True Paradigm

Monday quote

2012-01-30T22:00:00.002+13:00

We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Stephen Schneider, global warming advocate, (interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989).

Intellectual property is information

2012-01-29T16:00:00.000+13:00

Property as property proper is matter. It is material. It has height, width, depth and weight (mass). One could extend this to other attributes of matter such as current, time and temperature. Thus energy could be considered property which can be bought and sold. Though something being matter does not mean it necessarily can be bought and sold, many things have no ownership, or shared ownership.

Property as matter is fixed in time and space. It can shift in time and space, but it occupies space such that its presence in one place precludes its presence elsewhere. (Exceptions are when something is considered as a whole but can be split up, like air and water).

Ownership of an item means that it is your possession or under your oversight. You get to determine how it is used (within the confines of legality).

The limitation of locality and the fact of ownership means that a person can take an item, or place a claim to an item that is not his. Such behaviour is considered theft. It would include taking a computer from work, tomatoes out of your neighbour's garden, or shifting a boundary marker.

Contrast this to what is referred to as intellectual property. I have suggested we use an alternative term to prevent equivocation on the word property; such as "concept", "conceptualisation", "idea", "abstraction", or perhaps a Greek or Latin derived neologism. I will use concept in this post.

Concepts are information. Information does not have qualities of matter. It does not consist of length (in the usual sense), mass, time, current, or temperature. Thus it is non-material. It is still a real entity, just not a material one.

Therefore concepts are not restricted by the laws of physics. Concepts can be duplicated. Concepts can be lost or destroyed. Greek fire is a concept that has been lost. There is no conservation of matter or energy law that corresponds to concepts.

This means that concepts cannot be stolen in the way that property can be stolen. If you give someone else your concept you still have it. Because you still have your concept you cannot say that it has been removed from you. You can still use your concept. The difference is that now someone else has access to the concept and can use it as well.

I used the example of an axe. If someone steals your axe then they have it and you cannot use it. But if someone sees your axe and makes his own then he has not stolen your axe, you still have it. He now also has an axe because he has used your concept: the idea of attaching a splitting wedge to a stick.

Concepts can be mildly to very complicated. Complexity does not correspond directly to usefulness. And less complex concepts are not always obvious before the fact. A less complex solution to a problem may replace a more complex solution because of simplicity and cost.

The distinction between property as matter and concepts as information is foundational. One that must be apprehended before discussion about what copyright might entail. A rule of thumb in distinguishing between property and concepts: If you give something away and no longer have it, it is material; if you give it away and still have it, then it is information. As George Bernard Shaw said,

If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.

2011 Top 10

2012-01-28T12:00:00.005+13:00

I have only recently seen the cartoon Coffee with Jesus. It's theologically variable, and the commentary is somewhat wry. I found this strip insightful.

Click to read

Monday quote

2012-01-23T08:00:00.002+13:00

Women. They are a complete mystery.

Stephen Hawking (1942–).

SOPA and intellectual property as property

2012-01-22T09:00:00.017+13:00

The (American) National Review comments on the problems with policing the internet in relation to piracy. They rightly note the error of forcing internet companies to do their police work for them and (possibly) punishing them for failing to do so. (I do not know the wording of the act. We now have a similar act in New Zealand.)

We are in general skeptical of government efforts to foist off difficult tasks onto businesses and other private parties, who already are expected to act as tax collectors (especially of sales taxes), immigration inspectors, and more.

They are also sceptical of the determination of the authorities to deal with this problem given that they are not acting on similar abuses that are already illegal

Judging by the fact that pirated DVDs are openly for sale in practically every city of any consequence in these United States, we have our doubts about the police authorities’ seriousness in these matters.

Further they doubt it will be effective

the worst offenders would of course have no incentive to do so, their guilt being plain and undeniable. Instead, the full-time pirates would have a very strong incentive to simply switch to another website, or to a proliferation of websites, or to deploy any number of commonly available technological solutions to defeat government attempts to block them.

I concur with their concerns here. I also find the modern practice of punishing the innocent to decrease the possibility of crime less than satisfactory. Frequently such laws do little to address the law-breakers yet are onerous on the law-abiding. Moderns combine this with an unwillingness to give adequate punishment for crime. Straitjacket all men to prevent crime but minimise the guilt of those who still pursue it.

The problem with the article is that they diminish the real issue which is associating property with intellectual property

All conservatives believe in protecting property rights, and most conservatives support the protection of copyright as an extension of that principle.

This assumes that property is analogous to intellectual property.

We favor an Internet that is largely free of regulation and taxes; we also favor observing the Eighth Commandment.

While there are a few crusaders against the very idea of intellectual property, there are few questions of principle at stake here, most reasonable people having long ago made up their minds about property rights (generally for) and censorship (generally against).

Unfortunately they miss that this is precisely the debate we need to have.

Property is material. A shovel is an object that exists in space and time. So is a car, and a table. Intellectual property is not material, it is information. Whether we consider copyright for written work; or patents for processes, machines and molecular shapes; we are not dealing with an object fixed in space and time. Thus the claim that these things actually are property, albeit intellectual property is incorrect. Now one may argue that such things should be safe-guarded for various reasons, but we need to establish these reasons. Asserting an analogy to property is not enough. Is the analogy valid? A smile is more similar to the words of a book than the paper is, yet no-one thinks that smiles should be subject to copyright laws.

The extension of property rights to intellectual property rights is not obvious regardless of the number of conservatives (or liberals) who subscribe to it. The terms may share the word "property" but that does not prevent the latter being a misnomer.

To discuss intellectual property one must grasp this distinction. Failure to understand the distinction renders one's opinion of little value, not because his opinions do not matter in general, but because he doesn't have the intellectual concepts needed to address the issue. It is similar to discussing causing death without reference to intent: if you don't understand that there is a difference between murder, self-defence, and manslaughter, how can you address such things?

Persecution of the Nigerian church

2012-01-17T13:00:00.047+13:00

Nigeria

Nigeria is the most populous African country; it has a large number of Christians. There have been significant conflicts between Muslims and Christians over the years, with an insistence on Sharia law by some Muslims.

A Muslim militant recently converted to Christianity. When about to murder a Christian, he is overcome with the enormity of his intented action. The militant

was poised to slit the throat of his Christian victim... when he was suddenly struck with the weight of the evil he was about to commit.

Dropping his machete, the man ran to the nearest church, asking a pastor for help.

The pastor referred him to a CAM-supported indigenous ministry, where "native missionaries are reaching remote villages with the message of Christ....

When the call came, the ministry leader was grieving the loss of several close missionary friends who were murdered in the Yobe State slaughter. He immediately met with the confessed killer and joyfully led him to Christ. He is discipling him in a secret location because of the extreme danger.

Unfortunately the man's children were targeted by group he defected from.

Upon discovering the man's conversion to Christianity, Boko Haram members invaded his home, kidnapped his two children and informed him that they were going to execute them in retribution for his disloyalty to Islam. Clutching his phone, the man heard the sound of the guns that murdered his children.

The same group stormed a church earlier this month. John Jauro recounts,

I was leading the congregation in prayers. Our eyes were closed when some gunmen stormed the church and opened fire on the congregation. Six people were killed in the attack and 10 others were wounded.

We need to remember and pray for our brothers who are persecuted thru-out the world, and we remember Jesus' encouragement that our kingdom is of another world.

Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5:11-12)

Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. (Revelation 2:10)

Monday quote

2012-01-16T11:00:00.004+13:00

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are so confident while the intelligent are full of doubt.

Bertrand Russell (1872–1970).

Number of Christians by country

2012-01-15T23:00:00.010+13:00

Interesting article from PewResearch. They give the number of Christians per country from 2010. I have a quibble about how they define Christian, thus the West may be over estimated as well as the number of Catholics in South America. The number in China is probably a little low. I don't think they should include groups that deny the deity of Christ, though this will not affect the numbers considerably.

The top 30 are

Country, Estimated Christian Population

United States 246,790,000
Brazil 175,770,000
Mexico 107,780,000
Russia 105,220,000
Philippines 86,790,000
Nigeria 80,510,000
China 67,070,000
Congo 63,150,000
Germany 58,240,000
Ethiopia 52,580,000
Italy 51,550,000
United Kingdom 45,030,000
Colombia 42,810,000
South Africa 40,560,000
France 39,560,000
Ukraine 38,080,000
Spain 36,240,000
Poland 36,090,000
Argentina 34,420,000
Kenya 34,340,000
India 31,850,000
Uganda 28,970,000
Peru 27,800,000
Tanzania 26,740,000
Venezuela 25,890,000
Canada 23,430,000
Romania 21,380,000
Indonesia 21,160,000
Ghana 18,260,000
Angola 16,820,000

Monday quote

2012-01-09T22:00:00.001+13:00

And of course atheists will laugh at anything that confronts their unbelief. But laughter and derision are no substitute for logic and scientific reasoning and discourse.

Don Batten

Ridiculously expensive iPhone

2012-01-03T23:00:00.006+13:00

Luxury phone goes for an obscene amount of money.

It has a gold casing with over 500 diamonds. The carrying case is made of platinum and gems.

I don't think I would (I hope I wouldn't) bother with this, even if I considered £6,000,000 small change. Why was this made? Who would want one?

Monday quote

2012-01-02T13:00:00.001+13:00

I love the fact that God loves new beginnings; otherwise, why would He give us creatures so many opportunities to start fresh? New mornings, new months, new seasons, new years. He is good...

Douglas Wilson

Monday quote

2011-12-26T08:00:00.001+13:00

Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.

C.S. Lewis

Joy to the world

2011-12-25T09:00:00.003+13:00

What grace the Father has extended to man by sending his Son to dwell among us.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,
“Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!” (Luke 2:13-14)

Isaac Watts has captured the great goodness of God in this famous hymn. The whole earth groans under the curse of death; pain and sorrow rule; and one man's life restored and is restoring all things!

May all men everywhere give allegiance to the King of kings.

Joy to the world
Isaac Watts, 1674–1748

Joy to the world, the Lord is come!
Let earth receive her King;
Let every heart prepare Him room,
And Heaven and nature sing,
And Heaven and nature sing,
And Heaven, and Heaven, and nature sing.

Joy to the earth, the Savior reigns!
Let men their songs employ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills and plains
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat, repeat, the sounding joy.

No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found,
Far as the curse is found,
Far as, far as, the curse is found.

He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders, wonders, of His love.

Pagan Christmas?

2011-12-24T21:00:00.001+13:00

Here is an interesting article by William J. Tighe on how we got December 25 as the date we celebrate our Lord's birth. It challenges the concept that Christmas is a Christianised pagan holiday.

Many Christians think that Christians celebrate Christ’s birth on December 25th because the church fathers appropriated the date of a pagan festival. Almost no one minds, except for a few groups on the fringes of American Evangelicalism, who seem to think that this makes Christmas itself a pagan festival. But it is perhaps interesting to know that the choice of December 25th is the result of attempts among the earliest Christians to figure out the date of Jesus’ birth based on calendrical calculations that had nothing to do with pagan festivals.

Rather, the pagan festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Son” instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the “pagan origins of Christmas” is a myth without historical substance.

The date of birth was connected to the date of death in this reasoning.

Greek Christians seem to have wanted to find a date equivalent to 14 Nisan in their own solar calendar, and since Nisan was the month in which the spring equinox occurred, they chose the 14th day of Artemision, the month in which the spring equinox invariably fell in their own calendar. Around A.D. 300, the Greek calendar was superseded by the Roman calendar, and since the dates of the beginnings and endings of the months in these two systems did not coincide, 14 Artemision became April 6th.

In contrast, second-century Latin Christians in Rome and North Africa appear to have desired to establish the historical date on which the Lord Jesus died. By the time of Tertullian they had concluded that he died on Friday, 25 March 29. (As an aside, I will note that this is impossible: 25 March 29 was not a Friday, and Passover Eve in A.D. 29 did not fall on a Friday and was not on March 25th, or in March at all.)

So in the East we have April 6th, in the West, March 25th. At this point, we have to introduce a belief that seems to have been widespread in Judaism at the time of Christ, but which, as it is nowhere taught in the Bible, has completely fallen from the awareness of Christians. The idea is that of the “integral age” of the great Jewish prophets: the idea that the prophets of Israel died on the same dates as their birth or conception.

With these dates assigned to Jesus' death and conception we get a birthday of December 25 in the West. I think this reasoning is fallacious in several areas, though Chrysostom deriving this date based on John the Baptist's conception is more reasonable. I think Jesus' birth was more likely to have occurred about September. Nevertheless, the article challenges the idea that this date was borrowed from a pagan holiday.

Interestingly there is some evidence that the Magi visited Jesus about December 25.

Monday quote

2011-12-19T22:00:00.006+13:00

Logic and truth, as a matter of fact, have very little to do with each other. Logic is concerned merely with the fidelity and accuracy with which a certain process is performed, a process which can be performed with any materials, with any assumption. You can be as logical about griffins and basilisks as about sheep and pigs.... Logic, then, is not necessarily an instrument for finding truth; on the contrary, truth is necessarily an instrument for using logic—for using it, that is, for the discovery of further truth and for the profit of humanity. Briefly, you can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.

G.K. Chesterton, (1874–1936)

Full quote

Logic and truth, as a matter of fact, have very little to do with each other. Logic is concerned merely with the fidelity and accuracy with which a certain process is performed, a process which can be performed with any materials, with any assumption. You can be as logical about griffins and basilisks as about sheep and pigs. On the assumption that a man has two ears, it is good logic that three men have six ears, but on the assumption that a man has four ears, it is equally good logic that three men have twelve. And the power of seeing how many ears the average man, as a fact, possesses, the power of counting a gentleman’s ears accurately and without mathematical confusion, is not a logical thing but a primary and direct experience, like a physical sense, like a religious vision. The power of counting ears may be limited by a blow on the head; it may be disturbed and even augmented by two bottles of champagne; but it cannot be affected by argument. Logic has again and again been expended, and expended most brilliantly and effectively, on things that do not exist at all. There is far more logic, more sustained consistency of the mind, in the science of heraldry than in the science of biology. There is more logic in Alice in Wonderland than in the Statute Book or the Blue Book. The relations of logic to truth depend, then, not upon its perfection as logic, but upon certain pre-logical faculties and certain pre-logical discoveries, upon the possession of those faculties, upon the power of making those discoveries. If a man starts with certain assumptions, he may be a good logician and a good citizen, a wise man, a successful figure. If he starts with certain other assumptions, he may be an equally good logician and a bankrupt, a criminal, a raving lunatic. Logic, then, is not necessarily an instrument for finding truth; on the contrary, truth is necessarily an instrument for using logic—for using it, that is, for the discovery of further truth and for the profit of humanity. Briefly, you can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.

G.K. Chesterton, Daily News Feb 25, 1905.

Classification of knowledge

2011-12-18T18:00:00.007+13:00

Mortimer Adler

Mortimer Adler classified knowledge in the 1960s in this manner.

Investigative|Synthetic|General = Operational science
Investigative|Synthetic|Particular = Historical science
Non-investigative|Synthetic|General = Philosophy 1st order
Non-investigative|Analytic|General = Mathematics

Investigative (empirical) means that the tests are done on the world.
Non-investigative means that ideas are cognitive and common to man.

Synthetic means that these ideas are potentially falsifiable based on experience.
Analytic means that it is not falsifiable based on experience.

General means that the discovery is a global truth.
Particular means that a specific event is being described.

Why are there 4 rather than 8 categories? 3 concepts with 2 options, 2³ = 8.

Investigative|Synthetic|General
Investigative|Synthetic|Particular
Investigative|Analytic|General
Investigative|Analytic|Particular
Non-investigative|Synthetic|General
Non-investigative|Synthetic|Particular
Non-investigative|Analytic|General
Non-investigative|Analytic|Particular

However, Investigative cannot be Analytic. If something is Investigative it should be falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable then investigative work is pointless, and thus it is Non-investigative. This excludes #3 and #4.

And, Non-investigative knowledge cannot be particular. If it is knowledge common to all men, then it is knowledge that is generalisable. This excludes #6 and #8.

We are left with the original 4 categories.

The interesting thing about these categories is that philosophers rate Non-investigative knowledge as more foundational than Investigative knowledge. And if one thinks about this, it makes sense. Investigative knowledge relies on the truth of Non-investigative knowledge. Scientists can see that scientific theory is subservient to mathematics. You cannot say that the theory of gravity is true unless you also hold that the mathematics which is used to describe the theory is also true.

Note that analytic knowledge is not falsifiable. This is because it is derived formally (deductively). One starts with several axioms and, assuming they are true, the rest follows. Mathematical theorems are not accepted true unless every step can be confirmed to be true. Several theories remain unresolved because a mathematician has not solved it. And once it is solved (and confirmed there are no errors) then it cannot subsequently be disproved. 2 + 3 = 5 remains true forever. No new discovery could disprove this.

Note the distinction between operational and historical science (I have previously discussed this). Operational science identifies global truths such as the conservation of energy. This has been well documented, but could potentially be disproved. Historical science will make statements about specific previous events such as when the Polynesians migrated into the Pacific. Further investigation could challenge the accepted norm (or confirm it).

So what of 1st order philosophy? Why should Non-investigative synthetic knowledge take priority?

This is because it is foundational to both science and mathematics. There are several things that man holds true that can only be described as self-evident. They seem true, and most people hold them to be true, but how does one prove them to be true?

Examples include self-identity, and the law of non-contradiction. How does one prove that

A = A; or
A ≠ ¬A

We also hold other things to be self-evidently true such as the reliability of reason, or the universality of physical laws: the idea that repeating an experiment will lead to the same result (all other things being equal and within the margin of error).

So Non-investigative knowledge is the most foundational. 1st order philosophy primarily from whence we get our axioms, and mathematics secondarily as it is deductively certain.

Investigative knowledges are less foundational. Both rely on the Non-investigative knowledges.

Monday quote

2011-12-12T19:00:00.002+13:00

These impious Galileans feed not only their own poor, but ours as well.

Flavius Claudius Julianus (c. 330--360)

Moon in high resolution

2011-12-07T08:00:00.004+13:00

Arizona State and NASA have completed a high resolution topography map of the moon.

This new topographic map, from Arizona State University in Tempe, shows the surface shape and features over nearly the entire moon with a pixel scale close to 100 meters (328 feet). A single measure of elevation (one pixel) is about the size of two football fields placed side-by-side.

Improved versions are planned.

Farside of the moon

Free ebook: The Holiness of God

2011-12-06T03:00:00.005+13:00

Amazon currently have the Kindle Edition of The Holiness of God by R. C. Sproul for free. Okay, so I haven't read it previously, but worth adding to the electronic library for future reference.

Hat tip: Reformed Arminian Blog

Monday quote

2011-12-05T08:00:00.002+13:00

Your child needs your love the most when they deserve it the least.

Truth versus sincerity

2011-12-02T13:00:00.001+13:00

Often times it is claimed that error in the name of a greater good is acceptable. A variant on the end justifies the means I suppose. This is argued in many of the larger paradigms that compete for our allegiance: evolution, climate change, socialism.

Biologist Coturnix argues deceit is acceptable in the battle over evolution,

You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students. If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives.

A more subtle comment by climate researcher David Viner about factual inaccuracies in a movie,

The film got a lot of the detail wrong, and the direction of change as well - cooling of this sort is very unlikely with global warming. But the fact that The Day After Tomorrow raises awareness about climate change must be a good thing.

And Tony Juniper said about the same movie,

Although the depiction of the science is exaggerated and at times misleading, the scale of the threat and the underlying politics are all too true.

In defence of this, people argue the issue is so important—and the issue is manifestly true—that deceit is justifiable. Some may even raise the lying-to-save-life dilemma; though forced information is a different category.

Such beliefs may also be held by Christians. Scriptural defence of the same is appealed to in Paul

Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. (Philippians 1)

However this verse does not speak of the truth or falsity of the message, it speaks of the "truth" of motivation.

The claim that is suspect is

Lies are acceptable if we are sincere about our beliefs

Paul in Philippians is saying

Truth is acceptable, even if the proclaimer is insincere about his beliefs.

It is not sincerity that matters, it is truth. And Proverbs directly contradicts the claim that sincerity is more important than truth, in fact without truth it is potentially dangerous,

It is not good to have zeal without knowledge,/
nor to be hasty and miss the way. (Proverbs 19:2 NIV)

Monday quote

2011-11-28T08:00:00.003+13:00

If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.

George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950).

Myths of privatisation

2011-11-24T13:00:00.001+13:00

I am a fan of privatisation for several reasons, not the least being that I think that private companies tend to be less wasteful, more productive, and if they fail the taxpayer isn't called to bail them out, let alone continue to fund them indefinitely. I also do not think it is the government's mandate to run most companies.

Roger Kerr has a good article discussing what he considers are false beliefs held by many opposed to privatisation of public companies. These are the 8 myths he discusses:

Privately owned businesses consistently outperform publicly owned businesses.
Privatisation is ideological.
Privatisation is needed to reduce debt.
The government should own SOEs [State Owned Enterprises] because it has a lower cost of (debt) capital.
SOEs were sold too cheaply.
Privatisation leads to more foreign control over New Zealand.
The government loses financially from privatisation because it forgoes dividends.
Air New Zealand is a good model for the government’s partial privatisation approach.

Myth 2 is interesting as even proponents of privatisation may think this. Kerr argues it is in fact pragmatic.

Myth #2 Privatisation is ideological. To the contrary, it is pragmatic: it (generally) works. When the Thatcher government embarked on privatisation in the 1980s, some regarded it as a leap of faith. It was not a popular policy to advance but was supported when the benefits became clear.

As a British minister said, “facts overtook the debate.”

The genuinely ideological argument is the reverse: the Marxist attachment to “public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.”

Of course it could be both. An ideal system can be the best system if the underlying ideology is basically correct.

Monday quote

2011-11-21T08:00:00.005+13:00

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790).

Liberty and community

2011-11-17T13:00:00.012+13:00

Libertarians are sometimes criticised that their position favours individualism. For those that promote individualism this is not seen as a downfall; but the complaint, if true, is a reasonable one to make to a Christian libertarian. Christianity teaches the importance of community. The early Christians shared their property, and Christendom views itself communally, as a city on a hill, we talk of the kingdom of heaven or the kingdom of God. We are bondslaves to our master Jesus. Individuals are metaphorically stones in a temple. The goal of man is to serve God, not himself.

I agree that community is important to Christianity, how could it be other if our greatest commands are to love? One can speak to the nature of community which is important and interacts with the political component. Christian community is a community made up of very unique and distinct individuals. Community does not mean we are less ourselves, rather we are more ourselves. Like a family where each individual contributes something different. But I do not wish to address this issue in detail. Rather the question of whether libertarianism promotes individualism, and is it a negative philosophy for those who promote community?

Pragmatically it is not obvious that libertarianism is detrimental. Looking at our increasingly socialised political structures in the West, we are also becoming increasingly individualistic. That is, our politics are more socialist over the decades and our citizens are more individualistic. Certainly there appears to be some correlation, even if the reasons are a little more complex. I note with some irony the complaints about lack of community coming from socialists who argue the solution is more socialism.

It is possible that individualists can continue to thrive in a libertarian environment? Certainly a Christian should be cautious about promoting laws that are detrimental to community—community as defined by God, not by the secularists—but that is the issue, is it not? Are we not to form our own communities? And the law should be such that it does not interfere with this?

Communities are formed by individuals, by common location or common cause. They are not formed by governments. Attempts by governments to do so fail because laws fail to create community. Legal constructs cannot facilitate friendship. Further, laws frequently inhibit the desires and intents of community by placing unnecessary restrictions on them. Whereas laws that are restricted to dealing with disputes over person and property—that is they prevent and punish actions that are anti-communal: theft, murder, rape—help prevent the fracturing of society.

Laws that punish people who damage other people, damage property, or fail to keep promises that they have agreed to with others, are good in that they address issues of justice, but coincidentally punish those who are engaging in anti-community activities. When government otherwise leaves people alone then citizens can form their own community structures, or not, as they see fit. This is a libertarian position. Certainly libertarian government does not create community, but no government action can. People form communities, and I maintain a libertarian position is more favourable to forming and maintaining functional communities.

Monday quote

2011-11-14T08:00:00.000+13:00

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

George Washington (1732–1799)

Bible reading level

2011-11-12T08:00:00.001+13:00

Below are listed several Bible versions and their reading age level.

Version		Age
Young's Literal Translation	YLT	18
The King James Version	KJV	17
The American Standard Version	ASV	17
Douay Rheims	DR	17
The New American Standard Bible, 1977	NASB	16
The Amplified Bible	Amp	16
The Revised Standard Version	RSV	16
The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update	NASB95, NASU	15
The New Revised Standard Version	NRSV	15
The English Standard Version	ESV	15
The Weymouth New Testament		15
The Philips New Testament		14
The New English Bible	NEB	13
The New Jerusalem Bible	NJB	13
The New King James Version	NKJV	13
The New International Version	NIV	13
Today's New International Version	TNIV	13
The Holman Christian Standard Bible	HCSB	13
The Living Bible	LB	13
The Jewish New Testament		13
The World English Bible	WEB	12
The New American Bible	NAB	12
The Common English Bible	CEB	12
Today's English Version	TEV	12
The New English Translation	NET	12
The New Living Translation	NLT	11
The Revised English Bible	REB	11
The Message		10
God's Word	GW	10
The Contemporary English Version	CEV	10
The New Century Version	NCV	9
The New International Reader's Version	NIrV	8
International Children's Bible	ICB	8
The Bible in Basic English	BBE	?

This list was compiled from a range of sites; here, here, here, here, and here. I also ran Genesis 1 in a few versions thru a Flesch-Kincaid reading calculator. I have given the reading age level rather than the grade/ year level as the latter differ thru-out English speaking countries. Age level is for English as first language, and I am aware that established reading levels may underestimate true average ability when children are taught well.

Because this list was compiled from several sources, and estimated reading level is somewhat subjective, various bibles may be rated mildly incorrectly compared to others. For example the ICB became the NCV and I am not certain how much they differ (if at all) and whether they warrant different age levels.

Monday quote

2011-11-07T08:00:00.002+13:00

‎I will put down all apparent inconsistencies in the Bible to my own ignorance.

John Newton (1725–1807).

Monday quote

2011-10-31T20:00:00.000+13:00

The truly wise man is he who always believes the Bible against the opinion of any man.

R. A. Torrey (1856–1928)

Monday quote

2011-10-24T15:00:00.001+13:00

Through all of this of course, underlying it is his grace. None of us ever earn his goodwill by the fact we live by his word. But although that is true, none of us can live in his grace unless we live by his word.

Trevor Geddes

Determinism debate

2011-10-19T21:00:00.001+13:00

Source

Monday quote

2011-10-17T20:00:00.003+13:00

The bigger the government, the less the citizens do for one another. If the state will take care of me and my neighbors, why should I?

Dennis Prager

Proof-texting in cyberspace

2011-10-16T20:00:00.000+13:00

Allen and Swain write on the historical use of proof-texting. While proof-texting is maligned by some, the Bible uses proof-texts, and in ways that some would fault non-biblical writers for doing the same. Good reasons exist for the way biblical authors quoted:

if we are to appreciate the way Scripture uses Scripture to prove a doctrinal point, then we must appreciate the larger hermeneutical frameworks within which citations are employed, the original (historical and literary) contexts within which proof-texts are found, and we must also possess a certain canonical sensitivity to how biblical motifs and themes unfold in the history of redemption, and, perhaps most importantly, how Christ is understood to be the climax of that unfolding historical development.

They distinguish between the citation techniques and the hermeneutical considerations at play: the quote may not be the (full) explanation. In other writings, reference to Scripture may be shorthand to not only the scriptural context, but commentaries written by the author and even others on the passage cited. Consider Aquinas,

The quotation of a biblical passage in the Summa [Theologiae] is meant to point the reader to a commentary written by Thomas or to an exegetical tradition of which he and the intelligent reader would be aware.

The Summa covers a wider terrain than any one biblical commentary—in fact, it could be characterized as a whole-Bible commentary with its very structure being shaped by what we now call “biblical theology.” The particular biblical commentaries contain more detailed expositions of pertinent passages that are merely referenced offhand or quoted briefly in the Summa. For example, he discusses the equality of power of the Father and of the Son in two types of texts (ST 1a.42.6 and in his Commentary on John 5:19). In the article in the ST, Thomas mentions a number of other texts in John’s Gospel (5:20; 5:30; 14:31), and he makes reference to no patristic sources. When you trace those references or quotations to his commentary, however, you see extended analysis of a deep patristic tradition.

A proof-text is, in modern parlance, a hypertext.

Monday quote

2011-10-10T23:00:00.002+13:00

In the end, the money has run out—there are just not enough taxes [and] revenues to feed government's rapacious appetite to spend money satiating voters' indulgence, envy and greed.

John Tertullian and Contra Celsum

If your right hand causes you to sin

2011-10-09T23:00:00.013+13:00

I was teaching the pre-teens on Bible genre. Explaining how the Bible is composed of various writing styles and how this has an effect on interpretation. An example that came up was the talion in the Torah compared with Jesus telling us to cut off our own hands in the gospels. In the former situation a legal text is meant to be understood by the nature of legal genre to be literal—the possibility of fines notwithstanding.

Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:21 ESV)

Jesus' words are thought by many to be hyperbolic.

And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. (Matthew 5:30 ESV)

That it is hyperbolic can be noted by the fact that one does not sin because of his hand, we sin from our mind. And even if we did remove our right hand for stealing, what is to stop us stealing with our left?

The children understood all this, but what is particularly interesting is Jesus' contrast here. Why did he speak like this?

