| Revision as of 23:47, 7 June 2005 editAI (talk | contribs)5,271 edits →Disputed: Suggestion← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:56, 27 February 2012 edit undoSerendipodous (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,337 edits ←Redirected page to Talk:Zecharia Sitchin | ||
| (87 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | #REDIRECT ] | ||
| ''From ]'' | |||
| *] -> ]. A Google search for ''Nibiru'' garnered three times as many hits as one for ''+Marduk +planet''. The redirection should go the other way around. In addition, ] is also an ancient Babylonian deity, and obviating the disambiguation would be beneficial for cosmetic reasons. ] 22:23, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) | |||
| **] is now at ], hopefully with the page histories of the two versions merged. ]] 23:10, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I moved this here because it is irremediably confused. If anyone can make sense of it, maybe it can go back in. My notes are inline, in ''italics''. | |||
| ==Pantheons== | |||
| According to some | |||
| :''Sitchin, I assume'' | |||
| Nibiru is the supreme deity in the Sumerian | |||
| :''so he's being confused with other deities, then? Check out ].'' | |||
| and Babylonian | |||
| :''Marduk was the supreme god; Nibiru is a celestial object associated with him. They're not the same.'' | |||
| pantheons. Though Nibiru is the god of 50 names and king of gods, | |||
| :''really? or is he being mixed with a different god again?'' | |||
| according to others he is not related to ] in ]ian ] | |||
| :''who are these idiots? The Babylonians /always/ associated Nibiru with Marduk. Or is this meant that the Sumerian god that some people call Nibiru, goodness knows why, is not related to Marduk? That would make a bit more sense.'' | |||
| (Marduk being the a god of Babylon, who was inserted into the old creation epic). | |||
| ---- | |||
| —] 23:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == crackpot? == | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| That seems a bit subjective, don't you think? --] 21:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : :) I was wondering how long that would last before someone noticed it. Feel free to take it out or replace it with a more neutral phrasing. —] 23:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :He is now called an "ancient astronaut theorist", which means essentially the same thing ("crackpot") but shouldn't provoke objections. —] 16:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The part that i would have a problem with is the next arrival of 2012. Sitchin i think makes note that Anu came to visit in about 4000 BC, and that the passing occured around 3600? This would then put the 12th planet as the biblical star, who would then of course arrive back around 3600 AD. No other has offered an explanation of how the summariens were more advanced the the ones comming after them? Or more important i think is Why no one asks how come one bloodline would become rulers versus another, and Why would man dig for gold when it had no use? Sitchin answers those questions. So call him what you want, just offer a better explanation! | |||
| == Ephemeris == | |||
| Is there anyone who can tell me the dates that Nibiru is supposed to have crosee through each sign of the zodiac. Anyone who can direct me to the correct place would be of a great help. | |||
| --] 09:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Disputed == | |||
| This article on Marduk (or Nibiru) places too much emphasis on the theories of Sitchin. Sitchin's theories aren't scientifically accepted, but this article is not about Sitchin. It is about Nibiru which is a topic of Childean cosmology, regardless of Sitchin's theories. I am adding the POV tag to the article.--] 23:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Sitchin may be the source of the idea of a ], but he is not the source of information on ]. Stone carvings are the only source for Nibiru. Sitchin should only be mentioned in this article as a researcher who came up with theories about Nibiru. I suggest a ] article be created. The section ] can be moved there.--] 23:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:56, 27 February 2012
Redirect to: