Im saying that those who teach have never farmed in their life and have no idea for the most part what is real and what is book learned.
Fat,
I have explained to you why I asked if you went to college and again I ask you to look at what you write above and what you write below.
If one is to have faith in the Bible and the Bible especially if they believe that the bible is infalliable, are going to have an unrealistic view that there can be no mistakes made in oral traditions. But the jewish oral traditions were rejected by Christ because they did not line up with the written.
What you think you know and what you have been taught are in contradistinction to other thought and there is a reason.
Another area that you may want to consider as you look in the world is this. You farm. Did you read it in a book. You say that book learning and what is real differ. I am not sure what you are trying to say however you make a distinction from what is in a book and other sources of learning.
A tenet of General Semantics, Alfred Korzybski, shows that humans do what is called “time binding” or taking information from the past and building on it, using it and incorporating it for the present and for the future. What you know about Farming is a culmination of past experience, success and failure. You have to agree with me.
Next look at the articles that I provided you on Oral Tradition and think about what those not interested in Mormon thought or Christian thought say…
A simpleton would teach and translate information about how reading and speaking are different and how they are not the same. A scholar says this.
The complex relationship between spoken word and written word was recognized and commented on in the first century CE Mediterranean world. Quintilian observed that **writing, reading, and speaking “are so intimately and inseparably connected **that if one of them be neglected, we shall waste the labour which we have devoted to the others” (Institutio oratoria X. 1.2, from Butler 1980).
To differentiate and deny one is to deny that we communicate. Here you are reading my typing, formed by my thoughts from memory and imagination and synthesized for you to read and formulate a thought that you can then speak of to another person. They are processes in communication. Communication involves all aspects not just one.
These articles provided also say this…
This essay examines evidence for the interplay of memory recall and written technology in ancient Israel and surrounding cultures.1
Early education for the Jews and Christians was memory. They memorized everything and then transcribed some but not all. You neglect the element of memory. You and every other human on this planet has only two sources of information in their head, memory/stored information and imagination.
The notion of the apostacy is not consistent with reality because it ignores fact. The authors point this out.
One feature these three phenomena of oral-written transmission have in common is the overall focus of ancient tradents on preservation of written words from the past. **Usually, this meant that they reproduced traditions with virtually no change. **To be sure, as we have seen, such reproduction without change could include a variety of memory variants: changes of wording, order, or non-significant shifts in grammar or syntax. **And graphically copied traditions could include various copyists’ errors. Nevertheless, if we are to look empirically at the documented transmission of ancient texts, the first and most important thing to emphasize is the following: the vast majority of cases involve reproduction of earlier traditions with no shifts beyond the memory or graphic shifts surveyed so far. At the least, tradents aimed for preservation of the semantic content of traditions. **Often, with time, traditions such as the later Mesopotamian and Jewish traditions developed various techniques for insuring more precise preservation of the tradition, often through processes of graphic copying and various techniques of proofing copies.
Scholars point out that there was preservation through memory and the only shifts included non-significant shifts in grammar or context but preservation of the semantic contents that dispels your notion that the changes were of such a magnitude that the Bible as you say is changed so much that the message required a man with a hat to provide a new and other message.
Your notion of the apostasy and changes is remedial and swallowed by other than those that have a penchant for fact and Scholarship and holds no water.
