More proof of the Pearl of Great Price

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

What evidence to support your claim do you cite? What comparative culture do you cite to support such an idea? Is the comparison valid?

Society and culture as it is now understood based upon history written by the founders of our systems of education and study might very well support your ideas. Yet is this written history accurate or even valid? What in that history has been omitted, forgotten, misunderstood … more than you or I might be willing to admit?

The uniqueness of the visual and functional beauty of the Hebrew language severely contradicts just such an assertion. In fact it speaks to an exceptionally successful and complex society ... one that you suggest was not highly developed, yet produced a culture of religious ideas so radical and influential the collective similar contributions of the Greeks and Roman pale in comparison.

Is your supposition merely valid due to the lack of physical remnants that might attest to the greatness of an ancient Hebrew society? That's a highly dubious and myopic perspective for one so liberally minded.

Perhaps I'm again guilty of poor word choice. I was referring to technological and scientif know how. They left us an unsurpassed literary tradtion and religious culture that as much as Greek culture is a but for cause of what we are.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Seattle admitted his Greco-Roman Euro Centricism which runs through most of his thought. And has been traditionally declared by those sharing his thought, that thought and technology was superior to all others. What Seattle only grudgingly admits is that it was military superiority that thrust these cultures to the forefront, and it is also naive not to recognize that alll cultures borrow from other cultures.

Archealogy is constantly revealing that many ancient cultures had amazing technologies, including the Babylonians, the Minoans, Egyptians and even certain Aztec and Mayan cultures engaged in advanced brain surgery.

Seattle also ignores that it was possible for Hebrews being the nomads that they were, traveling between Egypt and Babylon may have borrowed much, to the extent that they may have been more than ignorant, impoverished nomads.

Yes, the Greeks and Romans were great fighters and conquerers for a time. They also were the first to develop republican forms of government, the discipline of history, and drama at the complex and exalted levels we see in Shakespeare, in addition to their scientific and philosophical achievements. They remained the sole source of such innovations for over a thousand years after Rome fell in the West.

[MikeWaters]

I'm feeling left out here. I guess no one wants to discuss babylonian astronomers.

[creekster]

Can I step away from the SU bash for a moment and ask a quesrion about the original article? I saw this when it came out and found it fascinating so I read a couple of differnet articles about it and found that much of the internal workings of the device are inferred from the markings that have been read on the outside. In other words, becasue there is a label that refers to planetary movement the investigators inferred, in the absence of direct evidence from x-rays, etc., that there was a mechanism that would allow such a control to work. One article said 37 internal wheels are inferred.

Does anyone have any insight as to how accurate such inferences are likely to be? I used to build model planes when I was a kid and would fabricate very realistic looking instrument panels for the cockpit of the planes. COuld one reasonably infer that I must have also built the engine that was suggested by those instrument labels? I am a feeble minded liberal arts type, so I am hoping some of you more scientific types will shed some light on this process of inference taking place here.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Yes, the Greeks and Romans were great fighters and conquerers for a time. They also were the first to develop republican forms of government, the discipline of history, and drama at the complex and exalted levels we see in Shakespeare, in addition to their scientific and philosophical achievements. They remained the sole source of such innovations for over a thousand years after Rome fell in the West.

One society you selectively omit from the discussion is the Phoenician society. In fact were it not for the Phoenicians we likely would not have had a Roman empire or a phonetic alphabet to accurately capture emotion in the form of evocative language.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm feeling left out here. I guess no one wants to discuss babylonian astronomers.

Your citation ot the wikipedia article on same is pretty straightfroward evidence that Someone like Abraham could have done exactly what he is said to ahve done on the PofGP. Hard to disagree, unless you beleive that only the Greeks could have done this.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Do you think it is possible that we misread your post to say that only the Greeks had discovered science becasue that is EXACTLy WHAT YOU SAID? Thta was indeed very unfortunate word choice. You may wish to back pedal from your statement. I know I would. But really you shouldn't blame everyone else for getting it wrong when we simply took you at your word. read your original post again. You said:



UNforntunate word choice indeed.

As to your newly minted point, which I gather is that the Greeks were not nearly as derivative or backward as AA said (which I don't think he said, btw) I guess I don;'t see much controversy. No one says they were backward. The only laughable thing in this thread is that other near eastern cultures had no scientific knowledge, whcih assertion is found in your earlier unfortunate words. A clsoe second is the notion which you have now asserted that you can deduce from your examination of present knowledge, that one remarkable individual, such as Abraham, could not have taught naything to Egypt's courts. Nothing in the article or in anything you have said supports that claim in fact or reason. Further, you seem to equate cuklture with knowledge. You are certainly correct that Greek/Roman culture infomrs us today, which AA attributes to the military adventuires of the Greeks and Romans and which you do not dispute. It is certainly a leap to thereby assume that becasue we have inherited their culture that we also inherited their science and that it came only from them. I think you know better but are just too stubborn to admit it.

My orignal point stands. Nothing we know from the written record or archeology should lead us to believe that Abraham taught astronomy to the Egyptians.

I'm sorry for the poor word choice of my original post suggesting the Greeks were the only ancients who knew any science. Clearly they weren't. Clearly, also, indeed cultures are symbiotic. One of Alexander's signal traits was his ability to appreciate and facilitate the absorption of cultures he conquered. This was the point of all those marriages.

Now let me ask you: While certainly the Egyptians et al. praticed principles of science for example in employing engineering principles to build massive structures, or in making papyrus, or mummifying, do you think that the Near Easterners identified a field or discipline of "science" as such for special abstract study and analysis simply for the sake of learning and recording received knowledge as did the Greeks? Just as the Greeks invented "history" I submit that in this sense the Greeks invented "science." Do you agree? That is what I meant with my word choice, in any event.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

One society you selectively omit from the discussion is the Phoenician society. In fact were it not for the Phoenicians we likely would not have had a Roman empire or a phonetic alphabet to accurately capture emotion in the form of evocative language.

I can't respond to this. I don't know. But it sounds suspiciously subjective and therefore perhapes derived from one of those PC strains I was talking about.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Your citation ot the wikipedia article on same is pretty straightfroward evidence that Someone like Abraham could have done exactly what he is said to ahve done on the PofGP. Hard to disagree, unless you beleive that only the Greeks could have done this.

Abraham may have learned something about astronomy from the gentiles, not the other way around.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

My orignal point stands. Nothing we know from the written record or archeology should lead us to believe that Abraham taught astronomy to the Egyptians.

I'm sorry for the poor word choice of my original post suggesting the Greeks were the only ancients who knew any science. Clearly they weren't. Clearly, also, indeed cultures are symbiotic. One of Alexander's signal traits was his ability to appreciate and facilitate the absorption of cultures he conquered. This was the point of all those marriages.

Now let me ask you: While certainly the Egyptians et al. praticed principles of science for example in employing engineering principles to build massive structures, or in making papyrus, or mummifying, do you think that the Near Easterners identified a field or discipline of "science" as such for special abstract study and analysis simply for the sake of learning and recording received knowledge as did the Greeks? Just as the Greeks invented "history" I submit that in this sense the Greeks invented "science." Do you agree? That is what I meant with my word choice, in any event.

Your original point was that neiother Abraham NOR ANYONE LIKE HIM had the capcity to teach naything to the Egyptians. In fact, you actually went further and claimed that no such person could even KNOW these things. In your more limited formulation, and excluding revealed scripture as I know you do, then I don't think I disagree with your statement.

As to your question, I know the greeks were great thinkers and organizers of knowledge, but I personally lack enough knowledge to agree or disagree. I gather you are getting at the point that it was the Greeks that tipped the notion of learning from something we do as aprt of our existence or to otherwise support our beliefs over to a scientific approach, or method, to knowledge. This sounds about right, but I woudl defer to sometone that had actually studied that question.

You have stirred the pot far too many times to get away with such sloppy langugae and you fo all people should know that.