Sitchin vs Miguel Civil

[Yorick]

Chewbacca,

This fellow....

MIGUEL CIVIL
Professor of Sumerology, Emeritus
Ph.D., University of Paris, 1965.
Taught at Chicago 1963-2000.
SPECIAL INTERESTS: Sumerian Literature, Sumerian Language. Foremost scholar in linguistics and lexicography.
Editor for the series Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon
The Oriental Institute
1155 East 58th Street, 314
Chicago, IL 60637
773-702-9542
m-civil@uchicago.edu


....seriously discredits Sitchins abilities to event accurately interpret the Sumerian material. He claims Sitchin mixes languages and ideas with each other, and often has a hard time telling the difference between Hebrew, Akkadian and Sumerian.

I read a passage that Sitchen "claims" details assigning some aliens the role of orbitting the earth, and the other 600 stayinmg on earth, and it does nothing of the sort. It's a very broad interpretation of a pretty generic story.

Put simply Sitchin is reading between the lines waaaaay to much.

Additionally, astronomers have no evidence of Sitchins Twelfth planet ever existing, and preclude the idea that it's escaped detection.


I found this website from another layman useful:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corr.../hafernik.html Sitchin's work is a masterpiece of linguistic maneuvering and allegorical interpretation. He is clearly well-read in the archeology and mythology of ancient Sumeria and related lore. His work conflicts, however, with mainstream archeological opinion. In fact, in Usenet discussions of Sitchin's work, several well-published, respected archeologists familiar with this period have called Sitchin a fool and an idiot (but in less polite terms). While he's well-read, he lives in his own little world when it comes to translation of ancient texts. He also takes certain liberties in his translations and interpretations that are not usually allowed by the scientific community. His work completely falls apart, also, when modern science is brought to bear. Sitchin's interpretations of Sumerian Epics and other writings describe events that simply couldn't have happened. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The first thing that confronts a reader of The 12th Planet is an Author's Note. The note talks about the translations of biblical verses quoted within the book. The second paragraph says: quote: In the final version quoted in The 12th Planet, I have compared the available translations against each other and against Hebrew source and the parallel Sumerian and Akkadian texts/tales, to come up with what I believe is the most accurate rendering. (Sitchin, Authors Note)

As we will see, this is a telling statement. Instead of quoting standard translations for Biblical verses, Sitchin makes up his own translations, based on his interpretation of "the parallel Sumerian and Akkadian texts/tales". Unfortunately, he is using those verses to support his interpretation of those texts.

Right away, we're in deep academic doo-doo. He's let us know he's going to twist the translations around to support his thesis[/QUOTE]

[Yorick]

Is the quote clear?

Sitchin himself admits that he takes sentence A and B.

Sentence A he then changes based on his reading of sentence B

He then uses sentence A to prove his interpretation of sentence B.

It's craziness! Creating his own proof! It's terrible science.

[Yorick]

Ah stuff! MODERATORS! I put this in the wrong forum... can someone move it to Currev? Cheers. Y

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: Is the quote clear? Sitchin himself admits that he takes sentence A and B. Sentence A he then changes based on his reading of sentence B He then uses sentence A to prove his interpretation of sentence B. It's craziness! Creating his own proof! It's terrible science.

Sorry, but the logic of your assertions here has evaded me. I do not see how your above analogy applies to what is written in the Author's note of the book or what is written inside the book(s) as well.

So have YOU read the books yet? Or are you going to go by second-hand critism? Also, You have brought nothing new to me, I have read alot of critics of Sitchen's work and alot of critics of critics of Sitchen's work. Calling him names and making claims of his skills as a scientist is not only childish, but unprofessional and UN-scholarly as well.

It is fine to conclude different interpretations, but to twist Sitchen's words around and to call him a terrible scientist is ludicris.