This is a Sitchin signature teaching. In an effort to marry his notion that the Anunnaki (a group of gods in the Sumero-Mesopotamian pantheon) created humankind to the biblical story, Sitchin teaches that the Bible itself has plural gods creating humankind in Genesis. This is just paleo-babble.
Genesis 1:26 is of course offered as proof of this idea, but this is not what the passage teaches. Let’s take a look at the passage in context (Gen 1:26-28), noting the underlining:
26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind as our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man as his own image, as the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
If you are familiar with my work on the divine council, you know that God is not speaking to the other members of the Trinity, but rather to the members of his council. Among Old Testament scholars, this isn’t anything new. In “academese” the wording of Genesis 1:26 is called the “plural of exhortation”-a fancy way of saying one person is announcing something to a group. God comes to the divine council with an exciting announcement: “let’s create humankind!” It would be like me going into a room of friends and saying, “Hey, let’s go get some pizza” (which I have been known to do with some regularity).
The point is that the speaker is ONE entity. But do the other guys in the audience (the heavenly host) participate in the creating? This is what Sitchin teaches. Sadly for him, the Hebrew text says the opposite. How do we know that? At the risk of dredging up painful memories of your high school English classes, the answer is “grammar says so.”
If you take a close look at verse 27, it’s obvious as to who is doing the creating: “So God created man as his own image, as the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” One grammatical clue is obvious, even in English. If more than one god was participating in the creation of humanity, the text would read “they created.” What isn’t so obvious to those who can’t read Hebrew is that the verbs of creation in this passage (and in ALL passages where the God of Israel creates anything) are SINGULAR. Don’t believe me? Get out your popcorn and turn up your speakers! Here’s 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. Video just doesn’t get more compelling than this. It’s just under 21 MB ; 14:46.
MSH;
I find your efforts to discredit Zechariah Sitchin (ZS) very interesting. Yet I’m perplexed as to why you would undertake efforts to do this? ZS must have a following of perhaps a few thousand of hard core fans, perhaps more? His books are not NYT best-sellers, in fact they are very eclectic! So, are you attempting to dissuade people like me whom have read all his books at least 2-3 times, maintained correspondence(s) with ZS, and frankly find his words and works to not only be enlightening, but, very educational! However, not all people will find and do find his works appealing – many find his theories too complex to ponder. So, I’m back to why do you do what you do? At any rate, you and your work will get no more views by me simply because my time is too valuable to waste on your fruitless and frivolous material. Whom sponsors you? What ‘organization’ is your backer? At any rate, again, I have found your comments and ideas interesting, but ultimately flushable.
drbuswell: Apparently you don’t read much in the Sitchin-von Daniken stream (good for you!). According to the back cover of certain Sitchin volumes (paperbacks) I’ve picked up over the years, he’s sold 20-30 MILLION books (worldwide – that would include foreign language versions). That means lots of people are reading him.
Sitchin is too complex to ponder? What’s so complex about building an argument on data that doesn’t exist? Real heady.
For why I do this, see the comment exchange on the first video. It’s real simple. Not too complex.
I have no backer or organization. I don’t need a sponsor to be honest with the data.
Love the Blogs!
Have a question about a person I heard on coast to coast – Ken Klein. Do you know who he is and what he is about? He has a blog on his website on this very topic right now (Hmmm?).
Here is what the first post said in part:
The use of the plural word Elohim opens up a door for the doctrine of a plurality in the Godhead. Most scholars would agree with the fact the word Elohim is plural but they would say that this plurality is negated when put alongside a singular verb. In fact, the verb created in Gen. 1:1 is the word ‘bara’ which means ‘he created’. Because this verb is singular the scholar will say that it makes the noun singular so that Gen 1:1 clearly speaks of a singular God. But there are other areas within the Bible when speaking of the true God that are followed by a plural verb:
Genesis 20:13, Gen 35:7, 2 Sam 7:23, and Psalms 58 all are examples in scripture where the word Elohim is followed by a plural verb and yet we still read it as God being singular.
