by Erik Parker
For those of you who have followed the debate on the internet you
may know about the personal attacks I have withstood from Michael S. Heiser, in my attempt to honestly debate him regarding the writings
and thesis of
Zecharia Sitchin. I always choose my words carefully
and have never used the word "wrong" when applying it to Mr. Heiser
and I have never personally insulted him or his position.
The word "wrong"
has emotional charge behind it so I try to use "correct/incorrect"
to apply to details or facts. I prefer to debate the evidence and
the issues and not have a discussion become personal. The purpose,
for me, is to increase my understanding of a subject and clarify
misunderstandings. My goal is always to add to the body of knowledge
and understanding of a complex issue for the readers and myself.
As you will see, Mr. Heiserís goal is not to add knowledge and
understanding to these issues. His goal, from the beginning, when he
came on the web page and speaking scene, was to tear down the work
of an established author. He had no name recognition to stand on so
he used Sitchinís good name to get attention for himself so he could
sell his own book, appear on the radio and get speaking engagements.
Mr. Heiser does not think he is a debunker and I will not declare
that he is. My purpose is, for the reader, to point out that his
tactics and behavioral patterns fit the mold and style of a debunker
which includes using personal attacks and ridicule. You can make the
decision on your own once you see both sides of the issue. Hopefully,
you will reach your own conclusions about his motives.
Debunker trick #1, when having no reputation of your own, attempt to
destroy the work of an established individual, in the process
creating a name for yourself. In fact, the method involves using the
name of the person you are attempting to destroy as the springboard
for yourself. His first web page that I read was full of insults and
uncalled for statements. You would think that a man who claims he
has a respected background and career would not want to use someone
elseís name for his own gain.
Wouldnít he want to be recognized for
his own individual achievements? This maneuver is a ďshifterĒ
strategy made famous in the book, ďAtlas Shrugged,Ē by Ayn Rand.
This procedure is used to take away from someone the thing you want
the most for yourself, thereby "shifting" it away from them and to
you. In this case, Heiser wants to take away Sitchinís fame and
respect as an author, researcher and speaker.
Even at this point, he still wants to debate Sitchin. For what
purpose? If it were to add to everyoneís knowledge and understanding
there would be no need for personal attacks against Sitchin or me.
Sitchin does not have a computer, does not browse the Internet and,
therefore, has never seen any of Heiserís material nor heard him
speak. Why would he agree to go on the radio and be attacked? Why
would Sitchin help Heiser increase his name recognition?
just too busy writing new books and arranging seminars. You can tell
from Heiserís writing style that he is very confrontational -- he
uses debunker tactics. His purpose for wanting to debate Sitchin is
to employ the attack and ridicule process. This is completely
inconsistent with a person that wants to raise up all of society by
their knowledge. I donít think there will be a debate with Sitchin,
but I still have a few words to say....
Back to Contents
Zecharia Sitchinís thesis is simple to understand and has much
evidence and weight behind it. It is that the Sumerian people, (later
on the Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonians) carved on clay tablets,
(3/4 of a million texts, most of the tablets are contracts for goods
& services and administrative tablets), that tell a story that is
both familiar and fantastic. The tablets, which have never changed
from the date of creating them, have been found in digs all over the
Middle East. The oldest stories of the Bible including the creation
of Earth, the creation of man, the flood & destruction of mankind,
the Tower of Babel all are contained in these tablets.
talk of multiple gods with different names that helped the people
learn about harvesting, shepherding, astronomy, the calendar,
irrigation, etc. Sitchin has shown that the level of understanding
and advanced thinking could not have been by accident and chance.
The Sumerian kings and priests never claimed credit for this
knowledge; the tablets always attributed the information to their
gods, called by them
the Anunnaki. Meaning "those who from heaven to
Many of the tablets discuss the eating and dietary
habits of these gods that inhabited the temples, who were cared for
by the humans with reverence. This is no fantasy, the tablets
contain bills of sale for the materials delivered to the temples,
and foods that were consumed and paid for. Some of the gods would
not eat meat before Mid-day, or if they were served in anything but
gold bowls or gold cups would throw it back to the humans.
Many authors and scholars have shown that the Bible picked up many
of these ancient stories and influences and wrote them down the best
they could at the time, not having direct access to the tablets, but
the stories being holy and repeated publicly at festivals. But later
on the mistranslations appeared because of the different languages,
influences of individual authors, scribes and translators that
placed their own stamp and philosophy on them.
