PeteC-UK
Active Member
Hi Folks..
FunnyKindofMormon;
Yer but WHY should we even do that..??...They havent cross referanced anything - they havent taken into account such things as OTHER recorded versions of this history - and neither have they attempted yo tackle or explain any of the "hard questions" such reserarch inevitably uncovers...
WHEN these academic scholars can give us an explanation for these "primitvie peoples" MAGNIFICENT BUILDING ACHIEVEMENTS that even modern man with our machinery cannot even come close to achieving still, yet THEY did it back then WITH EASE the entire world over - WHEN academia can explain THAT then and only then can they be deemed reliable !! They cant explain any of the hard questions at all - and there are plenty to ask - the reason academia fails is as said - they treat everything "before flood" as pure myth and allegory - and they deal only with one specific aspect or artifact at a time and so miss entirely the larger context of entire world history....These are gross failures on their part...Proven to be unreliable - proven to be INNACURATE - for as said academia teaches us these ancients thought the world was FLAT right up to fairly recent times -yet here THOUSANDS IF YEARS AGO they clearly know of the Earth as a globe - a planet - clearly know ALL the other planets - even those we have again, only RECENTLY discovered ourselves....
WHEN - academia - science - accepted wisdom - can account for all that plus lots lots more - then and only then can they be deemed as reliable !!
WHEN they STOP COVERING UP their lies and misrepresentations - such as the clear chicanery openly admiited by that famous world renowned SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE - when they stop DECEIVING US ON PURPOSE -then and only then can they be deemed reliable.....All this is -rather obvius - isnt it...certainly - we should NOT trust them blindly or take their teachings as "ultimate truth" - especially when the truth THEY present goes directly against the real world HARD EVIDENCE that is undeniabkle and NEEDS to be accoutned for... Academia as a whole DOES have agenda after all - and sadly that agenda is not always the pursuit of legitimate truth at all - and is most often aimed at keeping the status quo intact...
Hmm - bit pointless though -we already know academia is extremely limited in their approach -and we already know Sitchin took a much wider view in his interpretation - to compare the two then would only show us that which we already know - pointless...The real issue here is one of LEGITIMATE ACCURACY - and as said - for academia to be seen as legitimate here then they really do NEED to explain all that hard evidence that directly contradicts and disproves their historical theories...My dear old mums advise seems to be best - what cant speak cant tell lies - those real world hard evidence discrepancies and contradictions cannot be ignored by academia - to be trustworthy they NEED to explian it all - and to stop deliberately lying and misleading us of course - and to achieve that they will need to widen their perspectuve a great deal...
FunnyKindofMormon;
On this argument, we should accept the translations of those Sumerianists who have translated the tablets more recently still than Zecharia Sitchin..
Yer but WHY should we even do that..??...They havent cross referanced anything - they havent taken into account such things as OTHER recorded versions of this history - and neither have they attempted yo tackle or explain any of the "hard questions" such reserarch inevitably uncovers...
WHEN these academic scholars can give us an explanation for these "primitvie peoples" MAGNIFICENT BUILDING ACHIEVEMENTS that even modern man with our machinery cannot even come close to achieving still, yet THEY did it back then WITH EASE the entire world over - WHEN academia can explain THAT then and only then can they be deemed reliable !! They cant explain any of the hard questions at all - and there are plenty to ask - the reason academia fails is as said - they treat everything "before flood" as pure myth and allegory - and they deal only with one specific aspect or artifact at a time and so miss entirely the larger context of entire world history....These are gross failures on their part...Proven to be unreliable - proven to be INNACURATE - for as said academia teaches us these ancients thought the world was FLAT right up to fairly recent times -yet here THOUSANDS IF YEARS AGO they clearly know of the Earth as a globe - a planet - clearly know ALL the other planets - even those we have again, only RECENTLY discovered ourselves....
WHEN - academia - science - accepted wisdom - can account for all that plus lots lots more - then and only then can they be deemed as reliable !!
WHEN they STOP COVERING UP their lies and misrepresentations - such as the clear chicanery openly admiited by that famous world renowned SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE - when they stop DECEIVING US ON PURPOSE -then and only then can they be deemed reliable.....All this is -rather obvius - isnt it...certainly - we should NOT trust them blindly or take their teachings as "ultimate truth" - especially when the truth THEY present goes directly against the real world HARD EVIDENCE that is undeniabkle and NEEDS to be accoutned for... Academia as a whole DOES have agenda after all - and sadly that agenda is not always the pursuit of legitimate truth at all - and is most often aimed at keeping the status quo intact...
I think the way forward from here might be if you present a particular tablet, Zecharia Sitchin's translation of that tablet (word for word), an academic translation (let's go with one from the ETCSL website) (again word for word), and then quotes from other sources (elsewhere in the world) that support your argument wrt the meaning of that particular tablet.
Hmm - bit pointless though -we already know academia is extremely limited in their approach -and we already know Sitchin took a much wider view in his interpretation - to compare the two then would only show us that which we already know - pointless...The real issue here is one of LEGITIMATE ACCURACY - and as said - for academia to be seen as legitimate here then they really do NEED to explain all that hard evidence that directly contradicts and disproves their historical theories...My dear old mums advise seems to be best - what cant speak cant tell lies - those real world hard evidence discrepancies and contradictions cannot be ignored by academia - to be trustworthy they NEED to explian it all - and to stop deliberately lying and misleading us of course - and to achieve that they will need to widen their perspectuve a great deal...