Greetings from a Hindu: bringing good tidings from Krishna.

[GanduHindu]

First of all, congratulations on Donald Trump becoming the U.S. President again. I guess he's very popular now. I don't get much time to watch the news, but if mentioning that makes a good first impression with American Christians, why not?

I was just going through the forum rules, and here's my introduction. I'll try to keep it brief, considering many of you might be busy. I don't want to be an inconvenience. I was looking for an online forum to chat and interact with Western Christians, and a bit of Google searching led me to Landoverbaptist. I went through some of the threads. It seems you have strong opinions about the Bible and upholding Christian values, which is really nice. I would love to understand what Christian values really mean in a mercantile nation like America.

As per the forum rules, my favorite Bible verse is Luke 12:16-20. It's a very wise saying, I must admit. Instead of working yourself to death and storing things up, God wants you to pursue some kind of passive income scheme and then spend all of it. (For godly purposes, I suppose.)

I don't know if it's of any interest to anyone, but I probably need to list some hobbies here. I enjoy traveling and have moved around quite a bit, visiting as many as 30 different countries. Granted, more than half of them were in Europe, so that kind of counting doesn't sound very sincere. Anyway, I haven't been to the land of money called 'America,' so my traveling experiences are definitely incomplete. I don't think you've truly traveled if you haven't been to America. Asian countries are OK, but America should be the number one destination.

Unfortunately, my country is the number three source of illegal immigrants to the U.S.A. That makes me feel a bit ashamed, but it's understandable. Weren't the Israelites in Joseph's time hungry, and they left their nation for Egypt?

[handmaiden]

Dear Gandy; I admit that I haven't read your post. It's just that I find young ladies named, Kristin, Kirsten and Krishna rather tiresome. That goes for Caitlyns, Kaitlyns and Katelyns, as well.

[GanduHindu]

Dear Gandy; I admit that I haven't read your post. It's just that I find young ladies named, Kristin, Kirsten and Krishna rather tiresome. That goes for Caitlyns, Kaitlyns and Katelyns, as well.

Namaste.

You seem to confuse Krishna, the Hindu God who sustains the universe, with various American names.

However, this doesn't offend me or anyone else.

You're right about Mahatma Gandhi. He was the one who offered the sage advice to turn the other cheek when an enemy strikes you. He might have plagiarized that idea from Jesus Christ.

[GanduHindu]

Dear Gandy; I admit that I haven't read your post. It's just that I find young ladies named, Kristin, Kirsten and Krishna rather tiresome. That goes for Caitlyns, Kaitlyns and Katelyns, as well.

I'm a gentleman.

Unlike America, which I read in the news has multiple genders, we have only two genders in my country: male and female. I am male, and I apologize if my long hair has caused any confusion.

I thought Jesus had long hair too, so I wouldn't be out of place on that one, would I?

Anyway, it's all water under the bridge

[Romeo Rovagnati]

Greetings from your friendly Catholic priest (even tough the Jesuits were less friendly with your people back then).

It's nice to see a person coming from the country that gave us such a great Saint like Mother Theresa of Calcutta.

Hinduism, to me and to the self-declared "TC" on this forums, is nothing new. We had Mrs. Harsha Shah occasionally showing her curry breath on these forums. (Even tough some said to me that she is actually a Jain, but what's the difference anyway? )

Anyway, I know that the questions that someone here would ask you are about your favorite Bible verse (from the outdated King James translation) the church you attend and how did you find Jesus. But since you're not Christian, I'll ask you these three questions instead :

1) Your favorite verse from any of your sacred texts (I know you have many).

2) Which temple do you attend

3) How did you chose the deity to which you are devoted?

Also, I know that Protestant Churches feels empty, but have you tried going to a Catholic Church? It may be a better experience!

[GanduHindu]

Greetings from your friendly Catholic priest (even tough the Jesuits were less friendly with your people back then).

That happened 500 years ago in Goa. It's mostly water under the bridge now. Very few Indians are even aware of the Inquisitions and that history. Let's move on.

We mostly reserve our resentment for the British, though we share a common passion for tea and cricket. I don't think that would be of much interest to you Italians

It's nice to see a person coming from the country that gave us such a great Saint like Mother Theresa of Calcutta.

I was a young man when she passed away. I do not understand the Catholic procedure to elect saints, and the miracles criteria. But I am all ears if you want to spare time to explain how that thing works?

I have the deepest regard for Mother Teresa. Some Indians accuse her of horrible things, and that pains me. If you don't mind, I'd like to compare her with Mahatma Gandhi. Both lived lives of self-sacrifice and endured deep pain and suffering. Although their faiths were different and they never met each other, there was a lot of common ground between them. Now, let's move on to the next topic, which might delight you—or maybe not.

Hinduism, to me and to the self-declared "TC" on this forums, is nothing new. We had Mrs. Harsha Shah occasionally showing her curry breath on these forums. (Even tough some said to me that she is actually a Jain, but what's the difference anyway? )

Jains are Hindus. They're just wackos who think they're different from us. Doesn't matter and the distinction is not important. "Shah" sounds like a Jain, all right from Gujarat. The same goes with Sikhs and even Buddhists. They're all a part of the Hindu fold although they would live in denial.

Anyway, I know that the questions that someone here would ask you are about your favorite Bible verse (from the outdated King James translation) the church you attend and how did you find Jesus. But since you're not Christian, I'll ask you these three questions instead :

Sure, fire on.

1) Your favorite verse from any of your sacred texts (I know you have many).

I'll stick with the Bhagavad Gita, as it's the most widely accepted and irrefutable canon among all Hindus. While I cherish all of it, let me share one verse as you requested

नैनं छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राणि नैनं दहति पावकः । न चैनं क्लेदयन्त्यापो न शोषयति मारुतः ॥
2:23

Transliteration: nainaṁ chhindanti śhastrāṇi nainaṁ dahati pāvakaḥ
na chainaṁ kledayantyāpo na śhoṣhayati mārutaḥ

Meaning: The soul is immortal. It cannot be shattered by weapons, burned by fire, drenched by waters, or dried off by the wind.

What I mainly appreciate about this verse is its perfect poetic meter. To fully appreciate it, you need to know Sanskrit. While almost all of the Gita is set to a melodious rhythm created by the natural sounds of the words, some verses are particularly pleasing to the ear. It sounds very beautiful, but you need to understand Sanskrit; otherwise, it won't make sense to you. As an Italian, you might be aware of the Gregorian chant. The perfect balance of symphony and operatic voice is integral to Italy's liturgical traditions.

In brief summary, I love the sound of it, and I enjoy pronouncing it on a daily basis. This is not the only sacred verse. There's many of them. But you asked for only one.

But I've been told Bhagavad Gita is not welcome on this forum. I only produced the above verse because you specifically requested for it. We Hindus do not proselytize. We mostly keep our beliefs and traditions private.

2) Which temple do you attend

Any Vishnu temple would do. Angor Wat, for example. But again it's a vast topic. I cannot cover it properly without being given the permission by the moderators here. If they do not like Hinduism, they're entitled to their opinion. I do not intend to change their beliefs.

3) How did you chose the deity to which you are devoted?

A fundamental mistake which many Westerners make is that they think Hinduism is polytheistic. It can be more monotheistic. Core Hindu beliefs subscribe to the theory of absolutely One God, which can be called Paramatma (which literally means Supreme Soul.)

This would require a lot of explanation, and I can see that the forum is very hostile to Hinduism. If you want, you can send me a private message, and I would be happy to answer your queries there. I do not wish to impose my beliefs on the crowd here; I am rather here to understand their beliefs. They are entitled to dislike Hinduism—it's their right.

QUOTE=Romeo Rovagnati;n2071204]
Also, I know that Protestant Churches feels empty, but have you tried going to a Catholic Church? It may be a better experience!

[/QUOTE]

I do not wish to compare the denominations of Christianity, as it's not my place to do so as a non-Christian. However, since you mentioned it, I'll let you know that I really appreciate the atmosphere of Roman Catholic churches. I have attended many Masses as a visitor, and it was always a pleasure to visit the Church of St. Francis Xavier in Goa. For me, the biggest draw is the awe-inspiring architecture. I liked the stained glass windows of the Florence Cathedral, and I really enjoyed visiting the Vatican as a tourist. And I'm not saying all this to play nice with you; I don't even know you. But I do feel very relaxed and happy inside a Catholic church for some reason. It's perhaps the thousands of years of history and culture. Please consider me an admirer from a distance, nothing more.

Protestant churches, I don't know much about them except they have a very spartan ambience. They take their Bible study very seriously. Again, I'm not trying to compare. I only said I've had way more exposure in Catholic surroundings than Protestant.

[MitzaLizalor]

It's nice to see a person coming from the country that gave us such a great Saint like Mother Theresa* of Calcutta.

I thought she was Albanian?

.

Also, I know that Protestant Churches feels empty, but have you tried going to a Catholic Church?

I Timothy 2:14 – 3:2 Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she* shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach

I'm not exactly sure how Mother Theresa became eligible for Salvation, let alone any higher status, especially since those pronouncing on the topic aren't even eligible to be bishops! Remind me: how many wives do they have? In any event, your process of conjuring "saints" is not so much an award as a disbarment, contradicting the following Scripture:

Psalm 50:5-6 Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice. And the heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God is judge himself. Selah.

This is an example of where a double negative—in this case a double negation of Scripture—nevertheless remains false. First negation, saints are defined in the psalm as those having accepted God's covenant; in the case of Christians that means accepting the covenant of Christ's sacrifice. Second negation, the judge of whether His covenant has been accepted is God Himself. To say that Mother Theresa or Thomas More or plastic Rita (RIGHT) are saints is to say that others are not. You may suggest that after a million years or so, all current Christians would be elevated. But then-living persons would remain debarred and further, God is explicit that actual saints are very much alive in the here and now:

Philippians 4:21-22 Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren which are with me greet you. All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar's household.

To salute a saint does not mean to obsess over a statue of one. It's more of a "hail fellow well met" sort of thing. And the saints are alive. How do we know? Because some of them are employed by Caesar (or related to him) a family not noted for intercourse with phantasms, rather the reverse if Julius' very concrete modus operandi is anything to go by. I pray that this is helpful for you, particularly in light of distinctions being drawn between the catholic and protestant denominations. Or more particularly, their buildings. Baptists of course predate both, being the only type of Christian acknowledged in The Bible.

[GanduHindu]

I thought she was Albanian?

.

I Timothy 2:14 – 3:2 Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she* shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach

I'm not exactly sure how Mother Theresa became eligible for Salvation, let alone any higher status, especially since those pronouncing on the topic aren't even eligible to be bishops! Remind me: how many wives do they have? In any event, your process of conjuring "saints" is not so much an award as a disbarment, contradicting the following Scripture:

Psalm 50:5-6 Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice. And the heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God is judge himself. Selah.

This is an example of where a double negative—in this case a double negation of Scripture—nevertheless remains false. First negation, saints are defined in the psalm as those having accepted God's covenant; in the case of Christians that means accepting the covenant of Christ's sacrifice. Second negation, the judge of whether His covenant has been accepted is God Himself. To say that Mother Theresa or Thomas More or plastic Rita (RIGHT) are saints is to say that others are not. You may suggest that after a million years or so, all current Christians would be elevated. But then-living persons would remain debarred and further, God is explicit that actual saints are very much alive in the here and now:

Philippians 4:21-22 Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren which are with me greet you. All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar's household.

To salute a saint does not mean to obsess over a statue of one. It's more of a "hail fellow well met" sort of thing. And the saints are alive. How do we know? Because some of them are employed by Caesar (or related to him) a family not noted for intercourse with phantasms, rather the reverse if Julius' very concrete modus operandi is anything to go by. I pray that this is helpful for you, particularly in light of distinctions being drawn between the catholic and protestant denominations. Or more particularly, their buildings. Baptists of course predate both, being the only type of Christian acknowledged in The Bible.

I like your interesting arguments. I do have a question, not for you specifically, but for the Roman Jesuit priest on this thread and possibly other members. I find a surprising degree of similarities between Catholic and Hindu beliefs and practices, which is beyond bizarre.

These similarities appear to be more than just a coincidence. Since Hinduism predates Catholicism, I think Catholicism may have borrowed from our traditions. But if it's a remarkable coincidence engineered by God, then I'd say Catholicism is pretty great. I would sign up in a heartbeat. I've always kind of liked the Pope, and I count many Catholics among my acquaintances and friends.

In the Indian states of Goa, Karnataka, and Kerala, Catholic-Hindu marriages are surprisingly common. I don't see any conflicts between the couples and their families. There's so much happy coexistence that it feels heartwarming to me. I have personally officiated as the priest (for the Hindu side of the rituals) at a few of these mixed weddings.

Anyway, let me just some of the similarities I have noted between Catholicism and Hinduism (in terms of rituals only) It's not a comprehensive list. It's a long list with many more items which I don't want to mention for want of reading time.

• An extremely complex process to elect priests and their deputies, with detailed rankings. The Catholic Church has the Pope, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, and deacons. Similarly, we have a hierarchical structure starting with the Shankaracharyas (there are four of them instead of just one Pope). These ranks are not inherited from father to son, which brings me to the next topic.
• An insistence on celibacy in priesthood: While married priests are allowed in Hinduism, celibacy is seen as an ideal, with the same requirements as the Catholic Church. Additionally, the higher you go up in the hierarchy to the Shankaracharya/Pope level, the more you are expected to maintain celibacy.
• Women seen as unclean, filthy and disgusting: Of course, only because of their earthly bodies, their souls are equal to men. Women can even become saints in Hinduism (examples: Mirabai.) But generally, women are looked down upon in both religious practices. Catholics have their nuns. Hindus have Sadhvis and temple priestesses.
• Altar boys: Altar boys are initiated in the Catholic Church. Hindu priests have Brahmachari boys. Additionally, Hindu priests have access to "Altar girls" as well. I am saddened to note that occasional cases of abuse and rape surface even in our Hindu temples, and some of our top priests have been found to be very corrupt. Some of the Catholic Church scandals feel very similar to our own.
• Rosaries and beads: to consecrate things. Even the clockwise movement is a remarkable coincidence. I have seen it many Masses.
• Masses and feasts of saints: Yes, except they read from the Bible, and we read from the Bhagavad Gita. Ditto with the saint feasts.
• Belief in a Purgatory: very much similar concept exists in Hinduism.
• Salvation through Works rather than faith alone: Both Catholics and Hindus reject the idea that you could migrate to Heaven based on your faith alone. You kind of have to earn it through your earthly actions. You can't just sit on your haunches all day eating apple pie, take the name of Jesus, and think that you passed the exam. In that light, I think I'm more in agreement with Catholic penances and charities (Hindus have penance rituals that are surprisingly similar to Catholic ones.) That's how things are meant to be. That's how things have always been. Jesus might be enough to wash away all your sins, but actual entrance to Heaven requires more discipline and real achievement. You can't just hand over a gold medal to everyone who competes in a race. At best, they're only eligible for a participation trophy. A gold medal belongs only to the one who won that race. I think both Romeo Rovagnati and I would agree on that one.

[Johny Joe Hold]

I like your interesting arguments. I do have a question, not for you specifically, but for the Roman Jesuit priest on this thread and possibly other members. I find a surprising degree of similarities between Catholic and Hindu beliefs and practices, which is beyond bizarre.

These similarities appear to be more than just a coincidence. Since Hinduism predates Catholicism, I think Catholicism may have borrowed from our traditions. ...

HoudyHindu--The last word above is the path to hell. Whenever someone uses the word "tradition" we can be certain that person in some liberal sinner. We here at Lanodover Baptist know this and avoid using the word "tradition" whenever possible. The correct word is TRUTH. God himself wrote the Bible and told us He created the universe. This being the TRUTH we know God allowed some over time to dream up other gods and beliefs. God allowed these little groups, like Hindus, to exist for a while because He knew they would fade into the sands of time like every other false religion.

I'm giving you a passing grade today, however, because you mentioned SIN. We here at Landover Baptist name to most deadly sins, those that Jesus will not forgive. The growth and wealth of Landover Baptist is evidence Jesus is pleased with our sin preoccupation.

[GanduHindu]

God himself wrote the Bible and told us He created the universe. This being the TRUTH we know God allowed some over time to dream up other gods and beliefs. God allowed this little groups, like Hindus, to exist for a while because He knew they would fade into the sands of time like every other false religion.

Hey Major

I like your over time reasoning. It's well thought of and an original one. I can also see it in the light of Genesis 10, Genesis 11:7-9, and possibly, Genesis 2:1-3. Of course, I always knew these theories as they tie in with most Western academic literature that depict Mesopotamia as the cradle of civilization.

I will discuss this over time thingy with other Hindus, and get back to you on their response. It would appear they might be very livid and would want to murder me for sharing your point of view.