Sitchin has shown
certain words have an older origin than the Hebrew language and it
is a known fact that Hebrew borrows words from Aramaic, Canaanite, Akkadian, etc. These words are clues to cultures which preceded the
Hebrews. Sitchin never stated that the grammar would be perfect to
match the plurality of the word gods/Elohim. He stated that certain
words contain evidence and history with them that show the older
influence from those previous cultures.
(This wonderfully preserved tablet has many of the currently used
Zodiacal symbols. Easy to spot is the scorpion, lion and the twins.
There are also celestial symbols represented, the eight pointed
stars and the moon. Do you notice a snake that covers the top and
left side? The snake (serpent) is a major character in the Adam &
Eve story. This tablet is on display in the British Museum, London,
Back to Contents
Is it possible that every translation is fully correct?
No, it is not possible that 100% of every translation is fully
correct. And Mr. Heiser agrees! In his last email directly to me, he
stated that of course there are mistranslations in the Bible and
listed a couple for me (Gen 35:7 - 13, Psalms 82:1). He points out
that these passages mix up plural and singular forms of the word
"gods/Elohim" and singular/plural grammar. He thereby agrees with
Sitchinís thesis that the old translations have mistakes, made from
editing, scribes or translators, either purposeful or by accident.
He simply doesnít agree that every translation is incorrect, but
Sitchin does not say that every translation is incorrect.
the method of a debunker and using debunking trick #2, Mr. Heiser
doesnít simply state his point of view with his proof and evidence
instead his method of debate is to personally attack and ridicule
before he presents his evidence. This is supposed to make the person
receiving the abuse get off balance and draw(s) away from the debate
topic, which is an intentional distraction. So he comes out swinging
with insults and personally ridiculing the other position and
viewpoint and anybody that believes the opposite of him.
Yet, he agrees in many situations there are mistakes of grammar with
mistranslations, and he even points out there is mixing up of plural
and singular forms of speech in the same sentence. This
inconsistency is also the hallmark of a debunking position.
Debunking trick #3, is to argue certain points in some situations,
yet agree with certain points in other similar situations.
points of disagreement are not important enough to cancel out the
rest of the evidence. This inconsistency must be pointed out. Then
why attack a respected author and claim he is wrong as a blanket
generalization when you in fact agree with him in some of the
situations. Well that takes us back to trick #1, to get name
recognition for yourself when you are unknown. How else will you be
invited to do radio shows and get on the lecture circuit?
What Mr. Sitchin has identified in his writings are some of the
mistranslated words that appear, and when taking into account the
historical influence from the previous cultures a new meaning and
understanding arises. This means that the Bible indeed has a
bibliography and there was civilization on Earth for at least 2,000
- 3,000 years before the time of Abraham, some say much longer. This
way of thinking adds new meaning and understanding to our lives and
affects us in profound ways that is different for every individual.
Over 8 million copies of Sitchinís books have been sold in over 14
languages, and every time a new country gets his books, they appear
on the bestseller list. Why? Simply because they expand our thinking
about humanity and our origins. They are brainteasers that stimulate
something that is inside of us to want to learn more and have more
understanding. Most of us realize that what we have been told from
official sources has something missing. There is simply much more to
the story of humanity than what the same old translations tell us.
Back to Contents
The age of the Bible and certain cultures
(Dates come from
"Mesopotamia" by Julian Reade, a publication of the British Museum
and "Atlas of the Bible," edited by James Pritchard, published
Early village settlements, Samarra culture, Halaf culture, Ubaid
culture, Gawra culture, (about 4,000 - 8,000 B.C.E. "BCE")
Uruk culture (3,000 - 4,000 BCE), late prehistoric period (2,750 -
3,300 BCE), Early Dynastic II - II periods (2,334 - 2,750 BCE)
Akkadian Dynasty (2,154 - 2,334 BCE) including Sargon (2,279 - 2,334
Rulers of Lagash & Uruk, Third Dynasty of Ur, First Dynasty of Isin,
Larsa Dynasty (1,763 - 2,155 BCE)
First Dynasty of Babylon (1,595 - 1,894 BCE)
Abram (Abraham later on) came from the land of Sumer (Shinar in the
Bible), from the capital city known as Ur (Ur Kasdim in the Bible,
Gen 11:31). His father and grandfather were long lived Sumerians
that lived in the capital city of Ur (around 2,025 to 2,075 BCE).