If the plural form Elohim was the only word that the Hebrew writers had in order to refer to a singular God then those who believe in a singular God might have a good argument. But a singular form of the word Elohim exist in the word Eloah and exist over 250 times in the Old Testament. This again gives greater weight to the idea of a plurality in the Godhead.
In fact, outside of the singular verb in Genesis 1, the context of the surrounding chapters denies such an interpretation of being ‘only Godâ€. Within Hebrew grammar when God speaks of Himself, he often uses the plural pronoun:
Your thoughts please.
Shiloh: No, I’ve never heard of Ken Klein. I’m guessing that he got the plurality references from me or my site. I actually just sent off a scholarly article to a publisher on the plural predicate passages with elohim as subject. His first paragraph reads (or could be read) as though he wants the reader to think that because elohim can be a plural in one verse (b/c of the plural predicate), that opens the door to it being plural elsewhere, perhaps even when the verb isn’t plural. His ensuing paragraph leads the reader (perhaps – he’s not terribly specific, probably being cautious) to think that Eloah is the standard singular, and so by implication elohim is a standard plural (or something like that). All of this is a sort of shell game, though. We are unable to trace any “evolution” whereby it could be claimed that the biblical writers at one point only used or understood elohim as a plural, and then it became singular. That’s a supposition, based on the shape of the words. The problem is, all we have is the biblical text to tell us what the biblical writers thought–and the biblical writers OVERWHELMINGLY use elohim in agreement with a singular verb. And so, what this tells us for sure is that, at the time the Bible was written (under inspiration if you are so theologically inclined), elohim was already commonly used as a singular (if it wasn’t, readers of the Bible would have been awfully confused by it!). We really can’t say anything about usage of elohim before the composition of the biblical text (which, by the way, would mean that if elohim was only a plural before the Bible was written, that idea is, by definition, extra-biblical).
Other than that, I’d challenge Mr. Klein to produce instances where God refers to himself with a plural pronoun. He likely means things like Gen 1:26, but “let us” isn’t a pronoun — it’s what’s called a cohortative (it’s a verb form) that functions as a plural of exhortation (a SINGLE figure exhorts a group). I actually can;t think of ANY places where God refers to himself as “we” or “them” (those are plural pronouns). I’m not going to do it (he seems well-intentioned, so I’m not going to pick on him), but you could challenge him on his blog to give you examples. If he comes up with one, I can do a search for the phenomenon in the Hebrew Bible. I’m dubious there are any (he says it occurs “often”). I’m betting he’s referring to English and the “us” in the “let us” phrase is throwing him off. If all he has is cohortative forms, his point is dead, since those forms have a singular entity exhorting a group. The speaker is singular. There is one possibility, though — a cohortative used by God when there is no apparent group being addressed in the context. This isn’t the same as a plural imperative, though–grammarians would agree that an external group to the speaker is implied or wrapped up in plural commands. Sorry to ramble!
MSH, Sir, sorry, but I’ve read all of Sitchin’s books at least 2 times. I wonder if you have? As for Von Daniken, nope, not too much about him, he smiles too much and is too much of a media hog, he wants to be the message whereas Sitchin is opposite.
As far as the millions of books he’s sold, this may be true. But, have you ever attended any of his conferences? There are about 100-150, maybe slightly more that attend. Many of the attendees are repeat attendees at different venues. I have been to one and only one of his conferences, in Dallas in 2002. Again, he is not a household name/author, and I hardly find value in arguing with him like you do. Please, to be fair, please post where I can read some of your books, do you have a pen name that I can go to Borders and find your work?
Great, I will be posting refrences to you and your website, as well as bringing up the plural pronoun issue. I would love to know what your recent paper had to say on the issue of the plural predicate pasages. I am guessing that in Hebrew grammar as in most languages function of certains takes precedent over form – is this fair to say. How do we or you see these versus Genesis 20:13, Gen 35:7, 2 Sam 7:23, and Psalms 58 with the plural verb? Is this just flexibility with whatone can choose from or is there somthing more significant within these verses?
Thanks.
drbuswell: Thus far I’ve decided to write in scholarly journals (where there is peer review, something I don’t think Sitchin has ever subjected his material to, for pretty obvious reasons). This reminds me that I need to upload my latest CV in case people want to check things like this (thanks). I’ll try and do that tonight yet.
