do you think that in the long run the blble will be a good thing for christianties survival?
would it have been better to stay with oral tradition instead of writing it down in black and white?
2007-12-09 03:45:09 · 17 answers · asked by lazaruslong138 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Why do you think they did so much to keep the bible out of the common man's hands? The church isn't crazy.
2007-12-09 03:48:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
The Bible as a survival aid?
Well yes it could be very useful.
It tells you what not to eat.
There are many descriptions of how animals are killed
It's quite a heavy book so if well aimed it could be very useful for hunting!
The papers r nice and thin so you could make roll ups
Very helpful for fire lighting
You could use it as a pillow
Opened and placed on your head you have a rain hat
So all in all it's better than nothing and when the madness of fundamentalism finally brings about the end of society, having one could just save you!
That's not to say that I'm against the oral tradition, in the biblical sense, only in the religious sense.
2007-12-09 05:16:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Difficult one to answer this one. The Druids had a mistrust of letting the recorded word into the public domain which is why we don't have any records of their spirituality. On the other hand, the group of books called The Bible are a collection of poetry, history, myth and story through many hundred years of tribal and social intercourse, war and exile, persecution and apostleship.
Better to have a record than no record at all but the main danger is, as we all know here, there will always be those who like to interpret everything on record as literal truth and this has strained the belief of many when myth is interpreted as fact. Myth IS as important as fact when it has something to say but we ought to credit the writers with a little more intelligence, after all, man's brain hasn't increased all that much in the last 5000 years even if technology has.
2007-12-09 03:58:04 · answer #3 · answered by John G 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What makes a story more enduring? The way each of us is able to adapt it’s meaning to our lives. What makes a story more believable? The more fact it includes. If the Bible’s stories were strictly spoken, where would we turn for a source of fact? I have often heard the word “living” associated with the word of God, the bible and even religion. Is that what ultimately makes it adaptable to each of our needs, the "living" or spoken aspect? I kind of think that one cannot exist without the other, spoke or written. The written, I think is the cause for faith, and the “living” or spoken (the adaptable) aspect, is the cause for continued faith, and if the spoken becomes to corrupted, you have the written to keep it in check. That was a great question!
2007-12-09 05:33:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Interesting question.
I don't know that it would make much difference. As it is, many people who believe, don't really read the Bible anyway. They take what they are told as truth. They get the "truth" from their parents, the clergy, etc. And it continues. If it were oral, it would be regurgitation of regurgitation just like it is now. :)
Edit:
Parvfan - read the two different accounts of creation in Genesis. That is the first example. :)
2007-12-09 03:54:20 · answer #5 · answered by Trina™ 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Oral tradition can be twisted the same way written tradition can be - and can also have "typos" added from generation to generation. So I don't see it as any better than written. I think what will save Christianity is for its members to learn about the accuracy problems, and seek to rebuild the faith based on its earliest traditions. This includes the Holy Spirit as Mother Sophia, and men and women being equal. Only through balance will the religion survive.
2007-12-09 03:52:33 · answer #6 · answered by Cat 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The Hebrews felt they had to create a history for themselves. They copied Sumer traditions with their own flavor. Sumer, Egypt and the other countries had written histories, religions and laws. It was their way of legitimizing themselves. I really don't think they had any intention of anyone else following their religion as they placed themselves above others.
2007-12-09 04:40:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Written is better.
What happens is "scholars" get overly involved with their so called criticisms and speculations.
Instead of using the Bible as it was meant to be used, they have done the opposite...the only way to get the right meanings, is to let the Bible judge you, not to stand in judgment of it.
Proof is in the doing of the word.
2007-12-09 03:56:25 · answer #8 · answered by Jed 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The old verbal tradition didn't hold up very well...that's one of the many reasons why biblical accuracy is questioned today...think of it this way...would it be easier for you if someone gave you a road map verbally...or in written form???
It's a written reference for those who choose to follow the path...
2007-12-09 03:51:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Christianity will survive with or without the Bible because of Christ's promise to His Church. Protestant sects as well as heretical groups will prosper for a time a then fall away but Christ's Church, his own creation, will endure until the Parousia.
In Christ
Fr. Joseph
2007-12-09 03:50:42 · answer #10 · answered by cristoiglesia 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The Bible tells a better story. There is way to much info in there to rely on "Uncle Bob" to pass it down .
2007-12-09 03:48:29 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