Oral Tradition

Pah · Nov 28, 2004

precept said:
The bible was authored over a period of more than fifteen hundred years; and by more than forty different human authors who had no knowledge of each other's work. Yet despite your many allusions to contradictions you have yet to document a single such contradiction.

And so we should. I await your evidence of such contradixtions.

Your argument makes the point that there should, in fact, be numerous contradictions. I await your display of a single contradiction from the numerous contradictions you presume to be.

I would have loved to explain but you omitted to give an example a story subtly changed in its retelling.

you have yet to submit any example of any such change in the bible.

Not to worry. It's just that when looking up for explanations in the biology book I recognized that there was just a little more information in the Genetic text.

Learning is always a good habit to practice...and learning from those knowledgeable in genetics is no exception.

You ought not to make these assertions if you have no evidence to support your allegations. Its called Put up or shut up.

Again evidence! evidence! Where is the evidence of "contradictory things" you say are in the bible.

For the last time...Present your evidence!

precept

The evidence for oral tradition is contained in the Gospels and the "slightly off" (if not outright contradictory) stories of the navity and the empty tomb and, in the Old Testament, the story of two creations , the "science" presented, and the history without supporting contemporaneous documentation.

Bob

precept · Nov 28, 2004

The evidence for oral tradition is contained in the Gospels and the "slightly off" (if not outright contradictory) stories of the navity and the empty tomb and, in the Old Testament, the story of two creations , the "science" presented, and the history without supporting contemporaneous documentation.

Bob

I have identified for you the stories you claim to be "slightly off" or "outright contradictory". Now show us how! Present your argument with scriptural documentation to support your claim. In other words, give references to support your argument. Show how the contradiction is documented with one scriptural reference contradicting another scriptural reference relating to the same subject matter.

precept

Runt · Nov 28, 2004

The bible was authored over a period of more than fifteen hundred years; and by more than forty different human authors who had no knowledge of each other's work.

So? This doesn't mean anything they say is true.

Yet despite your many allusions to contradictions you have yet to document a single such contradiction.

That is because by posting all that material here, I would end up driving this thread completely and totally off-topic.

I await your evidence of such contradixtions.

Sigh. Here you go: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Some other links that may be of interest to you:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1225http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1225http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1225
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=554
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=933
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1820
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=701

You ought not to make these assertions if you have no evidence to support your allegations. Its called Put up or shut up.

At least I made an argument. You didn't even attempt to defend your point of view... instead, you tried to prove your intellectual and rhetorical "superiority" by stating the same brainless thing over and over... you've got your evidence now (look at the link to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible there are numerous documented contradictions), so it's time, as you said, to put up or shut up.

Pah · Nov 28, 2004

precept said:
I have identified for you the stories you claim to be "slightly off" or "outright contradictory". Now show us how! Present your argument with scriptural documentation to support your claim. In other words, give references to support your argument. Show how the contradiction is documented with one scriptural reference contradicting another scriptural reference relating to the same subject matter.

precept

I'm sure you will find them linked from here
http://members.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

But if you like I can send you a Netscape/FireFox bookmark file or IE's favorites list that goes into much more detail for each error..

Bob

precept · Nov 28, 2004

... you've got your evidence now (look at the link to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible there are numerous documented contradictions), so it's time, as you said, to put up or shut up.

Another's work is not your own;but suffice it to say, you to have to, in the very least, present the argument on your own account. How do you plan to defend what you did not research? How do you know if the author's arguments are in fact substantive?

If you are familiar with the argument; your understanding of same will make you able to present without benefit of constantly reffering to the original author's text.

Now open the bible and read it; if only for the first time and stop alluding to the work of others; who themselves are in error.

precept

ps When is "bold" really "bold"? Answer: see above post!

Runt · Nov 28, 2004

Why waste hours doing what others have already done so much more admirably than I can on short notice?

I have read the Bible. My mother worked at a Christian school and I attended their after school and summer programs (essentially Bible Camp) throughout elementary school. The Bible was occassionally read at my own church throughout my elementary and middle school years. Furthermore, I've read it on my own once or twice in my high school years (along with various other religious texts) and I've had to read it for independent study religion last year and World Relgions this year. I think I've got it down by now!

Pah · Nov 28, 2004

precept said:
Another's work is not your own;but suffice it to say, you to have to, in the very least, present the argument on your own account. How do you plan to defend what you did not research? How do you know if the author's arguments are in fact substantive?

If you are familiar with the argument; your understanding of same will make you able to present without benefit of constantly reffering to the original author's text.

Now open the bible and read it; if only for the first time and stop alluding to the work of others; who themselves are in error.

precept

ps When is "bold" really "bold"? Answer: see above post!

Don't be so snippity about who does the work. It appears to be a dodge on your part to avoid addressing the truths revelaled by the links

Bob.

precept · Nov 28, 2004

Why waste hours doing what others have already done so much more admirably than I can on short notice?

I have read the Bible. My mother worked at a Christian school and I attended their after school and summer programs (essentially Bible Camp) throughout elementary school. The Bible was occassionally read at my own church throughout my elementary and middle school years. Furthermore, I've read it on my own once or twice in my high school years (along with various other religious texts) and I've had to read it for independent study religion last year and World Relgions this year. I think I've got it down by now!

You have taken the easy way out! But if you had known of these contradictions as you pretend; you would have just as easily used the same amount of space used in your current posts to make an argument for a single contradiction you claim is in the bible.

precept

Pah · Nov 28, 2004

precept said:
You have taken the easy way out! But if you had known of these contradictions as you pretend; you would have just as easily used the same amount of space used in your current posts to make an argument for a single contradiction you claim is in the bible.

precept

The problem, precept, is that there are so many contradictions and all from oral tradition which is known by scholars to produce variant myths.

Try the subject matters I suggested and you can reference and even quote somebody else's work.

Bob

Runt · Nov 28, 2004

There is a good reason that I didn't respond with a single piece of evidence. If I had done so, you would have responded to it, and your response would have been off-topic. This thread is about oral-tradition, and not about why a particular set of passages are or are not contradictory. However, at your request I provided a link to a list of different contradictions (many of which I have read and verified) that you may follow, and because I know you will probably have lots you want to say about them, I also provided you with a list of links to threads in which you may do so.

precept · Nov 28, 2004

There is a good reason that I didn't respond with a single piece of evidence. If I had done so, you would have responded to it, and your response would have been off-topic. This thread is about oral-tradition, and not about why a particular set of passages are or are not contradictory.

I find your "way out" down "this" escape hatch quite funny. You first knew how I would have responded and for this reason you refused to yeild to the temptation to provide evidence of biblical contradictions as you saw such. You then informed us all that this thread on Oral traditions would not have been appropriately served by providing contradictory passages of scripture which would have proven your argument valid, that indeed Oral tradition do embellish the original story making the original story unlike when it was first told. And evidence of which you would then have supplied from the work of others!

Proverbs 13:16...A fact most evident; states that: "Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge; but a fool layeth open his folly".

To prevent this biblical passage from its being wrongly applied; you need to provide the evidence of these contradictory passages. You might even use the auspices of the internet to cut and paste these passages that show how Oral tradition have caused these passages to say something different from what they said at the onset, while together with cutting and pasting, using your own reasoning to augment that of your sources.

"You can run but you cannot hide"!

precept

Scott1 · Nov 28, 2004

precept said:
The forum members will judge!

Just wanted to let you know, coming from a Christian, you have done a poor job of defending your side of the argument.

Judge Scott

Runt · Nov 28, 2004

Precept--

I'm going to try really hard to meet your demand without driving the thread off-topic. You'd better try equally hard to keep whatever counter you so obviously want to make on topic.

Here's one I found earlier and made a thread on: Isaiah 34:14

In early Hebrew myth there was a character called Lilith, who apparently remined a part of of the Christian and Jewish oral traditions until at least the medieval times. She was the first wife of Adam. The story basically goes like this: God created both man and woman from the ground. Lilith was the woman and she refused to submit to Adam because she claimed that they were both made from the same gound and therefore were equal. She then said the sacred name of God and then left Adam. She stayed on an island for a while and gave birth to 100 demon children per day. God sent three angels (Senoy, Sansenoy and Semangelof) to command that she return to Adam (on pain of death). Somehow she got out of it (the myth is not clear), and God punished her by making 100 of her demon children die every day. She is credited with killing children in their sleep and seducing dreaming men. After she was gone God gave Adam Eve, the story of which you know.

As far as I can tell from my research, she was very popular character in oral traditions for a long time, but now most people don't even know who she is, and even if they do, they don't believe she existed. The oral tradition surrounding her seems to have just disintigrated.

However, before you write her off as one of those oral traditions that weren't "really" part of "God's story", know that she made an appearance in the Torah itself in Isaiah 34:14 and obviously therefore ended up in the Bible itself.

So if we are to assume that only those oral traditions which are truly "God's story" end up in the Bible, we have to therefore assume that because Lilith ended up in the Bible, at least part of her story must be true. She may not have been the first wife of Adam; indeed, she may not have been anything more than a common demon, but she "must" have existed because she made it into the Bible, "God's story", which cannot be false.

What's interesting is that despite having made it into the Bible, she still starts to fade away slowly over time. Yes, the content of the Bible changed from one translation to another! The earliest Hebrew passages included Lilith's name (Anders states in the other thread that "Perhaps I should have pointed out that three different Hebrew Bible editions all write Lîlît in Isaiah." I cannot confirm this, because my Bible is the American Standard Version) but many subsequent translations do not include Lilith's name at all. Even worse, the original Lilith, a demon, somehow becomes a variety of other things, including a screech owl. This particular passage definitely changes from one translation to another!

An Example:

The American Standard Version of the Holy Bible:

And the wild beasts of the desert shall meet with the wolves, and the wild goat shall cry to his fellow; yea, the night-monster shall settle there, and shall find her a place of rest."

(The Lilith of the oral tradition becomes the "night-monser", but at least she's still female and some kind of demon).

Douay-Rheims Bible:

"Hyenas will meet with jackels. Male goats will call to their mates. Screech owls will rest there and find a resting place for themselves."

(Not even a demon is found in this version, let alone Lilith).

So... if God only allows those oral traditions which are "true" to end up being a part of his story "the Bible", and if he doesn't allow his story to change, then why does the passage about Lilith, which was in the earliest versions of Isaiah and which used to be an oral tradition (just like all the other material from the Bible), change in the Bible itself?

precept · Nov 28, 2004

An Example:

The American Standard Version of the Holy Bible:

And the wild beasts of the desert shall meet with the wolves, and the wild goat shall cry to his fellow; yea, the night-monster shall settle there, and shall find her a place of rest."

(The Lilith of the oral tradition becomes the "night-monser", but at least she's still female and some kind of demon).

Douay-Rheims Bible:

"Hyenas will meet with jackels. Male goats will call to their mates. Screech owls will rest there and find a resting place for themselves."

(Not even a demon is found in this version, let alone Lilith).

So... if God only allows those oral traditions which are "true" to end up being a part of his story "the Bible", and if he doesn't allow his story to change, then why does the passage about Lilith, which was in the earliest versions of Isaiah and which used to be an oral tradition (just like all the other material from the Bible), change in the Bible itself?

Thanks for your attention to this important matter. I must confess that I had not expected you to take up the challenge.

If I understand your example re the fictious Lilith; and if I understand you to be saying that this Lilith is mentioned in Isaiah 34:14; then either my translation of the KJV is flawed or such a mythic figure was never included in the text of Isaiah 34:14.

If on the other hand, Lilith became a "screech owl" and or a "night-monser", in some or other version of the bible; such a claim will have to remain without validity; and hence without benefit of any argument; until you show the transition in related version of the bible, of the transition of mythic Lilith; from Lilith to "scerrch owl" and or mythic Lilith; from Lilith to "night monser".

Umtil then nothing ascribed to this mythical character can be taken seriously! Not even by you!

precept

Pah · Nov 28, 2004

If on the other hand, Lilith became a "screech owl" and or a "night-monser", in some or other version of the bible; such a claim will have to remain without validity; and hence without benefit of any argument; until you show the transition in related version of the bible, of the transition of mythic Lilith; from Lilith to "scerrch owl" and or mythic Lilith; from Lilith to "night monser".

Umtil then nothing ascribed to this mythical character can be taken seriously! Not even by you!

It's not as far-fetched as "satan" appearing in the Garden of Eden when a snake is the one doing the talking.

But, please, describe the approximate year that the nativity occurred who was ruling where and where in the scientific history the light from the east happened.. Describe who went to the tomb and who appeared and where they appeared if not by oral tradition.

Bob

Runt · Nov 29, 2004

The earliest version of the Old Testiment, I'm sure you will agree, is the Jewish Tanakh. Anders (another member of this forum) confirmed for me that Lilith was mentioned by name in Isaiah 34:14 in three Hebrew versions of the Old Testiment/Tanakh.

It is in the English versions that the change occurs. The Lilith mentioned in the Tanakh becomes a mere screech owl, night monster, night hag, or, occassionally, Lilith or lilith (yes, those latter two remained true to the oral tradition and earlier versions of the Old Testiment, but I'm worried that there is inconsistency between ALL the versions of the text today.)

Now, you have to admit that the odds of all three of those versions of the Hebrew Old Testiment being newer than the English versions of the Bible are pretty low. Therefore, although I cannot be absolutely positive that the three Hebrew texts represent more original versions of the text than the English Bibles, I can, however, be reletively confident that therein lies the requested (admittedly rough) chronological documentation of the change.

precept · Nov 29, 2004

It's not as far-fetched as "satan" appearing in the Garden of Eden when a snake is the one doing the talking.

You can choose to believe a "snake" cannot be made to "talk" as in holding a conversation...but if you believe that Satan couldn't manipulate an inferior creature like a snake, inhabiting the snake's body and manipulating the snake into making the snake actually "to speak"; neither should you also then believe that satan is able to inhabit a human's body against that human's wishes; manipulating that human's body and using the human's mouth and vocal cords against the human's desire to be so used; and with Satan controlling that human's every body function completely.

In case you are unaware of such happenings;also commonly referred to as possession by an evil spirit, it would be because you yourself inhabit a different planet.

It stands to reason that if Satan can inhabit a human against such a human's wishes; even though such a human has full control over all his faculties; how much more should Satan be able to inhabit a lower creature who has no such control.
So, therefore, satan inhabiting a snake or any other creature would be as easy, if not easier than is his ability to inhabit a human's body.

But, please, describe the approximate year that the nativity occurred who was ruling where and where in the scientific history the light from the east happened...

The exact year/month/week/day of Christ's birth is irrelevant and unimportant in the Great story of man's redemption. That all the prophecies beginning with the prophecy of God to Adam and Eve, that Adam's seed would crush Satan's head; and continuing with the same prophecy to Abraham that "in Abraham's seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed", God chronicled for humans the soon appearing of His Son on earth without telling humans which date the the Promised Redeemer would appear.
More than three thousands of years passed before Messiah was born and not once during this period did God find it necessary to reveal the date of His son's appearing. The closest that God came to revealing any time was in His vision to Daniel when He told Daniel to expect that the coming of Messiah would be "sixty-nine weeks" from the time the Persian king gave the command for the Israelite exiles to return and rebuild the city of Jerusalem destroyed by king Nebuchadnezzar, seventy years previously.
The end of this period of "sixty-nine weeks", was the only time period God gave to humans as to when His Son would be born on earth as a human child.

Speculation therefore about the time He was born is not the subject of scripture, but of those who are without the right understanding of scripture, who put more importance on the time of his birth without realizing that His birth was but the beginning of the doom of Satan to the fires of hell. These speculators are not aware that it was for this reason that Jesus was born as a human child...and the reason was He was born to die.

Controversy about the exact time of His birth is not the affair of scripture; and has no bearing on the mission of Christ, no matter that humans try to make it so.

For what it is worth, history records that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the great. Herod was made tetrach or one of four rulers of Judah as appointed by Ceasar Augustus, Julius Ceasar's nephew. That this is true; is seen in the proclamation of Augustus Ceasar that "all the world should be taxed". History records that the present taxation system of our modern civilization was indeed invented by Augustus Ceasar, the second Roman Emperor.
Does it matter the year of Augustus Ceasar's reign during which Jesus was born? No! not if you are a true Christian. That He was born is the joy and rejoicing of every true Christian; for without His birth there was no hope for any human.

Bear in mind that if you do not believe the "one" neither will you believe the "other".

If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then the manifestation of heavenly bodies in any form is to be believed as well. Consequently, the movement of a heavenly body to guide pagan worshippers to the cradle of the Saviour of mankind is not to be unexpected; seeing as those amongst whom He was born had no desire to see or serve or worship Him.

Describe who went to the tomb and who appeared and where they appeared if not by oral tradition

Again if the subject of His birth is without question; then neither should the subject of His death be any different. It was for dying that Jesus was born; so it comes as no surprise to the true Christian that his Lord had to die for his, the sinner's sins. That when He was resurrected, the women or anyone else would have seen Him first is again of no relevance to the most important reason for His coming to earth as human.
He came to defeat Sartan by dying for sins that He himself did not commit. This He had to do to defeat Satan and reclaim his world lost from satan. Our world was lost to satan, the snake in the garden of Eden when our first parents sinned against our Father God.
Now Satan was defeated and in this his defeat his head was crushed as prophesied by God. But in causing the death of God, satan caused the heel of Jesus to be brusied in the process; this again as was prophesied by God.

That Jesus was born to die, was the over-arching reason for His coming and His predictable and prophesied death.

As to who got there "first" when He was resurrected is wholly unimportant in every detail. No importance is given to this detail in scripture; and any debate as created by those who are unaware as to the importance of His living on earth solely for the purpose of death, is a debate among those unfamiliar with the importance of His singular purpose "to die" for the sins of humanity.

That therefore one account would include the women getting to the resurrected Lord first or that another account ommitted to include this unimportant detail, is irrelevant when placed alongside the most important event in the history of God's creation---The God of the Universe---The God who created humans---permitted Himself to die at the hands of the very humans He Himself created so that He could save these humans from eternal damnation to the fires of hell; fires prepared for the "devil and his angels" by God. He did this for humans who voluntarily rebelled and sinned against Him. An act He was prepared to do; even given that not one of these humans would have accepted Him as their Saviour.

The question as to who saw Him first after He was resurrected is answered as in; Only those who wanted to be saved by His Eternally, Loving, Unselfish, Voluntary sacrificing of Himself; those who were so sorry to see Him die; even though He had to die...Those who grieved His loss could not wait to return to the site of the last resting place the knew...And wonder of all wonders; their worst fear was forever laid to rest in the tomb from which Jesus emerged...They, like us saw Him first... Because He lived; now they were assured, as we are, of living forever with Him; No! never to part again. Anyone who loves the Lord with all his heart is represented by those who went to the tomb, whether sooner or later...it makes no difference!

precept

precept · Nov 29, 2004

The earliest version of the Old Testiment, I'm sure you will agree, is the Jewish Tanakh

Not so! The earliest version of scripture is Torah. From Torah, which is the inspired version, Tanakh, the uninspired version, consisting of the laws as developed by many different Jewish rabbis, visionaries who pontificated as to how Torah was to be interpreted; and had these instructions writtrn down in Tanakh

Even so; Tanakh is readily available from any religious Jewish source as in their synagogues or any library specializing in religions. With tanakh being readily available you should have no trouble in referencing book, chapter and verse in which Lilith is found.

You are saying it is to be found in Isaiah chapter 34, but you youself have never seen it. Until you can physical present this text as fact; you must with-hold commenting on this presumed text as if it is factual.

precept

Pah · Nov 29, 2004

pah said:
It's not as far-fetched as "satan" appearing in the Garden of Eden when a snake is the one doing the talking.

But, please, describe the approximate year that the nativity occurred who was ruling where and where in the scientific history the light from the east happened.. Describe who went to the tomb and who appeared and where they appeared if not by oral tradition.

Bob

I think you misunderstood my intention with this post (or perhaps I was not clear enough).

What gives evidence to an oral tradition is the contradictions many have found in the resultant writing of the oral tradition. Let me be more blunt! This thread is not to discuss or resolve the contradictions but to discuss the oral tradition that created the Bible. If you would like to contunue with this tangental contradiction topic do so in another thread.

Bob

HelpMe · Nov 29, 2004

...my translation of the KJV is flawed...

i could be wrong, but is the kjv being defended?

cocktrice
Isaiah 11:8;14:29;59:5
Unicorn
Deut. 33:17;Psalms 22:21;Isaiah 34:7
Satyr
Isaiah 13:21;34:14

Oral Tradition

Uber all member

Member

Well-Known Member

Uber all member

Member

Well-Known Member

Uber all member

Member

Uber all member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Uber all member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Uber all member

Â·Â´sociopathic meanderer`Â·