Science observes and explains facts. What we choose to do with the facts has nothing to do with the accuracy of the facts or the research methodology of science.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Many many Chariot wheels found at bottom of Red sea.
- Thread starter servant1
- Start date
Have you seen a therapist bout this affliction?
Esteban X
Active Member
Yes there is. His name is Trump.
GoodAttention
Well-Known Member
Proto-Davidian is defined as the origin of languages in India and Southeast Asia, and NOT the Middle East languages. Do you realize the origin of many of the aspects of spoken language is centered in the Southern Central Steppes of Asia.
Nonetheless
I believe to a degree spoken languages evolved naturally independently regionally and truly ancient including Sanskrit and Tamil in Southern Asia, The origin of the evolution of spoken language is much older and influenced by trade going back to the Neolithic..
Where did Indo-European languages originate?
Indo-European languages - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The geographical location where it was spoken, the Proto-Indo-European homeland, has been the object of many competing hypotheses; the academic consensus supports the Kurgan hypothesis, which posits the homeland to be the Pontic–Caspian steppe in what is now Ukraine and southern Russia, associated with the Yamnaya ...
Tamil is dominant in Southern India and is a much younger written language.
There is no evidence that Sanskrit and Tamil are the origin of Middle Eastern languages. Translation and similarities in words and names can go both ways as a result of trade going back to the Neolithic,
True, but as far as what you call the 4.2 K event movement and migration was within the Middle East s per your reference and other sources. I can cite.
You keep dancing around the points that you make, but decline to reduce them to form any sort of connection. As you say
(1) Language is spread by trade
(2) Sumer traded with the Indus Valley Civilization
(3) Sumer is the root language for the Middle East
I then say
(4) Evidence points to the IVC speaking a Proto-Dravidian languge
(5) Sumer could be the root to both Dravidian and Middle East languages
(6) Hebrew and Tamil could have connection through a Sumerian root
You also keep mentioning written language, which I say is a completely different kettle of fish.
You realise the Norwegians, Turks, and Indonesians all use the Latin alphabet? How do you date their language? Are their languages related since they use the same script?
Now I see the problem., I've told you repeatedly I am not engaging in a flag-planting exercise.
I never claimed once Tamil is the root of all languages, feel free to re-read my comments again.
As you said you do, I am exploring connections, and if I have a religious agenda I would love to hear it.
You also keep mentioning the "Southern Steppes of Central Asia", but we don't have anything to go on with that.
I say, lets focus on the 3 ancient civilizations that we know about, Egyptian, Sumer/Mesopotamian, and the Indus Valley.
Lets works backwards and forwards from there, since, as you said, TRADE is what spreads languages, and considering the bronze age civilizations and the evidence of trade going forward would be far more meaningful than jumping backwards to the stone age.
GoodAttention
Well-Known Member
Perhaps my dear Audie, perhaps.
In the meantime I will have one bowl kanji for breakfast.
Or congee when I'm in Kowloon.
Last edited:
servant1
Active Member
He is a mere mortal sinner.
There is in America
servant1
Active Member
He is a mere mortal sinner.
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
To you. To millions of Americans he is a Messiah
Still, the different evidences exist. The explanations of those evidences that you provide, your interpretations of them, are simply weak … ‘animals got too close to glaciers’ …
I was referencing the religious organizations themselves and leaders, not the individuals in the flocks; as those teaching their flocks, they should know what Christ requires. They should know better.
Audie
Veteran Member
You hang out in Kow loon?
To a certain extent yes. Those cultures with Language is influenced and evolves through trade and transmitted words and names to other cultures..
Yes
Yes
Yes
True
True
No it is most important in the evolution of language. Once written language began it dominated the evolution of languages.
i dance around nothing, My argument is detailed and specific. I am refuting that there was any significant migration between the Indus River Valley and the Middle East related to 4.2 K time period or later,.
You are talking about much later languages which is not the subject, Though Greek and Latin alphabets and some vocabulary and names evolved from Canaanite /Phoenician. I date the origin as much older with references.
Proto-Davidian is defined as the origin of languages in India and Southeast Asia, and NOT the Middle East languages. Do you realize the origin of many of the aspects of spoken language is centered in the Southern Central Steppes of Asia.
I believe to a degree spoken languages evolved naturally independently regionally and truly ancient including Sanskrit and Tamil in Southern Asia, Sumerian/Babylonian in the Middle East, and Afro-asiatic Egyptian. The origin of the evolution of spoken language is much older and influenced by trade going back to the Neolithic..
