Is the Book of Genesis Plagiarized from Sumerian and Akkadian (Mesopotamian) Sources?

This is a common claim by Zecharia Sitchin and those who adore him, like his webmaster Erik Parker, and Jason Martell. As I have blogged here before (here and here), this idea was common fare toward the end of the 19th century, due primarily to two historical forces: (1) the novelty of the decipherment of cuneiform material, certain items of which sounded like Genesis stories; and (2) anti-Semitism being rife within higher-critical biblical scholarship. Today, in the 21st century (and one could say since the mid 20th century), scholars of Akkadian and Sumerian do NOT hold this view.  They just know better since they have a much more accurate grasp of Akkadian and Sumerian, as well as Semitic linguistics.

This morning the University of Chicago graciously posted a new e-book on the ABZU website entitled, “From Babylon to Baghdad: Ancient Iraq and the Modern West.” It’s free, and so here’s a link to it. I recommend (unless you are a fundamentalist Sitchinite) reading the article “The Genesis of Genesis” by Victor Hurowitz.  I have inserted a hyperlink to the page in the Table of Contents. Hurowitz is a professor at Ben Gurion University in Israel (so he lacks that awful Christian bias). He is a recognized expert in the interface of the Hebrew Bible and Assyriology, and serves on the steering committee of the Melammu Project, which focuses on the study of the intellectual heritage of Assyria and Babylonia in the modern East and West.

Guess what? He doesn’t agree with Sitchin and his followers that Genesis came from Sumerian and Akkadian works. What a shock. I’ve highlighted a few choice phrases in the PDF at the link so you can’t miss them. What’s even better is that the article also includes quotations from Assyriologist Wilfred Lambert that say the same thing. Who is Lambert? He’s one of the scholars Sitchin likes to quote in his books to create the impression that he (Sitchin) is doing serious research when he isn’t.

But please read it for yourself. Yes, there is a relationship between works like Enuma Elish and the book of Genesis — because they both come from the ancient Near East, not because of literary dependence. As the article points out, the real parallels to Genesis from non-biblical material do not come from Mesopotamia; they come from Ugarit. This is something that anyone who has looked at my divine council site already knows, since I point it out all the time.

There’s no antidote against PaleoBabble like fact-based scholarship. But like any medicine, you have to take it before it can help you.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

  • mike

    You got me really interested, but when the word anti-semitism surfaced you lost me. Sorry, but maybe you are the choosen one to answer my lifelong question? How should you do to critizise jews or the state of Israel without being called antisemit, racist or nazist??? I have asked many during the years. No one have given me an answer. Sorry for my bad english.. Mike, Sweden

    • MSH

      I do not believe someone who thinks the state of Israel has committed a moral wrong should be called anti-Semitic. It’s inaccurate. Anti-Semitism is really about denigrating a Jew for being (ethnically) a Jew. I think if you may it clear that the issue isn’t race, but morality (and can clearly define that), you need to do so.

  • chickadita

    First we need to difine terms. A semite is a descendant of Shem son of Noah. The word “Jew” was first introduced into the English language in the 18th century, its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was “Judean”. However during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries a well-organized and well- financed international “pressure group” created a so-called “secondary meaning” for the word “Jew” among the English- speaking peoples of the world. This so-called “secondary meaning” for the word “Jew” bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word “Jew”. It is a misrepresentation.

    80 to 90% of those who call themselves Jews today are from the Kazarian Race and are descended from Ashkenaz, son of Gomer, son of Japeth, son of Noah (Genesis 10: 1-3). This is where the true origin of name Nazi comes from, from the name Ashkenazi. The Ashke-nazi Jews who make up the bulk of the world Jewish population are not semites but are only converts to Judaism from around 8th century. But they are the ones who coined the term anti-semitic. And they are the ones who rule the world behind the scenes.

    • MSH

      No, “Jew” doesn’t come from the 18th century. It is a BIBLICAL term (Yehudi – “one from Judah” or “Judahite” – used of those who survived the ten tribes dispersal and later went into exile under Babylon — and then emerged). The basis for your argument is therefore incorrect from the get-go.

      Examples of “Yehudi” (used 81 times in all in the Hebrew Bible) = Nehemiah 1:2; 4:1; Esther 3:4; etc. If you want, I can email you all 81 occurrences (email me).

