This archive serves as an easy access point for all my postings about Zecharia Sitchin’s erroneous teachings related to ancient astronauts (Anunnaki). It will be updated whenever I post a critique of Sitchin.
VIDEOS
- VIDEO 1: a video of me searching the Hebrew Bible with the LOGOS Bible software for:
- all occurrences of elohim in the Hebrew Bible;
- all the places where elohim is demonstrated as singular through the grammar of subject-verb agreement;
- all the places where elohim could legitimately be translated as a plural because of the verb.
- all the places in the Hebrew Bible where the word elohim is identified as Yahweh–the singular God of Israel–showing that elohim is singular for context reasons.
- (18.2 MB; 11:27 time)
- VIDEO 2: a video of me doing a search for where elohim is the subject of a verb of creation. I go through all the results and each time the God of Israel is the elohim referred to, the verbs are SINGULAR. No, Genesis 1:26-27 doesn’t have plural gods creating humankind.
- (21 MB; 14:46)
- VIDEO 3: a video of me searching the ETCSL for the word “Anunnaki”
- ETCSL = Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature
- viewers can see for themselves how to search for the term “Anunnaki” in Sumerian — and they’ll see that there are no texts that have them inhabiting Nibiru (or riding in in) or that they are extraterrestrials.
- VIDEO 4: a video of me searching through the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary and the Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary for “shumu” to see if it is a rocket ship. These tools are the elite lexicons for Akkadian and Sumerian available to scholars in the fields today — and they are free online.
PDF FILES
1. PDFs from Video 1
- All occurrences of elohim in the Hebrew Bible (results in Hebrew); 251 pages; 2.5 MB; 2,601 occurrences, 99%+ are singular by grammar or context.
- Elohim as the subject of a singular predicator (results in Hebrew and English)
- Elohim as the subject of a plural verb form (results in Hebrew and English)
- YHWH coupled with Elohim to show Elohim is singular in context
Fascinating! I had only recently stumbled upon Zecharia Sitchin and his theories/translations of the Sumerian texts and was in awe of his interpretation. I assumed his scholarship to be flawless and sincere – now I have serious doubts and would like to follow this further.
However, as a non academic/scholar I am vunerable to following foolish threads. If you can recommend any credible site that might interest me I would be sincerly grateful.
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 6:39 PM
it would depend on the specific issue. Your request reflects one reason I decided to create the Sitchin site and start blogging at this site.
[Reply]
Thank you about time someone said something about that nutjob now we have a bunch of ancient astronaut theorists who dont understand what Elohim means just see the words God written and the lord dont realize its a misleading translation among other things . theyre the guys with too much time on thier hands live in thier parents basements till they grow old and die have no friends watch a lot of star trek and probably dont get laid very often
[Reply]
Hey the world and the internet area always full of conflict. My personal policy has always been to question “authority” not doing so has resulted in some of the most horrible crimes imaginable. Sitchin’s interpretation is a s valid as anyone elses. The actual proof may or not show itself in our lifetimes. Paper and the internet can be edited endlessly. To say out and out that someone is wrong when what is being talked about exceeds our life spans if folly of the first order.
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
April 27th, 2012 at 2:42 PM
Sitchin’s interpretation isn’t valid at all. First, we have no proof that extraterrestrial life is real, so arguing that an artifact whose meaning we cannot parse must be extraterrestrial is a classic instance of illogic — assuming to be true what you need to prove, and then using that assumption as evidence. Absolutely circular and without merit. Second, Sitchin’s core ideas do not exist in the cuneiform tablets (yes, you read that correctly). I have been saying this online and in public and on radio for over ten years. How easy would it be to show that I’m wrong by bringing forth one line of one tablet that contains the information like the Anunnaki come from the planet Nibiru, or that Nibiru is a planet beyond Pluto, or that Nibiru passes through our solar system every 3600 years? It would be falling-out-bed easy … if I were wrong. But I’m not. I’ve looked, and given people access to the sources to look for themselves at http://www.sitchiniswrong.com.
So, no, his views simply aren’t viable. No view that is based on data the do not exist is viable.
If you think this is folly, produce the texts/tablet information. You’d be the first.
[Reply]
As a long time listener of Coast to Coast, I hear the Sitchin argument all the time. Sadly, the stance taken by the guests is almost always on the supporting side- unless Mr. Heiser is on.
I’m by no means an expert on ancient languages, but even I could spot the enormous holes in the theory. The closest I can come to explaining what exactly happened with Mr. Sitchin’s work is that he had a grand idea and purposely went in search of anything that would allow him to validate it. From my understanding, the Sumerian lexicon was incomplete at the time of his initial writing and he seems to have decided to simply fill in the holes and warp what was known to serve his “translation”.
Is it possible that extraterrestrials visited the earth in the distant past? Sure. Did the Sumerians know about it? Not likely. The truth is that Mr. Sitchin ignored almost everything known about the Sumerians themselves, including their own stories of where they came from.
My favorite bit of nonsense? The notion that the ‘apsu’ was a mine in Africa to supply the Annunaki with some gold to sprinkle in their atmosphere. The apsu is pretty clearly defined as a watery abode (and Enki as a god of primal waters), and gold is so heavy an element it would sink to the ground almost immediately unless the atmosphere were made of say.. Radon. Which of course makes the argument that Earth was the ‘ideal’ place for them to set up shop look even flimsier.
At any rate, thanks for all your hard work. I’m looking forward to the Debunked documentary and what I’m sure will be a more educated and scientific examination of the ancient astronaut problem.
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
May 2nd, 2012 at 10:20 AM
Thanks, and you are welcome. It is sad. Loved your “favorite bit of nonsense” — truly disconnected from any data or reality.
[Reply]
Upon review (and the last two hours spent reading Paleobabble backlogs) I feel compelled to correct myself. I should have said ‘Dr. Heiser’ instead of Mr., and it’s APZU, not apsu. My apologies.
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
May 2nd, 2012 at 10:21 AM
no problem
[Reply]
I do not believe everything I read but the one point Heiser will have to explain before I would co-sign on his credibility is his explanation on how all the ancient superstructures came into being. A scientific explanation should be available to him based on his sense of confidence in his study?
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
May 21st, 2012 at 6:24 PM
It’s pretty simple. When human technology for moving megalithic stones is proven quite workable and scalable, then there is no need to claim aliens did this work, especially when we have no evidence that aliens exist. It’s not a logic conundrum.
[Reply]