ZechariaSitchin.Com Discussion Board
The Stairway to Heaven - Book II of The Earth Chronicles
9 posts • Page 1 of 1
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 ?!
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)
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.
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"?
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.
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! ;) )
9 posts • Page 1 of 1
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests