'Both Wrong and Dangerous'

[Guest shiloh357]

So the only completely reliable translation is probably from one of the ancient Hebrew texts that have survived? Knowing the number of divergent translations that exist in English, could we conjecture that the Hebrew translations might have had as many versions as our English ones do? Or do divergent translations exist only in English? How recent is our oldest complete copy of the Old Testament in Hebrew and how true is it to the original form? The question is rhetorical, I am sorry, I know we have no access to the first copy of the Old Testament in Hebrew.

Translations have strengths and weaknesses. However a translation is not an interpretation. Most modern translation are quite faithful to the text and the difficulties that do exist in certain areas do not occur except in obsure portions of Scripture that have no siginificant bearing on doctrine and do not effect inerrancy at any point.

Then there is my concern that there first existed hundreds of years of oral traditions before the text was ever written down. Knowing how the game 'telephone' plays out, how many variants must have existed within the oral tradition?

You obviously don't know anything about oral traditions. Oral traditions had built-in safeguards against tampering. Oral traditions were sung and/or chanted and there was a set rythym and number of words. Any attempt to alter the story would make it impossible to continue.

Have you heard that biblical scholars recognize two creation accounts in Genesis?

Yes, and it has been shown to be false. Most "biblical" scholars who believe this are not Christians and do not believe the Bible to inspired by God. Most of them belong to the school of Higher Criticism, which is a very liberal shcool of literary criticism based upon a rejection of basic eternal truths within the Christian faith.

Most of us have to rely on an English text of the Bible that we deem reliable. Which biblical source in English would be considered inerrant, or is that something there is no agreement on?

Inerrancy does not apply to copies or translations.

In knowing the difficulty in translating from a foreign language is it impossible to claim any English Bible is truly inerrant?

No, but that is not a problem. The manuscript evidence for the reliability of the Bible numbers about 25,000 ancient copies, more than any other ancient piece of literature. We have no problem authenticating the accuracy of our modern tranlsations.

I have just never heard of a Bible, in English, where there was any kind of consensus that there was one truer translation than any other. I think I have heard it said, however, that some translations are quite creative in the liberties they take.

You are confusing translations with paraphrases.

[nebula]

If the preservation of oral tradition is so exact why don't all peoples all over the world have creation accounts that are almost identical?

Actually, creation accounts from the ancient cultures have many similarities to them.

[Guest shiloh357]

Then there is my concern that there first existed hundreds of years of oral traditions before the text was ever written down. Knowing how the game 'telephone' plays out, how many variants must have existed within the oral tradition?

You obviously don't know anything about oral traditions. Oral traditions had built-in safeguards against tampering. Oral traditions were sung and/or chanted and there was a set rythym and number of words. Any attempt to alter the story would make it impossible to continue.

The oral traditions that became part of the creation account in Genesis, must have been derived from Noah. Yes? From Noah the tradition must have been passed on to Moses. Was Moses trained in the chanting that you speak of? First, where did you learn about the social customs that preserved the oral traditions of the Hebrews from the time of Noah? I would like to know. You have asserted that I know nothing about oral tradition, what do you know about the oral traditions of the Hebrews and how they were preserved? Do you know anything at all, or are you strictly conjecturing from findings made by anthropologists?

Secondly, perhaps you could explain why the oral traditions passed on so successfully from Noah to Moses, many years later, were lost to all in the world except the Hebrews? If the preservation of oral tradition is so exact why don't all peoples all over the world have creation accounts that are almost identical?

Your claim that oral traditions are passed on for many generations without alteration seems very flawed. What am I missing?

Even today in Hebrew culture the text of Scripture is chanted and/or sung. I know plenty about how it was transmitted. You cannot compare oral tradition to the game of telephone.

Secondly, perhaps you could explain why the oral traditions passed on so successfully from Noah to Moses, many years later, were lost to all in the world except the Hebrews?

Because those ancient cultures ceased to exist as well.

The oral traditions that became part of the creation account in Genesis, must have been derived from Noah.

Actually, it was transmitted by God to Moses, via Divine inspiration, not oral tradition.

Your claim that oral traditions are passed on for many generations without alteration seems very flawed. What am I missing?

Knowledge.

You have asserted that I know nothing about oral tradition,

Yes that is true.

what do you know about the oral traditions of the Hebrews and how they were preserved?

I have already told you what I know.

Do you know anything at all, or are you strictly conjecturing from findings made by anthropologists?

I have and am studying these things. I am learning alot about the manuscript evidence for the Bible.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (Marsh @ Apr 5 2010, 03:37 PM)

If the preservation of oral tradition is so exact why don't all peoples all over the world have creation accounts that are almost identical?

Because the Creation account in The Bible is not the product of oral tradition. Moses wrote as he was inspired by God.

[nebula]

I know we can find vague similarities Nebula. Even the Australian aborigines creation account has vague similarities with Genesis, but in other ways their mythic account seems to have more in common with modern concepts of cosmology than with the biblical account. =

OK, I'd like to hear this.

