It would imply that it was made by the will of men, it was a series of stories or legends from men
This is the nub of the argument. Because of my upbringing ,since I was about 12 when I heard the word "tradition" I have thought "giving over". (I was brought up Protestant, but in my secular school we studied Latin at an early age.) Then I got a little Greek in college so now I think "paradosis" as well. There's nothing about the word "tradition" as such which makes me think good or bad. Some traditions are good, some are stupid, some are downright dangerous. That's how I react to the word.
To me, if something originates with God, and if the act of "handing it over" is guided by the Spirit, then it is a clearly a good tradition, but not less a tradition. I believe Saint Paul uses the word paradosis, often with such a meaning. And my Analytical Concordance of the KJV says where the word tradition shows up in the NT, it's paradosis in the Greek.
And that origin and process of handing down pretty much describes the Bible, as far as I can see. God guided some of His elect in writing the words, and others in copying and preserving them and recognizing that they were special and especially precious. God guided the Church in its recognition of which writings belonged in the collection we call the Bible, and guided the church, again, in copying, preserving, and handing down. So the Bible seems to me to be a tradition of the Church. Heck, my first Bible was "handed over" to me by a clergyman. In every way the Bible came to me as a tradition.
I think there are people who will interpret the Bible as they want, whether or not it is understood as a tradition. They will fail to see the uniqueness of this particular tradition.
By the way, you write: The Church begins and for a few hundred years things are good,... but it seems to me that right from the beginning the Church includes people who do good and bad. Look at what Paul writes about Cephas in Galations! About PETER! But still, the same group gathers in Council and says at the end of the conference,"It seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit....".
I am familiar with the idea that the church started out well and has gone downhill for some time. But it seems to me that the Biblical witness is that it didn't start out so well. That, to me, calls the rest of the account, and the theology and ecclesiology built on it, into question.
It's largely because of what I read in Scripture that I finally became a Catholic. Go figger.
See the greek language with a far larger vocabulary I don't remember the Greek to English words ratio but what comes to mind is they had 3:1 words, to our every one. An example that was given in class was Agapeo Phileo Storgen and eros all of which are translated love but each as you know are completely different.
There are many words that there is not an exact equivalent -- this is even more true in Hebrew that is a pictographic language. And in the cases of no real equivalent we have passages where there are 18 words in the Creek and 28 or more words in english -- this takes translation into a commentary
And this is what the other words inserted as definitions are they are commentary because in the case of Paradosin there is no Up in the word there is no tradition in the word there is no doctrine in the word.
Consider the number of untranslated words that are inserted in the text -- and there is a full definiion and sometimes accompanying doctrine with these words: Saint = Hagion Saint is actually the Latin word Santos for Holy which should give a hint as to who has chosen some of the words. Other words Glory - doxa , Grace charis and Gift is Charisma the two words are the same. Apostle Apostlos Prophet Prophetos prophesy prophecy, evangelist.
In a study of translations I found an oddity some years ago where are word was incorrectly translated and the word was translated the same way in virtually all translations.
I brought this up to my professor and he glibly remarked at the time that translators translate using a combination of actually translation and traditions based on older bible versions. At the time I was completely dissatisfied with his answer and would not be for quite a few years until I realized the implications and so I went back to comparing translations and found more and more things that were in common between them that should not be unless as my teacher suggested they were translating certain things according to traditions.
How many translators were needed at any one time for the first 1500 years of church history not too many at the time of Jerome he and another man by made a translation and as a matte of fact chruch history records that Jerome wanted to go in and correct the texts -- they took all the Greek and made it latin, from the Latin translations came all the early translations the Geneva the douvey and a few others the moderns all use the Latin and its daughters to create a new version.
The translators were the gate keepers for doctrine, they were a small fraternal order of only the most faithful. Ultimately there was no one to oversee what they were doing. Now a bit of intrigue why translate Greek which everyone could read at the time into Latin, could one reason be that at the time everyone could read Greek in all the main churches but they could not all read Latin -- yes
And this would allow some hanky panky not enought to be all to obvious but enough to jack around a few things in the favor of a new fledgeling religion. And this gave them several hundred years to substantiate certain word choices as being "Traditions" so when later the Greek texts began to emerge naturally the word meaning could no only been included in such dictionaries but the erroneous translations based on the whims of the Holy See would be carried on.
You have your interlinear and you can examine the evidence yourself. And add to the list of untranslated words and meditate on the definitions we have been given for them.
Recently I was looking up a familiar text in genesis concerning Abram and faith and justification I will get back to my in a minute but this is too good to be unsaid. I was working on it in the Septuagint and found that Paul had not quoted from the Hebrew but from the septuagent and had not used the Hebrew Paul had used the exact words and tenses. In the Septuagint the word epi is used with pistis well in the Hebrew it reads Abram has faith Beth-Jehovah. Let me say that in the Gr epi is with faith but in the Hebrew the epi is with God. No while Paul quotes from the greek Paul always uses a peculiar phrase in him in Christ in Jesus and that is beth-Jehovah and specifically that is what Abram recognized that caused him to be accounted for righteousness -- Abram realized that the promise of God could not be fulfilled in himself, that if God were to raise a seed for abram. Abram has this revelation and speaks out (prophetically) that he believes in God and God imparts righteousness to Abram.
anyway in a verse nearby God speaks all these blessings over Abram and the Septuagint uses one word for bless 5x's and in the Hebrew I can see two words and they are in several forms -- this is when I realize that the pasage has been translated from the Septuagint and not the Hebrew in the Hebrew it alludes to a prophecy of Chirst as a matter of fact the seed that God is saying that will come through Abram is the coming one (The messiah) and that is what Abram saw in Jehovah by the spirit. I rambling a bit here but the OT in this portion is form the Septuagint and not from the Hebrew and all translations bear the same errors with the 5 blessings. Which means -- tradition over MSS
What am I saying be a little suspicious, and mark what you find different and when you find differences consider what they support, catholic theology or protestant theology?
There because . Since those days they are still a relatively small exclusive group and what you need to know is that