The Massive Linguistic Ignorance

The lead of this thread, or an article cited near the beginning of it, says etymologists may link all back to one original language.

Those languages link in many ways, how else can they say they can link them all back to one original language?

Do you believe the Tower of Babel was a real historic event?
 
IceAgeCivilizations:

Of course not! It is the worse of the Old Testament myths! God pissed that they are reaching his house in the sky, comes down because he can't see through the clouds? Come now, I don't think ANYONE seriously thinks this pagan-derived myth (if there ever was a limited God it is this one) is real.

And by the way: The text that is linked to is a shitty version of Indo-European linguistics. Which supports the nonsensical "out of India" theory.

You will note it makes -no- mention to Hebrew, Chinese, Navajo, Aboriginee, Bantu...and for damn good reasons.
 
Google the articles of Clyde Winters on the linguistic commonalities among the languages, Barry Fell also, much evidence in the Americas of the linkages to the "Old World."

I'll take that as a no on the Tower of Babel question, and man, take some valium or something.
 
You do realize that Barry Fell is WIDELY discreditted, yes? The totality of the etymological community refutes every last one of his notions. They are also manifestly false.

Clyde Winters does not stand much better.
 
Prince, you seem to fancy yourself as quite the liguistic expert, so why the a-t-l suffixes and prefixes, which means water (Atlantic) in the Basque and Mexican languages?
 
And I know of no other myth but the Judeo-Christian one for Babel. I know of no correlate to it in the Germanic, Navajo, Bantu, et cetera, mythologies. If you have information I do not have, please share. Although myths do not equal history.

And last time I checked, "Atlantic" was neither a Basque nor ancient Mexican word. Also, I'd have you give me the information in regards to these similarities in language.
 
I should know that? Wow, so I guess Odin really made us from ashwood!

Praise be to the One-Eyed Wanderer!
 
I am certain that a Giant who held up the Earth and the King of the Titan and master of Time that ate his own children in order to prevent them from ascending to the throneship of the Titans, a demi-God Titan, and an ancient sea God are real people.

What's next? Achilles really was the son of a sea nymph? Julius Caesar was Venus' great grandson?
 
Posidon (Fathe Sidon) was Sidon, son of Canaan, the Cana'anu as the Phoenicians called themselves.

Chronus (means against nus/noah), Time Man, precession navigator, Ham of the Bible, samesakes Chambay, Cambodia, Chem-istry, Khem, Khemit, Egypt.

Atlas, son of Posidon, Gibraltar area, Atlantic ocean, Atlan of the Mexicans, Atland of the Dutch, Atlantioi to the Greeks.

Iapetos, Pra-japeti, Sesfef, Iafeth, Japheth (son of Noah), Javan (Iawan, Ionian) was Japheths son.

Read "After the Flood" by William Cooper.
 
Poseidon was no such thing - no etymological connection is there between he and Sidon. Moreover, you will note that Sidon and Poseidon have no characteristics next to one another.

SEriously, do you just go on "vaguest similarities imaginable"?

Chronos does not mean "against noah" it means "time". It is not "Ham". Ham and Chronos have no etymolgical connection at all. Chambay, Cambodia, Chemistry, Khem, and Kemet are non-related.

Atlas: Atlas was not the son of Poseidon.

From the Greek Mythological figure Atlas (see below), meaning "The Bearer (of the Heavens)", from tlenai, (to suffer, endure, bear).

Atlantic does come from this, because the Atlas mountains are the closest to the Atlantic. Moreover, your "Atlan" of the Mexicans has no etymological connection. "Tlan" does not a connection make.

You will also note that your Iapetos connection is utterly discreditted by every source. It comes from crap etymology made by evangelists and nothing more. No scholarly source agrees with it.
 
You will also note that the Greeks were not Jews. The Greeks are Indo-Europeans. Indo-Europeans do not share an ancestor with the Jews. If anything, they more likely share a closer ancestor with the Turkics, or Finno-Ugrics. The Aryan homeland is the Black Sea.
 
Ever notice how P.J. starts all His posts with "You will", You do", "You will also".?

Like He thinks he's some kind of a Jedi, waving his hand.....

Got news for him.
You're little minds trick don't work on someone with a soul.
Only equity.....
And that would be the truth......it has a certain "ring" to it.
That's the only true equity there is.

A child of God, will accept no substitute....
"My sheep hear My Voice, anothers they will not follow"
 
Last edited:
TheVisitor:

He split up mankind's belief in the one true God into many false gods, to use men's belief in those different gods as a motivating force for war.
Click to expand...

Mankind had no such belief and not all the peoples of the world lived near the tower.

Don't try to make it some ridiculous something, and then dismiss it upon your own observation made out of ignorance...or intentional deception, even worse yet.
Click to expand...

My good man, have you -read- the chapter? It litterally says God cannot see through the clouds, and the word "heaven" means "sky" in the story. The story is meant to be a litteral example of God being pissed that humanity is reaching him through building high and he is so impotent he cannot even see through water vapour.

All languages and religions come from one source, and the divergent religions were created as a deception to motivate man to create the first armies used for war...
The proof is available for all to see.
Read on.
Click to expand...

The proof is not there because what you are claiming is fantastical.

IceAgeCivilizations:

You are claiming that the Greeks are descendents of Noah. Noah's people went on to beget the Jews, no? Therefore, you are claiming a close proximity of Noah's son who created the Greeks with the Jews. But it is -known that this is not so-.
 
Here's a suggestion:

Cite mainstream and legitimate sources that back up your arguments. Argue from rigid, academic standards, and put forth mainstream views. Also consider the known origins of the peoples you discuss and throw in some knowledge about the stories of the Bible you reference.

When you do that, we can continue this conversation on a rational level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top