Mummy KV55 identified as Akhenaten

Historical inscriptions state that Pharaoh Akhenaten was the son of Amenhotep 3 and the father of Tutankhanem. Akhentaten's wife was the famed Nefertiti, though he also had other wives. A mummy found in 1907 in tomb KV55 has been confirmed by genetic testing as Tutankhamen's father, and the son of Amenhotep 3.

Two years of DNA testing and CAT scans on 16 royal mummies conducted by Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, however, gave the firmest evidence to date that an unidentified mummy — known as KV55, after the number of the tomb where it was found in 1907 in Egypt's Valley of the Kings — is Akhenaten's.

The testing, whose results were announced last month, established that KV55 was the father of King Tut and the son of the Pharaoh Amenhotep III, a lineage that matches Akhenaten's, according to inscriptions.

Previous assertions that KV55 is Akhenaten were dismissed based on the supposition that the age of the KV55 mummy at death was too young, but this has since been revised.

Akhenaten ruled during the 18th Dynasty, traditionally dated in the 14th century BC. He promoted worship of Aten the sun-disk in preference to the god Amun. He changed his own name from Amenhotep (4) to Akhenaten, removed the name Amun from several inscriptions and destroyed Amun's temples, and built the city Akhetaten for Aten.

It is claimed by some that Akhenaten was a monotheist, antedating and anticipating Moses. This is incorrect for several reasons: theological and chronological. Though Akhenaten may have been a monotheist of sorts, it appears that he was devoted to Aten in preference to Amun whom he rejected. But he tolerated other deities, all his animosity was directed solely at Amun.

Neither did Akhenaten antedate Moses. Even with traditional Egyptian dating one needs also to hold to a shortened Hebrew chronology placing Moses in the 13th rather than the 15th century BC. Scripturally, 200 years between Moses and David is too short. All the arguments for a late exodus are extra-biblical.

But the traditional dating of Akhenaten is incorrect. Finding synchronisms between Israel and Egypt based on matching individuals rather than spurious dates places the beginning of the 18th pharaonic Dynasty around the time of King Saul. Akhenaten is not mentioned in the Bible by any name. His great-grandfather may have been. Akentaten was the son of Amenhotep 3, son of Thutmose 4, son of Amenhotep 2. Amenhotep 2 is identified as Zerah the Cushite (2 Chronicles 14) by Immanuel Velikovsky and David Down. Zerah attached Judah c. 900 BC which would place Akhenaten some time in the late 9th century BC. The Armana tablets from the time of Amenhotep 3 and Akhenaten are correspondence between Egypt and northern countries. They include correspondence from Samaria (which is erroneously ascribed to Sumer) and Jerusalem.

---

Picture of Nefertiti bust in Berlin museum.

Monday quote

God established these laws in nature, in the same way as a king establishes laws in his kingdom.

Rene Descartes

Gapminder: Resource to compare countries

I have recently become aware of an interesting Swedish site called Gapminder. They have aggregated a large amount of statistics and allow you to plot them in a variety of ways. It covers health, income, disease and mortality, and several other parameters.

What I found of interest was their income and life expectancy graphs on Gapminder World. The basic frame is graph with a variety of options.

Life expectancy is on the left. It is a linear scale, though this can switched to a log scale. Income is on the bottom defaulting to a log scale (adjustable to linear). And the country size is plotted according to population. This can be adjusted to a fixed size, or a host of other variable such as aid received, education, energy use.

The year can be adjusted, or you can watch the changes unfold over the last 200 years. Countries can be highlighted for comparison.

And you can track changes of several countries over time.

What is of some interest is that life expectancy increased before income in many of the countries. I also found it interesting to note the slow economic progress or even regress of countries with poor governance compared to reasonably rapid gains in countries where there is rule of law and economic freedom. Compare Zimbabwe to Botswana and note the rise of Singapore and Hong Kong, neither of which have many natural resources, or even land or water.

Of course one is limited to the accuracy of the data, data from some countries is far more accurate than others.

Monday quote

He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.

Jim Elliot (1927–1956), paraphrasing Philip Henry (1631–1696)

Top 10 innovations of the last 50 years

This is a list in rough order of what I consider the top innovations over the last few decades. It is hard to rate these, and people value various technologies differently. I am considering the potential number of people that could use the technology and the significance of its effect on our lifestyle.

