" 

 :Your most recent addition to this discussion is riddled with so many inaccuracies, fallacious arguments, ambiguities, tangents and irrelevancies that it is hardly worth responding to, as anyone who is well-read in this area and has a keen mind can easily spot the misinformation and flaws, but I will, however, respond for the sake of intellectual discussion. I will address each of your statements in a point-by-point fashion: 

 ...saying tamil is 4000 years old would still not make it nearly as old as Ancient Arabic which spoken by Abraham and around his time - this was during the birth of civilization in Summeria/Ur of the Chaldees 

 :First off, referencing the Bible and mentioning a religious and Biblical figure (Abraham) in a discussion of language is barely relevant and hardly valid. Part of the reason for this is because, much like most of the ""information"" presented in the Bible, the exact period in time in which Abraham lived is widely contested, challenged, and debated and there is absolutely no reasonable consensus that can be supported with irrefutable scientific evidence that can resolve this issue. For example, according to Jewish dating, he lived from 1812 BCE to 1637 BCE (which would make him an impossible 175 years old), an assertion that is absurd. Second, the language spoke in Sumer (and thereby Ur) of ancient Mesopotamia was absolutely not Arabic or even ""Ancient Arabic"" (again, more accurately known as Proto-Arabic). The language that the Sumerians spoke belongs to no known language family and attempting to connect this with Proto-Arabic simply on the basis of loose geographic affiliation is childish. Third, ""Ur of the Chaldees"" is another Biblical reference that is simply invalid in an academic context (a town that exists in the Hebrew Bible) although, some people believe that it actually refers to Ur in Sumer of Mesopotamia (which was actually a real city). 

 Furthermore, Wikipedia states that them most ancient form of Tamil known as ""Old Tamil"" dates from 3rd Century BC. This is rougly the same age as modern Arabic (aka Classical Arabic or Quranic Arabic). 

 :""Old Tamil"" is a highly relative and arbitrary term. It is more of a descriptive term used by scholars and experts who study the language (a form of classification) rather than what people who actually speak the language would identify themselves with. In other words, if you ask any Tamil individual living in Tamil Nadu, India or the North and East of Sri Lanka they will more than likely tell you that there is no such language as ""Old Tamil"" but rather only ""Tamil"" and it's closely-related predecessors ""Brahmi"" and ""Sanskrit"", the latter of which predates anything ""Proto-Arabic"". 

 Ancient Arabic is a far far older language, and semitic people have ancient written and oral traditions dating from the time of Abraham, and even from before his time. 

 :The earliest surviving texts of Proto-Arabic (also known as Ancient North Arabian and Hasaean) are dated to the 8th century BC. The earliest Sanskrit texts, however, are dated to mid-to-late second millenium BCE. One may foolishly argue that Sanskrit is a totally unique and distinct language from ""Old Tamil"", but such a baseless argument would lead to a dead-end as its Arabic counter-part (Proto-Arabic) does not contain a single character from the modern Arabic alphabet nor its (modern Arabic's) immediate predecessor: the Nabataean language. In other words, it can be argued that Sanskrit and Brahmi are far more related to ""Old Tamil"" than Proto-Arabic is to Arabic. Unless you have no concept of time and think that events that took place during the 8th century BC (2800 years) are older than those that took place during the 2nd millennium BC (4000 years), it is plainly obvious that Sanskrit (and thereby Tamil) is older than Proto-Arabic (and thereby Classical / modern Arabic). Referring to the ""semitic people"" is irrelevant as it is an extremely broad and ambiguous reference to any of the hundreds of civilizations that were present in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. Referring to the ""time of Abraham"" is even more laughable because, as stated earlier, Abraham is simply a Biblical figure and his ""time"" and the time ""before his time"" are totally loose terms which no one can reasonably put a precise year on (as can be done with scientific events). 

 Similarly, the hebrews also have a written tradition which is now known as the Old Testament - note that the OT is written originally in both Hebrew and Ancient Chaldean (Arabic) as well as various other semitic dialects. 

 :Firsly, the Hebrews have absolutely nothing to do with this subject, aside from the fact that their language originates in a similar geographical region to those previously discussed and as far as the Old Testament goes, it is simply another Biblical reference that i