Habakkuk NWT(2013 edition)

1 A pronouncement that Ha·bak′kuk* the prophet received in a vision:

 2 How long, O Jehovah, must I cry for help, but you do not hear?+

How long must I ask for help from violence, but you do not intervene?*+

 3 Why do you make me witness wrongdoing?

And why do you tolerate oppression?

Why are destruction and violence before me?

And why do quarreling and conflict abound?

 4 So law is paralyzed,

And justice is never carried out.

For the wicked surround the righteous;

That is why justice is perverted.+

 5 “Look among the nations and pay attention!

Stare in amazement and be astounded;

For something will happen in your days

That you will not believe even if it is told to you.+

 6 For here I am raising up the Chal·de′ans,+

The ruthless and impetuous nation.

They sweep through vast stretches of the earth

To seize homes not theirs.+

 7 They are frightening and fearsome.

They establish their own justice and authority.*+

 8 Their horses are swifter than leopards,

And they are fiercer than wolves in the night.+

Their warhorses gallop forward;

Their horses come from far away.

They swoop down like the eagle rushing to feed.+

 9 All of them come bent on violence.+

The assembling of their faces is like the east wind,+

And they scoop up captives like sand.

10 They scoff at kings

And laugh at high officials.+

They laugh at every fortified place;+

They pile up a dirt ramp and capture it.

11 Then they move forward like the wind and pass through,

But they will become guilty,+

Because they credit their power to their god.”*+

12 Are you not from everlasting, O Jehovah?+

O my God, my Holy One, you do not die.*+

O Jehovah, you appointed them to execute judgment;

My Rock,+ you established them for punishment.*+

13 Your eyes are too pure to look on what is evil,

And you cannot tolerate wickedness.+

Why, then, do you tolerate the treacherous+

And keep silent when a wicked man swallows up someone more righteous than he is?+

14 Why do you make man like the fish of the sea,

Like creeping things that have no ruler?

15 All of these he* hauls up with a fishhook.

He catches them in his dragnet,

And he gathers them in his fishing net.

That is why he rejoices greatly.+

16 That is why he offers sacrifices to his dragnet

And makes sacrifices* to his fishing net;

For by them his portion is rich,*

And his food is choice.

17 Will he then keep emptying out his dragnet?*

Will he go on slaughtering nations without compassion?+

2 At my guardpost I will keep standing,+

And I will station myself on the rampart.

I will keep watch to see what he will speak by means of me

And what I will reply when I am reproved.

 2 Jehovah then answered me:

“Write down the vision, and inscribe it clearly on tablets,+

So that the one reading aloud from it may do so easily.*+

 3 For the vision is yet for its appointed time,

And it is rushing toward its end,* and it will not lie.

Even if it should delay,* keep in expectation of it!*+

For it will without fail come true.

It will not be late!

 4 Look at the one who is proud;*

He is not upright within himself.

But the righteous one will live by his faithfulness.*+

 5 Indeed, because the wine is treacherous,

The arrogant man will not reach his goal.

He makes his appetite* as large as the Grave;*

He is like death and cannot be satisfied.

He keeps gathering all the nations

And collecting for himself all the peoples.+

 6 Will not all of these speak a proverb, an allusion, and riddles against him?+

They will say:

‘Woe to him who accumulates what is not his

—For how long?—

And who makes even greater his own debt!

 7 Will not your creditors rise up suddenly?

They will wake up and violently shake you,

And you will become something for them to plunder.+

 8 Because you plundered many nations,

All the rest of the peoples will plunder you,+

Because of your shedding men’s blood

And your violence to the earth,

To the cities and those living in them.+

 9 Woe to the one who makes evil gain for his house,

So as to set his nest on the height,

To escape the grasp of calamity!

10 You have plotted shame against your house.

By wiping out many peoples you sin against yourself.*+

11 For a stone will cry out from the wall,

And from the woodwork a rafter will answer it.

12 Woe to the one who builds a city by bloodshed,

And who establishes a town by unrighteousness!

13 Look! Is it not from Jehovah of armies that peoples will work hard to feed the fire,

And that nations tire themselves out for nothing?+

14 For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of Jehovah

As the waters cover the sea.+

15 Woe to the one who gives his companions something to drink,

Adding to it rage and anger, to make them drunk,

In order to look on their nakedness!

16 You will be glutted with dishonor rather than glory.

You too—drink and expose your uncircumcised condition.*

The cup in the right hand of Jehovah will come around to you,+

And disgrace will cover over your glory;

17 For the violence done to Leb′a·non will cover you,

And the destruction that terrified the beasts will come upon you,

Because of your shedding men’s blood

And your violence to the earth,

To the cities and those living in them.+

18 Of what benefit is a carved image

When its maker has carved it?

Of what benefit is a metal statue* and a teacher of lies,

Even though its maker trusts in it,

Making worthless gods that are speechless?+

19 Woe to the one who says to a piece of wood, “Awake!”

Or to a speechless stone, “Wake up! Instruct us!”

Look! It is overlaid in gold and silver,+

And there is no breath at all within it.+

20 But Jehovah is in his holy temple.+

Be silent before him, all the earth!’”+

3 The prayer of Ha·bak′kuk the prophet, in dirges:*

 2 O Jehovah, I have heard the report about you.

I am in awe, O Jehovah, of your activity.

In the midst of the years* bring it to life!

In the midst of the years* make it known.

May you remember to show mercy during the turmoil.+

 3 God came from Te′man,

The Holy One from Mount Pa′ran.+ (Selah)*

His majesty covered the heavens;+

With his praise the earth was filled.

 4 His brightness was like the light.+

Two rays flashed from his hand,

Where his strength was hidden.

 5 Before him went pestilence,+

And burning fever followed at his feet.

 6 He stood still and shook the earth.+

With a look, he made nations leap.+

The eternal mountains were smashed,

And the ancient hills bowed down.+

The paths of long ago are his.

 7 I saw trouble in the tents of Cu′shan.

The tent cloths of the land of Mid′i·an trembled.+

 8 Is it against the rivers, O Jehovah,

Is it against the rivers that your anger is burning?

Or is your fury against the sea?+

For you rode on your horses;+

Your chariots were victorious.*+

 9 Your bow is uncovered and ready.

The rods* are assigned with an oath.* (Selah)

You split the earth with rivers.

10 Mountains writhed in pain at the sight of you.+

A downpour of waters swept through.

The deep roared with its voice.+

It lifted its hands high.

11 Sun and moon stood still in their lofty abode.+

Your arrows went out like the light.+

The lightning of your spear was brilliant.

12 You marched through the earth with indignation.

You trampled* the nations in anger.

13 You went out for the salvation of your people, to save your anointed one.

You crushed the leader* of the house of the wicked.

It was exposed from the foundation to the top.* (Selah)

14 You pierced the head of his warriors with his own weapons*

When they stormed out to scatter me.

They were overjoyed to devour an afflicted one in secret.

15 Through the sea you trod with your horses,

Through the surging of vast waters.

16 I heard and I trembled within;*

At the sound my lips quivered.

Rottenness entered my bones;+

My legs beneath me were shaking.

But I quietly wait for the day of distress,+

For it is coming upon the people who attack us.

17 Although the fig tree may not blossom,

And there may be no fruit on the vines;

Although the olive crop may fail,

And the fields* may produce no food;

Although the flock may disappear from the pen,

And there may be no cattle in the stalls;

18 Yet, as for me, I will exult in Jehovah;

I will be joyful in the God of my salvation.+

19 The Sovereign Lord Jehovah is my strength;+

He will make my feet like those of a deer

And cause me to tread on high places.+

fear itself IV

The look of a Lamb/The voice of a dragon.

Revelation13:11NWT(2013 edition) "Then I saw another wild beast ascending out of the earth, and it had two horns like a lamb, but it began speaking like a dragon."

W.M.D.

Apparently if you're a Darwin sceptic,even when you're right you're wrong

A Pretty Sharp Edge: Reflecting on Michael Behe's Vindication                       

Ann Gauger July 28, 2014 3:59 AM

I am writing a post that shouldn't have to be written. It's about Dr. Michael Behe's book The Edge of Evolution, what it predicted, how that prediction was confirmed, and how his detractors continue to quibble and obfuscate, claiming that even if he was right he was still somehow wrong. That's not the way scientists are supposed to operate.

In science, theory that explains data and makes a prediction that is experimentally verified is considered to be confirmed. That's the way it is supposed to work. Einstein's general theory of relativity, Mendeleev's periodic table, and many other theories have been verified this way.

Now let's look at Behe's theory. Malaria is a devastating disease caused by the parasiteP. falciparum. These parasites are quick to develop resistance to most drugs, but they have had a hard time overcoming chloroquine, requiring more than ten years to develop resistance. In fact, sixty years since the drug's introduction, and after more than 10²⁰malarial parasites total, resistance to chloroquine has developed fewer than ten times. Why?

