William Henry's books will only cost you money and fill your head with utter nonsense. He has no ideas of his own. He has borrowed them all from other writers, especially from Zecharia Sitchin. The only way in which he has shown to be very original and unique, is the way in which he "interprets" the ancient Mesopotamian languages, while having no knowledge of their grammars at all. He never studied languages, and it shows. He admits that he does not use the dictionaries the ancient Mesopotamians wrote themselves, which allow a perfect understanding of their languages. No, mister Henry uses an English dictionary instead to do the job (Webster's)!!! English has no connection whatsoever with these ancient languages. He is also convinced that, if a word in a certain language sounds like another word in another language (chosen by Henry himself), they must both share a kindred meaning. F.e.: the Babylonian name "Gilgamesh" sounds like the Hebrew word "Golgotha", so there must be a link between them, a shared meaning. Which meaning? The one Henry himself attaches to both words, a meaning which wonderfully "corroborates" his theories.
This con man is clearly a psychotic person who is in desperate need of a straightjacket and a tranquilizer shot. He should either be send to prison or to a mental asylum. He should return the millions of dollars he stole out of the pockets of credulous, gullible people by giving them a false world view, based on linguistic errors and fantasies.
On the internet I found a very profound critique of Henry's linguistic distortions and fantasies, written by professor Michael Heiser who actually DOES know ancient languages. If you read this critique, you will see Henry's "stargate" collapse immediately:
http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/Disciple%20william_henry.htm
Professor Heiser: "In a nutshell, Henry dispenses with all the methodological, literary, linguistic, and anthropological (as that field pertains to language) knowledge accumulated in the past few centuries. He rejects facts we all know to be true-namely, in this case, the very idea that sounds that come from the human mouth (i.e., spoken language) DIFFER AS TO MEANING in different people groups. Lest this sound unbelievable, or perhaps incomprehensible, what I mean here is that Henry actually operates on the assumption that words can be taken apart by syllable sounds and then spliced together with other syllables-even from different languages-and meanings supplied to the results. To someone who has had my language experience (a dozen or so ancient languages learned from a deductive nuts and bolts grammatical perspective) this is positively maddening-and utter nonsense. I know the uninitiated reader may think I am caricaturing Henry's approach, but the proof is below. You've got to see it to believe it... Henry's major tool for determining the symbolic or root meanings (etymological meaning) to the syllables he chops ancient Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, and Hebrew words in to is-I'm not kidding-the English dictionary. That's right, the English dictionary-whose word etymologies derive from Indo-European languages which were compiled before the decipherment of cuneiform. How is this possible you ask? Good question. I honestly can't even begin to describe the amazing extended non-sequitur rabbit trails William is about to take you on. I was truly stunned into silence a number of times, barely able to even follow the lines of thought. The matter turned from being laughable to disturbing, though, when Henry expressed his opinion that these ancient languages were a kind of bird language (I'm still hoping this doesn't mean what it sounds like). I am left with the impression that William may need some sort of help - but maybe I misunderstood that point. Well, here we go."
Heiser considers William Henry to be "Someone who interprets ancient texts with an English dictionary. Someone who violates every rule of language meaning and linguistic philosophy I've ever seen or heard of, as well as the cumulative body of anthropological knowledge surrounding division of people groups by language. Someone whose case is built on non-sequitur etymologies - where relationships of sounds (in English no less), syllables and language groups can be separated and spliced together at will to serve an interpretive agenda. Someone who refuses to get his word meanings from Mesopotamian sources. Someone whose approach to language cannot be applied in the real world lest it be shown to be utter nonsense."
He's right, you've got to see it to believe it!
