Prior to this blog, I created a website devoted to exposing the flawed teachings and research of Zecharia Sitchin. Next to Erik von DÃ¤niken, Sitchin is easily the most well-known articulator of the ancient astronaut theory–the idea that the gods of ancient texts and religions were extraterrestrials, and those ETs came to earth long ago and either created humankind via genetic experiments with hominids (Sitchin’s view), or at least kick-started human civilization. Sitchin is different from von DÃ¤niken in one important respect: he claims to be a scholar of ancient languages, and his followers cast him as such. He isn’t a scholar of ancient languages, and has no credentials to demonstrate that he is. I’m someone who can hold him accountable, since I’ve got the degrees and coursework to show I know what I’m talking about. I don’t bother with von DÃ¤niken since he doesn’t pretend to be a scholar in my field.
My website is still online, but it’s outdated and pretty ugly (I’ve learned a few things about website design since 2001–at least enough to do a less ugly job). I’ll be updating my Sitchin critiques on PaleoBabble, and expanding them as well. My goal is to give out as much primary data as I can to readers. This is the first such effort. I want readers to be able to check the data, and I’ll do all I can to put it in YOUR hands. I want people to know I’m not making it up. Anyone who has read Sitchin knows he doesn’t do this–you have to depend on his (odd, to say the least) translations of texts, as well as his claims that certain readings in texts exist. Finding the source of his quotations is unbelievably frustrating most of the time.
With that intro, let’s get started.
One of my earliest PDF files regarding Sitchin’s work dealt with the word elohim in the Hebrew Bible. Sitchin and his followers claim that the word elohim (commonly translated “God”) is plural, and so it must be translated “gods” where it occurs. These gods are of course the aliens (the Anunnaki in Sitchin’s work), and so it is argued that the Bible actually says the extraterrestrial gods created humankind.
Here’s the truth. The word elohim is morphologically plural. Morphology refers to the “shape” or construction of a word – its form. The question, though, is that while elohim is plural in form, is it plural in meaning ? By itself, elohim can be either singular or plural in meaning. How can you tell? Two ways:
A. Grammar – Words have no meaning apart from sentences, and word relationships in sentences are determined by grammar. The grammar of Hebrew (like English) will tell you if elohim is singular or plural. Let me illustrate with English:
In English we have words that can be singular or plural: “deer”, “sheep”, “fish”. In these examples, you need other words to help you tell if one or more than one of these animals is meant. Sometimes these other words are verbs that help you tell. Compare the two examples::
1) “The sheep is lost” – the word “is” is a singular verb (It goes with a singular subject; one wouldn’t say, for example, “I are lost” – you would use a verb that goes with the singular subject (“I am lost”).
2) “The sheep are lost” – the word “are” is a plural verb (again, another word next to our noun “sheep” tells us in this case that plural sheep are meant.
All of this is just basic grammar – and every language has grammar. Biblical Hebrew has its own ways of telling us if elohim means one God or plural gods. And in EVERY passage in the Hebrew Bible where elohim creates humankind (or anything else), elohim is singular in meaning because all the verbs that go with it grammatically are singular. Sitchin is flat out, dead wrong. His view is DOA.
My original PDF is here if you want to read it. It was pretty basic, with an example or two. I even made a PDF that showed my view worked the same way in AKKADIAN, a language in which Sitchin is supposedly proficient. He isn’t. Here’s that file. On to the second way to tell singular vs. plural…
B. Context – I could call this “logic” as well, but we’ll go with context. Sometimes, the grammar doesn’t help. Sure, if elohim is the subject of a sentence and the verb it goes with is singular, then grammar tells you right away you have ONE deity. But what if elohim is another part of speech, like the direct object? Verbs won’t help at all then. Here’s where context becomes the determiner. Appealing to context may sound subjective, but it really isn’t; it’s usually VERY clear.
For example, consider the following sentence: “The Israelites sang songs of joy to Yahweh, praising elohim for delivering them through the Red Sea.” Is elohim singular or plural? It’s the direct object here, so we can’t depend on subject-verb agreement (grammar) to help us. But the context tells us that the songs of praise were to Yahweh–and Yahweh is not a plural! Yahweh was Israel’s God, and so the following elohim is obviously singular in context.
But enough of my examples. I don’t want to just tell you about this, since you have to take my word for it to some extent if you don’t know Hebrew, or if you have no experience with a foreign language. Instead, I want to SHOW you Sitchin’s view is bogus and give you the data to check up on me (and him!) at your leisure. I’m not afraid of giving you the data with the kind of tools real scholars use since the data are on my side and are a firm rebuttal to Sitchin’s view. To that end, I’ve made a few videos and have posted a few files for you.