Abrahamís parents worshipped the gods of Sumer and he grew up with
that culture. It says in Joshua 24:2, "Your forefathers, Terah the
father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, always dwelt beyond the
(Euphrates) river and they served gods (Elohim) of others."
also means that Abram would have heard the Sumerian mythology
repeated every year during festivals, if he attended with his father
& grandfather, until he left the land and went to Haran.
The Israelites left Egypt around (1,250 - 1,350 BCE) depends on who
you think was the pharaoh at the time and the dating of them.
Invasion of the Sea Peoples the Phoenicians (about 1,200 - 1,250
BCE). Old Hebrew or Temple Script borrowed Phoenician letters as
shown in "The Atlas of Languages, The Origin and Development of
Languages Throughout the World." The names of the letters are
Phoenician names. A quote from the books says, "Following the
sixth-century Babylonian exile of the Jews, the Old Hebrew script
gradually gave way to Aramaic. The old characters, are, however,
still used as a liturgical script by the Samaritans. Modern Hebrew
square characters have their origin in the Aramaic script."
The time of Kind David and Solomon (about 931 - 1,000 BCE)
During the reign of King Josiah of Judah, (around 609 - 641 BCE) all
the torah (Bible) scrolls were lost in Israel until the high priest
discovered one. After King Josiah, a religious man heard the words,
apparently for the first time; he ordered all the temples of false
gods destroyed and the Passover to be observed (II Kings Chap 22 &
23). It says, "this is the first time the Passover was observed
since the days of the Judges and all the days of the kings of Israel
and Judah" (that is between 200 - 300 years). Now this is a time
when there is a holy temple in Jerusalem and there is worship and
sacrifices going on there.
Yet there are sill temples to false gods
in Judah and no one has celebrated Passover for generations.
Passover is currently one of the biggest holidays of the year for
Jews; it celebrates the Jewish exile from Egypt. In fact that is
Yahwehís claim to fame in the Ten Commandments when it says "God
(Elohim) spoke all these statements, saying, [I am the Lord (Yahweh)
your god], that took you out of Egypt from the house of slavery."
(Exodus. 20:2) [it should read "I am Yahweh, your god that... "]
How could it be that the biggest holiday is not even celebrated
during the time when the first holy temple is still in existence?
What other parts of the Bible were forgotten during this time?
During the lifetime of the prophet Jeremiah, during the reign of
Jehoiakim the son of the previous King Josiah, (about 598 - 597
BCE), parts of the Bible were re-written by Jeremiah. Apparently
they had lost much of it again because Jeremiah delivered it to the
elders and advisors of the king, and when the elders read it, they
were amazed (Jeremiah, Chap 36).
But the king got mad when he heard
Jeremiahís prophecies of destruction and threw the scroll into the
fire. So Jeremiah re-writes the scrolls once again from the words of
Yahweh. This could also be called channeling. Here we have an
example of the Bible actually telling us that it is being written in
real time, as opposed to saying it is an old document.
Back to Contents
How many times has the Bible been lost and had to be re-written?
many foreign influences appeared to creep into the re-written Bible?
When the Jews came back to Israel from the exile in Babylon (about
520 BCE), they had picked up the Babylonian names of the months of
the year. They still use those names today even though the older
Bible from the desert with Moses has numbered months, this all
changed in a time span of 70 - 72 years of exile. The original names
of the months are listed with the holidays that went with them in
Numbers 28:16-39, an example is the first month, or the seventh
month, that is how Yahweh and Moses labeled the months of the
Here are examples of just three names of the 12 currently
being used. Nisan from Nisanu, Tishrei from Tashritu, and my
favorite Tammuz from Dumuzi, (Dumuzi is the actual name of a
Sumerian god. Tammuz is the Semitic pronunciation. I am not sure if
the Rabbis know they are using the name of an ancient false god for
one of their monthís names).
So when the final compilation of the Bible appeared during the years
after returning from the Babylonian exile (around 520 BCE). The
biblical authors incorporated their philosophy of one deity,
into the copies of the scrolls. Whatever attributes a previous god
may have had, was retained and given to Yahweh on paper. If the
story was holy and the deeds were attributed to Anu, Enki,
Inanna or Marduk it became the property of the Elohim or
Probably Elohim was a clue to uncover those stories that showed an
earlier influence from Mesopotamia. Why not just give one name to
all the other gods mentioned and save much time?
Remember the Bible
is trying to prove there is only one god, which is the point of the
document. So we can accomplish this by putting all individual names
into one general term, plural of course, and for the priests with
the secret knowledge that know for themselves, we just incorporated
the great stories the public knows and made them specific to our
culture and our congregation. Who would know about the older
tablets, who would know we borrowed?