Jesus is teaching about the Mosaic Law. And the Law stipulates and limits punishments that were given for criminal offences. What Jesus does is turn the focus from what we demand occurs to others who have wronged us to what we must do to stop wronging others and God. Paraphrasing:

You know that if another (deliberately) maims someone's hand he is to have his hand maimed; well if you are sinning with your hand cut your own hand off. You remove a man's eye for causing blindness; remove your own eye when you sin with it.

Jesus is using what they do know about the Law to make them realise their own shortcomings. They know about cutting off the hands and plucking out the eyes of criminals, Jesus forces them to focus on how they were using their own hands and eyes.

Monday quote

2011-10-03T21:00:00.000+13:00

There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there is never more than one.

C. S. Lewis

Douglas Wilson on mercy

2011-09-28T22:00:00.003+13:00

This sermon shows why I enjoy reading Douglas Wilson's writing. A good mix of sound theology, humour, and wordsmithing.

Consider the contrasts used in the introduction

David seeks to get away from Saul, but he cannot get away from his anointing. He can evade Saul, but he cannot evade the fact that a new Israel is going to start to form around him. David goes into the wilderness and finds a throne. Saul goes to his throne and finds a wilderness.

And his summary of the text,

And so David came to be afraid of Achish (v. 12), and so pretended to be insane (v. 13). And Achish was fooled (v. 14), and delivers one of the great lines of Scripture (v. 15).

Incidentally the verse is

Do I lack madmen, that you have brought this fellow to behave as a madman in my presence? Shall this fellow come into my house?

Here he deals with the dilemma of lying,

If you were standing at a crossroads, and a screaming woman ran by, and then about five minutes later, a lunatic with furious eyes and an axe ran up, demanding to know “which way she went,” I trust that all of you here would lie like a Christian.

And here, childhood discipline,

Kids, if your mom asks if you made your bed, and you reply that you did (even though you did not), you cannot fix it by appealing to the Hebrew midwives, or to the faithful deception that Rahab used. You should get swats a couple times—once for the lie, and the other time for the faulty hermeneutic.

Finishing with a fine explanation of mercy triumping over justice,

The second is the authority of mercy. Mercy does not negate authority; mercy has authority.

Do not confuse this. Mercy is not what happens when your standards fall apart. Laziness in discipline is not mercy. Mercy is what happens when your standards are outranked. Mercy stands taller than justice.

All in all an enjoyable and educational read.

Monday quote

2011-09-26T21:00:00.001+13:00

The error of the necessitarians on this subject is, they put the effect for the cause, and the cause for the effect. They make the foreknowledge the cause of the event, whereas the event is the cause of the foreknowledge.

Thomas Ralston

Monday quote

2011-09-19T19:00:00.002+12:00

Christian values praise voluntary self-sacrifice for the benefit of other people, because even if we die in the process, the duration and quality of our eternal reward greatly exceeds the "light and momentary afflictions" of this present life. Pagan ethics praise coerced sacrifice from [other] people.

Tom Pittman

A rich man in Hades

2011-09-18T22:00:00.013+12:00

There is some dispute concerning the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Does it represent a real event, or is it a parable.

After healing a man on the Sabbath day Jesus tells two parables. They are:

The Parable of the Wedding Feast; and
The Parable of the Great Banquet.

Following this Jesus talks about counting the cost of discipleship illustrating it with an example of kings planning for battle then noting that salt must keep its savour. Then he tells 4 further parables:

The Parable of the Lost Sheep;
The Parable of the Lost Coin;
The Parable of the Prodigal Son;
The Parable of the Dishonest Manager.

The Pharisees heard these parables and ridiculed Jesus. Why? Luke states that the Pharisees loved money, and the parables emphasised God's love of people more than money. The parable of the lost son was especially costly for the the father yet he welcomes back the son. And at the end of the parable of the dishonest manager Jesus tells people to use unrighteous wealth to gain friends. Jesus also says that faithfulness in little things like money is rewarded with trust in more important things. Then he adds that one cannot serve God and money.

Jesus then rebukes the Pharisees saying that it is the opinion of God that matters, not the opinion of man, and he tells them that God knows their hearts! He says that the Law and prophets were until the time of John, after which the good news is to be preached; which is what Jesus himself is doing. Yet the Law of the God is not void.

The Pharisees ridicule Jesus for his parables and this is Jesus' response; followed by a discussion about divorce and the story of Lazarus and Dives. As such, these passages may well relate to Jesus' rebuke. The first part suggests that some of the Pharisees were treating divorce lightly when their actions were adulterous—heaven and earth will disappear before God's Law is void. The next story could also be a rebuke.

There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house—for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’ (Luke 16:19-31 ESV)

If this is a parable, it is the only one where a person is given a name. If it is a true story, it is possible the rich man and Lazarus were known to the hearers. If it was meant as an allegory or fable then the characters are representative.

Lazarus is poor and unwell.

The rich man is unnamed. He is wealthy. He dresses well; purple clothing may represent royalty/ rulership. He eats well. He has 5 brothers. And there may also be a subtle hint that his brothers deny the resurrection of the body, a position held by Sadducees.

Lazarus may just be a convenient name, though there is another Lazarus, a brother of Mary and Martha, who subsequent to this story dies and is resurrected. We learn that Mary poured perfume on Jesus' feet (John 12:3). This story is also told in Matthew 26 and Mark 14. It is probably the same event but the woman's name is not given. They are in the house of Simon the Leper. So Lazarus may have known Simon, or Simon may be Lazarus' name.

The rich man may well be Caiaphas. Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas. Annas was the high priest some years earlier circa 5 AD. He was removed from office by the Romans. It is thought that he retained some power. Luke calls Annas the high priest (Luk 3:2; Act 4:6).

Josephus tells us that Annas had 5 sons who served as high priests.

Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. (Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9.1).

Their names were:

Eleazar
Jonathan
Theophilus
Ananus
Matthias

Caiaphas had married Annas' daughter and served as high priest between Eleazar and Jonathan, during the time of this parable and Jesus' crucifixion. Josephus also states that Ananus (the younger) belonged to the Sadducee sect (Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9.1).

Caiaphas fits the position of the rich man in this story: he is wealthy, he has 5 brothers-in-law, he is part of the ruling class (dressed in purple), and at least one of his brothers-in-law probably denies the resurrection.

Jesus told parables against the Pharisees elsewhere (Luk 18:10), and the Pharisees were even aware of this (Mat 21:45).

Interestingly, when Jesus had resurrected Lazarus the chief priests and the Pharisees plot to kill Jesus (John 11:47-53) and Lazarus (John 12:10). They did not take to heart Jesus' earlier story. I think the subsequent resurrection of Lazarus adds credence to the idea that the rich man is Caiaphas. It is a warning to him—one he had not taken by that time.

Monday quote

2011-09-12T08:00:00.001+12:00

If we become exclusively preoccupied with answering the questions people are asking, we may overlook the fact that they often ask the wrong questions and need to be helped to ask the right ones.

John Stott (1921–2011), Between Two Worlds.

Drawn by the Father

2011-09-11T23:00:00.001+12:00

John 6:44 is viewed by many to teach that God elects specific men to salvation. It is favoured by Calvinists as supporting their theology. While a Calvinist interpretation can be maintained, this interpretation does not seem to fit with several other passages where we are commanded to choose service to God. Further the entire pericope offers other challenges in interpretation which may indicate that further considerations need to be given to understanding this passage.

John 6:43–44 in the ESV states

Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

There is discussion on what the word "draws" means. I do not intend to comment on this in depth. From what I currently understand, the view that "drawing" is something that originates in the subject. This seems reasonable for inanimate objects, especially given that they are unable to actively resist such drawing. It may not be that the same meaning is intrinsic to objects of will. In English a magnetic draws iron filings irresistibly, but a person draws another person resistibly. The same word is understood to be deterministic or non-deterministic depending on the ability of the object to resist. Whether ηελκυο can be understood the same way I cannot answer.

But I wish to suggest an alternative possibility in interpretation here.

Starting with the larger context before focusing on the smaller; what is striking in John is how often Jesus refers to God the Father. Much of the book involves Jesus explaining his identity in the Father. The word "father" occurs over 100 times in John, most of which refers to God. At the beginning of John we see Jesus' intimate relationship with the Father (John 1:14,18). Jesus is upset with how his Father's house is treated (John 2:16). Later we learn that the Father has given all things to the Son,

For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:34-36)

Then Jesus informs the Samaritan woman that it is not important where one's fathers worshipped, rather that one worships the Father (John 4:21-24).

Jesus is opposed by the Jewish leaders for calling God his Father thus identifying himself with God (John 5:17-18). Jesus explains that he only does what the Father does, that the Father loves the Son, that the Father reveals to the Son what he himself is doing.

There is a strong emphasis on both the fatherhood of God and the relationship of the Father with the Son. Later the Jews try to stone Jesus associating himself with God the Father (John 10).

After feeding the crowds bread Jesus says that he is the true bread (John 6). Then Jesus gives a long speech about who he is. Jesus says the following. Red represents Jesus, blue the Father.

Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.
This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."
Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—
not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."
Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe. This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.

Jesus draws parallels between manna and himself. The Father gave manna to sustain the Israelites in the desert, ie. to give them life; but the Father gives eternal life thru Jesus who is the true bread.

Jesus is saying that if you can see the Father in his provision of the bread, you should recognise Jesus because he is the greater bread.

In this context we see that those who recognise who Jesus is do so because they already know the Father. If they do not recognise Jesus, they do not really know the Father. They may know the story about the manna in the desert, but this story points to Jesus; if they really know the Father who sent manna they will see the true manna.

If we grasp this is the focus of Jesus' discourse here, we can see that when Jesus says that the Father draws men to Jesus, the Father is drawing those who already know him (God who provided the manna) to Jesus. It is not so much that the Father is drawing people who don't know God to Jesus; he is drawing those who know him to meet his Son.

People are not outside being drawn irresistibly inside, they are inside and gaining the Son.

This makes sense of the last line (v. 64). They do not believe and therefore God does not draw them to the Son.

Monday quote

2011-09-05T18:00:00.003+12:00

The Christian world-view, or, to use the technical term, the truth, does not dispute that empirical facts are empirical facts any more than it disputes that the outside skin of a red apple is red.

What it disputes is that there is no meat and no core to the apple, and no seeds that bring forth more life: Christianity disputes that the shallow surface appearance is all the reality that there is.

John C. Wright

Seeing our own limitations

2011-09-04T21:00:00.002+12:00

Previously I have written that I do not think that we can have a too high a view of Scripture. Emulating Jesus' view of Scripture should be our goal. This does not mean that we worship the Bible—we worship God; yet we should consider that what the Bible says is what God says. For those who do hold the Bible in high regard, the temptation to inappropriate veneration of the Bible is probably not the greatest concern, and it may not even be that common. What is more likely to trouble scriptural infallibilists and inerrantists is their lack of clarity on their own limitations. Limitations in interpreting what the Bible does actually mean; lack of awareness of their cultural biases; failure to grasp context, especially hidden context; and difficulty in applying Scripture to life circumstances.

Related to this last point, we may not just lack insight into general application, but to the specifics of other people's situations. Dale Ralph Davis makes an astute observation,

Those who hold a high view of the Bible's authority sometimes hold a high view of their own ability to assess people's circumstances and to prescribe solutions. (The Word Became Fresh: How to Preach from Old Testament Narrative Texts, p. 108)

We can have a high view of Scripture without having a high view of our ability to interpret it, or our ability to find correct application of Scripture. Further, we may not know enough about the situations of others to assess rightly. Davis makes his comments in the context of Elisha not having prophetic knowledge of the Shunummite woman's situation (2 Kings 4). Likewise, Davis suggests, we must be aware of our own limitations,

Like Elisha, where is the shame in admitting the Lord has not given us light on a matter and that we are reduced to begging him in prayer?

This is not to say that everyone can claim to have extenuating circumstances which rendors them immune to scriptural admonition; rather this is addressed to those who would give advice—that they may choose humility.

Monday quote

2011-08-29T08:00:00.002+12:00

Paul mentions that we are the Temple of the Holy Spirit. That phrase, lifted out of context, has been used to urge Christians to refrain from refined sugar, sedentary lifestyles, and, of course, big stinky cigars. But Paul says specifically he is only talking about sexual sin here. Other sins are outside the body, but fornication is not. This would include chopping a finger off with an axe. Poor stewardship, bad idea, and all that, but it is not a defilement of the Temple. That is accomplished through fornication.

Douglas Wilson. Fidelity.

American civic liberties quiz

2011-08-28T22:00:00.002+12:00

I took the [American] Civic Literacy Exam. 33 questions on a range of issues concerning history, politics and economics.

Most of the questions were reasonable, though a couple may have been disputed based on theory versus fact. Definitions are reasonable, as are historical facts; but observations in line with theory may be disputable. For example,

International trade and specialization most often lead to which of the following?
an increase in a nation’s productivity

a decrease in a nation’s economic growth in the long term

an increase in a nation’s import tariffs

a decrease in a nation’s standard of living

While I agree with the answer, and it could be argued that observations have confirmed this, economists of other schools may dispute it.

The average result was 49%, with US college educators (university lecturers) averaging 55%. I managed 88% (29/33) despite its heavy US focus. This seems a little concerning for US education.

My incorrect answers were:

What part of the [US] government has the power to declare war?
What was the main issue in the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas in 1858?
Which of the following fiscal policy combinations has the federal government most often followed to stimulate economic activity when the economy is in a severe recession?
If taxes equal government spending, then:

I am not convinced that my answer to the taxes question was incorrect. The question is

If taxes equal government spending, then:
government debt is zero

printing money no longer causes inflation

government is not helping anybody

tax per person equals government spending per person on average

tax loopholes and special-interest spending are absent

I answered 1, zero debt. I was assuming that the government had no debt prior to this. And #1 seems reasonable unless the government has a significant other incomes (such as mines). 2 is incorrect. 3 might happen to be true, but not because of the question. 4 is supposedly correct. 5 is incorrect.

Option 4 doesn't seem to be correct; again if the government has other incomes, but also taxes from companies means that government spending per person may differ from tax per person. I still think (assuming no debt prior) that answer 1 is better, though I am happy to be corrected.

Monday quote

2011-08-22T22:00:00.000+12:00

If the anthropological data suggest something short of the ideal, that is not because nothing is universal, but because two universals are in conflict: universal moral knowledge and universal desire to evade it. The first one we owe to our creation. The second we owe to our fall.

J. Budziszewski

Legitimate textual source questions

2011-08-21T22:00:00.010+12:00

I came across a comment that suggested that source criticism is acceptable for Christians when dealing with the gospels but not the Pentateuch. Presumably that means discussing how Luke and Matthew are dependent on Mark is permitted but finding the Elohist and Priestly divisions of Exodus is not? I assumed that this remark was reflecting a cynicism on the limitations, and even hypocrisy, of biblical critique within Christendom (or perhaps evangelicalism).

I can see why such an idea may come from but I believe it is unjustified. Such comments imply that non-Christian criticism is less biased. This is not the case however.

