>> “There’s some truth to this statement, but fortunately we have many translations available to compare” <<
.
False!
We basically have two translations:
> Those based on the Textus Receptus, which are the most reliable, but still incomplete.
> Those based on the ever useless Wescott/Hort greek manipulation founded on codex vaticanus, which was considered for a millenium by vatican scolars as completely corrupted, and is now somehow to be considered reliable, and the septuagint OT, which lacks the authority of the carefully copied Masoretic texts.
.
>> “Men have created a great many traditions which are based to some degree on the Word of God, however most of them are not very informative, unless you want to learn how best to point out their errors to them” <<
.
You’re just squirming on this. Talmud has never been questioned as to historic accuracy.
.
>> “Christ denounced the authors of the Talmud as liars and hypocrites” <<
.
Christ denounced their manipulation of the Law for their own purpose; perhaps you didn’t understand that?
I’m still waiting for the passages that authorize Godly men to strike hands...
“False! We basically have two translations:”
Ok, I was specifically responding to YOUR comment:
“All of the English translations... the KJV and Geneva... The so-called “modern” translations...”
So don’t try to change the subject on me to the source translations that those English translations were based on. You’re asking me to argue with a moving target, and I refuse to engage in that.
“You’re just squirming on this. Talmud has never been questioned as to historic accuracy.”
Never? I just questioned it :P
The Talmud surely has some historic truth, but it also has folklore, myths, legends, and contradictory opinions and explanations of events. So what truth is in there is undeniably mixed with the leaven of falsehood. It would be quite an undertaking to attempt to sift the truth back out, if it were even possible, and that’s not a chore that I feel any need to devote myself to. If you do, go for it, I’m not stopping you.
“Christ denounced their manipulation of the Law for their own purpose; perhaps you didn’t understand that?”
You don’t see any relation between the manipulation of the law and their man-made traditions, of which the Talmud is the primary repository? Mark chapter 7 makes my point better than I can:
“6He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.”
To me that is very clear, especially the last verse. Man delivered the Talmud, not God, and through the Talmud, they have made the word of God to no effect.
“I’m still waiting for the passages that authorize Godly men to strike hands...”
I don’t need to provide a verse to authorize it. Do I need a verse to authorize me to wear a hat, or one to authorize me to wave to someone in greeting, or to authorize me to plant flowers in my yard? Why should I need a verse to authorize “striking of hands”? If somehow I do need a verse, this should suffice:
“All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” 1 Cor. 6:12
Obviously, this verse is dangerous when not read in context, but properly understood, it clearly gives believers the responsiblity to choose freely those things which are not unhelpful or those things which do not overpower us. God’s law is a law of exclusion, excluding things which are unrighteous from us, not a law of specification, which specifies all the things we are allowed to do. Otherwise, the Bible would have to fill many more volumes than it does.