It is difficult to identify specific items as many of the innovations are dependant on many smaller ones that compose the larger one. The transistor (1950s) is undoubtedly a major innovation, but predominantly in making other useful gadgets. Likewise light emitting diodes (LED) (1960s), and fibre optic cables (1920s–1960s). Some otherwise notable innovations such as incandescent light bulbs (1880s), aeroplanes (1910s), and satellites (1950s) are older than 50 years. High yield grain varieties (1950s onward), a culmination of several breeding improvements, would be in the top 3 of the last hundred years.

Top 10 innovations of the last 50 years

1. Personal computer (1970s)
2. Laser (1960s)
3. Internet (1970s–1990)
4. Retail electronic funds transfer (1980s)
5. Cell phones (1980s)
6. Optical memory storage (1980s)
7. Polymerase chain reaction (1980s)
8. DNA sequencing (late 1970s onwards)
9. Global positioning system (1970s–1990s)
10. Magnetic resonance imaging (1970s)

Other contenders include

1. Flash memory storage (1980s)
2. Digital cameras (1990s)
3. Computer assisted tomography (CT scans) (1970s)

Most of these are electronic devices. This is not surprising given that we live in the electronic age. Or rather the information age; 9 of the 10 concern information access—laser excepted. Many major breakthroughs in physics and chemistry are decades, if not centuries old. And most of the major advances in medicine, while occurring in the 20th century, were more than 50 years ago.

What would you include or exclude in your list?

10 things that annoy me about Calvinists

I wish to discuss several issues that I find frustrating when discussing the Calvinist and Arminian positions with fellow Christians who are Calvinists. Note I said Calvinists and not Calvinism. I disagree with 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism, and even my take on total depravity differs from Calvinism in some specifics; but I am not discussing Calvinist theology here (on the main). Note also that I referred to those whom I discuss Calvinism and Arminianism with, I know several Calvinists that I do not spend time discussing Calvinism with.

The annoyances listed

1. Some Calvinists don't understand Arminianism
2. Some Calvinists misrepresent Arminianism
3. Some Calvinists assume determinism when using reducto absurdum
4. Some Calvinists approach situations as extremes
5. Many Calvinists redefine words
6. Some Calvinists mock the Arminian position
7. Some Calvinists believe contradictory statements
8. Some Calvinists equate knowledge with causation
9. Some Calvinists call faith a work
10. Many Calvinists read Scripture thru their theology

Not all necessarily practice all 10.

1. Some Calvinists don't understand Arminianism

By this I mean that some Calvinists feel free to jump into a discussion, or offer their opinion on distinctiveness between the systems but they only have a grasp on Calvinism. It is clear from what they do write that they do not understand Arminianism at all. Now having an extensive understanding of Arminianism may not be required, but a basic understanding on what Arminians believe is important. And a greater understanding is required when discussing subtle intricacies of the 2 systems.

I myself have studied neither system in great detail. And my attachment to Arminianism is only because I think it best represents my biblical view. But I know what I believe, and some of what Calvinism claims (for itself), and some of what Arminianism claims.

2. Some Calvinists misrepresent Arminianism

This is related to item #1. By understanding Arminianism I mean what Arminians claim to believe, not what non-Arminians say Arminians believe. If you misconstrue my system then prove the misconstrued system incorrect what have you really done? I never held what you say in the first place. Calvinists are not immune to calling non-Calvinism Arminianism. But non-Calvinism is anything not Calvinist and covers a multitude of beliefs. Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Universalism, and Open Theism are all non-Calvinist, but they are also non-Arminian.

If you wish to claim that Arminianism is logically incoherent and leads to Open Theism (or Universalism, or whatever) then do so, and show how, but don't say that Arminianism teaches Open Theism, it does not.

3. Some Calvinists assume determinism when using reductio ad absurdum

A valid way of demolishing an argument is to assume its premises and show the consequences are nonsensical. The Calvinist can assume the Arminian position for the sake of the argument and show how following these ideas lead to contradiction, or absurdity, or anti-biblical ideas. Frequently what one finds when Calvinists do this is that unstated premises form part of the argument, usually an assumption of determinism. I suspect this is because they find it hard to think in a non-determinist way such is their usual mode of thinking. But determinism is not an Arminian position and has no place in arguments for Arminianism, stated or unstated.

