I'm going to make a rather vain attempt to bring this discussion back on track here, because I see what we in the trade term a "teachable moment."
You're absolutely right that "very far back in time some people had no writing system." That's common knowledge among historians, anthropogists, and linguists, and if challenged I could easily find a number of sources that try to date both the origins of human language and of human writing, and show the discrepancy there.
You claim that it's not so commonly known that "Egypt, the Tarot, and travelling "Gypsies" were the start of various different civilizations written language and their spiritual teachings which eventually became religous concepts." It's certainly not commonly known -- in fact, it's believed by any competent scholars with which I'm familiar to be false.
There's some evidence that the Egyptian writing system influenced the Phoencian and through it, the Greek and Latin. This site suggests
The meaningful Egyptian hieroglyphs became sound-symbols in the Proto-Sinatic, and later Phoenecian alphabets, which evolved into Greek and Latin letters.
However, as the site also points out
The Phoenecian language and culture, to the best of our knowledge, has little to do with the Egyptian -- and the Greek and Latin even less. You can't assume from the adoption of an alphabet system that there is any substantial cultural or religious overlap -- there are many documented instances of a completely unrelated language's alphabet being "borrowed" simply to be able to write down one's own language. (Bantu languages, for example, are written in Latin script, as is Standard Indonesian.)
Beyond that, the idea that either the Gypsies (more accurately, the Roma), or the Tarot predated 1000 CE flies in the face of almost all accepted history.
Now, historians may not have gotten everything right. But one of the things that they have documented, for example, is that the purported connection between the medieval "Gypsies" and the land of Egypt is purely spurious. The OED, for example, describes the connection thus in the definition of gypsie":
So if you're going to make a claim about the purported "Egyptian" origins of the Gypsies, know that it flies in the face of a lot of accepted historical fact. This isn't just something that "isn't commonly known," but it's actually contradicted by the historical record that everyone else has studied.
At the very least, if you're going to make such a claim, you should be prepared to back it up with relatively clear-cut evidence from neutral sources. No one will take your unsupported word about the prehistoric Egyptian origin of the gypsies without some kind of backing.....