In The Edge of Evolution, Behe proposed an answer. His explanation -- his hypothesis, if you will -- is simple. The mutation rate of P. falciparum is roughly 1 in 10⁸ mutations per base pair per parasite. There are on average 10¹² parasites in the human body -- that's enough for more than a thousand copies of every possible single mutation to exist somewhere in each infected person. So if resistance required only one mutation, it should have appeared in a few days. However, it took more than a decade for resistance to emerge. Behe argued that therefore at least two mutationsmust be required for the parasite to develop resistance to chloroquine. Furthermore, those two mutations must each be of no use as single mutations, and those two mutations must be present together in the same organism in order to confer resistance to the drug.

Why did Behe make these predictions? It's a simple calculation, really. If two simultaneous mutations are required for resistance, the rate of that double mutation occurring can be calculated by multiplying the single rates together. That makes the rate for two mutations roughly 1 in 10¹⁶ mutations per base pair per parasite. To find those two mutations would require many more trials than are available among the 10¹² parasites in each person infected. However, 10²⁰parasites (the total present in a single year) represent more than enough opportunity for that double mutation to occur.

His critics focus on Behe's use of the word "simultaneous." Getting two simultaneous mutations is ridiculous, they say, and so multiplying two rates together is ridiculous. 

Maybe the two mutations happened simultaneously, meaning together in the same molecule in one generation. It is possible. Maybe the mutations happened one at a time. We don't know. Parasites carrying single mutations on the path to resistance (meaning they have no resistance yet) are sickly, though, because those single mutations have damaged an essential function. They and their offspring might survive and reproduce long enough for a second mutation to occur, but it seems unlikely. Most of the time they will simply be out-competed by their non-mutant siblings.

Another critique Behe's opponents offer is that Behe just doesn't understand evolution. Theremust be some cumulative adaptive path that would take the parasite to drug resistance. In support they offer Joe Thornton's work with hormone receptors, where his lab evolved a hormone receptor from its "ancestral" form by a series of selective steps. Thus there can't be an edge to evolution as sharp as just two mutations, they say. What the critics don't say is that the first step is not a selectable step. It's a gully across the road to new function that must be crossed by jumping.

The same is true about the path to chloroquine resistance. First of all, common sense says if there were a selective path with each mutation conferring increasing resistance, it would happen quickly, much more quickly than in a decade. But more importantly, a recent paper by Summers et al. has shown by experiment that two mutations, neither of them conferring any resistance by themselves, are the first steps of chloroquine resistance. (One mutation is required by all pathways; then either of two other mutations can be used to bring about resistance.) This is a more like a canyon than a gully. Two mutations must be present together in the same molecule to confer resistance to chloroquine. Call it "occurring simultaneously" or not. The effect is the same, and Behe is right and his critics are wrong. 

Ironically, recent work has shown the same thing with regard to hormone receptors. Carroll et al.(2011) reported that at the base of the pathway to evolve the ancient hormone receptor there are two mutations (a gene duplication plus point mutation) that must occur before any further evolution is possible. Harms and Thornton then showed that these mutations are the only way forward. There is no other road to take, no way around the canyon. It sounds remarkably like the malarial resistance pathway, doesn't it?

So how sharp is the edge of evolution? For the malarial parasite P. falciparum, the edge of evolution for chloroquine resistance is two mutations: one specific mutation and either one of two other mutations. These mutations have to occur together, and they have to be there before any other mutations can have any effect. If the parasite doesn't have these two mutations, it remains chloroquine-sensitive. But as we have seen, getting two mutations can take a long time. It happens relatively quickly for malaria because of its huge population size. For us and other animals it may take an extremely long time.

That sounds like a pretty sharp edge of evolution to me.

Behe predicted this requirement for two mutations seven years ago. All continuing criticism now sounds like sniping and quibbling over terminology. Maybe those quibbling and sniping can't see they are wrong. Maybe they don't understand how science works and what counts as evidence. Or, and this is more likely, they will never admit that Behe is right and they are wrong.

Why all the doubt?

Natural selection and the S.D.L algorithm.

Is Natural Selection Like a Computer Algorithm?

Evolution News & Views July 23, 2014 5:24 AM

Analogies can be useful, but they can also distract from what's really important. Consider a simple example. Say you are at a playground, and you hear a steady din of children's voices at play. You notice that the sound has spectral characteristics: a particular frequency range, dynamic range, and time variation, with occasional spikes. As a scientist, you produce a mathematical model to characterize the sound spectrum. You even make a prediction: the addition of n more children will cause the intensity to rise, but not the average pitch. Finding confirmation, you call your model the Weighted Playground Spectral Algorithm (WPSA) and publish it in a journal, where you apply it to galactic spectra. What have you done?

