tradition

Simple.
Rabbinical Judaïsm also claims such an oral tradition (The Mishnah), but that has been available in written form for some 1800 years.
The churches that hold to apostolic succession on the other hand never seemed to have found the time to write all of it down in a similar format.
Which would be the natural thing to do at some point.

 

If it were true, the bible and tradition wouldn't contradict each other.

 

Indeed it has. It's called "The New Testament".

HankD

 

Have you every told a joke to someone and then listened to them tell it to someone else. It is never how you told it, and that is just from one person to one person. How accurate do you think oral traditions are going to be when passed through hundreds of years? The word "tradition" doesn't imply good or bad but it most assuredly implies the real possibility of inaccuracy.

 

"Nuff said!

 

Amen "Just Want Peace"

 

"Oral Tradition" is the only way that the Catholic Church can justify their man-made doctrines such as purgatory, indulgences, the assumption of Mary, etc.
It is also the reason that they hate the doctrine of sola scriptura--that doctrine whereby we use the Bible as our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Their man-made doctrines cannot be found in the Bible. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine greatly attacked by the Catholic Church.
DHK

 

Art,

I think this is a shaky argument, and here is why:

1. Have you ever attempted sitting down over several years and copying by hand the entire New Testament, possibly hundreds of times? What are the posibilities that you are going to make errors in your copies? How do we know that the copies of the Original Autographs (which to my knowledge have not ever been found), do not contain errors? I take that by faith that I have a reliable copy of scripture. I think an RC could just as easily make the same argument about oral tradition.

2. I think that Soulman and DHK have the best answer to this. If the tradition contradicts scripture, then you can scrap that one right away.

Joseph Botwinick

 

First off, one must define tradition and then consider its use in the transmission of religious thought from the earliest times. Think of the number of years that passed between actual creaton and when Moses or some scribe actually recorded it on hard copy.

A considerable amount of information has passed down through oral "tradition". This does not minimize accuracy if we believe that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God..." I personally believe that the thought is passed down through the translations, but I would consider myself a fool to believe that every word in the translations is inspired. In both Greek and Hebrew one word can have several meanings depending on context.

The proper definition of tradition is: A custom, opinion, or belief handed down to psterity especially orally or by practice.........." Oxford Dictionary. Hence, tradition is not only an important conveyance, it is essential.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Not to be argumentative, Jim, but there is very good evidence that Genesis was NOT oral, but written from the beginning. In Genesis 5:1 we have evidence of that internally. In addition, archaeologists have found that the earliest Middle Eastern tablets we have found bear the authors name and 'title' of the document at the END, not at the beginning of the document. We see this very thing eleven or twelve times in Genesis. There is thus evidence both internally and externally that Genesis is a series of eyewitness accounts, written down, and passed down. Moses inserted some editorial comments, which are fairly easy to pick out, and, as editor, the book is "his". From him came the first five books and they are credited to him, but the first book is his as editor only. There is too much detail, too many exact conversations, and the various authors' sign-off signatures for it to be otherwise.

However it should also be stated that oral tradition, before the RC church started using it as an excuse for changing doctrines and heresies, was something which was handed down from TRAINED person to TRAINED person. The second person would be trained by the first to repeat the information EXACTLY, and not to add or subtract anything from it. This was common in other cultures, but the Hebrews had written manuscripts and did not have to depend on this method of transmission.

So, in essence, the very fact that the RC church says it is rooted in tradition as well as Scripture is a sort of 'hidden' admission that they have pagan roots and carry them on.

 

Here is a question that I have asked many times to Catholics on this board and have not yet received an answer:


Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstrably traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ?

 

It will take rare honesty and a tacit admission of heresy, but the answer to that is the teaching the faith in Mary is necessary to enter heaven.

 

Can you trace the faith in Mary to enter heaven back to the Apostolic age?

 

It was not meant to be a definitive answer, merely an illustraton of how oral traditions cannot be as trustworthy as that which is written. I realize that they would have taken it much more seriously than a joke but the principle would be the same. It is just that errors can creep in easier is all I meant.

I agree, hence my point about which is more likely to be correct.

 

"However it should also be stated that oral tradition, <...> was something which was handed down from TRAINED person to TRAINED person. The second person would be trained by the first to repeat the information EXACTLY, and not to add or subtract anything from it."
"
Buddhism used that system for it's first couple of centuries (large groups of trained monks remembering all of Buddha's teachings), but they came to the conclusion that it wasn't reliable and switched to writing it all down.

 

The early writers of the Old Testament had a strict regimen when they copied documents. The scribe meticulously copied the text. If a mistake was found, the entire document was destroyed and recopied. They also had to ceremoniously wash themselves before commencing the new copy. This guarantees us a reliable copy from a human standpoint.

What remains, however, is still the word for word translation without considering the cultural context.

For example, Helen quotes Genesis 5:1 to show that a "book" was available at that time. The Hebrew word for book can just as easily be "words". The verse just can't be used to show that books were available from the time of Adam....the original creation of man....another word which can mean either the first human or Adam himself.

Our guarantee of the word of God, is not that it was written down at the time, but that we are assured that God inspired the records in the original autographs. The knowledge was passed down from man to man through tradition, cultural practices and even laws. Inspiration by God is the key and not the carrier of the message, at least in my opinion.

From Adam to Moses are a lot of years and there is a lot of cultural development in between, including reading and writing. Babel is common biblical history, so I will not reiterate that event and its effect on language. Tradition need not be inaccurate.

Cheers,

Jim