|
(To print article, try using landscape.)
Behold!
There Are Mistranslations in the Bible and
the
Introduction: For those of you who have followed the debate on the internet you may know about the personal attacks I have withstood from Michael S. Heiser, in my attempt to honestly debate him regarding the writings and thesis of Zecharia Sitchin. I always choose my words carefully and have never used the word "wrong" when applying it to Mr. Heiser and I have never personally insulted him or his position. The word "wrong" has emotional charge behind it so I try to use "correct/incorrect" to apply to details or facts. I prefer to debate the evidence and the issues and not have a discussion become personal. The purpose, for me, is to increase my understanding of a subject and clarify misunderstandings. My goal is always to add to the body of knowledge and understanding of a complex issue for the readers and myself. As you will see, Mr. Heiser's goal is not to add knowledge and understanding to these issues. His goal, from the beginning, when he came on the web page and speaking scene, was to tear down the work of an established author. He had no name recognition to stand on so he used Sitchin's good name to get attention for himself so he could sell his own book, appear on the radio and get speaking engagements. Mr. Heiser does not think he is a debunker and I will not declare that he is. My purpose is, for the reader, to point out that his tactics and behavioral patterns fit the mold and style of a debunker which includes using personal attacks and ridicule. You can make the decision on your own once you see both sides of the issue. Hopefully, you will reach your own conclusions about his motives. Debunker trick #1, when having no reputation of your own, attempt to destroy the work of an established individual, in the process creating a name for yourself. In fact, the method involves using the name of the person you are attempting to destroy as the springboard for yourself. His first web page that I read was full of insults and uncalled for statements. You would think that a man who claims he has a respected background and career would not want to use someone else’s name for his own gain. Wouldn't he want to be recognized for his own individual achievements? This maneuver is a “shifter” strategy made famous in the book, “Atlas Shrugged,” by Ayn Rand. This procedure is used to take away from someone the thing you want the most for yourself, thereby "shifting" it away from them and to you. In this case, Heiser wants to take away Sitchin's fame and respect as an author, researcher and speaker. Even at this point, he still wants to debate Sitchin. For what purpose? If it were to add to everyone's knowledge and understanding there would be no need for personal attacks against Sitchin or me. Sitchin does not have a computer, does not browse the Internet and, therefore, has never seen any of Heiser's material nor heard him speak. Why would he agree to go on the radio and be attacked? Why would Sitchin help Heiser increase his name recognition? Sitchin is just too busy writing new books and arranging seminars. You can tell from Heiser's writing style that he is very confrontational -- he uses debunker tactics. His purpose for wanting to debate Sitchin is to employ the attack and ridicule process. This is completely inconsistent with a person that wants to raise up all of society by their knowledge. I don't think there will be a debate with Sitchin, but I still have a few words to say....
Sitchin's Simple Thesis:
Is it possible that every translation is fully correct? No, it is not possible that 100% of every translation is fully correct. And Mr. Heiser agrees! In his last email directly to me, he stated that of course there are mistranslations in the Bible and listed a couple for me (Gen 35:7 - 13, Psalms 82:1). He points out that these passages mix up plural and singular forms of the word "gods/Elohim" and singular/plural grammar. He thereby agrees with Sitchin's thesis that the old translations have mistakes, made from editing, scribes or translators, either purposeful or by accident. He simply doesn't agree that every translation is incorrect, but Sitchin does not say that every translation is incorrect. But like the method of a debunker and using debunking trick #2, Mr. Heiser doesn't simply state his point of view with his proof and evidence instead his method of debate is to personally attack and ridicule before he presents his evidence. This is supposed to make the person receiving the abuse get off balance and draw(s) away from the debate topic, which is an intentional distraction. So he comes out swinging with insults and personally ridiculing the other position and viewpoint and anybody that believes the opposite of him. Yet, he agrees in many situations there are mistakes of grammar with mistranslations, and he even points out there is mixing up of plural and singular forms of speech in the same sentence. This inconsistency is also the hallmark of a debunking position. Debunking trick #3, is to argue certain points in some situations, yet agree with certain points in other similar situations. And the points of disagreement are not important enough to cancel out the rest of the evidence. This inconsistency must be pointed out. Then why attack a respected author and claim he is wrong as a blanket generalization when you in fact agree with him in some of the situations. Well that takes us back to trick #1, to get name recognition for yourself when you are unknown. How else will you be invited to do radio shows and get on the lecture circuit? What Mr. Sitchin has identified in his writings are some of the mistranslated words that appear, and when taking into account the historical influence from the previous cultures a new meaning and understanding arises. This means that the Bible indeed has a bibliography and there was civilization on Earth for at least 2,000 - 3,000 years before the time of Abraham, some say much longer. This way of thinking adds new meaning and understanding to our lives and affects us in profound ways that is different for every individual. Over 8 million copies of Sitchin's books have been sold in over 14 languages, and every time a new country gets his books, they appear on the bestseller list. Why? Simply because they expand our thinking about humanity and our origins. They are brainteasers that stimulate something that is inside of us to want to learn more and have more understanding. Most of us realize that what we have been told from official sources has something missing. There is simply much more to the story of humanity than what the same old translations tell us.
The age of the Bible and certain cultures: (Dates come from "Mesopotamia" by Julian Reade, a publication of the British Museum and "Atlas of the Bible," edited by James Pritchard, published Harper Collins). Early
village settlements, Samarra culture, Halaf culture, Ubaid culture, Gawra
culture, (about 4,000 - 8,000 B.C.E. "BCE") Abram (Abraham later on) came from the land of Sumer (Shinar in the Bible), from the capital city known as Ur (Ur Kasdim in the Bible, Gen 11:31). His father and grandfather were long lived Sumerians that lived in the capital city of Ur (around 2,025 to 2,075 BCE). Abraham's parents worshipped the gods of Sumer and he grew up with that culture. It says in Joshua 24:2, "Your forefathers, Terah the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, always dwelt beyond the (Euphrates) river and they served gods (Elohim) of others." This also means that Abram would have heard the Sumerian mythology repeated every year during festivals, if he attended with his father & grandfather, until he left the land and went to Haran. The Israelites left Egypt around (1,250 - 1,350 BCE) depends on who you think was the pharaoh at the time and the dating of them. Invasion of the Sea Peoples the Phoenicians (about 1,200 - 1,250 BCE). Old Hebrew or Temple Script borrowed Phoenician letters as shown in "The Atlas of Languages, The Origin and Development of Languages Throughout the World." The names of the letters are Phoenician names. A quote from the books says, "Following the sixth-century Babylonian exile of the Jews, the Old Hebrew script gradually gave way to Aramaic. The old characters, are, however, still used as a liturgical script by the Samaritans. Modern Hebrew square characters have their origin in the Aramaic script." The time of Kind David and Solomon (about 931 - 1,000 BCE) During the reign of King Josiah of Judah, (around 609 - 641 BCE) all the torah (Bible) scrolls were lost in Israel until the high priest discovered one. After King Josiah, a religious man heard the words, apparently for the first time; he ordered all the temples of false gods destroyed and the Passover to be observed (II Kings Chap 22 & 23). It says, "this is the first time the Passover was observed since the days of the Judges and all the days of the kings of Israel and Judah" (that is between 200 - 300 years). Now this is a time when there is a holy temple in Jerusalem and there is worship and sacrifices going on there. Yet there are sill temples to false gods in Judah and no one has celebrated Passover for generations. Passover is currently one of the biggest holidays of the year for Jews; it celebrates the Jewish exile from Egypt. In fact that is Yahweh's claim to fame in the Ten Commandments when it says "God (Elohim) spoke all these statements, saying, [I am the Lord (Yahweh) your god], that took you out of Egypt from the house of slavery." (Exodus. 20:2) [it should read "I am Yahweh, your god that... "] How could it be that the biggest holiday is not even celebrated during the time when the first holy temple is still in existence? What other parts of the Bible were forgotten during this time? During the lifetime of the prophet Jeremiah, during the reign of Jehoiakim the son of the previous King Josiah, (about 598 - 597 BCE), parts of the Bible were re-written by Jeremiah. Apparently they had lost much of it again because Jeremiah delivered it to the elders and advisors of the king, and when the elders read it, they were amazed (Jeremiah, Chap 36). But the king got mad when he heard Jeremiah's prophecies of destruction and threw the scroll into the fire. So Jeremiah re-writes the scrolls once again from the words of Yahweh. This could also be called channeling. Here we have an example of the Bible actually telling us that it is being written in real time, as opposed to saying it is an old document.
How many times has the Bible been lost and had to be re-written? How many foreign influences appeared to creep into the re-written Bible? When the Jews came back to Israel from the exile in Babylon (about 520 BCE), they had picked up the Babylonian names of the months of the year. They still use those names today even though the older Bible from the desert with Moses has numbered months, this all changed in a time span of 70 - 72 years of exile. The original names of the months are listed with the holidays that went with them in Numbers 28:16-39, an example is the first month, or the seventh month, that is how Yahweh and Moses labeled the months of the calendar. Here are examples of just three names of the 12 currently being used. Nisan from Nisanu, Tishrei from Tashritu, and my favorite Tammuz from Dumuzi, (Dumuzi is the actual name of a Sumerian god. Tammuz is the Semitic pronunciation. I am not sure if the Rabbis know they are using the name of an ancient false god for one of their month's names). So when the final compilation of the Bible appeared during the years after returning from the Babylonian exile (around 520 BCE). The biblical authors incorporated their philosophy of one deity, Yahweh, into the copies of the scrolls. Whatever attributes a previous god may have had, was retained and given to Yahweh on paper. If the story was holy and the deeds were attributed to Anu, Enki, Enlil, Inanna or Marduk it became the property of the Elohim or Yahweh. Probably Elohim was a clue to uncover those stories that showed an earlier influence from Mesopotamia. Why not just give one name to all the other gods mentioned and save much time? Remember the Bible is trying to prove there is only one god, which is the point of the document. So we can accomplish this by putting all individual names into one general term, plural of course, and for the priests with the secret knowledge that know for themselves, we just incorporated the great stories the public knows and made them specific to our culture and our congregation. Who would know about the older tablets, who would know we borrowed? This plan did work until the late 1880's, and early 1900's when archeologists started to finally dig out the texts in their original tablet form and the scholars translated them. They were astonished to find so much of the source material for the Bible. This plan worked for more than 2,000 years, most people thought the biblical stories were original to the Bible. Even now people are astonished when I tell them there are stories of semi human/semi divine characters and stories of resurrection from 2000 - 3000 years before the time of Jesus and even Abraham. The modern version of the Bible was probably read by Ezra (about 464 BCE) at the inauguration of the Second holy temple in Jerusalem. Obviously scholars disagree with the exact dating.
My response to Mr. Heiser's specific points: After getting through the personal attacks against me, Mr. Heiser gets down to showing some examples of Biblical writing with graphics in Hebrew. He states with regards to "Elohim," there are hundreds of uses in singular and hundreds of uses in plural and many sentences that mix it up in the same sentence. I want to thank Mr. Heiser here for showing these inconsistencies. This gives weight to my argument and Sitchin's thesis that the word "Elohim" is a loan word from a previous culture, which is why they had so much trouble incorporating it into their language with proper rules of grammar. We don't dispute that "Elohim" is used both as a plural and a singular. What we see is that the word Elohim is a clue to the antiquity of the Bible, showing a much older influence. 1. He has a fallacy of incorrect analogy. He compares the word Elohim to Sheep, Fish and Deer showing how the grammar can change the meaning to either singular or plural. The reason this is a fallacy of incorrect analogy is that we use the same word in English for the singular and the plural. Sheep, Fish and Deer do not have singular roots in them. Heiser does agree with me that the word "Elohim" contains the root singular form of god that is pronounced "Eloah." If you wanted to say god says (singular), you could say it as "Eloah" says and it would be correct. The reason the Hebrews use the word "Elohim" is that it is a holy word to them and they must not change that word that to a believer in one god must and can only mean "God." But was the word "Elohim" meant to be singular to represent a single deity by the original culture that created the usage, or was it borrowed and used later on by scribes with monotheistic philosophies? Wasn't the purpose of using so many different god names in the Bible to show differences in those characters? 2. Mr. Heiser's, use of translations from the Dead Sea Scrolls is irrelevant, because they are younger than the canonized Bible and therefore can't be used for this debate. Many Dead Sea Scroll translations are in dispute anyway, and the group that controlled the scrolls for so many years has gotten into trouble, they have even mistranslated Nephilim as watchers. It was the Igigi who could be called watchers. Mr. Heiser's use of translations from the Book of Enoch for any translation is irrelevant because, first it is not part of the canonized Bible, and second it is younger than the canonized Bible. I still have not seen one original Hebrew version of this document that can be dated back to BCE era. The book is supposed to be very old, but there is no verification as to the modern version that is currently available. There is no chain of evidence to make the case that the version we have is actually older than the canonized Bible. I must tell the public that Heiser's use of translations from text that are younger than the Bible show that he does not understand what this debate is about. It is not about contemporary mistranslations that have been made by modern translators. This debate is about what older influences were placed into the original Bible. By the way we just saw debunker trick #4, which is to reverse the process so that you can use proof of translations from younger documents to prove translating mistakes in older documents. This can't be done because of the arrow of time moving forward. Only older documents than the Bible are relevant to be an influence, and younger mistranslations that continue the mistakes are not evidence.
