It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:35 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




 Page 1 of 1 [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2002 6:32 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2002 6:27 am
Posts: 2
I have a problem convincing my friend with the ideas of sitchin. The main problem seems to be the credibility of Sumerian texts. I just kept laughing at him but i couldnt really tackle that issue, i dont know why!! he wants proof that the texts are not a forgery or had been edited from even earlier texts. My friend is a muslim and he thinks, the quran tells him actually, that everything that preceeded the quran even the old testemant had been rendered and edited and all that stuff. I dont have the slightest idea of what to say regarding that issue. I need help here if anyone has any ideas please ?!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2002 10:52 pm 
Well, first of all, good luck; and pack a lunch. Your friend sounds like the sort who cannot be convinced of the reality of something they don't want to see in the first place.
I was recently speaking via e-mail with the great scholar of astronomy and Sitchin-related ideas, Andy Lloyd. I was telling him of a former professor and "friend" of mine who is a professional astronomer and a very, very good one. This professor, this Ph. D., is a Christian. Now, this man is an expert on binary star systems; he believes in the existence of E.T.s; he believes that the government probably covers up the existence of E.T.s; he believes that if theologians got wind of the existence of E.T.s they would wrongly label them as "demons"; he is a huge fan of Star Wars. Sounds very liberal and cutting-edge, don't he? But ask him about a religious issue, and his stance is clear: all non-Christians will, so sorry, rot in hell.

Doesn't matter if an atheist or a Buddhist--or a Muslim--devoted his life to bettering the lot of mankind; if he didn't get baptized into Christ, then he's going straight to h*ll
.
For Eternity. What a kind-hearted man...
Islam is a religion founded upon a set of writings which are, in reality, pretty general. They don't get too specific--lack of specific detail is a hallmark of edited writings! Indeed, the lack of specifics in Islamic texts makes ample room for superstition--from terroristic jihads to claiming that all white people are satanic--to arise and find justification. There is not much archaeological or physical evidence to support the historicity of the Koran, whereas, for example, there is a lot of evidence supporting at least the historical attestations of the Bible (if not the religious interpretations). But try explaining that to your Muslim friend.
Sitchin has based his ideas upon cross-cultural literary comparisons, archaeological data, astronomy, biology, geology, and plain common sense. Your friend does nothing more than follow the tenets of a book which is one of the last ever written by any of the great religions' scribes (leaving it extremely open to being the product of revision, editing, and the like)--yet he claims that all former writings were edited? Firstly, why were they edited? And by whom? What motivation does he cite? And by what authority does he speak? Can he read an ancient clay tablet like Sitchin can? Has he looked at the numerous archaeological pieces of data for himself, as Sitchin has? Your friend would rather believe that Mohammed ascended into Heaven on a supernatural white horse than look at the evidential depictions of starship-travelers engraved into ancient pieces of clay and rock? Your friend thinks that it makes more sense to claim that the race of Man was "born from a blood clot" than that it was born from extraterrestrial intervention? He reminds me of fundamentalist Christians who claim that the 75-million-year-old giant bones of the thunder lizards were "planted" by God to "test" his poor, pathetic followers. Sure, those clay tablets, those pottery shards, those pyramids out there in the desert of Egypt, those dolmens over there at Stonehenge--sure, they're all just forgeries.

What else is there to tell him except: "Show me, don't tell me."


(Edited by Brant at 7:57 pm on Feb. 13, 2002)


  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:02 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 6:10 am
Posts: 80
Location: East Coast
Brant is absolutely correct, as usual. If you keep following all this study back to it's one original source, you would be looking at the Sumarian's clay tablets.... and if you were lucky enough to be as smart as Dr. Sitchin and schooled in the ancient languages as he is, then you would be able to read the original info too!

Until when and if I ever begin to approach his status, I guess I will take his word for it on the translations. Personally, I don't believe I could ever make the sacrifices he has to reach his position as far as education. He has devoted his life to the work.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2002 9:21 am 
Thank you greatly for the compliment, Star Gazer!


  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:32 am
Posts: 91
Location: California
Your Moslim friend is right about one thing: most, if not all, of the books of the Bible have been "edited" or revised or merely mis-copied since their original writing.

The Book of Genesis, for instance, is, according to scholars who study these things, a compilation of two older sources plus some additions and who-knows-how-many deletions by a couple of later "editors."

Add to this the fact that the oldest manuscripts still existing of most of the "Scriptures" are much more recent than when they were evidently (by internal evidence) originally written, meaning that many scribal errrors might have been unitentionally picked up by now. (They didnt have printing presses or Xerox machines in those days!)

Add to this that what you read is a translation (unless you read ancient Hebrew and/or 1st Century Greek), which means it's what the translator "thinks" the original meant. For instance, the Book of Genesis uses the term "Elohim," which is a plural form, but do you ever see a Bible in which it is not translated as the singular "God"?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:50 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 5:16 pm
Posts: 46
Location: New York
How bout not trying to convince him at all? We all have a choice and as I have written in other post all works upon this board are speculation, alot of mainstream science is speculation, it all comes down to what one believes, which should tell you very simply that it is about as unlikely a chance to convince your friend of Sitchins work as it is your friend to convince you of Allah's work.

Eyajwhynsos


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
...you can lead a horse to pi, but you can't make him/her calculate the circumference of a circle...


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
Quote:
I have approached reacjhed and passed his status


not if you're relying on a website for your translations! (i, of course, don't know that this is your only means of translating sumerian...just that you haven't said otherwise! ;) )


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:33 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
The websites are the most update as I understand. Print copies of the Sumerian Language are also being prepared. I believe they have not been complete finished.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: credibility!!!
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2014 10:53 pm 

Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 10:31 pm
Posts: 2
Interestingly, I have far less problems discussing Sitchin/Nibiru/Annunaki with my Muslim friends here in Malaysia than I do with Christians. In fact, there are many Muslim books and magazines published locally on Nibiru, etc. As for Christians, the last time a copy of "Genesis Revisited" was handed to a Christian friend/classmate, he showed nearly zero interest in it. In his condescending way, he didn't dare to dismiss Sitchin's book as 'utter rubbish'. But I find his attitude even worse than people who are openly hostile. He's simply dis-interested. It's the "I don't care about this stuff anyway since my Christian beliefs are all a matter of faith anyway" attitude. The openly hostile would at least be open to a debate, if not a confrontational quarrel. This sort of Christian believer is simply uninterested in anything factual - historical, scientific or doctrinal. His religion is not much more than a 'feel-good' socially-respectable 'what-have-I-got-to-lose-since-this-stuff-guarantees-me-heaven-when-I-die' thing. Sigh...


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: credibility!!!
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 4:30 pm
Posts: 72
Location: Abilene, Texas
Such a good and relevant topic! I had just read an article that mentioned that the comedian Steve Harvey thinks atheists are idiots but couldn't the same be said of Christians or even Muslims? Isn't it more foolish to believe that the Earth is only 4,000 - 6,000 years old and that evolution is a joke? The only thing that Christians and Muslims have is their faith which isn't much when weighed against real evidence. They have a narrative that only works if they reject everything that science has given us in the past thousand years. The notion that if man came from monkeys why are there still monkeys is foolish beyond belief.

We need more people like Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson even if they don't get all of the facts strait. I'm not exactly an atheist and I'm certainly not religious but even if I was an atheist that would make me more right than most Christians and Muslims. Even the Vatican has approved of the Big Bang and E.T.'s yet the American Evangelists won't quit thumping the Bible and trying to say we've only been around for a few thousand years and that the Earth isn't much older than ourselves. Sure carbon dating isn't perfect but most religious people would rather twist the facts to fit their narrative instead of changing their narrative to suit the facts. Foolish they be.

At least I can feel rather smug that I know more than most Christians even if I haven't read much of the Bible. I'm inclined to study the Bible just so that I can show them how foolish they are for picking and choosing which scriptures that help their cause. Even my parents were a little amazed how I showed them in the Bible where it doesn't say anything wrong about women lying with women but somehow a man lying with another man means that any sort of homosexuality is an abomination. Then there is the passage about women not cutting their hair or wearing pants yet Bible thumpers don't mention anything about that. Any agenda can be argued using the Bible which is why we've had so many wars over religion and the Inquisition.

I tried to be a Christian, I really did, but too many things were nagging me that I couldn't really commit even as an eight year old. Even then I knew dinosaurs couldn't have been around a few thousand years ago or even if they did that doesn't mean they didn't exist millions of years ago. The idea that 6 24 hour days is all that it took to create the universe and Earth including man was something I couldn't rationalize. Even having read Erich Von Daniken's (spelled wrong I think but I don't care) books while in high school didn't answer all of my questions but it did make a lot more sense than anything in the Bible. It wasn't until 1999, a year after high school, that I stumbled upon Zecharia Sitchin's work and no longer did I have an existential crisis going on in my head.

Now I understand the origins of most if not all religions. Now I can sit comfortably in my chair while I make religious people sick to their stomach because they cannot refute what I explain. I don't think I've changed anyone's opinion but I'm sure I've planted the seed that may sprout when the timing is right. Don't get me wrong, faith is important but faith in yourself is much more important that putting your faith in a god that doesn't care about your daily activities. No, religious people only put their faith into a belief that they think helps them get into heaven. They're not moral because it's the right thing to do but because they fear the punishment.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 1 [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron