Some Parts of the Old Testament Written to Try Us. Try = Test.

[doG]

Evidence....

Please quit posting fables and calling them evidence. Please see the previous discussion here on evidence.

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

studiot,

 

It is a shame you have chosen not to expand on your original post since it had the potential to be a good discussion.

 

I posted more to someone else, it was relatively long. The moderators weren't sure if I was spamming, they chose to tell me not to post like I did. It seems I have permission now.

 

1) I assume you are referring to Clement of Alexandria, not later Popes of that name.

 

He may be known as Clement of Rome.

 

2) The Epistles of Clement were written in the 2nd century AD, just too late to be included as one of the books of the New Testament. They were never a candidate for the Old Testament.

 

Why did you give me those claims ? Anyone may study the early church fathers to judge what may have happened. People have bought commentaries to learn about the bible. I advise starting with ancient commentaries.

 

3) Various versions of the Old Testament I was referring to have big differences for instance the Pentateuch includes only the first five books. The Septuagint book of Jeremiah has a significant different order of events from the same book in the Mazaretic version. The (hebrew)Mazaretic is the version usually used in Western Bibles and was created about a hundred years before Clement. The (Greek)Septuagint predates it by some four to five hundred years.

 

I don't have complete knowledge of the history of the bible, I'm not convinced by any claims you've put. People have made errors in the past. Many copies of manuscripts were made. None of what you've put proves the Old Testament is not mixed with truths and falsities to test.

 

As an example of the knowledge in translating which may be involved and translations which may be used you may read part of evidence of an early church father work below if you have not before.

 

Letter LVII. To Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating.

 

 

Let these word fanciers and nice critics of all composition tell us where they have read the words; and if they cannot, let me tell them that they are in Isaiah.¹⁶⁸⁹For in the place where we read and translate, "There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots,"¹⁶⁹⁰ in the Hebrew idiom it is written thus, "There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse and a Nazarene shall grow from his root." How can the Septuagint leave out the word 'Nazarene,' if it is unlawful to substitute one word for another? It is sacrilege either to conceal or to set at naught a mystery.

 

http://www.ccel.org/...206.v.LVII.html

 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

doG,

 

 

Please quit posting fables and calling them evidence. Please see the previous discussion here on evidence.

 

Are they evidence of fables ?

Edited June 1, 2012 by Thomas Kelly guessed

[Moontanman]

People,

Evidence.

 

Obeying Christ,¹²⁹⁸ we learn to know what is false from the Scriptures. Moreover, being furnished by our ancestors with the truths of the Scriptures, we know that there is only one who has made the heavens and the earth, the God of the Jews, and of all who choose to worship Him. Our fathers, with pious thought, setting down a fixed belief in Him as the true God, handed down this belief to us, that we may know that if any thing is said against God, it is a falsehood.

 

http://www.ccel.org/...iv.xix.xiv.html

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

People,

Evidence from different part.

Chapter XLIV.—The Same Continued.

 

"But if He desires the fruitful hill,⁹⁵⁰ whose then are all things? If He is false, who then is true? If He dwells in a tabernacle, who is without bounds? If He is fond of fat, and sacrifices, and offerings, and drink-offerings, who then is without need, and who is holy, and pure, and perfect? If He is pleased with candles and candlesticks, who then placed the luminaries in heaven? If He dwells in shadow, and darkness, and storm, and smoke, who is the light that lightens the universe? If He comes with trumpets, and shoutings, and darts, and arrows, who is the looked-for tranquillity of all? If He loves war, who then wishes peace? If He makes evil things, who makes good things? If He is without affection, who is a lover of men? If He is not faithful to His promises, who shall be trusted? If He loves the wicked, and adulterers, and murderers, who shall be a just judge?

http://www.ccel.org/....iv.v.xliv.html

 

Thomas Kelly, you need to understand what evidence is before you start asserting you have some...

 

Is this preaching or discussing?

 

 

I'm guessing preaching, it's definitely not discussing...

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

Moontanman,

 

 

Thomas Kelly, you need to understand what evidence is before you start asserting you have some...

 

 

 

 

I'm guessing preaching, it's definitely not discussing...

 

Evidence is all that exists. There is no evidence to disprove that.

 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2012 by Thomas Kelly guessed

[Moontanman]

 

People,

 

Speaking of my questioning of things like post 17, you may need to know that not all questions are of ignorance, some come from knowledge.

 

 

Which ones?

[iNow]

Yay... Instead of you providing evidence FOR your deity, now we're playing word games and obfuscation puzzles! Oh joy.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman,

 

 

 

 

Evidence is all that exists. There is no evidence to disprove that.

 

 

All that exists is simply evidence of all that exists not evidence of some imaginary deity. You cannot even show that any deity or deities exist at all much less the one you are claiming to have evidence of, you have to understand that your particular Holy book or books are not evidence of anything other than what the humans who wrote them thought, imagined, copied, or lied about to use to control others and give themselves stature they didn't deserve.

 

Why is your god or idea of god any better than Zeus, Thor, Odin, Ra, Adriana, or any of the millions of other gods or goddesses everyone is an atheist of far as they are concerned?

Edited June 1, 2012 by Moontanman

[studiot]

I don't have complete knowledge of the history of the bible, I'm not convinced by any claims you've put. People have made errors in the past. Many copies of manuscripts were made. None of what you've put proves the Old Testament is not mixed with truths and falsities to test.

 

 

Nor would I guess does any man have complete knowledge.

 

However it is by exchanging knowledge that progress to the benefit of all is made.

 

So if you have better knowledge, I will gladly accept it.

 

The title of this thread states it is about the Old Testament so I have listed some of the things I know or have been able to find out that may be relevent in the spirit of open discussion.

 

I think it important to establish some facts before trying to prove anything.

 

He may be known as Clement of Rome.

 

Are you sure you are referring to Clement of Rome?

He is not known to have been a great writer.

 

http://en.wikipedia..../Pope_Clement_I

 

That is why I asked about Clement of Alexandria, who was.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria

Later Popes Clement were all in the second millenium AD so presumably out of the frame for this.

 

Letter LVII. To Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating.

 

 

This is the clearest quotation you have made so far.

 

However I don't know why you did it.

 

Partly because there was no explanation or reason given

and partly because your reference has it as at least two centuries after the death of Clement of Rome, given a fifty year uncertainty about his dates.

 

I really would encourage you to make some actual point or points that can be discussed.

Edited June 1, 2012 by studiot

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

studiot,

 

Nor would I guess does any man have complete knowledge.

 

Thanks, it appears that has revealed more about you so I may have some more knowledge of who I have been working with.

However it is by exchanging knowledge that progress to the benefit of all is made.

 

Thanks, I had some knowledge of that and it appears true and you've increased my knowledge of you.

 

So if you have better knowledge, I will gladly accept it.

 

Thanks, I may have some for you.

 

The title of this thread states it is about the Old Testament so I have listed some of the things I know or have been able to find out that may be relevent in the spirit of open discussion.

 

Thanks, it appears I have more knowledge of your motivations and reasoning now.

I think it important to establish some facts before trying to prove anything.

 

I reason we should test the reasoning of the original post, seems a quick way to learn the truth of what has been presented.

 

Are you sure you are referring to Clement of Rome?

 

I'm not sure exactly what you meant and I put "He may be known as Clement of Rome." I used the word 'may' and that shows doubt of the knowledge of the person.

 

He is not known to have been a great writer.

 

I'm not convinced thats true. You may look at some evidence below from The Recognitions of Clement and it may be judged if the writer was great.

 

Part of.

Chapter I.—Clement's Early History; Doubts.

I Clement, who was born in the city of Rome,⁵³⁴ was from my earliest age a lover of chastity; while the bent of my mind held me bound as with chains of anxiety and sorrow. For a thought that was in me—whence originating, I cannot tell—constantly led me to think of my condition of mortality, and to discuss such questions as these: Whether there be for me any life after death, or whether I am to be wholly annihilated: whether I did not exist before I was born, and whether there shall be no remembrance of this life after death, and so the boundlessness of time shall consign all things to oblivion and silence; so that not only we shall cease to be, but there shall be no remembrance that we have ever been.

http://www.ccel.org/....iii.iii.i.html

 

 

http://en.wikipedia..../Pope_Clement_I

 

I heard the wikipedia website is not completely reliable and I think it may contain some useful knowledge apart from any errors. You may compare the wikipedia website to the reasoning of the Old Testament containing truths and falsities to test peoples judgement. I don't know if wikipedia is mixed with truths and falsities.

 

That is why I asked about Clement of Alexandria, who was.

 

It seems I have looked at the works of Clement of Alexandria before and I reason that some benefit may be gained by reading them. What do you reason of the judgement of a mans work, should it be judged by quantity or quality ?

 

http://en.wikipedia....t_of_Alexandria

 

I have copies of the works of Clement of Alexandria and don't have a complete judgement of them and I looked at the article of Clement of Alexandria of your wikipedia link and saw this "As his three major works demonstrate, Clement was influenced by Hellenistic philosophy to a greater extent than any other Christian thinker of his time, and in particular by Plato and the Stoics." I'm not sure what they meant by that so I'm not sure its true. I haven't looked at all the article and the word "influenced" is not enough to show how Clement of Alexandria was influenced in the knowledge of the part I quoted of wikipedia.

 

I have reasoned it may be a suitable example of judging evidence presented.

Later Popes Clement were all in the second millenium AD so presumably out of the frame for this.

 

Maybe maybe not.

 

This is the clearest quotation you have made so far.

 

I'm not sure what you meant exactly by that, it has more than one explanation to me.

 

However I don't know why you did it.

 

Partly because there was no explanation or reason given

 

In the post, Post 27 for the benefit of anyone you looks at this, a quotation of one of your posts may be read. The quotation is below.

 

"3) Various versions of the Old Testament I was referring to have big differences for instance the Pentateuch includes only the first five books. The Septuagint book of Jeremiah has a significant different order of events from the same book in the Mazaretic version. The (hebrew)Mazaretic is the version usually used in Western Bibles and was created about a hundred years before Clement. The (Greek)Septuagint predates it by some four to five hundred years."

 

I did put before the my quotation of "Letter LVII. To Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating." what you may look at below.

 

"As an example of the knowledge in translating which may be involved and translations which may be used you may read part of evidence of an early church father work below if you have not before."

 

So you may agree you spoke of different copies of scriptures and the differences of them and this topic is partly about translation of scripture because to judge what is true and what is false in the the Old Testament and may be the New Testament because of quotations of the Old Testament and gaining knowledge of the New Testament of which in copies of translations, verses may have been added and some verses may occur in some copies and not in others. So now you may have some knowledge of why I quoted and I reason I put enough for people with enough knowledge and wisdom which serves them to see my reasoning. You may agree the evidence of "Letter LVII. To Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating." is part of all this.

 

 

and partly because your reference has it as at least two centuries after the death of Clement of Rome, given a fifty year uncertainty about his dates.

 

Maybe maybe not in judgement of the dating. The topic is of investigating the reasoning of the original post with the history so documents of any period may be used for the reasoning.

 

I really would encourage you to make some actual point or points that can be discussed.

 

I have made and posted points that can be discussed, anyone may read them in earlier posts of this topic. It appears you have been making errors. Maybe there will be less errors as we discuss more together.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Thomas Kelly guessed

[studiot]

After reasoning of the history of the collection of materials for the bible, old and modern word definitions, and how books have chapters, this is difficult to explain.

 

 

The documents of the early church fathers contains information of different sets of collected documents so may show anyone a history of documents used.

 

 

Both The Clementine Homilies and The Recognitions of Clement may be called bibles by definition of any standard dictionary. So the use of the word dubbed may be incorrect.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

 

Thanks, I may only do a limited amount to increase your knowledge of language and the documents posted about.

 

 

You claim that English is your first language, yet none of these responses are in proper English. I asked so that I could make allowances if your native language was not English.

 

You claim a document none of which is found in the Bible and which your own reference dates at several hundred years after the Bible was drafted the is a Bible or some part of it.

 

I have (politely) asked for an explanation of the point or question you wish to make in this thread so discussion can proceed, but have received no definitive answer.

 

In response to an attempt to analyse the data you have presented I have, however received several arrogant and dismissive responses.

 

go well sir

[Thomas Kelly guessed]

studiot,

 

 

You claim that English is your first language, yet none of these responses are in proper English. I asked so that I could make allowances if your native language was not English.

 

Maybe I should say that appears partly false to me.

 

 

You claim a document none of which is found in the Bible and which your own reference dates at several hundred years after the Bible was drafted the is a Bible or some part of it.

 

Maybe I should say have you looked at standard dictionary definitions ? I may have told you about that more than once.

 

I have (politely) asked for an explanation of the point or question you wish to make in this thread so discussion can proceed, but have received no definitive answer.

 

Maybe I should say that in post #1 in this topic you may read the words "True or False ?" above the evidence presented, so that's one question.

 

In response to an attempt to analyse the data you have presented I have, however received several arrogant and dismissive responses.

 

go well sir

 

Maybe I should say that I have given you truthful answers. I have answered questions in this post to benefit all who may look in this topic.

 

I haven't trusted you from the start and I still don't and now some people may see that I have answered you in this post like I did because I reasoned of your relatively unpredictable character.

 

I may stop posting to you.

[iNow]

I may stop posting to you.

You tease...

[studiot]

 

Some Parts of the Old Testament Written to Try Us. Try = Test. //

 

 

Since you claim to write impeccable English, please explain the exact meaning of the above in words suitable for someone who was born within the sound of the Great Bell of Bow.

(I presume you fully understand the implications of that birthplace within the english world).

 

 

[Moontanman]

I'd like to suggest something to Thomas Kelly guessed, start a thread about something not having to do with religion. Get used to how the forum works by discussing something of the world you are interested in or parts of science want to know more about. once you establish your self in the forum and understand how it works you might be able to more effectively discuss religion or your questions about religion...

 

You have have made statements several times that suggest you mistrust science in general or scientists as individuals and you suggested that a scientist cannot be religious or that science is a belief of some sort or that the body of knowledge known as science is in some way dishonest. These things are false, yes individuals can be dishonest, if you are honest then you know this is true of religious people as well but I am sure you would agree that just because one religious person is dishonest doesn't make all religious people dishonest, so to suggest that all scientists are dishonest is simply wrong. In fact science and scientists in general insist on the truth, all claims in science are checked and rechecked to make sure that the claims are as factual as possible.

 

Explore some topics not directly religious and see how accurate science can be, think of the computer you are seated in front of as you read this post. The computer you are using to question science is the result of that science, in fact the entire first world civilization is based on and the result of Science but not just becasue some guy claims, "yeah, electrons behave this way under these circumstances" but in the fact that any claims, discoveries, yes the whole of modern knowledge is testable, almost any of it can be tested to see if it indeed works and the parts that most of us cannot test can be read about and see that it is confirmed by more than one person. The results of that science is due to it being true, the behavior of the universe can be tested, confirmed, and understood (in large part at least) by anyone. try it Thomas Kelly