      Here, “Yehudi” and “Hebrew” are used in parallel: Jeremiah 34:9

  • Chosen Phew

    I’m just glad I found information like this before it was too late. I was already regurgetating some of the lies I learned from Sitchin to the people close to me. Now I have to go and retract my statements. At least I didn’t endorse his (Sitchin) views on my youtube channel like i was about to. Much thanks to the person who made this site and all others like you who are willing to give us the TRUTH about these ancient tablets we don’t have in our homes for easy access. TheChosenPhew.

    • MSH

      you’re welcome

  • Ilia Panayotov

    Michael, your works have opened my eyes to the context of the Bible. A year or two ago, I had a very linear view of the biblical composition, inspiration and …well, of the Bible itself. I understand now that since God wanted to reveal Himself in history to a people, He had to use at least a part of their already existent understanding of this (and the other) world.

    I have a question that is somewhat related to this post. I recently came across an article in Wikipedia about YHWH – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh_%28Canaanite_deity%29
    The article basically says that YHWH was a Caananite deity who was adopted in Israelite religion. I’ve heard such claims before but haven’t found the evidence convincing (or sometimes even existing). Yet, this article is written as if it describes a well-known fact, a consensus view (“Didn’t you know about it?”).

    So my question is – is there any evidence of YHWH being worshipped anywhere else but in Israel and Judah? Is there any evidence that the Israelites adopted YHWH as a deity from somewhere else?

    Thanks again.

    • MSH

      There is no evidence for the name YHWH unconnected to the Israelite period in Canaan. If the article cited Ugaritic Yw, you should know that no one in the fields of Ugaritic Studies or Israelite Religion accepts the notion that this points to YHWH (except for Johannes DeMoor). There are references to YHWH in Egyptian texts as far back as the 14th – 13th centuries BC, but both are connected to the “Shasu” (semitic / Canaanite peoples in the lower Transjordan — where one would expect them biblically by the early chronology. The point: there is no evidence for a Canaanite cult for YHWH for Israelites to adopt. Even by the late chronology (the one most accept), the Shasu texts would be post-patriarchal.

  • Ilia Panayotov

    Thanks a lot.

  • Ron

    I am an Israel, hebrew is my native language, wishing to share with you some thoughts and comments with regards to Some of the Posts here.
    first, the zi in Nazi is pronounced ‘ts(z)i’ as in Heinz ketchup and fritz and spitz and the ts in english ‘its’, derived from those people being nationalists – natzi. its the german way of pronouncing these letters utterance.
    ashkenazi is pronounced exactly as it is spelled and the Z is well sounded and heard. to the best of my knowledge, and i’d be shocked to discover otherwise, there is NO relation between those two.
    about elohim and yehovah. EL and ELOHA is the single form of the word ‘god’, ELOHIM is plural. the best way to translate YEHOVAH is ‘the one that makes things BE’, it derives from the same root as word like ‘am, are, was, will, were” but uses an active word’s template resembling the ‘er’ in driver. and in 99% (or high enough) the words YEHOVAH ELOHIM are coupled, resulting in a singular form referencing the deity as HE not THEY (using singular form of verbs etc). fascinating though is the fact that when god creates man in the hebrew bible it does reads out explicitly and exactly this way:
    WE shall make a man in OUR shape and OUR form (Gen, 1:26). i have my reasons to believe god is gods in plural, and would like to add some inside info from the holy land: this is the wild west of religious fanatics here…i mean seriously – there are many respected religous leader and following communities here in Israel who set new benchmarks to the concept of living the Torah – doing nothing but reading the holy scripts from start to end on a yearly cycle, dedicating their lives to studying it. the hard core of this group (45,000) has full financial government support (do not mistake – they have 8-12 kids who themselves turn parents as soon as they reach 18 – they are rather poor and otherwise ignorant) – and here’s the KICKER :)
    they, and many others, have numerous ways to avoid use, hint or alter god’s name. the word YEHOVAH is rather a taboo on the Israeli street – you do not use it. religous people will call god “HA-SHEM” (The Name), “ADONAY” (our/my master/lord) ELOKIM – replacing the holy H (Heih) which is by itself read “ELOHIM/ADONAY” wherever written H’ or H”, again to avoid ‘over use’ of gods name. Heih is the two of the tree letter consisting the root ‘H, Y, H” which is used for ‘be,am.will, was, were…and the famous “YEHOVAH” where the V is just pronounced to make the word more tangible to pronounce). the more religous – the more evasive the name of the god is. and adding to it the fact that Abraham one day decided that there is but one god, later given as the second disbandment – these people wrote the book decades later (600-800 BC?) in jerusalem… when it was already well established there there is one god and punishment to those who think otherwise. they scripted the single deity all over the scripts by REFERRING to is as one but they did not alter the mane from plural – god’s name is holy in itself, tradition well practiced these days as sign of one as a great and dedicated follower…
    anyways – loved reading all those things here – GREAT SITE :) all da best

    • MSH

      A few comments interspersed in what you wrote (at **):

      ashkenazi is pronounced exactly as it is spelled and the Z is well sounded and heard. to the best of my knowledge, and i’d be shocked to discover otherwise, there is NO relation between those two.

      ** there is no *linguistic* relationship, but there is a conceptual one, as seen in the biblical writers efforts to make an identification between the two clear. There are a couple dozen places where YHWH and EL are co-identified (e.g., Psa 31:5; Psa 18:2; Gen 16:3; Exod 15:2; etc.) and hundreds where YHWH and elohim are compounded (YHWH-Elohim).

      about elohim and yehovah. EL and ELOHA is the single form of the word ‘god’, ELOHIM is plural.

      ** it is *morphologically* plural, but not semantically plural (inmost instances – over two thousand times in the Hebrew Bible it is the subject of a SINGULAR verb — check your grammar and the Hebrew Bible). If you want a list, go to my http://www.sitchiniswrong.com website and navigate to the elohim page.

      the best way to translate YEHOVAH is ‘the one that makes things BE’, it derives from the same root as word like ‘am, are, was, will, were” but uses an active word’s template resembling the ‘er’ in driver.

      ** this is sort of astonishing to me — I’m a PhD in biblical Hebrew, and yet you write like this is news to me — ??

      and in 99% (or high enough) the words YEHOVAH ELOHIM are coupled, resulting in a singular form referencing the deity as HE not THEY (using singular form of verbs etc).

      ** no kidding -see above.

      fascinating though is the fact that when god creates man in the hebrew bible it does reads out explicitly and exactly this way:
      WE shall make a man in OUR shape and OUR form (Gen, 1:26).

      ** again, you really haven’t read through my sites. This is no news. I’ve been writing about it for over a decade. The plural in Gen 1:26 is a plural verb form – a cohortative. It is a plural of exhortation. What you’ve missed is the fact that when one addresses a group, the plurality is not the speaker, but the audience. How do I know that there is only one creator? The grammar – check the SINGULAR verbs of creation that follow (“HE created”) and the SINGULAR suffix pronouns in the text (“HIS image” – not “their image”!).

      i have my reasons to believe god is gods in plural, and would like to add some inside info from the holy land: this is the wild west of religious fanatics here…i mean seriously – there are many respected religous leader and following communities here in Israel who set new benchmarks to the concept of living the Torah – doing nothing but reading the holy scripts from start to end on a yearly cycle, dedicating their lives to studying it. the hard core of this group (45,000) has full financial government support (do not mistake – they have 8-12 kids who themselves turn parents

      ** this all amounts to nothing since you haven’t taken notice of the grammar. Hence I’m not wasting any more time on the response. I know your was intended as a friendly comment, but you are responding out of ignorance. I don’t mean that in a bad way; I’m just being forthright.

  • Ron

    i’ll refer to your later comment first:
    off course i am responding out of ignorance :) i am no scholar at this field – i represent the educated atheist – nothing more. i claim nothing of gained knowledge and since you well understood my friendly manner – maybe you are not wasting your time? maybe you are aiding my further education? we are dialoging here and i believe if we talk with, not at, each other -we can learn from each other… and thanks for using the word ignorance rather than ignorant :) so i am not trying to make a case or proof – i wish to know more, and open minds on the way.

    my reasons to believe that god is gods has very little to do with Sitchin and von Daniken and alike. even you named your site http://www.sitchiniswrong.com and not http://www.sitchinistotalywrong.com... i got no idea why ,yet you did.

    i am not an advocate of sitchin’s theories, and thanks to you i have further support. nor will i promote them here or anywhere else. if you ever wish to share ideas – i’d really really love to, cause though luckily for me (and you if we dialog) i speak native hebrew.

    so true – ELOHIM is morphologically plural which has little to suggest god is gods. yet i keep in mind – it was a human-made decision that there are no other gods… you cannot deny that (i think:) – Judaism is the first(?) in the middle east ancients to announce this monotheistic change in hypothesis of omnipotent creator. whether first or not the echos of worshiping other gods, and their existence is clear to the early IVRIM (jews)- “you shall have no other god besides me” (pardon the free translation) presupposes other gods to worship.. an omnipotent deity – if existed – needn’t worry about non-existing gods (though the priests of that deity do need to! again – human factor).

    i assume the old scripts tell stories of evidence, by man of limited world model (i.e. they cannot understand whats is downloading an application to your smart-phone). language is a modeling tool, it creates meaning in our minds without us understanding how exactly it happens – you do not understand how you understand the words you are reading right now… words just come in and ‘POING!’ – you get meaning. that why when i say ‘race car’ some people can describe the color of the mental image they just had in mind, others will describe auditory or olfactory inner experience – either way it morphs inside the mind in a sensual manner. so it’s like having a sixth sense for sensing our reality. but when what you sense (see/hear etc) is something not-yet-experienced (or modeled)…how would you output it in words? you do you best with words that DO create meaning on the inside. I’m sure you’ve heard of Noam Chomsky’s language related works…

    present Abraham with an iPhone and he would not name it iPhone – he’d describe at best what it does and how he thinks it works. so when i regards old scripts – i keep that in mind too before calling them ‘story tellers/makers” or say it didn’t happen or they deluded everything. and i got no idea what the evidence actually is, we only have their interpretations to them.

    cause here’s the punchiest thing in my humble opinion: in a 15000000000 y/o universe of ‘gbizilion’ planets we – the human race – managed to produce intelligent technology in the last 200 years. how much EGO does it take to really believe this achievement represents the top-notch-high-end benchmark of possible technology in that universe? the answer shouldn’t change abit if you date it 6000 or so back…. the omnipotent creator hypothesis can account for that too btw.

    now back to ELOHIM – ancient cultures refer to many different gods claiming to know the ‘right version’ of it/them. whether grammar of morphology, ELOHIM is the only case in the Hebrew language (and i scratched my head to find more…could be more) where such morphology and grammar ties singular and plural use of reference. again – i am not saying the hebrew ELOHIM is many simply because of the IM (plural) – i am suggesting that when they say YEHOVA ELOHIM they might have meant ‘the be-er/bei-er god of/between the gods’, the yehovah among gods. the one… of some. the name in a group. as if they are referring to one specific god among others (cause i am sure other cultures had witnessed signs of other gods – who’s to tell the jews didn’t witnessed ‘other’ gods too? and been commanded to ignore them..) need i remind you that i am ron steiner? – ron of the steiners, you are michael sheiser and he is YEHOVAH ELOHIM…. it’s a linguistic process – nothing more.

    again – this is MY opinion, made of ignorance to the fields, hebrew knowledge only, great logic, skepticism etc. i always say that just because some else has a different opinion does not mean you have to change your… and that our minds are like parachutes – better open them if you make use of them :) i love learning and thoughts experiments so here’s one for you and me to ponder about:
    every hypothesis needs to know it’s back door so it would recognize its failure upon it. e.g. find a cow’s bone dating 200 million years and there goes evolution as we know it. if the sky open and a breaded old giant came from the sky with a pack of winged babies – and i’ll resent my atheist opinions at that instant. sitchin should have done this at the time too.
    what is yours? in the future, had you’ve been wrong, what would have demonstrated it to you?

    lastly – I’ve being boggled by the subject since childhood (i am 37). recently more so again. today at lunch i proudly told my colleagues about your sites, how helpful they had been in better understanding common mistakes etc. providing references to any claim you make… (this is the first time i read at ETCLS Sumerian translation of the texts , always wished to know more -thanks) i truly enjoy your articles and wish to encourage you to be one of open mind on your way to better understand the truth and share it with others.
    some of your readers might be responding to your findings and claims as would a guy watching magic show responds to the someone detailing the performer’s secrets thus taking ‘the magic’ away. not me, though surely you understand them too.

    all the best Michael :)

    • MSH

      can you please refrain from such long comments — chop them up into one issue/ thought per comment. I don’t mind comment discussion, but I’m not looking for homework.

  • Ron

    for some reason i took the lloooong route of making my point so far :) i’ll round it up here:

    one god many gods and the creator:

    the creator is one.. of many gods. he created men in THEIR shape and THEIR form, and you’re right – he DID talk to a GROUP indeed…of what? angels? gods? who’s shape and form is ‘OUR SHAPE’ that he – not they – used in creating men?. one creator – YEHOVAH….many gods ELOHIM. even the translations of Sumerian texts claim one creator – many gods (or have i misunderstood? http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.1.2&display=Plain&charenc=gcirc&lineid=t112.p8#t112.p8)

    thought about the meaning of YeHoVaH:
    again YEHOVA – H,V/Y,H knowing the use of this root in daily-used-hebrew today and biblical too to a notable degree here are some examples i guess you’d recognize – Ho-Ve – (n)present time, what is here (v) ‘currently creating/experiencing’(!), Ha-Va-Yah – a human experience, Mit-Ha-VeH – is being created now, Hit-Ha-VaH- was created then, Yit-Ha-VeH – it will be created, Yit-Ha-Voo (no final H) – they will be created.
    the old biblical hebrew is not used today any more though quite well understood (where ‘well’ means nearly 100% of the words but generally less when it comes to meaning of specific phrases, specially the early chapters) in fact any phrase in the bible would have be said,written and even spelled completely different than the modern days hebrew do.
    (randomly chosen) Gen,1:4

    VaYoMer ELoHiM YeHii Or, VaYeHi Or. VaYar ELoHiM Et HaOr Ki ToV.

    VeYoMaR ELoHim YiHiYe Or VeYiHiYe Or, VeYiReH ELoHim SheHaOr (opt. Hoo) ToV. (moderen hebrew)

    so what is the biblical YeHoVa? how’d we be expect it to be spelled today? from now on i merely guess – YeHaVe (will make/create)? MeHaVe(maker, creator)? YeHoh (silent, written V, spelled exactly as YeHoVah)? – if the followers haven’t changed it ever since, it is taboo to even use it (so whats the point updating???) it is a great sin.. so one finds it reasonable enough to assume it hasn’t evolved normally as other words have…. i cant testify for sure about the meaning this word made in those ancients minds that used it till tradition had it that they should anymore (ELoKim dismissing the holy H, H which is a short ‘synonym -ed’ YeHoVaH and many many more). again , just offering local thoughts……

    one or many gods – the roundup:

    to me, the question whether there is one god or many gods is already answered – philosophically speaking, take the biblical god – was he a true or imaginary deity? your answer – whatever may be – deters and enforces the same answer to the following questions as well: is the indian/mayan/muslim/judeo/egyptian/babilonian/ashurian/sumerian/akkadian/finiki/greek/native americans/nordic/hindu gods….true or imaginary deity? YES|NO and the optional personal favorite “Iy-Don’now..” believing one and not the other is a matter of cultural acquired taste – not an issue of evidence or facts .. did he God choose his people and other gods chose theirs? evidence to any god-like deity satisfies TRUE all at once.

    linguistically i find it interesting, mythological stories – i find it compelling to assume that all those people and cultures experienced and witnessed many similar ‘god’ phenomena – assuming not totally hallucinated or made up.

    Good’ay :)

    • MSH

      what’s the point? I don’t suppose it matters that I had to read a few thousand pages on monotheism in Israel and the wider Semitic world for my dissertation. What you’ve posted here is basically etymological mysticism, and no one in the Israelite religion or Hebraist community really has any time for it (again, just trying to be forthright).

  • Fair.go

    You don’t have to be a dick about it.
    I was looking forward to your reply to Ron. I was hoping for some valuable insight.
    This guy has taken an interest in you and your work as have I.
    He obviously values what you have to say and instead of showing him courtesy, you mug him off.
    Call it “being forthright” or whatever else that might make you feel good about yourself.

    • MSH

      I can’t even recall the context for this; in view of this reasoned reply, I’m not interested.

  • Aaron

    I have read your info on sitchen and it was very informative.

    I have a few questions? With all the reaserch you have done do you believe in god?
    Have you been in the vatican library?
    When is the next time you are going to be on coast to coast?

    • MSH

      in order: yes, no, and I don’t know.

  • Garry

    Michael,
    Are you able to read the ancient tablets, and do you disagree with the translations of the tablets as denoted in Sitchin’s “Lost Book of Enki”, or just Sitchin’s assertions?

    • MSH

      I really need to post something on this on my site. I must have answered this question a hundred times:

      I am saying that the key items in Sitchin’s theory are not even IN the tablets. I can’t quibble about a translation of something that isn’t even there. I show people how to check that claim on my site — look up “Anunnaki” and get all the references. You won’t find a single instance where they are associated with nibiru. Look up nibiru in the free Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (it took 90 years to compile – http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2011/06/after-90-years-the-cad-is-finished-chicago-assyrian-dictionary/ – and read the entries for nibiru. You will find it associated with Jupiter and Mercury (and so it is likely not a planet, but a phenomenon associated with one of those planets). Look up the material on the web, or in the scholarly bibliography I provide for Mesopotamian astronomy. There are *no* Mesopotamian astronomical texts that have any planet beyond Saturn (because they were doing naked eye astronomy).

      My beef is not translation; it’s fabrication of ideas.

  • Merise

    OMG (no pun intended)! MSH’s replies to Ron and Fair.go make me seriously contemplate MSH’s true identity. Ron wrote some very good replies – and maybe (MAYBE) MSH knew all this already, but I certainly didn’t and I was happy to learn more – so thank you, Ron! :-)

    In my humble opinion, this MSH person most certainly isn’t scholared in any way, displaying the most crude level of dialog. If I was to believe anything Mike Heiser has claimed, he should NOT act aloof and write things like “** this is sort of astonishing to me — I’m a PhD in biblical Hebrew, and yet you write like this is news to me — ??” and “I have been writing about this for more than a decade” etc. etc.!

    That is why I seriously hope that Mike Heiser and MSH are two different people. If it turns out to be the same person, I would definitely think long and hard about believing anything this person claims on his web sites.

    And he has several web sites…

    Unfortunately, my alarm also goes off when someone bases all his “work” to prove someone else wrong – this “method” isn’t really a valid way of working for educated people! I mean, creating an allegedly scholared website based on facts and correct historical data – and calling it http://www.sitchiniswrong.com – come on! It’s not to be taken seriously.

    • MSH

      can you make this easy for me – two items that I can’t make any clearer and simpler:

      1) Please distill what it is you think I’m not answering. It isn’t complicated. I don’t have the time to go back and re-read pieces to try and figure out what it is you’re writing about, so please do that for me.

      2) Produce the tablet citations for what Sitchin is saying and teaching. Give us all the benefit of your knowledge. It is inadequate to only do number one, since not liking my response does nothing to produce truth on the issue. You have to be able to support your own position.

      If you can’t do these simple things, I’m just not going to bother with you and the others in the form of replies here.

  • Sebastian

    From your last message in this post, it was clear you had the time to lecture Merise on his/her post but not the time to respond to what she was asking of you. In my opinion, when you make this site, claiming someone is wrong, you are attracting people with affinity to the person that you are saying is wrong.

    I’ve read thru your site, and I find it really informative, but I must say as a person, you always respond in a very impolite, condescending tone, and since this is all text, when someone reads it, I would say that it comes off worst than maybe when I hear your say it in person. Maybe, you don’t care about other people, but since you spent a lot of time debunking someone else’s theory then maybe you do care what other people think and feel, and what they believe is the truth or not.

    I think if you cannot respond to their question, as you want someone to respond to you in a polite manner, then do yourself (and your website) a favour, don’t respond at all, the more people you turn off from your smug behaviour, the less people you will enlighten about your work, which I think is very good. Remember, The message is only as good as the messenger.

    • MSH

      I won’t take the time to go back through old items like this – please specify what it is you think wasn’t answered. For her part (and yours) until you can give me the tablets where I find Sitchin’s nonsense, you have nothing – ZERO.

  • Jokan

    I am here you are wrong…you will see

  • menowrah

    hello

    • MSH

      hello!

  • menowrah

    Thank you! love your work.Have you any thoughts on the plant involved in one of the creations being cannabis” the tree of life”? Also, the pine cone-peneal gland cannabis connection?It is my belief, the summation of the 1st 3 chps. in gen.: there is no freedom outside of celibacy and cannabis is that miracle! Cannabis amnesty is the messiah Israel awaits! callegal2010 you-tube

    • MSH

      I see no substantive connection between these ideas and Genesis.

  • KarKu

    I believe you are linguist and excellent in Hebrew knowing your bible ,and all you claim,

    yet, you are for laugh,
    being scholar, PhD, and yet you care for something SO unimportant in your spheres.
    That put you right at his level.
    Now you make me feel that there actually is a lot of good stuff in Sitchin’s books.
    You act to my opinion like 16 century inquisitors, protecting your bible,which he never attacked, but as you say, he made wrong interpretations or translations… lol

    P.S.
    If you find my English bad, it is because i never attend English schools,
    salute

    • MSH

      Yeah, it’s a bummer someone like me pays enough attention to crap to let people know it’s crap. Kind of ruins the fun.

  • KarKu

    One more thing since you are expert, what is meaning of that Sumerian “Winged Disk”?

    Thank You

    • MSH

      it means that’s the way you would artistically describe something in the sky that “moved” — you would use wings, since that is all you ever experienced in regard to flight. The sun, of course, doesn’t move — funny how the Sumerians didn’t know that with all the advanced technology the ETs gave them.

      You’re welcome.

  • KarKu

    Hello again,
    I have find someone who is taking Sitchin even further,who speak,read and write “Anunnaki” .
    His Name is Maximillian De Lafayette.
    Maybe I’m taking your time with another nonsense,but his translations of”Ana’kh”? Annunaki , and many more are out of this world, maybe you would like to take a look

    This is what i find about him,he doesn’t exist on Wikipedia=not even funny,eh?
    “Maximillien DE Lafayette wrote more than 1,200 books and numerous encyclopedias; 857 books and 9 encyclopedias are published. He has been writing for the past 50 years.
    He is considered as one of the world leading linguists (Ancient Languages) and historians of ancient civilizations. In addition, he wrote 14 dictionaries of various languages, to name a few: Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Aramaic, Latin, French, Hittite, Phoenician, Ugaritic, Greek, etc. He is an expert linguist in 26 languages (Ancient and modern)….”

    It go’s on and on here is web page link http://www.amazon.com/Maximillien-De-Lafayette/e/B002P9IPMY

    Pure Zecharia who was just trying something new(40 years ago) without real scholars,
    he at least live.
    But this guy(Lafayette) can’t be for real
    interesting is that nobody else know him,or what nationality, age, or background he has.
    I would definitely like to read your opinion.
    If I

    • MSH

      Can you send me the list (I imagine it is short, if not non-existent) of all of Mr. de Layette’s peer-reviewed publications that promote ancient astronaut ideas? Instead of claiming his expertise, can you send me his resume or academic CV?

      What are my points in asking these questions? Some simple ones:

      1. It matters not how many publications one has if one is writing only for the uninformed. Rather, when one subjects one’s views to experts in the relevant fields (i.e., subjects one’s work to peer review) and they determine that such writings pass muster, THEN and only then should we care.

      2. If Mr. de Lafayette lacks real credentials from real universities, then he is a liar when it comes to his credibility for saying anything about any ancient language. I don’t know if he’s lying. I’m giving you a chance to defend him.

      3. Who cares if he “takes Sitchin further” when Sitchin’s material is bogus? Taking ideas that do not exist in ancient Mesopotamian records is like taking the anatomical study of unicorns “further.” Caring about his work would therefore be a waste of time.

  • KarKu

    Hi Mike,
    did you look at link i send you?
    De Lafayette is not important to me at all i can read his books easy and take what i like, i just thought that YOU will be interested in someone who claim to speak 24 languages, and speak “anunaki” language, since you did that already once.
    If you don’t care, it is OK, i know where i stand ,certainly not on his side, I’m not a linguist,but if his translations are correct, than we deal with ancient astronauts and all bibles are hoax.
    I wasn’t giving you a homework, it look like you care
    K.

    • MSH

      Understood — and I don’t believe for a minute he speaks all these languages. And no one speaks Sumerian. I put no credibility in any of his claims. He needs to produce credentials as a first step, and I’m not holding my breath.