While your model might be useful in some contexts, it obscures what is most important about the playground: the minds, emotions and needs of the children and their parents. A star's light is not in the same ballpark (or playground) as a child calling out cheerfully, "Daddy! Watch me slide down the slide!" Yet we see a similar fallacy in a Commentary for PNAS by Nicholas H. Barton, Sebastian Novak, and Tiago Paixão of the Institute of Science and Technology in Austria. They compare evolution to computer science.

In "Diverse forms of selection in evolution and computer science," the authors notice that a particular mathematical model, the Multiplicative Weights Update Algorithm (MWUA) used in computer science, seems to fit some evolutionary scenarios, too. Launching from a paper by Chastain et al. called "Algorithms, Games and Evolution," they find this similarity interesting, and perhaps fruitful.

The astonishing diversity of complex adaptations that we see in the living worldhas been produced by natural selection, over ∼ 3.5 billion years of evolution. Information from the largely random survival and reproduction of past organisms has accumulated to produce genomes that are precisely fitted to diverse environments. In PNAS, Chastain et al. show that natural selection on freely recombining populations is equivalent to the multiplicative weights update algorithm (MWUA), an efficient optimization algorithm that has been discovered many times in computer science, statistics, and economics. Whether this equivalence explains the extraordinary effectiveness of natural selection, or conversely, of artificial algorithms, depends on one's perspective. Perhaps surprisingly, theoretical results in population genetics and in computer science look quite different, even when they deal with essentially the same questions. Thus, the equivalence identified by Chastain et al. allows these different results to be transferred between fields in both directions. (Emphasis added.)

The obvious problem with this line of thinking is that evolution has no algorithm! By definition, it is aimless, unguided, and mindless -- unlike an economist, statistician, or computer scientist. Like the playground voices compared to stellar spectra, any similarities will surely be swamped by more important differences. We also see that the commenters assume natural selection created all the "astonishing diversity of complex adaptations" in the living world, forcing them to try to fit an intelligent-design algorithm on what they believe originated by chance. Here's how Chastain et al. commit the same question-begging error:

Even the most seasoned students of evolution, starting with Darwin himself, have occasionally expressed amazement that the mechanism of natural selection has produced the whole of Life as we see it around us. There is a computationalway to articulate the same amazement: "What algorithm could possibly achieve all this in a mere three and a half billion years?" In this paper we propose an answer: We demonstrate that in the regime of weak selection, the standard equations of population genetics describing natural selection in the presence ofsex become identical to those of a repeated game between genes played according to multiplicative weight updates (MWUA), an algorithm known in computer science to be surprisingly powerful and versatile. MWUA maximizes atradeoff between cumulative performance and entropy, which suggests a new view on the maintenance of diversity in evolution.

Once again, they first assume evolution, then try to force-fit an intelligently designed algorithm (MWUA) onto the whole of life. This is fallacious. It takes a mind to assign weights, play games to win, and run algorithms. It takes a mind to recognize a tradeoff, measure performance, and counteract entropy. A mindless world is incapable of such things. The authors have merely transferred their own mental activity onto a world that they must assume, being Darwinists, is blind and uncaring. Barton and colleagues never quite catch the absurdity of the comparison:

Although computer science and evolutionary biology appear to be very different fields, there are some surprisingly close parallels, which are apparent if one thinks of natural selection as providing a general algorithm by which populations can efficiently learn about their environment. Although the questions in each field differ, there are common themes -- not least, how rapidly can evolutionary algorithms act? In computer science terms, what is the complexity of anevolutionary algorithm, or in other words, how does the runtime scale with thedimensionality of the environment, genome size, population size, and so on? It is striking that, although these different fields deal with similar problems, their theoretical structures are quite different, giving an opportunity for fruitful transfer.

The only algorithm possible for evolutionary theory is what we might dub (after Berlinski) the SDLA: the "Sheer Dumb Luck" Algorithm. Unfortunately, that algorithm is weighted heavily in favor of entropy and extinction. We would hope that Darwinists would not try to transfer their algorithm back onto the computer scientists. It may be too late for the economists.

Without their halos

Bad Science Muckrakers Question the Big Science Status Quo

Among the American public, trust in professional scientists and scientific journals is declining. Yet an overwhelming majority still believes that science “remains a source for good in the world.” Could the public be on to something? Medical-doctor-turned-journalistIvan Oransky thinks so. And it’s a growing problem.

