Layout modification

I have made some changes to my blog appearance as you can see. Despite doing a reasonable amount of prior work on my test blog, the change still took some time. I had to transfer haloscan commenting system which fortunately worked. Though apparently haloscan is shifting to JS-Kit at some stage. The comments will then get stored again on blogger which may be preferable.

I have been wanting to switch to a 3 column layout to separate out blog related access (see left) and external links (see right). Following that schema means that recent comments should be on the left but it seems to fit better on the right because of the word count. I got the template from ourblogtemplates but have modified it moderately. It has way too many options, especially for colours, and I will have to weed it out at some stage. I also need to modify some of the colours such as mouseover. The width may be slightly large for some monitors at 980 pixels, though only 3% of my visitors have a resolution as low as 800 pixels.

Cannibal frog

Unless it is a bizarre mating ritual.

I am aware of cannibalism in the natural world. For example, I believe lions have been known to eat other big cats. But for some reason I find this picture mildly distressing.

Dating of the Hammurabi Code

When was the Code of Hammurabi written?

Similarities have been noted with the Law of Moses. For example in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia parallels are identified for Exodus 21:2, 15, 18, 22, 24, 28-32; 22:7,10; Leviticus 19:35f; 20:10; 24:19f; 25:39f; Deuteronomy 19:16f; 21:15f, 18f; 22:22; 24:1, 7.

Legal codes from ancient history can be helpful in understanding why specific laws existed. They can show us that a certain way of thinking was more widespread in the ancient world. It is claimed that Moses borrowed from Hammurabi because the latter antedates Moses. Other legal codes include those of Ur-Nammu and Eshnunna.

There is no intrinsic problem with the Bible having parallels to a prior code. The parallels may be because similar issues were being faced by the community. And the Bible claims to be historical, thus it interacts with nations surrounding it. God can approve of the practices of other nations or disapprove of them. Frequently we see the prophets condemning Israel for her actions which are worse than their pagan neighbours. Because God may approve or disapprove of a nations laws it is important to look at the differences as well as the similarities.

Nevertheless, I am not convinced that Hammurabi antedates Moses. I have previously mentioned my disagreement with secular ancient chronology.

Hammurabi was a king of Babylonia. Dating of the reign of Hammurabi is difficult and as has been noted several times, the chronology of ancient history is highly dependant on the chronology of Egypt. The chronology of the Egyptians is known to be a mess, even by those holding to the traditional dating. Alternate secular Egyptian dating systems have been proposed. Peter James, author of Centuries of Darkness states,

Numerous synchronisms have been drawn between Egypt and Mesopotamia, but many of these are based on unproved assumptions. Of those that are genuine, closer examination reveals that in many cases Mesopotamian chronology is actually dependent on Egyptian - and not the other way around. For example it is clear (Brinkman 1976) that the list of kings for the late Kassite period in Babylonia, conventionally 14th-13th centuries BC, has been heavily restored from Egyptian and Hittite evidence. (Hittite dating is directly dependent on that of Egypt.)

Scripture alone demands an Egyptian rewrite.

My knowledge of Babylonian history is limited. I am going to propose an alternative date for the code based on scriptural considerations and various secular synchronisms.

Pinches dates Hammurabi c. 2000 BC. Van De Mieroop dates him c. 1800 BC. Other suggestions based on shorter chronology suggest c. 1700 BC. Based on king lists Hammurabi son of Sin-mubalit son of Abil-Sin belonged to the First Babylonian Dynasty.

Following traditional dating we have the following (approximate) claims

• 1750 BC in traditional Egyptian chronology corresponds to the 12th and 13th Egyptians dynasties
• The first Babylonian dynasty ended with the fall of Babylon
  
• The fall of Babylon is dated c. 1500–1600 BC which corresponds to the beginning of the 18th Egyptian dynasty

Following Scripture we have the following data

• The very earliest date for the beginning of the Egyptian dynasties is c. 2200 BC
• Moses led the exodus of the Israelites out from Egypt around the time of the 12th and 13th dynasties (which may also correspond to the 6th dynasty)
• The 18th dynasty was of some duration. The beginnings of which are possibly about the time of Samuel and Saul

Comparing secular Egyptian and Babylonian synchronisms and and correcting the dates from the biblical data we have Hammurabi ruling about the time of Moses at the earliest.

While I am confident in the reduction of the date of the Hammurabi Code, I have not established significant synchronisms between Babylon and either Israel or Egypt. More data or a closer review of the data may lead to a more exact and more confident date.

This suggests that the the correspondence between the Hammurabi Code and the Law of Moses is unlikely due to the latter's dependence on the former. The Hammurabi Code may be dependant on the Mosaic Law based on chronological considerations alone. Both codes could relate to underlying customs of the Ancient Near East. Or they both could have some relationship to prior laws. Many who hold to the Mosaic authorship of Genesis propose Moses had access to more ancient Hebrew records.

Is all translation interpretation?

In an article about gender issues and the Bible, theologian Vern Poythress makes some important observations.

Poythress is discussing text that has implicit meaning which translators make explicit.

An explicit semantic content in the original has to be inferred in the translation, while what was only inferable from the semantics in the original becomes explicit in the translation. The shift from direct statement to inference is significant. It is a subtle change in meaning. To appreciate this difference fully, biblical scholars have to shift their point of view somewhat. Many biblical scholars spend most of their time thinking and writing about the theological value and interpretive implications of the passages they study. Their goal is to make explicit the many implications of the text. If two wordings leave the theological implications the same, they are equivalent from the scholar's point of view.

Of course we are also removed from the authors and readers of the original text by culture and time, so what may be implicit is still more obvious to them than to us, at least until our way of thinking changes. Though this is not quite what Poythress is getting at; rather the sentence construct: what is said and what is implied but left unsaid.

But literary stylists and linguists studying discourse focus on other aspects of the text. They would note that subtle differences exist between explicit and implicated information, direct and indirect address, active and passive constructions, second person and third person discourse. These produce subtle nuances in the meaning-texture of the total act of communication. Translation into another language never succeeds in conveying absolutely all of such nuances. But the faithful translator endeavors to do so as far as possible.

And this is a significant issue to which not everyone may necessarily subscribe. Do we get the main meaning and ensure that this is fully grasped in the translation, or do we carry across as many meanings as in the original. If the original possibly has a double meaning and we can keep ambiguity, do we? Poythress goes for the latter and I am inclined to agree.

Translators console themselves by saying that "all translation is interpretation." They are right. The most accurate translation can only be accomplished when we thoroughly understand the meaning of the original, including all its nuances in all their dimensions. Only then are we ready to produce a translation that conveys not only the main meaning but all the nuances of the original.

But the motto, "all translation is interpretation," is turned into another meaning if we then use it as a blanket justification for rewriting the text in the way that an interpretive commentary would do. An interpretive commentary expounds the implications of a text, and makes explicit what the text leaves implicit. Such has not generally been the job of mainstream translation. But the American religious public has become lazy about the Bible and busy with other affairs. So a translator may try to include the extra information in the text explicitly, in order to make it easy for them. He paraphrases. He explains metaphors in ordinary prose. He expands tightly packed theological exposition. By doing so, he provides a commentary through which he hopes to help readers to understand the Bible better. But when he labels his commentary "The Bible" and "translation," he has blurred the line between translation and commentary in an unfortunate way.

I tend more and more toward literal translations. Sure, they may not read quite as well as dynamic translations, but to really understand Scripture I think this is what is needed.

Dynamic, easy-reading, and children's Bibles have their place. To pick up the main themes of Scripture it is useful to read an easy-reading, flowing version. Reading a variety of versions allows one to contemplate other possible meanings that may not occur to him when reading his usual translation. But I think it is false when essentially dynamic versions claim to be just as accurate or more accurate than formal versions.

However translation always has limitations. Formal versions need to be aware that some limitations of language cannot easily be bridged. For example the preservation of word order into English is unnecessary and possibly inaccurate. Word order gives meaning more than emphasis in English; best to use normal English word order.

Afghans are not going to get swine 'flu

Apparently Afghanistan does not have many pigs. 1 in fact. In a zoo. And it has been locked away,

Afghanistan's only known pig has been locked in a room, away from visitors to Kabul zoo where it normally grazes beside deer and goats, because people are worried it could infect them with the virus popularly known as swine flu.

I checked the date but it wasn't April 1.

Is there any real risk?

There are no pig farms in Afghanistan and no direct civilian flights between Kabul and Mexico.

"We understand that, but most people don't have enough knowledge. When they see the pig in the cage they get worried and think that they could get ill," Saqib said.

Frankly the whole article is hilarious.

Random quote

...prosperity foregone is invisible. In other words, we can never tell how much richer we would have been

Walter Williams

Conflict of interest

The Institute of Medicine has released a report on conflict of interest in medical practice.

Collaborations between physicians or medical researchers and pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology companies can benefit society—most notably by promoting the discovery and development of new medications and medical devices that improve individual and public health. However, relationships between medicine and industry may create conflicts of interest, potentially resulting in undue influence on professional judgments.

...The committee’s report stresses the importance of preventing bias and mistrust rather than trying to remedy damage after it is discovered. It focuses specifically on financial conflicts of interest involving pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology companies.

The committee recommends the implementation of policies and procedures that will reduce the risk of conflicts that can jeopardize the integrity of sci­entific investigations, the objectivity of medical education, the quality of patient care, and the public’s trust in medicine.

The New York Times notes the report has stated that doctors, medical schools and hospitals should not accept gifts from pharmaceutical companies.

doctors should stop taking much of the money, gifts and free drug samples they routinely accept from drug and device companies.

And the suggestion is to remove funding from education courses as well

Drug companies spend billions of dollars wooing doctors — more than they spend on research or consumer advertising. Much of this money is spent on giving doctors free drug samples, free food, free medical refresher courses and payments for marketing lectures. The institute’s report recommends that nearly all of these efforts end.

3 brief questions.

• If medicine was fully privatised would this be as great a concern?
• While money can be a strong conflict of interest, so is ideology. Do people note competing interests based on philosophical, theological, or political beliefs? Is this a bad thing?
• Should this be extended to democracy? Should any person receiving financial favours from the government (excluding legitimate work done at governments behest) forfeit their vote? Welfare recipients, subsidised farmers, corporations that have specific laws written for them.

Are proofs of global warming actually myths?

Andrew Bolt offers a refutation of several evidences of global warming^* which he labels "myths." The 10 proofs of global warming he refutes are

1. The world is warming
2. The polar caps are melting
3. We've never had such a bad drought
4. Our cities have never been hotter
5. The seas are getting hotter
6. The seas are rising
7. Cyclones are getting worse
8. The great barrier reef is dying
9. Our snow seasons are shorter
10. Tsunamis and other disasters are getting worse

The second is interesting, the amount of ice in the Antarctic has increased over the last 3 decades. That issue 1 is a myth is a pity as I think the biosphere would be more productive if it were warmer, especially in temperate and polar climes. Hopefully the higher CO₂ will increase biomass despite lack of temperature increase.

He tackles issue 4 via record high temperatures. While interesting, it is not the best way to address it. Cities probably are warming via the urban heat island effect. (Though he is refuting claims, not suggesting these are the best claims).

---

^*I would have linked to the Herald article but it has been taken down (as per some news sites' bizarre policies of removing material older than some arbitrary duration). I have not reviewed the site linked to above that has a copy of the story. And here is an attempted refutation of Bolt.

Browsing makes workers productive?

Seems too good to be true.

The University of Melbourne study showed that people who use the Internet for personal reasons at work are about 9 percent more productive that those who do not.

...Short and unobtrusive breaks, such as a quick surf of the Internet, enables the mind to rest itself, leading to a higher total net concentration for a days' work, and as a result, increased productivity

But there is a caveat

Coker said the study looked at people who browsed in moderation, or were on the Internet for less than 20 percent of their total time in the office.

"Those who behave with Internet addiction tendencies will have a lower productivity than those without,"

So if I spend an hour an a half on surfing the net every day my boss is getting the most out of me?

Of course workers could be paid according to productivity. Then they can spend as much or as little time online as they wish.

Interpretative techniques

How we see the Bible affect how we interpret the Bible. I have several underlying themes that affect how I interpret the Bible.

Unity
I seek to find an interpretation that does justice to all the passages that touch on a topic. A related concept is that fuller revelation can expand on previous revelation but does not contradict it. The Bible is without error in any claim.

Context
The grammatical-historical hermeneutic says that the meaning is dictated by the underlying grammar and historical context. By historical context it is meaning what the writer intended based on his cultural setting. Concepts that we may hold based on the meanings of words may be irrelevant. This does not mean the ancients were ignorant, rather that they may have thought differently. One must guard against multiplying historical "settings" to justify an opinion, yet one must not ignore the fact. And there may be clues to this in the surrounding text.

Genre
Attention must be paid to literary genre, the type of text being read. For example a proverb is meant to be a general principle, poetry uses hyperbole and figurative language, apocalypse uses symbolism.

Divine authorship
Because God is the ultimate author, there may be truths that God intended yet the authors were not aware of. The Bible is infallible and legitimate conclusions come from its pages are true.

Perspicuity
The Bible is meant to be understood. The general meaning of the Bible is clear to any reader.

Hiddenness
I think this actually applies to God as well as the Bible and merits a post of its own. Briefly, the Bible is intentionally difficult in places. At least one reason for this is to hide meaning from the mocker and reveal meaning to the devout. There are concepts, difficulties, or apparent contradictions that allow a defiant man to scoff and dismiss, but on deeper investigation reveal unity and profound truth.

Prophecy may be a feature of this. Some prophecies seem to be difficult to understand before the fact but obvious afterwards.

Conclusion
Most of these relate to the usual use of language. Meaning is based on what the speaking is thinking. If he translates the thoughts to words well, and the hearer understands the words then he grasps what the speaker is thinking.

In conversation the context of a statement is important, think listening to one side of a telephone conversation; the genre is important, think telling a joke; perspicuity is important, we generally want others to understand what we are saying; and even hiddenness is used, consider talking in the presence of children using euphemisms or pig-Latin. Of the above items only divine authorship and unity do not are not grounded in the principles of language communication. Rather these are theological propositions.

Even if people agree on methodology, there is the scope for them to weight the issues differently, thus disagree on meaning. If others differ on their methodology it may be difficult to find any agreement. For example if one takes an essentially allegorical approach to all Scripture, or a private interpretation to verses.

That being said, I think the Bible has power thru virtue of it being God's word. For the pious reader, ongoing reading and desire to know God is likely to lead to growing in true knowledge, even if one's hermeneutic is substandard.

Chronology of Abraham and his descendants

Abraham was born about 2000 years after creation, nearly 2000 years BC. He was the son of Terah, son of Nahor, son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg, son of Eber, son of Salah, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah.

Here is a chronology of the events of his life followed by that of his son Isaac, Isaac's son Jacob, and Jacob's son Joseph. The age of the relevant patriarch is given until their death and then in italics for comparison.

Event	Abraham	Isaac	Jacob	Joseph
Abraham born	0
Sarah born	10
Reu dies	18
Serug dies	41
Terah dies. Abraham goes to Canaan	75
Abraham visits Egypt	?
Hagar conceives	85
Ishmael born	86
Arphaxad dies	88
God renames Abraham, Abraham and household circumcised. Sarah conceives	99
Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed	99
Isaac born	100	0
Isaac to be offered on Moriah	?	?
Salah dies	118	18
Sarah dies	137	37
Isaac marries Rebekah	140	40
Shem dies	150	50
Esau and Jacob born	160	60	0
Abraham dies	175	75	15
Eber dies	179	79	19
Esau marries Judith and Basemath	200	100	40
Ishmael dies	223	123	63
Jacob flees to Aram	237	137	77
Jacob's 1st year for Laban	238	138	78
Jacob's 7th year for Laban	244	144	84
Jacob marries Leah & Rachel	245	145	85
Jacob's 14th year for Laban. Joseph born.	251	151	91	0
Jacob's 20th year for Laban	257	157	97	6
Jacob returns to Canaan and meets Esau	258	158	98	7
Rachel dies	?	?	?	?
Joseph sold into slavery and goes to Egypt	268	168	108	17
Joseph interprets butler and baker's dreams in jail	279	179	119	28
Isaac dies	280	180	120	29
Joseph ruler	281	181	121	30
1st year of plenty	282	182	122	31
7th year of plenty	288	188	128	37
1st year of famine	289	189	129	38
2nd year of famine. Jacob goes to Egypt	290	190	130	39
7th year of famine	295	195	135	44
Jacob dies	307	207	147	56
Joseph dies	361	261	201	110

Points to note.

• Most of Abraham's postdiluvian ancestors are alive during Abraham's lifetime: all from Shem bar Peleg and Nahor.
• The Israelite sojourn in Egypt begins when Jacob shifts to Egypt age 130. Some argue for 430 years from then (Exo 12:40), though a better case can be made for the 430 years starting from Abraham's shift to Canaan.
• Levi was the 3rd son of Leah and was probably born in the 11th year of Jacob working for Laban when Jacob was 88. This is helpful information as Levi age when he died was 137 (Exo 6:16).

Unhappy travellers

Apparently British company Thomas Cook collects silly complaints from their customers

We present 20 of the most ridiculous complaints made by holidaymakers to their travel agent, taken from research by Thomas Cook and ABTA.

They are all pretty amusing. I quite enjoyed number 19.

On my holiday to Goa in India, I was disgusted to find that almost every restaurant served curry. I don't like spicy food at all.

Random quote

Never confuse the will of the majority with the will of God.

Best Friday

On this good, indeed the best of Fridays, we remember the darkness of the cross; the great evil of the crucifixion. Yet in this evil world that Adam made so, only thru the evil of men could our justification come.

This hymn captures the centrality of the cross to history, in fact the unimportance of all other things in comparison. And it well describes the deep love of Christ for us. It was penned by Isaac Watts, a prolific hymn writer. I was not familiar with the fourth verse.

Jesus you did not deserve the suffering you endured. We thank you that you have delivered us from death. You are our Lord and we gladly say so. Help us offer you our souls, our lives, our all!

When I survey the wondrous cross

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.

Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood.

See from His head, His hands, His feet,
Sorrow and love flow mingled down!
Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

His dying crimson, like a robe,
Spreads o’er His body on the tree;
Then I am dead to all the globe,
And all the globe is dead to me.

Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.

A prayer and a pledge for real change

Soon after the election of Obama in the United States, Sojourners Chief Executive Officer Jim Wallis instigated a campaign to send letters to the White House requesting action on several issues. This does not apply to me as I am not a US citizen or resident. But the letter seems designed to have broad appeal to Christians. I take issue with what the letter requests and I have been meaning to offers some thoughts on this. The problem I see is that the appeal is not as broad as some may think, and when requests are too broad, the solutions proposed by various people may be vastly different.

Sojourners started in 1971. Their mission is to

articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building a movement to transform individuals, communities, the church, and the world.

The letter covers 4 areas: poverty, war, respect for life, and climate change.

Here are my brief responses to the presentation of these issues.

Overcome poverty, both here in our rich nation and globally. Your efforts to resolve the economic crisis must include those at the bottom, the poorest among us. You pledged during the campaign to mobilize the nation to cut domestic poverty in half in ten years and to implement the Millennium Development Goals to cut extreme global poverty in half.

He has a point. If money is going to be distributed it is probably better to give to those who have true struggles rather than rich men who have made poor decisions. Though perhaps consideration should be given to giving out no money at all. Letting people live with the consequences of their decisions (to an extent) is one of the better ways to prevent further poor decisions whether one is rich or poor.

The bigger issue is how we define poverty. US "poverty" and global "poverty" are hardly synonymous. I tend toward an absolute definition: no food, no clothing, no shelter; whereas political definitions are generally defined relatively which favour socialist theories. The gini index and the poverty line (the percentage of households whose income is below x% (eg. 50%) of the median income) are examples; though these are better called inequality indices, not poverty indices.

Thus a call to end poverty may result in policy determined to decrease income inequality which many people claim is counter-productive because it decreases total wealth of a country.

Find better ways than war to resolve the inevitable conflicts in the world. It is time to end the war in Iraq and emphasize diplomacy over military action in resolving problems in Iran and Afghanistan. We need better and smarter foreign policy that is more consistent with our best national values.

One does not want his leaders to be warmongers. And perhaps inadequate attempts have been made at diplomacy. But the idea that everything can be solved diplomatically is false. And avoiding war at all costs can mean inadequate opposition of despots and lead to abysmal living conditions. I make no claims in this post concerning what best be done about Afghanistan or Iraq currently, nor whether these invasions were wise decisions at the time. But the situation now exists and must be dealt with appropriately. Leaving may well be smart foreign policy. But this call seems to me to imply that war is always wrong and diplomacy always works. I am less than certain.

Promote a consistent ethic of life that addresses all threats to life and dignity. We must end genocide in Darfur, the use of torture, and the death penalty. I urge you to pursue common ground policies which can dramatically reduce abortions in America, and help bring us together on this divisive issue.

There are a multitude of issues with this request.

There is demand to leave Afghanistan and Iraq above, yet here is a demand to involve the US in Sudan. This does not necessarily mean the US places troops in Sudan, but what does the letter imply should be done if diplomacy fails. And if the US are to support United Nations troops in Sudan then why can the US not be involved sans UN. And if there is a moral argument for US forces with or without the UN in Sudan, surely there is possibly a moral argument for Afghanistan or Iraq.

Torture should be ended, though as much for perpetrators as victims. Evil men may well be deserving of pain. Shame and whipping may well be appropriate punishments; though this may possibly be defined as torture by opponents. But even if the recipient is indeed evil, the use of torture destroys the character of those performing it.

The use of "consistent" implies that all life should be preserved. This is not self apparent and may well be inconsistent. Many anti-abortionists also support the death penalty and a biblical argument can be made for capital punishment. And the call to reduce the death of innocents in the same paragraph as ending the death of the guilty seems morally confused. If a Christian is opposed to the death penalty and abortion, and he had the choice of ending one and minimising the other, it surely would be abortion that was ended.

Reverse the effects of climate change on God’s creation. We must learn a new way of living in America to end our dangerous dependence on Middle East oil. We need a spiritual commitment to stewardship and national policies that promote safe, clean, and renewable energy. You spoke of job creation and economic renewal with a new “green economy.”

I have previously indicated that I deny anthropomorphic global warming. I think minimising CO₂ is both pointless in terms of the climate, and harmful in terms of the poor. It may be prudent to end dependency on Middle East oil, though a switch to Alaskan and offshore oil is perfectly acceptable. Private ownership of land will lead to better stewardship of the environment. While the government can introduce policy to maximise job creation and economic renewal, there are huge differences of opinion about what these policies are.

In conclusion I think there are several issues in this letter that are incorrect from a Christian perspective. Where there are issues of agreement (poverty bad, abortion bad, job creation good) the approach of various Christians to these ends differ dramatically. And a letter to a Democratic president, if effectual, is likely to lead to a socialist solution. From my point of view, while government action potentially could lead to improvements in such issues, the policies that will get enacted are likely to be counter-productive.