Hebrew civilization

[Brentimus]

Da vinci drew flying machines in the 1500's.

Exactly, he is one of the dreamers is I was refering too. Most scientist of his day thought that it was impossible.

So you are willing to discount the collective wisdom of all scientists over the last several thousand years because they make mistakes, revise their theories based on new evidence, and continue to study.

No, quite the contrary. I am simply arguing that based on the evidence, and the track record of accuracy that the Bible is a reliable historical document.

Also, I would like to point out that it was less than a century ago that your viewpoint was in the minority. By historical standards its a very recent development that the Bible is not accepted as reliable among the "intellectual elite". Even so, most historians still agree today that the Bible is a reliable source of historical information.

Yet you accept on faith the wisdom of men who lived many thousands of years ago, wrote some stories down that became the basis of a religion, and never alter them in any way to account for new evidence? Very wise indeed.

Like I said ancient history cannot be proven, so yes you could argue there is an element of faith. But faith does not preclude the search for evidence.

Also, I consider the Bible to be an account of events and not a story. I would say no, don't alter evidence in any way. Instead if possible account for discrepancies and reconcile where appropriate but never alter an original account of history to fit your theory or theories.

 

[mitsho]

Stephen King = One Person
authors of bible = unknown amount of persons spread over many many centuries

Get it?

then again, with logical thinking and common sense, one can say that Solomon did not talk to birds (unprovable, illogical, it's literature), but that he did build a temple. We see the temple. We thus can say that the things connected with the temple have some truth in them. Compare the buildup to the ruins there supposedly have been, the story gives us some explanations as what has been what way why and wether the "bronce-sea" was there first or not, or whatever...

You can never prove anything for sure in Ancient history. Even your so praised archaelogical evidence might be totally wrong. We cannot prove it, only falsify it. You would have nothing to interpretate in the other way.

so, I0m hopefully finally finished here.

mick

 

[flyingchicken]

The fact that the Bible's intermingled with literary works is why we must only accept Biblical text with the verification of other sources. We cannot use other parts of the Bible as our only "other sources" because of the question: "what if it was a sequel work?" or maybe "what if the setting or other parts of the book was plagiarized or paid homage to?"

>>For analogy, let us assume that JRR Tolkien was one of the authors of a hypothetical Bible-esque book called the "Compendium [of lit. works]," authoring seven of its books. Other authors include those sicko Frodo/Samwise fanfiction writers (God forbid they exist) and other authors of other books.

One day, several centuries later, the authors were obscured from history and only their works remain. One of the Books was an extremely detailed account of this strange world in the Book of "The Two Towers." People who think its historical would start to try to think its mistranslation (where the places are real but the names are distorted) and begins to verify it with other sources to check for consistency.

If he checks within the Compendium, he will run the risk of finding "The Return of the King." He may conclude it was the same author due to writing style. However, he might also find something written in both English and basic l33t5p33k with jagged grammar, detailing the illicit travels of Sam and Frodo across Middle Earth.

This is obviously a different author of a different time period (due to subtle differences in grammar and language) "verifying" the factuality of "The Two Towers." However, no other historical evidence would suggest that Sam and Frodo ever existed.

Some parts of the Compendium would include a historical fiction which would be verifiable through ruins and artifacts.

Now, with that analogy I hope you get the moral: it would be iffy to cross-reference the Bible with the Bible only without other substantial forms of proof.

 

[kcbrett5]

then again, with logical thinking and common sense, one can say that Solomon did not talk to birds (unprovable, illogical, it's literature), but that he did build a temple. We see the temple. We thus can say that the things connected with the temple have some truth in them. Compare the buildup to the ruins there supposedly have been, the story gives us some explanations as what has been what way why and wether the "bronce-sea" was there first or not, or whatever...

so, I0m hopefully finally finished here.

mick

But this is my point. You are just cherry picking the believable parts. I will make the counter argument. You say solomon did build a temple and did not really talk to birds.

I say, Solomon was a lunatic. He talked to birds cause they understood him. He didn't really build a temple, he just imagined it in his own head because of his aforementioned lunacy.

Am I ready to start a new religion now?

Who is to say if your version or my version is more true?

 

[kcbrett5]

Exactly, he is one of the dreamers is I was refering too. Most scientist of his day thought that it was impossible.

I would like to see your polling evidence of the prevailing opinions of other scientists of the day.

I would say that man has believed since the beginning of time that he might one day fly with the birds. Look at modern man as an example, even little children dream of flapping their arms and flying someday.

