A Leauki's Writings
In the past
Published on June 19, 2008 By Leauki In Pure Technology

(This is a reply to a question asked in the comments section of a previous article about Creationism. Question asked was about examples of scientific research in Islamic countries in the past.)

I am neither a religious scholar nor an expert on Islamic history.

But I do know the word "algebra" comes from Arabic and comes to us via a book written in Islamic Persia over a thousands years ago that describes algebra (as we know it).

Similarly the word "algorithm" is based on the name of another Islamic (Persian?) scholar who wrote a book about using Indian numerals (0123456789).

In fact, almost all of our mathematics (which is not technically a science, I assume) is based on research done in the Muslim world a thousand years ago, which is why we still read and write numbers right-to-left.



Don't believe me? Try these experiments:

Read the following word (spaces between letters are for effect), letter by letter. Hold a hand over the letters you are not yet reading:

C O M P U T E R

Notice how you read it from left-to-right, just like English (and the Latin alphabet) is supposed to be read?

Stay with me, I am coming to a point. Read the next word, from left-to-right:

M A T H E M A T I C S

It works again. Not try both words from right-to-left.

It doesn't work. Apparently English is read from left-to-right. We knew that.

Now try numbers. Using the same method, read the following number from left-to-right:

3 1 4 1 5 9 2 6 5 4

Yes. There is no decimal point in the number. They came later.

Can't tell what the value of the number is? Is it millions? Tens of millions? Hundreds of millions? Billions?

Something doesn't work here.

Try reading the number again, this time start on the right. You know what each digit means because of its position relative to the right side of the number.

3 1 4 1 5 9 2 6 5 4

Now you know if its 3 billions and something or not.

Reading the number from right-to-left works, from left-to-right does not.

Now use these two numbers:

3 1 4 1 5

9 2 6 5 4

And add them up. You can write them down (since you are copying them either right-to-left and left-to-right will work) and write the result under them, under a line, like this:


  3 1 4 1 5

  9 2 6 5 4

-----------

1 2 4 0 6 9

Did you find yourself writing the result from right-to-left?

Do you notice how our number system, which we got from Arabic-speaking Muslims, follows the direction of Arabic (and Hebrew) writing rather than Latin (and Greek) writing?

Now, Roman numerals are written and read from left-to-right, like Latin (and English) text:

M M V I I I

Although, since in contrast to words and Arab numerals the positions are not important, you can also read it right-to-left (or from the inside out, if you make sure to start at a good position).

In modern Hebrew, Arab numerals are used, as in English. But they are easier to read, because you don't have to skip incoming ndigits and read the number backwards to find out what they mean:

"There are 10000 fish in the sea."

"Yesh 00001 dagim baYam." (I reversed the number to simulate right-to-left writing.)

Note that unless you can immediately grasp how many zeroes there are in the number in the English text, you have to skip to the end of the number and read it right-to-left to know which number it is.


Muslims have (back then) made major advances in astronomy and architecture as well, but astronomy is really complicated and I really don't know anything about architecture. They were very advanced in the field of medicine, came up with the theory of bacteria causing diseases, found treatments, basically invented what we now know as dental surgery, and the use of anesthesia. Their books, translated into Latin formed the base of medical science in Europe for centuries.

Of course, many of the "Muslim" researchers were Jews. But the environment in which they worked allowed to scientific advancements unseen in the western (or Christian world) until, well, the age of humanism.


Comments (Page 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Jul 14, 2008
Genesis 3:22

"v'omer YHVH elohim hen k'echad m'menu lda3at tov v'ra"

"And said (Singular) the Kord Elohim behold as one of (from) us does he know good and evil"

As usual G-d is a grammatical Singular and who refers to Himself in the Plural, as is grammatically correct for Hebrew in that situation.

Nothing in that verse or the surrounding text implies in any way that anybody was conferring with exactly two others.


Let's start with Genesis 1:1. If we were to translate Genesis 1:1 literally, according to the plurality and oneness of Elohim, it would translate as such: "In the beginning the Gods, He created heaven and earth."


No.

Genesis 1:1 is

"B'reshit bara Elohim et haShamayim v'et haAretz"

This translates to, literally:

"In the beginning _ created (third person singular) _ gods (unspecific plural, i.e. not the one Hebrew would use for a number intrinsic in the thing) _ the heavens (plural) _ and the earth (singular, really means "land")"


[...] Jews with believing in a plurality of Gods becasue they designate God by the plural name Elohim (which btw is used 2,570 times in the OT)


No, because "Elohim" is a singular name and a plural word. Like my Latvian friend "Arnolds". The verb form used is always singular. The Bible never says "Elohim say" but always "Elohim says". (In fact it always uses past tense, but in English the difference is only preserved in present tense: I say, thou sayest, he says.)

This is not uncommon, btw. The Latin for "Athens" is "Athenae", which is plural. Yet the Romans did not believe that Athens was more than one city.

The only thing we really deduct from the word "Elohim" is that it is NOT a trinity as you describe it, because such a trinity would be intrinsic and the plural used is non-intrinsic. (In Hebrew "two legs" or the "four legs of a dog" use a different plural than "two cars".)
on Jul 14, 2008
Lula posts:
Here are 3 other quotations which imply the same plurality of persons:

"Behold Adam is become as one of us" Genesis 3:22.



Genesis 3:22

"v'omer YHVH elohim hen k'echad m'menu lda3at tov v'ra"

"And said (Singular) the Kord Elohim behold as one of (from) us does he know good and evil"

As usual G-d is a grammatical Singular and who refers to Himself in the Plural, as is grammatically correct for Hebrew in that situation.

Nothing in that verse or the surrounding text implies in any way that anybody was conferring with exactly two others.


I'm pointing to the word "us" in the English translation, and you seem to agree in your Hebrew version.

This has been a good discussion which I enjoyed very much.

Pax Christi
on Jul 15, 2008
We talked about studying the Bible a bit and she told me that a superficial view of it is enough for her.


You know. You might have something here that I hadn't considered. I just made an assumption that no one would talk so much about something if they didn't know much about it. How can you feel that strongly about something you don't understand?
on Jul 20, 2008
Back from Germany, where I had been for a week...


I'm pointing to the word "us" in the English translation, and you seem to agree in your Hebrew version.


The word "us" (or Hebrew "m'menu" = "from us") doesn't seem to imply more than one person speaking, since the verb "said" is in the Singular.

If my friend Arnolds (only one person) said "let us have lunch", I would assume that he included the people he spoke to in the "us". There is no reason to assume that Arnolds would refer to himself as a Trinity if he had said the same in Hebrew.



How can you feel that strongly about something you don't understand?


You know... you still haven't explained what you are actually talking about and why you asssume that an interest in and knowledge of one subject somehow imply that there cannot be interest in or knowledge of another subject.

It seems to puzzle you that someone would study Hebrew _and_ read biology books. Plus I don't understand your statement about English teachers usually hating maths (what does it have to do with us?).

In fact, I just brought my copy of The Blind Watchmaker back from Germany where I had left it five years ago. And just to confuse you further, perhaps, I also brought a (German original) copy of "Die Syro-Aramaeische Lesart des Quran", a book by a German professor of Semitic languages and Islamic history that requires the reader to understand English, French, German, and Latin (because of the Quran translations the author refers to) AND be able to read Aramaic and Arabic as well as Syro-Aramaic (the last I cannot do).

I don't know if an English translation exists of the book. But it is very interesting so far. I will investigate the theory further. (The theory is that Muhammed, since he was from a rich merchant family, was likely to have used many Aramaic words if not spoken Aramaic at home anyway and that hence the Quran has to be understood based on Aramaic roots when a word or sentence doesn't make sense in Arabic.)

on Jul 20, 2008
Good day to you....Welcome back to JU land.

Leauki posts:
Genesis 3:22

"v'omer YHVH elohim hen k'echad m'menu lda3at tov v'ra"

"And said (Singular) the Kord Elohim behold as one of (from) us does he know good and evil"


Lula posts:
I'm pointing to the word "us" in the English translation, and you seem to agree in your Hebrew version.