As editor and publisher of Retraction Watch, a closely followed industry blog that tracks peer-reviewed journal articles withdrawn from publication, Oransky is raising awareness of the impact that competition for grants and career advancement is having on the quality of the science being produced. Far from being above the fray and immune to corrupting influences, “Scientists are just as human as anyone else,” says Oransky. And increasingly, “People are starting to see scientists the way they really are.”One of the deeper problems is the publish-or-perish fight for resources, tenure, and prestige among the elite scientists whose living depends on maintaining the trust of the taxpayers who foot their bills. “Publication is the coin of the realm in academia,” says Oransky. “If you want to get tenure, if you want to get grants, if you want get promoted, if you want to get exposed to companies that might license your products, you have to publish in top journals.”

The academic pecking order is based on the number of papers a scientist gets published in high impact factor journals, that is, journals whose papers are heavily cited by other scientists. And yet, “The vast majority of scientific publications are never cited. There are something like 30,000 [published papers] a week.” How many of those can be first rate? How much second- and third-rate science is being funded? And how can we know?

The surge of publications is a direct result of the tsunami of money that washed over the industry between 1998 and 2003 with the doubling of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget. “It was a gold rush,” says Oransky. “What scientists did was grow their labs so they can produce more papers so they can get more grants.”

But, like a real gold rush, the bonanza couldn’t go on forever. So, asks Oransky, “What happens to all those folks when the doubling stops?” NIH funding has currently leveled out at between $30 billon and $40 billion a year, depending on how you count it. In an era of stagnant budgets, competition for limited funding has become cutthroat. That has led some scientists to take shortcuts. And that, in turn, has caused retractions to soar.

That’s a serious problem. As Oransky explains, “A retraction means there is something deeply wrong” with a given academic paper. “About two thirds of the time, that’s actually something that’s considered misconduct – the official federal definition of which is falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism.”

Another major problem is that many study results cannot be reliable reproduced. Oransky cites a famous paper by Dr. John Iaonnidis, “Why most published research findings are false,” that shows the inherent biases and the flawed statistical analyses built into most “hypothesis driven” research, resulting in publications that largely represent “accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”

To make matters worse, private research dollars are being choked off by ill-conceived regulations, making researchers even more dependent on government grants, as Dr. Thomas Stossel at Harvard Medical School points out.

Stossel calls overly restrictive conflict of interest regulations “a damaging solution in search of a problem.” A self-described “typical academic socialist, totally living on grants for the first third of my career,” Stossel says his eyes were opened in 1987, when he was asked to serve on the scientific advisory board of Biogen (now Biogen IDEC), a fledgling biotech startup that went on to become a tremendous success. “I realized how fundamentally honest business people are compared to my academic colleagues, who’d run their grandmothers over for recognition.”

While working with Biogen, Stossel learned how difficult it was to translate academic research into products that actually help people. “It was during that time that conflict of interest mania emerged.” In 1988 Harvard Medical School instituted the first conflict of interest rules, largely as a result of an incident at the Mass Eye and Ear infirmary that was sensationalized by The Boston Globe.

Stossel characterizes this rationale as, “If I am paid by a corporation to do research, I am going to lie, cheat and steal.” Based on his experience at Biogen, he calls this a “total inversion of reality.” He notes that, “95 percent of the scientific papers retracted for falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism have no commercial connection.” And yet, conflict of interest rules continue to proliferate, choking off what could be a critical alternative to taxpayer funding.

In his farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned of a day when, “because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity,” and “public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

Thanks to the work they are doing, Dr. Ivan Oransky and Dr. Thomas Stossel may help us heed Ike’s warning. They are my guests this week on RealClear Radio Hour. You can hear them describe the problem in their own words here.

Just enough religion to make us hate.

The end of Christianity in the Middle East could mean the demise of Arab secularism

In a Middle East rebuilt on intolerant ideologies, there is likely to be little place for beleaguered minorities

William Dalrymple

• The Guardian, Wednesday 23 July 2014 16.47 BST

The past decade has been catastrophic for the Arab world'sbeleaguered 12 million strong Christian minority. In Egypt revolution and counter-revolution have been accompanied by a series of anti-Copt riots, killings and church burnings. In Gaza and the West Bank Palestinian Christians are emigrating en masse as they find themselves uncomfortably caught between Netanyahu's pro-settler government and their increasingly radicalised Sunni neighbours.

In Syria most of the violence is along the Sunni-Alawite fault line, but stories of rape and murder directed at the Christian minority, who used to make up around 10% of the population, have emerged. Many have already fled to camps in Lebanon, Turkey or Jordan; the ancient Armenian community of Aleppo is reported to be moving en masse to Yerevan.

The worst affected areas of Syria are of course those controlled by Isis. Last weekend it issued a decree offering the dwindling Christian population of eastern Syria and northern Iraq a choice: convert to Islam or pay a special religious levy – the jizya. If they did not comply, "there is nothing to give them but the sword". The passing of the deadline led to possibly the largest exodus of Middle Eastern Christians since theArmenian massacres during the first world war, with the entire Christian community of Mosul heading off towards Kirkuk and the relative religious tolerance of the Kurdish zone.

Even before this latest exodus, at least two-thirds of Iraqi Christians had fled since the fall of Saddam. Christians were concentrated in Mosul, Basra and, especially, Baghdad – which before the US invasion had the largest Christian population in the Middle East. Although Iraq's 750,000 Christians made up only 7% of the pre-war population, they were a prosperous minority under the Ba'athists, as symbolised by the high profile of Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister, who used to disarm visiting foreign dignitaries by breaking into Onward, Christian Soldiers in Aramaic, the language of Jesus.

According to tradition it was St Thomas and his cousin Addai who brought Christianity to Iraq in the first century. At the Council of Nicea, where the Christian creed was thrashed out in AD325, there were more bishops from Mesopotamia than western Europe. The region became a refuge for those persecuted by the Orthodox Byzantines, such as theMandeans – the last Gnostics, who follow what they believe to be the teachings of John the Baptist. Then there was the Church of the East, which brought the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato, as well as Greek science and medicine, to the Islamic world – and hence, via Cordoba, to the new universities of medieval Europe.

Now almost everywhere Arab Christians are leaving. In the past decade maybe a quarter have made new lives in Europe, Australia and America. According to Professor Kamal Salibi, they are simply exhausted: "There is a feeling of fin de race among Christians all over the Middle East. Now they just want to go somewhere else, make some money and relax. Each time a Christian goes, no other Christian comes to fill his place and that is a very bad thing for the Arab world. It is Christian Arabs who keep the Arab world 'Arab' rather than 'Muslim'."

Certainly since the 19th century Christian Arabs have played a vital role in defining a secular Arab cultural identity. It is no coincidence that most of the founders of secular Arab nationalism were men like Michel Aflaq – the Greek Orthodox Christian from Damascus who, with other Syrian students freshly returned from the Sorbonne, founded the Ba'ath party in the 1940s – or Faris al-Khoury, Syria's only Christian prime minister. Then there were intellectuals like the Palestinian George Antonius, who in 1938 wrote in The Arab Awakening of the crucial role Christians played in reviving Arab literature and the arts after their long slumber under Ottoman rule.

If the Islamic state proclaimed by Isis turns into a permanent, Christian-free zone, it could signal the demise not just of an important part of the Arab Christian realm but also of the secular Arab nationalism Christians helped create. The 20th century after 1918, which saw the creation of the different Arab national states, may well prove to be a blip in Middle Eastern history, as the old primary identifiers of Arab identity, religion and qabila – tribe – resurface.

It is as if, after a century of flirting with imported ideas of the secular nation state, the region is reverting to the Ottoman Millet system (from the Arabic millah, literally "nation"), which represented a view of the world that made religion the ultimate marker of identity, and classified Ottoman subjects by their various sectarian religious "nations".

Despite sizeable Christian populations holding on in Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, there is likely to be little place for Christian Arabs in a Middle East rebuilt on intolerant ideologies like those of Isis. Their future is more likely to resemble that of the most influential Christian Arab intellectual of our day, Edward Said. Born in Jerusalem at the height of Arab nationalism in 1935, Said died far from the turmoil of the Middle East in New York in 2003. His last collection of essays was appropriately entitledReflections On Exile.

• The headline of this article was amended on 24 July 2014.

The first casualty/Collateral damage V

In Gaza, Hamas fighters are among civilians. There is nowhere else for them to go

Lines are blurred when a guerrilla war is fought in as dense a place as Gaza but the IDF's HQ is also surrounded by civilians

• • Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
  • The Guardian, Thursday 24 July 2014 20.55 BST

Israel's accusation that Hamas is using civilians as human shields has grown increasingly strident as the war in Gaza worsens.

The charge is laid relentlessly by political and military leaders and media commentators, repeated in conversations by members of the public and echoed in the comments of foreign politicians and diplomats. On the other side of the conflict, the accusation is vigorously denied by Hamas and others in Gaza.

The truth is lost amid the propaganda battle being waged alongside the shells, bombs, guns and rockets. What is certain is that the picture is more complicated than either side claims.

Deliberately placing non-combatants in and around targets to deter enemy attack – the definition of human shields – is illegal under international law.

The Geneva conventions state: "The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations."

International law also bans the use of medical units or prisoners of war to deter enemy attack.

However, even if Hamas were violating the law on this matter, it would not legally justify Israel's bombing of areas where civilians are known to be.

"Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures," the conventions say.

