6000 year old Stone Tablets and the Sumerians Knowledge of our Universe. Great Vid.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Sitchin grossly misreads Sumerian texts and worse, he purposely misrepresents Sumerian artifacts and tablets as "proof" of his ancient astronaut theory. I had read the first book of his series (the 12th planet) and nearly choked when I read how he interpreted a Babylonian astrolabe (which depicts the night sky, including milky way and several prominent constellations like Pliedes) Sitchin chose instead to misrepresent this artifact as a astronomical map to earth, complete with landmarks such as clouds. Last time I checked giving someone directions that involve "turn left at the cloud" so their "dingir" (rocketship) doesn't crash into a mountain is hardly what I call good flight directions.

He contends that this alien race could come to earth and begin interbreeding with Humans. We can't breed with chimpanzees, with which we share 98% of our genome, so how does that compare with an truly alien species, with whom we aren't likely to share any of our genetic code. Again it's just nonsense. I doubt Sitchin cares what the scientific community thinks of him, he's made a ton of money selling his farce of a story.

Lets here your translation then. If you are so smart and such a scholar, please, post your translation of the texts. There are over 40,000 publicly available texts for you to get started on. Some in London and others spread out through other prominent museums in eastern Europe.

Originally posted by EarthOccupant
reply to post by Phage

 

With all respect,

I assume you can read Sumerian, otherwise what you are saying is hearsay/hear-read, of-course you still can be right :-)

Bravo, old chap! It had to be said.

There are relatively few people in the world who are conversant with Sumerian cuneiform, and even among scholars there is hot debate and strong disagreement regarding the decipherment.

Take an old translation of, for example, the Iliad, and compare it with a recent one. While the story remains essentially the same, the poetry, use of language and phrasing between the translations is at times almost unrecognizable. And that's Ancient Greek, of which we know a heck of a lot more than cuneiform...

So, I would cool it with the Sitchin attacks based on his Sumerian translations. No matter what the "experts" say, there is no absolute authority on the language and/or interpretation of the tablets.

I found the documentary interesting and thought provoking....I look at most of these theories and ideas as mental catalysts.Anything to open your mind to new possibility is an empowering experience...not that you should blindly take anything as irrefutable fact but to think for yourself and follow your intuition.Do your own seeking.

Originally posted by VI0811
I have read a great number of books on the Sumerian subject and the history surrounding their culture.

Wonderful! It is a rare pleasure to meet someone who shares a love of Assyriology! I relish any chance to discuss the finer points.

Originally posted by VI0811
Sitchin is right on course with his theory's.

Which theories would those be and what exact texts support said theories?

Originally posted by VI0811
I have since begun going through the texts myself to determine the validity of Sitchens ( as well as others ) claims of the origins of man. I have found it surprising how accurate Sitchen ( as well as others ) is in his books.

Which texts are you referencing?

Originally posted by VI0811
The discription of Nibiru however, sounds more like a dawf star than a planet.

Can you please tell us which Sumerian texts describe such a thing?

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
/reply to post by Blackmarketeer

 

lol you actually believe that the scientific community report that we share 98% of our DNA with the Chimpanzees ?

Chimpanzees share an estimated 98% of their genes with humans

That's not actually true

chimpanzees aren't smart they only act and see what humans
do and they will repeat the process, same goes with apes.

edit on 12-10-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

Really? Are you joking? If we didn't branch off of our closest ancestor, (chimpanzee) where do you think the species human came from. In response to your speculation regarding: "the monkey see, monkey do" conclusion; you may want to research monkeys utilizing primitive tools in the wild. I'd be willing to bet their are monkeys smarter than some of the people I see at Wal-Mart.

reply to post by WingedBull


Hi wingedbull,

He might be right about nibiru being associated with a brown dwarf. If you really are interested here are some ideas I had about the subject.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Take an old translation of, for example, the Iliad, and compare it with a recent one. While the story remains essentially the same, the poetry, use of language and phrasing between the translations is at times almost unrecognizable. And that's Ancient Greek, of which we know a heck of a lot more than cuneiform...

That is not a function of an improvement with our knowledge of ancient Greek but a function of the evolution of the use of our own English language, in use of the language and writing styles. The change you mention will not only be found in translations of the Iliad compared from "back-then" to now, but any modern book compared to books of centuries past.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
So, I would cool it with the Sitchin attacks based on his Sumerian translations. No matter what the "experts" say, there is no absolute authority on the language and/or interpretation of the tablets.