First, I’ve made a video of me searching the Hebrew Bible with the LOGOS Bible software for (1) all occurrences of elohim in the Hebrew Bible; (2) all the places where elohim is demonstrated as singular through the grammar of subject-verb agreement; and (3) all the places where elohim could legitimately be translated as a plural because of the verb. The video is large (18.2 MB; 11:27 time), so you need high speed–and turn up your speakers.
- I’ve posted PDF files of the search results of the computer searches described in the video above (you might want to watch the video first, since it explains the results in these files). You can download all the PDFs for free:
- 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)
Second, on the same video above I also search for 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. You can download the PDF file of these results as well – over 1,400 occurrences of Yahweh being match with elohim! It’s 2.7 MB and 201 pages.
One last thing. Followers of Sitchin are bound to come across this post. If you’re one of those, feel free to register and comment. Don’t send me emails, since I won’t read them. Use the comment space. I want the world to see your response. However, if you can’t express yourself without foul language, I won’t approve it. After years of dealing with fundamentalist Sitchinites, I know the kind of screed they typically offer in their rage. It’ll be ignored, since it’s worthless. But if you can disagree without becoming hysterical, I’d love to post your response. It’s often a lot of fun. But be warned, I’ll demand data and coherence from you, and if you can’t supply it in exchanges, you’ll look very stupid. And I won’t stop you.
The very first thing I thought when I opened up this site from my email (Google Alert for the tag ‘extraterrestrial’) was how so many others with the same tag in their Google Alerts will be getting it. More importantly, I know how many are taken in by TITLES and do not stop to read an article in it’s entirety. Consequently, I find that your ” Exposing the Work of Zecharia Sitchin” will be taken at face value by many without attention to the whole article. Is that what you wanted for Mr. Sitchin, to be exposed as a total fraud based on one word.
After others get your article, what happens here is that every website under the sun begins to pick up such a title and run with it simply because it’s juicy. Yea, you’re saying “good, that was my intention”. Well there’s a problem with that certainly because thus far your whole article has to do with one simple word, which was “ELOHIM” and that’s all.
How can you attack someone’s credibility based on one word? Now I understand that you have more to follow and I’ve already looked at the other references in your other site but still, I find no reason thus far where you can honestly use the word “Exposed”.
I am not a Sitchinite as you so facetiously put it however, I do have a few of his YouTubes in one of my forums and a website. Your derogatory title you placed upon those who are interested in Mr. Sitchin essentially puts them down and in a place you already stated you didn’t want them in, which was that they must be careful how they express themselves. You basically provoked them beforehand. Was that your intention?
Your article here simply tells me one thing. You didn’t learn anything from all of your Hebrew studies because if you had, your demeanor would be completely different than what I’ve read thus far on this page. You are rude and crude to people that you do not personally know and quite the narcissist. Certainly I do not want to start sounding like you, so I will stop there but you really need to take a look at ‘yourself’ and not so much at Zecharia Sitchin.
In regard to Mr. Sitchin, if you were to understand the depth of the spirit you would find in Mr. Sitchin’s speeches that he is an extremely kind hearted and meek individual with a nature that many of us wish we had. He’s not purposely pushing lies on us and nobody is idiot enough to believe that all of his words are 100% factual. He is an observer of certain things as I am as well. I never expect others to believe any of my experiences simply because they never observed what I did and he doesn’t either. Instead, everything remains theoretical and the reader or listener puts it in the back of their mind and not in that little drawer in the brain marked ‘truth’. By Zecharia Sitchin’s nature alone, people see that individual and who he really is, just like they see your nature upon reading this page and know who you really are.
You have a nut about him simply because he said a few things that go against your learned experiences. That probably bothered you, which is why you’ve done what you’ve done here. Get over it, it’s not that big of a deal, but slandering someone based on your weak attempt to “expose” him for such infractions is certainly not a road I would have taken.
Obviously, I know that you are not going to like my comments above because they’re really more about the writer and not the topic. I did not use profanity so I expect to see it posted. Due to it’s nature and since my comments most certainly pertain, if you do not post it, I will post it along with your article and it will fly across the internet faster than you could ever imagine.
And eye for an eye.
blueyes: This was what I was looking for — I’m new to blogging, so thanks for alerting me to the fact that this will get picked up by so many avenues. Now for some response.