The source question is somewhat apparent in the gospels. They are called the synoptic gospels. It is evident to readers that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are similar in many ways and, while distinct, together they are moderately different from John. Thus a source question arises naturally from the text. As it does with Jude and 2 Peter, or Chronicles and Kings. This type of source question is considered legitimate in both the Old and New Testaments.

The Pentateuch is not comparable to this situation. While there is overlap amongst the books, especially with Deuteronomy; the source debate is not about parallel texts in the Torah, it is about deconstructing the text.

It is not entirely true that source criticism is not "allowed" here. Some conservative scholars think that Moses compiled Genesis largely from extant texts that antedated him. They base this conclusion on the toledoth theory.

So one reason is that source differs between the 2 texts. One looks to the source of similarities between parallel texts, the other looks to the source of a text assumed to be disparate. Another significant reason is that many Christians reject the suppositions of persons who originated the theory. People that were antagonistic to both God and Scripture. This is especially warranted given that several of their assumptions were incorrect: such as the belief writing had not been invented by the time of Moses. Frankly, if their foundations are absent the their edifice is broken and will remain so despite attempts to repair it.

Monday quote

2011-08-15T17:00:00.001+12:00

Unions are the evil, stupid, parasitic cousin of government. They possess most of the negative attributes with none of the positive ones.

Vox Day

Bookstores on the decline

2011-08-14T21:00:00.005+12:00

An Australian politician gets in trouble predicting the decline of bookshops.

I think in five years, other than a few specialist booksellers in capital cities we will not see a bookstore, they will cease to exist.

Mr Sherry may have lacked some prudence here? Though earlier this year an Australian bookstore collapsed and blamed online selling.

The owners of Angus & Robertson and Borders in Australia, REDgroup Retail, collapsed in February with A$118 million ($153 million) in debt, blaming online competition as one reason for the failure

And it it is not just the advent of online buying which affects other retail sectors, but electronic formats including both electronic books and online information sources.

Perhaps his advice could have been welcomed.

Senator Sherry made the comments at a launch of the Driving Business Online campaign, a private sector initiative designed to encourage small business owners to boost their online presence.

It is not like his comments will change the behaviour of Australian buyers. But people seem more attuned to perceived insults than facing reality.

What some people do in their kitchen

2011-08-10T18:00:00.002+12:00

A Swedish man who was arrested after trying to split atoms in his kitchen said he was only doing it as a hobby.

Richard Handl told The Associated Press that he had the radioactive elements radium, americium and uranium in his apartment in southern Sweden when police showed up and arrested him on charges of unauthorized possession of nuclear material.

The 31-year-old Handl said he had tried for months to set up a nuclear reactor at home and kept a blog about his experiments, describing how he created a small meltdown on his stove.

Amusing. Though I remember a story about an American performing fusion in his house.

So he has second thoughts and asks advice from Sweden's Radiation Authority. Couldn't an answer suffice, rather than calling the police?

Monday quote

2011-08-08T18:00:00.000+12:00

The boom plants the seeds for its future destruction.

John Papola and Russ Roberts

Christians ahead of the technology curve

2011-08-07T16:00:00.003+12:00

I was aware the Bible played a significant role in the development of the book format—the change from scrolls to spine and pages. But apparently Christians were at the forefront of using the newly invented codex for several centuries.

The codex was invented in the late first century AD. Christians may not have invented it, but they were the first ones to popularize it. For the first five centuries AD, eighty percent of all Christian books were on a codex while only twenty percent of all non-Christian books were written on a codex. For the first time in Christian history, followers of Christ were ahead of the technological curve!

Christians were not just taking advantage of advancing technology for the sake of evangelism, but for their own sake.

Monday quote

2011-08-01T23:00:00.001+12:00

Did you know they adjust the data? Sometimes 50 years after it was recorded. That's right, and the 1970s kept warming for the next 30 years.

Joanne Nova

The meaning of "expanse" in Genesis 1. Part 6

2011-07-29T13:00:00.002+12:00

Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5.

BioLogos have an article on the firmament of Genesis 1, "The Firmament of Genesis 1 is Solid but That’s Not the Point", by Peter Enns. He begins by twice asserting that biblical scholars agree that the expanse (raqiya`) is solid and appeals to observation of the horizon and the assumption ancients thought the world flat.

Ancient Israelites “saw” this barrier when they looked up. There were no telescopes, space exploration, or means of testing the atmosphere. They relied on what their senses told them. Even today, looking up at a clear sky in open country, the sky seems to “begin” at the horizons and reaches up far above. Ancient Israelites and others in that part of the world assumed the world was flat, and so it looked like the earth is covered by a dome, and the “blue sky” is the “water above” held back by the raqia.

Really? Clouds clearly move across the sky, as does the sun and moon, and even stars. Does the sky really look solid, or is solidity invoked by some cultures to explain rain? Enns does not mention that a curved horizon could lead observers to think the earth spherical, especially combined with observing lunar eclipses.

He goes on to discuss word meanings.

The translation “firmament” (i.e., firm) gets across this idea of a solid structure.

The comment on "firmament" is unhelpful because, although it does carry the idea of firmness, he implies by using the word "translation" in the above sentence that raqiya` means firm when the etymology of "firmament "is actually via Latin.

Biblical scholars agree on this understanding of raqia. For some Christians, however, this is troubling. How can the Bible, which is the inspired, revealed word of God, contain such an inaccurate piece of ancient nonsense? Hence, some invest a lot of time and energy to show that the raqia is not solid but more like the atmosphere. Often, the word “expanse” is the preferred translation because it does not necessarily imply something solid.

We will note here that Young's Literal Translation published in 1898 uses the word "expanse". And "expanse" is considered more accurate given that raqiya` is more likely related to "spread out" than it is to "solidity".

The second problem is a much larger theological issue, but is actually more foundational. Regardless of what one thinks of the raqia, why would anyone assume that the ancient cosmology in Genesis could be expected to be in harmony with modern science in the first place?

Well it may not be in harmony with modern science, by why can it not be in harmony with the truth? If the atmosphere is how it is, why can Scripture and science not both be in harmony with this? Is it somehow better to have Scripture not concordant with the way things are? Modern science understands pregnancy in greater detail than understood by the ancients. Following Enns here it would seem that an inaccurate understanding of the virgin birth by the ancients be more likely to be recorded than an accurate one. But the ancients knew that virgin conceptions were impossible, even if they did not understand activation. Why cannot the ancients appreciate a non-solid expanse even if they did not understand partial pressures of gases, absolute temperatures, and triple points? Every observable can be considered a fact of science. Should every observation in Scripture be expected to be at odds with reality because it can also be described by modern science?

As a matter of clarification, I don't think that Genesis is in harmony with several scientific cosmologies.

Genesis and modern science are neither enemies nor friends, but two different ways of describing the world according to the means available to the people living at these different times. To insist that the description of the sky in Genesis 1 must conform to contemporary scientific is a big theological problem. It is important to remember that God always speaks in ways that people can actually understand. In the ancient world, people held certain views about the world around them.

There is some truth to this latter comment, God may talk in ways that men understand (though not always). An important distinction here is that simplification is not the same as falsity. As Sarfati has often said

A mother might tell her four-year-old ‘you grew inside my tummy’—this is not false, but language simplified to the child’s level (‘tummy’ as a broad term for the abdominal region, but not as specific as ‘uterus’). Conversely, ‘the stork brought you’ is an outright error.

The greater problem here, however, is separating knowledge into scientific and biblical. Yes they are distinct, but by nature of the way they arrive at knowledge. They are epistemologically distinct. But that does not mean they speak to different topics. They may make competing claims on the nature of reality and real events of history. To have an account in the Bible that corresponds generally to the way things actually are, even if that coincides with contemporary science, is hardly a theological problem.

Enns then lays out 7 reasons for solidity of the expanse:

The other cosmologies from the ancient world depict some solid structure in the sky. The most natural explanation of the raqia is that it also reflects this understanding. There is no indication that Genesis is a novel description of the sky;
Virtually every description of raqia from antiquity to the Renaissance depicts it as solid. The non-solid interpretation of raqia is a novelty;
According to the flood story in Gen 7:11 and 8:2, the waters above were held back only to be released through the “floodgates of the heavens” (literally, “lattice windows”);
Other Old Testament passages are consistent with the raqia being solid (Ezekiel 1:22; Job 37:18; Psalm 148:4);
According to Gen 1:20, the birds fly in front of the raqia (in the air), not in the raqia;
The noun raqia is derived form the verb that means to beat out or stamp out, as in hammering metal into thin plates (Exodus 39:3). This suggests that the noun form is likewise related to something solid;
Speaking of the sky as being stretched out like a canopy/tent (Isaiah 40:22) or that it will roll up like a scroll (34:4) are clearly similes and do not support the view that raqia in Genesis 1 is non-solid.

Many of these I have addressed previously but briefly

Item #1 may be true, but then perhaps the Israelites didn't borrow as much as we think, especially when we consider that Genesis 1 is much older than other cosmologies often referenced.
I have not identified every occurrence nor researched their content so cannot answer item #2.
Genesis 7:11 and 8:2 reference the "windows of heaven" and the "fountains of the great deep". These are likely idioms. Nor does either passage actually suggest that the "windows of heaven" let thru the "waters above".
I have addressed Ezekiel 1 and Psalm 148 here. Job 37 (as currently translated) is suggestive of Enns' thesis, and requires a discussion of its own
In item #5 he mentions that birds fly on the face or surface of the expanse to which I concur. But this means that the surface at least is non-solid, and other passages mention birds within the expanse/ heavens. Using Enns' own reasoning here the expanse must be non-solid.
Item #6 is a difficult issue. I have addressed it here. The problem is that while etymology is helpful, it is not definitive. And it is likely that the idea transferred to the noun is "spread out", not the metal which happens to be beaten.
Item #7 is errant. These are clearly similes as I discuss here, but the association between the tent and heavens is that they are stretched out, not the material they are made from. The sky is stretched out like the way that a tent is stretched out. Consider the phrase, "The boy ran like lightening." This is a simile, but no one would interpret the simile implies the boy is made of electricity.

I don't have much to address in the latter part of the essay. I do not give a lot of credence to the phenomenological argument he tries to refute, other than saying that idioms do not necessarily mean what they literally say. But Genesis 1 is not using an idiom here. The moon comment is irrelevant. Objects can be lights directly or indirectly. The moon is a light whether it intrinsically produces electromagnetic radiation, or just reflects it.

We get to the end of the article. Enns finishes by saying

It is important to be clear on what we have a right to expect from Genesis. This is central to making progress in the conversation between science and faith.

And while I agree with this statement, Enns fails to mention what we can expect from Genesis. I suspect what he and I think is reasonable to exegete from Genesis differs considerably. A repeating theme is that ancient Israelites did not have modern knowledge (or equipment to gain them scientific knowledge). This assumes that what they wrote was based on their (false) beliefs about cosmology, which is usually assumed to be borrowed from other contemporary cultures. It is important to note here that Christians understand Scripture to be supernaturally revealed. Of course the Bible is historical. It touches events in history that were witnessed by Hebrews within and Gentiles without. We have documentary and archaeological evidence on biblical happenings. However while authors used historical sources and observation, insights into the meaning of events was often given by God. And even some historical events require supernatural revelation; how else would we be privy to dialogue between Yahweh and Satan concerning Job?

It would seem that Genesis 1 as history would need to be exclusively revealed as no humans witnessed it. If God created the universe, and if he could reveal the events of the 6 days of creation, and if Genesis 1 can easily be interpreted in line with what we actually observe about the earth and the atmosphere, then why the the desire to force errancy?

Monday quote

2011-07-25T08:00:00.002+12:00

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised "for the good of its victims" may be the most oppressive.

C. S. Lewis (1898–1963).

Public health and unwarranted conclusions

2011-07-23T13:00:00.015+12:00

I read a fair number of articles. This is a paraphrase of one but I have seen similar several times over.

In conclusion our results show that exposure X is associated with significantly increased chance of outcome Y. Public health recommendations/ government agencies should reduce/ ban exposure X.

(This is assuming outcome Y is bad, a converse argument could be made if exposure X is thought to be good.)

This is frustrating for several reasons.

1. The word significantly usually means statistically significant. That is the authors are confident that the association they have found is a real one, not a chance one. For various reasons I think many findings that are claimed to be real are actually chance, so I may not be convinced the statistics justify the conclusion. But assuming the statistics do justify it, the significance relates to the degree of confidence in the result, not the size of the result. The phrasing "significantly increased chance" sounds like the size of the association is strong. It may be minor. A risk ratio of 1.003 (1.002–1.004, p <0.001) is statistically very significant but not functionally significant. Even a risk ratio of 3 (i.e. you are 3 times more likely to develop outcome Y) may be irrelevant if the outcome is extremely rare. Does it really matter if you increase your risk from 1 in a million to 3 in a million?

2. Association is not causation. Yes it may be a real effect, and it may be a relevant one, but it still may just be an association. We need to establish causation. Addressing a problem if it is causative may not resolve it. Addressing an association that is not causative definitely will not resolve it. And it could potentially worsen it. We need studies that show definite causation. Then we need studies that show intervention to reduce exposure X actually reduces outcome Y.

3. Nothing in the research relates to public policy. The study does not show that the policy was enacted and was effective. Even convincing knowledge that reducing outcome Y by preventing public exposure to X does not imply anything should be done by the state about X. Should the state ban hang-gliding because it is associated with increased mortality? Should it make every vice illegal because of detrimental effects on self? And there are further question about enforcing a ban. What about the monetary cost considerations? What about liberty? Will the unintended consequences be worse than the problem? Perhaps all that is warranted is education. For example the government can mandate labelling without banning a substance.

I am not arguing against any public policy. It just seems that socialism is so embedded in some people's psyche that new information to them logically implies government intervention.

Travel and post scheduling

2011-07-19T10:00:00.001+12:00

I am having some family time in warmer climes sans adequate internet access. I will attempt to use the scheduling feature on Blogger with which I have variable success. I am unlikely to respond to comments or remove any inadvertently hung in spam.

Monday quote

2011-07-18T14:00:00.001+12:00

A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

Douglas Adams (1952–2001), Mostly Harmless.

Epic photos

2011-07-17T22:00:00.007+12:00

A selection of apparently epic photos. While I would not agree with all the selections/ suggestions, there are some interesting pictures. The first—pale blue dot—is overrated, the third is better. The second is a little disturbing.

I quite like this one which I have seen previously: jet breaks the sound barrier.

Monday quote

2011-07-11T08:00:00.000+12:00

I've always argued that if we depart this world and see anything resembling the Bill of Rights at our next destination, we'll know we're in hell.

Walter E Williams.

Corporatism is not capitalism

2011-07-10T22:00:00.001+12:00

In reading comments around the internet that denounce capitalism, examples of its supposed unfairness are frequently given using corporations. Now there are a variety of things about corporations that may be good or bad. But it is important to note that corporatism is not synonymous with capitalism.

In fact many capitalists and free-marketers think little of corporations.

