Replies

FK, you are in denial that the OT existed in oral form for at least 1,600 years before it was reduced to writing (around 500 BC).

But Moses wasn't alive in 500 BC, so I'm not sure what you are talking about, unless you don't think Moses was a scribe of the OT. In any event, if God had intended for the faith to only be in oral form, then sure, He could have arranged its security. But He didn't. He provided for the written word. That's what Jesus quoted. I'm not aware of Jesus quoting oral tradition. That is some evidence of anywhere from a preference to an exclusivity.

I'm not aware of Jesus quoting oral tradition. That is some evidence of anywhere from a preference to an exclusivity.

Are you saying that everything Jesus said or did was based on the written Torah? (beware of the trap about to be sprung!)

Regards

In any event, if God had intended for the faith to only be in oral form, then sure, He could have arranged its security. But He didn't. He provided for the written word.

And that means that all oral teachings go away? Scripture verses, please...

Regards

FK, you are in denial that the OT existed in oral form for at least 1,600 years before it was reduced to writing (around 500 BC). [Kosta to FK]

But Moses wasn't alive in 500 BC, so I'm not sure what you are talking about, unless you don't think Moses was a scribe of the OT. In any event, if God had intended for the faith to only be in oral form, then sure, He could have arranged its security. [FK yo Kosta]

FK, you expressed doubt in the Gospels being safe from corruption if they were preached in oral form and I merely reminded you that the OT was in the oral form for more than 1,600 years, yet you believe that it hasn't changed a bit.

How can you apply double standard? If Scripture is Scripture, and is protected by God from becoming corrupt, then it doesn't matter in what form it existed or exists. If we are going to attach a dose of doubt to any oral tradition, than the first on the list should be none other then the OT because it existed as oral tradition for more than a dozen centuries.

Although the Jews hold that the oral tradition (Law) developed parallel to the written one, there is no evidence of a written one before 500 BC. Before that, there seems to be no evidence (no compelling evidence, that is, except for some alleged silver plates dating back 700 BC) to any written Scripture.

In fact, Talmud, a record of rabbinic discussions on Jewish law, etc. is a collection of the Oral Law. Thus, Talmud is basis for Jewish ethics and customs, all based on the Oral Tradition.

But, the Bible (not just the OT, but predominantly) sometimes has historical inaccuracies. Thus, doubt in some of the historicity if not spiritual inerrency in the OT is made manifest by none other than Israeli scholars:

many of the most well known Biblical stories are incompatible with the archaeology of the region

Among the Biblical events now adjudged to be largely, if not completely ahistorical include the patriarchal histories, the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt, the Exodus, the sojourn of the Israelites in the Sinai Peninsula, the conquest of Cannan by Joshua and a united kingdom under David and Solomon.

The very existence of David and Solomon is a matter of debate but the archaeology of the region shows that Judea, during the alleged time of David and Solomon, was little more than a small local chiefdom in the southern highlands which never controlled the much richer and more populated regions of the north." [Wikipedia]

I would also like to ask you where is Betharaba "beyond Jordan?" [John 1:28]. It's not Bethany, as many versions of the Bible have stated because Bethany is a suburb of Jerusalem and not beyond Jordan. There is no evidence that such a place as Bethgaraba existed.