Zecharia Sitchin

[Lulav]

Scholars normally state their position and let it be the refute. For a scholar to resort to insulting comments to belittle someone usually shows a lack of other resources to fall back on.

Not to mention that he made a website and the url is 'sitchin is wrong', that's just plain slanderous.

 

[Lulav]

It does kind of sound that way, but Heiser is a Hebrew scholar. And the whole ancient astronaut thing is un-godly.

how is it ungodly?

 

[Rachel Rachel]

Scholars normally state their position and let it be the refute. For a scholar to resort to insulting comments to belittle someone usually shows a lack of other resources to fall back on.

Well, if you research Heiser, you'll know he has no lack of resources to fall back on.
Also, some who worship YHVH are highly ticked off when they read garbage such as the ancient astronaut theory.

Can you quote some examples of the insulting, belittling comments?

 

[Rachel Rachel]

Not sure why you are getting in a snit, I was asking Visionary that question.


Early morning time, I'm not all here , I misspelled his name Mike Heiser.



I could be born in France and raised in the US and English my native language. I would think to be an editor and journalist in Israel you have to have a pretty strong grasp of the Hebrew language. But that's neither here nor there.

He may have had a good grasp of Hebrew, but it isn't the same as being a native speaker.
And you're right........that is neither here nor there.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

Not to mention that he made a website and the url is 'sitchin is wrong', that's just plain slanderous.

I'd certainly disagree with that! He goes on to show how Sitchin is wrong.

That said, I wish Heiser would take a different tone in his criticism. I think he'd get further with a more professional sounding presentation.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

how is it ungodly?

Oh, my........we don't have time to go down that road today!! I can't believe you'd even ask that question!

 

[visionary]

I'd certainly disagree with that! He goes on to show how Sitchin is wrong.

That said, I wish Heiser would take a different tone in his criticism. I think he'd get further with a more professional sounding presentation.

My thought exactly...

 

[Stone Butterfly]

how is it ungodly?

I believe one would be hard pressed to prove it is. Nomenclature is what sways many to think such a term as, astronaut, (a term coined in the 20's as relates to Sci-Fi) today marks no credibility for the subject of spiritual extra-terrestrial (not of earth) beings in ancient scripture.
What do we think Angels were? Angelos "messenger, envoy, one that announces,".
Ezekiel and his wheel. The fire that guided Moses and the Hebrews through the desert.

Suffice to say, the human family leaves glyphs, earth shrines that aren't able to be discerned as a pattern or shape terrestrially but can be seen from above, like the Nazca plains. The Egyptian pyramids, like the great pyramid on the Giza plateau that is immense in its footprint and yet even in the deepest part of it there is no soot on the stones.
What does that mean? A question. How was that structure constructed when those deepest halls and chambers are pitch black for lack of natural light today, back when the pyramid was constructed? No soot!
In an age when electricity as we know it did not exist.

I'm familiar with Sitchin and his books though it has been years since I cracked one and read it over again.
In his career writing of these things he had a lot of critics. And yet, what were they except those who were arguing against what he and his knowledge of ancient Cueniform text, the first writing, extrapolated and brought forth for consideration?

He said repeatedly that he was not promoting his own agenda when he delivered these translations in his books. Rather, he was bringing to light what the ancients put on the record. And where there were breaks in those tablets, as scholars do with Bible fragments, he extrapolated what was there and what could be bridged as the message therein in absence of those writings. And yet, as he admitted, it did not mean that was the absolute conclusion to be reached. It was subject to change, because his was a matter of research in what was written by the ancient Sumerian (now Iraq region) culture.
A culture that recorded the Annunaki, ( "Those who from heaven to earth came". ) also related in the Bible as the Nephilim, and appearing in Genesis.

Were the Anunnaki the Nephilim in the Bible? - YouTube



I think if you are inspired to read his work you should do so and discern for yourself. And in matter of the charge that his work was "un-godly", consider that Zecharia Sitchin was a practicing Jew.
Do we think then he was an instrument of ha Satan? Or rather was he a seeker of God's wondrous and other mysteries?

You Tube -Sitchin

Then there's Hebrew scholar Mauro Biglino.
And what he offers as relates to Anunnaki.

Keep in mind if you consider this, Genesis again.And the creation story that was predated by that what appears in the Sumerian text as the Enuma Elish.
We humans were created in the image and likeness of God. Remember also the plural texts such as that in Genesis 1:26. Let us make mankind in our image and likeness.
And the etymology of Elohim. The plural form of Eloh, God. Elohim being a singular or plural noun for God. (God's)

Follow where the spirit leads. Gnosis does not lead you to Hell. Ignorance does.

 

[Lulav]

Ezekiel saw G-d come down with his angels, and they all were extraterrestrials, so how are they ungodly?

 

[Lulav]

Oh, my........we don't have time to go down that road today!! I can't believe you'd even ask that question!

You don't have time? Today's a national holiday, got lots o time.