I notice that you have yet to interact with the actual videos — perhaps with your wide knowledge of Sitchin you can pluck out an example where I’m wrong, or perhaps suggest an interesting search. Otherwise, this is a curious omission.
Shiloh: If you like, I can send you the paper via email, if you promise in an email request for it to not post it online anywhere. I don’t dare post it because if it’s seen it’ll torpedo getting it into a journal. Since practically all scholarly journals do NOT post their content for free, they want exclusive control over the content (usually for several years) before you can post it online (unless there is written permission around their normal policies).
I actually think I have your paper on the plural pronouns. Is this the one titled “The Noun Elohim with Plural Predicate: Implications for Israelite Religion” given at the Reginal ETS meeting in 2006 – Northwest Baptist Seminary? I don’t know how I got it – I am a subscriber to the newsletter – so maybe thats how? I was going through my folder called “Michael Heiser” looking for stuff on Elohim and came across it. Anyway, if thats the one no need – can I still reference it and/or quote in part. It is interesting that the ones that you said were more worthy of discussion are the ones that Ken Klein’s blog referenced.
Some questions though about the pronouns:
1. In Gen. 35:7 I noticed in some translations it has …God revealed [Himself] to him… Is that interpretive or warranted by the grammar? Also, it (Himself) is in II Sam. 7:23.
2. What about the “our” in Gen. 1:26-27? Is it the same as the “let us?”
3. Jer. 11:12 – Contextually it is plural elohim and uses the plural pronoun – maybe a good search would be were elohim (not as subject) is used with plural pronouns.
Sorry for going on. Just a couple more thoughts. Why would a writer use a plural verb even though the context may suggest a singular noun reference- could it have anything to do with the action of the verb, i.e. ongoing, repetitive, or continuous? Of course how that would work with Ex. 22:8 I am not sure unless it would be refering to multiple violations that God would judge when the people came to Him. Also the LORD had spoken and appeared to Abraham more than once – to cause him to wonder – before ending up before Abimilech. The same with Joseph in 45:8 – the sending and making of Joseph as father to Pharaoh and lord of all his house was a process not a one time act. Also II 7:23 – the redeeming of Israel from Egypt was through a series of events – the graet signs and wonders – that brought them out. Every other instance is coming from a pagan source.
A thought on Gen. 20:13 – Is it possible that Abraham used elohim with the plural verb because he was talking to a pagan – Abimalech. He was afraid and did not want to offend him?
I need to get myself some research tools.
Shiloh: That is actually the old version. This paper (given originally at a conference) has been substantially re-written. I’ll email you the new version.
Sweeet, thanks a bunch – good stuff!!
Hey Mike granted that the plural form elohim can be a singular why would the writers choose to use a plural verb even though the context is about the singular God – any literary or grammatical nuances?
In the rewrite I suggest / hint that the pluralization could be there for a couple reasons – in some cases, leaving the door open for the “two Yahwehs” notion.
MSH– Although my appreciation of language ranks way up there, my understanding of grammatical “physics” is quite minimal. I mean I can certainly wrap my mind around various concepts… I just don’t have a great working knowledge of grammatical rules etc. So at risk of sounding ridiculously silly or simplistic here comes the question: are modern language grammatical rules (i.e. English) applicable to ancient Semitic grammar rules? I was just wondering if these facts could be responsible for a lot of translation and/or interpretive error?
Debra: Every language has its own set of rules. Most of these “rules” are better stated as something like “every language has its own ways of accomplishing communication tasks.” These tasks are common to EVERY language, but each language has its own way of accomplishing a task. Communication tasks are “cross-linguistic” (common to all languages); the strategies for accomplishing them MAY be common, but may not be. That depends on other features of the language. For example, one task is how a language conveys to the hearer or reader what the nouns in a sentence or utterance do – what is their role (subject, direct object, indirect object, etc.?). Many languages accomplish this task by putting different endings on nouns that correspond to a particular role in the sentence. These are known as “case ending” since they telegraph the nominative case (usually the subject), the accusative case (usually the direct object), and so on. Greek and Latin have a case ending system. English does not have a case ending system for nouns (i.e., endings put on nouns that telegraph their role in a sentence). Neither does biblical Hebrew (though it once did). English uses word order to accomplish the task of what noun does what. Here are a set of English words (the verb is obvious and distinct from nouns – but what do the nouns do?): bone dog ate the the. This isn’t a sentence; it’s nonsense. Why? The word order is meaningless. But “the dog ate the bone” is perfectly comprehensible: dog is the subject; ate is the verb; bone is the direct object; “the” (the definite article) occurs two times modifying a noun. It’s “normal.” In Greek or Latin, each noun would have an ending that tells you what it does, and the definite article would “agree” with the noun and its ending.
So….YES, Hebrew, like English, has a set of “rules” (better, strategies for accomplishing communication. Sometimes Hebrew and English will work the same (Hebrew also uses word order); sometimes not — but they each have the SAME tasks, and those tasks are only comprehensible and accomplished by means of rules/strategies. A “family” of languages (like “Semitic”) has a high degree of commonality in the strategies for accomplishing tasks (and other features of language as well).
Mike, I have a question about the term ‘elohim’.
If elohim is a kind of positional/funtional term why can’t it be used to describe YHWH, the council, and man just like the ‘image’.
There seems to be evidence for such reasoning.
Elohim – is called YHWH, is image bearer, and The Malak.
YHWH – is called elohim, The Malak, and of course by implication shares the image.
The Malak – is called YHWH, thereby is also the Malak and shares image.
The council – is called elohim, has the image. But not YHWH nor the Malak.
Makind – is refered to as malak, shares the image, and by implication and Scripture is called elohim
It seems that all three terms (Elohim, Malak, and Image) are not ontological but functional/positional. So why not have mankind called elohim as well, althogh I know context will determine whether it is refering to which one of the three.
Meant o say the context will determine if it is either mankind, YHWH, or the council.
Shiloh: Elohim is a place of residence term — specifically, that place where it is “normal” ro be disembodied. When a being from that realm comes to the terrestrial realm, he may or may not be embodied — it’s his choice. This “disembodiment” is one significant obstacle to what you’re suggesting. Elohim is not “functional”; it is “positional” — and the two should not be equated. Humans are (by definition) not gods (elohim). Why? Because they are “normally” embodied–you cannot be human without a body (you can still be alive, though). “Humannness” is inextricably linked to being embodied–that is, being made of that stuff we call flesh / DNA. Other created beings (like angels) are made of something (because they are made), but it is not the stuff of which humans are made. Scripture makes no such claim, and in fact distinguishes “normal flesh” from “celestial flesh” in places like 1 Cor. It’s not the same, however we struggle to grasp what Paul means here. Mal’ak simply means “messenger” – it is a job description. In your last paragraph you say this, and deny it is ontological (and I agree), but then your question has an ontological feel to it. It isn’t ontological. Here’s the point: Humans and non-humans (divine beings) can both be a mal’ak, but only because they are TASKED to be messengers (the TASK is the same (but the message, time, place, purpose, etc. can vary) — because the term denotes a job description). The ontology is not the same (the term isn’t ontological). Imaging is a task / status term. Both humans and non-humans (divine beings) are imagers (hence Gen 1:26 – “us” / “our” referring to the divine council). That has nothing to do with ontology. It’s as task. We are tasked to be servant-kings of earth. We have certain attributes to fulfill that function (and even if, in God’s will, humans are given little or no ability, or their life is forfeit (abortion, retardation, etc.), we are still created and conceived under that job description — because on earth, to be human = to be God’s imager. Divine beings image God n other places, ways, etc. We are told little about what God tasks them to do.
MSH: thanks for the reply. I hear you and follow your reasoning – but how do we prove from Scripture what you said – “Elohim is a place of residence term — specifically, that place where it is “normal†ro be disembodied. When a being from that realm comes to the terrestrial realm, he may or may not be embodied — it’s his choice”, or “Humans are (by definition) not gods (elohim). Why? Because they are “normally†embodied–you cannot be human without a body (you can still be alive, though). “Humannness†is inextricably linked to being embodied–that is, being made of that stuff we call flesh / DNA?” Does Scripture deliniate this?