Indo-European languages - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Where did Indo-European languages originate?
The geographical location where it was spoken, the Proto-Indo-European homeland, has been the object of many competing hypotheses; the academic consensus supports the Kurgan hypothesis, which posits the homeland to be the Pontic–Caspian steppe in what is now Ukraine and southern Russia, associated with the Yamnaya ...
Tamil is dominant in Southern India and is a much younger written language.
There is no evidence that Sanskrit and Tamil are the origin of Middle Eastern languages. Similarities in words and names can go both ways as a result of trade going back to the Neolithic,
No flag planting exercise involved.
Than I consider your claims not clear,
Including in the argument "Peleg and Divided Nations" is including specific religious argument.
Yes, and I will continue, because that is the origin of the evolution of languages as referenced.
NO! this is too narrow when considering the evolution and origin of languages. Egyptian originated from an Afro-Asiatic language.
Clarified the statement "Trade is what spread languages" is too simplistic a statement of my argument. Similarities in words and names can go both ways as a result of trade going back to the Neolithic, but the foundation of spoken language began naturally and evolved regionally.,
In summary of some important points"
(1) I am refuting that there was any significant migration between the Indus River Valley and the Middle East related to 4.2 K time period or later,
(2) The 4.2 K event is a part of post Ice Age Climate Change in the Middle Eastern Climate Change and related to migration and changes in population distribution in the Middle East due to drought.
(3) Languages evolved locally going back to the origin of humanity specifically in the Neolithic.
(4) The evolution of language is influenced by trade, The cultures in the major agricultural river valleys that dominated trade dominated the evolution of language.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You should be face palming yourself and using a strawman argument. But then that is all that you have. Even if that was my argument it would be a thousand times as strong as yours. You have no explanation at all that is not almost instantly refuted by the mere fact that ice floats.Still, the different evidences exist. The explanations of those evidences that you provide, your interpretations of them, are simply weak … ‘animals got too close to glaciers’ …
I was referencing the religious organizations themselves and leaders, not the individuals in the flocks; as those teaching their flocks, they should know what Christ requires. They should know better.
servant1
Active Member
That is why the bible teaches-Satan is the god of this system of things.= 99% on earth=misleadTo you. To millions of Americans he is a Messiah
Jesus compared these last days to Noah's day( 99.9% mislead then)Luke 17:26
GoodAttention
Well-Known Member
To a certain extent yes. Those cultures with Language is influenced and evolves through trade and transmitted words and names to other cultures..
Yes
Yes
Yes
True
True
No it is most important in the evolution of language. Once written language began it dominated the evolution of languages.
i dance around nothing, My argument is detailed and specific. I am refuting that there was any significant migration between the Indus River Valley and the Middle East related to 4.2 K time period or later,.
You are talking about much later languages which is not the subject, Though Greek and Latin alphabets and some vocabulary and names evolved from Canaanite /Phoenician. I date the origin as much older with references.
Proto-Davidian is defined as the origin of languages in India and Southeast Asia, and NOT the Middle East languages. Do you realize the origin of many of the aspects of spoken language is centered in the Southern Central Steppes of Asia.
I believe to a degree spoken languages evolved naturally independently regionally and truly ancient including Sanskrit and Tamil in Southern Asia, Sumerian/Babylonian in the Middle East, and Afro-asiatic Egyptian. The origin of the evolution of spoken language is much older and influenced by trade going back to the Neolithic..
Indo-European languages - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Where did Indo-European languages originate?
The geographical location where it was spoken, the Proto-Indo-European homeland, has been the object of many competing hypotheses; the academic consensus supports the Kurgan hypothesis, which posits the homeland to be the Pontic–Caspian steppe in what is now Ukraine and southern Russia, associated with the Yamnaya ...
Tamil is dominant in Southern India and is a much younger written language.
There is no evidence that Sanskrit and Tamil are the origin of Middle Eastern languages. Similarities in words and names can go both ways as a result of trade going back to the Neolithic,
No flag planting exercise involved.
Than I consider your claims not clear,
Including in the argument "Peleg and Divided Nations" is including specific religious argument.
Yes, and I will continue, because that is the origin of the evolution of languages as referenced.
