Ancient texts in discussions of science?

Certainly knowledge builds upon anothers knowledge, and so on, but it isn't inconcievable that certain wise and learned theories have lost in translation throughout the years. For instance, looking at the architecture in Egypt, is it possible that in some ways their mathematical inclinations were superior to that of ours? And if not superior, just maybe, vastly different than how we would do things today? I think its a slanderous accusation to assume that the ancients were some less intelligent or less informed. That may not always be the case. For all we know, they could have written volumes of text with all sorts of knowledge that we know nothing about because it has become lost.Of all the pieces we have of antiquity today, think how many tomes have not survived decay? But as for those that are extant, I think its perfectly fine to look upon their texts to look for clues that may offer some insight to us. It may yield no fruit but it certainly can't hurt.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

I can't argue with that. I guess it was the scale and scope of the project that I'm mostly referring to, not so much the architecture. I don't think we can say that the actual engineering was ordinary for the simple fact that they had no heavy machinery to lift huger slabs of concrete. Then again, because of the steep angle at which the would have bben working, somne theorize that the concrete (though not actually concrete/cement) into place. I think their methods must have been very ingenious. It would probably be considered even more honorable than it is if it weren't for the fact that their efforts were off the backs of slaves.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Giza.

I guess the one that comes to mind is the Great Pyramid. There are two others that I'm unfamiliar with by name.

Well, your article clarifies some other common misnomers, namely, that when we think of slavery, we think of privaleged people beating less fortunate people. In reality, that type of maltreatment of slaves was probably the exception and not the rule. At that time, slaves and servants were often synonymous.One of the biggest falsehoods about the Great Pyramid of Khufu is that it was built by slaves. The discovery of the tombs of the Pyramid builders on the Giza Plateau has finally and conclusively put this theory to rest. We now know with certainty that the Pyramids were built by Egyptian men and women -- not slaves! Slavery, while it existed in Ancient Egypt, was not an important part of the economy, especially in the Old Kingdom, and, moreover, it is important to examine the meaning of the word "slavery". We think of slavery as the ownership of a person. In my opinion, in Ancient Egypt the word "slavery" meant a person who worked for another, like the modern term "servant". That's probably true because they were in Goshen.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : add italics

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Quite possible and very plausible. I would certainly grant that evidence is scant, but what purpose would it serve a nation to claim ignoble origins if they were going to lie? If such a story was a lie, what was hoped to be gained by telling it? If anyone was going to make up stories about their ancestors, why would they invent an embarrassing legend about themselves instead of these grand stories of heroism? At some point the Egyptians and Hebrews had to have crossed paths, otherwise, how would anyone have knowlege of certain details about Egypt at the time the Bible was first penned? Somebody would have to have had firsthand knowledge for all of these details to have been known. Aside from whether or not there is record of Hebrews living in Egypt is inconsequential when you consider that the archeological record of Egypt is incomplete altogether. There are many relics and artifacts reputed to be missing or destroyed because long periods of elapsed time. There are also internal problems for the overall cohesion of various dynasties. The Hebrews are not the only culture to have problems reconciling the Egyptian civilization with other concurrent civilizations. And this is no fault to archeologists. Egypt is just a very old, but massive civilization in human history.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

quote:

---

what purpose would it serve a nation to claim ignoble origins if they were going to lie?

