The truth about Zecharia sitchin, worth a listen

[DeepThought]

LIsten to time at 38:40  But i enjoyed all of this and worth listening to all of this.

  Listen to time 38:40 about the truth on our past and Zecharia Sitchin. 

[youtube]aEBz4s080mw[/youtube]

[William]

Sitchin could not prove or provide any text on the Planet Nibiru, it was made up and not real.  If this conclusion is true then any one that has spoken of the Nibiru or the Anunnaki are suspect.  
  All Sumerian documents have been translated and there is no record of Nibiru being a planet and the Anunnaki are just humans.

[Elizabeth]

I agree that Sitchin isn't to be trusted entirely but it doesn't mean the Annunaki are just humans.  Whatever they are called it's clear that we've had "other than human" interventions. This is just a History Channel piece but if we look at the sculptures, hierglyphs and advanced engineering alone then it opens the door to this probability.

Also, the Sumerian Nag Hammadi Codex's were most likely turned into disinformation well before they were buried - "conveniently" to be unearthed "just in time" for the big showdown SHOW leaving room for doubt re: the translations that would come from these sources.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELtmJZj_E...r_embedded#!

[Richard]

Sitchin could not prove or provide any text on the Planet Nibiru, it was made up and not real.  If this conclusion is true then any one that has spoken of the Nibiru or the Anunnaki are suspect.  
  All Sumerian documents have been translated and there is no record of Nibiru being a planet and the Anunnaki are just humans.

Well some planet is on it's way here. Too many videos to deny it.

[William]

I agree that Sitchin isn't to be trusted entirely but it doesn't mean the Annunaki are just humans.  Whatever they are called it's clear that we've had "other than human" interventions. This is just a History Channel piece but if we look at the sculptures, hierglyphs and advanced engineering alone then it opens the door to this probability.

Also, the Sumerian Nag Hammadi Codex's were most likely turned into disinformation well before they were buried - "conveniently" to be unearthed "just in time" for the big showdown SHOW leaving room for doubt re: the translations that would come from these sources.

Elizabeth
  Where do you find evidence of the Nag Hammadi as being disinfo?  What is the disinfo?  Who told you it was disinfo..  Im just asking these questions not to question you but asking for your sources.  I want to see proof of the disinfo..  And what part of it is disinfo?


  Richard, is there any real source on a planet coming to us?  Unfortunately Nasa would be a credible source but they are not credible anymore if ever.  But im sure nasa would say no to a planet heading our way.  Im not saying there is or isnt a planet coming our way, just where is proof?    Our planet earth could one day head out on its own maybe with the sun and moon only.

[Filter]

Although I do think that Sitchin in particular was a deliberate disinformant, I do think that when it comes to ancient texts in difficult old languages in general, like the Sumerian clay tablets and the Nag Hammadi writings, there is always the factor of the filter of the translator with all its biases, beliefs and preferences. 
Also, sometimes it seems to become unclear which parts are really textual translations and which parts are actually personal additions of the translator/interpretor. That seems to mix easily, and probably unnoticeable.

The different translators of the Nag Hammadi texts all come up with a different version, I think. John Lash claims he is the only one who translates and interprets these Nag Hammadi texts without a judeo-christian filter. 
I'd say that is probably correct, but there might be other type of filters that are present with John Lash, which makes also his specific interpretations and translations for a part impure. 
Many believe that the Nag Hammadi texts and thus Gnosticism is an addition to Christianity, mainly because of the way these texts are presented, translated and interpreted by certain sources. I think that is not correct and misleading, most certainly. 
It's fundamentally different from Christianity and other religions. It's not a religion, first of all, it's basically an explanation.
But hey, if truth comes through on this plane, it usually seems to get corrupted before it could catch a decent breath and stretch its legs a little. 

By his own admission, Lash couldn't make heads or tails of the Nag Hammadi writings in the beginning. 'Gibberish' was it to him. I presume he then did his best to come up with a decent translation and interpretation, but these are still influenced by his own personal biases, beliefs and outlook. I'm pretty convinced of that.

And possibly, these texts were already corrupted before they were publicly unearthed in the 1940's, or even before they were buried there, whenever that would have exactly been.

[William]

Well said Filter.

[Elizabeth]

"Also, the Sumerian Nag Hammadi Codex's **WERE MOST LIKELY** turned into disinformation well before they were buried - "conveniently" to be unearthed "just in time" for the big showdown SHOW leaving room for doubt re: the translations that would come from these sources." (ME)

The only one I know who says they were tinkered with before buriel is Doctor Chiappalone. I've had my suspicions about all of these strange "Discoveries" in the 1900's like the Dead Sea Scrolls etc. because that's always the thought bubble entering my head whenever I read the dates of antiquities discoveries...long before reading Chiappalone.  It's my INTUITION telling me that the info. was SEEDED and DISCOVERED at a specific TIME in order to be poured over, interpreted. It's possible to me that they were disinfo of a sort before they were buried by the long range planners.

In general I do post most of my sources and my obvious biases are an open book. The sentence above was my opinion. I said they WERE MOST LIKELY...I try to let people know of my inner thought processes re: this varied and complicated "unable to be substantiated" material I post at the HCF and I attempt to do my own thinking while reconciling contradictory points of view.

~Good post, Filter.

~NOTHING CAN BE PROVEN.~ It is also unfortunate that we can't trust most of what passes for scientific discovery, too because we need all the help we can get but even at their best - scientists can't prove their findings either.

[William]

"Also, the Sumerian Nag Hammadi Codex's **WERE MOST LIKELY** turned into disinformation well before they were buried - "conveniently" to be unearthed "just in time" for the big showdown SHOW leaving room for doubt re: the translations that would come from these sources." (ME)

The only one I know who says they were tinkered with before buriel is Doctor Chiappalone.

  Anyone can and should do a search on Chappalones past.  

  You are totally wrong about the Nag Hammadi.    There are many other sources that point to the many Truths in the Nag H.  If you know how to look for them.  Also, the Nag Hammadi are notes.  They are not something specifically written for our times.  They are Notes.   If you would look up the history of the NaG h AND WHO wrote them then wonder why everything from these same people that wrote them was totally destroyed.  It is a wonder that the Nag H even survived.  
  Your just taking the word of Chiappalone and he even Parrots the Nag H without even knowing what they are or what they mean.  He even misquotes it.   How can you believe someone that Misquotes the Nag h?

[Elizabeth]

Anyone CAN and HAS done research on Chiappalone. Ten years ago, two years ago, one year ago...pages after pages after pages.  I am not parroting Chiappalone and stop trying to distort what I'm saying. It's easy to dredge up dirt on literally every presenter out there. And as I've explained elsewhere - I hedge my bets in the "belief" business and work to not put all my eggs in one basket. 

The Nag Hamaadi is obviously a topic you've spent a great deal of time on and is very dear to your heart. I'm not interested in fighting you on this obviously charged issue.

I don't know where Chiappalone misquotes the Nag Hamadi but he doesn't consider it the definitive source that you do.