The ancient Egyptians were blacks!

sure I did-------I just happen to be fond of Gabriel and KNOW that he has no time for playing------academic cheating. Gabriel is in charge of all kinds of GUARD
MISSIONS-------and even a few hand to hand brawls
Yes, Gabriel was Michael's bodyguard on the trip to Sodom and Gomorrah and he is also the messenger to Abraham and Mary.

busy guy ------with important work-------I doubt he had much time to hang
out in a bat cave with an illiterate Bedouin in arabia
There are anthropological theories that Mo never existed but was invented by Zoroastrians in Egypt trying to reform Zoroastrianism. Hence they invented Islam -- sort of like the Protestant Reformation re-invented Catholicism.


Zoroastrians in Egypt invented MO? Maybe you are trying to say that
Zoroastrians in Arabia invented Mo (???)
Not Arabia. Arabs had not yet begun the Arab conquest.

It was either Egypt or Baghdad where Islam was invented out of the blue.

what are you calling "islam" -----something not related to the history detailed in the Koran?
 
Yes, Gabriel was Michael's bodyguard on the trip to Sodom and Gomorrah and he is also the messenger to Abraham and Mary.

busy guy ------with important work-------I doubt he had much time to hang
out in a bat cave with an illiterate Bedouin in arabia
There are anthropological theories that Mo never existed but was invented by Zoroastrians in Egypt trying to reform Zoroastrianism. Hence they invented Islam -- sort of like the Protestant Reformation re-invented Catholicism.


Zoroastrians in Egypt invented MO? Maybe you are trying to say that
Zoroastrians in Arabia invented Mo (???)
Not Arabia. Arabs had not yet begun the Arab conquest.

It was either Egypt or Baghdad where Islam was invented out of the blue.

what are you calling "islam" -----something not related to the history detailed in the Koran?
They have their fiction book called the Quran.

Their actual history is shrouded in Zoroastrianism however.

I don't know why the authors plagiarized Biblical names like "Gabriel" though. Allah was fine -- that's a good mythical and unique character who harkens back to Akkad. But "Gabriel" is pure plagiarism.
 
The fact is that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all monotheistic religions of Abrahamic origin, then Semitic/Saharasian.

Many biblical stories come from ancient Mesopotamian mythological legacies, like Lilith, the first Eve, but also the Garden of Eden comes from mythology Sumerian, the Great Flood has some similarities to the Babylonian myth of the epic of Gilgamesh and so on ...

The same is also true for most of the ancient pagan gods of Etruscan - Greek and Roman, which were introduced from Mesopotamia always.
 
The fact is that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all monotheistic religions of Abrahamic origin, then Semitic/Saharasian.

Many biblical stories come from ancient Mesopotamian mythological legacies, like Lilith, the first Eve, but also the Garden of Eden comes from mythology Sumerian, the Great Flood has some similarities to the Babylonian myth of the epic of Gilgamesh and so on ...

The same is also true for most of the ancient pagan gods of Etruscan - Greek and Roman, which were introduced from Mesopotamia always.
I don't think you know what a fact is.

Islam believes in Allah.

Judaism believes in YHVH.

Christianity believes in Dynamos, Iesous, and Pneuma Agia.

How good is your math?

Can you count to 3 ??
 
Yahweh, the Iddio and Allah, are merely three names for one and the same deity. The Bible and the Koran are derived from the Hebrew Torah, which is the text sacred par excellence that underpin the three main monotheistic religions.

They not at all the Abrahamic religions, are called such, precisely because their claim Abraham as the father of sacred history.

Even the orthodox religion is a branch which is part of the same plant.

.
 
the oldest indo European language is SANSKRIT
ALPHABET! FFS, AN ALPHABET IS NOT A LANGUAGE!

People spoke before they developed alphabets to symbolize speech.

Does anybody get this?!

you made no point-------the human brain ----WORLD WIDE----is so constructed that all HUMAN BRAINS have the capacity for spoken and even written language. ----Eventually ALL HUMANS do elaborate a language---spoken----and then in some ways SYMBOLIZED. As to evidence of language----old evidence is the written stuff------Sanskrit is the major precursor of INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES-----
Leaving aside that lunatic's rantings, get yourself better informed:

Proto-Indo-European language - Wikipedia

It really is a fascinating topic although much of it is still theory.

Written symbols have been around a while; languages like Sanskrit that are both spoken and written are what I would limit the discussion to.

It is reasonable in discussing ancient languages to discuss those that were
either written or recorded in someway AVAILABLE to us now------it works out
better

Some of the earliest symbol writings are only 'languages' in the sense that mathematics is a 'language', i.e. they were more about accounting and record keeping than for all around communication, which is why a distinction should be made in some cases. They aren't useful as story-telling methods or conveying abstract concepts or identification of ideas and culture. While such accounting can tell us a lot about what they ate or traded or whatever, they aren't useful for much else, any more than a business account book can describe an entire culture.
 
The DNA studies do not indicate that the ancient Egyptians were "BLACK"---or green or blue or white and pink

were certainly not European or proto European
The Europeans were Aryan who came from Aryana Afghanistan. From there they spread to Persia, India, Russia, and Europe.

We don't know where the Egyptians came from. It seems that they were always in Egypt as best history and archaeology tells us. They could have been dark like the Ethiopians or they could have been caramel like the Arabs and Berbers.

The Assyrians and Babylonians were yet a third group who came from the area of what is today Syria and Iraq.

Moses tells us a neat story in his Tenakh that these 3 groups are from the 3 sons of Noah (a mystical flood actor taken from the story of Gilgamesh) with their respective different racial wives. But where Moses got this story from he does not tell us. Moses was a storyteller not an historian nor an archaeologist or anthropologist.

It is not at all clear to me that Moses wrote the whole first five books. I do not
believe he just INVENTED stuff------the stuff in the first book seems to be
traditional belief-------lots of that a guy like Abraham would have brought from
"UR" ------somewhere in Iraq-----near the two rivers-----that it seems-----liked to flood the place now and them and------actually had a written language. The traditional belief is that Abraham was literate.-------
I DO believe Moses invented stuff. All evidence points to it.

We are told by himself and by Josephus that Moses was raised as a Prince Of Egypt and as such he would have been well educated by temple scribes. Moses seems to have adapted elements of ancient history prior to himself into his own stories -- their Gods, demons, a flood, river infanticide, and so forth. He mentions the Hittites and we have since discovered archaeology about the Hittites. He could not have made this up. And the Jews could not have made it up either.

Whether it was a sky god named YHVH or schizophrenia that compelled Moses to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt we will never know. But once he did it the Hebrews became quite hostile towards him and so he had to invent stories to keep them under control.

That he did.

Why would he have not used the 'known' history common to the culture he was raised and educated in? This isn't 'stealing', and not everything in the Bible is theology, much is history as they knew it then as well as religion and mythology. Does the U.S. have to invent a history fro France in order to fit it's own history? Would we be 'stealing' if our history of France matches a lot of what French historians accept as accurate? What is clear is the authors of these works were not morons nor idiots, they were very intelligent and very good at the use of literary devices and logic; it matters little to scholarship whether Moses himself wrote a single word, it is the concept that matters, and those books are deliberately designed to convey several levels of thought and greater lessons.

'Literalism' is not the same as 'Fundamentalism'; this is a distinction both religious fanatics and 'new atheists' both can't ever seem to make when it comes to explaining such a sophisticated theological treatise like the Old and New Testaments. These aren't stories by people who knew everything there was to know, nor are they ever portrayed as such. they are invariably portrayed as weak, 'sinful' people who have to be guided to 'greatness', and aren't Super Humans or Gods walking the Earth. This along with monotheism are the great intellectual leaps Judaism makes that distinguished it from the animists and other 'religions' in the region.
 
Last edited:
ALPHABET! FFS, AN ALPHABET IS NOT A LANGUAGE!

People spoke before they developed alphabets to symbolize speech.

Does anybody get this?!

you made no point-------the human brain ----WORLD WIDE----is so constructed that all HUMAN BRAINS have the capacity for spoken and even written language. ----Eventually ALL HUMANS do elaborate a language---spoken----and then in some ways SYMBOLIZED. As to evidence of language----old evidence is the written stuff------Sanskrit is the major precursor of INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES-----
Leaving aside that lunatic's rantings, get yourself better informed:

Proto-Indo-European language - Wikipedia

It really is a fascinating topic although much of it is still theory.

Written symbols have been around a while; languages like Sanskrit that are both spoken and written are what I would limit the discussion to.

It is reasonable in discussing ancient languages to discuss those that were
either written or recorded in someway AVAILABLE to us now------it works out
better

Some of the earliest symbol writings are only 'languages' in the sense that mathematics is a 'language', i.e. they were more about accounting and record keeping than for all around communication, which is why a distinction should be made in some cases. They aren't useful as story-telling methods or conveying abstract concepts or identification of ideas and culture. While such accounting can tell us a lot about what they ate or traded or whatever, they aren't useful for much else, any more than a business account book can describe an entire culture.

yes----very primitive manifestations of the use of symbols for record
keeping DO RELATE TO TRADE AND TIME AND RECORDS OF
"STUFF"------so? what is your point?. ------in fact----even that
stuff is mediated by the part of the brain that mediates language----
it;s all there POTENTIALLY-----even in pre-literate bedouins
 
busy guy ------with important work-------I doubt he had much time to hang
out in a bat cave with an illiterate Bedouin in arabia
There are anthropological theories that Mo never existed but was invented by Zoroastrians in Egypt trying to reform Zoroastrianism. Hence they invented Islam -- sort of like the Protestant Reformation re-invented Catholicism.


Zoroastrians in Egypt invented MO? Maybe you are trying to say that
Zoroastrians in Arabia invented Mo (???)
Not Arabia. Arabs had not yet begun the Arab conquest.

It was either Egypt or Baghdad where Islam was invented out of the blue.

what are you calling "islam" -----something not related to the history detailed in the Koran?
They have their fiction book called the Quran.

Their actual history is shrouded in Zoroastrianism however.

I don't know why the authors plagiarized Biblical names like "Gabriel" though. Allah was fine -- that's a good mythical and unique character who harkens back to Akkad. But "Gabriel" is pure plagiarism.

what does "their actual history is shrouded in Zorostrianism" mean ??????
 
There are anthropological theories that Mo never existed but was invented by Zoroastrians in Egypt trying to reform Zoroastrianism. Hence they invented Islam -- sort of like the Protestant Reformation re-invented Catholicism.


Zoroastrians in Egypt invented MO? Maybe you are trying to say that
Zoroastrians in Arabia invented Mo (???)
Not Arabia. Arabs had not yet begun the Arab conquest.

It was either Egypt or Baghdad where Islam was invented out of the blue.

what are you calling "islam" -----something not related to the history detailed in the Koran?
They have their fiction book called the Quran.

Their actual history is shrouded in Zoroastrianism however.

I don't know why the authors plagiarized Biblical names like "Gabriel" though. Allah was fine -- that's a good mythical and unique character who harkens back to Akkad. But "Gabriel" is pure plagiarism.

what does "their actual history is shrouded in Zorostrianism" mean ??????
Let's meet over a beer somewhere and I will explain it all to you.

:D
 
Yahweh, the Iddio and Allah, are merely three names for one and the same deity. The Bible and the Koran are derived from the Hebrew Torah, which is the text sacred par excellence that underpin the three main monotheistic religions.

They not at all the Abrahamic religions, are called such, precisely because their claim Abraham as the father of sacred history.

Even the orthodox religion is a branch which is part of the same plant.

.
YHVH and Dynamos yes, maybe.

Allah is a fictional character however.
 
Zoroastrians in Egypt invented MO? Maybe you are trying to say that
Zoroastrians in Arabia invented Mo (???)
Not Arabia. Arabs had not yet begun the Arab conquest.

It was either Egypt or Baghdad where Islam was invented out of the blue.

what are you calling "islam" -----something not related to the history detailed in the Koran?
They have their fiction book called the Quran.

Their actual history is shrouded in Zoroastrianism however.

I don't know why the authors plagiarized Biblical names like "Gabriel" though. Allah was fine -- that's a good mythical and unique character who harkens back to Akkad. But "Gabriel" is pure plagiarism.

what does "their actual history is shrouded in Zorostrianism" mean ??????
Let's meet over a beer somewhere and I will explain it all to you.