[MitzaLizalor]

Genesis 10, Genesis 11:7-9, and possibly, Genesis 2:1-3

I have a simple question: which is the first modern or real language mentioned in the Old Testament? Is it Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, or something else? It should not be something manmade like Proto-Indo-European or Klingon. This is not a debate; it's a serious question. I genuinely want to know which modern language is first mentioned in the Bible. It would be helpful if you could also provide the book/verse and clarify whether that language name existed before or after the flood, and before or after Abraham.

You're definitely looking in the right place. Firstly though, there are no modern languages mentioned in The Bible because they postdate biblical texts by several millennia, depending on where you think "modern" languages began. In one sense Hellenistic Greek could be a modern language, if we allow that pronunciation changes a few (6) centuries before writing catches up. That would give something approaching modern spoken Greek—spoken but not written down in formal documents (The New Testament is not a formal document)—during and after the Roman empire's tenure.

Unfortunately, the first language mentioned in The Bible is very much an unknown but universal proto-language. References to dates I'll just add in-line using "desaturated blue" courier font: This mention¹ is after The Flood. Before that, although the language is not specified, a conversation² between the serpent and the as-yet-unnamed woman is the first mention of direct speech. Prior instances are more like soliloquy; a purist might question two verses³ here but God's blessing in Chapter 1 is an overarching statement for all humanity, while in Chapter 2 since there was only one human in existence at the time, the precise mode of commanding is more likely to be direct thought transference, it is averred. In any event, those references to language are all before The Flood and are unlikely to have been Klingon. Please note than in citing references and reporting what various parties have to say, I am not expressing an opinion myself.

Unreconstructed proto-languages are difficult to identify. But we can say which language they are not, in the context of your question: Egyptian. During their captivity, after The Flood, The Israelites would have to communicate and since their records are not written in Egyptian, there must have been more than one language. On their way to The Promised Land, the land they lived in before it was overrun by savages during their four century absence, God explains as follows around 1406 BC ~

Deuteronomy 28:14-15, 49 Thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them. But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee . . . (numerous curses are outlined) . . . The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand

That would be a third language, neither Egyptian nor Hebrew, referred to later⁴ by Jeremiah in 627 BC in which case it was a Babylonian language because what happened next was that Babylon took over and deported them in droves. Also after The Flood but much earlier around 1090 BC, there was sufficient divergence from the Egyptian era common tongue for languages to be specified. You mentioned Klingon. There is also Elvish. So the two languages⁵ specified would be "Gileaditish" and "Ephraimitish" if that construction were used.

Although these would have been modern languages at the time, they are not what we'd call modern today. I hope these few references will be of help. Again, I'm not promoting any particular theory of language, simply citing Scripture—with dates as requested—bearing in mind that you may or may not accept that God was communicating with anyone.



1. Genesis 11:1, 6
2. Genesis 3:1-5
3i. Genesis 1:28
3ii. Genesis 2:16-17
4. Jeremiah 5:15 ~ context: Jeremiah 5:7-15 ~ more context: Jeremiah 4:29 – 5:19
5. Judges 12:6 ~ context: Judges 12:4-7

[GanduHindu]

In one sense Hellenistic Greek could be a modern language, if we allow that pronunciation changes a few (6) centuries before writing catches up. That would give something approaching modern spoken Greek—spoken but not written down in formal documents (The New Testament is not a formal document)—during and after the Roman empire's tenure.

Yes, Hellenistic (Alexandrian/Koine) Greek came after classical Greek, which was extremely complicated. Before that, there was Mycenaean (or Homer) Greek.

I've interacted with quite a few people from Greece. They get bored very quickly when you mention these facts, and most of them drop out of classical Greek language courses, which are mostly attended by foreigners. That's because modern-day Greek pronunciations are very different from classical Greek. Alexander and his contemporary day scholars simplified the language, and it's been gradually simplified over the centuries to its present form. I feel that modern-day Greek descendants are not worthy of the ancestry of those tall colossi from a bygone era.

Just because most Greeks don't take pride in their ancient culture (beyond selling "This is Sparta" souvenirs to tourists) doesn't mean the same for us Hindus especially those who have taken the time to learn these things. We have a continuous, unbroken tradition (Sorry, Mayor, my friend, for using that word).

Even if these are just "fake stories," as the Mayor says, I think they're pretty remarkable and a treasure trove of knowledge. I don't see why God would want me to disconnect or abandon such an interesting field of study, as the deep knowledge of the Bhagavad Gita or Vedas takes more than a lifetime to absorb. Its profound ideas are beyond spellbinding (even assuming they're fake as the Mayor says). All modern Indian languages, such as Hindi, Urdu (which is spoken by Muslims), Gujarati, Bengali, and Tamil, directly derive from Sanskrit. Sanskrit is perfection—it literally means "constructed nicely." The modern-day Indian languages are vulgar in comparison just like all the other modern world languages, full of cuss words appealing to the lowest common denominator, which I dislike.

Unfortunately, the first language mentioned in The Bible is very much an unknown but universal proto-language. References to dates I'll just add in-line using "desaturated blue" courier font: This mention¹ is after The Flood. Before that, although the language is not specified, a conversation² between the serpent and the as-yet-unnamed woman is the first mention of direct speech. Prior instances are more like soliloquy; a purist might question two verses³ here but God's blessing in Chapter 1 is an overarching statement for all humanity, while in Chapter 2 since there was only one human in existence at the time, the precise mode of commanding is more likely to be direct thought transference, it is averred. In any event, those references to language are all before The Flood and are unlikely to have been Klingon. Please note than in citing references and reporting what various parties have to say, I am not expressing an opinion myself.

Unreconstructed proto-languages are difficult to identify. But we can say which language they are not, in the context of your question: Egyptian. During their captivity, after The Flood, The Israelites would have to communicate and since their records are not written in Egyptian, there must have been more than one language. On their way to The Promised Land, the land they lived in before it was overrun by savages during their four century absence, God explains as follows around 1406 BC ~

Deuteronomy 28:14-15, 49 Thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them. But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee . . . (numerous curses are outlined) . . . The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand

That would be a third language, neither Egyptian nor Hebrew, referred to later⁴ by Jeremiah in 627 BC in which case it was a Babylonian language because what happened next was that Babylon took over and deported them in droves. Also after The Flood but much earlier around 1090 BC, there was sufficient divergence from the Egyptian era common tongue for languages to be specified. You mentioned Klingon. There is also Elvish. So the two languages⁵ specified would be "Gileaditish" and "Ephraimitish" if that construction were used.

Although these would have been modern languages at the time, they are not what we'd call modern today. I hope these few references will be of help. Again, I'm not promoting any particular theory of language, simply citing Scripture—with dates as requested—bearing in mind that you may or may not accept that God was communicating with anyone.

Thank you for such a detailed answer. I must appreciate your ability to do such thorough homework. It's not an easy task sifting through so many books and verses of the Bible to arrive at the exact facts you've brought here. I must also apologize to you for any arrogant remarks on my end. You see, having been raised in an all-boys seminary, we weren't really taught how to conduct ourselves around women. But I acknowledge you as both smart and capable.

Of course, we don't need to go back as far as Adam and Eve. It makes sense that Ancient Egyptian (1406 BC) would be the first one mentioned according to the Bible. But God did confuse the tongues at some point immediately after the Flood, and it's possible that Sanskrit might have originated around that time, as we Hindus believe that language is eternal, derived directly from the gods.

The way monotheistic Hinduism works is that there is only one God. Due to many historical reasons, many modern-day Hindus have resorted to idol worship in the same sinful manner as Moses's brethren who were waiting down at the mountain worshiping a golden calf. It's a wrong practice, definitely, but it's being seen and widely reported.

[Johny Joe Hold]

Just because most Greeks don't take pride in their ancient culture (beyond selling "This is Sparta" souvenirs to tourists) doesn't mean the same for us Hindus especially those who have taken the time to learn these things. We have a continuous, unbroken tradition (Sorry, Mayor, my friend, for using that word).

HidesininHindu--Of course you are free to use the liberal word, "tradition." I'm pointing out the problem with its use to be helpful, to save you and others from sin and its terrible consequences. As you know, God wrote the Ten Commandments in stone and Moses carried the stones down the mountain. There is no commandment which reads, "Our tradition is to pick one of the gods and worship only that one." God used the plural because He knew of other gods trying to grab members of the public. It's as if He had His eye on your Hindu gods and said, NO.