Can we trace those original Sumerian sources? 3. Heiser's biggest fallacy and showing a lack of understanding of the history of languages is his statement, "Sumerian is not connected to any other language." I am really surprised that he would make this statement. Most similarities are in the Semitic area, which is Heiser's area of study.
Here are some Sumerian words that many other languages and cultures have borrowed. (Translations are from "A Manual of Sumerian Grammar and Texts," by John L. Hayes.) Mother -
Ama in Sumerian, Ima in Hebrew. Father - Ab-ba, Ad-da in
Sumerian, Aba in Hebrew. The Sumerian people were sometimes called Lu-Lu Amelu, which means mixed up person (being). Because their mythology said we were created from a mixture of ingredients and themselves. And in English we call someone Lu-Lu if they are crazy or mixed up. Adamu and Adapa are Sumerian names and characters, the original form of the name Adam from the Bible. Adam is always translated as "Man" in English. In Hebrew the word Adama can mean earth (dust of the ground) and Adom is red (like blood) and the word Dam means blood. Do you see how the root name of Adam is closely linked to other words? These double meanings will be important later on. Heaven, sky, star is An, Anu, the city know as Heliopolis in Egypt used to be called An, or Anu. (The chief worship site of the god Re "Ra".) (Universe is a compound word made up of An-Ki, meaning Heaven and Earth.) Dumuzi - Sumerian god, used for name of Hebrew month as Tammuz. Crying for Tammuz is mentioned in Bible, Ezekiel 8:12 (about the same time as the Babylonian exile). They were not crying for the name of a month. They were crying in remembrance of Dumuzi the husband of Inanna who was killed and not able to be revived. The Sumerian god Utu (meaning the [visible] sun) is the same as Shamash in Akkadian; he used the celestial symbol of the solar disk as his representation. The god name Shamash is the same as the Hebrew word for the sun, Shemesh. Imagine that, the word for sun is the same as the god who used the symbol of the sun. E-din, E-means house, Din means righteous or pure. The Garden of Eden. In Hebrew Din is law; House of Law is like saying courthouse. (Some of you may have heard of the word Moujahadin, which is an Arabic word meaning holy warrior or righteous warrior. This is the name of the Arabic fighters in Afghanistan that the U.S. supported to fight off the Russian invasion.) There are so many Sumerian influences, please read anything written by Samuel Noah Kramer, my favorite is, "History Begins at Sumer, 39 Firsts Recorded in Man's History," this will show you influences in the modern world that began in Sumer.