Yeah I thought about the functional part of elohim after I wrote that and agree with you – its just positional. What about verses like – Ex. 7:1 ”…See I have made you as God to Pharaoh…”
I know the linkage is a tough road to hoe. Just had some thoughts and wanted some clarification. I hope you lay out (on the DC blog) the heierarchy of the beings and the terms.
Oh regarding humanness and embodiment/disembodiment. Just thinking how that this relates to salvation as being total – soul/spirit and body (Ressurection) as well as how it relates to the Incarnation of Christ. He has forever become the God/Man. Interesting. Oh well enjoying the posts – keep-um coming.
Shiloh: I am arriving at my characterization of what elohim signifies via inductive observation (as opposed to looking for a verse that says it in ONE place). Simply put, the “place of residence” idea is the common thread that unites all the figures called elohim. The common thread is not”natural embodiment” (embodiment as a NECESSARY property of a being’s ontology – in this regard it is interesting that the human dead receive new bodies, and even prior to glorification, the human dead are described as having some sort of intermediate body). BY contrast, “elohim beings” are not required to be embodied to “be what they are”; it’s optional.
If you go back and read the Myth book on Moses’ leadership, he is called elohim, in my view, as a mimicking of divine council structure on earth (to mirror the hierarchy in heaven). It also sets up a “divine king” analogy to the council (heaven and earth). But more fundamentally, Moses isn’t said to be an elohim – the text says he will be LIKE elohim to Pharaoh (either = “like God” or “like a god” – displays of power).
Fascinating exchange, Michael. I have so many things to say and ask on this general topic but will restrain.
I again want to appeal to you MSH to somewhere in some form tackle the task of categorizing and describing the various classes of “non-human sentient beings” that appear in the canon and perhaps in other related ancient texts [like the several “canonical-near-misses”]. The very term “non-human” in these discussions is just awful – we could hardly do worse as a catchall term. to the average reader it is misleading without question, and to the scholar its lifeless. but I can do no better [though I’m a marketeer by profession 🙂 ] … searching for a handle and not finding one.
But I want to get this on the table: I sympathize, broadly, with the Sitchins of the world who at least take a crack at discovering or suggesting a higher origin for our human race than the one left us via humanist-perverted-Darwinistic theorems. If a casual reader can possibly take Genesis seriously while simultaneously Avoiding religious-tradition filters, the basics of the story are not too far removed from “aliens who visited the solar system and left their mark”. I see nowhere in the canon a plain explanation of the “celestial hierarchy”, categorizing the various classes of beings and defining their position, their purpose, their powers, their origin, their relation to the human sphere and/or the YHWH’istic sphere. Absent that, I’m slow to shout down those other viewpoints that suggest more of a ‘collective’ visiting earth and somehow triggering, kickstarting, or creating biological life in part or in whole. Whether or not one bows and worships YHWH as the only god fit to be called/acknowledged THE God, the simplist structure of the account still shines through: a Being among beings [not humans] planted the race of man on earth. Where that Being came from is not shared with us. What his or her origins are or are-not is not clear. How many of his/her type of beings were involved in this cosmic conspiracy is anything but clear.
In one sense I hope that Sitchin’s and other such theories ARE being seriously read by tens of millions of people – there’s more to work with here than if a similar number takes Dawkins seriously…. Sadly in my own recent experience the reverse is true: Dawkins and Hitchens are parroted by the rabble but Sitchin and his ilk are totally unknown.
Excuse the extra post, but I think Ken Klein does not purport to be a learned scholar. That said, with regard to God self-identifying in the plural, I think I follow your assertions entirely, but again the casual reader sees many references to the councilar “us” in english renderings. With that in mind it might be helpful if you could give your own translation of Genesis 3:22, as an example to learn from. [you might find a “target-rich environment” in a Genesis-translation linked at Klein’s site: http://www.kenkleintv.com/Gen_1.pdf%5D
Welcome back Mike!
I don’t know if you remember (if not scroll up) but I mentioned a guy named Ken Klein – well I have been blogging with him in regard to this topic Elohim and plurality and the plural pronouns and verbs, ect. – and what a task it is. I am still not sure where he stands but we are going around and around. He seems to get off track and misquote me and creat an argument were there is no argument. Anyhow, someone chimed in an mentioned your website as help in which I responded ‘yes I know’. I mentioned a possible show with the two of you on coast to coast because both of you have been there and done that. He said it would be OK. I guess the topic would be – what exactly is Elohim in the H.B. and how to translate or interperet those odd verses. Maybe a taping of when he was on it would help to know where he is coming from.
Also I wanted to ask if i could quote from the article you e-mailed me on Elohim and plural predication. My thought was to post the Gen.35:7 part? I know your submitting so I said I would ask first.
Also If you want I can link the blog that we have been posting on – if you want to read it – I am sure I did not get everthing exact but his stuff you must see. Maybe you might be able to be more proficent in helping him understand.
God Bless
Shiloh: Since the article has not yet been officially accepted, you may quote a portion – just cite it as an unpublished manuscript by me with the date.
A C2C show is fine with me, but first I’d like to know what the guy says so it’s not a waste of time. I’d also like to know if he has any credentials in the field. Maybe you can get that much out of him. When was he on?
He was on about a month ago 2 at the most. I will try to get that info.
Here is a link to C2C with his past shows – http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/1186.html Also his website has an ‘interesting’ translation of Gen Ch.1 Also there is a link to the blog on his website. I will continue to see exactly where he stands.
Hey Mike what is your take on Eccl. 12:1 ‘Remember now your Creators…’
Shiloh: I’d never seen this, so this was cool. I did some digging on it. The form of the Hebrew word behind what basically all translations have as “your creator†is *possibly* plural in form (a plural participle), but this is not definitely the case. If plural, it can be understood as a plural of majesty. It may be singular, though – – a “lamedh aleph†verb that was vocalized as a “lamedh heh†verb. This happens elsewhere, so it is possible. There is also uncertainty whether the lemma is bara’ (“to createâ€). Other options for the lemma (“root wordâ€) include: (1) bry (“health, vigorâ€); (2) b’r, “well/spring†(cf. Prov 5:15 where this word is a metaphor for one’s wife; (3) b’r, “pit/grave,†suggested by the context of death. None of these options has won general consensus, so most scholars are content to see this as a plural of majesty, something not infrequent for nouns referring to deity.
Interesting – few ?’s – Could it be translated ‘creations’ and if it is from another root how would we translate it? I could definately see it being #1 or #2 as springs or waters (pleasures from your wife of your youth, ect.) before the silver cord is loosed v.6, before all your vigor is gone in the difficult days which are coming and you have no pleasure in them. The context actually seems to favor one of the latter 3 options. But can you still have one of these in a plural form instead of singlar?
Shiloh: “Creations” is ruled out because b-r-‘ with that meaning doesn’t appear as a noun in the Hebrew Bible. Yes, they can be plural.
This shows you didn’t even read Sitchin. Sitchin states that the Elohim as plural is the council of the Anunnaki, but when it comes to the act of creation, it is a single deity. The ‘and god created man in HIS own image’ is a reference to the act ofa single god, that is different depending on the sumerian myth analyzed. In ‘Enki and Ninmah’ we have 2 acts of creation, one by Ninmah and one by Enki. In the Atra Hasis the creator is Enki VIA Ninmah.
Sitchin never says that MANY gods created man.
The situation, for Sitchin, is this: One god (enki) says to the Anunnaki: lets’ create man in OUR own image. And then he created man in HIS own image (or HERS if we consider the Ninmah myth).
actually, Sitchin credits the Anunnaki with the creation of humanity as well (he does both and commits this blunder). Read him again.
Sitchin credits the anunnaki as a collectivity, because the decision was taken in a counsil (see athra hasis and the flood) but the creation was done by a single god (ninmah or enki depending on the text). This explains why sitchin says the elohim is plural and referred to many gods (the council of the anunnaki) and sometimes singular when it involves a single deity (like in ‘his own image’).
