Debunking Sitchin Debunkers

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

i'm debunking you now, because the op suggests that you're throwing away whole sections of the text on the premise that sitchin discusses it. just because he took the time to research it and write a book on it that actually tries to piece all the parts that are ignored, together, doesn't mean everyone who talks about the parts that are ignored, are 1) in total agreement with sitchin or 2) that it nullifies what they are personally researching or 3) that they are by proxy full of crap themselves.

originally posted by: undo
you're suggesting that it should be okay to call tiamat a metaphor for salt water in one place, and then she has a "son" who is not a metaphor? that makes no sense. where's the rest of the metaphorical story, and what i mean by that is, how does salt water give birth to a son from mating with fresh water? where's the rest of the story?

How does a mating between the "whole sky" and the primordial sea result in the birth of the sky?

How does the sky mate with the earth, resulting in the birth of a water god that can impregnate human women?

It's religion, that's how.

Same way a swan can mate with a woman. Same way a virgin gives birth.

Whatever the method is, I need to stay away from it! LOL

Harte

a reply to: Harte

let me rephrase the question cause i don't think you understand what i'm asking:

abzu is a metaphor according to mainstream researchers, for fresh water.
tiamat is a metaphor according to mainstream researchers, for salt water.
these two mate creating a son who is a metaphor FOR WHAT?
and then tiamat mates with kingu and she gives birth to monstrosties who are metaphors FOR WHAT?

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Mr Mask

yeah well the experts use to think the earth was flat (and in theoretical physics, as a dimensional space, it might be describable as a series of stacked planes wrapped on a sphere, but that's a different subject), as well, and they were wrong about that. i can also name several other things mainstream archaeology was wrong about, and the subsequent texts written on the subject of people and locations mentioned in ancient texts, that the mainstream claimed were fictions. or the fact they rarely retract prior statements that are proven wrong by their own archaeological findings.

1) This is a great example of how easy you are fooled by lies and invented hogwash. One of the biggest misconceptions today is that science experts of the past thought the world was flat. That is a lie. Explained nicely here-

The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching. But it gained currency in the 19th century, thanks to inaccurate histories such as John William Draper's History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Atheists and agnostics championed the conflict thesis for their own purposes, but historical research gradually demonstrated that Draper and White had propagated more fantasy than fact in their efforts to prove that science and religion are locked in eternal conflict.

en.wikipedia.org...

There was never a time in educated history that scholars thought the world was flat. Do you also think Columbus discovered America and that Washington was the first president to hold office? Turn off your TV and pick up scholastic material please.

2) Incorrect data within any field does not prove or support your invented hypothesis. You have displayed that you misunderstand even the basics of Sumer's texts. You have mashed up words that no scholar connects. You have supported a known fraud (Sitchin). And you have been wrong about almost every single translation you have used.

Heck...you even misused and misunderstood "Abzu". How? I mean, even kids know this now do to a video game alone. I'm sorry, it isn't "peer reviewed works" that fail to provide evidence that is usable and reasonable.

It is you.

You seem nice tho...sadly you wasted too many years frolicking in the outlandish hoaxes of puppet masters like Sitchin and not enough time in legitimate sources.

MM

a reply to: Mr Mask

oh i get it, that was a protestant attack on catholicism? i'm interested, send me linkage to this information. let's just say i'm skeptical.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Mr Mask

oh i get it, that was a protestant attack on catholicism? i'm interested, send me linkage to this information. let's just say i'm skeptical.

Sigh...skeptical about a widely known and accepted truth? Really? You can not find the truth behind the flat-world myth? Do you have a computer? You seem pretty good at digging up nonsense created by hoaxers and able to write endlessly on them...but you can't locate the truth behind the creation of the flat-world myth?

I will help you...since I'm afraid if you go seeking it yourself you will come back with Annunaki.

Start here...top of the page. It should give you the right names and years to search things out.

www.livescience.com...

Thank me when you become aware of the truth...or don't.

I just find it odd that you can be skeptical of something that has been known for thousands of years, fully documented by Pythagoras, Aristotle, Eratosthenes, Ptolemy and countless other scholars all the way to before Christ- BUT you jump head first into nonsense that science and history has debunked and exposed as a hoax for decades now.

MM

a reply to: Mr Mask

oh i agree that the ancient people believed the earth was a sphere. what i'm looking for in your case, is evidence that it was a protestant attack on catholicism. sorta like the enlightenment, although started by catholic professors, was an attack by protestants. /sarcasm

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Mr Mask

oh i agree that the ancient people believed the earth was a sphere. what i'm looking for in your case, is evidence that it was a protestant attack on catholicism. sorta like the enlightenment, although started by catholic professors, was an attack by protestants. /sarcasm

I've linked you to the info you need to gather your answers. I am not here to teach high school history. I am here to deny ignorance.

If you want to debate or argue against what almost all historians present as the truth...that is your choice. I don't have the energy or time to go off topic for long about this.

MM

a reply to: Mr Mask

if you're denying ignorance, then show me where it says the guy who supposedly promoted this attack on catholicism, was a protestant? lol you entered that debate into the topic.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Mr Mask

if you're denying ignorance, then show me where it says the guy who supposedly promoted this attack on catholicism, was a protestant? lol you entered that debate into the topic.

It is in the source. names, dates, why historians think this and what is was done for.

Look...pretend its Sitchin talking about space lizards or the 10th planet...maybe then you will read the entire linked info.

MM

originally posted by: Mr Mask

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Mr Mask

if you're denying ignorance, then show me where it says the guy who supposedly promoted this attack on catholicism, was a protestant? lol you entered that debate into the topic.

It is in the source. names, dates, why historians think this and what is was done for.

Look...pretend its Sitchin talking about space lizards or the 10th planet...maybe then you will read the entire linked info.

MM

i did but nowhere does it say that the dude was a protestant.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Mr Mask

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Mr Mask

if you're denying ignorance, then show me where it says the guy who supposedly promoted this attack on catholicism, was a protestant? lol you entered that debate into the topic.

It is in the source. names, dates, why historians think this and what is was done for.

Look...pretend its Sitchin talking about space lizards or the 10th planet...maybe then you will read the entire linked info.

MM

i did but nowhere does it say that the dude was a protestant.

I Googled it just now...

I found over 300 websites with legitimate information on the subject and its sources.

How is it you can find all these Sumerian details that all of credible science and history fails to find...but you can't find information that is open to the public and considered basic history by almost all historians worldwide?

I wonder.

Is it because it doesn't rest on fantastical claims based on hoaxes and lies?

If you can not find this information that is easily located on various historic websites and peer reviewed journals...then how can i trust your research about Sitchin and the silly stuff you keep inventing or regurgitating?

Its basically like screaming "I can read Sumerian texts! But I can not locate or recite the English alphabet".
MM

a reply to: Mr Mask

this is the point, IF, the guy who started that misinformation campaign against the catholic church was a protestant, i need evidence. i'm not saying that there hasn't been problems of that magnitude between differing christian groups, i would just like evidence. from what i can tell, the vatican is harder on christians of every stripe, than pretty much any other group on the planet. so if you have info to the contrary, i'd like to see it. i mean, if their own professors, in their own universities, started the enlightenment which resulted in nuns and priests being slaughtered all over europe, i just have to ask for evidence that it was indeed a protestant. to me, that sounds like assumption since there was a movement against catholicism at the time, not just by protestants but by non-catholics and ex-catholics as well.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Harte

let me rephrase the question cause i don't think you understand what i'm asking:

abzu is a metaphor according to mainstream researchers, for fresh water.
tiamat is a metaphor according to mainstream researchers, for salt water.
these two mate creating a son who is a metaphor FOR WHAT?

Why does he have to be a metaphor at all?

You know the Babylonians were using old gods there with new names. The Primordial Sea was Nammu before, not Tiamat. Should be a clue that by that time, the pantheon was so changed as to be practically unrecognizeable to an actual Sumerian, only 1500 years earlier. If that's so, then why assume we can nail it down from this end, 3,000 years later?

I'd say it can't make sense unless we find more written mythology. Hard to do in that area these days, right?

Harte

originally posted by: undo

i did but nowhere does it say that the dude was a protestant.

Here's some help for you if you're interested: Q&A with James Hannam.

[...]4. You write that it is a myth that people in the Middle Ages believed the world was flat. How did this supposedly erroneous notion about the Middle Ages become part of our conventional wisdom?

The earliest record I’ve found of this myth is from a book by Sir Francis Bacon written in the sixteenth century. Sir Francis was a Protestant who claimed believing the Earth is flat was evidence for medieval Catholic stupidity. So the myth started off as Protestant propaganda but was soon used to denigrate the Middle Ages in general

So, you should read Bacon (before eating it.)
That's OT enough.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

not really. the biblical account and ancient egyptian accounts, not to mention ugaritic accounts, help to flesh it out, as do the accounts of what are called hebrew pseudopigraphical books (book of enoch, book of giants, etc). so we CAN know what they were referring to 3000 years later, because there is plenty of evidence for those accounts (if you don't count 300 ft. tall giants)

a reply to: Harte

thanks, i'll check it out.

a reply to: Harte

the article says:

The myth that the Church held back science dates from the “enlightenment” when Voltaire and other French philosophes invented it to attack the Catholics of their own day as impediments to political progress.

odd he said THAT^ right before he said it was bacon. so the philosophers convinced bacon that the church was impeding science, and this assumption was made because it was assumed the vatican translated the four corners of the earth passage to mean a flat earth, correct? i mean, i hear that all the time from bible skeptics.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

My favorite religious myth is the Shinto one which has a gigantic goddess using a massive spear to sprinkle drops of water on the eternal ocean and thereby causing the islands of Japan to form.

One has to ask - who made the that spear and where is it now? lol

Undo could you make things a little clearer for us. Could you list a few of thing you believe by your research Sitchin got right and that no one knew at that time - ie he discovered x and y.