The other scientists of the era just didn't know how to accomplish it yet. That is a very different thing then arguing they believed it was impossible and proven wrong. That just isn't the case.

In fact, any good scientist will believe that nothing is impossible, just unlikely. They all hold the possibility that they are wrong, that's what drives them to excel. They keep trying to improve their current knowledge and understanding.

With every post your bias and lack of understanding of real science becomes more obvious.

 

[mitsho]

But this is my point. You are just cherry picking the believable parts. I will make the counter argument. You say solomon did build a temple and did not really talk to birds.

I say, Solomon was a lunatic. He talked to birds cause they understood him. He didn't really build a temple, he just imagined it in his own head because of his aforementioned lunacy.

Am I ready to start a new religion now?

Who is to say if your version or my version is more true?

Common Sense, as I said before. Even in that very post, now does it even matter? With your attitude, we can prove nothing, therefore history doesn't exist (unprovable, in comparison to other "exact" sciences like physics). End of discussion

mick

PS: You can quote twice in one post, just edit it, it makes the thread more readable if you only quote what you want to quote (and not the whole post).

 

[Brentimus]

I would like to see your polling evidence of the prevailing opinions of other scientists of the day.

Just a brief search of the topic provided the following, I'm confident if you find the motivation to do some open-minded research for yourself that you would find the following to be true. Apparently, I was a little generous with my timeline. Heavier than air flight was thought impossible by most up until it was proven possible.

"After years of experimentation, it was not until December 17, 1903 near Kitty Hawk, North Carolina that Orville and Wilbut Wright succeeded with the first powered flight in history. That day, these two brothers from Dayton, Ohio opened the gates for exploring a new frontier; but as incredible as it seems, flight just didn't catch on right away in America. The nation was full of skeptics, and it was rare to to find anyone ready to believe that man would ever fly." Avian Dreamers by -- Jerry Gildemeister

"Experts were so convinced, on purely scientific grounds, that heavier than air flight was impossible that they rejected the Wright brothers' claims without troubling to examine the evidence. It was not until President Theodore Roosevelt ordered public trials at Fort Myers in 1908 that the Wrights were able to prove conclusively their claim and the Army and scientific press were compelled to accept that their flying machine was a reality." Alternative Science

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin,
president, Royal Society, 1895.

"Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant,
if not utterly impossible." - Simon Newcomb, 1902.

"The Wright Brothers flew right through the smokescreen of impossibility."
Charles Kettering

"The whole procedure [of shooting rockets into space]...presents
difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss
the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's
insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed
impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually
accomplished."
-Sir Richard van der Riet Wooley, British astronomer, reviewing P.E.
Cleator's "Rockets in Space", Nature, March 14, 1936

"Always listen to the experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it." Robert A. Heinlein

I would say that man has believed since the beginning of time that he might one day fly with the birds. Look at modern man as an example, even little children dream of flapping their arms and flying someday.

Wanting to fly and believing its scientifically possible are two different things.

The other scientists of the era just didn't know how to accomplish it yet. That is a very different thing then arguing they believed it was impossible and proven wrong. That just isn't the case.

See above, and I reserve the right to not argue about things you have'nt researched.

In fact, any good scientist will believe that nothing is impossible, just unlikely. They all hold the possibility that they are wrong, that's what drives them to excel. They keep trying to improve their current knowledge and understanding.

I partially agree, however, I don't believe you should ever assume something is unlikely without weighing the evidence that supports that position.

With every post your bias and lack of understanding of real science becomes more obvious.

I thought about asking you to elaborate on this, but you can leave it at that. Attacking someone's character does not prove a point.

 

[warpus]

then again, with logical thinking and common sense, one can say that Solomon did not talk to birds (unprovable, illogical, it's literature)

If men can rise from the dead, why can't they talk to birds?

 

[mitsho]

What has the one thing to do with the other? Either
a) the "rise from the dead" is literature in the sense of it is part of the theology, as is the "talk to birds", nobody in here said both things are possible. From a historical point of view I doubt that Jesus rose from the dead. or
b) You are comparing apple and oranges here. The Odyssey and the Illias both are as well related to each other, nevertheless they are two different works. The Two testimonies, and even the books in each one (more in the first than in the latter), differ from each other in time, situation, author, intention, date written down, etc. ...

mick

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Brentimus:

One other good flight quote:

"Not in 1000 years will man fly!"
--Wilbur Wright

Actually it was words to that effect, which he uttered after bad results with the preliminary glider tests in 1901, I believe. Man will fly, but not within our lifetimes.