NO! this is too narrow when considering the evolution and origin of languages. Egyptian originated from an Afro-Asiatic language.
Clarified the statement "Trade is what spread languages" is too simplistic a statement of my argument. Similarities in words and names can go both ways as a result of trade going back to the Neolithic, but the foundation of spoken language began naturally and evolved regionally.,
In summary of some important points"
(1) I am refuting that there was any significant migration between the Indus River Valley and the Middle East related to 4.2 K time period or later,
(2) The 4.2 K event is a part of post Ice Age Climate Change in the Middle Eastern Climate Change and related to migration and changes in population distribution in the Middle East due to drought.
(3) Languages evolved locally going back to the origin of humanity specifically in the Neolithic.
(4) The evolution of language is influenced by trade, The cultures in the major agricultural river valleys that dominated trade dominated the evolution of language.
Thanks for the discussion, I think we have both made our points clear. I will emphasize I am not talking about the origin of languages .
Note I don't refer to the PIE languages because I don't believe they are relevant for the discussion. The time period we are focused on is Bronze Age Civilization period, circa 3000BCE, of which the 4.2ky event is a specific period within that time i.e 2200BCE-1900BC. Sanskrit only makes an appearance once the Aryan people do, which is at least 1900BCE. Therefore discussion of Sanskrit within the time period is anachronistic.
Regarding your first point, it is my hypothesis that there was a migration of some people from the Fertile Northen Crescent into the IVC. The significance is in part how it is described within the Hebrew scriptures. You can refute this due to lack of evidence, and/or that I have misinterpreted the scriptures, which I accept. It is only a hypothesis, but I draw it from calculating the years specifically.
One point you didn't comment on is the "Repeller of the Amorites" wall, and why it was believed to have been erected. This is an important point in my theory that (a) the 4.2ky event was significant enough on populations to cause social unrest and (b) if populations couldn't go south, then some had to travel elsewhere.
GoodAttention
Well-Known Member
I live to visit the Bruce Lee statue.
They say he was a real person.
I have only seen him in movies.
Here is where we part ways you rely on an interpretation of scriptures and I rely only on the known archeological, historical, genetic and scientific information available, and there is absolutely no evidence for such a migration. Your linguistic evidence is terribly anecdotal and weak. problem with your reliance on shared names and words is trade since the Neolithic explains the reltionship between language groups and languages over time.
I did not comment on it, because it is only relevant to population movements due to severe drought conditions within the Middle East, and no contributing evidence for evidence of migration in and out of the Middle East. The Amorites? were a vaguely defined tribe or nomadic people in Canaan and the wall was apparently built intended to keep them out of the Tigris Euphrates Valley, but it did not stop the drought which was the down fall of the Akkadian Empire.
Amorite
The Amorites were a Semitic people who seem to have emerged from western Mesopotamia (modern-day Syria) at some point prior to the 3rd millennium BCE. In Sumerian they were known as the Martu or the...
The Amorites were a Semitic people who seem to have emerged from western Mesopotamia (modern-day Syria) at some point prior to the 3rd millennium BCE. In Sumerian they were known as the Martu or the Tidnum (in the Ur III Period), in Akkadian by the name of Amurru, and in Egypt as Amar, all of which mean 'westerners' or 'those of the west', as does the Hebrew name Amorite. They worshipped their own pantheon of gods with a chief deity named Amurru (also known as Belu Sadi - 'Lord of the Mountains' whose wife, Belit-Seri was 'Lady of the Desert'), which also became a designation for the people as the Akkadians also referred to them as 'the people of Amurru' and to the region of Syria as 'Amurru'. There is no record of what the Amorites called themselves.
Nothing I can see to do with the migration involving the Indus Valley
GoodAttention
Well-Known Member
I think the presence of shared names and words is worthy of exploration, given that it seems to be more than coincidental. Sure, the relationship could be as you say related through a Sumerian root, but there could also be another explanation.
In the context of exploring (a) how the Genesis and Exodus scripture can be interpreted and (b) whether there is an explanation other than a common Sumerian root, for example a direct exposure of a peoples from the Northern Fertile Plain to a "foreign land".
As anecdotal as it is, it is my belief that this can be strengthened in continuing to consider these translations as I do, knowing my opinion will fall within the category as "not evidence", subjective, biased, or otherwise.
