Zacharia Sitchin Was Wrong

By Dr. Michael HeiserWHAT'S THIS ALL ABOUT? Sumerian cuneiformWelcome to the website devoted to addressing the claims of the ancient astronaut hypothesis popularized in the writings of Zecharia Sitchin. Who's behind this site? My name is Mike Heiser. Who am I? The short answer is that I'm a scholar of biblical and ancient Near Eastern languages, cultures, and religions. Why do I bother with this stuff? Because I don't like ancient texts manipulated to promote false claims. If I were a lawyer I'd feel professionally obligated to tell you if someone was giving you bad legal advice. If I was a medical doctor, I'd owe you the truth if I knew the medicine you were taking was bogus or could kill you. If I was an accountant, I'd let you know if a neighbor's tax advice could put you in jail. I'm none of those things, but I'm trying to provide the same service in my areas of expertise. I can tell you--and show you--that what Sitchin has written about Nibiru, the Anunnaki, the book of Genesis, the Nephilim, and a host of other things has absolutely no basis in the real data of the ancient world. I don't doubt that Zecharia Sitchin is a nice guy; he's just wrong. Nothing personal. A LITTLE BACKGROUNDSITCHINISWRONG.COM has been online since 2001. Shortly after I wrote my novel, "The Facade" (during what should have been my first year of writing my PhD dissertation), I was invited to be a guest on Coast to Coast AM. Former host Art Bell asked me if I would debate Zecharia Sitchin live on the show and I accepted. Sitchin has never returned the favor. I was quickly attacked, though, by other "researchers" who accused me of making piles of money off Sitchin's name. I answered by posting my income tax returns on the Internet. My accusers crawled back under their rocks and I went on to finish my dissertation in Hebrew and ancient Semitic languages (University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004). I never really returned to normal life completely, though. I've been on a number of radio shows, made frequent re-appearances on Coast to Coast AM, and spoken at conferences that focus on this sort of thing. The people I meet and the hosts that interview me have proven to be bright, inquisitive, likeable, and sincere. I just try to get them to look at the data. NIBIRUSITCHIN'S NIBIRU HYPOTHESISThose familiar with either the writings of Zecharia Sitchin or the current internet rantings about "the return of Planet X" are likely familiar with the word "nibiru". According to self-proclaimed ancient languages scholar Zecharia Sitchin, the Sumerians knew of an extra planet beyond Pluto. This extra planet was called Nibiru. Sitchin goes on to claim that Nibiru passes through our solar system every 3600 years. Some believers in Sitchin's theory also refer to Nibiru as "Planet X", the name given to a planet that is allegedly located within our solar system but beyond Pluto. Adherents to the "returning Planet X hypothesis" believe the return of this wandering planet will bring cataclysmic consequences to earth.Is Sitchin correct - Is Nibiru a 12th planet that passes through our solar system every 3600 years? Did the Sumerians know this? Unfortunately for Sitchin and his followers, the answer to each of these questions is no. But how do I know? The cuneiform record in such texts as the one on the left, the astronomical text known as MUL.APIN (The "Plough Star").Readers can click HERE for a summary paper I wrote on the word "nibiru" in cuneiform texts. What follows draws from that paper and, in the case of the video, demonstrates the accuracy of my contention that there isn't a single text in the entire cuneiform record that: * Has "nibiru" as a planet beyond Pluto * Connects "nibiru" with the Anunnaki * Has "nibiru" cycling through our solar system every 3600 years SEARCHING FOR NIBIRU IN CUNEIFORM TEXTSHere is a video that I created showing you where to find the leading dictionary of cuneiform words online (for free). Viewers can find that source and do what I do in the rest of the video: look up the entry for "nibiru" (spelled "neberu" in scholarly transliteration) and check to see if any of the above ideas are found in any Akkadian or Sumerian texts that mention "nibiru". Spoiler: there aren't any -- but don't take my word for it. Look it up yourself.For more on Dr. Heiser's analysis of Zacharia Sitchins' theories go to : HTTP://WWW.SITCHINISWRONG.COM/INDEX.HTML OPEN LETTERThe work of Zecharia Sitchin was brought to my attention in 2001, shortly after I completed my book, "The Facade". As a trained scholar in ancient Semitic languages with a lifelong interest in UFOs and paranormal phenomena, I was naturally enthused about Mr. Sitchin's studies, particularly since I had also heard he was a Sumerian scholar. I thought I had found a kindred spirit. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Zecharia Sitchin is not a scholar of ancient languages. What he has written in his books could neither pass peer review nor is it informed by factual data from the primary sources. I have yet to find anyone with credentials or demonstrable expertise in Sumerian, Akkadian, or any of the other ancient Semitic languages who has positively assessed Mr. Sitchin's academic work.The reader must realize that the substance of my disagreement is not due to "translation philosophy," as though Mr. Sitchin and I merely disagree over possible translations of certain words. When it comes to the Mesopotamian sources, what is at stake is the integrity of the cuneiform tablets themselves, along with the legacy of Sumer and Mesopotamian scribes. Very simply, the ancient Mesopotamians compiled their own dictionaries - we have them and they have been published since the mid-20th century. The words Mr. Sitchin tells us refer to rocket ships have no such meanings according to the ancient Mesopotamians themselves. Likewise when Mr. Sitchin tells readers things like the Sumerians believed there were twelve planets, the Anunnaki were space travelers, Nibiru was the supposed 12th planet, etc., he is simply fabricating data. It isn't