 

[warpus]

What has the one thing to do with the other? Either
a) the "rise from the dead" is literature in the sense of it is part of the theology, as is the "talk to birds", nobody in here said both things are possible. From a historical point of view I doubt that Jesus rose from the dead.

You doubt that it happened but 1 billion Christians will disagree with you.

Seperating the 'obviously false' from the 'obvious truth' is not so easy, especially with religious text like the Bible.

 

[jeps]

I was refferring to CHRISTIANITY as the largest faith in the world.

Like it or not, but Bethlehem was in Israel. Also, he meant it to be a sect of Christianity?

Judea would not be good, as it is a roman province.

Hebrews would work, as would Isrealite. Yehudans could work as well.

 

[mitsho]

You doubt that it happened but 1 billion Christians will disagree with you.

Seperating the 'obviously false' from the 'obvious truth' is not so easy, especially with religious text like the Bible.

ok, I might be prebiased as I come from humanistic secular Europe and had so far not much to do with evangelical Christians. Argh, at any time, that "religion-is-to-be-taken-literal" intermingles with our scientific affairs...

mick

 

[kcbrett5]

ok, I might be prebiased as I come from humanistic secular Europe and had so far not much to do with evangelical Christians. Argh, at any time, that "religion-is-to-be-taken-literal" intermingles with our scientific affairs...

mick

And you still haven't acknowledged the obvious fallacy of asking "common sense" to dictate which parts are real religion and which parts are stories in literature.

Haven't you figured out be now how uncommon "common sense" can be?

You can't have the central text of a religion contain some true parts and some stories and leave it up to the reader to decide which are which. What kind of a basis is that? It is ludicrous.

And until you stop signing your name manually on every post you make rather than using the signature or just letting people use your screen name, please refrain from giving me posting advice.

 

[Horizons]

Catholicism and Judaism both have separate traditions which teach their believers how to interpret the Scriptures. I believe some other sects, like the Mormons and J's Witnesses also use similar artifices. The idea that each person is free to read and interpret the Bible without being schooled into a particular viewpoint would have been utterly alien to the authors of the Bible and all religious leaders right up until Martin Luther.

 

[mitsho]

Hey, don't be offended, I just tried to point you out an option of this forum the moderators like to get used. I wasn't trying to put you down or anything.

So, is this in reality a "bash-religion-and-those-who-believe-that-nonsense"-discussion? I thought it was about historical sources. I would like to stop about the bible, as I stated and explained before, (see the many of my posts), there are far more intriguing examples of Ancient history written text to be discussed. the Bible is quite clear a book holding much truth. Just why I think this without looking at evidence? It's intention. satisfied?

m

 

[Frygah]

Just a brief search of the topic provided the following, I'm confident if you find the motivation to do some open-minded research for yourself that you would find the following to be true. Apparently, I was a little generous with my timeline. Heavier than air flight was thought impossible by most up until it was proven possible.

"After years of experimentation, it was not until December 17, 1903 near Kitty Hawk, North Carolina that Orville and Wilbut Wright succeeded with the first powered flight in history. That day, these two brothers from Dayton, Ohio opened the gates for exploring a new frontier; but as incredible as it seems, flight just didn't catch on right away in America. The nation was full of skeptics, and it was rare to to find anyone ready to believe that man would ever fly." Avian Dreamers by -- Jerry Gildemeister

"Experts were so convinced, on purely scientific grounds, that heavier than air flight was impossible that they rejected the Wright brothers' claims without troubling to examine the evidence. It was not until President Theodore Roosevelt ordered public trials at Fort Myers in 1908 that the Wrights were able to prove conclusively their claim and the Army and scientific press were compelled to accept that their flying machine was a reality." Alternative Science

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin,
president, Royal Society, 1895.

"Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant,
if not utterly impossible." - Simon Newcomb, 1902.

"The Wright Brothers flew right through the smokescreen of impossibility."
Charles Kettering

"The whole procedure [of shooting rockets into space]...presents
difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss
the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's
insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed
impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually
accomplished."
-Sir Richard van der Riet Wooley, British astronomer, reviewing P.E.
Cleator's "Rockets in Space", Nature, March 14, 1936

"Always listen to the experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it." Robert A. Heinlein

Wanting to fly and believing its scientifically possible are two different things.


See above, and I reserve the right to not argue about things you have'nt researched.



I partially agree, however, I don't believe you should ever assume something is unlikely without weighing the evidence that supports that position.



