Adam And Eve

If you notice, in the video, he does not debunk anything Sitchin has says. All he says is that this dictionary exists, and that Sitchin is wrong, no valid reason given other than what the term "nibiru" means. (Sitchins spelling) Sitchin gives, in his books, an alternative view of what the meanings of Sumerian and other ancient languages mean, based on his research. "Nibiru", according to Sitchin is called that because of the way the planet moves through the solar system, and how it interacted with the other planets. If you notice in the video, it mentions that the term refers to a crossing. It is the "crossing" aspect of the planet that Sitchin is referring to, and why it is named Nibiru. The planet of the crossing.
Quote:
"Rob Hafernik is one of Sitchin's most vocal critics. An aerospace engineer, Hafernik worked for NASA and knows all about orbital dynamics and the workings of the universe and rockets. He said he found a problem right from the beginning of Twelfth Planet:

"Instead of quoting standard translations for Biblical verses, Sitchin makes up his own translations, based on his interpretation of 'the parallel Sumerian and Akkadian texts/tales'. Unfortunately, he is using those verses to support his interpretation of those texts."
UnQUote.
Notice the part about "quoting standard translations for Biblical verses". This is what I am saying, Sitchin is taking another view of what the established "experts" claim is how things are. Sitchin provides the information he used to arrive at his conclusions. These other people you refer to do not. They make a claim that Sitchin is wrong, but fail to provide ther reasoning as to why. That is to say, other than comments like the above, they fail to offer the information that would support their claims, like, "Sitchin is wrong as this study and that study on celestial mechanics prove that no planet could move in the manner Sitchin claims." They offer nothing like that. If I remember correctly, Sitchins brother is an expert on such things.
Quote from the same page:
"In other words, his own translation is used to prove his "discoveries" about the texts themselves. He could make them say whatever he wanted. Hafernik says bluntly, "Right away, we're in deep academic doo-doo. [Sitchin]'s let us know he's going to twist the translations around to support his thesis." Sitchin uses his own translation to prove his pre-supposed conclusion. He made the evidence fit the theory, something he and other alternative authors are quick to criticize in mainstream science, especially evolutionary biology. "
Unquote.
This is no mystery, Sitchin is clear that he is offering his own insights and research on these matters to support his conclusions. THis is what scientists do. IF they don't agree with something, they put together facts to support their conclusions. Sitchin does this, Heiser and these other people do not. They make unsubstantiated claims that Sitchin is wrong, without offering any proof.

I did not read what this person wrote, since it involves having to sign up on their system in order to read it. Did you read it? Or did you just find that site and quoted it because it supposedly debunks Sitchin?

Really, in order to understand what the man is saying, you have to read his material. Otherwise any opinions on the matter are worthless.
I have yet to read anything Heiser or the other people who have supposedly "debunked" him to offer anything that remotely would, in fact, debunk anything he has said. I found Sitchins works to be a very refreshing alternative view to the "accepted" version of the subject. He may be right, he may be wrong. Time will tell.
People who understand how the scientific method works understand that the starting point is generally a theory, or alternative theory to an existing one. The matter then goes through a process to try to discover what the truth of the matter is. Some things can be proven, others cannot be. Sitchins is just another theory of how things are, according to his research.

Heiser and those like him are nothing more than parrots, restating a safe, accepted viewpoint, and not even giving due consideration to a pretty darn well researched alternative viewpoint.

 

dear still kicking:

havent read stitchens but smoked a joint whilst watching ancient aliens a couple of times and got an earload of hitchens theories.
obviously im no expert on how hitchens arrived at his conclusions but heiser claims he gets his info from a dictionary that has been worked on by scholars all over the world for the past 90 years or so.

from the video: "the cad accounts for all of the words for in acadian and their summarian counterparts that exists in any text anywhere that is known."

on his website he shows you how you can search these texts yourself and there is no connection between nibiru and the annunaki or any planet beyond pluto.

so if a civilization took the time to make a dictionary, and a guy comes along and says the word means something completely diffrent then what all scholars that have worked on this language says it does, he must have some proof right??

well since you've read hitchens work please enlighten us with that proof. if you dont mind, please provide whatever book titles and pages you got your info from.

 

Please see my post #40 above, I think it answers most of what you are saying here.
So far as Sitchins books go, I have all of them, and am in the process of reading them again. As I stated above, he offers a viewpoint based on his research, and his research tells him (or did) that he was on the right track. As I also stated previously, modern science is verifying what he has said. For instance, this site: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/new-object-offers-hint-ofplanet-x/ talks about a possible "Planet X" which is another name given to what Sitchin claims is Niburu, that has an orbit similar to what Sitchin says the orbit of Nibiru takes, although not the same. This one:http://xfacts.com/x1.htm refers to studies conducted by other scientists on the same subject. There are others I have found but if you are really interested you can look up the subject yourself.
The issue you and Okiefreak brought to the table was in regards to Heiser supposedly debunking what Sitchin claims is a proper interpretation of some ancient texts. I stated I don't think Heiser has done so at all Since he does not really offer any specifics in his "debunking" other than his own viewpoint. It is difficult to argue with you about it if you have not looked into it much yourself. Which it appears you have not.
The dictionary Hesier points to and which Okiefreak provided a link to, clearly states that the term Nibiru points to a meaning involving a crossing. Sitchin says that this stems from the orbit of Nibiru itself, which, according to his research. Whether the planet actually exists, is the same as what the scientists are finding now, or whatever we will probably never know for certain as it will probably not get close to us in our lifetimes.
I guess I am not making myself very clear about what I am trying to say here concerning the science of the issue. One scientist will never be the end all and be all of any one subject. Scientific matters are constantly being revisited when new evidence is found that relates to any given theory, and usually by more than one other scientist or investigator. SItchin offers a very interesting and valid alternative viewpoint on the subject of how we came to be. His theories are worthy of further investigation, especially in light of the fact that modern scientists are verifying some of them, that in regards to a planet that moves contrary to what is known about celstial mechanics, but which also answers the questions about why some of the planets in our solar system have odd characteristics not in keeping with what is known about how solar systems form and how all the bodies within it should act.
On the subject of words, which you allude to, it is obvious if you ever search for the original meaning of a term in use today how much the original meaning has morphed into something else. In regards to this issue, Sitchin makes no bones that he is offering his viewpoint on what certain ancient terms and writings mean. He never claims to have the only answer. He is offering another viewpoint. Which appears to be well researched. And which I happen to believe is closer to the truth than what the christian community espouses.
If you are referring to the show "Ancient Aliens" the few episodes I have watched (from DVD, we prefer to not have any television service) are typical television. Take an interesting subject and reduce it to bullshit by showing bits and pieces of evidence, and then have the actors make wild claims about aliens. Everyone makes money, which is the point of the show, and the public becomes more bewildered than they were prior to watching. There is nothing scientific about it, just a way to make money.

 

.

 

It does, doesn't it?