Awoken2
Superstar
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2018
- Messages
- 6,505
Lol.....thanks for that
Who do Muslims really worship?
- Thread starter Kais_1
- Start date
Artful Revealer
Star
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2017
- Messages
- 4,574
In be4 Lisa corrects you with the proper verse.
Infinityloop
Star
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,622
Lol you're right
Kais_1
Star
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,611
have you read Zecharia Stitchins works?
Artful Revealer
Star
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2017
- Messages
- 4,574
No, never been drawn to his or Velikovsky's work. From what I gathered, I think they overemphasise the role of planets too much. But I don't wanna make a value judgment of their work without having ready any.
Kais_1
Star
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,611
The planets and stars is what everything in religion is about
Red Sky at Morning
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2017
- Messages
- 14,680
Well, for an alternative perspective from Michael S. Heiser, check out http://sitchiniswrong.com/
On this site he presents an open letter:-
Open Letter
The work of Zecharia Sitchin was brought to my attention in 2001, shortly after I completed my book, The Facade. As a trained scholar in ancient Semitic languages with a lifelong interest in UFOs and paranormal phenomena, I was naturally enthused about Mr. Sitchin's studies, particularly since I had also heard he was a Sumerian scholar. I thought I had found a kindred spirit. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Zecharia Sitchin is not a scholar of ancient languages. What he has written in his books could neither pass peer review nor is it informed by factual data from the primary sources. I have yet to find anyone with credentials or demonstrable expertise in Sumerian, Akkadian, or any of the other ancient Semitic languages who has positively assessed Mr. Sitchin's academic work.
The reader must realize that the substance of my disagreement is not due to "translation philosophy," as though Mr. Sitchin and I merely disagree over possible translations of certain words. When it comes to the Mesopotamian sources, what is at stake is the integrity of the cuneiform tablets themselves, along with the legacy of Sumer and Mesopotamian scribes. Very simply, the ancient Mesopotamians compiled their own dictionaries - we have them and they have been published since the mid-20th century. The words Mr. Sitchin tells us refer to rocket ships have no such meanings according to the ancient Mesopotamians themselves. Likewise when Mr. Sitchin tells readers things like the Sumerians believed there were twelve planets, the Anunnaki were space travelers, Nibiru was the supposed 12th planet, etc., he is simply fabricating data. It isn't a question of how he translates texts; the issue is that these ideas don't exist in any cuneiform text at all. To persist in embracing Mr. Sitchin's views on this matter (and a host of others) amounts to rejecting the legacy of the ancient Sumerian and Akkadian scribes whose labors have come down to us from the ages. Put bluntly, is it more coherent to believe a Mesopotamian scribe's definition of a word, or Mr. Sitchin's?
Zecharia Sitchin's work in other texts, such as the Bible, is equally flawed. This site bears witness to the sorts of errors Sitchin makes in language analysis and translation with respect to the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
What I've said here is very straightforward. It would be quite easy to demonstrate that I am wrong. All one needs to do is produce texts that I say don't exist, and produce verification of Sitchin's translations by other experts (that's called peer review). Since I don't believe such evidence will be forthcoming, I wrote what follows as an open letter to Zecharia Sitchin in 2001. With Mr. Sitchin's passing, I now direct the letter (rewritten on Jan 1, 2011) to his followers and other ancient astronaut theorists whose views are, in many ways, based upon Sitchin's original work.
Dear Ancient Astronaut Enthusiast:
The intent of this letter is in the interest of research, not confrontation. In no way do I intend to impugn anyone's character. What I ask is that you provide answers and data to support your theories. Here are my questions / requests.
1. Can you please provide transcripts of Zecharia Sitchin's academic ancient language work? I would like to post this information on my website, and would gladly do so.
2. Can you explain why Sitchin's work on Genesis 1:26-27 overlooks so many obvious grammatical indications that the word elohim in that passage refers to a single deity (as demonstrated on this website)?
3. Can you explain why Zecharia Sitchin (or you in turn) have not included the comparative linguistic material from the Amarna texts that shows the Akkadian language also uses the plural word for "gods" to refer to a single deity or person (which of course undermines the argument that elohim must refer to a plurality of gods)?
4. Can you explain how the interpretation of the word "nephilim" as referring to "people of the fiery rockets" is at all viable in light of the rules of Hebrew morphology? In other words, can you bring forth a single ancient text where naphal has such a meaning?
5. Can you produce a single text that says the Anunnaki come from the planet Nibiru - or that Nibiru is a planet beyond Pluto? I assert that there are no such texts, and challenge you and your readers to study the occurrences of "Anunnaki" right here on this website. Here is a video where I show readers how to conduct a search online at the Electronic Corpus of Sumerian Literature website. There are 182 occurrences of the divine name Anunnaki. Please show me any evidence from the Sumerian texts themselves that the Anunnaki have any connection to Nibiru or a 12th planet (or any planet).
6. Can you explain why the alleged sun symbol on cylinder seal VA 243 is not the normal sun symbol or the symbol for the sun god Shamash?
7. Can you explain why your god = planet equivalencies do not match the listings of such matching in cuneiform astronomical texts? I recently blogged on this issue and provided a recent scholarly article on the planets in Mesopotamian literature by experts in cuneiform as proof that Sitchin erred in this regard.
8. Can you explain why many of Sitchin's word meanings / translations of Sumerian and Mesopotamian words are not consistent with Mesopotamian cuneiform bilingual dictionaries, produced by Akkadian scribes?