More Sumerian influence and Nephilim: The word Nephilim does not mean giants but they probably were giants in size, nobody disputes that. Most depictions from ancient Mesopotamia showed the Anunnaki gods to be much taller than humans. Mr. Heiser shows how in Numbers, 13:33, it calls the Nephilim the "children of Anak.” The word for giants in Hebrew today is Anak (singular) and Anakim (plural). According to the Signet "Hebrew/English Dictionary" by Dov Ben Abba, the word for giant can be "Anak" or "Anaki." Well how do you think you spell Enki without any vowels? Let's compare Anak and Enki without any vowels, they would look like this "ANK", "ANK." Lets compare the words Anaki and Enki without any vowels, they would look like this "ANK", "ANK." Let's compare the words Anunnaki and Anak without any vowels, it would look like this "ANNK", "ANK." All of these comparisons are matches of similar sounding words. Yes the original source of the word for giant (Anak or Anaki) in Hebrew came from the Sumerian use of these words to describe their large gods. (In Hebrew, all these words could have the same 3-letter roots and could start with an Ayin, only the vowels and the pronunciation would be different. Mr. Heiser also tells you how the original Hebrew did not have vowels when originally written but were added hundreds to thousands of years later. He might say you would need a "yod" at the end of the word to have the "ee" sound, but a yod is just a single small line at the end of the word that could easily be left out by a scribe, and you can make the sound with the vowels, and imitate the "ee" sound by only using vowels.) I think it is enough to show that the first written language that used the Anak, Anaki, Anunnaki root sound was Sumerian and that was the influence for the word giants in Hebrew. Imagine these names, Anu, Enki, Anunnaki, Enlil, which were repeated in religious documents year after year, for thousand of years. This is a huge influence on the people and their memories. So in Gen 6:3, we have "the Nephilim were in the Earth in those day and afterwards, when the [children of the Elohim] saw the daughters of man were attractive and took them as wives..." In Numbers 13:33, we have "There we saw the Nephilim, [the children of Anak/Enki/Anunnaki], which come from the Nephilim, and we were in their site as grasshoppers." Of course Mr. Heiser will bring up his objection with the incorrect grammar in certain places, and the mixing of plural and singular, but I am showing you the older influences, the previous cultures infusion into the monotheistic Bible. I agree with Sitchin that the word Nephilim (using the root Naphal to fall down) is consistent with the word Anunnaki, which means "those who from heaven to Earth came." Nephilim means "those who fell down", "the fallen ones." In the historical context and what the Bible means is, "Those who have fallen down from above."
More examples of Sumerian influence: The flood story is one of those times where the Bible becomes inconsistent, because it tells us that before the flood disaster the Nephilim were there on Earth. But only Noah and his family survived the flood, so how do these Nephilim appear again to be living in the land of Israel after everyone was killed during the flood? This shows once again that the story about the flood must come from older sources, of course Sumerian being the oldest, where the hero was called Ziusudra and in Akkadian Utnapishtim. The flood in these Mesopotamian versions (all versions except the Bible) did not cover the entire Earth, it did however, flood great parts of the low lands where most of the people lived. The storms lasted seven days and seven nights and they were saved by a raven not a dove. In the Bible the dove gets the piece of tree and Noah waits 3 series of 7 days while sending birds out each time. (Translation from Myths from Mesopotamia by Stephanie Dalley) After Utnapishtim lands, he builds a fire to cook and "... the gods smelt the fragrance, the gods smelt the pleasant fragrance..." After Noah built an alter he offered sacrifices and "... Yahweh smelled the pleasing aroma..." (Genesis 8:21) There are a lot of gods that seem to like the smell of meat being cooked, including the Bible's pure-energy, non-physical creator god who should not be interested in smells. Obviously this quote is taken from the older source, where the older gods are changed into Yahweh. Somehow the Nephilim survived the flood... In the Sumerian story of the flood, the gods were watching the destruction from above. One goddess is crying over the destruction of her children. From Atra Hasis, "... Nintu was wailing... They are washed up, like a raft on a bank. They are washed up like a raft on a bank in open country! I have seen and wept over them! Shall I (ever) finish weeping over them?" (Nintu is also Ninmah.) After the flood these characters "fell" (naphal) back down to Earth and lived among the descendants of Noah and mankind. Until the time that Yahweh and the Israelites went to war against them. Famous giants ("Anakim" descendants of the Anunnaki/Enki) from the Bible are Og, King of Bashan (Deut 3:1), and Goliath the giant that Kind David defeated (Samuel 21:15-19). Another Sumerian influence is found here that Goliath's name (Galyat in Hebrew) starts with the word "Gal" meaning great" in Sumerian. Today in the English language, we can use the word Goliath to denote something big and gigantic.
