What if there was no Holy Bible at all?

[Mister Emu]

I would just love to see oral "tradition" put to a field study test. Lets say from 2 people to thousands of people. Just only 10 to 20 years too, with a preset collection of inital information relying only on people's various recollection and retelling skills.

That you continue to fail to understand how that does not accomplish the task of finding the information you are seeking is frustrating. Rather than the absurd pretense that taking someone from a culture of literary supremacy and asking them to complete tasks suited for a participant in an oral culture is representative of the success of oral information preservation, why don't we just go to the cultures that still practice traditional oral information keeping techniques? Because when we do, we find that they produce near perfect preservation of more information than the plain written word, they maintain the repetition of sound as well as content.

If you had merely taken a moment to click the provided link, you would have seen that we already know how well the techniques work.
"The Vedic texts were orally composed and transmitted, without the use of script, in an unbroken line of transmission from teacher to student that was formalized early on. This ensured an impeccable textual transmission superior to the classical texts of other cultures; it is, in fact, something like a tape-recording... Not just the actual words, but even the long-lost musical (tonal) accent (as in old Greek or in Japanese) has been preserved up to the present."
M Witzel, "Vedas and Upaniṣads", in Flood, Gavin, ed. (2003), The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., ISBN 1-4051-3251-5, pages 68-71.

 

[1AOA1]

Well, yes. But at least with science, everything discovered so far using science, would be re-discovered eventually. Even of the discoverers were not human, and used pheromones and light patters to talk to each other... they would call 'gravity' by something else, but a human physicist would recognize what they were 'talking' about.

Science discovers what is real.

Science discovers what is real [to the conditions and instrumentation which are called science, or science's real.]

 

[Twilight Hue]

That you continue to fail to understand how that does not accomplish the task of finding the information you are seeking is frustrating. Rather than the absurd pretense that taking someone from a culture of literary supremacy and asking them to complete tasks suited for a participant in an oral culture is representative of the success of oral information preservation, why don't we just go to the cultures that still practice traditional oral information keeping techniques? Because when we do, we find that they produce near perfect preservation of more information than the plain written word, they maintain the repetition of sound as well as content.

If you had merely taken a moment to click the provided link, you would have seen that we already know how well the techniques work.
"The Vedic texts were orally composed and transmitted, without the use of script, in an unbroken line of transmission from teacher to student that was formalized early on. This ensured an impeccable textual transmission superior to the classical texts of other cultures; it is, in fact, something like a tape-recording... Not just the actual words, but even the long-lost musical (tonal) accent (as in old Greek or in Japanese) has been preserved up to the present."
M Witzel, "Vedas and Upaniṣads", in Flood, Gavin, ed. (2003), The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., ISBN 1-4051-3251-5, pages 68-71.

Guess people somehow lost all oratory skills and techniques today. Shame really.
Would have saved reliance on paper and hard drive space knowing the accuracies brought about by oral transmission.

 

[Mister Emu]

Guess people somehow lost all oratory skills and techniques today.

It isn't somehow, we let those skills atrophy with the advent of literary techniques.

Would have saved reliance on paper and hard drive space knowing the accuracies brought about by oral transmission.

I'm pretty sure you're trying to be cheeky, but writing/reading is much easier than remembering verbatim a whole culture's worth of history, law and tradition.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This is versus a member of an oral culture learning to memorize the culture via its method of propagation.


Funny, because what we've actually found is that oral cultures use techniques which provide not just verifiable near perfect preservation of words but that also can include the further information that comes with actually speaking instead of writing.

Here is an introduction from wikipedia. You should indulge your intellectual curiosity before deciding to develop uniformed opinions. Oral tradition - Wikipedia


It isn't really considered dubious. Oral tradition is reliable, and when we combine it with literacy is where we get the best preservation.


That isn't in any way guaranteed. You look at our literate and literacy supreme society and think that is the only way to exist. Oral cultures have been shown to produce preservation techniques that last thousands of years.

Wiki? Seriously? That can be edited by anyone-- and such a controversial subject is very likely to be "spammed" by people with an agenda-- one that requires "oral tradition to be letter-perfect".