First, where is the post rude? I had to think about this. Maybe it was the use of the word fundamentalist. That’s the only thing I can think of, so I’ll not use that in the future. Anything else (it seems to me) is that you’re offended by facts. Can’t help you there.
I’m willing to take your word about Sitchin’s demeanor, but I’d be more impressed if he was honest. Why doesn’t he tell readers things like my video show – things that anyone in the first semester of a Hebrew class would learn? He doesn’t either because of incompetence, or because he’s made (and I guess still making) too much money to say “oops” or “sorry” at this point. Tens of millions of people have read his stuff, and so millions have been misled (or at least a few hundred thousand). If you were a lawyer or doctor, and millions of people were getting bad information about legal advice or health care, if you didn’t feel the urge to say something, you’d be pretty callous and, frankly irresponsible. My areas are ancient languages, the ancient Near East, and biblical studies, so I care if someone is deceiving people in these areas. It’s really that simple. If that’s a road you wouldn’t have taken, the shame is on you for letting people be deceived. It also isn’t slander if it’s true. So let him actually prove what he says. I think there’s a reason he hasn’t responded in seven years.
Lastly, no, I don’t “have a nut” about Sitchin. My website, which has been up since 2001, hasn’t had an addition in about four YEARS. If I was nutty over Sitchin, I’d keep reading his nonsense and adding things to the site. The reality is, he gets boring for me, but after four years I need to update the material. And this is the first entry about him on this blog, which is much wider than his stuff.
The fact is that Sitchin is the one that should issue some sort of disclaimer or apology to his readers for misleading them. Since he doesn’t, and since I don’t want to write about him any more than I have to, I’ve decided to give people access to the data and provide a means (the videos) for explaining what the PDF files are about. If that’s a sin, I’m unrepentant. I will, however, not use the term fundamentalist in the future. (And maybe “alien” is a better tag than extraterrestrial – not sure it would matter).
Thanks for all you’re doing. I am a big fan.
I used to be somewhat of an adherent of Sitchin’s work. At one point, I was almost completely convinced of the ancient astronaut thesis. Sitchin’s claims of being a scholar of ancient languages is THE selling point of his books, and t nearly convinced me too.
In many ways, DÃ¤niken was only the opening act to Sitchin. The latter had put out works that, on the surface, seemed to prove all the previous claims – a real scholar, interpreting the real forgotten writings of the ancients. WOW! Who could argue with such an authority? And thus back to your original “gripe.”
Quibus_Licet: Thanks; I’m hoping the blog format let’s me be more active in this area. I’ve got access to some technology now (like the video thing) and am learning to put it to good use.
@MSH: point of curiosity…
While deer, sheep, and fish can be singular or plural depending on context, they don’t have distinct singular and plural forms. Doesn’t elohim have a singular form, eloah? Are there any sense among hebrew scholars as to why elohim occurs as a singular meaning as a plural word form when they could’ve used eloah instead?
Is it common in Hebrew to use the plural form when both are available? The only analogy I can think of in English is in the opposite sense when we refer to an unquantified amount of something and use the singular…we cut the grass, eat some chicken, plant some seed.
Matt: The consonants Ê¾lh = the morphological singular root of the longer morphological plural Ê¾lhym (elohim). From Dennis Pardee’s article on Eloah in Dictionary of Demons and Deities in the Bible: “There can be no doubt that the more common biblical and Jewish designation of â€˜godâ€™ as Elohim represents an expansion of Eloah, though there is debate both as to the â€˜meaningâ€™ of Eloah and as to the origin of the expanded form.” The reason that elohim took on a singular meaning is (!) that it did — i.e., that it did so is indisputable–overwhelmingly so; why it did is anyone’s guess. Personally, I think it has something to do with the statement in the Hebrew Bible that “Yahweh, he is ha-elohim [“THE elohim” – the definite article before the word elohim] – apparently a statement that meant Yahweh was the god of all gods.
Regarding the second part of your question (“Is it common in Hebrew to use the plural form when both are available?”) – the answer is yes, but it depends on what you mean by common. It happens with other nouns. Hebrew has words that work like your examples (not surprisingly, grass and seed are examples, where a singular form can refer to the greater amount, and both singular and plural forms are available). Kind of a classic example to what you’re asking is the word “wheat”(hÌ£itÌ£ah = singular; hÌ£itÌ£tÌ£im = plural). The singular form can be used as a collective (Deut. 8:8) even thought the plural is available (Gen 30:14). Other agricultural words do the same (spelt, flax, barley, etc.).