:D

I never drink beer------it tastes like dish detergent
 
Not Arabia. Arabs had not yet begun the Arab conquest.

It was either Egypt or Baghdad where Islam was invented out of the blue.

what are you calling "islam" -----something not related to the history detailed in the Koran?
They have their fiction book called the Quran.

Their actual history is shrouded in Zoroastrianism however.

I don't know why the authors plagiarized Biblical names like "Gabriel" though. Allah was fine -- that's a good mythical and unique character who harkens back to Akkad. But "Gabriel" is pure plagiarism.

what does "their actual history is shrouded in Zorostrianism" mean ??????
Let's meet over a beer somewhere and I will explain it all to you.

:D

I never drink beer------it tastes like dish detergent
Ok pinot noir, or pinot gregio then.
 
what are you calling "islam" -----something not related to the history detailed in the Koran?
They have their fiction book called the Quran.

Their actual history is shrouded in Zoroastrianism however.

I don't know why the authors plagiarized Biblical names like "Gabriel" though. Allah was fine -- that's a good mythical and unique character who harkens back to Akkad. But "Gabriel" is pure plagiarism.

what does "their actual history is shrouded in Zorostrianism" mean ??????
Let's meet over a beer somewhere and I will explain it all to you.

:D

I never drink beer------it tastes like dish detergent
Ok pinot noir, or pinot gregio then.

try hard----give me a hint on this "their actual history is shrouded in
Zoroastrianism" ------I do not find your assertion sensible. There were
some Zoroastrians in Arabia------after-all----mecca was on the "silk road"
at that time. The script that got developed for Arabic is derived from
Farsi script---------OK I assume your "their" is the arabs of Arabia----
the ones who developed islam------so you have written "the history of early
muslims is shrouded in Zoroastrianism" <?????>
 
A lot of modern archaeology and anthropology validates the existence of Moses. However we still don't know where he got his stories from. He did not properly document his sources. He could have, but it would have undermined his story about being an all powerful messenger of YHVH.

I do not remember him saying I AM AN ALL POWERFUL MESSENGER OF FOUR LETTERS, to wit YHVH Traditionally he is said to have communicated
DIRECTLY with "GOD" I do not believe that Moses authored the TORAH (ie first five books of the bible-----all by himself)
Well, like the Iliad and Odyssey, the Tenakh was probably embellished over the years. I won't disagree with you there.

But I also don't doubt that Moses created the framework for the first 5 books.

from where did you get the idea that Homer's Odyssey was altered over the
years? -----gotta link?
 
you made no point-------the human brain ----WORLD WIDE----is so constructed that all HUMAN BRAINS have the capacity for spoken and even written language. ----Eventually ALL HUMANS do elaborate a language---spoken----and then in some ways SYMBOLIZED. As to evidence of language----old evidence is the written stuff------Sanskrit is the major precursor of INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES-----
Leaving aside that lunatic's rantings, get yourself better informed:

Proto-Indo-European language - Wikipedia

It really is a fascinating topic although much of it is still theory.

Written symbols have been around a while; languages like Sanskrit that are both spoken and written are what I would limit the discussion to.

It is reasonable in discussing ancient languages to discuss those that were
either written or recorded in someway AVAILABLE to us now------it works out
better

Some of the earliest symbol writings are only 'languages' in the sense that mathematics is a 'language', i.e. they were more about accounting and record keeping than for all around communication, which is why a distinction should be made in some cases. They aren't useful as story-telling methods or conveying abstract concepts or identification of ideas and culture. While such accounting can tell us a lot about what they ate or traded or whatever, they aren't useful for much else, any more than a business account book can describe an entire culture.

yes----very primitive manifestations of the use of symbols for record
keeping DO RELATE TO TRADE AND TIME AND RECORDS OF
"STUFF"------so? what is your point?. ------in fact----even that
stuff is mediated by the part of the brain that mediates language----
it;s all there POTENTIALLY-----even in pre-literate bedouins

the 'point' is they aren't in the same league as a developed language like Sanskrit, and not useful outside of a narrow function; nobody wrote speeches, histories, or literature and the like with it. That 'point' should be obvious.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top