Debunking Sitchin Debunkers

a reply to: undo

i don't have a problem with the entire sumerian narrative being hebrew in origin

That's not what anyone is suggesting. The Sumerian narrative is not Hebrew in origin, only Hebrew influences are present - at a later date. Most of what we know as the Creation Epic originated in both Sumer and among Semites living in Sumer. If "Hebrews" were in fact Eastern Semites acting as the godhead in Nippur and Ur, they did so by assuming that role by hook or crook. Sitchin's one contribution to Biblical archeology may be the word origin "Hebrew" as a contraction of Sumerian "Ib.ru" (although Ibri does appear in the Bible). He suggests it was "Ni.ib.ru" for People of Nippur, shortened to Ib.ru. Hebrew is what these Semites came to call themselves after their city, Nippur, the "city of crossing," they were the "people of the crossing." This idea is not entirely of Sitchin's, as Biblical scholars have contemplated the term Ibri as related to Nippur.

i'm guessing, because the sumerian data was buried under 8ft of flood silt from the black sea flood...

"Black Sea flood?" That has no basis in any facts, if there was such a 'Black Sea flood' (I presume you refer to the Biblical flood). Sumer was prone to floods, thanks to it's two rivers, it is what enabled it to be such a fertile region that first attracted man to it's flood plains. From Sumerian accounts it was only the southern cities that experienced the ravages of a great flood in the tale of Upnapishtim, and with Sumer already a dead spoken language outside of the palaces and temples, they lost the ability to speak Sumerian, and perhaps to even read and write it, at least until resources from the north arrived. Eventually these southern Sumerian cities would recover and once again speak the language of their forefathers from "before the flood."

As a side note, Semites are not all a genetically related people. It is only a language group. It would be a mistake to think that Hebrews were related to Amorites for instance.

a reply to: eriktheawful

oh you have a point. i was just refreshing my information on what wiped the dinosaurs, and that's 66 million years ago! that can't be right, is it??

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

That's not what anyone is suggesting. The Sumerian narrative is not Hebrew in origin, only Hebrew influences are present - at a later date. Most of what we know as the Creation Epic originated in both Sumer and among Semites living in Sumer. If "Hebrews" were in fact Eastern Semites acting as the godhead in Nippur and Ur, they did so by assuming that role by hook or crook. Sitchin's one contribution to Biblical archeology may be the word origin "Hebrew" as a contraction of Sumerian "Ib.ru" (although Ibri does appear in the Bible). He suggests it was "Ni.ib.ru" for People of Nippur, shortened to Ib.ru. Hebrew is what these Semites came to call themselves after their city, Nippur, the "city of crossing," they were the "people of the crossing." This idea is not entirely of Sitchin's, as Biblical scholars have contemplated the term Ibri as related to Nippur.

the habiru or habru (hebrews), from nibru or nibiru. yep

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

That has no basis in any facts, if there was such a 'Black Sea flood' (I presume you refer to the Biblical flood)

2 geologists from oxford university discovered the black sea flood and dated it to around 3000 BC
however, although it is in the noah story, i see evidence of 2 different cataclysms in the noah story. one, a not so bad affair that only required 32 animals be rescued, equivalent to the royal barnyard, and one, a massive event that reset everything, so much so, that the place had be terraformed, which is hinted at earlier in verse 2 of genesis 1, where it says the earth BECAME tohu and bohu, not WAS tohu and bohu. the translators chose "was" but the word doesn't translate to that. however it does translate to BECOME, the past tense of which is BECAME. so the creation chapters are a re-creation not a first creation.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: eriktheawful

oh you have a point. i was just refreshing my information on what wiped the dinosaurs, and that's 66 million years ago! that can't be right, is it??

Yes it is.

Because the geological record clearly shows that just over 65 million years ago, there are no more dinosaur fossils. They stop there.

There were several things going on during that time period: volcanic eruptions, changing climate, and a very large meteor strike, but no ice age or global flood.

originally posted by: eriktheawful

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: eriktheawful

oh you have a point. i was just refreshing my information on what wiped the dinosaurs, and that's 66 million years ago! that can't be right, is it??

Yes it is.

Because the geological record clearly shows that just over 65 million years ago, there are no more dinosaur fossils. They stop there.

There were several things going on during that time period: volcanic eruptions, changing climate, and a very large meteor strike, but no ice age or global flood.

go backwards in time from 3000 bc, what is the next nearest chronological catastrophe of a global nature?

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: eriktheawful

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: eriktheawful

oh you have a point. i was just refreshing my information on what wiped the dinosaurs, and that's 66 million years ago! that can't be right, is it??

Yes it is.

Because the geological record clearly shows that just over 65 million years ago, there are no more dinosaur fossils. They stop there.

There were several things going on during that time period: volcanic eruptions, changing climate, and a very large meteor strike, but no ice age or global flood.

go backwards in time from 3000 bc, what is the next nearest chronological catastrophe of a global nature?

The KT extinction, which was 65 million years ago. Since then, we've not had a "Global" one. Even the current Ice Age did not impact the entire globe.

There have been major events, and some that affect large areas. But the geological record shows that the last event that happened that was global in nature, and had a major impact (enough to snuff out many life forms all over the world) on the entire globe was the KT extinction which was 65 million years ago.

a reply to: eriktheawful

can you give the extent of damage from the current ice age?

a reply to: undo

I gave you a link in my prior posts. Here you can read about it:

Quaternary

There have not been any major (large amounts of species) extinctions during this time period, as compared to ones starting with the KT and further back. Here is a link on the Lesser Extinctions

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: undo

I gave you a link in my prior posts. Here you can read about it:

Quaternary

There have not been any major (large amounts of species) extinctions during this time period, as compared to ones starting with the KT and further back. Here is a link on the Lesser Extinctions

well now, so far, that sounds like a possible suspect. what causes that cycle?

Pleistocene Quaternary extinction event 640,000, 74,000, and 13,000 years ago Unknown; possibilities include change in climate and overhunting by humans.[17]

13,000 years ago??? what happened then?

originally posted by: undo
Pleistocene Quaternary extinction event 640,000, 74,000, and 13,000 years ago Unknown; possibilities include change in climate and overhunting by humans.[17]

13,000 years ago??? what happened then?

Uhm, not to sound rude, but there are links in the article that you can follow that talks about those.

13,000 years ago was about when the major ice sheets began to retreat again (the reason we are still in a Ice Age, is because we define a Ice Age as a time when huge ice sheets still exist. Today that would be Antarctica and Greenland. An Ice Age is considered gone when no large ice sheets exist). Mammoths became extinct around then.

a reply to: eriktheawful

i always like to get data from people who study these topics because they tend to have a wider range of knowledge on the subject than a single link does.

The extinctions were especially severe in North America where native horses and camels were eliminated.

LOL! north america had camels at one time. lol

so could the extinction level description ( change in climate and overhunting by humans) coincide with the book of enoch's description:

CHAPTER VI.

1. And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. 2. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' 3. And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.'

4. And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' 5. Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. 6. And they were in all two hundred; who descended ⌈in the days⌉ of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. 7. And these are the names of their leaders: Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. 8. These are their chiefs of tens.

CHAPTER VII.

1. And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. 2. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: 3. Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, 4. the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. 5. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. 6. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

www.sacred-texts.com...

originally posted by: undo
so could the extinction level description ( change in climate and overhunting by humans) coincide with the book of enoch's description:

Climate change and overhunting by humans is a pretty strained interpretation of a text describing angels and humans having 4,500 foot tall offspring.

originally posted by: conundrummer

originally posted by: undo
so could the extinction level description ( change in climate and overhunting by humans) coincide with the book of enoch's description:

Climate change and overhunting by humans is a pretty strained interpretation of a text describing angels and humans having 4,500 foot tall offspring.

yeah that is one gigantic offspring. methinks someone missed a detail somewhere.

www.ancient-origins.net...#!bg9Jrd

Then we need to look at the Hopi.

It is interesting to note that the Babylonian sky god was named Anu. The Hopi word for “ant” is also anu, and the Hopi root word naki means “friends.” Thus, the Hopi Anu-naki, or “ant friends,” may have been the same as the Sumerian Annunaki—the beings who once came to Earth from the heavens.....

Perhaps it is more than a coincidence that the Egyptian word sahu means “stars of Orion,” whereas the Hopi word sohu means “star,” the most important of which are those in the constellation Orion

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

he Hopi word sohu (or soohu) simply means “star,” but in their belief system stars are conceptualized as supernatural entities, with those of Orion being ceremonially paramount. In the Egyptian Pyramid Texts (some of the world’s oldest funerary literature) the similar word Sahu refers to “the star gods in the constellation Orion.”

In addition, we find an important verification for the sky-ground dualism of the Orion Correlation Theory in both the Egyptian homophone sahu, which means “property,” and its cognate sah-t, which refers to “landed property,” “estate,” “site of a temple,” “homestead,” or “environs.”



Because the term sahu simultaneously refers to both stars and ground, this conceptual mirroring aligns the two realms, i.e., “...on earth as it is in heaven.”

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
Hopi Legend of Shambhala and the Sacred Mountain Mount Meru


The Hopi People & the Orion Constellation

a reply to: Unity_99

ooo, the hopi are one of my areas of study. thanks for the video!

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Harte

you think i'm a moron?

Would it be against the rules of ATS if I answered that honestly?

I think you are wasting much time on moronic material created by con-men. I also think you are doing a disservice to history and the translations of Sumerian text. I also think you are making huge leaps over logic to reach nonsensical conclusions that are easy to debunk with less than 5 mins of searching each claim you have made here (as you see everyone has already debunked your material).

I also feel slightly dishonest myself calling it "your material", since it is just you rehashing the works of frauds, con-men and/or idiots who have no business even speaking on the matters of Sumerian history.

What I see here is someone grossly manhandling one or two Sumerian texts, while remaining ignorant of (or ignopring for your own agenda) over a million other Sumerian texts and seals that blatantly dismantle your claims (or show no support of them to say the least).

Its very clear that you are pushing a blogtalk radio gig and that you are benefiting from lies (intentionally or unintentionally).

So I do not expect you to get on board with real translations.

Your misunderstanding of ABZU and ANUNNA alone shows exactly what crack pots you have decided to represent. One thing is for sure, you have either intentionally or unintentionally decided to join a bunch of hucksters and con-men to spread easily debunked nonsense that has no place in denying ignorance.

I personally suspect you know exactly that you are pushing hoaxes and lies. But there is a chance you are just honestly deceived.

MM