Dear doctor Hesier , I want to ask if about your opion then on the uses of elohim in the scriptures when it means a plurality of beings. On your sight it refers to a divine councle around the lord God of Isreal and and yet you make the distinction between the judges and rulers ( as it were) and angels as different ranks of beings. I realises that you a clear both are inferior created beings to the most high God but I wounder what is the difference in the nature of these other beings?
@redadam: The best thing to do here is to subscribe to my newsletter archive and get the draft (in progress) of the book I’m working on. The first chapter or so answers this question. In brief, elohim is a “place of residence” term (not an ontological term) – it tells us “this is an inhabitant of the ‘spiritual world’ and not the world of those beings that are by nature embodied.” That’s why five different things/entities are called elohim in the OT. WITHIN that realm of the disembodied, there is rank and hierarchy (e.g., “angel” is a job description, not an ontological term).
I know that this blog is a year old, but this is all new for me. I watched Zecharia Sitchin’s DVD named When will the Annunaki Return. I must admit that on first view of the documentary I felt my faith being shaken to the core by some of his astonomical claims. Luckily I found a DVD I ordered months ago from the Alien Resist web site where Dr Hesier gave a full explanation of Sitchin’s errors. I can not believe that a person is allowed to distribute such material. There should be some controlling body that should verify such claims before it reaches the general public. Or at least be made to write a retraction on his work. Thanks for setting the record straight!
@eriktheviking: you’re welcome.
Dr. Heiser: I have been attempting to re-create your search of Elohim as the subject of a singular predicator in Logos, but my results come up with 317, not 322. I can’t see the final lines of your query in your video, so I might be missing something. Has there been a change to the AFPMA? My version is “Nov 08.” Thanx for any help! John F. Felix.
@Dispraxis: try running an update and then re-run the search. Let me know what you find.
Dr. Heiser: I ran both what I call the “resource update” from the ftp site and the normal update usually run from the Tools menu (I have created shortcuts to run both without opening Libronix) earlier the day I commented, and again this morning, and the results remain the same. This tells me I’m missing something, or have something extra, that you do not. Perhaps you could e-mail the saved query file or make them available for download? As you can see, some of your readers also use Logos! Thanx for the reply…I don’t want to use up more of your time with this issue as I could contact tech support or study the tutorials more closely. I was thinking about doing a comparison between my results and yours to determine the correct syntax for the query, but that seemed too much work. 🙂 -John
@Dispraxis: unfortunately, I deleted the file. I also therefore can’t see the bottom lines of the search. I’ll redo some searches and blog it, and attach the files as downloads.
Thank YOU so very much for this blog and reference to your website: http://www.michaelsheiser.com/
You are absolutely right, No One Gets Rich Telling the Truth! I only wish that I found your site a long time ago, instead of passing on Sitchin’s works to my email buddies. I too bought into his credentials hence, thinking that his interpretations of ancient languages might just be true.
I feel so foolish now. Thank You for exposing that fact. Misleading the public, just to sell books. It’s one thing to publish fiction, it’s completely another thing to misrepresent oneself as a credited scholar, passing off untruths as truths. Shame on him……period.
We need more honest people like you to help protect the public from misinformation.
Thank you again.
@CheeMiss: You’re most welcome! Thanks for the encouragement.
LOL THE OP IS A GRAMMAR NAZI!
BTW your evidence is misleading and I am not a follower of Sitchin’s work just curious. You seem to try to make the word look like it is singular and then use some other word not even associated with Elohim. Meh, Just to let you know Nibiru was supposedly spotted on the microsoft world wide telescope under the Virgo star back in 2008. Now 2010 and they still haven’t updated the maps. I won’t be a true believer of his work until I see Nibiru itself.
@sunstreak: boy, you just don’t get grammar, do you? Your ignorance is no excuse for me to not give people the correct information. Another non-substantive response. Hint: a real response would say, “you analysis is incorrect here and here.” It wouldn’t say “I have clue about grammar.”
i also notice that when something is popular they have a tendency to try and belittle the popularity.That way it makes them feel good about themselves. I see it all the time especially the singing group nickelback and also look at AVATAR the movie.