I did not comment on it, because it is only relevant to population movements due to severe drought conditions within the Middle East, and no contributing evidence for evidence of migration in and out of the Middle East. The Amorites? were a vaguely defined tribe or nomadic people in Canaan and the wall was apparently built intended to keep them out of the Tigris Euphrates Valley, but it did not stop the drought which was the down fall of the Akkadian Empire.
Amorite
The Amorites were a Semitic people who seem to have emerged from western Mesopotamia (modern-day Syria) at some point prior to the 3rd millennium BCE. In Sumerian they were known as the Martu or the...www.worldhistory.org
The Amorites were a Semitic people who seem to have emerged from western Mesopotamia (modern-day Syria) at some point prior to the 3rd millennium BCE. In Sumerian they were known as the Martu or the Tidnum (in the Ur III Period), in Akkadian by the name of Amurru, and in Egypt as Amar, all of which mean 'westerners' or 'those of the west', as does the Hebrew name Amorite. They worshipped their own pantheon of gods with a chief deity named Amurru (also known as Belu Sadi - 'Lord of the Mountains' whose wife, Belit-Seri was 'Lady of the Desert'), which also became a designation for the people as the Akkadians also referred to them as 'the people of Amurru' and to the region of Syria as 'Amurru'. There is no record of what the Amorites called themselves.
Nothing I can see to do with the migration involving the Indus Valley
Here I think the problem is the label itself. We refer to it today as the "Repeller of the Amorites", but indeed the intent, as described in Wikipedia anyway, of the wall was to stem movements of people from the north that would overwhelm the south. The following in a exerpt from the 4.2ky event page on Wikipedia. Note that the Gutians were not Amorites, so perhaps the term was used incorrectly.
The Akkadian Empire in 2300 BC was the second civilization to subsume independent societies into a single state (the first being ancient Egypt in around 3100 BC). It has been claimed that the collapse of the state was influenced by a wide-ranging, centuries-long drought.[45][46] Archaeological evidence documents widespread abandonment of the agricultural plains of northern Mesopotamia and dramatic influxes of refugees into southern Mesopotamia, around 2170 BC,[47] which may have weakened the Akkadian state.[48] A 180-km-long wall, the "Repeller of the Amorites", was built across central Mesopotamia to stem nomadic incursions to the south. Around 2150 BC, the Gutian people, who originally inhabited the Zagros Mountains, defeated the demoralised Akkadian army, took Akkad and destroyed it around 2115 BC. Widespread agricultural change in the Near East is visible at the end of the 3rd millennium BC.[49] Resettlement of the northern plains by smaller sedentary populations occurred near 1900 BC, three centuries after the collapse.[47]
Again I agree this does not, of itself, point to a migration involving a movement of peoples into the Indus Valley Civilization.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
That's what so many Germans thought of Hitler, you know.To you. To millions of Americans he is a Messiah
There is a good reason I rejected the shared words and names argument, because it ubiquitous with the languages throughout Eurasia going back to the Neolithic and can be related to trade, That is the reason I go with the understanding of the whole context of the evolution of human language. There is strong evidence that languages evolved naturally in their region, and exchanged words and names through trade over time. The more isolation the linguistic group the more unique the language group as in the East Asia languages are very different, but still evolved words and names exchanged with the West through trade.
India and Southeast Asia (Tamil language group) are relatively isolated from the Middle East, as the East Asian cultures (East Asian language Group) and naturally developed Regionally, and later evolved some common words and names through trade. I do not consider theTamil language Group as directly related to the Sumer language root, but influences over time through trade.
The region of the Middle East, Asia Minor and Egypt were less isolated and there was extensive exchange and sharing within these languages.
The concept of a "foreign land" is to vague, Foreign lands in scripture and other literary source can be easily explained within Asia Minor, Middle East and Northern Africa, which are related historically, archeologically, and genetically. During the 4.2 K drought Period it was cultures of the highlands in the North and West with extreme drought that invaded the Tigris Euphrates Valley, and were the reason for the 100 mile wall.
See above
The problem of the use of Amorites (Western Levant} and Gutians (Zagros Mountains) is the fact that they were nomadic tribes or cultures Invading the Akkadian Empire migrating out of the drought high country in the Western Canaanite Levant, and Zagros Mountains which suffered from extreme drought in the highlands.
OK facts related to the collapse of the Akkadian Empire due to the migration of nomadic tribes from the Western Levant and the Zagros Mountains due to the extreme drought in the Middle East.
Yes
Last edited: