Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Tutankhamun's death & the birth of monotheism

tutankhamun monotheism hutan ashrafian

  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#76    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,010 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 18 October 2012 - 06:56 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 18 October 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

So now i see you throwing Ad Verecundiam.If some genticists are claiming that they know whether a gene has been native to a particular to a particular geographical area since antiquity just becasuse the current population living in that area has the particular gene/haplogroup then they should stick only to genetics studies which are empirical and not meddle in History and should not be writing the Inference.Like i said all you can determine by genetic studies is that whether two existing populations are related or not,how can you stick it to geographical regions without making major assumptions is still beyond my understanding especially without any archeological evidence.

You seem to be of the opinion that all genetics studies are only based on modern populations and samples, they're not. There are quite a few ancient DNA samples that have been tested and support geneticists assertions. That you seem to not know this, if not blatantly ignore it, is rather telling. Does that mean that they're always right? Of course not, but then the genetic map is adjusted as new or improved information is found.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#77    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 18 October 2012 - 07:42 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 18 October 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

You seem to be of the opinion that all genetics studies are only based on modern populations and samples, they're not. There are quite a few ancient DNA samples that have been tested and support geneticists assertions. That you seem to not know this, if not blatantly ignore it, is rather telling. Does that mean that they're always right? Of course not, but then the genetic map is adjusted as new or improved information is found.

cormac
First ounce of honesty regarding this topic from you.
I know "few" ancient DNA samples have been tested hence i asked you to give an approximate date whenever you state that a gene/haplogroup is native to a particular geographical region.The request was based on the testing of ancient DNA samples and not only modern DNA samples.
I am aware how often genetic maps i.e Migration theories are rectified and changed hence i stated previously in one of our discussions that we shouldn't state any current migration hypothesis based on genetic studies as "fact" but only as works in progress and neither we should deny any hypothesis as false.
Either ways i am happy that you acknowledged the posiibility of error in our present genetic maps and you didn't deny this time around that most population migration theories are based on genetic studies and often on baised assumptions and not on archeological evidence.


#78    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,010 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:58 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 18 October 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

First ounce of honesty regarding this topic from you.
I know "few" ancient DNA samples have been tested hence i asked you to give an approximate date whenever you state that a gene/haplogroup is native to a particular geographical region.The request was based on the testing of ancient DNA samples and not only modern DNA samples.
I am aware how often genetic maps i.e Migration theories are rectified and changed hence i stated previously in one of our discussions that we shouldn't state any current migration hypothesis based on genetic studies as "fact" but only as works in progress and neither we should deny any hypothesis as false.
Either ways i am happy that you acknowledged the posiibility of error in our present genetic maps and you didn't deny this time around that most population migration theories are based on genetic studies and often on baised assumptions and not on archeological evidence.

If you've actually read anything I've written in the past, I've always said they're based on the available evidence. Which you've never shown to be wrong. All you've ever done is state the equivalent of "Nuh uh". And the migrational charts that are based on these tests are not charts of specific populations such as Greeks, Jews, Egyptians, etc., but on the migration of the various haplogroups over time. That some haplogroups/subgroups can be associated with certain peoples has been shown in these studies. You've not shown this to be wrong either, but appear to believe that all opinions are equal. They're not. Those based on the available evidence take precedence over your objections. Disagreeing with these studies because you don't like what they say doesn't make them wrong. Prove them wrong or stop complaining about them.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#79    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,274 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 18 October 2012 - 10:51 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 18 October 2012 - 05:50 AM, said:

Modern nation of India is way smaller geographically as compared to pre 1 B.C India or Hindu Kush or Hindustan etc etc Basically we can end this confusion by calling Ancient India as a geographical expance following Vedic culture in the Indian subcontinent.The reason why we can consider it as an ancient country is because there were several Hindu kings who had kingdoms that spanned the entire sub continent effectively.
I believe that the Greeks had to know of India and i don't feel that Alexander would have come along to find a Sea with so many men.Though i know he believed that he could sail back to Greece from the Eastern ocean but i believe he very well knew of India before he set out for it.
But i would sure like to know how you have dated the greek myths of hercules and dinosys in the East?

I certainly haven't dated the myths that way. Scholars in Hellenistic studies have determined this. I can't quote sources and page numbers off the top of my head (I'm at work) but I would recommend papers and other literature written by experts like Kenneth Harl. I've learned from them.

Ask yourself objectively: How would Greeks have known of the subcontinent of India prior to the time of Alexander? Very few Greeks had even been that far east, aside from the occasional few in the employ of the Persian empire.

Heredotus' "world map" is a good example:

Posted Image

Herodotus was more worldly and educated than most Greeks, and he identifies India ("Indi" on the map) in the Hindu Kush region. The Indus River Valley marks the easternmost extent of Greek knowledge, and much of that was theoretical in their minds. The modern name "India" comes from Indus, of course. You're right that all sorts of feudal kingdoms existed in the subcontinent in the time of Alexander, but Alexander wasn't aware of them. In the minds of Herodotus and other Greeks, beyond the Indus River Valley was not a subcontinent but the Mare Erythraeum, the Erythraean Sea.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#80    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,274 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 18 October 2012 - 10:53 PM

Now, as a Moderator: we've strayed considerably off course in this discussion, which is supposed to be about Tutankhamun and the birth of monotheism. Please keep to the topic or I will be forced to close this thread. What we've been debating recently is quite interesting but not relevant to the topic. I'd invite anyone who wishes to continue this topic, to start a new discussion.

Thank you.

Edited by kmt_sesh, 18 October 2012 - 10:55 PM.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#81    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 19 October 2012 - 06:34 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 18 October 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

If you've actually read anything I've written in the past, I've always said they're based on the available evidence. Which you've never shown to be wrong. All you've ever done is state the equivalent of "Nuh uh". And the migrational charts that are based on these tests are not charts of specific populations such as Greeks, Jews, Egyptians, etc., but on the migration of the various haplogroups over time. That some haplogroups/subgroups can be associated with certain peoples has been shown in these studies. You've not shown this to be wrong either, but appear to believe that all opinions are equal. They're not. Those based on the available evidence take precedence over your objections. Disagreeing with these studies because you don't like what they say doesn't make them wrong. Prove them wrong or stop complaining about them.

cormac
I have said again and agian that the available evidence is inconclusive and have given you my reasoning for the same.I have not shown things to be wrong but inconclusive,until genetic information from the past is catalogued more it is difficult to say which popoulation migrated from where and which haplogroup is native to which place,at present the genetic information in most cases can only speak for existing populations and not ancient populations.Archeological evidence has to confer with these ancient migrations and genetic studies for these migration theories to hold any salt and in absence of archeological evidence these migration theories are all but figments of imagination.
BTW-you have not shown that you are right either.

Back to the topic.


#82    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 19 October 2012 - 06:36 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 18 October 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

Now, as a Moderator: we've strayed considerably off course in this discussion, which is supposed to be about Tutankhamun and the birth of monotheism. Please keep to the topic or I will be forced to close this thread. What we've been debating recently is quite interesting but not relevant to the topic. I'd invite anyone who wishes to continue this topic, to start a new discussion.

Thank you.
I believe monotheism(monism) was born before Tutankhamen and not in Egypt.Though i agree we are going on a tangent.


#83    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 19 October 2012 - 06:55 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 18 October 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

I certainly haven't dated the myths that way. Scholars in Hellenistic studies have determined this. I can't quote sources and page numbers off the top of my head (I'm at work) but I would recommend papers and other literature written by experts like Kenneth Harl. I've learned from them.

Ask yourself objectively: How would Greeks have known of the subcontinent of India prior to the time of Alexander? Very few Greeks had even been that far east, aside from the occasional few in the employ of the Persian empire.

Heredotus' "world map" is a good example:

Posted Image

Herodotus was more worldly and educated than most Greeks, and he identifies India ("Indi" on the map) in the Hindu Kush region. The Indus River Valley marks the easternmost extent of Greek knowledge, and much of that was theoretical in their minds. The modern name "India" comes from Indus, of course. You're right that all sorts of feudal kingdoms existed in the subcontinent in the time of Alexander, but Alexander wasn't aware of them. In the minds of Herodotus and other Greeks, beyond the Indus River Valley was not a subcontinent but the Mare Erythraeum, the Erythraean Sea.
You asked a question and yourself provided the answer.Greeks could have known India through travellers/greek scholars employed by Persians,we can also not deny that there could have been contact between the two culture even centuries before Aristotle and hence the myths of Heracles (hari coolesh?) and dionysis (Shiva like deity?)travelling to the East,the Seuz canal not being silted could have provided the access route for seafarers from IVC to the Agean and vica versa,there is geological evidence to suggest that the seuz canal was not silted up in the past.


#84    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 19 October 2012 - 06:59 AM

Akhnaten was not a monotheist if you want to be strict in the use of the term.

He did not believe in only one god, he just believed that Ra was superior to all others and he'd really prefer it if you forgot about them.

Tut was a pawn I think  and very much in the hands of the priests of Amun. He was not a monotheist either.

As to his death, I think the broken leg and infection would be the likely cause.


#85    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:52 AM

View PostAntilles, on 19 October 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

Akhnaten was not a monotheist if you want to be strict in the use of the term.

He did not believe in only one god, he just believed that Ra was superior to all others and he'd really prefer it if you forgot about them.

Tut was a pawn I think  and very much in the hands of the priests of Amun. He was not a monotheist either.

As to his death, I think the broken leg and infection would be the likely cause.
Monotheism was born in India where a superlative consciousness called brhman is considered God,the pantheon and various other Gods in Hinduism are manifestations of 'Brhman'(not to be confused with Brahmin),the rest of the so called monotheistic religions only choose one amongst the pantheon as the supreme. Yahweh,Allah (moon god/hubal) had contempories and were elevated by respective populations as Supreme so these religions are not in the strictest sense monotheistic but rather theosupremacist in nature.Though they worship one God but these belief was reached by considering 'A' God to be supreme and worthy of worship.


#86    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 19 October 2012 - 01:14 PM

The term henotheist has been used by some to describe Akhenaten, yet IMO, this only describes what would have been a transitory phase between belief in the traditional Egyptian pantheon, and belief in Aten as "God". There just isn't enough evidence to come to any definitive conclusion about what he actually believed, we all have our own theories about him, that sometimes coincide, and sometimes most certainly do not. I think that he was a genuine monotheist, believing that Aten was God and, that Ra-Horakhty/Atum etc, were simply manifestations of Aten, much as Christianity has it's trinity of Father, Son and Holy ghost, and nobody seriously denies that Christianity is not monotheist (arguments about role of saints aside :) ).

Now, though I personally see Ra-Horakhty, Horus/Khonsu, as being the force behind Aten, I think Akhenaten had become fixated by Aten and, essentially, he was simply worshipping the Sun, from which we have come, and without which we cannot survive. In his time, without our knowledge of the universe, worship of the Sun as "God", is the same as monotheism, the same impulses are at work.

About the first monotheists. I believe that religion began as being monotheist (Sun worship) and, over the millenia people invented a heap of lesser gods to fill their various religious needs. Hints at this are clear in the old religions of Europe. I take as one example the Norse god Tyr. His name, and it's other Germanic variants, is a variant of latin deus, and so from the original Indo-European word for God. Tyr (and variants) was the original great god of Germanic peoples. Yet over time he became relegated to a lesser position, though an echo of his true position is retained in Tuesday, which is essentially "God-day". Far back in time there was just one god for all Indo-Europeans. Likely this is similar for most, if not all, peoples, and religions that ended up with a large and colourful pantheon, in what ever part of the world they lived in. Seems we have come full circle.

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri, 19 October 2012 - 01:27 PM.


#87    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,274 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 20 October 2012 - 05:02 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 19 October 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

You asked a question and yourself provided the answer.Greeks could have known India through travellers/greek scholars employed by Persians,we can also not deny that there could have been contact between the two culture even centuries before Aristotle and hence the myths of Heracles (hari coolesh?) and dionysis (Shiva like deity?)travelling to the East,the Seuz canal not being silted could have provided the access route for seafarers from IVC to the Agean and vica versa,there is geological evidence to suggest that the seuz canal was not silted up in the past.

The Greeks in the employ of the Persians were not travelers or scholars, they were mercenaries. While we can say with certainty that the early Persian rulers dominated and interacted with Indic peoples in the Hindu-Kush, my previous statements about some Greek mercenaries going as far as the Hindu Kush was just that—my own statement, not a statement of historical fact. I was only speculating, in other words. I'm not sure how much veracity my statement would have, anyway. Greek mercenaries in the employ of Persia were not common until the end of the fifth century BCE, anyway.

This was following the Peloponnesian War when lots of Greek soldiers were free for hire (see Xenophon and the Anabasis, for example). By this point in time, however, Persian dominion in the eastern territories was already slipping. By the time of Alexander the Great, Persia had long lost its hold on the Hindu Kush, so it's considerably unlikely that Greeks had ventured that far to the east in several generations, if at all.

I again must emphasize "India" in the Greek mind. It was not the modern country of the subcontinent but the Hindu Kush. Heredotus' own map makes that abundantly clear. Note that he shows an ocean expanding endlessly to the east of the Indus Valley region, where we now know the subcontinent to be. Herodotus lived in the fifth century BCE and travelled more extensively than most people of that time. If you can't see the map for what it shows, I suppose I will only be caused to keep reminding you of it.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 19 October 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

Monotheism was born in India where a superlative consciousness called brhman is considered God,the pantheon and various other Gods in Hinduism are manifestations of 'Brhman'(not to be confused with Brahmin),the rest of the so called monotheistic religions only choose one amongst the pantheon as the supreme. Yahweh,Allah (moon god/hubal) had contempories and were elevated by respective populations as Supreme so these religions are not in the strictest sense monotheistic but rather theosupremacist in nature.Though they worship one God but these belief was reached by considering 'A' God to be supreme and worthy of worship.

The entire Vedic culture cannot be dated with any certainty as far back as Tutankhamun's time. At most it is speculated to have perhaps begun to form around the thirteenth century BCE, around a century after Tut's time. What exactly the beginnings of the Vedic culture expressed in thought or belief cannot be known to any realistic degree because it was not put to writing until the fourth century BCE.

I'd wager that most of us who study ancient Egypt no longer believe that Tut was the son of Akhenaten, but he was certainly at least of a direct collateral branch. That being said, the religion of Atenism which Akhenaten fostered as the state religion did, by all appearances, become a monotheistic faith by late in his reign. This is evidenced in the later artwork of his reign, which shows no other deities but the Aten, as well as in texts like the Great Hymn to the Aten which describes the deity as the "sole god."

No respected and vetted scholar of historical or religious studies of whom I'm aware would date Hinduism to a time prior to Akhenaten (fourteenth century BCE).

The case with the cult of Yahweh can perhaps be argued to a greater extent. If you're trying to argue that Judaism did not become truly monotheistic, you're quite obviously mistaken. Such a statement would be nonsensical, but I'm not sure if I'm reading your comments correctly. However, when Judaism became truly monotheistic is the question. By all appearances this probably happened as early as the sixth century BCE, in the post-exilic period, when Cyrus the Great freed the Jews from captivity in Babylon. Jewish interaction with the Persian elite religion of Zoroastrianism perhaps had much to do with the Judaic transformation from henotheism to monotheism. We cannot state this for a fact but the later developments of Judaism (later meaning last centuries BCE) seem to indicate the possibility. It's not as though the Temple priests were going to credit Zoroastrianism with this transition, but the Old Testament certainly bears a lot of praise for Cyrus the Great.

Editing to add: Considering that the topic of this thread is Tutankhamun and the birth of monotheism, the course the discussion is now taking is, in my opinion, back on track. I see no problem with what we're discussing now.

Edited by kmt_sesh, 20 October 2012 - 05:04 AM.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#88    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 20 October 2012 - 06:07 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 20 October 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

The Greeks in the employ of the Persians were not travelers or scholars, they were mercenaries. While we can say with certainty that the early Persian rulers dominated and interacted with Indic peoples in the Hindu-Kush, my previous statements about some Greek mercenaries going as far as the Hindu Kush was just that—my own statement, not a statement of historical fact. I was only speculating, in other words. I'm not sure how much veracity my statement would have, anyway. Greek mercenaries in the employ of Persia were not common until the end of the fifth century BCE, anyway.

This was following the Peloponnesian War when lots of Greek soldiers were free for hire (see Xenophon and the Anabasis, for example). By this point in time, however, Persian dominion in the eastern territories was already slipping. By the time of Alexander the Great, Persia had long lost its hold on the Hindu Kush, so it's considerably unlikely that Greeks had ventured that far to the east in several generations, if at all.

I again must emphasize "India" in the Greek mind. It was not the modern country of the subcontinent but the Hindu Kush. Heredotus' own map makes that abundantly clear. Note that he shows an ocean expanding endlessly to the east of the Indus Valley region, where we now know the subcontinent to be. Herodotus lived in the fifth century BCE and travelled more extensively than most people of that time. If you can't see the map for what it shows, I suppose I will only be caused to keep reminding you of it.



The entire Vedic culture cannot be dated with any certainty as far back as Tutankhamun's time. At most it is speculated to have perhaps begun to form around the thirteenth century BCE, around a century after Tut's time. What exactly the beginnings of the Vedic culture expressed in thought or belief cannot be known to any realistic degree because it was not put to writing until the fourth century BCE.

I'd wager that most of us who study ancient Egypt no longer believe that Tut was the son of Akhenaten, but he was certainly at least of a direct collateral branch. That being said, the religion of Atenism which Akhenaten fostered as the state religion did, by all appearances, become a monotheistic faith by late in his reign. This is evidenced in the later artwork of his reign, which shows no other deities but the Aten, as well as in texts like the Great Hymn to the Aten which describes the deity as the "sole god."

No respected and vetted scholar of historical or religious studies of whom I'm aware would date Hinduism to a time prior to Akhenaten (fourteenth century BCE).

The case with the cult of Yahweh can perhaps be argued to a greater extent. If you're trying to argue that Judaism did not become truly monotheistic, you're quite obviously mistaken. Such a statement would be nonsensical, but I'm not sure if I'm reading your comments correctly. However, when Judaism became truly monotheistic is the question. By all appearances this probably happened as early as the sixth century BCE, in the post-exilic period, when Cyrus the Great freed the Jews from captivity in Babylon. Jewish interaction with the Persian elite religion of Zoroastrianism perhaps had much to do with the Judaic transformation from henotheism to monotheism. We cannot state this for a fact but the later developments of Judaism (later meaning last centuries BCE) seem to indicate the possibility. It's not as though the Temple priests were going to credit Zoroastrianism with this transition, but the Old Testament certainly bears a lot of praise for Cyrus the Great.

Editing to add: Considering that the topic of this thread is Tutankhamun and the birth of monotheism, the course the discussion is now taking is, in my opinion, back on track. I see no problem with what we're discussing now.

http://en.wikipedia..../Zoroastrianism

Zorastrianism formerly the worlds largest religion(?) was based on deities that were considered negative in Hinduism (Asuras/Ahura Mazda) and the hindu deities (daevas) were considered negative by zoratrians.The vedas and vedic mythology speaks of a continous war/struggle between the Daevas and the Asuras in great detail,this is good evidence that the Zorastrians/Persians had a lot of cultural awareness and probably a lot of contact with the Vedic Indians,much before Aristotles time.And if the Greeks had contact with Persians/Zorastrians they would have definitely known about Ancient India(Vedic India) since the Zorastrian and Vedic culture had a lot of cultural/mythological connections which are very apparent.
Conventional date of Zorastrianism was pre 600 B.C. and hence it predates Herodotus.All we need to ask then that did the Greeks have contact with Persians/Zorastrians pre 600 B.C.,since the persians/zorastrians definitely knew and had a lot of contact and awareness of the Hindus.
Regarding dating of Vedas and Hinduism only people who have helped in propogating 1400 B.C. as the date for the Vedic culture are the one's supporting Aryan invasion theory.Initially it was Max Mueller who suggested the date but later recanted it after further studies and now Biased idoit linguists like Witzel are the one'e who are insisting on the 1400 B.C. date to support their Aryans invasion/migration Hypothesis.There is absolutely no proof from any quarter that the Aryans migrated to India and brought the Vedas to India in any way suggested by Witzel,and if he acknowledges the Vedas to be older then 1400 B.C, his Aryan migration/invasion theory goes to the dumps (he suggested a date of 1500 B.C. for Ayran invasion and the introduction of Vedic culture which was introduced by the Aryans in the Indian subcontinent)

Witzel dates the Vedas to 1400 B.C. and there are many who date the Vedas to be older even pre Indus Valley Civilization since there is no mention of the IVC or Bricks which were common at the time of 1500 B.C. in the Vedas, this is a good reason to date the Vedas pre IVC.There are many Vedic motiffs in the IVC artifacts and there is good reason to believe that the IVC were vedic.Other then the Vedas there is no real culture that can be attributed to the IVC.

Modern research is pushing the date of the creation of Vedas futher back,as much as 4000 B.C.There is no real reason to date the Vedas to 1400 B.C. other then to asssert that the Aryans migrated and peacefully wiped of the native culture and imposed the Vedic culture on the natives (also chanigng place names without invasion),the only reason to date the Vedas to 1400 B.C is to serve the purpose of the Aryans bringing the Vedas to India.Archeologist support that there has been cultural continuity in India since last 7000/8000 years with no signs of large/small hordes invading from the North West and aggresively propogating their culture (i.e passive invasion).There is no proof to date the Vedas to 1400 B.C. other then to suggest that the Aryans got them to India around 1400 B.C. for which there is no proof again.

Regarding Judaism being truely monotheistic at present was never contested,i was talking about the origins,Judaism originated as the Theosupremacist and the people following Yahweh were the chosen ones (Zionists).

P.S.-Few links that talk about Indigenous origins of Rig Veda and also shortly of the dating.Witzel's stupid assertions are destroyed.Witzel is the only Bigot linguist who is not doubting the conventional dating rest of the Indologists have a more open mind now especially after the satellite imaging of the Saraswati river basin(long thought to be a myth in the Vedas now confimed that it dissappeared aroung 2000 B.C.)
http://www.omilosmel...ndology/IIR.pdf
http://www.omilosmel...Final Reply.pdf

The respected scholars you talk about are only parroting Witzel/Max Mueller(though he later doubted his own hypothesis).


#89    Clobhair-cean

Clobhair-cean

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,145 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Budapest

Posted 20 October 2012 - 06:17 AM

Please note, dear readers, that here Harsh is claiming that the Asuras are associated with the Zoroastrians/Persians. In a previous thread, he said that they were the Mayans.


#90    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 20 October 2012 - 06:37 AM

View PostClobhair-cean, on 20 October 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

Please note, dear readers, that here Harsh is claiming that the Asuras are associated with the Zoroastrians/Persians. In a previous thread, he said that they were the Mayans.
Please not everybody that i said the Mayans followed Venus to map their calender and the Indians followed Jupiter to map their calender.And also the vedas mentioned that the Asuras followed shukracharya (venus) and the Daevas followe Brihaspati (Jupiter).
Never claimed that the Zorastrians are Asura's,only said that they worshipped Asuras and detested Daevas.But Clob can't seem to understand simple statements,there are still Zorastrians alive who worship deities called 'Asuras'/Ahura

Clob has been trying hard to prove that i am a liar,but hasn't been working yet.Clob has a thick skull and can't read straight.But i like the fact that he is trying,lol.

"12.My astonishment was not with the fact that ancient people could see venus but it was with the fact that Vedas mention the Asuras who live on the opposite side of the world as opposed to the Devas used to follow Venus and the devas used to follow Jupiter."
http://www.unexplain...h&fromMainBar=1

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 20 October 2012 - 06:38 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users