a question of how he translates texts; the issue is that these ideas don't exist in any cuneiform text at all. To persist in embracing Mr. Sitchin's views on this matter (and a host of others) amounts to rejecting the legacy of the ancient Sumerian and Akkadian scribes whose labors have come down to us from the ages. Put bluntly, is it more coherent to believe a Mesopotamian scribe's definition of a word, or Mr. Sitchin's?Zecharia Sitchin's work in other texts, such as the Bible, is equally flawed. This site bears witness to the sorts of erors Sitchin makes in language analysis and translation with respect to the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. What I've said here is very straightforward. It would be quite easy to demonstrate that I am wrong. All one needs to do is produce texts that I say don't exist, and produce verification of Sitchin's translations by other experts (that's called peer review). Since I don't believe such evidence will be forthcoming, I wrote what follows as an open letter to Zecharia Sitchin in 2001. With Mr. Sitchin's passing, I now direct the letter (rewritten on Jan 1, 2011) to his followers and other ancient astronaut theorists whose views are, in many ways, based upon Sitchin's original work.Dear Ancient Astronaut Enthusiast:The intent of this letter is in the interest of research, not confrontation. In no way do I intend to impugn anyone's character. What I ask is that you provide answers and data to support your theories. Here are my questions / requests.1. Can you please provide transcripts of Zecharia Sitchin's academic ancient language work? I would like to post this information on my website, and would gladly do so.2. Can you explain why Sitchin's work on Genesis 1:26-27 overlooks so many obvious grammatical indications that the word "elohim" in that passage refers to a single deity (as demonstrated on this website)?3. Can you explain why Zecharia Sitchin (or you in turn) have not included the comparative linguistic material from the Amarna texts that shows the Akkadian language also uses the plural word for "gods" to refer to a "single" deity or person (which of course undermines the argument that "elohim" must refer to a plurality of gods)?4. Can you explain how the interpretation of the word "nephilim" as referring to "people of the fiery rockets" is at all viable in light of the rules of Hebrew morphology? In other words, can you bring forth a single ancient text where naphal has such a meaning?5. Can you produce a single text that says the Anunnaki come from the planet Nibiru - or that Nibiru is a planet beyond Pluto? I assert that there are no such texts, and challenge you and your readers to study the occurrences of "Anunnaki" right here on this website. HERE is a video where I show readers how to conduct a search online at the Electronic Corpus of Sumerian Literature website. There are 182 occurrences of the divine name Anunnaki. Please show me any evidence from the Sumerian texts themselves that the Anunnaki have any connection to Nibiru or a 12th planet (or any planet). 6. Can you explain why the alleged sun symbol on cylinder seal VA 243 is not the normal sun symbol or the symbol for the sun god Shamash?7. Can you explain why your god = planet equivalencies do not match the listings of such matching in cuneiform astronomical texts? I recently BLOGGED on this issue and provided a recent scholarly article on the planets in Mesopotamian literature by experts in cuneiform as proof that Sitchin erred in this regard.8. Can you explain why many of Sitchin's word meanings / translations of Sumerian and Mesopotamian words are not consistent with Mesopotamian cuneiform bilingual dictionaries, produced by Akkadian scribes?Thank you for taking the time to respond. I will of course post any responses on this site.Sincerely,Michael S. Heiser, Ph.D., Hebrew and Semitic Studies, University of Wisconsin-MadisonRead more @ HTTP://WWW.SITCHINISWRONG.COMRelated Book: Michael Heiser's THE FACADEThe plot of The Facade is driven by the fate of a team of scholars recruited for an Above-Top-Secret project against their will by a cabal of military insiders known only as "The Group." To gain the team's trust, the Group authorizes successive levels of disclosure to astonishing technologies, shocking alien artifacts, and documents which chronicle the clandestine history of the United States government's knowledge of UFOs - including Operation Paperclip, a secret program that recruited Nazi scientists for their technical knowledge. Nevertheless, it soon becomes apparent that nothing is what it seems. The Facade follows the team as they unpeel layer after layer of deception, uncovering a shocking revelation that will alter mankind's self-understanding forever - if they can discern which lie to believe. The unlikely center of the team is Dr. Brian Scott, a scholar of ancient semitic languages. Despite his credentials, Brian's life is overshadowed by his low self-esteem and his parents' unspeakable deaths. Brian is befriended by Father Andrew Benedict, a dignified but enigmatic priest, whose presence will dictate the direction Brian's life must take. After a tense initial briefing, Brian is confronted by Dr. Melissa Kelley for an insensitive remark made during the briefing. As angry as she is beautiful, Melissa's behavior toward Brian becomes increasingly antagonistic. Weeks of hostility pass until a selfless but reckless split-second decision on Brian's part alters their lives forever, leaving them dependent on one another for survival. A stunning climax leaves Brian and Melissa with only each other to trust, completely unaware of the larger, more sinister agenda only now beginning.WATCHER NOTE: I have read this book and I highly reccommend it whether you are interested in ufology, Christian ufology, or the ancient astronaut theory. It is well written, fast-paced, and best of all, it is written by a scholar, who though is a Christian, is also objective in his research. No UFO library is complete without The Facade."FIGHT THE FUTURE! JOIN THE RESISTANCE @ FACEBOOK/WATCHERREPORT!"