Sankrit did not figure among oldest languages. Sankrit being very modern phenomenon and latest among all historical languages. So how Ram of 17 million years old era can be related with Sankrit or Vedic era. There is only one possibility either Ram exist or Sankrit/vedic culture existed. if Sandkrit/vedic existed then Ram was for sure a imaginary character which was never a reality. (Vedic blunder)
Ugaritic 15th c. BC Proto-Canaanite 14th c. BC Phoenician 11th c. BC Paleo-Hebrew 10th c. BC Aramaic 8th c. BC Brahmi & Indus Harappan 6th c. BC Tibetan 7th c. Khmer/Javanese 9th c. Hebrew 3rd c. BC Syriac 2nd c. BC Nabatean 2nd c. BC Arabic 4th c. Pahlavi 3nd c. BC Avestan 4th c. Greek 9th c. BC Etruscan 8th c. BC Latin 7th c. BC Runes 2nd c. Ogham 4th c. Gothic 3th c. Armenian 405 Glagolitic 862 Cyrillic 10th c. Samaritan 6th c. BC Iberian 4th c. BC
RE:NO ram no sanskrit theory proves no Ram
by Ramasubbu on Oct 14, 2007 01:12 PM Permalink
Hinduism is 500 years old. Vedic Religion is 2000 years old. Saivism and Jainism are 5000 years and above old- only Dravid religion.
Origin of Sankrit is Lativia, so probably Ram was born in lativia. compare Lativian language with Sanskrit, almost same. Aryan Gypsies bought Ram and Sanskrit to India 2000 years ago.
Ram is from Lativia, if at all he exists- if he spoke sanskrit.
RE:NO ram no sanskrit theory proves no Ram
by Veda Purana Complete Lie Historical Blunder on Nov 23, 2007 02:32 AM Permalink
Dr Charles , an American scholar says that it is very simple to define a Hindu. He says a Hindu means "one who believes in anything and everything if said in the name of god and shall never question its authenticity".
The Brahmins claim that Lord Rama is incarnated (came in human form) to study and understand the difficulties of mankind. Is it really necessary for a god to incarnate Himself?? CAn he not understand the creation? Why should God become a donkey or a cockroach in order to understand the sufferings of these creatures?