Now I am not against corporations competing within the marketplace. They can use their capital to be productive and offer low priced goods to consumers. I am not against large companies. It is true that larger amounts of capital potentially allow more efficient production; but it does not ensure it. And I don't think that small companies are unable to compete. Price is an important but not sole consideration for consumers, and smaller companies may have other advantages. Small businesses account for significant proportions of Gross Domestic Product in many countries.

But there are some aspects about corporations as they do exist (not as they have to exist) that are unpalatable and frankly anti-free-market.

The idea of a limited liability company seems questionable from a Christian perspective. Individuals can lose all their money. To run a business that allows you to take a greater risk and thus a potential greater gain, but not a greater, or even a complete loss seems unfair. Although in a system that allows unreasonable settlements in litigation I see the limited liability as the lesser evil.

But what is really irksome is special government favours for corporations. Unequal taxes, subsidies, guaranteed monopolies, separate law. This is not in the spirit of capitalism and annoys true capitalists as much as it does socialists. Perhaps more so as some socialists may justify specific corporations they happen to approve of, whereas capitalists may be competing in the marketplace against such an unfair advantage.

Taking money from once group to benefit another is generally a feature of socialism whether the recipient is poor or wealthy.

So if you despise capitalism and identify questionable practices by corporations as your reason, note that it is unlikely it is capitalist practices that make the corporation unjust, rather its anti-capitalist behaviour.

Monday quote

2011-07-04T08:00:00.004+12:00

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.

Winston Churchill

Thorium nuclear reactors

2011-06-28T22:00:00.002+12:00

Nuclear reactors tend to use uranium as a fuel. This is beneficial for those who desire the plutonium byproduct of such reactors. While modern designs improve safety of nuclear power, we are left with the problem of radioisotopes to dispose of. This can be offset somewhat by using thorium as fuel. China is researching such reactors.

Imagine how the nuclear energy debate might differ if the fuel was abundant and distributed across the world; if there was no real possibility of creating weapons-grade material as part of the process; if the waste remained toxic for hundreds rather than thousands of years; and if the power stations were small and presented no risk of massive explosions.

What you're imagining could fairly soon be reality judging from a little-noticed development in China last month.

Though apparently molten-salt reactors can run not just on thorium, but nuclear waste.

While nearly all current nuclear reactors run on uranium, the radioactive element thorium is recognized as a safer, cleaner and more abundant alternative fuel. Thorium is particularly well-suited for use in molten-salt reactors, or MSRs. Nuclear reactions take place inside a fluid core rather than solid fuel rods, and there’s no risk of meltdown.

In addition to their safety, MSRs can consume various nuclear-fuel types, including existing stocks of nuclear waste. Their byproducts are unsuitable for making weapons of any type. They can also operate as breeders, producing more fuel than they consume.

A breeder reactor is one in which isotopes present in the fuel that do not undergo fission are converted by neutron capture to isotopes that do undergo fission. Thorium reactors are breeder reactors as fissile thorium isotopes are minor so non fissile thorium must be continuously converted to uranium.

Salt reactors are also more fail-safe.

If it begins to overheat, a little plug melts and the salts drain into a pan.

And thorium is extremely abundant:

The earth’s crust holds 80 years of uranium at expected usage rates, he said. Thorium is as common as lead. America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining. Norway has so much that Oslo is planning a post-oil era where thorium might drive the country’s next great phase of wealth. Even Britain has seams in Wales and in the granite cliffs of Cornwall. Almost all the mineral is usable as fuel, compared to 0.7pc of uranium. There is enough to power civilization for thousands of years.

So perhaps cleaner cheaper nuclear energy is on the horizon? Personally I am keen to see hydrogen fusion.

Monday quote

2011-06-27T22:00:00.004+12:00

Worrying does not take away tomorrow's troubles. It takes away today's peace.

Sovereignty and freedom

2011-06-26T22:00:00.001+12:00

Arminians are convinced that God can be sovereign while his creatures have freewill; sovereignty being a state of rulership and not exhaustive control. The Calvinist struggles with this having a concept of sovereignty that means that nothing occurs outside the will of God, all things that occur are made to occur by God (even if indirectly) because they are aligned with one of the wills of God.

But if we concede that there are some things that God cannot do—things that are impossible for God to do—then why is sovereignty excluded from this consideration?

It is impossible for God to make 2 + 3 = 7. There are some things that God cannot do because they contradict logic. God cannot lie. There are some things God cannot do because they contradict his nature. If an attribute of love is such that it must be given freely and voluntarily, then God cannot make someone love him, nor can anyone else cause people to love them. Certainly God can influence people in a way that is conducive for people to love him. But if love must have a voluntary component (something I happen to think but have not proven) then it remains possible for some people to choose to reject God. It would be impossible for God to make them love him. If it is an intrinsic impossibility that God make people love him, then their refusal to do so does not limit God's sovereignty in the same way that God's inability to make 2 + 3 = 7 does not limit his mathematical prowess.

Monday quote

2011-06-20T11:28:00.002+12:00

Atheism is not the result of objective assessment of evidence, but of stubborn disobedience; it does not arise from the careful application of reason but from willful rebellion. Atheism is the suppression of truth by wickedness, the cognitive consequence of immorality. In short, it is sin that is the mother of unbelief.

James S. Spiegel, The Making of an Atheist.

Age estimate for chromosome divergence

2011-06-19T23:00:00.001+12:00

JS Allen mentioned a couple blog posts concerning the time the Y chromosome may have gone thru a bottleneck.

The second refers to the article A Revised Root for the Human Y Chromosomal Phylogenetic Tree: The Origin of Patrilineal Diversity in Africa.

Dienekes first post suggests that the divergence of the Y chromosome was 40,000 years ago, the second mentions recent data pushing the date back to 140,000 years. This material is something that Dienekes follows, whereas I am only moderately familiar with it. The journal article covers material on genetic anthropology and my reading on genetics is focused more on disease, but I wish to identify a few assumptions that mean I do not agree with the dates suggested.

My post was on the variation of autosomes, sex chromosomes and mitochondria based on a bottleneck of 3 brothers and their wives. The issue of dating a bottleneck, while related, is a different question. The later requires knowledge of

the variation currently and the likely original sequences; and
molecular clock rates.

Both have significant assumptions and I differ from the authors in several of them.

The article mentions that they attempted independence with regard to 1 then they discuss assumptions relating to using chimp Y chromosomes and human X chromosomes

We obtained a strict-consensus MP [maximum parsimony] tree, which was rooted with respect to either orthologous chimp MSY [male-specific region of the human Y chromosome] sequence... or paralogous human X chromosome sequence...

This hardly seems independent. I reject the use of other species sequences as having relevance, and I do not know whether my assumption of 8 X's to 1 Y at the bottleneck affects the second. So the resulting phylogeny is not necessarily correct.

The problem with molecular clocks is they are not independent either. Dienekes mentions a calibration of 70,000 years for a split but what is this based on? More to the point, in his 2010 post he raises the problem with molecular clocks.

Age estimates vary overall between 6,530 years and 535,755! It is obvious that fast/medium mutating markers provide unbelievably small age estimates (most of them are less than 20 thousand years). However, if we limit the analysis to slow mutating markers, most age estimates are in excess of 300,000 years!

In short, you can arrive at any age estimate you want, by choosing a particular mix of slow and fast mutating markers.

He says (correctly) that we mustn't average different clocks. He rejects throwing them in the trash and argues for identifying the correct clock.

But that is equivalent to having a number of different clocks, some of which tell you that 3 seconds have transpired, and some which tell you that it's been a whole minute. The rational thing to do is not to take an average, but to throw the clocks in the garbage, or figure out what's wrong with them.

I agree, but we are likely to differ on what we consider reliable. I suspect mutation is more rapid than accepted by evolutionists, if so then the clocks are going faster than anticipated. I would like to see some data obtained with fixed dates and generation numbers.

These are just 2 problems with the interpretation. There is also the interbreeding question, the targeted DNA changes versus random mutation, the incompleteness of the data (both complete Y DNA and adequate sampling of the populations). Further data will be interesting.

The greater issue is that (hidden) assumptions markedly affect interpretation. While interpretations such as given in the paper will be seen as evidence for the evolutionary scheme, so much of the evolutionary paradigm is assumed that it becomes very circular. This is not intrinsically bad, but lack of awareness of assumptions can have the effect that you think your interpretation is stronger than it really is. This can be a potential issue for creationists also, though given their strong focus on identifying underlying assumptions, and that they are working within a paradigm they generally disagree with, I think they are often more attuned to this issue.

Postdiluvian genetic variation

2011-06-18T20:00:00.008+12:00

This article from Robert Carter raises some interesting ideas concerning genetic variation.

People have 2 sets (diploid) of chromosomes. Many of our genes are identical, but several have variants. Consider the maximum variation at creation. Adam had 2 sets of autosomes, 1 X chromosome, and 1 Y chromosome. Eve was made from his side. God could have kept the autosomes, doubled the X chromosome, and removed the Y chromosome. But God could also have created Eve with her own set of chromosomes. Several genes may have been identical, but if we consider the maximum, then the original variation in Adam and Eve was (a maximum of) 4 alleles for each gene in all the autosomes, 2 from Adam and 2 from Eve; 3 alleles in the X chromosomes, 1 from Adam and 2 from Eve; 1 allele in the Y chromosome, from Adam; and 1 mitochondrial allele per gene from Eve. This assumes that all Eve's mitochondria had identical DNA. Sperm have mitochondria but these are not incorporated into the embryo so only the female's mitochondrial DNA is passed on.

Mutation and recombination would have increased the number of alleles in Adam's descendants to the time of the Flood. Carter discusses the genetic bottleneck at the time of the deluge and mentions the maximum number of variants this would entail.

On the Ark we have Noah, his wife, their 3 sons, and their sons' wives. The genetic material of the sons is determined by their parents, and the genetic material of the wives is potentially independent; depending on their relationship to Noah's bloodline. Thus we have 4 sets of autosomes from Noah and his wife, 3 X chromosomes, and 1 Y chromosome, 2 mitochondrial lineages. The sons could potentially inherit all 4 autosomes, both Xs from their mother (but not their father's X), 1 Y from their father, 1 mitochondrial from their mother. The sons' wives could have 6 autosomes, 6 Xs, no Ys, and 3 mitochondrial. Considering the offspring of Shem, Ham and Japheth and their wives there is a maximum of:

10 autosomes;
8 X chromosomes;
1 Y chromosomes; and
3 mitochondrial chromosomes.

The mitochondria of Noah's sons (from their mother) will not be passed on. The mitochondrial variation may be somewhat more as several mitochondria are passed on and they may not all be identical within a single person.

The descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth encompasses the entire human race. Carter considers the variation we currently find.

[We] are potentially looking at a huge amount of genetic diversity within the X chromosomes of the world.

Does this fit the evidence? Absolutely! It turns out that Y chromosomes are similar worldwide. According to the evolutionists, no “ancient” (i.e., highly mutated or highly divergent) Y chromosomes have been found. This serves as a bit of a puzzle to the evolutionist, and they have had to resort to calling for a higher “reproductive variance” among men than women, high rates of “gene conversion” in the Y chromosome, or perhaps a “selective sweep” that wiped out the other male lines. For the biblical model, it is a beautiful correlation and we can take it as is.

The evidence from mitochondrial DNA fits our model just as neatly as the Y chromosome data. As it turns out, there are three main mitochondrial DNA lineages found across the world. The evolutionists have labeled these lines “M”, “N”, and “R”, so we’ll refer to them by the same names. They would not say these came off the Ark. They claim they were derived from older lines found in Africa, but this is based on a suite of assumptions (I discussed these in detail in a recent article in the Journal of Creation). It also turns out that M, N, and R differ by only a few mutations. This gives us some indication of the amount of mutation that occurred in the generations prior to the Flood.

Let’s assume ten female generations from Eve to the ladies on the Ark. M and N are separated by about 8 mutations (a small fraction of the 16,500 letters in the mitochondrial genome). R is only 1 mutation away from N. This is an indication of the mutational load that occurred before the Flood. Given the assumption that mutations occur at equal rates in all lines, about four mutations separate M and N each from Eve (maybe four mutations in each line in ten generations). But what about R? It is very similar to N. Were N and R sisters, or perhaps more closely related to each other than they were to M? We’ll never know, but it sure is fascinating to think about.

One more line of evidence crops up in the amount of genetic diversity that has been found within people worldwide. Essentially, much less has been found than most (i.e., evolutionists!) predicted. The general lack of diversity among people is the reason the Out of Africa model has humanity going through a disastrous, near-extinction bottleneck with only about 10,000 (and perhaps as few as 1,000) people surviving. However, the reason for this lack of diversity is twofold. First, the human race started out with only two people. Second, the human race is not that old and has not accumulated a lot of mutations, despite the high mutation rate. Third, there actually was a bottleneck event, Noah’s Flood!

Monday quote

2011-06-13T20:00:00.001+12:00

Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.

CS Lewis

Thoughts on time management

2011-06-11T13:00:00.006+12:00

Douglas Wilson offers some advice on time management. I have often spoken of working smart, not (necessarily) hard. And that productivity is of more concern than hours worked. Although I appreciate Wilson's concept of fruitfulness over productivity which adds the dimension of usefulness to productivity, ie. there is no point in being extremely time efficient producing what is useless or detrimental.

I am also aware of the concept of diminishing returns. 1 hour of work may do a 50% job, but 2 hours may only add a further 25%. Those with perfectionist tendencies need to be aware that while some things require greater than 99% completion (eg. air traffic control), many do not (eg. housework) and can easily become time wasters. Wilson addresses this in item #3

Seven Thoughts on Time Management

The point is fruitfulness, not efficiency. You should want to be fruitful like a tree, not efficient like a machine.

But this fruitfulness is a function of God's blessing, and it is surrendered work that is blessed work. Seek that blessing, and seek it through concrete surrender. Such surrenders are not abstract. Put your Isaacs on the altar. Every interruption is a chance to surrender your work to the only one who can bless your work, particularly when the interruptions come from your kid wanting to play catch.

We can see the principle with the sabbath and the tithe. Less blessed is more than more unblessed. 90% blessed goes farther than 100% unblessed. 6 days blessed are far more fruitful than 7 days unblessed.
Build a fence around your life, and keep that fence tended. You should have a life outside your work, and your family should be enjoying that life together with you. Go to work at a reasonable, predictable time, and come home at a reasonable, predictable time. Keep your work on a regular schedule, not an absolute schedule. If the barn catches fire, allow that to interrupt your schedule. But if the barn catches fire three times a week, then perhaps some preventative thinking is in order. When you are driven by the tyranny of the urgent, most of the urgencies aren't. Let the fence hold.
Perfectionism paralyzes. Chesterton once wonderfully observed that anything worth doing is worth doing badly. The sign of a fruitful worker is that he understands the critical difference between "that won't cut it" and "that is just fine."
Fill in the corners. I typed the outline for this with my thumbs while sitting in a comfy chair at the mall while my wife was being a merchant ship that brings goods from afar. This was far more productive than staring vacantly at a neon Tito Macaroni's sign would have been. If you have a commute, use the time to listen to books instead of inane DJ chatter. If the books get too serious, or if you do, go back to the DJs.