With a 8 years study about sitchin and being the administrator of the most complete sitchin group in italy, and having written 2 books about it (the third will be out in November and contains about 80 pages about you), i guess i know the matter.
I have read about your book ‘the façade’ (sadly it wasn’t published in italy – or has it? IN case, can you direct me where to find it?) and by what i see the thing you don’t understand is that you use the same concept as Sitchin does when you talk about the ‘divine council’. The only difference is that you think they are some sort of celestial or spiritual entities (how prove it?) and he thinks they were flesh&blood beings.
Yours and Sitchin’s positions are very alike, mr. heiser, more than you think.
Regards
uh, I write about my own positions, so I know if they’re like Sitchin’s or not. They aren’t.
so, I’m guessing you’ve found the texts where the Anunnaki are connected with nibiru? Or the missing astronomical texts that tell us there are planets beyond Saturn? Or that can explain why MUL.APIN has nibiru showing up every year? Please give me the citations (of the texts/tablets); I’ll publish them here.
Hi Mike, I just found your site today and it’s amazing!! I’ve been emailing back and forth with a Sitchin follower and I sent him your 4 videos today. After viewing them, this is part of his response back to me:
“The impression I got from those videos is this: Sitchin is (possibly) wrong about some word definitions and that’s reason enough to dismiss completely the essence of his work. Sorry Brenda, not in my book. I’ll embrace that view when it’s shown that:
1) The Sumerian text do not speak of “extra-terrestrials” coming to this planet.
That underpins Sitchins whole basis and should you knock that pin out I’ll be on board with the “Sitchin is wrong” view. But in the mean time, don’t give me that song about “his i isn’t dotted and his t isn’t crossed” so everything he says is wrong.”
Mike, I’m sort of at a loss for words (and material) to respond. I was hoping the videos would cause him to think more rationally, because he prides himself with using only “logic and common sense.” Can you please help me out here?
Thank you,
Brenda
This is a religion to many people. No amount of data (or reality) is going to matter. I would be nice to him and ask for original source material (who should I believe, the Sumerians or a guy who wrote in the 1970s?).
Mike, thank you for your wise response. I shall do as you say. Keep up the good work. You are awakening/enlightening so many (open-minded, seeking) people to truth. God bless you in your continuing efforts is my prayer. (Oh, how we need you!)
Brenda
First I will state clearly I admire your skepticism. You have made some good points. However, I noticed a hole in something you wrote here.
If I may quote “If you are familiar with my work on the divine council, you know that God is not speaking to the other members of the Trinity, but rather to the members of his council…. In “academese” the wording of Genesis 1:26 is called the “plural of exhortation”-a fancy way of saying one person is announcing something to a group. ….
(…God comes to the divine council with an exciting announcement: “let’s create humankind!” It would be like me going into a room of friends and saying, “Hey, let’s go get some pizza”)
I respond to your words here in Sitchin’s defense that this is exactly what he was stating occurred. if you have read his work “The Lost Book of Enki” he describes in detail this entire scenario. in his work it is Enki that creates man with the official announcement and after approval of his father Anu that resides on Nibiru. So simply put he has the idea to make man, then announces his idea with some opposition but in the end he gets the green light. Makes man or the “Adam” (Aw-Dam phonetically) according to Strong’s Hebrew concordance. he also places the Adam as a plural thus: Genesis 1:27 So God created man (The ADAM) in his own image, in the image of God created he him; (male and female created) he them. This is clearly plural reference that ADAM is a plural for the Human race both male and female.
quoting strong’s “120 ‘adam aw-dawm’ from 119; ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):–X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person. see HEBREW for 0119
in conclusion I reiterate my point that Sitchin was very specific in his point and your claim only backs his work up and in no way disproves it.
Thank you very much for your time. I am eager to hear (or read rather) your response.
Good day.
the difference is that Sitchin also has the plural group participating in humanity’s creation. The biblical record does not, and neither does the Mesopotamian text — the Anunnaki are spectators.
I’ll expect that you’ll inform Sitchin’s publishers of his mistake here!?
And please don’t base any language / linguistic work on Strong’s concordance. Yikes!
Good day.