> It has been established that Sitchin could not
> actually read the texts that he claims to have
No it has not. This says nothing about how well he could read them mind you, but all that has been "established" is that his translations, obviously, do not jibe with traditional interpretations of which Sitchin makes it abundantly clear are his alone. In the process, Sitchin has purportedly made several errors or taken undue poetic license with his translations in support of his overall claims. This may well be true, but keep in mind your parroted comments are derived almost exclusively from one Michael S Heiser who:
Mike has an active ministry to people whose worldview is molded by occult, paranormal, and esoteric beliefs. He observed that many who have adopted “alternative” worldviews were formerly traditional theists and Christians who left the faith when their questions on difficult passages and topics went unanswered, or when spiritual leaders failed to address experiences they had had. Mike seeks to fill these gaps as a Christian scholar and has become well known in these circles through writing, speaking, and numerous radio appearances.
Can't imagine any bias there.
Interestingly, I have yet to find anywhere in Heiser's "debunking" of Sitchin's translations that he himself can read cuneiform, but rather relies on translations from the likes of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary and ESL among others. For example, his treatment of seal VA243; he does not translate what it says himself, but rather relies on other sources to tell him what it says:
The seal is transliterated (the Sumero-Akkadian signs in English letters) and translated in the
principal publication of the Berlin Vorderasiatische Museum’s publication of its seal collection,
Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel (“West Asian Cylinder Seals”; 1940) by Mesopotamian scholar Anton
Moortgat on page 101. This book is in German, so I offer the German and an English translation:
Line 1 = dub-si-ga “Dubsiga” [a personal name of an apparently powerful personc]
Line 2 = ili-il-la-at “Ili-illat” [another personal name, this time of the seal’s owner]
Line 3 = ir3-su “dein Knecht” [German for “your servant”d]
So Sitchin is "wrong" because of translations made by one Anton Moortgat in 1940?
In which he had to follow up further still with someone else: "In an email correspondence with Dr. Rudi Mayr, whose dissertation was on cylinder seals, Dr. Mayr commented on the inscriptions and the seal...".
All Heiser has done is research known translations, which he even tells you himself anyone can do, to tell you Sitchin is wrong which was kind of the point of Sitchin retranslating them in that he thought scholars got it wrong in the first place.
Heiser says: "I get asked all the time, “How do you know Sitchin is wrong about aliens in Sumerian tablets?". Which he answers:"Short answer: Because I get my information from the actual ancient scribes. Here's one example among many that could be offered.".
So by "actual ancient scribes" what he really means is other scholars who have translated it for him.
Regardless of the validity of Sitchin's translations or his ideas, I am amazed at how gullible some are to gobble up whatever Heiser says as gospel without ever getting to know who he really is beyond his credentials, what he is actually saying, and where he gets his information from. I suppose it doesn't matter as long as he is saying from a position of "authority" what some desperately want to hear.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 21-Dec-15 23:32 by Thanos5150.