like the bible...
Reality as God
- Thread starter Spellbound
- Start date
like the bible...
tch tch river..
read his link..
from it:
Ancient language scholar Michael S. Heiser states he has found many inaccuracies in Sitchin's translations and challenges interested parties to use this book to check their validity.[15][20] Prof. Ronald H. Fritze,[21] author of the book Invented Knowledge: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-religions,[21] mentions the example of Sitchin's claim that the Sumerian sign Din-Gir means "pure ones of the blazing rockets", adding that "Sitchin's assignment of meanings to ancient words is tendentious and frequently strained."[22] Fritze also commented on Sitchin's methodology, writing that "When critics have checked Sitchin's references, they have found that he frequently quotes out of context or truncates his quotes in a way that distorts evidence in order to prove his contentions. Evidence is presented selectively and contradictory evidence is ignored."[22]
read his link..
from it:
Ancient language scholar Michael S. Heiser states he has found many inaccuracies in Sitchin's translations and challenges interested parties to use this book to check their validity.[15][20] Prof. Ronald H. Fritze,[21] author of the book Invented Knowledge: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-religions,[21] mentions the example of Sitchin's claim that the Sumerian sign Din-Gir means "pure ones of the blazing rockets", adding that "Sitchin's assignment of meanings to ancient words is tendentious and frequently strained."[22] Fritze also commented on Sitchin's methodology, writing that "When critics have checked Sitchin's references, they have found that he frequently quotes out of context or truncates his quotes in a way that distorts evidence in order to prove his contentions. Evidence is presented selectively and contradictory evidence is ignored."[22]
The point of this discussion is to show that Sitchin's translations of certain Sumero-Akkadian words cannot be correct for the simple reason that the ancient Mesopotamian dictionaries (yes, they kept bilingual dictionaries and we have them today) translate the words of their own language in ways that unanimously contradict Mr.Sitchin. You either believe him or the ancient Sumerians / Mesopotamians. Seems like an easy call.
or even:
Sitchin ... makes up his own translations
The guy is neither trained nor qualified to translate these languages.
He has ZERO academic experience in doing so (in fact he has zero scientific training or experience).
Oh look, another attempt at diversion
Does "the PDF" say anything particularly different? E.g. does it say that Sitchin got it right after all?
Did you down load "it"?
What did you gather from "it"?
PS: when you say "the PDF" which one do you mean, there are a number of them linked from that page.
(This is probably more evidence that you don't actually read (or perhaps read but don't take any notice of) anything anyone says).
So you're incapable of clicking the link (the yellow text at the start of that statement) that leads you "1) An overview of Cylinder Seal VA 243 - A fairly thorough treatment of the problems with Sitchin's interpretation and use of this seal is available (free) as a PDF file HERE." and ALSO incapable of then clicking that link to relevant the PDF?
And you expect anyone to believe that you're capable of doing any rational checking? Of anything?
No wonder you believe: you're only capable of "understanding" things that someone spoon-feeds to you.
oh I did
Then why f*cking ask me the question you did - "Where are these examples"?
Do you have the document?
Can you dispute it?
Does it support Sitchin or not?
dwy, I may be wrong, but I think he is coming round to believing sitchen is wrong.
Revelation In Space
Registered Senior Member
Imagine, if you will, a time machine. Because the written words of the ancients were forgotten and learning was far removed from the sacred texts, the machine of which we speak was the closest way to examine the question at hand. Nowhere can we find in the steady stream of time, outside of the poetic, where Reality is God. But upon the question of evil we find the ancient Hebrew word ra. Translated as 'bad,' gloomy,' ugly,' evil,' calamitous,' malignant,' ungenerous,' and 'envious, depending upon the context (Genesis 2:9; 40:7; 41:3; Exodus 33:4; Deuteronomy 6:22; 28:35; Proverbs 23:6; 28:22) Our machine hones upon calamitous . . . and Isaiah 45:7, and a reference much later, the machine indicates, of the King James Version. Linguistics is a remarkable travesty of time for which our machine is prepared. It says: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
Researching: Machine says: Ra. Evil. Calamity through justice.
Researching: common syntax example: The parents of a child say that their child is not to play in the busy street. To the child this is (Hebrew Ra: Bad). The child doesn't realize that the parents know better than him/her and so decides to play in the street anyway. This is (Hebrew Ra: bad) What happens next is, (Hebrew Ra: bad, or evil). The child is discovered in the road and is punished, as in grounded, by the parents. To the child this is (Hebrew Ra: bad) but it could have been a lot worse, in that whatever happened to the child would be (Hebrew Ra: Really bad).
It's amazing what the time machine can reveal!
Reality? Huh. Is subjective and quite possibly (Hebrew Ra: Really bad)
Grow up.
If reality is God then God should be free to act and do anything and everything He wills, including be evil, lending Him total free will. Hence God is neutral and passive. Because that is a true act of free will. To be neither good nor evil, but subtle and occasional. As reality itself, God is subject to nothing and is capable of anything including appearing out of the blue and taking form. Hence, God walks the earth everyday as Christopher Langan said, in the form of man. As reality, God cannot become unreal unless He wanted to, if He were to do that then He would not exist. Hence God obeys reality and must therefore be scientifically plausible and realistic. A question I pose is that is it possible for God to become unreal if He is reality? Langan says "existence is everywhere the choice to exist."
The four realities to me are
Nature , meaning , energy and matter . In the forms of plasma and atomics
Spiritual realm
Universe
Infinity
As well I see NO point at all in believing in any " god " at all
Even the concept is disturbing to me
When we finally get to the point when any form of " god " whether from the bible , the Annunaki or where ever
Is not in control of our thinking upon ourselves and who and what we should be
We as Human Beings , will never be free to make OUR OWN future and destiny
river
Even the concept is disturbing to me
When we finally get to the point when any form of " god " whether from the bible , the Annunaki or where ever
Is not in control of our thinking upon ourselves and who and what we should be
We as Human Beings , will never be free to make OUR OWN future and destiny
river
kx000
Valued Senior Member
But, you sincerely don't know. Atleast we have a history of belief to go with, abeit a violent history, a faithful one. Would have dr. King stood against his aggressors if he didnt believe in his passive words. Jesus Christ wouldn't have turned the other cheek if he didnt believe he could get back up.
The thing is though , we are no better off
Yes! Actually many people involved in the civil rights movement were non-believers.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-02-22/black-atheists-civil-rights/53211196/1