This plan did work until the late 1880ís, and early 1900ís when
archeologists started to finally dig out the texts in their original
tablet form and the scholars translated them. They were astonished
to find so much of the source material for the Bible. This plan
worked for more than 2,000 years, most people thought the biblical
stories were original to the Bible. Even now people are astonished
when I tell them there are stories of semi human/semi divine
characters and stories of resurrection from 2000 - 3000 years before
the time of Jesus and even Abraham.
The modern version of the Bible was probably read by Ezra (about 464
BCE) at the inauguration of the Second holy temple in Jerusalem.
Obviously scholars disagree with the exact dating.
Back to Contents
My response to Mr. Heiserís
After getting through the personal attacks against me, Mr. Heiser
gets down to showing some examples of Biblical writing with graphics
in Hebrew. He states with regards to "Elohim," there are hundreds of
uses in singular and hundreds of uses in plural and many sentences
that mix it up in the same sentence. I want to thank Mr. Heiser here
for showing these inconsistencies.
This gives weight to my argument
and Sitchinís thesis that the word "Elohim" is a loan word from a
previous culture, which is why they had so much trouble
incorporating it into their language with proper rules of grammar.
We donít dispute that "Elohim" is used both as a plural and a
singular. What we see is that the word Elohim is a clue to the
antiquity of the Bible, showing a much older influence.
1. He has a fallacy of incorrect analogy. He compares the word
Elohim to Sheep, Fish and Deer showing how the grammar can change
the meaning to either singular or plural. The reason this is a
fallacy of incorrect analogy is that we use the same word in English
for the singular and the plural. Sheep, Fish and Deer do not have
singular roots in them. Heiser does agree with me that the word
"Elohim" contains the root singular form of god that is pronounced
"Eloah." If you wanted to say god says (singular), you could say it
as "Eloah" says and it would be correct.
The reason the Hebrews use
the word "Elohim" is that it is a holy word to them and they must
not change that word that to a believer in one god must and can only
mean "God." But was the word "Elohim" meant to be singular to
represent a single deity by the original culture that created the
usage, or was it borrowed and used later on by scribes with
monotheistic philosophies? Wasnít the purpose of using so many
different god names in the Bible to show differences in those
Mr. Heiserís, use of translations from the
Dead Sea Scrolls is
irrelevant, because they are younger than the canonized Bible and
therefore canít be used for this debate. Many Dead Sea Scroll
translations are in dispute anyway, and the group that controlled
the scrolls for so many years has gotten into trouble, they have
watchers. It was
the Igigi who could
be called watchers.
Mr. Heiserís use of translations from the
Book of Enoch for any
translation is irrelevant because, first it is not part of the
canonized Bible, and second it is younger than the canonized Bible.
I still have not seen one original Hebrew version of this document
that can be dated back to BCE era. The book is supposed to be very
old, but there is no verification as to the modern version that is
currently available. There is no chain of evidence to make the case
that the version we have is actually older than the canonized Bible.
I must tell the public that Heiserís use of translations from text
that are younger than the Bible show that he does not understand
what this debate is about. It is not about contemporary
mistranslations that have been made by modern translators. This
debate is about what older influences were placed into the original
By the way we just saw debunker trick #4, which is to reverse
the process so that you can use proof of translations from younger
documents to prove translating mistakes in older documents. This
canít be done because of the arrow of time moving forward. Only
older documents than the Bible are relevant to be an influence, and
younger mistranslations that continue the mistakes are not evidence.
Back to Contents
Can we trace those original Sumerian sources?
3. Heiserís biggest fallacy and showing a lack of understanding of
the history of languages is his statement, "Sumerian is not
connected to any other language." I am really surprised that he
would make this statement. Most similarities are in the Semitic
area, which is Heiserís area of study.
The Sumerian influence is still felt today in language and their
original stories all over the Bible.
With all those tablets that I spoke about before, many different
copies of them were found with the same stories. The root to those
stories is the Sumerian culture, but after the culture dies off the
stories moved to the Akkadians, although they still wrote all the
religious documents in the Sumerian language for hundreds of years
after Sumerian was not a publicly spoken language. Later on with
King Gudea, there was a resurgence of the Sumerian language (2,122 -
Then the stories moved to the Assyrians, Babylonians,
Hittites, Canaanites, Hebrews, etc. Archaeologists found translation
tablets that had dictionaries carved on them, they said this word in
Sumerian is this word in Akkadian, this word in Akkadian is this
word in Assyrian, etc.
Many tablets were broken in pieces and fragmented so it took many
years to connect the pieces from the museums around the world and
put the texts together. But some texts were found in libraries of
clay tablets, where they found a shelf full of intact texts, with
the catalog list at the front of the shelf. The index list told
archaeologists what tablets were missing from the shelf. Obviously
the archeologists were amazed to dig up complete libraries of carved
(This picture shows many carved texts sitting on shelves.
This is in
a museum in Turkey.)
Here are some Sumerian words that many other languages and cultures
have borrowed. (Translations are from "A Manual of Sumerian Grammar
and Texts," by John L. Hayes.)
Mother - Ama in Sumerian, Ima in Hebrew.
Father - Ab-ba, Ad-da in
Sumerian, Aba in Hebrew.
Mountain, mountain-range - Kur, Hur-sag in Sumerian. Har is mountain
in Hebrew. Kur could also mean land.
Alla, (Allah) the name of god in Arabic was also the name of a
Sumerian goddess of the netherworld. In Akkadian Allatu.
Earth - Ki in Sumerian, also known as Gi or Qi. Modern usage Gaia
for the mother Earth.
Great - Gal in Sumerian, in Hebrew Gadol is great or large; it has
the same first and last sound. Three letter root is GAL, GDL.
The Sumerian people were sometimes called Lu-Lu Amelu, which means
mixed up person (being). Because their mythology said we were
created from a mixture of ingredients and themselves. And in English
we call someone Lu-Lu if they are crazy or mixed up.
Adamu and Adapa are Sumerian names and characters, the original form
of the name Adam from the Bible. Adam is always translated as "Man"
in English. In Hebrew the word Adama can mean earth (dust of the
ground) and Adom is red (like blood) and the word Dam means blood.
Do you see how the root name of Adam is closely linked to other
words? These double meanings will be important later on.
Heaven, sky, star is An, Anu, the city know as Heliopolis in Egypt
used to be called An, or Anu. (The chief worship site of the god Re
"Ra".) (Universe is a compound word made up of An-Ki, meaning Heaven
Dumuzi - Sumerian god, used for name of Hebrew month as Tammuz.
Crying for Tammuz is mentioned in Bible, Ezekiel 8:12 (about the
same time as the Babylonian exile). They were not crying for the
name of a month. They were crying in remembrance of Dumuzi the
husband of Inanna who was killed and not able to be revived.
The Sumerian god Utu (meaning the [visible] sun) is the same as
Shamash in Akkadian; he used the celestial symbol of the solar disk
as his representation. The god name Shamash is the same as the
Hebrew word for the sun, Shemesh. Imagine that, the word for sun is
the same as the god who used the symbol of the sun.
E-din, E-means house, Din means righteous or pure. The Garden of
Eden. In Hebrew Din is law; House of Law is like saying courthouse.
(Some of you may have heard of the word Moujahadin, which is an
Arabic word meaning holy warrior or righteous warrior. This is the
name of the Arabic fighters in Afghanistan that the U.S. supported
to fight off the Russian invasion.)
There are so many Sumerian influences, please read anything written
by Samuel Noah Kramer, my favorite is, "History Begins at Sumer, 39
Firsts Recorded in Manís History," this will show you influences in
the modern world that began in Sumer.
Back to Contents
More Sumerian influence and Nephilim
The word Nephilim does not mean giants but they probably were
in size, nobody disputes that. Most depictions from ancient
Mesopotamia showed the Anunnaki gods to be much taller than humans.
Mr. Heiser shows how in Numbers, 13:33, it calls the Nephilim the
"children of Anak.Ē The word for giants in Hebrew today is Anak
(singular) and Anakim (plural). According to the Signet
"Hebrew/English Dictionary" by Dov Ben Abba, the word for giant can
be "Anak" or "Anaki." Well how do you think you spell
Letís compare Anak and Enki without any vowels, they would look like
this "ANK", "ANK." Lets compare the words Anaki and Enki without any
vowels, they would look like this "ANK", "ANK." Letís compare the
words Anunnaki and Anak without any vowels, it would look like this
"ANNK", "ANK." All of these comparisons are matches of similar
sounding words. Yes the original source of the word for giant (Anak
or Anaki) in Hebrew came from the Sumerian use of these words to
describe their large gods.