The connection to the Tower of Babel: In Gen 11:1, it says, in my new translation (The Stone Edition, Tanach, ArtScroll series), "The whole Earth was of one language of common purpose. And it came to pass, when they migrated from the east they found a valley in the land of Shinar (Sumer) and settled there." Later on, Yahweh saw what the humans were doing and said "Behold they are one people with one language for all... come let us (plural) descend and there confuse their language, that they should not understand each other." In Sumerian Mythology by Samuel Noah Kramer from a tablet that was in the Ashmolean museum, "... Harmony-tongued Sumer... To Enlil in one tongue gave speech...” a few lines later "... Changed the speech in their mouths, put contention into it, into the speech of man that had (until then) been one." Was it Yahweh or Enlil that changed the speech of man? In this case Enlil was changed into Yahweh.
How is Moses connected to Sargon the Great, King of Akad? They were both placed in baskets and left to float in rivers, then found by noble people. From The Ancient Near East, edited by James B. Pritchard, The Legend of Sargon, "... My changeling mother conceived me, in secret she bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river, which rose not (over) me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water lifted me out as he dipped his e[w]er. Akki the drawer of water, [took me] as his son (and) reared me." Sargon was appointed as gardener, granted love by Ishtar, and exercised kingship over the people. (Sargon dated to 2,279 - 2,334 BCE) Exodus 2:3, "... The woman conceived and gave birth to a son. She saw that he was good and she hid him for three months. She could not hide him any longer, so she took for him a wicker basket and smeared it with clay and pitch, she placed the child into it and placed it among the reeds at the bank of the river." Then Pharaoh's daughter saw the basket among the reeds. Later on the Bible says (Exodus 2:10), the boy grew up and she brought him to the daughter of Pharaoh and he was a son to her. She called his name Moses, as she said, " For I drew him from the water." (Moses dated to 1,250 - 1,350 BCE)
The creation story: Genesis 1:1, it says "In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth" The word for god is "Elohim" So it should be translated "In the beginning of the Elohim's creation of the heavens and the earth." It then continues "... when the earth was astonishingly empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep and the divine presence (Elohim) hovered upon the surface of the waters. God (Elohim) said, let there be light," and there was light. God (Elohim) said that the light was good." All the words for god are "Elohim" From the Epic of Creation (old translation from 1902), (also called the Enuma Elish) by L.W. King. "When in the heights heaven was not named. And the Earth beneath did not yet bear a name, and the primeval Apsu, who begat them, and chaos, Tiamet, the mother of them both, Their waters were mingled together, and no field was formed no marsh was to be seen. When of the gods none had been called into being, and none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained. They were created the gods in the midst of heaven." The word for gods is "ilani" the plural of the word "ilu." (I bring in this translation from 1902 to show you that this is not new information.) From "Myths from Mesopotamia" by Stephanie Dalley, Epic of Creation, Marduk says "... Let me put blood together and bones too, let me set up primeval man: Man shall be his name...", "... The work of the gods shall be imposed on him..." In Atra Hasis, "... Nintu mixed clay, with her flesh and blood, they heard the drumbeat forever after, a ghost (soul) came into existence from the god's flesh and she (Nintu) proclaimed it a living sign." Later on "... I myself created (it), my hands have made (it)..." Remember the meaning of Adom meaning red, it matches up with the use of blood here in both versions. Also the word bone used here is "is-si-im[tu]m" which corresponds to the Hebrew "etzem", "bone" used in Genesis 2:23, in the phrase "etzem me-atzami", "bone of my bones." Stephanie Dalley mentions a possible word play being used here, ghost is "etemmu" and "temu" is intelligence. So the line above could be read "... an intelligence came into existence from the god's flesh." Genesis 1:26, Elohim said "Let us make man (Adam) in our image, after our likeness..." later on, "... so Elohim created the man (Adam) in his image, in the image of the Elohim, he created him, male and female, he created them." Gen 2:7, "And Yahweh Elohim formed the man (Adam) of dust from the ground, and he blew into his nostrils the soul of life and the man (Adam) became a living being." Gen 2:15, "Yahweh Elohim took the man (Adam) and placed him in the Garden of Eden, to work it and to watch it." Remember the meaning of "Adama", "earth" or "dust" as used here. The comparison of "blew into his nostrils the soul of life" is very similar to "a ghost (soul) came into existence from the god's flesh." Both stories have the same theme, man is created using ingredients, and put to work for the god(s). From L.W. King, "According to each account the existence of a watery chaos preceded the creation of the universe; and the Hebrew word Tehom, translated as "the deep" is the equivalent of the Babylonian Tiamet, the monster of the deep personifying chaos and confusion." Later on King says, "... it may here be added that the employment by Marduk, the creator, of his own blood in the creation of man may perhaps be compared to the Hebrew account of the creation of man in the image and likeness of Elohim. Moreover, the use of the plural in the phrase "let us make man" may be compared with the Babylonian narrative which relates that Marduk imparted his purpose of forming man to his father Ea (Enki), whom he probably afterwards instructed to carry out the actual work of man's creation."