---

This is conjecture, as you are thinking of satisfying reasons to call the Joseph story "a myth." In true hermeneutical fashion, we are going to tackle this issue head-on. Pharaoh referred to Joseph as "Zaphnath-Paaneah" or "Tzafnat-Pa'neach" in a more literal Hebrew translation according to Genesis 41:45. The postulate that Joseph and famous Egyptian, Imhotep, are possibly the same person. When we juxtapose their personal attributes, their reputed value, and historical significance, the plausibility is very attractive. Case in point:Joseph and Imhotep1. Both second in command of Egypt behind Pharaoh.
2. Both lived to be 110 years old.
3. Both were considered having prophetic ability.
4. Both married into the priesthood of On
5. Both has twelve brothers.There are several other consistencies between the two, but the most important is that they are contemporaneous which makes it all the more reasonable to at least consider the possibilty. As well, the account of the seven year famine spoken of in Genesis is said to be inscribed within a rockface near Aswan, Egypt. The inscription records the famine as an historical fact. This lacks any depth as you no doubt have tried to reason what the Israelites were thinking and that it must not have been legitimate. If you read the Bible and compare to any other ancient document, it becomes quite clear that the Bible is consecrated from any other in its textual foundation. There is a fairly famous acronym given to seminary students to help them extract as much meaning from any given text to help answer questions that it may present. The acronym is, L.I.G.H.T.S.(L)- Literal Interpretation,(I)- Intent of the Author(G)= Grammatical Principle(H)= Historical Context(T)= Theophanic Experience(S)= Scriptural HarmonyThe idea is to ask yourself this question each time you are uncertain on how to interpret a passage. It is a useful tool. My reason for mentioning it is you can't simply try to discredit the Exodus account simply because there is no direct external evidence that has survived decay. To say that you question the account is no problem. I'm not asking you to take it all for face value, but take time to notice that the Bible is separate from any other document from antiquity. If many nations were enslaved back then, then what is difficult about accepting the Hebrews finding themselves in a similar disposition? As for the stories of heroism and of backsliding, is it impossible to consider that they are rooted in historical fact? There is no question as to whether or not David was an actual figure in human history, so why challenge his account simply because you find the premise of the Bible objectionable for personal reasons-- reasons of, perhaps, issues of accountability??

quote:

---

At some point the Egyptians and Hebrews had to have crossed paths, otherwise, how would anyone have knowlege of certain details
about Egypt at the time the Bible was first penned?

---

True. But the finding of the Bible unambiguously supports that the Bible was written deeper in the past than 1200 BCE, right? It would have to for the simple fact that it has knowledge of events that you allege could not have been known by the Israelites under the premise that Egyptians weren't actually slaves. But like I said, how is that the Israelites had first hand knowledge about the Egyptian dynasty if they never met? Then they did cross paths during the time when these accounts took place either way, which just strengthens the stories historicity. Again, why pretend that your ancestors were slaves when they really weren't? They don't have anachronisms or even hints of such. As for why Moses never mentioned the specific names of the Pharoahs, (plural), I don't know. But we know that the chronology fits. For instance, Ex 1:8 says that "a new King rose in Egypt, whom Joseph did not know." That means that there was a changing of the gaurd, if you will, indicating that another Pharoah came to power. We know that Pharoahs Amenhotep IV, Merneptah, and Ramses the I and II were contemporaneous from Abraham to Moses. As well, there are two ajoining cities mentioned by name in the Bible as "Pithom and Raamses." The city Raamses reputed to be named after Ramses the I. If we were to suppose that there were indeed 2-3 million Jews living in Egypt, why does that present a problem when the most current census says that over 77 million people live there now? First of all, what do you mean by the Near East? Secondly, why do you think that the Philistines weren't around when the Bible claims? The Philistines were known as "People of the Sea," and Ramses III is nicknamed, "Adversary of the Sea People." All placed around central and key themes in the Bible. There were nearly 20 Pharoahs named 'Ramses,' beginning at about 1300 BC. The reign of Pharaohs began for Egyptian dynasty at about 3000 BCE, so that isn't true at all. I'm not familiar with the argument. Can you go into detail, if its not OT?

quote:

---

There are many relics and artifacts reputed to be missing or destroyed because long periods of elapsed time.

---

Exactly my point. You mentioned that there are accounts of things, in the Bible and from extra-biblical sources, that are no longer in existence. But this scrutiny only seems to be applied when the Bible is involved. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt