something that developed from scratch. Also the idea that offerings should be made to the gods. If the "gods" were just spirits, they didn't need earthly things, so why give them? I think at one time, there WERE people here from the skies that taught humans to do these things, and afterwards, the humans still did these things without realizing they were actually just worshiping another human being. One that might have been a whole lot smarter, but a human none the less.

I'm enjoying your explanations even if I'm no good with who's first or what's second!! :no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings all,

I must confess I haven't read any Sitchin but I have a massive interest in human origins. 'Enki Speaks' is an online resource where you can get a good idea of Sitchen/Sumerian narrative. With an open mind you can begin to see possibilities emerging, that include man being genetically enginered in a lab up until the point where the females could interbreed directly with the gods or whatever we want to call them. It all seems pretty conceivable to me when you consider scientists have been unable to find the missing link. Has anyone heard of Lilith? I think it is a big clue in establishing the truth.

Ultimately, I think Sitchin has served his purpose, and possibly the agenda of others too, in getting pre-Semitic deities out into public consciousness. The whole Nibiru issue is complex. You know IV's theories well they are a possibility with Kypur belt anomalies but as I understand Nibiru means "place of the Crossing" which could just as easily make it a Wormhole or Stargate related.

I suggest we all pick up the baton so clumsily dropped by Sitchin when he started making claims he could not back up and we start making our own theories. I have some but I don't feel like getting popped or dissed so I'll keep 'em to myself.

Much respect to all commenters you sound like good folks. Keep on searching.

"History is fiction written by the 'ardest and longest lived."

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.