More proof of the Pearl of Great Price

[RockyBalboa]

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.

I am admittedly not as schooled in the ways of the ancient cultures of the Greeks and Romans like you are.

Quick question and I might be asking the wrong question here, but why is it so funny that Abraham knowing science or mathematics funny?

Or anyone in that day and age for that matter knowing science or mathematics? Isn't that what they used to build their societies?

Again, I could be asking the wrong questions or totally off base, and am honestly just curious.

[SeattleUte]

Well, we've gone off on sort of a tangent here, haven't we. This thread started out as Waters citing the discovery of an "astronomical calculator" built by the ancient Greeks as evidence supporting--I presume--the Book of Abraham's assertion that Abraham taught astronomy to the ancient Egyptian nobility. You all misread my post as asserting that only the Greeks in antiquity understood astronomy and mathematics. From the pyramids themselves, for example, we understand that Egyptians had some significant understanding of astronomy and certainly mathematics. The rampant misreading of my post may have been due to poor word choice on my part and if so I apologize for that. More likely, I think, is the tactical approach of the ad hominem argument. I never said that ONLY the Greeks understood anything about science.

Still, returning to the original point of my post, and of this thread, you are all hot in pursuit of a red herring. Everything that AA and others have said only reinforces my point that the idea of an ancient Hebrew teaching principles of astronomy to the Egyptian court is laughable. The Hebrews WERE poor, illiterate nomads in Abraham's time. I don't think they ever even experience an iron age (hence David had to kill Goliath with a sling shot). Whatever they knew about science they absorbed from Egyptian culture and other more advanced Near Eastern cultures, not the other way around. By the way, it is indeed mainstream to believe that written languages grew and became multifaceted and complex (.e.g, "Classical Hebrew") out of the process of developing sacred written records and mythological texts like the Old Testament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language

Thus, my essential point stands uncontradicted. Now, as for the tangent you all went off on. Yes, I cop to being occidental in my viewpoint. Like you, I have a systematic world view that is fraught with conclusions and, yes, biases. I am biased toward Greco-Roman-European culture. I recognize that it has been fashionable in some academic circles to elevate the importance and sophistication of "Near Eastern" cultures. The latest fad near as I can tell is to tout how in the Middle Ages the Islamic Near East and Spain were so much more civilized, tolerant, and developed than Christian Europe. True enough, but what this overlooks is that those Islamic kingdoms owed such enlightenment to the fact that they were repositories of the remnants of Greco-Roman culture, the foundation of today's modern Europe and the United States. BYU's motivation to get into bed with these PC strains is self-evident; strange bedfellows but you need look no further than the fairboards to see a loathing for "Hellenism." Yes, it's ironic to the nth degree and just plain ignorant. (Anything taught at BYU that ballyhoos ancient Near East culture is suspect for obvious reasons, in my view.)

Anyway, enough of my own tangent. I cite the "astronomical calculator" as evidence that the ancient Greeks were not so backward in the sciences as AA suggests. In addition, for the mainstream view of the Greeks' mathematics achievements and its supremacy I offer you the standard reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mathematics

If AA's point is that the Greeks learned this stuff from the "Near East," I'd like to see some evidence of that because I don't believe that's a mainstream view. The Greeks also had a sophisticated understanding of geology, geography, and the natural sciences including among Democritus and his followers an incipient understanding of evolution. Most important, was their philosophy which included a highly developed understanding of the scientific method which indeed they developed.

Yes, it may be that Alexander the Great's military genius and appetite for conquest was the but for cause of Greek and Greco-Roman ascendancy. So what? That just shows you that life is complicated; yes, imperialism and conquest can achieve noble ends, in the very long run. But this fact remains: Whatever might be said about Egyptian, Persian or Mesopotamian culture, the fabulous pyramids, etc., these cultures were essentially evolutional dead ends as far as Western culture is concerned. But Ancient Greece still is alive and well in the United States and Europe, even though the ancient Near Eastern cultures grew up in and near the fertile crescent, the most hospitable place in the world to raise up a great civilization. They shouldn't have had to conquer anybody.

[MikeWaters]

SU, EQ never replied to you in this thread. Which thread are you referring to?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

SU, EQ never replied to you in this thread. Which thread are you referring to?

Check that. All-American. I'll correct it. I get those two mixed up sometimes.

[SeattleUte]

Deleted

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I am admittedly not as schooled in the ways of the ancient cultures of the Greeks and Romans like you are.

Quick question and I might be asking the wrong question here, but why is it so funny that Abraham knowing science or mathematics funny?

Or anyone in that day and age for that matter knowing science or mathematics? Isn't that what they used to build their societies?

Again, I could be asking the wrong questions or totally off base, and am honestly just curious.

The Hebrews were not a highly developed society then.

[MikeWaters]

1) First off, the PoGP says that Abraham lived in Chalydea (Babylon).

2) Is there a direct cultural connection between the Greeks and the Chaldeans? I'm no expert, but I believe we generally consider that area of Babylon as the birthplace of modern civilization. Here is an interesting connection between the Greeks and Chaldeans. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_Oracles

3) Were the Chaldeans/Babylonians familiar with astronomy? Yes.

4) Was Abraham an astronomer? The word "Chaldean" came to mean "Babylonian astronomer." Was this the usage that Joseph Smith employed when divinely translating?

Based on my feeble memory of the scriptures, I believe it is safe to say that there is more astronomy contained in the PoGP than the Old and New Testaments combined (someone please correct me if I am wrong). It seems like an odd tangent to take if you are a "knowing fraud" (Brody).

I think that this, in summary, challenges the notion that Abraham could not have been a relative expert in astronomy.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Well, we've gone off on sort of a tangent here, haven't we. This thread started out as Waters citing the discovery of an "astronomical calculator" built by the ancient Greeks as evidence supporting--I presume--the Book of Abraham's assertion that Abraham taught astronomy to the ancient Egyptian nobility. You all misread my post as asserting that only the Greeks in antiquity understood astronomy and mathematics. From the pyramids themselves, for example, we understand that Egyptians had some significant understanding of astronomy and certainly mathematics. The rampant misreading of my post may have been due to poor word choice on my part and if so I apologize for that. More likely, I think, is the tactical approach of the ad hominem argument. I never said that ONLY the Greeks understood anything about science.

Still, returning to the original point of my post, and of this thread, you are all hot in pursuit of a red herring. Everything that AA and others have said only reinforces my point that the idea of an ancient Hebrew teaching principles of astronomy to the Egyptian court is laughable. The Hebrews WERE poor, illiterate nomads in Abraham's time. I don't think they ever even experience an iron age (hence David had to kill Goliath with a sling shot). Whatever they knew about science they absorbed from Egyptian culture and other more advanced Near Eastern cultures, not the other way around. By the way, it is indeed mainstream to believe that written languages grew and became multifaceted and complex (.e.g, "Classical Hebrew") out of the process of developing sacred written records and mythological texts like the Old Testament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language

Thus, my essential point stands uncontradicted. Now, as for the tangent you all went off on. Yes, I cop to being occidental in my viewpoint. Like you, I have a systematic world view that is fraught with conclusions and, yes, biases. I am biased toward Greco-Roman-European culture. I recognize that it has been fashionable in some academic circles to elevate the importance and sophistication of "Near Eastern" cultures. The latest fad near as I can tell is to tout how in the Middle Ages the Islamic Near East and Spain were so much more civilized, tolerant, and developed than Christian Europe. True enough, but what this overlooks is that those Islamic kingdoms owed such enlightenment to the fact that they were repositories of the remnants of Greco-Roman culture, the foundation of today's modern Europe and the United States. BYU's motivation to get into bed with these PC strains is self-evident; strange bedfellows but you need look no further than the fairboards to see a loathing for "Hellenism." Yes, it's ironic to the nth degree and just plain ignorant. (Anything taught at BYU that ballyhoos ancient Near East culture is suspect for obvious reasons, in my view.)

Anyway, enough of my own tangent. I cite the "astronomical calculator" as evidence that the ancient Greeks were not so backward in the sciences as AA suggests. In addition, for the mainstream view of the Greeks' mathematics achievements and its supremacy I offer you the standard reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mathematics

If AA's point is that the Greeks learned this stuff from the "Near East," I'd like to see some evidence of that because I don't believe that's a mainstream view. The Greeks also had a sophisticated understanding of geology, geography, and the natural sciences including among Democritus and his followers an incipient understanding of evolution. Most important, was their philosophy which included a highly developed understanding of the scientific method which indeed they developed.

Yes, it may be that Alexander the Great's military genius and appetite for conquest was the but for cause of Greek and Greco-Roman ascendancy. So what? That just shows you that life is complicated; yes, imperialism and conquest can achieve noble ends, in the very long run. But this fact remains: Whatever might be said about Egyptian, Persian or Mesopotamian culture, the fabulous pyramids, etc., these cultures were essentially evolutional dead ends as far as Western culture is concerned. But Ancient Greece still is alive and well in the United States and Europe, even though the ancient Near Eastern cultures grew up in and near the fertile crescent, the most hospitable place in the world to raise up a great civilization. They shouldn't have had to conquer anybody.

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:

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.

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.

[Archaea]

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.

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.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The Hebrews were not a highly developed society then.

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.