Do not despise how much can be packed into small corners. I live in a small town, and so my commute is four minutes, more or less. There have been times when I have arrived at the office with the same song playing as when I pulled out of the garage. And yet I listened to David McCullough's John Adams like that. It was a great steak, and cutting it into little tiny pieces did not diminish the flavor at all.
Plod. Keep at it. Slow and steady wins the race. Truisms are true. Work adds up, provided you are doing it.
Take in more than you give out. If you give out more than you take in, you will . . . give out. Your lake should have snowmelt streams running into it. Every vocation requires constant learning, constant development.
Use and reuse. State and restate. Learn and relearn. Develop what you know. Cultivate what you have. Your garden plot is the same as it always was, so plow deeper. Envying the garden that others have cultivated plows nothing, and brings forth a harvest of nothing.

Strive for deep conviction more than superficial originality, and deep originality will come. Your tomatoes will take the ribbon at the fair, provided you learned how to grow them in your own dirt.

BBC anti-Christian?

2011-06-08T08:00:00.001+12:00

A survey on the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) showed that viewers consider the BBC biased:

Many people believe the corporation retains a politically Left-wing or “liberal bias” and that religions other than Christianity were sometimes better represented, according to they survey.

And specifically anti-Christian:

In terms of religion, there were many who perceived the BBC to be anti-Christian and as such misrepresenting Christianity.

A spokesman for the BBC denied the charges:

We have strict editorial guidelines on impartiality, including religious perspectives, and Christian programming forms the majority and the cornerstone of our religion and ethical output.

Yet a leaked report in 2006 revealed that the BBC was intentionally anti-Christian:

An internal memo, recently discovered by the British media, revealed what the BBC has been trying to hide. Senior figures admitted in a recent 'impartiality' summit that the BBC was guilty of promoting Left-wing views and anti-Christian sentiment.

At the time the a BBC executive acknowledged there were some concerns:

There was a widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.

Why would the BBC think that the public will believe their reassurances they are treating Christians fairly when previous documentation shows otherwise, as per the executives' own comments? Public acknowledgement of this by the BBC after the fact hardly suggests that there is significant change since. And when the public see their ongoing anti-Christian programming with their own eyes….

Such bias is mildly concerning, though to be expected by those who reject Christianity; and most news sources are somewhat antagonistic to Christianity. However it is also concerning that that portray themselves as objective when they are not. This is doubly evil given they (the BBC at least) are themselves aware of their lack of objectivity and try to suppress it.

Monday quote

2011-06-06T08:00:00.001+12:00

He wants God's word to alleviate his distress; he does not want it to set his course. He wants that word for his relief but not for his rule; he wants to use but not to follow God's word.

Dale Ralph Davis, The Word became Fresh.

Increased productivity

2011-06-05T19:00:00.001+12:00

I suspect many of the opinions expressed by Tapu Misa in this article are incorrect. I do not wish to discuss them save address this comment on wages:

For the first time in American history, rapid increases in productivity have not been accompanied by corresponding gains in wages; at the same time, the minimum wage has lagged behind increases in the cost of living.

It does not seem to me that increases in productivity should necessarily lead to increases in wages. It does seem that it should lead to an increase in standard of living.

Productivity gains should be sought. If a product at least equivalent in quality can be produced with lower cost in labour hours and source materials this is a good thing. As such the seller could make more profit per item. However in a competitive market the seller has an incentive to price the widget below that of his competitor to increase his market share. As such it may be that the profit per widget is unchanged though the cost of the widget to the consumer is less. Other manufacturers can introduce productivity gains and lower the cost of their widget, or improve the widget and sell a higher quality unit for the previous price.*

What I am suggesting is that increases in productivity should not automatically lead to an increase in profit which the socialists advocate be shared with the workers. Rather, in a competitive environment productivity gains should lead to decreased price.

But note that even though this does not increase wages, the standard of living can increase as these cheaper items cost proportionally less of one's income.

*I am aware that some productivity gains coexist with a lower quality item, though a significant drop in price may allow a much larger proportion of society to own items previously the domain of the rich. I am not advocating low quality, but some people may prefer a low quality item over the alternative—no item. And price drops are often proportionally greater than quality loss.

Monday quote

2011-05-30T08:00:00.001+12:00

[True love] means expecting the best of those you love and giving them every reasonable benefit of the doubt.

Steve Saint

God can revoke his forever-promise

2011-05-29T17:00:00.004+12:00

In Samuel we read an account of God rebuking Eli.

And there came a man of God to Eli and said to him, "Thus the LORD has said, 'Did I indeed reveal myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt subject to the house of Pharaoh? Did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? I gave to the house of your father all my offerings by fire from the people of Israel. Why then do you scorn my sacrifices and my offerings that I commanded, and honor your sons above me by fattening yourselves on the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel?' Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: 'I promised that your house and the house of your father should go in and out before me forever,' but now the LORD declares: 'Far be it from me, for those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed. Behold, the days are coming when I will cut off your strength and the strength of your father’s house, so that there will not be an old man in your house. Then in distress you will look with envious eye on all the prosperity that shall be bestowed on Israel, and there shall not be an old man in your house forever. The only one of you whom I shall not cut off from my altar shall be spared to weep his eyes out to grieve his heart, and all the descendants of your house shall die by the sword of men. And this that shall come upon your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, shall be the sign to you: both of them shall die on the same day. And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do according to what is in my heart and in my mind. And I will build him a sure house, and he shall go in and out before my anointed forever. And everyone who is left in your house shall come to implore him for a piece of silver or a loaf of bread and shall say, "Please put me in one of the priests’ places, that I may eat a morsel of bread."'" (1 Samuel 2:27–36)

It is interesting to note that God says to Eli that he choose Eli's ancestors, and further that God,

promised that your house and the house of your father should go in and out before me forever.

God gives a promise that is forever. Eli's family would serve the Lord forever. Nevertheless, when Eli failed to ensure his sons honour God, or at least fail to discipline them for blaspheming God, God removed the promise. God says he will raise up another priest, a faithful one.

It seems to me that Eli was unable to bring about God's promise that he and his family would serve the Lord. God chose Eli and his ancestors to go in and out before God. This position and honour was all God's doing, and not from Eli. Those outside of Eli's family were unable to take part in this honour without God enacting it. Importantly however, Eli was able to forsake God's choosing. By dishonouring God, Eli was rejected; God's promise that was forever was revoked. This point is important for our instruction.

We cannot enter God's kingdom thru our effort. We must be chosen by God. Fortunately God has given us a forever-promise in his son Jesus. Be grateful that God has offered us redemption when we could not earn it. But be also fearful. If we reject Christ then God can revoke his forever-promise. Our salvation is not our doing, it is all in God's offering it to us. But like the house of Eli we can still reject it. God's eternal promises do not give us security to continue in our sinful ways. God's grace is wonderful, beyond comprehension; but it is not to be abused. If we blaspheme God he can certainly cut us off from himself.

Monday quote

2011-05-23T08:00:00.003+12:00

The entire Bible records both successes and failures of the heroes. I have always been impressed by this. It never paints the glorious picture that you would expect from legendary material, but shows them in all their worst moments. The Israelites whined, David murdered, Peter denied, the apostles abandoned Christ in fear, Moses became angry, Jacob deceived, Noah got drunk, Adam and Eve disobeyed, Paul persecuted, Solomon worshiped idols, Abraham was a bigamist, Lot committed incest, John the Baptist doubted, Abraham doubted, Sarah doubted, Nicodemus doubted, Thomas doubted, Jonah ran, Samson self-served, and John, at the very end of the story, when he should have had it all figured out, worshiped an angel.

C. Michael Patton

Ezekiel plates

2011-05-22T17:00:00.001+12:00

Apparently stone plates containing the complete text of the book of Ezekiel were found about 100 years ago. There are 66 plates about 30 cm square containing the entire book of Ezekiel in paleo-Hebrew script. Though known to the archaeological world they are less prominent than other artifacts. I had not heard of them previously.

They are in the news as they are undergoing dating to establish when they were made. The current range is from 300 to 2000 years old.

The tiles’ authenticity is also open to question because the time and location of the find, as well as its chain of custody, are not as well documented as scholars now demand for wider acceptance. A number of forgeries have infiltrated the field of biblical archeology in recent decades, and thus the standards of proof are being forced upward.

In this case, the tiles were supposedly found over 100 years ago when visitors to the traditional tomb of Ezekiel in the small Iraqi town of Kfar al-Kafil, located about 50 miles south of Baghdad, noticed a stone tile had fallen off the inside of the burial chamber. Oddly, its back side contained an ancient lettering which had been deliberately hidden, facing the wall. Other tiles were removed and similar inscriptions were found on their back sides as well.

The entire set of Ezekiel plates were then taken to Lebanon, where decades later a Christian Arab widow, on the advice of her priest, wanted to place them in Jewish hands before she moved to France. She sold them for a mere two pounds sterling to businessman David Hacohen in 1947.

He smuggled the plates into Israel in 1953, and they were eventually acquired by Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Israel’s second president and a noted historian, who considered them a valuable national treasure.

After Ben-Zvi’s death, the Ezekiel plates became the property of the Institute in Jerusalem set up in his honor, which had them in storage until Zwebner convinced his wife’s parents, Max and Lombi Landau, to sponsor their public display.

I think this is most interesting, both from the perspective of more ancient Old Testament texts and for reviewing the (minor) divergence in the plate text from the Masoretic text. Though the first task is to establish the age. They may be of less linguistic value if they are only a few hundred years old.

One less god

2011-05-18T22:00:00.002+12:00

Cross posted at MandM

I have read a few posts on the one less god proposition. Stephen F Roberts originally put it,

I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

elsewhere he says,

We are all atheists, some of us just believe in fewer gods than others.

I have read a few responses against this illogical claim.

One retort is to state that Christians do believe in several gods, it is just that the lesser gods are demons and Christians claim allegiance to the true God. Yahweh is not just a local deity (1Ki 20:23) but the true God, creator heaven and earth

And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD and said: "O LORD, the God of Israel, enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God, you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and earth. (2 Kings 19:15)

the most high God,

Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have lifted my hand to the LORD, God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth,..." (Genesis 14:22)

Though there is truth to this, depending a little on how one defines God, I do not think this rebutal gets to the crux of the problem.

Another response is to state that polytheists believe in gods for different reasons than monotheists believe in God. Polytheists believe X and monotheists believe Y, thus the monotheist's refutation of X does not refute Y, which the atheist is claiming. In other words, the reason Christians reject other gods is not the same as the reason they accept the Christian God. This is logically true, and hints at the atheist error, but does not get to the heart of it. It is inadequate though because it is not immediately obvious that polytheists and monotheists have significantly different reasons for theism. Romans 1 suggests that there are some basic reasons why all people are theists, but our fallen nature means this may be distorted such that theism becomes polytheism or, as per Romans, animism and pantheism.

A related response is to state that Christians see polytheism is a distortion of monotheism. As such, removal of the distortion does not remove the argument. The dismissal of the wrong elements of theism is not an argument against theism. This gets closer to the problem.

The primary problem with the atheist position is that it makes a category error. The following analogy demonstrates this central issue. As such the analogy is useful, but for several reasons I think it is inadequate and could be improved upon. Nevertheless, if it illustrates the problem it is helpful.

Let's say that people are debating the best colour for stop signs. One person may prefer red for stop signs. Another green. Still others think that any colour can be used and no standardisation is necessary, and others promote the use of all colours on every sign.

The atheist response is like saying you can’t agree on what colour to use because there are in fact no colours. Colours do not exist.

Debating colour preference is not the same as debating the existence of colours. Dropping from one god to no gods is not a continuation of the number-of-gods argument, it is a completely different argument.

Consider the deity set. It is either empty: atheism; or not empty: theism. The argument over the number of members in a non-empty theism set is unrelated to argument about whether or not the set is in fact empty.

Douglas Wilson put it well in his response to Sam Harris,

You say, "Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way devote Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions." Well, no, not exactly. And well, actually, no, not at all.

Suppose we are considering a phenomenon that is, by most accounts, inexplicable by an unsupervised occurrence—three of us attend a sophisticated party uptown, and halfway through the evening at the party we find a trout in the punch bowl. At this point, the three of us divide into three schools of thought. I think that Smith, a practical joker, put it there; our friend Murphy thinks that Jones, the avant-garde performance artist, put it there; and you think that it has simply shown up as the result of natural forces. My central point is not to interact with the truth or falsity of your naturalistic position—except perhaps through the use of this absurd example of the punchbowl—but rather to show that you are arguing for something completely different from what Murphy and I are arguing. We all have an explanation but your explanation is of a different kind altogether.

The differences between two of us (between Murphy and me) concern who put the trout in the punchbowl. The difference between the both of us together and you is whether someone put a trout in the punchbowl. And who and whether represent different questions entirely. Quite apart from who is right and who is wrong about this, it is important to note that we are not disagreeing in the same way or over the same kind of issue at all. Murphy and I are disagreeing over the relative behaviours of Smith and Jones, but not over whether the trout calls for an explanation. Maybe I am more hostile to Smith than I ought to be, and maybe Murphy is deeply prejudiced against Jones. Maybe we are both wrong about who put it there. But thinking someone's explanation is inadequate (when we agree the phenomenon must be explained) is quite different from arguing with someone who says it calls for no outside explanation whatever. (Letter from a Christian Citizen)

Monday quote

2011-05-16T20:00:00.001+12:00

“Is it so incredible that God would raise the dead?” Paul asks. This is actually no more incredible than that we should all be alive the first time—and yet here we all are.

Douglas Wilson

The location of the Tower of Babel

2011-05-15T14:00:00.002+12:00

This article is intriguing. It is on the location of the Tower of Babel. Anne Habermehl is making an argument for a location north of the traditional site at Babylon in southern Iraq.

She has several reasons for a northern location:

The location of the land of Shinar;
The location of the cities associated with Babel mentioned in Genesis 10: Erech, Accad, and Calneh;
The coastline of the region following the Noachian Deluge and before further sedimentation from the Euphrates and Tigris rivers.

She associates Erech with Tell Aqab, Accad with Tell Brak, and Calneh with Washshukanni located at Tell Fakhariya.

It is an interesting read. The arguments are variably convincing, some better than others. It is gratifying that Habermehl gives due consideration to the biblical data.

A very clumsy servant

2011-05-10T13:00:00.002+12:00

I found Watchman Nee's analogy of the clumsy servant a useful analogy to understand Romans 7. Nee states that Romans 6 is about the freedom from sin and Romans 7 about freedom from the Law. He also discusses the analogies Paul uses concerning these things: Master and slave with regard to sin, and husband and wife with regard to the Law. I have read the chapter, but not the book (yet). Nevertheless, I found the analogy helpful.

Hat tip: Alan Haughton.

From Chapter 9: The Meaning and Value of Romans Seven. The Normal Christian Life by Watchman Nee (Nee Tao Shu).

What The Law Teaches

Many Christians are suddenly launched into the experience of Romans 7 and they do not know why. They fancy Romans 6 is quite enough. Having grasped that, they think there can be no more question of failure, and then to their utmost surprise they suddenly find themselves in Romans 7. What is the explanation?

First let us be quite clear that the death with Christ described in Romans 6 is fully adequate to cover all our need. It is the explanation of that death, with all that follows from it, that is incomplete in chapter 6. We are as yet still in ignorance of the truth set forth in chapter 7. Romans 7 is given to us to explain and make real the statement in Romans 6:14, that: “Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace.” The trouble is that we do not yet know deliverance from law. What, then, is the meaning of law?

Grace means that God does something for me; law means that I do something for God. God has certain holy and righteous demands which He places upon me: that is law. Now if law means that God requires something of me for their fulfillment, then deliverance from law means that He no longer requires that from me, but Himself provides it. Law implies that God requires me to do something for Him; deliverance from law implies that He exempts me from doing it, and that in grace He does it Himself. I (where ‘I’ is the ‘carnal’ man of ch. 7:14) need do nothing for God: that is deliverance from law. The trouble in Romans 7 is that man in the flesh tried to do something for God. As soon as you try to please God in that way, then you place yourself under law, and the experience of Romans 7 begins to be yours.

As we seek to understand this, let it be settled at the outset that the fault does not lie with the Law. Paul says, “the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good” (Rom. 7:12). No, there is nothing wrong with the Law, but there is something decidedly wrong with me. The demands of the Law are righteous, but the person upon whom the demands are made is unrighteous. The trouble is not that the Law’s demands are unjust, but that I am unable to meet them. It may be all right for the Government to require payment of 100 shillings but it will be all wrong if I have only ten shillings with which to meet the demand!

I am a man “sold under sin” (Rom. 7:14). Sin has dominion over me. As long as you leave me alone I seem to be rather a fine type of man. It is when you ask me to do something that my sinfulness comes to light.

If you have a very clumsy servant and he just sits still and does nothing, then his clumsiness does not appear. If he does nothing all day he will be of little use to you, it is true, but at least he will do no damage that way. But if you say to him: ‘Now come along, don’t idle away your time; get up and do something’, then immediately the trouble begins. He knocks the chair over as he gets up, stumbles over a footstool a few paces further on, then smashes some precious dish as soon as he handles it. If you make no demands upon him his clumsiness is never noticed, but as soon as you ask him to do anything his awkwardness is seen at once. The demands were all right, but the man was all wrong. He was as clumsy a man when he was sitting still as when he was working, but it was your demands that made manifest the clumsiness that was all the time in his make-up, whether he was active or inactive.

We are all sinners by nature. If God asks nothing of us, all seems to go well, but as soon as He demands something of us the occasion is provided for a grand display of our sinfulness. The Law makes our weakness manifest. While you let me sit still I appear to be all right, but when you ask me to do anything I am sure to spoil that thing, and if you trust me with a second thing I will as surely spoil it too. When a holy law is applied to a sinful man, then his sinfulness comes out in full display.

God knows who I am; He knows that from head to foot I am full of sin; He knows that I am weakness incarnate; that I can do nothing. The trouble is that I do not know it. I admit that all men are sinners and that therefore I am a sinner; but I imagine that I am not such a hopeless sinner as some. God must bring us all to the place where we see that we are utterly weak and helpless. While we say so, we do not wholly believe it, and God has to do something to convince us of the fact. Had it not been for the Law we should never have known how weak we are. Paul had reached that point. He makes this clear when he says in Romans 7:7: “I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet”. Whatever might be his experience with the rest of the Law, it was the tenth commandment, which literally translated is: “Thou shalt not desire...” that found him out. There his total failure and incapacity stared him in the face!

The more we try to keep the Law the more our weakness is manifest and the deeper we get into Romans 7, until it is clearly demonstrated to us that we are hopelessly weak. God knew it all along but we did not, and so God had to bring us through painful experiences to a recognition of the fact. We need to have our weakness proved to ourselves beyond dispute. That is why God gave us the Law.

So we can say, reverently, that God never gave us the Law to keep; He gave us the Law to break! He well knew that we could not keep it. We are so bad that He asks no favour and makes no demands. Never has any man succeeded in making himself acceptable to God by means of the Law. Nowhere in the New Testament are men of faith told that they are to keep the Law; but it does say that the Law was given so that there should be transgression. “The law came in... that the trespass might abound” (Rom. 5:20). The Law was given to make us law-breakers! No doubt I am a sinner in Adam; “Howbeit, I had not know sin, except through the law: ...for apart from the law sin is dead... but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died” (Rom. 7:7-9). The Law is that which exposes our true nature. Alas, we are so conceited, and think ourselves so strong, that God has to give us something to test us and prove how weak we are. At last we see it and confess: ‘I am a sinner through and through, and I can of myself do nothing whatever to please God.’

No, the Law was not given in the expectation that we would keep it. It was given in the full knowledge that we would break it; and when we have broken it so completely that we are convinced of our utter need, then the Law has served its purpose. It has been our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that He Himself may fulfill it in us (Gal. 3:24).

Monday quote

2011-05-09T22:00:00.001+12:00

Our high calling is to be in the world, not of the world. It is not our being in the world that ruins us, but our suffering the world to be in us: just as ships sink, not by being in the water, but by the water getting into them.

Andrew Robert Fausset (1821–1910). Critical and Expository Commentary on the Book of Judges (1885).

Is salt good for your health?

2011-05-05T21:00:00.021+12:00

I have long been suspicious of the claim that salt is bad for human health. I suspect that the more salt you eat, the more thirsty you become and the more water you drink. The kidneys handle this all very well.

The debate has been going on a few decades. Some studies suggest that blood pressure is lower with lower intakes, others find no difference, and a few indicate low salt is bad for your health.

This week JAMA published one of the latter. The way it is written makes me wonder if the authors are apologising for the result. The study shows more deaths from heart attacks and strokes in those who consume less salt. They also claim that increasing salt over time increases blood pressure, but by a tiny amount. More about this below.

Kaplan-Meier Survival. From JAMA.

Reuters have reported on this finding, as has the New York Times. The salt police have reacted negatively to this article. It is clearly full of holes. Salt is evil and nothing should stop our crusade to ban this dangerous chemical.

The Times article talks to Peter Briss from the Centers for Disease Control who is convinced that salt is bad for your health and to Michael Alderman who is not. Briss complains that

that the study was small; that its subjects were relatively young, with an average age of 40 at the start; and that with few cardiovascular events, it was hard to draw conclusions.

Which would be true if the event rate were statistically insignificant. But as the study did find a difference this complaint is void. You can't argue that type 2 errors (false negative) are possible after a statistically significant result is found. The concern then is, have you made a type 1 error?

And the study, Dr. Briss and others say, flies in the face of a body of evidence indicating that higher sodium consumption can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Except that the evidence is conflicting. There is much data that points to salt not being a health concern.

But among the study’s other problems, Dr. Briss said, its subjects who seemed to consume the smallest amount of sodium also provided less urine than those consuming more, an indication that they might not have collected all of their urine in an 24-hour period.

Well they did exclude implausible urine volumes. But this comment doesn't make sense. People who eat less salt are likely to produce less urine on average. The high salt consumers raise the salt levels in their blood slightly which drives thirst. Increased fluid intake will associated with increased urine output. People can drink more than thirst dictates. But the average urine volume will likely be higher in the group who eat more salt. Finding the same urine volumes across the groups would be the real concern.

Lowering salt consumption, Dr. Alderman said, has consequences beyond blood pressure. It also, for example, increases insulin resistance, which can increase the risk of heart disease.

“Diet is a complicated business,” he said. “There are going to be unintended consequences.”

One problem with the salt debates, Dr. Alderman said, is that all the studies are inadequate. Either they are short-term intervention studies in which people are given huge amounts of salt and then deprived of salt to see effects on blood pressure or they are studies, like this one, that observe populations and ask if those who happen to consume less salt are healthier.

Exactly. Even if it does affect blood pressure, which is not certain, blood pressure is a proxy for other outcomes, mainly heart attacks and strokes. Blood pressure is clearly implicated in these diseases, but if less salt increases your blood pressure slightly and at the same time causes other changes that are detrimental for your heart then, on balance, it might be a bad thing.

We may not even be able to easily decrease our salt intake. Some research suggests that we closely monitor our salt intake thru specialised cells in the brain. If we are exposed to more salt we decrease our intake, and if we lack salt we actively seek it, such that the amount consumed over time remains a constant 4 grams per day.

Dr. Briss adds that it would not be prudent to defer public health actions while researchers wait for results of a clinical trial that might not even be feasible.

So we should make recommendations and alter society in case salt turns out to be unhealthy when all the data is in, even though there is a possibility that such action may turn out to be hazardous?

Dr. Alderman disagrees.

“The low-salt advocates suggest that all 300 million Americans be subjected to a low-salt diet. But if they can’t get people on a low-salt diet for a clinical trial, what are they talking about?”

He added: “It will cost money, but that’s why we do science. It will also cost money to change the composition of food.”

Much more sensible. Do nothing in public policy currently. Continue to do a variety of studies and gain an understanding of how salt works. Even then, such answers are physiological, they do not tell us public policy, they can at most inform us.

I am off to have some chips, for the good of my heart of course.

Monday quote

2011-05-02T22:00:00.001+12:00

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.

Arthur Schopenhauer

The meaning of "expanse" in Genesis 1. Part 5

2011-04-29T22:00:00.002+12:00

Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

Seely's second and third essays cover slightly different topics than the expanse per se. The second essay is on the water above the expanse and the third on ancient views of the earth and seas.

In Seely's second essay "The Firmament and the Water Above Part II: The Meaning of 'The Water above the Firmament' in Gen 1:6-8" from The Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992) (pdf) he discusses the waters above the expanse. Though I disagree with his conclusions he makes a few valid points. I am not going to discuss the waters above in this series so I will just say that I think much of my disagreement here relates to his emphasis on other cultures. Interestingly, Genesis is somewhat unique here anyway,

Among scientifically naive peoples, who have universally believed in a solid firmament, only a very few seem to have a concept of an ocean or of water being stored in bottles above the firmament. We must beware of arguing from silence, but the vast majority of primitive peoples evidence no belief in a body of water existing above the firmament.

As I previously said, I think Genesis is primary so there is much less to learn from other cosmogonies concerning the interpretation of Genesis than Seely thinks there is.

There are also, of course, obvious differences between the two accounts both materially and even more so in their contrasting theologies. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Genesis is dependent upon Enuma Elish. Nevertheless, the two accounts are both ancient Near Eastern documents containing some very similar concepts and there may well be some genetic connection between them. Consequently, Enuma Elish is an important historical document for shedding light on the concepts employed in Genesis 1. This is particularly true with regard to nontheological matters wherever a parallel clearly exists between the two accounts.

If they are both dependant on a common source perhaps; but even if this were the case, if Genesis is essentially edited narrative and Enuma Elish is mythologised history and speculation then the latter is less helpful in interpreting Genesis than vice versa.

Seely's third essay is "The Geographical meaning of 'Earth' and 'Seas' in Genesis 1:10" Westminster Theological Journal 59 (1997). Again he discusses views from other ancient cultures. He describes an ancient view of the earth as flat with an inverted bowl forming the sky. I find this comment interesting,

Scientifically naive peoples everywhere regularly conceive of the earth as a single continent in the shape of a flat circular disc. There are rare exceptions; but, in no case have they thought of the earth as a planetary globe. The human mind, as clearly evidenced by prescientific peoples, just naturally defines the earth as flat-until informed otherwise by modern science. Even pre-adolescent children in modern Western societies think of the earth as flat until informed otherwise by modern science.

Which raises 2 questions. Why does Seely think that the view of children has much relevance? Children think the world is flat because it appears so, but the concept of a large globe appearing flat locally is an easy concept to teach them.

The other question is: How did people centuries prior to the scientific revolution know that the earth was a globe? He acknowledges this later in his essay but 500 BC can hardly be considered contemporary with modern science. It is possible that astronomy was somewhat different in the millennia before Christ to what Seely suspects, and many ancient cosmogonies may reflect a loss of knowledge rather the earliest knowledge.

Most of the rest of the essay does not concern the expanse directly. This comment from Seely on the meaning for the Hebrew word raqa` is interesting. "Expanse" is the Hebrew raqiya` which is derived from raqa` as mentioned in the first post.

The exact relationship of the earth to the waters is expressed by the preposition `al. The preposition cal usually means "upon" and that is the first meaning given for it in both KB and BDB. Further, the other meanings of `al all flow out from the meaning "upon." Thus the first thing BDB says about the preposition ‘al is that its meaning is "upon, and hence ... [then follows a list of its other meanings]." The meaning, "upon," therefore, is an appropriate translation of `al in a text like Ps 136:6 where the immediate context does not lead us to any other meaning. The meaning "upon" is also the one most often chosen by modern translators of this verse including the translators of the NIV, even though Harris was a major editor of the NIV. The Hebrew invites this translation, and there is no contextual reason to translate the verse differently.

Unfortunately, the only time the verb raqa` is used with the preposition `al in the OT is in Ps 136:6. But, raqa` has a close synonym, namely (iii, radad) which also apparently means "beat" or "spread out;" and, this synonym is used with the preposition `al in I Kgs 6:32 where it describes overlaying the cherubim with gold plating: "he spread out the gold over or upon (`al) the cherubim." It seems very probable, therefore, that the synonymous phraseology in Ps 136:6 (especially in the light of Isa 40:19 which uses raqa` in the sense of "overlay") means that the earth is spread out over or upon the sea. As gold overlays the cherubim in I Kgs 6:32 so the earth overlays the sea in Ps 136:6.

I think that thru-out these 3 essays Seely gives too much weight to primitive cosmologies. While they have some similarities to each other, they differ from each other in several places. In which case differences may exist between them and the ancient Hebrew cosmology.

David Wilkerson dies in accident

2011-04-28T22:00:00.005+12:00

David Wilkerson (1931–2011)

The author of The Cross and the Switchblade died in a car accident on Wednesday. He was 79. His wife was travelling with him and is in hospital.

It is with deepest sadness that we inform you of the sudden passing of Reverend David Wilkerson Wednesday, April 27, 2011. More information will be posted on the World Challenge website as it becomes available.

From his final blogpost

Beloved, God has never failed to act but in goodness and love. When all means fail—his love prevails. Hold fast to your faith. Stand fast in his Word. There is no other hope in this world.

Articles

Monday quote

2011-04-25T08:00:00.001+12:00

In this imbalanced world, a balanced individual will often find himself saying, "Well, yes and no." In Christian circles, when there is a reaction away from ungodly compromise, there is a tendency to reduce every issue to a few simplistic formulas or doctrines. The next step is to approve of everyone who is with you all the way, and disapprove of everyone who shows the slightest concern about anything contained in the formula.