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I will of course post any responses on this site.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Heiser, Ph.D., Hebrew and Semitic Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Infinityloop
Star
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,622
Honestly it's shocking to see you quoting Michael Heiser
He's a very intelligent scholar but his entire thesis of theological matters is quite the opposite to your own.....it's fascinating to see....
But do keep at it, you might have a breakthrough at some point
Red Sky at Morning
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2017
- Messages
- 14,680
It is true that I don’t agree with everything Heiser concludes on every subject, but I definitely have areas of agreement. Which topics do you think I might diverge with him over (and I’ll tell you if I agree ;-)Honestly it's shocking to see you quoting Michael Heiser
He's a very intelligent scholar but his entire thesis of theological matters is quite the opposite to your own.....it's fascinating to see....
But do keep at it, you might have a breakthrough at some point
Infinityloop
Star
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,622
Basically anything about the Old Testament.
Artful Revealer
Star
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2017
- Messages
- 4,574
Actually, it's shocking that you do. You're the first non-Christian here that I know of who even knows about Heiser. The others have always been Christians.Honestly it's shocking to see you quoting Michael Heiser
He's a very intelligent scholar but his entire thesis of theological matters is quite the opposite to your own.....it's fascinating to see....
But do keep at it, you might have a breakthrough at some point
Red Sky at Morning
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2017
- Messages
- 14,680
Perhaps too broad a target to take in but impossible not to hit? Do you mean Psalm 82, the Divine Council and the book of Enoch? Just wondering...
Kais_1
Star
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,611
i think that HAM was a Egyptian person of high importance....
not much to be found on the net about ham other than wiki...which goes on to say HAM sodomized his own father Noah...
does anyone know any more about this?
What is commonly known as "The Curse of Ham" was not bestowed upon Ham himself, rather Noah indirectly cursed him via his son Canaan.
The Talmud deduces two possible explanations, one attributed to Rab and one to Rabbi Samuel, for what Ham did to Noah to warrant the curse.[6] According to Rab, Ham castrated Noah on the basis that, since Noah cursed Ham by his fourth son Canaan, Ham must have injured Noah with respect to a fourth son. Emasculating him thus deprived Noah of the possibility of a fourth son. According to Samuel, Ham sodomized Noah, a judgment that he based on analogy with another biblical incident in which the phrase "and he saw" is used: With regard to Ham and Noah, Genesis 9 reads, "[22] And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. [23] And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness."[7] In Genesis 34:2 it reads, "And when Shechem the son of Hamor saw her (Dinah), he took her and lay with her and defiled her." According to this argument, similar abuse must have happened each time that the Bible uses the same language. The Talmud concludes that, in fact, "both indignities were perpetrated."
Although the story can be taken literally, in more recent times, some scholars have suggested that Ham may have had intercourse with his father's wife.[8] Under this interpretation, Canaan is cursed as the "product of Ham's illicit union."[9]
not much to be found on the net about ham other than wiki...which goes on to say HAM sodomized his own father Noah...
does anyone know any more about this?
What is commonly known as "The Curse of Ham" was not bestowed upon Ham himself, rather Noah indirectly cursed him via his son Canaan.
The Talmud deduces two possible explanations, one attributed to Rab and one to Rabbi Samuel, for what Ham did to Noah to warrant the curse.[6] According to Rab, Ham castrated Noah on the basis that, since Noah cursed Ham by his fourth son Canaan, Ham must have injured Noah with respect to a fourth son. Emasculating him thus deprived Noah of the possibility of a fourth son. According to Samuel, Ham sodomized Noah, a judgment that he based on analogy with another biblical incident in which the phrase "and he saw" is used: With regard to Ham and Noah, Genesis 9 reads, "[22] And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. [23] And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness."[7] In Genesis 34:2 it reads, "And when Shechem the son of Hamor saw her (Dinah), he took her and lay with her and defiled her." According to this argument, similar abuse must have happened each time that the Bible uses the same language. The Talmud concludes that, in fact, "both indignities were perpetrated."
Although the story can be taken literally, in more recent times, some scholars have suggested that Ham may have had intercourse with his father's wife.[8] Under this interpretation, Canaan is cursed as the "product of Ham's illicit union."[9]
Kais_1
Star
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,611
Kais_1
Star
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,611
Kais_1
Star
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,611
i think i have finally come to conclusion about Islam....especially if you look at Surah 53...
you are right in the fact that its hard to get these guys to agree with you....they think they know it all...
thanks for your kind words though....its appreciated
Red Sky at Morning
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2017
- Messages
- 14,680
Oi - I hope I engage my brain enough to tobe worth talking to, @Awoken2 ;-)
It shouldn’t come as a great surprise to find certain irreconcilable differences between religions. The temptation might be to assume that if none of them were true, why don’t they just get over themselves and agree on a few agreeable principles rather than disagree over things you don’t even believe in. I can see from the outside looking in and working on that assumption how futile such conversations must appear...
But - what if one of them (never mind which) were true. I suggest to you that in that possibility, everything changes. That would mean that some things were spiritual realities and others were spiritual errors or even deceptions.
Awoken2
Superstar
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2018
- Messages
- 6,505
It's purely incidental that VC forums have attracted the attention and subsequent residency of some of the worlds leading authorities on religious history, political history, astro physics, quantum computing, psychology, grammar and diction.
I'm sure other forums such as reddit would just love to have such a collection of esteemed experts at hand as we do here.
As pools of knowledge goes....your swimming in the ocean
*There was an element of sarcasm used to construct the above post*
....just do what you do man, don't let people here get you down.