"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.
PB - That would certainly be a game-changer, in my books.
Regardless of the validity of Stichin's translations or his ideas, I am amazed at how gullible some are to gobble up whatever Heisner says as gospel without ever getting to know who he really is beyond his credentials, "
PB - It's a matter of interest, ultimately. But also an awareness of one's level of commitment to a given subject. For example, I tend to agree with the scientific consensus, that it is likely we are f-ing the planet viz the environment, because the consensus seems to be very strong. Rather than seek to get a plethora of PhDs, and actually thoroughly understand each of their protestations, I choose to draw the line there. No need to invoke the word "gospel" considering the circumstance, Thanos.
My approach is much the same with Heisner. You're the first person I've come across that has sought to rebut his piece on Stitch, which has been out there for sometime. I would have expected more of the pro-Stichen crowd, since he was such a widely quoted, popular writer. In hearing nothing from them, I am inclined to presume that they have nothing of much substance to defend, and have probably accepted too much on faith from the soloist Stichen, a faith surely fueled by a lack of familiarity with the relevant ancient languages - something Heisner seems significantly closer to.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17-Jul-19 17:42 by Poster Boy.