Douglas Wilson, Beyond Stateliest Marble.

Spice preparation and the Sabbath

2011-04-24T20:00:00.003+12:00

Previously I have written on the duration of time Jesus was in the tomb. The posts were

Strider asks

How could the woman have bought the spices after the weekly sabbath, but they prepared the spices before the sabbath and then rested? you have to answer that. also you have to interpret the scripture with the 'even[ing] to even[ing]' day in mind

I agree that at the time of Jesus the Jews considered that days started in the evening, ie. at sunset, and finished the following evening.

In my above posts I defend the position that Jesus died late Friday and was buried late afternoon/ early evening, near the time the Jewish Sabbath was beginning.

In Luke 23–24 we read

Now there was a man named Joseph, from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man, who had not consented to their decision and action; and he was looking for the kingdom of God. This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud and laid him in a tomb cut in stone, where no one had ever yet been laid. It was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning. The women who had come with him from Galilee followed and saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and ointments.

On the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment.

But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared.

Compare Mark 15–16

And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised to hear that he should have already died. And summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the corpse to Joseph. And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.

So Luke has in written order

Wrapping the body
Burial
Sabbath onset
Spice preparation
Sabbath rest
Tomb visit

Mark has

Wrapping the body
Burial
Sabbath rest
Buy spices
Tomb visit

The difficulty is how can they buy spices after the Sabbath as per Mark but prepare them before the Sabbath as per Luke unless there are 2 Sabbaths. Matthew and John do not discuss the women preparing spices though John mentions that Nicodemus had spices that he and Joseph wrapped into the linen prior to the burial.

I don't think this is a major difficulty. I think the likely solution is that Mark gives the order whereas Luke gives an overview. Thus the order would be

Burial on Friday afternoon
Sabbath from Friday evening to Saturday evening
Buy spices Saturday evening after sunset
Prepare spices Saturday evening
Visit the tomb Sunday morning before dawn

This fits Mark. Luke's comment about returning from the tomb and preparing spices is a comment about what happened some time during the period before Sunday morning. The Sabbath rest is mentioned at that point to explain why they did not go to the tomb the next day.

Though I think the order of narrative reflects chronology, one must be careful about the rigidity with which this is applied. If chronological prepositions such as "before" and "after" are used then this indicates order. If not, and the context, or other Scripture, suggests otherwise then one must be careful about extracting chronological information when other literary features may be in play. So in Luke the Sabbath comment is included to explain why the women did not go to the tomb the next day. They couldn't visit the tomb. In fact they couldn't even prepare spices, it is unlikely they prepared spices after returning home late Friday just before the Sabbath as the burial was being completed about the time the Sabbath was beginning.

Are there other solutions if we force an interpretation of spice preparation immediately after burial? We could argue that Mark and Luke are taking about different women, that one group prepared spices just before the Sabbath (Joanna) and another bought spices after the Sabbath (Mary). This is unlikely and I do not favour this option.

We could argue that they prepared some spices before the Sabbath and bought more after the Sabbath. This would be feasible as the timing of the death would preclude them owning enough spices to anoint a body. But this solution is unnecessary given that Luke is not giving a rigid chronology.

But what of the alternative? Jesus dies on the Wednesday evening. A special Sabbath goes from Wednesday evening to Thursday evening. Thursday evening to Friday evening is a normal day. And Friday evening to Saturday evening is the usual Sabbath.

Addressing just the spice issue. We have burial before the first and special Sabbath. Buying the spices on Friday morning after this Sabbath. Preparation of the spices on Friday. Rest on the second and usual Sabbath. Visit the tomb after this Sabbath.

But why not visit the tomb on Friday? There is more than enough time to buy, prepare and visit the tomb. Proposing another Sabbath to solve a perceived spice chronology creates a much greater issue: Why did the women stay home on Friday? If we allow Luke latitude in organising his material topically, the issue of the spices is further evidence for a Friday crucifixion.

We Christians serve a king

2011-04-22T14:00:00.006+12:00

Though his kingship does not look like others who would rule this world. I find it interesting that we bow before a man who went thru an unjust trial, was beaten by men who hate him, was nailed to a patibulum and left hanging naked to die in front of a crowd, many who mocked him. A long way from the the rulers who conquer kingdoms or are born into royalty, and demand obeisance.

Yet I gladly bow at the foot of a cross to a man whose only item symbolic of royalty is a crown, and that of thorns. Still, how appropriate that the result of the curse should grace the forehead of him who took the curse upon himself.

"Are you the Christ," they ask. "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." We will see Jesus as a conquering king, but for now,

Behold the Man upon a cross
My guilt upon His shoulders
Ashamed, I hear my mocking voice
Call out among the scoffers
It was my sin that held Him there
Until it was accomplished
His dying breath has brought me life
I know that it is finished.

How Deep the Father’s Love for Us, Stuart Townend

You have to give this to the French

2011-04-19T13:00:00.001+12:00

Apparently there are less vegetarians and vegans in France than England. Not that surprising. Seemingly peer-pressure makes it more difficult to be a vegetarian in France. Nevertheless, this amused me:

a chef in Normandy insisted the omelette he had served was still vegetarian even though it was covered in "just a foie gras sauce".

Monday quote

2011-04-18T08:00:00.001+12:00

The classical economists, refuting the fallacies of their own day, showed that the saving policy that was in the best interests of the individual was also in the best interests of the nation. They showed that the rational saver, in making provision for his future, was not hurting, but helping, the whole community. But today the ancient virtue of thrift, as well as its defense by the classical economists, is once more under attack, for allegedly new reasons, while the opposite doctrine of spending is in fashion.

Henry Hazlitt (1894–1993), Economics in One Lesson.

Is the kilogram getting smaller?

2011-04-13T21:00:00.019+12:00

copy of the
international prototype kilogram

The kilogram is currently defined by an object, the IPK. Definitions of basic units would seem to need a couple of criteria, constancy and precision. The unit should be stable over time. It should also be a highly accurate measure, as much as reasonable for other units that derive from it. But apparently the platinum-iridium cylinder is losing atoms, so think some.

The official kilogram, a cylinder of platinum and iridium maintained by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, is more than 130 years old. It is stored under three glass domes in a safe in a basement in Sèvres, France, and can be accessed only with three independent keys.

Technically, the cylinder is not even the official kilogram until it has been cleaned in an authorized manner to remove contaminants. It is the only remaining international standard in the metric system that is still a man-made object. Some scientists now believe the official kilogram may be losing mass, which defeats its only purpose: constancy. This adds new urgency to a longstanding search for a new official kilogram, based, like the meter, on one of nature’s fundamental numbers, called constants.

One would also assume that such a unit is accessible, which this cylinder is not; kept under glass. Though there are several replicas around the world which are periodically checked with the IPK.

So we may see a future definition based on fundamental constants rather than objects. Of course this inhibits us measuring whether or not these constants are in fact constant over space and time.

Thunderstorms make antimatter

2011-04-12T13:00:00.001+12:00

This is pretty cool. Apparently thunderstorms make antimatter. NASA have a space telescope called Fermi that has been orbiting earth for the last 3 years. It has detected gamma rays that have the energy which corresponds to an electron and a positron annihilating each other.

Fermi is designed to monitor gamma rays, the highest energy form of light. When antimatter striking Fermi collides with a particle of normal matter, both particles immediately are annihilated and transformed into gamma rays. The GBM has detected gamma rays with energies of 511,000 electron volts, a signal indicating an electron has met its antimatter counterpart, a positron.

Terrestrial gamma-ray flash at 2 ms

Thunderstorms create enormous magnetic fields which cause electrons to accelerate to high speed. When these high speed electrons hit air molecules they slow releasing energy in the form of gamma rays. This is similar to the mechanism by which we make x-rays. X-rays are created by speeding up electrons with a electric field in a vacuum and striking them on a metal plate. On slowing they release their energy as x-rays (a little more complicated than this). These x-rays are used for various purposes, frequently in medical diagnostic equipment. X-rays are high energy, but lower than that of gamma rays. Some of these gamma rays formed by the thunderstorm have high enough energy to turn into an electron-positron pair, the positron subsequently annihilating when it combines with another electron.

Wikipedia

Monday quote

2011-04-11T21:00:00.001+12:00

The Church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.

Theodore Beza (1519–1605)

From H.L. Hastings quoting Beza, as recorded by John W Lea in The Greatest Book in the World (1929).

When the French monarch proposed the persecution of Christians in his dominion, an old statesman and warrior said to him, 'Sire, the church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.' So the hammers of infidels have been pecking away at this book for ages, but the hammers are worn out, and the anvil still endures. If this book had not been the book of God, men would have destroyed it long ago. Emperors and popes, kings and priests, princes and rulers have all tried their hand at it; they die and the book still lives.

Original quote recorded in Theodore Beza the Counsellor of the French Reformation 1519 to 1605 by Henry Martyn Baird (1899)

Sire, it belongs in truth to the Church of God, in whose name I speak, to endure blows and not to inflict them. But it will also please your Majesty to remember that she is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.

Annihilationism, inclusivism and universalism

2011-04-07T19:00:00.014+12:00

I have read a range of blog posts in the last month dealing with these concepts. While they have dealt with them moderately well, I think there has been some lack of clarity, especially by those who do not hold to these positions. It does not help when people compare the number of inhabitants of heaven and hell without considering who, if anyone, goes there.

Universalism is widely thought to be a heretical position. It is the position that God will eventually save all men. All people will eventually respond to God's grace at some stage and end up in heaven. Such a position often allows for post-mortem salvation. People will still get to respond to the gospel after death when the evidence for God is more compelling.

Universalism is seen by some as a heretical Arminian position. While I concede that some non-Calvinists may hold to Universalism, it is not a logical conclusion of Arminianism. Arminians hold that men retain the ability to reject God; that God could force all men to eventually love and follow him is inconsistent with such belief. I would think that a Calvinist could logically hold to Universalism in that he thinks that God can save anyone and turn his will accordingly. That said, I do not wish to imply that Calvinists do subscribe to universalism. There may be some, but secondary Calvinist belief teaches that God gains glory in his wrath against evil which implies some men are in hell.

Annihilationism is the teaching that hell is not eternal. God will send men to hell. Those who reject Christ do not inherit heaven. While people are judged and sent to hell, they are destroyed there, their souls are not eternal. This is not a position that relates to the Calvinist Arminian debate, either side can be an annihilationist. While both annihilationism and universalism end up with people only populating heaven they are hardly similar positions. Hell is empty because no one goes there is markedly different from Hell being empty because the people there are destroyed.

Inclusivism is the belief that people can go to heaven without hearing the gospel. It has considerable variation and one needs to understand which position is advocated rather than condemn all variants as incorrect. Even if each position is ultimately incorrect, they may be wrong for different reasons.

Inclusivism is not a road to universalism. Of course universalists are inclusive by definition: if all end up in heaven and not all respond to God before death, then people outside Christendom must be included. But inclusivism does not imply universalism. Many inclusivists think that men will be damned, moreso, they can be annihilationists.

Universalism, annihilationism, and inclusivism all speak to different questions. One to the universality of heaven's occupants, one to the duration of hell, and one to the nature of salvation. The reason for conflation may be because they are somewhat related. Universalists could be thought to be annihillationists as there is no need for hell, but that is an inappropriate designation. Universalists are inclusivists by nature, but because the converse is not true this is an unhelpful designation.

How many books in the world?

2011-04-06T22:00:00.001+12:00

Google estimates 129,864,880. Though their definition of book is quite broad.

If we generously assume a person could read 1 book per week from age 10 to 100, you will read less than 5000 books in a lifetime—0.004% of them.

A musing I have had on occasion is: what if library (non-fiction) books were modified such that every errant statement was deleted? What would the books look like? Which ones would have a greater amount of white space than words? Which would be practically empty? I imagine dictionaries and books on mathematics would remain mostly unchanged.

Monday quote

2011-04-04T08:00:00.001+12:00

Evolutionary theory predicts nothing, not even a nested hierarchy. Rather, the theory adapts to data like a fog adapts to landscape.

Walter ReMine, The Biotic Message.

Doctrinal disagreement

2011-04-03T16:00:00.040+12:00

The Bible claims to be revelation from God. It is thought by Christians to contain truth: that is, what it says on its pages reflects reality. Of course if one accepts this he is still left with the issue of interpreting the text.

Statements of faith can reflect this difference in interpretation. Thus we get people holding to a range of beliefs. It is possible for a Calvinist and an Arminian to be egalitarian; or for two paedobaptists to differ over ecclesiology: although holding one belief may increase the chance of holding another; beliefs are not mathematically independent. If 50% of Christians are paedobaptists and 10% are annihilationists, it may not hold that 5% are paedobaptist annihilationists.

Resolving differences requires assessing what the Bible teaches and weighting passages appropriately.

Now I think that some disagreements are genuinely over meaning. Which belief is most consistent with Scripture. I also think that significant disagreement comes about because of the influence of preference. People do want the Bible to confirm what they wish to be the case.

Conceding all this I think there are still a couple issues. Some differences may not be different when we understand the issue in adequate depth. Two opinions over a single issue may be resolved when it is realised that the issue is actually divisible: perhaps one opinion is correct when applied to one component of the issue and the other correct when applied to the second component. For example, I think Arminianism resolves the sovereignty issue that the Calvinists (perhaps unwittingly) seem to conflate.

However some differences are mutually exclusive. If the Bible is true, and there are contradictory interpretations, at least one perspective is incorrect. Christians who hold the correct interpretation will know the truth; they will know things as they really are, at least concerning that doctrine.

Such doctrines have a range of importance. Some beliefs are more central than others. Some beliefs are more foundational than others. And some beliefs are more clear than others.

By central I mean important to the Christian faith. These would include the deity of Christ, the literal death and resurrection of Jesus, the second coming of Jesus.

By foundational I mean beliefs which other doctrines build on. Such as the existence of God, the creation of the earth and universe by a transcendent God, the infiniteness of God, the omnipotence of God.

By clarity I mean how much the Bible reveals about the doctrine. Clear doctrines include the necessity of faith in Jesus for salvation, that God created the universe. Less clear doctrines would include the hierarchy of the angelic world, the nature of the Nephilim.

A specific doctrines can range from central to peripheral, foundational to minor, clear to opaque. While any doctrine could lie anywhere along these 3 axes, central doctrines tend to be clear doctrines.

The degree of disagreement does not necessarily imply a lack of perspicuity in the Bible, there are other considerations as mentioned above. But divergence of opinion may reveal little biblical clarity. As such, I think it prudent that we hold opinions more lightly when we recognise that there is opacity surrounding a particular doctrine.

One such doctrinal area is eschatology. I think Christians have disagreement here, in part, because the Bible is not completely clear about last things.

Monday quote

2011-03-28T08:00:00.002+13:00

There are two kinds of people in the world, the conscious dogmatists and the unconscious dogmatists. I have always found myself that the unconscious dogmatists were by far the most dogmatic.

GK Chesterton, Generally Speaking.