|
Unfortunately, after reading the book, this interesting and plausible idea is all but debunked. Proof. Sumerian technology and mathematics were way too advanced for such an early civilization. Necessary for background. he uses ancient sources such as the bible as proof. Sitchin does it himself.
That's it. "The ancient Sumerian civilization believed that every 3600 years a planet known as Nibiru would orbit our sun, and its giant inhabitants were responsible for the pyramids, and other technological advances during what should have been a primitive time."This is basically how Sitchin's theory was put forth to me by a friend. Thoroughly intrigued I did some research trying to find a book that would elaborate on this. 3.
his interpretation of engraved tablets, showing that creatures with bull-horned hats were deities, creatures with wings were astronauts, and any structure that stood straight up and had structural braces was a launch tower. taking the Sumerian olden gods of the creation myth to be literal celestial bodies (planets, stars, etc).and taking the other Sumerian gods not as mythical creatures of stories, but actual alien overlords who played an active role on earth.2. And from this version we can surmise that not only did Noah build an ark to escape the great flood, but the great god Enki provided him with a plan to build a submarine. You can read the whole book and those are basically all the 'facts' you'll get.
Are you kidding me.4. Maaaaybe. In seven days. I came across Twelfth Planet by Zecharia Sitchin and bought it as it seemed this guy was basically the grandfather of the theory.
for example, he suggests that the biblical story of Noah is not only true, but it is based on an earlier Sumerian version. Not really.Sitchin's evidence basically all stems from four sources:1. First we must read through a family history of Greek and Sumerian Gods, which takes up about half the book. What I wanted to read.
Read it because you love to read. Read this, and the rest of the series, as you should any book that claims to know the "truth". Read it looking for ideas, inspiration, explanations that make sense. Many of the critics, who bash this book for presenting badly translated material and scientifically inplausible theories, appear to be in need of a reminder of how badly translated and scientifically inplausible THEIR own sources are. If people read the Bible or the Quaran with that same spirit, I believe the world would be a better place. His ideas are no less plausible than an unseen diety creating the whole of existience in 6 days, then taking a little break. Stichin is to be commended for seeking an explanation, rather than accepting a truth. For that matter, though I am supporter of the sciences, his theories make far more sense than where the confilct bewteen relativity and quantum mechanics has taken us.
the book was in great condition , and received on time for a great price, thanks jeremy p,,,
somethings sitchin's says will open your eyes, about the bible you already have, that are irrefutable. Whether you belive it, or not, just read it. you will increase your knowledge exponentially.
I highly recommend these to the reader to supplement Sitchin's books. I am about to read,"The End of Days", I hope he explains this in that book.I have used the exterrestrial concept of cloning and infiltrating the Earth in one of my stories (Aliens). Only for the open minded.
His theories explain an alternate history to traditional teachings. in my book, "The Nightmare Trilogy", available on amazon. However, one thing he doesn't actually explain is, "Who created the Nefilim.".
Very radical alternative history at it's best. Sitchin provides a very detailed approach to deciphering ancient Sumerian history, biblical references, to the history of Earth, Man, and Gods. However, I use a different concept of the aliens, perhaps, they were from here originally.
After reading this book, I realized how much it complemented many of Velikovsky's books,"World's in Collison", "Earth in Upheaval", and "Velikovsky Reconsidered". There is a lot of commonality, but Velikovsky approaches his theories as more of a scientist, than from a religious point of view.
|