4. Some Calvinists approach situations as extremes

I see this with regard to the Calvinist approach to sovereignty and freewill. I read statements along the lines of: if God does not control every molecule in the universe at all times then he is not in control at all. Or: if men have any freedom to choose how they act, then they can choose anything at all including flying.

Let it be clear that Arminians think that God is in control of the universe, just not in the exhaustive deterministic manner that some Calvinists claim; and that men have some freedom in their thoughts and actions, but not complete freedom to think or do anything.

5. Many Calvinists redefine words

Words like "sovereignty" and "choose" and perseverance" seem to take on meanings dislocated from their usual sense. If English translates Hebrew or Greek words suboptimally then say so, and identify better translations. But words in English have meanings. Use them.

6. Some Calvinists mock the Arminian position

This is unacceptable. The only potential justification for mockery is when used on mockers, specifically those who mock God. Arminianism in terms of its foundational views has a long tradition. While both Arminians and Calvinists claim their view is the biblical one, extra-biblical support is strong for Arminian-like views and a good case can be made for it antedating Calvinist-like views.

If you think Arminianism is wrong, dangerous, or heretical then say so. And a little humour is acceptable. But mockery is not an appropriate expression toward fellow God-fearers.

7. Some Calvinists believe contradictory statements

Granted, there are subtleties in this debate. And perhaps there are aspects that men struggle to comprehend. But logical contradictions are contradictions. That means that we need to examine our arguments closely, are there subtle errors in the argument, or do our premises need minor tweaking. But calling a logical contradiction a mystery does not cut the mustard. Our reasoning ability may be incomplete, but incompleteness does not equate to error. And mystery in the New Testament does not refer to this type of contradictory logic.

8. Some Calvinists equate knowledge with causation

There does not seem to be any reason to think that knowledge of a future action, whether likely or certain, implies causation of such action. This is really not that complicated. Arminianism claims God has such knowledge, but it does not equate that with causation. Of course God can cause things, but future knowledge does not necessarily imply cause.

If the Calvinist wishes to argue that the only way that God could know the future for certain is if he caused every action, then say so. But this is saying that God both knows and directly causes the future. But to argue knowledge is causation is nonsense. Consider the many things people know that will happen in the future that they do not cause.

9. Some Calvinists call faith a work

This is frustrating. Faith and works can have a variety of meanings. Paul and James may talk about them in slightly different ways. But nowhere in the Bible are thoughts, desires, and choices described as works. Works are actions we do. If a person, or an angel, or God offers us something and we accept it, this is not a work. If a Calvinist defines choosing to accept God's offer of salvation a work, thus works based salvation, then I plead guilty.

10. Many Calvinists read Scripture thru their theology

This is to be partly expected. We all do this to a degree with our preconceptions. Though hopefully over time Scripture will transform our thinking to a more biblical perspective. Scripture is supposed to modify our thinking. But if you transform Scriptural passages into Calvinist theology then what you are reading is less likely to challenge your thinking. Read what it says. Deal with the tension. Examine the context. Both Arminians and Calvinists need to do this. But there are times when Calvinists refer to passages and their interpretation seems disconnected with the words on the page; at times even contradictory.

Discussion

These are all issues I have come across. There may be others I have not remembered to include, and other people may think of more.

It needs to be clear that I do not think that this post disproves Calvinist theology in any way. Further, while it is a complaint against how some Calvinists argue, it need not be seen as a complaint against Calvinists in general. I would not wish to argue as an Arminian in the ways I have identified above, nor would I wish other Arminians to do so. As such it is possible for a Calvinist to agree with much of this post. If I happen to be incorrect about Arminianism, arguments by Calvinists along these lines are not likely to persuade me otherwise.

Discussions may get heated at times but Christians should desire that fellow Christians come to a greater understanding of the truth.

Monday quote

Any married person has enough information about his/her spouse to make you think they were crazy or evil.

Scott Jamison

Tax cuts for the rich

The New Zealand government budget for the coming year was released recently. Included was some tax restructuring which was anticipated and I have posted my thoughts here. Sales tax was increased and income tax was decreased. All incomes get some tax break. As typical, comments were made by some groups about those on higher incomes getting the better deal. Comments like this may reflect envy, or may be by those who perceive they struggle on their income; nevertheless it still reflects underlying innumeracy (or perhaps it is polemical for those with extreme Marxist views).

Here is the personal income tax structure currently and as it will become in October.

Gross income	Old tax rate	New Tax rate
0–14000	12.5%	10.5%
14000–48000	21%	17.5%
48000–70000	33%	30%
70000+	38%	33%

It can be seen that both systems have a progressive tax structure. That is those on higher incomes not only pay more tax by virtue of the fact that tax is a percentage of income, they pay even more because they also pay a higher rate. Because tax is a rate, tax cuts, whether they be an absolute ratio (say 1% for each bracket) or a proportionate ratio (say 5% reduction on the rate), will always have a larger effect on higher incomes. Below is various incomes with the effect of the various taxes. Accident levy is excluded.

	Old		New
Gross	Tax	Net	Tax	Net	Difference
5000	625	4375	525	4475	100
10000	1250	8750	1050	8950	200
25000	4060	20940	3395	21605	665
50000	9550	40450	8020	41980	1530
100000	27550	72450	23920	76080	3630

Looking at this table it is clear that even if the $0–14000 tax rate was abolished, i.e. set to 0%, those on higher incomes would still gain an advantage. This is because their tax break is greater than what the lower incomes even pay in tax.

The comment "tax cuts for the rich" is nonsensical as any tax cut is going to affect those on higher incomes at least as much as those on lower incomes. What is worth noting however is how much those on higher incomes pay. A tax saving of $4000 may seem a lot to some people, but this is in the context of someone who is already paying $30000. It is also worth noting that a tax break is not a subsidy, it is allowing the taxpayer to keep more of his earned income.

Rodney Stark on the Crusades

Timothy Dalrymple recently interviewed Rodney Stark on his book God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades which was published last year.

Dalrymple: Why reassess the Crusades?

Stark: Because the Crusades are often understood within a larger framework that says that Islam is the gentle faith and Christianity the violent one.

...The notion, for example, that the Crusaders went to get loot and land and riches is made absurd by the survival of hundreds and hundreds of mortgages that have been found in the archives at various monasteries and convents. These people mortgaged away everything they owned in order to get the money to march East. They went at enormous personal cost. Most of them died. They knew there wasn't anything out there in the sand that was going to reward them for going.

The things I write about in this book are no secret among historians of the Crusades. I'm simply bringing their work to a popular audience.

Dalrymple: The Crusades did not arise ex nihilo, but were part of a broader historical and geographical narrative. Can you tell us about that?

Stark: The fact is that Islam had been attacking the west for more than 400 years before the Crusades began. Shortly after the death of Muhammad, the armies started marching. They took the Middle East, which was a Christian area beforehand. They took the Holy Land. They took all of North Africa, which had been mostly Christian. They went across the straits and took most of Spain. They took southern Italy. They took Sicily. A Muslim army marched up within 150 miles of Paris before they were turned around and run back out.

The point is that an aggressive, invasive warfare had been going on between Europeans and Islam for hundreds of years. Shortly before the First Crusade, the Normans drove the Muslims out of southern Italy and Sicily. But the Muslims were still in Spain. As a matter of fact, about thirty years before the First Crusade, the pope tried to get a Crusade going to Spain, which was about half-reclaimed at the time. And that presents an interesting contrast. Spain was close; you didn't have to march 2500 miles; and there were riches to be had in Spain. Yet nobody went. The reason nobody went, and then thirty years later they all went, if you will, is because nobody believed that Jesus had walked around in Spain.

Interesting interview which goes on to discuss some other issues. I do not know a lot about the Crusades, though the justification for the different Crusades likely had variable validity. I was long aware that North Africa had been Christian prior to Islam, but apparently significant parts of the Middle East also.

The book looks like it may be an interesting read.