(In Hebrew, all these words could have
the same 3-letter roots and could start with an Ayin, only the
vowels and the pronunciation would be different. Mr. Heiser also
tells you how the original Hebrew did not have vowels when
originally written but were added hundreds to thousands of years
later. He might say you would need a "yod" at the end of the word to
have the "ee" sound, but a yod is just a single small line at the
end of the word that could easily be left out by a scribe, and you
can make the sound with the vowels, and imitate the "ee" sound by
only using vowels.)
I think it is enough to show that the first
written language that used the Anak, Anaki, Anunnaki root sound was
Sumerian and that was the influence for the word giants in Hebrew.
Imagine these names, Anu, Enki, Anunnaki, Enlil, which were repeated
in religious documents year after year, for thousand of years. This
is a huge influence on the people and their memories.
So in Gen 6:3, we have,
"the Nephilim were in the Earth in those day
and afterwards, when the [children of the Elohim] saw the daughters
of man were attractive and took them as wives..."
In Numbers 13:33, we have,
"There we saw the Nephilim, [the children
of Anak/Enki/Anunnaki], which come from the Nephilim, and we were in
their site as grasshoppers."
Of course Mr. Heiser will bring up his
objection with the incorrect grammar in certain places, and the
mixing of plural and singular, but I am showing you the older
influences, the previous cultures infusion into the monotheistic
I agree with Sitchin that the word Nephilim (using the root Naphal
to fall down) is consistent with the word Anunnaki, which means
"those who from heaven to Earth came."
Nephilim means "those who
fell down", "the fallen ones." In the historical context and what
the Bible means is, "Those who have fallen down from above."
Back to Contents
examples of Sumerian influence
The flood story is one of those times where the Bible becomes
inconsistent, because it tells us that before the flood disaster the
Nephilim were there on Earth. But only Noah and his family survived
the flood, so how do these Nephilim appear again to be living in the
land of Israel after everyone was killed during the flood? This
shows once again that the story about the flood must come from older
sources, of course Sumerian being the oldest, where the hero was
called Ziusudra and in Akkadian Utnapishtim.
The flood in these Mesopotamian versions (all versions except the Bible) did not cover
the entire Earth, it did however, flood great parts of the low lands
where most of the people lived. The storms lasted seven days and
seven nights and they were saved by a raven not a dove. In the Bible
the dove gets the piece of tree and Noah waits 3 series of 7 days
while sending birds out each time. (Translation from Myths from
Mesopotamia by Stephanie Dalley)
After Utnapishtim lands, he builds a fire to cook and "... the gods
smelt the fragrance, the gods smelt the pleasant fragrance..."
After Noah built an alter he offered sacrifices and "... Yahweh
smelled the pleasing aroma..." (Genesis 8:21) There are a lot of
gods that seem to like the smell of meat being cooked, including the
Bibleís pure-energy, non-physical creator god who should not be
interested in smells. Obviously this quote is taken from the older
source, where the older gods are changed into Yahweh.
Somehow the Nephilim survived the flood... In the Sumerian story of
the flood, the gods were watching the destruction from above. One
goddess is crying over the destruction of her children.
"... Nintu was wailing... They are washed up, like a raft on
a bank. They are washed up like a raft on a bank in open country! I
have seen and wept over them! Shall I (ever) finish weeping over
them?" (Nintu is also Ninmah.)
After the flood these characters "fell" (naphal) back down to Earth
and lived among the descendants of Noah and mankind. Until the time
that Yahweh and the Israelites went to war against them.
Famous giants ("Anakim" descendants of the Anunnaki/Enki) from the
Bible are Og, King of Bashan (Deut 3:1), and Goliath the giant that
Kind David defeated (Samuel 21:15-19). Another Sumerian influence is
found here that Goliathís name (Galyat in Hebrew) starts with the
word "Gal" meaning "great" in Sumerian. Today in the English
language, we can use the word Goliath to denote something big and
Back to Contents
connection to the Tower of Babel
In Gen 11:1, it says, in my new translation (The Stone Edition,
Tanach, ArtScroll series),
"The whole Earth was of one language of
common purpose. And it came to pass, when they migrated from the
east they found a valley in the land of Shinar (Sumer) and settled
Later on, Yahweh saw what the humans were doing and said,
"Behold they are one people with one language for all... come let us
(plural) descend and there confuse their language, that they should
not understand each other."
In Sumerian Mythology by Samuel Noah Kramer from a tablet that was
in the Ashmolean museum,
"... Harmony-tongued Sumer... To Enlil in
one tongue gave speech...Ē a few lines later "... Changed the speech
in their mouths, put contention into it, into the speech of man that
had (until then) been one."
