More proof of the Pearl of Great Price

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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

And how do you know that?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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

Oh contraire ... in actuality it is the gentiles who would've learned something about astronomy from Abraham and his ancestors. The proof is found in the fact we have access to his history, wilst we must continually dig for these so called enlightened other cultural histories.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

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.

Well, what you call "sloppy" I call short hand. I had assumed more sophisticated understanding of the word "science" here.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Oh contraire ... in actuality it is the gentiles who would've learned something about astronomy from Abraham and his ancestors. The proof is found in the fact we have access to his history, wilst we must continually dig for these so called enlightened other cultural histories.

And that "history" is the Book of Abraham I presume? Waters is right. Life is one big circle.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

And how do you know that?

Archeology mostly. Do you contend that the OT is a font of scientific knowledge? These highly developed near Eastern peoples you and AA have been touting are regarded as such because of the physical structures, iron, implements, etc. that they left behind.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

Nothing subjective about it. A simple examination of the origins of our alphabete reveals the factual truth of my statement.

My reference material can be found at any college or university that teaches graphic design.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Well, what you call "sloppy" I call short hand. I had assumed more sophisticated understanding of the word "science" here.

You are incorrigible. This isn't worth pursuing anymore. You said:

The notion of Abraham (or someone like him) knowing science or mathematics or astronomy, what those things even were, is what's funny.

So you want us to beleive that when you said "knowing science or mathematics or astronomy" you meant knowing science as a category of knowledge subject to the scientific method, even though you included a separate science in your list? Come on. At best sloppy. At worse, misleading and wrong.

IMO, of course.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

And that "history" is the Book of Abraham I presume? Waters is right. Life is one big circle.

No. That "history" is the Muslim and Judeo Christian collective works that are our common building block of knowlege.

Such knowledge is directly attributed to Abraham. Structures are built and fade. Ideas that espouse eternal truths endure.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

No. That "history" is the Muslim and Judeo Christian collective works that are our common building block of knowlege.

Such knowledge is directly attributed to Abraham. Structures are built and fade. Ideas that espuse eternal truths endure.

No tooblue is incorrigible. Where outside the B of A, in all of this text, do we see Abraham teaching astronomy to anyone, let alone the leaders of anceint Egypt?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Archeology mostly. Do you contend that the OT is a font of scientific knowledge? These highly developed near Eastern peoples you and AA have been touting are regarded as such because of the physical structures, iron, implements, etc. that they left behind.

Ok. ANd? Therefore ABraham could only have received knowledge from the Egyptians? Moreover, the near esatern cultures are not 'touted' becasue of their structures, or implements, but becasue of the direct and indirect infromation we have about what they knew. Babylon knew a lot aboutastronomy. This can be proven apart from the OT or the PofGP. What could someone like Abraham know? Hard to say. Maybe he was a pre-Christ Newton who pushed the whole body of knowleege forward. Maybe he wasn't Either way noeither you nor I can accurately and with support assert what he did or did nto know or what he could nto have known by comparison to other ancients.