Monday quote

Jesus never said, "Blessed are the peacekeepers," rather, "Blessed are the peacemakers." A peacekeeper is one who will compromise truth in order to maintain a false sense of peace.... A peacemaker, on the other hand, is one who confronts, if need be to have true peace.

John Bevere

Public or private environmental conservation?

I mentioned that government involvement (or oversight) in conservation can potentially be a hindrance. Roger Beattie re-established weka in an area they had previously disappeared from, but he was struggling to farm them for food because of their endangered status.

Beattie has brought back weka from the Chatham Islands since 1994, with Department of Conservation (DOC) consent, and has settled the birds in a predator-proof enclosure.

He now plans to tackle the rules that protect buff weka on the mainland. "It's a process and could take five years, but I am going to enjoy the challenge of speeding that up," he said.

DOC believes Beattie's proposal raises questions, and the department may need legal advice.

Buff weka disappeared from the South Island in the 1930s. However, a population was established on the Chatham Islands.

...Beattie is the country's biggest individual wild paua-quota holder and a paua-pearl industry advocate. He also harvests sea kelp from Akaroa Harbour and wants to commercialise the pest seaweed undaria.

Beattie believes conservation and business go hand-in-hand. He said if there was money to be made from an endangered species, it would never die out.

Beattie said DOC's control of bird species created a protracted permit process that strangled entrepreneurial enthusiasm.

I think Beattie's comments about conservation and business are on the mark. The qualifier being that commercial interests need to produce their product, not find it, sell it, and move on. Breeding endangered plants for ornaments or construction; or endangered animals for pets, pelts, or palate, is probably the quickest way to remove them from endangered status.

Transforming Australia's outback

Concerning potential ecological issues in Australia MikeT writes,

Australia could work on this by working toward not only stopping the desertification of chunks of its countryside, but to actually reclaim that land. The US was able to build all sorts of canals and other assorted systems to traverse the eastern half of our country in the 19th century. With our level of technology today, there is no reason why Australia couldn't commit 0.5%-1% of GDP to a federal program to steadily transform Australia's outback over the course of several generations.

I agree with the concept. Though it is worth mentioning that Australia has a lot of desert, much more than the United States.

Australia is already doing several things to alter the situation. Several cities desalinate sea water for irrigation because of the water shortages. There has been proposals to pump waste water underground in South Australia rather than let it escape to the ocean.

I think the bush could be thinned back with a further goal of extending their area, this would decrease the fire risks dramatically, perhaps increase the water table with less trees per area removing water.

I am not certain federal funds are necessary however. I was looking for an article (which I can't find) that talked about Australian farmers working the land and altering the microclimate making the land more productive and suitable for farming. While infrastructure may possibly be a legitimate role for government, private ownership of land when sustainability is sort, can be effective. Ecologist Joe Haval worked for the Australian government advising on water catchment, planning nature reserves and forests, mapped ecological data and was involved in overseas reforestation. He also advised private companies on optimal tree planting.

A good example of private development of land is Vermont which had been stripped barren by 1850 yet a hundred years later was a garden paradise.

By 1850, in less than 100 years, Vermont had become an ecological wasteland. Then something almost miraculous happened. Over the next 100 years, from 1850 to 1950, Vermont was transformed from an ecological basket case to a special place with a picturesque pastoral landscape known the world over.

Private work in ecology may even be preferable as government involvement can be a hindrance.

Children stealing from the future?

A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald mentioned a suggestion by the Anglican Church in Australia for people to have less children. As the article is brief I will quote it in full.

The Anglican Church wants Australians to have fewer children and has urged the federal government to scrap the baby bonus and cut immigration levels.

The General Synod of the Anglican Church has issued a warning that current rates of population growth are unsustainable and potentially out of step with church doctrine - including the eighth commandment "thou shall not steal", Fairfax newspapers say.

In a significant intervention, the Anglican Public Affairs Commission has also warned concerned Christians that remaining silent "is little different from supporting further overpopulation and ecological degradation".

"Out of care for the whole Creation, particularly the poorest of humanity and the life forms who cannot speak for themselves, it is not responsible to stand by and remain silent," a discussion paper by the commission warns.