Was it Yahweh or Enlil that changed the speech of man? In this case
Enlil was changed into Yahweh.
Back to Contents
How is Moses connected to Sargon the Great, King of Akad?
They were both placed in baskets and left to float in rivers, then
found by noble people.
From The Ancient Near East, edited by James B. Pritchard,
"... My changeling mother conceived me, in secret she
bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed
my lid. She cast me into the river, which rose not (over) me. The
river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki,
the drawer of water lifted me out as he dipped his e[w]er. Akki the
drawer of water, [took me] as his son (and) reared me."
appointed as gardener, granted love by Ishtar, and exercised
kingship over the people. (Sargon dated to 2,279 - 2,334 BCE)
"... The woman conceived and gave birth to a son. She
saw that he was good and she hid him for three months. She could not
hide him any longer, so she took for him a wicker basket and smeared
it with clay and pitch, she placed the child into it and placed it
among the reeds at the bank of the river."
Then Pharaohís daughter
saw the basket among the reeds. Later on the Bible says (Exodus
2:10), the boy grew up and she brought him to the daughter of
Pharaoh and he was a son to her. She called his name Moses, as she
" For I drew him from the water." (Moses dated to 1,250 -
Back to Contents
The creation story
Genesis 1:1, it says,
"In the beginning of Godís creating the heavens
and the earth"
The word for god is "Elohim" So it should be
translated "In the beginning of the Elohimís creation of the heavens
and the earth."
It then continues "... when the earth was
astonishingly empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep and
the divine presence (Elohim) hovered upon the surface of the waters.
God (Elohim) said, let there be light," and there was light.
(Elohim) said that the light was good."
All the words for god are
From the Epic of Creation (old translation from 1902 - also called
Enuma Elish) by L.W. King.
"When in the heights heaven was not
named. And the Earth beneath did not yet bear a name, and the
primeval Apsu, who begat them, and chaos, Tiamet, the mother of them
both, Their waters were mingled together, and no field was formed no
marsh was to be seen. When of the gods none had been called into
being, and none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained. They
were created the gods in the midst of heaven."
The word for gods is
"ilani" the plural of the word "ilu." (I bring in this translation
from 1902 to show you that this is not new information.)
From "Myths from Mesopotamia" by Stephanie Dalley, Epic of Creation,
"... Let me put blood together and bones too, let me set
up primeval man: Man shall be his name...",
"... The work of the
gods shall be imposed on him..."
In Atra Hasis,
"... Nintu mixed
clay, with her flesh and blood, they heard the drumbeat forever
after, a ghost (soul) came into existence from the godís flesh and
she (Nintu) proclaimed it a living sign."
Later on "... I myself
created (it), my hands have made (it)..."
Remember the meaning of Adom meaning red, it matches up with the use of blood here in both
versions. Also the word bone used here is "is-si-im[tu]m" which
corresponds to the Hebrew "etzem", "bone" used in Genesis 2:23, in
the phrase "etzem me-atzami", "bone of my bones."
mentions a possible word play being used here, ghost is "etemmu" and
"temu" is intelligence. So the line above could be read "... an
intelligence came into existence from the godís flesh."
Genesis 1:26, Elohim said "Let us make man (Adam) in our image,
after our likeness..." later on, "... so Elohim created the man
(Adam) in his image, in the image of the Elohim, he created him,
male and female, he created them."
Gen 2:7, "And Yahweh Elohim
formed the man (Adam) of dust from the ground, and he blew into his
nostrils the soul of life and the man (Adam) became a living being."
Gen 2:15, "Yahweh Elohim took the man (Adam) and placed him in the
Garden of Eden, to work it and to watch it."
Remember the meaning of
"Adama", "earth" or "dust" as used here. The comparison of "blew
into his nostrils the soul of life" is very similar to "a ghost
(soul) came into existence from the godís flesh."
Both stories have the same theme, man is created using ingredients,
and put to work for the god(s).
From L.W. King,
"According to each
account the existence of a watery chaos preceded the creation of the
universe; and the Hebrew word Tehom, translated as "the deep" is the
equivalent of the Babylonian Tiamet, the monster of the deep
personifying chaos and confusion."
Later on King says,
"... it may
here be added that the employment by Marduk, the creator, of his own
blood in the creation of man may perhaps be compared to the Hebrew
account of the creation of man in the image and likeness of Elohim.
Moreover, the use of the plural in the phrase "let us make man" may
be compared with the Babylonian narrative which relates that Marduk
imparted his purpose of forming man to his father Ea (Enki), whom he
probably afterwards instructed to carry out the actual work of manís
Back to Contents
We are finally near the end of this web page, and I really
appreciate any of you that have read all the way to this point.
I think I have shown with evidence that the Bible does in fact
contain many influences from previous cultures. I think that when
reading texts and seeing the pictorial evidence from the ancient
Mesopotamian culture, a much greater story and history comes alive.
This new information breaks through the monotheistic tendency of the
Bible to discourage thinking and analysis of older cultures. The
Bible treats all the old cultures as idol worshippers and
non-believers, thereby discouraging research into them.
same cultures created the stories that the Bible uses to prove there
is only one god. And when those original stories were written many
gods were mentioned in them. With all the administrate tablets
found, we learn that the ancient gods lived among the people, were
cared for by the people and in return were given knowledge to better
The one difference between what Sitchin says (that I agree with) and
what all the other historians, archeologists, linguists,
translators, teachers, professor and scientists say is simple.
Zecharia Sitchin says that all these stories and tablets relate to
real actual events, they were written as history to show real things
that happened. The characters were real and the descriptions of
events that canít be explained are also real.
unexplained events are evidence of technology used on Earth, which
may still be beyond our capabilities today. If the events were real,
this means there were characters on Earth that were not born here,
and their DNA is part of our DNA. It means that evolution happened
on planet Earth and intervention also happened on planet Earth.
The scientists are correct that evolution occurred and the
theologians are correct that intervention occurred.
(This pictures shows a ram caught in a thicket found in a royal tomb
in Ur, the birthplace of Abraham.
Genesis 22:13, it says "And
Abraham raised his eyes and saw -- behold, a ram! -- afterwards,
caught in the thicket by its horns; so Abraham went and took the ram
and offered it up as an offering instead of his son."
This is on
display in Philadelphia at the University Museum)
Everybody else that does not think the stories are real, thinks the
ancient people made everything up. They think all that they wrote
was mythology. Well I have news for you, if you agree that it was
all mythology, then the Bible that uses those stories is also
copying mythology. You see to be consistent you either accept that
the original sources of the Bible were real or they were fantasy. If
you believe in the stories of the Bible then the older stories are
also true. If you donít believe in the Bible being true then you can
say that the source material is also not true.
You canít have it both ways and still be internally consistent. One
book borrows from the others.
I want all of you to know this, regardless of what you believe, it
does not mean you are crazy or foolish. If you believe in Sitchinís
hypothesis, then you are in the company of millions of people, that
are normal, sane individuals. If you donít believe in this
hypothesis, that is also O.K., but donít think down upon people that
do believe it. And for the believers donít think down upon the
people that donít. Donít attack the other viewpoint, or ridicule the
other position, the point of debate is to rise up, learn and educate
everybody and not to exclude people.
We are all entitled to our own beliefs and we are all absolutely
free in our heads to think what we want.
What I wish and hope for is that those beliefs are generated from
your own research and your own view of the evidence. Please wait to
make a decision until you see the evidence for yourselves. Visit the
museums and read the original sources that authors use for their own
books. Ultimately, it is the search for the answers that fulfills
the human purpose for living. We may never know the whole story, but
the search without attacking and destroying is what will keep our
civilization going forward. But if the process is used to attack,
ridicule and insult then society will continue to break down and go
(I have not needed to quote from any of
Sitchinís books for this
article. Everything written here is my personal opinion and from my
Back to Contents
Mr. Heiser, your web page let me see outside of the box and I really
appreciate the impetus it gave me to write all of this down. It was
the inspiration and motive for my determination to finish this web
I fear that if you respond you will attack, ridicule and put down
what I have said here for the purpose of tearing down the knowledge
and work of Zecharia Sitchin, by maintaining your continuous attack
on him. From my knowledge you have been doing this at all possible
I hope I am "wrong" about your motives and what your response will
be. I am hopeful that if you respond it will be with pure motives,
with an intent to educate and lift up all of us with your knowledge
and experience. You can reach people on your own merits, but when
you use some of those debunking tricks it overshadows the scholarly
aspect of your work. All of us are trying to gain more knowledge and
understanding by any discussion we have and you can be part of it.
Please act with noble intention and a sense of lifting all of us up
to a greater understanding.
Back to Contents