Israel claims Hamas routinely uses hospitals, mosques, schools and private homes to launch rockets at Israel, store weapons, hide command and control centres, shelter military personnel, and conceal tunnel shafts. This is their justification for targeting such places, despite the legal requirement to ensure its attacks are proportional, distinguish between military and civilian objects, and avoid civilian casualties.

Israel says it gives due notice of attack – by phone, text messages, leaflet drops and "warning missiles" – to give civilians the chance to leave.

A typical statement from the Israel Defence Forces, issued in the past few days, says: "While the IDF does everything that it can to avoid civilian casualties, Hamas deliberately puts Palestinian civilian lives in danger. Hamas hides weapons and missile launchers in densely populated areas. Instead of keeping its citizens out of harm's way, Hamas encourages and even forces Gazans to join its violent resistance against Israel. It sends men, women and children directly into the line of fire to be used as human shields for terrorists."

On Wednesday, the IDF released a series of maps purporting to show Hamas military sites close to – but not in – schools, hospitals, mosques and residential buildings. It also released video, which it said showed militants using an ambulance to flee after coming under attack by IDF troops, and said the grounds and vicinity of al-Wafa hospital in Gaza City had been "repeatedly utilised by Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad as a command centre, rocket-launching site, and a post enabling terrorists to open fire at soldiers".

Israel has repeatedly targeted the rehabilitation hospital during the course of the conflict, finally destroying the heavily damaged and, by then, empty building on Wednesday.

But the hospital's director rejected the Israeli assertion that the hospital had been used for military purposes by Hamas or other militant groups. In a statement, Basman Alashi said: "Israel has targeted our hospital based on false and misleading claims. They are targeting medical facilities, the wounded, the sick and our children, all over the Gaza Strip. They want us to know that nowhere is safe."

He added: "I hope things calm down as soon as possible. It's painful to see what's happening and that the hospital has become a target for military attacks."

The UN's discovery of arms caches in two of its schools in the past week has given Israel's assertions credence. "UNRWA [the UN agency for Palestinian refugees] immediately informed all relevant parties and issued a statement strongly condemning the abuse of its premises," said a spokesman, Chris Gunness. The UN agency UNRWA's shelters have been shelled on four occasions in recent days, despite officials giving precise coordinates to the IDF.

Israel also claimed that Hamas had forced civilians to remain in the Gaza City neighbourhood of Shujai'iya after the IDF warned them to evacuate ahead of its assault on Sunday. Civilians were being "held as hostages", said Peter Lerner, an IDF military spokesman.

These claims have not been backed up by independent reporting from international journalists covering the war from Gaza. Instead, dispatches from the ground have presented complex reasons why some residents did not evacuate from Shujai'iya and other areas targeted by the IDF. Many said nowhere in Gaza was safe, so they saw little point in abandoning their homes.

Others cited worries about not knowing the identities of people who would be their new neighbours; they could be evacuating a familiar neighbourhood for one that was a militant stronghold and others were simply too terrified to go out on the streets. Many media reports said there was no evidence of coercion by Hamas.

In fact, tens of thousands of people have fled their homes for what they hope is a safer place. UNRWA reports that more than 140,000 people have sought shelter in its properties; churches and mosques have been overwhelmed by displaced civilians; the grounds of the Shifa hospital in Gaza City have begun to resemble a makeshift refugee camp. These families are in fear of their lives, but they overwhelmingly cite Israeli bombing and shelling as the cause, rather than threats from Hamas.

Gaza is one of the most overcrowded places on earth. Almost two million people are crammed into a strip of land just 25 miles long and between three and a half and seven miles wide – roughly the same size as the Isle of Wight. In general there are few opportunities to leave; and in the midst of a conflict such as this, there is no exit.

The current war is not being fought on a conventional battlefield. Israel is pounding Gaza from the air, and its troops are increasingly fighting battles against a guerrilla army in densely populated urban areas – which constitute much of the Gaza Strip. As Israeli tanks and troops push further into the towns and cities, it is increasingly likely that Hamas will launch attacks from positions close to civilian buildings.

The separation between "civilian" and "military" in Gaza is much more blurred than with a conventional army – both physically and in the Gazan psyche. Hamas and other militants are embedded in the population. Their fighters are not quartered in military barracks, but sleep at night in their family homes. While it is not difficult to find antipathy to Hamas on the streets of Gaza in quiet times, most people defend their "right to resist" – and under such sustained military attack, support for Hamas rises.

Israel, meanwhile, does not have an unblemished record in the use of human shields. In 2010, two soldiers were convicted in an IDF military court of using an 11-year-old Palestinian boy as a human shield in its 2008-09 operation in Gaza. The pair ordered the child to search bags they suspected of being booby-trapped.

