On Sitchin

I find it interesting you mention Sitchin. What is your opinion of him?

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Sitchin. He was an independent, outside the box thinker who was exhaustive in his research; a true scholar in the classical sense. You will find, over the course of time, a number of his astronomical and archeological statements and theories to be proven correct.

However, it is important to note his limitations, in that his thinking was two dimensional regarding his subject matter. For one thing, his translations of the cuneiform tablets were choppy and limited. He often filled in the blanks using his own overly biased materialistic perspective instead of consulting with other archeological, theological, and Sumerian experts. What Sitchin did not seem to understand, or even comprehend, was that all higher learning for the ancients was guarded and passed down by the priest class as ONE comprehensive, holy science. All sciences, spiritual and materialistic, observable or philosophic, theological and countable, in ways both inside the soul and without, were all rolled into one. Today, we have neat little compartmentalizations and categorizations that are wonderful to intensely specialize with, but at a huge cost. Part of that cost that the artificial separateness we have created in science serves to have various sciences and scientists not understand their colleagues in separate fields, even ridiculing and attacking other fields. It is a house divided.

For example, take the word Abzu. It can mean deep well or water source, deep space, or unfathomable depth within one’s soul. In a myth, story, or teaching; Abzu can mean one, two, or all three of these meanings, and teach different things, all within one story!

When Inanna was spoken of being given dominion of India, we can interpret a historical ancient goddess ruling India, a matriarchal, yet warlike cultural bent being seen in the geography of India, the planet Venus coming into astrological conjunction over India portending an era or events, a religious sect with Inanna’s qualities sweeping over India, and… even a couple other things. Sometimes, only one of these interpretations of events occurred, sometimes several. And very often, the myth and cosmology was used as code to inform the actual information to the most learned. As you grew and became more knowledgeable and more wise, the myths grew with you, in the direction you grew!

Sitchin had no concept of the spiritual code, and very little of the astrological. His interpretation is incomplete, and inconsistent with how the Sumerian priests thought, wrote, studied, and communicated.

Unfortunately, this is the same trap most Kolbrin researchers find themselves in. Lacking understanding of the spiritual sciences, they inevitably find themselves at a dead end with their research.

One day, the sciences and the scientists shall recognize their brothers again. On that day, the key to both the Sumerians and the Kolbrin shall be found…

nice reply, Leonard!

Thank you, Rex, I try. :slight_smile:

Spot on, just like my thoughts but presented in such a eloquent manner. Reading your posts lately Len is really a joy.

I appreciate the compliments. Hopefully you’ll find me just as favorable when I get to “preachin’”. :wink:

Hey you've won me over already, preach all you want. ;)

I’m not one that likes to obsess on the Destroyer… It is way over hyped and generally a distraction, but… I’m curious.

Manuel, how does your figuring of the return of the Destroyer in the Kolbrin compare to Sitchin’s estimation of the return of Nibiru?

Well in his last book Sitchin estimated the last flyby of the Destroyer sometime during the 2nd century BC if I recall correctly, or very close to that. Meaning that it would take around 3600 years to come back, aprox, so that gives you a return estimate very far from now, around 3rd millenium AD. According to the Kolbrin the last flyby was around 1500 BC, exodus timeframe. This coincides with a lot of other sources, including the Chinese astronomical archives from that time which show the biggest comet recorded by them at precisely that period. Now in Book of Creations Habaris gives us the cycle of the destroyer which is of 5400 years, that would place the return of the Destroyer by Kolbrin sources at somewhere around 4000 AD, not far from Sitchin's estimate but arrived at by very different calculus.
Manuel has this part down.
Manuel, which book are you using for reference as "his last book"?
The end of days I think it is.

He basically based his calculation on the supposition that because at a determinate time the Annunaki stopped being mentioned in Mesopotamic mythology it must have meant that Nibiru had flew by Earth again and these beings had left for good. I find that a very silly logic. As Leonard said, what Sitchin did was incredible in some aspects but he really was grasping at straws in certain of his hypotheses. I find it more enjoyable as science fiction mixed with actual mythological details than as factual scientific reading.

I love Zecharia Sitchin he really opened my eyes to things and helped my journey of research into Ancient civilisations and religions. Because of him I want to learn Cuneiform!

I seem to recall in one of Sitchins book that the ‘Gods’ last left Earth around 545BC which if that means The Destroyer was close by enough to enable them to return to that planet that we are not due another ‘flypast’ until 3000AD approx?

I’m happy Sitchin inspired you, Sarah. Hopefully you’ll take his work beyond what he imagined, in even new and different directions. And don’t be shy about sharing your discoveries with us, you may end up teaching us a thing or two. :wink:

Sitchen was the end of the beggining for me. His writtings opened my mind to other possiblities other than the T'nahk/Bible. I had always had "feelings" or intuitions that the Hebrew writtings, as are all the others it seems, parts of the greater truth, but not "THE" truth in their own right. After all, nobody has a monopoly on truth, as I always like to say. I listen to my intuition a lot more these days, perhaps if I had done this, and trusted the guidence of "the universe" more, then it wouldnt have taken me so long to reach this point. At least all the experiances, and learning I have had over the years, has taught me that even I, can be sincerely wrong, so I dont judge others with whom I dissagree.
I'm going to stick this link here because Leonard mentioned translations done by Sitchen. I do disagree with the Abzu example though. I have all of Sitchens books, and found where he dedicated almost 2 pages on all the meanings Abzu has, so he was aware of that word having many meanings anyway. I don't know about all of his translations. I don't take anything I read as fact anyway.

I like to look at how even one word translated wrong can change the whole meaning of something. One wonders if it was done on purpose, or it was just wishful thinking of the translator. I only found this article today, but it’s from 2009.


The one thing Sitchin did prove, I think, is the notion of early intercontinental travel.

Diane, Sitchin seemed to be aware of the various translations of Abzu, but unfortunately he only narrowly interpreted it into meaning mainly South Africa (and only deep space where South Africa couldn’t fit in to his one-sided interpretation). If you do a bit of research, you’ll find Sitchin’s translation work roundly criticized by nearly every Sumerian expert in the field, not without good reason.

Again, while Sitchin may have been aware of the multidimensional word meanings of the Sumerian language, he only actually employed one in his interpretation work, in order for the myths to fit into his one-sided interpretation and story line. It was a very materialistic stance, and only a very small part of how the old Sumerian priests actually wrote and thought. Take what is useful here, but expand your horizons as the various dead ends come upon you in his work, which, they undeniably will.

Don’t take this on a slam of Sitchin… but to better understand the Sumerian myths you’ll have to understand many different fields relating to that time and place… Sumerian language, horticulture, astrology, Sumerian math and number systems, theology, morality, spirituality, geography, military strategy, politics and economics of the ancient world, and on and on…

And when you’ve gotten through all that… don’t assume that the Sumerians had all the answers either. :wink:

As one gets too far into the weeds, you can’t see the forest for the trees.

To see aright, open the eye that is filled with light.

Hi Diane,
It may interest you to know, that while studying at Aish HaTorah in Yerushalyim, I was sitting in a lecture with Rabbi YomTov Glasser, a kabbalist ( and surfer) of no small renown. He stated that the first line of B’Reshit (Genisis) could be equaly translated this way " With wisdom, G-d separated the heavens from the Earth", Now you may or may not know, that Hebrew was orginaly written without vowel points, it was all consanants. B’reshit, in Hebrew, wich means “In first things”, can also be translated, or understood as B’roshet", or “In Wisdom”. Rosh, meaning head Roshet, meaning from the head, or Wisdom.
Just thought you may find that interesting.
Love and light to you sister.