An academic challenge to Zecharia Sitchin

His name is Keiser? He sounds good although I’ve only listened to the first ten minutes so far. I’ll definitely listen to more if I get the chance during the day.

He read Sitchin’s books, and says he doesn’t know any of the languages he claimed to be an expert in. He believes Sitchin made things up which are simply not there, and made many mistakes.

He lists six items from Sitchin’s work which were completely fabricated.

TAP – There were the suggestions that Sitchin was a Mason putting out wrong information with no detail.  Now here’s the detail.  That said check out Michael Tellinger’s work which confirms the ancient gold-mining in South Africa, going back hundreds of thousands of years.  The topic of ancient history and human origins will not be going away just yet.  I look forward to reading comments if anyone gets a chance to listen to this right through.  Maybe tonight I’ll get my chance to do so.  Busy day ahead.

 

The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

16 Responses to “An academic challenge to Zecharia Sitchin”

  1. Anonymous says:

    jesuits = archons or archon controlled + the jokers that mutilate baby boys

    http://2012portal.blogspot.hk/2014/01/fall-of-archons-update.html

    paul

  2. Anonymous says:

    The guys name is Michael Heiser (not Keiser!) A quick search came up with these:- http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/about/about.htm
    http://www.michaelsheiser.com/

    Looks the real deal but what do I know?

  3. Anonymous says:

    Well I watched it all and I have to disagree this Michael Heiser to quite some extent.
    I’m not a Sitchin fan but I have read his work and although I’m not completely convinced I have an open mind. He does put forward an objective view taken from his ‘own’ alternative translation, using his knowledge, experience and language skills. Sitchen went against all the establishment rules to get to his analogy. He went with what he believed to be correct. It doesn’t mean he is wrong just because the establishment disagrees with it. Heiser has obtained his degree by following the mainstream establishment rules and using them to debunk Sitchin. He is following the same methods of interpretation of previous mainstream scholars and it can’t be done as Sitchen isn’t a mainstream thinker. It’s like comparing Shakespeare with Terry Pratchet. Just because that is the way it;s always been translated doesn’t mean it is the correct translation as scholars are now finding out.
    Translation relied on the individuals interpretation of script. The translators often disagreed in their interpretations.
    Then there were the ‘correctors’, – a set of monks employed to deliberately alter script in accordance with the cannon instruction.

    Mr. Heiser claims that the word Elohim in Hebrew, meaning “gods” is not a plural word. His main proof is that it says in Hebrew “The Elohim Said” in a singular form not a plural form. This would indicate that the word Elohim was a name and not meaning plural gods. Of course this also could mean that the scribes of the Bible kept it in a singular form to show the monotheistic viewpoint but Heiser fails to point this out. There are many uses of the plural term of the word Elohim in the Bible although Heiser fails to point this out also, it is in fact very hard to find any singular uses of the word.

    The word Elohim is definitely plural and does indeed mean “gods” and it actually contains two forms of the singular word for God inside of itself.

    1. The word EL means God/powerful mighty one and it is the first part of the word Elohim.
    2. The word Eloah, also means God/powerful mighty one and it is the first part of the word Elohim. Eloah in Hebrew is a three letter root which most Hebrew words contain.

    Here we already have two singular forms of the word God inside the plural word Elohim. Yet, Mr. Heiser has never mentioned these singular forms inside the plural word. He still insists Elohim is singular knowing well that it already contains two singular words for God.
    Yahweh speaks and is quoted within the Bible. When he spoke to the ancient Hebrews while giving them the 10 commandments, he indeed used the plural word of Elohim meaning gods.
    And God said “You shall not recognize the gods (Elohim) of others in my presence” also translated as “You shall not have other gods in my presence,” (Exodus 20:3). Here Yahweh uses the term Elohim to refer to all other gods (plural) that Israel shall not worship or acknowledge. This also means that there were other gods and they were forbidden to be acknowledged in Yahweh’s presence.

    I could go on as there are a lot of errors in Heisers presentation but it’s obvious when you watch this video that he offers little proof to back his rebuke and the proof he offers is minimal and adapted to support his own meaning.
    Which is quite often the case in these situations.
    I also noticed the presentation contains a considerable amount of psychological manipulation and auto suggestion which is never a good sign.

    Conclusion… Some scattered truths, a lot of disinfo but I put that down to Heiser’s inexperience, after all he is fresh out of Uni and his head is full of what the system has indoctrined him with. His thinking is still .. ‘within the box’

    I’d like to see him in a few years with a lot more experience and proof to support his claim but I feel his view may change as he discovers all is not as it is taught by the elder scholars used by the system.

  4. Anonymous says:

    5:56 mentions ‘Heiser’s inexperience. Hmm.
    I wonder when that video was actually made even though it says it was posted in 2013. The photo found on his website has him looking a lot older than in that video. Maybe he has a hard life?

    As regards Sitchin his mo of making statements and speculation without backing them up with actual sources which can be cross-referenced and then going on later to say ‘Now we know’ based on the aforementioned opinions does not make him believable imo.

    I have also seen comments about Sitchin being a CIA asset. That does not prove that he was actually was.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Anon 5:56pm, full marks for your comment.
    Anybody who tries to read the Bible for instance, will have this same problem of interpretation.
    Not convinced either way.

  6. Anonymous says:

    What language skills/experience did Sitchen have and where did he study?

  7. Anonymous says:

    You ask when this video was made. In the opening, the speaker says that Heiser had just completed his Ph.D. He earned his Ph.D in 2004, in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semetic Languages from the Univ. of Wisconsin. For those looking for his website, it is at http://www.sitchinwaswrong.com.
    Sitchin opened my eyes to a lot of things. I don’t think he was infallible, tho.

  8. Anonymous says:

    The Signs of God’s Existence – Documentary

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS1x-6al2pE

  9. Anonymous says:

    Sitchin studied at the University of London,

  10. Anonymous says:

    This discussion, both in the video and in the comments above, is proving to be rather inconclusive, which is probably inevitable, given the nature of the subject and the sources of information available, as well as the extreme remoteness in time of the events which are said to have occurred, namely the arrival of a particular group of aliens on this planet, and their activities here. I prefer something more definite.

    Whether or not any aliens came here from a planet called Nibiru, they definitely came here from Mars. I feel able to state this with confidence, as I was one of them. I have fragments of memories of quite a number of previous lifetimes. All but one of the lifetimes that I remember were on Earth, but I recall one in which I left Mars to come to this planet. I remember boarding the craft – it was the first time that I’d set foot inside one of the ships. I don’t have any recollection of the trip, but I do have a memory of landing in southern Africa, a little way up the east coast. This may have been in the same location as the ruins of the huge ancient city which have been discovered, which Michael Tellinger has written about.

    In that lifetime, I died at quite a young age, in some kind of vehicle accident. My partner, with whom I was also romantically involved this time around, was most upset.

    I don’t think this kind of experience is at all unusual. We’ve all been around for a very long time, and not only on this planet. Some of us are fortunate enough to have a few memories of where we’ve been before, and who we were with. Relationships are often continued from one lifetime to the next.

    For striking visual evidence of a previous civilisation on Mars, take a look at:

    http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2005/084/hale-civ-evidence.htm

    Click on Hale Crater Civilization Evidence. What looks at first like just a pretty picture of a crater turns into something altogether different, when subjected to repeated magnifications.

  11. Nixon Scraypes says:

    Which football team do you support?What! They’re crap!Whose your favourite pop singer?Idiot,he’s dead and replaced by a clone! My expert’s better than your expert!Capice? Sitchin translated stories from one language to another,whether or not he got it right they’re just stories with esoteric and exoteric meanings.Why did Moses smash the tablets when he came down the mountain? He broke the law,geddit? It’s a little wink to the insiders.It’s what you get from the stories that counts.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Who brought the anunaki/niburu/planet x/sumerians to our attention in the 1st place? Anyone other than Sitchin or a contempory of his? I have been searching for an answer to this question for a while 🙁 Everyone seems to quote Sitchin as their source including Tellinger.

  13. Anonymous says:

    It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled ~ Mark Twain

  14. Anonymous says:

    Anon 2.50

    Anunnaki are mentioned in the bible but if you mean outside of the bible their are many authors written about the subject. Below is a small list but there are many more.

    Erich von Daniken,
    Andrew Collins,
    Maximillien De Lafayette,
    Gerald R Clark
    Grover Bentley

    There are also websites that hold copies of the texts for you to translate if your a keen Sumerian Coptic linguist 🙂
    Unlike biblical Hebrew where there was an abundance of material and translators available coptic was scarce and translators are rare and self taught hence the reason there is so many disagreements as to who’s translation is correct, so it’s very much still a work in progress for translators.

  15. 2:50 says:

    6:15 cheers! 🙂

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.