It has been years since I read the works of Zecharia Sitchin. I also had the pleasure of meeting him. I found his work extremely interesting but based on this post I have just read one would would think Zecharia was giving all kinds of false information.
First of all as I recall, Sitchin claims to understand an earlier Hebrew. If my memory serves me right he contends the Biblical Hebrew is corrupt. I have studied and read this by many scholars. Well I am not a Hebrew Scholar and will never claim to be, but by my studies, Sitchin's interpretation is very close to what I also found.
In fact many of the would be Bible fanatics that claim the King James as the ONLY inspired word which I do not claim, but they say King James 1611 version is the closest to the divine word. However, Strongs Exhaustive Concordance is based on the King James, and what Sitchin claims in many of his translations are verified by Strongs. Go prove it for yourself! So why are there those trying to totally debunk what he says unless there is an agenda?
So I am at a loss to understand why this so-called Scholar is debunking key points of Sitchin using Biblical Hebrew as well as contextual arguments, when Sitchin seems to be right on track on many issues. I remember when Sitchin said that the firmament above and below represented the Asteroid Belt between Mars and jupiter, he insisted that the word in the ancient Hebrew was defining this point. I was stunned to prove he was right when I checked into Strongs and it revealed the Firmament was also called 'the battered out one' or the 'bracelet', exactly what we call the asteroid belt today!
First of all 'Elohim' is the plural for Gods. This is something I learned all my life and also learned why the mainstream religions refuee to believe this. I will not get into this now but it is a great deception being used to destroy simple truth of who we all really are. I do not have my Strongs Translater with me at present, but I believe the singular form is Eloha or something similar. However the term 'EL' is one of the Hebrew names where we get GOD in the OLD Testament. The 'h-im' at then end of the name EL or GOD represents plurality. We could almost use it like calling someone a TEXAN would be the plural for Texas citizens. In English we use AN IAN ON ION many times to make a singular word plural. Here we have EL -GOD being plurarized to say EL- OH- IM 'GODS'!
But you know we could get into all kinds of debates on what words mean in their ancient format, but what really struck me odd about this scholar's rebuke of Sitchin if I read this correctly is his claim we need to stay in contextual order or grammatically we must remain steadfast to the Biblical Hebrew. Although Biblical Hebrew is corrupt, it is not the original Hebrew and anyone who has studied into this at all knows this to be true except the false religions, Biblical Hebrew was corrupted in Babylon. We do not have any Bible that has the original Hebrew that I AM aware of unless it is in the Vatican Library, but then again who really has access to that? Even the new testament is not written in Hebrew it is Aramaic and Greek, and the NEW testament is actually older in version wise than the Old testament. Nevertheless I will give this person the benfit of the doubt to say lets us stay in context. OK lets begin...
He mentions Geneis 1 26/27. He seems to be saying that contextually the word Elohim obviously means singular not plural. It is true I will give him this that in many places Elohim is used in a singular fashion. Yet there is a good reason for this, what the Hebrew in my understanding here for this word represents, is a NAME of a family or KINGDOM. The term Elohim represents the family name for God or for EL. Today we have both first and last names. Your first name represents the singular YOU, such as the Hebrew word for God in the Singular is 'AL' and at times 'EL'. However your last name is a family name and it represents the entire family.
EL is GOD- ELOHIM is the family of GOD or many gods aka children/angels/aliens. One is singular the other means many members. God is one BODY but with many members, like your last name is ONE name but represents many people!
When you are referred to by your last name even though it is revealing you as singular, that name is also a family name given to many others, so you cannot claim it only for yourself.
This is exactly how the name ELOHIM is used in Hebrew contextually, especially in Genesis 1 26-27. If this scholar wants to follow his own assertions about staying withih context then lets do this. Genesis 1 26-27 as I recall says, " And GOD says, Let US make man in OUR image..."
The fact that US and OUR are used in context verifies the plurality of the name ELOHIM or GOD. It then goes on to say, male and female were created in the IMAGE of GOD. Once again we see two aspects, male and female. If God is singular then why is God's IMAGE dual? Granted the ancient Gnostics understand the FATHER is both Feminine and Masculine, but just sticking to context we see there are more than one here bringing it into plurality not singular. Also in Genesis 3/22 it states, "The Lord God says, MAN has become like one of US..." In context it is saying using the BIBLE's own interpretation as many insist on, and GOD SAYS, man has become like one of US... Notice also it states MAN has become like one of us, because the name ADAM represents humanity not just one man. When it states, And God said let US make MAN in our image, he is saying let us make HUMANITY in OUR IMAGE. Both become plural. In Genesis 3/22 it verifies this by saying MAN has become as one of US. I say this because both ADAM and EVE took of the fruit yet it only says MAN not man and woman. This is because the Hebrew word for Singular man is ISH and it is MALE, it is issha for FEMALE. So when the Bible uses the term MAN as ADAM it refers to all mankind, when it refers to MAN as ISH it is singular. This is why it said he created MALE and FEMALE and not just simply ADAM as was first stated when he said let us create MAN. Saying makle and female defines what MAN is, and he is plural like GOD. So in context it reveals, God said let US create HUMANITY after the IMAGE of the family of GOD, in our likenes, and so he did, he created MALE and FEMALE after the IMAGE of the GOD's'- 'us' our'.
Again we see the plural... I think it is extremely damaging to attack Sitchin on these points where Sitchin's credibility here far outwieghs the debunker in this case. And like I said Sitchin backed the Strongs Concordance almost to a tee, so how was he making things up or taking liberties?
Also this individual's complaint about Nephilm, again the key aspect that Sitchin was revealing is the Bible mis-translates Nephilm and calls them GIANTS. Genesis 6 is loaded with false interpretations and if you only used Strongs Exhaustive concordance you would see all the mistranslations in there because these things were changed hundreds of years ago for fear that the truth would be known and the power would be taken away from the false churches.
Again I say though this individual claims Nephilm reveals the fallen ones not what Sitchin says, those from above who came down. Yet I ask in almost a rhetorical fashion, what is the difference really? For those who insist these are only fallen angles, where did they fall from. In Revelation and Daniel, it states that 1/3 of the stars/angels were pulled to the earth from heaven. Anyway you want to interpret this reveals these beings whoever they are came from heaven and are now upon earth.
The question really is are the ANNUAKI really our friends or are they not? The answer is quite simple, just like ELOHIM is plural for many GODS or the FAMILY of God the children of the light, so also does it reveal wherever these beings came from there are others like them that did not fall, so we can easily conclude using whatever ideology you want that there are good and bad beings where the Nephilm come from especially if they represent 1/3 of whoever! Or good and evil aliens, or good and evil angles. Angels are aliens to this earth. To say all aliens are of the devil or are evil is to say that all angels are evil.
As I wrote in a previous article I showed that Armegeddon reveals that the Good Angels along with those who overcome as the Christ Bearers will return to fight against those on earth that were the Nephilm or fallen ones. Sitchin said that the ancient Cueniform tablets revealed just this, that the ones who did not come down to earth will return to make a final war with the ones that did fall to earth. He reveals alot of this in his book the Wars of gods and men! I believe all Sitchin did was make sense out of things most have never really understood. Why is it hard to believe that God whoever you think this being is does not have worlds upon worlds of beings that serve him? And why is it difficult to believe that some of these beings fell? And why it it hard to believe there are good and bad beings in this universe when there are good and bad beings on earth?
Zecharia made it plain in his series of Earth Chronicles that there was a war in heaven just like the Bible said, and the good Annunaki were at war with the evil Annunaki. So where is the descrepancy? Why is the Christain world scared to death of aliens? And why do all aliens have to be evil? Just like why do all angels only have to be spirit only? Has it ever occurred to you that you are also an angel and alien but you have forgotten all of this because you have also fallen into this veil called flesh and blood. Now how would you like it if God just claimed we are all evil because we fell and said have nothing to do with you? Think about that...
Look there are evil angels and good angels just like there are evil humans and good humans and evil aliens and good aliens. In truth the Bible and many of the lost books refer to the aliens and angels as watchers. Not all of the watchers were good nor were they all evil. You must try all the spirits (Meaning spiritual attitudes) to prove which is which. But you cannot throw everyone into the same basket just because they seem different or strange.
You know once again, if you take the name alien you have a combination name coming from Sumerian and Arabic, "AL" like EL is both the Biblical and Arabic name for GOD. Also ALI is also GOD in a singular form. EN is the name in Sumerian for LORD, remember ENki, ENLIL. Aliens is derived from the word LORD GODs.
This is just a term representing beings that are not from Earth and were called El's or Al's GODS. Is this hard to fathom?
Sitchin does not have to be totally accurate on all things, but I feel it is quite damning to debunk his work especially the very key principles he sets his entire foundation on just to ridicule it based on Contextual arguments. I know this individual tried to sound like he thought Sitchin dis some good work, but you cannot tear down a man's foundation and then say he has done some good work. If the foundation is wrong then his thesis is wrong. This is how school debaters used to try to influence and destroy another's thought to get their own ideology across. And yet I am surprised the very scripture he uses supports Sitchin rather than the debunker himself, for in context it states, LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE. It does not say let ME make man in MY image now does it?
GNOSTIC