[MorningGlory]

As everyone can see, put the missing words back in and the meaning changes completely. Lurker was right. This type of deception by Creation websites is a common practice. I have seen it frequently. Many Creationists, with honest intentions to seek the truth, make the mistake of trusting such sites. They deliberately sow misinformation.

And why, pray tell, do they do THAT?

Pray tell, MorningGlory, why do you think they do that?

I don't do dodge ball....

[MorningGlory]

I was taught to be a critical thinker; to listen, read, analyze, compare and make my own decision as to what is right. I was taught this at home, of course, and that's how I raised my kids....walk softly and question everything. (This doesn't extend to the Word of God, of course.) Parents should demand that opposing views be taught in our schools, something that isn't happening right now. By being taught critical thinking, a child's intellect is stimulated and grows. And that's good for everybody.

Are you saying that the Bible should not be questioned?

No, not at all. I believe we should question the different interpretations of the Bible, since fallible man has interpreted the books into many different languages and forms.

So the only completely reliable translation is probably from one of the ancient Hebrew texts that have survived? Knowing the number of divergent translations that exist in English, could we conjecture that the Hebrew translations might have had as many versions as our English ones do? Or do divergent translations exist only in English? How recent is our oldest complete copy of the Old Testament in Hebrew and how true is it to the original form? The question is rhetorical, I am sorry, I know we have no access to the first copy of the Old Testament in Hebrew.

Then there is my concern that there first existed hundreds of years of oral traditions before the text was ever written down. Knowing how the game 'telephone' plays out, how many variants must have existed within the oral tradition? Or is that something that no one enquires about? Of course there is no way to know how many divergent oral traditions there might have been; I don't think it is reasonable to assume there were no divergent oral traditions. We certainly have no access to them now, unless there are divergent traditions within the Bible itself that can be related back to divergent oral traditions present at the time of the original writing. Have you heard that biblical scholars recognize two creation accounts in Genesis? These are generally attributed to two separate oral traditions. I believe I have read there are a number of examples of possible divergent oral traditions existing in the Old Testament.

Most of us have to rely on an English text of the Bible that we deem reliable. Which biblical source in English would be considered inerrant, or is that something there is no agreement on? In knowing the difficulty in translating from a foreign language is it impossible to claim any English Bible is truly inerrant? I have just never heard of a Bible, in English, where there was any kind of consensus that there was one truer translation than any other. I think I have heard it said, however, that some translations are quite creative in the liberties they take.

But the Word is sacred and inerrant to a true believer, the bedrock of our faith, and is not be questioned OR changed.

To make a play on the title of the thread, it is precisely this lack of objectivity that I consider wrong headed and dangerous to the advancement of truth. It turns your earlier claims to be a critical thinker on its head for everything else you examine must then be twisted to fit the contours of your biblical beliefs.

Excuse me? An ATHEIST who has no grounding in ANYTHING is going to tell me I'm not a critical thinker? You flounder about like a dying fish, believing in anything and everything, as long as it's anti-God. You've nothing to stand on, bubba; no morals, no opinions of your own and no standards. Now that's critical thinking......I consider everything you atheists post to be lies and fairy tales.

[e lansing]

If the preservation of oral tradition is so exact why don't all peoples all over the world have creation accounts that are almost identical?

Actually, creation accounts from the ancient cultures have many similarities to them.

I know we can find vague similarities Nebula. Even the Australian aborigines creation account has vague similarities with Genesis, but in other ways their mythic account seems to have more in common with modern concepts of cosmology than with the biblical account. Shiloh claimed the Hebrew oral traditions were passed on with exactitude. That's quite the claim. If his claims are true then why was it only the Hebrews that preserved the exact tradition?

In the hebrew tradition they have persons called scribes. These spend there lives recording history and daily events under the leadership of that time. There work is held in high regard for accuracy and have been a credible resource in the same regards. This can be confirmed by any Jewish scholar.

[Guest]

.... Secondly, perhaps you could explain why the oral traditions passed on so successfully from Noah to Moses, many years later, were lost to all in the world except the Hebrews?....

Perhaps Dear One In Your Bible Studies Somehow You Missed Just Who Moses Talked With

And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

Deuteronomy 34:10

Nowhere In The Bible Can I Find Mention Of Any Scripture Written From Oral Traditions

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Peter 1:21

However The Bible Does Mention The Twistings

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jude 1:3-4

And Fables Of Walking Dead Men

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

2 Timothy 4:3-4

Intended To

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

2 Corinthians 4:4

Fool You

[enoob57]

As everyone can see, put the missing words back in and the meaning changes completely. Lurker was right. This type of deception by Creation websites is a common practice. I have seen it frequently. Many Creationists, with honest intentions to seek the truth, make the mistake of trusting such sites. They deliberately sow misinformation.

And why, pray tell, do they do THAT?

Pray tell, MorningGlory, why do you think they do that?

I don't do dodge ball....

Howabout ping pong-- ya ya ya ping and then pong and pong and then ping ya ya Howabout it??? I love to serve