Here's the thing: I'm a student of Human Nature. You are not going to change that with-- how did you put it? Oh yeah, "oral culture". Does not matter. People are people, and the higher their perceived authority? The more likely they are to engage in "improvements" to this "oral culture" you think is so capable.

Power always, and evermore, corrupts.

But here's the thing: how do you prove that the "oral culture" is any good at "preserving words" down through the generations?

With..... WRITING? Once you have writing? You are no longer oral.

But without writing? Where is the record of the original words with which to compare the current rendition?

You have nothing-- you have absolutely NO CLUE how "perfect" the current version is, as compared to the earliest versions.

To claim otherwise? Is at best, pure speculation.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The Holy Bible is the source of, How to know God Better, it is how to grow as a Christian

If that is true, it's kind of a shame the bible is so very flawed... it forced people to use modern ideas of ethics and morality (not from the bible) to decide what parts of the bible to ignore, what parts to reword as "allegorical" and what parts are to remain absolute.

It's almost is if there wasn't anybody behind the scenes....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Science discovers what is real [to the conditions and instrumentation which are called science, or science's real.]

Did you have a point?

 

[Mister Emu]

To claim otherwise? Is at best, pure speculation.

I'll take the word of people who study anthropology and culture over your arm-chair "human nature" understanding any day.

Your claim that it fails isn't even on the plane of speculation, because it is contrariwise to actual information we have.

As it happens, unfortunately for your position, we exist in a world where several areas, some that did not produce literature and some that did, share traditions (such as the vedas), and we've found out that the oral "texts" of one area equally or better preserve compared to the writings of others.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I'm pretty sure you're trying to be cheeky, but writing/reading is much easier than remembering verbatim a whole culture's worth of history, law and tradition.

You undermine your entire claim-- that somehow* an "oral culture" is able to overcome basic human nature, and by some as yet unknown mechanism, prevent people from being actual people....?

And you have failed to demonstrate how anyone could possibly know if the "preservation" was accurate or flawed in multiple ways.

I reject your unsupported hypothesis, in light of human behavior being what it is.




* Magic? Telepathy? Secret handshakes? Ghosts?

 

[Twilight Hue]

It isn't somehow, we let those skills atrophy with the advent of literary techniques.


I'm pretty sure you're trying to be cheeky, but writing/reading is much easier than remembering verbatim a whole culture's worth of history, law and tradition.

Maybe a little tongue in cheek but in reality, if there were any experiment conducted today on the realibility of oral tradition to preserve information involving control groups, I'm willing to bet that the end result of information over a set amount of time will sharply contrast any information that was started with from the beginning.

People cannot maintain nor sustain accurate information using and relying on oral tradition alone. It's simply impossible.
Especially in maintaining that the Bible is an accurate resource to even start with when people cannot even recall who wrote any of the books inside prior to its own inception.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I'll take the word of people who study anthropology and culture over your arm-chair "human nature" understanding any day.

Your claim that it fails isn't even on the plane of speculation, because it is contrariwise to actual information we have.

As it happens, unfortunately for your position, we exist in a world where several areas, some that did not produce literature and some that did, share traditions (such as the vedas), and we've found out that the oral "texts" of one area equally or better preserve compared to the writings of others.

"actual information we have".

Really.

I ask you once more-- an issue you keep ignoring: HOW DO WE KNOW?

How does anyone know what the current "oral tradition" says as compared to the oldest "oral tradition"?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

As it happens, unfortunately for your position, we exist in a world where several areas, some that did not produce literature and some that did, share traditions (such as the vedas), and we've found out that the oral "texts" of one area equally or better preserve compared to the writings of others.

No-- your example 100% UNDERMINES your claim!

If there was writing? Then? The "oral tradition" would get corrected by the existence of writing!

No culture exists in a vacuum-- especially not ones that share religious narrative!

 

[Mister Emu]

You undermine your entire claim-- that somehow* an "oral culture" is able to overcome basic human nature, and by some as yet unknown mechanism, prevent people from being actual people....?

I reject your claim to special insight into human nature via some unspecified* method.

I reject your unsupported hypothesis

It isn't unsupported, unlike your claim of special insight and staunch refusal to address the actual studies and history we have. Besides the introductory article, I also provided a quote from a Harvard professor of Sanskrit on the efficacy of oral preservation of information.