While some of Sitchin’s claims appear reasonable, his stories fall down glaringly in a few places. For example, the story of how the earth was created when two planets collided – that the planet of the gods “seeded” Tiamat in the collision is almost ridiculous on its face. Two bodies of that magnitude, having collided such that one was reduced in mass by some 2/3, would be unfit for any form of life we know of for a very long time. The Anunnaki home world would have similarly been sterilized. Temperatures would be very high, atmospheres stripped away. It is not likely that anything would have survived in either work.
Consider also the 3600-year orbit of the Anunnaki world. At apogee it would be very far away. How would life have survived in the cold? Not saying it is impossible, but I have yet to see a plausible explanation.
I do not know Mr. Sitchin, nor do I have anything against him personally. I do, in fact, find some of what he asserts to be quite plausible and perhaps even true. But in those places where his reason fails, he really goes all the way and does a pretty serious face-plant into the mud.
I have no idea what to believe on such issues because I am not a scholar of the ancient world or of its languages. I am, however, a fair expert on modern language and human communications. To that point I will mention that it is very difficult to know what any ancient text means with absolute certainty because of the use of vernacular. Vernaculars change wildly with time. For example, were I to go back 5000 years (or even just 100) and tell people that I know a man named Michael Jackson and profess that he is “bad” in the sense of our contemporary American vernacular, nobody would have a clue as to what I was saying, save that I was declaring him an evil man when in fact I was singing his praises. That is the tricky nature of language usage and should not be discounted insofar as the one’s certainty of originally intended meanings go.
I therefore suggest that all parties in this “debate” take a powder and use some care in declaring another right or wrong with respect to translations of ancient writings. Hell, most people cannot get through a 400 year old Shakespeare play without their heads exploding. Just how likely is it that we are properly zeroing in on the intended meanings of 6 thousand year old accounts in all their aspects? I am not calling anyone right or wrong on this point – just pointing out a major pitfall.
The question is not right or wrong interpretation — it’s “is what Sitchin is saying even in the texts themselves?” Answer: no. The claims themselves are vacuous.
I have read this page and a few others about how sitchin is wrong (Including “Sitchiniswrong.com”, which is pretty convenient) and I understand that some of his translation methods may be unorthodox and possibly flat out wrong but does that mean that everything he ‘theorised’ comes crashing down too? Does that mean that the Sumerians never believed in a celestial collision, a ‘panspermia’ situation, a great flood caused by a planet’s gravitational pull and the knowledge of the cosmos (Kuiper belt, coming from their phrase “hammered bracelet”)?
If Sitchin is wrong, did the Sumerians only have knowledge expected of them (primitive)?
I’ll admit, I have only read a summerised version of his book, but I am sure that I am only lacking in the dull areas.
Both sides of this debate are fighting over who is right and who is wrong but I want to know which parts are right and which parts are wrong (treating it all as individual ideas). I dont care for convincing people it is all correct or all false. I think there is a truthful base to Sitchin’s claims and I think you are the only person who could explain where the truth starts and ends.
I tried reading the ‘orthodox’ translations of the Sumerian text, to see the parallels between the Christian creation story, which were abundant in Sitchin’s version, were still there. This was pointless because of all the non-english words which filled the page. I am unable to tell if the Old Testament is a copy anymore, which was my motivation of enlightenment.
This is all in reguards to my Christian faith, which I recently gave up because of this issue. A reply would be greatly appreciated, especially considering how long it has been since this was posted.
First, the issue isn’t really about translation disagreements. I’m saying that Sitchin’s major ideas don’t even EXIST in the texts. You can’t translate what isn’t there. The list of such things that aren’t there is in my Open Letter on the site. Second, the Bible is not a copy of anything. There are similarities between ALL ancient near eastern documents since, well, they are from the same geographical area where all those cultures rubbed elbows through things like trade, warfare, and migration.
I”m sorry man, you’re work is well written and convincing but when it comes down to it you are just as narrowly defined as Sitchin is. You may have credentials but ignorance is inherent in your learned knowledge and does not come close to matching the ever-increasing independent examinations and views of ancient astronaut theory.
I don’t mean to hate, I believe in Buddhist philosophy myself but if you want some honest feedback you come across as a desperate theologian trying ever so hard to resist the crashing of his fundamental belief system. Even the Catholic church is opening it’s doors to the idea of alien life. I’m not saying either side is true, but people will be more prone to these ideas in the upcoming years and you may find yourself in a very solitary box of understanding my friend.
okay, I’ll play along — where am I so ignorant? If you’re talking about ET life, get ready to look in the mirror for ignorance. I have a whole blog besides this one devoted to UFO and ET religious talk. If you had every visited it (it’s linked off my homepage). I even have a link to it on *this* blog (look under the blogroll: UFO Religions). On that blog, I make it crystal clear that I have no theological or religious problem with ET life (surprise for you). What I have a problem with is paleobabble and the kind of twaddle Sitchin promotes. Now, instead of calling me ignorant for not being open to ET life, go do some research.
