[jaguar]

Oh dear.

Time for a recap because it's getting lost in the noise and there's come serious cognitive dissonance and cross talking going on.
A very, very long time ago you stated, incorrectly:

The code of Hannuarabi got it's punch from the fact that the king was descended from God.

I've been trying to get that though and you've been dodging the point ever since. The only other point I made, etymology & definition of divination aside, was that the code was not meant to be changed by future kings - it was meant to be a fundamental legal construct beyond their power. I mean this is the thing, I'm well aware the King got his mandate of sorts from the gods but regents and vice regents aren't normally related are they? (we're not talking prince-regents here obviously)

What I don't get, is where you got the idea I was denying the King's authority came from god. It has no bearing on whether the code itself was largely secular, which is what I posted to start this. You seem to have problems with separating the two, maybe we're talking at cross purposes. I obviously feel that the code can be secular in a theocratic governmental structure and that while the code may have been obeyed for religious reasons it was still a largely secular system of laws. Do you disagree? To save hunting around:

Couldn't one say modern law dates back to Hammurabi's Code which was in essence (It's not a subject I've taken but I'm led to beleive) largely secular? Babylon was a theocracy to be sure but the code of laws itself...

Judding by:

and that this code was constructed to see that goodness and greatness of God bestowed on all his people.

I'd say yes. This is the core of the whole thing, I think he was a wise bloke that realized that a separate code of laws was key to stable and just government, you think it was a religious thing.

you chose to view it as only the king's authority, that's your problem.

I did? I said that the king was not descended from the Gods, that's all.

On the issue of my use of divination, my usage of the word was in reference to what Hammurabi felt was his calling. My usage was as such: Example: Oxford English Dictionary: "the practice of divining or seeking knowledge by supernatural needs" Example : American Heritage Dictionary: "Something that has been divined"

That is (Oxford at least, not sure about that crappy American dictionary since you didn't post how it defines divined) the same as the Cambridge one. It however makes no sense contextually.
You stated:

and kings are afforded their rule through divination

.
So you think so the kings were afforded their rule though seeking knowledge by supernatural deeds? Rightyo.

Men carrying on man made tradition is fool hearty and ill-advised, but as exhibited by the ruin of Babylon.

Yea, secular liberal democracy is a silly idea, let's go back to a dark-ages theocratic government, that rocked. And you wonder why I think you're a halfwit, it's pompous, ludicrous twaddle like this.

If I tell you that you are never again allowed to put salt on your food and my authority to make that decree comes from God, then of course you will stop using salt because it is God's will. Right?

Well if you believe god will smite you down with a whacking great thunderbolt for doing so, yea. Cultural paradigms and all that anthropological claptrap.