Leauki posts:
The word "us" (or Hebrew "m'menu" = "from us") doesn't seem to imply more than one person speaking, since the verb "said" is in the Singular.


Leauki, it appears with this that you are coming around to my way of thinking how the plurality of persons is implied....used with a singular verb....

earlier I said:

No disrespect intended, but it's you Leauki, who is coming up short in understanding how the plurality of persons is implied in the Hebrew name of God---Elohim--which is plural in name, though used with a singular adjective and verb.


I don't know if an English translation exists of the book. But it is very interesting so far. I will investigate the theory further. (The theory is that Muhammed, since he was from a rich merchant family, was likely to have used many Aramaic words if not spoken Aramaic at home anyway and that hence the Quran has to be understood based on Aramaic roots when a word or sentence doesn't make sense in Arabic.)


Hmmm...interesting theory about Muhammed...I hope you will share what you discover by this exercise.

on Jul 21, 2008
You know... you still haven't explained what you are actually talking about and why you asssume that an interest in and knowledge of one subject somehow imply that there cannot be interest in or knowledge of another subject.


You said earlier that body building and studying are almost polar opposites. But Arnold Shwartz... nevermind that spelling. The governor of California is a body builder who studied at Wharton. You didn't defend your position solidly then, so I know you know what I mean. Many english teachers are dried up old sexist prunes who hate their jobs for having to grade paper after never-changing paper and who believe the source of their problem to be a deficit of mathematical inclination. Furthermore, religion is in a conspicuous conflict with science at the moment, given that the fool theories of religion do not match the rational precision wrought through calculation and experimentation. Being a democrat makes you less likely to hold a conservative belief. Studying one subject makes you less likely to be interested in opposing subjects. That is about as clear as I can make it, though I suspect you already understood, given your intense linguistic knowledge.

I will state this one more time. I thought it unlikely that you were a science guy because of your extreme religous nuttiness. For example, you studied all the semetic languages so you could better understand what God was telling you. I see know where I erred in calculation. Jews have an uncanny ability to succeed, and that success stems from a cultural or perhaps biological drive to learn. You learned all that foolishness, and then you learned everything else, too.

One last thing. The War of 1948 was not a miracle. Those don't exist. 40% of the world's Jews live in Isreal, and they had to come from somewhere. Jews from all around the world flooded Isreal at its inception, and with them came the money that they had aquired. Rome was not built in a day. But, then, Romans perhaps did not have the money. Right now, Jews are the largest Washington lobby in the USA and fully 1/5 of our foreign aid. And they are such a small portion of the population! It is really remarkable, but it is not a miracle.
on Jul 21, 2008

You said earlier that body building and studying are almost polar opposites.


Actually, it was you who said that "computer scientists usually hate body building". You said it to contradict my statement about individuals who are eager to study one subject being equally eager to study other subjects as well.



But Arnold Shwartz... nevermind that spelling. The governor of California is a body builder who studied at Wharton.


So there you have an individual who was eager to study one subject and was apparently equally eager to study another as well.



You didn't defend your position solidly then, so I know you know what I mean.


I don't think you are aware of what my position was, given that you refer to your position as mine now. But you are right, it was indeed not "defended solidly". You never did explain why you thought that my statement was wrong.




Many english teachers are dried up old sexist prunes who hate their jobs for having to grade paper after never-changing paper and who believe the source of their problem to be a deficit of mathematical inclination.


That may be, but what, pray, do they have to do with my statement about individuals eager to study one subject and others???




Furthermore, religion is in a conspicuous conflict with science at the moment, given that the fool theories of religion do not match the rational precision wrought through calculation and experimentation.


Really? Which calculation and experimentation disproves the existence of a god or gods?

Do you even know enough about science and religion to make such a statement?




Being a democrat makes you less likely to hold a conservative belief.


What about Jefferson Davis or current copperheads who value "stability" in the middle east over violent democratisation?

You can agree or disagree with the Republican position on, say, Iraq; but it is certainly less conservative than Obama's (who didn't want to invade and would have preserved the status quo of pre-2003).



Studying one subject makes you less likely to be interested in opposing subjects. That is about as clear as I can make it, though I suspect you already understood, given your intense linguistic knowledge.


I understand that you believe that, but I don't understand why; especially since you never explained your reasoning, gave an example that demonstrates that the opposite is true (Arnold Schwarzenegger), and my own experience tells me the opposite.



I will state this one more time. I thought it unlikely that you were a science guy because of your extreme religous nuttiness.


My "extreme religious nuttiness"?

Can you please explain what you are referring to?

Can you please also explain why you called me a "radical Jew" in a comment on an article that praises Islamic history?



For example, you studied all the semitic languages so you could better understand what God was telling you.


No. I studied _one_ Semitic language (Hebrew) so I could better understand (it, and G-d). My Hebrew isn't excellent and the other Semitic languages are hit-and-miss. If the root of the word is the same as in Hebrew, I might understand. I cannot even read Arabic fluently.



I see know where I erred in calculation. Jews have an uncanny ability to succeed, and that success stems from a cultural or perhaps biological drive to learn. You learned all that foolishness, and then you learned everything else, too.


How do you know it is foolishness, if you don't understand it?



One last thing. The War of 1948 was not a miracle. Those don't exist. 40% of the world's Jews live in Isreal,


That is the miracle. Give me two other examples of countries that were revived 2000 years after their destruction.




and they had to come from somewhere. Jews from all around the world flooded Isreal at its inception, and with them came the money that they had aquired. Rome was not built in a day. But, then, Romans perhaps did not have the money.


You think Jews in the 1940s had lots of money? American Jews were still mostly poor at the time, compared to Anglo-Saxons (and I am not blaming anyone), European Jews were mostly dead and the survivors were desperate and certainly not rich, Arab Jews were expelled from Arab countries without their property.

What money are you talking about? How rich do Jews get from being killed and expelled?



Right now, Jews are the largest Washington lobby in the USA and fully 1/5 of our foreign aid. And they are such a small portion of the population! It is really remarkable, but it is not a miracle.


Right now... right now and 1948 are two different points in time. It is not in the US' interest to allow another Holocaust. It also goes against America's Christian (and secular) values to allow such a crime to happen again.

The number 1/5 I cannot verify and I don't care if it's true.

Jews do the same for other minorities that the US does for Israel, luckily. Israel does support the Kurds in Iraq and did allow refugees from Sudan to enter Israel and receive work permits (a slow process, unfortunately).

SOMEBODY has to do something.

on Jul 21, 2008

Leauki, it appears with this that you are coming around to my way of thinking how the plurality of persons is implied....used with a singular verb....


Right. Except I just said the exact opposite; that the plurality is not implied.

I also told you that "Elohim" is the wrong plural for a "Trinity".



You've come to the wrong conclusion about me. I'm most interested in studying the Holy Bible and God willing, it will be something I do for the rest of my life.


Well, you are studying a translation and focus on translated terms and words that are not in the original.

I recommend you get a parallel Bible with the Hebrew/Aramaic text on one side and the English text (with explanations) on the other. The same should be available for the Greek text.
on Jul 21, 2008


I thought it unlikely that you were a science guy because of your extreme religous nuttiness.



Well, I am not a "science guy". I am a system engineer and programmer. I never studied biology. The closest subject I did study was toxicology. (I have the cert.)

My "extreme religious nuttiness" interests me though. Could you tell me what my extreme religious nuttiness is? Give me three statements of mine in order of nuttiness and we'll see whether anybody here agrees that those statements are religiously nutty (and from what point of view they would be).

The "radical Jew" I think I believe you, although I find it funny that you would bring that up as a comment under an article of mine about the virtues of Islam. I just don't know what you think a "radical Jew" is. I am not even religious.

May I ask, instead perhaps, who and what you are that you make so many general statements about Jews and nuttiness, about science and religion, and about people you hardly know?