I can't believe you'd say such a thing, is is 'godly' to put G-d in a box?

 

[Stone Butterfly]

I can't believe you'd say such a thing, is is 'godly' to put G-d in a box?

Indeed. Especially when we consider humans have put G-d in a box called, "Religion" and "holy book", for generations.

Packaging eternity in ways we can comprehend and get our hands on so as to claim we have possession of it.

Our egos are God's gag reel.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

You don't have time? Today's a national holiday, got lots o time.

I can't believe you'd say such a thing, is is 'godly' to put G-d in a box?

Sitchin says the Bible is "based on Sumarian tales."
I don't want to "put God in a box" but I have my plate full studying the scripture. I don't need my ears tickled. JMO of course.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

Indeed. Especially when we consider humans have put G-d in a box called, "Religion" and "holy book", for generations.

Packaging eternity in ways we can comprehend and get our hands on so as to claim we have possession of it.

Our egos are God's gag reel.

I'll agree with the "religion" statement but what have you got against "holy book?" You don't think it's Holy?
If not........how do you determine what to believe....maybe your trick knee tells you?

 

[Stone Butterfly]

I'll agree with the "religion" statement but what have you got against "holy book?" You don't think it's Holy?
If not........how do you determine what to believe....maybe your trick knee tells you?

There are a world of responses I could afford for someone who asks what amounts to, how do you know something qualifies as holy in book form and how do you believe without first believing in book?

But I'll resist. Mainly because the maturity level demonstrated by the sarcasm surrounding the trick knee remark tells me it would be a waste of time until years go by so as to allow the youthful intellect to be receptive.

 

[visionary]

There are a world of responses I could afford for someone who asks what amounts to, how do you know something qualifies as holy in book form and how do you believe without first believing in book?

But I'll resist. Mainly because the maturity level demonstrated by the sarcasm surrounding the trick knee remark tells me it would be a waste of time until years go by so as to allow the youthful intellect to be receptive.

It isn't the man stamp on the book that makes it Holy. It is God's hand in the book that brings the Holiness out for man to grasp.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

There are a world of responses I could afford for someone who asks what amounts to, how do you know something qualifies as holy in book form and how do you believe without first believing in book?

But I'll resist. Mainly because the maturity level demonstrated by the sarcasm surrounding the trick knee remark tells me it would be a waste of time until years go by so as to allow the youthful intellect to be receptive.

And your response tells me you don't have an answer.
Also, I noticed you liked the sarcasm when it was you doing it....and insults are to your liking as well.

 

[Rachel Rachel]

I believe one would be hard pressed to prove it is. Nomenclature is what sways many to think such a term as, astronaut, (a term coined in the 20's as relates to Sci-Fi) today marks no credibility for the subject of spiritual extra-terrestrial (not of earth) beings in ancient scripture.
What do we think Angels were? Angelos "messenger, envoy, one that announces,".
Ezekiel and his wheel. The fire that guided Moses and the Hebrews through the desert.

Suffice to say, the human family leaves glyphs, earth shrines that aren't able to be discerned as a pattern or shape terrestrially but can be seen from above, like the Nazca plains. The Egyptian pyramids, like the great pyramid on the Giza plateau that is immense in its footprint and yet even in the deepest part of it there is no soot on the stones.
What does that mean? A question. How was that structure constructed when those deepest halls and chambers are pitch black for lack of natural light today, back when the pyramid was constructed? No soot!
In an age when electricity as we know it did not exist.

I believe there certainly was an age prior to ours - a pre-Adamic word that was destroyed because it was so evil.
But do I think the human race was planted here by some alien work crew? No....unless you choose to put YHVH in the "god box" (lower case "g").
Sitchin did believe that.

 

[Lulav]

I think that what we believe about our Bible and what others who have studied world religions and ancient texts are not exclusive of one another. I don't think anyone has it right.

There are too many things in our bible that are very hard to understand, and only recently have things in there been proven to be true. Places, names, peoples, not to mention scientific things that we are just discovering being described in the Bible.

The book of Job, the oldest book in the Bible contains a lot more than a running dialogue with friends and G-d.

We can no more call Sitchin a heretic or ungodly than it was right for the Church's Inquisition to call Galileo a heretic because he believes that the earth revolved around the sun.

 

[Lulav]

Indeed. Especially when we consider humans have put G-d in a box called, "Religion" and "holy book", for generations.

Packaging eternity in ways we can comprehend and get our hands on so as to claim we have possession of it.

Our egos are God's gag reel.

Cute cartoon.

Yes, I agree, are we so full of ourselves as to say what he created and what he didn't. He has only given us the story of us, Adam, humankind, how it came to be, what happened to separate us from him and how to get back to him. That is enough on our plate without adding in other worlds he may have made and what went on there. The universe is so big. And it is very ancient. I tend to believe nowadays that we (humankinds) are actually the end of the story.

 

[visionary]

Yep, we as mankind, are at the end of our rope, and like world war Z, we are infected with a deadly mentality with only one cure.