More proof of the Pearl of Great Price

[MikeWaters]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/1...eut/index.html

Pretty cool actually.

[SeattleUte]

Okay, I give up. What does the Pearl of Great Price have to do with the ancient Greeks?

[Archaea]

Mostly, a joke friend, but proof that the ancients used mechanical devices, had star gazing abilities and accurate calendars. That is all. Perhaps Mike can enlighten us further.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Mostly, a joke friend, but proof that the ancients used mechanical devices, had star gazing abilities and accurate calendars. That is all. Perhaps Mike can enlighten us further.

I fugured it was mostly a joke. The only problem with it even being funny is that only the Greeks had discovered science, philosophy, etc. This of course is the Greeks' signal trait and what sets them apart from all the ancients except the Romans, who incorporated Greek culture as much as the U.S. did English culture. The notion of Abraham (or someone like him) knowing science or mathematics or astronomy, what those things even were, is what's funny. Back then the Hebrews were mostly ignorant, illiterate desert nomads and herders. They made themselves a language and taught themselves to write by recognizing a need to reduce their oral histories to writing. In other words, their becoming a literate people and creating a written record of their past and saying happened in tandem.

By the way, so much is written about European/Classical oppression of the Jews, and not nearly enough, in my view, of their symbiotic relationship.

Sorry to be so pedantic. I can't help it.

[SeattleUte]

I agree it's extremenly cool. Nice find, Mike.

[il Padrino Ute]

Yes, a very cool find, Mike. High five for you!

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I fugured it was mostly a joke. The only problem with it even being funny is that only the Greeks had discovered science, philosophy, etc. This of course is the Greeks' signal trait and what sets them apart from all the ancients except the Romans, who incorporated Greek culture as much as the U.S. did English culture. The notion of Abraham (or someone like him) knowing science or mathematics or astronomy, what those things even were, is what's funny. Back then the Hebrews were mostly ignorant, illiterate desert nomads and herders. They made themselves a language and taught themselves to write by recognizing a need to reduce their oral histories to writing. In other words, their becoming a literate people and creating a written record of their past and saying happened in tandem.

By the way, so much is written about European/Classical oppression of the Jews, and not nearly enough, in my view, of their symbiotic relationship.

Sorry to be so pedantic. I can't help it.

Funny you should bring that up. I'm taking History 238 right now, which is history of the Ancient Near East. If you really want to get into this debate, I'll be happy to, but suffice it to say (for now) that if you find the thought that anybody could have "known science or mathematics or astronomy," then you'd think this class was hilareous. I'll give you and the Greeks an edge in Philosophy, but not much else. In fact, more and more historians are acknowledging the possibility that Ancient Greece simply inherited the ideas of the Ancient Near East. Nothing about the Greek intellectual capacity was enough to propel its ideas past Hellenic regions-- though undeniably impressive and extensive, the only thing that really sets apart Greece from the rest of the Ancient Near Eastern Pack is Alexander the Great. If it weren't for him, all of these marvelous Greek innovations would have died the same death as the rest of Ancient Near Eastern cultures. Greek language, thought, and prominence survived because it rode the back of the military. The same thing goes for Latin and Roman culture-- the only reason anybody learns latin today is because of the military might of the Caesars.

If you want to argue comparative science as a way of refuting the Book of Abraham, you're on the wrong side of the timeline. Egypt had been running a successful empire for several dynasties before any honest scholar would place Abraham in Egypt. You'll have a hard time showing that the Pearl of Great Price gives Abraham too much knowledge too early-- if anything, Abraham is in Egypt far too late for his knowledge to be anything but obsolete.

I'd be cautious about making any definite statements regarding the origin of any ancient system of language, writing, science, or technology. Even the Ph.Ds are hesitant to do so.

[il Padrino Ute]

Wow. AA calls out SU.

Is SU up to the challenge?

Stay tuned!

[creekster]

Originally Posted by All-American

Funny you should bring that up. I'm taking History 238 right now, which is history of the Ancient Near East. If you really want to get into this debate, I'll be happy to, but suffice it to say (for now) that if you find the thought that anybody could have "known science or mathematics or astronomy," then you'd think this class was hilareous. I'll give you and the Greeks an edge in Philosophy, but not much else. In fact, more and more historians are acknowledging the possibility that Ancient Greece simply inherited the ideas of the Ancient Near East. Nothing about the Greek intellectual capacity was enough to propel its ideas past Hellenic regions-- though undeniably impressive and extensive, the only thing that really sets apart Greece from the rest of the Ancient Near Eastern Pack is Alexander the Great. If it weren't for him, all of these marvelous Greek innovations would have died the same death as the rest of Ancient Near Eastern cultures. Greek language, thought, and prominence survived because it rode the back of the military. The same thing goes for Latin and Roman culture-- the only reason anybody learns latin today is because of the military might of the Caesars.

If you want to argue comparative science as a way of refuting the Book of Abraham, you're on the wrong side of the timeline. Egypt had been running a successful empire for several dynasties before any honest scholar would place Abraham in Egypt. You'll have a hard time showing that the Pearl of Great Price gives Abraham too much knowledge too early-- if anything, Abraham is in Egypt far too late for his knowledge to be anything but obsolete.

I'd be cautious about making any definite statements regarding the origin of any ancient system of language, writing, science, or technology. Even the Ph.Ds are hesitant to do so.

I'll second AA here and add that SU's statement was reckless and so ill-considered that I wonder if he is, once again, yanking our chains. To refute it one need only walk into the British Museum in London, turn left past the entrance and enter the hall of Assyrian and other Near Eastern antiquities. There, among the many plundered artifacts, are numerous examples of advanced scietnific reasoning, including astronomical advances. The point of Mike's article find was not that the Greeks understrood astronomical bodies, we've known this about them and other more ancient cultures for a long time. Instead, the point was that they had managed to contruct a calculator out of metal. That it was precise enough to plot the astronomical undersdtanding was the surprise. So if you want to laud the greeks for something unique based on this evidence, award them the golden anvil, but don't assert it places them above other more ancient cultures in terms of their understanding of the universe.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by All-American

Funny you should bring that up. I'm taking History 238 right now, which is history of the Ancient Near East. If you really want to get into this debate, I'll be happy to, but suffice it to say (for now) that if you find the thought that anybody could have "known science or mathematics or astronomy," then you'd think this class was hilareous. I'll give you and the Greeks an edge in Philosophy, but not much else. In fact, more and more historians are acknowledging the possibility that Ancient Greece simply inherited the ideas of the Ancient Near East. Nothing about the Greek intellectual capacity was enough to propel its ideas past Hellenic regions-- though undeniably impressive and extensive, the only thing that really sets apart Greece from the rest of the Ancient Near Eastern Pack is Alexander the Great. If it weren't for him, all of these marvelous Greek innovations would have died the same death as the rest of Ancient Near Eastern cultures. Greek language, thought, and prominence survived because it rode the back of the military. The same thing goes for Latin and Roman culture-- the only reason anybody learns latin today is because of the military might of the Caesars.

If you want to argue comparative science as a way of refuting the Book of Abraham, you're on the wrong side of the timeline. Egypt had been running a successful empire for several dynasties before any honest scholar would place Abraham in Egypt. You'll have a hard time showing that the Pearl of Great Price gives Abraham too much knowledge too early-- if anything, Abraham is in Egypt far too late for his knowledge to be anything but obsolete.

I'd be cautious about making any definite statements regarding the origin of any ancient system of language, writing, science, or technology. Even the Ph.Ds are hesitant to do so.

Having spent a good deal of time studying art and the visual origins of our written language (typography) I am stunned by the simplicity and ignorance of Seattle’s post.

The Greeks merely contributed to an amazing string of historical innovations whose origins cannot be accurately traced back to a singular point in time or civilization. In fact most scholars will readily admit that civilization has yet to be discovered.

What’s even more amazing is the lack of understanding with regards to the Hebrew language, it’s complexity and origins … I marvel at it’s uniqueness and functional as well as visual beauty.

There is considerable evidence to suggest that the science of ancient civilizations not only rivaled but also surpassed modern understanding in certain disciplines.

The human species is very old, very intelligent and very complex … in other words we have not evolved. The same capacity for abstract thought present in society today existed equally in ancient times.