By ET life, I was referring to the concept that the Bible describes ET’s rather than angels, the fundamental basis of Sitchins work is this which you seem to have a problem with from what I have read.
I doubt many theologians have an issue with ET life in this day and age, but knowing all their faith in angels and heaven was misplaced in a further evolved physical being that is not of divine nature? I’ve read stuff on your older site, I admit I haven’t gone through all of this but I doubt you would have devoted an entire website to debunking Sitchin if you’re only issue with him is the translations and details of some of his tales.
The Bible does not describe ETs as we think of them, or as Sitchin thought of them. For instance, an ET would be a physical life form that are from other planets, need technology to travel (and so are subject to the correlating physical laws), need to eat, sleep, drink, reproduce, etc. There is no such description that angels are life forms with these necessities or limitations. They must be inserted there via one’s imaginations.
Your own logic seems to be leading you to the wrong impressions I think, if primitive man encountered beings with greater technology and as we would have to assume, further down the evolutionary scale then how do you think the descriptions of them would be?
If you take ET reports of the last decades by respectable men, such as those in the military look at how they described the physical presence of those beings. All descriptions involved bright lights and beings that by all means appeared like they were angels. Now that is coming from men who have an understanding of technology and modern conceptualisation so let’s consider how much that would differ 2,000 years ago.
Beings of greater technology would come down, play their part then leave, there is no need for descriptions of eating and as far as the technology and appearance is concerned it seems obvious to me that the authors of the Bible would have to use their limited understanding to concetualise these beings in a mythological sense.
I cannot quote the experiments by memory, but were you aware that two independent scientists studied the book of Ezekiel and built two components of a flying machine and a building that housed it as per how the “angel” described and both pieces matched to perfection? How do you explain something like that? I’m not an entire proponent of these theories but I think they are far more logical than believing that primitive man talked to angels or demons and other such nonsense.
which military personnel have said they have seen ETs? (as opposed to craft)? I’m interested in what you’ll come up with here, so please give me the testimony (source material). I have a reason for asking (do not assume I don’t know this material).
Your response is filled with modern assumptions (and I can’t blame you – you’re modern!).
Scientists studying Ezekiel will of necessity have to read their science into the pre-scientific account. We know what Ezekiel saw. We have the iconography and the astrological symbolism is well known for its day. It isn’t a mystery.
If you research the disclosure project or the recent conference headed by Hastings you will hear of accounts of crafts landing and beings of bright lighted appearance coming out of them. I’m not going to spoon feed it to you, if you consider yourself any different than Sitchin you can look into them yourself.
The scientists built the components as per how Ezekiel was told. That’s undeniable evidence of advanced knowledge during a time of general ignorance. You say we put modern assumptions onto the past but really you are just viewing history under a viel of theology
I know all about the Disclosure Project, and have followed it for years. Nothing that impresses me. I’ll take an ancient Babylonian who sculpted what was seen over a modern person who’s never seen the iconography and has to guess without it.
dear mister heiser, i long ago senti you an email with a series of answers to your paper about the VA243, you answered me (in this blog) that you never received the email even though i used the adress in your ‘sitchiniswrong’ website. I again sent you (some weeks ago) another paper with response to your ‘open letter’. Still no answer or comments. I leave you the link to the scribd document hoping you will read it.
send it to me via email: email@example.com
You have to see this site. It breaks down the truth of the matter.
Hello Dr. Michael Heiser!
Found You today, for the first time; very impressive presentation.
I have much regarding “elohim”, on my website, principally at:
I note this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
Degree of validity of the above URLs?
Best Wishes! Lino Sanchez
You’d have to read through my posts on monotheism and divine plurality, and Psalm 82 to get my answer here. I agree and disagree with Smith (and other scholars in Israelite religion). Here’s my Naked Bible archive:
I am more interested in Graham Hancock’s work that Sitchins. There is historical evidence that many ancient civilizations had advanced science and technology such as astronomy, geometry, surveying, mass construction, etc. Then there is the mythology of teh flood, seems very likely to me that there was an advanced civilization on the planet prior to some sort of global clataclismic event. Main stream anthropology and history just don’t make any sense of many cient technologies.