Is this a "radical Jew"?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zS22vyUodoo


on Jul 21, 2008
Lula posts:
Here are 3 other quotations which imply the same plurality of persons:

"Behold Adam is become as one of us" Genesis 3:22.
"Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue." Genesis 11:7.
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us" Isaias 6:8.



Right. Except I just said the exact opposite; that the plurality is not implied.

I also told you that "Elohim" is the wrong plural for a "Trinity".


These use of the word "us" translated in both Hebrew and English, definitely imply plurality. The concept of monotheism as explained in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity--oneness of substance and triuness in persons--alone explains the plural sense in which God is speaking to us through the Old Testament.

In the end, Catholic doctrine upholds monotheism the same as Jewish monotheism. The plurality of Persons was implied in the Old and made more clear in the New Testament.

Besides that, the principle of 3 in 1, the tri-unities are seen all about us which we know are facts, yet we don't know why the 3 manifestations of the one thing are facts.

In science, every known object, every one thing has 3 identities so to speak...its length, breadth and width or thickness. Looking at the object itself, we see it as one whole, but to establish identity one must contrast one thing with another. Added to this, the triunity of time, space and motion is inseparately associated with the object as well.

Electricians will tell us that electricity is one in nature and three in manifestation, motion, light and heat. The electric car depends on electricity for its usefullness. One Electricity has three uses....propels the car, lights the car, and heats the car.

Would you say it's three electricities? Probably not, any more than Catholics believe in 3 Gods. God is One Substance--three in Persons--Father, Son and Holy Ghost.









on Jul 21, 2008

These use of the word "us" translated in both Hebrew and English, definitely imply plurality.


Yes, but I don't see how it implies plurality on account of the speaker, who _speaks_ (Singular).

We, you and I, have been discussing this for a while. Do you understand that I just said "we" without implying that I am more than one person?


In science, every known object, every one thing has 3 identities so to speak...its length, breadth and width or thickness.


What about its colour and its life time?
on Jul 21, 2008
We, you and I, have been discussing this for a while. Do you understand that I just said "we" without implying that I am more than one person?


Yes.

In this usage, "We" implies more than one person.

If it were just one person, then the word "I" would be used.
on Jul 22, 2008

Yes.

In this usage, "We" implies more than one person.

If it were just one person, then the word "I" would be used.


So this is why you read that sentence so differently than I.

Sorry, but I find it extremely hard to believe that you think that _I_ would be more than one person just because I can include _you_, the person I am talking to, in a sentence I say about _us_, you and I.

Using your grammar, how could _I_ (one person) speak of you and me without implying (to you) that I am more than one person?

How could I talk to my friends and say "let us eat" without you understanding that as an admission that I am more than one person?

on Aug 09, 2008
An excellent piece. The real reason for the shadow of Islam falloing heavily onMathematics is thye fact that several jewish scholars escaped percecution by emigrating to Granada and even Sicily when it was under Umayad rule. The place value system as you quite correctly point out is an Indian innovation. There was a time when Islam was indeed the intellectual force to contend with:alas, now it is no longer the case.
on Aug 09, 2008

An excellent piece. The real reason for the shadow of Islam falloing heavily onMathematics is thye fact that several jewish scholars escaped percecution by emigrating to Granada and even Sicily when it was under Umayad rule. The place value system as you quite correctly point out is an Indian innovation. There was a time when Islam was indeed the intellectual force to contend with:alas, now it is no longer the case.


Thank you.

When I studied in Israel some of the brightest students I met were Arab Muslims. My father, who teaches at a college in Berlin in Germany also tells me that Turkish girls are among the best students and that their families are very supportive of their studies.

Islamic culture must do something right when it comes to the attitude towards science.

The Christian world was never famous for its contributions to science, until secular humanism replaced Christianity in Europe.

The reason Islam is no longer an intellectual force is because Islam is now longer a force. The religion has been largely replaced with Arab nationalism and weird fundamentalists sects like the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia, the "Muslim" Brotherhood in Egypt and Gaza, and the Khomeini idolisers in Iran.

But not everybody follows the loonies.
4 Pages1 2 3 4