It was the first conviction of what is known within the IDF as the "neighbour procedure" – forcing civilians to assist troops in military operations. Investigations by news organisations and human rights groups have suggested the IDF has used Palestinians as human shields in operations in both Gaza and the West Bank.

Meanwhile, in response to Israel's assertions that Hamas situates its military centres in civilian areas, some have pointed out that the IDF's headquarters, the Kiriya, is in central Tel Aviv, surrounded by a hospital, blocks of flats, shopping centres and offices.

The invincible scroll.

The Bible—A Remarkable Story of Survival

 

 

THE Bible is the most widely distributed book in history—an estimated 4.8 billion copies have already been circulated. In 2007 alone, more than 64,600,000 copies were produced. To put that into perspective, consider that the best-selling work of fiction that year had an initial printing of 12 million copies in the United States.

On its way to becoming the world’s most published book, the Bible survived many hazards. Down through history, it has been banned and burned, and those who would translate it have been oppressed and killed. Yet, one of the greatest threats to the continued existence of the Bible was, not the sudden heat of persecution, but the slow process of decay. Why so?

The Bible is a compilation of 66 smaller books, the oldest of which were written or compiled over 3,000 years ago by members of the nation of Israel. The original writers and those who copied the texts recorded the inspired messages on perishable materials, such as papyrus and leather. None of the original writings have yet been discovered. But thousands of ancient copies of small and large sections of the books of the Bible have been unearthed. A fragment of one of these books, the Gospel of John, dates to within just a few decades of the original document written by the apostle John.

“The transmission of the text of the Hebrew Bible [Old Testament] is of extraordinary exactitude, without parallel in Greek and Latin classical literature.”—Professor Julio Trebolle Barrera

Why is it remarkable that any copies of the Bible have survived? And how accurately do modern Bibles reflect the messages recorded by the original writers?

What Happened to Other Ancient Documents?

The survival of the Bible is extraordinary, considering what happened to the writings of nations contemporary with the Israelites. The Phoenicians, for instance, were neighbors of the Israelites during the first millennium B.C.E. These sea traders spread their alphabetic writing system throughout the Mediterranean area. They also profited from an extensive papyrus trade with Egypt and the Greek world. Even so, the National Geographic magazine observes regarding the Phoenicians: “Their writings, mostly on fragile papyrus, disintegrated—so that we now know the Phoenicians mainly by the biased reports of their enemies. Although the Phoenicians themselves reportedly had a rich literature, it was totally lost in antiquity.”

What about the writings of the ancient Egyptians? The hieroglyphics they carved or painted on temple walls and elsewhere are well-known. The Egyptians are also famous for developing papyrus as a writing material. However, regarding Egyptian records written on papyrus, Egyptologist K. A. Kitchen says: “It has been estimated that some 99 percent of all papyri written from circa 3000 down to the advent of Greco-Roman times have perished completely.”

 What about Roman records that were written on papyrus? Consider this example. According to the book Roman Military Records on Papyrus, Roman soldiers were apparently paid three times a year, and a record of the pay was made on papyrus pay vouchers. It is estimated that during the 300 years from Augustus (27 B.C.E.–14 C.E.) to Diocletian (284-305 C.E), there were 225,000,000 individual pay records. How many have survived? Only two have been found that are legible.

Why have so few ancient documents written on papyrus survived? Perishable materials, such as papyrus and another common writing material, leather, decay quickly in damp climates. The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Because of the climate, papyrus documents from this period [the first millennium B.C.E.] are likely to be preserved only if they are in a dry desert and in a cave or shelter.”

What About the Bible Texts?

The original Bible books were evidently written on material as fragile as that used by the Phoenicians, Egyptians, and Romans. Why, then, did the material contained in the Bible survive to become the world’s most published book? Professor James L. Kugel provides one reason. He says that the original writings were copied “many, many times even within the biblical period itself.”

How do modern translations of the Bible compare with ancient manuscripts? Professor Julio Trebolle Barrera, a member of the team of experts charged with studying and publishing the ancient manuscripts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, says: “The transmission of the text of the Hebrew Bible is of extraordinary exactitude, without parallel in Greek and Latin classical literature.” Respected Bible scholar F. F. Bruce says: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.” He continues: “If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.” Certainly, the Bible is a remarkable book. Do you make time to read it each day?—1 Peter 1:24, 25.

Still in existence today are some 6,000 handwritten copies of the Hebrew Scriptures, or Old Testament, and some 5,000 copies of the Greek Scriptures, or New Testament