"Unless we take account of the needs of future life on Earth, there is a case that we break the eighth commandment - 'Thou shall not steal'."

The discussion paper, prepared in March, claims that federal government financial incentives encouraging childbirth should be scrapped and replaced with improved support for parents, such as leave.

Leaving aside the question of the government creating incentives or disincentives to have children, this statement suggests a lack of biblical thinking on behalf of the General Synod. Of course this is not necessarily reflective of all Australian Anglicans. Representatives are more than capable of giving opinions that are not representative. It may be reasonable to ascribe the above statements to a few seated on the Synod.

The eighth commandment as mentioned is, "You shall not steal" (Exodus 20). Theft relates to property, and that property owned by another. Theft does not apply to any future potential, real or imagined. Theft also reflects a disregard for another, an attempt to have what is owned by another because of one's own selfish desires. Having children is not stealing anything from anyone directly. And it generally is not selfish. It may be in one's self-interest, though it frequently requires selflessness.

Further, God commands that humans populate the earth, he commanded both Adam and Eve at the beginning of the world, and Noah when the human population was reduced to 8 because of the deluge. Of interest is that associated with the command to fill the earth is the command to subdue the earth.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1)

We are to manage the earth to maximise its potential. This suggests that it is not population that causes ecological degradation but incorrect or absent stewardship. People that manage the earth well can sustain very large populations. Garden's and farms are far more productive and can sustain higher populations of flora and fauna than jungles and forests. There are many examples of arid land becoming productive through the ingenuity and hard toil of those who work it. And there are examples of few people causing destruction through abuse. Degradation is not a population problem, though improvement can be limited by not enough people.

Further, children are frequently identified in Scripture as a blessing. Jesus himself had much time for children, rebuked those who saw them as a nuisance, and had strong warnings for those who would lead them into sin. Children are a good, not an evil.

Monday quote

Sometimes you have to ask yourself: do atheists actually listen to what they're saying?

Mike Crowl

Distilling the truth

Belief systems have presuppositions, and facts are then interpreted in light of those presuppositions. Of course facts can challenge such presuppositions, but frequently auxiliary hypotheses are added, which are then disregarded or changed so that the underlying theory stays intact. This is a reasonable approach, and everyone does it to a degree, but if the presuppositions are fundamentally incorrect then the theory will have significant error, and this tendency (to focus on modifying auxiliary hypotheses) means the wrong foundation may never be changed. Thus claims must be distilled, with facts being accepted and theory being questioned. The difficulty being that the 2 are frequently entwined, and rejection of the theory is perceived as rejection of the facts.

This applies to every field, mathematics, the hard sciences, behavioural studies, politics, economics, theology,...

I hold physics and chemistry in high regard because their foundations are solidly Christian. I subscribe to Christian theologies but reject Eastern theologies/ philosophies because of their rejection of objective reason and objective truth which I see as foundational to Christian philosophy. I reject some economic theory but accept those that are consistent with Christian teaching. I am not a big fan of psychology and treat it with a significant caution. It is not that one cannot or should not study human nature, that seems to be a legitimate and accessible field. Rather I am suspicious of it because its foundations are not biblically derived, and probably anti-biblical.

Lest one gain the impression that I do not think about my positions let me state that I think more about the positions that I hold than I do not. I spend significantly more time thinking about the intricacies of minor Christian theological doctrines than I do about major Eastern religious doctrines.

It is doing this that helps me better identify the fact theory divide. I am fully at liberty to take my information from people that do not hold orthodox belief, but because they are not of Christian persuasion, I am aware that they may misunderstand what they know or discover, or how they reason about such knowledge. Not that Christians are immune to such, but many hopefully start with correct presuppositions, that is truthful axioms, underlying beliefs that correspond to reality.

This is a good reason to stay grounded in the Bible. In a pluralistic society many ideas compete for our allegiance. We need to be cautious about 2 things, rejecting truth because it comes from a non-Christian source, and accepting falsehood because it seems to correspond to experience. It may be that we accept truthful facts that are married to wrong philosophy and the 2 are packaged together. We take on the fact which appears (and is) true, but inappropriately accept false philosophy. Or perhaps recognise the false philosophy and rightly reject it but inappropriately discard the fact attached.