Conclusion: We are finally near the end of this web page, and I really appreciate any of you that have read all the way to this point.
Everybody else that does not think the stories are real, thinks the ancient people made everything up. They think all that they wrote was mythology. Well I have news for you, if you agree that it was all mythology, then the Bible that uses those stories is also copying mythology. You see to be consistent you either accept that the original sources of the Bible were real or they were fantasy. If you believe in the stories of the Bible then the older stories are also true. If you don't believe in the Bible being true then you can say that the source material is also not true. You can't have it both ways and still be internally consistent. One book borrows from the others. I want all of you to know this, regardless of what you believe, it does not mean you are crazy or foolish. If you believe in Sitchin's hypothesis, then you are in the company of millions of people, that are normal, sane individuals. If you don't believe in this hypothesis, that is also O.K., but don't think down upon people that do believe it. And for the believers don't think down upon the people that don't. Don't attack the other viewpoint, or ridicule the other position, the point of debate is to rise up, learn and educate everybody and not to exclude people. We are all entitled to our own beliefs and we are all absolutely free in our heads to think what we want. What I wish and hope for is that those beliefs are generated from your own research and your own view of the evidence. Please wait to make a decision until you see the evidence for yourselves. Visit the museums and read the original sources that authors use for their own books. Ultimately, it is the search for the answers that fulfills the human purpose for living. We may never know the whole story, but the search without attacking and destroying is what will keep our civilization going forward. But if the process is used to attack, ridicule and insult then society will continue to break down and go backwards. (I have not needed to quote from any of Sitchin's books for this article. Everything written here is my personal opinion and from my own research.)
Final message: Mr. Heiser, your web page let me see outside of the box and I really appreciate the impetus it gave me to write all of this down. It was the inspiration and motive for my determination to finish this web page. I fear that if you respond you will attack, ridicule and put down what I have said here for the purpose of tearing down the knowledge and work of Zecharia Sitchin, by maintaining your continuous attack on him. From my knowledge you have been doing this at all possible speaking engagements. I hope I am "wrong" about your motives and what your response will be. I am hopeful that if you respond it will be with pure motives, with an intent to educate and lift up all of us with your knowledge and experience. You can reach people on your own merits, but when you use some of those debunking tricks it overshadows the scholarly aspect of your work. All of us are trying to gain more knowledge and understanding by any discussion we have and you can be part of it. Please act with noble intention and a sense of lifting all of us up to a greater understanding. Sincerely,
Erik
Parker Please
check out www.erikparker.com/pictures/ I would like to thank Jason Martell, the Webmaster of Xfacts for continually presenting a wide range of Sitchin's material. I consider him to be a friend and one of the best Internet programmers I know of. Please go to his site http://www.mars-earth.com/sitchin.htm for more Sitchin research, including interviews, slides, videos and much more. ______________________________ ©
Erik Parker 2002
(To print article, try using landscape.)
My background: I began studying the Bible in Hebrew from the earliest age I can remember. Up until about the age of 17, I had been going to private Jewish School with an education program that included half English and half Hebrew studies. By 1997 I began to read and hear Zecharia Sitchin, and was lucky enough to go on several trips with him and other people that traveled with him. We traveled to England, Malta, Mexico and Italy together as a group. With other groups I traveled to Egypt and Israel. Of course I have read all of Sitchin's books as well as many others in the same category. I have been Sitchin's Webmaster from the beginning and have been helping him run his seminars the last few years. I am not related to Zecharia but we are close friends. I am recently married, my wife speaks Hebrew, and she is a Sitchinite. I met my mother in-law on two of the trips that I took with Zecharia, then she introduced me to her daughter. And as they say the rest is history. I currently work as a stockbroker in Los Angeles, which requires me to do a lot of research.
Extra Reading For Those Who Have the Desire For Even More:
The Confusing Hebrew Bible: I will give you an example of the problems the translators have had trying to convert the Hebrew into English. First please understand that the tradition of the scribes that originally came from Sumer was to change nothing of a religious scroll and simply hand copy it as is. Second there are many names in Hebrew for god used in the old testament and the Cabbalists (mystics) declare there are actually 72 names for god (the number 72 corresponds to the number of years it takes Earth to move one precessional degree, meaning 72 X 360 [degrees of a circle] will give you the number of years in one precessional cycle that total 25,920 years). This is the main problem of miscommunication and translating, because in English we have only a few words to use like God & Lord. So in every single English translation on Earth the word God or Lord is used for all the different names that exist in Hebrew. The word can be plural or singular, can be a title or an actual name, it may not even mean god but it is still translated that way. The example I will use comes from the story of Abram, Gen 15:7, God says to Abram, "I am Yahweh who brought you out of Ur-Kasdim..." Gen 17:1, "God appears to Abram," in Hebrew, "Yahweh appears to Abram," and says "I am El Shaddai" meaning I am god almighty, or I am god of the mountain. Then verse 3, it says "God spoke with him saying" in Hebrew "Elohim spoke with him saying." Here in just a few verses in one small area are three different names in Hebrew but one god in English. Also this is two different quotes of God saying I am, with two different names, one Yahweh and one El Shaddai. Verse 9 it says "God says to Abraham," In Hebrew "Elohim says to Abraham." Elohim is used a couple more times, then it switches in Chapter 19:1, "Yahweh appears to him...". Then it uses Yahweh a few more times. In chapter 18:31 it says "behold I desired to speak to my Lord," In Hebrew lord is the word Adonai, which can also mean master, or a polite title to say to the king your master. It might not mean Lord at all, but it is used in English to mean Lord. There are examples of it being used less formally and not directed to god in the Bible.
Types of Data: Type 1 data is verifiable, testable and repeatable evidence that everyone can examine for themselves. Science is based on this principle, what happens in an experiment in some laboratory will be able to be repeated in another laboratory. Mr. Sitchin's evidence is type 1; all of you can read the tablets for yourselves and examine them for yourselves. You may not agree with the translations or the conclusions from the translations, but you can see the tablets, carvings and museum pieces for yourself. Mr. Heiser's data is also Type 1, because all of us can read it for ourselves, although we may not agree with the conclusions. Type 2 data is multiple witness testimony, but with no evidence left to study. For example many people see a shooting star (meteorite) in the sky. They all agree what they saw but there is nothing left to view and no pieces to confirm it. If there was something left to examine it would become type 1 data. Type 3 data is a single witness testimony of some event and with no data left to study. Can you guess what area this covers? People who hear things in their heads and UFO abductees with no evidence left behind. If there is nothing left to study and there are no confirming witnesses then the event and the truth is only for you. This is the area of opinion only, this is not evidence. There are more types of data but this is enough for the purpose of our discussion today.
How Many Intelligent Civilizations Exist in the Universe? Can you guess the answer to this one? I have found only one correct answer that makes sense to me. If you consider the length of time the Universe has been around (approx. 12 - 15 billion years), and the amount of galaxies (hundreds of billions) out there in the great vastness. If you consider how many stars are in each galaxy (billions to hundreds of billions) and how many planets that represents. If you consider that on Earth which is one speck of dust, we know of 200 -300 million species of animals, plants and insects, etc. If you consider that on Earth in every climate and every extreme area, life is found to thrive. Even at the bottom of the oceans where there is no light, the pressure crushes the weak, and vents spew out poisons to the rest of us. If you consider all these variables the answer to my question is... INFINITE there are an infinite amount of civilizations out there in the vast Universe. If we spent a lifetime cataloging them and could fly to them immediately to see them, we still would never be able to count all of them. The Earth is just one drop in a universe filled with water. We are not alone and have never been alone. (To print article, try using landscape.)
|