You've offered nothing other than your myopic understanding of human nature.

*super-secret decoder ring?

 

[Mister Emu]

if there were any experiment conducted today on the realibility of oral tradition to preserve information involving control groups, I'm willing to bet that the end result of information over a set amount of time will sharply contrast any information that was started with from the beginning.

It would take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to create a culture of oral tradition in which to raise the constituent members of this experiment. All of this while we already have information on the relative accuracy of oral transmission.

People cannot maintain nor sustain accurate information using and relying on oral tradition alone. It's simply impossible.

No, it isn't. You are simply stuck thinking only in terms of culture as you experience it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It would take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to create a culture of oral tradition in which to raise the constituent members of this experiment. All of this while we already have information on the relative accuracy of oral transmission.

If you can't have 50 to 100 people preserve orally pieces of information in a given set of time, then there is no way any developed culture will either.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It isn't unsupported, unlike your claim of special insight and staunch refusal to address the actual studies and history we have. Besides the introductory article, I also provided a quote from a Harvard professor of Sanskrit on the efficacy of oral preservation of information.

"actual studies"... sure, sure. Keep telling yourself that fairy-tale. I do find that religious folk are deeply gullible.

And wikipedia isn't evidence of anything, not really-- it can be easily edited by people with an Agenda. Like, say, you-- who absolutely must believe that oral tradition "preserves" silly "holy text" and such superstitious nonsense.

To think otherwise would 100% undermine your need for there to be gods, that make you Special To The Greater Universe or something.

"actual studies".

You STILL cannot explain how on EARTH a person can figure out what the original information actually was-- you just guess.

Without a Time Machine? It's pure guesswork.

Your sole "example" was flawed because, duhh, writing.

It's sad to witness someone clinging to superstitious nonsense as you are doing here.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

*super-secret decoder ring?

No. Unlike most theists? I rely on actual facts, instead of conjecture and supposition...

 

[Mister Emu]

If you can't have 50 to 100 people preserve orally pieces of information in a given set of time, then there is no way any developed culture will either.

If you can't have 50-100 people who are unprepared and unsuited for a task successfully complete it, it means a culture built around that task couldn't perform it? Come on, this is what I am talking about; you can only see through the lens of the culture of literary traditions you are a part of. The people of these cultures are/were immersed from the moment born into a world of tradition, law and history being passed down by elders who dedicated their lives to accurately propagating their heritage via the spoken/sung word.

I've already provided expert citation to the fact that oral cultures were fully capable of passing down their traditions with accuracy, perhaps instead of incredulous "I can't believe something we don't do is possible because it seems to me to be that way" you might provide some academic support for your position. At least then we'd have a real discussion instead of the scientific study of oral tradition being counterposed with uninformed gut feelings.

 

[Mister Emu]

"actual studies"... sure, sure. Keep telling yourself that fairy-tale. I do find that religious folk are deeply gullible.

Pfft. Yep, listening to a Harvard professor of Sanskrit is fairy tale. I find it humorous how mythologically powerful some, particularly those who pat themselves on the back for not being religious, make themselves in their own minds. You'd do well with some willingness to listen to someone who has devoted their academic study to a topic, but then you'd have to stop blathering ignorantly on topics you don't know anything about.

It's also funny that I hear that same argument from very religious creationists when I bring up the academic biological record. That I'm gullible listening to the fairy-tails of scientists. Good company. Dogmatic unthinking doesn't need a god.

To think otherwise would 100% undermine your need for there to be gods, that make you Special To The Greater Universe or something.

I find it is the opposite, there is nothing special or requiring of divine providence in the preservation of oral information. I mean, if people couldn't preserve their information then it would have to be divine intervention that produced success. That's prattle.

No. Unlike most theists? I rely on actual facts, instead of conjecture and supposition...

You also meticulously failed to provide an answer. Pray tell, what psychological, anthropological, or sociological academic studies have you done to determine your view; it couldn't be only that you imagine yourself a luminary.

 

[Twilight Hue]

. ... you might provide some academic support for your position. At least then we'd have a real discussion instead of the scientific study of oral tradition being counterposed with uninformed gut feelings.

Your wish is my command. ;0)

Analysis of the Story in Terms of Orality