While certainly there are difficulties in translating a dead language and we improve our knowledge every year and there are disagreements one translation to the next, it is a pretty bold statement to say there are no experts or authorities on the translation of the tablets, all the more so when it is used as a defense of someone who is widely known among Assyriologists to make grossly inaccurate translations and assumptions, and who truncates, misquotes and takes passages out of context to make his case.

We are not talking about a simple disagreement over a simple translation of texts, but wildly differing from what any other expert in the field reads.

Originally posted by Khaaaaaan!!
He might be right about nibiru being associated with a brown dwarf. If you really are interested here are some ideas I had about the subject.

Hello Khaaaaaan!!

Thank you for the link. I will admit astronomy is not one of my strong suits, so it will take me some time to read.

This thread makes me laugh. The contents provoke Sitchin supporters and critics to state their opinions. Usually, the believers who can't decipher the ancient languages so they don't really know if Sitchin is right or wrong about his assumptions respond to believer stimuli and insult the critical thinkers such as Phage who may not read ancient languages either. However, the critical thinkers can point to the authoritative sources that also criticize Sitchin's methods and conclusions. When a body of experts on ancient languages criticize a rogue who authors books conflicting with their expertise, one has to look at the books' contents to see if they make linguistic sense and if they don't because one would have to accept out of this world explanations one has to think that the author (Sitchin) is not playing with all of his linguistic marbles.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by EarthOccupant
reply to post by Phage

 

With all respect,

I assume you can read Sumerian, otherwise what you are saying is hearsay/hear-read, of-course you still can be right :-)

Bravo, old chap! It had to be said.

There are relatively few people in the world who are conversant with Sumerian cuneiform, and even among scholars there is hot debate and strong disagreement regarding the decipherment.

Take an old translation of, for example, the Iliad, and compare it with a recent one. While the story remains essentially the same, the poetry, use of language and phrasing between the translations is at times almost unrecognizable. And that's Ancient Greek, of which we know a heck of a lot more than cuneiform...

So, I would cool it with the Sitchin attacks based on his Sumerian translations. No matter what the "experts" say, there is no absolute authority on the language and/or interpretation of the tablets.

I'm Forced to disagree to a certain extent. Of all the translations I have read, Yes, the story is almost 95% of the time....... the same. Therefor, one can come to the conclusion, that between the different individuals that actually do the translations, they are definitely on course with an accurate depiction of the texts.

Start with: etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by VI0811
I have read a great number of books on the Sumerian subject and the history surrounding their culture.

Wonderful! It is a rare pleasure to meet someone who shares a love of Assyriology! I relish any chance to discuss the finer points.

Originally posted by VI0811
Sitchin is right on course with his theory's.

Which theories would those be and what exact texts support said theories?

Originally posted by VI0811
I have since begun going through the texts myself to determine the validity of Sitchens ( as well as others ) claims of the origins of man. I have found it surprising how accurate Sitchen ( as well as others ) is in his books.

Which texts are you referencing?

Originally posted by VI0811
The discription of Nibiru however, sounds more like a dawf star than a planet.

Can you please tell us which Sumerian texts describe such a thing?

Unfortunately, I do not keep strict records of what I read and do, but a good place to start is etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...
Authors :
Richard Sauder, Ph.D
Lynn Picknett and clive prince
andy lloyd
Lloyd Pye
Richard L. Thompson
Academy for Ancient Texts

These are good ones to start with ...

Originally posted by VI0811
I'm Forced to disagree to a certain extent. Of all the translations I have read, Yes, the story is almost 95% of the time....... the same. Therefor, one can come to the conclusion, that between the different individuals that actually do the translations, they are definitely on course with an accurate depiction of the texts.

Start with: etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...

That's what I was saying - the "story" remains the same, but the interpretation and/or translation of certain 'phrases' can differ significantly. For example, the meaning of "Nibiru" is hotly debated. Certain scholars dismiss Sitchins' interpretation of Nibiru as an astronomical body, but at the same time they cannot provide a convincing interpretation of their own, which confusingly ranges from a God, a "crossing", Jupiter, Mercury etc..

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Certain scholars dismiss Sitchins' interpretation of Nibiru as an astronomical body, but at the same time they cannot provide a convincing interpretation of their own, which confusingly ranges from a God, a "crossing", Jupiter, Mercury etc..

I think you may be confused on this point. It is not that there is confusion among Assyriologists as to what Nibiru was to the Babylonians, be it Jupiter, a crossing-point in the sky, a constellation or Mercury. To the Babylonians, Nibiru was all of those things, depending on the context.