I thought about asking you to elaborate on this, but you can leave it at that. Attacking someone's character does not prove a point.

May I ask why on earth you are taking quotes from the 19th and 20th century when the debate was whether people in the time of da Vinci believed it was scientifically possible to fly? That is, to say the least, a catastrophic conclusion to draw of the quotes you posted.

Although Wikipedia isn't an oracle of truth(albeit the discussion of Britannica Online vs. Wikipedia in terms of accuracy), it clearly lists how man have been fascinated and tried to develop ways to actually fly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_flying_machines

http://www.flyingmachines.org/

It's rather bold to proclaim that the scientists and inventors during the Renaissance refused to believe that one day man could fly, except for good old Leo.

Regarding the topic at hand, I find it difficult to think of Israel or the Hebrew as a civilization in the game-term. The race/tribe/religion has been scattered across the world, and has been difficult to pinpoint as being an important constant factor over a longer period of time(ofcourse there have been times). The closest you could come would be the Israeli state of today. However, despite being controversial, it is perhaps a bit too "new" to be a part of Civ. Is there any post-WW2 leaders atm in Civ?

 

[Brentimus]

May I ask why on earth you are taking quotes from the 19th and 20th century when the debate was whether people in the time of da Vinci believed it was scientifically possible to fly? That is, to say the least, a catastrophic conclusion to draw of the quotes you posted.

*sighs*

Hi Frygah Well as you can see below here is the first mention of flight in this discussion as far as I can tell.

So. . .when some dreamers thought of flying machines they should be ignored until the day that someone builds one? It's kind of silly to think that this generation has all the answers.

As you can see, I never limited myself to a certain timeline of discussion here. The point was that you can't ignore evidence of something just because you cannot prove it to be true at any certain point in time. Da Vinci just became someone's example. Do you really think that people of Da Vinci's time believed in the possibility of flight more than people of the 20th century?

Although Wikipedia isn't an oracle of truth(albeit the discussion of Britannica Online vs. Wikipedia in terms of accuracy), it clearly lists how man have been fascinated and tried to develop ways to actually fly.

Yes, its true that many --individuals-- did try to develop ways to fly, but as demonstrated it was not an idea the scientific community put much stock into until it was physically proven.

It's rather bold to proclaim that the scientists and inventors during the Renaissance refused to believe that one day man could fly, except for good old Leo.

That's a bold statement I don't think I made. Rather that these scientist where a small minority.

Regarding the topic at hand, I find it difficult to think of Israel or the Hebrew as a civilization in the game-term. The race/tribe/religion has been scattered across the world, and has been difficult to pinpoint as being an important constant factor over a longer period of time(ofcourse there have been times). The closest you could come would be the Israeli state of today. However, despite being controversial, it is perhaps a bit too "new" to be a part of Civ. Is there any post-WW2 leaders atm in Civ?

I frankly believe that the standards for Israel's inclusion in the game seem higher than those of other nations that are already included or being included in BTS. Hebrew culture has drastically influenced the world as it is today.

 

[warpus]

I frankly believe that the standards for Israel's inclusion in the game seem higher than those of other nations that are already included or being included in BTS. Hebrew culture has drastically influenced the world as it is today.

This is already reflected by the inclusion of Judaism and Christianity as religions in the game though.

 

[kcbrett5]

As you can see, I never limited myself to a certain timeline of discussion here. The point was that you can't ignore evidence of something just because you cannot prove it to be true at any certain point in time. Da Vinci just became someone's example. Do you really think that people of Da Vinci's time believed in the possibility of flight more than people of the 20th century?

No, but you have conveniently limited yourself to airplanes when the original discussion was on flying machines in general. A hot air balloon is a flying machine. Zeppelins, blimps, etc.

And how does a couple of random quotes prove what the scientific community at large believes?

And if we had to wait for the majority of the people in the world to believe in something before we tried it, we would still be hunters and gatherers. Invention by nature is the work of a few that benefits the whole. It is quite irrelevant what the general population believes. The general population is not as smart as the individual. Its the error of groupthink. The group benefits the dumb people but hinders the true genius.

And what does this have to do with Hebrews? Why not have the aboriginal people of australia in the game? They dominated and entire continent for thousands of years before the white man came and conquered them.

Why not have a tribe of cavemen? Haven't you seen the Geico commercials? “Right,” the caveman replies, “walking upright, discovering fire, inventing the wheel, laying the foundation for all mankind. You’re right. Good point. Sorry we couldn’t get that to you sooner.” Those are some fairly significant developments. They should be worthy of a civ.